Skip to main content

Full text of "The Books of the Kings;"

See other formats 


HANDBOUND 
AT  THE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/booloofkingsOObhuoft 


CLARK'S 


FOREIGN 


THEOLOGICAL   LIBRAEY. 


FOUKTH   SERIES. 
VOL.  XXXIII. 


Betl  on  t]^c  ^ookd  of  t]^e  ^ing^. 


\  EDINBUEGH: 

I  T.   &   T.    CLAEK,    38,    GEOEGE    STEEET. 


MDCCCLXXVII. 


PRINTED   BY   MURRAY  AND   GIEB, 
n.i: 

T.   &  T.   CLARK,   EDINBFEGH. 

LONDON,      ....      HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  AND  CO. 

DTBLIN,      ....      JOHN  KOBERTSON  AND  CO, 

NEW  YORK,      .      .      .      SCRTBNEK,  WELFORD,  AND  ARMSTRONG. 


K      ^ 


(  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARY 


on 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


C.  F.  KEIL,  D.D.,  AND  F.  DELITZSCH,  D.D.,      ^ 


PROFESSORS  OF  THEOLOGY. 


THE   BOOKS   OF   THE   KINGS. 

Cf  r.'  KEIL. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN  BT 

THE  EEV.  JAItlES  I^IAETIN,  BA. 


SECOND   EDITION. 

522928 


^5    S-S« 

EDINBUEGH: 
T.  &  T.  CLAEK,  38,  GEOEGE  STEEET. 

LONDON:  HAMILTON   ADAMS,  &  CO.    DUBLIN:  JOHN  ROBEETSON  &  CO. 

MDCCCLXXVHL 


M 


CONTENTS. 


INTEODUCTION 

PAGE 

Contents  and  Chabacteb,  Obigin  and  Soubces,  of  the  Books  of 

THE  Kings,  .......  1 

FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

I.  History  of  Solomon's  Reign  (Chaps,  i.-xi.),     ...  15 

Anointing  and  Accession  of  Solomon  (Chap,  i.),         .  .  16 

David's  Last  Instructions  and  Death.     Solomon  ascends  the 

Throne  and  fortifies  his  Government  (Chap,  ii.),     .  .  26 

Solomon's  Marriage ;  Worship  and  Sacrifice  at  Gibeon ;  and 

Wise  Judicial  Sentence  (Chap,  iii.),  ...  37 

Solomon's  Ministers  of  State.     His  Regal  Splendour  and  Wis- 
dom (Chap,  iv.-v.  14),         .....  43 

Preparations  for  Building  the  Temple  (Chap.  v.  15-32),  .  67 

Building  of  the  Temple  (Chap,  vi.),     ....  65 

Solomon's  Palace  and  the  Furniture  of  the  Temple  (Chap,         * 
vii.),  .......  88 

Dedication  of  the  Temple  (Chap,  viii.),  .  .  .         117 

The  Answer  to  Solomon's  Prayer.     The  Means  employed  for 

the  Erection  of  his  Buildings  (Chap,  ix.),     .  .  .         138 

The  Queen    of    Saba.      Solomon's  Wealth    and    Splendour 

(Chap.  X.), 158 

Solomon's  Polygamy  and  Idolatry.    Hia  Opponents  and  his 
Death  (Chap,  xi.),    ......        166 


Vi  CONTENTS. 

PAOI 

II.  History  of  the  Kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  to  the  De- 
struction OF  THE  FORMER  (Chap.  xii.-2  Kings  xvii.),  .        183 

1.  From  the  Division  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  Ascent  of  the  Throne  hy 

Ahah  in  the  S8lh  year  of  Asa  King  of  Judah,  .  .        190 

Secession  of  the  Ten  Tribes  from  the  House  of  David,  and 

Founding  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel  (Chap,  xii.),      .  .        191 

Testimony  of  God  against  the  Calf-worship  of  Jeroboam 

(Chap,  xiii.),  ......        201 

Reign  and  Death  of  Jeroboam  and  Rehoboam  (Chap,  xiv.),  .  209 
Reigns  of  the  Two  Kings  Abijam  and  Asa  of  Judah  (Chap. 

XV.  1-24),     .  .  .  .  .  .  .217 

Reigns  of  the  Kings  of  Israel,  Nadab,  Baasha,  Elah,  Zimri, 

and  Omri  (Chap.  xv.  25-xvi.  28),    .  .  .  .222 

2.  From  AhaVs  Ascent  of  the  Throne  to  the  Death  ofjoram  of  Israel 

and  AJiaziah  of  Judah,          .....  227 

The  Reign  of  Ahab  of  Israel  (Chap.  xvi.  29-34),        .            .  228 

First  Appearance  of  Elijah  (Chap,  xvii.),  .  .  .  233 
Elijah's  Meeting  with  Ahab,  and  Victory  over  the  Prophets  of 

Baal  (Chap,  xviii.),  ......  240 

Elijah's  Flight  into  the  Desert,  the  Revelation  of  God  at 

Horeb,  and  Elisha's  Call  to  be  a  Prophet  (Chap,  xix.),       .  252 

Ahab's  Double  Victory  over  Benhadad  of  Syria  (Chap,  xx.),  .  261 

The  Murder  and  Robbery  of  Naboth  (Chap,  xxi.),  .  .  269 
War  of  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat  against  the  Syrians,  and  Death 

of  Ahab.    Reigns  of  Jehoshaphat  of  Judah  and  Ahaziah  of 

Israel  (Chap.  xxii.),.  .  .  .  .  .273 


SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

Ahaziah's  Illness.    His  Death  announced  by  Elijah  (Chap,  i.),  284 

Elijah's  Ascension  to  Heaven.  Elisha's  First  Miracles  (Chap,  ii.),  290 
Joram  of  Israel,  and  the  Expedition  against  Moab  which  he 

undertook  in  company  with  Jehoshaphat  (Chap,  iii.),  .  300 
Elisha  works  several  Miracles  (Chap,  iv.),  .  .  .807 
Curing  of  the  Leprosy  of  Naaman  the  Syrian,  and  Punishment 

of  Gehazi  (Chap,  v.),            .....  316 


CONTENTS.  VU 


PAGB 


The  Floating  Iron.      The  Syrians  smitten  with  Blindness 

(Chap,  vi  1-23), 823 

Elisha's  Action  during  a  Famine  in  Samaria  (Chap,  tl  24-Tii 

20), 827 

EUsha  helps  the  Shunammite  to  her  Property  through  the 
Honour  in  which  he  was  held  ;  and  predicts  to  Hazael  his 
Possession  of  the  Throne,  Reigns  of  Joram  and  Aha/iah, 
Kings  of  Judah  (Chap,  viii.),  .  .  .  .833 

Jehu  anointed  King.    His  Conspiracy  against  Joram.    Joram, 

Ahaziah,  and  Jezebel  slain  (Chap,  is.),        .  .  .        389 

Extermination  of  the  other  Sons  of  Ahab,  of  the  Brethren  of 
Ahaziah  of  Judah,  and  of  the  Prophets  of  Baal  (Chap.  x. 
1-27), 346 

3.  From  the  Commencement  of  the  Reigns  of  Jehu  in  Israel,  and 

Athaliah  in  Judah,  to  the  Destruction  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel,        352 

Reign  of  Jehu  of  Israel  (Chap.  x.  28-36),        .  .  .354 

Tyranny  and  Overthrow  of  Athaliah,  and  Coronation  of  Joash 
(Chap.  xL),  ........       355 

Reign  of  King  Joash  of  Judah,  and  Repairing  of  the  Temple 

(Chap.  xiL),  .......        365 

Reigns  of  Jehoahaz  and  Joash,  Kings  of  IsraeL  Death  of 
Elisha  (Chap,  xiii.), ......        373 

Reigns  of  Amaziah  of  Judah,  and  Jeroboam  n.  of  Israel 
(Chap,  xiv.),  ......        379 

Reigns  of  Azariah  of  Judah,  Zachariah,  Shallum,  Menahem, 
Pekahiah,  and  Pekah  of  Israel,  and  Jotham  of  Judah 
(Chap.  XV.), 386 

Reign  of  King  Ahaz  of  Judah  (Chap,  xvi.),    .  .  .        397 

Reign  of  Hoshea  and  Destruction  of  the  Eongdom  of  Israel. 
The  People  carried  away  to  Assyria  and  Media.  Transpor- 
tation of  Heathen  Colonists  to  Samaria  (Chap,  xvii.),         .        409 

III.  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  Judah  from  the  Destruction  of 

THE  KiKGDOM  OF  THE  TeN  TrIBES  TO  THE  BaBTLOXUN  CAP- 
TIVITY (Chaps.  xviii.-xxv.), .....        428 
Reign  of  King  Hezekiah.     Sennacherib  invades  Judah  and 
threatens  Jerusalem  (Chap,  xviii.),  ....       430 


VUl  .  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Jerusalem  delivered.    Destruction  of  the  Assyrian  Army  and 

Death  of  Sennacherib  (Chap,  xix.),  .  .  .  .        442 

Hezekiah's  Illness  and  Eecovery.    Merodach  Baladan's  Em- 
bassy.   Death  of  Hezekiah  (Chap,  xx.),       .  .  .        460 
Reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Amon  (Chap,  xxi.),   .            .  .        468 
Reign  of  King  Josiah  (Chap.  xxii.  1-xxiii.  30),            .  .        473 
Reigns  of  the  Kings  Jehoahaz,  Jehoiakim,  and  Jehoiachin 

(Chap,  xxiii.  31-xxiv.  17),   .....        496 
Reign  of  Zedekiah,  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Kingdom 
of  Judah,  and  Fate  of  the  People  left  behind,  and  of  King 
Jehoiachin  (Chap.  xxiv.  18-xxv.  30),  .  .  .        509 


BIBLICAL  COIIMENTARY 


ON 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 
INTRODUCTION. 

CONTENTS  AND  CHARACTER,  ORIGIN  AND  SOURCES,  OF  THE 
BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 

|HE  books  of  the  Kings,  which  were  but  one  book 
originally  like  the  books  of  Samuel,  and  which, 
like  the  latter,  were  divided  into  two  books  by  the 
Alexandrian  translators  (see  the  Introduction  to  the 
books  of  Samuel),  contain,  in  accordance  with  their  name  (D'3^d), 
the  history  of  the  Israelitish  theocracy  under  the  kings,  from 
the  accession  of  Solomon  to  the  extinction  of  the  monarchy  on 
the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  when  Jerusalem  was 
destroyed  by  the  Chaldseans  and  the  people  were  carried  away 
into  exile  in  Babylon.  They  embrace  a  period  of  455  years, 
from  1015  to  560  B.C.,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  reign  of  the 
Babylonian  king  Evil-merodach.  And  as  every  kingdom  cul- 
minates in  its  king,  and  the  government  of  the  kings  determines 
the  fate  of  the  kingdom,  the  contents  of  the  books  before  us, 
which  are  named  after  the  kings  of  Israel,  consist  for  the  most 
part  of  a  history  of  those  kings ;  inasmuch  as,  whilst  on  the  one 
hand  the  reigns  of  the  several  kings  form  the  historical  and 
chronological  framework  for  the  description  of  the  historical 
development  of  the  people  and  kingdom,  on  the  other  hand  the 
leading  phases  which  the  monarchy  assumed  furnish  the  basis 
of  the  three  periods,  into  which  the  history  of  this  epoch  and 
the  contents  of  our  books  are  di\'ided. 

The  first  period  (1015-975  B.C.)  embraces  the  forty  years  of 


2  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

Solomon's  reign  over  the  undivided  kingdom  of  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,  when  the  Israelitish  kingdom  of  God  stood  at  the  sum- 
mit of  its  earthly  power  and  glory ;  though  towards  the  end  of 
this  period  it  began  to  decline,  inasmuch  as  the  rebellion  of 
Solomon  against  the  Lord  in  the  closing  years  of  his  reign  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  rebellion  of  the  ten  tribes  against  the 
house  of  David. — The  second  period  commences  with  the  divi- 
sion of  the  one  kingdom  into  the  two  kingdoms,  Israel  (or  the 
ten  tribes)  and  Judah,  and  stretches  over  the  whole  period 
during  which  these  two  kingdoms  existed  side  by  side,  termi- 
nating with  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  by 
the  Assyrians,  i.e.  from  975  to  7-22  B.C. — The  tliird  period  em- 
braces the  still  remaining  years  of  the  continuance  of  the  king- 
dom of  Judah,  until  its  eventual  dissolution  by  the  Chaldaaiis 
and  the  carrying  away  of  the  people  into  exile  in  Babylon,  viz, 
from  722  to  560  B.C. 

The  first  part  of  our  books  (1  Kings  i.-xi.)  therefore  contains 
a  description  of  the  reign  of  Solomon,  (a)  in  its  commencement, 
viz.  his  ascent  of  the  throne  and  the  consolidation  of  his  power 
(ch,  i.  and  ii.) ;  (&)  in  the  gradual  development  of  the  strength 
and  glory  of  his  government,  by  his  marriage,  his  sacrifice  and 
prayer  at  Gibeon,  his  judicial  wisdom,  and  his  court  (iii.  1-v. 
14), — also  by  the  building  of  the  temple  and  royal  palace  and 
the  dedication  of  the  temple  (v.  1 5-ix.  9),  by  the  erection  of  his 
other  edifices  and  the  introduction  of  navigation  and  commerce 
(ix.  10-28),  by  the  spreading  abroad  of  the  fame  of  his  wisdom, 
and  by  the  increase  of  his  wealth  (ch.  x.) ;  and  (c)  in  its  eventual 
decline  in  consequence  of  the  sin  into  which  the  aged  monarch 
fell  through  his  polygamy  and  idolatry  (ch.  xi.).  The  second  part 
opens  with  an  account  of  the  falling  away  of  the  ten  tribes  from 
the  royal  family  of  David,  and  relates  in  a  synchronistic  narra- 
tive the  history  of  the  two  kingdoms  in  the  three  stages  of  their 
development :  viz.  (a)  the  early  enmity  between  the  two,  from 
Jeroboam  to  Omri  of  Israel  (xii.  1— xvi  28);  (6)  the  establish- 
ment of  friendship  and  intermarriage  between  the  two  royal 
houses  under  Ahab  and  his  sons,  down  to  the  destruction  of  the 
two  kings  Joram  of  Israel  and  Ahaziah  of  Judah  by  Jehu  (xvi. 
2  9-2  Kings  x.) ;  (c)  the  renewal  of  hostilities  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  from  Jehu's  ascent  of  the  throne  in  Israel  and  Atha- 
liah's  usurpation  of  the  throne  in  Judah  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  in  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign  in  Judah 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

(xi.-xvii.).  And,  lastly,  the  third  part  contains  tlie  history  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  from  Hezekiah  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Chaldseans,  and  carries  it  down  to  the  thirty-seventh  year 
of  the  imprisonment  of  king  Jehoiachin  in  exile  (ch.  xviiL-sxv.). 
Now,  although  the  history  of  the  kings,  or  the  accoimt  of 
both  the  duration  and  character  of  their  reigns,  and  also  of  their 
various  enterprises,  so  far  as  they  promoted  or  hindered  the 
progress  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  forms  the  principal  substance 
of  these  books,  they  do  not  consist  of  a  mere  chronicle  of  the 
deeds  and  fortunes  of  the  several  kings,  but  describe  at  the 
same  time  the  ministry  of  the  prophets  in  the  two  kingdoms, 
and  that  to  some  extent  in  so  elaborate  a  manner,  that  whilst 
some  have  discovered  in  this  a  peculiarly  "  prophetico-didactic 
purpose"  (Havemick,  De  Wette,  etc.),  others  regard  it  as  an 
endeavour  "  to  set  forth  the  history  of  the  Israelitish  and  Jewish 
kings  in  its  relation  to  the  demands,  the  doings,  the  procla- 
mations, and  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  from  Solomon  to 
the  Babylonian  exile"  (Kern).  But  however  unmistakeable 
the  prophetico-didactic  character  may  be,  which  the  books  of 
Kings  have  in  common  with  the  whole  of  the  historical  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  a  closer  investigation  of  their  character 
will  show  that  there  is  no  ground  for  the  assertion  that  there 
is  any  prophetico-didactic  purpose  in  the  mode  in  which  the 
history  is  written.  For  the  account  of  the  ministry  of  the 
prophets  is  introduced  into  the  history  of  the  kings  as  the 
spiritual  leaven  which  pervaded  the  Israelitish  monarchy  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end,  and  stamped  upon  its  development 
the  character  of  the  theocracy  or  divine  rule  in  Israel  Jehovah, 
as  the  invisible  but  yet  real  King  of  the  covenant  nation,  had 
created  the  peculiar  instruments  of  His  Spirit  in  the  prophets 
who  maintained  His  law  and  right  before  the  kings,  standing  by 
their  side  to  advise  and  direct,  or  to  warn  and  punish,  and, 
wherever  it  was  necessary,  pro\dng  their  utterances  to  be  words 
of  God  by  signs  and  wonders  which  they  did  before  the  people. 
Thus  the  Lord  directed  the  prophet  Samuel  to  anoint  Said  and 
David  princes  over  His  people,  and  the  prophet  Nathan  to  com- 
mimicate  to  David  the  promise  of  the  everlasting  endurance  of 
his  throne  (2  Sam.  vii.).  But  when  at  a  later  period  David 
sinned  (2  Sam.  xi.  and  xxiv.),  it  was  the  prophets  Nathan  and 
Gad  who  threatened  him  with  punishment  from  God,  and  on  his 
confession  of  sin  and  repentance  announced  the  forgiveness  and 


4  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

favour  of  God  (2  Sam.  xii.  1-15,  xxiv.  11-19).     Through  the 
medium  of  the  prophet  Nathan,  Solomon  was  also  appointed  the 
successor  of  David  upon  the  throne  (2  Sam.  xii.  25),  and  not 
only  anointed  king,  but  installed  in  defiance  of  the  machinations 
of  Adonijah  (1  Kings  i.).     But  since  the  monarchy  was  trans- 
mitted from  Solomon  in  a  direct  line  through  his  descendants 
by  virtue  of  the  divine  promise  in  2  Sam.  vii.,  it  is  only  in  con- 
nection with  important  enterprises,  or  when  the  kingdom  is 
involved  in  difficulties,  that  we  find  the  prophets  coming  for- 
ward in  after  times  to  help  or  advise  those  kings  who  walked 
in  the  ways  of  the  Lord ;  whereas  under  the  idolatrous  and 
godless  rulers  they  offer,  in  the  power  of  God,  such  energetic 
resistance  to  idolatry  and  to  everything  evil  and  ungodly,  that 
princes   and  people   are   compelled   to   bow   before   them   and 
succumb  to   their  divine   words.     In  this  way  the   prophets 
accompanied  the  monarchy  in  all  its  course  from  Solomon  to 
the  captivity  as  guardians  of  the  rights  of  the  God-King,  and  as 
interpreters  of  His  counsel  and  will.     Under  Solomon,  indeed, 
there  was  apparently  a  long  period,  during  which  prophecy  fell 
into  the  background ;  since  the  Lord  Himself  not  only  appeared 
to  this  king  in  a  dream  at  Gibeon  shortly  after  he  ascended  the 
throne,  but  also  appeared  to  him  a  second  time  after  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  temple,  and  promised  him  the  fulfilment  of  his 
prayers,  and  the  glorification  and  eternal  continuance  of  his 
kingdom,  on  condition  of  his  faithful  observance  of  the  divine 
commands  (1  Kings  iii.   5  sqq.,  ix.  1  sqq.).      But  towards  the 
end  of  his  reign  it  rose  up  again  in  all  the  more   threaten- 
ing   attitude,    against    the    king    who    was    then    disposed    to 
fall  away  from   Jehovah.     It  was  no   doubt  a  prophet  who 
announced  to  him  the  separation  of  ten  parts  of  his  kingdom 
(1  Kings  xi.  11  sqq.), — possibly  the  same  Ahijah  who  promised 
Jeroboam  the  government  over  ten  tribes  (xL  29  sqq.).     But 
after  the  division  of  the  kingdom,  when  Jeroboam  proceeded,  in 
order  to  fortify  his  throne,  to  make  the  political  division  into  a 
religious  one,  and  to  this  end  exalted  the  image-worship  into 
the   state  religion,  the  prophets   continued   to   denounce   this 
apostasy  and  proclaim  to  the  sinful  kings  the  destruction  of 
their  dynasties.     And  when  at  a  still  later  period  Aliab  the 
:Son  of  Omri,  and  his  wife  Jezebel,  endeavoured  to  make  the 
Phoenician  worship  of  Baal  and  Asherah  into  the  national  re- 
ligion in  Israel,  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  "  the  prophet  as  fire,  whose 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

words  burned  as  a  torch  "  (Ecclus.  xlviii.  1),  came  forward  with 
the  irresistible  power  of  God  and  maintained  a  victorious  con- 
flict against  the  prophets  and  servants  of  Baal,  warding  off  the 
utter  apostasy  of  the  nation  by  uniting  the  prophets  into  societies, 
in  which  the  worship  of  God  was  maintained,  and  the  godly  in 
Israel  were  supplied  with  a  substitute  for  that  legal  worship  in 
the  temple  which  was  enjoyed  by  the  godly  in  Judah.  And  in 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  also  there  were  never  wanting  prophets  to 
announce  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  to  idolatrous  kings,  and  to 
afford  a  vigorous  support  to  the  pious  and  God-fearing  rulers  in 
their  endeavours  to  promote  the  religious  life  of  the  nation,  and 
to  exalt  the  public  worship  of  God  in  the  temple.  But  since  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  possessed  the  true  sanctuary,  with  the  legal 
worship  and  an  influential  body  of  priests  and  Levites ;  and  since, 
moreover,  the  monarchy  of  the  house  of  David  was  firmly  estab- 
lished by  divine  promises  resting  upon  that  house,  and  among  the 
kings  who  sat  upon  the  throne,  from  Eehoboam  onwards,  there 
were  many  godly  rulers  who  were  distinguished  for  their  lofty 
virtues  as  governors  ;  the  labours  of  the  prophets  did  not  assume 
the  same  prominent  importance  here  as  they  did  in  the  king- 
dom of  the  ten  tribes,  where  they  had  to  fight  against  idolatry 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

This  explains  the  fact  that  the  ministry  of  the  prophets 
assumes  so  prominent  a  position  in  the  books  of  the  Kings, 
whereas  the  history  of  the  kings  appears  sometimes  to  fall  into 
the  background  in  comparison.  Nevertheless  the  historical 
development  of  the  monarchy,  or,  to  express  it  more  correctly, 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  kings,  forms  the  true  subject- 
matter  of  our  books.  It  was  not  a  prophetico-didactic  purpose, 
but  the  prophetico-historical  point  of  view,  which  prevailed 
throughout  the  whole  work,  and  determined  the  reception  as 
well  as  the  treatment  of  the  historical  materials.  The  progres- 
sive development  of  the  kingdom  was  predicted  and  described 
by  the  Lord  Himself  in  the  promise  commimicated  to  David  by 
the  prophet  Nathan :  "  And  when  thy  days  shall  be  fulfilled,  and 
thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers,  I  will  set  up  thy  seed  aft€r 
thee,  which  shaU  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,  and  I  will  establish 
his  kingdom.  He  shall  build  a  house  for  my  name ;  and  I  wiU 
stablish  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  for  ever.  I  will  be  his 
Father,  and  he  shall  be  my  son,  that  if  he  go  astray,  I  may 
chasten  him  with  man's  rod,  and  with  stripes  of  the  children  of 


6  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

men ;  but  my  mercy  will  not  depart  from  him,  as  I  caused  it  to 
depart  from  Saul,  whom  I  put  away  before  thee.  And  thy  house 
and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  for  ever  before  thee,  thy  throne  wUl 
be  established  for  ever"  (2  Sam.  vii.  12-16).  This  thoroughly 
glorious  promise  forms  the  red  thread  which  runs  through  the 
liistory  of  the  kings  from  Solomon  to  the  Babylonian  captivity, 
and  constitutes  the  leading  idea  in  the  record  of  this  history 
in  our  books.  The  author's  intention  is  to  show  in  the  history 
of  the  kings  how  the  Lord  fulfilled  this  gracious  word,  how  He 
first  of  all  chastised  the  seed  of  David  for  its  transgressions,  and 
then  cast  it  off,  though  not  for  ever.  To  this  end  he  shows  in 
the  history  of  Solomon,  how,  notwithstanding  the  usurpation  of 
the  throne  attempted  by  Adonijah,  Solomon  received  the  whole 
of  his  father's  kingdom,  as  the  seed  of  David  promised  by  the 
Lord,  and  established  his  power;  how  the  Lord  at  the  very 
beginning  of  his  reign  renewed  to  him  at  Gibeon  the  promise 
made  to  his  father  on  the  condition  of  his  faithful  observance  of 
His  law,  and  in  answer  to  his  prayer  gave  him  not  only  a  wise 
and  understanding  heart,  but  also  riches  and  honour,  so  that  his 
equal  was  not  to  be  found  among  all  the  Idngs  of  the  earth 
(1  Kings  i.  1-v.  14) ;  how  Solomon  then  carried  out  the  work 
of  building  the  temple,  entrusted  to  him  by  his  father  according 
to  the  will  of  the  Lord ;  and  how,  after  it  was  finished,  the  Lord 
again  assured  him  of  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise  (ch.  v.  15- 
ix.  9) ;  and,  lastly,  how  Solomon,  having  attained  to  the  highest 
earthly  glory,  through  the  completion  of  the  rest  of  his  build- 
ings, through  the  great  renown  of  his  wisdom,  which  had  reached 
to  nations  afar  off,  and  through  his  great  riches,  acquired  partly 
by  marine  commerce  and  trade,  and  partly  from  tributes  and 
presents,  forgot  his  God,  who  had  bestowed  this  glory  upon  him, 
and  in  his  old  age  was  led  astray  into  unfaithfulness  towards 
the  Lord  through  his  numerous  foreign  wives,  and  had  at  last 
to  listen  to  this  sentence  from  God :  "  Because  thou  hast  not 
kept  my  covenant  and  my  statutes,  which  I  have  commanded 
thee,  I  will  surely  rend  the  kingdom  from  thee,  and  give  it  to 
thy  servant :  notwithstanding  in  thy  days  I  will  not  do  it,  for 
David  thy  father's  sake ;  but  I  will  rend  it  out  of  the  hand  of 
thy  son.  Howbeit  I  will  not  rend  away  all  thy  kingdom  j  but 
will  give  one  tribe  to  thy  son  for  David  my  servant's  sake,  and 
for  Jerusalem's  sake  which  I  have  chosen"  (ch.  ix.  10-xi.  13). 
Thus,  because   God  had  promised   to   the   seed  of  David   the 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

eternal  possession  of  the  throne  (2  Sam.  vii  12  sqq.),  one  por- 
tion of  the  kingdom  was  to  be  left  to  the  son  of  Solomon,  with 
the  chosen  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  his  servant  (Jeroboam,  cK  xi 
26-40)  was  only  to  obtain  dominion  over  ten  tribes.  The  his- 
torical realization  of  this  prophecy  is  shown  in  the  history  of  the 
two  divided  kingdoms. 

In  the  sjmchronistic  account  of  these  kingdoms,  according  to 
the  principle  already  adopted  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  of  dispos- 
ing of  the  subordinate  lines  of  the  patriarchs  before  proceeding 
with  the  main  line  (see  Comm.  on  Pent.  voL  i.  p.  3  7),  the  reigns 
of  the  kings  of  Israel  are  described  before  those  of  the  contem- 
poraneous kings  of  Judah,  and  to  some  extent  in  a  more  ela- 
borate manner.    The  reason  of  this,  however,  is,  that  the  history 
of  the   kingdom  of  Israel,  in  which   one   djTiasty   overthrew 
another,  whilst  aU  the  rulers  walked  in  the  sin  of  Jeroboam, 
and  Ahab  even  added  the  worship  of  Baal  to  that  sin,  supplied 
the  author  with  more  materials  for  the  execution  of  his  plan 
than  that  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  which  ha.d  a  much  quieter 
development  under  the  rule  of  the  house  of  David,  and  of  which, 
therefore,  there  was  less  to  relate.     Apart  from  this,   aU  the 
events  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  which  are  of  any  importance 
in  relation  to  the  progress  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  are  just  as 
elaborately  described  as  those  connected  with  the  kingdom  of 
Israel ;  and  the  author  does  equal  justice  to  both  kingdoms,  show- 
ing how  the  Lord  manifested  HimseK  equally  to  both,  and  bore 
with  them  with  divine  long-suffering  and  grace.     But  the  proof 
of  this  necessarily  assumed  different  forms,   according  to   the 
different  attitudes  which  they  assumed  towards  the  Lord.     Jero- 
boam, the  founder  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  when  told  that  he 
would  be  king  over  the  ten  tribes,  had  received  the  promise 
that  Jehovah  would  be  with  him,  and  build  liim  a  lasting  house 
as  He  built  for  David,  and  give  Israel  to  him,  on  condition  that 
he  would  walk  in  the  ways  of  God  (1  Kings  xL  37,  38).     This 
implied  that  his  descendants  would  rule  over  Israel  (of  the  ten 
tribes)  so  long  as  this  kingdom  should  stand ;  for  it  was  not 
to  last  for  ever,  but  the  separation  would  come  to  an  end,  and 
therefore  he  is  not  promised  the  everlasting  continuance  of  his 
kingdom  (see  at  1  Kings  xi.  38).     But  Jeroboam  did  not  fulfil 
this  condition,  nor  did  any  of  the  rulers  of  Israel  who  succeeded 
him.     Nevertheless  the  Lord  had  patience  with  the  kings  and 
tribes  who  were  unfaithful  to  His  law,  and  not  only  warned 


8  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

them  continually  by  His  prophets,  and  chastised  them  by  threats 
of  punishment  and  by  the  fulfilment  of  those  threats  upon  the 
kings  and  all  the  people,  but  repeatedly  manifested  His  favour 
towards  them  for  the  sake  of  His  covenant  with  Abraham 
(2  Kings  xiii.  23),  to  lead  them  to  repentance — until  the  time 
of  grace  had  expired,  when  the  sinful  kingdom  fell  and  the  ten 
tribes  were  carried  away  to  Media  and  Assyria. — In  the  kingdom 
of  David,  on  the  contrary,  the  succession  to  the  throne  was  pro- 
mised to  the  house  of  David  for  all  time :  therefore,  although 
the  Lord  caused  those  who  were  rebellious  to  be  chastised  by 
hostile  nations,  yet,  for  His  servant  David's  sake,  He  left  a  light 
shining  to  the  royal  house,  since  He  did  not  punish  the  kings 
who  were  addicted  to  idolatry  with  the  extermination  of  their 
family  (1  Kings  xv.  4 ;  2  Kings  viii.  19);  and  even  when  the 
wicked  Athaliah  destroyed  all  the  royal  seed,  He  caused  Joash, 
the  infant  son  of  Ahaziah,  to  be  saved  and  raised  to  the  throne 
of  his  fathers  (2  Kings  xi.).  Consequently  this  kingdom  was 
able  to  survive  that  of  the  ten  tribes  for  an  entire  period,  just 
because  it  possessed  a  firm  political  basis  in  the  uninterrupted 
succession  of  the  Davidic  house,  as  it  also  possessed  a  spiritual 
basis  of  no  less  firmness  in  the  temple  which  the  Lord  had 
sanctified  as  the  place  where  His  name  was  revealed.  After  it 
had  been  brought  to  the  verge  of  destruction  by  the  godless 
Ahaz,  it  received  in  Hezekiah  a  king  who  did  what  was  right  in 
the  eyes  of  Jehovah,  as  his  father  David  had  done,  and  in  the 
severe  oppression  which  he  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  powerful 
army  of  the  proud  Sennacherib,  took  refuge  in  the  Lord,  who 
protected  and  saved  Jerusalem,  "  for  His  own  and  His  servant 
David's  sake,"  at  the  prayer  of  the  pious  king  of  Jerusalem 
(2  Kings  xix.  34,  xx.  6).  But  when  at  length,  throughout 
the  long  reign  of  Manasseh  the  idolater,  apostasy  and  moral 
corruption  prevailed  to  such  an  extent  in  Judah  also,  that  even 
the  pious  Josiah,  with  the  reformation  of  religion  which  he 
carried  out  with  the  greatest  zeal,  could  only  put  down  the  out- 
ward worship  of  idols,  and  was  unable  to  effect  any  thorough 
conversion  of  the  people  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  the  Lord 
as  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  was  obliged  to  declare  His  pui-pose 
of  rejecting  Judah  from  before  His  face  on  account  of  the  sins 
of  Manasseh,  and  to  cause  that  purpose  to  be  executed  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxiii.  26;  27,  xxiv.  3,  4) ;  Jehoiachin 
was  led  away  captive  to  Babylon,   and  under   Zedekiah  the 


INTRODUCTION.  » 

kingdom  was  destroyed  with  the  burning  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
temple.  Yet  the  Lord  did  not  suffer  the  light  to  be  altogether 
extinguished  to  His  servant  David ;  but  when  Jehoiachin  had 
pined  in  captivity  at  Babylon  for  thirty-seven  years,  expiating 
his  own  and  his  fathers'  sins,  he  was  liberated  from  his  capti\'ity 
by  Nebuchadnezzar's  son,  and  raised  to  honour  once  more 
(2  Kings  XXV.  27-30). — ^The  account  of  this  joj-ful  change  in 
the  condition  of  Jehoiachin,  with  which  the  books  of  the  Kings 
dose,  forms  so  e&sential  a  part  of  their  author's  plan,  that  without 
this  information  the  true  conclusion  to  his  work  would  be  alto- 
gether wanting.  Tor  this  event  shed  upon  the  dark  night  of  the 
captivity  the  first  ray  of  a  better  future,  which  was  to  dawn 
upon  the  seed  of  David,  and  with  it  upon  the  whole  nation  in 
its  eventual  redemption  from  Babylon,  and  was  also  a  pledge  of 
the  certain  fulfilment  of  the  promise  that  the  Lord  would  not 
for  ever  withdraw  His  favour  from  the  seed  of  David.^ 

Thus  the  books  of  the  Kings  bring  down  the  history  of  the 
Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God,  according  to  the  divine  plan 
of  the  kingdom  indicated  in  2  Sam.  vii.,  from  the  close  of 
David's  reign  to  the  captivity  ;  and  the  fact  that  in  1  Kings 
i  1  they  are  formally  attached  to  the  books  of  Samuel  is  an 
indication  that  they  are  a  continuation  of  those  books.  Never- 
theless there  is  no  doubt  that  they  formed  from  the  very  first 
a  separate  work,  the  independence  and  internal  imity  of  which 
are  apparent  from  the  uniformity  of  the  treatment  of  the  his- 
tory as  well  as  from  the  unity  of  the  language.  From  begin- 
ning to  end  the  author  quotes  from  his  original  sources,  for  the 

^  Stahelin  makes  the  following  remark  in  his  Einleitung  (p.  122)  :  "  The 
books  of  the  Kings  form  an  antithesis  to  the  history  of  David.  As  the  latter 
shows  how  obedience  to  God  and  to  the  utterances  of  His  prophets  is  re- 
warded, and  how,  even  when  Jehovah  is  obliged  to  punish,  He  makes  known 
His  grace  again  in  answer  to  repentance ;  so  do  the  books  of  the  Kings, 
which  relate  the  overthrow  of  both  the  Hebrew  states,  teach,  through  the 
history  of  these  two  kingdoms,  how  glorious  promises  are  thrown  back  and 
dynasties  fall  in  consequence  of  the  conduct  of  individual  men  (compare 
1  Kings  xi.  38  with  xiv.  10,  and  still  more  with  2  Kings  xxL  10  sqq.  and 
xxiii.  27).  The  sins  of  one  man  like  Manasseh  are  sufficient  to  neutralize 
all  the  promises  that  have  been  given  to  the  house  of  David."  There  is  no 
need  to  refute  this  erroneous  statement,  since  it  only  rests  upon  a  misinter- 
pretation of  2  Kings  xxi.  10  sqq.,  and  completely  misses  the  idea  which  runs 
through  both  books  of  the  Kings ;  and,  moreover,  there  is  no  contradiction 
between  the  manifestation  of  divine  mercy  towards  penitent  sinners  and  the 
punishment  of  men  according  to  their  deeds. 


10  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

most  part  with   certain  standing  formulas  ;  in  all  important 
events  he  gives  the  chronology  carefully  (1  Kings  vi.  1,  37,  38, 
vii.  1,  ix.  10,  xi.  42,  xiv.  20,  21,  25,  xv.  1,  2,  9,  10,  etc.); 
he  judges  the  conduct  of  the  kings  throughout  according  to  the 
standard  of  the  law  of  Moses  (1  Kings  ii.  3,  iii.  14 ;   2  Kings 
X.  31,  xi.  12,  xiv.  6,  xvii.  37,  xviii.  6,  xxi,  8,  xxii,  8  sqq.,  xxiii. 
3,  21,  etc.) ;  and  he  nearly  always  employs  the  same  expressions 
when  describing  the  commencement,  the  character,  and  the  close 
of  each  reign,  as  well  as  the  death  and  burial  of   the  kings 
(compare  1  Kings  xi.  43,  xiv.   20,  31,  xv.   8,  24,  xxii.   51  ; 
2  Kings  viii.  24,  xiii.  9,  xiv.  29  ;  and  for  the  characteristics  of 
the  several  kings  of  Judah,  1  Kings  xv.  3,  11,  xxii  43  ;  2  Kings 
xii.  3,  xiv.  3,  xv.  3,  etc. ;  and  for  those  of  the  kings  of  Israel, 
1  Kings  xiv.  8,  xv.  26,  34,  xvi.  19,  26,  30,  xxii.  53  ;  2  Kings 
iii.  2,  3,  X.  29,  31,  xiii.  2,  11,  etc.).     And  so,  again,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  books  remains  uniform  in  every  part  of  the  work, 
if  we  except  certain  variations  occasioned  by  the  differences  in 
the  sources  employed  ;  since  we  find  throughout  isolated  ex- 
pressions and  forms  of  a  later  date,  and  words  traceable  to  the 
Assyrian  and  Chaldsean  epoch,  such  as  "ib  for  "ipn  in  1  Kings 
V.  2,  25  ;  r?'"i>*  in  1  Kings  xi.  33  ;  T^l  in  2  Kings  xi.  13  ;  nijno 
in  1  Kings   xx.   14,    15,  17,  19  ;  \p    in  2  Kings  xv.  lO'; 
n^^^nn  ^'ib  in  1  Kings  xv.  20,  2  Kings  "xxv.  23,  26  ;  D^nap  an 
in  2  Kings  xxv,  8  ;  nns  in  1  Kings  x.  15,  xx,   24,  2  Kings 
xviii.  24 ;  and  many  others,  which  do  not  occur  in  the  earlier 
historical  books. — The  books  of  the  Kings  are  essentially  dis- 
tinguished from  the  books  of  Samuel  through  these  characteristic 
peculiarities ;  but  not  so  much  through  the  quotations  which 
are  so  prominent  in  the  historical  narrative,  for  these  are  com- 
mon to  all  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  are 
only  more  conspicuous  in  these  books,  especially  in  the  history 
of  the  kings  of  the  two  kingdoms,  because  in  the  case  of  all 
the  kings,  even  of  those  in  relation  to  whom  there  was  nothing 
to  record  of  any  importance  to  the  kingdom  of  God  except  the 
length  and  general  characteristics  of  their  reign,  there  are  notices 
of  the  writings  which  contain  further  information  concerning 
their  reigns. — ^The  unity  of  authorship  is  therefore  generally 
admitted,  since,  as  De  Wette  himself  acknowledges,  "  you  can- 
not anywhere  clearly  detect  the  interpolation  or  combination  of 
different  accounts."    The  direct  and  indirect  contradictions,  how- 
ever, which  Thenius  imagines  that  he  has  discovered,  prove  to 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

be  utterly  fallacious  on  a  closer  inspection  of  the  passages 
cited  as  proofs,  and  could  only  have  been  obtained  through 
misinterpretations  occasioned  by  erroneous  assumptions.  (See, 
on  the  other  hand,  my  Lehrhuch  der  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T. 
p.  184  sqq.) 

All  that  can  be  determined  with  certainty  in  relation  to  the 
origin  of  the  books  of  Kings  is,  that  they  were  composed  in 
the  second  half  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  before  its  close, 
since  they  bring  the  history  down  to  that  time,  and  yet  contain 
no  allusion  to  the  deliverance  of  the  people  out  of  Babylon. 
The  author  was  a  prophet  li\'ing  in  the  Babylonian  exile,  though 
not  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  as  the  earlier  theologians  down  to 
Havemick  have  assumed  from  the  notice  in  the  Talmud  {Bala 
hathra,  f.  15,  1)  :  Jercmias  scripsit  librum  suum  d  librum  Rcgum, 
et  Threnos.  For  even  apart  from  the  fact  that  Jeremiah  ended 
his  days  in  Egypt,  he  could  hardly  have  survived  the  last  event 
recorded  in  our  books,  namely,  the  liberation  of  Jehoiachin  from 
prison,  and  his  exaltation  to  royal  honours  by  Evil-merodach. 
For  inasmuch  as  this  event  occurred  sixty-six  years  after  his 
call  to  be  a  prophet,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah,  he  would 
have  been  eighty-six  years  old  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  after 
Jehoiachin  had  been  carried  awav  into  exile,  even  if  he  had 
commenced  his  prophetic  career  when  only  a  young  man  of 
twenty  years  of  age.  Now,  even  if  he  had  reached  this  great 
age,  he  would  surely  not  have  composed  our  books  at  a  later 
period  still.  Moreover,  all  that  has  been  adduced  in  support  of 
this  is  seen  to  be  inconclusive  on  closer  inspection.  The  simi- 
larity in  the  linguistic  character  of  our  books  and  that  of  the 
writings  of  Jeremiah,  the  sombre  view  of  history  which  is  com- 
mon to  the  two,  the  preference  apparent  in  both  for  phrases 
taken  from  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  allusions  to  earlier  prophe- 
cies,— all  these  peculiarities  may  be  explained,  so  far  as  they 
really  exist,  partly  ivom  the  fact  that  they  were  written  in  the 
same  age,  since  all  the  writers  of  the  time  of  the  captivity  and 
afterwards  cling  very  closely  to  the  Pentateuch  and  frequently 
refer  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and  partly  also  from  the  circum- 
stance that,  whilst  Jeremiah  was  well  acquainted  with  the  ori- 
ginal sources  of  our  books,  viz.  the  annals  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  the  author  of  our  books  was  also  well  acquainted  with 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah.  But  the  relation  between  2  Kings 
xxiv.  18  sqq.  and  Jer.  liL  is  not  of  such  a  nature,  that  these 


12  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

two  accounts  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  carrying 
away  of  the  remnant  of  the  people  could  have  emanated  from 
the  hand  of  Jeremiah;  on  the  contrary,  a  closer  inspection  clearly 
shows  that  they  are  extracts  from  a  more  elaborate  description 
of  this  catastrophe  (see  at  2  Kings  xxiv.  1 8  sqq.). 

As  sources  from  which  the  author  has  obtained  his  accounts, 
there  are  mentioned,  for  the  history  of  Solomon,  a  i^iy>'^  ^'?3'=}  IDD, 
or  book  of  the  acts  (affairs)  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  xi.  41);  for  the 
history  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  my\\  ^M  D^pjn  nn^  "iBp,  book  of 
the  daily  occurrences  of  the  kings  of  Judah  (1  Kings  xiv.  29, 
XV.  7,  23,  xxii.  46  ;  2  Kings  viii.  23,  xii.  20,  etc.) ;  and  for  that 
of  the  kings  of  Israel,  ^^'^^\  '?^»^  Q'Pjn  ^nn^  ISD,  book  of  the 
daily   occurrences   of  the   kings   of  Israel   (1   Kings   xiv.   19, 
XV.  31,  xvi  5,  14,  20,  27,  xxii.  39;  2  Kings  i.  18).     These 
are  quoted  as  writings  in  which  more  is  written  concerning  the 
life,  the  deeds,  and  the  particular  undertakings,  buildings  and 
so  forth,  of  the  several  kings.     The  two  last-named  works  were 
evidently  general   annals   of  the   kingdoms  :    not,   indeed,  the 
national  archives  of  the  two  kingdoms,  or  official  records  made 
by  the  Q''"!^??'?  of  the  reigns  and  acts  of  the  kings,  as  Jahn, 
Movers,  Stahelin,  and  others  suppose ;  but  annals  composed  by 
prophets,  and  compiled  partly  from  the  public  year-books  of  the 
kingdom  or  the  national  archives,  and  partly  from  prophetic 
monographs  and  collections  of  prophecies,  which  reached  in  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  down  to  the  time  of  Pekah  (2  Kings  xv.  31), 
and  in  that  of  Judah  to  the  time  of  Jehoiakim  (2  Kings  xxiv. 
5).     Moreover,  they  were  not  written  successively  by  different 
prophets,  who  followed  one  another,  and  so  carried  on  the  work 
in  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  rise  of  the  two  kingdoms 
to  the  death  of  the  two  kings  mentioned ;  but  they  had  been 
worked  out  into  a  "  Book  of  the  history  of  the  times  of  the  Kings" 
for  each  of  the  two  kingdoms,  a  short  time  before  the  over- 
throw of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  by  collecting  together  the  most 
important  things  that  had  been  written  both  concerning  the 
reigns  of  the  several  kings  by  annalists  and  other  historians  who 
were  contemporaneous  with  the  events,  and  also  concerning  the 
labours  of  the  prophets,  which  were  deeply  interwoven  with  the 
course  of  public  affairs,  whether  composed   by  themselves   or 
by  their  contemporaries.     And  ^n  this  finished  form  they  lay 
before  the  author  of  our  work.     This  view  of  the  annals  of  the 
kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel  follows  unquestionably  from  the 


INTRODUCTION.  1 3 

agreement  which  exists  between  our- books  of  the  Kings  and 
the  second  book  of  the  Chronicles,  in  the  accounts  common  to 
both,  and  which  can  only  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  they 
were  drawn  from  one  and  the  same  source.  But  in  the 
Chronicles  there  are  different  writings  of  individual  prophets 
quoted,  beside  the  day-boolcs  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel ; 
and  it  is  expressly  stated  in  relation  to  some  of  them  that  they 
were  received  into  the  annals  of  the  kings  (compare  2  Chron. 
XX.  34  and  xxxii.  32,  and  the  Introduction  to  the  books  of  the 
Chronicles).  Moreover,  there  are  no  historical  traces  of  public 
annalists  to  be  found  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  their 
existence  is  by  no  means  probable,  on  account  of  the  constant 
change  of  dynasties.  The  fact,  however,  that  the  frequently 
recurring  formula  "  to  this  day"  (1  Kings  ix.  13,  x.  12  ;  2  Kings 
il  22,  X.  27,  xiv.  7,  xvi  6,  [xvii.  23,  34,  41,]  xx.  17,  xxl  15) 
never  refers  to  the  time  of  the  capti\dty,  except  in  the  passages 
enclosed  in  brackets,  but  always  to  the  time  of  the  existing 
kingdom  of  Judah,  and  that  it  cannot  therefore  have  emanated 
from  the  author  of  our  books  of  the  Kings,  but  can  only  have 
been  taken  from  the  sources  employed,  is  a  proof  that  these 
annals  of  the  kingdom  were  composed  towards  the  close  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  ;  and  this  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt,  by  the 
fact  that  this  formula  is  also  found  in  many  passages  of  the 
books  of  the  Chronicles  (compare  1  Kings  viii.  8  with  2  Chron. 
V.  9 ;  1  Kings  ix.  2 1  with  2  Chron.  viii.  8  ;  1  Kings  xii.  1 9 
with  2  Chron.  x.  19;  and  2  Kings  viii  22  with  2  Chron. 
xxi.  10). — In  a  similar  manner  to  this  must  we  explain  the 
origin  of  the  tKy:>^  ^na^  "isd,  since  three  prophetic  writings  are 
quoted  in  1  Chron.  xxix.  29  in  connection  with  Solomon's 
reign,  and  their  account  agrees  in  all  essential  points  with  the 
account  in  the  books  of  the  ICings.  Neveiiheless  this  "  history 
of  Solomon  "  never  formed  a  component  part  of  the  annals  of 
the  two  kingdoms,  and  was  certainly  written  much  earlier. — 
The  assumption  that  there  were  other  sources  still,  is  not  only 
sustained  by  no  historical  evidence,  but  has  no  certain  support 
in  the  character  or  contents  of  the  writings  before  us.  If  the 
annals  quoted  were  works  composed  by  prophets,  the  elaborate 
accounts  of  the  working  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Ehsha  might 
also  have  been  included  in  them. — Again,  in  the  constant  allusion 
to  these  annals  we  have  a  sure  pledge  of  the  liistorical  fidelity  of 
the  accounts  that  have  been  taken  from  them.     If  in  his  work 


1 4  THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 

the  author  followed  writings  which  were  composed  by  prophets, 
and  also  referred  his  readers  to  these  writings,  which  were 
known  and  accessible  to  his  contemporaries,  for  further  infor- 
mation, he  must  have  been  conscious  of  the  faithful  and  con- 
scientious employment  of  them.  And  this  natural  conclusion 
is  in  harmony  with  the  contents  of  our  books.  The  life  and 
actions  of  the  kings  are  judged  with  unfettered  candour  and 
impartiality,  according  to  the  standard  of  the  law  of  God ;  and 
there  is  no  more  concealment  of  the  idolatry  to  which  the 
higlily  renowned  Solomon  was  led  astray  by  his  foreign  wives, 
than  of  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  God,  when  performed 
by  the  kings  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  had  fallen  away  from  the 
house  of  David.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  greatest  prophet  of 
all,  namely  Elijah,  the  weakness  of  his  faith  in  being  afraid  of 
the  vain  threats  of  the  wicked  Jezebel  is  related  just  as  openly 
as  his  courageous  resistance,  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord,  to 
Ahab  and  the  prophets  of  Baal. — Compare  my  EinUitung  in 
das  Alte  Test.  §§  56-60,  where  adverse  views  are  examined 
and  the  commentaries  are  also  noticed. 


EXPOSITION. 
FIRST  BOOK  OF   THE   KINGS. 


L— HISTORY    OF    SOLOMON'S    REIGN. 
Chaps,  i.-xi. 

AVID  had  not  only  established  the  monarchy  upon 
a  firm  basis,  but  had  also  exalted  the  Old  Testament 
kingdom  of  God  to  such  a  height  of  power,  that  all 
the  kingdoms  round  about  were  obliged  to  bow- 
before  it.  This  kingdom  was  transmitted  by  divine  appointment 
to  his  son  Solomon,  in  whose  reign  Judah  and  Israel  were  as 
numerous  as  the  sand  by  the  sea-shore,  and  dwelt  in  security, 
every  man  under  his  vine  and  under  his  fig-tree  (ch.  iv.  20, 
V.  5).  The  history  of  this  reign  commences  with  the  account  of 
the  manner  in  which  Solomon  had  received  the  kingdom  from 
liis  father,  and  had  established  his  own  rule  by  the  fulfilment  of 
his  last  will  and  by  strict  righteousness  (ch.  i.  and  ii.).  Then 
follows  in  ch.  iii.-x.  the  description  of  the  glory  of  his  kingdom, 
how  the  Lord,  in  answer  to  his  prayer  at  Gibeon,  not  only  gave 
him  an  understanding  heart  to  judge  his  people,  but  also  wisdom, 
riches,  and  honour,  so  that  liis  equal  was  not  to  be  found  among 
the  kings  of  the  earth  ;  and  through  his  wise  rule,  more  especially 
through  the  erection  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  and  of  a  splendid 
royal  palace,  he  developed  the  glory  of  the  kingdom  of  God  to 
such  an  extent  that  his  fame  penetrated  to  remote  nations. 
The  conclusion,  in  ch.  xi,  consists  of  the  account  of  Solomon's 
sin  in  his  old  age,  viz.  his  falling  into  idolatry,  whereby  he 
brought  about  the  decay  of  the  kingdom,  which  manifested  itself 
during  the  closing  years  of  his  reign  in  the  rising  up  of  oppo- 
nents, and  at  his  death  in  the  falling  away  of  ten  tribes  from 
his  son  Eehoboam.     But  notwithstanding  this  speedy  decay,  the 

16 


1 6  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

glory  of  Solomon's  kingdom  is  elaborately  depicted  on  account 
of  the  typical  significance  which  it  possessed  in  relation  to  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Just  as,  for  example,  the  successful  wars  of 
David  with  all  the  enemies  of  Israel  were  a  prelude  to  the 
eventual  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  God  over  all  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world ;  so  was  the  peaceful  rule  of  Solomon  to  shadow 
forth  the  glory  and  blessedness  which  awaited  the  people  of  God, 
after  a  period  of  strife  and  conflict,  under  the  rule  of  Shiloh  the 
Prince  of  peace,  whom  Jacob  saw  in  spirit,  and  who  would 
increase  government  and  peace  without  end  upon  the  throne  of 
David  and  in  his  kingdom  (Isa.  ix.  5,  6  ;  Ps.  Ixxii.). 

CHAP.  I,    ANOINTING   AND    ACCESSION   OF    SOLOMON. 

The  attempt  of  Adonijah  to  seize  upon  the  throne  when 
David's  strength  was  failing  (vers.  1—10),  induced  the  aged 
king,  as  soon  as  it  was  announced  to  him  by  Bathsheba  and 
the  prophet  Nathan,  to  order  Solomon  to  be  anointed  king,  and 
to  have  the  anointing  carried  out  (vers.  11—40);  whereupon 
Adonijah  fled  to  the  altar,  and  received  pardon  from  Solomon 
on  condition  that  he  would  keep  himself  quiet  (vers.  41-53). 

Vers.  1-4.  When  king  David  had  become  so  old  that  they 
could  no  longer  warm  him  by  covering  him  with  clothes,  his 
servants  advised  him  to  increase  his  vitality  by  lying  with  a 
young  and  robust  virgin,  and  selected  the  beautiful  Abishag  of 
Shunem  to  perform  this  service.  This  circumstance,  wliich  is  a 
trivial  one  in  itself,  is  only  mentioned  on  account  of  what 
follows, — first,  because  it  shows  that  David  had  become  too  weak 
from  age,  and  too  destitute  of  energy,  to  be  able  to  carry  on  the 
government  any  longer ;  and,  secondly,  because  Adonijah  the  pre- 
tender afterwards  forfeited  his  life  through  asking  for  Abishag 
in  marriage. — The  opening  of  our  book,  ^^^ni  (and  the  King), 
may  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  the  account  which  follows 
has  been  taken  from  a  writing  containing  the  earlier  history 
of  David,  and  that  the  author  of  these  books  retained  the  Vav 
cop.  which  he  found  there,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  at  the 
outset  that  his  work  was  a  continuation  of  the  books  of  SamueL 
D'0»3  N3  )ipT  as  in  Josh.  xiii.  1,  xxiii.  1,  Gen.  xxiv.  1,  etc. 
"  They  covered  Mm  with  clothes,  and  he  did  not  get  warm'*  It 
follows  from  this  that  the  king  was  bedridden,  or  at  least  that 
when  lying  down  he  could  no  longer  be  kept  warm  with  bed- 


CHAP.  L  5-10.  17 

clothes.  B*133  does  not  mean  clothes  to  "wear  here,  but  large 
cloths,  which  were  used  as  bed-clothes,  as  in  1  Sam.  xix.  13 
and  Xum.  iv.  6  sqq.  OH'  is  used  impersonally,  and  derived  from 
n?n  cf.  Ewald,  §  193,  6,  and  138,  &.  As  David  was  then  in  his 
seventieth  year,  this  decrepitude  was  not  the  natural  result  of 
extreme  old  age,  but  the  consequence  of  a  sickly  constitution, 
arising  out  of  the  hardships  which  he  had  endured  in  his 
agitated  and  restless  life.  The  proposal  of  his  servants,  to  restore 
the  vital  warmth  which  he  had  lost  by  bringing  a  virgin  to  lie 
with  him,  is  recommended  as  an  experiment  by  Galen  (Method, 
rtudic.  viii  7).  And  it  has  been  an  acknowledged  fact  with 
physicians  of  all  ages,  that  departing  vitality  may  be  preserved 
and  strengthened  by  communicating  the  vital  warmth  of  strong 
and  youthful  persons  (compare  Trusen,  Sittcn  Gebrdiuhe  u.  Krank- 
heitender  Hehrder,  p.  257  sqq.).  The  singular  sufl&x  in  '^IS?  is 
to  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  one  person  spoke,  ^c^'^  ^?-> 
a  maid  who  is  a  virgin,  'isp  ipv,  to  stand  before  a  person  as 
servants  to  serve  (cf.  Deut.  i  38  with  Ex.  xxiv.  13).  ^^P,  an 
attendant  or  nurse,  from  i??  =  pc',  to  live  with  a  person,  then 
to  be  helpful  or  useful  to  him.  With  the  words  "  that  she  may 
lie  in  thy  bosom,"  the  passage  passes,  as  is  frequently  the  case, 
from  the  third  person  to  a  direct  address. — ^^^ers.  3,  4.  They  then 
looked  about  for  a  beautiful  girl  for  this  purpose,  and  found 
Abishag  of  Sliunem,  the  present  Sulem  or  Solam,  at  the  south- 
eastern foot  of  the  Dnhi/  or  Little  Hermon  (see  at  Josh.  xix. 
18),  who  became  the  king's  nurse  and  waited  upon  him.  The 
further  remark,  "  and  the  king  knew  her  not,"  is  not  introduced 
either  to  indicate  the  impotence  of  David  or  to  show  that  she 
did  not  become  David's  concubine,  but  simply  to  explain  how 
it  was  that  it  could  possibly  occur  to  Adonijah  (ch.  ii.  17)  to 
ask  for  her  as  his  wife.  Moreover,  the  whole  affair  is  to  be 
judged  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  when  there 
was  nothing  offensive  in  polygamy. 

Vers.  5-10.  Adonijah  seized  the  opportunity  of  David's  de- 
crepitude to  make  himseK  king.  Although  he  was  David's 
fourth  son  (2  Sam.  iii  4),  yet  after  the  death  of  Ammon  and 
Absalom  he  was  probably  the  eldest,  as  Chileab,  Da\'id's  second 
son,  had  most  likely  died  when  a  child,  since  he  is  never  men- 
tioned again.  Adonijah  therefore  thought  that  he  had  a  claim 
to  the  throne  (cf.  ch.  ii.  1 5),  and  wanted  to  secure  it  before  his 
father's  death.     But  in  Israel,  Jehovah,  the  God-King  of  His 

B 


18  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

people,  had  reserved  to  Himself  the  choice  of  the  earthly  king 
(Deut.  xvii.  15),  and  this  right  He  exercised  not  only  in  the 
case  of  Saul  and  David,  but  in  that  of  Solomon  also.  When 
He  gave  to  David  the  promise  that  his  seed  should  rule  for  ever 
(2  Sam.  vii.  12—16),  He  did  not  ensure  the  establishment  of  the 
throne  to  any  one  of  his  existing  sons,  but  to  him  that  would 
come  out  of  his  loins  (i.e.  to  Solomon,  who  was  not  yet  born)  ; 
and  after  his  birth  He  designated  him  through  the  prophet 
l^athan  as  the  beloved  of  Jehovah  (2  Sam.  xii.  24,  25).  David 
discerned  from  this  that  the  Lord  had  chosen  Solomon  to  be  his 
successor,  and  he  gave  to  Bathsheba  a  promise  on  oath  that 
Solomon  should  sit  upon  the  throne  (vers.  13  and  30),  This 
promise  was  also  acknowledged  in  the  presence  of  Nathan  (vers. 
11  sqq.),  and  certainly  came  to  Adonijah's  ears,  Adonijah  said, 
"  I  will  be  king,"  and  procured  chariots  and  horsemen  and  fifty 
runners,  as  Absalom  had  done  before  (2  Sam.  xv.  1).  32^,  in  a 
collective  sense,  does  not  mean  fighting  or  war  chariots,  but  state 
carriages,  like  '^??"'.'9'  in  2  Sam.  xv.  1  ;  and  iD''tJ'iS)  are  neither  riding 
nor  carriage  horses,  but  riders  to  form  an  escort  whenever  he  drove 
out. — ^Ver.  6.  "And  (  =  for)  his  father  had  never  troubled  him  in 
his  life  (1"''?*^,  a  diebus  ejus,  i.e.  his  whole  life  long),  saying.  Why 
hast  thou  done  this  ?"  Such  weak  oversight  on  the  part  of  his 
father  encouraged  him  to  make  the  present  attempt.  Moreover, 
he  "  was  very  beautiful,"  like  Absalom  (see  at  2  Sam.  xiv.  2  5), 
and  born  after  Absalom,  so  that  after  his  death  he  appeared  to 
have  the  nearest  claim  to  the  tlirone.  The  subject  to  n"il?^  is  left 
indefinite,  because  it  is  implied  in  the  idea  of  the  verb  itself: 
"she  bare,"  i.e.  his  mother,  as  in  Num.  xxvi.  59  {vid.  Ewald, 
§  294,  &),  There  was  no  reason  for  mentioning  the  mother 
expressly  by  name,  as  there  was  nothing  depending  upon  the 
name  here,  and  it  had  already  bi.en  given  in  ver.  5. — Ver.  7. 
He  conferred  (for  the  expression,  compare  2  Sam.  iii,  1 7) 
with  Joab  and  Abiathar  the  priest,  who  supported  him.  iTy 
'^  ''!)n^>  to  lend  a  helping  hand  to  a  person,  i.e.  to  support  him 
by  either  actually  joining  him  or  taking  his  part,  Joab  joined 
the  pretender,  because  he  had  fallen  out  with  David  for  a  con- 
siderable time  (cf.  ii,  5,  6),  and  hoped  to  secure  his  influence 
with  the  new  king  if  he  helped  him  to  obtain  possession  of  the 
throne.  But  what  induced  Abiathar  the  high  priest  (see  at 
2  Sam.  viii,  1 7)  to  join  in  conspiracy  with  Adonijah,  we  do  not 
know.     Possibly  jealousy  of  Zadok,  and  the  fear  that  under 


CHAP.  I.  11-31.  19 

Solomon  he  miglit  be  tlirown  still  more  into  the  shade.  For 
although  Zadok  was  only  high  priest  at  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon, 
he  appears  to  have  taken  the  lead ;  as  we  may  infer  from  the 
fact  that  he  is  always  mentioned  before  Abiathar  (cf.  2  Sam. 
viii.  17,  XX.  25,  and  xv.  24  sqq.).  For  we  cannot  imagine  that 
Joab  and  Abiathar  had  supported  Adonijah  as  having  right  on 
his  side  (Thenius),  for  the  simple  reason  that  Joab  did  not 
trouble  himseK  about  right,  and  for  his  own  part  shrank  from 
no  crime,  when  he  thought  that  he  had  lost  favour  with  the 
king. — Ver.  8.  If  Adonijah  had  powerful  supporters  in  Joab  the 
commander-in-chief  and  the  high  priest  Abiathar,  the  rest  of 
the  leading  of&cers  of  state,  viz.  Zadok  the  high  priest  (see  at 
2  Sam.  viii  17),  Benaiah,  captain  of  the  king's  body-guard  (see 
at  2  Sam.  viii.  18  and  xxiil  20,  21),  the  prophet  Kathan, 
Shimei  (probably  the  son  of  Elah  mentioned  in  ch.  iv.  18), 
and  Eei  (unknown),  and  the  Gibborim  of  David  (see  at  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  8  sqq.),  were  not  with  him. — Vers.  9  sqq.  Adonijah  com- 
menced his  usurpation,  like  Absalom  (2  Sam,  xv.  2),  with  a  solemn 
sacrificial  meal,  at  which  he  was  proclaimed  king,  "  at  the  stone 
of  Zochekth  by  the  side  of  the  fountain  of  Bogd"  i.e.  the  spy's 
fountain,  or,  according  to  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  the  fuller's  foun- 
tain, the  present  fountain  of  Job  or  Nehemiah,  below  the  junc- 
tion of  the  valley  of  Hinnom  with  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  (see 
at  2  Sam.  vii.  17  and  Josh.  xv.  7).  E.  G.  Schultz  (Jerusalem, 
eine  Vorlesung,  p.  79)  supposes  the  stone  or  rock  of  Zockcleth  to 
be  "  the  steep,  rocky  comer  of  the  southern  slope  of  the  valley 
of  Hinnom,  which  casts  so  deep  a  shade."  "This  neighbour- 
hood (Wady  el  Faibdb)  is  still  a  place  of  recreation  for  the  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem."  To  this  festal  meal  Adonijah  invited 
all  his  brethren  except  Solomon,  and  "  all  the  men  of  Judah,  the 
king's  servants,"  i.e.  all  the  Judseans  who  were  in  the  king's  ser- 
\dce,  i.e.  were  servinjj  at  court  as  being  members  of  his  own 
tribe,  with  the  exception  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  Benaiah,  and 
the  Gibborim.  The  fact  that  Solomon  and  the  others  men- 
tioned were  not  included  in  the  invitation,  showed  very  clearly 
that  Adonijah  was  informed  of  Solomon's  election  as  successor 
to  the  throne,  and  was  also  aware  of  the  feelings  of  Nathan  and 
Benaiah. 

Vers.  11-31.  Adonijah's  attempt  was  firustrated  by  the  vigi- 
lance of  the  prophet  Xathan. — ^Vers.  11  sqq.  Nathan  informed 
Solomon's  mother,  Bathsheba  (see  at  2  Sam.  xi  3),  that  Adonijah 


20  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

was  making  himself  Idng  (^?0  ""S,  that  he  had  hecome  [as  good 
as]  king :  Thenius),  and  advised  her,  in  order  to  save  her  life  and 
that  of  her  son  Solomon  ("'Pf^^  and  save  =  so  that  thou  mayest 
save ;  of.  Ewald,  §  347,  a),  to  go  to  the  king  and  remind  him  of 
his  promise  on  oath,  that  her  son  Solomon  should  be  king  after 
him,  and  to  inquire  why  Adonijah  had  become  king.  If  Adonijah 
had  really  got  possession  of  the  throne,  he  would  probably  have 
put  Solomon  and  his  mother  out  of  the  way,  according  to  the 
barbarous  custom  of  the  East,  as  his  political  opponents. — ^Ver.  14. 
While  she  was  still  talking  to  the  king,  he  (Nathan)  would  come 
in  after  her  and  confirm  her  words.  ">3*]  vqtp^  to  make  a  word 
full,  i.e.  not  to  supply  what  is  wanting,  but  to  make  full,  like 
ifkqpovv,  either  to  fill  by  accomplishing,  or  (as  in  this  case)  to 
confirm  it  by  similar  assertion. — ^Vers.  15—21.  Bathsheba  fol- 
lowed this  advice,  and  went  to  the  king  into  the  inner  chamber 
(^"JIDD),  since  the  very  aged  king,  who  was  waited  upon  by 
Abishag,  could  not  leave  his  room  (niK'D  for  nnn^'O ;  c£  Ewald, 
§  188,  &,  p.  490),  and,  bowing  low  before  him,  communicated  to 
him  what  Adonijah  had  taken  in  hand  in  opposition  to  his  will 
and  without  his  knowledge.  The  second  nnyi  is  not  to  be  altered 
into  nnxi,  inasmuch  as  it  is  supported  by  the  oldest  codices  and 
the  Masora,^  although  about  two  hundred  codd.  contain  the 
latter  reading.  The  repetition  of  nnyi  ("  And  now,  behold,  Ado- 
nijah has  become  king ;  and  noiv,  my  lord  king,  thou  knowest 
it  not")  may  be  explained  from  the  energy  with  which  Bath- 
sheba speaks.  "  And  Solomon  thy  servant  he  hath  not  invited  " 
(ver.  19).  Bathsheba  added  this,  not  because  she  felt  herself 
injured,  but  as  a  sign  of  Adonijah's  feelings  towards  Solomon, 
which  showed  that  he  had  reason  to  fear  the  worst  if  Adonijah 
should  succeed  in  his  usurpation  of  the  throne.  In  ver.  20, 
again,  many  codd.  have  nnyi  in  the  place  of  nnxi ;  and  Thenius, 
after  his  usual  fashion,  pronounces  the  former  the  "  only  correct" 
reading,  because  it  is  apparently  a  better  one.  But  here  also 
the  appearance  is  deceptive.  The  antithesis  to  what  Adonijah 
has  already  done  is  brought  out  quite  suitably  by  •ins'i :  Adonijah 
has  made  himself  king,  etc. ;  but  thou  my  lord  king  must  decide 
in  the  matter.    "  The  eyes  of  all  Israel  are  turned  towards  thee, 

^  Kimchi  says :  "  Plures  scribse  errant  in  hoc  verbo,  scrihentcs  nns^  cum  AlepTi, 
quia  sensui  hoc  conformius  est ;  sed  constat  nobis  ex  correctis  MSS.  et  masora, 
scribendum  esse  nnyi  cum  Ain."  Hence  both  Norzi  and  Bruns  have  taken 
nnyi  under  their  protection.     Compare  de  Rossi,  variie  lectt.  ad  h.  L 


\ 


CHAP.  I.  11-31.  21 

to  tell  them  who  (whether  Adonijah  or  Solomon)  is  to  sit  upon 
the  throne  after  thee."  "  The  decision  of  this  question  is  in  thy 
hand,  for  the  people  have  not  yet  attached  themselves  to  Ado- 
nijah, but  are  looking  to  thee,  to  see  what  thou  wilt  do ;  and  they 
will  foUow  thy  judgment,  if  thou  only  hastenest  to  make  Solo- 
mon king." — Seb.  Schmidt,  "^o  secure  this  decision,  Bathsheba 
refers  again,  in  ver,  21,  to  the  fate  which  would  await  both  her- 
seK  and  her  son  Solomon  after  the  death  of  the  king.  They 
would  be  Q'KBn,  i.e.  guilty  of  a  capital  crime.  "  We  should  be 
punished  as  though  guilty  of  high  treason"  (Clericus). — ^Vers. 
22  sqq.  WTiile  Bathsheba  was  still  speaking,  Nathan  cama 
"When  he  was  announced  to  the  king,  Bathsheba  retired,  just  as 
afterwards  Nathan  went  away  when  the  king  had  Bathsheba 
called  in  again  (cf.  ver.  28  with  ver.  32).  This  was  done,  not 
to  avoid  the  appearance  of  a  mutual  arrangement  (Cler.,  Then., 
etc.),  but  for  reasons  of  propriety,  inasmuch  as,  in  audiences 
granted  by  the  king  to  his  wife  or  one  of  his  counsellors,  no 
third  person  ought  to  be  present  unless  the  king  required  his 
attendance.  Nathan  confirmed  Bathsheba's  statement,  com- 
mencing thus  :  "  My  lord  king,  thou  hast  really  said,  Adonijah 
shall  be  king  after  me  .  .  .  ?  for  he  has  gone  down  to-day,  and 
has  prepared  a  feast,  .  .  .  and  they  are  eating  and  drinking 
before  him,  and  saying.  Long  live  king  Adonijah ! "  And  he 
then  closed  by  asking,  "  Has  this  taken  place  on  the  part  of  my 
lord  the  king,  and  thou  hast  not  sho\\Ti  thy  servants  (Nathan, 
Zadok,  Benaiah,  and  Solomon)  who  is  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
my  lord  the  king  after  him  ? "  The  indirect  question  intro- 
duced with  cs  is  not  merely  an  expression  of  modesty,  but  also 
of  doubt,  whether  what  had  occurred  had  emanated  from  the 
king  and  he  had  not  shown  it  to  his  servants. — Vers.  28-30. 
The  king  then  sent  for  Bathsheba  again,  and  gave  her  this  pro- 
mise on  oath  :  "  As  truly  as  Jehovah  liveth,  who  hath  redeemed 
my  soul  out  of  aU  distress  (as  in  2  Sam.  iv.  9),  yea,  as  I  swore 
to  thee  by  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  saying,  Solomon  thy  son 
shall  be  king  after  me,  .  .  .  yea,  so  shall  I  do  this  day."  The 
fii-st  and  third  '3  serve  to  give  emphasis  to  the  assertion,  like 
imo,  yea  (cf.  Ewald,  §  330,  b).  The  second  merely  serves 
as  an  introduction  to  the  words. — Ver.  31.  Bathsheba  then 
left  the  king  with  the  deepest  prostration  and  the  utterance  of 
ft  blessing,  as  an  expression  of  her  inmost  gratitude.  The 
benedictory  formula,  "  May  the  king  live  for  ever,"  was  only 


22  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

used  by  the  Israelites  on  occasions  of  special  importance : 
whereas  the  Babylonians  and  ancient  Persians  constantly  ad- 
dressed their  kings  in  this  way  (cf.  Dan,  ii.  4,  iii.  9,  v.  1 0,  vi. 
22  ;  Neh.  ii.  3.  Aeliani  var.  hist.  i.  32,  and  Curtius  de  gestis 
Alex.  vi.  5). 

Vers.  32-40.  David  then  sent  for  Zadok,  Nathan,  and  Be- 
naiah,  and  directed  them  to  fetch  the  servants  of  their  lord 
(D3''3"iXj  a  pluralis  majestatis,  referring  to  David  alone),  and  to 
conduct  Solomon  to  Gihon  riding  npon  the  royal  mule,  and 
there  to  anoint  him  and  solemnly  proclaim  him  king.  The 
servants  of  your  lord  (Q?''3"'fr5  "'lay)  are  the  Crethi  and  Plethi,  and 
not  the  Gihhorim  also  (Thenius),  as  ver.  3  8  clearly  shows,  where 
we  find  that  these  alone  went  down  with  him  to  Gihon  as  the 
royal  body-guard,  v  "iK'N  n"n"iQn-?y^  upon  the  mule  which  belongs 
to  me,  i.e.  upon  my  (the  king's)  mule.  When  the  king  let  any 
one  ride  upon  the  animal  on  which  he  generally  rode  himself, 
this  was  a  sign  that  he  was  his  successor  upon  the  throne. 
Among  the  ancient  Persians  riding  upon  the  king's  horse  was  a 
public  honour,  which  the  king  conferred  upon  persons  of  great 
merit  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  people  (cf  Esth.  vi.  8,  9).  nina^  the 
female  mule,  which  in  Kahira  is  still  preferred  to  the  male  for 
riding  (see  Eosenmiiller,  lihl.  Althk.  iv.  2,  p.  56).  Gihon  (pna) 
was  the  name  given,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxxii.  30  and  xxxiii. 
14,  to  a  spring  on  the  western  side  of  Zion,  which  supplied  two 
basins  or  pools,  viz.  the  upper  watercourse  of  Gihon  (2  Chron. 
xxxii.  30)  or  upper  pool  (2  Kings  xviii.  17 ;  Isa.  vii.  3,  xxxvi. 
2),  and  the  lower  pool  (Isa.  xxii.  9).  The  upper  Gihon  stiU 
exists  as  a  large  reservoir  built  up  with  hewn  stones,  though 
somewhat  fallen  to  decay,  which  is  called  by  the  monies  Gilion, 
by  the  natives  Birket  el  Mamilla,  about  700  yards  W.N.W. 
from  the  Joppa  gate,  in  the  basin  which  opens  into  the  valley 
of  Hinnom.  The  lower  pool  is  probably  the  present  Birket  es 
Sultan,  on  the  south-western  side  of  Zion  (see  Eobinson,  Pales- 
tine, i.  p.  485  sqq.,  512  sqq.,  and  Biblical  Researches,  p.  142 
sqq.).  The  vaUey  between  the  two  was  certainly  the  place 
where  Solomon  was  anointed,  as  it  is  not  stated  that  this  took 
place  at  the  fountain  of  Gihon.  And  even  the  expression  D^^niin 
lira  7y  ink  (take  him  down  to  Gihon)  agrees  with  this.  For  if 
you  go  from  Zion  to  Gihon  towards  the  west,  you  first  of  all 
have  to  descend  a  slope,  and  then  ascend  by  a  gradual  rise  ; 
and  this  slope  was  probably  a  more  considerable  one  in  ancient 


CHAP.  I.  32-40.  23 

times  (Rob.  Pal.  i  p.  514,  note).^ — ^Ver.  34.  The  blowing  of  the 
trumpet  and  the  cry  ''  Long  live  the  king"  (cf.  1  Sam.  x.  24) 
were  to  serve  as  a  solemn  proclamation  after  the  anointing  had 
taken  place. — ^Ver.  35.  After  the  anoiating  they  were  to  conduct 
Solomon  up  to  Zion  again ;  Solomon  was  then  to  ascend  the 
throne,  as  David  was  about  to  appoint  him  prince  over  Israel 
and  Judah  in  his  own  stead.  Both  the  anointing  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  Solomon  as  prince  over  the  whole  of  the  covenant 
nation  were  necessary,  because  the  succession  to  the  throne  had 
been  rendered  doubtful  through  Adonijah's  attempt,  and  the  aged 
king  was  still  alive.  In  cases  where  there  was  no  question, 
and  the  son  followed  the  father  after  his  death,  the  •unanimous 
opinion  of  the  Eabbins  is,  that  there  was  no  anointing  at  alL 
Israel  and  Judah  are  mentioned,  because  David  had  been  the 
first  to  unite  aU  the  tribes  under  his  sceptre,  and  after  the 
death  of  Solomon  Israel  fell  away  from  the  house  of  Da\-id. — 
Vers.  36,  37.  Benaiah  responded  to  the  utterance  of  the  royal 
will  with  a  confirmatory  "  Amen,  thus  saith  Jehovah  the  God 
of  my  lord  the  king ;"  i.e.  may  the  word  of  the  king  become  a 
word  of  Jehovah  his  God,  who  fulfils  what  He  promises  (Ps. 
xxxiii  9)  ;  and  added  the  pious  wish,  "  May  Jehovah  be  with 
Solomon,  as  He  was  with  David,  and  glorify  his  throne  above 
the  throne  of  David," — a  wish  which  was  not  merely  "  flattery 
of  his  paternal  vanity"  (Thenius),  but  which  had  in  view  the 
prosperity  of  the  monarchy,  and  was  also  fulfilled  by  God  (cf 
UL  11  sqq.). — ^Yers.  38—40.  The  anointing  of  Solomon  was 
carried  out  immediately,  as  the  king  had  commanded.  On  the 
Crethi  and  Pldhi  see  at  2  Sam.  vui.  18.  "  The  oil-horn  out  of 
the  tent"  {i.e.  a  vessel  made  of  horn  and  containing  oil)  was  no 
doubt  one  which  held  the  holy  anointing  oil,  with  which  the 
priests  and  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary  were  anointed  (see  Ex. 
XXX.  22  sqq.).  The  tent  ('''!]i<'7)j  however,  is  not  the  tabernacle 
1  The  conjecture  of  Thenius,  that  jins  should  be  filtered  into  Jiy23,  is 
hardly  worth  mentioning ;  for,  apart  from  the  fact  that  aU  the  ancient  versions 
confirm  the  corectness  of  pnj  the  objections  which  Thenius  brings  against  it 
amount  to  mere  conjectures  or  groundless  assumptions,  such  as  that  Zadok 
took  the  oil-horn  out  of  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon,  which  is  not  stated  in 
ver.  39.  Moreover,  Gibeon  was  a  three  hours'  journey  from  Jerusalem,  so 
that  it  would  have  been  absolutely  impossible  for  the  anointing,  which  was 
not  conmianded  by  David  till  after  Adonijah's  feast  had  commenced,  to  be 
finished  so  quickly  that  the  procession  could  return  to  Jerusalem  before  it  was 
ended,  as  is  distinctly  recorded  in  ver.  41. 


24  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

at  Gibeon,  "but  the  tent  set  up  by  David  for  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  upon  Mount  Zion  (2  Sam.  vi.  1 7).  For  even  though 
Zadok  was  appointed  high  priest  at  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon, 
and  Abiathar,  who  held  with  Adonijah,  at  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant, the  two  high  priests  were  not  so  unfriendly  towards  one 
another,  that  Zadok  could  not  have  obtained  admission  to  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  in  Abiathar's  absence  to  fetch  away  the 
anointing  oil. — Ver.  40.  All  the  people,  i.e.  the  crowd  which 
was  present  at  the  anointing,  went  up  after  him,  i.e.  accom- 
panied Solomon  to  the  citadel  of  Zion,  with  flutes  and  loud 
acclamation,  so  that  the  earth  nearly  burst  with  their  shouting. 
J'i??'y,  "  to  burst  in  pieces"  (as  in  2  Chron.  xxv.  12),  is  a  hyper- 
bolical expression  for  quaking. 

Vers.  41-53.  The  noise  of  this  shouting  reached  the  ears  of 
Adonijah  and  his  guests,  when  the  feast  was  just  drawing  to  a 
close.  The  music,  therefore,  and  the  joyful  acclamations  of  the 
people  must  have  been  heard  as  far  off  as  the  fountain  of  Eogel. 
When  Joab  observed  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  knowing  what 
these  tones  must  signify,  he  asked  "  wherefore  the  sound  of  the 
city  in  an  uproar  "  (i.  e.  what  does  it  mean)  ?  At  that  moment 
Jonathan  the  son  of  Abiathar  arrived  (see  2  Sam.  xv.  2  7,  xvii.  1 7 
sqq.).  Adonijah  called  out  to  him  :  "  Come,  for  thou  art  a  brave 
man  and  bringest  good  tidings;"  suppressing  all  anxiety  with 
these  words,  as  he  knew  his  father's  will  with  regard  to  the  suc- 
cession to  the  throne,  and  the  powerful  and  influential  friends  of 
Solomon  (see  vers.  5,  19,  26). — Vers.  43  sqq.  Jonathan  replied: 
72X,  "yea  but,"  corresponding  to  the  Latin  imovcro,  an  expression 
of  assurance  with  a  slight  doubt,  and  then  related  that  Solomon 
had  been  anointed  king  by  David's  command,  and  the  city  was  in 
a  joyous  state  of  excitement  in  consequence  (D'nri  as  in  Ruth 
i.  19),  and  that  he  had  even  ascended  the  throne,  that  the 
servants  of  the  king  had  blessed  David  for  it,  and  that  David 
himself  had  worshipped  and  praised  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel 
that  he  had  lived  to  see  his  son  ascend  the  throne.  The  repeti- 
tion of  D3T  three  times  (vers.  46-48)  gives  emphasis  to  the  words, 
since  every  new  point  which  is  introduced  with  031.  raises  the 
thing  higher  and  higher  towards  absolute  certainty.  The  fact  re- 
lated in  ver.  47  refers  to  the  words  of  Benaiah  in  vers.  36  and  37. 
The  Chdhih  1'''!!^^  is  tlie  correct  reading,  and  the  Kcri  ^''<P'^.  an 
unnecessary  emendation.  The  prayer  to  God,  with  thanksgiving 
for  the  favour  granted  to  him,  was  offered  by  David  after  the 


CHAP.  I.  41-53.  25 

return  of  his  anointed  son  Solomon  to  the  royal  palace  ;  so  that 
it  ought  strictly  to  have  been  mentioned  after  ver.  40.  The 
worship  of  the  gi-ey-headed  David  upon  the  bed  recalls  to  mind 
the  worship  of  the  patriarch  Jacob  after  making  known  his  last 
will  (Gen.  xl\-ii.  31). — ^Vers.  49,  50.  The  news  spread  terror. 
All  the  guests  of  Adonijah  fled,  every  man  his  way.  Adonijah 
himself  sought  refuge  from  Solomon  at  the  horns  of  the  altar. 
The  altar  was  regarded  from  time  immemorial  and  among  all 
nations  as  a  place  of  refuge  for  criminals  deserving  of  death ; 
but,  according  to  Ex.  xxi  14,  in  Israel  it  was  only  allowed  to 
afford  protection  in  cases  of  unintentional  slaj-ing,  and  for  these 
special  cities  of  refuge  were  afterwards  provided  (Num.  xxxv.). 
In  the  horns  of  the  altar,  as  symbols  of  power  and  strength, 
there  was  concentrated  the  true  significance  of  the  altar  as  a 
divine  place,  from  which  there  emanated  both  life  and  health 
(see  at  Ex.  xxvii.  19).  By  grasping  the  horns  of  the  altar  the 
culprit  placed  himself  under  the  protection  of  the  saving  and 
helping  grace  of  God,  which  wipes  away  sin,  and  thereby  abolishes 
punishment  (see  Bahr,  Symholik  cles  Mos.  Cult.  i.  p.  474).  The 
question  to  what  altar  Adonijah  fled,  whether  to  the  altar  at  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  in  Zion,  or  to  the  one  at  the  tabernacle  at 
Gibeon,  or  to  the  one  built  by  David  on  the  threshing-floor  of 
Araunah,  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  It  was  probably 
to  the  first  of  these,  however,  as  nothing  is  said  about  a  flight  to 
Gibeon,  and  with  regard  to  the  altar  of  Araunah  it  is  not  certain 
that  it  was  pro\ided  with  horns  like  the  altars  of  the  two  sanc- 
tuaries.— Vers.  51,  52.  "VMienthis  was  reported  to  Solomon,  to- 
gether with  the  prayer  of  Adonijah  that  the  king  would  swear 
to  him  that  he  would  not  put  him  to  death  with  the  sword  (QS 
before  n^?',  a  particle  used  in  an  oath),  he  promised  him  con- 
ditional impunity :  "  If  he  shall  be  brave  G'^CH?,  vir  jprdbus),  none 
of  his  hair  shall  fall  to  the  earth,"  equivalent  to  not  a  hair  of  his 
head  shall  be  injured  (cf.  1  Sam.  xiv.  45) ;  "  but  if  evil  be  found 
in  him,"  i.e.  if  he  render  himself  guilty  of  a  fresh  crime,  "  he 
shall  die." — ^Ver.  53.  He  then  had  him  fetched  down  from  the 
altar  (^"^y^,  inasmuch  as  the  altar  stood  upon  an  eminence)  ;  and 
when  he  fell  down  before  the  king,  i.e.  did  homage  to  him  as 
king,  he  gave  him  his  life  and  freedom  in  the  words,  "  Go  to  thy 
house."  The  expression  ^n'??  V  does  not  imply  his  banishment 
from  the  court  (compare  ch.  ii.  13  and  2  Sam.  xiv.  24).  Solomon 
did  not  wish  to   commence  his  own  ascent  of  the  throne  by 


26  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

infliction  of  punishment,  and  therefore  presented  the  usurper 
with  his  life  on  the  condition  that  he  kept  hiinseK  quiet 

CHAP.  II.  David's  last  instructions  and  death,     solomon 

ASCENDS  THE  THRONE  AND  FORTIFIES  HIS  GOVERNMENT. 

The  anointing  of  Solomon  as  king,  which  was  effected  by 
David's  command  (ch.  i.),  is  only  briefly  mentioned  in  1  Chron, 
xxiii.  1  in  the  words,  "  When  David  was  old  and  full  of  days, 
he  made  his  son  Solomon  Icing  over  Israel ;"  which  serve  as  an 
introduction  to  the  account  of  the  arrangements  made  by  David 
during  the  closing  days  of  his  life.  After  these  arrangements 
have  been  described,  there  follow  in  1  Chron.  xxviii.  and  xxix. 
his  last  instructions  and  his  death.  The  aged  king  gathered 
together  the  tribe-princes  and  the  rest  of  the  dignitaries  and 
superior  officers  to  a  diet  at  Jerusalem,  and  having  introduced 
Solomon  to  them  as  the  successor  chosen  by  God,  exhorted 
them  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  and  urged  upon  Solo- 
mon and  the  whole  assembly  the  building  of  the  temple,  gave 
his  son  the  model  of  the  temple  and  all  the  materials  which  he 
had  collected  towards  its  erection,  called  upon  the  great  men  of 
the  kingdom  to  contribute  to  this  work,  which  they  willingly 
agreed  to,  and  closed  this  last  act  of  his  reign  with  praise  and 
thanksgiving  to  God  and  a  great  sacrificial  festival,  at  which 
the  assembled  states  of  the  realm  made  Solomon  king  a  second 
time,  and  anointed  him  prince  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah 
(1  Chron.  xxix.  22). — A  repetition  of  the  anointing  of  the  new 
king  at  the  instigation  of  the  states  of  the  realm,  accompanied 
by  their  solemn  homage,  had  also  taken  place  in  the  case  of 
both  Saul  (1  Sam.  xi.)  and  David  (2  Sam.  ii.  4  and  v.  3),  and 
appears  to  have  been  an  essential  requirement  to  secure  the 
general  recognition  of  the  king  on  the  part  of  the  nation,  at  any 
rate  in  those  cases  in  which  the  succession  to  the  throne  was 
not  undisputed.  In  order,  therefore,  to  preclude  any  rebellion 
after  his  death,  David  summoned  this  national  assembly  again 
after  Solomon's  first  anointing  and  ascent  of  the  throne,  that  the 
representatives  of  the  whole  nation  might  pay  the  requisite 
homage  to  king  Solomon,  who  had  been  installed  as  his  suc- 
cessor according  to  the  will  of  God. — To  this  national  assembly, 
which  is  only  reported  in  the  Chronicles,  there  are  appended  the 
last  instructions  wliich  David  gave,  according  to  vers.  1-9  of  our 


CHAP.  II.  1-11.  27 

chapter,  to  his  snccessor  Solomon  immediately  hefore  his  death. 
Just  as  in  the  Chronicles,  according  to  the  peculiar  plan  of  that 
work,  there  is  no  detailed  description  of  the  installation  of 
David  on  the  throne  ;  so  here  the  author  of  our  hooks  has 
omitted  the  account  of  this  national  diet,  and  the  homage  paid 
by  the  estates  of  the  realm  to  the  new  king,  as  not  being 
required  by  the  purpose  of  his  work,  and  has  communicated  the 
last  personal  admonitions  and  instructions  of  the  dying  king 
David  instead-^ 

Vers.  1-11.  David's  Last  Instructions  and  Death. — ^Vers. 
1_4.  When  David  saw  that  his  life  was  drawing  to  a  close,  he 
first  of  all  admonished  his  son  Solomon  to  be  valiant  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  commandments  of  God.  "  I  go  the  way  of  all 
the  world"  (as  in  Josh,  xxiii  14),  i.e.  the  way  of  death;  "be 
strong  and  be  a  man," — not  "bear  my  departure  bravely,"  as 
Thenius  supposes,  but  prove  thyself  brave  (cf.  1  Sam.  iv.  9)  to 
keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord.  Just  as  in  1  Sam  iv.  9 
the  object  in  which  the  bravery  is  to  show  itself  is  appended 
simply  by  the  copula  Vdv ;  so  is  it  here  also  with  'l^i  J?")^?i. 
The  phrase  '"•'  nncttTp-ns  id^,  to  keep  the  keeping  of  Jehovah, 
which  so  frequently  occurs  in  the  Tliorah,  i.e.  to  observe  or  obey 
whatever  is  to  be  observed  in  relation  to  Jehovah  (cf.  Gen.  xxvL 
5,  Lev.  viii  35,  xviii  30,  etc.),  always  receives  its  more  pre- 
cise definition  from  the  context,  and  is  used  here,  as  in  GeiL 
xxvi.  5,  to  denote  obedience  to  the  law  of  God  in  all  its  extent, 
or,  according  to  the  first  definition,  to  walk  in  the  ways  of  Jeho- 
vah. This  is  afterwards  more  fully  expanded  in  the  expression 
'Ul  vnpn  ibco,  to  keep  the  ordinances,  commandments,  rights,  and 

*  To  refute  the  assertion  of  De  "Wette.  Gramberg,  and  Thenius,  that  this 
account  of  the  Chronicles  arises  from  a  free  mode  of  dealing  with  the  history, 
and  an  intention  to  suppress  everything  that  did  not  contribute  to  the  honour 
of  David  and  his  house, — an  assertion  which  can  only  be  attributed  to  their 
completely  overlooking,  not  to  say  studiously  ignoring,  the  different  plans  of 
the  two  works  (the  books  of  Kings  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  of  Chronicles 
on  the  other), — it  will  be  siiflBcient  to  quote  the  unprejudiced  and  thoughtful 
decision  of  Bertheau,  who  says,  in  his  Comm.  on  1  Chron,  -nciii.  1 :  "  These 
few  words  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  1)  give  in  a  condensed  form  the  substance  of  the 
account  in  1  Kings  i.,  which  is  intimately  boimd  up  with  the  account  of  the 
family  affairs  of  David  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  therefore, 
according  to  the  whole  plan  of  our  historical  work,  would  have  been  oat  of 
place  in  the  Chronicles." 


28  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

testimonies  of  Jehovah.  These  four  words  were  applied  to  the 
different  precepts  of  the  law,  the  first  three  of  which  are  con- 
nected together  in  Gen.  xxvi.  5,  Deut.  v.  28,  viii.  11,  and  served 
to  individualize  the  rich  and  manifold  substance  of  the  demands 
of  the  Lord  to  His  people  as  laid  down  in  the  Thorah.  ]Vty? 
t5''3b>ri,  that  thou  mayest  act  wisely  and  execute  well,  as  in  Deut. 
xxix.  8,  Josh,  i  7. — Ver.  4.  Solomon  would  then  experience 
still  further  this  blessing  of  walking  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord, 
since  the  Lord  would  fulfil  to  him  His  promise  of  the  everlast- 
ing possession  of  the  throne.  '1^1  ^''\>\  \V'ab  is  grammatically  sub- 
ordinate to  ?"'3^l?  ]V'o7  in  ver.  3.  The  word  which  Jehovah  has 
spoken  concerning  David  (yj?  ")2^)  is  the  promise  in  2  Sam.  vii. 
12  sqq.,  the  substance  of  which  is  quoted  here  by  David  with 
a  negative  turn,  '1J1  JTi3^  N7,  and  with  express  allusion  to  the 
condition  on  which  God  would  assuredly  fulfil  His  promise, 
viz.  if  the  descendants  of  David  preserve  their  ways,  to  walk 
before  the  Lord  in  truth.  noN3  is  more  precisely  defined  by. 
DC'33  .  .  .  ^b3.  For  the  fact  itself  see  Deut.  v.  5,  xi.  13,  18. 
The  formula  '131  JT?.|1  ^  is  formed  after  1  Sam.  ii.  33  (compare 
also  2  Sam.  iii.  2  9  and  Josh.  ix.  2  3).  "  There  shall  not  be  cut 
off  to  thee  a  man  from  upon  the  throne  of  Israel,"  i.e.  there  shall 
never  be  wanting  to  thee  a  descendant  to  take  the  throne ;  in 
other  words,  the  sovereignty  shall  always  remain  in  thy  family. 
This  promise,  which  reads  thus  in  2  Sam.  vii.  16,  "Thy  house 
and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  continual  for  ever  before  thee,  and 
thy  throne  stand  fast  for  ever,"  and  which  was  confirmed  to 
Solomon  by  the  Lord  Himself  after  his  prayer  at  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  temple  (ch.  viii.  25,  ix.  5),  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  implying  that  no  king  of  the  Davidic  house  would  be  thrust 
away  from  the  throne,  but  simply  affirms  that  the  posterity  of 
David  was  not  to  be  cut  off,  so  as  to  leave  no  offshoot  which 
could  take  possession  of  the  throne.  Its  ultimate  fulfilment  it 
received  in  Christ  (see  at  2  Sam.  vii.  12  sqq.).  The  second 
ibsb  in  ver.  4  is  not  to  be  erased  as  suspicious,  as  being  merely 
a  repetition  of  the  first  in  consequence  of  the  long  conditional 
clause,  even  though  it  is  wanting  in  the  Vulgate,  the  Arabic,  and 
a  Hebrew  codex. 

After  a  general  admonition  David  communicated  to  his  suc- 
cessor a  few  more  special  instructions ;  viz.,  first  of  all  (vers.  5,  6), 
to  punish  Joab  for  his  wickedness.  "  What  Joab  did  to  me : " — 
of  this  David  mentions  only  the  two  principal  crimes  of  Joab, 


CHAP.  II.  1-11.  29 

by  which  he  had  already  twice  desen'ed  death,  namely,  his  kill- 
ing the  two  generals,  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.  2  7)  and  Amasa  the  son 
of  Jether  (2  Sam.  xx.  10),  The  name  in'  is  written  Kiri^  in 
2  Sam.  xvii.  25.  Joab  had  murdered  both  of  them  out  of 
jealousy  in  a  treacherous  and  malicious  manner ;  and  thereby  he 
had  not  only  grievously  displeased  David  and  bidden  defiance 
to  his  royal  authority,  but  by  the  murder  of  Abner  had  exposed 
the  king  to  the  suspicion  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  having 
instigated  the  crime  (see  at  2  Sam.  iii  28,  37).  '» 'o^  dk^I, 
"  and  he  made  war-blood  in  peace,"  i.e.  he  shed  in  the  time  of 
peace  blood  that  ought  only  to  flow  in  war  (C^  in  the  sense  of 
making,  as  in  Deut.  xiv.  1,  Ex.  x.  2,  etc.),  "  and  brought  war- 
blood  upon  his  girdle  which  was  about  his  loins,  and  upon  his 
shoes  under  his  feet,"  sc.  in  the  time  of  peace.  This  was  the 
crime  therefore :  that  Joab  had  murdered  the  two  generals  in  a 
time  of  peace,  as  one  ought  only  to  slay  his  opponent  in  time  of 
war.  Girdle  and  shoes,  the  principal  features  in  oriental  attire 
when  a  man  is  preparing  himself  for  any  business,  were  covered 
with  blood,  since  Joab,  while  saluting  them,  had  treacherously 
stabbed  both  of  them  with  the  sword.  David  ought  to  have 
punished  these  two  crimes ;  but  when  Abner  was  murdered,  he 
felt  himself  too  weak  to  visit  a  man  like  Joab  with  the  punish- 
ment he  desen'ed,  as  he  had  only  just  been  anointed  king,  and 
consequently  he  did  nothing  more  than  invoke  divine  retribution 
upon  his  head  (2  Sam.  iii.  29).  And  when  Amasa  was  slain, 
the  rebellions  of  Absalom  and  Sheba  had  crippled  the  power  of 
Da\-id  too  much,  for  him  to  visit  the  deed  with  the  punishment 
that  was  due.  But  as  king  of  the  nation  of  God,  it  was  not 
right  for  him  to  allow  such  crimes  to  pass  unpunished  :  he 
therefore  transferred  the  punishment,  for  which  he  had  wanted 
the  requisite  power,  to  his  son  and  successor. — Ver.  6.  "  Do 
according  to  thy  wisdom  ("mark  the  proper  opportunity  of 
punishing  him" — Seb.  Schmidt),  and  let  not  his  grey  hair  go 
down  into  hell  (the  region  of  the  dead)  in  peace  {i.e.  unpunished)." 
The  punishment  of  so  powerful  a  man  as  Joab  the  commander- 
in-chief  was,  required  great  wisdom,  to  avoid  occasioning  a  re- 
bellion in  the  army,  which  was  devoted  to  him. — Ver.  7.  If  the 
demands  of  justice  required  that  Joab  should  be  punished,  the 
duty  of  gratitude  was  no  less  holy  to  the  dying  king.  And 
Solomon  was  to  show  this  to  the  sons  of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite, 
and  make  them  companions  of  his  table ;  because  Barzillai  had 


30  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

supplied  David  with  provisions  on  his  flight  from  Ahsalom 
(2  Sam.  xvii.  27  sqq.,  xix.  32  sqq.).  ^Jn^sc?  ^Jjdx^  vm  "let 
them  be  among  those  eating  of  thy  table ; "  i.e.  not,  "  let  them 
draw  their  food  from  the  royal  table," — for  there  was  no  par- 
ticular distinction  in  this,  as  all  the  royal  attendants  at  the  court 
received  their  food  from  the  royal  kitchen,  as  an  equivalent  for 
the  pay  that  was  owing, — but,  "  let  them  join  in  the  meals  at 
the  royal  table."  The  fact  that  in  2  Sam.  ix.  10, 11,  13,  we 
have  }n?^"?y  73^  to  express  this,  makes  no  material  difference. 
According  to  2  Sam.  xix.  38,  Barzillai  had,  it  is  true,  allowed 
only  one  son  to  follow  the  Idng  to  his  court.  "  Por  so  they  drew 
near  to  me,"  i.e.  they  showed  the  kindness  to  me  of  supplying 
me  with  food ;  compare  2  Sam.  xvii.  2  7,  where  Barzillai  alone 
is  named,  though,  as  he  was  a  man  of  eighty  years  old,  he  was 
certainly  supported  by  his  sons. — Ver.  8.  On  the  other  hand, 
Shimei  the  Benjamite  had  shown  great  hostility  to  David  (cf. 
2  Sam.  xvi.  5-8),  He  had  cursed  him  with  a  vehement 
curse  as  he  fled  from  Absalom  (J^VIP^'  vehement,  violent,  not  ill, 
hcillos,  from  the  primary  meaniag  to  be  sick  or  ill,  as  Thenius 
supposes,  since  it  cannot  be  shown  that  PJ^  has  any  such  mean- 
ing) ;  and  when  David  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  Shimei  fell 
at  his  feet,  he  had  promised  to  spare  his  life,  because  he  did  not 
want  to  mar  the  joy  at  his  reinstatement  in  his  kingdom  by  an 
act  of  punishment  (2  Sam.  xix.  19-24),  and  therefore  had  per- 
sonally forgiven  him.  But  the  insult  which  Shimei  had  offered 
in  his  person  to  the  anointed  of  the  Lord,  as  king  and  represen- 
tative of  the  rights  of  God,  he  could  not  forgive.  The  instruction 
given  to  his  successor  Onj^jri'bx,  let  him  not  be  guiltless)  did  not 
spring  from  personal  revenge,  but  was  the  duty  of  the  Idng  as 
judge  and  administrator  of  the  divine  right.^  It  follows  from  the 
expression  T^V,  with  thee,  i.e.  in  thy  neighbourhood,  that  Shimei 
was  living  at  that  time  in  Jerusalem  (cf.  ver.  36). — ^Vers.  10, 11. 
After  these  instructions  David  died,   and  was  buried  in  the 


*  "  Shimei  is  and  remains  rather  a  proof  of  David's  magnanimity  than  of  ven- 
geance. It  was  not  a  little  thing  to  tolerate  the  miscreant  in  his  immediate 
neighbourhood  for  his  whole  life  long  (not  even  banishment  being  thought  of). 
And  if  under  the  following  reign  also  he  had  been  allowed  to  end  his  days  in 
peace  (which  had  never  been  promised  him),  this  would  have  been  a  kindness 
which  would  have  furnished  an  example  of  unpunished  crimes  that  might 
easily  have  been  abused."  This  is  tlie  verdict  of  J.  J.  Hess  in  his  Gcschichte 
Davids,  ii.  p.  221. 


CHAP.  II.  13-25.  31 

city  of  David,  i.e.  npon  Mount  Zion,  where  the  sepulchre  of 
David  still  existed  in  the  time  of  Chi'ist  (Acts  ii  29).^  On  the 
lencjth  of  his  reim  see  2  Sam.  v.  5. 

Vers.  12-46.  Accession  of  Solomon  aio)  Establishment 
OF  his  Government. — Ver.  12  is  a  heading  embracing  the  sub- 
stance of  what  foUows,  and  is  more  fully  expanded  in  1  Chron. 
xxix.  23-25,  Solomon  established  his  monarchy  first  of  all  by 
punishing  the  rebels,  Adonijah  (vers.  13-25)  and  his  adherents 
(vers.  26-35),  and  by  carrying  out  the  fmal  instructions  of  his 
father  (vers.  36—46). 

Vers.  13-25.  Adonijah  forfeits  his  life. — Vers.  13-18.  Adoni- 
jah came  to  Bathsheba  with  the  request  that  she  would  apply  to 
kinfj  Solomon  to  give  hiTn  Abisha"  of  Shunem  as  his  wife.    Bath- 

o  o  o 

sheba  asked  him,  "Is  peace  thy  coming  ?"  i.e.  comest  thou  with 
a  peaceable  intention  ?  (as  in  1  Sam.  xvi.  4),  because  after  what 
had  occurred  (ch.  i.  5  sqq.)  she  suspected  an  evil  intention.  He 
introduced  his  petition  with  these  words :  "  Thou  knowest  that 
the  kingdom  was  mine,  and  all  Israel  had  set  its  face  upon  me 
that  I  should  be  king,  then  the  kingdom  turned  about  and  became 
my  brother's ;  for  it  became  his  from  the  Lord."  The  throne  was 
his,  not  because  he  had  usurped  it,  but  because  it  belonged  to  him 
as  the  eldest  son  at  that  time,  according  to  the  right  of  primo- 
geniture. Moreover  it  might  have  been  the  case  that  many  of 
the  people  wished  him  to  be  king,  and  the  fact  that  he  had  found 
adherents  in  Joab,  Abiathar,  and  others,  confirms  this ;  but  his 
assertion,  that  aU  Israel  had  set  its  eyes  upon  him  as  the  future 
king,  went  beyond  the  bounds  of  truth.  At  the  same  time,  he 
knew  how  to  cover  over  the  dangerous  sentiment  implied  in  his 
words  in  a  very  skiKul  manner  by  adding  the  further  remark, 
that  the  transfer  of  the  kingdom  to  his  brother  had  come  from 
Jehovah ;  so  that  Bathsheba  did  not  detect  the  artifice,  and  pro- 

*  The  situation  of  the  tombs  of  the  kings  of  Jadah  upon  Zion,  Thenios  has 

attempted  to  trace  minutely  in  a  separate  article  in  Illgen's  ZeitscTirift  fur  die 
histor.  Theol.  1844,  i.  p.  1  sqq.,  and  more  especially  to  show  that  the  entrance 
to  these  tombs  must  have  been  on  the  eastern  slope  of  Mount  Zion,  which  falls 
into  the  valley  of  Tyroposon,  and  obliquely  opposite  to  the  spring  of  Siloah. 
This  is  in  harmony  with  the  statement  of  Theodoret  {quxst.  6  in  iii.  Reg.),  to 
the  effect  that  Josephus  says,  to  os  /«y^_a«  (r-^j  r«?^j)  -Tzetpet,  riu  'StJ^oxfi  iivat 
dmooiioi;  ixau  to  b'/,viia*,  x.x\  riv  SxaiXiKr/j  oriXovu  ■Tiro^.vzi'Kuoe.v ;  although  this 
statement  does  not  occur  in  any  passage  of  his  -works  as  they  have  come  down 
to  us. 


32  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

mised  to  fulfil  his  request  (vers.  16  sqq.)  to  intercede  with 
king  Solomon  for  Abishag  to  be  given  him  to  wife.  ""nOT"?*? 
••^STiXj  "  do  not  turn  back  my  face,"  i.  e.  do  not  refuse  my 
request. — Ver.  19.  When  Bathsheba  came  to  Solomon,  he  re- 
ceived her  with  the  reverence  due  to  the  queen-mother  :  "  Jie  rose 
up  to  meet  her"  (a  pregnant  expression  for  "  he  rose  up  and  went  to 
meet  her  "),  made  a  low  bow,  then  sat  upon  his  throne  again,  and 
bade  her  sit  upon  a  throne  at  his  right  hand.  The  seat  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  king  was  the  place  of  honour  among  the  Israel- 
ites (cf.  Ps.  ex.  1),  also  with  the  ancient  Arabian  kings  (cf  Eich- 
horn,  Monumenta  Antiq.  Hist  Arab.  p.  2  2  0),  as  well  as  among  the 
Greeks  and  Eomans. — Vers.  20  sqq.  To  her  request,  "  Let  Abi- 
shag of  Shunem  be  given  to  Adonijah  thy  brother  for  a  wife  " 
(ns  ]F\\^  cf.  Ges.  §  143,  1,  a),  which  she  regarded  in  her  womanly 
simplicity  as  a  very  small  one  (•"'?l??),  he  replied  with  indignation, 
detecting  at  once  the  intrigues  of  Adonijah:  "And  why  dost  thou 
ask  Abishag  of  Shunem  for  Adonijah  ?  ask  for  him  the  kingdom, 
for  he  is  my  elder  brother;  and  indeed  for  him,  and  for  Abiathar 
the  priest,  and  for  Joab  the  son  of  Zeruiah."  The  repetition  of  V 
in  i-^^  (ver.  22),  for  the  purpose  of  linking  on  another  clause, 
answers  entirely  to  the  emotional  character  of  the  words.  "  For 
him,  and  for  Abiathar  and  Joab:"  Solomon  said  this,  because 
these  two  men  of  high  rank  had  supported  Adonijah's  rebellion 
and  wished  to  rule  under  his  name.  There  is  no  ground  for 
any  such  alterations  of  the  text  as  Thenius  proposes. — Although 
Abishag  had  been  only  David's  nurse,  in  the  eyes  of  the  people 
she  passed  as  his  concubine ;  and  among  the  Israelites,  just  as 
with  the  ancient  Persians  (Herod,  iii.  68),  taking  possession  of 
the  harem  of  a  deceased  king  was  equivalent  to  an  establish- 
ment of  the  claim  to  the  throne  (see  at  2  Sam.  xiL  8  and  iii. 
7,  8).  According  to  2  Sam.  xvi.  21,  this  cannot  have  been  un- 
known even  to  Bathsheba ;  but  as  Adonijah's  wOy  words  had 
disarmed  all  suspicion,  she  may  not  have  thought  of  this,  or  may 
perhaps  have  thought  that  Abishag  was  not  to  be  reckoned  as 
one  of  David's  concubines,  because  David  had  not  known  her 
(eh.  i.  4). — Vers.  23  sqq.  Solomon  thereupon  solemnly  swore 
(the  formula  of  an  oath,  and  the  ^3  introducing  the  oath,  as  in 
1  Sam.  xiv.  44,  etc.),  "  Adonijah  has  spoken  this  word  against  his 
own  life."  itrpaa,  at  the  cost  of  his  life,  as  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1 7, 
i.e.  at  the  hazard  of  his  life,  or  to  his  destruction.  Ver.  24. 
"  And  now,  as  truly  as  Jehovah  liveth,  who  hath  established  me 


CHAP.  II.  26,  27.  33 

and  set  me  on  the  throne  of  my  father  David,  and  hath  made 
me  a  house,  as  He  said  {verbatim,  2  Sam.  vii.  11) :  yea,  to-day 
shall  Adonijah  be  put  to  death."  Jehovah  established  Solomon, 
or  founded  him  firmly,  by  raising  him  to  the  throne  in  spite  of 
Adonijah's  usurpation.  In  ^2'3''tn"'l  the  central '  has  got  into  the 
text  through  a  copyist's  error.  r\\3.  7  nbi\  ix.  He  has  bestowed 
upon  me  a  family  or  posterity.  Solomon  had  already  one  son, 
viz.  Eehoboam,  about  a  year  old  (compare  xi  42  with  ch.  xiv. 
21  and  2  Chron.  xii  13).^ — ^Ver.  25.  Solomon  had  this  sentence 
immediately  executed  upon  Adonijah  by  Benaiah,  the  chief  of 
the  body-guard,  according  to  the  oriental  custom  of  both  ancient 
and  modem  times.  The  king  was  perfectly  just  in  doing  this. 
For  since  Adonijah,  even  after  his  first  attempt  to  seize  upon 
the  throne  had  been  forgiven  by  Solomon,  endeavoured  to 
secure  his  end  by  fresh  machinations,  duty  to  God,  who  had 
exalted  Solomon  to  the  throne,  demanded  that  the  rebel  should 
be  punished  with  all  the  severity  of  the  law,  without  regard 
to  blood-relationship. 

Vers.  26,  27.  Deposition  of  Abiathar. — The  conduct  of  Solo- 
mon towards  the  high  priest  Abiathar  is  a  proof  how  free  his 
actions  were  from  personal  revenge  or  too  great  severity.  Abia- 
thar had  also  forfeited  his  life  through  the  part  he  took  in 
Adonijah's  conspiracy  ;  but  Solomon  simply  sent  him  to  Ana- 
thoth  {i.e.  Anata  ;  see  at  Josh.  xviiL  24),  to  his  own  fields,  i.e. 
to  his  property  there,  telling  him,  "  Thou  art  indeed  a  man  of 
death,"  i.e.  thou  hast  deserved  to  die,  "  but  I  will  not  put  thee 
to  death  to-day,  because  thou  hast  borne  the  ark  of  Jehovah," 
namely,  both  on  the  occasion  of  its  solemn  conveyance  to  Jeru- 
salem (1  Chron.  xv.  11  sqq.)  and  also  on  Da\dd's  flight  from 
Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv.  24,  29),  that  is  to  say,  because  of  his 
high-priestly  dignity,  and  because  thou  didst  endure  aU  that  my 
father  endured,  i.e.  thou  didst  share  all  his  afflictions  and  suffer- 
ings, both  in  the  period  of  Saul's  persecution  (1  Sam.  xxii.  20 
sqq.,  xxiii.  8  sqq.),  and  during  the  rebellion  of  Absalom  (2  Sam. 
XV.  24  sqq.).  i<^nn  Di'n  (to-day)  puts  a  limit  upon  the  pardon, 
because   Solomon   could   not  foresee   whether  Abiathar  would 

^  When  Thenius  denies  this,  and  maintains  that  Rehoboam  cannot  have 
been  41  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  referring  to  his  discussion  at  ch. 
xiy.  21.  he  answers  himself,  inasmuch  as  at  ch.  xir.  21  he  demonstrates  the 
fallacy  of  the  objections  which  Cappellus  has  raised  against  the  correctness  of 
the  reading  "  41  years." 

O 


34  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

always  keep  quiet,  and  not  forfeit  his  life  again  l)y  fresh 
crimes.-' — Ver.  27.  The  banishment  of  Abiathar  to  his  own  private 
possession  involved  his  deposition  from  the  priesthood.  And,  as 
the  historian  adds,  thus  was  the  word  of  the  Lord  concerning 
the  house  of  Eli  fulfilled  (1  Sam.  ii.  30-33).  fc'.^'O^  corresponds 
to  the  New  Testament  'iva  TrXrjpcoOfj.  For  further  remarks  on 
this  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment,  see  at  1  Sam.  ii.  30  sqq.^  Thus 
was  the  high-priesthood  of  the  house  of  Eli  extinguished,  and 
henceforth  this  dignity  passed  through  Zadok  into  the  sole  pos- 
session of  the  line  of  Eleazar. 

Vers.  28—34.  Execution  of  Joab. — ^Wlien  the  report  (of  the 
execution  of  Adonijah  and  the  deposition  of  Abiathar)  came 
to  Joab,  he  fled  to  the  tent  of  Jehovah  (not  to  the  tabernacle, 
but  to  the  holy  tent  upon  Zion)  to  seek  protection  at  the  altar 
(see  at  ch.  i.  50).  The  words  nt53  ^h  .  .  .  nsr  '•3  are  intro- 
duced as  a  parenthesis  to  explain  Joab's  flight :  "  for  Joab  had 
leaned  after  Adonijah,"  i.e.  taken  his  side  Oins  nD3,  as  in  Ex. 
xxiii   2,  Judg.  ix.   3),  "  but  not    after  Absalom."  ^     There  is 

^  There  is  no  meaning  in  the  objection  of  Thenius,  that  Abiathar  did  not 
carry  the  ark  himself,  since  this  was  not  the  duty  of  the  high  priest.  For,  in 
the  first  place,  it  is  questionable  whether  Abiathar  did  not  lend  a  helping 
hand  at  the  removal  of  the  ark  during  Absalom's  conspiracy.  And,  secondly, 
the  duty  binding  upon  the  high  priest,  to  superintend  and  conduct  the 
removal  of  the  ark,  might  very  well  be  called  carrying  the  ark.  The  con- 
jecture, that  for  rtlN  we  should  read  liQX,  founders  on  the  preterite  nxb'J  ; 

*  T  ••  T  T   T 

for  Abiathar  had  not  only  Avorn  the  ephod  once  before,  but  he  wore  it  till 
the  very  hour  in  which  Solomon  deposed  him  from  his  office. 

2  Nothing  is  related  concerning  the  subsequent  fate  of  Abiathar,  since  the 
death  of  a  high  priest  who  had  been  deprived  of  his  ofiice  was  a  matter  of  no 
importance  to  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  At  any  rate,  he  would 
not  survive  his  deposition  very  long,  as  he  was  certainly  eighty  years  old 
already  (see  Comm.  on  Sam.  p.  267). — The  inference  which  Ewald  (^Gesch. 
iii.  pp.  269,  270)  draws  from  1  Sam.  ii.  31-36  as  to  the  manner  of  his  death, 
namely,  that  he  fell  by  the  sword,  is  one  of  the  numerous  fictions  founded 
upon  naturalistic  assumptions  with  which  this  scholar  has  ornamented  the 
biblical  history. 

8  Instead  of  DibB'2N  the  LXX.  (Cod.  Vat.),  Vulgate,  Syr.,  and  Arab, 
have  adopted  the  reading  nbl'B',  and  both  Thenius  and  Ewald  propose  to 
alter  the  text  accordingly.  But  whatever  plausibility  this  reading  may  have, 
especially  if  we  alter  the  preterite  ddJ  into  the  participle  ncb  after  the  vi» 
KiKhtx-ui  of  the  LXX.,  as  Thenius  does,  it  has  no  other  foundation  than  an 
arbitrary  rendering  of  the  LXX.,  who  thought,  but  quite  erroneously,  that 
the  allusion  to  Absalom  was  inapplicable  here.     For  ins  nt33,  to  take  a 


CHAP.  II.  28-34.  ZS 

no  foundation  in  the  biblical  text  for  the  conjecture,  that  Joab 
had  given  Adonijah  the  advice  to  ask  for  Abishag  as  his  wife, 
just  as  Ahithophel  had  given  similar  ad\dce  to  Absalom  (2  Sam. 
xvi.  21).  For  not  only  is  there  no  intimation  of  anything  of 
the  kind,  but  Solomon  punished  Joab  solely  because  of  his 
crimes  in  the  case  of  Abner  and  Amasa,  Moreover,  Abiathar 
was  also  deposed,  without  having  any  fresh  machinations  in 
favour  of  Adonijah  laid  to  his  charge.  The  punishment  of 
Adonijah  and  Abiathar  was  quite  sufficient  to  warn  Joab  of  his 
approaching  fate,  and  lead  him  to  seek  to  save  his  life  by  fleeing 
to  the  altar.  It  is  true  that,  according  to  Ex.  xxi  13,  14, 
the  altar  could  afford  no  protection  to  a  man  who  had  com- 
mitted two  murders.  But  he  probably  thought  no  more  of 
these  crimes,  which  had  been  committed  a  long  time  before,  but 
simply  of  his  participation  in  Adonijah's  usurpation  ;  and  he 
might  very  well  hope  that  religioiis  awe  would  keep  Solomon 
from  putting  liim  to  death  in  a  holy  place  for  such  a  crime  as 
that.  And  it  is  very  evident  that  this  hope  was  not  altogether 
a  visionary  one,  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  ver.  30,  when 
Joab  refused  to  leave  the  altar  at  the  summons  addressed  to  him 
in  the  name  of  the  king,  Benaiah  did  not  give  him  the  death- 
blow at  once,  but  informed  Solomon  of  the  fact  and  received 
his  further  commands.  Solomon,  however,  did  not  arrest  the 
course  of  justice,  but  ordered  him  to  be  put  to  death  there  and 
afterwards  buried.  The  burial  of  the  persons  executed  was  a 
matter  of  course,  as,  according  to  Deut.  xxi  23,  even  a  person 
who  had  been  hanged  was  to  be  buried  before  sunset.  WTien, 
therefore,  Solomon  gives  special  orders  for  the  burial  of  Joab, 
the  meaning  is  that  Benaiah  is  to  provide  for  the  burial  with 
distinct  reference  to  the  services  which  Joab  had  rendered  to  his 
father.  "  And  take  away  the  blood,  which  Joab  shed  without 
cause,  from  me  and  my  father's  house."  So  long  as  Joab  re- 
mained unpunished  for  the  double  murder,  the  blood-guiltiness 
rested  upon  the  king  and  his  house,  on  whom  the  duty  of 
punishment  devolved  (cf  Num.  xxxv.  30,  31  ;  Deut.  xix.  13). 
^f?  ""^1,  blood  without  cause,  i.e.  blood  shed  in  innocence.  On 
the  connection  of  the  adverb  with  the  substantive,  at  which 
Thenius  takes  offence,  comp.  Ges.  §  151, 1,  and  Ewald,  §  287,  d 

person's  side,  would  siiit  very  -well  in  the  case  of  Adonijah  and  Absalom,  bat 
not  in  that  of  Solomon,  whose  claim  to  the  throne  was  not  a  party  affair,  but 
had  been  previously  determined  by  God. 


36  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

— For  ver.  32,  compare  ver.  5.  The  words  of  Solomon  in  ver. 
S3a  point  back  to  the  curse  which  David  uttered  upon  Joab 
and  his  descendants  after  the  murder  of  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii. 
28,  29).  "  But  to  David,  and  his  seed,  and  his  house,  and  his 
throne,  let  there  be  salvation  for  ever  from  Jehovah."  This 
wish  sprang  from  a  conviction,  based  upon  2  Sam.  vii.  14,  that 
the  Lord  would  not  fulfil  His  promise  to  David  unless  his  suc- 
cessors upon  the  throne  exercised  right  and  justice  according  to 
the  command  of  the  Lord. — Ver.  34.  Benaiah  went  up  (-'V!!!),  in- 
asmuch as  the  altar  by  the  ark  of  the  covenant  stood  higher  up 
Mount  Zion  than  Solomon's  house.  Joab  was  buried  "  in  his 
house "  (i.e.  in  the  tomb  prepared  in  his  house,  either  in  the 
court  or  in  the  garden :  cf.  1  Sam.  xxv.  1),  "  in  the  desert," 
probably  the  wilderness  of  Judah,  as  Joab's  mother  was  a  step- 
sister of  David,  and  therefore  probably  dwelt  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Bethlehem. — Ver.  35.  Solomon  appointed  Benaiah 
commander-in-chief  in  the  place  of  Joab,  and  put  Zadok  in 
Abiathar's  place  (cf.  ch.  i.  8,  9). 

Vers.  36-46.  Punishment  of  Sliimei. — Solomon  thereupon 
ordered  Shimei  to  come,  probably  from  Bahurim,  where  his 
home  was  (2  Sam.  xvi.  5),  and  commanded  him  to  build  him- 
self a  house  in  Jerusalem  to  dwell  in,  and  not  to  leave  the  city 
"  any  whither  "  (njxi  n:N),  threatening  him  with  death  if  ever 
he  should  cross  the  brook  Kidron.  The  valley  of  Kidron  is 
mentioned  as  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  city  with  an  allusion 
to  the  fact,  that  Bahurim  was  to  the  east  of  Jerusalem  towards 
the  desert. — Ver.  38.  Shimei  vowed  obedience,  and  that  on 
oath,  as  is  supplementarily  observed  in  ver.  42,  though  it  has 
been  arbitrarily  interpolated  by  the  LXX.  here  ;  and  he  kept  his 
word  a  considerable  time. — ^Vers.  39,  40.  But  after  the  lapse 
of  three  years,  when  two  slaves  fled  to  Gatli  to  king  Achish, 
with  whom  David  had  also  sought  and  found  refuge  (1  Sam. 
xxvii.  2,  compare  ch.  xxi.  1 1  sqq.),  he  started  for  Gath  as  soon  as 
he  knew  this,  and  fetched  them  back. — Vers.  41  sqq.  When  this 
was  reported  to  Solomon,  he  sent  for  Shimei  and  charged  him 
with  the  breach  of  his  command  :  "  Did  I  not  swear  to  thee  by 
Jehovah,  and  testify  to  thee,  etc.  ?  Why  hast  thou  not  kept 
the  oath  of  Jehovah  (the  oath  sworn  by  Jeliovah)  .  .?" — Ver.  44. 
He  then  reminded  him  of  the  evil  which  he  had  done  to  his 
father :  "  Thou  knowest  all  the  evil,  which  thy  heart  knoweth 
{i.e.  which  thy  conscience  must  tell  thee) ;  and  now  Jehovah 


CHAP.  IIL 


37 


returns  the  evil  upon  thy  head,"  namely,  by  decreeing  the 
punishment  of  death,  which  he  deserved  for  blaspheming  the 
anointed  of  the  Lord  (2  Sam.  xvi.  9). — Ver.  45.  "And  king 
Solomon  wiU  be  blessed,  and  the  throne  of  David  be  established 
before  Jehovah  for  ever,"  namely,  because  the  king  does  justice 
(compare  the  remark  on  ver.  33). — ^Ver.  46.  Solomon  then 
ordered  him  to  be  executed  by  Benaiah.  This  punishment  was 
also  just.  As  Solomon  had  put  Shimei's  life  in  his  own  hand 
by  imposing  upon  him  confinement  in  Jerusalem,  and  Shimei 
had  promised  on  oath  to  obey  the  king's  command,  the  breach 
of  his  oath  was  a  crime  for  which  he  had  no  excuse.  There  is 
no  force  at  all  in  the  excuses  which  some  commentators  adduce 
in  his  favour,  founded  upon  the  money  which  his  slaves  had 
cost  him,  and  the  wish  to  recover  possession  of  them,  which  was 
a  rifTht  one  in  itself.  If  Shimei  had  wished  to  remain  faithful 
to  his  oath,  he  might  have  informed  the  king  of  the  flight  of  his 
slaves,  have  entreated  the  king  that  they  might  be  brought  back, 
and  have  awaited  the  king's  decision ;  but  he  had  no  right  thus 
lightly  to  break  the  promise  given  on  oath.  By  the  breach  of 
his  oath  he  had  forfeited  his  life.  And  this  is  the  first  thing 
with  which  Solomon  charges  him,  without  his  being  able  to 
offer  any  excuse ;  and  it  is  not  till  afterwards  that  he  adduces 
as  a  second  fact  in  confirmation  of  the  justice  of  his  procedure, 
the  wickedness  that  he  practised  towards  his  father. — The  last 
clause,  "  and  the  kingdom  was  established  by  (T^)  Solomon," 
is  attached  to  the  following  chapter  in  the  Cod.  Ai  of  the  LXX. 
(in  the  Cod.  Vat.  it  is  wanting,  or  rather  its  place  is  supplied 
by  a  long  interpolation),  in  the  Vulgate,  and  in  the  SjTiac ; 
and  indeed  rightly  so,  as  Thenius  has  shown,  not  merely  be- 
cause of  the  PI  in  ch.  iii  2,  but  also  because  of  its  form  as  a 
circumstantial  clause,  to  which  the  follo-vNTug  account  (ch.  iii. 
1  sqq.)  is  appended. 

CH.A.P.  in.    SOLOMON'S  MARRIAGE  ;   WORSHIP  AND  SACRIFICE  AT 
GIBEON  ;    AND  WISE  JUDICIAL  SENTENCE. 

The  establishment  of  the  government  in  the  hands  of  Solomon 
Laving  been  noticed  in  cL  iL,  the  history  of  his  reign  com- 
mences with  an  account  of  his  marriage  to  an  Egyptian  princess, 
and  with  a  remark  concerning  the  state  of  the  kingdom  at  the 
beginning  of  his  reign  (vers.  1-3).     There  then  follows  a  de- 


38  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

scription  of  the  solemn  sacrifice  and  prayer  at  Gibeon,  by  which 
Solomon  sought  to  give  a  religious  consecration  to  his  govern- 
ment, and  to  secure  the  assistance  of  the  Lord  and  His  blessing 
upon  it,  and  obtained  the  fulfilment  of  his  desire  (vers.  4-15). 
And  then,  as  a  practical  proof  of  the  spirit  of  his  government, 
we  have  the  sentence  through  which  he  displayed  the  wisdom 
of  his  judicial  decisions  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people  (vers. 
16-28). 

Vers.   1-3.  Solomon's  marriage  and  the  religious  state  of  the 
kingdom. — ^Ver.  1.  When  Solomon  had  well  secured  his  posses- 
sion of  the  throne  (ch.  ii.  46),  he  entered  into  alliance  with 
Pharaoh,  by  taking  his  daughter  as  his  wife.     This  Pharaoh  of 
Egypt  is  supposed  by  Winer,  Ewald,  and  others  to  have  been 
Psusennes,  the  last  king  of  the  twenty-first  (Tanitic)  dynasty, 
who  reigned  thirty-five  years ;  since  the  first  king  of  the  twenty- 
second  (Bubastic)   dynasty,  Sesonchis  or  Sheshonk,  was  certainly 
the   Shishak  who    conquered   Jerusalem  in    the   fifth  year  of 
Eehoboam's  reign  (ch.  xiv.  25,  26).     The  alliance  by  marriage 
with  the  royal  family  of  Egypt  presupposes   that  Egypt  was 
desirous  of  cultivating  friendly  relations  with  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  which  had  grown  into  a  power  to  be  dreaded ;  although, 
as  we  know  nothing  more  of  the  history  of  Egypt  at  that  time 
than  the  mere  names  of  the  kings  (as  given  by  Manetho),  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  what  may  have  been  the  more  precise 
grounds  which  led  the   reigning  king   of  Egypt  to   seek  the 
friendship  of  Israel.     There  is,  at  any  rate,  greater  probability  in 
this  supposition  than  in  that  of  Thenius,  who  conjectures  that 
Solomon  contracted  this  marriage  because  he  saw  the  necessity 
of  entering  into  a  closer  relationship  with  this  powerful  neigh- 
bour, who  had  a  perfectly  free  access  to  Palestine.     The  con- 
clusion of  this  marriage  took  place  in  the  first  year  of  Solomon's 
reign,  though  probably  not  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  reign, . 
but  not  tni  after  his  buildings  had  been  begun,  as  we  may  infer 
from  the  expression  niJ3^  in1)3  ly  (untO.  he  had  made  an  end  of 
building).     Moreover,  Solomon  had  already  married  iN'aamah  the 
Ammonitess  before  ascending  the  tlirone,  and  had  had  a  son  by 
her  (compare  ch.  xiv.  21  with  xi.  42,  43). — Marriage  with  an 
Egyptian  princess  was  not  a  transgression  of  the  law,  as  it  was 
only  marriages  with   Canaanitish  women  that  were  expressly 
prohibited  (Ex.  xxxiv.  16  ;  Deut.  vii.  3),  whereas  it  was  allow- 
able to  marry  even  foreign  women  taken  in  war  (Deut.  xxi.  10 


CHAP.  III.  1-3.  39 

sqq.).     At  the  same  time,  it  was  only  when  the  foreign  wives 
renounced  idolatry  and  confessed  their  faith  in  Jehovah,  that 
such  marriages  were  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  law. 
And  we  may  assume  that  this  was  the  case  even  with  Pharaoh's 
daughter;  because  Solomon  adhered  so  faithfully  to  the  Lord 
during  the  first  years  of  his  reign,  that  he  would  not  have  tole- 
rated any  idolatry  in  his  neighbourhood,  and  we  cannot  find  any 
trace  of  Egjrptian  idolatry  in  Israel  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and, 
lastly,  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh  is  expressly  distinguished  in  ch. 
XL  1  from  the  foreign  wives  who  tempted  Solomon  to  idolatry 
in  his  old  age.      The  assertion  of  Seb.  Schmidt  and  Thenius 
to  the  contrary  rests  upon  a  false  interpretation  of  ch.  xi  1. — 
"  And  he  brought  her  into  the  city  of  David,  till  he  had  finished 
the  building  of  his  palace,"  etc.     Into  the  city  of  David :  i.e.  not 
into  the  palace  in  which  his  father  had  dwelt,  as  Thenius  arbi- 
trarily interprets  it  in  opposition  to  2  Chron.  ^•iii.  11,  but  into  a 
house  in  the  city  of  David  or  Jerusalem,  from  which  he  brought 
her  up  into  the  house  appointed  for  her  after  the  building  of  his 
own  palace  was  finished  (ch.  ix.  24).     The  building  of  the  house 
of  Jehovah  is  mentioned  as  well,  because  the  sacred  tent  for  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  was  set  up  in  the  palace  of  David  until  the 
temple  was  finished,  and  the  temple  was  not  consecrated  till 
after  the  completion  of  the  building  of  the  palace  (see  at  ch. 
viiL  1).     By  the  building  of  "  the  wall  of  Jerusalem"  we  are  to 
understand  a  stronger  fortification,  and  possibly  also  the  extension 
of  the  city  wall  (see  at  ch.  xi.  27). — ^Ver.  2.  "Only  the  people 
sacrificed  upon  high  places,  because  there  was  not  yet  a  house 
built  for  the  name  of  Jehovah  imtil  those  days."     The  limiting 
PI,  only,  by  which  this  general  account  of  tlie  existing  condition 
of  the  religious  worship  is  appended  to  what  precedes,  may  be 
accounted  for  from  the  antithesis  to  the  strengthening  of  the 
kingdom  by  Solomon  mentioned  in  ch.  ii.  46.     The  train  of 
thought  is  the  following:  It  is  true  that  Solomon's  authority 
was  firmly  established  by  the  punishment  of  the  rebels,  so  that 
he  was  able  to  ally  himseK  by  marriage  with  the  king  of  Egypt ; 
but  just  as  he  was  obliged  to  bring  his  Egyptian  wife  into  the 
city  of  David,  because  the  building  of  his  palace  was  not  yet 
finished,  so  the  people,  and  (according  to  ver.  3)  even  Solomon 
liimself,  were  only  able  to  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  at  that  time  upon 
altars  on  the  high  places,  because  the  temple  was  not  yet  built* 
The  participle  Q'naTO  denotes  the  continuation  cf  this  religious 


40  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

condition  (see  Ewald,  §  168,  c).  The  riioa,  or  high  places/  were 
places  of  sacrifice  and  prayer,  which  were  built  upon  eminences 
or  hills,  because  men  thought  they  were  nearer  the  Deity  there, 
and  which  consisted  in  some  cases  probably  of  an  altar  only, 
though  as  a  rule  there  was  an  altar  with  a  sanctuary  built 
by  the  side  (nion  n^3,  ch.  xiii.  32  ;  2  Kings  xvii.  29,  32,  xxiiL 
19),  so  that  no3  frequently  stands  for  noa  n"'3  (e,g,  ch.  xi.  7, 
xiv.  23 ;  2  Kings  xxi.  3,  xxiii.  8),  and  the  noa  is  also  dis- 
tinguished from  the  natip  (2  Kings  xxiii.  1 5  ;  2  Chron.  xiv.  2). 
These  high  places  were  consecrated  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
and  essentially  different  from  the  high  places  of  the  Canaanites 
which  were  consecrated  to  Baal.  Nevertheless  sacrificing  upon 
these  high  places  was  opposed  to  the  law,  according  to  which 
the  place  which  the  Lord  Himself  had  chosen  for  the  revelation 
of  His  name  was  the  only  place  where  sacrifices  were  to  be 
offered  (Lev.  xvii.  3  sqq.) ;  and  therefore  it  is  excused  here  on 
the  ground  that  no  house  (temple)  had  yet  been  built  to  the 
name  of  the  Lord. — Ver.  3.  Even  Solomon,  although  he  loved 
the  Lord,  walking  in  the  statutes  of  his  father  David,  i.e.  accord- 
ing to  ch.  ii.  3,  in  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  as  they  are 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  upon 
high  places.  Before  the  building  of  the  temple,  more  especially 
since  the  tabernacle  had  lost  its  significance  as  the  central  place 
of  the  gracious  presence  of  God  among  His  people,  through  the 
removal  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  worship  of  the  high 
places  was  unavoidable ;  although  even  afterwards  it  still  con- 
tinued as  a  forbidden  cultus,  and  could  not  be  tlioroughly  ex- 
terminated even  by  the  most  righteous  kings  (ch.  xxii.  24 ; 
2  Kings  xii.  4,  xiv.  4,  xv.  4,  35). 

*  The  opinion  of  Bbttcher  and  Thenius,  that  nD3  signifies  a  "sacred 
coppice,"  is  only  based  upon  untenable  etymological  combinations,  and  can- 
not be  proved.  And  Ewald's  view  is  equally  unfounded,  viz.  that  "  high 
places  were  an  old  Cananaean  species  of  sanctuary,  which  at  that  time  had 
become  common  in  Israel  also,  and  consisted  of  a  tall  stone  of  a  conical  shape, 
as  the  symbol  of  the  Holy  One,  and  of  the  real  high  place,  viz.  an  altar,  a 
sacred  tree  or  grove,  or  even  an  image  of  the  one  God  as  well "  (Gesch.  iii.  p. 
390).  For,  on  the  one  hand,  it  cannot  be  shown  that  the  tall  stone  of  a  conical 
shape  existed  even  in  the  case  of  the  Canaanitish  hamoth,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  impossible  to  adduce  a  shadow  of  a  proof  that  the  Israelitish 
hamoth,  which  were  dedicated  to  Jehovah,  were  constructed  precisely  after  tha 
pattern  of  the  Baal's-ftamotA  of  the  Canaanites. 


CHAP.  IIT.  4-15.  41 

Vers.  4-15.  Solomon's  Sacrifice  axd  Dream  at  Gibeon 
(cf.  2  Chron.  i.  1-13). — To  implore  the  divine  blessing  upon 
his  reign,  Solomon  offered  to  the  Lord  at  Gibeon  a  great  sacri- 
fice— a  thousand  burnt-offerings  ;  and,  according  to  2  Chron.  L  2, 
the  representatives  of  the  whole  nation  took  part  in  this  sacri- 
ficial festival  At  that  time  the  great  or  principal  hamah  was 
at  Gibeon  (the  present  el  Jib  ;  see  at  Josh.  ix.  3),  namely,  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  (2  Chron.  i.  3),  which  is  called  ■"'oan,  because 
s  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  with  which  Jehovah  had  bound  up  EQs 
gracious  presence,  was  not  there  now.  "  Upon  that  altar,"  i.e. 
upon  the  altar  of  the  great  hamah  at  Gibeon,  the  brazen  altar 
of  burnt-offering  in  the  tabernacle  (2  Chron.  i.  6). — Vers.  5  sqq. 
The  one  thing  wanting  in  the  place  of  sacrifice  at  Gibeon,  viz. 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  with  the  gracious  presence  of  Jehovah, 
was  supplied  by  the  Lord  in  the  case  of  this  sacrifice  by  a  direct 
revelation  in  a  dream,  which  Solomon  received  in  the  night  fol- 
lowing the  sacrifice.  There  is  a  connection  between  the  question 
which  God  addressed  to  Solomon  in  the  dream,  "  What  shall  I 
give  thee  ?"  and  the  object  of  the  sacrifice,  viz.  to  seek  the  help 
of  God  for  his  reign.  Solomon  commences  his  prayer  in  ver.  6 
with  an  acknowledgment  of  the  great  favoxir  which  the  Lord 
had  shown  to  his  father  David,  and  had  continued  till  now  by 
raising  his  son  to  his  throne  (p\^  Ci*3,  as  it  is  this  day :  c£ 
1  Sam.  xxii.  8,  Deut.  viiL  18,  etc.)  ;  and  then,  in  vers.  7—9, 
in  the  consciousness  of  his  incapacity  for  the  right  administra- 
tion of  government  over  so  numerous  a  people,  he  asks  the  Lord 
for  an  obedient  heart  and  for  wisdom  to  rule  His  people.  i\J^'S\ 
introduces  the  petition,  the  reasons  assigned  for  which  are,  (1) 
his  youth  and  inexperience,  and  (2)  the  greatness  or  multitude 
of  the  nation  to  be  governed.  I  am,  says  he,  Pi?  "»y3,  i.e.  an 
inexperienced  youth  (Solomon  was  only  about  twenty  years 
old)  ;  "  I  know  not  to  go  out  and  in,"  i.e.  how  to  behave  my- 
seK  as  king,  or  govern  the  people  (for  N-J  rixv  compare  the  note 
on  Num.  xxvil  1 7).  At  ver.  8  he  describes  the  magnitude  of 
the  nation  in  words  which  recall  to  mind  the  divine  promises  in 
Gen.  xui.  16  and  xxxii.  13,  to  indicate  how  gloriously  the  Lord 
has  fulfilled  the  promises  which  He  made  to  the  patriarchs. 
— ^Ver.  9.  nri3^,  therefore  give.  The  prayer  (commencing  with 
nnjn  in  ver.  7)  is  appended  in  the  form  of  an  apodosis  to  the 
circumstantial  clauses  'lil  '2Jsi  and  'lii  ^~3jn,  which  contain  the 
groimds  of  the  petition.     Vob'  3^,  a  hearing  heart,  i.c.  a  heart 


42  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

giving  heed  to  the  law  and  right  of  God,  "  to  judge  Thy 
people,  (namely)  to  distinguish  between  good  and  evil  {i.e.  right 
and  wrong)."  "For  who  could  judge  this  Thy  numerous  people," 
sc.  unless  Thou  gavest  him  intelligence  ?  ^33^  heavy  in  multi- 
tude :  in  the  Chronicles  this  is  explained  by  ^^3. — ^Vers.  1 0  sqq. 
This  prayer  pleased  God  well.  "  Because  thou  hast  asked  this, 
and  hast  not  asked  for  thyself  long  life,  nor  riches,  nor  the 
life  {i.e.  the  destruction)  of  thy  foes,"  all  of  them  good  things, 
which  the  world  seeks  to  obtain  as  the  greatest  prize,  "  but 
intelligence  to  hear  judgment  {i.e.  to  foster  it,  inasmuch  as  the 
administration  of  justice  rests  upon  a  conscientious  hearing  of 
the  parties),  behold  I  have  done  according  to  thy  word"  {i.e.  ful- 
filled thy  request :  the  perfect  is  used,  inasmuch  as  the  hearken- 
ing has  already  begun ;  for  niin  in  this  connection  compare  Ewald, 
§307,  e),  "  and  given  thee  a  wise  and  understanding  heart."  The 
w^ords  which  foUow,  "  so  that  there  has  been  none  like  thee 
before  thee,"  etcj.,  are  not  to  be  restricted  to  the  kings  of  Israel, 
as  Clericus  supposes,  but  are  to  be  understood  quite  universally 
as  applying  to  all  mankind  (cf.  ch.  v.  9-11). — Vers.  13,  14.  In 
addition  to  this,  according  to  the  promise  that  to  him  who  seeks 
first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness  all  other  things 
shall  be  added  (Matt.  vi.  33),  God  will  also  give  him  the 
earthly  blessings,  for  which  he  has  not  asked,  and  that  in  great 
abundance,  viz.  riches  and  honour  such  as  no  king  of  the  earth 
has  had  before  him ;  and  if  he  adhere  faithfully  to  God's  com- 
mandments, long  life  also  (''^3"!>^']"!,  in  this  case  I  have  lengthened). 
This  last  promise  was  not  fulfilled,  because  Solomon  did  not 
observe  the  condition  (cf.  ch.  xi.  42). — 'Ver.  15.  Then  Solomon 
awoke,  and  behold  it  was  a  dream;  i.e.  a  dream  produced  by  God, 
a  revelation  by  dream,  or  a  divine  appearance  in  a  dream.  Di^'H 
as  in  Num.  xii.  6. — Solomon  thanked  the  Lord  again  for  this 
promise  after  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  by  offering  burnt-offerings 
and  thank-offerings  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  i.e.  upon 
the  altar  at  the  tent  erected  for  the  ark  upon  Zion,  and  pre- 
pared a  meal  for  all  his  servants  (viz.  his  court-servants),  i.e. 
a  sacrificial  meal  of  the  Ci''p^K'. — This  sacrificial  festival  upon 
Zion  is  omitted  in  the  Chronicles,  as  well  as  the  following 
account  in  vers.  16—28  ;  not,  however,  because  in  the  chroni- 
cler's opinion  no  sacrifices  had  any  legal  validity  but  such  as 
were  offered  upon  the  altar  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle,  as  Thenius 
fancies,  though  without  observing  the  account  in  1  Chron.  xxL 


CHAP.  III.  16-28 ;    IV.-V.  14.  43 

26  sqq.,  which  overthrows  this  assertion,  but  because  this  sacri- 
ficial festival  had  no  essential  significance  in  relation  to  Solo- 
mon's reign. 

Vers.  16-28.  Solomon's  Judicial  "WiSDOiL — As  a  proof  that 
the  Lord  had  bestowed  upon  Solomon  unusual  judicial  wisdom, 
there  is  appended  a  decision  of  his  in  a  very  difficult  case,  in 
which  Solomon  had  shown  extraordinary  intelligence.  Two 
harlots  living  together  in  one  house  had  each  given  birth  to  a 
child,  and  one  of  them  had  "  overlaid"  her  child  in  the  night 
while  asleep  (v^y  '^??*^'  "'5?'^,  because  she  had  lain  upon  it),  and 
had  then  placed  her  dead  child  in  the  other  one's  bosom  and 
taken  her  living  child  away.  When  the  other  woman  looked 
the  next  morning  at  the  child  lj"ing  in  her  bosom,  she  saw  that 
it  was  not  her  own  but  the  other  woman's  child,  whereas  the 
latter  maintained  the  opposite.  As  they  eventually  referred  the 
matter  in  dispute  to  the  king,  and  each  one  declared  that  the 
living  child  was  her  own,  the  king  ordered  a  sword  to  be 
brought,  and  the  living  child  to  be  cat  in  two,  and  a  half  given 
to  each.  Then  the  mother  of  the  living  child,  "  because  her 
bowels  yearned  upon  her  son,"  -Le.  her  maternal  love  was  ex- 
cited, cried  out,  "  Give  her  (the  other)  the  li\ing  child,  but  do 
not  slay  it ;"  whereas  the  latter  said,  "  It  shall  be  neither  mine 
nor  tliine,  cut  it  in  pieces." — ^Ver.  27.  Solomon  saw  from  this 
which  was  the  mother  of  the  living  child,  and  handed  it  over  to 
her.^ — ^Ver.  28.  This  judicial  decision  con\'inced  all  the  people 
that  Solomon  was  endowed  with  divine  wisdom  for  the  admini- 
stration of  justice. 

CHAP.  IV.-V.  14.    SOLOMON'S  MINISTERS  OF  STATK       HIS  REGAL 
SPLENT)OUR  AND  WISDOM. 

Ch.  iv.  contains  a  list  of  the  chief  ministers  of  state  (vers. 
2-6),  and  of  the  twelve  officers  placed  over  the  land  (vers.  7-2  0), 
which  is  inserted  here  to  give  an  idea  of  the  might  and  glory  of 

^  Grotias  observes  on  this  :  "  The  ayx'**"*  of  Solomon  was  shown  by  this 
to  be  very  great.  There  is  a  certain  similarity  in  the  account  of  Ariophamis, 
king  of  the  Thracians,  who,  when  three  persons  claimed  to  be  the  sons  of  the 
king  of  the  Cimmerii,  decided  that  he  was  the  son  who  would  not  obey  the 
command  to  cast  javelins  at  his  father's  corpse.  The  account  is  given  by 
Diodorus  Siculiis." 


44  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  kingdom  of  Israel  under  Solomon's  reign.  So  far  as  the 
contents  are  concerned,  this  list  belongs  to  the  middle  portion  of 
the  reign  of  Solomon,  as  we  may  see  from  the  fact  that  two  of 
the  officers  named  had  daughters  of  Solomon  for  their  wives 
(vers.  11,  15),  whom  they  could  not  possibly  have  married  till 
the  later  years  of  Solomon's  life. 

Vers.  1-6.  The  Chief  Ministers  of  State. — The  list  is  intro- 
duced in  ver.  1  by  the  general  remark,  that  "  king  Solomon  was 
king  over  all  Israel." — ^Ver.   2.  The  first  of  the  D"'"'.^,  princes, 
i.e.  chief  ministers  of  state  or  dignitaries,  mentioned  here  is  not 
the  commander-in-chief,  as  under  the  warlike  reign  of  David 
(2   Sam.  viii.  1 6,  xx.  2  3),  but,  in  accordance  with  the  peaceful 
rule  of  Solomon,  the  administrator  of  the  kingdom  (or  prime 
minister)  :  "  Azariah  the  son  of  Zadok  was  \<}^>}"  i.e.  not  the 
priest,  but  the  administrator  of  the  kingdom,  the  representative 
of  the  king  before  the  people ;  like  !i]3  in  ver.  5,  where  this  word 
is  interpreted  by  "n?^!?  ^r).,  with  this  difference,  however,  arising 
from  the  article  before  ipS,  that  Azariah  was  the  Kohcn  par 
excellence,  that  is  to  say,  held  the  first  place  among  the  confidential 
counsellors  of  the  king,  so  that  his  dignity  was  such  as  befitted 
the  office  of  an  administrator  of  the  kingdom.      Compare  the 
explanation  of  1^3  at  2  Sam.  viii.  18.     The  view  of  the  Vulgate, 
Luther,  and  others,  which  has  been  revived  by  Thenius,  namely, 
that  1^3  is  to  be  connected  as  a  genitive  with  pi^J-n^  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  accents,  "  Azariah  the  son  of  Zadok  the  priest,"  is 
incorrect,  and  does  not  even  yield  any  sense,  since  the  connection 
of  these  words  with  the  following  ElicJioirjjJi,  etc.,  is  precluded  by 
the  absence  of  the  copula  Vav,  which  would  be  indispensable  if 
Azariah  had  held  the  same  office  as  the  two  brothers  Elichoreph 
and  Achijah.^     Moreover,  Azariah   the  son  of  Zadok  cannot  be 
a  grandson  of  Zadok  the  high  priest,  i.e.  a  son  of  Ahimaaz  the 
son  of  Zadok,  as  many  infer  from  1  Chron.  v.  34,  35  (vi.  8,  9) ; 
for,  apart  from  the  fact  that  Zadok's  grandson  can  hardly  have 
been  old  enough  at  the  time  for  Solomon  to  invest  him  witli 

^  The  objection  by  which  Tlienius  tries  to  set  aside  this  argument,  which 
has  been  already  advanced  by  Hoiibigant,  viz.  that  "if  the  first  (Azariah)  was 
not  also  a  state  scribe,  the  copula  would  be  inserted,  as  it  is  everywhere  else 
from  ver.  4  onwards  when  a  new  office  is  mentioned,"  proves  nothing  at  all, 
because  the  copula  is  also  omitted  in  ver.  3,  where  the  new  office  of  "i^STO 
is  introduced. 


CHAP.  IV.  1-6.  45 

the  chief  dignity  in  the  kingdom,  which  would  surely  be  con- 
ferred upon  none  but  men  of  mature  years,  we  can  see  no  reason 
why  the  Azariah  mentioned  here  should  not  be  called  the  son  of 
Ahimaaz.  If  the  Zadok  referred  to  here  was  the  high  priest  of 
that  name,  Azariah  can  only  have  been  a  brother  of  Ahimaaz. 
And  there  is  no  real  difficulty  in  the  way,  since  the  name  Azariah 
occurs  three  times  in  the  line  of  high  priests  (1  Chron.  v.  36, 
39),  and  therefore  was  by  no  means  rare. — Ver.  3.  Elichoreph 
and  Achijah,  sons  of  Sliisha,  who  had  held  the  same  office 
under  David,  were  secretaries  of  state  (D^isb;  see  at  2  Sam. 
viiL  17  and  xx.  25,  where  the  different  names  X'^C'  =  N'C'  and 
npb'  are  also  discussed). — Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Ahilud  was  the 
chancellor,  as  he  had  already  been  in  the  time  of  Da\id  (2  Sam, 
viii.  17  and  xx.  24).  The  rendering  of  Thenius,  "whilst 
Jehoshaphat  was  chancellor,"  is  grammatically  impossible. — 
Yqv.  4.  On  Benaiah,  compare  ch.  ii.  35  and  the  Commentary 
on  2  Sam.  xxiii.  20.  On  Zadok  and  Ahiathar,  see  at  2  Sam. 
viii.  17.  It  appears  strange  that  Abiathar  should  be  named  as 
priest,  i.e.  as  high  priest,  along  with  Zadok,  since  Solomon  had 
deposed  him  from  the  priestly  office  (ch.  ii  27,  35),  and  we 
cannot  imagine  any  subsequent  pardon.  The  only  possible 
explanation  is  that  proposed  by  Theodoret,  namely,  that  Solo- 
mon had  only  deprived  him  of  the  apx^i,  i-e.  of  the  priest's 
office,  but  not  of  the  lepcoavvT)  or  priestly  dignity,  because  this 
was  hereditary.^ — ^Ver.  5.  Azariah  the  son  of  K'athan  was  over 
the  2'?^'^,  i.e.  the  twelve  officers  named  in  vers.  7  sqq.  Zahud 
the  son  of  Nathan  was  1^3  (not  the  son  of  "  Xathan  the  priest," 
as  Luther  and  many  others  render  it).  J^^  is  explained  by  the 
epithet  appended,  ^?Qn  njn :  privy  councillor,  i.e.  confidential 
adviser  of  the  king.  Nathan  is  not  the  prophet  of  that  name, 
as  Thenius  supposes,  but  the  son  of  David  mentioned  in  2  Sam. 
v.  14.  Azariah  and  Zabud  were  therefore  nephews  of  Solomon. 
— ^Ver.  6.  Ahishar  was  n)2n  bv^  over  the  palace,  i.c.  governor 
of  the  palace,  or  minister  of  the  king's  household  (compare 
ch.  xvi.  9,  2  Elngs  xviii.  18,  and  Isa.  xxii.  15),  an  office  met 
with  for  the  first  time  under  Solomon.  Adoniram,  probably 
the  same  person  as  Adoram  in  2  Sam.  xx.  24,  was  chief  over- 
seer of  the  tributary  service.  He  was  so  in  the  time  of  David 
also. 

TriP  tipx'Ki'  ei^itKctro,  ov  t^;  Upucvjiv,;  iyvftvuasu'  rr^p  yap  t^j  iipuevnis  i^imt 
oix  sx  x^ipctroitix;,  «X>.'  U  yoviKT,;  uxo*  otxlo^Ki- — ThzODORET. 


4:6  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Vers.  7-19.  Solomon's  Official  Persons  and  their  Dis- 
tricts.— ^Ver.  7.  Solomon  had  (appointed)  twelve  C^^fp  over  all 
Israel,  who  provided  0''r'p3)  for  the  king  and  his  house,  i.e.  sup- 
plied provisions  for  the  necessities  of  the  court.  These  prefects 
are  not  to  he  regarded  as  "  chamberlains,"  or  administrators  of 
the  royal  domains  (IMichaelis  and  Ewald),  for  these  are  men- 
tioned in  1  Chron.  xxvii.  25  sqq.  under  a  different  title.  They 
are  "general  receivers  of  taxes,"  or  "  chief  tax-collectors,"  as 
Eosenmiiller  expresses  it,  who  levied  the  king's  duties  or  taxes, 
which  consisted  in  the  East,  as  they  still  do  to  the  present  time, 
for  the  most  part  of  natural  productions,  or  the  produce  of  the 
land,  and  not  of  money  payments  as  in  the  West,  and  delivered 
them  at  the  royal  kitchen  (Eosenmiiller,  A.  und  N.  Moryenland, 
iii.  p.  166).  It  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  explanation  given 
by  Josephus,  '^jefiove^  koI  arpaTr)>yot,  that  they  exercised  a  kind 
of  government,  as  Thenius  supposes,  since  this  explanation  is 
nothing  but  a  subjective  conjecture.  .  "  One  month  in  the  year 
was  it  every  one's  duty  (TIN  by  n\T)  to  provide."  The  districts 
assigned  to  the  twelve  prefects  coincide  only  partially  with  the 
territories  of  the  tribes,  because  the  land  was  probably  divided 
among  them  according  to  its  greater  or  smaller  productiveness. 
Moreover,  the  order  in  which  the  districts  are  enumerated  is 
not  a  geographical  one,  but  probably  follows  the  order  in  which 
the  different  prefects  had  to  send  the  natural  productions  month 
by  month  for  the  maintenance  of  the  king's  court.  The  de- 
scription begins  with  Ephraim  in  ver.  8,  then  passes  over  in 
ver.  9  to  the  territory  of  Dan  to  the  west  of  it,  in  ver.  1 0  to  the 
territory  of  Judah  and  Simeon  on  the  south,  in  vers.  1 1  and  1 2 
to  the  territory  of  Manasseh  on  this  side  from  the  Mediterranean 
to  the  Jordan,  then  in  vers.  13  and  14  to  the  territory  of 
Manasseh  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,  thence  back  again  in 
vers.  1 5  and  1 6  to  the  northern  parts  of  the  land  on  this  side, 
viz.  the  territories  of  Naphtali  and  Asher,  and  thence  farther 
south  to  Issachar  in  ver.  17,  and  Benjamin  in  ver.  18,  closing 
at  last  in  ver.  19  with  Gilead. — Vers.  8  sqq.  In  the  names  of 
the  prefects  we  are  struck  with  the  fact,  that  in  the  case  of  five 
of  them  the  names  given  are  not  their  own  but  their  fathers' 
names.  It  is  very  improbable  that  the  proper  names  should 
have  dropped  out  five  times  (as  Clericus,  Michaelis,  and  others 
suppose) ;  and  consequently  there  is  simply  the  assumption  left, 
that  the  persons  in  question  bore  their  fathers'  names  with  Ben 


CHAP.  IV.  7-19.  47 

prefixed  as  their  own  proper  names :  Benhur,  Bendekcr,  etc.,  after 
the  analogy  of  Benclianan  in  1  Chron.  iv.  20  and  others,  al- 
though such  a  proper  name  as  Ben-AbiTiadab  (ver.  11)  appears 
very  strange.  Benhur  was  stationed  on  the  mountains  of 
Ephraim.  These  mountains,  here  only  the  mountainous  district 
of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  were  among  the  most  fruitful  portions 
of  Palestine  (see  at  JosL  xvii.  14,  15). — ^Ver.  9.  Bendekcr  was 
in  Mahaz,  a  city  only  mentioned  here,  the  situation  of  which 
is  unknown,  but  which  is  at  any  rate  to  be  sought  for  in  the 
tribe  of  Dan,  to  which  the  other  cities  of  this  district  belong. 
Shaalbim  has  probably  been  preserved  in  the  present  Sclbit,  to 
the  north-west  of  Yalo  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  42).  Bethslumcsh,  the 
present -4 m-*S^7ns  (see  at  Josh.  xv.  10).  Elon  (P^??),  which  is 
distinguished  from  AJalon  (Josh.  xix.  42  and  43)  by  the  epithet 
BethcJuinan,  and  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Dan,  has  not  yet  been 
discovered  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  43).  The  LXX.  have  arbitrarily 
interpolated  eo)?  before  Bethchanan,  and  Thenius  naturally  takes 
this  under  his  protection,  and  consequently  traces  BethcJianan  in 
the  village  of  Beit  Hunun  (Eob.  Pal.  ii  p.  371),  but  without  con- 
sidering that  60)9  yields  no  reasonable  sense  imless  preceded  by 
jp,  etc  (from;  of.  ver.  12). — ^Ver.  10.  Benhesed  was  in  Arubboth, 
which  does  not  occur  again,  so  that  its  situation,  even  if  it  should 
be  identical  with  Arab  in  Josh.  xv.  52,  as  Bottcher  conjectures, 
can  only  be  approximatively  inferred  from  the  localities  which 
follow.  To  him  (ii^),  i.e.  to  his  district,  belonged  Sochoh  and  all 
the  land  of  Hepher.  From  Sochoh  we  may  see  that  Benhesed's 
district  was  in  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Of  the  two  Sochohs  in  Judah, 
that  still  exist  under  the  name  of  Shuwcikeh,  it  is  impossible  to 
determine  with  certainty  which  is  intended  here,  whether  tlie 
one  upon  the  mountains  (Josh.  xv.  48)  or  the  one  in  the  plain 
(Josh.  XV.  35).  The  fact  that  it  is  associated  with  the  land  of 
Hcpher  rather  favours  the  latter.  The  land  of  Sepher,  which 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  city  of  Gath-He'phcr  in  the  tribe 
of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  1 3  ;  2  Kings  xiv.  25),  but  was  the  territory 
of  one  of  the  Canaanitish  kings  who  were  defeated  by  Joshua, 
was  probably  situated  in  the  plain  (see  at  Josh,  xii  17). — 
Ver.  11,  Ben-Ahinadab  had  the  whole  of  the  hish  ranse  of 
Dor  (INT  ns3,  Josh.  xii.  23),  i.e.  the  strip  of  coast  on  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea  below  the  promontory  of  Carmel,  where  the  city 
of  Dor,  which  has  been  preserved  in  the  village  of  Tantura  or 
Tortura,  nine  miles  to  the  north  of  Caesarea,  was  situated  (see 


48  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

at  Josh,  xi,  2).  Whether  this  district  embraced  the  fruitful 
plain  of  Sharon  is  not  so  clearly  made  out  as  Thenius  supposes. 
m3''3X"j2  stands  at  the  head  absolutely,  without  any  gram- 
matical connection  with  riD:~?3  :  "  Abinadab :  the  whole  of  the 
high  range  of  Dor,"  etc.  The  person  named  was  probably  a  son 
of  David's  eldest  brother  but  one  (1  Sam.  xvi.  8,  xvii.  13),  and 
therefore  Solomon's  cousin ;  and  he  had  married  Solomon's 
daughter. — Ver.  12.  Baana  the  son  of  Ahilud  was  most  likely 
a  brother  of  Jehoshaphat  the  chancellor  (ver.  3).  This  district 
embraced  the  cities  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  plain  of  Jezreel, 
and  extended  to  the  Jordan.  Taanach  and  Megidclo,  which 
have  been  preserved  in  the  villages  of  Taanuh  and  Lejun,  were 
situated  on  the  south-western  border  of  this  plain,  and  belonged 
to  the  Manassites  (see  at  Josh.  xii.  21,  xvii.  11).  "And  all 
Bethshean,"  in  other  words,  the  whole  of  the  district  of  Beth- 
shean,  i.e.  Beisan,  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  valley  of  Jezreel, 
where  it  opens  into  the  Jordan  valley  (Eob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  740  sqq.), 
"  which  (district  was  situated)  by  the  side  of  Zarthan  below 
Jezreel,  from  (the  town  of)  Bethshean  (see  at  Josh,  xvii,  11)  to 
Abel-Mecholah,  on  the  other  side  of  Jokmeam."  Zarthan,  also 
called  Zereda  (compare  ch.  vii.  46  with  2  Chron.  iv.  17),  has 
probably  been  preserved,  so  far  as  the  name  is  concerned,  in 
K^cm  Sartaheh,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which  the  old  city  pro- 
bably stood,  about  five  miles  to  the  south  of  Beisan,  at  a  point 
where  the  Jordan  valley  contracts  (see  at  Josh.  iii.  16).  The 
expression  "  below  Jezreel "  refers  to  "  all  Bethshean,"  and  may 
be  explained  from  the  elevated  situation  of  Jezreel,  the  present 
Zerin  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  18).  According  to  Eob.  iii.  p.  163, 
this  is  "  comparatively  high,  and  commands  a  wide  and  noble 
view,  extending  down  the  broad  low  vaUey  on  the  east  of  Beisan 
and  to  the  mountains  of  Ajlun  beyond  the  Jordan."  The  fol- 
lowing words,  "  from  Bethshean  to  Abel-Mecholah,"  give  a  more 
precise  definition  of  the  boundary.  The  LXX.  have  erroneously 
inserted  koI  before  |KK'"n''3p,  and  Thenius  and  Bottcher  defend  it 
on  the  strength  of  their  eiToneous  interpretations  of  the  pre- 
ceding statements.  Ahel-Mccholah  was  in  the  Jordan  valley, 
according  to  the  Onomast,  ten  Eoman  miles  to  the  south  of 
Beisan  (see  at  Judg  vii.  22).  The  last  clause  is  not  quite 
intelligible  to  us,  as  the  situation  of  the  Levitical  city  Jokmeam 
(1  Chron.  vl  53,  or  Kibzaim,  a  different  place  from  the  Jokneam 
on  Carmel,  Josh.  xiL  22,  xxl  34)  has  not  yet  been  discovered 


CHAP.  IV.  7-19.  49 

(see  at  Josk  xxL  22).  According  to  this,  Baanah's  district  in 
the  Jordan  valley  did  not  extend  so  far  as  Kurn  Sartaheh,  hut 
simply  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Zarthan,  and  embraced  the 
whole  of  the  tribe-territory  of  Manasseh  on  this  side  of  the 
Jordan. — ^Ver.  13.  Bengeber  was  in  Bamoth  of  Gilead  in  the 
tribe  of  Gad  (Josh.  xx.  8),  probably  on  the  site  of  the  modem 
Szalt  (see  at  Deut.  iv.  43).  "  To  him  belonged  the  Harvoth  Jair 
(Jair's-hves)  in  Gilead,  to  him  the  region  of  Argdb  in  Bashan, 
sixty  great  cities  with  walls  and  brazen  bolts."  If  we  look  at 
this  passage  alone,  the  region  of  Argob  in  Bashan  appears  to  be 
distinct  from  the  Hawoth  Jair  in  Gilead-  But  if  we  compare 
it  with  Num.  xxxii.  40,  41,  Deut.  iii.  4,  5,  and  13,  14,  and 
Josh,  xui  30,  it  is  evident  from  these  passages  that  the  Jair's- 
lives  are  identical  with  the  sixty  large  and  fortified  cities  of  the 
region  of  Argob.  For,  according  to  Deut.  iii  4,  these  sixty  for- 
tified cities,  with  high  walls,  gates,  and  bars,  were  aU  fortified 
cities  of  the  kingdom  of  Og  of  Bashan,  which  the  Israelites  con- 
quered under  Moses,  and  to  which,  according  to  Num.  xxxii.  41, 
Jair  the  Manassite,  who  had  conquered  them,  gave  the  name 
of  Hawoth  Jair.  Hence  it  is  stated  in  Josh.  xiii.  30,  that  the 
sixty  Jair-towns  were  situated  ia  Bashan.  Consequently  the 
'^^  '?'"!)  ^^  in  our  verse  is  to  be  taken  as  a  more  precise  defini- 
tion of  'ij^  ■'^^5J  n^n  Sb^  or  a  clearer  description  of  the  district 
superintended  by  Bengeber,  so  that  Gikad  is  used,  as  is  frequently 
the  case,  in  the  broader  sense  of  Bercea.  Compare  with  this  the 
Commentary  on  Deut.  iii.  4  and  13,  14,  where  the  names  2i")X 
and  nin  are  explained,  and  the  imaginary  discrepancy  between 
the  sixty  Jair's-towns  in  the  passages  cited,  and  the  twenty- 
three  and  thirty  cities  of  Jair  in  1  Chron.  iL  22  and  Judg.  x.  4, 
is  discussed  and  solved.  And  when  Thenius  objects  to  this 
explanation  on  the  ground  that  the  villages  of  Jau*  cannot 
be  identical  with  the  sixty  fortified  cities,  because  villages  of 
nomads  and  strongly  fortified  cities  could  not  be  one  and  the 
same,  this  objection  falls  to  the  ground  with  the  untenable  in- 
terpretation of  n^n  as  applying  to  nomad  villages. — Ver.  14. 
Ahinadah  the  son  of  Iddo  received  as  his  district  MaJianaira,  a 
fortified  and  probably  also  a  very  important  city  to  the  north  of 
the  Jabbok,  on  the  border  of  the  tribe  of  Gad,  which  may  perhaps 
have  been  preserved  in  the  ruin  of  Mahneh  (see  at  Josh.  xiii.  26 
and  Gen.  xxxiL  3).  HD^jno,  to  Mahanaim  (cf  Ewald,  §  216,  a, 
note),  with  n  local,  probably  referring  to  the  fact  that  Ahinadab 

D 


60  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

•was  sent  away  to  Mahanaim. — ^Ver.  15.  Ahimaaz,  possibly 
Zadok's  son  (2  Sam,  xv.  27,  xvii.  17  sqq.),  in  Na;plitali.  This 
does  not  denote  generally  "  tlie  most  northern  portion  of  the 
land,  say  from  the  northern  end  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret  into 
Coele-Syria,"  as  Thenius  supposes  ;  for  the  tribe-territory  of 
Asher,  which  had  a  prefect  of  its  own,  was  not  situated  to  the 
south-west  of  Naphtali,  but  ran  along  the  west  of  Naphtali  to 
the  northern  boundary  of  Canaan  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  24—31). 
He  also  (like  Ben-Abinadab,  ver.  11)  had  a  daughter  of  Solomon, 
Basmath,  as  his  wife. — Ver.  16.  Baanah  the  son  of  Hushai, 
probably  the  faithful  friend  and  wise  counsellor  of  David 
(2  Sam.  XV.  32  sqq.,  xviL  5  sqq.),  was  in  Asher  and  J^i?y3,  a 
name  quite  unknown.  If  1  forms  part  of  the  word  {Baaloth, 
according  to  the  LXX.,  Vulg.,  Syr.,  and  Arab.),  we  must  take  it 
as  a  district,  since  the  preposition  3  would  necessarily  have  been 
repeated  if  a  district  {Asher)  had  been  connected  with  a  town 
{Baaloth).  In  any  case,  it  is  not  the  city  of  Baaloth  in  the 
Negeb  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  24)  that  is  intended. — Ver.  17. 
Jehosha'phat  the  son  of  Paruach,  in  Issachar ;  i.e.  over  the  whole 
of  the  territory  of  that  tribe  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  with  the 
exception  of  the  cities  of  Taanach,  Megiddo,  and  Bethshean, 
which  were  in  the  southern  portion  of  it,  and  were  allotted  to 
the  Manassites,  and,  according  to  ver.  12,  were  put  under  the 
care  of  Baanah ;  and  not  merely  in  the  northern  part  of 
Issachar,  "  with  the  exception  of  the  plain  of  Jezreel,"  as 
Thenius  erroneously  maintains.  Zebulun  may  possibly  have 
also  formed  part  of  his  district,  if  not  entirely,  yet  in  its 
southern  portion,  provided  that  the  northern  portion  was 
assigned  to  Ahimaaz  in  Naphtali,  since  Zebulun  had  no  prefect 
of  its  own. — Ver.  18.  Sliimei  the  son  of  Elah,  possibly  the  one 
mentioned  in  ch.  i  8,  in  Benjamin. — Ver.  1 9.  Geber  the  son  of 
Uri,  in  the  land  of  Gilead,  i.e.,  as  the  apposition  "  the  land  of 
Sihon  .  ,  .  and  of  Og  .  .  ."  clearly  shows,  the  whole  of  the 
Israelitish  land  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  as  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  1, 
Judg.  XX.  1,  etc.,  with  the  simple  exception  of  the  districts 
placed  under  Bengeber  and  Aliinadab  (vers.  13  and  14).  yv. 
nns,  «  one  president  was  it  who  (was)  in  the  land  (of  Gilead)." 
yi\  cannot  signify  a  military  post  or  a  garrison  here,  as  in  1  Sam. 
X.  5,  xiii.  3,  etc.,  but  is  equivalent  to  32f:,  the  president  (ver.  7). 
The  meaning  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  great  extent  of  thia 
district,  it  had  only  one  prefect. 


CHAP.  IV.  20-28.  51 

In  ver.  20  the  account  of  Solomon's  officers  is  closed  by  a 
general  remark  as  to  the  prosperous  condition  of  the  whole 
nation ;  though  we  miss  the  copula  Vav  at  the  commencement. 
The  words,  "  Judah  and  Israel  were  numerous  as  the  sand  by 
the  sea,"  indicate  that  the  promise  given  to  the  patriarchs  (Gen. 
xxii  17,  of,  xxxii.  13)  had  been  fulfilled.  To  this  there  is 
appended  in  eh.  v.  1  the  remark  concerning  the  extent  of  Solo- 
mon's sway,  which  prepares  the  way  for  what  follows,  and  shows 
how  the  other  portion  of  the  promise,  "  thy  seed  will  possess  the 
gates  of  its  enemies,"  had  been  fulfilled. — The  first  fourteen 
verses  of  ch.  v.  are  therefore  connected  by  the  LXX.,  Vulg., 
Luther,  and  others  with  ch,  iv.  It  is  not  till  cL  v.  15  that  a 
new  section  begins. 

Chap.  iv.  21-28  (v.  1-8).  Solomon's  Eegal  SPLE^rootJE. — 
Ver.  21.  "Solomon  was  ruler  over  all  the  kingdoms  from  the 
river  (Euphrates)  onwards,  over  the  land  of  the  Philistines  to  the 
border  of  Egypt,  who  brought  presents  and  were  subject  to  Solo- 
mon his  whole  life  long."  Most  of  the  conunentators  supply  ^^i 
before  Q^^'f^s  P.?  (even  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines)  after  the 
parallel  passage  2  Chron.  ix.  26,  so  that  the  following  in23  TSn 
would  give  a  more  precise  definition  of  the  terminus  ad  qmm. 
But  it  is  by  no  means  probable  that  ^?1,  which  appears  to  be 
indispensable,  should  have  dropped  out  through  the  oversight  of 
a  copyist,  and  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  supply  it,  inas- 
much as  3  may  be  repeated  in  thought  before  'S  p^  from  the 
preceding  clause.  The  participle  D'C^p  is  construed  ad  senmm 
with  niapDD.  Bringing  presents  is  equivalent  to  paying  tribute, 
as  in  2  Sam.  viii.  2,  etc. — ^Vers.  22  sqq.  The  splendour  of  the 
court,  the  consumption  in  the  royal  kitchen -(vers.  22-25),  and 
the  well-filled  stables  (vers.  26-28),  were  such  as  befitted  the 
ruler  of  so  large  a  kingdom. — ^Vers.  22,  23.  The  daily  con- 
sumption of  Dn?  (food  or  provisions)  amounted  to  thirty  cors  of 
fine  meal  (dVd  =  D^tsn  n^b,  fine  sifted  meal,  Ex.  xxix.  2 ;  for 
n.j»b  see  also  Lev.  ii  1)  and  sixty  cws  of  nep,  ordinary  meal, 
ten  fattened  oxen,  twenty  pasture  oxen,  which  were  brought 
directly  from  the  pasture  and  slaughtered,  and  a  hundred  sheep, 
beside  different  kinds  of  game,  nb,  Kopo^;,  the  later  name  for 
ion,  the  largest  dry  and  also  liquid  (ch.  v.  11)  measure  of  capa- 
city, contained  ten  ephahs  or  baths,  i.e.,  according  to  the  calcula- 
tion made  by  Thenius,  15,300  cubic  inches  (Dresden)  =  about 


62  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

1|-  scheffel ;^  so  that  ninety  cors  would  amount  to  l7l  scheffel, 
from  which  28,000  lbs.  of  bread  could  be  baked  (Theol.  Stud, 
und  Krit.  1846,  pp.  132,  133).  And  "if  we  reckon  2  lbs.  of 
bread  to  each  person,  there  would  be  14,000  persons  in  Solomon's 
court."  The  consumption  of  flesh  would  be  quite  in  proportion 
to  that  of  bread ;  for  ten  fattened  oxen,  twenty  oxen  from  the 
pasture,  and  a  hundred  sheep,  yield  more  than  21,000  lbs.  of 
meat,  that  is  to  say,  a  pound  and  a  half  for  each  person,  "  assuming, 
according  to  the  statements  of  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
matter,  that  the  edible  meat  of  a  fat  ox  amounts  to  600  lbs., 
that  of  an  ox  from  the  pasture  to  400  lbs.,  and  that  of  a  sheep  to 
70  lbs."  (Thenius  td  sup).  This  daily  consumption  of  Solomon's 
court  will  not  appear  too  great,  if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  compare 
it  with  the  quantity  consumed  at  other  oriental  courts  both  of 
ancient  and  modern  times,^  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  bear 
in  mind  that  not  only  the  numerous  attendants  upon  the  king 
and  his  harem,  but  also  the  royal  adjutants  and  the  large  num- 
ber of  officers  employed  about  the  court,  were  supplied  from  the 
king's  table,  and  that  their  families  had  also  to  be  fed,  inas- 
much as  the  wages  in  oriental  courts  are  all  paid  in  kind.  In 
addition  to  this,  game  was  also  supplied  to  the  king's  table : 
viz.  ^JN  stags,  'yi  gazelles,  i^»n!  fallow-deer,  and  D'pi2K  Dna-ia 
"  fattened  fowl."  The  meaning  of  C")^"]?  is  doubtful.  The  earlier 
translators  render  it  birds  or  fowl.  Kimchi  adopts  the  render- 
ing "capons;"  Tanch.  Hieros.  "geese,"  so  called  from  their  pure 
(113)  white  feathers ;  and  both  Gesenius  and  Dietrich  {Lex) 
decide  in  favour  of  the  latter.  The  word  must  denote  some 
special  kind  of  fowl,  since  edible  birds  in  general  were  called 
nnsy  (Neh.  v.  18). — Vers.  24,  25.  Solomon  was  able  to  appro- 
priate all  this  to  his  court,  because  C"?)  he  had  dominion,  etc.; 
.  .  .  and  (ver.  2  5)  Israel  and  Judah  enjoyed  the  blessings  of  peace 
during  the  whole  of  his  reign,  inan  I3y"733  "  over  all  the  other 
side  of  the  river  (Euphrates),"  i.e.  not  the  land  on  the  east,  but 
that  on  the  west  of  the  river.  This  usage  of  speech  is  to  be 
explained  from  the  fact  that  the  author  of  our  books,  who  was 
living  in  exile  on  the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates,  describes  the 

1  The  scheffel  is  about  an  English  sack  (vid.  Fliigel's  Diet.). — Tr. 

2  According  to  Athen.  Deipnos.  iv.  10,  the  kings  of  Persia  required  a  thou- 
sand oxen  a  day ;  and  according  to  Tavemier,  in  Rosen miiller's  A.  u.  N.  Mor' 
(jenland,  iii.  pp.  166,  167,  five  hundred  sheep  and  lambs  were  slaughtered  daily 
for  the  Sultan's  court. 


CHAP.  IV.  21-28.  53 

extent  of  Solomon's  kingdom  taking  that  as  his  starting-point. 
Solomon's  power  only  extended  to  the  Euphrates,  from  Tiphsach 
in  the  north-east  to  Gaza  in  the  south-west,  noan  (crossing, 
from  nOB)  is  Thapsacus,  a  large  and  wealthy  city  on  the  western 
bank  of  the  Euphrates,  at  which  the  armies  of  the  younger 
Cyrus  and  Alexander  crossed  the  river  (Xen.  ATwh.  i.  4 ;  Arrian, 
Exped.  Alex.  iii.  7).  Gaza,  the  southernmost  city  of  the  Philis- 
tines, the  present  Guzzch ;  see  at  Josh.  xiii.  3.  The  ">3y  ^?^ 
nnari  are  the  kings  of  Syria  who  were  subjugated  by  David 
(2  Sam.  viii  6  and  x.  19),  and  of  the  Philistines  (2  Sam. 
viii  1).  "  And  he  had  peace  on  all  sides  round  about."  This 
statement  does  not  "most  decidedly  contradict  oh.  xL  23  sqq.," 
as  Thenius  maintains ;  for  it  cannot  be  proved  that  according 
to  this  passage  the  revolt  of  Damascus  had  taken  place  before 
Solomon's  reign  (Ewald  and  others ;  see  at  ch.  xL  2  3  sqq.). — 
Yer.  25.  "  Judah  and  Israel  sat  in  safety,  every  one  under  his 
vine  and  his  fig-tree."  This  expresses  the  undisturbed  enjoy- 
ment of  the  costly  productions  of  the  land  (2  Kings  xviii  31), 
and  is  therefore  used  by  the  prophets  as  a  figure  denoting 
the  happiness  of  the  Messianic  age  (IMic.  iv.  4;  Zech.  iii  10). 
"From  Dan  to  Beersheba,"  as  in  Judg.  xx.  1,  etc. — Ver.  26. 
This  verse  is  not  to  be  regarded  "  as  a  parenthesis  according  to 
the  intention  of  the  editor,"  but  gives  a  further  proof  of  the 
peace  and  prosperity  which  the  kingdom  and  people  enjoyed 
under  Solomon.  Solomon  had  a  strong  force  of  war  chariots 
and  cavalry,  that  he  might  be  able  to  suppress  every  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  tributary  kings  of  Syria  and  Philistia  to  revolt 
and  disturb  the  peace.  "Solomon  had  4000  racks  of  horses 
for  his  chariots,  and  12,000  riding  horses,"  which  were  kept 
partly  in  Jerusalem  and  partly  in  cities  specially  built  for  the 
purpose  (ch.  ix.  19,  x.  26;  2  Chron.  i.  14,  ix.  25).  D731X  (40) 
is  an  old  copyist's  error  for  ^V'P^  (4),  which  we  find  in  the 
parallel  passage  2  Chron.  ix.  25,  and  as  we  may  also  infer  from 
ch.  X.  26  and  2  Chron.  i  14,  since  according  to  these  pas- 
sages Solomon  had  1400  33T  or  war  chariots.  For  4000 
horses  are  a  very  suitable  number  for  1400  chariots.  thou<yh  not 
40,000,  since  two  draught  horses  were  required  for  every  war 
chariot,  and  one  horse  may  have  been  kept  as  a  reserve,  nnx 
does  not  mean  a  team  (Ges.),  but  a  rack  or  box  in  a  stable,  from 
nnx,  carpere.  According  to  Vegetius,  i.  56,  in  Bochart  {Hkroz.  L 
p.  112,  ed.  Eos.),  even  in  ancient  times  every  horse  had  its  own 


54  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

crib  in  the  stable  just  as  it  has  now.  Bottcher  (n.  ex.  Krit 
Aehrcnl.  ii.  p.  2  7)  is  wrong  in  supposing  that  there  were  several 
horses,  say  at  least  ten,  to  one  rack  23")0  is  used  collectively 
for  "chariots." — Ver.  27.  "And"  =  a  still  further  proof  of  the 
blessings  of  peace — "those  prefects  (vers.  7  sqq.)  provided  for 
king  Solomon,  and  all  who  came  to  the  king's  table,  i.e.  who 
were  fed  from  the  royal  table,  every  one  his  month  (see  at 
ver.  7),  so  that  nothing  was  wanting  (ver.  28),  and  conveyed  the 
barley  (the  ordinary  food  of  cattle  in  Palestine  and  the  southern 
lands,  where  oats  are  not  cultivated)  and  the  straw  for  the  horses 
and  coursers  to  the  place  where  it  ought  to  be.  To  itf'NS 
D^  T\ir\\  the  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  others  supply  ^^»n  as  the  subject : 
wherever  the  king  might  stay.  This  is  certainly  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  imperfect  n.^n^  than  it  would  be  to  supply  ti'b'in, 
as  Bochart  and  others  propose ;  still  it  is  hardly  correct.  For 
in  that  case  ^'9!)?)  Q''i?''Sr'  could  only  be  understood  as  referring 
to  the  chariot  horses  and  riding  horses,  which  Solomon  kept  for 
the  necessities  of  his  court,  and  not  to  the  whole  of  the  cavalry; 
since  we  cannot  possibly  assume  that  even  if  Solomon  changed 
his  residence  according  to  the  season  and  to  suit  his  pleasure, 
or  on  political  grounds,  as  Thenius  supposes,  though  this  cannot 
by  any  means  be  inferred  from  ch.  ix.  18  and  19,  he  took 
16,000  horses  about  with  him.  But  this  limitation  of  the 
clause  is  evidently  at  variance  with  the  context,  since  D''WD? 
E'snTi  too  plainly  refer  back  to  ver.  6.  Moreover,  "  if  the  king 
were  intended,  he  would  certainly  have  been  mentioned  by 
name,  as  so  many  other  subjects  and  objects  have  come  be- 
tween." For  these  reasons  we  agree  with  Bottcher  in  taking 
7\']T}\  indefinitely :  "where  it  (barley  and  straw)  was  wanted,  accord- 
ing to  the  distribution  of  the  horses."  ^y).  probably  denotes  a 
very  superior  kind  of  horse,  like  the  German  Benner  (a  courser 
or  race-horse).  iDSK'pa  K'"'N,  every  one  according  to  his  right,  i.e, 
whatever  was  appointed  for  him  as  right. 

Vers.  29-34.  Solomon's  Wisdom. — Ver.  29.  According  to 
His  promise  in  ch.  iii.  12,  God  gave  Solomon  wisdom  and  very 
much  insight  and  sb  snn,  "breadth  of  heart,"  i.e.  a  compre- 
hensive understanding,  as  sand  by  the  sea-shore, — a  proverbial 
expression  for  an  innumerable  multitude,  or  great  abundance 
(cf  ch.  iv.  20,  Gen.  xli.  49,  Josh.  xi.  4,  etc.).  ncan  signifies 
rather  practical  wisdom,  ability  to  decide  what  is  the  judicious 


CHAP.  IV.  29-34.  55 

and  useful  course  to  pursue ;  ^^I3n,  rather  keenness  of  under- 
standing to  arrive  at  the  correct  solution  of  difl&cult  and  com- 
plicated problems ;  37  3ni,  mental  capacity  to  embrace  the  most 
diverse  departments  of  knowledge. — Ver.  30.  His  wisdom  was 
greater  than  the  wisdom  of  all  the  sons  of  the  East,  and  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Eg}'ptians.  D"[P  V.?  (sons  of  the  East)  are  gene- 
rally the  Arabian  tribes  dwelling  in  the  east  of  Canaan,  who 
spread  an  far  as  to  the  Euphrates  (cf  Judg.  vi.  3,  33,  vii  12, 
viii.  10,  Job  L  3,  Isa.  xi  14,  etc.).  Hence  we  find  D'l.i^  p.? 
used  in  Gen.  xxv.  6  to  denote  Arabia  in  the  widest  sense,  on 
the  east  and  south-east  of  Palestine ;  whereas  in  Gen.  xxix.  1 
DTip  ^J2  ps  signifies  the  land  beyond  the  Euphrates,  viz.  Meso- 
potamia, and  in  Num.  xxiii  7,  ^IP  "'I?.'},  the  mountains  of  Meso- 
potamia. Consequently  by  "  the  sons  of  the  East "  we  are  to 
understand  here  primarily  the  Arabians,  who  were  celebrated  for 
their  gnomic  wisdom,  more  especially  the  Sabteans  (see  at  ch.  x.), 
including  the  Idumseans,  particularly  the  Temanites  (Jer.  xlix.  7  ; 
Obad.  8)  ;  but  also,  as  bb  requires,  the  Chaldaeans,  who  were 
celebrated  both  for  their  astronomy  and  astrology.  "All  the 
wisdom  of  the  Eg}'ptians,"  because  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians, 
which  was  so  greatly  renowned  as  almost  to  have  become  proverbial 
(cf.  Isa.  xix  11,  xxxL  2,  and  Acts  vii.  22  ;  Joseph,  Ant.  viii. 
2,  5  ;  Herod,  ii.  160),  extended  over  the  most  diverse  branches 
of  knowledge,  such  as  geometry,  arithmetic,  astronomy,  and 
astrology  (Diod.  Sic.  i.  73  and  81),  and  as  their  skiU  in  the 
preparation  of  ointments  from  vegetable  and  animal  sources,  and 
their  extensive  acquaintance  with  medicine,  clearly  prove,  em- 
braced natural  science  as  well,  in  which  Solomon,  according  to 
ver.  33,  was  very  learned. — ^Ver.  31.  "He  was  wiser  than  all 
men  (of  his  time),  than  Ethan  the  Ezrachite  and  Heman,  Chal- 
col  and  Darda,  the  sons  of  Machol."  These  four  persons  are 
most  probably  the  same  as  the  "  sons  of  Zerach"  (Ethan,  Heman, 
Calcol,  and  Dara)  mentioned  in  1  Chron.  ii.  6,  since  the  names 
perfectly  agree,  with  the  exception  of  J^T}  for  jn")"^,  where  the 
difference  is  no  doubt  attributable  to  a  copyist's  error ;  although, 
as  the  name  does  not  occur  again,  it  cannot  be  decided  whether 
Dara  or  Darda  is  the  correct  form.  Heman  and  Ethan  are  also 
called  Ezrachites  CCnmn)  in  Ps.  IxxxviiL  1  and  Ixxxix.  1 ;  and 
""Tit^  is  another  form  of  "'rnT,  the  name  of  the  family  of  Zerach 
the  son  of  Judah  (Num.  xxvi.  13,  20),  lengthened  by  k  prosthet. 
But  they  were  both  Levites — Heman  a  Korahite  of  the  line  (rf 


56  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Kohath  and  a  grandson  of  Samuel  (1  Chron.  vi.  18,  19),  and 
Ethan  a  Merarite  (1  Chron.  vi.  29—32,  xv.  17)  and  the  presi- 
dent of  the  Levitical  vocal  choirs  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chron. 
XV.  19);  and  Heman  was  also  "  the  king's  seer  in  the  words  of 
God"  (1  Chron.  xxv.  5).  Their  Levitical  descent  is  not  at 
variance  with  the  epithet  Ezrachite.  For  as  the  Levite  in  Judg, 
xvii.  7  is  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  the  family  of  Judah,  because 
he  dwelt  in  Bethlehem  of  Judah,  and  as  Samuel's  father,  Elkanah 
the  Levite,  is  called  an  Ephraimite  in  1  Sam.  i.  1,  because  in 
his  civil  capacity  he  was  incorporated  into  the  tribe  of  Ephraim, 
so  Heman  and  Ethan  are  called  Ezrachites  because  they  were 
incorporated  into  the  Judsean  family  of  Zerach.  It  by  no  means 
follows  from  1  Chron.  ii.  6  that  they  were  lineal  descendants 
of  Zerach.  The  whole  character  of  the  genealogical  fragment 
contained  in  1  Chron.  ii.  6  sqq.  shows  very  clearly  that  it 
does  not  give  the  lineal  posterity  of  Zerach  with  genealogical 
exactness,  but  that  certain  persons  and  households  of  that  family 
who  had  gained  historical  renown  are  grouped  together  without 
any  more  precise  account  of  their  lineal  descent.  Calcol  and 
Darda  (or  Bara)  are  never  met  with  again.  It  is  no  doubt  to 
these  two  that  the  expression  ?ino  ''33  refers,  though  it  cannot 
be  determined  whether  Pino  is  a  proper  name  or  an  appellative 
noun.  In  support  of  the  appellative  meaning,  "  sons  of  the 
dance,"  in  the  sense  of  sacras  choreas  ducendi  periti,  Hiller  (in  the 
Onomast.  p.  872)  appeals  to  Eccles.  xii.  4,  "daughters  of  song." 
— "  And  his  name  was,"  i.e.  he  was  celebrated,  "  among  aU  the 
nations  round  about"  (cf.  ch.  x.  1,  23,  24). — ^Ver.  32.  "  He 
spoke  three  thousand  proverbs,  and  there  were  a  thousand  and 
five  of  his  songs."  Of  these  proverbs  we  possess  a  comparatively 
small  portion  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  probably  a  selection  of 
the  best  of  his  proverbs ;  but  of  the  songs,  besides  the  Song  of 
Songs,  we  have  only  two  psalms,  viz.  Ps.  Ixxii.  and  cxxvii.,  which 
have  his  name,  and  justly  bear  it, — Ver.  33.  "And  he  spoke  of 
trees,  from  the  cedar  on  Lebanon  to  the  hyssop  which  grows 
upon  the  wall."  The  cedar  and  hyssop  are  placed  in  antitliesis, 
the  former  as  the  largest  and  most  glorious  of  trees,  the  latter  as 
the  smallest  and  most  insignificant  of  plants,  to  embrace  the 
whole  of  the  vegetable  kingdom.  Thenius  maintains  that  by 
3i?x  we  are  not  to  understand  the  true  hyssop,  nor  the  WohU 
gemuth  or  Dosten  (opiryavov),  according  to  the  ordinary  view  (see 
at  Ex.  xiL  22),  because  they  are  neither  of  them  such  small 


CHAP.  V.  57 

plants  as  we  should  expect  in  antithesis  to  the  cedar,  but  "  one 
of  the  wall-mosses  growing  in  tufts,  more  especially  the  ortho- 
trichum  saxatile  (Oken),  which  forms  a  miniature  hyssop  with  its 
lancet-shaped  leaves,  and  from  its  extreme  minuteness  fui-nishes 
a  perfect  antithesis  to  the  cedar."  There  is  much  to  favour  this 
view,  since  we  can  easily  imagine  that  the  Hebrews  may  have 
reckoned  a  moss,  which  resembled  the  hyssop  in  its  leaves,  as 
being  itself  a  species  of  hyssop. — "  And  of  beasts  and  birds,  of 
creeping  things  and  fishes ;  "  the  four  principal  classes  into  which 
the  Hebrews  divided  the  animal  kingdom.  Speaking  of  plants 
and  animals  presupposes  observ'ations  and  researches  in  natural 
science,  or  botanical  and  zoological  studies. — Ver.  34.  The  wide- 
spread fame  of  his  wisdom  brought  many  strangers  to  Jerusalem, 
and  all  the  more  because  of  its  rarity  at  that  time,  especially 
among  princes.  The  coming  of  the  queen  of  Sheba  to  Jerusalem 
(ch.  X.)  furnishes  a  historical  proof  of  this.^ 

CHAP.  V.  (v.  15-32).    PREPARATIONS  FOR  BUILDING  THE  TEMPLEL 

Immediately  after  the  consolidation  of  his  kingdom,  Solomon 
commenced  the  preparations  for  the  building  of  a  temple,  first  of 
all  by  entering  into  negotiations  with  king  Hiram  of  Tj-re,  to 
procure  from  him  not  only  the  building  materials  requisite, 
viz.  cedars,  cypresses,  and  hewn  stones,  but  also  a  skilled  work- 
man for  the  artistic  work  of  the  temple  (vers.  1-12);  and, 
secondly,  by  causing  the  number  of  workmen  required  for  this 
great  work  to  be  raised  out  of  his  own  kingdom,  and  sending 
them  to  Lebanon  to  prepare  the  materials  for  the  building  in 
connection  with  the  T}Tian  builders  (vers.  13-18). — "VYe  have 

^  Greatly  as  the  fame  of  Solomon's  ■wisdom  is  extolled  in  these  verses,  it 
was  far  outdone  in  subsequent  times.  Even  Josephus  has  considerably  adorned 
the  biblical  accounts  in  his  Antiqq.  viii.  2,  5.  He  makes  Solomon  the  author 
not  only  of  1005  jit.S^tx  Tspl  uoan  k»1  fn'Kuif,  and  300  /3/i3Xo«;  irupetio^.u^  k»1 
flx.6uu»,  but  also  of  magical  books  with  marvellous  contents.  Compare  the 
extracts  from  Eupolemus  in  Eusebii  prsep.  Ev.  ix.  31  sqq.,  the  remnants  of 
Solomon's  apocryphal  writings  in  Fabricii  Cod.  apocr.  V.  T.  i.  pp.  914  sqq. 
and  1014  sq.,  the  collection  of  the  Talmudical  Sagas  in  Othonis  Lex.  ralh. 
philol.  pp.  668  sq.,  and  G.  Weil,  bibl.  Legemlen  der  Mussulmdnner,  pp.  225-279. 
According  to  the  Koran  (Sure  xxvii.  vers.  17  sqq.),  Solomon  understood  the 
languages  not  only  of  men  and  demons,  but  also  of  birds  and  ants.  The  Turkish 
literature  contains  a  "  Book  of  Solomon,"  Suleimariname,  consisting  of  seventy 
volumes,  from  which  v.  Hammer  {Rosenol,  L  p.  147  sqq.)  has  given  extracts. 


58  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

a  parallel  passage  to  this  in  2  Chron.  ii.,  which  agrees  witli  the 
account  before  us  in  all  the  leading  points,  but  differs  in  many 
of  the  details,  omitting  several  things  which  were  not  essential 
to  the  main  fact,  and  communicating  others  which  are  passed 
over  in  our  account,  e.g.  Solomon's  request  that  a  Tyrian  workman 
might  be  sent.  This  shows  that  the  two  accounts  are  extracts 
from  a  common  and  more  elaborate  source,  the  historical  materials 
being  worked  up  in  a  free  and  independent  manner  according 
to  the  particular  plan  adopted  by  each  of  the  two  authors. 
(For  further  remarks  on  the  mutual  relation  of  the  two  narratives, 
see  my  apologetischer  Versuch  iiber  die  Biicher  der  Chronik,  pp.  216 
sqq.) 

Vers.  1-12.  Solomon' snegotiatiotisioith  Hiram  of  Tyre. — Yer.  1. 
When  king  Hiram  of  Tyre  heard  that  Solomon  had  been 
anointed  king  in  the  place  of  David,  he  sent  his  servants,  i.e.  an 
embassage,  to  Solomon,  to  congratulate  him  (as  the  Syriac  cor- 
rectly explains)  on  his  ascent  of  the  throne,  because  he  had  been 
a  friend  of  David  the  whole  time  (D''0jn-?3^  ix.  as  long  as  both  of 
them  (David  and  Hiram)  were  kings).  On  Hiram  and  the  length 
of  his  reign,  see  the  remarks  on  2  Sam.  v.  11.  This  is  passed 
over  in  the  Chronicles  as  having  no  essential  bearing  upon  the 
building  of  the  temple. — Vers.  2-6.  Solomon  thereupon  com- 
municated to  Hiram,  by  means  of  an  embassy,  his  intention  to 
carry  out  the  building  of  the  temple  which  his  father  projected, 
and  asked  him  for  building  wood  from  Lebanon  for  the  purpose. 
From  the  words,  "  Thou  knowest  that  my  father  David  could  not 
buUd,"  etc.,  it  is  evident  that  David  had  not  only  been  busUy 
occupied  for  a  long  time  with  the  plan  for  building  a  temple, 
but  that  he  had  already  commenced  negotiations  with  Hiram  on 
the  matter ;  and  with  this  1  Chron.  xxii.  4  agrees.  "  To  the 
name  of  Jehovah : "  this  expression  is  based  upon  Deut.  xii. 
5  and  11:"  the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose  to  put  His 
name  there,  or  that  His  name  may  dwell  there."  The  name  of 
Jehovah  is  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  nature  in  a  visible 
sign  as  a  real  pledge  of  His  presence  (see  at  xii.  5),  and 
not  merely  numcn  Jovcc  qiiatcnus  ah  hominibuis  cognoscitur, 
colitur,  celebratur  (Winer,  Thenius).  Hence  in  2  Sam.  vii.,  to 
which  Solomon  refers,  n^?  v  nja  (vers.  5  and  7)  alternates  with 
''»K'pn^3nj2  (ver.  13).  On  the  obstacle  which  prevented  it, 
"  because  of  the  war,  with  which  they  (the  enemies)  had  sur- 
rounded me,"  see  at  2  Sam.  viL  9  sqq.     On  the  construction, 


CHAP.  V.  1-12,  59 

220  with  a  double  accusative,  compare  the  very  similar  passage, 
Ps.  cix.  3,  which  fully  establishes  the  rendering  we  have  given, 
so  that  there  is  no  necessity  to  assume  that  nDnpp,  war,  stands 
for  enemies  (Ewald,  §  317,  6). — Ver.  4.  "  And  now  Jehovah  my 
God  has  given  me  rest  round  about,"  such  as  David  never 
enjoyed  for  a  permanency  (cf.  2  Sam.  vii.  1).     "  No  adversary 
is  there."     This  is  not  at  variance  with  ch.  xL  14,  for  Hadad's 
enterprise  belonged  to  a  later  period  (see  the  comm.   on  that 
passage).     "  And  no  evil  occurrence :"  such  as  the  rebellions  of 
Absalom  and   Sheba,  the  pestilence  at  the  numbering  of  the 
people,  and  other  events  which  took  place  in  David's  reign. — 
Ver.  5.  "  Behold,  I  intend  to  build."    "ID^5  followed  by  an  infini- 
tive, as  in  Ex.  ii.  14,  2  Sam.  xxL   16.     "As  Jehovah  spake  to 
David;"  viz.    2   Sam.  vii   12    and    13. — ^Ver.    6.    "And  now 
command  that  they  feU.  me  cedars  from  Lebanon."     We  may 
see  from  ver.  8  that  Solomon  had  also  asked  for  cypresses  ;  and 
according  to  the  parallel  passage  2   Chron.  iL   6   sqq.,  he  had 
asked  for  a  skilful  artist,  which  is  passed  over  here,  so  that  it 
is  only  in  ch.  vii.  13,  14  that  we  find  a  supplementar}'  notice 
that  Hiram  had  sent  one.     It  is  evident  from  this  request,  that 
that  portion  of  Lebanon  on  which  the  cedars  suitable  for  building 
wood  grew,  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Hiram.    The  cedar  forest, 
which  has  been  celebrated  from  very  ancient  times,  was  situated 
at  least  two  days'  journey  to  the  north  of  Beirut,  near  the 
northernmost  and  loftiest  summits  of  the  range,  by  the  village  of 
Bjerrch,  to  the  north  of  the  road  which  leads  to  Baalbek  and  not 
far  to  the  east  of  the  convent  of  Canobin,  the  seat  of  the  patriarch 
of  the  Maronites,  although  Seetzen,  the  American  missionaries, 
and  Professor  Ehrenberg  found  cedars  and  cedar  groves  in  other 
places  on  northern  Lebanon  (see  Eob.  Fal.  iii.  440,  441,  and 
Bibl.  Res.  pp.  588  sqq.).     The  northern  frontier  of  Canaan  did 
not  reach  as  far  as  Bjerreh  (see  at  Xum.  xxxiv.   8,  9).     "  My 
serv^ants  shall  be  with  thy  ser\-ants,"  i.  e.  shall  help  them  in  the 
feUing  of  the  wood  (see  at  vers.  28,  29).     "And  the  wages  of 
thy  servants  will  I  give  to  thee  altogether  as  thou  sayest "  (see 
at  vers.  25,  26).     "  For  thou  knowest  that  no  one  among  us  is 
skilful  in  felling  trees  like  the  Sidonians."     This  refers  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  most  suitable  trees,  of  the  right  time  for  felling, 
and  of  the   proper  treatment  of  the  wood.      The  expression 
Sidonians   stands   for   Phoenicians   generally,  since  Sidon  was 
formerly  more  powerful  than  Tjtc,  and  that  portion  of  Lebanon 


60  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

which  produced  the  cedars  belonged  to  the  district  of  Sidon.  The 
inhabitants  of  Sidon  were  celebrated  from  time  immemorial  as 
skilful  builders,  and  well  versed  in  mechanical  arts  (compare  Eob. 
Fed.  iii.  421  sqq.,  and  Movers,  Phcenizicr,  ii.  1,  pp.  86  sqq.). 

Hiram  rejoiced  exceedingly  at  this  proposal  on  the  part  of 
Solomon,  and  praised  Jehovah  for  having  given  David  so  wise 
a  son  as  his  successor  (ver.  21).  It  must  have  been  a  matter 
of  great  importance  to  the  king  of  Tyre  to  remain  on  good  terms 
with  Israel,  because  the  land  of  Israel  was  a  granary  for  the 
Phoenicians,  and  friendship  with  such  a  neighbour  would  neces- 
sarily tend  greatly  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  Phoenician 
commerce.  The  praise  of  Jehovah  on  the  part  of  Hiram  does 
not  presuppose  a  full  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  the  only  true 
God,  but  simply  that  Hiram  regarded  the  God  of  Israel  as  being 
as  real  a  God  as  his  own  deities.  Hiram  expresses  a  fuller 
acknowledgment  of  Jehovah  in  2  Chron.  ii.  11,  where  he 
calls  Jehovah  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth ;  which  may  be 
explained,  however,  from  Hiram's  entering  into  the  religious 
notions  of  the  Israelites,  and  does  not  necessarily  involve  his 
own  personal  belief  in  the  true  deity  of  Jehovah. — Vers.  8,  9. 
Hiram  then  sent  to  Solomon,  and  promised  in  writing  (^^i^?, 
2  Chron.  ii.  10)  to  comply  with  his  wishes.  ")«  "^nh^  i^^^  "«, 
"  that  which  thou  hast  sent  to  me,"  i.e.  hast  asked  of  me  by 
messenger.  D^K'ha  are  not  firs,  but  cypresses.  "  My  servants 
shall  bring  down  (the  trees)  from  Lebanon  to  the  sea,  and  I  will 
make  them  into  rafts  {i.e.  bind  them  into  rafts  and  have  them 
floated)  upon  the  sea  to  the  place  which  thou  shalt  send  (word) 
to  me,  and  will  take  them  (the  rafts)  to  pieces  there,  and  thou 
wilt  take  {i.e.  fetch  them  thence)."  The  Chronicles  give  Yafo, 
i.e.  Joppa,  Jaffa,  the  nearest  harbour  to  Jerusalem  on  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea,  as  the  landing-place  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  46). 
"  And  thou  wilt  do  all  my  desire  to  give  bread  for  my  house," 
i.e.  provisions  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  king's  court.  "  The 
■>3b'  mentioned  in  ver.  6  was  also  to  be  paid  "  (Thenius).  This 
is  quite  correct ;  but  Thenius  is  wrong  when  he  proceeds  still 
further  to  assert,  that  the  chronicler  erroneously  supposed  this 
to  refer  to  the  servants  of  Hiram  who  were  employed  in  work- 
ing the  wood.  There  is  not  a  word  of  this  kind  in  the 
Chronicles  ;  but  simply  Solomon's  promise  to  Hiram  (ver.  9)  : 
"  with  regard  to  the  hewers  (the  fellers  of  the  trees),  I  give  thy 
servants  wheat  20,000  cors,  and  barley  20,000  cors,  and  wine 


CHAP.  V.  1-12.  CI 

20,000  baths,  and  oil  20,000  baths."  This  is  omitted  in  our 
account,  in  which  the  wages  promised  in  ver.  6  to  the  Sidonian 
fellers  of  wood  are  not  more  minutely  defined.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  payment  for  the  wood  delivered  by  Solomon  to  Hiram, 
which  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Chronicles,  is  stated  here  in  ver.  11. 
"  Solomon  gave  Hiram  20,000  cors  of  wheat  as  food  (n?3!?,  a 
contraction  of  npbso^  from  ??ij ;  cf  Ewald,  §  79,  &)  for  his  house 
(the  maintenance  of  his  royal  court),  and  20  cors  of  beaten  oil ; 
this  gave  Solomon  to  Hiram  year  by  year,"  probably  as  long  as 
the  delivery  of  the  wood  or  the  erection  of  Solomon's  buildings 
lasted.  These  two  accounts  are  so  clear,  that  Jac.  Capp.,  Gramb., 
IMov.,  Thenius,  and  Bertheau,  who  have  been  led  by  critical  pre- 
judices to  confound  them  with  one  another,  and  therefore  to 
attempt  to  emend  the  one  from  the  other,  are  left  quite  alone. 
For  the  circumstance  that  the  quantity  of  wheat,  which  Solomon 
supplied  to  Hiram  for  his  court,  was  just  the  same  as  that  which 
he  gave  to  the  Sidonian  workmen,  does  not  warrant  our  identi- 
fying the  two  accounts.  The  fellers  of  the  trees  also  received 
barley,  wine,  and  oil  in  considerable  quantities  ;  whereas  the 
only  other  thing  which  Hiram  received  for  his  court  was  oil, 
and  that  not  common  oil,  but  the  finest  olive  oil,  namely  20 
cors  of  n''n3  poK',  i.e.  beaten  oil,  the  finest  kind  of  oU,  which 
was  obtained  from  the  olives  when  not  quite  ripe  by  pounding 
them  in  mortars,  and  which  had  not  only  a  whiter  colour,  but 
also  a  purer  flavour  than  the  common  oil  obtained  by  pressing 
from  the  ripe  olives  (cf.  Celsii  Hie  robot,  ii.  pp.  349  sq.,  and 
Bahr,  Symbolik,  i  p.  419).  Twenty  cors  were  200  baths,  i.e., 
according  to  the  calculations  of  Thenius,  about  ten  casks  (1  cask 
=  6  pails  ;  1  pail  =  72  cans).  If  we  bear  in  mind  that  this 
was  the  finest  kind  of  oil,  we  cannot  speak  of  disproportion  to 
the  quantity  of  wheat  delivered.  Thenius  reckons  that  20,000 
cors  of  wheat  were  about  38,250  Dresden  scheffeln  (?  sacks). — 
Ver.  1 2.  The  remark  that "  the  Lord  gave  Solomon  wisdom"  refers 
not  merely  to  the  treaty  which  Solomon  made  vni\i  Hiram,  through 
which  he  obtained  materials  and  skilled  workmen  for  the  erection 
of  the  house  of  God  (Thenius),  but  also  to  the  wise  use  which  he 
made  of  the  capacities  of  his  own  subjects  for  this  work.  For 
this  verse  not  only  brings  to  a  close  the  section  relating  to 
Solomon's  negotiations  with  Hiram,  but  it  also  forms  an  intro- 
duction to  the  following  verses,  in  which  the  intimation  given 
by  Solomon  in  ver.  6,  concerning  the  labourers  who  were  to  fell 


62  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

wood  upon  Lebanon  in  company  with  Hiram's  men,  is  more 
minutely  defined. 

Vers.  13—18.  TIig  tributary  labourers  out  of  Israel. — Vers.  13, 
14.  Solomon  raised  a  tribute  (DO,  tribute-labourers,  as  in  cli. 
iv.  6)  out  of  all  Israel,  i.e.  out  of  tbe  whole  nation  (not  "  out 
of  the  whole  territory  of  Israel,"  as  Ewald  supposes),  30,000 
men,  and  sent  them  up  to  Lebanon,  10,000  a  month  in  rota- 
tion ;  one  month  they  were  on  Lebanon  (doing  tribute  work), 
two  months  at  home  (looking  after  the  cultivation  of  their  own 
ground).  ^V%  from  *^^VJ}.,  does  not  mean  in  tdbulas  referre,  in 
support  of  which  appeal  is  made  to  1  Chron.  xxvii.  24,  though 
on  insufficient  ground,  but  ascendere  fecit,  corresponding  to  the 
German  auslieben  (to  raise).  He  raised  them  out  of  the  nation, 
to  send  them  up  Lebanon  (cf  ch.  ix.  25).  These  30,000 
Israelitish  labourers  must  be  distinguished  from  the  remnants 
of  the  Canaanites  who  were  made  into  tribute-slaves  (ver.  15 
and  ch.  ix.  20).  The  latter  are  called  1?'y  DO,  tribute-slaves,  in 
ch.  ix.  21  as  in  Josh.  xvi.  10.  That  the  Israelites  were  not  to 
render  the  service  of  bondsmen  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
they  only  rendered  tribute  for  four  months  of  the  year,  and 
were  at  home  for  eight  months  ;  and  the  use  of  the  epithet  DO 
is  not  at  variance  with  this.  For  even  if  this  word  is  applied 
elsewhere  to  the  Canaanitish  bondsmen  (e.g.  Josh.  xvii.  13, 
Judg.  i  28,  30,  and  2  Chron.  viii.  8),  a  distinction  is  decidedly 
made  in  our  account  of  Solomon  betv^een  DO  and  *i?'y  do,  inas- 
much as  in  ch.  ix.  22,  after  the  Canaanitish  bondsmen  have 
been  mentioned,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  "  of  Israel  Solomon 
made  no  one  a  slave"  Ci?V)-  The  30,000  Israelitish  tribute- 
servants  are  "  to  be  thought  of  as  free  Israelites,  who  simply 
performed  the  less  severe  work  of  felling  trees  in  fellowship 
with  and  under  the  direction  of  the  subjects  of  Hiram  (see  at 
ver.  6),  according  to  the  command  of  the  king,  and  probably 
not  even  that  without  remuneration"  (Thenius).  For  Adoniram 
see  at  ch.  iv.  6. — ^Ver.  15.  And  Solomon  had  70,000  bearers 
of  burdens  and  80,000  hewers  of  stone  on  the  mountains  (of 
Lebanon).  2^n  is  understood  by  the  older  translators  as  refer- 
ring simply  to  hewers  of  stone.  This  is  favoured  both  by  the 
context,  since  ver.  18  speaks  of  stone-mason's  work,  and  also 
by  the  usage  of  the  language,  inasmuch  as  ^f}  is  mostly  applied 
to  the  quarrying  and  cutting  of  stones  (Deut.  vi.  1 1 ;  Isa.  v.  2  ; 
Prov.  ix.  1 ;  2  Kings  xiL  13),  and  only  occurs  in  Isa.  x.  15  in 


CHAP.  V.  13-18.  63 

connection  with  the  cutting  of  wood  The  hewing  and  prepar- 
ing of  the  wood  were  amply  provided  for  by  30,000  Israelites. 
That  the  150,000  bearers  of  burdens  and  hewers  of  stone  were 
not  taken  from  the  Israelites,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  distinguished  from  the  latter,  or  at  all  events  are  not 
described  as  Israelites.  "We  obtain  certainty  on  this  point  from 
the  parallel  passages,  ch.  ix.  20,  21,  2  Chron.  iL  16,  17,  and 
2  Chron.  viii  1—9,  according  to  which  Solomon  pressed  the 
Canaanites  who  were  left  in  the  land  to  this  bond-service. — 
Ver.  16.  "  Beside  0?p),  i.e.  without  reckoning,  the  princes,  Solo- 
mon's officers,  who  were  over  the  work  (i.e.  the  chiefs  appointed 
by  Solomon  as  overlookers  of  the  work),  3300,  who  ruled  over 
the  people  who  laboured  at  the  work."  Q'?^'!'  ^7^',  as  Thenius 
correctly  observes,  cannot  be  the  chief  of  the  overlookers,  i.e.  the 
head  inspectors,  as  there  is  no  allusion  made  to  subordinate 
inspectors,  and  the  number  given  is  much  too  large  for  head 
inspectors.  Q'?2f?,  which  is  governed  by  ^l^-'  in  the  construct 
state,  is  to  be  taken  as  defining  the  substantive :  prindpes  qui 
jyrcefecti  erant  (VatabL  ;  cf.  Ewald,  §  287,  a).  Moreover,  at  the 
close  of  the  account  of  the  whole  of  Solomon's  buildings  (ck 
ix.  23),  550  more  ^""r^r^  ^I'r*  ^^  mentioned  as  presiding  over 
the  people  who  did  the  work.  The  accounts  in  the  Chronicles 
differ  from  these  in  a  very  peculiar  manner,  the  number  of  over- 
seers being  given  in  2  Chron.  ii.  17  as  3600,  and  in  2  Chron. 
viii  10  as  250,  Now,  however  natural  it  may  be,  with  the 
multiplicity  of  errors  occurring  in  numerical  statements,  to 
assume  that  these  differences  have  arisen  from  copyists'  errors 
through  the  confounding  together  of  numerical  letters  resem- 
bling one  another,  this  explanation  is  overthrown  as  an  im- 
probable one,  by  the  fact  that  the  sum-total  of  the  overseers  is 
the  same  in  both  accounts  (3300  -j-  550  =  3850  in  the  books  of 
Kings,  and  3600 -f  250  =  3850  in  the  Chronicles);  and  we 
must  therefore  foUow  J.  H.  Michaelis,  and  explain  the  diffe- 
rences as  resulting  from  a  different  method  of  classification, 
namely,  from  the  fact  that  in  the  Chronicles  the  Canaanitish 
overseers  are  distinguished  from  the  Israehtish  (viz.  3600 
Canaanites  and  250  Israelites),  whereas  in  the  books  of  Kings 
the  inferiores  et  superiores  prmfecti  are  distinguished.  Conse- 
quently Solomon  had  3300  inferior  overseers  and  550  superior 
(or  superintendents),  of  whom  250  were  selected  from  the 
Israelites  and  300  from  the  Canaanites.     In  2  Chron.  ii.  16, 17, 


64  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  3600  were  taken  from  the  Ci^")3, 
i.e.  the  Canaanites  who  were  left  in  the  land  of  Israel.  And  it 
is  equally  certain  that  the  number  given  in  ch.  ix.  23  and 
2  Chron.  viii.  10  (550  and  250)  simply  comprises  the  super- 
intendents over  the  whole  body  of  builders,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  in  both  passages  (ch.  v.  16  and  ch.  ix.  23)  the 
same  epithet  Ci"'ajf3n  nL'^  is  used.  If,  then,  the  number  of  over- 
seers is  given  in  ch.  ix.  23  as  550,  i.e.  300  more  than  in  the 
parallel  passage  of  the  Chronicles,  there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt 
that  the  number  550  includes  the  300,  in  which  the  number 
given  in  our  chapter  falls  short  of  that  in  the  Chronicles,  and 
that  in  the  3300  of  our  chapter  the  superintendents  of  Canaan- 
itish  descent  are  not  included.^ — Ver.  17.  And  the  king  had 
large,  costly  stones  broken,  "  to  lay  the  foundation  of  the  house 
with  hewn  stones."  riiii5^_  does  not  mean  heavy  (Thenius),  for 
this  would  be  a  perfectly  superfluous  remark,  inasmuch  as  large 
stones  are  always  heavy,  but  costly,  valuable  stones,  qui  multa 
pecunia  constabant  (Cler.)  ;  compare  ch.  x.  2,  where  the  word 
stands  for  precious  stones.  IB^^,  i.e.  to  lay  the  foundation  for 
the  temple,  by  which  we  are  to  understand  not  merely  the 
foundation  for  the  temple-house,  but  the  magnificent  substruc- 
tions for  the  whole  of  the  temple  area,  even  though  the  strong 
walls  which  surrounded  the  temple  mountain,  and  which  Jose- 
phus  describes  in  his  Antiquities,  viii.  3,  9,  and  xv,  11,  3,  and 
in  his  de  Bell.  Jucl.  v.  5,  1,  may  not  have  been  all  completed  by 
Solomon,  but  may  have  been  a  work  of  centuries.  For  further 
remarks  on  this  subject,  see  at  ch.  vi.  38.  r\''U  ""iax  are  squared 
stones,  according  to  ch.  vii.  10,  of  ten  and  eight  cubits. 

With  ver.  18  the  account  of  the  preparations  for  the  build- 
ing of  the  temple,  which  were  the  object  of  Solomon's  negotia- 
tions with  Hiram,  is  brought  to  a  close.  "  Solomon's  builders 
and  Hiram's  builders,  even  the  Giblites,  hewed  and  prepared  the 
wood  and  the  stones  for  the  building  of  the  house."  The  object 
to  vtps^.  is  not  the  square  stones  mentioned  before,  but  the  trees 
^  Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  p.  292)  assumes  that  "  by  the  550  (1  Kiugs  ix.  23)  we 
are  to  understand  the  actual  superintendents,  whereas  the  3300  (1  Kings  v. 
80)  include  inferior  inspectors  as  well ;  and  of  the  550  superintendents,  300 
were  taken  from  the  Cananseans,  so  that  only  250  (2  Chron.  viii.  10)  were 
native  Hebrews;"  though  he  pronounces  the  number  3600  (2  Chron.  ii.  17) 
erroneous.  Bertheau,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his  notes  on  2  Chron.  viii.  10, 
has  rather  complicated  than  elucidated  the  relation  in  which  the  two  accounts 
Btand  to  one  another. 


CHAP.  VI.  65 

(beams)  and  stones  mentioned  after  ^^^2^.  D  v23ni  is  to  be  taken 
as  explanatory,  "  even  the  Giblites,"  giving  a  more  precise  defini- 
tion of  "  Hiram's  builders."  The  Giblites  are  the  inhabitants 
of  the  town  of  Gebal,  called  Byblos  by  the  Greeks,  to  the  north 
of  Beirut  (see  at  Josh.  xiii.  5),  which  was  the  nearest  to  the 
celebrated  cedar  forest  of  the  larger  Phoenician  towns.  Accord- 
ing to  Ezek.  xxvii.  9,  the  Giblites  (Byblians)  were  experienced 
in  the  art  of  shipbuilding,  and  therefore  were  probably  skilful 
builders  generally,  and  as  such  the  most  suitable  of  Hiram's 
subjects  to  superintend  the  working  of  the  wood  and  stone  for 
Solomon's  buildings.  For  it  was  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
that  the  number  of  the  Phcenician  builders  was  only  a  small 
one,  and  that  they  were  merely  the  foremen  ;  and  this  may  also 
be  inferred  from  the  large  number  of  his  own  subjects  whom 
Solomon  appointed  to  the  work,^ 

CHAP.  VI.    BUILDING  OF  THE  TEilPLE 

The  account  of  the  building  of  the  temple  commences  with  a 
statement  of  the  date  of  the  building  (ver.  1) ;  and  this  is  fol- 
lowed by  a  description  of  the  plan  and  size  of  the  temple-house 
(vers.  2-1 0),  to  which  there  is  also  appended  the  divine  promise 
made  to  Solomon  during  the  erection  of  the  building  (vers.  1 1-1 3). 
After  this  we  have  a  further  account  of  the  internal  fittings  and 

^  Without  any  satisfactory  ground  Thenius  has  taken  offence  at  the  -word 
Dv33nv  and  on  the  strength  of  the  critically  unattested  kuI  l^aXo*  ainovg 
of  the  LXX.  and  the  paraphrastic  etpfioaxurx;  kccI  9uvir,a»yTx;  of  Josephus, 
which  is  only  introduced  to  fill  in  the  picture,  has  altered  it  into  D^^'23*l, 
"  they  bordered  them  (the  stones)."  This  he  explains  as  relating  to  the 
"  bevelling"  of  the  stones,  upon  the  erroneous  assumption  that  the  grooving 
of  the  stones  in  the  old  walls  encircling  the  temple  area,  which  Robinson 
(^Pal.  i.  423)  was  the  first  to  notice  and  describe,  ''  occurs  nowhere  else  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  form ; "  whereas  Robinson  found  them  in  the  ancient  remains 
of  the  foundations  of  walls  in  different  places  throughout  the  land,  not  only 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  viz.  at  Bethany,  but  also  at  Carmel  on 
the  mountains  of  Judah,  at  Hebron,  Semua  (Esthemoa),  Beit  Nusib  (Nezib), 
on  Tabor,  and  especially  in  the  north,  in  the  old  remains  of  the  walls  of  the 
fortifications  es  Shukif,  Hunin,  Banias,  Tyrus,  Jehail  (Byblus),  Baalbek,  on 
the  island  of  Ruwad  (the  ancient  Aradus),  and  in  different  temples  on  Lebanon 
(see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  101, 198,  434,  627  :  iii.  12,  213,  214  ;  and  Bibl.  Researches, 
p.  229).  Bottcher  (n.  ex.  Krit.  Aehrenl  ii.  p.  32)  has  therefore  properly 
rejected  this  conjecture  as  "  ill-founded,"  though  only  to  put  in  its  place 
another  which  is  altogether  unfounded,  namely,  that  before  D^[325n^  the  word 


66  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

decorations  of  the  sanctuary  (vers.  14-36),  and  in  eh.  vii.  1-12  a 
description  of  the  royal  palace  which  was  built  after  the  temple  ; 
and,  finally,  a  description  of  the  pillars  of  the  court  which  were 
executed  in  metal  by  the  Tyrian  artist,  and  of  the  different  vessels 
of  the  temple  (ch.  vii.  13-51).-^  We  have  a  parallel  to  this  in 
2  Chron.  iii  and  iv.,  though  here  the  description  is  differently 
arranged.  In  the  Chronicles  the  external  building  of  the  temple- 
house  is  not  separated  from  the  internal  decoration  and  furnishing; 
but  after  the  period  of  erection  and  the  size  of  the  temple-house 
have  been  given  in  ch.  iii.  1-3,  there  follows  a  description,  a.  of 
the  court  (ver.  4);  h.  of  the  Holy  Place  with  its  internal  decorations 
(vers.  5-7);  c.  of  the  Most  Holy  Place,  with  special  reference  to  its 
size  and  decorations,  also  of  the  colossal  cherubim  placed  therein 
and  the  curtain  in  front  of  it,  which  is  not  mentioned  in  our  account 
(vers.  8-14) ;  d.  of  the  brazen  pillars  in  front  of  the  court  (vers. 
15-17);  e.  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (ch.  iv.  1),  which  is  passed 
over  in  the  account  before  us  ;  /.  of  the  brazen  sea  (vers.  2-5) ; 
g.  of  the  brazen  lavers,  the  golden  candlesticks,  the  tables  of  shew- 
bread,  and  the  golden  basons  (vers.  6-8) ;  and  h.  of  the  courts 
(ver,  9).  The  account  is  then  closed  with  a  summary  enumera- 
tion of  the  different  vessels  of  the  temple  (vers.  10-22),  which 
agrees  almost  word  for  word  with  1  Kings  vii.  40-50. 

