Skip to main content

Full text of "The books of the Kings"

See other formats 


II.  /t  >i 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON.     N.    J. 


Presented  by 


Division..JO*3    \ 


Sectioti....?.\r?(..4x  I   v^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/booksofkings06bh 


COMMENTARY 


ON  THE 


HOLT  SCKIPTTJEES: 

CRITICAL,  DOCTRINAL,  AND  HOMILETICAL, 

WITH   SPECIAL   REFERENCE   TO   MINISTERS  AND   STUDENTS. 

BY 

JOHN  PETER 'lANGE,  D.I)., 

»   CONNECTION    WITH    1    NUMBER   OF   EMINENT    EUROPEAN    DIVINES. 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN,  AND  EDITED.  WITS  ADDITIONS, 

BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D., 

IN    CONNECTION    WITH    AMERICAN   SCHOLARS   OF    VARIOUS    EVANGELICAL    DENOMINATIONS. 


VOL.  VL  OF   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT:     CONTAINING  THE   FIRST   AND   SECOND 

BOOKS  OF  KINGS. 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS, 

1899 


THE    BOOKS 


o» 


THE     KINGS. 


KAEL  OHR.   W.   f/bXHR,   D.  D., 

MINISTERIAL  COUNSELLOR  AT  CARLSRUHE. 


TRANSLATED,  ENLARGED,  AND  EDITED. 
BOOK     I. 

BY 

EDWIN    HARWOOD,    D.  D., 

MOTOR    OF    TRINITY    CHURCH,     NEW    HAVEN,     CO  It*. 

BOOK    II. 

BY 

Rev.     W.    G.    SUMNER, 

TBOPESSOR    IN     YALE  COLLEGE,     NEW     HAVEN,     CONH. 

NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS, 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1872,  by 
SCRIBNER,   ARMSTRONG  &  CO., 

In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


trows 
hinting  and  bookbinding  company, 

NEW  YORK. 


PREFACE  BY  THE  GENERAL  EDITOR. 


The  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  published  in  1868,  was  prepared  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Babe,  of  Carlsruhe,  who  has  been  long  favorably  known  as  the  learned 
author  of  the  Symbolism  of  Mosaic  Worship  {Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus, 
Heidelberg,  1837-'39,  2  vols.,  now  undergoing  a  thorough  revision),  a  Commentary 
on  Colossians,  a  treatise  on  the  Temple  of  Solomon  (1848),  and  other  works. 

The  translation  from  the  German,  with  additions,  was  executed  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Habwood,  of  New  Haven,  Conn.,  who  assumed  the  First  Book,  and  by  the  Rev. 
~W.  G.  Sumner,  Professor  in  Tale  College,  who  is  responsible  for  the  last  chapter 
of  the  First,  and  the  whole  of  the  Second  Book.  The  textual  revision  and  origi- 
nal grammatical  notes  on  the  First  Book  must  be  credited  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Fred- 
eric Gardiner,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Conn. 

In  regard  to  the  principles  by  which  he  has  been  governed  in  his  work,  Dr. 
Bahr  says,  in  his  preface : — 

"  In  accordance  with  the  wisely-chosen  aim  and  plan  of  the  Bibi.e-Work  of  which 
this  volume  forms  a  part,  I  have  taken  especial  pains  to  maintain  a  strict  discrimina 
tion  between  the  three  sections  into  which  the  expository  matter  is  divided.  In  the 
first  section,  the  Exegetical  and  Critical,  I  have  collected  all  which  seemed  essential 
to  the  explanation  of  the  original  text,  and  to  the  determination,  both  of  the  senst 
of  the  words  and  of  their  grammatical  connection  ....  As  a  matter  of  course,  botl 
the  other  sections  are  based  on  the  Exegetical.  Nothing  can  properly  be  made  the 
subject  of  theological  discussion  or  homiletical  treatment  which  does  not  rest  on  a 
firm  exegetical  foundation.  I  have,  therefore,  omitted  from  the  Homiletical  section 
all  which,  however  edifying  it  might  be,  in  itself  considered,  had  no  foundation  in 
the  text  when  this  was  correctly  understood.  I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  giving  to 
the  second  division  of  the  exposition  [Doctrinal  and -Ethical],  a  wider,  though  mon 
exact,  title  than  that  which  it  bears  in  the  other  volumes  of  the  Bible-Work 
The  specific,  and,  in  fact,  exclusive  contents  of  the  historical  books  is  history,  not 
doctrine  or  dogma;  and  this  history  is,  moreover,  soteriological,  that  is,  it  is  the 
history  of  the  redemptive  plan  of  God ;  the  history  of  the  divine  revelation,  pur- 
pose, and  providence  ;  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God  " 


PREFACE. 


Hence  Dr.  Bahr  gives  to  this  section  the  title :  Eeilsgeschichtliche  und  Ethischt 
Grundgedanken,  i.e. :  Chief  Points  (in  the  section  of  text  last  preceding)  which 
bear  upon  the  Development  of  OooVs  Plan  of  Salvation,  or  have  Ethical  Import- 
ance. In  consequence  of  the  impossibility  of  embodying  this  idea  completely  in  a 
concise  and  convenient  English  title,  the  translators,  while  fully  appreciating  and 
coinciding  in  the  author's  intention,  have  retained  the  title  which  is  used  for  the 
corresponding  section  of  the  other  volumes,  only  substituting  Historical  for 
Doctrinal. 

In  regard  to  the  Chronology,  Dr.  Bahr  continues : — 

"  I  have  adopted  a  somewhat  different  method  from  any  yet  followed  in  the 
treatment  of  this  subject.  I  start  from  certain  dates  which  are  generally  accepted; 
and  which  may  be  fixed  with  the  greatest  certainty,  and  then,  by  grouping  the 
biblical  data  into  periods  which  are  comprised  between  these  fixed  dates,  I  seek  to 
solve  this  difficult  problem  (See  Pt.  IL  pp.  86,  180,  283)." 

Professor  Sumner  has  added  a  brief  Appendix  on  this  subject,  together  with 
a  Chronological  Table  of  the  period  covered  by  the  Books  of  the  Kings.  In  Part 
II.  pp.  161,  174,  189,  220,  237,  284  will  be  found  a  series  of  notes  on  contem- 
poraneous history,  so  far  as  it  illustrates  the  references  in  the  text.  These  notea 
are  based  on  the  results  of  the  latest  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  researches. 

PHILIP  SCHAFF. 
New  York,  Bible  House,  April,  lSfti. 


THE 

BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS, 


INTRODUCTION 


§  i. 

NAME,  DATE  OF  COMPOSITION,  AND  AUTHOR. 

The  name  D'3^D ,  which  belongs  to  our  books  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  desig- 
nates (if  not  imposed  by  the  author  himself),  briefly  and  appropriately,  the  distinguishing 
contents  of  this  historical  work,  in  contrast  with  other  writings  belonging  to  the  same  class,  the 
D'Jl^'NI  D'X'SJ ,  i.  «.,  prophetas  priores.  It  contains,  not  so  much  the  history  of  the  theocracy  in 
general,  whereto  "  the  succession  of  the  kings  serves  only  as  the  visible  thread  "  (Huveruick), 
as  the  history  of  the  Israditish  monarchy  from  its  ripest  bloom  on  to  its  destruction,  in  so  far 
as  this  history  constitutes  generally  an  independent  portion  of  the  history  of  the  people 
Israel.  The  division  of  our  work  into  two  books  is  not  original — it  occurs  first  in  the 
Septuagint.  There  it  is  regarded  as  an  immediate  continuation  of  the  book  ^XIDL"  (Samuel), 
which  precedes  it  in  the  Canon,  and  is  itself  divided  into  two  books,  and  these  four  are  then 
designated  as  Books  of  the  Kings  (JiaatXciuv  a.  /?.  y.  <S.),  (comp.  Origen  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  vi. 
25).  This  is  retained  in  the  Vulgate  (comp.  Hieron.  prolog,  galeat.),  and  came  thence,  through 
the  printer  Dan.  Bomberg,  in  Venice,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  into  the 
editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  This  entire  division  and  designation  is  just  as  arbitrary  as  it 
is  defective.  How  unfit  it  is,  is  t<hown  especially  in  our  own  work,  the  first  book  of  which 
does  not  conclude  with  a  paragraph  founded  in  the  history  itself,  but  breaks  off  with  a  brief 
account  of  the  reign  of  king  Ahaziah. 

The  date  of  its  composition  is  furnished  from  the  conclusion  of  the  work  itself,  where  it  ia 
stated  that  king  Jehoiachin  was  carried  away  to  Babylon  in  the  year  599  b.  c,  and  was  held 
there  a  prisoner  for  thirty-seven  years — to  the  year  562 — and  obtained  his  freedom  from  Evil- 
merodach,  the  successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxv.  27-30).  The  composition,  conse- 
quently, cannot  be  set  down  before  the  year  562.  But  it  does  not  admit  of  supposition  that 
it  took  place  after  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile  in  the  year  536  ;  for  the  author  con- 
cludes with  the  deliverance  of  Jehoiachin  as  a  joyful,  hopeful  event,  and  does  not  utter  a  sylla- 
ble about  the  still  more  important  and  joyous  matter — the  return  of  the  whole  people — which 
is  first  mentioned  in  Ezra  i.  The  composition,  therefore,  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  period 
between  562  and  536,  i.  e.,  during  the  second  half  of  the  exile.  But  we  cannot  determine 
whether  it  was  during  the  brief  reign  (two  years)  of  Evil-merodach,  or  after  Jehoiachin's  death. 

In  the  Bible  itself  there  is  no  intimation  about  the  person  of  the  author.  The  Jewish  tra- 
dition names  Jeremiah.  The  Talmud  says  (Bdba  bathra,/.  xv.  1) :  Jeremias  scripsit  libritm  suum 
et  librum  regum  et  threnoe.  Some  of  the  older  theologians,  and  Havernick  also,  have  agreed 
1 


2  THIS  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 

with  this  statement ;  but  it  is  refuted  alone  from  the  duration  of  Jeremiah's  life.  He  began 
his  career  as  prophet  (Jer.  i.  2)  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  king  Josiah,  and  must 
have  been  then  at  least  from  twenty  to  twenty-two  years  old;  but  since  now  our  books  could 
not  have  been  written  before  the  year  5G2,  he  must  have  composed  them  when  he  was  at  least 
from  eighty-six  to  eighty-eight  years  old,  which  appears  all  the  more  incredible  since  the 
composition  presupposes  the  employing  and  the  arranging  of  different  older  written  sources 
To  this  must  be  added  that  Jeremiah,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  went  to  Egypt 
(Jer.  xliii.  6),  and  there  spent  the  last  years  of  his  life  in  continuous,  grievous  conflicts  Tt 
cannot,  however,  be  denied,  that  in  the  places  especially  where  the  author  does  not  report 
directly  from  written  sources  of  information,  but  inserts  his  own  remarks,  an  in  2  Kings  xvii. 
sq.,  his  mode  of  thinking  and  of  expression  resembles  that  of  Jeremiah,  from  which, 
however,  nothing  more  can  be  concluded  than  that  the  author  had  been  entrusted  with  the 
writings  of  this  prophet — was,  perhaps,  his  scholar.  Blcek  suggests,  indeed,  Baruch,  who 
apparently  had  charge  of  collecting  and  editing  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  and  added  to  it 
the  52d  chapter,  which  is  consonant  with  2  Kings  xxv.  But  in  that  case,  since  Baruch  went 
to  Egypt  with  Jeremiah  (see  on  the  place),  we  must  suppose  that  our  history  was  composed 
there,  which  is,  in  the  highest  degree,  improbable.  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  rather,  that 
the  author  wrote  in  Babylon.  If  this  be  not,  with  some,  susceptible  of  proof,  owing  to  1  Kings 
v.  4,  where  Palestine  is  described  as  lying  on  the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates,  it  is,  neverthe- 
less, so  much  the  more  certain  that  the  author  did  not  write  his  work  for  the  little  band 
which  fled  to  Egypt,  and  was  there  fallen  into  idolatry  and  discord,  but  for  the  kernel  of 
the  whole  people  then  in  exile  (see  below,  §  5).  While  Jeremiah  announces  the  ruin  of  his 
corrupted  fellow-countrymen  in  Egypt  (Jer.  xliv.  11  sq.),  our  author  concludes  with  the  de- 
liverance of  Jehoiachin  promising  a  better  day,  and  gives,  at  the  same  time,  details  which 
could  have  been  known  only  to  a  contemporary  living  in  the  exile;  but  not  then  to  one  who 
was  in  distant  Egypt.  There  is  an  absence  of  all  reference  to  Egyptian  situations  and  rela- 
tions, which  assuredly  would  not  have  been  the  case  had  the  author  and  his  readers  lived  in 
Egypt.  After  all,  we  must  give  up  the  attempt  to  designate  any  particular  person  as  the 
author.  He  must  have  stood  high  in  reputation,  anyhow,  as  is  conclusive  from  the  reception 
of  his  work  into  the  Canon. 

[The  prevailing  opinion  amongst  the  English  seems  to  be,  after  Calmet,  in  favor  of  Ezra. 
See  Bp.  Patrick,  Home,  &c.     I  except  Prideaux. — E.  H.] 

§  2. 
SOURCES. 

The  author  himself  states  the  sources  of  his  historical  work,  extending  over  a  peiiod  ot 
453  years,  viz. : 

1)  noSt?  'IT!  1?P  1  Kings  xi.  41. 

2)  mirp  '^D^  D^n  njOT  1SD  1  Kings  xiv.  29 ;  xv.  7,  22 ;  xxii.  46  ;  2  Kings  viii.  23 ;  xil  , 

'  20 ;  xiv.  18 ;  xv.  6,'  15,  36  ;  xvi.  19  ;  xx.  20 ;  xxi.  17,  25 ;  xxiii.  28 :  xxiv.  5. 

3)  ^N-lt:"  'Z^oS  D^n  n33  13D  1  Kings  xiv.   19  ;    xv.   31  ;  xvi.  5,  14,  20,  27  ;  xxii.  39 ; 

2  Kings  i.  18  •  x.  34 ;  xiii.  8,  12 ;  xiv.  28 ;  xv.  11,  15,  21,  26,  31. 
Besides  these  three  documentary  sources,  none  else  is  cited  in  our  books.  And  since  the 
author  refers  only  to  the  first,  and  not  to  the  second  or  third,  for  the  history  of  Solomon,  and 
for  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Judah  only  to  the  second,  and  for  the  history  of  the  kings  of 
Israel  only  to  the  third,  it  follows  that  each  one  of  them  was  an  independent,  separate  work. 
The  reference  is  always  made  with  the  formula :  "  The  rest  of  the  acts  of  the  king  .  .  .  and 
whut  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  (of 
Israel)?  "  Thence  it  follows  still  farther,  that  the  three  documents  contained  more  than  the 
author  has  incorporated  into  his  work,  and  were  more  complete  ;  and  that  not  only  were  they 
in  existence  at  the  time  our  books  were  composed,  but  they  were  in  the  hands,  if  not  of  all. 


§  2.    SOURCES.  3 


of  many,  nevertheless,  and  were  circulated  generally.  For  if  they  were  only  submitted  to  hit 
inspection,  he  could  not  have  appealed  to  them  and  referred  his  readers  to  them.  In  many 
respects  it  is  well  to  bear  this  in  mind. 

We  obtain  now  a  completer  explanation  of  these  documents  themselves,  through  compari- 
son with  the  citations  in  the  Chronicles,  which  refers  to  its  own  sources  with  a  similar  formula. 
A  whole  series  of  paragraphs  in  our  books  is  repeated  word  for  word  in  the  Chronicles.  In 
this  case  there  is  no  reference  to  one  of  our  three  documents,  but  to  the  writings  of  given 
individuals,  aa  their  source.  So,  first  of  all,  with  the  history  of  Solomon,  in  which  the  follow- 
ing sections  are  consonant  with  each  other,  viz. :  2  Chron.  vi.  1^40  with  1  Kings  viii.  12-50; 
2  Chron.  vii.  7-22  with  1  Kings  viii.  64 — ix.  9 ;  2  Chron.  viii.  2  to  the  10th  ver.  and  ver.  17 
with  1  Kings  ix.  17-23,  and  ver.  26 ;  2  Chron.  ix.  1-28  with  1  Kings  x.  1-28,  etc.  Here  the 
Chronicles  does  not,  like  our  author,  refer  to  "  the  book  of  the  history  of  Solomon,"  but  to  the 
"  >~i2r]  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  nx?3J  of  the  [prophet]  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  the  niin 
of  Iddo  the  Seer  "  (2  Chron.  ix.  29).  Consequently  the  book  of  the  "  acts  "  of  Solomon  must 
either  have  consisted  of  these  three  prophetic  writings,  or  at  least  must  have  contained  essen- 
tial portions  of  them.  So  also  in  respect  of  our  second  document,  the  book  of  the  "  acts  "  of  the 
kings  of  Judah.  The  account  of  Rehoboam  in  2  Chron.  x.  1-19  is  fully  consonant  with  that 
in  1  Kings  xii.  1-19,  that  also  in  2  Chron.  xi.  1-4  with  that  in  1  Kings  xii.  20-24,  that  still 
farther  in  2  Chron.  xii.  13  sq.  with  that  in  1  Kings  xiv.  21  sq.  ;  but  the  source  is  not,  as  in 
1  Kings  xiv.  29,  called  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  but  •'  njl  of 
Shemaiah  the  prophet  and  of  Iddo  the  Seer "  (2  Chron.  xii.  15).  In  the  history  of  king 
Abijam,  the  very  much  abbreviated  account  in  1  Kings  xv.  1-8  refers  for  what  is  more  ex- 
tended, to  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah.  The  Chronicles,  on  the  other 
hand,  which  gives  the  more  extended  narrative,  refers  to  the  "  L'TO  of  the  prophet  Iddo " 
(2  Chron.  xiii.  22).  Such,  too,  is  the  case  in  the  history  of  the  kings  Uzziah  and  Manasseh. 
Our  author,  in  both  instances,  appeals  to  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah 
(2  Kings  xv.  6  ;  xxi.  17),  (but)  the  chronicler,  in  the  case  of  the  former,  to  the  "3712  of  Isaiah 
the  prophet  the  son  of  Amoz  "  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  22),  and  in  that  of  the  latter  to  the  "  'Tin  '"QT  " 
(2  Chron.  xxxiii.  18,  19).  From  all  these  references,  it  follows  plainly  that  the  book  of  the 
kings  of  Judah  consisted  of  the  historical  writings  of  different  prophets  or  seers.  Still  more 
decisively  and  unanswerably  do  the  following  plares  confirm  this.  In  the  history  of  king 
Jehoshaphat,  1  Kings  xxii.  2-35  coincides  with  2  Chron.  xviii.  2-34.  As  usual,  our  author 
here  refers  to  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ;  but  the  chronicler  to  the  ,_m  of  Jehu  the  son 
of  Hanani,  ^XTJ"  VSfO  "iSD"^V  r6yh  ~iV.'x>  *'•'•,  which  are  inserted,  received  into,  etc.  (2  Chron. 
xx.  34).  So  also  for  the  history  of  Hezekiah,  our  author  appeals  again  simply  to  the  book  oi 
the  kings  of  Judah  (2  Kings  xx.  20) ;  but  the  chronicler  to  the  |ifn  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz, 
12D"?y  of  the  kings  of  Judah  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  32).  Hence  it  happens  that  the  purely 
historical  sections  in  Isaiah,  chapters  xxxvi.  to  xxxix.,  and  in  Jeremiah,  chapter  Hi.,  are 
reproduced  in  2  Kings  xviii.  30  to  xx.  19,  and  in  xxiv.  18  to  xxv.  30,  since  they  were  certainly 
regarded  as  having  come  froni  the  prophets.  But  our  author,  at  least  in  the  history  of  I 
Hezekiah,  refers,  not  to  the  book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  but  to  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  | 
(2  Kings  xx.  20). — After  all,  if  the  three  documents  forming  the  foundation  of  our  books  were 
not  the  production  of  one  author,  but  each  of  them  was  made  up  of  the  writings  of  different, 
and,  in  fact,  prophetic  authors,  who  had  recorded  the  history  of  their  own  times,  they  were 
historical  compilations  (comp.  Bleek,  Einleitung  in,  das  Alte  Testament,  sec.  157  sq. ;  Bertheau,  Die 
Buclwr  der  Chron.  Einl.,  §  3). 

That  prophets  generally  were  the  historians  of  the  Israelitish  people,  is  universally  acknow- 
ledged (Knobel,  Der  Propliet.  der  Hebr.,  i.  s.  58  sq.),  and  has  its  reason  in  the  nature  and  destiny 
of  this  nation.  "  In  order  to  recognize  Jehovah  in  the  directing  of  His  people,  and  to  explain 
and  gather  up  all  the  particular  facts  in  the  connection  of  the  theocratic  guidance,  the  Spirit 
of  God  was  the  subjective  condition.  The  history  was  not  to  be  estimated  as  an  aggregate  of 
facts  to  be  gathered  by  inquiry,  and  to  be  set  forthwith  talent,  but  as  a  revelation  of  Jehovah 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 


in  continuous  acts,  to  understand  which,  properly,  the  Spirit  of  God  seemed  essential  as 
Organ,  just  as  much  as  for  the  comprehension  of  particular,  immediate  signs,  facts  (Geschichte\ 
and  oracles  of  Jehovah"  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  i.  s.  413,  Not.  2).  The  secular  historian  does  not 
know  Hebrew  antiquity.  The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  carry  the  collective 
name  in  the  Canon  D'X'SJ  ,  and  are  distinguished  from  the  books  strictly  prophetical  only  in 
this,  that  the  adjective  D^IC'XI ,  priores,  is  applied  to  them,  and  to  the  latter  D'jnnN  , 
posteriore.a.  But  if  in  any  age  history  would  have  been  written  by  prophets,  this  most  certainly 
would  have  happened  when  prophecy  was  in  the  period  of  its  bloom,  and  this  was  in  the 
time  of  the  monarchy  (comp.  Bleek).  The  prophets  did  not  write  the  history  of  Israel  as 
private  persons,  but  as  servants  of  Jehovah,  as  "  men  of  God."  They  are  the  historiographers 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  of  the  theocracy,  and  their  narrative  has  for  the  people  of  God  an 
official  character,  which  imparts  to  their  historical,  not  less  than  to  their  strictly  prophetical 
writings,  authority  and  value  in  the  judgment  of  the  people.  Were  it  not  so,  our  author  and 
the  chronicler  could  not  have  appealed  to  them  so  constantly. 

If  the  three  documentary  sources  of  our  books  consisted,  as  has  been  stated  above,  of  seve- 
ral prophetical  isolated  pieces,  the  question  then  arises,  when  and  by  whom  were  the  latter 
collected  and  combined  into  each  of  the  three  D'HSD .  In  the  lack  of  all  specific  accounts, 
this  admits  only  of  a  conjectural  reply.  If  it  were  the  business  of  the  prophets  to  write  the 
history  of  Israel  as  God's  people,  and  to  exhibit  in  it  the  threads  of  divine  guidance  and  reve- 
lation, it  must,  of  necessity,  have  occurred  to  them  that  their  narrative  would  not  only  be 
continued  always,  but,  also,  that  the  historical  material  already  in  hand  would  be  preserved 
and  secured  for  future  generations.  This  may  have  been  attended  to  in  the  smaller  pro- 
phetical circles,  especially  in  the  so-called  schools  of  the  prophets.  It  is  hence  highly  improba- 
ble that,  as  Keil  pretends,  "just  before  the  fall  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,"  the  isolated  pieces 
which  had  been  composed  within  the  period  of  some  centuries,  which  were  scattered  about 
here  and  there,  should  have  been  collected  and  made  up  into  one  whole ;  for  the  time  imme- 
diately preceding  the  fall  of  the  kingdom  was  a  time  of  utter  disorder,  which  was  least  of  all 
fit  for  such  an  undertaking,  apart  from  the  consideration  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel  perished 
130  years  sooner,  and  its  history  was  contained  in  a  special  work  (Sammelwerk),  viz.,  in  the 
third  documentary  source.  More  can  be  said  for  the  supposition  that  the  compilation  was 
not  completed  at  once,  in  a  given  time,  but  gradually,  and  that  the  latter  isolated  pieces  were 
added  to  the  earlier,  which  would  have  been  entirely  natural  and  easily  done.  Since  our 
author,  as  we  have  remarked  above,  carefully  distinguishes  the  three  documents  in  his  cita- 
tions, adduces  each  one  separately,  and  never,  in  any  one  of  the  thirty-four  places,  confounds 
the  second  with  the  third,  we  are  justified  in  the  opinion  that  in  his  day,  the  three  document- 
ary sources  were  distinct  works.  In  the  time  of  the  chronicler  the  second  and  third  may 
have  been  formed  into  one  whole,  since  he  frequently  refers  to  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah 
and  Israel  (2  Chron.  xvi.  11;  xxv.  26;  xxviii.  26;  xxxii.  32;  xxvii.  7;  xxxv.  27;  xxxvi.  8); 
once,  also,  simply  to  the  book  of  the  Kings  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  27).  We  cannot  deduce  anything 
from  this  with  entire  certainty,  however,  for  the  Chronicles,  although  it  often  names  prophet- 
ical individual  works,  does  not,  in  this  respect,  observe  the  accuracy  of  our  books,  as,  e.  g., 
when  in  the  case  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Manasseh,  kings  of  Judah,  it  refers  to  the  "  book  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  "  (2  Chron.  xx.  34;  xxxiii.  18),  where  we  must  assume  either  an  exchange 
or  an  omission  of  the  words  "  and  Judah." 

Our  author,  in  his  use  of  the  three  documents,  does  not  give  a  uniformly  continuous 
extract  from  them.  Sometimes,  indeed,  in  accordance  with  the  special  design  of  his  work 
(see  below,  §  5),  he  quotes  entire  sections  literally,  as  is  clear  from  sections  in  Jeremiah, 
Isaiah,  and  Chronicles,  which  are  duplicates  of  each  other.  Sometimes  he  abbreviates  them 
very  much,  as,  e.  <j.,  is  shown  by  a  comparison  of  1  Kings  xv.  1-8  with  2  Chron.  xiii.  1-23. 
If  he  have  not  prepared  the  historical  material  furnished  him  in  an  independent  way,  special 
remarks,  insertions,  and  transitions  may,  nevertheless,  have  originated  with  him.  But  it  is 
very  hazardous  to  attempt  to  determine  this  accurately.  Of  one  section  only,  viz.,  2  Kings 
*~vii.  7-23,  can  we  claim  with  certainty  that  it  is  the  author's  own. 


§  2.     SOURCES. 


The  sections  upon  the  life  and  activity  of  the  two  great  prophets,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  form 
no  small  portion  of  our  books.  In  these  we  miss  the  usual  appeal  to  one  of  the  three  docu- 
mentary sources.  Those  which  relate  to  Elijah  bear  certainly  an  unmistakably  peculial 
mark  (comp.,  e.  g.,  1  Kings  xvii.  with  the  preceding  chapter) ;  but  it  does  not  at  all  follow 
that  they  belong  to  another  than  the  third  document,  for  this,  like  the  other  two,  was  a  col- 
lection ot  isolated  pieces  of  different  authors.  For  since  those  two  prophets  were  felt  so 
powerfully  in  the  history  of  the  monarchy,  and  they  exerted  generally,  upon  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy,  an  influence  vastly  greater  than  that  of  many  a  king,  a 
narrative  devoted  to  them  would  scarcely  have  been  wanting  in  the  compilation.  Besides,  we 
cannot  conceive  why  our  author,  who  usually  adduces  his  sources  so  carefully,  and  refers  to 
them  even  in  the  most  insignificant  portions  of  the  history  of  the  kings,  should  have  been 
silent,  in  the  most  weighty  history  of  the  two  prophets,  as  to  whether  he  had  derived  the  same 
from  another  source  than  that  he  was  constantly  making  use  of  (comp.  Bleek,  a.  a.  0.,  s.  371). 
If  then  of  any  one  portion  of  our  books,  of  th  is  it  is  certain  and  self-evident,  that  it  is  the  pro- 
duction of  a  prophet.  If  prophets  have  written  the  history  of  the  kings,  how  much  more 
their  own ! 

What  has  thus  far  been  submitted  respecting  the  documentary  sources  of  our  books,  differs 
more  or  less  from  the  view  now  current.  Almost  universally,  by  the  cited  D^iaD  are  under- 
stood "  public  annual  registers  "  or  "  annals,"  which  were  kept  by  some  royal  official,  and  de- 
posited in  the  state  archives.  Besides  these  chief  sources,  the  author  (it  is  thought)  has  used 
others  still,  viz.,  prophetic  writings.  According  to  Delitzsch  (in  Dreehsler,  Der  Proph.  Jesaja, 
ii.  2,  s.  253,  and  Commentar  fiber  den  Proph.  Jesaja,  s.  ix.),  the  historical  composition  was  both 
annalistic  and  prophetic.  "  The  aims  of  the  two  are  distinct.  The  aim  of  the  prophetic  is 
to  exhibit  the  inner  divine  connections  of  the  outward  event  which  the  annalistic  registers." 
.  .  .  .  "  With  David  began  the  official  writing  of  annals,  which  resulted  in  those  histori- 
cal works  out  of  which  the  authors  of  the  book  of  the  Kings  and  of  the  Chronicles  have 
chiefly,  if  not  immediately,  drawn.  We  behold  David  as  the  supreme  chief  of  the  kingdom, 
exercising  the  highest  authority  on  all  sides,  and  we  find  several  offices  created  wholly  by 
him.  Under  these  is  included  that  of  the  T3TO ,  i.  <'-,  as  the  Septuagint,  frequently  explain- 
ing, translates,  i-nuvrmaToypatyoi;.  or  (2  Sam.  viii.  16)  i~\  run  viro/ivquaruv  (Uwron.,  genuinely 
Roman,  a  commentariis).  .  .  .  The  T3TO  was  required  to  keep  the  annals  of  the  kingdom. 
His  office  is  different  from  that  of  the  iSiD  or  chancellor.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  "isiD  (chan- 
cellor) to  issue  the  public  documents,  and  of  the  V3TO  (recorder)  to  preserve  them  and  to  in- 
corporate them  into  the  proper  connection  of  the  history  of  the  kingdom.  Throughout  the 
ancient  East  both  offices  existed  generally.  Reference  to  the  annals  begins  at  1  Chron.  xxvii. 
24  with  the  D'D'n  n:n  of  David,  and  is  continued  in  nbVj'  'r13!I  \BD  1  Kings  xi.  41.  .  .  .    If 

we  regard  the  state  annals  as  a  completed  work,  it  falls  naturally  into  four  portions.  The  first 
two  treated  of  the  history  of  the  kingdom  in  its  unity,  the  last  two  were  annals  of  the  kings 
of  Judah  and  of  Israel — the  history  of  the  dissevered  kingdom.  The  original  of  the  state 
archives  was  destroyed  doubtless  when  the  Chakheans  burned  Jerusalem.  But  excerpted 
copies  of  it  were  preserved,  and  the  histories  of  the  reign  of  David  and  of  Solomon,  rich 
especially  in  annalistic  particulars  in  the  historical  books  in  our  possession,  show  that  dili- 
gence was  devoted  conspicuously  to  the  circulation  of  copies  of  the  annals  of  these  sovereigns, 
and  that  they  probably  appeared  in  separate  tractates."  Ewald  also  (Oesch.  Israels,  iii. 
8. 180, 338)  maintains  that  amongst  the  highest  royal  functionaries  named  in  2  Sam.  viii.  16,  and 
1  Kings  iv.  3,  the  V2ro  was  "  he  whose  business  it  was  to  record  all  weighty  incidents  con- 
cerning the  royal  house  and  kingdom,  and  who,  at  the  close  of  a  reign,  gave  publicly  a 
resume  of  the  history  of  it."  He  was  also  "  court-historiographer."  David  created  this  "  court- 
office,"  and  it  was  never  afterwards  "  given  up."  Besides  the  "public  annals"  prescribed  by 
David,  there  were  also  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  "numerous  and  continuous  prophetico- 
historical  summaries,"  which  were  fused  subsequently  into  one  work,  which  again  was  "per- 
haps retouched  and  partially  enlarged,  yet  much  more  sensibly  abbreviated."     Our  author  is 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  "  latest  elaborator,"  and  "  the  fifth."     We  remark,  against  these  very  plausible  assump- 
tion, the  following : 

(a)  There  is  not  a  single  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  to  show  that  the  "V3TD  was  th« 
writer  of  the  court  and  kingdom  records ;  that  he  drew  up  "  protocolled  "  and  "  original " 
archives  that  were  deposited  among  the  "  state  archives."  He  never  appears  the  least 
in  the  light  of  a  historiographer  or  annalist  when  mentioned,  or  when  his  function  is 
alluded  to,  but  as  a  civil  officer  (comp.  2  Kings  xviii.  18,  37 ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8 :  comp.  Winer, 
R.-  W.-B.,  ii. «.  309).  Thenius  justly  remarks,  on  1  Kings  iv.  3,  the  maskir  "  received  his  name 
from  his  office  as  /irr/uuv,  whose  duty  it  was  to  bring  to  the  king's  remembrance  the  state 
affairs  to  be  settled,  and  about  which  he  was  consulted."  Had  David  "  newly  "  founded  the 
office  of  a  court  and  state  scribe.  David's  own  history  would  have  been  the  first  to  have  been 
written  by  this  official ;  but  1  Chron.  xxix.  29  says  of  this  very  history,  that  it  is  "  written  " 
'IPT-'P  °f  Samuel  the  seer,  and  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  book  of  Gad 
the  seer."  Neither  could  "  the  book  of  the  acts  of  Solomon "  (1  Kings  xi.  41)  have  been 
written  by  the  maskir,  for  the  Chronicles,  that  has  so  many  parallel  sections  with  this  history  (see 
above),  says  that  these  acts  were  written  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  nX'2J  of 
Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  in  the  nitn  of  Iddo  the  seer"  (2  Chron.  ix.  29).  If  the  office  of 
maskir  existed  at  all  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  under  the  kings  of  David's  house,  there  is  not 
the  least  trace  of  it  in  the  separated  kingdom  of  Israel.  Here  the  dynasty  was  changed  nine 
times,  and  each  was  completely  cut  off  by  the  new  ruler.  Was  then  the  history  of  each  king 
written  by  the  maskir  of  his  successor  (granting  that  there  was  such  an  official),  and  preserved 
among  the  state  archives?  Would,  for  instance,  a  Jehu,  who  so  unmercifully  destroyed  the 
whole  house  of  Ahab  (2  Kings  x.  11-14)  have  the  history  of  that  house  written  by  a  royal 
official,  or  have  preserved  the  already-existing  annals  among  the  archives  of  his  kingdom? 
Would  a  Jezebel  have  suffered  the  court-historian  tn  have  written  yearly  accounts  of  all  her 
shameful  acts?  Lastly,  the  assertion  that  the  "HID  had  to  prepare  the  public  documents,  and 
the  T3TO  to  preserve  them,  is  a  pure  invention,  without  any  support  from  a  single  passage. 

(!))  That  there  was  a  D'p'H  ^21  'ap  of  the  Medeo-Persian  kings  (Esth.  x.  2),  even  suppos- 
ing that  archives  drawn  up  by  a  court-scribe  were  meant,  can  never  prove  that  the  office  of 
a  court-scribe  was  instituted  by  David  600  years  before,  and  that  this  office  continued  with- 
out interruption  from  that  time  on  in  both  kingdoms  during  their  separation.  But  even 
suppose  that  there  were  such  archives  kept  in  Israel  as  well  as  in  Judah,  and  deposited  in  the 
archive-building,  yet  it  must  be  considered  that  our  author  wrote  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  consequently  at  a  time  when  the  residences  of  Samaria  and  Jerusalem 
had  been  for  a  long  while  destroyed,  and  when  also,  as  is  admitted,  the  annals  that  had  been 
preserved  in  the  archive-building  no  longer  existed.  The  supposition  that  the  Assyrians 
and  Chaldeans  kept  the  archives  of  conquered  dynasties  in  their  capitals,  and  allowed  those 
exiles  who  had  acquired  the  favor  of  the  conqueror  to  make  use  of  them  (Stahelin,  EM.  irti, 
Alte  Testament,  s.  129),  is  as  unfounded  as  it  is  arbitrary.  At  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
not  only  the  royal  palace,  but  also  "  all  the  great  houses  were  burned "  (2  Kings  xxv.  9) 
And  how  could  our  author  refer  his  readers  to  writings  that  either  did  not  exist  then,  or  at 
least  were  not  within  the  range  of  all?  But  the  assertion  that  excerpted  -extracts  from  the 
originals  of  the  state  archives  had  been  preserved,  rests  on  the  presupposition  that  "  the 
annals  of  each  dynasty  were  made  public  when  it  became  extinct," — a  presupposition  which  is 
again  without  the  shadow  of  support,  and  which,  though  helping  out  a  difficulty,  is  a  purely 
arbitrary  notion. 

(c)  Least  of  all  can  the  contents  of  the  book  of  Kings  be  adduced  to  prove  that  the 
"archives  of  the  kingdom"  were  the  principal  authorities  for  it.  The  history  of  the  reigns 
ot  each  of  the  nineteen  kings  of  Israel  begins  with  the  expression :  "  He  did  that  which  was 
evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord."  The  same  expression  occurs  with  regard  to  twelve  of  the 
twenty  kings  of  Judah,  and  it  expresses  the  general  character  of  their  rule.  It  is  even  told 
at  length  how  deeply  even  the  greatest  and  most  glorious  king,  Solomon,  fell.     The  "  sin  of 


§  2.     SOURCES 


Jeroboam,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,"  is  represented  as  the  source  of  all  the  evils  of  the  king- 
dom ;  the  conspiracies  and  murders  of  a  Baasha,  a  Shallum,  a  Menahem ;  the  wicked  deede 
of  an  Ahab,  a  Jezebel,  and  Manasseh,  are  told  unsparingly;  and,  finally,  the  chronicler  says 
of  king  Jchoiakim  of  Judah  :  "  his  abominations  which  he  did,  and  that  which  was  found  in 
him,  behold  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah"  (2  Chron.  xxxvi. 
8).  How  can  we  then  suppose  that  all  this  and  much  more  like  it  was  protocolled  by  the 
"  court-historiographer  "  with  the  knowledge  and  in  the  service  of  the  king ;  that  it  was  re- 
corded in  official  archives  of  the  kingdom,  and  then  made  public  ?  No  court-officials  could 
have  written  books  of  such  contents,  none  but  free-souled  prophets  who  were  perfectly  inde- 
pendent of  the  court.  Ewald  adduces,  as  unmistakable  "  remains  "  of  the  official  archives  {a.  a. 
0.,  s.  182),  the  sections  that  refer  to  Solomon's  officers,  over  his  household,  and  his  buildings. 
But  we  cannot  perceive  why  these  sections  only  should  have  been  written  by  a  court-official. 
A  man  who  stood  so  near  Solomon  as  the  prophet  Nathan,  who,  according  to  2  Chron.  ix.  29, 
wrote  a  history  of  that  king,  could  and  must  know  well  what  officials  and  how  many  he  had, 
how  he  managed  his  kingdom  and  court,  and  how  the  temple  and  palace  built  by  him  were 
constructed.  The  accounts  of  the  building  of  the  tabernacle  are  much  fuller  than  those  of  the 
temple,  and  yet  are  certainly  not  written  by  secular  officials.  There  is,  in  fact,  nothing  in  these 
books  that  a  X'^:  may  not  have  known  and  written ;  and  it  is  indeed  astonishing  that,  not- 
withstanding all  this,  people  should  still  insist  on  the  supposed  "archives  of  the  kingdom," 
and  obstinately  object  to  the  prophetic  origin  of  the  three  documentary  sources. 

(d)  Because  there  is  so  much  matter  that  could  not  possibly  have  been  in  the  official 
annals,  they  have  been  driven  to  a  wholly  unfounded  supposition,  viz.,  that  the  author  used 
other  authorities  also,  which  are  not  named.  But  this  is  disproved  by  the  fact  that  the  three 
authorities  used  were  not  official  annals  at  all.  The  author  refers  to  the  sources  whence  he 
drew  his  facts  about  thirty  times,  and  he  refers  to  them  even  when  he  wrote  of  those  kings  that 
only  reigned  a  short  time ;  but  he  does  not  once  quote  any  other  work.  Now,  as  the  greater 
part  of  the  contents  of  our  books  could  not  possibly  have  been  taken  from  court-annals,  it 
would  be  inexplicable  that  the  author  should  never  have  named  his  other  authorities.  The 
conclusion  that,  because  everything  could  not  have  been  found  in  the  archives,  the  author 
drew  from  other  sources,  is  therefore  false.  We  should  be  much  more  justified  in  the  inverse 
conclusion,  that  because  everything  may  have  been  contained  in  the  historico-prophetical 
works  of  Samuel  (and  the  author  only  quotes  these),  they  alone,  and  not  such  as  he  never 
names,  were  his  authorities. 

Thenius  has  put  forward  a  view  regarding  the  sources  of  the  books  of  the  Kings  (Comm. 
fiber  die  Burlier  da-  Konige,  Einleit.%Z)  which  differs  from  the  view  we  have  just  discussed,  and 
also  from  our  own.  He  asserts  that  there  are  three  "  different  component  parts  :  "  namely,  the 
"  properly  historical,"  the  "  traditional,"  and  these  passages  that  were  "really  written  by  the 
elaborator."  There  were,  he  thinks,  two  different  sources  of  the  historical  parts,  and,infact,  "a 
larger  work,"  which  fell  into  two  halves  according  to  the  two  kingdoms,  and  "  when  the  official 
yearly  records  of  both  kingdoms  were  used,  may  have  been  principally  composed  of  what  was 
written  regarding  the  influence  of  the  prophets  that  had  so  much  weight  in  public  affairs; 
written  partly  by  the  prophets  themselves,  and  partly  by  others  of  their  time,  or  recorded 
soon  after."  There  was  then  an  "  extract  from  this  larger  work,"  which  he  supposes  our  autnor 
to  have  "  found,"  and  to  which  the  "  summary  accounts  contained  in  our  books,"  and  the 
invariable  form  of  quotation,  belong.  The  traditional  portions  are  in  part  separate  "descrip- 
tions drawn  from  tradition,"  and  in  part  are  peculiarly  "  a  book  composed  by  and  for  the 
prophets— a  sort  of  prophet-mirror,  the  chief  design  of  which  was  to  impress  on  the 
pupils  of  the  prophets  the  necessity  for  the  most  implicit  obedience'  to  the  divine  exhorta- 
tions." Whilst  all  the  sections  that  enter  into  detail  are  taken  from  the  first-named  "  larger 
work,"  the  narratives  of  the  prophets,  as  the  history  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  were  taken  from 
the  "  prophet-mirror."  Thenius  has  tried  to  determine  precisely  to  which  of  these  diilerent 
component  parts  the  separate  sections  and  verses  of  our  books  belong.  Against  this  view  we 
idvance  the  following : 


8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 


(a)  The  author's  own  statements  refute  the  supposition  that  one  larger  work  forming  a  wholl 
in  itself,  was  his  chief  authority.  The  chronicler  who  wrote  much  later,  refers  indeed  often  to 
the  "  book  of  the  acts  of  the  kings  of  Judah  uiul  Israel ;  "  but  our  author  does  not  do  so  in  one 
of  the  thirty-four  passages  where  he  quotes  his  authorities,  but  he  always  either  names  the 
book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  or  that  of  the  kings  of  Israel.  Thus  he  had  two  separate,  independent 
books  before  him,  for  the  very  nature  of  the  case  required  that  the  history  of  the  two  separated 
kingdoms  should  be  separately  designated.  But  even  granted  that  the  three  QH2D ,  so  accurately 
distinguished  from  each  other,  were  only  one  larger  work,  we  should  then  have  to  ask  when  it 
was  written,  what  author  wrote  it,  and  from  what  sources  it  was  derived.  As  in  2  Kings 
xxiv.  5  only  the  book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  is  quoted,  the  former  could  not  have  been  written' 
till  after  the  time  of  Jehoiakim ;  but  against  this  there  are  the  above-mentioned  references  made 
by  the  chronicler  to  the  separate  writings  of  earlier  prophets  and  seers.  The  author  of  the 
"  larger  work  "  (whoever  he  might  have  been)  is  supposed  to  have  used  the  "  official  yearly 
records  of  both  kingdoms ;  "  but  the  grand  question  is,  whether  there  were  any  such  records, 
and  particularly  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  But  if  the  three  DH3D  are  taken  to  mean  the 
larger  work,  the  official  yearly  records  cannot  be  meant  at  the  same  time ;  thus  no  reference 
can  have  been  made  to  them. 

(b)  That  our  author  should  have  used  an  extract  from  the  larger  work  as  well  as  the  work 
itself,  is  an  extraordinary  assertion,  which  no  one  thought  of  making  till  now.  He  certainly 
needed  no  such  extract,  as,  being  in  possession  of  the  larger  work,  he  could  have  made  an 
extract  himself,  and  could  get  nothing  from  any  such,  made  by  another,  that  was  not  to  be 
found  in  the  work  itself.  But  if  he  had,  as  proved,  two  separate  DHDD  before  him,  the  book 
of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  that  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  there  must  have  been  two  extracts,  one 
having  been  made  in  each  kingdom,  and  this  no  one  can  or  will  accept.  The  attempt  to  de- 
termine accurately  what  belongs  to  the  larger  work,  what  was  taken  from  the  extract,  and 
what  was  the  author's  own,  is,  to  say  the  least,  very  adventurous,  and  rests  alone  upon  a 
purely  subjective  judgment,  i.  e.,  is  more  or  less  arbitrary.  Why,  for  instance,  should  not 
the  brief  summary  statements  made  in  1  Kings  xv.  about  some  kings,  be  taken  from  the  ex- 
tended authority  cited,  wThich  is  also  quoted  in  every  case,  but  bs  borrowed  from  the  sup- 
posed extract  ?  Why  should  the  sentence  in  1  Kings  xiv.  21,  "  in  the  city  which  the  Lord 
did  choose  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  put  His  name  there,"  not  belong  to  the  authority 
used,  but  have  been  inserted  by  the  author  himself?  Why  should  the  same  be  the  case 
with  chap.  xv.  4,  5  ? 

(c)  The  distinction  between  "  truly  historical  "  and  "traditional  "  component  parts,  each 
of  which  is  said  to  have  its  peculiar  sources,  is  founded  on  the  presupposition  that  every 
account  in  which  a  miracle,  or  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy,  in  fact  anything  out  of  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  history,  is  recorded,  cannot  be  historical,  but  is  "  legendary."  But  those  narra- 
tives are  so  closely  connected  with  such  as  are  admitted  to  be  "  truly  historical,"  that  they  can 
only  be  forcibly  separated  from  the  context  and  laid  to  a  separate  "  traditional "  document- 
ary source.  Why,  for  instance,  should  the  sections  1  Kings  x.  1-13  and  xi.  1-13  not  be  his- 
torical, but  the  first  be  derived  from  a  written  and  the  latter  from  oral  tradition  ?  Why  - 
should  1  Kings  xx.  1-34  belong  to  the  supposed  larger  historical  work,  and  vers.  35  to  43,  on 
the  contrary,  to  the  so-called  prophet-mirror;  in  the  same  way  2  Kings  iii.  4-27  to  the  former, 
and  2  Kings  vi.  24-vii.  20  to  the  latter?  Why  should  everything  in  the  great  section 
2  Kings  xviii.  13-xx.  19  (Isai.  xxxvi.  39)  be  historical,  and  only  the  midway  verses  of  2  Kings 
xix.  35-37  (Isai.  xxxvii.  36-38)  have  been  taken  from  another  and  a  traditional  source  ? 

(d)  There  is  nowhere  the  slightest  trace  in  the  Bible  of  a  particular  book  that  was  used 
as  "  a  prophet-mirror."  If  the  author  cites  one  of  his  three  authorities  in  writing  of  kings  of 
whom  there  was  but  little  to  say  (1  Kings  xvi.  15;  2  Kings  xv.  13),  he  wTould  certainly  not 
have  omitted  to  give  his  authority,  if  he  had  one,  in  the  important  and  deeply-interesting 
history  of  the  great  prophets.  Apart  from  this,  too,  the  supposition  of  such  "  a  book,  com 
piled  for  pupils  of  the  prophets,"  is  contrary  to  the  sense  and  spirit  of  Hebrew  antiquity.  The 
old  prophets  felt  themselves  indeed  called  on  to  record  the  history  of  Jehovah's  people  ;  but 


§  3.     UNITY  AND  INDEPENDENCE.  9 

it  never  entered  their  minds  to  compile  a  book  of  instruction  or  examples  for  their  pupils,  in 
order  to  lead  them  to  "  the  most  implicit  obedience."  Modern  times,  indeed,  require  instruc- 
tion for  the  performance  of  the  spiritual  office,  &c. ;  but  antiquity  had  no  such  books.  If  tha 
three  documentary  sources  were,  as  we  have  proved,  collections  made  from  writings  that  were 
contemporary  with  or  made  soon  after  the  CX'^J  who  lived  during  the  events,  all  the 
sections  that  are  said  to  belong  to  the  supposed  prophet-mirror  might  easily  have  been  drawn 
from  them. 

§3. 

UNITY   AND   INDEPENDENCE. 

If  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament  forms  a  complete  and  independent  whole,  the  books  of 
Kings,  which  afterwards  and  erroneously  were  divided  into  two  books,  are  such,  notwith 
standing  their  character  as  compilations.  This  is  apparent  in  their  beginning  and  conclusion 
which  are  the  limits  of  a  certain  period  of  the  Old  Testament  history.  They  begin  with  the 
reign  of  the  most  glorious  king,  for  whom  the  building  of  the  temple  was  reserved,  and  they 
end  with  the  ruin  of  the  whole  kingdom,  and  the  destruction  of  that  temple.  It  is  plain 
from  1  Kings  vi.  1  that  a  former  period  of  the  history  of  Israel  terminates  with  the  building 
of  the  temple,  and  a  new  one  begins :  "  In  the  four  hundred  and  eightieth  year  after  the 
children  of  Israel  were  come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign 
over  Israel,  in  the  month  Zif,  which  is  the  second  month,  he  began  to  build  the  house 
of  the  Lord."  Why  a  new  period  began  with  the  building  of  the  temple  by  Solomon,  is 
shown  in  the  following  passages:  2  Sam.  vii.  8-1(5;  1  Kings  v.  3,  4 ;  1  Chron.  xvii.  7-12; 
xxii.  8-11.  The  period  from  the  exodus  from  Egypt  to  Solomon  was  the  time  of  wan- 
dering (of  the  "Tabernacle"),  of  war,  and  of  disturbance;  even  David  was  the  "man  of  war." 
With  Solomon,  the  "man  of  quiet  and  peace,"  the  period  of  full  and  quiet  possession  of  the 
promised  land,  and  the  period  marked  by  Jehovah's  "  house,"  began.  With  Solomon,  also, 
the  "house"  of  David,  i.  e.,  David's  dynasty,  to  whom  the  kingdom  was  promised  forever, 
first  really  began  (2  Sam  vii.  13  ;  1  Chron.  xvii.  14).  This  period  continues  then  till  the  ruin 
of  David's  house,  which  is  also  the  ruin  of  Jehovah's  house,  and  with  this  our  books  conclude 
(2  Kings  xxv). 

The  unity  and  independence  of  these  books  is  shown,  not  only  in  their  style,  but  in  their 
contents  also.  Even  De  Wette  confesses  (EM.,  s.  239):  "a  certain  unity  is  manifest  in 
matter,  style,  and  manner  of  exposition,  from  beginning  to  end;  "  and  Thenius  says  (a.  a.  0., 
s.  1) :  "  There  are  remarks  scattered  up  and  down  the  whole  that  are  all  written  in  one 
spirit,  and  are  found  in  no  other  historical  book,  as  in  the  books  of  the  Kings  (cer- 
tainly not  in  the  books  of  Samuel)."  A  peculiar  style  and  method  of  historical  writings 
prevails,  and  such  as  we  find  nowhere  else.  The  time  of  the  beginning  of  each  reign 
and  its  duration  are  first  stated  in  the  history  of  each  king,  then  his  general  character  i9 
given,  next  an  account,  more  or  less  full,  of  his  acts,  after  that  the  date  of  his  death  and 
burial,  and  finally  mention  is  made  of  the  authorities  used.  Some  forms  of  expression  are 
indeed  employed  (in  the  extracts)  which  do  not  belong  to  the  time  of  their  composition,  but 
to  a  later  perioa  (Stahelin,  Krit.  Untersuch,  s.  150  sq.) ;  but  they  only  prove  "that  the  author 
not  only  often  quoted  his  authorities,  but  used  them  with  some  freedom  "  (Thenius). 

The  arbitrary  designation  of  the  books  of  Samuel  as  the  first  and  second  books  of  the 
Kings  by  the  Sept.  and  the  Vulgate  (see  §  1)  may  have  occasioned  the  assertion  of  recent 
critics,  like  Eichhorn  and  Jahn,  that  both  works  are  by  the  same  author,  and  properly  belong 
together.  Ewald  goes  still  farther ;  according  to  him,  the  books  of  Judges,  Ruth,  Samuel, 
and  Kings,  are,  in  their  present  form,  one  connected  whole,  by  one  author,  whom  he  asserts  was 
the  last  of  five  consecutive  elaborators  on  the  existing  authorities.  But  all  that  distinguishes 
our  books  from  the  other  historical  ones  of  the  Old  Testament  so  clearly,  applies  to  tie  books 
of  Samuel  also.  Here  all  the  chronological  data  that  are  so  carefully  repeated  with  each  king, 
in  our  books,  are  completely  wanting,  as  are  also  the  usual  expressions  descriptive  of  char- 


10  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 


acter  and  mission.  The  narrative  is  much  more  minute,  simply  strung  together  without 
always  preserving  chronological  order ;  as,  for  instance,  the  entire  section  2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv, 
which  is  a  sequel  to  David's  history.  The  first  two  chapters  of  our  books  have  been  espe- 
cially adduced,  as  an  unmistakable  continuation  of  2  Sam.  xx.  26,  and  showing  the  same 
author's  style  of  narration.  These  chapters,  however,  are  inseparably  and  closely  connected 
with  the  three  following ;  they  form  the  indispensable  introduction  to  Solomon's  accession, 
and  are,  on  the  other  hand,  separated  from  2  Sam.  xx.  26  by  the  supplement  in  2  Sam.  xxL- 
xxiv.  But  the  similarity  of  the  style  is  easily  explained  by  the  consideration  that  they  were 
all  derived  from  a  common  source  (1  Chron.  xxix.  29).  The  similarity  of  some  narratives  anc 
modes  of  expression  has  also  been  alleged ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  what  likeness  Ewald 
can  find  between  Abiathar's  banishment  (1  Kings  ii.  26)  and  the  rejection  of  Eli's  housa 
(1  Sam.  ii.  35)  ;  between  the  elevation  of  Jehu  to  be  king  (2  Kings  ix.  sq.)  and  that  of  Saul 
(1  Sam.  ix.  sq.).  It  is  just  so  with  1  Kings  iv.  1-6,  and  2  Sam.  viii.  15  to  18 ;  there  the  chief 
officers  of  Solomon  are  given,  and  here  those  of  David  also  ;  but  neither  the  offices  them- 
selves,  their  order,   nor  the   persons,  are  the  same.     Neither  do  the  following  passages: 

1  Kings  ii.  11  comp.  with  2  Sam.  v.  5,  and  1  Kings  ii.  4;  v.  17  to  19;  viii.  18,  25  comp.  with 

2  Sam.  vii.  12-16,  prove  the  identity  of  the  author ;  they  only  show,  what  is  already  clear,  that 
our  author  knew  the  books  of  Samuel,  which  were  written  before  his  time.  Least  of  all  should 
the  phraseology  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  22  and  1  Kings  xiv.  16 ;  xvi.  11 ;  xxi.  21 ;  2  Kings  ix,  8  be 
adduced  as  proof  that  the  author  is  the  same.  It  is  very  natural  "  that  an  Israelite  who 
was  no  doubt  intimately  acquainted  with  the  documents  of  his  people,  should  often  involun- 
tarily use  expressions  from  memory  "  (Thenius). 

§4. 

CREDIBILITY. 

The  question  of  the  credibility  of  these  books  concerns  not  so  much  themselves  as  the 
authorities  from  which  they  were  compiled.  But  as  these  were,  as  §  2  shows,  composed  by 
prophets  who  were  contemporaries  of  the  events  described,  they  are  at  least  as  much  to  be  re 
lied  on  as  the  pretended  annals  written  by  court-historiographers,  and  therefore  accredited. 
The  constant  citation  of  the  original  documents  presupposes  that  they  were  accounted  regular 
historical  authorities,  not  only  by  the  author  himself,  but  also  by  his  readers,  and  the  whole 
people  ;  in  fact,  by  reference  to  them  he  guards  against  every  suspicion  of  relating  fiction  or 
doubtful  facts.  That  he  carefully  and  conscientiously  chose  his  matter,  is  shown  especially 
by  all  those  sections  which  are  parallel  with  others  in  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  or  the  Chronicles, 
though  not  borrowed  from  them,  but  taken  from  the  common  source  now  no  longer  extant. 
The  accuracy  of  the  dates,  which  is  the  basis  of  historical  writing,  is  evidence  of  the  credi- 
bility of  the  narrative.  But  besides  this  there  are  many  precise,  genealogical,  geographical, 
and  statistical  remarks,  as  well  as  numerous  characteristic  traits  of  individuals,  which  could 
not  be  fictitious,  and  bear  the  unmistakable  impress  of  truth.  An  historical  book  would 
scarcely  have  been  placed  in  the  Canon  and  among  the  D'fOSJ,  if  it  had  not  been  universally 
esteemed  as  the  true  history  after  the  original  documents  were  lost. 

While  Eichhorn  (Einl.  §486)  recognized  the  "perfect  credibility"  of  our  books,  recent 
critics  have  only  partially  and  conditionally  admitted  it.  They  assert  that  these  books  con- 
tain "  myths  "  as  well  as  authentic  information  (De  Wette) ;  stories,  therefore,  which  are  only 
the  clothing  of  religious  ideas  and  doctrines,  and  having  no  real  historical  foundation  :  or 
else  they  say  that  whole  sections,  especially  those  relating  to  the  lives  and  deeds  of  the  proph- 
ets, have  a  "  fabulous  character  "  (Thenius) ;  that  they  are  not  without  historical  foundation 
and  substance  indeed,  but  yet  are  more  or  less  colored  and  embellished.  No  books,  however, 
are  more  free  than  these,  from  myths.  They  do  not  deal  with  a  prehistoric  time,  but  with  a  com- 
paratively late  historical  period,  and  their  design  is  to  give  history,  and  nothing  but  history, 
not  religious  ideas  or  doctrines  in  the  dress  of  fictitious  history.  The  history  they  relate  is 
indeed,  in  its  nature  as  a  part  of  the  history  of  God's  people,  of  a  religious  kind,  but  is  not  on 


§  5.     OBJECT  AND  CHARACTER.  11 

that  account  fiction,  but  is  history  in  the  truest  and  fullest  sense  of  the  word.  The  idea  of 
mythical  ingredients  has  very  rightly  been  abandoned  of  late,  but  a  fabulous  character  haa 
been  the  more  insisted  on.  Proceeding  from  negative- dogmatic  presuppositions,  they  endeavoi 
to  prove,  as  already  remarked  above,  §  2,  that  every  miracle  and  every  prophecy  belongs  to 
the  province  of  fable.  But  miracles  form  (comp.  for  instance  1  Kings  xviii.)  the  very  central 
point  of  this  history,  which  is  indisputably  true  in  all  other  respects,  and  admitted  to  be 
such ;  they  must  therefore  fall  or  stand  along  with  it.  In  fact,  what  is  stated  to  be  fabulous 
in  these  books  is  so  interwoven  with  what  is  admitted  as  historical,  that  they  can  only  be 
arbitrarily  separated ;  and  every  attempt  to  decide  where  history  ceases  and  fable  begins, 
appears  arbitrary  and  vain.  To  set  forth  the  miraculous  in  the  history  of  the  old  covenant 
as  unhistorieal,  is  to  deny  that  there  was  a  divine  revelation  in  it;  it  is  rooted  in  the  election 
of  Israel,  from  among  all  people  of  the  earth,  to  be  a  peculiar  people  (Ex.  six.  3-6),  i.  e.,  the 
guardians  of  the  knowledge  of  the  one  God  and  His  revelations.  This  election  is,  as  Mar- 
tensen  aptly  terms  it  (Dogmatic,  s.  363),  the  "  fundamental  miracle  which  no  criticism  can 
explain  away,"  because  it  is  a  world-historical  fact.  The  prophets  stood  alone  in  Israel,  as 
Israel  did  among  all  nations  of  the  earth ;  all  their  great  and  extraordinary  deeds  and  announce- 
ments were  inseparably  connected  with  their  peculiar  vocation.  They  themselves  were  a 
greater  miracle  than  all  the  miracles  they  performed,  as  Christ  was  himself  the  greatest  mira- 
cle, and  all  his  wonderful  deeds  were  rooted  in  the  miracle  of  His  own  person  and  mission. 
Neither  were  the  deeds  of  the  prophets  mere  wonderful  sights  caused  by  divine  power,  but 
"  signs  "  (nix),  that  pointed  to  higher  things,  and  real  evidences  of  the  mi  of  Jehovah, 
working  through  the  prophets.  That  which  has  been  adduced  against  passages  in  our  books, 
which  do  not  harmonize  with,  or  which  are  in  direct  contradiction  with,  each  other,  and  tell 
against  its  complete  credibility,  does  not  amount  to  much.  We  refer,  also,  in  this  respect,  to 
the  commentary  upon  the  passages  in  question. 

§5. 

OBJECT  AND  CHARACTER. 

As  the  book  was  written  during  the  second  half  of  the  captivity,  and  the  prophetic 
writer  himself  was  living  among  the  exiles  (§  1),  it  is  plain  that  the  work  must  bear  the 
stamp  of  such  extraordinary  times  and  especially  refer  to  them.  It  was  not  the  author's 
object  to  write  a  historical  work  that  should  enrich  the  Hebrew  literature ;  but  he  had  rather  a 
peculiar  object  in  view,  and  one  that  bore  upon  the  times  he  lived  in.  No  time  was  so  fitting 
as  that  of  the  captivity,  to  hold  before  the  captive  and  deeply-humbled  people  the  mirror  of 
their  history  from  the  most  prosperous  period  of  the  kingdom  under  Solomon  to  its  fall. 
Such  a  history  would  necessarily  show  them  the  ways  by  which  their  God  led  them,  as  well 
as  their  great  guilt  and  their  fall ;  and  also  convince  them  that  the  only  way  to  deliverance  and 
freedom,  was  that  sincere  penitence  and  conversion  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  firm  adherence 
to  the  broken  covenant  and  the  promises  therewith  connected.  It  was  the  object  of  the  author 
to  awaken  and  strengthen  this  conviction.  Now  the  three  prophetico-historical  collections 
that  he  used,  were  accessible  also  to  others,  otherwise  he  could  not  have  referred  his  readers  to 
them  so  constantly.  But  it  seems,  from  the  formula  with  which  he  does  so,  that  they  were 
very  minute  and  voluminous,  which  must  have  made  their  general  circulation  in  the  time  of 
the  captivity  very  difficult,  or  almost  impossible.  Hence  the  author  undertook  to  make 
extracts  from  them,  choosing  those  events  that  served  the  object  he  had  in  view.  It  is  very 
clear  that  such  an  historical  work  was  much  needed  at  that  particular  time. 

The  style  of  the  history  exactly  corresponds  with  the  design.  The  work  is  anything  but  a 
Btring  of  historical  facts  without  any  plan;  on  the  contrary,  the  author  proceeds  from  a  fixed 
principle,  to  which  he  adheres  to  the  end,  through  the  choice  as  well  as  arrangement  of  the 
historical  matter,  and  so  firmly,  that  his  work  bears  the  character  of  a  pragmatic  historical  com- 
position more  than  any  other  historical  book  of  Scripture.  This  principle  is  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  entire  old  covenant — the  election  of  Israel  from  all  nations  to  be  a  peculiar  people 


12  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 

(Ex.  six.  3-6) ;  the  fundamental  law  of  this  election,  i.  e.,  the  covenant,  declares :  "  I  am  the  Lord 
thy  God  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  (i.  e.,  made  thee  an  independent 
people).  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  nor  any  likeness  of  anything  that 
is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth. 
Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them,  for  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jeal- 
ous God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generation  of  them  that  hate  me ;  and  showing  mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me 
and  keep  my  commandments  "  (Ex.  xx.  2-6).  This  supreme  commandment  of  the  covenant 
lies  at  the  root  of  the  author's  historical  view  and  representation.  According  as  the  historical 
facts  are  directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  it,  he  relates  them  more  or  less  in  detail ;  what 
is  utterly  disconnected  with  it  he  passes  over  entirely.  To  him  idolatry  and  image-worship  are 
the  sin  of  all  sins,  because  they  destroyed  what  alone  made  Israel  a  peculiar  and  independent 
people,  chosen  from  among  all  nations,  and  also  destroyed  its  world-historical  destiny.  All 
evil,  even  the  ruin  of  the  entire  kingdom,  was  the  natural  consequence  of  contempt  and  trans- 
gression of  that  chief  and  fundamental  law,  as,  inversely,  all  good  and  every  blessing  followed 
adherence  to  the  same.  The  author  himself  alludes  to  this  fundamental  idea  in  the  long 
reflections  which  he  makes  after  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom,  2  Kings  xvii.  7  sq.,  and  it  appears 
here  and  there  throughout  the  whole  work.  David  is  a  pattern  for  all  the  kings  of  God's 
people,  not  because  he  was  morally  free  from  blame,  but  because  he  held  to  this  fundamental 
law  in  every  situation,  and  never  departed  from  it  one  iota ;  the  promise  was  therefore  given 
him :  "  Thine  house  and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  established  forever  before  thee ;  thy  throne 
shall  be  established  forever  "  (2  Sam.  vii.  16 ;  comp.  1  Kings  viii.  25 ;  ix.  5 ;  xi.  36,  39 ;  2 
Kings  viii.  19).  This  is  the  reason  also  that  he  is  so  often  alluded  to  in  the  words  :  "  as  his 
father  David,"  or  "  he  walked  in  the  ways  of  his  father  David  "  (1  Kings  iii.  3, 14 ;  ix.  4 ;  xi. 
1,  6,  33,  38 ;  xi  v.  8 ;  xv.  5,  11 ;  2  Kings  xiv.  3  ;  xvi.  2 ;  xviii.  3  ;  xxii.  2),  or  :  "  for  David  thy 
lather's  sake"  (1  Kings  xi.  12,  13,  32,  34;  xv.  3  ;  2  Kings  viii.  19;  xix.  34  ;  xx.  6).  David, 
when  dying,  exhorts  his  successor  with  the  most  impressive  words,  above  all,  to  hold  fast  to 
the  fundamental  law  (1  Kings  ii.  3  sq.).  But  when  Solomon  permitted  idolatrous  worship  in 
the  latter  part  of  his  reign,  the  kingdom  was  rent  from  him,  "  because  he  had  not  kept  Jeho- 
vah's covenant"  (1  Kings  xi.  9-13).  Disregard  of  the  covenant  was  the  cause  of  the  partition 
of  the  kingdom,  and,  in  so  far,  the  germ  of  its  destruction.  From  the  time  of  the  partition, 
the  account  of  every  single  king  of  Judah  and  of  Israel  begins  with  the  general  character- 
istic :  "  He  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  "  (1  Kings  xv.  11 ;  xxii.  43 ;  2 
Kings  xii  3;  xiv.  3;  xv.  3,  34;  xviii.  3;  xxii.  2),  or:  "He  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord  "  (1  Kings  xv.  26,  34 ;  xvi.  19,  25,  30 ;  xxii.  53 ;  2  Kings  iii.  2  ;  viii.  18, 
27  ;  xiii.  2,  11 ;  xiv.  24 ;  xv.  9,  18,  24,  28  ;  xvi.  2 ;  xvii.  2 ;  xxi.  2,  20 ;  xxiii.  32,  37 ;  xxiv. 
9,  19).  This  does  not  say  whether  a  king  lived  morally  and  virtuously,  but  whether  he  kept 
the  covenant  and  first  fundamental  commandment  faithfully  ;  that  was  the  chief  thing,  and 
determined  the  character  of  his  whole  reign.  The  author  applies  this  unfailing  test  to  the 
conduct  of  all  the  kings,  as  well  as  of  the  whole  people  (1  Kings  xiv.  22 ;  2  Kings  xvii.  7, 
19).  But  there  is  something  more.  That  the  kingdom  should  always  remember  its  duty,  not 
to  swerve  to  the  right  or  left  from  the  fundamental  law  (Deut.  xvii.  19,  20),  the  prophetic  insti- 
tution came  into  being,  the  mission  of  which  was  to  watch  over  the  keeping  of  the  covenant, 
to  warn  against  all  manner  of  apostasy,  and  whensoever  it  appeared,  to  exhort,  to  threaten, 
and  promise.  The  history  of  the  activity  of  the  prophets  is  therefore  intimately  connected 
with  that  of  the  kings,  and  is,  in  fact,  a  part  which  serves  to  complete  the  same.  The  author 
could  not  then  avoid  bringing  the  history  of  the  most  influential  prophets  into  his  history 
of  the  kings  ;  had  he  not  done  so  he  would  have  been  guilty  of  a  great  omission.  And  when 
he,  though  himself  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  principally  describes,  after  the  captivity,  the  history 
of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  the  reason  is  no  doubt  this:  that  tha  kingdom,  from  the  beginning 
of  its  existence,  had  completely  broken  the  chief  covenant-commandment,  and  persisted  in  sc 
doing ;  and  therefore  that  the  contest  for  it  and  for  theocracy  generally  was  carried  on  by  the 
prophets  principally,  until  the  entire  people  of  the  ten  tribes  was  undone  forever 


§  G.     REVIEW  OF  CONTENTS  13 

After  all,  it  remains  unquestionably  certain  that  these  books  bear  throughout  a  specific 
Israelitish-religious  character,  or,  as  it  is  generally  termed,  a  theocratic  character.  This  does 
not  imply  that  this  is  owing  only  to  the  author's  views  and  style  ;  it  lies  rather  in  the  nature 
of  the  history  itself.  Oehler  very  truly  says  (in  Herzog's  Real-Enc.  xvii.  s.  247) :  "  The  idea  of  the 
people  of  God  is,  in  its  very  nature,  supernatural,  this  view  alone  gives  the  key  to  the  Israel- 
itish  history  which,  if  not  regarded  in  the  light  of  divine  election  and  guidance,  as  it  demands, 
remains  a  riddle,  a  '  dark  riddle '  (comp.  what  Rosenkranz  says  in  Hegel's  Life,  s.  49,  about 
the  latter's  view  of  the  Jewish  history  :  '  it  revolted  him,  and  yet  fascinated  him,  tormenting 
him  all  his  life  like  a  dark  enigma')."  Later  historical  writers  have  (many  of  them)  made  it 
their  business  to  take  the  so-called  purely  historical  point  of  view  in  the  history  of  the  kings 
of  Israel :  that  is,  to  ignore  all  special  providence  in  it,  or  rather  to  regard  it  as  the  religious 
coloring  of  the  author's  mind,  and  to  set  it  forth,  like  that  of  every  other  ancient  nation,  in  a 
purely  secular  light.  They  trace  the  fundamental  idea  of  divine  election  sometimes  to  ego- 
ism, sometimes  to  the  accidentally  monotheistic  character  of  the  writer,  or  to  the  religious 
genius  of  the  Semitic  race,  and  reduce  all  special  divine  influence  to  priest-rule  and  priest- 
craft. What  the  history  represents  as  great  and  well-pleasing  to  God,  is  insignificant  and 
blameworthy,  and  what  it  views  as  sinful  and  perverse,  is  delineated  as  humanly  great  and 
noble:  in  fact,  this  history  is  looked  at  through  the  glass  of  modern  political  ideas.  Their 
writings  take  no  account  whatsoever  of  a  "  divine  economy,"  but  rather  turn  it  more  or  less  into 
a  thorough  caricature.  We  shall  give  some  examples  of  this  in  explanations  of  particular  pas- 
sages and  sections.  There  are  no  historical  sources  regarding  the  Israelitish  monarchy  except 
those  of  the  Bible ;  we  cannot,  therefore,  compare  the  facts  narrated,  with  the  statements  of 
any  other  author,  who  might  take  a  different  point  of  view  from  our  author.  To  correct  the 
only  extant  historical  source,  and  to  change  the  facts  therein  given  into  totally  different  ones, 
according  to  private  judgment  and  pleasure,  is  not  to  write  but  to  make  history.  He  who  can- 
not accept  the  principle  on  which  this  history  of  the  kings  is  written,  or  rejects  it  beforehand 
as  erroneous,  can  no  more  write  such  a  history  than  the  most  learned  Chinaman  could  write 
that  of  Germany  ;  he  should,  consequently,  leave  it  alone. 

§6. 

EEVIEW   OF   CONTENTS. 

The  history  of  the  Israelitish  monarchy,  from  its  highest  splendor  on  to  its  destruction,  as 
it  forms  the  contents  of  our  books,  has  three  periods.  The  first  embraces  the  time  of  the  undi- 
vided kingdom  under  Solomon;  the  second,  which  is  distributed  into  three  epochs,  embraces 
the  time  of  the  divided  kingdom  down  to  the  fall  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel ;  the  third  embraces 
the  time  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  down  to  the  Babylonish  captivity. 

FIRST    PERIOD. 
THE   KINGDOM   UNDER   SOLOMON. 

First  Section. — Solomon's  elevation  to  the  throne. 

A.  Adonijah's  effort  to  obtain  possession  of  the  kingdom:  Solomon's  ascension  to  the 

throne  (I.,  i.). 

B.  David's  last  words  and  death  (I.,  ii.  1-12). 

C.  Solomon's  dealings  with  his  opponents  (I.,  ii.  13^46). 
Second  Section. — The  beginning  of  Solomon's  reign. 

A.  His  marriage ;  solemn  sacrifice  and  vision ;  first  judicial  decision  (I.,  iii.  1-28). 

B.  His  officers  and  court-establishment;  his  high  spiritual  culture,  I.,  iv.  1-34). 

Third  Section. — Solomon's  buildings. 

A.  Solomon's  negotiations  with  Hiram  about  the  building  of  the  temple  (I.,  vi  !5  32) 

B.  The  building  of  the  temple  (I.,  vi). 


14  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 

C.  The  building  of  the  palace,  and  the  manufacture  of  the  vessels,  &c,  of  the  temple 

(L,  vii.). 

D.  The  dedication  of  the  temple  (I.,  viii). 

E.  Sundry  statements  referring  to  Solomon's  buildings  and  ships  (L,  is.). 
Fourth  Section. — Solomon's  glory  and  magnificence. 

A.  The  visit  of  the  queen  of  Sheba  (I.,  x.  1-13). 

B.  The  wealth,  splendor,  and  power  of  Solomon's  kingdom  (I.,  x.  14-29). 
Fifth  Section. — Solomon's  fall  and  end. 

A.  Unfaithfulness  towards  Jehovah  and  its  punishment  (L,  xi.  1-18). 

B.  Solomon's  adversaries  and  his  death  (I.,  xi.  14-43). 

SECOND    PERIOD. 

THE  KINGDOM  DIVIDED   INTO  JUDAH  AND   ISRAEL. 

FIRST  EPOCH. 

Of  the  division  of  the  kingdom  down  to  the  reign  of  Ahab. 

First  Section. — The  disruption  of  the  kingdom. 

A.  The  renunciation  of  the  house  of  David  by  the  ten  tribes  (I.,  xii.  1-24). 

B.  The  founding  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  by  Jeroboam  (I.,  xii.  25-33). 
Second  Section. — Jeroboam's  reign  in  Israel. 

A.  Warning  to  Jeroboam  by  a  prophet,  and  the  disobedience  and  end  of  the  latter  (L 

xiii.  1-32). 

B.  The  prophecy  of  Abijah  against  the  house  and  kingdom  of  Jeroboam ;  the  death  of 

the  latter  (I.,  xiv.  1-20). 
Third  Section. — The  kingdom  in  Judah  under  Rehoboam,  Abijam,  and  Asa. 

A  Rehoboam's  reign  (I.,  xiv.  21-31). 

B.  Abijam's  and  Asa's  reign  (I.,  xv.  1-24). 
Fourth  Section. — The  kingdom  in  brael  under  Nadab  and  Ahab. 

A  Nadab's  and  Baasha's  reign  (I.,  xv.  25  to  xvi.  7). 

B.  Ela's,  Zimri's,  and  Ahab's  reign  (I.,  xvi.  8-24). 

SECOND  EPOCH. 

From  Ahab  to  Jehu. 

First  Section. — The  prophet  Elijah  during  Ahab's  reign. 

A  Elijah  before  Ahab  at  the  brook  Cherith  and  at  Zarephath  (I.,  xvii.). 

B.  Elijah  upon  Mount  Carmel  (I.,  xviii.). 

C.  Elijah  in  the  wilderness  and  upon  Horeb;  his  successor  (I.,  xix.). 
Second  Section. — The  acts  of  Ahab. 

A.  Ahab's  victory  over  the  Syrians  (L,  xx.). 

B.  Ahab's  procedure  against  Naboth  (I.,  xxi.). 

C.  Ahab's  expedition,  undertaken  along  with  Jehoshaphat,  against  the  Syrians,  and  hie 

death  (I.,  xxi.  1^0). 

Third  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Jehoshaphat  in  Judah,  and  under  Ahaziah  and  Joram 
in  Israel. 
A  Jehoshaphat's  and  Ahaziah's  reign  (I.,  xxii.  41-11.  1). 

B.  Elijah's  departure  and  Elisha's  first  appearance  (II.,  ii.). 

C.  Joram's  reign  and  his  expedition  against  the  Moabites  (II.,  iiL). 
Fourth  Section. — Elisha's  prophetic  acts. 

A.  Elisha  with  the  widow  in  debt,  with  the  Shunammite,  and  with  the  "  sons  of  the 
prophets  "  during  the  dearth  (II.,  iv.). 


§  1.     LITERATURE.  16 


B.  The  healing  of  Naaman,  Gehazi's  punishment,  and  the  recovery  of  a  lost  axe  (TJ., 

v.-vi.  7). 

C.  Elisha  during  the  Syrian  invasion,  and  at  the  siege  of  Samaria  (II.,  vi.  8-vii.). 

D.  Elisha's  authority  with  the  king,  and  his  sojourn  in  Damascus  (H.,  viii.  1-15). 
Fifth  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Jehoram  and  Ahaziah  in  Judah,  and  Jehu's  elevation 

to  be  king  of  Israel. 

A.  Jehoram's  and  Ahaziah's  reign  in  Judah  (II.,  viii.  16-29). 

B.  Jehu's  elevation  to  be  king  in  Israel  (LI.,  ix.). 

THIRD   EPOCH. 

From  Jehu  to  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 

First  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Jehu  in  Israel,  and  under  Athaliah  and  Jehoash  it 
Judah. 

A.  Jehu's  reign  (II.,  x.). 

B.  The  reign  of  queen  Athaliah  and  its  overthrow  (II.,  xi.). 

C.  The  reign  of  Jehoash  (II.,  xii.). 

Second  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Jehoahaz,  Jehoash,  and  Jeroboam  II.  in  Israel,  and 
under  Amaziah  in  Judah. 

A.  The  reign  of  the  kings  Jehoahaz  and  Joash  (II.,  xiii.). 

B.  The  reign  of  Amaziah  in  Judah,  and  of  Jeroboam  II.  in  Israel  (II.,  xiv.). 

Third  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Azariah  (Uzziah)  and  Jotham  in  Judah,  and  under 
Zachariah  and  Hosea  in  Israel. 

A.  The  reign  of  the  kings  Azariah  and  Jotham  in  Judah,  and  of  the  kings  Zachariah, 

Shallum,  Menahem,  Pekahiah,  and  Pekah  in  Israel  (II.,  xv.). 

B.  The  reign  of  Ahaz  in  Judah  (II.,  xvi.). 

C.  The  fall  of  the  kingdom  Israel  under  Hosea  (TJ.,  xvii.). 

THIRD    PERIOD. 
THE   KINGDOM  IN  JUDAH  AFTER  THE  DESTRUCTION  OP  THE   KINGDOM   ISRAEL. 

First  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Hezekiah. 

A.  Hezekiah's  reign :  oppression  by  Sennacherib  and  deliverance  from  it  (II.,  xviii.,  xix.). 

B.  Hezekiah's  sickness  and  recovery :  his  reception  of  the  Babylonish  embassy,  and  hii 

end  (H.,  xx.). 
Second  Section. — The  kingdom  under  Manasseh,  Anion,  and  Josiah. 

A.  The  reign  of  Manasseh  and  of  Amon  (n.,  xxi.). 

B.  The  reign  of  Josiah,  the  discovery  of  the  book  of  the  law,  and  restoration  of  the 

prescribed  worship  of  God  (H.,  xxii.  23-30). 
Third  Section. 

A.  The  reign  of  the  kings  Jehoahaz,  Jehoiakim,  Jehoiachin,  and  Zedekiah  (H.,  xxiii. 

31-xxv.  7). 

B.  The  fall  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah :  release  of  Jehoiachin  from  prison  (H.,  xxv.  8  -30). 

§7. 

LITERATURE. 

Passing  over  commentaries  and  expositions  extending  over  the  entire  Old  Testament  (for 
•  list,  see  De  Wette,  Introduction  to  the  O.  Test,  and  the  Biblewerk),  we  confine  ourselves  to 
notices  of  those  works  which  concern  themselves  especially  with  our  books.  On  the  whole, 
the  literature  in  question  is  not  so  extensive  as  that  of  many  other  and  less  weighty  books,  as 
e.  g.,  The  Song  of  Solomon.  For  a  number  of  centuries  no  work  could  be  adduced  which 
was  specially  devoted  to  0'ir  books. 


16  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  KINGS. 

I.  Exegetical  treatises.  Ephraeni  Syr.  (t  378) :  Explanatio  in  I.  et  II.  regnorum  {Opp.  omr 
Roinoe  1737.  Tom.  I). — Theodoreti  (t  457) :  Qucestiones  in  libros  III.  et  IV.  regnorum  {Opp.  omn 
ed.  Noesselt.  Haloe  17G9.  Tom.  I). — J.  Bugenhagen :  annotationes  in  libr.  Reg.  Basil.  1525.  • 
Seb.  Leonhard  :  biro/ivf/fiara  in  libr.  Reg.  Erfurd  1G06. — Piscator :  Comment,  in  duos  libr. 
Regum.  Herborn  1611. — Seb.  Schmidt :  in  libr.  Regum  annotationes.  Argentor  1697. — A, 
condensed  collection  of  expositions  up  to  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  may  be  found 
in  Poole's  (t  1679)  Synopsis  Critieorum  aliorumque  scripdura,  sacrce  interpretum  et  commenta- 
torum.  Francof.  ad.  M.  1694. — K.  Fr.  Keil:  Commcntar  iiber  die  Biicher  der  Kbnige.  Moskau 
1846. — O.  Theuius:  Die  Biicher  der  Kbnige.  Leipzig  1849  (9.  LieJ 'erung  des  Kurzgcfassten  Exeget. 
Handbuchs  turn  A.  T.). — K.  Fr.  Keil :  Biblischer  Commentar  uber  die  proplietisclien  Geschichts- 
bueher  des  A.  T.  Dritter  Band  ;  die  Biicher  der  Kbnige.  Leipzig  1864. — Einleitung  in  die  Biicher 
der  Kbnige.  Leipzig,  Halle  1861  (translation  with  remarks  thrown  in  by  Adolf  v.  Schlusser). 

H.  Historical  treatises.  J.  J.  Hess:  Oeschichte  David's  und  Salomons,  und:  Geschichte  der 
Kbnige  Judo's  und  Israel's  nach  der  Trennung  des  Reichs.  2  B'dnde,  Zurich  1787. — Niemeyer: 
Charakteristik  der  Bibel,  4  ter  u.  5  ter  Theil,  5  Aufl.  Halle  1795. — Leo :  Vorlesungen  iiber  die 
jiidische  Geschichte  1825  (withdrawn  by  the  author.). — Bertheau  :  Zur  Geschichte  der  Isracliten, 
Gottingen  1842. — Menzel :  Staats-und  Religionsgeschichte  der  Kbnigreiche  Israel  und  Juda.  Ber- 
lin 1853. — Ewald  :  Geschichte  David's  und  der  Kbnighcrrschaft  in  Israel.  2  Ausg.,  Gottingen 
(the  third  volume  of  the  history  of  the  people  Israel  to  the  time  of  Christ). — Eisenlohr :  Das 
Yolk  Israel  unter  der  Herrschqft  der  Kbnige.  2  Theil.,  Leipzig  1856. — Schlier:  Die  Kbnige  in 
Israel.  Ein  Handbiichlein  zur  heiligen  Geschichte,  Stuttgart  1859. — M.  Duncker:  Geschichte  des 
Alterthums.  Erster  Band.  2  Aufl.,  Berlin  1855. — Hasse:  Geschichte  des  Alten  Bundes,  Leipzig 
1863. — Weber:  Das  Volk  Israel  in  der  alttestamentlichen  Zeit,~Le\ipzig  1867. — To  these  must  be 
added  special  articles  in  Winer:  Bibliscltes  Realwbrterbuch,  3  Aufl.,  Leipzig  1847,  and  inHerzog: 
Real-Encyclopadie,  Gotha  1854-1864.  Conip.  particularly  the  article  in  vol.  xvii.  pp.  245-305: 
"  the  people  of  God,"  by  Oehler. 

HI.  Homiletic  treatises.  Only  upon  the  history  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha  are  there 
sermons  and  devotional  dissertations,  which  are  cited  below  in  the  appropriate  place.  Not- 
withstanding the  rich  material  of  our  books  in  ancient  as  well  as  in  recent  times,  there  are 
fewer  homiletical  treatises,  whether  of  the  whole  or  only  of  particular  sections,  than  upon  any 
other  books  of  the  Bible.  We  must  rest  content  here  with  referring  to  the  works  which  em- 
brace the  entire  Bible,  and  have  interpreted  it  more  or  less  practically  and  devotionally. 
Cramer:  Summarien  und  biblische  Auslegung,  1627,  2  Aufl.,  Wolfcnbuttel  1681,  Fol. — L.  Osian- 
der :  Deutsche  Bibel  Luthers  mit  einer  kurzen,  jedoch  griindlichen  Erklarung,  herausgegeben  von 
D.  Forster,  Stuttgart  1600,  Fol. — Wiirtembergische  Summarien  und  Auslegungen  der  ganzen 
Heil.  Schrift.  Das  Alte  Testament,  zuerst  bearbeitet  -eon  J.  K.  Zeller,  Stuttgart  1677  ;  afterwards 
"  diligently  revised  and  enriched  with  many  useful  remarks  by  the  theological  faculty  of  the 
University  of  Tubingen,  Leipzig  1709.  4.  (The  new  "  Summarien  oder  Grundliche  Auslegung 
der  Schriften  des  A.  T.  ii.  Band,"  by  Finkh,  Stuttgart  1801-4,  are  far  inferior  to  the  older). — 
Berlenburger  Bibel,  anderer  Theil,  1728,  Fol. — A.  Kyburz :  Historien-Bet-und  Bilderbibel,  2ter 
Theil,  Augsburg  1739.  8. — Joachim  Lange:  Biblisch  Historisches  Licht  und  Recht,  d.  i.  richtigt 
und  erbauliche  Erklarung  der  sdmmtlichm  historischen  Biicher  des  A.  T.,  Halle  u.  Leipzig  1734, 
Fol.  —  Chr.  M.  Pfafl* :  Biblia,  b.  i.die  game  lleilige  Schrift  mit  Summarien  ■und  Anmerk.,  Tubing. 
Fol.  (8  Ausg.  Speyer  1767). — Starke:  Synopsis  Bibliotheca;  exeget.  in  V.  T.,  zweiter  Theil,  anden 
verbesserte  Auflage,  Leipzig  1745. 4. — G.  F.  Seiler:  Des  grbssern  bibl.  Erbauungsbuches  Alten  Tes- 
taments dritter  Theil,  Erlangen  1791.  4. — Ricbter :  Erkldrte  Hausbibel.  Altes  Testament,  zweiter 
Band,  Barmen  1835.  8. — Lisco :  Das  Alte  Testament  mit  Erkldrungen  u.  s.  w.  Erster  Band,  die 
historischen  Biicher,  Berlin  1844.  8. — O.  Von  Gerlach :  Das  Alte  Testament  mit  Einleitungen  und 
erklarenden  Anmerkungen,  zweiter  Band,  Berlin  1846.  8  (5  Aufl.  1867). — (Calwer)  Ilandbuch 
der  Bibelerkliiruvg  fur  Schule  und  Earn,  Erster  Band,  das  Alte  Testament  enthaltend,  Calw  und 
Stuttgart  1849.  8. 