Vers.  1-10.  The  Outside  of  the  Building. — Ver.  1.  The 
building  of  the  temple,  a  fixed  and  splendid  house  of  Jehovah  as 

D''"l'"Sn  ("  the  Tyrians  ")  has  dropped  out.  For  this  has  nothing  further  in  its 
favour  than  the  most  improbable  assumption,  that  king  Hiram  gathered 
together  the  subjects  of  his  whole  kingdom  to  take  part  in  Solomon's  build- 
ings.— The  addition  of  rpioe,  hn,  which  is  added  by  the  LXX.  at  the  end  of 
the  verse,  does  not  warrant  the  assumption  of  Thcnius  and  Bottchcr,  that 
W^j^  B'^B'  has  dropped  out  of  the  text.  For  it  is  obvious  that  the  LXX.  have 
merely  made  their  addition  e  conjectura,  and  indeed  have  concluded  that,  as 
the  foundation  for  the  temple  was  laid  in  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign, 
the  preliminary  work  must  have  occupied  the  first  three  years  of  his  reign. 

^  Of  the  special  works  on  the  subject  of  the  temple,  see  my  pamphlet,  Der 
Tempel  Salomons,  eine  archdologische  Untersuchung  (Dorp.  1839) ;  and  Carl 
Chr.  W.  F.  Bahr,  Der  Salomonische  Tempel  mit  Berucksichtigung  seines  Ver- 
hdltniises  zur  heil.  Architectur  uherhaupt  (Karlsr.  1848).  In  both  of  these 
there  are  critical  notices  of  the  earlier  investigations  and  monographs  on  this 
subject,  which  have  now  simply  a  historical  interest.  See  also  the  short 
description  of  the  temple  in  my  Bihl.  Archdologie,  i.  §  23  sqq.,  with  sketches 
of  the  temple  building  and  the  principal  vessels  on  Plates  2  and  3,  and  the 
most  recent  notice  by  H.  Merz  in  Herzog's  Cyclopaedia  (Art.  Temple). 


CHAP.  VI.  1-10.  67 

the  dwelling-place  of  His  name  in  the  midst  of  His  people, 
formed  an  important  epoch  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  kingdom 
of  God  was  concerned,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  the  declaration 
of  God  made  through  the  prophet  Xathan,  an  end  would  therehy 
be  put  to  the  provisional  condition  of  the  people  of  Israel  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  since  the  temple  was  to  become  a  substantial 
pledge  of  the  permanent  possession  of  the  inheritance  promised 
by  the  Lord.  The  importance  of  this  epoch  is  indicated  by  the 
fact,  that  the  time  when  the  temple  was  built  is  defined  not 
merely  in  relation  to  the  year  of  Solomon's  reign,  but  also  in  rela- 
tion to  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt.  "  In  the  480th 
year  after  the  exodus  of  the  sons  of  Israel  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign,  in  the  second  month  of 
the  year,  Solomon  built  the  house  of  the  Lord."  The  correctness 
of  the  number  480,  as  contrasted  with  the  440th  year  of  the 
LXX.  and  the  different  statements  made  by  Josephus,  is  now 
pretty  generally  admitted ;  and  we  have  already  proved  at  Judg. 
iii  7  that  it  agrees  with  the  duration  of  the  period  of  the 
Judges  when  rightly  estimated.^  The  name  of  the  month  Ziv, 
brilliancy,  splendour,  probably  so  called  from  the  splendour  of 
the  flowers,  is  explained  by  the  clause,  "that  is,  the  second 
month,"  because  the  months  had  no  fixed  names  before  the  cap- 
tivity, and  received  difierent  names  after  the  captivity.  The 
second  month  was  called  Jyar  after  the  captivity. — The  place 
where  the  temple  was  built  is  not  given  in  our  account,  as  having 
been  sufficiently  well  known;  though  it  is  given  in  the  parallel 

^  In  opposition  to  the  hypothesis  of  Bottcher,  which  has  been  repeated  by 
Bertheau,  viz.  that  the  number  480  merely  rests  upon  the  computation  of 
12  X  40  years,  or  twelve  generations  of  forty  years  each,  Thenius  himseK 
has  observed  with  perfect  justice,  that  "  where  both  the  year  and  the  month 
of  the  reign  of  the  king  in  question  are  given,  the  principal  niunber  will  cer- 
tainly rest  upon  something  more  than  mere  computation ;  and  if  this  had  not 
been  the  case,  the  person  making  such  a  computation,  if  only  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  the  appearance  of  an  exact  statement,  would  have  made  a  parti- 
cular calculation  of  the  years  of  Solomon's  reign,  and  would  have  added  them 
to  the  round  number  obtained,  and  written  '  in  the  year  484.'  Moreover,  the 
introduction  to  our  chapter  has  something  annalistic  in  its  tone  ;  and  at  this 
early  period  it  would  be  undoubtedly  well  known,  and  in  a  case  like  the  pre- 
sent a  careful  calculation  would  be  made,  how  long  a  time  had  elapsed  since 
the  most  memorable  period  of  the  Israelitish  nation  had  passed  by."  Compare 
with  this  Ed.  Preuss  {Die  Zeitreehnung  der  LXX.,  p.  74  sqq.),  who  has  endea- 
voured with  much  greater  probability  to  show  that  the  siteration  made  by 
the  LXX.  into  440  rests  upon  nothing  more  than  a  genealogical  combination. 


68  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

text,  2  Chron.  iii.  1,  namely,  "  Mount  MoriaJi,  where  the  Lord  had 
appeared  to  David "  at  the  time  of  the  pestilence,  and  where 
David  had  built  an  altar  of  burnt-offering  by  divine  command 
(see  at  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25). 

Vers.  2-4.  Plan  and  dimensions  of  the,  temple-house. — The 
measures  of  the  temple-house  and  its  several  subdivisions  are  all 
given  in  the  clear,  i.e.  as  the  spaces  were  seen.  The  house,  i.e.  the 
main  building  of  the  temple  (lit.  as  for  the  house,  or  shell  of  the 
building),  its  length  was  sixty  cubits,  its  breadth  twenty  cubits, 
and  its  height  thirty  cubits,  and  that,  according  to  2  Chron.  iii.  3, 
"  after  the  earlier  measure,"  i.e.  after  the  old  Mosaic  or  sacred 
cubit,  which  was  a  hand-breadth  longer,  according  to  Ezek.  xl.  5 
and  xliii.  13,  than  the  civil  cubit  of  the  time  of  the  captivity. 
The  Mosaic  cubit,  according  to  the  investigations  of  Thenius, 
was  214,512  Parisian  lines  long,  i.e.  20^  Dresden  inches,  or 
18^  Ehenish  inches  (see  at  Gen.  vi.  10). — Ver.  3.  The  porch 
(lit.  hall)  in  the  face  of  (^l^'^V,  i-e.  before)  the  Holy  Place  of  the 
house  was  twenty  cubits  long,  before  (''?.S"^V)  the  breadth  of  the 
house,  i.e.  it  was  just  the  same  breadth  as  the  house.  The 
longer  line,  which  ran  parallel  to  the  breadth  of  the  house,  is 
called  here  X}}^,  the  length,  though  from  our  point  of  view  we 
should  call  it  the  width.  And  ten  cubits  was  its  breadth,  i.e. 
its  depth  in  front  of  the  house.  The  height  of  the  court  is  not 
given  in  our  text ;  but  in  2  Chron.  iii.  4  it  is  said  to  have  been 
120  cubits.  This  is  certainly  an  error,  although  Ewald  (Gesch. 
iii.  p.  300)  still  joins  with  Stieglitz  {Baukunst,  p.  126,  and 
Beitrr.zur  Gesch.  der  Bank,  i  p.  70)  in  defending  its  correctness. 
For  an  erection  of  such  a  height  as  this  could  not  possibly  have 
been  designated  as  2^if<  (a  hall  or  porch),  but  would  have  been 
called  /"^Jp,  a  tower.  But  even  a  tower  of  120  cubits  in  height 
in  front  of  a  temple  which  was  only  thirty  cubits  high,  would 
have  shown  a  greater  disproportion  than  our  loftiest  church 
towers ;  ^  and  such  a  funnel-like  erection  with  a  base  of  only  ten 

^  In  the  Strasburg  cathedral  and  that  at  Freiburg  in  Breisgau  the  pro- 
portion between  the  height  of  the  tower  and  that  of  the  church,  together  with 
the  roof,  is  about  3^  to  1 ;  it  is  only  in  the  cathedral  at  Rouen  that  the  pro- 
portion would  have  been  almost  4  to  1  if  it  had  been  carried  out  to  the  very 
top.  At  the  same  time,  in  making  this  comparison  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  these  Gothic  towers  taper  off  into  slender  points,  whereas  in  the 
case  of  Solomon's  t«mple  we  must  assume  that  if  the  porch  was  carried  up  to 
the  height  supposed,  it  finished  in  a  flat  truncated  tower  ;  and  it  is  this  which 
would  chiefly  occasion  the  disproportion. 


CHAP.  VI.  5-8.  69 

cubits  in  breadth  or  depth  would  hardly  have  possessed  sufficient 
stability.     AVe   cannot  certainly  think  of  an  intentional  exag- 
geration of  the  height  in  the  Chronicles,  since  the  other  measures 
agree  with  the  account  before  us ;  but  the  assumption  that  there 
has  been  a  corruption  of  the  text  is  rendered  natural  enough  by 
many  other  errors  in  the  numerical  statements.    This  still  leaves 
it  undecided  whether  the  true  height  was  twenty  or  thirty  cubits ; 
for  whereas  the  S}T:iac,  Arabic,  and  LXX.  (Cod.  Al.)  have  twenty 
cubits,  the  height  of  thirty  cubits  is   favoured  partly  by  the 
omission  of  any  statement  of  the  height  from  our  text,  which  is 
much  easier  to  explain  if  the  porch  was  of  the  same  height  as 
the  temple-house  than  if  the  heights  were  different,  and  partly 
by  the  circumstance  that  the   side  building  had  an  external 
height  of  twenty  cubits,  and  therefore  the  porch  would  not  have 
stood  out  with  any  especial  prominence  if  its  elevation  had  been 
just  the  same. — Ver.  4.  After  the  account  of  the  proportionate 
spaces   in  the   temple-house,    the   windows    through  which  it 
received  light  and  air  are  mentioned.     Q'D^^  ^'PF'P  ''?J^'}  does 
not  raesLii  fe/Lcstrce  intus  latce,  /oris  angustm  (Chald.,  Ar.,  Rabb., 
Luther,  and  others),  but  windows  with  closed  beams,  i.e.  windows 
the  lattice-work  of  which  could  not  be  opened  and  closed  at 
pleasure,  as  in  ordinary  dwelling-houses  (2  Kings  xiii.  1 7  ;  Dan. 
vi.  11).     For  2'3py'  signifies  beams  overlaid  in  ch.  vii  4,  and 
flPK*  beams  in  ch.  vii.   5.      The  opening  of  the  windows  was 
probably  narrower  without  than  within,  as  in  the  older  Eg}-ptian 
buildings,  as  the  walls  were  very  strong ;  and  in  that  case  such 
windows  would  more  thoroughly  answer  their  purpose,  viz.  to 
admit  light  and  air,  and  let  out  the  smoke,  so  that  the  interpre- 
tation given  by  the  Chaldee  is  most  likely  founded  upon  an 
ancient  tradition,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  fact,  though  not 
with  the  words.    It  is  a  disputed  point  among  the  conmientators 
where  the  windows  were  placed:  whether  merely  in  the  front 
over  the  porch,  provided,  that  is  to  say,  that  this  was  ten  cubits 
lower  than  the  temple-house,  or  on  the  side  walls  above  the  side 
stories,  which  were  at  the  most  about  twenty  cubits  high,  in 
which  case  the  Most  Holy  Place,  which  was  only  twenty  cubits 
high,  remained  quite  dark,  according  to  ch.  vui.  12.    "We  regard 
the  latter  view  as  the  correct  one,  inasmuch  as  the  objections  to 
it  rest  upon  assumptions  which  can  be  proved  to  be  false. 

Vers.  0—8.   The  side  building. — Ver.  5.  "  He  built  against  the 
wall  of  the  house  an  outwork  round  about  {i.e.  against  the  two 


70  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

longer  sides  and  against  the  hinder  wall,  and  not  against  the 
front  also,  where  the  porch  was  built),  against  the  walls  of  the 
house  round  about,  against  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  and  he  made  side  chambers  round  about."  V^'H)  (written 
constantly  i^VJ  in  the  Keri)  signifies  literally  stratum,  here  the 
lower  building  or  outwork  erected  against  the  rooms  mentioned. 
The  word  is  gen.  comm.,  but  so  construed  that  the  masculine  is 
used  in  a  collective  sense  to  denote  the  whole  of  the  outworks, 
consisting  as  they  did  of  three  stories,  whereas  the  feminine  is 
used  for  one  single  story  of  the  building  (ver.  6).  On  this  use 
of  the  masculine  and  feminine  genders  to  distinguish  the  whole 
mass  and  the  individual  parts,  which  is  very  common  in  Arabic, 
though  it  is  rare  in  Hebrew,  in  which  the  distinction  is  gene- 
rally expressed  by  a  peculiar  feminine  form,  as  for  example  ""JS 
a  fleet,  and  njpj?  a  single  ship,  compare  Ewald,  Lehrbuch  der  hebr. 
Spr.  §  175,  d,  and  176,  a,  and  gramm.  crit.  ling.  arab.  i.  §  295. 
ni"i^i?"nNl  does  not  mean  cum  parietibus  (Seb.  Schmidt  and  J.  H. 
Michaelis),  but  riN  is  a  sign  of  the  accusative,  "  as  for  the 
walls,"  and  introduces  the  more  precise  definition.  niy?if 
signifies,  both  here  and  in  Ezek.  xli.  6  sqq.,  side  chambers  or 
side  stories,  from  V}'i,  to  incline  to  one  side,  hence  to  limp,  i.e. 
to  lean  constantly  to  one  side.  From  this  there  were  derived 
for  J^/-»*  the  meanings  side,  side  piece  or  side  wall,  e.g.  of  the 
ark,  Ex.  xxv.  12,  14,  etc.,  of  the  dwelling,  Ex.  xxvi.  20,  26,  etc., 
of  the  altar,  Ex.  xxviL  7,  30,  etc.,  the  side  wall  or  slope  of  a 
mountain,  2  Sam.  xvi.  13,  the  side  portion  of  the  human  body, 
i.e.  the  rib,  Gen.  ii.  21,  22,  the  sides  or  leaves  of  a  door  in  ver. 
34  of  tlie  present  chapter,  and  when  used  of  buildings,  the  side 
pieces  or  portions  built  out  which  lean  against  the  main  build- 
ing ;  and  lastly,  the  idea  of  a  piece  which  shows  a  large  side, 
i.e.  a  broad  plank  (ch.  vi.  15,  16).  The  meaning  planks  or 
beams,  as  it  were  ribs  or  rib-work,  is  unfounded. — Ver.  6.  The 
(internal)  breadth  of  the  lower  side  story  was  five  cubits,  that 
of  the  middle  one  six,  and  that  of  the  third  seven  cubits ; 
"  for  he  (they)  had  made  shortenings  (i.e.  rebates)  against  the 
house  round  about  on  the  outside,  that  (there  might  be)  no 
insertion  into  the  walls  of  the  (temple-)  house."  The  meaning 
is  that  rebates  were  attached  against  the  temple  wall,  at  the 
point  where  the  lower  beams  of  the  different  side  stories  were 
to  be  placed,  so  that  the  heads  of  these  beams  rested  upon  the 
rebates  and  were  not  inserted  in  the  actual  wall  of  the  temple- 


CHAP.  VL  5-8. 


71 


\ 


house.     These  rebates  are  called  very  descriptively  ri^ri^P,  de- 
ductions or  contractions  of  the  thickness  of  the  TvalL     We  may 
assume  that  there  were  four  such  rebates :  three  for  the  three 
floors  of  the  side  stories,  and  one  for  the  roof.     It  still  remains 
doubtful,  however,  whether  these  rebates  were  merely  laid  along 
the  temple  wall,  or  along  the  outer  wall  of  the  side  building  as 
well,  so  as  to  ensure  symmetry  and  make  each  of  the  two  walls 
haK  a  cubit  thinner  or  weaker  at  every  rebate.     The  former  is 
the  more  probabla     And  accordingly  the  temple  wall  was  one 
cubit  weaker  at  each  rebate,  that  is  to  say,  in  four  places.     If, 
therefore,  it  still  remained  two  cubits  thick  at  the  top,  it  must 
have  been  six  cubits  thick  below.     This  extraordinary  thick- 
ness, however,  would  be  quite  in  keeping  with  the  remains  of 
buildings  of  great  antiquity,  the  walls  of  which  have  generally 
a  colossal  thickness,  and  also  with  the  size  of  the  square  stones 
of  which  the  waU  was  constructed,  as  described  in  ch.  vii  10. 
— ^Ver.  7  contains  a  circumstantial  clause,  inserted  as  an  ex- 
planation of  ver.  6  :  "  The  house,  (namely)  when  building,  was 
built  of  perfectly  finished  stones  of  the  quarry,  and  hammer 
and  axe ;  no  kind  of  instrument  whatever  was  heard  at  the 
house  when  it  was  building."     i'BO  noPii'  ]2^  (on  the  construc- 
tion see  Ges.  §  114,  1,  ErL,  and  Ewald,  §  339,6)  does  not  mean 
stones  quite  unhewn,  which  God  had  so  caused  to  grow  that  they 
did   not  require  to  be  hewn  (Theodoret) ;  for  although  Q^?3K 
T\\u7p  is  used  in  Dent,  xxvii  6   (compare  with  Ex.  xx.  25)  to 
signify  uninjured,  i.e.  unhewn  stones,  yet  tliis  meaning  is  pre- 
cluded here  by  the  context  (cf.  v.  32).      Cp'J'  signifies  finished 
here,  that  is  to  say,  stones  which  were  so  perfectly  tooled  and 
prepared  when  first  broken  in  the  quarry,  that  when  the  temple 
walls  were  built  no  iron  instruments  were  required  to  prepare 
them  any  further.     \p},,  an  axe,  here  a  stone-mason's  cutting 
tool  corresponding  to  the  axe. — In  ver.  8  the  description  of  the 
side  building  is  continued.     "  A  door  {^'}^,  an  opening  for  the 
entrance)  to  the  middle  side  chamber  (of  the  lower  story)  was 
on  the  right  side  (the  southern  side)  of  the  house,  and  a  wind- 
ing staircase  led  up  into  the  middle  (room  of  the  middle  story) 
and  out  of  the  middle  into  the  third  rooms,"  i.e.  the  rooms  of  the 
third  story.     This  is  the  rendering  according  to  the  Masoretic 
text ;  and  the  only  thing  that  appears  strange  is  the  use   of 
njb'jjin  first  of  all  for  the  middle  room  of  the  lower  story  and 
then  for  the  middle  story  ;  and  the  conjecture  is  a  very  natural 


72  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

one,  that  the  first  njb''nn  may  have  been  an  error  of  the  pen 
for  njhririnj  in  which  case  y>^\}  does  not  signify  the  side  room, 
but  is  used  in  a  collective  sense  for  the  row  of  side  rooms  in 
one  story,  as  in  Ezek.  xli.  5,  9,  11,  That  this  door  was  made 
from  the  outside,  i.e.  in  the  outer  wall  of  the  side  building,  and 
did  not  lead  into  the  side  rooms  "  from  the  interior  of  the  Holy 
Place,"  would  hardly  need  a  remark,  if  Bottcher  {Prohen  alttestl. 
SchrifterM.  p.  339)  and  Schnaase  {Gesch.  der  hildenden  Kiinste, 
Bd.  1)  had  not  really  supported  this  view,  which  is  so 
thoroughly  irreconcilable  with  the  dignity  of  the  sanctuary.^ 
The  only  question  is,  whether  it  was  made  in  the  middle  of 
the  right  side  or  in  the  front  by  the  side  of  the  porch.  If 
the  Masoretic  text  is  correct,  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  former. 
But  if  we  read  fi^nnnn,  the  text  leaves  the  question  undecided. 
The  winding  staircase  was  not  constructed  in  the  outer  wall 
itself,  because  this  was  not  thick  enough  for  the  purpose,  and 
the  text  states  pretty  clearly  that  it  led  from  the  lower  story 
into  the  middle  one,  and  thence  still  higher,  so  that  it  was  in 
the  centre  of  the  building. 

In  vers.  9  and  10  the  description  of  the  exterior  of  the 
temple  building  is  brought  to  a  close.  "  So  he  built  the  house, 
and  finished  it,  and  covered  the  house  with  beams  and  boards 
of  cedar."  I'SD^l  is  not  to  be  understood  as  relating  to  the 
internal  panelling  of  the  temple-house,  for  this  is  spoken  of 
first  in  the  section  which  follows  (ver.  1 5),  but  to  the  roofing ; 
)BD  means  to  conceal  (Deut.  xxxiii,  21)  and  cover  in  all  the 
other  passages,  even  in  Hag.  i.  4  and  Jer.  xxii.  14,  where  fi^D  is 
generally,  though  incorrectly,  translated  "  panelled."  As  a  verb 
signifying  clothing,  it  is  construed  with  the  accusative.  C^S  does 
not  mean  boards,  but  beams,  though  not  "  an  arched  covering  " 
(Thenius),  because  beams  cut  in  the  form  of  an  arch  would  have 
been  too  weak  in  the  middle,  nor  yet  rafters  (Bottcher),  because 
the  roofs  of  oriental  buildings  are  flat.  27"}^?  ^'^1^,  "  rows,  i.  e. 
tablets  (consisting)  of  cedars,"  i.  e.  cedar  tablets,  which  were 
inserted  in  rows  between  the  beams.  This  cedar-work  was  cer- 
tainly provided  with  a  strong  covering  to  protect  the  roof  and 
the  building  itself  against  rain  ;  and  at  the  sides  it  had  no  doubt 
a  parapet,  as  in  the  case  of  dwelling-houses  (Deut.  xxii.  8). — 

*  The  perfectly  groundless  assumption  of  Thenius,  that  the  outer  building 
had  most  probably  an  inner  door  as  well,  which  connected  it  with  the  temple, 
does  just  as  much  violence  to  the  decorum  of  the  Holy  Place. 


CHAP.  VI.  9,  10.  73 

Ver.  10.  "And  he  built  the  outbuildings  to  the  whole  house 
{i.e.  all  round  the  teraple-house,  with  the  exception  of  the  front : 
see  ver.  5) ;  five  cubits  was  its  height,"  i.e.  the  height  of  each 
story,  the  suffix  in  inoip  being  made  to  agree  with  5nv»n  through 
an  inaccuracy  which  has  arisen  from  condensation,  although,  as 
in  ver.  5,  it  denotes  the  whole  of  the  side  buildings,  which 
consisted  of  three  stories.  The  height  given  must  also  be 
understood  as  referring  to  the  height  within.  Consequently 
the  side  buildings  had  an  internal  height  of  3  X  5  cubits,  and 
reckoning  the  floorings  and  the  roof  of  the  whole  building  an 
external  height  of  1 8  or  20  cubits ;  so  that  the  temple-house, 
which  was  thirty  cubits  high  within  and  about  thirty-two  with- 
out, rose  about  twelve  or  fourteen  cubits  above  the  side  building, 
and  there  was  plenty  of  room  for  the  windows  in  the  side  walls. 
'Ui  Thx'i :  "  and  it  (the  side  building)  held  to  the  house  with 
cedar  beams."  The  meaning  is,  that  the  building  was  fastened 
to  the  house  by  the  joists  of  the  cedar  beams  belonging  to  the 
different  stories,  which  rested  upon  rebates  of  the  temple  wall, 
so  that  it  was  firmly  attached  to  the  temple-house,  without  any 
injurious  insertions  into  the  sanctuary  itself.  This  is  apparently 
the  only  explanation,  that  can  be  grammatically  sustained,  of 
words  that  have  received  such  different  interpretations.  For 
the  translation  given  by  Thenius,  which  coincides  with  this, — 
viz.  "  he  fastened  it  (each  separate  story  of  the  building)  to  the 
temple-house  with  cedar  wood,  namely,  with  the  cedar  beams 
which  formed  the  flooring  and  roofing  of  the  three  stories," — is 
exposed  to  this  grammatical  objection,  that  the  suffix  is  wanting 
in  inx";^  and  that  inx  is  never  followed  by  ^??  in  the  sense  of  icith. 
All  the  other  explanations  are  unsuitable.  Ths^  signifies  neither 
"  he  covered  the  house  "  (Chald.,  Vulg.,  Luther),  nor  "  he  over- 
laid the  house ; "  moreover,  the  roofing  of  the  house  has  been 
already  mentioned  in  ver.  9,  and  there  is  no  trace  to  be  found 
of  any  overlaying  or  covering  of  the  outside  with  cedar  wood. 

If,  therefore,  we  reckon  the  thickness  of  the  temple  wall  at 
six  cubits,  and  that  of  the  outer  wall  of  the  side  building  and 
the  front  wall  of  the  porch  at  three  cubits  each,  the  whole  build- 
ing would  be  ninety-three  cubits  long  (externally)  and  forty-eight 
cubits  broad.  The  height  of  the  temple-house  was  about  thirty- 
two  cubits  externally,  and  that  of  the  side  stories  from  eighteen 
to  twenty  cubits,  without  the  socle  upon  which  the  whole  build- 
ing rested.    This  is  not  mentioned  indeed,  as  being  a  subordinate 


74  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

matter,  "but  would  certainly  not  be  omitted.^  The  number  of 
rooms  in  the  side  buildings  is  not  given,  but  may  be  set  down 
at  thirty  in  each  story,  if  their  length  corresponded  to  their 
breadth  in  the  lower  story.  These  rooms  had  of  course  win- 
dows, although  they  are  not  mentioned  in  the  account,  but  each 
one  would  have  only  a  small  window  sufficient  to  give  it  the 
requisite  light.  And  as  to  the  number  of  the  temple  windows 
also,  we  can  simply  make  conjectures.  We  can  hardly  assume 
that  there  were  more  than  six  on  each  side,  and  there  were 
probably  none  at  the  back. 

Vers.  11-13.  Phomise  of  God  dueing  the  Building  of  the 
Temple. — In  what  way  this  promise  was  communicated  to  Solo- 
mon is  not  more  precisely  stated.  But  the  expression  "  And  the 
word  of  Jehovah  came"  seems  to  point  to  a  prophetic  medium. 
And  this  is  in  harmony  with  ch.  ix,  2,  according  to  which  Jehovah 
only  revealed  Himself  to  Solomon  twice  by  an  actual  appearance. 
— Ver,  12,  'lil  n^2n  is  placed  at  the  head  absolutely :  "  As  for  the 
house  which  thou  art  building  (nja,  a  participle),  if  thou  walkest 
in  my  statutes,  ...  I  will  set  up  my  word,  which  I  spake  to  thy 
father  David,"  The  reference  is  to  the  promise  in  2  Sam.  vii.  1 2 
sqq.  of  the  everlasting  establishment  of  his  throne.  God  would 
fulfil  this  for  Solomon  if  he  would  walk  in  the  commandments  of 
the  Lord,  as  his  father  had  already  urged  upon  him  when  he 
handed  over  the  kingdom  (ch.  ii.  3).  The  promise  in  ver.  13,  "  I 
will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  does  not  contain 
a  second  promise  added  to  the  one  given  in  2  Sam.  vii.  1 2  sqq., 
but  simply  a  special  application  of  it  to  the  building  of  the  temple 
which  had  already  been  commenced.     The  eternal  establishment 

^  Tlienius,  on  the  other  hand,  reckons  the  length  of  the  whole  building  at 
a  hundred  cubits  and  its  breadth  at  fifty-two,  because,  on  the  unfounded  as- 
sumption that  the  temple  in  Ezekiel's  vision  was  simply  a  copy  of  Solomon's 
temple,  he  sets  down  the  thickness  of  the  temple  wall  in  front  and  along  the 
two  sides  at  six  cubits,  and  that  of  the  hinder  wall  at  seven.  Moreover,  he 
not  only  reckons  the  internal  length  of  the  house  at  sixty-two  cubits,  in 
opposition  to  the  statement  in  the  text,  that  the  length  of  the  house  (which 
was  divided  into  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Holy  of  Holies)  was  sixty  cubits ; 
but  in  opposition  to  ver.  16,  according  to  which  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Holy 
of  Holies  were  separated  by  boards  of  cedar,  he  assumes  that  there  was  a  wall 
of  two  cubits  in  thickness  between  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Holy  of  Holies,  ac- 
cording to  Ezek.  xli.  3  ;  and,  lastly,  for  no  other  reason  than  the  wish  to  get  the 
round  number  100,  he  takes  for  granted  that  the  hinder  wall  of  the  temple 
was  a  cubit  thicker  than  that  on  the  other  sides. 


CHAP.  VI.  14-2-2.  70 

of  the  throne  of  David  involved  the  dwelling  of  God  among  His 
people,  or  rather  is  founded  upon  it.  This  dwelling  of  God  is  now 
to  receive  a  new  and  lasting  realization.  The  temple  is  to  be  a 
pledge  that  the  Lord  will  maintain  for  His  people  His  covenant  of 
grace  and  His  gracious  presence.  In  this  respect  the  promise, "  I 
will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  not  forsake 
my  people  Israel,"  is  a  confirmation  of  the  word  which  Jehovah 
had  spoken  to  David,  although,  so  far  as  the  actual  words  are  con- 
cerned, it  is  more  closely  connected  with  Lev.  xxvi  11,  when  the 
highest  blessing  attendant  upon  the  faithful  observ^ance  of  the 
commandments  of  God  is  summed  up  in  the  promise,  "  I  will 
make  my  abode  among  you,  and  my  soul  wiU  not  despise  you." 

Vers.  14-35.  The  Internal  Arrangements  of  the  Temple- 
house. — Vers.  14—22.  Internal  covering  of  the  Timise,  and  divi- 
sion into  Holy  and  Most  Holy. — Ver.  14  (cf.  ver.  9)  resumes  the 
description  of  the  building  of  the  temple,  which  had  been  inter- 
rupted by  the  divine  promise  just  communicated. — Y&i.  1 5.  "  He 
built  {i.e.,  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned,  he  covered)  the  walls 
of  the  house  within  with  boards  of  cedar ;  from  the  floor  of  the 
house  to  the  walls  of  the  ceiling  he  overlaid  it  with  wood  within, 
and  overlaid  the  floor  with  cj'press  boards."  The  expression  ni"i^"5 
{3Bn^  "  -walls  of  the  ceiling,"  is  ver}'-  striking  here,  and  renders 
it  probable  that  nn"'p  is  only  a  copjdst's  error  for  nhip,  "  beams 
of  the  ceUing."  The  whole  of  the  inside  of  the  house  was 
covered  with  wood,  so  that  nothing  was  to  be  seen  of  the  stone 
wall  (ver.  18).  On  the  other  hand,  the  biblical  text  knows 
nothing  of  any  covering  of  the  outer  walls  also  with  wood,  as 
many  have  assumed. — Yers.  16,  17.  "And  he  built  Dnb'jrns 
HEX,  the  twenty  cubits  {i.e.  the  space  of  twenty  cubits),  of  the 
hindermost  side  of  the  house  with  boards  of  cedar,"  from  the  floor 
to  the  beams  (of  the  roof),  nn^isniy  is  to  be  explained  from 
jEan  niTp  ny  in  ver.  15.  "And  bmlt  them  for  it  (the  house 
— Sb  pointing  back  to  n^an)  into  the  hinder  room,  into  the  Most 
Holy."  i^^T  is  more  precisely  defined  by  the  apposition  ^.P 
^''^'I^l',  and  therefore  denotes  the  Most  Holy  Place.  But  there  is 
a  doubt  as  to  its  derivation  and  true  meaning.  Aquila  and 
Symmachus  render  it  "Xprjfj.aTLarrjpLov,  Jerome  Xa\7}T^piov,  or  in 
the  Vulg.  oraculum,  so  that  they  derive  it  from  i?^,  to  speak ; 
and  Hengstenberg  adopts  this  derivation  in  Ps.  xxviiL  2  :  I'^-n, 
lit.  that  which  is  spoken,  then  the  place  where  the  speaking 


76  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

takes  place.  Most  of  the  more  recent  commentators,  on  the 
other  hand,  follow  the  example  of  C.  B.  Michaelis  and  J.  Simonis, 
and  render  it,  after  the  Arabic,  the  hinder  portion  or  back  room, 
which  is  favoured  by  the  antithesis  ''^D^  72\n,  the  front  sanctuary 
(ver.  1 7).  The  words  of  the  text,  moreover,  are  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  a  cedar  wall  in  front  of  the  Most  Holy  Place 
which  rose  to  the  height  of  twenty  cubits,  but  to  all  four  walls  of  the 
Most  Holy  Place,  so  that  the  wall  which  divided  the  hinder  room 
from  the  Holy  Place  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  simply  because 
it  is  self-evident.  The  words  also  imply  that  the  whole  of  the 
hinder  space  of  the  house  to  the  length  of  twenty  cubits  was  cut 
off  for  the  Most  Holy  Place,  and  therefore  the  party  wall  must 
also  have  filled  the  whole  height  of  the  house,  which  was  as 
much  as  thirty  cubits,  and  reached,  as  is  expressly  stated,  from 
the  floor  to  the  roof.  There  remained  therefore  forty  cubits  of 
the  house  (in  length)  for  ''JS?  ^'^Nn,  the  front  palace,  i.e.  the 
Holy  Place  of  the  temple  (ver.  1 7).  \2??,  anterior,  formed  from 
^:b?  (cf.  Ewald,  §  164,  a). — In  ver.  18  there  is  inserted  in  a 
circumstantial  clause  the  statement  as  to  the  internal  decoration 
of  both  rooms ;  and  the  further  description  of  the  Most  Holy 
Place  is  given  in  vers.  1 9  sqq.  "  And  cedar  wood  was  (placed) 
against  the  house  inside,  sculpture  of  gourds  (colocynthides)  and 
open  buds."  riyppp  is  in  apposition  to  HNl,  containing  a  more 
minute  description  of  the  nature  of  the  covering  of  cedar,  riypipp 
signifies  sculpture,  half-raised  work  (basso  relievo) ;  not,  however, 
"  that  kind  of  bas-relief  in  which  the  figures,  instead  of  rising 
above  the  surface  on  which  they  are  wrought,  are  simply  sepa- 
rated from  it  by  the  chiselling  out  of  their  outlines,  and  their 
being  then  rounded  off  according  to  these  outlines"  (Thenius). 
For  although  the  expression  niyppp  ''mns  (ver.  29)  appears  to 
favour  this,  yet  "merely  engraved  work"  does  not  harmonize 
with  the  decorations  of  the  brazen  stands  in  ch.  vii.  31,  which 
are  also  called  nij'pipp.  W^Vi^B  are  figures  resembling  the  nVpa, 
or  wild  gourds  (2  Kings  iv.  39),  i.e.  oval  ornaments,  probably 
running  in  straight  rows  along  the  walls.  D^sy  ''1}^^  are  open 
flower-buds ;  not  hangings  or  garlands  of  flowers  (Thenius),  for 
this  meaning  cannot  be  derived  from  ">^s  in  the  sense  of  loosen- 
ing or  setting  free,  so  as  to  signify  flowers  loosened  or  set  free 
(=  garlands),  which  would  be  a  marvellous  expression!  The 
objection  that,  "according  to  Num.-  xvii.  23,  flowers  not  yet 
opened,  i.e.  flower-buds,  were  not  D>7,  but  Q^nns/'  rests  upon  a 


I 


CHAP.  VL  14-22.  77 

false  interpretation  of  the  passage  referred  to. — Ver.  19.  "And 
(=  namely)  lie  prepared  a  hinder  room  in  the  house  within,  to 
place  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  there."  \^,  as  ch. 
x^di.  14  shows,  is  not  a  future  (ut  reponeres),  but  the  infinitive  rin 
with  a  repeated  syllable  p  (see  Ewald,  §  238,  c). — ^Ver.  20.  "  And 
the  interior  of  the  hinder  room  was  twenty  cubits  the  length, 
twenty  cubits  the  breadth,  and  twenty  cubits  its  height"  The 
word  "f^r?  I  agree  with  Kimchi  in  regarding  as  the  construct 
state  of  the  noun  D'^2?,  which  occurs  again  in  ver.  29  in  the 
sense  of  the  inner  part  or  interior,  as  is  evident  from  the 
antithesis  pi"''?^  (on  the  outside).  "And  he  overlaid  it  with 
fine  gold."  "i^iD  nnr  (=  "»iip  in  Job  xxviii.  1 5)  unquestionably 
signifies  fine  or  costly  gold,  although  the  derivation  of  this 
meaning  is  still  questionable  ;  viz.  whether  it  is  derived  from  ""iS 
in  the  sense  of  to  shut  up,  i.e.  gold  shut  up  or  carefully  pre- 
served, after  the  analogy  of  Dri3  ;  or  is  used  in  the  sense  of  taking 
out  or  selecting,  i.e.  gold  selected  or  pure ;  or  in  the  sense  of 
closed,  i.e.  gold  condensed  or  unadulterated  (Fiirst  and  Delitzsch 
on  Job  xxviiL  15). 

Tlie  Most  Holy  Place  had  therefore  the  form  of  a  perfect 
cube  in  the  temple  as  well  as  in  the  tabernacle,  only  on  an 
enlarged  scale.  Now,  as  the  internal  elevation  of  the  house,  i.e. 
of  the  whole  of  the  temple-house,  the  hinder  portion  of  which 
formed  the  Most  Holy  Place,  was  thirty  cubits,  there  was  a  space 
of  about  ten  cubits  in  height  above  the  Most  Holy  Place  and 
below  the  roof  of  the  temple-house  for  the  upper  rooms  men- 
tioned in  2  Chron.  iii.  9,  on  the  nature  and  purpose  of  which 
nothing  is  said  in  the  two  accounts.^  "  And  he  overlaid  (clothed) 
the  altar  with  cedar  wood."  There  is  something  very  striking 
in  the  allusion  to  the  altar  in  this  passage,  since  the  verse  itseK 
treats  simply  of  the  Most  Holy  Place ;  and  still  more  striking 
is  the  expression  "^"^9  "^'f  *^.  'D?.^'^,  "  the  altar  belonging  to  the 
Debir"  in  ver.  22,  since  there  was  no  altar  in  the  Most  Holy 

*  This  upper  room  does  not  presuppose,  however,  that  the  party  wall,  which 
follows  as  a  matter  of  course  from  ver.  16,  was  not  merely  a  cedar  wall,  but 
a  wall  two  cubits  thick.  The  supposed  difficulty  of  setting  up  a  cedar  wall 
thirty  cubits  high  is  not  so  great  as  to  necessitate  assumptions  opposed  to 
the  text.  For  we  cannot  poaibly  see  why  it  could  not  have  been  made  secure 
*'  without  injuring  the  temple  wall."  The  wood  panelling  must  have  been 
nailed  firmly  to  the  wall  without  injuring  the  wall  itself ;  and  therefore  this 
could  be  done  just  as  well  in  the  case  of  the  cedar  beams  or  boards  of  the 
party  walL 


V  8  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS' 

Place.  We  cannot  remove  the  strangeness  of  these  sentences 
by  such  alterations  as  Thenius  and  Bottcher  propose,  because 
the  alterations  suggested  are  much  too  complicated  to  appear 
admissible.  The  allusion  to  the  altar  in  both  these  verses  is 
rather  to  be  explained  from  the  statements  in  the  Pentateuch  as 
to  the  position  of  the  altar  of  incense ;  viz.  Ex.  xxx.  6,  "  Thou 
shalt  place  it  before  the  curtain,  which  is  above  the  ark  of  the 
testimony  before  the  capporeth  over  the  testimony ; "  and  Ex. 
xl.  5,  "before  the  ark  of  the  testimony;"  whereby  this  altar, 
although  actually  standing  "  before  the  inner  curtain,"  i.e.  in  the 
Holy  Place,  according  to  Ex.  xl.  26,  was  placed  in  a  closer  rela- 
tion to  the  Most  Holy  Place  than  the  other  two  things  which 
were  in  the  Holy  Place.  The  clothing  of  the  altar  with  cedar 
presupposes  that  it  had  a  heart  of  stone ;  and  the  omission  of 
the  article  before  n?TO  may  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  mentioned  here  for  the  first  time,  just  as  in  ver.  16,  where 
"vy^  was  first  mentioned,  it  had  no  article. — Ver.  21.  To  the 
gilding  of  the  Most  Holy  Place,  and  the  allusion  to  the  altar  of 
incense,  which  in  a  certain  sense  belonged  to  it,  there  is  now 
appended  in  ver.  2 1  the  gilding  of  the  Holy  Place.  "  Solomon 
overlaid  the  house  from  within  with  fine  gold."  no"'JB»  n^an 
cannot  be  the  party  wall  between  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Most 
Holy,  as  I  formerly  supposed,  but  is  the  Holy  Place  as  distin- 
guished from  the  Most  Holy.  The  following  words  '131  "lay^l  are 
very  obscure.  If  we  rendered  them, "  he  caused  to  pass  over  in 
(with)  golden  chains  before  the  hinder  room,"  we  could  only 
think  of  an  ornament  consisting  of  golden  chains,  which  ran 
along  the  wall  in  front  of  the  hinder  room  and  above  the  fold- 
ing doors.  But  this  would  be  very  singularly  expressed.  We 
must  therefore  take  *i2y,  as  Gesenius,  de  Wette,  and  many  of 
the  earlier  commentators  do,  according  to  the  Chaldaean  usage 
in  the  sense  of  bolting  or  fastening :  "  he  bolted  (fastened)  with 
golden  chains  before  the  hinder  room ; "  and  must  assume  with 
Merz  and  others  that  the  doors  into  the  Most  Holy  Place  (except 
on  the  day  of  atonement)  were  closed  and  fastened  with  golden 
chains,  which  were  stretched  across  the  whole  breadth  of  the 
door  and  stood  out  against  the  waU.-' — The  following  expres- 

^  The  conjecture  of  Thenius,  that  ns'lSITTlX  (the  curtain)  has  dropped  out 
of  the  text  and  should  be  restored  ("he  carried  the  curtain  across  with 
golden  chains"),  is  very  properly  described  by  Merz  as  "certainly  unten- 
able," since,  apart  from  the  fact  that  not  one  of  the  older  versions  contains 


CHAP.  VI.  23-28.  79 

sion,  ^vJ  V"is>n, "  and  lie  overlaid  it  with  gold,**  can  only  refer  to 
the  altar  mentioned  in  the  pre"\dous  verse,  the  gilding  of  which 
has  not  yet  been  noticed,  however  surprising  the  separation  of 
these  words  from  ver.  20  may  be. — In  ver.  22  what  has  already 
been  stated  with  regard  to  the  gilding  is  repeated  once  more  in 
a  comprehensive  manner,  which  brings  this  subject  to  a  close. 
The  whole  house  (ri'.?n"?3)  is  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Most  Holy, 
but  not  the  porch  or  hall,  as  this  is  expressely  distinguished  from 
the  house,     nansn^  the  whole  altar,  not  merely  a  portion  of  it 

Vers.  23—28.  The  large  chervh-figures  in  the  Most  Holy  Place. 
— ^Ver.  23.  He  made  (caused  to  be  made)  in  the  hinder  room 
two  cherubs  of  olive  wood,  i.e.  wood  of  the  oleaster  or  wild  olive- 
tree,  which  is  very  firm  and  durable,  and,  according  to  2  Chron. 
iii  10,  Q'JWf  nb^,  i.e.,  according  to  the  Vulgate,  opus  statu- 
arium,  a  peculiar  kind  of  sculpture,  which  cannot  be  more 
precisely  defined,  as  the  meaning  of  V^V  is  uncertain.  "  Ten 
cubits  was  the  height  of  it"  (i.e.  of  the  one  and  of  the  other). 
The  figures  had  a  human  form,  like  the  golden  cherubs  upon 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  stood  upright  upon  their  feet 
(2  Chron.  iii  13),  with  extended  wings  of  five  cubits  in  length, 
so  that  one  wing  of  the  one  reached  to  one  wing  of  the  other  in 
the  centre  of  the  room,  and  the  other  wing  of  each  reached  to 
the  opposite  wall,  and  consequently  the  four  extended  wings  filled 
the  entire  breadth  of  the  Most  Holy  Place  (a  breadth  of  twenty 
cubits),  and  the  two  cherubs  stood  opposite  to  one  another  and 
ten  cubits  apart.  The  wings  were  evidently  fastened  to  the 
back  and  placed  close  to  one  another  upon  the  shoulder-blades, 
so  that  the  small  space  between  their  starting-points  is  not 
taken  into  consideration  in  the  calculation  of  their  length. 
The  figures  were  completely  overlaid  with  gold.  The  ark  of 
the  covenant  was  placed  between  these  cherubs,  and  under  the 
wings  which  pointed  towards  one  another.  As  they  were  made 
like  those  upon  the  ark,  they  had  evidently  the  same  meaning, 
and  simply  served  to  strengthen  the  idea  which  was  symbol- 
ized in  the  cherub,  and  which  we  have  expounded  in  the  Com- 

the  missing  words,  chains  "woald  have  impeded  the  moving  of  the  curtain.  It 
is  true  that,  according  to  2  Chron.  iii  14,  there  was  a  curtain  before  the  Most 
Holy  Place ;  but  as  it  is  not  mentioned  so  early  as  this  even  in  the  Chronicles, 
this  -would  not  be  its  proper  position  in  the  account  before  us,  but  it  would  be 
most  suitably  mentioned  either  in  connection  with  or  after  the  reference  to 
the  doors  of  the  Most  Holy  Place  in  vers.  31  and  32. 


80  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

mentary  on  Ex.  xxv.  20  sqq.  Only  their  faces  were  not  turned 
towards  one  another  and  bent  down  towards  the  ark,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  golden  cherubim  of  the  ark ;  but,  according  to 
2  Chron.  iii.  13,  they  were  turned  n^ap,  towards  the  house,  i.e. 
the  Holy  Place,  so  as  to  allow  of  the  extension  of  the  wings 
along  the  full  length  of  the  Most  Holy  Place. 

Vers.  29—35.  Ornaments  of  the  walls;  the  floors  and  doors. — 
Ver.  29.  All  the  walls  of  the  house  (the  Holy  Place  and  the 
Most  Holy)  round  about  (3pp,  adverb)  he  made  engraved  work 
(carving)  of  cherubs,  palms,  and  open  flowers  from  within  to  the 
outside  {i.e.  in  the  Most  Holy  as  well  as  in  the  Holy  Place). 
S  .  .  }D  =  7S  .  .  IP ;  and  Ci''J2?  as  in  ver.  2  0.  This  completes  the 
account  of  the  nature  of  the  covering  of  wood.  In  addition  to  the 
oval  figures  and  open  flowers  (ver.  18),  there  were  also  figures  of 
cherubim  and  palm-trees  carved  in  the  wooden  panels.  Nothing 
is  said  as  to  the  distribution  of  these  figures.  But  a  comparison 
with  Ezek.  xli.  18  shows  at  any  rate  so  much,  that  the  palm- 
trees  alternated  with  the  cherubs,  so  that  there  was  always  one 
cherub  standing  between  two  palm-trees.  The  gourd-shaped 
figures  and  the  open  flowers  probably  formed  the  upper  and 
lower  setting  of  the  rows  of  palms  and  cherubs,  the  flowers 
hanging  in  the  form  of  garlands  above  the  palms  and  cherubs, 
and  the  rows  of  gourds  arranged  in  bars  constituting  the  boun- 
dary lines  both  above  and  below.  It  is  a  disputed  question 
whether  there  was  only  one  row  of  palms  and  cherubs  running 
round  the  walls,  or  whether  there  were  two,  or  possibly  even 
three.  There  is  more  probability  in  the  second  or  third  of 
these  assumptions  than  in  the  first,  inasmuch  as  on  the  walls  of 
the  Egyptian  temples  there  were  often  three  or  four  rows  of 
mythological  characters  in  relief  arranged  one  above  another 
(compare  my  work  on  the  Temple,  pp.  70  sqq.). — Ver.  30.  The 
floor  of  the  house  he  overlaid  with  gold  within  and  without, 
i.e.  in  the  Most  Holy  Place  and  in  the  Holy  Place  also. — Vers. 
31, 32.  He  made  the  entrance  to  the  back  room,  doors  {i.e.  consist- 
ing of  doors ;  cf.  Ewald,  §  284,  a,  /3)  of  olive  wood,  which  moved, 
according  to  ch.  vii.  5  0,  on  golden  hinges.  'IJ^  ^)'^'},  "  the  pro- 
jection of  the  door-posts  Was  a  fifth  "  (ninro  is  construed  freely 
as  an  explanatory  apposition  to  ^\^'^,  to  which  it  is  really  sub- 
ordinate; cf.  Ewald,  §  290,  g).  These  obscure  words,  which  have 
been  interpreted  in  very  different  ways  (see  Ges.  Thes.  pp.  43  sq.), 
can  hardly  have  any  other  meaning  than  this :  the  projecting 


CHAP.  VI.  29-35.  81 

framework  of  the  doors  occupied  the  fifth  part  of  the  breadth  of 
the  wall     For  the  explanation  given  by  Bottcher  and  Thenius, 
"  the  entrance  framework  with  posts  of  fifth  strength,"  has  no  real 
support  in  Ezek.  xli.  3.    To  justify  the  rendering  given  to  n''BT?n 
(fifth  strength),  *?]^^  is  supplied,  though  not  in  the  sense  of  pro- 
jection, but  in  the  thoroughly  unwarranted  sense  of  strength  or 
thickness  of  the  wall ;  and  in  addition  to  this,  a  wall  two  cubits 
thick  is  postulated  between  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Most  Holy 
Place,  in  direct  contradiction  to  ver.  16.     The  further  evidence, 
which  Thenius  finds  in  cL  viii.  8,  in  support  of  this  explanation, 
has  been  already  rejected  by  Bottcher  as  unsustained.     It  would 
indeed  be   extremely  strange  for  the  thickness   of  the   door- 
posts which  formed  the  setting  of  the  entrance  to  be   given, 
whereas  nothing  is  said  about  the  size  of  the  doors.     According 
to  our  explanation,  "  a  fifth  of  the  breadth  of  the  wall,"  the 
entrance  was  four  cubits  broad  including  the  projecting  door- 
posts, and  each  of  the  two  wings  of  the  folding  doors  about  a 
cubit  and  a  half  broad,  if  we  reckon  the  projecting  framework 
on  either  side  at  half  a  cubit  in  breadth. — ^Ver.  32.  "  And  two 
doors  {i.e.  folding  doors,  sc.  he  made  ;  ^^'^  is  also  governed  by 
nby  in  ver.  31)  of  olive  wood,  and  carved  upon  them  carved 
work,"  etc.,  as  upon  the  walls  (ver.  29),  "  and  overlaid  them  with 
gold,  spreading  the  gold  upon  the  cherubs  and  palms"  (T^.),  hiphil 
of  Ti"!),  i.e.  he  spread  gold-leaf  upon  them,  so  that,  as  Eashi 
observes,  all  the  figures,  the  elevations  and  depressions  of  the 
carved  work,  were  impressed  upon  the  coating  of  gold-leaf,  and 
were  thus  plainly  seen.     Thenius  infers  from  this  explanatory 
clause,  that  the  gilding  upon  the  walls  and  doors  was  most  pro- 
bably confined  to  the  figures  engraved,  and  did  not  extend  over 
the  whole  of  the  walls  and  doors,  because,  if  the  doors  had  been 
entirely  overlaid  with  gold,  the  gilding  of  the  carved  work  upon 
them  would  have  followed  as  a  matter  of  course.     But  this  in- 
ference is  a  very  doubtful  one.     For  if  it  followed  as  a  matter 
of  course  from  the  gilding  of  the  entire  doors  that  the  carved 
work  upon  them  was  overlaid  with  gold,  it  would  by  no  means 
follow  that  the  overlaying  was  such  as  to  leave  the  carved  work 
visible  or  prominent,  which  this  clause  afi&rms.    Moreover,  a  par- 
tial gilding  of  the  walls  would  not  coincide  with  the  expression 
'T?'^~^3  Dniy  in  ver.  22,  since  these  words,  which  are  used  with 
emphasis,  evidently  afiirm  more  than  "  that  such  (partial)  gilding 
was   carried  out  everywhere  throughout  the  temple  proper/' 

V 


82  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

The  doors  in  front  of  the  Most  Holy  Place  did  not  render  the 
curtain  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  iii.  14  unnecessary,  as  many 
suppose.  This  curtain  may  very  well  have  been  suspended 
within  the  doors  ;  so  that  even  when  the  doors  were  opened 
outwards  on  the  entrance  of  the  high  priest,  the  curtain  formed 
a  second  covering,  which  prevented  the  priests  who  were 
ministering  in  the  Holy  Place  and  court  from  looking  in.^ — 
Vers.  33,  34.  "And  thus  he  made  upon  the  door  of  the  Holy 
Place  posts  of  olive  wood  from  a  fourth  (of  the  wall),"  i.e. 
a  framework  which  occupied  a  fourth  of  the  breadth  of  the 
wall,  or  was  five  cubits  broad  (see  at  ver.  3 1),  "  and  two  doors 
of  cypress  wood,  two  leaves  each  door  turning,"  i.e.  each  of  the 
folding  doors  consisting  of  two  leaves,  each  of  which  was  made 
to  turn  by  itself,  so  that  it  could  be  opened  and  shut  alone 
(without  the  other ;  Ci'*i'/P  is  probably  only  a  copyist's  error  for 
D''V?V).  Cj^press  wood  was  chosen  for  the  folding  doors  of  the 
Holy  Place,  and  not  olive  wood,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Most 
Holy  Place,  probably  because  it  is  lighter  in  weight,  and  there- 
fore less  likely  to  sink.  It  is  questionable  here  what  idea 
we  are  to  form  of  the  division  of  each  folding  door  into  two 
leaves,  each  of  which  turned  by  itself :  whether  we  are  to  think 
of  each  wing  as  divided  lengthwise  into  two  narrow  leaves,  or 
as  divided  half  way  up,  so  that  the  lower  half  could  be  opened 
without  the  upper.  I  agree  with  Merz  in  thinking  the  latter 
the  more  probable  assumption ;  for  the  objection  made  by 
Thenius,  on  the  ground  that  doors  of  this  kind  are  only  seen  in 
the  houses  of  the  peasantry,  is  an  idle  assertion  which  cannot 
be  proved.  In  a  doorway  of  five  cubits  in  breadth,  after  rec- 
koning the  doorposts  the  width  of  the  two  wings  could  not  be 
more  than  two  cubits  each.  And  if  such  a  door  had  been 
•divided  into  two  halves,  each  half  would  have  been  only  one 
cubit  wide,  so  that  when  open  it  would  not  have  furnished  the 
requisite  room  for  one  man  conveniently  to  pass  through.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  may  assume  that  a  folding  door  of  four 
cubits  in  breadth,  if  made  in  just  proportions,  would  be  eight 
cubits  high.     And  a  door  of  such   a  height  might  easUy  be 

1  II.  Merz  (Herzog's  Cycl.)  now  admits  this,  whereas  he  formerly  agreed 
with  Ewald  and  others  in  denying  the  existence  of  the  curtain  in  Solomon's 
temple,  and  regarded  the  curtain  (veil)  in  Matt,  xxvii.  51,  52  as  an  arbitrary 
addition  made  by  Herod  out  of  his  princely  caprice,  thus  overlooking  the 
deep  symbolical  meaning  which  the  veil  or  curtain  possessed. 


CHAP.  VI.  36. 


83 


divided  into  two  halves,  so  that  only  the  lower  half  (of  two 
cubits  in  breadth  and  about  four  in  height)  was  opened  for  the 
daily  entrance  of  the  priests  into  the  Holy  Place.  These  doors 
probably  opened  outwards,  like  those  in  front  of  the  Most 
Holy  Place. — ^Ver.  35.  Carving  and  gilding  :  as  upon  the  doors 
before  the  hinder  room.  The  gold  was  levelled  or  smoothed 
over  that  which  had  been  engraved,  i.e.  it  was  beaten  out  thin 
and  laid  upon  the  carving  in  such  a  manner  that  the  gold  plate 
fitted  closely  to  the  figures.  Gilding  was  generally  effected  in 
ancient  times  by  the  laying  on  of  gold  plate,  which  was  fas- 
tened with  tacks  (compare  2  Chron,  iii  9). 

Ver.  36.  The  amrts. — "  He  buHt  the  inner  court  three  rows 
of  hewn  stones  and  one  row  of  hewn  cedar  beams."  The  epithet 
inner  court  applied  to  the  "  court  of  the  priests"  (2  Chron.  iv.  9) 
presupposes  an  outer  one,  which  is  also  mentioned  in  2  Chron. 
iv.  9,  and  called  "  the  great  court,"  The  inner  one  is  called 
the  iqyper  (higher)  court  in  Jer.  xxxvi  10,  from  which  it  fol- 
lows that  it  was  situated  on  a  higher  level  than  the  outer  one, 
which  surrounded  it  on  all  sides.  It  was  enclosed  by  a  low 
wall,  consisting  of  three  rows  of  hewn  stones,  or  square  stones, 
laid  one  upon  another,  and  a  row  of  hewn  cedar  beams,  which 
were  either  laid  horizontally  upon  the  stones,  after  the  analogy 
of  the  panelling  of  the  temple  walls  on  the  inside,  or  placed  up- 
right so  as  to  form  a  palisading,  in  order  that  the  people  might 
be  able  to  see  through  into  the  court  of  the  priests.  According 
to  2  Chron.  iv.  9,  the  outer  court  had  gates  lined  with  brass, 
so  that  it  was  also  surrounded  with  a  high  wall.  Around  it 
there  were  chambers  and  cells  (2  Kings  xxiii  1 1 ;  Jer.  xxxv.  4, 
xxxvL  10)  for  the  priests  and  Levites,  the  plans  for  which  had 
already  been  made  by  David  (1  Chron.  xxviii  12).  The  prin- 
cipal gate  was  the  east  gate  (Ezek.  xi  1).  Other  gates  are  men- 
tioned in  2  Kings  xi.  6,  2  Chron.  xxiii.  5,  Jer.  xx.  2,  2  Kings 
xii.  10,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  8.  The  size  of  these  courts  is  not  given. 
At  the  same  time,  following  the  analogy  of  the  tabernacle,  and 
with  the  reduplication  of  the  rooms  of  the  tabernacle  which  is 
adopted  in  other  cases  in  the  temple,  we  may  set  down  the 
length  of  the  court  of  the  priests  from  east  to  west  at  200 
cubits,  and  the  breadth  from  south  to  north  at  100  cubits  ;  so 
that  in  front  of  the  temple-building  on  the  east  there  was  a 
space  of  100  cubits  in  length  and  breadth,  or  10,000  square 
cubits,  left  free  for  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  and  the  other 


84  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

vessels,  in  other  words,  for  the  sacrificial  worship.  The  outer 
or  great  court  will  therefore,  no  doubt,  have  been  at  least  twice 
as  large,  namely,  400  cubits  long  and  200  cubits  broad,  i.e.,  in 
all,  80,000  square  cubits;  so  that  the  front  space  before  the 
court  of  the  priests  (on  the  eastern  side)  was  150  cubits  long 
from  east  to  west,  and  200  cubits  broad  from  south  to  north, 
and  50  cubits  in  breadth  or  depth  still  remained  for  the  other 
three  sides. 

Vers.  37,  38.  The  time  consumed  in  huilding. — The  founda- 
tion was  laid  in  the  fourth  year  in  the  month  Ziv  (see  ver,  1), 
and  it  was  finished  in  the  eleventh  year  in  the  month  Bui,  i.e, 
the  eighth  month,  so  that  it  was  built  in  seven  years,  or,  more 
precisely,  seven  years  and  a  half,  "  according  to  all  its  matters 
and  all  its  due."  ^^3  for  i"i3^.  signifies  provenhis ;  /is  nn^  is  there- 
fore the  fruit  month,  the  month  of  tree  fruits.  The  name  pro- 
bably originated  with  the  Phoenicians,  with  whom  the  fruit 
ripened  later ;  and  it  is  said  to  be  found  upon  the  great  Sidonian 
inscription  (compare  Dietrich  on  Ges.  Lex.  s.v.).  For  other  expla- 
nations see  Ges.  Thes.  p.  560.  In  comparison  with  other  large 
buildings  of  antiquity,^  and  also  of  modern  times,  the  work  was 
executed  in  a  very  short  time.  But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
the  building  was  not  a  very  large  one,  notwithstanding  all  its 
splendour ;  that  an  unusually  large  number  of  workmen  were 
employed  upon  it ;  and  that  the  preparation  of  the  materials, 
more  especially  the  hewing  of  the  stones,  took  place  at  Lebanon, 
and  for  the  most  part  preceded  the  laying  of  the  foundation  of 
the  temple,  so  that  this  is  not  to  be  included  in  the  seven  years 
and  a  half  Moreover,  the  period  mentioned  probably  refers  to 
the  building  of  the  temple-house  and  court  of  the  priests  only, 
and  to  the  general  arrangement  of  the  outer  court,  and  does  not 
include  the  completion  of  the  underground  works  which  were 
necessary  to  prepare  the  space  required  for  them,  and  of  which 
only  a  portion  may  have  been  carried  out  by  Solomon.^ 

^  According  to  Pliny  {H.  N.  36,  c.  14),  all  Asia  was  building  at  the  cele- 
brated temple  of  Diana  at  Ephesus  for  220  years. 

2  The  account  given  by  Josephus  of  these  substructures  does  not  show 
very  clearly  how  much  originated  with  Solomon,  and  how  much  belongs  to 
the  following  centuries.  At  the  close  of  his  description  of  Solomon's  temple 
(^Ant.  viii.  3,  9),  he  states  that,  in  order  to  obtain  the  same  level  for  the  'i^udiv 
ispov,  i.e.  the  outer  court  of  the  temple,  as  that  of  the  vx6;,  he  had  large 
valleys  filled  up,  into  which  it  was  difficult  to  look  down  on  account  of  their 
depth,  by  raising  the  ground  to  the  height  of  400  cubits,  so  as  to  make  them 


CHAP.  VI.  37,  sa  85 

The  importance  of  the  temple  is  clearly  expressed  in  ch.  viii. 
13,  27,  ix.  3,  2  Chron,  vi  2,  and  other  passages.  It  was  to  be 
a  house  built  as  the  dwelling-place  for  Jehovah,  a  place  for  His 
seat  for  ever;  not  indeed  in  any  such  sense  as  that  the  house 
could  contain  God  within  its  space,  when  the  heavens  of  heavens 
cannot  contain  Him  (ch.  viii.  27),  but  a  house  where  the  name 
of  Jehovah  is  or  dwells  (ch.  viii.  1 6  sqq. ;  2  Chron.  vi.  5  ;  cf. 
2  Sara.  vii.  13,  etc.),  i.e.  where  God  manifests  His  presence  in 

level  v;ith  the  top  of  the  mountain ;  and  in  the  de  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5,  1,  after 
describing  the  temple-mountain  as  a  mighty  hill,    the  summit  of   which 
hardly  sufficed  for  the  temple-house  and  altar  when  the  building  was  com- 
menced, because  it  sloped  off  on  all  sides,  he  adds :  "  Solomon  therefore 
caused  a  wall  to  be  raised  on  the  eastern  side,  and  had  a  porch  built  upon  the 
ground  that  was  heaped  up,  and  on  the  other  sides  the  temple  (»ao';)  was 
naked  (yi/,a»;V)."     But  in  the  description  of  the  temple  of  Herod  {^Ant.  xv. 
11,  3)  he  says:  "The  temple  was  surrounded  by  enormous  porticos  (otoxi), 
which  rested  upon  a  large  wall,  and  were  the  largest  work  of  which  men  have 
ever  heard.     It  was  a  steep  rocky  hill,  rising  gradually  towards  the  eastern 
part  of  the  city  up  to  the  highest  point.     This  hill  Solomon  surrounded  with 
a  wall  by  very  great  works  up  to  the  very  apex,  and  waUed  it  round,  com- 
mencing at  the  root,  which  is  surrounded  by  a  deep  ravine,  with  stones  which 
were  fastened  together  with  lead,  .  .  .  and  continuing  to  the  top,  so  that  the 
size  and  height  of  the  building,  which  was  completed  as  a  square,  were 
immense,"  etc.     The  flat  obtained  in  this  manner  is  then  described  by  Jose- 
phus  as  a  irsp/3oXoj  of  four  stadia  in  circumference,  namely,  one  stadium  on 
each  side.     Xow,  although  it  was  the  outer  court  of  the  temple  of  Herod 
(the  court  of  the  Gentiles)  which  first  had  this  circumference  (see  my  bibl. 
Archdol.  i.  pp.  143,  14-1),  and  Josephus,  de  Bell.  Jud.  y.  5,  1,  relates  that 
subsequently  (to7;  s;ijj  uiuati)  the  levelling  of  the  hill  was  carried  out  to 
even  a  greater  e.tteut,  as  the  people  still  continued  to  heap  up  earth,  it  is 
quite  conceivable  that  Solomon  may  have  planned  the  area  of  the  temple 
with  this  circumference.    And  this  conjecture  acquires  great  probability  from 
the  fact  that,  according  to  the  researches  of  Robinson  (^Pal.  i.  pp.  420  sqq.  ; 
Recent  Investigations  concerning  the  Topography  of  Jerusalem,  pp.  68  sqq.;  and 
Later  Biblical  Researches,  pp.  173  sqq.),  there  are  layers  of  enormous  square 
stones  in  the  lowest  part  of  the  south-western  and  south-eastern  comers  of 
the  present  Haram  wall,  the  dimensions  of  which,  apart  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  hewn  with  grooved  edges,  point  to  an  early  Israelitish  origin,  so  that 
they  might  very  well  be  relics  of  the  Solomonian  substructures  of  the  temple- 
hill.     There  is  also  the  remnant  of  the  arch  of  a  bridge  of  the  same  con- 
struction on  the  southern  portion  of  the  western  wall  of  the  Haram,  which 
points  to  a  bridge  that  led  across  from  Moriah  to  Zion,  and  "  appears  to 
remove  all  the  objections  to  the  identity  of  this  part  of  the  enclosure  of  the 
mosque  with  that  of  the  ancient  temple"  (Rob.  Pal.  i.  p.  426).    "  Here  then," 
adds  Robinson  (Pal.  i.  pp.  427,  428),  "  we  have  indisputable  remains  of 
Jewish  antiquity,  consisting  of  an  important  portion  of  the  western  wall  of 


86  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

a  real  manner  to  His  people,  and  shows  Himself  to  them  as  the 
covenant  God,  so  that  Israel  may  there  worship  Him  and  receive 
an  answer  to  its  prayers.  The  temple  had  therefore  the  same 
purpose  as  the  tabernacle,  whose  place  it  took,  and  which  it  re- 
sembled in  its  fundamental  form,  its  proportions,  divisions,  and 
furniture.  As  the  glory  of  the  Lord  entered  into  the  tabernacle 
in  the  cloud,  so  did  it  into  the  temple  also  at  its  dedication,  to 
sanctify  it  as  the  place  of  the  gracious  presence  of  God  (ch.  viii 

the  ancient  temple  area.  They  are  probably  to  be  referred  to  a  period  long 
antecedent  to  the  days  of  Herod ;  for  the  labours  of  this  splendour-loving 
tyrant  appear  to  have  been  confined  to  the  body  of  the  temple  and  the 
porticos  around  the  court.  The  magnitude  of  the  stones  also,  and  the  ■work- 
manship, as  compared  with  other  remaining  monuments  of  Herod,  seem  to 
point  to  an  earlier  origin.  In  the  accounts  we  have  of  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  by  the  Chaldseans,  and  its  rebuilding  by  Zerubbabel  under  Darius,  no 
mention  is  made  of  these  exterior  walls.  The  former  temple  was  destroyed 
by  fire,  which  would  not  affect  these  foundations  ;  nor  is  it  probable  that  a 
feeble  colony  of  returning  exiles  could  have  accomplished  works  like  these. 
There  seems,  therefore,  little  room  for  hesitation  in  referring  them  back  to 
the  days  of  Solomon,  or  rather  of  his  successors,  who,  according  to  Jose- 
phus,  built  up  here  immense  walls,  '  immoveable  for  all  time.'  " 

But  however  probable  this  assumption  may  be,  the  successors  of  Solomon 
cannot  come  into  consideration  at  all,  since  Josephus  says  nothing  of  the  kind, 
and  the  biblical  accounts  are  not  favourable  to  this  conjecture.  With  the 
division  of  the  kingdom  after  the  death  of  Solomon  the  might  of  the  kings 
of  Judah  was  broken  ;  and  the  accounts  of  the  new  court  which  Jehoshaphat 
built,  i.e.  of  the  restoration  of  the  inner  court  (2  Chron.  xx.  5),  and  of 
the  repairs  of  the  temple  by  Joash  (2  Kings  xii.  5  sqq. ;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  4  sqq.) 
and  Josiah  (2  Kings  xxii.  5  sqq. ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8  sqq.),  do  not  produce  the 
impression  that  walls  so  costly  or  so  large  could  have  been  built  at  that  time. 
The  statement  of  Josephus  {I.e.  de  Bell.  Jud.  v.  6,  1)  concerning  the  gradual 
extension  of  the  levelled  hill,  has  reference  to  the  enlargement  of  the  temple 
area  towards  the  north,  inasmuch  as  he  adds  to  the  words  already  quoted  : 
"  and  cutting  through  the  north  wall,  they  took  in  as  much  as  was  afterwards 
occupied  by  the  circumference  of  the  whole  temple." — If,  therefore,  the 
remains  of  the  ancient  wall  which  have  been  mentioned,  with  their  stones  of 
grooved  edges,  are  of  early  Israelitish  origin,  we  must  trace  them  to  Solomon  ; 
and  this  is  favoured  still  further  by  the  fact,  that  when  Solomon  had  a  mag- 
nificent palace  built  for  himself  opposite  to  the  temple  (see  ch.  vii.  1-12),  he 
would  assuredly  connect  the  temple-mountain  with  Zion  by  a  bridge. — Even 
J.  Berggren  {Bibel  u.  Josephus  iiber  Jerus.  u.  d.  he'd.  Grab.}  thinks  it  probable 
that  "  the  so-called  remains  of  an  arch  in  the  western  Haram  wall  may  be, 
as  Robinson  at  first  indicated,  a  relic  of  that  ancient  and  marvellous  xystus 
bridge,  with  which  the  Davidic  steps  on  the  two  steep  sides  of  the  valley  of 
the  Tyropceum,  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  going  from  Moriah  to  Zion 
or  from  Zion  to  Moriah,  were  connected." 


CHAP.  VL  37,  38.  87 

10 ;  2  Chron.  v.  14).     The  temple  thereby  became  not  only  a 
visible  pledge  of  the  lasting  duration  of  the  covenant,  by  virtue 
of  which  God  would  dwell  among  His  people,  but  also  a  copy  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  which  received  at  its  erection  an  embodi- 
ment answering  to  its  existing  condition  at  the  time.     As  the 
tabernacle,  with  its  resemblance  to  a  nomad's  tent,  answered  to 
the  time  when  Israel  had  not  yet  found  rest  in  the  promised 
land  of  the  Lord  ;  so  was  the  temple,  regarded  as  an  immoveable 
house,  a  pledge  that  Israel  had  now  acquired  its  lasting  inheri- 
tance in  Canaan,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  Gk>d  on  earth  had 
obtained  a  firm  foundation  in  the  midst  of  it — This  relation 
between  the  temple  and  the  tabernacle  will  serve  to  explain  all 
the  points  of  difference  which  present  themselves  between  these 
two  sanctuaries,  notwithstanding  their  agreement  in  fundamental 
forms  and  in  all  essential  particulars.     As  a  house  or  palace  of 
Jehovah,  the  temple  was  not  only  built  of  solid  and  costly 
materials,  with  massive  walls  of  square  stones,  and  with  floors, 
ceilings,  walls,  and  doors  of  cedar,  cypress,  and  olive  woods — 
these  almost  imperishable  kinds  of  wood — ^but  was  also  pro- 
vided with  a  hall  like  the  palaces  of  earthly  kings,  and  with  side 
buildings  in  three  stories  in  which  to  keep  the  utensils  requisite 
for  a  magnificent  ceremonial,  though  care  was  taken  that  these 
adjoining  and  side  buildings  were  not  attached  directly  to  the 
main  building  so  as  to  violate  the  indestructibility  and  perfect- 
ness  of  the  house  of  God,  but  merely  helped  to  exalt  it  and  ele- 
vate its  dignity.     And  the  increased  size  of  the  inner  rooms, 
whilst  the  significant  forms  and  measures  of  the  tabernacle  were 
preserved,  was  also  essentially  connected  with  this.     Whereas 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  dwelling  were  doubled,  and  the 
height  of  the  whole  house  tripled,  the  form  of  a  cube  was  still 
retained  for  the  Most  Holy  Place  as  the  stamp  of  the  perfected 
kingdom  of  God  (see  Comm.  on  Pent.  voL  il  p.   184),  and  the 
space  was  fixed  at  twenty  cubits  in  length,  breadth,  and  height 
On  the  other  hand,  in  the  case  of  the  Holy  Place  the  sameness  of 
height  and  breadth  were  saciificed  to  the  harmonious  proportions 
of  the  house  or  palace,  as  points  of  inferior  importance  ;  and  the 
measurements  were  thirty  cubits  in  height,  twenty  cubits  in 
breadth,  and  forty  cubits  in  length  ;  so  that  ten  as  the  number  of 
peri'ectness  was  preserved  as  the  standard  even  here.     And  in 
order  to  exhibit  still  further  the  perfectness  and  glory  of  the 
house  of  God,  the  walls  were  not  constructed  of  ordinary  quarry- 


88  THE  FIBST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

stone,  but  of  large  square  stones  prepared  at  the  quarry,  and  the 
walls  were  panelled  within  with  costly  wood  after  the  manner 
of  the  palaces  of  Hither  Asia,  the  panelling  being  filled  with 
carved  work  and  overlaid  with  gold  plate.  And  whereas  the 
overlaying  of  the  whole  of  the  interior  with  gold  shadowed  forth 
the  glory  of  the  house  as  the  residence  of  the  heavenly  King,  the 
idea  of  this  house  of  God  was  still  more  distinctly  expressed  in 
the  carved  work  of  the  walls.  In  the  tabernacle  the  walls  were 
decorated  with  tapestries  in  costly  colours  and  interwoven  figures 
of  cherubim ;  but  in  the  temple  they  were  ornamented  with 
carved  work  of  figures  of  cherubim,  palms,  and  opening  flowers. 
To  the  figures  of  cherubim,  as  representations  of  the  heavenly 
spirits  which  surround  the  Lord  of  glory  and  set  forth  the 
psychical  life  at  its  highest  stage,  there  are  thus  added  flowers, 
and  still  more  particularly  palms,  those  "  princes  of  the  vegetable 
kingdom,"  which,  with  their  fine  majestic  growth,  and  their  large, 
fresh,  evergreen  leaves,  unite  within  themselves  the  whole  of  the 
fulness  and  glory  of  the  vegetable  life ;  to  set  forth  the  sanctuary 
(probably  with  special  reference  to  Canaan  as  the  land  of  palms, 
and  with  an  allusion  to  the  glory  of  the  King  of  peace,  inasmuch 
as  the  palm  is  not  only  the  sign  of  Palestine,  but  also  the  symbol 
of  peace)  "  as  a  place  that  was  ever  verdant,  abiding  in  all  the 
freshness  of  strength,  and  enfolding  within  itself  the  fulness  of 
life,"  and  tliereby  to  make  it  a  scene  of  health  and  life,  of  peace 
and  joy,  a  "  paradise  of  God,"  where  the  righteous  who  are  planted 
there  flourish,  and  blossom,  and  bear  fruit  to  old  age  (Ps.  xcii. 
13).  And  this  idea  of  the  house,  as  an  immoveable  dwelling- 
place  of  God,  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  setting  up  of  two 
colossal  cherubim  in  the  Most  Holy  Place,  which  filled  the  whole 
space  with  their  outspread  wings,  and  overshadowed  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  to  show  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  with  its 
small  golden  cherubim  upon  the  Capporeth,  which  had  journeyed 
with  the  people  through  the  desert  to  Canaan,  was  henceforth  to 
have  there  a  permanent  and  unchangeable  abode. 

CHAP.  VII.  SOLOMON'S  PALACE  AND  THE  FURNITURE  OF  THE 

TEMPLR 

Vers.  1—12.  Erection  of  the  royal  palace. — ^Ver.  1  is  closely 
connected  in  form  with  ch.  vi.  38,  and  contains  a  summary 
account  of  the  building,  which  is  more  minutely  described  in 


CHAP.  VII.  1-12,  89 

vers.  2-12.  "  And  Solomon  built  his  house  (his  palace)  in 
thirteen  years,  and  finished  (in  that  time)  all  his  house."  The 
thirteen  years  are  to  be  reckoned  after  the  completion  of  the 
temple  in  seven  years,  so  that  the  two  buildings  were  executed 
in  twenty  years  (ch.  ix.  10).  The  expression  in'3"73  is  used, 
because  the  palace  consisted  of  several  buildings  connected  to- 
gether ;  namely,  (1)  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  (vers. 
2-5)  ;  (2)  the  pillar-hall  with  the  porch  (ver.  6)  ;  (3)  the  throne- 
room  andjudgment-haU  (ver.  7) ;  (4)  the  king's  dweUing-house 
and  the  house  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  (ver.  8).  That  all  these 
buildings  were  only  different  portions  of  the  one  royal  palace, 
and  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  was  not  a  summer  resi- 
dence of  Solomon  erected  on  Lebanon  itself,  as  many  of  the 
earlier  commentators  supposed,  is  indisputably  e^ndent,  not  only 
from  the  first  verse  when  correctly  interpreted,  but  also  and 
still  more  clearly  from  the  fact  that  when  the  buildings  of  Solo- 
mon are  spoken  of  afterwards  (see  ch.  ix.  1,  10,  15,  and  x.  12), 
we  only  read  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  and  the  house  of  the  king, 
that  is  to  say,  of  the  temple  and  one  palace.  The  description  of 
the  several  portions  of  this  palace  is  so  very  brief,  that  it  is 
impossible  to  form  a  distinct  idea  of  its  chamcter.  The  differ- 
ent divisions  are  given  in  vers.  1-8  in  their  natural  order,  com- 
mencing at  the  back  and  terminating  with  the  front  (ver.  8),  and 
there  then  follows  in  vers.  9-12  the  description  of  the  stones 
that  were  used. — Vers.  2-  5.  TJie  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon. — 
This  building — so  named  because  it  was  built,  so  to  speak,  of  a 
forest  of  cedar  piUars — is  called  in  the  Arabic  the  "  house  of 
his  arms,"  because,  according  to  ch.  x.  17,  it  also  served  as  a 
keeping-place  for  arms : "  it  is  hardly  to  be  regarded,  however, 
as  simply  an  arsenal,  but  was  probably  intended  for  other  pur- 
poses also.  He  built  it  ''a  hundred  cubits  its  length,  fifty  cubits  its 
breadth,  and  thirty  cubits  its  height,  on  four  rows  of  cedar  pillars, 
and  hewn  cedar  beams  (were)  over  the  pillars."  As  the  building 
was  not  merely  a  hall  of  pillars,  but,  according  to  ver.  3,  had  side- 
rooms  (n'ypv,  cf  ch.  vi.  5)  above  the  piUars,  the  construction  of  it 
can  hardly  be  represented  in  any  other  way  than  this,  that  the 
rooms  were  built  upon  four  rows  of  pillars,  which  ran  round  all 
four  sides  of  the  building,  which  was  100  cubits  long  and  fifty 
cubits  broad  in  the  inside,  and  thus  surrounded  the  inner  court- 
yard on  all  sides.  Of  course  the  building  could  not  rest  merely 
upon  pillars,  but  was  surrounded  on  the  outside  with  a  strong 


90  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

"wall  of  hevm  square  stones  (ver.  9),  so  that  the  hewn  beams  which 
were  laid  upon  the  pillars  had  their  outer  ends  built  into  the 
wall,  and  were  supported  by  it,  so  as  to  give  to  the  whole  build- 
ing the  requisite  strength.^ — Ver.  3.  "  And  roofing  in  (of)  cedar 
was  above  over  the  side-rooms  upon  the  pillars,  five  and  forty ; 
fifteen  the  row."  iSD  is  to  be  understood  of  the  roofing,  as  in 
ch.  vi  15.  (compare  |3D,  ch.  vi.  15).  The  numbers  "forty-five 
and  fifteen  the  row  "  cannot  refer  to  D'''i^r3yn^  but  must  refer,  as 
Thenius  assumes,  to  riypjfn  as  the  main  idea,  which  is  more  pre- 
cisely defined  by  D''iiDj?n  py.  If  we  took  it  as  referring  to  the 
pillars,  as  I  myself  have  formerly  done,  we  should  have  to 
assume  that  there  were  only  galleries  or  piUar-halls  above  the 
lower  rows  of  piUars,  which  is  at  variance  with  ri'ypirij.  There 
were  forty-five  side-rooms,  therefore,  built  upon  the  lower  rows  of 
pillars,  in  ranges  of  fifteen  each.  This  could  only  be  done  by 
the  ranges  of  rooms  being  built,  not  side  by  side,  but  one  over 
the  other,  in  other  words,  by  the  forty-five  side-rooms  forming 
three  stories,  as  in  the  side  buildings  of  the  temple,  so  that  each 

^  Thenius  therefore  supposes  that  "  the  lower  part  of  the  armoury  formed  a 
peristyle,  a.  fourfold  row  of  pillars  running  round  inside  its  walls  and  enclosing 
a  courtyard,  so  that  the  Vulgate  alone  gives  the  true  sense,  quatuor  deambu- 
lacra  inter  columnas  cedrinas ;  "  and  he  points  to  the  court  of  the  palace  of 
Luxor,  which  has  a  double  row  of  pillars  round  it.  The  number  of  pillars  is 
not  given  in  the  text,  but  Thenius  in  his  drawing  of  this  building  sets  it  down 
at  400,  which  would  certainly  present  a  forest-like  aspect  to  any  one  entering 
the  building.  Nevertheless  we  cannot  regard  this  assumption  as  correct,  be- 
cause the  pillars,  which  we  cannot  suppose  to  have  been  less  than  a  cubit  in 
thickness,  would  have  been  so  close  to  one  another  that  the  four  rows  of 
pillars  could  not  have  formed  four  deambulacra.  As  the  whole  building  was 
only  fifty  cubits  broad,  and  this  breadth  included  the  inner  courtyard,  we 
cannot  suppose  that  the  sides  of  the  building  were  more  than  ten  cubits  deep, 
which  would  leave  a  breadth  of  thirty  cubits  for  the  court.  If  then  four 
pillars,  each  of  a  cubit  in  thickness,  stood  side  by  side  or  one  behind  the  other 
in  a  space  of  ten  cubits  in  depth,  the  distance  between  the  pillars  would  be 
only  a  cubit  and  a  half,  that  is  to  say,  would  be  only  just  enough  for  one  man 
and  no  more  to  walk  conveniently  through.  And  what  could  have  been  the 
object  of  crowding  pillars  together  in  this  way,  so  as  to  render  the  entire  space 
almost  useless  ?  It  is  on  this  ground,  probably,  that  Hermann  Weiss  assumes 
that  each  side  of  the  oblong  building,  which  was  half  as  broad  as  it  was  long, 
was  supported  by  one  row,  and  therefore  all  the  sides  together  by  four  rows 
of  cedar  pillars,  and  the  beams  of  the  same  material  which  rested  upon  them. 
But  this  view  is  hardly  a  correct  one  ;  for  it  not  only  does  not  do  justice  to 
the  words  of  the  text,  "  four  rows  of  pillars,"  but  it  is  insufficient  in  itself,  for 
the  simple  reason  that  one  row  of  pillars  on  each  side  would  not  have  afforded 
the  rcq^uisite  strength  and  stability  to  the  three  stories  built  upon  them,  even 


CHAP.  Vir.  1-12.  91 

storv  had  a  "  row"  of  fifteen  side-rooms  round  it.  This  view 
receives  support  from  ver.  4 :  "  and  beam-layers  (p'r'^y',  beams,  as 
in  ch.  vi.  4)  were  three  rows,  and  outlook  against  outlook  three 
times ; "  i.e.  the  rows  of  side-rooms  were  built  one  over  the  other 
by  means  of  layers  of  beams,  so  that  the  rooms  had  windows 
opposite  to  one  another  three  times ;  that  is  to  say,  the  windows 
looking  out  upon  the  court  were  so  arranged  in  the  three  stories 
that  those  on  the  one  side  were  vis  avis  to  those  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  building.  The  expression  in  ver.  5,  ^|™"^?  ^^^9  ^^' 
"window  over  against  window,"  compels  ns  to  take  '1J^9  t 
in  the  sense  of  "  opposite  to  the  window"  (/S,  versus),  and  not,  as 
Thenius  proposes,  "  outlook  gainst  outlook,"  according  to  which 
^X  is  supposed  to  indicate  that  the  windows  were  only  separated 
from  one  another  by  slender  piers.  *^l\^,  which  only  occurs  here, 
is  different  from  r'?n,  the  ordinary  window,  and  probably  denotes 
a  large  opening  affording  a  wide  outlook. — ^Ver.  5.  "And  all 
the  doorways  and  mouldings  were  square  of  beams"  (^iP>r  is  an 
accusative  of  free  subordination,  denoting  the  material  or  the 
mode  of  execution;  cf.  Ewald,  §  284,  a,  /3).     "Square  with  a 

if  we  should  not  suppose  the  rooms  in  these  stories  to  be  very  broad,  since  the 
further  three  rows  of  pillars,  which  Weiss  assumes  in  addition,  according  to 
ver.  3,  as  the  actual  supporters  of  the  upper  buUding,  have  no  foundation  in 
the  text.  The  words  "  four  roAvs  of  cedar  piUars  "  do  not  absolutely  require 
the  assumption  that  there  were  four  rows  side  by  side  or  one  behind  the  other 
on  every  side  of  the  building ;  for  the  assertion  that  l^a  does  not  denote  a  row 
in  the  sense  of  a  straight  line,  but  generally  signifies  a  row  surrounding  and 
enclosing  a  space,  is  refuted  by  Ex.  xxviii.  17,  where  we  read  of  the  four 
D*1^£3  of  precious  stones  upon  the  breastplate  of  the  high  priest. — Is  it  not 
likely  that  the  truth  lies  midway  between  these  two  views,  and  that  the  fol- 
lowing is  the  view  most  in  accordance  with  the  actual  fact,  namely,  that  there 
were  four  rows  of  pUlars  running  along  the  fuU  length  of  the  building,  but 
that  they  were  distributed  on  the  two  sides,  so  that  there  were  only  two  rows 
on  each  side  ?  In  this  case  a  person  entering  from  the  front  would  see  four 
rows  of  pillars  running  the  whole  length  of  the  building.  In  any  case  the 
TOWS  of  pillars  would  of  necessity  be  broken  in  front  by  the  entrance  itself. 

The  utter  uncertainty  as  to  the  number  and  position  of  the  four  rows  of 
pillars  is  sufficient  in  itself  to  render  it  quite  impossible  to  draw  any  plan  of 
the  building  that  could  in  the  slightest  degree  answer  to  the  reality.  More- 
over, there  is  no  allusion  at  all  in  the  description  given  in  the  text  to  either 
entrance  or  exit,  or  to  staircases  and  other  things,  and  the  other  buildings  are 
stUl  more  scantily  described,  so  that  nothing  certain  can  be  determined  with 
regard  to  their  relative  position  or  their  probable  connection  with  one  another. 
For  this  reason,  after  studying  the  matter  again  and  again,  I  have  been  obliged 
to  relinquish  the  intention  to  illustrate  the  description  in  the  text  by 
drawings. 


92  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

straight  upper  beam"  (Thenius)  cannot  be  the  correct  rendering 
of  ^\?'^  0''V?'!-  Thenius  proposes  to  read  ri^Q?'?l.  for  n^Tsni,  after 
the  reading  al')(oipai  of  the  Seventy,  who  have  also  rendered 
njnio  in  ver.  4  by  %w/3a,  a  broad  space.  It  may  be  pleaded  in 
support  of  this,  that  ^''J'ST  is  less  applicable  to  the  doorposts  or 
mouldings  than  to  the  doorways  and  outlooks  (windows),  inas- 
much as,  if  the  doorways  were  square,  the  square  form  of  the 
moulding  or  framework  would  follow  as  a  matter  of  course. 
D^nnQH  are  both  the  doors,  through  which  the  different  rooms 
were  connected  with  one  another,  and  also  those  through  which 
the  building  and  its  stories  were  reached,  of  course  by  stairs, 
probably  winding  staircases,  as  in  the  side  stories  of  the  temple. 
The  stairs  were  placed,  no  doubt,  at  the  front  of  the  building. 
The  height  given  is  thirty  cubits,  corresponding  to  that  of  the 
whole  building  (ver.  2).  If  we  reckon  the  height  of  the  lower 
pillars  at  eight  cubits,  there  were  twenty-two  cubits  left  for  the 
stories ;  and  assuming  that  the  roofing  of  each  was  one  cubit  in 
thickness,  there  remained  eighteen  cubits  in  all  for  the  rooms  of 
the  three  stories ;  and  this,  if  equally  distributed,  would  give  an 
internal  height  of  six  cubits  for  each  story,  or  if  arranged  on  a 
graduated  scale,  which  would  probably  be  more  appropriate,  a 
height  of  seven,  six,  and  five  cubits  respectively. 

Vers.  6-8.  The  other  huildings. — ^Ver.  6.  "And  he  made  the 
pillar-hall,  fifty  cubits  its  length,  and  thirty  cubits  its  breadth, 
and  a  hall  in  front  of  them,  and  pillars  and  a  threshold  in  front 
of  them."  With  regard  to  the  situation  of  this  hall  in  relation 
to  the  other  parts  of  the  building,  which  is  not  precisely  defined, 
we  may  infer,  from  the  fact  that  it  is  mentioned  between  the 
house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  and  the  throne  and  judgment 
halls,  that  it  stood  between  these  two.  The  length  of  this  build- 
ing (fifty  cubits)  corresponds  to  the  breadth  of  the  house  of  the 
forest  of  Lebanon ;  so  that,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  temple- 
hall  (ch.  vi.  3),  we  might  picture  to  ourselves  the  length  given 
here  as  running  parallel  to  the  breadth  of  the  house  of  the  forest 
of  Lebanon,  and  might  therefore  assume  that  the  pillar-hall  was 
fifty  cubits  broad  and  thirty  cubits  deep.  But  the  statement 
that  there  was  a  hall  in  front  of  the  pillar-hall  is  irreconcilable 
with  this  assumption.  We  must  therefore  understand  the  length 
in  the  natural  way,  as  signifying  the  measurement  from  back  to 
front,  and  regard  the  pillar-hall  as  a  portico  fifty  cubits  long  and 
thirty  cubits  broad,  in  front  of  which  there  was  also  a  porch  as 


CHAP.  VII.  1-12.  93 

an  entrance.  on*3S-^y,  in  front  of  them,  i.e.  in  front  of  the 
pillars  which  formed  this  portico.  The  last  words,  "  and  pillars 
and  threshold  in  front  of  them,"  refer  to  the  porch.  This  had 
also  pillars,  probably  on  both  sides  of  the  doorway,  which  carried 
the  roof ;  and  in  front  of  them  was  3y,  i.e.,  according  to  the 
Chaldee  f^^???,  the  moulding  or  framework  of  the  threshold,  a 
threshold-like  entrance,  with  steps. — ^^^er.  7.  "And  the  throne-hall, 
where  he  judged,  the  judgment-hall,  he  made  and  (indeed)  covered 
with  cedar,  from  floor  to  floor."  The  throne-hall  and  the  judg- 
ment-hall are  therefore  one  and  the  same  hall,  which  was  both 
a  court  of  judgment  and  an  audience-chamber,  and  in  which,  no 
doubt,  there  stood  the  splendid  throne  described  in  ch.  x.  18-20. 
But  it  is  distinguished  from  the  pillar-hall  by  the  repetition  of 
nry.  It  probably  followed  immediately  upon  this,  but  was 
clearly  distinguished  from  it  by  the  fact  that  it  was  covered  with 
cedar  yplpn  "^V  J'?!?'!'??.  These  words  are  very  obscure.  The 
rendering  given  by  Thenius,  "panelled  from  the  floor  to  the 
beams  of  the  roof,"  is  open  to  these  objections:  (1)  thatJBD  gene- 
rally does  not  mean  to  panel,  but  simply  to  cover,  and  that  i£D 
nN3  in  particular  cannot  possibly  be  taken  in  a  different  sense 
here  from  that  which  it  bears  in  ver.  3,  where  it  denotes  the 
roofing  of  the  rooms  built  above  the  portico  of  pillars ;  and  (2) 
that  the  alteration  of  the  second  VP'^pr^  into  nnipn  has  no  critical 
warrant  in  the  rendering  of  the  Syriac,  a  fundamento  ad  cadum 
ejus  usque,  or  in  that  of  the  Yulgate,  a  paviinento  usque  ad  sum- 
mitatem,  whereas  the  LXX.  and  Chald.  both  read  V^st^  "J?. 
But  even  if  we  were  to  read  niiipn,  this  would  not  of  itself 
signify  the  roof  beams,  inasmuch  as  in  ch.  vi.  16  niT^n  or 
niiipn  receives  its  more  precise  definition  from  the  expression 
|SDn  niTp  (nhip)  in  ver.  1 5.  The  words  in  question  cannot  have 
any  other  meaning  than  this :  "  from  the  one  floor  to  the  other," 
i.e.  either  from  the  floor  of  the  throne-hall  to  the  floor  of  the 
pillar-hall  (described  in  ver.  6),  or  more  probably  from  the  lower 
floor  to  the  upper,  inasmuch  as  there  were  rooms  built  over  the 
throne-room,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  house  of  the  forest  of 
Lebanon  ;  for  J?P")p  may  denote  not  only  the  lower  floor,  but  also 
the  floor  of  upper  rooms,  which  served  at  the  same  time  as  the 
ceiling  of  the  lower  rooms.  So  much,  at  any  rate,  may  be 
gathered  from  these  words,  with  all  their  obscurity,  that  the 
throne-hall  was  not  an  open  pillar-hall,  but  was  only  open  in 
front,  and  was  shut  in  by  solid  walls  on  the  other  three  sides. — 


94  THE  FIllST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Ver.  8.  After  (behind)  the  throne  and  judgment  hall  then  fol- 
lowed the  king's  own  palace,  the  principal  entrance  to  which 
was  probably  through  the  throne-hall,  so  that  the  king  really 
delivered  judgment  and  granted  audiences  in  the  gate  of  his 
palace.  "  His  house,  where  he  dwelt,  in  the  other  court  inwards 
from  the  (throne)  hall  was  like  this  work,"  i.e.  was  built  like  the 
throne-hall ;  "  and  a  (dwelling)  house  he  made  for  the  daughter 
of  Pharaoh,  whom  Solomon  had  taken,  like  this  hall."  The  con- 
struction of  the  dwelling-places  of  the  king  and  queen  cannot  be 
ascertained  from  these  words,  because  the  hall  with  which  its 
style  is  compared  is  not  more  minutely  described.  All  that  can 
be  clearly  inferred  from  the  words,  "  in  the  other  court  inside 
the  hall,"  is,  that  the  abode  of  the  king  and  his  Egyptian  wife 
had  a  court  of  its  own,  and  when  looked  at  from  the  entrance, 
formed  the  hinder  court  of  the  whole  palace.  The  house  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter  was  probably  distinct  from  the  dwelling-place 
of  the  king,  so  that  the  palace  of  the  women  formed  a  building 
by  itself,  most  likely  behind  the  dwelling-house  of  the  king, 
since  the  women  in  the  East  generally  occupy  the  inner  portion 
of  the  house.  The  statement  that  the  dwelling-place  of  the 
king  and  queen  formed  a  court  by  itseK  within  the  complex  of 
the  palace,  warrants  the  further  inference,  that  the  rest  of  the 
buildings  (the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon,  the  pillar-hall,  and 
the  throne-hall)  were  united  together  in  one  first  or  front  court. 
Vers.  9—12.  "All  these  (viz.  the  whole  of  the  buildings  de- 
scribed in  vers.  2—8)  were  costly  stones,  after  the  measure  of 
that  which  is  hewn,  sawn  with  the  saw  within  and  without  (i.e. 
on  the  inner  and  outer  side  of  the  halls  and  buildings),  and 
from  the  foundation  to  the  corbels,  and  from  without  to  the 
great  court."  niriDian,  the  corbels,  upon  which  the  beams  of 
the  roof  rest.  The  Sept.  renders  it  ew?  rSiv  ^uawv.  Thenius 
understands  by  this  the  battlements  which  protected  the  flat 
roofs,  and  therefore  interprets  ninsta  as  signifying  the  stone 
border  of  the  roof  of  the  palace.  But  7eMro9,  or  r^elaao^, 
rfelcaov,  merely  signifies  the  projection  of  the  roof,  and,  gene- 
rally speaking,  every  projection  in  a  building  resembling  a  roof, 
but  not  the  battlement-like  protection  or  border  of  the  flat 
roof,  which  is  called  npyo  in  Deut.  xxii.  8.  pn,  the  outside 
in  distinction  from  the  great  court,  can  only  be  the  outer 
court ;  and  as  Hainan  i)fnn  is  no  doubt  identical  with  n"inNn  -ivn 
(ver.  8),  and  therefore  refers  to  the  court  surrounding  the  king's 


CHAP.  VIL  13,  U.  95 

dwelling-lionse,  pn  is  to  be  understood  as  relating  to  the  court- 
yard or  fore-court  surrounding  the  front  halls. — Vers.  10,  11. 
"  And  the  foundation  was  laid  with  costly,  large  stones  of  ten 
and  eight  cubits  (sc.  in  length,  and  of  corresponding  breadth 
and  thickness).  And  above  (the  foundation,  and  therefore  the 
visible  walls,  were)  costly  stones,  after  the  measure  of  that 
which  is  hewn,  and  cedars." — ^Ver.  12.  And  (as  for)  the  great 
court,  there  were  round  it  three  rows  (i.e.  it  was  formed  of  three 
rows)  of  hewn  stones  and  a  row  of  hewn  cedar  beams,  as  in 
the  inner  court  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  (see  at  ch.  vi  36)  and 
the  hall  of  the  housa  ">>'l|^.  signifies  "  and  so  with  the  court," 
Vav  serving  as  a  comparison,  as  in  Prov.  xxv.  3,  20,  and  fre- 
quently in  Proverbs  (see  Dietrich  in  Ges.  Lex.  s.v.  1,  and  Ewald, 
§  340,  h),  so  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  im-Hebraic  con- 
jecture of  Thenius,  "'Vnfj?.  fi*3«}  D^*<?  in  aU  probability  refers 
not  to  the  temple-hall,  but  to  the  pillar-han  of  the  palace,  the 
surrounding  wall  of  which  was  of  the  same  nature  as  the  wall 
of  the  great,  i.e,  the  other  or  hinder,  court^ 

Vers.  13-51.  The  [Metallic  Vessels  of  the  Temple  (com- 
pare 2  Chron.  ii.  13,  14,  and  iii  15-t.  1). — ^Vers.  13,  14.  To 

*  The  situation  of  this  palace  in  Jerusalem  is  not  defined.  Ewald  supposes 
{Gesch.  iii.  p.  317)  that  it  -was  probably  bmlt  on  the  southern  continuation  of 
the  temple-mountain,  commonly  called  Ophel,  i.e.  Hill.  But  "  nothing  more 
is  needed  to  convince  us  that  it  cannot  have  stood  upon  Ophel,  than  a  single 
glance  at  any  geographical  outline  of  Ophel  on  one  of  the  best  of  the  modern 
maps,  and  a  recollection  of  the  fact  that,  according  to  Neh.  iii.  26,  31,  it  was 
upon  Ophel,  where  the  king's  palace  is  said  to  have  stood,  that  the  temple- 
socagers  and  shopkeepers  had  their  places  of  abode  after  the  captivity" 
(Thenius).  The  view  held  by  earlier  travellers  and  pUgrims  to  Zion,  and 
defended  by  Berggren  (p.  109  sqq.),  namely,  that  the  ancient  ISolomonian 
and  Asmonaean  palaces  stood  upon  Moriah  on  the  western  side  of  the  temple, 
is  equally  untenable.  For  the  xystus,  above  which,  according  to  Josephus, 
Bell.  Jud.  ii.  16, 3,  the  Asmonsean  palace  stood,  was  connected  with  the  temple 
by  a  bridge,  and  therefore  did  not  stand  upon  Moriah,  but  upon  Zion  or  the 
i»u  To'Ki;,  since  this  bridge,  according  to  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  vi.  6,  2,  con- 
nected the  temple  with  the  upper  city.  Moreover,  it  clearly  follows  from 
the  passages  of  Josephus  already  noticed  (p.  84  sq.),  in  which  he  refers  to  the 
substructures  of  the  temple  area,  that  the  temple  occupied  the  whole  of 
Moriah  towards  the  west,  and  extended  as  far  as  the  vaUey  of  the  TyropcEon, 
and  consquently  there  was  no  room  for  a  palace  on  that  side.  When  Jose- 
phus affirms,  therefore  {Ant.  viii.  5,  2),  that  Solomon's  palace  stood  opposite 
to  the  temple  (^aiimx.Bvg  ixuu  i/as'*),  it  can  only  have  been  built  on  the  north- 
east side  of  Zion,  as  most  of  the  modem  writers  assume  (see  W,  Krafft, 


9  6  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

make  these  vessels  king  Hiram  had  sent  to  Solomon,  at  his 
request  (2  Chron.  ii.  6),  a  workman  named  Hiram  of  Tyre. 
Ver.  13  contains  a  supplementary  remark,  in  which  npB'J'l  must 
be  rendered  in  the  pluperfect  (compare  the  remarks  on  Gen. 
ii.  19).  King  Solomon  had  sent  and  fetched  Hiram  from 
Tyre.  This  artisan  bore  the  same  name  as  the  king,  D"i''n  or 
Dn^n  (ver.  40),  in  2  Chron.  ii.  13  D"i^n  (Huram),  with  the 
epithet  ""^K,  i.c,  my  father,  3N  being  a  title  of  honour  equiva- 
lent to  master  or  counsellor,  as  in  Gen.  xlv.  8.  He  was  the 
son  of  a  widow  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  and  his  father  was 
nV  B'"'Nj  i,e.  a  Tyrian  by  birth.  According  to  2  Chron.  ii.  1 3, 
his  mother  was  "  of  the  daughters  of  Dan,"  i.e.  of  the  tribe  of 
Dan.  Both  statements  may  easily  be  united  thus  :  she  was  a 
Danite  by  birth,  and  married  into  the  tribe  of  Naphtali.  When 
her  husband  died,  she  was  married  again  as  the  widow  of  a 
Naphtalite,  and  became  the  wife  of  a  Tyrian,  to  whom  she  bore 
a  son,  Hiram.  This  explanation  is  also  adopted  by  Bertheau 
(on  the  Chronicles) ;  and  the  conjecture  of  Lundius,  Thenius,  and 
others,  that  the  mother  was  an  Israelitish  widow  of  the  city  of 
Dan  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  which  was  quite  close  to  Tyre,  is 
less  in  harmony  with  the  expression  "  of  the  daughters  of  Dan." 
JTk^'nj  u^h^  "  a  brass-worker,"  refers  to  K^n  (he),  i.e.  Hiram,  and 
not  to  his  father  (Thenius).  The  skill  of  Hiram  is  described  in 
almost  the  same  terms  as  that  of  Bezaleel  in  Ex.  xxxi.  3  sqq., 
with  this  exception,  that  Bezaleel's  skill  is  attributed  to  his 
being  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  i.e.  is  described  rather  as  a 
supernatural  gift,  whereas  in  the  case  of  Hiram  the  more  inde- 
finite expression,  "  he  was  filled  with  wisdom,  etc.,"  is  used,  re- 
presenting it  rather  as  a  natural  endowment.  In  the  account 
given  here,  Hiram  is  merely  described  as  a  worker  in  brass, 
because  he  is  only  mentioned  at  the  commencement  of  the 
section  which  treats  of  the  preparation  of  the  brazen  vessels  of 
the  temple.  According  to  2  Chron.  ii.  14,  he  was  able  to  work 
in  gold,  silver,  brass,  iron,  stone,  wood,  purple,  etc.  There  is 
nothing  improbable  in  this  extension  of  his  skiU  to  wood  and  to 

Topographie  Jerus.  p.  114  sqq.,  and  Berggr.  p.  110).  This  is  sustained  not 
only  by  the  probability  that  the  Asmonfeans  would  hardly  build  their  palace 
anywhere  else  than  on  the  spot  where  the  palace  of  the  kings  of  Judah  built 
by  Solomon  stood,  but  also  by  the  account  of  the  elevation  of  Joash  to  the 
throne  in  2  Kings  xi.  and  2  Chron.  xxiii.,  from  which  it  is  perfectly  obvious 
that  the  royal  palace  stood  upon  Zion  opposite  to  the  temple. 


CHAP.  VII.  15-22.  97 

the  art  of  weaving.  Bezaleel  also  combined  in  himself  all  these 
talents.  Of  course  Hiram  was  merely  a  foreman  or  leader  of 
these  different  branches  of  art ;  and  he  certainly  did  not  come 
alone,  but  brought  several  assistants  with  him,  who  carried  out 
the  different  works  under  his  superintendence. — The  enumera- 
tion of  them  commences  with  the  pillars  of  the  temple-halL 

Vers.  15—22.  Tke  brazen  pillars  of  the  porch  (compare 
2  Chron.  iii.  15-17). — He  formed  the  two  brazen  pUlars, 
which  were  erected,  according  to  2  Chron.  iii.  1 5,  "  before  the 
(temple)  house,  i.e.  in  front  of  the  hall  of  the  temple.  One 
was  eighteen  cubits  high,  and  a  thread  of  twelve  cubits  sur- 
rounded (spanned)  the  other  piUar."  The  statement  of  the 
height  of  the  one  pillar  and  that  of  the  circumference  of  the 
other  is  to  be  understood  as  an  abbreviated  expression,  signify- 
ing that  the  height  and  thickness  mentioned  applied  to  the  one 
as  well  as  to  the  other,  or  that  they  were  alike  in  height  and  cir- 
cumference. According  to  the  Chronicles,  they  were  thirty-five 
cubits  long ;  which  many  expositors  understand  as  signifying 
that  the  length  of  the  two  together  was  thirty-five  cubits,  so 
that  each  one  was  only  17^  cubits  long,  for  which  the  full 
number  18  is  substituted  in  our  text.  But  this  mode  of  re- 
conciling the  discrepancy  is  very  improbable,  and  is  hardly  in 
harmony  with  the  words  of  the  Chronicles.  The  number  35 
evidently  arose  from  confounding  the  numeral  letters  n^  =  18 
with  ni5  =  35.  The  correctness  of  the  number  18  is  confirmed 
by  2  Kings  xxv.  17  and  Jer.  Iii.  21.  The  pillars  were  hollow, 
the  brass  being  four  finger-breadths  in  thickness  (Jer.  Iii  21) ; 
and  they  were  cast  in  the  Jordan  valley  (ver.  46). — Ver.  1 6.  "And 
he  made  two  capitals  (nnnb),  to  set  them  on  the  heads  of  the 
pillars,  cast  in  brass,  five  cubits  the  height  of  the  one  and  of  the 
other  capital."  If,  on  the  other  hand,  in  2  Kings  xxv.  1 7  the 
height  of  the  capital  is  said  to  have  been  three  cubits,  this  dis- 
crepancy cannot  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  the  capitals 
had  been  reduced  two  cubits  in  the  course  of  time  ;  but  the  state- 
ment rests,  like  the  parallel  passage  in  Jer.  Iii  22,  upon  an  error 
of  the  text,  i.e.  upon  the  substitution  of  3  (3)  for  n  (5). — Ver.  17. 
"  Plait  {i.e.  ornaments  of  plait),  plait-work  and  cords  (twist,  re- 
sembling) chain-work,  were  on  the  capitals,  which  were  upon  the 
heads  of  the  pillars,  seven  on  the  one  capital  and  seven  on  the  other 
capital"  Consequently  this  decoration  consisted  of  seven  twists 
arranged  as  festoons,  which  were  hung  round  the  capitals  of  the 

O 


98'  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

pillars. — ^Ver.  18.  "  And  he  made  pomegranates,  and  indted  two 
rows  round  about  the  one  twist,  to  cover  the  capitals  which  were 
upon  the  head  of  the  pillars;  and  so  he  did  with  the  other  capital." 
In  the  Masoretic  text  the  words  D''1^Dj?n  and  W'ytinn  are  confused 
together,  and  we  must  read,  as  some  of  the  Codd.  do,  in  the 
first  clause  D"'Ji3"in"nK  for  DH^ByriTiK,  and  in  the  middle  clause 
Dn^syn  k^ki-^j?  fo/n^Jto-iri  m-\'bv. '  This  is  not  only  required  by  the 
sense,  but  sustained  by  a  comparison  with  ver.  19.  The  relation 
between  the  two  rows  of  pomegranates  and  the  plaited  work  is 
indeed  not  precisely  defined ;  but  it  is  generally  and  correctly 
assumed,  that  one  row  ran  round  the  pillars  below  the  plaited 
work  and  the  other  above,  so  that  the  plaited  work,  which  was 
formed  of  seven  cords  plaited  together  in  the  form  of  festoons, 
was  enclosed  above  and  below  by  the  rows  of  pomegranates.  If 
we  compare  with  this  the  further  statements  in  vers.  41  and  42, 
2  Chron.  iii.  16  and  iv.  12,  13,  and  Jer.  lii.  23,  nnnbn  is  there 
more  precisely  designated  nnnbn  nips,  "  bowls  of  the  capitals," 
from  which  it  is  evident  that  the  lower  portion  of  the  capitals, 
to  which  the  braided  work  was  fastened,  was  rounded  in  the 
form  of  a  pitcher  or  caldron.  The  number  of  the  pomegranates 
on  the  two  festoons  is  given  at  400,  so  that  there  were  200  on 
each  capital,  and  consequently  each  row  contained  100(2  Chron. 
iii  1 6) ;  and  according  to  Jer.  (I.e.)  there  were  9  6  nnn^  "  wind- 
wards," and  in  all  1 0  0  on  the  braided  work  round  about,  nmn, 
**  windwards,"  can  hardly  be  taken  in  any  other  sense  than  this  : 
in  the  direction  of  the  wind,  i.e.  facing  the  four  quarters  of  the 
heavens.  This  meaning  is  indisputably  sustained  by  the  use  of 
the  word  nn,  to  denote  the  quarters  of  the  heavens,  in  statements 
of  the  aspect  of  buildings  (Ezek.  xlii.  16-18),  whereas  there  is 
no  foundation  whatever  for  such  meanings  as  "  airwards= un- 
covered" (Bottcher,  Thenius),  or  hanging  freely  (Ewald).-^ — In 
vers.  19  and  20  a  second  decoration  of  the  capitals  of  the  pillars 

1  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe,  that  the  expression  nn  ^IXK',  to  gasp  for 
air,  in  Jer.  ii.  24,  xiv.  6,  does  not  warrant  our  giving  to  nmi  the  meaning 
open  or  uncovered,  as  Bottcher  supposes.  But  when  Thenius  follows  Bottcher 
(Proben,  p.  335)  in  adducing  in  support  of  this  the  fact  "  that  the  tangent, 
which  is  drawn  to  any  circle  divided  into  a  hundred  parts,  covers  exactly  four 
of  these  parts,"  the  fact  rests  upon  a  simple  error,  inasmuch  as  any  di-awing 
will  show  that  a  tangent  only  touches  one  point  of  a  circle  divided  into  a 
hundred  parts.  And  the  remark  of  Bottcher,  "  If  you  describe  on  the  out- 
side of  a  circle  of  twelve  cubits  in  circumference  a  hundred  small  circles  of 
twelve-hundredths  of  a  cubit  in  diameter,  a  tangent  drawn  thereupon  will 


CHAP.  Vn.  15-22.  99 

is  mentioned,  from  wliich  we  may  see  that  the  roimding  with  the 
chain-like  plaited  work  and  the  pomegranates  enclosing  it  did 
not  cover  the  capital  to  the  very  top,  but  only  the  lower  portion, 
of  it.  The  decoration  of  the  upper  part  is  described  in  ver.  1 9 : 
"  And  capitals,  which  were  upon  the  top  of  the  pillars,  were  (or, 
Hiram  made)  Hly-work  after  the  manner  of  the  hail,  four  cubits." 
The  lily- work  occupied,  according  to  ver.  2  0,  the  upper  portion  of 
the  capitals,  wliich  is  here  called  nnnb^  as  a  crown  set  upon  the 
lower  portion.  It  was  lily-work,  i.e.  sculpture  in  the  form  of 
Howering  lilies.  The  words  niss  y3"ix  2?^X3  are  obscure.  Accord- 
ing to  Bottcher  and  Thenius,  D^iS3  is  intended  to  indicate  the 
position  of  the  pillars  within  the  hall,  so  that  their  capitals 
sustained  the  lintel  of  the  doorway.  But  even  if  Dp^S3  were 
rendered,  within  the  hall,  as  it  is  by  Bottcher,  it  is  impossible  to 
see  how  this  meaning  could  be  obtained  from  the  words  "  capitals 
upon  the  head  of  the  pillars  lily-work  within  the  hall."  In  that 
case  we  must  at  least  have  "  the  pillars  within  the  hall;"  and 
D7IK3  would  be  connected  with  D^n^isyn^  instead  of  being  sepa- 
rated from  it  by  \^'^  i^^VP-  Even  if  we  were  to  introduce  a 
stop  after  i^K'  and  take  D^xs  by  itself,  the  expression  "  in  (or 
at)  the  hall"  would  not  in  itself  indicate  the  position  of  the 
pillars  in  the  doorway,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  it  is 
only  in  ver.  2 1  that  anything  is  said  concerning  the  position  of 
the  pillars.  Again,  the  measurement  "four  cubits"  cannot 
be  understood,  as  it  is  by  Thenius,  as  denoting  the  diameter  of 
the  capitals  of  the  pillars ;  it  must  rather  indicate  the  measure 
of  the  lily-work,  that  is  to  say,  it  affirms  that  there  were  four 
cubits  of  Hly-work  on  the  capitals,  which  were  five  cubits  high, 
— in  other  words,  the  lily-work  covered  the  four  upper  cubits 
of  the  capitals;  from  which  it  still  further  follows,  that  the 
plaited  work  which  formed  the  decoration  of  the  lower  portion 
of  the  capitals  was  only  one  cubit  broad  or  high.  Consequently 
n^-.!<3  cannot  be  understood  in  any  other  sense  than  "in  the 
manner  of  or  according  to  the  hall,"  and  can  only  express  the 
thought,  that  there  was  Hly-work  on  the  capitals  of  the  pillars 
as  there  was  on  the  hall     For  the  vindication  of  this  use  of  ? 

cover  to  the  eye  exactly  four  small  circles,  although  mathematically  it  touches 
only  one  of  them  in  one  point,"  is  not  correct  according  to  any  measurement. 
For  if  the  tangent  touches  one  of  these  smaller  circles  with  mathematical 
exactness,  to  the  eye  there  wiU  be  covered  either  three  or  five  half  circles,  or 
even  seven,  but  never  four.  ' 


100  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

see  Ges.  Zex.  by  Dietrich,  s.v.  2-^  There  is  no  valid  objection 
to  the  inference  to  which  this  leads,  namely,  that  on  the  frontis- 
piece of  the  temple-hall  there  was  a  decoration  of  lily-work. 
For  since  the  construction  of  the  hall  is  not  more  minutely  de- 
scribed, we  cannot  expect  a  description  of  its  decorations. — In 
ver.  20a  more  precise  account  is  given  of  the  position  in  which 
the  crowns  consisting  of  lily-work  were  placed  on  the  capitals  of 
the  columns,  so  that  this  verse  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  explana- 
tion of  ver.  1 9  :  namely,  capitals  upon  the  pillars  (did  he  make) 
also  above  near  the  belly,  which  was  on  the  other  side  of  the 
plait- work."  1^3!?,  the  belly,  i.e.  the  belly-shaped  rounding,  can 
only  be  the  rounding  of  the  lower  portion  of  the  capitals,  which 
is  called  rhi  in  vers.  41,  42.  Hence  na^ETi  12J?^  (Keri),  "on  the 
other  side  of  the  plaited  work,"  can  only  mean  behind  or  under 
the  plait,  since  we  cannot  suppose  that  there  was  a  belly-shaped 
rounding  above  the  caldron-shaped  rounding  which  was  covered 
with  plaited  work,  and  between  this  and  the  lily-work.  The 
belly-shaped  rounding,  above  or  upon  which  the  plaited  work 
lay  round  about,  might,  when  looked  at  from  without,  be  de- 
scribed as  being  on  the  other  side  of  it,  i.e.  behind  it.  In  the 
second  half  of  the  verse :  "  and  the  pomegranates  two  hundred 
in  rows  round  about  on  the  second  capital,"  the  number  of  the 
pomegranates  placed  upon  the  capitals,  which  was  omitted  in 
ver.  18,  is  introduced  in  a  supplementary  form.^ — Ver.  21.  "And 

^  This  is  the  way  in  which  the  earlier  translators  appear  to  have  under- 
stood it:  e.g.,  LXX.  ipyov  koIvov  kutx  to  uv'hu^  naaupuv  7ry))cuv  ("lily-work 
according  to  the  hall  four  cubits")  ;  Vulg.  Capitella  .  .  .  quasi  opere  lilii 
fahricata  erant  in  porticu  quatuor  cubitorum ;  Chald.  t2>pp  xriJti'iK'  131^ 
J'BS  y31N  XtsS'lSS  (opus  liliaceum  collectum  in  porticu  quatuor  cubitorum) , 
Syr.  opus  liliaceum  idem  fecit  (]o  ^rr>|«^  ^^:i^o)  ^n  porticu  quatuor  cnbitis. 
These  readings  appear  to  be  based  upon  the  view  supported  by  Kashi  (dS^KS 
for  dV^S3)  :  lily-work  as  it  was  in  the  halL 

*  Hermann  Weiss  (Kosdimkunde,  i.  p.  367)  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  idea 
worked  out  in  the  text ;  but  he  assumes,  on  the  ground  of  monumental  views, 
that  the  decoration  was  of  a  much  simpler  kind,  and  one  by  no  means  out  of 
harmony  with  the  well-known  monumental  remains  of  the  East.  In  his 
opinion,  the  pillars  consisted  of  "a  shaft  nineteen  cubits  in  height,  sur- 
rounded at  the  top,  exactly  after  the  fashion  of  the  ornamentation  of  the 
Egyptian  pillars,  with  seven  bands  decorated  like  plaited  work,  which 
unitedly  covered  a  cubit,  in  addition  to  which  there  was  the  lily-work  of 
five  cubits  in  height,  i.e.  a  slender  capital  rising  up  in  the  form  of  the  calyx 
of  a  lily,  ornamented  with  pomegranates."  Onr  reasons  for  dissenting  from 
this  opinion  are  given  in  the  exposition  of  the  different  verses. 


CHAP.  VII.  15-22.  101 

he  set  up  the  pillars  at  the  hall  of  the  Holy  Place,  and  set  up  the 
right  pillar,  and  called  its  name  Jachin,  and  .   .  .  the  left  .  .   . 
Boazr     Instead  of  b^np  D^s^  we  have  in  2  Chron.  iii.  15  V.f>^ 
n^2n,  and  in  ver.  17  ^f!?'T  \33"^y,  "before  the  house,"  "before 
the  Holy  Place."      This  unquestionably  implies  that  the  two 
brazen  pillars  stood  unconnected  in  front  of  the  hall,  on  the 
right  and  left  sides  of  it,  and  not  within  the  hall  as  supporters 
of  the  roof.     Nevertheless  many  have  decided  in  favour  of  the 
latter  view.      But  of  the  four  arguments  used  by  Thenius  in 
proof  that  this  was  the  position  of  the  pillars,  there  is  no  force 
whatever  in  the  first,  which  is  founded  upon  Amos  ix.  1,  unless 
we  assume,  as  Merz  and  others  do,  that  the  words  of  the  pro- 
phet, "Smite  the  capital,  that  the  thresholds  may  shake,  and 
break  them  (the  capitals  of  the  pillars),  that  they  may  fall  upon 
the  head  of  all,"  refer  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  not,  as 
Thenius  and  others  suppose,  to  the  temple  erected  at  Bethel  for 
the  calf-worship.     For  even  if  the  temple  at  Bethel  had  really 
had  a  portal  supported  by  pillars,  it  would  by  no  means  follow 
that  the  pillars  Jachin  and  Boaz  in  Solomon's  temple  supported 
the  roof  of  the  hall,  as  it  is  nowhere  stated  that  the  temple  of 
Jeroboam  at  Bethel  was  an  exact  copy  of  that  of  Solomon. 
And  even  with  the  only  correct  interpretation,  in  which  the 
words  of  Amos  are  made  to  refer  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
the  argument  founded  upon  them  in  support  of  the  positioh  of 
the  piUars  as  bearers  of  the  haU  rests  upon  the  false  idea,  that 
the  Q^sp,  which  are  shaken  by  the  smiting  of  the  capital,  are 
the  beams  lying  upon  the   top   of  the  pillars,  or  the   super- 
liminaria  of  the  hall.      It  is  impossible  to  prove  that  H?  has  any 
such  meaning.     The  beam  over  the  entrance,  or  upon  the  door- 
posts, is  called  ^ipwD  in  Ex.  xii.  7,  22,  23,  whereas  ^?  denotes 
the  threshold,  i.e.  the  lower  part  of  the  framework  of  the  door, 
as  is  evident  from  Judg.  xix.  27.     The  words  of  the  prophet 
are  not  to  be  interpreted  architecturally,  but  to  be  taken  in  a 
rhetorical  sense ;  "  so  that  by  the  blow,  which  strikes  the  capital, 
and  causes  the  thresholds  to  tremble,  such  a  blow  is  intended 
as   shakes   the   temple   in  all  its  joints"   (Baur  on   Amos   ix. 
1).     "  liriMn,  a  kind  of  ornament  at  the  top  of  the  pillars,  and 
D^SDn,  the  thresholds,  are  opposed  to   one  another,  to  express 
the  thought  that  the  building  is  to  be  shaken  and  destroyed 
a  summo  usque  ad  imum,  a  capite  ad  calcem"  (Hengstenberg, 
Christd.  i  p.  366  transL).     The  other  arguments  derived  from 


102  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Ezek.  xl  48  and  49,  and  from  Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  3,  4,  prove 
nothing  at  alL  From  the  words  of  Josephus,  tovtcov  t&v  klovmv 
rov  fiev  erepov  Kara  rijv  Be^iav  earTjae  rov  irpoTrvXalov  irapao'Tdha 
.  .  .  rov  5e  erepov,  K.r.X.,  it  would  only  follow  "that  the  pillars 
(according  to  the  view  of  Josephus)  must  have  stood  in  the 
doorway,"  if  it  were  the  case  that  7rapacrrd<i  had  no  other  mean- 
ing than  doorpost,  and  irporrvkaiov  could  be  understood  as 
referring  to  the  temple-hall  generally.  But  this  is  conclusively 
disproved  by  the  fact  that  Josephus  always  calls  the  temple- 
hall  rrpovaov  (I.e.,  and  viii.  3,  2  and  3),  so  that  TrpoTruXaiov  can 
only  denote  the  fore-court,  and  7rapacrrd<i  a  piUar  standing  by 
itself  Consequently  Josephus  regarded  the  pillars  Jachin  and 
Boaz  as  'propylma  erected  in  front  of  the  hall.  We  must 
therefore  adhere  to  the  view  expressed  by  Bahr  (d.  Tcmpel,  p. 
35  sqq.),  that  these  pillars  did  not  support  the  roof  of  the 
temple-hall,  but  were  set  up  in  front  of  the  hall  on  either  side 
of  the  entrance.  In  addition  to  the  words  of  the  text,  this 
conclusion  is  sustained  (1)  by  the  circumstance  that  the  two 
pillars  are  not  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  building  of  the 
temple  and  the  hall,  but  are  referred  to  for  the  first  time  here 
in  the  enumeration  of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  court  that  were 
made  of  brass.  "  If  the  pillars  had  formed  an  essential  part 
of  the  construction  and  had  been  supporters  of  the  hall,  they 
would  certainly  have  been  mentioned  in  the  description  of  the 
building,  and  not  have  been  placed  among  the  articles  of  furni- 
ture "  (Schnaase) ;  and  moreover  they  would  not  have  been  made 
of  metal  like  the  rest  of  the  vessels,  but  would  have  been  con- 
structed of  the  same  building  materials  as  the  hall  and  the 
house,  namely,  of  stone  or  wood  (Bahr).  And  to  this  we  may 
add  (2)  the  monumental  character  of  the  pillars,  which  is  evi- 
dent from  the  names  given  to  them.  No  architectural  portion 
of  the  building  received  a  special  name.^  Jackin  (paj) :  "  he 
establishes,"  stdbilid  templum  (Simonis  Onom.  p.  430) ;  and  Boaz 
(Ty"2),  ex  Ty  13  in  illo,  sc.  Domino,  rohur  (Sim.  p.  460).  Kimchi 
has  correctly  interpreted  the  first  name  thus :  "  Let  this  temple 

^  Stieglitz  {Gesch.  der  Baukunst,  p.  127)  aptly  observes  in  relation  to  this  : 
"  The  architect  cannot  subscribe  to  Meyer's  view  (that  the  pillars  were  sup- 
porters of  the  hall),  since  it  was  only  through  their  independent  position  that 
the  pillars  received  the  solemn  character  intended  to  be  given  to  them,  and 
by  their  dignity  subserved  the  end  designed,  of  exalting  the  whole  building 
•and  calling  attention  to  the  real  purpose  of  the  whole." 


CHAP.  VII.  2S-26.  103 

stand  for  ever ;"  and  the  second,  "  Solomon  desired  that  God 
would  give  it  strength  and  endurance."  The  pillars  were  sym- 
bols of  the  stability  and  strength,  which  not  only  the  temple 
as  an  outward  building,  but  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel  as 
embodied  in  the  temple,  received  from  the  Lord,  who  had  chosen 
the  temple  to  be  His  dwelling-place  in  the  midst  of  His  people.^ 
— In  ver.  22  it  is  stated  again  that  there  was  lily-work  upon  the 
head  of  the  pillars, — a  repetition  which  may  be  explained  from 
the  significance  of  this  emblem  of  the  capitals  of  the  pillars ; 
and  then  the  words,  "  So  was  the  work  of  the  capitab  finished," 
bring  the  account  of  this  ornament  of  the  temple  to  a  close. 

Vers.  23-26.  Tlie  brazen  sea  (c£  2  Chron.  iv.  2-5). — "  He 
made  the  molten  sea  —  a  water-basin  called  n^  (mare)  on 
account  of  its  size  —  ten  cubits  from  one  upper  rim  to  the 
other,"  i.e.  in  diameter  measured  from  the  upper  rim  to  the  one 
opposite  to  it,  "  rounded  all  round,  and  five  cubits  its  (external) 
height,  and  a  line  of  thirty  cubits  encircled  it  round  about," 
i.e.  it  was  thirty  cubits  in  circumference.  The  Chethih  TWp  is  to 
be  read  ^)J>  here  and  in  Zech.  i.  16  and  Jer.  xxxL  39,  for  which 
the  Keri  has  ^i^  in  aU  these  passages,  '"iip  or  'vi'  means  a  line  for 
measuring,  which  is  expressed  in  ver.  15  by  cin.  The  relation 
of  the  diameter  to  the  circumference  is  expressed  in  whole 
numbers  which  come  very  near  to  the  mathematical  proportions. 
The  more  exact  proportions  would  be  as  7  to  22,  or  113  to  355. 
— Yer.  24  And  coloc\Tiths  (gourds)  ran  round  it  under  its  brim, 
ten  to  the  cubit,  surroimding  the  sea  in  two  rows ;  the  colocynths 
"  cast  in  its  casting,"  i.e.  cast  at  the  same  time  as  the  vessel 
itself.  Instead  of  Q'V^S,  gourds  (see  at  cL  vL  18),  we  find  T\xty^^ 
D"'1P3,  figures  of  oxen,  in  the  corresponding  text  of  the  Chronicles, 
and  in  the  last  clause  merely  "'P^'l,  an  evident  error  of  the  pen, 
W'^P^  being  substituted  by  mistake  for  D'yps,  and  afterwards 
interpreted  nnpa  nioi.  The  assumption  by  which  the  early 
expositors  removed  the  discrepancy,  namely,  that  they  were  casts 
of  bullocks'  heads,  is  not  to  be  thought  of,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  D"'"ip3  signifies  oxen  and  not  the  luads  of  oxen.  How  far 
apart  the  two  rows  of  gourd-like  ornaments  were,  it  is  impossible 

^  There  is  no  necessity  to  refute  the  fanciful  notion  of  Ewald,  that  these 
pillars,  "  when  they  were  erected  and  consecrated,  were  certainly  named  after 
men  who  were  held  in  estimation  at  that  time,  probably  after  the  yomiger 
sons  of  Solomon,"  and  that  of  Thenius,  that  tya,  p3%  "He  (the  Lord)  estab* 
li&hes  with  strength,"  was  engraved  upon  them  as  an  inscription. 


104  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  decide.  Their  size  may  be  estimated,  from  the  fact  that  there 
were  ten  within  the  space  of  a  cubit,  at  a  little  over  two  inches 
in  diameter. — Ver.  25.  This  vessel  stood  (rested)  upon  twelve 
brazen  oxen,  three  turning  to  the  north,  three  to  the  west,  three 
to  the  south,  and  three  to  the  east,  "  and  the  sea  above  upon 
them,  and  all  their  backs  (turned)  inwards ;"  i.e.  they  were  so 
placed  that  three  of  their  heads  were  directed  towards  each 
quarter  of  the  heavens.  The  size  of  the  oxen  is  not  given  ;  but 
we  must  assume  that  it  was  in  proportion  to  the  size  and  height 
of  the  sea,  and  therefore  about  five  cubits  in  height  up  to  the 
back.  These  figures  stood,  no  doubt,  upon  a  metal  plate,  which 
gave  them  a  fixed  and  immoveable  position  (see  the  engraving 
in  my  hihl.  Archdol.  Taf  iii.  fig.  1). — Ver.  26.  "And  its  thick- 
ness {i.e.  the  thickness  of  the  metal)  was  a  handbreadth"  =  four 
finger-breadths,  as  in  the  case  of  the  brazen  pillars  (see  at  ver. 
15),  "  and  its  upper  rim  like  work  of  a  goblet  (or  of  a  goblet- 
rim,  i.e.  bent  outwards),  lily-blossom,"  i.e.  ornamented  with  lily- 
flowers.  It  held  2000  baths;  according  to  the  Chronicles,  3000 
baths.  The  latter  statement  has  arisen  from  the  confusion  of  ^ 
(3)  with  3  (2) ;  since,  according  to  the  calculation  of  Thenius, 
the  capacity  of  the  vessel,  from  the  dimensions  given,  could  not 
exceed  2000  baths.  This  vessel,  which  took  the  place  of  the 
laver  in  the  tabernacle,  was  provided  for  the  priests  to  wash 
themselves  (2  Chron.  iv.  6),  that  is  to  say,  that  a  supply  of 
water  might  be  kept  in  readiness  to  enable  the  priests  to  wash 
their  hands  and  feet  when  they  approached  the  altar  to  officiate, 
or  were  about  to  enter  the  Holy  Place  (Ex.  xxx.  18  sqq.).  There 
were  no  doubt  taps  by  which  the  water  required  for  this  purpose 
was  drawn  off  from  the  sea.* — The  artistic  form  of  the  vessel 
corresponded  to  its'  sacred  purpose.  The  rim  of  the  basin,  which 
rose  upwards  in  the  form  of  a  lily,  was  intended  to  point  to  the 
holiness  and  loveliness  of  that  life  which  issued  from  the  sanc- 
tuary. The  twelve  oxen,  on  which  it  rested,  pointed  to  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel  as  a  priestly  nation,  which  cleansed  itseK 

*  For  the  different  conjectures  on  this  subject,  see  Lundius,  jud.  Heilig- 
thUmer,  p.  356.  Thenius  supposes  that  there  was  also  a  provision  for  filling 
the  vessel,  since  the  height  of  it  would  have  rendered  it  a  work  of  great  labour 
and  time  to  fill  it  by  hand,  and  that  there  was  probably  a  pipe  hidden  behind 
the  figures  of  the  oxen,  since,  according  to  Aristeas,  histor.  LXX.  Interp., 
Oxon.  1692,  p.  32  (also  Eusebii  prxp.  evang.  ix.  38),  there  were  openings 
concealed  at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  out  of  which  water  was  allowed  to  run  at 
certain  seasons  for  the  requisite  cleansing  of  the  pavement  of  the  court  from 


CHAP.  VII.  27-39.  105 

here  in  the  persons  of  its  priests,  to  appear  clean  and  holy  before 
the  Lord.  Just  as  the  number  twelve  unquestionably  suggests 
the  allusion  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  covenant  nation,  so,  in 
the  choice  of  oxen  or  bullocks  as  supporters  of  the  basin,  it  is 
impossible  to  overlook  the  significance  of  this  selection  of  the 
first  and  highest  of  the  sacrificial  animals  to  represent  the  priestly 
service,  especially  if  we  compare  the  position  of  the  lions  on 
Solomon's  throne  (ch,  x.  20). 

Vers.  27-39.  The  Brazen  Stands  and  their  Basins.^ — He 
made  ten  stands  of  brass,  each  four  cubits  long,  four  cubits 
broad,  and  three  cubits  high.  ni^bD,  stands  or  stools  (Luther), 
is  the  name  given  to  these  vessels  from  their  purpose,  viz.  to 
serve  as  supports  to  the  basins  which  were  used  for  washing  the 
flesh  of  the  sacrifices.  They  were  square  chests  cast  in  brass, 
of  the  dimensions  given. — Vers.  28,  29.  Their  work  (their  con- 
struction) was  the  following  :  they  had  nnspp,  lit.  surroundings, 
i.e.  panels  or  flat  sides,  and  that  between  D'?^!?*,  commissurce,  i.e. 
frames  or  borders,  which  enclosed  the  sides,  and  were  connected 
together  at  the  angles ;  and  upon  the  panels  within  the  borders 
(there  were  figures  of)  lions,  oxen,  and  cheriibim.  The  state- 
ment in  Josephus,  that  each  centre  was  divided  into  three  com- 
partments, has  nothing  to  support  it  in  the  biblical  text,  nor  is 
it  at  all  probable  in  itself,  inasmuch  as  a  division  of  tliis  kind 
would  have  rendered  the  figures  placed  upon  them  insignificantly 
small.  "  And  upon  the  borders  was  a  base  above."  15  is  a  noun, 
and  has  been  rendered  correctly  by  the  Chaldee  wp??,  basis. 
The  meaning  is,  above,  over  the  borders,  there  was  a  pedestal 
for  the  basin  upon  the  chest,  which  is  more  fully  described  in 
ver.  31.  To  take  |2  as  an  adverb  does  not  give  a  suitable  sense. 
For  if  we  adopt  the  rendering,  and  upon  the  corner  borders  (or 
ledges)  likewise  above  (De  AVette  and  Ewald), — i.e.  there  were 
also  figures  of  lions,  oxen,  and  cherubim  upon  the  comer  borders, 

the  blood  of  the  sacrifices ;  and  there  is  still  a  fountain  just  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  spot  on  which,  according  to  ver.  39,  the  brazen  sea  must  have 
stood  (see  Schultz's  plan)  ;  and  in  the  time  of  the  Crusaders  there  was  a  large 
basin,  covered  by  a  dome  supported  by  columns  (see  Robinson,  Pal.  i,  446). 
But  even  if  the  later  temple  was  supplied  with  the  water  required  by  means 
of  artificial  water-pipes,  the  Solomonian  origin  of  these  arrangements  or 
designs  is  by  no  means  raised  even  to  the  rank  of  probability. 

^  The  description  which  follow,  will  be  more  easily  imderstood  by  comparing 
with  it  the  sketch  given  in  my  hiblische  Ardidologie,  Taf.  iiL  fig.  4. 


106  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

— it  is  impossible  to  tell  what  the  meaning  of  ?V^^  can  be,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  fact  that  on  the  corner  borders  there  could  hardly 
be  room  for  such  figures  as  these.  This  last  argument  also  tells 
against  the  rendering  adopted  by  Thenius:  "  and  upon  the  corner 
borders,  above  as  well  as  below  the  lions  and  oxen,  (there  were) 
wreaths  ; "  in  which,  moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  attach  any  sup- 
portable meaning  to  the  |3.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  Thenius 
objects  to  our  view  that  the  pedestal  in  question  is  spoken  of  for 
the  first  time  in  ver.  31,  and  that  the  expression  "above  the 
corner  borders  (ledges)  "  would  be  extremely  unsuitable,  since 
the  pedestal  in  question  was  above  the  whole  stand ;  the  former 
remark  is  not  quite  correct,  for  ver.  3 1  merely  contains  a  more 
minute  description  of  the  character  of  the  pedestal,  and  the  latter 
is  answered  by  the  fact  that  the  pedestal  derived  its  strength 
from  the  corner  borders  or  ledges.  "  And  below  the  lions  and 
oxen  were  wreaths,  pendant  work,"  rii-p,  here  and  at  ver.  36, 
is  to  be  explained  from  n^i?  in  Prov,  i.  9  and  iv.  9,  and  signifies 
twists  or  wreaths.  *T^io  '""^'J!^  is  not  "  work  of  sinking,"  i.e. 
sunken  work  (Thenius),  which  never  can  be  the  meaning  of 
1">i»,  but  pendant  work,  festoons,  by  which,  however,  we  cannot 
understand  festoons  hanging  freely,  or  floating  in  the  air. — 
Ver.  30.  "  Every  stool  had  four  brazen  wheels  and  brazen  axles, 
and  the  four  feet  thereof  had  shoulder-pieces ;  below  the  basin 
were  the  shoulder-pieces  cast,  beyond  each  one  (were)  wreaths." 
The  meaning  is  that  the  square  chests  stood  upon  axles  with 
wheels  of  brass,  after  the  style  of  ordinary  carriage  wheels 
(ver.  33),  so  that  they  could  be  driven  or  easily  moved  from  one 
place  to  another ;  and  that  they  did  not  rest  directly  upon  the 
axles,  but  stood  upon  four  feet,  which  were  fastened  upon  the 
axles.  This  raised  the  chest  above  the  rim  of  the  wheels,  so 
that  not  only  were  the  sides  of  the  chest  which  were  ornamented 
with  figures  left  uncovered,  but,  according  to  ver.  32,  the  wheels 
stood  below  the  panels,  and  not,  as  in  ordinary  carriages,  at  the 
side  of  the  chest.  With  regard  to  the  connection  between  the 
axles  and  the  wheels,  Gesenius  (ITics.  p.  972)  and  Thenius  sup- 
pose that  the  axles  were  fastened  to  the  wheels,  as  in  the  Eoman 
plaustra  and  at  the  present  day  in  Italy,  so  as  to  turn  with  them ; 
and  Thenius  argues  in  support  of  this,  that  Ofv  i^  *^  ^^  connected 
not  only  with  what  immediately  precedes,  but  also  with  ''po 
riC'nj.  But  this  latter  is  unfounded ;  and  the  idea  is  altogether 
irreconcilable  with  the  fact  that  the  wheels  had  naves  (DN?f  C* 


CHAP.  VII.  27-ZO.  107 

ver.  33),  from  which  we  must  infer  that  they  revolved  upon  the 
axles.  The  words  Q^i?  ribns  vnbys  nya'iisii  are  ambiguous.  They 
may  either  be  rendered,  "  and  its  four  feet  had  shoulder-pieces," 
or,  as  Thenius  supposes,  "  and  its  four  feet  served  as  shoulder- 
pieces."  nbi'3  means  stepping  feet,  feet  bent  out  as  if  for  step- 
ping (Ex.  XXV.  12).  The  suffix  attached  to  vnnjffi  refers  to  "T^^^d, 
the  masculine  being  often  used  indefinitely  instead  of  the  femi- 
nine, as  in  Dn^  in  ver.  28.  Thenius  compares  these  feet  to  the 
afia^oTToZe^  of  the  Greeks,  and  imagines  that  they  were  di^dded 
below,  like  fork-shaped  upright  contrivances,  in  which,  as  in 
forks,  the  wheels  turned  with  the  axles,  so  that  the  axle-peg, 
which  projected  outwards,  had  a  special  apparatus,  instead  of  the 
usual  pin,  in  the  form  of  a  stimip-like  and  on  the  lower  side 
hand-shaped  holder  (y^,  which  was  fastened  to  the  lower  rim  of 
the  i^^iDO^  and  descended  perpendicularly  so  as  to  cover  the  foot, 
and  the  general  arrangement  of  the  wheels  themselves  received 
greater  strength  in  consequence.  These  feet,  which  were  divided 
in  the  shape  of  forks,  are  supposed  to  be  called  nbn|  (shoulders), 
because  they  were  not  attached  underneath  at  the  edge  of  the 
stand,  but  being  cast  with  the  comer  rims  .  passed  down  in  the 
inner  angles,  so  that  their  uppermost  portion  was  under  iJie  basin, 
and  the  lowest  portion  was  under  the  stand,  which  we  are  to 
picture  to  ourselves  as  without  a  bottom,  and  projecting  as  a 
split  foot,  held  the  wheel,  and  so  formed  its  shoulder-pieces. 
But  we  cannot  regard  this  representation  as  either  in  accordance 
with  the  text,  or  as  really  correct.  Even  if  cnp  nbn2  could  in 
any  case  be  grammatically  rendered,  "  they  ser\ed  them  (the 
wheels  and  axles)  as  shoulders,"  although  it  would  be  a  very 
questionable  course  to  take  cnp  in  a  different  sense  here  from 
that  which  it  bears  in  the  perfectly  similar  construction  in 
ver.  28,  the  feet  which  carried  the  stand  could  not  possibly 
be  called  the  shoulders  of  the  wheels  and  their  axles,  since 
they  did  not  carry  the  wheels,  but  the  ^jblp.  Moreover, 
this  idea  is  irreconcilable  with  the  following  words:  "below 
the  basin  were  the  shoulder-pieces  cast."  If,  for  example, 
as  Thenius  assumes,  the  TnecJionah  had  a  cover  which  was 
arched  like  a  dome,  and  had  a  neck  in  the  centre  into  which 
the  basin  was  inserted  by  its  lower  rim,  the  shoulder-pieces, 
supposing  that  they  were  cast  upon  the  inner  borders  of  the 
chest,  would  not  be  hclow  the  lasin,  but  simply  below  the  comers 
of  the  lid  of  the  chest,  so  that  they  would  stand  in  no  direct 


108  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

relation  whatever  to  the  basin.  We  must  therefore  give  the 
preference  to  the  rendering,  which  is  grammatically  the  most 
natural  one,  "  and  its  feet  had  shoulder-pieces,"  and  understand 
the  words  as  signifying  that  from  the  feet,  which  descended  of 
course  from  the  four  corner  borders  of  the  chest  down  to  the 
axles,  there  ascended  shoulder-pieces,  which  ran  along  the  out- 
side of  the  chest  and  reached  to  the  lower  part  of  the  basin 
which  was  upon  the  lid  of  the  chest,  and  as  shoulders  either 
supported  or  helped  to  support  it.  According  to  ver.  34,  these 
shoulder-pieces  were  so  cast  upon  the  four  corners  of  the  chest, 
that  they  sprang  out  of  it  as  it  were,  riv?  ^""ii  ">2yo,  opposite 
to  each  one  were  wreaths.  Where  these  festoons  were  attached, 
the  various  senses  in  which  13^0  is  used  prevent  our  deciding 
with  certainty.  At  any  rate,  we  must  reject  the  alteration  pro- 
posed by  Thenius,  of  DV?  into  nns^,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
nnsb  ^""H  in  the  sense  of  "  one  to  the  other"  would  not  be 
Hebraic. — In  ver.  3 1  we  have  a  description  of  the  upper  portion 
of  the  mechonah,  which  formed  the  pedestal  for  the  basin,  and 
therewith  an  explanation  of  "t*3^  nnnp.  "  And  the  mouth  of  it 
(the  basin)  was  within  the  crown  and  upwards  with  a  cubit, 
and  the  mouth  of  it  (the  crown)  was  rounded,  stand-work,  a 
cubit  and  a  half  (wide),  and  on  its  mouth  also  there  was  en- 
graved work,  and  its  panels  were  square,  not  round."  To  under- 
stand this  verse,  we  must  observe  that,  according  to  ver.  35,  the 
medionah  chest  was  provided  at  the  top  with  a  dome-shaped 
covering,  in  the  centre  of  which  there  was  an  elevation  resem- 
bling the  capital  of  a  pillar  (nnnbn^  the  crown),  supporting  the 
basin,  which  was  inserted  into  it  by  its  lower  rim.  The  suffix 
in  in"'S  (its  mouth)  is  supposed  by  Thenius  to  refer  to  the 
medionah  chest,  and  he  questions  the  allusion  to  the  basin,  on 
the  ground  that  this  was  so  flat  tliat  a  mouth-YikQ  opening  could 
not  possibly  be  spoken  of,  and  the  basins  were  never  within  the 
medionah.  But  however  correct  these  two  remarks  may  be  in 
themselves,  they  by  no  means  demonstrate  the  necessity  of 
taking  ^n"'S  as  refeiTing  to  the  mechonah  chest.  For  na  (the 
mouth)  is  not  necessarily  to  be  understood  as  denoting  a  mouth- 
like opening  to  the  basin  ;  but  just  as  k'ni  '*3  in  Ex.  xxviii.  32 
signifies  the  opening  of  the  clothes  for  the  head,  i.e.  for  putting 
the  head  through  when  putting  on  the  clothes,  so  may  in''S  (its 
mouth)  be  the  opening  or  mouth  for  the  basin,  i.e.  the  opening 
into  which  the  basin  fitted  and  was  emptied,  the  water  in  the 


CHAP.  YII.  27-39.  109 

basin  being  let  oif  into  the  mechonah  chest  through  the  head- 
shaped  neck  by  means  of  a  tap  or  plug.  The  mouth  was  really 
the  lower  or  contracted  portion  of  the  shell-shaped  basin,  which 
was  about  a  cubit  in  height  within  the  neck  and  upwards,  that 
is  to  say,  in  all,  inasmuch  as  it  went  partly  into  the  neck  and 
rose  in  part  above  it.  The  n^s  (the  mouth  thereof)  which 
follows  is  the  (upper)  opening  of  the  crown-like  neck  of  the  lid 
of  the  mechonah.  This  was  rounded,  |3"nb*J?p,  stand-work,  i.e., 
according  to  De  Wette's  correct  paraphrase,  formed  after  the 
style  of  the  foot  of  a  pillar,  a  cubit  and  a  half  in  diameter. 
"  And  also  upon  the  mouth  of  it  (the  mechonah)  was  car\-ed 
work."  The  03  (also)  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  sides  of  the 
mechonah  were  already  ornamented  with  carving.  DiTniSDO,  the 
panels  of  the  crown-like  neck  (JT?.'!!)^)  and  its  mouth  (-ys)  were 
square,  like  the  panels  of  the  sides  of  the  mechonah  chest.  The 
fact  that  panels  are  spoken  of  in  connection  with  this  neck,  may 
be  explained  on  the  assumption  that  with  its  height  of  one  cubit 
and  its  circumference  of  almost  five  cubits  (which  follows  from 
its  having  a  diameter  of  a  cubit  and  a  half)  it  had  stronger 
borders  of  brass  to  strengthen  its  bearing  power,  while  between 
them  it  consisted  of  thinner  plates,  which  are  called  fillings  or 
panels. — In  vers.  32,  33,  the  wheels  are  more  minutely  de- 
scribed. Every  stool  had  four  wheels  under  the  panels,  i.e.  not 
against  the  sides  of  the  chest,  but  under  them,  and  n^^^,  hands 
or  holders  of  the  wheels,  i.e.  special  contrivances  for  fastening 
the  wheels  to  the  axles,  probably  larger  and  more  artistically 
worked  than  the  linch-pins  of  ordinary  carriages.  These  riiT 
were  only  required  when  the  wheels  turned  upon  the  axles,  and 
not  when  they  were  fastened  to  them.  The  height  of  the  wheel 
was  a  cubit  and  a  half,  i.e.  not  half  the  height,  but  the  whole. 
For  with  a  half  height  of  a  cubit  and  a  half  the  wheels  would 
have  been  three  cubits  in  diameter ;  and  as  the  chest  was  only 
four  cubits  long,  the  hinder  wheels  and  front  wheels  would 
almost  have  touched  one  another.  The  work  (construction)  of 
the  wheels  resembled  that  of  (ordinar}')  carriage  wheels  ;  but 
everything  about  them  (holders,  felloes,  spokes,  and  naves)  was 
cast  in  brass. — In  ver.  34  the  description  passes  to  the  upper 
portion  of  the  mechonah.  "  And  he  made  four  shoidder-pieces 
at  the  four  comers  of  one  {i.e.  of  every)  stand  ;  out  of  the  stand 
were  its  shoulder-pieces."  nisna  are  the  shoulder-pieces  already 
mentioned  in  ver.  30,  which  were  attached  to  the  feet  below,  or 


110  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

which  terminated  in  feet.  They  were  fastened  to  the  comers  iu 
such  a  way  that  they  seemed  to  come  out  of  them ;  and  they  rose 
above  the  corners  with  a  slight  inclination  (curve)  towards  the 
middle  of  the  neck  or  capital,  till  they  came  under  the  outer 
rim  of  the  basin  which  rested  upon  the  capital  of  the  lid  of  the 
chest,  so  as  to  support  the  basin,  which  turned  considerably  out- 
wards at  the  top.— Ver.  35.  "  And  on  the  upper  part  of  the 
stand  (the  mechonah  chest)  half  a  cubit  high  was  rounded  all 
round,  and  on  the  upper  part  were  its  holders,  and  its  panels  out 
of  it.  njben  B'NI  is  the  upper  portion  of  the  square  chest. 
This  was  not  flat,  but  rounded,  i.e.  arched,  so  that  the  arching 
rose  half  a  cubit  high  above  the  height  of  the  sides.  This  arched 
covering  (or  lid)  had  nii;j,  holders,  and  panels,  which  were  there- 
fore upon  the  upper  part  of  the  '"iji^o.  The  holders  we  take  to 
be  strong  broad  borders  of  brass,  which  gave  the  lid  the  neces- 
sary firmness ;  and  the  fillings  or  panels  are  the  thinner  plates 
of  brass  between  them.  They  were  both  nsGO,  "  out  of  it,"  out 
of  the  upper  part  of  the  mechonah,  i.e.  cast  along  with  it.  With 
regard  to  the  decoration  of  it,  ver.  36  states  that  "  he  cut  out 
(engraved)  upon  the  plates  of  its  holders,  and  upon  its  panels, 
cherubim,  lions,  and  palms,  according  to  the  empty  space  of 
every  one,  and  wreaths  all  round."  We  cannot  determine  any- 
thing further  with  regard  to  the  distribution  of  these  figures. — 
Vers.  37,  38.  "  Thus  he  made  the  ten  stools  of  one  kind  of 
casting,  measure,  and  form,  and  also  ten  brazen  basins  ('^i"'*3),  each 
holding  forty  baths,  and  each  basin  four  cubits."  In  a  round 
vessel  this  can  only  be  understood  of  the  diameter,  not  of  the 
height  or  depth,  as  the  basins  were  set  upon  (bv)  the  stands, 
naiaisn-^j;  ins  "ii»3  is  dependent  upon  '^Vl\ :  he  made  ten  basins, 
.  .  .  one  basin  upon  a  stand  for  the  ten  stands,  i.e.  one  basin  for 
each  stand.  If  then  the  basins  were  a  cubit  in  diameter  at  the 
top,  and  therefore  their  size  corresponded  almost  exactly  to  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  stand,  whilst  the  crown-like  neck,  into 
which  they  were  inserted,  was  only  a  cubit  and  a  half  in  dia- 
meter (ver.  31),  their  shape  must  have  resembled  that  of  wide- 
spreading  shells.  And  the  form  thus  given  to  them  required 
the  shoulder-pieces  described  in  vers.  30  and  34  as  sup;ports 
beneath  the  outer  rim  of  the  basins,  to  prevent  their  upsetting 
when  the  carriage  was  wheeled  about.^ — ^Ver.  39.  And  he  put 

^  The  description  which  Ewald  has  given  of  these  stands  in  his  Geschichte, 
iu.  pp.  311,  312,  and  still  more  elaborately  in  an  article  in  the  GoUingen 


CHAP.  VII.  27-39.  Ill 

the  stands  five  on  the  right  side  of  the  house  and  five  on  the 
left ;  and  the  (brazen)  sea  he  put  upon  the  right  side  eastwards, 
opposite  to  the  south.  The  right  side  is  the  south  side,  and  the 
left  the  north  side.  Consequently  the  stands  were  not  placed 
on  the  right  and  left,  i.e.  on  each  side  of  the  altar  of  burnt- 
(jffering,  but  on  each  side  of  the  house,  i.e.  of  the  temple-hall ; 
while  the  brazen  sea  stood  farther  forward  between  the  hall  and 
the  altar,  only  more  towards  the  south,  i.e.  to  the  south-east  of 
the  hall  and  the  south-west  of  the  altar  of  bumt-offering.  The 
basins  upon  the  stands  were  for  washing  (according  to  2  Chron. 
iv.  6),  namely,  "  the  work  of  the  bumt-ofifering,"  that  is  to  say, 
for  cleansing  the  flesh  and  fat,  which  were  to  be  consumed  upon 
the  altar  of  bumt-offering.  By  means  of  the  stands  on  wheels, 
they  could  not  only  easily  bring  the  water  required  near  to  the 
priests  who  were  engaged  in  preparing  the  sacrifices,  but  could 
also  let  down  the  dirty  water  into  the  chest  of  the  stand  by 
means  of  a  special  contrivance  introduced  for  the  purpose,  and 
afterwards  take  it  away.  As  the  introduction  of  carriages  for  the 
basins  arose  from  the  necessities  of  the  altar-service,  so  the  pre- 
paration of  ten  such  stands,  and  the  size  of  the  basins,  was 
occasioned  by  the  greater  extension  of  the  sacrificial  worship,  in 
which  it  often  happened  that  a  considerable  number  of  sacrifices 
had  to  be  made  ready  for  the  altar  at  the  same  time.  The 
artistic  work  of  these  stands  and  their  decoration  with  figures 
were  intended  to  show  that  these  vessels  were  set  apart  for  the 
service  of  the  sanctuary.  The  emblems  are  to  some  extent  the 
same  as  those  on  the  walls  of  the  sanctuary,  viz.  cherubim, 
palms,  and  flowers,  which  had  therefore  naturally  the  same 
meaning  here  as  they  had  there ;  the  only  difference  being  that 
they  were  executed  there  in  gold,  whereas  here  they  were  in 
brass,  to  correspond  to  the  character  of  the  court  Moreover, 
there  were  also  figures  of  lions  and  oxen,  pointing  no  doubt 
to   the  royal  and   priestly  characters,  which  were   combined, 

Gelehrten  NacJir.  1859,  pp.  131-146,  is  not  only  obscure,  but  almost  entirely 
erroneous,  since  he  proposes  in  the  most  arbitrary  way  to  make  several 
alterations  in  the  biblical  text,  on  the  assumption  that  the  Solomonian  stands 
■were  constructed  just  like  the  small  bronze  four-wheeled  kettle-carriages 
(hardly  a  foot  in  size)  which  have  been  discovered  in  Mecklenburg,  Steyer- 
mark,  and  other  places  of  Europe.  See  on  this  subject  G.  C.  F.  Lisch, 
*'  iiber  die  ehemen  "Wagenbecken  der  Bronzezeit,"  in  the  Jahrbb.  des  Vereins 
f.  Mecklenh.  GescMcTite,  ix.  pp.  373, 374,  where  a  sketch  of  a  small  carriage  of 
this  kind  is  given. 


312  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

according  to  Ex.  xix.  6,  in  the  nation  worshipping  the  Lord  in 
this  place. 

Vers.  40—51.  Summary  enumeration  of  the  other  vessels  of  the 
temple. — In  ver.  40  the  brazen  vessels  of  the  court  are  given. 
In  vers.  41-47  the  several  portions  of  the  brazen  pillars,  the 
stands  and  basins,  the  brazen  sea  and  the  smaller  vessels  of 
brass,  are  mentioned  once  more,  together  with  notices  ■  of  the 
nature,  casting,  and  quantity  of  the  metal  used  for  making 
them.  And  in  vers.  48-50  we  have  the  golden  vessels  of  the 
Holy  Place.  This  section  agrees  almost  word  for  word  with 
2  Chron.  iv.  11 -v.  1,  where,  moreover,  not  only  is  the  arrange- 
ment observed  in  the  previous  description  of  the  temple-build- 
ing a  different  one,  but  the  making  of  the  brazen  altar  of  burnt- 
offering,  of  the  golden  candlesticks,  and  of  the  table  of  shew- 
bread,  and  the  arrangement  of  the  great  court  (2  Chron.  iv.  7-9) 
are  also  described,  to  which  there  is  no  allusion  whatever  in  the 
account  before  us  ;  so  that  these  notices  in  the  Chronicles  fill 
up  an  actual  gap  in  the  description  of  the  building  of  the 
temple  which  is  given  here. — Ver.  40  a,  The  smaller  brazen  vessels. 
— Hiram  made  the  pots,  shovels,  and  bowls,  nin^an  is  a  slip 
of  the  pen  for  rih''Dn,  pots,  as  we  may  see  by  comparing  it  with 
ver.  45  and  the  parallel  passages  2  Chron.  iv.  11  and  2  Kings 
XXV.  14.  The  pots  were  used  for  carrying  away  the  ashes  ;  Q"'!'*'!', 
the  shovels,  for  clearing  the  ashes  from  the  altar ;  nipnnsn  were 
the  bowls  used  for  catching  the  blood,  when  the  sacrificial 
animals  were  slaughtered  :  compare  Ex.  xxvii.  3  and  Num.  iv.  1 4, 
where  forks  and  fire-basins  or  coal-pans  are  also  mentioned. — 
Ver.  40&  introduces  the  recapitulation  of  all  the  vessels  made 
by  Hiram,  njn^  n%  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  (cf.  Ewald, 
§  300,  J);  in  2  Chron.  iv.  11  more  clearly,  '"  ^"'23;  we  find  it 
also  in  ver.  45,  for  which  we  have  in  2  Chron.  iv.  16  nin";  n''3i», 
for  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  several  objects  enumerated  in 
vers.  41-45  are  accusatives  governed  by  nibyp. — Vers.  41-44, 
the  brazen  pillars  with  the  several  portions  of  their  capitals  ; 
see  at  vers.  15-22.  The  inappropriate  expression  ^''I'syn  \^S"^y 
(upon  the  face  of  the  pillars)  in  ver.  42  is  probably  a  mistake 
for  'Vn  "'J^"''!',  "  upon  the  two  pillars,"  for  it  could  not  properly 
be  said  of  the  capitals  that  they  were  upon  the  surface  of  the 
pillars. — ^Ver.  43.  The  ten  stands  and  their  basins :  see  at  vers. 
27-37;  ver.  44,  the  brazen  sea:  vid.  vers.  23-^6;  lastly, 
ver.  45,  the  pots,  etc.,  as  at  ver.  40.     The  Chethtb  iriNn  is  a 


CHAP.  VII.  40-51.  113 

mistake    for    ^^^^    (Kert)}      ^"p^  nrro,   of  polished  brass — 
accusative  of  the  material  governed  by  <^^V. — Ver.   46.    "  In 
the  Jordan  valley  he  cast  them — in  thickened  earth  between 
Succoth  and  Zarthan,"  where  the  ground,  according  to  Burck- 
hardt,  Sijr.  ii.  p.  593,  is  marly  throughout.      ^^I^J^  ^^^^,  "  by 
thickening  of  the  earth,"  the  forms  being  made  in  the  ground 
by  stamping  together  the  clayey  soil.     Succoth  was  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Jordan, — not,  however,  at  the  ford  near  Bethsean 
(Thenius),  but  on  the  south  side  of  the  Jabbok  (see  at  Judg. 
viii.  5   and  Gen.  xxxiii.  17).     Zarthan  or  Zereda  was   in   the" 
Jordan  valley  on  this  side,  probably  at  Kum  Sartabeh  (see  at 
Judg.  vii.  22  and  Josh,  iii  16).     The  casting-place  must  have 
been  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan,  as  the  (eastern)  bank  on  the 
other  side  has  scarcely  any  level  ground  at  all.     The  circum- 
stance that  a  place  on  the  other  side  is  mentioned  in  connection 
with  one  on  this  side,  may  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  the 
two  places  were  obliquely  opposite  to  one  another,  and  in  the 
vaUey  on  this  side  there  was  no  large  place  in  the  neighbour- 
hood above  Zarthan  which  could  be  appropriately  introduced 
to  define  the  site  of  the  casting-place. — Ver.  47.   Solomon  left 
all  these  vessels  of  excessive  number  unweighed.     na^  does  not 
mean  he  laid  them  down  (=  set  them  up  :  Movers),  but  he  let 
them  lie,  i.e.  unweighed,  as  the  additional  clause,  "  the  weight 
of  the  brass  was  not  ascertained,"  clearly  shows.     This  large 
quantity  of  brass,  according  to   1  Chron.  xviii.  8,  David  had 
taken  from  the  cities  of  Hadadezer,  adding  also  the  brass  pre- 
sented to  him  by  ToL — Vers.  48-50.   The  golden  vessels  of  the 
Holy  Place  (cf.  2  Chron.  iv.  19-22).     The  vessels  enumerated 
here  are  divided,  by  the  repetition  of  "i^iD  ant  in  vers.  49  and  50, 
into  two  classes,  which  were  made  of  fine  gold  ;  and  to  this  a 
third  class  is  added  in  ver.  50&  which  was  made  of  gold  of 
inferior  purity.     As  "I'lJp  ^nr  is  governed  in  both  instances  by 
b'i'*^  as  an  accusative  of  the  material,  the  ^^J  (gold)  attached  to 
the  separate  vessels  must  be  taken  as  an  adjective.     "  Solomon 
made  all  the  vessels  in  the  house  of  Jehovah  (i.e.  had  them 

^  After  n^sn  D^ban-^a  nxi  the  LXX.  have  the  interpolation,  ««i  w 
0-711X01  riGadpacKnTTce.  xxi  oktu  toS  oTkcv  toD  (iseai'Kico;  kxI  tou  oikov  Kvpiov, 
which  is  proved  to  be  apocryphal  by  the  marvellous  combination  of  the 
king's  house  and  the  house  of  God,  though  it  is  nevertheless  regarded  by 
Thenius  as  genuine,  and  as  an  interesting  notice  respecting  certain  pillars  in 
the  enclosure  of  the  inner  court  of  the  temple,  and  in  the  king's  palace  I 

H 


114  THE  FIRST  DOOK  OF  KINGS. 

made) :  the  golden  altar,  and  the  golden  table  on  which  was 
the  shew-bread,  and  the  candlesticks  ...  of  costly  gold  ("iiJD : 
see  at  ch.  vi.  20).  The  house  of  Jehovah  is  indeed  here,  as  in 
ver.  40,  the  temple  with  its  courts,  and  not  merely  the  Holy 
Place,  or  the  temple-house  in  the  stricter  sense ;  but  it  by  no 
means  follows  from  this  that  Dvan-pa^  "  all  the  vessels,"  includes 
both  the  brazen  vessels  already  enumerated  and  also  the  golden 
vessels  mentioned  afterwards.  A  decisive  objection  to  our 
taking  the  Sb  (all)  as  referring  to  those  already  enumerated  as 
well  as  those  which  follow,  is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstance 
that  the  sentence  commencing  with  K'J'M  is  only  concluded  with 
i^JD  nnr  in  ver.  49,     It  is  evident  from  this  that  D''?3n-^3  is 

T  T  T  •  „    -  ^ 

particularized  in  the  several  vessels  enumerated  from  ri3T0  n« 
onwards.  These  vessels  no  doubt  belonged  to  the  Holy  Place 
or  temple-house  only ;  though  this  is  not  involved  in  the  ex- 
pression "  the  house  of  Jehovah,"  but  is  apparent  from  the  con- 
text, or  from  the  fact  that  all  the  vessels  of  the  court  have 
already  been  enumerated  in  vers.  40-46,  and  were  made  of 
brass,  whereas  the  golden  vessels  follow  here.  That  these  were 
intended  for  the  Holy  Place  is  assumed  as  well  known  from 
the  analogy  of  the  tabernacle.  nin^  n''3  "itJ'X  merely  affirms 
that  the  vessels  mentioned  afterwards  belonged  to  the  house  of 
God,  and  were  not  prepared  for  the  palace  of  Solomon  or  any 
other  earthly  purpose.  We  cannot  infer  from  the  expression 
"  Solomon  made "  that  the  golden  vessels  were  not  made  by 
Hiram  the  artist,  as  the  brazen  ones  were  (Thenius).  Solomon 
is  simply  named  as  the  builder  of  the  temple,  and  the  introduction 
of  his  name  was  primarily  occasioned  by  ver.  47.  The  "golden 
altar  "  is  the  altar  of  incense  in  the  Holy  Place,  which  is  called 
golden  because  it  was  overlaid  with  gold-plate  ;  for,  according 
to  ch.  vi.  20,  its  sides  were  covered  with  cedar  wood,  after  the 
analogy  of  the  golden  altar  in  the  tabernacle  (Ex,  xxx.  1-5). 
"  And  the  table,  upon  which  the  shew-bread,  of  gold."  3nT  be- 
longs to  jnpt^n,  to  which  it  stands  in  free  subjection  {vid.  Ewald, 
§287,  A),  signifying  "the  golden  table."  Instead  of  ini'E^n  we 
have  riijnp^n  in  2  Chron.  iv.  19  (the  tables),  because  there  it 
has  already  been  stated  in  ver.  8  that  ten  tables  were  made, 
and  put  in  the  Holy  Place.  In  our  account  that  verse  is 
omitted ;  and  hence  there  is  only  a  notice  of  the  table  upon 
which  the  loaves  of  shew-bread  •  generally  lay,  just  as  in  2 
Chron.  xxix,  18,  in  which  the  chronicler  does  not  contradict 


CHAP.  VIL  40-5L  115 

liimself,  as  Tbenius  fancies.  The  number  ten,  moreover,  is  re- 
quired and  proved  to  be  correct  in  tbe  case  of  the  tables,  by 
the  occurrence  of  the  same  number  in  connection  -with  the 
candlesticks.  In  no  single  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  is  it 
stated  that  there  was  onlj  one  table  of  shew-bread  in  the  Holy 
Place  of  Solomon's  temple.^  The  tables  were  certainly  made  of 
wood,  like  the  Mosaic  table  of  shew-bread,  probably  of  cedar 
wood,  and  only  overlaid  with  gold  (see  at  Ex.  xxv.  23-30). 
"  And  the  candlesticks,  five  on  the  right  and  five  on  the  left, 
before  the  back-room."  These  were  also  made  in  imitation  of 
the  Mosaic  candlestick  (see  Ex.  xxv.  31  sqq.),  and  were  pro- 
bably placed  not  near  to  the  party  wall  in  a  straight  line  to  the 
right  and  left  of  the  door  leading  into  the  Most  Holy  Place, 
but  along  the  two  longer  sides  of  the  Holy  Place ;  and  the 
same  with  the  tables,  except  that  they  stood  nearer  to  the  side 
walls  with  the  candlesticks  in  front  of  them,  so  that  the  whole 
space  might  be  lighted  more  brilliantly.  The  altar  of  burnt- 
offering,  on  the  contrary,  stood  in  front  of  and  very  near  to 
the  entrance  into  the  Most  Holy  Place  (see  at  ch.  vL  20). — 
In  the  following  clause  (vers.  496  and  50a)  the  ornaments  of 
the  candlesticks  are  mentioned  first,  and  then  the  rest  of  the 
smaller  golden  vessels  are  enumerated.  ^1^^,  the  flower- work, 
with  which  the  candlesticks  were  ornamented  (see  Ex.  xxv.  33). 
The  word  is  evidently  used  collectively  here,  so  that  the  ^T^ 
mentioned  along  with  them  in  the  book  of  Exodus  (I.e.)  are 
included,  nnan^  the  lamps,  which  were  placed  upon  the  shaft 
and  arms  of  the  candlestick  (Ex.  xxv.  3  7).  O^L^Prf '!■,  the  snuffers 
(Ex.  xxv.  38).  nisp,  basins  in  Ex.  xiL  22,  here  probably  deep 
dishes  (Sckalen).  n^">t?ID,  knives.  f>ip'JIO,  bowls  (ScJuzlen)  or  cans 
with  spouts  for  the  wine  for  the  Kbations  ;  according  to  2  Chron. 
iv.  8,  there  were  a  hundred  of  these  made.    ni23^  small  flat  vessels, 

1  Nothing  can  be  learned  from  2  Chron.  xxix.  18  concerning  the  number 
of  the  vessels  in  the  Holy  Place.  If  we  were  to  conclude  from  this  passage 
that  there  were  no  more  vessels  in  the  Holy  Place  than  are  mentioned  there, 
we  should  also  have  to  assume,  if  we  would  not  fall  into  a  most  unscientific 
inconsistency,  that  there  was  neither  a  candlestick  nor  a  golden  altar  of 
incense  in  the  Holy  Place.  The  correct  meaning  of  this  passage  may  be 
gathered  from  the  words  of  king  Abiam  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  II :  "  TTe  lay  the 
shew-bread  upon  the  pure  table,  and  light  the  golden  candlestick  every  even- 
ing ;"  from  which  it  is  obvious  that  here  and  there  only  the  table  and  the 
cmdlestick  are  mentioned,  because  usually  only  one  table  had  shew-bread 
i^n  it,  and  only  one  candlestick  waa  lighted. 


116  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

probably  for  carrying  the  incense  to  the  altar,  ninnp^  extin- 
guishers ;  see  at  Ex.  xxv.  38. — Ver.  50&.  The  ninb  were  also 
of  gold,  possibly  of  inferior  quality.  These  were  either  the 
hinges  of  the  doors,  or  more  probably  the  sockets,  in  which  the 
pegs  of  the  doors  turned.  They  were  provided  for  the  doors  of 
the  inner  temple,  viz.  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Most  Holy  Place. 
We  must  supply  Vdv  before  ''^/y.. 

All  the  vessels  mentioned  in  vers.  48  and  49  belonged  to  the 
Holy  Place  of  the  temple,  and  were  the  same  as  those  in  the 
tabernacle  ;  so  that  the  remarks  made  in  the  Comm.  on  Ex. 
xxv.  30  and  39,  and  xxx.  1-10,  as  to  their  purpose  and  signifi- 
cation, apply  to  them  as  well.  Only  the  number  of  the  tables 
and  candlesticks  was  ten  times  greater.  If  a  multiplication  of 
the  number  of  these  two  vessels  appeared  appropriate  on  account 
of  the  increase  in  the  size  of  the  room,  the  number  was  fixed 
at  ten,  to  express  the  idea  of  completeness  by  that  number. 
No  new  vessel  was  made  for  the  Most  Holy  Place,  because  the 
Mosaic  ark  of  the  covenant  was  placed  therein  (ch.  viii.  4 : 
compare  the  remarks  on  this  at  Ex.  xxv.  10-22). — The  account 
of  the  vessels  of  the  temple  is  brought  to  a  close  in  ver.  51  ; 
"  So  was  ended  all  the  work  that  king  Solomon  made  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord  ;  and  Solomon  brought  all  that  was  conse- 
crated by  his  father,  (namely)  the  silver  and  the  gold  (which 
were  not  wrought),  and  the  vessels  he  placed  in  the  treasuries  of 
the  house  of  Jehovah."  As  so  much  gold  and  brass  had  already 
been  expended  upon  the  building,  it  might  appear  strange  that 
Solomon  should  not  have  used  up  all  the  treasures  collected  by 
his  father,  but  should  still  be  able  to  bring  a  large  portion  of  it 
into  the  treasuries  of  the  temple.  But  according  to  1  Chron. 
xxii  14,  16,  and  xxix.  2  sqq.,  David  had  collected  together  an 
almost  incalculable  amount  of  gold,  silver,  and  brass,  and  had 
also  added  his  own  private  treasure  and  the  freewill  offerings 
of  the  leading  men  of  the  nation  (1  Chron.  xxix.  7-9).  Solo-' 
mon  was  also  able  to  devote  to  the  building  of  the  temple  a 
considerable  portion  of  his  own  very  large  revenues  (cf  ch. 
X.  14),  so  that  a  respectable  remnant  might  still  be  left  of  the' 
treasure  of  the  sanctuary,  which  was  not  first  established  by 
David,  but  had  been  commenced  by  Samuel  and  Saul,  and  in 
which  David's  generals,  Joab  and  others,  had  deposited  a  por- 
tion of  the  gold  and  silver  that  they  had  taken  as  booty  (1  Chron. 
xxvi  20-28).     For  it  is  evident  that  not  a  little  had  found  its 


CRAP.  VIIL  117 

•way  into  tMs  treasure  through  the  successful  -wars  of  David, 
from  the  fact  that  golden  shields  were  taken  from  the  generals 
of  Hadadezer,  and  that  these  were  consecrated  to  the  Lord  along 
with  the  silver,  golden,  and  brazen  vessels  offered  as  gifts  of 
homage  by  king  Toi  of  Hamath,  in  addition  to  the  gold  and 
silver  which  David  had  consecrated  from  the  defeated  Sjiians, 
Moabites,  Ammonites,  Philistines,  and  Amalekites  (2  Sam.  viii 
7,  11,  12;  1  Chron.  xviiL  7,  10,  11).^ 

CHAP.  Tin.    DEDICATION  OF  THE  TEilPLE. 

This  solemn  transaction  consisted  of  three  parts,  and  the 
chapter  arranges  itseK  in  three  sections  accordingly  :  viz.  (a) 
the  conveyance  of  the  ark  and  the  tabernacle,  together  with  its 
vessels,  into  the  temple,  with  the  words  spoken  by  Solomon  on 
the  occasion  (vers.  1-21) ;  (b)  Solomon's  dedicatory  prayer 
(vers.  22-53)  ;  (c)  the  blessing  of  the  congregation,  and  the 
offering  of  sacrifice  and  obsen'ance  of  a  feast  (vers.  54-66). — 
The  parallel  account  to  this  in  2  Chron.  v.  2-^41.  10,  in  addition 
to  certain  minor  alterations  of  words  and  constructions,  intro- 

1  The  amazing  extent  to  which  this  booty  may  possibly  hare  reached,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  accounts  we  have  concerning  the  quantity  of  the  pre- 
cious metals  in  Syria  in  the  Macedonian  age.  In  the  gaza  regia  of  Damascus, 
Alexander  found  2600  talents  of  gold  and  600  talents  of  uncoined  silver 
(Curt.  iii.  13,  16,  cf.  Arrian,  ii.  11,  10).  In  the  temple  of  Jupiter  at  Antioch 
there  was  a  statue  of  this  god  of  solid  silver  fifteen  cubits  high  (Justin, 
xxxix.  2,  5.  6)  ;  and  in  the  temple  at  Hierapolis  there  was  also  a  golden 
statue  (Lucian,  de  Dea  Syr.  §  31).  According  to  Appian  (Parth.  28,  ed. 
Schweigh.),  this  temple  was  so  full  of  wealth,  that  Crassus  spent  several 
days  in  weighing  the  vessels  of  silver  and  gold.  And  from  the  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  ancients,  the  treasures  of  the  palaces  and  temples  of  Asia  in 
the  earlier  times  were  greater  still.  Of  the  many  accounts  which  Bahr 
(JSymhoUk,  i.  p.  258  sqq.)  and  Movers  {Phonizier,  ii  3,  p.  40  sqq.)  have  col- 
lected together  on  this  subject,  we  will  mention  only  a  few  here,  the  credi- 
bility of  which  cannot  be  disputed.  According  to  Yarro  (in  Plin.  xxxiii.  15), 
Cyrus  had  taken  34,000  pounds  of  gold  as  booty  after  the  conquest  of  Asia, 
beside  the  gold  wrought  into  vessels  and  ornaments,  and  500,000  talents  of 
silver.  In  Susa,  Alexander  took  40,000,  or,  according  to  other  accounts, 
50,000,  talents  from  the  royal  treasury;  or,  as  it  is  still  more  definitely  stated, 
40,000  talents  of  tmcoined  gold  and  sUver,  and  9000  talents  of  coined  dariks. 
•  Alexander  had  these  brought  to  Ecbatana,  where  he  accumulated  180,000 
talents.  Antigonus  afterwards  found  in  Susa  15,000  talents  more  in  vessels 
and  wrought  gold  and  silver.  In  Persepolis,  Alexander  took  120,000  talents, 
and  in  Pasargada  6000  talenta.    For  the  proofs,  see  Movers,  pp.  42,  43. 


118  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

duced  for  the  most  part  merely  for  the  sake  of  elucidation, 
contains  here  and  there,  and  more  especially  towards  the  end, 
a  few  deviations  of  greater  extent,  partly  omissions  and  partly 
additions.  But  in  other  respects  it  agrees  almost  word  for 
word  with  our  account. 

With  regard  to  the  time  of  the  dedication,  it  is  merely  stated 
in  ver,  2  that  the  heads  of  the  nation  assembled  at  Jerusalem 
to  this  feast  in  the  seventh  month.  The  year  in  which  this 
took  place  is  not  given.  But  as  the  building  of  the  temple  was 
finished,  according  to  ch.  vi  38,  in  the  eighth  month  of  the 
eleventh  year  of  Solomon's  reign,  the  dedication  which  followed 
in  the  seventh  month  cannot  have  taken  place  in  the  same  year 
as  the  completion  of  the  building.  Ewald's  opinion,  that  Solo- 
mon dedicated  the  building  a  month  before  it  was  finished,  is 
not  only  extremely  improbable  in  itself,  but  is  directly  at  vari- 
ance with  ch.  vii.  51.  If  we  add  to  this,  that  according  to 
ch.  ix.  1-10  it  was  not  till  after  the  lapse  of  twenty  years, 
during  which  he  had  built  the  two  houses,  the  temple,  and  his 
palace,  that  the  Lord  appeared  to  Solomon  at  the  dedicatioOi  ot 
the  temple  and  promised  to  answer  his  prayer,  we  must  decide 
in  favour  of  the  view  held  by  Thenius,  that  the  dedication  of 
the  temple  did  not  take  place  till  twenty  years  after  the  build- 
ing of  it  was  begun,  or  thirteen  years  after  it  was  finished,  and 
when  Solomon  had  also  completed  the  building  of  the  palace, 
which  occupied  thirteen  years,  as  the  LXX.  have  indicated  at 
the  commencement  of  ch.  viii.  1  by  the  interpolation  of  the 
words,  Ka\  iyevero  o)?  a-vverekeae  Sakco/xwv  rov  olKoBo/jbrjaai.  top 
oIkov  Kvplov  KoX  TOP  oIkqv  avTov  fiera  eiKoac  errj} 

Vers.  1-21.  The  first  act  of  the  solemnities  consisted  (1) 
in  the  removal  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  into  the  Most  Holy 
Place  of  the  temple  (vers.  1-11);  and  (2)  in  the  words  with 
which  Solomon  celebrated  the  entrance  of  the  Lord  into  the 
new  temple  (vers.  12-21). — ^Vers.  1-11.  Bcmoval  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  into  the  temple. — This  solemn  transaction  was 
founded  entirely  upon  the  solemnities  with  which  the  ark  was 
conveyed  in  the  time  of  David  from  the  hoiise  of  Obed-edom 
into  the  holy  tent  upon  Zion  (2  Sam  vL  1 2  sqq. ;  1  Chron.  xv. 

*  From  the  whole  character  of  the  Alexandrian  version,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  these  words  have  been  transferred  by  the  LXX.  from  ch.  ix.  1, 
and  have  not  dropped  out  of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  Thenius  supposes. 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-lL  119 

2  sqq.).     Solomon  assembled  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  aU  the 
heads  of  the  tribes,  the  princes  of  the  fathers'  houses   C^?'j?'p 
niasn^  contracted  from  ninsn  n'3  *K'?'J)  of  the  Israelites,  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  congregation,  to  himself  at  Jerusalem, 
to  bring  the  ark  of  the  covenant  out  of  the  city  of  David,  i.e. 
from  Mount  Zion  (see  the  Comm.  on  2  Sam.  vi  1 6,  1 7),  into  the 
temple  which  he  had  built  upon  Moriah.     (On  the  use  of  the 
contracted    form    of   the  imperfect  7[}Pl   aft^r   TS,  see   Ewald, 
§  233,  h.) — ^Ver.  2.  Accordingly  "  aU  the  men  of  Israel  {i.e.  the 
heads  of  the  tribes  and  families  mentioned  in  ver.  1)  assem- 
bled together  to  the  king  in  the  month  Ethanim,  i.e.  the  seventh 
month,  at  the  feast."     Gesenius  explains  the  name  Q^ri??'!'  (in 
5  5  codd.  D^jri'Kn)  as  meaning  "  month  of  the  flowing  brooks," 
after  I^''^?  in  Prov.  xiii.  1 5  ;  Bottcher,  on  the  other  hand,  sup- 
poses it  to  denote  the  equinox.     But  apart  from  other  grounds, 
the  plural  by  no  means  favours  this.     ISTor  does  the  seventh 
month  answer  to  the  period  between  the  middle  of  our  Sep- 
tember and  the  middle  of  October,  as  is  supposed  by  Thenius, 
who  founds  upon  this  supposition  the  explanation  already  rejected 
by  Bottcher,  viz.  "  month  of  gifts ;"  but  it  corresponds  to  the 
period  between  the  new  moon  of  October  and  the  new  moon  of 
November,  during  which  the  rainy  season  commences  in  Pale- 
stine (Eob.  Fal.  ii  p.  96  sqq.),  so  that  this  month  may  very 
well  have  received  its  name  from  the  constant  flowing  of  the 
brooks.     The  explanation,  "  that  is  the  seventh  month,"  is  added, 
however  (here  as  in  ch.  vi.  1,  38),  not  because  the  arrangement 
of  the  months  was  a  different  one  before  the  captivity  (Thenius), 
but  because   different  names   came   into  use  for  the   months 
during  the  captivity.    3n|  is  construed  with  the  article:  "  because 
the  feast  intended  was   one  that  was  well  known,  and  had 
already  been  kept  for  a  long  time  (viz.  the  feast  of  tabernacles)." 
The  article  overthrows  the  explanation  given  by  Thenius,  who 
supposes  that  the  reference  is  to  the  festivities  connected  with 
the  dedication  of  the  temple  itself — ^^^ers.  3, 4.  After  the  arrival 
of  all  the  eiders  (i.e.  of  the  representatives  of  the  nation,  more 
particularly  described  in  ver.  1),  the  priests  carried  the  ark  and 
brought  it  up  (sc.  into  the  temple),  with  the  tabernacle  and  all 
the  holy  vessels  in  it.     The  expression  onk  t>v%  which  follows, 
introduces  as  a  supplementary  notice,  according  to  the  general 
diffuseness  of  the  early  Hebrew  style  of  narrative,  the  more 
precise  statement  that  the  priests  and  Levites  brought  up  these 


120  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

sacred  vessels.  ^Vio  /HN  is  not  the  tent  erected  for  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  upon  Zion,  which  can  be  proved  to  have  been 
never  so  designated,  and  which  is  expressly  distinguished  from 
the  former  in  2  Chron.  i.  4  as  compared  with  ver.  3,  but  is  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  at  Gibeon  in  front  of  which  Solomon  had 
offered  sacrifice  (ch.  in.  4).  The  tabernacle  with  the  vessels  in 
it,  to  which,  however,  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  that  had  long 
been  separated  from  it,  did  not  belong,  was  probably  preserved 
as  a  sacred  relic  in  the  rooms  above  the  Most  Holy  Place.  The 
ark  of  the  covenant  was  carried  by  priests  on  all  solemn  occa- 
sions, according  to  the  spirit  of  the  law,  which  enjoined,  in 
Num.  iii.  31  and  iv.  5  sqq.,  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and 
the  rest  of  the  sacred  vessels  should  be  carried  by  the  Levites, 
after  the  priests  had  carefully  wrapped  them  up;  and  the  Levites 
were  prohibited  from  directly  touching  them,  on  pain  of  death. 
When,  therefore,  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  carried  in  solemn 
procession,  as  in  the  case  before  us,  probably  uncovered,  this 
could  only  be  done  by  the  priests,  more  especially  as  the 
Levites  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  Most  Holy  Place.  Con- 
sequently, by  the  statement  in  ver.  oh,  that  the  priests  and 
Levites  carried  them  (CJ^^*),  viz.  the  objects  mentioned  before,  we 
are  to  understand  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  carried 
into  the  temple  by  the  priests,  and  the  tabernacle  with  its 
vessels  by  the  Levites.^ — Ver.  5.  "  And  king  Solomon  and  the 
whole  congregation,  that  had  gathered  round  him,  were  with 
him  before  the  ark  sacrificing  sheep  and  oxen  in  innumerable 
multitude."  This  took  place  while  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
was  carried  up,  no  doubt  when  it  was  brought  into  the  court  of 
the  temple,  and  was  set  down  there  for  a  time  either  within 
or  in  front  of  the  hall.  Then  was  this  magnificent  sacrifice 
''■  offered "  there  "  in  front  of  the  ark "  (pi^r^  ^33^). — Ver.  6. 
After  this  sacrificing  was  ended,  the  priests  carried  the  ark  to 
its  place,  into  the  back-room  of  the  house,  into  the  Most  Holy 
under  the  wings  of  the  cherubim   (already  described    in  ch. 

^  Instead  of  D^jnb  in  ver.  3,  we  have  D'l^n  in  2  Chron.  v.  4  ;  and  instead 
of  D'l^ni  D''3n3n  in  ver.  4,  we  have  D>"i))n  D'jnbn,  "  the  Levitical  priests." 
These  variations  are  to  be  attributed  to  inexactness  in  expression.  For  it  is 
obvious  that  Thenius  is  wrong  in  his  notion  that  the  chronicler  mentioned 
the  Levites  instead  of  the  priests,  from  the  simple  fact  that  he  states  in 
ver.  7  that  "  the  priests  carried  the  ark,"  etc.,  in  exact  agreement  with  our 
account. 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-11.  121 

vi.  23  sqq.).  The  latter  statement  is  explained  in  ver.  7.  "For 
the  cherubim  were  spreading  out  wings  towards  the  place  of 
the  ark,  and  so  covered  (lit.  threw  a  shade)  over  the  ark  and 
over  its  poles  from  above."  If  the  outspread  wings  of  the  great 
cherubic  figures  threw  a  shade  not  only  over  the  ark  of  the 
covenant,  but  also  over  its  poles,  the  ark  was  probably  so  placed 
that  the  poles  ran  from  north  to  south,  and  not  from  east  to 
west,  as  they  are  sketolied  in  my  Archdologie. — ^Ver.  8.  "  And 
the  poles  were  long,  and  there  were  seen  their  heads  (i«. 
they  were  so  long  that  their  heads  were  seen)  from  the  Holy 
Place  before  the  hinder  room ;  but  on  the  outside  (outside 
the  Holy  Place,  say  in  the  porch)  they  were  not  seen."  ^1*5! 
cannot  be  rendered  :  they  had  lengthened  the  poles,  from  which 
Kimchi  and  others  have  inferred  that  they  had  made  new 
and  longer  carrying-poles,  since  the  form  of  the  tense  in  this 
connection  cannot  be  the  pluperfect,  and  in  that  case,  more- 
over, the  object  would  be  indicated  by  nj?  as  in  ch.  iii  14  ; 
but  ^'l^i^  is  used  intransitively,  "  to  be  long,"  lit  to  show  length, 
as  in  Ex.  xx  12,  Deut.  v.  16,  etc.  The  remark  to  the  effect 
that  the  poles  were  visible,  indicates  that  the  precept  of  the 
law  in  Ex.  xxv.  15,  according  to  which  the  poles  were  to  be 
left  in  the  ark,  was  observed  in  Solomon's  temple  also.  Any 
one  could  convince  himself  of  this,  for  the  poles  were  there  "  to 
this  day."  The  author  of  our  books  has  retained  this  chrono- 
logical allusion  as  he  found  it  in  his  original  sources;  for  when  he 
composed  his  work,  the  temple  was  no  longer  standing.  It  is  im- 
possible, however,  to  ascertain  from  this  statement  how  the  heads 
of  the  poles  could  be  seen  in  the  Holy  Place, — whether  from  the 
fact  that  they  reached  the  curtain  and  formed  elevations  therein, 
if  the  poles  ran  from  front  to  back ;  or  whether,  if,  as  is  more 
probable,  they  ran  from  south  to  north,  the  front  heads  were  to 
be  seen,  simply  when  the  curtain  was  drawn  back.^ — ^Ver.  9. 
"  There  was  nothing  in  the  ark  but  the  two  tables  of  stone, 
which  !Moses  had  put  there  at  Horeb,  when  Jehovah  concluded 
the   covenant  with  Israel"     The   intention  of  this  remark  is 

^  The  proof  which  Thenius  has  endeaTOured  to  give  by  means  of  a  drawing 
of  the  correctness  of  the  latter  view,  is  founded  upon  untenable  assumptions 
(see  Bottcher,  ^h.renl.  ii.  p.  G9).  It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  expres- 
sion n*l"|  'J3~7y  that  the  heads  of  the  poles  were  visible  as  far  off  as  the 
door  of  the  Holy  Place,  but  simply  that  they  could  be  seen  in  the  Holy  Place, 
though  not  outside. 


122  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

also  simply  to  show  that  the  law,  which  enjoined  that  the  ark 
should  merely  preserve  the  stone  tables  of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xxv. 
16,  xl.  20),  had  not  been  departed  from  in  the  lapse  of  time.  iB't? 
before  ri"!3  is  not  a  pronoun,  but  a  conjunction :  when,  from  the 
time  that,  as  in  Deut.  xi.  6,  etc.  nn3  without  rina^  signifying 
the  conclusion  of  a  covenant,  as  in  1  Sam.  xx.  16,  xxii.  8,  etc. 
Soreb,  the  general  name  for  the  place  where  the  law  was  given, 
instead  of  the  more  definite  name  Sinai,  as  in  Deuteronomy 
(see  the  Comm.  on  Ex.  xix.  1,  2).^ — ^Vers.  10,  11.  At  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  tabernacle  the  glory  of  Jehovah  in  the  cloUd  filled 
the  sanctuary,  so  that  Moses  could  not  enter  (Ex.  xl.  34,  35); 
and  so  was  it  now.  When  the  priests  came  out  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, after  putting  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  its  place,  the 
cloud  filled  the  house  of  JehoA'ah,  so  that  the  priests  could  not 
stand  to  minister.  The  signification  of  this  fact  was  the  same 
on  both  occasions.  The  cloud,  as  the  visible  symbol  of  the 
gracious  presence  of  God,  filled  the  temple,  as  a  sign  that 
Jehovah  the  covenant-God  had  entered  into  it,  and  had  chosen 
it  as  the  scene  of  His  gracious  manifestation  in  Israel.  By  the 
inability  of  the  priests  to  stand,  we  are  not  to  understand  that 
the  cloud  drove  them  away ;  for  it  was  not  till  the  priests  had 
come  out  that  it  filled  the  temple.  It  simply  means  that  they 
could  not  remain  in  the  Holy  Place  to  perform  service,  say  to 
offer  an  incense-offering  upon  the  altar  to  consecrate  it,  just  as 
sacrifices  were  offered  upon  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  after  the 
dedicatory  prayer  (vers.  62,  63).^ 

^  The  statement  in  Heb.  ix.  4,  to  the  effect  that  the  pot  of  manna  and 
Aaron's  rod  that  budded  were  also  to  be  found  in  the  ark,  which  is  at 
variance  with  this  verse,  and  which  the  earlier  commentators  endea- 
voured to  bring  into  harmony  with  it  by  forced  methods  of  different  kinds, 
simply  rests  upon  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  nnj?n  ^jsi?  in  Ex.  xvi.  33,  34, 
and  Num.  xvii.  25,  which  had  become  traditional  among  the  Jews ;  since 
this  merely  affirms  that  the  objects  mentioned  had  been  deposited  in  front  of 
the  testimony,  i.e.  in  front  of  the  ark  which  contained  the  testimony,  and 
not  within  it,  as  the  Jews  supposed. — Still  less  are  De  Wette  and  others 
warranted  in  deducing  from  this  verse  an  argument  against  the  existence  of 
the  Mosaic  book  of  the  law  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  inasmuch  as,  according 
to  the  precept  in  Deut.  xxxi.  26,  the  book  of  the  law  was  not  to  be  kept  in 
the  ark,  but  by  the  side  of  it,  or  near  it. 

2  Bertheau's  opinion  (on  2  Chron.  v.  14),  that  the  priests  could  not  remain 
in  the  hall  and  in  front  of  it  on  account.of  the  cloud,  namely,  "  the  cloud  of 
smoke,  which,  ascending  from  the  sacrifices  burned  upon  the  altar  of  bumt- 
offcring,  concealed  the  glory  of  the  Lord,"  is  decidedly  erroneous.     For  the 


CHAP.  VnL  12-21.  123 

The  glory  of  tlie  Lord,  which  is  like  a  consuming  fire  (Ex. 
xxiv.  17  ;  Deut.  iv.  24,  ix.  3),  before  which  unholy  man  cannot 
stand,  manifested  iteelf  in  the  cloud.  This  marvellous  mani- 
festation of  the  glory  of  God  took  place  only  at  the  dedication  ; 
after  that  the  cloud  was  only  visible  in  the  Most  Holy  Place 
on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  when  the  high  priest  entered  it 
— The  Chronicles  contain  a  long  account  at  this  place  of  the 
plajing  and  singing  of  the  Levites  at  these  solemnities  {vid. 
2  Chron.  v.  12-14). 

Yers.  12-21.  Solomon  extols  this  marvelloits  proof  of  the 
favour  of  the  Lord. — Ver.  12.  Then  spake  Solomon,  "  Jehovah 
hath  spoken  to  dwell  in  the  darkness."  "  Solomon  saw  that  the 
temple  was  filled  with  a  cloud,  and  remembered  that  God  had 
been  pleased  to  appear  in  a  cloud  in  the  tent  of  Moses  also. 
Hence  he  assuredly  believed  that  God  was  in  this  doud  also, 
and  that,  as  formerly  He  had  filled  the  tabernacle,  so  He  would 
now  fill  the  temple  and  dwell  therein "  (Seb.  Schmidt),  ion 
'u^  nin*,  which  Thenius  still  renders  incorrectly,  "  the  Lord 
intends  to  dwell  in  the  darkness,"  refers,  as  Eashi,  C.  a  Lap., 
and  others  have  seen,  to  the  utterances  of  God  in  the  Penta- 
teuch concerning  the  manifestation  of  His  gracious  presence 
among  His  people,  not  merely  to  Lev.  xvi  2  (I  will  appear  in  the 
cloud),  but  also  to  Ex.  xix.  9,  where  the  Lord  said  to  Moses,  "  I 
come  to  thee  I^yn  2y3,"  and  stiU  more  to  Ex.  xx  21  and  Deut.  iv. 
11,  V.  19,  according  to  which  God  came  down  upon  Sinai  ^^"^V^. 
Solomon  took  the  word  ''S'JV  from  these  passages.  That  he 
meant  by  this  the  black,  dark  cloud  which  fiUed  the  temple,  is 
perfectly  obvious  from  the  combination  ''^"^'^1  \^\}  in  Deut.  v. 
1 9  and  iv.  1 1.^     Solomon  saw  this  word  of  Jehovah  realized  in 

doud  which  hindered  the  priests  from  performing  the  service  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  distinct  words  of  the  text,  the  cloud  which  filled  the  house ;  and 
the  explanatory  clause,  "  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  house  of 
Jehovah,"  indicates  in  the  most  unmistateable  terms  that  it  was  the  vehicle 
of  the  glory  of  God,  and  therefore  was  not  a  cloud  of  smoke  formed  by  the 
burning  sacrifices,  but  the  cloud  in  which  God  manifested  His  invisible  being 
to  His  people, — the  very  same  cloud  in  which  Jehovah  was  to  appear  above 
the  Capporeth,  when  the  high  priest  entered  the  Most  Holy  Place  on  the  day 
of  atonement,  so  that  he  was  commanded  not  to  enter  it  at  all  times,  and, 
when  he  entered,  to  cover  the  Capporeth  with  the  doud  of  the  burning  incense 
(Lev.  xvi.  2,  13). 

^  Thenius,  however,  has  built  up  all  kinds  of  untenable  conjectures  as  to 
alterations  of  the  text,  upon  the  erroneous  assumption  that  p>'  means  the 


124  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  filling  of  the  temple  with  the  cloud,  and  learned  therefrom 
that  the  Lord  would  dwell  in  this  temple.  Hence,  being  firmly 
convinced  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah  in  the  cloud  which  filled 
the  sanctuary,  he  adds  in  ver.  13:  "I  have  built  Thee  a  house 
to  dwell  in,  a  place  for  Thy  seat  for  ever."  We  are  not  to 
understand  C'P/ii'  as  signifying  that  Solomon  believed  that  the 
temple  built  by  him  would  stand  for  ever ;  but  it  is  to  be 
explained  partly  from  the  contrast  to  the  previous  abode  of 
God  in  the  tabernacle,  which  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
could  only  be  a  temporary  one,  inasmuch  as  a  tent,  such  as 
the  tabernacle  was,  is  not  only  a  moveable  and  provisional 
dwelling,  but  also  a  very  perishable  one,  and  partly  from  the 
promise  given  to  David  in  2  Sam  vii.  14-16,  that  the  Lord 
would  establish  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  for  his  seed  for  ever. 
This  promise  involved  the  eternal  duration  of  the  gracious  con- 
nection between  God  and  Israel,  which  was  embodied  in  the 
dwelling  of  God  in  the  temple.  This  connection,  from  its  very 
nature,  was  an  eternal  one  ;  even  if  the  earthly  form,  from 
which  Solomon  at  that  moment  abstracted  himself,  was  tem- 
poral and  perishable. — Solomon  had  spoken  these  words  with 
his  face  turned  to  the  Most  Holy  Place.  He  then  (ver.  14) 
turned  his  face  to  the  congregation,  which  was  standing  in  the 
court,  and  blessed  it.  The  word  "  blessed "  (Ti^'')  denotes  the 
wish  for  a  blessing  with  which  the  king  greeted  the  assembled 
congregation,  and  introduced  the  praise  of  God  which  follows. 
— In  vers.  15-21  he  praises  the  Lord  for  having  now  fulfilled 
with  His  hand  what  He  spake  with  His  mouth  to  his  father 
David  (2  Sam.  vii.). — Ver.  16.  The  promise  of  God,  to  choose 
Jerusalem  as  the  place  for  the  temple  and  David  as  prince,  is 
taken  freely  from  2  Sam.  vii  7,  8.  In  2  Chron.  vl  6,  before 
"  I  chose  David,"  we  find  "  and  I  chose  Jerusalem,  that  my 
name  might  be  there ;"  so  that  the  affirmation  answers  more  pre- 
cisely to  the  preceding  negation,  whereas  in  the  account  before 
us  this  middle  term  is  omitted. — Vers.  17-19.  David's  inten- 
tion to  build  the  temple,  and  the  answer  of  God  that  his  son 
was  to  execute  this  work,  are  so  far  copied  from  2  Sam.  vii.  2, 
12,  13,  that  God  approves  the  intention  of  David  as  suck 
nb^pn,  "Thou  didst  well  that  it  was  in  thy  mind."— Vers.  20,  21. 
light  and  radiant  cloud,  and  cannot  be  synonymous  with  ?a"iy.  Bottcher 
adopts  the  same  opinion,  -without  taking  any  notice  of  the  striking  remarks  of 
Bertheau  on  2  Chron.  v.  14. 


CHAP.  VIIL  22-5a  125 

"  And  Jehovah  has  set  up  His  word."  'ijl  Dp.*l  supplies  the  ex- 
planation of  i"t'r  ^.'??  (hath  fulfilled  with  his  hand)  in  ver.  15. 
God  had  caused  Solomon  to  take  possession  of  the  throne  of 
David ;  and  Solomon  had  built  the  temple  and  prepared  a  place 
there  for  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  The  ark  is  thereby  declared 
to  be  the  kernel  and  star  of  the  temple,  because  it  was  the 
throne  of  the  glory  of  God 

Vers.  22-53.  Second  Act  of  the  feast  of  dedication :  Solo- 
mons dedicatory  -prayer  (cf.  2  Chron.  vl  12-42). — ^^"er.  22.  "Then 
Solomon  stood  before  the  altar  of  Jehovah  in  front  of  all  the 
assembly  of  Israel,  and  stretched  out  his  hands  towards  heaven." 
It  is  evident  from  ver.  54  that  Solomon  uttered  the  prayer 
which  follows  upon  his  knees.  The  Chronicles  contain  the  same 
account  as  we  have  here,  with  this  addition,  that  it  is  said  to 
have  taken  place  on  a  "  scaffold,"  or  kind  of  pulpit  0^*3)  specially 
erected  for  the  purpose.^  The  altar,  to  the  front  of  which  Solo- 
mon went,  was  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  in  the  court,  where 
the  congregation  was  gathered  together.  The  expression  "ij? 
'\T  ?np"73  favours  the  idea  that  Solomon  offered  the  prayer  upon 
his  knees  with  his  face  turned  towards  the  congregation,  and 
not  with  his  back  to  the  people  and  his  face  turned  towards  the 
temple,  as  Thenius  supposes. — The  substance  of  the  prayer  is 
closely  connected  with  the  prayer  of  Moses,  especially  with  the 
blessings  and  curses  therein  {vid.  Lev.  xxvL  and  Deut.  xxviii). 
Commencing  with  the  praise  of  God,  who  "  keepeth  covenant 
and  truth  "  towards  His  servants,  and  has  thus  far  performed  to 
His  servant  David  the  promise  that  He  gave  him  (vers.  23,  24), 
Solomon  entreats  the  Lord  still  further  to  fulfil  this  promise  of 
His  (vers.  25,  26),  and  to  keep  His  eyes  constantly  open  over 
the  temple,  to  hearken  to  the  prayers  of  His  people,  and  to 
avert  the  curse  threatened  against  sinners  from  all  who  shall 
call  upon  Him  in  this  temple  (vers.  27-53). — ^Vers.  23,  24. 
By  granting  the  blessing  promised  to  His  people,  the  Lord  has 

^  Bbttcher  is  right  in  his  assertion,  that  the  opinion  expressed  by  Thenius 
and  Cappellus,  that  this  passage  in  the  Chronicles  has  been  dropped  out  of  oar 
text  through  a  copyist's  oversight,  is  a  very  improbable  one ;  although  the 
reasons  he  assigns  are  for  the  most  part  untenable.  The  omission  may  be 
explained  in  a  very  simple  manner,  from  the  fact  that  the  introduction  of 
this  circumstacce  had  no  bearing  upon  the  design  or  contents  of  the  dedica- 
tory prayer. 


126  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

hitherto  proved  Himself  to  be  the  true  and  only  God  in  heaven 
and  on  earth,  who  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  those  who 
walk  before  Him  with  aU  their  heart.  This  acknowledgment 
produces  the  requisite  confidence  for  offering  the  prayer  which 
is  sure  of  an  answer  (Matt.  xxi.  22  ;  Mark  xi.  24;  Jas.  1  6). 
For  ''?ii  "^i^rr??.  compare  Ex.  xv.  11  with  Deut.  iv.  39  ;  2  Sam. 
vii.  2  2,  xxii.  32;  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  8.  "  Who  keepeth  covenant  and 
mercy,"  verbatim  the  same  as  in  Deut.  vii.  9.  The  promise  given 
to  His  servant  David  (2  Sam.  vii),  the  fulfilment  of  wliicli  the 
commencement  now  lay  before  their  eyes  (cf.  vers.  20,  21),  was 
an  emanation  from  the  covenant  faithfulness  of  God.  "  As  it  is 
this  day,"  as  in  ch.  iii.  6. — ^Ver.  25.  The  expression  "and  now" 
(nrip))  introduces  the  prayer  for  the  further  fulfilment  of  the 
promise,  never  to  allow  a  successor  upon  the  throne  to  be 
wanting  to  David,  in  the  same  conditional  form  in  which 
David  had  uttered  the  hope  in  ch.  ii.  4,  and  in  which  the 
Lord  had  renewed  the  promise  to  Solomon  during  the  building 
of  the  temple  (ch.  vi.  12,  13).  In  NEa^^y  aty^  >JS^»,  instead  of 
ND3  pyo  in  ch.  ii.  4,  the  divine  rejection  is  more  distinctly  in- 
dicated.— ^Ver.  26  is  not  merely  a  repetition  of  the  prayer  in 
ver.  25,  as  Thenius  supposes,  but  forms  the  introduction  to  the 
prayers  which  follow  for  the  hearing  of  all  the  prayers  presented 
before  the  Lord  in  the  temple.  The  words,  "  let  Thy  words  be 
verified,  which  Thou  spakest  unto  Thy  servant  David,"  contain 
something  more  than  a  prayer  for  the  continual  preservation  of 
the  descendants  of  David  upon  the  throne,  for  the  fulfilment  of 
which  Solomon  prayed  in  ver,  25.  They  refer  to  the  whole  of 
the  promise  in  2  Sam.  vii.  12-16.  The  plural  T''}.^'^  (CJietMb) 
points  back  to  D''"in"nn"73  in  2  Sam,  vii.  17,  and  is  not  to  be 
altered  into  the  singular  after  the  Keri.  The  singular  ]^i<\  is 
used  as  it  frequently  is  with  the  subject  in  the  plural,  when 
the  verb  precedes  (cf.  Ewald,  §  316,  a,  1).  Solomon  has  here  in 
mind  one  particular  point  in  the  promise,  viz,  that  God  would 
not  withdraw  His  mercy  from  the  seed  of  David,  even  when  it 
sinned.  This  is  evident  from  what  follows,  where  he  mentions 
simply  cases  of  transgression,  and  prays  that  they  may  be  for- 
given.— ^Vers,  26-28  sqq,  are  closely  connected  in  this  sense: 
keep  Thy  words  that  were  spoken  to  David  ;  for  although  this 
temple  cannot  hold  Thine  infinite  divine  nature,  I  know  that 
Thou  wilt  have  respect  to  the  prayer  of  Thy  servant,  to  keep 
Thine  eyes  open  over  this  temple,  to  hear  every  prayer  which 


CHAP.  VIII.  22-53.  127 

Tliy  people  shall  bring  before  Thee  therein.     n^2M  in  ver.  28 
contiQues  the  optative  N^  |0X'  ia  ver.  26  ;  and  ver.  27  contains 
an  intermediate   thought,   with  which  Solomon  meets  certain 
contracted  ideas  of  the  gracious  presence  of  God  in  the  temple. 
*3  (ver.  27)  signifies  neither  but,  nevertheless,  atqui  (Bottcher), 
nor  "  as "  (Thenius,  Bertheau) ;  and  the  assertion  that  ver.  2  7 
is  the  commencement  of  a  new  section  is  overthrown  by  the 
inadmissible   rendering  of  ^'^?^  "  but  Thou  turnest  Thyself " 
(Thenius). — ^With  the  words,  "  Should  God  really  dwell  upon 
the  earth  !  behold,  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  {i.e. 
the  heavens  in  their  widest  extent,  cf.  Deut.  x.  14)  cannot  con- 
tain Thee,  to  say  nothing  ('?  ^X;  cf.  Ewald,  §  354,  c)  of  this 
house  which  I  have  built,"  in  which  the  infinitude  of  God  and 
His  exaltation  above  the  world  are  expressed  as  clearly  and 
forcibly  as  possible,  Solomon  does  not  intend  to  guard  against 
the  delusion  that  God  really  dwells  in  temples  (J.  D.  jVIich.), 
but  simply  to  meet  the  erroneous  idea  that  He  dwells  in  the 
temple  as  men  dwell  in  a  house,  namely,  shut  up  within  it, 
and  not  also  outside  and  above  it, — a  delusion  which  sometimes 
forced  its  way  into  the  unspiritual  nation,  but  which  was  always 
attacked  by  the  prophets  (cf.  ]Mic.  iiL  11 ;  Jer.  vii  4,  etc.).     For 
it  is  evident  that  Solomon  did  combine  with  his  clear  percep- 
tion of  the  infinite  exaltation  of  God  a  firm  belief  in  His  real 
presence  in  the  temple,  and  did  not  do  homage  to  the  abstract 
idealism  of  the   rationalists,  not  merely  from  his  declaration 
in  vei"3.  12  sqq.  that  he  had  bmlt  this  temple  as  a  dwelling- 
place  for  God,  but  also  from   the   substance   of  all  the   fol- 
lowing  prayers,    and   primarily    from   the    general  prayer    in 
vers.  28  and  29,  that  God  would  take  this  temple  under  His 
special  protection,  and  hearken  to  every  prayer  directed  towards 
it     The  distinction  between  ^^,  ^\^,  and  nai  is  the  follow- 
ing :    npari  denotes  prayer  in  general,  praise,  supplication,  and 
thanksgiving ;  nsnn,  supplication  or  entreaty,  prayer  for  help  and 
mercy ;  and  nn,  jubilation,  prayer  as  the  joyous  utterance  of 
praise  and  thanksgiving. — ^Ver.  29.  "That  Thine  eyes  may  be 
open  upon  this  house  night  and  day."      n^jn'^S,  speciali  quadam 
providentia   in    Tianc   domum  directi   (Mick).       The   following 
clause,  "upon  the  place  of  which  Thou  hast  said.  My  name  shall 
be  there"  (namely,  2  Sam.  vii.  13,  implicite),  contains  within 
itself  the  ground  upon  which  the  prayer  rests.     Because  the 
name  of  God  will  be  in  the  temple,  Lc  because  God  will  mani- 


128  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

fest  His  gracious  presence  there,  He  will  also  keep  His  eyes 
open  upon  it,  so  as  to  hear  the  prayer  of  Solomon  directed 
towards  it.  njn  Di  pen  b^  (toward  this  place) :  because  Solomon 
also  was  praying  in  the  court  towards  the  temple. — In  ver.  30, 
"  and  hear  the  supplication  of  Thy  servant  and  of  Thy  people 
Israel,"  he  begins  by  asking  that  those  prayers  may  be  heard 
which  the  king  and  people  shall  henceforth  bring  before  God 
in  the  temple.  ^V^^.  corresponds  to  r>"'JD^  in  ver.  28,  and  is 
more  precisely  defined  by  the  following  VD'k^n  nrixi  (as  for  these 
prayers).  Thou  wilt  hear  them  up  to  the  place  of  Thine  abode, 
to  heaven.  ?^  V^^  is  a  pregnant  expression :  to  hear  the 
prayer,  which  ascends  to  heaven.  In  the  Chronicles  we  find 
throughout  the  explanatory  I9.  The  last  words,  "  hear  and  for- 
give," must  be  left  in  their  general  form,  and  not  limited  by 
anything  to  be  supplied.  Nothing  but  forgiveness  of  sin  can 
remove  the  curse  by  which  transgression  is  followed. 

This  general  prayer  is  then  particularized  from  ver.  31  on- 
wards by  the  introduction  of  seven  special  petitions  for  an 
answer  in  the  difierent  cases  in  which,  in  future,  prayers  may 
be  offered  to  God  in  the  temple.  The  first  prayer  (vers.  31,32) 
has  reference  to  the  oaths  sworn  in  the  temple,  the  sanctity  of 
which  God  is  asked  to  protect.  "  If  a  man  sin  against  his 
neighbour,  and  an  oath  be  laid  upon  him,  to  cause  him  to  swear, 
and  he  come  (and)  swear  before  the  altar  in  this  house,  then 
wilt  Thou  hear,"  etc.  iK'^f  ns  does  not  mean  either  "  granted 
that "  (Thenius)  or  "  just  when  "  (Ewald,  §  533,  a),  although  DN  is 
used  in  the  Chronicles,  and  we  might  render  it  freely  "  when ; " 
but  r>?<  is  simply  an  accusative  particle,  serving  to  introduce  the 
following  clause,  in  the  sense  of  "  as  for,"  or  "  with  regard  to 
(such  a  case  as)  that  a  man  sins"  (vid.  Ewald,  §  277,  a),  npx  xni 
cannot  be  taken  as  anything  but  an  asyndeton.  For  if  n?s 
were  a  substantive,  it  would  have  the  article  (^j'^'P)  provided 
it  were  the  subject,  and  the  verb  would  be  written  nxa  j  and  if 
it  were  the  object,  we  should  have  <^^^^,  as  in  Neh.  x.  30  (cf. 
Ezek.  xvii.  13).  The  prayer  refers  to  the  cases  mentioned  in 
Ex.  xxii.  6-12  and  Lev.  v.  21-24,  v/hen  property  entrusted  to 
any  one  had  been  lost  or  injured,  or  when  a  thing  had  been 
found  and  the  finding  was  denied,  or  when  an  act  of  fraud  had 
been  committed ;  in  which  cases  the  law  required  not  only  com- 
pensation with  the  addition  of  a  fifth  of  its  value,  but  also  a 
trespass-offering  as  an  expiation  of  the  sin  committed  by  taking 


CHAP.  VIIL  33-40.  129 

a  false  oatk  But  as  this  punishment  could  only  be  inflicted 
when  the  guilty  person  afterwards  confessed  his  guilt,  many 
false  oaths  might  have  been  sworn  in  the  cases  in  question 
and  have  remained  unpunished,  so  far  as  men  were  concerned. 
Solomon  therefore  prays  that  the  Lord  will  hear  every  such  oath 
that  shall  have  been  sworn  before  the  altar,  and  work  (^^?'i'), 
i.e.  actively  interpose,  and  judge  His  servants,  to  punish  the 
guilty  and  justify  the  innocent. .  The  construction  D'Pf  0  V^^t^ 
(vers.  32,  34,  36,  etc.)  can  be  explained  more  simply  from  the 
adverbial  use  of  the  accusative  (Ewald,  §  300,6),  than  from  ?x 
D'OB'n  in  ver.  30.  iCNia  ian^  nri,  to  give  (bring)  his  way  upon 
his  head,  i.e.  to  cause  the  merited  punishment  to  fall  upon  him 
(cf  Ezek.  ix  10,  xi.  21,  etc.).  Vf^T'Tl^  and  P'lV  P'1>?  recall 
Deut.  XXV.  2.  For  i^^va  Sb  nn  compare  2  Sam.  xxii  21,  25. — 
The  following  cases  are  all  taken  from  Lev.  xxvi.  and  Deut.  xxviiL 

Vers.  33  and  34.  The  secoyid  petition, — "  If  Thy  people  Israel 
are  smitten  by  the  enemy,  because  they  have  sinned  against 
Thee,  and  they  turn  to  Thee  and  confess  Thy  name,  .  .  .  then 
hear  .  .  .  and  bring  them  back  into  the  land," — refers  to  the 
threatenings  in  Lev.  xxvi.  17  and  Deut.  xxviii.  25,  where  the 
nation  is  threatened  with  defeat  and  subjugation  on  the  part  of 
enemies,  who  shall  invade  the  land,  in  which  case  prisoners 
of  war  are  carried  away  into  foreign  lands,  but  the  mass  of  the 
people  remain  in  the  land,  so  that  they  who  are  beaten  can  pray 
to  the  Lord  in  the  temple,  that  He  wiU  forgive  them  their  sin, 
save  them  out  of  the  power  of  the  enemy,  and  bring  back  the 
captives  and  fugitives  into  their  fatherland. 

Vers.  35  and  36.  The  third  prayer  refers  to  the  remission  of 
the  punishment  of  drought  threatened  against  the  land,  when  the 
heaven  is  shut  up,  according  to  Lev.  xxvi.  1 9,  Deut.  xi.  17,  xxviii. 
2  3.  n:yn  ^3,  because  Thou  humblest  them  (LXX.,  Vulg.) ;  not "  that 
Thou  hearest  them  "  (Chald.  and  others).  Cn)T)  '3^  because  Thou 
teachest  them  the  good  way.  These  words  correspond  to  D3j?n  ^3, 
and  contain  a  motive  for  forgiveness.  Because  God  teaches  His 
people  and  seeks  by  means  of  chastisements  to  bring  them  back 
to  the  good  way  when  they  fail  to  keep  His  commandments.  He 
must  forgive  when  they  recognise  the  punishment  as  a  di\-ine 
chastisement  and  come  to  Him  with  penitential  prayer. 

Vers.  37-40.  The  fourth  prayer  relates  to  the  removal  of 
other  land-plagues:  famine  (Lev.  xxvi.  19,  20,  and  26  ;  Deut. 
xxviii   23) ;    pestilence    (Lev.  xxvi.  25) ;  blight    and    mildew 

I 


130  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

in  the  corn  (Deut.  xxviii.  2  2) ;  locusts  (^''?C,  devourer,  is  con- 
nected with  n3"ix  without  a  copula, — in  the  Chronicles  by  Vdv, — 
to  depict  the  plague  of  locusts  more  vividly  before  their  eyes 
after  Deut.  xxviii.  38);  oppression  by  enemies  in  their  own  land; 
lastly,  plagues  and  diseases  of  all  kinds,  such  as  are  threatened 
against  the  rebellious  in  Lev.  xxvi.  16  and  Deut.  xxviii.  59-61. 
1^^  is  not  the  imperfect  Kal  of  i^v  (Ges.,  Dietr.,  Fiirst,  OIsIl 
Gramm.  p.  524),  but  the  imperfect  Hiphiloi  "i^n  in  Deut.  xxviii. 
52,  as  in  Neh.  ix.  27;  and  the  difficult  expression  vnyK^  p«3 
is  probably  to  be  altered  into  '^  n?3,  whilst  vnyB'  is  either  to 
be  taken  as  a  second  object  to  lifj,  as  Luther  supposes,  or  as 
in"  apposition  to  P.^?,  in  the  land  (in)  his  gates,  as  Bertheau 
assumes.  The  assertion  of  Thenius,  that  all  the  versions  except 
the  Vulgate  are  founded  upon  the  reading  Vny  rinx2,  is  incorrect. 
n\T_  ""a  is  omitted  after  n?np~P3,  since  Solomon  dropped  the 
construction  with  which  he  commenced,  and  therefore  briefly 
summed  up  all  the  prayers,  addressed  to  God  under  the  various 
chastisements  here  named,  in  the  expression  n3nn"?3  n?2ri"73^ 
which  is  placed  absolutely  at  the  opening  of  ver.  38.  "V^^ 
'13"j  puni,  "  when  they  perceive  each  one  the  stroke  of  his  heart," 
i.e.  not  dolor  animi  quern  quisque  sentit  (Vatab.,  C.  a  Lap.),  but 
the  plague  regarded  as  a  blow  falling  upon  the  heart,  in  other 
words,  as  a  chastisement  inflicted  upon  him  by  God.  In  all 
these  cases  may  God  hear  his  prayer,  and  do  and  give  to  every 
one  according  to  his  way.  Vr\]^  ")|'J<, "  as  Thou  knowest  his  heart," 
i.e.  as  is  profitable  for  every  one  according  to  the  state  of  his 
heart  or  his  disposition.  God  can  do  this,  because  He  knows 
the  hearts  of  all  men  (cf.  Jer.  xvii.  1 0).  The  purpose  assigned 
for  all  this  hearing  of  prayer  (ver.  40),  viz.  "  that  they  may  fear 
Thee,"  etc.,  is  the  same  as  in  Deut.  iv.  1 0. 

Vers.  41-43.  The  j^^yi  prayer  has  reference  to  the  hearing  of 
the  prayers  of  foreigners,  who  shall  pray  in  the  temple.  Solomon 
assumes  as  certain  that  foreigners  will  come  and  worship  before 
Jehovah  in  His  temple ;  even  Moses  himself  had  allowed  the 
foreigners  living  among  the  Israelites  to  offer  sacrifice  at  the 
temple  (Num.  xv.  14  sqq.),  and  the  great  name  and  the  arm  of 
the  Lord,  that  had  manifested  itself  in  deeds  of  omnipotence, 
had  become  known  in  the  times  of  Moses  to  the  surround- 
ing nations  (Ex.  xv.  14,  xviii.  1 ;  Josh.  v.  1),  and  the  report 
of  this  had  reached  Balaam '  even  in  Mesopotamia  (see  the 
Comm.  on  Num.  xxii.).     "'")32n  ?x  does  not  mean  "  as  for  tlic 


CHAP.  VIIL  44-5a  131 

foreigners  "  (Thenius),  for  7Vi  is  never  used  in  this  sense ;  but 
it  is  to  be  connected  "witb  V^^^  in   ver.   43,  as  %  i*?^  fre- 
quently occurs  (Bertbeau). — ^Ver.  42  is  a  parenthesis  inserted 
in  explanation  of  ^C'jT  ]Vm  :  "  for  thej  will  hear,"  etc.     The  strong 
hand  and  the  outstretched  arm  are  connected  together  as  a  stand- 
ing expression  for  the  wondrous  manifestations  of  the  divine 
omnipotence  in  the  guidance  of  Israel,  as  in  Dent.  iv.  34,  v.  15, 
etc.     With  ij^snn^  sn?  the  p.??  *<?^  in  ver.  41  is  resumed,  and 
the    main  thought  continued. — Yer.  43.    The  reason   for  the 
hearing  of  the  prayers  of  foreigners  is  "  that  aU  nations  may 
know  Thy  name  to  fear  Thee,"  etc.,  as  in  Dent,  xxviii.  10.     An 
examination   of  this  original  passage,   from  which  K"Ji?3  ^pc'  *3 
'1J1  ?v  is  taken  and  transferred  to  the  temple,  shows  that  the 
common  explanations  of  this  phrase,  viz.  "that  this  house  is 
called  after  Thy  name,"  or  "  that  Thy  name  is  invoked  over  this 
temple  (at  its  dedication),"  are  erroneous.     The  name  of  the 
Lord  is  always  used  in  the  Scriptures  to  denote  the  working  of 
God  among  His  people  or  in  His  kingdom  (see  at  2  Sam.  vi.  2). 
The  naming  of  this  name  over  the  nation,  the  temple,  etc,  pre- 
supposes the  working  of  God  within  it,  and  denotes  the  con- 
fession and  acknowledgment  of  that  working.     This  is  obvious 
from  such  passages  as  Jer.  xiv.  9,  where  the   expression  "  Thy 
name  is  called  over  ns "  is  only  a  further  explanation  of  the 
word  "  Thou  art  in  the  midst  of  us  ;"  and  from  Isa.  LsdiL  19, 
where  "we    are  they  over  whom  Thou  hast  not  ruled  from 
eternity  "  is  equivalent  to  "  over  whom  Thy  name  has  not  been 
caUed."     The  name  of  Jehovah  will  be  named  over  the  temple, 
when  Jehovah  manifests  His  gracious  presence  within  it  in  such 
a  manner,  that  the  nations  who  pray  towards  it  experience  the 
working  of  the  living  God  within  His  sanctuary.     It  is  in  this 
sense  that  it  is  stated  in  2  Sam.  vi.  2  that  the  name  of  Jehovah 
is  named  above  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (see  the  Comm.  in  loc.). — 
There  are  no  cases  on  record  of  the  worship  of  foreigners  in  con- 
nection with  Solomon's  temple,  though  there  are  in  connection 
with  the  temple  bmlt  after  the  captivity  (vid.  Josephus,  Ant.  xL 
8,  5,  that  of  Alexander  the  Great ;  xii.  2,  5  sqq.,  that  of  Ptole- 
msexxs  Philadelphus ;  and  2  Mace.  iii.  2,  3,  that  of  Seleucus). 