[The  remarks  of  our  author  respecting  the  small  number  of  commentaries  and  treatises 
upon  the  Books  of  the  Kings  are  truo,  conspicuously  of  English  theological  literature.     What 


§  7.    LITERATURE.  17 


we  have  is  of  the  most  meagre  description.  In  fact,  there  is  nothing  to  be  named ;  we  have 
no  special  exposition  of  our  books  in  the  English  language.  Our  clergy  and  laity,  who  have 
depended  upon  English  authors,  have  been  compelled  to  use  Patrick,  Lowth,  and  Whitby,  or 
Thomas  Scott,  or  D'Oyly  and  Mant,  or  Adam  Clarke,  and  the  rest.  These  works,  as  is  well 
known,  are  utterly  deficient  in  critical  acumen,  and  the  amount  of  information  they  convey  is 
insignificant.  Whatsoever  may  be  the  merits  or  demerits  of  this  work,  it  will  certainly  meet 
a  need  that  has  been  long  felt. 

The  reader  can  moreover  consult  Bp.  Horsley's  "Notes  on  the  Kings,"  and  for  the  histor- 
ical review,  Dean  Stanley's  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  Prof.  F.  W.  Newman's  Hebrew 
Monarchy.  Dean  Prideaux's  work,  embracing  the  period  from  the  declension  of  the  kingdoms 
of  Israel  and  Judah  to  the  time  of  our  Lord,  notwithstanding  its  faulty  construction,  remains 
an  abiding  monument  of  genuine  erudition. 

In  Bishop  Hall's  "  Contemplations  "  the  reader  will  find  much  that  is  valuable,  and  of  great 
spiritual  practical  insight.  It  is  rich  in  homiletical  suggestions,  and  can  be  read  with  profit 
in  connection  with  the  sacred  text.  Many  sermons,  too,  have  been  published,  which  illustrate 
particular  sections  of  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  as,  e.  g.,  on  the  temple  (chap,  vi.),  and  its  conse- 
cration (chap,  viii.),  and  on  the  disobedient  prophet  (chap,  xiii.),  and  on  Elijah  (chap.  xvii.  sq.), 
&c,  some  of  which  will  be  referred  to  under  the  texts  in  their  order. 

For  particular  items:  Dr.  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (Boston,  1860-1863,  enlarged 
by  Hackett  and  Abbott,  in  4  vols.  1870),  or  an  abridgment  by  Mr.  S.  Bamurn,  may  be  used  (sea 
especially  art.  "  Temple,"  by  Ferguson).  For  the  temple  in  respect  of  comparative  architecture, 
&c,  see  K.  O.  Miiller,  Archaeology  of  Ancient  Art,  &c,  translated  by  John  Leitch.  London,  A. 
Fullarton  &  Co.,  1847.  Also,  Solomon's  Temple,  &c,  by  T.  O.  Paine,  a  minister  of  the  New- 
Jerusalem  Church.  Boston,  1861.—  E.  H.j 
2 


FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

FIRST    PERIOD,    (1015    TO    975    B.C.) 

THE  KINGDOM  UNDER  SOLOMON.* 
(Chapters  I. — IL) 


FIRST    SECTION. 
Solomon's  accession  to  the  throne. 

Chap.  L,  IX 

* 


k. — Adonijah's  attempt  to  teize  the  kingdom  for  himtelf;   Solomon,»  elevation  to  the  tkron*. 

Chap.  L  1-63. 

1  Now  king  David  was  old  and  stricken  in  years ; '  and  they  covered  him 

2  with  clothes,"  but  he  gat  no  heat.  Wherefore  his  servants  said  unto  him,  Let 
there  be  sought  for  my  lord  the  king  a  young  virgin  [virgin  damsel]  ;  *  and  let 
her  stand  before  the  king,  and  let  her  cherish  him,  and  let  her  lie  in  thy 4  bosom, 

3  that  my  *  lord  the  king  may  get  heat.  So  they  sought  for  a  fair  damsel  through- 
out all  the  coasts  of  Israel,  and  found  Abishag  a  [the  ']  Shunammite,  and  brought 

4  her  to  the  king.  And  the  damsel  wfts  very  fair,  and  cherished  the  king,  and 
ministered  to  him  :  but  the  king  knew  her  not. 

5  Then  Adonijah  the  son  of  Haggith  exalted  himself,  saying,  I  will  be  king : 
and  he  prepared  him  chariots  and  horsemen,  and  fifty  men  to  run  before  him. 

6  And  his  father  had  not  displeased  him  at  any  time  in  saying,  Why  hast  thou 
done  so  ?  and  he  also  was  a  very  goodly  man  ;  and  his  mother  bare  him  after 

7  Absalom.     And  he  conferred  with  Joab  the  son  of  Zeruiah,  and  with  Abiathar 

8  the  priest :  and  they  following  Adonijah  helped  him.  But  Zadok  the  priest,  and 
Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada,"and  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Shimei,  and  Rei,  and 

9  the  mighty  men  which  belonged  to  David,  were  not  with  Adonijah.  And  Ado- 
nijah slew  sheep  and  oxen  and  fat  cattle  by  the  stone  of  Zoheleth,  which  is  by 
En-rogel  [the  well  of  Rogel],  and  called  all  his  brethren  the  king's  sons,  and  all 

4O  the  men  of  Judah  the  king's  servants:    but  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Benaiah, 
and  the  mighty  men,  and  Solomon  his  brother,  he  called  not. 

11  Wherefore  Nathan  spake  unto  Bath-sheba  the  mother  of  Solomon,  saying, 
Hast  thou  not  heard  that  Adonijah  the  son  of  Haggith  doth  reign,  and  David 

12  our  lord  knoweth  it  not  ?     Now  therefore  come,  let  me,  I  pray  thee,  give  thee 
counsel,  that  thou  mayest  save  thine  own  life,  and  the  life  of  thy  son  Solomon. 

•  [I  am  Indebted  to  my  Wend,  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Conn. 
for  the  accompanying  textual  revision  and  original  grammatical  notes. — E.  H.l 


2C 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


13  Go  and  get  thee  in  unto  king  David,  and  say  unto  him,  Didst  not  thou,  my 
lord,  O  king,  swear  unto  thine  handmaid,  saying,  Assuredly  [That7]  Solomon 
thy  son  shall  reign  after  me,  and  he  shall  sit  upon  my  throne  ?  why  then  doth 

14  Adonijah  reign?  e  Behold,  while  thou  yet  talkest  therewith  the  king,  I  also 
will  come  in  after  thee,  and  confirm  *  thy  words. 

15  And  Bath-sheba  went  in  unto  the  king  into  the  chamber:  and  the  king-  was 

16  very  old;  and  Abishag  the  Shunammite  ministered  unto  the  king.  And  Bath- 
sheba  bowed,  and  did  obeisance  unto    the    king.     And  the  king  said,  What 

17  wouldest  thou  ?  And  she  said  unto  him,  My  lord,  thou  swarest  by  the  Lord  [Je- 
hovah] thy  God  unto  thine  handmaid,  saying,  Assuredly  Solomon  thy  son  shall 

18  reign  after  me,  and  he  shall  sit  upon  my  throne.      Aud  now,  behold,  Adonijah 

19  reigneth  ;  and  now  [thou.10],  my  lord  the  king,  thou  knowest  it  not :  And  he  hath 
,    slain  oxen  and  fat  cattle  and  sheep  in  abundance,  and  hath  called  all  the  sons  of 

the  king,  and  Abiathar  the  priest,  and  Joab  the  captain  of  the  host :  but  Solomon 

20  thy  servant  hath  he  not  called.  And  thou,"  my  lord,  O  king,  the  eyes  of  all  Israel 
are  upon  thee,  that  thou  shouldest  tell  them  who  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  my 

21  lord  the  king  after  him.  Otherwise  [But]  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  my  Vord 
the  king  shall  sleep  with  his  fathers,  that  I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall  be  counted  1J 

22  offenders.    And,  lo,  while  she  yet  talked  with  the  king,  Nathan  the  prophet  also 

23  came  in.  And  they  told  the  king,  saying,  Behold  Nathan  the  prophet  [has 
come].    And  when  he  was  come  in  before  the  king,  he  bowed  himself  before  the 

24  king  with  his  face  to  the  ground.   And  Nathan  said,  My  lord,  O  king,  hast  thou 

25  said,13  Adonijah  shall  reign  after  me,  and  he  shall  sit  upon  my  throne?  For 
he  is  gone  down  this  day,  and  hath  slain  oxen  and  fat  cattle  and  sheep  in 
abundance,  and  hath  called  all  the  king's  sons,  and  the  captains  of  the  host,  and 
Abiathar  the  priest ;  and,  behold,  they  eat  and  drink  before  him,  and  say,  God 

26  save  king  Adonijah  [let  king  Adonijah  live].  But  me,  even  me  thy  servant,  and 
Zadok  the  priest,  and  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  and  thy  servant  Solomon, 

27  hath  he  not  called.  Is  this  thing  done  by  my  lord  the  king,  and  thou  hast  not 
shewed  it  "  unto  thy  servant 15  who  should  sit  on  the  throne  of  my  lord  the  king 
after  him  ? 

28  Then  king  David  answered  and  said,  Call  me  Bath-sheba.     And  she  came 

29  into  the  king's  presence,  and  stood  before  the  king.     And  the  king  sware,  and 

30  said,  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  liveth,  that  hath  redeemed  my  soul  out  of  all  dis- 
tress, even  as  I  sware  unto  thee  by  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel,  saying, 
Assuredly  [That  16J  Solomon  thy  son  shall  reign  after  me,  and  he  shall  sit  upon 

31  my  throne  in  my  stead  ;  even  so  will  I  certainly  "  do  this  day.  Then  Bath-sheba 
bowed  with  her  face  to  the  earth,  and  did  reverence  to  the  king,  and  said,  Let 
my  lord  king  David  live  for  ever. 

32  And  king  David  said,  Call  me  Zadok  the  priest,  aud  Nathan  the  prophet, 

33  and  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada.  And  they  came  before  the  king.  The  king 
also  said  unto  them,  Take  with  you  the  servants  of  your  lord,18  and  cause  Solo- 

34  mon  my  son  to  ride  upon  mine  own  mule,  and  bring  him  down  to  Gihon ;  "  And 
let  Zadok  the  priest  and  Nathan  the  prophet  anoint  him  there  king  over  Israel : 
and  blow  ye  with  the  trumpet,  and  say,  God  save  king  Solomon  [let  king  Solo- 

35  mon  live].  Then  ye  shall  come  up  after  him,  that  lie  may  [and  lie  shall]  come 
and  sit  upon  my  throne;  for  [and]  he  shall  be  king  in  my  stead:  and  I  have 

30  appointed  him  to  be  ruler  over  Israel  and  over  Judah.  And  Benaiah  the  son  of 
Jehoiada  answered  the  king,  and  said,  Amen :    the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  my 

37  lord  the  king  say  so  too  [so  spake'0].  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  hath  been  with 
my  lord  the  king,  even  so  be  he  with  Solomon,  and  make  his  throne  greater 
than  the  throne  of  my  lord  king  David. 

38  So  Zadok  the  priest,  and  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Benaiah  the  son  of 
Jehoiada,  aud  the  Cherethites,  and  the  Pelethites,  went  down,  and  caused  Solo- 

39  mon  to  ride  upon  king  David's  mule,  and  brought  him  to  Gihon.'1  And  Zadok 
the  priest  took  a  horn  of  oil  out  of  the  tabernacle,  and  anointed  Solomon. 
And  they  blew  the  trumpet;  and  all  the  people  said,  God  save  king  Solomon 

40  [Let  king  Solomon  live].     And  all  the  people  came  up  after  him,  and  the  people 


CHAPTER  I.   1-53.  21 


piped  with  pipes,  and  rejoiced  with  great  joy,  so  that  the  earth  rent  with  the 
sound  of  them. 

41  And  Adonijah  and  all  the  guests  that  were  with  him  heard  it,  as  they  had 
made  an  end   of  eating.     And  when  Joab  heard  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  he 

42  said,  Wherefore  is  this  noise  of  the  city  being  in  an  uproar  ?  And  while  he 
yet  spake,  behold,  Jonathan  the  son  of  Abiathar  the  priest  came :  and  Adonijah 
said  unto  him,"  Come  in  ;  for  thou  art  a  valiant  man,  and  bringest  good  tid- 

43  ings.      And  Jonathan  answered  and  said  to  Adonijah,  Verily  our  lord  king 

44  David  hath  made  Solomon  king.  And  the  king  hath  sent  with  him  Zadok 
the  priest,  and  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  and  the 
Cherethites,  and  the  Pelethites,  and  they  have  caused  him  to  ride  upon  the 

45  king's  mule:  and  Zadok  the  priest  and  Nathan  the  prophet  have  anointed  him 
king  in  Gihon : "  and  they  are  come  up  from  thence  rejoicing,  so  that  the  city 

46  rang  again.    This  is  the  noise  that  ye  have  heard.    And  also  Solomon  sitteth  on 

47  the  throne  of  the  kingdom.  And  moreover  the  king's  servants  came  to  bless  oui 
lord  king  David,  saying,  [Thy  "]  God  make  the  name  of  Solomon  better  than  thy 
name,  and  make  his  throne  greater  than  thy  throne.    And  the  king  bowed  himself 

48  upon  the  bed.  And  also  thus  said  the  king,  Blessed  be  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of 
Israel,  which  hath  given  one  to  sit  on  my  throne  this  day,  mine  eyes  even  seeing  it. 

49  And  all  the  guests  that  were  with  Adonijah  were  afraid,  and  rose  up,"  and 

50  went  every  man  his  way.     And  Adonijah  feared  because  of  Solomon,  and  arose, 

51  and  went,  and  caught  hold  on  the  horns  of  the  altar.  And  it  was  told  Solomon, 
saying,  Behold,  Adonijah  feareth  king  Solomon  :  for,  lo,  he  hath  caught  hold  on 
the  horns  of  the  altar,  saying,  Let  king20  Solomon  swear  unto  me  to  [this2']  day 

5'2  that  he  will  not  slay  his  servant  with  the  sword.  And  Solomon  said,  If  he  will 
shew  himself  a  worthy  man,  there  shall  not  a  hair  of  him  fall  to  the  earth  :   but 

53  if  wickedness  shall  be  found  in  him,  he  shall  die.  So  king  Solomon  sent,  and 
they  brought  him  down  from  the  altar.  And  he  came  and  bowed  himself  to  king 
Solomon :  and  Solomon  said  unto  him,  Go  to  thine  house. 

TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1.— [D'p52  X3  always  connected  with  JpT  (Gen.  xviii.  11 ;  xxiv.  1;  Josh.  xiii.  1  bis.  xxiii.  1,  2)  exactly  corre- 
sponds to  the  phrase  in  A.  V. 

2  Ver.  1.— [DHJ3  bed-clothes  (cf.  1  Sam.  xix.  18),  not  garments. 

*  Ver.  2.— [The  translation  of  oHVJ  in  vers.  8  and  4  may  well  stand  here  also. 

*  Ver.  2.— In  place  of  the  suffix  v|  the  Sept.  has  avrov  and  the  Vulg.  suo,  which  Thenius  prefers  to  the  reading  ot 
the  text. — Bahr. 

6  Ver.  2.— [The  Alex.  Sept..  Syr.,  and  Vulg.,  read  our. 

*  Ver.  3.— [The  definite  article  should  be  expressed  as  in  ver.  15. 

>  Ver.  13.— [The  particle  '3 ,  as  is  recognized  in  all  the  V  V.,  can  hardly  give  the  emphasis  of  the  Eng.  assuredly. 

>  Ver.  14.— [Many  MSS.  and  VV.  prefix  and. 

'  Ver.  14.— LT/IS/rriN  'nX?p  not  complete,  fill  out,  but,  as  in  A.  V.,  confirm;  Chald.  Q?j?K ,  Sept.  irAijpwcrio.  The 
phrase  is  used  of  the  fulfilment  of  divine  utterances.     Cf.  ii.  27;  viii.  15,  24. 

10  Ver.  IS.— All  the  VV.  and  200  MSS.  [and  the  early  editions]  read  HJJXl  instead  of  i"IFI5?l [,  as  the  connection! 
requires. — Bahr. 

11  Ver.  20.— Instead  of  oTlNI  the  Chaldee  [Syr.  and  Vulg.],  and  some  [many]  MSS.  have  iTJJH,  which  Thenius 
considers  right.  On  the  other  hand,  Maurer  remarks  that  the  pronoun  stands  here  first,  just  as  in  Gen.  xlix.  S,  with 
emphasis,  instead  of  the  suffix. — Bahr. 

13  Ver.  21. — [Counted  is  implied  by  the  connection,  but  not  expressed  in  the  Hbr. 

13  Ver.  24.— [rODS   HHIX,  the  question  is  indicated  only  by  the  tone. 

14  Ver.  27.— [The  pronoun  it  is  better  omitted,  as  in  the  Hbr.  and  all  VV. 

"  Ver.  27.— The  k'ri  has  T13JJ,  also  nearly  all  the  translations  have  the  singular;  but  the  reading  of  the  text  U 

preferred. — Bahr.    [It  is  that  of  many  MSS] 
'*  Ver.  30.— [See  note  ver.  13. 
"  Ver.  80.— [Hbr.  and  VV.  omit  certainly. 

18  Ver.  33.— [DS'jis  In  tne  !>'•  is  rightly  rendered  by  the  sing,  as  referring  to  David— not  to  David  and  Solomou. 
''  Ver.  33.— [The  Cbildee  and  Syr.  read  Siloa;  Ar»bic,  fountain  of  Siloa. 

*>  Ver.  36.— [The  words  say  to  too  at  the  end  of  this  ver.  In  the  A.  V.  should  be  omitted ;  HliV  IDS'  [3  is  to  U 
taken  historically,  not  optatively.    Three  MSS.  followed  by  the  Syr.  and  Arab,  read  nCJ?'  for  1DX\ 
»'  Ver.  88.— FThe  Chalri    Syr.,  and  Arab.,  make  the  same  change  here  as  in  ver.  83. 


22 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


*'  Ver.  42. — [The  words  unto  him  are  unnecessary;  not  contained  In  the  Hbr  nor  the  VV. 
•»  Ver.  45.— [As.  in  vers.  83  and  38. 

« Ier-  II-- ££?  k,'iib  ["PiP'ti  ls  Plainly  preferable  to  the  k'ri  D\-6h  — Bihr  [and  is  followed  by  the  Syrlmel 
"  Ver.  49— [The  Vatican  (not  Alex.)  Sept.  omits  and  rose  up.  * 

••  Ver.  51.— [The  Vatican  (not  Alex.)  Sept.  omits  king. 
*'  Ver.  61.— [Instead  of  DV3  some  MSS.  read  DVil,  which  has  been  followed  apparently  by  the  A.  V.— F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Now  king  David  was  old,  to.  Vers. 
1-4  introduce  the  entire  narration  following,  the 
central  point  and  chief  object  of  which  is  Solomon's 
ascension  to  the  throne.  Adonijah's  endeavor  ti 
usurp  the  throne  was  the  reason  why  this  event 
took  place  before  the  death  of  David.  Adonijah 
proceeded  to  carry  out  his  purpose  when  David 
was  old  and  infirm,  and  apparently  near  his  end. 
The  author  begins,  consequently,  with  the  descrip- 
tion of  David's  condition,  and  is  reminded  particu- 
larly of  Abishag,  his  waiting-maid,  because  Adoni- 
jah, after  the  misadventure  of  his  enterprise, 
sought  her  for  a  wife  in  order  to  gain  the  throne 
by  means  of  her,  and  so  wrought  his  destruction 
(chap.  ii.  13  sq.).      The  1  at  the  beginning  has  no 

connection  with  anything  preceding ;  least  of  all 
does  it  connect  our  books  with  the  books  of 
Samuel  (see  Introduction,  §  3).  Nor  is  it  mechanic- 
ally retained  from  a  passage  of  the  life  of  David 
inserted  here  (Keil) ;  but  it  stands,  as  elsewhere 
so  often  at  the  beginning  of  a  book  (Jos.  i.  1 ; 
Judges  i.  1 ;  2  Sam.  i.  1 ;  Ruth  i.  1 ;  Esth.  i.  1 ; 
Ezra  i.  1 ;  Ezek.  i.  1 ;  Jon.  i.  1),  where  the  first 
verse  forms  the  antecedent  to  the  second. — When 
David  was  old  and  infirm,  his  servants  said  unto 
him.  David  was  then  seventy  years  of  age  (comp. 
chap.  ii.  11,  with  2  Sam.  v.  4,  5):  that  his  natural 
warmth  then  failed  him,  was  not  ex  nimio  mulierum 
usu  (Le  Clerc),  but  was  the  result  of  the  "  extraor- 
dinary cares  and  conflicts  of  his  earlier  life " 
(Ewald). 

Vers.  2-4.  Wherefore  his  servants  said 
unto  him,  &c.  Josephus  expressly  names  them 
physicians  (Ant.  vii.  14,  3),  comp.  Gen.  1.  2.  The 
remedy  which  one  of  them,  in  the  name  of  the 
rest,  advised  when   the    "  clothes  "  (Qnj3  as  in 

1  Sam.  xix.  13  ;  Numb.  iv.  6)  were  of  no  use,  was 
known  in  ancient  times.  "Without  skill  in  internal 
remedies,  men  sought  to  warm,  by  means  of  living 
vigorous  bodies,  those  whose  vital  powers,  were 
chilled  and  enfeebled.  Galen  (Method.  Medic. 
8,  7)  says:  " Ex  iis  vera,  quae  extrinsecus  applican- 
ts, boni  habitus  puellus  una  sit  accumbans,  ut  sem- 
per abdomen  ejus  contingat.  Bacon  (Hist.  Vit.  et  Nee.)  : 
Neque  negligenda  sunt  /omenta  ex  corporibus  •  ivia. 
According  to  Bartholinus  (De  Morb.  BM.  9),  a 
Jewish  physician  advised  the  Emperor  Frederic 
Barbarossa  to  allow  young  and  strong  boys  to  lie 
upon  his  breast  (comp.  Trusen,  Sitten,  Gtbr.  and 
Krankh.  der  Hebraxr,  s.  257  sq.).  This  was  not 
designed  here  for  the  gratification  of  bodily  pas- 
sion, by  means  of  a  "  concubine,"  as  Winer  calls 
Abishag.  but  before  all,  for  service  and  assistance, 
such  as  was  deemed  most  effective  after  the  un- 
availing application  of  the  usual  remedies  to  the 
aged  man  confined  to  his  bed.  The  physicians 
expressly  state  tin-,  and  it.  agrees  with  the' words: 
and  let  her  stand  be/ore  the  king,  i.  e.,  let  her  serve 
aim  (Gen.  xli.  16 ;  Deut.  i.  38),  and  be  his  attendant, 
"...  let  her  wait  upon,  help  him:  let  her  lie  in  his 


bosom  [not  thy,  see  textual  note]  that  he  maj 
become  warm.  If  by  these  last  words  they  maj 
have  presupposed  that  he  would  "  know "  her, 
they  do  not  state  it  as  the  design,  as,  moreover, 
pT\2  33C'   must   not   be   understood   necessarily 

onlv  of  cohabitation  (comp.  chap.  iii.  20  ;  Ruth  iy. 
16).  They  sought  a  beautiful  maiden  "because 
she  was  destined  for  the  king"  (Thenius),  and 
they  found  such  at  Shunem,  a  city  of  the  tribe  Is- 
sachar,  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  at  the  foot  of  the  so 
called  little  Hermon  (Jos.  xix.  18;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  4) 
The  text  states  expressly  that  the  king  did  not  know 
her:  she  was,  therefore,  not  his  concubine,  buS 
his  waiting-maid  and  attendant.  In  a  wholly  per- 
verse way  Josephus,  and  after  him  J.  D.  Jlichaelis, 
adduces  impotency,  in  consequence  of  old  age  aud 
weakness,  as  the  reason  why  he  did  not  know 
her.  In  that  case  the  remark  would  be  super- 
fluous (Thenius).  It  serves,  however,  "  to  make 
it  clear  how  it  was  that  Adonijah  could  seek 
Abishag  for  his  wife,"  chap.  ii.  17  (Keil),  and  go 
to  Bath-sheba  for  her  intercession  with  Solomon. 
Older  interpreters  have  maintained  that  she  was 
the  actual  wife  of  David,  or  at  least  his  concubine, 
and  that  the  relation  also,  according  to  the 
morality  of  the. time,  was  unobjectionable.  But 
ueither  here  nor  in  the  second  chapter  is  she  so 
named.  Amongst  the  people  she  may  have  well 
passed  for  such,  since  Adonijah,  through  alliance 
with  her,  wished  to  facilitate  his  way  to  die  throne 
(see  on  chap.  ii.  13).* 

Vers.  5-6.  Then  Adorujah  the  son  of  Hag- 
gith,  &c.  Of  the  sons  of  David  born  at  Hebron, 
Adonijah  was  the  fourth  (2  Sam.  iii.  2-4).  The 
first,  Amnon,  and  the  third,  Absalom,  were  already 
dead,  and  the  second  also,  Chilean,  of  whom 
nothing  more  is  said,  had  doubtless  died  much 
earlier.  As  the  eldest  living  son,  Adonijah  believed 
that  lie  had  claims  to  the  throne.  Besides  this, 
his  beautiful  person  came  into  the  account,  as 
with  Absalom,  by  which,  because  it  was  valued 
in  a  ruler  (1  Sam.  ix.  2;  2  Sam.  xiv.  25;  xvi.  7 ; 
Ezek.  xxviii.  12),  he  hoped  for  the  favorable  re- 
gard of  the  people,     ^■^|^,  ver.   6   cannot,   with 

some,  be  translated:  "and  he  was  born  unto  him 
after  Absalom,"  but  only,  as  in  Gen.  xvi.  1 :  "  and 
she  had  borne  him  after  Absalom,"  i.  e.,  after  the 
latter  had  been  borne  of  Maacah.    The  alteration  of 


the  text  into  "pi — "  he  had  begotten  him  after  Ab 

salom  "  (Thenius),  is  wholly  unnecessary.  The  suc- 
cession to  the  throne  in  Israel  was  certainly  hered- 
itary; but  no  law  required  that  the  eldest  son,  at 
the  time,  should  be  the  heir-apparent.     From  vers. 

*  [The  allegorical  interpretation  of  Jerome  makes  tht 
9hunammite  damsel  the  ever-virgin  wisdom  of  God  so  ex 
tolled  by  Solomon  (mpientia  quat  numquam  iienexeM 
EpUt.  §  2;  ad  Xepotianum,  chap.  fv. ;  Opera,  i.  p.  28S). 
Bnt  in  another  passage  Jerome  understands  the  story  liter 
ally,  and  enumerates  this  relation  among  the  sins  and  iro 
perfections  of  David,  which  would  not  be  allowed  under  til* 
gospel  dispensation  {contra  Jovin.  L  i-  chap,  xxiv.,  torn,  i 
274).-P.  S.] 


CHAPTER  I.   1-53. 


23 


i7  and  20,  a?  also  from  2  Chron.  xi.  22,  it  is  clear 
that  it  was  regarded  as  the  right  of  the  reigning 
king  to  determine  who  amongst  his  sons  should 
succeed  him.  He  could  transmit  the  kingdom  to  his 
first-born  or  to  his  eldest  son,  but  he  was  not  obliged 
(2  Chron.  xxi.  3)  thereto.  Adonijah  was  not  at  all 
first-born,  but  only  the  fourth  son.  He  himself 
does  not  tako  his  age  into  the  account,  and  appeals, 
in  chap.  ii.  13  sq.,  not  to  this,  but  to  the  voice  of 
the  people  who  had  shown  themselves  favorably 
disposed  towards  him.  David's  designation  of 
Solomon  as  his  successor,  has  its  reason  in  the 
promise  in  2  Sam.  vii.  12-16;  xii.  2-1  sq. ;  1  Chron. 
xxii.  9,  10 ;  he  regarded  him  as  the  one  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  prescript  touching  a  king  in  Deut. 
xvii.  15,  was  chosen  by  Jehovah.  Of  a  formal 
"right"  to  the  throne,  possessed  by  Adonijah, 
which  he  thought  to  "  assure  "  himself  of  (Thenius), 
there  can  be  no  discussion.  That  he  knew  well 
the  will  of  his  father,  by  virtue  of  which  Solomon 
was  to  be  his  successor,  is  clear  from  the  circum- 
stance that  he  invited  all  his  brothers,  and  the 
men  who  were  employed  in  the  royal  service,  to  a 
feast  prepared  by  him.  Solomon  only,  and  the 
more  confidential  friends  of  David,  were  not  in- 
vited. His  design  was  to  render  null  the  purpose 
of  his  father,  and  to  possess  himself  of  the  throne, 
by  conspiracy  and  force,  in  opposition  to  his  wish. 
His  undertaking  was  a  formal  usurpation,  and 
like  that  of  Absalom,  to  which  the  whole  narrative 
manifestly  points.  Upon  this  account  also  the 
text  says:  "he  exalted  himself"  i.  e.,  he  over- 
exalted  himself — made  himself  somewhat  that  did 
not  become  him  (XL"J  used  here  as  in  Prov.  xxx. 

32 ;  Numb.  xvi.  3),  with  this  result,  that  his 
father  left  him  to  his  will  (VD'D  means  from  his, 

Adonijah's  days,  and  is  not,  with  Seb.  Schmidt,  to 
be  understood  first  of  his  attempt  at  royal 
sovereignty).  The  moral  infirmity  of  the  royal 
father,  coupled  now  with  bodily  weakness,  in- 
duced Adonijah  to  enter  upon  his  guilty  enter- 
prise. Just  as  Absalom  had  done  (2  Sam.  xv.  1), 
he  provided  himself  with  what,  according  to 
1  Sam.  viii.  11,  is  designated  as  the  first  "  royal 
prerogative,"  chariots,  riders,  and  body-guardsmen, 
i.  e.,  a  brilliant  court,  in  order  thereby  to  impose 
upon  the  multitude. 

Vers.  7-10.  And  he  conferred  with  Joab, 
&c.  Through  the  commander-in-chief,  Adonijah 
hopes  to  win  over  the  army,  and  through  the 
high-priest,  to  secure  also  the  priesthood.  Not  the 
conviction  "  that  he  had  right  on  his  side " 
(Thenius),  induced  both  men  to  enter  into  his 
plans.  Joab  had  observed  that  he  was  sunken  in 
the  good  graces  of  David  (chap.  ii.  5),  and  conse- 
quently could  not  hope  for  much  for  himself  from 
Solomon ;  but  from  Adonijah  he  could  hope,  espe- 
cially if  made  king  by  his  assistance.  Abiathar 
seems  to  have  felt  himself  set  aside  by  David  for 
Zadok,  which  priest  was  at  the  tabernacle  with 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  at  Zion  (see  on  vers.  33 
and  39),  and  to  have  feared  that  the  high-priestly 
family  of  Eleazar,  to  which  Zadok  belonged, 
would  supplant  his  own,  viz. :  the  family  of 
Ithamar.  Upon  Benaiah,  comp.  2  Sam.  viii.  18  and 
xxiii.  20  sq. ;  upon  Nathan,  see  2  Sam.  vii.  and  xii. 
Shimei  is  mentioned  in  chap.  iv.  18 :  Josephus 
names  Rei  b  \avidov  <pi?.oc.  Doubtless  these  latter 
filled  high  offices.  That  they  were  the  only  sur- 
viving brothers  of  David  (Ewald),  has  nothing  pro- 


bable to  rest  upon.  Upon  the  heroes  of  David, 
comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8  sq.,  and  1  Chron.  xi.  10  sq. 
Adonijah,  like  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv.  8,  12),  pre- 
pared a  great  feast,  which  was  ostensibly  also 
sacrificial,  in  order  to  impart  to  the  transaction  a 
religious  coloring.  The  well,  i.  e.,  the  sources  of 
Eogel  (Jos.  xv.  7 ;  xviii.  16),  lay,  according  to 
2  Sam.  xvii.  11,  southeasterly  from  Jerusalem,  in 
the  loveliest,  most  fruitful  plain ;  according  to 
Josephus,  in  (SaaiAitiu  irapaSeioL) ;  according  to 
Schulz  (Jems.,  s.  79),  "even  now  a  place  of  recre- 
ation for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem."     Thenius 

derives  the  name  Zoheleth  from  pnT ,  to  crawl — 

a  rock  which  one  must  climb  with  difficulty.     This 
place  was  in  every  respect  suited  for  a  public  fes- 
tivity.    (Comp.  Robinson.  Palestine,  vol.  i.  p.  333 
Boston,  1868.) 

Vers.  11-14.  Wherefore  Nathan  spake  unto 
Bath-sheba,  &c.  According  to  the  custom  pre- 
vailing anciently  in  the  East,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  forcible  seizure  of  the  throne,  of  murdering 
the  dethroned  ruler,  or  the  opposing  pretenders  tc 
the  crown,  with  all  their  nearest  relations  (Judg. 
ix.  5;  1  Kings  xv.  29;  2  Kings  x.  6,  13;  xi.  1),  in 
the  event  of  the  success  of  Adonijah's  undertak- 
ing, there  was  very  much  to  fear  for  the  life  both 
of  Solomon  and  of  his  mother.  That  David  knew 
nothing  of  the  plans  of  Adonijah,  and  that  Nathan 
was  first  informed  of  them  only  at  the  moment  of 
their  execution,  shows  how  secretly  the  affair  had 
been  managed.  This  would  have  been  unneces- 
sary had  Adonijah  a  recognized  right  to  the 
throne,  and  had  his  own  conscience  been  right 
in  the  premises.  David,  moreover,  would  not  have 
been  so  very  much  surprised  at  his  undertaking. 
The  prophet  Nathan  also  deemed  it  his  duty  to  pre- 
vent, as  far  as  possible,  a  repetition  of  the  history 
of  Absalom.  With  great  wisdom  and  prudence, 
he  addressed  himself  to  the  mother  of  Solomon, 
who  was  especially  beloved  of  David,  begging  her 
to  apply  to  the  king,  with  whom  rested  the  right 
to  designate  his  successor,  to  represent  to  him  the 
mortal  peril  which  threatened  both  her  son  and 
herself,  and  to  remind  him  of  his  promise  to  her. 
When  David's  mind  should  first,  by  this  means, 
become  aroused,  than  he  (the  prophet)  would,  in 
the  name  of  Jehovah,  appear  before  the  king,  and 
place  before  him  his  given  word  (1  Chron. 
xxviii.  5),  in  order  to  incite  him  to  immediate 
action.  "  When  David  first  promised  Bath-sheba, 
upon  his  oath,  that  her  son  Solomon  should  be- 
come king,  is  not  known.  Obviously  it  was  after 
the  promise  he  had  received  in  2  Sam.  vii." 
I  Eeil  l. 

Vers.  15-27.  And  Bath-sheba  went  in  unto 
the  king,  &e.  The  statement  that  king  David 
was  old,  &c.  (ver.  1),  explains  the  words :  "  into 
the  chamber"  (ver.  15),  and  means  he  was  so  feeble 
that  he  could  not  leave  his  sick-room,  and  needed 
constant  attention. — From  ver.  20,  comp.  27,  it  ia 
most  explicit,  once  more,  that  no  one  entertained 
the  thought  that  Adonijah,  as  the  eldest  surviving 
son  of  the  king,  had  a  right  to  the  succession ;  but 
that  the  right  to  decide  whether  of  his  sons  should 
be  king,  remained  rather  with  the  king,  and  that 
his  decision  was  anxiously  waited  for. — I  and  my 
son  Solomon  shall  be  counted  offenders,  i.  e., 
we  shall  be  treated  as  traitors  and  offenders  guilty 
of  death.  After  these  words  Bath-sheba  retired,  and 
Nathan,  informed  in  the  meanwhile,  went  unto  the 


24 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


king-.  "While  the  former  addressed  her  statement  to 
the  king  directly,  as  a  mother,  the  latter,  as  proph- 
et, begins  with  a  question  in  which,  upon  the  one 
side,  a  slight  reproach  was  conveyed  that  David 
should  not  have  put  a  stop  sooner  to  the  design 
of  Adonijah,  and  have  exposed  his  own  friends  to 
great  danger,  and  on  the  other  side  it  expressed 
the  confidence  that  the  king  would  hold  to  his 
oath,  and  carry  it  out  forthwith. — Under  "the 
captains  of  the  host,"  ver.  25,  the  servants  of  the 
king  (the  mighty  men)  in  ver.  10  are  included. 
Kings  used  to  be  saluted  by  the  people  with  the 
salutation,  Live  the  king  !  (1  Sam.  x.  24 ;  2  Sam  vvi 
16;  2  Kings  xi.  12;  2  Chron.  xxiii.  31.)  The  order 
of  names  in  ver.  26  contains  a  climax  in  which 
Sol,, inuii,  as  the  highest  personage,  is  named  last. 
Nathan's  words  are  anything  else  than  the  expres- 
sion of  wounded  vanity  —  they  simply  exhibit 
Adonijah's  hostile  sentiment  towards  the  friends 
of  the  king,  and  also  the  fate  in  store  for  them 
should  Adonijah  become  sovereign. 

Vers.  2S-38.     Then  king  David  answered, 

Ac.  The  quick  and  firm  resolution  of  David  shows 
how  strong  he  was  yet  in  mind  and  will,  notwith- 
standing all  his  bodily  weakness.  He  repeats  his 
oath,  not,  however,  employing  merely  the  usual  for- 
mula, as  Jehovah  liveth!  but  adding  most  signifi- 
cantly, who  hath  redeemed  my  soul  out  of  all  distress, 
i.  e.,  to  the  God  who  has  been  true  to  me,  and  deliver- 
ed me  wonderfully  out  of  so  many  and  great  dangers, 
will  1  also  remain  true  unto  the  end.  His  oath, 
coming  from  deep  emotion,  is  likewise  a  praise  and 
thanksgiving  unto  Jehovah.  Had  Adonijah  an 
actual  formal  right  to  the  throne,  such  an  oath 
would  have  been  the  greatest  sin,  in  so  far  as  David, 
while  appealing  to  the  divine  mercy  and  grace, 
..ould  have   knowingly  trodden   under  foot  the 

right  of  his  son.    The  added  D^ ,  ver.  31,  exhibits 

the  vivacity  of  the  thought.  Amongst  the  Persian 
kings  it  appears  to  have  been  customary  (Dan.  iii. 
9;  v.  10;  vi.  22;  Neh.  ii.  3). 

Ters.  33-37.     The  king  also  said  unto  them, 
Take   with   you   the   servants    of    your  lord, 

Ae.  As  no  one  but  the  king  himself  dared  ride 
his  mule,  the  command  to  let  Solomon  "  ride  •' 
thereon  was  an  actual  declaration  that  he  was 
king  (Esth.  vi.  8,  9).  Gihon  is  a  place  near  Jeru- 
salem, on  the  west  side,  with  a  spring  of  water 
(2  Chron.  xxxii.  30 ;  xxxiii.  14).  The  valley  here 
situated  bears  still  this  name  (Robinson,  Palest., 
vol.  i.,  p.  346).  It  was  proper  for  the  anointing  to 
take  place  at  a  spot  where  a  large  assemblage 
could  be  gathered,  and  whence  a  solemn  entrance 
into  the  city,  which  had  no  open  public  square,  could 
be  made.  Gihon,  moreover,  was  considerably  dis- 
tant from  the  rock  Zoheleth,  which  was  on  the 
southeasterly  side  of  Jerusalem,  where  Adonijah 
had  gathered  together  his  adherents,  so  that  a  colli- 
sion would  be  avoided.  According  to  the  account 
of  the  rabbins,  kings  were  anointed  only  at  places 
abounding  in  water,  and  upon  that  account  also 
much  frequented.  But  they  erroneously  identify 
Gihon  with  Siloam,  which  spring  lies  southeast  of 

Junsalem.   Tlienius  prefers  the  reading  jiynj  to  |in3, 

beca  we  the  tabernacle  was  there,  from  which, 
according  to  ver.  39,  Zadok  took  the  "  horn  of  oil.'' 
But  tho  three  hours'  distance  of  Gibeou  from  Jeru- 
salem is  conclusive  agaitst  this.    Besides,  by  ^nN , 


in  ver.  39,  we  are  not  to  understand  the  taber 
nacle  of  the  covenant,  but  the  tent  erected  by  Da 
vid  upon  Zion  for  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (2  Sam 
vi.  17;   1   Chron.  xv.  1;  xvi.  1).     David  express!} 
gave  order  for  the  anointing  of  Solomon,  so  thai 
nothing  appertaining  to  the  investiture  of  the  king 
should  be  wanting.   The  supposition  that  anointing 
took  place  only  with  those  kings  "  who  were  not 
free   from    exceptions,    or   who   had   no   historic 
right  to  the  throne  "  (Winer  and  Grotius,  after  the 
rabbins),  is  unfounded,  for  David,  who  here  ordered 
the  anointing,  regarded  Solomon  in  no  respect  as 
an  exceptional  successor.     From  the  fact  that  he 
wished  this  done  not  simply  by  the  high-priest, 
but  also  by  the  prophet,  we  learn  the  high  siguifi- 
1  cance  he  attributed  to  the  prophetic  office  in  Israel. 
j  He  says  purposely,  ruler  over  Israel  and  over  Judah. 
.  He  had  himself,  for  some  time,  been  ruler  only  over 
j  Judah :   then  he  had   conquered    Epnraim,  which 
I  named  itself  Israel,  and  had  united  it  again  with 
j  Judah.      The   old   disunion   had  again  exhibited 
itself  on  the  revolt  of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  six.  40  sq.); 
I  hence,  with  Adonijah's  like  undertaking  in  view. 
•  he  deemed  it  necessary  to  declare  expressly  thai 
j  Solomon  should  be  ruler  over   Israel  and  Judah. 
Beuaiah,  as  the  person  upon  whom  the  execution 
of.  the    order   devolved,  answered  David,  and  de- 
clared  himself   ready   to    carry   it   out, —  not,  as 
Thenius  supposes,  to  flatter  the  paternal  vanity, 
but,  in  the  conviction  that  the  king's  command  waa 
in  conformity  with  the  will  of  Jehovah,  he  wished 
that  the  divine  blessing  might  rest  upon  the  gov- 
ernment of  Solomon. 

Ver.  38.  So  Zadok  the  priest,  &c.  By  the 
Cherethites  and  Pelethites  we  must  understand  the 
royal  body-guard  (Josephus,  ou/iaroipi'/.aKec).  On 
the  other  hand,  the  modern  interpreters  are  not 
agreed  whether  both  expressions  are  to  be  undei 
stood  ethnographically  or  appellatively.  They 
who  urge  the  former,  appeal  to  1  Sam.  xxx.  14, 
and  hold  TT13  for  the  designation  of  the  parent- 
stem  of  the  Philistines,  which  had  migrated  from 
Crete,  and  that  'HPS ,  too,  is  the  same  with  TlC'i'B  . 

David,  who  for  a  long  while  had  remained  amongst 
the  Philistines,  had  collected  his  body-guard 
from  amongst  foreigners  and  not  from  his  own 
people,  and  afterwards  the  appellative  remained 
(Movers,  Hitzig,  Bertheau,  Ewald).    Others  derive 

TP3  from  ma ,  and  t6d  from  the  Arabic,  cog- 
nate with  D?S ,  &c,  understanding  by  the  former, 
lictors,  the  royal  executioners  of  the  punishment 
of  death,  and  by  the  latter,  runners  who,  like  the 
ayyapm  of  the  Persians,  had  to  carry  commands  to 
remote  places  (2  Chron.  xxx.  6).  We  hold  to  this 
latter  view,  along  with  Gesenius,  Keil,  and 
Thenius,  for  although  the  plural  form  '_  instead  of 

D'_  for  appellations  is  certainly  unusual,  we  can- 
not perceive  why  two  designations  should  be  em- 
ployed side  by  side,  for  one  and  the  same  people. 
(We  do  not  say  Britons  and  Englishmen.)  So, 
then,  later  the  royal  body-guard  were  called 
D^Vini  H3PI  (comp.  2  Kings  xi.  4  si].),  i.  e.,  execu 

tioners  and  runners.  And  last  of  all,  it  is  highly 
improbable  that  David,  who  was  perpetually  a\ 
war  with  the  Philistines,  would  have  selected  hu 
body-guards  from  them. — The  horn  of  oil  out  of 
the  tabernacle  (ver.  39).     T)  e   "  oil  of  holy  oiat> 


CHAPTER  I.  1-53. 


2i 


ment "  (Ex.  xxx.  23  sq.)  was  preserved  in  the 
tabernacle  in  which  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was 
kept  (1  Cliron.  sv.  1).  The  pouring  of  this  oil  upon 
the  head  symbolized  the  communication  of  the 
Spirit  (mi)"  of  Jehovah   (1    Sam.   xvi.   13).      By 

anointing,  the  royal  office  with  which  Solomon 
was  to  be  invested  was  set  forth  as  essentially 
theocratic.  The  king  of  Israel  was,  upon  this  ac- 
count, absolutely  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  (1  Sam. 
ii.  10,  35;  xxiv.  1).  The  taking  of  the  horn  from 
the  "  tabernacle  "  does  not  force  us  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  act  of  anointing  took  place  before  or  at 
it  and  at  the  same  time,  also  at  Gibeon,  as  Thenius 
maintains.  The  great  joy  and  jubilation  of  the 
people  shows  that  they  knew  nothing  of  Adonijah's 
right  to  the  throne,  but  that  they  rather  accepted 
David's  decision,  who  alone  had  the  right  to  de- 
cide. They  saw  in  Solomon's  elevation  a  victory 
over  the  unauthorized  usurper.  Flutes  were  used 
at  festivals,  especially  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
(Isai.  v.  12;  xxx.  29;  Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  ii.  s.  123). 

Ver.  40.  The  earth  rent.  So  according  to  the 
Chald.,  which  explains  y£3FI  by  njJT  •     The  Sept. 

has  vxiae<  the  Vulg.  insonuit.  Thenius  reads 
ypnn ,    the    earth    was   struck  =  quaked,  which 

seems  unnecessary. 

Vers.  41-48.  And  Adonijah  ....  heard  it, 
&c.  While  the  assembled  guests  heard  the  noise 
and  the  cry  in  the  city,  the  experienced  soldier 
Joab  caught  the  sound  of  the  trumpets  especially, 
and  concluded,  from  this  warlike  token,  nothing 
good.  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Abiathar,  who  here, 
as  in  2  Sam.  xv.  36  and  xvii.  17  appears  as  the 
bringer  of  news,  was  probably  left  behind  in  the 
city  "designedly  to  observe  what  was  going  on. 
Although  scarcely  himself  a  witness  of  what  trans- 
pired in  the  royal  palace,  he  could,  nevertheless, 
as  Solomon  had  already  made  his  entrance,  be 
well  informed  by  eye  and  ear  witnesses.  Joab 
named  him  a  valiant  man,  i.  e.,  a  person  whose  re- 
port could  be  trusted.      The  innL,i!l  at  the  end  of 

ver.  47,  as  David  was  lying  upon  his  bed,  certainly 
cannot  mean  that  he  fell  upon  his  knees;  still  less 
is  a  thankful  bow  in  return  to  those  who  were 
congratulating  him  meant  (Thenius).  The  king 
bowed  himself  with  his  body  as  far  as  he  could,  be- 
fore his  Lord  and  God,  and  spake :  Blessed,  &c.  The 
DM  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  48  does  not  indicate  a 

new,  different  action,  but  simply  states  that  besides 
his  bowing,  he  spake  also  the  words  which  follow. 
Vers.  49-53.  And  all  the  guests  ....  were 
afraid,  &c.  The  panic  which  forthwith  seized 
Adonijah  and  his  followers,  shows  that  their  con- 
science was  not  upright  ic  their  undertaking,  i.  e., 
that  they  themselves  were  not  convinced  of  the 
righteousness  of  Adonijah's  claims,  otherwise  they 
would,  with  Joab  at  their  head,  have  made  a  stand, 
and  not  scattered  at  once.  To  save  his  life,  which 
he,  as  a  usurper  of  the  throne,  believed  he  had 
forfeited,  Adonijah  fled  to  the  altar,  which  stood 
before  the  tabernacle  upon  Zion  (chap.  iii.  15 ; 
2  Sam.  vi.  17).  Be  laid  hold  of  the  horns  of  the 
altar,  as  did  Joab  afterwards  (chap.  ii.  28),  and  ap- 
pealed thereby  to  the  pardoning  power  and  grace 
of  Jehovah  (comp.  upon  the  significance  of  the  act, 
my  Symbolik  des  Mos.  Cult.,  i.  s.  473  sq.)  This 
asylum  was  ordained  originally  for  unintentional 
man-slayers  (Exod.  xxi.  12  sq);  but  later  on  it  ap- 


pears to  have  been  made  use  of  by  persons  who 
feared  punishment  by  death.  Solomon  regarded 
Adonijah's  flight  to  the  horns  of  tho  altar  as  a 
confession  of  his  guilt  and  repentance,  and  he 
exercised  an  act  of  clemency  which  could  only 
produce  the  most  favorable  impression  upon  the 
people.  Yet  he  adds  a  warning  in  the  words : 
Go  to  thine  house,  i.  e.,  not :  Do  not  come  into  my 
presence  (2  Sam.  xiv.  24),  but:  Keep  thyself  quiet, 
live  as  a  private  person,  then  not  the  least  harm 
shall  befall  thee. 


HISTOKICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  entire  first  chapter  turns  upon  the  eleva- 
tion of  Solomon  to  the  throne,  which  is  narrated  so 
circumstantially  with  its  immediate  occasion  and 
all  the  attending  circumstances,  because,  as  has 
already  been  shown  in  the  Introduction,  §  3,  it 
constitutes  in  the  highest  degree  a  weighty  mo- 
ment in  the  development  of  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  theocracy.  With  it  begins  the  period 
of  a  blooming  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  which  it 
never  had  before,  and  which  never  came  again. 
Solomon  thereby  became  elevated  to  the  type  of  a 
great,  mighty,  wise,  and  prosperous  kiug,  which 
he  passes"  for  even  to  this  day  in  the  Orient.  The 
prophets  even  depict  the  glory  and  happiness  of 
the  Messianic  kingdom  with  expressions  which 
are  borrowed  from  the  description  of  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  under  Solomon.  (Comp.  Mich.  iv.  4,  and 
Zach.  iii.  10,  with  1  Kings  v.  5.)  He  is,  according 
to  his  name,  the  prince  of  peace,  mit'  cfo^'/i',  and 
the  beloved  of  God  (2  Sam.  xii.  25),  designations 
which  by  the  prophets  and  in  the  New  Testament 
are  applied,  in  like  manner,  to  the  Messiah  the  son 
of  David  in  the  most  eminent  sense  (Is.  ix.  5,  6; 
Eph.  i.  6 ;  ii.  14 ;  Col.  i.  13).  The  reception  of 
"  The  Song  of  Solomon  "  into  the  Old  Testament 
canon  shows  that  to  the  Jewish  synagogue  the 
typical  relation  was  not  unknown,  and  in  the 
Christian  Church  it  has  always  been  maintained. 

2.  The  brief  introductory  narrative,  vers.  1-4, 
has  been  found  in  many  respects  very  scandalous. 
This  has  arisen  from  the  wholly  false  presupposi- 
tion that  it  treats  of  the  gratification  of  the  lust- 
fulness  of  a  worn-out  old  man  by  means  of  a  con- 
cubine.  But  of  this  the  text  declares  so  little,  that 
it  rather  states  explicitly,  David  did  not  know  Abi- 
shag.  The  means  which  the  physicians — not  he 
himself — selected  to  restore  to  him  his  lost  natural 
warmth,  were,  if  not  unheard  of,  at  least  morally 
questionable,  yea,  from  a  Christian  point  of  view, 
decidedly  objectionable.  That  they  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  recommend  it,  has  indeed  its  ground,  not 
in  conscious  immorality  and  frivolity,  but  in  the 
perverted  views  prevalent  throughout  the  entire 
ancient  Orient  upon  the  relation  of  the  sexes,  or 
in  the  deeply-rooted  lack  of  chastity,  which  even 
the  stern  lawgiver  Moses  was  not  able  to  put  an 
end  to.  Hence  polygamy  was  not  only  permitted, 
but  it  was  regarded  by  kings  as  somewhat  belong- 
ing to  their  royal  estate,  and  it  never  occurred  tr 
any  one  to  object  to  them    upon   that   account 

•  [The  translators,  after  some  hesitation,  have  adoptee 
the  aDove  as  fl  caption.  It  is  not  a  translation  of  the  an 
tiior's  heading.  He  has  it.  " heilsgachichtliche"  which  ex- 
presses the  conception  of  the  historical  process  of  healing 
or  salvation.  It  is  a  term  for  which  we  hav-  no  available 
equivalent  in  Knglish,  although  the  thougul  embodied  bj 
the  word  is  clear  enough.] 


26 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


(Comp.  2  Sam.  v.  13 ;  1  Kings  xi.  3 ;  2  Chron.  xi. 
21;  Judges  viii.  30.)  Th's  explains  the  reason  why 
David  did  not  reject  the  medical  advice,  and  why 
the  matter  did  not  cause  any  scandal  among  the 
people,  why  even  Bath-sheba  herself  did  not  feel 
aggrieved  (ver.  15).  Whatsoever  the  narrative  has 
which  is  repulsive  to  us,  does  not  adhere  to  a  par- 
ticular person  nor  to  this  particular  instance,  but 
to  the  general  lack  of  conjugal  chastity  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

3.  Adonijah's  undertaking,  in  which  there  is  so 
unmistakably  a  reference  to  Absalom's,  is  to  be 
understood  throughout  as  blameworthy.  He  knew 
that  the  decision  upon  the  succession  to  the  throne 
depended  upon  hi6  father,  and  that  he  had  already 
selected  Solomon.  He  knew  also  the  tragical  end 
of  Absalom's  attempt.  Nevertheless,  he  would 
not  be  warned  by  it,  but  set  himself  up  in  the  way 
of  self  over-estimation,  making  boast  of  his  beau- 
tiful figure.  King  will  he  be  at  any  cost.  He 
makes  his  preparations  without  his  father's  con- 
gent,  takes  advantage  of  his  infirmity  and  weak- 
ness, and  secretly  enters  into  combinations  with 
the  most  influential  men  who  belonged,  more 
or  less,  to  the  class  of  malcontents.  He  allows 
himself  to  become  impatient  through  his  lust 
for  ruling,  and  to  rush  into  a  measure  in  every  re- 
spect premature.  Upon  the  first  intelligence,  nev- 
ertheless, of  Solomon's  accession,  a  shameful  panic 
seizes  him.  All  courage  to  risk  the  least  thing  for 
his  cause  fails  him.  The  whole  crowd  of  his  fol- 
lowers scatters  like  dust,  and  he  himself,  in  a  cow- 
ardly way,  seeks  to  save  only  his  life.  He  anx- 
iously flies  to  a  place  of  refuge,  clings  to  it,  calls 
himself  Solomon's  "  servant,"  and  salutes  him  as 
king.  But,  scarcely  is  the  danger  past,  he  breaks 
his  pledged  word  to  behave  quietly,  and  starts 
anew  in  secret  machinations  to  reach  his  goal.  He 
flatters  the  mother  of  Solomon  with  hypocritical 
humility,  and  seeks  to  move  the  heart  of  the  wife 
(see  on  chap.  ii.  13  sq.).  Rightly  does  Ewald  say 
of  him  :  "  A  man  who,  according  to  all  the  known 
features  of  our  memorial  of  him,  has  much  that 
resembles  Absalom,  fine  form,  airy,  and  ambitious 
of  power,  yet  inwardly  scarcely  fit  for  governing ; 
of  an  obdurate  mind,  and  yet  afraid  to  venture 
upon  open  battle.  That  he  was  no  proper  sov- 
ereign for  such  a  kingdom  as  Israel  then  was, 
must  be  obvious  to  intelligent  men." 

4.  Nathan  here,  as  always  (2  Sam.  vii.,  xii.),  ap- 
pears right  genuinely  as  prophet.  When  there  is  an 
attempt  to  bring  to  completion  human  self-willed 
beginnings  over-against  the  counsel  and  will  of  God, 
where  the  safety  and  well-being  of  the  chosen  peo- 
ple were  at  stake,  then  it  was  the  calling  of  the 
prophet  to  interfere,  counselling  and  reminding, 
warning  and  punishing.  It  was  not  so  much  per- 
sonal friendship  for  David,  and  love  for  his  pupil 
Solomon,  as  rather,  and  before  all,  the  known  will 
of  Jehovah,  which  had  determined  that  the  latter 
should  be  king,  that  induced  him  to  take  the  step 
which  would  have  had  the  most  disastrous  conse- 
quences for  himself,  yea,  might  have  cost  him  his 
life,  had  Adonijah  become  king.  It  was  not  Za- 
dok,  nor  Benaiah,  nor  any  of  the  other  friends  of 
David,  who  brought  to  nought  the  ill-starred  en- 
terprise. But  the  same  prophet,  through  whom  the 
great  promise  had  been  made  to  David  in  respect 
of  the  succession,  by  the  providence  of  God, 
averted  also  that  which  in'erfered  with  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promise.     And  without  his   prompt, 


spirited  interference  there  would  have  been  for 
Israel  no  Solomon-era,  no  glorious  age  of  the  the- 
ocratic house.  He  proceeded  in  the  matter  with 
great  wisdom  aud  circumspection.  First  he  allows 
the  mother  of  Solomon  to  prepare  the  way,  con 
ciliating  the  infirm  and  feeble  king,  then  he  enter! 
before  him  himself,  with  all  deference  indeed,  nev- 
ertheless at  the  same  time  earnestly  reminding  and 
slightly  reproving  him,  and  calls  upon  him  as  a 
man  and  servant  of  God  to  fulfil  the  promise  he 
had  given  unto  the  Lord. 

5.  The  conduct  of  David,  when  he  learns  wha> 
is  going  on,  corresponds  fully  with  the  divine  will 
and  with  his  great  calling  as  the  founder  of  the 
theocratic  kingdom,  and  of  the  new  dynasty  which 
is  to  sit  forever  upon  the  throne  of  Israel.  He  does 
not  stagger  irresolutely  hither  and  thither,  like  a 
sick,  feeble  old  man  without  any  will  of  his  own,  but, 
as  if  he  were  still  the  strong  hero,  the  undismayed, 
determined,  energetic  man,  such  as  in  his  best 
years  he  had  so  often  shown  himself  amid  dangers 
and  in  critical  situations,  he  raises  himself  from 
his  sick-bed,  swears  to  observe  his  word,  issues 
his  orders,  and  puts  them  into  immediate  execi  ■ 
tion.  This  resolution  and  firmness  could  not  have 
proceeded  possibly  from  their  opposite,  from  an 
inward  infirmity,  i.  e.,  from  compliance  with  the 
supplication  of  a  wife,  nor  from  dislike  of  Adoni- 
jah, whom  he  had  never  interfered  with  (ver.  6), 
but  had  heretofore  always  indulged  too  much.  It 
is  to  be  explained  only  by  his  faith  in  the  promise 
of  Jehovah,  by  his  firm  certainty  and  assurance 
that  Solomon  was  appointed  by  Jehovah  to  be  his 
successor,  and  that  through  him  as  well  his  own 
"house,"  as  the  house  of  Jehovah,  which  it  was 
permitted  himself  no  longer  to  take  care  of,  should 
be  built  up  (2  Sam.  vii.  11-13).  Upon  this  account 
also  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  mentions  him 
expressly  in  the  list  of  the  men  who  have  held 
the  faith  and  obtained  the  promise  (chap,  xu 
32).  How  could  he  have  sworn  by  Him  who  had 
"redeemed  his  soul  out  of  all  distress,"  and 
then,  in  deep  humility,  have  praised  and  glorified 
Him,  had  he  been  conscious  of  any  injustice  to- 
wards Adonijah,  and  had  not,  in  the  prosperous 
issue  of  his  commands,  beheld  a  gracious  guidance 
of  the  God  of  Israel  ?  It  is  clear  that  under  such 
a  man  as  Adonijah,  who  was  lacking  in  all  the 
qualities  requisite  for  the  head  of  the  theocracy, 
the  kingdom  never  would  have  reached  the  bloom 
which  it  reached  under  Solomon.  It  would  have 
been  the  greatest  misfortune  for  Israel  had  he  as- 
cended the  throne,  while,  viewed  apart  from  the 
promise,  the  high  and  extraordinary  endowment 
of  Solomon  was  a  clear  indication  of  Providence 
that  he  alone  of  all  his  brothers  was  fitted  to  pre- 
serve, indeed  to  increase,  what  Divid  had  acquired 
with  indescribable  toil  and  great  conflict,  under 
the  visible  assistance  of  God.  David  did  not  de- 
prive Adonijah  of  what  rightly  belonged  to  him, 
lie  only  did  not  bestow  upon  him  what  he  craved 
in  his  foolish  arrogance  and  ambition,  to  the  det- 
riment of  the  kingdom. 

G.  Of  Solomon  himself  we  learn  here  only  this 
one  thing,  that  he  iustantly  allowed  Adonijah  tu 
go  free,  who,  by  his  (light  to  a  place  of  refuge, 
w;is  selif-coiivieted  of  guilt,  and,  according  to  the 
ei  i -loin  in  such  cases,  feared  punishment  by  death. 
His  first  act  as  king  was  significantly  an  act  of 
magnanimity  and  grace,  which  appears  all  the 
more   worthy  of  admiration  when   we  remember 


CHAPTER  I.  1-53. 


27 


"that  Adonijah,  had  ho  won,  would  certainly  have 
destroyed  his  brother  and  all  his  chief  support- 
ers "  (Ewald),  as  both  Nathan  and  Bath-sheba 
undoubtedly  expected  (vors.  12,  21). 

7.  The  new  historic  criticism  sees  "  in  our  nar- 
rative, distinctly,  the  fully  natural  machinery  of 
human  actions  "  (Thenius),  a  "  court-cabal,"  the 
"  astute  manager  "  of  which  is  Nathan  (Koster). 
"  Bath-sheba  sought  to  secure  the  crown  for  her 
son  Solomon,  although,  after  Absalom's  death,  it 
devolved  upon  the  fourth  son  of  David,  Adonijah, 
whom  Hagith  had  borne  to  him.  One  of  the  two 
priests  at  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  Zadok,  sup- 
ported Bath-sheba's  designs,  just  as  Nathan  the 

prophet Both  could  expect  from  the 

young  Solomon  a  greater  complaisance  towards 
priestly  influence  than  from  the  more  independent 
Adonijah,  especially  if  they  helped  the  young  man, 
against  right,  to  the  throne.  It  was  characteristic 
of  Bath-sheba  to  induce  David  to  swear  by  Jeho- 
vah that  Solomon,  instead  of  Adonijah,  should  be 
his  successor.  But  Adonijah  was  resolved  not  to 
allow  himself  to  be  robbed  of  his  good  right 
through  an  intrigue  of  the  harem.  .  .  As  Da- 
vid was  sinking  upon  his  death-bed,  Adonijah  be- 
lieved that  he  must  anticipate  his  enemies,"  &c. 
(Duncker,  Geschichte  des  Alterthums,  i.  s.  385).  No- 
thing is  more  certain  than  that  the  biblical  author 
did  not  look  upon  the  matter  in  such  light.  This 
whole  exposition  is  a  distinct  example  of  the  mode 
of  treating  biblical  history  already  described  in 
the  Introduction,  §  5.  It  abandons  the  stand- 
point of  the  narrator,  arranges  the  history  man- 
fashion,  and  then,  as  is  the  case  here,  perverts  it 
into  its  opposite.  The  divine  promise  becomes  a 
fine-spun  harem  intrigue,  the  "great  prophet,"  as 
Ewald  also  calls  him,  becomes  the  intriguing  man- 
ager of  a  court-cabal,  the  true  priest  is  reduced 
to  the  level  of  a  self-seeker,  the  firm  believing 
king,  the  man  after  God's  heart,  the  play-ball  of  a 
woman  and  of  a  court-party,  the  greatest  and  wis- 
est king  of  Israel  Is  a  throne-robber,  and  on  the 
other  hand  the  airy,  incapable,  deceitful,  and  cow- 
ardly usurper  Adonijah  becomes  a  martyr  of  the 
right  and  the  unfortunate  victim  of  impure  machi- 
nations. This  entire  perverted  interpretation  rests 
upon  the  presupposition,  already  sufficiently  proved 
groundless,  that  Adonijah  was  "the  rightful  heir," 
and  falls  to  pieces  with  it. 

8.  ["It  is  true  that  Adonijah  was  David's  eld- 
est son  now  remaining,  and  therefore  might  seem 
to  challenge  the  justest  title  to  the  crown ;  but  the 
kingdom  of  Israel,  in  so  late  an  erection,  had  not 
yet  known  the  right  of  succession.  God  himself, 
that  had  ordained  the  government,  was  as  yet  the 
immediate  elector ;  He  fetched  Saul  from  among 
the  stuff,  and  David  from  the  sheep-fold,  and  has 
now  appointed  Solomon  from  the  ferule  to  the 
sceptre." — Bp.  Hall,  Contemplations,  Bk.  xvii.,  Con- 
templation i. — E.  H] 


HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 


Vers.  1-4.  Weakness  and  infirmity  in  old  age  are : 
(a)  the  universal  human  lot  to  which  we  must  all 
consider  ourselves  appointed  (Ps.  xc.  10) ;  (b)  they 
should  loosen  the  bands  which  hold  us  to  the  tem- 
poral and  perishable,  and  ripen  us  for  eternity  (2 
Cor.  iv.  17  sq.). — Wurt.  Summ.    They  who,  through 


many  a  cross,  and  sorrow,  and  anxiety,  expend 
their  bodily  powers,  should  be  all  the  more  pa- 
tient, and  console  themselves  here  with  the  exam- 
ple of  David,  and  know  that  among  the  saints  ol 
God,  also,  feebleness  of  body  is  found. — We  may, 
and  should,  follow  advice  for  the  relief  of  our  dis- 
tress and  the  preservation  of  our  life,  in  so  far  as 
it  does  not  militate  against  the  commands  of  God ; 
for  the  Lord  says,  "it  is  better,"  &c.  (Matt,  xviii. 
8). — Old  and  sick  people  should,  and  it  is  expected 
of  them  as  a  work  well  pleasing  to  God  that  they 
bear  this  with  a  willing  heart,  with  patience,  self- 
denial,  and  sacrificing  love. — Vers.  5-10.  Adoni- 
jah's  attempt  to  obtain  the  crown :  (a)  the  ground 
upon  which  it  rests  (upon  self-assertion,  pride,  lust 
of  power,  ver.  5,  but  God  resisteth  the  proud,  and 
a  haughty  spirit  goeth  before  a  fall :  iipon  outward 
qualities,  age,  and  beautiful  person,  ver.  6,  but  1 
Sam.  xvi.  7;  Ps.  cxlvii.  10,  11);  (b)  the  means 
which  he  employed  (he  seeks  to  impose  upon  the 
people  by  chariots  and  horsemen,  but  Ps.  xx.  8 ; 
he  conspires  with  false  and  faithless  men,  but  they 
forsake  him  in  the  hour  of  danger,  ver.  49 ;   Ps.  ci 

6,  7  ;  he  prepares  for  appearance'  sake  a  religious 
festival,  ver.  9,  but  2  Mos.  xx.  7). — Ver.  5.  The  ef- 
fort after  high  things  (Rom.  xii.  16). — How  many 
a  person  thinks :  I  will  become  a  great  personage, 
a  man  of  authority  and  influence,  and  then  scru- 
ples at  nothing  in  order  to  attain  his  goal.  But 
that  which  is  written  in  1  Cor.  vii.  20,  24  applies  to 
the  individual  as  well  as  to  entire  classes. — Wurt. 
Summ.  :  Let  no  one  attempt  to  take  an  office  against 
God  and  His  will ;  "  and  no  man  taketh  this  honor 
unto  himself  but  he  that  is  called  of  God  "  (Heb. 
v.  4). — Ver.  6.  The  father  who  allows  his  son  to 
go  on  in  his  pride  and  in  worldly  or  sinful  conduct, 
and  shuts  his  eyes,  not  to  trouble  him,  must  ex- 
pect that  the  son  will  trouble  him  and  embitter  the 
evening  of  his  life.  It  is  the  right  and  duty  of 
every  father  to  speak  to  his  son  about  his  conduct 
even  when  he  is  no  longer  a  child,  and  to  ask, 
Why  dost  thou  so?  A  perverted  parental  love 
is  self-punished,  Prov.  xxix.  17  ;  Sir.  xxx.  9. — Ver. 

7.  Hign  personages  always  find  people  for  the  exe- 
cution of  their  sinful  plans,  who,  from  subservi- 
ency or  desire  of  reward,  from  ambition  or  revenge, 
will  act  as  counsellors  and  agents;  but  they  have 
their  reward,  and  for  the  most  part  end  with  ter- 
ror.— Ver.  8.  With  those  who  are  meditating  trea- 
son and  destruction  we  should  never  make  common 
cause  (Prov.  xxiv.  21,  22). — Vers.  9,  10.  Seil^r:  He 
who  will  not  abide  his  time  until  God  himself  shall 
elevate  him,  will  fall  even  when  he  attempts  to 
rise.  He  who  gives  the  crowd  wherewith  to  eat 
and  to  drink,  who  prepares  for  them  festivities  and 
pleasures  (panem  et  circenses),  makes  himself  popu- 
lar and  beloved  for  the  moment;  but  all  who  al- 
low themselves  to  be  gained  in  such  way,  to-day 
shout  Hosanna  I  and  to-morrow,  Crucify !  By  not 
inviting  Solomon,  Adonijah  betrayed  his  plans, 
and  himself  gave  the  occasion  for  their  frustration 
(Ps.  lxix.  23  ;  Rom.  xi.  9).  It  is  a  rule  of  the 
divine  world-government  that  the  cause  of  God, 
through  that  whereby  its  enemies  seek  to  thwart 
and  hinder  it,  is  only  so  much  the  more  pro- 
moted. 

Vers.  11-27.  Nathan,  the  type  of  a  true  prophet: 
(a)  through  his  watchfulness  and  fidelity  (Ezek. 
xxxiii.  7),  he  is  not  silent  when  it  was  his  duty  to 
open  his  mouth  (Is.  lvt  10);  (b)  through  his  wis- 
dom and  gentleness  (Matt.  x.  16) ;  (c)  through  his 


2S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


earnestness  and  courage  (Matt.  x.  28 ;  see  Histor. 
and  Ethical).  How  grand  is  this  Nathan,  how  re- 
proving to  all  who  sleep  when  they  should  be 
wakeful,  who  are  dumb  when  they  should  coun- 
sel, who  flatter  when  they  should  warn. — Ver.  11. 
It  is  a  solemn  duty  not  to  conceal  what  can  prove 
an  injury  and  evil  to  an  individual  or  to  a  commu- 
nity, but  to  erpose  it  at  the  right  time  and  in  the 
right  place,  so  that  the  injury  may  be  averted. — 
Ter.  12.  What  Nathan  here  says  to  Bath-sheba, 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  an  infinitely  higher  sense, 
say  to  us  all,  especially  to  every  father  and  to  every 
mother.  He  who  has  come  into  the  world  to  de- 
liver and  to  save  our  souls,  cries,  Come  unto  me, 
£c.  (Matt.  xi.  28,  29),  and  the  apostle  advises  the 
jailor,  who  asks  in  terror  and  alarm,  What  shall  I 
do  to  be  saved  ?  i.  e.,  delivered,  Believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  so  shall  thou  and  thy  house  be  de- 
livered. How  many  take  kindly  the  good  advice 
of  a  wise  man,  for  themselves  and  for  their  child- 
-en,  in  their  earthly  and  outward  affairs,  but  who 
wish  to  hear  nothing  of  the  best  advice  which 
shall  bring  blessedness  to  their  souls. — Ter.  14. 
The  purity  of  the  counsel  is  confirmed  by  the  ac- 
companying result. — Vers.  15-21.  Bath-sheba  be- 
fore the  king.  She  reminds  him  of  his  duty  (a) 
towards  God,  before  whom  he  had  sworn  (what 
one  has  vowed  before  God,  according  to  God's 
will,  one  must  hold  to  under  all  circumstances ;  of 
this  one  must  remind  kings  and  princes) ;  (6)  to- 
wards the  people  whose  well-being  and  whose 
woe  were  in  his  keeping  (the  great  responsibility 
if  him  towards  whom  all  eyes  are  directed) ;  (c) 
towards  the  wife  and  son  whose  happiness  and 
life  were  at  stake  (woe  to  the  father  through  whose 
guilt  wife  and  children,  after  his  death,  fall  into 
contempt  and  wretchedness). — Vers.  22-27.  As 
Nathan  does  not  hold  back  from  the  fulfilment  of 
nis  holy  calling  through  consideration  of  the  dan- 
ger threatening  his  life,  and  of  the  illness  of  the 
king,  so 'David  is  deterred  in  nothing  when  it  was 
said,  Behold  the  prophet!  from  listening  to  the 
man  of  God,  though  his  word,  like  a  two-edged 
sword,  may  pierce  through  his  soul.  To  have  a 
Nathan  by  one's  side,  who  refers  at  the  right  time 
and  in  the  right  way  to  the  will  of  God,  is  the 
choicest  blessing  for  a  prince.  "  He  who  fears  God 
lays  hold  of  such  a  friend"  (Eccles.  vi.  16). — The 
ministers  of  God  and  the  preachers  of  His  word 
should  not  indeed  mingle  in  worldly  business  and 
political  affairs,  but  their  calling  always  requires 
them  to  testify  against  uproar  and  sedition,  for 
he  who  resisteth  the  powers,  resisteth  the  ordi- 
nance of  God  (Rom.  xiii.  2). — With  questions 
which  lead  to  a  knowledge  of  self,  he  who  has 
the  care  of  souls  often  accomplishes  more  than  by 
direct  reproaches  and  disciplinary  speeches. 

Vers.  28-37.  David's  decision:  (a)  His  oath 
(vers.  29,  30)  is  an  evidence  of  his  firm  faith  in  the 
divine  promise;  (b)  his  command  is  a  living  proof 
of  the  truth  of  the  word,  Is.  xl.  31,  and  Ps.  xcii. 
15  sq.  (see  Histor.  and  Ethical). — Ver.  30  sq.  The 
word  of  a  prince  must  stand  firm  and  not  be 
broken.  Happy  for  the  king  who,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, observes  what  he  has  promised.  Fi- 
delity in  high  places  meets  with  fidelity  from  those 
below. — Ver.  36.  Where  the  government  is  in  firm 
bands  there  is  found  also  a  willing,  joyous  obedi- 
»nce.  Upon  God's  blessing  all  is  founded.  With- 
out God's  Amen  our  Amen  avr  ils  nothing.  Loyal 
sub  ects  know  that   they  can  wish    for   nothing 


greater  and  better  for  their  prince  and  ruler  than 
that  God,  at  all  times,  may  be  with  him. — Vers. 
38-40.  The  typical  in  Solomon's  elevation  to  the 
sovereignty :  (a)  He  is  established  in  spite  of  all 
machinations  against  him  (Ps.  ii.  2;  Heb.  v.  5); 
(b)  he  is  anointed  with  oil  from  the  sanctuary  (Is. 
lxi.  1 ;  Luke  iv.  IS) ;  (c)  he  makes  his  entry  aa 
prince  of  peace  amid  the  jubilee  and  praise  of  the 
people  (Zach.  ix.  9;  Matt.  xxi.  1  sq.). — Starke: 
My  Christian  I  reflect  here  upon  the  trumpet- 
sounding  and  the  jubilee-shout,  when  the  heavenly 
Solomon  shall  take  possession  of  his  kingdom 
(Rev.  xi.  16),  and  see  to  it  that  thou  also  mayest 
be  amongst  those  who  have  part  in  this  joy. 

Vers.  41^,9.  The  frustration  of  the  schemes 
of  Adonijah  (Job  v.  12):  (a)  The  intelligence  he 
obtains ;  (b)  the  effect  produced  by  this  intelli- 
gence. To  an  evil  conscience  (Joab)  the  trumpets 
which  announce  victory  and  joy  are  judgment- 
trumpets,  which  sound  forth,  Thou  art  weighed  and 
found  wanting.  The  same  message  in  which  Da- 
vid expresses  himself,  Blessed  be,  Ac,  ver.  48, 
works  terror  and  alarm  in  Adonijah  and  his  party. 
So  still  ever  sounds  the  "  good  message  "  that  the 
true  Prince  of  peace,  Christ,  has  won  the  victory, 
and  is  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  which  to 
some  is  for  thanksgiving  and  praise,  so  that  they 
support  themselves  upon  it,  but  to  others  it  is  a 
stone  of  stumbling,  so  that  they  fall  and  are  con- 
founded (Is.  viii.  14;  Luke  ii.  34). — In  the  intoxi- 
cation of  sinful  pleasure  and  of  God-forgetting, 
frivolous  jubilation,  the  holy  God  sends,  often- 
times, the  thunder  and  lightning  of  his  judgment, 
so  that  the  besotted  and  maddened  may  thereby 
be  rendered  sober  and  made  to  experience  that 
there  is  an  holy  God  in  heaven  who  will  not  allow 
himself  to  be  mocked.  When  Adonijah  held  a 
great  festivity  he  had  plenty  of  friends ;  but  when 
the  messenger  came  with  evil  tidings,  no  one,  not 
even  the  bold  Joab,  stood  by  him ;  they  all  forsook 
him  (Eccles.  vi.  10-12). — Vers.  50-53.  Adonijah 
covered  himself  with  shame  (Prov.  xi.  2) :  (a)  He 
was  afraid  of  Solomon  (he  who  does  not  fear  the 
Lord,  must  at  last  become  afraid  of  men).  How 
miserable  the  contrast  between  the  young,  haughty 
Adonijah  and  the  aged,  feeble,  but  faithful-hearted 
and  humble  David;  (b)  he  flies  to  the  horns  of 
the  altar  and  begs  for  mercy:  (he  who  said,  I 
will  be  king,  calls  himself  Solomon's  servant.  Os- 
tentation and  boasting,  as  a  rule,  end  in  cowardice 
and  cringing.  He  can  bring  down  him  who  is 
proud  (Dan.  iv.  34).  In  the  old  covenant  the  horns 
of  the  altar  were  the  places  of  lefuge  for  those 
who  had  forfeited  life  and  sought  grace ;  in  the 
new  covenant  God  has  directed  us  to  a  horn  of 
salvation  (Luke  i.  69),  the  cross  of  the  Lord,  which 
all  must  seize  and  hold  fast  to  who  seek  forgive- 
ness and  grace,  and  wish  to  pass  from  death  unto 
life.  That  is  the  only  and  true  asylum ;  he  who 
flees  thither  avails  himself  of  the  word  of  the 
great  Prince  of  peace,  Go  in  peace,  thy  faith 
hath  saved  thee.  The  most  beautiful  prerogative 
of  the  crown  is  to  do  mercy  for  judgment ;  but 
mercy  must  never  be  for  a  covering  of  iniquity. 
Hence  by  the  side  of  the  word :  Thy  sins  are  for 
given  thee  1  stands  the  other  word :  Sin  no  more. 
Kings  and  princes  do  well  when,  after  Solomon's 
example,  they  begin  their  reign  with  an  act  of 
grace. 

[Bp.  Hall.  "  Outward  happiness  and  friend- 
ship are  not  known  until  our  last  act.     In  the  "n- 


CHAPTER  11.  1-12.  29 


potency  of  either  our  revenge  or  recompense  it 
will  easily  appear  who  loved  us  for  ourselves,  who 
for  their  own  ends."     Suitable  for  ver.  7. 

Bp.  Hall,  for  ver.  41.    "  No  doubt  at  this  feast 
there  was  many  a  health  drunken  to  Adonijah, 


many  a  confident  boast  of  their  prospering  desiga 
many  a  scorn  of  the  despised  faction  of  Solomon  ■ 
and  now,  for  their  last  dish  (ver.  49)  is  served  up 
astonishment,  and  fearful  expectation  of  a  just 
revenge. — E.  H.] 


B. — David's  last  words  to  Solomon,  and  his  death. 
Chapter  II.  1-12. 

1  Now  the  days  of  David  drew  nigh  that  he  should  die ;  and  he  charged 

2  Solomon  his  son,  saying,  I  go  the  way  of  all  the  earth :  be  thou  strong  there- 

3  fore,  and  shew  thyself  a  man ;  and  keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  thy 
God',  to  walk  in  His  ways,  to  keep  His  statutes,  and  His  commandments,  and 
His  judgments,  and  His  testimonies,  as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  that 
thou  mayest  prosper  '  in  all  that  thou  doest,  and  whithersoever  thou  turnest 

4  thyself:  that  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  may  continue  [confirm]2  His  word  which  he 
spake  concerning  me,  saying,  If  thy  children  [sons]  3  take  heed  to  their  way,  to 
walk  before  me  in  truth  with  all  their  heart  and  with  all  their  soul,'  there  shall 

5  not  fail  thee  (said  he)  6  a  man  on  the  throne  of  Israel.  Moreover  thou  knowest 
also  what  Joab  the  son  of  Zeruiah  did  to  me,  and  [even] 6  what  he  did  to  the  two 
captains  of  the  hosts  of  Israel,  unto  Abner  the  son  of  Ner,  and  unto  Amasa  the 
son  of  Jether,  whom  he  slew,  and  shed  the  blood  of  war  in  peace,  and  put  the 
blood  of  war'  upon  his  girdle  that  was  about  his  loins,  and  in  his  shoes  that  were 

6  on  his  feet.    Do  therefore  according  to  thy  wisdom,  and  let  not  his  hoar  head  go 

7  down  to  the  grave  in  peace.  But  shew  kindness  unto  the  sons  of  Barzillai  the 
Gileadite,  and  let  them  be  of  those  that  eat  at   thy  table  :  for  so  they  came  to 

«  me  when  I  fled  because  of  [before] 8  Absalom  thy  brother.  And,  behold,  thou 
hast  with  thee  Shimei  the  son  of  Gera,  a  Benjamite  [a  son  of  the  Jamimte]  of 
Bahurim,  which  cursed  me  with  a  grievous  curse  in  the  day  when  I  went  to 
Mahanaim :  but  he  came  down  to  meet  me  at  Jordan,  and  I   sware  to  him  by 

9  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  saying,  I  will  not  put  thee  to  death  with  the  sword.  Now 
therefore  hold  him  not  guiltless :  for  thou  art  a  wise  man,  and  knowest  what 
thou  oughtest  to  do  unto^him ;  but  his  hoar  head  bring  thou  down  to  the  grave 

with  blood.  .      .  ... 

10  So  [And]  David  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  in  the  city  of  David. 

11  And  the  davs  that  David  reigned  over  Israel  were  forty  years:  seven  years 
reio-ned  he  i'n  Hebron,  and  thirty  and  three  years  reigned  he  in  Jerusalem. 

12  Then  sat  Solomon  upon  the  throne  of  David  his  father ;  and  his  kingdom 
was  established  greatly. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

i  Ver.  8.-[The  Heb.  ^SfeW  bears  equally  well  the  sense  prosper  or  do  wisely;  cf.  Josh.  1. 7.    The  W.  generally 
vlopt  the  former. 

>  Ver  4—  [Confirm  is  the  proper  sense  of  D'i?'  as  in  all  the  VT. 

>  Ver.  4,-[It  is  better  here  to  preserve  the  masculine  form  as  in  all  the  VV.,  the  reference  being  undoubtedly  U 
the  line upontjje  throne.^  ^  ^  ^  ^^  ^^^  ^  nnd  also  vm  all  their  smll, 

•  Ver.4.-[De  Eossi  rejects  as  spurious  the  word  TtM^.,  which  is  wanting  in  Kennicotfs  MS.  170,  and  In  th. 

Vnlg.  and  Arab.  . 

•  Ver.  6.— [Many  MSS.,  the  Syr.  and  Arab.,  express  the  conjunction    If  «!.■ 
7  Ver.  5.— [The  Sept.  have  here  "  innocent  blood  "-«V»  iiaov. 

»  Ver.  7.— [Heb.  Ijfet?  • 

9  ver  8  -[Heb  ^OTrp.son  of  the  Jaminite,  t.  «.,  of  the  descendants  of  Jamin,  a  eon  of  Simeon  (Num.  ixvi.  18) 

theVV.  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.  have  appreciated  the  distinction  ;  Chald.,  Sir.,  and  Arab,  agree  witn  tne  a.  v.    r.o.j 


30 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  UF  THE  KINGS. 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Now  the   days  of  David,  &e.     The 

Chronicles  omit  the  history  of  Adonijah,  but  nar- 
rate instead,  that  David  ordered  a  solemn  act  of 
homage  of  the  entire  people,  in  the  persons  of 
thtir  representatives,  towards  Solomon  when  he 
"was  anointed  "a  second  time"  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  1 
sq.,  and  xxix.  20-25).  Such  also  was  the  case 
with  Said  (1  Sam.  xi.  12-15),  and  with  David  him- 
self (2  Sam.  v.  1-3 ;  1  Chron.  xi.  1-3).  Solomon's 
first  anointing  was  rather  impromptu,  called  for 
by  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  upon  which 
account  it  was  proper  that  it  should  be  fol- 
lowed by  another  done  with  all  solemnity  before 
the  whole  people.  It  took  place  also  before  that 
which  is  narrated  in  the  section  to  be  considered. 
The  words,  "  a  second  time,"  show  that  the  first 
anointing  was  well  known  to  the  chronicler.  His 
narrative,  besides,  does  not  "  rest  upon  liberty 
with  the  history  "  (Thenius),  but  is  a  filling-out  of 
our  own,  with  which  it  agrees  very  well. 

Vers.  2— t.  I  go  the  way,  &c.  The  form  of  ex- 
pression reminds  one  of  Josh,  xxiii.  14 ;  1  Sam.  iv. 
9;  but  especially  of  Josh.  i.  7.  The  exhortation: 
Be  thou  strong,  therefore,  and  show  thyself  a  man ! 
does  not  mean  :  be  consoled  on  account  of  my  de- 
parture, bear  it  manfully;  but  it  refers  to  what 
follows — be  strong  and  brave  in  the  "  charge  "  of 
Jehovah,  in  the  fulfilment  of  His  prescripts.     The 

expression :  niiT  TVfOWQ  DW  does  not  convey 

the  sense :  consider  what  Jehovah  wills  to  have 
considered,  %.  e.,  His  laws  (for  then  the  following 
would  be  pleonastic),  but  rather  custodies  custo- 
diam  Jehovae,  keep  the  charge  which  thou  art 
bound  to  Jehovah,  to  accomplish  ;  be  a  true  watch- 
man in  the  service  of  Jehovah  and  for  Him  (comp. 
1  Chron.  xxiii.  32 ;  xii.  29 ;  Numb.  iii.  6-8,  38).  This 
charge  is  fulfilled  in  walking  in  the  ways  of  God — 
in  observing  His  various  commandments.  The  ex- 
pressions which  here,  as  elsewhere,  so  frequently 
standing  side  by  side,  denote  the  latter  (Deut.  v. 
28;  viii.  11;  Ps.  cxviii.  5  sq.),  do  not  admit  of 
sharply-drawn  distinctions ;  but  they  "  denote  to- 
gether the  totality  of  the  law  upon  its  different 

sides  and  relations  to  men  "  (Keil). — ^afn  does 

not  mean  exactly  "  to  have  good  fortune  "  (Ge- 
senius,  De  Wette,  and  others),  but  to  be  skilful, 
wise.  He  who  in  all  things  stands  upon  the  com- 
mandments of  God,  and  governs  himself  there- 
after, is  and  carries  himself  wisely.  What  he  does, 
will  and  must  have  a  prosperous  issue,  and  come 
to  a  right  conclusion  (Deut.  xxix.  8;  Jer.  Hi. 
15  sq.) ;  xxiii.  5 ;  Prov.  xvii.  8 ;  2  Kings  xviii. 
'<)■ — In  ver.  4  the  positive  promise  in  2  Sam. 
vii.  11  sq.  is  expressed  in  negative  form,  as  also  in 

:hap.  viii.  25;  ix.  5;  Jer.  xxxiii.  17.     The  m3,"Xi' 

'does  not  denote  a  completely  unbroken  sueces- 
iion,  but  only  the  opposite  of  a  break  forever  " 
(Hengstenberg).  Thy  house  and  seed  shall  never 
be  exterminated,  what  catastrophies  soever  may 
happen. 

Vers.  5,  6.  The  charge  which  David  delivers  in 
rers  5-9.  were  not,  according  to  Ewald  and 
Eisenlohr,  originally  made  by  him ;  but  were  first, 
ai  some  subsequent  time,  put  into  his  mouth  in 
order   to  exp  ain  and  justify  Solomon's  severity 


to  Joab  and  to  Shimei  (chap.  ii.  28  sq  ).  Thil 
supposition  is  as  unnecessary  as  arbitrary  — Upon 
the  double  murder  of  which  Joab  was  guilty, 
comp.  2  Sam.  iii.  27  sq.,  and  xx.  8  sq.  The  first 
threw  a  false  suspicion  upon  David  (2  Sam.  in. 
37);  the  second  was  coupled  with  scorn  and 
defiance  of  the  royal  authority  (2  Sam.  xx.  11); 
hence  what  he  has  done  to  me  (to  my  injury).  — 
□  ""  ,  ver.  5,  literally,  he  shed  "blood  of  war"  in 

peace,  i.  e.,  he  furnished  an  unheard  of  example 
when  he  killed  Abner  and  Amasa,  not  as  foes,  in 
open,  honorable  warfare,  but  murderously  de- 
stroyed the  inoffensive.  Instead  of  the  second 
''blood  of  war,"  Thenius,  after  the  Sept.(«Iuo  adirrv), 
reads  <pj  DT  ,  which  makes  good  sense,  certainly, 

but  is  unnecessary. — Girdle  and  shoes  are  not  here 
introduced  as  "  especial  parts  of  oriental  costume  " 
(Thenius,  Keil);  nor  is  it  thereby  said,  "  from  the 
girdle  of  his  loins,  to  the  latchet  of  his  shoes,"  i  t , 
over  and  over  (Ewald);  but  girdle  and  shoes  litre 
are  rather  the  marks  of  the  warrior,  as  in  Isai.  v. 
27  and  Eph.  vt  14  sq.,  for  the  sword  is  fastened 
to  the  girdle  (2  Sam.  xx.  8),  and  the  shoes  serve 
for  marching,  and  provided  with  both,  one  enters 
upon  battle.  David  also  means  to  say :  Joab 
has  soiled  with  murder  and  blood  the  insignia  of 
his  rank  and  dignity  as  a  soldier  and  general 
issimo,  and  covered  his  office  with  shame  and  dis- 
grace.— According  to  thy  wisdom.  "  David 
does  not  wish  Solomon  to  invent  a  pretext  for 
taking  Joab's  life ;  but  he  exhorts  him  to  observe 
wisely  the  right  moment  and  occasion,  when  Joab 
shall  furnish  a  reason,  to  hold  him  to  account  also 
for  his  blood-guiltiness,  so  that  no  murmuring  shall 
arise  among  the  people ;  but  every  one  can  see  the 
justice  of  the  punishment  "  (Starke). — In  peace, 
i.  e.,  so  unpunished  as  if  he  had  done  only  good, 
and  committed  no  crime  worthy  of  death. 

Vers.  7-9.  Barzillai.  Comp.  2  Sam.  xvii.  27 
sq.-  At  thy  table,  i.  e.,  not  "that  they  shall 
have  the  privilege  of  eating  with  the  king  at  the 
royal  table  itself"  (Keil);  but  they  shall  receive 
their  necessary  food  from  the  court,  like  the  royal 
servants  (Dan.  i.  5).  The  recollection  of  the  noble 
service  of  Barzillai  leads  to  the  mention  of  the 
crime  of  Shimei,  committed  on  the  same  occasion 
(2  Sam.  xvi.  5  sq.,  and  xix.  21). — tjtsj;  (ver.  8)  does 

not  mean  under  thy  power  (Starke),  but  near  thee. 
Bahurim,  where  Shimei  dwelt  (2  Sam.  xvi.  5),  was  a 
village  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  (Joseph. 
Ant.  7,  9,  7),  about  one  and  a-half  hours'  (five  miles 
and  a  quarter)  distant  from  it.  David  does  not  say 
simply,  he  cursed  me  ;  but  emphatically,  he  cursed 
me  with  a  curse,  and  adds  the  epithet,  JVitDJ , 

whieh,  according  to  Thenius,  because  the  primary 
signification  of  J~C3  is,  to  be  exhausted,  sick, 
means  "  heinous  "  in  the  sense  of '  horrendus.  Ac- 
cording to  Kimchi  and  Gesenius,  the  primary  signi- 
fication is,  to  be  powerful,  strong,  and  for  this  the 
remaining  passages,  where  the  word  occurs,  decide 
(Mich.  ii.  10;  Job  vi.  25;  xvi.  3;  Vuigate,  Male- 
dictio  pessima). — For  thou  art  a  wise  man,  and 
knowest,  i.  e..  I  leave  to  thy  discretion  the  how 
and  when  of  the  punishment.  An  atria  el/.oy,c 
(Josephus).  will  not  be  wanting.  With  blood, 
the  opposite  of  the  "  in  peace  "  in  ver.  6,  inas- 
much as  he  has  deserved  it. 

Vers.  10,  11.  In  the  city  of  David,  i.  e..    in 
Mount  Zion,  in  which,  -aves  that  sf.rved  a:,  burial 


CHAPTER  II.  1-12. 


31 


vaults  were  constructed  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  ii. 
».  736).  According  to  Thenius  the  entrance  into 
these  vaults  was  on  the  east,  in  the  vale  Tyropoeon, 
in  a  sloping  declivity  of  the  mountain,  opposite 
the  spring  Siloam.  The  later  kings  also  were 
buried  here  (1  Kings  xi.  43 ;  xiv.  31 ;  xv.  8,  &c). 
The  still  so-called  kings'  graves  are  different,  and 
are  situated  on  the  opposite  side,  to  the  north  of 
the  Damascus  gate  (Robinson,  Palestine,  vol.  i. 
p.  240  and  357  sq.).  David  had,  without  doubt, 
prepared  these  burial-places  for  himself  and  his 
successors.  In  what  high  estimation  his  tomb 
was  held  is  clear  from  the  circumstance  that  it 
was  known  even  during  the  time  of  Christ  (Acts  ii. 
29).  According  to  2  Sam.  v.  5,  six  months  were 
added  to  the  seven  years.  Ter.  12  is  the  transi- 
tion to  the  next  section,  where  it  is  told  how 
Solomon's  administration  was  strengthened. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  In  the  last  words  of  David  to  Solomon,  it  is 
not  so  much  the  father  speaking  to  his  son,  as  the 
king  of  Israel,  the  head  of  the  theocratic  kingdom, 
to  his  successor  upon  the  throne.  From  this 
stand-point  we  must  view  alike  the  general  and 
the  special  portions  of  the  whole  discourse.  The 
calling  of  a  kiug  of  Israel  consisted  especially  in 
this:  to  preserve  the  "kingdom  of  Jehovah" 
(1  Chron.  xxviii.  5  ;  xxix.  23) ;  to  be  not  the  repre- 
sentative, but  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  the  true 
and  proper  king,  also  to  observe  "  all  the  words  of 
the  Law,  and  all  the  ordinances  of  Jehovah " 
(Deut.  xvii.  14-20);  but,  before  all,  that  supreme 
and  chief  command,  Exod.  xx.  3-6,  to  observe  com- 
pletely the  covenant  which  Jehovah  had  made  with 
His  chosen  people.  With  this  high  calling  David's 
soul  was  completely  filled ;  and  as  he  had  con- 
tinually "done  what  was  right  in  the  ej'es  of 
Jehovah,  and  had  not  turned  aside  from  anything 
■5hat  had  been  enjoined  upon  him  all  his  life  long  " 
(1  Kings  xv.  5),  so,  also,  in  the  last  moments  of 
his  life,  it  was  his  greatest  solicitude  that  his  suc- 
cessor upon  the  throne  should  stand  upon  "the 
charge  of  Jehovah"  (ver.  3),  i.  e.,  should  take  care 
that  the  law  of  Moses,  with  all  its  particular  pre- 
scripts, in  their  entire  circumference,  should  be 
maintained.  This  he  earnestly  and  solemnly  sets 
forth  as  the  foundation  of  a  prosperous  and  bl 
reign,  and  as  the  condition  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  made  to  him  in  respect  of  the  continuance 
of  his  "house"  (2  Sam.  vii.).  So  David  appears 
here,  yet  once  more,  in  his  grand  historical  signi- 
ficance, namely,  as  the  type  of  a  theocratic  king, 
by  which  the  conduct  of  all  subsequent  kings  is 
measured  (chap.  Hi.  3,  6,  14;  ix.  4;  x.  4-6;  xi. 
33-38;  xiv.  8;  xv.  5-11;  2  Kings  xiv.  3;  xvi.  2; 
xviii.  3;  xxii.  2).  The  throne  of  David  is  Israel's 
model  throne ;  no  king  of  Israel  has  left  behind 
him  such  a  testament  as  David  here. 

2.  It  is  worthy  of  re/nark,  that  the  man  who 
reigned  forty  years,  and  whose  life  as  ruler  was 
bo  rich  in  experience,  should,  amongst  the  counsels 
he  imparted  to  his  successor,  have  placed  this  in 
the  fore  front;  "  be  thou  strong,  therefore,  and  show 
thyself  a  man .' "  He  knew  what  belongs  to  the 
office  of  ruler.  Moral  weaknesses,  swaying  hither 
and  thither  like  a  reed  moved  by  the  wind  ;  un- 
seasonable pliability  is  a  greater  defect  in  a  ruler 
than  if  he  be  overtaken  by  this  or  that  particular 
sin  in  private  'ife.      Rightly   says   the  Scripture, 


Woe  to  the  land  whose  king  is  a  child  (instead  of  a 
man),  Eccles.  x.  16.  Firmness  and  manliness,  how- 
ever, are  not  the  fruit  of  caprice,  and  of  an  un- 
broken heart.  It  is  through  grace  that  the  heart 
is  made  strong  (Heb.  xiii.  9). 

3.  Tlie  special  directions,  which  refer  to  indi- 
vidual persons,  David  likewise  communicates,  not 
as  a  private  man,  but  as  king  of  Israel.  Joab's 
double  murder  had  gone  fully  unpunished.  At  the 
time  of  its  commission  David  was  not  in  a  condi- 
tion to  be  able  to  punish  him ;  but  he  felt  the  full 
weight  of  the  deed,  and  in  his  horror  of  it  uttered  an 
imprecation  of  Joab  (2  Sam.  iii.  29).  In  the  eyes  of 
the  people,  nevertheless,  the  non-punishment  must 
have  been  regarded  as  an  insult  against  law  and 
righteousness,  the  charge  of  which  devolved  upon 
the  king.  "  It  was  a  stain  upon  his  reign  not  yet 
blotted  out.  Even  upon  his  death-bed  he  cannot 
think  otherwise  than  that  it  is  his  duty,  as  that  of 
the  supreme  judge,  to  deliver  to  his  successor  a 
definite  direction  about  it"  (Hess,  Gesch.  David's,  ii. 
s.  220).  It  lay  upon  his  conscience,  and  he  de- 
sired that  this  stain  somehow  ("  do  according  to 
thy  wisdom."  ver.  1)  should  be  removed.  More- 
over, Joab's  participation  in  Adonijah's  revolt 
must  have  appeared  as  dangerous  for  the  throne 
of  Solomon.  As  the  punishment  of  Joab  was  to 
him  a  matter  of  conscience,  so  also  was  Barzillai's 
compensation.  What  Barzillai  had  done,  he  had 
(lorn-  lor  him  as  king,  as  the  anointed  of  Jehovah. 
Such  fidelity  and  devotion  to  the  legitimate  reigning 
house  (Kimigthum)  in  a  time  of  great  and  almost  uni- 
versal  falling  away,  ought  to  be  publicly  requited, 
and  to  be  recognized  in  honorable  remembrance 
after  the  death  of  the  king.  This  compensation 
musl  serve,  no  less  than  the  righteous  punishment 
of  Joab,  to  the  firm  establishment  of  the  throne  of 
Solomon.  In  direct  contrast  with  the  action  of  Bar- 
zillai was  that  of  SMmei.  He  did  not  curse  David 
as  a  private  person,  but  he  cursed  him  with  the 
heaviest  curse  as  the  "anointed  of  Jehovah,"  and 
therein  Jehovah  himself  directly.  For  blasphemy 
against  the  king  was  on  tbe  same  level  with  blas- 
phemy against  God  (2  Kings  xxi.  10).  Both  were 
punished  with  death  (Lev.  xxiv.  14  sq.;  Exod. 
xxii.  27 ;  2  Sam.  xvi.  9),  hence  also  Abishai  thought 
that  Shimei  should  be  put  to  death  (2  Sam.  xix. 
22).  But  David  wished  on  the  day  when  God  had 
shown  him  a  great  mercy,  to  show  mercy  himself, 
and  upon  that  account  spared  his  life.  But  "it 
was  no  small  matter  to  allow  the  miscreant  to 
spend  his  life  near  him  (no  banishment  was  talked 
of).  And  to  permit  him  to  spend  his  days  quietly 
under  the  following  reign  (which  had  never  been 
promised  him),  would  have  been  a  kindness  that 
might  have  been  greatly  abused  as  a  precedent 
of  unpunished  crimes "  (Hess).  In  fact,  Shimei 
was  a  dangerous  man,  and  capable  of  repeating 
what  he  had  done  to  David.  As  for  the  rest,  Da- 
vid left  Solomon  to  choose  the  manner  and  time 
of  his  punishment,  only  he  was  not  to  go  unpun- 
ished. 

4.  Davi<Vs  conduct  on  his  dying-bed-  has  fre- 
quently been  regarded  as  a  great  reproach  to  him. 
The  latest  (secular)  history  passes  the  following 
judgment  upon  it :  "  If  David's  life  and  deeds  had 
not  sufficiently  shown  his  mind,  these  last  words 
of  the  dying  man  would  leave  no  doubt  about  his 
charai  ter.  .  .  .  We  must  turn  away  from  sucl 
blood-thirsty  desire  lor  revenge  which,  though  in- 
nate with  tl»'  Semick  race  .  i.   uniti  1  hen    t  'th  a 


32 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


concealment  of  purpose  and  malice  that  are  pecu- 
liar to  David.  His  vengeance,  even  out  of  the 
grave  itself,  determines  to  strike,  through  the 
hand  of  his  son,  an  insignificant  man,  to  whom  he 
(David)  had  once  promised  forgiveness  when  he 
hunself  was  in  a  strait.  Forgetting  all  the  ser- 
vices and  victories  he  owed  to  Joab,  David  deter- 
mines, in  order  to  gratify  a  long-cherished  ill-feel- 
ing, to  have  a  man,  to  whom  he  owed  his  kingdom 
and  whom  he  himself  had  not  ventured  to  touch, 
murdered  by  his  son,  ostensibly  for  two  acts  which 
Joab  did,  if  not  with  David's  consent,  yet  by  no 
means  against  his  will ;  the  fruits  of  which  David 
had  willingly  accepted,  and  which  acts  he  had  not 
made  the  slightest  efforts  to  punish "  (Duncker, 
Gesch.  des  Alterthums,  i.  s.  386).  In  this  view  it 
is  entirely  overlooked  that  David  did  not  then 
speak  as  a  private  man,  but  as  a  theocratic  king, 
and  this  judgment  of  him  is  quite  false,  no  regard 
being  paid  to  the  time  and  the  circumstances.  The 
rough,  false  assassin  Joab,  who  finally  conspires 
with  Adonijah,  is  made  to  appear  as  a  man  of  high 
merit,  and  the  blasphemer  aud  traitor  Shimei,  as 
an  insignificant,  unfairly-treated  man,  while  Da- 
vid, who  departs  life  without  one  crime  on  his 
conscience  as  king,  and  who  desires  to  fulfil  the 
demands  of  justice  as  well  as  of  gratitude,  is  said 
to  have  displayed  the  whole  of  his  wicked  aud 
malicious  character  at  the  last.  "  Nothing  but  an 
uncritical  confusion,  which  wished  to  behold  in 
David  a  saint  and  a  complete  model  of  virtue 
(which  the  Scriptures  nowhere  assert  him  to  be), 
could  call  forth,  as  contrast,  the  degradation  of  the 
king,  which  is  as  one-sided  as  unpsychological " 
(Winer,  if.-  W.-B.,  i  s.  258).  [Yes !  but  our  au- 
thor forgets  that  David  had  sworn  to  Shimei,  Thou 
shall  not  die!  (2  Sam.  six.  23) ;  and  "  the  king"  it 
was  (i.  e.,  David  as  king)  that  "swore  unto  him." 
Clearly  David's  act  of  grace  to  Shimei  was  an  act  of 
royal  right,  royal  clemency,  and  nothing  but  sophis- 
try can  justify  his  dying  charge  to  Solomon  not  to 
let  the  unfortunate  man  die  in  peace. — E.  H.]  When 
Bunsen's  Bibel-werk  says :  "  The  vengeance  of  Da- 
vid can  never  be  justified  from  the  Christian  point 
of  view,"  it  is  quite  overlooked  that  that  point 
of  view  is  not  the  fitting  one  here.  David  be- 
longed to  the  Old  Testament  economy,  to  the  time 
of  the  law,  not  the  gospel,  and  his  conduct  must 
be  judged  in  the  light  of  the  former.  It  is  an 
anachronism  to  measure  Old  Testament  persons 
by  the  standard  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount. 
Besides,  the  same  apostle  who  exhorts  the  believ- 
ers as  follows :  Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  your- 
selves, immediately  after,  speaking  of  authorities — 
,  ind  David  speaks  as  such  here — tells  them  that 
they  are  "  ministers  of  God,  revengers  to  execute 
wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil"  (Rom.  xii.  19; 
xiii.  4|.  In  the  kingdom  of  God  in  which  the  law 
of  earthly  punishments  prevailed,  such  a  crime 
(like  that  of  Joab  and  Shimei)  could  not  remain 
unpunished.  He,  too,  who,  when  He  was  reviled, 
reviled  not  again;  who,  when  He  suffered,  threat- 
ened not  (1  Peter  ii.  23),  announced  in  a  parable 
the  final  judgment  of  His  enemies:  "But  those 
mine  enemies,  which  would  not  that  I  should  reign 
over  them,  bring  hither,  and  slay  them  before  me  " 
(Luke  xix.  27 :  v.  Gerlach).  We  scarcely  find  as 
many  instances  of  personal  love  to  a  foe,  gener- 
osity and  goodness,  in  the  life  of  any  Old  Testa- 
ment hero,  as  in  David's.  It  is  evident  that  the 
author  ol  our  books  does  not  relate  the  commis- 


sions objected  to,  to  vilify  David  at  the  last,  at 
Duncker  does,  but  on  the  contrary  he  tells  them, 
to  his  honor,  to  show  how  entirely  king  of  Israel 
David  was,  even  on  his  dying-bed. 

5.  Chronicles  (I.,  xxix.  28)  relates  the  death  cf 
David  with  the  addition  that  "  he  died  in  a  good  c^d 
age,  full  of  days,  riches,  and  honor."  We  see  hew 
much  he  was  honored  even  in  death,  from  the  fact 
that  his  weapons  were  preserved  as  relics  in  the 
sanctuary  (2  Kings  xi.  10).  Compare  the  eulogy  in 
Ecclesiasticus,  chap,  xlvii.  2-11.  For  the  character 
of  the  great,  and  indeed  greatest,  king  of  Israel, 
though  now  so  often  unjustly  judged,  by  whose 
name  the  expected  Messiah  was  designated  by  the 
prophets  (Ezekiel  xxxiv.  23 ;  xxxvii.  24 ;  Hos.  iii.  5), 
comp.  Niemeyer,  Charaklistik  der  Bibel,  iv.  s.  107- 
358,  and  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.,  iii.  s.  250-257,  which 
says,  with  regard  to  the  "  last  (poetical)  words  " 
of  David  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  1-7) :  "  No  prince,  especially 
one  who  did  not  inherit  the  kingdom,  could  close 
his  life  with  more  blessed  divine  peace,  or  a  more 
assured  and  cheerful  view  into  the  future." 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-9.  David's  last  words  to  Solomon  (a) 
with  regard  to  the  kingdom  generally  (vers.  1— i), 
(ft)  respecting  some  individuals  (vers.  5-9 ;  see 
Historical  and  Ethical). — Ver.  2.  Various  as  are 
the  paths  of  men  from  their  birth,  yet  they  all, 
kings  as  well  as  beggars,  rich  and  poor,  go  the 
way  to  the  grave  (Ecclesiasticus  xl.  1-3).  And  yet 
so  many  live  as  if  they  had  not  to  travel  that  road 
(Ps.  xxxix.  5,  6;  xc.  11,  12). — The  passing  nature 
and  vanity  of  the  world,  with  its  allurements  and 
splendor,  is  a  strong  exhortation  and  warning  from 
God  to  hold  fast  to  the  word  that  lives  forever, 
and  shall  not  pass  even  when  heaven  and  earth 
pass  away  (1  Peter  i.  24,  20  ;  1  John  ii.  17  ;  Luke 
xxi.  33). — Be  firm  and  be  a  man  1  What  is  requi- 
site to  be  one  ?  how  shall  one  become  one  ?  of 
what  use?  (Heb.  xiii.  9;  1  Cor.  xv.  5-8;  xvi.  13). 
— Ver.  3.  The  last  and  best  will  of  a  father  to  his 
son:  (a)  Trust  in  God's  protection  of  yourself  and 
all  whom  God  has  confided  to  your  care  ;  (ft)  walk 
in  His  ways  ;  let  Him  lead  and  guide  you,  He  will 
do  it  well  (Prov.  xxiii.  26;  Ps.  xxxv.  5);  (c)  keep 
His  ways  and  ordinances  (Eccles.  xii.  13 ;  Ps.  i.  1-6; 
Tob.  iv.  6).  Such  an  inheritance  is  greater  and 
better  than  all  the  gold  and  land  he  might  leave 
you. — True  prudence  and  wisdom  are  not  born  of 
human  thought  and  much  knowledge,  but  are  the 
fruit  of  the  fear  of  God,  and  of  walking  in  His 
ways  and  commandments  (Ps.  cxi.  10  ;  Job  xxviii. 
28). — God-fearing  parents  are  more  anxious  about 
their  children  keeping  close  to  God  and  His  word, 
than  about  leaving  them  temporal  goods. — Ver.  4. 
The  promises  of  God  only  proceed  from  His  grace, 
not  our  merit ;  but  their  fulfilment  is  always  coupled 
with  conditions,  which  we  have  to  perform  if  we 
would  enjoy  them  (Heb.  xi.  6 ;  1  Tim.  iv.  8). — Vers. 
5-9.  We  cannot  go  the  way  of  all  the  world  in 
peace,  as  long  as  we  have  anything  remaining  on 
our  conscience,  or  any  debt  to  justice  and  grateful 
love  to  cancel.  We  should  forgive  our  enemies 
from  our  hearts,  as  we  desire  the  Lord  to  forgive 
us,  and  especially  on  our  dying-beds.  But  au- 
thority was  instituted  to  "do  justice;  to  prevent 
and  punish  wickedness;"  it  commits  a  sin  and 
has  a  crime  to  answer  for  so  long  as  it  does  not  da 


CHAPTER  II.  13-16. 


33 


this  (Rom.  xiii.  4;  Gen.  ix.  6). — Ter.  6.  Gray  hairs, 
u  found  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  are  a  crown 
of  glory  (Prov.  xvi.  31),  adorned  with  which  a  man 
may  go  the  way  of  all  flesh  in  peace  and  comfort ; 
but  an  old  sinner,  whom  even  gray  hairs  have  not 
brought  to  repentance,  goes  down  to  the  grave 
without  solace  or  peace. — Ver.  7.  A  noble  heart 
does  not  forget  what  was  done  for  him  in  times 
of  trouble  especially,  and  thinks  of  it  even  in  the 
hour  of  death.  The  world  is  ungrateful.  A  bless- 
ing rests  on  deeds  of  faithfulness  and  self-sacri- 
ficing disinterested  love,  and  it  descends  to  children 
and  children's  children. — Vers.  S,  9.  A  curse  rests 
on  those  who  curse  the  "  powers  "  which  are  God's 
ministers,  instead  of  praying  for  them,  and  they  are 
made,  sooner  or  later,  to  feel  the  curse  (1  Peter  ii.  17, 
6).  The  Lord  prayed  for  those  who  cursed  Him ;  but 
when  they  did  not  repent  and  become  converted, 
divine  judgment  came  down  on  them.     No  doubt 


a  wicked  man  often  goes  a  long  tim*  -.nnunished 
for  his  deeds,  but  divine  justice  d  ,<js  not  fail  to 
overtake  him  finally,  ere  he  is  avare. — It  requires 
wisdom  to  punish;  a  prematuie  ill-judged  chas- 
tisement does  more  harm  than  good. 

Vers.  10-12.  David's  death :  (a)  He  slept  with 
his  fathers  (Stakke  :  The  death  of  believers  is  a 
sleep,  and  being  gathered  to  their  fathers,  whe 
also  still  live  with  God,  and  await  the  coming  res- 
urrection to  eternal  life,  Isai.  xxvi.  19);  (b)  they  rest 
in  the  grave.  (Rest  is  good  to  those  who  have 
borne  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day  forty  years 
long — that  rest  which  God  has  promised  to  those 
who  strive  after  eternal  life  with  patient  continu- 
ing in  good  works.  Rom.  ii.  7 ;  Isai.  lvii.  2). — Da- 
vid's grave  is  a  pledge  that  the  memory  of  the  just 
is  blessed  (Prov.  xl.  7 ;  Acts  ii.  29),  and  that  the 
blessing  of  the  father  builds  the  children's  houses 
(ver.  12  ;  Ecclesiasticus  iii.  11). 


C. — Solomon's  course  with  the  opposers  of  his  accession  to  the  throne. 
Chap.  II.  13-16.. 

13  And  Adonijah  the  son  of  Haggitb  came  to  Bath-sheba  the  mother  of  Solo- 

14  mon.1     And  she  said,  Comest  thou  peaceably  ?     And  he  said,  Peaceably.     He 

15  said  moreover,  I  have  somewhat  to  say  unto  thee.  And  she  said,"  Say  on.  And 
he  said,  Thou  knowest  that  the  kingdom  was  mine,  and  that  all  Israel  set  their 
faces  on  me,  that  I  should  reign  :  howbeit  the  kingdom  is  turned  about,  and  is 

16  become  my  brother's:  for  it  was  his  from  the  Lord  [Jehovah].     And  now  I  ask 

17  one  petition  of  thee,  deny  me  not.  And  she  said  unto  him,  Say  on.  And  he  said, 
Speak,  I  pray  thee,  unto  Solomon  the  king,  (for  he  will  not  say  thee  nay,)  that 

18  he  give  me  Abishag  the  Shunammite  to  wife.  And  Bath-sheba  said,  Well ;  I 
will  speak  for  thee  unto  the  king. 

19  Bath-sheba  therefore  went  unto  king  Solomon,  to  speak  unto  him  for  Adoni- 
jah.  And  the  king  rose  up  to  meet  her,  and  bowed  himself  unto  her,  and  sat 
down  on  his  throne,  and  caused  a  seat  to  be  set  for  the  king's  mother ;  and  she 

20  sat  on  his  right  hand.  Then  she  said,  I  desire  one  small  petition  of  thee  ;  I  pray 
thee,  say  me  not  nay.     And  the  king  said  unto  her,  Ask  on,  my  mother ;  for  I 

21  will  not  say  thee  nay.      And   she  said,  Let  Abishag  the  Shunammite  be  given 

22  to  Adonijah  thy  brother  to  wife.  And  king  Solomon  answered  and  said  unto 
his  mother,  And  why  dost  thou  ask  Abishag  the  Shunammite  for  Adonijah  ? 
ask  for  him  the  kingdom  also;  for  he  is  mine  elder  brother;   even  for  him,  and 

23  for  s  Abiathar  the  priest,  and  for  Joab  the  son  of  Zeruiah.  Then  king  Solomon 
sware  by  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  saying,  God  do  so  to  me,  and  more  also,  if  Ado- 

24  nijah  hath  not  spoken  this  word  'against  his  own  life.  Now  therefore,  as  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  liveth,  which  hath  established  me,  and  set  me  on  the  throne  of 
David  my  father,  and  who  hath  made  me  a  house,  as  he  promised,  Adonijah 

25  shall  be  put  to  death  this  day.  And  king  Solomon  sent  by  the  hand  of  Benaiah 
the  son  of  Jehoiada  ;  and  he  fell  upon  him  that  he  died. 

And  unto  Abiathar  the  priest  said  the  king,  Get  thee  to  Anathoth,  unto 
thine  own  fields ;  for  thou  art  worthy  of  death  :  but  I  will  not  at  this  time  '  put 
thee  to  death,  because  thou  barest  the  ark  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  before  Da- 
vid my  father,  and  because  thou  hast  been  afflicted  in  all  wherein  my  father  was 
afflicted.  So  Solomon  thrust  out  Abiathar  from  being  priest  unto  the  Lord  [Je- 
hovah] ;  that  he  might  fulfil  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he  spake 
concerning  the  house  of  Eli  in  Shiloh. 

Then  tidings  came  to  Joab:  for  Joab  had  turned  after  Adonijah,  though  he 
turned  not  after  Absalom.6  And  Joab  fled  unto  the  tabernacle  of  the  LordJJe- 
29  hovah],  and  caught  hold  on  the  horns  of  the  altar.  And  it  was  told  king  Solo- 
mon that  Joab  was  fled  unto  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] ;  and,  behold, 


26 


21 


28 


di  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KIXUS. 

he  is  by  the  altar.8     Then  Solomon  sent  Benaiah  the   son  of  Jehoiada,  saying, 

30  Go,  fall  upon  him.'  And  Benaiah  came  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah], 
and  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  king,  Come  forth.  And  he  said,  Nay  ; 8  but  I 
will  die  here.     And  Benaiah  brought  the  kiug  word   again,  savins;,  Thus  said 

31  Joab,  and  thus  he  answered  me.  And  the  king  said  unto  him,  Do  as  he  hath  said, 
and   fall  upon  him,  and  bury  him ;  that  thou  mayest  take  away '  the  innocent 

32  [omit]  blood,  which  Joab  shed  [without  cause],  from  me,  and  from  the  house  of 
my  father.  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  shall  return  his  blood  '"  upon  his  own  head, 
who  fell  upon  two  men  more  righteous  and  better  than  he,  and  slew  them  with 
the  sword,  [and]  my  father  David  not  knowing  thereof  [knew  it  not11],  to  wit, 

33  Aimer  the  son  of  Ner,  captain  of  the  host  of  Israel,  and  Amasa  the  son  of  Jether, 
captain  of  the  host  of  Judah.  Their  blood  shall  therefore  return  upon  the  head 
of  Joab,  and  upon  the  head  of  his  seed  for  ever :  but  upon  David,  and  upon  his 
seed,  and  upon  his  house,  and  upon  his  throne,  shall  there  be  peace  for  ever  from 

34  the  Lord  [Jehovah].  So  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  went  up,  and  fell  upon  him, 
and  slew  him :  and  he  was  buried  in  his  own  house  in  the  wilderness. 

35  And  the  king  put  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  in  his  room  over  the  host :  " 
and  Zadok  the  priest  did  the  king  put  in  the  room  of  Abiathar.13 

36  And  the  king  sent  and  called  for  Shimei,  and  said  unto  him,  Build  thee  an 
house  in  Jerusalem,  and  dwell  there,  and  go  not  forth  thence  any  whither. 

37  For  it  shall  be,  that  on  the  day  thou  goest  out,  and  passest  over  the  brook 
Kidron,  thou  shalt  know  for  certain  that  thou  shalt  surely  die:  thy  blood  shall 

38  be  upon  thine  own  head.14  And  Shimei  said  unto  the  king,  The  saying  is  good  : 
as  my  lord  the  king  hath   said,  so  will  thy  servant  do.     And  Shimei  dwelt  iu 

39  Jerusalem  many  days.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  three  years,  that 
two  of  the  servants  of  Shimei  ran  away  unto  Achish  son  of  Maachah   king  of 

40  Gath.  And  they  told  Shimei,  saying,  Behold,  thy  servants  be  in  Gath.  And 
Shimei  arose,  and  saddled  his  ass,  and  went  to  Gath  to  Achish  to  seek  his  ser- 

41  vants  :  and  Shimei  went,  and  brought  his  servants  from  Gath.  And  it  was  told 
Solomon  that  Shimei  had  gone  from  Jerusalem  to  Gath,  and  was  come  again. 

42  And  the  king  sent  and  called  for  Shimei,  and  said  unto  him,  Did  I  not  make 
thee  to  swear  by  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  protested  unto  thee,  saying,  Know  for 
a  certain,  on  the  day  thou  goest  out,  and  walkest  abroad  any  whither,  that  thou 
shalt  surely  die  ?  '6  and  thou  saidst  unto  me,  The  word  that  I  have  heard  is  good. 

43  Why  then  hast  thou  not  kept  the  oath  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  the  command- 

44  ment  that  I  have  charged  thee  with  ?  The  king  said  moreover  to  Shimei,  Thou 
knowest  all  the  wickedness  which  thine  heart  is  privy  to,  that  thou  didst  to 
David  my  father ;  therefore  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  shall  return  thy  wickedness  upon 

4i>  thine  own   head :  and  king  Solomon  shall  be  blessed,  and  the  throne  of  David 
46  shall  be  established  before  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  for  ever.    So  the  king  commanded 

Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada;  which  went  out,  and  fell  upon  him,  that  he  died. 

And  the  kingdom  was  established  in  the  hand  of  Solomon.18 

TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

I  Ver.  13. — [The  Sept.  adds  Ka\  jrpocrcKviojcrei'  aurij  (Al.  avrrfv).  . 

a  Ver.  14. — [Two  MSS.  and  some  editions  (followed  by  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syriac)  add  i?  =  to  him. 

'  Ver.  22. — [All  the  W.  here  give  a  sense  which  seems  based  on  the  supposition  that  p  before  Abiathar  and  before 
Joab  is  pleonastic ;  but  for  this  there  is  no  authority.  Thus  the  Vulg. :  "  it  haliet  Abiathar"  etc.  Sept. :  icai  aurw  'Aptaflap 
k.t.A.     Similarly  Syr.  and  Arab.     The  Chald. :  u  nonne  in  conmlio  fuerunt  ille  et  Abiatluir"  etc. 

•  Ver.  26. — [The  Sept..  without  authority,  alters  the  place  of  the  conjunction  so  as  to  read  diojp  Qavarov  el  crv  eV  rp 
fJM'P?    rairrn,  Kai  oxj  Bavaruicrto  ere. 

•  Ver.  28. — [The  Vulg.,  Sept..  (Vatican)  and  Syr.  curiously  substitute  here  the  name  of  Solomon  for  that  of  Absalom. 
Tho  Ar3b.  attempts  to  reconcile  both  by  translating  "neither  did  he  love  Solomon." 

•  Ver.  29.— -[The  Sept.  add  "And  kin?  (Alex,  omit  Toing)  Solomon  sent  to  Joab.  saying.  What  has  been  done  to  the# 
that  thou  ha>t  ded  to  the  altar?    And  .Joab  said,  Because  I  was  afraid  of  thee,  and  1  lied  to  the  Lord." 

7  Ver.  29.— [The  Sept.  add  ■■and  bury  him."    See  ver.  31.  , 

»  Ver.  30— [One  MS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.,  adds  SVS  after  N7. 

•  Ver.  31.— [The  Sept.  add  cnj/xepoi-  and  translate  DJIl  accurately  "without  cause."    The  Chald    gives  both  senses. 

The  Vatican  Sept.  omits  the  name  -if  Joab. 

»  Ver.  82.— [Sept.  =  the  blood  of  his  iniquity. 

II  Ver.  32. — [There  is  no  reaBon  for  omitting  the  conjunction  and  changing  the  preterite  of  the  Tiebr.  which  are  pre 
served  in  the  Sept.  and  the  chald. 


CHAPTER  II.   13-40. 


35 


11  Ver.  35. — [The  Sept.  add  na\  rj  0a<riA€ia  icaTiypfloOro  iv  'IepoviraAiju.     (7/".  ver.  46. 

*3  Ver.  85. — [The  Sept.  aitd  Kdi  SaAujfian'  nibs  AauiS  etJaoaAei/ffci'  eTri  'Iapa>]A  «ai  'Iocfia  iv  'Iepouo-aATflp..  (Thus  far  Alex 
•QlitS)  (Cai  €6tuxe  xvpio;  (pponjffti'  Tu  £aAutp.uji-  «cai  <TO(2>iav  itoAAjH'  (T-ioopa  leal  jrAaToy  KapSta;  .us  i|  u^m-"S  17  tfapa  TT)» 
PaAnj.jar  (See  iv.  29.)  Then  follows  the  lirst  verse  "t"  chap,  iii.  much  alt-  red.  and  a  lung  interpolation  winch  may  he  thut 
translated:  "And  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  was  increased  greatly  above  the  wisdom  of  all  the  ancients  and  above  all  the 
wise  men  of  Egypt  (see  iv.  SO),  and  he  (iii.  1)  took  Pharaoh's  daughter,  and  brought  her  into  the  ,  iiy  of  David,  until  he 
had  made  an  end  of  building  his  own  house  and  the  bouse  of  the  Lord  in  the  first  place,  and  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  round 
about :  in  seven  years  he  made  and  finished  them."  V.  15  follows  then.  .  .  "  And  Solomon  made  the  Sea  and  the  bases 
and  the  great  lavers  aud  the  pillars  and  the  fountain  of  the  court  and  the  brazen  sea.  And  he  built  the  citadel  and 
battlements  upon  it.  he  divided  the  city  of  David.  So  Pharaoh's  daughter  went  up  fro-n  the  city  of  David  into  her  own 
house  which  he  built  for  her.  Then  he  built  the  citadel.  And  three  times  in  the  year  Solomon  offered  whole  burnt-offer- 
ings and  peace-offerings  upon  the  altar  which  he  built  to  the  Lord,  and  he  offered  incense  before  the  Lord,  and  finished  the 
house.  And  these  icere  the  chiefs  (v.  16)  which  were  set  over  the  works  of  Solomon  :  three  thousand  and  six  hun  Ired 
rulers  of  the  people  that  wrought  in  the  work.  And  he  built  Asshur  and  Magdo  and  Gezer  (ix.  15.  17.  IS)  and  Beth- 
horon  the  upper  and  Ballath.  Besides  his  building  the  house  of  the  Lord  and  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  round  about,  aftei 
these  he  built  these  cities."     Then  follows,  with  some  variations,  ii.  S.  y,  which  form  the  junction  again  with  ver.  36. 

14  Ver.  37. — [The  Sept.  add  *cai  itipxiaev  airrbv  6  £a<nAti>s  iv  ttj  rjp.epu  ixeivfj.     tjf.  vers.  4'2,  43. 

16  Ver.  42. — [The  Vatican  Sept.  omits  the  rest  of  ver.  4j.     The  last  clause  i3  sometimes  pointed.  "The  word  is  good 
I  have  heard." 

16  Ver.  46. — [Here  follows  in  the  Sept.  a  passage  made  up  of  extracts  from  chap.  iv.  and  containing  about  one-fourth 
of  that  chapter,  most  of  which  is  omitted  from  its  place. — F.  G-] 


EXEGET1CAL    AND   CRITICAL. 

Ver.  13.  And    Adonijah  .  .  to    Bath-Sheba, 

4c.  What  Adonijah  really  aimed  at  in  his  peti- 
tion to  Bath-Sheba  is  made  apparent  in  ver.  22. 
He  did  not  care  about  the  fair  Abishag,  but  about 
the  kingdom,  which  he  hoped  to  acquire  through 
possession  of  her.  In  the  ancient  East,  after  a 
king  died,  or  his  kingdom  passed  from  him, 
the  harem  fell  to  the  new  ruler.  On  the  other 
hand,  also,  he  who  took  to  himself  the  king's 
wives,  was  regarded  as  having  taken  to  himself 
the  rights  of  the  king.  The  claim  to  the  posses- 
sion of  the  women  of  the  harem  was  understood  to 
mean  the  claim  to  the  throne.  It  was  so  also 
with  the  Persians  (Herodot.  iii.  68 ;  Justin  x.  2 : 
occiso  Cyro  Aspasiam  pellicem  ejus  rex  ArUixerxes 
in  matrimonium  acceperat.  Hanc  patmn  ee,l,  re 
sibi,  sicuti  regnum  Darius  postulaverat).  When  Ab- 
salom went,  according  to  Ahithophel's  advice, 
into  the  king's  harem  and  to  his  concubines  in 
the  sight  of  all  the  people,  it  was  a  public,  practi- 
cal announcement  that  he  had  assumed  the  king's 
rights  (2  Sam.  xvi.  20-23  ;  comp.  xii.  11).  When, 
therefore,  Adonijah  demanded  Abishag  for  his 
wife,  ostensibly  from  love  to  her,  it  was  a  secret 
claim  to  the  throne;  for  Abishag  was  looked  on  by 
the  nation  as  David's  last  wife,  although  he  had  not 
known  her.  He  did  not  venture  to  make  his  request 
personally  to  Solomon,  but,  as  Grotius  says :  aggre- 
ditur  mulierem,  ut  regnandi  ignaram,  ita  amorihus 
facilem.  He  plays,  before  Bath-Sheba,  the  part  of 
an  humble  saint  who  has  been  set  aside — who  ia 
resigned  to  God's  will,  thus  softening  her  woman's 
heart.  His  assertion  that  all  Israel  wished  him 
for  their  king,  if  not  exactly  a  lie.  showed  great 
self-deception  and  boasting.  He  very  wisely  and 
prudently  says,  instead  of:  through  thy  interces- 
sion my  brother  became  king  (chap.  i.  17) — the 
kingdom  is  turned  about,  and  it  was  his  from  the 
Lord,  which  he  of  course  did  not  believe,  because 
he  wished  himself  to  be  king.  Bath-Sheba  may 
have  thought  that  a  discontented  subject  might  be 
satisfied  by  granting  his  request,  and  the  kingdom 
made  thus  more  secure  to  her  son. 

Vers.  19-21.  Bath-Sheba  therefore  went  unto 
king  Solomon,  &c,   ver.   19.      Solomon  received 

his  mother  as  nT33  (chap.  xv.  13).      The  queen- 

inother  was  in  great  honor;  and  therefore  the  name 
of  the  k.ng's  mo'  -<t  is  always  expressly  given  in 
the  account  of  the  commencement  of  a  new  king's 
re'ijn  (chap.  xiv.  21  ■  xv.  2,  Ac).     The  ND3  offered 


her  was  not  literally  a  throne,  but  only  a  particu- 
lar seat  of  honor.  The  seat  at  the  right  hand  waa 
the  one  of  highest  distinction  (Ps.  ex.  1 ;  Joseph., 
Ant,, 1.  vi.-xi.  9).  Bath-Sheba  calls  her  petition  a 
small  one,  because  she  thought  it  was  only  about 
a  love-affair,  and  did  not  thiuk  of  its  political  re- 
sults. 

Vers.  22-25.  And  King  Solomon  answered, 
&c.  Solomon  instantly  detected  the  intrigue.  He 
says,  in  asking  Abishag  for  Adonijah.  you  indirectly 
request  the  kingdom  for  him  too.  He  is  my  elder 
brother,  and  thinks  that  the  kingdom  belongs  to 
him  on  that  account;  if  he  gets  Abishag  as  wife, 
he  will  be  further  strengthened  in  his  imaginary 
claims,  and  his  entire  party  will  have  a  firm  foot- 
ing. The  171  beginning  the  concluding  statement 
in  ver.  22,  cannot  be  understood  otherwise  than 

the  preceding  i"> .  and  the  i?  in  the  following  words 
must  consequently  mean  the  same.  The  meaning 
is  this  then  :  Iu  asking  the  kingdom  for  him.  thou 
askest  it  at  the  same  time  for  Abiathar  and  Joab ; 
they  who  have  joined  themselves  to  him,  would 
reign  with  and  through  him ;  but  they  are  well 
known  to  be  my  enemies.  It  follows,  then,  that 
both  are  included  in  Adonijah'splan.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  translate  like  the  Sept. :  /cai  aiira  'ASiaHiin 
Km  avrtj  'Iud/3  eraiipoc,  or  with  the  Vulg. :  et  habei 
Abiathwr  et  Joab ;  there  is  therefore  no  reason  to 

strike  out,  with  Thenius,  the  ?  before  Abiathar  and 

Joab.  Solomon's  anger,  which  appears  in  ver. 
23,  was  the  more  natural,  because  Adonijah  had 
dared  to  gain  over  and  abuse  the  queen-mother. 
The  oath,  which  means :  may  God  punish  me  con- 
tinually if  Adonijah  be  not,  Ac,  is  a  usual  one 
(Ruth  i.  17;  lSam.xiv.44;  xx.13;  Jerxxii.5). — 
The  words  of  ver.  24 :  and  who  hath  made  me 
an  house,  are  not  to  be  understood,  with  Keil  and 
others,  as  if  Solomon  had  then  had  issue  (his  mar- 
riage did  not  occur  till  afterwards,  chap.  iii.  1) ;  the 
meaning  is  this  rather :  Adonijah  demands 
Abishag  to  wife,  to  found  a  dynasty  through  his 
union  with  her;  but  Jehovah  has  determined  that 
David's  dynasty  and  line  of  kings  shall  come 
from  me  (2  Sam.  vii.  11  sq.). — The  execution  of 
Adouijah  was  performed  by  Benafah.  as  captain 
of  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethitea  (chap.  i.  38). 
"P3  does  not  mean  exactly  with  "  his  own  hand  " 

(Thenius),  but  only  that  Benaiah  was  charged  with 
the  execution.  Comp.  vers.  34—16.  Capital  pun- 
ishment was  executed  in  Egypt,  and  also  in  Baby- 


36 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Ion,  by  the  king's  guard,  the  captain  of  which  was 

therefore  called  DTOD  (31)  "1L",  Gen.  xxxvii.  36; 

2  Kings  xxr.  S  ;  Dan.  ii.  14. 

Vers.  26-27.  And  unto  Abiathar  the  priest, 
&o.  The  proceedings  now  commenced  against 
Abiathar  and  Joab,  were  no  doubt  caused  by  the 
share  both  had  taken  in  the  new  plans  of  Adoni- 
jah  to  usurp  the  kingdom. — Anathoth.  a  priests' 
town  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (Josh.  xxi.  18; 
1  Chron.  vi.  45),  about  one  hour  and  a  quarter's 
distance  northeast  of  Jerusalem  (Robinson,  Pales- 
tine, vol.  i.  p.  437-8).  Abiathar  had  possessions 
there. — To  strike  out  the  l  before  DV3  with 
Thenius  (according  to    the   Sept.),  and   place  it 

before  Np ,  is  unnecessary :  the  meaning  remains 
the  same. — Bearing  the  Ark,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  David's  flight  from  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv. 
24).  That  Abiathar  and  Zadok  went  with  David 
then,  bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  showed 
great  veneration  and  fidelity,  upon  their  part, 
to  him.  Of  course  they  did  not  carry  the  ark 
themselves ;  but  it  was  borne  by  the  levites, 
whose  office  it  was  to  do  so  (Num.  iv.  15 ;  1  Chron. 
xvi.  15),  and  who  did  it  at  their  command.  It  is 
therefore  quite  unnecessary  to  read,  with  Thenius, 
IIDS  instead  of  |nx  ■ — It  does   not  follow  from 

the  banishment  of  Abiathar,  that  every  king  has 
the  right  to  set  up  and  depose  a  high-priest  at 
pleasure.  This  case  was  a  peculiar  one.  A  high- 
priest  who  had  repeatedly  conspired  against  the 
anointed  of  Jehovah,  had  thereby  become  incapable 
of  filling  his  office,  and,  strictly  speaking,  deserved 

death. — S^Op  is  an  addition  of  the  narrator,  not 

the  intention  of  Solomon ;  it  is  the  Iva  tt?i?;p<j8>/  of 
the  Sew  Testament.  The  divine  threatenings  upou 
Eli's  house,  from  which  Abiathar  was  (through 
Ithamar)  descended,  were  now  fulfilled ;  for  when 
Saul  slew  the  priests,  Abiathar  alone,  of  all  his 
house,  escaped  (1  Sam.  xxii.  20).  With  his  deposi- 
tion the  hereditary  high-priesthood  passed  over  to 
Eleazar's  house,  to  which  Zadok  belonged  (Numb. 
xxv.  13 ;  1  Chron.  xxiv.  5-6). 

Vers.  2S-35.  Then  tidings  came  to  Joab,  &c. 
The  parenthesis  means  that  Joab,  who  was  for- 
merly such  a  decided  enemy  of  Absalom,  who  pro- 
mised much  more  than  his  brother,  had  twice  con- 
spired with  the  pretender,  Adonijah,  and  now 
feared  for  his  own  life,  as  he  heard  of  his  death, 
and  of  Abiathar's  punishment.  All  old  trans- 
lations, except  the  Chaldee,  have  Solomon  in- 
stead of  "Absalom,"  and  Ewald  and  Thenius 
declare  the  former  to  bo  the  right  reading;  this, 
however,  is  not  sustained  by  any  Hebrew  MS., 
and  would,  besides,  make  the  sentence  superfluous ; 
for  when  Joab  was  on  Adonijah's  side,  it  follows 
of  course  that  he  was  not  on  that  of  Solomon. — If 
Joab,  who  had  been  unpunished  for  his  share  in 
the  first  conspiracy,  had  felt  free  from  all  share  in 
the  BecoDd,  he  would  not  have  fled  to  a  place  of 
refuge  (chap.  i.  50). — The  Sept.  adds,  before 
Solomon's  words,  ver.  29:  "What  has  happened 
to  thee,  that  thou  hast  fled  to  the  altar  ?  And 
Joab  said :  I  was  afraid  of  thee,  and  have  fled  to 
Lord."  Surely  this  is  only  a  gloss  ;  but  it  explains 
the  passage.  When  Joab  saw  that  Benaiah  did 
not  venture  to  kill  him  at  the  altar,  he  defied  him, 
either  because  he  hoped  that  Solomon  would  not 
dare  to  give  the  order,  or  that  if  he  did,  he  (Sol- 


omon) would  be  guilty  of  desecrating  the  al- 
tar. But  according"  to  the  law  (Ex.  xxi.  14; 
Dent.  xix.  11-13),  the  altar  was  only  an  asylum 
for  those  who  had  killed  unwittingly,  and  Joab 
was  no  such  person.  He  had  sinned  grievously 
against  Israel  and  Judah  by  a  double  assassination 
(ver.  32),  and  yet  had  gone  hitherto  unpunished. 
This  guilt  could  not  rest  upon  David  and  his 
house,  if  the  kingdom  was  to  continue  in  his  line 
(ver.  33).  Not  to  add  the  utmost  disgrace  to  the 
punishment  (chap.  xiv.  11 ;  2  Kings  ix.  35;  Jer.  vii. 
33;  xxii.  19),  and  in  consideration  of  his  military 
achievements,  Solomon  commanded  that  Joab 
should  be  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  wilderness 
of  Judah,  which  was  not  far  from  Bethlehem,  near 
Tekoa,  and  was  a  rocky  district  containing  some 
towns  (Josh.  xv.  61 ;  Judges  i.  16). 

Vers.  36-46.  And  the  king  sent  and  called 
for  Shimei,  &c,  ver.  36.  As  Adonijah  and  his 
faction  had  made  such  repeated  efforts  to  seize 
the  helm  of  state,  Solomon  deemed  it  needful  to 
keep  a  watch  on  all  suspected  persons.  Now  the 
restless  Shimei  was  the  principal  of  these;  he 
was  a  close  adherent  of  the  house  of  Saul,  and 
a  bitter  foe  of  David's  house.  Solomon,  therefore, 
in  order  to  keep  him  in  sight,  and  test  his  obedience, 
ordered  him  to  settle  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  leave  it 
only  under  penalty  of  death.  The  brook  Kidro»  is 
scarcely  named  as  the  exact  limit  of  his  confinement 
(Ewald);  but  Shimei  was  not  to  cross  it,  because, 
in  doing  so,  he  went  towards  Bahurim,  in  his 
native  district,  where  he  had  most  influence 
(2  Sam.  xix.  16  sq.). — Thy  blood,  &c. — the  usual 
mode  of  the  death  sentence,  Levit.  xx.  9-16. — 
Shimei  declared  he  was  satisfied  to  observe  the 
king's  command,  for  he  knew  right  well  that 
according  to  the  ideas  of  that  time,  no  king,  not 
even  Solomon,  need  feel  himself  bound  by  the 
promise  of  his  predecessor  (2  Sam.  xix.  23),  (Ewald, 
Gesrh.  1st.,  iii.  s.  271). — The  Philistine  king  Achish, 
of  Gath  (Josh.  xiii.  3 ;  1  Sam.  v.  8),  may  be  the 
same  who  is  mentioned  in  1  Sam.  xxi.  11 ;  xxvii. 
2  ;  he  must  have  certainly  attained  a  great  age; 
if  so,  Shimei,  then,  in  spite  of  his  solemn  vow, 
not  only  left  Jerusalem  for  his  native  place,  not 
distant,  but  even  went  into  the  far-off  land  of  the 
Philistines,  thus  giving  proof  of  his  disobedience 
and  obstinacy.  Solomon  now  reproaches  him  with 
his  old  crime,  and  says  to  him :  thy  measure  is 
full ;  the  Lord  has  turned  thy  curse  into  a  bless- 
ing, as  David  hoped  (2  Sam.  xvi.  12). — The  Vul- 
gate, Thenius,  Bunsen,  and  others  place  the  con- 
cluding sentence  of  ver.  46  at  the  commencement 
of  chap.  iii. :  "  and  when  the  kingdom  was  estab- 
lished in  the  hand  of  Solomon,  he  made  affinity," 
&c. ;  it  seems,  however,  to  refer  back  to  ver.  12, 
and  in  the  manner  of  Semitic  histories,  as  Keil  re- 
marks, concludes  the  whole  section  of  Solomon's 
throne-ascension.  Thus  the  kingdom  was  estab- 
lished in  the  hand  of  Solomon,  i.  e.,  under  him. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  Tlie  repeated  attempt  of  Adonijah,  to  gain  the 
throne  throws  real  light  on  his  character.  Though 
his  enterprise  came  to  a  lamentable  and  disgrace- 
ful end,  he  immediately  began  to  concoct  new 
plans  in  spite  of  the  favor  and  the  warnirg  he  had 

r ived.    As  he  once  sought  to  obtain  hii  purpose 

by   collecting  chariots,   horsemen,   and   xolJiers, 


CHAPTER  II.  13-16. 


37 


through  making  fortified  places,  in  short,  by  grand 
»nd  showy  preparations,  he  now  pursued  the  op- 
posite plan  of  fawning  and  artifice.  He  steals 
(done  to  Bath-sheha,  placing  his  hopes  on  wo- 
man's influence.  When  she  is  astonished  at  his 
visit,  he  utters  the  most  peaceful  sentiments,  acts 
as  one  deeply  disappointed,  but  now  humbly  and 
piously  resigned  to  God's  will,  and  as  an  unhappy 
lover.  If  anything  deserves  the  name  of  a  "  ha- 
rem intrigue,"  through  which,  according  to  Dirac- 
ker,  Solomon  came  to  the  throne  (see  above),  it 
is  Adonijah's  device.  He  could  not  have  shown 
more  clearly  that  he  was  not  the  chosen  of  Jehovah 
(Deut.  xvii.  15).  What  would  have  become  of 
the  kingdom  which  David  had  at  last  brought 
to  tranqudlity  and  its  proper  position,  if  a  man  like 
Adonijah  had  succeeded  him  ? 

2.  Adonijah  and  his  faction  show  the  truth  of 
what  is  often  found,  namely,  that  revolutionary 
men  are  not  discouraged  by  the  failure  of  their 
plans,  and  even  disgraceful  defeat,  but  they  al- 
ways brood  over  the  means  of  attaining  their  am- 
bitious views  and  gratifying  their  thirst  for  power. 
Pardon  and  forbearance  do  not  change  them,  but 
|euerally  harden  and  embolden  them.  If  they  do 
not  succeed  by  open  force,  they  choose  deceitful 
ways,  notwithstanding  all  the  promises  they  may 
cave  given  ;  and  they  feign  submission  until  they 
think  their  opportunity  has  arrived.  Every  one, 
However,  to  whom  God  has  confided  the  govern- 
ment, should  hear  the  words  of  David  to  Solomon 
(chap.  ii.  2) :  "  be  thou  strong,  therefore,  and  show 
thyself  a  man  I  "  for  weakness  is,  in  this  respect,  sin 
against  God  and  man.  The  old  Wurtemburg  sum- 
maries say :  "let  authorities  learn  from  Solomon  to 
punish  such  crimes  severely,  if  they  wish  to  have 
a  happy,  peaceful,  and  lasting  reign.  If  they  wink 
at  such  things,  God's  anger  and  punishments  come 
down  on  them,  on  their  land  and  people." 

3.  Solomon's  treatment  of  his  foes,  has  often 
been  called  great  cruelty,  or  at  least  extreme  se- 
verity. "Solomon,"  says  Duncker,  "began  his 
reign  with  bloody  deeds.  .  .  .  He  first  prom- 
ised Adonijah  he  should  be  spared,  theu  had  him 
slain  by  Benaiah.  Joab  fled  to  the  sanctuary  and 
caught  hold  of  tho  horns  of  the  altar.  Benaiah 
trembled'  to  stain  the  altar  with  blood,  but  Solo- 
mon tells  him  to  go  and  stab  him  there !  .  .  . 
Benaiah  also  killed  Shimei  at  Solomon's  com- 
mand." In  reading  this  imperfect  and  detestable 
view  of  the  circumstances,  we  must  remember 
that  there  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  forty  years  of 
Solomon's  reign,  one  single  trace  of  baroarous  tyr- 
anny or  cruelty,  such  as  are  here  said  to  have 
characterized  him,  though  these  qualities  rather 
strengthen  than  otherwise  with  age.  We  cannot 
judge  Solomon  any  more  than  David  in  the  light 
of  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  but  should  recollect 
what  the  time  aid  circumstances  were.  The  vital 
point  was  to  esl  ablish  the  kingdom,  and  in  order 
to  avert  the  dangers  that  threatened  it,  "  every 
firm  and  sagacious  ruler  had  to  act  so,  for  the 
artificial  means  now  used  in  similar  cases,  for  in- 
stance, imprisonment  for  life,  were  wholly  un- 
known "  (Ewald).  As  to  Adonijah,  the  whole 
East  knew  but  one  punishment  for  such  plans  as 
he  cherished,  viz.,  death.  Had  his  enterprise 
succeeded  he  would  doubtless  (see  above,  on  chap. 
i.  11)  haye  destroyed  Solomon  and  his  principal 
adherents,  in  accordance  with  the  usual  practice 
hitherto.     Solomon,  on  tho  contrary,  did  not  fol- 1 


low  this  custom,  but  showed  forgiveness  and  gen 
erosity;  in  fact,  he  avoided  all  persecution  of 
Adonijah's  partisans.  Only  when  Adonijah,  con- 
trary to  his  word,  and  notwithstanding  his  humble 
homage  (chap.  i.  51),  again  appeared  as  pretender 
to  the  throne,  and  sought  to  reach  his  end  by  de- 
ceit and  hypocrisy,  did  he  order  the  affixed  pun- 
ishment. He  had  allowed  Abiathar,  too,  to  go  un- 
punished at  first,  which  scarcely  any  other  eastern 
priuce  would  have  done.  But  when  the  repeated 
attempt  of  Adonijah  to  seize  the  kingdom  was  dis- 
covered, Abiathar  could  no  longer  be  passed  over. 
Yet  instead  of  inflicting  death  on  him.  he  deprived 
him  of  his  influential  office,  and  let  him  live  at  lib- 
erty on  his  estate,  on  account  of  his  former  good 
behavior.  Here  was  no  severity,  but  gratitude, 
kindness,  and  generosity.  Joab  was  the  most 
formidable  opponent,  because  of  his  positiou  at 
the  head  of  the  entire  army,  and  his  well-known 
military  roughness  and  unscrupulousness ;  he  was 
also  unpunished  after  Adonijah's  first  attempt,  and 
the  last  was  certainly  not  planned  without  his  con- 
sent, but  more  likely,  as  some  suppose,  originated 
by  him.  The  fact  that  he  instantly  fled  to  the 
horns  of  the  altar,  on  hearing  of  Adonijah's  death, 
shows  that  he  knew  himself  to  have  deserved 
death.  Besides  this,  the  gmUt  of  a  double  murder 
rested  on  him,  and  should  be  washed  out.  "  When 
this  was  superadded,"  says  Ewald  (s.  271),  "Sol- 
omon did  not  venture  to  show  him  any  further 
grace,"  and  adds  in  the  note  with  great  truth :  "  A 
superficial  observer  alone  can  charge  Solomon  with 
needless  cruelty  here."  Finally,  with  regard  to 
Shimei,  nothing  was  more  natural  than  that  Solo- 
mon, in  the  circumstances  attending  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  should  have  kept  especial  guard  over 
such  a  restless,  suspected  person,  who  one  day 
cursed  the  king,  calling  him  a  bloody  man,  and  the 
next  fawned  upon  and  flattered  him,  and  who  be- 
sides was  not  without  partisans  (2  Sam.  xvi.  7,  comp. 
withxix.  16-20).  Shimei  was  himself  quite  content, 
with  his  confinement  to  Jerusalem,  and  Solomon  let 
him  live  there  "  many  days  "  (ver.  38),  placing  his 
fate  in  his  own  hand.  After  three  years  (not  be- 
fore), (ver.  39),  when  Shimei  broke  his  solemn  prom- 
ise,  what  his  king  had  threatened  him  with  upon 
oath  came  upon  him.  "  Surely,  every  one  must 
at  that  time  have  seen  in  such  fatal  oblivion  of  the 
oath  which  the  old  arch-traitor  had  sworn  against 
David,  a  divine  sign,  that  that  old  sin  still  rested 
on  him  and  that  he  must  be  punished ;  otherwise 
he  would  not  have  acted  with  such  defiance  of  God 
and  with  such  madness.  Solomon  had  him  also 
executed,  evidently  not  out  of  revenge  nor  any 
other  passion,  but  from  the  belief  that  the  last  of 
those  who  had  sinned  greatly  against  David,  should 
fall  under  divine  Providence"  (Ewald,  s.  272). 
How  weak  and  forgetful  of  his  word  would  the 
king  hare  seemed  to  all  the  people  if  he  had  let 
Shimei  now  go  free,  particularly  with  the  notions 
then  entertained  about  a  kingl  (Prov.  xvi.  12-15: 
xx.  2,  26).  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  settle- 
ment of  Shimei  at  Jerusalem  was  coincident  with 
Solomon's  elevation  to  the  throne ;  that  his  pm  ish 
ment  did  not  at  once  follow  that  of  Adonijah  and 
Joab,  but  was  three  years  later.  We  cannot  there- 
fore possibly  reckon  this  among  the  "  bloody 
deeds  "  with  which  Solomon  is  said  to  have  begm) 
his  reign.  The  union  of  mildness  and  firmness, 
generosity  and  official  justice,  in  the  conduct  of  the 
young  sovereign,  must  have  deeply  impressed  the 


38 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


people,  have  increased  his  authority,  and  estab- 
lished his  rule. 

4.  Tlie  establishment  of  Solomon's  kingdom  (ver. 
46)  is  the  result  of  all  that  chapters  i.  and  ii.  re- 
late, and  is  therefore  expressly  stated  again  at 
their  close.  Our  author  evidently  does  this,  not 
only  from  purely  historical,  but  also  from  religious 
and  theocratic  grounds.  In  fact,  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  genuine  Old  Testament  history  of 
Solomon's  succession  to  the  throne,  the  guiding 
hand  of  the  living  God  is  made  apparent,  far 
above  the  ferment  of  human  passions  and  inclina- 
tions. He  knows  how  to  fulfil  his  threatenings, 
and  to  lead  the  way  which  each  chooses  for  him- 
self, to  a  goal  where  he  shall  find  retribution  of 
his  deeds  (Job  xxxiv.  11). 


HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  13-25.  Adonijah's  repeated  attempt  to 
gain  the  throne  :  (a)  Wherein  this  attempt  con- 
sisted (vers.  13-18);  (b)  how  it  ended  (vers.  19-25). 
— Vers.  13-18.  Adonijah  before  Bath-sheba:  (a) 
The  feigned  sentiment,  in  which  he  comes  (vers.  13- 
15);  (b)  the  request  he  brings  (vers.  16,  17);  (c) 
the  answer  he  receives  (ver.  18). — Ver.  13.  Ambi- 
tious and  power-loving  people  do  not  scruple  to 
reach  the  ends  which  they  cannot  obtain  by  open 
force,  by  moans  that  are  mortifying  to  their  pride ; 
when  they  can  no  longer  demand,  they  beg. — Those 
are  least  to  be  trusted  who  have  proved  themselves 
enemies,  and  suddenly  appear.with  tokens  of  peace. 
Joab  met  Amasa  with  the  words :  Peace  be  to  thee  I 
and  while  kissing  him,  ran  him  through  the  body 
(2  Sam.  xx.  9).  Judas  betrayed  the  Lord  with  a 
greeting  and  a  kiss  (Luke  xxii.  48). — Ver.  15.  Ado- 
nijah's boast  and  hypocrisy:  (a)  He  boasts,  like 
most  rebels,  of  haying  all  the  people  on  his  side, 
but  his  few  adherents  were  some  faithless  men, 
who  were  won  over  by  good  eating  and  drinking, 
and  who  would  desert  him  with  the  first  change  of 
the  wind  (chap.  i.  41,  49).  (A)  He  speaks  and  acts 
as  a  pious  man,  who  humbles  himself  under  God's 
hand  (Job  i.  21),  while  he  resists  His  will  in  his 
heart,  and  seeks  to  overthrow  His  purpose  (Matt, 
vii.  21;  Prov.  xii.  22).— Ver.  16  sq.  The  most  rre- 
sumptuous  character  is  often  hid  under  the  mask  of 
unassuming  deportment. — Ver.  17.  He  who  has  an 
honest  and  just  request  to  make  seeks  no  rounda- 
bout ways,  but  goes  openly  and  courageously  with 
it  to  the  person  who  can  grant  it.  The  serpent  ad- 
dresses the  woman  first,  in  order  to  gain  the  man, 
in  paradise  (Gen.  iii  I.  6;  1  Tim.  ii.  14). — Ver.  18. 
Bath-sheba's  consen  to  Adonijah's  request  shows 
want  of  sagacity,  experience,  and  knowledge  of  hu- 
man nature,  but  at  the  same  time  shows  that  her 
heart  was  free  from  revenge  and  bitterness,  and  was 
willing  to  serve  even  one  who  had  caused  her 
great  anxiety  and  sorrow  (chap.  i.  21). — Kind  and 
unsuspicious  persons  are  apt  to  yield  to  their  first 
feelings  and  impressions  rather  than  reflect  calmly 
and  deliberately  ;  it  is  therefore  the  more  needful 
for  them  to  guard  against  being  led  away  by  flat- 
tering speeches  into  promises  and  actions  that 
may  greatly  injure  themselves  and  others. — We 
ought  not  to  refuse  to  intercede  for  others,  but  to 
take  great  care  not  to  'I"  ii  for  the  unworthy,  thus 
injuring  those  who  are  deserving. — Those  who  are 
h'^h  iii  favor  with  the  powerful  are  often  used,  with- 
u'-t  their  wish  or  knowledge,  for  unworthy  ends. 


Vers.  19-25.  Bath-sheba  before  the  king:  (a) 
How  she  was  received  by  him  (vers.  19,  20),  bu' 
(b)  was  refused  her  petition  (vers.  22-24).  —Ver 
19.  Solomon,  when  on  the  throne,  did  not  torget 
what  he  owed  his  mother.  How  often  do  childrer 
forget  their  parents  and  nearest  relations,  and 
even  become  ashamed  of  them,  when  they  attain 
to  great  riches  and  honor ;  but  no  position  or  rank 
dispenses  with  our  observance  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, the  first  with  proiu'se  (Ephes.  vi.  2; 
Prov.  xix.  26). — Ver.  21.  Starke:  Even  pious 
Christians  are  often  ignorant  of  what  they  ask 
(Rom.  viii.  26),  and  are  therefore  often  unheard 
(Matt.  xx.  22). — Ver.  22.  Kings  and  princes  should 
not  grant  even  an  apparently  small  petition,  that 
interferes  witli  the  welfare  of  the  kingdom  and 
people  committed  to  their  charge.  Seeming  se- 
verity is  in  such  cases  sacred  duty. — Hall:  Con- 
siderations arising  from  personal  relationship  must 
be  laid  aside  in  the  official  acts  of  rulers. 

Ver.  25.  Punishment  of  Adonijah,  how  far  it 
was  (a)  according  to  law,  (6)  just  and  deserved. 

Vers.  26-46.  Solomon's  treatment  of  his  ene- 
mies (see  Historical). — Vers.  26.  27.  Ecclesiastical 
office  can  be  no  protection  from  just  punishment 
of  crime  (see  Luke  xii.  47  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  27). — Former 
fidelity  cannot  efface  later  treachery.  It  is  most 
lamentable  that  a  man  who  was  faithful  in  times 
of  trouble  should  end  his  career  as  a  sinner  (1 
Cor.  x.  12). — [Bp.  Hall:  No  man  held  so  close  to 
David,  .  .  .  yet  now  is  he  called  to  reckon 
for  his  old  sins,  and  must  repay  blood  to  Amasa 
and  Abner. — E.  H.]  When  circumstances  permit, 
mildness  and  forgiveness  should  go  hand  in  hand 
with  justice. — Children  should  not  forget  kindness 
shown  to  their  parents,  but  look  on  it  as  done  to 
themselves;  this  is  fulfilling  the  fourth  command- 
ment.— The  promises  of  God  are  yea  and  amen 
but  so  are  also  His  threatenings,  which  are  ofter. 
executed  when  men  have  forgotten  them. 

Vers.  28-34.  The  terrible  end  of  Joab :  (a)  He 
dies  conscious  of  his  guilt,  without  peace  and  par- 
don; (A)  even  in  the  very  jaws  of  death  he  is 
defiant,  rough,  and  proud ;  (c)  he  does  not  leave 
the  world  like  a  hero,  but  like  a  criminal.  How 
differently  David  dies  I  (ver.  2). — Ver.  28.  An  evil 
conscience  can  put  to  flight  a  hero  who  never 
yielded  to  the  enemy  in  a  single  bloody  field. — 
Starke  :  It  is  thus  the  wicked  act  when  they  get 
into  danger;  though  they  never  before  cared 
about  God  and  His  children,  they  will  seek  their 
protection  then. — Ver.  30.  What  good  is  there  in 
dying  in  a  sacred  place  if  one  has  not  a  sanctified 
heart  and  pure  conscience?  Prov.  iii.  21-26. — Ver. 
31  sq.  Starke:  God  has  no  sanctuary  or  city  of 
refuge  for  an  intentional  murderer  (Ex.  xxi.  14). — 
Lange  :  If  a  ruler  leaves  shed  blood  unavenged, 
the  guilt  attaches  to  himself;  through  just  revenge 
it  is  averted. — Ver.  33.  Only  that  throne  stands 
firm  upon  which  justice,  without  respect  of  per- 
sons, is  exercised  (Prov.  xxv.  5). 

Vrrs.  36—16.  Shimei's  fate  plainly  proves  the 
truth  of  the  word  Job  xxxiv.  11;  Ps.  cxli.  10; 
Prov.  v.  22. — Ver.  39.  Avarice,  i.  e.,  oovetousness, 
i*  the  root  of  all  evil.  The  loss  of  two  servants 
led  Shimei  to  disobedience,  even  to  forget  his  oath 
and  to  risk  his  life.  [Ver.  40  sq.  Bp.  Hall:  "Oov- 
etousness. and  presumption  of  impunity,  are  the 
destruction  of  many  a  soul:  Shimei  seeks  his  ser- 
vants and  loses  himself." — E.  II.] — Vers.  41  sq 
Divine  justice  at  length  overtakes  those  whos* 


CHAPTER  IH.  1-28.  39 


crimes  have  long  been  unpunished,  and  when  they 
least  expect  it. — Those  also  who  have  cursed  the 
anointed  of  the  Lord,  the  eternal  king  of  God's 


realm,  and  who  have  shot  their  poisoned  shafts  U 
Him,  shall  hereafter  say  to  the  mountains :  Fall  ci 
us  1  and  to  the  hills :  cover  us  1  (Luke  xxiii.  30). 


SECOND    SECTION. 

THE   BEGINNING   OF   SOLOMON'S   REIGN. 

Chap.  LTI.-V.  14 


A. — Solomon's  marriage,  solemn  sacrifice  and  prayer  ;  first  judicial  decision. 

Chap.  HL  1-28. 

1  And  Solomon  made  affinity  with  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt,  and  took  Pharaoh's 
daughter,  and  brought  her  into  the  city  of  David,  until  he  had  made  an  end  of 
building  his  own  house,  and  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  the  wall 

2  [walls]  of  Jerusalem  round  about,  Only  the  people  sacrificed  in  high  places, 
because  there  was  no  house  built  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  until 

3  those  days.     And  Solomon  loved  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  walking  in  the  statutes 

4  of  David  his  father:  only  he  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  high  places.  And 
the  king  went  to  Gibeon  to  sacrifice  there  ;  for  that  teas  the  great  high  place : 
a  thousand  burnt-offerings  did  Solomon  offer  upon  that  altar. 

5  In  Gibeon  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  appeared  to  Solomon  in  a  dream  by  night : 

6  and  God1  said,  Ask  what  I  shall  give  thee.  And  Solomon  said,  Thou  hast 
shewed  unto  thv  servant  David  my  father  great  mercy,  according  as  he  walked 
before  thee  in  "truth,  and  in  righteousness,  and  in  uprightness  of  heart  with 
thee ;  and  thou  hast  kept  for  him  this  great  kindness,  that  thou  hast  given  him 

1  a  son  to  sit  on  his  throne,  as  it  is  this'day.  And  now,  O  Lord  [Jehovah]  my 
God,  thou  hast  made  thv  servant  king  instead   of  David    my  father:  and  I 

8  am  but  a  little  child  : 3  I  know  not  how  to  go  out  or  come  in.  And  thy  servant 
is  in  the  midst  of  thv  people  which  thou  hast  chosen,  a  great  people,  that  cannot 

9  be  numbered  nor  counted  for  multitude.  Give  therefore  thy  servant  an  under- 
standing heart  to  judge  thy  people,  that  I  may  discern  between  good  and  bad  : 

10  for  who"  is  able  to  judge  this  thv  so   great   a  people?     And  the  speech  pleased 

11  the  Lord,"  that  Solomon  had  'asked  this  thing.  And  God  said  unto  him, 
Because  thou  hast  asked  this  thing,  and  hast  not  asked  for  thyself  long  life ; 
neither  hast  asked  riches  for  thyself,  nor  hast  asked  the  life  of  thine  enemies; 

12  but  hast  asked  for  thyself  understanding  to  discern  judgment;  Behold  I  have 
done  according  to  thy  words :  Mo,  I  have  given  thee  a  wise  and  an  understanding 
heart;  so  that   there" was  none   like   thee  before  thee,  neither  after  thee  shall 

13  any  arise  like  unto  thee.  And  I  have  also  given  thee  that  which  thou  hast  not 
asked,  both  riches,  and  honor :  so  that  there  shall  not  be  any  among  the  kings  like 

14  unto  thee  all  thv  days.'  And  if  thou  wilt  walk  in  my  ways,  to  keep  my  statutes 
and  my  commandments,  as  thy  lather  David  did  walk,  then  I  will  lengthen  thy 

15  days.  And  Solomon  awoke;  and, behold,  it  was  a  dream.  And  he  came  to 
Jerusalem,  and  stood  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],8  and 
offered  up  burnt-offerings,  and  offered  [made]  '  peace-offerings,  and  made  a  feast 
to  all  his  servants. 

16  Then  came  there  two  women  that  were  harlots,'  unto  the  king,  and  stood 

17  before  him.     And  the  one  woman  said,  O  my  lord,  I  and  this  woman  dwell  ic 


*u 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


18 


one  house  ;  and  I  was  delivered  of  a  child  with  her  in  the  house.  And  it  came  tc 
pass  the  third  day  after  that  I  was  delivered,  that  this  woman  was  delivered  also : 
and  we  -were  together  ; '  there  teas  no  stranger  with  us  in  the  house,  save  we  two  in 
the  house.  And  this  woman's  child  [son]  '"  died  in  the  night ;  because  she  overlaid 
it.  And  she  arose  at  midnight,  and  took  my  son  from  beside  me,  while  thine  hand- 
maid slept,  and  laid  it  in  her  bosom,  and  laid  her  dead  child  [son] 10  in  my  bosom. 
And  when  I  rose  in  the  morning  to  give  my  child  [son]  '"  suck,  behold,  it  was  dead  : 
but  when  I  had  considered  it  in  the  morning,  behold,  it  was  not  my  son  which  I 
did  bear.  And  the  other  woman  said,  Nay  ;  but  the  living  is  my  son,  and  the 
dead  is  thy  son.  And  "  this  said,  No;  but  the  dead  is  thy  son,  and  the  living 
is  my  son.  Thus  they  spake  before  the  king.  Then  said  the  king,  The  one 
saith,  This  is  my  son  that  liveth,  and  thy  son  is  the  dead  :  and  the  other  saith, 

24  Nay  ;  but  thy  son  is  the  dead,  and  my  son  is  the  living.     And  the  king  said, 

25  Bring  me  a  sword.  And  they  brought  a  sword  before  the  king.  And  the  king 
said,  Divide  the  living  child  in  two,  and  give  half  to  the  one,  and  half  to  the 
other.  Then  spake  the  woman  whose  the  living  child  was  unto  the  king,  for 
her  bowels  yearned  upon  her  son,  and  she  said,  O  my  lord,  give  her  the  living 
child,  and  iu  no  wise  slay  it.     But  the   other  said,  Let  it  be   neither  mine  nor 

27  thine,  but  divide  it.     Then  the  king  answered  and  said,  Give  her  "  the  living 

28  child,  and  in  no  wise  slay  it :  she  is  the  mother  thereof.  And  all  Israel  heard 
of  the  judgment  which  the  king  had  judged  ;  and  they  feared  the  king  :  for  they 
saw  that  the  wisdom  of  God  was  in  him  to  do  judgment. 


19 
20 

21 

22 

23 


26 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 


1  Ver.  5.— [The  Sept.  and  Chald.  here  repeat  Lord  ;  the  Syr.  follows  the  Hbr.  in  reading  God;  while  the  Vulg,  and 
Arab,  avoid  repeating  the  divine  name. 

3  Ver.  7. — [Some  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.,  prefix  the  conjunction  1 . 
3  Ver.  10.— [Many  MSS.  read  IT)  IT  instead  of  'J1X.  and  are  followed  by  the  Chaldee. 

*  Ver.  12.— [Many  MSS.  and  editions,  followed  by  the  Vulg.,  have  "^"1213  in  the  plural. 

*  Ver.  13. — [The  Sept  put  this  clause  in  the  past  tense  :  ios  ov  yiyovey  avrip  o^ioios  trot,  iv  /SaaiAevcri,  the  Vat.  ending  the 
clause  here  ;  but  the  Alex.,  by  retaining  the  last  words  of  the  Hbr..  7ra<ras  Tas  rj^;pas  <rou,  makes  nonsense. 

9  Ver.  15. — [The  Sept.  add  ef  iiwr. 

7  Ver.  15. — [The  Hbr.  ^'V'lis  the  same  before  "  peace-offerings  "  and  before  "feast,"  and  is  quite  different  from  the- 


^-1 


I  before  "burnt-offerings."    The  distinction  is  accurately  preserved  by  the  Sept.  and  the  Vulg. 

8  Ver.  16.— [This  translation  is  sustained  here,  as  in  Josh.  ii.  1.  by  all  the  VV.  except  the  Chald.,  anl  is  undoubtedly 
the  invariable  and  distinctly-marked  sense  of  the  frequent  Hbr.  word.  The  Chald.  renders  inn-keepers.  The  author'* 
objection  to  the  sense  of  harlots  seems  insufficient. 

9  Ver.  IS. — [Many  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.,  prefix  the  conjuction  1 . 

10  Ver.  19. — [It  is  better  to  retain  throughout  the  passage  the  same  rendering  of  the  same  Hbr.  word. 

II  Ver.  22. — [One  MS.,  followed  by  the  Vat.,  Sept..  and  Arab.,  omits  the  second  clause  of  ver.  22. 

18  Ver.  27. — [The  Sept.  remove  any  possible  obscuritv  by  paraphrasing,  l-Givc  the  child  to  her  that  said,  Give 
her,"  kc.-F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  Solomon  made  affinity.  After 
the  rule  of  Solomon  was  established  by  the  re- 
moval of  his  enemies  from  within  (chap.  ii.  46),  he 
Bought  to  make  it  outwardly  strong,  also,  by  a 
family  alliance  with  the  king  of  Egypt.  After 
David's  great  victories  over  the  surrounding  na- 
tions, and  especially  after  the  Philistines  were 
rendered  powerless,  Egypt  was  the  nearest  and 
most  powerful  neighbor  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
As  the  latter  had  increased  so  much  in  extent  and 
power,  the  king  of  Egypt  may  also  have  desired 
an  alliance  with  the  king  of  Israel  (Ewald,  Gesch. 
Isr.,  iii.  s.  279) ;  but  such  an  alliance  secured  Solo- 
mon against  other  nations,  and  was  even  productive 
of  an  enlargement  of  his  territory  (chap.  ix.  16). 
The  Pharaoh  named  here  "  belonged  certainly,  fol- 
lowing the  synchronism,  to  the  21st  Tanaitic 
dynasty,  and  may  have  been  its  last  king,  Psusen- 
nes  or  Psusennos,  who  reigned  thirty-five  years  " 
(Winer,  R-  W.-B.,  ii.  s.  363).— This  marriage  with 


an  Egyptian  was  not  contrary  to  the  law,  since  it 
only  prohibited  union  with  the  daughters  of  the 
Canaanite  tribes  (Ex.  xxxiv.  11-16  ;  Deut.  vii.  1-3). 
The  supposition  of  some  rabbins,  that  the  Egyptian 
had  become  a  proselyte,  is  unnecessary ;  it  is  cer- 
tain, besides,  that  Egyptian  worship  was  not  in- 
troduced by  her  into  Jerusalem ;  and  even  later  no 
trace  of  it  is  found  (chap.  xi.  4-7). — By  the  city  of 
David  we  are  to  understand  the  ancient  and 
fortified  Jerusalem,  the  citadel  of  David — the 
upper  city.  The  dwelling  for  the  queen  was  but 
temporary ;  when  the  new  palace  was  built  she 
inhabited  it  (chap.  ix.  24).  —  "He  made,"  says 
Josephus,  "  the  walls  wider  and  firmer  than  they 
had  been."  David  had  only  fortified  the  upper 
city  (2  Sam.  v.  7,  9). 

Vers.  2-4.  Only  the  people  sacrificed  in  high 
places,  &c.  Vers.  2  and  3  do  not  pronounce  a 
judgment  in  general  upon  the  condition  of  public 
worship  in  the  beginning  of  Solomon's  reign  (Keil). 
but  form  an  introduction  to  verses  4-15.  The 
connection  is  this :  when  the  rule  of  So'omon  wa» 


CHAPTER  III.   1-28. 


41 


established  from  within  by  the  extirpation  of  his 
foes,  and  outwardly  by  an  alliance  with  Pharaoh, 
Solomon  held  a  great  festival  for  all  Israel  (2  Chron. 
i.  2,  3),  not  only  to  implore  Jehovah's  further  aid  to 
his  successful  government,  but  also  in  gratitude  for 
the  past.  But  as  Jehovah's  house  was  not  yet 
built,  and  as  the  people,  for  want  of  a  central 
sanctuary,  still  sacrificed  ou  high  places  here 
and  there.  Solomon  followed  this  custom,  but 
chose  the  greatest,  i.  e.,  the  most  important  height, 
that  at  Gibeon,  where  the  ancient  tabernacle  and 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering  stood.  Vers.  2  and;; 
serve  then  to  explain  how  it  was  that  Solomon, 
who  loved  Jehovah,  and,  like  David,  kept  the  law, 
celebrated  his  great  inauguration-festival  on  a 
high  place,  [bishop  Horsley  remarks  on  ver.  3: 
This  is  not  mentioned  as  a  circumstance  of  blame 
either  in  the  people  or  in  the  king.  For  had  they 
not  sacrificed  ani  1  burnt  incense  on  high  places,  they 
could  not  have  sacrificed  or  burnt  incense  at  all. 
And  it  appears  by  the  sequel  that  the  sacrifice  at 
Gibeon  was  acceptable. — E.H.] — The  highplaces  are 
very  ofteu  used  in  these  books  in  the  same  sense ; 
butnot always.     That  n03  does  not  mean  "  barred 

entrance,"  and  then  "sacred  forest"  grove  (The- 
nius,  Bottcher),  is  easy  to  see  from  Mic.  iii.  12, 
where    it    is    synonymous    with   in ,  mountain ; 

oomp.  Mic.  i.  3,  4;  Jer.  xxvi.  18,  with  Amos  iv.  1. 

where  nijOJ  stands  for  rnn3  •     The  fundamental 

meaning  is  and  must  be:  height,  high  place.  Among 
all  ancient  nations,  heights  and  mountains  were 
naturally  chosen  as  the  fit  places  for  offering-up  to 
the  Deity  who  dwells  on  high,  far  above  earth. 
But  as  all  prayer  to  and  worship  of  the  Godhead 
took  the  form  of  sacrifice,  for  which  an  altar  was 
requisite,  J"I103  became  the  expression  for  high 

places  upon  which  altars  were  erected.  By  de- 
grees, however,  the  use  of  the  term  became  more 
extended,  so  that  places  of  sacrifices,  even  if  not 
on  high  places,  but  in  towns,  and  even  in  valleys, 
were  also  called  "high  places  "  (2  Kings  xvli.  9; 
Jer.  vii.  31;  xxxii.  35).  In  heathen  worship,  be- 
sides the  altars  for  sacrifices,  they  had  many 
dwellings  for  the  Divinity,  not  regular  temples, 
but  cells,  chapels,  tents,  in  which  the  image  of  the 
Deity   stood,  and    these  also  were   named   11103 

(Ezek.  xvi.  16);  hence  the  expressions  niQ3n  TO 

(1  Kings  xiii.  32 ;  2  Kings  xvii.  29),  and  niD3  DJ3 

^1  Kings  xi.  7;  xiv.  23).  Because  the  worship  at 
the  high  places  so  easily  became  entangled  with 
idolatry,  the  Mosaic  law  commanded  that  sacri- 
fices should  only  be  offered  at  Jehovah's  dwelling- 
place — the  tabernacle  (Levit.  xvii.  3).  For  the 
unquiet  times  of  the  Judges,  however,  this  pre- 
script could  not  be  obeyed  ;  and  as  the  patriarchs 
sacrificed  on  high  places  before  the  law  was 
given  (Gen.  xii.  8),  their  example  was  followed : 
even  Samuel  did  this  (1  Sam.  ix.  12  sq.)\  Thus  it 
happened  that  this  more  convenient  practice  took 
deep  root,  and  it  was  not  until  much  later  that  it 
was  found  possible  to  abolish  it  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
4-23);  it  was  always,  however,  an  abnormity, 
though  unavoidable,  so  long  as  an  house  for 
Jehovah's  name,  i.  e.,  a  central  sanctuary,  was 
wanting  (for  this  last  expression  see  below  on 
chap.  vi.). — A  thousand  burnt-offerings.  In  the 
entire   ancienc  world,   the    greatest    number    of 


animals  possible  were  collected  for  sacrifice  at 
great  festivals  (see  below  on  chap.  viii.  62).  The 
feast  must  have  at  least  lasted  more  than  one  day 
The  passage  we  are  considering  has  sery  unfairly 
been  selected  to  prove  that  the  king  himself  sacri- 
ficed, i.  e.,  exercised  priestly  functions.  Even  the 
great  number  of  animals  offered  contradicts  this  ; 
so  does  chap.  vi.  2  ;  where  king  Solomon  is  said  ti 
have  built  the  house  of  the  Lord  and  made  win- 
dows, 4c,  no  more  means  that  he  performed  masons' 
and  carpenters'  work  than  that  he  himself  offered 
the  animals  in  sacrifice. 

Vers,  a- 10.  The  Lord  appeared  to  Solomon, 
&c.      The  expression  HN13  does    not   mean  that 

Solomou  saw  Jehovah  in  any  bodily  form,  but 
that  Jehovah  revealed   himself  to  him.      If  the 

reading  here  and  in  ver.  10  be  not  niir  ,  but  D^iipX 

is  to  be  subjoined  to  it;  the  last  more  general 
term  serves  to  designate  the  words  which  Solomon 
understood  to  be  really  divine  communications.  For 
it  is  evident  that  the  word  niiT  does  not  specifically 

belong  to  the  appearing,  as  Thenius  thinks,  from 
examination  of  the  parallel  passage  in  2  Chron.  i. 

7,  where  D'il^X  HS03  occurs. — Solomon  grounds 

(ver.  6)  his  request  that  Jehovah  would  grant  him 
the  gifts  needful  for  a  sovereign,  upon  the  mercy 
shown  his  father  David,  to  whom  God  had  per- 
formed His  promises,  and  raised  up  his  son  to  sit 
upon  the  throne  of  Israel.  He  humbly  calls  himself 
a  little  child,  not  only  as  if  he  were  just  twelve  years 
old,  as  some  rabbins  say,  but  because  his  youth  was 
unfitted  for  the  great  and  arduous  task  laid  on 
him.  Solomon  died  after  a  reign  of  forty  years, 
and  was   named   before  (chap.  xi.  4)  JpT,  which 

makes  him,  as  is  also  the  general  opinion,  twenty 
years  old  at  least. — Going  out  and  coming  in  is, 
like  Deut.  xxxi.  2  ;  1  Sam.  xviii.  13,  16;  2  Sam.  iii. 
25 ;  Ps.  exxi.  8,  descriptive  of  the  entire  manner 
of  life.     The  conclusion,  from  ver.  8,  clearly  refers 

to  Gen.  xxxii.  13 ;  xiii.  16.— The  yob*  witn  3^  (like 

Job  xii.  3;  xxxiv.  10;  Prov.  xv.  32,  the  seat  of 
thought  and  knowledge,  ver.  9),  as  is  to  be  seen 

from  OSti'O  J"bi."^  (ver.  12),  must  be  connected 
with  the  following  I3'3C*ij  i  and  is  not  t0  t>e  trans- 
lated, as  Luther  has  it,  obedient  heart;  or  as  the 
Vulgate,  cor  docile.  A  right  sentence  depends 
upon  the  hearing,  that  is,  the  trial  of  the  parties, 
and  for  this,  understanding  and  judgment  are  most 
requisite  for  the  judge  (comp.  2  Sam.  xiv.  17). 
Vor.  7  refers  to  ruling,  but  ver.  9  to  judging :  the 
two  conjoined  fom  tho  kingly  office  (1  Sam.  viii. 
6,  20 ;  2  Sam.  xv.  4.  Artemid.  Oneir.,  ii.  14 : 
Kuivetv  to  apxetv  eXeyov  ol  Tza'/utoi). 