Finally,  in  vers.  44-50  Solomon  also  asks,  that  when  prayers 
are  directed  towards  the  temple  by  those  who  are  far  away  both 
from  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  they  may  be  heard.  The  sixth 
case,  in  vers.  44  and  45,  is,  if  Israel  should  be  engaged  in  war 


132  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

with  an  enemy  by  the  appointment  of  God ;  and  the  seventh, 
in  vers.  46-50,  is,  if  it  should  be  carried  away  by  enemies  on 
account  of  its  sins.^  By  the  expression  in  ver.  44,  "  in  the 
way  which  Thou  sendest  them,"  the  war  is  described  as  one 
undertaken  by  the  direction  of  God,  whether  waged  against  an 
enemy  who  has  invaded  the  land,  or  outside  the  land  of  Canaan 
for  the  chastisement  of  the  heathen  dwelling  around  them. 
"  And  shall  pray  '131  ">"'V^'  T}^. :  "  i.e.  in  the  direction  towards  the 
chosen  city  and  the  temple,  namely,  in  faith  in  the  actual 
presence  of  the  covenant  God  in  the  temple.  nin)  bx,  "  to 
Jehovah,"  instead  of  "  to  Thee,"  is  probably  introduced  for  the 
sake  of  greater  clearness.  CJDSt^'p  n'^'^V],  and  secure  them  justice 
(cf.  Deut.  X.  18,  Ps.  ix.  5,  etc.). — Vers.  46  sqq.  In  the  seventh 
prayer,  viz.  if  Israel  should  be  given  up  to  its  enemies  on 
account  of  its  sins  and  carried  away  into  the  land  of  the  enemy, 
Solomon  had  the  threat  in  Lev.  xxvi.  33  and  44  in  his  eye, 
though  he  does  not  confine  his  prayer  to  the  exile  of  the  whole 
nation  foretold  in  that  passage  and  in  Deut.  xxviii.  45  sqq., 
64  sqq.,  and  xxx.  1—5,  but  extends  it  to  every  case  of  trans- 
portation to  an  enemy's  land.  D3?  b^  ^^''P'!}),  "  and  they  take  it 
to  heart,"  compare  Deut.  iv.  39,  and  without  the  object,  Deut. 
xxx.  1  ;  not  "  they  feel  remorse,"  as  Thenius  supposes,  because 
the  Hiphil  cannot  have  this  reflective  signification  (Bottcher). 
The  confession  of  sin  in  ver.  47,  ^^^.V\ ''^^IVni  ^^xan,  was  adopted 
by  the  Jews  when  in  captivity  as  the  most  exhaustive  ex- 
pression of  their  deep  consciousness  of  guilt  (Dan.  ix.  5  ;  Ps.  cvi. 
^)-     ^?C>  to  slip,  labi,  depicts  sin  as  a  wandering  from  right ; 

*  Bertheau  (ou  Chron.)  has  already  proved  that  there  is  no  force  in  the 
arguments  by  which  Thenius  attempts  to  show,  on  doctrinal  grounds,  that 
vers.  44-51  are  an  interpolated  addition.  As  he  correctly  observes,  "  it  is, 
on  the  contrary,  quite  in  harmony  with  the  original  plan,  that  the  two  cases 
are  also  anticipated,  in  which  the  prayers  of  Israelites  who  are  at  a  distance  from 
the  seat  of  the  sanctuary  are  directed  towards  the  temple,  since  it  is  perfectly 
appropriate  that  the  prayers  of  the  Israelites  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary  are 
mentioned  first,  then  the  prayers  of  foreigners  at  the  same  place,  and  lastly 
the  prayers  of  Israelites,  who,  because  they  are  not  in  Jerusalem,  are  obliged 
to  content  themselves  with  turning  their  faces  towards  the  temple.  We  might 
also  point  to  the  fact  that  it  is  probably  intentional  that  exactly  seven 
cases  are  enumerated,  inasmuch  as  in  enumerations  of  this  kind,  which  are 
not  restricted  by  the  nature  of  the  case  to  any  definite  measure,  such  a 
number  as  seven  easily  furnishes  an  outward  limit,"— or  more  correctly :  be- 
cause seven  as  a  sacred  or  covenant  number  was  more  appropriate  than  any 
other  to  embrace  all  prayers  addressed  to  God. 


CHAP.  VIII.  54-6t. 


133 


nu;n  to  act  perversely,  as  a  conscious  pen-ersion  of  justice; 
and  y^  as  a  passionate  rebellion  against  God  (cf.  Isa.  IviL  20). 
— Ver.  50.  D'ern^  cnns^ :  literally,  "  and  make  (place)  them  for 
compassion  before  their  captors,  that  they  may  have  compassion 
upon  them,"  i.e.  cause  them  to  meet  with  compassion  from  their 
enemies,  who  have  carried  them  away. — In  vers.  51-53  Solo- 
mon closes  with  general  reasons,  which  should  secure  the  hear- 
ing of  his  prayer  on  the  part  of  God.  Bertheau  follows  the 
earlier  commentators  in  admitting  that  these  reasons  refer  not 
merely  to  the  last  petitions,  but  to  all  the  preceding  ones.^ 
The  plea  "  for  they  are  Thy  people,"  etc.  (ver.  51),  is  taken  from 
Deut.  iv.  10  ;  and  that  in  ver.  53,  "Thou  didst  separate  them," 
etc.,  is  taken  from  Lev.  xx.  24,  26,  compared  with  Ex.  xix.  5. 
'\:\  "H'ry  nvn^,  "  that  Thine  eyes  may  be  opened,"  follows  upon 
riyp^jn  ("then  hear  Thou")  in  ver.  49  ;  just'  as  ver.  29  at  the 
commencement  of  the  prayer  follows  upon  TV^p  in  ver.  2  8.  The 
recurrence  of  the  same  expression  shows  that  the  prayer  is 
drawing  to  a  close,  and  is  rounded  off  by  a  return  to  the 
thought  with  which  it  opened.  "  As  Thou  spakest  by  Moses" 
points  back  to  Ex.  xix.  5. — In  2  Chron.  vL  40-42  the  con- 
clusion of  the  prayer  is  somewhat  altered,  and  closes  with  the 
appeal  to  the  Lord  to  cause  salvation  and  grace  to  go  forth 
from  the  temple  over  His  people. 

Vers.  54-66.  Concluding  Act  of  the  dedication  of  the 
temple.  Vers.  54-61.  Blessing  the  congregation. — ^After  the 
conclusion  of  the  prayer,  Solomon  rose  up  from  his  knees  and 
blessed  all  the  assembled  congregation,  nib^na  vasi  is  a  cir- 
cumstantial clause,  which  must  be  connected  with  the  previous 
words  and  rendered  thus :  "  from  lying  upon  his  knees  vrith 
his  hands  spread  out  towards  heaven."  "  And  he  stood,"  i.e.  he 
came  from  the  altar  and  stood  nearer  to  the  assembled  congre- 
gation. The  blessing  begins  with  praise  to  the  Lord  for  the 
fulfilment  of  His  promises  (ver.  1 6),  and  consists  in  the  petition 
that  the  Lord  will  always  fulfil  his  (Solomon's)  prayers,  and 

'  Seb.  Schmidt  has  already  given  the  following  explanation :  "  These 
things  which  I  have  asked  for  myself  and  for  my  people  do  Thou,  0  Lord, 
because  it  is  for  Thy  people  that  I  have  prayed,  and  I  am  their  king :  there- 
fore hear  Thou  the  prayers  of  Thy  servant  and  Thy  people.  For  in  ver.  52  he 
makes  mention  of  his  own  case  and  of  the  cases  of  all  the  rest,  in  which  thej 
would  call  upon  the  Lord. 


134  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

grant  His  people  the  promised  salvation.-' — Ver.  56.  The  praise 
of  Jehovah  rests,  so  far  as  the  first  part  is  concerned,  upon  the 
promise  in  Beut.  xii.  9,  10,  and  upon  its  fulfilment  in  Josh, 
xxi  44,  45  and  xxiii.  14  ;  and  the  second  part  is  founded  upon 
Lev.  xxvi.  3—13  and  Deut.  xxviii.  1-14,  where  the  "good  word, 
which  the  Lord  spake  by  Moses,"  is  more  precisely  described 
as  the  blessing  which  the  Lord  had  promised  to  His  people 
and  had  hitherto  bestowed  upon  them.  He  had  already  given 
Israel  rest  by  means  of  Joshua  when  the  land  of  Canaan  was 
taken ;  but  since  many  parts  of  the  land  still  remained  in  the 
hands  of  the  Canaanites,  this  rest  was  only  fully  secured  to 
them  by  David's  victories  over  all  their  enemies.  This  glorious 
fulfilment  warranted  the  hope  that  the  Lord  would  also  fulfil  in 
the  future  what  He  had  promised  His  servant  David  (2  Sam. 
vii.  10),  if  the  people  themselves  would  only  faithfully  adliere 
to  their  God.  Solomon  therefore  sums  up  all  his  wishes  for 
the  good  of  the  kingdom  in  vers.  57-61  in  the  words,  "  May 
Jehovah  our  God  be  with  us,  as  He  was  with  our  fathers ;  may 
He  not  leave  us  nor  forsake  us,  to  incline  our  heart  to  Himself, 
that  we  may  walk  in  all  His  ways,"  etc. — that  the  evil  word 
predicted  by  Moses  in  Lev.  xxvi.  14  sqq.,  Deut.  xxviii.  15,  may 
not  fall  upon  us.  For  ver.  57  compare  Deut.  xxxi  6,  8,  and 
Josh.  i.  5.  ^^^^>''.  aS  corresponds  to  ^Sll  ?*<  in  these  passages. 
In  the  Pentateuch  ^^^  is  used  but  once  of  men  who  forsake 
the  Lord,  viz.  Deut.  xxxii.  1 5  ;  in  other  cases  it  is  only  used 
in  the  general  sense  of  casting  away,  letting  alone,  and  other 
similar  meanings.      It  is  first  used  of  God,  in  the  sense  of  for- 

^  This  blessing  is  omitted  from  the  Chronicles,  because  it  is  simply  a  re- 
capitulation of  the  longer  prayer ;  but  instead  of  it  we  have  a  statement,  in 
2  Chron.  vii.  1-4,  to  the  effect  that  fire  fell  from  heaven  and  consumed  the 
burnt-offering  upon  the  altar.  This  statement,  -which  even  Movers  regards  as 
a  traditional,  i.e.  a  legendary  addition,  according  to  his  erroneous  view  of 
the  sources  of  the  Chronicles,  is  confirmed  by  the  similar  miracle  which 
occurred  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple.  It  is  omitted,  like  so  many  other 
things  in  the  account  before  us,  because  all  that  was  essential  in  this  occur- 
rence was  contained  implicite  in  the  filling  of  the  temple  with  the  glory  of  the 
Lord.  Just  as  at  the  consecration  of  the  Mosaic  sanctuary  the  Lord  did  not 
merely  manifest  His  gracious  presence  through  the  cloud  which  filled  the 
tent,  but  also  kindled  the  first  sacrifice  with  fire  from  heaven  (Lev.  ix.  24), 
to  sanctify  the  altar  as  the  legitimate  place  of  sacrifice  ;  so  also  at  the  temple 
the  miraculous  kindling  of  the  first  sacrifice  with  fire  from  heaven  was  the 
immediate  and  even  necessary  consequence  of  the  filling  of  the  temple  with 
the  cloud,  in  which  the  presence  of  Jehovah  was  embodied. 


CHAP.  VUL  62-66.  loO 

saking  His  people,  in  Ps.  xxvii  9  in  connection  with  3]y ;  and 
it  frequently  occurs  afterwards  in  JeremiaL — Ver.  59.  May 
these  my  words,  which  I  have  prayed  (vers.  25-43),  be  near  to 
Jehovah  our  Grod  day  and  night,  that  He  may  secure  the  right 
of  His  servant  (the  king)  and  of  His  people,  as  every  day 
demands,  ioi'^i  Di'  "»?%  as  in  Ex  v.  13,  xvi  4. — For  ver.  60 
compare  ver.  43. — ^Ver.  61.  Let  your  heart  be  '"  Dy  ob*^',  wholly, 
undividedly  devoted  to  the  Lord  (c£  ch.  xi.  4,  xv.  3,  14,  etc.). 

Vers.  62-66.  Sacrijices  and  feast. — ^\^ers.  62,  63.  The  dedi- 
catory prayer  was  followed  by  a  magnificent  sacrifice  offered  by 
the  king  and  all  Israel  The  thank-offering  (Q'p^e'nir)  con- 
sisted, in  accordance  with  the  magnitude  of  the  manifestation  of 
divine  grace,  of  2  2,0  0  0  oxen  and  120,000  sheep.  This  enormous 
number  of  sacrificial  animals,  in  which  J.  D.  Michaelis  found 
serious  difficTilties,  Thenius  endeavours  to  set  aside  as  too  large, 
by  calculating  that  as  these  sacrifices  were  offered  in  seven 
days,  reckoning  the  sacrificial  day  at  twelve  full  hours,  there 
must  have  been  about  five  oxen  and  about  twenty-five  sheep 
slaughtered  and  offered  in  sacrifice  every  minute  for  the  king 
alone.  This  calculation  would  be  conclusive,  if  there  were  any 
foundation  for  the  three  assumptions  upon  which  it  rests : 
namely,  (1)  that  the  number  of  sacrifices  mentioned  was  offered 
for  the  king  alone ;  (2)  that  the  slaughtering  and  preparation 
of  the  sacrificial  animals  could  only  be  performed  by  the  priests 
and  Le\'ites;  and  (3)  that  the  whole  of  the  flesh  of  these 
sacrificial  animals  was  to  be  consumed  upon  the  altar.  But 
these  three  assumptions  are  all  erroneous.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  account  about  their  being  "  for  the  king  alone."  For  it  is 
obvious  that  the  words  "  and  Solomon  offered  a  sacrifice "  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  signifying  that  the  king  had  these 
sacrifices  offered  for  himself  alone,  but  that  the  words  refer  to 
the  sacrifices  offered  by  the  king  and  all  Israel  for  the  con- 
secration of  the  temple,  from  the  simple  fact  that  in  ver.  62 
"  Solomon  and  all  Israel "  are  expressly  mentioned  as  offering 
sacrifice,  and  that  after  the  statement  of  the  number  of  the 
sacrifices  we  find  these  words  in  ver.  63:  "so  the  kincr  and  all 
the  children  of  Israel  dedicated  the  house  of  Jehovah."  More- 
over it  is  very  evident  from  the  law  in  Lev.  i  and  iii  that  at 
the  offering  of  sacrifice  the  slaughtering,  flapng,  and  prepara- 
tion of  the  sacrificial  animals  were  performed  by  any  Israelite, 
and  that  it  was  only  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  against  the 


136  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

altar  and  the  burning  of  the  sacrificial  portions  upon  the  altar 
which  were  the  exclu/iive  province  of  the  priests.  In  order  to 
form  a  correct  idea  of  the  enormous  number  of  sacrifices  which 
could  be  slaughtered  on  any  one  day,  we  will  refer  again  to  the 
notice  in  Josephus  {Bell.  Jud.  vi.  9,  3)  already  mentioned  in  the 
Comm.  on  the  Pentateuch,  voL  iii.  p.  51  (translation),  that  in  the 
reign  of  the  emperor  Nero  the  procurator  Cestius  directed  the 
priests  to  count  the  number  of  the  paschal  lambs,  and  that 
they  counted  250,000,  which  were  slaughtered  for  the  passover 
between  the  ninth  and  eleventh  hours  of  the  day,  and  of  which 
the  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  altar.  If  then  it  was  pos- 
sible at  that  time  to  slaughter  more  than  250,000  lambs  in 
three  hours  of  the  afternoon,  and  to  sprinkle  the  blood  upon 
the  altar,  there  can  have  been  no  difficulty  in  slaughtering  and 
sacrificing  3000  oxen  and  18,000  sheep  at  the  dedication  of 
the  temple  on  each  of  the  seven  days  of  the  festival.  As  all 
Israel  from  Hamath  to  the  brook  of  Egypt  came  to  Jerusalem 
to  this  festival,  we  shall  not  be  above  the  mark  if  we  estimate 
the  number  of  the  heads  of  houses  present  at  100,000.  And 
with  very  little  trouble  they  could  have  slaughtered  3000  oxen 
and  18,000  sheep  a  day  and  prepared  them  for  sacrificing. 
How  many  priests  took  an  active  part  in  this,  we  do  not  indeed 
know,  in  fact  we  have  no  information  as  to  the  number  of  the 
priests  in  Solomon's  time  ;  but  we  know  that  in  the  time  of 
David  the  number  of  Levites  qualified  for  service,  reckoning 
from  their  thirtieth  year,  was  38,000,  so  that  we  may  certainly 
assume  that  there  were  two  or  three  thousand  priests.  Now  if 
only  the  half  of  these  Levites  and  priests  had  come  to  Jerusalem  to 
the  dedication  of  the  temple,  they  alone  could  have  slaughtered 
3000  oxen  and  18,000  sheep  every  day.  And  would  not  a 
thousand  priests  have  been  sufficient  to  sprinkle  the  blood  of 
so  many  animals  upon  the  altar  and  to  burn  the  fat  between 
the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  ?  If  we  divided  these  sacri- 
fices among  a  thousand  priests,  each  one  would  only  have  had 
to  attend  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  and  burning  of  the  fat 
of  three  oxen  and  eighteen  sheep  each  day. — But  the  brazen 
altar  of  burnt-offering  might  not  have  been  large  enough  for 
the  burning  of  so  many  sacrifices,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
only  the  fat  portions  of  the  thank-offerings  were  consumed,  and 
they  did  not  require  much  room  ;  since  the  morning  and  even- 
ing burnt-offerings  were  added  daily,  and  as  festal  offerings 


CHAP.  VIII.  62-66.  137 

they  would  certainly  not  consist  of  a  lamb  only,  but  at  least  of  one 
bullock,  and  they  were  burned  whole,  although  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offering  with  a  surface  of  144  square  yards  (see  my  bibl.  Archdol. 
i  p.  127)  would  hold  a  very  large  quantity  of  sacrificial  flesh  at 
once.  In  ver.  64,  however,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  Solomon 
sanctified  the  middle  of  the  court,  which  was  before  the  house 
of  Jehovah,  to  bum  the  burnt-offering  and  meat-offering  and  the 
fat  portions  of  the  thank-offerings  there,  because  the  brazea  altar 
was  too  small  to  hold  these  sacrifices.  "  The  middle  of  the  court" 
0'^.^[}  "H'*'^)  is  the  whole  of  the  inner  portion  of  the  court  of  the 
priests,  w^hich  was  in  front  of  the  temple-house  and  formed  the 
centre  of  the  court  surrounding  the  temple.  Of  coui-se  we  have 
not  to  imagine  that  the  sacrifices  were  offered  upon  the  stone 
pavement  of  the  court,  but  must  assume  that  there  were  auxiliary 
altars  erected  in  the  inner  court  around  the  brazen  altar.  By 
the  burnt-offering  and  the  meat-offering  (belonging  to  it:  n?iyn-ns 
nnasriTixi)  we  are  not  to  understand  certain  bumt-offerings, 
which  were  offered  for  a  definite  number  of  thank-offerings,  as 
Thenius  supposes.  The  singular  and  the  definite  article  are 
both  at  variance  with  this.  The  reference  is  rather  to  the 
(well-known)  daily  morning  and  evening  burnt-offerings  with 
their  meat-offering,  and  in  this  case,  no  doubt,  to  such  a  festal 
sacrifice  as  is  prescribed  in  Num.  xx^iiL  for  the  great  yearly 
feasts. — Ver.  65.  Thus  Solomon  held  the  feast  at  that  time,  and 
all  Israel  with  him,  a  great  assembly  from  the  neighbourhood 
of  Hamath  to  the  brook  of  Egypt,  i.e.  from  the  whole  land  in  its 
fullest  extent  from  north  to  south.  "  The  district  of  Hamath" 
i.e.  Epiphania  on  the  Orontes,  is  mentioned  as  the  northern 
boundary  (cf.  Xum.  xxxiv.  8,  xiii  21,  Josh.  xiii.  5,  etc.)  ;  and 
"  the  brook  of  Eg}'pt"  (Q^IVP  ^[^T),  Bhinocorura,  as  the  southern 
boundary  (cf.  XimL  xxxiv.  8,  JosL  xv.  4).  "  The  feast "  (J^"  v)» 
which  Solomon  held  with  the  people  "  seven  days  and  seven 
days,  fourteen  days,"  is  not  the  feast  of  the  dedication,  but,  as 
in  ver.  2,  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  which  fell  in  tlie  seventh 
month ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is,  that  on  that  occasion 
the  feast  of  the  seventh  month  was  kept  for  fourteen  days,  namely, 
seven  days  as  the  feast  of  the  dedication,  and  seven  days  as  the 
feast  of  tabernacles.  We  are  obliged  to  take  the  words  in  this 
way,  partly  on  account  of  the  e\'ident  reference  to  3n3  (at  ths 
feast)  in  ver.  2  in  the  expression  -nn-nsi  (the  feast)  in  this 
verse,  and  partly  on  account  of  the  statement  which  follows  in 


138  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

ver.  66,  "and  on  tlie  eighth  day  he  sent  the  people  away." 
The  "  eighth  day"  is  not  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
(Thenius) ;  but  the  eighth  day,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  feast  of 
tabernacles,  iT^.'ifJ(  (Lev.  xxiiL  3  6).  The  correctness  of  this  view- 
is  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  context  in  the  Chronicles, 
which  states  more  clearly  that  "  Solomon  kept  the  feast  seven 
days,  and  all  Israel  with  him  .  .  .  and  they  kept  ^"^y-^.  (the 
closing  feast)  on  the  eighth  day ;  for  they  kept  the  dedication 
of  the  altar  seven  days  and  the  feast  seven  days ;  and  on  the 
twenty-third  day  of  the  seventh  month  he  sent  the  people 
away."  The  feast  of  tabernacles  lasted  seven  days,  from  the 
15th  to  the  21st,  with  a  closing  festival  on  the  eighth  day,  i.e. 
the  22d  of  the  month  (Lev.  xxiii.  33-39).  This  festival  was 
preceded  by  the  dedication  of  the  temple  from  the  8th  to  the 
14th  of  the  month.  The  statement  in  ver.  66,  "  on  the  eighth 
day  he  sent  the  people  away,"  if  we  take  the  words  in  their 
strict  sense,  is  at  variance  with  the  statement  in  the  Chronicles, 
"  on  the  23d  day,"  since  the  eighth  day  of  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles was  the  2 2d  day  of  the  month;  but  it  may  easily  be 
accounted  for  from  want  of  precision  in  a  well-known  matter. 
Solomon  sent  the  people  away  on  the  eighth  day,  i.e.  on  the 
afternoon  or  evening  of  the  atzcretJi  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
so  that  on  the  morning  of  the  next  day,  i.e.  on  the  23d  of  the 
month,  the  people  took  their  journey  home,  "joyful  and  glad  of 
heart  for  all  the  goodness  that  the  Lord  had  shown  to  His  ser- 
vant David  and  to  the  people."  David  is  mentioned,  because 
the  completion  of  the  building  of  the  temple  was  the  fulfilment 
of  the  divine  promise  given  to  him.  "  Tents,"  for  houses,  as  in 
2  Sam.  XX.  1,  Judg.  viL  8,  and  other  passages. 

CHAP.  IX.    THE  ANSWEE  TO  SOLOMON'S  PRAYER.      THE  MEANS 
EMPLOYED  FOR  THE  ERECTION  OF  HIS  BUILDINGS. 

Vers.  1-9.  The  Answer  of  the  Lord  to  Solomon's  Dedica- 
tory Prayer  (cf.  2  Chron.  vii.  11-22). — Vers.  1,  2.  When 
Solomon  had  finished  the  building  of  the  temple,  and  of  his 
palace,  and  of  all  that  he  had  a  desire  to  build,  the  Lord 
appeared  to  him  the  second  time,  as  He  had  appeared  to  him  at 
Gibeon,  i.e.  by  night  in  a  dream  (see  eh.  iiL  5),  to  promise  him 
that  his  prayer  should  be  answered.  For  the  point  of  time,  see 
at  ck  viii  1.      P^D'''^>  ail  Solomon's  desire  or  pleasure,  is  para- 


CHAP.  IX.  1-9.  139 

pTirased  thus  in  the  Chronicles :  3l?  ?'J  ^^T^^,  "  all  that  came 
into  his  mind,"  and,  in  accordance  with  the  context,  is  very 
properly  restricted  to  these  two  principal  buildings  by  the  clause, 
"  in  the  house  of  Jehovah  and  in  his  own  house." — ^Yers.  3  sqq. 
The  divine  promise  to  Solomon,  that  his  prayer  should  be 
aifswered,  is  closely  connected  with  the  substance  of  the  prayer ; 
but  in  our  account  we  have  only  a  brief  summary,  whereas  in  the 
Chronicles  it  is  given  more  elaborately  {vid.  2  Chron.  viL  12-16). 
"  I  have  sanctified  this  house  which  thou  hast  bmlt,  to  put  my 
name  there."  Tor  the  expression,  see  Deut  xii  11.  The  sanc- 
tifying consisted  in  the  fact,  that  Jehovah  put  His  name  in  the 
temple;  i.e.  that  by  filling  the  temple  with  the  cloud  which 
visibly  displayed  His  presence.  He  consecrated  it  as  the  scene 
of  the  manifestation  of  His  grace.  To  Solomon's  prayer,  "  Zklay 
Thine  eyes  stand  open  over  this  house"  (ch.  viii  29),  the  Lord 
replies,  giving  always  more  than  we  ask,  "  My  eyes  and  my 
heart  shall  be  there  perpetually." — Vers.  4  and  5  contain  the 
special  answer  to  ch.  viii  25  and  26. — ^Vers.  6-9  refer  to  the 
prayer  for  the  turning  away  of  the  cwcse,  to  which  the  Lord 
replies :  K  ye  and  your  children  turn  away  from  me,  and  do 
not  keep  my  commandments,  but  worship  other  gods,  this  house 
will  not  protect  you  from  the  curses  threatened  in  the  law,  but 
they  will  be  fulfilled  in  all  their  terrible  force  upon  you  and 
upon  this  temple.  This  threat  follows  the  Pentateuch  exactly 
in  the  words  in  which  it  is  expressed;  ver.  7  being  founded 
upon  Deut.  xx%'iii.  37,  45,  and  63,  and  the  curse  pronounced 
upon  Israel  in  Deut.  xxix.  23-26  being  transferred  to  the 
temple  in  vers.  8  and  9. — '^S  7I?D  n>>C',  to  dismiss,  i.e.  to  reject 
from  before  my  face.  "  This  house  will  be  P""^"  i.e.  wiU  stand 
high,  or  through  its  rejection  will  be  a  lofty  example  for  aU  that 
pass  by.  The  temple  stood  upon  a  high  mountain,  so  that  its 
ruins  could  not  fail  to  attract  the  attention  of  all  who  went 
past.  The  expression  pvj?  is  selected  with  an  implied  allusion 
to  Deut.  xxvL  19  and  xx^-iil  1.  God  there  promises  to  make 
Israel  Fpy,  high,  exalted  above  all  nations.  This  blessing  wiU 
be  turned  into  a  curse.  The  temple,  which  was  high  and  widely 
reno%vned,  shall  continue  to  be  high,  but  in  the  opposite  sense,  as 
an  example  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  from  the  presence  of  God.^ 

^  The  conjecture  of  Bbttcher,  Thenius,  and  Bertheaa,  that  p^^y  should  be 
altered  into  Q«y,  has  no  support  iu  Mic.  iii.  12,  Jer.  xxtL  18,  and  Ps.  Llxjx.  1, 


140  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Vers.  10-28.  The  Means  by  which  the  Buildings  week 
ERECTED. — In  order  that  all  which  still  remained  to  be  said 
concerning  Solomon's  buUdings  might  be  grouped  together, 
different  notices  are  introduced  here,  namely,  as  to  his  relation 
to  Hiram,  the  erection  of  several  fortresses,  and  the  tributary 
labour,  and  also  as  to  his  maritime  expeditions ;  and  these  hete- 
rogeneous materials  are  so  arranged  as  to  indicate  the  resources 
which  enabled  Solomon  to  erect  so  many  and  such  magnificent 
buildings.  These  resources  were :  (1)  his  connection  with  king 
Hiram,  who  furnished  him  with  building  materials  (vers.  10-14) ; 
(2)  the  tributary  labour  which  he  raised  in  his  kingdom  (vers. 
15-25)  ;  (3)  the  maritime  expedition  to  Ophir,  which  brought 
him  great  wealth  (vers.  26-28).  But  these  notices  are  very 
condensed,  and,  as  a  comparison  with  the  parallel  account  in  2 
Chron.  viii.  shows,  are  simply  incomplete  extracts  from  a  more 
elaborate  history.  In  the  account  of  the  tributary  labour,  the 
enumeration  of  the  cities  finished  and  fortified  (vers.  15-19) 
is  interpolated  ;  and  the  information  concerning  the  support 
which  was  rendered  to  Solomon  in  the  erection  of  his  buildings 
by  Hiram  (vers.  11—14),  is  merely  supplementary  to  the 
account  already  given  in  ch.  v.  Vers.  24  and  25  point  still 
more  clearly  to  an  earlier  account,  since  they  would  be  other- 
wise unintelligible. — In  2  Chron.  viii.  the  arrangement  is  a 
simpler  one  :  the  buildings  are  first  of  all  enumerated  in  vers. 
1—6,  and  the  account  of  the  tributary  labour  follows  in  vers. 
7-11. 

Vers.  10-14.  The  notices  concerning  Solomon's  connection 
with  Hiram  are  very  imperfect;  for  ver.  14  does  not  furnish 
a  conclusion  either  in  form  or  substance.  The  notice  in  2 
Chron.  viii  1,  2  is  still  shorter,  but  it  supplies  an  important 
addition  to  the  account  before  us. — Vers.  10  and  11  form  one 

and  has  all  the  ancient  versions  against  it ;  for  they  all  contain  the  Masoretic 
text,  either  in  a  verbal  translation  (LXX.),  or  in  a  paraphrase,  as  for 
example  the  Chaldee,  "  the  house  that  was  high  shall  be  destroyed ;"  the 
Syriac  and  Arabic,  "  this  house  will  be  destroyed  ;"  and  the  Vulgate,  domus 
Jixc  erit  in  exemplum. — In  2  Chron.  vii.  21  the  thought  is  somewhat  varied 
by  the  alteration  of  n^n^  into  n*n  IK'S-  For  it  would  pever  enter  the  mind 
of  any  sober  critic  to  attribute  this  variation  to  a  misinterpretation  of  our 
text.  Still  less  can  it  be  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  explain  or  rectify  our 
text,  as  Bottcher  imagines,  since  the  assertion  of  tins  critic,  that  jv|?y  is  only 
used  to  signify  an  exalted  position,  and  never  the  exaltation  of  dignity  or 
worth,  is  proved  to  be  erroneous  by  Deut.  xxvi.  19  and  xxviii.  1. 


CHAP.  IX.  10-14.  141 

period.  \^]  TS  (then  he  gave)  in  ver.  1 1  introduces  the  apodosis 
to  'PD  ^T?  (and  it  came  to  pass,  etc.)  in  ver.  1 0  ;  and  ver.  1 1 
contains  a  circumstantial  clause  inserted  as  a  parenthesis. 
Hiram  had  supported  Solomon  according  to  his  desire  with 
cedar  wood  and  c^'press  wood,  and  with  gold ;  and  Solomon 
gave  him  in  return,  after  his  buildings  were  completed,  twenty 
cities  in  the  land  of  Galil.  But  these  cities  did  not  please 
Hiram.  When  he  went  out  to  see  them,  he  said,  "  "VMiat  kind 
of  cities  are  these  ('io  in  a  contemptuous  sense)  which  thou 
hast  given  me,  my  brother?"  'nx  as  in  ch.  xx.  32,  1  Mace. 
X.  18,  xi.  30,  2  Mace.  xi.  22,  as  a  conventional  expression 
used  by  princes  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another.  "And 
he  called  the  land  Cabiil  imto  this  day;"  i.e.  it  retained  this 
name  even  to  later  times.  The  land  of  Galil  is  a  part  of  the 
country  which  was  afterwards  Icnown  as  Galikea.  namely,  the 
northern  portion  of  it,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  Josh. 
XX.  7,  xxi.  32,  Kcdes  in  the  mountains  of  Xaphtali,  to  the  north- 
west of  Lake  Hulch,  is  distinguished  from  the  Kadesh  in  southern 
Palestine  by  the  epithet  '''^33.  It  is  still  more  evident  from 
2  Kings  XV.  29  and  Isa.  viii.  23  that  Galil  embraced  the 
northern  part  of  the  tribe  of  iSTaphtali;  whilst  the  expression 
used  by  Isaiah,  D^isn  yhi^  also  shows  that  this  district  was  for 
the  most  part  inhabited  by  heathen  {i.e.  non-IsraeHtes).  The 
twenty  cities  in  Galil,  which  Solomon  gave  to  Hiram,  certainly 
belonged  therefore  to  the  cities  of  the  Canaanites  mentioned 
in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  7 ;  that  is  to  say,  they  were  cities  occupied 
chiefly  by  a  heathen  population,  and  in  all  probability  they 
were  in  a  very  bad  condition.  Consequently  they  did  not  please 
Hiram,  and  he  gave  to  the  district  the  contemptuous  name  of 
the  land  of  Cahul.  Of  the  various  interpretations  given  to  the 
word  Cabid  (see  Ges.  Thes.  p.  656),  the  one  proposed  by  Hiller 
(Onomast.  p.  435),  and  adopted  by  Eeland,  Ges.,  Maurer,  and 
others,  viz.  that  it  is  a  contraction  of  bi3n3^  sicnt  id  quod  evanuit 
tanquam  nihil,  has  the  most  to  support  it,  since  this  is  the  mean- 
ing required  by  the  context.  At  the  same  time  it  is  possible, 
and  even  probable,  that  it  had  originally  a  different  significa- 
tion, and  is  derived  from  ^33  =  bn  in  the  sense  of  to  pawn, 
as  Gesenius  and  Dietrich  suppose.  This  is  favoured  by  the 
occurrence  of  the  name  Cahd  in  Josh.  xLx.  2  7,  where  it  is  pro- 
bably derivable  from  h2'2,  to  fetter,  and  signifies  literally  a  for- 
tress or  castle ;  but  in  this  instance  it  has  no  connection  with 


142  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  land  of  Cahul,  since  it  is  still  preserved  in  the  village  of 
Cabul  to  the  south-east  of  Acre  (see  the  Comm.  on  Josh.  I.e.). 
The  "  land  of  Cabul "  would  therefore  mean  the  pawned  land ; 
and  in  the  mouths  of  the  people  this  would  be  twisted  into 
"  good  for  nothing."  In  this  case  ^1\^^X  would  have  to  be  taken 
impersonally :  "  they  called ;"  and  the  notice  respecting  this 
name  would  be  simply  an  explanation  of  the  way  in  which  the 
people  interpreted  it.  Hiram,  however,  did  not  retain  this  dis- 
trict, but  gave  it  back  to  Solomon,  who  then  completed  the 
cities  (2  Chron.  viii.  2.).^  The  only  way  in  which  we  can  give  to 
ver.  14  a  meaning  in  harmony  with  the  context,  is  by  taking  it 
as  a  supplementary  explanation  of  ^nni  .  ,  .  ai^i  .  .  .  nyn  in 
ver.  11,  and  so  rendering  np'^'l  as  a  pluperfect,  as  in  ch.  vii. 
13:"  Hiram  had  sent  the  king  a  hundred  and  twenty  talents 
of  gold."  If  we  reckon  the  value  of  gold  as  being  ten  times 
the  worth  of  silver,  a  hundred  and  twenty  talents  of  gold  wotdd 
be  3,141,600  thalers  (about  £471,240  :  Tr.).  This  is  no  doubt 
to  be  regarded  as  a  loan,  which  Solomon  obtained  from  Hiram 
to  enable  him  to  complete  his  buildings.  Although  David  may 
have  collected  together  the  requisite  amount  of  precious  metals 
for  the  building  of  the  temple,  and  Solomon  had  also  very  con- 
siderable yearly  revenues,  derived  partly  from  tribute  paid  by 
subjugated  nations  and  partly  from  trade,  his  buildings  were 
so  extensive,  inasmuch  as  he  erected  a  large  number  of  cities 
beside  the  temple  and  his  sj)lendid  palace  (vers.  15—19),  that 
his  revenues  might  not  suffice  for  the  completion  of  these  costly 
works ;  and  therefore,  since  he  would  not  apply  the  conse- 
crated treasures  of  the  temple  to  the  erection  of  cities  and 
palaces,  he  might  find  himseK  compelled  to  procure  a  loan  from 
the  wealthy  king  Hiram,  which  he  probably  intended  to  cover 
by  ceding  to  him  twenty  cities  on  the  border  of  the  Phoenician 
territory.  But  as  these  cities  did  not  please  the  king  of  Tyre  and 
he  gave  them  back  to  Solomon,  the  latter  will  no  doubt  have  re- 
paid the  amount  borrowed  during  the  last  twenty  years  of  his  reign. 

1  This  simple  method  of  reconciling  the  account  before  us  with  the  appa- 
rently discrepant  notice  in  the  Chronicles,  concerning  which  even  Movers  {die 
biblische  Chronik,  p.  159)  observes,  that  the  chronicler  interpolated  it  from  a 
second  (?)  source,  is  so  natural,  that  it  is  difiBcult  to  conceive  how  Bertheau 
can  object  to  it ;  since  he  admits  that  the  accounts  in  the  books  of  Kings 
and  Chronicles  are  incomplete  extracts  from  common  and  more  elaborate 
sources. 


CHAP.  IX  lj-23.  143 

Vers.  15—23.  Solomon's  tribute  service,  and  the  huUding  of  the 
cities.  (Cf.  2  Chron.  viii.  3-10.)  The  other  means  by  which 
Solomon  made  it  possible  to  erect  so  many  buildings,  was  by 
compelling  the  remnants  of  the  Canaanitish  population  that 
were  still  in  the  land  to  perform  tributary  labour.  Dsn  nnn  riT, 
"  this  is  the  case  with  regard  to  the  tribute."  For  Da  rh)}*}^ 
compare  ch.  v.  27.  To  the  annoimcement  of  the  object  which 
Solomon  had  in  view  in  raising  tributary  labourers,  namely,  to 
build,  etc.,  there  is  immediately  appended  a  list  of  all  the  build- 
ings completed  by  him  (vers.  15—19)  ;  and  it  is  not  till  ver.  20 
that  we  have  more  precise  details  concerning  the  tribute  itsel£ 
Millo,  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  cities  enumerated,  are  for 
the  most  part  not  new  buildings,  but  simply  fortifications,  or  the 
completion  of  buildings  already  in  existence.  David  had  already 
built  the  castle  of  Millo  and  the  waU  of  Jerusalem  (2  Samu  v.  9); 
so  that  Solomon's  building  was  in  both  cases  merely  fortifying 
more  strongly.  On  MUlo  see  the  fuller  remarks  at  2  Sam.  v.  9 ; 
and  on  the  building  of  the  waU,  those  at  ch.  iiL  1  and  xi  27. 
As  Solomon  thereby  closed  the  breach  of  the  city  of  David 
according  to  ch.  xi.  27,  he  probably  extended  the  city  waU  so 
as  to  enclose  the  temple  mountain ;  and  he  may  possibly  have 
also  surrounded  the  lower  city  with  a  wall,  since  David  had 
only  built  a  fortification  round  about  the  upper  city  upon  Zion 
(see  at  2  Sam.  v.  9). — Eazor :  an  old  royal  city  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  above  Lake  Suleh,  which  has  not  yet  been  discovered  (see 
at  Josh,  xi  1).  Megiddo  ;  i.e.  Lejun  (see  at  ch.  iv.  1 2).  Gezer : 
also  an  old  Canaanitish  royal  city,  which  stood  dose  to  the 
Philistian  frontier,  probably  on  the  site  of  the  present  village  of 
el  Kuhah  (see  at  Josh.  x.  33). — Ver.  16.  This  city  had  been 
taken  and  burned  down  by  the  king  of  Egypt ;  its  Canaanitish 
inhabitants  had  been  put  to  death ;  and  the  city  itseK  had  been 
given  as  a  marriage  portion  to  his  daughter  who  was  married 
to  Solomon.  Nothing  is  known  concerning  the  occasion  and 
object  of  Pharaoh's  warlike  expedition  against  this  city.  The 
conjecture  of  Thenius,  that  the  Canaanitish  inhabitants  of  Gezer 
had  drawn  upon  themselves  the  vengeance  of  Pharaoh,  mentioned 
here,  through  a  piratical  raid  upon  the  Egyptian  coast,  is  open 
to  this  objection,  that  according  to  all  accounts  concerning  its 
situation,  Gezer  was  not  situated  near  the  sea-coast,  but  very- 
far  inland. — ^Yer.  17.  This  city  Solomon  built:  i.e.  he  not  only 
rebuilt  it,  but  also  fortified  it.  '  He  did  the  same  also  to  Lawta' 


144  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

BetliJioron,  i.e.  Beit-Ur  Tachta,  on  the  western  slope  of  the 
mountains,  four  hours'  journey  from  Gibeon.  According  to 
2  Chron.  viii.  5,  Solomon  also  fortified  U;pper  Bethhoron,  which 
was  separated  by  a  deep  wady  from  Lower  Bethhoron,  that  lay 
to  the  west  (see  Comm.  on  Josh.  x.  10  and  xvi.  3).  The  two 
Bethhorons  and  Gezer  were  very  important  places  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  mountainous  country  of  Benjamin,  Ephraim,  and 
Judah  against  hostile  invasions  from  the  Philistian  plain.  The 
situation  of  Megiddo  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  plain  of 
Jezreel,  through  which  the  high  road  from  the  western  coast  to 
the  Jordan  ran,  was  equally  important ;  and  so  also  was  Hazor 
as  a  border  fortress  against  Syria  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
land. — Ver.  18.  Solomon  also  built,  i.e.  fortified,  Baalath  and 
Tadmor  in  the  desert.  According  to  Josh.  xix.  44,  Baalath 
was  a  city  of  Dan,  and  therefore,  as  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  6,  1) 
justly  observes,  was  not  far  from  Gezer ;  and  consequently  is 
not  to  be  identified  with  either  Baalgad  or  Baalbek  in  Coele- 
gyria  (Iken,  Mich.  Eosenm. ;  cf.  Eobinson,  Bill.  Res.  p.  5 1 9). 
■i»n  (Chethib)  is  either  to  be  read  lo^^  ^^  according  to  Ewald 
(Gesch.  iii.  p.  344)  "I'sn,  palm,  a  palm-city.  The  Keri  requires 
ibin  (Tadmor,  after  2  Chron.  viii.  4),  a  pronunciation  which 
may  possibly  have  simply  arisen  from  Aramsean  expansion,  but 
which  is  still  the  name  for  the  city  current  among  the  Arabs 

even  in  the  present  day  (^jj,  locus  joalmarum  fer ax).     The 

Greeks  and  Eomans  called  it  Palmyra.  It  was  situated  in 
what  is  certainly  now  a  very  desolate  oasis  of  the  Syrian  desert, 
on  the  caravan  road  between  Damascus  and  the  Euphrates, — 
according  to  modern  accounts,  not  more  than  seventeen  hours' 
journey  from  that  river ;  and  there  are  still  magnificent  ruins 
which  attest  the  former  glory  of  this  wealthy  and,  under  queen 
Zenobia,  very  powerful  city  (cf  Eitter,  Brdk.  xvii.  2,  p.  148G 
sqq.,  and  E.  Osiander  in  Herzog's  Cycl.).  The  correctness  of 
this  explanation  of  the  name  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the 
words  "  in  the  wilderness ; "  and  consequently  even  Movers  has 
given  up  his  former  opinion,  viz.  that  it  was  the  city  of  Thamar 
in  southern  Judah  (Ezek.  xlvii.  19,  xlviiL  28),  which  Thenius 
has  since  adopted,  and  has  decided  in  favour  of  Palmyra,  with- 
out being  led  astray  by  the  attempt  of  Hitzig  to  explain  the 
name  from  the  Sanscrit  (vid.  Deutsche  morgld.  Ztschr.  viii.  p.  222 
sqq.).     The  expression  p.'J?  appears  superfluous,  as  all  the  cities 


CHAP.  IX  15-23.  145 

named  before  were  situated  in  the  land  or  kingdom  of  Solomon, 
and  Tadmor  is  sufficiently  defined  by  "'snaii  (in  the  desert). 
The  text  is  evidently  faulty,  and  either  the  name  of  the  land, 
namely  Hamath  (according  to  2  Chron.  viil  4),  has  dropped 
out,  or  n><3  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  wdth  what  follows 
(according  to  the  Cod.  AL  of  the  LXX.),  and  the  cop.  1  before 
ny-t)3  nx  must  be  erased  and  inserted  before  r!!^3  ("  and  in  the 
land  of  all  the  magazine-cities"). — Yer.  19.  The  "magazine- 
cities  "  (niisptsn  ny)  were  fortified  cities,  in  which  the  produce 
of  the  land  was  collected,  partly  for  provisioning  the  army,  and 
partly  for  the  support  of  the  rural  population  in  times  of  dis- 
tress (2  Chron.  xvii.  12,  xxxii.  28),  similar  to  those  which 
Pharaoh  had  built  in  the  land  of  Goshen  (Ex.  ill).  If  they 
were  situated  on  the  great  commercial  roads,  they  may  also  have 
served  for  storing  provisions  for  the  necessities  of  travellers  and 
their  beasts  of  burden.  The  cities  for  the  war-chariots  (^?'!!v') 
and  cavalry  (n^cnsn)  were  probably  in  part  identical  with  the 
magazine-cities,  and  situated  in  different  parts  of  the  kingdom. 
There  were  no  doubt  some  of  these  upon  Lebanon,  as  we  may 
on  the  one  hand  infer  from  the  general  importance  of  the 
northern  frontier  to  the  security  of  the  whole  kingdom,  and  still 
more  from  the  fact  that  Solomon  had  an  opponent  at  Damascus 
in  the  person  of  Eezin  (ch.  xi  24),  who  could  easily  stir  up 
rebellion  in  the  northern  provinces,  which  had  only  just  been 
incorporated  by  David  into  the  kingdom ;  and  as  we  may  on 
the  other  hand  clearly  gather  from  2  Chron.  xvi  4,  according 
to  which  there  were  magazine-cities  in  the  land  of  Naphtali 
Finally,  the  words  "  and  what  Solomon  had  a  desire  to  build  " 
embrace  aU  the  rest  of  his  buildings,  which  it  would  have 
occupied  too  much  space  to  enumerate  singly.  That  the  words 
P^'D  '">*?  are  not  to  be  so  pressed  as  to  be  made  to  denote  simply 
"  the  buildings  undertaken  for  pure  pleasure,"  like  the  works 
mentioned  in  Eccles.  iL  4  sqq.,  as  Thenius  and  Bertheau  sup- 
pose, is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  ver.  1,  where  all  Solomon's 
buildings  except  the  temple  and  palace,  and  therefore  the  forti- 
fications as  weU  as  others,  are  included  in  the  expression  "  aU 
his  desire." — Fuller  particulars  concerning  the  tributary  work- 
men are  given  in  ver.  20  sqq.  The  Canaanitish  popvdation 
that  was  left  in  the  land  were  made  use  of  for  this  purpose,- — 
namely,  the  descendants  of  the  Canaanites  who  had  not  been 
entirely  exterminated  by  the   Israelites.       "  Their  children;' 

E 


146  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

etc.,  supplies  a  more  precise  definition  of  the  expression  "  all 
the  people,"  etc.,  in  ver.  20.  (For  the  fact  itself,  see  the  com- 
mentary on  ch.  V.  27,  28.) — ^Ver.  22.  Solomon  did  not  make 
Israelites  into  tributary  slaves ;  but  they  were  warriors,  mini- 
sters, and  civil  and  military  ofiicers.  Q^l^y  are  the  king's  ser- 
vants ;  C"!^,  the  heads  of  the  military  and  civil  service  ;  ^''v?^, 
royal  adjutants  (see  at  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8) ;  Vfy^^  133")  nb>,  cap- 
tains over  the  royal  war-chariots  and  cavalry. — For  ver.  23 
compare  ch.  v.  30. 

Vers.  24  and  25  contain  two  notices,  with  which  the  account 
of  Solomon's  buildings  is  brought  to  a  close.  Both  verses  point 
back  to  ch.  iii.  1-4  (viz.  ver.  24  to  ch.  iii.  1,  and  ver.  25  to 
ch.  iii.  2-4),  and  show  how  the  incongruities  which  existed  at 
the  commencement  of  Solomon's  reign  were  removed  by  his 
buildings.  When  Solomon  married  Pharaoh's  daughter,  he 
brought  her  into  the  city  of  David  (ch.  iii.  1),  until  he  should 
have  finished  his  palace  and  built  her  a  house  of  her  own 
within  it.  After  fhis  building  was  completed,  he  had  her 
brought  up  from  the  city  of  David  into  it.  n^y,  came  up,  inas- 
much as  the  palace  stood  upon  the  loftier  summit  of  Zion.  "H^ 
is  to  be  connected  with  TX  which  follows,  in  the  sense  of  only  or 
just  as  :  as  soon  as  Pharaoh's  daughter  had  gone  up  into  the 
house  built  for  her,  Solomon  built  Millo.^ — Ver.  25.  After  the 
building  of  the  temple,  the  practice  of  sacrificing  upon  the  altars 
of  the  high  places  could  be  brought  to  an  end  (ch.  iii.  2). 
Solomon  now  offered  burnt-offerings  and  thank-offerings  three 
times  a  year  upon  the  altar  which  he  had  built  to  the  Lord, 
i.e.  upon  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  in  the  temple,  or  as 
2  Chron.  viii.  1 2  adds  by  way  of  explanation,  "  before  the 
porch."  "  Three  times  in  the  year :"  i.e.  at  the  three  great  yearly 
feasts — passover,  the  feast  of  weeks,  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles 

^  Nothing  certain  can  be  gathered  from  this  notice  as  to  the  situation  of 
this  castle.  The  remark  made  by  Thenius,  to  the  effect  that  it  must  have 
joined  that  portion  of  the  palace  in  -which  the  harem  was,  rests  upon  the 
assumption  that  Millo  was  evidently  intended  to  shelter  the  harem, — an 
assumption  which  cannot  be  raised  into  a  probability,  to  say  nothing  of  a 
certainty.  The  building  of  Millo  immediately  after  the  entrance  of  Pharaoh's 
daughter  into  the  house  erected  for  her,  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that 
David  (?  Solomon — Tk.)  could  not  undertake  the  fortification  of  Jerusalem 
by  means  of  this  castle  till  after  his  own  palace  was  finished,  because  he  had 
not  the  requisite  labour  at  command  for  carrying  on  all  these  buildings  at  the 
same  time. 


CHAP.  IX.  26-28.  147 

(2  Cliron.  viiL  13).  The  words  which  follow,  ^nx  TCj^rn,  "and 
indeed  burning  (the  sacrifice)  at  the  (altar)  which  was  before 
Jehovah,"  cannot  be  taken  as  parallel  to  the  preceding  clause, 
and  understood  as  referring  to  the  incense,  which  was  offered 
along  with  the  bleeding  sacrifices,  because  "•"'iri?'!?  is  not  a  pre- 
terite, but  an  inf.  absoL,  which  shows  that  this  clause  merely 
serves  as  an  explanation  of  the  preceding  one,  in  the  sense  of, 
"  namely,  burning  the  sacrifices  at  the  altar  which  was  before 
Jehovah."  "''^p'?  is  the  technical  expression  here  for  the 
burning  of  the  portions  of  the  sacrificial  flesh  upon  the  altar, 
as  in  Ex.  xxix.  18,  Lev.  i.  9,  etc.  On  the  use  of  1'f^?  after 
ins?,  which  Thenius  and  Bottcher  could  not  understand,  and  on 
which  they  built  up  all  kinds  of  conjectures,  see  Ewald,  §  333,  a, 
note. — n)2n-nK  Dpan,  "  and  made  the  house  complete,"  i.e.  he  put 
the  temple  into  a  state  of  completion,  by  offering  the  yearly 
sacrifices  there  from  that  time  forward,  or,  as  Bottcher  explains 
it,  gave  it  thereby  its  full  worth  as  a  house  of  God  and  place  of 
worship,  o^'^,  is  to  be  taken  grammatically  as  a  continuation 
of  the  in£  abs.  i^t?pn 

Vers.  26-28.  He  sends  ships  to  Ophir. — Solomon  built  a 
fleet  O^if  is  collective,  ships  or  fleet ;  the  nom.  uniiatis  is  n»jN) 
at  Eziongeber,  near  Eloth,  on  the  coast  of  the  Eed  Sea  (^^D"D^ : 
see  at  Ex.  x.  1 9),  in  the  land  of  Edom ;  and  Hi  ram  sent  in  the 
fleet  "  shipmen  that  had  knowledge  of  the  sea "  along  with 
Solomon's  servants  to  Ophir,  whence  they  brought  to  kincr 
Solomon  420  talents  of  gold.  Eziongeber,  a  harbour  at  the  north- 
eastern end  of  the  Elanitic  Gulf,  was  probably  the  "  large  and 
beautiful  town  of  Asziun"  mentioned  by  Makrizi  (see  at  Num. 
xxxiii.  35),  and  situated  on  the  great  bay  of  Wadi/  Emrag 
(see  Euppell,  Bdsen  in  NvMen,  pp.  252-3).  Eloth  (lit  trees,  a 
grove,  probably  so  named  from  the  large  palm-grove  in  the 
neighbourhood),  or  Elath  (Deut.  ii.  8  ;  2  Kings  xiv.  22  :  see  at 
Gen.  xiv.  6),  the  Aila  and  JElana  of  the  Greeks  and  Eomans, 
Arab.  Ailch,  was  situated  at  the  northern  point  of  the  (Elanitic) 
gulf,  which  took  its  name  from  the  town ;  and.  in  the  time  of 
the  Fathers  it  was  an  important  commercial  town.  It  was  not 
far  from  the  small  modern  fortress  of  ATcdba,  where  heaps  of 
rubbish  still  show  the  spot  on  which  it  formerly  stood  (compare 
Eiippell,  Nub.  p.  248,  with  plates  6  and  7,  and  Eobinson,  Pal. 
1  p.  251  sqq.). — The  corresponding  t«xt,  2  Cliron.  viii.  17,  18, 
differs  in  many  respects  from  the  accoimt  before  us.     The  state- 


148  THE  FIRST  liOOK  OF  KINGS. 

ment  in  the'  Chronicles,  that  Solomon  went  to  Eziongeher  and 
Elath,  is  but  a  very  unimportant  deviation  ;  for  the  building  of 
the  fleet  makes  it  a  very  probable  thing  in  itself  that  Solomon 
should  have  visited  on  that  account  the  two  towns  on  the 
Elanitic  Gulf,  which  were  very  near  to  one  another,  to  make 
the  requisite  arrangements  upon  the  spot  for  this  important 
undertaking.  There  is  apparently  a  far  greater  deviation  in 
ver.  27,  where,  in  the  place  of  the  statement  that  Hiram  sent 
"Jxa,  in  the  (or  a)  fleet,  his  servants  as  sailors  who  had  know- 
ledge of  the  sea,  the  chronicler  affirms  that  Hiram  sent  by  his 
servants  ships  and  men  who  had  knowledge  of  the  sea.  For 
the  only  way  in  which  Hiram  could  send  ships  to  Eziongeber 
was  either  by  land  or  (as  Eitter,  Erdk.  xiv.  p.  365,  supposes) 
out  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  supposing  that  the  Tyrians  had  a  fleet 
upon  that  sea  at  so  early  a  date  as  this.  The  statement  in  the 
Chronicles  receives  an  apparent  confirmation  from  1  Kings  x. 
22,  "  The  king  had  a  Tarshish  fleet  upon  the  sea  with  the  fleet 
of  Hiram,"  if  indeed  this  passage  also  refers  to  the  trade  with 
Ophir,  as  is  generally  supposed ;  for  then  these  words  affirm 
that  Hiram  sent  ships  of  his  own  to  Ophir  along  with  those  of 
Solomon.  We  do  not  think  it  probable,  however,  that  the 
words  "  Hiram  sent  ships  by  his  own  men"  are  to  be  so  pressed 
as  to  be  taken  to  mean  that  he  had  whole  ships,  or  ships  taken 
to  pieces,  conveyed  to  Eziongeber  either  from  Tyre  or  out  of  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  although  many  cases  might  be  cited  from 
antiquity  in  support  of  this  view.^  In  all  probability  the  words 
affirm  nothing  more  than  that  Hiram  supplied  the  ships  for  this 
voyage,  that  is  to  say,  that  he  had  them  built  at  Eziongeber  by 
his  own  men,  and  the  requisite  materials  conveyed  thither,  so 

^  Thus,  for  example,  according  to  Arriani  exped.  Alex.  1.  v.  p.  329,  and 
vii.  p.  485  (ed.  Blanc),  Alexander  the  Great  had  ships  transported  from 
Phoenicia  to  the  Euphrates,  and  out  of  the  Indus  into  the  Hydn&pcs,  the 
ships  being  taken  to  pieces  for  the  land  transport  {irf^r,6ri(j«-v)i  find  the 
pieces  (T^-^/tara)  afterwards  joined  together  again.  Plutarch  relates  (vita 
Anton,  p.  948,  ed.  Frkf.  1620)  that  Cleopatra  would  have  had  her  whole 
fleet  carried  across  the  isthmus  which  separates  Egyjit  from  the  Red  Sea,  and 
have  escaped  by  that  means,  had  not  the  Arabs  prevented  the  execution  of 
her  plan  by  burning  the  first  ships  that  were  drawn  up  on  the  land.  Accord- 
ing to  Thucydides,  hell.  Pelop.  iv.  8,  the  Peloponnesians  conveyed  sixty  ships 
which  lay  at  Corcyra  across  the  Leucadian  isthmus.  Compare  also  Polyteni 
strateg.  v.  2,  6,  and  Ammian.  Marcell.  xxiv.  7,  and  from  the  middle  ages  the 
account  of  Makrizi  in  Burckhardt's  Reisen  in  Syrien,  p.  331. 


CHAP.  IX.  26-28.  149 

far  as  they  were  not  to  be  obtained  upon  the  spot.  At  any 
rate,  Solomon  was  obliged  to  call  the  Tyrians  to  his  help  for 
the  building  of  the  ships,  since  the  Israelites,  who  had  hitherto 
carried  on  no  maritime  trade  at  all,  were  altogether  inexpe- 
rienced in  shipbuilding.  Moreover,  the  country  round  Ezion- 
geber  would  hardly  furnish  wood  adapted  for  the  purpose,  as 
there  are  only  palms  to  be  found  there,  whose  spongy  wood, 
however  useful  it  may  be  for  the  inside  of  houses,  cannot  be 
applied  to  the  building  of  ships.  But  if  Hiram  had  ships  built 
for  Solomon  by  his  own  men  and  sent  him  sailors  who  were 
accustomed  to  the  sea,  he  would  certainly  have  some  of  his  own, 
ships  engaged  in  this  maritime  trade ;  and  this  explains  the 
statement  in  ch.  x.  22. 

The  destination  of  the  fleet  was  OpTiir,  whence  the  ships 
brought  420  or  (according  to  the  Chronicles)  450  talents  of 
gold.  The  difference  between  420  and  450  may  be  accounted 
for  from  the  substitution  of  the  numeral  letter  3  (50)  for  D 
(20).  The  sum  mentioned  amounted  to  eleven  or  twelve  million 
dollars  (from  £1,600,000  to  £1,800,000— Tr.),  and  the  ques- 
tion arises,  whether  this  is  to  be  taken  as  the  result  of  one 
voyage,  or  as  the  entire  profits  residting  from  the  expeditions  to 
Opliir.  The  words  admit  of  either  interpretation,  although 
they  are  more  fa\'ourable  to  the  latter  than  to  the  former,  inas- 
much as  there  is  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  fact  that  they 
brought  this  amount  all  at  once  or  on  every  voyage.  (See  also 
at  ch.  X.  14  and  22.)  The  question  as  to  the  situation  of 
Opliir  has  given  rise  to  great  dispute,  and  hitherto  no  certain 
conclusion  has  been  arrived  at ;  in  fact,  it  is  possible  that 
there  are  no  longer  any  means  of  deciding  it.  Some  have 
endeavoured  to  prove  that  it  was  in  southern  Arabia,  others 
that  it  was  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Africa,  and  others  again  that 
it  was  in  Hither  India.^     The  decision  is  dependent  upon  a 

*  Compare  the  thorough  examination  of  the  different  views  concerning 
Ophir  in  C.  Ritter's  Erdk.  xiv.  pp.  348-431,  with  the  briefer  collection  made 
by  Gesenius  in  his  Thes.  p.  141  sq.  and  in  the  Allgem,  Encyclop.  der  Wisaen- 
schaft  u.  Kiinsle,  3  Sect.  Bd.  4,  p.  201  sqq.,  and  by  Pressel,  art.  "  Ophir,"  in 
Herzog's  Cyclopaedia. — We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  different  opinions  held 
by  the  earlier  writers.  But  among  modem  authors,  Niebuhr,  Gesenius, 
Rosenmiiller,  and  Seetzen  decide  in  favour  of  Arabia;  Quatremere  (Memoire 
sur  lepays  d' Opliir  in  Mem.  de  rinstit.  roy.  1845,  t.  xv.  P.  ii.  p.  350  sqq.)  and 
Movers,  who  takes  Ophir  to  be  the  name  of  an  emporium  on  the  eastern  coast 
of  Africa,  in  favour  of  Sofala  ;  while  Chr.  Lassen  (Jndisclie  Alterthumskunde, 


150  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

previous  question,  whether  ch,  x.  22,  "The  king  had  a  Tarshish 
fleet  upon  the  sea  with  the  fleet  of  Hiram  ;  once  in  three  years 
came  the  Tarshish  fleet,  bringing  gold,  silver,"  etc.,  also  applies 
to  the  voyage  to  Ophir.  The  expression  "  Tarshish  fleet ;"  the 
word  Q*?  ("  on  the  sea  "),  which  naturally  suggests  that  sea  to 
which  the  Israelites  applied  the  special  epithet  C3*n,  namely  the 
Mediterranean ;  and  lastly,  the  difierence  in  the  cargoes, — the 
ships  from  Ophir  bringing  gold  and  algummim  wood  (ver.  28 
and  ch.  x.  11),  and  the  Tarshish  fleet  bringing  gold,  silver, 
ivory,  apes,  and  peacocks  (ch.  x.  22), — appear  to  favour  the 
conclusion  that  the  Tarshish  fleet  did  not  sail  to  Ophir,  but 
upon  the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  Tarshish,  i.e.  Tartessus  in  Spain ; 
to  which  we  may  add  the  fact  that  t^'^K^in  ""JK  is  reproduced  in 
2  Chron.  ix.  21  by  ^'^"^^  niD>n  ni'px,  "  ships  going  to  Tarshish." 
Nevertheless,  however  plausible  these  arguments  may  appear, 
after  a  renewed  investigation  of  the  subject  I  cannot  regard 
them  as  having  decisive  weight :  for  (1)  the  expression  "  Tar- 
shish fleet"  is  used  in  ch.  xxii.  49  in  connection  with  ships 
that  were  intended  to  go  to  Ophir ;  (2)  Q*?  (upon  the  sea) 
might  receive  its  more  precise  definition  from  what  precedes  ; 
and  (3)  the  difference  in  the  cargoes  reduces  itself  to  this,  that 
in  addition  to  the  gold,  which  was  the  chief  production  of 
Ophir,  there  are  a  few  other  articles  of  trade  mentioned,  so 
that  the  account  in  ch.  x.  22  is  more  complete  than  that  in 
ch. -ix.  28  and  x.  11.  The  statement  concerning  the  Tarshish 
fleet  in  ch.  x.  22  contains  a  passing  remark,  like  that  in  ch.  x 
11,  from  which  we  must  infer  that  both  passages  treat  in  the 
same  manner  simply  of  the  voyage  to  Ophir,  and  therefore  that 
the  term  "  Tarshish  ships,"  like  our  Indiamen  {Indienfahrer), 
was  applied  to  ships  intended  for  long  voyages.  If,  in  addition 
to  the  ships  sailing  to  Ophir,  Solomon  had  also  had  a  fleet  upon 
the  Mediterranean  Sea  which  sailed  with  the  Phoenicians  to 
Tartessus,  this  would  certainly  have  been  mentioned  here  (ch. 
ix.  27,  28)  at  the  same  time  as  the  Ophir  voyage.     On  alii 

i.  p.  637  sqq.,  ii.  p.  552  sqq.)  and  C.  Ritter  are  the  principal  supporters  of  India. 
On  the  other  hand,  Albr.  Roscher  (Ptulemcins  und  die  Handelsstraasen  in  Cen- 
tral-Africa, Gotha  1857,  p.  57  sqq.)  has  attempted  to  connect  together  all 
these  views  by  assuming  that  the  seamen  of  Hiram  and  Solomon  fetched  the 
gold  of  Western  Africa  from  the  island  of  Dahlak  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  having 
taken  it  to  India  to  exchange,  returned  at  the  end  of  a  three  years'  voyage 
enriched  with  gold  and  the  productions  of  India. 


CHAP,  IX-  26-28.  151 

these  grounds  we  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion  than  that 
the  expression  in  2  Chron.  ix.  21,  "  ships  going  to  Tarshish,"  is 
simply  a  mistaken  exposition  of  the  term  "  Tarshish  fleet," — a 
mistake  which  may  easily  be  explained  from  the  fact,  that  at 
the  time  when  the  ChTX)nicles  were  written,  the  voyages  not 
only  of  the  Israelites  but  also  of  the  Tyrians  both  to  Ophir  and 
Tarshish  had  long  since  ceased,  and  even  the  geographical 
situation  of  these  places  was  then  unknown  to  the  Jews  (see 
my  Iviroduction  to  the  Old  Test.  p.  442,  ed.  2). 

The  name  Ophir  occurs  first  of  all  in  Gen.  x.  29  among  the 
tribes  of  Southern  Arabia,  that  were  descended  from  Joktan, 
between  Seba  and  Ha\'ilah,  i.e.  the  Sabaeans  and  Chaulotseans. 
Hence  it  appears  most  natural  to  look  for  the  gold-land  of  Ophir 
in  Southern  Arabia.  But  as  there  is  still  a  possibility  that  the 
Joktanide  tribe  of  Ophir,  or  one  branch  of  it,  may  subsequently 
have  emigrated  either  to  the  eastern  coast  of  Africa  or  even  to 
Hither  India,  and  therefore  that  the  Solomonian  Ophir  may 
have  been  an  Arabian  colony  outside  Arabia,  the  situation  of 
this  gold  country  cannot  be  determined  without  further  evidence 
from  Gen.  x.  2  9  alone  ;  but  before  arriving  at  an  actual  decision, 
we  must  first  of  all  examine  the  arguments  that  may  be  ad- 
duced in  support  of  each  of  the  three  countries  named.  Sofala 
in  Eastern  Africa,  in  the  Mozambique  Channel,  has  nothing  in 

common  with  the  name  Ophir,  but  is  the  Arabic  J2\^  (Heb. 

npas'*),  i.e.  lowland  or  sea-coast;  and  the  old  Portuguese  accounts 
of  the  gold  mines  in  the  district  of  Fiira  there,  as  well  as  the 
pretended  walls  of  the  queen  of  Saba,  have  far  too  little  evidence 
to  support  them,  to  have  any  bearing  upon  the  question  before 
us.  The  supposed  connection  between  the  name  Ophir  and  the 
city  of  XovTrdpa  mentioned  by  Ptolemseus,  or  Ov-mrapa  by 
Periplus  {Gcogr.  min.  i  p.  30),  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Gm, 
or  the  shepherd  tribe  of  Abhira,  cannot  be  sustained.  Xoinrdpa 
or  Sufdra  (Edrisi)  answers  to  the  Sanscrit  Supara,  i.e.  beautiful 
coast  (cf.  Lassen,  Jn^.  Alterthk.  i.  p.  107);  and  Oinnrapa  in 
Periplus  is  no  doubt  simply  a  false  reading  for  Xovirdpa,  which 
has  nothing  in  common  with  I'^ii*.  And  the  shepherd  tribe  of 
Abhira  can  hardly  come  into  consideration,  because  the  country 
which  they  inhabited,  to  the  south-east  of  the  mouths  of  the 
Indus,  has  no  gold. — Again,  the  hypothesis  that  India  is  intended 
derives  just  as  little  support  from  the  circumstance  that,  with 


152  THE  FIKST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  exception  of  Gen.  x.  29,  the  LXX.  have  always  rendered 
T'siX  either  ^oxficpd  or  Xov^lp,  which  is,  according  to  the  Coptic 
lexicographers,  the  name  used  hy  the  Copts  for  India,  and 
that  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  6,  4),  who  used  the  Old  Test,  in  the 
Alexandrian  version,  has  given  India  as  the  explanation  of 
Ophir,  as  it  does  from  this  supposed  resemblance  in  the  names. 
For,  according  to  the  geographical  ideas  of  the  Alexandrians  and 
later  Greeks,  India  reached  to  Ethiopia,  and  Ethiopia  to  India, 
as  Letronne  has  conclusively  proved  (see  his  Memoirc  sur  iinc 
mission  arienne,  etc.,  in  Mem.  de  VInstit.  Acad,  des  Inscript.  ct 
Bell.  Lettres,  t.  x.  p.  220  sqq.). 

Greater  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  duration  of  the  voyages 
to  Ophir, — namely,  that  the  Tarshish  fleet  came  once  in  three 
years,  according  to  ch.  x.  22,  and  brought  gold,  etc.  But  even 
Lassen,  who  follows  Heeren,  observes  quite  truly,  that  "  this 
expression  need  not  be  understood  as  signifying  that  three  whole 
years  intervened  between  the  departure  and  return,  but  simply 
that  the  fleet  returned  once  in  the  course  of  three  years."  More- 
over, the  stay  in  Ophir  is  to  be  reckoned  in  as  part  of  the  time 
occupied  in  the  voyage  ;  and  that  this  is  not  to  be  estimated  as 
a  short  one,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  Homer, 
Odyss.  XV.  454  sqq.,  a  Phoenician  merchantman  lay  for  a  whole 
year  at  one  of  the  Cyclades  before  he  had  disposed  of  his  wares 
of  every  description,  in  return  for  other  articles  of  commerce, 
and  filled  his  roomy  vessel.  If  we  add  to  this  the  slowness  of 
the  voyage, — considering  that  just  as  at  the  present  day  the 
Arabian  coasters  go  but  very  slowly  from  port  to  port,  so  the 
combined  fleet  of  Hiram  and  Solomon  would  not  be  able  to  pro- 
ceed with  any  greater  rapidity,  inasmuch  as  the  Tyrians  were 
not  better  acquainted  with  the  dangerous  Arabian  Sea  than  the 
modern  Arabians  are,  and  that  the  necessary  provisions  for  a 
long  voyage,  especially  the  water  for  drinking,  could  not  be 
taken  on  board  all  at  once,  but  would  have  to  be  taken  in  at 
the  different  landing-places,  and  that  on  these  occasions  some 
trade  would  be  done, — we  can  easily  understand  how  a  voyage 
from  Eziongeber  to  the  strait  of  Bab  el  Mandeb  and  the  return 
might  occupy  more  than  a  year,^  so  that  the  time  occupied  in 

'  It  is  no  proof  to  the  contrary,  that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  ancient 
writers,  as  collected  by  Movers  {Phoniz.  ii.  3,  p.  190  sqq.),  tlie  Phoenicians 
sailed  almost  as  rapidly  as  the  modern  merchant  ships ;  for  this  evidence 
simply  applies  to  the  voyages  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea  with  which  they  were 


CHAP.  IX.  26-28.  153 

the  voyage  as  given  here  carmot  furnish  any  decisive  proof 
that  the  fleet  sailed  beyond  Southern  Arabia  to  the  East  Indies. 
And  lastly,  the  same  remarks  apply  to  the  goods  brought 
from  Ophir,  which  many  regard  as  decisive  e^*idence  in  favour  of 
India.  The  principal  article  for  which  Ophir  became  so  cele- 
brated, viz.  the  gold,  is  not  found  either  in  Sufdra  near  Goa,  or 
in  the  land  of  AlMra.  Even  if  India  be  much  richer  in  gold 
than  was  formerly  supposed  (cf  Lassen,  ii.  p.  592),  the  rich 
gold  country  lies  to  the  north  of  Cashmir  (see  Lassen,  ii 
pp.  603—4).  Moreover,  not  only  is  it  impossible  to  conceive 
what  goods  the  Phcenicians  can  have  offered  to  the  Indian 
merchants  for  their  gold  and  the  other  articles  named,  since 
large  sums  of  gold  were  sent  to  India  every  year  in  the  Roman 
times  to  pay  for  the  costly  wares  that  were  imported  thence 
(see  Eoscher,  pp.  53,  54)  ;  but  it  is  still  less  possible  to  com- 
prehend how  the  shepherd  tribe  of  Abhira  could  have  come 
into  possession  of  so  much  gold  as  the  Ophir  fleet  brought 
home.  The  conjecture  of  Patter  {Erdk.  xiv.  p.  399)  and  Lassen 
(ii  p.  59  2),  that  this  tribe  had  come  to  the  coast  not  very  long 
before  from  some  country  of  their  own  where  gold  abounded, 
and  that  as  an  imcultivated  shepherd  tribe  they  attached  but 
very  little  value  to  the  gold,  so  that  they  parted  with  it  to  the 
Phoenicians  for  their  purple  cloths,  their  works  in  brass  and 
glass,  and  for  other  things,  lias  far  too  little  probability  to 
appear  at  all  admissible.  If  the  Abhira  did  not  know  the 
value  of  the  gold,  they  would  not  have  brought  it  in  such  quan- 
tities out  of  theii'  original  home  into  these  new  settlements. 
We  should  therefore  be  obliged  to  assume  that  they  were  a 
trading  people,  and  this  would  be  at  variance  with  all  the 
known  accounts  concerning  this  tribe. — As  a  rule,  the  ofold 
treasures  of  Hither  Asia  were  principally  obtained  from  Arabia 
in  the  most  ancient  times.  If  we  leave  Havilah  (Gen.  ii  1 1) 
out  of  the  account,  because  its  position  cannot  be  determined 

familiar,  and  to  the  period  when  the  Phcenician  navigation  had  reached  its 
fullest  development,  so  that  it  has  no  bearing  upon  the  time  of  Solomon  and 
a  voyage  upon  the  Arabian  Sea,  with  which  the  Phoenicians  were  hitherto 
quite  unacquainted.— Again,  the  calculation  made  by  Lassen  (ii.  pp.  590-1), 
according  to  which  a  voyage  from  Eziongeber  to  the  mouth  of  the  Indus  could 
have  been  accomplished  in  a  hundred  days,  is  founded  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  Phoenicians  were  already  acquainted  with  the  monsoon  and  knew 
■what  was  the  best  time  for  the  navigation  of  the  Red  Sea, — an  assumption 
•which  can  neither  be  proved  nor  shown  to  be  probable. 


154  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

with  certainty,  the  only  other  place  specially  referred  to  in  the 
Old  Testament  besides  Ophir  as  being  celebrated  as  a  gold 
country  is  Saba,  in  the  south-western  portion  of  Yemen.  The 
Sabseans  bring  gold,  precious  stones,  and  incense  (Isa.  Ix.  6  ; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  2  2) ;  and  the  queen  of  Saba  presented  Solomon 
with  120  talents  of  gold,  with  perfumes  and  with  precious  stones 
(1  Kings  X.  1 0).  This  agrees  with  the  accounts  of  the  classical 
writers,  who  describe  Arabia  as  very  rich  in  gold  (cf.  Strabo, 
xvi.  777  sq.  and  784  ;  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  50,  iii.  44;  also  Bochart, 
Phaleg,  1.  ii.  c.  27).  These  testimonies,  which  we  have  already 
given  in  part  at  Ex.  xxxviii.  31,  are  far  too  distinct  to  be  set 
aside  by  the  remark  that  there  is  no  gold  to  be  found  in  Arabia 
at  the  present  time.  For  whilst,  on  the  one  hand,  the  wealth  of 
Arabia  in  gold  may  be  exhausted,  just  as  Spain  no  longer  yields 
any  silver,  on  the  other  hand  we  know  far  too  little  of  the 
interior  of  Southern  Arabia  to  be  able  distinctly  to  maintain 
that  there  is  no  gold  in  existence  there. — Silver,  the  other 
metal  brought  from  Ophir,  was  also  found  in  the  land  of  the 
iSTabatseans,  according  to  Strabo,  xvi.  p.  784,  although  the  wealth 
of  the  ancient  world  in  silver  was  chiefly  derived  from  Tarshish 
or  Tartessus  in  Spain  (cf  JMovers,  Phoniz.  ii.  3,  p.  36  sqq., 
where  the  different  places  are  enumerated  in  which  silver  was 
found). — That  precious  stones  were  to  be  found  in  Arabia  is 
evident  from  the  passages  cited  above  concerning  the  Sabaeans. 
— On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  has  been  supposed  that  the 
remaining  articles  of  Ophir  could  only  have  been  brought  from 
the  East  Indies. 

According  to  ch.  x.  12,  the  Ophir  ships  brought  a  large 
quantity  of  D^ao^Nl  ^'iV  (almuggim  wood  :  2  Chron.  ii.  7,  Q''??^^<). 
According  to  Kimchi  (on  2  Chron.  ii.  7),  the  JiK>ASt  or  Di2?i?  is 

arbor  rubri  coloris,  dicta  lingua  arabica  albaJcam  (jblO»  "^^^90 

hrasilica.  This  tree,  according  to  Abulfadl  (Celsius,  Hicrob.  i.  p. 
176),  is  a  native  of  India  and  Ethiopia;  and  it  is  still  a  ques- 
tion in  dispute,  whether  we  are  to  understand  by  this  the  Ptero- 
carpiis  Santal.,  from  which  the  true  sandal-wood  comes,  and 
which  is  said  to  grow  only  in  the  East  Indies  on  Malabar  and 
Java,  or  the  Ccesalpinia  Sappan  L.,  a  tree  which  grows  in  the 
East  Indies,  more  especially  in  Ceylon,  and  also  in  different 
parts  of  Africa,  the  red  wood  of  which  is  used  in  Europe  chiefly 
for  dyeing.    Moreover  the  true  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  name 


CHAP.  IX.  26-28.  155 

is  still  undiscovered.  The  derivation  of  it  from  the  Sanscrit 
Valgu,  i.e.  p^dcher  (Lassen  and  Eitter),  has  been  set  aside  by 
Gesenius  as  inappropriate,  and  mocha,  Tnochdta,  which  is  said  to 
signify  sandal-wood  in  Sanscrit,  has  been  suggested  instead. 
But  no  evidence  has  been  adduced  in  its  favour,  nor  is  the 
word  to  be  found  in  Wilson's  Sanscrit  Lexicon.  If,  however, 
this  derivation  were  correct,  p^  would  be  the  Arabic  article,  and 
the  introduction  of  this  article  in  connection  with  the  word 
mocha  would  be  a  proof  that  the  sandal-wood,  together  with  its 
name,  came  to  the  Hebrews  through  merchants  who  spoke 
Aiabic. — The  other  articles  from  Ophir  mentioned  in  ch.  x  22 
are  Q'?'!'??',  6^6vre<i  iXe^dimvoi,  (LXX.),  denies  elephantomm  or 
ebur  (Vulg.),  i'"'?'!  \^,  elephants'  teeth  (Targ.).  But  however 
certain  the  meaning  of  the  word  may  thus  appear,  the  justifica- 
tion of  this  meaning  is  quite  as  uncertain.  In  other  cases 
ivory  is  designated  by  the  simple  term  v?  (ch.  x.  18,  xxii.  39  ; 
Ps.  xlv.  9  ;  Amos  iii.  15,  etc.),  whereas  Ezekiel  (xxvii  15)  calls 
the  whole  tusk  V?  ^i^"!?,  horns  of  the  tooth.  D^sn  is  said  to 
signify  elephants  here ;  and  according  to  Benary  it  is  contracted 
from  J^^?^^'^,  the  Sanscrit  word  ihha,  elephant ;  according  to 
Ewald,  from  ^''r?\},  from  the  Sanscrit  Kaldbha ;  and  according  to 
Hitzig,  from  2'?'7?  =2'?v?,  Lihyi;  or  else  Q^r'l^?'  is  a  false  read- 
ing for  C''^r'71  i^'j  ivory  and  ebony,  according  to  Ezek.  xxvii.  15 
(see  Ges.  Thes.  p.  1453).  Of  these  four  derivations  the  first  two 
are  decidedly  wrong :  the  first,  because  ihha  as  a  name  for  the 
elephant  only  occurs,  according  to  Weber,  in  the  later  Indian 
■writings,  and  is  never  used  in  the  earlier  writings  in  this  sense 
{vid.  Eoediger,  Addenda  ad  Ges.  thes.  p.  115);  the  second, 
because  Kalabha  does  not  signify  the  elephant,  but  catuluni 
elejphanti,  before  it  possesses  any  teeth  available  for  ivory.  The 
third  is  a  fancy  which  its  originator  himseK  has  since  given  up; 
and  the  fourth  a  conjecture,  which  is  not  raised  to  a  probability 
even  by  the  attempt  of  Bottcher  to  show  that  D^an  is  a  case 
of  backward  assimilation  from  D''^?n,  because  the  asyndeton 
D^2n  ;'j'  between  two  couples  connected  by  l  is  without  any 
analogy,  and  the  passages  adduced  by  Bottcher,  viz.  Deut 
xxix  22,  Josh.  xv.  54  sqq.,  and  even  Ezek.  xxvii  33,  are  to  be 
taken  in  quite  a  different  way. — The  rendering  of  C^s'p  by  apes, 
and  the  connection  of  the  name  not  only  with  the  Sanscrit  and 
Malabar  JMpi,  but  also  with  the  Greek  iaYiro<i  and  Krj^o<;,  also 
K€ifio<;,  are  much  surer ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  assumption 


tie 
nt 
kndlf  fiUftD 
ntheene  «f 

itipn  or  fijiw'  (c£  fioed^gs  in  Gcs. 

It  m  eowlMM^  we  look  On^  an  Ok 

tibe  gold  ad  ailr^  vUcb  vere  Boi  Id  Ik  tend  m  tte  liidL  c€ 
AHiii^  tke  iivij  aod  dnqr  (si^posng  Oafc  we  oo^ft  to  mmI  i? 
Disara  for  iPsrae)  fmudi  ■onideBce  ia  sufpoEi  iiilm£a^iam&~ 

ba&'aC 

iadnb^p.534X  ibd< 

and  IWriyiw  icslty  euae  fioB  JUSa  alo^gviik  lite 
Qlsecis  to  vkkktihef  iMkn^edl  ifcwwiUly^M 

— For  anee;  for  riawflr^  tihcae  an  iilJHftolJB  tnem  cf  Terr 

and  Afiaca»  wqpwJaWy  SoaAcm  Anlaa  aad  ICflirnia^  iranfciig 
&r  iMjond  tfe  tue  «tf  SotoMo^  Oe  seaaKm  of  Hinm  aad  Solo- 
aMBi  mmjTman  ohfaiard  tbeae  ailiiJea  otter  n  Anlaa  or  oi 
tte  Ti3Biw|MM  eoaalL  For  erea  if  tiie  itilinialii  o(  HenddbB 
aadSfenbo^to  ^ke  cAecfc  floit  Ae  fkoesakkas  na^pratrd  fioM 
tte  i^ands  of  Oe  JBijrttraBBa  Sei^  lyks  (or  l^rns  I)  aad  Anio^ 
to  Ibe  Phoemdaa  ooK^  db  Ml  peofe  O^  OeP^eakiaK  Ini 
abead^  exloided  &eir  UMiiiiiil  nJiiiaiM,  as  finr  as  ImSa, 
eim  liekre  iitt  fcvdtt  ceitef.  as  Ijosea  OoL  597  awl  SS4r^ 
MqpfwwBs;  if  tke  Tynaas  and  Aiadiaw^  aln  aoe  idiiwi  to 
Ij  tnbe,  atai  cfMiAinBBd  to  dvdl  nyoa  the  isbiads  of  1 
Gait  fitoK  vkidi  thej  cobU  Kwik  man  msSj  fiaft  i^  waj  to 


19  (38):  iifeB  (tk  g»MS  «f  Baper  ^he  &wO  MiMAra 

>/mw  nwfti.    ^bTii  II  ij  ftiyk  aga  tto  wmm  (Rif it, . 


CHAP.  IX.  2«-28. 


157 


India  by  sea, — since  the  historical  character  of  these  statements 
has  been  disputed  by  Movers  (Phonizier,  ii  1,  p.  38  sqq.)  on 
very  weighty  grounds  ;  yet  it  is  evident  that  there  was  a  very 
early  intercourse  between  East  India  and  Africa,  reaching  far 
beyond  aU  historical  testimony,  from  the  following  well-estab- 
lished facts  :  that  the  Egyptians  made  use  of  indigo  in  the 
dyeing  of  their  stuffs,  and  this  could  only  have  been  brought  to 
them  from  India ;  that  muslins,  which  were  likewise  of  Indian 
origin,  are  found  among  the  materials  in  which  the  mummies 
are  enveloped ;  and  that  in  the  graves  of  the  kings  of  the 
^^iteenth  dynasty,  who  ceased  to  reign  in  the  year  1476  B.C, 
there  lave  been  discovered  vases  of  Chinese  porcelain  (c£ 
Laa^en,  ii  p.  596).  And  the  intercomse  between  the  southern 
coast  of  Arabia  and  Hither  India  may  hare  been  qnite  as  old,  if 
not  older ;  so  that  Indian  productions  may  have  been  brought 
to  Hither  Asia  by  the  Sabsans  long  before  the  time  of  Solomon 
{vid.  Lassen,  ii  ppu  59S-4,  and  Moren,  f^&niz.  ii  3,  pp.  247, 
256).  Bat  the  commercial  intereoone  between  Arabia  and  the 
opposite  coast  of  Ethiopia,  by  which  African  productions  reached 
the  trading  inhabitants  of  Arabia,  waa  unquestionably  still  older 
than  the  trade  with  India.  If  we  we%h  well  all  these  points, 
tibett  is  no  Talid  ground  for  looking  outside  Arabia  for  the 
a£  the  Solamonian  Ophir.  But  we  shall  no  doubt  be 
to  give  up  the  hope  of  determining  with  any  greater 
tbat  particular  part  of  the  coa^  of  Arabia  in  which 
Oplnr  was  situated,  inasmuch  as  hithesto  neither  the  name 
Ophir  nor  the  existence  of  gold-fields  in  Arabia  has  been 
rrtaWiriiid  by  modem  accounts,  and  moreover  the  interior  of 
tibe  gnat  Arabian  peninsula  is  still  for  the  most  part  a  terra 


'  if  tHe  notice  «f  JEmgaitmmm  contained  in  a  fragment  in  Eaaebins  (prsepttr, 
a.  K.  SQX  to  tlK  cCeei  Osf  Tmnd  (a  aiatake  for  Solomon)  sent  miners  to 
Aeidaai of  06f^(§oi  wJmkGtmmmtmJBttaKa  that  we  shooH  read  OJ<^pii 

05^>  m  tte  Bed  Sea,  w!ue!i  was  ricb  in  gaUi  wdaea^  and  that  thej 

Jl  liaiw  to  Judaea,  could  be  proved  t»  tc  hiatorical  throagh 
taaSia  testimony,  Ophir  would  have  been  aa  iaiasd  of  the  Erythraean 
cA&er  Lahlak  inaide  Bab  el  Mandefa,  or  Diu  Zokatara  (the  Sanacrit 
Jknjfa  Sukhatara,  i.e.  the  happy  island)  by  the  present  Cape  Guardafoi 
■W  Asa  notice  is  evidently  aimply  a  conjecture  founded  upon  the  Old  Teata- 
havin^  no  faatotical  raloe. 


158  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


CHAP.  X.    THE  QUEEN  OF  SABA.     SOLOMON  S  WEALTH  AND  SPLENDOUR. 

Vers.  1-13.  Visit  of  the  Queen  of  Saba  (cf.  2  Chron.  ix. 
1-12). — When  the  fame  of  Solomon's  great  wisdom  came  to  the 
ears  of  the  queen  of  Saba,  probably  through  the  Ophir  voyages, 
she  undertook  a  journey  to  Jerusalem,  to  convince  herself  of  the 
truth  of  the  report  which  had  reached  her,  by  putting  it  to  the 
test  by  means  of  enigmas,  ^^f,  Xa^d,  is  not  Ethiopia  or 
Meroe,  as  Josephus  {Ant  viii.  6,  5),  who  confounds  ^'^'^  with 
xnp^  and  the  Abyssinian  Christians  suppose  {vid.  Ludolfi  hist, 
u^th.  ii.  3),  but  the  kingdom  of  the  Sahceans,  who  were  cele- 
brated for  their  trade  in  incense,  gold,  and  precious  stones,  and 
who  dwelt  in  Arabia  Felix,  with  the  capital  Saha,  or  the 
Mapid^a  of  the  Greeks.  This  queen,  who  is  called  Balkis  in 
the  Arabian  legend  (c£  Koran,  Sur.  27,  and  Pococke,  Specim.  hist. 
Arab.  p.  60),  heard  the  fame  of  Solomon  nin)  DB'p;  i,e.  not  "  at 
the  naming  of  the  name  of  Jehovah  "  (Bottcher),  nor  "  in  re- 
spect of  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  with  regard  to  that  which  Solomon 
had  instituted  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord  "  (Thenius) ;  nor  even 
"  serving  to  the  glorification  of  God  "  (de  Wette  and  Maurer) ; 
but  literally,  "  belonging  to  the  name  of  the  Lord ; "  in  other 
words,  the  fame  which  Solomon  had  acquired  through  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  or  through  the  fact  that  the  Lord  had  so  glorified 
Himself  in  him  (Ewald  and  Dietrich  in  Ges.  Lex.  s.v.  p).  "  She 
came  to  try  him  with  riddles,"  i.e.  to  put  his  wisdom  to  the  test 
by  carrying  on  a  conversation  with  him  in  riddles.  The  love  of 
the  Arabs  for  riddles,  and  their  superiority  in  this  je%o  d' esprit, 
is  sufficiently  well  known  from  the  immense  extent  to  which 
the  Arabic  literature  abounds  in  Mashals.  We  have  only  to 
think  of  the  large  collections  of  proverbs  made  by  Ali  ben  Abi 
Taleb  and  Meidani,  or  the  Malcamen  of  Hariri,  which  have  been 
made  accessible  to  all  by  F.  Eiickert's  masterly  translation  into 
German,  and  which  are  distinguished  by  an  amazing  fulness  of 
word-play  and  riddles.  '"iT"!!,  a  riddle,  is  a  pointed  saying  which 
merely  hints  at  the  deeper  truth  and  leaves  it  to  be  guessed. — 
Vers.  2,  3.  As  the  queen  of  a  wealthy  country,  she  came  with  a 
very  large  retinue.  <n  does  not  mean  a  military  force  or  an 
armed  escort  (Thenius),  but  riches,  property ;  namely,  her  nume- 
rous retinue  of  men  (D'''!3J^,  ver.  13),  and  camels  laden  with 
valuable  treasures.  The  words  nn;?";  .  .  .  n^pa  are  an  explana- 
tory circumstantial  clause,  both  here  and  also  in  the  Chronicles, 


CHAP.  X.  1-lS.  159 

where  the  cop.  Vav  stands  before  Q7P3  (cf.  Ewald,  §  341,  a,  b). 
"  And  spake  to  Solomon  all  that  she  had  upon  her  heart,"  i.e. 
in  this  connection,  -whatever  riddles  she  had  it  in  her  mind  to 
lay  before  him ;  "  and  Solomon  told  her  all  her  sayings,"  i.e. 
was  able  to  solve  all  her  riddles.     There  is  no  ground  for  think- 
ing of  sayings  of  a  religious  nature,  as  the  earlier  commentators 
supposed,  but  simply  of  sayings  the  meaning  of  which  was  con- 
cealed,  and   the   understanding  of  which  indicated  very  deep 
wisdom. — ^Vers.  4,  5.  She  saw  n;3n,  i.e.  Solomon's  palace,  not 
the  temple,  and  "  the  food  of  his  table,"  i.e.   both  the  great 
variety  of  food  that  was  placed  upon  the  king's  table  (ch.  v. 
2,  3),  and  also  the  costly  furniture  of  the  table  (ver.  21),  and 
"  the  seat  of  his  retainers  and  the  standing  of  his  servants,"  i.e. 
the  places  in  the  palace  assigned  to  the  ministers  and  servants 
of  the  king,  which  were  contrived  \vith  wisdom  and  arranged  in 
a   splendid  manner.      ^''I^V.  are  the  chief  officers  of  the  king, 
viz.   ministers,   counsellors,  and   aides   de   camp;    D"'n"i^^   the 
court  servants  ;  2*^nD,  the  rooms  of  the  courtiers  in  attendance  ; 
n^yp,  the  standing-place,  i.e.  the  rooms  of  the  inferior  servants, 
"  and  their  clothing,"  which  they  received  from  the  king  ;  and 
Vi5*Jp,  not  his  cup-bearers  (LXX,  Vulg.),  but  as  in  Gen.  xL  21, 
the  drink,  i.e.  probably  the  whole  of  the  drinking  arrangements; 
inpin,  and  his  ascent,  by  which  he  weis  accustomed  to  go  into 
the  house  of  Jehovah,     npj?  does  not  mean  burnt-offering  here, 
as  the  older  translators  have  rendered  it,  but  ascent,  as  in  Ezek. 
xL  26,  and  as  the  Chronicles  have  correctly  explained  it  by 
SJvhy.    For  burnt-offering  is  not  to  be  thought  of  in  this  con- 
nection, because  the  queen  had  nothing  to  see  or  to  be  astonished 
at  in  the  presentation  of  such  an  offering,     'ityi!  is  most  likely 
"  the  king's  outer  entrance "  into   the  temple,    mentioned  in 
2  Kings  xvi  18  ;  and  the  passage  before  us  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  this  was  a  work  of  art,  or  an  artistic  arrangement. 
'i:i  n'jr\  n'?^,  "  and  there  was  no  more  spirit  in  her;"  she  was  beside 
herseKwith  amazement,  as  in  Josh.  v.  1,  ii  11. — ^Vers.  6-9. 
She  then  said  with  astonishment  to  Solomon,  that  of  what  her 
eyes  now  saw  she  had  not  heard  the  half,  through  the  report 
which  had  reached  her  of  his  affairs  and  of  his  wisdom,  and 
which  had  hitherto  appeared  incredible  to  her;  and  not  only  con- 
gratulated his  servants,  who  stood  continually  near  him  and  could 
hear  his  wisdom,  but  also  praised  Jehovah  his  God,  that  out  of 
His  eternal  love  to  His  people  Israel  He  had  given  them  a  king 


160  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  do  justice  and  righteousness.  The  earlier  theologians  inferred 
from  this  praising  of  Jehovah,  which  involved  faith  in  the  true 
God,  when  taken  in  connection  with  Matt.  xii.  42,  that  this 
queen  had  been  converted  to  the  true  God,  and  conversed  with 
Solomon  on  religious  matters.  But,  as  we  have  already  observed 
at  ch.  V.  21,  an  acknowledgment  of  Jehovah  as  the  God  of 
Israel  was  reconcilable  with  polytheism.  And  the  fact  that 
nothing  is  said  about  her  offering  sacrifice  in  the  temple,  shows 
that  the  conversion  of  the  queen  is  not  to  be  thought  of  here. — 
Ver.  10.  She  thereupon  presented  to  Solomon  a  hundred  and 
twenty  talents  of  gold  (more  than  three  million  thalers  [nearly 
half  a  million  sterling — Tr.]),  and  a  very  large  quantity  of  spices 
and  precious  stones.  The  cp'^^B  probably  included  the  genuine 
balsam  of  Arabia,  even  if  D'^3  was  not  the  specific  name  of  the 
genuine  balsam.  "  There  never  more  came  so  much  of  such 
spices  to  Jerusalem."  instead  of  ^^7  "liV  .  .  .  N3  N?  we  find  in 
the  Chronicles,  ver.  9,  simply  n^n  N?,  "  there  was  nothing  like 
this  balsam,"  which  conveys  the  same  meaning  though  expressed 
more  indefinitely,  since  i^'^^'}  QK'33  points  back  to  the  preceding 
words,  "  balsam  (spices)  in  great  quantity."  ^ — ^Vers.  11,  12.  The 
allusion  to  these  costly  presents  leads  the  historian  to  introduce 
the  remark  here,  that  the  Ophir  fleet  also  brought,  in  addition 
to  gold,  a  large  quantity  of  Algummim  wood  (see  at  ch.  ix. 
28)  and  precious  stones.  Of  this  wood  Solomon  had  li'tpp  or 
nippp  made  for  the  temple  and  palace.  "^ypP,  from  '^V^,  signifies 
a  support,  and  npop  may  be  a  later  form  for  DpD,  a  flight  of 
steps  or  a  staircase,  so  that  we  should  have  to  think  of  steps 
with  bannisters.  This  explanation  is  at  any  rate  a  safer  one 
than  that  of  "  divans  "  (Thenius),  which  would  have  been  quite 
out  of  place  in  the  temple,  or  "  narrow  pannelled  stripes  on  the 
floor "  (Bertheau),  which  cannot  in  the  smallest  degree  be  de- 
duced from  'iVi?'?,  or  "  support  =  moveables,  viz.  tables,  benches, 
footstools,  boxes,  and  drawers  "  (Bottcher),  which  neither  har- 
monizes with  the  temple,  where  there  was  no  such  furniture, 
nor  with  the  rii^pp  of  the  Chronicles.  "  And  guitars  and  harps 
for  the  singers,"  probably  for  the  temple  singers.  ">i33  and 
h^z  are  string    instruments ;  the  former  xesembling  our  guitar 

1  It  was  this  which  gave  rise  to  the  legend  in  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  6,  6), 
that  it  was  through  this  queen  that  the  root  of  the  true  balsam  (Opobalsamim), 
which  was  afterwards  cultivated  in  gardens  at  Jericho  and  Engedi,  was  first 
of  all  brought  to  Falestiue  (cf.  Movers,  Phonizicr,  ii.  3,  p.  226  sqq.). 


CHAP.  X.  14-22.  161 

rather  than  the  harp,  the  strings  being  carried  over  the  sound- 
ing-board upon  a  bridge,  the  latter  being  of  a  pitcher  shape  with- 
out any  sounding  bridge,  as  in  the  case  of  the  harps. — Ver.  13. 
Solomon  gave  the  queen  of  Saba  all  that  she  wished  and  asked 
for,  beside  what  he  gave  her  "  according  to  the  hand,"  i.e.  the 
might,  of  the  king  ;  that  is  to  say,  in  addition  to  the  presents 
answering  to  his  might  and  his  wealth,  which  he  was  obliged  to 
give  as  a  king,  according  to  the  Oriental  custom.  In  the  Chro- 
nicles (ver.  1 2)  we  find  "  beside  that  which  she  had  brought 
(ns^an)  to  the  king,"  which  is  an  abbreviated  expression  for  "  be- 
side that  which  he  gave  her  in  return  for  what  she  had  brought 
to  him,"  or  beside  the  return  presents  corresponding  to  her  gifts  to 
him,  as  it  has  been  already  correctly  paraphrased  by  the  Targum. 

Vers.  14-22.  Solomon's  Wealth  and  the  Use  he  made  of 
IT  (cf  2  Chron.is.  13-21). — Ver.  14.  The  gold  which  Solomon 
received  in  one  year  amounted  to  666  talents, — more  than 
seventeen  million  thalers  (two  million  and  a  half  sterling — Tr.). 
666  is  evidently  a  round  number  founded  upon  an  approxima- 
tive valuation,  nnx  "0^3  is  rendered  in  the  Vulg.  per  annos  sin- 
gulos ;  but  this  is  hardly  correct,  as  the  Ophir  fleet,  the  produce 
of  which  is  at  any  rate  included,  did  not  arrive  every  year,  but 
once  in  three  years.  Thenius  is  wrong  in  supposing  that  this 
revenue  merely  applies  to  the  direct  taxes  levied  upon  the 
Israelites.  It  includes  aU  the  branches  of  Solomon's  revenue, 
whether  derived  from  his  commerce  by  sea  and  land  (cf  vers. 
28,  29)  or  from  the  royal  domains  (1  Chron.  xxvii.  26-31),  or 
received  in  the  form  of  presents  from  foreign  princes,  who  either 
visited  him  like  the  queen  of  Saba  or  sent  ambassadors  to  him 
(vers.  23,  24),  excepting  the  duties  and  tribute  from  conquered 
kings,  which  are  specially  mentioned  in  ver.  15.  'nn  'B'jnd  nab, 
beside  what  came  in  ('""Cgs?  X3)  from  the  travelling  traders  and 
the  commerce  of  the  merchants,  and  from  all  the  kings,  etc.  'tf'^JJ 
Dnnn  (a  combination  resembling  our  merchantmen;  cf  Ewald, 
§  287,  ?,  p.  721)  are  probably  the  tradesmen  or  smaller  dealers 
who  travelled  about  in  the  country,  and  D'^an  the  wholesale 
dealers.  This  explanation  of  D'^ri  cannot  be  rendered  doubtful 
by  the  objection  that  ivj  only  occurs  elsewhere  in  connection 
with  the  wandering  about  of  spies  ;  for  ^3T  signified  originally  to 
go  about,  spy  out,  or  retail  scandal,  and  after  that  to  trade,  and 
go  about  as  a  tradesman.     3■^^*!^  '3^  are  not  kings  of  the  auxiliary 

L 


162  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

and  allied  nations  (Chald.,  Ges.),  but  kings  of  the  mixed  popula- 
tion, and  according  to  Jer.  xxv.  24,  more  especially  of  the  popu- 
lation of  Arabia  Deserta  ("•sirsn  D'':3fe'n),  which  bordered  upon 
Palestine ;  for  3"iy  is  a  mixed  crowd  of  all  kinds  of  men,  who 
either  attach  themselves  to  a  nation  (Ex.  xii.  38),  or  live  in  the 
midst  of  it  as  foreigners  (Neh.  xiii.  3),  hence  a  number  of  mer- 
cenaries (Jer.  1.  37).  In  2  Chron.  ix.  14,  ^^?^n  is  therefore  cor- 
rectly explained  by  the  term  y]V.,  which  does  not  mean  the  whole 
of  Arabia,  but  "  only  a  tract  of  country  not  very  extensive  on  the 
east  and  south  of  Palestine "  (Gesenius),  as  these  tribes  were 
tributary  to  Solomon,  p'^v'  ^ins,  the  governors  of  the  land, 
are  probably  the  officers  named  in  ch.  iv.  7-19.  As  they  col- 
lected the  duties  in  the  form  of  natural  productions  and  delivered 
them  in  that  form,  so  also  did  the  tradesmen  and  merchants  pay 
their  duties,  and  the  subjugated  pastoral  tribes  of  Arabia  their 
tribute,  in  natura.  This  explains  in  a  very  simple  manner  why 
these  revenues  are  separated  from  the  revenue  of  Solomon  which 
came  in  the  form  of  money,  nns  is  a  foreign  word,  which  first 
found  its  way  into  the  Hebrew  language  after  the  times  of  the 
Assyrians,  and  sprang  from  the  Sanscrit  paJcsJia,  a  companion  or 
friend,  which  took  the  form  oi  pakkha  in  Prakrit,  and  probably 
of  pakha  in  the  early  Persian  {vid.  Benfey  and  Stern,  die  Monats- 
namen,  p.  195). — ^Vers.  16,  17.  Solomon  had  500  ornamental 
shields  made,  200  larger  ones  (D''3X  scuta,  targets),  and  300 
smaller  (^''^i^^  cli/pei).  These  shields,  like  all  the  shields  of  the 
ancients,  were  made  of  wood  or  basket-work,  and  covered  with 
gold  plate  instead  of  leather  (see  my  hibl.  Archaol.  ii.  pp.  296 
sqq.).  I3ina'  2nT  does  not  mean  aurum  jugulatum,  i.e.  gold  mixed 
with  metal  of  a  different  kind,  but,  as  Kimchi  has  shown,  aurum 
diductum,  beaten  gold,  from  ^^'^,  to  stretch ;  since  Solomon  would 
certainly  use  pure  gold  for  these  ornamental  shields.  "  Six  hun- 
dred shekels  of  gold  he  spread  upon  one  target,"  that  is  to  say, 
he  used  for  gilding  one  target.  Six  hundred  shekels  would 
weigh  about  1 7-|  lbs.,  so  that  the  value  of  the  gold  upon  a  target 
would  be  more  than  5000  thalers  (£750),  supposing  that  the 
Mosaic  shekel  is  meant.  But  this  is  rendered  doubtful  by  the 
fact  that  the  gold  upon  the  small  shields  is  estimated  at  three 
minae.  If,  for  example,  the  three  minse  are  equal  to  three 
hundred  shekels,  according  to  2  Chron.  ix.  16,  as  is  generally 
assumed,  a  hundred  shekel  p,  are  reckoned  as  one  mina ;  and  as 
the  mina  only  contained  fifty  Mosaic  shekels,  according  to  Ezek. 


CHAP.  X.  14 -23.  163 

xlv.  12,  the  reference  mnst  be  to  shekels  after  the  king's  weight 
(2  Sam.  xiv.  26),  "which  were  only  half  the  sacred  shekel  (see 
my  hibl.  Archaol.  iL  p.  1 3  5).  Consequently  the  gold  plate  upon 
one  target  was  not  quite  9  lbs.,  and  that  upon  a  shield  not 
quite  4^  lbs.  These  shields  were  intended  for  the  body-guard 
to  can}'  on  state  occasions  (ch  xiv.  27,  28 ;  2  Chron.  xiL  10), 
and  were  kept  in  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  (ch.  vii  2). 
— Vers.  18-20.  Solomon  had  a  great  throne  of  ivory  made,  and 
had  it  overlaid  with  fine  gold.  ??^^?3  is  not  a  throne  made  of 
ivory,  but  one  merely  ornamented  with  ivory ;  and  we  are  to 
imagine  the  gUding  as  effected  by  laying  the  gold  simply  upon 
the  wood,  and  inserting  the  ivory  within  the  gold  plate.  TSiD^  a 
hophal  participle  of  tT9:  aurum  depuratum,  hence  =  "^^'lO  in  2 
Chron.  ix.  1 7.  The  throne  had  six  steps,  and  a  "  rounded  head 
on  the  hinder  part  thereof,"  i.e.  a  back  which  was  arched  above 
or  rounded  off,^  and  n'T,  arms,  i.e.  arms  on  both  sides  of  the 
seat  (nsS'n  Dipo),  and  two  Kons  standing  by  the  side  of  the  arms. 
Beside  this  there  were  twelve  lions  upon  the  six  steps,  namely 
two  upon  each  step,  one  on  this  side  and  one  on  that.  Instead 
of  C^^i*  (ver.  20)  we  find  nvnx  in  ver.  19,  just  as  we  do  in  both 
verses  of  the  Chronicles,  not  because  the  reference  is  to  artificial, 
inanimate  figures  and  not  to  natural  lions,  as  Thenius  supposes, 
but  because  the  plural  ending  D't  is  an  unusual  one  "with  this 
word ;  and  even  where  natural  lions  are  spoken  of,  we  always 
find  ni'"Ti<  in  other  passages  (cf  Judg.  xiv.  5 ;  2  Sam.  123; 
2  Kings  xviL  25  ;  Song  of  SoL  iv.  8,  etc.).  The  lions  were 
symbols  of  the  ruler's  authority ;  and  the  twelve  lions  upon  the 
steps  may  possibly  have  pointed  to  the  rule  over  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel,  which  was  concentrated  in  the  throne;  not 
"  watchers  of  the  throne,"  as  Thenius  thinks.  This  throne  was 
so  splendid  a  work,  that  the  historian  observes  that  nothing  of 
the  kind  had  ever  been  made  for  any  other  kingdom.  Upon  the 
^  Instead  of  innso  nD3^  ^iV  ^till  we  have  in  the  Chronicles  ^23\ 
D*TnsO  ND3^  ann,  "  and  a  footstool  in  gold  fastened  to  the  throne "  (the 
plural  D'THXO  refers  to  the  footstool  and  the  steps).  Now,  however  easily 
D^rnXD  may  have  been  written  by  mistake  for  ^nnSD,  ITW  U22  cannot  have 
grown  out  of  ^y  c'si  by  any  such  mistake.  The  quid-pro-quo  of  the  LXX. 
for  Tijy  C'xn,  -rpoTOfixi  ft6<fx''»,  in  which  pijy  is  certainly  confounded  with 
?jy,  does  not  warrant  the  conjecture  of  Thenius,  that  the  Chronicler  found 
biV  in  his  original  and  substituted  i?22  Qamb),  whereupon  '^ys  Qaxoh)  was 
changed  by  another  hand  into  :^n3,  footstep,  and  i^jo  was  dropped  altogether. 


164  THE  FinST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

early  Assyrian  monuments  we  do  indeed  find  high  seats  depicted, 
which  are  very  artistically  worked,  and  provided  with  backs  and 
arms,  and  some  with  the  arms  supported  by  figures  of  animals 
(see  Layard's  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  301),  but  none 
resembling  Solomon's  throne.     It  is  not  till  a  later  age  that  the 
more  splendid  thrones  appear  {vid.  Eosenmtiller,  A.  u.  N.  Morgcn- 
land,  iii,  pp.  176  sqq.). — Vers.  21,  22.   The  drinking  vessels  of 
Solomon  also  were  all  of  gold,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  house 
of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  of  costly  gold  p^^D :  see  at  ch.  vi.  20). 
Silver  was  counted  as  nothing,  because  the  Tarshish  fleet  arrived 
once  in  three  years,  bringing  gold,  silver,  etc.  (see  at  ch.  ix.  2  8). 
In  vers.  23-29  everything  that  had  to  be  stated  concerning 
the  wealth,  wisdom,  and  revenue  of  Solomon  is  summed  up  as 
a  conclusion   (cf.   2   Chron.   ix.  22-28  and  i.  14-17). — Vers. 
23  and  24  point  back  to  ch.  v.   9-14.     -'t^!!:  Solomon  became 
greater,  not  was  greater,  on  account  of  the  Vdv  consec.     pxn'?3, 
all  the  world,  corresponds  to  D''i3yn"?3  in  ch.  v.  14.     The  foreign- 
ers out  of  all  lands,  who  came  on  account  of  his  wisdom,  brought 
Solomon  presents :  gold  and  silver  vessels,  clothes  (niO/'tp,  court 
dresses,  which  are  still  customary  presents  in  the  East),  PK'?., 
armour,  spices,  horses  and  mules. — Ver.  26  is  simply  a  repeti- 
tion of  ch.  V.  6  (compare  also  ch.  ix.  19) ;  and  ver.  27  is  merely 
a  further  extension  of  ver.  21.     The  words  of  ver.  27,  "  Solo- 
mon made  silver  like  stones  in  Jerusalem,  and  cedars  like  the 
sycamores  in  the  lowland  for  abundance,"  are  a  hyperbolical 
description  of  his  collection  of  enormous  quantities  of  precious 
metals  and  costly  wood.      Q'''??^,  sycomori,  mulberry  fig-trees,  are 
very  rare  in  Palestine  in  its  present  desolate  state  (see  Eob.  Pal. 
iii.  27),  and  are  only  met  in  any  abundance  in  Egypt;  but  in 
ancient  times  they  abounded  in  the  lowlands  of  Palestine  to 
such  an  extent,  that  they  were  used  as  common  building  wood 
(vid.  Isa.  ix.  9,  on  which  Theodoret  observes,  rointav  {a-vKafiLvcov) 
7}  IlaXaia-TLvr]  ireifkripwrat).     According  to  1  Chron.  xxvii.  28, 
the   sycamore  forests  in  the  lowland  of  Judah  were  royal  do- 
mains.— Vers.  28,  29  (cf.  2  Chron.  i.  16,  17).     "And  (as  for) 
the  going  out  of  horses  from  Egypt  for  Solomon,  a  company  of 
king's  merchants  fetched  (horses)  for  a  definite  price."     This  is 
the  only  possible   explanation   of  the  verse   according  to  the 
Masoretic  punctuation  ;  but  to  obtain  it,  the  first  nii5D  must  be 
connected  with  ^"?nb  in  opposition  to  the  accents,  and  the  second 
must  be  pointed  nipp.     This  is  the  rendering  adopted  by  Ge- 


CHAP.  X.  23-29.  165 

senilis  in  his  Thesaurus  and  Lexicon  (ed.  Dietr.  s.  v.  >^j?P).  The 
meaning  company  or  troop  may  certainly  be  justified  from  Gen. 
L  10,  Ex.  vii  19,  and  Lev.  xi.  36,  where  the  word  signifies  an 
accumulation  of  water.  Still  there  is  something  very  strange 
not  only  in  the  application  of  the  word  both  to  a  company  of 
traders  and  also  to  a  troop  of  horses,  but  also  in  the  omission  of 
n"'p^D  (horses)  after  the  second  nipo.  Hence  the  rendering  of 
the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  deserves  attention,  and  may  possibly  be 
the  one  to  be  preferred  (as  ^lichaelis,  Bertheau  on  Chron.,  and 
Movers  assume).  The  translators  of  these  versions  have  taken 
mpo  as  the  name  of  a  place,  i^  'EKove,  or  rather  e/c  Kove,  dc  Coa} 
According  to  this,  the  rendering  would  be  :  "  And  as  for  the 
going  out  of  horses  from  Eg}'pt  and  Koa  (or  Kawe)  for  Solomon, 
the  king's  traders  fetched  them  from  Koa  (Kawe)  for  a  fixed 
price."  It  is  true  that  the  situation  of  Koa  cannot  be  more 
precisely  defined ;  but  there  seems  to  be  very  little  doubt  that 
it  was  a  place  for  the  collection  of  customs  upon  the  frontier  of 
Egypt. — Ver.  29.  "  And  there  came  up  and  went  out  a  chariot 
from  Egypt  for  six  hundred  shekels  of  silver,  and  a  horse  for  a 
hundred  and  fifty  shekels ;  and  so  (in  the  same  manner  as  for 
Solomon)  they  led  them  out  for  all  the  kings  of  the  Hittites 
and  the  kings  of  Aram  through  their  hand."  ^33"]0,  like  M?-  i^ 
2  Sam.  viii.  4,  x.  18,  and  Ezek.  xxxix.  20,  denotes  a  chariot 
with  the  team  of  horses  belonging  to  it,  possibly  three  horses 
(see  at  ch.  v.  6),  not  quadriga  (Clericus  and  others),  or  two 
draught  horses  and  two  as  a  reserve  (Thenius).  Eor  the  infer- 
ence, that  if  a  horse  cost  150  shekels,  a  team  of  four  would  be 
obtained  for  600,  is  not  quite  a  certain  one,  since  the  chariot 
itself  would  certainly  not  be  given  in.  A  hundred  and  fifty 
shekels  are  a  little  more  than  130  thalers  (£19,  10s. — Tr.),  and 
600  would  be  525  thalers  (£78,  15s.).  These  amounts  are 
sufficient  to  show  how  untenable  the  opinion  of  Movers  is,  that 
the  sums  mentioned  are  not  the  prices  paid  for  horses  and 
chariots,  but  the  payment  made  for  their  exit,  or  the  customs 
duty.  And  his  other  opinion  is  equally  erroneous,  namely  that 
the  chariots  and  horses  were  state  carriages  and  horses  of  luxviiy 
intended  for  the  king. — The  merchants  are  called  the  king's 

1  That  Kovi  or  Kas  is  the  earliest  reading  of  the  LXX.,  and  not  the  i* 
QiKovi  of  the  Cod.  Yat.  and  Alex.,  is  very  evident  from  the  statement  which 
we  find  in  the  Onomai^t.  of  Eusebius  (ed.  Larsow  et  Partk.  p.  260),  K<i3,  vMaU* 
Aiyv-rrov ;  for  which  Jerome  has  Coa,  qux  estjuxta  ^Egyptum,  after  the  Vulgate. 


166  THE  FIRST.  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

traders,  not  because  a  portion  of  their  profits  went  into  the  royal 
treasury  as  the  tax  upon  trade  (Bertheau),  nor  as  the  brokers 
who  bought  for  the  king  (Thenius),  but  because  they  carried  on 
their  trade  for  the  king's  account,  ^y^^  cannot  be  adduced  as 
evidence  to  the  contrary  ;  for  linguists  require  no  proof  that  this 
cannot  mean  "  auf  ihre  Hand,"  as  Thenius  assumes.  Bottcher's 
explanation  is  the  right  one,  namely,  "  through  their  hand,"  in- 
■  asmuch  as  they  brought  the  horses  and  chariots  themselves  even 
to  those  kings  who  lived  at  a  greater  distance,  without  employing 
intermediate  agents.  The  kings  of  the  ^''^Jin,  the  Hittites  in  the 
wider  sense  ( =  Canaanites,  as  in  Josh.  i.  4,  2  Kings  vii  6,  Ezek. 
xvi.  3),  and  of  Aram,  were  in  part  Solomon's  vassals,  since  his 
rule  extended  over  all  the  Canaanites  with  the  exception  of  the 
Phcenicians,  and  over  several  kingdoms  of  Aram. 


CHAP.  XI.  SOLOMON  S  POLYGAMY  AND  IDOLATRY.   HIS  OPPONENTS, 
AND  HIS  DEATH. 

The  idolatry  into  which  Solomon  fell  in  his  old  age  appears 
so  strange  in  a  king  so  wise  and  God-fearing  as  Solomon  showed 
himself  to  be  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  that  many  have 
been  quite  unable  to  reconcile  the  two,  and  have  endeavoured 
to  show  either  that  Solomon's  worship  of  idols  was  psycholo- 
gically impossible,  or  that  the  knowledge  of  God  and  the  piety 
attributed  to  him  are  unhistoricaL  But  great  wisdom  and  a 
refined  knowledge  of  God  are  not  a  defence  against  the  foUy  of 
idolatry,  since  this  has  its  roots  in  the  heart,  and  springs  from 
sensual  desires  and  the  lust  of  the  flesh.  The  cause  assigned 
in  the  biblical  account  for  Solomon's  falling  away  from  the 
Lord,  is  that  he  loved  many  strange,  i.e.  foreign  or  heathen, 
wives,  who  turned  his  heart  from  Jehovah  to  their  own  gods  in 
his  old  age.  Consequently  the  falling  away  did  not  take  place 
Suddenly,  but  gradually,  as  Solomon  got  old,  and  was  not  a 
complete  renunciation  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  to  whom  he 
offered  solemn  sacrifices  three  times  a  year,  and  that  certainly 
to  the  day  of  his  death  (ch.  ix.  2  5),  but  consisted  simply  in  the 
fact  that  his  heart  was  no  longer  thoroughly  devoted  to  the 
Lord  (ch.  xi.  4),  and  that  he  inclined  towards  the  idols  of  his 
foreign  wives  and  built  them  altars  (vers.  5-8) ;  that  is  to  say, 
it  consisted  merely  in  a  syncretic  mixture  of  Jehovah-worship 
and  idolatry,  by  which  the  worship  which  should  be  paid  solely 


CHAP.  XI.  167 

and  exclusively  to  the  true  Grod  was  not  only  injured,  but  was 
even  turned  into  idolatry  itseK,  Jehovah  the  only  true  God 
being  placed  on  a  level  with  the  worthless  gods  of  the  heathen. 
— ^Love  to  foreign  wives  no  doubt  presupposed  an  inclination  to 
foreign  customs  ;  it  was  not,  however,  idolatry  in  itself,  but  was 
stUl  reconcilable  with  that  sincere  worship  of  Jehovah  which 
is  attributed  to  Solomon  in  the  earlier  years  of  his  reign.  At 
the  same  time  it  was  a  rock  on  which  living  faith  and  true 
adherence  to  the  Lord  might  at  last  suffer  shipwreck  And  we 
may  even  infer  from  the  repeated  warnings  of  God  (ch.  iii.  14, 
vi  12,  ix.  4),  that  from  the  earliest  years  of  his  reign  Solomon 
was  in  danger  of  falling  into  idolatry.  This  danger  did,  indeed, 
spring  in  his  case  from  his  inclination  to  foreign  customs  ;  but 
this  inclination  was  again  influenced  by  many  of  the  circum- 
stances of  his  reign,  which  we  must  regard  as  contributing  more 
remotely  to  his  eventual  fall  And  among  the  first  of  these  we 
must  place  the  splendour  and  glory  of  his  reign.  Through  long 
and  severe  conflicts  David  had  succeeded  in  conquering  all  the 
enemies  of  Israel,  and  had  not  only  helped  his  people  to  peace 
and  prosperity,  but  had  also  raised  the  kingdom  to  great  power 
and  glory.  And  Solomon  inherited  these  fruits  of  his  father's 
reign.  Under  the  blessings  of  peace  he  was  not  only  able  to 
carry  out  the  work  of  building  a  splendid  temple,  which  his 
father  had  urged  upon  him,  but  was  also  able,  by  a  \vise  use  of 
the  sources  already  existing  and  by  opening  new  ones,  still 
further  to  increase  the  treasures  which  he  had  collected,  and 
thereby  to  exalt  the  splendour  of  his  kingdom.  The  treaty 
with  Hiram  of  Tyre,  which  enabled  him  to  execute  the  intended 
state  buildings  in  Jerusalem,  was  followed  by  alliances  for  the 
establishment  of  a  widespread  commerce  both  by  sea  and  land, 
through  which  ever  increasing  treasures  of  gold  and  silver,  and 
other  costly  goods,  were  brought  to  the  king.  As  this  accumu- 
lation of  riches  helped  to  nourish  his  inclination  to  a  love  of 
show,  and  created  a  kind  of  luxury  which  was  hardly  reconcil- 
able with  the  simplicity  of  manners  and  the  piety  of  a  servant 
of  God,  so  the  foreign  trade  led  to  a  toleration  of  heathen 
customs  and  religious  views  which  could  not  fail  to  detract 
from  the  reverence  paid  to  Jehovah,  however  little  the  trade 
with  foreigners  might  be  in  itseK  at  variance  ^vith  the  nature 
of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God.  And  again,  even  the 
great  wisdom  of  king  Solomon  might  also  become  a  rock  en- 


168  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

dangering  his  life  of  faith,  not  so  much  in  the  manner  suggested 
by  J.  J,  Hess  (Gesch.  Dav.  u.  Sal.  ii.  p.  413),  namely,  that  an 
excessive  thirst  for  inquiry  might  easUy  seduce  him  from  the 
open  and  clearer  regions  of  the  kingdom  of  truth  into  the  darker 
ones  of  the  kingdom  of  lies,  i.e.  of  magic,  and  so  lead  him  to 
the  paths  of  superstition  ;  as  because  the  widespread  fame  of 
his  wisdom  brought  distinguished  *and  wise  men  from  distant 
lands  to  Jerusalem  and  into  alliance  with  the  king,  and  their 
homage  flattered  the  vanity  of  the  human  heart,  and  led  to  a 
greater  and  greater  toleration  of  heathen  ways.  But  these 
things  are  none  of  them  blamed  in  the  Scriptures,  because  they 
did  not  of  necessity  lead  to  idolatry,  but  might  simply  give  an 
indirect  impulse  to  it,  by  lessening  the  wall  of  partition  between 
the  worship  of  the  true  God  and  that  of  heathen  deities,  and 
making  apostasy  a  possible  thing.  The  Lord  Himself  had  pro- 
mised and  had  given  Solomon  wisdom,  riches,  and  glory  above 
all  other  kings  for  the  glorification  of  his  kingdom ;  and  these 
gifts  of  God  merely  contributed  to  estrange  his  heart  from  the 
true  God  for  the  simple  reason,  that  Solomon  forgot  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord  and  suffered  himseK  to  be  besotted  by  the 
lusts  of  the  flesh,  not  only  so  as  to  love  many  foreign  wives,  but 
so  as  also  to  take  to  himself  wives  from  the  nations  with  which 
Israel  was  not  to  enter  into  any  close  relationship  whatever. 

Vers.  1-13.  Solomon's  Love  of  many  Wives  and  Idolatry. 
— Vers.  1,  2.  "  Solomon  loved  many  foreign  wives,  and  that 
along  with  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh."  'a  ^?"^*J^  standing  as  it 
does  between  'i  ri^*"!^^  ^T^  and  rii»3siD,  cannot  mean  "  and  espe- 
cially the  daughter  of  P.,"  as  Thenius  follows  the  earlier  com- 
mentators in  supposing,  but  must  mean,  as  in  ver.  25,  "and 
that  with,  or  along  with,"  i.e.  actually  beside  the  daughter  of 
Pharaoh.  She  is  thereby  distinguished  from  the  foreign  wives 
who  turned  away  Solomon's  heart  from  the  Lord,  so  that  the 
blame  pronounced  upon  those  marriages  does  not  apply  to  his 
marriage  to  the  Egyptian  princess  (see  at  ch.  iii.  1).  All  that 
is  blamed  is  that,  in  opposition  to  the  command  in  Deut.  xvii. 
17,  Solomon  loved  (1)  many  foreign  wives,  and  (2)  Moabitish, 
Ammonitish,  and  other  wives,  of  the  nations  with  whom  the 
Israelites  were  not  to  intermarry.  All  that  the  law  expressly 
prohibited  was  marriage  with  Canaanitish  women  (Deut.  vii.  1-3 ; 
Ex.  xxxiv.  1 6) ;  consequently  the  words  "  of  the  nations,"  etc.,  are 


CHAP.  XL  1-13.  1G9 

not  to  be  taken  as  referring  merely  to  the  Sidonian  and  Hittite 
women  (J.  D.  Mich.) ;  but  this  prohibition  is  extended  here  to 
all  the  tribes  enumerated  in  ver.  2,  just  as  in  Ezra  lx.  2  sqq., 
X.  3,  Neh.  xiii.  23  ;  not  from  a  rigour  surpassing  the  law,  but 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  law,  namely,  because  the 
reason  appended  to  the  law,  nc  in  idololatriam  a  superstiticsis 
mulieribiLS  pellicerentur  (Clericus),  applied  to  all  these  nations. 
The  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  moreover,  were  not  to  be  received 
into  the  congregation  at  all,  not  even  to  the  tenth  generation, 
and  of  the  Edomites  only  the  children  in  the  third  generation 
were  to  be  received  (Deut.  xxiii.  4,  8,  9).  There  was  all  the 
less  reason,  therefore,  for  permitting  marriages  with  them,  that  is 
to  say,  so  long  as  they  retained  their  nationality  or  their  heathen 
ways.  The  words  222  .  ,  .  ^N2n'N7  are  connected  in  form  with 
Josh,  xxiii.  12,  but,  like  the  latter,  they  really  rest  upon 
Ex.  xxxiv.  16  and  Deut.  vii  1—3.  In  the  last  clause  D^a  is 
used  with  peculiar  emphasis :  Solomon  clave  to  these  nations, 
of  which  God  had  said  such  things,  to  love,  i.e.  to  enter  into 
the  relation  of  love  or  into  the  marriage  relation,  ^"ith  them. 
pS'J  is  used  of  the  attachment  of  a  man  to  his  wife  (Gen. 
ii.  4)  and  also  to  Jehovah  (Deut.  iv.  4,  x.  20,  etc.). — Vers. 
3-8  carry  out  still  further  what  has  been  already  stated.  In 
ver.  3  the  taking  of  Tnani/  wives  is  first  explained.  He 
had  seven  himdred  HhK'  D'B'3,  women  of  the  first  rank,  who 
were  exalted  into  princesses,  and  three  hundred  concubines. 
These  are  in  any  case  round  numbers,  that  is  to  say,  numbers 
which  simply  approximate  to  the  reality,  and  are  not  to  be 
understood  as  affirming  that  Solomon  had  all  these  wives  and 
concubines  at  the  same  time,  but  as  including  all  the  women 
who  were  received  into  his  harem  during  the  whole  of  his  reign, 
whereas  the  sixty  queens  and  eighty  concubines  mentioned  in 
Song  of  Sol.  vi.  8  are  to  be  imderstood  as  ha%ing  been  present 
in  the  court  at  one  time.  Even  in  this  respect  Solomon  sought 
to  equal  the  rulers  of  other  nations,  if  not  to  surpass  them.^ — 
These  women  "  inclined  his  heart,"  i.e.  determined  the  inclina- 

*  Nevertheless  these  numbers,  especially  that  of  the  -wives  who  were  raised 
to  the  rank  of  princesses,  appear  sufficiently  large  to  suggest  the  possibility 
of  an  error  in  the  numeral  letters,  although  Oriental  rulers  carried  this  custom 
to  a  very  great  length,  as  for  example  Darius  Codomannus,  of  whom  it  is  re- 
lated that  he  took  with  him  360  pellices  on  his  expedition  against  Alexander 
(see  Curtius,  iii.  3,  2-t ;  Athen.  Deipnos.  iii.  1). 


170  THE  FIHST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

tion  of  liis  heart-  Ver.  4.  In  the  time  of  old  age,  when  the 
flesh  gained  the  supremacy  over  the  spirit,  they  turned  his 
heart  to  other  gods,  so  that  it  was  no  longer  wholly  with 
Jehovah,  his  God.  D?^,  integer,  i.e.  entirely  devoted  to  the 
Lord  (cf.  ch.  viii.  61),  like  the  heart  of  David  his  father,  who 
had  indeed  grievously  sinned,  but  had  not  fallen  into  idolatry. 
— Vers.  5-8.  He  walked  after  the  Ashtaroth,  etc.  According 
to  ver.  7,  the  idolatry  here  condemned  consisted  in  the  fact 
that  he  built  altars  to  the  deities  of  all  his  foreign  wives,  upon 
which  they  offered  incense  and  sacrifice  to  their  idols.  It  is 
not  stated  that  he  himself  also  offered  sacrifice  to  these  idols. 
But  even  the  building  of  altars  for  idols  was  a  participation 
in  idolatry  which  was  irreconcilable  with  true  fidelity  to  the 
Lord.  nnriB'y^  Astarte,  was  the  chief  female  deity  of  all  the 
Canaanitisli  tribes ;  her  worship  was  also  transplanted  from 
Tyre  to  Carthage,  where  it  flourished  greatly.  She  was  a  moon- 
goddess,  whom  the  Greeks  and  Eomans  called  sometimes  Aphro- 
dite, sometimes  Urania,  ^eXrjvatT},  Gcelestis,  and  Juno  (see  the 
Comm.  on  Judg.  ii.  13).  Ci^pp^  which  is  called  ^PO  (without 
the  article)  in  ver.  7,  and  D3?»  in  Jer.  xlix.  1,  3,  and  Amos  i 
1 5,  the  abomination  of  the  Ammonites,  must  not  be  confounded 
with  the  Molech  (^p^i?,  always  with  the  article)  of  the  early 
Canaanites,  to  whom  children  were  offered  in  sacrifice  in  the 
valley  of  Benhinnom  from  the  time  of  Ahaz  onwards  (see  the 
Comm.  on  Lev.  xviii.  21),  since  they  had  both  of  them  their 
separate  places  of  worship  in  Jerusalem  (cf.  2  Kings  xxiii. 
10  and  13),  and  nothing  is  ever  said  about  the  offering  of 
children  in  sacrifice  to  MUcoin ;  although  the  want  of  informa- 
tion prevents  us  from  determining  the  precise  distinction  be- 
tween the  two.  Milcom  was  at  any  rate  related  to  the  Chemosh 
of  the  Moabites  mentioned  in  ver.  7 ;  for  Chemosh  is  also  de- 
scribed as  a  god  of  the  Ammonites  in  Judg.  xL  24,  whereas 
everywhere  else  he  is  called  the  god  of  the  Moabites  (Num.  xxi 
29  ;  Amos  i  15,  etc.).  Chemosh  was  a  sun-god,  who  was  wor- 
shipped as  king  of  his  people  and  as  a  god  of  war,  and  as  such 
is  depicted  upon  coins  with  a  sword,  lance,  and  shield  in  his 
hands,  and  with  two  torches  by  his  side  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  29). 
The  enumeration  of  the  different  idols  is  incomplete  ;  Chemosh 
being  omitted  in  ver.  5,  and  Astarte,  to  whom  Solomon  also 
built  an  altar  in  Jerusalem,  according  to  2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  in 
ver.  7.     Still  this  incompleteness  does  not  warrant  our  filling 


CHAP.  XI.  1-13L  171 

up  the  supposed  gaps  by  emendations  of  the  text  '13^  Jf^J}  K'Pl, 
as  in  Judg.  ii  11,  iii.  7,  etc.  '^^  "^H^  s<.'?'0,  a  pregnant  expres- 
sion for  "'''ns  n2^^  Nkp,  as  in  Num.  xiv.  24,  xxxii.  11,  12,  etc. 
— These  places  of  sacrifice  ("^^3,  see  at  ch.  iii  2)  Solomon  built 
upon  the  mountain  in  front,  i.e.  to  the  east,  of  Jerusalem,  and, 
according  to  the  more  precise  account  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  to 
the  right,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  southern  side,  of  the  Mount  of 
Corruption, — in  other  words,  upon  the  southern  peak  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives ;  and  consequently  this  peak  has  been  called 
in  church  tradition  from  the  time  of  Brocardus  onwards,  either 
AToTis  Offejisionis,  after  the  Yulgate  rendering  of  irn-^n  in  in 
2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  or  Mons  Scandedi,  Mount  of  Offence  (rid. 
Eob.  Pal.  I  565  and  566).— Ver.  8.  «  So  did  he  for  aU  his 
foreign  wives,"  viz.  buUt  altars  for  their  gods ;  for  instance,  in 
addition  to  those  already  named,  he  also  built  an  altar  for 
Astarte.  These  three  altars,  which  are  only  mentioned  in  the 
complete  account  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  were  sufficient  for  all 
the  deities  of  the  foreign  wives.  For  the  Hittites  and  Edomites 
do  not  appear  to  have  had  any  deities  of  their  own  that  were 
peculiar  to  themselves.  The  Hittites  no  doubt  worshipped 
Astarte  in  common  with  the  Sidonians,  and  the  Edomites  pro- 
bably worshipped  l^lilcom.  In  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
the  only  place  in  which  gods  of  the  Edomites  are  mentioned  is 
2  Chron.  xxv.  2  0,  and  there  no  names  are  given.  Of  course  we 
must  except  Pheiraoh's  daughter,  according  to  ver.  1,  and  the 
remarks  already  made  in  connection  with  that  verse ;  for  she 
brought  no  idolatrous  worship  to  Jerusalem,  and  consequently 
even  in  later  times  we  do  not  find  the  slightest  trace  of  Egyptian 
idolatry  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah.^  Burning  incense  (J^i"^'?!??)  is 
mentioned  before  sacrificing  (ninarp),  because  vegetable  offerings 
took  precedence  of  animal  sacrifices  in  the  nature-worship  of 
Hither  Asia  {vid.  Bahr,  Symbolik,  ii  pp.  237  sqq.). — ^Vers.  9  sqq. 
Through  this  apostasy  from  the  Lord  his  God,  who  had  appeared 

*  From  the  fact  that  these  places  of  sacrifice  still  existed  even  in  the  time  of 
Josiah,  notwithstanding  the  reforms  of  Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Joash,  and  Heze- 
kiah,  which  rooted  out  all  public  idolatry,  at  least  in  Jerusalem,  Movers  infers 
{Phoniz.  ii.  3,  p.  207),  and  that  not  without  reason,  that  there  was  an  essential 
difference  between  these  sacred  places  and  the  other  seats  of  Israelitish 
idolatry  which  were  exterminated,  namely,  that  in  their  national  character 
they  were  also  the  places  of  worship  for  the  foreigners  settled  in  and  near 
Jerusalem,  e.g.  the  Sidonian,  Ammonitish,  and  Moabitish  merchants,  which 
were  under  the  protection  of  treaties,  since  this  is  the  only  ground  on  which 


1V2  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  him  twice  (ch.  iii.  5  sqq.  and  ix.  2  sqq.)  and  had  warned 
him  against  idolatry  (n«fi  is  a  continuation  of  the  participle 
^?1?'^)>  Solomon  drew  down  upon  himself  the  auger  of  Jehovah. 
The  emphasis  lies  upon  the  fact  that  God  had  appeared  to  him 
Himself  for  the  purpose  of  warning  him,  and  had  not  merely 
caused  him  to  be  warned  by  prophets,  as  Theodoret  has  ex- 
plained. In  consequence  of  this,  the  following  announcement  is 
made  to  him,  no  doubt  through  the  medium  of  a  prophet,  pos- 
sibly Ahijah  (ver.  29) :  "  Because  this  has  come  into  thy  mind, 
and  thou  hast  not  kept  my  covenant,  ...  I  will  tear  the  kingdom 
from  thee  and  give  it  to  thy  servant ;  nevertheless  I  will  not  do 
it  in  thy  lifetime  for  thy  father  David's  sake  :  liowbeit  I  will  not 
tear  away  the  whole  kingdom ;  one  tribe  I  will  give  to  thy  son." 
In  this  double  limitation  of  the  threatened  forfeiture  of  the  kins- 
dom  there  is  clearly  manifested  the  goodness  of  God  (SeUvvat 
Tr]v  d/jLerpov  dyaOorrjTa — Theodoret) ;  not,  however,  with  reference 
to  Solomon,  who  had  forfeited  the  divine  mercy  tlirough  his 
idolatry,  but  with  regard  to  David  and  the  selection  of  Jerusalem: 
that  is  to  say,  not  from  any  special  preference  for  David  and  Jeru- 
salem, but  in  order  that  the  promise  made  to  David  (2  Sam.  vii.), 
and  the  choice  of  Jerusalem  as  the  place  where  His  name  should 
be  revealed  which  was  connected  with  that  promise,  might  stand 
immoveably  as  an  act  of  grace,  which  no  sin  of  men  could  over- 
turn {vid.  ver.  36).    For  in^  133K'  see  the  Conim.  on  vers.  31,  32. 

Vers.  14-40.  Solomon's  Opponents. — Although  the  punish- 
ment with  which  Solomon  was  threatened  for  his  apostasy  was 
not  to  be  inflicted  till  after  his  death,  the  Lord  raised  up 
several  adversaries  even  during  his  lifetime,  who  endangered 
the  peace  of  his  kingdom,  and  were  to  serve  as  constant  re- 
minders that  he  owed  his  throne  and  his  peaceable  rule  over 
the  whole  of  the  kingdom  inherited  from  his  father  solely  to 
the  mercy,  the  fidelity,  and  the  long-suffering  of  God. — The 
rising  up  of  Hadad  and  Eezon  took  place  even  before  the  com- 

we  can  satisfactorily  explain  their  undisturbed  continuance  at  Jerusalem. 
But  tliis  would  not  preclude  their  having  been  built  by  Solomon  for  the  wor- 
ship of  his  foreign  wives  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  much  easier  to  explain  their 
lieing  built  in  the  front  of  Jerusalem,  and  opposite  to  the  temple  of  Jehovah, 
if  from  the  very  first  regard  was  had  to  the  foreigners  who  visited  Jerusalem. 
The  objection  offered  by  Thenius  to  this  view,  which  Bertheau  had  already 
adopted  (zur  Gesch.  der  Isr.  p.  323),  has  been  shown  by  Biittcher  (N.  exeg. 
jEhrenl.  ii.  p.  95)  to  be  utterly  untenable.  ' 


CHAP.  XI.  14-22.  173 

mencement  of  Solomon's  idolatry,  but  it  is  brought  by  'Tin*  Dgn 
(ver.  14)  into  logical  connection  with  the  punishment  with 
which  he  is  threatened  in  consequence  of  that  idolatry,  because 
it  was  not  tUl  a  later  period  that  it  produced  any  perceptible 
effect  upon  his  government,  yet  it  ought  from  the  very  first  to 
have  preserv^ed  him  from  self-security. 

Vers.  14-22.  The  first  adversary  was  Hadad  the  Edomite, 
a  man  of  royal  birth.  The  name  Tin  (TiX  in  ver.  17,  accord- 
ing to  an  interchange  of  n  and  N  which  is  by  no  means  rare) 
was  also  borne  by  a  prse-Mosaic  king  of  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi  35), 
from  which  we  may  see  that  it  was  not  an  uncommon  name  in 
the  royal  family  of  the  Edomites.  But  the  conjecture  of  Ewald 
and  Thenius,  that  our  Hadad  was  a  grandson  of  Hadar,  the  last 
of  the  kings  mentioned  there,  is  quite  a  groundless  one,  since  it 
rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  Hadar  (called  Hadad  in 
the  Chronicles  by  mistake)  reigned  in  the  time  of  David  (see 
the  Comm.  on  Gen.  xxxvi.  3 1  sqq.).  Nin  before  Q^'Ji^S  stands  in 
the  place  of  the  relative  ""'^/X:  "  of  royal  seed  he  =  who  was  of  the 
royal  seed  in  Edom"  (cf.  Ewald,  §  332,  a). — ^Vers.  15  sqq.  When 
David  had  to  do  with  the  Edomites,  .  .  .  Hadad  fled,    nx  n\n  is 

'  ..  T  T 

analogous  to  DV  ^'n^  to  have  to  do  with  any  one,  though  in  a 
hostUe  sense,  as  in  the  phrase  to  go  to  war  with  (nx)  a  person, 
whereas  DV  Tvri  generally  means  to  be  upon  the  side  of  any  one. 
The  correctness  of  the  reading  nvna  is  confirmed  by  all  the 
ancient  versions,  which  have  simply  paraphrased  the  meaning 
in  different  ways.  For  Bottoher  has  already  shown  that  the 
LXX.  did  not  read  niana,  as  Thenius  supposes.  The  words 
from  nibya  to  the  end  of  ver.  16  form  explanatory  circum- 
stantial clauses.  On  the  circumstance  itself,  compare  2  Sam. 
viii.  13,  14,  with  the  explanation  given  there.  "The  slain," 
whom  Joab  went  to  bury,  were  probably  not  the  Israelites  who 
had  fallen  in  the  battle  in  the  Salt  valley  (2  Sam.  viii.  13), 
but  those  who  had  been  slain  on  the  invasion  of  the  land  by 
the  Edomites,  and  still  remained  Tinburied.  After  their  burial 
Joab  defeated  the  Edomites  in  the  vaUey  of  Salt,  and  remained 
six  months  in  Edom  till  he  had  cut  off  every  male.  "All 
Israel "  is  the  whole  of  the  Israelitish  army.  "  Every  male  "  is 
of  course  only  the  men  capable  of  bearing  arms,  who  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Israelites;  for  "Hadad  and  others  fled,  and  the 
whole  of  the  Idumsean  race  was  not  extinct "  (Clericus).  Then 
Hadad  fled,  while  yet  a  little  boy,  with  some  of  his  father's 


174  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Edomitish  servants,  to  go  to  Egypt,  going  first  of  all  to  Midian 
and  thence  to  Paran.  The  country  of  Midian  cannot  he  more 
precisely  defined,  inasmuch  as  we  meet  with  Midianites  some- 
times in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Elanitic  Gulf,  where  Edrisi  and  Ahulfeda  mention  a  city  of 
Madian  (see  at  Ex,  ii.  15),  and  sometimes  on  the  east  of  the 
Moahitish  territory  (see  at  Num.  xxii,  4  and  Judg.  vi.  1). 
Here,  at  any  rate,  we  must  think  of  the  neighhourhood  of  the 
Elanitic  Gulf,  though  not  necessarily  of  the  city  of  Madian,  five 
days'  journey  to  the  south  of  Aela ;  and  probably  of  the  country 
to  which  Moses  fled  from  Egypt.  Paran  is  the  desert  of  that 
name  between  the  mountains  of  Sinai  and  the  south  of  Canaan 
(see  at  Num.  x.  12),  through  which  the  Haj  route  from  Egypt 
by  Elath  to  Mecca  still  runs.  Hadad  would  be  obliged  to 
take  the  road  by  Elath  in  order  to  go  to  Egypt,  even  if  he 
had  taken  refage  with  the  Midianites  on  the  east  of  Moab 
and  Edom. — ^Vers.  18  sqq.  From  Paran  they  took  men  with 
them  as  guides  through  the  desert.  Thus  Hadad  came  to 
Egypt,  where  Pharaoh  received  him  hospitably,  and  gave  them 
a  house  and  maintenance  (2^.?),  and  also  assigned  him  land 
(n?)  ^^  cultivate  for  the  support  of  the  fugitives  who  had 
come  with  him,  and  eventually,  as  he  found  great  favour  in 
his  eyes,  gave  him  for  a  wife  the  sister  of  his  own  wife,  queen 
Tachpenes,  who  bare  him  a  son,  Genuhath.  This  son  was 
weaned  by  Tachpenes  in  the  royal  palace,  and  then  brought 
up  among  (with)  the  children  of  Pharaoh,  the  royal  princes. 
According  to  EoseUini  and  Wilkinson  (Ges.  Thes.  p.  1500), 
Tachpenes  was  also  the  name  of  a  female  deity  of  Egypt.  The 
wife  of  Pharaoh  is  called  n"J^?3''!i,  i.e.  the  mistress  among  the  king's 
wives,  as  being  the  principal  consort.  In  the  case  of  the  kings 
of  Judah  this  title  is  given  to  the  king's  mother,  probably  as 
the  president  in  the  harem,  whose  place  was  taken  by  the 
reigning  queen  after  her  death.  The  weaning,  probably  a 
family  festival  as  among  the  Hebrews  (Gen.  xxi.  8)  and  other 
ancient  nations  (vid.  Dougtsei  Analedass.  i.  22  sq.),  was  carried 
out  by  the  queen  in  the  palace,  because  the  boy  was  to  be 
thereby  adopted  among  the  royal  children,  to  be  brought  up 
with  them. — Vers.  21,  22.  When  Hadad  heard  in  Egypt  of 
the  death  of  David  and  Joab,  he  asked  permission  of  Pharaoh 
to  return  to  his  own  country.  Pharaoh  replied,  "  What  is  there 
lacking  to  thee  with  me  ?"     This  answer  was  a  pure  expression 


CHAP.  XL  23-25,  1*75 

of  love  and  attacliiiient  to  Hadad,  and  involved  the  request  that 
he  ■would  remain.  But  Hadad  answered,  "  No,  but  let  me  go." 
We  are  not  told  that  Pharaoh  then  let  him  go,  but  this  must 
be  supplied ;  just  as  in  N'um.  x.  32  we  are  not  told  what  Hobab 
eventually  did  in  consequence  of  Moses'  request,  but  it  has  to 
be  supplied  from  the  context.  The  return  of  Hadad  to  his  native 
land  is  clearly  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that,  according  to 
vers.  14  and  25,  he  rose  up  as  an  adversary  of  Solomon.^ 

Vers.  23-25.  A  second  adversary  of  Solomon  was  Eezon,  the 
son  of  Eliadah  (for  the  name  see  at  ch.  xv.  18),  who  had 
fled  from  his  lord  Hadadezer,  king  of  Zobah,  and  who  became 
the  captain  of  a"  warlike  troop  C^"'?),  when  David  smote  them 
(nJiK),  i.e.  the  troops  of  his  lord  (2  Sam.  viii  3,  4).  Eezon  pro- 
bably fled  from  his  lord  for  some  reason  which  is  not  assigned, 

^  The  LXX.  have  supplied  what  is  missing  e  conjectura:  xal  d'Aa-rpi^sv 
' A^io  (i.e.  Hadad)  u;  rv-'  yv*  ccirrov'  xCrr^  ii  x.ukix  ^»  kvor/i'jsv'Aozp'  x.ai  l^apu- 
6v!/,r,<ji'j'\acct.Y!;K^  k»i  i^ce.st'Ktvaiv  iv  yrt^'EoufA.  Thcnius  proposes  to  alter  the 
Hebrew  text  accordingly,  and  draws  this  conclusion,  that  "  shortly  after  the 
accession  of  Solomon,  Hadad,  having  returned  from  Egypt,  wrested  from  the 
power  of  the  Israelites  the  greatest  part  of  Edom,  probably  the  true  mountain- 
land  of  Edom,  so  that  certain  places  situated  in  the  plain,  particularly  Ezion- 
geber,  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Israelites,  and  intercourse  could  be  main- 
tained with  that  port  through  the  Arabah,  even  though  not  quite  without 
disturbance."  This  conclusion,  which  is  described  as  "  historical,"  is  indeed 
at  variance  with  1  Kings  xxii.  48,  according  to  which  Edom  had  no  king 
even  in  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  but  only  a  vicegerent,  and  also  with 
2  Kings  viii.  20,  according  to  which  it  was  not  till  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat's 
son  Joram  that  Edom  fell  away  from  Judah.  But  this  discrepancy  Thenius 
sets  aside  by  the  remark  at  1  Kings  xxii.  48,  that  in  Jehoshaphat 's  time  the 
family  of  Hadad  had  probably  died  out,  and  Jehoshaphat  prudently  availed 
himself  of  the  disputes  which  arose  concerning  the  succession  to  enforce 
Judah's  right  of  supremacy  over  Edom,  and  to  appoint  first  a  vicegerent  and 
then  a  new  king,  though  perhaps  one  not  absolutely  dependent  upon  him. 
But  this  conjecture  as  to  the  relation  in  which  Jehoshaphat  stood  to  Edom  is 
proved  to  be  an  imaginary  fiction  by  the  fact  that,  although  the  history  does 
indeed  mention  a  revolt  of  the  Edomites  from  Judah  (2  Chron.  xx. ;  see 
at  1  Kings  xxii.  48),  it  not  only  says  nothing  whatever  about  the  dying  out 
of  the  royal  family  of  Hadad  or  about  disputes  concerning  the  succession, 
but  it  does  not  even  hint  at  them. — But  with  regard  to  the  additions  made  to 
this  passage  by  the  LXX.,  to  which  even  Ewald  {Gesch.  iii.  p.  276)  attri- 
butes historical  worth,  though  without  building  upon  them  such  confident 
historical  combinations  as  Thenius,  we  may  easily  convince  ourselves  of  their 
critical  worthlessness,  if  we  only  pass  our  eye  over  the  whole  section  (vers. 
14-25),  instead  of  merely  singling  out  those  readings  of  the  LXX.  which 
support  our  preconceived  opinions,  and  overlooking  aU  the  rest,  after  the 
thoroughly  unscientific  mode  of  criticism  adopted  by  a  Thenius  or  Bottcher. 


176  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

when  the  latter  was  engaged  in  war  with  David,  before  his  com- 
plete overthrow,  and  collected  together  a  company  from  the 
fugitives,  with  which  he  afterwards  marched  to  Damascus,  and 
having  taken  possession  of  that  city,  made  himself  king  over  it. 
This  probably  did  not  take  place  till  towards  the  close  of  David's 
reign,  or  even  after  his  death,  though  it  was  at  the  very  beginning 
of  Solomon's  reign ;  for  "  he  became  an  adversary  to  Israel  all 
the  days  of  Solomon  {i.e.  during  the  whole  of  his  reign),  and  that 
with  (beside)  the  mischief  which  Hadad  did,  and  he  abhorred 
Israel  {i.e.  became  disgusted  with  the  Israelitish  rule),  and  became 
king  over  Aram."  Tin  "i*f  x  is  an  abbreviated  expression,  to  which 
nb'y  may  easily  be  supplied,  as  it  has  been  by  the  LXX.  (vid. 
Ewald,  §  292,  h,  Anm.).  It  is  impossible  to  gather  from  these 
few  words  in  what  the  mischief  done  by  Hadad  to  Solomon  con- 

For  example,  the  LXX.  have  connected  together  the  two  accounts  respecting 
the  adversaries  Hadad  and  Rezon  -who  rose  up  against  Solomon  (ver.  14  and 
ver.  23),  which  are  separated  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  have  interpolated 
what  is  stated  concerning  Rezon  in  vers.  23  and  24  after  iDlxn  in  ver.  14, 
and  consequently  have  been  obliged  to  alter  '131  |t3{»>  \"|">1  in  ver.  25  into  *«i 
fjuxu  Ixroiu,  because  they  had  previously  cited  Hadad  and  Rezon  as  adver- 
saries, whereas  in  the  Hebrew  text  these  words  apply  to  Rezon  alone.  But 
the  rest  of  ver.  25,  namely  the  words  from  nyinTlNI  onwards,  they  have 
not  given  till  the  close  of  ver.  22  (LXX.)  ;  and  in  order  to  connect  this  with 
what  precedes,  they  have  interpolated  the  words  x,cci  uviaTpi-^iv  "Alip  tig  rri» 
75j»  ui/Tov.  The  Alexandrians  were  induced  to  resort  to  this  intertwining  of 
the  accounts  concerning  Hadad  and  Rezon,  which  are  kept  separate  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  partly  by  the  fact  that  Hadad  and  Rezon  are  introduced  as 
adversaries  of  Solomon  with  the  very  same  words  (vers.  14  and  23),  but 
more  especially  by  the  fact  that  in  ver.  25  of  the  Hebrew  text  the  injury  done 
to  Solomon  by  Hadad  is  merely  referred  to  in  a  supplementary  manner  in  con- 
nection with  Rezon's  enterprise,  and  indeed  is  inserted  parenthetically  within 
the  account  of  the  latter.  The  Alexandrian  translators  did  not  know  what 
to  make  of  this,  because  they  did  not  understand  njnrrnxi  and  took  DN1 
for  nXT*  ai'Tfl  i)  xukix.  With  this  reading  ^psi  which  follows  was  necessarily 
understood  as  referring  to  Hadad ;  and  as  Hadad  was  an  Edomite,  ^jSlD'l 
mx~?y  had  to  be  altered  into  ijiuaiT^ivaiv  iu  yr,  'E3<i^.  Consequently  all  the 
alterations  of  the  LXX.  in  this  section  are  simply  the  result  of  an  arbitrary 
treatment  of  the  Hebrew  text,  which  they  did  not  really  understand,  and 
consist  of  a  collocation  of  all  that  is  homogeneous,  as  every  reader  of  this 
translation  who  is  acquainted  with  the  original  text  must  see  so  clearly  even 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  chapter,  where  the  number  of  Solomon's  wives 
is  taken  from  ver.  3  of  the  Hebrew  text  and  interpolated  into  ver.  1,  that,  as 
Thenius  observes,  "  the  true  state  of  the  case  can  only  be  overlooked  from 
superficiality  of  observation  or  from  preconceived  opinion." 


CHAP.  Xr.  2C-40.  177 

sisted.*  Eezon,  on  the  other  hand,  really  obtained  possession  of 
the  rule  over  Damascus.  Whether  at  the  beginning  or  not  tiU 
the  end  of  Solomon's  reign  cannot  be  determined,  since  all  that 
is  clearly  stated  is  that  he  was  Solomon's  adversary  during  the 
whole  of  his  reign,  and  attempted  to  revolt  from  him  from  the 
very  beginning.  If,  however,  he  made  himself  king  of  Damascus 
in  the  earliest  years  of  his  reign,  he  cannot  have  maintained  his 
sway  very  long,  since  Solomon  afterwards  built  or  fortified  Tadmor 
in  the  desert,  which  he  could  not  have  done  if  he  had  not  been 
lord  over  Damascus,  as  the  caravan  road  from  Gilead  to  Tadmor 
(Palmyra)  went  past  Damascus.' 

Vers.  26—40.  Attempted-  rebellion  of  Jeroboam  the  Ephraitnite. 
— Hadad  and  Eezon  are  simply  described  as  adversaries  (19^)  of 
Solomon ;  but  in  the  case  of  Jeroboam  it  is  stated  that  "  he 
lifted  up  his  hand  against  the  king,"  i.e.  he  stirred  up  a  tumult 
or  rebellion.  3  T  2'"!^  is  synonjTnous  with  ?  "i)  K^3  in  2  Sam. 
xviii  28,  XX.  21.  It  is  not  on  account  of  this  rebellion,  which 
was  quickly  suppressed  by  Solomon,  but  on  account  of  the  later 
enterprise  of  Jeroboam,  that  his  personal  history  is  so  minutely 
detailed.  Jeroboam  was  an  Ephraimite  0^1??,  as  in  1  Sam.  i.  1, 
Judg.  xii.  5)  of  Zereda,  i.e.  Zarthan,  in  the  Jordan  valley  (see 
ch.  vii.  46),  son  of  a  widow,  and  ^^V,  i-e.  not  a  subject  (Then.), 
but  an  officer,  of  Solomon.  All  that  is  related  of  his  rebellion 
against  the  king  is  the  circumstances  imder  which  it  took  place. 
i^'k  na'nn  nr,  this  is  how  it  stands  with,  as  in  Josh.  v.  4.  Solo- 
mon built  Millo  (ch.  lx.  15),  and  closed  the  rent  (the  defile?) 
in  the  city  of  David,  p.?,  riiptura,  cannot  be  a  rent  or  breach 
in  the  wall  of  the  city  of  David,  inasmuch  as  noin  is  not  added, 
and  since  the  fortification  of  the  city  by  David  (2  Sam.  v.  9)  no 

*  What  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  7,  6)  relates  concerning  an  alliance  between 
Hadad  and  Eezon  for  the  purpose  of  making  hostile  attacks  upon  Israel,  is 
merely  an  inference  dra\ni  from  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  and  utterly  worthless. 

2  Compare  Ewald,  Gesck.  iii.  p.  276.  It  is  true  that  more  could  be  inferred 
from  2  Chron.  viii.  3,  if  the  conquest  of  the  city  of  Hamath  by  Solomon  were 
really  recorded  in  that  passage,  as  Bertheau  supposes.  But  although  ^y  pm 
is  used  to  signify  the  conquest  of  tribes  or  countries,  we  cannot  infer  the  con- 
quest of  the  city  of  Hamath  from  the  words,  "  Solomon  went  to  Hamath 
Zobah  rvhv  pTn»}  and  built  Tadmor,"  etc.,  since  all  that  n'h]}  ptn^  distinctly 
expresses  is  the  establishment  of  his  power  over  the  land  of  Hamath  Zobah. 
And  this  Solomon  could  have  done  by  placing  fortifications  in  that  proArince, 
because  he  was  afraid  of  rebellion,  even  if  Hamath  Zobah  had  not  actually 
fallen  away  from  his  power. 

M 


178  THE  FIRST  COOK  OF  KINGS. 

hostile  attack  had  ever  been  made  upon  Jerusalem ;  but  in  all 
probability  it  denotes  the  ravine  which  separated  Zion  from 
Moriah  and  Ophel,  the  future  Tyropceon,  through  the  closing  of 
which  the  temple  mountain  was  brought  within  the  city  wall, 
and  the  fortification  of  the  city  of  David  was  completed 
(Thenius,  Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  p.  330),  Compare  H^P,  a  gap  in  the 
coast,  a  bay.  On  the  occasion  of  this  building,  Jeroboam  proved 
himself  a  7)}  "^i35,  i.e.  a  very  able  and  energetic  man ;  so  that 
when  Solomon  saw  the  young  man,  that  he  was  doing  work,  i.e. 
urging  it  forward,  he  committed  to  him  the  oversight  over  all 
the  heavy  work  of  the  house  of  Joseph.  It  jnust  have  been 
while  occupying  this  post  that  he  attempted  a  rebellion  against 
Solomon.  This  is  indicated  by  'W1  I3'=in  nt  in  ver.  2  7.  Accord- 
ing to  ch.  xii.  4,  the  reason  for  the  rebellion  is  to  be  sought  for 
in  the  appointment  of  the  Ephraimites  to  heavy  works.  This 
awakened  afresh  the  old  antipathy  of  that  tribe  to  Judah,  and 
Jeroboam  availed  himself  of  this  to  instigate  a  rebellion. — ^Vers. 
29  sqq.  At  that  time  the  prophet  Ahijah  met  him  in  the  field 
and  disclosed  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  he  should  be- 
come king  over  Israel,  t^'^nn  nya :  at  that  time,  viz.  the  time 
when  Jeroboam  had  become  overseer  over  the  heavy  works,  and 
not  after  he  had  already  stirred  up  the  rebellion.  For  the  whole 
of  the  account  in  vers.  29-39  forms  part  of  the  explanation  of 
T]^D3  *7*  D''"in  which  commences  with  ver.  27^,  so  that  nyn  ^'T'1 
^<^^^  is  closely  connected  with  inx  njps*!  ia  ver.  28,  and  there  is 
no  such  gap  in  the  history  as  is  supposed  by  Thenius,  who 
builds  upon  this  opinion  most  untenable  conjectures  as  to  the 
intertwining  of  different  sources.  At  that  time,  as  Jeroboam 
was  one  day  going  out  of  Jerusalem,  the  prophet  Ahijah  of 
Shilo  (Seilun)  met  him  by  the  way  C^'!.'^.?),  with  a  new  upper 
garment  wrapped  around  him ;  and  when  they  were  alone,  he 
rent  the  new  garment,  that  is  to  say,  his  own,  not  Jeroboam's, 
as  Ewald  (Gesch.  ui.  p.  388)  erroneously  supposes,  into  twelve 
pieces,  and  said  to  Jeroboam,  "  Take  thee  ten  pieces,  for  Jehovah 
saith,  I  will  rend  the  kingdom  out  of  the  hand  of  Solomon,  and 
give  thee  ten  tribes ;  and  one  tribe  shall  remain  to  him  (Solomon) 
for  David's  sake,"  etc.  The  new  nopB'  was  probably  only  a  large 
four-cornered  cloth,  which  was  thrown  over  the  shoulders  like  the 
Heik  of  the  Arabs,  and  enveloped  the  whole  of  the  upper  portion 
of  the  body  (see  my  bibl.  Archdol.  ii.  pp.  36,  37).  By  the  tear- 
ing of  the  new  garment  into  twelve  pieces,  of  which  Jeroboam 


CHAP.  XI.  26-40.  179 

was  to  take  ten  for  himself,  the  prophetic  announcement  was 
symbolized  in  a  very  emphatic  manner.  This  symbolical  action 
made  the  promise  a  completed  fact.  "  As  the  garment  was  torn 
in  pieces  and  lay  before  the  eyes  of  Jeroboam,  so  had  the  division 
of  the  kingdom  already  taken  place  in  the  counsel  of  God  "  (0. 
V.  Gerlach).  There  was  something  significant  also  in  the  cir- 
cumstance that  it  was  a  Tiew  garment,  which  is  stated  twice,  and 
indicates  the  newness,  i.e.  the  still  young  and  vigorous  condition, 
of  the  kingdom  (Thenius). 

In  the  word  of  God  explaining  the  action  it  is  striking  that 
Jeroboam  was  to  receive  ten  tribes,  and  the  one  tribe  was  to 
remain  to  Solomon  (vers.  31,  32,  35,  36,  as  in  ver.  13).  The 
nation  consisted  of  twelve  tribes,  and  Ahijah  had  torn  his  garment 
into  twelve  pieces,  of  which  Jeroboam  was  to  take  ten ;  so  that 
there  were  two  remaining.  It  is  evident  at  once  from  this,  that 
the  numbers  are  intended  to  be  understood  symbolically  and  not 
arithmetically.  Ten  as  the  number  of  completeness  and  totality 
is  placed  in  contrast  with  one,  to  indicate  that  all  Israel  was  to 
be  torn  away  from  the  house  of  David,  as  is  stated  in  ch.  xii 
20,  "they  made  Jeroboam  king  over  all  Israel,"  and  only  one 
single  fragment  was  to  be  left  to  the  house  of  Solomon  out  of 
divine  compassion.  This  one  tribe,  however,  is  not  Benjamin, 
the  one  tribe  beside  Judah,  as  Hupfeld  (on  Ps.  Ixxx.),  C.  a  Lap., 
Alich.,  and  others  suppose,  but,  according  to  the  distinct  state- 
ment in  ch.  xii  20,"  the  tribe  of  Judah  only."  Nevertheless 
Benjamin  belonged  to  Judah;  for,  according  to  ch.  xii.  21, 
Eehoboam  gathered  together  the  whole  house  of  Judah  and 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  to  fight  against  the  house  of  Israel  (which 
had  fallen  away),  and  to  bring  the  kingdom  again  to  himseK. 
And  so  also  in  2  Chron.  xi.  3  and  23  Judah  and  Benjamin  are 
reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  Eehoboam.  This  dis- 
tinct prominence  given  to  Benjamin  by  the  side  of  Judah  over- 
throws the  explanation  suggested  by  Seb.  Schmidt  and  others, 
namely,  that  the  description  of  the  portion  left  to  Eehoboam  as 
one  tribe  is  to  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  Judah  and  Ben- 
jamin, on  the  border  of  which  Jerusalem  was  situated,  were 
regarded  in  a  certain  sense  as  one,  and  that  the  little  Benjamin 
was  hardly  taken  into  consideration  at  aU  by  the  side  of  the 
great  Judah.  For  if  Ahijah  had  regarded  Benjamin  as  one  with 
Judah,  he  would  not  have  torn  his  garment  into  twelve  pieces, 
inasmuch  as  if  Benjamin  was  to  be  merged  in  Judah,  or  was  not 


180  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  be  counted  along  with  it  as  a  distinct  tribe,  the  whole  nation 
could  only  be  reckoned  as  eleven  tribes.  Moreover  the  twelve 
tribes  did  not  so  divide  themselves,  that  Jeroboam  really  received 
ten  tribes  and  Eehoboam  only  one  or  only  two.  In  reality  there 
were  three  tribes  that  fell  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  only 
nine  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  being 
reckoned  as  two  tribes,  since  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  not  counted 
in  the  political  classification.  The  kingdom  of  Judah  included, 
beside  the  tribe  of  Judah,  both  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  and  also 
the  tribe  of  Simeon,  the  territory  of  which,  according  to  Josh, 
xix.  1-9,  was  within  the  tribe-territory  of  Judah  and  completely 
surrounded  by  it,  so  that  the  Simeonites  would  have  been  obliged 
to  emigrate  and  give  up  their  tribe-land  altogether,  if  they  desired 
to  attach  themselves  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  But  it  cannot  be 
inferred  from  2  Chron.  xv.  9  and  xxxiv.  6  that  an  emigration 
of  the  whole  tribe  had  taken  place  (see  also  at  ch.  xii.  17). 
On  the  other  hand,  whUst  the  northern  border  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  with  the  cities  of  Bethel,  Eamah,  and  Jericho,  fell  to 
the  kingdom  of  Jeroboam  (ch.  xii.  29,  xv.  17,  21,  xvi.  34), 
several  of  the  cities  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  were  included  in  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  namely,  Ziklag,  which  Achish  had  presented 
to  David,  and  also  Zorea  and  Ajalon  (2  Chron.  xi.  10,  xxviii. 
18),  in  which  Judah  obtained  compensation  for  the  cities  of 
Benjamin  of  which  it  had  been  deprived.^     Consequently  there 

^  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  in  Ps.  Ixxx.  2  Benjamin  is  placed  between 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh  is  no  proof  that  it  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel ; 
nor  can  this  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  Benjamin,  as  the  tribe  to  which 
Saul  belonged,  at  the  earlier  split  among  the  tribes  took  the  side  of  those  which 
were  opposed  to  David,  and  that  at  a  still  later  period  a  rebellion  originated 
with  Benjamin.  For  in  Ps.  Ixxx.  2  the  exposition  is  disputed,  and  the 
jealousy  of  Benjamin  towards  Judah  appears  to  have  become  extinct  with  the 
dying  out  of  the  royal  house  of  Saul.  Again,  the  explanation  suggested  by 
Oehler  (Herzog's  Cycl.)  of  the  repeated  statement  that  the  house  of  David 
was  to  receive  only  one  tribe,  namely,  that  there  was  not  a  single  whole  tribe 
belonging  to  the  southern  kingdom  beside  Judah,  is  by  no  means  satisfactory. 
For  it  cannot  be  proved  that  any  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  ever  belonged 
to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  although  the  number  ten  was  not  complete  without 
it.  And  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  2  Chron.  xv,  9  that  Simeonites  had 
settled  outside  their  tribe-territory.  And,  as  a  rule,  single  families  or  house- 
holds that  may  have  emigrated  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration  as  having 
any  bearing  upon  the  question  before  us,  since,  according  to  the  very  same 
passage  of  the  Chronicles,  many  members  of  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh  had  emigrated  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 


I 


CHAP.  XI.  26-40.  181 

only  remained  nine  tribes  for  the   northern    kingdom.       For 
'ui  "'•'lay  Jjfoij  see  at  ver.  13.     For  ver.  33  compare  vers.  4-8. 
The  plurals  '^^3Tj;,  ^inris^,  and  >^^\l  are  not  open  to  critical  ob- 
jection, but  are  used  in  accordance  with  the  fact,  since  Solomon 
did  not  practise  idolatry  alone,  but  many  in  the  nation  forsook 
the  Lord  along  with  him.     TP^,  with  a  Chaldaic  ending  (see 
Ges.  §  87,  1,  a).     In  vers.    34-36  there  follows  a  more  precise 
explanation :  Solomon  himself  is  not  to  lose  the  kingdom,  but 
to  remain  prince  all  his  life,  and  his  son  is  to  retain  one  tribe ; 
both  out  of  regard  to  David  (vid.  vers.  12  and  13).      J<'?'^  *3 
wnc'N,  "  but  I  will  set  him  for  prince,"  inasmuch  as  leaving  him 
upon  the  throne  was  not  merely  a  divine  permission,  but  a 
divine  act.     "  That  there  may  be  a  light  to  my  servant  David 
always  before  me  in  Jerusalem."     This  phrase,  which  is  repeated 
in  ch.  XV.  4,  2  Kings  viiL   19,  2  Chron.  xxi.  7,  is  to  be  ex- 
plained from  2  Sam.  xxi.  17,  where  David's  regal  rule  is  called 
the  light  which  God's  grace  had  kindled  for  Israel,  and  affirms 
that  David  was  never  to  want  a  successor  upon  the  throne. — 
Vers.  37-39.  The  condition  on  which  the  kingdom  of  Jeroboam 
was  to  last  was  the  same  as  that  on  which  Solomon  had  also 
been  promised  the   continuance  of  his  throne  in  ch.  iii   14, 
vi.    12,  ix.    4,  namely,  faithful    observance  of  the   command- 
ments of  God.     The  expression,  "  be  king  over  all  that  thy  soul 
desire th,"  is  explained  in  what  follows  by  "  aU  Israel."     It  is 
evident  from  this  that  Jeroboam  had  aspired  after  the  throne. 
On  the  condition  named,  the  Lord  would  build  him  a  lasting 
house,  as  He  had  done  for  David  (see  at  2  Sam.  vii.  16).     In 
the  case  of  Jeroboam,  however,  there  is  no  allusion  to  a  lasting 
duration  of  the  ^3700  (kingdom)  such  as  had  been  ensured  to 
David ;  for  the  division  of  the  kingdom  was  not  to  last  for  ever, 
but  the  seed  of  Da\dd  was  simply  to  be  chastised.     riNf  lyob,  for 
this,  i.e.  because  of  the  apostasy  already  mentioned ;  "  only  not 
all  the  days,"  i.e.  not  for  ever,     ^y^'i^]  is  explanatory  so  far  as  the 
sense  is  concerned :   "  for  I  wiU  humble."     Jeroboam  did  not 
fulfil  this  condition,  and  therefore  his  house  was  extirpated  at 
the  death  of  his  son  (ch.   xv.    28   sqq.). — Ver.   40  is  a  con- 
tinuation of  ^bD3  T  Dn^  in  ver.   26;  for  vers.   27-39  contain 
simply  an  explanation  of  Jeroboam's  lifting  up  his  hand  against 
Solomon.     It  is  obvious  from  this  that  Jeroboam  had  orcranized 
a  rebellion  against  Solomon ;  and  also,  as  ver.  29  is  closely  con- 
nected with  ver.  28,  that  this  did  not  take  place  till  after  the 


182  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

prophet  had  foretold  his  reigning  over  ten  tribes  after  Solomon's 
death.  But  this  did  not  justify  Jeroboam's  attempt ;  nor  was 
Ahijah's  announcement  an  inducement  or  authority  to  rebeL 
Ahijah's  conduct  was  perfectly  analogous  to  that  of  Samuel  in 
the  case  of  Saul,  and  is  no  more  to  be  attributed  to  selfish 
motives  than  his  was,  as  though  the  prophetic  order  desired  to 
exalt  itself  above  the  human  sovereign  (Ewald  ;  see,  on  the  other 
hand,  Oehler's  article  in  Herzog's  Cycl.).  For  Ahijah  expressly 
declared  to  Jeroboam  that  Jehovah  would  let  Solomon  remain 
prince  over  Israel  during  the  remainder  of  his  life.  This  deprived 
Jeroboam  of  every  pretext  for  rebellion.  Moreover  the  prophet's 
announcement,  even  without  this  restriction,  gave  him  no  right 
to  seize  with  his  own  hand  and  by  means  of  rebellion  upon  that 
throne  which  God  intended  to  give  to  him.  Jeroboam  might 
have  learned  how  he  ought  to  act  under  these  circumstances  from 
the  example  of  David,  who  had  far  more  ground,  according  to 
human  opinion,  for  rebelling  against  Saul,  his  persecutor  and 
mortal  foe,  and  who  nevertheless,  even  when  God  had  delivered 
his  enemy  into  his  hand,  so  that  he  might  have  slain  him,  did 
not  venture  to  lay  his  hand  upon  the  anointed  of  the  Lord,  but 
waited  in  pious  submission  to  the  leadings  of  his  God,  till 
the  Lord  opened  the  way  to  the  throne  through  the  death 
of  Saul.  By  the  side  of  David's  behaviour  towards  Saul  the 
attempt  of  Jeroboam  has  all  the  appearance  of  a  criminal 
rebellion,  so  that  Solomon  would  have  been  perfectly  justified 
in  putting  him  to  death,  if  Jeroboam  had  not  escaped  from 
his  hands  by  a  flight  into  Egypt. — On  Shishak  see  at  ch. 
xiv.  25. 

Vers.  41—43.  Conclusion  of  the  history  of  Solomon. — Notice 
of  the  original  works,  in  which  further  information  can  be  found 
concerning  his  acts  and  his  wisdom  (see  the  Introduction)  ;  the 
length  of  his  reign,  viz.  forty  years  ;  his  death,  burial,  and  suc- 
cessor. Solomon  did  not  live  to  a  veiy  great  age,  since  he  was 
not  more  than  twenty  years  old  when  he  ascended  the  throne. 
— Whether  Solomon  turned  to  the  Lord  again  with  all  his  heart, 
a  question  widely  discussed  by  the  older  commentators  (see 
Pfeifferi  Duhia  vex.  p.  435  ;  Buddei  hist.  eccL  ii.  p.  273  sqq.), 
cannot  be  ascertained  from  the  Scriptures.  If  the  Preacher 
Koheleth)  is  traceable  to  Solomon  so  far  as  the  leading  thoughts 
are  concerned,  we  should  find  in  this  fact  an  evidence  of  his  con- 
version, or  at  least  a  proof  that  at  the  close  of  his  life  Solomon 


CHAP.  XII.  ETC.  183 

discovered  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  possessioiis  and  aims,  and 
declared  the  fear  of  God  to  be  the  only  abiding  good,  with  which 
a  man  can  stand  before  the  judgment  of  God. 


n.— HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGDOMS  OF  ISRAEL  AOT>  JUDAH  TO 
THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  FORMER. 

Chap.  xn.-2  Kikgs  xvju 

After  the  death  of  Solomon  the  Israelitish  kingdom  of  God 
was  rent   asunder,   through  the  renunciation   of  the   Davidic 
sovereignty  by  the  ten  tribes,  into  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel 
(the   ten  tribes)    and   Judah ;    and  through  this   di\'ision   not 
only  was  the  external  political  power  of  the  Israelitish  stat* 
weakened,   but   the   internal   spiritual   power  of  the  covenant 
nation   was    deeply   shaken.      And   whilst   the   division   itseK 
gave  rise  to  two  small  and  weak  kingdoms  in  the  place  of  one 
strong  nation,  the  power  of  both  was  still  further  shaken  by 
their  attitude   towards  each  other. — The  history  of  the  two 
kingdoms  divides  itself  into  three  epoclis.     In  the  Jirst  epoch, 
i.e.   the  period   from   Jeroboam  to  Omri   in   Israel,  and   from 
Kehoboam  to  Asa  in  Judah  (1  Kings  xii-xvi.),  they  maintained 
a  hostile  attitude  towards  each  other,  until  Israel  sustained  a 
severe  defeat  in  a  'great  war  with  Judah ;  and  on  the  renewal 
of  its  attacks  upon  Judah,  king  ALsa  called  the  Syrians  to  his 
help,  and  thereby  entangled  Israel  in  long  and  severe  conflicts 
with  this  powerful  neighbouring   state.     The   hostility  termi- 
nated in  the  second  epoch,   under  Ahab  and  his  sons  Ahaziah 
and    Joram    in    Israel,   and    under    Jehoshaphat,    Joram,   and 
Ahaziah  of  Judah,  since  the  two  royal  families  connected  them- 
selves by  marriage,  and  formed  an  alliance  for  the  purpose  of  a 
joint  attack  upon  their  foreign  foes,   until  the  kings  of  both 
kingdoms,  viz.  Joram  of  Israel  and  Ahaziah  of  Judah,  were  slain 
at  the  same  time  by  Jehu  (1  Kings  xvii.-2  Kings  x.  27).     This 
period  of  union  was  followed  in  the  third  epoch,  from  Jehu  in 
Israel  and  Joash  in  Judah  onwards,  by  further  estrangement 
and  reciprocal  attacks,  which  led  eventually  to  the  destruction 
of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  by  the  Assyrians  through  the  untheo- 
cratical  policy  of  Ahaz. 


184  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

If  we  talce  a  survey  of  the  attitude  of  the  two  kingdoms 
towards  the  Lord,  the  invisible  God-King  of  His  people,  during 
these  three  epochs,  to  all  appearance  the  idolatry  was  stronger 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  than  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  For 
in  the  latter  it  is  only  under  Ahab  and  his  two  sons,  under 
whom  the  worship  of  Baal  was  raised  into  the  state  religion  at 
the  instigation  of  Jezebel  the  Phoenician  wife  of  Ahab,  that  we 
meet  with  the  actual  worship  of  idols.  Of  the  other  kings 
both  before  and  afterwards,  all  that  is  related  is,  that  they  walked 
in  the  ways  of  Jeroboam,  and  did  not  desist  from  his  sin,  the 
worship  of  the  calves.  In  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  on  the  other 
hand,  out  of  thirteen  kings,  only  five  were  so  truly  devoted 
to  the  Lord  that  they  promoted  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and 
opposed  idolatry  (viz.  Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  XJzziah,  Jotham,  and 
Hezekiah).  Of  the  others,  it  is  true  that  Joash  and  Amaziah 
walked  for  a  long  time  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord,  but  in  the 
closing  years  of  their  reign  they  forsook  the  God  of  their  fathers 
to  serve  idols  and  worship  them  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  18  and  xxv. 
14  sqq.).  Even  Eehoboam  was  strengthened  at  the  outset  in 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  by  the  Levites  who  emigrated  from  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  to  Judah ;  but  in  the  course  of  three 
years  he  forsook  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  Judah  with  him,  so 
that  altars  of  high  places,  Baal  columns,  and  Asherah  idols,  were 
set  up  on  every  hill  and  under  every  green  tree,  and  there  were 
even  male  prostitutes  in  the  land,  and  Judah  practised  all  the 
abominations  of  the  nations  that  were  cut  off  before  Israel 
(1  Kings  xiv.  23,  24;  2  Chron.  xi.  13-17,  xii.  1).  In  all 
these  sins  of  his  father  Abijam  also  walked  (1  Kings  xv.  3). 
At  a  later  period,  in  the  reign  of  Joram,  the  worship  of  Baal 
was  transplanted  from  Israel  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and  was 
zealously  maintained  by  Ahaziah  and  his  mother  Athaliah.  It 
grew  still  worse  under  Ahaz,  who  even  went  so  far  as  to  set  up 
an  idolatrous  altar  in  the  court  of  the  temple  and  to  close  the 
temple  doors,  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  altogether  the  legal 
worship  of  Jehovah.  But  notwithstanding  this  repeated  spread 
of  idolatry,  the  apostasy  from  the  Lord  was  not  so  great  and  deep 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  as  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  This  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  idolatry  could  not  strike  a  firm  root 
there,  inasmuch  as  the  kings  who  were  addicted  to  it  were 
always  followed  by  pious  and  God-fearing  rulers,  who  abolished 
the  idolatrous  abominations,  and  nearly  all  of  whom  had  long 


CHAP.  XII.  ETC.  185 

reigns ;  so  tliat  during  the  253  years  which  intervened  hetween 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  and  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom 
of  tlie  ten  tribes,  idolatry  did  not  prevail  in  Judah  for  much 
more  than  fifty-three  years/  and  for  about  200  years  the  worship 
of  the  true  God  was  maintained  according  to  the  commandment 
of  the  law.  This  constant  renewal  of  a  victorious  reaction 
against  the  foreign  deities  shows  very  clearly  that  the  law  of 
God,  with  its  ordinances  and  institutions  for  divine  worship,  had 
taken  firm  and  deep  root  in  the  people  and  kingdom,  and  that 
the  reason  why  idolatry  constantly  revived  and  lifted  up  its 
head  afresh  was,  that  the  worship  of  Jehovah  prescribed  in  the 
law  made  no  concessions  to  the  tendency  to  idolatry  in  hearts 
at  enmity  against  God.  It  was  different  with  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes.  There  ■  the  fact  that  idolatry  only  appeared 
in  the  reigns  of  Ahab  and  his  sons  and  successors,  is  to  be 
accounted  for  very  simply  from  the  attitude  of  that  kingdom 
towards  the  Lord  and  His  lawful  worship.  Although,  for 
instance,  the  secession  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  house  of 
David  was  threatened  by  God,  as  a  punishment  that  would 
come  upon  Solomon  and  his  kingdom  on  account  of  Solomon's 
idolatry  ;  on  the  part  of  the  rebellious  tribes  themselves  it  was 
simply  the  ripe  fruit  of  their  evil  longing  for  a  less  theocratic 
and  more  heathen  kingdom,  and  nothing  but  the  work  of 
opposition  to  the  royal  house  appointed  by  Jehovah,  which  had 
already  shown  itseK  more  than  once  in  the  reign  of  David,  though 
it  had  been  suppressed  again  by  the  weight  of  his  government, 
which  was  strong  in  the  Lord. 

This  opposition  became  open  rebellion  against  the  Lord, 
when  Jeroboam,  its  head,  gave  the  ten  tribes  a  religious  con- 
stitution opposed  to  the  will  of  God  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing his  throne,  and  not  only  founded  a  special  sanctuary  for 
his  subjects,  somewhat  after  the  model  of  the  tabernacle  or 
of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  but  also  set  up  golden  calves  as 
symbols  and  images  of  Jehovah  the  invisible  God,  to  whom  no 
likeness  can  be  made.  This  image-worship  met  the  wishes 
and  religious  cravings  of  the  sensual  and  carnally-minded 
people,  because  it  so  far  filled  up  the  gap  between  the  legal 

*  Namely,  fourteen  years  under  Rehoboam,  three  under  Abijah,  six  under 
Joram,  one  under  Ahaziah,  six  under  Athaliah,  and  sixteen  under  Ahaz, — in 
all  forty-six  years ;  to  which  we  have  also  to  add  the  closing  years  of  the 
reigns  of  Joash  and  Amaziah. 


186  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

worship  of  Jehovah  and  the  worship  of  the  nature-deities,  that 
the  contrast  between  Jehovah  and  the  Baalim  almost  entirely 
disappeared,  and  the  principal  ground  was  thereby  removed  for 
the  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  idolatrous  nation  to  the 
stringent  and  exclusive  worship  of  Jehovah.  In  this  respect 
the  worship  of  the  calves  worked  more  injuriously  upon  the 
religious  and  moral  life  of  the  nation  than  the  open  worship  of 
idols.  This  sin  of  Jeroboam  is  therefore  "  the  ground,  the  root 
and  cause  of  the  very  sinful  development  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  which  soon  brought  down  the  punishment  of  God,  since 
even  fxom  the  earliest  time  one  judgment  after  another  fell 
openly  upon  the  kingdom.  For  beside  the  sin  of  Jeroboam, 
that  which  was  the  ground  of  its  isolation  continued  to  increase, 
and  gave  rise  to  tumult,  opposing  aspirants  to  the  throne,  and 
revolutionary  movements  in  the  nation,  so  that  the  house  of 
Israel  was  often  split  up  within  itself"  (Ziegler).  Therefore 
the  judgment,  with  which  even  from  the  time  of  Moses  the 
covenant  nation  had  been  threatened  in  case  of  obstinate  rebel- 
lion against  its  God,  namely  the  judgment  of  dispersion  among 
the  heathen,  fell  upon  the  ten  tribes  much  earlier  than  upon 
Judah,  because  Israel  had  filled  up  the  measure  of  sin  earlier 
than  Judah. 

The  chronological  computation  of  this  period,  both  as  a  whole 
and  in  its  separate  details,  is  one  of  the  more  difficult  features 
connected  with  this  portion  of  the  history  of  the  Israelitish 
kingdom.  As  our  books  give  not  only  the  length  of  time  that 
every  king  both  of  Israel  and  Judah  reigned,  but  also  the  time 
when  every  king  of  Israel  ascended  the  throne,  calculated 
according  to  the  year  of  the  reign  of  the  contemporaneous  king 
of  Judah,  and  vice  versa,  these  accounts  unquestionably  fur- 
nish us  with  very  important  help  in  determining  the  chronology 
of  the  separate  data ;  but  this  again  is  rendered  dif&cult  and 
uncertain  by  the  fact,  that  the  sum-total  of  the  years  of  the 
several  kings  is  greater,  as  a  rule,  than  the  number  of  years 
that  they  can  possibly  have  reigned  according  to  the  synchro- 
nistic accounts  of  the  contemporaneous  sovereigns  in  the  other 
kingdom.  Chronologists  have  therefore  sought  from  time 
immemorial  to  reconcile  the  discrepancies  by  assuming  in- 
accuracies in  the  accounts,  or  regencies  and  interregna.  The 
necessity  for  such  assumptions  is  indisputable,  from  the  fact  that 
the  discrepancies  in  the  numbers  of  the  years  are  absolutely 


CHAP.  XIL  ETC.  187 

irreconcilable  withont  them.^  But  if  the  appKcation  of  them 
in  the  several  cases  is  not  to  be  dependent  upon  mere  caprice, 
the  reconciliation  of  the  sum-totals  of  the  years  that  the  differ- 
ent kingrs  reimed  with  the  differences  ■which  vre  obtain  from 
the  chronological  data  in  the  synchronistic  accounts  must  be 
effected  upon  a  fixed  and  well-founded  historical  principle, 
regencies  and  interregna  being  only  assumed  in  cases  where 
there  are  clear  indications  in  the  text  Most  of  the  differences 
can  be  reconciled  by  consistently  observing  and  applying  the 
principle  pointed  out  in  the  Talmud,  viz.  that  the  years  of  the 
kings  are  reckoned  from  Xisan  to  Nisan,  and  that  with  such  pre- 
cision, that  even  a  single  day  before  or  after  Nisan  is  reckoned  as 
equal  to  a  year, — a  mode  of  reckoning  which  is  met  with  even  in 
the  New  Testament,  e.g.  in  the  statement  that  Jesus  rose  from  the 
dead  after  three  days,  or  on  the  third  day,  and  also  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Josephus,  so  that  it  is  no  doubt  an  early  Jewish  custom,^ 
— for,  according  to  this,  it  is  not  necessar}'-  to  assume  a  single  in- 
terregnum in  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  only  one  regency  (that 

^  This  is  indirectly  admitted  even  by  0.  Wolff  (in  his  Versuch  die  Wider- 
sprilche  in  den  Jahrreihen  der  Konige  Judo's  und  IsraeVs  und  andere  Difftrenzen 
in  der  bill.  Chronologic  auszugleichen ;  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1858,  p.  625  sqq.)? 
though  for  the  most  part  he  declares  himself  opposed  to  such  assumptions 
as  arbitrary  loopholes,  inasmuch  as,  with  his  fundamental  principle  to  adhere 
firmly  to  the  years  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Judah  as  normative,  he  is 
only  able  to  effect  a  reconciliation  by  shortening  at  his  pleasure  the  length 
of  the  reigns  given  in  the  text  for  the  kings  of  Israel  in  the  period  extending 
from  Rehoboam  to  the  death  of  Ahaziah  of  Judah,  and  in  the  following 
period  by  arbitrarily  interpolating  a  thirty-one  years'  interregnum  of  the 
Israelitish  kings  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  be:ween  Amaziah  and  Uzziah, 

-  Compare  Gemara  hahyl.  tract.  njeTI  B'SIt  C-  i-  ^o\.  3,  p.  1,  ed.  Amstel. : 
JD'ID  sbx  D^3^0^  Cn^J  pjio  pX,  "  non  numerant  in  regibus  nisi  a  Nisano " 
(i.e.  regum  amios  nonnisi  a  Nisano  numerant).  After  quoting  certain 
passages,  he  says  as  a  proof  of  this,  ^K1B«  "^bt^b  N^S  "'j'^  i6  NlOn  "T  IDS, 
"  dixit  R.  Cha.'ida :  hoc  non  docent  nisi  de  regibus  Israelitarum." — Ibid.  fol.  2, 

p.  2 :  nsz'  men  n:rn  ma  nvi  n^^hr^b  r]2vr\  ^in  p^:,  "  Nisanus  initium 

aimi  regibm,  ac  dies  quidem  unus  in  anno  {videl.  post  calendar  Nisani)  instar 
anni  computatur.''—Ibid. :  njU'  niB'n  HJB'  511D3  IHS  DV,  "  unus  dies  in  fine 
anni  pro  anno  computatur.'^  For  the  examples  of  the  use  of  this  mode  of 
calculation  in  Josephus,  see  Wieseler,  chronol.  Synopse  der  vier  Evangelien 
(Hamb.  1852),  p.  52  sqq.  They  are  sufficient  of  themselves  to  refute  the 
a^ertion  of  Joach.  Hartmann,  Systema  chronol.  bibl,  Rostoch.  1777,  p.  253 
sq.,  that  this  is  a  mere  invention  of  the  Rabbins  and  later  commentators, 
even  though  the  biblical  writers  may  not  have  carried  it  out  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  reckon  one  single  day  before  or  after  the  commencement  of 
Nisan  as  equal  to  a  whole  year,  as  is  evident  from  2  Kings  xv.  17  and  23. 


188  THi:  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

of  Joram  with  his  father  Jehoshaphat),  which  is  clearly  indicated 
in  the  text  (2  Kings  viii.  1 6) ;  and  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
there  is  no  necessity  to  assume  a  single  regency,  and  only  two 
interregna  (the  first  after  Jeroboam  ii.,  the  second  between  Pekah 
and  Hoshea).  —  If,  for  example,  we  arrange  the  chronological 
data  of  the  biblical  text  upon  this  principle,  we  obtain  for  the 
period  between  the  division  of  the  kingdom  and  the  Babylonian 
captivity  the  following  table,  which  only  differs  from  the  state- 
ments in  the  text  in  two  instances,^  and  has  a  guarantee  of  its 
correctness  in  the  fact  that  it  coincides  with  the  well-established 
chronological  data  of  the  universal  history  of  the  ancient  world.^ 

^  Namely,  in  the  fact  that  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  of 
Israel  is  placed  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  Joash  of  Judah,  and  not  in  the 
twenty-third,  according  to  2  Kings  xiii.  1,  and  that  that  of  Azariah  or  Uzziah 
of  Judah  is  placed  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Jeroboam  of  Israel,  and  not  the 
twenty-seventh,  according  to  2  Kings  xv.  1.  The  reasons  for  this  will  be 
given  in  connection  with  the  passages  themselves. 

2  Not  only  with  the  ordinary  chronological  calculation  as  to  the  beginning 
and  end  of  this  entire  period,  which  has  been  adopted  in  most  text-books  of 
the  biblical  history,  and  taken  from  Usserii  Aniiales  Vet.  et  Novi  Test.,  but 
also  with  such  data  of  ancient  history  as  have  been  astronomically  estab- 
lished. For  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakira,  with  which  the  captivity  or 
seventy  years'  servitude  of  the  Jews  in  Babylon  commences,  coincides  with 
the  twenty-first  year  of  the  reign  of  Nabopolasar,  in  the  fifth  year  of  whose 
reign  an  eclipse  of  the  moon,  recorded  in  Almagest,  was  observed,  which 
eclipse,  according  to  the  calculation  of  Ideler  (in  the  Ahhdll.  der  Berliner 
Academic  der  Wissensch.  fiir  histor.  Klasse  of  the  year  1814,  pp.  202  and  224), 
took  place  on  April  22  of  the  year  621  B.C.  Consequently  the  twenty-firet 
year  of  Nabopolasar,  in  which  he  died,  coincides  with  the  year  605  B.C. ;  and 
the  first  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  occurred  before 
the  death  of  Nabopolasar,  took  place  in  the  year  606  B.C. — Compare  with 
this  Marc.  Niebuhr's  Geschichte  Assiirs  und  Babels,  p.  47.  Among  other 
things,  this  scholar  observes,  at  p.  5,  note  1,  that  "  the  whole  of  the  follow- 
ing investigation  has  given  us  no  occasion  whatever  to  cherish  any  doubts 
as  to  the  correctness  of  the  narratives  and  numbers  in  the  Old  Testament ;" 
and  again,  at  p.  83  sqq.,  he  has  demonstrated  the  agreement  of  the  chrono- 
logical data  of  the  Old  Testament  from  Azariah  or  Uzziah  to  the  captivity 
with  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  and  in  so  doing  has  only  deviated  two  years 
from  the  numbers  given  in  our  chronological  table,  by  assigning  the  battle 
at  Carchemish  to  the  year  143  eera  Nabonas.,  i.e.  605  B.C.,  the  first  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  144  aer.  Nab.,  or  604  B.C.,  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  temple  to  the  year  162  ler.  Nab.,  or  586  B.C., — a  difference  which 
arises  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  Nicbuhr  reckons  the  yeara  of  the  reign  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  given  in  the  Old  Test,  from  the  death  of  Nabopolasar  in  the 
year  605,  and  assumes  that  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  corresponded  to 
the  year  605  B.C. 


CHAP.  XIL  ETC. 


189 


Chronological  View  of  the  Principal  Events  from  tlu  Division  of 
the  Kingdom  to  the  Babylonian  Ca'ptivity. 


Kingdom  of  Jodah. 


Rehoboam,reigned 
17  years 

Abijam,  r.  3  y. 
Asa,  r.  41  y. 


Jehoshaphat,  r.  25 
years 


Joram,  regent  2  y. 
Jehoshaphat  +. 
Joram  r.  6  y.  more 
Ahaziah,  r.  1  y. 

Athaliah,  r.  6  y, 
Joash,  r.  40  y. 


Amaziah,  r,  29  y. 
TJzziah,  r.  52  y. 


26 
27 

27 

31 


38 


17 
18 
(23) 


22? 
37 


15 

(27) 

38 

39 
39 


50 
52 


Kingdom  of  ImeL 


Jeroboam,  reigned 
22  years 


Nadab,  r.  2  y. 
Baasha,  r.  24  y. 


Ela,  r.  2  y. 
Simri,  r.  7  davs 
Tibni  k  Omri"  r.  4 

years 
Omri  alone,  r.  8  y. 


Ahab,  r.  22  y. 


Ahaziah,  r.  2  y. 
Joram,  r.  12  y. 


Jehu,  r.  28  y. 

Jehoahaz,  r.  17  y. 
Jehoash,  r.  16  y. 


Jeroboam  ii.  r.41y. 

Jeroboam +.  An- 
archy 11  years 

Zechariah,  r.  6 
months 

Shallum,  r.  1  mon. 

Menahem,  r.  10  y. 


Pekahlah,  r.  2  y. 
Pekah,  r.  20  y. 


sj  gJS 


18 
20 


(7) 
12 


2 
15? 


I  g  .J 

Kingdoms  of  the      i  ^  ^ 
World.  X,  "3 


Shishak  of  Egypt,    9^5 
plunders   Jera 
salem  .     .     . 


Serah  the  Cushite 

Benhadad   i.  of 

Syria  .     .     . 


Ithobal,    king   of 
Tyre  and  Sidon. 


Benhadad  il.  in 
Syria. 


Hazael  in  Syria. 


Benhadad  III.   in 
Syria. 


Pol,  king  of  As- 
syria. 


971 
957 
955 
953 
952 
940 

939 
930 
929 
929 

925 


918 
914 


897 
896 
891 

889 
884 

883 
877 
856 
840 


838 

824 

1810 

1783 

772 

771 
771 


760 
759 


190 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


■*-  c  c 

i  -  B 


217 


233 
236 

245 
248 
253 


261 

277 

332 
334 

365 
365 
369 

376 
876 
387 


Kingdom  of  Jndah. 


Jotham,  r.  16  y. 
Ahaz,  r.  16  y. 

Hezekiah,  r.  29  y. 
Manasseh,  r.  55  y. 


Amon,  r.  2  y. 
Josiah,  r.  31  y. 

Jelioahaz,r.3mon. 
Jehoiakim,  r.  11  y. 
Beginning  of  the 
Captivity 

Jekoiachin,   r.  3 

months 
Zedekiah,  r.  11  y. 


Destruction    of 
Jerusalem 

Jehoiachin's     ele- 
vation 

End  of  the  Cap- 
tivity 


4 
12 
6 


Kingdom  of  Israel. 


Pekahf.  Anarchy 

8J  months 
Hoshea,  r.  9  y. 

Destruction  of  the 
Kingdom 


2 
17 


Kingdoms  of  the 
World. 


Building  of  Rome 
Nabonasar  .     . 

Tiglath-pileser, 

king  of  Assyria 
So,  king  of  Egypt 

Salmanasar,   king 
of  Assyria 


Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria,  besieges  Jerusalem 
Merodach-Baladan's  embassy. 


Esarhaddon  sends  colonists  to  Samaria, 


Nabopolasar,  king  of  Babylon 

Battle  at  Megiddo  with  Pharaoh-Necho  .     .     . 

Battle  at  Carchemish  and  conquest  of  Jerusalem 
by  Nebuchadnezzar 

Nabopolasart 

Second  conquest  of  Jerusalem  and  deportation 


Phaxaoh-Hophra,  king  of  Egypt. 


Evil-merodach  . 
Cyrus  sole  ruler 


li 


758 
753 
747 
742 
739 

730 
727 

722 


714 

698 

643 
641 
626 
610 
610 
606 

605 
599 

599 

588 

562 

536 


1.  Fkom  the  Division  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  Ascent  of 
THE  Throne  by  Ahab  in  the  38  th  year  of  Asa  King 
of  Jtjdah. 

Chap,  xn.-xvi.  28. 

This  epoch  embraces  only  fifty-seven  years,  which  are  filled 
up  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  by  the  reigns  of  three  kings,  and 
in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  by  six  rulers  from  four  different  houses, 
Jeroboam's  sin  of  rebellion  against  the  ordinance  and  command- 
ment of  God  having  produced  repeated  rebellions,  so  that  one 


CHAP.  XIL  191 

dynasty  was  ever  rising  up  to  overthrow  and  exterminate  another. 
— Commencing  with  the  secession  of  the  ten  tribes  from  Eeho- 
boam,  we  have  first  of  all  an  account  of  the  founding  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  (ch.  xiL),  and  of  the  predictions  of  the  prophets 
concerning  the  introduction  of  the  calf-worship  (ch.  xiil)  and 
the  rejection  of  Jeroboam  and  his  house  by  God  (ch.  xiv.  1-20) ; 
and  after  this  the  most  important  facts  connected  with  the  reigns 
of  Eehoboam,  Abijam,  and  Asa  are  given  (ch.  xiv.  21-xv.  24) ; 
and,  finally,  a  brief  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  from  the 
ascent  of  the  throne  by  Nadab  to  the  death  of  Omri.  (ch.  xv. 
25-xvi  28). 

CHAP.  XIL    SECESSION    OF   THE   TEN   TRIBES   FROM   THE   HOUSE 
OF   DAVID,  AND    FOUNDDfG   OF   THE   KINGDOM    OF   KRAEL. 

The  jealousy  which  had  prevailed  from  time  immemorial 
between  Ephraim  and  Judah,  the  two  most  powerful  tribes  of 
the  covenant  nation,  and  had  broken  out  on  dijfferent  occasions 
into  open  hostilities  (Judg.  viii  1  sqq. ;  2  Sam.  ii.  9,  xix.  42 
sqq.),  issued,  on  the  death  of  Solomon,  in  the  division  of  the 
kingdom ;  ten  tribes,  headed  by  Ephraim,  refusing  to  do  homage 
to  Eehoboam,  the  son  and  successor  of  Solomon,  and  choosing 
Jeroboam  the  Ephraimite  as  their  king.  Now,  although  the 
secession  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  royal  house  of  David  had 
been  ordained  by  God  as  a  punishment  for  Solomon's  idolatry,  and 
not  only  had  Solomon  been  threatened  with  this  punishment,  but 
the  sovereignty  over  ten  tribes  had  been  promised  to  Jeroboam 
by  the  prophet  Ahijah,  whilst  the  secession  itself  was  occasioned 
by  Eehoboam's  imprudence ;  yet  it  was  essentially  a  rebellion 
against  the  Lord  and  His  anointed,  a  conspiracy  on  the  part  of 
these  tribes  against  Judah  and  its  king  Eehoboam.  Eor  apart 
from  the  fact  that  the  tribes  had  no  right  to  choose  at  their 
pleasure  a  different  king  from  the  one  who  was  the  lawful  heir 
to  the  throne  of  David,  the  very  circumstance  that  the  tribes 
who  were  discontented  with  Solomon's  government  did  not  come 
to  Jerusalem  to  do  homage  to  Eehoboam,  but  chose  Sichem  as 
the  place  of  meeting,  and  had  also  sent  for  Jeroboam  out  of 
Egypt,  showed  clearly  enough  that  it  was  their  intention  to 
sever  themselves  from  the  royal  house  of  David  ;  so  that  the 
harsh  reply  given  by  Eehoboam  to  their  petition  that  the  service 
imposed  upon  them  might  be  lightened,  furnished  them  with  the 


192  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

desired  opportunity  for  carrying  out  the  secession  upon  •which 
they  had  already  resolved,  and  for  which  Jeroboam  was  the 
suitable  man.  And  we  have  already  shown  at  ch.  xi.  40  that 
the  promise  of  the  throne,  which  Jeroboam  had  already  received 
from  God,  neither  warranted  him  in  rebelling  against  Solomon, 
nor  in  wresting  to  himself  the  government  over  the  tribes  that 
were  discontented  with  the  house  of  David  after  Solomon's 
death.  The  usurpation  of  the  throne  was  therefore  Jeroboam's 
first  sin  (vers.  1-24),  to  which  he  added  a  second  and  much 
greater  one  immediately  after  his  ascent  of  the  throne,  namely, 
the  establishment  of  an  unlawful  worship,  by  which  he  turned 
the  political  division  into  a  religious  schism  and  a  falling  away 
from  Jehovah  the  God-King  of  His  people  (vers.  25-33). 

Vers.  1-24.  Secession  of  the  Ten  Tribes  (cf  2  Chron. 
X.  1-xi.  4). — Vers.  1-4.  Eehoboam  went  to  Shechem,  because 
all  Israel  had  come  thither  to  make  him  king.  "  All  Israel," 
according  to  what  follows  (cf  vers.  20  and  21),  was  the  ten 
tribes  beside  Judah  and  Benjamin.  The  right  of  making  king 
the  prince  whom  God  had  chosen,  i.e.  of  anointing  him  and  doing 
homage  to  him  (compare  1  Chron.  xii.  38,  where  ^v»n  alternates 
with  ^^9^  TjK'b,  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  v.  3),  was  an  old  traditional  right 
in  Israel,  and  the  tribes  had  exercised  it  not  only  in  the  case  of 
Saul  and  David  (1  Sam.  xi.  15 ;  2  Sam.  iL  4,  v.  3),  but  in  that 
of  Solomon  also  (1  Chron.  xxix.  22).  The  ten  tribes  of  Israel 
made  use  of  this  right  on  Eehoboam's  ascent  of  the  throne ;  but 
instead  of  coming  to  Jerusalem,  the  residence  of  the  king  and 
capital  of  the  kingdom,  as  they  ought  to  have  done,  and  doing 
homage  there  to  the  legitimate  successor  of  Solomon,  they  had 
gone  to  Sichem,  the  present  Nabulus  (see  at  Gen.  xii.  6  and 
xxxiii.  18),  the  place  where  the  ancient  national  gatherings  were 
held  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (Josh.  xxiv.  1),  and  where  Abimelech 
the  son  of  Gideon  had  offered  himself  as  king  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges  (Judg.  ix.  1  sqq.).  On  the  choice  of  Sichem  as  the  place 
for  doing  homage  Kimchi  has  quite  correctly  observed,  that  "  they 
sought  an  opportunity  for  transferring  the  government  to  Jero- 
boam, and  therefore  were  unwilling  to  come  to  Jerusalem,  but 
came  to  Sichem,  which  belonged  to  Ephraim,  whilst  Jeroboam 
was  an  Ephraimite."  If  there  could  be  any  further  doubt  on  the 
matter,  it  would  be  removed  by  the  fact  that  they  had  sent  for 
Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  to  come  from  Egypt,  whither  he  had 


CHAP.  xir.  1-4.  193 

fled  from  Solomon  (ch,  xi.  40),  and  attend  this  meeting,  and  that 
Jeroboam  took  the  lead  in  the  meeting,  and  no  doubt  suggested 
to  those  assembled  the  demand  which  they  should  lay  before 
Eehoboam  (ver.  4).^ — The  construction  of  vers,  2  and  3  is  a 
complicated  one,  since  it  is  only  in  ^X3j?  in  ver.  3  that  the 
apodosis  occurs  to  the  protasis  '1J^  V^?  '•?'?,  and  several  cir- 
cumstantial clauses  intervene.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
Jeroboam  the  son  of  Xebat  heard,  sc.  that  Solomon  was  dead 
and  Eehoboam  had  been  made  king  ...  he  was  still  in  Egj'pt, 
however,  whither  he  had  fled  from  king  Solomon ;  and  as  Jero- 
boam was  living  in  Egypt,  they  had  sent  and  called  him  .  .  .  that 
Jeroboam  came  and  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel,"  etc.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  2  Chron.  x.  2  the  construction  is  very  much 
simplified,  and  is  rendered  clearer  by  the  alteration  of  '">^  3r^T 
D^ixpa,  "  and  Jeroboam  dwelt  in  Eg}-pt,"  into  Dn>*^p  'i'  ^p% 
"  that  Jeroboam  returned  from  Egj'pt."^ — ^Ver.  4.  The  persons 
assembled  desired  that  the  burdens  which  Solomon  had  laid 
upon  them  should  be  lightened,  in  which  case  they  would  serve 
Eehoboam,  i.e.  would  yield  obedience  to  hiin  as  their  king, 
^^nx  rinbyo  b^n,  "  make  light  away  from  the  service  of  thy  father," 

1  "  This  pretext  was  no  doubt  furnished  to  the  people  by  Jeroboam,  who, 
because  he  had  formerly  been  placed  above  Ephraim  as  superintendent  of  the 
works,  could  most  craftily  suggest  calumnies,  from  the  things  which  he  knew 
better  than  others." — (Seb.  Schmidt.) 

°  At  the  same  time,  neither  this  explanation  in  the  Chronicles,  nor  the  fact 
that  the  Vulgate  has  the  same  in  our  text  also,  warrants  our  making  alterations 
in  the  text,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  deviation  in  the  Chronicles  and 
Vulgate  is  so  obviously  nothing  but  an  elucidation  of  our  account,  w^hich  is  more 
obscurely  expressed.  There  is  stUl  less  ground  for  the  interpolation,  which 
Thenius  has  proposed,  from  the  clauses  contained  in  the  Septuagint  partly 
after  ch.  xi.  43,  partly  in  ch.  xii.  between  vers.  24  and  25,  and  in  an  abbrevi- 
ated form  once  more  after  ch.  xiii.  34,  so  as  to  obtain  the  following  more 
precise  account  of  the  course  of  the  rebellion  which  Jeroboam  instigated,  and 
of  which  we  have  not  a  very  minute  description  in  ch.  xi.  26 :  "  Solomon  having 
appointed  Jeroboam  superintendent  of  the  tributary  labour  in  Ephraim,  for 
the  purpose  of  keeping  in  check  the  Sichemites,  who  were  probably  pre- 
eminently inclined  to  rebel,  directed  him  to  make  a  fortress,  which  already 
existed  upon  Mount  Gerizim  under  the  name  of  Millo,  into  a  strong  prison 
(rnns),  from  which  the  whole  district  of  Gerizim,  the  table-land,  received  the 
name  of  the  land  of  Zerirah,  and  probably  made  him  governor  of  it  and  in- 
vested him  with  great  power.  When  holding  this  post,  Jeroboam  rebelled 
against  Solomon,  but  was  obliged  to  flee.  Having  now  returned  from  Egypt,  he 
assembled  the  members  of  his  own  tribe,  and  with  them  he  first  of  all  besieged 
this  prison,  for  the  purpose  of  making  himself  lord  of  the  surrounding  district. 


194  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

i.e.  reduce  what  was  imposed  upon  us  by  thy  father.  Solomon 
had  undoubtedly  demanded  greater  performances  from  the  people 
than  they  had  previously  been  accustomed  to,  not  only  to  meet 
the  cost  of  maintaining  the  splendour  of  his  court,  but  also  and 
principally  to  carry  out  his  large  and  numerous  buildings.  But 
in  return  for  this,  he  had  secured  for  his  people  not  only  the 
blessings  of  undisturbed  peace  throughout  his  whole  reign,  but 
also  great  wealth  from  the  trade  and  tribute  of  the  subjugated 
nations,  so  that  there  cannot  have  been  any  well-grounded  occa- 
sion for  complaint.  But  when,  as  is  too  often  the  case,  men 
overlooked  the  advantages  and  blessings  which  they  owed  to  his 
government,  and  fixed  their  attention  in  a  one-sided  manner 
merely  upon  the  performances  which  the  king  demanded,  it  might 
appear  as  though  he  had  oppressed  his  people  with  excessive 
burdens. 

Vers.  5-24.  In  order  that  the  request  of  the  tribes  might 
be  maturely  weighed,  Eehoboam  directed  them  to  appear 
before  him  again  in  three  days,  and  in  the  meantime  discussed 
the  matter  with  the  older  counsellors,  who  had  served  his 
father. — ^Ver.  7.   These  counsellors  said  (the  singular  "i3'i''.l  is 

Now  this  castle  was  the  citadel  of  the  city  in  which  Jeroboam  was  born,  to 
which  he  had  just  returned,  and  from  which  they  fetched  him  to  take  part 
in  the  negotiations  with  Eehoboam.  Its  ruins  are  stUl  in  existence,  according 
to  Robinson  {Pal.  iii.  p.  99),  and  from  all  that  has  been  said  it  was  not  called 
Zeredah  (ch.  xi.  26),  but  (after  the  castle)  Zerira."  This  is  what  Thenius 
says.  But  if  we  read  the  two  longer  additions  of  the  LXX.  quite  through, 
we  shall  easily  see  that  the  words  ukoOo/^ykts  tw  'S.u'hufA.uu  r^u  h  Spu  ^E(ppxi'fi 
do  not  give  any  more  precise  historical  information  concerning  the  building 
of  the  Millo  mentioned  in  ch.  xi.  27,  since  this  verse  is  repeated  immediately 
afterwards  in  the  following  form :  ot/roj  ^xo3o'^«o-£  t^i/  uKpxv  iu  rxig  oipaiatv 
otKQu  ^Ecpputfc,  ovroi  avvtK'hitai  Tviv  "TToTi-tv  A«/3/S, — but  are  nothing  more  than 
a  legendary  supplement  made  by  an  Alexandrian,  which  has  no  more  value 
than  the  statement  that  Jeroboam's  mother  was  named  Sarira  and  was  yvvn 
mpvn.  The  name  of  the  city  l.apipu,  is  simply  the  Greek  form  of  the 
Hebrew  mnv  which  the  LXX.  have  erroneously  adopted  in  the  place  of 
riTlV  as  the  reading  in  ch.  xi.  26.  But  in  the  additional  clauses  in  ques- 
tion in  the  Alexandrian  version,  "Sxpipoi  is  made  into  the  residence  of  king 
Jeroboam  and  confounded  with  Thirza ;  what  took  place  at  Thirza  according 
to  ch.  xiv.  17  (of  the  Hebrew  text)  being  transferred  to  Sarira,  and  the 
following  account  being  introduced,  viz.  that  Jeroboam's  wife  went  Ik  locpipac. 
to  the  prophet  Ahijah  to  consult  him  concerning  her  sick  son,  and  on  return- 
ing heard  of  the  child's  death  as  she  was  entering  the  city  of  Sarira. — These 
remarks  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  Alexandrian  additions  hare 
not  the  least  historical  worth. 


CHAP.  Xn.  5-24.  195 

used,  because  one  of  them  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  whole), 
"  If  thou  wilt  be  subservient  to  this  people  to-day  (now),  and 
servest  them,  and  hearkenest  to  them,  .  .  .  they  will  serve 
thee  for  ever." — Vers.  8  sqq.  But  Eehoboam  forsook  this  advice, 
and  asked  the  younger  ministers  who  had  grown  up  with  him. 
They  advised  him  to  overawe  the  people  by  harsh  threats. 
"  My  little  finger  is  stronger  than  my  father's  loins."  '^^.P^, 
from  |t?p,  littleness,  i.e.  the  little  finger  (for  the  form,  see  Ewald, 
I  255,  h), — a  figurative  expression  in  the  sense  of,  I  possess 
much  greater  might  than  my  father.  "  And  now,  my  father  laid 
a  heavy  yoke  upon  you,  and  I  will  still  further  add  to  your 
yoke  (lay  still  more  upon  you)  :  my  father  chastised  you  with 
whips,  I  will  chastise  you  with  scorpions."  0^3"]!?^,  scorpiones, 
are  whips  with  barbed  points  like  the  point  of  a  scorpion's 
sting.^  This  advice  was  not  only  imprudent,  "  considering  all 
the  circumstances  "  (Seb.  Schmidt),  but  it  was  unwise  in  itseK, 
and  could  only  accelerate  the  secession  of  the  discontented.  It 
was  the  language  of  a  tyrant,  and  not  of  a  ruler  whom  God  had 
placed  over  His  people.  This  is  shown  in  vers.  13,  14  :  "  The 
king  answered  the  people  harshly,  and  forsook  the  counsel  of 
the  old  men,"  i.e.  the  counsellors  who  were  rich  in  experience, 
and  spoke  according  to  the  counsels  of  the  young  men,  who 
flattered  his  ambition.  It  is  very  doubtful,  indeed,  whether  the 
advice  of  the  old  men  would  have  been  followed  by  so  favour- 
able a  result ;  it  might  probably  have  been  so  for  the  moment, 
but  not  for  a  permanency.  For  the  king  could  not  become 
the  *i^y  of  the  people,  serve  the  people,  without  prejudicing 
the  authority  entrusted  to  him  by  God ;  though  there  is  no 
doubt  that  if  he  had  consented  to  such  condescension,  he 
would  have  deprived  the  discontented  tribes  of  all  pretext 
for  rebellion,  and  not  have  shared  in  the  sin  of  their  seces- 
sion— ^Ver.  15.  "And  the  king  hearkened  not  to  the  people  (to 
their  request  for  their  burdens  to  be  reduced),  for  it  was  n2p 
nin^  nyn,  a  turning  from  the  Lord,  that  He  might  establish  His 
word"  (cL  xi  31  sqq.),  i.e.  by  a  divine  decree,  that  Eehoboam 

^  The  Rabbins  give  this  explanation:  mrgai  spinis  instruct x.  Isidor.  Hispal. 
Origg.  v.  c.  27,  explains  it  in  a  similar  manner :  virga  si  est  nodosa  vel  acu- 
leata,  scorpio  vocatur.      The  Targ.  and  Syr.,  on  the  other  hand,   r'3J^D, 

P-HirLo,  i.e.  the  Greek  fiipxynx,  a  whip.    See  the  varioos  explanations  in 

Bochart,  Hieroz.  m.  p.  564  sq.  ed.  Roa. 


196  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

contributed  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  counsel  of  God  through  his 
own  folly,  and  brought  about  the  accomplishment  of  the  sen- 
tence pronounced  upon  Solomon. — Ver.  16.  The  harsh  word 
supplied  the  discontented  with  an  apparently  just  occasion  for 
saying,  "  What  portion  have  we  in  David  ?  We  have  no  in- 
heritance in  the  son  of  Jesse !  To  thy  tents,  0  Israel !  Now 
see  to  thy  house,  David  ! "  i.e.  take  care  of  thy  house.  David, 
the  tribe-father,  is  mentioned  in  the  place  of  his  family.  These 
words,  with  which  Sheba  had  once  preached  rebellion  in  the 
time  of  David  (2  Sam.  xx.  1),  give  expression  to  the  deep- 
rooted  aversion  which  was  cherished  by  these  tribes  towards 
the  Davidic  monarchy,  and  that  in  so  distinct  and  unvarnished 
a  manner,  that  we  may  clearly  see  that  there  were  deeper 
causes  for  the  secession  than  the  pretended  oppression  of  Solo- 
mon's government ;  that  its  real  foundation  was  the  ancient 
jealousy  of  the  tribes,  which  had  been  only  suppressed  for  the 
time  by  David  and  Solomon,  but  had  not  been  entirely  eradi- 
cated, whilst  this  jealousy  again  had  its  roots  in  the  estrange- 
ment of  these  tribes  from  the  Lord,  and  from  His  law  and 
righteousness. — Ver.  17.  But  the  sons  of  Israel,  who  dwelt  in 
the  cities  of  Judah,  over  these  Eehoboam  became  king.  These 
"  sous  of  Israel "  are  members  of  the  ten  tribes  who  had  settled 
in  Judah  in  the  course  of  ages  (cf.  ver.  2  3)  ;  and  the  Simeonites 
especially  are  included,  since  they  were  obliged  to  remain  in 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  from  the  very  situation  of  their  tribe- 
territory,  and  might  very  well  be  reckoned  among  the  Israelites 
who  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  inasmuch  as  at  first  the 
whole  of  their  territory  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  from 
which  they  afterwards  received  a  portion  (Josh.  xix.  1).  The 
verse  cannot  possibly  mean  that  "  the  tribe  of  Judah  declared 
in  favour  of  their  countryman  Eehoboam  as  king "  (Ewald, 
Gesch.  iii.  p.  399). — Ver.  18.  In  order  to  appease  the  agitated 
tribes  and  commence  negotiations  with  them,  Eehoboam  sent 
Adoram,  the  superintendent  of  the  tribute,  to  them  (see  at  ch. 
iv.  6).  Eehoboam  entrusted  him  with  the  negotiation,  because 
the  tribes  had  complained  that  the  tribute  burdens  were  too 
severe,  and  the  king  was  no  doubt  serious  in  his  wish  to  meet 
the  demands  of  the  people.  But  the  very  fact  that  he  sent 
this  man  only  increased  the  bitterness  of  feeling,  so  that  they 
stoned  him  to  death,  and  Eehoboam  himself  was  obliged  to 
summon  up  all  his  strength  (r^snn)  to  escape  a  similar  fate  by 


CHAP.  XII.  25-33.  197 

a  speedy  flight  to  his  chariot — Ver.  19.  Thus  Israel  fell  away 
from  the  house  of  David  "  unto  this  day  "  (for  this  formula,  see 
p.  13).  —  Yer.  20.  The  secession  -was  completed  by  the  fact 
that  all  Israel  (of  the  ten  tribes)  called  Jeroboam  to  the 
assembly  of  the  congregation  and  made  him  king  "  over  all 
Israel,"  so  that  the  tribe  of  Judah  alone  adhered  to  the  house 
of  DaWd  (see  at  ch.  xi  32).  Ver.  20  commences  in  the  same 
manner  as  ver.  2,  to  indicate  that  it  closes  the  account  com- 
menced in  ver.  2. — Vers.  21-24.  But  after  the  return  of  Eeho- 
boam  to  Jerusalem  he  was  still  desirous  of  bringing  back  the 
seceders  by  force  of  arms,  and  raised  for  that  purpose  an  army  of 
180,000  men  out  of  all  Judah,  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  the 
rest  of  the  people,  i.e.  the  Israelites  dwelling  in  the  cities  of 
Judah, — a  number  which  does  not  appear  too  large  according 
to  2  Sam.  xxiv.  9.  But  the  prophet  Shemaiah,  a  prophet  who 
is  not  mentioned  again,  received  instructions  from  God  to  forbid 
the  king  to  go  to  war  with  their  brethren  the  Israelites,  "  for 
this  thing  was  from  the  Lord"  n?n  i3"nn,  "  this  thing,  i.e.  his 
being  deprived  of  the  sovereignty  over  t^n  tribes,  but  not  their 
rebellion"  (Seb.  Schmidt).  For  the  fact  itself,  see  the  remark  on 
ver.  1 5.  The  king  and  the  people  hearkened  to  this  word.  ^^^^ 
0277^  "  they  turned  to  go,"  i.e.  they  gave  up  the  intended  expedi- 
tion and  returned  home.  In  2  Chron.  xi  4  we  have  the  explana- 
tory phrase  fPr?  ^^^. 