Vers.  11-15.  And  God  said,  &c.  Instead  of 
the  life  of  thine  enemies  (ver.  "1),  vei  13  reads 
"1133  ;  it  is,  therefore,  mditary  glory,  victory  which 

is  meant.  DSE*0  ybti*i>  does  not  mean :  "  to  ex- 
ercise divine  right "  (Keil),  but :  to  dispense  jus- 
tice.— Behold  it  was  a  dream,  not  that  he  only 
knew  on  awaking  that  it  was  but  a  dream ;  and 
not  that  he  remembered  distinctly  on  awaking 
what  he  had  dreamed  (Seb.  Schmidt),  but:  "  that 
it  was  more  than  a  dream  (an  ordinary  one) — 
something  really   divine;  of  this  he   beoimc-   v. 


42 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


■convinced  on  awaking,  that  immediately  after  his 
return  to  the  capital,  he  went  to  the  place  -there 
the  sacred  ark  stood,  and  worshipped  the  Lord 
anew  with  many  sacrifices  and  thanksgiving-offer- 
ings. The  thank-offerings  were  for  this  extraor- 
dinary proof  of  divine  favor  "  (Hess).  The  sequel 
showed  that  it  was  not  a  mere  dream. 

Ver.  16.  Then  came  there  two  women,  &c 
This  story  is  meant  to  show,  by  one  instance,  that 
Solomon  had  really  received  what  he  had  prayed 
for,  and  what  God  had  promised  him  (Theodoret  : 
eTrtArizat  rr/v  tov  .3aa/7.fwc  eftovXi/vn  ooipiav). 
Thenius  counts  the  whole  among  those  passages 
which  the  writer  gave  from  oral  tradition ;  but  we 
must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  he  did  not  take  it, 
like  other  narratives,  from  the  "  book  of  the  Acts 
of  Solomon  "  (chap.  xi.  41).  [The  writer  of  the 
Book  of  the  Kings  refers  only  at  the  end  of  Solo- 
mon's reign  to  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon, 
and  not  at  each  step  in  his  career. — E.  H.] — The 

rabbins  derive  nijf  from  ft] ,  to  feed,  nourish ;  and 
explain  it  thus  with  the  Chaldee,  here  as  in  Josh, 
ii.  1,  by  ;p"IJ12 ,  i-  e.,  hostesses,  evidently  to  avoid 
Borne  offence.  On  this  account,  it  can  scarcely 
allude  to  harlots,  because  they,  as  Calmet  remarks, 
seldom  have  many  children,  and  if  they  have, 
do  not  usually  care  much  about  providing  for 
them.     As  nj?  is  generally  spoken  of  intercourse 

which  is  extra-matrimonial,  or  adulterous,  so  this 
passage  refers  to  "  those  who  have  had  children, 
being  unmarried  "  (Gerlach). 

V"ers.  17-2S.  And  the  one  woman  said,  &c. 
She  alleges  that  the  other  can  persist  so  obstinate- 
ly in  her  denial,  because  there  was  no  one  else 
in  the  house.  The  latter  probably  took  the  child 
away  to  avoid  the  just  and  heavy  reproach  of 
having  killed  her  own  child,  and  the  consequent 
disgrace  she  would  incur.  This  is  at  least  more 
probable  than  that  she  wished  to  continue  nursing 
for  her  health's  sake  (Thenius),  or  that  she  thought 
to  inherit  something  in  the  future  from  the  child 
(Hess) ;  or,  finally,  that  she  intended  to  sell  it 
afterwards  for  her  support  (Le  Clerc). — In  ver. 
21,  at  first  the  time  given  is  the  morning,  in  a 
general  way ;  but  next,  the  expression  is  the  same 
as  clara  luce  (Vulgate),   or,   "  as  it  was  becoming 

brighter  and  brighter  "(Thenius).  D'Dni  (ver.  26)  is 

the  New  Testament  a-xlayxya  (2  Cor.  vi.  12 ;  vii.  15). 
Comp.  Gen.  xlhi.  30.  Luther:  "for  her  motherly 
heart  yearned  upon  her  son."  The  words : 
neither  mine  nor  thine,  kc,  do  not  only  show  want 
of  maternal  love,  but  also  envy  and  dislike  of  her 
j  accuser. — They  feared.    Comp.  Luke  iv.  36  ;  viii.  25. 

The  sentence  made  a  deep  impression ;  DTl^N  is 

here  the  same  as  in  Ps.  Lxviii.  16:  lxv.  10. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  Solomon's  marriage  with  a  daughter  of 
Pharaoh  was,  strictly  speaking,  a  political  alliance ; 
But  it  has,  nevertheless,  also  significance  in  the 
history  of  redemption.  The  great  and  mighty 
king  of  the  land,  which  for  Israel  had  been  ''the 
l.ouse  of  bondage"  in  which  it  had  eaten  "the 
bread  of  affliction"  (Exod.  xx.  2;  Deut.  xvi  3), 
gives  now  to  the  king  of  this  once  despised  and 
oppressed  people,  his  daughter  in  marriage,  and 


must,  in  the  providence  of  God,  contribute  to  the 
strengthening  of  the  Israelitish  throne,  and  to  the 
increase  of  the  power  and  glory  of  the  Israelitish 
kingdom.  Thus  was  this  marriage  a  witness  for 
the  divine  beneficence  in  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  to  the  goal  of  which  Israel  had  come  in 
the  reign  of  Solomon — the  period  of  the  richest 
bloom  of  the  kingdom.  It  was  likewise  a  divine 
seal  upon  the  independence  of  the  people,  which 
had  begun  with  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  now 
had  reached  its  completeness.  [We  beg  leave  to 
dissent  from  the  position  here  taken  by  our  author. 
(Comp.  Exeget.  on  ver.  1).  Solomon's  alliance  with 
the  Egyptian  princess  for  political  purposes  was 
after  the  fashion  of  worldly  princes,  and  in  direct 
hostility  with  the  theocratic  spirit.  Egypt  was 
quite  as  much  an  "  abomination  "  as  "  Canaan," 
and  we  are  surprised  that  our  author  should  apolo- 
gize for  Solomon  in  the  matter. — E.  H.] 

2.  That  sacrificing  and  burning  of  incense  in  high 
places  was  forbidden  in  the  Mosaic  law  rests,  not 
upon  the  grounds  of  outward  regulation,  but  was 
a  natural,  necessary  consequence  of  the  Mosaic 
fundamental  principles.  Jehovah  is  one,  and  be- 
side him  there  is  no  God.  He  has  chosen  Israel, 
out  of  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  to  be  His  people ; 
lit-  Las  made  a  covenant  with  them,  and  as  a  sign 
and  pledge  of  this  covenant  will  He  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  His  people.  As  He  himself  is  one  only, 
so  also  is  and  can  His  dwelling-place  be  only  one. 
This  is  the  place  where  He  "  meets  "  His  people, 
i.  e.,  exercises  the  covenant  relation  (Exod.  xxix. 
■12  sq.).  The  concentration  of  the  Jehovah-cultus 
is  connected  as  inseparably  with  monotheism,  as 
is  the  worship  in  high  places,  i.  e.,  in  any  favorite 
spot,  with  polytheism.  From  the  Mosaic  stand- 
point, the  worship  in  high  places  appeared  as  an 
ignoring,  yea,  as  a  denial,  of  the  dwelling  of 
Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  His  people,  and,  conse- 
quently, of  the  election  and  of  the  covenant  of 
Jehovah,  whereof  it  was  the  witness  and  pledge 
( ■■/'.  Josh.  xxii.).  If  the  law  in  question  could  not 
1  le  carried  out  in  times  of  unrest  and  of  convulsion, 
nevertheless,  as  soon  as  the  period  of  the  undis- 
turbed  possession  of  Canaan  was  entered  upon,  it 
would  remain  the  business  of  every  truly  theo- 
cratic king,  as  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  to  put  an 
end,  as  far  as  possible,  to  worship  in  high  places. 
Hence,  also,  was  David,  after  he  had  won  for 
Israel  victory  over  all  enemies,  most  earnest  to 
erect  an  enduring  central  sanctuary,  for  which  the 
old  tabernacle,  especially  since  the  removal  of 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  from  it,  was  no  longer 
serviceable.  Since  this,  however,  was  denied  him, 
he  laid  the  charge  of  it  upon  Solomon,  his  son  and 
successor,  and  made  the  building  of  a  "  house  of 
Jehovah"  the  first  and  most  pressing  duty  of  his 
reign  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  2  sq.).  After  the  building  of 
the  temple,  sacrificing  in  high  places  should  have 
disappeared  totally  ;  but  it  forever  kept  emerging, 
even  under  kings  who  in  other  respects  adhered 
firmly  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  constantly  spoken  of  as  a  defect  or  an  abnor 
mitv  (1  Kings  xv.  14;  xxii.  44;  2  Kings  xii.  4;  xiv 
4;  XV.  4,  35;  xxi.  3). 

3.  The  divine  revelation  which  Solomon  re 
ceived,  came,  as  in  so  many  other  instances  botl 
in  the  Old  and  also  even  in  the  New  Testament 
through  the  medium  of  a  dream.  In  itself  the 
dream  is,  according  to  the  Scripture,  something 
wholly  idle  and  vain  (Ecclos.  v.  6;  Job  xx.  8;  Is 


CHAPTER  in.  1-2S. 


Vc 


xxix.  7.  8) ;  in  so  far,  however,  as  man  is  then  re- 
moved entire.y  from  the  sensible  and  outward 
world,  and  is  in  the  condition  of  a  pure  psychical 
intuition,  he  can,  more  than  in  the  natural,  wakeful 
condition,  become  a  more  receptive  soil  for  divine 
influences  and  communications.  Hence,  in  Ecclesi- 
asticus  xxxi.  (xxxiv.)  2  sq.,  while  the  nothingness  of 
dreams  is  taught,  yet  in  ver.  6  this  statement  fol- 
lows: kav  ui,  -;  .'  --"i1  [sc.  ~a  kvinrVLa]  a~o- 
cTti/ti  iv  i-i<7^o—/i,  uij  fi<jc  etc  avTQ  r/tr  Kapdiav  gov. 

Dreams  of  the  latter  description  are  placed,  i 3e- 

quently,  on  a  level   with   prophecy    and   visions, 

which  are  the  operation  of  the   rm  of  Jehovah 

(Joel  iii.  1).  But  these  invariably  presuppose  a  cer- 
tain spiritual  temper  upon  the  part  of  the  dreamer. 
"  The  prophetic  dream  of  the  night,  as  a  rule,  is  con- 
nected with  the  moral  reflections  and  presentiments 
of  the  day  "  (Lange,  on  Gen.  xx.  3).  A  soul  directed 
towards  God  and  divine  things  in  its  wakeful  slate, 
is  peculiarly  fitted,  in  the  stillness  of  the  night,  in 
its  involuntary  expressions,  i.  e.,  in  its  dreams,  to 
receive  purely  spiritual,  inwardly  divine  influences. 
Such  was  the  case  with  Solomon.  Ili.s  dream 
shows  what  then  agitated  and  filled  his  sold,  and 
that  the  festivity  he  then  held  was  not  an  empty 
political  ceremony,  but  resulted  from  an  actual  re- 
ligious need.  An  Adonijah,  at  his  least  at  tin- 
spring  Rogel  (chap.  i.  9-25),  would  never  have 
been  able  to  dream  so.  If  ever  dream  contained 
nothing  chimerical  (visionary),  it  was  Solomon's 
dream  at  Gibeon.  [Bp.  Hall,  beautifully :  "  Solo- 
mon worships  God  by  day  :  God  appears  to  Solo- 
mon by  night.  Well  may  we  look  to  enjoy  God 
when  we  have  served  him. — E.  H.] 

4.  The  prayer  of  Solomon  unites  in  itself  all 
that  belongs  to  a  true  prayer.  It  affords  evidence 
especially  of  the  genuine  theocratic  spirit  in  which 
this  son  of  David  had  been  educated,  and  was  now 
entering  upon  his  royal  office.  He  recognises  the 
greatness  of  the  task  to  be  the  king  of  the  people 
which  Jehovah  has  chosen  from  among  all  peoples 
of  the  earth,  and  his  first  and  greatest  anxiety  is 
to  comply  with  this  demand.  He  feels  that  he, 
especially  in  his  youth  and  inexperience,  cannot  do 
this  of  his  own  strength,  and  he  prays  for  enlight- 
enment from  on  high,  not  so  much  for  himself  as 
for  the  sake  of  the  people.  It  is  not  his  own  merit 
which  gives  him  courage  for  this  prayer,  but 
he  rests  it  upon  the  divine  grace  and  mercy  which 
his  father  had  so  richly  experienced.  His  words 
are  not  many,  but  the  few  he  utters  are  the  ex- 
pression of  a  living,  child-like  faith,  as  simple  and 
substantial  as  it  is  inward  and  true. 

5.  The  history  of  the  two  women  "  is  genuinely 
Oriental,  in  which  we  must  dismiss  from  our  minds 
wholly,  our  forms  of  justice  and  processes  of  proof : 
since  an  accurate,  striking  flash,  which  solves  the 
difficulty,  in  living,  immediate  insight  with  one 
stroke,  as  with  the  sharpness  of  a  sword,  is  far  loftier 
than  a  regular  consideration  and  balancing  of  the 
grounds  advanced,  for  and  against.  Therefore,  this 
wisdom,  as  belonging  to  the  period,  to  the  land,  and 
to  the  whole  people,  must  be  ooked  upon  as  a  high 
gift  of  God,  as,  indeed,  it  act  ^ally  was  "  (Gerlach). 
Examples  of  similar  judicial  decision  are  not  want- 
ing in  antiquity.  Grotius  observes  :  Non  dissimih 
iUud  Ariopliarnis  regis  Thracum,  qui  de  tribus  filios 
«  Cimmeriorum  regis  dicentibus  ewnx  pro  JUio  habuit, 
qui  jussus  cadaver  patris  jandis  noluerat,  inct 
l>we  historic,  est  apud  Siculum  Diodorum.     Another 


instance  "  is  adduced  by  Robertson  from  an  Indian 
book.  A  woman  in  bathing  left  her  child  or.  tha 
bank  of  a  pond.  A  female  demon  wh)  was  pass- 
ing by  carried  it  off.  Both  appear  before  th« 
goddess  with  their  claims.  She  commands  that 
each  shall  seize  an  arm  and  a  leg  and  pull  at  it. 
The  mother  of  the  child  is  recognised  by  her  re- 
fusal "  (Philippson).  Solomon  demonstrated  his 
capacity  as  judge  in  the  case  in  hand,  in  so  far 
especially  that,  in  the  absence  of  witnesses  and  of 
outward  means  of  proof,  he  knew  how  to  bring 
the  secret  truth  to  light  in  such  way  as  to  con- 
vince the  contestants  themselves.  The  words  of 
Prov.  xvi.  10  are  here  confirmed.  While  Niemeyer, 
in  the  judgment  of  Solomon,  recognises,  if  not 
"  God's  wisdom,"  at  least  "  rapid  decision,  pres- 
ence of  mind,  and  an  accurate  insight  into  human 
nature,"  other  theologians  of  the  illuminati- 
period,  have  seen  nothing  more  than  "the  pro- 
ceeding of  an  Oriental  despot,  a  fancy  which  would 
not  do  much  to  subserve  the  interests  of  a  Euro- 
pean prince  "  (G.  L.  Bauer  i-n  Keil  on  the  place). 
He  who  judges  so  unwisely,  only  shows  in  the 
act,  that  in  like  or  similar  circumstances  he  would 
scarcely  have  reached  so  wise  a  judgment  as  Solo- 
mon's. Little  as  Solomon's  procedure  may  corre- 
spond to  otir  present  notions  of  the  administration 
of  justice,  formally  considered,  nevertheless  that 
which  for  all  time  remains  the  chief  point  was 
not  wanting,  ver.  12 — the  divine  gift  of  bringing 
to  light  the  secret,  inward  fact,  and  of  awakening 
the  sleeping  conscience,  so  that  falsehood  and  mis- 
representation vanish,  and  the  truth  comes  forth. 
Without  this  gift  all  forms  and  rules  of  investi- 
gation avail  nothing;  yea,  as  experience  has  so 
often  shown,  they  serve  to  pervert  the  conscience 
and  to  conceal  the  truth. 


HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Cramer:  Although  marriage  with  per- 
sons of  unlike  faith  be  allowed,  and  is  in  itself  no 
sin  (1  Cor.  vii.  14),  it  is,  nevertheless,  better  that 
one  avoid  it,  because  the  unbelieving  perverts  the 
believer  more  frequently  than  the  believer  converts 
the  unbeliever. — Starke  :  God  has  the  hearts  of  all 
men  in  His  hands,  and  can  bring  it  to  pass  that 
they  who  have  been  inimical  to  us,  and  have  despis- 
ed us,  shall  hold  us  in  great  honor  (Prov.  xvi.  7  ; 
Gen.  xxxi.  24). — As  soon  as  Solomon  sa>v  his  exist- 
ence secured,  he  proceeded  to  matrimony. — Ver. 
2— I,  Solomon's  Sacrificial  Festivity:  (a)  When  he 
celebrated  it  (at  the  beginning  of  his  reign  to  re- 
turn thanks  for  the  past  assistance  of  God,  and  to 
implore  its  continuance) ;  (b)  where  he  kept  it  (upon 
the  high  place  at  Gibeon,  because  no  temple  was 
built  as  yet:  the  place  of  prayer  in  the  Old  and  in 
the  New  Testament). — Though  God  dwell  not  in 
temples  built  by  human  hands,  yet  it  is  needful 
for  each  congregation  to  have  an  house,  where  with 
one  mouth  it  praises  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Where 
this  need  is  not  felt,  there  is  a  defect  in  faith  and 
love  for  the  Lord. — Ver.  3.  He  loved  the  Lord. 
This  is  the  best  and  greatest  thing  that  can  be 
said  of  a  man.  So,  every  one  who  loves  the  world, 
has  not  in  him  the  love  of  the  Father  :  this  is  only 
where  God  is  loved  above  all  things,  His  word  ob- 
served,  and  His  commandments  fulfilled  with  joy 
and  delight  (1  John  ii.  5,  15;  v.  3).  Happy  is  he 
who,  to  the  question  of  the  Lord :  Lovest  thou  me  1 


44 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


can  return  the  answer  of  Peter  (John  xxi.  17). 
Because  Solomon  loved  the  Lord  he  honored  also 
his  father,  and  walked  in  his  ways.  The  want  of 
filial  piety  in  our  day  comes  from  want  of  love  to 
the  Lord. — Ver.  4.  If  we  should  begin  our  daily 
work  with  the  sacrifice  of  our  prayer,  how  much 
more  our  life's  calling,  and  every  weighty  under- 
taking upon  which  our  own  and  the  well-being  of 
other  men  depends  (God  grant  it,  He  who  can 
help,  Ac). 

Vers.  5-15.  The  Prayer  of  Solomon:  (a)  Its 
contents  (ver.  6-9) ;  (6)  its  answer  (ver.  10-14). — 
Ver.  5.  Starke:  Those  who  love  God  (ver.  3), 
God  loves  in  return,  and  reveals  himself  to  them 
(John  xiv.  21). — Hall:  The  night  cannot  be 
otherwise  than  holy  to  him  whom  the  previous 
day  has  been  holy. — In  our  dreams  we  often  speak 
and  act  in  such  way  that  we  must  be  frightened, 
upon  awaking,  at  how  much  that  is  impure  and  cor- 
rupt is  still  within  us.  Upon  this  account  we 
should  pray  in  the  evening :  Ah  1  may  my  soul  in 
sleeping  also  do  that  which  is  good,  or,  if  I  dream, 
be  it  from  thee,  so  that  my  senses  even  in  sleep 
may  acquire  love  for  thee,  Ac.  (Ps.  lxiii.  7). — [One 
is  here  reminded  of  Bp.  Ken's  beautiful  evening 
hymn :  "  Glory  to  thee,  my  God,  this  night." — 
E.  H] — A  dream  like  Solomon's  does  not  happen 
when  the  day  just  past  has  been  spent  in  revel 
and  riot,  in  gross  or  in  refined  sin. — Lisco:  What 
happened  here  in  dream,  Christ  commands  in 
"  Our  Father." — Starke  :  God  well  knew  what 
Solomon  needed;  but  he  bid  him  ask,  (1)  to  show 
how  negligent  men  are  in  praying  for  what  is 
spiritual ;  (2)  that  he  would  only  bestow  His  gifts 
in  the  ordinance  of  prayer ;  (3)  that  great  person- 
ages might  have  an  example  of  what  they  should 
ask  of  God,  above  all  others.  Ask  what  I  shall  give 
thee :  (a)  a  test- word,  for  as  man  wishes  and 
prays,  so  does  he  show-of  whose  spirit  he  is  the 
child  (Ps.  cxxxix.  23) ;  (6)  a  word  of  warning,  for 
we  not  only  may,  but  we  should  also  ask  for  all 
which  we  have  most  at  heart  (Ps.  xxxvii.  4). — 
Ver.  6-10.  When  is  our  prayer  pleasing  to  God? 
(a)  When  we  pray  in  the  feeling  of  our  weakness 
and  helplessness,  and  in  confidence  in  the  mercy 
of  God  and  His  promises;  (6)  when  before  all 
things  we  ask  for  spiritual  blessings  and  gifts 
(Matt.  vi.  33;  Eph.  i.  3). — The  true  wisdom  for 
which  we  have  to  ask  God  (James  i.  5),  does  not 
consist  in  manifold  and  great  knowledge,  but  in 
the  understanding  of  what  is  good  and  bad  (Job 
xxviii.  28 ;  James  hi.  17  ;  Eph.  v.  17),  and  is  a 
fruit  of  the  renewal  of  our  mind  (Rom.  xii.  2). — A 
ruler  who  does  not  ask  God  for  an  obedient  heart 
for  himself,  can  and  ought  not  to  hope  for  or  expect 
that  his  people  will  yield  him  a  submissive  heart. — 
Youth,  which  as  a  rule  places  freedom  in  lawless- 
ness, needs  before  all  things  to  ask  God  daily  for  an 
obedient  heart. — Vers.  8,  9.  Pfaff:  Subjects  are 
not  simply  creatures  of  the  authorities,  nor  are  they 
designed  for  the  exercise  of  their  pleasures  and 


the  splendor  of  their  position  (Holeit);  but  they 
are  God's  people,  and  as  such,  are  to  be  governed 
and  judged. 

Ver.  11-14.  The  granting  of  Solomon's  prayei 
teaches  and  assures  us :  (a)  That  God  grauts  more 
than  they  request,  over  and  above  praying  and 
understanding,  to  those  who  call  upon  him  with 
earnestness,  and  for  spiritual  gifts  (Eph.  iii.  20 ; 
Matt.  vL  33) ;  (b)  that  God  gives  to  him  upon  whom 
He  confers  an  office,  that  is,  to  one  who  does  not 
rush  into  an  office  or  calling,  but  is  called  thereto 
by  God,  the  necessary  understanding,  if  he  humbly 
seek  it. — Where  there  is  wisdom,  there  comes, 
indeed,  also  gold  and  silver  (Prov.  iii.  16  sg  ),  but 
not  the  reverse. — Ver.  15.  Hall:  A  heart  col- 
scious  in  itself  of  the  living  evidences  of  a  special 
grace  of  God,  cannot  forbear  feeling  that  it  should 
be  authenticated  through  outward  signs,  and  espe- 
cially through  munificence. 

Vers.  16-28:  Lisco:  Solomon's  Wise  Judg- 
ment: (a)  The  question  in  dispute  (vers.  16-22); 
(b)  the  decision  (vers.  23-28). — Vers.  17-22.  Such 
sin  brings  together,  but  it  unites  only  for  a  short 
time  ;  for  it  produces  discord,  wrangling,  and 
controversy.  Abiding  peace  dwells  only  in  the 
house  where  the  God  of  peace  binds  hearts  to- 
gether.— He  who  takes  from  the  heart  of  a  mother 
her  child,  or  estranges  or  deprives  her,  will  not 
escape  the  righteous  tribunal  of  the  judge  to  whom 
the  mother  (das  muUerherz)  calls  and  appeals. — • 
Litigation  is  generally  associated  with  envy,  false- 
hood, and  unrighteousness,  hence  the  Lord  says, 
be  read}',  &c.  (Matt.  v.  25  ;  Luke  xii.  58). — Ver.  26. 
If  an  immoral  woman  be  merciful  for  the  son  of 
her  body,  and  cannot  forget  her  little  child  (kind- 
leiiis),  how  much  more  should  every  Christian 
mother  be  ready  to  offer,  when  necessary,  the 
heaviest  sacrifice  to  deliver  her  child  from  moral 
ruin. — Seiler:  If  in  the  hearts  of  sinners  the  love 
of  father  and  mother  be  so  strong,  how  strong  must 
the  fatherly  love  of  God  be  (Isai.  xlix.  15)  ? — Envy 
hardens  all  human  feeling,  and  makes  one  hard 
and  heartless. — Ver.  27.  When  a  child,  apparently 
given  over  to  death,  is  restored  to  its  parents  by 
divine  providence,  so  much  the  more  must  their 
chief  solicitude  be  to  educate  and  bring  it  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. — Not  power 
and  force,  not  great  pomp,  and  pride,  and  tyranny, 
but  wisdom  and  righteousness,  give  to  the  govern- 
ment authority,  and  call  forth  genuine  fear  and 
the  voluntary  obedience  of  the  people. — If  it  were 
given  to  a  Soiomon  to  bring  to  disgrace  lying  and 
misrepresentation,  by  judicial  wisdom  and  know- 
ledge of  the  human  heart,  and  to  deliver  a  righteous 
judgment,  how  much  less  shall  liars  and  hypocrites 
stand  up  under  the  tribunal  of  Him  who  could 
say,  A  greater  than  Solomon  is  here !  who,  without 
needing  witnesses  aud  judicial  examination,  will 
bring  to  light  what  is  hidden  in  darkness  (1  Cor. 
iv.  5),  and  before  whose  judgment-seat  we  must 
all  appear  (2  Cor.  v.  10). 


CHAPTER  IV.  1-34. 


B. — Solomon's  officers,  household,  and  his  high  intellectual  culture. 
Chap.  IT.  1-34  (IT.  1 ;  T.  14). 

1,  2     So  king   Solomon  was  king  over  all  Israel.     And   these  icere  the  princes 

3  which  he  had ;  Azariah  the  son  of  Zadok  the  priest.'     Elihoreph  and  Ahiah,  the 

4  sons3  of  Shisha,  scribes  ;  Jehoshapliat  the  son  of  Ahilud,  the  recorder.  And 
Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  was  over  the  host:  and  Zadok  and  Abiathar  were 

5  the   priests;    and   Azariah   the    son    of  Nathan   was    over   the   officers:    and 

6  Zabud  the  son  of  Nathan  zcas  principal  officer,  and  the  king's  friend  : 3  and 
Ahishar  teas  over  the  household  :  and  Adoniram  the  son  of  Abda  was  over  the 
tribute. 

7  And  Solomon  had  twelve  officers  over  all  Israel,  which  provided  victuals  for 

8  the  king  and  his  household :  each  man  his  month  in  a  year  made  provision.     And 

9  these  are  their  names  :  The  son  of  Hur,  in  mount  Ephraim :  The  son  of  Dekar,  in 

10  Makaz,  and  in  Shaalbim,  and   Betb-shemesh,  and  Elon  4-beth-hanan  :  The  son  of 

11  Hesed,  in  Aruboth  ;  to  him  pertained  Sochoh,  and  all  the  land  of  Hepher :  The 
son  of  Abinadab,  in  all  the  region  [highlands  b]  of  Dor;  which  had  Taphath  the 

12  daughter  of  Solomon  to  wife  :  Baana  the  son  of  Ahilud  ;  to  him  pertained  Taa- 
nach  and  Megiddo,  and  all  Beth-shean,  which  is  by  Zartanah  beneath  Jezreel, 
from  Bethshean  to  Abel-meholah,  even   unto  the  place  that  is  beyond  Jokneam 

1 3  [Jokmeam]  :  The  son  of  Geber,  in  Bamoth-gilead  ;  to  him  pertained  the  towns  of 
Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh,  which  are  in  Gilead  ; '  to  him  also  pertained the  region 
of  Argob,  which  is  in  Bashan,  threescore  great  cities  with  walls  and  brazen  bars  : 

14,  15  Ahinadab  the  son  of  Iddo  had  Mahanaim :  Ahimaaz  was  in  Naphtali ;  he 
lfi  also  took  Basmath  the  daughter  of  Solomon  to  wife:  Baanah  the  son  of  Hushai 
17  was  in  Asher  and  in'  Aloth  :  8  Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Paruah,  in  Issachar: 
18,  1 9  Shimei  the  son  of  Elah,  in  Benjamin  :  Geber  the  son  of  Uri  was  in  the  country 
of  Gilead,  in  the  country  of  Sihon  king  of  the  Amorites,  and  of  Og  king  of 

20  Bashan  ;  and  he  was  the  only  officer  which  was  in  the  land.  "  Judah  and  Israel 
were  many,  as  the  sand  which  is  by  the  sea  in  multitude,  eating  and  drinking 
and  making  merry. 

21  And  Solomon  reigned  over  all  kingdoms  from  the  river  "  unto  the  land  of 
the  Philistines,  and   unto  the   border  of  Egypt :  they  brought  presents,   and 

22  served  Solomon  all  the  days  of  his  life.  And  Solomon's  provision  for  one  day 
was  thirty  measures  [cor]  of  tine  flour,  and  threescore  measures  [cor]  of  meal. 

23  Ten  fat  oxen,  and  twenty  oxen  out  of  the  pastures,  and  a  hundred  sheep,  be- 

24  sides  harts,  and  roebucks,  and  fallow  deer,"  and  fatted  fowl.  For  he  had 
dominion  over  all  the  region  on  this  side  the  river,  from  Tiphsah  even  to  Azzah, 
over  all  the  kings  on  this  side  the  river:  and  he  had  peace  on  all  sides  round 

25  about  him.     And  Judah  and  Israel  dwelt  safely,  every  man  under  his  vine  and 

26  under  his  fig  tree,  from  Dan  even  to  Beersheba,  all  the  days  of  Solomon.  And 
Solomon  bad  forty "  thousand   stalls  of  horses  for   his   chariots,  and    twelve 

27  thousand  horsemen  [saddle-horses].  And  those  officers  provided  victual  for 
king  Solomon,  and  for  all  that  came  unto  king  Solomon's  table,  every  man 

28  in  his  month:  they  lacked  nothing.  Bailey  also  and  straw  for  the  horses  and 
dromedaries  [coursers  ,3]  brought  they  unto  the  place  where  the  officers  were, 
every  man  according  to  his  charge. 

29  And  God  gave  Solomon  wisdom  and   understanding  exceeding  much,  and 

30  largeness  of  heart,  even  as  the  sand  that  is  on  the  sea  shore.  And  Solomon's 
wisdom  excelled  the  wisdom  of  all  the  children  of  the  east  country,  and  all  the 

31  wisdom  of E<?ypt.  For  he  was  wiser  than  all  men;  than  Ethan  the  Ezrahite, 
and  Heman,  and  Chalcol,  and  Darda,  the  sons  of  Mahol :  and  "  his  fame  was  in 

82  all  nations  round  about.     And  he  spake  three  thousand  proverbs  :  and  his  songs 

33  were  a  thousand  and  five.'5     And  he  spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  tree  that  it 

Vl.  Lebanon  even  unto  the  hyssop  that  springeth  out  of  the  wall :  he  spake  also 


±6 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


34  of  beasts,  and  of  fowl,  and  of  creeping  things,  and  of  fishes.  And  there  came 
of  all  people  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  from  all  kings  of  the  earth,  which 
had  heard  of  his  wisdom.16 


TEXTUAL    AND    GRAMMATICAL. 


1  Ver.  2.— [Our  author  translates  jHSH  "  war  der  hochste  "  for  reasons  given  in  the  Exeg.  Com.    Keil  also  takes  the 

»aine  view  of  the  word.  On  the  other  hand,  all  the  ancient  V V.  (the  Vat.  Sept.,  however,  omits  the  word)  give  the  usual 
rendering, priest;  so  also  Luther,  and  the  A.  V.  The  question  really  turns  upon  which  of  the  names,  Azariah  or  Zadok, 
the  word  is  to  be  placed  in  apposition  with.  By  the  Masoretic  punctuation,  by  the  Chald.,  and  by  the  Sept.,  (6  iepevs  in 
the  nominative),  it  is  placed  in  apposition  with  Azariah,  which,  according  to  ver.  4,  cannot  be  correct,  if  the  translation 
priest  be  retained.  Hence  the  adoption  of  the  other  sense  by  our  author  and  Keil.  But  by  the  Vulg.  (sactrdotis  in  the 
Gen.),  by  the  Syr.,  and  the  A.V.,  it  is  placed  in  apposition  with  Zadok,  and  the  difficulty  is  thus  removed,  while  the 
ordinary  sense  of  the  word  is  retained.  In  this  way,  too,  the  absence  of  the  1  before  Elihoreph  is  accounted  for.  The 
sense  will  then  be,  Azariah  (the  son  of  Zadok  the  priest)  was  one  of  the  scribes  with  Elihoreph  and  Ahiah. 

»  Ver.  8. — [Three  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.,  write  )3  in  the  singular,  thus  making  Ahiah  only  the  son  of  Shisha. 

1  Ver.  5. — [Here  again  we  have  the  same  question  of  translation  as  in  ver.  2,  but  diflerently  solved  in  the  A.  V.    The 

Heb.  expression  TpftH  HU1   |H3  jHJ'p  TOM  is  rendered  by  the  author  as  well  as  by  Keil,  in  the  same  way  as  in  the 

A.V.  It  is  urged  that  JH3  cannot  be  in  apposition  with  Nathan  because  it  is  without  the  article  (see  Nordheimer'i 
Heb.  Gr.,  §  816).    Admitting  that  the  Heb.  usage  requires  JPG  to  be  regarded  as  a  predicate,  it  is  further  urged  that  it 

cannot  mean  priest,  because  Zadok  and  Abiathar  were  "  the  priests."  They  certainly  were  the  high-priests ;  but  Zabud 
also  may  have  been  a  priest.  The  Chald.,  Syr.,  and  Vulg.,  all  retain  the  sense  of  priest,  and  there  seems  no  sufficient 
reason  for  rejecting  it.  "  Zabud,  the  son  of  Nathan,  was  a  priest,  and  the  king's  friend."  Twelve  MSS.  and  the  Syr., 
for  TOt  read  TOT  - 

4  Ver.  9. — [Eleven  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Vulg.,  prefix  the  conjunction  1  to  JV^ ;  the  Sept.  supply  its  place  by  eio*, 

and  so  our  author  translates.  The  Arab,  uses  the  relative,  "  Elon  which  is  in  Beth-hanan."  The  locality  is  quite 
unknown. 

*  Ver.  11. — [Here,  as  in  Josh.  xi.  2 ;  xii.  23,  it  is  better  to  preserve  the  force  of  the  Heb.  J"lS3  ,  as  in  the  author's  ver- 
sion.   The  Vulg.,  Syr.,  Sept.,  and  Arab,  make  it  a  part  of  the  proper  name. 

•  Ver.  13. — [The  Vat.  (not  Alex.)  Sept  omits  the  previous  clause,  and  in  each  case,  after  th«  mention  of  the  officer 
and  his  district,  adds  els. 

7  Ver.  16.— [The  Vulg.,  Sept.,  Syr.,  and  Arab,  make  the  preposition  part  of  the  name,  and  read  Baaloth.  This  cannot 
be  right.    See  Exeg.  Com. 

8  Ver.  17. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  ver.  17  here,  and  gives  it  afterwards  instead  of  the  last  clause  of  ver.  19.  It  alst 
omits  verses  20-26  (ef.  chap.  iii.).     This  whole  list  of  proper  names  is  variously  modified  in  the  VV. 

9  Ver.  20. — [Most  printed  editions  of  the  Heb.  begin  chap.  v.  at  this  point;  so  our  author,  and  hence  his  note. — F.  G.j 
The  Sept.,  the  Vulg.,  and  Luther  [also  the  A.  V.  and  Walton's  Polyglot]  reckon  chap.  v.  1-14  as  belonging  to  chap,  iv.,  and 
begin  chap.  v.  with  its  15th  verse. — Bahr. 

10  Ver.  21. — [There  is  here  no  preposition  in  the  Heb.,  although  it  is  supplied  in  the  parallel  place,  2  Chron.  ix.  26, 

D^nCvS  1*™1X^V1  •    The  Chald.  has  made  up  the  deficiency  by  translating  "  from  the  river  Euphrates  unto  the  land  of 

the  Philistines  and  unto  the  border  of  Egypt ,  "  but  the  Vulg-  (ajtwmhie  terrm  Philisthium  usque  ad  terminem  JEgypti)^ 
Syr.,  and  Arab,  reduce  Solomon's  empire  to  nothing.  The  Alex.  Sept.  has  otto  toD  jroTajioO  yijs  dAAo0i'Acuv  *ai  «w?  bpiov 
'AiyujrTou.  . 

"  Ver.  28.— [7S_XD  Vulg.,  cervi;  Sept.  (Alex.),  e\a<f>oi.    *3V  Vulg.,  caprice ;  Sept.  (Alex.),  SopKaSa.    "TOTT  Vulg 

bubali  ;  Sept.  (Alex.)  omits.    On  ^3V  &•  Rosenmuller's  Bochart  IUerozoicoroy  ii.  808. 

>s  Ver.  26.— The  parallel  place  2  Chron.  ix.  25  shows,  that  not  CJOTX  but  flt^HX  should  be  read,  with  which  also 

Chron.  x.  26  and  2  Chron.  i.  14  accord. — Bahr.  [The  author  accordingly  rightly  translates  "  four  thousand  ; "  but  there  is  no 
variation  in  the  MSS.  nor  in  the  VV. 

18  Ver.  28.— [Heb.  C3"l ,  a  superior  kind  of  horse  to  the  chariot-horses  just  mentioned.    None  of  the  VV.  sustain 

the  translation  dromedaries,    Keil  translates  "runners." 

14  Ver.  81. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  this  clause. 

»»  Ver.  32.— [Sept. :  Ave  thousand. 

ia  Ver.  34.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  here  adds  iii.  1,  and  continues:  totc  d^£rj  Qapaio  fiauiXevs  'AiyuVrov,  teal  irpoKaTeXdfifTi 
T$|y  Ta.$ep,  xat  efcrrvpurcv  av-rqv  real  Toy  Xavai'tTrje  rbv  KaTOixovvra  iv  Mepya/3  •  Kal  iSmxev  avTa<;  Papain  aTrocrToAds  BvyarpA 
AVTOu  yvvaiKi  inAminui',  xal  2aAu>p.u>f  <ilieo66p.7jo"ie  Ti)f  Ta£4p. — F,  Q.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  So  king  Solomon  was,  Ac.  According 
to  Tlienins,  the  section  from  chap.  iv.  1  to  28  is 
borrowed  from  two  different  sources,  and  the  con- 
tents of  both  are  so  woven  together  that  the  proper 
connection  is  now  lost.  Chap.  iv.  2—19  may  belong 
lo  the  older  and  purely  historical  source:  chap.  iv. 
1  and  20  to  the  later  traditional  one,  as  may  also 
vers.  21,  24,  25,  2G.  "Vers.  22,  23,  27,  28  (probably 
in  the  following  order:  vers.  27,  28,  22,  2?,)  con- 
tain the  continuation  of  the  account  of  the  func- 
(i  jnanes  (taken  from  the  more  ancient  source)." 


It  is  true  that  a  perfect  accordance  is  obtained 
by  this  arrangement  of  the  text,  which  is  partly 
founded  on  the  Septuagint;  but  the  question  is 
whether  the  text,  as  it  lies  before  us.  is  so  dis- 
connected  as  to  require  such  a  forced  alteration  of 
Style.  We  must  presi^nose  the  author  possessed 
(.1  enough  understanding  not  to  take  what  he  found 
in  good  order,  in  his  documentary  sources,  tear  i 
apart,  weave  it  together,  and  render  the  whole 
without  connection.  In  chaps,  i.-iii.  he  related  how 
Solomon's  kingdom  became  established  and  re 
spected;  in  chap.  iv.  he  tells  how  it  was  censti 
tuted,  and  in  what  a  well-ordered  and  flourishing 


CHAPTER  IV.  1-34. 


condition  it  was.  Then  he  proceeds  with  the  words 
of  ver.  1 :  So  king  Solomon  was  king  over  all  Is- 
rael, i.  e.,  with  the  rule  of  Solomon  over  all  Israel, 
such  was  its  estate.  Now  comes  the  account  of 
the  regular  government  and  management  of  the 
entire  realm,  by  the  various  civil  officers  of  differ- 
ent degrees  (vers.  2-19);  then  the  court  establish- 
ment, which  represented  the  prosperous  state  of  the 
kingdom  (22-28);  and  lastly,  that  of  the  extraor- 
dinary acquirements  of  the  king  himself  (29-34). 
The  first  section  is  very  naturally  followed  (ver.  20) 
bv  remarks  on  the  great  population  and  prosperous 
condition  of  the  kingdom  ;  and  this  leads  to  the 
further  remark  (ver.  21)  that  Solomon's  dominion 
not  only  extended  over  the  populous  nation  of  Is- 
rael, but  over  the  neighboring  tribes,  that  were 
brought  under  tribute.  His  court  establishment 
was  equally  brilliant,  and  it  (vers.  22-28)  corres- 
ponded with  his  extended  sovereignty  (ver.  24), 
and  with  the  peacefulness  which  his  subjects  en- 
joyed (ver.  25).  There  is  no  want  of  connection  in 
such  a  narrative. 

Ver.  2.  And  these  were  the  princes,  the  dig- 
nitaries (comp.  the  double  list  of  those  under  David, 
2  Sam.  viii.  16-18,  and  ibid.  xx.  23-26,  where  they 

are  not,  however,  named  D'lfeTl),  and  there  are  two 
more  here.  The  order  of  the  offices  is  different  in 
each  of  the  three  lists,  so  that  we  cannot  therefrom 
form  an  opinion  of  their  rank.  It  is  characteristic 
that  the  military  officers  are  named  first  in  both  of 
David's  lists,  and  the  civil  offices  are  first  in  Solo- 
mon's. The  Jewish  expounders,  the  Vulgate,  Lu- 
ther, and  Thenius,  take  ;niin  in  ver.  2  to  be  in  the 

genitive  case  :  "  Azariah,  the  son  of  Zadok  the  high 
priest;  Elihoreph  and  Ahiah  the  sons  of  Shisha, 
were  scribes."  But  against  this  view  are  the  ac- 
cents (silluk  with  sophpasuk),  according  to  which, 
a  new  sentence  begins  with  Elihoreph ;  also  "  the 
omission  of  the  copula  1  before  Elihoreph,  which 
was  absolutely  necessary,  if  Azariah  had  been 
joined  in  the  same  office  with  the  brothers  Eliho- 
reph and  Ahiah  "  (Keil) ;  finally,  the  son  of  the  high- 
priest  Zadok  is  named  Ahimaaz  in  2  Sam.  xv.  27 ; 
xviii.  27  ;  and  1  Chron.  vi.  8,  9,  and  then  his  son 
Azariah  |3  must  therefore  certainly  be  translated 

here  by :  grandson.  This,  however,  is  not  suitable 
here,  because  son  is  used  six  times  consecutively 
in  the  following  verses,  so  that  we  cannot  under- 
stand why  the  writer  does  not  say  the  son  of 
Ahimaaz.'  It  was  scarcely  possible  either  for  a 
grandson  of  the  priest  Zadok  to  have  been  old 
enough  then  to  stand  at  the  head  of  tne  body  of 
high  dignitaries.  All  things  considered,  jrQil  must 
here  be  understood  like  T3t13n ,  ver.  3,  as  predi- 
cate-nominative, according  to  the  opinions  of  Pisca- 
tor,  Le  Clerc,  Keil,  and  others.  We  may  not  trans- 
late like  Ewald  and  Bunsen :  "  Azariah,  the  son 
of  Zadok,  was  the  high-priest,"  for  according  to 
ver.  4.  Zadok  himself,  and  also  Abiathar,  were ; 
but  there  never  were  three  high-priests  at  the  same 
time.  We  are  rather  compelled,  on  the  contrary, 
to  take  p's  in  the  sense  it  beare  m  2  Sam.  viii.  18, 
and  xx.  26,  where  it  signifies  a  secular  office.  The 
Chron.  (i.  18,  17)  gives  instead  of  D^rp  in  the  first 
place  -l^en  ~fb  D'KWn,  that  is,  the  first  at  the 


king's  side,  those  whom  we  now  nt  me  ministers, 
or  privy  counsellors.  The  word  ir.  ver.  5  must 
necessardy  have  this  meaning:    where  it  stand* 

without  the  article,  Zabud  was  pS       If  now  Aza 


riah  is  introduced  in  ver.  2  as  jrpn ,  wholly  analo- 
gous to  the  way  in  which  the  high  priest,  con- 
trasted with  the  other  priests,  is  absolutely  ]rpn 

(Exod.  xxix.  30;  Lev.  xxi.  21;  1  Kings  i.  8,  38; 
2  Kings  xi.  9,  15,  etc.),  so  is  he  designated  as  the 

first  or  chief  of  the  secular  D'OHB ,   "P°n  which 

account  he  stands  first  in  the  list  of  the  great  office 
bearers.  "  Among  the  trusted  privy  counsellors  of 
the  king,  he  held  die  first  place  "  (Keil).  It  is  not 
necessarv  to  suppose  that  Zadok,  whose  son  he  was, 
was  the"  high-priest,  for  this  name  occurs  very 
often  (2  Kings  xv.  33;    Neh.  iii.  4-29;  xiii.  13;  xi. 

11),  as  well  as  the  name  Azariah  (1  Chron.  v.  36- 

li> ;   u   39;   2  Kings  xv.  30,  &c). 

Vers.  3-6.  Elihoreph   .   .   .  were  scribes,  Ac. 

"13D   means  generally  any  one  whose  business  it 

was  to  write  or  to   count.      The  DnSD,  as  the 

highest  civil  officers,  had,  no  doubt,  the  care  of  all 
clerkly  as  well  as  financial  matters ;  two  are  there- 
fore specified.— For  the   office  of  the  T3TD  see 

Introduc.  %  2.  It  is  plain  that  he  was  not  the 
"  highest  minister  of  state,"  as  Winer  thinks,  be- 
cause he  is  not  the  first,  but  the  third  in  the  list. 
As  the  copula  is  wanting  before  Josaphat,  we  can- 
not conclude,  with  Thenius,  that  he  was  above  the 

D'n&Oi  t0  whom  Azariah  must  in  that  case  also 
have  belonged. — Shisha  must  be  the  same  as  Shav. 
sha  in  1  Chron.  xviii.  16,  and  Seriah  in  2  Sam.  xviii. 
7.      The  office  of  the  father  under  David,  passed  to 
his  two   sons  under   Solomon.— For  Benaiah   see 
chap.  ii.  35.— Ewald  thinks  the  words:  And  Zadok 
and  Abiathar  (were)  the  priests  a  mere  unnecessary 
repetition  of  Sam.   xx.    25,  because,  according  to 
chap.  ii.  26  and  35.  Solomon  deposed  Abiathar  and 
put  Zadok  in  his  place.     However,  there  is  no  suf- 
ficient ground  for  this  view.     Abiathar  is  again  in- 
troduced as  a  priest  here,  either  "  because  he  had 
officiated   in  the  beginning  of   Solomon's  reign" 
(Philippson),  or  because,  as  Grotius  remarks,  though 
he  was  no  longer  re  yet  he  was  nomine  high-priest, 
and  though  the  apx'l  was  taken  from  him  the  Upa- 
triri  i,  nevertheless  remained  to  him  (Theodoret).    Itv 
is  highly  improbable  that  Solomon  afterwards  par- 
doned and  restored  him  to  office  (Le  Clerc).— Aza- 
riah and  Zabud  (ver.  5)  were  not  the  sons  of  the 
prophet  Nathan  (Thenius),  but  of  the  son  of  David, 
mentioned  in  2  Sam.   v.   14,  therefore   Solomon's 
nephews  (Keil).     The  former  had  the  officials  enu- 
merated in  vers.  7-19  under  him,  the  latter  is  des- 
ignated as  Tj^sn  njn  \rB  ■     Ewald  looks  on  this 
in  a  very  modern  way,  and  thinks  it  was  a  "spe- 
cial house-priest"  of  "the  king's,  "who  was  lus  pe- 
culiar minister  in  spiritual  affairs."    However,  there 
is  no  more  mention  of  a  priest  here  than  in  2  Sam. 
viii.  18;  njTI  explains  jrp,  and  both  words  form 
too-other  one   couception;     Zabud  was  a    "privy 
counsellor,  i,  e.,  friend  of  the  king's"  (Keil).      la- 
ther's translation :  the  son  of  Nathan,  the  prie*',  L» 


48 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS 


quite  false.  Abiathar  (ver.  6)  was  not  "  minister 
of  the  king's  household  "  (Keil),  but  "  master  of  the 
palace  and  household  "  (Thenius),  chap,  xviii.  3 ; 
2  Kings  xviii.  18;  Isai.  xxii.  15.  This  office  did 
not  exist  under  David ;  but  was  required  by  the 
larger  and  more  splendid  court  of  Solomon.  Ado- 
niram  is  the  same  as  2  Sam.  xx.  24  and  1  Kings 
xii.  18,  where  he  is  called  Adoram.  He  was  not 
tithe-master  (Luther),  but  overseer  of  the  hirelings 
that  had  to  overlook  the  public  works,  for  DD  no- 
where means  vectigal  or  impost.  Ewald  and  The- 
nius think  the  addition  of  the  Sept. :  ical  'Eha{i  vwc 
Za<p  itrl  rye;  narpiac,  original,  but  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  it  is  a  gloss. 

Ver.  7.  Solomon  had  twelve  officers.     The 
wholly   general   expression   W3H1   (from   2VJ   to 

place,  t.  e.,  people  in  office),  is  made  clearer  by  the 
word:  the  provided  for,  &c.  Hence  they  were  not 
r/jf uovec  nai  OTparnyol  (Josephus),  neither  "  court 
cooks  "  (Winer),  but  "  chief  rent-receivers  "  (Rosen- 
muller) ;  whether  they  were  regular  chiefs  or  gov- 
ernors of  provinces,  the  providing  for  the  king  be- 
ing only  a  part  of  their  office  (Thenius),  is  uncertain. 
Probably  their  districts  were  not  arranged  with 
reference  to  the  lands  of  the  tribes,  but  to  the  fer- 
tility of  the  soil.  Tlieir  number,  twelve,  has  no  re- 
lation to  the  twelve  tribes,  but  to  the  twelve  months 
of  the  year,  in  each  of  which  one  of  them  had  to 
supply  his  quota.  The  list  of  the  districts  in  vers.  8 
to  19  is  perhaps  made  with  reference  to  the  time  of 
delivery,  and  makes  no  account  of  the  geographical 
position. — The  proper  names  of  five  of  the  twelve 
officials  are  not  given,  but  only  their  fathers'  names. 
It  is  uncertain  whether  they  bore  those  names  with 
the  prefix  of  Ben,  as  the  Vulgate  supposes  (Benhur, 
Bendecar,  &c).  Beu-abinadab  (ver.  11)  is  scarcely 
a  proper  name.  As  these  men  have  no  further 
historical  importance,  it  matters  little  about  their 
names.  Two  sons-in-law  of  Solomon  being  among 
them,  only  shows  that  the  list  gives  us  a  view  of 
the  civil  offices  during  the  middle  period  of  his  reign. 
Vers.  8-22.  The  son  of  Hur,  in  mount  Eph- 
raim.  We  give  here  only  what  is  most  necessary 
about  the  situations  and  nature  of  particular  dis- 
tricts. Thenius.  on  this  place,  speaks  at  length  of 
both.  (1)  Mount  Ephraim,  in  Central  Palestine, 
one  of  the  most  cultivated  districts  of  all  Palestine 
(Winer,  B.-W.-B.,  s.  v.).  (2)  ilakaz  (ver.  9)  is  named 
only  here,  but  mast  belong,  like  Shaalbim,  Beth- 
ehemesh  and  Eton,  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  (south  of 
Ephraim  and  west  of  Judah).  (3)  Aruboth  (ver. 
Kit  also  does  not  appear  elsewhere,  probably  a  place 
in  (lie  tribe  of  Judah,  to  which  Sochoh  in  the  south 
must  also  have  belonged  (Josh.  xv._48).  Ilepher 
cannot  be  the  town  Gath-Hepher  in  Zebulon,  but 
only  a  southern  district,  probably  west  of  Sochoh, 
where  a  Canaanitish  king  had  reigned  before  (Josh, 
xii.  17).  (4)  Dor(ver.  11),  a  town  on  the  Mediterra- 
nean, nine  Roman  miles  north  of  Ctesarea  (Josh. 
xvii.  111.  Naphat  (i.  e.,  heights)  Dor  is  the  hilly 
Btretch  of  country  towards  the  south  of  the  town, 
and  to  this  Thenius  reckons  the  whole  very  fertile 
pasture-plain  of  Sharon  to  Joppa.  (5)  Megiddo, 
and  dose  to  it,  in  a  southeasterly  direction,  Tuanach 
(ver.  12);  two  towns,  that  lie  on  the  slope  of  the 
Carmel  mountains,  ■■><  the  edge  of  the  plain  of  Jez- 
reel  in  the  tribe  of  Ifanasseh  Beth-shean,  on  a 
straight  line,  easl  of  Megiddo,  where  the  plain 
of  .1  >/i  "I  ceases  and  that  of  the  Jordan  meadows 
oegins.    Zartauah  lav  near  in  a  southerly  direction, 


and  Abel-meholah  still  more  soutl  the  latter  wai 
the  birth-place  of  the  prophe't  Ehsha.  Jokneam, 
according  to  1  Chron.  vi.  53,  a  levite  town,  the  situ- 
ation of  which  is  doubtful,  perhaps  it  jvas  the  same 
as  Kibzaim  (Josh.  xxi.  22).  The  district  must  then 
have  included  the  whole  land  of  the  tribe  of  Ma- 
nasseh  on  this  side  (west  of)  Jordan.  (6)  Ramoth- 
gilead  (ver.  13).  a  town  of  the  levites  beyond  Jor- 
dan, in  the  tribe  of  Gad,  which  stretched  northwards 
along  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  and  southwards  along 
that  of  Reuben  (Josh.  xxi.  38 ;  Deut.  iv.  43).    Upon 

Din  of  Jair,  comp.  Numb,  xxxii.  41 ;  Deut.  iii.  14; 

Josh.  xiii.  30.  Our  passage  says  as  plainly  as  pos 
sible  that  they  were  ir.  the  land  of  Gilead,  but  th« 
country  of  Aryob  was  in  the  land  of  Bashan.  The 
sixty  fortified  cities  that  belonged  to  the  last  can 

therefore  not  be  identical  with  j-pin  (Keil),  as  Bashan 

is  always  made  quite  dh-.tinet  from  Gilead  (Deut.  iii 
10;  Josh.  xii.  5;  xiii.  11;  xvh.  1;  2  Kings  x.  33; 
Mic.  vii.  14),  the  translation  :  the  "  towns  of  Jair  ' 
is  not  correct  either,  "  because :  rpn  here  does  not 
mean  to  live,  and  the  German:  living  in  a  given 
place  does  not  signify  vita  but  mansio  "  (Casscl.  zu 
Bicht.,  iii.  4).  The  land  of  Bashan  with  Argob  lay 
northeast  of  that  of  Gilead.  The  brazen  bars  mean 
that  the  gates  of  the  cities  were  protected  with 
brass.  (7)  Mahanaim  (ver.  14),  a  town  beyond  Jor- 
dan (2  Sam.  xvii.  24-27),  on  the  borders  of  the  tribe 
of  Gad  and  the  further  portion  of  Manasseh  on  the 
Jabbok  (Josh.  xxi.  38).  We  have  no  further  infor- 
mation about  this  district  of  Abinadab.  (8)  Naph- 
tali  (ver.  15),  the  region  of  the  tribe  of  this  name, 
was  quite  in  the  north  of  Palestine,  on  this  side 
Jordan,  west  of  Asher's  inheritance  and  bordering, 
on  its  south,  the  tribe  of  Zebulon.  (9)  Asher's 
(vet  16)  inheritance  lay  along  the  coast  of  the 
Meanerranean,  northward  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar 

(Deut.  xxxiii.  24  sq.).    2  in  nii'W  must  certainly  be 

understood  as  in  "lt."N3  (Luther),  but  Aloth,  like 

Bealoth,  is  a  quite  unknown  name,  for  the  latter 
cannot  be  Bealoth  in  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  24).     Thti 

nius  boldly  conjectures  11V  l"6j?D  ~\]1  to  the  road 

leading  to  Tyre.  (10)  Issachar  (ver.  17);  its  coun- 
try lay  on  this  side  Jordan,  between  Zebulon  on 
the  north  and  Manasseh  on  the  south  (Josh.  xix. 
17  sq.).  (11)  Benjamin  (ver.  18);  its  inheritance 
was  between  Ephraim  on  the  north  and  Judah  on 
the  south,  and  eastof  Dan  (Josh,  xviii.  11  sq.).  (12) 
Gilead  (ver.  19)  is  used  here  for  all  the  east- Jordan 
lands  in  general,  but  it  could  oidy  apply  to  that 
part  which  remained  overafter  taking  out  the  sixth 
and  seventh  districts,  that  is,  the  southern.  The 
kingdom  of  Sihon  originally  extended  from  the 
river  Jabbok  in  Mauasseh  to  the  river  Arnon, 
which  empties  itself  into  the  Dead  Sea  (Numb, 
xxi.  24),  and  passed  ovei  uu  the  tribes  of  Gad  and 
Reuben.  Bashan  lay  northeast  of  Sihon  (Numb. 
xxi.  33).  The  addition :  an  officer,  &c,  means  :  lust 
although  this  district  was  perhaps  the  largest 
(probably  because  of  the  barrenness  of  the  soil),  it 
had  only  one  officer.     Ewald  would  insert  rniiV 

after  j'~)N3,  which  is  very  incorrect,  because  in- 
stead of  twelve  officers,  according  to  ver.  7,  there 
would  have  been  thirteen.  The  expression  in  vor. 
20:  as  tli-  smul.  irhich  is  by  the  sea,  clearly  refers  tc 
the  promise  in  Gen.  xxii.  17:  xxxii.  12       For  eat 


CHAPTER  IV.   1-34. 


49 


iiigand  drinking,  <£c.,  comp.  1  Sam.  xxx.  16;  Prov. 
v.  17.     One  must  either  add  1J?  before  ]'-ix  (chap. 

v.  1)  like  the  parallel  passage  in  2  Chron.  ix.  26,  or 
bear  in  mind  the  3  from  the  preceding  passage,  as 

Keil  does.  Presents,  a  mild  expression  for  tribute, 
as  in  2  Sam.  viii.  2-6 ;  2  Kings  xvii.  3— t. 

Vers.   22-25.  And  Solomon's  provision,  &e. 

Ver.   22.  13   (called  "ipn   before)  is  the  largest 

measure,  and  contains,  according  to  Josephus,  ten 
attic  medimni  [medimnus  =  nearly  twelve  gallons. 
— E.  H.]  which  Bockh  reckons  at  19857.7  Paris 
cubic  inches;  however,  it  seems  from  exact  calcu- 
lations made  by  Thenius  (in  the  Stud.  u.  Kritik. 
1846,  s.  73  sq.),  that  Josephus  is  wrong,*  and  that 
the  measures  only  contained  10143  Paris  cubic 
inches  According  to  this,  the  30  +  60  measures 
•of  meal  make  171  bushels,  from  which  28,000 
pounds  of  bread  were  baked.  "  If  we  allow  two 
pounds  of  bread  to  each  person,  Solomon's  court 
must  have  contained  14,000  people"  (others  com- 
pute them  at  only  10,000),  a  number  which  does 
not  seem  too  great  for  the  middle  period  of  this 
reign.  Let  us  think,  for  instance,  of  the  great  ha- 
rem, the  numerous  servants,  the  body-guard,  &c, 
and  consider  besides,  that  the  families  of  all  the 
court  officials  belonged  to  it,  and  that  there  were 
only  payments  in  provisions.  "  If  we  take  the 
flesh  of  a  slaughtered  ox  to  weigh  600  (according 
to  the  calculation  of  those  who  understood  the  mat- 
ter), that  of  a  cow  400,  and  that  of  a  sheep  70 
pounds,"  the  total  consumption  of  meat  would  be 
21,000  pounds,  that  is,  one  and  a  half  pounds  for 
each  person ;  and  "  this  is  not  reckoning  the  game 
and  fowl  for  the  king's  table."  There  are  similar 
accounts  of  expenditure  at  other  oriental  courts. 
"According  to  an  ancient  author  (Athen.  Deipn.,  iv. 
10,,  Alexander  found  on  a  column  at  Persepolis  a 
placard  containing  an  account  of  the  daily  con- 
sumption at  the  court  of  Cyrus ;  from  this  list  we 
give  the  following:  1,000  bushels  of  wheat  of  dif- 
ferent qualities,  the  same  of  barley-meal,  400  sheep, 
300  lambs,  100  oxen,  30  horses,  30  deer,  400  fat 
geese,  100  goslings,  300  pigeons,  600  small  birds 
of  various  kinds,  3,750  gallons  of  wine,  75  gallons 
of  fresh  milk,  and  the  same  of  sour  milk.  Besides 
this,  there  was  a  quantity  of  maize,  that  was  gath- 
ered in  single  rations  for  the  cattle 

Tavernier  reckons  the  number  of  sheep  daily  con- 
sumed in  the  seraglio  of  the  Sultan,  in  his  time,  at 
500,  besides  a  number  of  fowls,  and  an  immense 
quantity  of  butter  and  rice  "  (Philippson ;  comp.  Ro- 
senmuller,  A.  u.  N.  Alorgenland,  iii.  s.  166).  For 
"IIOIT  (comp.  Deut.  xiv.  5)  see  Winer,  i?.-  W.-B.,  i. 

s.  494.     D'"lin3  only  occurs  here,  and  is  variously 

interpreted ;  Kimchi  thinks  it  means  capons ;  Ge- 
senius,  geese;  Thenius,  guinea-hens:  and  Ewald, 
swans.  The  splendor  of  the  court  is  accounted 
for  by  vers.  24  and  25.  The  extent  of  Solomon's 
dominion  is  defined  according  to  the  two  towns 
named  in  vers.  24  and  25.  Tiphsah,  i.  e.,  Thapsanis, 
was  "  a  large  and  populous  town  on  the  west  bank 
of  the  Euphrates;  it  was  a  place  where  armies 
crossed  over  that  river,  and  a  place  for  landing  ami 
shipping  wares  coming  from  or  going  to  Babylon 
on  the  Euphrates  "  (Winer,  ii.  s.  612).  While  this 
town  was  the  extreme  northeasterly  point,  Gaza  in 
the  Philistines'  land,  about  three  miles  (nine  and  a 
•  Sel  below,  rbap  v.  ver.  7. 


half  or  ten  Eng.)  from  the  Mediterranean,  formed 
the  extreme  southwesterly  one.  It  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow,  from  the  expression:  all  the  region 
(land)  beyond  the  river  [i.  e.,  west],  that  our  author 
dwelt  on  the  east  side  of  the  Euphrates  and  wrote 
there  (see  Intrnd.  §  1),  as  is  to  be  learned  from 
Ezra  iv.  10  sq. ;  the  expression  belonged  to  the 
time  of  banishment,  but  was  retained  after  the  re- 
turn, and,  as  it  seems,  without  regard  to  its  geo- 
graphical signification,  just  for  instance  as  the 
expression  Gallia  transalpine.  Living  tinder  the 
vine  and  fig  tree  (2  Kings  xviii.  31)  describes  the 
happy  and  blissful  state  of  peace,  but  was  not, 
however,  taken  from  the  description  of  Messiah's 
reign  (Mic.  iv.  4;  Zach.  iii.  10)  (Ewald),  but  on  the 
contrary  was  woven  into  the  latter.  From  Dan  to 
Beersheba,  boundaries  of  Palestine  north  and  east 
(Judges  xx.  1;   1  Sam.  iii.  20;  2  Sam.  iii.  10). 

Vers.  26-28.  And  Solomon  had  40,000  stalls 
of  horses,  &c.  In  ver.  26  the  description  of  the 
court  appointments,  which  had  been  interrupted  by 

the  remarks  in  vers.  24  and  25,  is  continued     nilX 

:\ 
are  horse-stalls,  stables,  mangers  (Bochart:  loculi 
in  stabulis  distincti).  According  to  chap.  x.  26,  Sol- 
omon had  1,400  chariots;  each  of  these  was,  as 
the  representations  on  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  mon- 
uments show,  drawn  by  two  horses,  making  2,800 
of  these;  the  remaining  1,200  were  reserves,  for  if 
one  fell  it  was  usual  to  attach  a  third  horse  (Xeno- 

phon,  Cyrop.,  vi.  1-27).      D't-'HS  does  not  mean 

riders  here,  but  saddle-horses  in  contrast  with  har- 
nessed horses,  as  in  2  Sam.  i.  6;  Ezek.  xxvii.  14. 
The  opinion  that  Israel  lived  in  peace  (ver.  25)  be- 
cause Solomon  had  made  great  warlike  prepara- 
tions (ver.  26)  with  which  he  protected  his  kingdom 
(Thenius,  Keil),  is  quite  a  wrong  one ;  the  question 
is  not  of  war  here,  but  to  what  the  ni"IN  refers, 

namely,  the  maintaining  of  harness-  and  saddle- 
horses,  and  the  expenses  of  the  court.  In  ver.  27, 
therefore,  it  is  again  said  that  the  twelve  officers 
who  had  to  provide  for  the  sustenance  of  all  the 
persons  in  the  court,  had  also  to  provide  for  this 
great  number  of  horses ;  ver.  28  then  gives  the  kind 
of  provision  the  latter  received,  namely,  barley 
and  straw.  Oats  were  not  cultivated  in  the  East, 
therefore  barley  was  the  usual  food  for  horses;  the 
poorer  classes  alone  used  it  for  bread  also  (Judges 
vii.  13,  and  Cassel  on  the  place.  Comp.  Winer,  I.  s. 
410).    For  L"2"l  see  Esther  viii.  10,  14.   The  coursers 

served  to  carry  "  the  king's  orders  to  the  different 
districts  "  (Thenius).    To  DBhTiT  "IK'S  the  Sept., 

Vulgate,  and  Thenius  supply  as  subject:  the  king, 
which  is  certainly  false,  for  if' Solomon  sometimes 
changed  his  residence,  he  did  not  travel  about  with 
16.000  horses  (ver.  26).  According  to  chap.  x.  26, 
the  horses  were  placed  in  different  towns,  into 
which  the  barley  and  straw  were  brought,  as  Keii 
says :  "  where  they  (barley  and  straw)  should  be, 
according  as  the  horses  were  distributed  about." 

Vers.  29-30.  And  God  gave  Solomon  wis- 
dom, &c.  Hitherto  the  narrative  treats  of  the 
organs  by  means  of  which  the  order  and  happy 
condition  of  Solomon's  kingdom  was  conditioned, 
but  now  it  turns  to  the  head  of  the  realm,  the  king 
himself,  and  remarks  that  in  him  which  particularly 
distinguished  him  and  qualified  him  tol-e  the  ruler, 
namely,  the  wisdom  he  had  received  from  God. 
"  While  rtO'n  denotes  more  the  entire  spiritual  c^n- 


50 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


dition,  njlLn  designates  sharpness  of  insight,  but 

in  3^  2m  the  ingenium  capax  is  set  forth  "  (The- 
nius), the  talent  to  take  up  and  comprehend  all,  even 
the  most  diversified  objects  of  knowledge.  Hence 
the  addition :  as  the  sand  -which  is  by  the  sea, 
which  is  a  figurative  description  of  an  innumerable 
multitude  (chap.  iv.  20;  Gen.  xli.  49;  xxxii.  13; 
Ps  cxxxix.  IS).  Luther's  translation,  a  comforted 
heart,  is  wrong. — All  the  sons  of  the  east,  that 
is,  not  only  those  Arabians  distinguished  for  their 
skill  in  proverbs,  but  all  the  tribes  living  to  the 
east  of  Palestine  (also  the  northeast),  who  were 
famous  in  any  branch  of  knowledge  (Jer.  xlix.  28 ; 
Gen.  xxix.  1  ;  Numb,  xxiii.  7 ;  Job  i.  3).  Opposite 
these,  in  the  west,  was  Egypt,  the  wisdom  of  which 
was  almost  proverbial  in  the  ancient  world  (Isai. 
xix.  11;  Acts  vii.  22;  Joseph.,  Antiq.,  viii.  2-5; 
Herodot.,  ii.  160).  There  were  no  other  lands  dis- 
tinguished for  wisdom  in  Solomon's  time;  the  Greek 
learning  only  commenced  400  years  later. 

Ter.  31.  The  sons  of  Mahol,  not   the  poets 

(Luther),  for  pinD  means  as  appell.  dance,  round 

dance  (Ps.  xxx.  12  ;  cxlix.  3) ;  but  here  it  is  a  pro- 
per name.  It  must  remain  uncertain  whether  these 
four  men  were  celebrated  persons  of  more  ancient 
time,  or  whether  they  were  contemporaries  of  Solo- 
mon ;  we  have  no  further  information  about  them. 
Ethan  and  Heman,  named  in  1  Chron.  xv.  17  and 
19  among  the  musicians  appointed  by  David,  but 
it  is  scarcely  to  be  supposed  that  the  wisest  men 
of  the  time  were  among  them.  The  headings  of 
Ps.  lxxxviii.  and  lxxxix.  are  more  likely  to  refer  to 
our  Heman  and  Ethan,  as  they  are  there  called 
Ezrahites.  All  four  names  are  close  together  1 
Chron.  ii.  6:  "the  sons  of  Zerah  (the  sons  of  Ju- 
dah);  Zimri,  and  Ethan,  and  Calcol,  and  Dara;" 
Grotius  and  Le  Clerc  believed  them  to  be  iden- 
tical with  these;  as  also  Movers  and  Bertheau, 
more  recently;  but  even  if  jmi  is  the  same  as 

jm ,  and  Ezrach  the  same  as  Serach,  the  difficulty 
still  remains  that  Chalcol  and  Darda  are  here  named 
sons  of  Mahol,  and  that  there  is  nowhere  else  any 
Intimation  of  the  wisdom  of  Zerach's  sons.  The 
rabbinical  book  Seder  Olara  (ed.  Meyer,  p.  52  sg.\ 
alone  says  of  them:  "these  were  prophets  that 
prophesied  in  Egypt." 

Ver.  32.  And  he  spake  three  thousand  prov- 
erbs, &c.  Prov.  i.  1-6  explains  what  proverbs  are 
and  what  their  use  is.  He  spake  is  as  much  as: 
he  originated  them.  The  fixed  number,  3,000,  cer- 
tainly shows  that  they  were  written  down  and  col- 
lected, possibly  only  in  part,  or  possibly  not  at  all, 
by  himself.  Unfortunately,  the  greater  number  of 
these  proverbs  are  lost;  for  if  we  admit  that  all 
those  in  the  biblical  book  of  Proverbs  were  com- 
posed by  Solomon,  yet  there  are  only  915  verses  in 
".he  book,  and  these  are  not  all  proverbs.  There 
remains  still  less  of  the  thousand  and  five  songs. 
It  is  doubtful  if  Canticles  be  one  of  those.  The 
lxxiid  and  exxviith  Psalms  have  Solomon's  name 
at  the  beginning,  and  there  is  no  real  reason  to 
doubt  .1  ic  genuineness  of  the  heading;  many  think 
he  Brae  the  author  of  the  exxxiid  Psalm;  Ewald 
thinks  he  wrote  only  the  iid  Psalm. 

Ver.  ■';.':.  He  spake  of  trees,  &e.  His  wisdom 
was  not  only  in  spiritual,  religious,  and  social  mat- 
tors,  and  displayed  in  doctrine  and  poetry,  but  in 
natural  things,  the  I  ntire  kingdoms  of  plants  and 
»uimals.     Josephus  is  wrong  ir_  sayii'.g  that  he  de- 


rived his  proverbs  (parables)  from  all  these  iLingS- 
The  cedar  is  the  largest,  most  beautiful,  and  useful 
of  trees,  and  the  hyssop  the  smallest  and  most  in- 
significant plant.  The  hyssop  which  grows  on  the 
wall  is  a  particular  kind  of  wall-moss  (Thenius), 
the  other  hyssop  is  a  stem-formed  plant,  that  grows 
to  one  or  two  feet  high  (comp.  Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  s.v.). 
i  The  many  kinds  of  beasts  mean  the  whole  animal 
kingdom,  divided  according  to  the  manner  of  mo- 
tion: four-footed  (nOn3),  flying,  creeping,  and  swim- 
ming (Gen.  vi.  20;  vii.  8).  This  passage  can  scarcely 
mean  that  Solomon  also  wrote  works  on  all  plants 
and  animals,  but  only  that  he  understood  these  sub- 
jects and  could  "  speak  "  of  them.  We  need  not 
suppose  that  such  works,  because  they  may  have 
had  no  significance  for  God's  kingdom,  should  not 
also  have  been  preserved. 

Ver.  34.  There  came  of  all  people,  Sic.  The 
greatness  and  extent  of  Solomon's  fame  for  wisdom 
are  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  not  only  continued  to 
be  the  type  and  model  of  all  wisdom  to  his  own  peo- 
ple ;  but  is  so  regarded  in  the  East,  even  at  the 
present  day.  The  Koran  (Sur.  xxvii.  17)  praises 
him  as  knowing  the  languages  of  men  and  demons, 
of  birds  and  ants ;  these  all,  it  says,  he  could  hold 
intercourse  with.  The  Turks  still  possess  a  work 
of  seventy  folio  volumes,  which  is  called  the  book 
of  Suleiman,  i.  e.,  Solomon.  The  whole  of  the  wis- 
dom and  secret  learning  of  the  East  is  connected 
with  his  name. — From  all  kings,  certainly  means, 
as  Thenius  maintains,  that  they  sent  ambassadors, 
who  did  him  homage,  or  received  more  certain  in- 
formation about  him ;  comp.  the  narrative,  chap.  x. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  To  represent  Solomon's  kingdom  in  its  great- 
ness and  in  its  prosperous,  well-ordered  condition, 
is  the  plain  design  of  this  entire  section,  and  upon 
this  account  the  lists  of  officers,  &c,  which  in  them- 
selves are  dry,  acquire  a  higher,  historical  (heilsge- 
schichtliche)  signification.  The  period  of  the  judges 
was  the  time  of  pubiie  crudeness  in  which  there  was 
an  absence  of  order,  and  of  organic  unity  of  the 
kingdom.  The  age  of  David  was  that  of  continuous 
wars  and  battles,  in  which  indeed  victory  over  all 
enemies  at  last  came,  and  with  it  at  the  same  time 
the  beginning  of  a  well-ordered  condition  ;  but  not 
complete  peace  for  the  kingdom.  This  first  came 
with  Solomon's  reign  (1  Chron.  xxii.  8,  9).  The 
reign  of  Solomon  is  the  result  of  all  preceding  con- 
flicts and  divine  teachings.  It  is  the  kingdom  of  i 
Israel  in  its  highest  maturity.  To  represent  it  aa 
such,  it  needed  the  authentication  which  our  sec- ! 
tion  supplies,  and  which  in  like  manner  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  kings  does  not  occur  again. 
At  this  highest  reach  this  kingdom  was,  upon  the 
one  side,  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise  (Gen. 
xxii.  17,  and  Kxod.  iii.  17*/. ;  cf.  with  chap.  iv.  20, 
ami  chap.  v.  5),  and,  upon  the  other  side  moreover, 
it  was  itself  a  promise,  an  historical  prophecy,  a 
ami  ruv  fie/Mvruv.  As  the  whole  Old  Testament 
economy  in  its  sensuousness  and  outwardness  points 
beyond  itself,  to  the  New  Testament  in  its  spiritu- 
ality and  inwardness,  so  especially  is  Solomon's 
kingdom  the  type  of  the  Messiah's.  What  the 
former  is  Kara  adpKa,  the  latter  is  Kara  m-evua. 
For  the  delineation  of  tho  latter,  the  prophets  bor- 
rowed words  from  the  delineation  of  the  former  ir 


CHAPTER  IV.   1-34. 


51 


our  section  here  (Mich.  iv.  4;  Zach.  iii.  10.      Cf. 
above,  on  chap.  i.). 

2.  The  great  expensiveness  of  Solomon's  household 
is  brought  into  the  closest  connection  with  the  hap- 
piness, the  prosperity  and  peace  of  the  whole  peo- 
ple (chap.  iv.  20,  and  v.  5).  It  is  hence  an  entire 
perversion  when  recent  writers  sever  one  passage 
from  the  connection,  and  cite  that  expensiveness 
among  the  tilings  with  which  the  people  under  Sol- 
omon were  burdened,  and  which  by  and  by  had  ex- 
cited dissatisfaction  and  restlessness  (Ewald,  Gesch. 
Isr.,  iii.  s.  376;  Duncker,  Gesch.  dts  Alterfkums,  i.  s. 
389).  In  absolute  states,  namely,  in  the  ancient  ori- 
ental, the  king  is  the  nation  in  person.  The  splendor 
of  the  royal  household  represents  the  splendor  of 
the  entire  people.  Far  from  being  a  sign  of  the 
oppression  of  the  people,  it  shows  rather  their  hap- 
piness and  prosperity.  The  account  does  not  say: 
the  king  lived  in  luxury  while  the  people  were 
poor  and  felt  oppressed,  but :  as  the  people,  so  the 
king,  and  as  the  king,  so  the  people;  both  were 
satisfied  and  enjoyed  prosperity  and  peace. 

3.  The  delineation  of  Solomon's  wisdom  follows 
immediately  the  delineation  of  the  outward  and 
material  well-being  of  the  kingdom,  and  shows  in 
this  connection  that  as  Solomon  was  the  repre- 
sentative of  this  well-being,  so  also  from  him,  in 
consequence  of  special  divine  endowment,  a  rich, 
higher  spiritual  life,  such  as  hitherto  had  not  been, 
proceeded,  and  poured  itself  like  a  stream  over  the 
whole  land  (Eccles.  xlvii.  14  sq.).  "  All  may  be 
ready  in  a  given  time  and  people,"  says  Eisenlohr 
(das  Volk  Isr.,  ii.  s.  110),  "for  a  spiritual  elevation 
and  living  action,  but  one  only  has  the  mind  and 
the  power  for  it.  Hence  we  cannot  set  sufficiently 
high  the  influence  of  the  creative  personality  of 
the  highly-gifted  king  Solomon."  And  Ewald  ob- 
serves ( Gesch.  Isr.,  iii.  s.  350),  "  so  there  was  for 
the  people  in  this  noble  time  a  new  age  also  for 
Bcience,  poetry,  and  literature,  whose  rich  fruits 
sontinued  long  after  the  sensuous  wealth  and 
superabundance  which  this  time  brought,  together 
with  the  powers  of  the  nation,  had  melted  away." 
It  was  just  this  high  condition  of  spiritual  culture 
which  procured  for  the  king,  and  indirectly  for  the 
people,  great  authority,  and  which  attracted  men 
from  all  neighboring  lands  to  hear  this  "  wisdom." 
But  also  in  the  connection  in  which  the  material  and 
the  spiritual  well-being  of  the  people  are  brought 
together,  there  is  a  reference  to  the  truth  that  for 
the  glory  of  a  king  there  must  be  something  more 
than  greatness,  power,  wealth,  quiet,  or  "  eating  and 
drinking  and  amusements,"  and  that  where  there 
is  not  spiritual  culture  and  a  higher  life,  where, 
for  the  furtherance  of  material  interests,  spiritual 
interests  are  thrust  aside  or  neglected,  the  thought 
of  a  glorious  condition  cannot  be  entertained. 
Solomon  himself  says  (Prov.  iii.  13,  14):  "Happy 
is  the  man  that  find'eth  wisdom,  and  the  man  that 
getteth  understanding.  For  the  merchandise  of 
it  is  better  than  the  merchandise  of  silver,  and  the 
gain  thereof  than  fine  gold." 

4.  The  wisdom  of  the  East  and  of  Egypt  is  not 
so  much  below  that  of  Solomon  in  its  outward  cir- 
cumference (extensive),  as  in  its  most  inward,  char- 
acteristic being  (intensive).  While  the  former, 
in  its  deepest  ground,  rests  upon  the  identification 
of  the  world  with  God,  and  at  last  discharges  itself 
in  pantheism,  and,  in  consequence,  is  deprived  al- 
most wholly  of  the  ethical  element,  this  proceeds 
from    the    principle    which    is    expressed   in    the 


words  which  form  the  title  of  Solomon's  proverbs : 
"The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  know- 
ledge :  but  fools  despise  wisdom  and  instruction  '■ 
(Prov.  i.  7;  cf.  with  chap.  is.  10).  "The  fear  of 
the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom ;  and  the 
knowledge  of  the  holy  is  understanding."  (Comp 
Umbreit,  Commentar  uber  die  Spr.  Sal.  Einleit.,  s 
1-65.)  It  rests  upon  the  knowledge  of  the  one 
God  of  heaven  and  earth,  who  hath  chosen  Israel 
and  made  with  them  a  covenant,  i.  e.,  has  revealed 
himself  to  them  through  His  word,  viz.,  "  the  Law." 
Consequently  it  is  essentially  monotheistic,  ethical, 
and,  therefore,  practical.  It  does  not  exclude  the 
knowledge  of  nature,  for  which  Solomon  was  also 
renowned  (ver.  13);  but  the  latter  is  only  true  and 
right  when  it  rests  upon  the  former,  and  is  perme- 
ated by  it.  In  so  far  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  stood 
unrivalled  throughout  the  whole  of  the  ancient 
Orient,  and  was  like  an  oasis  in  the  desert  to  which 
meu  from  all  the  neighboring  countries  made  pil- 
grimages, a  radiating  light  which  attracted  all  in- 
voluntarily who  loved  light  rather  than  darkness. 
"  Only  forth  from  the  soil  of  the  spirit  watered  by 
the  spring  of  religious  faith  can  the  tree  of  wisdom 
grow  strong,  and  spread  out  its  branches  into  all 
regions  of  life"  (Umbreit,  a.  a.  0.,  s.  5).  But  as 
Solomon's  kingdom  refers  generally  to  that  of  the 
Messiah  (see  above),  so  especially  does  Solomon's 
wisdom  (monotheistic-legal)  point  to  the  wisdom  of 
Him  who  is  greater  than  Solomon  (xii.  42),  who  is 
the  light  of  the  world,  and  to  whom  all  kings  both 
from  the  West  and  the  East  shall  come,  and  upon 
whom  all  the  heathen  shall  call  (Ps.  Ixxii.  10,  11 
Isai.  lx.  1-3). 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Chap.  iv.  The  Kingdom  of  Solomon  a  type  of 
the  Messiah's  (1)  in  its  greatness  and  extent;  (2)  in 
its  prosperity  and  peace ;  (3)  in  his  wisdom  and 
knowledge. — Chap.  iv.  1  to  chap.  v.  1.  Wt'RT. 
Summ.  :  Fortunate  is  the  government  where  all 
goes  orderly.  Their  eyes  shall  look  around  after 
the  faithful  in  the  land,  and  pious  subjects  are 
loved  and  esteemed;  but  false  people  and  liars, 
and  those  of  a  perverse  heart,  who  have  proud 
ways  and  haughtiness,  and  who  calumniate  others 
secretly  and  maliciously,  it  will  not  have  nor  endure 
about  it,  but  will  clear  away  and  destroy  after  the 
example  of  David  (Ps.  ex.). — A  well-ordered  state 
constitution  is  the  condition  of  the  growth  and 
prosperity  of  every  kingdom ;  but  all  ordinances 
aud  institutions  avail  nothing  when  requisite  and 
proper  persons  are  wanting  for  their  administra- 
tion and  execution.  To  select  such,  and  to  entrust 
them  with  different  administrative  offices,  is  the 
first  and  most  difficult  task  of  a  ruler.  Happy  the 
prince  to  whom  God  grants  the  grace  to  find  the 
right  persons,  who  can  counsel  him  and  deserve  his 
confidence  (Eccles.  x.  2-5). — Starke:  As  a  court, 
where  it  is  beset  with  flatterers,  backbiters,  carous- 
el s,  Ac,  generally  goes  down,  so  also  it  prospers,  on 
the  other  hand,  when  pious  servants  are  there  — 
Chap.  iv.  20.  Starke:  Not  the  multitude  of  a  people 
causes  a  scarcity  in  the  land,  but  the  wickedness 
an. I  avarice  of  men. — Food  and  drink  and  amuse 
limit  are  a  gift  of  God  (Eccles.  iii.  13),  when  used 
in  the  fear  of  God  (Eccles.  xi.  9)  and  with  thanks- 
giving (1  Cor.  x.  31 ;  Col.  iii.  17);  but  they  become 
sin  when,  in  the  gift,  the  giver  is  forgotten,  the 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


belly  made  a  god  of,  and  serves  the  lust  of  the 
flesh.  Chap.  iv.  21. — Cramer:  The  kingdom  of 
Christ  is  still  far  greater.  He  rules  from  one  end 
of  the  sea  to  the  other,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun 
unto  the  going  down  thereof  (Zaeh.  ix.  10).  All 
kings  shall  call  upon  Him :  all  the  heathen  shall 
serve  Him  (Ps.  lxxii.  8-10). 

[E.  HARWOon:  Chap.  iv.  vers.  4-5.  Comp. 
1  Chron.  xxii.  7-10.  David,  the  man  of  action; 
Solomon,  the  man  of  rest.  The  man  of  active  life 
usually  las  more  conspicuous  virtues  and  more 
conspicuous  faults  than  the  man  of  rest.  David 
proposed  to  build  the  house — the  man  of  action 
was  the  founder:  Solomon  carried  the  plans  of 
his  father  into  execution.  David  was  the  founder  : 
Solomon  the  builder.] 

Chap.  iv.  22. — As,  by  divine  providence  and 
ordering,  there  are  always  different  conditions,  high 
and  low,  rich  and  poor,  so  their  manner  of  life  can- 
not be  the  same,  but  must  he  conformable  to  the  rank 
and  position  which  lias  been  assigned  to  every  one 
by  God.  The  household  of  a  prince  who  stands  at 
the  head  of  a  great  and  distinguished  people  ought 
not,  indeed,  give  to  the  people  the  bad  example  of 
extravagant  show,  luxury,  and  riot;  but  it  must,  in 
abundance  and  splendor,  surpass  every  private 
establishment,  and  ought  not  to  appear  needy  and 
impoverished.  Ver.  24,  25  (chap.  iv.  ver.  20).  The 
Blessings  of  Peace.  (1)  Wherein  they  consist;  (2) 
to  what  they  oblige.  Peace  nourishes:  disturbance 
consumes.  Only  in  peace,  not  in  war,  does  a 
nation  attain  to  well-being,  therefore  should  we 
offer  prayer  and  supplication  for  kings  and  all  in 
authority,  &c.  (1  Tim.  ii.  2).  Happy  the  land 
where  goodness  and  truth  are  met  together, 
righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each  other 
(Ps.  lxxxv.  10).  May  the  eternal  God  grant  us, 
during  our  life,  an  heart  ever  joyous,  and  give  us 
noble  peace !  It  must  be  regarded  as  an  unspeak- 
able blessing  of  God  when,  under  the  protection 
of  a  wise  and  righteous  government,  every  one  in 
the  nation,  even  the  least,  can  remain  in  the  undis- 
turbed possession  of  his  property,  and  can  enjoy  the 
fruits  of  his  industry  in  the  bosom  of  his  family. 