Vers.  25-33.  Fou>t)ing  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel. — 
Ver.  25.  When  Jeroboam  had  become  king,  it  was  his  first 
care  to  give  a  firmer  basis  to  his  sovereignty  by  the  fortifica- 
tion of  Sichem  and  PnueL  nja,  to  build,  is  used  here  in  the 
sense  of  fortif}-ing,  because  both  cities  had  stood  for  a  long  time, 
and  nothing  is  known  of  their  having  been  destroyed  imder 
either  Solomon  or  Da%-id,  although  the  tower  of  Sichem  had 
been  burnt  down  by  Abimelech  (Judg.  ix.  49),  and  the  tower  of 
Pnuel  had  been  destroyed  by  Gideon  (Judg.  viii.  17).  Sichem, 
a  place  well  known  from  the  time  of  Abraham  downwards  (Gen. 
xii  6),  was  situated  upon  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  between 
Mount  Gerizim  and  ;Mount  Ebal,  and  still  exists  under  the 
name  of  Xabulus  or  Kahlus,  a  name  corrupted  from  Flavia 
Nea'polis.  Jeroboam  dwelt  therein,  i.e.  he  chose  it  at  first  as  his 
i-esidence,  though  he  afterwards  resided  in  Thirza  (see  ch.  xiv. 
17).     Prmd  was  situated,  according  to  Gen.  xxxiL  31,  on  the 


198  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

other  side  of  the  Jordan,  on  the  northern  bank  of  the  Jabhok 
(not  the  southern  side,  as  Thenius  supposes) ;  and  judging  from 
Gen.  xxxii.  22  sqq.  and  Judg.  viii.  8  sqq.,  it  was  on  the  cara- 
van road,  which  led  through  Gilead  to  Damascus,  and  thence 
past  Palmyra  and  along  the  Euphrates  to  Mesopotamia.  It  was 
probably  on  account  of  its  situation  that  Jeroboam  fortified  it, 
to  defend  his  sovereignty  over  Gilead  against  hostile  attacks 
from  the  north-east  and  east. — Vers.  26  sqq.  In  order  also  to 
give  internal  strength  to  his  kingdom,  Jeroboam  resolved  to 
provide  for  his  subjects  a  substitute  for  the  sacrificial  worship 
in  the  temple  by  establishing  new  sacra,  and  thus  to  take  away 
all  occasion  for  making  festal  journeys  to  Jerusalem,  from  which 
he  apprehended,  and  that  probably  not  without  reason,  a  return 
of  the  people  to  the  house  of  David,  and  consequently  further 
danger  for  his  own  life.  "  If  this  people  go  up  to  perform 
sacrifice  in  the  house  of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem,  their  heart  will 
turn  to  their  lord,  king  Eehoboam,"  etc. — Ver.  28.  He  there- 
fore consulted,  sc.  with  his  counsellors,  or  the  heads  of  the  nation, 
who  had  helped  him  to  the  throne,  and  made  two  calves  of  gold. 
^'^l  Y-iy  are  young  oxen,  not  of  pure  gold  however,  or  cast  in 
brass  and  gilded,  but  in  all  probability  like  the  golden  calf  which 
Aaron  had  cast  for  the  people  at  Sinai,  made  of  a  kernel  of 
wood,  which  was  then  covered  with  gold  plate  (see  the  Comm. 
on  Ex.  xxxii.  4).  That  Jeroboam  had  in  his  mind  not  merely 
the  Egyptian  u4pw-worship  generally,  but  more  especially  the 
image-worship  which  Aaron  introduced  for  the  people  at  Sinai, 
is  evident  from  the  words  borrowed  from  Ex.  xxxii  4,  with 
which  he  studiously  endeavoured  to  recommend  his  new  form 
of  worship  to  the  people :  "  Behold,  this  is  thy  God,  0  Israel, 
who  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  ni^J?i?  ^9?'"^"?. 
it  is  too  much  for  you  to  go  to  Jerusalem ;  not  "  let  your  going 
suffice,"  because  |0  is  not  to  be  taken  in  a  partitive  sense  here, 
as  it  is  in  Ex.  ix.  28  and  Ezek.  xliv.  6.  What  Jeroboam  meant 
to  say  by  the  words,  "  Behold  thy  God,"  etc.,  was,  "  this  is  no 
new  religion,  but  this  was  the  form  of  worship  which  our  fathers 
used  in  the  desert,  with  Aaron  himself  leading  the  way"  (Seb. 
Schmidt).  And  whilst  the  verbal  allusion  to  that  event  at  Sinai 
plainly  shows  that  this  worship  was  not  actual  idolatry,  i.e.  was 
not  a  worship  of  Egyptian  idols,  from  which  it  is  constantly 
distinguished  in  our  books  as  well  as  in  Hosea  and  Amos,  but 
that  Jehovah  was  worshipped  under  the  image  of  the  calves  or 


CHAP.  XII.  25-33.  199 

young  oxen ;  the  choice  of  the  places  in  which  the  golden  calves 
were  set  up   also  shows  that  Jeroboam  desired  to  adhere  as 
closely  as  possible  to  ancient  traditions.     He  did  not  select  his 
own  place  of  residence,  but  Bethel  and  Daa     Bethel,  on  the 
southern  border  of  his  kingdom,  which  properly  belonged  to  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii  13  and  22),  the  present  Beitin, 
had  already  been  consecrated  as  a  divine  seat  by  the  vision  of 
Jehovah  which  the  patriarch  Jacob  received  there  in  a  dream 
(Gen.  xxviii  11,  19),  and  Jacob  gave  it  the  name  of  Bethel, 
house  of  God,  and  afterwards  built  an  altar  there  to  the  Lord 
(Gen.  XXXV.  7).     And  Jeroboam  may  easily  have  fancied,  and 
have  tried  to  persuade  others,  that  Jehovah  would  reveal  Him- 
self to  the  descendants  of  Jacob  in  this  sacred  place  just  as  well 
as  He  had  done  to  their  forefather. — Dan,  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  kingdom,  on  the  one  source  of  the  Jordan,  formerly  called 
Laish  (Judg.  xviii.  26  sqq.),  was  also  consecrated  as  a  place  of 
worship  by  the  image-worship  established  there  by  the  Danites, 
at  which  even  a  grandson  of  Moses  had  officiated ;  and  regard 
may  also  have  been  had  to  the  convenience  of  the  people, 
namely,  that  the  tribes  living  in  the  north  would  not  have  to  go 
a  long  distance  to  perform  their  worship. — ^Ver.  30.  But  this 
institution  became  a  sin  to  Jeroboam,  because  it  violated  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  since  this  not 
only  prohibited  aU  worship  of  Jehovah  under  images  and  s}Tnbols 
(Ex.  XX.  4),  but  had  not  even  left  the  choice  of  the  place  of  wor- 
ship to  the  people  themselves  (Deut.  xii  5  sqq.).     "  And  the 
people  went  before  the  one  to  Dan."    The  expression  "  to  Dan" 
can  only  be  suitably  explained  by  connecting  it  with  2iri ;  the 
people  even  to  Dan,  i.e.  the  people  throughout  the  whole  king- 
dom even  to  Dan.     The  southern  boundary  as  the  tertninus  a 
quo  is  not  mentioned ;  not  because  it  was  for  a  long  time  in 
dispute,  but  because  it  was  already  given  in  the  allusion  to 
Bethel,    t^^^  is  neither  the  golden  caK  at  Dan  nor  (as  I  formerly 
thought)  that  at  Bethel,  but  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the 
preceding  nnxrrriNi  Tnxn-nx :  one  of  the  two,  or  actually  both  the 
one  and  the  other  (Thenius).     The  sin  of  which  Jeroboam  was 
guilty  consisted  in  the  fact  that  he  no  longer  allowed  the  people 
to  go  to  the  house  of  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem,  but  induced  or  com- 
pelled them  to  worship  Jehovah  before  one  or  the  other  of  the 
calves  which  he  had  set  up,  or  (as  it  is  expressed  in  ver.  31)  made 
a  house  of  high  places,  ni03  n'3  (see  at  ch.  iil  2),  instead  of  the 


200  THE  FinST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

house  of  God,  which  the  Lord  had  sanctified  as  the  place  of 
worship  by  filling  it  with  His  gracious  presence.  The  singular 
3  rvii  may  be  accounted  for  from  the  antithesis  to  nin^  IT'S, 
upon  which  it  rests.  There  was  no  necessity  to  say  expressly 
that  there  was  a  house  of  high  places  at  Bethel  and  Dan,  i.e.  in 
two  places,  because  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the 
golden  calves  could  not  stand  in  the  open  air,  but  were  placed 
in  a  temple,  by  which  the  sacrificial  altar  stood.  These  places 
of  worship  were  houses  of  high  places,  Bamoth,  because  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  was  wanting,  and  therewith  the  gracious  pre- 
sence of  God,  the  Shechinah,  for  which  no  symbol  invented  by 
men  could  be  a  substitute.  Moreover  Jeroboam  made  "  priests 
from  the  mass  of  the  people,  who  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi." 
Dyn  niifpD,  i.e.  not  of  the  poorest  of  the  people  (Luther  and 
others),  but  from  the  last  of  the  people  onwards,  that  is  to  say, 
from  the  whole  of  the  people  any  one  without  distinction  even 
to  the  very  last,  instead  of  the  priests  chosen  by  God  out  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi.  For  this  meaning  of  nijfjpD  see  Gen.  xix.  4 
and  Ezek.  xxxiii.  2,  also  Lud.  de  Dieu  on  this  passage.  This 
innovation  on  the  part  of  Jeroboam  appears  very  surprising,  if 
we  consider  how  the  Ephraimite  Micah  (Judg.  xvii.  10  sqq.) 
rejoiced  that  he  had  obtained  a  Levite  to  act  as  priest  for  his 
image-worship,  and  can  only  be  explained  from  the  fact  that 
the  Levites  did  not  consent  to  act  as  priests  in  the  worship 
before  the  golden  calves,  but  set  their  faces  against  it,  and  there- 
fore, as  is  stated  in  2  Chron.  xi.  13,  14,  were  obliged  to  leave 
their  district  towns  and  possessions  and  emigrate  into  the  king- 
dom of  Judah. — Ver.  3  2.  Jeroboam  also  transferred  to  the  eighth 
month  the  feast  which  ought  to  have  been  kept  in  the  seventh 
month  (the  feast  of  tabernacles,  Lev.  xxiii.  34  sqq.).  The  pretext 
for  this  arbitrary  alteration  of  the  law,  which  repeatedly  de- 
scribes the  seventh  month  as  the  month  appointed  by  the  Lord 
(Lev,  xxiii.  34,  39,  and  41),  he  may  have  found  in  the  fact  that 
in  the  northern  portion  of  the  kingdom  the  corn  ripened  a  month 
later  than  in  the  more  southern  Judah  (sec  my  hihl.  Archdol.  ii. 
§  118,  Anm.  3,  and  §  119,  Anm.  2),  since  this  feast  of  the  in- 
gathering of  the  produce  of  the  threshing-floor  and  wine-press 
(Ex.  xxiii.  16  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  39  ;  Deut.  xvi.  13)  was  a  feast  of 
thanksgiving  for  the  gathering  in  of  all  the  fruits  of  the  ground. 
But  the  true  reason  was  to  be  found  in  his  intention  to  make 
the  separation  in  a  religious  point  of  view  as  complete  as  pos- 


CHAP.  XIIL  201 

sible,  although  Jeroboam  retained  the  day  of  the  month,  the 
fifteenth,  for  the  sake  of  the  weak  who  took  offence  at  his 
innovations.  For  we  may  see  very  clearly  that  many  beside 
the  Levites  were  very  discontented  with  these  illegal  institu- 
tions, from  the  notice  in  2  Chron.  xi.  16,  that  out  of  all  the 
tribes  those  who  were  devoted  to  the  Lord  from  the  heart  went 
to  Jerusalem  to  sacrifice  to  the  God  of  the  fathers  there.  "  And 
he  sacrificed  upon  the  altar."  This  clause  is  connected  with 
the  preceding  one,  in  the  sense  of:  he  instituted  the  feast 
and  offered  sacrifices  thereat  In  ver,  326  (from  nn;  ja  on- 
wards) and  ver.  33,  what  has  already  been  related  concerning 
Jeroboam's  religious  institutions  is  brought  to  a  close  by  a 
comprehensive  repetition  of  the  leading  points.  "  Thus  did  he 
in  Bethel,  (namely)  to  offer  sacrifice  to  the  calves  ;  and  there 
he  appointed  the  priests  of  the  high  places  which  he  had  made, 
and  offered  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  which  he  had  made  at  Bethel, 
on  the  fifteenth  day  in  the  eighth  month,  which  he  himself  had 
devised,  and  so  made  a  feast  for  the  children  of  Israel  and  sacri- 
ficed upon  the  altar  to  burn."  1?:  P  signifies  scorsum,  by  him- 
self alone,  i.e.  in  this  connection,  i.q.  "  from  his  own  heart."  The 
Keri  i^po  is  therefore  a  correct  explanation  as  to  the  fact ;  but 
it  is  a  needless  correction  from  Xeh.  vi.  8.  The  last  clause, 
n^epnp  ,  .  .  pysi^  leads  on  to  what  follows,  and  it  would  be  more 
correct  to  take  it  in  connection  with  ch.  xiii.  1  and  render  it 
thus  :  and  when  he  was  offering  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  to  burn, 
behold  there  came  a  man  of  God,  etc.  Thenius  has  rendered 
^i'r.  incorrectly,  and  he  stood  at  the  altar.  This  thought  would 
have  been  expressed  by  'on  ?V  *iii2i'*l,  as  in  ch.  xiii.  1.  By  "i^^pi? 
we  are  not  to  understand  the  burning  or  offering  of  incense,  but 
the  burning  of  the  sacrificial  portions  of  the  flesh  upon  the  altar, 
as  in  Lev.  L  9,  13,  17,  etc. 

CHAP.  XIIL    TESmiONY  OF  GOD  AGAINST  THE  CALF-WORSHIP  OF 

JEKOBOAM. 

A  prophet  out  of  Judah  announces  to  Jeroboam  the  eventual 
overthrow  of  the  idolatrous  worship,  and  attests  his  divine 
mission  by  miraculous  signs  upon  the  altar  at  Bethel  and  the 
hardened  king  (vers.  1-1 0)  ;  but  on  the  way  back  he  allows 
himself  to  be  enticed  by  an  old  prophet  out  of  Bethel  to  go  into  his 
house,  contrary  to  the  express  command  of  the  Lord,  and  while 


202  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

sitting  at  table  with  him  has  to  hear  from  his  mouth  the  divine 
threat,  that  on  account  of  his  transgression  of  the  command  of 
God  he  will  not  come  into  the  sepulchre  of  his  fathers.  This 
threat  was  fulfilled  on  his  way  home  ;  and  the  marvellous  ful- 
filment made  so  deep  an  impression  upon  the  old  prophet,  that 
he  confirmed  the  testimony  which  he  had  given  concerning  the 
worship  at  the  high  places  (vers.  11-32).  These  marvellous 
occurrences  not  only  teach  how  Jeroboam  brought  about  the 
overthrow  of  his  dynasty  by  his  thorough  hardening  against 
the  word  of  God  (vers.  33,  34),  but  they  also  show  how  false 
prophecy  rose  up  from  the  very  beginning  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  and  set  itself  against  the  true  prophets  of  the  Lord,  and 
how  it  gained  a  victory,  which  merely  displayed  its  own  im- 
potence, however,  and  foreshadowed  its  eventual  and  certain 
overthrow. 

Vers.  1-10.  Prophecy  against  the  idolatrous  worship  at  Bethel. 
— Vers.  1,  2.  Whilst  Jeroboam  was  still  occupied  in  sacrificing 
by  the  altar  at  Bethel,  there  came  a  prophet  (CC^^  ^''^)  out  of 
Judah  "  in  the  word  of  Jehovah "  to  Bethel,  and  pronounced 
upon  the  altar  its  eventual  destruction.  nin^_  •^n^3  does  not 
mean  "  at  the  word  of  Jehovah  "  here,  as  it  frequently  does, 
but  "  in  the  word  of  Jehovah,"  as  vers.  9  and  17  more  espe- 
cially show;  so  that  the  word  of  Jehovah  is  regarded  as  a 
power  which  comes  upon  the  prophet  and  drives  him  to  utter 
the  divine  revelation  which  he  has  received.  It  is  the  same  in 
ch.  XX.  35.  "I'^pn^  is  to  be  taken  as  in  ch.  xii.  33. — "  Behold 
a  son  will  be  bom  to  the  house  of  David,  named  Josiah ;  he 
will  offer  upon  thee  (0  altar)  the  priests  of  the  high  places,  who 
burn  incense  {i.e.  kindle  sacrifices)  upon  thee,  and  men's  bones 
will  they  burn  upon  thee."  According  to  2  Kings  xxiii.  15-20, 
this  prophecy  was  literally  fulfilled.  The  older  theologians 
found  in  this  an  evident  proof  of  the  divine  inspiration  of  the 
prophets;  modern  theology,  on  the  other  hand,  which  denies 
the  supernatural  inspiration  of  prophecy  in  accordance  with  its 
rationalistic  or  naturalistic  principles,  supposes  that  this  pro- 
phecy was  not  more  precisely  defined  till  after  the  event,  and 
adduces  in  support  of  this  the  apparently  just  argument,  that 
the  prediction  of  particular  historical  events  is  without  analogy, 
and  generally  that  the  introduction  either  of  particular  persons 
by  name  or  of  definite  numbers  is  opposed  to  the  very  essence 
of  prophecy,  and  turns  prediction  into  soothsaying.     The  dis- 


CHAP.  XIII.  l-IO.  203 

tinction  between  soothsaying  and  prediction,  however,  is  not 
that  the  latter  merely  utters  general  ideas  concerning  the  future, 
whilst  the  former  announces  special  occurrences  beforehand : 
but  soothsaying  is  the  foretelling  of  all  kinds  of  accidental 
things;  prophecy,  on  the  contrary,  the  foretelling  of  the  progres- 
sive development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  not  merely  in  general, 
but  in  its  several  details,  according  to  the  circumstances  and 
necessities  of  each  particular  age,  and  that  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  several  concrete  details  of  the  prophecy  rest  upon  the 
general  idea  of  the  revelation  of  salvation,  and  are  thereby 
entirely  removed  from  the  sphere  of  the  accidental.  It  is  true 
that  perfectly  concrete  predictions  of  particular  events,  with  the 
introduction  of  names  and  statement  of  times,  are  much  more 
rare  than  the  predictions  of  the  progressive  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  according  to  its  general  features;  but  they  are 
not  altogether  wanting,  and  we  meet  with  them  in  every  case 
where  it  was  of  importance  to  set  before  an  ungodly  generation 
in  the  most  impressive  manner  the  truth  of  the  divine  threaten- 
ings  or  promises.  The  allusion  to  Coresh  in  Isa.  xliv.  28, 
xlv.  1,  is  analogous  to  the  announcement  before  us.  But  in 
both  cases  the  names  are  closely  connected  with  the  destination 
of  the  persons  in  the  prophecy,  and  are  simply  a  concrete  de- 
scription of  what  God  will  accomplish  through  these  men. 
Hence  the  name  ^njK'N'  occurs  primarily  according  to  its  appella- 
tive meaning  alone,  viz.  "  he  whom  Jehovah  supports,"  from 
nc'iJ,  to  support,  and  expresses  this  thought :  there  will  be  bom 
a  son  to  the  house  of  David,  whom  Jehovah  wiU  support  or 
establish,  so  that  he  shall  execute  judgment  upon  the  priests  of 
the  high  places  at  Bethel.  This  prophecy  was  then  afterwards 
so  fulfilled  by  the  special  arrangement  of  God,  that  the  king 
who  executed  this  judgment  bore  the  name  of  Joshiyahu  as  his 
proper  name.  And  so  also  '^'^p  was  originally  an  appellative  in 
the  sense  of  sun.  The  judgment  which  the  prophet  pronounced 
upon  the  altar  was  founded  upon  the  jtts  talionis.  On  the  very 
same  altar  on  which  the  priests  offer  sacrifice  to  the  ^''^iV  shall 
they  themselves  be  offered,  and  the  altar  shall  be  defiled  for  ever 
by  the  burning  of  men's  bones  upon  it.  D'lS  niD^y,  "  men's 
bones,"  does  not  stand  for  "  their  (the  priests')  bones,"  but  is 
simply  an  epithet  used  to  designate  human  corpses,  which  defile 
the  place  where  they  lie  (2  Kings  xxiii.  16). — ^Ver.  3.  In  con- 
firmation of  his  word  the  prophet  added  a  miracle  (naitD,  Tepa<i, 


204  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

portentum,  see  at  Ex,  iv.  21) :  "  this  is  the  sign  that  the  Lord 
hath  spoken  (through  me) :  behold  the  altar  will  be  rent  in 
pieces,  and  the  ashes  upon  it  will  be  poured  out."  I^n  is  the 
ashes  of  the  fat  of  the  sacrificial  animals.  The  pouring  out  of 
the  sacrificial  ashes  in  consequence  of  the  breaking  up  of  the 
altar  was  a  penal  sign,  which  indicated,  along  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  altar,  the  desecration  of  the  sacrificial  service  per- 
formed upon  it. — Ver.  4.  The  king,  enraged  at  this  announce- 
ment, stretched  out  his  hand  against  the  prophet  with  the 
words,  "  seize  him" — and  his  hand  dried  up,  so  that  he  was  not 
able  to  draw  it  back  again,  ^y,  to  dry  up,  i.e.  to  become  rigid 
in  consequence  of  a  miraculous  withdrawal  of  the  vital  energy. 
Thus  Jeroboam  experienced  in  the  limbs  of  his  own  body  the 
severity  of  the  threatened  judgment  of  God. — Vers.  5,  6.  The 
penal  miracle  announced  in  the  word  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  in  the 
strength  of  the  Lord,  also  took  effect  immediately  upon  the 
altar ;  and  the  defiant  king  was  now  obliged  to  entreat  the  man 
of  God,  saying,  "  Soften,  I  pray,  the  face  of  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  pray  for  me,  that  my  hand  may  return  to  me,"  i.e.  that  I 
may  be  able  to  draw  it  back  again,  to  move  it  once  more.  And 
this  also  took  place  at  once  at  the  intercession  of  the  prophet. 
'^1  "JSTis  npn,  lit.  to  stroke  the  face  of  God,  i.e.  to  render  it  soft 
by  intercession  (see  at  Ex.  xxxii.  11). — Ver.  7.  As  Jeroboam 
could  do  nothing  by  force  against  the  prophet,  he  endeavoured 
to  gain  him  over  to  his  side  by  friendliness,  that  at  least  he 
might  render  his  threat  harmless  in  the  eyes  of  the  people. 
For  this  purpose,  and  not  to  do  him  honour  or  to  make  him 
some  acknowledgment  for  the  restoration  of  his  hand,  he  in- 
vited him  to  his  house,  to  strengthen  himself  with  food  (^yD 
as  in  Gen.  xviii.  5,  Judg.  ix.  5  ;  for  the  form  '■'']V9:»  ^^^  Ewald, 
§  41,  c)  and  receive  from  him  a  present. — Vers.  8  sqq.  But 
this  design  was  also  frustrated,  and  the  rejection  of  his  worship 
on  the  part  of  God  was  still  more  strongly  declared.  "  If  thou 
gavest  me,"  the  man  of  God  replied,  "  the  half  of  thy  house,  I 
shall  not  go  in  with  thee,  nor  eat  bread  and  drink  water  in  this 
place;  for  thus  hath  Jehovah  commanded  me,"  etc.  The  subject, 
Jehovah,  is  easily  supplied  to  n^^^*  from  the  context  (vid.  Ewald, 
§  294,  i).  God  had  forbidden  the  prophet  to  eat-  and  drink 
"  to  manifest  His  detestation  of  idolatry,  and  to  show  by  that 
fact  that  the  Bethelites  were  so  detestable,  and  as  it  were  ex- 
communicated by  God,  that  He  wished  none  of  the  faithful  to 


CHAP.  XIIL  11-32.  205 

join  with  them  in  eating  and  drinking  "  (C.  a  Lap.).  He  was 
not  to  return  by  the  "way  by  which  he  came,  that  no  one  might 
look  out  for  him,  and  force  him  to  a  delay  which  was  irrecon- 
cilable with  his  commission,  or  "lest  by  chance  being  brought 
back  by  Jeroboam,  he  should  do  anything  to  please  him  which 
was  unworthy  of  a  prophet,  or  from  which  it  might  be  inferred 
that  idolaters  might  hope  for  some  favour  from  the  Deity" 
(Budd.). 

Vers.  1 1-3  2.  Seduction  of  the  man  of  God  hy  an  old  prophet,  and 
his  consequent  punishment. — Vers.  1 1—1 9.  The  man  of  God  had  re- 
sisted the  invitations  of  Jeroboam,  and  set  out  by  a  different  road 
to  return  to  Judah.  An  old  prophet  at  Bethel  heard  from  his 
sons  what  had  taken  place  (the  singular  ii3  NiT  as  compared  with 
the  plural  Q'i'>s?'^  may  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  first 
of  all  one  son  related  the  matter  to  his  father,  and  that  then  the 
other  sons  supported  the  account  given  by  the  first)  ;  had  his  ass 
saddled  ;  hurried  after  him,  and  found  him  sitting  under  the  tere- 
binth (the  tree  well  known  from  that  event)  ;  invited  him  to  come 
into  his  house  and  eat  with  him ;  and  when  the  latter  appealed 
to  the  divine  prohibition,  said  to  him  (ver.  1 8), "  I  am  a  prophet 
also  as  thou  art,  and  an  angel  has  said  to  me  in  the  word  of  the 
Lord :  Bring  him  back  with  thee  into  thy  house,  that  he  may 
eat  and  drink,"  and  lied  to  him  (p  tJ'na  without  a  copula,  because 
it  is  inserted  as  it  were  parenthetically,  simply  as  an  explana- 
tion)— then  he  went  back  with  him,  and  ate  and  drank  in  his 
house. — Vers.  20—22.  As  they  were  sitting  at  table  the  word 
of  the  Lord  came  to  the  old  prophet,  so  that  he  cried  out  to  the 
man  of  God  from  Judah :  "  Because  thou  hast  been  rebellious 
against  the  command  of  the  Lord,  and  hast  not  kept  the  com- 
mandment, .  .  .  thou  wilt  not  come  to  the  grave  of  thy  fathers," 
i.e.  thou  wilt  meet  with  a  violent  death  by  the  way.  This 
utterance  was  soon  fulfilled. — Vers.  23  sqq.  After  he  had  eaten 
he  saddled  the  ass  for  him,  i.e.  for  the  prophet  whom  he  had 
fetched  back,  and  the  latter  (the  prophet  from  Judah)  departed 
upon  it.  On  the  road  a  lion  met  him  and  slew  him ;  "  and  his 
corpse  was  cast  in  the  road,  but  the  ass  stood  by  it,  and  the  Hon 
stood  by  the  corpse."  The  Hon,  contrary  to  its  nature,  had 
neither  consumed  the  prophet  whom  it  had  slain,  nor  torn  in 
pieces  and  devoured  the  ass  upon  which  he  rode,  but  had 
remained  standing  by  the  corpse  and  by  the  ass,  that  the  sla}-ing 
of  the  prophet  might  not  be  regarded  as  a  misfortune  that  had 


206  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

befallen  him  by  accident,  but  that  the  hand  of  the  Lord  might 
be  manifest  therein,  so  that  passers-by  saw  this  marvel  and 
related  it  in  Bethel. — ^Ver.  2  6.  When  the  old  prophet  at  Bethel 
heard  of  this,  he  said,  "  It  is  the  man  of  God,  who  was  disobedi- 
ent to  the  word  of  the  Lord ;  the  Lord  hath  delivered  him  to  the 
lion,  so  that  it  hath  torn  him  p?^,  frangere,  confringerc,  used  of 
a  lion  wliich  tears  its  prey  in  pieces)  and  slain  him  according 
to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  He  spake  to  him." — Vers.  27-32. 
He  thereupon  had  his  ass  saddled,  and  went  and  found  the 
corpse  and  the  ass  standing  by  it,  without  the  lion  having  eaten 
the  corpse  or  torn  the  ass  in  pieces ;  and  he  lifted  the  corpse 
upon  his  ass,  and  brought  it  into  his  own  city,  and  laid  the 
corpse  in  his  grave  with  the  customary  lamentation :  ""nN  '•in^ 
alas,  my  brother !  (cf.  Jer,  xxii.  1 8),  and  then  gave  this  com- 
mand to  his  sons :  "  When  I  die,  bury  me  in  the  grave  in  which 
the  man  of  God  is  buried,  let  my  bones  rest  beside  his  bones ; 
for  the  word  which  he  proclaimed  in  the  word  of  Jehovah  upon 
the  altar  at  Bethel  and  upon  all  the  houses  of  the  high  places 
in  the  cities  of  Samaria  will  take  place  "  {i.e.  will  be  fulfilled). 
The  expression  "  cities  of  Samaria "  belongs  to  the  author  of 
these  books,  and  is  used  proleptically  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  which  did  not  receive  this  name  till  after  the  building  of 
the  city  of  Samaria  as  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  and  the  resi- 
dence of  the  kings  of  Israel  (ch.  xvi.  24).  There  is  a  prophetic 
element  m  the  words  "  upon  all  the  houses  of  the  high  places," 
etc.,  inasmuch  as  the  only  other  erection  at  that  time  beside  the 
one  at  Bethel  was  a  temple  of  the  high  places  at  Dan.  But  after 
such  a  beginning  the  multiplication  of  them  might  be  foreseen 
with  certainty,  even  without  any  higher  illumination. 

The  conduct  of  the  old  prophet  at  Bethel  appears  so  strange, 
that  Josephus  and  the  Chald.,  and  most  of  the  Eabbins  and  of 
the  earlier  commentators  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  have 
regarded  him  as  a  false  prophet,  who  tried  to  lay  a  trap  for  the 
prophet  from  Judah,  in  order  to  counteract  the  effect  of  his  pro- 
phecy upon  the  king  and  the  people.  But  this  assumption  cannot 
be  reconciled  with  either  the  divine  revelation  which  came  to| 
biTn  at  the  table,  announcing  to  the  Judtean  prophet  the  punish- 
ment of  his  transgression  of  the  commandment  of  God,  and  was 
so  speedily  fulfilled  (vers.  20-24) ;  or  with  the  honour  which  he 
paid  to  the  dead  man  after  tliis  punishment  had  fallen  upon  him, 
by  burying  him  in  his  own  grave ;  and  still  less  with  his  con- 


CHAP.  XIII.  11-22.  207 

firmation  of  his  declaration  concerning  the  altar  at  Bethel  (vers. 
29-32).  We  must  therefore  follow  Ephr.  Syr.,  Theodor.,  Heng- 
stenberg,  and  others,  and  regard  the  old  prophet  as  a  true 
prophet,  who  with  good  intentions,  and  not "  under  the  influence 
of  human  envy  "  (Thenius),  but  impelled  by  the  desire  to  enter 
into  a  closer  relation  to  the  man  of  God  from  Judah  and  to 
strengthen  himseK  through  his  prophetic  gifts,  urged  him  to  enter 
his  house.  The  fact  that  he  made  use  of  sinful  means  in  order 
to  make  more  sure  of  securing  the  end  desired,  namely,  of  the 
false  pretence  that  he  had  been  directed  by  an  angel  to  do  this, 
may  be  explained,  as  Hengstenberg  suggests  {Dissert.  voL  ii.  p. 
149),  on  the  ground  that  when  Jeroboam  introduced  his  innova- 
tions, he  had  sinned  by  keeping  silence,  and  that  the  appearance 
of  the  Judaean  prophet  had  brought  him  to  a  consciousness  of 
this  sin,  so  that  he  had  been  seized  with  shame  on  account  of 
his  fall,  and  was  anxious  to  restore  himself  to  honour  in  his 
own  eyes  and  those  of  others  by  intercourse  with  this  witness  to 
the  truth.  But  however  little  the  lie  itself  can  be  excused  or 
justified,  we  must  not  attribute  to  him  alone  the  consequences 
by  which  the  lie  was  followed  in  the  case  of  the  Judaean  prophet. 
For  whilst  he  chose  reprehensible  means  of  accomplishing  what 
appeared  to  be  a  good  end,  namely,  to  raise  himself  again  by 
intercourse  with  a  true  prophet,  and  had  no  wish  to  injure  the 
other  in  any  way,  the  Judaean  prophet  allowed  himself  to  be 
seduced  to  a  transgression  of  the  clear  and  definite  prohibition  of 
God  simply  by  the  sensual  desire  for  bodily  invigoration  by 
meat  and  drink,  and  had  failed  to  consider  that  the  divine  reve- 
lation which  he  had  received  could  not  be  repealed  by  a  pretended 
revelation  from  an  angel,  because  the  word  of  God  does  not  con- 
tradict itself.  He  was  therefore  obliged  to  listen  to  a  true 
revelation  from  God  from  the  mouth  of  the  man  whose  pretended 
revelation  from  an  angel  he  had  too  carelessly  believed,  namely, 
to  the  announcement  of  punishment  for  his  disobedience  towards 
the  commandment  of  God,  which  punishment  he  immediately 
afterwards  endured,  "  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  but  for  the 
preservation  of  the  spirit :  1  Cor.  xv.  5  "  {Berleb.  Bible).  That 
the  punishment  fell  upon  him  alone  and  not  upon  the  old  prophet 
of  Bethel  also,  and  that  for  apparently  a  smaller  crime,  may  be 
accoimted  for  "  not  so  much  from  the  fact  that  the  old  prophet 
had  lied  with  a  good  intention  (this  might  hold  good  of  the  other 
also),  as  from  the  fact  that  it  was  needful  to  deal  strictly  with 


208  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  man  -who  had  just  received  a  great  and  holy  commission  from 
the  Lord "  (0.  v.  Gerlach).  It  is  true  that  no  bodily  punish- 
ment fell  upon  the  old  prophet,  but  this  punishment  he  received 
instead,  that  with  his  lie  he  was  put  to  shame,  and  that  his 
conscience  must  have  accused  him  of  having  occasioned  the  death 
of  the  man  of  God  from  Judah.  He  was  thereby  to  be  cured  of 
his  weakness,  that  he  might  give  honour  to  the  truth  of  the 
testimony  of  God.  "  Thus  did  the  wondrous  providence  of  God 
know  how  to  direct  all  things  most  gloriously,  so  that  the  bodily 
destruction  of  the  one  contributed  to  the  spiritual  and  eternal 
preservation  of  the  soul  of  the  other  "  (Berleb.  Bible). — Concern- 
ing the  design  of  these  marvellous  events,  H.  Witsius  has  the 
following  remarks  in  his  Miscell.  ss.  i.  p.  118  (ed.  nov.  1736): 
"  So  many  wondrous  events  all  concurring  in  one  result  caused 
the  prophecy  against  the  altar  at  Bethel  to  be  preserved  in  the 
mouths  and  memories  of  all,  and  the  mission  of  this  prophet  to 
become  far  more  illustrious.  Thus,  although  the  falsehood  of 
the  old  man  of  Bethel  brought  disgrace  upon  himself,  it  injured 
no  one  but  the  man  of  God  whose  credulity  was  too  great ;  and, 
under  the  overruling  providence  of  God,  it  contributed  in  the 
most  signal  manner  to  the  confirmation  and  publication  of  the 
truth."  ^  The  heaping  up  of  the  marvellous  corresponded  to  the 
great  object  of  the  mission  of  the  man  of  God  out  of  Judah, 
through  which  the  Lord  would  enter  an  energetic  protest  against 
the  idolatrous  worship  of  Jeroboam  at  its  first  introduction,  to 
guard  those  who  feared  God  in  Israel,  of  whom  there  were  not 
a  few  (2  Chron.  xi.  16  ;  2  Kings  xviii.  3,  xix.  18),  from  falling 
away  from  Him  by  joining  in  the  worship  of  the  calves,  and  to 
take  away  every  excuse  from  the  ungodly  who  participated 
therein. 

Vers,  33  and  34.  But  this  did  not  lead  Jeroboam  to  conver- 
sion. He  turned  not  from  his  evil  way,  but  continued  to  make 
high  priests  from  the  mass  of  the  people,     K'Pl  3B'»1,  "  he  re- 

^  Compare  with  this  the  remark  of  Theodoret  in  his  qumst.  43  in  3  lihr. 
Reg. :  "  In  my  opinion  this  punishment  served  to  confirm  the  declaration  con- 
cerning the  altar.  For  it  was  not  possible  for  the  statement  of  such  a  man 
to  be  concealed :  and  this  was  sufficient  to  fill  with  terror  those  who  heard 
it ;  for  if  partaking  of  food  contrary  to  the  command  of  God,  and  that  not 
of  his  own  accord,  but  under  a  deception,  brought  such  retribution  upon  a 
righteous  man,  to  what  punishments  would  they  be  exposed  who  had  for- 
saken the  God  who  made  them,  and  worshipped  the  likenesses  of  irrational 
creatures  ?  " 


CHAP.  XIV.  1-20.  209 

turned  and  made,"  i.e.  he  made  again  or  continued  to  make. 
For  the  fact  itself  compare  ch.  xiL  31.  "  Whoever  had  plea- 
sure (K?C?,  cf  Ges.  §  109),  he  filled  his  hand,  that  he  might 
become  a  priest  of  the  high  places."  ^''p"'?  ^."??,  to  fiU  the 
hand,  is  the  technical  expression  for  investing  with  the  priest- 
hood, according  to  the  rite  prescribed  for  the  consecration  of 
the  priests,  namely,  to  place  sacrificial  gifts  in  the  hands  of  the 
persons  to  be  consecrated  (see  at  Lev.  vii  37  and  viii  25  sqq.). 
The  plural  nioa  ''}r}3  is  used  with  indefinite  generality  :  that 
he  might  be  ranked  among  the  priests  of  high  places. — Ver. 
34.  "  And  it  became  in  (with)  this  thing  the  sin  of  the  house 
of  Jeroboam,  and  the  destroying  and  cutting  off"  from  the 
earth;"  that  is  to  say,  this  obstinate  persistence  in  ungodly  con- 
duct was  the  guilt  which  had  as  its  natural  consequence  the 
destroying  of  his  house  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  n?n  "la'na 
is  not  a  mistake  for  n^n  i3"in,  but  ^  is  used,  as  in  1  Chron. 
ix.  33,  viL  23,  to  express  the  idea  of  being  and  persisting  in  a 
thing  (for  this  use  of  3  compare  Ewald,  |  295,/). 

CHAP.  XIV.    REIGN  AND  DEATH  OF  JEEOBOAM  AND  EEHOBOAM. 

Vers.  1-20.  Keign  of  Jeroboam. — Vers.  1-18.  AMjaKs 
prophecy  againd  Jeroboam  and  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  —  As 
Jeroboam  did  not  desist  from  his  idolatry  notwithstanding  the 
threatened  punishment,  the  Lord  visited  him  with  the  illness 
of  his  son,  and  directed  the  prophet  Ahijah,  to  whom  his  wife 
had  gone  to  ask  counsel  concerning  the  result  of  the  illness,  to 
predict  to  him  not  only  the  cutting  off  of  his  house  and  the 
death  of  his  sick  son,  but  also  the  thrusting  away  of  Israel  out 
of  the  land  of  its  fathers  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and  in  confirma- 
tion of  this  threat  caused  the  sick  son  to  die  when  the  retuminsr 
mother  crossed  the  threshold  of  her  house  again. — Vers.  1—3. 
When  his  son  fell  sick,  Jeroboam  said  to  his  wife  :  Disguise  thy- 
self, that  thou  may  est  not  be  known  as  the  wife  of  Jeroboam,  and 
go  to  Shiloh  to  the  prophet  Ahijah,  who  told  me  that  I  should 
be  king  over  this  people ;  he  will  tell  thee  how  it  will  fare  with 
the  boy.  nsriK^'n,  from  n:^,  to  alter  one's  self,  i.e.  to  disguise  one's 
self.  She  was  to  go  to  Shiloh  disguised,  so  as  not  to  be  recognised, 
to  deceive  the  old  prophet,  because  otherwise  Jeroboam  did  not 
promise  himseK  any  favourable  answer,  as  he  had  contemptuously 
neglected  Ahijah's  admonition  (ch.  xi  38,  39).     But  he  turned 

o 


210  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  this  prophet  because  he  had  spoken  concerning  him  ^???,  to 
he  king,  i.e.  that  he  would  become  king,  over  this  people,  '^?!o> 
stands  for  n^^  ^'^''^P,  with  which  the  infinitive  esse  can  be  omitted 
(vid.  Ewald,  |  336,  &).  As  this  prophecy,  which  was  so  favour- 
able to  Jeroboam,  had  come  to  pass  (ch.  xi.  29,  30),  he  hoped 
that  he  might  also  obtain  from  Ahijah  a  divine  revelation  con- 
cerning the  result  of  his  son's  illness,  provided  that  he  did  not 
know  who  it  was  who  came  to  seek  counsel  concerning  her  sick 
son.  To  complete  the  deception,  she  was  to  take  with  her  as 
a  present  for  the  prophet  (cf.  1  Sam.  ix.  8)  "  ten  loaves  and 
crumbs"  and  a  jar  with  honey,  i.e.  a  trifling  gift  such  as  a  simple 
citizen's  wife  might  take.  According  to  the  early  versions  and 
the  context,  a  kind  of  plain  cake,  KoXkvplZa  (LXX.),  crustulam 
(Vulg.).  It  is  different  in  Josh,  ix.  5. — ^Vers.  4,  5.  Ahijah  could 
no  longer  see,  because  his  eyes  were  blinded  with  age.  ^Dj? 
yy^V  as  in  1  Sam.  iv.  15,  an  expression  applied  to  the  black 
cataract,  amaurosis.  It  was  therefore  all  the  less  possible  for  him 
to  recognise  in  a  natural  manner  the  woman  who  was  coming  to 
him.  But  before  her  arrival  the  Lord  had  not  only  revealed  to , 
him  her  coming  alid  her  object,  but  had  also  told  him  what  he 
was  to  say  to  her  if  she  should  disguise  herself  when  she  came, 
nni  nn ;  see  at  Judg.  xviii.  4.  "lii  nsha  >r}\  « let  it  be  if  she 
comes  and  disguises  herself ;"  i.e.  if  when  she  comes  she  should 
disguise  herself. — Ver.  6.  When  Ahijah  heard  the  sound  of 
her  feet  entering  the  door  (the  participle  •"'^<3,  according  to  the 
number  and  gender,  refers  to  the  n;^'S  implied  in  0  v?"^'  ''^'^^^^ 
Ewald,  §  317,  c),  he  addressed  her  by  her  name,  charged  her 
with  her  disguise  of  herself,  and  told  her  that  he  was  entrusted 
with  a  hard  saying  to  her.  nc'i?  (cf.  ch.  xii.  13)  is  equivalent 
to  ^f?^  ^^^^',  for  the  construction,  compare  Ewald,  §  284,  c. — 
Vers.  7  sqq.  The  saying  was  as  follows :  "  Therefore,  because 
thou  hast  exalted  thyself  from  the  people,  and  I  have  made 
thee  prince  over  my  people  Israel  (cf.  ch.  xi.  31),  .  .  .  but  thou 
hast  not  been  as  my  servant  David,  who  kept  my  command- 
ments .  .  .  (cf.  ch.  xi.  34),  and  hast  done  worse  than  all  who 
were  before  thee  (judices  nimirum  et  duces  Israelis — Cler.),  and 
hast  gone  and  hast  made  thyself  other  gods  (contrary  to  the 
express  command  in  Ex.  xx.  2,  3),  .  .  .  and  hast  cast  me  be- 
hind thy  back  :  therefore  I  bring  misfortune  upon  the  house  of 
Jeroboam,"  etc.  The  expression,  to  cast  God  behind  the  back, 
which  only  occurs  here  and  in  Ezek.  xxiii.  35,  denotes  the  most 


CHAP.  XIV.  1-20.  211 

scornful  contempt  of  God,  the  strict  opposite  of  "  keeping  God 
before  the  eyes  and  in  the  heart"     '^''ps  V^f^,  every  male  per- 
son; see  at  1  Sam.  xxv.  22.     A  synonjTnous  expression  is  i^^'y 
3"ri,  the  fettered  (i.e.  probably  the  married)  and  the  free  (or 
single);  see  at  Deut.  xxxii  36.     "In  Israel,"  i.e.  in  the  king- 
dom of  the  ten  tribes.     The   threat  is  strengthened  by  the 
clause  in  ver.  1 0,  "  and  I  wiU.  sweep  out  after  the  house  of 
Jeroboam,  as  one  sweepeth  out  dung,  even  to  the  end,"  "which 
expresses  shameful  and  utter  extermination ;   and  this  threat 
is   still  further  strengthened  in  ver.   11  by  the  threat  added 
from  Deut.  xxviii.  26,  that  of  those  cut  off  not  one  is  to  come 
to  the  grave,  but  their  bodies  are  to  be  devoured  by  the  dogs 
and  birds  of  prey, — the  worst  disgrace  that  could  befall  the  dead. 
Instead  of  wild  beasts  (Deut.  xxviiL  26)  the  dogs  are  mentioned 
here,  because  in  the  East  they  wander  out  in  the  streets  without 
owners,  and  are  so  wild  and  ravenous  that  they  even  devour 
corpses   (vid,  Harmar,  Beobachtungen,  i  p.  198).      ^??"17  with 
p  of  relationship,  equivalent  to  of  those  related  to  Jeroboam. 
It  is  the  same  in  ver.  13. — ^Vers.  12,  13.  After  this  announce- 
ment  of  the  judgment  upon  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  Ahijah 
gave  the  wife  information  concerning  her  sick  son.     He  would 
die  as  soon,  as  she  entered  the  city,  and  of  aU  the  male  mem- 
bers of  the  house  of  Jeroboam  he  only  would  receive  the  honour 
of  a  proper  burial,  because  in  him  there  was  some  good  thing 
towards  Jehovah  found.     Ewald  (§  247,  &)  regards  the  form  nxhn 
as  standing  for  "^i^i?,  and  refers  the  suffix  to  the  following  word 
"i^yn  {vid.  Ewald,  §  309,  c).    But  as  this  use  of  the  suffix  would  be 
very  harsh,  the  question  arises  whether  nx'a  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  feminine  form  of  the  infinitive,  after  the  analogy  of  ^V!!  in 
Ex.  iL  4  and  '"i*ib  in  2  Kings  xix.  3,  etc.     From  the  fulfilment 
of  this  declaration  in  vers.  17  and  18  Jeroboam  was  to  learn 
that  the  threatened  destruction  of  his  royal  house  wovdd  also  be 
just  as  certainly  fulfilled.     The  sick  son  appears  to  have  been 
the  heir-presumptive  to  the  throne.      This  may  be  inferred 
partly  feom  the  lamentation  of  all  Israel  at  his  death  (ver.  18), 
and  partly  from  what  foUows  here  in  the  next  verse,     njrp-^ 
means  in  his  relation  to  Jehovah, — ^Ver.    14.  "Jehovah  will 
laise  Himself  up  a  king  over  Israel,  who  will  cut  off  the 
house  of  Jeroboam  this  day ;  but  what  {sc.  do  I  say)  ?  even 
now,"  ^.  has   He  raised  him   up.      This  appears   to   be   the 
simplest  explanation  of  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  of  which 


212  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

very  various  interpretations  have  been  given.  HT  is  placed 
before  Qi'n^  to  give  it  the  stronger  emphasis,  as  in  Ex.  xxxii.  1 
(compare  Josh.  ix.  12,  13,  and  Ewald,  §  293,  6;  and  for  nny  D3 
compare  Delitzsch  on  Job,  i.  p.  290,  transL). — ^Vers.  15,  16. 
But  in  order  that  not  only  Jeroboam,  but  also  the  people  who 
had  joined  in  his  idolatry,  might  perceive  the  severity  of  the 
divine  judgment,  Ahijah  also  announced  to  the  nation  its 
banishment  into  exile  beyond  the  Euphrates.  "  Jehovah  will 
smite  Israel,  as  the  reed  shakes  in  the  water,"  is  an  abbreviated 
phrase  for :  Jehovah  will  smite  Israel  in  such  a  manner  that 
it  will  sway  to  and  fro  like  a  reed  in  the  water  moved  by  a 
strong  wind,  which  has  not  a  sufficiently  firm  hold  to  resist 
the  violence  of  the  storm.  "  And  will  thrust  them  out  of  the 
good  land,"  etc.,  as  Moses  threatened  the  transgressors  of  the 
law  (Deut.  xxix.  2  7),  "  and  scatter  them  beyond  the  river 
(Euphrates),"  i.e.  banish  them  among  the  heathen,  from  whom 
God  brought  out  and  chose  their  forefather  (Josh.  xxiv.  3), 
"  because  they  have  made  themselves  Ashera-idols,  to  provoke 
Jehovah."  D^')??'*?.  is  used  for  idols  generally,  among  which  the 
golden  calves  are  reckoned.  iJii^l,  that  He  may  deliver  up 
Israel,  on  account  of  the  idolatrous  forms  of  worship  introduced 
by  Jeroboam.  For  the  fulfilment  see  2  Kings  xv.  29,  xvii.  23, 
and  xviii.  11. — In  vers.  17  and  18  the  exact  fulfilment  of 
Ahijah's  announcement  concerning  the  death  of  Jeroboam's  sick 
son  is  described.  According  to  ver.  17,  Jeroboam  was  then 
residing  at  Thirza,  whereas  he  had  at  first  resided  at  Shechem 
(ch.  xii.  25).  Thirza  is  probably  the  present  Talluza,  on  the 
north  of  Shechem  (see  at  Josh.  xii.  24). — ^Vers.  19  and  20. 
End  of  JerdboarrCs  reign.  Of  the  wars,  which  were  described  in 
the  annals  of  the  kings  (see  p.  12),  the  war  with  Abijam  of 
Judah  is  the  only  one  of  which  we  have  any  account  (2  Chron. 
xiii.  2  sqq.).  See  also  the  Comm.  on  ver.  3  0.  He  was  followed 
on  the  throne  by  his  son  Nadab. 

Vers.  21-31.  Eeign  of  Eehoboam  in  Judah  (compare  2 
Chron.  xL  6-xii.  16). — Ver.  21.  Eehoboam,  who  ascended  the 
throne  at  the  age  of  forty-one,  was  bom  a  year  before  the 
accession  of  Solomon  (see  at  ch.  ii.  24).  In  the  description  of 
Jerusalem  as  the  city  chosen  by  the  Lord  (cf.  ch.  xi.  36)  there 
is  implied  not  so  much  an  indirect  condemnation  of  the  falling 
away  of  the  ten  tribes,  as  the  striking  contrast  to  the  idolatry 


CHAP.  XIY.  21-31.  213 

of  Eehoboam  referred  to  in  vers.  23  sqq.  The  name  of  his 
mother  is  mentioned  (here  and  in  ver.  31),  not  because  she 
seduced  the  king  to  idolatry  (Ephr.  Syr.),  but  genei-ally  on  ac- 
count of  the  great  influence  which  the  queen-mother  appears  to 
have  had  both  upon  the  king  personally  and  upon  his  govern- 
ment, as  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  the  mother's  name  is 
given  in  the  case  of  every  king  of  Judah  {yid.  cL  x\-.  2,  13, 
Yxii  42,  etc.). — ^Vers.  22-24.  The  general  characteristics  of 
Eehoboam's  reign  are  supplied  and  more  minutely  defined  in 
the  account  in  the  Chronicles,  According  to  2  Chron.  xi.  5— 
xii-  1,  he  appears  to  have  been  brought  to  reflection  by  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  prophet,  that  the  falling  away  of  the  ten 
tribes  had  come  from  the  Lord  as  a  punishment  for  Solomon's 
idolatry  (ch.  xii  23,  24 ;  2  Chron.  xi  2—4) ;  and  in  the  first 
years  of  his  reign  to  have  followed  the  law  of  God  with 
earnestness,  and  to  have  been  occupied  in  the  establishment 
of  his  government  partly  by  the  fortification  of  different  cities 
(2  Chron.  xi.  5-12),  and  partly  by  setting  in  order  his  do- 
mestic affairs,  placing  his  numerous  sons,  who  were  born  of 
his  many  wives  and  concubines,  in  the  fortified  cities  of  the 
land,  and  thus  providing  for  them,  and  naming  Abijam  as  his 
successor  (2  Chron.  xi.  18-22);  while  his  kingdom  was  still 
further  strengthened  by  the  priests,  Levites,  and  pious  Israelites 
who  emigrated  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem  from  the  ten  tribes 
(2  Chron.  xi.  13-17).  But  this  good  beginning  only  lasted 
three  years  (2  Chron,  xi  17).  When  he  thought  that  he  had 
sufficiently  fortified  his  kingdom,  he  forsook  the  law  of  the 
Lord,  and  all  Israel  {i.e.  all  the  covenant  nation)  with  him 
(2  Chron.  xiL  1).  "  Judah  did  that  which  was  displeasing  in 
the  sight  of  the  Lord ;  they  provoked  Him  to  jealousy  more 
than  all  that  their  fathers  {sc.  under  the  Judges)  had  done  with 
their  sins."  N2i?,  to  provoke  to  jealousy  (Num.  v.  14),  is  to  be 
explaiaed,  when  it  refers  to  God,  from  the  fact  that  the  relation 
in  which  God  stood  to  His  people  was  regarded  under  the 
figure  of  a  marriage,  in  which  Jehovah  appears  as  the  husband 
of  the  nation,  who  is  angry  at  the  unfaithfulness  of  his  wife, 
i.e.  at  the  idolatry  of  the  nation.  Compare  the  remarks  on 
»«?  i'X  in  the  Comm.  on  Ex.  xx.  5. — ^Ver.  23.  They  also  (the 
Judseans  as  well  as  the  Israelites)  biult  themselves  hauiotk, 
altars  of  high  places  (see  at  ch.  iii  3),  monuments  and  Ashera- 
idols.     ni3Jm  are  not  actual  images  of  gods,  but  stones  set  up  as 


214  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

memorials  (Gen.  xxxi.  13,  xxxv.  20;  Ex.  xxiv.  4),  more  espe- 
cially stone  monuments  set  up  in  commemoration  of  a  divine 
revelation  (Gen.  xxviii,  18,  22,  xxxv.  14).  Like  the  lamoth, 
in  connection  with  which  they  generally  occur,  they  were 
originally  dedicated  to  Jehovah ;  but  even  under  the  law  they 
were  forbidden,  partly  as  places  of  divine  worship  of  human 
invention  which  easily  degenerated  into  idolatry,  but  chiefly 
because  the  Canaanites  had  erected  such  monuments  to  Baal  by 
the  side  of  his  altars  (Ex.  xxiii.  24,  xxxiv.  13  ;  Deut.  vii.  5, 
etc.),  whereby  the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  unconsciously  identi- 
fied with  the  worship  of  Baal,  even  when  the  mazzehoth  were 
not  at  first  erected  to  the  Canaanitish  BaaL  As  the  rii35fn  of 
the  Canaanites  were  dedicated  to  Baal,  so  were  the  2''1^*?,  to 
Astarte,  the  female  nature-deity  of  those  tribes,  nnjf' N,  how- 
ever, does  not  mean  a  grove  (see  the  Comm.  on  Deut.  xvi.  21), 
but  an  idol  of  the  Canaanitish  nature-goddess,  generally  most 
likely  a  lofty  wooden  pillar,  though  sometimes  perhaps  a  straight 
trunk  of  a  tree,  the  branches  and  crown  of  which  were  lopped 
off,  and  which  was  planted  upon  heights  and  in  other  places  by 
the  side  of  the  altars  of  Baal.  The  name  ^'\^^.  was  transferred 
from  the  idol  to  the  goddess  of  nature  (ch.  xv.  1 3,  xviii.  1 9  ; 
2  Kings  xxi.  7,  etc.),  and  was  used  of  the  image  or  column 
of  the  Phoenician  Astarte  (ch.  xvi.  33  ;  2  Kings  xiii.  6,  xvii. 
16,  etc.),  just  as  nii'^'X  in  Judg.  iii.  7  alternates  with  niinipj; 
in  Judg.  ii.  13.  These  idols  the  Israelites  (?  Judaeans — Te.) 
appear  to  have  also  associated  with  the  worship  of  Jehovah ; 
for  the  external  worship  of  Jehovah  was  still  maintained  in  the 
temple,  and  was  performed  by  Eehoboam  himself  with  princely 
pomp  (ver.  2  8).  "  On  every  high  hill,"  etc. ;  see  at  Deut.  xii.  2. 
— Ver.  2  4,  "  There  were  also  prostitutes  in  the  land."  KHJ?  is 
used  collectively  as  a  generic  name,  including  both  male  and 
female  hierodylse,  and  is  exchanged  for  the  plural  in  ch.  xv.  1 2. 
The  male  Cp*?.!?  had  emasculated  themselves  in  religious  frenzy 
in  honour  of  the  Canaanitish  goddess  of  nature,  and  were  called 
Galli  by  the  Eomans.  They  were  Canaanites,  who  had  found 
their  way  into  the  land  of  Judah  when  idolatry  gained  the 
upper  hand  (as  indicated  by  D3)),  "  They  appear  here  as  strangers 
among  the  Israelites,  and  are  those  notorious  Cinecdi  more  espe- 
cially of  the  imperial  age  of  Rome  who  travelled  about  in  aU 
directions,  begging  for  the  Syrian  goddess,  and  even  in  the  time 
of  Augustine  went  about  asking  for  alms  in  the  streets  of  Car- 


CHAP.  XIV.  21-3L  215 

thage  as  a  remnant  of  the  Phoenician  "worsliip  {de  civ.  Dei,  vii. 
26)." — Movers,  p.  679.  On  the  female  niE^'jip  see  the  Comm. 
on  Gen.  xxxviii  21  and  Deut.  xxiii.  18. 

This  sinking  into  heathen  abominations  was  soon  followed 
by  the  punishment,  that  Judah  was  given  up  to  the  power  of 
the  heathen. — Vers.  25-28.  King  ShisMh  of  Egypt  invaded 
the  land  with  a  powerful  army,  conquered  all  the  fortified 
cities,  penetrated  to  Jerusalem,  and  would  probably  have  put 
an  end  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  if  God  had  not  had  compas- 
sion upon  him,  and  saved  him  from  destruction,  in  consequence 
of  the  humiliation  of  the  king  and  of  the  chiefs  of  the  nation, 
caused  by  the  admonition  of  the  prophet  Shemaiah,  so  that 
after  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  Shishak  contented  himself  with 
withdrawing,  taking  with  him  the  treasures  of  the  temple  and 
of  the  royal  palace.  Compare  the  fuller  account  of  this  expe- 
dition in  2  Chron.  xii.  2-9.  Shishak  (P^^)  was  the  first  king 
of  the  twenty-second  (or  Bubastitic)  dynasty,  called  Scsonchis  in 
Jul  Afric,  SesonchoBis  in  Eusebius,  and  upon  the  monuments 
on  which  Champollion  first  deciphered  his  name,  Sheshonk  or 
Sheshcnk.  Shishak  has  celebrated  his  expedition  against  Judah 
by  a  bas-relief  on  the  outer  wall  of  the  pillar-hall  erected  by 
him  in  the  first  palace  at  Kamak,  in  which  more  than  130 
figures  are  led  in  cords  by  Ammon  and  the  goddess  Muih  with 
their  hands  bound  upon  their  backs.  The  lower  portion  of  the 
figures  of  this  long  row  of  prisoners  is  covered  by  escutcheons, 
the  border  of  which  being  provided  with  battlements,  shows 
that  the  prisoners  are  symbols  of  conquered  cities.  About  a 
hundred  of  these  escutcheons  are  still  legible,  and  in  the  names 
upon  them  a  large  number  of  the  names  of  cities  in  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  have  been  deciphered  with  tolerable  certainty.^ 
Shishak  was    probably   bent    chiefly    upon  the   conquest   and 

1  Compare  Max  Duncker,  Gesck.  des  Alterthums,  Bd.  L  p.  909,  ed.  3,  and 
for  the  different  copies  of  this  bas-relief  in  the  more  recent  works  upon 
Egypt,  Ruetschi  in  Herzog's  Cycl.  (art.  Rehohoani).  The  latest  attempts  at 
deciphering  are  those  by  Brugsch,  Geogr.  Inschriften  in  den  agypt.  Denk- 
malem,  ii.  p.  56  sqq.,  and  0.  Blau,  Sisaqs  Zug  gegen  Juda  aiLf  dem  Denkmale 
hei  Kamak  erlduteri,  in  the  Deutsch.  morgenl.  Ztschr.  xv.  p.  233  sqq.  Cham- 
poUion's  interpretation  of  one  of  these  escutcheons,  in  his  Precis  du  systeme 
hierogl.  p.  204:,  viz.  Juda  hanimalek,  "  the  king  of  Judah,"'  has  been  rejected 
by  I^])sius  and  Brugsch  as  philologically  inadmissible.  Brugsch  writes  the 
name  thus  :  Judh  malk  or  Joud-hamalok,  and  identifies  Judh  with  Jehudijeh, 
which  Robinson  {Pal.  iii.  p.  45)  supposes  to  be  the  ancient  Jehud  (Josh.  xix.  45). 


216  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

plundering  of  the  cities.  But  from  Jerusalem,  beside  other 
treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace,  he  also  carried  off  the  golden 
shields  that  had  been  made  by  Solomon  (ch.  x.  16),  in  the 
place  of  which  Eehoboam  had  copper  ones  made  for  his  body- 
guard. The  guard,  d^V^,  runners,  are  stiU  further  described' as 
rihBn  n^3  nns  DnoB'n,  "  who  kept  the  door  of  the  king's  house," 
i.e.  supplied  the  sentinels  for  the  gate  of  the  royal  palace. — 
Ver.  28.  Whenever  the  king  went  into  the  house  of  Jehovah, 
the  runners  carried  these  shields ;  from  which  we  may  see  that 
the  king  was  accustomed  to  go  to  the  temple  with  solemn 
pomp.  These  shields  were  not  kept  in  the  state-house  of  the 
forest  of  Lebanon  (ch.  x.  1 7)  as  the  golden  shields  were,  but  in 
the  guard-chamber  (5<J^  ;  see  at  Ezek.  xl.  7)  of  the  runners. — 
Vers.  29-31.  Further  particulars  are  given  in  2  Chron.  xi.  and 
xii.  concerning  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Eehoboam,  "  There  was 
war  between  Eehoboam  and  Jeroboam  the  whole  time  (of  their 
reign)."  As  nothing  is  said  about  any  open  war  between  them, 
and  the  prophet  Shemaiah  prohibited  the  attack  which  Eehoboam 
was  about  to  make  upon  the  tribes  who  had  fallen  away  (ch. 
xi.  2  3  sqq.),  "^^C- ^  ^^^  ^^^J  ^^^note  the  hostile  feelings  and  atti- 
tude of  the  two  rulers  towards  one  another. — Ver.  31.  Death 
and  burial  of  Eehoboam:  as  in  the  case  of  Solomon  (ch.  xi.  43). 
The  name  of  the  queen-mother  has  already  been  given  in  ver. 
21,  and  the  repetition  of  it  here  may  be  explained  on  the  sup- 
position that  in  the  original  sources  employed  by  the  author  of 
our  books  it  stood  in  this  position.  The  son  and  successor  of 
Eehoboam  upon,  the  throne  is  called  Abijam  (QJ?^.)  in  the 
account  before  us  ;  whereas  in  the  Chronicles  he  is  always 
called  Abijah  {t\'>2^^  2  Chron.  xii.  16,  xiii.  1,  etc.,  or  =in>2N, 
2  Chron.  xiii.  21).  DJ3K,  i.e.  father  of  the  sea,  is  unquestion- 
ably the  older  form  of  the  name,  which  was  reduced  to  'I'DX, 

This  Jehud  in  the  tribe  of  Dan,  Blau  (p.  238)  therefore  also  finds  in  the  name ; 
and  it  will  not  mislead  any  one  that  this  city  is  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the 
tribe  of  Dan,  since  in  the  very  same  chapter  (Josh.  xix.  42)  Ajalon  is  assigned 
to  Dan,  though  it  was  nevertheless  a  fortress  of  Kehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  10). 
But  Blau  has  not  given  any  explanation  of  the  addition  malk  or  malok, 
whereas  Gust.  Roesch  takes  it  to  be  Tj^o,  and  supposes  it  to  mean  "Jehud  of 

the  king,  namely,  of  Rehoboam  or  of  Judah,  on  account  of  its  being  situated 
in  Dan,  which  belonged  to  the  northern  kingdom."  But  this  is  certainly  in- 
correct. For  where  could  the  Egyptians  have  obtained  this  exact  knowledge 
of  the  relation  in  which  the  tribes  of  the  nation  of  Israel  stood  to  one 
another  ? 


CHAP.  XV.  1-8.  217 

and  then   identified  with  the  formation  from  '3«  and  ■'1'  =  *^* 
(from  nin>j. 

CHAP.  XV.  1-24,    KEIGNS  OF  THE  TWO  KINGS  ABU  AM  AND  ASA 

OF  JUDAH. 

Vers.   1-8.    Eeign  of  Abijam   (cf  2  Chron.  xiii.). — Ahijam 
reigned    three    years,    and    his    mother's    name    was    Maacah, 
daughter  {i.e.  grand-daughter)  of  Absalom.     We  have  the  same 
in  2  Chron.  xi.  20,  21 ;  but  in  2  Chron.  xiii  2  she  is  caUed 
Michajahu,  daughter  of  Uriel  of  GibeaL      If  QvB-^as  was  without 
doubt  Absalom,  the  well-known  son  of  David,  as  we  may  infer 
from  the  fact  that  this  name  does  not  occur  again  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  connection  with  any  other  person,  since  Absalom 
had  only  one  daughter,  viz.  Thamar  (2  Sam.  xiv.  27),  who  was 
fifty  years  old  when  Solomon  died,  Maacah  must  have  been  a 
daucrhter  of  this  Thamar,  who  had   married  Uriel  of  Gibeah, 
and  therefore  a  grand-daughter  of  Absalom.     This  is  sustained 
by  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  10,  1).     The  form  of  the  name  ^'"'*9'? 
is  probably  an  error  in  copying  for  '"i^yp,  as  the  name  is  also 
written  in  2  Chron.  xi  20  and  21,  and  not  a  different  name, 
which  Maacah  assumed  as  queen,  as  Caspari  supposes  {Micha, 
p.  3,  note  4). — ^Vers.  3,  4.  Abijam  walked  as  king  in  the  foot- 
steps of  his  father.     Although  he  made  presents  to  the  temple 
(ver.  15),  his  heart  was  not  Dpc',  wholly  or  undividedly  given 
to  the  Lord,  like  the  heart  of  David  (cf  ch.  xi  4) ;  but  ('3,  after 
a  previous  negative)  for  David's  sake  Jehovah  had  left  him  a 
light  in  Jerusalem,  to  set  up  his  son  after  him  and  to  let  Jeru- 
salem stand,  because  (''?'>?J  David  had  done  right  in  the  eyes  of 
God,  etc.,  i.e.  so  that  it  was  only  for  David's  sake  that  Jehovah 
did  not  reject  him,   and   allowed   the   throne   to   pass  to   his 
son.       For  the  fact  itseK  compare   ch.  xi.   13  and  36  ;    and 
for  the  words,  "  except  in  the  matter  of  Uriah  the  ffittite," 
see  2  Sam.  xi  and  xii — Ver.  6.  "  And  there  was  war  between 
BeJwboam  and  Jeroboam  all  his  life ;"  i.e.  the  state  of  hostility 
which  had  already  existed  between  Eehoboam  and  Jeroboam 
continued  "  all  the  days  of  his  life,"  or  so  long  as  Abijam  lived 
and    reigned.       K  we    take    V>ri  ^p^"^3    in    this    manner    (not 
^l!!!^??;"''^,  ver.   16),  the  statement  loses  the  strangeness  which 
it  has  at  first  sight,  and  harmonizes  very  well  with  that  in 
ver.  7,  that  there  was  also  war  between  Abijam  and  Jeroboam. 


218  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Under  Abijam  it  assumed  the  form  of  a  serious  war,  in  which 
Jeroboam  sustained  a  great  defeat  (see  2  Chron.  xiii.  3-20). — 
The  other  notices  concerning  Abijam  in  vers.  7  and  8  are  the 
same  as  in  the  case  of  Eehoboam  in  ch.  xiv.  29  and  31. 

Vers.  9-24.  Eeign  of  Asa.  (cf  2  Chron.  xiv.-xvi.). — As  Asa 
ascended  the  throne  in  the  twentieth  year  of  the  reign  of  Jero- 
boam, his  father  Abijam,  who  began  to  reign  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  Jeroboam  (ver.  1),  can  only  have  reigned  two  years  and 
a  few  months,  and  not  three  full  years. — ^Ver.  10.  Asa  reigned 
forty-one  years.  "  The  name  of  his  mother  was  Maacah,  the 
daughter  of  Absalom."  This  notice,  which  agrees  verbatim  with 
ver.  2,  cannot  mean  that  Abijam  had  his  own  mother  for  a 
wife  ;  though  Thenius  finds  this  meaning  in  the  passage,  and 
then  proceeds  to  build  up  conjectures  concerning  emendations 
of  the  text.  We  must  rather  explain  it,  as  Ephr.  Syr.,  the 
Eabbins,  and  others  have  done,  as  signifying  that  Maacah,  the 
mother  of  Abijam,  continued  during  Asa's  reign  to  retain  the 
post  of  queen-mother  or  •^l"'??'!',  i.e.  sultana  valide,  till  Asa  de- 
posed her  on  account  of  her  idolatry  (ver.  1 3),  probably  because 
Asa's  own  mother  had  died  at  an  early  age. — Vers.  11  sqq.  As 
ruler  Asa  walked  in  the  ways  of  his  pious  ancestor  David  :  he 
banished  the  male  prostitutes  out  of  the  land,  abolished  all  the 
abominations  of  idolatry,  which  his  fathers  (Abijam  and  Eeho- 
boam) had  introduced,  deposed  his  grandmother  Maacah  from 
the  rank  of  a  queen,  because  she  had  made  herself  an  idol  for 
the  Ashera,  and  had  the  idol  hewn  in  pieces  and  burned  in  the 
valley  of  the  Kidron.  Qvp?  is  a  contemptuous  epithet  applied 
to  idols  (Lev.  xxvi  30) ;  it  does  not  mean  stercorei,  however,  as 
the  Eabbins  affirm,  but  logs,  from  P?3,  to  roll,  or  masses  of  stone, 
after  the  Chaldee  ?/a  (Ezra  v.  8,  vi.  4),  generally  connected 
with  D"'ifi5K'.  It  is  so  in  Deut.  xxix.  16.  J^-fr?s»,  formido,  from 
r?3,  terrere,  timere,  hence  an  idol  as  an  object  of  fear,  and  not 
pudendum,  a  shameful  image,  as  Movers  (Phoniz.  i.  p.  571), 
who  follows  the  Eabbins,  explains  it,  understanding  thereby  a 
Phallus  as  a  symbol  of  the  generative  and  fructifying  power  of 
nature.  With  regard  to  the  character  of  this  idol,  nothing 
further  can  be  determined  than  that  it  was  of  wood,  and 
possibly  a  wooden  column  like  the  D^"!?*^.  (see  at  ch.  xiv.  23). 
"  But  the  high  places  departed  not,"  i.e.  were  not  abolished. 
By  the  n^D3  we  are  not  to  understand,  according  to  ver.  12, 


CHAP.  XV.  9-24.  219 

altars  of  high  places  dedicated  to  idols,  but  unlawful  altars  to 
Jehovah.  It  is  so  in  the  other  passages  in  which  this  formula 
recurs  (cL  xxiL  24 ;  2  Kings  xii  4,  xiv.  4,  xv.  4 ;  and  the 
parallel  passages  2  Chron.  xv.  17,  xx.  33).  The  apparent  dis- 
crepancy between  the  last-mentioned  passages  and  2  Chron. 
xiv.  2,  4,  and  xvii.  6,  may  be  solved  very  simply  on  the  sup- 
position that  the  kings  (Asa  and  Jehoshaphat)  did  indeed 
abolish  the  altars  on  the  high  places,  but  did  not  carry  their 
reforms  in  the  nation  thoroughly  out ;  and  not  by  distinguish- 
ing between  the  bamoth  dedicated  to  Jehovah  and  those  dedi- 
cated to  idols,  as  Thenius,  Bertheau,  and  Caspari,  with  many 
of  the  earlier  commentators,  suppose.  For  although  2  Chron. 
xiv.  2  is  very  favourable  to  this  solution,  since  both  nioa 
and  i^"'"?  fii'^?t?  are  mentioned  there,  it  does  not  accord  with 
2  Chron.  xvii.  6,  where  nisan  cannot  be  merely  idolatrous  altars 
dedicated  to  the  Canaanitish  Baal,  but  unquestionably  refer  to 
the  unlawful  altars  of  Jehovah,  or  at  any  rate  include  them. 
Moreover,  the  next  clause  in  the  passage  before  us,  "  neverthe- 
less Asa's  heart  was  wholly  given  to  the  Lord,"  shows  that  the 
expression  ^iD  ^^i^  does  not  mean  that  the  king  allowed  the  un- 
lawful JehoYah-hamoth  to  remain,  but  simply  that,  notwith- 
standing his  fidelity  to  Jehovah,  the  bamoth  did  not  depart,  so 
that  he  was  unable  to  carry  the  abolition  of  them  thoroughly 
out. — Ver.  15.  He  brought  the  sacred  offerings  of  his  father 
and  his  own  sacred  offerings  into  the  house  of  Jehovah ;  pro- 
bably the  booty,  in  silver,  gold,  and  vessels,  which  his  father 
Abijam  had  gathered  in  the  war  with  Jeroboam  (2  Chron. 
xiii.  16,  17),  and  he  himseK  on  the  conquest  of  the  Cushites 
(2  Chron.  xiv.  12,  13).  The  Kcri  'Kn^i  is  a  bad  emendation 
of  the  correct  reading  in  the  Chethib  lE'np,  i.e.  vjnp  (V^p) ; 
for  nin^_  n^n  is  an  accusative,  and  is  to  be  connected  with 
^?,'?. — Vers.  16,  17.  The  state  of  hostility  between  Judah  and 
Israel  continued  during  the  reign  of  Asa ;  and  Baasha  the  king 
of  Israel  advanced,  etc.  These  statements  are  completed  and 
elucidated  by  the  Chronicles.  After  the  great  victory  obtained 
by  Abijam  over  Jeroboam,  the  kingdom  of  Judah  enjoyed  rest 
for  ten  years  (2  Chron.  xiii.  23).  Asa  employed  this  time  in 
exterminating  idolatry,  fortif}ing  different  cities,  and  equipping 
his  army  (2  Chron.  xiv.  1-7).  Then  the  Cushite  Zerah  invaded 
the  land  of  Judah  with  an  innumerable  army  (in  the  eleventh 
year  of  Asa),  but  was  totally  defeated  by  the  help  of  the  Loi-d 


220  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

(2  Chron.  xiv.  8-14)  ;  whereupon  Asa,  encouraged  by  the 
prophet  Azariah,  the  son  of  Oded,  proceeded  with  fresh  zeal  to 
the  extermination  of  such  traces  of  idolatry  as  still  remained  in 
the  kingdom,  then  renewed  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  in  front 
of  the  temple-hall,  and  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  his  reign  held, 
with  the  whole  nation,  a  great  festival  of  thanksgiving  and 
rejoicing  to  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xv.  1-15).  The 
next  year,  the  sixteenth  of  his  reign  and  the  thirty-sixth  from 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  (2  Chron.  xvi.  1),  Baasha  com- 
menced hostilities,  by  advancing  against  Judah,  taking  pos- 
session of  Ramah,  the  present  er  Ram  (see  at  Josh,  xviii.  25), 
which  was  only  two  hours  and  a  quarter  from  Jerusalem,  and 
fortifying  it.  The  occupation  of  Eamah  is  not  expressly  men- 
tioned indeed,  but  it  is  implied  in  nn^n^  ^y  hv''X  which  affirms 
the  hostile  invasion  of  Judah.  For  Eamah,  from  its  very  situa- 
tion in  the  heart  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  and  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  can  neither  have  been  a  border 
city  nor  have  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  inten- 
tion of  Baasha,  therefore,  in  fortifying  Eamah  cannot  have  been 
merely  to  restrain  his  own  subjects  from  passing  over  into  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  but  was  evidently  to  cut  off  from  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  all  free  communication  with  the  north.  ''^?'P 
'Wl  nn^  "  that  they  might  not  give  one  going  out  or  one  coming 
in  to  Asa ;"  i.e.  to  cut  off  from  the  others  all  connection  with 
Asa,  and  at  the  same  time  to  cut  oif  from  those  with  Asa  all 
connection  with  this  side.  The  main  road  from  Jerusalem  to 
the  north  passed  by  Eamah,  so  that  by  shutting  up  this  road 
the  line  of  communication  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  of 
necessity  greatly  disturbed.  Moreover,  the  fortification  of 
Eamah  by  Baasha  presupposes  the  reconquest  of  the  cities 
which  Abijam  had  taken  from  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (2  Chron. 
xiii.  19),  and  which,  according  to  2  Chron.  xiii.  19,  were  still  in 
the  possession  of  Asa. — Vers.  18,  19.  In  order  to  avert  the 
danger  with  which  his  kingdom  was  threatened,  Asa  endea- 
voured to  induce  the  Syrian  king,  Benhadad  of  Damascus,  to 
break  the  treaty  which  he  had  concluded  with  Baasha  and  to 
become  his  ally,  by  sending  him  such  treasures  as  were  left  in 
the  temple  and  palace.^     nnnian  niay  be  explained  from  the 

1  Asa  had  sought  help  from  the  Lord  and  obtained  it,  when  the  powerful 
army  of  the  Cushites  invaded  the  land  ;.but  when  an  invasion  of  the  Israel- 
ites took  place,  he  sought  help  from  the  Syrians.     This  alteration  in  his  con- 


CHAP.  XV.  9-24,  221 

fact  that  the  temple  and  palace  treasures  had  been  plundered 
by  Shishak  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam  (ch,  xiv.  26) ;  and  there- 
fore what  Asa  had  replaced  in  the  temple  treasury  (ver.  15), 
and  had  collected  together  for  his  palace,  was  only  a  remnant 
in  comparison  with  the  former  state  of  these  treasures.  The 
name  I"]'!!!?,  i.e.  son  of  Hadad,  the  sun-god  (according  to 
Macrobius,  i.  23  ;  cf  Movers,  Phoniz.  i.  p.  196),  was  borne  by 
three  kings  of  Damascus  :  the  one  here  named,  his  son  in  the 
time  of  Ahab  (ch.  xx.  1,  34),  and  the  son  of  Hazael  (2  Kings 
xiii  24).  The  first  was  a  son  of  Tabrimmon  and  grandson  of 
Hezijon.  According  to  ver.  19,  his  father  Tabrimmon  (good  is 
liimm/m ;  see  at  2  Kings  v.  1 8)  had  also  been  king,  and  was 
the  contemporary  of  Abijam.  But  that  his  grandfather  Hezyon 
was  also  king,  and  the  same  person  as  the  RezoTi  mentioned  in 
ch.  xi.  23,  cannot  be  shown  to  be  even  probable,  since  there  is 
no  ground  for  the  assumption  that  Hezyon  also  bore  the  name 
Eezon,  and  is  called  by  the  latter  name  here  and  by  the  former 
in  ch.  xi.  23. — Ver.  20.  Benhadad  consented  to  Asa's  request, 
and  directed  his  captains  to  advance  into  the  kingdom  of  Israel: 
they  took  several  cities  in  the  north  of  the  land,  whereby 
Baasha  was  compelled  to  give  up  fortifying  Eamah  and  with- 
draw to  Thirza.  Ijon  (P'V)  is  to  be  sought  for  in  aU  probability 
in  Tell  Dibhin,  on  the  eastern  border  of  Merj  Ayun ;  and  in 
Aj'un,  although  Ajun  is  written  with  Aleph,  the  name  Ijon  is 
probably  preserved,  since  the  situation  of  this  Tell  seems 
thoroughly  adapted  for  a  fortress  on  the  northern  border  of 
Israel  {vid.  Eobinson,  BM.  Res.  p.  375,  and  Van  de  Velde,  Mem. 
p.  322).  Dan  is  the  present  Tell  el  Kadi  ;  see  at  Josh.  xix.  47. 
Abcl-Bdh-Maachah,  the  present  AbU  el  Kamh,  to  the  north-west 
of  Lake  Huleh  (see  at  2  Sam.  xx.  14).  "All  Chinneroth"  is 
the  district  of  Chinnereth,  the  tract  of  land  on  the  western  shore 
of  the  Lake  of  Gennesareth  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  35).  '3  D^i'b^  by, 
together  with  all  the  land  of  Naphtali  (for  this  meaning  of  ^V 
compare  the  Comm.  on  Gen.  xxxil  12).     The  cities  named  were 

duct  may  probably  be  explained  in  part  from  the  fact,  that  notwithstanding 
the  victory,  his  army  had  been  considerably  weakened  by  the  battle  which 
he  fought  with  the  Cushites  (2  Chron.  xiv.  9),  althongh  this  by  no  means 
justified  his  want  of  confidence  in  the  power  of  the  Lord,  and  still  less  his 
harsh  and  unjust  treatment  of  the  prophet  Hanani,  whom  he  caused  to  be 
put  in  the  house  of  the  stocks  on  account  of  his  condemnation  of  the  con- 
fidence which  he  placed  in  the  Syrians  instead  of  Jehovah  (2  Chron.  xvi. 
7-10). 


222  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  principal  fortresses  of  the  land  of  Naphtali,  with  which  the 
whole  of  the  country  round  was  also  smitten,  i.e.  laid  waste. — 
Ver.  21.  2B^'!!,  and  remained  at  Thirza,  his  place  of  residence 
(see  at  ch.  xiv.  17). — Ver,  22.  Asa  thereupon  summoned  all 
Judah  ""pJ  I""^,  nemine  immuni,  i.e.  excejpto,  no  one  being  free  (cf. 
Ewald,  §  286,  a),  and  had  the  stones  and  the  wood  carried 
away  from  Eamah,  and  Geha  and  Mizpah  in  Benjamin  built,  i.e. 
fortified,  with  them.  Geba  must  not  be  confounded  with  Gibeah 
of  Benjamin  or  Saul,  but  is  the  present  Jeba,  three-quarters  of 
an  hour  to  the  north-east  of  Eamah  (see  at  Josh,  xviii  24). 
Mizpah,  the  present  Nebi  Samwil,  about  three-quarters  of  a  geo- 
graphical mile  to  the  south-west  of  Eamah  (see  at  Josh,  xviii. 
26).— Vers.  23,  24.  Of  the  other  acts  of  Asa,  the  building 
of  cities  refers  to  the  building  of  fortifications  mentioned  in 
2  Chron.  xiv.  5,  6.  The  disease  in  his  feet  in  the  time  of 
his  old  age  commenced,  according  to  2  Chron.  xvi.  12,  in  the 
thirty-ninth  year  of  his  reign ;  and  he  sought  help  from  the 
physicians,  but  not  from  the  Lord ;  from  which  we  may  see, 
that  the  longer  he  lived  the  more  he  turned  his  heart  away  from 
the  Lord  (compare  2  Chron.  xvi.  10). 

CHAP.  XV.  2  5 -XVI.  28.    REIGNS  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ISRAEL,  NADAB, 
BAASHA,  ELAH,  ZIMRI,  AND  OMRL 

Vers.  25-32.  The  Eeign  of  Nadab  lasted  not  quite  two 
years,  as  he  ascended  the  throne  in  the  second  year  of  Asa,  and 
was  slain  in  his  third  year. — Ver.  6.  He  walked  in  the  ways  of 
his  father  (Jeroboam)  and  in  his  sin,  i.e.  in  the  calf- worship  intro- 
duced by  Jeroboam  (ch.  xii.  28).  When  Nadab  in  the  second 
year  of  his  reign  besieged  Gibbethon,  which  the  Philistines  had 
occupied,  Baasha  the  son  of  Ahijah,  of  the  house,  i.e.  the  family 
or  tribe,  of  Issachar,  conspired  against  him  and  slew  him,  and 
after  he  became  king  exterminated  the  whole  house  of  Jero- 
boam, without  leaving  a  single  soul,  whereby  the  prediction  of 
the  prophet  Ahijah  (ch.  xiv.  10  sqq.)  was  fulfilled.  Gilibeilion, 
which  was  allotted  to  the  Danites  (JosL  xix.  44),  has  not  yet 
been  discovered.  It  probably  stood  close  to  the  Philistian 
border,  and  was  taken  by  the  Philistines,  from  whom  the  Israel- 
ites attempted  to  wrest  it  by  siege  under  both  ISTadab  and 
Baasha  (ch.  xvi  16),  though  apparently  without  success.  K? 
nDK'J-^3  "i^NSJ'n  as  in  Josh.  xi.  14  (see  the  Comm.  on  Deut  xx. 

T  T  :       T  .  :    •  \ 


CHAP.  XV.  33-XVL  7.  223 

16). — Ver.  32  is  simply  a  repetition  of  ver.  16  ;  and  tiie  re- 
mark concerning  Baasha's  attitude  towards  Asa  of  Judah  im- 
mediately after  liis  entrance  upon  the  government  precedes  the 
account  of  his  reign,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  at  the  very 
outset,  that  the  overthrow  of  the  dynasty  of  Jeroboam  and  the 
rise  of  a  new  dynasty  did  not  alter  the  hostile  relation  between 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  the  kingdom  of  Judah. 

Ver.  33-c1l  xvi  7.  The  Eeign  of  Baasha  is  described  very 
briefly  according  to  its  duration  (two  years)  and  its  spirit, 
namely,  the  attitude  of  Baasha  towards  the  Lord  (ver.  34) ; 
there  then  foUow  in  ch.  xvi  1—4  the  words  of  the  prophet 
Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani  (2  Chron.  xvi.  7),  concerning  the  ex- 
termination of  the  family  of  Baasha ;  and  lastly,  in  vers.  5-7, 
his  death  is  related  with  the  standing  allusion  to  the  annals  of 
the  kings.  The  words  of  Jehu  concerning  Baasha  (ch.  xvi 
1—4)  coincide  exactly  TniUatis  viutandis  with  the  words  of 
Ahijah  concerning  Jeroboam.^  The  expression  "  exalted  thee 
out  of  the  dust,"  instead  of  "  from  among  the  people"  (ch.  xiv, 
7),  leads  to  the  conjecture  that  Baasha  had  risen  to  be  king 
from  a  very  low  position.  ^^"^^  (his  might)  in  ver.  5  refers,  as 
in  the  case  of  Asa  (ch.  xv,  23),  less  to  brave  warlike  deeds, 
than  generally  to  the  manifestation  of  strength  and  energy  in 
his  government. — Ver.  7  adds  a  supplementary  remark  concern- 
ing the  words  of  Jehu  (vers.  2  sqq.),  not  to  preclude  an  excuse 
that  might  be  made,  in  which  case  CJi  would  have  to  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  nevertheless,  or  notwithstanding  (Ewald,  §  354,  a), 
but  to  guard  against  a  misinterpretation  by  adding  a  new  fea- 
ture, or  rather  to  preclude  an  erroneous  inference  that  might  be 
drawn  from  the  words,  "  I  (Jehovah)  have  made  thee  prince " 

^  "There  was  something  very  strange  in  the  perversity  and  stolidity  of  the 
kings  of  Israel,  that  when  ihey  saw  that  the  fanuliea  of  preceding  kings  were 
evidently  overthrown  by  the  command  of  God  on  account  of  the  worship  ol 
the  calves,  and  they  themselves  had  overturned  them,  they  nevertheless 
worshipped  the  same  calves,  and  placed  them  before  the  people  for  them  to 
worship,  that  they  might  not  return  to  the  temple  and  to  Asa,  king  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  though  prophets  denounced  it  and  threatened  their  destruction. 
Truly  the  devil  and  the  ambition  of  reigning  blinded  them  and  deprived  them 
of  their  senses.  Hence  it  came  to  pass,  through  the  just  judgment  of  God, 
that  they  all  were  executioners  of  one  another  in  turn :  Baasha  was  the 
executioner  of  the  sons  of  Jeroboam:  Zambri  was  the  executioner  of  the 
sons  of  Baasha ;  and  the  executioner  of  Zambri  was  Omri." — C.  a  Lapide. 


224  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

(ver.  2),  as  though  Baasha  had  exterminated  Nadab  and  his 
house  by  divine  command  (Thenius).  D51  simply  means  "  and 
also"  and  is  not  to  be  connected  specially  with  N^n;  n^a,  but  to 
be  taken  as  belonging  to  the  whole  sentence  :  "  also  the  word  of 
Jehovah  had  come  to  Baasha  through  Jehu,  ,  .  .  not  only  because 
of  the  evil,  etc.,  but  also  (^V\  .  .  .  ^V])  because  he  had  slain  him 
(Jeroboam)."  With  regard  to  this  last  reason,  we  must  call  to 
mind  the  remark  made  at  ch.  xi.  39,  viz.  that  the  prediction  of 
the  prophet  to  Baasha  gave  diim  no  right  to  put  himself  forward 
arbitrarily  as  the  fulfiUer  of  the  prophecy.  The  very  fact  that 
Baasha  continued  Jeroboam's  sin  and  caused  the  illegal  worship 
to  be  perpetuated,  showed  clearly  enough  that  in  exterminating 
the  family  of  Jeroboam  he  did  not  act  under  divine  direction, 
but  simply  pursued  his  own  selfish  ends. 

Vers.  8-14.  The  Eeign  of  Elah. — As  Baasha  reigned  from 
the  third  to  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Asa,  i.e.  not  quite  twenty- 
four  years,  but  only  twenty-three  years  and  a  few  months,  so  his 
son  Elah  reigned  from  the  twenty-sixth  to  the  twenty-seventh  year 
of  Asa,  i.e.  not  quite  two  years. — Vers.  9,  10.  Zimri,  the  com- 
mander of  the  half  of  his  war-chariots,  conspired  against  him, 
and  not  only  slew  him,  when  he  was  intoxicated  (liDB'  nnb')  at  a 
drinking  bout  in  the  house  of  Arza,  the  prefect  of  his  palace, 
but  after  ascending  the  throne  exterminated  the  whole  family  of 
Baasha  to  the  very  last  man.  The  prefect  of  the  palace  was  no 
doubt  a  party  to  the  conspiracy,  and  had  probably  arranged  the 
drinking  bout  in  his  house  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  it  out. 
"  He  did  not  leave  him  i"'i?3  TJ^fp  (see  at  ch.  xiv.  1 0),  either  his 
avengers  Q""/^},  blood-relations,  who  might  have  avenged  his 
death)  or  his  friends."  These  words  simply  serve  to  explain 
n''p3  r^*^)?,  and  show  that  this  phrase  is  to  be  understood  as 
relating  to  males  only. — Vers.  12,  13.  "  According  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord  ;"  see  at  vers.  1  sqq.  niNt3n"73  ?h^  with  regard  to 
all,  i.e.  on  account  of  all  the  sins  (compare  ver.  7,  where  ^^ 
is  used).  Dn^anii,  through  their  nothingnesses,  i.e.  their  idols, 
by  which  the  golden  calves  are  meant. 

Vers.  15-22.  The  Eeign  of  Zimri  lasted  only  seven  days. 
As  soon  as  the  people  of  war  {^V>^),  who  were  besieging  Gib- 
bethon  (see  at  ch.  xv.  2  7),  heard  of  his  conspiracy,  his  usurpa- 
tion of  the  throne,  and  his  murderous  deeds,  they  proclaimed 


CHAP.  XYI.  23-28.  225 

Omri  king  in  the  camp  of  the  military  commanders,  and  he  at 
once,  with  all  Israel,  i.e.  all  the  army,  raised  the  siege  of  Gib- 
bethon,  to  lay  siege  to  Thirza  Now  when  Zimri  saw  that  the 
city  was  taken,  he  went  into  the  castle  of  the  royal  palace  and 
burned  the  king's  house  over  his  own  head,  as  Sardanapalus  did, 
according  to  Justin  (Sisi.  i  3).  pci^*  does  not  mean  harem 
(Ewald),  but  the  high  castle  (from  D"!^,  to  be  high) ;  here  and 
in  2  Kings  xv.  25,  the  citadel  of  the  royal  palace,  which  con- 
sisted of  several  buildings. — Yer.  19  is  connected  with  nbn 
in  ver.  18:"  and  so  died  for  his  sins,"  i.e.  as  a  punishment 
for  them. — ^Vers.  21,  22.  But  Omri  did  not  come  into  pos- 
session of  an  undisputed  sovereignty  immediately  upon  the 
death  of  Zimri.  The  nation  divided  itseK  into  two  halves  ;  one 
half  was  behind  Tihni,  the  son  of  Ginath  {i.e.  declared  in  favour 
of  Tibni),  to  make  him  king,  the  other  adhered  to  Omri.  Never- 
theless Omri's  gained  the  upper  hand  over  the  party  of  Tibni, 
and  the  latter  died,  whereupon  Omri  became  king  after  four 
years,  as  we  may  see  from  a  comparison  of  vers.  15,  16  with 
ver.  23.  The  "people  of  Israel"  (ver.  21)  are  probably  the 
fighting  people,  so  that  the  succession  to  the  throne  was  decided 
by  the  military,  '"inx  n\"i  as  in  2  Sam.  ii.  10.  ptn,  with  an 
accusative  instead  of  with  ?V,  in  the  sense  of  to  overpower,  as  in 
Jer.  XX.  7.  According  to  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  12,  5),  Tibni  was 
slain  by  his  opponent ;  but  this  is  not  contained  in  the  words  : 
on  the  contrary,  all  that  is  implied  in  the  connection  of  rib>) 
with  '1J">  P]n*l  is  that  he  met  with  his  death  in  the  decisive  en- 
gagement in  which  the  opposing  party  triumphed. 

Vers.  23-28.  The  Eeign  of  Omel — ^Ver.  23.  Omri  reigned 
twelve  years,  i.e.,  if  we  compare  vers.  15  and  23  with  ver.  29, 
reckoning  from  his  rebellion  against  Zimri ;  so  that  he  only 
possessed  the  sole  government  for  eight  years  (or,  more  exactly, 
seven  years  and  a  few  months),  viz.  from  the  31st  to  the  38th 
years  of  Asa,  and  the  conflict  ^ith  Tibni  for  the  possession 
of  the  throne  lasted  about  four  years.  "  At  Thirza  he  reigned 
six  years,"  i.e.  during  the  four  years  of  the  conflict  with  Tibni, 
and  after  his  death  two  years  more, — Ver.  24.  As  soon  as  he 
had  obtained  undisputed  possession  of  the  throne,  he  purchased 
the  lull  Shomron  (Samaria)  from  Shcmer  {Semcr)  for  two  talents  of 
sUver,  about  5200  thalers  (£780 — Tr.),  built  houses  upon  it, 
and  named  the  town  which  he  built  after  the  former  owner  of 


2f2ff  TOE  FIRST  BOOK  OJ*  KINGS. 

the  hill  IP^'^,  rendered  by  the  LXX.  Hefxripeov  here,  but  every- 
where else  ^afxapeia  (Samaria),  after  the  Chaldee  form  HP^ 
(Ezra  iv.  10,  17).  This  city  he  made  his  seat  {Residenz,  place 
of  residence,  or  capital),  in  which  he  resided  for  the  last  six  years- 
of  his  reign,  and  where  he  was  buried  after  his  death  (ver.  28). 
Samaria  continued  to  be  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten. 
tribes  from  that  time  forward,  and  the  residence  of  all  succeed-, 
ing  kings  of  Israel  until  the  destruction  of  this  kingdom  after 
its  conquest  by  Salmanasar  (2  Kings  xviii.  9,  10).  The  city 
was  two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  north-west  of  Sichem,  upon  a 
mountain  or  hill  in  a  mountain-hollow  (JBergkessel,  lit.  moun- 
tain-caldron) or  basin  of  about  two  hours  in  diameter,  sur- 
rounded on  all  sides  by  still  higher  mountains.  "  The  mountains 
and  valleys  round  about  are  still  for  the  most  part  arable,  and 
are  alive  with  numerous  villages  and  diligent  cultivation."  The  ■ 
mountain  itself  upon  which  Samaria  stood  is  still  cultivated  to 
the  very  top,  and  about  the  middle  of  the  slope  is  surrounded 
by  a  narrow  terrace  of  level  ground  resembling  a  girdle.  And 
even  higher  up  there  are  marks  of  smaller  terraces,  where  streets 
of  the  ancient  city  may  possibly  have  run.  After  the  captivity 
Samaria  was  retaken  and  demolished  by  John  Hyrcanus,  and 
lay  in  ruins  till  Gabinius  the  Eoman  governor  rebuilt  it  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xiii.  19,  2,  3,  and  xiv.  5,  3).  Herod  the  Great  afterwards 
decorated  it  in  a  marvellous  manner,  built  a  temple  there  to  the 
emperor  Augustus,  and  named  the  city  after  him  Se^aa-T^,  i.e. 
Augusta,  from  which  arose  the  present  name  Seluste  or  Sehustieh, 
borne  by  a  village  which  is  still  standing  on  the  ancient  site  : 
"  a  pitiable  hamlet  consisting  of  a  few  squalid  houses,  inhabited 
by  a  band  of  plunderers,  notorious  as  thieves  even  among  their 
lawless  fellow-countrymen"  (V.  de  Velde,  i.  p.  378). — But  by 
the  side  of  this  there  are  magnificent  ruins  of  an  ancient  Johan- 
nite  church,  with  the  reputed  grave  of  John  the  Baptist  and 
remains  of  limestone  columns  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  (cf. 
Eobinson,  Pal.  iii.  p.  136  sqq. ;  Van  de  Velde,  Syria  and  Pal. 
i.  p.  374  sqq. ;  and  C.  v.  Eaumer,  Pal.  pp.  159,  160). — Vers. 
25,  26.  Omri  also  walked  in  the  ways  of  Jeroboam,  and  acted 
worse  than  his  predecessors  upon  the  throne. — For  vers.  26  and 
27,  compare  vers.  13  and  14. 


CHAP.  XVL  29,  ETa:-Hr  22 1 

2.  From  Ahab's  AscE^'T  of  the  Throne  to  the  Death  op 
JoEAM  OF  Israel  and  AfiAZiAH  of  Judah. 

Chap.  xvi.  29-2  Kjxgs  x.  27. 

In  this  epoch,  which  embraces  only  thirty-fonr  years,  the 
history  of  the  kings  of  Judah  falls  so  far  into  the  background 
behind  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  that  it  seems  to 
form  merely  an  appendix  to  it ;  and  the  history  of  the  monarchy 
is  so  controlled  by  the  description  of  the  labours  of  the  prophets, 
that  it  seems  to  be  entirely  absorbed  in  them.  These  pheno- 
mena have  their  foundation  in  the  development  of  the  two  king- 
doms during  this  period.  Through  the  alliance  and  affinity  of 
Jehoshaphat  with  the  idolatrous  Ahab,  the  kingdom  of  Judah 
not  only  lost  the  greatest  part  of  the  blessing  which  the  long 
and  righteous  reign  of  this  pious  king  had  brought,  but  it  became 
so  entangled  in  the  political  and  religious  confusion  of  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  in  consequence  of  the  participation  of  Jehosha- 
phat in  the  wars  between  Israel  and  the  Syrians,  and  other  foes, 
and  the  inclination  of  Joram  and  Ahaziah  to  the  worship  of 
Baal,  that  its  further  development  during  this  period  was  almost 
entirely  dependent  upon  the  history  of  Israel  In  the  latter 
kingdom  the  prophets  maintained  a  fierce  conflict  with  the  ido- 
latry introduced  by  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  in  which  the  worship  of 
Baal  did  indeed  eventually  succumb,  but  the  pure  lawful  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  did  not  attain  to  full  supremacy,  so  that  this 
great  spiritual  conflict  was  no  more  followed  by  a  permanent 
blessing  to  the  kingdom  as  such,  than  the  single  victories  of 
Ahab  and  Joram  over  the  Syrians  by  outward  peace  and  rest 
fix)m  its  oppressors.  To  guard  against  the  spreading  apostasy 
of  the  people  from  the  living  God  through  the  exaltation  of  the 
worship  of  Baal  into  the  ruling  national  religion  in  Israel,  the 
Lord  raised  up  the  most  powerful  of  all  the  prophets,  Elijah 
the  Tishbite,  with  his  fiery  zeal,  who  worked  so  mightily  upon 
the  formation  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  covenant  nation  and 
the  fate  of  the  kingdom,  not  only  in  his  own  person  in  the 
reigns  of  Ahab  and  Ahaziah  (ch.  xvii.-2  Kings  il),  but  indi- 
rectly in  the  person  of  his  successor  Elisha  xmder  Joram  (2  Kino^ 
iii-ix.),  and  also  under  the  succeeding  kings  of  Israel,  that  the 
labours  of  these  prophets  and  their  disciples  form  the  central 
and  culminating  point  of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God 
during  the  period  in  question. 


228  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


CHAP.  XVI.  29-34.    THE  REIGN  OF  AHAB  OF  ISRAEL. 

The  ascent  of  the  throne  of  Israel  by  Ahab  (ver.  29)  formed 
a  turning-point  for  the  worse,  though,  as  a  comparison  of  ver. 
30  with  ver.  25  clearly  shows,  the  way  had  already  been  pre- 
pared by  his  father  Omri. — Vers.  30,  31.  "Whereas  the  former 
kings  of  Israel  had  only  perpetuated  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  i.e.  the 
calf-worship,  or  worship  of  Jehovah  under  the  image  of  an  ox, 
which  he  had  introduced,  Ahab  was  not  satisfied  with  this. 
inD7  t'ipin  N"1)1,  "  it  came  to  pass,  was  it  too  little  ?"  i.e.  because 
it  was  too  little  (cf.  Ewald,  §  362,  a)  to  walk  in  the  sins  of 
Jeroboam,  that  he  took  as  his  wife  Jezebel,  the  daughter  of 
Ethbaal  the  kincj  of  the  Sidonians,  and  served  Baal,  and  wor- 
shipped  him.  'H-??.!  before  ^2J^5,  "  he  went  and  served,"  is  a  pic- 
torial description  of  what  took  place,  to  give  greater  prominence 
to  the  new  turn  of  affairs.  t'J/snx  {i.e.  with  Baal)  is  the  EWay^aXo^ 
(pV2  ins  or  ^I66^aXo<i :  Jos.  Ant.  viii.  13, 1)  mentioned  by  Menan- 
der  in  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i  1 8,  who  was  king  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and 
priest  of  Astarte,  and  who  usurped  the  throne  after  the  murder 
of  his  brother,  king  Pheles,  and  reigned  thirty-two  years.  Jeze- 
bel p^!."^,  i.e.  probably  without  cohabitation,  cf.  Gen.  xxx.  20,= 
untouched,  chaste ;  not  a  contraction  of  ''^V??*,  as  Ewald,  §  273,  &, 
supposes)  was  therefore,  as  tyrant  and  murderess  of  the  prophets, 
a  worthy  daughter  of  her  father,  the  idolatrous  priest  and  regicide. 
Baal  (always  bv^i]  with  the  article,  the  Baal,  i.e.  Lord  kut  e^o^rjv) 
was  the  principal  male  deity  of  the  Phoenicians  and  Canaanites, 
and  generally  of  the  western  Asiatics,  called  by  the  Babylonians 
73  =  7i?3  (Isa.  xlvi,  1),  B  77X09,  and  as  the  sun-god  was  worshipped 
as  the  supporter  and  first  principle  of  psychical  life  and  of  the 
generative  and  reproductive  power  of  nature  (see  at  Judg.  ii.  1 3). 
Ahab  erected  an  altar  to  this  deity  ?V3n  n^3,  in  the  house  (temple) 
of  Baal,  which  he  had  built  at  Samaria.  The  worship  of  Baalj 
had  its  principal  seat  in  Tyre,  where  Hiram,  the  contemporary  of] 
David  and  Solomon,  had  built  for  it  a  splendid  temple  and  placed  1 
a  golden  pillar  ('^^pvarovv  klovo)  therein,  according  to  Dius  and 
Menander,  in  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  5,  3,  and  c.Ap.  i.  18.  Ahab  also 
erected  a  similar  pillar  ("^^K?)  to  Baal  in  his  temple  at  Samaria] 
(^oid.  2  Kings  iii.  2,  x.  2  7).  For  statues  or  images  of  Baal  are  \ 
not  met  with  in  the  earlier  times ;  and  the  ^vV?  are  not  statues 
of  Baal,  but  different  modifications  of  that  deity.  It  was  only  in 
the  later  temple  of  Baal  or  Hercules  at  Tyre  that  there  was,  as 


CHAP.  XVI.  29-34.  229 

Cicero  observes  (Verr.  iv.  43),  ex  cere  simulacruTn  ipsim  Herculis, 
quo  non  facile  qiiidquam  dixerim  me  vidisse  pulcrius. — ^Ver.  33. 
"  And  Ahab  made  "Tl^J^O'^^^^  ^•^-  tbe  Asherah  belonging  to  the 
temple  of  Baal"  (see  at  Judg.  vL  25  and  Ex.  xxxiv.  13),  an  idol 
of  Astarte  (see  at  cL  xiv.  23). — Ver.  34.  In  his  time  Hiel  the 
Bethelite  Qb^>}  n'^ ;  compare  Ges.  §  HI,  1  with  §  86,  2.  5)  built 
Jericho :  "  he  laid  the  foundation  of  it  with  Abiram  his  first- 
bom,  and  set  up  its  gates  with  Segub  his  youngest,  according  to 
the  word  of  Jehovah,"  etc.  (for  the  explanation  see  the  Comm.  on 
Josh.  vi.  2  6).  The  restoration  of  this  city  as  a  fortification,  upon 
which  Joshua  had  pronounced  the  curse,  is  mentioned  as  a  proof 
how  far  ungodliness  had  progressed  in  Israel ;  whilst  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  curse  upon  the  builder  shows  how  the  Lord  will  not 
allow  the  word  of  His  servants  to  be  transgressed  with  impunity. 
Jericho,  on  the  border  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (Josh,  xvi  7), 
which  was  allotted  to  the  Benjaminites  (Josh,  xviii.  21),  had  come 
into  the  possession  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  on  the  falling  away 
of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  royal  house  of  Da\dd,  and  formed  a 
border  city  of  that  kingdom,  through  the  fortification  of  which 
Ahab  hoped  to  secure  to  himseK  the  passage  across  the  Jordan. 

The  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha. 

When  Ahab,  who  was  not  satisfied  with  the  sin  of  Jeroboam, 
had  introduced  the  worship  of  Baal  as  the  national  religion  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  had  not  only  built  a  temple 
to  Baal  in  his  capital  and  place  of  residence,  but  had  also 
appointed  a  very  numerous  priesthood  to  maintain  the  worship 
(see  ch.  xviii  1 9) ;  and  when  his  godless  wife  Jezebel  was  perse- 
cuting the  prophets  of  Jehovah,  for  the  purpose  of  exterminat- 
ing the  worship  of  the  true  God :  the  Lord  God  raised  up  the 
most  powerful  of  all  the  prophets,  namely  Elijah  the  Tishbite, 
who  by  his  deeds  attested  his  name  ^in^ps  or  ^l?^,  i.e.  whose  God 
is  Jehovah.  For  however  many  prophets  of  Jehovah  arose  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  from  its  very  commencement  and 
bore  witness  against  the  sin  of  Jeroboam  in  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  threatened  the  kings  with  the  extermination 
of  their  house  on  accoimt  of  this  sin,  no  other  prophet,  either 
before  or  afterwards,  strove  and  worked  in  the  idolatrous  king- 
dom for  the  honour  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  with  anything  like 
the  same  mighty  power  of  God  as  the  prophet  Elijah.  And 
there  was  no  other  prophet  whom  the  Lord  so  gloriously  acknow- 


2 i Q  THE  nnST  BOOK  W  KINGS. 

ledged  by  signs  and  wonders  as  Elijah,  although  He  fulfilled  the 
words  of  all  His  servants  by  executing  the  judgments  with 
which  they  had  threatened  the  rebellious,  and  whenever  it  was 
necessary  accredited  them  as  His  messengers  by  miraculous  signs, 
— Although,  in  accordance  with  the  plan  of  our  books,  which  was 
to  depict  the  leading  features  in  the  historical  development  of 
the  kingdom,  all  that  is  related  in  detail  of  the  life  and  labours 
of  Elijah  is  the  miracles  which  he  performed  in  his  conflict  with 
the  worshippers  of  Baal,  and  the  miraculous  display  of  the  omni- 
potence and  grace  of  God  which  he  experienced  therein ;  yet 
we  may  see  very  clearly  that  these  formed  but  one  side  of  his 
prophetic  labours  from  the  passing  notices  of  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  which  he  visited  once  more  before  his  departure  from 
the  earth  (2  Kings  iL) ;  from  which  it  is  obvious  that  this  other 
side  of  his  ministry,  which  was  more  hidden  from  the  world, 
was  not  less  important  than  his  public  ministry  before  the  kings 
and  magnates  of  the  land.  For  these  societies  of  "  sons  of  the 
prophets,"  which  we  meet  with  at  Gilgal,  Bethel,  and  Jericho 
(2  Kings  ii.  3,  5,  iv.  38),  had  no  doubt  been  called  into  exist- 
ence by  Elijah,  by  associating  together  those  whose  souls  were 
fitted  to  receive  the  Spirit  of  God  for  mutual  improvement  in  the 
knowledge  and  fear  of  Jehovah,  in  order  to  raise  up  witnesses  to 
the  truth  and  combatants  for  the  cause  of  the  Lord,  and  through 
these  societies  to  provide  the  godly,  who  would  not  bow  the  knee 
before  Baal,  with  some  compensation  for  the  loss  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood  and  the  want  of  the  temple-worship.  Compare  the 
remarks  on  the  schools  of  the  prophets  at  1  Sam.  xix.  24. — The 
more  mightily  idolatry  raised  its  head  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
the  more  powerfully  did  the  Lord  show  to  His  people  that  He, 
Jehovah,  and  not  Baal,  was  God  and  Lord  in  Israel.  In  the 
prophet  Elijah  there  were  combined  in  a  marvellous  manner  a 
life  of  solitude  spent  in  secret  and  contemplative  intercourse  with 
God,  and  an  extraordinary  power  for  action,  which  would  suddenly 
burst  forth,  and  by  which  he  acted  as  a  personal  representative 
of  God  (see  at  ch.  xvii.  1).  In  his  person  the  spirit  of  Moses 
revived ;  he  was  the  restorer  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel,  of 
which  Moses  was  the  founder.  His  life  recalls  that  of  Moses  in 
many  of  its  features :  namely,  his  flight  into  the  desert,  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Lord  to  him  at  Horeb,  and  the  marvellous  ter- 
mination of  his  life.  Moses  and  Elijah  are  the  Coryphaei  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  whose  life  and  labours  the  nature  and  glory 


CHAP.  XVIL  231 

of  this  covenant  are  reflected.  As  the  thunder  and  lightning 
and-  the  blast  of  trumpets  and  the  smoking  mountain  bare  witness 
to  the  devouring  fire  of  the  holiness  of  the  God  who  had  come 
down  upon  Sinai  to  give  effect  to  the  promises  He  had  made  to 
the  fathers,  and  to  make  the  children  of  Israel  the  people  of  His 
possession ;  so  does  the  fiery  zeal  of  the  law  come  out  so  power- 
fully in  Moses  and  Elijah,  that  their  words  strike  the  ungodly 
like  lijrhtnins  and  flames  of  fire,  to  avenge  the  honour  of  the 

DO  '  O 

Lord  of  Sabaoth  and  maintain  His  covenant  of  grace  in  Israel. 
Hoses  as  lawgiver,  and  Elijah  as  prophet,  are,  as  Ziegler  has  well 
said  (p.  206),  the  two  historical  anticipations  of  those  two  future 
witnesses,  which  are  "  the  two  olive-trees  and  two  torches  stand- 
ing before  the  God  of  the  earth.     And  if  any  one  will  hurt  them, 
fire  proceedeth  out  of  their  mouth  and  devoureth  their  enemies ; 
and  if  any  man  will  hurt  them,  he  must  therefore  be  slain.    These 
have  power  to  shut  heaven,  that  it  rain  not  in  the  days  of  their 
prophecy,  and  have  power  over  waters  to  turn  them  into  blood, 
and  to  smite  the  earth  with  all  kinds  of  plagues,  as  often  as  they 
'will "  (Eev.  XL  4  sqq.).     Elijah  was  called  to  this  office  of  witness 
to  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the  sons,  and  of  the  sons  to 
their  fathei-s  (Mai.  iii.  24),  so  that  in  his  ministry  the  prophecy 
of  the  future  of  the  kingdom  of  God  falls  quite  into  the  back- 
ground.    Nevertheless  he  was  not  only  a  forerunner  but  also  a 
t}^e  of  the  Prophet  promised  by  Moses,  who  was  to  fulfil  both 
law  and  prophets  (Matt.  v.  1 7) ;  and  therefore  he  appeared  as  the 
representative  of  prophecy,  along  with  Moses  the  representative 
of  the  law,  upon  the  mount  of  the  Transfiguration,  to  talk  with 
Christ  of  the  decease  which  He  was  to  accomplish  at  Jerusalem 
(Luke  ix.  31  ;  Matt,  xvii  3). — To  continue  his  work,  Elijah,  by 
command  of  God,  called  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat,  of  Abel- 
Meholah,  who  during  the  whole  of  his  prophetic  course  carried 
on  with  power  the  restoration  of  the  law  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
which  his  master  had  begun,  by  conducting  schools  of  the  pro- 
phets and  acting  as  the  counsellor  of  kings,  and  proved  himself 
by  many  signs  and  wonders  to  be  the  heir  of  a  double  portion  of 
the  gifts  of  Elijah. 

Modern  theology,  which  has  its  roots  in  naturalism,  has 
taken  offence  at  the  many  miracles  occurring  in  the  history  of 
these  two  prophets,  but  it  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  these 
miracles  were  regulated  by  the  extraordinary  circumstances 
tinder  which  Elijah  and  Elisha  worked.     At  a  time  when  the 


2a^  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

sovereignty  of  the  living  God  in  Israel  Was  not  only  called  in 
question,  but  was  to  be  destroyed  by  the  worship  of  Baal,  it  was 
necessary  that  Jehovah  as  the  covenant  God  should  interpose 
in  a  supernatural  manner,  and  declare  His  eternal  Godhead 
in  extraordinary  miracles.  In  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes 
-there  were  no  priestly  or  Levitical  duties  performed,  nor  was 
there  the  regular  worship  of  God  in  a  temple  sanctified  by 
Jehovah  Himself;  whilst  the  whole  order  of  life  prescribed  in 
the  law  was  undermined  by  unrighteousness  and  ungodliness. 
But  with  aU  this,  the  kingdom  was  not  yet  ripe  for  the  judg- 
ment of  rejection,  because  there  were  still  seven  thousand  in 
the  land  who  had  not  bowed  their  knee  before  BaaL  For  the 
sake  of  these  righteous  men,  the  Lord  had  still  patience  with 
the  sinful  kingdom,  and  sent  it  prophets  to  call  the  rebellious 
to  repentance.  If,  then,  under  the  circumstances  mentioned, 
the  prophets  were  to  fulfil  the  purpose  of  their  mission  and 
carry  on  the  conflict  against  the  priests  of  Baal  with  success, 
they  needed  a  much  greater  support  on  the  part  of  God,  through 
the  medium  of  miracles,  than  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  who  had  powerful  and  venerable  supports  in  the  Levi- 
tical priesthood  and  the  lawful  worship.^  It  is  only  when  we 
overlook  the  object  of  these  miracles,  therefore,  that  they  can 
possibly  appear  strange.  "  If,"  as  Kurtz  has  said,^  "  we  take 
the  history  of  our  prophet  as  one  living  organic  link  in  the 
whole  of  the  grand  chain  of  the  marvellous  works  of  God,  which 
stretches  from  Sinai  to  Golgotha  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and 
bear  in  mind  the  peculiarity  of  the  position  and  circumstances 
of  Elijah,  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle  in  itself,  and  even  the 
accumulation  of   them   and   their   supposed   externality,  will 

*  "  "Where  the  temple  was  wanting,  and  image-worship  took  its  place,  and 
the  priesthood  was  an  unlawful  caste,  it  was  only  by  extraordinary  methods 
that  the  spreading  evil  could  be  met.  The  illegitimacy,  which  was  represented 
here  by  the  monarchy  and  priesthood,  was  opposed  by  the  prophetic  order  as 
the  representative  of  the  law,  and  therefore  also  as  a  peculiarly  constituted 
and  strong  body  divided  up  into  societies  of  considerable  scope,  and  having 
a  firm  organization.  And  this  prophetic  order,  as  the  only  accredited  repre- 
sentative of  the  law,  also  took  the  place  of  the  law,  and  was  therefore  en- 
dowed with  the  power  and  majesty  of  the  law  which  had  been  manifested  in 
wonders  and  signs.  Not  only  was  the  spirit  of  Moses  inherited  by  Elijah  and 
others,  but  his  miraculous  power  also." — Haevernick,  Einl.  in  d.  A.  Test.  ii.  1, 
pp.  166, 167.     Compare  Hengstenberg,  Dissertation,  voL  i.  p.  186  sqq. 

*  Herzog's  Cyclopxdia,  Art.  Elijah. 


CHAP.  XVIL  233 

appear  to  us  in  a  very  diiferent  light. — ^Without  miracle,  with- 
out very  striking,  i.e.  external  miracles,  their  ministry  would 
have  been  without  basis,  without  a  starting-point,  and  without 
hold." — The  miracles  are  still  more  numerous  in  the  history  of 
Elisha,  and  to  some  extent  bear  such  a  resemblance  to  those  of 
Elijah,  that  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  set  them  down  as 
merely  legendary  imitations  of  the  latter ;  but  considered  as  a 
whole,  they  are  more  of  a  helpful  and  healing  nature,  whereas 
those  of  Elijah  are  for  the  most  part  manifestations  of  judicial 
and  punitive  wrath.     The  agreement  and  the  difference  may 
both  be  explained  from  Elisha's  position  in  relation  to  Elijah 
and    his  time.      By  the    performance    of   similar   and    equal 
miracles  (such  as  the  division  of  the  Jordan,  2  Elings  ii.  8  and 
14  ;  the  increase  of  the  oil,  2  Kings  iv.  3  sqq.  compared  with 
1  Kings  x^'ii.  14  sqq.;  the  raising  of  the  dead,  2  Kings  iv.  34 
sqq.  compared  with  1  Kings  xvii.  19  sqq.)  Elisha  proved  him- 
seK  to  be  the  divinely-appointed  successor  of  Elijah,  who  was 
carrying  forward  his   master's  work  (just  as   Joshua   by  the 
drying  up  of  the  Jordan  proved  himself  to  be  the  continuer  of 
the  work  of  Moses),  and  as  such  performed  more  miracles,  so 
far  as  number  is   concerned,  than  even  his  master  had  done, 
though  he   was  far  inferior  to  him  in  spiritual  power.     But 
the  difference  does   not  prevail  throughout     For  whilst  the 
helpful  and  healing  side  of  Elijah's  miraculous  power  is  dis- 
played in  his  relation  to  the  widow  at  Zarephath ;  the  judicial 
and  punitive  side  of  that  of  Elisha  comes  out  in  the  case  of  the 
mocking  boys  at  Bethel,  of  Grehazi,  and  of  Joram's  knight.    But 
the  predominance  of  strict  judicial  sternness  in  the  case  of  Elijah, 
and  of  sparing  and  helpful  mildness  in  that  of  Elisha,  is  to  be 
accounted  for  not  so  much  from  any  difference  in  the  personality 
of  the  two,  as  from  the  altered  circumstances.     Elijah,  with  his 
fiery  zeal,  had  broken  the  power  of  the  Baal-worship,  and  had 
so  far  secured  an  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  Jehovah 
over  His  people  that  Joram  and  the  succeeding  kings  gave  heed 
to  the  words  of  the  prophets  of  the  Lord ;  so  that  Elisha  had  for 
the  most  part  only  to  cherish  and  further  the  conversion  of  the 
people  to  their  God,  for  which  Elijah  had  prepared  the  way. 

CHAP.  XVn.    FIRST  APPEARANCE  OF  ELIJAH, 

The  prophet  Elijah  predicts  to  Ahab,  as  a  punishment  for  his 
idolatry,  the  coming  of  a  drought  and  famine.    During  their  con- 


28ft  THE  FIRST  BOOK  6?  KINGS. 

tihuance  he  is  miraculously  preserved  by  God,  first  of  all  at  the 
brook  Cherith,  and  then  at  the  house  of  a  widow  at  Zarephath 
(vers.  1—16),  whose  deceased  son  he  calls  to  life  again  (vers. 
17-24). 

Ver.  1.  Elijah  the  Tishbite  is  introduced  without  the  for- 
mula "  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  .  . .,"  with  which  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  prophets  is  generally  announced,  proclaiming 
to  king  Ahab  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  the  punitive  miracle  of 
a  drought  that  will  last  for  years.  This  abrupt  appearance  of 
Elijah  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  from  the  fact  that  we 
have  not  the  real  commencement  of  his  history  here  ;  it  is  rather 
a  part  of  the  character  of  this  mightiest  of  all  the  prophets,  and 
indicates  that  in  him  the  divine  power  of  the  Spirit  appeared  as 
it  were  personified,  and  his  life  and  acts  were  the  direct  effluence 
of  the  higher  power  by  which  he  was  impelled.  His  origin  is 
also  uncertain.  The  epithet  ^^trnn  is  generally  derived  from  a 
place  called  TisKbeh,  since,  according  to  Tobit  i.  2,  there  existed 
in  Upper  Galilee  a  Ota^r)  e'/c  Be^iwv  KvBlax;,  "  on  the  right,  i.e. 
to  the  south  of  Kydios"  probably  Kedesh  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali, 
from  which  the  elder  Tobias  was  carried  away  captive,  although 
this  description  of  the  place  is  omitted  in  the  Hebrew  version 
of  the  book  of  Tobit  issued  by  Fagius  and  Miinster,  and  in  the 
Vulcrate.  And  to  this  we  must  adhere,  and  as  no  other  Thisbe 
occurs,  must  accept  this  Galilean  town  as  the  birthplace  of 
Elijah  ;  in  which  case  the  expression  "  of  the  settlers  of  Gilead  " 
indicates  that  Elijah  did  not  live  in  his  birthplace,  but  dwelt  as 
a  foreigner  in  Gilead.  For  3^'in  in  itself  by  no  means  denotes 
a  non-Israelite,  but,  like  ■>?.,  simply  one  who  lived  away  from  his 
home  and  tribe  relations  in  the  territory  of  a  different  tribe, 
without  having  been  enrolled  as  a  member  of  it,  as  is  clearly 
shown  by  Lev.  xxv.  40,  and  stiU  more  clearly  by  Judg.  xvii.  7, 
where  a  Levite  who  was  born  in  Bethlehem  is  described  as  "ta  in 
the  tribe  of  Ephraim.^     The  expression  "  as  tnily  as  Jehovah 

1  The  supposition  of  Seb.  Schmidt,  with  which  I  formerly  agreed,  namely, 
that  Elijah  was  a  foreigner,  a  Gentile  by  birth,  after  further  examination  I 
can  no  longer  uphold,  though  not  from  the  a  priori  objection  raised  against 
it  by  Kurtz  (in  Herzog's  Cycl.),  namely,  that  it  would  show  a  complete  mis- 
apprehension of  the  significance  of  Israel  in  relation  to  sacred  history  and  the 
history  of  the  world,  and  that  neither  at  this  nor  any  other  time  in  the  Old 
Testament  history  could  a  prophet  for  Israel  be  called  from  among  the  Gen- 
tiles,— an  assertion  of  which  it  would  bedifficult  to  find  any  proof, — but  because 
we  are  not  forced  to  this  conclusion  by  either  ^ati'nn  or  ij?Sj  ^2C^'nD•    For 


r  ••  ■' CHAP.xvn.  1.  235 

the  God  of  Israel  liveth,  before  whom  I  stand  {i.e.  whom  I  serve; 
see  at  ch.  i  2),  there  shall  not  faU  dew  and  rain  these  years, 
except  at  my  word,"  was  a  special  application  of  the  threats  of 
the  law  in  Deut.  xi  16,  17,  xxviil  23,  24,  and  Lev.  xxvi 
19,  to  the  idolatrous  kingdom.  *^^^  O'i'f'?,  "these  (ensuing) 
years,"  does  not  fix  any  definite  terminus.  In  ^l^*]  ''3?  there  is 
involved  an  emphatic  antithesis  to  others,  and  more  especially 
to  the  prophets  of  BaaL  "  When  I  shall  say  this  by  divine 
authority  and  might,  let  others  prate  and  lie  as  they  may  please  " 
{Bcrleb.  Bibel).  Elijah  thereby  describes  himseK  as  one  into 
whose  power  the  God  of  Israel  has  given  up  the  idolatrous 
king  and  his  people.     In  Jas.  v.  17,  18,  this  act  of  Elijah  is 

even  if  the  Thisbeh  in  Tob.  i.  2  should  not  be  Elijah's  birthplace,  it  would  not 
follow  that  there  was  no  other  place  named  Thisbeh  in  existence.  How  many 
places  in  Canaan  are  there  that  are  never  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament ! 
And  such  cases  as  that  described  in  Judg.  vii.  7,  where  the  Levite  is  said  to 
have  left  his  birthplace  and  to  have  lived  in  another  tribe  as  a  foreigner  or 
settler,  may  not  have  been  of  rare  occurrence,  since  the  Mosaic  law  itself 
refers  to  it  in  Lev.  xxv.  41. — Again,  the  LXX.  were  unable  to  explain  '3'j'no 

■ly^j,  and  have  paraphrased  these  words  in  an  arbitrary  manner  by  o  Ik  Qsofiur 
T^f  r«Xa«3,  from  which  Thenius  and  Ewald  conjecture  that  there  was  a 
Thisbeh  in  GUead,  and  that  it  was  probably  the  Tisieh  (<Usfcujdr)  mentioned 
by  Robinson  (Pal.  iii.  153)  to  the  south  of  Busra  =  Bostra.  The  five  argu- 
ments by  which  Kurtz  has  attempted  to  establish  the  probabiUty  of  this  con- 
jecture are  very  weak.     For  (1)  the  defective  writing  ^2t;*nD  by  no  means 

proves  that  the  word  which  is  written  plene  (ayrin)  in  every  other  case  must 

necessarily  have  been  so  written  in  the  stat.  constr.  plur. ;  and  this  is  the  only 
passage  in  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  stat. 
constr.  plur. ; — (2)  the  precise  description  of  the  place  given  in  Tobit  i.  2  does 
not  at  all  lead  "  to  the  assumption  that  the  Galilean  Thisbeh  was  not  the 
only  place  of  that  name,"  but  may  be  fully  explained  from  the  fact  that 
Thisbeh  was  a  small  and  insignificant  place,  the  situation  of  which  is  defined 
by  a  reference  to  a  larger  town  and  one  better  known ; — (3)  there  is  no  doubt 
that  "  Gilead  very  frequently  denotes  the  whole  of  the  country  to  the  east  of 
the  Jordan,"  but  this  does  not  in  the  least  degree  prove  that  there  was  a  Thisbeh 
in  the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan ; — (4)  "that  the  distinction  and  dif- 
ference between  a  birthplace  and  a  place  of  abode  are  improbable  in  themselves, 
and  not  to  be  expected  in  this  connection,"  is  a  perfectly  unfounded  assump- 
tion, and  has  first  of  all  to  be  proved  : — (5)  the  Tisieh  mentioned  by  Robinson 
cannot  be  taken  into  consideration,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  assumption 
of  a  copyist's  error,  the  confusion  of  x  with  j,  (Tisieh  instead  oi  Thisbeh), 
founders  on  the  long  i  of  the  first  syllable  in  Tisieh ;  moreover  the  Arabic 
t  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  CD  and  not  to  rw 


236  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

ascribed  to  the  power  of  his  prayers,  since  Elijah  "  was  also  a 
man  such  as  we  are,"  inasmuch  as  the  prophets  received  their 
power  to  work  solely  through  faith  and  intercourse  with  God  in 
prayer,  and  faith  gives  power  to  remove  mountains. 

Vers.  2-9.  After  the  announcement  of  this  judgment,  Elijah 
had  to  hide  himself,  by  the  command  of  God,  until  the  period  of 
punishment  came  to  an  end,  not  so  much  that  he  might  be  safe 
from  the  wrath  and  pursuit  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  as  to  preclude 
all  earnest  entreaties  to  remove  the  punishment.  "  For  inasmuch 
as  the  prophet  had  said  that  the  rain  would  come  at  his  word, 
how  would  they  have  urged  him  to  order  it  to  come ! "  (Seb. 
Schm.)  He  was  to  turn  "^^Ip.,  eastward,  i.e.  from  Samaria,  where 
he  had  no  doubt  proclaimed  the  divine  judgment  to  Ahab,  to  the 
Jordan,  and  to  hide  himself  at  the  brook  Cherith,  which  is  in 
front  of  the  Jordan.  The  brook  Cherith  was  in  any  case  a  brook 
emptying  itself  into  the  Jordan;  but  whether  upon  the  eastern  or 
the  western  side  of  that  river,  the  ambiguity  of  ''^^V,  which  means 
both  "  to  the  east  of"  (Gen.  xxv.  18)  and  also  "  in  the  face  of," 
i.e.  before  or  towards  (Gen.  xvi.  12,  xviii.  16),  it  is  impossible  to 
determine  with  certainty.  That  it  must  signify  "  to  the  east  of 
the  Jordan  "  here,  does  not  follow  from  nonp  with  anything  like 
the  certainty  that  Thenius  supposes.  An  ancient  tradition  places 
the  Cherith  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan,  and  identifies  it  with  the 
spring  Phasaelis,  which  takes  its  rise  in  the  slope  of  the  mountains 
into  the  Jordan  valley  above  the  city  of  Phasaelis,  and  empties 
itself  into  the  Jordan  (cf.  Ges.  thcs.  p.  719,  and  V.  de  Velde,  Reise, 
ii.  pp.  273-4) ;  whereas  Eusebius,in  the  Onom.  s.v.  Chorat  (Xoppd), 
places  it  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,  and  Thenius  thinks  of 
the  apparently  deep  Wady  Eajib  or  Ajlun.  AU  that  can  be 
affirmed  with  certainty  is,  that  neither  the  brook  Kanah  (Josh, 
xvi.  8,  xvii.  9),  which  flows  into  the  Mediterranean,  nor  the  Wady 
Kelt  near  Jericho,  which  Eobinson  {Pal.  ii  p.  288)  suggests,  can 
possibly  come  into  consideration :  the  latter  for  the  simple  reason, 
that  the  locality  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jericho  was  unsuitable 
for  a  hiding-place.  Elijah  was  to  drink  of  this  brook,  and  the 
ravens  by  divine  command  were  to  provide  him  with  bread  and 
meat,  which  they  brought  him,  according  to  ver.  6,  both  morning 
and  evening.  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  D"'3"iVn  does  not 
mean  either  Arabs  or  Orebites  (the  inhabitants  of  an  imaginary 
city  named  Oreb),  but  ravens.  Through  this  miracle,  which  un- 
believers reject,  because  they  do  not  acknowledge  a  living  God,  by 


CHAP.  XVII.  10-16.  237 

■whom,  as  the  Creator  and  Lord  of  all  creatures,  even  the  voracious 
ravens  are  made  subservient  txj  His  plans  of  salvation,  Elijah  was 
not  only  cut  off  from  intercourse  with  men,  who  might  have 
betrayed  his  place  of  abode  to  the  king,  but  was  mightily 
strengthened  himself,  through  the  confidence  inspired  in  the 
almighty  assistance  of  his  God,  for  his  approaching  contests  with 
the  worshippers  of  idols,  and  for  the  privations  and  sufferiags 
which  awaited  him  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  vocation. — ^Vers.  7-9. 
After  some  time  this  brook  dried  up  for  want  of  rain.  Then  the 
Lord  directed  His  ser^'ant  to  go  to  the  Sidonian  Zarephath,  and  to 
live  with  a  widow  whom  He  had  commanded  to  provide  for  him. 
D'p^  i^i^o  does  not  mean  'post  annum,  for  D*D)  merely  derives  this 
meaning  in  certain  passages  from  the  context  (cf.  Lev.  xxv.  29  ; 
1  Sam.  xxvii.  7  ;  Judg.  xvii.  1 0) ;  whereas  in  this  instance  the  con- 
text does  not  point  to  the  space  of  a  year,  but  to  a  longer  period 
of  indefinite  duration,  all  that  we  know  being  that,  according  to 
eh.  xviii  1,  the  sojourn  of  Elijah  at  Cherith  and  Zarephath  lasted 
at  least  two  years.  Zarephath  {^apiirra,  LXX.)  was  situated  on 
the  Mediterranean  Sea  between  Tyre  and  Sidon,  where  a  mise- 
rable Mohammedan  village  with  ruins  and  a  promontory.  Sura- 
fend,  still  preserve  the  name  of  the  former  town  (Eob.  iii.  p.  413 
sqq.,  and  V.  de  Velde,  Syria  and  Palestine,  i.  pp.  101-3,  transL). 
Vers.  10—16.  When  Elijah  arrived  at  the  city  gate,  he  met  a 
widow  engaged  in  gathering  wood.  To  discover  whether  it  was 
to  her  that  the  Lord  had  sent  him,  he  asked  her  for  something 
to  drink  and  for  a  morsel  of  bread  to  eat ;  whereupon  she  assured 
him,  with  an  oath  by  Jehovah,  that  she  had  nothing  baked 
(Jii'O  =  T\^v,  eyKpv<f)ia^,  a  cake  baked  in  hot  ashes),  but  only  a 
handful  of  meal  in  the  ^l  (a  pail  or  small  vessel  in  which  meal 
was  kept)  and  a  little  oil  in  the  pitcher,  and  that  she  was  just 
gathering  wood  to  dress  this  remnant  for  herseK  and  her  son, 
that  they  might  eat  it,  and  then  die.  From  this  statement  of 
the  widow  it  is  evident,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  drought  and 
famine  had  spread  across  the  Phoenician  frontier,  as  indeed 
Menander  of  Ephesus  attests  ;^  on  the  other  hand,  the  widow 
showed  by  the  oath,  "  as  Jehovah  thy  God  Hveth,"  that  she  was 
a  worshipper  of  the  true  God,  who  spoke  of  Jehovah  as  his  God, 

^  ,  Josephus  gives  this  statement  from  his  Phoenician  history :  dflpoxtet  «  Ix* 
etirrov  (sc.  ^l&Oi'iei'Kov)  iyivzTO  ei-TTO  tow  T'x-ipfisptTctiou  ftYi»6;  tu;  toD  ip-^ofiivou 
trovg  TTrspiSipiTuiov  (^Ant.  viii.  13,  2).  Hyperberetxiis  answers  to  Tishri  of  the 
Hebrews ;  cf.  Benfey  and  Stem,  die  Monatsnamen,  p.  18. 


^38  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

because  she  recognised  the  prophet  as  an  Israelite. — ^Vers.  13 
sqq.  In  order,  however,  to  determine  with  indisputable  certainty 
whether  this  believing  Gentile  was  the  protectress  assigned  him 
by  the  Lord,  Elijah  comforted  her,  and  at  the  same  time  desired 
her  first  of  all  to  bake  him  a  little  cake  QK'D,  i.e.  of  the  last  of  the 
meal  in  the  Kad  and  of  the  oil  in  the  pitcher,  and  then  to  bake 
for  herself  and  her  son,  adding  this  promise :  Jehovah  the  God 
of  Israel  will  not  let  the  meal  in  the  Kad  and  the  oil  in  the 
pitcher  fail,  till  He  sends  rain  upon  the  earth  again.  And  the 
widow  did  according  to  his  word.  She  gave  up  the  certain  for 
the  uncertain,  because  she  trusted  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
received  the  reward  of  her  believing  confidence  in  the  fact  that 
during  the  whole  time  of  the  drought  she  suffered  from  no  want 
of  either  meal  or  oil.  This  act  of  the  pious  Gentile  woman,  who 
had  welcomed  with  a  simple  heart  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God  that  had  reached  her  from  Israel,  must  have  been  the  source 
of  strong  consolation  to  Elijah  in  the  hour  of  conflict,  when  his 
fdith  was  trembling  because  of  the  multitude  of  idolaters  in 
Israel.  If  the  Lord  Himself  had  raised  up  true  worshippers  of 
His  name  among  the  Gentiles,  his  work  in  Israel  could  not 
be  put  to  shame.  The  believing  widow,  however,  received  from 
the  prophet  not  only  a  material  blessing,  but  a  spiritual  blessing 
also.  For,  as  Christ  teUs  His  unbelieving  contemporaries  to 
their  shame  (Luke  iv.  25,  26),  Elijah  was  not  sent  to  this  widow 
in  order  that  he  might  be  safely  hidden  at  her  house,  although 
this  object  was  better  attained  thereby  than  by  his  remaining 
longer  in  Israel ;  but  because  of  her  faith,  namely,  to  strengthen 
and  to  increase  it,  he  was  sent  to  her,  and  not  to  one  of  the 
many  widows  in  Israel,  many  of  whom  would  also  have  received 
the  prophet  if  they  had  been  rescued  by  him  from  the  pressure 
of  the  famine.  And  the  miraculous  increase  of  the  meal  and  oil 
did  not  merely  subserve  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  prophet  and 
the  widow  alive ;  but  the  relief  of  her  bodily  need  was  also 
meant  to  be  a  preparatory  means  of  quieting  her  spiritual  need 
as  well.  On  the  Chethtb  l^n,  see  at  ch.  vi.  19.  In  ver.  15  the 
Keri  nim  N\n  is  an  unnecessary  emendation  of  the  Chethtb 
K''ni  wn ;  the  feminine  form  ^axrii  is  occasioned  primarily  by  the 
preceding  verbs,  and  may  be  taken  as  an  indefinite  neuter :  "  and 
there  ate  he  and  she."  The  offence  which  Thenius  has  taken  at 
D^»^^  (days)  has  no  foundation,  if  we  do  not  understand  the  sen- 
tence as  refeiTiug  merely  to  their  eating  once  of  the  bread  just 


CHAP.  XVIL  17-24.  -'  239 

baked,  but  take  it  generally  as  signifying  that  in  consequence  of 
their  acting  according  to  the  word  of  Jehovah,  they  (Elijah,  the 
widow,  and  her  family)  ate  for  days,  i.e.  until  Grod  sent  rain 
again  (ver.  14). 

Vers.  17—24.  The  widow's  deceased  sotl  raised  to  life  again. 
—Ver.  17.  After  these  events,  when  Elijah  had  taken  up  his 
abode  in  the  upper  room  of  her  house,  her  son  fell  sick,  so  that 
he  breathed  out  his  life.     'Ui  "i^V?  "IV,  literally  till  no  breath  re- 
mained in  him.     That  these  words  do    not  signify  merely  a 
death-like  torpor,  but  an  actual  decease,  is  evident  from  what 
follows,  where  Elijah  himseK  treats  the  boy  as  dead,  and  the 
Lord,  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  restores  him  to  life  again. — Ver. 
18.  The  pious  woman  discerned  in  this  death  a  punishment 
from  God  for  her  sin,  and  supposed  that  it  had  been  drawn  to- 
wards her  by  the  presence  of  the  man  of  God,  so  that  she  said 
to  Elijah,  "  What  have  we  to  do  with  one  another  {^>\  "r^^ ;  cf. 
Judg.  XL  1 2  ;  2  Sam.  xvi  1 0),  thou  man  of  God  ?     Hast  thou 
come  to  me  to  bring  my  sin  to  remembrance  (with  God),  and 
to  kill  my  son  ? "     In  this  half-heathenish  belief  there  spoke  at 
the  same  time  a  mind  susceptible  to  divine  truth  and  conscious 
of  its  sin,  to  which  the  Lord  could  not  refuse  His  aid.     Like 
the  blindness  in  the  case  of  the  man  bom  blind  mentioned 
in  John  ix.,  the  death  of  this  widow's  son  was  not  sent  as  a 
punishment  for  particular  sins,  but  was  intended  as  a  medium 
for  the  manifestation  of  the  works  of  God  in  her  (John  ix.  3), 
in  order  that  she  might  learn  that  the  Lord  was  not  merely  the 
God  of  the  Jews,  but  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  also  (Eom.  iii,  29), 
- — Vers.  19,  20.  Elijah  told  her  to  carry  the  dead  child  up  to 
the  chamber  in  which  he  lived  and  lay  it  upon  his  bed,  and 
then  cried  to  the  Lord,  "Jehovah,   my  God!  hast  Thou   also 
brought  evil  upon  the  widow  with  whom  I  sojourn,  to  slay  her 
son  ?  "     These  words,  in  which  the  word  also  refers  to  the  other 
calamities  occasioned  by  the  drought,  contain  no  reproach  of 
God,  but  are  expressive  of  the  heartiest  compassion  for  the 
suffering  of  his  benefactress  and  the  deepest  lamentation,  which, 
springing  from  living  faith,  pours  out  the  whole  heart  before 
God  in  the  hour  of  distress,  that  it  may  appeal  to  Him  the 
more  powerfully  for  His  aid.     The  meaning  is,  "  Thou,  O  Lord 
my  God,  according  to  Thy  grace  and  righteousness,  canst  not 
possibly  leave  the  son  of  this  widow  in  death."     Such  confident 
"belief  carries  within  itself  the  certainty  of  being  heard.     The 


240'  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

prophet  therefore  proceeds  at  once  to  action,  to  restore  the  boy 
to  life. — ^Ver.  21.  He  stretched  himself  (llis^!)  three  times  upon 
him,  not  to  ascertain  whether  there  was  still  any  life  left  in 
him,  as  Paul  did  in  Acts  xx,  10,  nor  to  warm  the  body  of  the 
child  and  set  its  blood  in  circulation,  as  Elisha  did  with  a  dead 
child  (2  Kings  iv.  34), — for  the  action  of  Elisha  is  described  in 
a  different  manner,  and  the  youth  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.  1 0  was 
only  apparently  dead, — but  to  bring  down  the  vivifying  power 
of  God  upon  the  dead  body,  and  thereby  support  his  own  word 
and  prayer.^  He  then  cried  to  the  Lord,  "  Jehovah,  my  God,  I 
pray  Thee  let  the  soul  of  this  boy  return  within  it,"  ^^li?"''?^, 
inasmuch  as  the  soul  as  the  vital  principle  springs  from  above. 
— ^Vers.  22,  23.  The  Lord  heard  this  prayer:  the  boy  came  to 
life  again ;  whereupon  Elijah  gave  him  back  to  his  mother. — 
Yer.  24.  Through  this  miracle,  in  which  Elijah  showed  himself 
as  the  forerunner  of  Him  who  raiseth  all  the  dead  to  life,  the 
pious  Gentile  womaa  was  mightily  strengthened  in  her  faith  in 
the  God  of  Israel.  She  now  not  only  recognised  Elijah  as  a  man 
of  God,  as  in  ver.  18,  but  perceived  that  the  word  of  Jehovah  in 
his  mouth  was  truth,  by  which  she  confessed  imjplicite  her  faith 
in  the  God  of  Israel  as  the  true  God. 

CHAP.  XVIII.    ELIJAH'S   MEETING  WITH  AHAB,  AND  VICTORY  OVER 
THE  PROPHETS  OF  BAAL. 

As  the  judgment  of  drought  and  famine  did  not  bring  king 
Ahab  to  his  senses  and  lead  him  to  turn  from  his  ungodly 
ways,  but  only  filled  him  with  exasperation  towards  the  pro- 
phet who  had  announced  to  him  the  coming  judgment ;  there 
was  no  other  course  left  than  to  lay  before  the  people  with 
mighty  and  convincing  force  the  proof  that  Jehovah  was  the 
only  true  God,  and  to  execute  judgment  upon  the  priests  of 
Baal  as  the  seducers  of  the  nation. 

Vers.  1-19.  Mijah's  meeting  with  Ahab. — Vers.  1  and  2a. 
In  the  third  year  of  his  sojourn  at  Zarephath  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  to  Elijah  to  show  himself  to  Ahab  ;  since  God  was 
about  to  send  rain  upon  the  land  again.  The  time  given,  "  the 
third  year,"  is  not  to  be  reckoned,  as  the  Eabbins,  Clericus, 

1  "  This  was  done,  that  the  prophet's  body  might  be  the  instrument  of  the 
miracle,  just  as  in  other  cases  of  miracle  there  was  an  imposition  of  the  hand." 
— SiiB.  Schmidt. 


CHAP.  XYIII.  1-19.  241 

Thenius,  and  others  assume,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
drought,  but  from  the  event  last  mentioned,  namely,  the  so- 
journ of  Elijah  at  Zarephath.  This  view  merits  the  preference 
as  the  simplest  and  most  natural  one,  and  is  shown  to  be 
the  oldest  by  Luke  iv.  25  and  Jas.  v.  17,  where  Christ  and 
James  both  say,  that  in  the  time  of  Ahab  it  did  not  rain  for 
three  years  and  six  months.  And  this  length  of  time  can  only 
be  obtained  by  allowing  more  than  two  years  for  Elijah's  stay 
at  Zarephath. — From  ver.  2&  to  ver.  6  we  have  parenthetical 
remarks  introduced,  to  explain  the  circumstances  which  led  to 
Elijah's  meeting  with  Ahab.  The  verbs  N")?!?,  'r}>i  noN'i,  and 
^??^'^}  (vers.  3,  4,  5,  6)  carry  on  the  circumstantial  clauses: 
"  and  the  famine  was  .  .  ."  (ver.  26),  and  "  Obadiah  feared  .  .  ." 
(ver.  3b),  and  are  therefore  to  be  expressed  by  the  pluperfect. 
AVhen  the  famine  had  become  very  severe  in  Samaria  (the 
capital),  Ahab,  with  Obadiah  the  governor  of  his  castle  (iti'i^. 
^'.?']  ^^.,  see  at  ch.  iv.  6),  who  was  a  God-fearing  man,  and  on 
the  persecution  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  by  Jezebel  had 
hidden  a  hundred  prophets  in  caves  and  supplied  them  with 
food,  had  arranged  for  an  expedition  through  the  whole  land  to 
seek  for  hay  for  his  horses  and  mules.  And  for  this  purpose 
they  had  divided  the  land  between  them,  so  that  the  one  explored 
one  district  and  the  other  another.  We  see  from  ver.  4  that 
Jezebel  had  resolved  upon  exterminating  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  sought  to  carry  out  this  intention  by  destro}-ing  the 
prophets  of  the  true  God.  The  hundred  prophets  whom  Oba- 
diah concealed  were  probably  for  the  most  part  pupils  ("  sons  ") 
of  the  prophets.  ^^  ^^^^.  must  signify,  according  to  the  con- 
text and  also  according  to  ver.  13,  "  fifty  each,"  so  that  D^Bbn 
must  have  fallen  out  through  a  copyist's  error,  tp  nn33  iiSb\ 
that  we  may  not  be  obliged  to  kiU  (a  portion)  of  the  cattle  (ip 
partitive).  The  Keri  >^^\}^^^  is  no  doubt  actually  correct,  but 
it  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  as  the  Chethib  ncna  |p  may  be 
taken  as  an  indefinite  phrase :  "  any  head  of  cattle." — Vers. 
7,  8.  Elijah  met  Obadiah  on  this  expedition,  and  told  him  to 
announce  his  coming  to  the  king. — ^Vers.  9  sqq.  Obadiah  was 
afraid  that  the  execution  of  this  command  might  cost  him  his 
life,  inasmuch  as  Ahab  had  sent  in  search  of  Elijah  "  to  every 
kingdom  and  every  nation," — a  hyperbole  suggested  by  inward 
excitement  and  fear.  P.^  ^'^^^]  is  to  be  connected  with  what 
follows  in  spite  of  the  accents:  "and  if  they  said  he  is  not 


2^42;  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

here,  he  took  an  oath,"  etc. — Vers.  12,  13.  "And  if  it  comes  to 
pass  (that)  I  go  away  from  thee,  and  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  carries 
thee  away  whither  I  know  not,  and  I  come  to  tell  Ahab  (sc.  that 
thou  art  here)  and  he  findeth  thee  not,  he  will  slay  me,  and  thy 
servant  feareth  the  Lord  from  his  youth,"  etc. ;  i.e.  since  I  as  a 
God-fearing  man  and  a  protector  of  the  prophets  cannot  boast 
of  any  special  favour  from  Ahab.  ""IVIPj  from  my  youth  up  : 
"  thy  servant "  being  equivalent  to  "  I  myself."  From  the  fear 
expressed  by  Obadiah  that  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  might  suddenly 
carry  the  prophet  to  some  unknown  place,  Seb.  Schmidt  and 
others  have  inferred  that  in  the  earlier  history  of  Elijah  there 
had  occurred  some  cases  of  this  kind  of  sudden  transportation, 
though  they  have  not  been  handed  down ;  but  the  anxiety  ex- 
pressed by  Obadiah  might  very  well  have  sprung  from  the  fact, 
that  after  Elijah  had  announced  the  coming  drought  to  Ahab, 
he  disappeared,  and,  notwithstanding  all  the  inquiries  instituted 
by  the  king,  was  nowhere  to  be  found.  And  since  he  was  not 
carried  off  miraculously  then  (compare  the  'H.?  and  ^.^?1,  "  get 
thee  hence  "  and  "  he  went,"  in  ch.  xvii.  3,  5),  there  is  all  the. 
less  ground  for  imagining  cases  of  this  kind  in  the  intermediate 
time,  when  he  was  hidden  from  his  enemies.  The  subsequent 
translation  of  Elijah  to  heaven  (2  Kings  ii.  11,  12),  and  the 
miraculous  carrying  away  of  Philip  from  the  chamberlain  of 
Mauritania  (Acts  viii.  39),  do  not  warrant  any  such  assumption ; 
and  stUl  less  the  passage  which  Clericus  quotes  from  Ezekiel 
(iii.  12,  14),  because  the  carrying  of  Ezekiel  through  the  air, 
which  is  mentioned  here,  only  happened  in  vision  and  not  in 
external  reality.  If  Obadiah  had  known  of  any  actual  occur- 
rence of  this  kind,  he  would  certainly  have  stated  it  more 
clearly  as  a  more  striking  vindication  of  his  fear. — Vers.  1 5-1 9. 
But  when  "Elijah,  assured  him  with  an  oath  (nlX3y  nin^_,  see  at 
1  Sam.  i.  3)  that  he  would  shaw  himself  to  Ahab  that  day, 
Obadiah  went  lo  announce  it  to  the  king;  whereupon  Ahab 
went  to  meet  the  prophet,  and  sought  to  overawe  him  with  the 
imperious  words,"  Art  thou  here,  thou  troubler  of  Israel  ?"  ("i^V, 
-see  at  Gen.  xxxiv.  30).  But  Elijah  threw  back  this  charge: 
^'  It  is  not  I  who  have  brought  Israel  into  trouble,  but  thou 
and  thy  family,  in  that  ye  have  forsaken  the  conmiandments 
of  Jehovah,  and  thou  goest  after  Baalim."  He  then  caUed  upon 
the  king  to  gather  together  all  Israel  to  him  upon  Carmel,  to- 
gether with  the  450  prophets  of  Baal  and  the  400  prophets  of 


CHAP.  XVIIL  1-19.  243 

Asherah,  who  ate  of  Jezebel's  table,  ie.  who  were  maintained  by 
the  queen. 

Carmel,  a  mountain  ridge  "with  many  peaks,  intersected 
by  hundreds  of  larger  and  smaller  ravines,"  which  stands  out  as 
a  promontory  running  in  a  north-westerly  direction  into  the 
Mediterranean  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  26),  and  some  of  the  loftiest 
peaks  of  which  rise  to  the  height  of  1800  feet  above  the  level 
of  the  sea,  when  seen  from  the  northern  or  outer  side  shows 
only  "  bald,   monotonous  rocky  ridges,  scantily  covered  with 
short  and  thorny  bushes  ;"  but  in  the  interior  it  still  preserves 
its  ancient  glory,  which  has  procured  for  it  the  name  of  "  fruit- 
field,"  the  vaUeys  being  covered  with  the  most  beautiful  flowers 
of  every  description,  and  the  heights   adorned  with  myrtles, 
laurels,  oaks,  and  firs  (cf  V.  de  Velde,  -R.  i  p.  292  sqq.).     At 
the  north-western  extremity  of  the  mountain  there  is  a  cele- 
brated Carmelite  monastery,  dedicated  to  Ehjah,  whom  tradition 
represents  as  having  lived  in  a  grotto  under  the  monastery  ; 
but  we  are  certainly  not  to  look  there  for  the  scene  of  the  con- 
test with  the   priests  of  Baal  described  in  the  verses  which 
follow.     The  scene  of  Elijah's  sacrifice  is  rather  to  be  sought 
for  on  one  of  the  south-eastern  heights  of  Carmel ;  and  Van  de 
Velde  (i.  p.  320  sqq.)  has  pointed  it  out  with  great  probability 
in  the  ruins  of  el  Mohraka,  i.e.  "  the  burned  place,"  "  a  rocky 
level  space  of  no  great  circumference,  and  covered  with  old 
gnarled  trees  with  a  dense  entangled  undergrowth  of  bushes." 
For  "  one  can  scarcely  imagine  a  spot  better  adapted  for  the 
thousands  of  Israel  to  have  stood  drawn  up  on  than  the  gentle 
slopes.     The  rock  shoots  up  in  an  almost  perpendicular  wall  of 
more  than  200  feet  in  height  on  the  side  of  the  vale  of  Esdrae- 
lon.     On  this  side,  therefore,  there  was  no  room  for  the  gazing 
multitude  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  this  wall  made  it  visible 
over  the  whole  plain,  and  from  all  the  surroundins  heishts,  so 
that  even  those  left  behind,  who  had  not  ascended  Carmel, 
would  stni  have  been  able  to  witness  at  no  great  distance  the 
fire  from  heaven  that  descended  upon  the  altar." — "  There  is  not 
a  more  conspicuous  spot  on  aU  Carmel  than  the  abrupt  rocky 
height  of  el  Mohraka,  shooting  np  so  suddenly  on  the  east." 
Moreover,  the  soil  was  thoroughly  adapted  for  the  erection  of 
the  altar  described  in  vers.  31  and  32:  "it  showed  a  rocky 
surface,  with  a  sufficiency  of  large  fragments  of  rock  lying  all 
around,  and,  besides,  well  fitted  for  the  rapid  digging  of  a  trench.'* 


244  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

There  is  also  water  in  the  neighbourhood,  as  is  assumed  in 
ver.  34,  "Nowhere  does  the  Kishon  run  so  close  to  Mount 
Carmel  as  just  beneath  el  Mohraka,"  which  is  "1635  feet 
above  the  sea,  and  perhaps  1000  feet  above  the  Kishon.  This 
height  can  be  gone  up  and  down  in  the  short  time  allowed  by 
the  Scripture  (vers.  40—44)."  But  it  was  possible  to  find  water 
even  nearer  than  this,  to  pour  upon  the  burnt-offering  in  the 
manner  described  in  vers.  34,  35.  Close  by  the  steep  rocky 
waU  of  the  height,  just  where  you  can  descend  to  the  Kishon 
through  a  steep  ravine,  you  find,  "250  feet  it  might  be  beneath 
the  altar  plateau,  a  vaulted  and  very  abundant  fountain  built 
in  the  form  of  a  tank,  with  a  few  steps  leading  down  into  it, 
just  as  one  finds  elsewhere  in  the  old  wells  or  springs  of  the 
Jewish  times." — "  From  such  a  fountain  alone  could  Elijah 
have  procured  so  much  water  at  that  time.  And  as  for  the 
distance  between  this  spring  and  the  supposed  site  of  the 
altar,  it  was  every  way  possible  for  men  to  go  thrice  thither 
and  back  again  to  obtain  the  necessary  supply."  Lastly, 
el  Mohraka  is  so  situated,  that  the  circumstances  mentioned 
in  vers.  42-44  also  perfectly  coincide  (Van  de  Yelde,  pp. 
322-325). 

Vers.  20-46.  Elijah's  contest  with  the  prophets  of  Baal. — 
Ahab  sent  through  all  Israel  and  gathered  the  prophets  (of  Baal) 
together  upon  Mount  Carmel.  According  to  vers.  21,  22,  and 
39,  a  number  of  the  people  ("all  the  people")  had  also  come 
with  them.  On  the  other  hand,  not  only  is  there  no  further 
reference  in  what  follows  to  the  400  prophets  of  Asherah  (cf 
vers.  25  and  40),  but  in  ver.  22  it  is  very  obvious  that  the 
presence  of  the  450  prophets  of  Baal  alone  is  supposed.  We 
must  therefore  assume  that  the  Asherah  prophets,  foreboding 
nothing  good,  had  found  a  way  of  evading  the  command  of 
Ahab  and  securing  the  protection  of  Jezebel.^  King  Ahab  also 
appeared  upon   Carmel   (cf.  ver.  41),  as  he  had  no  idea  of 

1  It  is  true  that  in  ver.  22  the  LXX.  have  this  clause,  x«<  o»  TrpoipiiTcci  rov 
dXaov;  (i.e.  niK'xn)  TiTpxx.6am,  which  Thenius  regards  as  au  original  portion 
of  the  text,  though  without  observing  the  character  of  the  LXX.  If  the 
Asherah  prophets  had  also  been  present,  Elijah  would  not  only  have  com- 
manded the  prophets  of  Baal  to  be  seized  and  slain  (ver.  40),  but  the 
Asherah  prophets  also.  From  the  principle  a  potiori  fit,  etc.,  it  may  be  pos- 
sible to  explain  the  omission  of  the  Asherah  prophets  in  ver.  25,  but  not  in 
vei'.  40. 


CHAP.  XYIII.  20-46.  245 

Elijali's  intention,  which  was  by  no  means  "  to  prove  to  the 
king  that  he  (Ahab)  and  not  Elijah  had  brought  Israel  into 
trouble "  (Vat.,  Seb.  Schm.),  but  to  put  before  the  eyes  of  the 
whole  nation  a  convincing  practical  proof  of  the  sole  deity  of 
Jehovah  and  of  the  nothingness  of  the  Baals,  that  were  re- 
garded as  gods,  and  by  slajang  the  priests  of  Baal  to  give  a 
death-blow  to  idolatry  in  Israel — Ver.  21.  Elijah  addressed  the 
assembled  people  as  follows  :    "  How  long  do  ye  limp  upon 
both  sides  ?     Is  Jehovah  God,  then  go  after  Him  ;  but  if  Baal 
be  God,  then  go  after  him" — and  the  people  answered  him  not 
a  word.     They  wanted  to  combine  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and 
Baal,  and  not  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude  towards  Jehovah  by 
the  worship  of  Baal ;  and  were  therefore  obliged  to  keep  silence 
under  this  charge  of  infatuated  halving,  since  they  knew  very 
well  from  the  law  itself  that  Jehovah  demanded  worship  with 
a  whole  and  undivided  heart  (Deut.  vL  4,  5).     This  dividing  of 
the  heart  between  Jehovah  and  Baal  Elijah  called  limping  Ty 
D-aVDn  ^riB',  "  upon  the  two  parties  (of  Jehovah   and  Baal)." 
For   D^syp   the  meaning  "  divided   opinions,  parties,"   is   well 
established  by  the  use  of  0*aj;D  in  Ps.  cxix.  113  ;  and  the  ren- 
dering of  the  LXX.  I'Yiruai,  the  hoUow  of  the  knee,  is  only  a 
paraphrase  of  the  sense  and  not  an  interpretation  of  the  word. 
— Vers.   22-25.    As  the  people   adhered   to   their    undecided 
double-mindedness,  Elijah  proposed  to  let  the  Deity  Himself 
decide  who  was  the  true  God,  Jehovah  or  Baal     The  prophets 
of  Baal  were  to  offer  a  sacrifice  to  Baal,  and  he  (Elijah)  would 
offer  one  to  Jehovah.     And  the  true  God  should  make  Himself 
kno^\Ti  by  kindling  the  burnt-offering  presented  to  Him  with 
fire  from  heaven,  and  in  this  way  answering  the  invocation  of 
His  name.     This  proposal  was  based  upon  the  account  in  Lev. 
ix.     As  Jehovah  had  there  manifested  Himself  as  the  God  of 
Israel  by  causing  fire  to  fall  from  heaven  upon  the  first  sacrifice 
presented  in  front  of  the  tabernacle  and  to  consume  it,  Elijah 
hoped   that  in  like  manner  Jehovah  would  even  now  reveal 
Himself  as  the  living  God.     And  the  form  of  decision  thus 
proposed  would  necessarily  appear  all  the  fairer,  because  Elijah, 
the  prophet  of  Jehovah,  stood  alone  in  opposition  to  a  whole 
crowd  of  Baal's  prophets,  numbering  no  less  than  450  men. 
And  for  that  very  reason  the  latter  could  not  draw  back,  with- 
out publicly  renouncing  their  pretensions,  whether  they  be- 
lieved that  Baal  would  reaUy  do  what  was  desired,  or  hoped 


-2  46  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  RINGS. 

that  they  might  be  able  to  escape,  through  some  accident  or 
stratagem,  from  the  difficult  situation  that  had  been  prepared 
for  them,  or  fancied  that  the  Qod  of  Elijah  would  no  more  fur- 
nish the  proof  of  His  deity  that  was  desired  of  Him  than  Baal 
would.  In  order,  however,  to  cut  off  every  subterfuge  in  the 
event  of  their  attempt  proving  a  failure,  Elijah  not  only  yielded 
the  precedence  to  them  on  the  occasion  of  this  sacrifice,  but 
gave  them  the  choice  of  the  two  oxen  brought  to  be  offered  ; 
which  made  the  fairness  of  his  proposal  so  much  the  more  con- 
spicuous to  every  one,  that  the  people  willingly  gave  their 
consent. 

Vers.  26-29.  The  prophets  of  Baal  then  proceeded  to  the 
performance  of  the  duty  required.  They  prepared  (v^i?])  the 
sacrifice,  and  called  solemnly  upon  Baal  from  morning  to  noon  : 
"  O  Baal,  hear  us,"  limping  round  the  altar ;  "  but  there  was  no 
voice,  and  no  one  to  hear  (to  answer),  and  no  attention."  nsa 
is  a  contemptuous  epithet  applied  to  the  pantomimic  sacrificial 
dance  performed  by  these  priests  round  about  the  altar,^  "I'^X 
n\^y  ("  which  one  had  made  "). — ^Ver.  2  7.  As  no  answer  had 
been  received  before  noon,  Elijah  cried  out  to  them  in  deri- 
sion :  "  Call  to  him  with  a  loud  voice,  for  he  is  God  (sc.  accord- 
ing to  your  opinion),  for  he  is  meditating,  or  has  gone  aside  ( ''55', 
secessio),  or  is  on  the  journey  (^")!'3,  on  the  way)  ;  perhaps  he 
is  sleeping,  that  he  may  wake  up."  The  ridicule  lies  more 
especially  in  the  K^n  ^'''P^.  ^3  (for  he  is  a  god),  when  contrasted 
with  the  enumeration  of  the  different  possibilities  which  may 
have  occasioned  their  obtaining  no  answer,  and  is  heightened  by 
the  earnest  and  threefold  repetition  of  the  '3.  With  regard 
to  these  possibilities  we  may  quote  the  words  of  Clericus  : 
"  Although  these  things  when  spoken  of  God  are  the  most 
absurd  things  possible,  yet  idolaters  could  believe  such  things, 
as  we  may  see  from  Homer."  The  priests  of  Baal  did  actually 
begin  therefore  to  cry  louder  than  before,  and  scratched  them- 
selves with  swords  and  lances,  till  the  blood  poured  out, 
"  according  to  their  custom  "  (DDSB'ps).  Movers  describes  this 
as  follows  {Phonizier,  i.  pp.  682,  683),  from  statements  made 
by  ancient  authors  concerning  the  processions  of  the   strolling 

^  The  following  is  the  description  which  Herodian  (hist.  v.  3),  among 
others,  gives  of  Heliogabalus  when  dancing  as  chief  priest  of  the  Emesinian 
Bun-god :    '  ItpovpyovvTot  S»}  toDtov,   «■£/»/.  ts  toI;  /iu/xoig  x"^?^^^"^"^  v6[/,if  B»p' 


CHAP.  XVIII.  30-S9.  247 

bands  of  the  Syrian  goddess  :  "  A  discordant  howling  opens 
the  scene.  They  then  rush  wildly  about  in  perfect  confusion, 
with  their  heads  bowed  down  to  the  ground,  but  always  re- 
volving in  circles,  so  that  the  loosened  hair  drags  through  the 
mire  ;  they  then  begia  to  bite  their  arms,  and  end  with  cutting 
themselves  with  the  two-edged  swords  which  they  are  in  the 
habit  of  carrying.  A  new  scene  then  opens.  One  of  them, 
who  surpasses  aU  the  rest  in  frenzy,  begins  to  prophesy  with 
sighs  and  groans ;  he  openly  accuses  himself  of  the  sins  which 
he  has  committed,  and  which  he  is  now  about  to  punish  by 
chastising  the  flesh,  takes  the  knotted  scourge,  which  the 
Gain  generally  carry,  lashes  his  back,  and  then  cuts  himself 
with  swords  till  the  blood  trickles  down  from  his  mangled 
body."  The  climax  of  the  Bacchantic  dance  in  the  case  of 
the  priests  of  Baal  also  was  the  prophesying  (K2:nn),  and  it 
was  for  this  reason,  probably,  that  they  were  called  prophets 
(D^^fo:).  This  did  not  begin  tiU  noon,  and  lasted  till  about 
the  time  of  the  evening  sacrifice  (ni^V?  "IV,  not  ni^y  ny,  ver.  29). 
nmen  rS^v,  "  the  laying  on  (offering)  of  the  meat-offering,"  refers 
to  the  daily  evening  sacrifice,  which  consisted  of  a  burnt-offer- 
ing and  a  meat-offering  (Ex.  xxix.  38  sqq. ;  Num.  xxviiL  3-8), 
and  was  then  offered,  according  to  the  Eabbinical  observance 
(see  at  Ex.  xii.  6),  in  the  closing  hours  of  the  afternoon,  as  is 
evident  from  the  circumstances  which  are  described  in  vers.  40 
sqq.  as  having  taken  place  on  the  same  day  and  subsequently 
to  Elijah's  offering,  which  was  presented  at  the  time  of  the 
evening  sacrifice  (ver.  36). 

Vers.  30—39.  Elijah's  sacrijice. — As  no  answer  came  from 
Baal,  Elijah  began  to  prepare  for  his  own  sacrifice.  Ver.  30. 
He  made  the  people  come  nearer,  that  he  might  have  both  eye- 
witnesses and  ear-witnesses  present  at  his  sacrifice,  and  restored 
the  altar  of  Jehovah  which  was  broken  dowiL  Consequently 
there  was  already  an  altar  of  Jehovah  upon  Carmel,  which 
either  dated  from  the  times  anterior  to  the  building  of  the 
temple,  when  altars  of  Jehovah  were  erected  in  different  places 
throughout  the  land  (see  at  ch.  iii.  2),  or,  what  is  more  probable, 
had  been  built  by  pious  worshippers  belonging  to  the  ten  tribes 
since  the  division  of  the  kingdom  (Hengst^nberg,  Dissertations 
on  the  Pentateuch,  voL  i,  p.  183,  transL),  and  judging  from  ch. 
xix.  10,  had  been  destroyed  during  the  reign  of  Ahab,  when 
the  worship   of  Baal  gained  the  upper  hand. — Vers.  31,  32. 


248  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Elijah  took  twelve  stones,  "  according  to  the  number  of  the 
tribes  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  to  whom  the  word  of  the  Loi'd  had 
come  (Gen.  xxxii.  29,  xxxv.  10),  Israel  shall  be  thy  name,"  and 
built  these  stones  into  an  altar.  The  twelve  stones  were  a 
practical  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  prophet  that  the  division 
of  the  nation  into  two  kingdoms  was  at  variance  with  the  divine 
calling  of  Israel,  inasmuch  as  according  to  the  will  of  God  the 
twelve  tribes  were  to  form  one  people  of  Jehovah,  and  to  have 
a  common  sacrificial  altar ;  whilst  the  allusion  to  the  fact  that 
Jehovah  had  given  to  the  forefather  of  the  nation  the  name  of 
Israel,  directs  attention  to  the  wrong  which  the  seceding  ten 
tribes  had  done  in  claiming  the  name  of  Israel  for  themselves, 
whereas  it  really  belonged  to  the  whole  nation,  njn^  DK'ii  (in 
the  name  of  Jehovah)  belongs  to  nn^  (built),  and  signifies  by 
the  authority  and  for  the  glory  of  Jehovah,  "  And  made  a 
trench  as  the  space  of  two  seahs  of  seed  {i.e.  so  large  that  you 
could  sow  two  seahs ^  of  seed  upon  the  ground  which  it  covered) 
round  about  the  altar."  The  trench  must  therefore  have  been 
of  considerable  breadth  and  depth,  although  it  is  impossible  to 
determine  the  exact  dimensions,  as  the  kind  of  seed-corn  is  not 
defined.  He  then  arranged  the  sacrifice  upon  the  altar,  and 
had  four  Kad  (pails)  of  water  poured  three  times  in  succession 
upon  the  burnt-offering  which  was  laid  upon  the  pieces  of  wood, 
so  that  the  water  flowed  round  about  the  altar,  and  then  had 
the  trench  filled  with  water.^  Elijah  adopted  this  course  for 
the  purpose  of  precluding  all  suspicion  of  even  the  possibility 
of  fraud  in  connection  with  the  miraculous  burning  of  the 
sacrifice.  For  idolaters  had  carried  their  deceptions  to  such  a 
length,  that  they  would  set  fire  to  the  wood  of  the  sacrifices  from 

^  i.e.  about  two  Dresden  pecks  (Metzen). — Thenius. 

2  Thenius  throws  suspicion  upon  the  historical  character  of  this  account,  on 
the  ground  that  "  the  author  evidently  forgot  the  terrible  drought,  by  which 
the  numerous  sources  of  the  Carmel  and  the  Nachal  Kishon  must  have  been 
dried  up ;"  but  Van  de  Velde  has  already  answered  this  objection,  which  has 
been  raised  by  others  also,  and  has  completely  overthrown  it  by  pointing  out 
the  covered  well  of  el  Mohi-aka,  in  relation  to  which  he  makes  the  following 
remark:  "  In  such  springs  the  water  remains  always  cool,  under  the  shade 
of  a  vaulted  roof,  and  with  no  hot  atmosphere  to  evaporate  it.  While  all 
other  fountains  were  dried  up,  I  can  well  understand  that  there  might  have 
been  found  here  that  superabundance  of  water  which  Elijah  poured  so  pro- 
fusely over  the  altar"  (vol.  i.  p.  325,  transl.).  But  the  drying  up  of  the 
Kishon  is  a  mere  conjecture,  which  cannot  be  historically  proved. 


CHAP.  XVIII.  40-46.  249 

hollow  spaces  concealed  beneath  the  altars,  in  order  to  make 
the  credulous  people  believe  that  the  sacrifice  had  been  mira- 
culously set  on  fire  by  the  deity.  Ephraem  Syrus  and  Joh. 
Chrysostom  both  affirm  this  ;  the  latter  in  his  Or  alio  in  Petrum 
AposL  et  Eliam  jproph.  t.  iL  p.  737,  ed.  Montf.,  the  genuineness 
of  which,  however,  is  sometimes  called  in  question. — Vers. 
36,  37.  After  these  preparations  at  the  time  of  the  eveniag 
sacrifice,  Elijah  drew  near  and  prayed  :  "  Lord  God  of  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Israel  (this  name  is  used  with  deliberate  pur- 
pose instead  of  Jacob  :  see  at  ver.  31),  let  it  be  known  this 
day  that  Thou  art  God  in  Israel,  and  I  am  Thy  servant,  and  do 
aU  these  things  through  Thy  word.  Hear  me,  Jehovah,  hear 
me,  that  this  people  may  know  that  Thou  Jehovah  art  God, 
and  tumest  back  their  hearts  !"  {i.e.  back  from  idols  to  Thyself.) 
This  clearly  expresses  not  only  the  object  of  the  miracle  whicli 
follows,  but  that  of  miracles  universally.  The  perfects  ^n'^'V 
and  ri2pn  are  used  to  denote  not  only  what  has  already  occurred, 
but  what  will  still  take  place  and  is  as  certain  as  if  it  had 
taken  place  already.  'O'^J'  refers  not  merely  to  the  predicted 
drought  and  to  what  Elijah  has  just  been  doing  (Thenius),  but 
to  the  miracle  which  was  immediately  about  to  be  performed  ; 
and  r>2pn  to  the  conversion  of  the  people  to  the  Lord  their 
God,  for  which  Elijah's  coming  had  already  prepared  the  way, 
and  which  was  still  further  advanced  by  the  following  miracle. 
— \qv.  38.  Then  fire  of  Jehovah  fell  and  consumed  the  burnt- 
offering  and  the  pieces  of  wood,  etc.  nin^  CX,  the  fire  proceed- 
ing from  Jehovah,  was  not  a  natural  flash  of  lightning,  which 
could  not  produce  any  such  effect,  but  miraculous  fire  falling 
from  heaven,  as  in  1  Chron.  xxi  26,  2  Chron.  viL  1  (see  at 
Lev.  ix.  24),  the  supernatural  origiu  of  which  was  manifested 
in  the  fact,  that  it  not  only  consumed  the  sacrifice  with  the  pile 
of  wood  upon  the  altar,  but  also  burned  up  {in  calcem  redcgit — 
Cler.)  the  stones  of  the  altar  and  the  earth  that  was  thrown  up  to 
form  the  trench,  and  licked  up  the  water  in  the  trench.  Through 
this  miracle  Jehovah  not  only  accredited  EKjah  as  His  servant 
and  prophet,  but  proved  Himself  to  be  the  living  God,  whom 
Israel  was  to  serve ;  so  that  all  the  people  who  were  present  fell 
down  upon  their  faces  in  woi-ship,  as  they  had  done  once  before, 
viz.  at  the  consecration  of  the  altar  iu  Lev.  ix.  24,  and  con- 
fessed "  Jehovah  is  God :"  O^npsn^  the  true  or  real  God. 

Vers.  40-46.  Elijah  availed  himself  of  this  enthusiasm  of 


250  THK  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  people  for  the  Lord,  to  deal  a  fatal  blow  at  the  prophets  of 
Baal,  who  turned  away  the  people  from  the  living  God.  He 
commanded  the  people  to  seize  them,  and  had  them  slain  at  the 
brook  Kishon,  and  that  not  so  much  from  revenge,  i.e.  because 
it  was  at  their  instigation  that  queen  Jezebel  had  murdered  the 
prophets  of  the  true  God  (ver.  13),  as  to  carry  out  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God,  which  pro- 
hibited idolatry  on  pain  of  death,  and  commanded  that  false 
prophets  should  be  destroyed  (Deut.  xvii.  2,  3,  xiii.  13  sqq.).^ — 
Ver.  41.  Elijah  then  called  upon  the  king,  who  had  eaten  nothing 
from  morning  till  evening  in  his  eagerness  to  see  the  result  of  the 
contest  between  the  prophet  and  the  priests  of  Baal,  to  come  up 
from  the  brook  Kishon  to  the  place  of  sacrifice  upon  Carmel,  where 
his  wants  were  provided  for,  and  to  partake  of  meat  and  drink,  for 
he  (Elijah)  could  already  hear  the  noise  of  a  fall  of  rain.  ^\>  is 
without  a  verb,  as  is  often  the  case  {e.g.  Isa.  xiii.  4,  lii.  8,  etc.); 
literally,  it  is  the  sound,  the  noise.  After  the  occasion  of  the 
curse  of  drought,  which  had  fallen  upon  the  land,  had  been 
removed  by  the  destruction  of  the  idolatrous  priests,  the  curse 
itself  could  also  be  removed.  "  But  this  was  not  to  take  place 
without  the  prophet's  saying  it,  and  by  means  of  this  gift 
proving  himself  afresh  to  be  the  representative  of  God  "  (0.  v. 
Gerlach). — Vers.  42  sqq.  While  the  king  was  refreshing  himself 
with  food  and  drink,  Elijah  went  up  to  the  top  of  Carmel  to 
pray  that  the  Lord  would  complete  His  work  by  fulfilling  His 
promise  (ver.  1)  in  sending  rain ;  and  continued  in  prayer  till 
the  visible  commencement  of  the  fulfilment  of  his  prayer  was 
announced  by  his  servant,  who,  after  looking  out  upon  the  sea 
seven  times,  saw  at  last  a  small  cloud  ascend  from  the  sea 

^  It  was  necessary  that  idolatry  and  temptation  to  the  worship  of  idols 
should  be  punished  with  death,  as  a  practical  denial  of  Jehovah  the  true  God 
and  Lord  of  His  chosen  people,  if  the  object  of  the  divine  institutions  was  to 
be  secured.  By  putting  the  priests  of  Baal  to  death,  therefore,  Elijah  only 
did  what  the  law  required  ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  ordinary  administrators  of 
justice  did  not  fulfil  their  obligations,  he  did  this  as  an  extraordinary  mes- 
senger of  God,  whom  the  Lord  had  accredited  as  His  prophet  before  all  the 
people  by  the  miraculous  answer  given  to  his  prayer. — To  infer  from  this  act 
of  Elijah  the  right  to  institute  a  bloody  persecution  of  heretics,  would  not 
only  indicate  a  complete  oversight  of  the  difference  between  heathen  idolaters 
and  Christian  heretics,  but  the  same  reprehensible  confounding  of  the  evan- 
gelical standpoint  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  legal  standpoint  of  the  Old, 
which  Christ  condemned  in  His  own  disciples  in  Luke  ix.  65,  66. 


CHAP.  XVm.  40-46.  251 

atout  tlie"  size  of  a  man's  hand.^  The  peculiar  attitude  assumed 
by  Elijah  when  praying  (Jas.  v.  18),  viz.  bowing  down  even 
to  the  earth  O'^^O  ^.nd  putting  his  face  between  his  knees,  pro- 
bably the  attitude  of  deep  absorption  in  God,  was  witnessed 
by  Shaw  and  Chardin  in  the  case  of  certain  dervishes  (vid. 
Harmar,  Beohachtungen,  iil  pp.  373-4). — Ver.  44.  As  soon  as 
the  small  cloud  ascended  from  the  sea,  Elijah  sent  his  servant 
to  teU  the  king  to  set  off  home,  that  he  might  not  be  stopped 
by  the  rain.  T],  go  down,  sc.  from  Carmel  to  his  chariot,  which 
was  standing  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain.^ — Ver.  45.  Be- 
fore any  provision  had  been  made  for  it  ('i3"*iJr|  '^3~'J? :  hither 
and  thither,  i.e.  while  the  hand  is  being  moved  to  and  fro, 
"very  speedily;"  cf.  Ewald,  §  105,  6)  the  heaven  turned  black 
with  clouds  and  wind,  i.e.  with  storm-clouds  (Thenius),  and 
there  came  a  great  fall  of  rain,  while  Ahab  drove  along  the  road 
to  JezreeL  It  was  quite  possible  for  the  king  to  reach  Jezreel 
the  same  evening  from  that  point,  namely,  from  the  foot  of 
Carmel  below  el  Mohraka :  but  only  thence,  for  every  half- 
hour  farther  west  would  have  taken  him  too  far  from  his  capital 
for  it  to  be  possible  to  accomplish  the  distance  before  the  rain 
overtook  him  (V.  de  Velde,  i  p.  326).  Jezreel,  the  present  Zerin 
(see  at  Josh.  xix.  18),  was  probably  the  summer  residence  of 
Ahab  (see  at  Josh.  xxi.  1).  The  distance  from  el  Mohraka  thither 
is  hardly  2^  German  geographical  miles  (?  14  Engl,  miles — Tr.) 
in  a  straight  line. — Ver.  46.  'V\Tien  Ahab  drove  off,  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  came  upon  Elijah,  so  that  he  ran  before  Ahab  as  far  as 
Jezreel, — not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  king  to 
his  residence  unhurt  (Seb.  Schm.),  as  to  give  him  a  proof  of  his 
humility,  and  thus  deepen  the  impression  already  made  upon  his 
heart,  and  fortify  him  all  the  more  against  the  strong  temptations 
of  his  wife,  who  abused  his  weakness  to  support  the  cause  of 
ungodliness.     This  act  of  Elijah,  whom  Ahab  had  hitherto  only 

^  V.  de  Velde  has  shown  how  admirably  these  circumstances  (vers.  43  and 
44)  also  apply  to  the  situation  of  el  Mohraka  :  "  on  its  west  and  north-west 
side  the  view  of  the  sea  is  quite  intercepted  by  an  adjacent  height.  That 
height  may  be  ascended,  however,  in  a  few  minutes,  and  a  full  view  of  the 
sea  obtained  from  the  top  "  (i.  p.  326). 

2  "  After  three  years'  drought  all  herbage  must  have  disappeared  from  the 
plain  of  Jezreel,  and  the  loose  clay  composing  its  soil  must  have  been  changed 
into  a  deep  layer  of  dust.  Had  time  been  allowed  for  the  rain  to  convert  that 
dust  into  a  bed  of  mud,  the  chariot-wheels  might  have  stuck  fast  in  it." — 
V.  DE  Velde,  i.  pp.  326-7.* 


252  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

known  as  a  stern,  imperious,  and  powerful  prophet,  by  wliich 
he  now  showed  himself  to  be  his  faithful  subject  and  servant, 
was  admirably  adapted  to  touch  the  heart  of  the  king,  and  pro- 
duce the  conviction  that  it  was  not  from  any  personal  dislike 
to  him,  but  only  in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  that  the  prophet 
was  angry  at  his  idolatry,  and  that  he  was  not  trying  to  effect 
his  ruin,  but  rather  his  conversion  and  the  salvation  of  his  soul. 
n\n]  '^l^  the  hand  (i.e.  the  power)  of  the  Lord,  denotes  the  super- 
natural strength  with  which  the  Lord  endowed  hira,  to  accom- 
plish superhuman  feats.  This  formula  is  generally  applied  to 
the  divine  inspiration  by  which  the  prophets  were  prepared  for 
their  prophesying  (cf.  2  Kings  iii.  15  j  Ezek.  i.  3,  iii.  15,  etc.). 

CHAP.  XIX.  Elijah's  flight  into  the  desert,  the  revelation 

OF  GOD  at  HOREB,  AND  ELISHA'S  CALL  TO  BE  A  PROPHET. 

The  hope  of  completing  his  victory  over  the  idolaters  and 
overthrowing  the  worship  of  Baal,  even  in  the  capital  of  the 
kingdom,  with  which  Elijah  may  have  hastened  to  Jezreel,  was 
frustrated  by  the  malice  of  the  queen,  who  was  so  far  from  dis- 
cerning any  revelation  of  the  almighty  God  in  the  account 
given  her  by  Ahab  of  what  had  occurred  on  Carmel,  and  bending 
before  His  mighty  hand,  that,  on  the  contrary,  she  was  so  full  of 
wrath  at  the  slaying  of  the  prophets  of  Baal  as  to  send  to  the 
prophet  Elijah  to  threaten  him  with  death.  This  apparent 
failure  of  his  ministry  was  the  occasion  of  a  severe  inward  con- 
flict, in  which  Elijah  was  brought  to  a  state  of  despondency  and 
fled  from  the  land.  The  Lord  allowed  His  servant  to  pass  through 
this  conflict,  that  he  might  not  exalt  himself,  but,  being  mindful 
of  his  own  impotence,  might  rest  content  with  the  grace  of  his 
God,  whose  strength  is  mighty  in  the  weak  (2  Cor.  xii.  8,  9), 
and  who  would  refine  and  strengthen  him  for  the  further  fulfil- 
ment of  his  calling. 

Vers.  1-8.  ElijaKs  Jliglit  into  the  desert  and  guidance  to 
fforch. — Vers.  1,  2.  When  "  Ahab  told  Jezebel  all  that  Elijah 
had  done,  and  all,  how  he  had  slain  all  the  prophets  (of  Baal)," 
she  sent  a  messenger  to  Elijah  in  her  impotent  wrath,  with  a 
threat,  which  she  confirmed  by  an  oath  (see  at  ch.  ii.  2  3),  that  in 
the  morning  she  would  have  him  slain  like  the  prophets  whom 
he  had  put  to  death.  The  early  commentators  detected  in  this 
threat  the  impotcniia  mulichris  iracundicc/ and  saw  that  all  that 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-8.  253 

Jezebel  wanted  was  to  get  rid  of  the  man  who  was  so  distressing 
and  dangerous  to  her,  because  she  felt  herself  unable  to  put  him 
to  death,  partly  on  account  of  the  people,  who  were  enthusiastic 
in  his  favour,  and  partly  on  account  of  the  king  himseK,  upon 
whom  the  affair  at  Carmel  had  not  remained  without  its  salutary 
effect. — ^Vers.  3,  4.  But  when  Elijah  saw  (^"^Tl),  sc.  how  things 
stood,  or  the  audacity  of  Jezebel,  from  which  the  failure  of  his 
work  was  evident,  he  rose  up  and  went  to  Beersheba  in  Judah, 
i.e.  Bir-seba  on  the  southern  frontier  of  Canaan  (see  at  Gen.  xxi. 
31).  The  expression  m;!-"'^  ny^x^  "which  to  Judah,"  i.e.  which 
belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  for  Beersheba  was  really 
allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  2),  is  appended  not 
merely  as  a  geographical  indication  that  Elijah  went  outside  the 
land,  but  to  show  that  he  meant  to  leave  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
the  scene  of  his  previous  labours,  just  as  Jeremiah  in  a  similar 
internal  conflict  gave  utterance  to  the  wish  that  he  could  leave 
his  people,  if  he  had  but  a  lodging-place  in  the  wilderness  (Jer. 
ix.  2).  t*1?l  is  not  to  be  altered  into  ^y]],  et  timuit,  after  the 
LXX.  and  Vulcr.,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  some  Codd.  have 
this  reading,  which  only  rests  upon  an  erroneous  conjecture.  For 
it  is  obvious  that  Elijah  did  not  flee  from  any  fear  of  the  vain 
threat  of  Jezebel,  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not  merely  withdraw 
into  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  where  he  would  have  been  safe  under 
Jehoshaphat  from  all  the  persecutions  of  Jezebel,  but  went  to 
Beersheba,  and  thence  onwards  into  the  desert,  there  to  pour  out 
before  the  Lord  God  his  weariness  of  life  (ver.  4).  i!i'23~t)S  T|b^^  he 
went  upon  his  soul,  or  his  life,  i.e.  not  to  save  his  Hfe  (as  I  once 
thought,  with  many  other  commentators),  for  his  wish  to  die 
(ver.  4)  is  opposed  to  this ;  but  to  care  for  his  soul  in  the 
manner  indicated  in  ver.  4,  i.e.  to  commit  his  soul  or  his  life  to 
the  Lord  his  God  in  the  solitude  of  the  desert,  and  see  what  He 
would  determine  concerning  him.^ — He  left  his  servant  in  Beer- 
sheba, while  he  himself  went  a  -day's  journey  farther  into  the 
desert  (Paran),  not  merely  because  he  was  so  fiUed  with  weari- 

1  G.  Menken  (christl.  Homil.  ub.  den  Proph.  EUas,  p.  231)  lias  given  the 
following  admirable  explanation  of  IC'SJ  ^s  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned  : 
"  For  conscience  sake,  from  conviction,  out  of  obligation,  not  from  fear.  After 
aU  his  former  experience,  and  from  the  entire  relation  in  which  Elijah  stood 
to  God,  it  was  impossible  that  he  should  be  afraid,  and  not  be  firmly  convinced 
that  the  God  who  had  shut  up  heaven  at  his  word,  who  had  supplied  him  with 
bread  and  flesh  for  a  whole  year  in  the  desert  through  the  medium  of  ravens, 
who  had  supported  him  miraculously  for  years  in  a  foreign  land  through  the 


254  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

ness  of  life  in  his  dark  oppression,  that  he  thought  he  should 
have  no  further  need  of  his  servant,  and  therefore  left  him  be- 
hind in  Beersheba,  but  that  he  might  pour  out  his  heart  before 
God  alone  in  the  desert  and  yield  himself  up  to  His  guidance. 
For  however  unquestionably  his  lamentation  in  ver.  4,  for  example, 
expresses  a  weariness  of  life,  this  merely  indicates  the  feeling 
which  had  taken  possession  of  his  soul  after  a  day's  journey  in 
the  barren  desert.  And  even  there  he  lays  his  wish  to  die  before 
God  in  prayer ;  so  that  this  feeling  is  merely  to  be  regarded  as 
one  result  of  the  spiritual  conflict,  which  his  bodily  exhaustion 
had  now  raised  to  a  height  that  it  cannot  have  reached  when  he 
was  in  Beersheba,  If,  therefore,  he  did  not  start  with  the  inten- 
tion of  making  a  pilgrimage  to  Horeb,  he  had  certainly  gone  into 
the  desert  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether  the  Lord  would 
manifest  His  mercy  to  him,  as  He  had  formerly  done  to  His 
people  under  Moses,  or  whether  He  would  withdraw  His  hand 
entirely  from  him.  After  a  day's  journey  he  sat  down  under  a 
onn  (construed  here  as  a  feminine,  in  ver.  5  as  a  masculine),  ft 
species  of  broom  (genista  Betem  in  Forskal),  which  is  the  finest 
and  most  striking  shrub  of  the  Arabian  desert,  growing  constantly 
in  the  beds  of  streams  and  in  the  valleys,  where  places  of  en- 
campment are  frequently  selected  for  the  sake  of  the  shelter 
which  they  afford  by  night  from  the  wind  and  by  day  from 
the  sun  (Rob.  Pal.  i,  299).  nio!?  .  .  .  Wm-.  and  wished  that  his 
soul  might  die  (a  kind  of  accusative  with  infinitive  ;  see  Ewald, 
§  3  3  6,  6),  and  said,  nny  an,  "  Enough  now ;  take.  Lord,  my  soul, 
for  I  am  not  better  than  my  fathers ;"  i.e.  I  have  worked  and  en- 
dured enough,  and  deserve  no  longer  life  than  my  fathers.  From 
this  it  appears  that  Elijah  was  already  of  a  great  age. — ^Vers,  5 
sqq.  In  this  disturbed  state  of  mind  he  lay  down  and  slept  under 
a  broom-tree.  Then  the  Lord  came  with  His  power  to  the  help 
of  the  despairing  man.  "  An  angel  touched  him  (wakened  him 
out  of  his  sleep),  and  said  to  him  :  Arise,  eat."  And  behold  he 
saw  at  his  head  Q'?^.  riiy,  a  bread  cake  baked  over  red-hot  stones, 
a  savoury  article  of  food  which  is  still  a  great  favourite  with  the 
Bedouins  (see  at  Gen.  xviii.  6,  xix.  3),  and  a  pitcher  of  water, 

medium  of  a  poor  widow,  who  had  concealed  and  rescued  him  for  three  years 
and  a  half  from  the  search  of  the  king,  who  had  accredited  and  honoured  him 
in  the  sight  of  all  the  people  as  His  servant,  who  had  given  an  imuiediate  ansM-er 
to  his  prayer  for  rain,  could  also  defend  him  in  this  extremity,  and  rescue  him 
from  this  danger,  if  such  should  be  His  wijl." 


i 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-8.  255 

and  ate  and  drank,  and  lay  down  again. — Ver.  7.  But  tlie  angel 
wakened  him  a  second  time,  and  called  upon  him  to  eat  with 
these  words :  "  for  the  way  is  too  far  for  thee  "  (JTiT}^  ^^?  ^1,  iter 
est  majxis  quam  pro  viribus  tuis — ^Yat.). — ^Ver.  8.  "  Then  he  arose, 
ate  and  drank,  and  went  in  the  strength  of  that  food  forty  days 
and  forty  nights  to  the  mount  of  God  at  Horeb."  As  the  angel 
did  not  tell  him  whither  he  was  to  go,  and  Elijah  wandered  to 
Horeb  in  consequence  of  tliis  strengthening,  it  appears  to  have 
been  his  intention  from  the  very  beginning  to  go  into  the  desert, 
and  see  whether  the  Lord  would  stiU  further  acknowledge  him 
and  his  work ;  so  that  in  the  support  and  strength  imparted  by 
the  angel  he  saw  an  indication  that  he  was  to  foUow  the  foot- 
steps of  the  divine  grace  still  farther  into  the  desert,  and  make 
a  pilgrimage  to  Horeb,  with  the  hope  that  there  perhaps  the  Lord 
would  reveal  to  him  His  counsel  concerning  the  further  guidance 
of  the  people  of  His  covenant,  as  He  had  formerly  done  to  His 
servant  Moses,  and  give  him  the  necessary  instruction  for  the 
continuance  of  his  prophetic  service,  Hwcb  is  called  the  mount 
.)f  God  here,  as  it  was  proleptically  in  Ex.  iii  1,  as  the  place 
where  the  Lord  confirmed  the  covenant,  already  made  with  the 
patriarchs,  to  their  descendants,  and  adopted  the  tribes  of  Israel 
as  His  people  and  made  them  into  a  kingdom  of  God.  The 
distance  from  Beersheba  to  Horeb  is  about  200  miles.  Conse- 
quently Elijah  would  not  have  required  forty  days  to  travel 
there,  if  the  intention  of  God  had  been  nothing  more  than  to 
cause  him  to  rcach  the  mountain,  or  "  to  help  him  on  his  way  " 
(Thenius).  But  in  the  strength  of  the  food  provided  by  the  angel 
Elijah  was  not  only  to  perform  the  journey  to  Horeb,  but  to 
wander  in  the  desert  for  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  i.e.  forty 
whole  days,  as  Moses  had  formerly  wandered  with  all  Israel  for 
forty  years  ;  that  he  might  know  that  the  Lord  was  still  the  same 
God  who  had  nourished  and  sustained  His  whole  nation  in  the 
desert  with  manna  from  heaven  for  forty  years.  And  just  as  the 
forty  years'  sojourn  in  the  desert  had  been  to  Moses  a  time  for 
the  trial  of  faith  and  for  exercise  in  humility  and  meekness 
(Xum.  xii.  3),  so  was  the  strength  of  Elijah's  faith  to  be  tried 
by  the  forty  days'  wandering  in  the  same  desert,  and  to  be  puri- 
fied from  all  carnal  zeal  for  the  further  fulfilment  of  His  calling, 
in  accordance  with  the  divine  will  What  follows  shows  very 
clearly  that  this  was  the  object  of  the  divine  guidance  of  Elijah 
fc£  Hengstenberg,  X>iss.  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol  i  171,  172). 


256  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Vers.  9-18.  Appearance  of  God  at  Horel). — Ver,  9.  When 
Elijah  arrived  at  Horeb,  he  went  into  the  cave  (the  definite 
article  in  '"inyan,  with  the  obvious  connection  between  the  ap- 
pearance of  God,  which  follows  here,  and  that  described  in  Ex. 
xxxiii,  12  sqq.,  points  back  to  the  cleft  in  the  rock,  "iisn  n"}i53) 
in  which  Moses  had  stood  while  the  glory  of  Jehovah  passed  by 
(see  at  Ex.  xxxiii,  22),  and  there  he  passed  the  night.  And 
behold  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  (in  the  night):  "  What 
doest  thou  here,  Elijah  ? "  This  question  did  not  involve  a 
reproof,  as  though  Elijah  had  nothing  to  do  there,  but  was 
simply  intended  to  lead  him  to  give  utterance  to  the  thoughts 
and  feelings  of  his  heart. — Ver.  1 0.  Elijah  answered :  "  I  have 
striven  zealously  for  Jehovah  the  God  of  hosts,  for  the  children 
of  Israel  have  forsaken  Thy  covenant,  destroyed  Thine  altars,  and 
killed  Thy  prophets  with  the  sword;  and  I  only  am  left,  and  they 
seek  my  life."  In  these  words  there  was  not  only  the  greatest 
despair  expressed  as  to  the  existing  condition  of  things,  but  also 
a  carnal  zeal  which  would  gladly  have  called  down  the  imme- 
diate vengeance  of  the  Almighty  upon  all  idolaters.  The  com- 
plaint contained,  on  the  one  hand,  the  tacit  reproof  that  God  had 
looked  on  quietly  for  so  long  a  time  at  the  conduct  of  the  ungodly, 
and  had  suffered  things  to  come  to  such  an  extremity,  that  he. 
His  prophet,  was  the  only  one  left  of  all  the  true  worshippers  of 
God,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  indirect  appeal  that  He  would 
interpose  at  last  with  His  penal  judgments.  Because  Elijah 
had  not  seen  the  expected  salutary  fruits  of  his  zeal  for  the 
Lord,  he  thought  that  all  was  lost,  and  in  his  gloomy  state  of 
mind  overlooked  what  he  had  seen  a  short  time  before  with  his 
own  eyes,  that  even  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  king  himself 
there  lived  a  pious  and  faithful  worshipper  of  Jehovah,  viz. 
Obadiah,  who  had  concealed  a  hundred  prophets  from  the 
revenge  of  Jezebel,  and  that  the  whole  of  the  people  assembled 
upon  Carmel  had  given  glory  to  the  Lord,  and  at  his  command 
had  seized  the  prophets  of  Baal  and  put  them  to  death,  and 
therefore  that  the  true  worshippers  of  the  Lord  could  not  all 
have  vanished  out  of  Israel,  nin^  "•nwip  NSp  recalls  to  mind  the 
zeal  of  Phinehas  (Num.  xxv.  1 1  sqq.),  which  put  an  end  to  the 
whoredom  of  the  sons  of  Israel  with  the  daughters  of  Moab. 
But  whereas  Phinehas  received  the  promise  of  an  everlasting 
priesthood  for  his  zeal,  Elijah  had  seen  so  little  fruit  from  his 
zeal  against  the  worshippers  of  Baal,  that  they  actually  sought 


CHAP.  XIX.  »-ia  ?5T 

his  life.  ^^'^3ro  are  altars,  which  pious  Israelites  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes  had  built  in  different  places  for  the  woi^hip  of 
Jehovah  (see  at  cL  xviiL  30). — ^Vers.  11  sqq.  The  Lord  replied 
to  the  prophet's  complaint  first  of  all  by  the  manifestation  of 
His  control  of  the  phenomena  of  nature  (vers.  1 1-1 3),  and  then 
by  a  verbal  explanation  of  His  design  (vers.  15—18). 

In  this  divine  revelation  men  ha\e  recognised  from  the  very 
earliest  times  a  repetition  of  the  appearance  of  (rod  which  was 
granted  to  Moses  upon  Sinai.  As  God,  in  token  of  His  grace, 
granted  the  prayer  of  Moses  that  he  might  see  His  glory,  after 
he  had  striven  zealously  for  the  honoiir  of  the  Lord  when  the 
people  rebelled  by  worshipping  the  golden  calf;  so  did  He  also 
display  His  glory  upon  Horeb  to  Elijah  as  a  second  Moses 
for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  his  faith,  with  this  simple  dif- 
ference, that  He  made  all  His  goodness  pass  by  Moses,  and 
declared  His  name  in  the  words,  "  Jehovah,  a  gracious  and 
merciful  God,"  etc.  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7),  whereas  He  caused  Elijah 
first  of  all  to  behold  the  operation  of  His  grace  in  certaia 
phenomena  of  nature,  and  then  afterwards  made  known  to 
him  His  will  with  regard  to  Israel  and  to  the  work  of  His 
prophets.  This  difference  in  the  form  of  the  revelation,  while 
the  substance  and  desiizn  were  essentially  the  same,  may  be 
explained  from  the  difference  not  only  in  the  historical  cir- 
cumstances, but  also  in  the  state  of  mind  of  the  two  servants 
to  whom  He  manifested  His  glor}'.  In  the  case  of  Moses  it 
was  burning  love  for  the  welfare  of  his  people  which  impelled 
him  to  offer  the  prayer  that  the  Lord  would  let  hiTn  see  His 
glory,  as  a  sign  that  He  would  not  forsake  His  people ;  and 
this  prayer  was  granted  him,  so  far  as  a  man  is  ever  able  to  see 
the  glory  of  God,  to  strengthen  bim  for  the  further  discharge  of 
the  duties  of  his  office.  Hidden  in  the  cleft  of  the  rock  and 
shielded  by  the  hand  of  God,  he  saw  the  Lord  pass  by  him,  and 
heard  Him  utter  in  words  His  inmost  being.  Elijah,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  his  zeal  for  the  honour  of  Gkni,  which  was  not 
quite  free  from  human  passion,  had  been  led  by  the  want  of 
any  visible  fruit  from  his  own  labour  to  overlook  the  work  of 
the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  His  people ;  so  that  he  had  fled  into 
the  desert  and  wished  to  be  released  from  this  world  by  death, 
and  had  not  been  brought  out  of  his  despair  by  the  strengthen- 
ing wiih  meat  and  drink  which  he  had  received  from  the  angel, 
and  which  enabled  him  to  travel  for  forty  days  to  the  mount  of 

K 


258  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

God  without  suffering  from  want,  a  fact  which  was  intended  to 
remind  him  of  the  ancient  God  of  the  fathers,  to  whose  omni- 
potence and  goodness  there  is  no  end;  so  that  it  was  in  a  most 
gloomy  state  of  mind  that  he  reached  Horeb  at  last.  And  now 
the  Lord  designed  not  only  to  manifest  His  glory  as  the  love  in 
which  grace  and  righteousness  are  united,  hut  also  to  show  him 
that  his  zeal  for  the  honour  of  the  Lord  was  not  in  harmony 
with  the  love  and  grace  and  long-suffering  of  God.  "  The 
design  of  the  vision  was  to  show  to  the  fiery  zeal  of  the 
prophet,  who  wanted  to  reform  everything  by  means  of  the 
tempest,  the  gentle  way  which  God  pursues,  and  to  proclaim 
the  long-suffering  and  mildness  of  His  nature,  as  the  voice  had 
already  done  to  Moses  on  that  very  spot ;  hence  the  beautiful 
change  in  the  divine  appearance  "  (Herder,  Geist  der  hebr.  Poesie, 
1788,  ii.  p.  52). — Vers.  11,  12.  After  God  had  commanded 
him  to  come  out  of  the  cave  and  stand  upon  the  mountain  (that 
part  of  the  mountain  which  was  in  front  of  the  cave)  before 
Him,  "  behold  Jehovah  went  by  (the  participle  "i3'y  is  used  to 
give  a  more  vivid  representation  of  the  scene) ;  and  a  great  and 
strong  tempest,  rending  mountains  and  breaking  rocks  in  pieces, 
before  Jehovah — it  was  not  in  the  tempest  that  Jehovah  was ; 
and  after  the  tempest  an  earthquake — it  was  not  in  the  earth- 
quake that  Jehovah  was ;  and  after  the  earthquake  fire — it 
was  not  in  the  fire  that  Jehovah  was ;  and  after  the  fire  a  stiU, 
gentle  rustling."  Hi^l  nom  7ip,  literally  the  tone  of  a  gentle 
blowing.  On  the  change  of  gender  in  Ptni  npiia  m"»,  see  Ewald, 
§  174,  e. — Tempest,  earthquake,  and  fire,  which  are  even  more 
terrible  in  the  awful  solitude  of  the  Horeb  mountains  than  in 
an  inhabited  land,  are  signs  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  to  judg- 
ment (cf.  Ps.  xviii.  8  sqq.).  It  was  in  the  midst  of  such  terrible 
phenomena  that  the  Lord  had  once  come  down  upon  Sinai,  to 
inspire  the  people  who  were  assembled  at  the  foot  of  the  moun- 
tain with  a  salutary  dread  of  His  terrible  majesty,  of  the  fiery 
zeal  of  His  wrath  and  love,  which  consumes  whatever  opposes 
it  (see  at  Ex,  xix.  16  sqq.).  But  now  the  Lord  was  not  in 
these  terrible  phenomena  ;  to  signify  to  the  prophet  that  He 
did  not  work  in  His  earthly  kingdom  with  the  destroying  zeal 
of  wrath,  or  with  the  pitiless  severity  of  judgment.  It  was  in 
a  soft,  gentle  rustling  that  He  revealed  Himself  to  him. — Vers. 
13,  14.  When  Elijah  heard  this,  he  covered  up  his  face  in  his 
cloak  (n"J"nK ;  see  at  2  Kings  i.  8)  and  went  out  to  the  entrance 


\ 


CHAP.  XIX.  ^18.  259 

to  the  cave.     And  behold  he  heard  the  question  a  second  time, 
"What  doest  thou  here,  Elijah?"  and  answered  with  a  repeti- 
tion of  his  complaint  (see  vers.  9  and  1 0). — While  the  appear- 
ance of  God,  not  in  the  tempest,  the  earthquake,  and  the  fire, 
but  in  a  gentle  rustling,  revealed  the  Lord  to  him  as  a  merciful 
and   gracious  God,  long-suffering,  and  of  great  goodness   and 
truth  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6),  the  answer  to  his  complaint  showed  him 
that  He  did  not  leave  guilt  unpunished  (Ex.  xxxiv.  7),  since  the 
Lord  gave   him  the  following  command,  vers.   1 5   sqq. :  "  Go 
back  in  thy  way  to  the  desert  of  Damascus,  and  anoint  Hazael 
king  over  Aram  (see  2  Kings  viii  12,  13),  and  Jehu  the  son 
of  Mmshi  king  over  Israel  (see  2  Kings  ix.   2),  and  Elisha  the 
son  of  Shaphat  prophet  in  thy  stead  "  (see  ver.  19) ;  and  then 
added  this  promise,  which  must  have  quieted  his  zeal,  that  was 
praiseworthy  in  the  feelings  from  which  it  sprang,  although  it 
had  assumed  too  passionate  a  form,  and  have  given  him  courage 
to  continue  his  prophetic  work :  "  And  it  will  come  to  pass, 
that   whoever  escapeth  the  sword  of   Hazael,  him  will  Jehu 
slay,  and  whoever  escapeth  the  sword  of  Jehu,  him  will  Elisha 
slay." — Ver.  18.  But  in  order  that  he  might  learn,  to  his  shame, 
that  the  cause  of  the  Lord  in  Israel  appeared  much  more  des- 
perate to  his  eye,  which  was  clouded  by  his  own  dissatisfaction, 
than  it  really  was  in  the  eye  of  the  God  who  knows  His  own 
by  number  and  by  name,  the  Lord  added :  "  I  have  seven  thou- 
sand left  in  Israel,  all  knees  that  have  not  bent  before  Baal,  and 
every  mouth  that  hath  not  kissed  him."     P^'ST  rnanp,  into  the 
desert  of  Damascus  (with  the  He  loc.  with  the  construct  state  as 
in  Deut.  iv.  41,  Josh.  xii.  1,  etc. ;  cf.  Ewald,  §  216,  h),  i.e.  the 
desert  lying  to  the  south  and  east  of  the  city  of  Damascus, 
which  is  situated  on  the  river  Barady ;  not  jper  desert um  in 
Damascum  (Vulg.,  Luth.,  etc.)  ;  for  although  Elijah  would  neces- 
sarily pass  through  the  Arabian  desert  to  go  from  Horeb  to 
Damascus,  it  was  superfluous  to  tell  him  that  he  was  to  go  that 
way,  as  there  was  no  other  road.     The  words  "  return  by  thy 
way  .  .  .  and  anoint  Hazael,"  etc.,  are  not  to  be  understood  as 
signifying  that  Elijah  was  to  go  at  once  to  Damascus  and  anoint 
Hazael  there,  but  simply  that  he  was  to  do  this  at  a  time  which 
the  Spirit  would  more  precisely  indicate.     According  to  what 
foUows,  all  that  Elijah  accomplished  immediately  was  to  call 
Ehsha  to  be  his  successor ;  whereas  the  other  two  commissions 
were    fulfilled  by  Elisha  after    Elijah's   ascension    to    heaven 


260  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KIKGS. 

(2  Kings  viii.  and  ix.).  The  opinion  that  Elijah  also  anointed 
Hazael  and  Jehu  immediately,  but  that  this  anointing  was  kept 
secret,  and  was  repeated  by  Elisha  when  the  time  for  their 
public  appearance  arrived,  has  not  only  very  little  probability  in 
itself,  but  is  directly  precluded  by  the  account  of  the  anointing 
of  Jehu  in  2  Kings  ix.  The  anointing  of  Hazael  and  Jehu  is 
mentioned  first,  because  God  had  chosen  these  two  kings  to  be 
the  chief  instruments  of  His  judgments  upon  the  royal  family 
and  people  for  their  idolatry.  It  was  only  in  the  case  of  Jehu 
that  a  real  anointing  took  place  (2  Kings  ix.  6) ;  Hazael  was 
merely  told  by  Elisha  that  he  would  be  king  (2  Kings  viii.  1 3), 
and  Elisha  was  simply  called  by  Elijah  to  the  prophetic  ofi&ce 
by  having  the  cloak  of  the  latter  thrown  upon  him.  Moreover, 
the  Messianic  passage,  Isa.  Ixi.  l,is  the  only  one  in  which  there 
is  any  allusion  to  the  anointing  of  a  prophet.  Consequently 
HE'D  must  be  taken  figuratively  here,  as  in  Judg.  ix.  8,  as  de- 
noting divine  consecration  to  the.  regal  and  prophetic  offices. 
And  sOj  again,  the  statement  that  Elisha  would  slay  those  who 
escaped  the  sword  of  Jehu  is  not  to  be  understood  literally. 
Elisha  slew  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  brought  judgments 
upon  the  ungodly,  as  we  see  from  2  Kings  ii.  24  (cf.  Jer.  i.  10, 
xviii.  7).  The  "  seven  thousand,"  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee 
before  Baal,  are  a  round  number  for  the  ikkoyi]  of  the  godly, 
whom  the  Lord  had  preserved  for  Himself  in  the  sinful  kingdom, 
which  was  really  very  large  in  itself,  however  small  it  might  be 
in  comparison  with  the  whole  nation.  The  number  seven  is  the 
stamp  of  the  works  of  God,  so  that  seven  thousand  is  the  number 
of  the  "  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace "  (Rom. 
xi.  5),  which  had  then  been  preserved  by  God.  Kissing  Baal 
was  the  most  usual  form  in  which  this  idol  was  worshipped,  and 
consisted  not  merely  in  throwing  kisses  with  the  hand  (cf.  Job 
xxxi.  27,  and  Plin.  h.  n.  28,  8),  but  also  in  kissing  the  images  of 
Baal,  probably  on  the  feet  (cf.  Cicero  in  Verr,  4,  43). 

Vers.  19-21.  Call  of  Elisha  to  he  a  prophet. — Ver.  19.  As 
he  went  thence  (viz.  away  from  Horeb),  Elijah  found  Elisha  the 
son  of  Shaphat  at  Abel-Meholah,  in  the  Jordan  valley  (see  at 
Judg.  vii.  22),  occupied  in  ploughing;  "twelve  yoke  of  oxen  be- 
fore him,  and  he  himself  with  the  twelfth  "  (a  viiy  wealthy  man 
therefore),  and  threw  his  cloak  to  him  as  he  passed  by.  The 
prophet's  cloak  was  a  sign  of  the  prophet's  vocation,  so  that 
throwing  it  to  him  was  a  symbol  .of  the  call  to  tlie  prophetic 


-     "CHAP.  XX.  1-22:  261 

office. — Ver.  20.  Elisha  understanding  the  sign,  left  the  oxen 
standing,  ran  after  Elijah,  and  said  to  him,  "  Let  me  kiss  my 
father  and  my  mother,"  i.e.  take  leave  of  my  parents,  and  then  I 
will  follow  thee.  For  the  form  n^^s  see  Ewald,  §  228,  5.  As 
lie  has  ploughed  his  earthly  field  with  his  twelve  pair  of  oxen, 
he  was  now  to  plough  the  spiritual  field  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel  (Luke  ix.  62).  Elijah  answered,  "  Go,  return,  for  what 
have  I  done  to  thee  ?"  ^^^  "P  belong  together,  as  in  ver.  15  ; 
so  that  Elijah  thereby  gave  him  permission  to  return  to  his  father 
and  mother.  ^3  signifies  for,  not  yet  (Thenius) ;  for  there  is  no 
antithesis  here,  according  to  which  '3  might  serve  for  a  more 
emphatic  assurance  (Ewald,  §  330,  6).  The  words  "what  have 
I  done  to  thee  ? "  can  only  mean,  I  have  not  wanted  to  put  any 
constraint  upon  thee,  but  leave  it  to  thy  free  will  to  decide  in 
favour  of  the  prophetic  calling. — Ver.  21.  Then  Elisha  returned, 
took  the  pair  of  oxen  with  which  he  had  been  ploughing,  sacri- 
ficed, i.e.  slaughtered  them  (nnr  used  figuratively),  boiled  the 
flesh  with  the  plough,  gave  a  farewell  meal  to  the  people  (of  his 
place  of  abode),  i.e.  his  friends  and  acquaintance,  and  then  fol- 
lowed Elijah  as  his  servant,  i.e.  his  assistant.  The  sufi&x  in  D^S*? 
refers  to  "^P^iJ  TOV,  and  is  more  precisely  defined  by  the  apposi- 
tion iB^'?,  "  namely,  the  flesh  of  the  oxen." 

CHAP.  XX.    AHAB'S  double  VICTORY  OVEE  BENHADAD  OF  SYRIA. 

Even  if  the  impression  which  the  miracle  upon  Carmel  had 
made  upon  Ahab,  who  was  weak  rather  than  malevolent,  remained 
without  any  lasting  fruit,  the  Lord  did  very  quickly  manifest  His 
mercy  towards  him,  by  sending  a  prophet  with  a  promise  of  Aac- 
tory  when  the  Syrians  invaded  his  kingdom,  and  by  giving  the 
Syrians  into  his  power.  This  victory  was  a  fruit  of  the  seven 
thousand  who  had  not  bent  their  knee  before  Baal.  Elijah  was 
also  to  learn  from  this  that  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  had  not  yet 
departed  from  the  rebellious  kingdom. 

Vers.  1-22.  The  First  Victory. — Ver.  1.  Benhadad,  the  son 
of  that  Benhadad  who  had  conquered  several  cities  of  Galilee  in 
the  reign  of  Baasha  (ch.  xv.  20),  came  up  with  a  great  army — 
there  were  thirty-two  kings  with  him,  with  horses  and  chariots 
— and  besieged  Samaria.  The  thirty-two  kings  with  him  0^i^) 
were  vassals  of  Benhadad,  rulers  of  different  cities  and  the  terri- 


262  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

tory  belonging  to  them,  just  as  in  Joshua's  time  almost  every 
city  of  Canaan  had  its  king ;  they  were  therefore  bound  to  follow 
the  army  of  Benhadad  with  their  troops. — Vers,  2  sqq.  During 
the  siege  Benhadad  sent  messengers  into  the  city  to  Ahab  with 
this  demand :  "  Thy  silver  and  thy  gold  are  mine,  and  the  best 
of  thy  wives  and  thy  sons  are  mine ; "  and  Ahab  answered  with 
pusillanimity :  "  According  to  thy  word,  my  lord  king,  I  and  all 
that  is  mine  are  thine."  Benhadad  was  made  still  more  audacious 
by  this  submissiveness,  and  sent  messengers  the  second  time  with 
the  following  notice  (ver.  6) :  "  Yea,  if  I  send  my  servants  to  thee 
to-morrow  at  this  time,  and  they  search  thy  house  and  thy  servants' 
houses,  all  that  is  the  pleasure  of  thine  eyes  they  will  put  into 
their  hands  and  take."  DN  ""S  does  not  mean  "  only  =  certainly  " 
here  (Ewald,  §  356,  6),  for  there  is  neither  a  negative  clause  nor 
an  oath,  but  D8<  signifies  if  and  ""S  introduces  the  statement,  as 
in  ver.  5 ;  so  that  it  is  only  in  the  repetition  of  the  ""S  that  the 
emphasis  lies,  which  can  be  expressed  by  yea.  The  words  of 
Ahab  in  ver.  9  show  unquestionably  that  Benhadad  demanded 
more  the  second  time  than  the  first.  The  words  of  the  first 
demand,  "  Thy  silver  and  thy  gold,"  etc.,  were  ambiguous.  Ac- 
cording to  ver.  5,  Benhadad  meant  that  Ahab  should  give  him  all 
this ;  and  Ahab  had  probably  understood  him  as  meaning  that 
he  was  to  give  him  what  he  required,  in  order  to  purchase  peace  ; 
but  Benhadad  had,  no  doubt,  from  the  very  first  required  an  un- 
conditional surrender  at  discretion.  He  expresses  this  very 
clearly  in  the  second  demand,  since  he  announces  to  Ahab  the 
plunder  of  his  palace  and  also  of  the  palaces  of  his  nobles. 
^^ry  1»n»-73^  all  thy  costly  treasures.  It  was  from  this  second 
demand  that  Ahab  first  perceived  what  Benhadad's  intention  had 
been ;  he  therefore  laid  the  matter  before  the  elders  of  the  land, 
i.e.  the  king's  counsellors,  ver.  7  :  "  Mark  and  see  that  this  man 
seeketh  evil,"  i.e.  that  he  is  aiming  at  our  ruin,  since  he  is  not 
contented  with  the  first  demand,  which  I  did  not  refuse  him, — 
Ver,  8,  The  elders  and  aU  the  people,  i.e.  the  citizens  of  Samaria, 
advised  that  his  demand  should  not  be  granted,  nDxn  N7l  j;0B'n"?N*, 
"  hearken  not  (to  him),  and  thou  wilt  not  be  willing "  \^\  is 
stronger  than  PX;  yet  compare  Ewald,  §  350,  a) ;  whereupon  Ahab 
sent  the  messengers  away  with  this  answer,  that  he  would  sub- 
mit to  the  first  demand,  but  that  the  second  he  could  not  grant. 
— Ver,  10,  Benhadad  then  attempted  to  overawe  the  weak-minded 
Ahab  by  strong  threats,  sending  fresh  messengers  to  threaten  him 


CHAP.  XX.  1-22.  263 

with  the  destniction  of  the  city,  and  confirming  it  hy  a  solemn 
oath :  "  The  gods  do  so  to  me — if  the  dust  of  Samaria  should  suf- 
fice for  the  hollow  hands  of  all  the  people  that  are  in  my  trarn." 
The  meaning  of  this  threat  was  probably  that  he  would  reduce 
the  city  to  ashes,  so  that  scarcely  a  handful  of  dust  should  be 
left ;  for  his  army  was  so  powerful  and  numerous,  that  the  rub- 
bish of  the  city  would  not  suffice  for  every  one  to  fill  his  hand. 
— ^Ver.  11.  Ahab  answered  this  loud  boasting  with  the  proverb : 
"  Let  not  him  that  girdeth  himseK  boast  as  he  that  looseneth  the 
girdle,"  equivalent  to  the  Latin, 7i€  triumphum,  canas  ante  vidoriam. 
— ^Ver.  12.  After  this  reply  of  Ahab,  Benhadad  gave  command 
to  attack  the  city,  while  he  was  drinking  with  his  kings  in  the 
booths,  nizp  are  booths  made  of  branches,  twigs,  and  shrubs, 
such  as  are  still  erected  in  the  East  for  kings  and  generals  in 
the  place  of  tents  {vid.  Eosenmiiller,  A.  u.  N.  Morgerd.  iii  pp. 
198—9).  ^"d"'^:  take  your  places  against  the  city,  sc.  to  storm  it 
(for  D'b'  in  the  sense  of  arranging  the  army  for  battle,  see  1  Sam. 
xi  1 1  and  Job  L  17);  not  olKoZofirjaare  ■^^dpuKa  (LXX.),  op 
place  the  siege  train. — ^Vers.  13,  14.  "While  the  SjTians  were 
preparing  for  the  attack,  a  prophet  came  to  Ahab  and  told  him 
that  Jehovah  would  deliver  this  great  multitude  (of  the  enemy) 
into  his  hand  that  day,  "  that  thou  mayest  know  that  I  am 
Jehovah,"  and  that  through  the  retainers  of  the  governors  of  the 
provinces  (nw^TBn  nb',  who  had  fled  to  Samaria),  i.e.  by  a  small 
and  weak  host.  In  the  appearance  of  the  prophet  in  Samaria 
mentioned  here  and  in  vers.  28  and  35  sqq.  there  is  no  such 
irreconcilable  contradiction  to  ch.  xviii  4,  22,  and  xix.  10,  as 
Thenius  maintains ;  it  simply  shows  that  the  persecution  of  the 
prophets  by  Jezebel  had  somewhat  abated,  and  therefore  Elijah's 
labour  had  not  remained  without  fruit,  'on  "ibx;^  'D,  who  shall 
open  the  battle  ?  IDX  answers  to  the  German  anfddeln  (to  string, 
unite ;  'Eng.join  battle — Tk.)  ;  cf.  2  Chron.  xiiL  3. — ^Vers.  15,  16. 
Ahab  then  mustered  his  fighting  men:  there  were  232  servants 
of  the  provincial  governors ;  and  the  rest  of  the  people,  all  the 
children  of  Israel,  i.e.  the  whole  of  the  Israelitish  fightins  men 
that  were  in  Samaria  (^'^n,  ver.  19),  amounted  to  7000  men. 
And  at  noon,  when  Benhadad  and  his  thirty-two  auxiliary  kings 
were  intoxicated  at  a  carousal  in  the  booths  ("li-^  '^^p  as  in  ch. 
xvi.  9),  he  ordered  his  men  to  advance,  with  the  servants  of  the 
provincial  governors  taking  the  lead.  The  7000  men  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  the  7000  mentioned  in  ch.  yjy,  18,  who  had 


!264  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

not  bowed  tlieir  knee  before  Baal,  as  Eashi  supposes,  altbougli 
the  sameness  in  the  numbers  is  apparently  not  accidental ;  but 
in  both  cases  the  number  of  the  covenant  people  existing  in  Israel 
is  indicated,  though  in  ch.  xix.  18  the  7000  constitute  the 
eKkoyr)  of  the  true  Israel,  whereas  in  the  verse  before  us  they  are 
merely  the  fighting  men  whom  the  Lord  had  left  to  Ahab  for  the 
defence  of  his  kingdom. — Vers.  17,  18.  When  Benhadad  was 
informed  of  the  advance  of  these  fightincr  men,  in  his  drunken 
arrogance  he  ordered  them  to  be  taken  alive,  whether  they  came 
with  peaceable  or  hostile  intent. — Vers.  19,  20.  But  they — 
the  servants  of  the  governors  at  the  head,  and  the  rest  of  the 
army  behind — smote  every  one  his  man,  so  that  the  Aramaeans 
fled,  and  Benhadad,  pursued  by  the  Israelites,  escaped  on  a 
horse  with  some  of  the  cavalry,  D^khbi  is  in  apposition  to 
''I'TII,  "  he  escaped,  and  horsemen,"  sc.  escaped  with  him,  i.e. 
some  of  the  horsemen  of  his  retinue,  whilst  the  king  of  Israel, 
going  out  of  the  city,  smote  horses  and  chariots  of  the  enemy, 
who  were  not  prepared  for  this  sally  of  the  besieged,  and  com- 
pletely defeated  them. — Ver.  22.  After  this  victory  the  prophet 
came  to  Ahab  again,  warning  him  to  be  upon  his  guard,  for  at 
the  turn  of  the  year,  i.e.  the  next  spring  (see  at  2  Sam.  xi.  1),  the 
Syrian  king  would  make  war  upon  him  once  more. 