Ver.  29-34.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  (1)  Its 
origin,  ver.  29  (Prov.  ii.  6;  Dan.  ii.  21,  6);  (2)  its 
greatness  (ver.  30  sq.) ;  (3)  its  result  (ver.  34). — 
Ver.  29.  Not  every  one  receives  from  God  an  equal 
measure  of  spiritual  endowment ;  but  every  one  is 
obliged,  with  the  gift  he  has  received,  to  dispose  of 
it  faithfully,  and  not  to  allow  it  to  be  fallow  (Luke 
xii.  48;  Matt.  xxv.  14-29).  In  the  possession  of 
high  spiritual  endowment  and  of  much  knowledge, 
man  is  in  danger  of  over-estimating  himself,  of  be- 


coming proud  and  haughty,  hence  the  highly- 
gifted  Solomon  himself  says :  "  Trust  in  the  Lord  " 
&c.  (Prov.  iii.  5,  6).  Not  to  elevate  one's  self 
above  others,  but  in  order  to  serve  them,  does  God 
bestow  special  gifts  of  the  Spirit  (1  Peter  iv.  10). — 
Ver.  30.  Heathen  wisdom,  great  as  it  may  be  in 
earthly  things,  understands  nothing  of  divine, 
heavenly  things,  and  is  therefore  far  below  the 
wisdom  whose  beginning  is  the  fear  of  the  personal, 
living  God,  who  has  revealed  himself  in  His  word. 
This  wisdom  alone  yields  true,  good,  and  abiding 
fruit  (Jas.  iii.  15,  17). — Ver.  32.  All  those  who 
have  received  special  gifts  of  spirit  and  understand- 
ing, act  inexcusably  and  sin  grievously  when,  in- 
stead of  giving  God  the  honor,  and  of  appiying 
theiu  to  the  good  of  their  fellow-men,  they  pro- 
mote, by  doctrine  and  treatise,  forgetfnlness  of 
God  and  unbelief,  and  the  love  of  the  world,  and 
the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  or  gross  or  retined  immorality 
(Ecclos.  xii.  9;  Jer.  ix.  23,  24).  The  glory  which  is 
obtained  in  the  world  through  bad  books,  is  sham6 
and  disgrace  before  Him  who  demands  account  of 
every  idle  word. — Ver.  33.  Starke:  Far  better 
would  it  befit  lords  and  princes  to  find  their  en- 
joyment in  study  rather  than  to  seek  satisfaction 
in  dramas,  plays,  and  in  immoderate  drinking.  A 
man  may  be  able  to  speak  of  all  possible  things, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  be  without  wisdom,  for  this 
does  not  consist  in  varied  knowledge  and  wide- 
spread acquirements,  but  in  recognition  of  the  truth 
which  purifies  the  heart  and  sanctifies  the  will.  Ob- 
servation and  investigation  of  nature  is  only  of 
the  right  kind,  and  fraught  with  blessing,  when  it 
leads  to  the  confession  of  Ps.  civ.  24  ;  xcii.  6,  7. — 
Mark  what  the  man  who  was  wiser  than  all  the 
men  of  his  generation  declares  as  the  final  result 
of  all  his  wisdom  and  research :  It  is  all  vanity  I 
Fear  God,  and  keep  His  commandments  (Eocles. 
i.  2 ;  xii.  8,  13). — Ver.  34.  To  Solomon  came  from 
all  nations  people  to  hearken  unto  his  wisdom; 
but  to  Him  who  is  greater  than  Solomon,  the  wise 
men  of  to-day  will  not  listen  (1  Cor.  i.  19-21). — 
How  many  travel  over  land  and  sea  to  seek  gold 
and  silver,  but  stir  neither  hand  nor  foot  to  find 
the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  the  truth,  which 
lie  close  at  hand,  and  are  better  than  gold  and  sil- 
ver (Prov.  viii.  11;  xxiv.  14;  Job  xxviii.  18).  It 
is  not  enough  for  a  wise  prince  that  his  people  eat, 
drink,  and  make  merry,  and  dwell  in  safety,  each 
one  beneath  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree  (chap.  iv.  20 ; 
v.  5) ;  but  he  aims  likewise  at  this,  that  spiritual 
education,  science,  and  recognition  of  the  truth 
should  be  extended  and  fostered,  for  this  brings 
more  consideration  than  power  or  wealth. 


CHAPTER  V.  1-18.  53 


THIRD    SECTION. 

Solomon's  buildings. 
(Chap.  T.  [V.  15]-IX.  28.) 


A. — Treaty  with  Hiram  in  regard  to  the  building  of  the  Temple. 

Chap.  V.  1-18.  [15-32]. 

I  And  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  sent  his  servants  unto  Solomon  ; '  for  he  had  heard 
that  they  had  anointed  him  king  in  the  room  of  his  father :  for  Hiram  was  ever 

2,  3  a  lover  of  David.  And  Solomon  sent  to  Hiram,  saying,  Thou  knowest  how 
that  David  my  father  could  not  build  a  house  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  his 
God,  for  the  wars  *  which  were  about  him  on  every  side,  until  the  Lord  put 

4  them  under  the  soles  of  his  3  feet.     But  now  the  Lord  my  God  hath  given  me 

5  rest  on  every  side,  so  that  there  is  neither  adversary  nor  ovil  occurrent.  And, 
behold,  I  purpose '  to  build  a  house  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  my  God,  as  the 
Lord  spake  unto  David  my  father,  saying,  Thy  son,  whom  I  will  set  upon  thy 

6  throne  in  thy  room,  he  shall  build  a  [the]  house  unto  my  name.  Now  therefore 
command  thou  that  they  hew  me  cedar  trees  out  of  Lebanon  ;  and  my  servants 
shall  be  with  thy  servants :  and  unto  thee  will  I  give  hire  for  thy  servants  ac- 
cording to  all  that  thou  shalt  appoint :  for  thou  knowest  that  there  is  not  among 
us  any  that  can  skill  to  hew  timber  like  unto  the  Sidonians. 

7  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Hiram  heard  the  words  of  Solomon,  that  he  re- 
joiced greatly,  and  said,  Blessed  be  the  Lord '  [Jehovah]  this  day,  which  hath 

8  given  unto  David  a  wise  son  over  this  great  people.  And  Hiram  sent  to  Solomon, 
saying,  I  have  considered  the  things  which  thou  sentest  to  me  for :  and  I  will  do 

9  all  thy  desire  concerning  timber  of  cedar,  and  concerning  timber  of  fir.  My 
servants  shall  bring  them  down  from  Lebanon  unto  the  sea ;  and  I  will  convey 
them  by  sea  in  floats  unto  the  place  that  thou  shalt  appoint  me,  and  will  cause 
them  to  be  discharged  there,  and  thou    shalt  receive  them:  and  thou    shalt 

10  accomplish  my  desire,  in  giving  food  for  my  household.     So  Hiram  gave  Solo- 

11  mon  cedar  trees  and  fir  trees  according  to  all  his  desire.  And  Solomon  gave 
Hiram  twenty  thousand  measures  [cor]  of  wheat  for  food  to  his  household,  and 
twenty  measures  [cor']  of  pure  oil :  thus  gave  Solomon  to  Hiram  year  by  year. 

12  And  the  Lord  gave  Solomon  wisdom,  as  he  promised  him:  and  there  was  peace 
between  Hiram  and  Solomon  ;  and  they  two  made  a  league  together. 

13  And  king  Solomon  raised  a  levy  out  of  all  Israel;  and  the  levy  was  thirty 

14  thousand  men.  And  he  sent  them  to  Lebanon,  ten  thousand  a  month  by 
courses  :  a  month  they  were  in  Lebanon,  and  two  months  at  home :  and  Adoni- 

15  ram  was  over  the  levy.     And  Solomon  had  threescore  and  ten  thousand  that 

16  bare  burdens,  and  fourscore  thousand  hewers  in  the  mountains  ;  besides  the 
chief  of  Solomon's  officers  which  were  over  the  work,  three  thousand  and  three ' 

17*  hundred,  which  ruled  over  the  people  that  wrought  in  the  work.  And  the 
king  commanded,  and   they  brought  great  stones,  costly  stones,  and  hewed 

18  stones,  to  lay  the  foundation  of  the  house.  And  Solomon's  builders  and  Hiram's 
builders  did  hew  them,  and  the  stonesquarers :  so  they  prepared  timber  and 
stones  to  build  the  house. 


54 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  1. — [The  Vat.  Sept,  by  omitting  the  first  part  of  this  clause,  makes  an  extraordinary  statement:  ica't  aWrriJv- 

Xtpd/l  £aa"iAevs  Tlipov  Tout  TTaiiay  OUTOU  xpicrai  Toy  iu.W/Auji'  aCTi  Aavi6  (C.  T.  A.  . 

8  Ver.  8. — [The  A.  V.  has  here  exactly  preserved  the  incongruity  of  the  Heb.  of  an  abstract  noun  HOPPD  ,  tear,  fol 

lowed  by  the  personal  pronoun  DJ1N  .    The  Chald.  avoids  the  difficulty  by  reading  N2~lp  s"Qy  DTP  ]0  =  those  making 

war.    It  has  been  suggested  that  the  Heb.  might  have  read  originally  nDfPEn  *L"}/'. 

3  Ver.  3. — The  k'tib  "pj~l  is  here  decidedly  to  be  preferred  to  the  k'ri  vJH  .— Bahr.    [It  is  also  the  reading  of  roan, 
M8S.,  editions,  and  VV. 

1  Ver.  5.— [nij37  "ION  1DX  ,  followed  by  the  infinitive,  expresses  purpose.     Cf.  Ex.  ii.  14;  2  Sam.  xxi.  16. 

8  Ter.  T. — [The  Sept.  here  read  ©cos,  not  Kupios.   Cf.  the  parallel  place  2  Chron.  ii.  11,  ?N~lw"  Tf?X  iTiiT  .] 

*  Ver.  11. — [The  Sept.  enormously  multiply  this  by  writing  ko.1  cIkoo-i  \i\td&as  fialS  cAatov,  so  also  the  Heb.  In  tha 
parallel  place.  2  Chron.  ii.  9.    The  Syr.  and  Arab,  still  ten  times  more,  by  making  it  twenty  thousand  cor. 
'  Ver.  16.— [Cf.  2  Chrou.  ii.  IT,  hlXD  &&. 

h  Ver.  17. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  ver.  17  and  the  first  half  of  13.    Both  recensions  of  the  Sept,  add  to  ver.  18,  rpem 
rrr/.—F.  G] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-6.  And  Hiram  king  of  Tyre,  &c.  After 
the  general  description  of  Solomon's  government 
in  the  preceding  section,  the  narrative  now  pro- 
ceeds to  give  an  account  of  his  great  and  impor- 
tant undertaking,  the  building  of  the  Temple 
(comp.  the  parallel  account,  2  Chron.  ii.).  Hiram 
is  called  ElTn  in  ver.  7  and  19,  and  D"nn  in  Chron., 

and  Ktpufior  twice  in  Josephus.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  of  these  be  the  original  form.  According 
to  2  Chron.  ii.  2,  and  the  present  passage  also,  this 
Hiram  was  the  same  as  he  who  had  sent  David 
wood  to  build  his  house  (2  Sam.  v.  11).  and  it  is 
unnecessary,  on  the  ground  of  the  unreliable  chro- 
nology of  Josephus,  to  reckon  him  to  be  the  son  of 
that  Hiram  (having  his  father's  name)  as  Le  Clerc, 
Thenius,  and  others  do  (Antiq.,  vih.  31 ;  comp. 
Contr.  Apion.,  i.  18).  If,  according  to  Josephus, 
the  beginning  of  the  building  of  the  Temple,  which 
took  place  in  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign, 
occurred  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Hiram,  it  follows 
that  the  latter  must  have  reigned  several  years 
contemporaneously  with  David,  and  may  very  well 
have  reigned  twenty  years  more,  simultaneously 
with  Solomon  (chap.  ix.  10  sq.). — The  purpose  of 
his  embassy  to  Solomon  was  to  congratulate  him 

on  his  accession.      (The  Syriac  adds  ins  Tp3,1 , 

which  Thenius,  without  reason,  deems  original). 
It  was  evidence  that  he  desired  Solomon  to  con- 
tinue in  the  same  friendly  relations  to  him  as 
David  had  maintained ;  and  it  was  the  easier  for 
Solomon  to  make  that  request  to  him,  mentioned 
in  ver.  6.  On  vers.  7-9,  comp.  2  Sam.  viii.  13,  and 
1   Chron.  xxii.  7-11.      According  to    Ewald  and 

Thenius,  nOfTO ,  ver  3.  is  equivalent  to  enemies 
(surrounding  him);  but  in  Ps.  cix.  3,  23D  is  also 
found  with  the  double  accusative :  they  compassed 

me  about  also  with  words  of  hatred.     Upon  atl'P 

nin' ,  see  on  chap,  vi— jji  yjg  ,  i.  e.,  an  unhappy 

event,  as,  for  instance,  rebellion,  famine,  plague, 
or  other  suffering.  It  appears,  from  ver.  G,  that 
the  part  of  Lebanon  where  the  best  cedars  for 
building  grew,  belonged  to  Phoenicia ;  it  was  on 
the  northweste-n  part  of  the  mountain  range 
(Robinson,    Pnkst,    vol.   iii.   pp.    588-594).      The 


Sidonians  are  not  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
Sidon  simply,  but  of  the  entire  district  to  which 
that  part  of  Lebanon  belonged.  They  knew  how 
to  hew  and  prepare  wood  for  building,  for  they 
were  skilled  in  ship-building  beyond  all  other 
nations,  and  built  their  own  houses  also  of  wood 
(Schnaase,  Gesch.  der  bildenden  Kiinste,  i.  s.  249). 
We  see  from  ver.  8  and  chap.  vii.  13,  that  SolomoD 
desired  cypress-wood,  and  a  Phoenician  artisan 
besides  (comp.  2  Chron.  ii.  7,  13). 

Vers.  7-8.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Hiram 
heard  the  words  of  Solomon,  Ac.  "  The  king  of 
Tyre  must  have  been  very  desirous  of  remaining  on 
good  terms  with  Israel,  because  the  land  of  Israel 
was  a  granary  for  Phoenicia,  and  the  friendship  of 
the  former  was  very  important  to  the  Phoenician 
commercial  interests"  (Keil).  The  chronicler  adds 
to  mir  (2  Chron.  ii.   12),  the  God  of  Israel  that 

made  heaven  and  earth.  It  does  not  follow,  how- 
evbi,  as  older  commentators  say,  that  Hiram  ac- 
knowledged this  God  as  the  only  true  God,  or  had 
become  a  proselyte.  Polytheism  is  not  exclusive  • 
it  allows  each  nation  to  retain  its  divinity,  and  re- 
cognizes his  power,  when  it  thinks  it  perceives  his 
workings  or  his  agency  and  benefactions,  without 
rejecting  the  specifically  national  gods.  When  Hi- 
ram, therefore,  names  Solomon  D^n  ,  because  he  is 

about  to  build  a  temple  to  Jehovah,  it  is  evident 
that  the  idea  of  wisdom  (chap.  v.  7),  essentially 
includes  that  of  religion  (fear  of  God).  Cypress 
is,  indeed,  inferior  to  cedar ;  but  is  also  fitted  for 
buildirg,  because  "it  is  not  eaten  by  worms,  and 
is  almost  imperishable,  as  well  as  very  light " 
(Winer).  According  to  2  Chron.  ii.  lfi,  the  wood 
for  building  was  sent  down  on  rafts  (on  the  Medi- 
terranean) to  Joppa  (i.  e.,  Jaffa,  coast-town  on  the 
borders  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  Josh.  xix.  46).  Thence 
it  was  conveyed  overland  to  Jerusalem,  which  is 
situated  southeast  thereof. 

Vers.  9-13.  And  thou  shalt  ....  in  giving 
food,  Ac.  Every  year,  as  long  as  Hiram  furnished 
building-materials  and  workmen,  he  received,  for 
the  sustenance  of  his  court,  20,000  *  (cor)  measures 

*  The  cor  OS  .  Kopo?)  equals  the  homer,  and  the  homei 
was  ten  times  the  bath.  20,00l>  curs  =  200,000  ba'hs.  This, 
at  a  rough  calculation,  amounts  to  260,000 hushels  =  between  ' 
Wane!  90.000  barrels.  In  liquids,  again,  20  eors  =200  hatha, 
This  would  amount  to  about  1,666  or  1,670  gallons  of  oil. 
The  computation  must  be  in  the  rough  for  obvious  reason*. 


CHAPTER  V.   1-18. 


55 


of  wheat,  i.  «.,  by  Thenius'  reckoning,  38,250  Dres- 
den bushels,  from  Solomon  ;  also  20  (cor)  measures 
of  oil,  )'.  e.,  100  casks,  the  cask  containing  6 
buckets.  Pure  oil  is  the  finest,  not  going,  after 
the  usual  fashion,  through  the  press,  but  is  obtained 
by  pounding  olives  not  quite  ripo  in  a  mortar  (my 
Symbolik  des  Mas.  Cult.,  i.  s.  419).  The  chronicler 
does  not  mention  this  delivery  to  the  court  of 
Hiram  ;  but  he  gives,  in  2  Chron.  ii.  10,  the  re- 
ward of  the  laborers  promised  in  our  6th  verse: 
"  I  will  give  to  thy  servants,  the  hewers  that  cut 
timber,  20,000  (cor)  measures  of  beaten  wheat,  and 
20,000  (cor)  measures  of  barley,  and  20,000  baths 
of  wine,  and  20,000  baths  of  oil."  The  narra- 
tive here  concerns  a  different  thing,  and  no  ono 
has  a  rig-lit,  as  Thenius,  to  turn  the  20  (cor)  mea- 
sures of  the  finest  oil,  destined  for  the  court,  into 
20,000  of  ordinary  quality,  and  to  suppose,  with 
Bertheau,  that  the  quantity  of  wine  and  oil  is 
added  by  the  chronicler  according  to  his  own 
whim.  "  Because  the  quantity  ol  the  wheat  which 
Solomon  gave  Hiram  for  the  use  of  the  court  was 
as  large  as  that  which  he  delivered  for  the  Sido- 
uiau  hewers  of  wood,  it  does  not  follow  that  wo 
are  justified  iu  identifying  the  two  accounts" 
(Keil).  Besides,  as  Bertheau  remarks,  it  appears 
that  the  account  in  the  Chronicles  does  not,  like  our 
own,  speak  of  an  annual,  but  only  of  one  delivery. 
The  one  account,  as  often  happens,  supplements 
the  other.  The  addition,  ver.  12,  means:  Solomon, 
by  virtue  of  the  wisdom  he  had  received  from 
God,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  well 
to  accept  Hiram's  propositions,  and  to  enter  into 
terms  of  friendship  with  him.  Keil  also  thinks 
that  the  verse  refers  to  the  wise  use  he  made  of 
the  working  capacities  of  his  subjects,  which  is  re- 
ferred in  in  the  following  verses,  and  that  this 
verse,  therefore,  leads  on  to  them. 

Vers.  1 3-15.  And  king  Solomon  raised  a  levy. 

PJJ'1 ,  strictly  adscendere  fecit,  to  take  out,  to  take 

away  (Ps.  cii.  25).  All  Israel  does  not  mean  here 
the  whole  territory,  but,  as  often  elsewhere,  the 
people  (chap.  i.  20;  viii.  65;  xii.  16,  20;  xiv. 
13).  In  ver.  13  it  is  expressly  said  that  these 
30.000  men  were  (born)  Israelites.  Of  these, 
10,000  were  always  one  month  iu  service,  and  free 
the  two  following,  when  they  cultivated  their  fields 
and  took  care  of  their  houses.  For  Adoniram,  see 
chap.  iv.  6. — Besides  these  30,000  men,  who  were 
not  sufficient,  there  were  (ver.  15)  70,000  that  bore 
burdens,  and  80,000  hewers  in  the  mountains. 
3Vn  is,  "  according  to  all  Versions,  to  be  understood 
of  stone-cutters  alone,  not  of  wood-cutters  (tJese 
nius,  Ewald).  for  the  (easier)  working  in  wood  was 
sufficiently  provided  for  by  the  changing  30,000  la- 
borers "  (Thenius).  The  "in3  can  be  understood  only 

of  Lebanon,  from  the  context,  and  not,  as  Bertheau 
thinks,  of  the  stone-quarries  of  the  mountains. 
The  70+80,000  =  150,000  men  (2  Chron.  ii.  18) 
were  not  changed,  but  were  in  constant  service : 
they  were  not  Israelites,  but,  on  the  contrary; 
O'TJ  (as  the  parallel  passage  alluded  to  expressly 

says),  i.  e.,  strangers  in  the  land  of  Israel;  those 

as  may  be  seen  bv  reference  to  Smith's  Dictionary,  Amer. 
edition.  N.  Y.,  1ST0,  vol.  iv.,  article  Weights  and  Mea- 
sures. The  reader  can  find  some  strange  etymologies  in  the 
animadversions  of  Petavius  upon  Epiphanius'  tractate  on 
WoiphtB  and  Measures.  Epipb.,  Opera,  edit.  G.  Dindorf. 
telpsic,  1S63,  vol.  iv.  p.  95.— E.  H. 


of  the  Canaanites  that  remained  when  their  land 
was  conquered,  and  who  were  made  servants 
(Judg.  i.  27  to  30;  Josh.  xvi.  10).  In  contradis- 
tiuctioa  to  these  30,000  Israelites,  they  are  named, 

in  chap.  ix.  21,  13J)  DD,  i-  e.,  servants  (2  Chron. 

viii.  7-9).  The  assertion  of  Ewald  and  Distel  that 
these-  150,000  servants  were  of  the  "people  of 
Israel,"  and  only  "came  later  when  the  several 
uuildings  became  enlarged,"  is  utterly  erroneous. — 
The  total  number  of  these  workmen  is  great,  but 
not  surprising  when  we  consider  those  times,  when 
there  was  no  machinery,  and  everything  had  to 
be  done  by  the  human  hand.  According  to  Pliny 
(.Hist  Nat.,  xxxvi.  12),  360,000  men  had  to  work 
twenty  years  long  at  one  pyramid  (comp.  Caliuet 
on  the  place). 

Ver.  16.  Beside  the  chief,  &c.  Thenius. 
"literally  tho  chief  of  the  overseers,  and  hence  the 
usual  expression,  overseer:  but  there  are  no  sub- 
altern overseers  mentioned.  How  great,  then, 
must  the  number  of  these  have  been,  when  the 
chief  overseers  numbered  several  thousands  ?  The 

n?D^L'v  D'SVJH  as  a  description  of  the  substantivo 

(Vatablus:  principes,  quiprafecti  erant)  is  properly 
connected  therewith  by  the  Stat,  construct,  (comp. 
Ewald,  §  287  b);  so,  the  chiefs  not  reckoned,  those 
who  were  appointed  by  (or  for)  Solomon,  and  who 
oversaw  the  works." — Chron.  gives,  instead  of  the 
number  3,300  (chap.  ii.  17),  3.600,  which  Thenius 
thinks  the  right  one,  and  he  would  have  the  text 
altered  accordingly ;  but  Ewald,  on  the  other  hand, 
declares  our  number  to  be  correct,  and  that  of 
Chron.  wrong.  But  both  numbers  are  right,  as 
J.  H.  Michaelis  has  proved ;  the  difference  comes 
from  the  different  division  of  the  offices  of  super- 
intendence.    In  chap.  ix.  23,  550  D'SSSn  "~l"'  are 

named;  these,  with  the  3,300,  make  3,850.  The 
parallel  passage  of  Chron.  (chap.  viii.  10)  mentions 
only  250,  which,  added  to  the  3,600,  gives  the 
same  number,  3,850.  This  coincidence  cannot  be 
chance;  the  number  550  evidently  contains  the 
250,  and  the  300,  by  which  the  3,600  exceed  the 
3,300 :  250  of  the  whole  number  of  overseers  were, 
as  appears  from  the  context  in  2  Chron.  viii.  10, 
native  Israelites ;  but  300  were  foreigners.  The 
chronicler,  however,  no  doubt  includes  the  latter 
among  the  subaltern  overseers  (3, 300+ 300=3, 600), 
because  they  were  not  on  the  same  footing  with 
the  Israelitish  overseers. 

Vers.  17-18.  And  the  king  commanded.  The 
great   stones   should   be   J-ii^p"" i    not    "weighty" 

(Thenius),  for  that  is,  of  course,  understood,  nor 
"  precious "  (Keil),  for  why  should  the  value  of 
these  stones  be  especially  insisted  on  ?  but  glorious, 
splendid,  fine  stones  (Ps.  xxxvi.  8 ;  xlv.  9 ;  Esth.  L 
4).  It  is  plainly  said  here,  as  in  2  Chron.  iii.  3, 
that  these  stones  were  for  the  foundation  of  tho 
building,  and  not,  therefore,  for  the  "  consolidation 
of  the  Temple  structure  "  (Thenius).  Of  the  latter 
kind,  which  Josephus  {Arch.,  15,  11,  3)  so  minutely 
describes,  the  Bible-text  makes  no  mention.  The 
JV13  ^X  are  nothing  else  than  the  splendid  great 

stones,  which  were  shaped  after  being  hewn  out 
of  the  quarry.  Vulgate :  ut  tollerent  lapides  ijrandes, 
lapides  pretiosos,  in  fundamentum  templi  et  ijtiadra- 
rent  eos. — The  Giblites,  ver.  18,  are  the  inhabitants 

of  ^33  (Josh.  xiii.  5),  a  Phoenician  town  near  tha' 


50 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


part  of  Lebanon,  where  the  largest  cedars  were 
found;  i.  e.,  the  Byblos  of  the  Greeks.  [The 
Engl.  Vor.  has  simply  for  this  word,  "  stone-sq  tar- 
ers." — E.  H.]  It  appears,  from  Ezek.  xxvii.  9, 
that  the  Giblites  were  remarkable  for  their  tech- 
nical skill    in  ship-bui'ding  especially.      Thenius 

reads  OiSajsi ,  and  translates :  "  they  wreathed  the 

stones— put  a  border  round  them."  Robinson 
stated  (Palest.)  that  he  had  found  stones  carved  in 
that  manner.  Bottcher  rightly  names  these  con- 
jectures "  ill-founded."  Comp.  what  Keil,  on  the 
passage,  says  against  them. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  Solomon's  undertaking  to  build  a  "  house  "  to 
the  name  of  Jelwvah  was  not  an  arbitrary,  self-de- 
vised act,  nor  was  it  prompted  solely  through  the 
wish  and  will  of  his  father  David,  but  rested  upon 
a  divine  decision  (v.  5),  and,  as  already  shown  in  the 
Introduction,  §  3,  has  its  inward,  necessary  reason 
in  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy. 
The  assertion  that  "the  thought  to  build  a  magniti- 
cent  temple  to  Jehovah  in  Jerusalem  proceeded  from 
the  sight  of  the  temple-service  of  the  Phoenicians 
and  Philistines,  and  of  their  ostentatious  cultus  " 
(Duncker,  Gesch.  des  Alt.,  i.  s.  397),  is  entirely  with- 
out foundation  and  contradicts  all  historical  re- 
cords. When  Stephen,  in  his  discourse  before  the 
Sanhedrin,  says:  "Solomon  built  him  an  house. 
But  the  Most  High  dwelleth  not  in  temples  made 
with  hands,"  Ac.  (Acts  vii.  47),  he  does  not  mean  in 
any  way  to  blame  Solomon's  undertaking,  or  to  say, 
as  Lechler  supposes  (in  his  Bibelwerk  on  the  place), 
the  tabernacle  was  set  up  at  God's  will  and  com- 
mand ;  but  the  design  of  building  a  temple  and  the 
completion  of  it  is  only  a  human  design  and  a 
human  performance.  For  that  the  Most  High 
cannot  be  shut  up  within  a  house,  Solomon  him- 
self expressly  declared  at  the  consecration  of  the 
Temple  (1  Kings  viii.  27).  Stephen  was  opposing 
rather,  from  the  stand-point  of  the  New  Testament. 
the  stiff-necked,  Jewish  authorities,  who,  when 
the  promised  Messiah  appeared,  and  the  New- 
Covenant  was  introduced  along  with  Him,  rejected 
the  same,  and  clung  with  tenacious  unbelief  to  the 
outward  sign  of  the  Old  Covenant,  to  the  Temple 
as  the  permanent  central-point  of  all  divine  revela- 
tion. The  accusation,  he  would  say.  that  this  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  would  destroy  this  holy  place,  was  in 
so  far  correct,  as  that  He  certainly  had  taken  away 
the  Old  Covenant,  and  with  it  had  abolished  its 
sign  and  pledge  (John  ii.  19).  For  the  day  of  the 
New  Covenant,  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  has  lost 
all  significance.  For  the  dwelling  of  God  in  the 
midst  of  His  people  conditioned  through  natural 
desalt,  has  become  transferred  into  a  dwelling  in 
the  midst  of  the  people  who  are  believers  in  Christ, 
to  whom  the  apostle  appeals:  Ye  a^e  the  temple 
of  the  living  God,  in  you  is  fulfilled,  in  truth,  the 
word  spoken  once  by  God  unto  Israel :  I  will  dwell 
in  them,  and  waU  in  them,  and  will  be  their  God, 
and  they  shall  be  my  people  (2  Cor.  vi.  16;  Eph. 
ii.  21;  1  rel  "  *  5)  To  cling  now  to  the  Old 
Testament  temple  oi..it  by  human  hands,  and  to 
reject  the  living  temple  of  the  living  God.  Stephen 
pronounces  as  a  striving  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
(A;ts  vii   fill. 


2.  It  is  one  of  those  significant  divine  providence* 
in  which  the  history  of  Israel  is  so  rich,  that  as 
in  the  development  of  the  "  sacred  history  "  the 
time  had  come  for  "  the  house  of  the  Lord  "  (or  for 
for  Jehovah),  in  the  land  which  alone  possessed 
those  means  and  agencies  for  the  execution  of  the 
undertaking  in  which  Israel  was  wanting,  a  king 
ruled  who  entertained  a  friendly  sentiment  to- 
wards David  and  Solomon,  and  was  prepared 
gladly  for  every  assistance,  so  that  even  heathen 
nations,  whether  friendly  or  conquered,  took  part 
in  the  building  of  the  house  for  the  God  of  Israel, 
and  so  contributed  indirectly  to  the  glorifying  of  . 
God.  It  was  a  setting  forth  in  act  of  the  word: 
'•  The  earth  is  the  Lord's,  and  all  that  therein  is  " 
(Ps.  xxiv.  1);  "For  the  kingdom  is  the  Lord's,  and 
He  is  governor  among  the  nations  "  (Ps.  xxii.  28), 
and  "all  the  heathen  shall  serve  Him  "  (Ps.  lxxii 
11).  And  as  Solomon's  kingdom,  as  the  most  com- 
plete outward  kingdom  of  peace,  is  frequently, 
with  the  prophets,  a  type  of  the  Messiah's  king- 
dom (see  above,  Historical  and  Ethical  on  chap,  iv.), 
so  do  they  behold,  in  the  participation  by  the  hea- 
then in  the  building  of  the  temple,  a  type  and 
prophecy  that  the  Messiah  "  shall  build  the  tem- 
ple of  the  Lord  .  .  .  and  that  they  who  are 
far  off  shall  come  and  build  in  the  temple  of  the 
Lord,"  &c.  (Zech.  vi.  12-15). 

3.  "  In  the  very  time  of  their  highest  earthly 
sjilendor  the  people  of  God,  in  respect  of  worldly 
art,  pursuit,  and  skill,  were  inferior  to  the  neigh 
boring  Phoenicians"  (Gerlach).  Solomon  had  no 
one  amongst  his  people  who  could  execute  a  work 
of  art  such  as  the  temple  was  to  be  (v.  6).  As  to 
individual  men  (1  Cor.  vii.  7),  so  also  to  nations, 
God  has  distributed  divers  gifts,  powers,  and  des- 
tiny. It  was  not  the  office  of  Israel  to  exercise 
the  arts,  but  to  be  the  bearer  of  divine  revelation, 
and  to  communicate  the  knowledge  of  the  One  liv- 
ing and  Jfi-holy  God  to  all  nations.  To  this  ind 
God  has  chosen  this  people  out  of  all  peoples ;  and 
their  entire  mode  of  life  and  occupation,  yea,  their 
whole  development  and  history,  are  closely  con 
nected  with  it.  To  the  achievement  of  this  its  des 
tiny  must  even  other  nations  serve,  with  the  espe- 
cial gifts  and  powers  conferred  upon  them.  High  as 
the  Phoenicians  stood  above  Israel  at  that  time  in 
technical  and  artistic  accomplishments  (cf  Duncker, 
a.  a.  0.,  s.  317-320),  so  nevertheless  did  Israel,  not- 
withstanding all  its  sins  and  errors,  excel  the  Phoe- 
nicians in  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Distin- 
guished as  Phoenicia  was  for  its  art  and  commerce, 
its  religion  was  the  most  depraved,  and  its  worship 
most  crude  (Duncker,  s.  155  sq.). 

[4.  The  genius  of  the  Jewish  people  never 
achieved  anything  eminent  in  plastic  art.  Skill  in 
architecture,  and  in  sculpture,  and  in  painting, 
seems  to  have  been  denied  them.  Their  religion 
forbade  it,  and  the  hereditary  feeling  of  the  race 
was  one  of  aversion  to  all  arts  of  the  "  graver,"  to 
images  and  forms  cut  in  stones  or  upon  stone,  and 
so  in  their  want  of  appreciation  of  beauty  of  form 
they  were  unable  to  conceive  of  grand  structures ; 
and  when  Solomon's  great  buildings  were  under- 
taken, the  skilled  workmen  and  the  artists  con- 
nected with  the  work  were  foreigners.  Dr.  Pri 
dcaux  quotes  Josephus  to  this  effect  {Antiq.,  Bk 
18.  c.  7):  "  When  Vitellius  governor  of  Syria  wad 
going  to  pass  tlnough  Juda-a  with  a  Roman  army 
t.i  make  war  against  the  Arabians,  the  chief  of 
the  Jews  met  him.  and  earnestly  eutteated  hiua  te 


CHAPTER  V.   1-18. 


0« 


lead  his  army  another  way ;  for  they  could  not 
bear  the  sight  of  those  images  which  were  in  the 
ensigns  under  which  they  marched,  they  were  so 
abominated  by  them.  The  ensigns  therefore,  for 
the  sake  of  those  images  in  them,  were  abomina- 
tions to  the  Jews;  and  by  reason  of  the  desola- 
tions which  were  wrought  under  them  by  the 
Roman  armies  in  conquered  countries,  they  were 
called  desolating  abominations,  or  abominations 
of  desolation,  and  they  were  never  more  so  than 
when  under  them  the  Roman  armies  besieged  and 
destroyed  Jerusalem."  Poetic  feeling,  the  power 
of  song,  belonged  to  the  race ;  and  these,  under 
God,  have  impressed  themselves  upon  the  heart 
of  the  nations,  so  that  to  this  day  the  '"songs  of 
Zion  "  arc  sung  in  temples  which  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple never  could  have  built. — E.  H.j 


HOMILETICAL  AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-5.  Solomon's  purpose  to  build  a  house 
to  the  Lord.  |1)  The  motive.  Vers.  3-5.  Not 
ambition,  the  love  of  glory,  the  love  of  pomp,  but 
the  divine  will,  and  the  charge  of  his  father.  In 
every  weighty  undertaking  one  must  examine  and 
bo  assured  that  it  do  not  proceed  from  selfish  mo- 
lives,  but  is  the  good,  acceptable,  and  perfect  will 
of  God  (Rom.  xii.  2).  (2)  The  time,  rest,  and  peace 
(ver.  4).  A  time  of  peace  is  the  time  for  building 
in  general,  but  especially  for  building  houses  of 
God,  which  are  a  memorial  of  thanksgiving  for 
the  blessings  of  peace  and  prosperity.  (3)  The 
request  for  assistance,  ver.  6.  In  important  un- 
dertakings which  are  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God, 
and  propose  His  honor,  we  may  and  should  not 
hesitate  to  trust  iu  Him  who  directs  men's  hearts, 
like  the  water-brooks,  to  ask  others  for  aid  and 
assistance. — Vers.  1-2.  True  friends  whom  parents 
have  gained,  are  an  invaluable  legacy  for  the  chil- 
dren, for  whom  the  latter  cannot  be  sufficiently 
thankful  (Eccles.  xxx.  4).  To  a  God-fearing  man 
like  David,  if  he  have  many  enemies,  yet  there  will 
never  be  wanting  those  who  love  him  his  life  long, 
and  who  prize  and  honor  him  after  his  death,  even 
in  his  children. — Ver.  3.  With  every  son  it  should 
be  his  earnest  business,  and  likewise  pleasure,  to 
fulfil  the  will  of  his  father,  and  to  complete  the 
good  work  which  he  had  begun,  but  could  not 
carry  out. — Ver.  4.  When  God  has  granted  rest 
and  peace,  health  and  happiness,  prosperity  and 
blessing,  an  opportunity  is  thus  at  hand  to  do 
something  for  His  great  name.— Ver.  5.  If  it  can- 
not come  into  the  mind  of  every  one  to  build  a 
house  of  wood  and  stone  unto  the  Lord,  neverthe- 
less, every  one  to  whom  God  has  given  wife  and 
children  is  in  condition  to  vow  and  to  build  a 
house  unto  the  Lord  out  of  living  stones.  I  and  my 
house  will  serve  the  Lord  (Josh.  xxiv.  15). — Ver.  5. 
RlnitKE:  One  man  needs  another;  on  thisacconnt 
cue  should  always  serve  and  be  amiable  towards 
auoiuer,  ministering  to  his  good  (1  Pet.  iv.  10). — 
The  superfluity  of  one  must  minister  to  the  need 
ot  the  others,  in  order  that  hereafter,  also,  the  su- 
perfluity of  the  latter  may  serve  for  the  wants  of 
the  former  (2  Cor.  viii.  14). — Israel  knew  not  how 
to  plan  great  buildings,  especially  works  of  art.  but 
they  did  know  how  to  serve  the  living  God.  Bet- 
ter to  live  without  art  than  without  God  in  the 
world. 


Vers.  21-25.  The  heathen  king  Hiram:  (1) 
His  rejoicing  over  Solomon  and  his  undertaking 
(2)  his  praise  of  the  God  of  Israel ;  (3)  his  willing 
ness  to  help.  How  far  stands  this  heathen  above 
so  many  who  call  themselves  Christians! — Ver.  6. 
Wi  p.t.  Sf.MM  :  When  we  see  that  it  goes  well  with 
our  neighbor,  we  should  not  envy  him  such  pros- 
perity, but  rather  rejoice  with  him  and  wish  him 
good-luck.  Since  Hiram,  although  a  heathen  king, 
has  done  this,  how  much  more  does  it  befit  Chris- 
tians to  act  thus  towards  each  other?  It  proves  a 
noble  heart  when  a  man,  free  from  envy  and  jeal- 
ousy, sincerely  praises  and  thanks  God  for  the 
gifts  and  blessings  which  He  grants  to  others. — 
Starke  :  AVhen  God  wishes  well  to  a  nation  He 
bestows  upon  it  godly  rulers ;  but  when  He  wills 
to  chastise  it  he  removes  them.  Hiram  praises 
God  that  He  bestows  upon  another  people  a  wise 
monarch ;  how  much  more  should  that  people  it- 
self thank  God  siuce  He  bestowed  upon  it  a  wise, 
viz.,  a  pious  king? — Ver.  9.  How  pleasing  it  is 
when  the  assistance  of  those  who  can  help  is  not 
wrung  from  them,  but  offered  in  friendship,  and  they 
are  ready  and  heart-willing  to  do  what  lies  in  their 
power  (2  Cor.  ix.  7).— Wurt.  Summ.  :  No  house, 
even  though  it  be  the  church  and  temple  of  God, 
should  be  built  to  the  hurt  and  oppression  of  one's 
fellow-creatures. — Ver.  12.  The  league  between 
Solomon  and  Hiram:  (1)  Its  object :  a  good,  God- 
pleasing  work  begun  in  the  service  of  God.  Like 
kings  and  nations,  evon  so  individual  men  should 
unite  only  for  such  purposes.  (2)  The  conditions 
of  the  league :  each  gave  to  the  other  according  to 
his  desire;  neither  sought  to  overreach  the  other: 
the  compact  was  based  upon  honesty  and  fairness, 
not  upon  cunning  and  selfishness :  only  upon  such 
compacts  does  the  blessing  of  God  rest,  for  unjust 
possessions  do  not  prosper. 

Vers.  13-18.  The  workmen  at  the  temple- 
building:  (1)  Israelites.  Solomon  acted  not  like 
unto  Pharaoh  (Ex.  ii.  23),  he  laid  no  insupporta- 
ble burdens  upon  his  people,  but  permits  va- 
riety in  the  work,  and  Israel  itself  undertakes  it 
without  murmurs  or  complaints.  How  high  do 
these  Israelites  stand  above  so  many  Christian 
communities,  who  constantly  object  or  murmur 
when  they  are  about  to  undertake  any  labor  for 
their  temple,  or  must  needs  bring  a  sacrifice 
of  money  or  time.  (2)  Heathen  (Ps.  xxii.  29 ;  vide 
Historical  ant/  Ethical).  Jew  and  heathen  to- 
gether must  build  the  temple  of  God,  according  to 
divine  decree — a  prophetic  anticipation  of  fact  as 
set  forth  Eph.  ii.  14,  10-22:  iii.  4-6.— Seiler:  The 
preparations  of  Solomon  must  naturally  re- 
mind us  of  the  far  greater  preparations  and  arrange- 
ments which  God  has  made  for  the  building  of  the 
spiritual  temple  of  the  New  Testament.  How  many 
thousand  faithful  laborers,  how  many  wise  and  good 
men,  has  he  placed  in  every  known  part  of  the 
world ;  how  has  he  furnished  them  with  wisdom 
and  many  other  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  so  that  the  great 
work  of  the  glorious  building  may  be  completed  I 
.  .  .  0  Godl  do  thou  still  prosper  thy  work  ! 
Help  the  faithful  workers  in  thy  Church,  that  they 
may  enlighten  many  men  to  thy  glorification,  &c. — 
RicilTER:  Well  for  us  if  we  serve  the  true  SolomoD 
in  the  preparations  for  His  eternal  temple.  But 
still  better  is  it  if  wo  are  ourselves  prepared  as 
living  stones  to  shine  forever  in  the  living  temple 
(1  Pet,  ii.  45). 


58  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

B. — The  accomplishment  of  the  luilding  of  the  Temple. 

Chap.  VI.  1-38. 

1  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  four  hundred  and  eightieth1  year  after  the  child- 
ren of  Israel  were  come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's 
reign  over  Israel,  in  the  month  Zif,  which  is  the  second  month,  that 3  he  began  to 

2  build  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah].  And  the  house  which  king  Solomon 
built  for  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  the  length  thereof  was  threescore  cubits,  and  the 

3  breadth  thereof  twenty  cubits'  and  the  height  thereof  thirty  cubits.  And  the 
porch  before  the  temple  of  the  house,  twenty  cubits  was  the  length  thereof, 

4  according  to  the  breadth  of  the  house ;  and  ten  cubits  was  the  breadth  thereof 
before  the  house.  And  for  the  house  he  made  windows  of  narrow  lights  [with 
fixed  lattices  *]. 

5  And  against  the  wall  of  the  house  he  built  chambers  *  round  about,  against 
the  walls  of  the  house  round  about,  both  of  the  temple  and  of  the  oracle :  and 

6  he  made  chambers  round  about.  The  nethermost  chamber  was  five  cubits 
broad,  and  the  middle  was  six  cubits  broad,  and  the  third  was  seven  cubits 
broad  :    for  without  in  the  wall  of  the  house  he  made  narrowed  rests  round 

7  about,  that  the  beams  should  not  be  fastened  in  the  walls  of  the  house.  And 
the  house,  when  it  was  in  building,  was  built  of  stone  made  ready  before  it  was 
brought  thither:  "  so  that  there  was  neither  hammer  nor  axe  nor  any  tool  of 

8  iron  heard  in  the  house,  while  it  was  in  building.  The  door  for  the  middle' 
chamber  teas  in  the  right  side  of  the  house :   and  they  went  up  with  winding 

9  stairs  into  the  middle  chamber,  and  out  of  the  middle  into  the  third.  So  he  built 
the  house,  and  finished  it ;  and  covered  the  house  with  beams  and  boards  of 

10  cedar.  And  then  he  built  chambers  against  all  the  house,  five  cubits  high  :  and 
they  rested  on  the  house  with  timber  of  cedar. 

11/  12  And  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  to  Solomon,  saying,  Concerning 
this  house  which  thou  art  in  building,  if  thou  wilt  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  exe- 
cute my  judgments,  and  keep  all  my  commandments  to  walk  in  them ;  then  will  I 

13  perform  my  word  with  thee,  which  I  spake  unto  David  thy  father :  And  I  will 
dwell  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  will  not  forsake  my  people  Israel. 

14,  15  So  Solomon  built  the  house,  and  finished  it.  And  he  built  the  walls  of  the 
house  within  with  boards  of  cedar,  both  [from]  the  floor  of  the  house,  and  [unto] 
the  walls "  of  the  ceiling  :  and  he  covered  them  on  the  inside  with  wood,  and  cov- 

16  ered  the  floor  of  the  house  with  planks  of  fir.  And  he  built  twenty  cubits  on  the 
sides  of  the  house,  both  [from]  the  floor  and  [unto]  the  walls  with  boards  of 
cedar :  he  even  built  them  for  it  within,  even  for  the  oracle,  even  for  the  most 

17  holy  place.     And  the  house,  that  is,  the  temple  before  10  it,  was  forty  cubits  long. 

18  And  the  cedar  of  the  house  within  was  carved  with  knops  and  open  flowers :  all 

19  was  cedar;  there  was  no  stone  seen."     And  the  oracle  he  prepared  in  the  house 

20  within,  to  set  there  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah].  And  the  ora- 
cle in  the  forepart  teas  twenty  cubits  in  length,  and  twenty  cubits  in  breadth,  and 
twenty  cubits  in  the  height  thereof:  and  he  overlaid  it  with  pure  gold  ;  and  so 

21  covered  the  altar  which  was  of  cedar  [overlaid  the  altar  with  cedar.13]  So  Solo- 
mon overlaid  the  house  within  with  pure  gold  :   and  he  made  a  partition  by  the 

22  chains  of  gold  before  the  oracle  ;  and  he  overlaid  it  with  gold.  And  the  whole 
house  he  overlaid  with  gold,  until  he  had  finished  all  the  house :  also  the  whole 
altar  that  was  by  the  oracle  he  overlaid  with  gold.13 

23  And  within  the  oracle  he  made  two  cherubims  of  olive  tree,  each  ten  cubits 

24  high.  And  five  cubits  teas  the  one  wing  of  the  cherub,  and  five  cubits  the  other 
wing  of  the  cherub  :  from  the  uttermost  part  of  the  one  wing  unto  the  uttermost 

25  part  of  the  other  were  ten  cubits.     And  the  other  cherub  rows  ten  cubits:  both 

26  tht  cherubims  n; re  <>t'  one  measure  and  one  size  [form].     The  height  of  the  on* 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-38.  59 


27  cherub  was  ten  cubits,  and  so  was  it  of  the  other  cherub.  And  he  set  the 
cherubims  within  the  inner  house :  and  they  stretched  forth  the  wings  of  the 
cherubims,  so  that  the  wing  of  the  one  touched  the  one  wall,  and  the  wing  of  the 
other  cherub  touched  the  other  wall ;   and  their  wings  touched  one  another  in 

28,  29  the  midst  of  the  house.  And  he  overlaid  the  cherubims  with  gold.  And  he 
carved  all  the  walls  of  the  house  round  about  with  carved  figures  of  cherubims 

30  and  palm  trees  and  open  flowers,  within  and  without.14  And  the  floor  of  the 
house  he  overlaid  with  gold,  within  and  without.14 

31  And  for  the  entering  of  the  oracle  he  made  doors  of  olive  tree  :  the  lintel  and 

32  side-posts  were  a  fifth  part  of  the  wall.  The  two  doors  also  were  of  olive  tree  ;  and 
he  carved  upon  them  carvings  of  cherubims  and  palm  trees  and  open  flowers, 
and  overlaid  them  with  gold,  and  spread  gold  upon  the  cherubims,  and  upon  the 

33  palm  trees.'6    So  also  made  he  for  the  door  of  the  temple  posts  of  olive  tree,  a 

34  fourth  part  of  the  wall.  And  the  two  doors  were  of  fir  tree :  the  two  leaves  of 
the  one  door  were  folding,  and  the  two  leaves  "  of  the  other  door  were  folding. 

35  And  he  carved  thereon  cherubims  and  palm  trees  and  open  flowers :  and  cov- 
ered [overlaid]  them  with  gold  fitted  upon  the  carved  work. 

36  And  he  built  the  inner  court  with  three  rows  of  hewed  stone,  and  a  row  of 
cedar  beams. 

37  In  the  fourth  year  was  the  foundation  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 

38  laid,  in  the  month  Zif:  and  in  the  eleventh  year,  in  the  month  Bui,  which  is  the 
eighth  month,  was  the  house  finished  throughout  all  the  parts  thereof,  and  accord- 
ing to  all  the  fashion  of  it.     So  was  he  seven  years  in  building  it. 


TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1. — [The  Sept.  here  read  fortieth  instead  of  eightieth— for  which  there  is  no  authority  whatever.  In  the  com- 
parison of  this  date  with  Acts  xiii.  20  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  best  critical  editors,  following  the  M8S.  X  ,  A,  B,  C, 
etc.,  adopt  the  reading  which  places  the  words  koX  fxera  ravra  after,  instead  of  before,  the  clause  *i*  tTt<ny  Terpaxoa'on 
cat  rr€vrrjKoma,  bo  that  the  passage  has  no  longer  any  chronological  bearing  upon  the  statement  of  the  text 

2  Ver.  1. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  hore  interposes  the  omitted  verses  37,  IS  of  the  last  chapter,  and  immediately  subjoins 

verses  87,  88  of  the  present  chapter.    In  the  former  verses  both  recensions  have  transformed  ^2i  builder*,  into  *22t 

MM 

3  Ver.  2.— [The  missing  ITQK  cubit  it  supplied  in  five  MSS.,  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.    The  Vat  Sept.  changes  the  last 

dimension  to25instead  of  80  cubits.  The  Alex,  follows  the  Heb.,  which  must  be  right,  since  all  the  dimensions  are 
exactly  double  those  of  the  tabernacle,  the  proportions  being  carefully  preserved. 

•  Ver.  4.  —  [D'DUN  D'Spt?    'J  9P1  ■     The  VV.  have  been  much  at  a  loss  in  translating  this  expression.    The  Obuld, 

Vulg.  (fenestras  obliquaa),  and  Syr.,  apparently  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  windows  like  those  in  the  thick  wall  of  a 
Gothic  structure,  or  the  loop-holes  of  a  fortification,  narrow  on  the  outside  and  spreading  within.  Such  may  be  the  sense 
of  the  A.  V.    But  the  meaning  given  in  the  Exeg.  Com.  must  be  the  true  one.    D'DpC'  means  only  beams,  cross-plecea  J 

and  D'Dt3Ki  from  DpX,  to  shut  close,  means  closed,  and  so  fixed. 

•  Ver.  5.— For  the  k'tib  JJiV'   the  k'rl  has  in  each  case  JPS'  i  which  Is  doubtless  right,  since  the  word  has  here 

another  than  the  usual  sense  (Thenius).— BShr.  [Keil  considers  that  the  mate,  form  denotes  the  whole  wing  of  these  stories ; 
the/asm.  the  single  story  of  this  wing. 

«  Ver.  7.-[l"03J  J?DD  nO^B1  |3K  was  built  of  "all  unviolated  stones  of  the  quarry."    Keil. 

»  Ver.  8.— In  place  of  njj'nn  must  necessarily  be  read  (c/.  ver.  6)  rOFirWili  as  Ezek.  xli.  7  stands,  and  the  Tax 
gum  and  the  Sept.  have  read  (Bottchor,  Ewald,  Mere.,  Thenius).— BShr.  [There  is  no  various  reading  of  the  Heb.  MSS..  and 
the  construction  indicated  by  the  text  as  it  stands  Is  sufficiently  clear:  the  lower  tier  of  chambers  being  easily  provided  for 
by  doors,  nothing  is  said  of  the  entrance  to  them ;  but  there  \v;is  a  winding  stairway  from  the  ground,  with  a  door  at  its 
foot  leading  to  the  middle  chambers,  and  thence  to  the  third  story.  Ezek.  xli.  7  can  hardly  be  considered  as  bearing  on 
the  point  in  question. 

•  Ver.  11.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  here  verses  11-14. 

9  Ver.  15.— The  true  reading,  according  to  2  Chron.  iii.  7,  is  here  as  in  ver.  16  fillip  [beams]  not  JTlVp  [walls]  (The- 
nius, Keil).— Bahr.  [Accordingly  our  author  translates  by  Balken,  supported  in  this  by  the  Sept  The  emendation  of  the  text 
(for  which  there  is  no  manuscript  authority)  is  required  by  the  author's  conception  of  the  construction  of  the  7D'n  as  SO 
cubits  high  in  the  interior.  AgainBt  this  is  the  fact  that  the  height  of  the  cedar  wainscoting  in  ver.  16  is  expressly  said 
to  have  been  20  cubltd,  and  yet  no  stone  was  seen  (ver.  IS).  If  now  a  chamber  above  is  supposed,  no  emendation  is  neces- 
aary  here,  and  verseB  16  and  IS  become  consistent.  The  wainscoting  was  carried  up  20  cubits  to  where  the  ceiling  met 
the  walls,  and  above  this  the  "  walls  of  the  ceiling"  or  of  the  room  above  were  left  bare.  A  space  of  two  cubits  is  thus 
left  for  the  windows,  and  access  to  the  "  upper  room  "  may  have  been  had  from  the  porch.  2  Chron.  iii.  1  does  not  decide 
this  point.  In  ver.  16  the  words  "  from  the  celling,"  are  to  be  supplied  from  the  previous  verse.  In  any  case  the  A.  V.  n 
Qertainly  wrong  in  covering  ihejtoor  (which  was  of  fir,  ver.  15)  with  cedar. 

»•  Ver.  1".— The  '03^  at  the  end  of  ver.  17  is  to  be  understood  either  adverbially,  before  (De  Wettej,  or  adjectiviallj 


60 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


anterior  (Ewald,  Keil),  unless  with  Thenius,  upon  the  authority  of  the  Sept.,  we  suppose  that  "VTl  has  falien  out 
"  That  is  the  (6o-called)  Heehal  before  the  Debir."  Upon  the  figures  npon  the  cedar,  ver.  18  sq.,  see  on  ver.  29.  In  vei 
19  TjirO  is  hence  to  be  understood  that  the  Debir  was  between  the  Heehal  and  the  side  structure.    The  difficult  words 

"V^il  *JD7T  i  ver.  20,  Thenius  will  have  removed  from  the  text  peremptorily,  as  a  gloss  placed  here  from  ver.  IT 

although  they  are  in  all  MSS.  and  ancient  VV,  Keil  explains  ^JS?  ,  with  Kimchi,  for  the  noun  D^JD?  ,  occurring  alst 
in  ver.  29=the  inner,  inward-    With  I^D  i  the  same  gold  is  designated  which  in  Ex.  xxv.  11  sq.  is  called  IlilC  ,  anu 


Ul  2  Chron.  iii.  8  31D  (Vulg.:  puristimum). — Bahr. 

11  Ver.  18.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  ver.  18. 

»  Ver.  20.— pee  Exeg.  com. 

ls  Ver.  22. — [Tl»e  Sept.  omit  the  last  claUBe  of  this  verse,  and  throughout  this  whole  description  omit  many  clauses 
and  modify  others. 

14  Ver.  29.— [That  is  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  in  the  holy  place,  as  the  author  notes  in  his  translation. 

15  Ver.  82. — [The  author,  In  his  translation,  adds :  "  and  over  the  open  flowers."    The  Vulg.  has  et  cetera.-  -F.  G-] 

■6  Ver.  84.— Instead  of  D'VPp  muat  here  necessarily  be  read,  with  the  Sept.,  D'JOXi  which  stands  immediately 
before. — Bahr. 


PRELIMINARY   OBSERVATIONS. 

The  account  of  Solomon's  temple,  before  us, 
together  with  the  continuation  in  chap.  vii.  13-51, 
is  the  oldest,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  most  com- 
plete in  our  possession.  Hence  all  knowledge  of 
this  world-historical  building  must  adhere  to  it 
and  found  itself  upon  it.  Next  to  it  is  the  parallel 
account  in  2  Chron.  iii.,  iv.,  which  agrees  with  it  in 
all  essential  particulars,  and,  as  indeed  the  most 
recent  criticism  acknowledges,  comes  from  an 
ancient  source,  perhaps  from  the  same  with  our 
own  here.  Although  significantly  briefer,  it  gives, 
nevertheless,  some  supplementary  details  the  ac- 
curacy of  which  is  undoubted,  and  which  deserve 
all  consideration.  In  addition  to  these  two  histor- 
ical accounts,  there  is  also  the  delineation  in  "  vi- 
sion "  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  (chap.  xl.  sq.),  which 
indeed  is  very  explicit  in  respect  of  the  ground- 
plan  and  its  measurement.  In  an  earlier  period 
this  delineation  was  regarded  as  an  essential  com- 
pletion and  explanation  of  the  historical  accounts ; 
later  this  was  abandoned,  because  the  prophet 
himself  repeatedly  explains  it  as  "  a  vision  "  (chap. 
xl.  2 ;  xliii.  2,  3) ;  but  most  recently  it  has  again 
been  claimed  that  "  it  is  a  description  which,  upon 
the  whole,  differs  only  slightly  and  immaterially 
from  the  temple  before  the  exile  "  (Thenius).  And 
the  reason  assigned  is  twofold :  the  one  is  the 
style  of  the  description,  "thoroughly  jejune,  de- 
ficient in  all  taste,  giving  single  measurements  even 
to  the  width  of  the  doors  and  the  strength  of  the 
walls," — the  other  is  the  object  of  it,  which  was, 
according  to  chap,  xliii.  10,  11,  that  "the  temple 
(then  destroyed)  should  be  rebuilt  according  to 
Ezekiel's  model."  To  this,  however,  it  must  be 
objected,  (a)  That  the  statement  of  the  numbers  and 
the  measure  of  the  foundation,  extending  itself  to 
the  minutest  particulars,  instead  of  taking  away 
from  the  description  the  character  of  a  vision, 
rather  confirms  it.  The  exact  measuring  off  and 
bounding  according  to  definite  numbers  and  mea- 
surements is,  as  has  been  fully  shown  in  my  Sym- 
bolik  des  Mosaischen  Kultus  (i.  s.  127  sq.),  the  first 
requisite  for  every  space  and  structure  which  has 
an  higher,  divine  destination,  and  imparts  thereto 
the  impress  of  the  divine.  Hence,  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  all  holy  places  and  buildings  mentioned  in 
Bcripture,  the  measurement  and  numbers  are  so 
carefully  given,  and  especially  in  the  visions  which 
concern  the  one  divine  edifice,  ever  first  a  heavenly 
being,  a  "  man  with  a  measuring-chain  appears, 
who  measures  off  everything"  (Ezek.  xl.  3,  5; 
xlvii.  3  ;  Zech.  ii.  5  ;  Rev.  xi.  1 ;  xxi.  15).     The  more 


the  measuring  goes  into  detail,  so  much  the  mora 
is  the  whole  pronounced  to  be  out  and  out  divine. 
(b)  In  general  it  contradicts  the  being  and  natux* 
of  a  vision  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  pure  build- 
ing-description or  an  architectonic  direction.  But 
here,  it  must  be  added  that  it  contains  phasea 
which  do  not  admit  of  execution  in  reality,  as,  e.  g., 
the  great  stream  flowing  from  the  temple  empty- 
ing itself  into  the  Dead  Sea  (Ezek.  xlvii.  1-12).  If 
the  purpose  of  the  entire  delineation  had  been  to 
serve  as  a  building-direction  for  the  reconstruction 
of  the  temple  after  the  return  from  the  captivity, 
it  would  be  inexplicable  that  it  should  have  been 
disregarded  as  well  by  Zerubbabel  as  later  by 
Herod,  (c)  As  little  as  the  delineation  is  purely 
historical,  just  as  little  also  is  it,  as  many  have 
supposed,  a  mere  picture  of  the  fancy.  Rather, 
"  as  Ezekiel  elsewhere  loves  the  finishing  out  of 
long  allegories  (see  chap.  xvi.  23),  so  also  we  have 
here  a  very  extended  symbolical  representation 
prophetically  delivered  by  him  "  (Havernick,  Com- 
mentar,  s.  623;  cf.  Umbreit,  Commentar,  s.  257). 
Certainly  it  rests  upon  an  historical  basis,  yet  not 
upon  the  temple  as  originally  built  by  Solomon, 
but  upon  it  after  many  additions  and  alterations, 
as  it  existed  just  before  the  captivity.  Yet  it  is 
and  must  remain  a  vision,  and,  as  such,  it  has  an 
ideal  character,  from  which  every  effort  to  sepa- 
rate with  certainty  the  historical  basis  is  futile 
(comp.  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.,  ii  s.  570).  It  is  abun- 
dantly clear  that  in  the  inquiry  upon  the  temple 
of  Solomon,  only  the  most  cautious  use  of  Ezekiel's 
description  should  be  made,  and  in  no  case  is  a 
votum  decessivum  due  it. 

Besides  the  biblical  accounts,  we  have  from 
antiquity  only  that  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  viii.  3),  of 
which,  however,  Le  Clerc  properly  says :  templum 
cedificat,  quale  animo  conceperat,  non  quale  legerat  a 
Salomone  condilum.  As  he  is  not  wholly  trust- 
worthy about  the  transactions  of  his  own  time,  he 
is  still  less  in  matters  of  antiquity ;  particularly 
"  when  he  enters  upon  special  descriptions,  and 
claims  to  communicate  detailed  incidents,  and  mea- 
surements of  heights  and  size,  we  are  fully  justi- 
fied in  doubting  the  accuracy  of  his  statements  " 
(Robinson's  Palestine,  voL  i.  p.  277).  In  no  in- 
stance does  he  deserve  confidence  when  he  does 
not  agree  with  the  biblical  accounts,  and  that 
which  he  adds,  as,  e.  g.,  the  levelling  of  Moriah  and 
the  surroundijg  it  with  a  wall,  he  did  not  derive 
from  good  ancient  sources.  Just  as  untrustworthy 
are  the  statements  of  the  later  rabbins  (comp.  TaX- 
mudischen  Traktat  Middoth,  i.  e.,  Measure,  Mai- 
monides,  Jak.  Jehuda  Leo,  and  others),  since  they 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-38. 


61 


almost  exclusively  refer  to  the  temple  of  Herod, 
which  was  very  different  from  that  of  Solomon, 
and  mingle  both  together,  as  also  with  that  of 
Ezekiel. 

The  Christian  literature  respecting  our  temple 
is  not  insignificant.  The  older  essays,  from  the 
middle  of  the  sixteenth  to  the  middle  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  like  those  of  Villalpando,  Lun- 
dius,  B.  Lamy,  and  others,  embrace  the  Ezekilian 
and  Herodian  temples,  without  distinguishing 
Sharply  what  belongs  to  the  one  or  to  the  other. 
From  the  designs  adduced  by  them,  executed  in 
Greco-Roman  style,  it  is  clear  that  their  results 
are  totally  untenable.  While,  up  to  a  given  time, 
men  believed  that  they  must  represent  the  temple 
to  have  been  as  grand  and  splendid  as  possible,  in 
the  period  of  the  "  illumination  "  (Avfklaruny),  they 
fell  into  the  opposite  extreme,  and  made  it  as 
small,  unsightly,  and  insignificant  as  possible 
(J.  D.  Michaelis,  Jahn,  and  others).  But  subse- 
quently there  has  been  a  return  to  the  historical, 
biblical  account,  and  a  simple  adherence  to  it 
(Warnekrcs,  Bauer,  and  others).  The  treatise 
composed  by  Hirt,  simply  in  the  interests  of 
archaeology  and  art-history  (Der  Tempel  Salomo's 
mit  drei  Kupfertafeln,  Berlin,  1S09),  gave  occasion 
to  later  and  more  exact  researches,  in  pure  archae- 
ological and  historico-aasthetic  interests.  Here- 
upon followed  the  Inquiries  by  J.  Fr.  Von  Meyer 
(Bibeldeutungen,  1812,  and  Blatter  fiir  hbhere  Wahr- 
heit,  IX.  and  XI.) ;  Stieglitz  ( Geschichte  der  Baukunst. 
Nurnberg,  1S27);  Gruneisen  (Revision  d.  jungsten 
Forschungen  iib.  den  Salom.  Tempel.  Kunstbl. 
1831);  Kopp  (Der  Tempel  Salomo's,  Stuttgart, 
1839,  mit  Abbild.);  Keil  (Der  Tempel  Salomo's. 
Dorpat,  1839) ;  Kugler  (Eunstgesch.,  Berlin,  1841) ; 
Schnaase  (Antiq.  Bemerk.  iiber  den  Salom.  Tempel 
in  der  Gesch.  der  bild.  Kilnste  I..  Diisseld.  1843) ; 
Romberg  and  Steeger  ( Gesch.  der  Baukunst.  Leip- 
zig, 1844) ;  Merz  (Bemerk.  iiber  den  Tempel  Salomo's. 
Kunstbl.  1S44) ;  my  treatise :  Der  Salom.  Tempel  mit 
Berucksidht.  seines  Verhaltn.  zur  heil.  Architektur 
uberhaupt.  Karlsruhe,  1848) ;  Thenius  (das  vor- 
exilische  Jerusalem  u.  dessen  Tempel,  mit  Abbild.,  im 
Commentar  zu  den  Biichern  der  Konige.  Leipzig, 
1849);  Winer  (R.-W.-B.  Tempel  zu  Jerusalem. 
Leipzig,  1 848) ;  Ewald  (die  heiligen  und  konig- 
lichen  Bauten  Salomo's  in  der  Gesch.  Israels  III. 
Gottingen,  1853);  Unruh  (das  alte  Jerusalem  und 
seine  Bauwerke.  Langensalza,  1861) ;  Merz  (Tempel 
zu  Jerusalem  in  Herzogs  R.  Encyclopddie  XV. 
Gotha,  1862). 

[For  the  archaeology  and  topography  of  the  sub- 
ject, see  also  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  i.  p.  280- 
300.  Barclay,  J.  T.,  The  City  of  the  Great  King. 
Philadelphia,  1858.  Walter  Merriam  Editor,  The 
Recovery  of  Jerusalem,  &c,  by  Capt.  Wilson,  R.  E., 
and  Capt.  Warren,  R.  E.  New  York,  Appleton  & 
Co.,  1871.  Part  I.  iii-viii.  and  xii.,  also  Part  U. 
— E.  H.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  four  hun- 
dred and  eightieth  year,  &c.  This  chronological 
statement,  the  first  which  occurs  in  Scripture  for 
the  determination  of  an  entire  period,  has  given 
much  occupation  to  the  older  chronologists,  be- 
cause it  does  not  agree  with  the  statements  of  the 
rook  of  the  Judges  and  with  Acts  xiii.  20.    The 


Septuagint  also  has  440  instead  of  480.  If  on« 
add  together  the  chronological  figures  of  the  book 
of  the  Judges,  the  result  is,  for  the  period  of  the 
judges  alone  410  years,  to  which  must  be  added 
65  for  Moses  and  Joshua,  60  for  Saul  and  David, 
and  4  for  Solomon,  so  that  there  are  539  years  in 
all.  According  to  Acts  xiii.,  the  period  of  the 
judges  embraced  about  450  years ;  65  for  Moses 
and  Joshua,  40  for  Saul  (ver.  21),  40  for  David,  and 
4  for  Solomon  reckoned  in,  would  give  in  all  599 
years.  Still  farther,  Josephus,  when  he  speaks 
of  the  building  of  the  temple  (Antiq.  viii.  3,  1\ 
instead  of  480  gives  592  years;  and  in  two 
other  places  (Antiq.  xx.  10 ;  Contra  Apion.  ii.  2) 
612  years.  Most  recently  Lepsius  and  Bunsen 
have  used  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  chronology 
against  the  number  480,  and  have  sought  to  prove 
at  length,  that  it  is  to  be  reduced  to  some  three 
hundred  and  odd  years.  Finally,  Bertheau  and 
Bottcher  maintain,  with  reference  to  1  Chron.  vi. 
35  sq.,  where  the  generations  of  the  high-priests 
from  Aaron  to  Ahimaz,  a  contemporary  of  David, 
are  given,  the  number  480  is  the  sum-total  of 
twelve  generations,  40  years  to  the  generation 
(40x12=480);  consequently  there  is  no  chrono- 
logically exact,  but  rather  a  probable,  round  num- 
ber. Uncertain  and  doubtful,  all  things  considered, 
as  the  statement  of  the  text  may  seem,  we  must 
nevertheless,  with  Ewald  (Gesch.  Israels,  ii.  s.  462 
sq.),  Winer  (R.-W.-B.  ii.  s.  327),  Thenius  (Commen- 
tar, s.  56-58),  and  Rbsch  (das  Datum  des  Tempelbauei 
im  Ersten  Buehe  der  Konige.  Studien  u.  Kritiken,\&SZ, 
iv.  s.  712-742)  adhere  to  it  because,  (a)  the  precision 
of  the  statement  is  a  voucher  for  its  accuracy. 
Not  only  is  the  whole  number  of  the  years  given, 
but  also  the  year  of  the  reign  of  the  king,  even  the 
month  itself;  and  since  after  the  captivity  the 
months  had  other  names,  in  order  that  the  month 
itself  might  not  be  mistaken  for  any  other,  to  the 
name  Zif  (if)  it  is  expressly  added.  "  which  is  the 
second  month."  In  all  Scripture  there  is  no  chro- 
nological statement  more  carefully  prepared ;  and 
hence,  if  any  one  can  claim  authority,  it  is  this. 
It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  correct  it  by  others 
more  or  less  vaguely  and  generally  acknowledged, 
but  we  are  justified,  on  the  contrary,  in  consider- 
ing it  as  the  standard  for  the  rest.  This  holds  es- 
pecially (b)  in  reference  to  the  chronological  figures 
of  the  period  of  the  judges,  which  are  not  critic- 
ally and  historically  above  all  suspicion,  and  can- 
not be  added  together  simply,  but  must  be  under- 
stood as  contemporaneous  in  part,  and  standing 
side  by  side,  even  if  it  be  not  demonstrably  clear 
in  how  far,  and  with  what  particular  numbers, 
this  must  be  done.  Compare  the  different  attempts 
at  a  proof  by  Keil  (Dorptische  Beitruge,  ii.  s.  303  sq., 
and  on  Judges  iii.  7),  Tiele  (Chronologic  des  A.  T. 
s.  84),  Werner  (Rudelbach's  Zeitschrift,  1844,  iii.  and 
1845,  i.),  and  Cassel  (Das  Buck  der  Richter  im  Bi- 
belwerk,  Einl.  s.  xvi.).  (c)  The  number  450  (Acta 
xiii.  20)  is  not  given  as  chronologically  precise,  but 
only  as  approximate  (uc),  and  nothing  can  be  de- 
termined by  it.*  The  numbers  of  the  period  of 
the  judges  appear  simply  to  be  added  together  in  it, 
and  the  40  years  of  Eli  also  (1  Sam.  iv.  18)  are 
computed  with  it.  (d)  The  statements  of  Josephus 
can  all  the  less  be  taken  into  account,  since  he 
contradicts  himself,  and  gives  at  one  time  592,  and 

*  [See  on  this  verse  Lachmann's  text  on  the  authoritj  0# 
A,  B,  C,  which  removes  the  chronological  difficulty.  Qf 
Textual  and  Grammatical  on  ver.  1. — E.  H-l 


62 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


at  the  other  612.  The  first  number,  adopted  also 
by  the  Chinese  Jews,  rests  doubtless  upon  the  rab- 
binic notion  that  in  the  480  years  those  only  are 
to  be  reckoned  in  which  Israel  was  under  Israel- 
itish  judges,  and  that  those  on  the  other  hand  are 
to  be  thrown  out  (amounting  in  all  to  111),  when 
the  nation  was  subject  to  foreign  heathen  rulers — 
480  +  111=591.  This  conception  of  the  matter  is 
destitute  of  all  proof.  The  reason  for  the  number 
612  is  unknown,  (e)  The  calling  in  question  of 
the  number  480  upon  the  ground  of  the  Egyptian 
or  of  the  Assyrian  chronology,  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption  that  *h:s  chronology  is  assured,  which, 
it  is  known,.  i3  by  no  means  the  case,  and  which 
can  only  be  restored  through  a  series  of  combina- 
tions and  of  unproved  hypotheses.  How  feebly 
the  definite  statement  of  our  text  can  be  attacked 
by  it,  has  been  thoroughly  and  completely  shown 
by  Rosch  on  the  place.  (/)  The  reading  of  the 
Sept.  (440  instead  of  480)  is  not  supported  by  any 
ancient  version  or  MS.,  and  rests  either  upon  the 
confounding  of  the  sign  3=80  with  O=40,  or  upon 
some  peculiar  and  even  arbitrary  reckoning,  (g) 
The  view  that  480  is  the  product  of  12  x40,  is  in- 
admissible, because  in  that  event  the  four  years 
of  Solomon's  reign  are  not  in  the  estimate,  and 
must  be  added  to  the  480  years,  while  in  fact  they 
are  included  within  them.  Had  the  reckoning  been 
made  according  to  generations,  the  author  would 
have  written  484.  Apart  from  this,  twelve  gene- 
rations are  supplied  us  from  1  Chron.  vi.  only  when 
Aaron  himself,  who,  according  to  Exod.  vii.  7 ; 
Numb,  xxxiii.  38  sq.,  was  eighty-three  years  old  at 
the  time  of  the  departure  from  Egypt,  is  taken 
into  the  account.  Besides,  there  is  no  proof  that 
in  the  computation  of  long  periods  of  time  human 
age  is  regularly  set  down  at  forty  years.  As  Mo- 
ses was  120  years,  Aaron  123,  Joshua  110,  Eli  98, 
&c,  and  generally,  a  great  age  was  then  usual, 
the  average  of  human  life  must  certainly  be  placed 
higher  than  at  forty  years.     Comp.  Thenius. 

Ver.  2.  And  the  house  which  king  Solomon, 
4c.  The  place  where  the  temple  was  built,  was, 
according  to  2  Chron.  iii.  1,  Mount  .Moriah  (comp. 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  18  sq.),  which  our  author  presupposes 
as  sufficiently  known.  [The  uneven  rock  of  Mo- 
riah had  to  be  levelled,  and  the  inequalities  filled  by 
immense  substructions  of  "  great  stones,"  "  costly 
stones,"  "  hewed  stones."  Stanley,  Jewish  Church. 
— E.  H.]  In  vers.  2-10  the  measurement  and  sin- 
gle portions  of  the  structure  are  given  The  mea- 
surements are  determined  according  to  the  cubit, 
and  indeed  the  older  (2  Chron.  iii.  3),  which  The- 
nius reckons  at  one  foot  six  inches  Rhenish,  and 
one  foot  four  inches  Paris,  measure  [=  1  foot  six 
inches  Eng.  measure].  Here,  and  in  all  the  subse- 
quent statements,  they  refer  to  the  interior  spaces. 
The  component  parts  of  the  structure  are  the 
house,  the  porch,  and  the  "chambers  round  about" 
(Umbau).  The  first  is  th«  building  proper,  to 
which  both  others  are  attached  as  additional  and 
subsidiary.  The  whole  was  situated  according  to 
the  points  of  the  compass.  The  front,  or  entrance- 
Bide,  was  towards  the  east,  the  rear  wall  was  to- 
wards the  west,  the  two  sides  towards  the  south 
and  norlh  (1  Kings  vii.  39;  Ezek.  viii.  16),  which 
also  was  the  position  of  the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxvi. 
18  sq. ;   xxxvi.  33   sq.).     The   main   building,   the 

ho'ise  (JV3n),  was  built  of  thick  stone  walls  (vers. 

8,  7   and  had  within  two  compartments :  the  front 


is   called  in  ver.  3   "  the  temple  of  the  house " 

(JY3n  ^D'HJt  an(i  the  rear,  in  ver.  5,  "the  oracle" 

("I'Tin)-     The  word  ~>yn  comes  from  the  Arabic, 

to  be  large,  high  (2  Chron.  iii.  5),  hence  the  front 

compartment  was  "  the  great  house  "  (ijnan  JV3il) 

in  contradistinction  with  the  rear,  which  was  the 
shorter  half,  and  also  lower.  The  Tulg.,  after  Je- 
rome, translates  the  word  V3^  by  oraculum,  i.  «., 

oraculi  sedes,  and  the  Lex.  Cyritti  explains  the  Safiip 
of  the  Sept.  by  xPWaTl(!T^P"n>-  It  is,  however, 
not  derived  from  ~\21  =  to  speak,  but  from  13T 

in  its  primary  signification  =  to  adjoin,  to  follow 
after  (comp.  Dietrich  in  Gesen.),  and  signifies,  also, 
simply  the  compartment  in  the  rear,  following  upon 
the  large  room.  The  windows  which  the  house 
had  (ver.  4),  were  certainly  placed  high,  where  it 
overtopped  the  "  chambers  round  about "  (Umbau) 
with  their  three  stories.  How  many  windows 
there  were,  whether  upon  all  the  four  sides  of  the 
house,  or  only  upon  three,  or  only  upon  the  two 
length-walls,  we  do  not  gather  from  the  text.  The 
designs  of  Thenius  and  Keil  place  them  all  around 
the  house,  with  the  exception  of  the  facade,  where 
the  porch  was.  Nor  is  the  size  of  the  windows 
given,  but  it  is  added  D'OOX  D'SpL",  »'•  «-,  not 

"  wide  within,  narrow  without "  (Luther,  after  the 
Chald.),  but  "  windows  with  closed  beams,  i.  e., 
windows  the  lattice  of  which  could  not  be  opened 
and  shut  at  pleasure  as  in  ordinary  dwelling- 
houses,  2  Kings  xiii.  17;  Dan.  vi.  11  "  (Keil).  The 
lattice  consisted  of  strong  cross-pieces,  and  not  of 
wiekerwork.  The  window-opening  may  have  been 
certainly,  according  to  the  account  of  the  Chaldec 
and  of  the  rabbins,  inasmuch  as  the  walls  were 
very  thick,  wider  on  the  inside  than  on  the  out- 
side, as  is  the  case  in  the  windows  of  Egyptiar. 
buildings,  and  answers  for  the  purposes  of  admit- 
ting light  and  air.  and  of  letting  off  smoke,  onlj 
there  is  nothing  of  it  in  the  words  of  the  text. 
Vers.  3— i.  And  the  porch  before  the  temple 

of  the  house,  Ac.     As  the  word  DP1N  comes  from 

^X  i  '■  «•!  to  go  before,  it  signifies  also  a  projection : 
but  we  are  not,  as  in  1  Kings  vii.  6,  where  D'llSJCT 

(pillars)  is  expressly  added,  to  represent  it  as  a 
portico  or  a  colonnade.  It  stretched  across  the 
entire  facade  of  the  house,  and  its  length  was 
equal  to  the  breadth  of  the  house,  viz.,  20  cubits. 
Its  breadth,  i.  e.,  its  depth,  measured  10  cubits. 
The  text  does  not  mention  the  height,  but  2  Chron. 
iii.  4  gives  it  at  120  cubits,  which  is  certainly  in- 
correct ;  for,  as  Thenius  properly  remarks,  (1)  "  a 
structure  of  this  sort  could  not  have  been  desig- 
nated as  an  D^X  i  but  must  have  been  called  a 
^IJO  (tower);    (2)  the  chimney -like  proportions. 

20,  10,  120,  are  not  only  inconsistent  with  (the  no- 
tion of)  the  pylon  of  a  temple,  but  are  also  stati- 
cally impossible.  [If  it  were  but  10  cubits  (IE 
feet)  deep,  it  seems  impossible  that  it  could  have 
been  120  cubits  (180  feet)  high:  and  the  theory 
of  Mr.  Ferguson  that  the  height  refers  to  a  "  super 
structure  on  the  temple,"  would  make  the  tenpl» 
itself  a  very  grotesque  building.  See  the  art, 
however,  on  the  Temple  in  Smith's  Dictionary  o) 
the  Bible,  vol.  iv.  New  York,  1870.— E.  H.]     From 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-38. 


63 


tnese  considerations  we  cannot,  with  justice,  sup- 
pose the  chronicler  to  be  guilty  of  arbitrary  exag- 
geration, but  we  must  rather  suspect  the  text  of 
corruption,  which  is  all  the  more  probable,  since 
the  verse  in  question  bears  even  elsewhere  marks 
of  corruption."     According  to  v.  Meyer's  probable 

sonjecture,   instead   of  D'IB'i'l  HSD,  we  should 

read:  D'X'T  JTION,  i-  «•,  20  cubits  (in  Ezek.  xlii. 
16  also,  whether  the  reading  be  JTON  or  JVNS  is 
uncertain).  The  latter  is  adopted  by  the  Syr.,  the 
Arab.,  and  the  Sept.  (Cod.  Alexand.).  Thenius 
and  Bertheau  maintain,  on  the  other  hand,  that  as 

the  house  was  30  cubits  high,  the  sign  5=30  was 
originally  in  the  text,  but  that  through  the  oblite- 
ration of  the  upper  portion  of  the  letter  it  became 
3=20.  And  certainly,  in  behalf  of  the  supposi- 
tion that  it  was  30  cubits  high,  we  may  urge,  in 
part,  the  absence  of  any  statement  of  the  height 
in  our  text,  which  is  the  more  easily  explicable  if 
the  height  ot  the  "  porch  "  and  of  the  temple  were 
the  same,  and,  in  part,  the  circumstance  that  the 
side-building  was  20  cubits  high  on  the  outside, 
consequently  the  "  porch  "  would  not  have  been 
especially  distinctive  or  prominent  had  it  been  of 
the  same  height  (Keil).  That  the  "  porch  "  had 
thick  stone  enclosure-walls  with  a  wide  entrance 
(Thenius),  cannot  be  concluded  from  the  obscure 
passage  of  Ezek.  xli.  26 ;  still  less  is  the  view  es- 
tablished that  each  side-wall  had  a  window.  To 
me  it  seems  that  the  '•  porch  "  had  only  side-walls 
and  a  ceiling,  but  to  have  been  entirely  open  in 
front,  so  that  windows  were  unnecessary.  The 
extremely  inadequate  description  of  the  "porch," 
contrasted  with  the  very  careful  description  of  the 
house  and  of  both  its  compartments,  can  only  be 
founded  in  the  fact  that  it  did  not  belong  especially, 
or  as  an  integral  part,  to  the  sanctuary,  but  was 
only  a  subordinate  addition  thereto. 

Ver.  5.  And  against  the  wall  of  the  house 
he  built,  &c.     The  word  jAi^   comes  from   j)^ 

sternere,  to  spread  or  strew  something  for  a  bed, 
and  means  literally  stratum,  a  bed  (Ps.  lxiii.  6; 
Job  xvii.  13).  Symmachus  renders  it  by  Kara- 
arpufia.  So  this  building  was  very  properly  called, 
because  it  spread  itself  out  against  the  lower  half 
of  the  house  30  cubits  high,  and,  as  it  were,  lay 
upon  it.     jw  is  gen.  com.  and  stands  as  collective 

masculine  in  vers.  5  and  10,  of  the  whole  of  the 
side-structure  ("  chambers  "),  but  it  is  feminine  in 
ver.  6,  when  the  single,  or  three  stories  of  the 
same,  one  over  the  other,  are  mentioned  (see  Gesen. 
on  the  word).    The  J"IN  before  JliTp  is  scarcely  the 

sign  of  the  accus.,  "  reaching  to  the  walls  "  (Keil), 
but  a  preposition,  and  defines  more  particularly 

the  preceding  -pp — ?)},  as  indeed  both  preposi- 
tions elsewhere  are  synonymous  (comp.  Ps.  iv.  7 
with  lxvii.  2).  If  it  can  mean  simply  "  in  connec- 
tion with  the  walls  "  (Thenius),  then  the  statement 
is  that  (Umbau)  "  the  chambers  round  about " 
were  affixed  to  the  waDs.  It  went  round  the  en- 
tire house,  so  that  the  two  side-walls  of  the  porch 
above  stood  free,  and  caused  the  latter  to  appear  all 
the  more  distinctive.  The  three  stories  one  above 
the  other  of  this  side-structure  (ver.  5),  had  each 

lilDV.  •'■  e.,  literally  "ribs"  [joists,  so  Bp.  Hors- 
ley  ot  the  plac«  — E.  H.],  which  can  mean  nothing 


else  than  that  they  were  "divided  by  partitions 
into  distinct  compartments  "  (Merz).  It  comes  to 
the  same  thing  when  Keil,  who  rejects  "  ribs  "  as 
the  meaning,  translates  nevertheless  "  side-cham 
bers."  According  to  Ezek.  xli.  6,  where,  however, 
the  reading  is  not  entirely  certain,  the  number  of 
these  chambers  was  33:  according  to  Josephus, 
with  whom  the  moderns  agree,  there  were  30 — 
viz.,  12  upon  each  side-wall  of  the  house,  and  6 
upon  the  rear-wall. — Ver.  6  states  how  the  entire 
side-structure  ("chambers  round  about")  were 
built  into  the  chief-structure,  the  house  itself. 
The  wall  of  the  latter  had,  upon  the  outside,  rests 
(nijTUD,   literally  contractions,   lessenings   ["for 

he  placed  stays  with  retractions  against  the 
house."  Bp.  Horsley. — E.  H.]).  It  was  thickest  at 
the  ground,  and  kept  this  thickness  to  the  height 
of  five  cubits ;  then  succeeded  a  rest  (like  a  settle), 
which  was  one  cubit  broad.  Then  again,  after  an 
elevation  of  five  cubits,  there  was  another  rest,  one 
cubit  broad ;  there  was  also  another  rest  of  like 
height  and  breadth.  Upon  these  rests  the  ends  of 
the  beams,  which  served  for  the  ceiling  of  each 
story,  were  laid,  and  had  in  them  their  support- 
The  outer  wall  of  the  side-structure  had  no  rests, 
but  was  built  perpendicularly ;  hence,  as  our  verse 
states,  the  uppermost  story  was  one  cubit  broader 
(deeper)  than  the  middle,  and  the  middle  again  was 
one  cubit  broader  than  the  lowermost.  The  wall 
also  of  the  house  must  have  been  very  thick  below 
— at  least  four  cubits,  for  its  thickness  above  the 
side-structure,  bearing  in  mind  the  rests,  amounted 
certainly  to  one  cubit.  Thenius  and  Keil  place  tho 
thickness  at  six  cubits,  but  this  seems  unnecessary. 
The  reason  given  for  this  mode  of  construction 
is,  "  that  the  beams  should  not  be  fastened  into  the  walls 
of  the  house,"  i.  e.,  that  the  large,  costly  stones 

should  remain  whole  and  uninjured  (nobc').  that 

no  holes  should  be  cut  into  them  for  the  purpose 
of  inserting  the  ends  of  the  ceiling-beams.  Ver. 
7,  which  is  a  parenthesis,  refers  to  this,  and  means 
that  "  all  the  stone-work  had  been  so  prepared  in 
advance,  that  in  the  actual  putting  up  of  the  build- 
ing, stone-cutting  was  no  longer  necessary  "  (The- 
nius). According  to  ver.  8,  the  entire  side-struc- 
ture had  but  one  door,  which  was  placed  on  the 
south  side  :  whether  in  the  middle  (Thenius)  or  at 
the  foremost  apartment  near  the  porch  (Ewald, 
Merz)  is  uncertain;  probably  the  latter.  That  a 
door  within  the  house  opened  into  the  side-struc- 
ture, has  been  erroneously  concluded  from  Ezek. 
xli.  5.  The  walls  of  the  house  were  nowhere 
broken  through,  and  certainly  the  historical  ac- 
count knows  nothing  of  such  a  door.  The  wind- 
ing stairway  obviously  was  within  the  side-struc- 
ture. The  word  JOT  in  ver.  8,  and  in  Ezek.  xli.  5, 
9,  11,  is  like  jflV'  in  vers.  5  and  10,  in  the  singular, 

and  stands  collectively  for  the  whole  of  the  side- 
chambers. — The  text  says  nothing  of  the  perpen- 
dicular outside  wall  of  the  side-structure.  The- 
nius appeals  to  Ezek.  xli.  9  for  the  supposition  that 
this  was  a  stone-wall  five  cubits  thick.  In  that 
case  it  would  have  been  as  thick  as  the  side-cham- 
bers of  the  lower  story  were  broad  (ver.  6) :  and 
why  should  the  wall  of  these  have  been  so  thick  1 
Then,  too,  the  ceiling-beams  of  these  chambers 
would,  of  necessity,  have  been  inserted  into  tiles'* 
walls,  which  is  inconsistent  with  ver.  '.     HeDc* 


64 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS 


it  seems  to  me  much  more  probable  that  this  ex- 
terior wall,  as  indeed  the  entire  side-structure, 
which  was  only  subordinate  in  any  event,  was 
built  of  cedar. — The  text  does  not  state  the  pur- 
pose or  design  of  these  "chambers  round  about." 
They  served  for  the  preservation  of  temple  uten- 
sils and  temple  stores  (Keil),  perhaps  also  of  con- 
secrated gifts  (Ewald) ;  but  they  were  scarcely 
"  expensively  furnished  bedrooms  "  (Thenius). 