Vers.  23-34.  The  Second  Victory. — ^Vers.  23,  24.  The 
servants  (ministers)  of  Benhadad  persuaded  their  lord  to  enter 
upon  a  fresh  campaign,  attributing  the  defeat  they  had  sustained 
to  two  causes,  which  could  be  set  aside,  viz.  to  the  supposed 
nature  of  the  gods  of  Israel,  and  to  the  position  occupied  by 
the  vassal-kings  in  the  army.  The  gods  of  Israel  were  moun- 
tain gods  :  when  fighting  with  them  upon  the  mountains,  the 
Syrians  had  had  to  fight  against  and  succumb  to  the  power  of 
these  gods,  whereas  on  the  plain  they  would  conquer,  because 
the  power  of  these  gods  did  not  reach  so  far.  This  notion  con- 
cerning the  God  of  Israel  the  Syrians  drew,  according  to  their 
ethnical  religious  ideas,  from  the  fact  that  the  sacred  places  of 
this  God — not  only  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  upon  Moriah,  but 
also  the  altars  of  the  high  places — were  erected  upon  moun- 
tains ;  since  heathenism  really  had  its  mountain  deities,  i.e. 
believed  in  gods  who  lived  upon  mountains  and  protected  and 
conducted  all  that  took  place  upon  them  (cf.  Dougtsei  Analect. 
ss.  i  178,  179;  DeyUng,  Observv.  ss.  iii  pp.  97  sqq. ;  Winer, 


CHAP.  XX.  23-34.  265 

hihl.  B.  W.  i.  p.  154),  and  in  Syrophcenicia  even  mountains 
themselves  had  di\'ine  honours  paid  to  them  (vid.  Movers, 
Phoniz.  L  p.  667  sqq.).  The  servants  of  Benhadad  were  at 
any  rate  so  far  right,  that  they  attributed  their  defeat  to  the 
assistance  which  God  had  given  to  His  people  Israel ;  and 
were  only  wrong  in  regarding  the  God  of  Israel  as  a  local 
deity,  whose  power  did  not  extend  beyond  the  mountains. 
They  also  advised  their  lord  (ver.  24)  to  remove  the  kings  in 
his  army  from  their  position,  and  appoint  governors  in  their 
stead  (nins^  see  ch.  x.  15).  The  vassal-kings  had  most  likely 
not  shown  the  desired  self-sacrifice  for  the  cause  of  their  superior 
in  the  war.  And,  lastly  (ver.  25),  they  advised  the  king  to  raise 
his  army  to  its  former  strength,  and  then  carry  on  the  war  in 
the  plain.  "  Number  thyseK  an  army,  like  the  army  which 
has  fallen  from  thee."  ^"^^^^D,  "  from  with  thee,"  rendered  cor- 
rectly de  Uiis  in  the  Vulgate,  at  least  so  far  as  the  sense  is  con- 
cerned (for  the  form  see  Ewald,  §  264,  b).  But  these  prudently- 
devised  measures  were  to  be  of  no  avail  to  the  Syrians ;  for 
they  were  to  learn  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  not  a  limited 
mountain-god. — ^Ver.  26.  With  the  new  year  (see  ver.  22)  Ben- 
hadad advanced  to  Aphek  again  to  fight  against  Israel.  Aphek 
is  neither  the  city  of  that  name  in  the  tribe  of  Asher  (Josh, 
xix.  30  and  xiii  4),  nor  that  on  the  mountains  of  Judah  (Josh. 
XV.  5  3),  but  the  city  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel  not  far  from  End<ir 
(1  Sam.  xxix.  1  compared  with  xxviii  4)  ;  since  Benhadad  had 
resolved  that  this  time  he  would  fight  against  Israel  in  the 
plain. — ^Ver.  27.  The  Israelites,  mustered  and  provided  for 
(^373 :  supplied  with  ammunition  and  provisions),  marched  to 
meet  them,  and  encamped  before  them  "  like  two  little  separate 
flocks  of  goats"  {i.e.  severed  from  the  great  herd  of  cattle). 
They  had  probably  encamped  upon  slopes  of  the  mountains  by 
the  plain  of  Jezreel,  where  they  looked  like  two  miserable  flocks 
of  goats  in  contrast  with  the  S}Tians  who  filled  the  land, — 
Ver.  28.  Then  the  man  of  God  (the  prophet  mentioned  in  vers. 
13  and  22)  came  again  to  Ahab  with  the  word  of  God :  "  Be- 
cause the  SjT-ians  have  said  Jehovah  is  a  mountain-God  and  not 
a  God  of  the  valleys,  I  will  give  this  great  multitude  into  thy 
hand,  that  ye  may  know  that  I  am  Jehovah." — Vers.  29,  30. 
After  seven  days  the  battle  was  fought.  The  Israelites  smote 
the  Syrians,  a  hundred  thousand  men  in  one  day  ;  and  when  the 
rest  fled  to  Aphek,  into  the  city,  the  wall  fell  upon  twenty-seven 


266  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

thousand  men,  Iva  Be  KuKeivoi  koI  ovtoc  /xdOaxrtv,  to?  dop^-aro^ 
■q  TrXrjyi]  (Theodoret).  The  flying  Syrians  had  probably  some  of 
them  climbed  the  wall  of  the  city  to  offer  resistance  to  the 
Israelites  in  pursuit,  and  some  of  them  sought  to  defend  them- 
selves by  taking  shelter  behind  it.  And  during  the  conflict, 
through  the  special  interposition  of  God,  the  wall  fell  and 
buried  the  Syrians  who  were  there.  The  cause  of  the  fall  is 
not  given.  Thenius  assumes  that  it  was  undermined,  in  order 
to  remove  all  idea  of  any  miraculous  working  of  the  omni- 
potence of  God.  Benhadad  himself  fled  into  the  city  "  room  to 
room,"  i.e.  from  one  room  to  another  (c£  ch.  xxii.  25,  2  Chron. 
xviii.  24). — Vers.  31,  32.  In  this  extremity  his  servants  made 
the  proposal  to  him,  that  trusting  in  the  generosity  of  the  kings 
of  Israel,  they  should  go  and  entreat  Ahab  to  show  favour  to  him. 
They  clothed  themselves  in  mourning  apparel,  and  put  ropes  on 
their  necks,  as  a  sign  of  absolute  surrender,  and  went  to  Ahab, 
praying  for  the  life  of  their  king.  And  Ahab  felt  so  flattered 
by  the  fact  that  his  powerful  opponent  was  obliged  to  come  and 
entreat  his  favour  in  this  humble  manner,  that  he  gave  him  his 
life,  without  considering  how  a  similar  act  on  the  part  of  Saul 
had  been  blamed  by  the  Lord  (1  Sam.  xv.  9  sqq.).  "  Is  he  stiU 
alive  ?  He  is  my  brother ! "  was  his  answer  to  Benhadad's  ser- 
vants.— Ver.  33.  And  they  laid  hold  of  these  words  of  Ahab  as 
a  good  omen  O^ynj^,  and  hastened  and  bade  him  explain  (i.e. 
bade  him  quickly  explain) ;  ^iiJiion,  whether  (it  had  been  uttered) 
from  himself,  i.e.  whether  he  had  said  it  with  all  his  heart 
(Maurer),  and  said,  "  Benhadad  is  thy  brother."  The  dir.  Xey.  t^pn, 
related  to  Tr^,  exuere,  signifies  ahstrahere,  nudare,  then  figura- 
tively, aliquid  facer e  nude,  i.e.  sine  prcetextu,  or  aliquid  nude,  i.e. 
sine  fuco  atque  .ambagibus  testari,  covfirmare  (cf  Fiirst,  Concord. 
p.  398) ;  then  in  the  Talmud,  to  give  an  explanation  {vid.  Ges. 
ilies.  p.  476).  This  is  perfectly  applicable  here,  so  that  there  is 
no  necessity  to  alter  the  text,  even  if  we  thereby  obtained  a 
better  meaning  than  Thenius  with  his  explanation,  "  they  tore  it 
out  of  him,"  which  he  takes  to  be  equivalent  to  "  they  laid  hold 
of  him  by  his  word  "  (! !).  Ahab  thereupon  ordered  Benhadad  to 
come  and  get  up  into  his  chariot. — Ver.  34.  Benhadad,  in  order 
to  keep  Ahab  in  this  favourable  mood,  promised  to  give  him 
back  at  once  the  cities  which  his  father  had  taken  away  from 
Ahab's  father,  and  said,  "  Thou  mayest  make  thyself  roads  in 
Damascus,  as  my  father  made  in  Samaria."     There  is  no  account 


CHAP.  XX.  23-34.  267 

of  any  war  between  Omri  and  Benhadad  L ;  it  is  simply  stated 
in  ck  XV.  2  0  that  Benhadad  i.  had  taken  away  several  cities  in 
GaUlee  from  the  IsraeKtes  during  the  reign  of  Baasha.  This 
cannot  be  the  war  intended  here,  however,  not  indeed  because 
of  the  expression  ^^?s  HNtD,  since  3X  might  certainly  be  taken  in 
a  broader  sense  as  referring  to  Baasha  as  an  ancestor  of  Ahab, 
but  chiefly  on  account  of  the  statement  that  Benhadad  had 
made  himseK  roads  in  Samaria.  This  points  to  a  war  between 
Omri  and  Benhadad,  after  the  building  of  Samaria  into  the 
capital  of  the  kingdom,  of  which  no  account  has  been  preserved. 
V  ni:»n  D"*l*'^  "  to  make  himseK  roads,"  cannot  be  understood  as 
referring  either  to  fortifications  and  military  posts,  or  to  roads 
for  cattle  and  free  pasturage  in  the  Syrian  kingdom,  since 
Samaria  and  Damascus  were  cities ;  nor  can  it  signify  the  estab- 
lishment of  custom-houses,  but  only  the  clearing  of  portions  of 
the  city  for  the  purpose  of  trade  and  free  intercourse  (Cler.,  Ges., 
etc.),  or  for  the  establishment  of  bazaars,  wliich  would  occupy 
a  whole  street  (Bottcher,  Thenius ;  see  also  Movers,  Fhonizier, 
il  3,  p.  135). — "And  I,"  said  Ahab,  "will  let  thee  go  upon  a 
covenant "  (a  treaty  on  oath),  and  then  made  a  covenant  with 
him,  giving  him  both  life  and  liberty.  Before  '3X1  we  must  sup- 
ply in  thought  3snx  "lON"}.  This  thoroughly  impolitic  proceed- 
ing on  the  part  of  Ahab  arose  not  merely  from  a  natural  and 
inconsiderate  generosity  and  credulity  of  mind  (G.  L.  Bauer, 
Thenius),  but  from  an  unprincipled  weakness,  vanity,  and  blind- 
ness. To  let  a  cruel  and  faithless  foe  go  unpunished,  was  not 
only  the  greatest  harslmess  to  his  own  subjects,  but  open 
opposition  to  God,  who  had  announced  to  him  the  victory,  and 
delivered  the  enemy  of  His  people  into  his  hand.^  Even  if 
Ahab  had  no  express  command  from  God  to  put  Benhadad  to 
death,  as  Saul  had  in  1  SauL  xv.  3,  it  was  his  duty  to  punish 
this  bitter  foe  of  Israel  with  death,  if  only  to  secure  quiet  for 
his  own  subjects  ;  as  it  was  certainly  to  be  foreseen  that  Ben- 

^  Clericus  is  correct  in  the  explanation  -which  he  has  given  :  "  Although, 
therefore,  this  act  of  Ahab  had  all  the  appearance  of  clemency,  it  was  not 
an  act  of  true  clemency,  which  ought  not  to  be  shown  towards  violent 
aggressors,  who  if  released  will  do  much  more  injury  than  before,  as  Ben- 
hadad really  did.  God  had  given  the  victory  to  Ahab,  and  delivered  the 
guilty  king  into  his  hands,  that  he  might  inflict  punishment  upon  him,  not 
that  he  might  treat  him  kindly.  And  Ahab,  who  had  allowed  so  many 
prophets  to  be  slain  by  his  wife  Jezebel,  had  no  great  clemency  at  other 
times*" 


268  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

hadad  would  not  keep  the  treaty  which  had  been  wrung  from 
him  by  force,  as  was  indeed  very  speedily  proved  (see  ch. 
xxii.  1). 

Vers.  35—43.  The  verdict  of  God  upon  AhaVs  conduct  towards 
Benliadad. — Vers.  35,  36.  A  disciple  of  the  prophets  received 
instructions  from  God,  to  announce  to  the  king  that  God  would 
punish  him  for  letting  Benhadad  go,  and  to  do  this,  as  Nathan 
had  formerly  done  in  the  case  of  David  (2  Sam.  xii.  1  sqq.),  by 
means  of  a  symbolical  action,  whereby  the  king  was  led  to  pro- 
nounce sentence  upon  himself.  The  disciple  of  the  prophets 
said  to  his  companion,  "  in  the  word  of  Jehovah,"  i.e.  by  virtue 
of  a  revelation  from  God  (see  at  ch.  xiii.  2),  "  Smite  me  ;"  and 
when  the  friend  refused  to  smite  him,  he  announced  to  him 
that  because  of  this  disobedience  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  after 
his  departure  from  him  a  lion  would  meet  him  and  smite  him, 
i.e.  would  kill  him  ;  a  threat  which  was  immediately  fulj&lled. 
This  occurrence  shows  with  how  severe  a  punishment  all  oppo- 
sition to  the  commandments  of  God  to  the  prophets  was  followed, 
as  a  warning  for  others  ;  just  as  in  the  similar  occurrence  in 
ch.  xiii.  24. — Ver.  27.  The  disciple  of  the  prophets  then  asked 
another  to  smite  him,  and  he  smote  him,  "  smiting  and  wound- 
ing," i.e.  so  that  he  not  only  smote,  but  also  wounded  him  {vid. 
Ewald,  §  280,  a).  He  wished  to  be  smitten  and  wounded,  not 
to  disguise  himself,  or  that  he  might  be  able  to  appeal  loudly 
to  the  king  for  help  to  obtain  his  rights,  as  though  he  had 
suffered  some  wrong  (Ewald),  nor  merely  to  assume  the  decep- 
tive appearance  of  a  warrior  returning  from  the  battle  (Thenius), 
but  to  show  to  Ahab  symbolically  what  he  had  to  expect  from 
Benhadad  whom  he  had  released  (C.  a  Lap.,  Calm.,  etc.). — Ver. 
38.  With  these  wounds  he  placed  himself  in  the  king's  path, 
and  disguised  himself  (t^snn^  as  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  8)  by  a  ban- 
dage over  his  eyes.  "iBt*  does  not  mean  ashes  (Syr.,  Vulg.,  Luth., 
etc.),  but  corresponds  to  the  Chaldee  **"*QV^,  head-band,  reXaficou 
(LXX.). — Vers.  39,  40.  When  the  king  passed  by,  he  cried 
out  to  him  and  related  the  following  fictitious  tale :  He 
had  gone  to  the  war,  and  a  man  had  come  aside  to  him  ("iiD 
as  in  Ex.  iii.  3,  Judg.  xiv.  8,  etc.),  and  had  given  a  man  (a 
prisoner)  into  his  care  with  this  command,  that  he  was  to  watch 
him,  and  if  he  should  be  missing  he  was  to  answer  for  his  life 
with  his  own  life,  or  to  pay  a  talent  of  silver  (as  a  punish- 
ment).    The  rest  may  be  easily  imagined,  namely  the  request 


CHAP.  XXI.  1-15.  269 

to  be  saved  from  this  punishment  Ahab  answered  (ver.  40),  |3 
^cs'JTp,  "  thus  thy  sentence,  thou  hast  decided,"  i.e.  thou  hast 
pronounced  thine  own  sentence,  and  must  endure  the  punish- 
ment stated. — Vers.  41,  42.  Then  the  disciple  of  the  prophets 
drew  the  bandage  quickly  from  his  eyes,  so  that  the  king 
recognised  him  as  a  prophet,  and  announced  to  him  the  word 
of  the  Lord :  "  Because  thou  hast  let  go  out  of  thy  hand  the 
man  of  my  ban  {i.e.  Benhadad,  who  has  fallen  under  my  ban), 
thy  life  shall  stand  for  his  life,  and  thy  people  for  his  people," 
i,e.  the  destruction  to  which  Benhadad  was  devoted  will  fall 
upon  thee  and  thy  people.  The  expression  'Pin~B''N  (man  of 
my  ban)  showed  Ahab  clearly  enough  what  ought  to  have  been 
done  with  Benhadad.  A  person  on  whom  the  ban  was  pro- 
nounced was  to  be  put  to  death  (Lev.  xxvii.  29). — Ver  43. 
The  king  therefore  went  home,  and  returned  sullen  ("^D,  from 
lip)  and  morose  to  Samaria. 

CHAP.  XXL  THE  MIHIDER  A^^)  ROBBEET  OF  NABOTH. 

After  these  events  Ahab  was  seized  with  such  a  desire  for  a 
vineyard  which  was  situated  near  his  palace  at  Jezreel,  that 
when  Naboth,  the  owner  of  the  viueyard,  refused  to  part  with 
his  paternal  inheritance,  he  became  thoroughly  dejected,  until 
his  wife  Jezebel  paved  the  way  for  the  forcible  seizure  of  the 
desired  possession  by  the  shameful  execution  of  Naboth  (vers. 
1—15),  But  when  Ahab  was  preparing  to  take  possession  of 
the  A-ineyard,  EKjah  came  to  meet  him  with  the  announcement, 
that  both  he  and  his  wife  would  be  visited  by  the  Lord  with  a 
bloody  death  for  this  murder  and  robbery,  and  that  his  idolatry 
would  be  punished  with  the  extermination  of  all  his  house 
(vers.  16-26).  Ahab  was  so  affected  by  this,  that  he  humbled 
himself  before  God  ;  whereupon  the  Lord  told  Elijah,  that  the 
threatened  judgment  should  not  biirst  upon  his  house  till  after 
Ahab's  death  (vers.  27-29). 

Vers.  1—15. — ^Ahab  wanted  to  obtain  possession  of  the  vine- 
yard of  Xaboth,  which  was  in  Jezreel  ("»C^  refers  to  0").?),  near 
the  palace  of  the  king,  either  in  exchange  for  another  vineyard 
or  for  money,  that  he  might  make  a  vegetable  garden  of  it. 
From  the  fact  that  Ahab  is  called  the  king  of  Samaria  we  may 
infer  that  Jezreel,  the  present  Zcrin  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  18),  was 
only  a  summer  residence  of  the  king. — \qt.  3.  Xaboth  refused 


270  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  part  with  the  vineyard,  because  it  was  the  inheritance  of  his 
fathers,  that  is  to  say,  on  religious  grounds  (p)^^^  ''^  '^^''i'C)>  ^^' 
cause  the  sale  of  a  paternal  inheritance  was  forbidden  in  the 
law  (Lev.  xxv.  23-28;  N'um.  xxxvi.  7  sqq.).  He  was  there- 
fore not  merely  at  liberty  as  a  personal  right  to  refuse  the 
king's  proposal,  but  bound  by  the  commandment  of  God. — 
Ver.  4,  Instead  of  respecting  this  tender  feeling  of  shrinking 
from  the  transgression  of  the  law  and  desisting  from  his  covet- 
ing, Ahab  went  home,  i.e.  to  Samaria  (cf.  ver.  8),  sullen  and 
morose  (^VH  ID  as  in  ch.  xx.  43),  lay  down  upon  his  bed,  turned 
his  face  (viz.  to  the  wall;  cf.  2  Kings  xx.  2) — "  after  the  manner 
of  sorrowful  persons,  who  shrink  from  and  refuse  all  conversa- 
tion, and  even  the  sight  of  others  "  (Seb.  Schmidt) — and  did 
not  eat.  This  childish  mode  of  giving  expression  to  his  dis- 
pleasure at  Naboth's  refusal  to  comply  with  his  wish,  shows 
very  clearly  that  Ahab  was  a  man  sold  under  sin  (ver.  2  0),  who 
only  wanted  the  requisite  energy  to  display  the  wickedness  of 
his  heart  in  vigorous  action. — Vers.  5—7.  When  Jezebel  learned 
the  cause  of  Ahab's  ill-humour,  she  said  to  him,  "  Thou,  dost 
thou  now  exercise  royal  authority  over  Israel  ? "  nns  is  placed 
first  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  and  the  sentence  is  to  be  taken  as 
an  ironical  question,  as  it  has  been  by  the  LXX.  "  I  (if  thou 
hast  not  courage  enough  to  act)  will  procure  thee  the  vineyard 
of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite." — ^Vers.  8,  9.  The  shameless  woman 
then  wrote  a  letter  in  the  name  of  Ahab,  sealed  it  below  with 
the  royal  seal,  which  probably  bore  the  king's  signature  and 
was  stamped  upon  the  writing  instead  of  signing  the  name,  as  is 
done  at  the  present  day  among  Arabs,  Turks,  and  Persians  (vid. 
Paulsen,  Beg.  der  Morgenl.  p.  295  sqq.),  to  give  it  the  character 
of  a  royal  command  (cf  Esther  viii.  1 3,  Dan.  vi.  1 7),  and  sent 
this  letter  (the  Chethib  D^nsDn  is  correct,  and  the  Keri  has 
arisen  from  a  misunderstanding)  to  the  elders  and  nobles  of  his 
town  {i.e.  the  members  of  the  magistracy,  Deut.  xvi.  18),  who 
lived  near  Naboth,  and  therefore  had  an  opportunity  to  watch 
his  mode  of  life,  and  appeared  to  be  the  most  suitable  persons  to 
institute  the  charge  that  was  to  be  brought  against  him.  The 
letter  ran  thus :  "  Proclaim  a  fast,  and  set  Naboth  at  the  head  of 
the  people,  and  set  two  worthless  men  opposite  to  him,  that  they 
may  give  evidence  against  him:  Thou  hast  blasphemed  God 
and  king ;  and  lead  him  out  and  stone  him,  that  he  may  die." 
Jezebel  ordered  the  fasting  for  a  sign,  as  though  some  public 


CHAP.  XXI.  16-28.  271 

crime  or  teavy  load  of  guilt  rested  upon  the  city,  for  "which  it 
was  necessary  that  it  should  humble  itself  before  God  (1  Sam, 
vii  6).     The  intention  was,  that  at  the  very  outset  the  appear- 
ance of  justice  should  be  given  to  the  legal  process  about  to  be 
instituted  in  the   eyes   of  all  the  citizens,  and  the  stamp  of 
veracity  impressed  upon  the  crime  of  which  ISTaboth  was  to  be 
accused.      DV'7  ^^^?  •  •  •  ^^'^^,  "  seat  him  at  the  head  of  the 
people,"  i.e.  bring  him  to  the  court  of  justice  as  a  defendant 
before  aU.  the  people.     The  expression  may  be  explained  from 
the  fact,  that  a  sitting  of  the  elders  was  appointed  for  judicial 
business,  in  which   Xaboth  and  the   witnesses   who   were  to 
accuse  him  of  blasphemy  took  part  seated.     To  presen-e  the 
appearance  of  justice,  two  witnesses  were  appointed,  according 
to  the  law  in  Deut.  xvii.  6,  7,  xix.   15,  N"unL  xxxv.  30  ;  but 
worthless  men,  as  at  the  trial  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xxvi  60).     'H^? 
0''?^?^,  to  bless  God,  i.e.  to  bid  Him  farewell,  to  dismiss  Him,  as 
in  Job  ii  9,  equivalent  to  blaspheming  God.     God  and  king 
are  mentioned  together,  like  God  and  prince  in  Ex.  xxii.  27, 
to  make  it  possible  to  accuse  Naboth  of  transgressing  this  law, 
and  to  put  him  to  death  as  a  blasphemer  of  God,  according  to 
Deut.  xiii  11  and  xvil  5,  where  the  punishment  of  stoning  is 
awarded  to  idolatry  as  a  practical  denial  of  God.     Blaspheming 
the  king  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  second  crime  to  be  added  to  the 
blasphemy  of  God;  but  blaspheming  the  king,  as  the  visible 
representative  of  God,  was  eo  ipso  also   blaspheming  God. — 
Vers.  11-13.  The  elders  of   Jezreel   executed   this  command 
without  delay ;  a  striking  proof  both  of  deep  moral  corruption 
and  of  slavish  fear  of  the  tyranny  of  the  ruthless  queen. — 
Vers.    14,    15.   When  the  report  of   Naboth's  execution  was 
brought  to  her,  she  called  upon  Ahab  to  take  possession  of  his 
vineyard  (Bh  =  En^  Deut.  ii  24).     As  Naboth's  sons  were  put 
to  death  at  the  same  time,  according  to  2  Bangs  ix.   26,  the 
king  was  able  to  coniiscate  his  property ;  not,  indeed,  on  any 
rule  laid  down  in  the  Mosaic  law,  but  according  to  a  principle 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  high  treason.     Since,  for  example, 
in  the  case  of   blasphemy  the    property  of  the  criminal  was 
forfeited  to  the  Lord  as  ckerem  (Deut.  xiii   16),  the  property 
of  traitors  was  regarded  as  forfeited  to  the  king. 

Vers.  16-26.  But  when  Ahab  went  down  to  Jezreel  to 
take  possession  of  the  vineyard  of  Xaboth,  Elijah  came  to  meet 
him  by  the  command  of  God,  with    the  word   of  the    Lord, 


?72  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

"  Hast  thou  murdered  and  also  taken  possession  ? "  The  ques- 
tion served  to  sharpen  his  conscience,  since  Ahab  was  obliged 
to  admit  the  fact,  piob'a  "iK'N  means  "  who  lives  at  Samaria," 
for  when  Elijah  came  to  meet  him,  Ahab  was  in  JezreeL 
Elijah  then  said  to  him  still  further :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord : 
In  the  place  where  the  dogs  have  licked  the  blood  of  Naboth, 
will  they  also  lick  thine,  yea,  thy  blood."  nriK  D3  serves  as 
an  emphatic  repetition  of  the  suffix  (cf  Ges.  §  121,  3).  This 
threat  was  only  so  far  fulfilled  upon  Ahab,  from  the  compassion 
of  God,  and  in  consequence  of  his  humbling  himself  under  the 
divine  judgment  (vers.  27-29),  that  dogs  licked  his  blood  at 
Samaria  when  the  carriage  was  washed  in  which  he  had  died  (ch. 
xxii.  38)  ;  but  it  was  literally  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  his  son 
Joram,  whose  corpse  was  cast  into  Naboth's  piece  of  ground 
(2  Kings  ix.  25,  26). — Ver.  20.  Ahab  answered,  "Hast  thou 
found  me  (met  with  me),  0  mine  enemy  ? "  (not,  hast  thou  ever 
found  me  thine  enemy  ? — Vulg.,  Luth.)  i.e.  dost  thou  come  to 
meet  me  again,  mine  enemy  ?  He  calls  Elijah  his  enemy,  to 
take  the  sting  from  the  prophet's  threat  as  an  utterance  caused 
by  personal  enmity.  But  Elijah  fearlessly  replied,  "  I  havo 
found  (thee),  because  thou  sellest  thyself  to  do  evil  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Lord."  He  then  announced  to  him,  in  vers.  21,  22,  the 
extermination  of  his  house,  and  to  Jezebel,  as  the  principal 
sinner,  the  most  ignominious  end  (ver.  23).  V^n  niK'j;b  "laonn^ 
to  sell  one's  self  to  do  evil,  i.e.  to  give  one's  self  to  evil  so  as  to 
have  no  will  of  one's  own,  to  make  one's  self  the  slave  of  evil 
(cf  ver.  25,  2  Kings  xvii.  17).  The  consequence  of  this  is 
Treirpaa-Oat  xmo  rr^v  dfjuaprlav  (Kom.  vii.  14),  sin  exercising  un- 
limited power  over  the  man  who  gives  himself  up  to  it  as  a 
slave.  For  vers.  21,  22,  see  ch.  xiv.  10,  11,  xv.  29,  30,  xvi.  3, 
12,  13.  The  threat  concerning  Jezebel  (ver.  23)  was  literally 
fulfilled,  according  to  2  Kings  ix.  30  sqq.  b^,  written  defectively 
for  y^,  as  in  2  Sam.  xx.  15,  is  properly  the  open  space  by  the 
town-wall,  pamoerium.  Instead  of  -'na  we  have  P^na  in  the 
repetition  of  this  threat  in  2  Kings  ix.  10,  36,  37,  and  con- 
sequently Thenius  and  others  propose  to  alter  the  ^'n  here.  But 
there  is  no  necessity  for  this,  as  ?/^^,  on  the  portion,  i.e.  the 
town-land,  of  Jezreel  (not,  in  the  field  at  Jezreel),  is  only  a  more 
general  epithet  denoting  the  locality,  and  ?n  is  proved  to  be  tlie 
original  word  by  the  LXX. — Vers.  25  and  26  contain  a  reflec- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  historian  concerning  Aliab's  ungodly 


CHAP.  XXII.  1-14.  273 

conduct,  whereby  he  brought  such  an  ignominious  end  upon 
himseK  and  his  hoilse.  'Ul  n\T  n^  p^^  "  only  there  has  not  been 
(one)  like  Ahab,"  i.e.  there  was  no  one  else  like  Ahab,  "  who 
sold  himself,"  etc.  >^^^\}  for  f^^'on^  from  n^D,  to  entice,  to  seduce 
or  lead  astray  (cf.  Ewald,  §  114,  a,  and  Ges.  §  72,  Anm.  6), 
2?^?,  and  he  acted  abominably.  Amorites :  for  Canaanites,  as  in 
Gen.  XV.  16,  etc. 

Vers.  27-29.  This  terrible  threat  made  such  an  impression 
upon  Ahab,  that  he  felt  deep  remorse,  and  for  a  time  at  least 
was  sincerely  penitent.  Eending  the  clothes,  putting  on  the 
mourning  garment  of  hair  (p^),  and  fasting,  are  frequently 
mentioned  as  external  signs  of  humiliation  before  God  or  of 
deep  mourning  on  account  of  sin.  cs  '^?\}\  he  walked  about 
lightly  (slowly),  like  one  in  deep  trouble.  This  repentance  was 
neither  hypocritical,  nor  purely  external ;  but  it  was  sincere 
even  if  it  was  not  lasting  and  produced  no  real  conversion. 
For  the  Lord  HimseK  acknowledged  it  to  be  humiliation  before 
Him  (ver.  29),  and  said  to  Elijah,  that  because  of  it  He  would 
not  bring  the  threatened  calamity  npon  Ahab's  house  in  his  own 
lifetime,  but  only  in  the  days  of  his  son.  '?^  for  >*'?^<,  as  in 
ver.  21. 


CHAP.  XXIL  WAR  OF  AHAB  AXD  JEHOSHAPHAT  AGAINST  THE  SYRIANS, 
AND  DEATH  OF  AHAB.  REIGNS  OF  JEHOSHAPHAT  OF  JUDAH  AND 
AHAZIAH  OF  ISRAEL. 

Vers.  1-40.  Allied  Campaign  of  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat 
AGAINST  THE  Syrl^ns  AT  Eamoth,  AND  Death  OF  Ahab  (com- 
pare 2  Chron.  xviii  2-34). — Ver.  1.  "  And  they  rested  three 
years ;  there  was  no  war  between  Aram  and  Israel."  3?^  here 
is  to  keep  quiet,  to  undertake  nothing,  as  in  Judg.  v.  17,  etc. 
The  subject  to  ^3^.  is  Aram  and  Israel  mentioned  in  the  second 
clause.  The  length  of  time  given  here  points  back  to  the  end 
of  the  war  described  in  ck  xx. — Vers.  2-4.  In  the  third  year 
(not  necessarily  "  towards  the  end  of  it,"  as  Thenius  supposes,  for 
Jehoshaphat's  visit  preceded  the  renewal  of  the  war)  Jehoshaphat 
visited  the  king  of  Israel,  with  whom  he  had  already  formed 
a  marriage  alliance  by  marrying  his  son  to  Ahab's  daughter 
(2  Chron.  xviiL  1 ;  2  Kings  viii.  1 8).  Ahab  then  said  to  his 
ser^-ants  that  the  king  of  Syria  had  kept  the  city  of  Eamoth  in 
Gilead  (probably  situated  on  the  site  of  the  present  Szcdt :  see  at 

s 


274  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Deut.  iv.  4 3),. which  he  ought  to  have  given  up,  according  to  the 
conditions  of  the  peace  in  ch,  xx.  34,  and  asked  Jehoshaphat 
whether  he  would  go  with  him  to  the  war  against  Eamoth,  which 
the  latter  promised  to  do.  "  I  as  thou,  my  people  as  thy  people, 
my  horses  as  thy  horses;"  i.e.  I  am  at  thy  service  with  the  whole 
of  my  military  power.  In  the  place  of  the  last  words  we  have 
therefore  in  the  Chronicles  n»nps3  ^»yi,  "  I  am  with  thee  in  the 
war,"  i.e.  I  will  assist  thee  in  the  war. — Vers.  5,  6.  But  as  Jeho- 
shaphat wished  also  to  inquire  the  word  of  the  Lord  concerning 
the  war,  Ahab  gathered  together  about  400  prophets,  who  all 
predicted  as  out  of  one  mouth  a  prosperous  result  to  the  cam- 
paign. These  400  prophets  are  neither  the  400  prophets  of 
Asherah  who  had  not  appeared  upon  Carmel  when  Elijah  was 
there  (ch.  xviii.  19,  20),  nor  prophets  of  Baal,  as  some  of  the 
earlier  commentators  supposed,  since  Ahab  could  not  inquire  of 
them  niiT;  i3"n"nK.  On  the  other  hand,  they  were  not  "  true 
prophets  of  Jehovah  and  disciples  of  the  prophets  "  (Cler.,  Then.), 
but  prophets  of  the  Jehovah  worshipped  under  the  image  of  an 
ox,  who  practised  prophesjdng  as  a  trade  without  any  call  from 
God,  and  even  if  they  were  not  in  the  pay  of  the  idolatrous 
kings  of  Israel,  were  at  any  rate  in  their  service.  For  Jehosha- 
phat did  not  recognise  them  as  genuine  prophets  of  Jehovah, 
but  inquired  whether  there  was  not  such  a  prophet  still  in  exist- 
ence (ver.  7),  that  they  might  inquire  the  will  of  the  Lord  of 
him  (iniso). — Ver.  8.  Ahab  then  named  to  him  one,  but  one 
whom  he  hated,  because  he  never  prophesied  good  concerning 
him,  but  only  evil,^  namely,  Micah  the  son  of  Jimlah.  Josephus 
and  the  Eabbins  suppose  him  to  have  been  the  prophet,  whose 
name  is  not  given,  who  had  condemned  Ahab  in  the  previous 
war  for  setting  Benhadad  at  liberty  (ch.  xx.  35  sqq.).  But  there 
is  no  foundation  for  this,  and  it  is  mere  conjecture.  At  any  rate, 
Ahab  had  already  come  to  know  Micah  as  a  prophet  of  evil,  and, 
as  is  evident  from  ver.  26,  had  had  him  imprisoned  on  account 
of  an  unwelcome  prophecy.  Ahab's  dislike  to  this  prophet  had 
its  root  in  the  belief,  which  was  connected  with  heathen  notions 
of  prophecy  and  conjuring,  that  the  prophets  stood  in  such  a 
relation  to  the  Deity  that  the  latter  necessarily  fulfilled  their  will; 
a  belief  which  had  arisen  from  the  fact  that  the  predictions  of 
true  prophets  always  came  to  pass  (see  at  Num.  xxii.  6  and  1 7). 
^  Just  as  Agamemnon  says  to  Calchas  in  //.  iv.  106  :  fteivTi  kuku»,  ou  ■s-u'xoTi 


C1L\P.  XXII.  15-28.  275 

— Ver.  9.  By  Jehoshaphat's  desire,  Ahab  nevertheless  sent  a 
chamberlain  (O''"!? ;  see  at  1  Sara,  viii  1 5  and  Gen.  xxxvii.  3  6) 
to  fetch  Micah  ('"^"^np,  bring  quickly). — Vers.  10-12.  In  the 
meantime  the  prophets  of  the  calves  continued  to  prophesy 
success  before  the  two  kings,  who  sat  upon  thrones  "  clothed 
in  robes,"  i.e.  in  royal  attire,  upon  a  floor  in  front  of  the  gate  of 
Samaria.  T)},  a  threshing-floor,  i.e.  a  levelled  place  in  the  open 
air.  In  order  to  give  greater  effect  to  their  announcement,  one 
of  them,  named  Zedckiyah  the  son  of  Cnaanah,  made  himself 
iron  horns,  probably  iron  spikes  held  upon  the  head  (Thenius), 
and  said,  "  With  these  wilt  thou  thrust  down  Aram  even  to 
destruction."  This  symbolical  action  was  an  embodiment  of 
the  figure  used  by  ^Moses  in  the  blessing  of  Joseph  (Deut.  xxxiii. 
17):  "  Bufialo  horns  are  his  (Joseph's)  horns,  with  them  he 
thrusts  down  nations"  {vid.  Hengstenberg,  Bcitrr.  ii.  p.  131), 
and  was  intended  to  transfer  to  Ahab  in  the  case  before  them 
that  splendid  promise  which  applied  to  the  tribe  of  Ephraim. 
But  the  pseudo-prophet  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  w^hole  of  the  blessing  of  Moses  was  dependent  upon 
fidelity  to  the  Lord.  All  the  rest  of  the  prophets  adopted  the 
same  tone,  saying,  "  Go  to  Eamoth,  and  prosper,"  i.e.  and  thou 
wilt  prosper.  (On  this  use  of  two  imperatives  see  Ges.  §  130,  2). 
— Vers.  13,  14.  The  messenger  who  fetched  Micah  tried  on  the 
way  to  persuade  him  to  prophesy  success  to  the  king  as  the  other 
prophets  had  done ;  but  Micah  replied  with  a  solemn  oath,  that 
he  would  only  speak  what  Jehovah  said  to  him. 

Vers.  15—28.  MicaKs  prophecy  concerning  the  war,  and  his 
testimony  against  the  lying  prophets. — Vers.  15,  16.  When  Micah 
had  come  into  ihe  presence  of  the  king,  he  replied  to  his  ques- 
tion, "  Shall  we  go  against  Eamoth  ? "  etc.,  in  just  the  same  words 
as  the  pseudo-prophets,  to  show  the  king  how  he  would  speak  if 
he  were  merely  guided  by  personal  considerations,  as  the  others 
were.  From  the  verbal  agreement  in  his  reply,  and  probably 
abo  from  the  tone  in  which  he  spoke,  Ahab  perceived  that  his 
words  were  ironical,  and  adjured  him  to  speak  only  truth  ia  the 
name  of  Jehovah.  Micah  then  told  him  what  he  had  seen  in  the 
spirit  (ver.  17)  :  "I  saw  all  Israel  scatter  itself  upon  the  moun- 
tains, as  sheep  that  have  no  shepherd ;"  and  then  added  the  word 
of  the  Lord :  "  These  have  no  master ;  let  them  return  every  one 
to  his  house  in  peace."  That  is  to  say,  Ahab  would  fall  in  the 
war  against  Eamoth  in  Gilead,  and  his  army  scatter  itseK  with- 


276  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

out  a  leader  upon  the  mountains  of  Gilead,  and  then  every  one 
would  return  home,  without  being  pursued  and  slain  by  the  enemy. 
Whilst  Zedekiyah  attempted  to  give  greater  emphasis  to  his  pro- 
phecy by  symbolically  transferring  to  Ahab's  enterprise  the  success 
predicted  by  Moses,  ]\Iicah,  on  the  other  hand,  showed  to  the  king 
out  of  the  law  what  would  really  take  place  in  the  intended  war, 
namely,  that  very  state  of  things  which  Moses  before  his  departure 
sought  to  avert  from  Israel,  by  the  prayer  that  the  Lord  would  set 
a  man  over  the  congregation  to  lead  them  out  and  in,  that  the 
congregation  might  not  become  as  sheep  that  have  no  shepherd 
(Num.  xxvii.  16,  17). — Ver.  18.  But  although  Ahab  had  asked 
for  a  true  word  of  the  Lord,  yet  he  endeavoured  to  attribute  the 
unfavourable  prophecy  to  Micah's  personal  enmity,  saying  to 
Jehoshaphat,  "  Did  I  not  tell  thee  that  he  prophesies  nothing 
good  concerning  me,  but  ojily  evil  (misfortune)  ? " — Vers.  1 9  sqq. 
Micah  was  not  led  astray,  however,  by  this,  but  disclosed  to  him 
by  a  further  revelation  the  hidden  ground  of  the  false  prophecy 
of  his  400  prophets.  '1J1  yi?^  |3p,  "therefore,  sc.  because  thou 
thinkest  so,  hear  the  word  of  Jehovah :  I  saw  the  Lord  sit  upon 
His  throne,  and  all  the  army  of  heaven  stand  around  Him  (^^'V 
V^y  as  in  Gen,  xviii.  8,  etc.)  on  His  right  hand  and  on  His  left. 
And  the  Lord  said.  Who  will  persuade  Ahab  to  go  up  and  fall 
at  Eamoth  in  Gilead  ?  and  one  spake  so,  the  other  so ;  and  the 
spirit  came  forth  (from  the  ranks  of  the  rest),  stood  before 
Jehovah,  and  said,  I  will  persuade  him.  .  .  I  will  go  out  and  be  a 
lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And  He  (Jehovah) 
said.  Persuade,  and  thou  wilt  also  be  able ;  go  forth  and  do  so. 
And  now  Jehovah  has  put  a  lying  spirit  into  the  mouth  of  all 
his  prophets ;  but  Jehovah  (Himself)  has  spoken  evil  (through 
me)  concerning  thee."  The  vision  described  by  Micah  was  not 
merely  a  subjective  drapery  introduced  by  the  prophet,  but  a 
simple  communication  of  the  real  inward  vision  by  which  the 
fact  had  been  revealed  to  him,  that  the  prophecy  of  those  400 
prophets  was  inspired  by  a  lying  spirit.  The  spirit  ((!ii'i'7)  which 
inspired  these  prophets  as  a  lying  spirit  is  neither  Satan,  nor  any 
evil  spirit  whatever,  but,  as  the  definite  article  and  the  whole  of 
the  context  show,  the  personified  spirit  of  prophecy,  which  is  only 
so  far  a  irvevfia  aKadaprov  t^?  '!r\dvr]<i  (Zech.  xiii.  2  ;  1  John 
iv.  6)  and  under  the  influence  of  Satan  as  it  works  as  "ipf  nn 
in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God.  For  even  the  predictions 
of  the  false  prophets,  as  we  may  see  from  the  passage  before  us. 


CHAP.  XXII.  15-28.  277 

and  also  from  Zech.  xiiL  2  and  the  scriptural  teaching  in  other 
passages  concerning  the  spiritual  principle  of  e\i\,  were  not  mere 
inventions  of  human  reason  and  fancy ;  but  the  false  prophets 
as  well  as  the  true  were  governed  by  a  supernatural  spiritual 
principle,  and,  according  to  divine  appointment,  were  under  the 
influence  of  the  evil  spirit  in  the  service  of  falsehood,  just  as  the 
true  prophets  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  ser^dce  of 
the  Lord.  The  manner  in  which  the  supernatural  influence  of 
the  lying  spirit  upon  the  false  prophets  is  brought  out  in  Micah's 
vision  is,  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy  (ns^2jn  mi)  offei-s  itself  to 
deceive  Ahab  as  "i^^  rn""  in  the  false  prophets.  Jehovah  sends 
this  spirit,  inasmuch  as  the  deception  of  Ahab  has  been  inflicted 
upon  him  as  a  judgment  of  God  for  his  unbelief.  But  there  is 
no  statement  here  to  the  effect  that  this  lying  spirit  proceeded 
from  Satan,  because  the  object  of  the  prophet  was  simply  to  bring 
out  the  working  of  God  in  the  deception  practised  upon  Ahab  by 
his  prophets. — The  words  of  Jehovah,  "  Persuade  Ahab,  thou  wilt 
be  able,"  and  "  Jehovah  has  put  a  lying  spirit,"  etc.,  are  not  to 
be  understood  as  merely  expressing  the  permission  of  God,  as  the 
fathers  and  the  earlier  theologians  suppose.  According  to  the 
Scriptures,  God  does  work  evil,  but  without  therefore  willing  it 
and  bringing  forth  sin.  The  prophet's  view  is  founded  upon  this 
thought :  Jehovah  has  ordained  that  Ahab,  being  led  astray  by  a 
prediction  of  his  prophets  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  lies,  shall  enter 
upon  the  war,  that  he  may  find  therein  the  punishment  of  his 
imgodliness.  As  he  would  not  listen  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  in 
the  mouth  of  His  true  serv^ants,  God  had  given  him  up  {irapkhoiKev, 
liom.  i.  24,  26,  28)  in  his  unbelief  to  the  working  of  the  spirits 
of  l}dng.  But  that  this  did  not  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will  is  evident  from  the  expression  '"ip?^,  "  thou  canst  'persuade 
him,"  and  still  more  clearly  from  bavi  D5,  "thou  wilt  also  be 
able,"  since  they  both  presuppose  the  possibility  of  resistance  to 
temptation  on  the  part  of  man. 

Zedekiah  was  so  enraged  at  this  unveiling  of  the  spirit  of 
lying  by  which  the  pseudo-prophets  were  impelled,  that  he 
smote  Micah  upon  the  cheek,  and  said  (ver.  24):  "  Where  did  the 
Spirit  of  Jehovah  depart  from  me,  to  speak  to  thee  ?"  To  npx 
the  Chronicles  add  as  an  explanation,  ^i^n :  "  by  what  way  had 
he  gone  from  me  ?"  (cf.  2  Kings  iii  8^  and  Ewald,  §  326,  a.) 
Zedekiah  was  conscious  that  he  had  not  invented  his  prophecy 
himself,  and  therefore  it  was  that  he  rose  up  with  such  audacity 


278  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

against  Micah ;  but  he  only  proved  that  it  was  not  the  Spirit  of 
God  which  inspired  him.  If  he  had  been  inspired  by  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord,  he  would  not  have  thought  it  necessary  to  try  and 
give  effect  to  his  words  by  rude  force,  but  he  would  have  left  the 
defence  of  his  cause  quietly  to  the  Lord,  as  Micah  did,  who  calmly 
replied  to  the  zealot  thus  (ver.  25) :  "Thou  wilt  see  it  (that  the 
Spirit  of  Jehovah  had  departed  from  thee)  on  the  day  when 
thou  shalt  go  from  chamber  to  chamber  to  hide  thyself"  ('^?nn 
for  N?nn,  see  Ges.  §  75,  Anm.  21),  This  was  probably  fulfilled 
at  the  close  of  the  war,  when  Jezebel  or  the  friends  of  Ahab 
made  the  pseudo-prophets  suffer  for  the  calamitous  result ; 
although  there  is  nothing  said  about  this  in  our  history,  which 
confines  itself  to  the  main  facts. — Vers.  26,  27.  But  Ahab  had 
Micah  taken  back  to  Amon  the  commander  of  the  city,  and  to 
Joash  the  king's  son,  with  the  command  to  put  him  in  prison 
and  to  feed  him  with  bread  and  water  of  affliction,  till  he 
came  safe  back  {^'o^^)  from  the  war.  From  the  expression 
''^?Tl!,  "  lead  him  back,"  it  evidently  follows  that  Micah  had 
been  fetched  from  the  commander  of  the  city,  who  had  no 
doubt  kept  him  in  custody,  as  the  city-prison  was  probably  in 
his  house.  The  opposite  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  words 
"  put  him  into  the  prison ;"  for  this  command,  when  taken  in 
connection  with  what  follows,  simply  enjoins  a  more  severe 
imprisonment. — Ver.  28,  In  his  consciousness  of  the  divine 
truth  of  his  announcement,  Micah  left  the  king  with  these 
words  :  "  If  thou  come  back  safe,  Jehovah  has  not  spoken  by 
me.  Hear  it,  aU  ye  nations."  C'^V  does  not  mean  people,  for 
it  is  only  in  the  antique  language  of  the  Pentateuch  that  the 
word  has  this  meaning,  but  nations ;  and  Micah  thereby  in- 
vokes not  only  the  persons  present  as  witnesses  of  the  truth  of 
his  words,  but  the  nations  generally,  Israel  and  the  surround- 
ing nations,  who  were  to  discern  the  truth  of  his  word  from  the 
events  which  would  follow  (see  at  Mic.  i.  2). 

Vers.  29—40.  The  issue  of  the  war,  and  death  of  Ahab. — ^Ver. 
29,  Ahab,  disregarding  Micah's  prophecy,  went  on  with  the  ex- 
pedition, and  was  even  joined  by  Jehoshaphat,  of  whom  we 
should  have  thought  that,  after  what  had  occurred,  he  at  any 
rate  would  have  drawn  back.  He  was  probably  deterred  by 
false  shame,  however,  from  retracting  the  unconditional  promise 
of  help  which  he  had  given  to  Ahab,  merely  in  consequence 
of  a  prophetic  utterance,  which  Ahab  had  brought  against  his 


CUAP.  XXII.  29-40.  279 

0"wn  person  from  Micah's  subjective  dislike.  But  Jehoshaphat 
narrowly  escaped  paying  the  penalty  for  it  with  his  life  (ver. 
32),  and  on  his  fortunate  return  to  Jerusalem  had  to  listen  to  a 
severe  reproof  from  the  prophet  Jehu, in  consequence  (2  Chron. 
xix.  2). — Vers.  30,  31.  And  even  Ahab  could  not  throw  off  a 
certain  fear  of  the  fulfilment  of  Micah's  prophecy.  He  there- 
fore resolved  to  go  to  the  battle  in  disguise,  that  he  might  not 
be  recognised  by  the  enemy.  N2J  tJ'snnn  ("  disguise  myseK  and 
go  into  the  battle,"  i.e.  I  will  go  into  the  battle  in  disguise) :  an 
infin.  absol, — a  broken  but  strong  form  of  expression,  which  is 
frequently  used  for  the  imperative,  but  very  rarely  for  the  first 
person  of  the  voluntative  (cf.  Ewald,  §  328,  c),  and  which  is 
probably  employed  here  to  express  the  anxiety  that  impelled 
Ahab  to  take  so  much  trouble  to  ensure  his  own  safety. 
(Luther  has  missed  the  meaning  in  his  version ;  in  the 
Chronicles,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  correctly  given.)  ^3^  ^^^1, 
"  but  do  thou  put  on  thy  clothes."  These  words  are  not  to  be 
taken  as  a  command,  but  simply  in  this  sense :  "  thou  mayest 
(canst)  put  on  thy  (royal)  dress,  since  there  is  no  necessity  for 
thee  to  take  any  such  precautions  as  I  have  to  take."  There 
is  no  ground  for  detecting  any  cunning,  vafrities,  on  the  part  of 
Ahab  in  these  words,  as  some  of  the  older  commentators  have 
done,  as  though  he  wished  thereby  to  divert  the  predicted  evil 
from  himself  to  Jehoshaphat.  But  we  may  see  very  clearly  that 
Ahab  had  good  reason  to  be  anxious  about  his  life,  from  the 
command  of  the  Syrian  king  to  the  captains  of  his  war-chariots 
(ver.  31)  to  fight  chiefly  against  the  king  of  Israel.  We  can- 
not infer  from  this,  however,  that  Ahab  was  aware  of  the  com- 
mand. The  measure  adopted  by  him  may  be  sufficiently 
accounted  for  from  his  fear  of  the  fulfilment  of  Micah's  evil 
prophecy,  to  which  there  may  possibly  have  been  added  some 
personal  offence  that  had  been  given  on  his  part  to  the  Syrian 
king  in  connection  with  the  negotiations  concerning  the  sur- 
render of  Eamoth,  which  had  no  doubt  preceded  the  war.  The 
thirty-two  commanders  of  the  war-chariots  and  cavalry  are,  no 
doubt,  the  commanders  who  had  taken  the  place  of  the  thirty- 
two  kings  (ch,  xxi.  24).  "Fight  not  against  small  and  great, 
but  against  the  king  of  Israel  only,"  i.e.  endeavour  above  all 
others  to  fight  against  the  king  of  Israel  and  to  slay  him. — 
Vers.  32,  33.  And  when  the  leaders  of  the  war-chariots  saw 
Jehoshaphat  in  the  battle  in  his  royal  clothes,  they  took  him 


280  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

for  the  king  of  Israel  (Ahab),  and  pressed  upon  him.  Then 
Jehoshaphat  cried  out ;  and  from  this  they  perceived  that  he 
was  not  the  king  of  Israel,  and  turned  away  from  him.  ncini 
'1J1  TjN  nON,  "  and  they  thought,  it  is  only  {i.e.  no  other  than) 
the  king  of  Israel."  lyy  np^,  "  they  bent  upon  him."  Instead 
of  this  we  have  in  the  Chronicles  Ivy  ^lab),  "  they  surrounded 
him,"  and  Thenius  proposes  to  alter  our  text  to  this  ;  but  there 
is  no  necessity  for  doing  so,  as  "iiD  also  occurs  in  a  similar  sense 
and  connection  in  ch.  xx.  39.  How  far  Jehoshaphat  was  saved 
by  his  crying  out,  is  not  precisely  stated.  He  probably  cried 
out  to  his  followers  to  come  to  his  aid,  from  which  the  Syrians 
discovered  that  he  was  not  the  king  of  Israel,  whom  they  were 
in  search  of  The  chronicler  adds  (ch.  ii.  18,  31):  "and  the 
Lord  helped  him  and  turned  them  off  from  him ;"  thus  believ- 
ingly  tracing  the  rescue  of  the  king  to  its  higher  causality, 
though  without  our  having  any  right  to  infer  from  this  that 
Jehoshaphat  cried  aloud  to  God  for  help,  which  is  not  implied 
in  the  words  of  the  Chronicles. — ^Ver.  34.  But  notwithstanding 
the  precaution  he  had  taken,  Ahab  did  not  escape  the  judgment 
of  God.  "  A  man  drew  his  bow  in  his  simplicity  "  (iJsn?  as  in 
2  Sam.  XV.  11),  i.e.  without  trying  to  hit  any  particular  man, 
"  and  shot  the  king  of  Israel  between  the  skirts  and  the  coat 
of  mail."  2"'p?'^  are  "joints  by  which  the  iron  thorax  was 
attached  to  the  hanging  skirt,  which  covered  the  abdomen" 
(Cler.).  The  true  coat  of  mail  covered  only  the  breast,  to  some- 
where about  the  last  rib ;  and  below  this  it  had  an  appendage 
(skirts)  consisting  of  moveable  joints.  Between  this  appendage 
and  the  true  coat  of  mail  there  was  a  groove  through  which 
the  arrow  passed,  and,  entering  the  abdomen,  inflicted  upon  the 
king  a  mortal  wound ;  so  that  he  said  to  his  charioteer :  'HSQ 
T*"!^,  verte  manus  tuas,  i.e.  turn  round  (cf  2  Kings  ix.  23).  The 
ChetMb  T''iJ  (plural)  is  the  only  correct  reading,  since  the  driver 
held  the  reins  in  both  his  hands.  ''D''/^^  "'?  '•  for  I  am  wounded. 
—  Ver.  35.  "And  the  conflict  ascended,"  i.e.  became  more 
violent.  The  use  of  the  verb  iVV  in  this  sense  may  be"  ac- 
counted for  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  founded  upon  the 
figure  of  a  rising  stream,  which  becomes  more  and  more  impe- 
tuous the  higher  it  rises  (vid.  Isa.  viii  7).  "  And  the  king  was 
stationed  {i.e.  remained  or  kept  himself  in  an  upright  posture) 
upon  the  chariot  before  the  Syrians,"  that  he  might  not  dis- 
hearten his  soldiers,  "  and  died  in  the  evening,  and  poured  the 


CHAP.  XXII.  41-50.  281 

blood  of  the  wounds  in  the  middle  hollow  (P^O)  of  the  chariot." 
— Yer.  36.  Towards  sunset  the  cry  went  through  the  -army 
('"■.^n?!?,  the  army  drawn  up  in  battle  array),  "  Every  one  into 
his  city  and  into  his  land  ! " — In  ver.  3  7  the  historian  shows 
how  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  Ahab. 
"  Thus  the  king  died  and  came  to  Samaria : "  equivalent  to, 
thus  the  king  reached  Samaria  dead  ;  and  he  was  buried  there. 
— Ver.  38.  "WTien  they  washed  the  chariot  at  the  pool  of 
Samaria,  the  dogs  licked  his  blood,  while  the  harlots  were 
bathing  (in  the  pool).  ^^iJI  nij^riT  is  a  circumstantial  clause,  and 
J*rn  means  to  bathe,  as  in  Ex.  ii  5.  This  explanation,  which  is 
sustained  by  the  grammar  and  is  the  only  tenable  one,  disposes 
of  the  several  arbitrary  interpretations  of  these  words,  together 
with  the  emendations  of  the  text  of  which  Thenius  is  so  fond. 
In  this  way  was  the  word  of  the  Lord  through  Elijah  (ch.  xxi. 
19)  and  the  unknown  prophet  (ch.  xx.  42)  fulfilled;  also  the 
prediction  of  Micah  (ver.  17).  Ahab  had  paid  the  penalty 
with  his  own  life  for  sparing  the  life  of  Benhadad  (ch.  xx.  42), 
and  his  blood  was  licked  up  by  the  dogs  (ch.  xxi.  19).  The 
fact  that  the  dogs  licked  up  the  blood  and  the  harlots  were 
bathing  in  the  pool,  when  the  chariot  that  was  stained  with  the 
blood  of  Ahab  was  being  washed,  is  mentioned  as  a  sign  of  the 
ignominious  contempt  which  was  heaped  upon  him  at  his  death. 
— ^\^ers.  39,  40.  Close  of  Ahab's  history.  We  have  no  further 
account  of  his  buildings.  "  The  ivory  palace,"  i.e.  the  palace 
inlaid  with  ivory,  he  had  probably  built  in  his  capital  Samaria 
(c£  Amos  iii  15). 

Vers.  41-50.  Eeign  of  Jehoshaphat  of  Judah.  —  The 
account  of  this  in  the  books  before  us  is  a  very  condensed  one. 
Beside  the  two  campaigns  in  which  he  joined  with  Ahab  and 
Joram  of  Israel  against  the  Syrians  and  Moabites,  and  which  are 
described  in  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (ch.  xxii.  1-35 
and  2  Kings  iii.),  we  have  simply  a  short  notice  of  his  attempt 
to  restore  the  trade  with  Ophir,  and  a  general  statement  of  the 
spirit  of  his  reign ;  whereas  we  learn  from  the  extract  preserved 
in  the  Chronicles  from  the  annals  of  the  kings,  that  he  also 
carried  on  a  victorious  war  against  the  Edomites  and  Ammonites 
(2  Chron.  xx.),  and  did  a  great  deal  to  promote  the  spread  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  law  among  his  people,  and  to  carry  out 
the  restoration  of  a  better  administration  of  justice,  and  to 


282  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

improve  the  condition  of  the  army  (2  Chron.  xvii.  and  xix.). 
— ^Vers.  41-44,  which  give  the  age  of  Jehoshaphat  when  he 
ascended  the  throne,  and  the  duration  and  character  of  his  reign, 
are  also  found  with  slight  deviations  in  2  Chron.  xx.  31-33,  in 
the  closing  summary  of  the  history  of  his  reign. — Ver.  43.  "  He 
walked  entirely  in  the  way  of  his  father  Asa  and  departed  not 
from  it, .  to  do  what  was  well-pleasing  to  the  Lord,"  whereas 
Asa's  heart  had  become  more  estranged  from  the  Lord  in  the 
last  years  of  his  reign  (see  ch.  xv.  18  sqq.). — On  the  worship 
of  the  high  places  (ver.  43),  see  at  ch.  xv.  14. — Ver.  44.  He 
maintained  peace  with  the  king  of  Israel,  i.e.  with  every  one  of 
the  Israelitish  kings  who  were  contemporaneous  with  him,  viz. 
Ahab,  Ahaziah,  and  Joram,  whereas  hitherto  the  two  kingdoms 
had  assumed  an  attitude  of  hostility  towards  each  other.  Even 
if  this  friendly  bearing  towards  Israel  was  laudable  in  itself, 
Jehoshaphat  went  beyond  the  bounds  of  what  was  allowable, 
since  he  formed  a  marriage  alliance  with  the  house  of  Ahab,  by 
letting  his  son  Joram  marry  a  daughter  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel 
(2  Chron.  xviii.  1). — Ver.  45.  The  brave  deeds  (nii^an)  which 
he  performed  include  both  his  efforts  to  strengthen  his  kingdom, 
partly  by  raising  fortifications  and  organizing  the  military  force, 
and  partly  by  instructing  the  people  in  the  law  and  improving 
the  administration  of  justice  (2  Chron.  xvii.  7-19  and  xix.  4-11), 
and  also  the  wars  which  he  waged,  viz.  the  expeditions  already 
mentioned. — For  ver.  46  see  ch.  xv.  12. — Ver.  47.  "There 
was  (then)  no  (real)  king  in  Edom  ;  a  vicegerent  was  king,"  i.e. 
governed  the  country.  This  remark  is  introduced  here  merely 
on  account  of  what  follows,  namely,  to  show  how  it  was  that 
Jehoshaphat  was  able  to  attempt  to  restore  the  maritime  trade 
with  Ophir.  If  we  observe  this  connection  between  the  verse 
before  us  and  what  follows,  we  cannot  infer  from  it,  as  Ewald 
does  {Gesch.  iii.  pp.  464  and  474  sqq.),  that  the  Edomites  with 
Egyptian  help  had  forced  from  Eehoboam  both  their  liberty  and 
also  their  right  to  have  a  king  of  their  own  blood,  and  had  re- 
mained in  this  situation  till  Jehoshaphat  completely  subjugated 
them  again.  (See  the  remarks  on  ch.  xi.  21,  22.)  All  that 
can  be  gathered  from  2  Chron.  xx.  is,  that  the  Edomites,  in 
league  with  the  Ammonites  and  other  desert  tribes,  made  an 
incursion  into  Judah,  and  therefore  tried  to  throw  off  the  supre- 
macy of  Judah,  but  did  not  succeed  in  their  attempt. — Vers. 
48,  49.  The  brief  notice  concerning  Jehoshaphat's  attempt  to 


CHAP.  XXIL  51-53.  283 

build  Tarshish  ships  (for  the  word,  see  p.  150)  for  the  voyage 
to  Ophir  is  expanded  in  2  Chron.  xx.  36,  37,  where  we  learn 
that  Jehoshaphat  had  allied  himseK  with  Ahaziah  of  Israel  for 
this  purpose,  and  that  the  prophet  Eliezer  predicted  the  destruc- 
tion of  his  ships  on  account  of  this  alliance.  When  the  ships 
had  been  broken  in  pieces  in  Eziongeber,  no  doubt  by  a  storm, 
Ahaziah  made  this  fresh  proposal  to  him :  "  Let  my  people  sail 
with  thy  people ;"  but  Jehoshaphat  would  not.  Ahaziah  evi- 
dently wanted  to  persuade  Jehoshaphat  to  make  another  attempt, 
after  the  destruction  of  the  ships  which  were  first  built ;  but 
Jehoshaphat  did  not  agree  to  it  any  more,  because  it  was  im- 
possible for  him,  after  the  fulfilment  of  Eliezer's  prediction,  to 
expect  a  more  favourable  result.  Thus  the  two  accounts  can  be 
harmonized  in  a  very  simple  manner,  with  the  exception  of  the 
words  "  to  go  to  Tarshish,"  which  we  find  in  the  Chronicles  in 
the  place  of  "  to  go  to  Ophir,"  the  reading  in  our  text,  and 
which  sprang  from  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  expression 
"  ships  of  Tarshish"  (see  above,  p.  150).  The  Chethib  ib^ 
is  an  error  of  the  pen  for  >^^  {Keri) ;  but  ^^32^:  [Cliethib)  is  not 
to  be  altered  into  ^""S?^?,  since  the  construction  of  a 'singular  verb 
with  the  subject  following  in  the  plural  is  by  no  means  rare 
{vid.  Ewald,  §  317,  a).  On  Eziongeber  and  Ophir,  see  at  cli. 
ix.  26  and  28. 

Vers.  51-53.  Eeign  of  Ahaziah  of  Israel. — ^Ver.  51.  For 
the  datum  "  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat,"  see  at 
2  Elings  L  17. — ^Vers.  52,  53.  Ahaziah  walked  in  the  way  of  his 
father  and  his  mother,  who  had  introduced  the  worship  of  Baal 
into  the  kingdom,  and  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam,  who  had  set  up 
the  calves  (cf  ch.  xvi  30—33). — ^In  ver.  53  it  is  again  expressly 
added,  that  he  adored  and  worshipped  Baal,  as  in  ch.  xvi  31. — 
With  this  general  description  of  his  character  not  only  is  the 
chapter  brought  to  a  close,  but  the  first  book  of  Kings  also, — 
very  unsuitably,  however,  since  the  further  account  of  Ahaziah's 
reign  and  of  his  death  is  given  in  ch.  i.  of  the  following  book. 
It  would  have  been  incomparably  more  suitable  to  commence  a 
fresh  chapter  with  ver.  52,  and  indeed  to  commence  the  second 
book  there  also. 


SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


CHAP.  I.    AHAZIAH'S  illness,       HIS  DEATH  ANNOUNCED  BY  ELIJAH. 

r  T  E  Pt  the  Moabites  had  rebelled  against  Israel, 
Ahaziah  became  sick  in  consequence  of  a  fall 
through  a  grating  in  his  upper  room,  and  sent 
messengers  to  Ekron  to  consult  the  idol  Baalzebub 
concerning  the  result  of  his  illness.  By  the  command  of  God, 
however,  Elijah  met  the  messengers  on  the  road,  and  told  them 
that  the  king  would  die  (vers.  1-8).  When  Ahaziah  sent 
soldiers  to  fetch  Elijah,  the  messengers  were  miraculously^  slain 
on  two  successive  occasions,  and  it  was  only  his  humiliation 
before  the  prophet  which  saved  the  third  captain  and  his  host 
from  sharing  a  similar  fate;  whereupon  Elijah  went  with  him  to 
the  king,  and  repeated  the  threat  already  announced  on  account 
of  his  idolatry,  which  was  very  soon  fulfilled  (vers.  9-18). 

Vers.  1-8.  After  the  death  of  Ahab,  Moab  rebelled  against 
Israel  (ver.  1).  The  Moabites,  who  had  been  subjugated  by 
David  (2  Sam.  viii.  2),  had  remained  tributary  to  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes  after  the  division  of  the  kingdom.  But  when 
Israel  was  defeated  by  the  Syrians  at  Eamoth  in  the  time  of 
Ahab,  they  took  advantage  of  this  defeat  and  the  weakening  of 
the  Israelitish  power  in  the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  to 
shake  off"  the  yoke  of  the  Israelites,  and  very  soon  afterwards 
attempted  an  invasion  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  in  alliance 
with  the  Edomites  and  other  tribes  of  the  desert,  which  ter- 
minated, however,  in  a  great  defeat,  though  it  contributed  to 
the  maintenance  of  their  independence.  For  further  remarks, 
see  at  ch.  iii.  4  sqq. — Ver.  2.  Ahaziah  could  not  do  anything 
to  subjugate  the  Moabites  any  further,  since  he  was  very  soon 
afterwards  taken  grievously  ill.  He  fell  through  the  grating  in  his 
upper  room  at  Samaria.     '^??p'!',  the  grating,  is  either  a  window 

284 


CHAP.  I.  1-3.  285 

furnished  with  a  shutter  of  lattice-work,  or  a  door  of  lattice- 
work in  the  upper  room  of  the  palace,  but  hardly  a  grating  in 
the  floor  of  the  Aliyah  for  the  purpose  of  letting  light  into  the 
lower  rooms,  as  the  Eabbins  supposed.  On  account  of  this  mis- 
fortune, Ahaziah  resorted  to  the  Elcronitish  Baalzehuh  to  obtain 
an  oracle  concerning  the  residt  of  his  illness.  3i3rby3,  i.e.  Fly- 
Baal,  was  not  merely  the  "  averter  of  swarms  of  insects,"  like  the 
Zevf  aTTOfivto^,  fiviarypo';  of  Elis  (Ges.,  Winer,  Movers,  Phoniz.  i. 
p.  175),  since  "the  Fly-God  cannot  have  received  his  name  as 
the  enemy  of  flies,  like  lucus  a  non  lucendo,"  but  was  Mvla  de6<i 
(LXX.,  Joseph.),  i.e.  God  represented  as  a  fly,  as  a  fly-idol,  to 
which  the  name  Myiodes,  gnat-like,  in  Plin.  h.  n.  xxix.  6,  clearly 
points,  and  as  a  god  of  the  sun  and  of  summer  must  have  stood 
in  a  similar  relation  to  the  flies  to  that  of  the  oracle-god  Apollo, 
who  both  sent  diseases  and  took  them  away  {vid.  J.  G.  Mliller, 
Art.  Beelzebub  in  Herzog's  Cycl.  i.  p.  768,  and  Stark,  Gaza,  pp. 
260,  261).  The  latter  observes  that  "these  (the  flies),  which 
are  governed  in  their  coming  and  going  by  all  the  conditions  of 
the  weather,  are  apparently  endowed  with  prophetic  power 
themselves."  This  explains  the  fact  that  a  special  power  of 
prophecy  was  attributed  to  this  god.^  Ehron,  now  Akir,  the 
most  northerly  of  the  five  Philistian  capitals  (see  at  Josh.  xiii. 
3). — Vers.  3,  4.  But  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  mediator  of  the 
revelations  made  by  the  invisible  God  to  the  covenant  nation 
(see  Comm.  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  i.  pp.  185-191,  transl.),  had 
spoken  to  Elijah  to  go  and  meet  the  king's  messengers,  who 
were  going  to  inquire  of  Baalzebub,  and  to  ask  them  whether 
it  was  from  the  want  of  a  God  in  Israel  (pi?  y^p  as  in 
Ex.  xiv.  11  ;  see  Ewald,  §  323,  a)  that  they  turned  to  Baal- 
zebub, and  to  announce  to  them  the  word  of  Jehovah,  that 
Ahaziah  would  not  rise  up  from  his  bed  again,  but  would  die. 
"  And  Elijah  w^ent,"  sc.  to  carry  out  the  divine  commission. — 
Vers.  5-8.  The  messengers  did  not  recognise  Elijah,  but  yet 
they  turned  back  and  reported  the  occurrence  to  the  king, 
who    knew  at    once,   from    the  description  they  gave    of  the 

^  The  later  Jews  altered  the  name  Beelzebub  into  B££X^£/3ot/X,  i.e.  probably 
lord  of  the  (heavenly)  dwelling,  as  a  name  given  to  the  io-^i^v  tZ»  lottfioviuv 
(Matt.  X.  25,  etc.)  ;  and  the  later  Rabbins  finally,  by  changing  ^3T  bv^  into 
?3T  bV2j  made  a  fly-god  into  a  dung-god,  to  express  in  the  most  intense  form 
their  abomination  of  idolatry  (see  Lightfoot,  Horx  hebr.  et  talm.  in  Matt. 
xii.  2:1,  and  my  bibl  Archaol.  i.  pp.  440,  441). 


286  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

habitus  of  the  man  in  reply  to  his  question,  that  it  was  Elijah 
the  Tishbite.  tJ'^xn  tjsp'b  no :  "  what  was  the  manner  of  the 
man  ? "  taatt'p  is  used  here  to  denote  the  peculiarity  of  a  person, 
that  which  in  a  certain  sense  constitutes  the  vital  law  and  ri^ht 
of  the  individual  personality;  figura  et  habitus  (Vulg.).  The 
servants  described  the  prophet  according  to  his  outward  appear- 
ance, which  in  a  man  of  character  is  a  reflection  of  his  inner 
man,  as  "^V^  ^V^  ti'^K,  vir  pilosus,  hirsutus.  This  does  not  mean 
a  man  with  a  luxuriant  growth  of  hair,  but  refers  to  the  hairy 
dress,  i.e.  the  garment  made  of  sheep-skin  or  goat-skin  or  coarse 
camel-hair,  which  was  wrapped  round  his  body ;  the  nn'HN  (ch. 
ii.  8  ;  1  Kings  xix.  13),  or  "^W  nn^.N  (Zech.  xiii.  4,  cf.  Matt.  iii. 
4,  Heb.  XL  37),  which  was  worn  by  the  prophets,  not  as  mere 
ascetics,  but  as  preachers  of  repentance,  the  rough  garment  de- 
noting the  severity  of  the  divine  judgments  upon  the  effeminate 
nation,  which  revelled  in  luxuriance  and  worldly  lust.  And 
this  was  also  in  keeping  with  "  the  leather  girdle,"  liv  ">^TSi,  ^cavT} 
BepfiarivT)  (Matt.  iii.  4),  whereas  the  ordinary  gkdle  was  of 
cotton  or  linen,  and  often  very  costly. 

Vers.  9-16.  After  having  executed  the  divine  command, 
Elijah  returned  to  the  summit  of  the  mountain,  on  which  he 
dwelt.  Most  of  the  commentators  suppose  it  to  have  been  one 
of  the  peaks  of  Carmel,  from  ch.  ii.  25  and  1  Kings  xviii.  42, 
which  is  no  doubt  very  probable,  though  it  cannot  be  raised 
into  certainty.  Elijah's  place  of  abode  was  known  to  the 
king ;  he  therefore  sent  a  captain  with  fifty  men  to  fetch  the 
prophet.  To  the  demand  of  the  captain,  "Man  of  God,  the 
king  has  said.  Come  down,"  Elijah  replied,  "And  if  I  am  a 
man  of  God,  let  fire  fall  from  heaven  and  consume  thee  and  thy 
fifty."  (The  expression  DNi,  and  if,  shows  that  Elijah's  words 
followed  immediately  upon  those  of  the  captain.)  This  judicial 
miracle  was  immediately  fulfilled. — Vers.  11, 12.  The  same  fate 
befeU  a  second  captain,  whom  the  king  sent  after  the  death  of 
tlie  first.  He  was  more  insolent  than  the  first,  "  both  because 
he  was  not  brought  to  his  senses  by  hearing  of  his  punishment, 
and  because  he  increased  his  impudence  by  adding  make  haste 
(n-inD)." — C.  a  Lap.  For  131'^?  \Vl).  the  LXX.  [Cod.  Alex.)  have  kuI 
ave^r}  Kal  ikaXrjae,  so  that  they  read  by^l.  The  correctness  of 
this  reading,  according  to  which  jV!!  would  be  an  error  of  the  pen, 
is  favoured  not  only  by  ^V!!  in  vers.  9  and  13,  but  also  by  i?1'.l 
which  follows  ;  for,  as  a  general  rule,  \T1  would  be  followed  by 


CHAP.  I  9-16.  287 

iptJn.  The  repetition  of  this  judicial  miracle  was  meant  to 
show  in  the  most  striking  manner  not  only  the  authority  which 
rightfully  belonged  to  the  prophet,  but  also  the  help  and  pro- 
tection which  the  Lord  gave  to  His  sen-ants.  At  the  same  time, 
the  question  as  to  the  "  morality  of  the  miracle,"  about  which 
some  have  had  grave  doubts,  is  not  set  at  rest  by  the  remark  of 
Thenius,  that  "  the  soldiers  who  were  sent  come  into  considera- 
tion here  purely  as  instruments  of  a  will  acting  in  opposition  to 
Jehovah."  The  third  captain  also  carried  out  the  ungodly  com- 
mand of  the  king,  and  he  was  not  slain  (vers.  13  sqq.).  The 
first  two  must  therefore  have  been  guilty  of  some  crime,  which 
they  and  their  people  had  to  expiate  with  their  death.  This 
crime  did  not  consist  merely  in  their  addressing  him  as  "  man 
of  God,"  for  the  third  addressed  Elijah  in  the  same  way  (ver. 
1 3),  but  in  their  saying  "  Man  of  God,  come  down."  This 
summons  to  the  prophet,  to  allow  himself  to  be  led  as  a 
prisoner  before  the  king,  involved  a  contempt  not  only  of  the 
prophetic  office  in  the  person  of  Elijah,  but  also  of  the  Lord, 
who  had  accredited  him  by  miracles  as  His  servant.  The  two 
captains  who  were  first  sent  not  only  did  what  they  were  bound 
to  do  as  servants  of  the  king,  but  participated  in  the  ungodly 
disposition  of  their  lord  {av^^alvovre<i  rut  ckottu)  rov  7r€7rofi(p6TO<i 
— Theodoret) ;  they  attacked  the  Lord  with  reckless  daring  in  the 
person  of  the  prophet,  and  the  second  captain,  with  his  "  Come 
down  quickly,"  did  it  even  more  strongly  than  the  first  This 
sin  was  punished,  and  that  not  by  the  prophet,  but  by  the 
Lord  HimseK,  who  fulfilled  the  word  of  His  servant.^  Wliat 
Elijah  here  did  was  an  act  of  holy  zeal  for  the  honour  of  the 
Lord,  in  the  spirit  of  the  old  covenant,  imder  which  God  de- 
stroyed the  insolent  despisers  of  His  name  with  fire  and  sword, 
to  manifest  the  energy  of  His  holy  majesty  by  the  side  of  the 
dead  idols  of  the  heathen.  But  this  act  cannot  be  transferred 
to  the  times  of  the  new  covenant,  as  is  clearly  shown  in  Luke 
ix.  54,  55,  where  Christ  does  not  blame  Elijah  for  what  he  did, 
but  admonishes  His  disciples,  who  overlooked  the  difference 
between  the  economy  of  the  law  and  that  of  the  gospel,  ani  in 
their  carnal  zeal  wanted  to  imitate  what  Elijah  had  done  in 
divine  zeal  for  the  honour  of  the  Lord,  which  had  been  injured 
in  his  own  person. — Vers.  13,  14.  The  king,  disregarding  the 

Oj  TOt»  a-w^jjrot;  KaTzyopoZyrs;  xetrec  tow  ©joS  to5  cr^cj^rci/  Kii>ovai  T«f 
y>*iTT«^,  as  Theodoret  very  aptly  observes. 


288  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

punishing  hand  of  the  Lord,  which,  even  if  it  might  possibly 
have  been  overlooked  in  the  calamity  that  befell  the  captain  who 
was  first  sent  and  his  company,  could  not  be  misunderstood 
when  a  similar  fate  befell  the  second  captain  with  his  fifty  men, 
sent  a  third  company,  in  his  defiant  obduracy,  to  fetch  the  pro- 
phet. (DT?f  after  D"'^pn  is  apparently  an  error  of  the  pen  for 
^K'1?K',  as  the  following  word  "'K'^^K'n  shows.)  But  the  third  cap- 
tain was  better  than  his  king,  and  wiser  than  his  two  prede- 
cessors. He  obeyed  the  command  of  the  king  so  far  as  to  go  to 
the  prophet ;  but  instead  of  haughtily  summoning  him  to  follow 
him,  he  bent  his  knee  before  the  man  of  God,  and  prayed  that 
his  own  life  and  the  lives  of  his  soldiers  might  be  spared. — Vers. 
15,  16.  Then  Elijah  followed  him  to  the  king  0''JS'?,  before  him, 
i.e.  before  the  king,  not  before  the  captain ;  and  iriN  for  wx,  see 
Ewald,  §  264,  b),  having  been  directed  to  do  so  by  the  angel  of 
the  Lord,  and  repeated  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  had 
also  conveyed  to  him  through  his  messengers  (see  vers.  4  and  6), 
Vers.  17  and  18.  When  Ahaziah  died,  according  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord  through  Elijah,  as  he  had  no  son,  he  was  followed 
upon  the  throne  by  his  brother  Joram,  "  in  the  second  year  of 
Joram  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  king  of  Judah."  This  statement 
is  at  variance  both  with  that  in  ch.  iii.  1,  to  the  effect  that  Joram 
began  to  reign  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  with 
that  in  1  Kings  xxii.  52,  viz.  that  Ahaziah  ascended  the  throne  in 
the  seventeenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  lasted 
twenty-five  years,  and  also  with  the  statement  in  ch.  viii.  16, 
that  Joram  of  Judah  became  king  over  Judah  in  the  fifth  year  of 
Joram  of  Israel.  If,  for  example,  Ahaziah  of  Israel  died  after  a 
reign  of  not  quite  two  years,  at  the  most  a  year  and  a  half,  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat ;  as  Jehoshaphat  himself  reigned 
twenty-five  years,  he  cannot  have  died  till  the  seventh  year  of 
Joram  of  Israel,  and  his  son  Joram  followed  him  upon  the  throne. 
The  last  of  these  discrepancies  may  be  solved  very  simply,  from 
the  fact  that,  according  to  ch.  viii.  1 6,  Jehoshaphat  was  still  king 
when  his  son  Joram  began  to  reign,  so  that  Jehoshaphat  abdicated 
in  favour  of  his  son  about  two  years  before  his  death.  And  the 
first  discrepancy  (that  between  ch.  i.  17  and  ch.  iii.  1)  is  removed 
by  Usher  (Annales  M.  ad  a.m.  3106  and  3112),  Lightfoot,  and 
others,  after  the  example  of  the  Seder  Olam,  by  the  assumption 
of  a  co-regency.  According  to  this,  when  Jehoshaphat  went 
with  Ahab  to  Kamoth  in  Gilead  to  war  against  the  Syrians,  ill 


CHAP.  I.  17,  18.  289 

the  eighteentli  year  of  his  reign,  which  runs  parallel  to  the 
twenty-second  year  of  the  reign  of  Ahab,  he  appointed  his  son 
Joram  to  the  co-regency,  and  transferred  to  him  the  administra- 
tion of  the  kingdom.  It  is  from  this  co-regency  that  the  state- 
ment in  ch.  L  17  is  dated,  to  the  effect  that  Joram  of  Israel 
became  king  in  the  second  year  of  Joram  of  Judah.  This  second 
year  of  the  co-regency  of  Joram  corresponds  to  the  eighteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (ch.  iii.  1).  And  in  the  fifth 
year  of  his  co-regency  Jehoshaphat  gave  np  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment entirely  to  him.  It  is  from  this  point  of  time,  i.e.  from  the 
twenty-third  year  of  Jehoshaphat,  that  we  are  to  reckon  the  eight 
years  of  the  reign  of  Joram  (of  Judah),  so  that  he  only  reigned 
six  years  more  after  his  father's  death.^  We  have  no  informa- 
tion as  to  the  reason  which  induced  Jehoshaphat  to  abdicate  in 
favour  of  his  son  two  years  before  his  death ;  for  there  is  very 
little  probability  in  the  conjecture  of  Lightfoot  {(}pp.  i.  p.  85), 
that  Jehoshaphat  did  this  when  he  commenced  the  war  with  the 
!Moabites  in  alliance  with  Joram  of  Israel,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  the  Moabites  revolted  after  the  death  of  Ahab,  and  Joram 
made  preparations  for  attacking  them  immediately  after  their 
rebeUion  (ch.  iii.  5-7),  so  that  he  must  have  commenced  this 
expedition  before  the  fifth  year  of  his  reign. 

^  Wolff  indeed  boldly  declares  that  "  the  co-regency  of  Joram  is  a  pure 
fiction,  and  the  biblical  historians  do  not  furnish  the  slightest  warrant  for 
any  such  supposition  "  (see  p.  628  of  the  treatise  mentioned  at  p.  187)  ;  but  he 
cannot  think  of  any  other  way  of  reconciling  the  differences  than  by  making 
several  alterations  in  the  text,  and  inventing  a  co-regency  in  the  case  of  the 
Israelitish  king  Ahaziah.  The  synchronism  of  the  reigns  of  the  Israelitish 
kings  necessarily  requires  the  solution  adopted  in  the  text.  For  if  Joram  of 
Israel,  who  began  to  reign  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat  and  reigned 
twelve  years  (ch.  iii.  1),  was  slain  at  the  same  time  as  Ahaziah  of  Judah  (ch. 
ix.  24-27),  and  Ahaziah  of  Judah  reigned  about  one  year  and  his  predecessor 
Joram  about  eight  years,  so  that  the  two  together  certainly  reigned  fully 
eight  years ;  Joram  of  Judah  must  have  ascended  the  throne  four  years  after 
Joram  of  Israel,  i.e.  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  runs 
parallel  to  the  fifth  year  of  Joram  of  Israel.  Consequently  the  twenty-five 
years  of  Jehoshaphat  are  to  be  reduced  to  twenty-three  in  reckoning  the  sum- 
total  of  the  years  embraced  by  the  period  of  the  kings.  It  is  true  that  there  is 
no  analogy  for  this  combination  of  the  years  of  the  reigns  of  two  kings,  since 
the  other  reductions  of  which  different  chronologists  are  fond  are  perfectly 
arbitrary,  and  the  case  before  us  stands  quite  alone ;  but  this  exception  to  the 
rule  is  indicated  clearly  enough  in  the  statement  in  ch.  viii.  16,  that  Joram 
began  to  reign  while  Jehoshaphat  was  (still)  king.  When,  however,  Thenius 
objects  to  this  mode  of  reconciling  the  differences,  which  even  Winer  adopts 

X 


290  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

CHAP.  II.    ELIJAH'S  ASCENSION  TO  HEAVEN.      ELISHA'S  FIRST 
MIRACLES. 

Vers.  1-13.  Elijah's  Ascension  to  Heaven. — ^Vers.  1-10. 
Journey  from  Gilgal  to  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan. — ^Vers.  1,2. 
When  tlie  time  arrived  that  Jehovah  was  about  to  take  up  His 
servant  Elijah  in  a  tempest  to  heaven,  Elijah  went  with  his 
attendant  Elisha  from  Gilgal  down  to  Bethel  '^'iV^?,  in  the 
tempest  or  storm,  i.e.  in  a  tempestuous  storm,  which  was  fre- 
quently the  herald  of  the  divine  seK-revelations  in  the  terres- 
trial world  {vid.  Job  xxxviii.  1,  xL  6  ;  Ezek.  i.  4 ;  Zech.  ix.  14). 
D^OB'n  is  the  accusative  of  direction.  Gilgal  and  Bethel  (Beitin, 
see  at  1  Kings  xii.  29)  were  seats  of  schools  of  the  prophets, 
which  Elijah  had  founded  in  the  Idngdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  It 
is  now  generally  admitted  that  Gilgal,  from  which  they  went 
down  to  Bethel,  cannot  be  the  place  of  that  name  which  was 
situated  in  the  Jordan  valley  to  the  east  of  Jericho,  but  must 
be  the  Gilgal  upon  the  mountains,  the  elevated  Jiljilia  to  the 
south-west  of  Silo  (Seilun,  see  at  Josh.  viii.  35).  On  the  way 
Elijah  said  to  Elisha,  "  Stay  here,  I  pray,  for  the  Lord  has  sent 
me  to  Bethel ;"  but  Elisha  declared  with  a  solemn  oath  that  he 
would  not  leave  him.  The  Lord  had  revealed  to  both  that  the 
seal  of  divine  attestation  was  to  be  impressed  upon  the  work 
of  Elijah  by  his  being  miraculously  taken  up  into  heaven,  to 

in  the  third  edition  of  his  hihl.  Real-  Worterbuch,  i.  p.  539,  on  the  groand  that 
the  reign  of  Joram  is  dated  most  precisely  in  1  Kings  xxii.  51  and  2  Chron. 
xxi.  1,  6,  20,  from  the  death  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  that  an  actual  co-regency, 
viz.  that  of  Jotham,  is  expressly  mentioned  in  ch.  xv.  5,  which  does  not  render 
it  at  all  necessary  to  carry  the  years  of  his  reign  into  those  of  his  father's,  this 
appeal  to  the  case  of  Jotham  cannot  prove  anything,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
the  biblical  text  knows  nothing  of  any  co-regency  of  Jotham  and  Uzziah,  but 
simply  states  that  when  Uzziah  was  smitten  with  leprosy,  his  son  Jotham 
judged  the  people  of  the  land,  but  that  he  did  not  become  king  till  after  his 
father's  death  (ch.  xv.  5,  7 ;  2  Chron.  xxvi.  21,  23).  It  is  indeed  stated  in 
1  Kings  xxii.  51  and  2  Chron.  xxvi.  1,  5,  20,  that  Jehoshaphat  died,  and  his 
son  Joram  became  king,  which  may  be  understood  as  meaning  that  he  did  not 
become  king  till  after  the  death  of  Jehoshaphat ;  but  there  is  no  necessity  to 
understand  it  so,  and  therefore  it  can  be  very  easily  reconciled  with  the  more 
precise  statement  in  ch.  viii.  16,  that  Joram  ascended  the  throne  during  the 
reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  whereas  the  assertion  of  Thenius,  that  the  circumstantial 
clause  m^n*  ll^D  tSDB'iriM  inch.  viii.  16  is  a  gloss,  is  not  critically  estabhshed 

T  :  'v  T  T 

by  the  absence  of  these  words  from  the  LXX.,  Syr.,  and  Arabic,  and  to  expunge 
taem  from  the  text  is  QOtbiog  but  an  act  of  critical  violence. 


CHAP.  II.  1-10.  291 

strengthen  the  faith  not  of  Elisha  only,  but  also  of  the  disciples 
of  the  prophets  and  of  all  the  godly  in  Israel ;  but  the  revela- 
tion had  been  made  to  them  separately,  so  that  Elijah  had  no 
suspicion  that  Elisha  had  also  been  informed  as  to  his  being 
taken  away.     He  wanted,  therefore,  to  get  rid  of  his  servant,  not 
"  to  test  his  love  and  attachment "  (VatabL),  but  from  humility 
(C.  a  Lap.  and  others),  because  he  did  not  wish  to  have  any 
one  present  to   witness  his   glorification  without    being  well 
assured  that  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  wiU  of  God. — 
Ver.  3.  In  Bethel  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  came  to  meet 
Elisha,  and   said  to  him,   "Knowest  thou  that  Jehovah  will 
take  thy  master  from  over  thy  head  to-day  ? "     B'Ni  'yo  npb 
expresses  in  a  pictorial  manner  the  taking  away  of  Elijah  from 
his  side  by  raising  him  to  heaven,  like  eTraipeiv  and  inroXafi- 
^dveiv  in  Acts  i   9,  10.       Elisha  repUed,    "  I   know  it,  be 
silent,"  because  he  knew  Elijah's  feeling.     The  Lord  had  there- 
fore revealed  to  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  the  taking  away 
of  Elijah,  to  strengthen  their  faith. — Vers.  4—7.  In  Bethel,  and 
again  in  Jericho,  to  which  they  both  proceeded  from  Bethel, 
Elijah  repeated  the  appeal  to  Elisha  to  stay  there,  but  always 
in  vain.     The  taking  away  of  Elijah  had  also  been  revealed 
to  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  at  Jericho.     Thus  they  both 
came  to  the  Jordan,  whilst  fifty  disciples  of  the  prophets  from 
Jericho  followed  them   at  a   distance,  to  be  eye-witnesses  of 
the  miraculous  translation  of  their  master.     The  course  which 
Elijah  took  before  his  departure  from  this  earth,  viz.  from  Gilgal 
past  Bethel  and  Jericho,  was  not  merely  occasioned  bjjfthe  fact 
that  he  was  obliged  to  touch  at  these  places  on  the  way  to  the 
Jordan,  but  had  evidently  also  the  same  higher  purpose,  for 
which  his  ascension  to  heaven  had  been  revealed  both  to  Elisha 
and   to  the  disciples  of  the  prophets   at  Bethel  and  Jericho. 
Elijah  himself  said  that  the  Lord  had  sent  him  to  Bethel,  to 
Jericho,  to  the  Jordan  (vers.  2,  4,  6).     He  therefore  took  this 
way  from  an  impulse  received  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  he 
might  visit  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  which  he  had  founded, 
once  more  before  his  departure,  and  strengthen  and  fortify  the 
disciples  of  the  prophets  in  the  consecration  of  their  lives  to 
the  service  of  the  Lord,  though  without  in  the  least  surmising 
that  they  had  been  informed  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  of  his 
approaching  departure  from  this  life.      But  as  his  ascension  to 
heaven  tdok  place  not  so  much  for  his  own  sake,  as  because  of 


292  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

those  associates  in  his  office  who  were  left  behind,  God  had 
revealed  it  to  so  many,  that  they  might  be  even  more  firmly 
established  in  their  calling  by  the  miraculous  glorification  of 
their  master  than  by  his  words,  his  teaching,  and  his  admoni- 
tions, so  that  they  might  carry  it  on  without  fear  or  trembling, 
even  if  their  great  master  should  no  longer  stand  by  their  side 
with  the  might  of  his  spiritual  power  to  instruct,  advise,  or 
defend.  But  above  all,  Elisha,  whom  the  Lord  had  appointed 
as  his  successor  (1  Kings  xix.  16),  was  to  be  prepared  for  carry- 
ing on  his  work  by  the  last  journey  of  his  master.  He  did  not 
leave  his  side  therefore,  and  resolved,  certainly  also  from  an 
inward  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  be  an  eye-witness  of  his 
glorification,  that  he  might  receive  the  spiritual  inheritance  of 
the  first-born  from  his  departing  spiritual  father. — Ver.  8.  When 
they  reached  the  Jordan,  Elijah  took  his  prophet's  cloak,  rolled 
it  up  (Q?3,  aTT.  Xey.  convolvit),  and  smote  the  water  with  it ; 
whereupon  the  water  divided  hither  and  thither,  so  that  they 
both  passed  through  on  dry  ground.  The  cloak,  that  outward 
sign  of  the  prophet's  office,  became  the  vehicle  of  the  Spirit's 
power  which  works  unseen,  and  with  which  the  prophet  was 
inspired.  The  miracle  itseK  is  analogous  to  the  miraculous 
dividing  ,of  the  Eed  Sea  by  the  stretching  out  of  Moses'  rod 
(Ex.  xiv.  16,  21) ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  very  peculiar,  and 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  prophetic  character  of  Elijah,  Moses, 
the  leader  of  the  people,  performed  his  miracles  with  his  shepherd's 
crook,  Elijah  the  prophet  divided  the  river  with  his  prophet's 
mantle.— =-Vers.  9,  1 0.  After  crossing  the  Jordan,  Elijah  allowed 
his  servant  and  companion  to  make  one  more  request  before 
he  was  taken  away,  in  the  full  confidence  that  the  Lord  would 
fulfil  it  in  answer  to  his  prayer;  and  Elisha  asked,  " Let  C)'.?tJ^a 
IG^""?,  SiTrXa  ey  Trveu/iaxt  <tov,  ix.  a  double  portion  in  (of)  thy 
spirit  be  granted  to  me."  This  request  has  been  misunderstood 
by  many  translators,  from  Ephraem  Syrus  down  to  Koster  and 
F,  W.  Krummacher,  who  have  supposed  that  Elisha  wished 
to  have  a  .double  measure  of  Elijah's  spirit  ("  that  thy  spirit 
may  be  twofold  in  me :"  Luther  after  the  Vulgate,  "  ut  Jiat  in 
me  duplex  spiritiis  tuus  ") ;  and  some  have  taken  it  as  referring 
to  the  fact  that  Elisha  performed  many  more  miracles  and 
much  greater  ones  than  Elijah  (Cler.,  Pfeifier,  dub,  vex.  p.  442), 
others  to  the  gift  of  prophecy  and  miracles  (Koster,  die  Proph. 
p,  82),  whilst  others,  like  Krumpaacher,  have  understood  by  it 


CHAP.  n.  1-10.  293 

tliat  tie  spirit  of  Elisha,  as  an  evangelical  spirit,  -was  twice  as 
great  as  the  legal  spirit  of  Elijah.  But  there  is  no  such  mean- 
ing implied  in  the  words,  nor  can  it  be  inferred  from  the  answer 
of  Elijah ;  whilst  it  is  impossible  to  show  that  there  was  any 
such  measure  of  the  Spirit  in  the  life  and  works  of  Elisha  in 
comparison  with  the  spirit  of  Elisha,  although  his  request  was 
fulfilled.  The  request  of  Elisha  is  evidently  based  upon  Deut. 
xxi.  17,  where  3  D)3tt'^3  denotes  the  double  portion  which  the 
first-born  received  in  (of)  the  father's  inheritance,  as  E.  Levi  b. 
Gers.,  Seb.  Miinst,  VatabL,  Grot,  and  others  have  perceived, 
and  as  Hengstenberg  {Beitrr.  ii.  p.  133  f.)  in  our  days  has  once 
more  proved.  Elisha,  resting  his  foot  upon  this  law,  requested 
of  Elijah  as  a  first-bom  son  the  double  portion  of  his  spirit  for 
his  inheritance.  Elisha  looked  upon  himseK  as  the  first-bom 
son  of  Elijah  in  relation  to  the  other  "  sons  of  the  prophets," 
inasmuch  as  Elijah  by  the  command  of  God  had  called  him  to 
be  his  successor  and  to  carry  on  his  work.  The  answer  of 
Elijah  agrees  with  this  :  "  Thou  hast  asked  a  hard  thing,"  he  said, 
because  the  granting  of  this  request  was  not  in  Jiis  power,  but  in 
the  power  of  God.  He  therefore  made  its  fulfilment  dependent 
upon  a  condition,  which  did  not  rest  with  himseK,  but  was  under 
the  control  of  God:  "if  thou  shalt  see  me  taken  from  thee  (ni3?, 
partic.  Pual  with  the  o  dropped,  see  Ges.  §  52,  Anm.  h;  Ewald, 
I  169,  d),  let  it  be  so  to  thee  ;  but  if  not,  it  will  not  be  so." 
From  his  own  personal  inclination  Elijah  did  not  wish  to  have 
Elisha,  who  was  so  closely  related  to  him,  as  an  eye-witness  of 
his  translation  from  the  earth ;  but  from  his  persistent  refusal  to 
leave  him  he  could  already  see  that  he  would  not  be  able  to  send 
him  away.  He  therefore  left  the  matter  to  the  Lord,  and  made 
the  guidance  of  God  the  sign  for  Elisha  whether  the  Lord  would 
fulfil  his  request  or  not.  Moreover,  the  request  itself  even  on 
the  part  of  the  petitioner  presupposes  a  certain  dependence, 
and  for  this  reason  Elisha  could  not  possibly  desire  that  the 
double  measure  of  Elijah's  spirit  should  be  bestowed  upon  hioL 
A  dying  man  cannot  leave  to  his  heir  more  than  he  has  himselfl 
And,  lastly,  even  the  ministry  of  Elisha,  when  compared  with 
that  of  Ehjah,  has  all  the  appearance  of  being  subordinate  to 
it.  He  lives  and  labours  merely  as  the  continuer  of  the  work 
already  begim  by  Elijah,  both  outwardly  in  relation  to  the  wor- 
shippers of  idols,  and  inwardly  in  relation  to  the  disciples  of  the 
prophets.     Elisha  performs  the  anointing  of  Jehu  and  Hazael, 


294  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

with  which  Elijah  was  charged,  and  thereby  prepares  the  way 
for  the  realization  of  that  destruction  of  Ahab's  house  which 
Elijah  predicted  to  the  king ;  and  he  merely  receives  and 
fosters  those  schools  of  the  prophets  which  Elijah  had  already 
founded.  And  again,  it  is  not  Elisha  but  Elijah  who  appears 
as  the  Coryphaeus  of  prophecy  along  with  Moses,  the  represen- 
tative of  the  law,  upon  the  mount  of  transfiguration  (Matt. 
xvii.  3). — It  is  only  a  thoroughly  external  mode  of  observation 
that  can  discover  in  the  fact  that  Elisha  performed  a  greater 
number  of  miracles  than  Elijah,  a  proof  that  the  spirit  of  Elijah 
rested  doubly  upon  him. 

Vers.  11-13.  Elijah's  ascension. — ^Ver.  11.  While  they  were 
walking  on  and  talking  to  each  other,  "  behold  (there  suddenly 
appeared)  a  fiery  chariot  and  fiery  horses,  and  separated  the  two 
(by  driving  between  them),  and  Elijah  went  up  in  the  tempest 
to  heaven."  As  God  had  formerly  taken  Enoch  away,  so  that  he 
did  not  taste  of  death  (see  at  Gen.  v.  24),  so  did  He  also  suddenly 
take  Elijah  away  from  Elisha,  and  carry  him  to  heaven  without 
dying.  It  was  '*^"JV??,  "  in  the  tempest,"  that  he  was  taken  away. 
The  storm  was  accompanied  by  a  fiery  phenomenon,  which  ap- 
peared to  the  eyes  of  Elisha  as  a  chariot  of  fire  with  horses  of 
fire,  in  which  Elijah  rode  to  heaven.  The  tempest  was  an  earthly 
substratum  for  the  theophany,  the  fiery  chariots  and  fiery  horses 
the  symbolical  form  in  which  the  translation  of  his  master  to 
heaven  presented  itself  to  the  eye  of  Elisha,  who  was  left  behind.^ 
— The  ascension  of  Elijah  has  been  compared  to  the  death  of 
Moses.  "  As  God  Himself  buried  Moses,  and  his  grave  has  not 
been  found  to  this  day,  so  did  He  fetch  Elias  to  heaven  in  a  still 
more  glorious  manner  in  a  fiery  chariot  with  fiery  horses,  so  that 
fifty  men,  who  searched  for  him,  did  not  find  him  on  the  earth  " 
(Ziegler).  This  parallel  has  a  real  foundation  in  the  appearance 
of  Moses  and  Elijah  with  Christ  on  the  mountain  of  transfigura- 
tion, only  we  must  not  overlook  the  difference  in  the  departure 
from  this  life  of  these  two  witnesses  of  God.  For  Moses  died 
and  was  to  die  in  the  wilderness  because  of  his  sin  (Deut.  xxxii. 

^  All  further  questions,  e.g.  concerning  the  nature  of  the  fiery  chariot,  the 
place  to  which  Elijah  was  carried,  the  day  of  his  ascension,  which  C.  a  Lap., 
according  to  the  Romish  martyrology,  assigns  to  the  20th  of  July  in  the  19th 
year  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  others  of  the  same  kind,  which  have  been  discussed 
by  the  earlier  commentators,  are  to  be  set  down  as  useless  trifles,  which  go 
beyond  the  bounds  of  our  thought  aud  comprehension. 


CHAP.  II.  11-13.  295 

49  sqq.),  and  was  only  buried  by  the  band  of  the  Lord,  so  that 
no  one  has  seen  his  grave,  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
cealing it  from  men  as  to  withdraw  his  body  from  corruption,  and 
preserve  and  glorify  it  for  the  eternal  life  (see  the  Comm.  on 
Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  6).  Elijah  did  not  die,  but  was  received  into 
heaven  by  being  "  changed"  (1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52  ;  1  Thesa  iv.  15 
sqq.).  This  difference  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  character 
and  position  of  these  two  men  in  the  earthly  kingdom  of  God. 
Moses  the  lawgiver  departed  from  the  earthly  life  by  the  way  of 
the  law,  which  worketh  death  as  the  wages  of  sin  (Rom.  vi  23, 
vii.  13);  Elijah  the  prophet,  who  was  appointed  to  admonish 
for  future  times  (o  KarevypatfieU  iv  i\ey/jLot<i  €4?  Kotpovsi),  to 
pacify  the  wrath  before  the  judgment,  to  turn  the  heart  of  the 
father  to  the  son,  and  to  restore  the  tribes  of  Jacob  (Ecclus. 
xlviiL  1 0),  was  taken  to  heaven  as  the  forerunner  of  Christ  (MaL 
iil  23,  24;  Matt.  xi.  10,  11)  without  tasting  of  death,  to  pre- 
dict the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  and  to  set  it  forth  in  Old  Testa- 
ment mode ;  for  as  a  servant,  as  the  servant  of  the  law,  who 
with  his  fiery  zeal  preached  both  by  word  and  deed  the  fire  of 
the  wrath  of  divine  justice  to  the  rebellious  generation  of  his  own 
time,  Elijah  was  carried  by  the  Lord  to  heaven  in  a  fiery  storm, 
the  symbol  of  the  judicial  righteousness  of  God.  "  As  he  was  an 
unparalleled  champion  for  the  honour  of  the  Lord,  a  fiery  war- 
chariot  was  the  symbol  of  his  triumphal  procession  into  heaven  " 
(0.  V,  Gerlach).  But  Christ,  as  the  Son,  to  whom  all  power  is 
given  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  after  having  taken  away  fiom  death 
its  sting  and  from  hell  its  victory,  by  His  resurrection  from  the 
grave  (1  Cor.  xv.  55),  returned  to  the  Father  in  the  power  of  His 
eternal  deity,  and  ascended  to  heaven  in  His  glorified  body  before 
the  eyes  of  His  disciples  as  the  victor  over  death  and  heU,  until 
a  cloud  received  Him  and  concealed  His  figure  from  their  sight 
(Luke  xxiv.  51;  Acts  i.  9).^ — Ver.  12.  When  Elisha  saw  his 

^  The  actaal  truth  of  this  miraculous  departure  of  the  prophet  is  strongly 
confirmed  by  the  appearance  of  Elijah,  as  recorded  in  Matt.  xviL  3,  4  and 
Luke  is.  30,  upon  which  the  seal  of  attestation  is  impressed  by  the  ascension 
of  our  Lord-  His  ascension  was  in  harmony  with  the  great  mission  with  which 
he,  the  mightiest  of  all  the  prophets,  was  entrusted  in  that  development  of  the 
divine  plan  of  salvation  which  continued  through  the  centuries  in  the  interval 
between  Moses  and  Christ. — Whoever  is  unable  to  do  justice  to  the  spirit  and 
nature  of  the  divine  revelation  of  mercy,  will  be  unable  to  comprehend  this 
miracle  also.  This  was  the  case  with  Josephus,  and  even  with  Ephraem  the 
Syrian  father.     Josephus,  for  example  (Ant.  ix.  2,  2),  says  nothing  about  the 


296  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

master  carried  thus  miraculously  away,  he  exclaimed,  "  My  father, 
my  father,  the  chariot  of  Israel  and  horsemen  thereof !"  and  as  he 
saw  him  no  more,  he  took  hold  of  his  clothes  and  rent  them  in 
two  pieces,  i.e.  from  the  top  to  the  bottom,  as  a  proof  of  the  great- 
ness of  his  sorrow  at  his  being  taken  away.  He  called  Elijah 
"•DK,  "my  father,"  as  his  spiritual  father,  who  had  begotten  him 
as  his  son  through  the  word  of  God,  "  Chariot  (war-chariot)  and 
horsemen  of  Israel,"  on  which  the  Israelitish  kings  based  the 
might  and  security  of  their  Idngdom,  are  a  symbolical  representa- 

miracle,  and  simply  states  that  'Ha/«j  tf  dvSpuTruv  i^!pa,v(adn'  >i»i  oiSsiV  tyvu 
fiixP"^  "^'^f  o'hl^ipov  otvTol)  r^u  Ti?\evT'/iv,  and  adds  that  it  is  written  of  Elijah 
and  Enoch  in  the  sacred  books,  on  -/syouocatv  tOpavug.  dxvxrou  os  otvruu  ov'^us 
oiliv.  Ephraem,  the  Christian  father,  passes  over  the  last  clause  of  ver.  11, 
"  so  Elijah  went  up  in  the  whirlwind  to  heaven,"  in  his  exposition  of  our 
chapter,  and  paraphrases  the  rest  of  the  words  thus  :  "  There  came  suddenly 
from  on  high  a  fire-storm,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  flame  the  form  of  a  chariot 
and  of  horses,  and  separated  them  from  one  another ;  one  of  the  two  it  left  on 

the  earth,  the  other,  namely  Elijah,  it  carried  up  on  high  ((V^n.VnX   .  «  \v)  • 

but  whither  the  wind  (or  Spirit?  fjoOJ)  took  him,  or  in  what  place  it  left 
him,  the  Scriptures  have  not  told  us.  They  say,  however,  that  some  years 
afterwards  an  alarming  letter  from  him,  full  of  threats,  was  delivered  to  king 
Joram  of  Judah."  Following  the  lead  of  such  predecessors  as  these,  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  who  boasts  so  much  of  his  orthodoxy,  informed  the  "  unlearned  " 
(in  the  Anmerkungen  to  his  Bllel-iibeisetzitng)  that  Elijah  did  not  go  to  heaven, 
but  was  simply  carried  away  from  Palestine,  and  lived  at  least  twelve  years 
more,  that  he  might  be  able  to  write  a  letter  to  king  Joram  (2  Chron.  xxi.  12), 
for  "  men  do  not  receive  letters  from  people  in  heaven."  This  incident  has 
been  frequently  adduced  since  then  as  a  disproof  of  the  ascension  of  Elijah. 
But  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  Chronicles  about  any  letter  (D"''lSD,  13D» 
or  niJXi  which  would  be  the  Hebrew  for  a  letter)  ;  all  that  is  said  is  that  a 
writing  (3n3J3)  from  the  prophet  Elijah  was  brought  to  Joram,  in  which  he 
was  threatened  with  severe  punishments  on  account  of  his  apostasy.  Now 
such  a  writing  as  this  might  very  well  have  been  written  by  Elijah  before 
his  ascension,  and  handed  to  Elisha  to  be  sent  by  him  to  king  Joram  at  the 
proper  time.  Even  Bertheau  admits  that,  according  to  the  chronological  data 
of  the  Old  Testament,  Elijah  might  have  been  still  living  in  the  reign  of  Joram 
of  Judah  ;  and  it  is  a  priori  probable  that  he  both  spoke  of  Joram's  sin  and 
threatened  him  with  punishment.  It  is  impossible  to  fix  the  year  of  Elijah's 
ascension.  Neither  the  fact  that  it  is  mentioned  after  the  death  of  Ahaziah  of 
Israel,  which  he  himself  had  personally  foretold  to  that  xmgodly  king,  nor  the 
circumstance  that  in  the  war  which  Jehoshaphat  and  Joram  of  Israel  waged 
with  the  Moabites  the  prophet  Elisha  was  consulted  (ch.  iii.),  warrants  the 
conclusion  that  Elijah  was  taken  from  the  earth  in  the  interval  between  these 
two  events.  It  is  very  obvious  from  ch.  iii.  11,  that  the  two  kings  applied  to 
Elisha  simply  because  he  was  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  not  because  Elijah 
was  no  lonuer  alive. 


CHAP.  II.  U-25.  297 

tion  of  the  strong  defence  which  Elijah  had  been  through  his 
ministry  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (cf.  ch.  xiiL  14). — Yer.  13.  He 
then  took  up  Elijah's  prophet's  mantle,  which  had  fallen  from  him 
when  he  was  snatched  away,  and  returned  to  the  Jordan.  The 
prophet's  mantle  of  the  master  fell  to  Elisha  the  disciple,  as  a 
pledge  to  himself  that  his  request  was  fulfilled,  and  as  a  visible 
sign  to  others  that  he  was  his  divinely  appointed  successor,  and 
that  the  spirit  of  Elijah  rested  upon  him  (ver.  1 5). 

Vers.  14-25.  Eeturn  of  Elisha  to  Jericho  and  Bethel, 
AND  HIS  First  Miracles. — Vers.  14,  15.  Having  returned  to 
the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  Elisha  smote  the  water  with  Elijah's 
mantle,  saying,  "Where  is  Jehovah  the  God  of  Elijah,  yea 
He  ? "  and  the  water  divided  hither  and  thither,  so  that  he  was 
able  to  go  through,  wn-sjs^  which  the  LXX.  did  not  under- 
stand, and  have  simply  reproduced  in  Greek  characters,  u<f3(f)(o, 
is  an  emphatic  apposition,  "  yea  He,"  such  as  we  find  after 
suffixes,  e.g.  Prov.  xxii.  19;  and  ^^<  is  only  a  strengthened 
D3,  which  is  more  usual  when  emphatic  prominence  is  given 
to  the  suffix  (vid.  Ges.  §  121,  3).  The  Masoretic  accentuation, 
which  separates  it  from  the  preceding  words,  rests  upon  a  false 
interpretation.  There  is  no  need  either  for  the  alteration  pro- 
posed by  Ewald,  §  362,  a,  of  ^>?  into  ^>?,  "he  had  scarcely 
smitten  the  water,"  especially  as  not  a  single  analogous  ex- 
ample can  be  adduced  of  the  use  of  t<^n  ^>?  followed  by  a  Vav 
conscc;  or  for  the  conjecture  that  the  original  reading  in  the 
text  was  Ni3?<  (Houb.,  Bottch.,  Then.),  "  where  is  now  the  God 
of  Elijah  ? "  which  derives  no  critical  support  from  the  acfxpco  of 
the  LXX,  and  is  quite  at  variance  with  Hebrew  usage,  since  i<i2?< 
generally  stands  immediately  after  n's*,  when  it  serves  to  strengthen 
the  interrogation  {vid.  Judg.  ix.  38,  Job  xvii.  15,  Isa.  xix.  12, 
Hos.  xiii.  10).  This  miracle  was  intended  partly  to  confirm 
Elisha's  conviction  that  his  petition  had  been  fulfilled,  and  partly 
to  accredit  him  in  the  eyes  of  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  and  the 
people  generally  as  the  divinely  appointed  successor  of  EHjah. 
All  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  from  Jericho  saw  also  from 
this  that  the  spirit  of  Elijah  rested  upon  Elisha,  and  came  to 
meet  him  to  do  homage  to  him  as  being  now  their  spiritual 
father  and  lord. — ^Vers.  1 6—1 8,  But  the  disciples  of  the  prophets 
at  Jericho  were  so  unable  to  realize  the  fact  of  Elijah's  trans- 
lation, although  it  had  been  previously  revealed  to  them,  that 


298  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

they  begged  permission  of  Elisha  to  send  out  fifty  brave  men 
to  seek  for  Elijah.  ^KB'rjs ;  whether  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  has 
not  taken  him  and  cast  him  upon  one  of  the  mountains,  or  into 
one  of  the  valleys.  IS  with  the  perfect  is  used  "  where  there  is 
fear  of  a  fact,  which  as  is  conjectured  almost  with  certainty  has 
already  happened,"  like  [ir]  in  the  sense  of  "  whether  not "  (vid. 
Ewald,  I  337,  b).  'iin^_  tyn  is  not  a  wind  sent  by  Jehovah 
(Ges.),  but  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  as  in  1  Kings  xviii.  12. 
The  Chethib  HiK^a  is  the  regular  formation  from  N^a  or  X''^  (Zech. 
xiv.  4) ;  the  Keri  with  the  transposition  of  N  and  ^  the  later 
form:  ni^Na,  Ezek.  vii.  16,  xxxi.  12,  etc.  The  belief  expressed 
by  the  disciples  of  the  prophets,  that  Elijah  might  have  been 
miraculously  carried  away,  was  a  popular  belief,  according  to 
1  Kings  xviil  12,  which  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  were  pro- 
bably led  to  share,  more  especially  in  the  present  case,  by  the 
fact  that  they  could  not  imagine  a  translation  to  heaven  as  a 
possible  thing,  and  with  the  indefiniteness  of  the  expression 
"HB'NT  7J?D  np?  could  only  understand  the  divine  revelation  which 
they  had  received  as  referring  to  removal  by  death.  So  that 
even  if  Elisha  told  them  how  miraculously  Elijah  had  been 
taken  from  him,  which  he  no  doubt  did,  they  might  stiU  believe 
that  by  the  appearance  in  the  storm  the  Lord  had  taken  away 
His  servant  from  this  life,  that  is  to  say,  had  received  his  soul 
into  heaven,  and  had  left  his  earthly  tabernacle  somewhere  on 
the  earth,  for  which  they  would  like  to  go  in  search,  that  they 
might  pay  the  last  honours  to  their  departed  master.  Elisha 
yielded  to  their  continued  urgency  and  granted  their  request ; 
whereupon  fifty  men  sought  for  three  days  for  Elijah's  body, 
and  after  three  days'  vain  search  returned  to  Jericho.  E'any, 
to  being  ashamed,  i.e.  till  he  was  ashamed  to  refuse  their  request 
any  longer  (see  at  Judg.  iii.  25). 

The  two  following  miracles  of  Elisha  (vers.  19-25)  were 
also  intended  to  accredit  him  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  as  a 
man  endowed  with  the  Spirit  and  power  of  God,  as  Elijah  had 
been.  Vers.  19—22.  Elisha  makes  the  water  at  Jericho  whole- 
some.— During  his  stay  at  Jericho  (ver.  18)  the  people  of  the 
city  complained,  that  whilst  the  situation  of  the  place  was  good 
in  other  respects,  the  water  was  bad  and  the  land  produced  mis- 
carriages, n^"?,  the  land,  i.e.  the  soil,  on  account  of  the  bad- 
ness of  the  water ;  not  "  the  inhabitants,  both  man  and  beast " 
(Thenius).     Elisha  then  told  them  to  bring  a  new  dish  with 


CHAP.  II.  U-25.  '     299 

salt,  and  poured  the  salt  into  the  spring  with  these  words : 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  I  have  made  this  water  sound ;  there 
will  no  more  be  death  and  miscarriage  thence "  (2?''?).  ^^^ 
is  a  substantive  here  (vid.  Ewald,  160,  e).  D^Q[?  Niio  is  no 
doubt  the  present  spring  Ain  es  Sultan,  the  only  spiing  near  to 
Jericho,  the  waters  of  which  spread  over  the  plain  of  Jericho, 
thirty-five  minutes'  distance  from  the  present  village  and  castle, 
taking  its  rise  in  a  group  of  elevations  not  far  from  the  foot 
of  the  mount  Quarantana  (Kuruntul) ;  a  large  and  beautiful 
spring,  the  water  of  which  is  neither  cold  nor  warm,  and  has  an 
agreeable  and  sweet  (according  to  Steph.  Schultz,  "  somewhat 
salt ")  taste.  It  was  formerly  enclosed  by  a  kind  of  reservoir 
or  semicircular  wall  of  hewn  stones,  from  which  the  water  was 
conducted  in  different  directions  to  the  plain  {vid.  Eob.  Pal.  ii 
p.  283  sqq.).  With  regard  to  the  miracle,  a  spring  which  sup- 
plied the  whole  of  the  city  and  district  with  water  could  not 
be  so  greatly  improved  by  pouring  in  a  dish  of  salt,  that  the 
water  lost  its  injurious  qualities  for  ever,  even  if  salt  does 
possess  the  power  of  depri\dng  bad  water  of  its  unpleasant  taste 
and  injurious  effects.  The  use  of  these  natural  means  does 
not  remove  the  miracle.  Salt,  according  to  its  power  of  pre- 
serving from  corruption  and  decomposition,  is  a  symbol  of  incor- 
ruptibility and  of  the  power  of  life  which  destroys  death  (see 
Bahr,  Syrnholik,  ii  pp.  325,  326).  As  such  it  formed  the  earthly 
substratum  for  the  spiritual  power  of  the  divine  word,  through 
which  the  spring  was  made  for  ever  sound.  A  new  dish  was 
taken  for  the  purpose,  not  oh  munditiem  (Seb.  Schm),  but  as  a 
symbol  of  the  renewing  power  of  the  word  of  God. — But  if 
this  miracle  was  adapted  to  show  to  the  people  the  beneficent 
character  of  the  prophet's  ministry,  the  following  occurrence  was 
intended  to  prove  to  the  despisers  of  God  that  the  Lord  does 
not  aUow  His  servants  to  be  ridiculed  with  impunity. — Vers. 
23-25.  The  judgment  of  God  upon  the  loose  fdlows  at  Bethel. 
Elisha  proceeded  from  Jericho  to  Bethel,  the  chief  seat  of  the 
idolatrous  caK-worship,  where  there  was  also  a  school  of  the 
prophets  (ver.  3).  On  the  way  thither  there  came  small  boys 
out  of  the  city  to  meet  him,  who  ridiculed  him  by  calling  out, 
"  Come  up,  bald-head,  come,"  etc.  rnj?,  bald-head  (with  a  bald 
place  at  the  back  of  the  head),  was  used  as  a  term  of  scorn  (c£ 
Isa.  iii  17,  24) ;  but  hardly  from  a  suspicion  of  leprosy  (Winer, 
Thenius).     It  was  rather  as  a  natural  defect,  for  Elisha,  who 


300  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  KINGS. 

lived  for  fifty  years  after  this  (ch.  xiii.  1 4),  could  not  haye  l)een 
bald  from  age  at  that  time. — Ver.  24.  The  prophet  then  turned 
round  and  cursed  the  scoffers  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
there  came  two  bears  out  of  the  wood,  and  tore  forty-two  boys 
of  them  in  pieces.  The  supposed  "  immorality  of  cursing," 
which  Thenius  still  adduces  as  a  disproof  of  the  historical  truth 
of  this  miracle,  even  if  it  were  established,  would  not  affect 
Ehsha  only,  but  would  fall  back  upon  the  Lord  God,  whc 
executed  the  curse  of  His  servant  in  such  a  manner  upon  these 
worthless  boys.  And  there  is  no  need,  in  order  to  justify  the 
judicial  miracle,  to  assume  that  there  was  a  preconcerted  plan 
which  had  been  devised  by  the  chief  rulers  of  the  city  out  of 
enmity  to  the  prophet  of  the  Lord,  so  that  the  children  had 
merely  been  put  forward  (0.  v.  Gerlach).  All  that  is  necessary- 
is  to  admit  that  the  worthless  spirit  which  prevailed  in  Bethel 
was  openly  manifested  in  the  ridicule  of  the  children,  and  that 
these  boys  knew  Elisha,  and  in  his  person  insulted  the  prophet 
of  the  Lord.  If  this  was  the  case,  then  Elisha  cursed  the  boys 
for  the  purpose  of  avenging  the  honour  of  the  Lord,  which  had 
been  injured  in  his  person ;  and  the  Lord  caused  this  curse  to 
be  fulfilled,  to  punish  in  the  children  the  sins  of  the  parents, 
and  to  inspire  the  whole  city  with  a  salutary  dread  of  His  holy 
majesty.^ — Ver.  25.  Elisha  went  from  Bethel  to  Carmel  (see  at 
1  Kings  xviii.  19),  probably  to  strengthen  himself  in  solitude 
for  the  continuation  of  his  master's  work.  He  returned  thence 
to  Samaria,  where,  according  to  ch.  vi.  32,  he  possessed  a  house. 

CHAP.  III.    JOEAM  OF  ISRAEL,  AND   THE  EXPEDITION  AGAINST  MOAB 
WHICH  HE  UNDERTOOK  IN  COMPANY  WITH  JEHOSHAPHAT. 

Vers.  1-3.  Eeign  of  Joram  of  Israel. — For  the  chronolo- 
gical statement  in  ver,  1,  see  at  ch.  i,  17.    Joram  or  Jehoram  was 

^  Augustine,  or  the  author  of  the  Sermo  204  de  Tempore  (or  Sermo  41  de 
Elisseo  in  t.  v.  of  the  0pp.  August..,  ed.  J.  P.  Migne,  p.  1826),  which  is  attri- 
buted to  him,  gives  a  similar  explanation.  "  The  insolent  boys,"  he  says,  "  are 
to  be  supposed  to  have  done  this  at  the  instigation  of  their  parents  ;  for  they 
would  not  have  called  out  if  it  had  displeased  their  parents."  And  with 
regard  to  the  object  of  the  judicial  punishment,  he  says  it  was  inflicted  "  that 
the  elders  might  receive  a  lesson  through  the  smiting  of  the  little  ones,  and 
the  death  of  the  sons  might  be  a  lesson  to  the  parents  ;  and  that  they  might 
learn  to  fear  the  prophet,  whom  they  would  not  love,  notwithstanding  the 
wonders  which  he  performed." 


CHAP.  III.  4-27.  301 

not  so  ungodly  as  his  father  Ahab  and  his  mother  Jezebel.  He 
had  the  statue  or  pillar  of  Baal,  which  his  father  had  erected  in 
Samaria,  removed ;  and  it  was  only  to  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  i.e. 
the  caK-worship,  that  he  adhered.  Joram  therefore  wished  to 
abolish  the  worship  of  Baal  and  elevate  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
under  the  image  of  the  calf  (ox),  into  the  religion  of  his  king- 
dom once  more.  For  the  singular  suffix  n3r3D  see  Ewald,  §  3 1 7,  a. 
He  did  not  succeed,  however,  in  exterminating  the  worship  of 
BaaL  It  not  only  continued  in  Samaria,  but  appears  to  have 
been  carried  on  again  in  the  most  shameless  manner  (cf  ch.  x. 
18  sqq.)  ;  at  which  we  cannot  be  surprised,  since  his  mother 
Jezebel,  that  fanatical  worshipper  of  Baal,  was  living  through- 
out the  whole  of  his  reign  (ch.  ix,  30). 

Vers.  4-27.  War  of  JoKAii,  in  alliance  with  Jehoshaphat, 
AGAINST  THE  MoABiTES. — Vers.  4,  5.  The  occasion  of  this  war  was 
the  rebellion  of  the  Moabites,  i.e.  the  refusal  to  pay  tribute  to 
Israel  since  the  death  of  Ahab.  Mesha  the  (vassal-)  king  of  Moab 
was  a  possessor  of  flocks,  and  paid  to  the  king  of  Israel  100,000 
lambs  and  100,000  rams  ;  not  merely  at  the  commencement  of 
each  new  reign  (Cler.),  but  as  a  yearly  tribute  (3'^n,  to  bring 
again  =  to  bring  repeatedly,  as  in  Num.  xviiL  9,  etc.).  This 
yearly  tribute  could  not  be  exorbitant  for  the  land  of  the 
Moabites,  which  abounded  in  good  pasture,  and  was  specially 
adapted  for  the  rearing  of  flocks.  The  payment  of  tribute  in 
natural  objects  and  in  the  produce  of  the  land  was  very  cus- 
tomary in  ancient  times,  and  is  still  usual  among  the  tribes  of 
Asia.^  15^ J  signifies  both  a  shepherd  (Amos  l  1)  and  also  a 
possessor  of  flocks.  In  Arabic  it  is  properly  the  possessor  of  a 
superior  kind  of  sheep  and  goats  (vid.  Boch.  Hieroz.  i  p.  483 
sq.  ed.  Eos.).  "lOV  may  either  be  taken  as  a  second  object  to 
2^'^n,  or  be  connected  with  D  v'Ni  as  an  accusative  of  looser  govern- 
ment (Ewald,  §  287,  h).  In  the  first  case  the  tribute  would 
consist  of  the  wool  (the  fleeces)  of  100,000  lambs  and  100,000 
rams ;  in  the  second,  of  100,000  lambs  and  the  wool  of  100,000 
rams.  In  support  of  the  latter  we  may  quote  Isa.  xvi.  1,  where 
lambs  are  mentioned  as  tribute. — Vers.  5  sqq.  The  statement 

^  Pecunia  ipsa  a  pecore  appellabatur.  Edam  nunc  in  tadulis  Censoriis  pascua 
dicuntur  omnia,  ex  qitibus  populus  reditus  Jiabet.  quia  diu  hoc  solum  vectigal 
fuit.  Mulctatio  quoque  nonnisi  ovium  houmque.  impendio  dicebatur. — PuKn  h. 
aof.  xviii.  3. 


302  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

concerning  the  rebellion  of  the  Moabites,  which  has  already 
been  mentioned  in  ch,  i.  1,  is  repeated  here,  because  it  furnished 
the  occasion  for  the  expedition  about  to  be  described.  Ahaziah 
had  been  unable  to  do  anything  during  his  short  reign  to  renew 
the  subjugation  of  Moab ;  Joram  was  therefore  anxious  to  over- 
take what  had  been  neglected  immediately  after  his  ascent  of 
the  throne.  He  went  to  Samaria  ii'^>^>}  Di'3,  at  that  time, 
namely,  when  he  renewed  his  demand  for  the  tribute  and  it  was 
refused  (Thenius),  and  mustered  all  Israel,  i.e.  raised  an  army 
out  of  the  whole  kingdom,  and  asked  Jehoshaphat  to  join  in  the 
war,  which  he  willingly  promised  to  do  (as  in  1  Kings  xxiL  4), 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  had  been  blamed  by  prophets 
for  his  alliance  with  Ahab  and  Ahaziah  (2  Chron.  xix.  2  and  xx. 
37).  He  probably  wished  to  chastise  the  Moabites  still  further 
on  this  occasion  for  their  invasion  of  Judah  (2  Chron.  xx.),  and 
to  do  his  part  by  bringing  them  once  more  under  the  yoke  of 
Israel,  to  put  it  out  of  their  power  to  make  fresh  incursions  into 
Judah. — Ver.  8.  In  reply  to  Joram's  question,  "  By  which  way 
shall  we  advance  (against  Moab)  ? "  Jehoshaphat  decided  in 
favour  of  "  the  way  through  the  desert  of  Edom."  There  were 
two  ways  by  which  it  was  possible  to  enter  the  land  of  the 
Moabites  ;  namely,  either  by  going  above  the  Dead  Sea,  and 
crossing  the  Jordan  and  the  boundary  river  Arnon,  and  so  enter- 
ing it  from  the  north,  or  by  going  round  the  southern  point  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  advancing  through  the  northern  portion  of 
the  mountains  of  Edom,  and  thus  entering  it  from  the  south. 
The  latter  way  was  the  longer  of  the  two,  and  the  one  attended 
with  the  greatest  difficulties  and  dangers,  because  the  army  would 
have  to  cross  mountains  which  were  very  difficult  to  ascend. 
Nevertheless  Jehoshaphat  decided  in  its  favour,  partly  because, 
if  they  took  the  northern  route,  they  would  have  the  Syrians  at 
Eamoth  in  Gilead  to  fear,  partly  also  because  the  Moabites,  from 
their  very  confidence  in  the  inaccessibility  of  their  southern 
boundary,  would  hardly  expect  any  attack  from  that  side,  and 
might  therefore,  if  assailed  at  that  point,  be  taken  off  their 
guard  and  easily  defeated,  and  probably  also  from  a  regard  to 
the  king  of  Edom,  whom  they  could  induce  to  join  them  with 
his  troops  if  they  took  that  route,  not  so  much  perhaps  for  the 
purpose  of  strengthening  their  own  army  as  to  make  sure  of  his 
forces,  namely,  that  he  would  not  make  a  fresh  attempt  at  re- 
bellion by  a  second  invasion  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  while 


CHAP.  III.  4-27.  303 

Jehoshaphat  was  taking  the  field  against  the  Moahites. — ^Ver.  9. 
But  however  cleverly  this  plan  may  have  been  contrived,  when 
the  united  army  had  been  marching  round  for  seven  days  and 
was  passing  through  the  deep  rocky  valley  of  the  Ahsy}  which 
divided  the  territories  of  Edom  and  Moab,  it  was  in  the  greatest 
danger  of  perishing  from  want  of  water  for  men  and  cattle,  as 
the  river  which  flows  through  this  valley,  and  in  which  they 
probably  hoped  to  find  a  sufi&cient  supply  of  water,  since  accord- 
ing to  Kobinson  {Pal.  ii  pp.  476  and  488)  it  is  a  stream  which 
never  fails,  was  at  that  time  perfectly  dry. 

In  this  distress  the  hearts  9f  the  two  kings  were  manifested. — 
Vers.  1 0-1 2.  Joram  cried  out  in  his  despair :  "Woe,  that  Jehovah 
has  called  these  three  kings,  to  give  them  into  the  hand  of  Moab  !" 
('3,  ^Aa^, serves  to  give  emphasis  to  the  assurance;  see  Ewald,  §  3 3  0, 
6.)  Jehoshaphat,  on  the  other  hand,  had  confidence  in  the  Lord, 
and  inquired  whether  there  was  no  prophet  there,  through  whom 
they  could  seek  counsel  of  the  Lord  (as  in  1  Kings  xxii.  7) ;  where- 
upon one  of  the  servants  of  the  Israelitish  king  answered  that 
Elisha  was  there,  who  had  poured  water  upon  the  hands  of  Elijah, 
ie.  had  been  with  him  daily  as  his  servant,  and  therefore  could 
probably  obtain  and  give  a  revelation  from  God.  Elisha  may 
perhaps  have  come  to  the  neighbourhood  of  the  army  at  the 
instigation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  because  the  distress  of  the  kings 
was  to  be  one  means  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  not  only  of  dis- 

'  The  usual  route  from  southern  Judaea  to  the  land  of  the  Moabites,  which 
even  the  Crusaders  and  more  recent  travellers  took,  runs  round  the  Dead  Sea 
up  to  the  mouth  of  the  Wady  ed  Deraah  or  Kerak,  and  then  up  this  wady  to 
Kerak  {vid.  Rob.  ii.  p.  231).  The  alUed  kings  did  not  take  this  route  how- 
ever, but  went  through  the  Wady  el  Kurahy  or  es-SaJieh,  which  opens  into 
the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Dea,  and  which  is  called  the  Wady  el  Ahsy 
farther  up  in  the  mountains,  by  Seetzen  {R.  ii.  pp.  355,  356)  erroneously  the 
Wady  el  Hossa  (Rob.  ii.  p.  488),  a  ravine  through  which  Burckhardt  passed 
with  the  greatest  difficulty  (^Syrien,  ii.  p.  673).  That  they  advanced  by  this 
route  is  a  necessary  inference  from  the  fact,  that  when  they  first  suffered  from 
want  of  water  they  were  on  the  border  of  the  Moabitish  territory,  of  which 
this  very  wady  forms  the  boundary  (ver.  21  ;  see  Burckh.  p.  674,  and  Rob. 
Pal.  iL  p.  555),  and  the  water  came  flowing  from  Edom  (ver.  20).  Neither 
of  these  circumstances  is  applicable  to  the  Wady  el  Kerak. — Still  less  can  we 
assmne,  with  0.  v.  Gerlach,  that  they  chose  the  route  through  the  Arabah 
that  they  might  approach  Moab  from  the  south,  as  the  Israelites  under  Moses 
had  done.  For  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  them  to  reach  the  border 
of  Moab  by  this  circuitous  route.  And  why  should  they  go  so  far  round,  with 
the  way  through  Edom  open  to  them  ? 


304  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

tinguisliing  the  prophet  in  the  eyes  of  Joram,  but  also  of  point- 
ing Joram  to  the  Lord  as  the  only  true  God.  The  three  kings, 
humbled  by  the  calamity,  went  in  person  to  Elisha,  instead  of 
sending  for  him. — ^Vers.  13, 14.  In  order  stUl  further  to  humble 
the  Mng  of  Israel,  who  was  already  bowed  down  by  the  trouble, 
and  to  produce  some  salutary  fruit  of  repentance  in  his  heart, 
Elisha  addressed  him  in  these  words :  "  What  have  I  to  do  with 
thee  ?  Go  to  the  (Baal-)  prophets  of  thy  father  and  thy  mother ! 
Let  them  help  thee."  When  Joram  replied  to  this  in  a  suppli- 
catory tone  :  -'»?,  no,  pray  (as  in  Euth  i.  1 3),  i.e.  speak  not  in 
this  refusing  way,  for  the  Lord  has  brought  these  three  kings — 
not  me  alone,  but  Jehoshaphat  and  the  king  of  Edom  also — 
into  this  trouble ;  Elisha  said  to  him  with  a  solemn  oath  (cf. 
1  Kings  xvii.  1) :  "If  I  did  not  regard  Jehoshaphat,  I  should 
not  look  at  thee  and  have  respect  to  thee,"  i.e.  I  should  not 
deign  to  look  at  thee,  much  less  to  help  thee. — ^Vers.  15-17. 
He  then  sent  for  a  minstrel,  to  collect  his  mind  from  the  im- 
pressions of  the  outer  world  by  the  soft  tones  of  the  instru- 
ment, and  by  subduing  the  self-life  and  life  in  the  external 
world  to  become  absorbed  in  the  intuition  of  divine  things.  On 
this  influence  of  music  upon  the  state  of  the  mind,  see  the 
remark  on  1  Sam.  xvi.  16,  and  Passavant's  Untersuchungen  uber 
den  Lebens-magnetismus,  p.  207  (ed.  2). — As  the  minstrel  was 
playing,  the  hand  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him  ('^^'^'!  according 
to  the  later  usage  for  ""n^l,  as  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  48,  etc. ;  compare 
Ewald,  §  345,  6,  and  nin>  T  as  in  1  Kings  xviii.  46),  so  that  he 
said  in  the  name  of  the  Lord :  "  Make  this  valley  full  of  trenches 
(nB'V,  inf.  ahs.  for  the  imperative;  for  0*33  D"*33  see  Ges.  §  108, 
4)  ;  for  thus  saith  the  Lord,  ye  will  see  neither  wind  nor  rain, 
and  this  valley  wiU  be  filled  with  water,  that  ye  may  be  able 
to  drink,  and  your  flocks  and  your  cattle."  D"'3a  are  trenches 
for  collecting  water  {vid.  Jer.  xiv.  3),  which  would  suddenly 
flow  down  through  the  brook-valley.  This  large  quantity  of 
water  came  on  the  (following)  morning  "  by  the  way  of  Edom" 
(ver.  20),  a  heavy  fall  of  rain  or  violent  storm  having  taken 
place,  as  is  evident  from  the  context,  in  the  eastern  mountains 
of  Edom,  at  a  great  distance  from  the  Israelitish  camp,  the  water 
of  which  filled  the  brook-valley,  i.e.  the  Wady  el  Kurahy  and  el 
Ahsy  (see  at  ver.  9)  at  once,  without  the  Israelites  observing 
anything  either  of  the  wind,  which  always  precedes  rain  in  the 
East  (Harmar,  Bcoll.  i.  pp.  51,  5-2),  or  of  the  rain  itself.    D3"*JpD 


CHAP.  m.  4-27.  305 

are  the  flocks  intended  for  slaughtering,  crnena  the  beasts  of 
burden, — Vers.  18,  19.  Elisha  continued ;  "  and  this  is  too  little 
for  Jehovah  (the  comparative  force  of  ?i^\  is  impKed  in  the  con- 
text, especially  in  the  alternating  combination  of  the  two  clauses, 
which  is  indicated  by  ^.  .  .  .  \,  see  Ewald,  §  360,  c) :  He  will  also 
give  Moab  into  your  hand,  and  ye  will  smite  all  the  fortified  and 
choice  cities,  feU  all  the  good  trees  (fruit-trees),  stop  up  all  the 
springs  of  water,  and  spoil  all  the  good  fields  with  stones."  i^'^? 
and  "linap  are  intended  to  produce  a  play  upon  words,  through 
the  resemblance  in  their  sound  and  meaning  (Ewald,  §  160,  c). 
In  the  announcement  of  the  devastation  of  the  land  there  is  an 
allusion  to  Deut  xx,  19,  20,  according  to  which  the  Israelites 
were  ordered  to  spare  the  fruit-trees  when  Canaan  was  taken. 
These  instructions  were  not  to  apply  to  Moab,  because  the 
Moabites  themselves  as  the  arch-foes  of  Israel  would  not  act 
in  any  other  way  with  the  land  of  Israel  if  they  should  gain 
the  victory.  ^J^^n,  to  add  pain,  is  a  poetical  expression  for  spoil- 
ing a  field  or  rendering  it  infertile  through  the  heaping  up  of 
stones. — Ver.  20.  The  water  came  in  the  morning  at  the  time 
of  the  morning  sacrifice  (see  1  Kings  xviiL  36),  to  indicate  that 
the  Lord  was  once  more  restoring  His  favour  to  the  people  on 
account  of  the  sacrifice  presented  to  Him  in  His  temple. 

The  help  of  God,  which  preserved  the  Israelitish  army  from 
destruction,  also  prepared  destruction  for  the  Moabites.  Vers, 
21-23.  On  hearing  the  report  of  the  march  of  the  allied  kings, 
Moab  had  raised  all  the  men  that  were  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
and  stationed  them  on  the  frontier.  In  the  morning,  when  the 
snn  had  risen  above  the  water,  the  Moabites  saw  the  water 
opposite  to  them  like  blood,  and  said :  "  That  is  blood:  the  (allied) 
kings  have  destroyed  themselves  and  smitten  one  another ;  and 
now  to  the  spoil,  Moab  ! "  Coming  with  this  expectation  to  the 
Israelitish  camp,  they  were  received  by  the  allies,  who  were 
ready  for  battle,  and  put  to  flight.  The  di^dne  help  consisted, 
therefore,  not  in  a  miracle  which  surpassed  the  laws  of  nature, 
but  simply  in  the  fact  that  the  Lord  God,  as  He  had  predicted 
through  His  prophet,  caused  the  forces  of  nature  ordained  by  Him 
to  work  in  the  predetermined  manner.  As  the  sudden  supply  of 
an  abundance  of  water  was  caused  in  a  natural  way  by  a  hea^y 
faU  of  rain,  so  the  illusion,  which  was  so  fatal  to  the  Moabites, 
is  also  to  be  explained  in  the  natural  manner  indicated  in  the 
text     Prom  the  reddish  earth  of  the  freshly  dug  trenches  the 

U 


.503  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

water  collected  in  them  had  acquired  a  reddish  colour,  which  was 
considerably  intensified  by  the  rays  of  the  rising  sun,  so  that  when 
seen  from  a  distance  it  resembled  blood.  The  Moabites,  however, 
were  the  less  likely  to  entertain  the  thought  of  an  optical  delusion, 
from  the  fact  that  with  their  accurate  acquaintance  with  the 
country  they  knew  very  well  that  there  was  no  water  in  the 
wady  at  that  time,  and  they  had  neither  seen  nor  heard  any- 
thing of  the  rain  which  had  fallen  at  a  great  distance  off  in  the 
Edomitish  mountains.  The  thought  was  therefore  a  natural 
one,  that  the  water  was  blood,  and  that  the  cause  of  the  blood 
could  only  have  been  that  their  enemies  had  massacred  one  an- 
other, more  especially  as  the  jealousy  between  Israel  and  Judah 
was  not  unknown  to  them,  and  they  could  have  no  doubt  that 
Edom  had  only  come  with  them  as  a  forced  ally  after  the  un- 
successful attempt  at  rebellion  which  it  had  made  a  short  time 
before ;  and,  lastly,  tbey  cannot  quite  have  forgotten  their  own 
last  expedition  against  Judah  in  alliance  with  the  Edomites 
and  Ammonites,  which  had  completely  failed,  because  the  men 
composing  their  own  army  had  destroyed  one  another.  But  if 
they  came  into  collision  with  the  allied  army  of  the  Israelites 
under  such  a  delusion  as  this,  the  battle  could  only  end  in 
defeat  and  in  a  general  flight  so  far  as  they  were  concerned. — 
Vers.  24,  25.  The  Israelites  followed  the  fugitives  into  their  own 
land  and  laid  it  waste,  as  Elisha  had  prophesied  (ver.  25  com- 
pared with  ver.  19).  The  ChetUh  '"=12-13^  is  to  be  read  nn  U>5 
(for  Ni^*?,  as  in  1  Kings  xii.  12):  and  (Israel)  came  into  the 
land  and  smote  Moab.  The  Keri  '35  is  a  bad  emendatioa 
nian  is  either  the  infinitive  construct  used  instead  of  the  infin. 
absolute  (Ewald,  §  351,  c),  or  an  unusual  form  of  the  inf.  absoL 
(Ewald,  §  240,  b).  ^'Nf^'^V,  tiU  one  (=  so  that  one  only)  left 
its  stones  in  Kir-chareseth.  On  the  infinitive  form  l^'<K'n  see  at 
Josh,  viil  22.  The  suffix  in  n''J3i<  probably  points  forward  to 
the  following  noun  (Ewald,  §  309,'  c).  The  city  called  riKnn  i^-p 
here  and  Isa.  xvi.  7,  and  '^J}  "i^"?  in  Isa.  xvi.  1 1  and  Jer.  xlviii. 
31,  36,  i.e.  probably  city  of  potsherds,  is  called  elsewhere  "»'[? 
2Xio,  the  citadel  of  Moab  (Isa.  xv.  1),  as  the  principal  fortress  of 
the  land  (in  the  Chaldee  Vers.  3NioT  NS^a),  and  still  exists  under 
the  name  of  Kerak,  with  a  strong  castle  built  by  the  Crusaders, 
upon  a  lofty  and  steep  chalk  rock,  surrounded  by  a  deep  and 
narrow  valley,  which  runs  westward  under  the  name  of  "Wady 
Kerak  and  falls  into  the  Dead  Sea  i^pid.  Burcldiardt,  Syr.  pp.  643 


CHAP.  IV  307 

sqq.,  C.  V.  Eaumer,  Pal.  pp.  271,  272).  This  fortress  the  allied 
kings  besieged-  "  The  slingers  surrounded  and  smote  it,"  i.e. 
bombarded  it. — ^Ver.  26.  When  the  king  of  Moab  saw  that  the 
battle  was  too  strong  for  him,  he  attempted  to  fight  a  way  through 
the  beseigers  with  700  men  with  drawn  swords  (V^iP^np,  lit.  to 
split  them)  to  the  king  of  Edom,  i.e.  on  the  side  which  was  held 
by  this  king,  from  whom  he  probably  hoped  that  he  should  meet 
with  the  weakest  resistance. — Ver.  27.  But  when  this  attempt 
failed,  in  his  desperation  he  took  his  first-bom  son,  who  was  to 
succeed  him  as  king,  and  offered  him  as  a  sacrifice  upon  the  wall, 
i.e.  in  the  sight  of  the  besiegers,  not  to  the  God  of  Israel  (Joseph., 
Ephr.  Syr.,  etc.),  but  to  his  own  god  Camos  (see  at  1  Kings  xl  7), 
to  procure  help  from  hhn  by  appeasing  his  wrath ;  just  as  the 
heathen  constantly  sought  to  appease  the  wrath  of  their  gods  by 
human  sacrifices  on  the  occasion  of  great  calamities  {vid.  Euseb. 
prcepar.  ev.  iv.  16,  and  E.  v.  Lasaulx,  die  Suknopfer  der  Griechen 
und  Romer,  pp.  8  sqq.). — "  And  there  was  (came)  great  wrath 
upon  Israel,  and  they  departed  from  him  (the  king  of  Moab)  and 
returned  into  their  land."  As  PV  ^^!p.  '■i\n  is  used  of  the  divine 
wrath  or  judgment,  which  a  man  brings  upon  himself  by  sinning, 
in  every  other  case  in  which  the  phrase  occurs,  we  cannot  imder- 
stand  it  here  as  signifying  the  "  human  indignation,"  or  iU-will, 
which  broke  out  among  the  besieged  (Budd.,  Schulz,  and  others). 
The  meaning  is :  this  act  of  abomination,  to  which  the  king  of 
the  Moabites  had  been  impelled  by  the  extremity  of  his  distress, 
brought  a  severe  judgment  from  God  upon  Israel  The  besiegers, 
that  is  to  say,  felt  the  wrath  of  God,  which  they  had  brought 
upon  themselves  by  occasioning  human  sacrifice,  which  is 
strictly  forbidden  in  the  law  (Lev.  xviii.  21,  xx.  3),  either  in- 
wardly in  their  conscience  or  in  some  outwardly  visible  signs,  so 
that  they  gave  up  the  further  prosecution  of  the  siege  and  the 
conquest  of  the  city,  without  having  attained  the  object  of  the 
expedition,  namely,  to  renew  the  subjugation  of  Moab  under  the 
power  of  Israel 

CHAP.  IV.    ELISHA  WORKS  SEVERAL  MIRACLES. 

From  eh,  iv.-ch.  viiL  6  there  follows  a  series  of  miracles  on 
the  part  of  Elisha,  which  both  proved  this  prophet  to  be  the  con- 
tinuer  of  the  work  wliich  Elijah  had  begun,  of  converting  Israel 
from  the  service  of  Baal  to  the  service  of  the  living  God,  and  also 


308  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

manifested  the  beneficent  fruits  of  the  zeal  of  Elijah  for  the 
honour  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  in  the  midst  of  the  idolatrous 
generation  of  his  time,  partly  in  the  view  which  we  obtain  from 
several  of  these  accounts  of  the  continuance  and  prosperity  of  the 
schools  of  the  prophets,  and  partly  in  the  attitude  of  Elisha 
towards  the  godly  in  the  land  as  well  as  towards  Joram  the  king, 
the  son  of  the  idolatrous  Ahab,  and  in  the  extension  of  his  fame 
beyond  the  limits  of  Israel.  (See  the  remarks  on  the  labours  of 
both  prophets  at  pp.  229  sqq,  and  those  on  the  schools  of  the 
prophets  at  1  Sam.  xix.  24.) — All  the  miracles  described  in  this 
section  belong  to  the  reign  of  Joram  king  of  Israel.  They  are 
not  all  related,  however,  in  chronological  order,  but  the  chronology- 
is  frequently  disregarded  for  the  purpose  of  grouping  together 
events  which  are  homogeneous  in  their  nature.  This  is  evident, 
not  only  from  the  fact  that  (a)  several  of  these  accounts  are  at- 
tached quite  loosely  to  one  another  without  any  particle  to  in- 
dicate sequence  (vid.  ch.  iv.  1,  38,  42,  v.  1,  vi.  8,  and  viii.  1),  and 
(b)  we  have  first  of  all'  those  miracles  which  were  performed  for 
the  good  of  the  scholars  of  the  prophets  and  of  particular  private 
persons  (ch.  iv.-vi.  7),  and  then  such  works  of  the  prophet  as 
bore  more  upon  the  political  circumstances  of  the  nation,  and  of 
the  king  as  the  leader  of  the  nation  (ch.  vi.  8-vii.  20),  but  also 
from  the  circumstance  that  in  the  case  of  some  of  these  facts  you 
cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  their  position  is  regulated  by  their 
substantial  relation  to  what  precedes  or  what  follows,  without 
any  regard  to  the  time  at  which  they  occurred.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  occurrence  described  in  ch.  viii.  1—6,  which  should 
undoubtedly  stand  before  ch.  v.  so  far  as  the  chronology  is  con- 
cerned, is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  miracles  which  Elisha  wrought 
for  king  Joram,  simply  because  it  exhibits  in  the  clearest  manner 
the  salutary  fruit  of  what  he  had  done.  And  so,  again,  the  ac- 
count of  Naaman  the  leper  is  placed  in  ch.  v.,  although  its  proper 
position  would  be  after  ch.  vi.  7,  because  it  closes  the  series  of 
miracles  performed  for  and  upon  private  persons,  and  the  miracle 
was  wrought  upon  a  foreigner,  so  that  the  fame  of  the  prophet 
had  already  penetrated  into  a  foreign  country ;  whereas  in  order 
of  time  it  should  either  stand  between  vers.  23  and  24  of  the 
sixth  chapter  (because  the  incursions  of  the  flying  parties  of 
Syrians,  to  which  ch.  vi.  8-23  refers,  had  already  taken  place), 
or  not  till  after  the  close  of  ch.  vii.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
partial  separation  of  the  miracles  performed  for  the  schools  of 


CHAP.  IV.  1-7.  8i9 

the  prophets  (ch.  iv.  1-7,  38-41,  42-44,  and  ch.  vi  1-7)  can 
only  be  explained  on  chronological  grounds ;  and  this  is  favoured 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  events  inserted  between  are  attached 
by  a  Vav  consec,  which  does  indicate  the  order  of  sequence  (ch. 
V.  8  sqq.  and  vi.  1  sqq.).  Eegarded  as  a  whole,  however,  the 
section  cL  iv.  1-viii.  6,  which  was  no  doubt  taken  from  a  pro- 
phetical monograph  and  inserted  into  the  annals  of  the  kings,  is 
in  its  true  chronological  place,  since  the  account  in  ch.  iii.  belongs 
to  the  earlier  period  of  the  history,  and  the  events  narrated  from 
ch.  viiL  7  onwards  to  the  later  period. 

Vers.  1-7.  The  Widow's  Cruse  of  Oil. — A  poor  widow  of 
the  scholars  of  the  prophets  complained  to  Elisha  of  her  distress, 
namely,  that  a  creditor  was  about  to  take  her  two  sons  as  ser- 
vants (slaves).  The  Mosaic  law  gave  a  creditor  the  right  to 
claim  the  person  and  children  of  a  debtor  who  was  unable 
to  pay,  and  they  were  obliged  to  serve  him  as  slaves  till 
the  year  of  jubilee,  when  they  were  once  more  set  free  (Lev. 
XXV.  39,  40).  When  the  prophet  learned,  on  inquiry,  that 
she  had  nothing  in  her  house  but  a  small  flask  of  oil  (^^DS, 
from  T]iD,  means  an  anointing  flask,  a  small  vessel  for  the  oil 
necessary  for  anointing  the  body),  he  told  her  to  beg  of  all  her 
neighbours  empty  vessels,  not  a  few  ('p*yori'7S,  make  not  few, 
sc.  to  beg),  and  then  to  shut  herself  in  with  her  sons,  and  to 
pour  from  her  flask  of  oil  into  all  these  vessels  till  they  were 
full,  and  then  to  seU  this  oil  and  pay  her  debt  with  the  money, 
and  use  the  rest  for  the  maintenance  of  herself  and  her  chil- 
dren. She  was  to  close  the  house-door,  that  she  might  not  be 
disturbed  in  her  occupation  by  other  people,  and  also  generally 
to  avoid  all  needless  observation  while  the  miracle  was  being 
performed.  T?'?  ^^'l,  let  that  which  is  filled  be  put  on  one 
side,  namely  by  the  sons,  who  handed  her  the  vessels,  according 
to  vers.  5  and  6,  so  that  she  was  able  to  pour  without  inter- 
mission. The  form  npirti  is  a  participle  Fiel,  and  is  quite 
appropriate  as  an  emphatic  form  ;  the  Keri  ni5^nD  {HipMT)  is 
an  unnecessary  alteration,  especially  as  the  Eiphil  of  pi*^  is  P'Jf'7, 
jotpn  nbj;»i,  then  the  oil  stood,  i.e.  it  ceased  to  flow.  The  asyni- 
deton  ^3^33  nxi  is  very  harsh,  and  the  Vav  copul.  has  probably 
dropped  out.  With  the  alteration  proposed  by  L.  de  Dieu,  viz. 
of  nx]  into  nxi,  "  hve  with  thy  sons,"  the  verb  ^^nn  would  neces- 
sarily stand  fii-st  (Thenius). 


310  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Vers.  8-3  7.  The  Shunammite  and  her  Son. — ^Ver.  8.  When 
Elisha  was  going  one  day  (lit.  the  day,  i.e.  at  that  time,  then)  to 
Shunem  (Solam,  at  the  south-western  foot  of  the  Lesser  Hermon  ; 
see  at  1  Kings  i.  3),  a  wealthy  woman  (^y^'^\  as  in  1  Sam. 
XXV.  2,  etc.)  constrained  him  to  eat  at  her  house  ;  whereupon, 
as  often  as  he  passed  by  that  place  in  his  subsequent  journeys 
from  Carmel  to  Jezreel  and  back,  he  was  accustomed  to  call 
upon  her  {yD  as  in  Gen.  xix.  2). — ^Vers.  9,  10.  The  woman 
then  asked  her  husband  to  build  a  small  upper  chamber  for 
this  holy  man  of  God,  and  to  furnish  it  with  the  necessary 
articles  of  furniture  (viz.  bed,  table,  seat,  and  lamp),  that  he 
might  always  turn  in  at  their  house.  i*)?"^!?i!  is  either  a  walled 
upper  chamber,  i.e.  one  built  with  brick  and  not  with  wooden 
walls  (Cler.,  Then.),  or  an  upper  chamber  built  upon  the  wall 
of  the  house  (Ges.). — ^Vers.  11-13.  After  some  time,  when 
Elisha  had  spent  the  night  in  the  chamber  provided  for  him,  he 
wanted  to  make  some  acknowledgment  to  his  hostess  for  the 
love  which  she  had  shown  him,  and  told  his  servant  Gehazi  to 
call  her,  and  say  to  her :  "  Thou  hast  taken  all  this  care  for  us, 
what  shall  I  do  to  thee  ?  Hast  thou  (anything)  to  say  to  the 
king  or  the  chief  captain  ?"  i.e.  hast  thou  any  wish  that  I  could 
convey  to  them,  and  intercede  for  thee?  There  is  something 
striking  here  in  the  fact  that  Elisha  did  not  address  the  woman 
himself,  as  she  was  standing  before  him,  but  told  his  servant  to 
announce  to  her  his  willingness  to  make  some  return  for  what 
she  had  done.  This  was,  probably,  simply  from  a  regard  to  the 
great  awe  which  she  had  of  the  "  holy  man  of  God  "  (ver.  9), 
and  to  inspire  her  with  courage  to  give  expression  to  the  wishes 
of  her  heart.^  She  answered :  "  I  dwell  among  my  people,"  i.e. 
not,  I  merely  belong  to  the  people  (Thenius),  but,  I  live  quietly 
and  peaceably  among  my  countrymen,  so  that  I  have  no  need 
for  any  intercession  with  the  king  and  great  men  of  the  king- 
dom. ' A7rpar/fjL0(7Vvr)  %ai/3a),  Kal  elp7]vcKa)<i  Bi(vyci}  koI  7rp6<;  riva 
a/jb^ca^^Tijcriv  ovk  dve)(^ofjbai  (Theodoret). — Vers.  14-16.  When 
Elisha  conversed  with  Gehazi  still  further  on  the  matter,  the 
latter  said:  "  But  she  has  no  son,  and  her  husband  is  old."    Elisha 

1  The  conjecture  that  Elisha  would  not  speak  to  her  directly  for  the  sake 
of  maintaining  his  dignity,  or  that  the  historian  looked  upon  such  conversation 
with  women  as  unbecoming  in  a  teacher  of  the  law  (Thenius),  is  already 
proved  to  be  untenable  by  vers.  15,  16,  where  Elisha  does  speak  to  her 
directly. 


CHAP.  IV   8-37.  :"  311" 

then  had  her  called  again,  and  told  her  when  she  had  entered 
the  door:  "At  this  time  a  year  hence  (•"'Jl'  nys,  lit.  at  the 
time  when  it  revives  again;  see  at  Gen.  xriii  10)  thou  wilt 
embrace  a  son."  The  same  favour  was  to  be  granted  to  the 
Shimammite  as  that  which  Sarah  had  received  in  her  old  age, 
that  she  might  learn  that  the  God  of  Abraham  still  ruled  in 
and  for  Israel  She  replied  :  "  No,  my  lord,  thou  man  of  God," 
n«n"!?x,  i.e.  do  not  excite  in  thy  servant  any  deceptive  hopes. 
— Ver.  17.  But  however  incredible  this  promise  might  appear 
to  her,  as  it  had  formerly  done  to  Sarah  (Gen.  xviiL  12,  13),  it 
was  fulfilled  at  the  appointed  time  (cf  Gen.  xxi.  2). — ^Vers. 
18-20.  But  even  the  faith  of  the  pious  woman  was  soon  to  be 
put  to  the  test,  and  to  be  confirmed  by  a  still  more  glorious 
revelation  of  the  omnipotence  of  the  Lord,  who  works  through 
the  medium  of  His  prophets.  When  the  child  presented  to  her 
by  God  had  grown  up  into  a  lad,  he  complained  one  day  to  the 
reapers  in  the  field  of  a  violent  headache,  saying  to  his  father, 
"  My  head,  my  head!"  He  was  then  taken  home  to  his  mother, 
and  died  at  noon  upon  her  knees,  no  doubt  from  inflammation 
of  the  brain  produced  by  a  sunstroke. — ^Yers.  21-23.  The 
mother  took  the  dead  child  at  once  up  to  the  chamber  built  for 
Elisha,  laid  it  upon  the  bed  of  the  man  of  God,  and  shut  the 
door  behind  her ;  she  then  asked  her  husband,  without  telling 
him  of  the  death  of  the  boy,  to  send  a  young  man  with  a  she- 
ass,  that  she  might  ride  as  quickly  as  possible  to  the  man  of 
God  ;  and  when  her  husband  asked  her,  "  Wherefore  wilt  thou  go 
to  him  to-day,  since  it  is  neither  new  moon  nor  Sabbath  ? "  ^ 
she  replied,  shalom ;  i.e.  either  "  it  is  all  well,"  or  "  never  mind." 
For  this  word,  which  is  used  in  reply  to  a  question  after  one's 
health  (see  ver.  26),  is  apparently  also  used,  as  Clericus  has 
correctly  observed,  when  the  object  is  to  avoid  giving  a  definite 
answer  to  any  one,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  to  satisfy  him. — 
Vers.  24,  25.  She  then  rode  without  stopping,  upon  the  animal 

^  From  these  -words,  Theod.,  Kimchi,  C.  a  Lap.,  Vatabl.,  and  others  have 
drawn  the  correct  conclusion,  that  the  pious  in  Israel  were  accustomed  to 
meet  together  at  the  prophets'  houses  for  worship  and  edification,  on  those 
days  which  were  appointed  in  the  law  (Ler.  xxiiL  3  ;  Num.  xxviii.  11  sqq.) 
for  the  worship  of  God  ;  and  from  this  Hertz  and  Hengstenberg  have  still 
further  inferred,  that  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  not  only  were  the 
Sabbath  and  new  moons  kept,  as  is  evident  from  Amos  viii.  5  also,  but  the 
prophets  supplied  the  pious  in  that  kingdom  with  a  substitute  for  the  missing 
Levitical  priesthood. 


312"  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

driven  by  the  young  man,  to  Elisha  at  mount  Carmel.  ''^'^VV^'^*? 
33"!?,  literally,  do  not  hinder  me  from  riding. — Vers.  25-27. 
When  the  prophet  saw  her  *1J30  (from  the  opposite),  that  is  to 
say,  saw  her  coming  in  the  distance,  and  recognised  her  as  the 
Shunammite,  he  sent  Gehazi  to  meet  her,  to  ask  her  about  her 
own  health  and  that  of  her  husband  and  child.  She  answered, 
shalom,  i.e.  well,  that  she  might  not  be  detained  by  any  further 
discussion,  and  came  to  the  prophet  and  embraced  his  feet,  to 
pray  for  the  help  of  the  "  holy  man  of  God."  Gehazi  wanted 
to  thrust  her  away,  "  because  it  seemed  to  him  an  immodest 
importunity  to  wish  to  urge  the  prophet  in  such  a  way  as  this, 
and  as  it  were  to  compel  him  "  (Seb.  Schm.) ;  but  the  prophet 
said,  "  Let  her  alone,  for  her  soul  is  troubled,  and  Jehovah  has 
hidden  it  from  me  and  has  not  told  me."  ^ — ^Ver.  28.  The  pious 
woman  then  uttered  this  complaint  to  the  prophet :  "  Did  I 
ask  a  son  of  the  Lord  ?  Did  I  not  say.  Do  not  deceive  me  V 
What  had  happened  to  her  she  did  not  say, — a  fact  which 
may  easily  be  explained  on  psychological  grounds  from  her  deep 
sorrow, — but  Elisha  could  not  fail  to  discover  it  from  what  she 
said. — Ver.  29.  He  therefore  directed  his  servant  Gehazi :  "  Gird 
thy  loins  and  take  thy  staff  in  thy  hand  and  go :  if  thou  meet 
any  one,  thou  wilt  not  salute  him  ;  and  if  any  one  salute  thee, 
thou  wilt  not  answer  him ;  and  lay  my  staff  upon  the  face  of 
the  boy."  The  object  of  this  command  neither  to  salute  nor 
to  return  salutations  by  the  way,  was  not  merely  to  ensure  the 
greatest  haste  (Thenius  and  many  others),  inasmuch  as  the  people 
of  the  East  lose  a  great  deal  of  time  in  prolonged  salutations 
(Niebuhr,  JBeschr.  v,  Arab.  p.  48),^  but  the  prophet  wished 
thereby  to  preclude  at  the  very  outset  the  possibility  of  attribut- 
ing the  failure  of  Gehazi's  attempt  to  awaken  the  child  to  any 
external  or  accidental  circumstance  of  this  kind.  For  since  it 
is  inconceivable  that  the  prophet  should  have  adopted  a  wrong 
method,  that  is  to  say,  should  have  sent  Gehazi  with  the  hope 

^  All  that  we  can  infer  from  these  last  words  with  regard  to  the  nature  of 
prophecy,  is  that  the  donum  propheticum  did  not  involve  a  supernatural  reve- 
lation of  every  event. 

2  Or,  as  C.  a  Lap.  supposes :  "  that  Gehazi  might  avoid  all  distraction  of 
either  eyes  or  ears,  and  prepare  himself  entirely  by  prayers  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  so  great  a  miracle."  Theodoret  explains  it  in  a  similar  manner : 
"  He  knew  that  he  was  vainglorious  and  fond  of  praise,  and  that  he  would  be 
eure  to  tell  the  reason  of  his  journey  to  those  who  should  meet  him  by  the 
way.    And  vainglory  is  a  hindrance  to  thaumaturgy." 


CHAP.  lY.  8-37.  313 

that  he  -would  restore  the  dead  boy  to  life,  his  only  intention 
in  sending  the  servant  must  have  been  to  give  to  the  Shunammite 
and  her  family,  and  possibly  also  to  Gehazi  himself,  a  practical 
proof  that  the  power  to  work  miracles  was  not  connected  in  any 
magical  way  with  his  person  or  his  staff,  but  that  miracles  as 
works  of  divine  omnipotence  could  only  be  wrought  through 
faith  and  prayer ;  not  indeed  vnth  the  secondary  intention  of 
showing  that  he  alone  could  work  miracles,  and  so  of  increasing 
his  own  importance  (Koster),  but  to  purify  the  faith  of  the  godly 
from  erroneous  ideas,  and  elevate  them  from  superstitious  reliance 
upon  his  own  human  person  to  true  reUance  upon  the  Lord  God. 
— Ver.  30.  The  mother  of  the  boy  does  not  appear,  indeed,  to  have 
anticipated  any  result  from  the  measures  adopted  by  Elisha;  for 
she  swears  most  solemnly  that  she  will  not  leave  him.  But  the 
question  arises,  whether  this  urging  of  the  prophet  to  come 
himseK  and  help  arose  from  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  Gehazi's 
mission,  or  whether  it  was  not  rather  an  involuntary  utterance 
of  her  excessive  grief,  and  of  the  warmest  wish  of  her  maternal 
heart  to  see  her  beloved  child  recalled  to  life.  We  may  pro- 
bably infer  the  latter  from  the  fulfilment  of  her  request  by 
Elisha. — Ver.  31.  Gehazi  did  as  he  was  commanded,  but  the 
dead  child  did  not  come  to  life  again ;  the  prophet's  staff  worked 
no  miracle.  "  There  was  no  sound  and  no  attention,"  i.e.  the 
dead  one  gave  no  sign  of  life.  This  is  the  meaning  of  Tip  r?5 
2?'i^  T^]  both  here  and  1  Eangs  xviil  29,  where  it  is  used 
of  dead  idols.  The  attempt  of  Gehazi  to  awaken  the  child 
was  unsuccessful,  not  propter  Jidem  ipsi  a  muliere  non  odhiMtam 
(Seb.  Schm.),  nor  because  of  the  vainglory  of  Gehazi  himself,  but 
simply  to  promote  in  the  godly  of  Israel  true  faith  in  the  Lord. 
— Vers.  32—35.  Elisha  then  entered  the  house,  where  the  boy 
was  lying  dead  upon  his  bed,  and  shut  the  door  behind  them 
both  (i.e.  himself  and  the  dead  child),  and  prayed  to  the  Lord. 
He  then  lay  down  upon  the  boy,  so  that  his  mouth,  his  eyes, 
and  his  hands  lay  upon  the  mouth,  eyes,  and  hands  of  the 
child,  bowing  down  over  him  ("ina ;  see  at  1  Kings  xviii.  42) ; 
and  the  flesh  (the  body)  of  the  child  became  warm.  He  then 
turned  round,  i.e.  turned  away  from  the  boy,  went  once  up  and 
down  in  the  room,  and  bowed  himself  over  him  again  ;  where- 
upon the  boy  sneezed  seven  times,  and  then  opened  his  eyes. 
This  raising  of  the  dead  boy  to  life  does  indeed  resemble  the 
raising  of  the  dead  by  Elijah  (1  Kings  xvii.  20  sqq.)  j  but  it 


314'  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

differs  so  obviously  in  the  manner  in  which  it  was  effected, 
that  we  may  see  at  once  from  this  that  Elisha  did  not  possess 
the  double  measure  of  the  spirit  of  Elijah.  It  is  true  that 
Elijah  stretched  himself  three  times  upon  the  dead  child,  but 
at  his  prayer  the  dead  returned  immediately  to  life,  whereas  in 
the  case  of  Elisha  the  restoration  to  life  was  a  gradual  thing.^ 
And  they  both  differ  essentially  from  the  raising  of  the  dead  by 
Christ,  who  recalled  the  dead  to  life  by  one  word  of  His  omni- 
potence (Mark  v.  39-42  ;  Luke  vii.  13-15  ;  John  xi.  43,  44), 
a  sign  that  He  was  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  to  whom 
the  Father  gave  to  have  life  in  Himself,  even  as  the  Father  has 
life  in  Himself  (John  v.  25  sqq.),  in  whose  name  the  Apostle 
Peter  also  was  able  through  prayer  to  recall  the  dead  Tabitha 
to  life,  whereas  Elisha  and  Elijah  had  only  to  prophesy  by  word 
and  deed  of  the  future  revelation  of  the  glory  of  God. — ^Vers. 
36,  37.  After  the  restoration  of  the  boy  to  life,  Elisha  had  his 
mother  called  and  gave  her  back  her  son,  for  which  she  fell  at 
his  feet  with  thanksgiving. 

Vers.  38-41.  Elisha  makes  Uneatable  Food  Wholesome. 
— ^Ver,  38.  When  Elisha  had  returned  to  Gilgal,  the  seat  of  a 
school  of  the  prophets  (see  at  ch.  ii.  1),  i.e.  had  come  thither  once 
more  on  his  yearly  circuit,  during  the  famine  which  prevailed 
in  the  land  (see  at  ch.  viii.  1),  and  the  prophets'  scholars  sat 
before  him  (the  teacher  and  master),  he  directed  his  servant  {i.e. 
probably  not  Gehazi,  but  the  pupil  who  waited  upon  him)  to 
put  the  large  pot  to  the  fire  and  boil  a  dish  for  the  pupils  of  the 
prophets.  nSB'  answers  to  the  German  heisetzen,  which  is  used 
for  placing  a  vessel  upon  the  fire  (cf.  Ezek.  xxiv.  3). — ^Ver.  39. 
One  (of  these  pupils)  then  went  to  the  field  to  gather  vegetables 
(n^N,  olera :  for  the  different  explanations  of  this  word  see 
Celsii  Hierobot.  i.  459  sqq.,  and  Ges.  Thes.  p.  56),  and  found  }S3 
rnb',  i.e.  not  wild  vines,  but  wild  creepers  (Luther),  field-creepers 

^  The  raising  of  the  dead  by  Elijah  and  Elisha,  especially  by  the  latter,  has 
been  explained  by  many  persons  as  being  merely  a  revivification  by  magnetic 
manipulations  or  by  the  force  of  animal  magnetism  (even  Passavant  and 
Ennemoser  adopt  this  view).  But  no  dead  person  was  ever  raised  to  life 
by  animal  magnetism  ;  and  the  assumption  that  the  two  boys  were  only 
apparently  dead  is  at  variance  with  the  distinct  words  of  the  text,  in  addi- 
tion to  which,  both  Elisha  and  Elijah  accomplished  the  miracle  through  their 
prayer,  as  is  stated  as  clearly  as  possible  both  here  (ver.  33)  and  also  at 
1  Kings  xvii.  21,  22. 


CHAP.  IV.  42-44. 


^IS" 


resembling  vines  ;  and  Laving  gathered  his  lap  full  of  wild 
cucumbers,  took  them  home  and  cut  them  into  the  vegetable 
pot,  because  they  did  not  know  them.  nyi5B  is  rendered  in  the 
ancient  versions  colocynths  (LXX.  ttoXvttt}  aypia,  i.e.,  according  to 
Suid.,  colocyntMs),  whereas  Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  1122),  Winer,  and 
others,  following  Celsius  {I.e.  i.  393  sqq.),  have  decided  in  favour 
of  wild  cucumbers,  a  fruit  resembhng  an  acorn,  or,  according  to 
Oken,  a  green  fleshy  fruit  of  almost  a  finger's  length  and  an 
inch  thick,  which  crack  with  a  loud  noise,  when  quite  ripe,  on 
very  gentle  pressure,  spirting  out  both  juice  and  seeds,  and  have 
a  very  bitter  taste.  The  reason  for  this  decision  is,  that  the 
peculiarity  mentioned  answers  'to  the  etymon  Vp^,  to  split,  in 
Syr.  and  Chald.  to  crack  Nevertheless  the  rendering  given  by 
the  old  translators  is  apparently  the  more  correct  of  the  two  ; 
for  the  colocynths  also  belong  to  the  genus  of  the  cucumbers, 
creep  upon  the  ground,  and  are  a  round  yellow  fruit  of  the  size 
of  a  large  orange,  and  moreover  are  extremely  bitter,  producing 
colic,  and  affecting  the  nerves.  The  form  of  this  fruit  is  far 
more  suitable  for  oval  architectural  ornaments  (Devi's,  1  Kings 
vi  18,  vii.  24)  than  that  of  the  wild  cucumber. — Ver.  40.  The 
extremely  bitter  flavour  of  the  fruit  so  alarmed  the  pupils  of 
the  prophets  when  they  began  to  eat  of  the  dish,  that  they 
cried  out,  "  Death  in  the  pot,"  and  therefore  thought  the  fruit 
was  poison.  If  eaten  in  any  large  quantity,  colocynths  might 
really  produce  death:  vid.  Dioscorid.  iv.  175  (178). — Yer.  41. 
EHsha  then  had  some  meal  brought  and  poured  it  into  the  pot, 
after  which  the  people  were  able  to  eat  of  the  dish,  and  there 
was  no  longer  anything  injurious  in  the  pot.  ^npi^  then  take,  ^ 
denoting  sequence  in  thought  {vid.  Ewald,  §  348,  a).  The  meal 
might  somewhat  modify  the  bitterness  and  injurious  qualities  of 
the  vegetable,  but  could  not  take  them  entirely  away;  the  author 
of  the  Exegetical  Handbook  therefore  endeavours  to  get  rid  of 
the  miracle,  by  observing  that  Elisha  may  have  added  something 
else.  The  meal,  the  most  wholesome  food  of  man,  was  only  the 
earthly  substratum  for  the  working  of  the  Spirit,  which  proceeded 
from  Elisha,  and  made  the  noxious  food  perfectly  wholesome. 

Vers.  42-44.  Feeding  of  a  htjndred  Pupils  of  the  Pro- 
phets WITH  Twenty  Barley  Loaves. — A  man  of  Baal-Shalisha 
(a  place  in  the  land  of  Shalisha,  the  country  to  the  west  of 
GOgal,  JOjUia ;  see  at  1  Sam.  ix  4)  brought  the  prophet  as  first- 


316  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

fruits  twenty  barley  loaves  and  ?o*||)=b»"i3  tjna^  ix.  roasted  ears 
of  corn  (see  the  Comm.  on  Lev,  ii.  14),  in  his  sack  (pSpy,  oltt. 
\€y.,  sack  or  pocket).  Elisha  ordered  this  present  to  be  given 
to  the  people,  i.e.  to  the  pupils  of  the  prophets  who  dwelt  in 
one  common  home,  for  them  to  eat ;  and  when  his  servant 
made  this  objection  :  "  How  shaU  I  set  this  (this  little)  before 
a  hundred  men  ? "  he  repeated  his  command,  "  Give  it  to  the 
people,  that  they  may  eat ;  for  thus  hath  the  Lord  spoken:  They 
will  eat  and  leave"  pn^'i)  7i2H^  infin.  absol.;  see  Ewald,  §  328,  a); 
which  actually  was  the  case.  That  twenty  barley  loaves  and  a 
portion  of  roasted  grains  of  corn  were  not  a  sufficient  quantity 
to  satisfy  a  hundred  men,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  one  man 
was  able  to  carry  the  whole  of  this  gift  in  a  sack,  and  still  more 
so  from  the  remark  of  the  servant,  which  shows  that  there  was 
no  proportion  between  the  whole  of  this  quantity  and  the  food 
required  by  a  hundred  persons.  In  this  respect  the  food, 
which  was  so  blessed  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  that  a  hundred 
men  were  satisfied  by  so  small  a  quantity  and  left  some  over, 
forms  a  type  of  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  people  by  Christ 
(Matt.  xiv.  16  sqq.,  xv.  36,  37  ;  John  vl  11,  12) ;  though  there 
was  this  distinction  between  them,  that  the  prophet  Elisha  did 
not  produce  the  miraculous  increase  of  the  food,  but  merely  pre- 
dicted it.  The  object,  therefore,  in  communicating  this  account 
is  not  to  relate  another  miracle  of  Elisha,  but  to  show  how  the 
Lord  cared  for  His  servants,  and  assigned  to  them  that  which 
had  been  appropriated  in  the  law  to  the  Levitical  priests,  who 
were  to  receive,  according  to  Deut.  xviii.  4,  5,  and  Num.  xviii  13, 
the  first-fruits  of  corn,  new  wine,  and  oil.  This  account  there- 
fore furnishes  fresh  evidence  that  the  godly  men  in  Israel  did 
not  regard  the  worship  introduced  by  Jeroboam  (his  state- church) 
as  legitimate  worship,  but  sought  and  found  in  the  schools  of 
the  prophets  a  substitute  for  the  lawful  worship  of  God  {vid. 
Hengstenberg,  Beitrr.  ii.  S.  136  £). 

CHAP.  V.    CUEING  OF  THE  LEPROSY  OF  NAAMAN  THE  SYRIAN,  AND 
PUNISHMENT  OF  GEHAZL 

Vers.  1-19.  Cueing  of  Naaman  feoji  Leprosy. — Ver.  1. 
Naaman,  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  Syrian  king,  who  was  a 
very  great  man  before  his  lord,  i.e.  who  held  a  high  place  in  the 
service  of  his  king  and  was  greatly  distinguished  (Q'JQ  ^^\,  cf  Isa. 
iii  3,  ix.  14),  because  God  had  given  the  Syrians  salvation  (vie- 


CHAP.  V.  1-19*  317 

toiy)  through  him,  "was  as  a  warrior  afflicted  with  leprosy.     The  i 
has  not  dropped  out  before  V^'i'P,  nor  has  the  copula  been  omitted 
for  the  purpose  of  sharpening  the  antithesis  (Thenius),  for  the 
appeal  to  Ewald,  §  354,  a,  proves  nothing,  since  the  passages 
quoted  there  are  of  a  totally  different  kind ;  but  b]^  1^34  is  a 
second  predicate :  the  man  was  as  a  brave  warrior  leprous.    There 
is  an  allusion  here  to  the  difference  between  the  Syrians  and  the 
Israelites  in  their  views  of  leprosy.     Whereas  in  Israel  lepers 
were  excluded  from  human  society  (see  at  Lev.  xiii.  and  xiv.),  in 
Syria  a  man  afflicted  with  leprosy  could  hold  a  very  high  state- 
office  in  the  closest  association  with  the  king. — Vers.  2,  3.  And 
in  l^aaman's  house  before  his  wife,  i.e.  in  her  service,  there  was 
an  Israelitish  maiden,  whom  the  Syrians  had  carried  off  in  a 
marauding  expedition  (Q'^^^A  ^i*^^ :  they  had  gone  out  in  (as) 
marauding  bands).     She  said  to  her  mistress :  "  0  that  my  lord 
were  before  the  prophet  at  Samaria !  (where  Elisha  had  a  house, 
ch.  vi.  32,)  he  would  free  him  from  his  leprosy."     njnsp  f\DH^  to 
receive  (again)  from  leprosy,  in  the  sense  of  "  to  heal,"  may  be 
explained  from  Num.  xiL  14,  15,  where  Ips  is  applied  to  the 
reception  of  Miriam  into  the  camp  again,  from  which  she  had 
been,  excluded  on  account  of  her  leprosy. — Vers.  4,  5.  Wheii 
Naaman  related  this  to  his  lord  (the  king),  he  told  him  to  go  to 
Samaria  furnished  with  a  letter  to  the  king  of  Israel ;  and  he 
took  with  him  rich  presents  as  compensation  for  the  cure  he 
was  to  receive,  viz.  ten  talents  of  silver,  about  25,000  thalers 
(£3750 — Tr.)  ;  6000  shekels  (=  two  talents)  of  gold,  about 
50,000  thalers  (£7500);  and  ten  changes  of  clothes,  a  present 
stiU  highly  valued  in  the  East  (see  the  Comm.  on  Gen.  xlv.  22), 
This  very  large  present  was  quite  in  keeping  with  Naaman's 
position,  and  was  not  too  great  for  the  object  in  view,  namely, 
his  deliverance  from  a  malady  which  would  be  certainly,  even 
if  slowly,  fatal — ^Vers.  6,  7.  When  the  king  of  Israel  (Joram) 
received  the  letter  of  the  Syrian  king  on  Naaman's  arrival,  and 
read  therein  that  he  was  to  cure  Xaaman  of  his  leprosy  ('""^in., 
and  now, — showing  in  the  letter  the  transition  to  the  main  point, 
which  is  the  only  thing  communicated  here ;  cf.  Ewald,  S  353,  &), 
he  rent  his  clothes  in  alarm,  and  exclaimed,  "  Am  I  God,  to  be 
able  to  kill  and  make  alive  ?"  i.e.  am  I  omnipotent  like  God  ?  (cf. 
Deut.  xxxii.  39  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  6 ;)  "  for  he  sends  to  me  to  cure  a  man 
of  his  leprosy,"     The  words  of  the  letter  ij^ppsi,  "  so  cure  him," 
were  certainly  not  so  insolent  in  their  meaning  as  Joram  supposed. 


318  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KIKOS. 

but  simply  mesant:  have  him  cured,  as  thou  hast  a  wonder- work- 
ing prophet ;  the  Syrian  king  imagining,  according  to  his  heathen 
notions  of  priests  and  goetes,  that  Joram  could  do  what  he  liked 
with  his  prophets  and  their  miraculous  powers.  There  was  no 
ground,  therefore,  for  the  suspicion  which  Joram  expressed :  "  for 
only  observe  and  see,  that  he  seeks  occasion  against  me."  •^3^'?'?, 
to  seek  occasion,  sc.  for  a  quarrel  (cf.  Judg.  xiv.  4). — Ver.  8. 
When  Elisha  heard  of  this,  he  reproved  the  king  for  his  unbeliev- 
ing alarm,  and  told  him  to  send  the  man  to  him,  "  that  he  may 
learn  that  there  is  a  prophet  in  Israel." — Vers.  9,  10.  When 
Naaman  stopped  with  his  horses  and  chariot  before  the  house  of 
Elisha,  the  prophet  sent  a  messenger  out  to  him  to  say,  "  Go  and 
wash  thyself  seven  times  in  the  Jordan,  and  thy  flesh  will  return 
to  thee,  i.e.  become  sound,  and  thou  wilt  be  clean."  ^b'^,  return, 
inasmuch  as  the  flesh  had  been  changed  through  the  leprosy  into 
festering  matter  and  putrefaction.  The  reason  why  Elisha  did 
not  go  out  to  Naaman  himself,  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  the  legal 
prohibition  of  intercourse  with  lepers,  as  Ephraem  Syrus  and 
many  others  suppose,  nor  in  his  fear  of  the  leper,  as  Thenius 
thinks,  nor  even  in  the  wish  to  magnify  the  miracle  in  the  eyes 
of  Naaman,  as  C.  a  Lapide  imagines,  but  simply  in  Naaman's 
state  of  mind.  This  is  evident  from  his  exclamation  concerning 
the  way  in  which  he  was  treated.  Enraged  at  his  treatment,  he 
said  to  his  servant  (vers.  11,  12) :  "I  thought, he  will  come  out 
to  me  and  stand  and  call  upon  the  name  of  Jehovah  his  God, 
and  go  with  his  hand  over  the  place  {i.e.  move  his  hand  to 
and  fro  over  the  diseased  places),  and  take  away  the  leprosy." 
Jn^^'!',  the  leprous  =  the  disease  of  leprosy,  the  scabs  and  ulcers 
of  leprosy.  "Are  not  Abana  and  Fharpar,  the  rivers  of  Damascus, 
better  than  all  the  waters  of  Israel  ?  (for  the  combination  of  3't3 
with  fii"'L!3,  see  Ewald,  §  174,/.)  Should  I  not  bathe  in  them, 
and  become  clean  ? "  With  these  words  he  turned  back,  going 
away  in  a  rage.  Naaman  had  been  greatly  strengthened  in  the 
pride,  which  is  innate  in  every  natural  man,  by  the  exalted 
position  which  he  held  in  the  state,  and  in  which  every  one 
bowed  before  him,  and  served  him  in  the  most  reverential 
manner,  with  the  exception  of  his  lord  the  king ;  and  he  was 
therefore  to  receive  a  salutary  lesson  of  humiliation,  and  at  the 
same  time  was  also  to  learn  that  he  owed  his  cure  not  to  any 
magic  touch  from  the  prophet,  but  solely  to  the  power  of  God 
working  through  him. — Of  the  two  rivers  of  Damascus^  Abana 


CHAP.  V.  1-19.  319 

or  Amana  (the  reading  of  the  Keri  with  the  interchange  of  the 
labials  3  and  d,  see  Song  of  SoL  iv.  8)  is  no  doubt  the  present 

Barada  or  Barady  (^jj,  *•«•  the  cold  river),  the  Chrysorrhoas 

(Strabo,  xvl  p.  755  ;  Plin.  h.  n.  18  or  16),  which  rises  in  the 
table-land  to  the  south  of  Zebedany,  and  flows  through  this  city 
itseK,  and  then  di^iding  into  two  arms,  enters  two  small  lakes 
about  4^  hours  to  the  east  of  the  city.     The  Pharpar  is  probably 
the  only  other  independent  river  of  any  importance  in  the  dis- 
trict of  Damascus,  namely,  the  Avaj,  which  arises  from  the  union 
of  several  brooks  around  Sasa',  and  flows  through  the  plain  to 
the  south  of  Damascus  into  the  lake  Heijany  (see  Eob.  BM. 
Researches,  p.    444).     The  water  of  the   Barada  is   beautiful, 
clear  and  transparent  (Eob.),  whereas  the  water  of  the  Jordan  is 
turbid,  "  of  a  clayey  colour  "  (Eob.  Pal.  iL  p.  256)  ;  and  therefore 
Xaaman  might  very  naturally  think  that  his  own  native  rivers 
were  better  than  the  Jordan. — Yer.  13.  His  servants  then  ad- 
dressed him  in  a  friendly  manner,  and  said,  "  My  father,  if  the 
prophet  had  said  to  thee  a  great  thing  {i.e.  a  thing  difi&cult  to 
carry  out),  shouldst  thou  not  have  done  it  ?  how  much  more  then, 
since  he  has  said  to  thee.  Wash,  and  thou  wilt  be  clean  ?"     *3S, 
my  father,  is  a  confidential  expression  arising  from  childlike 
piety,  as  in  ch.  vi  21  and  1  Sam.  xxiv.  1 2  ;  and  the  etymological 
jugglery  which  traces  *3K  from  "2^  =  '^^='^^  (Ewald,  Gr.  §  358, 
Anm.),  or  from  2i?  (Thenius),  is  quite  superfluous  (see  Delitzsch 
071  Job,  voL  iL  p.   265,  transL). — ""l^  .  .  .  7inj^3"n  is  a  con- 
ditional clause  without  DK  (see  Ewald,  §  357,  b),  and  the  object 
is  placed  first  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  (according  to  Ewald, 
§  309,  a).     ^3  ^N,  how  much  more  (see  Ewald,  §  354,  c),  sc. 
shouldst  thou  do  what  is  required,  since  he  has  ordered  thee  so 
small  and  easy  a  thing. — Yer.   14.  Xaaman  then  went  down 
(from  Samaria  to  the  Jordan)  and  dipped  in  Jordan  seven  times, 
and  his  flesh  became  sound  {^^^  as  in  ver.  10)  Hke  the  flesh  of 
a  little  boy.     Seven  times,  to  show  that  the  healing  was  a  work 
of  God,  for  seven  is  the  stamp  of  the  works  of  God. — Yers.  15, 
16.  After  the  cure  had  been  efiected,  he  returned  with  all  his 
traiQ  to  the  man  of  God  with  this  acknowledgment :  "  Behold,  I 
have  found  that  there  is  no  God  in  all  the  earth  except  in  Israel," 
and  with  the  request  that  he  would  accept  a  blessing  (a  present^ 
'"It") 3,  as  in  Gen.  xxxiiL  11,  1  Sam.  xxv.  27,  etc.)  from  him; 
which  the  prophet,  however,  stedfastly  refused,  notwithstanding 


320  THE  SECOND  BOOK  Ot  KINGS. 

all  his  urging,  that  he  might  avoid  all  appearance  of  selfishness, 
by  which  the  false  prophets  were  actuated. — Vers,  17,  18.  Then 
Naaman  said:  N?J,  "  and  not "  =  and  if  not,  ical  el  nrj  (LXX. ;  not 
"  and  0,"  according  to  Ewald,  §  358,  5,  Anm.),  "  let  there  be  given 
to  thy  servant  ( =  to  me)  two  mules'  burden  of  earth  (on  the 
construction  see  Ewald,  §  287,  h),  for  thy  servant  will  no  more 
make  (offer)  burnt-offerings  and  slain-offerings  to  any  other  gods 
than  Jehovah.  May  Jehovah  forgive  thy  servant  in  this  thing, 
when  my  lord  (the  king  of  Syria)  goeth  into  the  house  of  Eim- 
mon,  to  fall  down  (worship)  there,  and  he  supports  himself  upon 
my  hand,  that  I  fall  down  (with  him)  in  the  house  of  Eimmon ; 
if  I  (thus)  fall  down  in  the  house  of  Eimmon,  may,"  etc.  It 
is  very  evident  from  Naaman's  explanation,  "  for  thy  servant," 
etc.,  that  he  wanted  to  take  a  load  of  earth  with  him  out  of  the 
land  of  Israel,  that  he  might  be  able  to  offer  sacrifice  upon  it  to 
the  God  of  Israel,  because  he  was  still  a  slave  to  the  polytheistic 
superstition,  that  no  god  could  be  worshipped  in  a  proper  and 
acceptable  manner  except  in  his  own  land,  or  upon  an  altar 
built  of  the  earth  of  his  own  land.  And  because  Naaman's 
knowledge  of  God  was  still  adulterated  with  superstition,  he  was 
not  yet  prepared  to  make  an  unreserved  confession  before  men 
of  his  faith  in  Jehovah  as  the  only  true  God,  but  hoped  that 
Jehovah  would  forgive  him  if  he  still  continued  to  join  outwardly 
in  the  worship  of  idols,  so  far  as  his  official  duty  required. 
Bimmon  {i.e.  the  pomegranate)  is  here,  and  probably  also  in  the 
local  name  Hadad-rimmon  (Zech.  xii.  11),  the  name  of  the 
supreme  deity  of  the  Damascene  Syrians,  and  probably  only  a 
contracted  form  of  Hadad-rimmon,  since  Hadad  was  the  supreme 
deity  or  sun-god  of  the  Syrians  (see  at  2  Sam.  viii  3),  signifying 
the  sun-god  with  the  modification  expressed  by  Eimmon,  which 
has  been  differently  interpreted  according  to  the  supposed  deri- 
vation of  the  word.  Some  derive  the  name  from  DO"J  =  D^i,  as 
the  supreme  god  of  heaven,  like  the  ^E\iovv  of  Sanchun.  (Cler,, 
Seld.,  Ges.  thes.  p.  1292)  ;  others  from  pJi)"!,  a  pomegranate,  as  a 
personification  of  the  power  of  generation,  as  numen  naturce  omnia 
fmcundantis,  since  the  pomegranate  with  its  abundance  of  seeds 
is  used  in  the  symbolism  of  both  Oriental  and  Greek  mythology 
along  with  the  PhaUus  as  a  symbol  of  the  generative  power 
{vid.  Bahr,  Symlolik,  ii  pp.  122,  123),  and  is  also  found  upon 
Assyrian  monuments  {vid.  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
p.  343);  others  again,  with  le§s  probability,  from  ^^1,  Jaculari, 


CHAP.  V.  20-27.  321 

as  the  sun-god  who  vivifies  and  fertilizes  the  earth  with  his  rays, 
like  the  €kt)^6\o<;  'AttoXXcov  ;  and  others  from  DOT  =  >•  _  compu- 

truit,  as  the  dyiag  winter  sun  (according  to  Movers  and  Hitzig ; 
see  Leyrer  in  Herzog's  Cyclopcedid). —  The  words  "  and  he  sup- 
ports himself  upon  my  hand"  are  not  to  be  imderstood  lite- 
rally, but  are  a  general  expression  denoting  the  service  which 
Naaman  had  to  render  as  the  aide-de-camp  to  his  king  (cf.  ch. 
\n.  2,  17).  For  the  Chaldaic  form  wrii^e^n,  see  Ewald,  §  15-6,  a. 
— In  the  repetition  of  the  words  "  if  I  fall  down  in  the  temple 
of  Eimmon,"  etc.,  he  expresses  the  urgency  of  his  wish. — Yer. 
19.  Elisha  answered,  "Go  in  peace,"  wishing  the  departing 
Syrian  the  peace  of  God  upon  the  road,  without  thereby  either 
appro%dng  or  disapproving  the  religious  conviction  which  he  had 
expressed.  For  as  Naaman  had  not  asked  permission  to  go  -svith 
his  king  into  the  temple  of  Eimmon,  but  had  simply  said,  might 
Jehovah  forgive  him  or  be  indulgent  with  him  in  this  matter, 
Elisha  could  do  nothing  more,  without  a  special  command  from 
God,  than  commend  the  heathen,  who  had  been  brought  to  belief 
in  the  God  of  Israel  as  the  true  God  by  the  miraculous  cure  of 
his  leprosy,  to  the  further  guidance  of  the  Lord  and  of  His  grace.^ 

Vers.  20-27.  Punishment  of  Gehazi. — Vers.  20-22.  "When 
Xaaman  had  gone  a  stretch  of  the  way  (pK  n"i33,  ver  1 9  ;  see 
at  Gen.  xxxv.  16),  there  arose  ia  Gehazi,  the  servant  of  Elisha, 

^  Most  of  the  earlier  theologians  found  in  Elisha's  words  a  direct  approval 
of  the  religious  conviction  expressed  by  Naaman  and  his  attitude  towards 
idolatry ;  and  since  they  could  not  admit  that  a  prophet  would  have  permitted 
a  heathen  alone  to  participate  in  idolatrous  ceremonies,  endeavoured  to  get  rid 
of  the  consequence  resulting  from  it,  viz.  licitam  ergo  esse  CJiristianis  avfA;^uvr,<nv 
•uusTov  ftiTx  oiTiaroiJ,  seu  symbolizationem  et  communicationem  cum  ceremonia 
idololatrica,  either  by  appealing  to  the  use  of  n'inn'J'ri  and  to  the  distinction 
between  incurratio  regis  volunlaria  et  religiosa  (real  worship)  and  incurvatio 
sert-ilis  et  coacta  Xaemaui,  quae  erat  politico  et  civilis  (mere  prostration  from 
civil  connivance),  or  by  the  ungrammatical  explanatioVi  that  Xaaman  merely 
Bpoke  of  what  he  had  already  done,  not  of  what  he  would  do  in  future  (vid. 
Pfeiffer,  Duh.  vex.  p.  445  sqq.,  and  J.  Meyer,  ad  Seder  Olam,  p.  904  sqq., 
Budd.,  and  others). — Both  are  unsatisfactory.  The  dreaded  consequence  falls 
of  itself  if  we  only  distinguish  between  the  times  of  the  old  covenant  and 
those  of  the  new.  Under  the  old  covenant  the  time  had  not  yet  come  in 
which  the  heathen,  who  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true  deity  of  the  God 
of  Israel,  could  be  required  to  break  off  from  all  their  heathen  ways,  unless 
they  would  formally  enter  into  fellowship  with  the  covenant  nation. 

X 


322  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  desire  for  a  portion  of  the  presents  of  the  Syrian  which  his 
master  had  refused  (QK  '•3  '*'  ""n^  as  truly  as  Jehovah  liveth, 
assuredly  I  run  after  him;  Dfc?  ""a  as  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  34).  He 
therefore  hastened  after  him ;  and  as  Naaman  no  sooner  saw 
Gehazi  running  after  him  than  he  sprang  quickly  down  from  his 
chariot  in  reverential  gratitude  to  the  prophet  (?S'  as  in  Gen.  xxiv. 
64),  he  asked  in  the  name  of  Elisha  for  a  talent  of  silver  and 
two  changes  of  raiment,  professedly  for  two  poor  pupils  of  the 
prophets,  who  had  come  to  the  prophet  from  Mount  Ephraim. — 
Ver.  23.  But  Naaman  forced  him  to  accept  two  talents  (Hj^  PXin, 
be  pleased  to  take  ;  and  £3^n33,  with  the  dual  ending,  ne  pereat 
indicium  numeri — Winer)  in  two  purses,  and  two  changes  of 
raiment,  and  out  of  politeness  had  these  presents  carried  by  two 
of  his  servants  before  Gehazi. — Ver.  24.  When  Gehazi  came  to 
the  hill  psyv",  the  well-known  hill  before  the  city)  he  took  the 
presents  from  the  bearers,  and  dismissing  the  men,  laid  them  up 
in  the  house.  3  1i?3,  to  bring  into  safe  custody. — Vers.  25,  26. 
But  when  he  entered  his  master's  presence  again,  he  asked  him, 
"Whence  (comest  thou),  Gehazi  ?"  and  on  his  returning  the  lying 
answer  that  he  had  not  been  anywhere,  charged  him  with  all 
that  he  had  done,  n^i^  ''3?  ^^,  "  had  not  my  heart  gone,  when  the 
man  turned  from  his  chariot  to  meet  thee  ?"  This  is  the  simplest 
and  the  only  correct  interpretation  of  these  difficidt  words,  which 
have  been  explained  in  very  different  ways.  Theodoret  {ov')(l  r] 
Kaphta  fjiov  rjv  /xera  aov)  and  the  Vulgate  (nonne  cor  meum  in 
jprcesenti  erat,  quando,  etc.)  have  already  given  the  same  explana- 
tion, and  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned  it  agrees  with  that 
adopted  by  Thenius :  was  I  not  (in  spirit)  away  (from  here)  and 
present  (there)?  ^>^  stands  in  a  distinct  relation  to  the  '^?n  N? 
of  Gehazi. — '1J1  nyri:  "is  it  time  to  take  silver,. and  clothes,  and 
olive-trees,  and  vineyards,  and  sheep  and  oxen,  and  servants  and 
maidens  ?"  i.e.  is  this  the  time,  when  so  many  hypocrites  pretend 
to  be  prophets  from  selfishness  and  avarice,  and  bring  the  pro- 
phetic office  into  contempt  with  unbelievers,  for  a  servant  of 
the  true  God  to  take  money  and  goods  from  a  non-Israelite  for 
that  which  God  has  done  through  him,  that  he  may  acquire 
property  and  luxury  for  himself? — Ver.  27.  "And  let  the 
leprosy  of  Naaman  cleave  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  for  ever." 
This  punishment  took  effect  immediately.  Gehazi  went  out 
from  Elisha  covered  with  leprosy  as  if  with  snow  (cf  Ex.  iv.  6, 
'^um.  xii.  10).     It  was  not  too  harsh  a  punishment  that  the 


CHAP.  VI.  1-7  323 

leprosy  taken  from  Naaman  on  account  of  his  faith  in.  the 
living  God,  should  pass  to  Gehazi  on  account  of  his  departure 
from  the  true  God.  For  it  was  not  his  avarice  only  that  was 
to  be  punished,  but  the  abuse  of  the  prophet's  name  for  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  out  his  selfish  purpose,  and  his  misrepresenta- 
tion of  the  prophet.^ 

CHAP.  VL  1-23.    THE  FLOATING  IRON.       THE  SYBIANS  SMITTEN 
WITH  BLINDNESS. 

Vers.  1-7.  Elisha  causes  an  Iron  Axe  to  float. — The 
following  account  gives  us  an  insight  into  the  straitened  life  of 
the  pupils  of  the  prophets.  Vers.  1-4.  As  the  common  dwell- 
ing-place had  become  too  small  for  them,  they  resolved,  with 
EHsha's  consent,  to  build  a  new  house,  and  went,  accompanied  by 
the  prophet,  to  the  woody  bank  of  the  Jordan  to  fell  the  wood 
that  was  required  for  the  building.  The  place  where  the  com- 
mon abode  had  become  too  small  is  not  given,  but  most  of  the 
commentators  suppose  it  to  have  been  Gilgal,  chiefly  from  the 
erroneous  assumption  that  the  Gilgal  mentioned  in  ch.  ii.  1 
was  in  the  Jordan  valley  to  the  east  of  Jericho.  Thenius  only 
cites  in  support  of  this  the  reference  in  1'32?  D^l^ih  (dwell  with 
thee)  to  ch.  iv.  38  ;  but  this  decides  nothing,  as  the  pupils  of 
the  prophets  sat  before  Elisha,  or  gathered  together  around  their 
master  in  a  common  home,  not  merely  in  Gilgal,  but  also  in 
Bethel  and  Jericho.  "VVe  might  rather  think  of  Jericho,  siuce 
Bethel  and  Gilgal  (Jiljilia)  were  so  far  distant  from  the  Jordan, 
that  there  is  very  little  probability  that  a  removal  of  the  meeting- 
place  to  the  Jordan,  such  as  is  indicated  by  QipD  DK'  ^^"nLvyj^ 
would  ever  have  been  thought  of  from  either  of  these  localities. 
— Ver.  5.  In  the  felling  of  the  beams,  the  iron,  i.e.  the  axe,  of  one 
of  the  pupHs  of  the  prophets  fell  into  the  water,  at  which  he 
exclaimed  with  lamentation  :  "  Alas,  my  lord  (i.e.  Elisha),  and 
it  was  begged !"  The  sorrowful  exclamation  implied  a  petition 
for  help.  ^.p.?ili"ns"i:  "and  as  for  the  iron,  it  fell  into  the  water ;" 
so  that  even  here  n?<  does  not  stand  before  the  nominative,  but 

*  "  This  was  not  the  punishment  of  his  immoderate  lupolMtei;  (receiving  of 
gifts)  merely,  but  most  of  all  of  his  lying.  For  he  who  seeks  to  deceive  the 
prophet  in  relation  to  the  things  which  belong  to  his  office,  is  said  to  lie  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  instnunents  the  prophets  are "  (yid.  Acts  v.  3). — 
Gbotius. 


324  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

serves  to  place  the  noun  in  subjection  to  the  clause  (cf.  Ewald, 
§277,  a),  ^i^^  does  not  mean  borrowed,  but  begged.  The 
meaning  to  borrow  is  attributed  to  b^f  from  a  misinterpretation 
of  particular  passages  (see  the  Comm.  on  Ex.  iii.  2  2).  The  pro- 
phets' pupil  had  begged  the  axe,  because  from  his  poverty  he  was 
unable  to  buy  one,  and  hence  the  loss  was  so  painful  to  him. — 
Vers.  6,  7.  When  he  showed  Elisha,  in  answer  to  his  inquiry,  the 
place  where  it  had  fallen,  the  latter  cut  off  a  stick  and  threw  it 
thither  (into  the  water)  and  made  the  iron  flow,  i.e.  float  (^V^ 
from  ei^v,  to  flow,  as  in  Deut.  xi.  4) ;  whereupon  the  prophets' 
pupil  picked  the  axe  out  of  the  water  with  his  hand.  The 
object  of  the  miracle  was  similar  to  that  of  the  stater  in  the 
fish's  mouth  (Matt.  xvii.  27),  or  of  the  miraculous  feeding, 
namely,  to  show  how  the  Lord  could  relieve  earthly  want 
through  the  medium  of  His  prophet.  The  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  the  miracle,  which  is  repeated  by  Thenius,  namely,  that 
"  Elisha  struck  the  eye  of  the  axe  with  the  long  stick  which  he 
thrust  into  the  river,  so  that  the  iron  was  lifted  by  the  wood," 
needs  no  refutation,  since  the  raising  of  an  iron  axe  by  a  long 
stick,  so  as  to  make  it  float  in  the  water,  is  impossible  according 
to  the  laws  of  gravitation. 

Vers.  8-23.  Elisha's  Action  in  the  War  with  the  Syrians. 
• — Ters.  8-10.  In  a  war  which  the  Sjrrians  carried  on  against 
the  Israelitish  king  Joram  (not  Jehoahaz,  as  Ewald,  GescJi.  iii. 
p.  557,  erroneously  supposes),  by  sending  flying  parties  into  the 
land  of  Israel  (cf.  ver.  23),  Elisha  repeatedly  informed  Idng 
Joram  of  the  place  where  the  Syrians  had  determined  to  encamp, 
and  thereby  frustrated  the  plans  of  the  enemy.  ^^Jn|!)  •  •  •  Diprp"7N  : 
"  at  the  place  of  so  and  so  shall  my  camp  be."  *3b7K  "'JpS  as 
in  1  Sam.  xxi.  3  (see  at  Euth  iv.  1).  riijnri,  the  encamping  or  the 
place  of  encampment  (cf  Ewald,  §  1 6 1,  a),  is  quite  appropriate,  so 
that  there  is  no  need  either  for  the  alteration  into  iK^l^f!*,  "ye  shall 
hide  yourselves  "  (Then.),  or  into  ^nn;ri,  with  the  meaning  which 
is  arbitrarily  postulated,  "  ye  shall  place  an  ambush "  (Ewald, 
Oesch.  iii.  p.  558),  or  for  the  much  simpler  alteration  into  ?  i^nri^ 
"  pitch  the  camp  for  me  "  (Bottcher).  The  singular  suftix  in 
"•ninn  refers  to  the  king  as  leader  of  the  war :  "  my  camp  "  =  the 
camp  of  my  army,  "  Beware  of  passing  over  (">3j;)  this  place," 
i.e.  of  leaving  it  unoccupied,  "  for  there  have  the  Syrians  deter- 
mined to  make  their  invasion."     ^'J^i^f,  from  rinj,  going  down, 


CHAP.  VL  8-23.  325 

with  dagesh  euphon.,  ^vhereas  Ewald  (§  187,  &)  is  of  opinion 
that  D'nn:,  instead  of  being  an  intrans.  part.  Kal,  might  rather 
be  a  part.  Niph.  of  rin,  which  would  not  yield,  however,  any 
suitable  meaning.  Thenins  renders  ■»3J?p,  "to  pass  by  this 
place,"  which  would  be  grammatically  admissible,  but  is  con- 
nected with  his  conjecture  concerning  ''^^i}^,  and  irreconcilable 
with  ver.  10.  When  the  king  of  Israel,  according  to  ver.  10, 
sent  to  the  place  indicated  on  account  of  Elisha's  information, 
he  can  only  have  sent  troops  to  occupy  it ;  so  that  when  the 
Syrians  arrived  they  found  Israelitish  troops  there,  and  were 
unable  to  attack  the  place.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  about 
the  Syrians  bursting  forth  from  their  ambush,  "'T'?'"?  means  to 
enlighten,  instruct,  but  not  to  warn.  D*J^D^3,  "  he  took  care 
there,"  i.e.  he  occupied  the  place  with  troops,  to  defend  it  against 
the  Syrians,  so  that  they  were  unable  to  do  anything,  "  not  once 
and  not  twice,"  i.e.  several  times. — ^Ver.  11.  The  king  of  the 
Syrians  was  enraged  at  this,  and  said  to  his  servants, "  Do  ye 
not  show  me  who  of  our  men  (leans)  to  the  king  of  Israel  ? " 
i.e.  takes  his  part.  ^}^  =  ^^  "^?,  probably  according  to  an 
Aramaean  dialect :  see  Ewald,  181,  6,  though  he  pronounces  the 
reading  incorrect,  and  would  read  ^f^p,  but  without  any  ground 
and  quite  unsuitably,  as  the  king  would  thereby  reckon  himself 
among  the  traitors. — Yers.  12  sqq.  Then  one  of  the  seivants 
answered,  "  No,  my  lord  king,"  ix.  it  is  not  we  who  disclose 
thy  plans  to  the  king  of  Israel,  "  but  Elisha  the  prophet  teUs 
him  what  thou  sayest  in  thy  bed-chamber;"  whereupon  the 
king  of  Syria  inquired  where  the  prophet  lived,  and  sent  a 
powerful  army  to  Dothan,  with  horses  and  chariots,  to  take  him 
prisoner  there.  Dothan  (see  Gen.  xxxviL  17),  which  according 
to  the  Onom.  was  twelve  Eoman  miles  to  the  north  of  Samaria, 
has  been  preserved  rmder  its  old  name  in  a  Tell  covered  with 
ruins  to  the  south-west  of  Jenin,  on  the  caravan-road  from 
Gilead  to  Egypt  (see  Eob.  Bihl.  Res.  p.  158,  and  V.  de  Yelde, 
Journey,  i  pp.  273,  274). — ^Vers.  15-17.  When  Elisha's  ser- 
vant went  out  the  next  morning  and  saw  the  army,  which  had 
surroimded  the  town  in  the  night,  he  said  to  the  prophet, 
"  Alas,  my  lord,  how  shall  we  do  ? "  But  Elisha  quieted  him, 
saying,  "  Fear  not,  for  those  with  us  are  more  than  those  with 
them."  He  then  prayed  that  the  Lord  might  open  his  servant's 
eyes,  whereupon  he  saw  the  mountain  upon  which  Dothan  stood 
full  of  fiery  horses  and  chariots  round  about  Elisha.     Opening 


326  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  eyes  was  translation  into  the  ecstatic  state  of  clairvoyance, 
in  which  an  insight  into  the  invisible  spirit-world  was  granted 
him.  The  fiery  horses  and  chariots  were  symbols  of  the  pro- 
tecting powers  of  Heaven,  which  surrounded  the  prophet.  The 
fiery  form  indicated  the  super-terrestrial  origin  of  this  host, 
Tire,  as  the  most  ethereal  of  all  earthly  elements,  was  the  most 
appropriate  substratum  for  making  the  spirit-world  visible. 
The  sight  was  based  upon  Jacob's  vision  (Gen.  xxxii  2),  in 
which  he  saw  a  double  army  of  angels  encamped  around  him, 
at  the  time  when  he  was  threatened  with  danger  from  Esau. — 
Vers.  18-20.  When  the  enemy  came  down  to  Elisha,  he  prayed 
to  the  Lord  that  He  would  smite  them  with  blindness ;  and 
when  this  took  place  according  to  his  word,  he  said  to  them. 
This  is  not  the  way  and  this  is  not  the  city;  follow  me,  and  I 
wiU  lead  you  to  the  man  whom  ye  are  seeking ;  and  led  them  to 
Samaria,  which  was  about  four  hours'  distance  from  Dothan, 
where  their  eyes  were  opened  at  Elisha's  prayer,  so  that  they 
saw  where  they  had  been  led.  lyN  ^ili'l  cannot  be  understood 
as  referring  to  Elisha  and  his  servant,  who  went  down  to  the 
Syrian  army,  as  J.  H.  Mich.,  Budd.,  F.  v.  Meyer,  and  Thenius, 
who  wants  to  alter  lvi<  into  2n\?N^  suppose,  but  must  refer  to 
the  Syrians,  who  went  down  to  the  prophet,  as  is  evident  from 
what  follows.  For  the  assumption  that  the  Syrians  had 
stationed  themselves  below  and  round  the  mountain  on  which 
Dothan  stood,  and  therefore  would  have  had  to  come  up  to 
Elisha,  need  not  occasion  an  unnatural  interpretation  of  the 
words.  It  is  true  that  Dothan  stands  upon  an  isolated  hill  in 
the  midst  of  the  plain  ;  but  on  the  eastern  side  it  is  enclosed 
by  a  range  of  hills,  which  project  into  the  plain  (see  V.  de  Velde, 
B.  i.  p.  273).  The  Syrians  who  had  been  sent  against  Ehsha 
had  posted  themselves  on  this  range  of  hills,  and  thence  they 
came  down  towards  the  town  of  Dothan,  which  stood  on  the 
hill,  whilst  Elisha  went  out  of  the  town  to  meet  them.  It  is 
true  that  Elisha's  going  out  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  but 
in  ver.  19  it  is  clearly  presupposed.  Q^"!?3D  is  mental  blind- 
ness here,  as  in  the  similar  case  mentioned  in  Gen.  xix.  11, 
that  is  to  say,  a  state  of  blindness  in  which,  though  a  man  has 
eyes  that  can  see,  he  does  not  see  correctly.  Elisha's  untruthful 
statement,  "this  is  not  the  way,"  etc.,  is  to  be  judged  in  the 
same  manner  as  every  other  ruse  de  guerre,  by  which  the  enemy 
is  deceived. — Vers.  21-23.  Elisha  forbade  king  Joram  to  slay 


CHAP.  VI.  24-33.  327 

the  enemy  that  he  had  brought  to  him,  because  he  had  not 
taken  them  prisoners  in  war,  and  recommended  him  to  treat 
them  hospitably  and  then  let  them  return  to  their  lord.  The 
object  of  the  miracle  would  have  been  frustrated  if  the 
Syrians  had  been  slain.  For  the  intention  was  to  show  the 
Syrians  that  they  had  to  do  with  a  prophet  of  the  true  God, 
against  whom  no  human  power  could  be  of  any  avail,  that  they 
might  learn  to  fear  the  almighty  God.  Even  when  regarded 
from  a  political  point  of  view,  the  prophet's  advice  was  more 
likely  to  ensure  peace  than  the  king's  proposal,  as  the  result  in 
ver.  23  clearly  shows.  The  Syrians  did  not  venture  any  more 
to  invade  the  land  .  of  Israel  with  flying  parties,  from  fear  of 
the  obvious  protection  of  Israel  by  its  God ;  though  this  did 
not  preclude  a  regular  war,  like  that  related  in  the  following 
account.  For  ^n^5  see  the  Comm.  on  ch.  v.  13.  'Ui  n^^f  T^'xn  : 
"  art  thou  accustomed  to  slay  that  which  thou  hast  taken  cap- 
tive with  sword  and  bow  ? "  i.e.  since  thou  dost  not  even  slay 
those  whom  thou  hast  made  prisoners  in  open  battle,  how 
wouldst  thou  venture  to  put  these  to  death  ?  nn?  Dnp  nna^^ 
he  prepared  them  a  meal,  nna  is  a  denom.  from  nna^  a  meal,  so 
called  from  the  union  of  several  persons,  like  cosna  from  Koivrj 
(vid.  Dietr.  on  Ges.  Lex.  s.  v.  nia). 

CHAP.  VL  24-TIL  20.    ELISHA'S  action  DUEDfG  A  FAMINE  DT 
SAMAEIA. 

Vers.  24-33.  After  this  there  arose  so  fearful  a  famine  in 
Samaria  on  the  occasion  of  a  siege  by  Benhadad,  that  one 
mother  complained  to  the  king  of  another,  because  she  would 
not  keep  her  agreement  to  give  up  her  son  to  be  eaten,  as  she 
herseK  had  already  done. — Ver.  25.  The  famine  became  great — 
till  an  ass's  head  was  worth  eighty  shekels  of  silver,  and  a 
quarter  of  a  cab  of  dove's  dung  was  worth  five  shekels.  3  n^n, 
to  become  for  =  to  be  worth.  The  ass  was  an  unclean  animal,  so 
that  it  was  not  lawful  to  eat  its  flesh.  Moreover  the  head  of 
an  ass  is  the  most  inedible  part  of  the  animal.  Eighty  shekels 
were  about  seventy  thalers  (£10,  10s.— Tr.),  or  if  the  Mosaic 
bekas  were  called  shekels  in  ordinary  life,  thirty-five  thalers 
(£5,  OS. ;  see  Bertheau,  Zur  Gesch.  der  Isr.  p.  49).  According 
to  Thenius,  a  quarter  of  a  cab  is  a  sixth  of  a  small  Dresden 
measure  {Mdsschcn),  not  quite  ten  Parisian  cubic  inches.     Five 


328  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

shekels :  more  than  four  thalers  (twelve  shillings),  or  more  than 
two  thalers  (six  shillings).  The  Chethib  D"'JVnn  is  to  be  read  "'^.n 
Q''^i^  excrementa  columharum,  for  which  the  Keri  substitutes  the 
euphemistic  D''?^''  ^'^\  fiuxus,  profiuvium  columharum.  The  ex- 
pression may  be  taken  literally,  since  dung  has  been  known  to 
be  collected  for  eating  in  times  of  terrible  famine  {vicl.  Joseph. 
Bell.  Jud.  V.  13,7);  but  it  may  also  be  figuratively  employed  to 
signify  a  very  miserable  kind  of  food,  as  the  Arabs  call  the 

herha,  Alcali     \X^\,  i.e.  sparrow's  dung,  and  the  Germans  call 

Asafoetida  Teufelsdreck.  But  there  is  no  ground  for  thinking  of 
wasted  chick-pease,  as  Bochart  {Hieroz.  ii.  p.  582,  ed.  Eos.)  sup- 
poses (see,  on  the  other  hand,  Celsii  Hierdbot.  ii.  p.  30  sqq.).^ 
— Ver.  26.  As  the  Icing  was  passing  by  upon  the  wall  to  con- 
duct the  defence,  a  woman  cried  to  him  for  help ;  whereupon  he 
replied :  '''''  "n^^^  '^,  "  should  Jehovah  not  help  thee,  whence 
shall  I  help  thee  ?  from  the  threshing-floor  or  from  the  wine- 
press ?"  It  is  difficult  to  explain  the  ^^,  which  Ewald  (§355,  V) 
supposes  to  stand  for  *<?  2 5?.  Thenius  gives  a  simpler  explana-. 
tion,  namely,  that  it  is  a  subjective  negation  and  the  sentence 
hypothetical,  so  that  the  condition  would  be  only  expressed  by 
the  close  connection  of  the  two  clauses  (according  to  Ewald, 
S  357).  "  From  the  threshing-floor  or  from  the  wine-press  ? '' 
i.e.  I  can  neither  help  thee  with  corn  nor  with  wine,  cannot 
procure  thee  either  food  or  drink.  He  then  asked  her  what 
her  trouble  was ;  upon  which  she  related  to  him  the  horrible 
account  of  the  slaying  of  her  own  child  to  appease  her  hunger, 
etc. — Ver.  30.  The  king,  shuddering  at  this  horrible  account, 
in  which  the  curses  of  the  law  in  Lev.  xxvi.  29  and  Deut. 
xxviii.  53,  57  had  been  literally  fulfilled,  rent  his  clothes  ;  and 
the  people  then  saw  that  he  wore  upon  his  body  the  hairy  gar- 
ment of  penitence  and  mourning,  ri^30,  within,  i.e.  beneath  the 
upper  garment,  as  a  sign  of  humiliation  before  God,  though  it 
was  indeed  more  an  opus  operatum  than  a  true  bending  of  the 
heart  before  God  and  His  judgment.  This  is  proved  by  his 
conduct  in  ver.  31.     When,  for  example,  the  complaint  of  the 

^  Clericus  gives  as  a  substantial  parallel  the  following  passage  from 
Plutarch  (^Artax.  c.  24)  :  "he  only  killed  the  beasts  of  burden,  so  that  the 
head  of  an  ass  was  hardly  to  be  bought  for  sixty  drachma} ;"  and  Grotir.s 
quotes  the  statement  in  Plin.  h.  n.  viii.  57,  that  when  Casalinum  was  besieged 
by  Hannibal  a  mouse  was^d  for  200  denaria. 


CHAP.  VI.  24-33.  329 

woman  bronght  the  heart-breaking  distress  of  the  city  before 
him,  he  exclaimed,  "  God  do  so  to  me  ...  if  the  head  of  Elisha 
remain  upon  him  to-day."  Elisha  had  probably  advised  that 
on  no  condition  should  the  city  be  given  up,  and  promised  that 
God  would  deliver  it,  if  they  humbled  themselves  before  Him 
in  sincere  humility  and  prayed  for  His  assistance.  The  king 
thought  that  he  had  done  his  part  by  putting  on  the  hairy  gar- 
ment ;  and  as  the  anticipated  help  had  nevertheless  failed  to 
come,  he  flew  into  a  rage,  for  which  the  prophet  was  to  pay 
the  penalty.  It  is  true  that  this  rage  only  proceeded  from  a 
momentaiy  ebullition  of  passion,  and  quickly  gave  place  to  a 
better  movement  of  his  conscience.  The  king  hastened  after 
the  messenger  whom  he  had  sent  to  behead  Elisha,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  execution  of  the  murderous  command 
which  he  had  given  in  the  hurry  of  his  boiling  wrath  (ver.  32) ; 
but  it  proves,  nevertheless,  that  the  king  was  still  wanting  in 
that  true  repentance,  which  would  have  sprung  from  the  recog- 
nition of  the  distress  as  a  judgment  inflicted  by  the  Lord.  The 
desperate  deed,  to  which  his  violent  wrath  had  impelled  him, 
would  have  been  accomplished,  if  the  Lord  had  not  protected 
His  prophet  and  revealed  to  him  the  king's  design,  that  he 
might  adopt  defensive  measures. — Yer.  32.  The  elders  of  the 
city  were  assembled  together  in  EUsha's  house,  probably  to  seek 
for  counsel  and  consolation ;  and  the  king  sent  a  man  before 
him  (namely,  to  behead  the  prophet) ;  but  before  the  messenger 
arrived,  the  prophet  told  the  elders  of  the  king's  intention : 
"  See  ye  that  this  son  of  a  murderer  (Joram,  by  descent  and 
disposition  a  genuine  son  of  Ahab,  the  murderer  of  Xaboth  and 
the  prophets)  is  sending  to  cut  off  my  head  ? "  and  commanded 
them  to  shut  the  door  as^ainst  the  messenger  and  to  force  him 
back  at  the  door,  because  he  already  heard  the  sound  of  his 
master's  feet  behind  him.  These  measures  of  Elisha,  therefore, 
were  not  dictated  by  any  desire  to  resist  the  lawful  authorities, 
but  were  acts  of  prudence  by  which  he  delayed  the  execution 
of  an  unrighteous  and  murderous  command  which  had  been 
issued  in  haste,  and  thereby  rendered  a  service  to  the  king 
himsel£ — In  ver.  33  we  have  to  supply  from  the  context  that 
the  king  followed  close  upon  the  messenger,  who  came  down  to 
Elisha  while  he  was  talking  with  the  elders  ;  and  he  (the  king) 
would  of  course  be  admitted  at  once.  For  the  subject  to  ""P^'i 
is  not  the  messenger,  but  the  king,  as  is  evident  from  ch.  vii,  2 


330  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

and  1 7.  The  king  said :  "  Behold  the  calamity  from  the  Lord, 
why  shall  I  wait  still  further  for  the  Lord  ? " — the  words  of 
a  despairing  man,  in  whose  soul,  however,  there  was  a  spark  of 
faith  still  glimmering.  The  very  utterance  of  his  feelings  to 
the  prophet  shows  that  he  had  still  a  weak  glimmer  of  hope 
in  the  Lord,  and  wished  to  he  strengthened  and  sustained  by 
the  prophet ;  and  this  strengthening  he  received. 

Ch.  vii.  1,  2.  Elisha  announced  to  him  the  word  of  the 
Lord :  "  At  the  (this)  time  to-morrow  a  seah  of  wheaten  flour 
(nyo,  see  at  1  Kings  v.  2)  will  be  worth  a  shekel,  and  two  seahs 
of  barley  a  shekel  in  the  gate,  i.e.  in  the  market,  at  Samaria." 
A  seah,  or  a  third  of  an  ephah=:a  Dresden  peck  (Metze),  for  a 
shekel  was  still  a  high  price ;  but  in  comparison  with  the  prices 
given  in  ch.  vi.  2  5  as  those  obtained  for  the  most  worthless  kinds 
of  food,  it  was  incredibly  cheap.  The  king's  aide-de-camp  (^bf: 
see  at  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8  ;  IVf^  ^?13p  lE'X,  an  error  in  writing  for 
'm  "qb^n  -i&*n,  cf.  ver.  17,  and  for  the  explanation  ch.  v.  18) 
therefore  replied  with  mockery  at  this  prophecy  :  "  Behold  (i.e. 
granted  that)  the  Lord  made  windows  in  heaven,  will  this 
indeed  be  V  i.e.  such  cheapness  take  place.  (For  the  construc- 
tion, see  Ewald,  §  3  5  7,  h.)  The  ridicule  lay  more  especially  in 
the  "  windows  in  heaven,"  in  which  there  is  an  allusion  to  Gen. 
vii.  11,  sc.  to  rain  down  a  flood  of  flour  and  corn.  Elisha 
answered  seriously  :  "  Behold,  thou  wilt  see  it  with  thine  eyes, 
but  not  eat  thereof  "  (see  vers.  1 7  sqq.).  The  fulfilment  of  these 
words  of  Elisha  was  brought  about  by  the  event  narrated  in 
vers.  3  sqq. — ^Vers.  3—7.  "  Four  men  were  before  the  gate  as 
lepers,"  or  at  the  gateway,  separated  from  human  society,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  in  Lev.  xiii.  46,  Num.  v,  3,  probably  in  a  build- 
ing erected  for  the  purpose  (cf.  ch.  xv.  5),  just  as  at  the  present 
day  the  lepers  at  Jerusalem  have  their  huts  by  the  side  of  the 
Zion  gate  (vid.  Strauss,  Sinai  u.  Golgatha,  p.  205,  and  Tobler, 
DenkUatter  aus  Jems.  p.  411  sqq.).  These  men  being  on  the 
point  of  starvation,  resolved  to  invade  the  camp  of  the  Syrians, 
and  carried  out  this  resolution  *1K'33,  in  the  evening  twilight, 
not  the  morning  twilight  (Seb.  Schm.,  Cler.,  etc.),  on  account  of 
ver.  12,  where  the  king  is  said  to  have  received  the  news  of  the 
flight  of  the  Syrians  during  the  night.  Coming  to  "  the  end 
of  the  Syrian  camp,"  i.e.  to  the  outskirts  of  it  on  the  city  side, 
they  found  no  one  there.  For  (vers.  6,7)"  the  Lord  had  caused 
the  army  of  the  Syrians  to  hear  a  noise  of  chariots  and  horses. 


CHAP.  VII.  1-20.  331 

a  noise  of  a  great  annv,"  so  that,  believing  the  king  of  Israel  to 
have  hired  the  kings  of  the  Hittites  and  Egyptians  to  fall  upon 
them,  they  fled  from  the  camp  in  the  twilight  D*f23"bx,  with 
regard  to  their  life,  i.e.  to  save  their  life  only,  leaving  behind 
them  their  tents,  horses,  and  asses,  and  the  camp  as  it  was. — 
The  miracle,  by  which  God  delivered  Samaria  from  the  famine 
or  from  surrendering  to  the  foe,  consisted  in  an  oral  delusion, 
namely,  in  the  fact  that  the  besiegers  thought  they  heard  the 
march  of  hostile  armies  from  the  north  and  south,  and  were 
seized  with  such  panic  terror  that  they  fled  in  the  greatest  haste, 
leaving  behind  them  their  baggage,  and  their  beasts  of  draught 
and  burden.  It  is  impossible  to  decide  whether  the  noise  which 
they  heard  had  any  objective  reality,  say  a  miraculous  buzzing 
in  the  air,  or  whether  it  was  merely  a  deception  of  the  senses 
produced  in  their  ears  by  God  ;  and  this  is  a  matter  of  no  im- 
portance, since  in  either  case  it  was  produced  miraculously  by 
God.  The  kings  of  the  Hittites  are  kings  of  northern  Canaan, 
upon  Lebanon  and  towards  Phoenicia ;  D"'i|in  in  the  broader  sense 
for  Canaanites,  as  in  1  Kings  x.  29.  The  plural,  "kings  of  the 
Egyptians,"  is  probably  only  occasioned  by  the  parallel  expres- 
sion "  kings  of  the  Hittites,"  and  is  not  to  be  pressed. — ^Vers. 
8-11.  When  these  lepers  {these,  pointing  back  to  vers.  3  sqq.) 
came  into  the  camp  which  the  Syrians  had  left,  they  first  of  all 
satisfied  their  own  hunger  with  the  provisions  which  they  found 
in  the  tents,  and  then  took  different  valuables  and  concealed 
them.  But  their  consciences  were  soon  aroused,  so  that  they 
said:  We  are  not  doing  right ;  this  day  is  a  day  of  joyful  tidings  : 
if  we  are  silent  and  wait  till  the  morning  light,  guilt  will  over- 
take us ;  "  for  it  is  the  duty  of  citizens  to  make  known  things 
relating  to  public  safety"  (Grotius).  They  then  resolved  to 
announce  the  joyful  event  in  the  king's  palace,  and  reported 
it  to  the  watchman  at  the  city  gate,  i^vn  '\w  stands  as  a 
generic  term  in  a  collective  sense  for  the  persons  who  watched 
at  the  gate  ;  hence  the  following  plural  Dn?,  and  in  ver.  1 1 
Dn^S'n.  "  And  the  gate-keepers  cried  out  (what  they  had 
heard)  and  reported  it  ia  the  king's  palace." — Vers.  1 2  sqq.  The 
king  imagined  that  the  unexpected  departure  of  the  Syrians  was 
only  a  ruse,  namely,  that  they  had  left  the  camp  and  hidden 
themselves  in  the  field,  to  entice  the  besieged  out  of  the  fortress, 
and  then  fall  upon  them  and  press  into  the  city,  nnipna  accord- 
ing to  later  usage  for  nnb's  {xid.  Ewald,  S  244,  a).     In  order  to 


332  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

make  sure  of  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  this  conjecture, 
one  of  the  king's  servants  (counsellors)  gave  this  advice :  "  Let 
them  take  (the  Vav  before  inpl  as  in  ch.  iv.  41)  five  of  the 
horses  left  in  the  city,  that  we  may  send  and  see  how  the 
matter  stands."  The  words,  "  Behold  they  (the  five  horses)  are 
as  the  whole  multitude  of  Israel  that  are  left  in  it  (the  city)  ; 
behold  they  are  as  the  whole  multitude  of  Israel  that  are  gone," 
have  this  meaning:  The  five  horsemen  (for  horses  stand  for 
horsemen,  as  it  is  self-evident  that  it  was  men  on  horseback  and 
not  the  horses  themselves  that  were  to  be  sent  out  as  spies) 
can  but  share  the  fate  of  the  rest  of  the  people  of  Samaria, 
whether  they  return  unhurt  to  meet  death  by  starvation  with 
the  people  that  still  remain,  or  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy 
and  are  put  to  death,  in  which  case  they  will  only  suffer  the  lot 
of  those  who  have  already  perished.  Five  horses  is  an  approxi- 
mative small  number,  and  is  therefore  not  at  variance  with  the 
following  statement,  that  two  pair  of  horses  were  sent  out  with 
chariots  and  men.  The  Chethih  POHl'  is  not  to  be  altered,  since 
there  are  other  instances  in  which  the  first  noun  is  written  with 
the  article,  though  in  the  construct  state  {vid.  Ewald,  §  290,  c)  ; 
and  the  Keri  is  only  conformed  to  the  following  |ittn"P33. — ^Vers. 
14&  and  15.  They  then  sent  out  two  chariots  with  horses,  who 
pursued  the  flying  enemy  to  the  Jordan,  and  found  the  whole  of  the 
road  full  of  traces  of  the  hurried  flight,  consisting  of  clothes  and 
vessels  that  had  been  thrown  away.  The  Chdhib  QTDnna  is  the 
only  correct  reading,  since  it  is  only  in  the  Ni'plial  that  IBH  has 
the  meaning  to  fly  in  great  haste  (cf  1  Sam.  xxiii.  26,  Ps. 
xlviii.  6,  civ.  7). — Vers,  16,  17.  When  the  returning  messen- 
gers reported  this,  the  people  went  out  and  plundered  the  camp 
of  the  Syrians,  and  this  was  followed  by  the  consequent  cheap- 
ness of  provisions  predicted  by  Elisha.  As  the  people  streamed 
•out,  the  unbelieving  aide-de-camp,  whom  the  king  had  ordered 
to  take  the  oversight  at  the  gate  ("'''i??'?,  to  deliver  the  oversight) 
for  the  purpose  of  preserving  order  in  the  crowding  of  the 
starving  multitude,  was  trodden  down  by  the  people,  so  that  he 
died,  whereby  this  prediction  of  Elisha  was  fulfilled.  The 
exact  fulfilment  of  this  prediction  appeared  so  memorable  to 
the  historian,  that  he  repeats  this  prophecy  in  vers.  18-20 
along  with  the  event  which  occasioned  it,  and  refers  again  to  its 
fulfilment. 


CHAP.  VUL  1-6.  333 


CHAP.  Vm.  ELISHA  HELPS  THE  SHUNAMMITE  TO  HER  PBOPERTT 
THROUGH  THE  HONOUR  IN  WHICH  HE  WAS  HELD  ;  ANT)  PRE- 
DICTS TO  HAZAEL  HIS  POSSESSION  OF  THE  THRONE.  REIGNS 
OF  JORAM  AND  AHAZLAH,  KINGS  OF  JUDAH. 

Vers.  1-6.  Elisha's  Influence  helps  the  SnuNAiiinTE  to 
THE  Possession  of  her  House  ant)  Field. — Yers.  1  and  2. 
By  the  advice  of  Elisha,  the  woman  whose  son  the  prophet  had 
restored  to  life  (ch.  iv.  33)  had  gone  with  her  family  into  the 
land  of  the  PhiUstines  during  a  seven  years'  famine,  and  had 
remained  there  seven  years.  The  two  verses  are  rendered  by 
most  conmientators  in  the  pluperfect,  and  that  with  perfect  cor- 
rectness, for  they  are  circumstantial  clauses,  and  0^^]  is  merely 
a  continuation  of  13"^.,  the  two  together  preparing  the  way  for, 
and  introducing  the  following  event.  The  object  is  not  to 
relate  a  prophecy  of  Elisha  of  the  seven  years'  famine,  but  what 
afterwards  occurred,  namely,  how  king  Joram  was  induced  by 
the  account  of  Elisha's  miraculous  works  to  have  the  property 
of  the  Shunammite  restored  to  her  upon  her  application.  The 
seven  years'  famine  occurred  in  the  middle  of  Joram's  reign, 
and  the  event  related  here  took  place  before  the  curing  of 
Kaaman  the  Syrian  (ch.  v.),  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
Gehazi  talked  with  the  king  (ver.  4),  and  therefore  had  not  yet 
been  punished  with  leprosy.  But  it  cannot  have  originally 
stood  between  ch.  iv.  37  and  iv.  38,  as  Thenius  supposes,  be- 
cause the  incidents  related  in  ch.  iv.  38-44  belong  to  the  time 
of  this  famine  (cf.  cL  iv.  38),  and  therefore  precede  the  occur- 
rence mentioned  here.  By  the  words,  "  the  Lord  called  the 
famine,  and  it  came  seven  years"  (sc.  lasting  that  time),  the 
famine  is  described  as  a  divine  judgment  for  the  idolatry  of  the 
nation. — Yer.  3.  "WTien  the  woman  returned  to  her  home  at  the 
end  of  the  seven  years,  she  went  to  the  king  to  cry,  i.e.  to  invoke 
his  help,  with  regard  to  her  house  and  her  field,  of  which,  as  is 
evident  from  the  context,  another  had  taken  possession  during 
her  absence. — ^Ver.  4.  And  just  at  that  time  the  king  was 
asking  Gehazi  to  relate  to  him  the  great  things  that  Elisha  had 
done ;  and  among  these  he  was  giving  an  account  of  the  re- 
storation of  the  Shunammite's  son  to  Hfe. — Vers.  5,  6.  While 
he  was  relating  this,  the  woman  herself  came  in  to  invoke  the 
help  of  the  king  to  recover  her  property,  and  was  pointed  out 


334  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  the  king  by  Geliazi  as  the  very  woman  of  whom  he  was 
speaking,  which  caused  the  king  to  be  so  interested  in  her 
favour,  that  after  hearing  her  complaint  he  sent  a  chamberlain 
with  her  {saris  as  in  1  Kings  xxii.  9),  with  instructions  to  pro- 
cure for  her  not  only  the  whole  of  her  property,  but  the  produce 
of  the  land  during  her  absence. — For  nnty  without  mappiq,  see 
Ewald,  §  247,  <^. 

Vers.  7-15.  Elisha  predicts  to  Hazael  at  Damascus  the 
Possession  of  the  Throne. — Vers.  7  sqq.  Elisha  then  came  to 
Damascus  at  the  instigation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  carry  out 
the  commission  which  Elijah  had  received  at  Horeb  with  regard 
to  Hazael  (1  Kings  xix.  15).  Benhadad  king  of  Syiia  wa.s 
sick  at  that  time,  and  when  Elisha's  arrival  was  announced  to 
him,  sent  Hazael  with  a  considerable  present  to  the  man  of 
God,  to  inquire  of  Jehovah  through  him  concerning  his  illness. 
The  form  of  the  name  ^^'^]}^.  (here  and  ver.  15)  is  etymo- 
logically  correct ;  but  afterwards  it  is  always  written  without  n. 
'dt  ailD"73l  ("  and  that  all  kinds  of  good  of  Damascus  ")  follows 
with  a  more  precise  description  of  the  minchah — "  a  burden  of 
forty  camels."  The  present  consisted  of  produce  or  wares  of 
the  rich  commercial  city  of  Damascus,  and  was  no  doubt  very 
considerable  ;  at  the  same  time,  it  was  not  so  large  that  forty 
camels  were  required  to  carry  it.  The  affair  must  be  judged 
according  to  the  Oriental  custom,  of  making  a  grand  display 
with  the  sending  of  presents,  and  employing  as  many  men  or 
beasts  of  burden  as  possible  to  carry  them,  every  one  carrying 
only  a  single  article  (cf.  Harmar,  Beohb.  ii.  p.  29,  iii.  p.  43,  and 
Eosenmiiller,  A.  u.  N.  Morgenl.  iii.  p.  17). — Ver.  10.  According 
to  the  ChctMb  n^n  ih,  Elisha's  answer  was,  "  Thou  wilt  not  live, 
and  (for)  Jehovah  has  shown  me  that  he  will  die  ;"  according 
to  the  Keri  n^n  i^,  "  tell  him  :  Thou  wilt  live,  but  Jehovah,"  etc. 
Most  of  the  commentators  follow  the  ancient  versions,  and  the 
Masoretes,  who  reckon  our  N^  among  the  fifteen  passages  of  the 
0.  T.  in  which  it  stands  for  the  pronoun  \h  {vid.  Hilleri  Arcan. 
Keri,  p.  62  seq.),  and  some  of  the  codices,  and  decide  in  favour 
of  the  Keri.  (1)  because  the  conjecture  that  ih  was  altered  into 
n!?  in  order  that  Elisha  might  not  be  made  to  utter  an  untruth, 
is  a  very  natural  one ;  and  (2)  on  account  of  the  extreme  rarity 
with  which  a  negative  stands  before  the  inf.  abs.  with  the  finite 
verb  following.    But  there  is  not  much  force  in  either  argument. 


CHAP.  VIII.  7-15.  335 

The  rarity  of  the  position  of  sb  before  the  inf.  abs.  followed  bv 
a  finite  verb,  in  connection  with  the  omission  of  the  pronoun  V 
after  "ibx,  might  be  the  very  reason  why  k?  was  taken  as  a  pro- 
noun ;  and  the  confirmation  of  this  opinion  might  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  Hazael  brought  back  this  answer  to  the  king: 
"  Thou  wilt  live"  (ver.  14).     The  reading  in  the  text  s?  (non) 
is  favoured  by  the  circumstance  that  it  is  the  more  difficult  of 
the  two,  partly  because  of  the  unusual  position  of  the  negative, 
and  partly  because  of  the  contradiction  to  ver.  14.     But  the  Kt) 
is  found  in  the  same  position  in  other  passages  (Gen.  iii.  4,  Ps. 
xlix.  8,  and  Amos  ix.  8),  where  the  emphasis  lies  upon  the 
negation ;  and  the  contradiction  to  ver.  14  may  be  explained 
very  simply,  from  the  fact  that  Hazael  did  not  tell  his  king  the 
truth,  because  he  wanted  to  put  him  to  death  and  usurp  the 
throne.     We  therefore  prefer  the  reading  in  the  text,  since  it  is 
not  in  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  prophets  to  utter  an 
untruth  ;  and  the  explanation,  "  thou  wilt  not  die  of  thine  illness, 
but  come  to  a  violent  death,"  puts  into  the  words  a  meaning 
which  they  do  not  possess.     For  even  if  Benhadad  did  not  die 
of  his  illness,  he  did  not  recover  from  it. — Ver.  11.  Elisha  then 
fixed  Hazael  for  a  long  time  with  his  eye,  and  wept.     'iii  l?V!5, 
literally,  he  made  his  face  stand  fast,  and  directed  it  (upon 
Hazael)  to   shaming.       B'2"iy   as   in   Judg.  iii.   25  ;  not  in   a 
shameless  manner  (Thenius),  but  till  Hazael  was  embarrassed 
by  it. — Ver.   12.    When  Hazael  asked  him  the  cau^e  of  his 
weeping,  Elisha  replied  :   "  I  know  the  evil  which  thou  wilt 
do  to  the  sons  of  Israel :  their  fortresses  wilt  thou  set  on  fire 
{^'^^  v^'^,  see  at  Judg.  i.  8),  their  youths  wilt  thou  slay  with  the 
sword,  and  wilt  dash  their  children  to  pieces,  and  cut  asunder 
their  women  with  child"  (Vi^a,  spHt,  cut  open  the  womb).     This 
cruel  conduct  towards  Israel  which  is  here  predicted  of  Hazael, 
was  only  a  special  elaboration  of  the  brief  statement  made  by 
the  Lord  to  Elijah  concerning  Hazael  (1  Kings  xix.  17).     The 
fulfilment  of  this  prediction  is  indicated  generally  in  ch.  x.  32,  33, 
and  xiiL  3  sqq. ;  and  we  may  infer  with  certainty  from  Hos.  x.  1 4 
and  xiv.  1,  that  Hazael  really  practised  the  cruelties  mentioned. 
— Vers.  13  sqq.  But  when  Hazael  replied  in  feigned  humility, 
What  is  thy  servant,  the  dog  {i.e.  so  base  a  fellow :  for  a'pa  see 
at  1  Sam.  xxiv.  15),  that  he  should  do  such  great  things  ? 
Elisha  said  to  him,  "  Jehovah  has  shown  thee  to  me  as  king  over 
Aram;"  whereupon  Hazael  returned  to  his  lord,  brought  him  the 


336  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

pretended  answer  of  Elisha  that  he  would  live  (recover),  and  the 
next  day  suffocated  him  with  a  cloth  dipped  in  water.  i?3D, 
from  "123^  to  plait  or  twist,  literally,  anything  twisted ;  not,  how- 
ever, a  net  for  gnats  or  flies  (Joseph.,  J.  D,  Mich.,  etc.),  but  a 
twisted  thick  cloth,  which  when  dipped  in  water  became  so 
thick,  that  when  it  was  spread  over  the  face  of  the  sick  man  it 
was  sufficient  to  suffocate  him. 

Vers.  16-24.  Reign  of  Joeam  of  Judah  (cf  2  Chron.  xxi. 
2-20). — Joram  became  king  in  the  fifth  year  of  Joram  of  Israel, 
while  Jehoshaphat  his  father  was  (stiU)  king,  the  latter  handing 
over  the  government  to  him  two  years  before  his  death  (see  at 
ch.  L  17),  and  reigned  eight  years,  namely,  two  years  to  the 
death  of  Jehoshaphat  and  six  years  afterwards.^  The  Chdhib 
7\y^  mbK'  is  not  to  be  altered,  since  the  rule  that  the  numbers 
two  to  ten  take  the  noun  in  the  plural  is  not  without  exception 
(cf.  Ewald,  §  287,  i). — Vers.  18,  19.  Joram  had  married  a 
daughter  of  Ahab,  namely  Athaliah  (ver,  2  6),  and  walked  in  the 
ways  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  transplanting  the  worship  of  Baal 
into  his  kingdom.  Immediately  after  the  death  of  Jehoshaphat 
he  murdered  his  brothers,  apparently  with  no  other  object  than 
to  obtain  possession  of  the  treasures  which  his  father  had  left 
them  (2  Chron.  xxi.  2-4).  This  wickedness  of  Joram  would 
have  been  followed  by  the  destruction  of  Judah,  had  not  the 
Lord  preserved  a  shoot  to  the  royal  house  for  David's  sake. 
For  1^3  Sb  nrb  see  1  Kings  xi.  36.     The  following  word  VJ3^ 

••T  -L  ' 

serves  as  an  explanation  of  "•"'^  v,  "  a  light  with  regard  to  his 
sous,"  i.e.  by  the  fact  that  he  kept  sons  (descendants)  upon  the 
throne. — Vers.  20-22.  Nevertheless  the  divine  chastisement 
was  not  omitted.  The  ungodliness  of  Joram  was  punished 
partly  by  the  revolt  of  the  Edomites  and  of  the  city  of  Libnah 
from  his  rule,  and  partly  by  a  horrible  sickness  of  which  he  died 
(2  Chron.  xxi.  12-15).     Edom,  which  had  hitherto  had  only  a 

1  The  words  m^iT'  T]^D  tDBU'liT'l  have  been  improperly  omitted  by  the 
Arabic  and  Syriac,  and  by  Luther,  Dathe,  and  De  "Wette  from  their  transla- 
tions ;  whilst  Schulz,  Maurer,  Thenius,  and  others  pronounce  it  a  gloss.  The 
genuineness  of  the  words  is  attested  by  the  LXX.  (the  Edit.  Complut.  being 
alone  in  omitting  them)  and  by  the  Chaldee  :  and  the  rejection  of  them  is  just 
as  arbitrary  as  the  interpolation  of  no,  which  is  proposed  by  Kimchi  and 
Ewald  ("  when  Jehoshaphat  was  dead  ").  Compare  J.  Meyer,  annotatt.  ad 
iSeder  Olatn,  p.  916  sq. 


CHAP.  VIII.  16-24.  337 

Vicegerent  vnth.  the  title  of  king  (see  eb.  iii  9  and  1  Kings 
xxiL  48),  threw  off  the  authority  of  Judah,  and  appointed  its 
own  king,  under  whom  it  acquired  independence,  as  the  attempt 
of  Joram  to  bring  it  back  again  imder  his  control  completely 
failed.  The  account  of  this  attempt  in  ver.  21  and  2  Chron, 
xxi  9  is  very  obscure.  "  Joram  went  over  to  Zair,  and  all  his 
chariots  of  war  with  him ;  and  it  came  to  pass  that  he  rose  up 
by  night  and  smote  the  Edomites  round  about,  and  indeed  the 
captains  of  the  war-chariots,  and  the  people  fled  (i.e.  the  Judaean 
men  of  war,  not  the  Edomites)  to  their  tents."  It  is  e^ddent 
from  this,  that  Joram  had  advanced  to  Zair  in  Idumsea ;  but 
there  he  appears  to  have  been  surrounded  and  shut  in,  so  that 
in  the  night  he  fought  his  way  through,  and  had  reason  to  be 
glad  that  he  had  escaped  utter  destruction,  since  his  army  fled 
to  their  homes.  '"lyV^  is  an  unknown  place  in  Idumasa,  which 
Movers,  Hitzig,  and  Ewald  take  to  be  Zoar,  but  without  consider- 
ing that  Zoar  was  in  the  land  of  Moab,  not  in  Edom.  The  Chro- 
nicles have  instead  vnb'  QV,  "with  his  captains,"  from  a  mere 
conjecture ;  whilst  Thenius  regards  m^ys  as  altered  by  mistake 
from  >^^V'^  ("  to  Seir"),  which  is  very  improbable  in  the  case  of 
so  well-known  a  name  as  '^'i'?'.  ^^^J^n  is  a  later  mode  of  writing 
for  33iDn^  probably  occasioned  by  the  frequently  occurring  word 
yao.  "  To  this  day,"  i.e.  to  the  time  when  the  original  sources 
of  our  books  were  composed.  For  the  Edomites  were  subjugated 
again  by  Amaziah  and  Uzziah  (ch.  xiv.  7  and  22),  though  under 
Ahaz  they  made  incursions  into  Judah  again  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  1 7). 
— ^At  that  time  Zibnah  also  revolted.  This  was  a  royal  city  of 
the  early  Canaanites,  and  at  a  later  period  it  was  still  a  con- 
siderable fortress  (ch,  xlx.  8).  It  is  probably  to  be  sought  for 
in  the  ruins  of  Arak  el  MensMyeh,  two  hours  to  the  west  of  Beit- 
Jibrin  (see  the  Comm.  on  Josh.  x.  29).  Tliis  city  probably 
revolted  from  Judah  on  the  occurrence  of  an  invasion  of  the 
land  by  the  Philistines,  when  the  sons  of  Joram  were  carried  off, 
with  the  exception  of  the  youngest,  Jehoahaz  (Ahaziah :  2  Chron. 
xxi.  16,  17). — Vers.  23,  24.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxi.  18  sqq., 
Joram  died  of  a  terrible  disease,  in  which  his  bowels  fell  out, 
and  was  buried  in  the  city  of  David,  though  not  in  the  family 
sepulchre  of  the  kings.^ 

*  "  The  building  of  Carthage,  Dido,  her  husband  Sichseus,  her  brother 
Pygmalion  king  of  Tyre  {scelere  ante  alios  immanior  ornnes),  all  coincide  with 
the  reign  of  Joram.     This  synchronism  of  the  history  of  Tyre  is  not  without 

Y 


338  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Vers.  25-29,  Eeign  of  Ahaziah  of  Judah  (cf.  2  Cliron. 
xxii  1—6). — Ahaziah,  the  youngest  son  of  Joram,  ascended  the 
throne  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  his  age.  The  statement  in 
2  Chron.  xxii,  2,  that  he  was  forty-two  years  old  when  he  be- 
came king,  rests  upon  a  copyist's  error,  namely,  a  confusion  of  a 
twenty  with  o  forty,  Now,  since  his  father  became  king  at  the 
age  of  thirty-two,  and  reigned  eight  years,  Ahaziah  must  have 
been  born  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his  age.  Consequently  it 
may  appear  strange  that  Ahaziah  had  brothers  still  older  than 
himself  (2  Chron.  xxi.  1 7) ;  but  as  early  marriages  are  common 
in  the  East,  and  the  royal  princes  had  generally  concubines  along 
-with  their  wife  of  the  first  rank,  as  is  expressly  stated  of  Joram 
in  2  Chron,  xxi.  17,  he  might  have  had  some  sons  in  his  nine- 
teenth year.  His  mother  was  called  Athaliah,  and  was  a  daughter 
of  the  idolatrous  Jezebel  In  ver.  26  and  2  Chron,  xxii  2  she 
is  called  the  daughter,  ie.  grand-daughter,  of  Omri ;  for,  according 
to  ver,  18,  she  was  a  daughter  of  Ahab.  Omri,  the  grand- 
father, is  mentioned  in  ver.  26  as  the  founder  of  the  dynasty 
which  brought  so  much  trouble  upon  Israel  and  Judah  through 
its  idolatry. — Ver.  27,  Ahaziah,  like  his  father,  reigned  in  the 
spirit  of  Ahab,  because  he  allowed  his  mother  to  act  as  his 
adviser  (2  Chron.  xxii,  3,  4), — Vers.  28,  29,  Ahaziah  went 
with  Joram  of  Israel,  his  mother's  brother,  to  the  war  with  the 
Syrians  at  Eamoth.  The  contest  for  this  city,  which  had 
already  cost  Ahab  his  life  (1  Kings  xxii),  was  to  furnish  the 
occasion,  according  to  the  overruling  providence  of  God,  for  the 
extermination  of  the  whole  of  Omri's  family.  Being  wounded 
in  the  battle  with  the  Syrians,  Joram  king  of  Israel  returned  to 
Jezreel  to  be  healed  of  his  wounds.  His  nephew  Ahaziah 
visited  him  there,  and  there  he  met  with  his  death  at  the  same 
time  as  Joram  at  the  hands  of  Jehu,  who  had  conspired  against 
Joram  (see  ch.  ix,  14  sqq,  and  2  Chron,  xxii  7-9).  Whether 
the  war  with  Hazael  at  Eamoth  was  for  the  recapture  of  this 
city,  which  had  been  taken  by  the  Syrians,  or  simply  for  hold- 
ing it  against  the  Syrians,  it  is  impossible  to  determina     All 

Bignificance  here.  The  Tyrian,  Israelitish,  and  Jud«an  histories  are  closely 
connected  at  this  time,  Jezebel,  a  Tyrian  princess,  was  Ahab's  wife,  and  again 
her  daughter  Athaliah  was  the  wife  of  Joram,  and  after  his  death  the  mur- 
deress of  the  heirs  of  tlie  kingdom,  and  sole  occupant  of  the  throne.  Tyre, 
through  these  marriages,  introduced  its  own  spirit  and  great  calamity  into 
both  the  Israelitish  kingdoms," — J.  D,  MichAlis  on  ver,  24. 


CHAP.  IX  1-10.  339 

that  we  can  gather  from  ch.  ix.  14  is,  that  at  that  time  Eamoth 
was  in  the  possession  of  the  Israelites,  whether  it  had  come  into 
their  possession  again  after  the  disgraceful  rout  of  the  Sjrrians 
before  Samaria  (ch.  viL),  or  whether,  perhaps,  it  was  not  recovered 
till  this  war.  For  D'?iix  without  the  article  see  Ewald,  §  277,  c. 
— Ver.  29.  nD-j3  =  ny^3  ntna,  ver.  28  ;  see  at  1  Kings  xxii  4 

CHAP.  IX.   JEHU  ANOINTED  KING.      HIS  CONSPIRACY  AGAINST  JORAM. 
JORAM,  AHAZIAH,  AND  JEZEBEL  SLAIN. 

Vers.  1-1 0.  Anointing  of  Jehu  by  command  of  Elisha. — 
While  the  Israelitish  army  was  at  Eamoth,  Elisha  executed  the 
last  of  the  commissions  which  Elijah  had  received  at  Horeb 
(1  Kings  xix.  16),  by  sending  a  pupil  of  the  prophets  into  the 
camp  to  anoint  Jehu  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  as 
king,  and  to  announce  to  him,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  that  he 
would  be  king  over  Israel ;  and  to  charge  him  to  exterminate 
the  house  of  Ahab. — Vers.  1-3  contain  the  instructions  which 
Elisha  gave  to  the  pupil  of  the  prophets,  ipf  n  ^9  as  in  1  Sam. 
X.  1.  K^n'  u^  nxn,  look  round  there  for  Jehu.  *«)  incpn,  let  him 
(bid  him)  rise  up  from  the  midst  of  his  brethren,  i.e.  of  his  com- 
rades in  arms.  Tina  iin  :  the  true  meaning  is,  "  into  the  inner- 
most chamber"  (see  at  1  Kings  xx.  30).  Ver.  3  contains  only 
the  leading  points  of  the  commission  to  Jehu,  the  full  particu- 
lars are  communicated  in  the  account  of  the  fulfilment  in  vers. 
6  sqq.  "  And  flee,  and  thou  shalt  not  wait."  Elisha  gave  him 
tliis  command,  not  to  protect  him  from  danger  on  the  part  of 
the  secret  adherents  of  Ahab  (Theodoret,  Cler.),  but  to  prevent 
all  further  discussions,  or  "  that  he  might  not  miy  himseK  up 
with  other  affairs"  (Seb.  Schmidt). — ^Ver.  4.  "And  the  young 
man,  the  servant  of  the  prophet,  went."  The  second  1W  has  the 
article  in  the  construct  state,  contrary  to  the  rule  {vid.  Ges. 
§  110,  2,  6). — ^Vers.  5  sqq.  After  the  communication  of  the 
fact  that  he  had  a  word  to  Jehu,  the  latter  rose  up  and  went 
with  him  into  the  house,  i.e.  into  the  interior  of  the  house,  in 
the  court  of  which  the  captains  were  sitting  together.  There 
the  pupil  of  the  prophets  poured  oil  upon  Jehu's  head,  and 
announced  to  him  that  Jehovah  had  anointed  him  king  for 
Israel,  and  that  he  was  to  smite,  i.e.  exterminate,  the  house  of 
Ahab,  to  avenge  upon  it  the  blood  of  the  prophets  {vid.  1  Kings 
x^iii  4,  xix.  10). — Vers.  8-10  are  simply  a  repetition  of  the 


340  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

threat  in  1  Kings  xxi.  21-23.     For  'r  pVna,  see  at  1  Kings 
xxi.  23. 

Vers.  1 1-1 5.  Jehu's  Conspiracy  against  Joram.  —  Ver. 
11.  When  Jehu  came  out  again  to  his  comrades  in  arms, 
after  the  departure  of  the  pupil  of  the  prophets,  they  inquired 
Di^E'n,  i.e.  "  is  it  all  well  ?  why  did  this  madman  come  to  thee  ?" 
not  because  they  were  afraid  that  he  might  have  done  him 
some  injury  (Ewald),  or  that  he  might  have  brought  some  evil 
tidings  (Thenius),  but  simply  because  they  conjectured  that  he 
had  brought  some  important  news.  They  called  the  prophet 
Vi^^,  a  madman,  in  derision,  with  reference  to  the  ecstatic 
utterances  of  the  prophets  when  in  a  state  of  holy  inspiration, 
Jehu  answered  evasively,  "  Ye  know  the  man  and  his  mutter- 
ing," i.e.  ye  know  that  he  is  mad  and  says  nothing  rational. 
ty^  includes  both  meditating  and  speaking. — Ver.  12.  They 
were  not  contented  with  this  answer,  however,  but  said  ip^, 
i.e.  thou  dost  not  speak  truth.  Jehu  thereupon  informed  them 
that  he  had  anointed  him  king  over  Israel  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah. — Ver,  13,  After  hearing  this,  they  took  quickly  every 
man  his  garment,  laid  it  under  him  upon  the  steps,  blew  the 
trumpet,  and  proclaimed  him  king.  The  clothes,  which  con- 
sisted simply  of  a  large  piece  of  cloth  for  wrapping  round  the 
body  (see  at  1  Kings  xi,  29),  they  spread  out  in  the  place  of 
carpets  upon  the  steps,  which  served  as  a  throne,  to  do  homage 
to  Jehu.  For  these  signs  of  homage  compare  Matt,  xxi,  7  and 
Wetstein,  iV,  Test,  ad  h.  I  The  difficult  words  r\'b\n^r\  DirbN,  as 
to  the  meaning  of  which  the  early  translators  have  done  nothing 
but  guess,  can  hardly  be  rendered  in  any  other  way  than  that 
proposed  by  Kimchi  {lih.  rad.),  super  ipsosinet  gradus,  upon  the 
steps  themselves  =  upon  the  bare  steps ;  0*13  being  taken  accord- 
ing to  Chaldee  usage  like  the  Hebrew  Dvy  in  the  sense  of  suh- 
stantia  rei,  whereas  the  rendering  given  by  Lud.  de  Dieu,  after 

the  Arabic    ^j,.,  sectio — super  aliquem  e  gradibiis,  is  without 

analogy  in  Hebrew  usage  {vid.  L.  de  Dieu  ad  h.  I.,  and  Ges,  TJies. 
p.  303).^     The  meaning  is,  that  without  looking  for  a  suitable 

^  The  objection  raised  by  Thenius,  that  it  is  only  in  combination  with  per- 
sonal pronouns  that  the  Chaldaic  DiJ  signifies  self  either  in  the  Chaldee  or 
Samaritan  versions,  is  proved  to  be  unfounded  by  DIJp  in  Job  i-  3  (Targ.). 
Still  less  can  the  actual  circumstances  be  adduced  as  an  objection,  since 


CHAP.  IX.  lG-29.  341 

place  on  which  to  erect  a  throne,  they  laid  their  clothes  upon 
the  bare  steps,  or  the  staircase  of  the  house  in  which  they  were 
assembled,  and  set  him  thereon  to  proclaim  him  king. — ^Vers. 
14,  15.  Thus  Jehu  conspired  against  Joram,  who  (as  is  related 
again  in  the  circumstantial  clause  which  follows  from  n^n  dt)^ 
to  D"ix  1170;  cf.  ch.  ^dii.  28,  29)  had  been  keeping  guard  at 
Eamoth  in  Gilead,  i.e.  had  defended  this  city  against  the  attacks 
of  Hazael,  and  had  returned  to  Jezreel  to  be  healed  of  the  wounds 
which  he  had  received ;  and  said,  "  If  it  is  your  wish  (D3E'S3),  let 
no  fugitive  go  from  the  city,  to  announce  it  in  Jezreel  (viz.  what 
had  taken  place,  the  conspiracy  or  the  proclamation  of  Jehu 
as  king)."  It  is  evident  from  this,  that  the  Israelites  were  in 
possession  of  the  city  of  Eamoth,  and  were  defending  it  against 
the  attacks  of  the  SjTians,  so  that  "'oy'  in  ver.  14  cannot  be  un- 
derstood as  relating  to  the  siege  of  Eamoth.  The  ChetMb  ^^3? 
for  "I'^np  is  not  to  be  altered  according  to  the  Keri,  as  there  are 
many  examples  to  be  found  of  syncope  in  cases  of  this  kind 
(vid.  Olshausen,  Lchrh.  d.  Hebr.  Spr.  p.  140). 

Vers.  16-29.  Slaying  of  the  two  Kings,  Joram  of  Israel 
AND  Ahaziah  of  Judah. — Ver.  16.  Jehu  drove  without  delay  to 
Jezreel,  where  Joram  was  lying  sick,  and  Ahaziah  had  come 
upon  a  ^asit  to  him. — \gis.  17-21.  As  the  horsemen,  who  were 
sent  to  meet  him  on  the  announcement  of  the  watchman  upon 
the  tower  at  Jezreel  that  a  troop  was  approaching,  joined  the 
followers  of  Jehu,  and  eventually  the  watchman,  looking  down' 
from  the  tower,  thought  that  he  could  discover  the  driving  of 
Jehu  in  the  approaching  troop,  Joram  and  Ahaziah  mounted 
their  chariots  to  drive  and  meet  him,  and  came  upon  him  by  the 
portion  of  ground  of  Xaboth  the  Jezreelite.  The  second  riySB' 
in  ver.  17  is  a  rarer  form  of  the  absolute  state  (see  Ges.  §  80, 
2,  Anm.  2,  and  Ewald,  §  173,  d).—'CSb^  ^^-np :  «  what  hast'thou 
to  do  with  peace  ? "  i.e.  to  trouble  thyself  about  it.  '^j^i?"^  3'D: 
"  turn  behind  me,"  sc.  to  foUow  me.  'D3  ^'^^y^y^ :  "  the  driving  is 
like  the  driving  of  Jehu  ;  for  he  drives  like  a  madman."  PVJBqi, 
in  iiisania,  i.e.  in  actual  fact  in  prcecipitatione  (VatabL).     "  The 

there  is  no  evidence  to  support  the  assertion  that  there  was  no  stair- 
case in  front  of  the  house.  The  perfectly  un-Hebraic  conjecture  D^-^iN 
nibysn,  "as  a  figure  (or  representation)  of  the  necessary  ascent"  (Thenius), 

has  not  the  smallest  support  in  the  Vulgate  rendering,  ad  similitudinem 
tribunalis. 


342  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

portion  of  NalDoth"  is  the  vineyard  of  Naboth  mentioned  in 
1  Kings  xxi.,  which  formed  only  one  portion  of  the  gardens  of  the 
king's  palace. — ^Ver.  22.  To  Joram's  inquiry,  "  Is  it  peace,  Jehu  ?" 
the  latter  replied,  "  What  peace,  so  long  as  the  whoredoms  of  thy 
mother  Jezebel  and  her  many  witchcrafts  continue  ?"  The  notion 
of  continuance  is  implied  in  "JV  (see  Ewald,  §  217,  e) ;  D^JiJt  is 
spiritual  whoredom,  i.e.  idolatry.  C'SB'a,  incantationes  magicce, 
then  witchcrafts  generally,  which  were  usually  associated  with 
idolatry  (cf.  Deut.  xviii.  10  sqq.). — Ver.  23.  Joram  detecting  the 
conspiracy  from  this  reply,  turned  round  (V"!^  "^i^n^  as  in  1  Kings 
xxii.  34)  and  fled,  calling  out  to  Ahaziah  '"i»")»^  "  deceit,"  i.e.  we 
are  deceived,  in  actual  fact  betrayed. — Ver.  24.  But  Jehu  seized 
the  bow  (ne'iPn  Si\  vh'O,  lit.  filled  his  hand  with  the  bow),  and 
shot  Joram  "  between  his  arms,"  i.e.  in  his  back  between  the 
shoulders  in  an  oblique  direction,  so  that  the  arrow  came  out  at 
his  heart,  and  Joram  sank  down  in  his  chariot. — Ver.  25.  Jehu 
then  commanded  his  aide-de-camp  (^?^,  see  at  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8) 
Bidkar  to  cast  the  slain  man  into  the  field  of  Naboth  the 
Jezreelite,  and  said,  "  For  remember  how  we,  I  and  thou,  both 
rode  (or  drove)  behind  his  father  Aliab,  and  Jehovah  pronounced 
this  threat  upon  him."  nnxi  ""JK  are  accusatives,  written  with  a 
looser  connection  for  iniNi  ""rii*,  as  the  apposition  Q^?3T  shows : 
literally,  think  of  me  and  thee,  the  riders.  The  olden  translators 
were  misled  by  ^3i<,  and  therefore  transposed  "ibr  into  the  first 
person,  and  Thenius  naturally  foUows  them.  CI^V  0^??*^,  riding 
in  pairs.  This  is  the  rendering  adopted  by  most  of  the  com- 
mentators, although  it  might  be  taken,  as  it  is  by  Kimchi  and 
Bochart,  as  signifying  the  two  persons  who  are  carried  in  the 
same  chariot.  N|'0,  a  burden,  then  a  prophetic  utterance  of  a 
threatening  nature  (see  the  Comm.  on  Nah.  i.  1).  For  the  con- 
nection of  the  clauses  'Wi  nin^i,  see  Ewald,  §  338,  a.  In  ver.  26 
Jehu  quotes  the  word  of  God  concerning  Ahab  in  1  Kings 
xxi.  19  so  far  as  the  substance  is  concerned,  to  show  that  he  is 
merely  the  agent  employed  in  executing  it.  "  Truly  (N*^"ns,  a 
particle  used  in  an  oath)  the  blood  of  Naboth  and  the  blood  of 
his  sons  have  I  seen  yesterday,  saith  the  Lord,  and  upon  this 
field  wiU  I  requite  him."  The  slaying  of  the  sons  of  Naboth 
is  not  expressly  mentioned  in  1  Kings  xxi.  1 3,  "  because  it  was 
so  usual  a  thing,  that  the  historian  might  leave  it  out  as  a 
matter  of  course  "  (J.  D.  Mich.,  Ewald).  It  necessarily  followed, 
however,  from  the  fact  that  Naboth's  field  was  confiscated  (see 


CHAP.  IX.  lS-29.  343 

at  1  Kings  xxi  14). — ^Vers.  27,  28.  When  Ahaziah  saw  this, 
he  fled  by  the  way  to  the  garden-house,  but  was  smitten,  i.e. 
mortally  wounded,  by  Jehu  at  the  height  of  Gur  near  Jibleam, 
so  that  as  he  was  flying  still  farther  to  Megiddo  he  died,  and 
was  carried  as  a  corpse  by  his  servants  to  Jerusalem,  and  buried 
there.  After  ^'"'2ri,  "  and  him  also,  smite  him,"  we  must  supply 
V135, "  and  they  smote  him,"  which  has  probably  only  dropped  out 
through  a  copyist's  error.  The  way  by  which  Ahaziah  fled,  and 
the  place  where  he  was  mortally  wounded,  cannot  be  exactly  deter- 
mined, as  the  situation  of  the  localities  named  has  not  yet  been 
ascertained.  The  "  garden-house  "  (^n  n-a)  cannot  have  formed 
a  portion  of  the  royal  gardens,  but  must  have  stood  at  some 
distance  from  the  city  of  Jezreel,  as  Ahaziah  went  away  by  the 
road  thither,  and  was  not  wounded  till  he  reached  the  height 
of  Crur  near  Jibleam.  "W^??©,  the  ascent  or  eminence  of  Gur, 
is  defined  by  Jibleam.  Now,  as  Ahaziah  fled  from  Jezreel  to 
Megiddo  past  Jibleam,  Thenius  thinks  that  Jibleam  must  have 
been  situated  between  Jezreel  and  Megiddo.  But  between 
Jezreel  and  Megiddo  there  is  only  the  plain  of  Jezreel  or 
Esdrelom,  in  which  we  cannot  suppose  that  there  was  any  such 
eminence  as  that  of  Ghtr.  Moreover  Jibleam  or  Bileam  (1  Chron. 
vi.  55,  see  at  Josh.  xvii.  11)  was  probably  to  the  south  of 
Jenin,  where  the  old  name  W?3  has  been  preserved  in  the  well 

of  IaAii  BelameJi,  near  Beled  Sheik  Matissur,  which  is  hj^lf  an 

hour's  journey  ofi:  And  it  is  quite  possible  to  bring  this  situa- 
tion of  Jibleam  into  harmony  with  the  account  before  us.  For 
instance,  it  is  a  prion  probable  that  Ahaziah  would  take  the 
road  to  Samaria  when  he  fled  from  Jezreel,  not  onlv  because  his 
father's  brothers  were  there  (ck  x.  13),  but  also  because  it  was 
the  most  direct  road  to  Jerusalem ;  and  he  might  easily  be  pur- 
sued by  Jehu  and  his  company  to  the  height  of  Gur  near  Jibleam 
before  they  overtook  him,  since  the  distance  from  Jezreel  (Zerin) 
to  Jenin  is  only  two  hours  and  a  half  (Eob.  Pal.  iii  p.  828),  and 
the  height  of  Gur  might  very  well  be  an  eminence  which  he 
would  pass  on  the  road  to  Jibleam.  But  the  wounded  king  may 
afterwards  have  altered  the  direction  of  his  flight  for  the  purpose 
of  escaping  to  Megiddo,  probably  because  he  thought  that  he 
should  be  in  greater  safety  there  than  he  would  be  in  Samaria.^ 

^  In  2  Chron.  sxii.  8,  9,  the  account  of  the  slaying  of  Ahaziah  and  his 
brethren  (ch.  x.  12  sqq.)  is  condensed  into  one  brief  statement,  and  then 


344  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

— In  ver.  29  we  are  told  once  more  in  which  year  of  Joram's 
reign  Ahaziah  became  king.  The  discrepancy  between  "  the 
eleventh  year"  here  and  "the  twelfth  year"  in  ch.  viii.  25  may 
be  most  simply  explained,  on  the  supposition  that  there  was  a 
difference  in  the  way  of  reckoning  the  commencement  of  the  years 
of  Joram's  reign. 

Vers.  30-37.  Death  of  Jezebel. — ^Ver,  30.  When  Jehu 
came  to  Jezreel  and  Jezebel  heard  of  it,  "  she  put  her  eyes 
into  lead  polish  {i.e.  painted  them  with  it),  and  beautified  her 
head  and  placed  herself  at  the  window."  !l^3  is  a  very 
favourite  eye-paint  with  Oriental  women  even  to  the  present 

day.     It  is  prepared  from  antimony  ore  ( Jsss^,  Cohol  or  Stibium 

of  the  Arabs),  which  when  pounded  yields  a  black  powder 
with  a  metallic  brilliancy,  which  was  laid  upon  the  eyebrows 
and  eyelashes  either  in  a  dry  state  as  a  black  powder,  or 
moistened  generally  with  oil  and  made  into  an  ointment,  which 
is  applied  with  a  fine  smooth  eye-pencil  of  the  thickness  of 
an  ordinary  goose-quill,  made  either  of  wood,  metal,  or  ivory. 
The  way  to  use  it  was  to  hold  the  central  portion  of  the  pencil 
horizontally  between  the  eyelids,  and  then  draw  it  out  between 
them,  twisting  it  round  all  the  while,  so  that  the  edges  of  the 
eyelids  were  blackened  all  round;  and  the  object  was  to 
heighten  the  splendour  of  the  dark  southern  eye,  and  give  it, 
so  to  speak,  a  more  deeply  glowing  fire,  and  to  impart  a  youth- 
ful appearance  to  the  whole  of  the  eyelashes  even  in  extreme 
old  age.  Kosellini  found  jars  with  eye-paint  of  this  kind  in 
the  early  Egyptian  graves  (vid.  Hille,  iiher  den  Gehrauch  u.  die 

afterwards  it  is  stated  with  regard  to  Ahaziah,  that  "  Jehu  sought  him,  and 
they  seized  him  when  he  was  hiding  in  Samaria,  and  brought  him  to  Jehu 
and  slew  him,"  from  which  it  appears  that  Ahaziah  escaped  to  Samaria.  From 
the  brevity  of  these  accounts  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  discrepancy  with 
perfect  certainty.  On  the  one  hand,  our  account,  which  is  only  limited  to  the 
main  fact,  does  not  preclude  the  possibility  that  Ahaziah  really  escaped  to 
Samaria,  and  was  there  overtaken  by  Jehu's  followers,  and  then  brought  back 
to  Jehu,  and  wounded  upon  the  height  of  Gur  near  Jibleam,  whence  he 
fled  to  Megiddo,  where  he  breathed  out  his  life.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
perfectly  summary  account  in  the  Chronicles,  fin0{^3  N3nn»  N1PI1  may  be 
understood  as  referring  to  the  attempt  to  escape  to  Samaria  and  hide  himself 
there,  and  may  be  reconciled  with  the  assumption  that  he  was  seized  upon  the 
way  to  Samaria,  and  when  overtaken  by  Jehu  was  mortally  wounded. 


CHAP.  IX.  30-3?.  345 

Ziisammensetziing  der  oriental.  AugenschminTce :  Dmtsch.  morg. 
Ztsch.  V.  p.  236  sqq.). — Jezebel  did  this  that  she  might  present 
an  imposing  appearance  to  Jehu  and  die  as  a  queen ;  not  to 
allure  him  by  her  charms  (Ewald,  after  Ephr.  Syr.).  For  (ver. 
31)  when  Jehu  entered  the  palace  gate,  she  cried  out  to  him, 
"  Is  it  peace,  thou  Zimri,  murderer  of  his  lord  ? "  She  addressed 
Jehu  as  Zimri  the  murderer  of  the  king,  to  point  to  the  fate 
which  Jehu  would  bring  upon  himself  by  the  murder  of  the 
king,  as  Zimri  had  already  done  {md.  1  Kings  xvi.  10—18). — 
Vers.  32,  33.  But  Jehu  did  not  deign  to  answer  the  worthless 
woman ;  he  simply  looked  up  to  the  window  and  inquired  : 
"  Who  is  (holds)  with  me  ?  who  ?"  Then  two,  three  chamber- 
lains looked  out  (of  the  side  windows),  and  by  Jehu's  command 
threw  the  proud  queen  out  of  the  window,  so  that  some  of  her 
blood  spirted  upon  the  waU  and  the  horses  (of  Jehu),  and  Jehu 
trampled  her  down,  driving  over  her  with  his  horses  and  chariot. 
— ^Ver.  34.  Jehu  thereupon  entered  the  palace,  ate  and  drank, 
and  then  said  to  his  men :  "  Look  for  this  cursed  woman  and 
bury  her,  for  she  is  a  king's  daughter."  ^"^^i^v",  the  woman 
smitten  by  the  curse  of  God. — ^Vers.  35,  36.  But  when  they 
went  to  bury  her,  they  found  nothing  but  her  skull,  the  two 
feet,  and  the  two  hollow  hands.  The  rest  had  been  eaten  by 
the  dogs  and  dragged  away.  When  this  was  reported  to  Jehu, 
he  said :  "  This  is  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  He  spake  by 
His  servant  Elijah,"  etc.  (1  Kings  xxi  23),  i.e.  this  has  been 
done  in  fulfilment  of  the  word  of  the  Lord.  Ver.  37  is  also 
to  be  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  prophecy  of  Elijah 
quoted  by  Jehu  (and  not  as  a  closing  remark  of  the  historian, 
as  Luther  supposes),  although  what  Jehu  says  here  does  not 
occur  verbatim  in  1  Kings  xxi.  23,  but  Jehu  has  simply 
expanded  rather  freely  the  meaning  of  that  prophecy.  riNni 
(Chetkib)  is  the  older  form  of  the  3d  pers.  fem.  Kal,  which  is 
only  retained  here  and  there  (vid.  Ewald,  §  194,  a).  "iC'X  is 
a  conjunction  (see  Ewald,  §  337,  a) :  "that  men  may  not  be 
able  to  say,  This  is  Jezebel,"  i.e,  that  they  may  no  more  be 
able  to  recognise  JezebeL 


S46  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

CHAP.  X.  1-27.  EXTERMINATION  OF  THE  OTHER  SONS  OF  AHAB,  OF 
THE  BRETHREN  OF  AHAZIAH  OF  JUDAH,  AND  OF  THE  PROPHETS 
OF  BAAL. 

Vers.  1-11.  Extermination  of  the  Seventy  Sons  of  Aiiab 
IN  Samaria. — Vers.  1-3.  As  Ahab  had  seventy  sons  in  Samaria 
(D''J3  in  the  wider  sense,  viz.  sons,  including  grandsons  [see  at 
ver.  13],  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  C)"'?^**,  foster-fathers, 
are  mentioned,  whereas  Ahab  had  been  dead  fourteen  years,  and 
therefore  his  youngest  sons  could  not  have  had  foster-fathers  any 
longer),  Jehu  sent  a  letter  to  the  elders  of  the  city  and  to  the 
foster-fathers  of  the  princes,  to  the  effect  that  they  were  to 
place  one  of  the  sons  of  their  lord  upon  the  throne.  There  is 
something  very  strange  in  the  words  D^Jip-Tn  7Nrir.  ^ltr"7K,  "  to  the 
princes  of  Jezreel,  the  old  men,"  partly  on  account  of  the  name 
Jezreel,  and  partly  on  account  of  the  combination  of  0''^!?^^  with 
*")B>.  If  we  compare  ver.  5,  it  is  evident  that  Q"'JP^"3  cannot 
be  the  adjective  to  T  ^')^,  but  denotes  the  elders  of  the  city,  so 
that  the  preposition  bs*  has  dropped  out  before  D''JpTn.  ^Ny7n  ''TIV", 
the  princes  or  principal  men  of  Jezreel,  might  certainly  be  the 
chief  court-officials  of  the  royal  house  of  Ahab,  since  Ahab 
frequently  resided  in  Jezreel.  But  against  this  supposition 
there  is  not  only  the  circumstance  that  we  cannot  discover 
any  reason  why  the  court-officials  living  in  Samaria  should  be 
called  princes  of  Jezreel,  but  also  ver.  5,  where,  instead  of  the 
princes  of  Jezreel,  the  governor  of  the  city  and  the  governor  of 
the  castle  are  mentioned.  Consequently  there  is  an  error  of 
the  text  in  b^<JnT^  which  ought  to  read  b^«  i^V'7,  though  it  is  older 
than  the  ancient  versions,  since  the  Chaldee  has  the  reading 
ijNjnr*,  and  no  doubt  the  Alexandrian  translator  read  the  same, 
as  the  Septuagint  has  sometimes  t^9  TroXewf,  like  the  Vulgate, 
and  sometimes  Xafiapeia<i,  both  unquestionably  from  mere  con- 
jecture. The  "princes  of  the  city"  are,  according  to  ver  5,  the 
prefect  of  the  palace  and  the  captain  of  the  city  ;  the  Q'^i?^, 
"  elders,"  the  magistrates  of  Samaria ;  and  3NnK  CJOK,  the  foster- 
fathers  and  tutors  appointed  by  Ahab  for  his  sons  and  grand- 
sons. 3Knx  is  governed  freely  by  D'':oNn  In  ver.  2  the 
words  from  0?J!1><1  to  ptJ'sri  form  an  explanatory  circumstantial 
clause  :  "  since  the  sons  of  your  lord  are  with  you,  and  with 
you  the  war-chariots  and  horses,  and  a  fortified  city  and  arms," 
%.e.   since  you   have    every  tiling   in   your   hands, — the   royal 


CHAP.  X.  1-11.  347 

princes  and  also  the  power  to  make  one  of  them  king.  It  is 
perfectly  e"\'ident  from  the  words,  "the  sons  of  your  lord," 
i.e.  of  king  Joram,  that  the  seventy  sons  of  Ahab  included 
grandsons  also.  This  challenge  of  Jehu  was  only  a  ruse,  by 
which  he  hoped  to  discover  the  feelings  of  the  leading  men  of 
the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  because  he  could  not  venture,  with- 
out being  well  assured  of  them,  to  proceed  to  Samaria  to  exter- 
minate the  remaining  members  of  the  royal  family  of  Ahab  who 
were  living  there.  ^V  on??,  to  fight  concerning,  i.e.  for  a  person, 
as  in  Judg.  ix.  17. — ^Vers.  4,  5.  This  ruse  had  the  desired 
result.  The  recipients  of  the  letter  were  in  great  fear,  and  said. 
Two  kings  could  not  stand  before  him,  how  shall  we  ?  and  sent 
messengers  to  announce  their  submission,  and  to  say  that  they 
were  willing  to  carry  out  his  commands,  and  had  no  desire  to 
appoint  a  king. — Vers.  6,  7.  Jehu  then  wrote  them  a  second 
letter,  to  say  that  if  they  would  hearken  to  his  voice,  they  were 
to  send  to  him  on  the  morrow  at  this  time,  to  Jezreel,  the  heads 
of  the  sons  of  their  lord  ;  which  they  willingly  did,  slaying  the 
seventy  men,  and  sending  him  their  heads  in  baskets.  ^^1 
'IK  'J3  'B'JK,  "  the  heads  of  the  men  of  the  sons  of  your  lord," 
i.e.  of  the  male  descendants  of  Ahab,  in  which  'JT^X  may  be 
explained  from  the  fact  that  D3\3ns"^:3  has  the  meaning  "  royal 
princes"  (see  the  similar  case  in  Judg.  xix.  22).  In  order  to 
bring  out  still  more  clearly  the  magnitude  of  Jehu's  demand, 
the  number  of  the  victims  required  is  repeated  in  the  circum- 
stantial clause,  "  and  there  were  seventy  men  of  the  king's  sons 
with  (ns)  the  great  men  of  the  city,  who  had  brought  them  up." 
— Vers.  8,  9.  "When  the  heads  were  brought,  Jehu  had  them 
piled  up  in  two  heaps  before  the  city-gate,  and  spoke  the  next 
morning  to  the  assembled  people  in  front  of  them  :  "  Ye  are 
righteous.  Behold  I  have  conspired  against  my  lord,  and  have 
slain  him,  but  who  has  slain  all  these  ?"  Jehu  did  not  teU  the 
people  that  the  king's  sons  had  been  slain  by  his  command,  but 
spake  as  if  this  had  been  done  without  his  interfering  by  a 
higher  decree,  that  he  might  thereby  justify  his  conspiracy  in 
the  eyes  of  the  people,  and  make  them  believe  what  he  says 
stiU  further  in  ver.  10  :  "  See  then  that  of  the  word  of  the  Lord 
nothing  falls  to  the  ground  {i.e.  remains  unfulfilled)  which 
Jehovah  has  spoken  concerning  the  house  of  Ahab;  and  Jehovah 
has  done  what  He  spake  through  His  servant  Elijah." — ^Ver.  11. 
The  effect  of  these  words  was,  that  the  people  looked  quietly 


348  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

on  when  he  proceeded  to  slay  all  the  rest  of  the  house  of  Ahah, 
i.e.  all  the  more  distant  relatives  in  Jezreel,  and  "  all  his  great 
men,"  i.e.  the  superior  officers  of  the  fallen  dynasty,  and  "  all  his 
acquaintances,"  i.e.  friends  and  adherents,  and  "  all  his  priests," 
probably  court  priests,  such  as  the  heathen  kings  had;  not  secular 
counsellors  or  nearest  servants  (Thenius),  a  meaning  which  D^^lI^ 
never  has,  not  even  in  2  Sam,  viii.  18  and  1  Kings  iv.  5. 

Vers.  12-17.  Extermination  of  the  Brothers  of  Ahaziah 

OF  JUDAH   AND  OF   THE   OTHER  MEMBERS  OF  AhAB'S  DyNASTY. 

Vers.  1 2  sqq.  Jehu  then  set  out  to  Samaria ;  and  on  the  way,  at 
the  binding-house  of  the  shepherds,  he  met  with  the  brethren  of 
Ahaziah,  who  were  about  to  visit  their  royal  relations,  and  when 
he  learned  who  they  were,  had  them  all  seized,  viz.  forty-two 
men,  and  put  to  death  at  the  cistern  of  the  binding-house.  N^'l 
■=1^.'],  "  he  came  and  v/ent,"  appears  pleonastic ;  the  words  are 
not  to  be  transposed,  however,  as  Bottcher  and  Thenius  pro- 
pose after  the  Syriac,  but  ^?^i  is  added,  because  Jehu  did  not 
go  at  once  to  Samaria,  but  did  what  follows  on  the  way.  By 
transposing  the  words,  the  slaying  of  the  relations  of  Ahaziah 
would  be  transferred  to  Samaria,  in  contradiction  to  vers.  15 
sqq. — The  words  from  'lil  ri"'3  N^n  onwards,  and  from  fr'^n^i  to 
rriin^  !]70^  are  two  circumstantial  clauses,  in  which  the  sub- 
ject i^'in;.  is  added  in  the  second  clause  for  the  sake  of  greater 
clearness :  "  when  he  was  at  the  binding-house  of  the  shep- 
herds on  the  road,  and  Jehu  (there)  met  with  the  brethren  of 
Ahaziah,  he  said  .  .  .  ."  D^r^"  "l^r^^'?  {BaieaKad,  LXX.)  is 
explained  by  Eashi,  after  the  Chaldee  fr<JV"J  '^?'''??  ^^i?,  as  signify- 
ing locus  conventus  jpastorum,  the  meeting-place  of  the  shep- 
herds ;  and  Gesenius  adopts  the  same  view.  But  the  rest  of 
the  earlier  translators  for  the  most  part  adopt  the  rendering, 
locus  ligationis  pastorum,  from  1i?y,  to  bind,  and  think  of  a  house 
ubi  pastores  ligabant  oves  quando  eas  tondehant.  In  any  case  it 
was  a  house,  or  perhaps  more  correctly  a  place,  where  the 
shepherds  wer«  in  the  habit  of  meeting,  and  that  on  the  road 
from  Jezreel  to  Samaria  ;  according  to  Eusebius  in  the  Onom. 
s.v.  BaidaKad,  a  place  fifteen  Eoman  miles  from  Legio  {Lcjun, 
Megiddo),  in  the  great  plain  of  Jezreel  :  a  statement  which 
may  be  correct  with  the  exception  of  the  small  number  of  miles, 
but  which  does  not  apply  to  the  present  village  of  Beit  Kad  to 
the  east  of  Jenin  (Rob.  Pal.  iii  p.  157),  with  which,  according 


CHAP.  X.  12-17.  349 

to  Thenius,  it  exactly  coincides,  ^nnns  *n«,  for  which  we  have 
'ns  'nx  "'22^  Ahaziah's  brothers'  sons,  in  2  Chron.  xxii.  8,  were 
not  the  actual  brothers  of  Ahaziah,  since  they  had  been  carried 
off  by  the  Arabians  and  put  to  death  before  he  ascended  the 
throne  (2  Chron.  xxi.  17),  but  partly  step-brothers,  i.e.  sons  of 
Joram  by  his  concubines,  and  partly  Ahaziah's  nephews  and 
cousins.  Qi-'y'p,  ad  sahdandiim,  i.e.  to  inquire  how  they  were,  or 
to  \isit  the  sons  of  the  king  (Joram)  and  of  the  queen-mother, 
i.e.  Jezebel,  therefore  Joram's  brothers.  In  ver.  1  they  are  both 
included  among  the  "  sons  "  of  Ahab. — Vers.  1 5  sqq.  As  Jehu 
proceeded  on  his  way,  he  met  with  Jehonadab  the  son  of 
Eechab,  and  having  saluted  him,  inquired,  "  Is  thy  heart  true  as 
my  heart  towards  thy  heart  ? "  and  on  his  replying  K^,  "  it  is 
(honourable  or  true),"  he  bade  him  come  up  into  the  chariot, 
saying  t^?.),  "  if  it  is  (so),  give  me  thy  hand ;"  whereupon  he  said 
still  further,  "  Come  with  me  and  see  my  zeal  for  Jehovah,"  and 
then  drove  with  him  to  Samaria,  and  there  exterminated  aU 
that  remained  of  Ahab's  family,  Jehonadab  the  son  of  Rccliah 
was  the  tribe-father  of  the  Eechabites  (Jer,  xxxv.  6).  The  rule 
which  the  latter  laid  down  for  his  sons  and  descendants  for  aU 
time,  was  to  lead  a  simple  nomad  life,  namely,  to  dwell  in  tents, 
follow  no  agricultural  pursuits,  and  abstain  from  wine  ;  which 
rule  they  observed  so  sacredly,  that  the  prophet  Jeremiah  held 
them  up  as  models  before  his  own  contemporaries,  who  broke 
the  law  of  God  in  the  most  shameless  manner,  and  was  able  to 
announce  to  the  Eechabites  that  they  would  be  exempted  from 
the  Chaldsean  judgment  for  their  faithful  obsen'ance  of  their 
father's  precept  (Jer.  xxxv.).  Rechab,  from  whom  the  descend- 
ants of  Jehonadab  derived  their  tribe-name,  was  the  son  of 
Hammath,  and  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  the  Kenites  (1  Chron. 
ii.  55),  to  which  Hobab  the  father-in-law  of  Moses  also  belonged 
(Xum.  x.  29)  ;  so  that  the  Eechabites  were  probably  descend- 
ants of  Hobab,  since  the  Kenites  the  sons  of  Hobab  had  gone 
with  the  Israelites  from  the  Arabian  desert  to  Canaan,  and  had 
there  carried  on  their  nomad  Hfe  (Judg.  i  1 6,  iv.  1 1 ;  1  Sam. 
XV.  6  ;  see  Witsii  Miscell.  ss.  ii.  p.  223  sqq.).  This  Jehonadab 
was  therefore  a  man  distinguished  for  the  strictness  of  his  life, 
and  Jehu  appears  to  have  received  him  in  this  friendly  manner 
on  account  of  the  great  distinction  in  which  he  was  held,  not 
only  in  Ms  own  tribe,  but  also  in  Israel  generally,  that  he 
might  exalt  himself  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  through  his 


350  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

friendship.^ — In  ^3nyns  c'^n,  "  is  with  regard  to  thy  heart  hon- 
ourable or  upright  ?"  ON  is  used  to  subordinate  the  noun  to  the 
clause,  in  the  sense  of  quoad  (see  Ewald,  §  277,  a).  D^"iNB'3n-^3 
asnxp,  "  all  that  remained  to  Ahab,"  i.e.  all  the  remaining  mem- 
bers of  Ahab's  house. 

Vers.  18-27.  Extermination  of  the  Prophets  and  Priests 
OF  Baal  and  of  the  Baal-worship. — ^Vers.  18  sqq.  Under  the 
pretence  of  wishing  to  serve  Baal  even  more  than  Ahab  had 
done,  Jehu  appointed  a  great  sacrificial  festival  for  this  idol, 
and  had  all  the  worshippers  of  Baal  throughout  all  the  land 
summoned  to  attend  it ;  he  then  placed  eighty  of  his  guards 
around  the  temple  of  Baal  in  which  they  were  assembled,  and 
after  the  sacrifice  was  offered,  had  the  priests  and  worshippers 
of  Baal  cut  down  by  them  with  the  sword.  Objectively  con- 
sidered, the  sla3dng  of  the  worshippers  of  Baal  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law,  and,  according  to  the  theocratical  principle, 
was  perfectly  right ;  but  the  subjective  motives  which  impelled 
Jehu,  apart  from  the  artifice,  were  thoroughly  selfish,  as  Seb. 
Schmidt  has  correctly  observed.  For  since  the  priests  and 
prophets  of  Baal  throughout  the  Israelitish  kingdom  were 
bound  up  with  the  dynasty  of  Ahab,  with  all  their  interests 
and  with  their  whole  existence,  they  might  be  very  dangerous 
to  Jehu,  if  on  any  political  grounds  he  should  happen  not  to 
promote  their  objects,  whereas  by  their  extermination  he  might 
hope  to  draw  to  his  side  the  whole  of  the  very  numerous 
supporters  of  the  Jehovah-worship,  which  had  formerly  been 
legally  established  in  Israel,  and  thereby  establish  his  throne 
more  firmly.  The  very  fact  that  Jehu  allowed  the  calf-wor- 
ship to  continue,  is  a  proof  that  he  simply  used  religion  as  the 
means  of  securing  his  own  ends  (ver.  29).  nn^y.  ^^np  (ver.  20), 
"  sanctify  a  festal  assembly,"  i.e.  proclaim  in  the  land  a  festal 
assembly  for  Baal  (compare  Isa.  i.  13 ;  and  for  nnvj;  =  niYj;,  see 
at  Lev.  xxiii.  36).  is^P*i,  and  they  proclaimed,  sc.  the  festal 
meeting. — Ver.   21.    The  temple  of  Baal  was  filled   nsp  ns, 

1  According  to  C.  a  Lapide,  Jehu  took  him  up  into  his  chariot  "  that  he 
might  estabUsh  his  authority  with  the  Samaritans,  and  secure  a  name  for 
integrity  by  having  Jehonadab  as  his  ally,  a  man  whom  all  held  to  be  both 
an  upright  and  holy  man,  that  in  this  way  he  might  the  more  easily  carry  out 
the  slaughter  of  the  Baalites,  which  he  was  planning,  without  any  one  daring 
to  resist  him." 


CHAP.  X.  18-27.  351 

"  from  one  edge  (end)  to  the  other."  na  in  this  sense  is  not 
to  be  derived  from  "^5^,  a  comer  (Cler.,  Ges.),  but  signifies 
mouth,  or  the  upper  rim  of  a  vesseL  MetajpTiora  mmta  a  rasi- 
bics  humore  aliquo  pknis :  VatabL — ^Yer.  22.  nnn^i-by  l^S  is 
the  keeper  of  the  wardrobe  (Arab.  prccfecttLS  vestium),  for  the 
CLTT.  Xey.  nnnpo  signifies  vestiarium  (Gres.  Thes.  p.  764).  The  refer- 
ence is  not  to  the  wardrobe  of  the  king's  palace,  out  of  which 
Jehu  had  every  one  who  took  part  in  the  feast  supplied  with  a 
festal  dress  or  new  caftan  (Deres.,  Then.,  etc),  but  the  ward- 
robe of  the  temple  of  Baal,  since  the  priests  of  Baal  had  their 
own  sacred  dresses  like  the  priests  of  almost  all  religions  (as 
Silius  has  expressly  shown  in  his  ItcU.  iiL  24—27,  of  the  priests 
of  the  Gadetanic  Hercides).  These  dresses  were  only  worn  at  the 
time  of  worship,  and  were  kept  in  a  wardrobe  in  the  temple. — 
Vers.  23,  24.  Jehu  then  came  with  Jehonadab  to  the  temple, 
and  commanded  the  worshippers  of  Baal  to  be  carefully  examined, 
that  there  might  not  be  one  of  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah  with 
(among)  theuL  When  the  priests  of  Baal  were  preparing  to 
offer  sacrifice,  Jehu  had  eighty  men  of  his  guards  stationed  before 
the  temple,  and  laid  this  injunction  upon  them :  "  Whoever  lets 
one  of  the  men  escape  whom  I  bring  into  your  hands  (we  must 
read  c^o'  instead  of  t27D^),  his  life  shall  answer  for  his  (the 
escaped  man's)  life.  ^K'SJ  r\nn  it^w,  as  in  1  Kings  xx.  39. — 
Ver.  25.  111333:  when  he  (the  sacrificing  priest,  not  Jehu)  had 
finished  the  bumt-offering  (the  singular  suffix  i  may  also  be 
taken  as  indefinite,  when  one  had  finished,  vicl.  Ewald,  §  294,  Z>), 
Jehu  commanded  the  runners  and  aides-de-camp:  Come  and 
smite  them  (the  worshippers  of  Baal),  without  one  coming  out 
(escaping) ;  whereupon  they  smote  them  with  the  edge  of  the 
sword,  i.e.  slew  them  unsparingly,  ^"bv^:  and  the  runners 
and  aides-de-camp  threw  (those  who  had  been  slain)  away, 
and  went  into  the  citadel  of  the  temple  of  BaaL  i5J?2n"n'3  n^y 
cannot  be  the  city  of  the  temple  of  Baal,  i.e.  that  part  of 
the  city  in  which  the  temple  of  Baal  stood,  for  the  runners 
were  already  in  the  court  of  the  temple  of  Baal ;  but  it  is 
no  doubt  the  temple-citadel,  the  true  temple-house  (Ty  from 
"t^y,  locus  circumseptus) — templum  Baalis  magnifice  exstructum 
instar  arcis  alicujus  (Seb.  Schm.). — Ver.  26.  They  then  fetched 
the  columns  (nbsra)  out  of  the  temple  and  burned  them  (the 
suffix  in  '7^3T^.  refers  to  the  plural  ribjm  taken  as  an  abstract 
noun,  as  in  ch.  iiL  3 ;  cf .  Ewald,  §  317,  a).     They  then  broke 


352  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

in  pieces  the  ?J??'!'  ^^'^,  column  of  Baal,  i.e.  the  real  image  of 
Baal,  probably  a  conical  stone  dedicated  to  Baal,  whereas  the 
nh2fO,  which  were  burned,  were  wooden  columns  as  trdpehpoi  or 
(TVfx^co/xot,  of  Baal  (see  Movers,  Phoniz.  i.  p.  674). — Ver.  27. 
Lastly,  they  destroyed  the  temple  itself  and  made  it  riisnncp, 
privies,  for  which  the  Masoretes  have  substituted  the  euphemistic 
nisvio,  sinks,  as  a  mark  of  the  greatest  insult,  many  examples 
of  which  are  to  be  met  with  among  Oriental  tribes  (^id.  Ezra 
vi.  11,  Dan.  ii.  5,  and  Heevernick  in  loc). — Thus  Jehu  exter- 
minated Baal  from  Israel  This  remark  in  ver.  28  forms  the 
introduction  to  the  history  of  Jehu's  reign,  with  which  the  last 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  ten  tribes  begins. 


3.  Fkom  the  Commencement  of  the  Eeigns  of  Jehu  in  Israel, 

AND  AtHALIAH  in  JUDAH,  TO  THE  DeSTEUCTION  OF  THE  KING- 
DOM OF  Israel. 

Chap.  x.  28-xvii. 

In  the  161  years  which  this  epoch  embraces,  from  B.C.  883 
to  722,  the  fate  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  was  accomplished. 
The  first  hundred  years,  which  comprised  the  reigns  of  Jehu  and 
his  descendants,  Jehoahaz,  Jehoash,  and  Jeroboam  ii.,  were  the 
last  day  of  grace  for  the  rebellious  ten  tribes,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  which  the  judgment  began  to  burst  upon  them.  As  the 
anointing  of  Jehu  by  Elisha  was  performed  by  the  command  of 
God,  so  also  was  the  religious  reform,  which  Jehu  vigorously 
commenced  with  the  extermination  of  the  Baal-worship,  a  fruit 
of  the  labours  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha  within  the 
sinful  kingdom ;  but  this  reform  stood  stiU  haK-way,  since  Jehu 
merely  restored  the  idolatrous  Jehovah- worship  introduced  by 
Jeroboam,  and  neither  he  himseK  nor  his  successors  desisted 
from  that  sin.  In  order,  therefore,  if  possible,  to  complete  the 
work  begun  by  His  prophets  of  converting  Israel  to  its  God,  the 
Lord  now  began  to  visit  the  rebellious  tribes  with  severe  chas- 
tisements, giving  them  up  into  the  power  of  the  Syrians,  who 
under  Hazael  not  only  conquered  the  whole  of  the  land  to  the 
east  of  the  Jordan,  but  almost  annihilated  the  military  force  of 
the  Israelites  (ch.  x.  32,  33,  xiii.  3,  7).  This  chastisement  did 
not  remain  without  fruit.  Jehoahaz  prayed  to  the  Lord,  and  the 
Lord  had  compassion  upon  the  oppressed  for  the  sake  of  His 


CHAP.  X.  28,  ETC.  353 

covenant  "u-ith  the  patriarchs,  and  sent  them  deliverers  in  Joash, 
who  recovered  the  conquered  land  from  the  SjTians  after  the 
death  of  Hazael,  and  in  Jeroboam,  who  even  restored  the  ancient 
boundaries  of  the  kingdom  (ch.  xiii.  4,  5,  and  23  sqq.,  xiv.  25, 
26).  But  with  this  renewal  of  external  strength,  luxuriance  and 
debauchery,  partiality  in  judgment  and  oppression  of  the  poor 
began  to  prevail,  as  we  may  see  from  the  prophecies  of  Hosea 
and  Amos  (Amos  v.  10  sqq.,  vi.  1-6  ;  Hos.  vi.  7  sqq.)  ;  and  in 
addition  to  the  Jehovah-worship,  which  was  performed  in  an 
idolatrous  manner  (Hos.  viii.  13,  ix.  4,  5),  the  worship  of  Baal 
was  carried  on  most  vigorously  (Hos.  iL  13,  15,  x.  1,  2),  so 
that  the  people  made  pilgrimages  to  Bethel,  Gilgal,  and  even  to 
Beersheba  in  the  south  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  (Hos.  iv.  15  ; 
Amos  iv.  4,  v.  5,  viii.  14),  and  on  account  of  the  worship  thus 
zealously  performed,  relied  in  carnal  security  upon  the  protection 
of  God,  and  scoffed  at  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  which  were 
threatened  by  the  prophets  (Amos  v.  14,  18).  This  internal 
corruption  increased  with  the  death  of  Jeroboam,  till  all  civil 
order  was  dissolved.  Anarchy,  conflicts  for  the  possession  of 
the  throne,  and  repeated  regicides,  broke  up  the  kingdom  and 
made  it  ripe  for  the  judgment  of  destruction,  which  was  gradu- 
ally accomplished  by  the  Assyrians,  whom  one  party  in  the 
reign  of  Menahem  had  called  to  their  help,  under  Pul,  Tiglath- 
pileser,  and  Shalmanasar. — The  kingdom  of  Judah,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  purified  from  the  destructive  consequences  of  the  alli- 
ance with  the  dynasty  of  Ahab  through  the  overthrow  by  the 
high  priest  Jehoiada  of  the  godless  Athaliah,  who  had  murdered 
the  royal  children  after  the  death  of  Ahaziah  and  seized  upon 
the  government,  and,  with  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  and  the 
extermination  of  the  worship  of  Baal  under  the  young  king  whom 
Jehoiada  had  trained,  was  brought  back  to  the  theocratic  path ; 
and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  in  the  closing  years  of  Joash 
and  Amaziah  idolatry  found  admission  again,  was  preserved  in 
that  path,  in  which  it  increased  in  strength  and  stability,  so  that 
not  only  were  the  wounds  quickly  healed  which  the  war  with 
Israel,  occasioned  by  Amaziah's  pride,  had  inflicted  upon  it  through 
the  conquest  and  plunder  of  Jerusalem  (ch.  xiv.  8  sqq.),  but" 
during  the  sixty-eight  years  comprised  in  the  reigns  of  Uzziah 
and  Jotham,  the  people  rose  to  a  state  of  great  prosperity  and 
wealth  through  the  pursuit  of  agriculture  and  trade,  and  a 
thoughtful  development  of  the  resources  of  the  land,  and  the 

z 


354  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

kingdom  acquired  great  external  power  through  the  humiliation 
of  the  Philistines  and  the  subjugation  of  the  Edomites  once 
more  (2  Chron.  xxvi.).  At  the  same  time,  neither  of  these 
kings  was  able  entirely  to  suppress  the  illegal  worship  of  the 
high  places,  although  the  temple-worship  was  regularly  sustained 
according  to  the  law ;  and  with  the  increase  of  wealth  and  power, 
not  only  did  luxuriance  and  pride  set  in,  but  also  idolatry  and 
an  inclination  to  heathen  ways  (Isa.  ii.  5-8  and  16  sqq.,  v.  18 
sqq.) ;  so  that  even  in  the  reigns  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham  Isaiah 
predicted  the  day  of  the  Lord's  judgment,  which  was  to  fall 
upon  everything  lofty  and  proud  (Isa.  ii.-iv.).  This  prophecy 
began  to  be  fulfilled,  so  far  as  its  first  beginnings  were  concerned, 
even  in  the  time  of  Ahaz.  Under  this  weak  and  idolatrous 
ruler  idolatry  gained  the  upper  hand,  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
was  suppressed;  and  this  open  apostasy  from  the  Lord  was 
followed  by  immediate  punishment.  The  allied  kings  of  Israel 
and  Syria  forced  their  way  victoriously  into  Judah,  and  even 
stood  before  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  with  the  intention  of 
destroying  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  when  Ahaz,  despising  the 
help  of  the  Lord,  which  was  ofiered  him  by  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
purchased  the  assistance  of  Tiglath-pileser  the  king  of  Assyria 
with  silver  and  gold,  and  was  thereby  delivered  from  his  foes. 
But  this  made  him  dependent  upon  the  Assyrians,  who  would 
have  conquered  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and  destroyed  it,  as  they 
had  already  destroyed  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  had  not  the  Lord 
hearkened  to  the  prayer  of  the  pious  king  and  miraculously 
routed  the  powerful  army  of  Sennacherib  before  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem. 

CHAP.  X.  28-36.    REIGN  OF  JEHU  OF  ISRAEL. 

Vers.  28,  29.  Jehu  exterminated  the  worship  of  Baal  from 
Israel ;  but  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  the  golden  calves  at  Bethel 
and  Dan,  that  is  to  say,  the  idolatrous  worship  of  Jehovah,  he 
allowed  to  remain.  "  The  golden  calves,  etc. :  "  this  is  a  supple- 
mentary and  explanatory  apposition  to  "  the  sins  of  Jeroboam." 
— Vers.  30,  31.  Jehu  is  promised  the  possession  of  the  throne  to 
the  fourth  generation  of  his  sons  for  having  exterminated  the 
godless  royal  house  of  Ahab  (vid.  ch.  xv.  12).  The  divine  sen- 
tence, "  because  thou  hast  acted  well  to  do  right  in  mine  eyes, 
(because  thou)  hast  done  as  it  was  in  my  heart  to  the  house  of 
Ahab,"  refers  to  the  deed  as  such,  and  not  to  the  subjective 


CHAP.  SI.  1-3.  355 

motives  by  "which  Jehu  had  been  actuated.  For  it  is  obvious 
that  it  had  not  sprung  from  pure  zeal  for  the  honour  of  the  Lord, 
from  the  limitation  added  in  ver,  31 :  "  but  Jehu  did  not  take 
heed  to  walk  in  the  law  of  Jehovah  with  all  his  heart,  and  did 
not  depart  from  the  sins  of  Jeroboam." — VerSv  32,  33.  There- 
fore (this  link  of  connection  follows  from  the  actual  fact,  though 
it  is  not  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  text)  Hazael  had  now  to 
inflict  chastisement  upon  faithless  Israel  In  Jehu's  days  Jeho- 
vah began  "  to  cut  off  in  Israel,"  i.e.  to  rend  away  certain  portions 
from  the  kingdom.  "  Hazael  smote  them  (the  Israelites)  on  the 
whole  of  the  border  of  Israel,"  i.e.  of  the  kingdom,  "  from  Jordan 
to  the  sun-rising  (i.e.  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan),  the 
whole  of  the  land  of  Gilead  (P.?~^r  ^^  is  depeiadent  upon  na^, 
which  must  be  supplied  from  D?^),  namely,  the  territory  of  the 
tribes  of  Gad,  Eeuben,  and  Half-Manasseh,  from  Aroer  on  the 
brook  Amon  (now  Araayr,  a  ruin  on  the  northern  border  of  the 
Mojeb  (Amon)  valley;  see  at  Xum.  xxxii.  34),  the  southern 
border  of  the  IsraeUtish  land  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  (Deut. 
ii  36,  iii  12),  both  Gilead  and  Bashan,"  the  two  countries  into 
which  Gilead  in  the  broader  sense  was  divided  (see  at  Deut.  iii 
8-1 7). — These  conquests  took  place  during  the  twenty-eight  years' 
reign  of  Jehu,  since  Hazael  began  to  reign  before  Jehu,  viz.  while 
Joram  was  king,  and  had  already  fought  successfully  against  the 
Israelites  at  Eamoth  in  Joram's  reign  (ch.  viiL  28,  29),  \)ut  not 
in  the  later  part  of  Jehu's  reign,  as  Thenius  supposes. — Vers. 
34-36.  Conclusion  of  the  history  of  Jehu's  reiga  The  length 
of  Ms  reign  is  not  given  till  the  end  in  this  instance  (ver.  36), 
contrary  to  the  usual  custom  in  our  books,  because  his  ascent  of 
the  throne  is  not  expressly  mentioned  in  what  precedes ;  but  the 
general  character  of  his  reign  is  given  in  immediate  connection 
with  the  account  of  his  anointing  and  of  the  extermination  of 
Ahab's  dynasty. 

CHAP.    XI.    TYRANNY    AND    OVERTHROW    OF   ATHALIAH,    AND 
CORONATION  OF  JOASH. 

Vers.  1-3.  The  Government  of  Athaliah  (cf  2  Chron.  xxiL 
10-12).  After  the  death  of  Ahaziah  of  Judah,  his  mother 
Athaliah,  a  daughter  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel  (see  at  ch.  viii  18 
and  26),  seized  upon  the  government,  by  putting  to  death  all 
the  king's  descendants  with  the  exception  of  Joash,  a  son  of 
Ahaziah  of  only  a  year  old,  who  had  been  secretly  carried  off 


356  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

from  tlie  midst  of  the  royal  children,  who  were  put  to  death, 
by  Jehosheba,  his  father  s  sister,  the  wife  of  the  high  priest 
Jehoiada,  and  was  first  of  all  hidden  with  his  nurse  in  the  bed- 
chamber, and  afterwards  kept  concealed  from  Athaliah  for  six 
years  in  the  high  priest's  house.  The  ^  before  nris"i  is  no  doubt 
original,  the  subject,  Athaliah  the  mother  of  Ahaziah,  being 
placed  at  the  head  absolutely,  and  a  circumstantial  clause  intro- 
■duced  with  ^^^1). :  "Athaliah,  when  she  saw  that,  etc.,  rose  up." 
n370»n  yirp3,  all  the  royal  seed,  {.e.  all  the  sons  and  relations  of 
Ahaziah,  who  could  put  in  any  claim  to  succeed  to  the  throne. 
At  the  same  time  there  were  hardly  any  other  direct  descend- 
ants of  the  royal  family  in  existence  beside  the  sons  of  Ahaziah, 
since  the  elder  brothers  of  Ahaziah  had  been  carried  away  by 
the  Arabs  and  put  to  death,  and  the  rest  of  the  closer  blood- 
relations  of  the  male  sex  had  been  slain  by  Jehu  (see  at  ch.  x. 
13). — Jehosheba  (V?f^n>,  in  the  Chronicles  nVf^^in^),  the  wife  of 
the  high  priest  Jehoiada  (2  Chron.  xxii.  11),  was  a  daughter  of 
king  Joram  and  a  sister  of  Ahaziah,  but  she  was  most  likely 
not  a  daughter  of  Athaliah,  as  this  worshipper  of  Baal  would 
hardly  have  allowed  her  own  daughter  to  marry  the  high 
priest,  but  had  been  bom  to  Joram  by  a  wife  of  the  second 
rank.  D^nioo  (Chetkib),  generally  a  substantive,  mortes  (Jer. 
xvi.  4 ;  Ezek.  xxviii.  8),  here  an  adjective :  slain  or  set  apart 
for  death.  The  Keri  D^no^D  is  the  participle  Hophal,  as  in 
,2  Chron.  xxii.  11.  'on  nnna  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with 
3!i3ri :  she  stole  him  (took  him  away  secretly)  from  the  rest  of 
the  king's  sons,  who  were  about  to  be  put  to  death,  into  the 
chamber  of  the  beds,  i.e.  not  the  children's  bed-room,  but  a  room 
in  the  palace  where  the  beds  (mattresses  and  counterpanes) 
were  kept,  for  which  in  the  East  there  is  a  special  room  that  is 
iiot  used  as  a  dwelling-room  (see  Chardin  in  Harm.  Bedbl.  iii. 
p.  357).  This  was  the  place  in  which  at  first  it  was  easiest  to 
conceal  the  child  and  its  nurse.  ^"iJ?>p?!!,  "  they  (Jehosheba  and 
the  nurse)  concealed  him,"  is  not  to  be  altered  into  inn^riiprii  after 
the  Chronicles,  as  Thenius  maintains.  The  masculine  is  used 
in  the  place  of  the  feminine,  as  is  frequently  the  case.  After- 
wards he  was  concealed  with  her  (with  Jehosheba)  in  the  house 
of  Jehovah,  i.e.  in  the  home  of  the  high-priest  in  one  of  the 
buildings  of  the  court  of  the  temple. 

Vers.  4-20.  Dethronement  of  Athaliah  and  Coronation 


CHAP.  XI.  4-20.  357 

OF  JoASH  (compare  the  account  in  2  Chron,  xxiii.,  wliich  is 
more  elaborate  in  several  points).  ^ — Ver.  4.  In  the  seventh 
year  of  Athaliah's  reign,  Jehoiada  sent  for  the  captains  of  the 
king's  body-guard  to  come  to  him  into  the  temple,  and  concluded 
a  covenant  with  them,  making  them  swear  and  showing  them 
the  king's  son,  namely,  to  dethrone  the  t}Tant  Athaliah  and  set 
the  king's  son  upon  the  throne.  nrsQn  nb',  centuriones,  mili- 
tary commanders  of  the  executioners  and  runners,  i.e.  of  the 
royal  body-guard.  The  Chcthib  ni^KO  niay  be  explained  from 
the  fact  that  nxp  is  abridged  from  r\l^^  (rid.  Ewald,  §  261, d). 
On  n'Tl\  ""1^  =  ''^'?.^^)  '073l'  (1  Kings  i.  38)  see  the  Comm.  on 
2  Sam.  viii.  18  ;  and  on  p  as  a  periphrasis  of  the  genitive,  see 
Ewald,  §  292,  a.  In  2  Chron  xxiii.  1-3  the  chronicler  not 
only  gives  the  names  of  these  captains,  but  relates  still  more 
minutely  that  they  went  about  in  the  land  and  summoned  the 
Levites  and  heads  of  families  in  Israel  to  Jerusalem,  probably 
under  the  pretext  of  a  festal  celebration ;  whereupon  Jehoiada 
concluded  a  covenant  with  the  persons  assembled,  to  ensure  their 
assistance  in  the  execution  of  his  plan. — Vers.  5-8.  Jehoiada 
then  communicated  to  those  initiated  into  the  plan  the  necessary 
instructions  for  carrying  it  out,  assigning  them  the  places  which 
they  were  to  occupy.  "  The  third  part  of  you  that  come  on 
the  Sabbath  {i.e.  mount  guard)  shall  keep  the  guard  of  the 
king's  house  C?.^^  is  a  corruption  of  '•""P'^'^),  and  the  third  part 
shall  be  at  the  gate  Sur,  and  the  third  part  at  the  gate  behind  the 
runners,  and  (ye)  shall  keep  guard  over  the  house  for  defence; 
and  the  two  parts  of  you,  (namely)  all  who  depart  on  the 
Sabbath,  shall  keep  the  guard  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  for 
the  king ;  and  ye  shall  surround  the  king  round  about,  every 
one  with  his  weapons  in  his  hand;  and  whoever  presses  into 
the  ranks   shall  be  slain,  and  shall  be  with  the  king  when 

*  In  both  accounts  we  have  only  short  extracts  preserved  from  a  common 
and  more  complete  original,  the  extracts  having  been  made  quite  indepen- 
dently of  one  another  and  upon  different  plans.  Hence  the  apparent  dis- 
crepancies, which  have  arisen  partly  from  the  incompleteness  of  the  two 
abridged  accounts,  and  partly  from  the  different  points  of  view  from  which 
the  extracts  were  made,  but  which  contain  no  irreconcilable  contradictions. 
The  assertion  of  De  Wette,  which  has  been  repeated  by  Thenius  and  Bertheau, 
that  the  chronicler  distorted  the  true  state  of  the  case  to  favour  the  Levites, 
rests  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  our  account,  based  upon  arbitrary  assump- 
tions, as  I  have  already  shown  in  my  apologetischer  Versuch  iiber  die  Chronik 
(p.  361  sqq.). 


358  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

he  goes  out  and  in,"  i.e.  in  all  his  steps.  The  words  DS'S'n  'N3 
and  r\2^n  "n^^  "those  coming  and  those  going  out  on  the 
Sabbath,"  denote  the  divisions  of  the  watch,  those  who  per- 
formed duty  on  the  Sabbath  and  those  who  were  relieved  on 
the  Sabbath  ;  not  the  military  guard  at  the  palace  however,  but 
the  temple-guard,  which  consisted  of  Levites.  For  David  had 
divided  the  priests  and  Levites  into  classes,  every  one  of  which 
had  to  perform  service  for  a  week  and  was  relieved  on  the 
Sabbath :  compare  1  Chron.  xxiii.-xxvi.  with  Josephus  {Ant. 
vii.  14,  7),  who  expressly  says  that  every  one  of  the  twenty-four 
classes  of  priests  had  to  attend  to  the  worship  of  God  "  for 
eight  days,  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,"  also  with  Luke  i.  5.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  do  not  know  that  there  was  any  similar 
division  and  obligation  to  serve  in  connection  with  the  royal 
body-guard  or  with  the  army.  The  current  opinion,  that  by 
those  who  come  on  the  Sabbath  and  those  who  go  out  on  the 
Sabbath  we  are  to  understand  the  king's  halberdiers  or  the 
guard  of  the  palace,  is  therefore  proved  to  be  unfounded  and 
untenable.  And  if  there  could  be  any  doubt  on  the  matter, 
it  would  be  removed  by  vers.  7  and  10.  According  to  ver.  7, 
two  parts  of  those  who  went  away  (were  relieved)  on  the  Sab- 
bath were  to  undertake  the  guarding  of  the  house  of  Jehovah 
about  the  king,  i.e.  to  keep  guard  over  that  room  in  the  temple 
where  the  king  then  was.  Could  Jehoiada  have  used  the  royal 
body-guard,  that  was  being  relieved  from  guarding  the  palace, 
for  such  a  purpose  as  this  ?  Who  can  imagine  that  this  is  a 
credible  thing  ?  According  to  ver.  1 0,  Jehoiada  gave  to  the 
captains  over  a  hundred  the  weapons  of  king  David,  which 
were  in  the  house  of  Jehovah.  Did  the  palace-guard  then 
return  without  weapons  ?  In  2  Chron.  xxiii.  4,  "  those  coming 
on  the  Sabbath"  are  correctly  described  as  the  priests  and 
Levites  coming  on  the  Sabbath,  i.e.  the  priests  and  Levites  who 
entered  upon  their  week's  duty  at  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath. 
According  to  this  explanation  of  the  words,  which  is  the  only 
one  that  can  be  grammatically  sustained,  the  facts  were  as  fol- 
lows: "When  Jehoiada  had  initiated  the  captains  of  the  royal 
halberdiers,  and  with  their  help  the  heads  of  families  of  the 
people  generally,  into  his  plan  of  raising  the  youthful  Joash  to 
the  throne  and  dethroning  Athaliah,  he  determined  to  carry 
out  the  affair  chiefly  with  the  help  of  the  priests  and  Levites 
who  entered  upon  their  duty  in  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath,  and 


CHAP.  XL  4-20.  359 

of  those  who  left  or  were  relieved  at  the  same  time,  and  entrusted 
the  command  over  these  men  to  the  captains  of  the  royal  hal- 
berdiers, that  they  might  occupy  the  approaches  to  the  temple 
with  the  priests  and  Levites  under  their  command,  so  as  to 
prevent  the  approach  of  any  military  from  the  king's  palace 
and  protect  the  youthful  king.  These  captains  had  come  to 
the  temple  without  weapons,  to  avoid  attracting  attention. 
Jehoiada  therefore  gave  them  the  weapons  of  king  David  that 
were  kept  in  the  temple. 

"With  regard  to  the  distribution  of  the  different  posts,  the 
fact  that  two-thirds  are  spoken  of  first  of  all  in  vers.  5,  6, 
and  then  two  parts  in  ver,  7,  occasions  no  difficulty.  Tor  the 
two-thirds  mentioned  in  vers.  5,  6  were  those  who  came  on  the 
Sabbath,  whereas  the  "  two  divisions  "  (nn*n  ^nc')  referred  to  in 
ver.  7  were  all  who  went  away  on  the  Sabbath.  Consequently 
the  priests  and  Levites,  who  came  on  the  Sabbath  and  entered 
upon  the  week's  service,  were  divided  into  three  sections ;  and 
those  who  should  have  been  relieved,  but  were  detained,  into 
two.  Probably  the  number  of  those  who  came  this  time  to 
perform  service  at  the  temple  was  much  larger  than  usual,  as 
the  priests  were  initiated  into  Jehoiada's  secret ;  so  that  it  was 
possible  to  make  three  divisions  of  those  who  arrived,  whereas 
those  who  were  about  to  depart  could  only  be  formed  into  two. 
The  three  divisions  of  those  who  were  entering  upon  duty  are 
also  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  Chronicles ;  whereas,  instead  of 
the  two  divisions  of  those  who  were  relieved,  "  all  the  people  " 
are  spoken  of.  The  description  of  the  different  posts  which 
were  assigned  to  these  several  companies  causes  some  difficulty. 
In  general,  so  much  is  clearly  indicated  in  vers.  7  and  8,  that 
the  two  divisions  of  those  who  were  relieved  on  the  Sabbath 
were  to  keep  guard  over  the  young  king  in  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  and  therefore  to  remain  in  the  inner  spaces  of  the 
temple-court  for  his  protection ;  whereas  the  three  divisions  of 
those  who  were  entering  upon  duty  were  charged  with  the 
occupation  of  the  external  approaches  to  the  temple.  One- 
third  was  to  "  keep  watch  over  the  king's  house,"  t.e.  to  observe 
whatever  had  to  be  observed  in  relation  to  the  king's  palace ; 
not  to  occupy  the  king's  palace,  or  to  keep  guard  in  the  citadel 
at  the  palace  gate  (Thenius),  but  to  keep  watch  towards  the 
royal  palace,  i.e.  to  post  themselves  so  that  no  one  could  force  a 
way  into  the  temple,  with  which  the  indefinite  ^^f  O  nm  in  the 


360  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Chronicles  harmonizes,  if  we  only  translate  it  "  against  (at)  the 
•king's  house."  The  idea  that  the  palace  was  guarded  is  pre- 
cluded not  only  by  ver.  13,  according  to  which  Athaliah  came 
out  of  the  palace  to  the  people  to  the  house  of  Jehovah,  which 
she  would  not  have  been  able  to  do  if  the  palace  had  been 
guarded,  but  also  by  the  circumstance  that,  according  to  ver. 
19,  the  chief  men  were  in  the  temple  with  the  whole  of  the 
(assembled)  people,  and  did  not  go  out  of  the  house  of  Jehovah 
into  the  king's  house  till  after  the  anointing  of  Joash  and  the 
death  of  Athaliah.  The  other  third  was  to  station  itself  at 
the  gate  Sur  (i^D),  or,  according  to  the  Chronicles,  Yesod  (^i^^)^ 
foundation-gate.  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
gate  Sur  and  the  gate  Yesod;  only  we  cannot  decide  whether 
one  of  these  names  has  simply  sprung  from  a  copyist's  error,  or 
whether  the  gate  had  two  different  names.  The  name  "liDI  nj/'K', 
foundation-gate,  suggests  a  gate  in  the  outer  court  of  the  temple, 
at  the  hollow  of  either  the  Tyropoeon  or  the  Kedron  ;  for  the 
coiitext  precludes  our  thinking  of  a  palace  gate.  The  third 
division  was  to  be  posted  "  at  the  gate  behind  the  runners  ;" 
or,  as  it  is  stated  in  ver.  19,  "at  the  gate  of  the  runners." 
It  is  very  evident  from  ver.  19  that  this  gate  led  from  the 
temple-court  to  the  royal  palace  upon  Zion,  and  was  there- 
fore on  the  western  side  of  the  court  of  the  temple.  This  also 
follows  from  ver.  4  of  the  Chronicles,  according  to  which  this 
division  was  to  act  as  "doorkeepers  of  the  thresholds"  (^')Vp? 
CSDn),  i.e.  to  keep  guard  at  the  gate  of  the  thresholds.  For  we 
may  safely  infer,  from  a  comparison  with  1  Chron.  ix.  19,  that 
n"'BDn  were  the  thresholds  of  the  ascent  to  the  temple.  The 
last  clause,  "  and  shall  keep  guard  over  the  house  for  defence," 
refers  to  all  three  divisions,  and  serves  to  define  with  greater 
precision  the  object  for  which  they  were  stationed  there,  hd^ 
is  not  a  proper  name  (LXX.,  Luther,  and  others),  but  an  appel- 
lative in  the  sense  of  defence  or  resistance,  from  nD3,  depellere. 
The  meaning  is,  that  they  were  to  guard  the  house,  to  keep  off 
the  people,  and  not  to  let  any  of  the  party  of  Athaliah  force  a 
way  into  the  temple. — In  ver  7,  'tJ''"'  '?<V*  ^'^  is  an  explanatory 
apposition  to  D33  niTn  '•riB^^  "  and  the  two  parts  in  (of)  you," 
namely,  all  who  go  out  on  the  Sabbath,  i.e.  are  relieved  from 
duty.  Their  task,  to  observe  the  watch  of  the  house  of  Jehovah 
with  regard  to  the  king,  is  more  precisely  defined  in  ver.  8  as 
signifying,  that  they  were  to  surround  the  king  with  weapons 


CHAP.  XI.  4-1?.  361 

in  tlieir  hands,  and  slay  every  one  who  attempted  to  force  a 
way  into  their  ranks.  ^»<2?^  ^n^^*?,  i-e.  in  all  his  undertakings, 
or  in  all  his  steps  ;  KUi  nsv  being  applied  to  the  actions  and 
pursuits  of  a  man,  as  in  Deut.  xxviii.  6,  xxxi  2,  etc.  (see  the 
Comm.  on  Num.  xxvii.  17).  Thenius  has  explained  this  incor- 
rectly :  "  in  his  going  out  of  the  temple  and  entering  into  the 
palace." — Vers.  9-11.  The  execution  of  these  plans.  The  high 
priest  gave  the  captains  "  the  spears  and  shields  (p^^'^ :  see  at 
2  Sam.  viii  7)  which  (belonged)  to  king  David,  that  were  in  the 
house  of  Jehovah,"  i.e.  the  weapons  which  David  had  presented 
to  the  sanctuary  as  dedicatory  offerings.  Instead  of  T^'^^X^J} 
we  ought  probably  to  read  riJT'jnri  (cf  Mic.  iv.  3,  Isa  ii.  4), 
after  the  Q'n'^!?i'  of  the  Chronicles,  since  the  collective  force  of 
n':n  is  very  improbable  in  prose,  and  a  n  might  easily  drop  out 
through  a  copyist's  error.  Jehoiada  gave  the  captains  weapons 
from  the  temple,  because,  as  has  been  already  observed,  they 
had  come  unarmed,  and  not,  as  Thenius  imagines,  to  provide 
them  with  old  and  sacred  weapons  instead  of  their  ordinary 
ones.  In  ver.  11  the  position  of  all  the  divisions  is  given  in 
a  comprehensive  manner,  for  the  purpose  of  appending  the 
further  course  of  the  affair,  namely,  the  coronation  of  the  king. 
"  Thus  the  halberdiers  stood,  every  one  with  his  weapons  in  his 
hand,  from  the  right  wing  of  the  house  to  the  left  wing,  towards 
the  altar  (of  burnt-offering)  and  the  (temple-)  house,  round 
about  the  king,"  i.e.  to  cover  the  king  on  all  sides.  For  it  is 
evident  that  we  are  not  to  understand  3'3D  "H^n-^j;  as  signify- 
ing the  encircling  of  the  king,  from  the  statement  in  ver.  12, 
according  to  which  Jehoiada  did  not  bring  out  the  king's  son 
till  after  the  men  had  taken  up  their  positions.  The  use  of 
2*^1'^,  to  signify  the  captains  with  the  armed  priests  and  Levites 
put  under  their  command  for  this  purpose,  is  an  uncommon 
one,  but  it  may  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  D^Vl  had  retained 
the  general  meaning  of  royal  halberdiers ;  and  the  priests  and 
Levites  under  the  command  of  the  captains  of  the  royal  body-guard 
by  tliis  very  act  discharged  the  duty  of  the  royal  body-guard 
itself.  The  chronicler  has  used  the  indefinite  expression  oyn't'S, 
the  whole  of  the  people  assembled  in  the  temple-court. — Ver. 
12.  After  the  approaches  to  the  temple  had  all  been  occupied 
in  this  manner,  Jehoiada  brought  out  the  king's  son  from  his 
home  in  the  temple  ;  or,  he  brought  him  forth,  set  the  crown 
upon  him,  and  handed  him  the  testimony,  i.e.  the  book  of  the 


362  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

law,  as  the  rule  of  his  life  and  action  as  king,  according  to  the 
precept  in  Deut.  xvii.  18,  19.  nnyn-nx^  is  connected  with  i^^ 
"iranTis  vpj?,  because  "ivj?  ]F\\  has  the  general  meaning  "  delivered 
to  him,  handed  him,"  and  does  not  specially  affirm  the  putting  on 
of  the  crown,  ^^vf.,  they  made  him  king.  The  subject  is  the 
persons  present,  though,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  anointing 
was  performed  by  Jehoiada  and  the  priests,  as  the  Chonicles 
expressly  affirm.  Clapping  the  hands  was  a  sign  of  joyful  accla- 
mation, like  theory,  "  Long  live  the  king"  (cf  1  Kings  i.  39). 

Vers.  13-16.  Death  of  Athaliah. — Vers.  13,  14.  As  soon  as 
Athaliah  heard  the  loud  rejoicing  of  the  people,  she  came  to  the 
people  into  the  temple,  and  when  she  saw  the  youthful  king  in 
his  standing-place  surrounded  by  the  princes,  the  trumpeters,  and 
the  whole  of  the  people,  rejoicing  and  blowing  the  trumpets, 
she  rent  her  clothes  with  horror,  and  cried  out.  Conspiracy,  con- 
spiracy !  Dyn  TViJ}  does  not  mean  the  people  running  together, 
but  the  original  reading  in  the  text  was  probably  Q^n)  i''Vl\!,  the 
people  and  the  halberdiers,  and  the  Vav  dropped  out  through  an 
oversight  of  the  copyist.  By  TV'J}  we  are  to  understand  the 
captains  of  the  halberdiers  with  the  armed  Levites,  as  in  ver. 
1 1 ;  and  DJfn  is  the  people  who  had  assembled  besides  (cf.  ver. 
19).  In  the  Chronicles  "H^Sl'  ^^r'r'i'Pt'l  ^'''PJ}  is  in  apposition  to 
Dyn :  the  noise  of  the  people,  the  halberdiers,  and  those  who 
praised  the  king.  The  Tiisy,  upon  which  the  king  Stood,  was  not 
a  piUar,  but  an  elevated  standing-place  (suggestus)  for  the  king 
at  the  eastern  gate  of  the  inner  court  (t<i2'|>3,  2  Chron.  xxiii. 
13  compared  with  Ezek.  xlvi.  2),  when  he  visited  the  temple 
on  festive  occasions  (cf  ch.  xxiii.  3),  and  it  was  most  probably 
identical  with  the  brazen  scaffold  (ii'3)  mentioned  in  2  Chron. 
vi.  13,  which  would  serve  to  explain  t^SK^a,  "  according  to  the 
right "  (Angl,  V.  "  as  the  manner  was  ").  Dnfe^n  are  not  merely 
the  captains  mentioned  in  vers.  4,  9,  and  10,  but  these  together 
with  the  rest  of  the  assembled  heads  of  the  nation  (nusn  "'B'Ni, 
2  Chron.  xiii.  2).  nnv^fnn^  the  trumpets,  is  an  abbreviated  ex- 
pression for  those  blowing  the  trumpets,  the  trumpeters.  The 
reference  is  to  the  Levitical  musicians  mentioned  in  1  Chron. 
xiii.  8,  XV.  24,  etc.;  for  they  are  distinguished  from  '131  2Vt"'''?»  "  ^^ 
the  people  of  the  land  rejoicing  and  blowing  the  trumpets,"  i.e. 
not  aU  the  military  men  of  the  land  who  were  present  in  Jeru- 
salem (Thenius),  but  the  mass  of  the  people  present  in  the  temple 
(Bertheau). — Ver.  15.  Jehoiada  then  commanded  the  captains 


CHAP.  XL  17-20.  363 

^'C"!!  nP?,  those  placed  over  the  army,  i.e.  the  armed  men  of  the 
Levites,  to  lead  out  Athaliah  between  the  ranks,  and  to  slay 
every  one  who  followed  her,  i.e.  who  took  her  part  {^on,  iii£  abs. 
instead  of  imperative) ;  for,  as  is  added  supplementarily  in  ex- 
planation of  this  command,  the  priest  had  (previously)  said : 
"  Let  her  not  be  slain  in  the  house  of  Jehovah."  The  temple 
was  not  to  be  defiled  with  the  blood  of  the  usurper  and  mur- 
deress.— ^Ver.  16.  Thus  they  made  way  for  her  on  both  sides,  or, 
according  to  the  correct  explanation  given  by  the  Chaldee,  ^O'?'^ 
^ri',  i^^,  they  formed  lines  {Spalier,  fences)  and  escorted  her  back, 
and  she  came  by  the  way  of  the  horses'  entrance  into  the  palace, 
and  was  there  put  to  death.  D-piDH  sup  is  explained  in  the 
Chronicles  by  D*WDn  ij;*^  Ni3p,  entrance  of  the  horse-gate.  The 
entrance  for  the  horses,  i.e.  the  way  which  led  to  the  royal  mews, 
is  not  to  be  identified  with  the  horse-gate  mentioned  in  Neh, 
iii.  28 ;  for  this  was  a  gate  in  the  city  wall,  whereas  the  road 
from  the  temple  to  the  royal  mews,  which  were  no  doubt  near 
the  palace,  was  inside  the  waU. 

Vers.  17-20.    Eenewal  of  the  covenamt,  extermination  of  the 
worship  of  Baal,  and  entrance  of  the  king  into  the  palace. — Ver. 

17.  After  Jehoash  was  crowned  and  Athaliah  put  to  death, 
Jehoiada  concluded  the  covenant  (1)  between  Jehovah  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  king  and  people  on  the  other,  and  (2)  between 
the  king  and  the  people.  The  former  was  simply  a  renewal  of 
the  covenant  which  the  Lord  had  made  with  Israel  through 
Moses  (Ex.  xxiv.),  whereby  the  king  and  the  people  bound  them- 
selves nin7  dp  nvnp^  i,e.  to  live  as  the  people  of  the  Lord,  or  to 
keep  His  law  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  20,  xxvii  9, 10),  and  was  based  upon 
the  "  testimony  "  handed  to  the  king.  This  covenant  naturally 
led  to  the  covenant  between  the  king  and  the  people,  whereby 
the  king  bound  himself  to  rule  his  people  according  to  the  law 
of  the  Lord,  and  the  people  vowed  that  they  would  be  obedient 
and  subject  to  the  king  as  the  ruler  appointed  by  the  Lord  (cf. 
2  Sam.  V.  3).  The  renewal  of  the  covenant  with  the  Lord  was 
necessary,  because  under  the  former  kings  the  people  had  fallen 
away  from  the  Lord  and  served  BaaL  The  immediate  conse- 
quence of  the  renewal  of  the  covenant,  therefore,  was  the  exter- 
mination of  the  worship  of  Baal,  which  is  mentioned  at  once  in 
ver.  18,  although  its  proper  place  in  order  of  time  is  after  ver. 

18.  All  the  people  (pNn  Dy~S3,  as  in  ver.  1 4)  went  to  the  temple 
of  Baal,  "threw  down  his  altars,  broke  his  images  (the  columns  of 


364  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Baal  and  Astarte)  rightly,  i.e.  completely  (stp^n  as  in  Dent.  ix.  21), 
and  slew  the  priest  Mattan,  prohably  the  chief  priest  of  Baal, 
.before  his  altars.  That  the  temple  of  Baal  stood  within  the 
limits  of  the  sanctuary,  i.e.  of  the  temple  of  Jehovah  (Thenius), 
cannot  be  shown  to  be  probable  either  from  2  Chron.  xxiv.  7  or 
from,  the  last  clause  of  this  verse.  (For  2  Chron.  xxiv,  7  see 
the  fuller  remarks  on  ch.  xii.  5.)  The  words  "  and  the  priest 
set  overseers  over  the  house  of  Jehovah "  do  not  affirm  that 
Jehoiada  created  the  office  of  overseer  over  the  temple  for  the 
purpose  of  guarding  against  a  fresh  desecration  of  the  temple  by 
idolatry  (Thenius),  but  simply  that  he  appointed  overseers  over 
the  temple,  namely,  priests  and  Levites  entrusted  with  the  duty 
of  watching  over  the  performance  of  worship  according  to  the 
precepts  of  the  law,  as  is  more  minutely  described  in  vers.  18 
and  19. — Ver.  19.  And  he  took  the  captains,  and  they  brought 
the  king  down  out  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,  etc.  The  word  ^?\ 
is  not  to  be  pressed,  but  simply  affirms  that  Jehoiada  entrusted 
the  persons  named  with  the  duty  of  conducting  the  king  into 
his  palace.  Beside  the  captains  over  a  hundred  (see  at  ver.  4) 
there  are  mentioned  C^l'l'l  ^1?l',  i-^-  the  royal  halberdiers  (the 
body-guard),  who  had  passed  over  to  the  new  king  immediately 
after  the  fall  of  Athaliah  and  now  followed  their  captains,  and 
ri^O  ^V"''?,  all  the  rest  of  the  people  assembled.  Instead  of  the 
halberdiers  there  are  mentioned  in  the  Chronicles  DvKnGn  D^V'nxri 
Dy3,  the  nobles  and  lords  in  the  nation, — a  completion  implied 
in  the  facts  themselves,  since  Jehoiada  had  drawn  the  heads  of 
the  nation  into  his  plan,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  express  al- 
lusion to  the  body-guard  might  be  omitted  as  of  inferior  import- 
ance. We  cannot  infer  from  IT*")^  that  the  bridge  between  Moriah 
and  Zion  was  not  yet  in  existence,  as  Thenius  supposes,  but 
simply  that  the  bridge  was  lower  than  the  temple-courts.  In- 
stead of  D'Vl'?  "^V?',  the  gate  of  the  runners  {i.e.  of  the  halberdiers), 
we  find  in  the  Chronicles  P  yV"?  "^■^^j  the  upper  gate,  which  appears 
to  have  been  a  gate  of  the  temple,  according  to  ch.  xv.  35  and 
2  Chron.  xxvii.  3.  The  statement  that  they  came  by  the  way 
of  the  runners'  gate  into  the  house  of  the  king  is  not  at  variance 
with  this,  for  it  may  be  understood  as  meaning  that  it  was  by 
the  halberdiers'  gate  of  the  temple  that  the  entry  into  the  palace 
was  carried  out. — In  ver.  20  this  account  is  concluded  with  the 
general  remark  that  all  the  people  rejoiced,  sc.  at  the  coronation 
of  Joash,  and  the  city  was  quiet,  when  they  slew  Athaliah  with 


■        CHAP.  XII.  1-4.  365 

tlie  s-word.     This  is  the  way,  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned,  in 
which  the  last  two  clauses  are  to  be  connected, 

CHAP.  Xn.    REIGN  OF  KING  JOASH  OF  JUDAH,  AND  EEPAIRING  OF 
THE  TEMPLE. 

All  that  is  recorded  of  the  forty  years'  reign  of  Joash,  in 
addition  to  the  general  characteristics  of  the  reign  (vers.  1-4), 
is  the  repairing  of  the  temple  which  was  effected  by  him  (vers. 
5-17),  and  the  purchased  retreat  of  the  Syrians  from  their 
invasion  of  Judah  (vers.  18  and  19),  and  finally  his  violent 
death  in  consequence  of  a  conspiracy  formed  against  him,  of 
which  we  have  only  a  brief  notice  invars.  20-22.  The  parallel 
account  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  supplies  several  additions  to  this : 
viz.  concerning  the  wives  of  Joash.  the  distribution  of  the 
Levites  at  the  repairing  of  the  temple,  the  death  of  Jehoiada, 
and  the  seduction  of  Joash  to  idolatry  by  the  chief  men  of 
Judah,  and  the  stoning  of  the  prophet  Zechariah,  who  condemned 
this  rebellion, — all  of  which  can  easily  be  fitted  into  our  account. 

Vers.  1-4  (1-5).  Reign  of  Joash. — ^Ver.  1  (1,  2).  His  age  on 
ascending  the  throne,  viz.  seven  years  (cf.  ch.  xi.  4). — Com- 
mencement and  length  of  his  reign.  His  mother's  name  was 
Zibiah  of  Beersheba. — Ver.  2  (3).  Joash  did  that  which  was 
right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  'Ui  it?'«  ^'9'"^3,  "  all  his  days 
that,"  etc.,  i.e.  during  the  whole  period  of  his  life  that  Jehoiada 
instructed  him  (for  *i?'N  after  substantives  indicating  time,  place, 
and  mode,  see  Ewald,  §  331,  c,  3  ;  and  for  the  use  of  the  suffix 
attached  to  the  noun  defined  by  'Ul  "'K'N,  compare  ch.  xiiL  14) ; 
not  "  aU  his  life  long,  because  Jehoiada  had  instructed  him," 
although  the  Athnach  imder  VD^  favours  this  view.  For  Jehoiada 
had  not  instructed  him  before  he  began  to  reign,  but  he  instructed 
him  after  he  had  been  raised  to  the  throne  at  the  age  of  seven 
years,  that  is  to  say,  so  long  as  Jehoiada  himself  lived.  The 
J'Tt^'^':  ''?:''?  of  the  Chronicles  is  therefore  a  correct  explanation. 
But  after  Jehoiada's  death,  Joash  jdelded  to  the  petitions  of  the 
princes  of  Judah  that  he  would  assent  to  their  worshipping 
idols,  and  at  length  went  so  far  as  to  stone  the  son  of  his  bene- 
factor, the  prophet  Zechariah,  on  account  of  liis  candid  reproof 
of  this  apostasy  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  17-22). — Ver.  3  (4).  But  the 
worship  on  the  high  places  was  not  entirely  suppressed,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  Jehoiada  instructed  him  (on  tlus 
fiit'anding  formula  see  the  Conim.  on  1  Kings  xv.  14). 


366  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Vers.  4-16  (5-17).  Repairing  of  the  temple  (cf.  2  Chron. 
xxiv.  5-14). — Vers.  4,  5.  That  the  temple,  which  had  fallen 
into  ruins,  might  be  restored,  Joash  ordered  the  priests  to  collect 
all  the  money  of  the  consecrated  gifts,  that  was  generally  brought 
into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  to  effect  therewith  all  the 
repairs  that  were  needed  in  the  temple.  The  general  expression 
CBHipn  ^D3,  money  of  the  holy  gifts,  i.e.  money  derived  from 
holy  gifts,  is  more  specifically  defined  by  '131  i3iy  ^D3,  according 
to  which  it  consisted  of  three  kinds  of  payments  to  the  temple  : 
viz.  (1)  "i|?iV  ^p3,  i.e.  money  of  persons  mustered  (or  numbered 
in  the  census) ;  i^iy  is  an  abbreviated  expression  for  i^iyn 
nnj^an^  "  he  who  passes  over  to  those  who  are  numbered  "  (Ex. 
XXX.  13),  as  it  has  been  correctly  interpreted  by  the  Chald., 
Eashi,  Abarb.,  and  others  ;  whereas  the  explanation  "  money 
that  passes"  (Luther),  or  current  coin,  which  Thenius  still 
defends,  yields  no  suitable  sense,  since  it  is  impossible  to  see 
why  only  current  coin  should  be  accepted,  and  not  silver  in 
bars  or  vessels,  inasmuch  as  Moses  had  accepted  gold,  silver, 
copper,  and  other  objects  of  value  in  natura,  for  the  building 
of  the  tabernacle  (Ex,  xxv.  2,  3,  xxxv.  5,  xxxvi.  5,  6).  The 
brevity  of  the  expression  may  be  explained  from  the  fact,  that 
naiy  fipii  had  become  a  technical  term  on  the  ground  of  the 
passage  in  the  law  already  cited.  The  objection  raised  by 
Thenius,  that  the  explanation  adopted  would  be  without  any 
parallel,  would,  if  it  could  be  sustained,  also  apply  to  his  own 
explanation  "  current  money,"  in  which  ">5iy  is  also  taken  as 
an  abbreviation  of  i^}'©^  "i^'y  in  Gen.  xxiii.  1 6.  There  is  still 
less  ground  for  the  other  objection,  that  if  "13^^  ^D3  denoted 
one  kind  of  temple-revenue,  ?3  or  K^N  would  necessarily  have 
been  used.  (2)  ^3"|y  .  .  .  ^^,  "  every  kind  of  souls'  valuation 
money ;"  ^^  is  more  precisely  defined  by  i3"iV,  and  the  position 
in  which  it  stands  before  ^03  resembles  the  iiri3  in  Gen.  xv. 
10 — ^literally,  soul  money  of  each  one's  valuation.  Thenius  is 
wrong  in  his  interpretation,  "  every  kind  of  money  of  the  souls 
according  to  their  valuation,"  to  which  he  appends  the  erroneous 
remark,  that  tJ'^K  is  also  used  in  Zech.  x.  1  and  Joel  ii.  7  in  con- 
nection with  inanimate  objects  as  equivalent  to  b'3.  ^3")^  . , .  C'S, 
every  kind  of  valuation,  because  both  in  the  redemption  of  the 
male  first-bom  (Num.  xviii.  15,  16)  and  also  in  the  case  of 
persons  under  a  vow  a  payment  had  to  be  made  according  to 
the  valuation  of  the  priest.     (3) .  "  All  the  money  that  cometh 


CHAP.  XII.  4-18.  367 

into  any  one's  mind  to  bring  into  the  honse  of  the  Lord,"  i.e.  all 
the  money  which  was  offered  as  a  free-will  offering  to  the 
sanctuary.  This  money  the  priests  were  to  take  to  themselves, 
every  one  from  his  acquaintance,  and  therewith  repair  all  the 
dilapidations  that  were  to  be  found  in  the  temple.  In  the 
Chronicles  the  different  kinds  of  money  to  be  collected  for  this 
purpose  are  not  specified ;  but  the  whole  is  embraced  under 
the  general  expression  "  the  taxes  of  Moses  the  servant  of  God, 
and  of  the  congregation  of  Israel,  to  the  tent  of  the  testimony," 
which  included  not  only  the  contribution  of  half  a  shekel  for 
the  building  of  the  temple,  which  is  prescribed  in  Ex.  xxx. 
12  sqq.,  but  also  the  other  two  taxes  mentioned  in  this 
account.*  Again,  according  to  ver.  7  of  the  Chronicles,  Joash 
gave  the  following  reason  for  his  command  :  "  For  Athaliah, 
the  wicked  woman,  and  her  sons  have  demolished  the  house  of 
God,  and  all  the  dedicated  gifts  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  have 
they  used  for  the  Baals."  We  are  not  told  in  what  the  violent 
treatment  or  demolition  (pB)  of  the  temple  by  AthaHah  and 
her  sons  consisted.  The  circumstance  that  considerable  repairs 
even  of  the  stonework  of  the  temple  were  required  in  the  time 
of  Joash,  about  130  or  140  years  after  it  was  built,  is  quite 
conceivable  without  any  intentional  demolition.  And  in  no 
case  can  we  infer  from  these  words,  as  Thenius  has  done,  that 
AthaHah  or  her  sons  had  erected  a  temple  of  Baal  within  the 
limits  of  the  sanctuary.  The  application  of  all  the  dedicatory 
offerings  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  to  the  Baals,  involves  nothing 
more  than  that  the  gifts  which  were  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
preservation  of  the  temple  and  temple-service  were  withdrawn 
from  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  and  appUed  to  the  worship  of 
Baal,  and  therefore  that  the  decay  of  the  sanctuary  would  neces- 
sarily foUow  upon  the  neglect  of  the  worship. — Vers.  6  sqq.  But 

^  There  is  no  ground  either  in  the  words  or  in  the  facts  for  restricting  the 
perfectly  general  erpression  "  taxes  of  Moses  and  of  the  congregation  of 
Israel"  to  the  payment  mentioned  in  Ex.  xxx.  12,  as  Thenius  and  Bertheau 
have  done,  except  perhaps  the  wish  to  find  a  discrepancy  between  the  two 
accounts,  for  the  purpose  of  being  able  to  accuse  the  chronicler,  if  not  of 
intentional  falsification,  as  De  Wette  does,  at  any  rate  of  perverting  the  true 
state  of  the  case.  The  assertion  of  Thenius,  that  the  yearly  payment  of  half  a 
shekel,  which  was  appointed  in  the  law  and  regarded  as  atonement-money, 
appears  to  be  directly  excluded  in  our  text,  is  simply  founded  upon  the  inter- 
pretation given  to  -Qiy  S|D3  as  current  money,  which  we  have  ^eady  proved 
to  be  false. 


'368  THE  SECOND  BOOK  Ot"  KINGS. 

when  the  twenty-third  year  of  the  reign  of  Joash  arrived,  and  the 
dilapidations  had  not  been  repaired,  the  king  laid  the  matter 
before  the  high  priest  Jehoiada  and  the  priests,  and  directed 
them  not  to  take  the  money  any  more  from  their  acquaintance, 
but  to  give  it  for  the  dilapidations  of  the  temple  ;  "  and  the 
priests  consented  to  take  no  money,  and  not  to  repair  the 
dilapidations  of  the  house,"  i.e.  not  to  take  charge  of  the  repairs. 
We  may  see  from  this  consent  how  the  command  of  the  king  is 
to  be  understood.  Hitherto  the  priests  had  collected  the  money 
to  pay  for  the  repairing  of  the  temple ;  but  inasmuch  as  they 
had  not  executed  the  repairs,  the  king  took  away  from  them 
both  the  collection  of  the  money  and  the  obligation  to  repair 
the  temple.  The  reason  for  the  failure  of  the  first  measure  is 
not  mentioned  in  our  text,  and  can  only  be  inferred  from  the 
new  arrangement  made  by  the  king  (ver.  9) :  "  Jehoiada  took  a 
chest, — of  course  by  the  command  of  the  king,  as  is  expressly 
mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  8, — bored  a  hole  in  the  door  (the 
lid)  thereof,  and  placed  it  by  the  side  of  the  altar  (of  burnt- 
offering)  on  the  right  by  the  entrance  of  every  one  into  the 
house  of  Jehovah.,  that  the  priests  keeping  the  threshold  might 
put  thither  {i.e.  into  the  chest)  all  the  money  that  was  brought 
into  the  house  of  Jehovah." — Ver.  10.  "And  when  they  saw 
that  there  was  much  money  in  the  chest,  the  king's  writer  and 
the  high  priest  came,  and  bound  up  and  reckoned  the  money 
that  was  found  in.  the  house  of  Jehovah."  "ilY,  to  bind  up  the 
money  in  bags  (cf.  ch.  v.  23).  The  binding  is  mentioned  before 
the  reckoning,  because  the  pieces  of  money  were  not  counted 
singly,  but  packed  at  once  into  bags,  which  were  then  weighed 
for  the  purpose  of  estimating  the  amount  received. — Vers.  11, 
12.  "  They  gave  the  money  weighed  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
did  the  work,  who  were  placed  over  the  house  of  Jehovah,"  i.e. 
the  appointed  overlookers  of  the  work ;  "  and  they  paid  it  (as 
it  was  required)  to  the  carpenters  and  builders,  wlio  worked  at 
the  house,  and  to  the  masons  .and  the  hewers  of  stone,  and  for 
the  purchase  of  wood  and  hewn  stones,  to  repair  the  dilapida- 
tions of  the  house,  and  for  all  that  might  be  spent  (N)f^,  i.e.  be, 
given  out)  for  the  house  for  repairing  it,"  It  is  quite  clear, 
from  this,  that  the  assertion  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  De  Wette,  and 
others,  that  the  priests  had  embezzled  the  money  collected,  is 
perfectly  imaginary.  For  if  the  king  had  cherished  any  such 
suspicion  against  the  priests,  he  would  not  have  asked  for  their 


CHAP.  XII.  4-16.  369 

consent  to  an  alteration  of  the  first  arrangement  or  to  the  new 
measure;  and  still  less  would  he  have  commanded  that  the 
priests  who  kept  the  door  should  put  the  money  into  the  chest, 
for  this  would  have  been  no  safeguard  against  embezzlement. 
For  if  the  door-keepers  wished  to  embezzle,  aU  that  they  would 
need  to  do  would  be  to  put  only  a  part  of  the  money  into  the 
chest.     The  simple  reason  and  occasion  for  giving  up  the  first 
arrangement  and  introducing  the  new  arrangement    with  the 
chest,  was  that  the  first  measure  had  proved  to  be  insufficient 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  purpose  expected  by  the  king. 
For  inasmuch  as  the  king  had  not  assigned  any  definite  amount 
for  the  repairing  of  the  temple,  but  had  left  it  to  the  priests  to 
pay  for  the  cost  of  the  repairs  out  of  the  money  that  was  to 
be  collected,  one  portion  of  which  at  least  came  to  themselves, 
according  to  the  law,  for  their  own  maintenance  and  to  provide 
for  the  expenses  of  worship,  it  might  easily  happen,  without  the 
least  embezzlement  on  the  part  of  the  priests,  that  the  money 
collected  was  paid  out  again  for  the  immediate  necessities  of 
worship  and  their  own  maintenance,  and  that  nothing  remained 
to  pay  for  the  building  expenses.     For  this  reason  the  king 
himself  now  undertook  the  execution  of  the  requisite  repairs. 
The  reason  why  the  chest  was  provided  for  the  money  to  be 
collected  was,  first  of  all,  that  the  money  to  be  collected  for  the 
building  might  be  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  money  that 
came  in  and  was  intended  for  the  priests ;  and  secondly,  that 
the  contributions  to  be  gathered  for  the  bmlding  might  be  in- 
creased, since  it  might  be  expected  that  the  people  would  give 
more  if  the  collections  were  made  for  the  express   purpose  of 
restoring  the  temple,  than  if  only  the  legal  and  free-will  offerings 
were  simply  given  to  the  priests,  without  any  one  knowing  how 
much  would  be  applied  to  the  building. — And  because  the  king 
had  taken  the  building  into  his  own  hand,  as  often  as  the  chest  was 
full  he  sent  his  secretary  to  reckon  the  money  along  with  the  high 
priest,  and  hand  it  over  to  the  superintendents  of  the  building. 

If  we  compare  with  this  the  account  in  the  Chronicles,  it 
helps  to  confirm  the  view  which  we  have  obtained  from  an  un- 
prejudiced examination  of  the  text  as  to  the  affair  in  question. 
According  to  ver.  5  of  the  Chronicles,  Joash  had  commanded 
the  priests  and  Levites  to  accelerate  the  repairs;  "but  the 
Le\dtes  did  not  hurry."  This  may  be  understood  as  signifying 
that  they  were  dilatory  both  in  the  collection  of  the  money  and 

2  A 


S70  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

in  the  devotion  of  a  portion  of  their  revenues  to  the  repairing  of 
the  temple.  But  that  the  king  took  the  matter  in  hand  himself, 
not  so  much  because  of  the  dilatoriness  or  negligence  of  the 
priests  as  because  his  first  measure,  regarded  as  an  expedient, 
did  not  answer  the  purpose,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that, 
according  to  the  Chronicles,  he  did  not  content  himseK  with 
placing  the  chest  at  the  entrance,  but  had  a  proclamation  made 
at  the  same  time  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  to  offer  the  tax  of 
Moses  for  the  repair  of  the  temple  (ver.  9) — evidently  with  no 
other  intention  than  to  procure  more  liberal  contributions.  For, 
according  to  ver.  10,  all  the  chief  men  and  all  the  people 
rejoiced  thereat,  and  cast  their  gifts  into  the  chest,  i.e.  they 
offered  their  gifts  with  joy  for  the  purpose  that  had  been  pro- 
claimed.— The  other  points  of  difference  between  the  Chronicles 
and  our  text  are  unimportant.  For  instance,  that  they  placed  the 
chest  "  at  the  gate  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  on  the  outside."  The 
n^n  merely  defines  the  expression  in  our  text,  n^3  l^"'N"Ki33  po^a 
'",  "to  the  right  at  the  entrance  into  the  temple,"  more  minutely, 
by  showing  that  the  ark  was  not  placed  on  the  inner  side 
of  the  entrance  into  the  court  of  the  priests,  but  against  the 
outer  wall  of  it.  This  is  not  at  variance  with  naran  ?^x  in 
ver.  10  ;  for  even  apart  from  the  account  in  the  Chronicles, 
and  according  to  our  own  text,  this  cannot  be  understood  as 
signifying  that  the  ark  had  been  placed  in  the  middle  of  the 
court,  as  Thenius  explains  in  opposition  to  '131  K'''«"Xi33,  but  can 
only  mean  at  the  entrance  which  was  on  the  right  side  of  the 
altar,  i.e.  at  the  southern  entrance  into  the  inner  court.  Again, 
the  further  variation,  that  according  to  the  Chronicles  (ver.  11), 
when  the  chest  was  full,  an  officer  of  the  high  priest  came  with 
the  scribe  (not  the  high  priest  himself),  furnishes  simply  a  more 
exact  definition  of  our  account,  in  which  the  high  priest  is 
named;  just  as,  according  to  ver.  10,  the  high  priest  took  the 
chest  and  bored  a  hole  in  the  lid,  which  no  intelligent  commen- 
tator would  understand  as  signifying  that  the  high  priest  did  it 
with  his  own  hand.  But  there  is  a  real  difference  between 
vers.  14  and  15  of  our  text  and  ver.  14  of  the  Chronicles, 
though  the  solution  of  this  suggests  itself  at  once  on  a  closer 
inspection  of  the  words.  According  to  our  account,  there  were 
no  golden  or  silver  vessels,  basons,  knives,  bowls,  etc.,  made  with 
the  money  that  was  brought  in,  but  it  was  given  for  the  repair- 
ing of  the  house.     In  the  Chronicles,  on  the  contrary,  it  ia 


CHAP.  XII.  17,  18.  S7I 

stated  that  "  when  they  had  finished  the  repairs,  they  brought 
the  remnant  of  the  money  to  the  king  and  Jehoiada,  and  he  (the 
kinji)  used  it  for  vessels  for  the  house  of  the  Lord,  for  vessels  of 
the  service,"  etc.  But  if  we  take  proper  notice  of  cni??!  here, 
there  is  no  ground  for  saying  that  there  is  any  contradiction, 
since  the  words  of  our  text  affirm  nothing  more  than  that  none 
of  the  money  that  came  in  was  applied  to  the  making  of  vessels 
of  worship  so  long  as  the  repairing  of  the  building  went  on. 
"What  took  place  afterwards  is  not  stated  in  our  account,  which 
is  limited  to  the  main  fact ;  this  we  learn  from  the  Chronicles. 
— Ver.  15.  No  return  was  required  of  the  inspectors  as  to  the 
money  handed  over  to  them,  because  they  were  convinced  of 
their  honesty. — Ver.  16.  The  money  obtained  from  trespass- 
offerings  and  sin-offerings  was  not  brought  into  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  i.e.  was  not  applied  to  the  repairing  of  the  temple,  but 
was  left  for  the  priests.  In  the  case  of  the  trespass-ofi'ering 
compensation  had  to  be  made  for  the  earthly  debt  according  to 
the  valuation  of  the  priest,  with  the  addition  of  a  fifth  in  money  ; 
and  this  was  assigned  to  the  priests  not  only  in  the  case  of  a 
ryp  committed  against  Jehovah,  but  also  when  a  neighbour  had 
been  injured  in  his  property,  if  he  had  died  in  the  meantime 
(see  at  Lev.  v.  1 6  and  Num.  v.  9).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
case  of  the  sin-offerings  the  priests  received  no  money  according 
to  the  law.  Most  of  the  commentators  therefore  assume,  that 
those  who  lived  at  a  distance  had  sent  money  to  the  priests, 
that  they  might  offer  sin-offerings  with  it,  and  what  money  was 
over  they  had  retained  for  themselves.  But  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  any  such  custom,  which  is  quite  at  variance 
with  the  idea  of  the  sin-offering.  It  may  probably  have  become 
a  customary  thing  in  the  course  of  time,  for  those  who  presented 
these  offerings  to  compensate  the  officiating  priest  for  his  trouble 
by  a  free-will  gift. 

Vers.  17  and  18.  The  brief  account  of  HazaeVs  campaign 
against  Jerusalem  is  completed  by  2  Chron.  xxiv.  23,  24. 
Hazael  had  gone  down  along  the  coast  after  defeating  Israel 
(see  ch.  xiii.  3),  for  the  purpose  of  making  war  upon  Judah 
also,  and  had  taken  Gath,  which  Eehoboam  had  fortified 
(2  Chron.  xi.  8).  He  then  set  his  face,  i.e.  determined,  to 
advance  to  Jerusalem ;  and  Joash  took  the  temple  treasures, 
etc.  According  to  the  Chronicles,  he  sent  an  army  against 
Judah  and  Jerusalem,  which  destroyed  aU  the  princes  of  the 


372  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS 

nation  and  sent  nrnch  booty  to  the  king  to  Damascus,  as  tlie 
small  army  of  the  Syrians  had  smitten  the  very  large  army  of 
Judah.  To  protect  Jerusalem,  after  this  defeat,  from  being 
taken  by  the  Syrians,  Joash  sent  all  the  treasures  of  the  temple 
and  palace  to  Hazael,  and  so  purchased  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Syrians.  In  this  way  the  two  brief  accounts  of  the  war  may 
be  both  reconciled  and  explained ;  whereas  the  opinion,  still 
repeated  by  Thenius,  that  the  two  passages  treat  of  different 
wars,  has  no  tenable  ground  to  rest  upon.  The  Philistian  city 
of  Gath  (see  the  Comm.  on  Josh.  xiii.  3)  appears  to  have  be- 
longed at  that  time  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  so  that  the  Gath- 
ites  were  not  among  the  Philistines  who  made  an  incursion  into 
Judah  in  the  reign  of  Joram  along  with  the  Arabian  tribes  of 
the  south  (2  Chron.  xxi.  16).  And  it  is  impossible  to  deter- 
mine when  Gath  was  wrested  from  the  Syrians  again ;  probably 
in  the  time  of  Joash  the  son  of  Jehoahaz  of  Israel,  as  he  re- 
covered from  the  Syrians  all  the  cities  which  they  had  taken 
from  the  Israelites  under  Jehoahaz  (ch.  xiii.  25),  and  even 
smote  Amaziah  the  king  of  Judaea  at  Bethshemesh  and  took 
him  prisoner  (ch.  xiv.  13;  2  Chron.  xxv.  2 1  sqq.).  "  AU  the 
consecrated  things,  which  Jehoshaphat,  Joram,  and  Ahaziah  had 
consecrated,  and  his  own  consecrated  things,"  i.e.  what  he  (Joash) 
himself  had  consecrated.  The  existence  of  such  temple  treasures 
is  not  at  variance  either  with  the  previous  account  of  the  repairing 
of  the  temple,  for  Joash  would  not  use  the  consecrated  offerings  for 
the  restoration  of  the  temple,  as  the  current  revenue  of  the  temple 
was  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  or  with  2  Chron.  xxiv.  7,  where 
it  is  stated  that  Athaliah  and  her  son^  had  applied  all  the  *K^^ 
nSj\\  IT'S  to  the  Baals  (see  at  ch.  xii.  5,  p.  367);  for  even  if  we  are 
to  understand  by  the  sons  of  Athaliah  not  bastard  sons  (Ewald, 
Gesch.  iii.  p.  582),  but  the  brethren  of  Joram  whom  the  Philis- 
tines and  Arabians  had  carried  off,  Ahaziah  and  Joram,  although 
they  both  of  them  served  Baal,  may,  from  political  considera- 
tions, have  now  and  then  made  consecrated  gifts  to  the  temple, 
if  only  in  a  passing  fit  of  religious  fear. 

Vers.  19-21.  Conspiracy  against  Joash. — Not  long  after  the 
departure  of  the  Syrians,  who  had  left  Joash,  according  to 
2  Chron.  xxiv.  25,  with  many  wounds,  his  servants  formed  a 
conspiracy  against  him  and  slew  him  upon  his  bed  in  the  house 
Millo,  which  goeth  down  to  SiUa.  This  description  of  the 
locality  is  perfectly  obscure  for.  us.    The  conjecture  that  N?9"n'3 


CHAP.  XIIL  1-9.  373 

v.-as  the  honse  in  the  castle  of  Millo  which  is  so  frequently 
mentioned  (see  at  1  Kings  ix.  15  and  2  Sam.  v.  9),  is  pre- 
cluded by  the  fact  that  this  castle  is  always  called  i^'^  (with 
the  article).  VO^  is  regarded  by  many  as  an  abbreviation  of 
n?pp,  "  which  goes  down  by  the  road ;"  and  Thenius  supposes 
that  the  reference  is  to  the  road  which  ran  diagonally  through 
the  city  from  the  Joppa  gate  to  the  Haram-area,  corresponding 
to  the  present  David's  road.  Others  regard  *<??  as  the  proper 
name  of  a  place  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  im- 
possible to  get  any  certain  meaning  out  of  it,  unless  we  alter 
the  text  according  to  arbitrary  assumptions,  as  Thenius  has  done. 
The  conspirators  were  Jozachar  the  son  of  Shimeath,  and  Jehoza- 
had  the  son  of  Shomer,  according  to  ver.  21  ;  but  according  to 
the  Chronicles  (ver.  26),  they  were  Zahad  the  son  of  Shimeath 
the  Ammonitess,  and  Jehozdbad  the  son  of  Shimrith  the  Moab- 
itess.  The  identity  of  the  first  names  is  perfectly  obvious.  T^T 
is  a  copyist's  error  for  19?,  and  this  is  the  contracted  form  of 
■^^P'.  The  difference  in  the  second :  son  of  Shomer  according 
to  our  text,  and  son  of  the  Shimrith  according  to  the  Chronicles, 
has  probably  also  arisen  from  a  slip  of  the  pen,  since  idb'  might 
easily  be  occasioned  by  the  dropping  out  of  the  n  from  the  de- 
fectively written  ma'^,  although  it  is  also  possible  that  Shomer 
may  be  the  name  of  the  grandfather.  Joash  was  buried  with 
his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David ;  but  according  to  ver.  2  5  of 
the  Chronicles  he  was  not  buried  in  the  graves  of  the  kings. 
The  two  statements  are  not  irreconcilable  ;  and  there  may  be 
good  historical  ground  for  the  account  in  the  Chronicles,  as 
Bertheau  acknowledges  with  perfect  justice,  in  spite  of  the  sus- 
picion which  has  been  cast  upon  it  by  Thenius. 

CHAP.  XIII.    EEIGNS  OF  JEHOAHAZ  AXD  JOASH,  KINGS  OF  ISRAEL. 
DEATH  OF  ELISHA. 

Vers.  1-9.  Eeign  of  Jehoahaz.  —  Jehu  was  followed  by 
Jehoahaz  his  son,  "  in  the  twenty -third  year  of  Joash  of  Judah." 
This  synchronistic  statement  is  not  only  at  variance  with  ver. 
10,  but  cannot  be  very  well  reconciled  with  ch.  xii  1.  If 
Jehoahaz  began  to  reign  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash  king 
of  Judah,  and  reigned  seventeen  years,  his  son  cannot  have  fol- 
lowed him  after  his  death  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash  of 
Judah,  as  is  stated  in  ver.  10,  for  there  are  only  fourteen  years 
and  possibly  a  few  months  between  the  twenty-third  and  thirty- 


374  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

seventh  years  of  Joash ;  and  even  if  he  ascended  the  throne  at 
the  commencement  of  the  twenty-third  year  of  the  reign  of 
Joash  and  died  at  the  end  of  the  thirty-seventh,  they  could  only 
be  reckoned  as  fifteen  and  not  as  seventeen  years.  Moreover, 
according  to  ch.  xii.  1,  Joash  of  Judah  began  to  reign  in  the 
seventh  year  of  Jehu,  and  therefore  Athaliah,  who  ascended  the 
throne  at  the  same  time  as  Jehu,  reigned  fully  six  years.  If, 
therefore,  the  first  year  of  Joash  of  Judah  coincides  with  the 
seventh  year  of  Jehu,  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  Jehu  must  cor- 
respond to  the  twenty-second  year  of  Joash  of  Judah ;  and  in 
this  year  of  Joash  not  only  did  Jehu  die,  but  his  son  Jehoahaz 
ascended  the  throne.  Consequently  we  must  substitute  the 
twenty-second  year  of  Joash,  or  perhaps,  stiU  more  correctlj'-, 
the  twenty-first  year  (Josephus),  for  the  twenty-third.^  If  Jehu 
died  in  the  earliest  months  of  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  his 
reign,  so  that  he  only  reigned  twenty-seven  years  and  one  or 
two  months,  his  death  and  his  son's  ascent  of  the  throne  might 

^  On  the  other  baud,  Thenius,  who  follows  des  Vignoles  and  Winer,  not  only 
defends  the  correctness  of  the  account  "  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash," 
because  it  agrees  with  the  twenty-eight  years'  reign  of  Jehu  (ch.  x.  36),  but 
also  holds  fast  the  seventeen  years'  duration  of  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  on 
account  of  its  agreement  with  ch.  xiv.  1 ;  for  6  years  (Athaliah)  +  40  yeai's 
(Joash)  =  46  years,  and  28  years  (Jehu)  + 17  years  (Jehoahaz)  =  45  years ;  so 
that,  as  is  there  affirmed,  Amaziah  the  son  of  Joash  ascended  the  throne  in 
the  second  year  of  Joash  the  sou  of  Jehoahaz.  But  to  arrive  at  this  result 
he  assumes  that  there  is  an  error  in  ver.  10,  namely,  that  instead  of  the 
thirty-seventh  year  we  ought  to  read  the  thirty-ninth  year  there,  according 
to  the  edit.  Aldina  of  the  LXX.  But  apart  from  the  fact  that,  as  we  have 
shown  above  in  the  text,  the  datum  "in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash" 
does  not  harmonize  with  the  twenty-eight  years'  reign  of  Jehu,  this  solution 
of  the  difference  is  overthrown  by  the  circumstance  that,  in  order  to  obtain 
this  agreement  between  ver.  1  and  ver.  14,  Thenius  reckons  the  years  of  the 
reigns  not  only  of  Athaliah  and  Joash,  but  also  of  Jehu  and  Jehoahaz,  as  full 
years  (the  former  16  +  40,  the  latter  28  +  17)  ;  whereas,  in  order  to  bring 
the  datum  in  ver.  1  (in  the  twenty -third  year  of  Joash)  into  harmony  with 
the  emendation  proposed  in  ver.  10  (in  the  thirty-ninth  year  of  Joash),  he 
reckons  the  length  of  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  as  only  sixteen  years  (instead  of 
seventeen).  For  example,  if  Jehoahaz  reigned  seventeen  years,  supposing 
that  he  ascended  the  throne  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash  of  Judah,  he 
died  in  the  fortieth  year  of  Joash  (not  the  thirty-ninth),  and  his  son  began  to 
reign  the  same  year.  In  that  case  Amaziah  would  have  begim  to  reign  in 
the  first  year  of  Jehoash  of  Israel,  and  not  in  the  second,  as  is  stated  in  ch. 
xiv.  1.— The  reading  of  the  LXX.  (ed.  Aid.  ver.  10),  "  in  the  thirty-ninth 
year,"  is  therefore  nothing  but  a  mistaken  emendation  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  removing  a  discrepancy,  but  of  no  critical  value. 


CHAP.  xni.  1-9.  373 

fall  even  in  the  closing  months  of  the  twenty-first  year  of  the 
reign  of  Joash  of  Judah.     And  from  the  twenty-first  to  the 
thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash,  Jehoahaz  may  have  reigned  six- 
teen years  and  a  few  months,  and  his  reign  be  described  as 
lasting  seventeen  years. — ^Vers.  2,  3.  As  Jehoahaz  trod  in  the 
footsteps  of  his  forefathers  and  continued  the  sin  of  Jeroboam 
(the  worship  of  the  calves),  the  Lord  punished  Israel  during  his 
reign  even  more  than  in  that  of  his  predecessor.     The  longer 
and  the  more  obstinately  the  sin  was  continued,  the  more  severe 
did  the  punishment  become.     He  gave  them  (the  Israelites)  into 
the  power  of  the  Syrian  king  Hazael  and  his  son  Benhadad 
D^0'n"73,  "  the  whole  time,"  sc.  of  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  (vid. 
ver.  22) ;  not  of  the  reigns  of  Hazael  and  Benhadad,  as  Thenius 
supposes  in  direct  opposition  to  vers.  24  and  25.     According  to 
ver.  7,  the  Syrians  so  far  destroyed  the  Israelitish  army,  that  only 
fifty  horsemen,  ten  war-chariots,  and  ten  thousand  foot  soldiers 
were  left. — Vers.  4  sqq.    In  this  oppression  Jehoahaz  prayed 
to  the  Lord  ('''  \33  rhn  as  in  1  Kings  xiii.  6) ;  and  the  Lord 
heard  this  prayer,  because  He  saw  their  oppression  at  the  hands 
of  the  Syrians,  and  gave  Israel  a  saviour,  so  that  they  came  out 
from  the  power  of  the  Syrians  and  dwelt  in  their  booths  again, 
as  before,  i.e.  were  able  to  live  peaceably  again  in  their  houses, 
without  being  driven  off  and  led  away  by  the  foe.    The  saviour, 
jT'jno,  was  neither  an  angel,  nor  the  prophet  Elisha,  nor  quidam 
e  ducibus  Joasi,  as  some  of  the  earlier  commentators  supposed, 
nor  a  victory  obtained  by  Jehoahaz  over  the  Syrians,  nor  merely 
Jeroboam  (Thenius) ;  but  the  Lord  gave  them  the  saviour  in 
the  two  successors  of  Jehoahaz,  in  the  kings  Jehoash  and  Jero- 
boam, the  former  of  whom  wrested  fix)m  the  SjTians  all  the 
cities  that  had  been  conquered  by  them  under  his  father  (ver. 
25),  while  the  latter  restored  the  ancient  boundaries  of  Israel 
(ch.  xiv.  25).     According  to  vers.  22-25,  the  oppression  by  the 
Syrians  lasted  as  long  as  Jehoahaz  lived  ;  but  after  his  death 
the  Lord  had  compassion  upon  Israel,  and  after  the  death  of 
Hazael,  when  his  son  Benhadad  had  become  kincr,  Jehoash  re- 
covered  from  Benhadad  all  the  Israelitish  cities  that  had  been 
taken  by  the  Syrians.     It  is  obvious  from  this,  that  the  oppres- 
sion which  Benhadad  the  son  of  Hazael  inflicted  upon  Israel, 
according  to  ver.  3,  falls  within  the  period  of  his  father's  reign, 
so  that  it  was  not  as  king,  but  as  commander-in-chief  under  his 
father,  that  he  oppressed  Israel,  and  therefore  he  is  not  even 


576  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

called  king  in  ver.  3. — Ver.  6.  "  Only  they  departed  not,"  etc.,  is 
inserted  as  a  parenthesis  and  must  be  expressed  thus  :  "  although 
they  departed  not  from  the  sin  of  Jeroboam." — Ver.  7.  "  For 
("'3)  he  had  not  left,"  etc.,  furnishes  the  ground  for  ver.  5  :  God 
gave  them  a  saviour,  ,  .  .  although  they  did  not  desist  from  the 
sin  of  Jeroboam,  ...  for  Israel  had  been  brought  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity ;  He  (Jehovah)  had  left  to  Jehoahaz  people  (DV,  people 
of  war),  only  fifty  horsemen,  etc.  For  "'pnn  instead  of  i^''^!}\}. 
(ver.  6),  see  at  1  Kings  xxi.  21,  The  suffix  ^^  in  ver.  6  refers 
to  riNipn  just  as  that  in  n3eo  in  ver.  2  (see  at  ch.  iii.  3).  "  And 
even  the  Asherah  was  (still)  standing  at  Samaria,"  probably 
from  the  time  of  Ahab  downwards  (1  Kings  xvi  33),  since 
Jehu  is  not  said  to  have  destroyed  it  (ch.  x.  2  6  sqq.).  'IJ^  ^dok'^i, 
"  and  had  made  them  like  dust  for  trampling  upon," — an  ex- 
pression denoting  utter  destruction. — Vers.  8  and  9.  Close  of  the 
reign  of  Jehoahaz.  Jehoahaz  had  probably  shown  his  might  in 
the  war  with  the  Syrians,  although  he  had  been  overcome. 

Vers.  10-13.  Eeign  of  Jehoash  or  Joash  of  Israel. — On 
the  commencement  of  his  reign  see  at  ver.  1.  He  also  walked 
in  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  (compare  ver.  11  with  vers.  2  and  6). 
The  war  with  Amaziah  referred  to  in  ver.  12  is  related  in  the 
history  of  this  king  in  ch.  xiv.  8-14 ;  and  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Joash  is  also  recorded  there  (vers.  15  and  16)  with  the  stand- 
ing formula.  And  even  here  it  ought  not  to  be  introduced  till 
the  end  of  the  chapter,  instead  of  in  vers.  1 2  and  1 3,  inasmuch 
as  the  verses  which  foUow  relate  several  things  belonging  to  the 
reign  of  Joash.  But  as  they  are  connected  with  the  termination 
of  Ehsha's  life,  it  was  quite  admissible  to  wind  up  the  reign  of 
Joash  with  ver.  13. 

Vers.  14-21.  Illness  and  Death  of  the  Prophet  Elisha. 
— Ver.  14.  When  Elisha  was  taken  ill  with  the  sickness  of 
which  he  was  to  die,  king  Joash  visited  him  and  wept  over  his 
face,  i.e.  bending  over  the  sick  man  as  he  lay,  and  exclaimed, "  My 
father,  my  father!  the  chariot  of  Israel  and  horsemen  thereof!" 
just  as  Elisha  had  mourned  over  the  departure  of  Elijah  (cL 
ii.  12).  This  lamentation  of  the  king  at  the  approaching  death 
of  the  prophet  shows  that  Joash  knew  how  to  value  his  labours. 
And  on  account  of  this  faith  which  was  manifested  in  his  recog- 
nition of  the  prophet's  worth,  the  Lord  gave  the  king  another 
gracious  assurance  through  the  dying  Elisha,  which  was  confirmed 


CHAP.  Xlll.  14-2L  377 

by  means  of  a  sym"bolical  action. — Vers.  1 5  sqq.  "  Take — said 
Elisha  to  Joash — bow  and  arrows,  .  .  .  and  let  thy  hand  pass 
over  the  bow  "  (^sii"),  i.e.  stretch  the  bow.  He  then  placed  his 
hands  upon  the  king's  hands,  as  a  sign  that  the  power  which  was 
to  be  given  to  the  bow-shot  came  from  the  Lord  through  the 
mediation  of  the  prophet  He  then  directed  him  to  open  the 
window  towards  the  east  and  shoot,  adding  as  he  shot  off  the 
arrow :  "  An  arrow  of  salvation  from  the  Lord,  and  an  arrow  of 
salvation  against  the  Syrians  ;  and  thou  wilt  smite  the  Syrians  at 
Aphek  (see  at  1  Kings  xx.  26)  to  destruction."  The  arrow  that 
was  shot  off  was  to  be  a  symbol  of  the  help  of  the  Lord  against 
the  Syrians  to  their  destruction.  This  promise  the  king  was 
then  to  appropriate  to  himself  through  an  act  of  his  own.  Elisha 
therefore  directed  him  (ver.  18)  to  "  take  the  arrows ;"  and  when 
he  had  taken  them,  said :  '"iv^.J?  '^\},  "  strike  to  the  earth,"  i.e.  shoot 
the  arrows  to  the  ground,  not  "  smite  the  earth  with  the  bundle 
of  arrows"  (Thenius),  which  neither  agrees  with  the  shooting  of 
the  first  arrow,  nor  admits  of  a  grammatical  vindication;  for 
>^'2^,  when  used  of  an  arrow,  signifies  to  shoot  and  to  strike  with 
the  arrow  shot  off,  i.e.  to  wound  or  to  kill  (cf  ch.  ix.  24, 
1  Kings  xxii.  34).  The  shooting  of  the  arrows  to  the  earth  was 
intended  to  symbolize  the  overthrow  of  the  Syrians.  "  And  the 
king  shot  three  times,  and  then  stood  (still),"  i.e.  left  off  shooting. 
— Ver.  19.  Elisha  was  angry  at  this,  and  said:  "  Thou  shouldst 
shoot  five  or  six  times,  thou  wouldst  then  have  smitten  the 
Syrians  to  destruction;  but  now  thou  wilt  smite  them  three 
times."  nianp .-  it  was  to  shoot,  i.e.  thou  shouldst  shoot ;  com- 
pare Ewald,  §  237,  c;  and  for  n'3n  TN,  then  hadst  thou  smitten, 
vid.  Ewald,  ^  358,  a.  As  the  king  was  told  that  the  arrow 
shot  off  signified  a  victory  over  the  Sjoians,  he  ought  to  have 
shot  off  all  the  arrows,  to  secure  a  complete  victory  over  them. 
When,  therefore,  he  left  off  after  shooting  only  thi-ee  times,  this 
was  a  sign  that  he  was  wanting  in  the  proper  zeal  for  obtaining 
the  divine  promise,  i.e.  in  true  faith  in  the  omnipotence  of  God 
to  fulfil  His  promise.^  Elisha  was  angry  at  this  weakness  of 
the  king's  faith,  and  told  him  that  by  lea\ing  off  so  soon  he  had 
deprived  himseK  of  a  perfect  victory  over  the  Syrians. — Vers.  20, 

*  "  When  the  king  reflected  upon  the  power  of  the  kings  of  Syria,  since  he 
had  not  implicit  faith  in  Elisha,  he  thought  that  it  was  enough  if  he  struck 
the  earth  three  times,  fearing  that  the  prophecy  might  not  be  fulfilled  if  he 
should  strike  more  blows  upon  the  ground." — Clekiccs. 


378  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

21.  Elisha  tlien  died  at  a  great  age.  As  he  had  been  called  by 
Elijah  to  be  a  prophet  in  the  reign  of  Ahab  and  did  not  die  till 
that  of  Joash,  and  forty-one  years  elapsed  between  the  year  that 
Ahab  died  and  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Joash,  he  must 
have  held  his  prophetical  office  for  at  least  fifty  years,  and  have 
attained  the  age  of  eighty.  "  And  they  buried  him  just  as 
marauding  bands  of  Moabites  entered  the  land.  And  it  came 
to  pass,  that  at  the  burial  of  a  man  they  saw  the  marauding 
bands  coming,  and  placed  the  dead  man  in  the  greatest  haste  in 
the  grave  of  Elisha,"  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  from  the  enemy. 
But  when  the  (dead)  man  touched  the  bones  of  Elisha,  he  came 
to  life  again,  and  rose  up  upon  his  feet,  "li^  2Ni»  "'7^^^  is  a  cir- 
cumstantial clause.  The  difficult  expression  njK'  N3,  "  a  year 
had  come,"  can  only  have  the  meaning  given  by  the  LXX.  and 
Chald. :  "  when  a  year  had  come,"  and  evidently  indicates  that 
the  burial  of  Elisha  occurred  at  the  time  when  the  yearly  return- 
ing bands  of  Moabitish  marauders  invaded  the  land.  Ewald  {Krit. 
Gramm.  p.  528)  would  therefore  read  Nia,  a  coming  of  the  year, 
in  which  case  the  words  would  be  grammatically  subordinate  to 
the  maia  clause.  Luther  renders  it  "  the  same  year,"  in  ipso  anno, 
after  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac,  as  if  the  reading  had  been  njB'  na. 
DH^  they,  the  people  who  had  just  buried  a  man.  13 v^^,  not 
threw,  but  placed  hastily.  V?*!  "n^'l :  and  the  man  went  and 
touched,  ^.'p.'.l  serves  as  a  pictorial  delineation  of  the  thought, 
that  as  soon  as  the  dead  man  touched  the  bones  of  Elisha  he 
came  to  life.  '^Ir'O  is  not  only  applied  to  the  motion  of  inanimate 
objects,  but  also  to  the  gradual  progress  of  any  transaction.  The 
conjecture  of  Thenius  and  Hitzig,  «^'i,  "  and  they  went  away,"  is 
quite  unsuitable.  The  earlier  Israelites  did  not  bury  their  dead 
in  coffins,  but  wrapped  them  in  linen  cloths  and  laid  them  in 
tombs  hewn  out  of  the  rock.  The  tomb  was  then  covered  with 
a  stone,  which  could  easily  be  removed.  The  dead  man,  who 
was  placed  thus  hurriedly  in  the  tomb  which  had  been  opened, 
might  therefore  easily  come  into  contact  with  the  bones  of 
Elisha.  The  design  of  this  miracle  of  the  restoration  of  the 
dead  man  to  life  was  not  to  show  how  even  in  the  grave  Elisha 
surpassed  his  master  Elijah  in  miraculous  power  (Ephr.  Syr.  and 
others),  but  to  impress  the  seal  of  divine  attestation  upon  the 
prophecy  of  the  dying  prophet  concerning  the  victory  of  Joash 
over  the  Syrians  (Wisd.  xlviii.  13,  14),  since  the  Lord  thereby 
bore  witness  that  He  was  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 


CHAP.  XIV.  1-7.  379 

living,  and  that  His  spirit  was  raised  above  death  and  corrupti- 
bility.— ^The  opinion  that  the  dead  man  was  restored  to  life  again 
in  a  natural  manner,  through  the  violent  shaking  occasioned  by 
the  faU,  or  through  the  coolness  of  the  tomb,  needs  no  refutation. 
Vers.  22—25.  The  prophecy  which  Elisha  uttered  before  his 
death  is  here  followed  immediately  by  the  account  of  its  fulfil- 
ment, and  to  this  end  the  oppression  of  the  Israelites  by  Hazael 
is  mentioned  once  more,  together  with  that  turn  of  affairs  which 
took  place  through  the  compassion  of  God  after  the  death  of 
Hazael  and  in  the  reign  of  his  son  Benhadad.  TO?  is  a  plu- 
perfect :  "  Hazael  had  oppressed "  (for  the  fact  itself  compare 
vers.  4  and  7).  For  the  sake  of  the  covenant  made  with  the 
patriarchs  the  Lord  turned  again  to  the  Israelites,  and  would 
not  destroy  them,  and  did  not  cast  them  away  from  His  face  IV 
nny  ("  till  now  "),  as  was  the  case  afterwards,  but  delivered  them 
fi'om  the  threatening  destruction  through  the  death  of  Hazael. 
For  in  the  reign  of  his  son  and  successor  Benhadad,  Joash  the 
son  of  Jehoahaz  took  from  him  again  (3^  is  to  be  connected 
with  ni5>i)  the  cities  which  he  (Hazael)  had  taken  from  Jehoahaz 
in  the  war.  These  cities  which  Hazael  had  wrested  from 
Jehoahaz  were  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan,  for  Hazael  had  con- 
quered all  GHead  in  the  time  of  Jehu  (ck  x.  32,  33).  Joash 
recovered  the  former  from  Benhadad,  whilst  his  son  Jeroboam 
reconquered  Gilead  also  (see  at  ch.  xiv.  25). 

CHAP.  XrV.    EEIGNS  OF.  AMAZIAH  OF  JUDAH,  AND  JEEOBOAM  IL  OF 

ISRAEL. 

Vers.  1-22.  Eeign  of  Amazllh  of  Judah  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxv.). 

— Vers.  1-7.  Length  and  spirit  of  his  reign,  and  his  victory  over 

the  Edomites. — Ver.  1.  Amaziah  began  to  reign  in  the  second 

.  year  of  Joash  of  Israel     Kow  as  Joash  of  Israel  ascended  the 

throne,  according  to  ch.  xiii.  1 0,  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash 

of  Judah,  the  latter  cannot  have  reigned  thirty-nine  full  years, 

which  might  be  reckoned  as  forty  (ch.  xii.  1),  according  to  the 

principle  mentioned  at  p.  186  sq.  of  reckoning  the  current  years 

as  complete  years,  if  the  commencement  of  his  reign  took  place  a 

month  or  two  before  Nisan,  and  his  death  occurred  a  month  or  two 

after,  without  its  being  necessary  to  assume  a  regency. — Vers.  2_. 

3.  Amaziah  reigned  twenty-nine  years  in  the  same  theocratical 

spirit  as  his  father  Joash,  only  not  like  his  ancestor  David,  i.e., 

according  to  the  correct  explanation  in  2  Chron.  xxv.  2,  not 


380  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

with  a?f  337  (see  at  1  Kings  xi.  4),  since  Amaziali,  like  his 
father  Joash  (see  at  ch.  xii.  3),  fell  into  idolatry  in  the  closing 
years  of  his  reign  (cf  2  Chron,  xxv.  14  sqq.). — Only  the  high 
places  were  not  taken  away,  etc. — Vers.  5,  6.  After  establishing 
his  own  government,  he  punished  the  murderers  of  his  father 
with  death  ;  but,  according  to  the  law  in  Deut.  xxiv.  16,  he  did 
not  slay  their  children  also,  as  was  commonly  the  custom  in  the 
East  in  ancient  times,  and  may  very  frequently  have  been  done 
in  Israel  as  well.  The  Chethib  Ti^iy  is  correct,  and  the  Keri  no^ 
is  an  unnecessary  alteration  made  after  Deuteronomy. — Ver.  7. 
The  brief  account  of  the  defeat  of  the  Edomites  in  the  Salt 
Valley  and  of  the  taking  of  the  city  of  Sela  is  completed  by 
2  Chron.  xxv.  6-16.  According  to  the  latter,  Amaziah  sought 
to  strengthen  his  own  considerable  army  by  the  addition  of 
100,000  Israelitish  mercenaries;  but  at  the  exhortation  of  a 
prophet  he  sent  the  hired  Israelites  away  again,  at  which  they 
were  so  enraged,  that  on  their  way  home  they  plundered  several 
of  the  cities  of  Judah  and  put  many  men  to  death.  The  Edom- 
ites had  revolted  from  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Joram  (ch.  viii. 
20  sqq.);  Amaziah  now  sought  to  re-establish  his  rule  over 
them,  in  which  he  was  so  far  successful,  that  he  completely 
defeated  them,  slaying  10,000  in  the  battle  and  then  taking 
their  capital,  so  that  his  successor  Uzziah  was  also  able  to  in- 
corporate the  Edomitish  port  of  Elath  in  his  own  kingdom  once 
more  (ver.  22).  On  the  Salt  Valley  (n.%n-^3  for  nSen-K^a  in  the 
Chronicles),  a  marshy  salt  plain  in  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
see  at  2  Sam.  viii.  13.  According  to  ver.  12  of  the  Chronicles, 
in  addition  to  the  10,000  who  were  slain  in  battle,  10,000 
Edomites  were  taken  prisoners  and  cast  headlong  alive  from  the 
top  of  a  rock.  IDBn  {the  rock)  with  the  article,  because  the  epithet 
is  founded  upon  tlie  peculiar  nature  of  the  city,  was  probably  , 
the  capital  of  the  Edomites,  called  by  the  Greeks  rj  Ilerpa,  and 
bore  this  name  from  its  situation  and  the  mode  in  which  it  was 
built,  since  it  was  erected  in  a  valley  surrounded  by  rocks,  and 
that  in  such  a  manner  that  the  houses  were  partly  hewn  in  the 
natural  rock.  Of  this  commercial  city,  which  was  still  flourish- 
ing in  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  splendid  ruins- 
have  been  preserved  in  a  valley  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  ghor 
which  runs  down  to  the  Elanitic  Gulf,  about  two  days'  journey 
from  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on  the  east  of 
Mount  Hor,  to  which  the  Crusaders  gave  the  name  of  vallis 


CHAP.  XIV.  8-14.  381 

Moysi,  and  which  the  Arabs  still  call  Wady  Musa  (see  Robinson, 
Pal.  ii.  pp.  512  sqq.,  and  for  the  history  of  this  city,  pp.  574 
sqq.,  and  Patter's  Erdkunde,  xiv.  pp.  1103  sqq.). 

Vers.  8-14.  War  with  Joash  of  Israel. — Ver.  8.  Amaziah 
then  sent  a  challenge  to  the  Israelitish  king  Joash  to  go  to 
war  with  him.  The  outward  reason  for  this  was  no  doubt  the 
hostile  acts  that  had  been  performed  by  the  Israelitish  troops, 
which  had  been  hired  for  the  war  with  Edom  and  then  sent 
back  again  (2  Chron.  xxv.  13).  But  the  inward  ground  was 
the  pride  which  had  crept  upon  Amaziah  in  consequence  of  his 
victory  over  the  Edomites,  and  had  so  far  carried  him  away, 
that  he  not  only  forgot  the  Lord  his  God,  to  whom  he  was 
indebted  for  this  ^dcto^y,  and  brought  to  Jerusalem  the  gods  of 
the  Edomites  which  he  had  taken  in  the  war  and  worshipped 
them,  and  silenced  with  threats  the  prophet  who  condenmed 
this  idolatry  (2  Chron.  xxv.  14  sqq.),  but  in  his  proud  reliance 
upon  his  own  power  challenged  the  Israelitish  king  to  war. — 
Vers.  9,  10.  Jehoash  (Joash)  answered  his  insolent  challenge, 
"  Come,  we  will  see  one  another  face  to  face,"  i.e.  measure  swords 
with  one  another  in  war,  with  a  similar  fable  to  that  with  which 
Jotham  had  once  insti-uct^d  his  fellow-citizens  (Judg.  ix.  8  sqq.). 
"  The  thorn-bush  on  Lebanon  asked  the  cedar  on  Lebanon  for  its 
daughter  as  a  wife  for  his  son,  and  beasts  of  the  field  went  by 
and  trampled  down  the  thorn-bush,"  This  fable  is,  of  course, 
not  to  be  interpreted  literally,  as  though  Amaziah  were  the 
thorn-bush,  and  Jehoash  the  cedar,  and  the  wild  beasts  the 
warriors ;  but  the  thorn-bush  putting  itself  upon  an  equality  with 
the  cedar  is  a  figurative  representation  of  a  proud  man  over- 
rating his  strength,  and  the  desire  expressed  to  the  cedar  of  a 
wish  surpassing  the  bounds  of  one's  condition ;  so  that  Thenius 
is  not  warranted  in  infemng  from  this  that  Amaziah  had  in  his 
mind  the  subjugation  of  Israel  to  Judah  again.  The  trampling 
down  of  the  thorn-bush  by  a  wild  beast  is  only  meant  to  set 
forth  the  sudden  overthrow  and  destruction  which  may  come 
unexpectedly  upon  the  proud  man  in  tlie  midst  of  his  daring 
plans.  Ver.  10  contains  the  application  of  the  parable.  The 
victory  over  Edom  has  made  thee  high-minded,  "^jh  ^SB'3 :  thy 
heart  has  lifted  thee  up,  equivalent  to,  thou  hast  become  high- 
minded.  '133'?,  "  be  honoured,"  i.e.  be  content  with  the  fame 
thou  hast  acquired  at  Edom,  "  and  stay  at  home."  Wherefore 
shouldst  thou  meddle  with  misfortune  ?     '"''Jl^'?,  to  engage  in 


382  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

conflict  or  war.  Misfortune  is  thought  of  as  an  enemy,  with 
whom  he  wanted  to  fight. — Vers.  11,  12.  But  Amaziah  paid  no 
attention  to  this  warning.  A  battle  was  fought  at  Bcth-sJiemesh 
(Ain-Shems,  on  the  border  of  Judah  and  Dan,  see  at  Josh.  xv. 
1 0)  ;  Judah  was  smitten  by  Israel,  so  that  every  one  fled  to  his 
home. — ^Ver.  1 3.  Jehoash  took  king  Amaziah  prisoner,  and  then 
came  to  Jerusalem,  and  had  four  hundred  cubits  of  the  wall 
broken  down  at  the  gate  of  Ephraim  to  the  corner  gate,  and 
then  returned  to  Samaria  with  the  treasures  of  the  palace  and 
temple,  and  with  hostages.  The  Chethih  1X2^1  is  to  be  pointed 
iX2>l,  the  vowel  i  being  placed  after  n,  as  in  several  other  cases 
(see  Ewald,  §  18,  h).  There  is  no  ground  for  altering  l'^??''?';  after 
the  Chronicles  (Thenius),  although  the  reading  in  the  Chronicles 
elucidates  the  thought.  For  if  Jehoash  took  Amaziah  prisoner 
at  Beth-shemesh  and  then  came  to  Jerusalem,  he  no  doubt 
brought  his  prisoner  with  him,  for  Amaziah  remained  king  and 
reigned  for  fifteen  years  after  the  death  of  Jehoash  (ver.  1 7). 
The  E'pJiraim  gate,  which  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  same 
as  the  gate  of  Benjamin  (Jer.  xxxvii.  1 3,  xxxviii  7 ;  Zech.  xiv. 
10  ;  compare  Neh.  viii.  16,  xii.  39),  stood  in  the  middle  of  the 
north  wall  of  Jerusalem,  through  which  the  road  to  Benjamin 
and  Ephraim  ran ;  and  the  corner  gate  was  at  the  north-western 
corner  of  the  same  wall,  as  we  may  see  from  Jer.  xxxi.  38  and 
Zech.  xiv.  1 0.  If,  then,  Jehoash  had  four  hundred  cubits  of  the 
wall  thrown  down  at  the  gate  Ephraim  to  the  corner  gate,  the 
distance  between  the  two  gates  was  not  more  than  four  hundred 
cubits,  which  applies  to  the  northern  wall  of  Zion,  but  not  to 
the  second  wall,  which  defended  the  lower  city  towards  the 
north,  and  must  have  been  longer,  and  which,  according  to 
2  Chron.  xxxii.  5,  was  probably  built  for  the  first  time  by  Heze- 
kiah  {vid.  Krafift,  Topographie  v.  Jerus.  pp.  117  sqq.).  Jehoash 
destroyed  this  portion  of  the  Zion  wall,  that  the  city  might  be 
left  defenceless,  as  Jerusalem  could  be  most  easily  taken  on  the 
level  northern  side.^ — The  treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace, 
which  Jehoash  took  away,  cannot,  according  to  ch,  xii.  19,  have 

*  Thenius  takes  a  different  view.  According  to  the  description  •which 
Josephus  gives  of  this  event  {Ant.  ix.  9,  3),  he  assumes  that  Jehoash  had  the 
four  hundred  cubits  of  the  city  wall  thrown  down,  that  he  might  get  a  mag- 
nificent gate  (?)  for  himself  and  the  invading  army  ;  and  he  endeavoure  to 
support  this  assumption  by  stating  that  the  space  between  the  Ephraim  gate 
and  the  corner  gate  was  much  more  than  four  hundred  cubits.    But  this 


CHAP.  XIV.  15-22.  3 S3 

been  very  considerable,  l^i^nynn  •'ja,  sons  of  the  citizenships, 
i.e.  hostages  (obsides,  Vulg.).  He  took  hostages  in  return  for  the 
release  of  Amaziah,  as  pledges  that  he  would  keep  the  peace. 

Vers.  15-17.  The  repetition  of  the  notice  concerning  the  end 
of  the  reign  of  Joash,  together  with  the  formula  from  ch.  xiil 
12  and  13,  may  probably  be  explained  from  the  fact,  that  in 
the  annals  of  the  kings  of  Israel  it  stood  after  the  account  of  the 
war  between  Jehoash  and  Amaziah.  This  may  be  inferred  from 
the  circumstance  that  the  name  of  Joash  is  spelt  invariably  B'Nin' 
here,  whereas  in  the  closing  notices  in  ch.  xiii.  12  and  13  we 
have  the  later  form  ^'^'^\  the  one  which  was  no  doubt  adopted 
by  the  author  of  our  books.  But  he  might  be  induced  to  give 
these  notices  once  more  as  he  found  them  in  his  original  sources, 
from  the  statement  in  ver.  17,  that  Amaziah  outlived  Jehoash 
fifteen  years,  seeing  therein  a  manifestation  of  the  grace  of  God, 
who  would  not  destroy  Amaziah  notwithstanding  his  pride,  but 
delivered  him,  through  the  death  of  his  victor,  from  further  in- 
juries at  his  hands.  As  Amaziah  ascended  the  throne  in  the 
second  year  of  the  sixteen  years'  reign  of  Jehoash,  and  before 
his  war  with  Israel  made  war  upon  the  Edomites  and  overcame 
them,  the  war  with  Israel  can  only  fall  in  the  closing  years  of 
Jehoash,  and  this  king  cannot  very  long  have  survived  his 
triumph  over  the  king  of  Judah. 

Vers.  18—22.  Conspiracy/  against  Amaziah. — Ver.  19.  Ama- 
ziah, like  his  father  Joash,  did  not  die  a  natural  death.  They 
made  a  conspiracy  against  him  at  Jerusalem,  and  he  fled  to 
Lachish,  whither  murderers  were  sent  after  him,  who  slew  him 
there.  The  earlier  commentators  sought  for  the  cause  of  this 
conspiracy  in  the  unfortunate  result  of  the  war  with  Jehoash ; 
but  this  conjecture  is  at  variance  with  the  circumstance  that  the 
conspiracy  did  not  break  out  till  fifteen  years  or  more  after  that 
event.  It  is  true  that  in  2  Chron.  xxv.  27  we  read  "  from  the 
time  that  Amaziah  departed  from  the  Lord,  they  formed  a  con- 
spiracy against  him ;  "  but  even  this  statement  cannot  be  under- 
stood in  any  other  way  than  that  Amaziah's  apostasy  gave 
occasion  for  discontent,  which  eventually  led  to  a  conspiracy. 

assertion  is  based  upon  an  assumption  vrhich  cannot  be  sustained,  namely, 
that  the  second  wall  built  by  Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  5)  was  already  in 
existence  in  the  time  of  Amaziah,  and  that  the  gates  mentioned  were  in  this 
wall.  The  subjective  view  of  the  matter  in  Josephus  has  no  more  worth  than 
that  of  a  simple  conjecture. 


384  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

For  his  apostasy  began  with  the  introduction  of  Edomitish 
deities  into  Jerusalem  after  the  defeat  of  the  Edomites,  and 
therefore  before  the  war  with  Jehoash,  in  the  first  part  of  his 
reign,  whereas  the  conspiracy  cannot  possibly  have  lasted  fifteen 
years  or  more  before  it  came  to  a  head.  Lachish,  in  the  low- 
lands of  Judah,  has  probably  been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Um 
Lakis  (see  at  Josh  x.  3). — Ver.  20.  "  They  lifted  him  upon  the 
horses,"  i.e.  upon  the  hearse  to  which  the  king's  horses  had  been 
harnessed,  and  brought  him  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  was  buried 
with  his  fathers,  i.e.  in  the  royal  tomb. — Ver.  21,  AUthe  people 
of  Judah,  i.e.  the  whole  nation,  not  the  whole  of  the  men  of 
war  (Thenius),  thereupon  made  his  son  Azariah  (Uzziah)  king, 
who  was  only  sixteen  years  old.  nnry  or  inpTV  is  the  name 
given  to  this  king  here  and  ch.  xv.  1,  6,  8,  17,  23,  and  27,  and 
1  Chron.  iii.  12  ;  whereas  in  ch.  xv.  13,  30,  32,  34,  2  Chron. 
xxvi.  1,  3,  11,  etc.,  and  also  Isa.  i.  1,  vi.  1,  Hos.  i.  1,  Amos  i. 
1,  and  Zech.  xiv.  5,  he  is  called  m  or  innj?  (Uzziah).  This 
variation  in  the  name  is  too  constant  to  be  attributable  to  a 
copyist's  error.  Even  the  conjecture  that  Azariah  adopted  the 
name  Uzziah  as  king,  or  that  it  was  given  to  him  by  the  soldiers 
after  a  successful  campaign  (Thenius),  does  not  explain  the  use 
of  the  two  names  in  our  historical  books.  We  must  rather 
assume  that  the  two  names,  which  are  related  in  meaning, 
were  used  promiscuously,  nnry  signifies  "  in  Jehovah  is  help  ; " 
nny,  "whose  strength  is  Jehovah."  This  is  favoured  by  the 
circumstance  adduced  by  Bertheau,  that  among  the  descend- 
ants of  Kohath  we  also  find  an  Uzziah  who  bears  the  name 
Azariah  (1  Chron.  vi,  9  and  21),  and  similarly  among  the 
descendants  of  Heman  an  Uzziel  with  the  name  Azarel  (1  Chron. 
XXV.  4  and  18). — ^Ver.  22.  Immediately  after  his  ascent  of  the 
throne,  Uzziah  built,  i.e.  fortified,  Elath,  the  Idumgean  port  (see 
at  1  Kings  ix.  26),  and  restored  it  to  Judah  again.  It  is 
evident  from  this  that  Uzziah  completed  the  renewed  subjuga- 
tion of  Edom  which  his  father  had  begun.  The  position  in 
which  this  notice  stands,  immediately  after  his  ascent  of  the 
throne  and  before  the  account  of  the  duration  and  character  of 
his  reign,  may  be  explained  in  all  probability  from  the  importance 
of  the  work  itself,  which  not  only  distinguished  the  commence- 
ment of  his  reign,  but  also  gave  evidence  of  its  power. 

Vers.  23-29.  Keign  of  Jeroboam  u.  of  Israel, — ^Ver.  23. 


CHAP.  XIV.  23-29.  385 

The  statement  that  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Joash  (Jehoash) 
ascended  the  throne  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Amaziah,  agrees 
with  ver.  17,  according  to  which  Amaziah  outlived  Jehoash 
fifteen  years,  since  Amaziah  reigned  twenty-nine  years.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  forty-one  years'  duration  of  his  reign  does  not 
agree  with  the  statement  in  ch.  xv.  8,  that  his  son  Zachariah  did 
not  become  king  till  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Azariah  (XJzziah)  ; 
and  therefore  Thenius  proposes  to  alter  the  number  41  into  51, 
Ewald  into  53.  For  further  remarks,  see  ch.  xv.  8.  Jeroboam 
also  adhered  firmly  to  the  image-worship  of  his  ancestors,  but  he 
raised  his  kingdom  again  to  great  power. — Ver.  25.  He  brought 
back  (^TO),  i.e.  restored,  the  boundary  of  Israel  from  towards 
Hamath  in  the  north,  to  the  point  to  which  the  kingdom  ex- 
tended in  the  time  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  \'iii.  65),  to  the  sea 
of  the  Arabah  (the  present  Ghor),  i.e.  to  the  Dead  Sea  (compare 
Deut.  iii.  17,  and  iv.  49,  from  which  tliis  designation  of  the 
southern  border  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  arose),  "  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  He  had  spoken  through 
the  prophet  Jonah,"  who  had  probably  used  this  designation 
of  the  southern  boundary,  which  was  borrowed  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch, in  the  announcement  which  he  made.  The  extent  of 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  is  defined 
in  the  same  manner  in  Amos  vi.  14,  but  instead  of  nmyn  a* 

.  T     T-: T  T 

the  ^3nj?n  5n3  is  mentioned,  i.e.  in  all  probability  the  Wady  el 
Ahsy,  which  formed  the  boundary  between  Moab  and  Edom ; 
from  which  we  may  see  that  Jeroboam  had  also  subjugated  the 
Moabites  to  his  kingdom,  which  is  not  only  rendered  probable 
by  ch.  iii.  6  sqq.,  but  is  also  implied  in  the  words  that  he 
restored  the  former  boundary  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel — On  the 
prophet  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai,  see  the  Comm.  on  Jon.  i.  1. 
Gath-Hc'phcr,  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulun,  is  the  present  village  of 
Meshed,  to  the  north  of  Xazareth  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  1 3). — ^Vers. 
26,  27.  The  higher  ground  for  this  strengthening  of  Israel  in 
the  time  of  Jeroboam  was  to  be  found  in  the  compassion  of 
God.  The  Lord  saw  the  great  oppression  and  helpless  condition 
of  Israel,  and  had  not  yet  pronounced  the  decree  of  rejection. 
He  therefore  sent  help  through  Jeroboam.  INO  nib  without 
the  article,  and  governed  by  't5«  ^JN  (see  Ewald,  |  293,  a), 
signifies  very  bitter,  nno  having  taken  the  meaning  of  i^O. 
This  is  the  explanation  adopted  in  aU  the  ancient  versions,  and 
also  by  Dietrich  in  Ges.  Lex.     'Wi  "WiV  D2N1,  verbatim  from  Deut 

2B 


386  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

xxxii.  3  6,  to  show  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel  had  been  brought 
to  the  utmost  extremity  of  distress  predicted  there  by  Moses, 
and  it  was  necessary  that  the  Lord  should  interpose  with  His 
help,  if  His  people  were  not  utterly  to  perish,  "i^l  N^ :  He  had 
not  yet  spoken,  i.e.  had  not  yet  uttered  the  decree  of  rejection 
through  the  mouth  of  a  prophet.  To  blot  out  the  name  under 
the  heavens  is  an  abbreviated  expression  for  :  among  the  nations 
who  dwelt  under  the  heavens. — Vers.  28,  29.  Of  the  rest  of  the 
history  of  Jeroboam  we  have  nothing  more  than  an  intimation 
that  he  brought  back  Damascus  and  Hamath  of  Judah  to  Israel, 
i.e.  subjugated  it  again  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  n'lin"'?  is  a  peri- 
phrastic form  for  the  genitive,  as  proper  names  do  not  admit  of  any 
form  of  the  construct  state,  and  in  this  case  the  simple  genitive 
would  not  have  answered  so  well  to  the  fact.  For  the  meaning 
is  :  "  whatever  in  the  two  kingdoms  of  Damascus  and  Hamath 
had  formerly  belonged  to  Judah  in  the  times  of  David  and 
Solomon."  By  Damascus  and  Hamath  we  are  not  to  understand 
the  cities,  but  the  kingdoms  ;  for  not  only  did  the  city  of  Hamath 
never  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  but  it  was  situated  out- 
side the  boundaries  laid  down  by  Moses  for  Israel  (see  at  Num. 
xxxiv.  8).  It  cannot,  therefore,  have  been  re-conquered  (p^\^) 
by  Jeroboam.  It  was  different  with  the  city  of  Damascus, 
which  David  had  conquered  and  even  Solomon  had  not  per- 
manently lost  (see  at  1  Kings  xi  24).  Consequently  in  the 
case  of  Damascus  the  capital  is  included  in  the  kingdom. — Ver. 
29.  As  Jeroboam  reigned  forty-one  years,  his  death  occurred  in 
the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Uzziah.  If,  then,  his  son  did  not 
begin  to  reign  till  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Uzziah,  as  is  stated 
in  ch.  XV.  8,  he  cannot  have  come  to  the  throne  immediately 
after  his  father's  death  (see  at  ch.  xv.  8). 

CHAP.  XV.  REIGNS  OF  AZARIAH  OF  JUDAH,  ZACHARIAH,  SHALLUM, 
MENAHEM,  PEKAHIAH,  AND  PEKAH  OF  ISRAEL,  AND  JOTHAM  OF 
JUDAH. 

Vers.  1-7.  Eeign  of  Azariah  (Uzziah)  of  Judah  (cf.  2 
Chron.  xxvi.). — The  statement  that  "  in  the  twenty-seventh  year 
of  Jeroboam  Azariah  began  to  reign "  is  at  variance  with  ch. 
xiv.  2,  16,  17,  and  23.  If,  for  example,  Azariah  ascended  the 
throne  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Joash  of  Israel,  and  with  his 
twenty-nine  years'  reign  outlived  Joash  fifteen  years  (ch.  xiv.  2, 
1 7) ;  if,  moreover,  Jeroboam  followed  his  father  Joash  in  the 


CHAP.  XV.  1-7.  387 

fifteenth  year  of  Amaziah  (cL  xiv.  23),  and  Amaziah  died  in 
the  fifteenth  year  of  Jeroboam ;  Azariah  (TJzziah)  must  have  be- 
come king  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Jeroboam,  since,  according  to 
cL  xiv.  21,  the  people  made  him  king  after  the  murder  of  his 
father,  which  precludes  the  supposition  of  an  interregnum.     Con- 
sequently the  datum  "  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  "  can  only  have 
crept  into  the  text  through  the  confounding  of  the  numerals  ya 
(15)  with  T3  (27),  and  we  must  therefore  read  "  in  the  fifteenth 
year." — Vers.  2  sqq.  Beside  the  general  characteristics  of  Uzziah's 
fifty-two  years'  reign,  which  are  given  in  the  standing  formula, 
not  a  single   special   act  is  mentioned,  although,  according  to 
2  Chron.  xxvi.,  he  raised  his  kingdom  to  great  earthly  power 
and  prosperity ;  probably  for  no  other  reason  than  because  his 
enterprises  had  exerted  no  permanent  influence  upon  the  deve- 
lopment of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  but  all  the  useful  fruits  of 
his  reign  were  destroyed  again  by  the  ungodly  Ahaz.     Uzziah 
did  what  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  as  his  father  Amaziah 
had  done.     For  as  the  latter  was  unfaithful  to  the  Lord  in  the 
closing  years  of  his  reign,  so  did  Uzziah  seek  God  only  so  long 
as  Zechariah,  who  was  experienced  in  divine  visions,  remained 
alive,  and  God  gave  success  to  his  enterprises,  so  that  during 
this  time  he  carried  on  successful  wars  against  the-  Philistines 
and  Arabians,  fortified  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  with  strong  towers, 
built  watch-towers  in  the  desert,  and  constructed  cisterns  for 
the  protection  and  supply  of  his  numerous  flocks,  promoted 
agriculture   and  vine-growing,  and   organized  a  numerous  and 
well-furnished  army  (2    Chron.   xxvi.  5—15).     But  the  great 
power  to  which  he  thereby  attained  produced  such  haughti- 
ness, that  he  wanted  to  make  himseK  high  priest  in  his  kingdom 
after  the  manner  of  the  heathen  kings,  and  usurping  the  sacred 
functions,  which  belonged  according  to  the  law  to  the  Levitical 
priests  alone,  to  offer  incense  in  the  temple,,  for  which  he  was 
punished  with  leprosy  upon  the  spot   (ver.    5    compared  with 
2  Chron.  xxvi  16  sqq.).     The  king's  leprosy  is  described  in  our 
account  also  as  a  punishment  from  God.     '^  V\Vy  :  Jehovah  smote 
him,  and  he  became  leprous.     This  presupposes  an  act  of  guilt, 
and  confirms  the  fuller  account  of  this  guilt  given  in  the  Chro- 
nicies,  which  Thenius,  following  the  example  of  De  Wette  and 
Winer,  could  only  call  in  question  on  the  erroneous  assimiption 
"  that  the  powerful  king  wanted  to  restore  the  regal  high-priest- 
hood exercised  by  David  and  Solomon."     Oehler  (Herzog's  Cycl) 


SS8  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

has  already  shown  that  such  an  opinion  is  perfectly  "  groundless/' 
since  it  is  nowhere  stated  that  David  and  SoLomon  performed 
with  their  own  hands  the  functions  assigned  in  the  law  to  the 
priests  in  connection  with  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  as  the  co- 
operation of  the  priests  is  not  precluded  in  connection  with  the 
sacrifices  presented  by  these  kings  (2  Sam.  vi.  17,  and  1  Kings 
iii.  4,  etc.). — TJzziah  being  afflicted  with  leprosy,  was  obliged  to 
live  in  a  separate  house,  and  appoint  his  son  Jotham  as  president 
of  the  royal  house  to  judge  the  people,  i.e.  to  conduct  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  kingdom. — The  time  when  this  event  occurred 
is  not  stated  either  in  our  account  or  in  the  Chronicles.  But 
this  punishment  from  God  cannot  have  fallen  upon  him  before 
the  last  ten  years  of  his  fifty-two  years'  reign,  because  his  son, 
who  was  only  twenty-five  years  old  when  his  father  died  (ver. 
33,  and  2  Chron.  xxvii.  1),  undertook  the  administration  of  the 
affairs  of  the  kingdom  at  once,  and  therefore  must  have  been  at 
least  fifteen  years  old.  rfD'Dnn  n^3  is  taken  by  Winer,  Gesenius, 
and  others,  after  the  example  of  Iken,  to  signify  nosocomium, 

an  infirmary  or  lazar-house,  in  accordance  with  the  verb  ^iJs^, 

fecit,  II.  debilis.,  imhecillis  fuit.  But  this  meaning  cannot  be  traced 
in  Hebrew,  where  ""K^sn  is  used  in  no  other  sense  than  free,  set 
at  liberty,  maoiumissus.  Consequently  the  rendering  adopted  by 
Aquila  is  correct,  oIko^  ekevd€pia<i  ;  and  the  explanation  given  by 
Kimchi  of  this  epithet  is,  that  the  persons  who  lived  there  were 
those  who  were  sent  away  from  human  society,  or  perhaps  more 
correctly,  those  who  were  released  from  the  world  and  its  privileges 
and  duties,  or  cut  off  from  intercourse  with  God  and  man. — Ver.  7, 
When  Uzziah  died,  he  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of 
David,  but  because  he  died  of  leprosy,  not  in  the  royal  family 
tomb,  but,  as  the  Chronicles  (ver.  23)  add  to  complete  the  account, 
"in  the  burial -field  of  the  kings;"  so  that  he  was  probably 
buried  in  the  earth  according  to  our  mode.  His  son  Jotham 
did  not  become  king  till  after  Uzziah's  death,  as  he  had  not  been 
regent,  but  only  the  administrator  of  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom 
during  his  father's  leprosy. 

Vers.  8-12.  Eeign  of  Zachaeiah  of  Israel. — Ver.  8.  "  In 
the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Uzziah,  Zachariah  the  son  of  Jeroboam 
became  king  over  Israel  six  months."  As  Jeroboam  died  in  the 
twenty-seventh  year  of  Uzziah,  according  to  our  remarks  on  ch. 


CHAP.  XV.  8-12.  389 

xiv.  29,  there  is  an  inteTregmim  of  eleven  years  between  liis 
death  and  the  ascent  of  the  throne  by  Ms  son,  as  ahuost  all  the 
chronologists  since  the  time  of  Usher  have  assumed.     It  is  true 
that  this  interregnum  may  be  set  aside  by  assuming  that  Jero- 
boam reigned  fifty-one  or  fifty-thi-ee  years  instead  of  forty-one, 
without  the  synchronism  being  altered  in  consequence.     But  as 
it  is  not  very  probable  that  the  numeral  letters  3J  or  33  should 
be  confounded  -with  ND,  and  as  the  conflict  for  the  possession  of 
the  throne,  which  we  meet  with  after  the  very  brief  reign  of 
Zachariah,  when  taken  in  connection  with  various  allusions  in 
the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  rather  favours  the  idea  that  the  anarchy 
broke  out  immediately  after  the  death  of  Jeroboam,  we  regard 
the  assumption  of  an  interregnum  as  resting  on  a  better  founda- 
tion than  the  removal  of  the  chronological  discrepancy  by  an 
alteration  of  the  text — ^Vers.  9  sqq.   Zachariah  also  persevered 
in  the  sin  of  his  fathers  in  connection  with  the  calf-worship ; 
therefore  the  word  of  the  Lord  pronounced  upon  Jehu  (ch.  x.  3  0) 
was  fulfilled  in  him. — Shallum  the  son  of  Jabesh  formed  a  con- 
spiracy and  put  him  to  death  QV'b^p^  before  people,  i.e.  openly 
before  the  eyes  of  all.'-    As  Israel  would  not  suffer  itself  to  be 
brought  to  repentance  and  to  return  to  the  Lord,  its  God  and 
King,  by  the  manifestations  of  divine  grace  in  the  times   of 
Joash  and  Jeroboam,  any  more  than  by  the  severe  judgments 
that  preceded  them,  and  the  earnest  admonitions  of  the  prophets 
Hosea   and    Amos;  the  judgment  of  rejection   could  not  fail 
eventually  to  burst  forth  upon  the  nation,  which   so  basely 
despised  the  grace,  long-suffering,  and  covenant-faithfulness  of 
God.     We  therefore  see  the  kingdom  hasten  with  rapid  steps 
towards  its  destruction  after  the  death  of  Jeroboam.     In  the 
sixty-two  years  between  the  death  of  Jeroboam  and  the  conquest 
of  Samaria  by  Shalmaneser  anarchy  prevailed  twice,  in  aU  for 
the  space  of  twenty  years,  and  six  kings  followed  one  another, 
only  one  of  whom,  viz.  Menahem,  died  a  natural  death,  so  as  to 
be  succeeded  by  his  son  upon  the  throne.     The  other  five  were 
dethroned  and  murdered  by  rebels,  so  that,  as  Witsius  has  truly 
said,  with  the  murder  of  Zachariah  not  only  was  the  declara- 
.  tion  of  Hosea  (i   4)  fulfilled,  "  I  visit  the  blood-guiltiness  of 
.  Jezreel  upon  the  house  of  Jehu,"  but  also  the  parallel  utterance, 
"  and  I  destroy  the  kingdom  of  the  house  of  Israel,"  since  the 

^  Ewald  in  the  most  marvellous  mamier  haa  made  Djr^3p  uito  a  king 
iGesch.  iii.  p.  598). 


390  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  KINGS. 

monarchy  in  Israel  really  ceased  with  Zachariah.  "For  the 
successors  of  Zachariah  were  not  so  much  kings  as  robbers  and 
tyrants,  unworthy  of  the  august  name  of  kings,  who  lost  with 
ignominy  the  tyranny  which  they  had  wickedly  acquired,  and  as 
wickedly  exercised" — Witsius,  AeKa^vX.  p.  320. 

Vers.  13-16.  Reign  of  Shallum. — Shallum  reigned  only  a 
fuU  month  (D"'»^^"nT^  as  in  Deut.  xxL  13  ;  see  at  Gen.  xxix.  14). 
Menahem  the  son  of  Gadi  then  made  war  upon  him  from 
Tirzah ;  and  by  him  he  was  smitten  and  slain.  Menahem  must 
have  been  a  general  or  the  commander-in-chief,  as  Josephus 
affirms.  As  soon  as  he  became  king  he  smote  Tiphsach, — i.e.  Thap- 
sacus  on  the  Euphrates,  which  has  long  since  entirely  disappeared, 
probably  to  be  sought  for  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  present 
Bakka,  by  the  ford  of  el  Hamman,  the  north-eastern  border  city 
of  the  Israelitish  kingdom  in  the  time  of  Solomon  (1  Kings 
V.  4),  which  came  into  the  possession  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
again  when  the  ancient  boundaries  were  restored  by  Jeroboam  ii. 
(ch.  xiv.  25  and  28),  but  which  had  probably  revolted  again 
during  the  anarchy  which  arose  after  the  death  of  Jeroboam, — 
"  and  all  that  were  therein,  and  the  territory  thereof,  from  Tirzah ; 
because  they  opened  not  (to  him),  therefore  he  smote  it,  and  had 
them  that  were  with  child  ripped  up."  n^rip  does  not  mean 
that  Menahem  laid  the  land  or  district  waste  from  Tirzah  to 
Tiphsach,  but  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  na^  in  this 
sense :  he  smote  Tiphsach  proceeding  from  Tirzah,  etc.  The 
position  of  this  notice,  namely,  immediately  after  the  account  of 
the  usurpation  of  the  throne  by  Menahem  and  before  the  history 
of  his  reign,  is  analogous  to  that  concerning  Elath  in  the  case 
of  Uzziah  (ch.  xiv.  22),  and,  like  the  latter,  is  to  be  accounted 
for  from  the  fact  that  the  expedition  of  Menahem  against 
Tiphsach  formed  the  commencement  of  his  reign,  and,  as  we 
may  infer  from  ver.  19,  became  very  eventful  not  only  for  his 
own  reign,  but  also  for  the  kingdom  of  Israel  generally.  The 
reason  why  he  proceeded  from  Tirzah  against  Tiphsach,  was  no 
doubt  that  it  was  in  Tirzah,  the  present  Tallusa,  which  was  only 
three  hours  to  the  east  of  Samaria  (see  at  1  Kings  xiv.  17), 
that  the  army  of  which  Menahem  was  commander  was  posted, 
so  that  he  had  probably  gone  to  Samaria  with  only  a  small  body 
of  men  to  overthrow  ShaUum,  the  murderer  of  Zachariah  and 
usurper  of  the  throne,  and  to  make  himself  king.     It  is  possible 


CHAP.  XV.  17-22.  391 

that  the  army  commanded  by  Menahem  had  already  been  col- 
lected in  Tirzah  to  march  against  the  city  of  Tiphsach,  which 
had  revolted  from  Israel  when  Shallum  seized  upon  the  throne 
by  the  murder  of  Zachariah ;  so  that  after  Menahem  had  re- 
moved the  usurper,  he  carried  out  at  once  the  campaign  already 
resolved  upon,  and  having  taken  Tiphsach,  punished  it  most 
cruelly  for  its  revolt.  On  the  cruel  custom  of  ripping  up  the 
women  with  child,  i.e.  of  cutting  open  their  wombs,  see  ch. 
viii.  12,  Amos  i.  13,  and  Hos.  xiv.  1.  Tiphsach,  Thapsacus, 
appears  to  have  been  a  strong  fortress ;  and  from  its  situation 
on  the  western  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  at  the  termination  of 
the  great  trade-road  from  Egypt,  Phoenicia,  and  Syria  to  Meso- 
potamia and  the  kingdoms  of  Inner  Asia  (Movers,  PJwniz. 
ii.  2,  pp.  164,165;  and  Eitter,  Erdkunde,  x.  pp.  1114-15), 
the  possession  of  it  was  of  great  importance  to  the  kingdom 
of  Israel^ 

Vers.  17-22.  Eeign  OF  Menahem. — Menahem's  reign  lasted 
ten  full  years  (see  at  ver.  23),  and  resembled  that  of  his  pre- 

*  There  is  no  foundation  for  the  view  propounded  by  Ewald  {Gesch.  iiL  p. 
599),  Simson  {Hosea,  pp.  20,  21),  Thenius,  and  many  others,  that  Tiphsach 
■was  a  city  between  Tirzah  and  Samaria,  which  Menahem  laid  waste  on  his  march 
from  Tirzah  to  Samaria  to  dethrone  Shallum ;  for  it  rests  upon  nothing  more 
than  the  perfectly  unwarrantable  and  ungrammatical  combination  of  Dinno 
with  n'^33"nK,  "  its  boundaries  toward  Tirzah  "  (Sims.),  and  upon  the  two 
worthless  object'ons:  (1)  that  the  great  distance  of  nyino  from  ns'  pre- 
cludes the  rendering  "  going  out  from  Tirzah  ;"  and  (2)  that  Menahem  was 
not  the  man  to  be  able  to  conquer  Thapsacus  on  the  Euphrates.  But  there 
is  no  foundation  for  the  latter  assertion,  as  we  have  no  standard  by  which  to 
estimate  the  strength  and  bravery  of  the  Israelitish  army  commanded  by 
Menahem.  And  the  first  objection  falls  to  the  ground  with  the  correct  ren- 
dering of  nyiDD,  viz.  "  proceeding  from  Tirzah,"  which  is  preferred  even  by 
Ewald  and  Thenius.  With  this  rendering,  the  words  by  no  means  affirm 
that  Menahem  smote  Tiphsach  from  Tirzah  on  the  way  to  Samai-ia.  This  is 
merely  an  inference  drawn  from  ver.  13,  according  to  which  Menahem  went 
from  Tirzah  to  Samaria  to  overthrow  Shallum.  But  this  inference  is  open  to 
the  following  objections :  (1)  that  it  is  very  improbable  that  there  was  a 
strong  fortress  between  Tirzah  and  Samaria,  which  Menahem  was  obliged  to 
take  on  his  march  before  he  could  overthrow  the  usurper  in  the  capital  of 
the  kingdom ;  and  (2)  that  the  name  Tiphsach,  trojectus,  ford,  is  by  no 
means  a  suitable  one  for  a  city  situated  on  the  mountains  between  Tirzah 
and  Samaria,  and  therefore,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  hypothesis  in  question, 
Thenius  proposes  to  alter  Tiphsach  into  Tappuadi^  without  any  critical 
warrant  for  so  doing. 


'S9'2  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

decessors  in  its  attitude  towards  God.  In  ver  18,  the  expres- 
sion l"'?^"''?  (all  his  days)  is  a  very  strange  one,  inasmuch  as  no 
such  definition  of  time  occurs  in  connection  with  the  usual 
formula,  either  in  this  chapter  (cf  vers.  24  and  28)  or  else- 
•  where  (cf.  ch.  iii.  3,  x.  31,  xiii.  2,  11,  etc.).  The  LXX.  have 
instead  of  this,  iv  rat?  Tjixepai'i  avrov  (in  his  days).  If  we 
compare  ver.  29,  N3  ni?3  '•0*3  (in  the  days  of  Pekah  came, 
etc.),  K?  V0^3  might  possibly  be  regarded  as  the  original  read- 
ing, from  which  a  copyist's  error  N3  I'^^r''?  arose,  after  which 
VD"|^"?3  was  connected  with  the  preceding  clause. — Ver.  19.  In 
the  time  of  Menahem,  Pul  king  of  Assyria  invaded  the  land, 
and  Menahem  gave  him  1000  talents  of  silver — more  than  two 
and  a  half  millions  of  thalers  (£375,000) — "that  his  hands 
might  be  with  him,  to  confirm  the  kingdom  in  his  hand."  These 
words  are  understood  by  the  majority  of  commentators  from  the 
time  of  Ephraem  Syrus,  when  taken  in  connection  with  Hos.  v.  13, 
as  signifying  that  Menahem  invited  Pul,  that  he  might  establish 
his  government  with  his  assistance.  But  the  words  of  Hosea, 
"Ephraim  goes  to  the  Assyrian,"  sc.  to  seek  for  help  (ch.  v.  13, 
c£  vii.  11  and  viii.  9),  are  far  too  general  to  be  taken  as  referring 
specially  to  Menahem;  and  the  assumption  that  Menahem  invited 
Pul  into  the  land  is  opposed  by  the  words  in  the  verse  before  us, 
"  Pul  came  over  the  land."  Even  the  further  statement  that 
Menahem  gave  to  Pul  1000  talents  of  silver  when  he  came  into 
the  land,  that  he  might  help  him  to  establish  his  government, 
presupposes  at  the  most  that  a  party  opposed  to  Menahem  had 
invited  the  Assyrians,  to  overthrow  the  usurper.  At  any  rate,  we 
may  imagine,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  words  of  our  account, 
that  Pul  marched  against  Israel  of  his  own  accord,  possibly  in- 
duced to  do  so  by  Menahem's  expedition  against  Thapsacus,  and 
that  his  coming  was  simply  turned  to  account  as  a  good  oppor- 
tunity for  disputing  Menahem's  possession  of  the  throne  he  had 
usurped,  so  that  Menahem,  by  paying  the  tribute  mentioned,  per- 
suaded the  Assyrian  to  withdraw,  that  he  might  deprive  the 
opposing  party  of  the  Assyrian  support,  and  thereby  establish  his 
own  rule. — Ver.  20.  To  collect  the  requisite  amount,  Menahem 
imposed  upon  aU  persons  of  property  a  tax  of  fifty  shekels  each. 
K5f^  with  7^,  he  caused  to  arise,  i.e.  made  a  collection.  N''?'n  in 
a  causative  sense,  from  N^),  to  arise,  to  be  paid  (ch.  xii.  13). 
^n  niaa ;  not  warriors,  but  men  of  property,  as  in  Euth  ii.  1, 
1  Sam.  ix.  1.     T?K  \^^h,  for  the  individual.     Pul  was  the  first 


CHAP.  XV.  23-26.  393 

king  of  Assyria  who  invaded  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  conquest  of  this  kingdom  by  his  succes- 
sors, and  for  the  extension  of  the  AssjT-ian  power  as  far  as 
Egypt.  According  to  the  thorough  investigation  made  by  Marc. 
V.  Niebuhr  {Gesch.  Assurs  u.  Babels,  pp.  128  sqq.),  Pul,  whose 
name  has  not  yet  been  discovered  upon  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments, was  the  last  king  of  Nineveh  of  the  family  of  the  Dcr- 
kdades,  who  still  ruled  over  Babylon  according  to  Berosus,  and 
the  last  king  but  one  of  this  dynasty.^ 

Vers.  23-26.  Eeign  of  Pekahiah. — Pekahiah  the  son  of 
Menahem  began  to  reign  "  in  the  fiftieth  vear  of  Uzziah."  As 
Menahem  had  begun  to  reign  in  the  thirty-ninth  year  of  Uzziah 
and  reigned  ten  years,  he  must  have  died  in  the  forty-ninth 
year  of  Uzziah ;  and  therefore,  if  his  son  did  not  become  king 
till  the  fiftieth  year,  some  months  must  have  elapsed  between 
the  death  of  Menahem  and  Pekahiah's  ascent  of  the  throne, 
probably  because,  in  the  existing  disorganization  of  the  kingdom, 
the  possession  of  the  throne  by  the  latter  was  opposed.  Peka- 
hjah  reigned  in  the  spirit  of  his  predecessors,  but  only  for  two 
years,  as  his  aide-de-camp  (^V"^,  see  at  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8)  Pekah 
conspired  against  him  and  slew  him  in  the  citadel  (P^l^,  see  at 
1  Kings  xvi.  8)  of  the  king's  palace,  with  Argdb  and  Aryeh. 
Argob  and  Aryeh  were  not  fellow-conspirators  of  Pekah,  who 
helped  to  slay  the  king,  but  pnncipes  Pekachjce,  as  Seb.  Schmidt 
expresses  it,  probably  aides-de-camp  of  Pekahiah,  who  were 
slain  by  the  conspirators  when  defending  their  king.  We  must 
take  the  words  in  this  sense  on  account  of  what  follows  :  itsJH 
'\y\  D^ipnn  «and  with  him  (Pekah)  were  fifty  men  of  the  Gilead- 
ites  "  {i.e.  they  helped  him).     The  Gileadites  probably  belonged 

■^  It  is  tme  that  some  trace  of  bis  expedition  has  been  found  in  the  monu- 
ments, since  an  inscription  has  been  deciphered  with  tolerable  certainty, 
stating  that  king  Minikhimmi  of  Samirina  (Menahem  of  Shomron  or  Samaria) 
paid  tribute  to  an  Assyrian  king.  But  the  name  of  this  Assyrian  king  is  not 
determined  with  certainty,  as  Rawlinson  and  Oppert  read  it  Tiglat-palassar, 
and  suppose  Tiglath-pileser  to  be  intended  ;  whereas  M.  v.  Niebuhr  (p.  132, 
note  1)  imagines  it  to  be  the  full  name  of  Pul,  since  no  Assyrian  king  ever 
had  a  name  of  one  syllable  like  Pul  as  his  official  name,  and  even  before  that 
Hincks  had  detected  in  the  name  Minikhimmi  the  king  Menahem  who  had  to 
purchase  the  friendship  of  the  Assyrian  ruler  Pul  with  1000  talents  of  silver. 
(Comp.  J.  Brandis,  iiber  d.  histor.  Gewinn  aus  der  Entzifferung  der  assyr. 
Imchri/ien,  BerL  1856,  p.  50.) 


394  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  the  king's  body-guard,  and  were  under  the  command  of  the 
aides-de-camp  of  Pekah. 

Vers.  27-31.  Eeign  of  Pekah. — Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah 
reigned  twenty  years.^  During  his  reign  the  Assyrian  king 
Tiglath-'pileser  came,  and  after  conquering  the  fortified  cities 
round  Lake  Merom  took  possession  of  Gilead  and  Galilee,  namely 
the  whole  land  of  Naphtali,  and  led  the  inhabitants  captive 
to  Ass3nria.  Tiglath-pileser  (iDN^S  nb;n  or  "loba  nbn,  ch.  xvi.  7  ; 
IDW^S  or  "id:|)S  nj'?n,  l  Chron."v.'  2 6, 'and  2'Chron.  xxviii.  20; 
6eyXa9(f)a\aa-dp  or  &a\ja6<f)eWaadp,  LXX.;  written  Tiglat-pal- 
latsira  or  Tiglat-palatsar  on  the  Assyrian  monuments,  and  inter- 
preted by  Gesenius  and  others  "  ruler  of  the  Tigris,"  although  the 
reading  of  the  name  upon  the  monuments  is  still  uncertain,  and 
the  explanation  given  a  very  uncertain  one,  since  Tiglat  or  Til- 
gat  is  hardy  identical  with  Diglath  =  Tigris,  but  is  probably  a 
name  of  the  goddess  Derheto,  Atergatis),  was,  according  to  M.  v. 
Niebuhr(pp.  156,  157),  the  last  king  of  the  JDerJcetade  dynasty, 
who,  when  the  Medes  and  Babylonians  threw  off  the  Assyrian 
supremacy  after  the  death  of  Pul,  attempted  to  restore  and 
extend  the  ancient  dominion.^     His  expedition  against  Israel 

^  As  this  is  apparently  at  variance  not  only  with  ver.  30,  according  to 
•which  Pekah  was  slain  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham,  i.e.  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Ahaz,  but  also  with  ch.  xvii.  1,  according  to  which  Hosea  the 
murderer  of  Pekah  became  king  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz  and  reigned 
nine  years,  Ewald  has  added  ]}^*r\)  after  D^IK'^  without  any  hesitation,  and 
lengthened  Pekah's  reign  to  twenty-nine  years,  whereas  Thenius  proposes  to 
alter  twenty  into  thirty.  But  we  do  not  thereby  obtain  an  actual  agreement 
either  with  ver.  30  or  with  ch.  xvii.  1,  so  that  in  both  these  passages  Thenius 
is  obliged  to  make  further  alterations  in  the  text.  For  instance,  if  Pekah  had 
reigned  for  thirty  years  from  the  fifty-second  or  closing  year  of  Uzziah's  reign, 
Hosea  would  have  ascended  the  throne  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Ahaz,  sup- 
posing that  he  really  became  king  immediately  after  the  murder  of  Pekah,  and 
not  in  the  twelfth,  as  is  stated  in  ch.  xvii.  1.  It  is  only  with  a  reign  of  twenty- 
eight  years  and  a  few  months  (one  year  of  Uzziah,  sixteen  of  Jotham,  and 
eleven  of  Ahaz),  which  might  be  called  twenty-nine  years,  that  the  commence- 
ment of  Hosea's  reign  could  fall  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz.  But  the  dis- 
crepancy with  ver.  30,  that  Hosea  conspired  against  Pekah  and  slew  him  in 
the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham,  is  not  removed  thereby.  For  further  remarks 
see  at  ver.  30  and  ch.  xvii.  1. 

^  M.  Duncker  (Gcsch.  des  Alterthums,  i.  pp.  658,  659)  also  assumes  that 
the  dynasty  changed  with  the  overthrow  of  the  Derketades,  but  he  places 
it  considerably  earlier,  about  the  year  900  or  950  B.C.,  because  on  the 
one  hand  Niebuhr's  reasons  for  his  view  cannot  be  sustained,  and  on  the 


CHAP.  XV.  27-31.  395 

falls,  according  to  ver.  29  and  ch.  xvi  9,  in  the  closing  years 
of  Pekah,  when  Ahaz  had  come  to  the  throne  in  Judah.  The 
enumeration  of  his  conquests  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  commences 
with  the  most  important  cities,  probably  the  leading  fortifica- 
tions. Then  follow  the  districts  of  which  he  took  possession, 
and  the  inhabitants  of  which  he  led  into  captivity.  The  cities 
mentioned  are  Ijon,  probably  the  present  Ayun  on  the  north- 
eastern edge  of  the  Merj  Ayun ;  Abd-Beth-Maacah,  the  present 
Abil  d  Kamh,  on  the  north-west  of  Lake  Huleh  (see  at  1  Kings 
XV.  20) ;  Janoach,  which  must  not  be  confounded  with  the 
Janocha  mentioned  in  Josh,  xvi  6,  7,  on  the  border  of  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh,  but  is  to  be  sought  for  in  Galilee  or  the  tribe- 
territory  of  Naphtali,  and  has  not  yet  been  discovered  ;  Kedesh, 
on  the  mountains  to  the  west  of  Lake  Huleh,  which  has  been 
preserved  as  an  insignificant  village  under  the  ancient  name 
(see  at  Josh,  xiL  22)  ;  Hazor,  in  the  same  region,  but  not 
yet  traced  with  certainty  (see  at  Josh.  xi.  1).  Gilead  is  the 
whole  of  the  land  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  the  territory  of 
the  tribes  of  Eeuben,  Gad,  and  half-Manasseh  (1  Chron.  v.  26), 
which  had  only  been  wrested  from  the  Syrians  again  a  short 
time  before  by  Jeroboam  ii,,  and  restored  to  Israel  (ch.  xiv. 
25,  compared  with  ch.  x.  33).  •"'^fi'!!  (the  feminine  form  of 
yyi^,  see  Ewald,  §  173,  A)  is  more  precisely  defined  by  the 
apposition  "  all  the  land  of  Naphtali  "  (see  at  1  Kings  ix.  1 1). 
— In  the  place  of  nijiS'K,  "  to  the  land  of  Assyria,"  the  different 
regions  to  which  the  captives  were  transported  are  given  in 
1  Chron.  v.  26.  For  further  remarks  on  this  point  see  at  ch.  xvii 
6. — Ver.  30.  Pekah  met  with  his  death  in  a  conspiracy  organ- 
ized by  Hosea  the  son  of  Elah,  who  made  himseK  king  "  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  Jotham."  There  is  something  very  strange  in 
this  chronological  datum,  as  Jotham  only  reigned  sixteen  years 
(ver.  33),  and  Ahaz  began  to  reign  in  the  seventeenth  year  of 

other  band  there  are  distinct  indications  that  the  change  in  the  reigning 
family  must  have  taken  place  about  this  time:  viz.  1.  in  the  ruins  of 
the  southern  city  of  Nineveh,  at  Kalah,  where  we  find  the  remains  of  the 
palaces  of  two  rulers,  who  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Assjrria  between  the  years 
900  and  830,  whereas  the  castles  of  Ninos  and  his  descendants  must  un- 
doubtedly have  stood  in  the  northern  city,  in  Nineveh ;  2.  in  the  circum- 
stance that  from  the  time  mentioned  the  Assyrian  kingdom  advanced  with 
fresh  warlike  strength  and  in  a  fresh  direction,  which  would  agree  with  the 
change  in  the  dynasty. — Which  of  thtse  two  assumptions  is  the  correct  one, 
cannot  yet  be  decided  in  the  present  state  of  the  researches  on  this  subject. 


396  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Pekah  (ch.  xvi.  1) ;  so  that  Pekah's  death  would  fall  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Ahaz,  The  reason  for  this  striking  statement  can  only 
be  found,  as  Usher  has  shown  (Chronol.  sacr.  p.  80),  in  the  fact 
that  nothing  has  yet  been  said  about  Jotham's  successor  Ahaz, 
because  the  reign  of  Jotham  himself  is  not  mentioned  till  vers. 
32  sqq.^ 

Vers.  32-38.  Eeign  of  Jotham  of  Judah  (cf  2  Chron.  xxvii.). 
— Ver.  32.  "  In  the  second  year  of  Pekah  Jotham  began  to 
reign."  This  agrees  with  the  statement  in  ver.  27,  that  Pekah 
became  king  in  the  last  year  of  Uzziah,  supposing  that  it  oc- 
curred at  the  commencement  of  the  year.  Jotham's  sixteen 
years  therefore  came  to  a  close  in  the  seventeenth  year  of 
Pekah's  reign  (ch.  xvi,  1).  His  reign  was  like  that  of  his  father 
Uzziah  (compare  vers.  34,  35  with  vers.  3,  4),  except,  as  is 
added  in  Chron.  ver.  2,  that  he  did  not  force  himself  into  the 
temple  of  the  Lord,  as  Uzziah  had  done  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  16). 

^  Other  attempts  to  solve  this  difficulty  are  either  arbitrary  and  precarious, 
e.g.  the  conjectures  of  the  earlier  chronologists  quoted  by  Winer  (R.  W.  s.  v. 
Jothani)^  or  forced,  like  the  notion  of  Vaihinger  in  Herzog's  Cycl.  (art.  Jotham), 
that  the  words  JT'Ty'p  DDVb  ^.re  to  be  eliminated  as  an  interpolation,  in  which 
case  the  datona  "  in  the  twentieth  year  "  becomes  perfectly  enigmatical ;  and 
again  the  assertion  of  Hitzig  (Comm.  z.  Jesaj.  pp.  72,  73),  that  instead  of 
in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham,  we  should  read  "  in  the  twentieth  year  of 
Ahaz  the  son  of  Jotham,"  which  could  only  be  consistently  carried  out  by 
altering  the  text  of  not  less  than  seven  passages  (viz.  ver.  33,  ch.  xvi.  1,  and 
2,  17  ;  2  Chron.  xxvii.  1  and  8,  and  xxviii.  1)  ;  and  lastly,  the  assumption  of 
Thenius,  that  the  words  from  n3K'3  to  n'ty  have  crept  into  the  text  through 
a  double  mistake  of  the  copyist  and  an  arbitrary  alteration  of  what  had  been 
thus  falsely  written,  which  is  much  too  complicated  to  appear  at  all  credible, 
even  if  the  reasons  which  are  supposed  to  render  it  probable  had  been  more 
forcible  and  correct  than  they  really  are.  For  the  first  reason,  viz.  that  the 
statement  in  what  year  of  tlie  contemporaneous  ruler  a  king  came  to  the 
throne  is  always  first  given  when  the  history  of  this  king  commences,  is 
disproved  by  ch.  i.  17  ;  the  second,  that  the  name  of  the  king  by  the  year 
of  whose  reign  the  accession  of  another  is  defined  is  invariably  introduced 
with  the  epithet  king  of  Judah  or  king  of  Israel,  is  shown  by  ch.  xii.  2  and 
xvi.  1  to  be  not  in  accordance  with  fact ;  and  the  third,  that  this  very  king 
is  never  described  by  the  introduction  of  his  father's  name,  as  he  is  here, 
except  where  the  intention  is  to  prevent  misunderstanding,  as  in  ch.  xiv. 
1,  23,  or  in  the  case  of  usurpers  without  ancestors  (ver.  32,  xvi.  1  and  15), 
is  also  incorrect  in  its  first  portion,  for  in  the  case  of  Amaziah  in  ch.  xiv.  23 
there  was  no  misunderstanding  to  prevent,  and  even  in  the  case  of  Joash 
in  ch.  xiv.  1  the  epithet  king  of  Israel  would  have  been  quite  sufficient 
to  guard  against  any  misunderstanding. 


CHAP.  XVI.  397 

All  that  is  mentioned  of  his  enterprises  in  the  account  before  us 
is  that  he  built  the  upper  gate  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,  that  is  to 
say,  that  he  restored  it,  or  perhaps  added  to  its  beauty.  The 
upper  gate,  according  to  Ezek.  ix.  2  compared  with  ch.  viii.  3,  5, 
14  and  16,  is  the  gate  at  the  north  side  of  the  inner  or  upper 
court,  where  all  the  sacrifices  were  slaughtered,  according  to 
Ezek.  xL  38-43.  We  also  find  from  2  Chron.  xxvii.  3  sqq.  that 
he  built  against  the  wall  of  Ophel,  and  several  cities  in  the 
mountains  of  Judah,  and  castles  and  towers  in  the  forests,  and 
subdued  the  Ammonites,  so  that  they  paid  him  tribute  for  three 
years.  Jotham  carried  on  with  great  vigour,  therefore,  the  work 
which  his  father  had  began,  to  increase  the  material  prosperity 
of  his  subjects. — Ver.  37.  In  those  days  the  Lord  began  to  send 
against  Judah  Bezin,  etc.  It  is  evident  from  the  position  of  this 
verse  at  the  close  of  the  account  of  Jotham,  that  the  incursions 
of  the  allied  Syrians  and  Israelites  into  Judah  under  the  com- 
mand of  Rezin  and  Pekah  commenced  in  the  closing  years  of 
Jotham,  so  that  these  foes  appeared  before  Jerusalem  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz. — It  is  true  that  the  Syrians  had 
been  subjugated  by  Jeroboam  ii.  (ch.  xiv.  28);  but  in  the 
anarchical  condition  of  the  Israelitish  kingdom  after  his  death, 
they  had  no  doubt  recovered  their  independence.  They  must 
also  have  been  overcome  by  the  Ass}Tians  under  Ful,  for  he 
could  never  have  marched  against  Israel  without  having  first  of 
all  conquered  S}Tia.  But  as  the  power  of  the  Assyrians  was 
greatly  weakened  for  a  time  by  the  falling  away  of  the  Medes 
and  Babylonians,  the  Syrians  had  taken  advantage  of  this  weak- 
ness to  refuse  the  pa-y-ment  of  tribute  to  Ass}Tia,  and  had  formed 
an  alliance  with  Pekah  of  Israel  to  conquer  Judah,  and  thereby 
to  strengthen  their  power  so  as  to  be  able  to  ofier  a  successfid 
resistance  to  any  attack  from  the  side  of  the  Euphrates. — But 
as  ch.  xvi.  6  sqq.  and  ch.  xviL  show,  it  was  otherwise  decreed  in 
the  counsels  of  the  Lord 

CH.AJ'.  XVI.    EEIGN  OF  KING  AHAZ  OF  JUDAH. 