Vers.  9-10.  And  so  he  built  the  house,  Ac. 
In  roofing,  the  building  of  the  house  was  ended. 
But  we  must  not,  as  many  formerly,  and  even 
Hirt  himself  now,  fancy  a  gable-roof.  The  silence 
of  the  text  respecting  its  form  allows  us  to  presup- 
pose that  it  was,  as  with  all  oriental  buildings,  a 
flat  roof  furnished  with  a  parapet  (comp.  Deut. 

xxii.  8).    J£33=1  is  not,  with  Merz,  to  be  understood 

of  the  wainscoting,  but,  with  Keil,  of  the  roofing, 
for  the  account  of  the  former  begins  first  at  ver. 
15.   D'33  are  not  planks,  as  the  word  for  the  most 

part  is  translated,  but  beams,  as  such  were  cer- 
tainly indispensable  for  roofing.  rh"lb>  are  scarcely 

"hewn  cedar-timbers  "  (Thenius),  but  boards  which 
were  laid  upon  the  beams.     The  0^1X3  refer  to 

both  the  preceding.  "Without  doubt  this  cedar 
covering  was  overlaid  with  firm  flooring,  perhaps 
even  with  stone  slabs.  Thenius  very  unnecessa- 
rily wishes   D'aS   to  be  read  for  D'nj ,  and  then 

suggests  "  a  flat  roof  vaulting  "  but  in  the  ancient 
Orient  there  were  never  any  arched  roofs.  In  ver. 
10  JJivn  is  again  collective,  for,  according  to  it, 

not  the  whole  side-structure,  but  each  of  its  three 
stories,  was  five  cubits  high  inside.  The  men- 
tion of  the  side-structure  here  is  in  reference  to 
the  roofing.  While  ver.  9  speaks  of  the  roof- 
ing of  the  house,  ver.  10  states  how  it  is  re- 
lated to  that  of  the  side-structure.  Therefore  the 
height  is  again  mentioned,  with  the  observation, 
"  and  he  fastened  the  house  with  timber  of  cedar." 
If  Solomon  be  the  subject  with  the  preceding  p>l 

(Thenius),  or  JAi^  (Keil),  the  sense  is :  the  roofing 

of  the  three  stories  (five  cubits  high  each)  of  the 
side-structure  was  done  with  cedar  timbers,  which, 
with  their  ends,  lay  upon  the  rests  of  the  walls  of 
the  temple,  and  likewise  united  the  side-structure 
with  the  house,  thus  making  it  a  complete  whole. 
Entirely  false  is  the  translation :  he  covered  the 
house  with  cedar-wood  (Gesenius),  as  if  the  stone- 
walls were  overlaid,  upon  the  inside,  with  cedar, 
of  which  there  is  nowhere  the  slightest  trace. 
That  the  roof  of  the  side-structure,  moreover,  was 
horizontal,  level,  like  that  of  the  house  itself, 
scarcely  requires  mention. 

Vers.  11-19.  And  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came  to  Solomon,  &c.  The  interruption  of  the 
description  of  the  temple,  by  these  verses,  shows 
plainly  that  what  is  therein  stated  took  place  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  building.  From  chap.  ix. 
2,  comp.  with  iii.  5,  it  is  clear  that  we  have  to  think 
not  of  a  revelation  of  Jehovah,  but  of  a  divine 
promise  communicated  through  a  prophet  (per- 
haps Nathan),  such  as  happened  to  David  (2  Sam. 
vii.  12  sq.  and  1  Chron.  xxii.  10),  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made  in  ver.  12.  Solomon  thereby  obtained 
the  promise  that  Jehovah,  as  He  had  formerly 
dwelt  amon  j  the  people  in  a  "  tabernacle,"  for  the 


sign  and  pledge  of  the  covenant  established  with 
Israel,  would  dwell  in  the  house  about  to  be  built, 
and  that  the  covenant-relation  also  should  con- 
tinue, if  the  king  upon  his  part  should  keep  the 
covenant,  and  walk  in  the  ordinances  of  Jeho- 
vah. Such  a  promise  necessarily  encouraged  and 
strengthened  Solomon  in  his  great  and  difficult 
undertaking,  as  it  reminded  and  urged  him  to  the 
performance  of  his  sacred  obligations. 

Vers.  14-19.  So  Solomon  built  the  house,  4c 
Ver.  14  resumes  the  description  of  the  building, 
which  had  been  interrupted  by  vers.  11-13,  and 
which  from  ver.  15  is  applied  to  its  interior.  The 
overlaying  of  walls  with  wood,  which  again  was 
covered  with  metal,  and  gold  in  particular,  is  an 
old  Oriental  custom,  extending  from  Phoenicia  to  Ju- 
dea  (comp.  Muller,  Archaeology,  translated  by  John 
Leitch,  p.  214  sq. ;  Schnaase,  Gesch.  der  bild.  Kiinste, 
i.  s.  160;  Weiss,  Kostumkunde,  i.  s.  365).  The 
covering  with  gold  was  not  mere  gilding,  but  con- 
sisted of  thin  gold  plates  (Symb.  des  Mos.  Kultus,  i.  s. 
60).  According  to  2  Chron.  iii.  6,  the  walls  also  were 
adorned  with  precious  stones,  which  is  credible 
enough  since  these  were  expressly  named  amongst 
the  objects  which  Solomon  obtained  in  abundance 
from  Ophir  (chap.  x.  11),  and  it  was  the  custom  in 
the  Orient  to  make  use  of  them  in  buildings  and 
utensils  (comp.  the  same,  s.  280,  294,  297).— Ver. 
16  says  explicitly  and  distinctly  that  the  main 
space  was  separated  from  the  Debir  by  a  cedar 
wall ;  hence  surely  it  is  an  error  upon  the  part  of 
Thenius  when,  by  an  appeal  to  Ezek.  xli.  3,  he 
supposes,  in  place  of  this  wall,  a  stone-wall  two 
cubits  thick  covered  with  wood  and  gold.  Even 
in  the  tabernacle  of  the  covenant  it  was  not  a 
plank- wall  (Ex.  xxvi.  15),  but  a  curtain  merely 
(ver.  33)  which  separated  its  two  divisions  from 
each  other.  Even  the  massively-constructed 
Herodian  temple  had  no  such  wall,  of  which  be- 
sides, the  Rabbins,  according  to  Josephus  (Bell. 
Jud.  i.,  5,  6,  5),  knew  nothing  (Lightfoot,  Descrip. 
temp.  Hieros.,  chap.  xv.  1).  The  cedar  wall,  for 
the  rest,  since  it  reached  from  the  ground  to  the 
beams  of  the  ceiling,  must  have  been  thirty  cubits 

high.      The  addition   "pn  EHpS5  to  "V3li>  shows 

the   design  of  the  latter,   and  proves    that  the 

VT1  does  not  mean  oraculum  or  locutorium,  for 

had  it  this  signification,  its  object  would  havo 
been  denoted  by  the  word  itself,  and  no  explana- 
tory addition  would  have  been  necessary. — Ac- 
cording to  vers.  16-20  the  two  divisions  of  the 
house  were  of  the  following  dimensions :  the 
room  at  the  farthest  end  took  off  from  the  entire 
length  of  the  building  (which  was  60  cubits), 
twenty,  and  from  its  height  (30  cubits),  twenty. 
It  was  also,  as  is  expressly  stated  in  ver.  20, 
twenty  cubits  long,  broad,  and  high,  and  conse- 
quently was  a  complete  cube  in  shape.  The  front 
compartment  was  forty  cubits  long,  twenty  broad, 
and  thirty  high.  For  since  its  breadth  and  height 
are  not  given  here  (ver.  17),  it  must  have  had  the 
breadth  and  height  of  the  house  mentioned  above 
(ver.  2),  otherwise,  as  in  the  case  of  the  rear  com- 
partment, it  would  have  been  expressly  noticed. 
That  the  front  compartment  was  not  only  longer, 
but  higher  also,  larger  generally  than  the  rear,  its 

name  even  proves  ^o\"]  (see  above  on  ver.  2).     It 

is  hence  decidedly  incorrect  when  Kurtz  and  Mere 


CHAPTER  VI.   1-38. 


64 


suppose  that  the  front  compartment  was  only 
twenty  cubits  high,  that  over  the  entire  house 
there  was  an  upp^i  room  ten  cubits  high  fitted  up 
for  the  conservatioi  of  the  reliques  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  coveua  tit,  and  that  this  room  is  desig- 
nated by  what  2  Chron.  iii.   9  names  nvbjjn,  and 

which  the  Sept.  renders  by  to  v-epCmv.  The 
following  considerations  make  against  this  view: 
(1)  How  could  one  have  reached  this  supposed 
upper  chamber  ?  Not  from  the  side-structure,  for 
the  ceiling  of  its  uppermost  story  did  not  reach 
to  the  floor  of  the  supposed  "  upper  room :"  the 
thick  walls  of  the  house,  moreover,  had  no  door 
above  the  level  of  the  side-structure.  Just  as  little 
could  one  have  reached  it  from  the  interior  of  the 
house,  for  in  neither  compartment  was  there  a 
stairway  which  led  thither :  there  was  no  opening 
in  the  ceiling.  (2)  The  windows  of  the  house 
(ver.  4)  were  above  the  side-structure,  which  (the 
ceilings  of  the  three  stories  being  taken  into  the 
account)  was  certainly  eighteen  cubits  high:  there 
remained,  therefore,  the  house  being  thirty  cubits 
high,  but  twelve  cubits  for  the  windows.  If  now 
from  these  twelve  cubits,  ten  are  allowed  for  the 
upper  room,  what  space  remains  for  the  windows, 
which  certainly  were  not  very  small,  and  which 
were  necessary  to  admit  light  and  air  into  the 
house  ?  (3)  From  the  extremely  abrupt  words  of 
the  Chronicles,  "  And  the  alioth  he  covered  with 
gold,"  it  follows  only  that  alioth  (upper  chambers) 
were  somewhere,  but  not  where  they  were ;  and 
since  the  Chronicles  in  its  abbreviated  description 
says  nothing  of  the  entire  side-structure  with  its 
stories  and  chambers,  we  have  at  least  as  much 
right,  with  Griineisen.  to  suppose  the  alioth  to  be 
the  chambers  of  the  side-structure,  as  an  upper 
room  extending  the  length  of  the  whole  building, 
and  which  is  nowhere  else  mentioned.  The  rel- 
iques of  the  tabernacle  could  easily  have  been 
preserved  in  the  several  chambers  of  the  side- 
structure.  [For  the  other  view,  see  Art.  Temple, 
above  cited.  But  our  author  seems  to  me  to  have 
fully  disposed  of  this  doubtful  matter.  It  would 
seem  impossible  from  our  author's  reasoning  that 
there  should  have  been  a  large  upper  chamber 
over  the  "  holy  place." — E.  H.]  If  now  we  must, 
according  to  all  the  accounts,  regard  the  front 
compartment  as  thirty  cubits  high,  the  question 
still  remains  respecting  its  relation  to  the  rear, 
which  was  but  twenty  cubits  high.  Stieglitz  and 
Griineisen  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  rear  com- 
partment, viewed  externally,  was  ten  cubits  lower 
than  the  front,  which  was  the  case  also  with 
Egyptian  temples  [and  like  the  chancel  in  the  so- 
called  Gothic  church.— E.  H.].  But  ver.  2  con- 
flicts with  this :  it  gives  the  height  of  the  entire 
house  at  thirty  cubits,  and  does  not  limit  it  to  the 
front  compartment.  Apart  from  all  other  consid- 
erations, we  cannot  appeal  to  the  adytum  of  the 
Egyptian  temples,  because  it  was  not  connected 
with  the  fore-temple,  but  was  separated  from  it 
by  chambers  and  passages,  and  was  an  indepen- 
dent structure  (Miiller,  Archaeology,  p.  190  sg.; 
Leitch  (Germ*_i  edit.)  s.  258 ;  Schnaase,  Gesch. 
der  bild.  Eiinste,  i.  s.  392).  Wo  miiPt  certainly  as- 
sume that  there  was  a  room  over  the  rear  com- 
partment ten  cubits  high.  Bottcher  thinks  this 
was  open  in  front  and  only  having  chains  hanging 
as  its  partition  (ver.  21);  in  itself,  "very  improba- 
Me  "  this  (Winer),  and  besides  it  is  against  ver. 


16,  according  to  which  the  cedar  wall  before  the 
holy  of  holies  went  from  the  floor  to  the  beams  of 
the  ceiling.  Besides,  ver.  20  does  not  say  that  tha 
cedar  wall  was  only  twenty  cubits  high,  but  onl) 
brings  into  prominence  the  fact  that  on  all  its  sides 
the  holy  of  holies  measured  twenty  cubits.  As 
the  room  in  question  was  inaccessible,  Ewald 
rightly  observes  that  it  "  had  been  left  apparently 
entirely  empty."  It  had  no  especial  design,  and 
was  what  it  was  simply  that  the  holy  of  holies 
might  be  a  perfect  cube.  Upon  this  point  more 
will  be  remarked  farther  on,  in  respect  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  temple.  For  particular  words  on 
vers.  17-20,  see  above,  Textual  and  Gram. 

Vers.  20-22.  And  covered  the  altar,  Ac. 
And  he  overlaid  the  altar  with  cedar.  Thus  only 
should  we  translate  the  concluding  words  of  tha 
20th  verse,  and  not,  with  Le  Clerc,  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
and  others — he  overlaid  the  altar  of  cedar,  namely, 
with  gold  like  the  rest.  Apart  from  the  fact  that 
rOTO  is  without  the  article,  and  not  in  the  con- 
struct, the  "  gold ''  is  first  mentioned  in  the  con- 
cluding words  of  the  22d  verse.     There  the  altar  is 

more    specifically    referred    to    by  T3if)  -  X"X , 

which  cannot  mean  "  which  belonged  to  the  De- 
bir,"  in  the  sense  that  it  stood  within  it;  for  the 
holy  of  holies  was  designed  only  as  the  receptacle 
of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (ver.  19),  and  never  had 
an  altar.  The  altar  of  incense  in  the  holy  place  is 
meant.     Its  position  was  "  in  front  of  the  curtain  " 

('JS^i)  (Exod.  xl.  26),  i.  e.,  "before  the  ark  of  the 

testimony  "  (Exod.  xl.  5),  and  therewith  also  "  be- 
fore Jehovah"  (Lev.  xvi.  12,  18),  enthroned  above 
the  ark.  It  stood  also  in  special  relation  to 
the  Debir.  If  now  this  altar  were  "  overlaid "' 
with  cedar,  we  are  shut  up  to  the  supposition  that 
"  the  body  of  it  was  of  stone  "  (Keil).  But  this 
was  the  peculiar,  distinguishing  feature  of  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering,  which  was  required  to  be  com- 
posed of  earth  or  of  stones  (Exod.  xx.  24,  25),  and 
the  framo  of  which,  consequently,  was  filled  with 
the  same  material  (comp.  Symbol,  des  Mos.  Kult,  i. 
s.  481,  4S8).  The  much  smaller  altar  of  incense 
was  a  simple  frame  with  a  covering,  which  was 
wanting  in  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (Exod.  xxx. 
1-3).  In  distinction  with  the  latter,  it  is  named  in 
Ezek.  xli.  22,  "the  altar  of  wood."  The  body  of 
it  could  not  have  been  of  stone.  These  difficulties 
disappear  only  through  the  translation  of  the  Sept.: 
Kal  kno'njot  dvoiacriipLov  nedpov     It  read  also  b'V5! 

instead  of  e]X'l,  which  Thenius  holds  to  be  genu- 
ine. In  that  case  the  absence  of  the  article  in 
n3TO  is  explained,  as  well  also  as  the  concluding 

observation  in  ver.  22 :  And  the  whole  altar  [of 
cedar]  before  the  Debir,  he  overlaid  with  gold. 

The  words  in  ver.  21  are  obscure  and  difficult 
"l3y\  (and  he  made  a  partition)  by  the  chains 

of  gold  before  the  oracle  (Debir).     Thenius  is  of 

opinion  that  the  subject  here,  viz.,  rmsrvnN  ia 

omitted,  and  then  translates,  "  he  hung  the  cur- 
tain before  the  Debir  with  gold  chains."  This 
curtain  was  before  the  door  of  the  latter,  and  was 
hung  in  such  a  manner  that  it  could  be  moved 
this  way  and  that,  "  by  means  of  golden  chainlets 
each  Tv-ovid«d  with  an  end-ring,  UDOn  a  round  stiok 


56 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ipon  which  these  rings  were  made  to  siide."  But 
this  mysterious  chain-work,  as  Winer  names  it, 
is  by  no  means  "  forever  explained  and  done 
with,"  by  this  suggestion.  For,  according  to  it, 
the  chief  thing  in  the  text,  the  mention  of  the  cur- 
tain, is  wanting.  But  no  MS.  nor  any  ancient  ver- 
sion names  this  supposed  missing  object.  And  if 
any  one  wish  to  insert  it,  then  must  the  words 
"  and  he  overlaid  it  with  gold  "  refer  to  the  cur- 
tain; and  this  is  impossible.  Besides,  the  text 
says  only  "  with  chains,"  and  does  not  know  any- 
thing either  of  end-rings  or  of  round  sticks,  both 
of  which  are  essential,  and  far  more  necessary 
than  the  "  chainlet "  for  the  sliding,  this  way  and 
that,  of  the  curtain.  With  De  Wette,  Gesenius, 
Ewald,  and  Merz,  -QJ?'  is  to  be  translated,  he 
bolied,  as  in  Chaldaic  N"UJ?  means  a  bolt,  and  for 
DrV"l2 ,  »'■  «•,  bolt  (Exod.  xxvi.  26),  the  Chaldee  has 

Till?.  But  then  the  question  is,  what  was  bolted  ? 
According  to  Calmet  and  others,  it  was  only  the 
door  of  the  Debir,  which  had  two  leaves.  But  in 
that  case  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  take 
away  the  chains  on  the  day  of  Atonement — a  thing 
nowhere  hinted  at,  and  in  itself  highly  improba- 
ble. Obviously  the  bolting  chains  were  not  a 
movable  but  a  fixed  contrivance  running  across 
the  entire  wall.  They  held  together  the  parts  of 
the  wall  made  of  cedar,  like  the  bolts  on  the 
planks  of  the  tabernacle  (Exod.  xxvi.  26),  and 
likewise  represented  the  Debir  as  a  barred,  closed 
room.      A    further   argument   for  this :    mpim 

comes  from  pm ,  which  means  to  bind,  to  chain 
together,  and  in  Arabic  to  shut  up,  and  the  ex- 
pression ]isv  the  concealed,  the  closed,  is  used  by 

Ezek.  (vii.  22)  of  the  holy  of  holies.  The  suppo- 
sition of  v.  Meyer  and  Gruneisen,  that  there  was 
in  the  cedar  wall  an  opening  above  the  door, 
which  like  the  capitals  of  the  two  brazen  columns 
was  covered  (chap.  vii.  15  sq. ;  2  Chron.  iii.  16) 
with  a  net  or  lattice-work,  is  just  as  untenable  as 
that  the  chains  served  the  purpose  of  decoration 
only  (Jahn). — In  ver.  22  all  that  had  been  said 
hitherto  about  the  gilding,  [done  with  thin  plates 
and  not  with  gold-leaf. — E.  H.]  is  again  brought 
together  and  emphasized.  It  is  by  no  means  de- 
clared by  the  expression  "  the  whole  house,"  that 
the  interior  of  the  porch  was  gilt  (Thenius ) :  it 
refers  only  to  the  holy  place  and  to  the  holy  of 
holies,  since  the  porch  is  explicitly  distinguished 
from  the  house  (Keil). 

Vers.  23-28. — And  within  the  oracle  (Debir) 
he  made  two  chambers,  &c.  The  reason  why 
olive-wood  was  used  in  the  construction  of  these 
figures  was  owing  to  its  firmness  and  durability. 
In  Greece  it  was  employed  to  make  images  of  the 
gods  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  ii.  s.  172).  The  ety- 
mology of  the  word  21-13  is  to  this  day  so  vari- 
ously stated,  that  nothing  reliable  can  be  gathered 
from  it  respecting  the  form  and  shape  of  the 
cherubim.  From  Exod.  xxv.  18  sq.  and  xxxvii.  7 
$q.,  we  gather  only  thus  much — that  the  cheru- 
bim over  the  ark  had  two  wings,  and  that  their 
/aces  were  opposite  each  other  and  directed  to- 
wards the  ark.  Nor  do  we  learn  anything  more 
from  our  text  and  from  2  Chron.  iii.  10-13.  It  is 
only  said  that  each  was  ten  cubits  high,  and  that 
each  of  the  wings  measured  five  cubits;  that  they 
itood  apon  their  feet,  and  that  their  faces  were 
turned  towards  the  house,  i.  e.,  towards  the  large 


compartment,  and  also  how  that  those  upon  thi 
ark  of  the  covenant  could  have  had  but  one  face. 

Ezekiel,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his  vision  of  the 
throne  of  God  and  of  the  temple,  gives  something 
more  definite.     According  to  the  first  and  tenth 

chapters  the  cherubim  were  ni'rt ,  *■  «.,  £<•>",  living 

creatures  (not  O^pcc,  wild  beasts)  with  four  wings 
and  four  faces.     On  the  right  side  the  faces  were 
those  of  a  man  and  of  a  lion,  on  the  left  those  of 
a  bull  and  of  an   eagle.       The  human  element 
seems  to  have  preponderated  in  their  form  (ver.  5). 
But  according  to  chap.  xli.  18,  the  cherubim  rep- 
resented upon  the  walls  and  doors  of  the  temple, 
between  palm-trees,  had  but  two  faces,  the  one  of 
a  man  and  the  other  of  a  lion.     The  former  were 
on  the  right  side  and  the  latter  on  the  left.     The 
apocalyptic  vision  of  the   throne,  Rev.   iv.  7,  in 
which  the  four  types  of  creatures  composing  the 
cherub  are  separated  and  stand  round  the  throne, 
having  six  wings  each,  rests  upon  that  of  Ezekiel. 
From   everything  we   have,  it  appears  that  the 
cherub  was  not  a  simple  but  a  complex  or  celiac.' 
tive  being ;  and  when  he  has  now  one,  then  twa 
then  again   four   faces,   or  two,  or   four,  or  six 
wings ;  when,  too,  the  four  types  of  which  he  is 
composed  are  separated  side  by  side,  so  we  gather 
still  farther  that  he  had  no  unalterable,  fixed  form, 
but  that  one  element  or  another  was  prominent 
or  subordinate   according   to   circumstances.     In 
fact,  one  element  might  even  disappear  without 
any  change  in  the  fundamental  idea  attaching  to 
the  cherub.     This  has  been  questioned  warmly  by 
Riehm    recently    (De  Natura   et  notione  symbolica 
Cheruborum.    Basil,  1864).     He  maintains  that  be- 
fore the  exile  the  cherub  had  a  fixed  form,  viz., 
that  of  a  man  standing  upright,  with  wings.     The 
later  description  in  Ezekiel's  vision  is  a  departure 
from  this  characteristic  and  original  form,  and,  for 
the  sake  of  the  "  throne,  chariot "  moving  towards 
the  four  quarters  of  the  world,  gives  to  the  cheru- 
bim with  it  four  faces,  yet  not  four  component 
parts.     The  three  faces  added  to  the  original  one 
hu  man  face    by  Ezekiel  are  borrowed  from  the 
grandest  and  strongest  of  creatures  whether  living 
on  the  earth  or  in  the  air.     He  was  induced  to  do 
this    probably   by   the    Babylonian   grouping   to- 
gether of  animals  which  he  had  learned  during 
the  captivity.     We  remark   against  this :  If  any 
person,  on   the  one  hand,  knew  well  enough  the 
forms  of  the  cherubim  both  in  the  tabernacle  and 
in  the  temple,  and  would,  on  the  other  hand,  ad- 
here firmly  to  ancestral  institutions  and  to  priestly 
traditions,  that  person  was  Ezekiel,  the  son  of  a 
priest.  How  is  it  possible  that  this  prophet,  who  was 
emphatically  warned  by  the  sight  of  the  "  images 
of  the  Chaldeans,"  doubtless  mythological  (Ezek. 
xxiii.  14),  portrayed  on  the  walls,  should  himself 
have  been   induced,  by  means  of  these,  to  alter 
completely  the  sacred  cherub-form,  and  to  have 
made  to  it  arbitrary  and  self-appointed  additions? 
Umbreit  (Hesekiel,  s.  xii.)  rightly  says:   "  So  far  as 
the  form  of  the  cherubim  is  concerned,  the  prophet 
has  certainly  copied  the  original  type  of  the  tem- 
ple, the  ark  of  the  covenant  and  the  tabernacle 
floating   in    his   imagination,    with   conscientious 
fidelity;  but   in   particular  instances  he   has  en- 
riched the  idea  by  the  addition  of  more  complete 
features,  without  changing  anything  essentially." 
The  assertion  that  he  gives  to  the  cherub  not  a 
fourfold  composition  but  only  four  faces,  is  a  mis- 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-38. 


67 


take,  for  he  gives  to  him  the  feet  of  a  bull,  the 
wings  of  an  eagle,  and  the  hands  of  a  man  (Ezek. 
1.  6-9) ;  and  in  the  passage  chap.  x.  14,  which,  in- 
deed, in  a  critical  respect  is  not  free  from  suspi- 
cion, the  word  3V13  stands  for  bull,  so  that  many 

interpreters  think  that  the  bull  is  the  prevailing 
element  in  the  composition  of  the  cherub.  Besides, 
in  ever}'  living  creature  the  face  is  the  chief  thing, 
by  which  in  fact  it  is  recognized ;  and  when  Eze- 
kiel  gives  to  the  cherub  four  faces,  he  signifies 
thereby  that  those  four  types  of  being  unite  there- 
in. To  delineate  cherubim  is  consequently  a  haz- 
ardous business,  because  the  form  is  not  fixed ; 
nor  as  yet  is  there  anything  perfectly  satisfactory. 
The  latest,  by  Thenius  (tab.  3,  fig.  7),  is  borrowed, 
almost  painfully,  from  Egyptian  sculptures.  It  is 
remarkable  that  the  archaeologists  are  forever 
finding  the  original  of  the  cherub  in  Egypt,  while 
neither  the  sphinx  nor  any  other  Egyptian  com- 
plex creature  presents  the  four  types  united  in  the 
cherub.  On  the  other  hand,  Asiatic,  and  particu- 
larly Assyrian,  images,  exhibit  all  four  together 
(comp.  Neumann,  die  Stiftshiilte,  s.  68  sq.).  Never- 
theless the  cherub  is  not  a  copy  of  these,  but  is 
the  pure  and  specific  product  of  Hebrew  contem- 
plation. Upon  this,  more,  farther  on. — The  words 
of  ver.  24  state  that  the  four  horizontally  out- 
stretched wings  took  in  the  entire  breadth  of  the 
Debir  (twenty  cubits) ;  that  they  also  touched  on 
the  right  and  left,  the  north  and  south  wall,  and 
each  other  in  the  centre,  while  it  presupposes  that 
they  (i.  e.,  the  wings)  stood  close  to  each  other  at 
the  shoulder-blades.  Under  the  outspread  wings 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  placed,  as  chap.  viii. 
6  plainly  says;  and  it  is  hence  an  error  when 
Ewald  asserts  that  the  cover  of  the  ark  was  re- 
newed, and  in  place  of  the  old  cherubim,  those 
massive  wooden  and  gilt  were  fastened  upon  it — a 
thing  impossible,  for  they  stood  10  cubits  apart 
(ver.  27),  while  the  ark  was  3$  cubits  long  (Exod. 
xxv.  10). 

Vers.  29-30. — And  he  carved  all  the  walls 
of  the  house,  &c.    Comp.  ver.  18.    Keil  and  others 

understand  by  nV?pD  "  basso-relievo,"  Vulgate 
cozlaturoz  eminentes,  which,  however,  cannot  be  es- 
tablished by  the  word  itself.     For  although  Jj^p 

means  to  set  in  motion,  to  sling  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40 ; 
xxv.  29  ;  Jer.  x.  18),  this  signification  is  not  availa- 
ble here.  But  it  becomes  clear  through  the  fol- 
lowing 'nviS  from  nnB  to  break  open,  to  open, 
then  to  furrow,  to  plough  (Is.  xxviii.  24) ;  D'nWS 

in  Exod.  xxviii.  11 ;  xxxix.  6,  is  used  for  the  work 
of  the  graver  in  stone,  and  in  Exod.  xxviii. 
36 ;  xxxix.  30  of  engraving  in  metal.  The 
figures,  moreover,  were  not  in  basso  relievo, 
but  were  sunken.  1  Kings  vii.  31  cannot  avail, 
for  with  reference  to  the  figures  upon  the  flat  sur- 
face of  the  "bases,"  it  is  said  in  ver.  36  nriD'"l. 

and  this  agrees  with  jjjjp ,  which  means  in  Arabic, 

loco  dimovit.  Most  of  the  figurative  representa- 
tions upon  the  old  Egyptian  monuments  were 
wrought  after  this  fashion  (Thenius).  The  forms 
of  the  cherubim  upon  the  walls  were  different 
from  the  colossal  figures  under  which  the  ark  in 
the  Deb:-  rested.  According  to  Ezek.  xli.  19,  "a 
lion-face  was  towards  a  palm-tree  upon  one  side, 


and  a  man's  face  towards  the  palm-tree  on  the 
other  side,"  so  that  there  was  always  a  cherub 
between  two  palm-trees.  These  had  not  four 
faces,  but  assuredly  the  wings  of  the  eagle  and 
the  feet  of  the  bull  were  not  wanting.  We  are  not 
to  think  of  palm-branches  (Ewald),  nor  of  palm- 
leaves  (Luther),  but  of  palm-trees,  such  as  we  see 
upon  ancient  coins,  and  such  sb  Titus  caused  to  be 
struck  off,  out  of  the  booty  from  Jerusalem,  with 
the  inscription  Judceacapta  (Lamy,  de  Tabernaculo, 
p.  783 ;  Winer,  R-  W.-B.,  i.  s.  252).  We  may,  with 
the  Arabic  version,  understand  by  "open  flowers," 
lilies,  for  these  certainly  belonged  to  the  emblems 
of  the  sanctuary  (chap.  vii.  19,  22,  26).     Ver.  18 

names,  besides  the  flowers,  D'PpS  also,  which  is 

regarded  generally  as  synonymous  with  nyj3£ ,  2 

Kings  iv.  39,  and  is  translated  " coloquinths''  (i.  e., 
wild  or  spring  gerkins  which  burst  at  the  touch) 
We  should  then  understand  by  it:  "egg-shaped 
decorations  like  that  of  our  architectonics."  (The- 
nius, Keil).  But  the  intimate  connection  with 
graven  figures  in  the  highest  degree  significant, 
such  as  cherubim,  palm-trees,  and  lilies,  makes 
against  a  wholly  meaningless,  empty  decoration,  a 
thing  not  known  to  oriental  sacred  architecture 

Add  to  this  that  in  another  passage  the  JIVpE  are 

described  as  deadly,  a  fruit  so  dangerous  and 
unwholesome  would  have  suggested  just  the  oppo- 
site of  that  which  was  represented  by  the  other 
symbolical  figures.  If  it  were  employed  simply  on 
account  of  its  egg-shape,  why  these  "  coloquinths," 
since  they  were  not  alone  round,  why  not  eggs  sim- 
ply ?   The  stem  Jjps  does  not  mean  simply  to  burst, 

but  also  circumire,  in  hiphil  conglomerare,  circuma- 
gere,  and  nj)pD  involucrum,  glomus,  globus,  so  also 

WpD  glomus,  fasciculus  convolutus  vel  colligatus  (Bux- 

torf,  Lex.  Chald.  et  Talm.,  p.  1790).    In  its  intimate 

connection  with  D'W  ,-1Jt3S  >  will  D'JJpS  be  takeD 

to  mean  flower-bundles,  i.  e.,  buds ;  and  so  the  trans- 
lation is,  budding  and  blown  flowers  (flower-work) 
Possibly  this  flower-work  had  the  form  of  wreaths, 
only  we  can  scarcely,  with  Thenius,  translate 
,-llt3B="  festoons,  garlands  of  flowers."  Whether 
the  three  kinds  of  graven  figures  were  distributed 
in  single  panels,  and  such  panels  were  in  two  or 
three  rows,  one  over  the  other,  after  the  analogy 
of  Egyptian  temples,  must  be  left  undecided,  owing 
to  the  silence  of  the  text. — Thenius  wishes  the 
"  without  "  of  vers.  29  and  30  to  be  understood  of 
the  porch;  but  nothing  has  been  said  of. the  porch 
from  ver  3,  and  it  would  have  been  necessary 
therefore  to  designate  it  by  a  word.     According 

to  ver.  20  D'jaks  can  be  referred  only  to  the  De- 
bir, and  not  to  the  interior  of  the  whole  house, 
consequently  by  fixri?  the  large   compartment 

must  be  meant. 

Vers.  31-35.  And  for  the  entering  of  the 
oracle,  &c.  The  rabbins,  whom  many  interpret- 
ers, even  to  v.  Meyer  and  Stier,  follow,  translate 

the  difficult  words  fPBJBQ  ThVXD  ^Kil :  "  the  lin- 
tel (entablature)  of  the  (or  with  the)  posts,  a  pen 
tagon."  The  sense  would  then  be :  the  lintel  of 
the  doors  supported  two  posts  abutting  one  against 


68 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


the  other,  at  an  angle  which,  with  it,  formed  a 
triangle,  and  together  with  the  door,  a  pentagon. 
[Thus : 


E.  H.] 

But  this  is  decisively  contradicted  by  that  which  fol- 
lows in  ver.  33  of  the  door  of  the  larger  compart- 
ment, the  corresponding  JVJJX1  nXD ,  which  cannot 

possibly  be  translated  "  out  or  of  a  four-cornered, 
t.  e.,  a  square,"  but  only  "  out  of  a  fourth."  Besides 
this,  a  pentagonal  door  is  without  an  example  in 
the  ancient  East.  Bottcher  and  Thenius  translate, 
"  the  entrance-wall  with  posts  of  a  fifth  thickness." 
But  this  is  founded  upon  the  wholly  erroneous 
supposition  that  the  wall  before  the  holy  of  holies 
was  two  cubits  thick  (see  above,  on  ver.  16);  of 
which  two  cubits,  then,  the  door-posts  must  have 

taken  in  a  fifth.  Suppose  that  p'X  here  means 
the  entrance-wall,  still  JVtSJDn  can  never  be  trans- 
lated "  fifth  thickness."  "  It  is  in  the  highest  de- 
gree surprising  that  when  the  thickness  of  the 
entrance-wall  door-posts  is  stated,  nothing  is  said 
of  the  size  of  the  doors  themselves  "  (Keil).  Man- 
ifestly the  text  states  just  this,  but  still  does  not 
say  that  from  each  wall  there  were  five  cubits  to 
the  door :  for  the  doors  midway,  there  were  ten 
cubits  remaining  (Lightfoot),  but  the  entrance  to 
the  Debir  took  in,  with  the  posts,  a  fifth  of  the 
wall,  i.  e.,  was  four  cubits  broad.*  The  entrance  to 
the  chief  compartment,  on  the  other  hand  (ver.  33), 
measured  one  fourth  of  the  wall,  was  consequently 
five  cubits  broad,  and  larger  than  that  which 
opened  into  the  Debir,  which  was  appropriate 
enough  for  the  main  entrance.  The  height  of  the 
two  entrances  is  not  given.  According  to  ver.  34 
the  two  wings  of  the  door  of  entrance  into  the 
holy  place  were  folding  leaves,  i.  e.,  either  they  were 
longitudinally  like  leaves  bound  together,  which 
could  be  so  folded  that  it  would  not  be  necessary 
always  to  open  the  whole  door-wing  (Thenius) ; 
or  the  two  leaves  were  the  upper  and  lower  halves 
of  each  door-wing  (Keil,  Mertz,  Ewald) ;  probably 
the  latter. — From  the  words  of  ver.  32 :  "  and 
spread  gold  upon  the  cherubim,"  as  well  as  "  fitted 
upon  the  carved  work  "  (ver.  35),  Thenius  con- 
cludes that  the  figures  only,  both  upon  the  doors 
and  also  the  wails  of  the  temple,  were  over- 
laid, so  that  "they  must  have  contrasted  splen- 
didly with  the  brown-red  cedar."  But  this  con- 
tradicts vers.  20,  30,  and  especially  ver.  22,  where 

Dn- IV  's  expressly  added  to  the  "  whole  house," 

which  does  not  say  merely  that  such  gold-over- 

*  [Mr.  T  O.  Paine  {Solomon's  Temple,  kc,  Roston,  Geo. 
Phlnnoy,  l^t'-l)  makes  the  "  posts,  the  floor-posts,"  to  he 
meruit,  and  sayB  that  they  were  one-flfth  of  twenty  cubits, 
the  width  of  the  wall.  Each  door-post  was,  according  to  this 
author,  six  feet  wide.  Bp.  Patrick  says:  "u  fifth"  .  .  . 
"may  I"'  nnderatood  to  signify  that  they  held  the  proportion 
nf  a  fifth  part  <>f  the  d"Ors"  (on  the  place).  But  OUT  author'e 
axpcaltlon  is  the  Letter  — E.  II.] 


laying  was  partial  throughout  the  house,  but  that 
the  interior  was  completely  so  overlaid.  The  very 
floor,  upon  which  no  figures  were  carved,  was  over- 
laid with  gold ;  surely  the  walls  and  doors  were  not 
partially  so  only.  The  problematical  addition  in 
both  verses  renders  conspicuous  the  fact  that  the 
overlaying  with  gold  did  not  cover  up  the  figures 
carved  upon  the  wood,  but  that  it  was  impressed 
upon  all  the  elevations  and  the  depressions  alike, 
and  that  they  could  be  distinctly  seen  (Keil). — The 
Chronicles  mentions,  besides  the  doors  (2  Chron 
iii.  7),  the  veil  also  (iii.  14),  the  presence  of  which 
is  not  to  be  doubted  (after  Ewald),  since  the  object 
of  it  was  not  to  divide  the  two  compartments,  but 
rather  to  cover  the  ark  with  the  throne  (Exod.  xL 
3,  21),  and  was  an  essential  feature  of  the  sanc- 
tuary. If  even  the  Herodian  temple,  which  did 
not  contain  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  had  never- 
theless "  the  veil  of  the  covering  "  (Exod.  xxxix. 
34;  xxxv.  12;  Matt,  xxvii.  51),  how  much  less 
would  Solomon  have  dispensed  with  it.  The  non- 
mention  of  it  in  the  account  now  before  us  has  no 
more  significance  than  when,  in  the  following 
verses,  the  inner  court  alone  is  described,  and  the 
fact  of  the  "  outer  "  court  is  entirely  passed  by. 

Vers.  3G-3S.  And  he  built  the  inner  court, 
&c.  This  designation  presupposes  a  larger  court, 
which  is  mentioned  expressly  in  the  Chronicles  (2 
Chron.  iv.  9),  and,  in  distinction  from  that  of  "the 
priests,"  is  described  as  "  the  great  court."  The 
inner  court  is  called,  in  Jer.  xxxvi.  10,  the  "  higher," 
because  it  lay  somewhat  above  the  level  of  the 
court  intended  for  the  people.  The  statements 
about  the  structure  of  both  are  singularly  meagre. 
No  one  doubts  that  they  were  square-shaped 
(comp.  Exod.  xxvii.  9  sq. ;  Ez.  xl.  47).  The  words, 
"  three  rows  of  hewed  stones,"  &c,  can  refer  only  to 
the  enclosing  walls.  There  were  three  rows  of 
squared  stones,  one  over  the  other,  and  a  layer  of 

cedar.     flfTO  are  certainly  not  beams  properly, 

but  planks,  thick  boards,  for  of  what  use  would 
beams  have  been  here?  The  opinion  that  up- 
right cedar  beams,  restiug  upon  the  uppermost  row 
of  stones,  formed  a  low  palisade,  is  erroneous 
(Merz).  The  people  in  the  outer  court,  by  such  an 
arrangement,  would  have  been  deprived  of  a  view 
of  the  sanctuary  and  of  the  holy  offices  in  the 
inner  court.  It  was  manifestly  but  a  low  enclo- 
sure, over  which  those  outside  of  it  could  look  (2 
Chron.  vii.  3).  The  outer  court  doubtless  had  stouo 
walls  surrounding  it  because,  according  to  2  Chron. 
iv.  9,  doors  overlaid  with  brass  led  into  it.  Our 
account  mentions  nothing  of  cells  or  chambers  in 
the  forecourt  spoken  of  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  1 1 ;  Jer. 
xxxv.  2;  xxxvi.  10.  But  perhaps  Solomon  built 
some  of  them ;  at  least  they  were,  according  to  1 
Chron.  xxviii.  12,  originally  intended. — We  can 
but  offer  conjectures  about  the  dimensions  of  the 
courts.  "  Following  the  analogy  of  the  taberna- 
cle, by  doubling  the  spaces  we  may  estimate  the 
court  of  the  priests  at  200  cubits  long  from  east  to 
west,  and  100  cubits  wide  from  north  to  south.  .  . 
The  outer  or  great  court  must  have  been  at  least 
as  large  "  (Keil).  In  the  temple  of  Ezekiel,  whose 
measurements  and  definitions,  especially  in  the 
matter  of  the  courts,  are  to  be  regarded  as  leasl 
of  all  purely  historical,  both  of  them  are  perfect 
squares  (Ezek.  xlii.  15-20;  Thenius).— The  very 
carefully  stated  length  of  time  for  the  building  of 
the  u-iuple,  given  in  vers.  37,  3S,  was  reasonably 


CHAPTER  VI.   1-38 


69 


short.  ai_d  shows  with  what  zeal  the  work  was  car- 
ried on,  especially  when  we  consider  that,  accord- 
ing to  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.,  xxxvi.  12),  all  Asia  was 
200  years  building  the  temple  of  Diana  at  Ephe- 
sus.  As  the  month  Zif  was  the  second,  and  the 
month  Bui  the  eighth,  the  time  occupied  in  the 
building  was  about  seven  and  a  half  years.  Whether 
in  this  tli©  time  also  is  to  be  reckoned  for  the 
substructions*  which  Josephus  mentions,  and  also 
for  the  cutting  of  the  wood,  and  the  hewing  of  the 
stones,  is  an  idle  question.  If  now  we  cast  a 
glance  over  the  whole  of  the  description  of  the  tem- 
ple, full  and  explicit  as  it  is  in  details,  it  is  not 
Bufficient  to  enable  us  to  delineate  a  complete, 
well-assured  drawing  of  it,  because,  as  Winer  very 
properly  remarks,  many  points  which  must  be 
clear  in  a  drawing  are  passed  over  without  a  word, 
and  others  remain  more  or  less  uncertain.  This  is 
especially  true  in  respect  of  outward  forms  and 
architectural  style,  which,  in  a  drawing,  are  mat- 
ters of  supreme  importance.  Upon  this  point 
scarcely  anything  more  can  be  said  than  that  the 
building  ou  the  whole  was  "  rectilinear,  and  of 
box-form  "  (Merz).  It  is  certain  that  the  builders, 
artists,  and  workmen  who  executed  it,  were  all 
Phoenicians  (chap.  v.  6 ;  vii.  14),  whence  it  follows 
that  the  style  of  the  building,  in  so  far  as  the  pre- 
served ground-plan  and  design  of  the  tabernacle 
was  not  required  by  Solomon,  was  Phoenician. 
But  since  all  adequate  descriptions  of  Phoenician 
buildings,  and  all  memorials,  such  as  are  still  ex- 
tant in  Egypt,  are  wanting,  we  know  nothing  of 
the  distinguishing  peculiarity  of  Phoenician  archi- 
tecture, which  certainly,  since  the  material  em- 
ployed was  chiefly  wood,  must  have  differed  es- 
sentially from  the  much  later  Graeeo-Roman,  and 
especially  from  the  Egyptian,  which  made  use 
exclusively  of  hard  stone  (Schnaase,  Gesch.  der 
Hid,  Kunste,  i.  s.  238,  249).  The  older  drawings, 
therefore,  in  GrEeco-Roman  style,  by  Villalpand, 
Lundy,  Ac,  as  also  the  later,  in  Egyptian  style, 
by  Hirt  and  Kopp,  are  wholly  unsatisfactory. 
Had  Solomon  wished  to  build  in  the  Egyptian 
style,  he  would  not  have  summoned  Phoenician 
workmen,  but  Egyptian,  whom  he  could  have 
easily  procured  from  his  royal  father-in-law.  The 
most  recent  drawings  by  Thenius  and  Keil  (bibl. 
Arclmologie)  rest  upon  a  careful  study  of  the  text, 
and  are  therefore  much  to  be  preferred  to  all  the 
earlier  ones ;  but  even  they,  from  the  considera- 
tions already  adduced,  cannot  lay  claim  in  all  re- 
spects to  truth.  Strong  but  not  unfounded  is  the 
view  of  Romberg  and  Steger  (Gesch.  der  Baukunst, 
i.  s.  26):  "It  is  just  as  easy  to  portray  a  living 
man  from  a  tolerably  well  preserved  skeleton,  as 
to  succeed  in  copying  a  building  which  shall  cor- 
respond to  its  reality,  when  but  few  and  uncertain 
remains  of  its  style  of  architecture  are  in  our  pos- 
session." Many  as  are  the  gaps  of  the  biblical 
account  in  respect  of  architecture,  it  nevertheless 
contains  all  which  can  contribute  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  religious  ideas  upon  which  the  temple 
was  founded;  it  serves  also  to  our  understanding  of 
its  significance,  and  this  is  the  chief  concern  here. 

THE  SOTEEIO-HISTOEICAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OP 
THE  TEMPLE. 

1.    The  unusually  careful  chronological  date 
about  the  building  of  the  temple  (vers.  1  and  37, 

(•  Upon  these  Bibstructions,  see  Robinson  and  "The  Ke- 
•o»ery  of  Jerusalem,"  as  above.— E.  H.] 


38)  manifestly  places  it  high  above  the  series  of 
ordinary  events,  and  proclaims  it  as  an  especially 
weighty,  epoch-making  occurrence  in  the  theo- 
cratic history  (Heilsgeschichte).  Comp.  Introd.  §  3. 
This  would  not  have  been  the  case  if  an  architec- 
tonic work,  or  a  building  giving  evidence  of  powe! 
and  wealth  simply,  were  concerned.  It  is  its 
thoroughly  religious  character  which  causes  it  to 
appear  as  such  a  momentous  transaction,  and  for 
the  sake  of  which  it  is  so  circumstantially  de- 
scribed. The  product  of  theocratic  ideas,  it  is 
likewise  the  expression  of  them.  If  the  entire 
cultus  were  no  idle  ceremony,  still  less  could  th« 
structure,  where  this  cultus  became  concentrated, 
be  an  empty,  meaningless  piece  of  architectural 
splendor.  All  the  ancients  so  foimded,  arranged, 
and  adorned  their  temples  that  they  were  the  ex- 
pression and  the  representation  of  their  specific 
religious  contemplation  (comp.  Symb.  des  Mos.  KulL, 
i.  s.  91  sq.).  The  temple  of  Solomon  would  have 
been  an  exception  to  all  the  sacred  buildings  of 
high  antiquity,  had  it  not  been  the  expression  of 
the  specifically  Israelitish,  Old  Testameut  ideas  of 
religion.  Weighty  as  an  inquiry  iuto  its  outward 
material  may  be,  the  need  of  investigation  and  in 
formation  respecting  its  religious  meaning  is  much 
greater. 

2.  77ie  significance  of  the  temple  as  a  whole  and  in 
general  is  sufficiently  stated  by  the  builder  himself 
in  the  discourse  delivered  at  its  solemn  consecra- 
tion, and  in  the  longer  prayer  connected  with  it 
(chap.  viii.  10-53). 

(a)  Solomon  begins  the  discourse  with  the 
words,    "I  have  built  thee   an  house   to   dwell 

in  (721),  a  settled  place  for  thee  to  abide  in  for- 
ever "  (1  Kings  viii.  13 ;  2  Chron.  vi.  2).  The 
first  and  most  general  destination  of  the  temple 
was,  to  be  a  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah.  But  that 
this  dwelling  was  not  in  the  remotest  degree 
connected  with  the  heathenish  superstition,  that 
God  stood  in  need  of  a  shelter,  like  a  man,  and 
could  be  confined  within  a  given  space,  the  words 
which  soon  follow  demonstrate  (ver.  27):  "be- 
hold the  heaven  and  heaven  of  heavens  cannot 
contain  thee :  how  much  less  this  house  that  1 
have  builded."  The  dwelling  of  Jehovah  with  or 
in  the  midst  of  Israel  is  rather  the  immediate  re- 
sult of  the  choice  of  them  to  be  His  peculiar  and 
covenant  people,  and  in  a  measure  coincides  with 
it.  As,  according  to  the  Hebrew  use  of  speech  in 
general,  dwelling  with  any  one  is  as  much  as  to  be 
bound  to,  to  be  in  fellowship  with  (comp.  e.  g.  Ps. 
i.  1 ;  v.  5 ;  cxx.  5),  and  even  the  marriage  relation 
is  expressed  by  "  dwelling  with  "  (Gen.  xxx.  20 ; 
Ezra  x.  2,  10;  Neh.  xiii.  23,  27),  so  also  Jehovah's 
dwelling  with  Israel  denotes  His  connection  and 
fellowship  with  this  people,  and  stands  in  the 
closest  relation  to  the  "  covenant."  Comp.  Exod. 
xxix.  45,  46 :  "  And  they  shall  know  that  I  am  the 
Lord  their  God  that  brought  them  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  that  I  may  dwell  among  them." 
Lev.  xxvi.  12  sq. :  "And  I  will  walk  among  yon, 
and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people." 
So  also  Ezek.  xxxvii.  27.  Immediately  upon  the 
"election,"  and  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant, 
follows  the  command,  Exod.  xxv.  8:  "And  let 
them  make  me  a  sanctuary;  that  I  nay  dweJ 
among  them."  But  inasmuch  as  the  Old  Testa- 
ment covenant  relation  moves  iu  the  sphere  of 
bodily,  visible  forms,  so  also  is  Jehovah's  dwelling 


70 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


local,  visible,  and  requires  consequently  a  dwell- 
\ng-place,  which  can  be  a  tent  as  well  as  a  temple. 
As  little  as  Jehovah,  by  the  choice  of  Israel  from 
among  all  peoples,  has  ceased  to  be  the  God  of  the 
wtiole  earth  (Exod.  xix.  5),  just  so  little  has  He, 
by  His  dwelling-place  in  the  midst  of  His  people, 
ceased  to  be  everywhere  in  heaven  and  upon 
earth.  This  dwelling-place  does  not  contain  Him ; 
He  is  not  banished  to  a  particular  place,  but  in 
the  place  where  Israel  dwells  there  He  is,  and 
dwells  also  in  their  midst,  for  "  He  has  not  chosen 
the  people  for  the  sake  of  the  dwelling-place,  but 
the  dwelling-place  for  the  sake  of  the  people  " 
(2  Maccab.  v.  19).  So  His  dwelling-place  is  the 
visible  sign  and  pledge  of  the  covenant  relation.  The 
"  dwelling-house  "  is,  as  such,  the  house  of  the  cov- 
enant. To  this  first  signification  of  the  house  an- 
other immediately  attaches  itself.  The  dwelling 
of  Jehovah  in  a  specific  place,  includes  within  it- 
self the  conception  of  witnessing,  and  of  reveal- 
ing himself,  in  so  far  as  God,  where  He  makes 
and  declares  himself  to  be  known,  is  and  re- 
mains, and  so  dwells.  Hence  the  conceptions  of 
dwelling  and  of  revealing  himself  coincide.  Jacob 
named  the  place  where  a  revelation  was  made  to 
him  the  house  of  God,  though  there  was  no  house 
or  dwelliug-place  there.  Subsequently  he  built  an 
altar  and  called  the  place  Beth-el,  for  "  there  had 
God  revealed  himself  to  him"  (Gen.  xxviii.  12- 
19 ;  xxxv.  7).     By  nj'3C'  from  pE>  to  dwell,  the 

Rabbins,  as  is  known,  express  the  highest  form  of 
revelation.  Christ  says  of  him  to  whom  He  and 
the  Father  reveal  themselves,  we  will  "  make  our 
abode  with  him  "  (John  xiv.  21-23).  The  place  of 
the  dwelling  of  Jehovah  is  eo  ipso  the  place  of 
divine  attestation  and  revelation,  the  place  where  He 
will  speak  with  Israel,  and  declare  himself  to 
him  (Exod.  xxix.  42  sg.):  in  the  innermost  portion 
of  the  dwelling,  hence,  is  the  testimonial  of  the  cov- 
enant nnj?n  ,  which  means  simply  the  witness,  and 

the  dwelling  itself  consequently  is  named  "the 
dwelling  (tent)  of  the  testimony  "  (Numb.  ix.  15 ; 
xvii.  23 ;  xviii.  2). 

(6)  Solomon  repeatedly  refers  to  the  design 
of  the  house,  according  to  the  word  of  Jeho- 
vah Himself — "  that  my  name  might  be  therein," 
&c,  "  my  name  shall  be  there "  (1  Kings  viii.  16, 
29  ;  comp.  2  Chron.  vi.  5 ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  27).  In 
other  places  it  is  expressed  thus :  "  to  put  my 
name  there  forever"  (1  Kings  ix.  3 ;  2  Kings 
xxi.  7  ;  comp.  1  Kings  xi.  36 ;  xiv.  21 ;  2  Kings 
xxi.  4),  or  "  that  my  name  may  dwell  there " 
(Deut.  xii.  11  ;  xiv.  23;  xvi.  11 ;  xxvi.  2  ;  Neh.  i. 
9),  or  in  an  abbreviated  form,  "  to  (for  the)  name 
of  Jehovah"  (1  Kings  viii.  17-20,  48;  Hi.  2;  v. 
17,  19 ;  2  Sam.  vii.  13 ;  1  Chron.  xxii.  7,  19 ; 
xxviii  3,  &c).  That  the  "  name  of  Jehovah  "  has 
the  i<ame  sense  here  aa  in  Exod.  xxiii.  21,  "  for  my 
namo  is  iu  him  " — the  angel  who  leads  Israel,  that 
the  formula  does  not  say  simply  that  the  house  is 
built  >o  the  glory  of  God,  or  that  here  God  will  be 
called  upon  and  honored,  scarcely  needs  mention. 
The  name  of  God  is  God  himself  in  80  far  as  He 
makes  himself  known,  declares  and  reveals  him- 
self £"it  in  His  relation  to  Israel,  Jehovah  de- 
clares himself  essentially  as  the  One  who  is  holy 
and  who  will  make  holy ;  that  no  may  be  known 
as  such,  is  the  aim  and  object  of  the  covenant,  the 
sign  and  pledge  of  which  is  His  dwelling  in  the 
midst  of  Isnel  (1'lxod.  xxix.  43-46 ;  Liv.  xi.  45). 


The  name  of  Jehovah  is  hence  essentially  th* 
"  name  of  Sis  holiness  "  (Le^.  xx.  3  ;  Pa.  xxxiii.  21 ; 
ciii.  1 ;  cv.  3  ;  cvi.  47  ;  cxlv.  21 ;  Is.  lvii.  15 ;  Ezelo 
xxxix.  7,  25),  and  that  the  house  was  t^  be  buiU 
to  this  name,  David  announced  solemnly  :efori 
all  Israel  (1  Chron.  xxix.  16),  "to  build  to  thee  ao 
house  for  thy  holy  name."  With  this  end  in  view, 
the'  house  is  called  in  the  Psalms  "  the  temple  of 
thy  holiness  "  (Ps.  v.  8 ;  lxxix.  1 ;  cxxxviii.  2) ;  ita 
two  divisions  are  named  simply  "  holy  "  and  "  holy 
of  holies"  (Exod.  xxvi.  33;  1  Kings  viii.  6,  8),  and 
the  whole,  usually,  DHpIO  (Exod.  xxv.  8 ;  Lev.  xij 

4  ;  Ps.  lxxiv.  7  ;  1  Chron.  xxviii.  10;  Isa.  Ixiii.  18, 
Ezek.  viii.  6 ;  ix.  6,  &c.) — all  of  which  presupposes 
that  He  who  is  and  dwells  here,  is  before  all 
things  and  essentially,  holy.  So  then  the  house 
of  the  dwelling  is  not  so  much  in  general  the 
dwelling-place  of  the  divine  witnessing  and  reve- 
lation, as  of  the  divine  holiness  revealing  itself  in 
particular.  It  is  an  abode  of  holiness  and  of  sancti- 
fication.  Here  will  Jehovah  be  known  and  un- 
derstood by  Israel  as  the  Holy  One  and  as  Sanoti- 
fier,  and  thereby  will  be  hallowed  (Exod.  xxix.  4i- 
46 ;  Liv.  xx.  3,  7  ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  26-28). 

(c)  In  his  prayer  Solomon  says,  "  hearken  thou 
to  the  supplication  of  thy  servant  and  of  thy  peo- 
ple Israel  when  they  shall  pray  toward  this  place: 
and  hear  thou  in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place  (1  Kings 
viii.  30).  So  also  in  the  following  verses  "heaven 
thy  dwelling-place "  is  placed  repeatedly  over- 
against  "  this  house  "  (comp.  vers.  34,  39,  43,  49). 
This  parallelizing  of  the  temple  and  of  heaven  ex- 
tends through  the  whole  Scripture.  Both  are 
named  alike,  so  that  often  we  can  scarcely  decide 

whether  the  temple  or  heaven  be  meant.  TQf 
stands  for  the  temple  in  1  Kings  viii.  13  ;  2  Chron. 
vi.  2:  for  heaven   in  Isai.  Ixiii.  15.    r\2V>  J13D  is 

applied  to  the  temple  in  1  Kings  viii.  13;  Exod. 
xv.  17,  to  heaven  in  1  Kings  viii.  30,  39,  43,  49; 
2  Chron.  vi.  30,   33;  Ps.  xxxiii.  14.     p5JO=temple 

in  Ps.  lxxvi.  9 ;   =:  heaven  in  2  Chron.  xxx.  27 ; 

Deut.  xxvi.  15  ;  Jer.  xxv.  30 ;  Ps.  lxviii.  6.  ^yn  BHp 

=  temple  in  Ps.  v.  8 ;  lxxix.  1 ;  cxxxviii.  2 :  = 
heaven  in  Mich.  i.  2  sq. ;  Hab.  ii.  20;  Ps.  xi.  4; 
(cii.  20;  xviii.  7;  Isai.  lvii.  15).  The  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  (chap.  ix.  24)  names  the  sanctuary 
"  made  with  hands,"  "  the  figure  (antitype)  of  the 
true,"  viz.,  of  heaven,  and  the  whole  comparison 
between  the  high-priesthood  of  Christ  aud  the 
Levitical  is  based  upon  this  antitypical  relation 
between  heaven  aud  the  earthly,  Old  Testament 
sanctuary  (chap.  iv.  14 ;  vi.  19,  20 ;  viii.  1,  2 ;  x. 
21),  so  that  v.  Gerlach  on  the  place  says,  with  pro- 
priety, "  the  earthly  sanctuary  is  also  an  image  of 
heaven  itself."  When  Solomon  also  at  first  desig 
nates  the  house  he  had  built  as  "  a  settled  place  " 
(for  thee  to  abide  in),  and  then  declares  heaven  to 
be  the  peculiar  "place  of  thy  dwelling,"  he  re- 
gards the  temple  itself  as  a  heavenly  dwelling-place. 
As  Jacob  named  the  place  where  God  had  de- 
clared and  revealed  himself  to  him,  "  the  house  of 
God"  and  the  "  gates  of  heaven  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  17; 
so  the  place  where  Jehovah  dwells  and  is  en 
throned  must  needs  appear  as  a  counterpart  of 
heaven.  Not,  however,  as  if  the  temple  were  a 
copy  of  the  visible  heaven,  it  is  rather  a  symboli- 
cal representation  which,  by  its  symbols,  po.nts  to 
the  peculiar  and    true    dwelling-place    of   God 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-3S. 


71 


heaven  itself.  The  Jewish  theology  takes  cogni- 
zance of  an  upper  and  a  lower  dwelling  (pCTS) 

of  God,  and  lays  down  this  proposition :  "  The 
house  of  the  sanctuary  whicli  is  below    (|OC) 

is  built  after  the  house  of  the  sanctuary  which 

is  above  (pyo) "  (comp.  the  places  in  Schott- 
gen,  Bor.  Bebr.,  p.  1213).  The  apocalyptic  ciap/i)  ro'u 
iteov  //era  tuv  avdpu-uv,  which  are  His  people  and 
whose  God  He  is,  comes  down  from  heaven,  and 
has  the  cube  form  (four-square)  of  the  holy  of 
holies  of  the  temple  (Rev.  xxi.  3,  16). 

(d)  The  widely-spread  notion  that  the  temple 
(tabernacle)  is  on  the  whole  and  generally  "a  rep- 
resentation of  the  theocracy  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
in  Israel"  (Hengstenberg,  Kurtz,  Keil,  and  others) 
is  decidedly  erroneous.  The  "  house  of  dwelling 
for  Jehovah"  is  like  heaven,  before  all,  a  place  (1 
Kings  viii.  13,  29,  35) ;  but  the  theocracy,  the  king- 
dom of  God,  is  not  a  place,  but  a  divine-human 
relation.  The  dwelling  of  Jehovah  in  a  house,  in 
the  midst  of  Israel,  is,  indeed,  the  outward  Bign 
and  pledge  of  this  relation,  but  not  a  figurative 
representation  of  it,  and  the  conception  of  "the 
dwelling  of  Jehovah,"  which  expresses  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  temple,  is  in  itself  in  no  way 
identical  with  the  theocracy  or  the  kingdom  of 
God.  While  temple  and  heaven  have  the  same 
names,  which  would  not  be  possible  were  there 
no  parallel  relation  between  them,  temple  and 
kingdom  of  God,  or  theocracy,  have  no  one  name 
in  common.  The  very  definite  expression  in  Heb. 
ix.  24  comes  especially  into  notice  here :  according 
to  it  the  earthly  sanctuary  made  by  hands  is  by 
-no  means  a  "copy  of  the  kingdom  of  God,"  but 
is  the  antitype  of  the  true  sanctuary,  i.  e.,  of 
heaven.  Just  as  little  as  Christ,  the  high-priest, 
by  His  ascension  went  into  the  New  Testament 
kingdom  of  God,  but  into  heaven  itself,  there  to 
appear  before  God  for  us,  even  so  little  did  the  Le- 
vitical  high-priest,  on  the  day  of  atonement,  go 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  theocracy,  but  into 
the  earthly  sanctuary,  which  represented  the 
dwelling-place  of  God  in  heaven.  There  is  no 
propriety  in  the  appeal  to  the  pattern  of  the  tab- 
ernacle whicli  was  shown  to  Moses  "  on  the  mount " 
(Exod.  xxv.  9,  40),  as  if  it  were  heavenly  indeed, 
but  not  a  figure  of  heaven  itself.  For  this  pattern 
was   itself  only  JVJ3n   (vrrddeiyfia   and   onia  tuv 

inovpaviuv,  Heb.  viii.  5),  and  showed  to  Moses  how 
he  must  make  and  arrange  the  earthly  sanctuary 
(to  aytov  noo/itud);  Heb.  ix.  1)  in  order  that  it  might 
be  a  figure  of  the  okt/vt/  y  a7.n$T}vfi  ov  xctpoxoiyroc, 
i.  e.,  of  heaven,  Heb.  ix.  11,  24).  Christ  did  not 
enter  into  the  "  pattern  "  of  the  tabernacle,  but 
into  that  which  this  pattern  itself  represented 
(comp.  Delitzsch,  Comm.  zum  Bebr.  Br.,  s.  327,  336- 
338). 

3.  The  significance  of  the  temple  in  detail  depends 
necessarily  upon  its  significance  in  general,  which 
is  more  fully  defined  and  carried  out  by  means  of 
it.  Here  especially,  above  everything  else,  the 
ground-plan,  i.  e.,  the  formal  arrangement,  is  brought 
into  consideration.  This  is  like  that  of  the  taber- 
nacle, the  place  of  winch  was  occupied  by  the  tem- 
ple, yet  in  so  far  forth  modified  and  enlarged  as 
the  differenee  between  the  "  house  "  and  the  "  tent " 
carried  with  it.  The  component  parts  singly  are 
us  follows. 

ia)   Tin-  house,  by  its  strongly  enclosed  walls,  is 


represented  as  a  whole,  complete  and  independ 
ent  in  itself:  and  this  must  be  well  considered, 
This  whole  in  the  interior  is  divided  into  a  front 
and  rear  compartment,  which  are  not  separated  by 
a  stone  wall  equally  strong,  but  only  by  a  board 
partition,  and  they  are  thereby  designated  as  di- 
visions of  the  one  "  dwelling."  Tht  object  and 
meaning  of  these  two  divisions,  as  well  as  their 
relation  to  each  other,  are  shown  by  their  names. 

The  whole  house  is  called  [."npD,  the  front  division 

"holy,"  the  rear  division  " holy  of  holies."     Con- 
sequently the  one  dwelling  of  Jehovah,  which  es- 
sentially is  the  place  of  revelation  and  attestation 
of  the  holy  and  sanctifying  God  of  Israel,  has,  as 
such,  two  divisions,  which,  since  each  bears  the 
impress  of  the  whole,  cannot  be  two  diverse  dwell 
ings,  one  by  the  other ;  but  only  divisions  distinct 
from  each  other  by  way  of  grade.     Divine  revela- 
tion, in  its  nature  and  being,  is  a  matter  of  degree 
— it  is  gradual,  progressive.     God  is  everywhere 
and  always,  but  He  does  not  make  himself  known 
everywhere  and  always,  in  the  same  manner.    The 
heaven  is  his  throne  and  the  earth  his  footstool 
(Matt.   v.   34);    He   has   revealed   himself  of  old 
through  His  servants  the  prophets,  but  at  last 
through   His  Son — the   brightness  of  His  glory 
(Heb.  i.   1  sq.).     But  especially  is  the  revelation 
and  attestation  of  the  divine  holiness  over-against 
human  depravity,  gradual,  in  so  far  as  the  greater 
spread  and  extension  of  gin  demands  a  higher  at- 
testation and  confirmation  of  divine  holiness,  i.  e., 
of  the  sanctifying  power  of  God  atoning  for  sin. 
Since  now  the  dwelling  of  Jehovah  amongst  His 
people  was  especially  the  dwelling-place  of  a  self- 
revealing  holiness,    and  the  entire   cultus  which 
was  there  concentrated  had  for  its  object  and  aim 
the  sanetification  of  the  nation  (see  above,  2.  b),  so 
by  means  of  its  two  distinct  compartments  did  it 
present  itself  as  a  complete  holy  dwelling-place 
which  was  fitted  to  bring  to  and  to  keep  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  people  both  the  sinfulness  of 
man  and  the  holiness  of  God.     The  act  of  expia- 
tion and  of  purifying  to  be  consummated  in  the 
front  compartment,  concerned  the  particular  trans- 
gressions of  individual  persons;  the  act  to  be  con- 
summated in  the  rear  and  nobler  compartment,  on 
the  other  hand,  concerned  the  entire  nation,  and 
the  transgressions  during  the  entire  year.     Ordi- 
nary priests  could  attend  to  the  former,  the  high- 
priest  alone  could  perform  the  latter  (Lev.  i-v.  and 
xvi.). — From  all  this  it  is  clear  to  satisfaction  how 
untenable  the  position  of  recent  writers  is  when, 
with  Hengstenberg,  they  understand  the  two  com- 
partments as  two  distinct  dwelling-places,  namely, 
the  holy  place  as  the  "abode  of  the  people,"  and 
the  holy  of  holies  as  "  the  dwelling-place  of  God," 
and  then  explain  this  "  combined  dwelling-place  " 
as   a  figurative  representation  of  the  communion 
and  fellowship  of  God  with  His  people,  and  so 
that   the    "entire   sanctuary  is  a  symbol  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  under  the  old  covenant."    Noth- 
ing can  be  more  clearly  and  distinctly  stated  than 
that  the  whole  house  is  one  dwelling-place— the 
dwelling-place  of  Jehovah.     Jehovah  dwells  in- 
deed amongst  His  people,  but  of  a  dwelling,  aide 
by  side,  of  God  and  the  people  under   one  roof, 
there  is  nowhere  a  syllable.     As  the  whole  house, 
so  also  each  compartment,  the  holy  place  and  the 
holy  of  holies,  are  called   "the  dwelling-place," 
but  not  the  former  as  the  dwelling-place  of  the 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


people  and  the  latter  the  dwelling-place  of  God. 
Further,  in  1  Kings  vi.  5,  the  holy  place,  in  contra- 
distinction with  the  holy  of  holies,  is  called  ?yn . 

If  now  the  holy  place  were  the  abode  of  the  peo- 
ple over-against  the  abode  of  God,  the  entire  sanc- 
tuary, comprehending  both  compartments,  could 

not  be  called  n\T  ^O'n ,  or  simply  p^n ,  as  in  1 

T     ;  -     -■  T     •• 

Sam.  i.  9 ;  iii.  3 ;  2  Kings  xxiv.  13  ;  2  Chrou.  iii. 
17;  Ps.  v.  8;  still  less  could  this  expression  be  used 
of  heaven,  which  is  specially  the  abode  of  God  and 
not  of  the  people  (Ps.  xi.  4 ;  xviii.  7 ;  xxix.  9 ; 
Mich.  i.  2  ;  Hab.  ii.  20). 

(b)  The  porch  and  the  side-structure  (Umbau) 
with  tlie  stories  are,  as  has  been  already  shown, 
structures  in  front  and  by  the  sides  of  the  house, 
which  are  recognized  as  such  in  that,  unlike  the 
house,  they  did  not  serve  for  the  performance  of 
any  religious  office.  They  do  not  therefore  belong 
essentially  to  the  ground-plan  of  the  sanctuary, 
consequently  are  wanting  in  the  tabernacle,  and 
have  no  further  religious  significance  than  that 
they  give  to  what  was  hitherto  a  "  tent,"  the  char- 
acter of  a  "  house,"  and  indeed  of  a  great,  firm, 
and  strong  house,  of  a  palace,  in  fact.  Porches 
were  never  used  for  tents,  but  only  in  the  case  of 
large,  conspicuous  buildings  like  palaces,  as,  e.  g., 
Solomon's  (1  Kings  vii.  6  sq.).  If  now  the  house 
of  a  human  sovereign  had  its  porch,  much  less 
should  one  be  missing  in  the  house  of  Jehovah, 

the  God-King,  to  distinguish  it  rightly  as  an  "0<n , 

i.  e.,  a  king's  palace  (Prov.  xxx.  28 ;  Is.  xxxix,  7). 
We  observe  the  same  in  respect  of  the  side-struc- 
ture, which,  as  is  expressly  remarked,  was  not  to 
be  included  within  the  house,  the  main  building, 
did  not  belong,  as  an  integrating  part,  to  the  dwell- 
ing of  Jehovah,  but  which  served  only  for  purely 
external  purposes,  the  preservation  of  the  vessels, 
&c.  But  like  the  porch  in  front,  it  served,  around 
the  sides  of  the  house,  which  rose  above  it,  to  im- 
part the  appearance  of  a  grand,  richly  surrounded, 
«.nd  lasting  building — an  po'H . 

(c)  Tlie  fore  courts  constituted  the  second  essen- 
tial element  of  the  entire  sanctuary.  "  The  dwell- 
ing of  Jehovah  "  is,  as  observed  above,  the  place 
where  He  " meets"  the  people,  attests  himself 
unto  them,  speaks  with  them,  has  intercourse  with 

them.     It  is  called,  consequently,  also  "IJJiO'PnN 

(Exoi    xxix.  42,  44;  xxvii.   21;  xl.   22),  or  "|jnD 

Bimply  (Lam.  ii.  6 ;  Ps.  lxxiv.  3),  i.  e.,  the  tent  of 
assembly,  the  "  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  " 
(not  the  time  of  assembling).  The  dwelling  of  Je- 
hovah in  a  given  place  makes  also  a  space  neces- 
sary for  the  people  to  meet  their  Lord  and  God. 
Hence  tlie  command :  "  thou  shalt  make  the  court 
of  the  tabernacle "  (Exod.  xxvii.  9 ;  Sept. :  nal 
Koii^oeic  av7.T)v  ttj  annvrl).  The  fore  court  moreover 
was  not  a  dwelling-place  of  the  people  in  contrast 
with  that  of  Jehovah,  but  only  a  court,  i.  e.,  a  fixed 
space  around  the  dwelling,  "  an  enclosed  gathering- 
place  for  the  people  drawing  nigh  to  their  God " 
(Merz).  As  Jehovah  had  one  dwelling-place  only, 
the  people  could  meet  Him  only  here,  and  only 
here  attend  to  the  covenant  relation  with  Him. 
All  offices  in  connection  with  the  covenant  could 
be  performed,  hence,  only  here,  not  in  other  favor- 
ite spots,  not  jpon  the  so-called  "  heights  "  (high 


places)  (Numb.  xvii.  1-9).  And  in  order  that  this 
might  be  the  case  with  the  entire  people,  it  was  or- 
dered that  all  Israelites,  certainly  three  times  in 
the  year,  should  appear  before  the  dwelling  of  Je 
hovah  (Exod.  xxiii.  17;  Deut.  xvi.  16).  This  and 
nothing  more  is  the  object  and  significance  of  the 
fore  court.  Hengstenberg  is  altogether  wrong  in 
maintaining  that  "  the  house  or  dwelling  of  the 
people  was  properly  the  holy  place,"  that  they 
occupied  this,  "their  peculiar  dwelling,  only 
through  the  medium  of  their  representatives  and 
middle-men,  the  priests,  and  that  some  actual  place 
of  their  own,  over  and  above  this  ideal  place,  was 
necessary.  This  the  fore  court  was."  Keil,  too,  is 
in  error  when  he  explains  the  fore  court  as  "  an 
image  of  the  dwelling  of  Israel  in  the  kingdom  of 
their  God."  The  holy  place  was,  as  already  no- 
ticed, a  compartment  in  the  dwelling-place  of  Je- 
hovah, tlie  forepart  thereof,  but  not  the  dwelling 
of  the  people,  and  the  fore  court  was  not  a  dwelling- 
place  at  all,  neither  of  the  people  nor  of  Jehovah, 
was  never  named  such,  but  was  only  the  assem- 
bling-place outside  of  Jehovah's  dwelling,  a  mere 
"court"  by  way  of  distinction,  and  in  contrast  with 
"  the  house."  In  that  the  temple  had  twc  ore' 
courts  instead  of  one  originally  designed,  s  nc 
proof  of  an  alteration  of  the  ground-plan,  bjl  I 
only  an  enlargement  of  it,  which  had  its  reason  La 
this :  that  great  buildings,  especially  royal  palaces 
in  the  Orient,  were  distinguished  from  ordinary 
houses  by  more  forecourts  (comp.  1  Kings  vii.  1- 
12,  and  Symb.  des  Mos.  Kult,  i.  s.  241  sq.).  Thencr 
it  happened  especially  that,  near  the  tabernacle 
of  the  testimony,  which  stood  in  the  centre  of  the 
Israelitish  camp,  was  appointed  the  place  for  the 
priestly  tribe  (Numb.  ii.  and  iii.).  This  continued 
a  fixed  custom  when  the  "  camp  "  ceased  to  exist; 
it  was  the  tribe  especially,  which  stood  "nigh 
unto  "  Jehovah,  which  effected  the  intercourse  be- 
tween Him  and  the  people  (Exod.  xix.  22 ;  Ezek. 
xlii.  13 ;  Numb.  xvi.  5).  A  fixed  limit  to  the  ap- 
pointed space  was  judicious,  and  even  necessary, 
since  by  the  ordinances  of  David  individual  wor- 
ship had  greatly  increased,  and  this  greatly  ex- 
panded worship  was  confined  to  this  one  place ; 
by  these  means  it  became  possible  to  observe  cor- 
rectly the  ordinance,  and  duly  to  watch  over  the 
appointed  performance  of  the  holy  services. 

4.  The  significance  of  the  form  and  measurement! 
of  the  temple,  which  stand  in  the  closest  relation  to 
the  ground-plan,  requires  us  to  conclude  therefrom 
that  they  can  be  explained  neither  upon  the  grounds 
of  outward  need  and  propriety,  nor  of  architect- 
onic beauty.  If  the  portion  which  constitutes  the 
core  and  centre  of  the  entire  structure,  the  pecu- 
liar dwelling  of  Jehovah,  the  holy  of  holies,  have 
the  form  of  a  perfect  cube,  as  ver.  20  expressly 
states,  a  form  characteristic  not  only  of  the  taber- 
nacle, but  also  of  Ezekiel's  temple,  and  of  the 
apocalyptic  ounvh  tov  &eov  (Ezek.  xli.  4 ;  Rev.  xxi 
16),  a  form  which  appears  neither  necessary  nor 
convenient,  nor  architecturally  beautiful,  while  at 
the  same  time  it  was  unmistakably  intentional  and 
not  accidental,  it  must  certainly  have  some  mean- 
ing. And  if  the  form  of  one  and  that  the  most 
important  division  of  the  building  were  significant, 
it  is  inconsequent  and  wilful  to  explain  the  equally 
striking  forms  and  measurements  of  the  remaining 
compartments  as  devoid  of  meaning.  To  this  we 
must  add  that,  although  the  forms  and  measure- 
ments of  a  Louse,  especially  of  a  palace,  are  noJ 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-38. 


73 


those  of  a  tent,  Solomon  nevertheless  adhered  as 
far  as  possible  to  the  forms  and  measurements  of 
the  tabernacle,  not  only  in  respect  of  the  holy  of 
holies,  but  also  of  the  other  portions  of  the  temple ; 
and  he  felt  himself  obliged  thereto,  while  he  sim- 
ply doubled  them — a  sufficient  proof  that  they  were 
to  him  corresponding,  necessary  as  well  as  signifi- 
cant for  the  sanctuary.  Besides,  in  the  descriptiou 
of  nearly  all  buildings  and  spaces  which,  in  a  nar- 
rower or  wider  sense,  were  God's  dwelling-places, 
when  apparently  weightier  matters  are  passed  over, 
the  measure  and  disposition,  according  to  size  and 
number,  are  presented,  and  oftentimes  when  one 
least  expects  it,  as,  e.  g.,  in  the  visions  of  Ezekiel 
and  of  the  apocalyptic  seer,  as  we  have  already 
noticed.  Vitringa  rightly  explains  the  measuring 
of  a  space  or  of  a  building  as  the  yvupto/ta,  that  it 
is  na-niKTypinv  rnv  ■Deov.  This  especially  follows 
from  Rev.  xi.  1,  2,  where  the  seer  holds  a  measur- 
ing-rod, and  is  commanded:  "measure  the  temple 
of  God,  and  the  altar,  and  them  that  worship 
therein ;  but  the  court  which  is  without  the  tem- 
ple leave  out,  and  measure  it  not ;  for  it  is  given 
unto  the  Gentiles,"  &c.  That  which  is  not  meas- 
ured is  uugodly  and  profane. — If  we  turn  now  to 
particular  forms  and  measurements  of  the  temple, 
we  find  them  like  those  of  the  tabernacle  and  of 
the  temple  of  Ezekiel. 

(a)  The  form  of  the  square,  which  is  adhered  to 
with  palpable  rigor,  and  dominates  everything.  It 
is  the  form  of  the  forecourts,  of  the  house  in  whole 
and  in  its  parts,  also  of  both  altars.  Nowhere  is 
there  the  form  of  the  triangle  (pyramidal)  or  of 
the  pentagon,  nowhere  the  form  of  the  circle  or 
of  the  half-circle.  Even  the  porch  and  the  side- 
structure  with  its  flat  roof  preserve  this  square 
form.  In  Ezekiel  it  is  given  even  to  the  great  cir- 
cuit around  the  temple,  and  to  the  holy  city  and 
its  domain  (Ezek.  xlviii.  8-35);  so  also  in  John, 
in  respect  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  (Rev.  xxi.). 
From  this  it  follows  indisputably  that  the  square 
was  considered  as  the  appropriate  form  of  every 
dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  and  generally  of  every 
sacred  space  and  place,  whether  tent  or  house, 
altar  or  city.  It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind,  also,  that 
this  square  appears  always  to  have  been  adjusted 
(oriented)  to  the  points  of  the  compass,  and  thereby 
(inasmuch  as  this  constant  arrangement  was 
neither  necessary  nor  especially  convenient),  re- 
ferred to  the  proper  and  original  dwelling-  and 
revelation-place  of  Jehovah,  while  the  square 
shape  of  the  earthly  dwelling  corresponded  with 
"  the  four  corners  of  heaven  " — the  upper  dwell- 
ing (Jer.  xlix.  36 ;  Matt.  xxiv.  31 ;  corap.  Zech.  ii. 
10 ;  vi.  5 ;  Ps.  xix.  6 ;  Job  ix.  9).  In  conformity 
with  this  view,  the  space  which  had  the  throne  in 
the  midst  thereof  and  was  the  highest  place  of 
Jehovah — dwelling  and  self-revealing,  the  holy  of 
holies — had  the  most  complete  form  of  the  square ; 
it  was  a  cube.  The  holy  place,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  not  a  cube  but  an  extended  square,  but 
its  length  was  not  wilfully  or  indefinitely  ar- 
ranged ;  it  was  double  that  of  the  holy  of  holies, 
Bince  it  served  as  vestibule  to  this  latter  and  with 
it  formed  the  entire  dwelling.  The  square,  as  the 
ground-form  of  the  temple,  has  often  been  ex- 
plained as  the  symbol  of  regularity,  and  especially 
of  firmness  and  immobility,  appeal  being  made  to 
Buidas,  who  says :  Terpaywog  ■  ivarodijg  edpainr 
(Grotius,  Vilringa,  Havernick).  This  is  contra- 
dicted from  the  consideration  that   not  only  the 


temple,  but  the  tabernacle  also,  the  movable, 
wandering  sanctuary,  had  a  similar  form.  It  ia 
impossible  that  the  latter,  the  direct  opposite  of 
the  former,  should  set  forth  the  distinguishing 
characteristics  of  the  tabernacle  over  against  those 
of  the  temple;  the  movable  can  never  be  the  sign 
of  immobility  and  permanence.  Still  less  can  we 
adopt  the  view  of  Kurtz  and  Keil,  who  regard 
the  square  as  "  the  symbolical  form  or  signature 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  its  adjustment  to 
the  four  points  of  the  compass  as  an  intimation 
that  this  kingdom  was  designed  to  comprehend 
and  include  within  itself  the  entire  world.  The 
"dwelling  of  Jehovah,"  which  is  square  in  its 
ground-form,  is  not  the  kingdom  of  God  itself,  but 
a  plan  to  which  the  form  is  given  which  corre- 
sponds with  heaven,  the"  peculiar  dwelling-place 
of  God,  with  its  "  four  corners."  Supposing, 
moreover,  that  the  temple  were  "  an  image  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  under  the  old  covenant,"  this 
covenant  was  designed  only  to  embrace  the  people 
Israel  and  not  the  entire  world.  This  is  the  scope 
of  the  new  covenant.  Witsius.  to  whom  one  ap- 
peals besides,  rightly  remarks  that  the  atrium  sig- 
nifies separationem  Israelitaruvi  a  reliquis  gentibus. 
It  is  impossible  that  the  same  symbol  should  sig- 
nify opposites — the  separation  of  one  nation  from 
all  others,  and  also  the  comprehending  of  all  na- 
tions. 

(6)  In  measurements  the  number  ten  dominates. 
It  marks  the  entire  building,  as  well  as  its  parts, 
be  it  simply  ten  or  its  half,  be  it  doubled  or  tre- 
bled. This  was  the  case  with  the  tabernacle ;  but 
since  the  temple,  as  house  or  palace,  necessarily 
required  larger  dimensions  than  the  tent,  so  in 
place  of  a  simple  ten  the  double-ten  or  twenty  was 
employed,  and  this  is  the  clearest  proof  of  pur- 
pose in  respect  of  the  number  ten.  The  dwelling 
instead  of  ten  cubits  is  twenty  wide,  and  instead 
of  thrice  ten  cubits  long  is  thrice  twenty.  The 
holy  of  holies  measures  twice  ten  cubits  upon  all 
sides,  the  holy  place  twice  ten  cubits  doubled  in 
length,  and  as  the  great  apartment,  three  times 
ten  cubits  in  height.  The  porch  is  twice  ten  cu- 
bits broad  and  ten  deep.  The  side-structure,  »'.  e., 
each  of  its  three  stories,  is  in  height  half  ten,  that 
is,  five,  and  is  thereby  designated  as  something 
merely  subordinate.  The  cherubim  in  the  holy  of 
holies  are  ten  cubits  high,  each  of  the  wings 
measures  five  cubits,  "  so  that  there  were  ten  cu- 
bits from  the  end  of  one  wing  to  that  of  the  other  " 
(ver.  24).  The  high  altar  in  the  forecourt  is  ten 
cubits  high,  and  twice  ten  cubits  long  and  broad  (2 
Chron.  iv.  1) :  "  the  bases  "  [gestuhle,  seats]  which 
belong  to  it  are  ten  (1  Kings  vii.  27).  The  brazen 
sea  is  ten  cubits  wide  and  five  high  (1  Kings  vii. 
23).  In  the  holy  place  are  ten  candlesticks  and  also 
ten  tables,  five  on  the  right  hand  and  five  on  the 
left  (2  Chron.  iv.  7,  8).  In  the  holy  of  holies  the 
"  ten  words  "  (Exod.  xxxiv.  28 ;  Dent.  iv.  13),  which 
are  named  absolutely  "  the  witness  "  and  "  the  cov- 
enant," and  which  form  the  root  and  heart  of  the 
sanctuary,  are  preserved  in  the  ark  (Exod.  xxv. 
16,  21;  xxxiv.  28).  Since  the  dwelling  of  Jeho- 
vah amongst  His  people  is  the  result,  as  also  the 
sign  and  pledge  of  the  covenant  (see  above,  1,  a) 
without  doubt  the  number  in  the  covenant  [ten 
commandments]  dominates  the  number  of  the 
dwelling-place.  That  the  covenant  consists  of 
ten  words  has  its  reason,  not,  as  Grotius  supposes, 
in  the  ten  fingers  of  tho  hands  (to  be  able  to  count 


74 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


them  more  easily),  but  in  the  significance  of  the 
number  ten,  which  comprises  all  the  cardinal  num- 
bers and  completes  them,  so  that  thereby  the  cov- 
enant is  designated  as  a  perfect  whole,  comprising 
all  the  chief  words  or  commandments  of  God. — 
Besides  ten,  the  number  three  is  everywhere  con- 
spicuous in  the  building.  It  is  divided  into  three 
sacred  spaces  (Beiligungs-stdtte),  which  differ  from 
each  other  by  way  of  degree — forecourt,  holy  place, 
holy  of  holies,  with  three  expiatory  objects  which 
are  related  to  each  other,  the  altar  of  burnt-offer- 
ing, the  altar  of  incense,  and  the  kapporeth  (mercy- 
seat).  The  dwelling  itself  is  measured  and  divided 
according  to  the  number  three;  three  times  the 
doubled  ten,  i.  e.,  three  times  its  width,  is  the 
measure  of  its  length — the  holy  of  holies  being 
one-third,  and  the  holy  place  two-thirds.  The  lat- 
ter, as  the  large  compartment,  is  three  times  ten 
cubits  high,  and  has  three  articles  of  furniture — 
candlesticks,  the  altar  of  incense,  and  the  table 
for  shewbread.  The  forecourt  also  has  three  kinds 
of  articles  for  use,  viz.,  the  altar  of  burnt-offering, 
the  stools,  and  the  brazen  sea.  The  side-structure, 
finally,  has  three  stories.  The  reason  for  this  prom- 
inence of  the  number  three  is  not  to  be  sought  for 
directly  in  the  divine  Trinity,  for  the  revelation  of 
the  Trinity  belongs  to  the  New  Testament.  But 
in  the  Old  Testament,  the  number  three  is  the 
signature  of  every  true  unit  complete  in  itself, 
and  so,  closely  resembles  ten,  with  which  it  is  here 
frequently  connected.  What  happens  thrice  is  the 
genuine  once :  what  is  divided  into  three  is  a  true 
unity.  The  one  dwelling,  by  its  division  into  three 
parts,  is  designated  as  one  complete  whole,  and 
the  three  kinds  of  articles  of  use  which  are  in  the 
three  parts,  or  in  one  of  them,  again  form  a  com- 
plete whole,  and  belong  under  it  to  the  one  or  the 
other  relation.  While  the  number  ten  gives  the 
impress  of  finishing  and  completing  to  multiplicity, 
the  number  three  is  the  signature  of  perfect  unity, 
and  thus  also  of  the  divine  being.  (Comp.  Syntb. 
des  Mos.  Kuli.,  \.  s.  175  sq.). 