"With  the  reign  of  Ahaz  a  most  eventful  change  took  place  in 
the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Under  the  vigorous 
reigns  of  XJzziah  and  Jotham,  by  whom  the  earthly  prosperity  of 
the  kingdom  had  been  studiously  advanced,  there  had  been,  as 
we  may  see  from  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  chs.  ii.-vi.,  which  date 
from  this  time,  a  prevalence  of  luxury  and  self-security,  of  un- 


398  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

righteousness  and  forgetfulness  of  God,  among  the  upper  classes, 
in  consequence  of  the  increase  of  their  wealth.  Under  Ahaz 
these  sins  grew  into  open  apostasy  from  the  Lord ;  for  this  weak 
and  unprincipled  ruler  trod  in  the  steps  of  the  kings  of  Israel, 
and  introduced  image-worship  and  idolatrous  practices  of  every 
kind,  and  at  length  went  so  far  in  his  ungodliness  as  to  shut  up 
the  doors  of  the  porch  of  the  temple  and  suspend  the  temple- 
worship  prescribed  by  the  law  altogether.  The  punishment 
followed  this  apostasy  without  delay.  The  allied  Syrians  and 
Israelites  completely  defeated  the  Judseans,  slew  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  men  and  led  away  a  much  larger  number  of 
prisoners,  and  then  advanced  to  Jerusalem  to  put  an  end  to  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  by  the  conquest  of  the  capital.  In  this  dis- 
tress, instead  of  seeking  help  from  the  Lord,  who  promised  him 
deliverance  through  the  prophet  Isaiah,  Ahaz  sought  help  from 
Tiglath-pileser  the  king  of  Assyria,  who  came  and  delivered  him 
from  the  oppression  of  Eezin  and  Pekah  by  the  conquest  of 
Damascus,  Galilee,  and  the  Israelitish  land  to  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  but  who  then  oppressed  him  himself,  so  that  Ahaz  was 
obliged  to  purchase  the  friendship  of  this  conqueror  by  sending 
him  all  the  treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace. — In  the  chapter 
before  us  we  have  first  of  all  the  general  characteristics  of  the 
idolatry  of  Ahaz  (vers.  2-4),  then  a  summary  account  of  his 
oppression  by  Eezin  and  Pekah,  and  his  seeking  help  from  the 
king  of  Assyria  (vers.  5-9),  and  lastly  a  description  of  the  erec- 
tion of  a  heathen  altar  in  the  court  of  the  temple  on  the  site 
of  the  brazen  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  of  other  acts  of  demo- 
lition performed  upon  the  older  sacred  objects  in  the  temple- 
court  (vers.  10—18).  The  parallel  account  in  2  Chron.  xxviii, 
supplies  many  additions  to  the  facts  recorded  here. 

Vers.  1—4,  On  the  time  mentioned,  "  in  the  seventeenth  year 
of  Pekah  Ahaz  became  king,"  see  at  ch.  xv.  32.  The  datum 
"  twenty  years  old "  is  a  striking  one,  even  if  we  compare  with 
it  ch.  xviii.  2.  As  Ahaz  reigned  only  sixteen  years,  and  at  his 
death  his  son  Hezekiah  became  king  at  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years  (ch.  xviii.  2),  Ahaz  must  have  begotten  him  in  the  eleventh 
year  of  his  age.  It  is  true  that  in  southern  lands  this  is  neither 
impossible  nor  unknown,^  but  in  the  case  of  the  kings  of  Judah 

^  In  the  East  they  marry  girls  of  nine  or  ten  years  of  age  to  boys  of  twelve 
or  thirteen  (Volney,  Reise,  ii.  p.  360).  Among  the  Indians  husbands  of  ten 
years  of  age  and  wives  of  eight  are  mentioned  (Thevenot,  lieisen,  ux.  pp.  100 


CHAP.  XVL  1-4.  399 

it  -would  be  withont  analogy.  The  reading  fonnd  in  the  LXX., 
Syr.,  and  Arab,  at  2  Chron.  xxviii.  1,  and  also  in  certain  codd.; 
viz.  five  and  twenty  instead  of  twenty,  may  therefore  be  a  pre- 
ferable one.  According  to  this,  Hezekiah,  like  Ahaz,  was  born 
in  his  father's  sixteenth  year. — Ver.  3.  "  Ahaz  walked  in  the 
way  of  the  kings  of  Israel,"  to  which  there  is  added  by  way  of 
explanation  in  2  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  "  and  also  made  molten  images 
to  the  Baals."  This  refers,  primarily,  simply  to  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  under  the  image  of  a  calf,  which  they  had  invented ; 
for  this  was  the  way  in  which  all  the  kings  of  Israel  walked. 
At  the  same  time,  in  ch.  viiL  1 8  the  same  formula  is  so  used  of 
Joram  king  of  Judah  as  to  include  the  worship  of  Baal  by  the 
dynasty  of  Ahab.  Consequently  in  the  verse  before  us  also  the 
way  of  the  kings  of  Israel  includes  the  worship  of  Baal,  which  is 
especially  mentioned  in  the  Chronicles. — "  He  even  made  his 
son  pass  through  the  fire,"  i.e.  offered  him  in  sacrifice  to  Moloch 
in  the  valley  of  Benhinnom  (see  at  ch.  xxiiL  10),  after  the 
abominations  of  the  nations,  whom  Jehovah  had  cast  out  before 
Israel.  Instead  of  ^33  we  have  the  plural  VJ3  in  2  Chron. 
xxviii.  3,  and  in  ver.  16  "^^^^  '3po,  kings  of  Asshur,  instead  of 
"Wii  "npo^  although  only  one,  viz.  Tiglath-pileser,  is  spoken  of. 
This  repeated  use  of  the  plural  shows  very  plainly  that  it  is  to 
be  understood  rhetorically,  as  expressing  the  thought  in  the  most 
general  manner,  since  the  number  was  of  less  importance  than 
the  fact.^  So  far  as  the  fact  is  concerned,  we  have  here  the  first 
instance  of  an  actual  Moloch-sacrifice  among  the  Israelites,  i.e.  of 
one  performed  by  slaying  and  burning.    For  although  the  phrase 

and  165).  In  Abyssinia  boys  of  twelve  and  even  ten  years  old  marry  (Riippell, 
Ahessynien,  ii.  p.  59).  Among  the  Jews  in  Tiberias,  mothers  of  eleven  years 
of  age  and  fathers  of  thirteen  are  not  uncommon  (Burckh.  Syrien,  p.  570) ; 
and  Lynch  saw  a  wife  there,  who  to  all  appearance  was  a  mere  child  about 
ten  years  of  age,  who  had  been  married  two  years  already.  In  the  epist. 
ad  N.  Carhonelli,  from  Hieronymi  epist.  ad  Vitalem,  132,  and  in  an  ancient 
glo.^sa,  Bochart  has  also  cited  examples  of  one  boy  of  ten  years  and  another 
of  nine,  qui  nutricem  suam  gravidavit,  together  with  several  other  cases  of  a 
similar  kind  from  later  writers.  Cf.  Bocharti  0pp.  I  {Geogr.  sacr.)  p.  920, 
ed.  Lugd.  1692. 

*  The  Greeks  and  Romans  also  use  the  plural  instead  of  the  singular  in  their 
rhetorical  style  of  writing,  especially  when  a  father,  a  mother,  or  a  son  is 
spoken  of.  Cf.  Cic.  de  prov.  cons.  xiv.  35 :  si  ad  jucundissimos  liberos,  si  ad 
clarissimum  generum  redire  properaret,  where  Julia,  the  only  daughter  of 
Caesar,  and  the  wife  of  Pompey  the  Great,  is  referred  to  ;  and  for  other  ex- 
amples see  Caspari,  der  Syr.  Ephraimit.  Krieg,  p.  41. 


400  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

^*^?  "'^T^VC'  or  "^2-  <^06S  not  in  itself  denote  the  slaying  and  burn- 
ing of  the  children  as  Moloch-sacrifices,  but  primarily  affirms 
nothing  more  than  the  simple  passing  through  fire,  a  kind  of  feb- 
ruation  or  baptism  of  fire  (see  at  Lev.  xviii.  21) ;  such  passages  as 
Ezek.  xvi.  21  and  Jer.  vii.  31,  where  sacrificing  in  the  valley  of 
Benhinnom  is. called  slaying  and  burning  the  children,  show  most 
distinctly  that  in  the  verse  before  us  '^^^  '^''?^.\}  is  to  be  taken 
as  signifying  actual  sacrificing,  i.e.  the  burning  of  the  children 
slain  in  sacrifice  to  Moloch,  and,  as  the  emphatic  031  indicates, 
that  this  kind  of  idolatrous  worship,  which  had  never  been 
heard  of  before  in  Judah  and  Israel,  was  introduced  by  Ahaz.^ 
In  the  Chronicles,  therefore,  '^''?V^  is  correctly  explained  by 
"ly^'l,  "  he  burned ; "  though  we  cannot  infer  from  this  that 
"'"^.VC  is  always  a  mere  conjecture  for  "'"'V?'?,  as  Geiger  does 
{Urschrift  u.  Uebers.  der  Bibel,  p.  305).  The  offering  of  his  son 
for  Moloch  took  place,  in  all  probability,  during  the  severe 
oppression  of  Ahaz  by  the  Syrians,  and  was  intended  to  appease 
the  wrath  of  the  gods,  as  was  done  by  the  king  of  the  Moabites 
in  similar  circumstances  (ch.  iii.  27). — In  ver.  4  the  idolatry 

1  "If  this  idolatry  had  occurred  among  the  Israelites  before  the  time  of  Ahaz, 
its  abominations  would  certainly  not  have  been  passed  over  by  the  biblical 
writers,  who  so  frequently  mention  other  forms  of  idolatry."  These  are  the 
correct  words  of  Movers  (Phoniz.  i.  p.  65),  who  only  errs  in  the  fact  that  on 
the  one  hand  he  supposes  the  origin  of  human  sacrifices  in  the  time  of  Ahaz 
to  have  been  inwardly  connected  with  the  appearance  of  the  Assyrians,  and 
traces  them  to  the  acquaintance  of  the  Israelites  with  the  Assyrian  fire-deities 
Adrammelecli  and  Anammelecli  (ch.  xvii.  31),  and  on  the  other  hand  gives  this 
explanation  of  the  phrase,  "  cause  to  pass  through  the  fire  for  Moloch,"  which 
is  used  to  denote  the  sacrificing  of  children:  "  the  burning  of  children  was 
regarded  as  a  passage,  whereby,  after  the  separation  of  the  impure  and  earthly 
dross  of  the  body,  the  children  attained  to  union  with  the  deity  "  (p.  329).  To 
this  J.  G.  Miiller  has  correctly  replied  (in  Herzog's  Cyclop.)  :  "  This  mystic, 
pantheistic,  moralizing  view  of  human  sacrifices  is  not  the  ancient  and  original 
view  of  genuine  heathenism.  It  is  no  more  the  view  of  Hither  Asia  than  the 
Mexican  view  (i.e.  the  one  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  custom  of  the 
ancient  Mexicans,  of  passing  the  new-born  boy  four  times  through  the  fire). 
The  Phoenician  myths,  which  Movers  (p.  329)  quotes  in  support  of  his  view, 
refer  to  the  offering  of  human  sacrifices  in  worship,  and  the  moral  view  is  a 
later  addition  belonging  to  Hellenism.  The  sacrifices  were  rather  given  to  the 
gods  as  food,  as  is  evident  from  innumerable  passages  (compare  the  primitive 
religions  of  America),  and  they  have  no  moral  aim,  but  are  intended  to  reward 
or  bribe  the  gods  with  costly  presents,  either  because  of  calamities  that  have 
already  passed,  or  because  of  those  that  are  anticipated  with  alarm  ;  and,  as 
Movers  himself  admits  (p.  301),  to  make  atonement  for  ceremonial  sins,  i.e.  to 
follow  smaller  sacrifices  by  those  of  greater  value." 


CHAP.  XVI.  5-9.  401 

is  described  in  the  standing  formiilse  as  sacrificing  upon  high 
places  and  hills,  etc.,  as  in  1  Kings  xiv.  23.  The  temple- 
worship  prescribed  by  the  law  could  easily  be  continued  along 
with  this  idolatry,  since  polytheism  did  not  exclude  the  worship 
of  Jehovah.  It  was  not  till  the  closing  years  of  his  reign  that 
Ahaz  went  so  far  as  to  close  the  temple-hall,  and  thereby  sus- 
pend the  temple-worship  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  24) ;  in  any  case  it 
was  not  till  after  the  alterations  described  in  vers.  11  sqq.  as 
having  been  made  in  the  temple. 

Vers.  5-9.  Of  the  war  which  the  allied  SjTians  and  Israel- 
ites waged  upon  Ahaz,  only  the  principal  fact  is  mentioned  in 
ver.  5,  namely,  that  the  enemy  marched  to  Jerusalem  to  war, 
but  were  not  able  to  make  war  upon  the  city,  i.e.  to  conquer  it ; 
and  in  ver.  6  we  have  a  brief  notice  of  the  capture  of  the  port 
of  Elath  by  the  Syrians.  We  find  ver.  5  again,  with  very 
trifling  alterations,  in  Isa.  vii.  1  at  the  head  of  the  prophecy,  in 
which  the  prophet  promises  the  king  the  help  of  God  and  pre- 
dicts that  the  plans  of  his  enemies  will  fail  According  to  this, 
the  allied  kings  intended  to  take  Judah,  to  dethrone  Ahaz,  and 
to  instal  a  vassal  king,  viz.  the  son  of  Tabeel.  "We  learn  stni 
more  concerning  this  war,  which  had  already  begun,  according 
to  ch.  XV.  37,  in  the  closing  years  of  Jotham,  from  2  Chron. 
xxviii  5-15  ;  namely,  that  the  two  kings  inflicted  great  defeats 
upon  Ahaz,  and  carried  off  many  prisoners  and  a  large  amount 
of  booty,  but  that  the  Israelites  set  their  prisoners  at  liberty 
again,  by  the  direction  of  the  prophet  Oclecl,  and  after  feeding 
and  clothing  them,  sent  them  back  to  their  brethren.  It  is  now 
generally  admitted  that  these  statements  are  not  at  variance 
with  our  account  (as  Ges.,  Winer,  and  others  maintain),  but  can 
be  easily  reconciled  with  it,  and  simply  serve  to  complete  it.^ 
The  only  questions  in  dispute  are,  whether  the  two  accounts 
refer  to  two  different  campaigns,  or  merely  to  two  difi'erent 
events  in  the  same  campaign,  and  whether  the  battles  to  which 
the  Chronicles  allude  are  to  be  placed  before  or  after  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  our  text.  The  first  question  cannot 
be  absolutely  decided,  since  there  are  no  decisive  arguments  to 

^  Compare  C.  P.  Caspari's  article  on  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war  in  the 
reigns  of  Jotham  and  Ahaz  (Univers.  Progr.  von  Christiania,  1849),  where 
the  different  views  concerning  the  relation  between  the  two  accounts  are  fully 
discussed,  and  the  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  account  given  in  the 
Chronides  most  conclusively  answered. 

2G 


402  THE  SECOKD  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

be  found  in  favour  of  either  the  one  supposition  or  the  other  ; 
and  even  "  the  one  strong  argument"  which  Caspari  finds  in 
Isa.  vii.  6  against  the  idea  of  two  campaigns  is  not  conclusive. 
For  if  the  design  which  the  prophet  there  attributes  to  the 
allied  kings,  "  we  will  make  a  breach  in  Judah,"  i.e.  storm  his 
fortresses  and  his  passes  and  conquer  them,  does  obviously  pre- 
suppose, that  at  the  time  when  the  enemy  spake  or  thought  in 
this  manner,  Judah  was  still  standing  uninjured  and  uncon- 
quered,  and  therefore  the  battles  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxviii 
5,  6  cannot  yet  have  been  fought ;  it  by  no  means  follows  from 
the  connection  between  Isa.  vii,  6  and  ver.  1  (of  the  same 
chapter)  that  ver.  6  refers  to  plans  which  the  enemy  had  only 
just  formed  at  the  time  when  Isaiah  spoke  (ch.  vii  4  sqq.).  On 
the  contrary,  Isaiah  is  simply  describing  the  plans  which  the 
enemy  devised  and  pursued,  and  which  they  had  no  doubt 
formed  from  the  very  commencement  of  the  war,  and  now  that 
they  were  marching  against  Jerusalem,  hoped  to  attain  by  the 
conquest  of  the  capital  All  that  we  can  assume  as  certain  is, 
that  the  war  lasted  longer  than  a  year,  since  the  invasion  of 
Judah  by  these  foes  had  already  commenced  before  the  death 
of  Jotham,  and  that  the  greater  battles  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  5,  6) 
were  not  fought  tiU  the  time  of  Ahaz,  and  it  was  not  till  his 
reign  that  the  enemy  advanced  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem. — With 
regard  to  the  second  question,  it  cannot  be  at  all  doubtful  that 
the  battles  mentioned  preceded  the  advance  of  the  enemy  to  the 
front  of  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  our  account  merely  mentions 
the  last  and  principal  event  of  the  War,  and  that  the  enemy 
was  compelled  to  retreat  from  Jerusalem  by  the  fact  that  the 
king  of  Assyria,  Tiglath-pileser,  whom  Ahaz  had  called  to  his 
help,  marched  against  Syria  and  compelled  Eezin  to  hurry 
back  to  the  defence  of  his  kingdom. — It  is  more  difficult  to 
arrange  the  account  of  the  capture  of  Elath  by  the  Syrians 
(ver.  6)  among  the  events  of  this  war.  The  expression  rij?3 
N\nn  merely  assigns  it  in  a  perfectly  general  manner  to  the 
period  of  the  war.  The  supposition  of  Thenius,  that  it  did  not 
take  place  till  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  had  been  relin- 
quished, and  that  Eezin,  after  the  failure  of  his  attempt  to  take 
Jerusalem,  that  he  might  not  have  come  altogether  in  vain, 
marched  away  from  Jerusalem  round  the  southern  point  of  the 
Dead  Sea  and  conquered  Elath,  is  impossible,  because  he  would 
never  have  left  his  own  kingdom  in  such  a  defenceless  state  to 


CHAP.  X7L  Sr9.  46S 

the  advancing  Assyrians.  We  must  therefore  place  the  taking 
of  Elath  by  Eezin  before  his  march  against  Jerusalem,  though 
we  still  leave  it  imdecided  how  Eezin  conducted  the  war  against 
Ahaz  :  whether  by  advancing  along  the  country  to  the  east  of 
the  Jordan,  defeating  the  Judaeans  there  (2  Chron!  xxviil  5), 
and  then  pressing  forward  to  Elath  and  conquering  that  city, 
while  Pekah  made  a  simultaneous  incursion  into  Judah  from 
the  north  and  smote  Ahaz,  so  that  it  was  not  tUl  after  the 
conquest  of  Elath  that  Eezin  entered  the  land  from  the  south, 
and  there  joined  Pekah  for  a  common  attack  upon  Jerusalem,  as 
Caspari  supposes ;  or  whether  by  advancing  into  Judah  along 
with  Pekah  at  the  very  outset,  and  after  he  had  defeated  the 
army  of  Ahaz  in  a  great  battle,  sending  a  detachment  of  his 
own  army  to  Idumaea,  to  wrest  that  land  from  Judah  and 
conquer  Elath,  while  he  marched  with  the  rest  of  his  forces  in 
combination  with  Pekah  against  Jerusalem. — "  Eezin  brought 
Elath  to  Aram  and  drove  the  Jews  out  of  Elath,  and  Aramaeans 
came  to  Elath  and  dwelt  therein  to  this  day."  3'^  does  not 
mean  "  to  lead  back  "  here,  but  literally  to  turn,  to  bring  to  a 
person ;  for  Elath  had  never  belonged  to  Aram  before  this,  but 
was  an  Edomitish  city,  so  that  even  if  we  were  to  read  Dnx  for 
^1^.,  ^''^  could  not  mean  to  bring  back.  But  there  is  no 
ground  whatever  for  altering  D"]Np  into  Qi"i?<?  (Cler.,  Mich.,  Ew., 
Then.,  and  others),  whereas  the  form  D"iN  is  at  variance  with 
such  an  alteration  through  the  assumption  of  an  exchange  of  "» 
and  X  because  D^"'?<  is  never  written  defective  mx  except  in 
Ezek-  XXV.  14.  There  are  also  no  sufficient  reasons  for  altering 
D'pnxi  into  D'p^njo  {Keri) ;  D'P^ix  is  merely  a  Syriac  form  for 
D'p'ix  with  the  dull  Syriac  w-sound,  several  examples  of  which 
form  occur  in  this  very  chapter, — e.g.  D'pipn  for  D^pjjn  ver.  7, 
pbWT  for  ?^;^_  ver.  10,  and  nijj's  for  n^s  ver.  6, — whereas 
0^"'?^,  with  additions,  is  only  written  jplene  twice  in  the  ancient 
books,  and  that  in  the  Chronicles,  where  the  scriptio  plena  is 
generally  preferred  (2  Chron.  xxv.  14  and  xxviiL  17),  but 
is  always  written  defective  (D^mN).  Moreover  the  statement 
that  "  D'cns  {Edomites,  not  the  Edomites)  came  thither,"  etc., 
would  be  very  inappropriate,  since  Edomites  certainly  lived  in 
this  Idumaean  city  in  perfect  security,  even  while  it  was  imder 
Judaean  government.  And  there  would  be  no  sense  in  the 
expression  "the  Edomites  dwelt  there  to  this  day"  since  the 
Edomites  remained  in  their  own  land  to  the  time  of  the  captivity. 


401 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


All  this  is  applicable  to  Aramceans  alone.  As  soon  as  Eezin 
had  conquered  this  important  seaport  town,  it  was  a  very  natural 
thing  to  establish  an  Aramaean  colony  there,  which  obtained 
possession  of  the  trade  of  the  town,  and  remained  there  till  the 
time  when  the  annals  of  the  kings  were  composed  (for  it  is  to 
this  that  the  expression  n;Tn  ni«ri-ny  refers),  even  after  the  king- 
dom of  Eezin  had  long  been  destroyed  by  the  Assyrians,  since 
Elath  and  the  Aramaeans  settled  there  were  not  affected  by 
that  blow.^  As  soon  as  the  Edomites  had  been  released  by 
Eezin  from  the  control  of  Judah,  to  which  they  had  been 
brought  back  by  Amaziah  and  Uzziah  (ch.  xiv.  7,  22),  they 
began  plundering  Judah  again  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  17)  ;  and  even 
the  Philistines  took  possession  of  several  cities  in  the  low- 
land, to  avenge  themselves  for  the  humiliation  they  had  sus- 
tained at  the  hand  of  Uzziah  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  18). — ^Ver.  7. 
In  this  distress  Ahaz  turned  to  Tiglath-pileser,  v/ithout  regard- 
ing either  the  word  of  Isaiah  in  ch.  vii.  4  sqq.,  which  promised 
salvation,  or  the  prophet's  warning  against  an  alliance  with 
Assyria,  and  by  sending  the  gold  and  silver  which  were  found 
in  the  treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace,  purchased  his  assist- 
ance against  Eezin  and  Pekah.  Whether  this  occurred  imme- 
diately after  the  invasion  of  the  land  by  the  allied  kings,  or  not 
till  after  they  had  defeated  the  Judaean  army  and  advanced 
against  Jerusalem,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  either  from  this 
verse  or  from  2  Chron.  xxviii.  16  ;  but  probably  it  was  after 
the  first  great  victory  gained  by  the  foe,  with  which  Isa.  vii.  and 
viii.  agree. — On  D^nip  for  D^Oi^  see  Ewald,  §  151,  Z>.— Ver.  9. 
Tiglath-pileser  then  marched  against  Damascus,  took  the  city, 
slew  Eezin,  and  led  the  inhabitants  away  to  Kir,  as  Amos  had 
prophesied  (Amos  i.  3-5).  'T'i?,  Kir,  from  which,  according  to 
Amos  ix.  7,  the  Aramaeans  had  emigrated  to  Syria,  is  no  doubt 
a  district  by  the  river  Kur  {Kvpo<;,  Kvppo<i),  which  taking  its 
rise  in  Armenia,  unites  with  the  Araxes  and  flows  into  the 
Caspian  Sea,  although  from  the  length  of  the  river  Kur  it  is 
impossible  to  define  precisely  the  locality  in  which  they  were 

1  If  we  only  observe  that  D^DIIN  lias  not  the  article,  and  therefore  the 
words  merely  indicate  the  march  of  an  Aramaean  colony  to  Elath,  it  is  evident 
that  D''0"nN  would  be  unsuitable ;  for  when  the  DHin^  had  been  driven  from 
the  city  which  the  Syrians  had  conquered,  it  was  certainly  not  some  Edom- 
ites but  the  Edomites  who  took  possession  again.  Hence  Winer,  Caspari,  and 
others  are  quite  right  in  deciding  that  D'OPN  is  the  only  correct  reading. 


CHAP.  XVL  10-1&  405 

placed ;  and  the  statement  of  Josephus  (Ant  ix,  13,  3),  that  the 
Damascenes  were  transported  et?  rrjp  avco  MrfBtav,  is  somewhat 
indefinite,  and  moreover  has  hardly  been  derived  from  early- 
historical  sources  (see  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  GescJi.  Assurs,  p.  158). 
Nothing  is  said  here  concerning  Tiglath-pileser's  invasion  of 
the  kingdom  of  Israel,  because  this  has  already  been  mentioned 
at  ch.  XV.  29  in  the  history  of  Pekah. 

Vers.  10-18.  Ahaz  paid  Tiglath-pileser  a  visit  in  Damascus, 
"  to  present  to  him  his  thanks  and  congratulations,  and  possibly 
also  to  prevent  a  visit  from  Tiglath-pUeser  to  himself,  which 
would  not  have  been  very  welcome"  (Thenius).  The  form  P'^'O^'^ 
is  neither  to  be  altered  into  P|^1  nor  regarded  as  a  copyist's 
error  for  P^""."^,  as  we  have  several  words  in  this  chapter  that 
are  formed  with  the  dull  S)Tiac  w-sound.  The  visit  of  Ahaz 
to  Damascus  is  simply  mentioned  on  account  of  what  follows, 
namely,  that  Ahaz  saw  an  altar  there,  which  pleased  him  so 
much  that  he  sent  a  picture  and  model  of  it  "  according  to 
all  the  workmanship  thereof,"  i.e.  its  style  of  architecture,  to 
Urijah  the  priest  (see  Isa.  viii.  2),  and  had  an  altar  made  like 
it  for  the  temple,  upon  which,  on  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  he 
ordered  all  the  burnt-offerings,  meat-offerings,  and  drink-offer- 
ings to  be  presented.  The  allusion  here  is  to  the  offerings 
which  he  commanded  to  be  presented  for  his  prosperous  return 
to  Jerusalem. — Vers.  14  sqq.  Soon  after  this  Ahaz  went  still 
further,  and  had  "  the  copper  altar  before  Jehovah,"  i.e.  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering  in  the  midst  of  the  court  before  the  entrance 
into  the  Holy  Place,  removed  "  from  the  front  of  the  (temple-) 
house,  from  (the  spot)  between  the  altar  (the  new  one  built  by 
Urijah)  and  the  house  of  Jehovah  (i.e.  the  temple-house),  and 
placed  at  the  north  side  of  the  altar."  ^npn  does  not  mean 
rcmovit,  caused  to  be  taken  away,  but  admovit,  and  is  properly 
to  be  connected  with  'on  ^"];;.~?y,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
iriN  iri^  is  inserted  between  for  the  sake  of  greater  clearness,  as 
Maurer  has  already  pointed  out.^  On  the  use  of  the  article 
with  naTcn  in  the  construct  state,  see  Ewald,  §  290,  d. — Ver. 

*  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  to  support  the  view  of  Thenius,  that  Urijah 
had  the  brazen  altar  of  burnt-offering  erected  by  Solomon  moved  farther  for- 
wards, nearer  to  the  temple-house,  and  the  new  one  put  in  its  place,  whence 
it  was  afterwards  shifted  by  Ahaz  and  the  new  one  moved  a  little  farther  to 
the  south,  that  is  to  say,  that  he  placed  the  two  altars  close  to  one  another, 
80  that  they  now  occupied  the  centre  of  the  court. 


406  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

15.  He  also  commanded  that  the  daily  morning  and  evening 
sacrifice,  and  the  special  ofiferings  of  the  king  and  the  people, 
should  be  presented  upon  the  new  altar,  and  thereby  put  a  stop 
to  the  use  of  the  Solomonian  altar,  "  about  which  he  would 
consider."  The  Chethib  ^i^)T).  is  not  to  be  altered ;  the  pron. 
suff.  stands  before  the  noun,  as  is  frequently  the  case  in  the 
more  diffuse  popular  speech.  The  new  altar  is  called  "  the 
great  altar,"  probably  because  it  was  somewhat  larger  than  that 
of  Solomon,  it??"? :  used  for  the  burning  of  the  sacrifices. 
2"),^0  ^^V^  is  not  merely  the  meat-offering  offered  in  the  even- 
ing, but  the  whole  of  the  evening  sacrifice,  consisting  of  a 
burnt-offering  and  a  meat-offering,  as  in  1  Kings  xviii.  29,  36. 
"ijpnp  7"n^n*^  the  brazen  altar  "  will  be  to  me  for  deliberation," 
i.e.  I  will  reflect  upon  it,  and  then  make  further  arrangements. 
On  1153  in  this  sense  see  Prov.  xx.  25.  In  the  opinion  of 
Ahaz,  the  altar  which  had  been  built  after  the  model  of  that 
of  Damascus  was  not  to  be  an  idolatrous  altar,  but  an  altar  of 
Jehovah.  The  reason  for  this  arbitrary  removal  of  the  altar  of 
Solomon,  which  had  been  sanctified  by  the  Lord  Himself  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple  by  fire  from  heaven,  was,  in  all  pro- 
bability, chiefly  that  the  Damascene  altar  pleased  Ahaz  better ; 
and  the  innovation  was  a  sin  against  Jehovah,  inasmuch  as  God 
Himself  had  prescribed  the  form  for  His  sanctuary  (cf  Ex.  xxv. 
40,  xxvi.  30  ;  1  Chron.  xxviii.  19),  so  that  any  altar  planned 
by  man  and  built  according  to  a  heathen  model  was  practically 
the  same  as  an  idolatrous  altar. — The  account  of  this  altar  is 
omitted  from  the  Chronicles ;  but  in  ver.  2  3  we  have  this  state- 
ment instead :  "  Ahaz  offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods  of  Damascus, 
who  smote  him,  saying.  The  gods  of  the  kings  of  Aram  helped 
them ;  I  will  sacrifice  to  them  that  they  may  help  me :  and 
they  were  the  ruin  of  him  and  of  aU  Israel."  Thenius  and 
Bertheau  find  in  this  account  an  alteration  of  our  account  of 
the  copying  of  the  Damascene  altar  introduced  by  the  chronicler 
as  favouring  his  design,  namely,  to  give  as  glaring  a  description 
as  possible  of  the  ungodliness  of  Ahaz.  But  they  are  mistaken. 
For  even  if  the  notice  in  the  Chronicles  had  really  sprung  from 
this  alone,  the  chronicler  would  have  been  able  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  Mosaic  law  to  designate  the  offering  of  sacrifice 
upon  the  altar  built  after  the  model  of  an  idolatrous  Syrian 
altar  as  sacrificing  to  these  gods.  But  it  is  a  question  whether 
the  chronicler  had  in  his  mind  merely  the  sacrifices  offered 


^  "'• 'CifAP.  XVI.  10-ia  407 

upon  tliat  altar  in  tlie  temple-court,  and  not  rather  sacrifices 
which  Ahaz  offered  upon  some  hamah  to  the  gods  of  SjTia, 
when  he  was  defeated  and  oppressed  by  the  Syrians,  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  their  assistance.  As  Ahaz  offered  his 
son  in  sacrifice  to  Moloch  according  to  ver.  3,  he  might  just  as 
well  have  offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods  of  the  Syrians. — ^Vers. 
17,  18.  Ahaz  also  laid  his  hand  upon  the  other  costly  vessels 
of  the  court  of  the  temple.  He  broke  off  the  panels  of  the 
Solomonian  stands,  which  were  ornamented  with  artistic  carv- 
ing, and  removed  the  basins  from  the  stands,  and  took  the 
brazen  sea  from  the  brazen  oxen  upon  wliich  they  stood,  and 
placed  it  upon  a  stone  pavement.  The  \  before  "I'ri?"^?  can  only 
have  crept  into  the  text  through  a  cop}'ist's  error,  and  the 
singular  must  be  taken  distributively :  he  removed  from  them 
(the  stands)  every  single  basin.  Ci'?3X  nsyiD  (without  the 
article)  is  not  the  stone  pavement  of  the  court  of  the  temple, 
but  a  pedestal  made  of  stones  (^dcri^  \i6ivr},  LXX.)  for  the 
brazen  sea.  The  reason  why,  or  the  object  with  which  Ahaz 
mutilated  these  sacred  vessels,  is  not  given.  The  opinion  ex- 
pressed by  Ewald,  Thenius,  and  others,  that  Ahaz  made  a  pre- 
sent to  Tiglath-pileser  with  the  artistically  wrought  panels  of 
the  stands,  the  basins,  and  the  oxen  of  the  brazen  sea,  is  not 
only  improbable  in  itseK,  since  you  would  natuiuUy  suppose 
that  if  Ahaz  had  wished  to  make  a  "  valuable  and  very  wel- 
come present"  to  the  Assyrian  king,  he  would  have  chosen 
some  perfect  stands  with  their  basins  for  this  purpose,  and  not 
merely  the  panels  and  basins  ;  but  it  has  not  the  smallest  sup- 
port in  the  biblical  text, — on  the  contrary,  it  has  the  context 
against  it.  For,  in  the  first  place,  if  the  objects  named  had 
been  sent  to  Tiglath-pileser,  this  would  ceitainly  have  been 
mentioned,  as  well  as  the  sending  of  the  temple  and  palace 
treasures.  And,  again,  the  mutilation  of  these  vessels  is  placed 
between  the  erection  of  the  new  altar  which  was  constructed 
after  the  Damascene  model,  and  other  measures  which  Ahaz 
adopted  as  a  protection  against  the  king  of  Assyria  (ver.  18). 
Now  if  Ahaz,  on  his  return  from  visiting  Tiglath-pileser  at 
Damascus,  had  thought  it  necessary  to  send  another  valuable 
present  to  that  king  in  order  to  secure  his  permanent  friend- 
ship, he  would  hardly  have  adopted  the  measures  described 
in  the  next  verse. — Ver.  18.  "The  covered  Sabbath-stand, 
which  they  had  built  in  the  house  (temple),  and  the   outer 


408  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

entrance  of  the  king  he  turned  {i.e.  removed)  into  the  house 
of  Jehovah  before  the  king  of  Assyria."  naE'n  :iD''0  [Keri  ^d^!D, 
from  ^3D,  to  cover)  is  no  doubt  a  covered  place,  stand  or  hall 
in  the  court  of  the  temple,  to  be  used  by  the  king  whenever  he 
visited  the  temple  with  his  retinue  on  the  Sabbath  or  on  feast- 
days  ;  and  "  the  outer  entrance  of  the  king "  is  probably  the 
special  ascent  into  the  temple  for  the  king  mentioned  in  1  Kings 
X.  5.  In  what  the  removal  of  it  consisted  it  is  impossible  to 
determine,  from  the  want  of  information  as  to  its  original  cha- 
racter. According  to  Ewald  {Gesch  iii.  p.  621)  and  Thenius,  2Dn 
nirr;  JT'a  means,  "  he  altered  (these  places),  i.e.  he  robbed  them 
of  their  ornaments,  in  the  house  of  Jehovah."  This  is  quite 
arbitrary.  For  even  if  nin^  n'^'ii  could  mean  "  in  the  house  of 
Jehovah "  in  this  connection,  3Dn  does  not  mean  to  disfigure, 
and  still  less  "  to  deprive  of  ornaments."  In  ch.  xxiii  34  and 
xxiv.  17  it  signifies  to  alter  the  name,  not  to  disfigure  it. 
Again,  ">1B'K  "1^12  ""JSO,  "  for  fear  of  the  king  of  Assyria,"  cannot 
mean,  in  this  connection,  "  to  make  presents  to  the  king  of 
Assyria."  And  with  this  explanation,  which  is  grammatically 
impossible,  the  inference  drawn  from  it,  namely,  that  Ahaz  sent 
the  ornaments  of  the  king's  stand  and  king's  ascent  to  the  king 
of  Assyria  along  with  the  vessels  mentioned  in  ver.  17,  also 
falls  to  the  ground.  If  the  alterations  which  Ahaz  made  in 
the  stands  and  the  brazen  sea  had  any  close  connection  with 
his  relation  to  Tiglath-pileser,  which  cannot  be  proved,  Ahaz 
must  have  been  impelled  by  fear  to  make  them,  not  that  he 
might  send  them  as  presents  to  him,  but  that  he  might  hide 
them  from  him  if  he  came  to  Jerusalem,  to  which  2  Chron. 
xxviii.  20,  21  seems  to  refer.  It  is  also  perfectly  conceivable, 
as  Ziillich  {Die  Cherubimwagen,  p.  56)  conjectures,  that  Ahaz 
merely  broke  off  the  panels  from  the  stands  and  removed  the 
oxen  from  the  brazen  sea,  that  he  might  use  these  artistic 
works  to  decorate  some  other  place,  possibly  his  palace. — 
Whether  these  artistic  works  were  restored  or  not  at  the  time 
of  Hezekiah's  reformation  or  in  that  of  Josiah,  we  have  no 
accounts  to  show.  All  that  can  be  gathered  from  ch.  xxv. 
13,  14,  Jer.  liL  17,  and  xxvii.  19,  is,  that  the  stands  and  the 
brazen  sea  were  still  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and  that  on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chal- 
dseans  they  were  broken  in  pieces  and  carried  away  to  Babylonia 
as  brass.     The  brazen  oxen  are  also  specially  mentioned  in  Jer. 


GHAP.  XVIL  1-6.  409 

lii.  20,  whicli  is  not  the  case  in  the  parallel  passage  2  Kings 
XXV.  1 3  ;  though  this  does  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  they 
were  no  longer  in  existence  at  that  time. — Vers.  19,  20.  Con- 
clusion of  the  reign  of  Ahaz.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxviii.  2  7, 
he  was  buried  in  the  city  of  David,  but  not  in  the  sepulchres 
of  the  kings. 

CHAP.  XVII.  REIGN  OF  HOSHEA  AND  DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  KINGDOM 
OF  ISRAEL.  THE  PEOPLE  CARRIED  AWAY  TO  ASSYRIA  AND 
MEDIA.      TRANSPORTATION  OF  HEATHEN  COLONISTS  TO  SAMARIA. 

Vers.  1-6.  Eeign  of  Hoshea  King  of  Israel. — Ver.  1.  In 
the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz  began  Hoshea  to  reign.  As  Hoshea 
conspired  against  Pekah,  according  to  ch.  xv.  30,  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Ahaz,  and  after  murdering  him  made  himself  king, 
whereas  according  to  the  verse  before  us  it  was  not  tUl  the 
tweKth  year  of  Ahaz  that  he  really  became  king,  his  possession 
of  the  throne  must  have  been  contested  for  eight  years.  The 
earlier  commentators  and  almost  all  the  chronologists  have 
therefore  justly  assumed  that  there  was  an  eight  years'  anarchy 
between  the  death  of  Pekah  and  the  commencement  of  Hoshea's 
reign.  This  assumption  merits  the  preference  above  aU  the 
attempts  made  to  remove  the  discrepancy  by  alterations  of  the 
text,  since  there  is  nothing  at  all  surprising  in  the  existence  of 
anarchy  at  a  time  when  the  kingdom  was  in  a  state  of  the 
greatest  inward  disturbance  and  decay.  Hoshea  reigned  nine 
years,  and  "  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah, 
though  not  like  the  kings  of  Israel  before  him  "  (ver.  2).  We  are 
not  told  in  what  Hoshea  was  better  than  his  predecessors,  nor 
can  it  be  determined  with  any  certainty,  although  the  assumption 
that  he  allowed  his  subjects  to  visit  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  is 
a  very  probable  one,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxx. 
10  sqq.,  Hezekiah  invited  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  held  at 
Jerusalem,  the  Israelites  from  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  as  far  as 
to  Zebulun,  and  some  individuals  from  these  tribes  accepted  his 
invitation.  But  although  Hoshea  was  better  than  his  prede- 
cessors, the  judgment  of  destruction  burst  upon  the  sinful  king- 
dom and  people  in  his  reign,  because  he  had  not  truly  turned 
to  the  Lord  ;  a  fact  which  has  been  frequently  repeated  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  namely,  that  the  last  rulers  of  a  decaying 
kingdom  have  not  been  so  bad  as  their  forefathers.     "  God  is 


410  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

accustomed  to  defer  the  punishment  of  the  elders  in  the  great- 
ness of  His  long-suffering,  to  see  whether  their  descendants  wiU 
come  to  repentance  ;  but  if  this  be  not  the  case,  although  they 
may  not  be  so  bad,  the  anger  of  God  proceeds  at  length  to  visit 
iniquity  (cf.  Ex.  xx.  5)."  Seb.  Schmidt. — Ver.  3.  "  Against 
him  came  up  Salmanasar  king  of  Assyria,  and  Hoshea  became 
subject  to  him  and  rendered  him  tribute  "  (p^V^,  as  in  1  Kings 
V.  1).  lDK:ppB',  HaXafiavaaadp  (LXX.),  Salmanasar,  according 
to  the  more  recent  researches  respecting  Assyria,  is  not  only  the 
same  person  as  the  Shalman  mentioned  in  Hos.  x.  14,  but  the 
same  as  the  Sargon  of  Isa.  xx.  1,  whose  name  is  spelt  Sargina 
upon  the  monuments,  and  who  is  described  in  the  inscriptions 
on  his  palace  at  Khorsabad  as  ruler  over  many  subjugated 
lands,  among  which  Samirina  (Samaria  ?)  also  occurs  {vid. 
Brandis  uh.  d.  G&winn,  pp.  48  sqq.  and  53;  M.  v.  Niebuhr, 
Ge^ch.  Ass.  pp.  129,  130;  and  M.  Duncker,  Gesch.  des  Alterth.  i. 
pp.  687  sqq.).  The  occasion  of  this  expedition  of  Salmanasar 
appears  to  have  been  simply  the  endeavour  to  continue  the  con- 
quests of  his  predecessor  Tiglath-pileser.  There  is  no  ground 
whatever  for  Maurer's  assumption,  that  he  had  been  asked  to 
come  to  the  help  of  a  rival  of  Hoshea ;  and  the  opinion  that  he 
came  because  Hoshea  had  refused  the  tribute  which  had  been 
paid  to  Assyria  from  the  time  of  Menahem  downwards,  is  at 
variance  with  the  fact  that  in  ch.  xv.  29  Tiglath-pileser  is 
simply  said  to  have  taken  a  portion  of  the  territory  of  Israel ; 
but  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  payment  of  tribute  or  feudal 
obligation  on  the  part  of  Pekah.  Salmanasar  was  the  first  to 
make  king  Hoshea  subject  and  tributary.  This  took  place  at 
the  commencement  of  Hoshea's  reign,  as  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  Hoshea  paid  the  tribute  for  several  years,  and  in  the 
sixth  year  of  his  reign  refused  any  further  payment. — Ver.  4. 
The  king  of  Assyria  found  a  conspiracy  in  Hoshea ;  for  he  had 
sent  messengers  to  So  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  did  not  pay  the 
tribute  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  as  year  by  year.  The  Egyptian 
king  KiD,  So,  possibly  to  be  pronounced  niD,  Seveh,  is  no  doubt 
one  of  the  two  Shebeks  of  the  twenty-fifth  dynasty,  belonging  to 
the  Ethiopian  tribe ;  but  whether  he  was  the  second  king  of 
this  dynasty,  Sabataka  (Brugsch,  hist.  d'Egypte,  i.  p.  244),  the 
Sevechus  of  Manetho,  who  is  said  to  have  ascended  the  throne, 
according  to  Wilkinson,  in  the  year  728,  as  Vitringa  (Isa.  ii. 
p.  318),  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  others  suppose,  or  the  first  king 


"chap.  XVII.  1-6.  411 

of  this  Ethiopian  djmasty,  SabaJco  the  father  of  Sevechus,  which 
is  the  opinion  of  Usher  and  Marsham,  whom  M.  v.  Niebuhr 
(Gesch.  pp.  458  sqq.  and  463)  and  M.  Dimcker  (L  p.  693)  have 
followed  in  recent  times,  cannot  possibly  be  decided  in  the 
present  state  of  Egyptological  research.^ — As  soon  as  Sal- 
manasar  received  intelligence  of  the  conduct  of  Hoshea, 
which  is  called  "^fp,  conspiracy,  as  being  rebellion  against 
his  acknowledged  superior,  he  had  him  arrested  and  put  into 
prison  in  chains,  and  then  overran  the  whole  land,  advanced 
against  Samaria  and  besieged  that  city  for  three  years,  and 
captured  it  in  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea.  These  words  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  signifying  that  Hoshea  had  been 
taken  prisoner  before  the  siege  of  Samaria  and  thrown  into 
prison,  because  in  that  case  it  is  impossible  to  see  how  Sal- 
manasar  could  have  obtained  possession  of  his  person.'  We 
must  rather  assume,  as  many  commentators  have  done,  from  E. 
Levi  ben  Gersom  down  to  Maurer  and  Thenius,  that  it  was  not 
till  the  conquest  of  his  capital  Samaria  that  Hoshea  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Assyrians  and  was  cast  into  a  prison ;  so  that 
the  explanation  to  be  given  of  the  introduction  of  this  circum- 

*  It  is  true  that  M.  Duncker  says,  "  Synchronism  gives  Sabakon,  who 
reigned  from  726  to  714  ; "  bat  he  observes  in  the  note  at  pp.  713  sqq.  that 
the  Egyptian  chronology  has  only  been  firmly  established  as  far  back  as  the 
commencement  of  the  reign  of  Psammetichus  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  664 
B.C.,  that  the  length  of  the  preceding  dodekarchy  is  differently  given  by 
Diodorus  Sic.  and  Manetho,  and  that  the  date  at  which  Tarakos  (Tirhaka), 
■who  succeeded  Sevechus,  ascended  the  throne  is  so  very  differently  defined, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  the  present  to  come  to  any  certain  conclusion  on  the 
matter.  Compare  with  this  what  M.  v.  Niebuhr  (pp.  458  sqq.)  adduces  in 
proof  of  the  difficulty  of  determining  the  commencement  and  length  of  the 
reign  of  Tirhaka,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  proposes  to  solve  the  difficulties 
that  arise  from  this  in  relation  to  the  synchronism  between  the  Egyptian  and 
the  Biblical  chronology. 

2  The  supposition  of  the  older  commentators,  that  Hoshea  fought  a  battle 
with  Salmanasar  before  the  siege  of  Samaria,  and  was  taken  prisoner  in  that 
battle,  is  not  only  very  improbable,  because  this  would  hardly  be  passed  over 
in  our  account,  but  has  very  little  probability  in  itself.  For  "  it  is  more  pro- 
bable that  Hoshea  betook  himself  to  Samaria  when  threatened  by  the  hostile 
army,  and  relied  upon  the  help  of  the  Egyptians,  than  that  he  went  to  meet 
Salmanasar  and  fought  with  him  in  the  open  field  "  (Maurer).  There  is  still 
less  probability  in  Ewald's  view  (Gesch.  iii.  p.  611),  that  "Salmanasar 
marched  with  unexpected  rapidity  against  Hoshea,  summoned  him  before 
him  that  he  might  hear  his  defence,  and  then. when  he  came,  took  him  prisoner, 
and  threw  him  into  prison  in  chains,  probably  into  a  prison  on  the  border  of  the 


412  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

stance  before  the  siege  and  conquest  of  Samaria  must  be,  that 
the  historian  first  of  all  related  the  eventual  result  of  Hoshea's 
rebellion  against  Salmanasar  so  far  as  Hoshea  himself  was  con- 
cerned, and  then  proceeded  to  describe  in  greater  detail  the 
course  of  the  affair  in  relation  to  his  kingdom  and  capital  This 
does  not  necessitate  our  giving  to  the  word  I'l^.VJ'!!!  the  meaning 
"  he  assigned  him  a  limit "  (Thenius) ;  but  we  may  adhere  to 
the  meaning  which  has  been  philologically  established,  namely, 
arrest  or  incarcerate  (Jer.  xxxiii.  1,  xxxvi.  5,  etc.),  ^P^l  may 
be  given  thus :  "  he  overran,  that  is  to  say,  the  entire  land." 
The  three  years  of  the  siege  of  Samaria  were  not  full  years,  for, 
according  to  ch.  xviii.  9,  10,  it  began  in  the  seventh  year  of 
Hoshea,  and  the  city  was  taken  in  the  ninth  year,  although  it 
is  also  given  there  as  three  years. — Ver,  6.  The  ninth  year  of 
Hoshea  corresponds  to  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah  and  the  year 
722  or  721  B.C.,  in  which  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was 
destroyed, 

Ver.  6&.  The  Israelites  carried  into  exile. — After  the  taking  of 
Samaria,  Salmanasar  led  Israel  into  captivity  to  Assyria,  and 
assigned  to  those  who  were  led  away  dwelling-places  in  Chalach 
and  on  the  Chabor,  or  the  river  Gozan,  and  in  cities  of  Media. 
According  to  these  clear  words  of  the  text,  the  places  to  which 
the  ten  tribes  were  banished  are  not  to  be  sought  for  in  Meso- 
potamia, but  in  provinces  of  Assyria  and  Media,  npn  is  neither 
the  city  of  np3  buUt  by  Nimrod  (Gen,  x.  11),  nor  the  Cholwan 
of  Abulfeda  and  the  Syriac  writers,  a  city  five  days'  journey  to 
the  north  of  Bagdad,  from  which  the  district  bordering  on  the 
Zagrus  probably  received  the  name  of  Xak(ovhi<i  or  KaKavlri,^, 
but  the  province  KaXa^rjvt]  of  Strabo  (xi  8,  4;  14,  12,  and 
xvi.  1,  1),  called  KaTuiKivrj  by  Ptolempeus  (vi,  1),  on  the  eastern 
side  of  the  Tigris  near  Adiabene,  to  the  north  of  Nineveh  on 
the  border  of  Armenia.  ii3n  is  not  the  133  in  Upper  Meso- 
potamia   (Ezek.    i.    3,    iil    15,   etc),    which    flows   into   the 

land  ;"  to  which  he  adds  this  explanatory  remark  :  "  there  is  no  other  way  in 
which  we  can  understand  the  brief  words  in  ch.  xvii.  4  as  compared  with  ch. 
xviii.  9-11.  .  •  .  For  if  Hoshea  had  defended  himself  to  the  utmost,  Salman- 
asar would  not  have  had  him  arrested  and  incarcerated  afterwards,  but  would 
have  put  him  to  death  at  once,  as  was  the  case  with  the  king  of  Damascus." 
But  Hoshea  would  certainly  not  have  been  so  infatuated,  after  breaking 
away  from  Assyria  and  forming  an  alliance  with  So  of  Egypt,  as  to  go  at 
a  simple  summons  from  Salmanasar  and  present  himself  before  him,  since  he 
could  certainly  have  expected  nothing  but  death  or  imprisonment  as  the  result. 


CHAP.  XVII,  1-6.  413 

Euphrates    near    Kirlcesion    (CarcTiemish),    and    is   called    ;'-^n 

{Chebar)  or  ;noA  (CJiabur)  by  the  Syriac  writers,  ^^'^ 
(Chabur)  by  Abulfeda  and  Edrisi,  Xa^copa<;  by  Ptolemeeus, 
'A^oppa^  {Aboras)  by  Strabo  and  others,  as  Alichaelis,  Gesenius, 
Winer,  and  even  Eitter  assume ;  for  the  epithet  "  river  of 
Gozan"  is  not  decisive  in  favour  of  this,  since  Gozan  is  not 
necessarily  to  be  id^tified  with  the  district  of  Gauzanitis,  now 
Kaushan,  situated  between  the  rivers  of  Chaboras  and  Saokoras, 
and  mentioned  in  PtoL  v.  18,  4,  inasmuch  as  Strabo  (xvi.  1,  1, 
p.  736)  also  mentions  a  province  called  Xa^TjvT]  above  Nineveh 
towards  Armenia,  between  Calachene  and  Adiabcne.  Here  in 
northern  Assyria  we  also  find  both  a  mountain  called  Xa^(opa<:, 
according  to  Ptol.  vi.  1,  on  the  boundary  of  AssjTia  and  Media, 
and  the  river  Chabor,  called  by  Yakut  in  the  Moshtarik   .^Ui. 

jjjuu^l  (Khabur  Chasanice),  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Meso- 

potamian  Chaboras  or  Chebar.  According  to  Marasz.  i  pp.  333 
sq.,  and  Yakut,  Mosht.  p.  150,  this  Khxtimr  springs  from  the 

mountains  of  the  land  of  Zanzan,  ^j*\,  i.e.  of  the  land  between 

the  mountains  of  Armenia,  Adserbeidjan,  Diarbekr,  and  Mosul 
(Marasz.  i.  p.  522),  and  is  frequently  mentioned  in  Assemani  as 
a  tributary  of  the  Tigris.  It  still  bears  the  ancient  name  Khabur, 
taking  its  rise  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  upper  Zab  near 
Amadijeh,  and  emptjdng  ItseK  into  the  Tigris  a  few  hours  below- 
Jezirah  (cf.  Wichelhaus,  pp.  471,  472  ;  Asah.  Grant,  Die  Nes- 
torianer,  v.  Freiswerk,  pp.  110  sqq. ;  and  Eitter,  Erdk.  ix.  pp.  716 
and  1030).  This  is  the  river  that  we  are  to  understand  by  inn. 
It  is  a  question  in  dispute,  whether  the  following  words  ip3  i^f 
are  in  apposition  to  "li^ns :  "  by  the  Chabor  the  river  of  Gozan," 
or  are  to  be  taken  by  themselves  as  indicatiug  a  peculiar  district 
"  by  the  river  Gozan."  Now,  however  the  absence  of  the  prep.  3, 
and  even  of  the  copula  1,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  words  of 
Yakut,  "  Khabur,  a  river  of  Chasania"  on  the  other,  may  seem 
to  favour  the  former  view,  we  must  decide  in  favour  of  the  latter, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  in  1  Chron.  v.  26  ITil  inj  is  separated 
from  ii3n  by  ^y}\  The  absence  of  the  preposition  3  or  of  the 
copvda  1  before  '3  1^3  in  the  passage  before  ns  may  be  accounted 
for  from  the  assumption  that  the  first  two  names,  in  Chalah  and 
on  the  Khabur,  are  more  closely  connected,  and  also  the  two 
which  follow,  "  on  the  river  Gozan  and  in  the  cities  of  Media!' 


414  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

The  river  Gozan  or  of  Gozan  is  therefore   distinct  from  i^3n 

T 

{Khdbur),  and  to  be  sought  for  in  the  district  in  which  Tav- 
^avia,  the  city  of  Media  mentioned  by  Ptol.  (vi,  2),  was  situ- 
ated. In  all  probability  it  is  the  river  which  is  called  Kisil 
(the  red)  Ozan  at  the  present  day,  the  Mardos  of  the  Greeks, 
which  takes  its  rise  to  the  south-east  of  the  Lake  Urumiah  and 
flows  into  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  which  is  supposed  to  have 
formed  the  northern  boundary  of  Media.^  The  last  locality 
mentioned  agrees  with  this,  viz.  "  and  in  the  cities  of  Media,"  in 
which  Thenius  proposes  to  read  ""in,  mountains,  after  the  LXX., 
instead  of  ""l^,  cities,  though  without  the  least  necessity. 

Vers.  7-23.  The  causes  which  occasioned  this  catastrophe. — To 
the  account  of  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes, 
and  of  the  transportation  of  its  inhabitants  into  exile  in  Assyria, 
the  prophetic  historian  appends  a  review  of  the  causes  which 
led  to  this  termination  of  the  greater  portion  of  the  covenant- 
nation,  and  finds  them  in  the  obstinate  apostasy  of  Israel 
from  the  Lord  its  God,  and  in  its  incorrigible  adherence  to 
idolatry.  Ver.  7.  ""S  "'n^.l,  "  and  it  came  to  pass  when "  (not 
because,  or  that) :  compare  Gen.  vi  1,  xxvi.  8,  xxvii.  1,  xliv. 
24,  Ex.  i.  21,  Judg.  i.  28,  vi.  7,  etc.  The  apodosis  does  not 
follow  till  ver.  18,  as  vers.  7—17  simply  contain  a  further  ex- 
planation of  Israel's  sin.  To  show  the  magnitude  of  the  sin, 
the  writer  recalls  to  mind  the  great  benefit  conferred  in  the 
redemption  from  Egypt,  whereby  the  Lord  had  laid  His  people 
under  strong  obligation  to  adhere  faithfully  to  Him.  The  words 
refer  to  the  first  commandment  (Ex.  xx.  2,  3  ;  Deut.  v.  6,  7).     It 

^  The  explanation  given  in  the  text  of  the  geographical  names,  receives  some 
confirmation  from  the  Jewish  tradition,  which  describes  northern  Assyria,  and 
indeed  the  mountainous  region  or  the  district  on  the  border  of  Assyria  and 
Media  towards  Armenia,  as  the  place  to  which  the  ten  tribes  were  banished 
(vid.  Wichelhaus  ut  sup.  pp.  474  sqq.).  Not  only  Ewald  {Gesch.  iii.  p.  612), 
but  also  M.  V.  Niebuhr  {Gesch.  Ass.  p.  159),  has  decided  in  favour  of  this 
view ;  the  latter  with  this  remark :  "  According  to  the  present  state  of  the  in- 
vestigations, Chalah  and  Chabor  are  no  doubt  to  be  sought  for  on  the  slope  of 
the  Gordyaean  mountains  in  the  Kalachene  of  Strabo,  the  Kalakine  of  Ptole- 
mseus,  and  on  the  tributary  of  the  Tigris,  which  is  still  called  Chabur,  there- 
fore quite  close  to  Nineveh.  The  Yudhi  mountains  in  this  region  possibly 
bear  this  name  with  some  allusion  to  the  colony."  But  with  reference  to  the 
river  Gozan,  Niebuhr  is  doubtful  whether  we  are  to  understand  by  this  the 
Kisil  Ozan  or  the  waters  in  the  district  of  Gauzanitis  by  the  Khebar,  and  gives 
the  preference  to  the  latter  as  the  simpler  of  the  two,  though  it  is  difficult  to 
see  in  what  respect  it  is  simpler  than  the  other. 


CHAP.  XVII.  7-23.  415. 

fe  from  this  that  the  "  fearing  of  other  gods  "  is  taken,  whereas 
njna  T  nnrip  recall  Ex.  xviii.  10. — Yer.  8.  The  apostasy  of 
Israel  manifested  itseK  in  two  directions :  1.  in  their  walking 
in  the  statutes  of  the  nations  who  were  cut  off  from  before 
them,  instead  of  in  the  statutes  of  Jehovah,  as  God  had 
commanded  (of  Lev.  xviiL  4,  5,  and  26,  xx.  22,  23,  etc. ; 
and  for  the  formula  '^^  5^'^■}i'^  i'^*?  ^^^^l",  which  occurs  re- 
peatedly in  our  books — e.g.  ch.  xvi  3,  xxL  2,  and  1  Kings 
xiv.  24  and  xxL  26 — compare  Deut.  xi  23  and  xviii.  12); 
and  2.  in  their  walking  in  the  statutes  which  the  kings  of 
Israel  had  made,  i.e.  the  worship  of  the  calves.  ^^  1K^  :  it 
is  evident  from  the  parallel  passage,  ver.  19 A,  that  the  subject 
here  stands  before  the  relative. — Ver.  9.  D'^l^l  ''**fD'5 :  "  they 
covered  words  which  were  not  right  concerning  Jehovah  their 
God,"  i.e.  they  sought  to  conceal  the  true  nature  of  Jehovah  by 
arbitrary  perversions  of  the  word  of  God.  This  is  the  explana- 
tion correctly  given  by  Hengstenberg  {Dissert.  voL  i  p.  210, 
transl.) ;  whereas  the  interpretation  proposed  by  Thenius,  "  they 
trifled  with  things  which  were  not  right  against  Jehovah,"  is  as 
much  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the  language  as  that  of 
Gesenius  {thes.  p.  505),  'per fide  egerunt  res  ...  in  Jehovam,  since 
Ksn  with  ?V  simply  means  to  cover  over  a  thing  (cf  Isa.  iv.  5). 
This  covering  of  words  over  Jehovah  showed  itseK  in  the  fact 
that  they  built  ni03  (altars  on  high  places),  and  by  worshipping 
God  in  ways  of  their  own  invention  concealed  the  nature  of  the 
revealed  God,  and  made  Jehovah  like  the  idols.  "  In  aU  their 
cities,  from  the  tower  of  the  watchmen  to  the  fortified  city." 
D^")>*i3  7=130  is  a  tower  built  for  the  protection  of  the  flocks  in 
the  steppes  (2  Chron.  xxvi  10),  and  is  mentioned  here  as  the 
smallest  and  most  solitary  place  of  human  abode  in  antithesis 
to  the  large  and  fortified  city.  Such  hamoth  were  the  houses  of 
high  places  and  altars  built  for  the  golden  calves  at  Bethel  and 
Dan,  beside  which  no  others  are  mentioned  by  name  in  the 
history  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  restricts  itseK 
to  the  principal  facts,  although  there  certainly  must  have  been 
others. — Ver.  10.  They  set  up  for  themselves  monuments  and 
asherim  on  every  high  hill,  etc., — a  practice  condemned  in  1  Kings 
xiv.  16,  23,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Jeroboam.  In  this  descrip- 
tion of  their  idolatry,  the  historian,  however,  had  in  his  mind 
not  only  the  ten  tribes,  but  also  Judah,  as  is  evident  from  ver. 
13,  "  Jehovah  testified  against  Israel  avd  Jvdah  through  His 


416  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

prophets,"  and  also  from  ver.  19. — Ver,  11.  "And  bnmefl 
incense  there  upon  all  the  high  places,  like  the  nations  which 
Jehovah  drove  out  before  them."  n?3n^  lit.  to  lead  into  exile, 
is  applied  here  to  the  expulsion  and  destruction  of  the  Canaan- 
ites,  with  special  reference  to  the  banishment  of  the  Israelites. 
— Ver.  12.  They  served  the  clods,  i.e.  worshipped  clods  or 
masses  of  stone  as  gods  (Qvp?^  see  at  1  Kings  xv.  12),  notwith- 
standing the  command  of  God  in  Ex.  xx.  3  sqq.,  xxiii.  1 3,  Lev. 
xxvi.  1,  etc. — ^Vers.  13  sqq.  And  the  Lord  was  not  satisfied 
with  the  prohibitions  of  the  law,  but  bore  witness  against  the 
idolatry  and  image-worship  of  Israel  and  Judah  through  all 
His  prophets,  who  exhorted  them  to  turn  from  their  evil  way 
and  obey  His  commandments.  But  it  was  all  in  vain ;  they 
were  stiff-necked  like  their  fathers.  Judah  is  mentioned  as 
well  as  Israel,  although  the  historian  is  simply  describing  the 
causes  of  Israel's  rejection  to  indicate  beforehand  that  Judah 
was  already  preparing  the  same  fate  for  itself,  as  is  still  more 
plainly  expressed  in  vers.  19,  20;  not,  as  Thenius  supposes, 
because  he  is  speaking  here  of  that  which  took  place  before  the 
division  of  the  kingdom.  The  Chethib  '"'jn'''?  1»<''23~^3  is  not  to 
be  read  nrh-bi  N^ariss  (Houbig.,  Then.,  Ew.  §  156,  e),' but  after 
the  LXX.'nTn-ii3  if  nrb,  "  through  all  His  prophets,  every  seer," 
so  that  "^.^fTPS  is  in  apposition  to  lN''3p~73,  and  serves  to  bring 
out  the  meaning  with  greater  force,  so  as  to  express  the  idea, 
"  prophets  of  every  kind,  that  the  Lord  had  sent."  This  read- 
ing is  more  rhetorical  than  the  other,  and  is  recommended  by 
the  fact  that  in  what  follows  the  copula  1  is  omitted  before 
\nipn  also  on  rhetorical  grounds,  'ui  ''JjinpB'  "la'Xl :  "  and  according 
to  what  I  demanded  of  you  through  my  servants  the  prophets." 
To  the  law  of  Moses  there  was  added  the  divine  warning  through 
the  prophets.  D3"iy~nx  Vi}\y'_  has  sprung  from  Deut.  x.  1 6.  The 
stiff-necked  fathers  are  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Moses. — 
Ver.  15.  "  They  followed  vanity  and  became  vain : "  verbatim 
as  in  Jer.  ii.  5.  A  description  of  the  worthlessness  of  their 
whole  life  and  aim  with  regard  to  the  most  important  thing, 
namely,  their  relation  to  God.  Whatever  man  sets  before  him 
as  the  object  of  his  life  apart  from  God  is  b2T\  (cf.  Deut.  xxxii. 
21)  and  idolatry,  and  leads  to  worthlessness,  to  spiritual  and 
moral  corruption  (Eom.  i.  21).  "And  (walked)  after  the 
nations  who  surrounded  them,"  i.e.  the  heathen  living  near 
them.     The  concluding  words  of  the  verse  have  the  ring  of 


CHAP.  XVII.  7-23.  417 

Lev.  xviii.  3. — Vers.  16  and  17.  The  cHmax  of  their  apostasy  : 
"  They  made  themselves  molten  images,  two  (golden)  calves  " 
(1  Kings  xii.  28),  -which  are  called  '"laEO  after  Ex.  xxxii  4,  8, 
and  Deut.  ix.  12,  16,  "  and  Asherah,"  i.e.  idols  of  Astarte  (for 
the  fact,  see  1  Kings  xvi.  33),  "and  worshipped  aU  the  host  of 
heaven  (sun,  moon,  and  stars),  and  served  Baal " — in  the  time 
of  Ahab  and  his  family  (1  Kings  xvi  32).  The  worshipping 
of  all  the  host  of  heaven  is  not  specially  mentioned  in  the 
history  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  but  occurs  first  of  all 
in  Judah  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  (ch.  xxi.  3).  The  fact  that 
the  host  of  heaven  is  mentioned  between  Asherah  and  Baal 
shows  that  the  historian  refers  to  the  Baal  and  Astarte  worship, 
and  has  borrowed  the  expression  from  Deut.  iv.  1 9  and  xvii  3, 
to  show  the  character  of  this  worship,  since  both  Baal  and 
Astarte  were  deities  of  a  sidereal  nature.  The  first  half  of  ver. 
17  rests  upon  Deut.  xviii.  10,  where  the  worship  of  Moloch  is 
forbidden  along  with  soothsaying  and  augury.  There  is  no  allu- 
sion to  this  worship  in  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  although  it  certainly  existed  in  the  time  of  Ahab.  The 
second  half  of  ver.  1 7  also  refers  to  the  conduct  of  Ahab  (see  at 
1  Kings  xxi.  20). — Vers.  18  sqq.  This  conduct  excited  the  anger 
of  God,  so  that  He  removed  them  from  His  face,  and  only  left 
the  tribe  {i.e.  the  kingdom)  of  Judah  (see  above,  p.  179),  although 
Judah  also  did  not  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  and 
walked  in  the  statutes  of  Israel,  and  therefore  had  deserved 
rejection.  Ver.  1 9  contains  a  parenthesis  occasioned  by  0??'  pn 
'\y\  (ver.  18&).  The  statutes  of  Israel  in  which  Judah  walked 
are  not  merely  the  worship  of  Baal  under  the  Ahab  dynasty, 
so  as  to  refer  only  to  Joram,  Ahaziah,  and  Ahaz  (according  to 
ch.  viii.  18,  27,  and  xvi.  3),  but  also  the  worship  on  the  high 
places  and  worship  of  idols,  which  were  practised  imder  many 
of  the  kings  of  Judah. — ^Ver.  20.  Dxo^  is  a  continuation  of 
7\\r\\^  5l3snn  in  ver.  18,  but  so  that  what  follows  also  refers  to  the 
parenthesis  in  ver.  19.  "Then  the  Lord  rejected  all  the  seed 
of  Israel,"  not  merely  the  ten  tribes,  but  all  the  nation,  and 
humbled  them  till  He  thrust  them  from  His  face.  Dxo  differs 
from  VJSD  ^"•'pE'n  The  latter  denotes  driving  into  exile ;  the 
former,  simply  that  kind  of  rejection  which  consisted  in  chastise- 
ment and  deliverance  into  the  hand  of  plunderers,  that  is  to  say, 
penal  judgments  by  which  the  Lord  sought  to  lead  Israel  and 
Judah  to  turn  to  Him  and  to  His  commandments,  and  to  preserve 

8D 


418  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

them  from  being  driven  among  the  heathen.  CDK'  Tji  }n3  as  in 
Judg.  ii.  14. — Ver.  21.  '131  inp^  ^3:  "for  He  (Jehovah)  rent' Israel 
from  the  house  of  David."  This  view  is  apparently  more  correct 
than  that  Israel  rent  the  kingdom  from  the  house  of  David,  not 
only  because  it  presupposes  too  harsh  an  ellipsis  to  supply 
in3?psri~nx,  but  also  because  we  never  meet  with  the  thought 
that  Israel  rent  the  kingdom  from  the  house  of  David,  and  in 
1  Kings  xi.  31  it  is  simply  stated  that  Jehovah  rent  the  king- 
dom from  Solomon ;  and  to  this  our  verse  refers,  whilst  the 
following  words  "iJl  I3v^*l  recall  1  Kings  xii.  20.  The  ^3  is 
explanatory  :  the  Lord  delivered  up  His  people  to  the  plun- 
derers, for  He  rent  Israel  from  the  house  of  David  as  a  punish- 
ment for  the  idolatry  of  Solomon,  and  the  Israelites  made 
Jeroboam  king,  who  turned  Israel  away  from  Jehovah,  etc, 
The  ChetMb  sn^l  is  to  be  read  i<!!5,  the  ITiphil  of  t«13  =  nna 
"  he  caused  to  depart  away  from  the  Lord."  The  Keri  n'n*^ 
Miphil  of  ni3,  he  drove  away,  turned  from  the  Lord  (cf.  Deut, 
xiii.  11),  is  not  unusual,  but  it  is  an  unnecessary  gloss. — Vers, 
22,  23.  The  sons  of  Israel  (the  ten  tribes)  walked  in  all  the 
sins  of  Jeroboam,  till  the  Lord  removed  them  from  His  face, 
thrust  them  out  of  the  land  of  the  Lord,  as  He  had  threatened 
them  through  all  His  prophets,  namely,  from  the  time  of  Jero- 
boam onwards  (compare  1  Kings  xiv.  15,  16,  and  also  Hos.  i. 
6,  ix.  16,  Amos  iii.  11,  12,  v.  27,  Isa.  xxviii.  etc.).  The 
banishment  to  Assyria  (see  ver.  6)  lasted  "  unto  this  day,"  i.e. 
till  the  time  when  our  books  were  written.^ 

1  As  the  Hebrew  ^y,  like  the  German  bis,  is  not  always  used  in  an  exclusive 
sense,  but  is  frequently  abstracted  from  what  lies  behind  the  terminus  ad 
quern  mentioned,  it  by  no  means  follows  from  the  words,  "  the  Lord  rejected 
Israel ...  to  this  day,^^  that  the  ten  tribes  returned  to  their  own  country  after 
the  time  when  our  books  were  written,  viz.  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century  B.C.  And  it  is  just  as  impossible  to  prove  the  opposite  view,  which 
is  very  widely  spread,  namely,  that  they  are  living  as  a  body  in  banishment 
even  at  the  present  day.  It  is  well  known  how  often  the  long-lost  ten  tribes 
have  been  discovered,  in  the  numerous  Jewish  communities  of  southern 
Arabia,  in  India,  more  especially  in  Malabar,  in  China,  Turkistan,  and  Cash- 
rair,  or  in  Afghanistan  (see  Ritter's  Erdkunde,  x.  p.  246),  and  even  in  America 
itself ;  and  now  Dr.  Asahel  Grant  (Z)te  Nestorianer  oder  die  zelin  Stiimme) 
thinks  that  he  has  found  them  in  the  independent  Nestorians  and  the  Jews 
living  among  them  ;  whereas  others,  such  as  Witsius  (Afx«<pt/>.  c.  iv.  sqq.), 
J.  D.  Michaelis  (de  exsilio  decern  tribuum,  comm.  iii.),  and  last  of  all  Robinson 
in  the  work  quoted  by  Ritter,  l.  c.  p.  245  (The  Nestorians,  etc.,  New  York, 
1841),  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  ten  tribes  became  partly  mixed 


CHAP.  XVil.  24-41.  419 

Vers.  24-41.  The  Samaritans  and  their  Worship. — After 
the  transportation  of  the  Israelites,  the  king  of  Assyria  brought 
colonists  from  different  provinces  of  his  kingdom  into  the  cities 
of  Samaria.  The  king  of  Assyria  is  not  Salmanasar,  for  it  is 
evident  from  ver.  25  that  a  considerable  period  intervened  be- 
tween the  carrying  away  of  the  Israelites  and  the  sending  of 
colonists  into  the  depopulated  land.  It  is  true  that  Salmanasar 
only  is  mentioned  in  what  precedes,  but  the  section  vers.  24-41 
is  not  so  closely  connected  with  the  first  portion  of  the  chapter, 
that  the  same  king  of  Assyria  must  necessarily  be  spoken  of  in 
both.  According  to  Ezra  iv.  2,  it  was  Esarhaddon  who  removed 
the  heathen  settlers  to  Samaria.  It  is  true  that  the  attempt  has 
been  made  to  reconcile  this  with  the  assumption  that  the  king 

up  with  the  Jadseans  during  the  Babylonian  captivity^  and  partly  attached 
themselves  to  the  exiles  who  were  led  back  to  Palestine  by  Zerubbabel  and 
Ezra ;  that  a  portion  again  became  broken  up  at  a  still  later  period  by  mixing 
with  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  who  were  scattered  throughout  all  the  world  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  and  a  further  portion  a  long  time  ago 
by  conversion  to  Christianity,  so  that  every  attempt  to  discover  the  remnants 
of  the  ten  tribes  anywhere  must  be  altogether  futile.  This  view  is  in  general 
the  correct  one,  though  its  suppwlers  have  mixed  up  the  sound  arguments 
with  many  that  are  untenable.  For  example,  the  predictions  quoted  by  Ritter 
(p.  250),  probably  after  Robinson  (viz.  Jer.  1.  4,  5,  17,  19,  and  Ezek.  xxxviL 
11  sqq.),  and  also  the  prophetic  declarations  cited  by  WitsivB  (v.  §§  11-14: 
viz.  Isa.  xiv.  1,  Mic.  ii.  12,  Jer.  iii.  12,  xxx.  3,  4,  xxxiii.  7,  8),  prove  very 
little,  because  for  the  most  part  they  refer  to  Messianic  times  and  are  to  be 
understood  spiritually.  So  much,  however,  may  certainly  be  gathered  from 
the  books  of  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  that  the  Judseans  whom 
Nebuchadnezzar  carried  away  captive  were  not  all  placed  in  the  province  of 
Babylonia,  but  were  also  dispersed  in  the  different  districts  that  constituted 
first  the  Assyrian,  then  the  Chaldsean,  and  afterwards  the  Persian  empire  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates,  so  that  with  the  cessation  of  that  division 
which  had  been  so  strictly  maintained  to  suit  the  policy  of  the  Israelitish 
kings,  the  ancient  separation  would  also  disappear,  and  their  common  mourn- 
ful lot  of  dispersion  among  the  heathen  would  of  necessity  bring  about  a 
closer  union  among  all  the  descendants  of  Jacob ;  just  as  we  find  that  the 
kings  of  Persia  knew  of  no  difference  between  Jews  and  Israelites,  and  in  the 
time  of  Xerxes  the  grand  vizier  Haman  wanted  to.  exterminate  aU  the  Jews 
(not  the  Judseans  merely,  but  all  the  Hebrews).  Moreover,  the  edict  of 
Cyrus  (Ezra  i.  1-4),  "  who  among  you  of  all  his  people,"  and  that  of  Arta- 
xerxes  (Ezra  vii.  13),  "  whoever  in  my  kingdom  is  willing  of  the  people  of 
Israel"  gave  permission  to  all  the  Israelites  of  the  twelve  tribes  to  return 
to  Palestine.  And  who  could  maintain  with  any  show  of  reason,  that  no  one 
belonging  to  the  ten  tribes  availed  himself  of  this  permission  ?  And  though 
Grant  argues,  on  the  other  side,  that  with  regard  to  the  50,000  whom  Cyrus 
sent  away  to  their  home  it  is  expressly  stated  that  they  were  of  those  "whom 


420  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

jof  Assyria  mentioned  in  our  verse  is  Salmanasar,  by  the  conjec- 
ture that  one  portion  of  these  colonists  was  settled  there  by 
Salmanasar,  another  by  Esarhaddon;  and  it  has  also  been 
assumed  that  in  this  expedition  Esarhaddon  carried  away  the 
last  remnant  of  the  ten  tribes,  namely,  aU  who  had  fled  into  the 
mountains  and  inaccessible  corners  of  the  land,  and  to  some 
extent  also  in  Judaea,  during  Salmanaear's  invasion,  and  had 
then  collected  together  in  the  land  again  after  the  Assyrians  had 
withdrawn.  But  there  is  not  the  smallest  intimation  anywhere 
of  a  second  transplantation  of  heathen  colonists  to  Samaria,  any 
more  than  of  a  second  removal  of  the  remnant  of  the  Israelites 
who  were  left  behind  in  the  land  after  the  time  of  Salmanasar. 
The  prediction  in  Isa.  vii   8,  that  in  sixty-five  years    more 

Nebuchadnezzar  had  carried  away  into  Babylon"  (Ezra  ii.  1),  with  which  ch. 
i.  5  may  also  be  compared,  "  then  rose  up  the  heads  of  the  tribes  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin,  and  the  priests  and  Levites,  etc, ;  "  these  words  apply  to  the 
majority  of  those  who  returned,  and  undoubtedly  prove  that  the  ten  tribes 
as  such  did  not  return  to  Palestine,  but  they  by  no  means  prove  that  a  con- 
siderable number  of  members  of  the  remaining  tribes  may  not  have  attached 
themselves  to  the  large  number  of  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  who 
returned.  And  not  only  Lightfoot  {Hor.  Tiehr.  in  Ep.  1  ad  Cor.  Addenda  ad 
c.  14,  0pp.  ii.  p.  929)  andWitsius  (p.  346),  but  the  Rabbins  long  before  them 
in  Seder  Olam  rah.  c.  29,  p.  86,  have  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  number 
of  persons  and  famUies  given  separately  in  Ezra  ii.  only  amounts  to  80,360, 
whereas  in  ver.  64  the  total  number  of  persons  who  returned  is  said  to  have 
been  42,360  heads,  besides  7337  men-servants  and  maid-servants,  that  this 
excess  above  the  families  of  Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Levi,  who  are  mentioned 
by  name,  may  have  come  from  the  ten  tribes.  Moreover,  those  who  returned 
did  regard  themselves  as  the  representatives  of  the  twelve  tribes  ;  for  at  the 
dedication  of  the  new  temple  (Ezra  vi.  17)  they  offered  "  sin-offerings  for 
aU  Israel,  according  to  the  number  of  the  twelve  tribes.''^  And  those  who 
returned  with  Ezra  did  the  same.  As  a  thanksgiving  for  their  safe  return  to 
their  fatherland,  they  offered  lu  sacrifice  "  twelve  oxen  for  all  Israel,  ninety- 
six  rams,  seventy-seven  sheep,  and  twelve  he-goats  for  a  sin-offering,  all  as  a 
burnt-offering  for  Jehovah  "  (Ezra  viii.  35).  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  over- 
•whelming  majority  of  those  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  and  Ezra  belonged 
to  the  tribes  of  Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Levi ;  which  may  be  explained  very 
simply  from  the  fact,  that  as  they  had  been  a  much  shorter  time  in  exile,  they 
had  retained  a  much  stronger  longing  for  the  home  given  by  the  Lord  to  their 
fathers  than  the  tribes  that  were  carried  away  180  years  before.  But  that 
they  also  followed  in  great  numbers  at  a  future  time,  after  those  who  had 
returned  before  had  risen  to  a  state  of  greater  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
prosperity  in  their  own  home,  is  an  inference  that  must  be  drawn  from  the 
fact  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  Galilee,  and  in  part  also 
Persea,  was  very  densely  populated  by  Israelites ;  and  this  population  cannot 
be  traced  back  either  to  the  Jews  who  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  Judaja 


CHAP.  XVII.  24-4t  421 

Epliraim  was  to  "be  destroyed,  so  that  it  would  "be  no  longer  a 
people,  even  if  it  referred  to  the  transplantation  of  the  heathen 
colonists  to  Samaria  by  Esarhaddon,  as  Usher,  Hengstenberg,  and 
others  suppose,  would  by  no  means  necessitate  the  carrying  away 
of  the  last  remnant  of  the  Israelites  by  this  king,  but  simply  the 
occupation  of  the  land  by  heathen  settlers,  with  whom  the  last 
remains  of  the  Ephraimites  intermingled,  so  that  Ephraim  ceased 
to  be  a  people.  As  long  as  the  land  of  Israel  was  merely  laid 
waste  and  deprived  of  the  greater  portion  of  its  Israelitish  popu- 
lation, there  always  remained  the  possibility  that  the  exiles 
might  one  day  return  to  their  native  land  and  once  more  form 
one  people  with  those  who  were  left  behind,  and  so  long  might 
Israel  be  still  regarded  as  a  nation ;  just  as  the  Judaeans,  when 

under  Zerubbabel  and  Ezra,  or  to  the  small  number  of  Israelites  who  -were 
left  behind  in  the  land  when  the  Assyrian  deportation  took  place.  On  the 
other  hand,  even  the  arguments  adduced  by  Grant  in  support  of  his  view, 
viz.  (1)  that  we  have  not  the  slightest  historical  evidence  that  the  ten  tribes 
ever  left  Assyria  again,  (2)  that  on  the  return  from  the  Babylonian  captivity 
they  did  not  come  back  with  the  rest,  prove  as  argumenta  a  silentto  but  very 
little,  and  lose  their  force  still  more  if  the  assumptions  upon  which  they  are 
based — namely,  that  the  ten  tribes  who  were  transported  to  Assyria  and  Media 
had  no  intercourse  whatever  with  the  Jews  who  were  led  away  to  Babylon, 
but  kept  themselves  unmixed  and  quite  apart  from  the  Judaeans,  and  that  as 
they  did  not  return  with  Zerubbabel  and  Ezra,  they  did  not  return  to  their 
native  land  at  any  later  period — are,  aa  we  have  shown  above,  untenable.  Con- 
sequently the  further  arguments  of  Grant,  (3)  that  according  to  Josephus 
{Ant.  xi.  5,  2)  the  ten  tribes  were  still  in  the  land  of  their  captivity  in  the 
first  century,  and  according  to  Jerome  {Comm.  on  the  Prophets)  in  the  fifth ; 
and  (4)  that  in  the  present  day  they  are  still  in  the  country  of  the  ancient 
Assyrians,  since  the  Nestorians,  both  according  to  their  own  statement  and 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Jews  there,  are  Beni  Yisrael,  and  that  of 
the  ten  tribes,  and  are  also  proved  to  be  Israelites  by  many  of  the  customs  and 
usages  which  they  have  preserved  {Die  Nestor,  pp.  113  sqq.)  ;  prove  nothing 
more  than  that  there  may  still  be  descendants  of  the  Israelites  who  were 
banished  thither  among  the  Jews  and  Nestorians  living  in  northern  Assyria 
by  the  Uramiah-lake,  and  by  no  means  that  the  Jews  living  there  are  the  un- 
mixed descendants  of  the  ten  tribes.  The  statements  made  by  the  Jews  lose 
all  their  importance  from  the  fact,  that  Jews  of  other  lands  maintain  just  the 
same  concerning  themselves.  And  the  Mosaic  manners  and  customs  of  the 
Nestorians  prove  nothing  more  than  that  they  are  of  Jewish  origin.  In 
general,  the  Israelites  and  Jews  who  have  come  into  heathen  lands  from  the 
time  of  Salmanasar  and  Nebuchadnezzar  onwards,  and  have  settled  there, 
have  become  so  mixed  up  with  the  Jews  who  were  scattered  in  aU  quarters 
of  the  globe  from  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  and  more  especially  since 
the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state  by  the  Romans,  that  the  last  traces  of  the 
old  division  into  tribes  have  entirely  disappeared. 


422  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

in  exile  in  Babylon,  did  not  cease  to  be  a  people,  because  they 
looked  forward  with  certain  hope  to  a  return  to  their  fatherland 
after  a  banishment  of  seventy  years.  But  after  heathen  colonists 
had  been  transplanted  into  the  land,  with  whom  the  remainder 
of  the  Israelites  who  were  left  in  the  land  became  fused,  so 
that  there  arose  a  mixed  Samaritan  people  of  a  predominantly 
heathen  character,  it  was  impossible  to  speak  any  longer  of  a 
people  of  Ephraim  in  the  land  of  Israel.  This  transplantation 
of  colonists  out  of  Babel,  Cutha,  etc.,  into  the  cities  of  Samaria 
might  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  point  of  time  at  which  the 
nation  of  Ephraim  was  entirely  dissolved,  without  any  removal 
of  the  last  remnant  of  the  Israelites  having  taken  place.  "We 
must  indeed  assume  this  if  the  ten  tribes  were  deported  to  the 
very  last  man,  and  the  Samaritans  were  in  their  origin  a  purely 
heathen  people  without  any  admixture  of  Israelitish  blood,  as 
Hengstenberg  assumes  and  has  endeavoured  to  prove.  But  the 
very  opposite  of  this  is  unmistakeably  apparent  from  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  6,  9,  according  to  which  there  were  not  a  few  Israelites 
left  in  the  depopulated  land  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  (Compare 
Kalkar,  Die  Samaritaner  ein  Misclivolk,  in  Pelt's  theol.  Mitar- 
heiten,  iii.  3,  pp.  24  sqq.). — We  therefore  regard  Esarhaddon  as 
the  Assyrian  king  who  brought  the  colonists  to  Samaria.  The 
object  to  N3»5  may  be  supplied  from  the  context,  more  especially 
from  ^^*),  which  foUows.  He  brought  inhabitants  from  Babel, 
i.e.  from  the  country,  not  the  city  of  Babylon,  from  Cuthali,  etc. 
The  situation  of  Cuthah  or  Cuth  (ver.  30)  cannot  be  determined 
with  certainty.  M.  v.  Niebuhr  {Geseh.  p.  166)  foUows  Josephus, 
who  speaks  of  the  Cuthaeans  in  Aiit.  ix.  14,  3,  and  x.  9,  7,  as  a 
people  dwelling  in  Persia  and  Media,  and  identifies  them  with 
the  Kossceans,  Kissians,  Khushiya,  Chuzi,  who  lived  to  the  north- 
east of  Susa,  in  the  north-eastern  portion  of  the  present  Khusistan ; 
whereas  Gesenius  {thes.  p.  674),  Eosenmliller  {bibl.  AlthJc.  i.  2, 
p.  29),  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  {Supplem.  ad  Lex.  hebr.  p.   1255) 

have  decided  in  favour  of  the  Cutha  (\U^  or  ^.g-,)  in  the 

Babylonian  Irak,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Nahr  Malca,  in 
support  of  which  the  fact  may  also  be  adduced,  that,  according  to 
a  communication  from  Spiegel  (in  the  Auslande,  1864,  No.  46, 
p.  1089),  Cutha,  a  town  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  was  situated 
by  the  wall  in  the  north-east  of  Babylon,  probably  on  the  spot 
where  the  hill   Ohaimir  with  its  ruins  stands.     The  greater 


CHAP.  XVIL  24-4L  423 

number  of  colonists  appear  to  have  come  from  Cuiha,  because 
the  Samaritans  are  called  D^ma  by  the  Eabbins.  t^JV,  Awa,  is 
almost  always,  and  probably  with  correctness,  regarded  as  being 
the  same  place  as  the  n^V  {Ivvah)  mentioned  in  ch.  x\dii.  34  and 
xix.  13,  as  the  conjecture  naturally  suggests  itself  to  every  one 
that  the  Avcceans  removed  to  Samaria  by  Esarhaddon  were  in- 
habitants of  the  kingdom  of  Avxa  destroyed  by  the  Ass}Tian 
king,  and  the  form  *^V  is  probably  simply  connected  with  the 
appellative  explanation  given  to  the  word  by  the  Masoretes. 
As  Ivvdh  is  placed  by- the  side  of  Henah  in  ch.  xviiL  34  and 
xix.  13,  Awa  can  hardly  be  any  other  than  the  country  of 
Hebeh,  situated  on  the  Euphrates  between  Anah  and  the  Chahur 
(M.  V.  If iebuhr,  p.  1 6  7).  Hamath  is  Epiphania  on  the  Orontes : 
see  at  1  Kings  viii.  65  and  Num.  Yiii-  21.  SepJiarvaim  is  no 
doubt  the  Sippara  {S nrcfxipa)  of  Ptolem.  (v,  18,  7),  the  southern- 
most city  of  Mesopotamia  on  the  Euphrates,  above  the  Xahr 
Malca,  the  'HXiowrokc^  ev  XtinrdpouTLv  or  Snnraprjvtav  ttoX*?, 
which  Berosus  and  Abydenus  mention  (in  Euseb.  Prcepar.  evang. 
ix,  12  and  41,  and  Chronic.  Armen.  i.  pp.  33,  36,  49,  55)  as  be- 
longing to  the  time  of  the  flood. — pp'C' :  this  is  the  first  time  in 
which  the  name  is  evidently  applied  to  the  kingdom  of  Samaria. 
— Vers.  25-28.  In  the  eai-liest  period  of  their  settlement  in  the 
cities  of  Samaria  the  new  settlers  were  visited  by  lions,  which 
may  have  multiplied  greatly  during  the  time  that  the  land  was 
lying  waste.  The  settlers  regarded  this  as  a  punishment  from 
Jehovah,  t.e.  from  the  deity  of  the  land,  whom  they  did  not 
worship,  and  therefore  asked  the  king  of  Assyria  for  a  priest  to 
teach  them  the  right,  i.e.  the  proper,  worship  of  the  God  of  the 
land ;  whereupon  the  king  sent  them  one  of  the  priests  who  had 
been  carried  away,  and  he  took  up  his  abode  in  Bethel,  and 
instructed  the  people  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  The  author 
of  our  books  also  looked  upon  the  lions  as  sent  by  Jehovah  as  a 
punishment,  according  to  Lev.  xxvi.  22,  because  the  new  settlers 
did  not  fear  Him.  r\\^^r\ ;  the  Hons  which  had  taken  up  their 
abode  there,  Dty  «tri  ab;;i :  that  they  (the  priest  with  his  com- 
panions) went  away  and  dwelt  there.  There  is  no  need  there- 
fore to  alter  the  plural  into  the  singular. 

The  priest  sent  by  the  Assyrian  king  was  of  course  an 
Israelitish  priest  of  the  calves,  for  he  was  one  of  those  who  had 
been  carried  away  and  settled  in  Bethel,  the  chief  seat  of  Jero- 
boam's image -worship,  and  he  also  taught  the  colonists  to 


424  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

fear  or  worship  Jehovah  after  the  manner  of  the  land.  This 
explains  the  state  of  divine  worship  in  the  land  as  described  in 
vers.  2  9  sqq.  "  Every  separate  nation  ('i3  Ma :  see  Ewald,  §  3 1 3,  a) 
made  itself  its  own  gods,  and  set  them  up  in  the  houses  of 
the  high  places  (ni»3n  n^3 :  see  at  1  Kings  xii.  31,  and  for  the 
singular  n^3,  Ewald,  §  270,  c)  which  the  Samaritans  (D'anofe'n,  not 
the  colonists  sent  thither  by  Esarhaddon,  but  the  former  inhabi- 
tants of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  who  are  so  called  from  the  capital 
Samaria)  had  made  (built) ;  every  nation  in  the  cities  where 
they  dwelt." — Ver.  30.  The  people  of  Babel  made  themselves 
niJ3  nisp,  daughters^  hootJis.  Selden  (de  Diis  Syr.  ii.  7),  Miinter 
{Relig.  der  Bdbyl.  pp.  74,  75),  and  others  understand  by  these  the 
temples  consecrated  to  Mylitta  or  Astarte,  the  xafidpat,  or  covered 
little  carriages,  or  tents  for  prostitution  (Herod,  i.  199);  but 
Beyer  {Addit.  ad  Seld.  p.  297)  has  very  properly  objected  to  this, 
that  according  to  the  context  the  reference  is  to  idols  or  objects 
of  idolatrous  worship,  which  were  set  up  in  the  nioa  rTia.  It  is 
more  natural  to  suppose  that  small  tent-temples  are  meant, 
which  were  set  up  as  idols  in  the  houses  of  the  high  places 
along  with  the  images  which  they  contained,  since  according  to 
eh.  xxiii.  7  women  wove  D*JJi3,  little  temples,  for  the  Asherah, 
and  Ezekiel  speaks  of  patch-work  Bamoth,  i.e.  of  small  temples 
made  of  cloth.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  there  is  more  truth 
than  is  generally  supposed  in  the  view  held  by  the  Eabbins, 
that  rii:3  niap  signifies  an  image  of  the  "  hen,"  or  rather  the 
constellation  of  "  the  clucking-hen  "  {Gluckhenne),  the  Pleiades, — 
simulacrum  gallince  codestis  in  signo  Tauri  nidulantis,  as  a  sym- 
holum  Veneris  codestis,  as  the  other  idols  are  all  connected  with 
animal  sjrmbolism.  In  any  case  the  explanation  given  by 
Movers,  involucra  seu  seer  eta  mtdierum,  female  lingams,  which 
were  handed  by  the  hierodulae  to  their  paramours  instead  of  the 
Mylitta-money  {Phoniz.  i.  p.  5  9  6),  is  to  be  rejected,  because  it  is 
at  variance  with  the  usage  of  speech  and  the  context,  and  because 
the  existence  of  female  lingams  has  first  of  all  to  be  proved. 
Eor  the  different  views,  see  Ges.  tlies.  p.  952,  and  Leyrer  in 
Herzog's  Cycl. — The  Cuthseans  made  themselves  as  a  god,  ^^^}., 
Nergal,  i.e.,  according  to  Winer,  Gesenius,  Stuhr,  and  others,  the 
planet  Mars,  which  the  Zabians  caU  •-\t--'rJ,  Nerig,  as  the  god  of 

war  {Codex  Nasar.  i.  212,  224),  the  Arabs  ^  ^^  Mirrig  ;  where- 
as older  commentators  identified  Nergal  with  the  sun-god  Bclf 


CHAP.  XVn.  24-41.  425 

deriving  the  name  from  f^,  Kght,  and  ^3,  a  fotmtain  =  fountain 
of  light  (Selden,  ii  8,  and  Beyer,  Add.  pp.  301  sqq.).  But  these 
views  are  both  of  them  very  uncertain.  According  to  the 
Eabbins  (Eashi,  E.  Salomo,  Kimchi),  Nergal  was  represented 
as  a  cock.  This  statement,  which  is  ridiculed  by  Gesenius, 
"Winer,  and  Thenius,  is  proved  to  be  correct  by  the  Assyrian 
monuments,  which  contain  a  number  of  animal  deities,  and 
among  them  the  cock  standing  upon  an  altar,  and  also  upon  a 
gem  a  priest  praying  in  front  of  a  cock  (see  Layard's  Nineveh). 
The  pugnacious  cock  is  found  generally  in  the  ancient  ethnical 
religions  in  frequent  connection  with  the  gods  of  war  (c£  J.  G. 
Mliller  in  Herzog's  Cycl).  i^O'y'i^,  Ashima,  the  god  of  the 
people  of  Hamath,  was  worshipped,  according  to  rabbinical 
statements,  under  the  figure  of  a  bald  he-goat  (see  Selden,  iL  9). 
The  suggested  combination  of  the  name  with  the  Phcenician 
deity  Esmun,  the  Persian  Asiiman,  and  the  Zendic  apnajio,  i.e. 
heaven,  is  very  uncertain. — ^Ver.  31.  Of  the  idols  of  the  Aif- 
vceans,  according  to  rabbinical  accounts  in  Selden,  I.e.,  Nibchaz 
had  the  form  of  a  dog  (Tn33,  latrator,  from  naj),  and  Tartak  that 
of  an  ass.  Gesenius  regards  Tartak  as  a  demon  of  the  lower 
regions,  because  in  Pehlwi  tar — thakh  signifies  deep  darkness 
or  hero  of  darkness,  and  Nibchaz  as  an  evil  demon,  the  :n3J  of 
the  Zabians,  whom  Xorberg  in  his  Onomast.  cod.  Nasar.  p.  100, 
describes  as  horrendus  rex  infemalis:  posito  ipsiiis  throno  ad 
Ulluris,  i.e.  lucis  et  caliginis  confinium,  sed  imo  acherontis /undo 
pedHms  mhstrato,  according  to  Codex  Adami,  ii  50,  lin.  12. — 
"With  regard  to  the  gods  of  the  Sepharvites,  Adrammelech  and 
Anammelech,  it  is  evident  from  the  offering  of  children  in  sacrifice 
to  them  that  they  were  related  to  Moloch.  The  name  =1^1*?*?, 
which  occurs  as  a  personal  name  in  ch.  xix.  37  and  Isa.  xxxviL 
38,  has  been  explained  either  from  the  Semitic  ilK  as  meaning 

"  glorious  king,"  or  from  the  Persian  jil,  jj\,  in  which  case  it 

means  "  fire-king,"  and  is  supposed  to  refer  to  the  sun  (see  Ges.  on 
Isaiah,  it  p.  347).  "^^^V.  is  supposed  by  Hyde  (de  relig.  v£tt.  Per- 
sarum,  p.  1 31)  to  be  the  group  of  stars  called  Cephenis,  which  goes 
by  the  name  of  "  the  shepherd  and  flock  "  and  "  the  herd-stars  " 
in  the  Oriental  astrognosis,  and  in  this  case  Diy  might  answer  to 

the  Arabic  ^  =  IXV.     Movers,  on  the  other  hand  {Ph&niz.  i 

pp.  410,  411),  regards  them  as  two  names  of  the  same  deity,  a 


426  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

double-shaped  Moloch,  and  reads  the  ChetMb  Ciud  rha  as  the 
singular  Dpssn  bx,  the  god  of  Sepharvaim.  This  double  god, 
according  to  his  explanation,  was  a  sun-being,  because  Sephar- 
vaim, of  which  he  was  irokiovxo'i,  is  designated  by  Berosus  as  a 
city  of  the  sun.  This  may  be  correct ;  but  there  is  something 
very  precarious  in  the  further  assumption,  that  "  Adar-Melech  is 
to  be  regarded  as  the  sun's  fire,  and  indeed,  since  Adar  is  Mars, 
that  he  is  so  far  to  be  thought  of  as  a  destructive  being,"  and 
that  A7iammelech  is  a  contraction  of  TJ^D  py,  oculus  Molechi,  signi- 
fying the  ever- watchful  eye  of  Saturn ;  according  to  which  Ad- 
rammelech  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  solar  Mars,  Anammelech  as  the 
solar  Saturn.  The  explanations  given  by  Hitzig  (on  Isa.  p.  437) 
and  Benfey  {die  Monatsnamen,  pp.  187, 188)  are  extremely  doubt- 
ful.— ^Ver.  32,  In  addition  to  these  idols,  Jehovah  also  was  wor- 
shipped in  temples  of  the  high  places,  according  to  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  Israelitish  priest  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  vn^i 
Ct*!^. :  "  and  they  were  (also)  worshipping  Jehovah,  and  made 
themselves  priests  of  the  mass  of  the  people"  (Dnivipip  as  in 
1  Kings  xii.  31).  ^\^  C^y  ''''7!5:  "and  they  (the  priests)  were  pre- 
paring them  (sacrifices)  in  the  houses  of  the  high  places." — Ver, 
3  3  sums  up  by  way  of  conclusion  the  description  of  the  various 
kinds  of  worship. 

Vers.  34-41,  This  mixed  cultus,  composed  of  the  worship  of 
idols  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  they  retained  tiU  the  time 
when  the  books  of  the  Kings  were  written,  "  Unto  this  day 
they  do  after  the  former  customs."  n'':b'N")n  D^tpSB^n  can  only 
be  the  religious  usages  and  ordinances  which  were  introduced 
at  the  settlement  of  the  new  inhabitants,  and  which  are  de- 
scribed in  vers.  28-33.  The  prophetic  historian  observes  still 
further,  that  "  they  fear  not  Jehovah,  and  do  not  according  to 
their  statutes  and  their  rights,  nor  according  to  the  law  and 
commandment  which  the  Lord  had  laid  down  for  the  sons  of 
Jacob,  to  whom  He  gave  the  name  of  Israel"  (see  1  Kings 
xviii.  31),  i.e.  according  to  the  Mosaic  law.  cnpn  and  O^sk^P, 
"  their  statutes  and  their  right,"  stands  in  antithesis  to  nninn 
niXDni  which  Jehovah  gave  to  the  children  of  Israel,  If,  then, 
the  clause,  "  they  do  not  according  to  their  statutes  and  their 
right,"  is  not  to  contain  a  glaring  contradiction  to  the  previous 
assertion,  "unto  this  day  they  do  after  their  first  (former) 
rights,"  we  must  understand  by  DCBEJ'pi  Dnpn  the  statutes  and 
the  right  of  the  ten  tribes,  i.e.  the  worship  of  Jehovah  under 


CHAP.  XVII.  34-41.  427 

the  symbols  of  the  calves,  and  mtist  explain  the  inexactness  of 
the  expression  "  their  statutes  and  their  right"  from  the  fact 
that  the  historian  was  thinking  of  the  Israelites  who  had  been 
left  behind  in  the  land,  or  of  the  remnant  of  the  Israelitish 
population  that  had  become  mixed  up  with  the  heathen  settlers 
(ch.  xxiii.  19,  20;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  6,  9,  33).  The  meaning 
of  the  verse  is  therefore  evidently  the  following :  The  inhabi- 
tants of  Samaria  retain  to  this  day  the  cultus  composed  of  the 
worship  of  idols  and  of  Jehovah  under  the  form  of  an  image, 
and  do  not  worship  Jehovah  either  after  the  manner  of  the  ten 
tribes  or  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Their 
worship  is  an  amalgamation  of  the  Jehovah  image- worship  and 
of  heathen  idolatry  (cf  ver.  41). — To  indicate  the  character  of 
this  worship  stUl  more  clearly,  and  hold  it  up  as  a  complete 
breach  of  the  covenant  and  as  utter  apostasy  from  Jehovah, 
the  historian  describes  still  more  fuUy,  in  vers.  35-39,  how 
earnestly  and  emphatically  the  people  of  Israel  had  been  pro- 
hibited from  worshipping  other  gods,  and  urged  to  worship 
Jehovah  alone,  who  had  redeemed  Israel  out  of  Egypt  and 
exalted  it  into  His  own  nation.  For  ver.  35  compare  Ex.  xx.  5; 
for  ver.  36,  the  exposition  of  ver.  7,  also  Ex.  xxxii.  11,  vi  6, 
XX.  23;  Deut.  iv.  34,  v.  15,  etc.  In  ver.  37  the  committal 
of  the  thorah  to  writing  is  presupposed-  For  ver.  39,  see  Deut. 
xiii  5,  xxiiL  15,  etc. — Ver.  40.  They  did  not  hearken,  how- 
ever (the  subject  is,  of  course,  the  ten  tribes),  but  they  (the 
descendants  of  the  Israelites  who  remained  in  the  land)  do 
after  their  former  manner.  jitJ'Nnn  ni2S*^p  is  their  manner  of 
worshipping  God,  which  was  a  mixture  of  idolatry  and  of  the 
image- worship  of  Jehovah,  as  in  ver,  34. — In  ver.  41  this  is 
repeated  once  more,  and  the  whole  of  these  reflections  are 
brought  to  a  close  with  the  additional  statement,  that  their 
children  and  grandchildren  do  the  same  to  this  day. — In  the 
period  following  the  Babylonian  captivity  the  Samaritans  re- 
linquished actual  idolatry,  and  by  the  adoption  of  the  Mosaic 
book  of  the  law  were  converted  to  monotheism.  For  the  later 
history  of  the  Samaritans,  of  whom  a  small  handful  have  been 
preserved  to  the  present  day  in  the  ancient  Sichem,  the  pre- 
sent Nablus,  see  Theod.  GuiL  Job.  JuynboU,  commentarii  in 
historiam  gentis  Samaritance,  Lugd.  Bat.  1846,  4,  and  H.  Peter- 
mann,  Samaria  and  the  Samaritajis,  in  Herzog's  Cycl. 


428  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


III.— HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH  FROM  THE  DE- 
STRUCTION OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  THE  TEN  TRIBES  TO  THE 
BABYLONIAN  CAPTIVITY. 

Chaps,  xviii.-xxv. 

At  the  time  when  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  destroyed, 
Judah  found  itself  in  a  state  of  dependence  upon  the  imperial 
power  of  Assyria,  into  which  it  had  been  brought  by  the  un- 
godly policy  of  Ahaz.  But  three  years  before  the  expedition 
of  Salmanasar  against  Samaria,  the  pious  Hezekiah  had  ascended 
the  throne  of  his  ancestor  David  in  Jerusalem,  and  had  set  on 
foot  with  strength  and  zeal  the  healing  of  Judah's  wounds,  by 
exterminating  idolatry  and  by  restoring  the  legal  worship  of 
Jehovah.  As  Hezekiah  was  devoted  to  the  Lord  his  God  with 
undivided  heart  and  trusted  firmly  in  Him,  the  Lord  also  ac- 
knowledged him  and  his  undertaldngs.  When  Sennacherib  had 
overrun  Judah  with  a  powerful  army  after  the  revolt  of  Heze- 
kiah, and  had  summoned  the  capital  to  surrender,  the  Lord 
heard  the  prayer  of  His  faithful  servant  Hezekiah  and  saved 
Judah  and  Jerusalem  from  the  threatening  destruction  by  the 
miraculous  destruction  of  the  forces  of  the  proud  Sennacherib 
(ch.  xviii.  and  xix.),  whereby  the  power  of  Assyria  was  so 
weakened  that  Judah  had  no  longer  much  more  to  fear  from  it, 
although  it  did  chastise  Manasseh  (2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11  sqq.). 
Nevertheless  this  deliverance,  through  and  in  the  time  of  Heze- 
kiah, was  merely  a  postponement  of  the  judgment  with  which 
Judah  had  been  threatened  by  the  prophets  (Isaiah  and  Micah), 
of  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  and  the  banishment  of  its 
inhabitants.  Apostasy  from  the  living  God  and  moral  corrup- 
tion had  struck  such  deep  and  firm  roots  in  the  nation,  that  the 
idolatry,  outwardly  suppressed  by  Hezekiah,  broke  out  again 
openly  immediately  after  his  death ;  and  that  in  a  still  stronger 
degree,  since  his  son  and  successor  Manasseh  not  only  restored 
all  the  abominations  of  idolatry  which  his  father  had  rooted  out, 
but  even  built  altars  to  idols  in  the  courts  of  the  temple  of 
Jehovah,  and  filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood  from  one 
end  to  the  other  (ch.  xxi.),  and  thereby  filled  up  the  measure  of 
sins,  so  that  the  Lord  had  to  announce  through  His  prophets  to 
the  godless  king  and  people  His  decree  to  destroy  Jerusalem  and 
cast  out  the  remaining  portion  of  the  people  of  His  inheritance 


CHAPS.  XVIII.-XXV.  429 

among  tlie  heathen,  and  to  show  the  severity  of  His  judgments 
in  the  fact  that  Manasseh  was  led  away  captive  by  the  officers 
of  the  Assyrian  king.  And  even  though  Manasseh  himself 
renoimced  all  gross  idolatry  and  restored  the  legal  worship  in 
the  temple  after  his  release  and  return  to  Jerusalem,  as  the 
result  of  this  chastisement,  this  alteration  in  the  king's  mind 
exerted  no  lasting  influence  upon  the  people  generally,  and  was 
completely  neutralized  by  his  successor  Am  on,  who  did  not 
walk  in  the  way  of  Jehovah,  but  merely  worshipped  his  father's 
idols.  In  this  state  of  thincjs  even  the  God-fearincr  Josiah, 
with  all  the  stringency  with  which  he  exterminated  idolatry, 
more  especially  after  the  discovery  of  the  book  of  the  law,  was 
unable  to  effect  any  true  change  of  heart  or  sincere  conversion 
of  the  people  to  their  God,  and  could  only  wipe  out  the  out- 
ward signs  and  traces  of  idolatry,  and  establish  the  external 
supremacy  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  The  people,  with  their 
carnal  security,  imagined  that  they  had  done  quite  enough  for 
God  by  restoring  the  outward  and  legal  form  of  worship,  and  that 
they  were  now  quite  sure  of  the  di\dne  protection ;  and  did  not 
hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  prophets,  who  predicted  the  speedy 
coming  of  the  judgments  of  God  Josiah  had  warded  off  the 
bursting  forth  of  these  judgments  for  thirty  years,  through  his 
humiliation  before  God  and  the  reforms  which  he  introduced ; 
but  towards  the  end  of  his  reign  the  Lord  began  to  put  away 
Judah  from  before  His  face  for  the  sake  of  Manasseh's  sins,  and 
to  reject  the  city  which  He  had  chosen  that  His  name  might 
dweU  there  (ch.  xxii-xxiii.  2  7).  Xecho  king  of  Egypt  advanced 
to  extend  his  sway  to  the  Euphrates  and  overthrow  the  Assy- 
rian empire.  Josiah  marched  to  meet  him,  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  the  extension  of  his  power  into  S}Tia.  A  battle  was 
fought  at  Megiddo,  the  Judaean  army  was  defeated,  Josiah  fell 
in  the  battle,  and  with  him  the  last  hope  of  the  sinking  state  (ch. 
xxiii.  29,  30  ;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  23,  24).  In  Jerusalem  Jehoahaz 
was  made  king  by  the  people ;  but  after  a  reign  of  three  months 
he  was  taken  prisoner  by  Xecho  at  Eiblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath, 
and  led  away  to  Egv*pt,  where  he  died.  Eliakim,  the  elder  son 
of  Josiah,  was  appointed  by  Xecho  as  Eg}'ptian  vassal-king  in 
Jerusalem,  under  the  name  of  Jehoiakim.  He  was  devoted  to 
idolatry,  and  through  his  love  of  show  (Jer.  xxii.  13  sqq.)  stOl 
further  ruined  the  kingdom,  which  was  already  exhausted  by 
the  tribute  to  be  paid  to  Eg}-pt.     In  the  fourth  year  of  hi 


430  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

reign  Pharaoh-Necho  STiccum'bed  at  Carcliemish  to  the  Chaldsean 
power,  which  was  rising  under  Nebuchadnezzar  upon  the  ruins 
of  the  Assyrian  kingdom.  At  the  same  time  Jeremiah  pro- 
claimed to  the  incorrigible  nation  that  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth 
would  deliver  Judah  with  all  the  surrounding  nations  into  the 
hand  of  His  servant  Nebuchadnezzar,  that  the  land  of  Judah 
would  be  laid  waste  and  the  people  serve  the  king  of  Babylon 
seventy  years  (Jer,  xxv.).  Nebuchadnezzar  appeared  in  Judah 
immediately  afterwards  to  follow  up  his  victory  over  Necho, 
took  Jerusalem,  made  Jehoiakim  his  subject,  and  carried  away 
Daniel,  with  many  of  the  leading  young  men,  to  Babylon  (ch. 
xxiv.  1).  But  after  some  years  Jehoiakim  revolted ;  whereupon 
Nebuchadnezzar  sent  fresh  troops  against  Jerusalem  to  besiege 
the  city,  and  after  defeating  Jehoiachin,  who  had  in  the  mean- 
time followed  his  father  upon  the  throne,  led  away  into  cap- 
tivity to  Babylon,  along  with  the  kernel  of  the  nation,  nobles, 
warriors,  craftsmen,  and  smiths,  and  set  upon  the  throne 
Mattaniah,  the  only  remaining  son  of  Josiah,  under  the  name 
of  Zedekiah  (ch.  xxiv.  2—17).  But  when  he  also  formed  an 
alliance  with  Pharaoh-Hophra  in  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign, 
and  revolted  from  the  king  of  Babylon,  Nebuchadnezzar  ad- 
vanced immediately  with  all  his  forces,  besieged  Jerusalem,  and 
having  taken  the  city  and  destroyed  it,  put  an  end  to  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  by  slaying  Zedekiah  and  his  sons,  and  carrying 
away  all  the  people  that  were  left,  with  the  exception  of  a  very 
small  remnant  of  cultivators  of  the  soil  (ch.  xxiv.  18 -xxv.  26), 
a  hundred  and  thirty-four  years  after  the  destruction  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes. 

CHAP.   XVIIL    KEIGN   OF   KING    HEZEKIAH.       SENNACHERIB   INVADES 
JUDAH  AND  THREATENS  JERUSALEM. 

Vers.  1-8.  Length  and  character  of  Hezekiah's  reign} — ^Vers. 
1,  2.  In  the  third  year  of  Hoshea  of  Israel,  Hezekiah  became 

1  On  comparing  the  account  of  Hezekiah's  reign  given  in  our  books  (ch. 
xviii.-xx.)  with  that  in  2  Chron.  xxix.-xxxii.,  the  different  plans  of  these 
two  historical  works  are  at  once  apparent.  The  prophetic  author  of  our 
books  first  of  all  describes  quite  briefly  the  character  of  the  king's  reign 
(ch.  xviii.  1-8),  and  then  gives  an  elaborate  description  of  the  invasion  of 
Judah  by  Sennacherib  and  of  his  attempt  to  get  Jerusalem  into  his  power, 
together  with  the  destruction  of  the  proud  Assyrian  force  and  Sennacherib's 


CHAP.  XVIIL  1-a  431 

Idng  over  Judah,  when  he  -was  twenty-five  years  old  Accord- 
ing to  vers.  9  and  10,  the  fourth  and  sixth  years  of  Hezekiah 
corresponded  to  the  seventh  and  ninth  of  Hoshea ;  consequently 
his  first  year  apparently  ran  parallel  to  the  fourth  of  Hoshea,  so 
that  Josephus  {Ant.  ix.  13, 1)  represents  him  as  having  ascended 
the  throne  in  the  fourth  year  of  Hoshea's  reign.  But  there  is 
no  necessity  for  this  alteration.  If  "we  assume  that  the  com- 
mencement of  his  reign  took  place  towards  the  close  of  the  tliird 
year  of  Hoshea,  the  fourth  and  sixth  years  of  his  reign  coin- 
cided for  the  most  part  with  the  sixth  and  ninth  years  of 
Hoshea's  reign.  The  name  'i^i?Tn  or  'njpfn  (vers.  9,  13,  etc.)  is 
given  in  its  complete  form  'I'^'i??'?',  "  whom  Jehovah  strengthens," 
in  2  Chron.  xxix.  sqq.  and  Isa.  i.  1 ;  and  •"''ipfn^  in  Hos.  i  1  and 
Mic.  i.  1.  On  his  age  when  he  ascended  the  throne,  see  the 
Comm.  on  ch.  xvi,  2.  The  name  of  his  mother,  '3S,  is  a  strongly 
contracted  form  of  n^3S  (2  Chron.  xxix,  1). — Vers.  3  sqq.  As 
ruler  Hezekiah  walked  in  the  footsteps  of  his  ancestor  David. 
He  removed  the  high  places  and  the  other  objects  of  idolatrous 
worship,  trusted  in  Jehovah,  and  adhered  firmly  to  Him  without 
wavering ;  therefore  the  Lord  made  all  Ms  undertakings  prosper, 
nioan,  nia2ran,  and  '^S^J}  (see  at  1  Kings  xiv.  23)  embrace  all 
the  objects  of  idolatrous  worship,  which  had  been  introduced 
into  Jerusalem  and  Judah  in  the  reigns  of  the  former  kings, 

hasty  retttm  to  Nineveh  and  death  (ch.  xviii.  13-19,  87) ;  and,  finally,  he  also 
gives  a  circumstantial  account  of  Hezekiah's  illness  and  recovery,  and  also  of 
the  arrival  of  the  Babylonian  embassy  in  Jerusalem,  and  of  Hezekiah's  con- 
duct on  that  occasion  (ch.  xx.).  The  chronicler,  on  the  other  hand,  has  fixed 
his  chief  attention  upon  the  religious  reformation  carried  out  by  Hezekiah, 
and  therefore  first  of  all  describes  most  elaborately  the  purification  of  the 
temple  from  all  idolatrous  abominations,  the  restoration  of  the  Jehovah- 
cultus  and  the  feast  of  passover,  to  which  Hezekiah  invited  all  the  people, 
not  only  the  subjects  of  his  own  kingdom,  but  the  remnant  of  the  ten  tribes- 
also  (2  Chron.  xxix.-xxxL)  ;  and  then  simply  gives  in  ch.  xxxii.  the  most 
summary  account  of  the  attack  made  by  Sennacherib  upon  Jerusalem  and 
the  destruction  of  his  army,  of  the  sickness  and  recovery  of  Hezekiah,  and 
of  his  great  riches,  the  Babylonian  embassy  being  touched  upon  in  only 
the  most  casual  manner.  The  historical  character  of  the  elaborate  accounts 
given  in  the  Chronicles  of  Hezekiah's  reform  of  worship  and  his  celebration 
of  the  passover,  which  Theuius  follows  De  Wette  and  Gramberg  in  throwing 
doubt  upon,  has  been  most  successfully  defended  by  Bertheau  as  well  as 
others. — On  the  disputed  question,  in  what  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign  the 
solemn  passover  instituted  by  him  fell,  see  the  thorough  discussion  of  it  by 
C.  P.  Caspari  (Beitrr.  z.  Einleit.  in  d.  B.  Jesaia,  pp.  109  sqq.),  and  our  Com- 
mentary on  the  Chronicles,  which  has  yet  to  appear. 


432  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

and  more  especially  in  that  of  Ahaz.  The  singular  "T^B^^^ri  is 
used  in  a  collective  sense  =  I3''T«?'i<n  (2  Chron.  xxxl  1),  The 
only  other  idol  that  is  specially  mentioned  is  the  brazen  serpent 
which  Moses  made  in  the  wilderness  (Num.  xxi.  8,  9),  and 
which  the  people  with  their  leaning  to  idolatry  had  turned  in 
the  course  of  time  into  an  object  of  idolatrous  worship.  The 
words,  "  to  this  day  were  the  children  of  Israel  burning  incense 
to  it,"  do  not  mean  that  this  took  place  without  interruption 
from  the  time  of  Moses  down  to  that  of  Hezekiah,  but  simply, 
that  it  occurred  at  intervals,  and  that  the  idolatry  carried  on 
with  this  idol  lasted  till  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  namely,  till  this 
king  broke  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent,  because  of  the  idolatry 
that  was  associated  with  it.  For  further  remarks  on  the  mean- 
ing of  this  symbol,  see  the  Comm.  on  Num.  xxi.  8,  9.  The 
people  called  (K'^i?!],  one  called)  this  serpent  l^i'f  nj,  i.e.  a  brazen 
thing.  This  epithet  does  not  involve  anything  contemptuous, 
as  the  earlier  commentators  supposed,  nor  the  idea  of  "  Brass- 
god"  (Ewald). — ^Ver.  5.  The  verdict,  "  after  him  was  none  like 
him  among  all  the  kings  of  Judah,"  refers  to  Hezekiah's  confi- 
dence in  God  (n^si),  in  which  he  had  no  equal,  whereas  in  the 
case  of  Josiah  his  conscientious  adherence  to  the  Mosaic  law 
is  extolled  in  the  same  words  (ch.  xxiii.  25);  so  that  there  is  no 
ground  for  saying  that  there  is  a  contradiction  between  our  verse 
and  ch.  xxiii.  25  (Thenius). — ^Ver.  6.  ''•''3  Pii"]';:  he  adhered  faith- 
fully to  Jehovah  (P?'^  as  in  1  Kings  xi.  2),  and  departed  not 
from  Him,  i.e.  he  never  gave  himself  up  to  idolatry. — Ver.  7. 
The  Lord  therefore  gave  him  success  in  all  his  undertakings 
(7^3^n^  see  at  1  Kings  ii.  3),  and  even  in  his  rebellion  against 
the  king  of  Assyria,  whom  he  no  longer  served,  i.e.  to  whom  he 
paid  no  more  tribute.  It  was  through  Ahaz  that  Judah  had 
been  brought  into  dependence  upon  Assyria ;  and  Hezekiah  re- 
leased himself  from  this,  by  refusing  to  pay  any  more  tribute, 
probably  after  the  departure  of  Salmanasar  from  Palestine,  and 
possibly  not  till  after  the  death  of  that  king.  Sennacherib  there- 
fore made  war  upon  Hezekiah  to  subjugate  Judah  to  himself 
again  (see  vers.  13  sqq.). — ^Ver.  8.  Hezekiah  smote  the  Philis- 
tines to  Gaza,  and  their  territory  from  the  tower  of  the  watch- 
men to  the  fortified  city,  i.e.  all  the  towns  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest  (see  at  ch.  xvii.  9).  He  thus  chastised  these  enemies 
for  their  invasion  of  Judah  in  the  time  of  Ahaz,  wrested  from 
them  the  cities  which  they  had  .  taken  at  that  time  (2  Chron. ; 


CHAP.  XVIir.  13-37.  433 

xxviii.  18),  and  laid  -waste  all  their  country  to  Gaza,  i.e.  Ghiizzeh, 
the  most  southerly  of  the  chief  cities  of  Philistia  (see  at  Josh, 
xiii.  3).  This  probably  took  place  after  the  defeat  of  Sen- 
nacherib (cf.  2  Chron.  xxxiL  22,  23). 

In  vers.  9—12  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes  by  Salmanasar,  which  has  already  been  related  according 
to  the  annals  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in  ch.  xvii  3-6,  is 
related  once  more  according  to  the  annals  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  in  which  this  catastrophe  is  also  introduced  as  an  event 
that  was  memorable  in  relation  to  all  the  covenant-nation. 

Vers.  13—37.  Sennacherib  invades  Judah  and  threatens  Jemi- 
salem} — Sennacherib,  ^nn^p  (Sancheribh),  Hewaxvpifi  (LXX.), 
^evayr^pifio'i  (Joseph.),  Sava^dpi^oq  (Herodot.),  whose  name  has 
not  yet  been  deciphered  with  certainty  upon  the  Assyrian 
monuments  or  clearly  explained  (see  J.  Brandis  ilber  den  histor. 
Gewinn  axis  dcr  Entziffcrung  der  assyr.  Inschriften,  pp.  103  sqq., 
and  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assurs,  p.  37),  was  the  successor  of 
Salmanasar  (Sargina  according  to  the  monuments).  He  is 
called  ^a(riXev<i  ^Apa^itov  re  koI  ' Aa-aupicov  by  Herodotus  (ii. 
141),  and  reigned,  according  to  Berosus,  eighteen  years.  He 
took  aU  the  fortified  cities  in  Judah  (D*v??r'o  with  the  masculine 
suffix  instead  of  the  feminine:  cf  Ewald,  §  184,  c).  The  ^3, 
all,  is  not  to  be  pressed ;  for,  beside  the  strongly  fortified  capital 
Jerusalem,  he  had  not  yet  taken  the  fortified  cities  of  Lachish 
and  Libnah  (ver.  17  and  ch.  xix.  8)  at  the  time,  when,  according 
to  vers.  14  sqq.,  he  sent  a  division  of  his  army  against  Jeru- 
salem, and  summoned  Hezekiah  to  surrender  that  city.  Accord- 
ing to  Herodotus  (I.e.),  the  real  object  of  his  campaign  was 
Egypt,  which  is  also  apparent  from  ch.  xix.  24,  and  is  confirmed 
by  Isa.  X..24;  for  which  reason  TirhaJca  marched  against  him 
(ch.  xix.  8;  cf.  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assurs,  pp.  I7l,  172). — 
Vers.  14  sqq.  On  the  report  of  Sennacherib's  approach,  Heze- 
kiah made  provision  at  once  for  the  safety  of  Jerusalem.  He 
had  the  city  fortified  more  strongly,  and  the  fountain  of  the 

'  1  We  have  a  parallel  and  elaborate  account  of  this  campaign  of  Sen- 
nacherib and  his  defeat  (ch.  xviii.  13-xix.  37),  and  also  of  Hezekiah 's  sickness 
and  recovery  and  the  arrival  of  the  Babylonian  embassy  in  Jerusalem  (ch. 
sx.  1-19),  in  Isa.  xxivi.-xxxix.,  and  a  brief  extract,  with  certain  not  unim- 
portant supplements,  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  These  three  narratives,  as  is  now 
generally  admitted,  are  drawn  independently  of  one  another  from  a  collection 
of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  which  was  received  into  the  annals  of  the  king- 
dom (2  Chron.  xxxii.  32),  and  serve  to  confirm  and  complete  one  another. 

8S 


434  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS, 

upper  Gihon  and  the  brook  near  the  city  stopped  np  (see  at 
ver.  17),  to  cut  off  the  supply  of  water  from  the  besiegers,  as  is 
stated  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  2— 8,  and  confirmed  by  Isa.  xxii.  8-11. 
In  the  meantime  Sennacherib  had  pressed  forward  to  Lachish, 
i.e.  Um  Lakis,  in  the  plain  of  Judah,  on  the  south-west  of  Jeru- 
salem, seven  hours  to  the  west  of  Eleutheropolis  on  the  road  to 
Egypt  (see  at  Josh.  x.  3) ;  so  that  Hezekiah,  having  doubts  as 
to  the  possibility  of  a  successful  resistance,  sent  ambassadors  to 
negotiate  with  him,  and  promised  to  pay  him  as  much  tribute 
as  he  might  demand  if  he  would  withdraw.  The  confession 
"  I  have  sinned"  is  not  to  be  pressed,  inasmuch  as  it  was  forced 
from  Hezekiah  by  the  pressure  of  distress.  Since  Asshur  had 
made  Judah  tributary  by  faithless  conduct  on  the  part  of  Tiglath- 
pileser  towards  Ahaz,  there  was  nothing  really  wrong  in  the 
shaking  off  of  this  yoke  by  the  refusal  to  pay  any  further 
tribute.  But  Hezekiah  certainly  did  wrong,  when,  after  taking 
the  first  step,  he  was  alarmed  at  the  disastrous  consequences, 
and  sought  to  purchase  once  more  the  peace  which  he  himself 
had  broken,  by  a  fresh  submission  and  renewal  of  the  payment 
of  tribute.  This  false  step  on  the  part  of  the  pious  king,  which 
9,rose  from  a  temporary  weakness  of  faith,  was  nevertheless 
turned  into  a  blessing  through  the  pride  of  Sennacherib  and 
the  covenant-faithfulness  of  the  Lord  towards  him  and  his 
kingdom.  Sennacherib  demanded  the  enormous  sum  of  three 
hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty  talents  of  gold  (more  than 
two  and  a  half  million  thalers,  or  £375,000);  and  Hezekiah 
not  only  gave  him  all  the  gold  and  silver  found  in  the  treasures 
of  the  temple  and  palace,  but  had  the  gold  plates  with  which 
he  had  covered  the  doors  and  doorposts  of  the  temple  (2  Chron. 
xxix.  3)  removed,  to  send  them  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  niJONn, 
lit.  the  supports,  i.e.  the  posts,  of  the  doors. 

These  negotiations  with  Sennacherib  on  the  part  of  Hezekiah 
are  passed  over  both  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  and  also  in  the 
Chronicles,  because  they  had  no  further  influence  upon  the 
future  progress  of  the  war. — Vers.  17  sqq.  For  though  Sen- 
nacherib did  indeed  take  the  money,  he  did  not  depart,  as  he 
had  no  doubt  promised,  but,  emboldened  still  further  by  this 
submissiveness,  sent  a  detachment  of  his  army  against  Jeru- 
salem, and  summoned  Hezekiah  to  surrender  the  capital.  "  He 
sent  Tartan,  Eabsaris,  and  Rabshakeh."  Eabshakeh  only  is 
mentioned  in  Isaiah,  as  the  chief  speaker  in  the  negotiations 


CHAP.  XVIIL  13-37.  435 

which  follow,  although  in  Isa.  xxxvii.  6  and  24  allusion  is 
evidently  made  to  the  other  two.  Tartan  had  no  doubt  the 
chief  command,  since  he  is  not  only  mentioned  first  here,  but 
conducted  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  according  to  Isa.  xx.  1.  The 
three  names  are  probably  only  official  names,  or  titles  of  the 
offices  held  by  the  persons  mentioned.  For  Dnn-an  means 
princeps  mnuchorum,  and  'i?^?l  chief  cup-bearer.  IJ^i^.J?  is  ex- 
plained by  Hitzig  on  Isa.  xx.   1  as  derived  from  the  Persian 

^  Jq,  Tdr-tan,  "  high  person  or  vertex  of  the  body,"  and  in 

Jer.  xxxix  3  as  "  body-guard ; "  but  this  is  hardly  correct,  as 
the  other  two  titles  are  Semitic.  These  generals  took  up  their 
station  with  their  army  "at  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool, 
which  ran  by  the  road  of  the  fuller's  field,"  i.e.  the  conduit 
which  flowed  from  the  upper  pool — according  to  2  Chron.  xxxii 
30,  the  basin  of  the  upper  Qihon  {Birket  el  Mainilla) — into  the 
lower  pool  {Birket  es  Sultan  :  see  at  1  Kings  i  3  3).  According 
to  Isa.  vii.  3,  this  conduit  was  in  existence  as  early  as  the  time 
of  Ahaz.  The  "  end  "  of  it  is  probably  the  locality  in  which 
the  conduit  began  at  the  upper  pool  or  Gihon,  or  where  it  first 
issued  from  it.  This  conduit  which  led  from  the  upper  Gihon 
into  the  lower,  and  which  is  called  in  2  Chron.  xxxiL  30"  the 
outflow  of  the  upper  Gihon,"  Hezekiah  stopped  up,  and  con- 
ducted the  water  downwards,  i.e.  underground,  towards  the  west 
into  the  city  of  David ;  that  is  to  say,  he  conducted  the  water 
of  the  upper  Gihon,  which  had  previously  flowed  along  the 
western  side  of  the  city  outside  the  wall  into  the  lower  Gihon 
and  so  away  down  the  valley  of  Ben-hinnom,  into  the  city  itself 
by  means  of  a  subterranean  channel,^  that  he  might  retain  this 
water  for  the  use  of  the  city  in  the  event  of  a  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
and  keep  it  from  the  besiegers.  This  water  was  probably  col- 
lected in  the  cistern  (nanan)  which  Hezekiah  made,  i.e.  ordered 
to  be  constructed  (ch.  xx.  2  0),  or  the  reservoir  "  between  the  two 
walls  for  the  waters  of  the  old  pool,"  mentioned  in  Isa.  xxiL  11, 
i.e.  most  probably  the  reservoir  still  existing  at  some  distance 
to  the  east  of  the  Joppa  gate  on  the  western  side  of  the  road 
which  leads  to  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  the  so-caUed 
"  pool  of  Hezekiah,"  which  the  natives  call  Birket  el  Hamman, 

*  "We  may  get  some  idea  of  the  works  connected  with  this  aqueduct  from 
the  description  of  the  "  sealed  fountain  "  of  the  Solomon's  pool  at  Ain  Saleh 
ux  Tobler,  Topogr.  v.  Jems.  ii.  pp.  857  sqq.,  Dritte  Wanderung. 


436  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

"  Bathing-pool,"  because  it  supplies  a  bath  in  the  neighbourhood, 
or  B.  el  Batrah,  "  Patriarch's  pool  "  (see  Eobinson,  Pal.  i.  p,  48  7^ 
and  Fresh  Besearches  into  the  Topography  of  Jerusalem,  pp.  Ill 
sqq.),  since  this  is  still  fed  by  a  conduit  from  the  Mamilla  pool 
(see  E.  G-.  Schultz,  Jerusalem,  p.  31,  and  Tobler,  Denkllatter, 
pp.  44  sqq.).i — Ver.  18.  Hezekiah  considered  it  beneath  his 
dignity  to  negotiate  personally  with  the  generals  of  Sennacherib, 
He  sent  three  of  his  leading  ministers  out  to  the  front  of  the 
city :  Elidkim  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  the  captain  of  the  castle, 
who  had  only  received  the  appointment  to  this  office  a  short 
time  before  in  Shehia's  place  (Isa.  xxii.  20,  21) ;  Shebna,  who  was 
still  secretary  of  state  (iBD :  see  at  2  Sam,  viii.  1 7) ;  and  Joach 
the  son  of  Asaph,  the  chancellor  ("i^STO:  see  at  2  Sam.  viii.  16), 
Bahshakeh  made  a  speech  to  these  three  (vers.  19-25),  in 
which  he  tried  to  show  that  Hezekiah's  confidence  that  he  would 
be  able  to  resist  the  might  of  the  king  of  Assyria  was  perfectly 
vain,  since  neither  Egypt  (ver,  21),  nor  his  God  (ver.  22),  nor 
his  forces  (ver,  23),  would  be  able  to  defend  him. — ^Ver.  19, 
"  The  great  king :"  the  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  and  Persian  kings 
all  assumed  this  title  (cf,  Ezek,  xxvi.  7 ;  Dan.  ii.  3  7),  because 

^  The  identity  of  the  n3"13,  which  Hezekiah  constructed  as  a  reservoir  for 
the  overflow  of  the  upper  Gihon  that  was  conducted  into  the  city  (ch.  xx. 
20),  with  the  present  "  pool  of  Hezekiah  "  is  indeed  very  probable,  but  not 
quite  certain.  For  in  very  recent  times,  on  digging  the  foundation  for  the 
Evangelical  church  built  on  the  northern  slope  of  Zion,  they  lighted  upon  a 
large  well-preserved  arched  channel,  which  was  partly  cut  in  the  rock,  and, 
where  this  was  not  the  case,  built  in  level  layers  and  coated  within  with  a 
hard  cement  about  an  inch  thick  and  covered  with  large  stones  (Robinson, 
New  Inquiries  as  to  the  Topography  of  Jerusalem^  p.  113,  and  Bill.  Res. 
p.  318),  and  which  might  possibly  be  connected  with  the  channel  made  by 
Hezekiah  to  conduct  the  water  of  the  upper  Gihon  into  the  city,  although 
this  channel  does  not  open  into  the  pool  of  Hezekiah,  and  the  walls,  some 
remains  of  which  are  still  preserved,  may  belong  to  a  later  age.  The  argu- 
ments adduced  by  Thenius  in  support  of  the  assumption  that  the  "  lower  "  or 
"  old  pool "  mentioned  in  Isa.  xxii,  9  and  11  is  different  from  the  lower 
Gihon-pool,  and  to  be  sought  for  in  the  Tyropoeon,  are  inconclusive. 
It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  expression,  "  which  lies  by  the  road 
of  the  fuller's  field,"  i.e.  by  the  road  which  runs  past  the  fuller's  field, 
that  there  was  another  upper  pool  in  Jerusalem  beside  the  upper  pool 
(Gihon) ;  but  this  additional  clause  simply  serves  to  define  more  precisely 
the  spot  by  the  conduit  mentioned  where  the  Assyrian  army  took  its  stand  ; 
and  it  by  no  means  follows  from  the  words  of  Isa.  xxii.  11,  "  a  gathering  of 
waters  have  ye  made  between  the  two  walls  for  the  waters  of  the  old  pool," 
that  this  gathering  of  waters  was  made  in  the  Tyropoeon,  and  that  this  "old 


CHAP.  XVIII.  13-37.  437 

Idngs  of  conquered  lands  were  subject  to  them  as  vassals  (see 
at  Isa.  X.  8).  "  What  is  this  confidence  that  thou  cherishest  ? " 
i.e.  how  vain  or  worthless  is  this  confidence  I — ^Yer.  20.  "  Thou 
sayest  ...  it  is  only  a  lip-word  .  .  .  :  counsel  and  might  for 
battle;"  i.e.  if  thou  speakest  of  counsel  and  might  for  battle,  that 
is  only  D^nSE'  I5"i,  a  word  that  merely  comes  from  the  lips,  not 
from  the  heart,  the  seat  of  the  understanding,  i.e.  a  foolish  and 
inconsiderate  saying  (cf.  Prov.  xiv.  23  ;  Job  xi.  2). — 1?"J0S  is  to 
be  preferred  to  the  '^l?^  of  Isaiah  as  the  more  original  of  the 
two.  nriy^  now,  sc.  we  will  see  on  whom  thou  didst  rely,  when 
thou  didst  rebel  against  me. — Ver.  21.  On  Egypt  ?  "  that  broken 
reed,  which  runs  into  the  hand  of  any  one  who  would  lean  upon 
it  (thinking  it  whole),  and  pierces  it  through."  This  figure,  which 
is  repeated  in  Ezek.  xxix.  6,  7,  is  so  far  suitably  chosen,  that  the 
Nile,  representing  Egypt,  is  rich  in  reeds.  What  Eabshakeh 
says  of  Eg}'pt  here,  Isaiah  had  abeady  earnestly  impressed  upon 
his  people  (Isa.  xxx.  3—5),  to  warn  them  against  trusting  in  the 
support  of  Egypt,  from  which  one  party  in  the  nation  expected 
help  against  Assyria. — Ver.  22.  Hezekiah  (and  Judah)  had  a 
stronger  ground  of  confidence  in  Jehovah  his  God.     Even  this 

pool,"  as  distinguished  from  the  lower  pool  (ver.  9),  was  an  upper  pool,  which 
was  above  the  king's  pool  mentioned  in  Neh.  iii.  15.  For  even  if  DTlDnn  p3 
occurs  in  ch.  xxv.  4,  Jer.  xxxis.  4,  Iii.  7,  in  connection  with  a  locality  on 
the  south-east  side  of  the  city,  the  Old  Testament  says  nothing  about  two 
pools  in  the  Tyropceon  at  the  south-east  corner  of  Jerusalem,  but  simply 
mentions  a  fountain  gate,  which  probably  derived  its  name  from  the  present 
fountain  of  the  Virgin,  and  the  king's  pool,  also  called  Shelach  in  Neh.  ii.  14, 
iii.  15,  which  was  no  doubt  fed  from  that  fountain  like  the  present  Siloam, 
and  watered  the  royal  gardens.  (Compare  Bob.  Pal.  i.  pp.  565  sqq.,  and 
Bibl.  Res.  p.  189,  and  Tobler,  Die  Siloah- quelle  u.  der  Oelberg,  pp.  1  sqq.). 
The  two  walls,  between  which  Hezekiah  placed  the  reservoir,  may  very  well 
be  the  northern  wall  of  Zion  and  the  one  which  surrounded  the  lower  city 
(Acra)  on  the  north-west,  according  to  which  the  words  in  Isa.  xxii.  11 
would  admirably  suit  the  "pool  of  Hezekiah."  Again,  Hezekiah  did  not 
wait  till  the  departure  of  Sennacherib  before  he  built  this  conduit,  which  is 
also  mentioned  in  Wisd.  xlviii.  17,  as  Knobel  supposes  (on  Isa.  xxii.  11),  but 
he  made  it  when  he  first  invaded  Judah,  before  the  appearance  of  the  Assyrian 
troops  in  front  of  Jerusalem,  when  he  made  the  defensive  preparations  noticed 
at  rer.  14,  as  is  evident  from  2  Chron.  xxxii.  3,  4,  compared  with  ver.  30, 
since  the  stopping  up  of  the  fountain  outside  the  city,  to  withdraw  the  water 
from  the  Assyrians,  is  expressly  mentioned  in  vers.  3,  4  among  the  measures 
of  defence  ;  and  in  the  concluding  notices  concerning  Hezekiah  in  ch.  xx.  20, 
and  2  Chron.  xxxii.  30,  there  is  also  a  brief  allusion  to  this  work,  without 
any  precise  indication  of  the  time  when  he  had  executed  it. 


t^B  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Eabshakeh  tried  to  shake,  availing  himseir  very  skilfully,  from 
his  heathen  point  of  view,  of  the  reform  which  Hezekiah  had 
made  in  the  worship,  and  representing  the  abolition  of  the  altars 
on  the  high  places  as  an  infringement  upon  the  reverence  that 
ought  to  be  shown  to  God.  "  And  if  ye  say.  We  trust  in  Jehovah 
our  God,  (I  say :)  is  it  not  He  whose  high  places  and  altars 
Hezekiah  has  taken  away,  and  has  said  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem, 
Ye  shall  worship  before  this  altar  (in  the  temple)  in  Jerusalem  ? " 
Instead  of  TiDiin  ""S,  according  to  which  Eabshakeh  turned  to  the 
deputies,  we  have  in  Isa.  vii.  7  ■>0^<^l  "3,  according  to  which  the 
words  are  addressed  to  Hezekiah,  as  in  ver.  20.  l"i»Nn  is  pre- 
ferred by  Thenius,  Knobel,  and  others,  because  in  what  follows 
Hezekiah  is  addressed  in  the  third  person.  But  the  very  cir- 
cumstance that  iiONn  is  apparently  more  suitable  favours  the 
originality  of  lONn,  according  to  which  the  king  is  still  addressed 
in  the  person  of  his  ambassadors,  and  Eabshakeh  only  speaks 
directly  to  the  ambassadors  when  this  argument  is  answered. 
The  attack  upon  the  confidence  which  the  Judseans  placed  in 
their  God  conmiences  with  Kin  Nipn.  The  opinion  of  Thenius, 
that  the  second  clause  of  the  verse  is  a  continuation  of  the  words 
supposed  to  be  spoken  by  the  Judseans  who  trusted  in  God,  and 
that  the  apodosis  does  not  follow  till  ver.  23,  is  quite  a  mistake. 
The  ambassadors  of  Hezekiah  could  not  regard  the  high  places 
and  idolatrous  altars  that  had  been  abolished  as  altars  of  Jeho- 
vah ;  and  the  apodosis  could  not  commence  with  nnyi. — Vers. 
23,  24.  Still  less  could  Hezekiah  rely  upon  his  military  re- 
sources. W  ^l^^*^  •  enter,  I  pray  thee,  (into  contest)  with  my 
lord,  and  I  will  give  thee  2000  horses,  if  thou  canst  set  the 
horsemen  upon  them.  The  meaning,  of  course,  is  not  that 
Hezekiah  could  not  raise  2000  soldiers  in  all,  but  that  he  could 
not  produce  so  many  men  who  were  able  to  fight  as  horsemen. 
"  How  then  wilt  thou  turn  back  a  single  one  of  the  smallest  lieu- 
tenants of  my  lord  V  vS  \3S~nK  y^\},  to  repulse  a  person's  face, 
means  generally  to  turn  away  a  person  with  his  petition  (1  Kings 
ii.  1 6,  1 7),  here  to  repulse  an  assailant,  "ins  nns  is  one  pasha ; 
although  T^iK,  which  is  grammatically  subordinate  to  nns,  is  in 
the  construct  state,  that  the  genitives  which  follow  may  be  con- 
nected (for  this  subordination  of  ^^Nl  see  Ewald,  §  286,  a),  nna 
(see  at  1  Kings  x.  15),  lit.  under-vicegerent,  i.e.  administrator  of 
a  province  under  a  satrap,  in  military  states  also  a  subordinate 
officer.      noarii :  and  so  (with  thy  military  force  so  small)  thou 


.'        CHAP.  XVIIL  26-37.  -  439 

trustest  in  Egypt  'U^  sanb,  so  far  as  war-chariots  and  horsemen 
are  concerned. — Ver.  25.  After  Eabshakeh  had  thus,  as  he 
imagined,  taken  away  every  ground  of  confidence  from  Hezekiah, 
he  added  still  further,  that  the  Assyrian  king  himself  had  also 
not  come  without  Jehovah,  but  had  been  summoned  by  Him  to 
effect  the  destruction  of  Judah.  It  is  possible  that  some  report 
may  have  reached  his  ears  of  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  who 
had  represented  the  Assyrian  invasion  as  a  judgment  from  the 
Lord,  and  these  he  used  for  his  own  purposes.  Instead  of  ^'^ 
n^j}  Dipsn^  against  this  place,  i.e.  Jerusalem,  we  have  riNiC  Yl^'}  ''? 
in  Isaiah, — a  reading  which  owes  its  origin  simply  to  the  endea- 
vour to  bring  the  two  clauses  into  exact  conformity  to  one  another. 
Vers.  26-37.  It  was  very  conceivable  that  Kabshakeh'a 
boasting  might  make  an  impression  upon  the  people;  the  am- 
bassadors of  Hezekiah  therefore  interrupted  him  with  the 
request  that  he  would  speak  to  them  in  Aramsean,  as  they 
understood  that  language,  and  not  in  Jewish,  on  account  of  the 
people  who  were  standing  upon  the  walL  ri'DnK  was  the  lan- 
guage spoken  in  Syria,  Babylonia,  and  probably  also  in  the  pro- 
vince of  Assyria,  and  may  possibly  have  been  Eabshakeh's 
mother-tongue,  even  if  the  court  language  of  the  Assyrian  kings 
was  an  Aryan  dialect.  With  the  close  afl&nity  between  the 
Aramsean  and  the  Hebrew,  the  latter  could  not  be  unknown  to 
Eabshakeh,  so  that  he  made  use  of  it,  just  as  the  Aramaean 
lan^iaore  was  inteUifjible  to  the  ministers  of  Hezekiah,  whereas 
the  people  in  Jerusalem  understood  only  n^Tin^^  Jewish,  i.e.  the 
Hebrew  language  spoken  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  It  is  evi- 
dent from  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  that  the  negotiations  were 
carried  on  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  city  wall  of  Jerusalem.' 
— ^Ver.  27.  But  Eabshakeh  rejected  this  proposal  with  the 
scornful  remark,  that  his  commission  was  not  to  speak  to 
Hezekiah  and  his  ambassadors  only,  but  rather  to  the  people 
upon  the  walL  The  variation  of  the  preposition  bv  and  PK  in 
Tp^,  ^V,  to  thy  lord  (Hezekiah),  and  1'^«,  to  thee  (Eliakim  as 
chief  speaker),  is  avoided  in  the  text  of  Isaiah.  ^V  is  frequently 
used  for  b^,  in  the  later  usage  of  the  language,  in  the  sense  of 
to  or  at.  In  the  words  "who  sit  upon  the  wall  to  eat  their 
dung  and  drink  their  urine,"  Eabshakeh  points  to  the  horrors 
which  a  siege  of  Jerusalem  would  entail  upon  the  inhabitants. 
For  annn  =  Dn'N")n,  eaxrementa  sua,  and  D'^T?',  urinas  suas,  the 
Masoretes  have  substituted  the  -euphemisms  0^^^*,  going  fortl^' 


44d(  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

and  Dn\^a'i  *»'0,  water  of  their  feet. — Vers.  28  sqq.  nio^:  not,  he 
stood  up,  raised  himself  (Ges.),  or  eame  forward  (Then.),  but  he 
stationed  himself,  assumed  an  attitude  calculated  for  effect,  and 
spoke  to  the  people  with  a  loud  voice  in  the  Jewish  language, 
telling  them  to  listen  to  the  king  of  Assyria  and  not  to  be  led 
astray  by  Hezekiah,  i.e.  to  be  persuaded  to  defend  the  city  any 
longer,  since  neither  Hezekiah  nor  Jehovah  could  defend  them 
from  the  might  of  Sennacherib.  N^E'^"/'X  :  let  not  Hezekiali 
deceive  you,  sc.  by  pretending  to  be  able  to  defend  or  save  Jeru- 
salem. In  iT^p,  "  out  of  his  (the  Assyrian's)  hand,"  the  speaker 
ceases  to  speak  in  the  name  of  his  king.  On  the  construction 
of  the  passive  inari  with  I'VC""?,  see  Ewald,  ^  277,d,  although 
in  the  instance  before  us  he  proposes  to  expunge  the  nx  after 
Isa.  xxxvi.  15. — Vers.  31  sqq.  "  Make  peace  with  me  and  come 
out  to  me  (sc.  out  of  your  walls,  i.e.  surrender  to  me),  and  ye 
shall  eat  every  one  his  vine,  .  ,  .  till  I  come  and  bring  you  into 
a  land  like  your  own  land  .  .  ."  <l3n3  is  used  here  to  signify 
peace  as  the  concentration  of  weal  and  blessing.  The  impera- 
tive ^^^^\  expresses  the  consequence  of  what  goes  before  (vid, 
Ewald,  §  347,  h).  To  eat  his  vine  and  fig-tree  and  to  drink 
the  water  of  his  well  is  a  figure  denoting  the  quiet  and  undis- 
turbed enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  his  own  possessions  (cf.  1 
Kings  V.  5).  Even  in  the  event  of  their  yielding,  the  Assyrian 
would  transport  the  Jewish  people  into  another  land,  according 
to  the  standing  custom  of  Asiatic  conquerors  in  ancient  times 
(for  proofs  see  Hengstenberg,  De  rebus  Tyriis,  pp.  51,  52).  To 
make  the  people  contented  with  this  thought,  the  boaster  pro- 
mised that  the  king  of  Assyria  would  carry  them  into  a  land 
which  was  quite  as  fruitful  and  glorious  as  the  land  of  Canaan. 
The  description  of  it  as  a  land  with  corn  and  new  wine,  etc., 
recalls  the  picture  of  the  land  of  Canaan  in  Deut.  viiL  8  and 
xxxiii.  28.  ii^V!  ^7.  is  the  olive-tree  which  yields  good  oil,  in 
distinction  from  the  wild  olive-tree.  '1J1  ^'•ni :  and  ye  shall  live 
and  not  die,  i.e.  no  harm  shall  befaU  you  from  me  (Thenius).' 
This  passage  is  abridged  in  Isa.  xxxvi.  17. — Vers.  33  sqq. 
Even  Jehovah  could  not  deliver  them  any  more  than  Hezekiah, 
As  a  proof  of  this,  Eabshakeh  enumerated  a  number  of  cities  and 
lands  which  the  king  of  Assyria  had  conquered,  without  their 
gods'  being  able  to  offer  any  resistance  to  his  power.  "  Where 
are  the  gods  of  Hamath,  etc.,  that  they  might  have  delivered 
Samaria  out  of  my  hand  ? "     Instead  of  "h'^^}  *3  we  have  'ifn  *3i, 


CHAP.  XVIII.  26-37.  441 

and  that  they  might  have,  which  loosens  the  connection  some- 
what more  between  this  clause  and  the  preceding  one,  and  makes 
it  more  independent.  "  Where  are  they  ? "  is  equivalent  to 
they  are  gone,  have  perished  (cf.  ch.  xix.  1 8) ;  and  "  that  they 
might  have  delivered  "  is  equivalent  to  they  have  not  delivered. 
The  subject  to  ^^'sn  '3  is  D'Hn  ^n^x,  which  includes  the  God  of 
Samaria.  Sennacherib  regards  himself  as  being  as  it  were  one 
with  his  predecessors,  as  the  representative  of  the  might  of 
Assyria,  so  that  he  attributes  to  himself  the  conquests  of  cities 
and  lands  which  his  ancestors  had  made.  The  cities  and  lands 
enumerated  in  ver.  34  have  been  mentioned  already  in  ch,  xviL 
24  as  conquered  territories,  from  which  colonists  had  been 
transplanted  to  Samaria,  with  the  exception  of  Arpad  and  Mena. 
naix,  which  is  also  mentioned  in  ch.  xix.  13,  Isa.  x,  9,  xxxvi 
19,  xxxvii.  13,  and  Jer.  xlix.  23,  in  connection  with  Haviuth, 
was  certainly  situated  in  the  neighbourhood  of  that  city,  and 
still  exists,  so  far  as  the  name  is  concerned,  in  the  large  village 

of  j\i.U  Arfdd  (mentioned  by  Maraszid,  L   47),  in  northern 

Syria  in  the  district  of  Azdz,  which  was  seven  hours  to  the 
north  of  Haleb,  according  to  Abulf.  Tab.  Syr.  ed.  Kohler,  p.  23, 
and  Mebuhr,  Reise,  ii.  p.  414  (see  Eoediger,  Addenda  ad  Ges. 
thes.  p.  112).     yjn,  Hena,  which  is  also  combined  with  'Iwah  in 

cL  xix.  13  and  Isa.  xxxviL  13,  is  probably  the  city  of  ^tc.  Ana, 

on  the  Euphrates,  mentioned  by  Abulf.,  and  njy  is  most  likely 
the  same  as  i^\V  in  ch.  x\'ii.  24.  The  names  njjn  ]}^n  are  omitted 
from  the  text  of  Isaiah  in  consequence  of  the  abridgment  of 
Eabshakeh's  address. — ^Ver.  35  contains  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  the  facts  already  adduced :  "  which  of  all  the  gods  of  the 
lands  are  they  who  have  delivered  their  land  out  of  my  hand, 
that  Jehovah  should  deliver  Jerusalem  out  of  my  hand  ? "  i.e. 
as  not  one  of  the  gods  of  the  lands  named  have  been  able  to 
rescue  his  land  from  Assyria,  Jehovah  also  will  not  be  able  to 
defend  Jerusalem. — ^Vers.  36,  37.  The  people  were  quite  silent 
at  this  address  ("the  people,"  Dyn>  ^^  whom  Eabshakeh  had 
wished  to  address  himself) ;  for  Hezeldah  had  forbidden  them 
to  make  any  answer,  not  only  to  prevent  Eabshakeh  from  say- 
ing anything  further,  but  that  the  ambassadors  of  Sennacherib 
might  be  left  in  complete  uncertainty  as  to  the  impression  made 
by  their  words.      The  deputies  of  Hezekiah  returned  to  the 


442  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

king  witli  their  clotlies  rent  as  a  sign  of  grief  at  the  words  of 
the  Assyrian,  by  which  not  only  Hezekiah,  but  still  more 
Jehovah,  had  been  blasphemed,  and  reported  what  they  had 
heard. 


CHAP.  XIX.    JERUSALEM   DELIVERED.       DESTRUCTION    OF   THE   ASSY- 
RIAN  ARMY   AND   DEATH   OF   SENNACHERIB.       (Compare   Isa. 

xxxvii.) 

Vers.  1-4.  When  Hezekiah  had  heard  from  his  counsellors 
the  report  of  Eabshakeh's  words,  he  rent  his  clothes  with  horror 
at  his  daring  mockery  of  the  living  God  (ver.  4),  put  on  mourn- 
ing clothes  as  a  sign  of  the  trouble  of  his  soul  and  went  into 
the  temple,  and  at  the  same  time  sent  Eliakim  and  Shebna  with 
the  oldest  of  the  priests  in  mourning  costume  to  the  prophet 
Isaiah,  to  entreat  him  to  intercede  with  the  Lord  in  these 
desperate  circumstances.^  The  order  of  the  words  :  Isaiah  the 
prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz,  is  unusual  (cf.  ch.  xiv.  25,  xx.  1 ; 
1  Kings  xvi  7,  etc.),  and  is  therefore  altered  in  Isaiah  into 
Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  the  prophet. — Ver.  3.  "A  day  of  dis- 
tress, and  of  chastisement,  and  of  rejection  is  this  day."  nnDi.l : 
the  divine  chastisement.  nyx3 :  contemptuous  treatment,  or  re- 
jection of  the  people  on  the  part  of  God  (compare  T??^,  Deut. 
xxxii.  19,  Jer.  xiv.  21,  Lam.  ii.  6).  "  For  children  have 
come  to  the  birth,  and  there  is  not  strength  to  bring  fortk" 
A  figure  denoting  extreme  danger,  the  most  desperate  circum- 
stances. If  the  woman  in  travail  has  not  strength  to  bring 
forth  the  child  which  has  come  to  the  mouth  of  the  womb, 
both  the  life  of  the  child  and  that  of  the  mother  are  exposed 
to  the  greatest  danger  ;  and  this  was  the  condition  of  the  people 
here  (see  the  similar  figure  in  Hos.  xiii.  13).  For  'Tip  instead 
of  rii7,  see  Ges.  §  69,  2  Anm. — Ver.  4.  Perhaps  Jehovah  thy 
God  will  hear  the  blasphemies  of  the  living  God  on  the  part  of 
Eabshakeh.  V^f] :  hear,  equivalent  to  observe,  take  notice  of, 
and  in  this  case  punish,  ^n  D^"^7K  :  the  living  God,  in  contrast  to 
the  gods  of  the  heathen,  who  are  only  lifeless  idols  (cf.  1  Sam. 
xvii.  26,  36).  """aini  is  not  to  be  taken  in  connection  with 
«17n^,  as  if  it  stood  for  n"'Din^,  "  and  to  scold  with  words"  (Luth., 

^  "  But  the  most  wise  king  did  not  meet  his  blasphemies  with  weapons, 
but  with  prayer,  and  tears,  and  sackcloth,  and  entreated  the  prophet  Isaiah 
to  be  his  ambassador." — Theodoret.  ,        - 


CHAP.  XIX.  5-13.  443  . 

Ges.,  etc.),  but  is  a  iptrf.  rel.  or  a  progressive  perfect  (Ewald, 
§234,  a),  and  the  continuation  of  V^f^r-  "and  will  chastise 
(punish,  sc.  him)  for  the  words  which  He  has  heard."  'an  nsw':"i : 
"  therefore  lift  up  prayer  (to  heaven)  for  the  (still)  existing 
remnant,  sc.  of  the  people  of  God;"  nearly  aU  Judah  ha\dng 
come  into  the  power  of  Sennacherib  since  the  carrying  away  of 
the  ten  tribes. 

Vers.  5-7.  Isaiah  replied  with  this  comforting  promise : 
Hezekiah  was  not  to  be  afraid  of  the  blasphemous  words  of  the 
Assyrian  king ;  the  Lord  would  frighten  him  with  a  report,  so 
that  he  would  return  to  his  own  land,  and  there  would  He 
cause  him  to  fall  by  the  sword.  'K  ^^  "^V),  the  servants  or 
young  men  of  the  Assyrian  king,  is  a  derogatory  epithet  applied 
to  the  officials  of  Assyria.  "  Behold,  I  put  a  spirit  into  him, 
so  that  he  shall  hear  a  report  and  return  into  his  own  land." 
njnoB'  does  not  refer  to  the  report  of  the  destruction  of  his 
army  (ver.  35),  as  Thenius  supposes,  for  Sennacherib  did  not 
hear  of  this  through  the  medium  of  an  army,  but  was  with  the 
«rmy  himseK  at  the  time  when  it  was  smitten  by  the  angel  of 
the  Lord ;  it  refers  to  the  report  mentioned  in  ver.  9.  For 
«ven  if  he  made  one  last  attempt  to  secure  the  surrender  of 
Jerusalem  immediately  upon  hearing  this  report,  yet  after  the 
failure  of  this  attempt  to  shake  the  firmness  of  Hezekiah  his 
•courage  must  have  failed  him,  and  the  thought  of  return  must 
have  suggested  itself,  so  that  this  was  only  accelerated  by  the 
blow  which  fell  upon  the  army.  For,  as  O.  v.  Gerlach  has  cor- 
xectly  observed,  "  the  destruction  of  the  army  would  hardly 
have  produced  any  decisive  effect  without  the  approach  of 
Tirhakah,  since  the  great  power  of  the  Assyrian  king,  especially 
in  relation  to  the  small  kingdom  of  Judah,  was  not  broken 
thereby.  But  at  the  prayer  of  the  king  the  Lord  added  this 
miracle  to  the  other,  which  His  providence  had  already  brought 
to  pass. — For  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  Sennacherib's 
death,  see  ver.  37. 

Vers.  8-13.  In  the  meantime  Eabshakeh  had  returned  to  his 
king  at  Libnah  (see  at  ch.  viii  22),  to  which  he  had  gone  from 
Lachish,  probably  after  having  taken  that  fortress. — Ver.  9. 
There  Sennacherib  heard  that  Tirhakah  was  advancing  to  make 
war  against  him.  Tirhakah,  QapaKo.  (LXX),  king  of  Cush,  is 
the  TapaK6<;  of  Manetho,  the  successor  of  Sevechus  (Shebek  il.), 
the  third  king  of  the  twenty-fifth  (Ethiopian)  dynasty,,  described 


:444  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

by  Strabo  (xv.  687),  who  calls  him  TedpKwv,  as  a  great  con- 
queror. His  name  is  spelt  Tahalqa  or  Tdharqo  upon  the  monu- 
ments, and  on  the  Pylon  of  the  great  temple  at  Medinet-Abu 
he  is  represented  in  the  form  of  a  king,  cutting  down  enemies 
of  conquered  lands  (Egypt,  Syria,  and  Tepopa,  an  imknown 
land)  before  the  god  Ammon  (see  Brugsch,  hist.  d'Egypte,  i.  pp. 
244,  245)/ — On  hearing  the  report  of  the  advance  of  Tirhakah, 
Sennacherib  sent  ambassadors  again  to  Hezekiah  with  a  letter 
(ver.  14),  in  which  he  summoned  him  once  more  to  give  up  his 
confidence  in  his  God,  and  his  assurance  that  Jerusalem  would 
not  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  since 
the  gods  of  no  other  nation  had  been  able  to  save  their  lands 
and  cities  from  the  kings  of  Assyria  who  had  preceded  him. 
The  letter  contained  nothing  more,  therefore,  than  a  repetition  of 
the  arguments  already  adduced  by  Eabshakeh  (ch.  xviii.  1 9  sqq.), 
though  a  larger  number  of  the  lands  conquered  by  the  Assyrians 
are  given,  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the  impression  in- 
tended to  be  made  upon  Hezekiah  of  the  irresistible  character 
of  the  Assyrian  arms. — To  offer  a  successful  resistance  to  Tir- 
hakah and  overcome  him,  Sennacherib  wanted  above  all  things 
a  firm  footing  in  Judah ;  and  for  this  the  possession  of  Jeru- 
salem was  of  the  greatest  importance,  since  it  would  both  cover 
his  back  and  secure  his  retreat.  Fortifications  like  Lachish 
and  Libnah  could  be  quickly  taken  by  a  violent  assault.     But 

^  According  to  Jul.  Afric.  (in  Syncell.  i.  p.  139,  ed.  Dind.)  he  reigned 
eighteen  years,  according  to  Euseb.  (in  Syncell.  p.  140)  twenty  years.  Both 
statements  are  incorrect ;  for,  according  to  an  Apis-stele  published  by 
Mariette,  the  birth  of  an  Apis  who  died  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Psammeti- 
chus  fell  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Tirhakah,  bo  that  the  reign  of  Tirhakah 
may  be  supposed  to  have  lasted  twenty-eight  years  (see  Brugsch,  I.e.  p.  247). 
But  the  chronological  conclusions  respecting  the  date  of  his  reign  are  very 
uncertain.  Whereas  M.  v.  Niebuhr  {Gesch.  Ass.  p.  72)  fixes  his  expedition 
against  Sennacherib  in  the  thirty-seventh  asr.  Nab.,  i.e.  710  B.C.,  and  the 
commencement  of  his  reign  over  Egypt  in  45  ler.  Nab.,  i.e.  702  B.C., 
and  assumes  that  he  marched  against  Sennacherib  before  he  was  king  of 
Egypt,  which  is  apparently  favoured  by  the  epithet  king  of  Cush,  not  of 
Egypt ;  Brugsch  {I.e.  p.  292)  has  given  the  year  693  B.C.  as  the  commence- 
ment of  his  reign.  It  is  obvious  that  this  statement  is  irreconcilable 
■with  the  0.  T.  chronology,  since  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah,  in  which 
Sennacherib  invaded  Judah,  corresponds  to  the  year  714  or  713  B.C.  These 
diversities  simply  confirm  our  remark  (p.  411),  that  the  chronological  data 
as  to  the  kings  of  Egypt  before  Psammetichus  cannot  lay  any  claim  to  his- 
torical certainty.  For  an  attempt  to  solve  this  discrepancy  see  M.  v.  Niebuhr, 
pp.  458  sc[C[. 


CHAP.  xrx.  8-ia.  445 

it  was  very  different  with  Jerusalem.  Salmanasar  had  stood 
before  Samaria  for  three  years  before  he  was  able  to  conquer  it ; 
and  Xebuchadnezzar  besieged  Jerusalem  for  two  years  before 
the  city  was  star\'ed  out  and  it  was  possible  to  take  it  (ch.  xxv. 
1  sqq.).  But  as  Tirhakah  was  approaching,  Sennacherib  had 
no  time  now  for  so  tedious  a  siege.  He  therefore  endeavoured 
to  induce  Hezekiah  to  surrender  the  city  quietly  by  a  boastful 
description  of  his  own  power.  Instead  of  ri?f?l  3^  (ver.  9), 
we  have  in  Isaiah  npr^  V^^,  "  when  he  heard  this  he  sent," 
which  is  probably  the  more  original,  and  indicates  that  when 
Sennacherib  received  the  intelligence  he  sent  at  once  (Drechsler). 
— Ver.  10.  W'^,  ^x :  "  let  not  thy  God  deceive  thee,"  i.e.  do  not 
allow  yourself  to  be  deceived  by  your  confidence  in  your  God. 
ibsp,  to  say,  i.e.  to  think  or  believe,  that  Jerusalem  will  not  be 
given,  etc.  To  shatter  this  confidence,  Sennacherib  reminds 
him  of  the  deeds  of  the  Assyrian  kings.  QO^Hr  f'  ^^  ^^^  them, 
i.e.  by  smiting  them  with  the  ban.  The  verb  0,'nnn  is  chosen 
with  emphasis,  to  express  the  unsparing  destruction.  7V3n  nnsi; 
and  thou  shouldst  be  saved  ? — a  question  implying  a  strong 
negative. — Ver.  12.  "  Have  the  gods  of  the  nations  delivered 
them?"  Qpi<  is  not  a  pronoun  used  in  anticipation  of  the 
object,  which  follows  in  'Ul  ipa  (Thenius),  but  refers  to  n'.!rixn~^3 
in  ver.  11,  a  specification  of  which  is  given  in  the  following 
enumeration.  Gozan  may  be  the  pro%ance  of  Ganzanitis  in 
Mesopotamia,  but  it  may  just  as  well  be  the  country  of  Gauzania 
on  the  other  side  of  the  Tigris  (see  at  ch.  xvii.  6).  The  com- 
bination with  Haran  does  not  force  us  to  the  first  assumption, 
since  the  list  is  not  a  geographical  but  a  historical  one. — Haran 
{Charan),  i.e.  the  CarrcB  of  the  Greeks  and  Eomans,  where 
Abraham's  father  Terah  died,  a  place  in  northern  Mesopotamia 
(see  at  Gen.  xL  31),  is  probably  not  merely  the  city  here, 
but  the  country  in  which  the   city  stood. — Rezejph  (^T)),  the 

Arabic  ^\^i,  a  very  widespread  name,  since  Jakut  gives  nine 

cities  of  this  name  in  his  Geographical  Lexicon,  is  probably  the 
most  celebrated  of  the  cities  of  that  name,  the  Rusapha  of  Syria, 
called  'Pr]ad<^a  inPtoL  v.  1 5,  in  Palmyrene,  on  the  road  from  Eacca 
to  Emesa,  a  day's  journey  from  the  Euphrates  (c£  Ges.  Thes.  p. 
1308). — "The  sons  of  ^(fen,  which  (were)  in  Telassar"  were  evi- 
dently a  tribe  whose  chief  settlement  was  in  Telassar,  By  PV 
we  might  understand  the  n^Tn"?  of  Amos  i  5,  a  city  in  a  pleasant 


446  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

region  of  Syria,  called  IIapdZeico<i  by  Ptol.  (v.  15),  since  there  is 
still  a  village  called  Ehden  in  that  locality  (cf.  Burckhardt,  Syr. 
p.  66,  and  v.  Schubert,  Reise,  iii.  p.  366),  if  we  could  only  dis- 
cover Telassar  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  if  the  village  of  Ehden 
could  be  identified  with  TlapaheLao^  and  the  Eden  of  the  Bible, 
as  is  done  even  by  Gesenius  on  Burckhardt,  p.  492,  and  Thes. 

p.  195;  but  this  Ehden  is  spelt  ^.  jjbl  in  Arabic,  and  is  not  to 

be  associated  with  T}V  (see  Eob.  Bill.  Res.  pp.  586,  587).  More- 
over the  Thelsece  near  Damascus  (in  the  Itin.  Ant.  p.  196,  ed, 
Wess.)  is  too  unlike  Telassar  to  come  into  consideration.  There 
is  more  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  identification  of  our  HV  with 
the  Assyrian  Eden, '  which  is  mentioned  in  Ezek.  xxvii,  2  3 
along  with  Haran  and  Calneh  as  an  important  place  for  trade,, 
although  its  position  cannot  be  more  certainly  defined;  and 

neither  the  comparison  with  the  tract  of  land   called  ^j-LLo, 

Maadon,  which  Assemani  (Biblioth.  or.  ii.  p.  224)  places  in 
Mesopotamia,  towards  the  Tigris,  in  the  present  province  of 
Diarbekr  (Ges.,  Win.),  nor  the  conjecture  of  Knobel  that  the 
tribe-name  Eden  may  very  probably  have  been  preserved  in  the 
large  but  very  dilapidated  village  of  Adana  or  Adna,  some  dis- 
tance to  the  north  of  Bagdad  (Ker  Porter,  Journey,  ii.  p.  355, 
and  Eitter,  Erdk.  ix.  p.  493),  can  be  established  as  even  a  pro- 
bability. "i^»<?^,  Telassar,  is  also  quite  unknown.  The  name 
applies  very  well  to  Thelser  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Tigris 
{Tab.  Pent.  xi.  e),  where  even  the  later  Targums  on  Gen.  x.  12 
have  placed  it,  interpreting  Nimrod's  Resen  by  "'ppn,  "ipt^fD, 
though  Knobel  opposes  this  on  the  ground  that  a  place  in 
Assyria  proper  is  unsuitable  in  such  a  passage  as  this,  where 
the  Assyrian  feats  of  war  outside  Assyria  itself  are  enumerated. 
Movers  (PhOniz.  ii.  3,  p.  251)  conjectures  that  the  place  referred  to 
is  Thelassar  in  Terodon,  a  leading  emporium  for  Arabian  wares 
on  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  supposes  that  Terodon  has  sprung  from 
Teledon  with  the  Persian  pronunciation  of  the  ?^,  which  is  very 
frequent  in  the  names  of  Mesopotamian  cities.  This  conjecture 
is  at  any  rate  a  more  natural  one  than  that  of  Knobel  on  Isa. 
xxxvii.  12,  that  the  place  mentioned  in  Assemani  {Bih.  or.  iii.  2, 

p.  870),^^y  J;,  Tel  on  the  Szarszar,  to  the  west  of  the  pre- 
sent Bagdad,  is  intended. — With  regard  to  the  places  named  in 
ver.  13,  see  at  ch.  xviii  34. 


CHAP.  XIX.  14-19.  447 

Vers.  14-19.  Hezekiah's  prayer. — Ver.  14.  Hezekiah  took 
the  letter,  read  it,  went  into  the  temple  and  spread  it  out  before 
Jehovah,  to  lay  open  its  contents  before  God.  The  contents  of 
the  letter  are  given  in  vers.  10-13  in  the  form  of  the  message 
which  the  ambassadors  delivered  to  Hezekiah  from  their  king, 
because  the  ambassadors  communicated  to  Hezekiah  by  word  of 
mouth  the  essential  contents  of  the  writing  which  they  con- 
veyed, and  simply  handed  him  the  letter  as  a  confirmation  of 
their  words.  Q'lS?,  like  litterce,  means  a  letter ;  hence  the 
singular  sufi&x  attached  to  ^"^Jr???},  whereas  in  the  case  of  QX"Jp'.?, 
which  stands  nearer,  the  suffix  foUows  the  number  of  the  noun 
to  which  it  refers.  The  spreading  out  of  the  letter  before  God 
was  an  embodiment  of  the  wish,  which  sprang  from  a  child-like 
and  believing  trust,  that  the  Lord  would  notice  and  punish  that 
defiance  of  the  living  God  which  it  contained.  What  Hezekiah 
meant  by  this  action  he  expressed  in  the  following  prayer. — 
Ver.  15.  In  opposition  to  the  delusion  of  the  Assyrians,  he 
describes  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  as  the  only  God  of  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  since  He  was  the  Creator  of  heaven 
and  earth.  D'?7?'?  ^^  (see  at  1  Sam.  iv.  4  and  Ex.  xxv. 
22)  indicates  the  covenant-relation  into  which  Jehovah,  the 
almighty  Creator  and  Euler  of  the  whole  world,  had  entered  to- 
wards Israel  As  the  covenant  God  who  was  enthroned  above 
the  cherubim  the  Lord  was  bound  to  help  His  people,  if  they 
turned  to  Him  with  faith  in  the  time  of  their  distress  and 
entreated  His  assistance  ;  and  as  the  only  God  of  all  the  world 
He  had  the  power  to  help.  In  Isaiah,  riiX2^,  which  is  very  rare 
in  historical  prose,  but  very  common  in  prophetical  addresses,  is 
added  to  the  name  ^)^\,  and  thus  Jehovah  at  the  very  outset  is 
addressed  as  the  God  of  the  universe.  On  the  meaning  of  nixay, 
see  at  1  Sam.  i.  3.  On  Q'n^Nn  **^'''  ^^^>  see  2  Sam.  vii.  28  and 
1  Kings  xviii.  39. — ^Ver.  16.  The  accumulation  of  the  words, 
"  bow  down  Thine  ear,  Jehovah,  and  hear  ;  open,  Jehovah,  Thine 
eyes  and  see,  and  hear  the  words,"  etc.,  indicates  the  earnest- 
ness and  importunity  of  the  prayer.  The  plural  'l'?.\y  by  the 
side  of  the  singular  Ijifx  is  the  correct  reading,  since  the 
expression  "  to  incline  the  ear"  is  constantly  met  with  (Ps. 
xvii.  6,  xxxi.  3,  xlv.  11,  etc.)  ;  and  even  in  the  plural,  "  incline 
ye  your  ear  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  1 ;  Isa.  Iv.  3),  and  on  the  other  hand 
"  to  open  the  eyes "  (Job  xxvii.  1 9  ;  Prov.  xx.  13;  Zech, 
xii  4 ;  Dan.  ix.  1 8),  because  a  man  always  opens  both  eyes 


448  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

to  see  anything,  wHereas  he  turns  one  ear  to  a  person  speak- 
ing. The  '^^''V  of  Isaiah  is  also  plural,  though  written  defec- 
tively, as  the  Masora  has  already  observed.  The  suffix  in  in^c*,. 
which  is  wanting  in  Isaiah,  belongs  to  "IK'S,  and  refers  with  this 
to  ^7.?'i  in  the  sense  of  speech  :  the  speech  which  Sennacherib 
had  made  in  his  letter. — ^Vers.  17,  18.  After  the  challenge,  to 
observe  the  blasphemies  of  Sennacherib,  Hezekiah  mentions  the 
fact  that  the  Assyrians  have  really  devastated  all  lands,  and  there- 
fore that  it  is  not  without  ground  that  they  boast  of  their  mighty 
power ;  but  he  finds  the  explanation  of  this  in  the  impotence 
and  nothingness  of  the  gods  of  the  heathen.  DJON^  truly,  indeed 
— the  kings  of  Asshur  have  devastated  the  nations  and  their 
land.  Instead  of  this  we  find  in  Isaiah :  "  they  have  devastated 
all  lands  and  their  (own)  land  " — which  is  evidently  the  more 
difficult  and  also  the  more  original  reading,  and  has  been  altered 
in  our  account,  because  the  thought  that  the  Assyrians  had  de- 
vastated their  own  land  by  making  war  upon  other  lands,  that 
is  to  say,  had  depopulated  it  and  thereby  laid  it  waste,  was  not 
easy  to  understand.  "  And  have  cast  their  gods  into  the  fire,  for 
they  are  not  gods,  but  works  of  human  hands,  wood  and  stone, 
and  have  thus  destroyed  them."  Hezekiah  does  not  mention 
this  as  a  sign  of  the  recklessness  of  the  Assyrians  (Knobel),  but^ 
because  Sennacherib  had  boasted  that  the  gods  of  no  nation 
had  been  able  to  resist  him  (vers.  12,  13),  to  put  this  fact  in 
the  right  light,  and  attach  thereto  the  prayer  that  Jehovah,  by 
granting  deliverance,  would  make  known  to  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  earth  that  He  alone  was  God.  Instead  of  ^ipJl  we  have  in 
Isaiah  pr\^),  the  inf.  absol. ;  in  this  connection  the  more  difficult 
and  more  genuine  reading.  This  also  applies  to  the  omission 
of  cn^K  (ver.  196)  in  Isa.  xxxvii  20,  since  the  use  of  Jehovah 
as  a  predicate,  "  that  Thou  alone  art  Jehovah,"  is  very  rare,  and 
has  therefore  been  misunderstood  even  by  Gesenius.  By  the 
introduction  of  Elohim,  the  thought  "  that  Thou  Jehovah  art 
God  alone  "  is  simplified. 

Vers.  20-34.  The  divine  promise. — Vers.  20,  21.  When 
Hezekiah  had  prayed,  the  prophet  Isaiah  received  a  divine  re- 
velation with  regard  to  the  hearing  of  this  prayer,  which  he 
sent,  i.e.  caused  to  be  handed  over,  to  the  king.  ''P^V^f  (ver.  21) 
is  omitted  in  Isaiah,  so  that  '13^  fij'f'Snn  IB'N  is  to  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  "  with  regard  to  that  which  thou  hast  prayed  to 
me/'  whilst  ''^V'??'  (I  have  heard)  elucidates  the  thought  and 


CHAP.  X[X.  20-34.  449 

simplifies  the  construction.  Tlie  word  of  the  Lord  announced 
to  the  king,  (1)  the  shameful  retreat  of  Sennacherib  as  a  just 
retribution  for  his  mockery  of  the  living  God  (vers.  21-28;  Isa. 
xxx\'ii  22-29) ;  (2)  the  confirmation  of  this  assurance  through 
the  indication  of  a  sign  by  which  Hezekiah  was  to  recognise 
the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem  (vers.  29-31 ;  Isa.  xxxviL  30-32), 
and  through  the  distinct  promise,  that  the  Assyrian  would 
neither  come  into  the  city  nor  besiege  it,  because  the  Lord  was 
sheltering  it  (vers.  32—34;  Isa.  xxxvii.  33-35).  In  the  first 
part  the  words  are  addressed  with  poetic  vivacity  directly  to 
Sennacherib,  and  scourge  his  haughty  boastings  by  pointing  to 
the  ridicule  and  scorn  which  would  foUow  him  on  his  departure 
from  the  land. — Ver.  21.  "The  virgin  daughter  Zion  despises 
thee,  the  daughter  Jerusalem  shakes  the  head  behind  thee." 
By  daughter  Zion,  daughter  Jerusalem,  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand the  inhabitants  of  Zion,  or  of  Jerusalem,  as  though  03 
stood  for  D''^3  or  V.?  (Ges.,  Hitzig,  and  others) ;  but  the  city 
itself  with  its  inhabitants  is  pictorially  personified  as  a  daughter 
and  virgin,  and  the  construct  state  P'Vnii  is  to  be  taken,  like 
nis  "inj,  as  in  apposition :  "  daughter  Zion,"  not  daughter  of 
Zion  {vid.  Ges.  §  116,  5  ;  Ewald,  §  287,  e).  Even  in  the  case 
of  npvia  the  construct  state  expresses  simply  the  relation  of 
apposition.  Zion  is  called  a  "  virgin  "  as  being  an  inviolable 
city  to  the  Assyrians,  i.e.  one  which  they  cannot  conquer. 
Shaking  the  head  is  a  gesture  denoting  derision  and  pleasure 
at  another's  misfortune  (cf.  Ps.  xxii.  8,  cix.  25,  etc.).  "Behind 
thee,"  i.e.  after  thee  as  thou  goest  away,  is  placed  first  as  a  pic- 
torial feature  for  the  sake  of  emphasis. — Vers.  22,  23.  This 
derision  falls  upon  the  Assyrian,  for  having  blasphemed  the 
Lord  God  by  his  foolish  boasting  about  his  irresistible  power. 
"  Whom  hast  thou  despised  and  blasphemed,  and  against  whom 
hast  thou  lifted  up  the  voice  ?  and  thou  liftest  up  thine  eyes 
against  the  Holy  One  of  Israel."  Lifting  up  the  voice  refers  to 
the  tone  of  threatening  assumption,  in  which  Eabshakeh  and 
Sennacherib  had  spoken.  Lifting  up  the  eyes  on  high,  i.e.  to 
the  heavens,  signifies  simply  looking  up  to  the  sky  (cf.  Isa.  xL 
26),  not  "  directing  proud  looks  against  God"  (Ges.).  Still  less 
is  W"»D  to  be  taken  adverbially  in  the  sense  of  haughtily,  as 
Theuius  and  Knobel  suppose.  The  bad  sense  of  proud  arro- 
gance lies  in  the  words  which  follow,  "  against  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel,"  or  in  the  case  of  Isaiah,  where  ^^  stands  for  bv,  in  the 

27 


450  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

context,  viz.  the  parallelism  of  the  members.  God  is  called  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel  as  He  who  manifests  His  holiness  in  and 
upon  Israel.  This  title  of  the  Deity  is  one  of  the  peculiarities 
of  Isaiah's  range  of  thought,  although  it  originated  with  Asaph 
(Ps,  Ixxviii.  41 ;  see  at  Isa.  i.  4).  This  insult  to  the  holy  God 
consisted  in  the  fact  that  Sennacherib  had  said  through  his 
servants  (vers.  23,  24):  "With  my  chariots  upon  chariots  I 
have  ascended  the  height  of  the  mountains,  the  uttermost  part 
of  Lebanon,  so  that  I  felled  the  tallness  of  its  cedars,  the  choice 
of  its  cypresses,  and  came  to  the  shelter  of  its  border,  to  the 
forest  of  its  orchard.  I  have  dug  and  drunk  strange  water,  so 
that  I  dried  up  aU  the  rivers  of  Egypt  with  the  sole  of  my  feet." 
The  words  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Assyrian  are  expressive  of 
the  feeling  which  underlay  all  his  blasphemies  (Drechsler). 
The  two  verses  are  kept  quite  uniform,  the  second  hemistich  in 
both  cases  expressing  the  result  of  the  first,  that  is  to  say,  what 
the  Assyrian  intended  still  further  to  perform  after  having 
accomplished  what  is  stated  in  the  first  hemistich.  Wlien  he 
has  ascended  the  heights  of  Lebanon,  he  devastates  the  glorious 
trees  of  the  mountain.  Consequently  in  ver.  24  the  drying 
up  of  the  Nile  of  Egypt  is  to  be  taken  as  the  result  of  the 
digging  of  wells  in  the  parched  desert ;  in  other  words,  it  is  to 
be  interpreted  as  descriptive  of  the  devastation  of  Egypt,  whose 
whole  fertility  depended  upon  its  being  watered  by  the  Nile 
and  its  canals'  We  cannot  therefore  take  these  verses  exactly 
as  Drechsler  does  ;  that  is  to  say,  we  cannot  assume  that  the 
Assyrian  is  spealdng  in  the  first  hemistichs  of  both  verses  of 
what  he  (not  necessarily  Sennacherib  himself,  but  one  of  his 
predecessors)  has  actually  performed.  For  even  if  the  ascent 
of  the  uttermost  heights  of  Lebanon  had  been  performed  by  one 
of  the  kings  of  Assyria,  there  is  no  historical  evidence  what- 
ever that  Sennacherib  or  one  of  his  predecessors  had  already 
forced  his  way  into  Egypt.  The  words  are  therefore  to  be 
understood  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  an  individualizing  picture 
of  the  conquests  which  the  Assyrians  had  already  accomplished, 
and  those  which  they  were  still  intending  to  effect ;  and  this 
assumption  does  not  necessarily  exhibit  Sennacherib  "  as  a 
mere  braggart,  who  boastfully  heaps  up  in  ridiculous  hyperbole 
an  enumeration  of  the  things  which  he  means  to  perform" 
(Drechsler).  For  if  the  Assyrian  had  not  ascended  with  the 
whole  multitude  of  his  war-chariots  to  the  loftiest  summits  of 


CHAP.  XIX.  20-34.  451 

Lebanon,  to  fell  its  cedars  and  its  c}'presses,  Lebanon  had  set 
no  bounds  to  his  plans  of  conquest,  so  that  Sennacherib  might 
very  well  represent  his  forcing  his  way  into  Canaan   as   an 
ascent  of  the  lofty  peaks  of  this  mountain  range.     Lebanon  is 
mentioned,  partly  as  a  range  of  mountains  that  was  quite  inac- 
cessible to  war-chariots,  and  partly  as  the  northern  defence  of 
the  land  of  Canaan,  through  the  conquest  of  which  one  made 
himself  lord  of  the  land.     And   so  far  as  Lebanon  is  used 
synecdochically  for  the  land   of  which  it  formed  the  defence, 
the  hewing  down  of  its  cedars  and  cypresses,  those  glorious 
witnesses    of   the    creation    of   God,   denotes    the    devastation 
of  the  whole  land,  with  all  its  glorious  works  of  nature  and 
of  human  hands.      The   chief  strength  of  the   early  Asiatic 
conquerors   consisted  in  the  multitude  of  their  war-chariots  : 
they  are  therefore  brought  into  consideration  simply  as  signs  of 
vast  military  resources ;  the  fact  that  they  could  only  be  used 
on  level  ground  being  therefore  disregarded.     The  ChetMb  227 
^33"!,  "  my  chariots  upon  chariots,"  is  used  poetically  for  an  in- 
numerable multitude  of  chariots,  as  *?i3  3i3  for  an  innumerable 
host  of  locusts  (Nah.  iii  17),  and  is  more  original  than  the 
Kcri  '33T  nn,  the  multitude  of  my  chariots,  which  simply  fol- 
lows Isaiah.     The  "  height  of  the  mountains  "  is  more  precisely 
defined    by  the   emphatic  P32p  ^risv,  the  uttermost  sides,  i.e. 
the  loftiest  heights,  of  Lebanon,  just  as  ""13  '•nziT  in  isa.  xiv.  1 5 
and  Ezek  xxxii.  23  are  the  uttermost  depths  of  Sheol.     noip 
VPN,  his  tallest  cedars.     V'*:n3  nin^o^  his  most  select  or  finest 
cypresses,     n-vf?  pp,  for  which  Isaiah  has  the  more  usual  Cinp 
Wi?,  "  the  height  of  his  end,"  is  the  loftiest  point  of  Lebanon  on 
which  a  man  can  rest,  not  a  lodging  built  on  the  highest  point 
of  Lebanon  (Cler.,  Vitr.,  Eos.).      i^P"i3  ir,  the  forest  of  his 
orchard,  i.e.  the  forest  resembling  an  orchard.     The  reference  is 
to  the   celebrated  cedar-forest  between  the  loftiest  peaks   of 
Lebanon  at  the  village  of  BJerreh  (see  at  1  ELings  v.  20). — 
Yer.  24  refers  to  the  intended  conquest  of  Egypt.     Just  as 
Lebanon  could  not  stop  the  expeditions  of  the  Assyrians,  or 
keep  them  back  from  the  conquest  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  so 
the  desert  of  et  Tih,  which  separated  Egypt  from  Asia,  notwith-' 
standing  its  want  of  water  (cf  Herod,  iil  5  ;  Rob.  Pal.  i.  p.  262), 
was  no  hindrance  to  him,  which  could  prevent  his  forcing  his 
way  through  it  and  laying  Eg}-pt  waste.     The  digging  of  water 
is,  of  course,  not  merely  "  a  reopening  of  the  wells  that  had 


452  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

been  choked  with  rubbish,  and  the  cisterns  that  had  been 
covered  up  before  the  approaching  enemy "  (Thenius),  but  the 
digging  of  wells  in  the  waterless  desert.  CIJ  D'D,  strange  water, 
is  not  merely  water  belonging  to  others,  but  water  not  belong- 
ing to  this  soil  (Drechsler),  i.e.  water  supplied  by  a  region 
which  had  none  at  other  times.  By  the  perfects  the  thing  is 
represented  as  already  done,  as  exposed  to  no  doubt  whatever  ; 
we  must  bear  in  mind,  however,  that  the  desert  of  et  Tih  is  not 
expressly  named,  but  the  expression  is  couched  in  such  general 
terms,  that  we  may  also  assume  that  it  includes  what  the 
Assyrian  had  really  effected  in  his  expeditions  through  similar 
regions.  The  drying  up  of  the  rivers  with  the  soles  of  the  feet 
is  a  hyperbolical  expression  denoting  the  omnipotence  with 
which  the  Assyrian  rules  over  the  eartL  Just  as  he  digs 
water  in  the  desert  where  no  water  is  to  be  had,  so  does  he 
annihilate  it  where  mighty  rivers  exist.^  ""^iN^  are  the  arms 
and  canals  of  the  Yeor,  i.e.  of  the  Nile.  iiv»,  a  rhetorical 
epithet  for  Egypt,  used  not  only  here,  but  also  in  Isa.  xix.  6 
and  Mic.  vii.  12. — ^Vers.  25  sqq.  To  this  foolish  boasting  the 
prophet  opposes  the  divine  purpose  which  had  been  formed  long 
ago^  and  according  to  which  the  Assyrian,  without  knowing  it 
or  being  willing  to  acknowledge  it,  had  acted  simply  as  the 
instrument  of  the  Lord,  who  had  given  him  the  power  to  de- 
stroy, but  who  would  soon  restrain  his  ranting  against  Him,  the 
true  God. — Ver.  25.  "Hast  thou  not  heard  ?  Long  ago  have 
I  done  this,  from  the  days  of  olden  time  have  I  formed  it ! 
Now  have  I  brought  it  to  pass,  that  fortified  cities  should  be  to 
be  destroyed  into  waste  heaps."  Ver.  26.  "And  their  inhabi- 
tants, short  of  hand,  were  dismayed  and  put  to  shame ;  they 
were  herb  of  the  field  and  green  of  the  turf,  grass  of  the  roofs 
and  blighted  corn  before  the  stalk."  Ver.  2  7.  "  And  thy  sitting 
and  thy  going  out  and  thy  coming  I  know,  and  thy  raging 
against  me."  Ver.  28.  "  Because  of  thy  raging  against  me  and 
thy  safety,  which  rise  up  into  my  ears,  I  put  my  ring  into  thy 

'  Compare  the  similar  boastiuj^  of  Alarich,  already  quoted  by  earlier  com- 
mentators, in  Claudian,  de  hello  Getli.  v.  526  sqq. : 

cum  cesserit  omnis 
Obsequiis  natura  meis  ?  suhsidere  nostris 
Sub  pedibus  montes,  arescere  vidimus  amnes. 

T.  682.  Fregi  Alpes,  galeis  Padum  victricibus  hausi. 


CHAP.  XIX  20-34.  4^3 

nose,  and  my  bridle  into  thy  lips,  and  bring  thee  back  by  the 
way  by  -which  thou  hast  come."  The  words  are  still  addressed 
to  the  AssjT-ian,  of  whom  the  Lord  inquires  whether  he  does 
not  know  that  the  destructive  deeds  performed  by  him  had  been 
determined  very  long  before.  "  Hast  thou  not  heard  ?"  namely, 
what  follows,  what  the  Lord  had  long  ago  made  known  through 
His  prophets  in  Judah  (cf.  Isa.  viL  7-9,  xvi  17-20,  viiL  1-4 
and  7,  etc.).  i^^^^,  from  distant  time  have  I  done  it,  etc., 
refers  to  the  divine  ordering  and  governing  of  the  events  of  the 
universe,  which  God  has  purposed  and  established  from  the  very 
beginning  of  time.  The  pronoun  •^^K,  and  the  suffixes  attached 
to  "^'^IV.  and  n^nx^an,  do  not  refer  with  vague  generality  to  the 
substance  of  vers.  23  and  24,  i.e.  to  the  boastings  of  the  Assyrians 
quoted  there  (Drechsler),  but  to  nicrip  "^nm^  i.e,  to  the  conquests 
and  devastations  which  the  Assyrian  had  really  effected.  The 
\  before  n^my  introduces  the  apodosis,  as  is  frequently  the  case 
after  a  preceding  definition  of  time  (cf.  Ges.  §  155,  a),  ^^n^ 
niOTp,  "  that  it  may  be  to  destroy"  (niKw,  a  contraction  of 
nixc'n^,  Keri  and  Isaiah,  from  nsc';  see  Ewald,  §  73,  c,  and  245, 6), 
i.e.  that  it  shall  be  destroyed, — according  to  a  turn  which  is  very 
common  in  Isaiah,  like  ""V^?  njn^  it  is  to  bum  =  it  shall  be  burned 
(cf.  Isa.  V.  5,  vi.  13,  xliv.  15,  and  Ewald,  §  237,  e).  The  ren- 
dering given  by  Ges.,  Knobi,  Thea,  and  others,  "  that  thou 
mayest  be  for  destruction,"  is  at  variance  with  this  usage. — 
Ver,  26  is  closely  connected,  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned, 
with  the  last  clause  of  ver.  25,  but  in  form  it  is  only  loosely 
attached  :  "  and  their  inhabitants  were,"  instead  of  "  that  their 
inhabitants  might  be."  1'  '7V?,  of  short  hand,  i.e.  without  power 
to  offer  a  successful  resistance  (cf.  Num.  xi  23,  and  Isa.  L  2,  lix.  1). 
— ^They  were  herbage  of  the  field,  etc.,  just  as  perishable  as  the 
herbage,  grass,  etc.,  which  quickly  fade  away  (cf.  Ps.  xxxvii  2,  xc. 
5,  6 ;  Isa.  xL  6).  The  grass  of  the  roofs  fades  still  more  quickly, 
because  it  cannot  strike  deep  roots  (cf.  Ps.  cxxix.  6).  Blighted 
com  before  the  stalk,  i.e.  com  which  is  blighted  and  withered 
up,  before  it  shoots  up  into  a  stalk.  In  Isaiah  we  have  ^9"!!?^ 
instead  of  ^^'}}f,  with  a  change  of  the  labials,  probably  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  an  assonance  with  ~0i5,  which  must  not 
therefore  be  altered  into  TO!?'.  The  thought  in  the  two  verses 
is  this :  The  AssjTian  does  not  owe  his  victories  and  conquests 
to  his  irresistible  might,  but  purely  to  the  fact  that  God  had 
long  ago  resolved  to  deliver  the  nations  into  his  hands,  so  that 


'454  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGSL 

it  was  possible  to  overcome  them  without  their  "being  able  to 
offer  any  resistance.  This  the  Assyrian  had  not  perceived,  but 
in  his  daring  pride  had  exalted  himself  above  the  living  God. 
This  conduct  of  his  the  Lord  was  well  acquainted  with,  and 
He  would  humble  him  for  it.  Sitting  and  going  out  and 
coming  denote  all  the  actions  of  a  man,  like  sitting  down  and 
rising  up  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  2.  Instead  of  rising  up,  we  generally 
find  going  out  and  coming  in  (cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  6  and  Ps. 
cxxL  8).  'H^^nnn^  thy  raging,  commotio  furihunda,  quae  ex  ira 
nascitur  superhice  mixta  (Vitr.).  We  must  repeat  ]Vl  before 
^33 XK' ;  and  ^JTiJ3  rov  is  to  be  taken  in  a  relative  sense  :  on 
account  of  thy  self-security,  which  has  come  to  my  ears.  I^XB' 
is  the  security  of  the  ungodly  which  springs  from  the  feeling  of 
great  superiority  in  power.  The  figurative  words,  "  I  put  my 
ring  into  thy  nose,"  are  taken  from  the  custom  of  restraining 
wild  animals,  such  as  lions  (Ezek.  xix.  4)  and  other  wild  beasts 
(Ezek.  xxix.  4  and  Isa.  xxx.  28),  in  this  manner.  For  "the 
bridle  in  the  lips  "  of  ungovernable  horses,  see  Ps.  xxxii.  9.  To 
lead  a  person  back  by  the  way  by  which  he  had  come,  i.e.  to 
lead  him  back  disappointed,  without  having  reached  the  goal 
that  he  set  before  him. 

To  confirm  what  he  had  said,  the  prophet  gave  to  Hezekiah  a 
sign  (vers.  2  9  sqq.) :  "  Eat  this  year  what  groweth  in  the  fallow, 
and  in  the  second  year  what  groweth  wild,  and  in  the  third 
year  sow  and  reap  and  plant  vineyards,  and  eat  the  fruit  there- 
of." That  the  words  are  not  addressed  to  the  king  of  Assyria 
as  in  ver.  28,  but  to  Hezekiah,  is  evident  from  their  contents. 
This  sudden  change  in  the  person  addressed  may  be  explained 
from  the  fact  that  from  ver.  29  the  words  contain  a  perfectly 
fresh  train  of  thought.  For  nisn  ^^-nr  see  Ex.  iii.  12,  1  Sam. 
il  34  and  xiv.  10;  also  Jer.  xliv.  29.  In  all  these  passages 
niN,  arjfxelov,  is  not  a  (supernatural)  wonder,  a  riQiD  as  in  1  Kings 
xiii.  3,  but  consists  simply  in  the  prediction  of  natural  events, 
which  serve  as  credentials  to  a  prediction,  whereas  in  Isa.  vii. 
14  and  xxxviii.  7  a  miracle  is  given  as  an  His.  The  inf.  abs. 
^3S  is  not  used  for  the  pret.  (Ges.,  Then.,  and  others),  but  for 
the  imperf.  or  fut. :  "  one  will  eat."  '"'J^'!',  the  (present)  year. 
n^SD  signifies  the  corn  which  springs  up  and  grows  from  the 
grains  that  have  been  shaken  out  the  previous  year  (Lev.  xxv. 
5,  11).  B'^'no  (in  Isa.  D-hb')  is  explained  by  Abulw.  as  signify- 
ing the  corn  which  springs  up  again  from  the  roots  of  what  has 


CHAP.  XIX  20-34  455 

been  sown.  The  etymology  of  the  word  is  uncertain,  so  that  it 
is  impossible  to  decide  which  of  the  two  forms  is  the  original 
one.  For  the  fact  itself  compare  the  evidence  adduced  in  the 
Comm.  on  Lev.  xxv.  7,  that  in  Palestine  and  other  lands  two  or 
three  harvests  can  be  reaped  from  one  sowing. — ^The  signs  men- 
tioned do  not  enable  us  to  determine  with  certainty  how  long 
the  Ass}Tians  were  in  the  land.  All  that  can  be  clearly  gathered 
from  the  words,  "  in  this  and  the  following  year  will  they  live 
upon  that  which  has  sprung  up  without  any  sowing,"  is  that  for 
two  years,  i.e.  in  two  successive  autumns,  the  fields  could  not  be 
cultivated  because  the  enemy  had  occupied  the  land  and  laid  it 
waste.  But  whether  the  occupation  lasted  two  years,  or  only  a 
year  and  a  little  over,  depends  upon  the  time  of  the  year  at 
which  the  Assyrians  entered  the  land.  If  the  invasion  of  Judah 
took  place  in  autumn,  shortly  before  the  time  for  sowing,  and 
the  miraculous  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  forces  occurred  a 
year  after  about  the  same  time,  the  sowing  of  two  successive 
years  would  be  prevented,  and  the  population  of  Judah  would 
be  compelled  to  live  for  two  years  upon  what  had  sprung  up 
without  sowing.  Consequently  both  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  and 
the  fulfilment  recorded  in  vers.  35,  36  would  fall  in  the  autumn, 
when  the  Ass}Tians  had  ruled  for  a  whole  year  in  the  land ;  so 
that  the  prophet  was  able  to  say :  in  this  year  and  in  the  second 
(i.e.  the  next)  will  they  eat  after-growth  and  wild  growth ;  inas- 
much as  when  he  said  this,  the  first  year  had  not  quite  expired. 
Even  if  the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrians  took  place  immediately 
afterwards  (cf.  ver.  35),  with  the  extent  to  which  they  had 
carried  out  the  desolation  of  the  land,  many  of  the  inhabitants 
having  been  slaiu  or  taken  prisoners,  and  many  others  having 
been  put  to  flight,  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  in  the  same 
year  to  cultivate  the  fields  and  sow  them,  and  the  people  would 
be  obliged  to  live  in  the  second  or  following  year  upon  what 
had  grown  wild,  until  the  harv^est  of  the  second  year,  when  the 
land  could  be  properly  cultivated,  or  rather  till  the  third  year, 
when  it  could  be  reaped  again.^ 

The  sign  is  foUowed  in  vers.  30,  31  by  the  distinct  promise 

^  There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  to  explain  the  sign  here  given,  either  by 
the  assumption  of  a  sabbatical  year,  vrith  or  w-ithout  a  year  of  jubUee  follow- 
ing, or  by  supposing  that  the  Assyrians  did  not  depart  immediately  after  the 
catastrophe  described  in  ver.  35,  but  remained  tiU  after  they  had  attempted 
an  expedition  into  Egypt,  or  indeed  by  any  other  arti&cial  hypothesis. 


456  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

of  the  deliverance  of  Judali  and  Jerusalem,  for  wliich  Isaiah 
uses  the  sign  itself  as  a  type.  "  And  the  remnant  that  is 
escaped  of  the  house  of  Judah  will  again  strike  roots  down- 
wards and  bear  fruit  upwards ;  for  from  Jerusalem  will  go  forth 
a  remnant,  and  that  which  is  escaped  from  Mount  Zion ;  the 
zeal  of  Jehovah  will  do  this."  K'n'K'  CjD^,  to  add  roots,  i.e.  to 
strike  fresh  roots.  The  meaning  is,  that  Judah  will  not  succumb 
to  this  judgment.  The  remnant  of  the  nation  that  has  escaped 
from  destruction  by  the  Assyrians  will  once  more  grow  and 
flourish  vigorously ;  for  from  Jerusalem  will  a  rescued  remnant 
go  forth.  '"iD^a  denotes  those  who  have  escaped  destruction  by 
the  judgment  (cf.  Isa.  iv.  2,  x.  20,  etc.).  The  deliverance  was 
attached  to  Jerusalem  or  to  Mount  Zion,  not  so  much  because 
the  power  of  the  Assyrians  was  to  be  destroyed  before  the  gates 
of  Jerusalem,  as  because  of  the  greater  importance  which  Jeru- 
salem and  Mount  Zion,  as  the  centre  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
the  seat  of  the  God-King,  possessed  in  relation  to  the  covenant- 
nation,  so  that,  according  to  Isa,  ii.  3,  it  was  thence  that  the 
Messianic  salvation  was  also  to  proceed.  This  deliverance  is 
traced  to  the  zeal  of  the  Lord  on  behalf  of  His  people  and 
against  His  foes  (see  at  Ex.  xx.  5),  like  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  in  Isa.  ix.  6  to  establish  an  everlasting  kingdom  of 
peace  and  righteousness.  The  deliverance  of  Judah  out  of  the 
power  of  Asshur  was  a  prelude  and  type  of  the  deliverance  of 
the  people  of  God  by  the  Messiah  out  of  the  power  of  all  that 
was  ungodly.  The  n^N3V  of  Isaiah  is  omitted  after  nin^,  just  as 
in  ver.  1 5 ;  though  here  it  is  supplied  by  the  Masora  as  Keri. 
— In  vers.  32-34  Isaiah  concludes  by  announcing  that  Sen- 
nacherib will  not  come  to  Jerusalem,  nor  even  shoot  at  the  city 
and  besiege  it,  but  will  return  disappointed,  because  the  Lord 
wUl  defend  and  save  the  city  for  the  sake  of  His  promise. 
The  result  of  the  whole  prophecy  is  introduced  with  I?^ :  there- 
fore, because  this  is  how  the  matter  stands,  viz.  as  explained  in 
what  precedes.  'H^?"''?*  ^^^^  regard  to  the  king,  as  in  ver.  20. 
}J0  n3OTi5>  tib,  "  he  will  not  attack  it  with  a  shield,"  i.e.  will  not 
advance  with  shields  to  make  an  attack  upon  it.  D"7.i?  with  a 
double  accusative,  as  in  Ps.  xxi.  4.  It  only  occurs  here  in  a 
hostile  sense :  to  come  against,  as  in  Ps.  xviii.  19,  i.e.  to  advance 
against  a  city,  to  storm  it.  The  four  clauses  of  the  verse  stand 
in  a  graduated  relation  to  one  another :  not  to  take,  not  even  to 
shoot  at  and  attack,  yea,  not  even  to  besiege  the  city,  wiU  he 


CHAP.  XIX.  35-37.  "  457 

come.  In  ver.  33a  we  have  ver.  286  taken  up  again,  and  ver.  32a 
is  repeated  in  ver.  336  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the  pro- 
mise. Instead  of  ^2  KIT  we  have  in  Isaiah  ^3  N3 :  "  by  which  he 
has  come."  The  perfect  is  actually  more  exact,  and  the  imper- 
fect may  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  Sennacherib  was  at 
that  very  time  advancing  against  Jerusalem.  In  ver.  34  we 
have  bs  ""nisa  instead  of  the  ^J?  ^ni23  of  Isaiah ;  ?V  is  more  correct 
than  b^.  "  For  my  sake,"  as  Hezekiah  had  prayed  in  ver.  1 9  ; 
and  "  for  my  servant  Da^'id's  sake,"  because  Jehovah,  as  the  un- 
changeably true  One,  must  fulfil  the  promise  which  He  gave  to 
David  (see  at  1  Kings  xi.  13). 

Vers.  35-37.  Tlie  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise. — ^Ver.  35. 
"  It  came  to  pass  in  that  night,  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  went 
out  and  smote  in  the  army  of  the  Assyrian  185,000  men;  and 
when  they  (those  that  were  left,  including  the  king)  rose  up  in 
the  morning,  behold  there  were  they  all  {i.e.  all  who  had  perished) 
dead  corpses,"  i.e.  they  had  died  in  their  sleep.  Q^no  is  added 
to  strengthen  D^j9  :  lifeless  corpses.  Wi^Li  i^^!??  is  in  all  proba- 
bility the  night  following  the  day  on  which  Isaiah  had  foretold 
to  Hezekiah  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem.  Where  the  Assyrian 
army  was  posted  at  the  time  when  this  terrible  stroke  fell  upon 
it  is  not  stated,  since  the  accoimt  is  restricted  to  the  principal 
fact  One  portion  of  it  was  probably  still  before  Jerusalem ;  the 
remainder  were  either  in  front  of  Libnah  (ver.  8),  or  marching 
arainst  Jerusalem.  From  the  fact  that  Sennacherib's  second 
embassy  (vers.  9  sqq.)  was  not  accompanied  by  a  body  of  troops, 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  large  army  which  had  come 
with  the  first  embassy  (ch.  x\'iii.  17)  had  withdrawn  again,  or 
had  even  removed  to  Libnah  on  the  return  of  Eabshakeh  to 
his  king  (ch.  xix.  8).  The  very  opposite  may  be  inferred  with 
much  greater  justice  from  ch.  xix.  32.  And  the  smiting  of 
185,000  men  by  an  angel  of  the  Lord  by  no  means  presupposes 
that  the  whole  of  Sennacherib's  army  was  concentrated  at  one 
spot.  The  blow  could  certainly  fall  upon  the  Assyrians  wher- 
ever they  were  standing  or  were  encamped.  The  "  angel  of  the 
Lord  "  is  the  same  angel  that  smote  as  n^nB'sn  the  first-bom  of 
Egypt  (Ex.  xii  23,  compared  with  vers.  12  and  13),  and  in- 
flicted the  pestilence  upon  Israel  after  the  numbering  of  the 
people  by  David  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  15,  16).  The  last  passage 
renders  the  conjecture  a  very  probable  one,  that  the  slaying  of 
the  Assyrians  was  also  effected  by  a  terrible  pestilence.     But 


458  THE  SECOKD  BOOK  OF  KlXGa 

the  number  of  tlie  persons  slain — 185,000  in  a  single  night 
. — so  immensely  surpasses  the  effects  even  of  the  most  terrible 
plagues,  that  this  fact  cannot  be  interpreted  naturally ;  and  the 
deniers  of  miracle  have  therefore  felt  obliged  to  do  violence  to 
the  text,  and  to  pronounce  either  the  statement  that  it  was  "  the 
same  night "  or  the  number  of  the  slain  a  mythical  exaggera- 
tion.^— ^Ver.  36.  This  divine  judgment  compelled  Sennacherib 
to  retreat  without  delay,  and  to  return  to  Nineveh,  as  Isaiah, 
28  and  32,  had  predicted.  The  heaping  up  of  the  verbs :  "  he 
decamped,  departed,  and  returned,"  expresses  the  hurry  of  the 
march  home.  nirj3  2f^_^  "  he  sate,  i.e.  remained,  in  Nineveh," 
implies  not  merely  that  Sennacherib  lived  for  some  time  after 
his  return,  but  also  that  he  did  not  undertake  any  fresh  expedi- 
tion against  Judah.  On  Nineveh  see  at  Gen.  x.  11. — Ver.  37 
contains  an  account  of  Sennacherib's  death.  When  he  was 
worshipping  in  the  temple  of  his  god  Nisroch,  his  sons  Adram- 
melech  and  Sharezer  slew  him,  and  fled  into,  the  land  of  Ararat, 
and  his  son  Esarhaddon  became  king  in  his  stead.  "With  regard 
to  'n'^P^,  Nisroch,  all  that  seems  to  be  firmly  established  is  that 
he  was  an  eagle-deity,  and  represented  by  the  eagle-  or  vulture- 
headed  human  figure  with  wings,  which  is  frequently  depicted 
upon  the  Assyrian  monuments,  "  not  only  in  colossal  proportions 
upon  the  walls  and  watching  the  portals  of  the  rooms,  but  also 
constantly  in  the  groups  upon  the  embroidered  robes.     When  it 

1  The  assertion  of  Thenius,  that  vers.  35-37  are  borrowed  from  a  different 
source  from  ch.  xviii.  13-19,  34  and  xx.  1-19,  rests  upon  purely  arbitrary 
suppositions  and  groundless  assumptions,  and  is  only  made  in  the  interest  of 
the  mythical  interpretation  of  the  miracle.  And  his  conclusion,  that  "  since 
the  catastrophe  was  evidently  (?)  occasioned  by  the  sudden  breaking  out  of  a 
pestilence,  the  scene  of  it  was  no  doubt  the  pestilential  Egypt,"  is  just  as  un- 
founded,— as  if  Egypt  were  the  only  land  in  which  a  pestilence  could  suddenly 
have  broken  out. — The  account  given  by  Herodotus  (ii.  141),  that  on  the 
prayer  of  king  Sethon,  a  priest  of  Vulcan,  the  deity  promised  him  victory  over 
the  great  advancing  army  of  Sennacherib,  and  that  during  the  night  mice 
Spread  among  the  enemy  (i.e.  in  the  Assyrian  camp  at  Pelusium),  and  ate  up 
the  quivers  and  bows,  and  the  leather  straps  of  the  shields,  so  that  the  next 
morning  they  were  obliged  to  flee  without  their  weapons,  and  many  were  cut 
down,  is  simply  a  legendary  imitation  of  our  account,  i.e.  an  Egyptian  variation 
of  the  defeat  of  Sennacherib  in  Judah.  The  eating  up  of  the  Assj-rian  weapons 
by  mice  is  merely  the  explanation  given  to  Herodotus  by  the  Egyptian  priests 
of  the  hieroglyphical  legend  on  the  standing  figure  of  Sethos  at  Memphis,  from 
which  we  cannot  even  gather  the  historical  fact  that  Sennacherib  really  ad- 
vanced as  far  as  Pelusium. 


CHAP.  XIX.  35-37.  459 

is  introduced  in  this  way,  we  see  it  constantly  fighting  with 
other  mythical  animals,  such  as  human-headed  oxen  or  lions ; 
and  in  these  conflicts  it  always  appears  to  be  \'ictoriou3,"  from 
which  we  may  infer  that  it  was  a  t}'pe  of  the  supreme  deity 
(see  Layard's  Nineoek  and  its  Hemains).  The  eagle  was  wor- 
shipped as  a  god  by  the  Arabs  (Pococke,  Specim.  pp.  94,  199), 
was  regarded  as  sacred  to  Mdkarth  by  the  Phoenicians  {Nonnus, 
Dionys.  xL  495,  528),  and,  according  to  a  statement  of  Philo, 
Byhl.  (in  Euseb.  Prcspar.  evang.  i.  1 0),  that  Zoroaster  taught  that 
the  supreme  deity  was  represented  with  an  eagle's  head,  it  was 
also  a  symbol  of  Ormuzd  among  the  Persians ;  consequently 
Movers  {PhOniz.  i.  pp.  68,  506,  507)  regards  Nisroch  as  the 
supreme  deity  of  the  Assyrians.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it 
was  also  connected  with  the  constellation  of  the  eagle  (see 
Ideler,  Ur sprung  der  Stemnamen,  p.  416).  On  the  other  hand, 
the  current  interpretation  of  the  name  from  "^'^'l  O'^'h  Chald. ; 

.*J,  Arab.),  eagle,  vulture,  with  the  Persian  adjective  termination 

ok  or  ach,  is  very  doubtful,  not  merely  on  account  of  the  D  in  T^P3, 
but  chiefly  because  this  name  does  not  occur  in  Assyrian,  but 
simply  Asar,  Assar,  and  AsaraJc  as  the  name  of  a  deity  which  is 
met  with  in  many  Ass}Tian  proper  names.  The  last  is  also  adopted 
by  the  LXX.,  who  {ed.  Aldin.  Compl.)  have  rendered  tpo:  by  ^Aaa- 
pdx  in  Isaiah,  and  Eaopdx  (cod.  Vatic.)  in  2  Kings,  by  the  side  of 
which  the  various  readings  Meaepd-^  in  our  text  (cod.  Vat.)  and 
Nacapd-x^  in  Isaiah  are  evidently  secondary  readings  emended 
from  the  Hebrew,  since  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  1,  5)  has  the  form 
'ApaaK7]<;,  which  is  merely  somewhat "  Grgecized."  The  meaning 
of  these  names  is  still  in  obscurity,  even  if  there  should  be  some 
foundation  for  the  assumption  that  Assar  belongs  to  the  same 
root  as  the  name  of  the  people  and  land,  Asshur.  The  connec- 
tion between  the  form  Nisroch  and  Asarak  is  also  still  obscure. 
Compare  the  collection  wliich  J.  G.  Miiller  has  made  of  the 
different  conjectures  concerning  this  deit}'^  in  the  Art.  Xisroch  in 
Herzog's  Cycl. — Adrammdech,  according  to  ch.  x\-ii  31,  was 
the  name  of  a  deity  of  Sepharvaim,  which  was  here  borne  by  the 
king's  son.  ■^>!?"!?',  Sharezei;  is  said  to  mean  "  prince  of  fire,"  and 
was  probably  also  borrowed  from  a  deity.  V:3  (Isa.)  is  wanting 
in  our  text,  but  is  supplied  by  the  IMasora  in  the  Keri  The 
"  land  of  Ararat "  was  a  portion  of  the  high  land  of  Ai-menia ; 
according  to  Moses  v.  Chorene,  the  ceutral  portion  of  it  with 


460  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  mountains  of  the  same  name  (see  at  Gen.  viii.  4).  The 
slaying  of  Sennacherib  is  also  confirmed  by  Alex.  Polyhistor,  or 
rather  Berosus  (in  Euseb.  Chron.  Armen.  i.  p.  43),  who  simply 
names,  however,  a  son  Ardumusanus  as  having  committed  the 
murder,  and  merely  mentions  a  second  Asordanius  as  viceroy  of 
Babylon.^  The  identity  of  the  latter  with  Esarhaddon  is  beyond 
all  doubt.  The  name  nn^"???,  Esar-cha-don,  consisting  of  two 
parts  with  the  guttural  inserted,  the  usual  termination  in  As- 
syrian and  Babylonian,  Assar-ach,  is  spelt  'AaopSdv  in  the  LXX., 
Xa-)(€pZov6<i  in  Tobit — probably  formed  from  ^Aa-ep-'^-Bovoaop  by 
a  transposition  of  the  letters, — by  Josephus  'Ao-aapa'^6BBa<i,  by 
Berosus  (in  the  armen.  Euseh.)  Asordanes,  by  Abyden.  ibid. 
Axerdis,  in  the  Canon  Piol.  'Aa-apd8Lvo<;,  and  lastly  in  Ezra  iv. 
10  mutilated  into  ">S3Dfr^,  Osnappar  (Chald.),  and  in  the  LXX. 
'Aaa-€va(j)dp ;  upon  the  Assyrian  monuments,  according  to  Oppert, 
Assur-akh-iddin  (cf.  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Ass.  p.  38).  The 
length  of  his  reign  is  uncertain.  The  statements  of  Berosus, 
that  he  was  first  of  all  viceroy  of  Babylon,  and  then  for  eight 
years  king  of  Assyria,  and  that  of  the  Canon  Ptol.,  that  he 
reigned  for  thirteen  years  in  Babylon,  are  decidedly  incorrect. 
Brandis  {Berum  Assyr.  tempora  emend,  p.  41)  conjectures  that  he 
reigned  twenty-eight  years,  but  in  his  work  Ueber  den  histor. 
Gevdnn,  pp.  73,  74,  he  suggests  seventeen  years.  M.  v.  Niebuhr 
(ut  sup.  p.  77),  on  the  other  hand,  reckons  his  reign  at  twenty- 
four  years. 

CHAP.  XX.    HEZEKIAH'S  ILLNESS  AND  RECOVERY.       MERODACH 
BALADAN'S  embassy.      DEATH  OF  HEZEKIAH. 

Vers.  1-11.  Hezekiah's  Illness  and  Eecovery. — Compare 
the  parallel  account  in  Isa.  xxxviii.  with  Hezekiah's  psalm  of 
thanksgiving  for  his  recovery  (vers.  9-20  of  Isaiah). — Ver.  1. 
"  In  those  days  was  Hezekiah  sick  unto  death."  By  the  ex- 
pression "  in  those  days "  the  iUness  of  Hezekiah  is  merely 
assigned  in  a  general  manner  to  the  same  time  as  the  events 
previously  described.     That  it  did  not  occur  after  the  departure 

*  With  regard  to  the  statement  of  Abydenus  in  Euseb.  I.  c.  p.  53,  that 
Sennacherib  was  followed  by  Ncrgilus,  who  was  slain  by  his  son  Adrameles, 
who  again  was  murdered  by  his  brother  Axerdis,  and  its  connection  with 
Berosus  and  the  biblical  account,  see  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Geschichte  Assurs,  pp. 
861  sqq.  Nergilus  is  probably  the  same  person  as  Sharezer,  and  Axerdis  as 
Emrhaddo7i. 


CHAP.  XX.  1-11.  461 

of  the  Assyrians,  but  at  the  commencement  of  the  invasion  of 
Sennacherib,  i.e.  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah"s  reign,  is 
evident  from  ver.  6,  namely,  both  from  the  fact  that  in  answer 
to  his  prayer  fifteen  years  more  of  life  were  promised  him,  and 
that  he  nevertheless  reigned  only  twenty-nine  years  (ch.  xviii 
2),  and  also  from  the  fact  that  God  promised  to  deliver  him 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  Assyrians  and  to  defend  Jerusalem. 
The  widespread  notion  that  his  sickness  was  an  attack  of  plague, 
and  was  connected  with  the  pestilence  which  had  broken  out 
in  the  Assyrian  camp,  is  thereby  deprived  of  its  chief  support, 
apart  from  the  fact  that  the  epithet  rO'f  (ver.  7),  which  is 
applied  to  the  sickness,  does  not  indicate  pestilence.  Isaiah 
then  called  upon  him  to  set  his  house  in  order.  I^'??  fi :  set 
thy  house  in  order,  lit.  command  or  order  with  regard  to  thy 
house,  not  declare  thy  (last)  will  to  thy  family  (Ges.,  Knob.), 
for  nvsf  is  construed  with  the  occils.  pers.  in  the  sense  of  com- 
manding anj^thing,  whereas  here  p  is  synonymous  with  ?X 
(2  Sam.  xvii.  23).  "  For  thou  wilt  die  and  not  live  ;"  i.e.  thy 
sickness  is  to  death,  namely,  without  the  miraculous  help  of 
God.  Sickness  to  death  in  the  very  prime  of  life  (Hezekiah 
was  then  in  the  fortieth  year  of  his  age)  appeared  to  the  godly 
men  of  the  Old  Testament  a  sign  of  divine  displeasure.  Heze- 
kiah was  therefore  greatly  agitated  by  this  announcement,  and 
sought  for  consolation  and  help  in  prayer.  He  turned  his  face 
to  the  wall,  sc.  of  the  room,  not  of  the  temple  (Chald.).  i.e.  away 
from  those  who  were  standing  round,  to  be  able  to  pray  more 
collectedly. — Ver.  3.  In  his  prayer  he  appealed  to  his  walking 
before  the  Lord  in  truth  and  with  a  thoroughly  devoted  heart, 
and  to  his  acting  in  a  manner  that  was  well-pleasing  to  God,  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  legal  standpoint  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  demanded  of  the  godly  righteousness  of  life  accord- 
ing to  the  law.  This  did  not  imply  by  any  means  a  seK-righteous 
trust  in  his  own  virtue;  for  walking  before  God  with  a  thoroughly 
devoted  heart  was  impossible  without  faith.  "  And  Hezekiah 
wept  violently,"  not  merely  at  the  fact  that  he  was  to  die  with- 
out having  an  heir  to  the  throne,  since  Manasseh  was  not  bom 
till  three  years  afterwards  (Joseph.,  Ephr.  Syr.,  etc.),  but  also 
because  he  was  to  die  in  the  ver}"  midst  of  his  life,  since  God 
had  promised  long  life  to  the  righteous. — ^Vers.  4  sqq.  This 
prayer  of  the  godly  king  was  answered  immediately.  Isaiah 
had  not  gone  out  of  the  midst  of  the  city,  when  the  word  of 


4:62  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  Lord  came  to  him  to  return  to  the  king,  and  tell  him  that 
the  Lord  would  cure  him  in  three  days  and  add  fifteen  years 
to  his  life,  and  that  He  would  also  deliver  him  from  the  power 
of  the  Assyrians  and  defend  Jerusalem,  nji'^riri  "i"'vn^  the  middle 
city,  i.e.  the  central  portion  of  the  city,  namely,  the  Zion  city, 
in  which  the  royal  citadel  stood.  The  Keri  'nn  "ivn^  the  central 
court,  not  of  the  temple,  but  of  the  royal  citadel,  which  is 
adopted  in  aU  the  ancient  versions,  is  nothing  more  than  an 
interpretation  of  the  "y^V  as  denoting  the  royal  castle,  after  the 
analogy  of  ch.  x.  25.  The  distinct  assurance  added  to  the 
promise  "  I  will  heal  thee,"  viz.  "  on  the  third  day  thou  wilt 
go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  was  intended  as  a  pledge  to  the 
king  of  the  promised  cure.  The  announcement  that  God  would 
add  fifteen  years  to  his  life  is  not  put  into  the  prophet's  mouth 
ex  eventu  (Knobel  and  others)  ;  for  the  opinion  that  distinct 
statements  as  to  time  are  at  variance  with  the  nature  of  pro- 
phecy is  merely  based  upon  an  a  priori  denial  of  the  super- 
natural character  of  prophecy.  The  words,  "  and  I  will  deliver 
thee  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Assyrians,"  imply  most  distinctly 
that  the  Assyrian  had  only  occupied  the  land  and  threatened 
Jerusalem,  and  had  not  yet  withdrawn.  The  explanation  given 
by  Vitringa  and  others,  that  the  words  contain  simply  a  promise 
of  deliverance  out  of  the  hand  of  the  oppressor  for  the  next 
fifteen  years,  puts  a  meaning  into  them  which  they  do  not  con- 
tain, as  is  clearly  shown  by  Isa.  xxxvii.  20,  where  this  thought 
is  expressed  in  a  totally  difierent  manner,  'w^  y'VTrbv  "•niSJi :  as 
in  ch.  xix.  34,  where  the  prophet  repeated  this  divine  promise 
in  consequence  of  the  attempt  of  Sennacherib  to  get  Jerusalem 
into  his  power. — ^Yer.  7.  Isaiah  ordered  a  lump  of  figs  to  be 
laid  upon  the  boil,  and  Hezekiah  recovered  (^n>i :  he  revived 
again).  It  is  of  course  assumed  as  self-evident,  that  Isaiah 
returned  to  the  king  in  consequence  of  a  divine  revelation,  and 
communicated  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  he  had 
received.^     0''^^'!'  ^^./^l  is  a  mass  consisting  of  compressed  figs, 

*  The  account  is  still  more  abridged  in  the  text  of  Isaiah,  In  ver.  4  the 
precise  time  of  the  prayer  is  omitted  ;  in  ver.  6  the  words,  "  behold,  I  will 
cure  thee,  on  the  third  day  thou  shalt  go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  ;"  and 
in  ver.  6  the  words,  "  for  mine  own  sake  and  my  servant  David's  sake." 
The  four  verses  8-11,  which  treat  of  the  miraculous  signs,  are  also  very 
much  contracted  in  Isaiah  (vers.  7  and  8)  ;  and  vers.  7  and  8  of  our  text  aro 
only  given  at  the  close  of  Hezekiah's  psalm  of  praise  in  that  of  Isaiah  (vers. 
21  and  22). 