5.  The  significance  of  the  building  material, 
since  the  choice  and  use  of  it  is  determined  by 
necessity,  convenience,  greater  or  lesser  artistic 
skill,  and  other  outward  conditions,  is  not  imme- 
diate and  direct,  but  must  be  recognized  in  so  far 
as  the  material  employed  in  any  structure  im- 
parts to  it  a  certain  definite  character.  In  the 
tabernacle,  wood  was  employed ;  its  ceilings  were 
of  leather  and  hair,  it  had  woven  hangings  such 
as  the  nature  of  a  "  tent "  required.  But  when 
the  period  of  the  tent  was  passed,  and  in  the  place 
of  a  movable,  wandering  dwelling,  a  firm,  im- 
movable dwelling,  a  "house,"  was  to  be  built,  in 
the  construction  of  it  everything  must  be  excluded 
which  could  be  a  reminder  of  a  mere  tent.  In 
the  place  of  wooden  walls  consisting  of  planks  ar- 
ranged side  by  side,  there  were  thick  stone  walls ; 
in  place  of  the  ceilings  and  hangings  and  the  like, 
there  were  beams,  wainseotings,  and  doors.  The 
stones  which  were  used  for  the  walls  were  not 
dried  or  burned,  such  as  were  used  in  ordinary 
houses,  but  large,  sound,  costly  stones,  cine- 
shaped  (chap.  v.  31),  such  as  were  used  in  palo  -?s 
only  (comp.  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.,  i.  s.  466) — and  ."e- 
hovah's  dwelling  should  be  a  palace.  The  wood 
was  in  the  highest  degree  durable,  and  not  liable 
*/>  decay  and  corruption,  which  with  the  Hebrews 
was  a  sign  of  impurity,  and  were,  therefore,  es- 
peciaXy  appropriate  for  the  sanctuary,  the  patten 


of  the  heavenly.  The  three  kinds  of  wood,  cedar 
cypress,  and  olive,  before  others  have  the  quality 
of  durability  and  hardness  (comp.  Winer,  i.  s.  215, 
238 ;  ii.  s.  172).  Cypress,  the  least  valuable 
(Ezek.  xxvii.  5,  and  Havernick  on  the  place),  waa 
used  for  the  floor,  the  more  valuable  cedar  waa 
used  for  the  beams  and  wainseotings,  the  olive, 
the  noblest  and  firmest,  was  used  for  the  en- 
trances, and  in  such  way  that  the  entrance  to  the 
holy  place  had  only  door-posts,  that  into  the  holy 
of  holies,  in  addition  to  such  posts,  doors  also.  In 
the  gold,  more  than  in  stone  and  wood,  there  is  a 
more  direct  reference  to  the  significance  of  the 
building.  It  was  used  exclusively  only  in  the  in- 
terior of  the  dwelling.  In  the  forecourt  there  waa 
no  gold :  repeatedly  and  as  emphatically  as  possi- 
ble it  is  stated  that  "  the  whole  house  "  was  over- 
laid with  gold  (vers.  21,  22).  The  vessels  of  the 
dwelling  were  wholly  either  of  gold  or  covered 
with  it,  while  those  of  the  forecourt  were  all  of 
brass.  The  interior  of  the  dwelling  also  waa 
golden.  This  was  not  for  the  sake  of  mere  osten- 
tatious parade,  for  this  gilding  could  not  be  seen 
from  the  outside.  The  people  were  not  allowed 
to  enter  within  the  dwelling,  tliis  was  the  preroga- 
tive of  the  priests  ;  but  into  the  darkened  yet 
wholly  golden  holy  of  holies,  the  high-priest  alone 
could  enter  once  a  year.  That  in  the  ancient  East 
a  symbolical  use  was  made  of  the  noble  metals, 
and  especially  of  gold,  is  a  well-known  fact  (comp. 
Symbol,  des  Mos.  Kult.,  i.  s.  272,  282,  295).  In 
the  primitive  documents  of  the  persic  light  reli- 
gion, "  golden  "  stands  for  heavenly,  divine.  To 
the  Hebrews,  also,  gold  is  the  image  of  the  high- 
est light,  of  the  light  of  the  sun  and  the  heavens 
(Job  xxxvii.  21,  22).  The  apocalyptic  ckiivt)  tov 
ocoii  which  descends  from  heaven,  is  of  "pure 
gold  "  (Rev.  xxi.  18,  21).  God  "  dwelleth  in  light " 
(1  Tim.  vi.  16 ;  comp.  Ps.  civ.  2)  is  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  God  dwelleth  in  heaven ;  and  if  now 
His  earthly  dwelling  were  all  golden,  it  is  thereby 
designated  as  a  heaven-  and  light-dwelling.  The 
conception  of  purity  in  the  moral  sense  of  the 
word  is  associated  likewise  with  gold  (Job  xxiii. 
10 ;  ilal.  iii.  3) ;  the  golden  dwelling  is  hence  also 
a  pure,  i.  e..  holy,  sanctuary  (Ps.  xxiv.  3,  4). 

6.  The  significance  of  the  carvings  is  explained 
at  once  by  their  form.  Upon  all  the  walls  of  the 
dwelling,  and  even  upon  the  doors,  there  are  three 
kinds  of  carved  figures  which  are  always  asso- 
ciated together — cherubim,  palms,  and  flowers. 
Diverse  as  they  may  seem,  one  and  the  same  reli- 
gious idea  nevertheless  lies  at  the  bottom  of  them, 
namely,  the  idea  of  life,  which  is  ouly  expressed  in 
them  in  differing  ways. 

(a)  The  cherubim  are  not  actual,  but,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  their  component  parts,  imaginary  be- 
ings, and  this  requires  no  further  proof  that  they 
are  significant.  A  Jewish  proverb  says  of  their 
composition,  "  four  are  the  highest  things  in  the 
world :  the  lion  amongst  the  wild  b&asts,  the  bull 
amongst  cattle,  the  eagle  amongst  birds,  the  man 
is  over  all,  but  God  is  supreme."  (Comp.  Spencer, 
De  Leg.  Hebr.  Rit,  ii.  p.  242 ;  Schottgen,  Bar.  Bebr., 
p.  1108.)  God,  on  the  other  hand,  is  common  to 
these  four,  and  the  life  uniting  them,  which  they 
have  not  of  themselves,  but  from  Him  who  is  the 
source  of  all  life,  the  Creator,  and  hence  standa 
and  is  enthroned  above  them  all.  Creaturely  be- 
ing reaches  its  highest  stage  in  those  which  lava 
an  anima,  and  amongst  these  animated  creat  uu 


CHAPTER  VI.   1-33. 


with  souls,  the  four  above  named  agaiu  are  the 
nighest  and  most  complete,  the  most  living  as  it 
were.  By  their  combination  in  the  cherub,  he  ap- 
pears as  anima  aniinantium,  as  the  complex  and 
representative  of  the  highest  creattirely  life. 
Upon  this  account,  and  this  alone,  could  Ezekiel 
name   the    cherubim   absolutely  ni'nn ,  i-  e.,  the 

living  beings  (Ezek.  i.  5,  13,  15,  19,  22).  He  em- 
ploys, in  fact,  the  collective  -singular  n»nn ,  i.  e., 

the  living,  to  denote  the  unit-life  of  the  four  (chap. 
x.  14,  15,  17,  20.  "  This  is  the  living  creature  that 
I  saw  under  the  God  of  Israel,  by  the  river  of 
Chebar;"  comp.  chap.  i.  20,  21.)  So,  also,  John 
names  the  four  ™  fua  over-against  God  to  £uvti 
elc  Tobg  aiuvac,  to  whom,  as  such,  they  ascribe 
praise,  honor,  and  thanks,  because  He  has  made 
all  things,  and  all  things  are  and  have  been  created 
by  His  will  (Rev.  iv.  9-11).  In  so  far  as  all  crea- 
turely  life  is  individualized  in  them,  they  are  the 
most  direct,  immediate  evidences  of  the  creative 
power  and  glory,  the  definite,  highest  praise 
thereof,  and  they  surround  the  throne  of  God.  In 
the  fact  that  they  are  represented  upon  all  the 
walls  of  the  house,  does  it  first  rightly  acquire  the 
character  of  the  dwelling  of  Jehovah,  and  espe- 
cially that  of  a  life-residence  testifying  to  His  power 
and  glory.  Hence  it  is  apparent  how  unsatisfac- 
tory the  view  of  Riehm  is,  that  the  cherubim  are 
merely  witnesses  of  the  divine  presence,  and  that 
they  have  no  other  purpose  beyond  that  of  over- 
shadowing or  covering  holy  places  and  things. 
Certainly  this  latter  was  not  their  design  upon  the 
walls  of  the  dwelling,  and  if  they  did  nothing 
more  than  bear  witness  to  the  presence  of  God, 
how  could  Ezekiel  have  ever  named  them  simply 
"  the  living  creatures  ?  "  The  underlying  idea  of 
the  cherub  is  specifically  wholly  Israelitish,  and  is 
rooted  in  the  cardinal  dogma  of  God,  the  creator  of 
all  things,  which  separates  it  sharply  from  all 
other  pre-christian  religions.  This  idea  is  com- 
pletely destroyed,  if,  with  Riehm,  we  tear  apart 
Ihe  four  types  which  together  constitute  the 
sherub,  and  make  the  cherub  simply  a  man  with 
wings,  and  regard  the  bull  and  the  lion  as  an  ar- 
bitrary addition  upon  the  part  of  Ezekiel,  occa- 
sioned by  his  observation  of  the  Babylonian- 
heathen  combinations  of  beasts. 

(b)  Tlie  palms  to  the  right  and  left  of  the  cheru- 
bim have  a  relation  to  vegetable  life,  like  that  of 
the  cherubim  to  auimal  life.  The  palm-tree  unites 
in  itself  whatsoever  there  is  of  great  and  glorious 
in  the  vegetable  kingdom.  The  tree,  first  of  all, 
surpasses  all  other  plants;  but  amongst  trees  there 
is  none  so  lofty  and  towering,  none  of  such  beau- 
tiful majestic  growth,  so  constantly  in  its  verdure, 
casting,  by  its  luxuriant  foliage,  such  deep  shad- 
ows,— while  its  fruit  is  said  to  be  the  food  of  the 
blessed  in  Paradise, — as  the  palm.  Its  attributes 
are  so  manifold,  that  men  used  to  number  them  by 
the  days  in  the  year.  Linnaeus  named  the  palms 
"the  princes  of  the  vegetable  kingdom,"  and 
Humboldt  "  the  noblest  of  plants  to  which  the  na- 
tions have  accorded  the  meed  of  beauty."  The 
land,  moreover,  in  which  Jehovah  had  His  dwell- 
ing, the  land  of  promise,  was  the  true  and  proper 
habitat  of  the  palm.  Hence,  subsequently,  the 
palm,  as  the  symbol  of  Palestine,  appears  upon 
coins  (comp.  Celsius,  Bierobotanicon,  ii.  p.  111-579; 
tmy  treatise,  Der  Salom.  Temp.,  s.  120  sq.).  The 
^w   required   that   at   the    feast   of   tabernacles 


branches  of  palm-trees  should  be  at  the  booths 
(Lev.  xxiii.  40).  They  are  the  known  symbols  of 
salvation,  of  joy,  of  peace  after  victory  (Rev.  vii 
9;  1  Maccab.  xiii.  51;  2  Mace.  x.  7  ;  John  xii.  13). 

(c)  The  flower-work  finally,  in  its  connection  with 
the  significant  representations  of  cherubim  and  of 
palm-trees,  can  by  no  means  be  regarded  as  desti- 
tute of  meaning,  as  a  mere  affair  of  ornamentation. 
High  antiquity  knows  nothing  in  general  of 
empty  decorations,  like  our  so-called  egg  fillet* 
and  arabesques.  In  the  ancient  temples  in  par- 
ticular, there  were  no  kinds  of  forms  which  had 
not  a  religious  meaning.  From  that  time  down  to 
our  own,  flowers  and  blossoms  have  been  the 
usual  symbols  of  life-fulness,  and  in  all  language? 
the  age  of  the  greatest  life-fulness  has  bsen  called 
its  bloom.  So  then  by  the  flower-work,  as  by  the 
cherubim  and  the  palm-trees,  by  which  on  all 
sides  the  dwelling  of'Jehovah  was  decorated,  wai 
it  designated  as  an  abode  of  life.  It  should  not 
be  left  out  of  mind  here,  that  the  Israelitish  reli- 
gion did  not  conceive  of  "life,"  after  the  heathen 
natural  religions,  as  physical,  but  essentially  aa 
moral.  The  Creator  of  the  world,  who  as  such  is 
the  source  of  all  life,  and  is  the  absolutely  living, 
is  to  it  also  the  all-holy  (Is  xliii.  15),  who  dwells 
in  the  midst  of  Israel  to  sanctify  the  people  and 
by  them  to  be  hallowed  (Exod.  xxix.  43-46 ;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  26-2S).  All  true  divine  life  is  in  its  nature 
an  holy  life,  and  hence  the  symbols  of  life  in  the 
sanctuary  are  eo  ipso  symbols  of  an  holy  life.  The 
cherubim  are  not  merely  upon  the  walls  of  the 
dwelling,  but  above  all  in  the  holy  of  holies,  they 
form  the  throne  of  the  "holy  One  of  Israel,"  and 
they  are  inseparable  from  the  kapporeth  (Exod. 
xxv.  19),  i.  e.,  from  the  article  of  furniture  where 
the  highest  and  most  embracing  expiatory  or 
sanctification  rite  is  consummated.  In  the  apoca- 
lyptic vision,  the  four  living  beings  stand  around 
the  throne,  and  day  and  night  they  say,  "  Holy, 
holy,  holy  Lord  God  Almighty  "  (Rev.  iv.  8),  like 
the  seraphim  in  Isai.  vi.  2  sq.  As  the  righteous 
who  lead  an  holy  life  are  compared  generally  with 
trees  which  perpetually  flourish  and  bring  forth 
fruit  (Ps.  i.  3 ;  Jer.  xvii.  8 ;  Isa.  lxi.  3),  so  es- 
pecially with  palm-trees,  with  an  unmistakable 
reference  to  the  palms  "  which  are  planted  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord"  (Ps.  xcii.  12-15;  comp.  Ezek. 
xlvii.  12 ;  Rev.  xxii.  2 ;  Ps.  lii.  8).  So  also  are 
blossoms  and  flowers,  especially  lilies,  symbols  of 
righteousness  and  holiness  (Eccl.  xxxix.  13).  So 
also  the  plate  worn  upon  the  forehead  of  the  high- 
priest,   with  the  inscription,   "  Holiness  unto  the 

Lord,"  was  called  simply  fV,  i-  e.,  flower  (Exod. 

xxviii.  36).  The  budding  of  Aaron's  rod  was  the 
sign  of  an  holy  estate  (Numb.  xvii.  10).  The 
crown  of  life  (Rev.  ii.  10)  is  likewise  the  crown  of 
righteousness  (2  Tim.  iv.  8).  If  now  the  three 
kinds  of  figures  are  represented  upon  the  gold 
with  which  the  dwelling  was  overlaid,  the  two 
conceptions  of  light  and  life,  the  correlatives  of 
the  conception  of  revelation  (Ps.  xxxvi.  9;  John  i. 
4;  viii.  12),  are  symbolically  united.  But  the 
conception  of  revelation  recurs  with  that  of  the 
dwelling  (see  above,  under  2.  a).  The  seat  of  the 
dwelling  and  of  revelatior  is  necessarily,  in  its  na- 
ture, a  seat  of  light  and  liie. 

(d)  The  statues  of  the  cherubim  in  the  holy  cf 
holies  were  not  in  the  tabernacle  and  we  are  au 
thorized  to  suppose  that  the  reason  of  this  is  to  b« 


76 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


found  in  the  relation  of  the  temple  to  the  taber- 
nacle. Their  design  is  stated  in  1  Kings  viii.  6,  7 : 
"  And  the  priests  brought  in  the  ark  of  the  cov- 
enant of  the  Lord  uuto  his  place,  into  the  oracle  of 
the  house,  to  the  most  holy  place,  even  under  the 
wings  of  the  cherubims.  For  the  cherubims 
spread  forth  their  two  wings  over  the  place  of  the 
ark,  and  the  cherubims  covered  the  ark  and  the 
staves  thereof  above."  It  is  also  remarked  in  2 
Chron.  iii.  13:  "and  they  stood  on  their  feet," 
which  would  have  been  in  the  highest  degree  su- 
perfluous, if  it  were  not  meant  by  this  expression 
that  they  were  firm  and  immovable,  like  D'llBJh 

i.  e.,  pillars.  The  ark  of  the  covenant  with  the  kap- 
poreth  and  the  cherubim  then  placed  there,  like 
its  "slaves," — the  evidences  of  mobility  and  trans- 
port show, — was  a  movable,  wandering  throne, 
just  as  the  entire  dwelling  was  a  transportable 
tent.  As  the  peculiar  original  pledge  of  the  cov- 
enant, it  was  not,  when  the  house  was  built, 
made  anew,  but  it  was  taken  from  the  tent  and 
lodged  within  the  house,  that  it  might  forever 
have  its  abiding-place  and  cease  to  be  transport- 
able. To  this  end  it  was  placed  under  the  fixed, 
immovable  cherubim,  whose  wings  completely  cov- 
ered it,  covering  the  "staves,"  the  very  witnesses 
of  its  movableness,  and  with  it  one  entire  whole 
was  formed.  As  the  cherubim  in  general,  in  their 
being  and  meauiug,  belonged  to  the  throne  (see 
above),  so  the  firm  fixing  of  the  throne  was  repre- 
sented by  means  of  the  permanent,  large  cheru- 
bim-statues. It  is  entirely  wide  of  the  mark  to 
explain,  as  Thenius  does,  on  the  pretended  analogy 
of  cherubim  with  the  guardian  griffins  and  dragons 
of  heathen  religions,  our  cherubim  in  the  holy  of 
holies,  as  the  watchmen  and  guardians  of  the  throne 
of  Jehovah.  For,  apart  from  every  other  consid- 
eration, nothing  is  more  contradictory  to  the  Is- 
raelitish idea  of  God  than  that  Jehovah  stands  in 
need  of  guardians  of  His  throne.  The  cherubim  in- 
deed are  the  supporters  and  vehicle  of  His  throne, 
but  never  as  the  watchmen  thereof  (comp.  Ezek.  i. 
and  x.) ;  they  belong  rather  to  the  throne  itself,  and 
are,  as  such,  witnesses  and  representatives  of  the 
glory  of  God,  but  they  do  not  guard  Him.  "When 
in  our  text  here,  we  think  especially  of  their  wings 
spread  over  the  holy  of  holies  (from  wall  to  wall), 
and  that  with  them  they  overshadow  the  ark, 
the  reason  for  this  is  in  the  fact  that  He  who  is 
here  enthroned  in  His  glory  (1133)  is  invisible,  or 

rather  is  unapproachable  and  removed,  for  He 
dwells  in  an  unapproachable  splendor ;  no  man 
can  "see  "  Him  and  live  (1  Tim.  vi.  16;  Lev.  xvi. 
2 ;  Judg.  xiii.  23).  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
this,  as  Riehm  would  have  it,  that  the  design  of 
the  cherubim  consisted  only  m  veiling  and  cover- 
ing the  present  God,  and  that  their  significance 
was  like  that  of  the  "enwrapping"  clouds  (Ps. 
xcvii.  2;  xviii.  11,  12;  Exod.  xix.  9,  16 ;  xxiv.16); 
for  the  cherubim  upon  the  walls  between  the 
palm-trees  had  nothing  to  cover  or  veil.  This  was 
only  their  special  duty  in  the  holy  of  holies,  by 
the  throne.  When  it  is  expressly  added  that  they 
did  not  turn  their  faces  like  those  already  upon 
the  kapporeth,  and  towards  it,  but  towards  the 
house,  i.  e.,  tTwards  the  holy  place,  we  can  find  a 
reason  for  it  in  their  special  functions:  as  the 
heralds,  messengers  of  that  which  is  not  to  be  ap- 
proached, they  should  direct  their  gaze  towards 
the  outer  world 


7.  To  show  the  significance  of  the  temple  in  .t| 
relation  to  the  history  of  redemption,  the  quest  on 
presents  itself  finally:  as  to  the  manner  in  which  H 
was  related  to  the  temples  of  heathen  antiquity,  whetiiet 
it  was  more  or  less  a  copy,  or  an  original.     K.  0. 
Muller  (Archceologie  der  K.,  i.  s.  372,  Eng.  trans,  p. 
276)  remarks  strikingly  of  the  heathen  temple  that 
it  was  "  at  first  nothing  more  than  the  place  where 
an  image,  the  object  of  worship,  could  be  securely 
set  up  and  protected."     Every  place  enclosing  the 
image  of  a  god,  if  only  set  oft'  with  stakes,  was 
called  a  temple  (Servius  defines  templum  by  locus, 
palis  aut  hastis  clausus,  modo  sit  sacer).     Without 
the  image  of  the  divinity,  heathen  antiquity  could 
not  conceive  of  a  temple.     Half  in  wonder  and 
half  in  derision,  Tacitus  exclaims  over  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  (Hist.,  5.  9),  Nulla  intus  Deum  effigies, 
vacua  sedes  et  inania  arcana!  and  Spencer  (De  Leg. 
Hebr.  Bit,  iii.  5,  6)  rightly  says :  Seculi  fide  receptum 
erat,  templa  a^oava  Numine  el  religions  vacua  et  plant 
nulla  esse.     A  temple  was  not  first  built,  and  then 
an  image  of  the  god  made  to  erect  within  it,  but 
a  temple  was  built  for  the  already  existing  image, 
which  then  became,  in  a  proper  sense,  the  house 
or  dwelling  of  the  represented  deity.     Forth  from 
the  image  the  heathen  temple  proceeds.     This  is 
its  principle.     And  as  the  gods  of  heathenism  are 
nothing  more  than  cosmical  powers,  their  temples 
in  plan  and  contrivance  refer  only  to  cosmical  re- 
lations (see  examples  in  Der  Salomonisrlie  Tempel,  s. 
276  sq.  and  Symb.  des  Jfos.  Kult,  i.  s.  97  .s<;.).    But 
the  principle  of  the  Israelitish  temple  is  the  re- 
verse, in  so  far  as  the  chief  and  great  command- 
ment of  the  religion  declares:   "Thou  shalt  not 
make  unto  thyself  any  graven  image,"  &c.     The 
erection  of  a  "  dwelling  of  Jehovah  "  did  not  pro- 
ceed from  any  need  of  enclosing  and  preserving  an 
image  of  God,  but  only  from  out  the  covenant  of 
Jehovah  with  His  chosen  people  (see  above,  under 
2.  a).     The  tables  of  the  law,  which  are  called  sim- 
ply "  the  covenant "  (1  Kings  viii.  20),  and  as  the 
proclamation  of  the  covenant  were  preserved  in 
the  ark,  represented,  first  of  all,  this  invisible  cove- 
nant relation.     Hence  this  ark  was  the  central 
point  of  the  covenant.     There  was  concentrated 
the  indwelling  of   Jehovah;  there,   too,  was  His 
throne.     But  since  Jehovah  dwelt  within  Israel  to 
sanctify  the  people  and  by  them  to  be  hallowed 
(Exod.   xxix.  43  sq. ;    Ezek.  xxxvii.   26   sq.),  His 
dwelling-place  was   essentially  a   sarctuary,  and 
forth  from  this  its  supreme  and  final  design,  its 
entire  plan,  division,  and  arrangement  proceeded 
(see  above,  under  2,  b,  and  3,  a).    The  entire  temple 
rests,   consequently,    upon  ethico-religious  ideas, 
which  are  specifically  Israelitish,  and  which  do  not 
recur  in  any  other  of  the  ancient  religions.     It  is 
as  unique  as  the  Israelitish  religion  itself;  its  ori- 
ginal is  the  tabernacle,  from  which  it  differs  only 
because  there  is  necessarily  some  difference  be- 
tween an  house  and  a  tent.     Its  originality  out- 
wardly is  shown  in  the  fact  that  no  ancient  people 
possessed  a  temple  like  it  in  plan,  arrangement, 
and  contrivance.     Men  still  refer  to  the  Egyptian 
temples,  only  these  are  "  aggregates  which  admit  of 
indefinite  increase  "   (K.  0.  Muller,  Archce.,  s.  257, 
Eng.  trans,  p.  191),  and   the  common  feature  of 
their  arrangement  was  that  "they  were  not  com- 
pleted, but  were  constantly  undergoing  enlarge- 
ment," and  "  they  had  no  given  measurements." 
The  "  single  portions  are  in  themselves  finished, 
and  can  last,  but  other  portions  can  be  added,  and 


CHAPTER  VI.  1-38. 


n 


others  yet  again.  The  band  which  holds  these 
single,  different  parts  together  is  slight "  (Schnaase, 
Gesch.  der  bild.  Kiinste,  i.  s.  393,  424).  Quite  the  re- 
Terse  holds  in  respect  of  the  dwelling  of  Jehovah, 
the  plan  of  which  is  in  the  highest  degree  simple — 
an  house  consisting  of  two  divisions  surrounded 
by  a  court.  An  indefinite  extension  is  just  as  im- 
possible as  a  contraction,  without  the  destruction 
of  the  whole,  and  precisely  in  this  respect  the  Is- 
raelitish  sanctuary  is  more  like  all  other  ancient 
temples  than  those  of  Egypt.  Besides  this,  the 
Btyle  of  architecture  in  the  Egyptian  temples,  to 
which  the  truncated  pyramidal  form  essentially  be- 
longs, is  entirely  diverse  in  that  of  Solomon,  as 
also  the  stone  ceilings  and  pillars,  while  on  the 
other  hand  they  do  not  have  wooden  wainscotings 
and  overlaying  of  metals.  As  Solomon  availed 
himself  of  Phoenician  workmen,  occasion  has  been 
found  to  institute  a  comparison  with  Phoenician 
temples  (Schnaase,  s.  238).  But  the  accounts  re- 
specting these  temples  are  so  scanty  and  general, 
that  the  attempt  has  been  made,  upon  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  a  copy  of 
the  Phoenician,  to  fill  out  and  complete  the  defect- 
ive descriptions  of  them  from  the  scriptural  delin- 
eation of  our  temple  (comp.  Vatke,  Relig.  des  Alt. 
Test.,  s.  323  sq. ;  Miiller,  Archaeol,  Eng.  trans,  p.  214). 
The  little  that  we  know  of  the  Phoenician  temples 
of  a  later  date,  does  not  exhibit  the  remotest  like- 
ness to  that  of  Solomon  (comp.  my  treatise,  s.  250 
sq.).  In  this  matter  modern  criticism  pursues  a 
very  partisan  course.  It  is  compelled  to  acknowl- 
edge that  each  ancient  people  had  their  own  pe- 
culiar religious  ideas,  which  were  expressed  in 
their  sacred  structures,  but  that  the  people  Israel 
alone  built  their  only  temple,  not  according  to 
what  was  peculiar  to  themselves,  but  according  to 
foreign,  heathenish  ideas.  Originality  is  conceded 
to  all  other  temples  rather  than  to  the  temple  of 
Solomon. 

[The  justness  of  our  author's  observations  here 
is  indisputable.  We  cannot  reconstruct  the  tem- 
ple as  we  can  reconstruct  any  building,  essential 
features  of  which  are  remaining.  Doubtless  as  its 
architect  was  a  Phoenician,  it  bore  the  impress  of 
the  Phoenician  genius.  The  "originality"  of  the 
temple  was  in  its  arrangements  and  its  design  and 
its  significance;  but  in  its  outward  form,  as  it 
struck  the  eye  of  the  beholder,  we  fancy  it  must 
have  had  Phoenician  features.  The  Jews  were 
singularly  deficient  in  their  conceptions  of  beauty 
of  form.  The  cherubim  may  be  cited  in  proof; 
and  the  temple,  architecturally,  probably  was  left 
to  the  Phoenician  artist  under  the  conditions  which 
the  exigencies  of  the  building  itself  required.  The 
reader  may  consult  Dean  Stanley,  Jewish  Church, 
second  series,  New  York,  Chas.  Scribner  &  Co., 
1870,  p.  225-236.  There  is  no  evidence,  however, 
that  it  suggested  in  the  least  degree  an  Egvptian 
temple.— E.  H.] 

8.  The  typical  significance  of  the  temple,  which, 
like  that  of  the  tabernacle,  is  distinctly  expressed 
in  the  New  Testament,  rests  upon  those  symbol- 
ical features  which  they  have  in  common.  Both 
are  "a  dwelling  of  Jehovah,"  and  in  this  respect 
the  place  of  the  revelation  and  presence  of  the  holy 
and  sanctifying  God,  an  abode  of  light  and  life,  forth 
from  which  all  well-being  for  Israel  proceeds. 
But  the  entire  Old  Testament  economy,  especially 
its  cultus,  bears  the  impress  of  the  bodily  and  of 
the  outward,  an",  consequently  of  the  imperfect, 


and  in  this  the  dwelling  of  Jehovah  necessarilj 
participates.  As  the  people  Israel,  the  people  of 
Jehovah,  is  limited  by  natural  descent  ('lapa^) 
Kara  oapua,  1  Cor.  x.  18),  so  the  dwelling  of  JehO' 
vah  therein  is  conditioned  by  the  corporeal  and 
outward,  especially  in  the  way  of  the  local  and 
the  visible.  But  therefore,  as  imperfect,  it  looks 
forward  to  the  perfect  which  is  to  come,  and 
hence  upon  this  account  is  called  a  ckio.  ruv  fieX- 
?.6vruv  or  ruv  ervovpaviuv  (Heb.  viii.  5  ;  x.  1).  The 
perfect  first  appeared,  when  the  time  was  fulfilled, 
in  Him  who  was  the  cuua  in  contrast  with  the 
BKig.,  i.  e.,  in  Christ  (Col.  ii.  11).  What  the  dwell- 
ing typifies,  that  He  is,  in  reality  and  truth.  In 
Him  "  dwells  "  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 
aufiariKuc  (Col.  ii.  9).  He  is  the  t-oyoc,  the  true 
revelation  of  God,  and  in  Him  is  life  and  light :  He 
dwelt   among   us   (iampiuae),  and  we  beheld  His 

glory,  (<MJa,   i.  «.,  1133)  full  of  grace   and  truth 

(John  i.  1,  4,  14).  He  named  himself  the  "  tem- 
ple "  of  God  (John  ii.  19),  and  the  chief  complaint 
against  Him  was,  that  "He  said,  I  can  destroy 
the  temple  of  God,  and  build  it  again  in  three 
days"  (Matt.  xxvi.  61).  With  this  real  temple 
came  consequently  the  end  of  the  merely  typical, 
outward,  and  local  temple.  With  Him,  the  dwell- 
ing of  God  hitherto  amongst  the  'loparj'k  Kara 
oapKa  ceased,  and  proceeding  from  Him,  who  with 
one  sacrifice  "hath  perfected  forever  them  that 
are  sanctified"  (Heb.  x.  14),  the  true  "abode"  of 
God  now  is  here  (John  xiv.  23).  Through  Him 
indeed  God  dwells  now  in  the  collective  believers 
in  Him,  in  the  congregation,  which  is  His  body, 
the  fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all  (Eph.  i. 
23 ;  Col.  ii.  9,  10).  Now  is  the  declaration,  "  I  will 
dwell  in  their  midst,"  realized,  for  the  first  time, 
in  its  full  truth.  The  congregation  which  is  filled 
by  Him,  is  the  true  temple  of  the  living  God,  the 
habitation  of  God  in  the  spirit  (2  Cor.  vi.  16 ;  1 
Cor.  iii.  16;  Eph.  ii.  21,  22;  1  Pet.  ii.  5).  But  if 
Christ  appear  also  as  the  antitype  of  details  even 
of  the  sanctuary,  such  as  the  veil  before  the  holy 
of  holies  (Heb.  x.  20),  and  the  "throne  of  grace" 
(Rom.  iii.  25),  the  ground  of  this  is  not,  as  the  old 
typology  supposed,  in  the  circumstance  that  these 
objects  were  immediate  types  of  Christ,  but  in 
that  through  these,  truths  and  divine-human  re- 
lations were  signified,  which,  like  "  the  dwelling  " 
itself,  first  in  Christ  and  through  Him  reached  its 
full  realization  (comp.  my  treatise :  Der  Salom. 
Tempel,  s.  81  sq.).  In  so  far  now,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament economy,  as  the  congregation  of  the  faith- 
ful is  itself  the  dwelling  of  God,  it  no  more  needs 
a  temple ;  and  if  Christendom  still  build  houses  of 
God,  it  is  not  with  the  notion  that  God  dwells 
within  them.  The  Christian  church-building  is 
not  a  temple,  but  the  congregation-house,  nnd 
God's  house  only  in  this  respect.  It  is  not,  how 
ever,  only  that,  protected  from  wind  and  weather 
men  can  "worship  God  undisturbed,  but  that  th« 
faithful  may  assemble  as  one  body,  and  exercise 
their  fellowship  as  members  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  build  themselves  up  as  individual  stones  into 
a  spiritual  house,  in  Jesus  Christ  the  chief  corner- 
stone. Thence  it  follows  that  it  is  a  great  per- 
version to  regard  the  temple  of  Solomon  as  the 
model  for  a  Christian  church,  and  to  plan  on« 
like  it.  It  was  not  the  design  of  this  temple  tc 
gather  the  congregation  within  itself.  They  stood 
Fn  the  forecourt.     The  church,  on  the  other  hand 


78 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


embraces  them  in,  and  must  have  the  arrangement 
and  contrivance  which  corresponds  with  the  being 
and  the  needs  of  the  congregation  as  the  commu- 
nion of  the  faithful. 

[If  we  keep  in  mind  the  various  portions  of  the 
temple — porch,  holy  place,  holy  of  holies,  and  the 
side-structure — it  would  seem  that  the  vision  of 
the  completed  so-called  Gothic-Church,  must  have 
dawned  upon  the  mind  of  some  cloistered  architect 
after  he  had  familiarized  his  mind  with  the  constit- 
uent parts  and  divisions  of  the  temple.  Each  lias 
a  porch :  the  nave  corresponds  with  the  holy  place, 
the  aisles  with  the  side-structure,  the  sanctuary 
and  choir  with  the  holy  of  holies.  In  the  temple, 
partition  walls  separated  these  portions  from  each 
other;  in  the  Christian  church-building,  all  parti- 
tion walls  disappear,  and  the  parts  are  connected 
by  the  use  of  the  pointed  arch,  and  other  devices 
of  architectural  skill. — E.  H.] 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1  and  38.  "Why  was  the  time  for  the 
building  of  the  temple  so  exactly  specified?  (1) 
Because  it  was  a  most  important  event  for  Israel. 
It  points  to  the  final  aim  of  the  leading  out  of 
Egypt,  the  land  of  bondage.  The  time  of  the 
wandering,  of  unrest,  and  of  battle,  is  over.  Israel 
is  in  possession  of  the  whole  of  the  promised  land  ; 
the  time  of  the  kingdom  of  peace  is  come.  The 
temple  is  a  memorial  of  the  truth  and  mercy  of 
God,  who  ever  fulfils  His  promises,  albeit  after 
many  long  years  (Ex.  iii.  17),  supplies  all  wants, 
and  governs  all  things  excellently.  The  word  of 
the  Lord  is  sure.  After  long  wandering,  after 
many  a  cross,  many  a  tribulation  and  trouble, 
comes  the  promised  time  of  peace ;  the  Lord  helps 
His  people,  even  as  he  preserves  every  single  be- 
ing unto  his  heavenly  kingdom  (2  Tim.  iv.  IS). 
(2)  Because  it  is  a  world-historical  event.  The 
temple  of  Solomon  is  the  first  and  only  one,  in  the 
whole  ancient  world,  which  was  erected  to  the 
one,  true,  and  living  God.  Darkness  covers  the 
earth  and  gross  darkness  the  people  (Is.  lx.  2). 
Heathendom  had  here  and  there  greater  temples, 
but  they  were  the  abodes  of  darkness ;  this  tem- 
ple is  the  abode  of  light  and  life ;  from  it,  light 
breaks  forth  over  all  nations  (Is.  ii.  3 ;  Jer.  iii.  17 ; 
Mic.  iv.  2).  What  avails  the  greatest,  most  glo- 
rious temple,  if  darkness  instead  of  light  proceeds 
fqom  it,  and,  amid  all  the  prayers  and  praises,  the 
Knowledge  of  the  living  God  is  wanting  ? 

Ver.  2.  The  exceeding  glory  and  pomp  of  the 
temple.  (1)  The  idea,  to  which  it  bore  witness. 
No  house,  no  palace  in  Israel  compared,  for  splen- 
dor and  glory,  with  the  house  of  God.  Everything 
in  the  shape  of  costly  material  and  treasure 
which  the  age  permitted,  all  toil  and  all  art,  were 
lavished  upon  it.  To  the  Most  High  were  given 
the  noblest  and  dearest  of  men's  possessions. 
How  many  princes,  how  many  nations,  how  many 
cities,  build  gorgeous  palaces,  and  adorn  with  gold 
and  all  treasures  the  buildings  designed  to  minis- 
ter to  the  pride  of  the  eyes,  the  lust  of  the  flesh, 
and  to  a  haughty  manner  of  life,  but  yet  have  no 
money,  no  sacrifice,  for  the  temples  which  either 
are  entirely  wanting,  or  are  poor  and  miserable  in 
appearance  I  (2)  The  purpose  which  it  served. 
Its   magnificence  was  no  empty,  dead  show,  to 


dazzle  and  intoxicate  the  senses;  everything  was 
full  of  meaning,  and  referred  to  higher,  divine 
things ;  it  was  not  meant  to  render  sensual  man 
still  more  sensual,  but  to  draw  him  nearer  to  th« 
supersensuous,  and  thus  to  elevate  him.  Empty 
parade  is  unseemly  for  any  house  of  God ;  rather 
must  everything  which  wealth  and  art  can  accom- 
plish serve  to  raise  the  heart  and  mind  to  God,  so 
that  each  one  shall  say:  This  is  none  other  but 
the  house  of  God,  and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven 
(Gen.  xxviii.  17)1— The  temple  of  Solomon  shows 
what  the  house  of  God  should  ever  be:  (a)  a 
place  of  testimony:  the  testimony  or  word  of 
God  forms  its  heart  and  centre ;  (6)  a  sanctuary, 
where  we  hallow  God,  and  he  sanctifies  us 
through  Christ  (Heb.  x.  14;  Sacrament);  (c)  an 
heavenly  place  where,  far  from  all  worldly  cares, 
peace  and  rest  reign,  and  all  are  united  in  prayer, 
in  the  praise  and  glory  of  God  (see  Historical  and 
Ethical).— (2)  The  dwelling  of  God  in  the  midst  of 
his  people  (a)  in  the  old,  (6)  in  the  new  covenant 
(2  Cor.  vi.  16). — The  temple  of  God  a  prophecy  of 
Christ  and  of  His  church  (see  Historical  and  Eth- 
ical), or,  the  typical  and  the  true  temple  of  God 
(1  Pet.  ii.  5).  The  former  is  built  by  men's  hands, 
the  latter  out  of  living  stones,  whose  foundation 
and  corner-stone  is  Christ;  there  were  brought 
gifts  and  sacrifices,  which  could  not  make  him 
that  did  the  service  perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the 
conscience  (Heb.  ix.  9,  10)  ;  here  are  offered 
spiritual  sacrifices,  pleasing  to  God  through 
Christ ;  the  former  is  an  house  of  external  sanc- 
tity and  purity,  the  latter  an  indwelling  of  God 
in  the  soul,  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  pu- 
rities the  conscience  from  dead  works;  there  God 
speaks  through  the  law,  here  through  the  gospel. 
— Vers.  11-13.  Osiantjer:  We  ever  need,  especially 
in  high  affairs,  divine  consolation  and  help,  so 
that  thereby  we  may  be  animated  to  more  ac- 
tivity in  the  performance  of  our  duties.  He  who 
has  begun  and  undertaken  a  work  according  to 
the  will  of  God,  and  for  His  glory,  may  rest  as- 
sured of  divine  support,  may  build  upon  God's 
promises,  and  will  not  suffer  himself  to  shrink 
from,  or  tire  of,  the  obstacles  which  meet  him  by 
the  way  (Matt.  xxiv.  13). — Ver.  13.  I  will  not 
leave  my  people  :  a  glorious  word  of  consolation, 
but  also  a  solemn  word  of  warning. — Ver.  14. 
Starke  :  "When  the  word  of  God  is  received  with 
faith,  it  gives  new  strength  to  the  heart,  and  urges 
us  on  to  all  goodness  (Jas.  i.  21). — Vers.  15-22. 
All  the  adorning  of  the  house  was  within;  there 
was  the  light  and  the  brightness  of  gold,  there 
also  the  symbols  of  life.  Ye  are  the  temple  of 
God  (1  Cor.  iii.  17).  The  adorning  of  the  faith. 
ful  shall  not  be  outward,  but  inward;  the  "hid- 
den man  of  the  heart"  is  manifest  only  to  the 
Lord,  and  not  to  the  eyes  of  the  world ;  the  gold 
of  faith,  and  the  life  hidden  with  Christ  in  God,  is 
the  glory  of  the  man.  —  Vers.  23-2S.  Starke  : 
To  make  and  set  up  symbols  is  not,  in  itself,  idol 
atry,  nor  against  the  first  commandment,  and  im- 
ages are  also  allowable  in  churches,  if  they  are 
not  made  objects  of  worship.  If,  indeed,  in  the 
holy  of  holies,  the  greatest  and  noblest  carvings 
are  placed,  we  cannot,  in  the  wish  to  see  all  works 
of  art  removed  from  the  churches,  and  merely 
seats  and  benches  remaining,  appeal  to  Scripture, 
and  least  of  all  to  the  man  to  whom  God  g»Te  i 
wise  and  understanding  heart  (chap.  hi.  12). 


CHAPTER  VII.  1-51. 


0. —  The  accomplishment  of  the  building  of  the  palace,  and  the  preparation  of  the  ve»»elt 

of  the  temple. 

Chapter  VII.  1-51. 

1  Bat '  Solomon  was  building  his  own  house  thirteen  years,  and  he  finished  all 

2  his  house.  He  built  also  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  ;  the  length  thereof 
was  a  hundred  cubits,  and  the  breadth  thereof  fifty  cubits,  and  the  height 
thereof  thirty  cubits,  upon  four  *  rows  of  cedar  pillars,  with  cedar  beams  upon 

3  the  pillars.     And  it  loas  covered  with  cedar  above  upon  the  beams  [side  cham- 

4  bers  '],  that  lay  on  forty-five  pillars,  fifteen  [i.  e.,  chambers]  in  a  row.  And  there 
were  windows  [beams ']  in  three  rows,  and  light  [front b]  was  against  light  [front] 

5  in  three  ranks.     And  all  the  doors6  and  posts  were  square  with  the  windows 

6  [beams  3]  :  and  light  [front]  was  against  light  [front]  in  three  ranks.  And  he 
made  a  porch  of  pillars  ;  the  length  thereof  was  fifty  cubits,  and  the  breadth 
thereof  thirty  cubits  :  and  the  porch  was  before  them :  and  the  other  pillars 

7  and  the  thick  beam  [threshold7]  were  before  them.  Then  he  made  a  porch  fo  • 
the  throne  where  he  might  judge,  even  the  porch  of  judgment :  and  it  loas  cov- 
ered with  cedar  from  one  side  of  the  floor  to  the  other  [from  the  floor  to  the 

8  floor "].  And  his  house  where  he  dwelt  had  another  court  within  the  porch, 
which  was  of  the  like  work.     Solomon  made  also  a  house  for  Pharaoh's  daugh- 

9  ter,  whom  he  had  taken  to  wife,  like  unto  this  porch.  All  these  were  of  costly 
stones,  according  to  the  measures  of  hewed  stones,  sawed  with  saws,  within  and 
without,  even  from  the  foundation  unto  the  coping,  and  so  on  the  outside  toward 

10  [from  the  outside  even  to']  the  great  court.     And  the  foundation  was  of  costly 

11  stones,  even  great  stones,  stones  of  ten  cubits,  and  stones  of  eight  cubits,     And 

12  above  were  costly  stones,  after  the  measures  of  hewed  stones,  and  cedars.  And 
the  great  court  round  about  was  with  three  rows  of  hewed  stones,  and  a  row  of 
cedar  beams,  both  for  the  inner  court  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and 
for  the  porch  of  the  house. 

13, 14  And  king  Solomon  sent  and  fetched  Hiram  out  of  Tyre.  He  was  a  widow's 
son  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  and  his  father  was  a  man  of  Tyre,  a  worker  in  brass: 
and  he  was  filled  with  wisdom,  and  understanding,  and  cunning  to  work  all 
works  in  brass.    And  he  came  to  king  Solomon,  and  wrought  all  his  work. 

1 5  For  he  cast  two  pillars  of  brass,  of  eighteen  cubits  high  apiece ; 10  and  a  line  of 

16  twelve  cubits  did  compass  either '°  of  them  about.  And  he  made  two  chapiters 
of  molten  brass,  to  set  upon  the  tops  of  the  pillars  :  the  height  of  the  one  chapi- 

IV  ter  icas  five  cubits,"  and  the  height  of  the  other  chapiter  was  five  cubits:  and 
nets  of  checker  work  [lace-work],  and  wreaths  of  chain-work,  for  the  chapiters 
which  were  upon  the  top  of  the  pillars  ;  seven  "  for  the  one  chapiter,  and  6even  " 

18  for  the  other  chapiter.  And  he  made  the  pillars  [pomegranates  "],  and  two  rows 
round  about  upon  the  one  network,  to  cover  the  chapiters  that  were  upon  the  top 
with  pomegranates  [top  of  the  pillars] :  and  so  did  he  for  the  other  chapiter. 

19  And  the  chapiters  that  were  upon  the  top  of  the  pillars  were  of  lily-work  in  the 

20  porch,  four  cubits.  And  the  chapiters  upon  the  two  pillars  had  pomegranates1* 
also  above,  over  against  the  belly  which  was  by  the  network:  and  the  pome- 

21  granates  were  two  hundred  in  rows  round  about  upon  the  other  chapiter.  And 
he  set  up  the  pillars  in  the  porch  of  the  temple :  and  he  set  up  the  right  pillar, 
and  called  the  name  thereof  Jachin  :  and  he  set  up  the  left  pillar,  and  called  the 

22  name  thereof  Boaz.  And  upon  the  top  of  the  pillars  was  lily-work  :  so  was  the 
work  of  the  pillars  finished. 

83  And  he  made  a  molten  sea,  ten  cubits  from  the  one  brim  to  the  other  [from 
lip  to  lip]  :   it  was  round  all  about,  and  his  height  was  five  cubits:   and  a  line 

24  of  thirty  cubits  did  compass  it  round  about.  And  under  the  brim  of  it  round 
about  there  were  knops  "  compassing  it,  ten  in  a  cubit,  compassing  the  sea  round 


80  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  EXS'GS 


25  about :  the  knops  were  cast  in  two  rows,  when  it  was  cast.  It  stood  upon  twelve 
oxen,  three  looking  toward  the  north,  and  three  looking  toward  the  west,  and 
three  looking  toward  the  south,  and  three  looking  toward  the  east :  and  the  sea 

26  was  set  above  upon  them,  and  all  their  hinder  parts  were  inward.  And  it  was  an 
handbreadth  thick,  and  the  brim  thereof  was  wrought  like  the  brim  of  a  cup, 
with  "  flowers  of  lilies :  it  contained  two  "  thousand  baths. 

27  And  he  made  ten  bases  of  brass :  four  "  cubits  was  the  length  of  one  base, 

28  and  four  cubits  the  breadth  thereof,  and  three  "  cubits  the  height  of  it.  And 
the  work  of  the  bases  was  on  this  manner  :  they  had  borders  [panels  "],  and 

29  the  borders  [panels]  were  between  the  ledges :  and  on  the  borders  [panels]  that 
were  between  the  ledges  icere  lions,  oxen,  and  cherubims :  and  upon  the  ledges 
there  was  a  base  above :  "  and  beneath  the  lions  and  oxen  were  certain  additions 

30  made  of  thin  work  [were  wreaths  of  hanging  work  '"].  And  every  base  had  four 
brazen  wheels,  and  plates  [axletrees]  of  brass :  and  the  four  corners  thereof 
had  undersetters  [four  feet  thereof  had  shoulders]  :  under  the  laver  were  under- 

31  setters  [the  shoulders]  molten,  at  the  side  of  every  addition  [wreath].  And  the 
mouth  of  it 31  within  the  chapiter  and  above  was  a  cubit : "  but  the  mouth 
thereof  was  round  after  the  work  of  the  base,  a  cubit  and  a  half:  "  and  also 
upon  the  mouth  of  it  were  gravings  with  their  borders  [panels],  foursquare,  not 

32  round.  And  under  the  borders  [panels]  were  four  wheels;3'  and  the  axletrees 
[holders]  of  the  wheels  were  joined  to  [were  in  the  base]  the  base :  and  the  height  of 

33  a  wheel  was  a  cubit  and  half  a  cubit.  And  the  work  of  the  wheels  teas  like  the 
work  of  a  chariot  wheel :  their  axletrees,  and  their  naves,  and  their  felloes,  and 

34  their  spokes,  were  all  molten.  And  there  were  four  undersetters  [shoulders]  to 
the  four  corners  of  one  base :  and  the  undersetters  [shoulders]  icere  of  the  very 

35  base  itself.  And  in  the  top  of  the  base  was  there  a  round  compass  of  half  a 
cubit  high  : "  and  on  the  top  of  the  base  "  the  ledges  [holders]  thereof  and  the 

36  borders  [panels]  thereof  icere  of  the  same.  For  [And]  on  the  plates  of  the  ledgea 
[holders]  thereof,  and  on  the  borders  [panels]  thereof,  he  graved  cherubims,  lions, 
and  palm-trees,  according  to  the  proportion  [room]  of  every  one,  and  additions 

37  [wreaths]  round  about.     After  this  manner  he  made  the  ten  bases  :  all  of  them 

38  had  one  casting,  one  measure,  and  one  size  [form].  Then  made  he  ten  lavers  of 
brass:  one  laver  contained  forty  baths  :  and  every  laver  was  tour  cubits  :  "  and 

39  upon  every  one  of  the  ten  bases  one  laver.  And  he  put  five  bases  on  the  right 
side  of  the  house,  and  five  on  the  left  side  of  the  house:   and  he  set  the  sea  on 

40  the  right  side  of  the  house  eastward  over  against  the  south.  And  Hiram  made 
the  lavers  [pots28],  and  the  shovels,  and  the  basins. 

So  Hiram  made  an  end  of  doing  all  the  work  that  he  made  king"  Solomon 

41  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]:  the  two  pillars,  and  the  tioo  bowls  of  the 
chapiters  that  were  on  the  top  of  the  two  pillars  ;  and  the  two  networks,  to  cover 

42  the  two  bowls  of  the  chapiters  which  icere  upon  the  top  of  the  pillars  ;  and  four 
hundred  pomegranates  for  the  two  networks,  even  two  rows  of  pomegranates  for 
one  network,  to  cover  the  two  bowls  of  the  chapiters  that  icere  upon  the30  pil- 

43,  44  lars  ;   and  the  ten  bases,  and  ten  lavers  on  the  bases  ;  and  one  sea,  and  twelve 

45  oxen  under  the  sea ;  and  the  pots,  and  the  shovels,  and  the  basins  :  and  all  these  " 

vessels,  which  Hiram  made  to  king  Solomon  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah], 

40  were  of  bright  [burnished3'']  brass.    In  the  plain  of  Jordan  did  the  king  cast  them, 

47  in  the  clay  ground  [compact  soil]  between  Succoth  and  Zarthan.  And  Solomon 
left  all  the  vessels  unweighed,  because  they  were  exceeding  many  :  neither  was 
the  weight  of  the  brass  found  out. 

48  And  Solomon  made  all  the  vessels  that  pertained  unto  the  house  of  the  Lord 
[Jehovah] :  the  altar  of  gold,  and  the  table  of  gold,  whereupon  the  shewbrcad 

49  was,  and  the  candlesticks  of  pure  gold,  five  on  the  right  side,  and  five  on  the 
left,  before  the  oracle,  with  the  flowers,  and  the  lamps,  and  the  tongs  of  gold, 

50  and  the  bowls,  and  the  snuffers,  and  the  basins,  and  the  spoons,  and  the  i-eusers 
©/'pure  gold  ;  and  the  hinges  o/'gold,  both  for  the  doors  of  the  inner  hons%  the 

51  most  holy  place,  and  for  the  doors  of  the  house,  to  wit,  of  the  temple.  So  was 
ended  all  the  work  that  kins'  Solomon  made  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  [\Jeho%ahJ 


CHAPTER  VII.  1-51.  81 


And  Solomon  brought  in  the  things  which  David  his  father  1  ad  dedicated;  even 
the  silver,  and  the  gold,  and  the  vessels,  did  he  put  among  the  treasures  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]. 

TEXTUAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1.— [The  twelve  verses  at  the  beginning  fire  transferred  to  the  end  of  this  chapter  in  the  Sept 
3  Ver.  2.— [The  Sept  read  three  rows;  the  Arab,  in  ver.  3,  sixty  pillar  a. 

3  Ver.  8.— [So  the  author  translates  njPVi  and  so  also  Keil.  This  translation  is  undoubtedly  correct;  but  the  TV, 
*re  In  much  confusion  over  these  architectural  detailB. 

«  Ver.  4.— [So  the  author  correctly  translates  D^SpE?  supported  by  the  Sept.,  and  adds  in  parenthesis]  i.  «.,  over  each 
■of  the  three  rows  of  chambers  roof-beams  were  laid. 

*  Ver.  4.—/.  €.,  so  that  the  chambers  stood  over  against  one  another,  via-d-via.— Bahr.  [The  Heb.  word  HTHD  occur* 
only  here,  and  is  of  very  doubtful  signification.  None  of  the  old  versions  give  the  meaning  window,  nor  can  that  sense 
be  derived  with  any  certainty  from  the  etymology -root  !"lTn.    Our  author  concurs  with  Keil  in  giving  the  meaning  u 

aspectua  or propped ua,  ll  view  to  or  from'"  (Keil).    The  English  expression  "front  to  front"  conveys  the  idea 

*  Ver.  5. — Viz.,  of  the  chambers. — Bahr. 

7  Ver.  6.— [So  our  author  translates,  Scftwelle,  following  the  Chald.  XHSlpD- 

*  Ver.  7.— [yp*lf5n""iy  VyT^J^P.'    This  expression  has  much  puzzled  expositors.  Notwithstanding  the  explanation 

of  the  author  and  of  Keil,  the  best  sense  seems  to  be  the  simplest  and  most  literal,  from  the  floor  to  the  floor,  i.  a.,  from 
the  floor  on  one  side  all  over  the  walls,  ceiling,  and  opposite  walls,  to  the  floor  on  the  other  side. 

9  Ver.  9. — [So  the  author  and  Keil.  sustained  by  all  the  VV. 

10  Ver.  15.— [Lit  the  height  of  one  pillar,  .  .  .  compass  the  other.  The  A.  V.  expresses  the  sense.  2  Chron.  lit 
15  gives  the  height  as  35  cubits — a  manifest  error.    Cf.  2  Kings  xxv.  17;  Jer.  lii.  21. 

11  Ver.  16.— [There  is  here  no  Yar.  lect.,  so  that  the  height  given  in  2  Kings  xxv.  17— three  cubits— must  have  been 
an  error  of  transcription,  as  indeed  sufficiently  appears  from  Jer.  lii.  22. 

11  Ver.  17.— [The  Sept.  have  t<Z  iirtQenari,  doubtless  from  reading  rD^E?  instead  of  njHC'* 

13  Ver.  IS.— Instead  of  D^TlOyH  [pillars],  must  be  read  D^JVZnn  [pomegranates]  here,  just  as  afterwards  D^IEfUl 

-   T  •  »  ■  *  T 

Is  transposed  for  D^llTSVn ,  as  also  some  MSS.  have  it  and  as  the  connection  absolutely  demands. — Bahr.    [So  also  the 

Sept.,  while  the  Chald.  and  Syr.  follow  the  text  as  we  now  have  it 

13  Ver.  20. — [The  words  in  italics  in  the  A.  V.  are  unnecessary.  Our  author  translates  thus:]  And  the  chapiters  upon 
the  two  pillars  were  also  above,  close  (i.  e..  Immediately)  on  the  belly  (belly-like  swelling)  which  was  beyond  (i.  e., 
behind)  the  net-work,  and  the  two  hundred  pomegranates  in  two  rows  round  about  (as  on  the  one  so)  on  the  second 
chapiter. — Bahr. 

14  Ver.  24. — [D^pD  here  (as  in  vi.  IS),  is  an  architectural  ornament  in  the  form  of  the  wild  gourd,  which  bursts  open 

on  ripening.    2  Chron.  iv.  3  has  D*1p3  mOT  ■,  the  likeness  of  cattle.    This  is  evidently  an  error. 

16  Ver.  26.— [Our  author  translates:  in  the  form  of  a  lily-flower.  The  Heb.  is  open  to  either  interpretation,  and  the 
reasons  for  preferring  this  are  given  in  the  Exeg.  Com. 

16  Ver.  26.— [2  Chron.  Iv.  5  has  D^DpN  ntvIT  j  thus  adding  one-half  to  the  contents,  and  this  number  Is  adopted  by 

Josephus.  The  VV.  retain  here  the  number  2000,  but  the  Alex.  Sept  (the  Vat  Sept.  omits  the  verse)  makes  them  2000 
X<>€(«,  thus  giving  a  capacity  as  much  too  small  for  a  hemisphere  of  the  given  dimensions  as  the  Ileb.  measure  is  too  large. 

17  Ver.  27.— [The  Sept." make  the  length  five,  and  the  height  six  cubits;  thus  making  all  the  dimensions  unlike. 

18  Ver.  2S.— [The  Heb.  ni~13DO  from  1JD  to  enclose,  admits  either  this  sense  or  that  of  the  A.  V.,  but  both  the  con- 
nection and  the  amount  of  ornament  upon  the  panels  require  the  former. 

19  Ver.  29.— [Our  author  translates  "and  upon  the  ledges  as  well  above  as  below,"  which  certainly  gives  an  Intelligible 
sense,  but  it  is  at  least  doubtful  if  the  Heb.  will  bear  it,  and  certainly  it  is  entirely  forbidden  by  the  masoretic  punctuation, 

"131  nnroi  ?WO  |3  E^Ptrn^'yi-  The  Chald.  renders  J3  as  a  noun  NJ133i  a  base.  Our  author  rejects  this, 
which  is  however  adopted  by  Keil,  and  lias  been  followed  by  the  A.  V.  Above  the  ledges  was  a  base  or  rest  for  the  laver 
described  afterwards. 

30  Ver.  29.— [T1V0  nLMVft  HI  v  •    The  author's  translation,  given  in  the  brackets,  unquestionably  expresses  the  true 

sense. 

21  Ver.  31. — [/.  «.,  of  the  laver;  or  as  our  author  Interprets,  of  the  base. 

33  Ver.  31.— [/.  e.,  was  a  cubit  within  the  edge— there  was  a  cubit  on  each  side  of  the  opening  of  the  basin.  The  author 
expresses  it  :J  from  the  opening  outwards  was  a  cubit. 

23  Ver.  81.— In  diameter. 

34  Ver.  32.— So  that  the  whole  base  could  be  seen,  and  nothing  of  its  panels  was  covered  by  the  wheels. 

35  Ver.  35. — /.  e.j  the  cover  of  the  base  was  arched. 

36  Ver.  35. — /.  «.,  of  this  arched  upper  part 

37  Ver.  38.— In  diameter  at  the  top. 

38  Ver.  40.— Instead  of  ni1s3n  [lavers]  it  is  necessary  to  read  here  HWDr]  [pots]  according  to  ver.  45;  2  Chron. 

tv.  11 ;  2  Kings  xxv.  14;  Jer.  lii.  18.— Bahr.     [Add,  such  is  the  reading  also  of  many  MSS.  and  editions,  and  apparently 

•f  the  Sept  and  Vulg.,  although  1133  sometimes  bears  so  nearly  the  same  meaning  (1  Sam.  ii.  14)  that  the  inference  Is 

not  certain.  . 

29  Ver.  40.— [Many  MSS.  have  Tj^H  in  the  nom.    So  also  the  Syr.  and  Arab. 

*>  Ver.  42.— Upon  the  two  pillars.    Instead  of  *33  is  here  to  be  read  with  the  Sept  ^tt*—  Bahr.    [But  man*  MSS. 
with  the  Syr.  and  Vulg.  read  here  L'\ST7j/  upon  the  top  of,  and  there  is  no  MS.  authority  for  the  Sept  reading. 
6 


82 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KIN  tS. 


si  v<r  15.— That  the  k'ri  H^XH  deserves  the  preference  over  the  k'tib  PrlKH  requires  no  pronC— Bahr.    [II  is  als« 

the  readier  "f  uianv  MSS.  and  the  W.  ,  .  .     ,       ..   ■  ,  -      ., 

S3  Vcr.  45. — [The  Sept.,  before  "  burnished  brass,"  inserts  «u  oi  <r™Aot  Teo-o-apaKoera  <cai  oktw  Toy  oixou  tou  patriAe** 

Kai  TOU  OIKOV  KVfiLOV. —  F.   G.] 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Ter.  1.  But  Solomon  was  building  his  own 
house,  &c.  Ver.  1  forms  a  heading  to  the  section 
concluding  at  ver.  12.  The  palace  consisted  of  sev- 
eral buildings  following  upon  one  another,  all  of 
which,  i.  e.,  his  "whole"  house,  Solomon  finished  in 
thirteen  years ;  but  he  only  required  seven  years 
to  complete  the  temple,  because,  perhaps,  there 
were  more  buildings  in  the  former,  or  fewer  work- 
men were  employed  on  them.  The  place  where  the 
palace  was  built  cannot  be,  according  to  Ewald,  the 
so-called  Ophel,  i.  e.,  the  continuation  of  the  tem- 
ple-mount (Moriah),  which  diminished  gradually  as 
it  stretched  towards  the  south,  but  Mount  Zion, 
which  was  divided  from  Moriah  by  the  valley  of 
Tyropaeon.  It  is  clear  from  2  Kings  xi.  19,  that 
the  way  from  the  temple  led  immediately  "  down  " 
to  the  palace.  When  Josephus  says  (Antiq.,  8,  5, 
2),  that  the  palace  stood  opposite  to  the  temple 
(avrmpvc),  it  could  only  have  been  built  on  the 
northeast  side  of  Zion.  The  palace  of  the  Asmo- 
neans  stood  there  too,  from  which  a  bridge  led  over 
the  valley  to  the  temple  on  Moriah  (see  Keil  or. 
the  place).  As  to  the  entire  building,  the  dim  in- 
timations of  the  text  do  not  give  us  a  perfect  idea 
of  it.  The  descriptions  of  Josephus  and  those  of 
the  Rabbins,  especially  Judah  Leo,  contradict  the 
text  in  many  points,  and  are  only  arbitrary,  un- 
founded additions.  The  earlier  interpreters  of  the 
text  could  throw  no  light  on  it,  and  archaeologists 
have  hitherto  been  altogether  silent,  or  have  at- 
tempted no  exact  description.  Thenius  alone  has 
succeeded  in  throwing  the  greatest  light  on  the 
subject.  The  most  recent  description  by  Unruh 
(das  Alte  Jerusalem  utid  seine  Bauvjerke,  s.  95  sg.) 
is  deserving  of  no  notice. 

[In  this  matter,  Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  s.  339)  ex- 
presses himself  with  some  hesitation.  He  says 
that  the  palace  was  built  probably  upon  the  south- 
erly continuation  of  the  temple-mount,  usually 
called  Ophel,  i.  e.,  hill,  hillock,  or  knob.  In  the 
recently  published  work,  The  Recovery  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  same  view  is  urged  upon  pp.  222-3,  and 
also  upon  p.  240  sq.  The  English  and  American 
explorers  would  seem  at  least  to  favor  this  suppo- 
sition, and  in  the  work  just  referred  to,  on  p.  233 
there  is  a  plan  showing  approximately  the  rock  on 
Mount  Moriah,  and  there  the  palace  is  placed  to 
the  south  of  the  temple,  with  the  Tyropaaon  on  one 
side,  and  the  vale  of  Kedron  on  the  other, — this 
being  quite  remote  from  the  position  assigned  the 
palace  by  our  author.  Nor  do  I  think  that  our 
author's  reasons  for  supposing  it  to  have  been 
built  upon  the  northeast  corner  of  Mount  Zion  suf- 
ficent  to  overthrow  the  general  opinion. — E.  H.] 

Ver.  2.  He  built  also  the  house  of  the  forest 
of  Lebanon,  &c.  This  was  the  first  of  the  various 
buildings  composing  the  palace,  therefore  by  no 
means  a  separate  summer  residence  apart  on 
Mount  Lebanon  (Dathe,  Michaelis,  and  others).  It 
was  only  given  the  name  of  Lebanon  on  account 
of  the  multitude  of  cedars  standing  alongside  of 
each  other.  According  to  1  Kings  x.  16  sq.,  and 
Isai.  xxii.  8,  it  seems  to  have  served  chiefly,  if  not 
altogether,   as  an  armory ;   the  Arabic  says,   "  A 


house  for  his  weapons."  The  space,  100  cubita 
long  and  50  broad,  enclosed,  as  appears  ver.  9,  a 
thick  stone  wall  thirty  cubits  high,  but  prcbably 
only  upon  three  sides,  as  we  shall  presently  show. 
The  expression  Upon  four  rows  of  cedar  pillars 
is  to  be  connected  with  words  at  the  beginning  : 
he  built.  The  four  rows  of  pillars  stood  along  the 
surrounding  wall,  thus  forming  a  peristyle  which 
enclosed  a  court-yard.  The  expression  -no  says 
this  plainly ;  for  it  cannot  be  understood  differ- 
ently, here,  from  vers.  4,  18,  20,  24;  chap.  vi.  36; 
Ezek.  xlvi.  .3,  where  it  everywhere  means  a  row 
enclosing  and  running  round  a  space.  The  text  does 
not  at  all  justify  Keil's  supposition  "  that  four 
rows  of  pillars  stood  on  the  longest  sides  of  the 
building,  but  divided,  so  that  but  two  rows  wera 
on  each  side ;  "  there  is  no  mention  of  the  longest 
sides  in  the  text.  Weiss'  view  is  just  as  incorrect 
(Kostiim-kunde,  i.  s.  357),  that  is,  that  there  was 
a  row  on  each  of  the  four  sides  of  the  building, 
four  rows  of  pillars  standing  together.  The  num- 
ber of  the  pillars  is  not  given,  but  they  could  not 
have  been  few,  as  their  appearance  was  that  of  a 
forest.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  suppose, 
with  Thenius,  that  there  were  400.  They  must 
have  stood  close  together,  and  could  not  have  been 
very  thick,  for  the  breadth  of  the  peristyle  did 
not  exceed  ten  cubits,  and  enough  room  must 
have  been  left  to  pass  comfortably  between  the 
pillars.  The  Vulgate  translates  explanatorily :  qua- 
tuor  deambulacra  inter  columnas  cedrinas. — Beams 
of  cedar  were  placed  on  the  rows  of  pillars,  and 
formed  the  foundation  for  the  three-storied  su- 
perstructure of  cedar-wood,  which  rested  against 
the  stone  wall,  and  was  probably  so  joined  to  it 
that  the  beams  which  formed  at  the  same  time 
the  ceiling  of  the  lower  part  and  the  floor  of  the 
upper   part  of  the  building  were   inserted  in  it. 

Each  of  the  three  stories  had  JlivX,  •'■  c.  (chap.  vi. 

5,  8  ;  Ezek.  xli.  6)  side-chambers.  The  numbers, 
forty-five,  fifteen  each  row,  have  been  supposed 
to  refer  to  the  immediately  preceding  D'llQV  by 

nearly  all  the  commentators,  who  have  been  mis- 
led by  the  masoretic  punctuation ;  but  they  were 
quite  wrong.  It  is  impossible  that  the  pillars  on 
which  the  three-storied  structure  rested,  could 
only  have  numbered  forty-five,  divided  into  three 
rows.  They  could  not  have  supported  a  struc- 
ture 100  cubits  long  and  50  broad.  Neither  could 
the  building  have  been  named  "  forest  of  Leba- 
non "  from  forty-five  scattered  pillars.  Thenius, 
with  whom  Keil  agrees,  rightly  refers  the  numbers 

to  the  n'jrafn  as  the  principal  matter,  which  is  fi-r- 

ther  defined  by  the  DHIDVn^V,  and  translated, 

"and  the  chambers,  forty-five  in  number,  which 
were  built  upon  the  pillars,  fifteen  in  each  course 
had  also  coverings  of  cedar-wood."  But  if  thfl 
forty-five  rooms  were  so  divided  that  each  of  the 
three  surrounding  rows  of  the  story  had  fifteen, 
we  are  obliged  to  admit  that  the  stories  only  cov- 
ered three  sides  of  the  square  space,  since  forty- 
five  cannot  be  so  divided  HfcO  four  parts  as  to 
make  twice  as  many  rooms  oi   'he  two  long  side* 


CHAPTER  VII.   1-51. 


S3 


of  100  cubits  as  on  the  two  other  sides  of  fifty  cu- 
bits. On  the  other  hand,  the  fifteen  rooms  of 
each  of  the  three  rows  are  very  naturally  and 
simply  divided,  if  we  imagine  six  on  each  long 
side  and  three  on  the  rear  side.  In  that  case, 
either  the  colonnade  and  the  three-storied  struc- 
ture that  rested  on  it  would  not  have  continued 
over  the  front  short  side  of  the  wall  that  sur- 
rounded the  square  space,  and  it  must  have  been 
provided  only  with  entrance-gates,  or  else  this 
wall  only  enclosed  three  sides  of  the  square,  so 
that  the  building  stood  quite  open  in  the  front. 
The  last  is  not  admissible,  because  ver.  12  says 
that  the  whole  palace  was  surrounded  by  a  great 
court,  which  had  a  stone  wall  running  around  it, 
and  also  doubtless  doors  that  could  be  shut. — The 
text  itself  says  of  the  side-chambers,  and  light 
was  against  light  in  three  ranks.  The  word 
ntno   occurs  only  here,  and  does  not  mean  the 

same  as  ]i?n  windows,    but   aspectus,   prospectus. 

Towards  the  interior  of  the  building  the  chambers 
stood  open  (Sept. :  nal  x^Pa  £nl  x&po-v  Tpiaaog),  so 
that  the  view  from  each  of  the  chambers  in  the 
rows  over  one  another  opened  on  the  opposite  one. 
This  rather  resembled  a  gallery,  which  was  di- 
vided off  by  board  partitions  into  single  chambers. 
[Like  boxes  at  the  theatre.]  The  doors,  which  led 
from  one  room  to  another,  were  square  (ver.  5) ; 

where  rillTSm  is  subjoined,  we  must  either  trans- 
late, with  the  posts,  or,  what  seems  better,  read  as 
Thenius  rilTntSm ,  which  also  suits  the  repeated 

"  light  against  light."  The  entrances,  as  well  as  the 
front  openings  which  stood  opposite  each  other, 
were  square ;  so  says  the  Sept. :  to.  -dvpuuara  ml 
ai  x&ixu  Tcrpayuvoi.  By  C|pt_"  we  are  to  think,  af- 
ter the  D'Bpt'  in  ver.  4,  of  the  beams  over  the 
openings  and  doors.  There  is  nothing  decisive 
about  the  height  of  the  rooms.  Of  the  height  of 
thirty  cubits  for  the  whole  edifice,  eight  may  have 
been  for  the  colonnade,  eighteen  for  the  three  sto- 
ries, and  four  for  the  different  ceilings  (Then,  and 
Keil).  The  entire  arrangement  of  the  building  is 
still  frequently  met  with  in  the  East ;  a  court  sur- 
rounded by  colonnade  and  galleries  (Winer,  R.- 
W.-B.,  i.  s.  466).  Since,  as  already  remarked,  costly 
armor  and  weapons  were  preserved  or  displayed 
here,  the  inner  space  was  used  no  doubt  for  assem- 
blies of  warriors,  for  the  body-guard,  4c. 

Vers.  6-7.  And  he  made  a  porch  of  pillars, 
Ac.  Vers.  6  and  7  contain  the  account  of  the  sec- 
ond building  that  belonged  to  the  entire  palace. 
It  stood  inward  from  the  armory,  and  had  two 
divisions,  viz.,  the  porch  of  pillars  and  the  throne 
or  hall  of  judgment.  The  measures,  60  cubits 
long  and  thirty  broad,  are  generally  thought  to 
belong  only  to  the  porch  of  pillars,  and  older  com- 
mentators have  believed,  from  analogy  with  chap, 
vi.  3,  that  because  fifty  cubits  are  the  measure  of 
the  breadth  of  the  armory,  the  length  was  to  be 
understood  as  the  breadth,  and  the  breadth  as  the 
depth,  as  in  the  temple-porch;  so  that  the  porch 
of  pillars  must  have  immediately  adjoined  the  ar- 
mory.    B;  t  the  name  D71N  contradicts  this ;  its 

etymology  does  not  signify  (see  on  chap.  vi.  3)  an 
adjoined  rear  part;  but  can  only  mean  a  fore-build- 
ing. Besides,  the  porch  of  pillars  itself  had  again 
i  porch,  so  that  it  cannot  have  been  immediately 


joined  to  the  armory.  The  fifty  cubits  are  to  b9 
wholly  understood  of  the  length.  So  we  may  de- 
scribe the  porch  of  pillars  as  "  a  colonnade,"  run 
ning  from  the  front  to  the  rear,  "  probably  roofed 
in,  but  open  at  the  sides  (Porticus),  and  leading  to 
the  porch  of  judgment"  (Thenius,  Keil).  But  the 
width  of  thirty  cubits  does  not  suit  the  length  of 
fifty  cubits,  if  it  was  only  a  passage  to  a  building  ; 
it  suits  an  independent  structure  alone.  The  ar- 
mory, that  was  not  in  the  least  like  a  passage,  re- 
sembled the  fore-space  of  the  temple,  and  other 
buildings;  it  was  twice  as  long  as  it  was  broad. 
How,  then,  could  a  building,  the  breadth  of  which 
was  three-fifths  of  its  length,  be  a  mere  passage  ? 
If  the  porch  of  pillars  were  only  a  passage  to  the 
hall  of  judgment,  it  is  inexplicable  why  the  text 
gives  only  the  size  of  the  subordinate  part,  and 
says  not  a  word  about  those  of  the  main  portion. 
All  this  forces  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
measure  is  that  of  the  whole  building,  including, 
therefore,  both  divisions,  the  porch  of  pillars  and 
porch  of  judgment.  The  latter  must  have  beeL, 
then,  the  rear  division,  in  winch,  like  the  debir  of 
Jehovah's  house,  the  throne  described  (chap.  x. 
18,  sq.)  stood;  the  former  the  front,  a  building  of 
pillars  in  fact,  where  they  who  were  admitted  to 
the  king's  audience  assembled,  or  over  whom  he 
sat  in  judgment.  This  view  explains  why  the 
porch  of  pilars  had  also  a  fore-porch  and  an  en- 
trance-space, such  as  a  mere  passage  never  has, 
but  which  is  appropriate  only  to  buildings.  This 
fore-porch  was  no  doubt  an  entrance-space,  the 
roof  of  which  was  supported  by  two  or  four 
pillars,  as  the  Targumists  explain  the  word  yj, 

a  threshold  space,  a  "perron  with  steps"  (Keil). 

If  both  divisions  of  the  building  are  called  D?1N, 

it  is  because  it  was  the  entrance  building  of  the 
king's  peculiar  residence.  The  concluding  words 
of  ver.  7  :  covered  with  cedar  from  one  side  of 
the  floor  to  the  other,  can  mean  only  this :  that 
the  floor  of  the  porch  of  pillars,  as  well  as  the 
floor  of  the  porch  of  judgment,  was  covered  with 
cedar.  Keil  explains  :  "  from  the  lower  floor  to 
the  upper,  in  so  far,  namely,  over  the  porch  of 
judgment  as  there  were  rooms  built;"  the  floor 
of  the  latter  being  the  ceiling  of  the  hall  of  judg- 
ment. The  existence  of  an  upper  structure  is 
not,  however,  hinted  at,  and  how  could  the  text, 
instead  of  simply  saying  from  the  floor  to  the 
ceiling,  speak  of  a  floor  without  saying  of  what  it 
was  the  floor.  The  Vulgate  translates:  a  pavi- 
mento  usque  ad  summitatem ;  the  reading  must  have 
been  different  therefore,  and  as  the  Syriac  has 
it  thus  also.  Thenius  supposes  that  instead  of 
JJplpn   it   originally   stood   HVlipn   in   the    text, 

which  is  to  be  understood,  as  in  chap.  vi.  15  and 
16,  of  the  beams  of  the  roof.  In  this  case  the 
words  might  bear  the  meaning,  which  seems  very 
admissible,  that  the  porch  walls  were  lined  with 
cedar  from  the  floor  to  the  roof-beams. 

Ver.  8.  And  his  house  where  he  dwelt,  &c. 
Solomon's  dwelling-house  and  that  of  his  wife 
were  indeed  separate  houses,  but  formed  together 
the  third  building  in  connection  with  the  palace. 
This  building  had  another  court  with  -n  the  pot -h, 
i.  e.,  behind  the  porch  of  judgment.  Both  dwell- 
ings were  like  unto  this  work,  that  is,  they  had 
walls  of  cedar-wood  like  the  porch  of  judgment, 
and  were  splendidly  and  gorgeously  made.     Tbf 


84 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


queen's  house  was  behind  that  of  the  king,  ac- 
cording to  the  universal  Eastern  custom  (Winer, 
R.-  W.-B.,  L  s.  468) ;  it  is  not  only  here,  but  also  in 
chap.  ix.  24,  expressly  said,  that  it  was  built  for 
Pharaoh's  daughter,  not  therefore  for  a  harem 
{Thenius).  The  700  wives  and  300  concubines 
afterwards  mentioned  (chap.  xi.  3)  could  scarcely 
have  lived  in  the  queen's  own  house.  Thenius 
gives  the  reason  why  the  king's  and  queen's  dwell- 
ings are  uot  more  accurately  described:  "  because 
in  most  cases  there  was  only  access  to  the  porch 
of  judgment,  and  because  audience  of  the  king, 
even  in  the  court  of  his  residence,  had  probably 
become  very  difficult  to  obtain  in  Solomon's  reign." 
But  the  reason  was  more  likely  that,  whilst  the 
armory  and  the  porches  of  pillars  and  of  judg- 
ment were  uncommon  buildings,  the  dwelling- 
house  did  not  differ  from  ordinary  dwellings  in  its 
architecture  and  furnishing,  except  in  being  more 
costly.  It  required,  therefore,  no  minute  descrip- 
tion. 

Vers.  9-12.  All  these  were  of  costly  stones, 
Ac.  What  vers.  9  and  10  state,  must  be  taken  to 
refer  to  all  three  buildings  that  formed  the  palace. 
[Mr.  T.  O.  Paiue  is  of  opinion  that  vers.  9-12 
"are  concerning  the  temple  again — because  the 
pillars  are  stone.  In  the  house  of  the  king  they 
are  cedar,  ver.  2."  But  this  writer,  after  much 
pains-taking  labor,  does  not  satisfy. — E.  H.] 
They  could  have  been  no  mere  wooden  erections, 
but  had  walls  of  square  stones,  cut  inside  and  out- 
side (see  on  chap.  v.  31)  even  unto  the  coping, 
i.  e.,  "  to  the  corner-stones  on  which  the  beams 
of  the  roof  rested  "  (Keil).  The  Sept.  has  iuc 
tuv  yelauv,  but  yeiaov  is  the  roof  projection.  The- 
nius thinks  this  was  "the  pinnacle-like  protec- 
tion of  the  Hat  roofs;  "  this  edge,  however,  is  no- 
where called   niri20,  but  npVO  (Dent.  xxii.  8). 

The  words:  on  the  outside  toward  the  great 
court,  mean,  according  to  Thenius,  "from  the  out- 
side (front)  to  the  great  (rear)  court."  But  this 
pro  cannot  mean   something  entirely  different 

from  the  immediately  preceding  word.  An  "out- 
er "  court  presupposes  an  "inner"  one  (chap.  vi. 
36),  but  not  a  rear  one,  and  the  inner  could  never 
be  called  "  great,"  in  distinction  from  the  outer 
one.  The  great  court  was  evidently  that  which 
surrounded  all  the  palace  buildings  (Ewald) ;  and 
we  must  suppose  that  there  was  such  an  one  even 
if  not  named  here.  All  the  buildings  were  formed 
of  square  stones  from  top  to  bottom,  and  the  same 
even  used  outside  too,  even  to  the  outer  great 
court.  Even  the  foundations,  which  were  not 
seen  outside,  were  made  of  these  larger  stones 
(ver.  10).  Lastly  (ver.  11),  it  is  added  that  this 
great  court  had  the  same  surrounding  as  the  inner 
temple  court,  namely,  three  rows  of  stones  and 
one  of  cedar  (see  on  chap.  vi.  36).  Keil  and  Le 
Clerc  think  the  porch  of  the  house  to  be  (ver.  12) 
the  "columned-  and  throne-hall"  of  the  palace, 
which  had  the  same  surrounding  as  the  great 
court  had.  The  text,  however,  mentions,  besides 
the  latter,  only  one  court  of  the  dwelling  (ver.  8), 
but  says  nothing  about  a  third  court  around  that 
porch.  The  words  immediately  preceding  suggest 
scarcely  anything  else  than  the  porch  of  Jehovah's 
house;  but  as  this  had  no  court,  the  meaning 
must  be,  as  with  the  court,  which  was  within  or 
nefote  the  porch.  [So  Bp.  Horsley,  after  Houbi- 
Ifaut,  suggests  that  perhaps  for  "1XIT>1>  we  should 


read  "ixnfD  ,  like  the  inner  court. — E.  H.]  Cal- 
met  only  finds  the  similarity  there  in  ut  pariela 
mixtam  lapidibus  cedrum  exhibereni. 

Vers.  13-14.  And  the  king  ....  and 
fetched  Hiram.  Ver.  13.  Comp  2  Chron.  ii.  13. 
According  to  this,  Hiram  was  the  son  of  a  Tyrian, 
and  of  an  Israelitish  woman  from  the  neighboring 
Dan,  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  uot,  as  the  Rabbins 
say,  an  adopted  son.  His  skill  is  described  in  the 
same  words  as  that  of  Bezaleel  in  Ex.  xxxi.  3  sq., 
only  the  addition,  "  filled  with  the  spirit  of  God  " 
is  wanting.  The  art  of  casting  brass  is  very  an 
cient ;  the  making  of  this  metal,  which  "  has  a 
peculiar  red  color  and  strong  lustre,  and  is  of  con 
siderable  hardness"  (Rosenmuller,  Alterthumsk., 
IV.,  i.  s.  156),  was  much  earlier  understood  thaD 
that  of  iron  (Winer,  R.-  W.-B.,  ii.  s.  90).  In  what 
now  follows  we  have  only  a  description  of  the  ves- 
sels that  were  added  to  those  of  the  tabernacle ;  the 
others  are  merely  named.  The  Chronicles  alone 
mention  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (II.  iv.  1). 

Vers.  15-20.  And  he  cast  two  pillars  of  brass. 
Vers.  15-22.  Comp.  2  Chron.  iii.  15-17;  iv.  12  sq.; 
2  Kings  xxv.  17  ;  Jer.  Iii.  21  sq.  Each  of  these  pil- 
lars,* i.  e.,  the  shafts,  was  eighteen  cubits  high  and 
twelve  in  circumference,  was  four  fingers  thick, 
and  hollow  within  (Jer.  In.  21).  As  the  Chroni- 
cles alone,  differently  from  all  other  passages, 
gives  thirty-five  cubits  as  the  height,  this  num- 
ber is   "evidently  formed  by  changing  the  sign 

tV  =  18,  into  rf?  =  35"  (Keil).     [The  conjecture 

of  Abarbinel,  that  the  chronicler  gives  the  sum- 
total  of  the  height  of  the  two  pillars,  is  gravely 
adopted  by  Bp.  Patrick  on  the  place. — E.  H.] 
The  chapiters  were  cast  separately,  and  then 
placed  on  the  shafts ;  each  of  the  former  was  five 
cubits  high  (ver.   16),  and  had,  as  2  Chron.  iv.  12 

relates,  an  upper  and  lower  part,  rnni  some- 
times denotes  the  entire  capital  (ver.  16),  some- 
times the  upper  (ver.  19)  and  sometimes  the  lower 
part  (vers.  17,  18,  20).  The  upper  part  was  lily- 
work  (vers.  19,  22),  i.  e.,  in  the  form  of  a  full-blown 

lily-cup.     As  ICTt?  means  only  lily,   Thenius  has 

no  grounds  for  supposing  it  to  be  the  lotus,  be- 
cause there  were  pillar  capitals  in  Egyptian  build- 
ings which  had  the  form  of  the  lotus-flower.  The 
lotus-flower  does  not  once  occur  in  the  entire  Old 
Testament,  but  the  lily  very  often,  for  it  was  com- 
mon in  Palestine,  and  grows  without  cultivation 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  ii.  s  :'8).  The  molten  sea  had 
also  the  same  form  (ver.  26).  The  four  cubits 
(ver.  19)  are  not  the  measure  of  the  diameter  of 
the  lily-work  (Thenius),  but  of  its  height,  which 
was  much  more  important  for  the  form  of  the  en- 
tire capital,  than  the  diameter,  which  was  easily 
discoverable  from  the  given  circumference  of  the 
pillar.  [Bp.  Horsley  takes  the  view  which  The- 
nius has  adopted.  He  translates,  "  and  the  chap- 
iters that  were  upon  the  top  of  the  pillars  (were) 
in  a  socket  (D17N2)  of  the  shape  of  a  lily  of  four 
cubits,"  and  adds,  the  four  cubits  are  to  be  under- 
stood,  I  think,  of  the  general  breadth  of  the  lily, 
&c. — E.  II.]  And  it  is  the  more  impossible  to 
doubt  that  this  upper  part  of  the  capital  was  the 

•  If  we  should  follow  K.  O.  Mflller's  phraseology  and 
that  of  other  writers  upon  ancient  art.  we  should  u?l'  th« 
word  "columns"  here  instead  of  "  pillars."  Ardueotoflt 
Ac,  p.  265-268.— E.  II 


CHAPTER  VII.   1-51. 


S3 


largest  and  principal  part,  as  ver.  22  expressly  re- 
peats at  the  close  of  the  whole  description:  '"and 
upon  the  top  of  the  pillars  was  lily-work."  Some 
think  it  should  be  three  instead  of  four  cubits  high 
as  in  ver.  19,  but  they  have  no  grounds  but  the 
uncertain  passage  2  Kings  xxv.  17,  where  there 
was  very  probably  a  change  of  n  =  5  into  J  =  3. 
The  lower  part  of  the  capital,  which  was  only  one 
cubit,  is  not  very  clearly  described.  It  was  made 
of  checker  or  net-work  (ver.  17),  pomegranates 
(ver.  18),  and  a  belly  (ver.  20).  Instead  of  the 
last  (;D3)  in  vers.  41,  42;  and  in  2  Chron.  iv.  12, 

13,  fijij  occurs,  i.  e.,  arch,  swelling  (see  Gesenius, 

W.  B.,  an  ^3).    This  arching  was  "135??,  i-  «.,  on  the 

other  side  of  the  net-work  (ver.  20),  therefore  not 
on  it  or  over  it,  but  behind  or  under  it.  In  so  far 
as  the  net-work  lay  over  or  upon  it,  it  could,  as 
seen  from  outside,  be  described  as  lying  beyond 
it  (Keil).     The  net-work  consisted  of  seven  wires 

(D  v'13) ;    it  was    chain-work,   the   wires    being 

plaited  like  a  chain,  woven  crosswise  together, 
thus  forming  a  lattice-work  or  net.  It  is  not  that 
they  hung  down  like  chains  (Gesenius).  Possibly 
the  text  in  ver.  17  may  not  be  wholly  above  sus- 
picion, but  Thenius  undertakes  a  daring  and  un- 
justifiable critical  operation  when  he  blots  out 
chain-%vork,  chiefly  because  the  Sept.  does,  and 
reads  n33'J'  for  n{Q«'  twice,  and  then  translates : 

"  and  he  made  two  lattices  or  trellis-wires  to  cover 
the  capitals  that  (were)  on  the  tops  of  the  pillars, 
one  for  one  and  one  for  the  other  capital."  Lastly, 
the  pomegranates,  of  which  there  were  200,  100  in 
a  row  (ver.  20),  were,  no  doubt,  in  a  row  above, 
and  a  row  below  the  net-work,  and  thus  served 
for  a  border  to  the  latter.  According  to  Jer.  lii. 
23,  96   of   the   100  pomegranates   were    iWFf\ , 

which  means  neither  "  open  to  the  air,"  i.  e.,  un- 
covered (Boucher,  Thenius),  nor  dependentia  (Vul- 
gate), or  "hanging  free"  (Ewald),  but  only 
"windwards"  (Hitzig),  i.  e.,  turned  to  the  four 
quarters  of  the  heavens,  as  nYl  in  Ezek.  xlii.  16- 

18  (comp.  xxxvii.  9);  four  pomegranates  marked 
the  places  where  each  two  quarters  of  the  heavens 
met.  The  text  says  nothing  of  pedestals  for  the 
pillars ;  but  it  would  scarcely  have  passed  over  so 
important  a  part  of  the  pillars  had  they  existed. 