CHAP.  XX.  i-it  463 

which  the  ancients  were  in  the  hahit  of  applying,  according  to 
many  testimonies  (see  Celsii  Hierdb.  ii.  p.  373),  in  the  case  of 
plague-boils  and  abscesses  of  other  kinds,  because  the  fig  Sia^opet 
<xicKr}pia<i  (Dioscor.)  and  ulcera  aperit  (Plin.),  and  which  is  still 
used  for  softening  ulcers.  T^p,  an  abscess,  is  never  nsed  in 
connection  with  plague  or  plague-boils,  but  only  to  denote  the 
abscesses  caused  by  leprosy  (Job  ii.  7,  8),  and  other  abscesses 
of  an  inflammatory  kind  (Ex.  ix.  9  sqq.).  In  the  case  of  Heze- 
kiah  it  is  probably  a  carbuncle  that  is  intended. 

After  the  allusion  to  the  cure  and  recovery  of  Hezekiah,  we 
have  an  account  in  vers.  8  sqq.  of  the  sign  by  which  Isaiah 
confirmed  the  promise  given  to  the  king  of  the  prolongation  of 
his  life.  In  the  order  of  time  the  contents  of  ver.  7  follow 
yer.  11,  since  the  prophet  in  all  probability  first  of  aU  disclosed, 
the  divine  promise  to  the  king,  and  then  gave  him  the  sign,  and 
after  that  appointed  the  remedy  and  had  it  applied.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  also  quite  possible  that  he  first  of  all  directed 
the  lump  of  figs  to  be  laid  upon  the  boil,  and  then  made  known 
to  him  the  divine  promise,  and  guaranteed  it  by  the  sign.  In 
this  case  *n>l  merely  anticipates  the  order  of  events.  The  sign 
which  Isaiah  gave  to  the  king,  at  his  request,  consisted  in  the 
miraculous  movement  of  the  shadow  backward  upon  the  sun- 
dial of  Ahaz. — ^Ver.  9.  ''2fn  "Tj^n  ;  "  the  shadow  is  gone  ten  degrees, 
if  it  should  go  back  ten  degrees  ?"  The  rendering,  visnx  umhram 
solarii  decern  gradibus  progredi  an  .  .  .  regredi,  which  Maurer 
still  gives  after  the  Vulgate,  vis  an  ut  asccndat  .  .  .  an  ut  rever- 
tatur,  cannot  be  grammatically  reconciled  with  the  perfect  ^^^, 
and  is  merely  a  conjecture  founded  upon  the  answer  of  Heze- 
kiah.^ According  to  this  answer,  "  it  is  easy  for  the  shadow 
to  decline  {i.e.  to  go  farther  down)  ten  degrees  ;  no  (sc.  that  shall 
not  be  a  sign  to  me),  but  if  the  shadow  turn  ten  degrees  back- 
ward," Isaiah  seems  to  have  given  the  king  a  choice  as  to  the 
sign,  namely,  whether  the  shadow  should  go  ten  degrees  forward 
or  backward.  But  this  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  the 
words  quoted.  Hezekiah  may  have  understood  the  prophet's 
words  '"iJ^  P2;n  '^br^  hypotheticadly :  "  has  the  shadow  gone  (ad- 
vanced) ten  degrees,  whether  it  should,"  etc. ;  and  may  have 

^  Hitzig  and  Knobel  would  therefore  read  ^'Sn,  though  without  famishing 
any  proofs  that  the  inf.  abs.  is  used  for  the  futiu*e  in  the  first  clause  of  a 
double  question,  especially  if  the  n  interrog.  is  wanting,  and  there  ia  no 
special  emphasis  upon  the  verbal  idea. 


464  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

replied,  the  advance  of  the  shadow  would  not  be  a  sure  sign  to 
him,  but  only  its  going  back — Ver.  11.  Isaiah  then  prayed  to 
the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  "  turned  back  the  shadow  (caused  it  to  go 
back)  upon  the  sun-dial,  where  it  had  gone  down,  on  the  sun- 
dial of  Ahaz,  ten  degrees  backward."  ins  ni7j?0  cannot  be  un- 
derstood, as  it  has  been  by  the  LXX.,  Joseph.,  Syr.,  as  referring 
to  a  flight  of  steps  at  the  palace  of  Ahaz,  which  was  so  arranged 
that  the  shadow  of  an  object  standing  near  indicated  the  hours, 
but  is  no  doubt  a  gnomon,  a  sun-dial  which  Ahaz  may  have 
received  from  Babylonia,  where  sun-dials  were  discovered  (Herod, 
ii.  1 0  9).  Nothing  further  can  be  inferred  from  the  words  with 
regard  to  its  construction,  since  the  ancients  had  different  kinds 
of  sun-dials  (cf.  Martini  Abhancllung  von  den  Sonnenuhren  der 
Alien,  Lpz.  1777).  The  word  ni7j;D,  steps  in  the  literal  sense, 
is  transferred  to  the  scala,  which  the  shadow  had  to  traverse  both 
up  and  down  upon  the  disk  of  the  sun-dial,  and  is  used  both 
to  denote  the  separate  degrees  of  this  scala,  and  also  for  the 
sum-total  of  these  scala,  i.e.  for  the  sun-dial  itself,  without  there 
being  any  necessity  to  assume  that  it  was  an  obeHsk-like  piUar 
erected  upon  an  elevated  place  with  steps  running  round  it 
(Knobel),  or  a  long  portable  scale  of  twice  ten  steps  with  a 
gnomon  (Gumpach,  Alttestl.  Studien,  pp.  181  sqq.).  All  that 
follows  from  the  descent  of  the  shadow  is  that  the  dial  of  the 
gnomon  was  placed  in  a  vertical  direction ;  and  the  fact  that 
the  shadow  went  ten  degrees  down  or  backward,  simply  pre- 
supposes that  the  gnomon  had  at  least  twenty  degrees,  and  there- 
fore that  the  degrees  indicated  smaller  portions  of  time  than 
hours.  If,  then,  it  is  stated  in  ver.  86  of  Isaiah  that  the  sun 
went  back  ten  degrees,  whereas  the  going  back  of  the  shadow 
had  been  previously  mentioned  in  agreement  with  our  text,  it 
is  seK-evident  that  the  sun  stands  for  the  shining  of  the  sun 
which  was  visible  upon  the  dial-plate,  and  which  made  the 
shadow  recede.  We  are  not,  of  course,  to  suppose  that  the  sun 
in  the  sky  and  the  shadow  on  the  sun-dial  went  back  at  the 
same  time,  as  Knobel  assumes.  So  far  as  the  miracle  is  con- 
cerned, the  words  of  the  text  do  not  require  that  we  should 
assume  that  the  sun  receded,  or  the  rotation  of  the  earth  was 
reversed,  as  Eph.  Syr.  and  others  supposed,  but  simply  affirm 
that  there  was  a  miraculous  movement  backward  of  the  shadow 
upon  the  dial,  which  might  be  accounted  for  from  a  miraculous 
refraction  of  the  fays  of   the   sun,  effected  by  God  at  the- 


CHAP.  XX.  1?-19.  465 

prophet's  prayer,  of  which  slight  analogs  are  met  with  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature.^  This  miraculous  sign  was  selected 
as  a  significant  one  in  itself,  to  confirm  the  promise  of  a  fresh 
extension  of  life  which  had  been  given  to  Hezekiah  by  the  grace 
of  God  in  opposition  to  the  natural  course  of  things.  The 
retrograde  movement  of  the  shadow  upon  the  sun-dial  indicated 
that  Hezekiah's  life,  which  had  already  arrived  at  its  close  by 
natural  means,  was  to  be  put  back  by  a  miracle  of  divine  omni- 
potence, so  that  it  might  continue  for  another  series  of  years. 

Vers.  12—19.  The  Bahjlonian  embassy,  and  HezeTciaKs  im- 
jfnrudence  (cf  Isa.  xxxix.). — Ver.  12.  "  At  that  time  Berodach 
Baladan,  king  of  Babel,  sent  a  letter  and  a  present  to  Hezekiah, 
because  he  had  heard  that  Hezekiah  was  sick."  By  S'nn  nya 
the  arrival  of  these  ambassadors  is  merely  assigned  in  the  most 
general  manner  to  the  period  following  Hezekiah's  recovery. 
But  from  the  object  of  their  mission,  it  is  evident  that  they  did 
not  arrive  in  Jerusalem  till  after  the  overthrow  and  departure 
of  Sennacherib,  and  therefore  at  least  half  a  year  after  Heze- 
kiah's recovery.  The  ostensible  reason  given  is,  that  Berodach 
Baladan  had  heard  of  Hezekiah's  illness,  and  therefore  sent  to 
congratulate  him  on  his  recovery ;  but  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  3 1  the 
further  reason  is  mentioned,  that  he  wished  to  inquire  concerning 
the  miracle  upon  the  sun-diaL  But,  as  Josephus  has  shown,  the 
true  object,  no  doubt,  was  to  make  sure  of  Hezekiah's  friendship 
in  anticipation  of  his  intended  revolt  from  the  Assyrian  rule. 
Berodach  Baladan,  for  Mcrodach  Baladan  (Isa),  with  the  labial 
changed,  is  the  same  person  as  the  Marodach  Baladan  who 
reigned  in  Babylon  for  six  months,  according  to  Alex.  Polyhistor, 
or  rather  Berosus  (Euseb.  Chron.  armen.  L  pp.  42,  43),  and  was 
slain  by  Elibus,  and  also  the  same  as  the  Mardokempad  who 
reigned,  according  to  the  Can.  Bid.,  from  26  to  38  mr.  Nah., 
i.e.  from  721  to  709  B.C.  The  first  part  of  the  name,  Tl'ip, 
occurs  in  Jer.  L  2  in  connection  with  Bel  as  the  name  of  a 
Babylonian  idol ;  and  the  whole  name  is  found  on  a  cylinder 

^  As,  for  example,  the  phenomenon  quoted  by  several  commentators,  which 
was  observed  at  Metz  in  Lothringen  in  the  year  1703  by  the  prior  of  the 
convent  there,  P.  Romuald,  and  other  persons,  viz.  that  the  shadow  of  a  sun- 
dial went  back  an  hour  and  a  half. — The  natural  explanation  of  the  miracle 
•which  is  given  by  Thenius,  who  attributes  it  to  an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  needs 
no  refutation. — For  the  different  opinions  of  the  earlier  theologians,  see 
Carpzov,  Apparat.  crit.  p.  351  sqq. 

20 


466  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

(in  the  British  Museum)  which  contains  the  first  expeditions 
of  Sennacherib  against  Babylon  and  Media,  and  upon  the  in- 
scriptions at  Khorsabad  spelt  either  Mcrodak-pal-dsana  (accord- 
ing to  Brandis,  Ueber  der  Gewinn,  pp.  44  and  53)  or  Marduk  hal 
iddin  (according  to  Oppert)/  Instead  of  V^f  ''3  we  have  y?^!^ 
in  Isaiah,  which  is  not  so  clear,  though  it  is  probably  more 
original ;  whereas  the  clause  in  Isaiah,  pjn*\  npn  "is^  "  that  he  had 
been  sick  and  had  become  strengthened,  i.e.  well  again,"  is  simply 
an  elucidation  of  the  li^'iPtO  'i?'^  ''3  of  our  text,  in  which  the 
recovery  is  implied  in  the  pluperfect  "  had  been  sick." — In 
ver.  13  V^^'l]  is  apparently  a  copyist's  error  for  nnb^'l  of  Isaiah, 
which  many  of  the  codd.  and  ancient  versions  have  even  in  our 
text.  At  the  same  time,  the  construction  of  Vpf  with  by  is  also 
found  in  ch.  xxii.  13. — D[?vJ^,  concerning  them,  i.e.  the  ambas- 
sadors who  had  brought  the  letter  and  the  present.  In  his 
delight  at  the  honour  paid  to  him  by  this  embassy,  Hezekiah 
showed  the  ambassadors  all  his  treasure-house,  the  silver,  and 
the  gold,  and  the  spices,  and  the  costly  oil,  and  all  his  arsenal, 
etc.  The  literal  meaning  of  nb3  ri^a  is  probably  spice-house 
(Aquila,  Symm.,  Vulg.),  ra^  being  a  contraction  of  riN33  in  Gen. 
xxxvii.  25,  whereas  the  derivation  suggested  from  the  Arabic 

/     -Si    / 

^^^.v  <:!-.  farsit,  implevit  locum,  is  much  more  wide  of  the  mark. 

The  house  received  its  name  from  the  spices  for  the  storing  of 
which  it  was  really  intended,  although  it  was  also  used  for  the 
storing  of  silver  and  gold,  ^itsn  }DB'  is  not  fine  olive  oH,  but, 
according  to  the  Eabbins  and  Movers  {PJiOniz.  iii.  p.  227),  the 
valuable  balsam  oil  which  was  obtained  in  the  royal  gardens ; 
for  olive  oil,  which  was  obtained  in  all  Judsea,  was  not  stored 
in  the  treasure-chambers  along  with  gold,  silver,  and  perfumes, 
but  in  special  storehouses  (1  Chron.  xxvii.  28).  irip^op'bsa,  in 
all  his  dominion,  i.e.  in  all  the  district  which  he  was  able  to 
govern  or  control. — The  existence  of  such  treasures,  of  which, 
according  to  ver.  17,  the  ancestors  of  Hezekiah  had  collected  a 
very  large  store,  at  so  short  a  period  after  the  departure  of  the 
Assyrians,  is  not  at  variance  with  ch.  xviii.  15,  16,  according 

^  Compare  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Ass.  p.  40 ;  and  with  regard  to  the 
chronological  differences,  on  account  of  which  many  have  called  in  question 
the  identity  of  Merodach  Baladan  either  with  the  Martidach-Baladan  of 
Berosus  or  with  the  Mardukempad  of  the  Can.  Ptol.,  see  the  ciiscussion  of 
this  point  at  pp.  75  sqq. 


CHAP.  XX.  12-19.      IF.T  467 

to  whicli  Hezekiah  had  sent  to  Sennacherib  all  the  silver  in  his 
treasuries,  and  even  the  gold  plate  upon  the  temple  doors.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  it  is  not  stated  that  there  was  much  silver  and 
gold  in  the  treasure-house,  but  the  silver  and  gold  are  simply 
mentioned  along  with  the  spices  ;  and,  secondly,  Hezekiah  may 
have  kept  back  from  Sennacherib  many  a  valuable  piece  of 
silver  or  gold,  and  have  taken  off  the  gold  plate  from  the  temple 
doors,  to  show  the  ambassadors  of  Sennacherib,  who  came  to 
receive  the  money  demanded  as  compensation,  that  he  was  not 
in  a  condition  to  give  anything  more.  Moreover  a  great  deal 
may  have  flowed  into  the  treasuries  since  the  payment  of  that 
tribute,  partly  from  the  presents  which  Hezeldah  received  from 
many  quarters  after  the  overtlirow  of  Sennacherib  (2  Chron. 
xxxii.  23),  and  partly  from  the  booty  that  had  been  collected  in 
the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  after  their  hurried  departure.  And 
again,  the  treasures  which  the  ancestors  of  Hezekiah  had  col- 
lected (ver.  17)  may  not  have  consisted  of  gold  and  silver 
exactly,  but  of  different  jewels  and  objects  of  art,  which  could 
not  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  tribute  demanded  by 
Sennacherib.  And,  lastly,  "  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact, 
that  it  answered  the  purpose  of  the  reporter  to  crowd  together 
as  much  as  possible,  in  order  to  show  how  anxious  Hezekiah 
was  to  bring  out  and  exhibit  everything  whatever  that  could 
contribute  to  the  folly"  (Drechsler).  Hezekiah  e^'idently  wanted 
to  show  all  his  glory,  because  the  arrival  of  the  Babylonian 
ambassadors  had  flattered  his  vanity. — Vers.  14  sqq.  Isaiah 
therefore  announced  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  aU  his 
treasures  would  one  day  be  carried  to  Babel,  and  some  even  of 
his  sons  would  serve  as  chamberlains  in  the  palace  of  the  king 
of  BabeL  The  sin  of  vanity  was  to  be  punished  by  the  carrj^- 
ing  away  of  that  of  which  his  heart  was  proud.  Isaiah  did  not 
go  to  Hezekiah  by  his  own  impulse,  but  by  the  direction  of 
God.  His  inquiries  :  "  What  have  these  men  said,  and  whence 
do  they  come  to  thee  ? "  were  simply  intended  to  lead  the  king 
to  give  expression  to  the  thoughts  of  his  heart.  In  the  answer, 
'•'  Trom  a  distant  land  have  they  come,  from  Babel,"  his  vanity 
at  the  great  honour  that  had  been  paid  him  comes  clearly  to 
light. — Ver.  18.  The  words,  "  of  thy  sons,  which  shaU  proceed 
from  thee,  which  thou  shalt  beget,"  do  not  necessarily  refer  to 
actual  S071S,  but  only  to  lineal  descendants.  The  Chethib  r\^\ 
"  will  one  take,"  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  ^^^\  of  Isaiah  and  the 


468  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF 'KINGS. 

Keri,  as  being  the  more  difficult  reading.  CJ^P''")D,  chamberlains, 
courtiers,  not  necessarily  eunuchs,  as  in  1  Sam.  viii.  15,  etc. — 
For  the  fulfilment  of  this  threat  see  Dan.  i.  2  sqq. — Ver.  19. 
The  first  part  of  Hezekiah's  reply,  "  Good  is  the  word  of  Jehovah, 
which  thou  hast  spoken,"  is  an  expression  of  submission  to  the 
will  of  the  Lord,  like  Eli's  answer  in  1  Sam.  iii.  1 8  (cf  1  Kings 
ii.  38,  42)  •}  the  second  part,  which  the  repetition  of  i»*<'l  shows 
to  have  been  spoken  after  a  pause,  and  which  was  not  addressed 
directly  to  Isaiah,  "  Is  it  not  so  {i.e.  is  it  not  purely  goodness), 
if  there  are  to  be  peace  and  truth  in  my  days  (during  my  life)  ? " 
is  a  candid  acknowledgment  of  the  grace  and  truth  of  the  Lord.^ 
NvH  is  used,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  in  the  sense  of  a  lively 
affirmation.  Instead  of  2^<  sipn  we  have  in  Isaiah  ^3,  "  for  there 
will  be  peace  and  truth,"  by  which  this  clause  is  attached  more 
clearly  to  the  first  declaration  as  a  reason  for  it :  the  word  of 
the  Lord  is  good,  for  the  Lord  proves  His  goodness  and  truth  in 
the  fact,  that  He  wiU  not  inflict  the  merited  punishment  in  my 
lifetime.  "  Peace  and  truth"  are  connected  as  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  6. 
nox  does  not  mean  continuance  (Ges.),  security  (Knobel),  but 
fides,  faithfulness, — not  human  faithfulness,  however,  which  pre- 
serves peace,  and  observes  a  tacit  treaty  (Hitzig),  but  the  faith- 
fulness of  God,  which  preserves  the  promised  grace  to  the 
humble. 

Vers.  20  and  21.  Close  of  Hezekiah's  reign. — On  the  basin 
('■I3"i3)  and  the  aqueduct  constructed  by  him,  see  at  ck  xviii  1 7. 

CHAP.  XXI.    REIGNS  OF  MANASSEH  AND  AMON. 

Vers.  1-18.  Eeign  of  Manasseh  (cf  2  Chron.  xxxiii  1-20). 
— Ver.  1.  Manasseh  was  twelve  years  old  when  he. began  to 
reign,  so  that  he  was  not  born  till  after  Hezekiah's  dangerous 
illness  (ch.  xx.  1  sqq.). — Vers.  2  sqq.  Having  begun  to  reign  at 
this  early  age,  he  did  not  choose  his  father's  ways,  but  set  up  the 
idolatry  of  his  father  Ahab  again,  since  the  godless  party  in  the 

^  "  He  calls  that  good  in  which  it  is  right  to  acquiesce,  as  having  proceeded 
from  Him  who  does  nothing  but  what  is  not  only  most  just,  but  tempered 
with  the  greatest  goodness,  even  when  He  inflicts  punishment."— Clericus. 

*  "  He  praises  the  moderation  of  the  divine  decree,  because  when  God,  in 
accordance  with  His  justice,  might  have  brought  this  calamity  upon  him  in 
his  own  person,  for  His  mercy's  sake  He  was  willing  to  spare  him  and  to 
put  off  the  evil  to  a  future  day."— ViTiiiNaA. 


CHAP.  XXI.  1-18.  469 

nation,  at  "^hose  head  chiefs,  priests,  and  (false)  prophets  stood, 
and  who  would  not  hearken  to  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the 
time   of  Hezekiah  had  sought  help  against  Assyria  not  from 
Jehovah,  but  from  the  Egyptians  (Isa.  xxviii.  7,  14  sqq.,  xxx. 
9  sqq.),  had  obtained  control  of  the  young  and  inexperienced 
king,  and  had  persuaded  him  to  introduce  idolatry  again.     On 
ver.  2  cf.  ch.  viii   18  and  x\d.  3. — Ver.  3.  1?^  SK'^l,  "he  built 
again"  the  high  places,  which  Hezekiah  had  destroyed  (ch.  xviii 
4),  erected  altars  for  Baal  and  an  Asherah,  like  Ahab  of  Israel 
(1  Kings  xvi  32,  33).     <^^'^'^'}  is  the  image  of  Asherah  men- 
tioned in  ver.  7,  whereas  in  the  Chronicles  the  thought  is  gene- 
ralized by  the  plurals  D'^V^^  ^^^  ^'^'^'^^J}-     To  these  two  kinds  of 
idolatry,  the  idolatrous  bamoth  and  the  (true)  Baal-  and  Asherah- 
worship,  Manasseh  added  as  a  third  kind  the  worship  of  aU  the 
host  of  heaven,  which  had  not  occurred  among  the  Israelites  before 
the  Assyrian  era,  and  was  probably  of  Assyrian  or  Chald^ean 
origin.      This  worship  differed   from  the  Syrophcenician   star- 
worship,  in  which  sun  and  moon  were  worshipped  under  the 
names  of  Baal  and  Astarte  as  the  bearers  of  the  male  and  female 
powers  of  nature,  and  was  pure  star-worship,  based  upon  the 
idea  of  the  unchangeableness  of  the  stars  in  contradistinction  to 
the  perishableness  of  everything  earthly,  according  to  which  the 
stars  were  worshipped  not  merely  as  the  originators  of  all  rise 
and  decay  in  nature,  but  also  as  the  leaders  and  regulators  of 
sublunary  things  (see  Movers,  Phoniz.  i.  pp.  65  and  161).     This 
star- worship  was  a  later  development  of  the  primary  star- worship 
of  Ssabism,  in  which  the  stars  were  worshipped  without  any  image, 
in  the  open  air  or  upon  the  housetops,  by  simple  contemplation, 
the  oldest  and  comparatively  the  purest  form  of  the  deification 
of  nature,  to  which  the  earlier  Arabians  and  the  worshippers 
of  the  sun  among  the  Ssabians   (Zabians)  were  addicted  (cf 
Delitzsch  on  Job  xxxi  26,  27),  and  which  is  mentioned  and  for- 
bidden in  Deut.  iv.  19  and  xvii.  3.     In  this  later  form  the  sun 
had  sacred  chariots  and  horses  as  among  the  Persians  (ch.  xxiii. 
11),  and  incense  was  offered  to  the  stars,  with  the  face  turned 
towards  the  east,   upon  altars  which  were  built  either  upon 
housetops,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Nabatseans  (Strabo,  xvi.  784),  or 
within  the  limits  of  the  temple  in  the  two  courts  (cf.  Ezek.  viiL 
16,  also  ch.  xxi.  5,  xxiii.  12,  and  2  Chron.  xYYiii  5,  Jer.  xix.  13, 
ZepL  L  5).     This  burning  of  incense  took  place  not  merely  to  the 
8un  and  moon,  but  also  to  the  signs  of  the  zodiac  and  to  all  the 


47().  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

h'ost  of  heaven,  i.e:  to  all  the  stars  (ch.  xxiii.  5) ;  by  which  we  are  no 
doubt  to  understand  that  the  sun,  moon,  planets  and  other  stars, 
were  worshipped  in  conjunction  with  the  zodiac,  and  with  this 
were  connected  astrology,  augury,  and  the  casting  of  nativities, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  later  so-called  Chaldseans.^  This  star- wor- 
ship is  more  minutely  described  in  vers.  4  and  5.  The  two 
verses  are  closely  connected.  The  J^nato  njnv  of  ver.  4  is  re- 
sumed in  '3T0  }2*i  in  ver.  5,  and  the  '"'"'  ri'33  of  ver.  4  is  more 
minutely  defined  in  the  '"  n''3  nin^n  ''m2  of  ver.  5.  "In  the 
two  courts : "  not  merely  in  the  outer  court,  but  even  in  the 
court  of  the  priests,  which  was  set  apart  for  the  worship  of 
Jehovah. — Ver,  6.  He  also  offered  his  son  in  sacrifice  to  Moloch, 
like  Ahaz  (ch.  xvi.  3),  in  the  valley  of  Benhinnom  (Chron.  cf. 
ch.  xxiii.  10),  and  practised  soothsaying  and  witchcraft  of 
every  kind.  On  tJ'nji  ;piy  see  Deut.  xviii.  10  and  Lev.  xix.  26. 
aix  n^V^  he  made,  i.e.  appointed,  put  into  office,  a  "  necromancer 
and  wise  people"  (cf.  Lev.  xix.  31  and  Deut.  xviii.  11). — ^Ver. 
7.  Yea,  he  even  placed  the  image  of  Asherah  in  the  temple,  i.e. 
in  the  Holy  Place.  In  the  description  of  his  idolatry,  which 
advances  gradatim,  this  is  introduced  as  the  very  worst  crime. 
According  to  the  express  declaration  of  the  Lord  to  David 
(2  Sam.  vii.  13)  and  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix,  3  compared  with 
cL  viii.  16),  the  temple  was  to  serve  as  the  dwelling-place  of 
His  name. — ^Ver.  8.  The  word  of  the  Lord,  "I  will  no  more 
ipake  the  foot  of  Israel  to  move  out  of  the  land  which  I  gave  to 
their  fathers,"  refers  to  the  promise  in  2  Sam.  vii.  10  :  "I  will 
appoint  my  people  a  place,  that  they  may  dwell  in  a  place  of 
their  own,  and  be  stirred  up  no  more,"  which  had  been  fulfilled 
by  the  building  of  the  temple  as  the  seat  of  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  in  the  manner  indicated  in  pp.  85  sqq.  The  lasting  ful- 
filment of  this  promise,  however,  was  made  to  rest  upon  the  con- 
dition of  Israel's  faithful  adherence  to  the  commandm^ents  of  God 
(cf.  1  Kings  ix.  6  sqq.). — Ver.  9*  This  condition  was  not  observed 

1  Movers  {Ph'dniz.  i.  p.  65)  correctly  observes,  that  "  in  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  are  written  before  the  Assyrian  period  there  is  no  trace 
of  any  (?)  star-worship  ;  not  that  the  Phoenician  (Canaanitish)  gods  had  not 
also  a  sidereal  significance,  but  because  this  element  was  only  a  subordinate 
one,  and  the  expressions,  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven, 

which  are  not  met  with  before,  become  for  the  first  time  common  now," 

although  his  proofs  of  the  difference  between  the  Assyrian  star-worship 
and  the  Phoenician  and  Babylonian  image-worship  stand  greatly  in  need  of  ' 
critical  sifting.  ...,,  ....  ,     .  -"^3 


CHAP.  XXI.  1-18.  l7i* 

by  the  Israelites ;  Manasseh  seduced  them,  so  that  they  did  more 
evil  than  the  Canaanites,  whom  Jehovah  had  destroyed  before 
them. — ^Vers.  1j0-15.  The  Lord  therefore  announced  through  the 
prophets,  to  the  rebellious  and  idolatrous  nation,  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  deliverance  of  Judah  into  the  hands  of  its 
enemies;  but,  as  is  added  in  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  10,  they  paid  no 
heed  to  them.  The  prophets  who  foretold  this  terrible  judgment 
are  not  named.  According  to  2  Chron,  xxxiii.  18,  their  utter- 
ances were  entered  in  the  annals  of  the  kings,  Habakkuk  was 
probably  one  of  them,  since  he  (Hab.  i.  5)  predicted  the  Chal- 
daean  judgment  as  a  fact  which  excited  astonishment  and  appeared 
incredible.  The  Amorites  are  mentioned  in  ver.  1 1  instar  omnium 
as  the  supporters  of  the  Canaanitish  ungodliness,  as  in  1  Kings 
XXL  26,  etc. — -The  phrase,  "  that  whosoever  heareth  it,  both  his 
ears  may  tingle,"  denotes  such  a  judgment  as  has  never  been 
heard  of  before,  and  excites  alarm  and  horror  (cf,  1  Sam.  iii.  11 
and  Jer.  xix.  3),  The  Keri  '"^J'ob'  is  a  correction,  to  bring  the  pro- 
nom.  suff.  into  conformity  with  the  noun  nvT  so  far  as  the  gender 
is  concerned,  whereas  in  the  Chethib  Vjrab'  the  masculine  suffix 
is  used  in  the  place  of  the  feminine,  as  is  frequently  the  case, 
— Ver.  13.  "I  stretch  over  Jerusalem  the  measure  of  Samaria, 
and  the  plummet  of  the  house  of  Ahab,"  The  measure  (ip)  and 
the  plummet  (n^p"^,  lit.  a  level)  were  applied  to  what  was' 
being  built  (Zech.  i.  16),  and  also  to  what  was  being  made  level 
with  the  ground,  i.e.  completely  thrown  down  (Amos  vii.  7). 
From  this  sprang  the  figurative  expressions,  measure  of  desola- 
tion and  plimimet  of  devastation  (Isa.  xxxiv.  11). — The  measure 
of  Samaria  therefore  denotes  the  measure  which  was  applied  to 
the  destruction  of  Samaria,  and  the  plummet  of -the  house  of 
Ahab  denotes  the  extermination  of  the  royal  house  of  Ahab. 
The  meaning  is :  I  shall  destroy  Jerusalem  as  I  have  destroyed 
Samaria,  and  exterminate  its  inhabitants  like  the  house  of  Ahab. 
In  the  second  hemistich  the  same  thing  is  expressed,  if  possible, 
still  more  strongly :  "I  wipe  away  Jerusalem  as  one  wipes  the, 
dish,  and  (having)  wiped  (it),  turns  it  upon  its  upper  side  (n\39)."; 
The  wiping  of  a  dish  that  has  been  used,  and  the  turning  over 
of  the  dish  wiped,  so  as  not  to  leave  a  single  drop  in  it,  are  a 
figurative  representation  of  the  complete  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  utter  extermination  of  its  inhabitants. — Ver.  14.  With 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  Lord  forsakes  the  people  of  His 
possession,  and  gives  it  up  to  its  enemies  for  a  prey  and  spoiL- 


472  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

"^7^^  rinxB':  Judah  is  called  the  remnant  of  the  people  of  God's 
inheritance  with  a  reference  to  the  rejection  and  leading  away 
of  the  ten  tribes,  which  have  already  taken  place.  On  nD^ps  T3 
see  Isa.  xlii.  22,  Jer.  xxx.  16. 

To  this  announcement  of  the  judgment  there  is  appended  in 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11  sqq.  the  statement,  that  Jehovah  caused 
Mauasseh  the  king  to  be  taken  prisoner  by  the  generals  of  the 
king  of  Assyria  and  led  away  to  Babylon  in  chains ;  and  that 
when  he  humbled  himself  before  God  there,  and  made  supplica- 
tion to  Him,  He  brought  him  back  to  Jerusalem  and  placed  him 
upon  his  throne  again ;  whereupon  Manasseh  fortified  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem  still  further,  placed  garrisons  in  the  fortified  cities, 
removed  the  idol  from  the  temple,  abolished  from  the  city  the 
idolatrous  altars  erected  in  Jerusalem  and  upon  the  temple- 
mountain,  restored  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  and  commanded  the 
people  to  offer  sacrifice  upon  it. — This  incident  is  omitted  in  our 
book,  because  the  conversion  of  Manasseh  was  not  followed  by 
any  lasting  results  so  far  as  the  kingdom  was  concerned ;  the 
abolition  of  outward  idolatry  in  Jerusalem  did  not  lead  to  the 
conversion  of  the  people,  and  after  the  death  of  Manasseh  even 
the  idolatrous  abominations  that  had  been  abolished  were  restored 
by  Amon.^ — Ver.  16.  Manasseh  also  sinned  grievously  by  shed- 
ding innocent  blood  till  Jerusalem  was  quite  filled  with  it. 
ns?  ns^  from  one  -edge  to  the  other,  see  at  eh.  x.  21.  This  state- 
ment has  been  paraphrased  by  Josephus  thus  (Ant.  x.  3,  1)  : 
Manasseh  slew  ^dpTa<:  6fi<a^  tow?  BiKaiovf  Toif<;  iv  Tot9  'E^paiotf;, 
and  did  not  spare  even  the  prophets,  with  the  additional  clause, 
which  exaggerates  the  thing :  koX  tovtcov  Be  TLva<i  Ka6'  rj/xepav 
aTricr^a^e,  ware  aifiari  peiadac  ra  'lepoaoKv/jia.^ — Vers.  17,  18. 
Manasseh  was  buried  "  in  the  garden  of  his  house,  in  the  garden 
of  Uzza."  "  His  house "  cannot  be  the  royal  palace  built  by 
Solomon,  because  the  garden  is  also  called  the  garden  of  Uzza, 

1  The  hifltorical  truth  of  these  accounts,  which  Rosenmiiller,  Winer,  and 
Hitzig  called  in  question  after  the  example  of  Gramberg,  has  been  defended 
by  Ewald,  Bertheau,  and  even  by  Thenius ;  and  the  latest  attack  which  has 
been  made  upon  it  by  Graf  in  the  theol.  Studien  u.  Krit.  1859,  iii.,  has  been 
met  by  E.  Gerlach  in  the  same  magazine  of  1861.  For  further  remarks  see 
the  Commentary  on  the  Chronicles. 

*  The  widespread  Jewish  and  Christian  legend,  that  Manasseh  put  to  death 
the  prophet  Isaiah,  and  indeed  had  him  sawn  in  sunder,  to  which  there  is  an 
allusion  in  Heb.  xi.  37,  also  belongs  here.  (See  Delitzsch,  Comm.  on  Isaiah, 
p.  6.) 


CHAP.  XXI.  19-26,  XXIL  ETtt  473 

evidently  from  the  name  of  its  former  possessor.  "  His  house  " 
must  therefore  have  been  a  summer  palace  belonging  to  Ma- 
nasseh,  the  situation  of  which,  however,  it  is  impossible  to  deter- 
mine more  precisely.  The  arguments  adduced  by  Thenius  in 
support  of  the  view  that  it  was  situated  upon  Ophel,  opposite  to 
Zion,  are  perfectly  untenable.  Eobinson  {Pal.  i  p.  394)  conjec- 
tures that  the  garden  of  Uzza  was  upon  Zion.  The  name  K^V 
(n?y)  occurs  again  in  2  Sam.  vi  8,  1  Chron.  viii  7,  Ezra  ii  49, 
and  Neh.  vii.  51. 

Vers.  19-26.  Eeign  of  Asion  (cf  2  Chron.  xxxiii  21-25). 
— Amon  reigned  only  two  years,  and  that  in  the  spirit  of  his 
father,  that  is  to  say,  worshipping  all  his  idols.  The  city 
of  Jotbah,  from  which  his  mother  sprang,  was,  according  to 
Jerome  (in  the  Onom.  s.  v.  Jethaba),  urbs  antiqua  Judcem ;  but 
it  is  not  further  known. — Vers.  23,  24.  His  servants  con- 
spired against  him  and  slew  him  in  his  palace ;  whereupon  the 
people  of  the  land,  i.e.  the  population  of  Judah  (n.'?'7  °J?  = 
ni^n^  DV,  2  Chron.  xxvi  1),  put  the  conspirators  to  death  and 
made  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon  king,  when  he  was  only  eight 
years  old. — Yer.  2  6.  Amon  was  buried  "  in  his  grave  in  the 
garden  of  Uzza,"  i.e.  in  the  grave  which  he  had  had  made  in  the 
garden  of  Uzza  by  the  side  of  his  father's  grave.  He  had  pro- 
bably resided  in  this  palace  of  his  father,    lap^  one  buried  him. 

CHAP.  xxn.  i-xxni.  so.  eeign  of  king  josiah. 

After  a  brief  account  of  the  length  and  spirit  of  the  reign 
of  the  pious  Josiah  (vers,  1  and  2),  we  have  a  closely  con- 
nected narrative,  in  ver.  3-xxiiL  24,  of  what  he  did  for  the 
restoration  of  the  true  worship  of  Jehovah  and  the  extermina- 
tion of  idolatry ;  and  the  whole  of  the  reform  effected  by  bim 
is  placed  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  because  it  was  in 
this  year  that  the  book  of  the  law  was  discovered,  through 
which  the  reformation  of  worship  was  carried  to  completion. 
It  is  evident  that  it  was  the  historian's  intention  to  combine 
together  everything  that  Josiah  did  to  this  end,  so  as  to  form 
one  grand  picture,  from  the  circumstance  that  he  has  not 
merely  placed  the  chronological  datum,  "  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  king  Josiah,"  at  the  beginning,  but  has 
repeated  it  at  the  close  (ch.  xxiii  23).     If  we  run  over  the 


4  7  -i  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  KINGS, 

several  facts  wliicli  are  brought  before  us  in  this  section, — the 
repairing  of  the  temple  (ch.  xxii,  3-7) ;  the  discovery  of  the 
book  of  the  law;  the  reading  of  the  book  to  the  king;  the  inquiry 
made  of  the  prophetess  Huldah,  and  her  prophecy  (vers.  8-2  0) ; 
the  reading  of  the  law  to  the  assembled  people  in  the  temple, 
with  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  (ch.  xxiii.  1-3) ;  the  eradica- 
tion of  idolatry  not  only  from  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  but  from 
Pethel  also,  and  all  the  cities  of  Samaria  (vers.  4-20);  and, 
lastly,  the  passo-ver  (vers.  21-23), — there  is  hardly  any  need  to 
remark,  that  all  this  cannot  have  taken  place  in  the  one  eigh- 
teenth year  of  his  reign,  even  if,  with  Usher  {Annales  ad  a.m. 
3381),  we  were  to  place  the  solemn  passover  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign,  which  is  hardly  suitable,  and 
by  no  means  follows  from  the  circumstance  that  the  chrono- 
logical datum,  "  in  the  eighteenth  year,"  stands  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  complete  account  of  the  reform  of  worship 
introduced  by  that  king.  For  we  may  clearly  infer  that  the 
several  details  of  this  account  are  not  arranged  chronologically, 
but  according  to  the  subject-matter,  and  that  the  historian  has' 
embraced  the  efforts  of  Josiah  to  restore  the  legal  worship  of 
Jehovah,  which  spread  over  several  years,  under  the  one  point 
of  view  of  a  discovery  of  the  law,  and  therefore  within  the 
eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  from  the  fact  that  he  introduces 
the  account  of  the  repairing  of  the  temple  (ch.  xxii.  3-7)  in  a' 
period  by  itself,  and  makes  it  subordinate  to  the  account  of  the 
discovery  of  the  book  of  the  law,  and  indeed  only  mentions  it 
in  a  general  manner,  because  it  led  to  the  finding  of  the  book 
of  the  law.  It  is  true  that  the  other  facts  are  attached  to 
one  another  in  the  narrative  by  Vav  conscc. ;  but,  on  a  closer 
inspection  of  the  several  details,  there  cannot  be  any  doubt 
whatever  that  the  intention  is  not  to  arrange  them  in  their 
chronological  order.  The  repairing  of  the  temple  must  have 
commenced  before  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign,  inas- 
much as  in  that  year,  in  which  the  incident  occurred  which  led 
to  the  discovery  of  the  book  of  the  law  (ch.  xxii.  3—7),  not 
only  were  the  builders  occupied  with  the  repairs  of  the  temple, 
but  money  had  been  brought  by  all  the  people  to  the  house  of 
God  to  carry  on  this  work,  and  had  been  collected  by  the 
Levites  who  kept  the  door.  Moreover,  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  we  cannot  conceive  of  the  restoration  of  the  temple, 
tiiat  liad  fallen  to  decay,  without  the  removal  of  the  idolatrous 


CHAP.  XXII.  ETC.       'flT  475 

abominations  found  in  the  temple.  And  the  assumption  is  an 
equally  inconceivable  one,  that  all  the  people  entered  into  cove- 
nant with  the  Lord  (ch.  xxiii.  3),  before  any  commencement 
had  been  made  towards  the  abolition  of  the  prevailing  idolatry, 
or  that  the  pious  king  had  the  book  of  the  law  read  in  the 
temple  and  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Lord,  so  long  as  the 
Ashera  was  standing  in  the  temple  and  the  idolatrous  altars 
erected  by  Manasseh  in  the  courts,  together  with  the  horses 
and  chariots  .dedicated  to  the  sun.  If  the  conclusion  of  a 
covenant  in  consequence  of  the  public  reading  of  the  book" 
of  the  law  was  to  be  an  act  in  accordance  with  the  law,  the 
public  memorials  of  idolatry  must  be  destroyed  at  all  events 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  temple.  And  is  it  likely  that 
the  king,  who  had  been  so  deeply  moved  by  the  curses  of 
the  law,  would  have  undertaken  so  solemn  a  transaction  in 
Sight  of  the  idolatrous  altars  and  other  abominations  of  idolatry 
in  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  not  rather  have  seen  that  this 
would  be  only  a  daring  insult  to  Jehovah  ?  These  reasons  are 
quite  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  extermination  of  idolatry  had 
Commenced  before  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign,  and 
had  simply  been  carried  out  with  greater  zeal  throughout  the 
whole  kingdom  after  the  discoyery  of  the  book  of  the  law. 

This  view  of  our  account  is  simply  confirmed  by  a  compari- 
son with  tiie  parallel  history  in  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  and  xxxv. 
According  to  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3  sqq.,  Josiah  began  to  seek  the 
God  of  his  father  David  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign,  when 
he  was  still  a  youth,  that  is  to  say,  not  more  than  sixteen  years 
old,  and  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign  began  to  purify  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  from  idolatry ;  and,  according  to  vers.  8  sqq.,  in 
the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  at  the  purification  of  the  land 
q,nd  temple,  and  the  renovation  of  the  temple,  the  book  of  the 
law  was  found  by  the  high  priest,  and  handed  over  to  the  king 
and  read  before  him  (vers.  8-28),  after  which  the  renewal  of 
the  covenant  took  place,  and  all  the  abominations  of  idolatry 
that  stiU  remained  in  the  land  were  swept  away  (vers.  29-33), 
and,  lastly,  a  solemn  passover  was  celebrated,  of  which  we 
have  an  elaborate  account  in  ch.  xxxv.  1-19.  Consequently 
the  account  given  in  the  Chronicles  is,  on  the  whole,  arranged 
with  greater  chronological  precision,  although  even  there,  after 
the  commencement  of  the  extermination  of  idolatry  has  been 
mentionedj  we  have  a  brief  and  comprehensive  statement  of  all 


476  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

that  Josiah  did  to  accomplish  that  result ;  so  that  after  the  re- 
newal of  the  covenant  (ch.  xxxiv.  33)  we  have  nothing  more 
than  a  passing  allusion,  by  way  of  summary,  to  the  complete 
abolition  of  the  abominations  of  idolatry  throughout  the  whole 
land. 

Vers.  1  and  2.  Length  and  spirit  of  JosiaKs  reign. — Josiah 
(for  the  name,  see  at  1  Kings  xiii.  2),  like  Hezekiah,  trode  once 
more  in  the  footsteps  of  his  pious  forefather  David,  adhering 
with  the  greatest  constancy  to  the  law  of  the  Lord.  He  reigned 
thirty-one  years.  As  a  child  he  had  probably  received  a  pious 
training  from  his  mother ;  and  when  he  had  ascended  the  throne, 
after  the  early  death  of  his  godless  father,  he  was  under  the 
guidance  of  pious  men  who  were  faithfully  devoted  to  the  law 
of  the  Lord,  and  who  turned  his  heart  to  the  God  of  their  fathers, 
as  was  the  case  with  Joash  in  ch.  xii  3,  although  there  is  no 
allusion  to  guardianship.  His  mother  Jedidah,  the  daughter  of 
Adaiah,  was  of  Boscath,  a  city  in  the  plain  of  Judah,  of  which 
nothing  further  is  known  (see  at  Josh.  xv.  39).  The  descrip- 
tion of  his  character,  "  he  turned  not  aside  to  the  right  hand 
and  to  the  left,"  sc.  from  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Lord,  is  based  upon  Deut.  v.  29,  xvii.  11,  20,  and  xxviii. 
14,  and  expresses  an  unwavering  adherence  to  the  law  of  the 
Lord. 

Vers.  3—8.  Repairing  of  the  temple,  and  discovery  of  the  look 
of  the  law  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8—18). — When  Josiah  sent 
Shaphan  the  secretary  of  state  (iQiD,  see  at  2  Sam.  viii.  17)  into 
the  temple,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  with  instructions 
to  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  to  pay  to  the  builders  the  money  which 
had  been  collected  from  the  people  for  repairing  the  temple  by 
the  Levites  who  kept  the  door,  Hilkiah  said  to  Shaphan,  "  I  have 
found  the  book  of  the  law."  Vers.  3-8  form  a  long  period. 
The  apodosis  to  '1J1  '•'71?,  "  it  came  to  pass  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  king  Josiah — the  king  had  sent  Shaphan,"  etc.,  does  not 
follow  till  ver.  8  :  "  that  Hilkiah  said,"  etc.  The  principal  fact 
which  the  historian  wished  to  relate,  was  the  discovery  of  the 
book  of  the  law ;  and  the  repairing  of  the  temple  is  simply 
mentioned  because  it  was  when  Shaphan  was  sent  to  Hilkiah 
about  the  payment  of  the  money  to  the  builders  that  the  high 
priest  informed  the  king's  secretary  of  state  of  the  discovery  of 
the  book  of  the  law  in  the  temple,  and  handed  it  over  to  him 
to  take  to  the  king,    ^^sn  n^t',  in  ver.  3,  forms  the  commencement 


CHAP.  XXII.  3-8.  477 

to  the  minor  clauses  inserted  within  the  principal  clause,  and 
subordinate  to  it :  "  the  king  had  sent  Shaphan,"  etc.  Accord- 
ing to  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8,  the  king  had  deputed  not  only  Shaphan 
the  state-secretary,  but  also  Maaseiah  the  governor  of  the  city 
and  Joach  the  chancellor,  because  the  repairing  of  the  temple 
■was  not  a  private  affair  of  the  king  and  the  high  priest,  but  con- 
cerned the  city  generally,  and  indeed  the  whole  kingdom.  In 
vers.  4,  5  there  follows  the  charge  given  by  the  king  to  Shaphan : 
"  Go  up  to  Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  that  he  may  make  up  the 
money,  .  .  .  and  hand  it  over  to  the  workmen  appointed  over  the 
house  of  Jehovah,"  etc.  ori^,  from  Don,  Hiphil,  signifies  to  finish 
or  set  right,  i.e.  not  pay  out  (Ges.,  Dietr.),  but  make  it  up  for 
the  purpose  of  paying  out,  namely,  collect  it  from  the  door- 
keepers, count  it,  and  bind  it  up  in  bags  (see  ch.  xii.  11).  cn* 
is  therefore  quite  appropriate  here,  and  there  is  no  alteration  of 
the  text  required.  The  door-keepers  had  probably  put  the  money 
in  a  chest  placed  at  the  entrance,  as  was  the  case  at  the  repair- 
ing of  the  temple  in  the  time  of  Joash  (ch.  xii.  1 0).  In  ver.  5 
the  KeH  injri'.  is  a  bad  alteration  of  the  Chethib  n:n^,  "  and  give 
(it)  into  the  hand,"  which  is  perfectly  correct.  nDS^on  ^bt  might 
denote  both  the  masters  and  the  workmen  (builders),  and  is 
therefore  defined  more  precisely  first  of  all  by  '*'  n'^^  2ni?2i3n, 
"  who  had  the  oversight  at  the  house  of  Jehovah,"  i.e.  the  masters 
or  inspectors  of  the  building,  and  secondly  by  '''  n^aii  "lii'S,  who 
were  (occupied)  at  the  house  of  Jehovah,  whilst  in  the  Chronicles 
it  is  explained  by  '"•  '3  U'^  lE'ji.  The  Keri  '"  ri'2  is  an  altera- 
tion after  ver.  9,  whereas  the  combination  ri*33  Dn^ao  is  justified 
by  the  construction  of  ^^i??!?  c.  ace.  pers.  and  2  rei  in  Jer.  xl.  5. 
The  masters  are  the  subject  to  ^n^. ;  they  were  to  pay  the  money 
as  it  was  wanted,  either  to  the  workmen,  or  for  the  purchase  of 
materials  for  repairing  the  dilapidations,  as  is  more  precisely 
defined  in  ver.  6.  Compare  ch.  xii.  12,  13  ;  and  for  ver.  7 
compare  ch.  xii.  16.  The  names  of  the  masters  or  inspectors  are 
given  in  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  12. — The  execution  of  the  kings  com- 
mand is  not  specially  mentioned,  that  the  parenthesis  may  not 
be  spun  out  any  further. — Ver.  8.  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  (cf. 
1  Chron.  v.  3  9)  said,  "  I  have  foimd  the  book  of  the  law  in  the 
house  of  Jehovah."  n^inn  isd,  the  book  of  the  law  (not  a  law- 
book or  a  roU  of  laws),  cannot  mean  anything  else,  either  gram- 
matically or  historically,  than  the  Mosaic  book  of  the  law  (the 
Pentateuch),  which  is  so  designated,  as  is  generally  admitted, 


•478  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS.  . 

in  the  Chronicles,  and  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.^  The 
finding  of  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  temple  presupposes  that 
the  copy  deposited  there  had  come  to  light.  But  it  by  no  means 
follows  from  this,  that  before  its  discovery  there  were  no  copies 
in  the  hands  of  the  priests  and  prophets.  The  book  of  the  law 
that  was  found  was  simply  the  temple  copy,^  deposited,  accord- 
ing to  Deut.  xxxi.  26,  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant, 
which  had  been  lost  under  the  idolatrous  kings  Manasseh  and 
Amon,  and  came  to  light  again  now  that  the  temple  was  being 
repaired.  We  cannot  learn,  either  from  the  account  before  us, 
or  from  the  words  of  the  Chronicles  (ch.  xxxiv.  14),  "  when  they 
were  taking  out  the  money  brought  into  the  house  of  Jehovah, 
Hilkiah  found  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord,"  in  what  part 
of  the  temple  it  had  hitherto  lain ;  and  this  is  of  no  importance 
so  far  as  the  principal  object  of  the  history  is  concerned.  Even 
the  words  of  the  Chronicles  simply  point  out  the  occasion  on 
which  the  book  was  discovered,  and  do  not  affirm  that  it  had 

^  Thenius  has  correctly  observed,  that  "  the  expression  shows  very  clearly, 
that  the  allusion  is  to  something  already  known,  not  to  anything  that  had 
come  to  light  for  the  first  time ;"  but  he  is  greatly  mistaken  when,  notwith- 
standing this,  he  supposes  that  what  we  are  to  understand  by  this  is  merely 
a  collection  of  the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  Moses,  which  had  been 
worked  up  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  more  especially  in  Deuteronomy.  For 
there  is  not  the  smallest  proof  whatever  that  any  such  collection  of  com- 
mandments and  ordinances  of  Moses,  or,  as  Bertheau  supposes,  the  collection  of 
Mosaic  law  contained  in  the  three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  Deute- 
ronomy ch.  i.-xxviii.  (according  to  Vaihinger,  Keuss,  and  others),  was  ever 
called  minn  "IDD,  or  that  any  such  portions  had  had  an  independent  exist- 
ence, and  had  been  deposited  in  the  temple.  These  hypotheses  are  simply 
bound  up  with  the  attacks  made  upon  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  ought  to  be  given  up,  since  De  Wette,  the  great  leader  of  the 
attack  upon  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  §  162a  of  the  later 
editions  of  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  2'estament,  admits  that  the  account 
before  us  contains  the  first  certain  trace  of  the  existence  of  our  present  Pen- 
tateuch. The  only  loophole  left  to  modern  criticism,  therefore,  is  that  Hilkiah 
forged  the  book  of  the  law  discovered  by  him  under  the  name  of  Moses, — a 
conclusion  which  can  only  be  arrived  at  by  distorting  the  words  of  the  text  in 
the  most  arbitrary  manner,  turning  "find  "  into  "  forge,"  but  which  is  obliged 
either  to  ignore  or  forcibly  to  set  aside  all  the  historical  evidence  of  the  pre- 
vious existence  of  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch,  including  Deuteronomy. 

2  Whether  the  original  written  by  Moses'  own  hand,  as  Grotius  inferred 
from  the  T]'^J2  1^2  of  the  Chronicles,  or  a  later  copy  of  this,  is  a  very  super- 
fluous question  ;  for,  as  Hiiveruick  says,  "  even  in  the  latter  case  it  was  to  be 
regarded  just  in  the  same  light  as  the  autograph,  having  just  the  same 
claims,  since  the  temple  repaired  by  Josiah  was  the  temple  of  Solomon  stillj' 


CHAP.  XXII.  9-14.  479 

been  lying  in  one  of  the  treasure-chambers  of  the  temple,  as 
Josephus  says.  The  expression  ^^??'Ji^?5  does  not  imply  that 
Shaphan  read  the  whole  book  through  immediately. 

Vers.  9-1-4.    Tlie  reading  of  the  look  of  the  law  to  the  king, 
and  the  inquiry  made  of  th^  prophetess  Hiddah  concerning  it. — 
Vers.  9,  10.  When  Shaphan  informed  the  king  of  the  execution 
of  his  command,  he  also  told  him  that  Hilkiah  had  given  him  a 
book,  and  read  it  to  the  king,     i^t  n^'J-n,  to  bring  an  answer, 
to  give  a  report  as  to  a  commission  that  has  been  received, 
wrin,  they  poured  out  the  money,  i.e.  out  of  the  chest  in  which 
it  was  collected,  into  bags.     ^•"'if'Jk'!!!,  "  he  read  it  to  the  king," 
is  simplified  in  the  Chronicles  (ver.  18)  by  ^3  ^1p^.,  "he  read 
therein."     That  insip''  does  not  signify  that  the  whole  was  read, 
is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  ch.  xxiii.  2,  where  the  reading 
of  the  whole  is  expressed  by  'D  ^3'^"-'3.     Which  passages  or 
sections  Shaphan  read  by  himself  (ver.  8),  and  which  he  read  to 
the  king,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  exactly.     To  the  king 
he  most  likely  read,  among  other  things,  the  threats  and  curses 
of  the  law  against  those  who  transgressed  it  (Deut.  xxviii.),  and 
possibly  also  Lev,  xxvl,  because  the  reading  made  such  an  im- 
pression upon  him,  that  in  his  anguish  of  soul  he  rent  his  clothes. 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  decide  anything  with  certainty,  as  to  whether 
the  king  had  hitherto  been  altogether  unacquainted  with  the 
book  of  the  law,  and  had  merely  a  traditional  knowledge  of  the 
law  itself,  or  whether  he  had  already  had  a  copy  of  the  law,  but 
had  not  yet  read  it  through,  or  had  not  read  it  with  proper  atten- 
tion, which  accounted  for  the  passages  that  were  read  to  him 
now  making  so  deep  and  alarming  an  impression  upon  him. 
It  is  a  well-known  experience,  that  even  books  which  have 
been  read  may,  under  peculiar  circumstances,  produce  an  im- 
pression such  as  has  not  been  made  before.     But  in  all  proba- 
bility Josiah  had  not  had  in  his  possession  any  copy  of  the  law, 
or  even  read  it  till  now ;  although  the  thorough  acquaintance 
with  the  law,  which  aU  the  prophets  display,  places  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Pentateuch  in  prophetical  circles  beyond  the  reach  of 
doubt. — Ver.  1 1.  In  his  alarm  at  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  law 
that  had  been  read  to  him,  Josiah  rent  his  clothes,  and  sent  a  de- 
putation to  the  prophetess  Huldah,  to  make  inquiry  of  Jehovah 
through  her  concerning  the  things  which  he  had  heard  from  the 
law.     The  deputation  consisted  of  the  high  priest  Hilkiah,  Ahi- 
kam  the  supporter  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxvi  24)  and  the  father  of 


480  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Gedaliah  the  governor  (ch.  xxv,  22  ;  Jer.  xxxix.  14,  etc.),  AchLor 
the  son  of  Michaiah,  Shaphan  the  state-secretary  (ver.  3),  and 
Asahiah  the  servant  {i.e.  an  officer)  of  the  king. — Ver.  13. 
From  the  commission,  "  Inquire  ye  of  Jehovah  for  me  and  for 
the  people  and  for  all  Judah  {i.e.  the  whole  kingdom)  concerning 
the  words  of  this  book  of  the  law  that  has  been  found,  for  great 
is  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  which  has  been  kindled  against  us, 
because  our  fathers  have  not  heard  .  .  .,"  we  may  infer  that  the 
curses  of  the  law  upon  the  despisers  of  the  commandments  of 
God  in  Lev.  xxvi.,  Deut.  xxviii.,  and  other  passages,  had  been 
read  to  the  king.  '""riN  e'l'n  means  to  inquire  the  will  of  the 
Lord,  what  He  has  determined  concerning  the  kiiig,  his  people, 
and  the  kingdom,  bv  V^^  signifies  here  to  hearken  to  anything, 
to  observe  it,  for  which  ^^  is  used  elsewhere.  ^V  3n3,  to  pre- 
scribe for  performance.  1J vy,  "  prescribed  for  us"  is  quite  appro- 
priate, since  the  law  was  not  only  given  to  the  fathers  to  obey, 
but  also  to  the  existing  generation, — a  fact  which  Thenius  has 
overlooked  with  his  conjecture  Ivy.  To  render  the  king's  alarm 
and  his  fear  of  severe  judgments  from  God  intelligible,  there  is 
no  need  for  the  far-fetched  and  extremely  precarious  hypothesis, 
that  just  at  that  time  the  Scythians  had  invaded  and  devastated 
the  land. — Ver.  14.  Nothing  further  is  known  of  the  prophetess 
Huldah  than  what  is  mentioned  here.  All  that  we  can  infer 
from  the  fact  that  the  king  sent  to  her  is,  that  she  was  highly 
distinguished  on  account  of  her  prophetical  gifts,  and  that  none 
of  the  prophets  of  renown,  such  as  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah, 
were  at  that  time  in  Jerusalem.  Her  father  Shallum  was 
keeper  of  the  clothes,  i.e.  superintendent  over  either  the  priests' 
dresses  that  were  kept  in  the  temple  (according  to  the  Eabbins 
and  Wits,  de  proph.  in  his  Miscell.  ss.  i.  p.  356,  ed.  3),  or  the 
king's  wardrobe.  The  names  of  his  ancestors  nipn  and  Drnn 
are  written  nnipin  and  nnpn  in  the  Chronicles.  Huldah  lived  at 
Jerusalem  •"i.^^'??,  "  in  the  second  part"  or  district  of  the  city, 
i.e.  in  the  lower  city,  upon  the  hill  "AKpa  (Eob.  Pal.  i.  p.  391), 
which  is  called  n:mn  in  Zeph.  i,  10,  and  naK'p  rvn  in  Neh.  xi. 
9,  and  aXXrj  7ro\t9  in  Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  11,  5. 

Vers.  15-20.  The  reply  of  Huldah  the  prophetess. — Huldah 
confirmed  the  fear  expressed  by  Josiah,  that  the  wrath  of  the 
Lord  was  kindled  against  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants  on 
account  of  their  idolatry,  and  proclaimed  first  of  all  (vers.  16,17), 
that  the  Lord  would  bring  upon  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants 


CHAP.  XXII.  15-20.  481 

all  the  punishments  with  which  the  rebeUions  and  idolaters  are 
threatened  in  the  book  of  the  law;  and  secondly  (vers.  18-20), 
to  the  king  himseK,  that  on  account  of  his  sincere  repentance 
and  humiliation  in  the  sight  of  God,  he  would  not  live  to  see 
the  predicted  calamities,  but  would  be  gathered  to  his  fathers 
in  peace.  The  first  part  of  her  announcement  applies  "  to  the 
man  who  has  sent  you  to  me"  (ver.  15),  the  second  "to  the 
king  of  Judah,  who  has  sent  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  "  (ver.  1 8). 
"  The  man"  who  had  sent  to  her  was  indeed  also  the  king ;  but 
Huldah  intentionally  made  use  of  the  general  expression  "  the 
man,"  etc.,  to  indicate  that  the  word  annc^unced  to  him  applied 
not  merely  to  the  king,  but  tx)  every  one  who  would  hearken 
to  the  word,  whereas  the  second  portion  of  her  reply  had  refer- 
ence to  the  king  alone.  n;n  Dipsn,  in  vers.  16,  19,  and  20, 
is  Jerusalem  as  the  capital  of  the  kingdom.  In  ver.  16,  "^.^'^.'-'^ 
"iBDn  is  an  explanatory  apposition  to  'ijn.  Ver.  1 7.  "  With 
all  the  work  of  their  hands,"  i.e.  with  the  idols  which  they 
have  made  for  themselves  (cf.  1  Kings  xvi  7).  The  last  clause 
in  ver.  18,  "the  words  which  thou  hast  heard,"  is  not  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  preceding  one,  "  thus  saith  the  Lord,"  and  bv  or 
b  to  be  supplied  ;  but  it  belongs  to  the  following  sentence,  and 
is  placed  at  the  head  absolutely  :  as  for  the  words,  which  thou 
hast  heard — because  thy  heart  has  become  soft,  i.e.  in  de- 
spair at  the  punishment  with  which  the  sinners  are  threatened 
(cf.  Deut.  XX.  3  ;  Isa.  vii.  4),  and  thou  hast  humbled  thyself, 
when  thou  didst  hear,  etc. ;  therefore,  behold,  I  will  gather  thee 
to  thy  fathers,  etc.  nn^'p  nvn^,  "  that  they  (the  city  and  inha- 
bitants) may  become  a  desolation  and  curse."  These  words, 
which  are  often  used  by  the  prophets,  but  which  are  not  found 
connected  like  this  except  in  Jer.  xiiv.  22,  rest  upon  Lev.  xxvi 
and  Deut.  xxviii.,  and  show  that  these  passages  had  been  read 
to  the  king  out  of  the  book  of  the  law. — Ver.  20.  To  gather  to 
his  fathers  means  merely  to  let  him  die,  and  is  generally 
applied  to  a  peaceful  death  upon  a  sick-bed,  like  the  synony- 
mous phrase,  to  lie  with  one's  fathers ;  but  it  is  also  applied  to 
a  violent  death  by  being  slain  in  battle  (1  Kings  xxii.  40  and 
34),  so  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  this  comforting 
assurance  with  the  slaying  of  Josiah  in  battle  (ch.  xxiiL  29). 
DvB^,  in  peace,  i.e.  without  living  to  witness  the  devastation  of 
Jerusalem,  as  is  evident  from  the  words,  "  thine  eyes  will  not 
see,"  etc 

2  H 


482  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Ch.  xxiii.  1-30.  Instead  of  resting  content  with  the  fact 
that  he  was  promised  deliverance  from  the  approaching  judg- 
ment, Josiah  did  everything  that  was  in  his  power  to  lead  the 
whole  nation  to  true  conversion  to  the  Lord,  and  thereby  avert 
as  far  as  possible  the  threatened  curse  of  rejection,  since  the 
Lord  in  His  word  had  promised  forgiveness  and  mercy  to  the 
penitent.  He  therefore  gathered  together  the  elders  of  the 
nation,  and  went  with  them,  with  the  priests  and  prophets  and 
the  assembled  people,  into  the  temple,  and  there  had  the  book 
of  the  law  read  to  those  who  were  assembled,  and  concluded  a 
covenant  with  the  Lord,  into  which  the  people  also  entered. 
After  this  he  had  all  the  remnants  of  idolatry  eradicated,  not 
only  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  but  also  in  Bethel  and  the  other 
cities  of  Samaria,  and  directed  the  people  to  strengthen  them- 
selves in  their  covenant  fidelity  towards  the  Lord  by  the  celebra- 
tion of  a  solemn  passover. — Vers.  1—3.  Beading  of  the  law  in  the 
temple,  and  renewal  of  the  covenant  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  29—32). 
Beside  the  priests,  Josiah  also  gathered  together  the  prophets, 
including  perhaps  Jeremiah  and  Zedekiah,  that  he  might  carry 
out  the  solemn  conclusion  of  the  covenant  with  their  co-opera- 
tion, and,  as  is  evident  from  Jer.  i.-xi.,  that  they  might  then 
undertake  the  task,  by  their  impressive  preaching  in  Jerusalem 
and  the  cities  of  Judah,  of  making  the  people  conscious  of  the 
earnestness  of  the  covenant  duties  which  they  had  so  recently 
undertaken  (see  Oehler  in  Herzog's  Ct/cI).  Instead  of  the 
prophets,  the  Levites  are  mentioned  in  the  Chronicles,  probably 
only  because  the  Levites  are  mentioned  along  with  the  priests 
in  other  cases  of  a  similar  kind.  ^1?%  he  read,  i.e.  had  it  read  ; 
for  the  duty  of  reading  the  law  in  the  temple  devolved  upon 
the  priests  as  the  keepers  of  the  law  (Deut.  xxxi.  9  sqq.). — 
Ver.  3.  The  king  stood  TiBVn  hv,  as  in  ch.  xi.  14.  For  '1J1  nn3?i 
see  ch.  xi.  1 7.  ^?^^,  *•«•  he  bound  himself  solemnly  to  walk  after 
the  Lord,  that  is  to  say,  in  his  walk  to  follow  the  Lord  and  keep 
His  commandments  (see  at  1  Kings  ii.  3). — n''")33  .  .  .  liDJ?!?, 
all  the  people  entered  into  the  covenant  (Luther  and  others)  ; 
not  perstitit,  stood  firm,  continued  in  the  covenant  (Maurer, 
Ges.),  which  would  be  at  variance  with  Jer.  xL  9,  10,  xxv.  3 
sqq.,  and  other  utterances  of  the  prophets. 

Vers.  4-20.  The  eradication  of  idolatry. — According  to 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3-7,  this  had  already  begun,  and  was  simply 
continued  and  carried  to  completion  after  the  renewal  of  the 


CHAP.  XXIII.  4-14,  48S 

covenant. — Vers.  4-14.  In  Jerusalem  and  Judah.  Ver.  4. 
Tlie  king  commanded  the  high  priest  and  the  other  priests,  and 
the  Levites  who  kept  the  door,  to  remove  from  the  temple 
everything  that  had  been  made  for  Baal  and  Asherah,  and  to 
bum  it  in  the  valley  of  Kidron,  'i^fcin  ''jj;\p^  sacerdotes  secundi 
ordinis  (Vulg.,  Luth.,  etc.),  are  the  common  priests  as  distin- 
guished from  ^i"i3'l  i^is!],  the  high  priest.  The  Eabbins  are 
wrong  in  their  explanation  vicarii  summi  saeerdotis,  according 
to  which  Thenius  would  alter  the  text  and  read  |'^3  for  ^.^-"s. 
^^\}  ""IP^,  the  keepers  of  the  threshold,  are  the  Levites  whose 
duty  it  was  to  watch  the  temple,  as  in  ch.  xxiL  4  (cf.  1  Chron. 
xYJii,  5).  D72n"73  (cdlcs  Zeug,  Luth.),  i.e.  all  the  apparatus,  con- 
sisting of  altars,  idols,  and  other  things,  that  had  been  provided 
for  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte.  Josiah  had  these  things 
burned,  according  to  the  law  in  Deut.  vii.  25,  and  that  outside 
Jerusalem  in  the  fields  of  the  Kidron  valley.  The  pi"!?  nio^tJ^ 
(fields  of  Kidron)  are  probably  to  be  sought  for  to  the  north-east 
of  Jerusalem,  where  the  Kidron  valley  is  broader  than  between 
the  city  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  spreads  out  into  a  basin  of 
considerable  size,  which  is  now  cultivated  and  contains  planta- 
tions of  olive  and  other  fruit-trees  (Bob.  Pal.  i.  p.  405).  "And; 
he  had  their  dust  carried  to  Bethel,"  i.e.  the  ashes  of  the  wooden 
objects  which  were  burned,  and  the  dust  of  those  of  stone  and' 
metal  which  were  ground  to  powder,  to  defile  the  idolatrous 
place  of  worship  at  Bethel  as  the  chief  seat  of  idolatry  and  false 
worship. — Yer.  5.  "  He  abolished  the  high  priests."  D^l^?  ^^® 
also  mentioned  in  Hos.  x.  5  and  Zeph.  i.  4  :  they  were  not' 
idolatrous  priests  or  prophets  of  Baal,  but  priests  whom  the  kings 
of  Judah  had  appointed  to  offer  incense  upon  the  altars  of  the' 
high  places  ;  for  they  are  distinguished  from  the  idolatrous  priests/ 
or  those  who  burnt  incense  to  Baal,  the  sun,  etc.  In  Hos.  x.  5 
the  priests  appointed  in  connection  with  the  golden  caK  at 
Bethel  are  called  DnD3 ;  and  in  Zeph.  i.  4  the  DncD  are  not 
exclusively  idolatrous  priests,  but  such  as  did  service  sometimes 
for  Jehovah,  who  had  been  degraded  into  a  Baal,  and  sometimes 
to  actual  idols.  ISTow  as  Q'^^s  who  burnt  incense  upon  high  places 
are  also  mentioned  in  ver.  8,  we  must  understand  by  the  nno3 
non-Levitical  priests,  and  by  the  D^:n3  in  ver.  8  Levitical  priests 
who  were  devoted  to  the  worship  on  the  high  places.  The 
primary  signification  of  "^OS  is  disputed.  In  Syriac  the  word 
signifies  the  priest,  in  Hebrew  spurious  priests,  probably  from 


484  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

ips  in  the  sense  of  to  bring  together,  or  complete,  as  the  per- 
formers of  sacrifice,  like  epBeov,  the  sacrificer  (Dietr.)  ;  whereas 

the  connection  suggested  by  Hitzig  (on  Zeph.)  with  1^,  to  be 

unbelieving,  in  the  opposite  sense  of  the  religious,  is  very  far- 
fetched, and  does  not  answer  either  to  the  Hebrew  or  the  Syriac 
use  of  the  word.^  The  singular  i^PM  is  striking,  inasmuch  as  if 
the  imperf.  c.  Vav  rel.  were  a  continuation  of  1303,  we  should 
expect  the  plural,  "  and  who  had  burnt  incense,"  as  it  is  given 
in  the  Chaldee.  The  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.  have  rendered  ">^p7, 
from  which  "^^Pl]  has  probably  arisen  by  a  mistake  in  copying. 
In  the  following  clause,  "  and  those  who  had  burnt  incense  to 
Baal,  to  the  sun  and  to  the  moon,"  etc.,  Baal  is  mentioned  as  the 
deity  worshipped  in  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars  (see  at 
eh.  xxi.  3).  ^'OVD^  synonymous  with  niiio  in  Job  xxxviii.  32, 
does  not  mean  the  twenty-eight  naocatra,  or  Indian  stations  of 
the  moon,^  but  the  twelve  signs  or  constellations  of  the  zodiac, 
which  were  regarded  by  the  Arabs  as  mendzil,  i.e.  station-houses, 
in  which  the  sun  took  up  its  abode  in  succession  when  describ- 
ing the  circuit  of  the  year  (cf.  Ges.  Thes.  p.  869,  and  Delitzsch 
on  Job  xxxviii.  32). — ^Ver.  6.  The  image  of  Asherah  (nniJ'Nn^: 
'itn  Pp9,  ch.  XXL  3,  V),  which  Manasseh  placed  in  the  temple  and 
then  removed  after  his  return  from  Babylon  (2  Chron.  xxxiii. 
1 5),  but  which  Amon  had  replaced,  Josiah  ordered  to  be  burned 
and  ground  to  powder  in  the  valley  of  Kidron,  and  the  dust  to 
be  thrown  upon  the  graves  of  the  common  people.  P"]*?,  from 
Pi?^,  to  make  fine,  to  crush,  refers  to  the  metal  covering  of  the 
image  (see  at  Ex.  xxxii,  10).  Asa  had  already  had  an  idol 
burned  in  the  Kidron  valley  (1  Kings  xv.  13),  and  Hezekiah 
had  ordered  the  idolatrous  abominations  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
city  and  carried  thither  (2  Chron.  xxix.  16);  so  that  the  valley 
had  already  been  defiled.  There  was  a  burial-place  there  for 
Dyn  ^J3,  i,e,  the  common  people  (cf.  Jer.  xxvi.  23),  who  had  no 
graves  of  their  own,  just  as  at  the  present  day  the  burial-ground 

^  In  any  case  the  derivation  from  nioa,  to  be  black  (Ges.  Thes.  p.  693),  and 
the  explanation  given  by  Fiirst  from  rt  occultandi  niagicasfjue,  h.  e.  arcanas  et 
reconditas  artes  exercendi,  and  others  given  in  Iken's  Dissertatt.  theol.  philol. 
i.  diss.  12,  are  quite  untenable. 

^  According  to  A.  Weber,  Die  vedischen  Nachrichten  von  den  naxatra,  in 
the  Abhandlungen  der  Berl.  Acad.  d.  Wiss.  1860  and  1861.  Compare,  on  the 
other  hand,  Steinschneider,  Hehr.  Bibliographie,  1861,  No.  22,  pp.  93,  94 , 
his  article  in  the  Deutsch.  morgld.  Zeitschri/t,  1864,  p.  118  sqq. 


CHAP.  xxni.  4-14.  485 

of  the  Jews  there  lies  to  the  north  of  Kefr  Silwdn.  Josiah 
ordered  the  ashes  to  be  cast  upon  these  graves,  probably  in 
order  to  defile  them  as  the  graves  of  idolaters. — Ver.  7.  '^3 
D^enjjn,  the  houses  (places  of  abode)  of  the  paramours  (for 
n^enpn  see  at  1  Kings  xiv.  24),  were  probably  only  tents  or 
huts,  which  were  erected  in  the  court  of  the  temple  for  the 
paramours  to  dwell  in,  and  in  which  there  were  also  women 
who  wove  tent-temples  (D''iji3)  for  Asherah  (see  at  ch.  xvii  30).* 
— ^Ver.  8.  All  the  (Levitical)  priests  he  sent  for  from  the  cities 
of  Judah  to  Jerusalem,  and  defiled  the  altars  of  the  high  places, 
upon  which  they  had  offered  incense,  from  Geba  to  Beersheba,  i.e. 
throughout  the  whole  MngdouL  Geba,  the  present  Jeha,  about  three 
hours  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem  (see  at  Josh,  xviii  24),  was  the 
northern  frontier  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  Beersheba  {Bir- 
seba :  see  the  Comm.  on  Gen.  xxL  31)  the  southern  frontier  of 
Canaan.  It  is  evident  from  ver.  9  that  D'^nb  are  Levitical  priests. 
He  ordered  them  to  come  to  Jerusalem,  that  they  might  not 
carry  on  illegal  worship  any  longer  in  the  cities  of  Judah.  He 
then  commanded  that  the  unlawful  high  places  should  be  defiled 
throughout  the  whole  land,  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  this 
worship  altogether.  He  also  destroyed  "  the  altars  of  the  high 
places  at  the  gates,  (both  that)  which  was  at  the  entrance  of  the 
gate  of  Joshua  the  governor  of  the  city,  (and  also  that)  which 
was  at  the  left  of  every  one  (entering)  by  the  city  gate."  The 
two  clauses  beginning  with  iB'K  contain  a  more  precise  descrip- 
tion of  D^^Vf'?  ni03.  The  gate  of  Joshua  the  governor  of  the 
city  is  not  mentioned  anywhere  else,  but  it  was  probably  near 
to  his  home,  i.e.  near  the  citadel  of  the  city ;  but  whether  it 
was  the  future  gate  of  Gennath,  as  Thenius  supposes,  or  some 
other,  it  is  impossible  to  determine.  This  also  applies  to  the 
opinion  that  "I'Vn  "^V?'  is  the  valley  gate  or  Joppa  gate  (Thenius) 
as  being  the  gate  of  greatest  traffic ;  for  the  traffic  through  the 
northern  or  Ephraim  gate  was  certainly  not  less,  ^SDir^y 
t'^N,  at  the  left  of  every  one,  sc.  going  into  the  city. — Ver.  9. 

*  On  this  worship  Movers  has  the  following  among  other  remarks  (Phon.  i. 
p.  686)  :  "  The  mutilated  Gallus  (BHp)  fancies  that  he  is  a  woman  :  negant  se 
viros  esse  .  .  .  mulieres  se  volunt  credi  (Finnic).  He  lives  in  close  intimacy 
with  the  women,  and  they  again  are  drawn  towards  the  Galli  by  peculiar 
affection."  He  also  expresses  a  conjecture  "  that  the  women  of  Jerusalem 
gave  themselves  up  in  honour  of  the  goddess  in  the  tents  of  the  Galli  which 
were  pitched  in  the  temple  circle,  on  which  account  the  2^2  TflD  went  to 
the  temple  treasury." 


486  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS 

"  Only  the  priests  of  the  high  places  did  not  sacrifice,  .... 
but  ate  unleavened  bread  in  the  midst  of  their  brethren."  The 
■Jl*?  is  connected  with  ver.  8  :  Josiah  did  not  allow  the  priests, 
whom  he  had  brought  out  of  the  cities  of  Judah  to  Jerusalem, 
to  offer  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  of  Jehovah  in  the  temple,  ie.  to 
perform  the  sacrificial  service  of  the  law,  though  he  did  allow 
them  "  to  eat  that  which  was  unleavened,"  i.e.  to  eat  of  the 
sacred  altar-gifts  intended  for  the  priests  (Lev.  vi.  9,  10  and 
22);  only  they  were  not  allowed  to  consume  this  at  a  holy 
place,  but  simply  in  the  midst  of  their  brethren,  i.e.  at  home  in 
the  family.  They  were  thus  placed  on  a  par  with  priests  who 
were  rendered  incapable  of  service  on  account  of  a  bodily  defect 
(Lev.  xxi.  1 7-2  2). — Ver.  1 0.  He  also  defiled  the  place  of  sacri- 
fice in  the  valley  of  Benhinnom,  for  the  purpose  of  exterminat- 
ing the  worship  of  Moloch.  Moloch's  place  of  sacrifice  is  called 
nDnrij  as  an  object  of  abhorrence,  or  one  to  be  spat  at  (nSR: 
Job  xvii.  6),  from  fjiJi,  to  spit,  or  spit  out  (cf  Eoediger  in  Ges. 
thes.  p.  1497,  where  the  other  explanations  are  exploded).^  On 
the  valley  Bne  or  Ben-Hinnom,  at  the  south  side  of  Mount  Zion, 
see  at  Josh.  xv.  8. — Ver.  11.  He  cleared  away  the  horses 
dedicated  to  the  sun,  and  burned  up  the  chariots  of  the  sun. 
As  the  horses  were  only  cleared  away  (nsK^'i),  whereas  the 
chariots  were  burned,  we  have  not  to  think  of  images  of  horses 
(Selden,  de  Diis  Syr.  ii.  8),  but  of  living  horses,  which  were 
given  to  the  sun,  i.e.  kept  for  the  worship  of  the  sun.  Horses 
were  regarded  as  sacred  to  the  sun  by  many  nations,  viz.  the 
Armenians,  Persians,  Massagetae,  Ethiopians,  and  Greeks,  and 
were  sacrificed  to  it  (for  proofs  see  Bochart,  Hieroz.  i.  lib.  ii. 
c.  10) ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Israelites  receiv^ed  this 
worship  first  of  all  from  Upper  Asia,  along  with  the  actual  sun- 
worship,  possibly  through  the  Assyrians.  "  The  kings  of  Judah  " 
are  Ahaz,  Manasseh,  and  Amon.  These  horses  were  hardly 
.  kept  to  be  offered  to  the  sun  in  sacrifice  (Bochart  and  others), 
but,  as  we  must  infer  from  the  "  chariots  of  the  sun,"  were  used 
for  processions  in  connection  with  the  worship  of  the  sun,  pro- 
bably, according  to  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Rabbins,  to 

.j^  ^  Jerome  (od  Jer.  vii.  31)  says:  Thophet,  qux  est  in  valle  filiorum  Enom, 
ilium  locum  signijicat,  qui  Siloe  fontibus  irrigatur  et  est  amcenus  atque  nemo- 
rosus,  hodieque  horlorum  praebet  delicias.  From  the  name  Gehimiom  the 
JSabbins  formed  the  name  Viii/vx,  Gehenna  (Matt.  y.  22,  29,  etc.),  with  special 
reference  to  the  childi-en  burnt  here  to  Moloch,  to  signify  hell  and  hell-fire. 


CHAP.  XXIII.  4-U.  487 

drive  and  meet  the  rising  sun.  The  definition  '"  n*3  Nsp^ "  from 
the  coming  into  the  house  of  Jehovah,"  i.e.  near  the  entrance 
into  the  temple,  is  dependent  upon  ^^^J,  "they  had  given  (placed) 
the  horses  of  the  sun  near  the  temple  entrance,"  riZZ^"^^^  "  in 
the  cell  of  Nethanmelech."  ?N  does  not  mean  at  the  cell,  i.e. 
in  the  stable  by  the  cell  (Thenius),  because  the  ellipsis  is  too 
harsh,  and  the  cells  built  in  the  court  of  the  temple  were  in- 
tended not  merely  as  dwelling-places  for  the  priests  and  persons 
engaged  in  the  service,  but  also  as  a  depot  for  the  provisions 
and  vessels  belonging  to  the  temple  (Neh.  x.  38  sqq. ;  1  Chron. 
ix.  26).  One  of  these  depots  was  arranged  and  used  as  a  stable 
for  the  sacred  horses.  This  cell,  which  derived  its  name  from 
Xethanmelech,  a  chamberlain  (^^'"Ip)?  oi  whom  nothing  further 
is  known,  possibly  the  builder  or  founder  of  it,  was  D'lP.r?,  in 
the  Pharvars.  0'"nn3,  the  plural  of  ">J")3,  is  no  doubt  identical 
with  "i^ll  in  1  Chron.  xxvi.  18.  This  was  the  name  given  to  a 
building  at  the  western  or  hinder  side  of  the  outer  temple-court 
by  the  gate  SJialleket  at  the  ascending  road,  i.e.  the  road  which 
led  up  from  the  city  standing  in  the  west  into  the  court  of  the 
temple  (1  Chron.  xxyL  16  and  18).  The  meaning  of  the  word 
"ins  is  imcertain.     Gesenius  (thes.  p.  1 1 2  3)  explains  it  hj  portieiis, 

after  the  Persian  .Li,  summer-house,  an  open  kiosk.     Bottcher 

{Proben,  p.  347),  on  the  other  hand,  supposes  it  to  be  "a  separate 
spot  resembling  a  suburb,"  because  in  the  Talmud  pi^ia  signifies 
suhirhia,  loca  urbi  vicinia. — ^Ver.  12.  The  altars  built  upon  the 
roof  of  the  aliyah  of  Ahaz  were  dedicated  to  the  host  of  heaven 
(Zeph.  i.  0  ;  Jer.  xix.  13,  xxxii.  29),  and  certainly  built  by  Ahaz  ; 
and  inasmuch  as  Hezekiah  had  undoubtedly  removed  them  when 
he  reformed  the  worship,  they  had  been  restored  by  jVIanasseh 
and  Amon,  so  that  by  "  the  kings  of  Judah  "  we  are  to  under- 
stand these  three  kings  as  in  ver.  11.  We  are  unable  to  deter- 
mine where  the  ^'hv,  the  upper  chamber,  of  Ahaz  really  was. 
But  since  the  things  spoken  of  both  before  and  afterwards  are 
the  objects  of  idolatry  found  in  the  temple,  this  aliyah  was  pro- 
bably also  an  upper  room  of  one  of  the  buildings  in  the  court  of 
the  temple  (Thenius),  possibly  at  the  gate,  which  Ahaz  had  built 
when  he  removed  the  outer  entrance  of  the  king  into  the  temple 
(cL  xvi  18),  since,  according  to  Jer.  xxxv.  4,  the  buildings  at 
the  gate  had  upper  stories.  The  altars  built  by  Manasseh  in 
the  two  courts  of  the  temple  (see  ch.  xxL  5)  Josiah  destroyed, 


488  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

^^^  Ht-}  "  ^^^  crushed  them  to  powder  from  thence,"  and  cast 
their  dust  into  the  Kidron  valley.  PJ,  not  from  pi,  to  run,  but 
from  Y^l,  to  pound  or  crush  to  pieces.  The  alteration  proposed 
by  Thenius  into  p.'-?  ^^  caused  to  run  and  threw  =  he  had  them 
removed  with  all  speed,  is  not  only  arbitrary,  but  unsuitable, 
because  it  is  impossible  to  see  why  Josiah  should  merely  have 
hurried  the  clearing  away  of  the  dust  of  these  altars,  whereas 
YTl,  to  pound  or  grind  to  powder,  was  not  superfluous  after 
K^^,  to  destroy,  but  really  necessary,  if  the  dust  was  to  be 
thrown  into  the  Kidron.  p,'^"!.  is  substantially  equivalent  to  P'ljl 
in  ver.  6. — Vers.  13,  14.  The  places  of  sacrifice  built  by 
Solomon  upon  the  southern  height  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  (see 
at  1  Kings  xi.  7)  Josiah  defiled,  reducing  to  ruins  the  monu- 
ments, cutting  down  the  Asherah  idols,  and  filling  their  places 
with  human  bones,  which  polluted  a  place,  according  to  Num. 
xix.  16.  Ver.  14  gives  a  more  precise  definition  of  NBO  in  ver. 
13  in  the  form  of  a  simple  addition  (with  Vav  cop.),  n^ne'isn'^in, 
mountain  of  destruction  (not  unctionis  =  ^n^''?'!',  Rashi  and  Cler.), 
is  the  southern  peak  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  called  in  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church  mons  offensionis  or  scandali  (see  at  1  Kings 
xi.  7).  Tor  nu2m  and  D^?'^  see  at  1  Kings  xiv.  23.  DDipD 
are  the  places  where  the  Mazzehoth  and  Asherim  stood  by  the 
altars  that  were  dedicated  to  Baal  and  Astarte,  so  that  by  defil- 
ing them  the  altar-places  were  also  defiled. 

Vers.  15-20.  Extermination  of  idolatry  in  Bethel  and  the 
cities  of  Samaria. — In  order  to  suppress  idolatry  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, Josiah  did  not  rest  satisfied  with  the  extermination  of  it  in 
his  own  kingdom  Judah,  but  also  destroyed  the  temples  of  the 
high  places  and  altars  and  idols  in  the  land  of  the  former  king- 
dom of  the  ten  tribes,  slew  all  the  priests  of  the  high  places 
that  were  there,  and  burned  their  bones  upon  the  high  places 
destroyed,  in  order  to  defile  the  ground.  The  warrant  for  this 
is  not  to  be  found,  as  Hess  supposes,  in  the  fact  that  Josiah,  as 
vassal  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  had  a  certain  limited  power  over 
these  districts,  and  may  have  looked  upon  them  as  being  in  a 
certain  sense  his  own  territority,  a  power  which  the  Assyrians 
may  have  allowed  him  the  more  readily,  because  they  were  sure 
of  his  fidelity  in  relation  to  Egypt.  For  we  cannot  infer  that 
Josiah  was  a  vassal  of  the  Assyrians  from  the  imprisonment 
and  release  of  Manasseh  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  nor  is  there  any 
historical  evidence  whatever  to  prove  it.     The  only  reason  that 


CHAP.  XXIII.  15-20.  489 

can  have  induced  Josiah  to  do  this,  must  have  been  that  after 
the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  he  regarded 
himself  as  the  king  of  the  ■s\hole  of  the  covenant-nation,  and 
availed  himself  of  the  approaching  or  existing  dissolution  of  the 
Assyian  empire  to  secure  the  friendship  of  the  Israelites  who 
were  left  behind  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  to  reconcile 
them  to  his  government,  and  to  win  them  over  to  his  attempt 
to  reform ;  and  there  is  no  necessity  whatever  to  assume,  as 
Thenius  does,  that  he  asked  permission  to  do  so  of  the  newly 
arisen  ruler  Nabopolassar.  For  against  this  assumption  may  be 
adduced  not  only  the  improbability  that  Nabopolassar  would 
give  him  any  such  permission,  but  still  more  the  circumstance 
that  at  a  still  earlier  period,  even  before  Nabopolassar  became 
king  of  Babylon,  Josiah  had  had  taxes  collected  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  for  the  repairing  of  the  temple 
(2  Chron.  xxxiv.  9),  from  which  we  may  see  that  the  Israelites 
who  were  left  behind  in  the  land  were  favourably  disposed  to- 
wards his  reforms,  and  were  inclined  to  attach  themselves  in 
religious  matters  to  Judah  (just  as,  indeed,  even  the  Samaritans 
were  willing  after  the  captivity  to  take  part  in  the  building  of 
the  temple,  Ezra  iv,  2  sqq.),  which  the  Assyrians  at  that  time 
were  no  longer  in  a  condition  to  prevent. — Yer.  15.  "  Also  the 
altar  at  Bethel,  the  high  place  which  Jeroboam  had  made — 
this  altar  also  and  the  high  place  he  destroyed."  It  is  grammati- 
cally impossible  to  take  >^^^\}  as  an  accusative  of  place  (Thenius) ; 
it  is  in  apposition  to  ^^'fi^\},  serving  to  define  it  more  precisely : 
the  altar  at  Bethel,  namely  the  high  place ;  for  which  we  have 
afterwards  the  altar  and  the  high  place.  By  the  appositional 
noan  the  altar  at  Bethel  is  described  as  an  illegal  place  of  wor- 
ship. "  He  burned  the  ^9?/'  ■^•^-  the  buildings  of  this  sanctuary, 
ground  to  powder  everj'thing  that  was  made  of  stone  or  metal, 
i.e.  both  the  altar  and  the  idol  there.  This  is  implied  in  what 
follows :  "  and  burned  Asherah,"  i.e.  a  wooden  idol  of  Astarte 
found  there,  according  to  which  there  would  no  doubt  be  also 
an  idol  of  Baal,  a  '"i^so  of  stone.  The  golden  calf,  which  had 
formerly  been  set  up  at  Bethel,  may,  as  Hos.  x.  5,  6  seems  to 
imply,  have  been  removed  by  the  Ass}Tians,  and,  after  the 
settlement  of  heathen  colonists  in  the  land,  have  been  supplanted 
by  idols  of  Baal  and  Astarte  (cf.  ch.  xvii.  29). — Vers.  16  sqq. 
In  order  to  desecrate  this  idolatrous  site  for  all  time,  Josiah  had 
human  bones  taken  out  of  the  graves  that  were  to  be  found  upon 


490  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  mountain,  and  burned  upon  the  altar,  whereby  the  prophecy 
uttered  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  by  the  prophet  who  came  out 
of  Judah  concerning  this  idolatrous  place  of  worship  was  fulfilled; 
but  he  spared  the  tomb  of  that  prophet  himself  (cf.  1  Kings  xiii. 
26-32).  The  mountain  upon  which  Josiah  saw  the  graves  was 
a  mountain  at  Bethel,  which  was  visible  from  the  hamah  de- 
stroyed. p'V,  a  sepulchral  monument,  probably  a  stone  erected 
upon  the  grave.  l^?pp :  "  so  they  rescued  (from  burning)  his 
bones  (the  bones  of  the  prophet  who  had  come  from  Judah),  to- 
gether with  the  bones  of  the  prophet  who  had  come  from 
Samaria,"  i.e.  of  the  old  prophet  who  sprang  from  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes  and  had  come  to  Bethel  (1  Kings  xiii.  11).  N3 
p-i^bb  in  antithesis  to  n'iin''iD  N3  denotes  simply  descent  from  the 
land  of  Samaria.-^ — ^Vers.  19,  20.  All  the  houses  of  the  high 
places  that  were  in  the  (other)  cities  of  Samaria  Josiah  also 
destroyed  in  the  same  way  as  that  at  Bethel,  and  offered  up  the 
priests  of  the  high  places  upon  the  altars,  i.e.  slew  them  upon 
the  altars  on  which  they  had  offered  sacrifice,  and  burned  men's 
bones  upon  them  (the  altars)  to  defile  them.  The  severity  of 
tlie  procedure  towards  these  priests  of  the  high  places,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  manner  in  which  the  priests  of  the  high  places 
in  Judah  were  treated  (vers.  8  and  9),  may  be  explained  partly 
from  the  fact  that  the  Israelitish  priests  of  the  high  places  were 
not  Levitical  priests,  but  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  they  were 
really  idolatrous  priests. 

Vers.  21—23.  The  passover  is  very  briefly  noticed  in  our 
Sjccount,  and  is  described  as  such  an  one  as  had  not  taken  place 
since  the  days  of  the  judges.  Ver.  21  simply  mentions  the 
appointment  of  this  festival  on  the  part  of  the  king,  and  the 
execution  of  the  king's  command  has  to  be  supplied.  Ver.  22 
contains  a  remark  concerning  the  character  of  the  passover.  In 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  1—19  we  have  a  very  elaborate  description  of 
it.  What  distinguished  this  passover  above  every  other  was, 
(1)  that  "  all  the  nation,"  not  merely  Judah  and  Benjamin,  but 

1  Vers.  16-18  are  neither  an  interpolation  of  the  editor,  i.e.  of  the  author  of 
our  books  of  Kings  (Staehclin),  nor  an  interpolation  from  a  supplement  to 
the  account  in  1  Kings  xiii.  1-32  (Thenius).  The  correspondence  between 
the  DJ1  ill  ver.  15  and  the  DJ1  in  ver.  18  does  not  require  this  assumption  ;  and 
the  pretended  discrepancy,  that  after  Josiah  had  already  reduced  the  altar  to 
ruins  (ver.  16)  he  could  not  possibly  defile  it  by  burning  human  bones  upon 
it  (ver.  16),  is  removed  by  the  very  natural  solution,  that  nDTDH  in  ver.  16 
does  not  mean  the  altar  itself,  but  the  site  of  the  altar  that  had  been  destroyed. 


CHAP.  XXIII.  24-3a  491 

also  the  remnant  of  the  ten  tribes,  took  part  in  it,  or,  as  it  is 
expressed  in  2  Chron.  xxxv.  18,  "  aU  Jhidah  and  Israel;"  (2) 
that  it  was  kept  in  strict  accordance  with  the  precepts  of  the 
Mosaic  book  of  the  law,  whereas  in  the  passover  instituted  by 
Hezekiah  there  were  necessarily  many  points  of  deviation  from 
the  precepts  of  the  law,  more  especially  in  the  fact  that  the  feast 
had  to  be  transferred  from  the  first  month,  which  was  the  legal 
time,  to  the  second  month,  because  the  priests  had  not  yet  puri- 
fied themselves  in  sufficient  numbers  and  the  people  had  not 
yet  gathered  together  at  Jerusalem,  and  also  that  even  then  a 
number  of  the  people  had  inevitably  been  allowed  to  eat  the 
passover  without  the  previous  purification  required  by  the  law 
(2  Chron.  xxx.  2,  3,  17-20).  This  is  implied  in  the  words,  "  for 
there  was  not  holden  such  a  passover  since  the  days  of  the 
judges  and  all  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah."  That  this  remark 
does  not  preclude  the  holding  of  earlier  passovers,  as  Thenius 
follows  De  Wette  in  supposing,  without  taking  any  notice  of  the 
refutations  of  this  opinion,  was  correctly  maintained  by  the  earlier 
commentators.  Thus  Clericus  observes  :  "  I  should  have  sup- 
posed that  what  the  sacred  writer  meant  to  say  was,  that  during 
the  times  of  the  kings  no  passover  had  ever  been  kept  so  strictly 
hy  every  &ne,  according  to  all  the  Mosaic  laws.  Before  this,  even 
under  the  pious  kings,  they  seem  to  have  followed  custom  rather 
than  the  very  words  of  the  law ;  and  since  this  was  the  case, 
many  things  were  necessarily  changed  and  neglected."  Instead 
of  "  since  the  days  of  the  judges  who  judged  Israel,"  we  find 
in  2  Chron.  xxxv.  18,  "  since  the  days  of  Samuel  the  prophet," 
who  is  well  known  to  have  closed  the  period  of  the  judges. 

Vers.  24—30.  Conclusion  of  Josiah's  reign. — ^Ver.  24.  As  Josiah 
had  the  passover  kept  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  precepts 
of  the  law,  so  did  he  also  exterminate  the  necromancers,  the 
teraphim  and  all  the  abominations  of  idolatry,  throughout  all 
Judah  and  Jerusalem,  to  set  up  the  words  of  the  law  in  the 
book  of  the  law  that  had  been  found,  i.e.  to  carry  them  out  and 
bring  them  into  force.  For  niasn  and  Q^^Jn?'!"  see  at  ch.  xxi.  6. 
D'snri^  penates,  domestic  gods,  which  were  worshipped  as  the 
authors  of  earthly  prosperity  and  as  oracular  deities  (see  at  Gren. 
xxxi.  19).  Dv??  and  Q'VI^K',  connected  together,  as  in  Deut.  xxix. 
16,  as  a  contemptuous  description  of  idols  in  general — In  ver. 
2  5  the  account  of  the  eff'orts  made  by  Josiah  to  restore  the  true 
worship  of  Jehovah  closes  with  a  general  verdict  concerning  his 


492  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

true  piety.  See  the  remarks  on  this  point  at  ch.  xviii.  5.  He 
turned  to  Jehovah  with  all  his  heart,  etc. :  there  is  an  evident 
allusion  here  to  Deut.  vi.  5,  Compare  with  this  the  sentence 
of  the  prophet  Jeremiah  concerning  his  reign  (Jer.  xxii.  15, 16). 
— ^Ver.  26,  Nevertheless  the  Lord  turned  not  from  the  great 
fierceness  of  His  wrath,  wherewith  He  had  burned  against 
Judah  on  account  of  all  the  provocations  "  with  which  Ma- 
nasseh  had  provoked  Him."  With  this  sentence,  in  which  "J]*? 
yy  N?  forms  an  unmistakeable  word-play  upon  '"  7N  aK'  "IK'K,  the 
historian  introduces  the  account  not  merely  of  the  end  of 
Josiah's  reign,  but  also  of  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah.  Manasseh  is  mentioned  here  and  at  ch.  xxiv.  3  and 
Jer.  XV.  4  as  the  person  who,  by  his  idolatry  and  his  unright- 
eousness, with  which  he  provoked  God  to  anger,  had  brought 
upon  Judah  and  Jerusalem  the  unavoidable  judgment  of  rejec- 
tion. It  is  true  that  Josiah  had  exterminated  outward  and  gross 
idolatry  throughout  the  land  by  his  sincere  conversion  to  the 
Lord,  and  by  his  zeal  for  the  restoration  of  the  lawful  worship 
of  Jehovah,  and  had  persuaded  the  people  to  enter  into  covenant 
with  its  God  once  more ;  but  a  thorough  conversion  of  the  people 
to  the  Lord  he  had  not  been  able  to  effect.  For,  as  Clericus 
has  correctly  observed,  "  although  the  king  was  most  religious, 
and  the  people  obeyed  him  through  fear,  yet  for  all  that  the 
mind  of  the  people  was  not  changed,  as  is  evident  enough  from 
the  reproaches  of  Jeremiah,  Zephaniah,  and  other  prophets,  who 
prophesied  about  that  time  and  a  little  after."  With  regard  to 
this  point  compare  especially  the  first  ten  chapters  of  Jeremiah, 
which  contain  a  resume  of  his  labours  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and 
bear  witness  to  the  deep  inward  apostasy  of  the  people  from  the 
Lord,  not  only  before  and  during  Josiah's  reform  of  worship,  but 
also  afterwards.  As  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  therefore,  God 
could  not  forgive  any  more,  but  was  obliged  to  bring  upon  the 
people  and  kingdom,  after  the  death  of  Josiah,  the  judgment 
already  foretold  to  Manasseh  himself  (ch.  xxi.  12  sqq.). — Ver. 
2  7.  The  Lord  said  :  I  will  also  put  away  Judah  (in  the  same 
manner  as  Israel:  cf.  ch.  xvii.  20,  23)  from  my  face,  etc.  'l^^5>1 
expresses  the  divine  decree,  which  was  announced  to  the  people 
by  the  prophets,  especially  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah. — Vers.  29 
and  30:  compare  2  Chron.  xxxv.  20-24.  The  predicted  cata- 
strophe was  brought  to  pass  by  the  expedition  of  Necho  the  king 
of  Egypt  against  Assyiia.     "  In  his  days  (i.e.  towards  the  end 


cnAP.  xxin.  2^-30.  493 

of  Josiah's  reign)  Pharaoh  Necho  the  king  of  Egypt  went  up 
against  the  king  of  Asshur  to  the  river  Euphrates."  Necho  ('133 
or  i33,  2  Chron.  xxxv.  20,  Jer.  xlvi  2  ;  called  Ne^aw  by  Jose- 
phus,  Mauetho  in  JuL  Afric,  and  Euseb.,  after  the  LXX. ;  and 
NeK<o9  by  Herod,  ii  158,  159,  iv.  42,  and  Diod.  Sic.  i.  33  ; 
according  to  Brugsch,  hist.  (TUg.  i.  p.  252,  Nckaou)  was,  accord- 
ing to  Man.,  the  sixth  king  of  the  twenty-sixth  (Saitic)  dynasty, 
the  second  Pharaoh  of  that  name,  the  son  of  Psammetichus  L 
and  grandson  of  Necho  i. ;  and,  according  to  Herodotus,  he  was 
celebrated  for  a  canal  which  he  proposed  to  have  cut  in  order 
to  connect  the  Nile  with  the  Ptcd  Sea,  as  well  as  for  the  circum- 
navigation of  Africa  (compare  Brugsch,  I.e.,  according  to  whom 
he  reigned  from  611  to  595  B.C.).  Whether  "  the  king  of 
Asshur"  against  whom  Necho  marched  was  the  last  ruler  of  the 
Assyrian  empire,  Asardanjpal  (Sardanapal),  Saracus  according  to 
the  monuments  (see  Brandis,  Ueber  den  Gewinn,  p.  55  ;  M.  v. 
Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assurs,  pp.  110  sqq.  and  192),  or  the  existing 
ruler  of  the  Assyrian  empire  which  had  already  fallen,  Nabo- 
polassar  the  king  of  Babylon,  who  put  an  end  to  the  Assyrian 
monarchy  in  aUiance  with  the  Medes  by  the  conquest  and 
destruction  of  Nineveh,  and  founded  the  Chaldaean  or  Baby- 
lonian empire,  it  is  impossible  to  determine,  because  the  year  in 
which  Nineveh  was  taken  cannot  be  exactly  decided,  and  all  that 
is  certain  is  that  Nineveh  had  fallen  before  the  battle  of  Car- 
chemish  in  the  year  606  B.C.  Compare  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Gesch. 
Assurs,  pp.  109  sqq.  and  203,  204. — King  Josiah  went  against 
the  Egyptian,  and  "  he  (Necho)  slew  him  at  Megiddo  when  he 
saw  him,"  i.e.  caught  sight  of  him.  This  extremely  brief  notice 
of  the  death  of  Josiah  is  explained  thus  in  the  Chronicles  :  that 
Necho  sent  ambassadors  to  Josiah,  when  he  was  taking  the  field 
against  him,  with  an  appeal  that  he  would  not  fight  against  him, 
because  his  only  intention  was  to  make  war  upon  Asshur,  but 
that  Josiah  did  not  allow  himself  to  be  diverted  from  his  pur- 
pose, and  fought  a  battle  with  Necho  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo, 
in  which  he  was  mortally  wounded  by  the  archers.  "What  in- 
duced Josiah  to  oppose  with  force  of  arms  the  advance  of  the 
Egyptian  to  the  Euphrates,  notwithstanding  the  assurance  of 
Necho  that  he  had  no  wish  to  fight  against  Judah,  is  neither 
to  be  sought  for  in  the  fact  that  Josiah  was  dependent  upon 
Babylon,  which  is  at  variance  with  histoiy,  nor  in  the  fact  that 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  had  taken  possession  of  aU  the  territory  of 


494  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

the  ancient  inheritance  of  Israel,  and  Josiah  was  endeavouring 
to  restore  all  the  ancient  glory  of  the  house  of  David  over  the 
surrounding  nations  (Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  p.  707),  but  solely  in 
Josiah's  conviction  that  Judah  could  not  remain  neutral  in  the 
war  which  had  broken  out  between  Egypt  and  Babylon,  and  in 
the  hope  that  by  attacking  Necho,  and  frustrating  his  expedition 
to  the  Euphrates,  he  might  be  able  to  avert  great  distress  from 
his  own  land  and  kingdom,^ 

This  battle  is  also  mentioned  by  Herodotus  (ii.  159) ;  but  he 
calls  the  place  where  it  was  fought  Mar/hoXov,  i.e.  neither  Mig- 
dol,  which  was  twelve  Eoman  miles  to  the  south  of  Pelusium 
(Eorbiger,  Hdl).  d.  alien  Geogr.  ii,  p.  695),  nor  the  perfectly 
apocryphal  Magdala  or  Migdal  Zebaiah  mentioned  by  the  Tal- 
mudists  (Eeland,  Pal.  p.  898,  899),  as  Movers  supposes.  We 
might  rather  think  with  Ewald  {Gesch.  iii.  p.  708)  of  the  present 
Mcjdel,  to  the  south-east  of  Acca,  at  a  northern  source  of  the 
Kishon,  and  regard  this  as  the  place  where  the  Egyptian  camp 
was  pitched,  whereas  Israel  stood  to  the  east  of  it,  at  the 
place  still  called  Eummane,  at  Hadad-Bimmon  in  the  valley  of 
Megiddo,  as  Ewald  assumes  {Gesch.  iii.  p.  708).  But  even  this 
combination  is  overthrown  by  the  fact  that  Bummane,  which 
lies  to  the  east  of  el  Mejdel  at  the  distance  of  a  mile  and  three- 
quarters  (geogr.),  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  plain  of  Buttauf, 
cannot  possibly  be  the  Hadad-Bimmon  mentioned  in  Zech.  xii. 
11,  where  king  Josiah  died  after  he  had  been  wounded  in  the 
battle.  For  since  Megiddo  is  identical  with  the  Eoman  LegiOy 
the  present  Lejun,  as  Eobinson  has  proved  (see  at  Josh.  xii.  21), 
and  as  is  generally  admitted  even  by  C.  v.  Eaumer  {Pal.  p.  447, 
note,  ed.  4),  Hadad-Bimmon  must  be  the  same  as  ih.Q  village  of 
Bilmmuni  {Bummane),  which  is  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  the 

1  M.  V.  Niebuhr  {Gesch.  Ass.  p.  364)  also  calls  Josiah's  enterprise  "  a  per- 
fectly correct  policy.  Nineveh  was  falling  (if  not  already  fallen),  and  the 
Syrian  princes,  both  those  who  had  remained  independent,  like  Josiah,  and 
also  the  vassals  of  Asshur,  might  hope  that,  after  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  they 
would  succeed  in  releasing  Syria  from  every  foreign  yoke.  How  well- 
founded  this  hope  was,  is  evident  from  the  strenuous  exertions  which  Nabu- 
kudrussur  was  afterwards  obUged  to  make,  in  order  to  effect  the  complete 
subjugation  of  Syria.  It  was  therefore  necessary  to  hinder  at  any  price  the 
settlement  of  the  Egyptians  now.  Even  though  Necho  assured  Josiah  that 
he  was  not  marching  against  him  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  21),  Josiah  knew  that 
if  once  the  Egyptians  were  lords  of  Coele-Syria,  his  independence  would  be 
gone." 


CHAP.  XXIII.  24-33.  495 

south  of  Lejun,  wliere  the  Scottish  missionaries  in  the  year  1839 
found  many  ancient  wells  and  other  traces  of  Israelitish  times 
(Y.  de  Velde,  i?.  i  p.  2  6  7 ;  Memoir,  pp.  3  3  3,  3  3  4).  But  this  Paim- 
mane  is  four  geographical  miles  distant  from  el  Mejclel,  and  Me- 
giddo  three  and  a  half,  so  that  the  battle  fought  at  Megiddo 
cannot  take  its  name  from  el  Mejdel,  ■svhich  is  more  than  three 
miles  off.  The  Magdolon  of  Herodotus  can  only  arise  from  some 
confusion  between  it  and  Megiddo,  which  was  a  very  easy  thing 
with  the  Greek  pronunciation  Mar/eZhoi,  without  there  being  any 
necessity  to  assume  that  Herodotus  was  thinking  of  the  Egjptiaii 
Migdol,  which  is  called  Magdolo  in  the  Itin.  Ant.  p.  171  (c£ 
Brugsch,  Geogr.  Inschriften  altugypt.  Denhmdler,  i.  pp.  261,  262). 
If,  then,  Josiah  went  to  Megiddo  in  the  plain  of  Esdrelom  to. 
meet  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  fell  in  with  him  there,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Xecho  came  by  sea  to  Palestine  and  lauded 
at  Acco,  as  des  Vignoles  (Chronol.  ii.  p.  427)  assumed.^  For 
if  the  Egyptian  army  had  marched  by  land  through  the  plain 
of  Philistia,  Josiah  would  certainly  have  gone  tliither  to  meet 
it,  and  not  have  allowed  it  to  advance  into  the  plain  of  Megiddo 
without  fighting  a  battle. — ^Ver.  30.  The  brief  statement,  "  his 
servants  carried  him  dead  from  Megiddo  and  brought  him  to 
Jerusalem,"  is  given  with  more  minuteness  in  the  Chronicles  : 
his  seivants  took  him,  the  severely  wounded  king,  by  his  own 

^  This  is  favoured  by  the  account  in  Herodotus  (ii.  159),  that  Necho  built 
ships  :  rpi^pus  eti  fci»  ivl  tJJ  fiosrXn  dut.'Ku.asji  .  .  .  eci  S«  iv  ru  '  Aputsi'jt  xoh'sa 
{triremes  in  septentrionale  et  australe  mare  mitlendas.     Bahr) — xoil  rettntiai  rt 

from  -which  we  may  infer  that  Necho  carried  his  troops  by  sea  to  Palestine, 
and  then  fought  the  battle  on  the  land.  M.  v.  Niebuhr  {Gesch.  p.  365)  also 
finds  it  very  improbable  that  Necho  used  his  fleet  in  this  war  ;  but  he  does 
not  think  it  very  credible  "  that  he  embarked  his  whole  army,  instead  of 
marching  them  by  the  land  route  so  often  taken  by  the  Egyptian  army,  the 
key  of  which,  viz.  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  was  at  least  partially  subject 
to  him,"  because  the  oXy.cth;  (ships  of  burden)  required  for  the  transport  of 
a  large  army  were  hardly  to  be  obtained  in  sufficient  numbers  in  Egypt.  But 
this  difficulty,  which  rests  upon  mere  conjecture,  is  neutralized  by  the  fact, 
which  M-  Duncker  {Gesch.  i.  p.  618)  also  adduces  in  support  of  the  voyage 
by  sea,  namely,  that  the  decisive  battle  with  the  Jews  was  fought  to  the 
north-west  of  Jerusalem,  and  when  the  Jews  were  defeated,  the  way  to 
Jerusalem  stood  open  for  their  retreat.  Movers  (Phoniz.  ii.  1,  p.  420),  who 
also  imagines  that  Necho  advanced  with  a  large  land-army  towards  the 
frontier  of  Palestine,  has  therefore  transferred  the  battle  to  Magdolo  on  the 
Egyptian  frontier  ;  but  he  does  this  by  means  of  the  most  arbitrary  interpre- 
tation of  the  account  given  by  Herodotus. 


496  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

command,  from  his  chariot  to  his  second  chariot,  and  drove  him 
to  Jerusalem,  and  he  died  and  was  buried,  etc.  "Where  he  died 
the  Chronicles  do  not  affirm  ;  the  occurrence  of  noj?  after  the 
words  "  they  brought  him  to  Jerusalem,"  does  not  prove  that 
he  did  not  die  till  he  reached  Jerusalem.  If  we  compare  Zech. 
xii  11,  where  the  prophet  draws  a  parallel  between  the  lamen- 
tation at  the  death  of  the  Messiah  and  the  lamentation  of  Hadad- 
Eimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo,  as  the  deepest  lamentation 
of  the  people  in  the  olden  time,  with  the  account  given  in 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  25  of  the  lamentation  of  the  wliole  nation  at  the 
death  of  Josiah,  there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  Josiah  died 
on  the  way  to  Jerusalem  at  Hadad-Eimmon,  the  present  Eum- 
mane,  to  the  south  of  Lejun  (see  above),  and  was  taken  to  Je- 
rusalem dead. — He  was  followed  on  the  throne  by  his  younger 
son  Jehoahaz,  whom  the  people  (H^C  ^V,  as  in  ch.  xxi.  24) 
anointed  king,  passing  over  the  elder,  Eliakim,  probably  because 
they  regarded  him  as  the  more  able  man. 

CHAP.  XXIII.  31-XXIV.  17.    EEIGNS  OF  THE  KINGS  JEHOAHAZ, 
JEHOIAKIM,  AND  JEHOIACHIN. 

Vers.  31-35.  Eeign  of  Jehoahaz  (cf  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  1-4). 
— Jehoahaz,  called  significantly  by  Jeremiah  (xxii.  11)  ShaUum, 
i.e.  "  to  whom  it  is  requited,"  reigned  only  three  months,  and  did 
evil  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  as  all  his  fathers  had  done.  The 
people  (or  the  popular  party),  who  had  preferred  him  to  his 
elder  brother,  had  apparently  set  great  hopes  upon  him,  as  we 
may  judge  from  Jer.  xxii.  10-12,  and  seem  to  have  expected  that 
his  strength  and  energy  would  serve  to  avert  the  danger  which 
threatened  the  kingdom  on  the  part  of  Necho.  Ezekiel  (ch.  xix. 
3)  compares  him  to  a  young  lion  which  learned  to  catch  the 
prey  and  devoured  men,  but,  as  soon  as  the  nations  heard  of 
him,  was  taken  in  their  pit  and  led  by  nose-rings  to  Egypt,  and 
thus  attributes  to  him  the  character  of  a  tyrant  disposed  to  acts 
of  violence ;  and  Joseph  us  accordingly  (Ant.  x.  5,  2)  describes 
him  as  aa-e^r)<:  koI  /j,Lapo<!  top  rpoirov. — ^Ver.  33.  "Pharaoh 
Necho  put  him  in  fetters  (^'ilps'i)  at  Etblah  in  the  land  of 
Hamath,  when  he  had  become  king  at  Jerusalem."  In  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  3  we  have,  instead  of  this,  "  the  king  of  Egypt  deposed 
him  (inTPI)  at  Jerusalem."  The  Masoretes  have  substituted  as 
Kcri  'n^'SD,  "  away  from  being  king,"  or  "  that  he  might  be  no 


CHAP.  XXIir.  31-35.  -497 

longer  king,'*  in  tlie  place  of  vP?,  and  Thenins  and  Bertheau 
prefer  the  former,  because  the  LXX.  have  tov  firj  ^aaCkeveiv  not 
in  our  text  only,  but  in  the  Chronicles  also ;  but  they  ought  not 
to  have  appealed  to  the  Chronicles,  inasmuch  as  the  LXX.  have 
not  rendered  the  Hebrew  text  there,  but  have  simply  repeated 
the  words  from  the  text  of  the  book  of  Kings.  The  Keri  is 
nothing  more  than  an  emendation  explaining  the  sense,  which 
the  LXX  have  also  followed.  The  two  texts  are  not  contra- 
dictory, but  simply  complete  each  other:  for,  as  Clericus  has 
correctly  observed,  "  Jehoahaz  would  of  course  be  removed  from 
Jerusalem  before  he  was  cast  into  chains  ;  and  there  was  nothing 
to  prevent  his  being  dethroned  at  Jerusalem  before  he  was  taken 
to  Piiblah."  "We  are  not  told  in  what  way  Xecho  succeeded  in 
getting  Jehoahaz  into  his  power,  so  as  to  put  him  in  chains 
at  Eiblah.  The  assumption  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  others,  that 
his  elder  brother  Eliakim,  being  dissatisfied  with  the  choice  of 
Jehoahaz  as  king,  had  recourse  to  Xecho  at  Eiblah,  in  the  hope 
of  getting  possession  of  his  father's  kingdom  through  his  instru- 
mentality, is  precluded  by  the  fact  tliat  Jehoahaz  would  certainly 
not  have  been  so  foolish  as  to  appear  before  the  enemy  of  his 
country  at  a  mere  summons  from  Pharaoh,  who  was  at  Pdblah, 
and  allow  him  to  depose  him,  when  he  was  perfectly  safe  in 
Jerusalem,  where  the  will  of  the  people  had  raised  him  to  the 
throne.  If  Xecho  wanted  to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs 
of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  it  would  never  have  done  for  him  to 
proceed  beyond  Palestine  to  Syria  after  the  victory  at  Megiddo, 
without  having  first  deposed  Jehoahaz,  who  had  been  raised  to 
the  throne  at  Jerusalem  without  any  regard  to  his  will.  The 
course  of  events  was  therefore  probably  the  following :  After  the 
victory  at  Megiddo,  Xecho  intended  to  continue  his  march  to  the 
Euphrates;  but  on  hearing  that  Jehoahaz  had  ascended  the  throne, 
and  possibly  also  in  consequence  of  complaints  which  Eliakim 
had  made  to  him  on  that  account,  he  ordered  a  division  of  his 
army  to  march  against  Jerusalem,  and  while  the  main  army  was 
marcliing  slowly  to  Piiblah,  he  had  Jerusalem  taken,  king  Jeho- 
ahaz dethroned,  the  land  laid  under  tribute,  Eliakim  appointed 
king  as  his  vassal,  and  the  deposed  Jehoahaz  brought  to  his 
headquarters  at  Piiblah,  then  put  into  chains  and  transported  to 
Egj'pt ;  so  that  the  statement  in  2  Chron.  xxxvL  3,  "  he  deposed 
him  at  Jerusalem,"  is  to  be  taken  quite  literally,  even  if  Kecho 
did  not  come  to  Jerusalem  in  jrroprid  persona,  but  simply  effected 

21 


'498  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KIKGS. 

this  through  the  medium  of  one  of  his  generals.^  RiUah  has 
been  preserved  in  the  miserable  village  of  Bible,  from  ten  to 
twelve  hours  to  the  S.S.W.  of  Hums  (Emesa)  by  the  river  el 
Ahsy  (Orontes),  in  a  large  fruitful  plain  of  the  northern  portion 
of  the  Bekaa,  which  was  very  well  adapted  to  serve  as  the 
camping  ground  of  Necho's  army  as  well  as  of  that  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar (ch.  XXV.  6,  20,  21),  not  only  because  it  furnished  the 
most  abundant  supply  of  food  and  fodder,  but  also  on  account  of 
its  situation  on  the  great  caravan-road  from  Palestine  by  Damas- 
cus, Emesa,  and  Hamath  to  Thapsacus  and  Carchemish  on  the 
Euphrates  (cf.  Eob.  Bibl  Bes.  pp.  542-546  and  641).— In  the 
payment  imposed  upon  the  land  by  Necho,  one  talent  of  gold 
(c.  25,000  thalers;  £3750)  does  not  seem  to  bear  any  correct 
proportion  to  100  talents  of  silver  (c.  250,000  thalers,  or 
£37,500),  and  consequently  the  LXX-  have  100  talents  of  gold, 
the  Syr.  and  Arab.  1 0  talents ;  and  Thenius  supposes  this  to 
have  been  the  original  reading,  and  explains  the  reading  in  the 
text  from  the  dropping  out  of  a  "i  (=10),  though  without  reflect- 
ing that  as  a  rule  the  number  10  would  requii'e  the  plural 
anas. — Ver.  34.  From  the  words  "  Necho  made  Eliakim  the  son 

1  Ewald  {Gesch.'m.  p.  720)  also  observes,  that  "  Necho  himself  may  have 
been  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  for  the  purpose  of  installing  his  vassal :"  this, 
he  says,  "  is  indicated  by  the  brief  words  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  33,  34,  and  nothing 
can  be  found  to  say  against  it  in  other  historical  sources ; "  though  he  assumes 
that  Jehoahaz  had  allowed  himself  to  be  enticed  by  Necho  to  go  to  Riblah  into 
the  Egyptian  camp,  where  he  was  craftily  put  into  chains,  and  soon  carried  off 
as  a  prisoner  to  Egypt. — We  should  have  a  confirmation  of  the  taking  of 
Jerusalem  by  Necho  in  the  account  given  by  Herodotus  (ii.  159)  :  (Xitret  B«  tt.v 
^«;g>)y  (i.e.  after  the  battle  at  Megiddo)  'Kcthvuu  'xi/hiv  rii;  Ivpixtf  lovaetv  (Aiyi.- 
>.ni>  il'Ki^  if  any  evidence  could  be  brought  to  establish  the  opinion  that  by 
KaSi/T/f  we  are  to  understand  Jerusalem.  But  altliough  what  Herodotus  says 
(iii.  6)  concerning  'Kulvrig  does  not  apply  to  any  other  city  of  Palestine  so  well 
as  to  Jerusalem,  the  use  of  the  name  y^ahvTig  for  Jerusalem  has  not  yet  been 
sufficiently  explained,  since  it  cannot  come  from  njj'np,  the  holy  city,  because 
the  c  of  this  word  does  not  pass  into  n  in  any  Semitic  dialect,  and  the  expla- 
nation recently  attempted  by  Bottcher  {N.  ex.  Krit.  Aehrenlese,  iu  pp.  119  sqq.) 
from  the  Aramsean  ND^nn,  the  renewed  city  (new-town),  is  based  upon  many 
very  questionable  conjectures.  At  the  same  time  so  much  is  certain,  that  the 
view  which  Hitzig  has  revived  (c/e  Cadyti  urhe  Herod.  Gott.  1829,  p.  11,  and 
Urgeschichte  der  Philister,  pp.  96  sqq.),  and  which  is  now  the  prevalent  one, 
viz.  that  Kctovj:;  is  Gaza,  is  exposed  to  some  well-founded  objections,  even 
after  what  Stark  (Gaza,  pp.  218  sqq.)  has  adduced  in  its  favour.  The  de- 
scription which  Herodotus  gives  (iii.  5)  of  the  land-road  to  Egypt :  dv6  ^oivi' 
x/is  fitxP'  C'^P'^i'  "^^^  K«eOt/T/Of  7rb>iio;,  vj  iari  ^vp»i>  ruv  HuT^ouaTivuv  KxXtOfAsvoiy' 


CHAP.  XXIIL  31-35.  499 

of  Josiah  king  in  tlic  "place  of  his  father  Josiah,"  it  follows  that 
the  king  of  Egypt  did  not  acknowledge  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz, 
because  he  had  been  installed  by  the  people  without  his  consent. 
"  And  changed  his  name  into  Jehoiakim."  The  alteration  of 
the  name  was  a  sign  of  dependenca  In  ancient  times  princes 
were  accustomed  to  give  new  names  to  the  persons  whom  they 
took  into  their  service,  and  masters  to  give  new  names  to  their 
slaves  (cf.  Gen.  xli.  45,  Ezra  v.  14,  Dan.  i  7,  and  Havernick 
on  the  last  passage). — But  while  these  names  were  generally 
borrowed  from  heathen  deities,  Eliakim,  and  at  a  later  period 
Mattaniah  (xxiv.  1 7),  received  genuine  Israelitish  names,  Jehoia- 
kim, i.e.  "  Jehovah  will  set  up,"  and  Zidkiyahu,  i.e.  "  righteous- 
ness of  Jehovah ;"  from  which  we  may  infer  that  Necho  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  treat  the  vassal  kings  installed  by  them 
exactly  as  their  slaves,  but  allowed  them  to  choose  the  new 
names  for  themselves,  and  simply  confirmed  them  as  a  sign  of 
their  supremacy.  Eliahim  altered  his  name  into  Jehoiakim,  i.e. 
El  (God)  into  Jehovah,  to  set  the  allusion  to  the  establishment 
of  the  kingdom,  which  is  implied  in  the  name,  in  a  still  more 
definite  relation  to  Jehovah  the  covenant  God,  who  had  promised 
to  establish  the  seed  of  David  (2  Sam.  vii.  14),  possibly  with  an 

ccTCo  OS  K«BuT<oj,  iowjn;  'zo'kio;  (if  iftol  (tOKi-i)  2«oo/«»  oii  croXX^  tT^iaaovo;,  ec-xo 
reivrn;  t»  ift'zoptct  tx  swi  SetKataan;  ftixp'  'I'/ivvaov  xoX;o';  hri  tov  'A^a/S/ow*  does 
not  apply  to  Gaza,  because  there  were  no  commercial  towns  on  the  sea-coast 
between  the  district  of  Gaza  and  the  town  of  Yenysus  (the  present  Khan 
Ymas)  ;  but  between  the  district  of  Jerusalem  and  the  town  of  Yenysus  there 
were  the  Philistian  cities  Ashkelon  and  Gaza,  which  Herodotus  might  call  t» 
iftz-oeiec  toS  ' Apxfiiov,  whereas  the  comparison  made  between  the  size  of 
Kadytis  and  that  of  Sardes  points  rather  to  Jerusalem  than  to  Gaza.  Still 
less  can  the  datum  in  Jer.  xlvii.  1,  "  before  Pharaoh  smote  Gaza,"  be  adduced 
in  support  of  Gaza.  If  we  bear  in  mind  that  Jeremiah's  prophecy  (ch.  xlvii.) 
was  not  uttered  before  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  and  therefore 
that  Pharaoh  had  not  smitten  Gaza  at  that  time,  supposing  that  this  Pharaoh 
was  really  Necho,  it  cannot  have  been  till  after  his  defeat  at  Carchemish  that 
Necho  took  Gaza  on  his  return  home.  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  Graf  assume  that 
this  was  the  case  ;  but,  as  M.  v.  Niebuhr  has  correctly  observed,  it  has  '•  every 
military  probability  "  against  it,  and  even  the  incredibility  that  "  a  routed 
Oriental  army  in  its  retreat,  which  it  evidently  accomplished  in  one  continuous 
march,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  on  its  line  of  march  there  were  the 
strongest  positions,  on  the  Orontes,  Lebanon,  etc.,  at  which  it  might  have 
halted,  should  have  taken  the  city  upon  its  flight."  And,  lastly,  the  name 
Kxlvrt;  does  not  answer  to  the  name  Gaza,  even  though  the  latter  was  spelt 
Gazatu  in  early  Egyptian  (Brugsch,  Geograph.  InscJir.  ii.  p.  32),  since  the  v 
(*/)  of  the  second  syllable  still  remains  unexplained. 


500  THK  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINCa 

intentional  opposition  to  the  humiliation  with  which  the  royal 
house  of  David  was  threatened  by  Jeremiah  and  other  prophets. 
— "  But  Jehoahaz  he  had  taken  (npp,  like  riip^  in  ch.  xxiv.  12), 
and  he  came  to  Egypt  and  died  there  " — when,  we  are  not  told. 
— In  ver.  35,  even  before  the  account  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  we 
have  fuller  particulars  respecting  the  payment  of  the  tribute 
which  Necho  imposed  upon  the  land  (ver.  3  3),  because  it  was 
the  condition  on  which  he  was  appointed  king. — "  The  gold  and 
silver  Jehoiakim  gave  to  Pharaoh;  yet  (^5<  =but  in  order  to 
raise  it)  he  valued  (^■'ly.'^.  as  in  Lev.  xxvii.  8)  the  land,  to  give 
the  money  according  to  Pharaoh's  command;  of  every  one 
according  to  his  valuation,  he  exacted  the  silver  and  gold  of  the 
population  of  the  land,  to  give  it  to  Pharaoh  Necho."  tJ*::,  to 
exact  tribute,  is  construed  with  a  double  accusative,  and  K'^N 
i3"iy3  placed  first  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  as  an  explanatory 
apposition  to  n.JJ^!  2^"^^. 

Ver.  36-ch.  xxiv.  7.  Eeign  of  Jehoiakim  (cf.  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  5—8). — Jehoiakim  reigned  eleven  years  in  the  spirit  of 
his  ungodly  forefathers  (compare  ver.  37  with  ver.  32),  Jere- 
miah represents  him  (ch.  xxii.  13  sqq.)  as  a  bad  prince,  who 
enriched  himself  by  the  unjust  oppression  of  his  people,  "  whose 
eyes  and  heart  were  directed  upon  nothing  but  upon  gain,  and 
upon  innocent  blood  to  shed  it,  and  upon  oppression  and  violence 
to  do  them"  (compare  ch.  xxiv.  4  and  Jer.  xxvi.  22,  23).  Jose- 
phus  therefore  describes  him  as  rrjv  ^vctlv  uBiko'?  koX  KaKovpyo<;, 
KoX  fiTjTe  irpo'i  0€ov  oaLO<;,  firjre  irpo'i  dvdpco7rov<;  iinetK'q^  (Ant.  x. 
5,  2).  The  town  of  Bumali,  from  which  his  mother  sprang,  is 
not  mentioned  anywhere  else,  but  it  has  been  supposed  to  be 
identical  with  Aruma  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Shechem  (Judg. 
ix.  41). 

Ch.  xxiv.  ver.  1.  "In  his  days  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  king 
of  Babel,  came  up ;  and  Jehoiakim  became  subject  to  him  three 
years,  then  he  revolted  from  him  again."  "ixsnasi,  NcbucJiad- 
nezzar,  or  "I5fs^'i3i33,  Nebuchadrezzar  (Jer.  xxi.  2,  7,  xxii.  2  5,  etc.), 
Na^ov^oBovoaop  (LXX.),  Na/3ov^oSov6<Topo'i  (Beros.  in  Jos.  e. 
Ap.  L  20,  21),  Na^oKotp6aopo<i  (Strabo,  xv.  1,  6),  upon  the 
Persian  arrow-headed  inscriptions  at  Bisutun  Nabhuhudracara 
(according  to  Oppert,  composed  of  the  name  of  God,  JSfahhu 
(Nebo),  the  Arabic  kadr,  power,  and  zar  or  sar,  prince),  and  in 
still  other  forms  (for  the  different  forms  of  the  name  see  M.  v. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  1.  fiOt 

Niebulir's  Gesch.  pp.  41,  42).  He  was  the  son  of  Xabopolassar, 
the  founder  of  the  ChaldEean  monarchy,  and  reigned,  according 
to  Berosiis  (Jos.  l.c),  Alex.  Polyh.  (Eusebii  Chron.  arm.  i.  pp.  44, 
45),  and  the  Canon  of  Ptol,  forty-three  years,  from  605  to  562 
B.C.  With  regard  to  his  first  campaign  against  Jerusalem,  it  is 
stated  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi  6,  that  "  against  him  (Jehoiakim) 
came  up  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  bound  him  with  brass  chains,  to 
carry  him  (i3"'pinp)  to  Babylon  ;"  and  in  Dan.  i.  1,  2,  that  "  in 
the  year  three  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  Nebuchadnezzar  came 
against  Jerusalem  and  besieged  it ;  and  the  Lord  gave  Jehoiakim, 
the  king  of  Judah,  into  his  hand,  and  a  portion  of  the  holy 
vessels,  and  he  brought  them  (the  vessels)  into  the  land  of 
Shinar,  into  the  house  of  his  god,"  etc.  Bertheau  (an  Chr.) 
admits  that  all  three  passages  relate  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  first 
expedition  against  Jehoiakim  and  the  first  taking  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  rejects  the  alteration  of  i3  vinp,  "  to 
lead  him  to  Babylon"  (Chi'.),  into  dTr-^ajev  avrov  (LXX.),  for 
which  Thenius  decides  in  his  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  LXX. 
He  has  also  correctly  observed,  that  the  chronicler  intentionally 
selected  the  infinitive  with  b,  because  he  did  not  intend  to  speak 
of  the  actual  transportation  of  Jehoiakim  to  Babylon.  The 
words  of  our  text,  "  Jehoiakim  became  ser\'ant  O^V.)  to  him,"  i.e. 
subject  to  him,  simply  affirm  that  he  became  tributary,  not  that 
he  was  led  away.  And  in  the  book  of  Daniel  also  there  is 
nothing  about  the  leading  away  of  Jehoiakim  to  Babylon. 
Wliilst,  therefore,  the  three  accounts  agree  in  the  main  with  one 
another,  and  supply  one  another's  deficiencies,  so  that  we  learn 
that  Jehoiakim  was  taken  prisoner  at  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
and  put  in  chains  to  be  led  away,  but  that,  inasmuch  as  he  sub- 
mitted to  Nebuchadnezzar  and  vowed  fidelity,  he  was  not  taken 
away,  but  left  upon  the  throne  as  vassal  of  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon ;  the  statement  in  the  book  of  Daniel  concerning  the  time 
when  this  event  occurred,  which  is  neither  contained  in  our 
account  nor  in  the  Chronicles,  presents  a  difficulty  when  com- 
pared with  Jer.  xxv.  and  xlvi.  2,  and  different  attempts,  some 
of  them  very  constrained,  have  been  made  to  remove  it.  Accord- 
ing to  Jer.  xlvi.  2,  Nebuchadnezzar  smote  Necho  the  king  of 
Egypt  at  Carchemish,  on  the  Euphrates,  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim.  This  year  is  not  only  called  the  first  year  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar in  Jer.  xxv.  1,  but  is  represented  by  the  prophet  as 
the  turning-point  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  by  the  amiounce- 


502  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

ment  that  tlie  Lord  would  bring  His  servant  Nebuchadnezzar 
upon  Judah  and  its  inhabitants,  and  also  upon  all  the  nations 
dwelling  round  about,  that  he  would  devastate  Judah,  and  that 
these  nations  would  serve  the  king  of  Babylon  seventy  years 
(Jer.  XXV.  9-11).  Consequently  not  only  the  defeat  of  Necho 
at  Carchemish,  but  also  the  coming  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  Judah, 
fell  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  and  not  in  the  third.  To 
remove  this  discrepancy,  some  have  proposed  that  the  time  men- 
tioned, "  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim"  (Jer.  xlvi.  2),  should 
be  understood  as  relating,  not  to  the  year  of  the  battle  at  Car- 
chemish, but  to  the  time  of  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  against 
Eg3rpt  contained  in  ch.  xlvi.,  and  that  Jer.  xxv.  should  also  be 
explained  as  follows,  that  in  this  chapter  the  prophet  is  not  an- 
nouncing the  first  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but 
is  proclaiming  a  year  after  this  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  devastation  of  the  whole  land,  or  a  total  judgment  upon 
Jerusalem  and  the  rest  of  the  nations  mentioned  there  (M.  v. 
Nieb.  Gesch.  pp.  86,  87,  371).  But  this  explanation  is  founded 
upon  the  erroneous  assumption,  that  Jer.  xlvi.  3-12  does  not 
contain  a  prediction  of  the  catastrophe  awaiting  Egypt,  but  a 
picture  of  what  has  already  taken  place  there ;  and  it  is  only 
in  a  very  forced  manner  that  it  can  be  brought  into  harmony 
with  the  contents  of  Jer.  xxv.^  We  must  rather  take  "  the  year 
three  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim"  (Dan.  i.  1)  as  the  extreme 
terminus  a  quo  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  coming,  i.e.  must  understand 
the  statement  thus :  that  in  the  year  referred  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
commenced  the  expedition  against  Judah,  and  smote  Necho  at 
Carchemish  at  the  commencement  of  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoia- 
kim (Jer.  xlvi.  2),  and  then,  following  up  this  victory,  took 
Jerusalem  in  the  same  year,  and  made  Jehoiakim  tributary,  and 
at  the  same  time  carried  off  to  Babylon  a  portion  of  the  sacred 
vessels,  and  some  young  men  of  royal  blood  as  hostages,  one  of 
whom  was  Daniel  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  7  ;  Dan.  i.  2  sqq.).  The  fast 
mentioned  in  Jer.  xxxvi  9,  which  took  place  in  the  fifth  year 

^  Still  less  tenable  is  the  view  of  Hofmann,  renewed  by  Ziindel  (KriU 
Unterss.  iih.  d.  Ahfassungszeit  ties  B.  Daniel,  p.  25),  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
conquered  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  and  that  it  was  not  till 
the  following,  or  fourth  year,  that  he  defeated  the  Egyptian  army  at  Car- 
chemish, because  so  long  as  Pharaoh  Necho  stood  with  his  army  by  or  in 
Carchemish,  on  the  Euphrates,  Nebuchadnezzar  could  not  possibly  attempt  to 
pass  it  so  as  to  effect  a  march  upon  Jerusalem. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  L  503 

of  Jehoiakim,  cannot  be  adduced  in  disproof  of  this ;  for  extra- 
ordinary fast-days  were  not  only  appointed  for  the  purpose  of 
averting  great  threatening  dangers,  but  also  after  severe  cala- 
mities which  had  fallen  upon  the  land  or  people,  to  expiate  His 
wrath  by  humiliation  before  God,  and  to  invoke  the  divine  com- 
passion to  remove  the  judgment  that  had  fallen  upon  them.  The 
objection,  that  the  godless  king  would  hardly  have  thought  of 
renewing  the  remembrance  of  a  divine  judgment  by  a  day  of 
repentance  and  prayer,  but  would  rather  have  desired  to  avoid 
everything  that  could  make  the  people  despair,  falls  to  the 
ground,  with  the  erroneous  assumption  upon  which  it  is  founded, 
that  by  the  fast-day  Jehoiakim  simply  intended  to  renew  the 
remembrance  of  the  judgment  which  had  burst  upon  Jerusalem, 
whereas  he  rather  desired  by  outward  humiliation  before  God 
to  secure  the  help  of  God  to  enable  him  to  throw  off  the  Chal- 
dsean  yoke,  and  arouse  in  the  people  a  religious  enthusiasm  for 
war  against  their  oppressors. — Further  information  concerning 
this  first  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  supplied  by  the  account 
of  Berosus,  which  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  11,  and  c.  Ap.  i.  19)  has 
preserved  from  the  third  book  of  his  Chaldaean  history,  namely, 
that  when  Nabopolassar  received  intelligence  of  the  revolt  of 
the  satrap  whom  he  had  placed  over  Egypt,  Coele-Syria,  and 
Phoenicia,  because  he  was  no  longer  able  on  account  of  age  to 
bear  the  hardships  of  war,  he  placed  a  portion  of  his  army  in 
the  hands  of  his  youthful  son  Nebuchadnezzar  and  sent  him 
against  the  satrap.  Nebuchadnezzar  defeated  him  in  battle,  and 
established  his  power  over  that  country  again.  In  the  mean- 
time Nabopolassar  fell  sick  and  died  in  Babylon ;  and  as  soon  as 
the  tidings  reached  Nebuchadnezzar,  he  hastened  through  the 
desert  to  Babylon  with  a  small  number  of  attendants,  and 
directed  his  army  to  follow  slowly  after  regulating  the  affairs 
of  Egypt  and  the  rest  of  the  country,  and  to  bring  with  it  the 
prisoners  from  the  Jews,  Syrians,  Phoenicians,  and  Egyptian 
tribes,  and  with  the  hea\dly-armed  troops.  So  much,  at  any  rate, 
is  evident  from  this  account,  after  deducting  the  motive  assigned 
for  the  war,  which  is  given  from  a  Chaldaean  point  of  view,  and 
may  be  taken  as  a  historical  fact,  that  even  before  his  father's 
death  Nebuchadnezzar  had  not  only  smitten  the  Egyptians,  but 
had  also  conquered  Judah  and  penetrated  to  the  borders  of 
Egypt.  And  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  statement  of 
Berosus,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  not  yet  king,  and  the  fact 


504  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KIKGS. 

that  in  the  biblical  books  he  is  called  king  proleptically,  because 
he  marched  against  Judah  with  kingly  authority. 

Vers.  2-7.  To  punish  Jehoiakim's  rebellion,  Jehovah  sent 
hosts  of  Chaldseans,  Aramaeans,  Moabites,  and  Ammonites  against 
him  and  against  Judah  to  destroy  it  (i'^^^snp).  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  probably  too  much  occupied  with  other  matters  relating  to 
his  kingdom,  during  the  earliest  years  of  his  reign  after  his 
father's  death,  to  be  able  to  proceed  at  once  against  Jehoiakim 
and  punish  him  for  his  revolt.^  He  may  also  have  thought  it 
a  matter  of  too  little  importance  for  him  to  go  himself,  as  there 
was  not  much  reason  to  be  afraid  of  Egypt  since  its  first  defeat 
(of.  M.  V.  Niebuhr,  p.  375).  He  therefore  merely  sent  such 
troops  against  him  as  were  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Judah  at 
the  time.  The  tribes  mentioned  along  with  the  Chaldteans  were 
probably  all  subject  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  so  that  they  attacked 
Judah  at  his  command  in  combination  with  the  Chaldsean  tribes 
left  upon  the  frontier.  How  much  they  effected  is  not  distinctly 
stated ;  but  it  is  evident  that  they  were  not  able  to  take  Jeru- 
salem, from'  the  fact  that  after  the  death  of  Jehoiakim  his  son 
was  able  to  ascend  the  throne  (ver.  6). — The  sending  of  these 
troops  is  ascribed  to  Jehovah,  who,  as  the  supreme  controller  of 
the  fate  of  the  covenant-nation,  punished  Jehoiakim  for  his 
rebellion.  For,  after  the  Lord  had  given  Judah  into  the  hands 
of  the  Chaldceans  as  a  punishment  for  its  apostasy  from  Him, 
all  revolt  from  them  was  rebellion  against  the  Lord.  "  Accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  Jehovah,  which  He  spake  by  His  servants 
the  prophets,"  viz.  Isaiah,  Micah,  Habakkuk,  Jeremiah,  and 
others. — Vers.  3,  4.  '"  ''^'^V  ^^  :  "  only  according  to  the  mouth 
(command)  of  Jehovah  did  this  take  place  against  Judah,"  i.e. 
for  no  other  reason  than  because  the  Lord  had  determined  to 
put  away  Judah  from  before  His  face  because  of  Manasseh's  sins 
(cf.  eh.  xxi.  12-16,  and  xxiii.  27).     "And  Jehovah  would  not 

*  Compare  the  remarks  of  M.  v.  Niebuhr  on  this  point  (Gesch,  pp.  208, 
209)  and  his  summary  at  p.  209 :  "  Nebuchadnezzar  had  enough  to  do  in 
Babylon  and  the  eastern  half  of  his  kingdom,  to  complete  the  organization  of 
the  new  kingdom,  to  make  the  military  roads  to  the  western  half  of  the  king- 
dom along  the  narrow  valley  of  the  Euphrates  and  through  the  desert,  and 
also  to  fortify  them  and  provide  them  with  watering  stations  and  every  other 
requisite,  to  repair  the  damages  of  the  Scythian  hordes  and  the  long  contest 
with  Nineveh,  to  restore  the  shattered  authority,  and  to  bring  Arabs  and 
mountain-tribes  to  order.  All  this  was  more  important  than  a  somewhat 
more  rapid  termination  of  the  Egyptian  war  and  the  pacification  of  Syria." 


CHAP.  XXIV.  2-7.  505 

forgive,"  even  if  the  greatest  intercessors,  Moses  and  Samuel, 
had  come  before  Him  (Jer.  xv.  1  sqq.),  because  the  measure  of 
the  sins  was  full,  so  that  God  was  obliged  to  punish  according 
to  His  holy  righteousness.  We  must  repeat  3  from  the  preced- 
ing words  before  ^ipsn  ^l.- — Ver.  6.  "  Jehoiakim  lay  down  to  (fell 
asleep  with)  his  fathers,  and  Jehoiachin  his  son  became  king  in 
his  stead."  That  this  statement  is  not  in  contradiction  to  the 
prophecies  of  Jer.  xxii.  19:"  Jehoiakim  shall  be  buried  like  an 
ass,  carried  away  and  cast  out  far  away  from  the  gates  of  Jeru- 
salem," and  xxxvL  30  :  "no  son  of  his  shall  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  David,  and  his  body  shall  lie  exposed  to  the  heat  by  day  and 
to  the  cold  by  night,"  is  now  generally  admitted,  as  it  has  already 
been  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Winer.  But  the  solution  proposed 
by  Michaelis,  Winer,  and  M  v.  Niebuhr  (Gesch.  p.  376)  is  not 
sufficient,  namely,  that  at  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  which  took 
place  three  months  after  the  death  of  Jehoiakim,  his  bones  were 
taken  out  of  the  grave,  either  by  the  victors  out  of  revenge  for 
his  rebellion,  or  by  the  fury  of  the  people,  and  cast  out  before 
the  city  gate ;  for  Jeremiah  expressly  predicts  that  he  shall  have 
no  funeral  and  no  burial  whatever.  We  must  therefore  assume 
that  he  was  slain  in  a  battle  fought  with  the  troops  sent  against 
him,  and  was  not  buried  at  all ;  an  assumption  which  is  not  at 
variance  with  the  words,  "  he  laid  himself  down  to  his  fathers," 
since  this  formula  does  not  necessarily  indicate  a  peaceful  death 
by  sickness,  but  is  also  applied  to  king  Ahab,  who  was  slain  in 
battle  (1  Kings  xxii  40,  of.  2  Kings  xxii  20).^ — And  even 
though  his  son  Jehoiachin  ascended  the  throne  after  his  father's 
death  and  maintained  his  position  for  three  months  against  the 
Chaldaeans,  until  at  length  he  fell  into  their  hands  and  was 
carried  away  alive  to  Babylon,  the  prophet  might  very  truly  de- 
scribe this  short  reign  as  not  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David 
(c£  Graf  on  Jer.  xxii.  19). — To  the  death  of  Jehoiakim  there  is 
appended  the  notice  in  ver.  7,  that  the  king  of  Egypt  did  not  go 
out  of  his  own  land  any  more,  because  the  king  of  Babylon  had 
taken  away  everything  that  had  belonged  to  the  king  of  Eg}-pt, 

^  The  supposition  of  Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  p.  733),  that  Jehoiakim  was  enticed 
out  of  the  capital  by  a  stratagem  of  the  enemy,  and  taken  j  risoner,  and  be- 
cause he  made  a  furious  resistance  was  hurried  off  in  a  scuffle  and  mercilessly 
slaughtered,  is  at  variance  with  the  fact  that,  according  to  ver.  10,  it  was  not 
till  after  his  death  that  the  army  of  the  enemy  advanced  to  the  front  of  Jeru- 
salem and  commenced  the  siege. 


506  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

from  the  brook  of  Egypt  to  the  river  Euphrates.  The  purpose 
of  this  notice  is  to  indicate,  on  the  one  hand,  what  attitude 
Necho,  whose  march  to  the  Euphrates  was  previously  mentioned, 
had  assumed  on  the  conquest  of  Judah  by  the  Chaldseans,  and 
on  the  other  hand,  that  under  these  circumstances  a  successful 
resistance  to  the  Chaldaeans  on  the  part  of  Judah  was  not  for  a 
moment  to  be  thought  of. 

Vers.  8-17  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  9  and  10).  Jehoiachin,  T^')n> 
or  T^y  (Ezek.  i.  2),  i.e.  he  whom  Jehovah  fortifies,  called  ^>^]^.^\ 
in  1  Chron.  iii.  16,  17,  and  Jer.  xxvii.  20,  xxviii.  4,  etc.,  and 
5in^:3  in  Jer.  xxii.  24,  28,  xxxvii.  1,  probably  according  to  the 
popular  twisting  and  contraction  of  the  name  Jehoiachin,  was 
eighteen  years  old  when  he  ascended  the  throne  (the  eight  years 
of  the  Chronicles  are  a  slip  of  the  pen),  and  reigned  three 
months,  or,  according  to  the  more  precise  statement  of  the 
Chronicles,  three  months  and  ten  days,  in  the  spirit  of  his  father. 
Ezekiel  (xix.  5—7)  describes  him  not  only  as  a  young  lion,  who 
learned  to  prey  and  devoured  men,  like  Jehoahaz,  but  also 
affirms  of  him  that  he  knew  their  (the  deceased  men's)  widows, 
i.e.  ravished  them,  and  destroyed  their  cities, — that  is  to  say,  he 
did  not  confine  his  deeds  of  violence  to  individuals,  but  extended 
them  to  all  that  was  left  behind  by  those  whom  he  had  murdered, 
viz.  to  their  families  and  possessions ;  and  nothing  is  affirmed 
in  Jer.  xxii.  24  and  28  respecting  his  character  at  variance  with 
this.  His  mother  Nehushta  was  a  daughter  of  Elnathan,  a 
ruler  of  the  people,  or  prince,  from  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxvi.  22, 
xxxvi.  12,  25). — Ver.  10.  "At  that  time,"  ie.  when  Jehoiachin 
had  come  to  the  throne,  or,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  1 0,  "  at 
the  turn  of  the  year,"  i.e.  in  the  spring  (see  at  1  Kings  xx.  22), 
the  servants  (generals)  of  Nebuchadnezzar  marched  against  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  city  was  besieged.  The  Keri  i^V  is  substantially 
correct,  but  is  an  unnecessary  alteration  of  the  Chethib  i^^V,  since 
the  verb  when  it  precedes  the  subject  is  not  unfrequently  used 
in  the  singular,  though  before  a  plural  subject  (cf.  Ewald,  §  316, 
a).  The  '33  nay  are  different  from  the  Dnna  of  ver.  2.  As  the 
troops  sent  against  Jehoiakim  had  not  been  able  to  conquer 
Judah,  especially  Jerusalem,  Nebuchadnezzar  sent  his  generals 
with  an  army  against  Jerusalem,  to  besiege  the  city  and  take  it. 
— Ver.  11.  Daring  the  siege  he  came  himself  to  punish  Jehoia- 
kim's  revolt  in  the  person  of  his  successor. — Ver.  12.  Then 
Jehoiachin  went  out  to  the  king  of  Babylon  to  peld  himseK  up 


CHAP.  XXIV.  8-17.  5^0  7" 

to  him,  because  lie  perceived  the  impossibility  of  holding  the 
city  any  longer  against  the  besiegers,  and  probably  hoped  to 
secure  the  favour  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  perhaps  to  retain  the 
throne  as  his  vassal  by  a  voluntary  submission.  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, however,  did  not  show  favour  any  more,  as  he  had  done 
to  Jehoiakim  at  the  first  taking  of  Jerusalem,  but  treated  Jehoia- 
chin  as  a  rebel,  made  him  prisoner,  and  led  him  away  to  Baby- 
lon, along  with  his  mother,  his  wives  (ver.  15),  his  princes  and 
his  chamberlains,  as  Jeremiah  had  prophesied  (ch.  xxii.  24  sqq.), 
in  the  eighth  year  of  his  (Xebuchadnezzar's)  reign.  The  refer- 
ence to  the  king's  mother  in  vers.  12  and  15  is  not  to  be 
explained  on  the  ground  that  she  still  acted  as  guardian  over 
the  king,  who  was  not  yet  of  age  (J.  D.  Mich.),  but  from  the 
influential  position  which  she  occupied  in  the  kingdom  as  '"i'^'35'l) 
(Jer.  xxix.  2  :  see  at  1  Kings  xiv,  21).  The  eighth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  reckoned  from  the  time  when  his 
father  had  transferred  to  him  the  chief  command  over  the  army 
to  make  war  upon  Necho,  according  to  which  his  first  year 
coincides  with  th.Q  f mirth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (Jer.  xxv.  1).  As 
Nebuchadnezzar  acted  as  king,  so  far  as  the  Jews  were  concerned, 
from  that  time  forward,  although  he  conducted  the  war  by  com- 
mand of  his  father,  this  is  always  reckoned  as  the  point  of  time 
at  which  his  reign  commenced,  both  in  our  books  and  also  in 
Jeremiah  (cf.  ch.  xxv.  8  ;  Jer.  xxxiL  1).  According  to  this  cal- 
culation, his  reign  lasted  forty-four  years,  viz.  the  eight  years 
of  Jehoiakim  and  the  thirty-six  years  of  Jehoiachin's  imprison- 
ment, as  is  e\'ident  from  ch.  xxv.  27. — Ver.  13.  Nebuchad- 
nezzar thereupon,  that  is  to  say,  when  he  had  forced  his  way 
into  the  city,  plundered  the  treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace, 
and  broke  the  gold  off  the  vessels  which  Solomon  had  made  in 
the  temple  of  Jehovah.  Y^?,  to  cut  off,  break  off,  as  ia  ch.  xvi 
1 7,  i.e.  to  bear  off  the  gold  plates.  Nebuchadnezzar  had  already 
taken  a  portion  of  the  golden  vessels  of  the  temple  away  with 
him  at  the  first  taking  of  Jerusalem  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoia- 
kim, and  had  placed  them  in  the  temple  of  his  god  at  Babylon 
(2  Chron.  xxxvi.  7  ;  Dan.  i  2).  They  were  no  doubt  the  smaller 
vessels  of  solid  gold, — basins,  scoops,  goblets,  knives,  tongs,  etc., 
— which  Cyrus  delivered  up  again  to  the  Jews  on  their  return 
to  their  native  land  (Ezra  i  7  sqq.).  This  time  he  took  the 
gold  off  the  larger  vessels,  which  were  simply  plated  with  that 
metal,^  such  as  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  the  table  of  shew-bread 


608  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

and  ark  of  the  cbveiiant,  and  carried  it  away  as  booty,  so  that 
on  the  third  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  time  of  Zedekiah, 
beside  a  few  gold  and  silver  basins  and  scoops  (ch,  xxv.  1 5)  there 
were  only  the  large  brazen  vessels  of  the  court  remaining  (ch. 
xxv.  13-17  ;  Jer.  xxvii.  18  sqq.).  The  words,  "  as  Jehovah  had 
spoken,"  refer  to  ch.  xx.  1 7  and  Isa.  xxxix.  6,  and  to  the  sayings 
of  other  prophets,  such  as  Jer.  xv.  13,  xvii.  3,  etc. — Vers.  14-16. 
Beside  these  treasures,  he  carried  away  captive  to  Babylon  the 
cream  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  not  only  the  most 
affluent,  but,  as  is  evident  from  Jer.  xxiv.,  the  best  portion  in 
a  moral  respect.  In  ver.  14  the  number  of  those  who  were 
carried  off  is  simply  given  in  a  general  form,  according  to  its 
sum-total,  as  10,000  ;  and  then  in  vers.  15  and  16  the  details 
are  more  minutely  specified.  "  Ail  Jerusalem  "  is  the  whole  of 
the  population  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  first  of  all  divided  into 
two  leading  classes,  and  then  more  precisely  defined  by  the 
clause,  "  nothing  was  left  except  the  common  people,"  and 
reduced  to  the  cream  of  the  citizens.  The  king,  queen-mother, 
and  king's  wives  being  passed  over  and  mentioned  for  the  first 
time  in  the  special  list  in  ver.  15,  there  are  noticed  here  DnU'n-iJa 
and  ?^nn  '•niaa  73,  who  form  the  first  of  the  leading  classes.  By 
the  S''"!^  are  meant,  according  to  ver.  15,  the  Q''P'''!D,  chamber- 
lains, i.e.  the  officials  of  the  king's  court  in  general,  and  by  Y^X 
P.^0  ("  the  mighty  of  the  land  ")  all  the  heads  of  the  tribes  and 
families  of  the  nation  that  were  found  in  Jerusalem ;  and  under 
the  last  the  priests  and  prophets,  who  were  also  carried  away, 
according  to  Jer.  xxix.  1,  with  Ezekiel  among  them  (Ezek.  i.  1), 
are  included  as  the  spiritual  heads  of  the  people.  The  ^^nn  nisa 
are  called  <''nn  ^^3N  in  ver.  16  ;  their  number  was  7000,  The 
persons  intended  are  not  warriors,  but  men  of  property,  as  in  ch. 
XV.  20.  The  second  class  of  those  who  were  carried  away  con- 
sisted of  tJnnn-73^  all  the  workers  in  stone,  metal,  and  wood,  that 
is  to  say,  masons,  smiths,  and  carpenters ;  and  "^^priin,  the  lock- 
smiths, including  probably  not  actual  locksmiths  only,  but  makers 
of  weapons  also.  There  is  no  need  for  any  serious  refutation  of 
the  marvellous  explanation  given  of  "i5pD  by  Hitzig  (on  Jer. 
xxiv.  1),  who  derives  it  from  DO  and  15,  and  supposes  it  to 
be  an  epithet  applied  to  the  remnant  of  the  Canaanites,  who  had 
been  made  into  tributary  labourers,  although  it  has  been  adopted 
by  Thenius  and  Graf,  who  make  them  into  artisans  of  the  foreign 
socagers.     ri'?']!"DJ^  J^i'l  =  n'5T'^"  (<^^  ^^v-  ^2),  the  poor  peojple 


CHAP.  XXIV.  18-20.  509 

of  the  land,  i.e.  the  lower  portion  of  the  population  of  Jerusalem, 
firom  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  fear  any  rebellion,  because 
they  possessed  nothing  (Jer.  xxxix.  10),  i.e.  neither  property 
(money  nor  other  possessioQs),  nor  strength  and  ability  to 
organize  a  revolt.  The  antithesis  to  these  is  formed  by  the 
noniso  'try  D^"}i23,  the  strong  or  powerful  men,  who  were  in  a 
condition  to  originate  and  carry  on  a  war;  for  this  category 
includes  all  who  were  carried  away,  not  merely  the  thousand 
workmen,  but  also  the  seven  thousand  yj!}>}  '5?'^x,  and  the  king's 
of&cers  and  the  chiefs  of  the  nation,  whose  number  amounted  to 
two  thousand,  since  the  total  number  of  the  exiles  was  ten  thou- 
sand. There  is  no  special  allusion  to  warriors  or  military,  because 
in  the  struggle  for  the  rescue  of  the  capital  and  the  kingdom  from 
destruction  every  man  who  could  bear  arms  performed  military 
service,  so  that  the  distinction  between  warriors  and  non-warriors 
was  swept  away,  and  the  actual  warriors  are  swallowed  up  in  the 
ten  thousand.  Babel  is  the  country  of  Babylonia,  or  rather  the 
Babylonian  empire. — Ver.  1 7.  Over  the  lower  classes  of  the  people 
who  had  been  left  behind  Xebuchadnezzar  placed  the  paternal 
uncle  of  the  king,  who  had  been  led  away,  viz.  Mattaniah,  and 
made  him  king  under  the  name  of  Zedekiah.  He  was  the 
youngest  son  of  Josiah  (Jer.  L  3,  xxxvii  1) ;  was  only  ten  years 
old  when  his  father  died,  and  twenty-one  years  old  when  he 
ascended  the  throne ;  and  as  the  uncle  of  Jehoiachin,  who  being 
only  a  youth  of  eighteen  could  not  have  a  son  capable  of  reign- 
ing, had  the  first  claim  to  the  throne.  Instead  of  Vil,  his  uncle, 
we  have  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi  10  vnx,  his  brother,  i.e.  his  nearest 
relation.  On  the  change  in  the  name  see  at  ch.  xxiii.  34. 
The  name  i^'i?iy,  i.e.  he  who  has  Jehovah's  righteousness,  was 
probably  chosen  by  Mattaniah  in  the  hope  that  through  him  or 
in  his  reign  the  Lord  would  create  the  righteousness  promised 
to  His  people. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  18-XXV.  30.  EEIGN  OF  ZEDEKIAH,  DESTRUCTION  OF 
JERUSALEM  AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH,  AND  FATE  OF  THE 
PEOPLE  LEFT  BEHIND,  AND  OF  KING  JEHOIACHIN.* 

Vers.  18-20.  Zenith  and  spirit  of  ZedeJciah's  reign  (cf.  Jer. 
lii  1-3,  and  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  11-13). — Zedekiah's  mother  Ha- 

*  To  this  section  the  historical  appendix  to  the  book  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  lii.) 
furnishes  a  parallel,  which  agrees  with  it  for  the  most  part  word  for  word, 


510  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

mital,  daughter  of  Jeremiah  of  Libnah,  was  also  the  mother  of 
Jehoahaz  (ch.  xxiii.  31) ;  consequently  he  was  his  own  brother 
and  the  half-brother  of  Jehoiakim,  whose  mother  was  named 
Zebidah  (ch.  xxiii.  36).  His  reign  lasted  eleven  years,  and  in 
its  attitude  towards  the  Lord  exactly  resembled  that  of  his 
brother  Jehoiakim,  except  that  Zedekiah  does  not  appear  to  have 
possessed  so  much  energy  for  that  which  was  evil.  According 
to  Jer.  xxxviii.  5  and  24  sqq.,  he  was  weak  in  character,  and 
completely  governed  by  the  great  men  of  his  kingdom,  having 
no  power  or  courage  whatever  to  offer  resistance.  But,  like 
them,  he  did  not  hearken  to  the  words  of  the  Lord  through 
Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvii  2),  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  12,  "  he  did  not  humble  himself  before  Jeremiah  the 
prophet,  who  spake  to  him  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord." — 
Ver.  20.  "  For  because  of  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  it  happened 
concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem."  The  subject  to  nnM  is  to 
be  taken  from  what  precedes,  viz.  Zedekiah's  doing  evil,  or  that 
such  a  God-resisting  man  as  Zedekiah  became  king.  "  Not  that 
it  was  of  God  that  Zedekiah  was  wicked,  but  that  Zedekiah,  a 
man  (if  we  believe  Brentius,  in  loc.)  simple,  dependent  upon 
counsellors,  yet  at  the  same  time  despising  the  word  of  God 
and  impenitent  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  12,  13),  became  king,  so  as 
to  be  the  cause  of  Jerusalem's  destruction"  (Seb.  Schm.),  On 
'131  Syb^r)  ny  cf.  ver.  3,  and  ch.  xvii.  18,  23.  "And  Zedekiah 
rebelled  against  the  king  of  Babel,"  who,  according  to  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  13,  had  made  him  swear  by  God,  to  whom  he  was  bound 

omitting  ouly  the  short  account  of  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  and  of  the  flight 
of  the  people  to  Egypt  (vers.  22-26),  and  adding  instead  a  computation  of 
the  number  of  the  people  who  were  led  away  to  Babel  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
(vers.  28-30).  Apart  from  the  less  important  variations,  which  have  arisen  in 
part  simply  from  copyists'  errors,  we  have  in  Jer.  lii.  18,  and  especially  in 
vers.  21  and  22,  by  no  means  unimportant  notices  concerning  the  vessels  of 
the  temple,  especially  concerning  the  ornaments  of  the  brazen  pillars,  which 
do  not  occur  anywhere  in  our  books.  It  is  evident  from  this  that  our  text  was 
Dot  derived  from  Jer.  lii.  (Havernick),  and  that  Jer.  lii.  was  not  borrowed 
from  our  books  of  Kings  and  appended  to  the  book  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies 
(Ros.,  Maur.,  Ew.,  Graf).  On  the  contrary,  the  two  accounts  are  simply 
brief  extracts  from  one  common  and  more  elaborate  history  of  the  later  times 
of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  possibly  composed  by  Jeremiah  or  Baruch,  analogous 
to  the  two  extracts  from  the  history  of  Hezekiah  in  2  Kings  xviii.-xx.  and 
Isa.  xxxvi.-xxxix. — More  minute  accounts  of  this  space  of  time  are  given 
in  the  historical  portions  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  (ch.  xxxix.-xliv.), 
which  form  an  explanatory  commentary  to  the  section  before  us. 


CHAP.  XXV.  1-7.  511 

by  oath  to  render  fealty.  This  breach  of  covenant  and  frivolous 
violation  of  his  oath  Ezekiel  also  condemns  in  sharp  words 
(Ezek  xvii.  1 3  sqq.),  as  a  grievous  sin  against  the  Lord.  Zede- 
kiah  also  appears  from  the  very  first  to  have  had  no  intention 
of  keeping  the  oath  of  fealty  which  he  took  to  the  king  of  Babel 
with  very  great  uprightness.  For  only  a  short  time  after  he  was 
installed  as  king  he  despatched  an  embassy  to  Babel  (Jer.  xxix. 
3),  which,  judging  from  the  contents  of  the  letter  to  the  exiles 
that  Jeremiah  gave  to  the  ambassadors  to  take  with  them,  can 
hardly  have  been  sent  with  any  other  object  than  to  obtain  from 
the  king  of  Babel  the  return  of  those  who  had  been  carried 
away.  Then  in  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign  he  himseK  made 
a  journey  to  Babel  (Jer.  xll  59),  evidently  to  investigate  the 
circumstances  upon  the  spot,  and  to  ensure  the  king  of  Babel  of 
his  fidelity.  And  in  the  fifth  month  of  the  same  year,  probably 
after  his  return  from  Babel,  ambassadors  of  the  Moabites,  Am- 
monites, Tyrians,  and  Sidonians  came  to  Jerusalem  to  make  an 
alliance  with  him  for  throwing  off  the  Chaldsean  yoke  (Jer. 
xxvii.  3).  Zedekiah  also  had  recourse  to  Eg}^t,  where  the  en- 
terprising Pharaoh  Hophra  (Apries)  had  ascended  the  throne ; 
and  then,  in  spite  of  the  warnings  of  Jeremiah,  trusting  to  the 
help  of  Egypt,  revolted  from  the  king  of  Babel,  probably  at  a 
time  when  Nebuchadnezzar  (according  to  the  combinations  of  M. 
V.  Kieb.,  which  are  open  to  question  however)  was  engaged  in 
a  war  with  Media. 

Ch.  XXV.  1-7.  Siege  wnd  conqitest  of  Jerusalem ;  Zedehiah 
taken  prisoner  and  led  away  to  Babel  (cf  Jer.  lii.  4-11  and 
xxxix.  1—7). — ^Ver.  1.  In  the  ninth  year  of  the  reign  of  Zede- 
kiah, on  the  tenth  day  of  the  tenth  month,  Nebuchadnezzar 
marched  with  all  his  forces  against  Jerusalem  and  commenced 
the  siege  (cf.  Jer.  xxxix.  1),  after  he  had  taken  all  the  rest  of  the 
fortified  cities  of  the  land,  with  the  exception  of  Lachish  and 
Azekah,  which  were  besieged  at  the  same  time  as  Jerusalem 
(Jer.  xxxiv.  7).  On  the  very  same  day  the  commencement  of 
the  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  revealed  to  the  prophet  Ezekiel  in 
his  exile  (Ezek.  xxiv.  1).  "And  they  built  against  it  (the  city) 
siege-towers  round  about."  p.l'^,  which  only  occurs  here  and 
in  Jeremiah  (Hi.  4)  and  Ezekiel  (iv.  2,  xviL  1 7,  xxi.  2  7,  xxvi.  8), 
does  not  mean  either  a  line  of  circumvallation  (J.  D.  Mich., 
Hitzig),  or  the  outermost  enclosure  constructed  of  palisades 
(Ihenius,  whose. assertion  that  p^  is  always  mentioned  as  the 


512  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

first  work  of  the  besiegers  is  refuted  by  Ezek.  xvii.  1 7  and  xxi. 
27),  but  a  watch,  and  that  in  a  collective  sense  :  watch-towers  or 
siege-towers  (cf.  Ges.  thes.  p.  330,  and  Havernick  on  Ezek.  iv. 
2). — Ver.  2.  "  And  the  city  was  besieged  till  the  eleventh  year 
of  king  Zedekiah,"  in  which  the  northern  wall  of  the  city  was 
broken  through  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month  (ver.  3). 
That  Jerusalem  could  sustain  a  siege  of  this  duration,  namely 
eighteen  months,  shows  what  the  strength  of  the  fortifications 
must  have  been.  Moreover  the  siege  was  interrupted  for  a  short 
time,  when  the  approach  of  the  Egyptian  king  Hophra  com- 
pelled the  Chaldajans  to  march  to  meet  him  and  drive  him  back, 
which  they  appear  to  have  succeeded  in  doing  without  a  battle 
(cf.  Jer.  xxxvii.  5  sqq.,  Ezek.  xvii.  7). — Vers.  3,  4.  Trusting 
partly  to  the  help  of  the  Egyptians  and  partly  to  the  strength 
of  Jerusalem,  Zedekiah  paid  no  attention  to  the  repeated  en- 
treaties of  Jeremiah,  that  he  would  save  himself  with  his  capital 
and  people  from  the  destruction  which  was  otherwise  inevitable, 
by  submitting  to  the  Chaldseans  (cf.  Jer.  xxi.  37  and  38),  but 
allowed  things  to  reach  their  worst,  until  the  famine  became  so 
intense,  that  inhuman  horrors  were  perpetrated  (cf.  Lam.  ii. 
20,  21,  iv.  9,  10),  and  eventually  a  breach  was  made  in  the  city 
wall  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month.  The  statement  of 
the  month  is  omitted  in  our  text,  where  the  words  ''V^T^J^  ^I'P^ 
(Jer.  lii.  6,  cf.  xxxix  2)  have  fallen  out  before  ^V^T^ii  (ver.  3, 
commencement)  through  the  oversight  of  a  copyist.  The  over- 
whelming extent  of  the  famine  is  mentioned,  not  "  because  the 
people  were  thereby  rendered  quite  unfit  to  offer  any  further 
resistance"  (Seb.  Schm.),  but  as  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
prophetic  announcements  (Lev.  xxvi.  29  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  53-57  ; 
Jer.  XV.  2,  xxvii.  13  ;  Ezek.  iv.  16,  17).  P^^"  ^^  are  the  com- 
mon people  in  Jerusalem,  or  the  citizens  of  the  capital.  From 
the  more  minute  account  of  the  entrance  of  the  enemy  into  the 
city  in  Jer.  xxxix.  3-5  we  learn  that  the  Chaldaeans  made  a 
breach  in  the  northern  or  outer  wall  of  the  lower  city,  i.e.  the 
second  wall,  built  by  Hezekiah  and  Manasseh  (2  Chron.  xxxii. 
5,  xxxiii.  14),  and  forced  their  v/ay  into  the  lower  city  (njtJiiin, 
xxii.  14),  so  that  their  generals  took  their  stand  at  the  gate  of 
the  centre,  which  was  in  the  wall  that  separated  the  lower  city 
from  the  upper  city  upon  Zion,  and  formed  the  passage  from 
the  one  to  the  other.  When  Zedekiah  saw  them  here,  he  fled 
by  night  with  the  soldiers  out  of  the  city,  through  the  gate 


CHAP.  XXV.  1-7.  613 

between  tlie  two  walls  at  or  above  the  Idng's  gardeD,  on  the  road 
to  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  while  the  Chaldieans  were  round 
about  the  city.  In  ver.  4  a  faulty  text  has  come  down  to  us. 
In  the  clause  nnn^n  *?r:K-i53)  the  verb  ^rri2\  is  omitted,  if  not 
even  more,  namely  "^^V^  IP  ^^Vl  ^']?\  "  fled  and  went  out  of  the 
city."  And  if  we  compare  Jer.  xxxix.  4,  it  is  evident  that 
before  '^^  ^t??^ "'^l  still  more  has  dropped  out,  not  merely  ^^i^J], 
which  must  have  stood  in  the  text,  since  according  to  ver.  5  the 
king  was  among  the  fugitives  ;  but  most  probably  the  whole 
clause  nn^'i'  ^pd  vi^'piv  nsi  iB'sa  '7}%  since  the  words  'on  'K':n-^3^ 
have  no  real  connection  with  what  precedes,  and  cannot  form  a 
circumstantial  clause  so  far  as  the  sense  is  conceriKd.  The 
"  gate  between  the  two  walls,  which  (was)  at  or  over  (?V)  the 
king's  garden,"  was  a  gate  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tyropceon,  that 
is  to  say,  at  the  south-eastern  comer  of  the  city  of  Zion ;  for, 
according  to  Neh.  iii.  15,  the  king's  garden  was  at  the  pool  of 
Siloah,  i.e.  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tyropceon  (see  Eob.  FaL  ii.  142). 
By  this  defile,  therefore,  the  approach  to  the  city  was  barred  by 
a  double  wall,  the  inner  one  running  from  Zion  to  the  Ophel, 
whilst  the  outer  one,  at  some  distance  off,  connected  the  Zion 
wall  with  the  outer  surrounding  wall  of  the  Ophel,  and  most 
probably  enclosed  the  king's  garden.  The  subject  to  'H^.l  is 
^^l",  which  has  dropped  out  before  'on  *B'3K"^3V  '^T)^.'}  is  the 
lowland  valley  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan  (see  at  Deut.  1.  1). — 
Ver.  5.  As  the  Chaldteans  were  eneamped  around  the  eity,  the 
flight  was  immediately  discovered.  The  Chaldsean  army  pur- 
sued him,  and  overtook  him  in  the  steppes  of  Jericho,  whilst  his 
own  army  was  dispersed,  all  of  which  Ezekiel  had  foreseen  in 
the  Spirit  (Ezek.  xiL  3  sqq.).  trn;_  nu"}y  are  that  portion  of  the 
plain  of  the  Jordan  which  formed  the  country  round  Jericho 
(see  at  Josh.  iv.  13). — Ver.  6.  Zedekiah  having  been  seized  by 
the  Chaldseans,  was  taken  to  the  king  of  Babel  in  the  Chaldsean 
headquarters  at  Eiblah  (see  at  eh.  xxiiL  33),  and  wa^  there  put 
upon  his  trial  According  to  ver.  1,.  Nebuchadnezzar  had  com- 
menced the  siege  of  Jerusalem  in  person ;  but  afterwards,  pos- 
sibly not  till  after  the  Egj^tians  who  came  to  relieve  the 
besieged  city  had  been  repulsed,  he  transferred  the  continuance 
of  the  siege,  which  was  a  prolonged  one,  to  his  generals,  and 
retired  to  Eiblah,  to  conduct  the  operations  of  the  whole  cam- 
paign from  thence.  '-'^'^K  OSi^  '\3.\  to  conduct  judicial  pro- 
ceedings with  any  one,  ■i.e.  to  hear  and  judge  him.     For  this 

2K 


514  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

Jeremiah  constantly  uses  the  plural  D"'LDStt'p^  not  only  in  ch.  liL 
9  and  xxxix.  5,  but  also  in  ch.  i.  16  and  iv,  12. — ^Ver.  7.  The 
punishment  pronounced  upon  Zedekiah  was  the  merited  reward 
of  the  breach  of  his  oath,  and  his  hardening  himself  against  the 
counsel  of  the  Lord  which  was  announced  to  him  by  Jeremiah 
during  the  siege,  that  he  should  save  not  only  his  own  life,  but 
also  Jerusalem  from  destruction,  by  a  voluntary  submission  to 
the  Chaldseans,  whereas  by  obstinate  resistance  he  would  bring 
an  ignominious  destruction  upon  himself,  his  family,  the  city, 
and  the  whole  people  (Jer.  xxxviii.  17  sqq.,  xxxii.  5,  xxxiv.  3 
sqq.).  His  sons,  who,  though  not  mentioned  in  ver.  4,  had  fled 
with  him  and  had  been  taken,  and  (according  to  Jer.  lii.  1 0  and 
xxxix.  6)  all  the  nobles  (princes)  of  Judah,  sc.  those  who  had 
fled  with  the  king,  were  slain  before  his  eyes.  He  himself  was 
then  blinded,  and  led  away  to  Babel,  chained  with  double  chains 
of  brass,  and  kept  a  prisoner  there  till  his  death  (Jer.  lii.  11)  ; 
so  that,  as  Ezekiel  (xii.  13)  had  prophesied,  he  came  to  Babel, 
but  did  not  see  the  land,  and  died  there.  Blinding  by  pricking 
out  the  eyes  was  a  common  punishment  for  princes  among  the 
Babylonians  and  Persians  (cf.  Herod,  vii.  18,  and  Brisson,  de 
regio  Pers.  princip.  p.  589).  U^Jii^ni,  double  brazen  chains,  are 
brazen  fetters  for  the  hands  and  feet.  Samson  was  treated  in 
the  same  manner  by  the  Philistines  (Judg.  xvi.  21). 

Vers.  8-21.  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple.  The 
people  carried  away  to  Babel  (cf  Jer.  lii.  12-27,  and  xxxix. 
8-1 0). — In  this  section  we  have  first  a  general  account  of  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  and  city  (vers.  8-10),  and  of  the 
carrying  away  of  the  people  (vers.  1 1  and  1 2),  and  then  a  more 
particular  description  of  what  was  done  with  the  metal  vessels 
of  the  temple  (vers.  13-17),  and  how  the  spiritual  and  secular 
leaders  of  the  people  who  had  been  taken  prisoners  were  treated 
(vers.  18-21). — Vers.  8-10.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  by 
the  burning  of  the  temple,  of  the  king's  palace,  and  of  all  the 
larger  buildings,  and  by  throwing  down  the  walls,  was  effected 
by  Nebuzaradan,  the  chief  of  the  body-guard  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
on  the  seventh  day  of  the  fifth  month  in  the  nineteenth  year 
of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Instead  of  the  seventh  day  we 
have  the  tenth  in  Jer.  lii.  12.  This  difference  might  be  recon- 
ciled, as  proposed  by  earlier  commentators,  on  the  assumption 
that  the  burning  of  the  city  lasted  several  days,  commencing  on 
the  seventh  and  ending  on  the  tenth.      But  since  there  are 


CHAP.  XXV.  8-21.  515 

similar  differences  met  with  afterwards  (vers.  17  and  19)  in  the 
statement  of  numbers,  which  can  only  be  accounted  for  from 
the  substitution  of  similar  numeral  letters,  we  must  assume  that 
there  is  a  change  of  this  kind  here.  Which  of  the  two  dates  is 
the  correct  one  it  is  impossible  to  determine.  The  circumstance 
that  the  later  Jews  kept  the  ninth  as  a  fast-day  cannot  be 
regarded  as  decisive  evidence  in  favour  of  the  date  given  in 
Jeremiah,  as  Thenius  supposes  ;  for  in  Zech.  vii.  3  and  viii.  1 9 
the  fasting  of  the  fifth  month  is  mentioned,  but  no  day  is  given ; 
and  though  in  the  Talmudic  times  the  ninth  day  of  the  month 
began  to  be  kept  as  a  fast-day,  this  was  not  merely  in  remem- 
brance of  the  Chaldsean  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  of  the 
Eoman  also,  and  of  three  other  calamities  which  had  befallen 
the  nation  (see  the  statement  of  the  Geraara  on  this  subject  in 
Lightfoot,  0pp.  ii.  p.  139,  ed.  Leusden,  and  in  Kohler  on  Zech. 
vii.  3),  from  which  we  see  that  the  Gemarists  in  the  most  un- 
historical  manner  grouped  together  different  calamitous  events 
in  one  single  day.  The  nineteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
corresponds  to  the  eleventh  of  Zedekiah  (see  at  ch.  xxiv. 
12).  Nebuzaradan  is  not  mentioned  in  Jer.  xxxix.  3  among 
the  Chaldaean  generals  who  forced  their  w^ay  into  the  city,  so 
that  he  must  have  been  ordered  to  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar after  the  taking  of  the  city  and  the  condemnation  of 
Zedekiah,  to  carry  out  the  destruction  of  the  city,  the  carrjdng 
away  of  the  people,  and  the  appointment  of  a  deputy-governor 
over  those  who  were  left  behind  in  the  land.  This  explains  in  a 
very  simple  manner  how  a  month  could  intervene  between  their 
forcing  their  way  into  the  city,  at  all  events  into  the  lower  city, 
and  the  burning  of  it  to  the  ground,  without  there  being  any 
necessity  to  assume,  with  Thenius,  that  the  city  of  Zion  held 
out  for  a  month,  which  is  by  no  means  probable,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  fighting  men  had  fled  with  Zedekiah  and  had 
been  scattered  in  their  flight.  D^ns^-an  =  cna^n  -ik'  in  Gen. 
xxxvii  36,  xxxix.  1,  was  with  the  Babylonians,  as  with  the 
Egyptians,  the  chief  of  the  king's  body-guard,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  execute  the  sentences  of  death  (see  at  Gen.  xxxvii.  36). 
D^na^n  answers  to  the  "nnsn  of  the  Israelites  (2  Sam.  viii.  18, 
etc.).  In  Jer.  lii  12  we  have  ^.^o  ^}^h  nny  instead  of  ^!?o  ^3y, 
without  the  "•K'X,  which  is  rarely  omitted  in  prose,  and  c6b^"i'3 
instead  of  o^^y^ ;  he  came  into  Jerusalem,  not  he  forced  a  way 
into  the  real  Jerusalem  (Thenius).     The  meaning  is  not  altered 


516  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KING3. 

by  these  two  variations. — Ver,  9.  By  the  words,  "  every  great 
house,"  '1^  ''^^"''3  riK  is  more  minutely  defined :  not  all  the  houses 
to  the  very  last,  but  simply  all  the  large  houses  he  burned  to  the 
very  last,  together  with  the  temple  and  the  royal  palaces.  The 
victors  used  one  portion  of  the  dwelling-houses  for  their  stay  in 
Jerusalem.  He  then  had  all  the  walls  of  the  city  destroyed. 
In  Jeremiah  ^3  is  omitted  before  ntoin,  as  not  being  required  for 
the  sense ;  and  also  the  ns  before  D^n^^?  ^1,  which  is  indispensable 
to  the  sense,  and  has  fallen  out  through  a  copyist's  oversight. — 
Vers.  11,  12.  The  rest  of  the  people  he  led  away,  both  those 
who  had  been  left  behind  in  the  city  and  the  deserters  who  had 
gone  over  to  the  Chaldseans,  and  the  remnant  of  the  multitude. 
t^Dnn  in],  for  which  we  have  poNi^  in.)  in  Jer.  lii.  15,  has  been 
interpreted  in  various  ways.  As  po^Jt  signifies  an  artist  or  arti- 
ficer in  Prov.  viii.  30,  and  ^V^  ^ni  has  just  preceded  it,  we  might 
be  disposed  to  give  the  preference  to  the  reading  f^^^*},  as  Hitzig 
and  Graf  have  done,  and  understand  by  it  the  remnant  of  the 
artisans,  who  were  called  i^D^ni  Bnnn  in  ch.  xxiv.  14,  16.  But 
this  view  is  precluded  by  Jer.  xxxix.  9,  where  we  find  DVn  nn^ 
D'^nxc'sn  instead  of  Iio^?'^  in.)  or  li^n^l  "*.  These  words  cannot  be 
set  aside  by  the  arbitrary  assumption  that  they  crept  into  the 
text  through  a  copyist's  error ;  for  the  assertion  that  they  con- 
tain a  purposeless  repetition  is  a  piece  of  dogmatical  criticism, 
inasmuch  as  there  is  a  distinction  drawn  in  Jer.  xxxix.  9  be- 
tween "I'V?  Q'l'J^'i'L)  OVC  ""O-  and  D^lKK'an  nyn  -in;.  Consequently 
jiDsn  is  simply  another  form  for  }iO'7j3  (n  and  n  being  inter- 
changed) in  the  sense  of  a  mass  of  people,  and  we  have  simply 
the  choice  left  between  two  interpretations.  Either  DVn  in; 
Tij?3  D"'iNB'3n  means  the  fighting  people  left  in  the  city,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  deserters  who  had  fled  to  the  Chaldteans, 
and  pONH  =  pDnn  in;  in  Jer.  lii.  15,  or  D''^^tK'3^  oyn  in;  in  Jer. 
xxxix.  9,  the  rest  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem ;  or  DVn  in; 
T<j;3  'B;3n  is  the  people  left  in  Jerusalem  (warriors  and  non- 
warriors),  and  t^^'^\}.  in;  the  rest  of  the  population  of  the  land 
outside  Jerusalem.  The  latter  is  probably  the  preferable  view, 
not  only  because  full  justice  is  thereby  done  to  i^V?  in  the  first 
clause,  but  also  because  it  is  evident  from  the  exception  men- 
tioned in  ver.  12  that  the  deportation  was  not  confined  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  but  extended  to  the  population  of  the 
whole  land.  The  "  poor  people,"  whom  he  allowed  to  remain 
in  the  land  as  vine-dressers  and  husbandmen,  were  the  common 


CHAP.  XXV.  8-21.  517 

people,  or  people  without  property,  not  merely  in  Jerasalem, 
but  throughout  the  whole  land.  H^n  nVn  =  r)?l?"QV  nh  (ch. 
xxiv.  14).  Instead  of  n?l!0  we  have  in  Jeremiah  ni^np :  the 
plural  used  in  an  abstract  sense,  "  the  poverty,"  i.e.  the  lower 
people,  "  the  poor  who  had  nothing"  (Jer.  xxxix.  10).  Instead 
of  the  Chethib  D'?3?  from  ay,  secuit,  aravit,  the  Keri  has  0*3^7 
from  ^1,  in  the  same  sense,  after  Jer,  lit  16. — Vers.  13—17. 
The  brazen  vessels  of  the  temple  were  broken  in  pieces,  and 
the  brass,  and  smaller  vessels  of  brass,  silver,  and  gold,  were 
carried  away.  Compare  Jer.  lii  17-23,  where  several  other 
points  are  mentioned  that  have  been  passed  over  in  the  account 
before  us.  The  pillars  of  brass  (see  1  Kings  viL  15  sqq.).  the 
stands  (see  1  Kings  vii  27  sqq.),  and  the  brazen  sea  (1  Kings 
viL  23  sqq,),  were  broken  in  pieces,  because  it  would  have  been 
difficult  to  carry  these  colossal  things  away  without  breaking 
them  up.  On  the  smaller  vessels  used  in  the  worship  (ver,  14) 
see  1  Kings  vii  40.  In  Jer.  lii  18  npiran  are  also  mentioned. 
Ver.  15  is  abridged  still  more  in  contrast  with  Jer.  lii.  19,  and 
only  ninrran  and  nip^rcii!'  are  mentioned,  whereas  in  Jeremiah  six 
tlifferent  things  are  enumerated  beside  the  candlesticks.  lE'N 
P1D3 . . .  nnf,  "  what  was  of  gold,  gold,  what  was  of  silver,  silver, 
the  captain  of  the  guard  took  away,"  is  a  comprehensive  descrip- 
tion of  the  objects  carried  away.  To  this  there  is  appended  a 
remark  in  ver.  16  concerning  the  quantity  of  the  brass  of  the 
large  vessels,  which  was  so  great  that  it  could  not  be  weighed ; 
and  in  ver,  17  a  supplementary  notice  respecting  the  artistic 
work  of  the  two  pillars  of  brass,  'i-i  Dn^tSi'n  is  placed  at  the 
head  absolutely :  as  for  the  piUars,  etc.,  the  brass  of  all  these 
vessels  was  not  to  be  weighed.  In  Jer.  lii  20,  along  with  the 
brazen  sea,  the  twelve  brazen  oxen  under  it  are  mentioned ;  and 
in  the  description  of  the  pillars  of  brass  (vers.  21  sqq.)  there 
are  several  points  alluded  to  which  are  omitted  in  our  books, 
not  only  here,  but  also  in  1  Kings  vii.  1 6  sqq.  For  the  fact  itself 
see  the  explanation  given  at  pp.  97-103.  The  omission  of  the 
twelve  oxen  in  so  condensed  an  account  as  that  contained  in  our 
text  does  not  warrant  the  inference  that  these  words  in  Jeremiah 
are  a  spurious  addition  made  by  a  later  copjrist,  since  the  assump- 
tion that  Ahaz  sent  the  brazen  oxen  to  king  Tiglath-pileser  can- 
not  be  proved  from  cL  xvi  17  (see  p.  407).  Instead  of  E9B' 
TON  we  must  read  ribx  ^J),  five  cubits,  according  to  Jer.  lii  22 
and  1  Kings  vii  16.     The  n33S'rri)y  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is 


518  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

very  striking,  since  it  stands  quite  alone,  and  when  connected 
with  'Wl  fi?^?]  does  not  appear  to  yield  any  appropriate  sense, 
as  the  second  pillar  was  like  the  first  not  merely  with  regard  to 
the  trellis-work,  but  in  its  form  and  size  throughout.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  possible  that  the  historian  intended  to  give 
especial  prominence  to  the  similarity  of  the  two  pillars  with 
reference  to  this  one  point  alone. — ^Vers.  18-21  (cf.  Jer.  lii. 
24-27).  The  principal  officers  of  the  temple  and  city,  and 
sixty  men  of  the  population  of  the  land,  who  were  taken  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Nebuzaradan  sent  to  his  king  at  Eiblah, 
where  they  were  put  to  death.  Seraiah,  the  high  priest,  is  the 
grandfather  or  great-grandfather  of  Ezra  the  scribe  (Ezra  vii.  1  ; 
1  Chron.  v.  40).  Zephaniah,  a  priest  of  the  second  rank  (|n*3 
njB'D  ;  in  Jer.  njK'an  inb  :  see  at  ch.  xxiii,  4),  is  probably  the 
same  person  as  the  son  of  Maaseiah,  who  took  a  prominent  place 
among  the  priests,  according  to  Jer.  xxi.  1,  xxix.  25  sqq.,  and 
xxxvii.  3.  The  "  three  keepers  of  the  threshold "  are  probably 
the  three  superintendents  of  the  Levites,  whose  duty  it  was 
to  keep  guard  over  the  temple,  and  therefore  were  among  the 
principal  oflicers  of  the  sanctuary. — Ver.  19.  From  the  city,  i.e. 
from  the  civil  authorities  of  the  city,  Nebuzaradan  took  a  king's 
chamberlain  (D''"}D),  who  was  commander  of  the  men  of  war. 
Instead  of  *1V2  i<^n  IK'S  we  find  in  Jer.  lii.  25  's  n\n  ik'K,  who 
had  been  commander,  with  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  his 
official  function  had  terminated  when  the  city  was  conquered. 
"  And  five  (according  to  Jeremiah  seven)  men  of  those  who  saw 
the  king's  face,"  i.e.  who  belonged  to  the  king's  immediate  circle, 
de  intimis  consiliariis  regis,  and  "  the  scribe  of  the  commander- 
in-chief,  who  raised  the  people  of  the  land  for  military  service," 
or  who  enrolled  them.  Although  isisn  has  the  article,  which  is 
omitted  in  Jeremiah,  the  following  words  N^sn  "nb'  are  governed 
by  it,  or  connected  with  it  in  the  construct  state  (Ewald, 
§  290,  d).  N3ifn  "1K>  is  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  whole  of 
the  military  forces,  and  '131  ^'3Y^^  a  more  precise  definition  of 
isbn,  and  not  of  NSJfn  IB',  which  needed  no  such  definition. 
"  And  sixty  men  of  the  land-population  who  were  found  in  the 
city."  They  were  probably  some  of  the  prominent  men  of  the 
rural  districts,  or  they  may  have  taken  a  leading  part  in  the 
defence  of  the  city,  and  therefore  were  executed  in  Eiblah,  and 
not  merely  deported  with  the  rest  of  the  people. — The  account  of 
the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  closes  with  nn^n';  7i»j 


CHAP.  XXV.  22-26.  519 

in  ver.  21,  "  thus  "was  Judah  carried  away  out  of  its  own  land  " 
and  in  vers.  22-26  there  follows  merely  a  brief  notice  of  those 
who  had  been  left  behind  in  the  land,  in  the  place  of  which  we 
find  in  Jer.  lii.  28-40  a  detailed  account  of  the  number  of 
those  who  were  carried  away. 

Vers.  22—26.  Installation  of  Gedaliah  the  governor.  His 
assassination,  and  the  flight  of  the  people  to  Egypt. — Much  fuller 
accounts  have  been  handed  down  to  us  in  Jer.  xL-xliv.  of  the 
events  which  are  but  briefly  indicated  here. — ^Vers.  22,  23. 
Over  the  remnant  of  the  people  left  in  the  land  Nebuchadnezzar 
placed  Gedaliah  as  governor  of  the  land,  who  took  up  his  abode 
in  Mizpah.  Gedaliah,  the  son  of  Ahikam,  who  had  interested 
himself  on  behalf  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah  and  saved  his  life  (Jer. 
xxvL  24),  and  the  grandson  of  Shaphan,  a  man  of  whom  nothing 
more  is  known  (see  at  ch.  xxii.  12),  had  his  home  in  Jerusalem, 
and,  as  we  may  iufer  from  his  attitude  towards  Jeremiah,  had 
probably  secured  the  confidence  of  the  Chaldseans  at  the  siege  and 
conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  his  upright  conduct,  and  by  what  he 
did  to  induce  the  people  to  submit  to  the  judgment  inflicted  by 
God ;  so  that  Nebuchadnezzar  entrusted  him  with  the  oversight 
of  those  who  were  left  behind  in  the  land  —  men,  women, 
children,  poor  people,  and  even  a  few  princesses  and  court- 
of&cials,  whom  they  had  not  thought  it  necessary  or  worth  while 
to  carry  away  (Jer.  xL  7,  xU.  10,  16),  i.e.  he  made  him  governor 
of  the  conquered  land.  Mizpah  is  the  present  Nebi  Samioil,  two 
hours  to  the  north-west  of  Jerusalem  (see  at  Josh,  xviii.  26). — 
On  hearing  of  Gedaliah's  appointment  as  governor,  there  came  to 
him  "  all  the  captains  of  the  several  divisions  of  the  army  and 
their  men,"  i.e.  those  portions  of  the  army  which  had  been  scattered 
at  the  flight  of  the  king  (ver.  5),  and  which  had  escaped  from  the 
Chaldaeans,  and,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Jer.  xL  7,  had  dispersed 
themselves  "  in  the  field,"  i.e.  about  the  land.  Instead  of  DT^*?'71 
we  have  in  Jer.  xl.  7  the  clearer  expression  Dn'K'JXi,  "  and  their 
men,"  whilst  O'K'isni  in  our  text  receives  its  more  precise  defini- 
tion from  the  previous  word  O'^'nn  Of  the  military  commanders 
the  following  are  mentioned  by  name  :  Ishmael,  etc.  (the  \  before 
psyp'^^  is  explic,  "  and  indeed  Ishmael ").  Ishmael,  son  of 
Mattaniah  and  grandson  of  Elishama,  probably  of  the  king's 
secretary  mentioned  in  Jer.  xxxvi.  12  and  20,  of  royal  blood. 
Nothing  further  is  known  about  the  other  names.  We  simply 
learn  from  Jer.  xL  13  sqq.  that  Johanan  had  warned  Gedaliah 


520  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

against  the  treachery  of  Ishmael,  and  that  when  Gedaliah  was 
slain  by  Ishmael,  having  disregarded  the  warning,  he  put  him- 
self at  the  head  of  the  people  and  marched  with  them  to  Egypt, 
notwithstanding  the  dissuasions  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xli.  15  sqq.). 
Instead  of  "  Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,"  we  have  in  Jer.  xL  8 
"  Johanan  and  Jonathan  the  sons  of  Kareah ;"  but  it  is  uncer- 
tain whether  jn^i^l  has  crept  into  the  text  of  Jeremiah  from  the 
previous  |3nin^  merely  through  a  mistake,  and  this  mistake  has 
brought  with  it  the  alteration  of  13  into  V.?  (Ewald),  or  whether 
}n3i''l  has  dropped  out  of  our  text  through  an  oversight,  and  this 
omission  has  occasioned  the  alteration  of  ''22  into  p  (Thenius, 
Graf,  etc.).  The  former  supposition  is  favoured  by  the  circum- 
stance that  in  Jer.  xl.  13,  xli.  11,  16,  Johanan  the  son  of 
Kareah  alone  is  mentioned.  In  Jer.  xl.  8  ''Siiy  V.?^  {CJiethih  'B"*!?) 
stands  before  'n?t:3n,  according  to  which  it  was  not  Seraiah 
who  sprang  from  Netophah,  but  Ophai  whose  sons  were  military 
commanders.  He  was  called  NetophatJiite  because  he  sprang 
from  Netopha  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethlehem  (N"eh.  vii.  26  ; 
Ezra  ii.  22),  the  identity  of  which  with  Beit  Nettif  is  by  no 
means  probable  (see  at  2  Sam.  xxiii.  28).  The  name  1'^*^!^?,"!.  is 
written  in^^Jr.  in  Jeremiah ;  he  was  the  son  of  the  Maachathite, 
i.e.  his  father  sprang  from  the  Syrian  district  of  Maacah  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Hermon  (see  at  Deut.  iii.  14). — Ver.  24. 
As  these  men  were  afraid  of  the  vengeance  of  the  Chaldseans 
because  they  had  fought  against  them,  Gedaliah  assured  them 
on  oath  that  they  had  nothing  to  fear  from  them  if  they  would 
dwell  peaceably  in  the  land,  be  submissive  to  the  king  of  Babel, 
and  cultivate  the  land  (cf  Jer.  xL  9  and  10).  "  Servants  of 
the  Chaldees"  are  Chaldaean  officials  who  were  subordinate  to 
the  governor  Gedaliah. — Ver.  25.  In  the  seventh  month,  i.e. 
hardly  two  months  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  came 
Ishmael  with  ten  men  to  Gedaliah  at  Mizpah,  and  murdered 
him  together  with  the  Jews  and  Chaldaeans,  whom  he  had  with 
him  as  soldiers  to  do  his  bidding  and  for  his  protection.  This 
occurred,  according  to  Jer.  xli.  1  sqq,,  when  Gedaliah  had  re- 
ceived them  hospitably  and  had  invited  them  to  eat  with  him. 
Ishmael  was  instigated  to  commit  this  murder  by  the  Ammon- 
itish  king  Baalis,  and  Gedaliah  had  previously  been  made 
acquainted  with  the  intended  crime  and  put  upon  his  guard  by 
Johanan,  but  had  put  no  faith  in  the  information  (Jer.  xL 
13-16). — Ver.  26.  After  Ishmael  had  performed  this  deed,  and 


CHAP.  XXV.  27-30.  521 

had  also  treacherously  murdered  a  number  of  men,  "who  had 
come  to  the  temple  witb  a  sacrifice  from  Shechem,  Shiloh,  and 
Samaria,  he  took  the  Jews  who  were  at  Mizpah  prisoners,  with 
some  kings'  daughters  among  them,  intending  to  take  them 
over  to  the  Ammonites ;  but  as  soon  as  his  deed  became  known, 
he  was  pursued  by  Johanan  and  the  rest  of  the  military  chiefs 
and  was  overtaken  at  Gibeon,  whereupon  those  who  had  been 
led  away  by  him  went  over  to  Johanan,  so  that  he  was  only 
able  to  make  his  escape  with  eight  men  and  get  away  to  the 
Ammonites  (Jer.  xli,  4-1 5).  Johanan  then  went  with  the  rest 
of  the  military  commanders  and  the  people  whom  he  had 
brought  back  into  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethlehem,  with  the 
intention  of  fleeing  to  Egypt  for  fear  of  the  Chaldaeans.  There 
they  did  indeed  have  recourse  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  to 
inquire  of  him  the  word  of  the  Lord ;  but  they  did  not  allow 
themselves  to  be  diverted  from  their  intention  by  the  word  of 
the  Lord  which  he  announced  to  them,  that  if  they  remained  in 
the  land  they  need  not  fear  anything  from  the  king  of  Babel, 
but  if  they  went  to  Egypt  they  should  all  perish  there  with 
sword,  hunger,  and  pestilence,  or  by  the  prediction  that  the 
Lord  would  also  deliver  Pharaoh  Hophra  into  the  hand  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  xlii.).  They  went  to  Egj-pt  notwith- 
standing, taking  the  prophet  himseK  with  them,  and  settled  in 
different  cities  of  Egj'pt,  where  they  gave  themselves  up  to 
idolatry,  and  did  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  drawn  away  from 
it  even  by  the  severe  judgments  which  the  prophet  Jeremiah 
predicted  as  sure  to  fall  upon  them  (Jer.  xliiL  and  xliv.).  In 
the  verse  before  us  we  have  simply  a  brief  allusion  to  the 
eventual  result  of  the  whole  affair.  "  Because  they  were  afraid 
of  the  Chaldseans,"  namely,  that  they  might  possibly  take  ven- 
geance upon  them  for  the  murder  of  the  governor. 

Vers.  27-30.  Jehoiachin  delivered  from  'prison,  and  exalted  to 
royal  honours  (c£  Jer.  lii  31-34). — In  the  thirty-seventh  year 
after  his  deportation  Jehoiachin  was  taken  out  of  prison  by 
Evil-merodach  when  he  came  to  the  throne.  ^^^D  ^^y'?,  in  the 
year  of  his  becoming  king,  probably  immediately  after  he  had 
ascended  the  throne,  for  it  was  no  doubt  an  act  of  grace  at  the 
commencement  of  his  reign.  K'NTDK  sc*:,  to  lift  up  a  person's 
head,  i.e.  to  release  him  from  prison  and  exalt  him  to  civil 
honours  and  dignities  (cf  Gen.  xL  13).  On  the  coincidence  of 
the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Jehoiachin's  imprisonment  and  the 


522  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 

commencement  of  the  reign  of  Evil-merodach  see  the  remarks 
at  ch.  xxiv.  12.  Instead  of  the  27th  day  of  the  month,  the  25th 
is  given  in  Jeremiah,  again  through  the  substitution  of  similar 
numeral  letters  (see  at  ver.  8).  Evil-merodach :  TP''^  ^'')^,  EviaX 
MapcoSa'^  or  EvLaXfiapoiBeK  (LXX.)  ;  ^IX\oapo6Sa/jbo<;,  possibly  a 
copyist's  error  for  'iXfjuapooSaKo^,  in  the  Can.  Ptol.,  and  in  other 
forms  also :  see  M.  v.  Nieb.  Gesch.  Ass.  p.  42,  and  Ges,  thes.  p. 
41  ;  compounded  from  the  name  of  the  Babylonian  god  Mero- 
dach  (see  at  ch.  xx.  12)  and  the  prefix  Uvil,  which  has  not  yet 
been  explained  with  certainty.  He  reigned  two  years,  accord- 
ing to  Berosus  in  Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  2  0,  and  the  Can.  Ptol. ;  and 
according  to  the  verdict  of  Berosus,  'jrpo<rTa<;  twv  TrpayfidTmv 
avofjLa^  Kol  d<T€\y(o<; ;  and  was  murdered  by  his  brother-in-law 
Neriglissor.  The  statement  in  Jos.  Ant.  x.  11,  2,  to  the  effect 
that  he  reigned  eighteen  years,  and  that  of  Alex.  Polyh.  in  Euseb, 
Chron.  arm.  i.  p.  45,  that  he  reigned  twelve  years,  are  evidently 
false. — Ver.  28.  "He  spake  kindly  to  him  (cf.  Jer.  xii.  6),  and 
set  his  throne  above  the  throne  of  the  kings  who  were  with  him 
in  Babel."  This  is  not  to  be  understood  literally,  as  signifying 
that  he  assigned  him  a  loftier  throne  than  the  other  kings 
(Hitzig,  Thenius),  but  figuratively :  loco  honestiore  eum  hahuit 
(Eos.).  The  "kings  with  him"  were  dethroned  kings,  who  were 
kept  at  the  court  like  Jehoiachin  to  add  to  its  splendour,  just 
as  Cyrus  kept  the  conquered  Croesus  by  his  side  (Herod,  i.  88). 
— ^Vers.  29,  30.  "And  he  (Jehoiachin)  changed  his  prison  gar- 
ments," i.e.  took  them  off  and  put  other  regal  clothing  on  (cf. 
Gen.  xli.  42).  "  And  ate  continually  before  him  all  his  life," 
i.e.  ate  at  the  king's  table  (cf.  2  Sam.  ix.  7).  Moreover  a  daUy 
ration  of  food  was  supplied  to  him  by  the  king  for  the  main- 
tenance of  his  retainers,  who  formed  his  little  court.  The  ^P"!"  t 
V^n  of  ver.  3  0,  upon  which  Thenius  throws  suspicion  without 
any  reason,  refers  to  Jehoiachin  like  that  in  ver.  29  ;  for  the  his- 
torian intended  to  show  how  Jehoiachin  had  fared  from  the  day 
of  his  elevation  to  the  end  of  his  life.  At  the  same  time,  we 
cannot  infer  from  this  with  any  certainty  that  Jehoiachin  died 
before  Evil-merodach ;  for  the  favour  shown  to  him  might  be 
continued  by  Evil-merodach's  successor.  We  cannot  make  any 
safe  conjecture  as  to  the  motives  which  induced  Evil-merodach 
to  pardon  Jehoiachin  and  confer  this  distinction  upon  him. 
The  higher  ground  of  this  joyful  termination  of  his  imprison- 
ment lay  in  the  gracious  decree  of  God,  that  the  seed  of  David, 


CHAP.  XXV.  27-30.  523 

though  severely  chastised  for  its  apostasy  from  the  Lord,  should 
not  be  utterly  rejected  (2  Sam.  viL  14,  15).  At  the  same 
time,  this  event  was  also  intended  as  a  comforting  sign  to  the 
whole  of  the  captive  people,  that  the  Lord  would  one  day  put 
an  end  to  their  banishment,  if  they  would  acknowledge  that  it 
was  a  well-merited  punishment  for  their  sins  that  they  had 
been  driven  away  from  before  His  face,  and  would  turn  again 
to  the  Lord  their  God  with  all  their  heart. 


THE  END. 


FOREIGN    THEOLOGICAL    LIBRARY. 

ANNUAL    STIBSCEIPTION: 
One  Gtiinea  (payable  in  advance)  for  Foiir  Volmnes,  Demy  8vo. 

y.B. — Any  two  Years  in  this  Series  can  be  had  at  Subscription  Price.  A  single  Tear's 
Books  (except  in  the  case  of  the  current  Year)  cannot  be  supplied  separately.  Non- 
subscribers,  price  10s.  6<i  each  volume,  with  exceptions  marked, 

18  6  4— ^°S6  on  the  Acta  of  the  Apostles.    Two  Volumes. 

Eeil  and  Delitzsch  on  the  Pentateuch.    Vols.  1.  and  II. 

18  6  5  — Keil  and  Delitzsch  on  the  Pentateuch.    Vol.  III. 

Hengstenberg  on  the  Gospel  of  John.     Two  Volumes. 

Eeil  and  Delitzsch  on  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Buth.    One  Volume. 

18  6  6  —  ^®^  ^^^  Delitzsch  on  SamueL     One  Volume. 
Keil  and  Delitzsch  on  Job.     Two  Volumes. 
Martensen's  System  of  Christian  Doctrine.    One  Volume. 

18  6  7  —  Delitzsch  on  Isaiah.     Two  Volumes. 

Delitzsch  on  Biblical  Psychology.     12s. 
Anberlen  on  Divine  Eevelation.     One  Volume. 

18  6  8 — Keil' 8  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets.    Two  Volumes. 
Delitzsch' s  Commentary  on  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     VoL  I. 
Earless'  System  of  Christian  Ethics.     One  Volume, 

18  6  9  —  Hengstenberg  on  EzekieL     One  Volume. 

Stier  on  the  Words  of  the  Apostles.     One  Volume. 

EeU's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.    Vol.  I. 

Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    Vol,  I. 
18  7  0— Keil's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.     Vol.  II. 

Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    Vol.  II. 

Schmid's  New  Testament  Theology.     One  Volume, 

Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  Epistle  to  the  Eebrews.     Vol.  II. 

"18  7  1  — Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms.    Three  Volumes, 

Hengstenberg' s  History  of  the  Eingdom  of   God  under  the  Old 
Testament.    Vol.  I. 
18  7  2  —  Keil' s  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Eings.     One  Volume. 

EeU's  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Daniel.     One  Volume, 

Eeil's  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Chronicles.     One  Volume, 

Hengstenberg' s  History  of  the  Eingdom  of  God.    Vol.  II. 
"13  7  3 — Eeil's  Commentary  on  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,     One  Volume. 

Winer's  Collection  of  the  Confessions  of  Christendom,    One  Volume, 

Eeil's  Commentary  on  Jeremiah.     Vol,  I, 

Martensen  on  Christian  Ethics. 
18  7  4— Cbristlieb's  Modem  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief.     One  VoL 

Eeil's  Commentary  on  Jeremiah,     Vol.  II. 

Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  Proverbs,     Vol,  I. 

Oehler's  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament    VoL  I. 
l   8  7  5  —  Godet's  Commentary  on  St,  Luke's  GospeL     Two  Volumes. 

Oehler's  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,     Vol,  II. 

Delitzsch's  Commentary  on  Proverbs.     VoL  II, 
18  7  6  —  Eeil's  Commentary  on  EzekieL     Two  Volumes, 

Luthardt's  Commentary  on  St.  John's  GospeL    Vol,  I, 

Godet's  Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel.    Vol,  I. 


MESSES.  CLAEK  allow  a  SELECTION  of  Twenty  Volumes  (or  more  at  the  same 
ratio)  from  the  various  Series  previous  to  the  Volumes  issued  in  1874  (see  next  page"), 

At  the  Subscription  Price  of  Five  Guineas. 

They  trust  that  this  will  still  more  largely  extend  the  usefulness  of  the  Forktgji 
Theological  Library,  which  has  so  long  been  recognised  as  holding  an  important 
place  in  modem  Theological  literature. 


CLARK'S  FOREIGN  THEOLOGICAL  LIBHA-RY— Continued. 


The  following  are  the  works  from  which  a  Selection  may  be  made  (non-subscription 
prices  within  brackets) : — 

Dr.  Hengstenberg. — Commentary  on  the  Psalms.    By  E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  D.D. 
Professor  of  Theology  in  Berlin.    In  Three  Vols.  8vo.    (33s.) 

Dr.  Gieseler. — Compendium  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  By  J.  C.  L.  Gieseler, 
D.D.,  Professor,  of  Theology  in  Gottingen.    Five  Vols.  8vo.    (£2,  128.  6d.) 

Dr.  Olshansen. — ^Biblical  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  and  Acts.  Adapted  especially 
for  Preachers  and  Students.  By  Hermann  Olshatjsen,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Theology  in  the  University  of  Erlangen.  In  Four  Vols.  8vo.  (£2,  2s. ) — Com- 
mentary on  the  Bomans.  In  One  Vol.  Svo.  (10s.  6d.)— Commentary  on  St. 
Paul's  First  and  Second  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  In  One  Vol.  Svo.  (9s.) 
— Commentary  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Colossians, 
and  Thessalonians.  One  Vol.  Svo.  (10s.  6d.) — Commentary  on  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Philippians,  to  Titus,  and  the  First  to  Timothy.  In  con- 
tinuation of  the  Work  of  Olshausen.  By  Lie.  August  Wiesinger,  In 
One  Vol.  Svo,     (10s.  6d.) 

Dr.  Neander. — General  History  of  the  Christian  BeUgion  and  Church.  By 
Augustus  Neander,  D.D.  Translated  from  the  Second  and  Improved  Edition. 
Nine  Vols.  Svo.    (£2,  lis.  6d.) 

This  is  the  only  Edition  in  a  Library  size. 

Prof.  H.  A.  Ch.  Havemick. — General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.      By 

Professor  Havernick.     One  Vol.  Svo.    (10s.  6d.) 
Dr.  Miiller. — The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin.      By  Dr.  Julius  MiJLLEB.      Two 

Vols.  Svo.    (21s.)    New  Edition. 
Dr.  Hengstenberg. — Christology  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  a  Commentary  on  the 

Messianic  Predictions.     By  E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  D.  D.     Four  Vols.     (£2,  2s.) 
Dr.  M.  Baumgarten. — The  Acts  of  the  Apostles;   or  the  History  of  the  Church 

in  the  Apostolic  Age.      By  M.    Baumgarten,   Ph.D.,  and  Professor  in  the 

University  of  Rostock.    Three  Vols.     (£1,  7s.) 
Dr.  Stier. — The  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.      By  Rudolph  Stier,   D.D.,   Chief 

Pastor  and  Superintendent  of  Schkeuditz.    In  Eight  Vols.  Svo.    (£4,  4s.) 
Dr.  Carl  Ullmann. — Reformers  before  the  Reformation,  principally  in  Germany 

and  the  Netherlands.     Two  Vols.  Svo.     (£1,  Is.) 
Professor  Eurtz. — History  of  the  Old  Covenant ;  or,  Old  Testament  Dispensation. 

By  Professor  Kurtz  of  Dorpat.    In  Three  Vols.    (£1,  lis.  6d.) 
Dr.  Stier. — The  Words  of  the  Risen  Saviour,  and  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of 

St.  James.     By  Rudolph  Stier,  D.D.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Professor   Tholuck. — Commentary  on   the   Gospel  of  St.   John.       By  Professor 

Tholuck  of  Halle.    In  One  Vol    (9s.) 
Professor  Tholuck. — Commentary  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.       By  Professor 

Tholuck.     In  One  Vol.    (lOs.  6d.) 
Dr.  Hengstenberg. — On  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes.     To  which  are  appended:  Treatises 

on  the  Soug  of  Solomon  ;  the  Book  of  Job ;  the  Prophet  Isaiah ;  the  Sacrifices  of  Holy 

Scripture ;  and  on  the  Jews  and  the  Christian  Church.    In  One  Vol.  Svo.    (98.) 

Dr.  Ebrard. — Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  John.      By  Dr.  John  H.  A! 

Ebrard,  Professor  of  Theology.     In  One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Dr.   Lange. -^Theological  and  Homiletical   Commentary  on  the   Gospels  of  St. 

Matthew  and  Mark.     ByJ.  P.  Lange,  D.D.     Three  Vols.     (10s.  6d.  each.) 
Dr.  Domer. — History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 

By   Dr.   J.    A.    Dokner,   Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Berlin. 

Five  Vols.    (£2,  128.  6d.) 
Lange  and  Dr.  J.  J.  Van  Oosterzee. — Theological  and  Homiletical  Commentary  on 

the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.     Two  Vols.     (18s.) 
Dr.  Ebrard. — The  Gospel  History:   A  Compendium  of  Critical  Investigations  in 

support  of  the  Historical  Character  of  the  Four  Gospels.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 

\See  also  next  page. 


T.  and  T.  Claris  Publications. 


CLARK'S  FOBEIGN  THEOLOGICAL   LIBRABY— Con<m«ed 


Lange,  Lechler,  and  Gerok. — Theological  and  Homiletical  Commentary  on  the 

Acts  of  the  Apostles.     Edited  by  Dr.  La>-ge.     Two  Vols.     (21s.) 
Dr.  Hengstenberg. — Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.    Two  Vols.    (21s.) 
Professor  KeiL — Biblical  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.     Three  Vols.     (31s.  6d.) 
Professor  Keil. — Commentary  on  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Euth.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  Delitzsch. — A  System  of  Biblical  Psychology.     One  Vol,     (12s.) 
Professor  DeUtzsch. — Commentary  on  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah.     Two  Vols.     (21s. ) 
Professor  Keil. — Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Samuel.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  DeUtzsch. — Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Job.      Two  Vols.      (21s.) 
Bishop  Martensen. — Christian  Dogmatics.     A    Compendium  of  the  Doctrines  of 

Christianity.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Dr.  J.  P.  Lange. — Theological  and  Homiletical  Conunentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St. 

John.     Two  Vols.     (21s.) 
Professor  KeiL— Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets.     Two  Vols.     (21s.) 
Professor  Delitzsch. — Commentary  on  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     Two  Vols.     (21s.) 
Dr.  Harless.— A  System  of  Christian  Ethics.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Dr.  Hengstenberg. — Commentary  on  EzekieL     One  VoL     (10s.  6d.) 
Dr.  Stier.— The  Words  of  the  Apostles  Expounded.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  KeiL — Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.     Two  Vols.     (213.) 
Professor  Bleek. — Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     Two  Vols.     (2l3.) 
Professor  Schmid. — New  Testament  Theology.     One  Vol.     (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  Delitzsch. — Commentary  on  the  Psalm  a.     Three  Vols.     (31s.  6d.) 
Dr.  Hengstenberg. — History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  Covenant. 

Two  Vols.     r21s.) 
Professor  Keil. — Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Kings.     One  Volume.     (10s.  6d-) 
Professor  KeiL — Commentary  on  the  Book  of  DanieL     One  Volume.     (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  Keil. — Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Chronicles.    One  Volume.    (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  Keil. — Commentary  on  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther.    One  Vol.    (10s.  6d.) 
Professor  Keil. — Commentary  on  Jeremiah,     Vol.1.     (10s.  6d.) 

Winer  (Dr.  G,  B,) — Collection  of  the  Confeaa^ns  of  Christendom.     One  Volume, 
(10s.  6d.)  ^ 

Bishop  Martensen. — Christian  Ethics.     One  Volume.     (10s.  6d.) 

AncL,  in  connection  with  the  Series — 
Murphy's  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Psalms.     To  count  as  Two  Volumes.    (12s.) 
Alexander's  Commentary  on  Isaiah.     Two  Volumes.     (17s.) 
Eitie>-'s  (Carl)  Comparative  Geography  of  Palestine.     Four  Volumes.     (32s.) 
Shedd's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,     Two  Volumes,     (21s. ) 
Macdonald's  Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch.     Two  Volumes.     (21s.) 
Ackerman  on  the  Christian  Element  in  Plato.     (Ts.  6d.) 
Bobinson's  Greek  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament.     8vo.     (9s.) 
Gerlach's  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch-     8to.     (10s.  6d.) 
Dr.  Hengstenberg. — Dissertations  on  the  Genuineness  of  Daniel,  etc.    One  Vol.    (12s.) 

The  series,  in  131  Volumes  (including  1876),  price  £o-l,  83.  Od.,  forms  an  Apparatus 
without  which  it  may  be  truly  said  no  Theological  Library  can  be  complete ;  and  the  Pub- 
lishers take  the  liberty  of  suggesting  that  no  more  appropriate  gift  could  be  presented  to 
a  Clergyman  than  the  Series,  in  whole  or  in  part. 

*,"  Ko  DUPLICATES  Can  be  included  in  the  Selection  oj  Twenty  Volumes;  and  it  will  save 
trouble  and  correspondence  if  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  NO  LESS  number 
than  Twenty  can  be  supplied,  unless  at  non-subscription  price. 

Subscribers'  Names  received  by  all  Retail  Booksellers. 

London  :  {For  Works  at  Non-subscription  price  only)  Hamilton,  Adams,  &  Co. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


In  Twenty-four  Handsome  Svo  Volumes,  Subscription  Price  j£6,  6s.  od., 

ante=Nicene  dti^xistmn  EiftratB, 

A   COLLECTION   OP   ALL    THE   WOBKS    OF    THE   FATHEES    OP   THE 
CHEISTIAN  CHURCH  PEIOB  TO  THE  COUNCIL  OP  NIC-EA. 

BDITSD  BY  THE 

REV.  ALEXANDER  ROBERTS,  D.D.,  AND  JAMES  DONALDSON,  LL.D. 


MESSRS.  CLARK  are  now  happy  to  announce  the  completion  of  this  Series. 
It  has  been  received  with  marked  approval  by  all  sections  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  this  country  and  in  the  United  States,  as  supplying  what 
has  long  been  felt  to  be  a  want,  and  also  on  account  of  the  impartiality,  learn- 
ing, and  care  with  which  Editors  and  Translators  have  executed  a  very  difficult 
task. 

The  Publishers  do  not  bind  themselves  to  continue  to  supply  the  Series  at  the 
Subscription  price. 
The  Works  are  arranged  as  follow  :— 


FIBST    YEAR. 

APOSTOLIC  FATHERS,  comprising 
Clement's  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians ; 
Polycarp  to  the  Ephesians;  Martyr- 
dom of  Polycarp ;  Epistle  of  Barnabas ; 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  (longer  and  shorter, 
and  also  the  Syriac  version);  Martyr- 
dom of  Ignatius ;  Epistle  to  Diognetus ; 
Pastor  of  Hermas;  Papias ;  Spurious 
Epistles  of  Ignatius.     In  One  Volume. 

JUSTIN  MABTYB;  ATHENAGOEAS. 
In  One  Volume. 

TATIAN;  THEOPHILUS;  THE  CLE- 
mentine  Eecognitions.  In  One  Volume. 

CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDEIA,  Volume 
First,  comprising  Exhortation  to  Hea- 
then ;  The  Instructor;  and  a  portion 
of  the  Miscellanies. 

SECOND   YEAR. 

HIPPOLYTUS,  Volume  First;  Eefutation 
of  all  Heresies,  and  Fragments  from 
his  Commentaries. 

lEEN^US,  Volume  First. 

TERTULLIAN  AGAINST  MAECION. 

CYPRIAN,  Volume  First;  the  Epistles, 
and  some  of  the  Treatises. 

THIRD    YEAR; 

IBEN.a;US  (completion);  HIPPOLYTUS 
(completion);  Fragments  of  Third 
Century.    In  One  Volume. 

OEIGEN:  De  Principiis;  Letters;  and 
portion  of  Treatise  against  Celsus. 


CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  Volume 
Second ;  Completion  of  Miscellanies. 

TERTULLIAN,  Volume  First;  To  the 
Martyrs;  Apology;  To  the  Nations, 
etc. 

FOURTH    YEAR. 

CYPRIAN,  Volume  Second  (completion) ; 

Novatian;  Minucius  Felix;  Fragments. 
METHODIUS ;   ALEXANDEE  OF  LY- 

copolis ;  Peter  of  Alexandria ;  Anato- 

lius;    Clement    on    Virginity;     and 

Fragments. 
TERTULLIAN,  Volume  Second. 
APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS,  ACTS,  AND 

Eevelations ;  comprising  all  the  very 

curious  Apocryphal  Writings  of   the 

first  three  Centuries. 

FIFTH   YEAR. 

TEETULLIAN,  Volume  Third  (comple- 
tion). 

CLEMENTINE  HOMILIES;  APOSTO- 
lical  Constitutions.    In  One  Volume. 

ARNOBIUS. 

DIONYSIUS;  GREGORY  THAUMA- 
turgus ;  Syrian  Fragments.  In  One 
Voliune. 

SIXTH    YEAR. 

LACTANTIUS;  Two  Volumes. 

ORIGEN,  Volume  Second  (completion). 
128.  to  Non-Subscribers. 

EARLY  LITURGIES  AND  REMAIN- 
ing  Fragments.  9s.  to  Non-Subscri- 
bers. 


Single  Years  cannot  be  had  separately,  unless  to  complete  sets;  but  any  Volume 
may  be  had  separately,  price  lOs.  6d., — with  the  exception  of  Obiosn,  VoL  II.,  12s. ; 
and  the  Earlt  Liturgies,  98. 


n 


BINDING  SECT.  SEP  21 1964 


to 


c 

•H 

-P 

u 

(0 

s 

• 

t-3 

>> 

43 

• 

d 

U 

u 

-P 

o 

•> 

Oi 

05 

oi 

^ 

o 

fl 

PQ 

•H 

tx. 

»«d 

O 

^          -P 
3 

< 

2 

Cm 

d           O 

D            OT 

*          Ji^ 

T      o 

K         •        O 

t    Ct;  pq 

?  D     • 

J    o  <i> 

•»i       43 

• 

t*     •*!-•  'O 

(I> 

a> 

TJ 

t*< 

CV 

H 

^^^ 

H 

EH 

< 

• 

Q 

0)   O    05 

r-4  --'  bO 

XI    S    C 

^     O  mH 

CQ   O  W 

w 

\ 

University  of  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN  CO.  limited