Ver.  2 1 .  And  he  set  up  the  pillars,  &c.  There 
have  been,  and  still  are  to  this  day,  two  opinions 
in  sharp  contrast  one  with  the  other  as  to  the  pre- 
cise place  where  the  two  pillars  were  erected. 
According  to  one,  they  supported  the  roof  of  the 
porch,  which  stood  quite  open  at  the  front  (see 
Meyer,  Merz),  or  the  projection  of  the  entrance 
leading  to  't  (Ewald,  Thenius);  according  to  the 
other,  the;  stood  alone,  before  the  porch,  and 
without  supporting  anything  (Stieglitz,  Kugler, 
Schnaase,  Winer,  Keil).  After  repeated  investi- 
gation of  the  subject,  I  find  it  impossible  to  sub- 
scribe to  either  opinion.  Against  the  first  there 
are  the  following  objections:  (a)  The  pillars  were 
brazen,  and  begin  the  list  of  all  the  metal  articles, 
which  were  first  finished  by  the  peculiarly  skilful 
trtisan  Hiram,  after  the  building  of  the  temple 
was  completed  (chap.  vi.  14,  37,  38).  If  they  had 
been  designed  to  bear  up  the  roof  of  the  porch  or 
the  projection  of  its  entrance,  they  could  not  have 
been  vessels,  but  necessary  integral  parts  of  the 


building ;  but  as  this  was  "  finished "  withou' 
them,  and  as  supporting  pillars  of  brass  are  nevei 
found  in  stone  and  wooden  buildings;  these  pil- 
lars, which  were  works  of  art,  could  not  have  had 
an  architectural  but  only  a  monumental  character, 
and  this  is  shown  by  the  names  attached  to  them. 
Stieglitz  truly  says:  "It  was  their  separate  posi- 
tion alone  which  gave  these  pillars  the  impres- 
sive aspect  they  were  designed  to  wear,  and  the 
significant  dignity  with  which  they  increased  the 
grandeur  of  the  whole,  while  they  shed  light  upon 
its  purpose."  (b)  The  entire  height  of  the  pillars 
was  (with  their  capitals)  twenty-three  cubits;  but 
that  of  the  porch  was  either  twenty  or  thirty  cu- 
bits (see  on  chap.  vi.  3).  In  the  first  case  the  pil- 
lars must  have  been  too  high,  in  the  latter  too 
low,  to  bear  up  the  porch-roof;  for  even  if  they 
had  pedestals,  these  could  not  have  been  seveD 
cubits  high,  (c)  As  the  text  does  not  mention  any 
portal  to  the  porch,  still  less  does  it  say  anything 
of  any  "  projection "  over  the  same,  which  wa> 
borne  up  by  the  pillars  (Thenius),  or  of  any  "beam'' 
joining  the  pillars  above,  on  which  there  was  an- 
other structur  ■,  or  ''  decoration  "  (Ewald).  The 
appeal  to  Amos  ix  1 :  ''  Smite  the  lintel  of  the 
door,  that  the  posts  may  shake,"  is  quite  out  of 

place,    for  D'BD    never  mean    the  projections  of 

buildings,  but  the  thresholds  (Judges  xix.  27;  2 
Kings  xii.  10;  Isa.  vi.  4).  Neither  can  anything 
be  proved  from  Ezekiel's  vision  (chap.  xl.  48),  foi 
the  two  pillars  are  not  once  named  in  it.  The 
Sept.  indeed  mentions  a  fiekatipov  kit'  a/ipoTipw 
tuv  gtvIuv,  in  ver.  20,  but  this  was  quite  gra- 
tuitous ;  they  do  not  translate  ver.  20  at  all,  but 
give  a  completely  different  one,  a  mere  gloss,  of 
which  the  Hebrew  text  does  not  contain  a  word. 
We  must  conclude,  then,  that  they  stood  separ- 
ately. But  in  respect  now  of  the  other  opin- 
ion, that  they  were  placed  in  front  of  the  porch, 

the  D^X3  in  ver.  19  contradicts  that,  as  does  also 

tbvb  in  ver.  21.     However  we  may  understand 

ver.  19,  which  is  certainly  obscure,  D71N3  cannot 

be  translated,  "  in  that  manner,  or  according  to 
the  porch "  (Keil),  which  would  be  equivalent  to 

d5"ISO  >  which  Raschi  accepts,  and  which  means 

"  that  the  lily-work  was  on  the  pillar-capitals  as 
well  as  on  the  porch."  Now  there  is  not  one 
word  about  the  lily-work  on  the  porch.     Still  less 

can  D^X3  mean  D^Xn  'JBJi  but  only  in  the 
porch.  Further,  DPJO  cannot  be  translated:  "be- 
fore the  porch  "  (Luther),  or  "  at  the  porch"  (Keil), 
i.  e.,  in  front,  but  only,  for  the  porch.  As  the 
molten  sea  and  the  bases  were  for  the  outer  court, 
the  golden  altar,  candlestick,  and  shewbread  for 
the  house,  so  the  two  pillars  were  for  the  porch, 
and  stood  in  it  as  the  former  stood  in  the  court  and 
the  house.  The  Sept.  give  in  ver.  15:  ml  t^u 
vevae  rove  5vo  gtv^ovc  ru  a\")iau  rov  oinov,  and  trans- 
late, ver.  21:  nal  eornae  rovq  ariXovc  rov  alXap  roi 
vaov.     With  this  2  Chron.  iii.   13,  17  fully  agrees 

it  says  he  made  ;V3n  \)si?  two  pillars,  .  .  .  and 
placed  the  pillars  $OVin  ,J3"^y.  For  if  they  werc 
in  the  porch,  they  must  have  stood  immediately 
before  the  house,  that  is,  before  the  principal  com. 


86 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


partment.  But  it  Bays  nowhere  that  he  placed 
them  before  the  porch.  If  the  latter  were  thirty 
cubits  high,  as  most  think,  the  pillars  could  have 
etood  free  inside,  as  their  monumental  character 
required. 

Vers.  21-22.  And  called  the  name  thereof, 
Ac.  Thenius  justly  remarks  :  "  There  can  be  noth- 
ing mere  improbable  than  that  pillars  standing 
at  the  entrance  to  God's  house  should  have  been 
named  after  the  donor,  or  their  architect  (Gese- 
nius) ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  asser- 
tion,' '  that  they  were  no  doubt  named  at  their  erec- 
tion and  dedication,  after  men  much  liked  at  that 
time,  perhaps  some  of  Solomon's  young  sons ' 
(Ewald)."  But  Thenius'  own  assertion  does  not 
seem  less  improbable;  namely,  that  "the  pillars, 
which  apparently  bore  up  the  entire  building  of 

the  temple  (?)  had  the  characters  fja  \>y ,  «'•  e.,  He 

(the  Lord)  founds  (or :  may  He  found)  with  strength, 
engraved,  or  formed  in  the  casting,  and  that  the 
people  read  these  words,  which  should  be  taken 
together  (?),  separately,  and  .  .  .  gave  them  as 
names  to  the  pillars."  Aside  from  every  other  con- 
sideration, it  is  not,  he  had  inscribed  TJQ  fy  on  the 
two  pillars;  but:  he  called  the  name  of  the  one  at 
the  right  py ,  and  called  the  name  of  the  one  at 
the  left  jya;  so  these  were  two  distinct  "names," 
and  not  a  sentence  of  connected  words.     TVe  have 

no  reason  to  change  jyi  to  |JQ;  pa1  means  rather: 

statuit,  fundavit,  and  is  used  about  the  founding  and 
establishing  of  the  kingdom,  the  throne,  and  the 
sanctuary  (1  Kings  vi.  19;   Ezra  iii.  3;  2  Sam.  vii. 

12;    2    Chron.   xvii.    6).   fJQ   is   composed   of  ]y , 

strength,  power,  firmness  (Gen.  xlix.  3),  and  ia , 

«'.  e.,  in  Him,  Jehovah.     The  name  means  exactly 

the  same  as  in  Isai.  xlv.  24,  TV     •     •     •     niiT3,  a 

thought  often  occurring  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ps. 
xxviii.  7,  8;  xlvi.  2;  lxii.  (7)  8;  lxxxvi.  6;  cxl.  7; 
Isai.  xlix.  5 ;  Jer.  xvi.  19).  The  first  name  denotes 
the  founding  and  establishing  of  the  central  sanc- 
tuary, in  contrast  with  the  tabernacle ;  the  second 
denotes  the  firmness  and  stability  of  the  same. 
Simonis  (Onom.,  s.  430,  460):  Stabiliet  templum,  in 
illo  (Domino)  robur. 

Vers.  23-26.  And  he  made  a  molten  sea, 
&c.     Comp.   2  Chron.  iv.  2-5.     The  name  D'  only 

means  the  great  quantity  of  water  that  the  vessel 
contained.  Latini  qusmodi  vasa  appellant  locus 
(Castel.).  The  10  cubits  denote  the  diameter,  30 
the  circumference,  not  certainly  the  mathematical 
proportion,  but  very  near  it,  for  we  must  reckon  9 
cubits  and  rather  more  than  half  a  cubit  for  the  di- 
ameter, for  30  cubits  of  circumference.  The  5 
cubits  are  for  the  depth  of  the  vessel,  which  was 
not  cylindrical,  as  some  old  pictures  represent,  but, 
according  to  ver.  26,  was  shaped  like  a  lily,  with 
an  edge  curved  outwards,  and  widening  out  consid- 
erably lower  down.  It  could  only  hold  2,000  baths 
of  water  (ver.  26)  with  a  form  like  that,  as  Thenius 
(Stud.u.  Kritiken,  1846,  I.)  has  proved.  Chronicles, 
on  the  contrary,  gives  3,000  baths  (2  Chron.  iv.  5), 
but  this  is  a  confusion  of  the  signs  a  and  3  (Keil); 
it  is  also  a  mistake  of  the  pen  when  ver.  3  gives 
D'lpE  instead  of  D'VPS  •  Tlie  latter  does  not  mean 
coloquinths,  but  flower-buds  (see  above,  on  chap, 
vi   29).     I'h"  two  rows  must  have  been  pretty  close 


together,  under  the  edge  of  the  vessel  The  posi- 
tion of  the  12  oxen  is  remarked  especially,  but 
nothing  said  of  their  size  or  height.  Theniui 
thinks  they  must  have  been  as  high  as  the  vessel 
at  least;  this  would  make  the  whole  vessel  10  cu« 
bits  high.  It  is  impossible  to  say  whether  the  feet 
of  these  oxen  rested  on  the  floor  of  the  court,  as  on 
a  brazen  plate  (Keil),  or  whether  they  stood  in  a  ba- 
sin. As  the  priests  had  only  to  wash  their  hands 
and  feet,  the  vessel  was  provided  (so  the  rabbinical 
traditions  say)  with  faucets  for  letting  out  the  wa- 
ter. It  is  very  improbable  that  the  water  came 
from  the  mouths  of  the  oxen,  as  many  suppose. 

Vers.  27-39.  And  he  made  ten  bases  of,  Ac. 
The  description  of  these  vessels,  vers.  27-39,  is  in- 
volved in  much  more  obscurity  than  that  of  the 
two  brazen  pillars.  All  the  pains  which  the  latest 
commentators  have  spent  upon  it  have  not  cleared 
it  up  fully,  because  the  text  (under  consideration) 
is  no  longer  the  original  one  ;  the  old  translations 
are  widely  different  from  it,  and  do  not  agree  to- 
gether. The  insertions  also  which  we  have  ad- 
mitted into  our  translation,  following  now  The- 
nius, and  now  Keil,  do  not  claim  to  have  solved  the 
exegetical  riddle.  Above  all,  it  is  necessary  to  real- 
ize what  the  object  of  these  vessels  was.  2  Chron. 
iv.  6  says  that  the  priests  "  washed  such  things  as 
they  offered  for  the  burnt-offering,"  i.  e.,  those  parts 
of  the  sacrificial  animal  which  were  placed  on  the 
altar  to  be  burnt,  as  ordered  in  Lev.  i.  9  (comp. 
Ezek.  xl.  38).  Hence  it  appears  that  the  basin 
which  held  the  water  for  washing  was  the  chief 
thing  in  that  complicated  vessel,  and  all  the  other 
parts  only  made  for  the  sake  of  that  one  part.  The 
altar  of  burnt-offering  of  the  temple  was  10  cubits 
high  (2  Chron.  iv.  1) ;  a  step  for  the  priests  to  stand 
on,  when  performing  their  functions,  was  much 
more  needed  in  this  altar  than  in  that  of  the  taber- 
nacle, which  was  only  3  cubits  high  (Ex.  xxvii.  1- 
5).  Now,  in  order  to  perform  the  washing  of  the 
parts  for  sacrifice  at  the  altar  itself,  without  descend- 
ing, the  basins  must,  on  the  one  hand,  have  stood 
high,  and  higher  than  the  altar-step,  and  on  the  other, 
have  been  movable  also,  so  that  they  could  have 
easily  been  brought  backwards  and  forwards,  filled 
or  emptied.  So  we  see  that  a  wheelwork  was 
needed  for  the  high  basins  or  lavers.  The  basins, 
bases,  and  wheelwork  were  then  the  component 
parts  of  the  vessel.  The  basins  (lavers),  being  the 
simplest  part,  are  the  least  explicitly  described  in 

ver.  38.     The  word  -|i>a  occurs  oftenest,  for  the 

basins  of  the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxx.  18,  28;  xxxi.  9, 
&c.) ;  these  were  not  cylindrical,  as  is  well  known, 
but  shaped  more  like  a  kettle  ;  and  nowhere  else 
is  a  vessel  described  which  has  the  form  of  a  pot 
or  jug.  It  appears  from  Zach.  xii.  6,  that  a  fire- 
basin  (pan)  was  of  a  flatter  shape  than  a  kettle, 
and  had  at  least  the  form  of  a  cooking-pot,  as  Zul- 
lig  thinks  (die  Cherubimwagen,  s.  79,  94).  The  meas- 
ure 4  cubits  can  only  be  understood,  like  ver.  31, 
to  apply  to  the  diameter  (Thenius),  and  not  to  the 
depth.  Thenius  reckons  the  40  baths  at  12  eimer 
and  16  kannen,  Dresden  measure.  [Without  a  pa- 
rade of  decimals,  in  the  rough  as  one  may  say,  tin 
Dresden  kanne  is  about  one  quart  ( + ).  Seventy-twt 
kannen  are  one  eimer,  i.  e.,  seventy-two  quarts. 
72  x  12=864  quarts.  To  these  must  be  added  16 
quarts,  and  the  whole  amount  is  880  quarts  or  220 
gallons.  If  however  any  one  wishes  to  work  out  the 
sum,  it  may  be  well  to  add  that   1  kanne  =  0.93' 


CHAPTER  VII.   1-51. 


87 


liter,  and  1  liter  —  1.0567  quart  (wine-measure). — 
E.  H.]  In  respect  of  the  second  main  part  of  the 
vessel,  the  base  njlDD  >  so  much  is  certain,  that  it 

was  a  four-cornered  box,  which  consisted  of  strong 
edge-bands  on  the  top  and  on  the  bottom,  along 
the  sides,  as  well  as  at  the  corners:  into  which  the 
walls  (or  panels)  were  introduced,  and  were  held 
by  these  edge-bands  as  in  a  frame.     Figures  were 

engraved  on  these  walls  (panels,  J"li~l3D£):  lions, 

oxen,  and  cherubim  (according  to  Josephus,  dis- 
tributed in  three  different  fields).  The  box  had 
also  4  feet  niDUS  (ver.  30),  at  the  4  corners,  no 

doubt ;  with  which  it  stood  upon  the  axle-trees  of 
the  wheelwork.  It  is  very  difficult  to  form  an 
adequate   and  just  view  of  the  4   undersetters, 

112113,  which  are  named  in  ver.  30  with  the  feet, 

and  in  ver.  34  with  the  wheelwork ;  they  must 
have  projected  certainly  from  the  feet,  but  it  is  un- 
certain in  what  manner  they  were  connected  with 
the  box,  and  what  they  bore — whether  indeed  they 
bore  anything.  The  box  seems  to  have  been  open 
at  the  bottom,  but  it  had  an  arched  covering  at  the 

top  (ver.  35)  with  a  round  ornament,  a  crown  mi"l3 

(ver.  31)  on  which  the  basin  was  placed.  But  the 
nature  of  the  hands  or  holders  J"liT  and  their  rela- 
tion to  the  arched  cover  and  the  crown,  is  obscure. 
They  must  have  been  rather  broad,  as  the  figures 
were  engraved  upon  them  as  well  as  on  the  cover 
(vers.  35,  36).  It  is  equally  difficult  to  say  where 
and  how  the  borders  mentioned  in  vers.  29,  30,  and 

36,  nvb,  were  put  on.     According  to  ver.  29  they 

were   "nio  itb'JTO,   by  which  Thenius,  appealing 

to  the  nijjSpD  in  ver.  31,  and  nnS'l  in  ver.  36, 

understands  "work  of  cutting  in,  i.  e.,  sunken 
work;  "  but  if  the  text  meant  this,  why  did  it  not 
make  use  of  the  identical  expressions  ?  The  spe- 
cific word  must  denote  something  specific;  it  re- 
mains only  to  take  the  usual  translation,  "  hanging 
work  "  (Vulgate :  deptndentia),  "  which  certainly 
does  not  mean  festoons  hanging  free,  and  waving 

in  the  air  "  (Keil) ;  "pin  means  a  declivity  (hang- 
ing) in  a  local  sense  (comp.  Josh.  vii.  5 ;  x.  11 ;  Jer. 
xlviii.  5).  According  to  ver.  29  the  borders  were 
on  the  edge-frames  above  as  well  as  under  the  carved 
work  upon  the  side  walls  of  the  box  or  chest,  for 
[3  cannot  be  here,  as  Keil  has  it,  a  substantive, 

"and  upon  the  ledges  there  was  a  base  above." 
but  only  an  adverb  (De  Wette,  Thenius,  and  oth- 
ers), as  in  ver.  18.  But  we  cannot  with  certainty 
ascertain  the  meaning  of  "  at  the  side  of  every  ad- 
dition "  (wreath)  at  the  end  of  ver.  30.  [Bp.  Hors- 
ley,  "at  the  side  of  every  addition."  Rather  "each 
over-against  a  compound  figure."  The  shoulder- 
pieces  (instead  of  "undersetters")  went  just  so  far 
down  within  the  base  as  to  be  on  a  level  with  the 
compound  figures  on  the  outside." — E.  H.]  The 
"additions  (wreaths)  round  about"  in  ver.  36  are 
the  same  as  mentioned  in  ver.  29.  The  third  main 
part,  i.  e.,  the  wheels,  differed  so  far  from  wheels  of 
ordinary  vehicles  that  their  axle-trees  were  not  im- 
mediately under  the  box  or  chest,  but  under  its 
feet,  so  that  the  edges  moved  completely  under 
the  box,  and  the  carved  work  on  its  aides  was  not 


hid  by  the  wheels  (ver.  32).  But  it  is  impossible  tc 
determine  the  relation  of  the  hands  or  holders  of 
the  wheels  to  the  feet  of  the  box  and  to  the  shoul- 
der-pieces (ver.  30).  The  description  of  the  wheels 
begun  in  ver.  30  is  continued  in  vers.  32,  33,  34; 
but  ver.  31  treats  of  the  upper  part  of  the  box 
which  is  further  described  in  vers.  35  and  36; 
strictly  speaking,  therefore,  ver.  31  should  stand 
immediately  before  vers.  35  and  36,  or  else  vers. 
31,  35,  and  36  immediately  before  ver.  30.  Fortu- 
nately the  whole  of  the  difficult  section  from  vers. 
27-39  does  not  treat  of  a  main  integral  part  of  the 
temple,  and  not  even  of  one  of  the  principal  ves- 
sels, but  only  of  one  that  is  subordinate  and  sec- 
ondary. Its  description,  therefore,  obscure  as  it 
is,  may  be  regarded  as  sufficient,  at  least  as  far  a« 
concerns  its  purpose.  The  best  drawings  that  have 
been  made  of  this  vessel  are  those  of  Thenius 
(Commentar,  taf.  HI.,  fig.  4),  and  Keil  (Arch:' oh- 
gie,  I.,  taf.  2,  fig.  4) ;  and  the  most  defective  of  all, 
whether  ancient  or  modern,  that  of  Unruh  (das  Altt 
Jerusalem,  Fig.  11). 

Vers.  40—17.  And  Hiram  made  the  lavers, 
&c.  Ver.  40.  The  first  part  of  this  verse  forms  a 
kind  of  independent  section,  for  the  lavers,  shov- 
els, and  basins  did  not  belong  to  the  bases,  but 
were,  like  the  latter,  utensils  of  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offering.  The  lavers  were  for  carrying  away  wa- 
ter, &c,  the  shovels  for  removing  the  ashes,  the 
basins  for  catching  the  blood  that  spouted  from  the 
sacrifice  (Ex.  xxvii.  3 ;  Numb.  iv.  14).  It  is  re- 
markable that  the  text  never  names  the  chief  ves- 
sel of  all,  the  altar  of  burnt-offering;  for  it  was 
made  anew  at  the  same  time  (2  Chron.  iv.  1),  and 
upon  a  larger  scale.  Perhaps  it  was  not  made  by 
Hiram,  who  only  executed  the  more  artistic  brass- 
castings,  among  which  this  altar  could  not  be  reck- 
oned. The  words,  and  so  Hiram  made  an  end 
of  doing  all  the  work,  ftc,  begin  the  general 
list  of  all  the  vessels  Hiram  had  made,  the  brass, 
from  ver.  40  to  47,  and  the  golden,  from  ver.  43 

to  5 1.    The  former  were  all  of  bright  brass  (tDlbp), 

i.  e.,  it  was  polished  after  the  casting,  so  that  it 
shone  like  gold  (see  above,  on  ver.  13),  but  it  was 
no  actual  aurichalcum  (Vulgate) ;  Josephus  says, 
Xa^.Koc  rifv  avyyv  bfioioc  XPVG<i>  Kat  T°  K-dXXoc.  The 
region  between  Suecoth  and  Zarthan  is  mentioned 
as  the  place  where  the  brass  works  were  cast  in 
the  clay,  i.  e.,  in  moulds  of  potters'  earth.  Suecoth 
(Judg.  viii.  5  ;  Josh.  xiii.  27)  lay  beyond  Jordan,  not 
on  the  south  side  of  Jabbok  (Keil),  but  rather  noi  th- 
wards,  for  it  could  not  possibly  have  been  very  far 
from  Zarthan,  which  chap.  iv.  12  places  near  Beth- 
shean,  on  this  side  Jordan.  Consequently  the  foun- 
dry must  have  been  on  this  side  too;  Burkhardt 
says  (Reise,  II.  s.  593)  that  the  "  soil  is  all  marl, 
and  the  further  shore  has  no  hollows  whatever." 
Comparison  of  both  places  shows  that  they  lay  di- 
agonally opposite,  and  there  was  no  larger  ground 
suitable  for  the  brass  foundry  in  this  side  of  the  val- 
ley above  (or  below)  Zarthan  (Keil).  The  quantity 
of  brass  was  so  great  (comp.  1  Chron.  xviii.  8),  that 
it  was  not  necessary  to  weigh  it  out  carefully  for 
■  ach  distinct  vessel;  and  the  weight  of  each  can- 
not therefore  be  ascertained.     |-|3S1 ,  ver.  47,  does 

not  mean :  he  laid  them  down,  but  he  let  <nem  lie, 
i.  e.,  he  did  not  weigh  them,  as  the  following  verses 
show. 

Vers.   48-51.    And   Solomon  made  all  th« 


ss 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


vessels  ...  of  gold.  We  are  not  to  conclude 
from  the  subject,  "Solomon,"  that  Hiram  made 
only  the  brazen  vessels  (Thenius).  As  Hiram  also 
knew  how  to  work  in  gold  (2  Chron.  ii.  13),  it  is  far 
more  likely  that  Solomon  intrusted  him  also  with 
the  goldsmith's  work.  The  golden  vessels  are  evi- 
dently only  named,  and  not  described,  because  they 
were  made  like  those  of  the  tabernacle  (comp.  Ex. 
xxx.  1  sq. ;  xxv.  23  to  40),  only  upon  a  larger  scale. 
The  addition  in  2  Chron.  iv.  8 :  "he  made  also  ten 
tables,  and  placed  them  in  the  temple,  five  on  the 
right  side  and  five  on  the  left,"  is  declared  to  be 
an  error  by  modern  interpreters;  but  we  might 
just  as  reasonably  strike  out  the  account  of  the 
altar  of  burnt-ofiering,  which  is  not  given  in  our 
text.  The  account  is  so  definite  that  it  cannot  be 
a  pure  invention;  besides,  soon  after,  in  ver.  19, 

the  plural  nibrDCTI  occurs,  and  it  is  said  also  in  1 

-hron.  xxviii.  16:  "And  (David  gave  to  Solomon) 
oy  weight  .  .  .  gold  for  the  tables  of  shew- 
bread,  for  every  table."  Now  when  2  Chron.  xxix. 
18  mentions  but  one  table,  this  is  no  contradiction 
(Thenius);  for  it  says  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  11  :  "and 
we  burn,  i.  e.,  light,  the  golden  candlestick  every 
evening;"  and  yet,  according  to  our  text,  there 
were  10  candlesticks.  One  asks,  Why  10  tables  ? 
but  we,  on  the  other  hand,  ask,  Why  10  candle- 
sticks, if  only  one  were  lighted?  There  is  no 
ground  for  the  opinion  that  the  rest  of  the  tables 
served  for  the  purpose  of  resting  the  candlesticks 
upon  them;  for  then  there  must  have  been  11  of 
them,  and  instead  of  being  called  tables  of  shew- 
bread  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  16)  they  must  have  been 
called  tables  of  the  candlesticks. — Which  David 
had  dedicated  (ver.  51).  According  to  2  Sam. 
viii.  7-12;  1  Chron.  xviii.  7-11,  David  had  taken 
a  quantity  of  brass,  silver,  and  gold  from  the  con- 
quered Syrians,  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Philistines, 
and  Amalekites.  which  treasures  he  dedicated  to 
sacred  purposes.  1  Chron.  xxii.  14,  16  also  alludes 
to  the  great  store  of  these  metals.  Immense  as 
was  the  quantity  of  brass  and  gold  needed  for  the 
'*mple,  the  supply  was  not  exhausted.  The  rest 
consisted  partly  of  unwrought  gold  and  silver, 
oartly  of  vessels,  and  was  preserved  in  the  sanc- 
mary  itself.  Probably  some  of  the  side-chambers 
terved  as  a  treasury.* 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  king's  house  was  the  second  large  ouild- 
lig  that  Solomon  undertook.  "After  the  c-'imple- 
Won  of  the  sacred  building  ...  he  began  the 
building  of  an  house  which  should  shed  lustre  on 
the  second  power  in  Israel,  the  kingdom  which 
was  then  approaching  its  culminating  point " 
(Ewald).  Chap.  ix.  1  and  10  accords  with  our 
passage,  in  placing  the  two  buildings  near  to- 
gether. The  section  from  ver.  1-12  is  therefore 
no  addition,  interrupting  the  description  of  the 
temple  building,  but  is  purposely  assigned  that 
place;  and  the  description  of  the  vessels,  ver.  14 
-50,  is  i  sequel  to  that  of  the  temple,  and  forms 
the  transition  to  chap.  viii.     To  Israel  the  mon- 

•  If  the  leader  wish  to  investigate  this  subject  any  fur- 
ther, he  can  and  some  strange  fancies,  and  occasionally  good 
S  esses,  in  Mr.  T.  O.  I'alne's  Salomon's  Temple,  <ftc.',  Bos- 
i,  1861,  ot  cliap.  vll. 


archy  had  become  a  necessary  institution,  and 
stood  so  little  in  opposition  to  divine  rule,  that  it 
rather  served  to  sustain  the  latter;  the  king  not 
being  an  absolute  sovereign,  and,  as  in  other  East- 
ern states,  God's  vicegerent,  but  a  servant  of  Je- 
hovah, who  had  to  execute  His  orders  and  to 
maintain  the  law  (=  covenant).  Like  the  theoc- 
racy, the  monarchy  also  had  reached  its  highest 
point  through  David ;  and  Solomon  represents  thia 
culminating  point.  When,  therefore,  a  spacious, 
splendid  house  was  built  for  an  abiding  dwelling- 
place,  a  sign  and  monument  of  Jehovah's  might 
and  truth,  instead  of  the  tabernacle  hitherto  used, 
it  was  fitting  that  it  should  be  a  house  correspond- 
ing with  the  greatness  and  prosperity  of  the  king- 
dom. Therefore  the  building,  which  was  a  token 
and  pledge  of  the  theocracy,  was  followed  by  one 
which  represented  the  kingdom ;  and  both  stood, 
according  to  their  signification,  on  two  opposite 
neighboring  hills.  [We  must  repeat  our  doubts  of 
the  author's  topography  here.  See  above,  Exeget 
on  ver.  1.— E.  H.] 

2.  The  plan  and  arrangement  of  the  king's  house 
quite  accord  with  the  conception  Israel  had  of  the 
calling  of  the  monarchy.  When  the  people  de- 
sired a  king,  they  said  to  Samuel,  "that  our  king 
may  judge  us,  and  fight  our  battles  "  (1  Sam.  viii. 
20).  The  first  or  foremost  of  the  three  buildings 
which  together  formed  the  royal  palace,  namely 
the  armory,  set  forth  the  mission  of  the  king 
against  his  enemies ;  and  it  represented  his  pro- 
tecting war-strength ;  the  next  building,  the  porch 
of  pillars  and  the  porch  of  the  throne,  or  of  judg- 
ment, signified  the  vocation  of  the  king  in  respect 
of  his  subjects,  viz.,  judging  and  ruling  (see  above 
on  chap.  iii.  9 ;  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  6 ;  2  Sam.  xv.  4) ;  it 
represented  the  royal  elevation  and  majesty; 
lastly,  the  third  and  innermost  building  was  the 
real  dwelling-house,  where  the  king  lived  with  his 
consort ;  a  private  house  which  he  had  an  equal 
right  with  any  of  his  subjects  to  possess.  The 
plan  of  the  palace  thus  was  very  simple,  and  fol- 
lows so  clearly  from  the  nature  of  the  relations, 
that  we  need  not  seek  for  the  model  of  it  any- 
where. Least  of  all  should  we  be  likely  to  find 
such  in  Egypt,  although  Thenius  does  not  doubt 
that  "  Solomon  built  the  royal  residence  after 
Egyptian  models,"  and  then  refers  us  to  the  pal- 
aces at  Medinat-Abu,  Luxor,  and  Carnac.  Just  the 
main  feature  in  the  one  we  have  been  considering, 
i.  e.,  the  three  parts  forming  a  completely  united 
whole,  is  wanting  in  these  Egyptian  buildings, 
which  besides  were  entirely  of  stone,  and  conse- 
quently quite  differently  constructed.  Where  i9 
there  anything  in  Egypt  that  in  the  least  approxi- 
mates to  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon,  with 
its  numerous  wooden  pillars  and  galleries  ?  Solo- 
mon's palace,  as  well  as  the  temple,  belonged  en- 
tirely to  the  architecture  of  anterior  Asia,  but  the 
fundamental  idea  upon  which  its  plan  and  inte- 
rior arrangement  rested,  was  essentially  and  spe- 
cifically Israelitish. 

3.  Tlie  calling  of  Hiram  from  Tyre  to  finish  all 
the  temple-vessels,  was  occasioned  by  the  want  of 
distinguished  artists  in  Israel  (see  above  on  chap. 
v.  No.  3).  As  Hiram's  mother  was  an  Israelite, 
which  is  expressly  mentioned,  we  may  well  sup- 
pose that  he  was  not  unacquainted  with  the  God 
whom  his  mother  worshipped,  and  therefore  was 
belter  able  than  all  other  Tyrian  artists  to  enter 
into   the   right  spirit  and  meaning  of  the  works 


CHAPTER  VII.   1-51. 


89 


which  Solomon  intrusted  to  him.  But  besides 
this,  the  sending  for  Hiram  is  important,  inasmuch 
as  it  shows  that  Solomon  desired  to  have  real 
works  of  art,  and  that  he  so  little  despised  art  as 
the  handmaid  of  religion,  that  he  even  sent  for  a 
heathen  and  foreign  artisan.  In  his  "wisdom" 
he  regarded  the  command,  Thou  shalt  not  make  to 
thyself  any  graven  image,  not  as  the  prohibition 
of  every  species  of- religious  sculpture.  In  this  re- 
spect he  rises  far  above  the  Pharisaism  of  Jose- 
phus,  who  accounts  the  images  of  the  oxen  sup- 
porting the  molten  sea,  and  the  lions  near  his 
throne,  as  much  breaches  of  the  law  as  the  peopling 
of  his  harem  with  foreign  women  (Joseph.,  Antiq. 
8,  7,  5).  Modern  spiritualism,  which  rejects  all 
plastic  art  in  the  service  of  the  church,  by  an  ap- 
peal to  a  false  interpretation  of  our  Lord's  words 
in  John  iv.  24,  is  a  lapse  into  the  narrow-minded 
Jewish  Pharisaism. 

[The  service  of  art  in  the  Christian  Church,  and 
its  employment  by  Christians  in  behalf  of  the  in- 
terests of  religion,  is  always  recognized  except  in 
periods  of  intense  reforming  life,  when  an  icono- 
clastic spirit  is  apt  to  develop  itself.  The  men 
who  "  denuded "  the  churches  in  the  sixteenth 
and  in  the  seventeenth  centuries,  regarded  "orna- 
ments "  as  snares  to  the  conscience,  and  as  the 
foster-nurses  of  superstitions.  The  principle  laid 
down  and  developed  by  Neander  is  the  true  one, 
viz.,  that  the  design  of  the  Christian  religion, 
which  is  to  promote  holiness  of  life,  should  be 
kept  constantly  in  view;  and  that  the  beautiful 
should  be  observed  and  employed  subordinately  to 
this  design.  When  the  beautiful  becomes,  or  tends 
to  become,  supreme  in  worship  and  in  Christian 
art,  then  it  becomes  unlawful. 

Solomon,  in  the  luxuriance  of  his  nature,  un- 
doubtedly was  exceptional  in  his  taste  for  orna- 
ment; and,  in  this  respect,  he  did  not  represent 
the  genius  either  of  Judaism  or  of  the  Hebrew 
race.  And  the  tradition  as  being  against  him,  was 
true  to  the  instincts  of  the  race. — E.  EL] 

4.  The  well-defined  difference  of  the  materials  of 
the  vessels  used  in  Solomon's  temple  next  strikes  us. 
Those  made  for  the  interior  of  the  building  were 
all  of  gold ;  all  those  outside  of  it,  of  brass.  The 
design  of  this  is  apparent.  Gold  (see  Historical, 
Ac,  on  chap.  vi.  No.  5),  by  virtue  of  its  surpassing 
splendor,  is  the  celestial  metal,  and  was  therefore 
fitted  for  the  typical  heavenly  dwelling,  where  all 
is  gold.  Brass  (see  Exeget.  and  Crit.  remarks  on 
rer.  13)  most  resembles  gold  in  color  and  brillian- 
cy, but  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  it  that  iron 
does  to  silver  (Isai.  lx.  17);  it  approaches  nearest 
to  gold,  and  is  fitted,  not  indeed  for  the  building 
itself,  but  for  its  approaches,  tho  porch  and  the 
outer  court.  There  were,  then,  no  new  vessels 
unknown  in  the  tabernacle ;  but  the  two  pillars, 
Jaehin  and  Boaz,  were  new.  There  was  the  old 
ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  holy  of  holies  (chap, 
viii.  3),  the  altar,  candlestick,  and  table  in  the  holy 
place,  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (brazen  altar)  in 
the  outer  court  (2  Chron.  iv.  1) ;  the  molten  sea  in- 
stead of  the  laver  (Ex.  xxx.  18),  and  the  lavers  in- 
stead of  the  basins,  which  it  is  to  be  presupposed 
from  Lev.  i.  13  were  used.  The  increased  size  of 
Bome  of  these  vessels,  such  as  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offering  and  the  brazen  sea,  as  well  as  the  multi- 
plication of  others,  such  as  the  candlestick,  the 
table,  and  the  "bases,"  was  called  for  in  part  by 
the  increased  size  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the  rela- 


tion of  the  house  (palace)  to  the  tent,  and  in  part 
by  the  extension  of  the  central-cultus. 

5.  The  two  pillars  Jaehin  and  Boaz  were  nc 
more  an  innovation  than  the  erection  of  a  house 
instead  of  a  tent;  they  owed  their  existence  to  the 
conditions  that  distinguished  a  new  period  of  the 
theocracy.  This  we  learn  from  their  suggestive 
names.  Jaehin  refers  to  the  fact  that  Jehovah's 
dwelling-place,  hitherto  movable  and  moving, 
was  now  firmly  fixed  in  the  midst  of  His  people  ; 
Boaz  tells  of  the  power,  strength,  and  durability 
of  the  house.  Both  were  monuments  of  Jehovah's 
covenant  with  His  people,  monuments  of  the  sav- 
ing might,  grace,  and  faithfulness  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  who  at  last  crowned  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  by  dwelling  and  reigning  ever  in  a  sure 
house  in  the  midst  of  His  people.  It  stands  to 
reason  that  such  pillars  could  not  have  been  placed 
before  the  tent ;  they  could  only  stand  before  the 
house,  where  they  belonged  to  the  porch,  for  it 
was  the  latter  that  gave  to  the  dwelling-place  the 
appearance  of  a  house  and  a  palace,  in  distinction 
from  that  of  a  tent.  They  were  formed  in  accord- 
ance with  their  signification,  being  not  of  wood, 
not  slender  and  slight,  but  of  brass,  thick  and 
strong,  which  gave  the  impression  of  firmness  and 
durability.  The  crown  (capital),  which  is  the 
principal  characteristic  of  every  pillar,  consisted 
mainly,  as  did  the  brazen  sea,  of  an  open  lily-cup. 
The  Hebrew  named  the  lily  simply  "  the  white," 

("JT"'  from  CTt^i  to  be  white;)  it  is,  therefore,  a 

natural  symbol  of  purity  and  of  holiness  to  him. 

The  priests,  as  the  "  holy  ones  "  (Ex.  iii.  27  sq.), 
were  dressed  in  white  (Num.  xvi.  7),  and  the  high- 
priest,  the  holiest  of  the  holy,  wore,  on  the  great 
day  of  atonement,  white  garments,  instead  of  hia 
usual  many-colored  ones;  and  these  white  robes 
were  called  "holy  garments"  (Lev.  xvi.  4,  32). 
Inasmuch  as  "  holiness "  was  the  characteristic 
and  fundamental  idea  of  the  Israelitish  religion, 
the  "  white,"  i.  e.,  the  lily,  seems  to  have  been 
their  religious  Mower,  as  the  lotus  was  the  well- 
known  sacred  flower  of  the  Indian  and  Egyptian 
religions.  Besides  this,  the  lily  is  nowhere  more 
indigenous  than  in  Palestine  (Matt.  vi.  28 ;  Winer, 
JR.-  W.-B.,  ii.  s.  28),  and  it  may  therefore  be  named 
the  flower  of  the  promised  land,  as  the  palm  was 
its  tree  (see  above,  llistor.  and  Ethical,  in  chap. 
vi.  Xo.  6,  b).  If  the  capitals  of  the  pillars  were 
thus  always  and  everywhere  decorated  with  carv- 
ings of  flowers,  no  more  characteristic  and  suitable 
one  could  be  chosen  for  the  capitals  before  the 
"holy  temple"  (Ps.  v.  7;  lxxix.  1;  exxxviii.  2) 
than  the  lily.  The  pomegranates  on  the  capital, 
and  which  were  also  on  the  high-priest's  robe,  are 
no  less  characteristic  (Ex.  xxviii.  33  sq.).  As  the 
apple  is  the  figure  generally  of  the  word  (Prov.  xxf. 
11),  so  the  pomegranate,  the  noblest  and  finest  of 
all  apples,  is  the  symbol  of  the  noblest,  most 
precious  word,  that  of  Jehovah,  which  is  essentially 
law  (=  covenant).  Just  as  this  law  is  a  complex 
unity,  consisting  of  a  number  of  single  commands, 
that  delight  the  heart  and  are  sweeter  than  honey 
(Ps.  xix.  9,  11),  so  the  pomegranate  encloses  a 
number  of  preaious,  delicious,  and  refreshing  seeds. 
The  Chaldee  paraphrast  renders  the  words  (Eccles. 
iv.  13,  thus:  "Thy  youths  are  filled  with  (divine) 
laws,  like  pomegranates,''  and  vi.  11:  "if  they  are 
full  of  good  works  (t.  e.,  of  the  Bw)  like  pome 
cranates."     The  Gemara  also  uses  the  expression 


90 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


"  Full  of  the  commandments  (of  God)  as  a  pome- 
granate "  (comp.  Symbol,  des  Mos.  Kult,  ii.  s.  122 
sq.).  Now  the  union  of  this  symbol  with  the  lily 
is  very  natural,  for  the  law  was  the  revealed  sa- 
cred will  of  Jehovah,  and  the  covenant,  which  was 
identical  with  it,  was  a  covenant  of  holiness.  The 
symbol,  therefore,  bore  the  seal  of  the  same  num- 
ber as  the  law  and  covenant,  i.  e.,  ten.  Each  row 
of  pomegranates  consisted  of  ten  times  ten ;  they 
were  adjusted  to  the  different  quarters  of  the 
heavens,  exactly  as  the  typical  heavenly  dwelling 
was,  the  kernel  and  centre  of  the  same  being  the 
law  laid  up  in  the  ark.  Tlie  nets,  or  net-work, 
connected  with  the  significant  synibols  of  the  lily 
and  pomegranate,  cannot  be  viewed  as  mere  orna- 
ments, used  only  "  for  graceful  and  suitable  fast- 
enings of  the  pomegranates  "  (Thenius).  The  num- 
ber seven  engraved  on  them  (the  symbolical  num- 
ber of  the  covenant-relation  and  of  sanctification) 
{Symb.  des  Mos.  Kult.,  i.  s.  193)  shows  the  con- 
trary. But  their  signification  cannot  be  exactly 
known,  through  utter  want  of  analogous  objects  to 
judge  from.  The  later  critics  have  declared  these 
pillars  to  have  been  only  imitations  of  heathen 
symbols,  but  this  is  a  very  uncritical  and  super- 
ficial view.  It  borders  ou  the  ridiculous  to  look 
on  them  as  phallus-figures,  or  to  compare  them 
with  the  phallus  180  feet  high  in  the  temple  of  the 
Syrian  goddess  at  Hierapolis  (Lucian.,  de  dea  Syr., 
28  sq.).  It  is  also  quite  wrong  to  compare  them 
with  the  two  columns  of  the  Phoenician  Herakles, 
or  Saturn,  who  bears  up  or  sustains  the  world,  like 
Jehovah,  and  yet  lives  and  moves  eternally  (Movers, 
Bel.  der  Phbniz.,  s.  292  sq.) ;  for  these  pillars  were, 
the  one  of  gold  and  the  other  of  emerald  (Herodot., 
2,  44) ;  they  were  but  an  ell  high,  were  square, 
anvil-shaped,  and  stood,  like  all  idols,  in  the  inte- 
rior of  the  temple.  It  is  not  less  astonishing  to 
find  these  almost  disproportionately  thick,  brazen 
pillars,  taken  for  an  imitation  of  the  Egyptian 
6tone  obelisks  (Stieglitz,  Gesch.  der  Baukunst,  s. 
136),  and  to  hear  it  asserted  that  "they  originally 
represented,  as  needles  (!)  the  power  and  force  of 
the  sun's  rays."  (Br.  Bauer,  Reliq.  des  A.  T,  ii.  s. 
92.)  Why  should  the  religion  of  Israel  alone  abso- 
lutely have  had  no  peculiar  symbols,  but  have  bor- 
rowed all  from  the  natural  religions  that  stood  so 
far  beneath  it  ? 

6.  The  molten  sea  was  "for  the  priests  to  wash 
in  "  (2  Chron.  iv.  6),  i.  ?.,  "  their  hands  and  feet, 
when  they  went  into  the  sanctuary  or  went  up  to 
the  altar  also,  to  offer  incense  before  Jehovah" 
(Exod.  xxx.  19  sq.),  in  fact  before  any  of  their 
priestly  functions.  It  was,  therefore,  peculiarly 
the  priests'  vessel.  Its  form,  that  of  an  open  lily- 
cup,  corresponded  to  its  purpose.  If  all  budding 
and  blossoming  signified  holiness  and  priesthood 
(Num.  xvi.  7,  comp.  with  xvii.  20,  23  ;  Ps.  xcii.  14), 
the  Mower  named  the  "white,"  i.  e.,  the  lily,  must 
have  been  pre-eminently  the  priestly  one.  The 
fo-ehead-plate  of  the  high-priest,  his  insignia  of 

office,  was  named  j«y  ,  flower,  and  the  head-cover- 
ing of  the  ordinary  priests  njQJD,  cognate  with 
{P3J  flower-cup  (Ex.  xxviii.  36,  40).     The  form  of 

the  lily-cup  showed  every  one  that  the  vessel  was 
a  priestly  vessel ;  the  flower-buds  also  that  adorned 
the  edge  like  a  wreath,  showed  the  same.  The 
measure  of  the  se*a  was  according  to  the  number 
dominant  throughout  the  whole  sanctuary,  i.  e.,  the 


number  ten  (see  above,  Histor.  and  Ethic,  on  chap 
vi.  No.  iv.  b) ;  it  was  ten  cubits  broad,  five  deep, 
and  there  were  ten  flower-buds  to  every  cubit  of 
the  wreath.     The  molten  sea,  as  a  priest's  vessel, 

stood  beside,  on  twelve  young  oxen.     The  ox  1p3  ii 

•t  t 

not  only  the  chief  animal  for  sacrifice,  but  was  the 
sacrificial  animal  of  the  priests,  in  distinction  from 
that  of  all  who  were  not  priests.  The  law  ordered 
a  young  ox  to  be  the  sacrifice  for  the  high-prieBt 
and  his  house,  and  for  the  whole  priesthood  (comp. 
Lev.  iv.  3  sq.  with  vers.  23,  27,  32,  and  xvi.  11, 
with  ver.  15;  Ex.  xxix.  10  sq. ;  Num.  viii.  8);  it 
was  specially  the  priests'  animal.  The  twelve 
oxen,  therefore,  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
molten  sea,  as  the  twelve  lions  to  the  king's  throne 
(1  Kings  x.  20),  the  lions  being  the  royal  animal. 
It  is  plain  that  the  number  twelve  was  not  chosen 
merely  for  the  sake  of  "  symmetry  "  (Thenius),  but 
had  reference,  like  the  twelve  loaves  on  the  table 
of  shewbread,  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  and  is 
moreover  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  they  were 
placed  just  like  the  twelve  tribes  in  camp,  viz.,  three 
each  to  a  quarter  of  the  heavens  (Num.  ii.  2-31). 
The  twelve  beasts,  then,  were  the  symbol  of  the 
whole  nation,  not  in  its  general,  but  in  the  peculiar 
characteristic  imparted  to  it  when  it  was  chosen 
from  all  nations,  as  "a  kingdom  of  priests,  a  holy 
nation "  (Ex  xix.  6).  As  Israel  stood  in  relation 
to  all  peoples  as  a  priestly  nation,  so  one  tribe 
stood  as  the  priest-tribe  in  relation  to  the  whole 
nation ;  the  special  priesthood  of  the  tribe  rested 
upon  the  universal  priesthood  of  the  nation,  and 
was,  as  it  were,  borne  by  it.  The  whole  carved- 
work  of  the  molten  sea  was  rooted  finally  in  this 
great  idea.  Here,  also,  instead  of  explaining  Is- 
raelitish  symbols  by  Israelitish  ideas,  just  as  with 
the  brazen  pillars,  the  effort  has  been  made  to  look 
around  for  heathen  models,  and  such  an  one  has 
been  found  in  the  egg-shaped  stone  giant-vessel 
of  thirty  feet  in  circumference,  having  four  handles, 
and  ornamented  with  an  ox,  which  stood  at  Ama- 
thus  in  Cyprus;  it  is  also  asserted  that  the  twelve 
oxen  were  symbols  of  Time  and  the  twelve  months 
(Vatke,  Bibl.  Theol,  s.  324,  336:  Winer,  R.-W.-B., 
ii.  s.  68,  n).  We  need  scarcely  say  that  that  vessel 
belonged  completely  to  nature-religion ;  the  ma- 
terial (stone),  the  shape  (that  of  an  egg),  the  four 
handles  (elements),  the  bull  (generation);  every- 
thing, in  fact,  denotes  the  fundamental  dogmas  of 
nature-religion ;  nothing  but  the  blindest  prejudice 
and  utter  want  of  critical  capacity  could  discover 
— where  the  difference  in  outward  form  as  well  as 
in  significance  is  so  great — a  likeness  with  the 
brazen  sea,  the  purpose  of  which  the  biblical  ac- 
count itself  states  so  clearly  and  definitely. 

7.  The  ten  lavers  on  the  movable  bases  wert 
united  to  the  brazen  sea  (2  Chron.  iv.  6),  for  as  the 
latter  served  for  the  purification  of  the  priests  at 
their  functions,  so  the  former  were  for  the  wash- 
ing of  the  sacrifices  brought  to  the  altar  for  burn- 
ing. They  were,  therefore,  only  placed  there  for 
sacrificial  service,  the  chief  vessel  of  which  was 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  they  stood  in  an 
inseparable  though  subordinate  relation  to  it.  As 
they  were  not  independent,  then,  we  need  not  seek 
any  further  signification  for  them,  more  than  for 
the  other  lesser  vessels,  the  pots,  shovels,  bowls. 
But  if  they  were  only  useful  articles,  why  does  the 
text  dwell  so  much  at  length  on  them,  and  de 
scribe   them   so   exactly   and    carefully,    while  if 


CHAPTER  Vr.   1-51. 


91 


never  once  mentions  the  chief  one,  the  altar  itself? 
The  altar  of  sacrifice  seems  to  have  been  origin- 
ally of  earth,  of  unhewn  stones  (Ex.  xx.  24  sq.) ;  it 
bad,  therefore,  only  one  covering,  which  gave  it 
a  de^nite  shape,  ir  the  tabernacle  as  well  as  in 
the  ten  pie  (Ex.  xxvii.  1-8).  Solomon  neither 
cuild  nor  would  alter  anything  in  respect  of  this 
law-appointed  and  significant  simplicity ;  how- 
ever, in  order  indirectly  to  impress  upon  this  chief 
article  of  use  the  character  of  the  glorious  house 
of  Jehovah,  he  made  the  vessels  inseparably  con- 
nected with  it,  and  forming  with  it  one  whole,  the 
more  splendid  and  artistic,  and  decorated  them 
with  all  the  emblems  which  were  the  significant 
temple-insignia :  cherubim,  palms,  and  flowers. 
Be  did  not  adorn  them  on  their  own  account, 
therefore,  but  rather  for  the  sake  of  the  altar, 
which  they  were  to  beautify.  All  these  figures 
belonged  properly  to  the  interior  of  the  sanctuary 
(see  above,  Histor.  and  Ethic,  on  chap.  vi.  No.  G). 
and  they  were  placed  here,  on  the  vessels  of  the 
altar  of  sacrifice,  to  point  to  the  interior  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  signified  the  intimate  relation  in 
which  the  outer  court,  and  especially  the  altar  for 
sacrifice,  stood  to  it.  When  lions  and  oxen  are 
particularly  mentioned  as  next  the  cherubims, 
these  are  not  to  be  understood  as  new  figures,  but 
only  as  single  component  parts  of  the  cherub ;  as 
in  Rev.  iv.  6,  7,  where  all  four  are  presented  apart 
from  each  other.  One  may  look  in  vain  for  a 
heathen  parallel  to  these  bases  and  lavers.  "  The 
whole  arrangement,  so  full  of  meaning,  appears 
quite  peculiar  to  the  Israelitish  temple,  for  nothing 
of  the  kind  is  found  anywhere  else,  either  on  Egyp- 
tian or  Assyrian  monuments  "  (Thenius). 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-12.  Solomon  first  builds  the  house  of 
the  Lord,  then  begins  to  build  his  own  house.  We 
must  first  render  to  God  what  is  of  God,  and  when 
this  has  been  truly  done,  then  to  Caesar  what  is 
Caesar's  (Matt.  xxii.  21).  He  who  strives  first  after 
the  kingdom  of  God,  will  likewise  succeed  in  what 
he  undertakes  for  his  personal  and  temporal  wel- 
fare (Matt.  vi.  33). — The  building  of  the  house  for 
the  king  followed  immediately  upon  the  building 
of  the  temple ;  they  belong  together.  Altar  and 
throne  stand  and  fall  together,  even  as  we  have 
the  two  commandments :  Fear  God,  honor  the  king 
(1  Pet.  ii.  17;  Prov.  xxiv.  21).  In  the  kingdom 
where  religion  and  Christianity  are  cherished  and 
highly  honored,  there  royalty  is  most  secure;  a 
God-fearing  people  is  the  best,  nay,  the  only  sup- 
port of  the  throne. — Kings  and  princes  cannot,  on 
account  of  their  high  position,  choose  to  live  in 
ordinary  houses,  or  yet  in  poor  hovels ;  it  is  simply 
folly  to  reproach  them  when  they  build  castles  for 
themselves.  The  building  of  palaces  then  becomes 
sinful  and  blamable  only  when  they  are  built  for 
the  gratification  of  ostentation  and  insolence,  or  at 
the  expense  of  a  poor  and  oppressed  people. — Be- 


fore his  dwelling-house  Solomon  placed  the  courti 
of  the  throne  and  of  justice,  and  before  these  th« 
armory,  for  it  is  the  high  and  noble  privilege  of 
royalty  to  administer  judgment  and  justice  within 
the  kingdom  to  all  the  nation  (1  Chron.  xviii.  14; 
Ps.  lxxxix.  14),  and  from  without,  to  protect  it  by 
force  of  arms  from  all  its  enemies.  [Accommodate 
and  apply  these  remarks  to  the  State,  or  nation,  the 
body  politic — to  its  public  buildings  and  the  rest, 
as  well  as  to  the  reverence  for  law  needed  upon  th« 
part  of  the  people,  and  they  will  be  found  useful 
for  our  American  people  to  consider. — E.  H.] 

Vers.  13-14.  A  wise  prince,  in  the  furtherance 
of  his  enterprises  which  aim  at  the  honor  of  God, 
and  the  good  of  the  nation,  looks  around  for  the 
best  instruments,  and  in  order  to  obtain  them,  seeks 
them  wherever  he  can  find  them :  for  Prov.  xxvi.  10. 
— He  who  has  learned  anything  thoroughly,  and 
brought  it  to  perfection  in  its  especial  province, 
must  be  sought  out  and  held  in  esteem,  whatsoever 
be  his  position  or  country. — Art  is  one  of  the  no- 
blest and  best  gifts  which  God  has  bestowed  upon 
man ;  therefore,  above  all,  it  should  be  applied  to 
the  glorification  of  God,  and  not  merely  to  the  sat- 
isfaction and  pleasure  of  the  world.  To  scorn  and 
reject  art,  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  is  to  reject 
Him  who  has  given  it. — Ter.  15  sq.  As  in  the 
typical  temple  the  implements  were  not  all  the 
same,  but  of  very  varied  kinds,  each  one  of  which, 
gold  and  brass,  primary  and  secondary  or  auxiliary, 
had  its  peculiar  place  and  purpose,  so  it  is  also  in 
the  true  and  real  temple  of  God,  in  the  Church  of 
the  Lord  (2  Tim.  ii.  20).  Thus,  varied  as  are  the 
gifts,  the  calling,  and  the  position  of  each  individual 
in  it,  so  each  one  must  regard  himself  as  an  instru- 
ment of  the  Lord,  remaining  in  that  calling  wherein 
he  is  called,  and  serving  all  the  others  with  the 
gift  which  he  has  received  (1  Pet.  iv.  10;  1  Cor. 
xii.  28-31). — What  signification  have  the  holy  ves- 
sels of  the  temple  for  the  Church  of  the  Lord, 
which  is  the  true  temple  of  God  (Eph.  ii.  20  sq.)  ? 
(1)  The  pillars,  Jachin  and  Boaz,  in  the  porch,  are, 
as  it  were,  the  superscription  over  the  temple,  and 
declare  its  strong  foundation  and  its  permanence ; 
the  Lord  declares  both  to  His  Church  :  Upon  this 
rock  will  I  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it  (Matt.  xvi.  18).  Great, 
noble  promise!  (2)  The  brazen  sea  and  the  vases 
in  the  porch  are  there,  that  the  priests  may  purify 
themselves,  and  the  sacrifices  which  they  bring 
there.  The  Church  of  the  Lord  is  that  holy  priest- 
hood which  offers  spiritual  sacrifices,  &c.  (1  Pet.  ii. 
5).  Those  who  wish  to  perform  such  Bervice  the 
prophet  summons:  Wash  ye,  4c.  (Is.  i.  16),  and 
the  apostle  :  I  beseech  you,  Ac.  (Rom.  xii.  1).  (3) 
The  altar,  the  candlesticks,  and  the  table  stand  in 
the  building  itself,  which  is  a  type  of  heaven, 
and  show  that  for  them  who  offer  themselves  pure 
and  holy  sacrifices,  a  divine  light  and  life  are 
prepared  before  the  throne  of  God,  and  no  other 
sacrifice  is  rendered  except  the  incense  of  prayer, 
of  praise,  and  worship  of  God  (Ps.  xvi.  11-  Rev. 
v.  3-14). 


92  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


B. — The  Consecration  of  the  Temple. 
Chap.  VTIL  1-66. 

1  '  Then  Solomon  assembled  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  all  the  heads  of  the 
tribes,  the  chief  of  the  fathers  of  the  children  of  Israel,  unto  king  Solomon  in 
Jerusalem,  that  they  might  bring  up  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  [Je- 

2  hovah]  out  of  the  city  of  David,  which  is  Zion.  And  all  the  men  of  Israel 
assembled  themselves  unto  king  Solomon  at  the  feast  in  the  month  Ethanirn, 

3  which  is  the  seventh  month.     And  all  the  elders  of  Israel  came,  and  the  priests 

4  took  up  the  ark.  And  they  brought  up  the  ark  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and 
the  tabernacle  of  the   congregation,  and  all  the  holy  vessels  that  icere  in  the 

5  tabernacle,  even  those  did  the  priests  and  the  Levites  bring  up.  Aud  king  Solo- 
mon, and  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  that  were  assembled  unto  him,  were  with 
him  before  the  ark,  sacrificing  sheep  and  oxen,  that  could  not  be  told  nor  num- 

6  bered  for  multitude.  And  the  priests  brought  in  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  unto  his  place,  into  the  oracle  of  the  house,  to  the  most  holy 

7  place,  even  under  the  wings  of  the  cherubims.  For  the  cherubims  spread  forth 
their  two  wings  over  the  place  of  the  ark,  and  the  cherubims  covered  the  ark  and 

8  the  staves3  thereof  above.  And  they  drew  out4  the  staves,  that  the  ends  of  the 
staves  were  seen  out  in  the  holy  place  before  the  oracle,  and  they  were  not  seen 

9  without:  and  there  they  are  unto  this  day.  There  was  nothing  in  the  ark  save 
the  two  tables  of  stone,  which  Moses  put  there  at  Horeb,  when  the  Lord  [Jeho- 
vah] made  a  covenant  with  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they  came  out  of  the 

10  land  of  Egypt.    And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  priests  were  come  out  of  the  holy 

11  place,  that  the  cloud  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  so  that  the  priests 
could  not  stand  to  minister  because  of  the  cloud  :  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
[Jehovah]  had  [omit  had  *]  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah].     Then  spake 

12  Solomon,  The  Lord  [Jehovah]  said  that  he  would  dwell  in  the  thick  darkness. 

13  I  have  surely  built  thee  an  house  to  dwell  in,  a  settled  place  for  thee  to  abide  in 
for  ever." 

14  And  the  king  turned  his  face  about,  and  blessed  all  the  congregation  of 

15  Israel:  and  all  the  congregation  of  Israel  stood;  and  he  said,  Blessed  be  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel,'  which  spake  with  his  mouth  unto  David  my 

16  father,  and  hath  with  his  hand  fulfilled  it,  saying,  Since  the  day  that  I  brought 
forth  my  people  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  I  chose  no  city  out  of  all  the  tribes  of 
Israel  to  build  an  house,  that  my  name  might  be  therein ; '   but  I  chose  David 

17  to  be  over  my  people  Israel.     And  it  was  in  the  heart  of  David  my  father  to 

18  build  an  house  for  the  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel.  And  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  said  unto  David  my  father,  Whereas  it  was  *  in  thine  heart  to 

19  build  an  house  unto  my  name,  thou  didst  well  that  it  was'  in  thine  heart.  Never 
theless,  thou  shalt  not  build  the  house ;  but  thy  son  that  shall  come  forth  out  of 

20  thy  loins,  he  shall  build  the  house  unto  my  name.  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
hath  performed  [established10]  his  word  that  he  spake,  and  I  am  risen  up  [estab- 
lished 10J  in  the  room  of  David  my  father,  and  sit  on  the  throne  of  Israel,  as  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  promised,  and  have  built  an  house  for  the  name  of  the  Lord 

21  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel.  And  I  have  set  there  a  place  for  the  ark,  wherein  is  the 
covenant  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he  made  with  our  fathers,  when  he 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt. 

22  And  Solomon  stood  before  the  altar  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  in  the  presence 
of  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  and  spread  forth  his  hands  toward  heaven: 

23  And  he  said,  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel,  there  is  no  God  like  thee,  in  heaven 
above,  or  on  earth  beneath,  who  keepest  covenant  and  mercy  with  thy  ser- 

24.  vants"  that  walk  before  thee  with  all  their  heart:  who  hast  kept  with  thy 
servant  David  my  father  that  thou  promisedst  [spakest  to  '*]  him  :  thou  spakest 


CHAPTER  Till.  1-66.  93 


also  with  thy  mouth,  and  hast  fulfilled  it  with  thine  hand,  as  it  is  this  day, 

25  Therefore  now,  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel,  keep  with  thy  servant  David  my 
father  that  thou  promisedst  [spakest  to12]  him,  saying,  There  shall  not  fail  thee 
a  man  in  my  sight  to  sit  on  the  throne  of  Israel ;  so  that  thy  children  [sons]  take 
heed  to  their  way,  that  they  walk  before  me  as  thou  hast  walked  before  me. 

26  And  now,  O  13  God  of  Israel,  let  thy  word,14  I  pray  thee,  be  verified,  which  thou 

27  spakest  unto  thy  servant  David  my  father.  But  will  God  indeed  dwell  on  the 
earth?  behold  the  heaven  and  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee;   how 

28  much  less  this  house  that  I  have  builded  ?  Yet  have  thou  respect  unto  the 
prayer  of  thy  servant,  and  to  his  supplication,  O  Lord  [Jehovah]  my  God,  to 
hearken  unto  the  cry  and  to  the  prayer,  which  thy  servant  prayeth  before  thee 

29  to-day:  that  thine  eyes  maybe  open  toward  this  house  night  and  day,  even 
toward  the  place  of  which  thou  hast  said,  My  name  shall  be  there:  that  thou 
mayest  hearken  unto  the  prayer  which  thy  servant  shall  make  toward  this  place. 

30  And  hearken  thou  to  the  supplication  of  thy  servant,  and  of  thy  people  Israel, 
when  they  shall  pray  toward  this  place  :  and  hear  thou  in  15  heaven  thy  dwell- 

31  ing-place  :  and  when  thou  hearest,  forgive.  If  any  man  trespass  against  his  neigh- 
bour, and  an  oath  be  laid  upon  him  to  cause  him  to  swear,  and  the  oath  come 

32  before  thine  altar  in  this  house  :  then  hear  thou  in  ie  heaven,  and  do,  and  judge 
thy  servants,  condemning  the  wicked,  to  bring  "  his  way  upon  his  head ;  and 

33  justifying  the  righteous,  to  give"  him  according  to  his  righteousness.  When 
thy  people  Israel  be  smitten  down  before  the  enemy,  because  they  have  sinned 
against  thee,  and  shall  turn  again  to  thee,  and  confess  thy  name,  and  pray, 

34  and  make  supplication  unto  thee  in  this  house  :  then  hear  thou  in  heaven,  and 
forgive  the  sin  of  thy  people  Israel,  and  bring  them  again  unto  the  land  which 

35  thou  gavest  unto  their  lathers.  When  heaven  is  shut  up,  and  there  is  no  rain, 
because  they  have  sinned  against  thee ;  if  they  pray  toward  this  place,  and  con- 

36  fess  thy  name,  and  turn  from  their  sin,  when  thou  afiiictest  them:  then  hear  thou 
in  heaven,  and  forgive  the  sin  of  thy  servants,  and  of  thy  people  Israel,  that  thou 
teach  them  [when  thou  teachest  them  (by  affliction)]  the  good  way  wherein  they 
should  walk,  and  give  rain  upon  thy  land,  which  thou  hast  given  to  thy  people 

37  for  an  inheritance.  If  there  be  in  the  land  famine,  if  there  be  pestilence,  blast- 
ing, mildew,18  locust,  or  if  there  be  caterpillar  [if  there  be  consuming  locust  "]  ; 
if  their  enemy  besiege  them  in  the  land  of  their  cities ;    whatsoever  plague, 

38  whatsoever  sickness  there  be  ;  what  prayer  and  supplication  soever  be  made  by 
any  man,  or  by  all  thy  people  Israel,  which  shall  know  every  man  the  plague  of 

39  his  own  heart,20  and  spread  forth  his  hands  toward  this  house  :  then  hear  thou 
in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place,  and  forgive,  and  do,  and  give  to  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  ways,  whose  heart  thou  knowest ;  (for  thou,  even  thou  only,  knowest 

40  the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men;)  that  they  may  fear  thee  all  the  days  that 

41  they  live  in  the  land  which  thou  gavest  unto  our  fathers.  Moreover,  concerning 
a  stranger,  that  is  not  of  thy  people  Israel,  but  cometh  out  of  a  far  country  for 

42  thy  name's  sake ; "  (for  they  shall  hear  of  thy  great  name,  and  of  thy  strong 
hand,  and  of  thy  stretched-out  arm  ;)    when  he  shall  come  and  pray  toward 

43  this  house  ;  "hear  thou  in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place,  and  do  according  to  all  that 
the  stranger  calleth  to  thee  for :  that  all  people  of  the  earth  may  know  thy  name, 
to  fear  thee,  as  do  thy  people  Israel ;  and  that  they  may  know  that  this  house, 

44  which  I  have  builded,  is  called  by  thy  name.  If  thy  people  go  out  to  battle 
against  their  enemy,'"  whithersoever  thou  shalt  send  them,  and  shall  pray  unto 
the  Lord  [Jehovah]  toward  the  city  which  thou  hast  chosen,  and   toxoard  the 

45  house  that  I  have  built  for  thy  name  :  then  hear  thou  in  heaven  their  prayer 

46  and  their  supplication,  and  maintain  their  cause.2*  If  they  sin  against  thee,  (for 
there  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not,)  and  thou  be  angry  with  them,  and  deliver  them 
to  the  enemy,  so  that  they  carry  them  away  captives  unto  the  land  of  the  enemy, 

47  far  or  near ;  yet  if  they  shall  bethink  themselves  in  the  land  whither  they  were 
carried  captives,  and  repent,  and  make  supplication  unto  thee  in  the  land  of  them 
that  carried  them  captives,  saying,  We  have  sinned,  and  have  done  perversely, 

48  we  have  committed  wickedness;    and  so  return  unto  thee  with  all  their  heart, 


94  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


and  with  all  their  soul,  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  which  led  them  away  cap 
tive,  and  pray  unto  thee  toward  their  laud,  which  thou  gavest  unto  their  fathers 

49  the  city  which  thou  hast  chosen,  and  the  house  which  I  have  built  for  thy  name 
then  hear  thou  their  prayer  and  their  supplication  in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place. 

50  and  maintain  their  cause,  and  forgive  thy  people  that  have  sinned  against  thee, 
and  all  their  transgressions  wherein  they  have  transgressed  against  thee,  and 
o-ive  them  compassion  before  them  who  carried  them  captive,  that  they  may 

51  have  compassion  on  them:  for  they  be  thy  people,  and  thine  inheritance,  which 

52  thou  broughtest  forth  out  of  Egypt,  from  the  midst  of  the  furnace  of  iron:  that 
thine  eyes  may  be  open "  unto  the  supplication  of  thy  servant,  and  unto  the 
supplication  of  thy  people  Israel,  to  hearken  unto  them  in  all  that  they  call  for 

53  unto  thee.  For  thou  didst  separate  them  from  among  all  the  people  of  the 
earth,  to  be  thine  inheritance,  as  thou  spakest  by  the  hand  of  Moses  thy  ser- 
vant, when  thou  broughtest  our  fathers  out  of  Egypt,  O  Lord  [Jehovah]  God." 

54  And  it  was  so,  that  when  Solomon  had  made  an  end  of  praying  all  this 
prayer  and  supplication  unto  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  he  arose  from  before  the  altar 
of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  from  kneeling  on  his  knees  with  his  hands  spread  up  to 

55  heaven.     And  he  stood,  and  blessed  all  the  congregation  of  Israel  with  a  loud 

56  voice,  saying,  Blessed  be  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  that  hath  given  rest  unto  his  peo- 
ple Israel,  according  to  all  that  he  promised :  there  hath  not  failed  one  word  of 
all  his  good  promise,  which  he  promised  by  the  hand  of  Moses  his  servant. 

57  The  Lord  [Jehovah]  our  God  be  with  us,  as  he  was  with  our  fathers:  let  hiin 

58  not  leave  us,  nor  torsake  us:  that  he  may  incline  our  hearts  unto  him,  to  walk 
in  all  his  ways,  and  to  keep  his  commandments,  and  his  statutes,  and  his  judg- 

59  ments,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers.  And  let  these  my  words,  wherewith 
I  have  made  supplication  before  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  be  nigh  unto  the  Lord 
[Jehovah]  our  God  day  and  night,  that  he  maintain  the  cause  "  of  his  servant, 

60  and  the  cause  of  his  people  Israel  at  all  times,  as  the  matter  shall  require : "  that 
all  the  people  of  the  earth  may  know  that  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  is  God,  and  that 

61  there  is  none  else.  Let  your  heart  therefore  be  perfect  with  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
our  God,  to  walk  in  his  statutes,  and  to  keep  his  commandments,  as  at  this  day. 

62  And  the  king,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  offered  sacrifice  before  the  Lord  [Je- 

63  hovabl.  And  Solomon  offered  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  which  he  offered 
unto  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  two  and  twenty  thousand  oxen,  and  an  hundred  and 
twenty  thousand  sheep.     So  the  king  and  all  the  children  of  Israel  dedicated 

64  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah].  The  same  day  did  the  king  hallow  the  mid- 
dle of  the  court  that  was  before  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] :  for  there  he 
offered  burnt  offerings,  and  meat  offerings,  and  the  fat  of  the  peace  offerings : 
because  the  brazen  altar  that  was  before  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  was  too  little  to 
receive  the  burnt  offerings,  and  meat  offerings,  and  the  fat  of  the  peace  offer- 

65  ings.  And  at  that  time  Solomon  held  a  feast,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  a  great 
congregation,  from  the  entering  in  of  Hamath  unto  the  river  of  Egypt,  before 
the 'Lord  [Jehovah]  our  God,  seven  days  and  seven  days,  even  fourteen  days 

66  On  the  eighth  day  he  sent  the  people  away:  and  they  blessed  the  king,  and 
went  unto  their  tents  joyful  and  glad  of  heart  for  all  the  goodness  that  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  had  done  for  David  his  servant,  and  for  Israel  his  people. 


TEXTUAL   AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

J  Ver.  1.— [On  the  apocopated  future  ^flp'  In  connection  with  TN ,  see  Ewald,  Krit.  Gramm.,  §  238  b.,  p.  598  in  7th 
id  The  Vat.  Sept.  prefaces  this  chapter  with  the  statement  "and  it  came  to  pass  when  Solomon  had  made  an  end  of 
building  the  house  of  the  Lord  ami  his  own  house,  after  twenty  years,  then,"  4c;  and  omits  the  middle  part  or  this  verw 
and  nearly  all  of  ver.  2,  etc.    The  Alex.  Sept.  follows  the  Heb. 

•  Ver.  1.— [The  renderings  of  the  Heb.  K'tM  In  the  A.  V.  are  various.  Besides  a  few  irrelevant  translations,  it  f 
rendered  by  ciiptnin,  chief,  governor,  prince,  and  ruler— prince  being  the  most  common.  There  Is  also  some  variation 
In  the  Sept.  translation  of  the  word,  but  it  is  usually  rendered  apx^v. 

•Ver.  7.— [For  staves  the  Sepl.  substitute  holy  tilings. 

4  Ver  8  — {Luther,  followed  by  our  author,  here  translates  "  And  the  Btaves  were  so  long  that,    etc.,  thus  leaving  onl 


CHAPTER  VIII.   1-66. 


95 


!he  evidence  of  design  in  the  arrangement ;  they  adopt  the  intransitive  sense  of  the  verb  OTS'l  ,  as  has  also  been  done 

by  the  Vulg.  and  Syr.  The  sense  of  prolonging,  extending,  which  is  given  by  Keil,  and  adopted  by  the  A.  V.,  is  at  lenst 
is  usual,  and  seems  better  suited  to  the  connection.  The  skives,  at  the  utmost,  could  have  been  but  10  cubits  long,  the 
depth  of  the  holy  of  holies  in  the  tabernacle.  The  author  however  assumes  that  the  length  of  the  ark,  and  consequently 
the  direction  of  the  staves,  was  north  and  south,  in  which  case  the  staves  could  not  in  any  way  have  been  seen  from  outside 
the  vail. 

*  Ver.  11. — [There  is  no  occasion  here  for  the  pluperfect,  nor  is  it  expressed  in  any  of  those  VV.  which  admit  of  the 
distinction. 

•  Ver.  13.-[The  Val.  Sept.  omits  vers.  12  and  13,  the  Alex,  following  the  Heb. 

7  Ver.  15.— [The  Sept.  here  add  o-ij^epoi',  and  instead  of  unto  read  concerning  David. 

8  Ver.  16.— -[The  Vat.  (not  Alex.)  Sept.  here  supplies  from  2  Ohron.  vi.  6  the  clause  «ai  efcAcfVp  '"  'Upovo-aXnn  tiv<* 
»b  bvoy.a  ijlov  e<«£.     Our  author  omits  the  name  Israel  at  the  end  of  the  verse. 

9  Ver.  IS.— [Luther,  followed  by  the  author,  uses  here  the  present  tense;  the  VV.,  following  the  Heb.,  have,  like  the 
A.  V.,  ttie  past. 

'"  Ver.  20. —  [It  seems  better,  if  possible,  to  render  the  Heb.  verb  Q^p  in  both  these  clauses  by  the  same  English 
word,  though  with  differing  shades  of  meaning.  The  Sept.  has  avio-rrtae  .  .  .  avear^v ;  the  author  has  bin  bestittigi, 
Luther,  like  the  A.  V.,  varies  the  word. 

1 '  Ver.  23.— [The  Sept.  put  this  in  the  singular. 

■»  Vers.  24,  25.— [The  Heb.  "1T7 ,  being  the  verb  in  all  these  clauses,  there  is  no  occasion  to  change  the  English  word. 


»  Ver.  26.— [Many  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  Syr.,  and  Arab.,  prefix  HliT  . 

><  Ver.  26.— Even  allowing  that  the  k'tib  ^'"ITl  points  to  2  Sam.  vii.  28,  yet  nevertheless  the  k'ri  ^"IST  appearl 

according  to  2  Chron.  vi.  17  and  i.  9  to  be  the  true  reading.— Bahr.  [It  is  also  the  reading  of  many  MSS.,  followed  by  the 
Sept.,  Syr.,  and  Arab.  . 

16  Ver.  30—  [D'DE'ITvS  T^U'  DIpD'PX  the  proposition  is  the  same  as  in  the  previous  clause,  toward  this  plaoe. 
The  expression  is  a  pregnant  one=hear  thou  the  prayer  which  is  offered  toward  heaven,  &c. 

18  Ver.  82. — [On    MS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.,  Chald.,  Syr.,  and  Arab.,  reads  from  heaven — "$rVlD  j  and  so  in  vers. 
Si,  86,  39,  48,  45,  49,  according  to  2  Chron.  vi.  22,  28,  25.    But  see  last  remark. 

17  Ver.  32.— [The  Heb.  fiJI?  is  the  6ame  in  both  clauses,  and  is  rendered  alike  by  the  Chald.  and  Sept.,  which  the 
English  idiom  scarcely  admits. 

18  Ver.  87.— Withering  of  the  grain  through  a  hot  wind.— Bahr.    [Such  is  the  sense  of  tip"!1  wherever  it  occurs,  as 

here,  in  connection  with  pSIt;',  viz.,  Deut.  xxviii.  22;  2  Chron.  vi.  28;  Amos  vl.  9;  Hag.  li.  17. 

19  Ver.  37. — [TDn  appears  to  be  merely  an  epithet  of  ri3"!X  ■     Cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  88. 
38  Ver.  38.— [132^  yjj  .     Qf.  2  Chron.  vi.  29,  13X3OT  )])}}  . 

31  Ver.  41.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  latter  half  of  ver.  41  and  the  parenthesis  of  ver.  42. 

33  Ver.  43. — [Many  MSS.  and  editions,  followed  by  the  Sept.,  prefix  the  conjunction  here  as  In  vers.  86,  89,  45,  <feo. 

38  Ver.  44— [Some  MSS.  and  the  VV.  read  V3'X  in  the  plural. 

28  Ver.  45.— [The  phrase  DDETD  H^'V  always  means  the  support  of  the  righteous  cause;  with  the  suffix  of  the 

personal  pronoun  here  and  ver.  49  it  assumes  that  the  warfare  to  which  they  hail  been  sent  was  righteous. 
38  Ver.  52. — [The  Sept.  supplement  this  frequent  expression  by  adding  "and  thine  eare." 

38  Ver.  53. — [The  Chald.,  Vulg-,  and  Syr.  here  follow  the  masoretic  punctuation  of  HliT  *JTX  and,  like  the  A.  V., 

translate  Lord  God.  The  Sept.  have,  according  to  the  Vat,  xiipte  *vpte,  which  is  followed  by  Luther,  while  the  Alex,  omits 
the  expression  altogether.  Our  author  translates  Herr  Jehovah.  The  Sept.  make  a  considerable  addition  at  the  end  of  the 
verse. 

37  Ver.  59.— [See  note  on  ver.  45. 

88  Ver.  59. — [The  words  at  t/te  matter  shall  require  not  being  in  the  Heb.  are  better  omitted. — F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AJTD  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-7.  Then  Solomon  assembled,  Ac.  The 
section  2  Chron.  v.  2  to  vi.  42,  which  is  for  the  most 
part  like  it,  may  be  compared  with  this  whole  chap- 
ter.    The  little  word  fx  time  denotes,  like  ver.  12 

(comp.  Josh.  x.  12;  Ex.  xv.  1),  the  point  of  time 
which  immediately  follows  what  is  above  related, 
and  means,  what  indeed  the  context  infers,  namely, 
that  as  soon  as  all  the  vessels  were  finished  (chap. 
vii.  51),  Solomon  proceeded  to  dedicate  the  temple. 
In  accordance  with  the  great  importance  of  the 
temple-building  to  the  whole  theocracy,  he  called 
together  the  elders,  i.  «.,  the  presiding  officers  of 
communities,  and  also  the  heads  of  the  tribes  and 
the  families,  that  the  entire  people  might  thereby 
be  represented.  The  solemnity  took  place  at  tlie 
feast  in  the  month  Ethanim,  which  is  the  seventh 
month.   The  usual  interpretation  of  D^nXH ,  month 

of  the  flowing  rivers  (rainy  season),  is  more  accept- 
able than  that  of  Thenius,  gift  (fruit)  month,  or 
that  of  Bottcher,  suspension  of  the  equinox.  This 
a.onth  was  called  Tisri  in  our  writer's  time  and 


later ;  upon  this  account  he  expressly  says  that 
Ethanim  was  the  seventh.  The  feast  of  taberna- 
cles occurred  on  the  15th  of  this  month  (Levit. 
xxiii.  34);  it  was  the  greatest  and  best  observed 
of  all  the  three  yearly  festivals,  and  was  especially 
called  "the  feast"  by  the  Jews  (Symb.  des  Mos. 
Kult.  ii.  s.  656).  Solomon  therefore  very  fitly  sol- 
emnized the  dedication  of  the  temple  at  the  time 
of  this  feast.  Although  the  text  gives  here  only 
the  month  and  the  day,  and  not  the  year,  it  is  of 
course  to  be  understood  that  it  was  the  first  feast 
of  tabernacles  that  occurred  after  the  comple- 
tion of  the  temple  in  the  eighth  month  (chap.  vi. 
38);  consequently  it  fell  in  the  following  year. 
The  opinion  that  the  dedication  took  place  in  the 
seventh  month  of  the  same  year,  in  the  eighth 
month  of  which  the  temple  was  finished  (Ewald), 
needs  no  refutation.  The  assertion  of  Thenius, 
with  which  Keil  also  now  agrees,  appears  more 
probable.  He  thinks  that  the  temple  was  not  dedi- 
cated until  twenty  years  from  the  commencement 
of  the  building,  i.  e.,  thirteen  years  after  its  com- 
pletion ;  because  the  divine  answer  to  the  dedica- 
tion prayer,  according  to  chap.  ix.  1-10,  did  not 


96 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


oome  till  tl.e  temple  of  Jehovah  and  the  king's 
house  were  both  finished  (chap.  vi.  38,  and  vii.  1), 
and  in  the  Sept.  chap.  is.  begins  with  these  words : 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Solomon  had  finished 
the  building  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  king's 
House  [after  twenty  years),  he  assembled,  &c. ;  "  but 
the  passage,  chap.  is.  1,  certainly  does  not  say  that 
the  dedication  did  not  take  place  for  twenty  years, 
or  that  Jehovah  immediately  thereafter  appeared 
to  Solomon ;  it  speaks  not  only  of  the  completion  of 
both  those  buildings,  but  of  all  the  others  besides, 
which  Solomon  had  begun  (chap.  ix.  19),  so  that  we 
must  in  that  case  place  the  dedication  much  later 
than  twenty  years  (see  below,  on  chap.  ix.  1).  As  to 
the  words  of  the  Sept.,  they  are  unmistakably  a 
gloss  from  chap.  ix.  1  and  10,  inserted  here,  and  such 
as  is  found  nowhere  else,  either  in  a  MS.  or  in  any 
other  ancient  translation,  and  therefore  can  never 
be  regarded  as  the  original  text.  When  we  con- 
aider  how  very  desirous  David  was  to  build  an 
house  unto  the  Lord,  that  when  he  was  not  per- 
mitted to  do  so,  he  pressed  the  task  as  a  solemn 
duty  upon  his  son,  that  Solomon  then,  as  soon  as 
he  had  established  his  throne,  began  the  building 
and  continued  it  with  great  zeal ;  it  seems  utterly 
incredible  that  he  should  have  left  the  finished 
building  thirteen  years  unused,  and  delayed  its 
dedication  until  the  twenty-fourth  year  of  his  reign. 
The  weightiest  reasons  alone  could  have  induced 
him  to  do  so,  but  we  hear  nothing  of  any  such. 
Even  if  we  suppose  the  vessels  not  to  have  been 
finished  as  soon  as  the  building,  but  to  have  been 
commenced  after  its  completion,  still  it  could  not 
have  taken  thirteen  years  to  make  them ;  and  there 
was  no  reason  why  the  dedication  of  the  temple 
should  have  been  put  off  until  the  palace  was  fin- 
ished, the  latter  requiring  no  solemn  dedication, 
while  the  speedy  dedication  of  the  central  sanc- 
tuary was  an  urgent  necessity  if  the  restoration  of 
the  unity  of  worship,  commanded  by  the  law,  was 
to  be  established. 

To  bring  up  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord.  In  the  march  through  the  wilderness,  the 
ark  was  covered  with  some  cloths,  and  carried  by 
the  levites  (Numb.  iv.  5,  15),  but  on  special  occa- 
sions, the  priests  themselves  carried  it,  as  here 
and  in  Josh.  iii.  6 ;  vi.  6.  Not  only  the  ark,  but 
the  tabernacle,  which  had  hitherto  stood  at  Gibeon 
(2  Chron.  i.  3,  4),  with  all  its  vessels,  was  brought 
out  from  Zion  into  the  temple.  While  the  priests 
carried  the  ark,  the  levites  (ver.  4)  carried  the  other 
things  pertaining  to  the  tent,  all  of  which  were 
doubtless  preserved  in  the  rooms  of  the  side-struc- 
ture. When  the  procession  reached  the  temple 
(ver.  5),  the  ark  was  laid  down  in  the  outer  court 
before  the  entrance  to  the  holy  place,  and  a  great 
and  solemn  sacrifice  offered ;  then  the  priests  bore 
the  ark  to  its  appointed  place.  For  vers.  6  and  1 
see  above,  on  chap.  vi.  23  sq. 

Vers.  8-9.  And  they  drew  out  the  staves, 
that  the  ends,  &c.  Ver.  8,  which  has  had  the 
most  various  interpretations  put  upon  it,  is  nothing 
but  a  parenthesis  following  the  concluding  words 
of  the  preceding  verse,  explaining  how  it  happened 
that  the  great  cherubim-statues,  with  their  wings 
stretched  across  the  entire  width  of  the  sanctuary 
(chap.  vi.  27),  not  only  overshadowed  the  ark  itself, 
but  even  its  staves.  As  it  says  in  Ex.  xxv.  15,  the 
staves  were  never  to  be  removed,  but  were  to  be- 
long inseparably  to  the  ark.  If  the  cherubim- 
statues  then  were  to  overshadow  the  ark.  they 


should  also  cover  the  staves  inseparably  united  ix 
it.  Now  as  the  ark  lay  lengthwise  north  and 
south  in  the  holy  of  holies,  and  the  wings  of  the 
clierubim-statues  stretched  from  the  southern  to 
the  northern  wall  of  the  holy  of  holies,  the  stavep 
which  they  overshadowed  with  their  wings  must 
have  been  placed  north  and  south,  i.  e..  on  the 
longer  sides  of  the  ark,  as  Josephus  (Ant.  iii.  6,  5) 
expressly  states.  Therefore,  their  heads  or  ends 
could  be  seen  from  the  sanctuary  (great  space)  only 
close  before  the  holy  of  holies  (Debir).  The  reason 
why  the  staves  were  so  long  (131 N'  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  intransitive,  as  Keil remarks;  as  in  Ex.  xx. 
12  ;  Deut.  v.  16  ;  xxv.  15,  and  not  to  be  translated: 
they  made  the  staves  long,  as  Kimchi  and  Thenius 
make  it,  for  thus  ns  should  stand  before  D,T13n) 

was  in  consequence  of  the  weight  of  the  ark,  which 
must  have  been  considerable,  because  the  stone 
tables  of  the  law  were  inside  of  the  ark ;  and  it 
was  carried  by  more  than  four,  perhaps  by  eight 
priests,  who  did  not  touch  it,  as  was  commanded 
in  Numb.  iv.  15.  And  as  the  holy  of  holies  was 
only  intended  for  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (chap, 
vi.  1 9),  and  the  latter  was  only  two  and  a  half  cu- 
bits long,  with  its  long  staves  inseparable  from  it, 
it  took  up  nearly  the  whole  space.  The  oldest  in- 
terpretation of  our  verse  was  borrowed  from  the 
Rabbins;  it  says  that  the  staves  were  drawn  so 
far  forward  that  their  ends  touched  the  veil  of  the 
most  holy  place,  and  caused  visible  protrusions  on 
the  outside ;  but  this  is  disproved  by  the  fact  that 
the  staves  were  placed  on  the  longest  side  of  the 
ark,  and  pointed  south  and  north,  not  east  and 
west,  consequently  could  not  have  touched  the 
curtain.  Thenius,  with  whom  Merz  and  Bertheau 
agree,  explains  the  simple  sentence  in  ver.  8  "  by 
optical  laws :  when  a  person  at  the  entrance  of  the 

holy  place  (lie  makes  tyiprriO  mean  that)  could 

have  seen  through  the  open  door  the  ends  of  the 
staves  of  the  ark  which  was  in  the  middle  of  the 
holy  of  holies,  these  staves  must  have  been,  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  perspective,  seven  cubits 
long."  This  highly  ingenious  explanation  rests,  as 
Keil  justly  remarks,  on  ill-founded  suppositions, 
comp.  ,B6ttcher   Aehrenl.    ii.   s.    69.      The   words 

V3in    'OS'py  cannot  be  translated:    "from  the 

great  space  before  the  debir,"  but  mean,  from  the 
sanctuary,  "  when  a  person  stood  close  before  the 
dark  holy  of  holies  "  (Ewald),  or  "  near  the  most 
holy  "  (Merz).  It  is  certain  that  the  writer  of  these 
books  had  not  the  remotest  thought  about  the  laws 
of  optics  and  perspective.  The  addition,  and  then 
they  are  unto  this  day,  means:  though  the  ark  now 
had  its  fixed  resting-place,  the  staves  were  left, 
according  to  the  command  Ex.  xxv.  15,  in  order  to 
signify  that  it  was  the  same  ark,  which  dated  from 
the  time  when  Israel  was  chosen  to  be  a  covenant 
people.  The  expression  "  unto  this  day,"  also  oc- 
curring, chap,  ix.  21;  xii.  19;  2  Kings  viii.  22, 
shows  that  the  writer  drew  from  a  manuscript 
written  before  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and 
did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  deviate  from  its  words, 
Ver.  9.  There  was  nothing  in  the  ark,  &c. 
Ver.  9  returns  to  the  ark  itself,  and  emphasizes 
the  fact  that  it  was  brought  into  the  holy  of  ho> 
lies  (ver.  6)  because  it  preserved  the  original  docu 
ment  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Israel, 
which  consisted  of  the  "ten  commandn_entl  that 


CHAPTER  VIII.   1-66. 


97 


the  Lord  spake  unto  them  "  (Deut.  x.  4).  By  virtue 
of  this  document,  the  ark  was  the  pledge  of  the 
covenant  relation ;  and  at  the  same  time  was  the 
fundamental  condition  of  the  religious  and  politi- 
cal life  of  Israel;  it  naturally  formed  the  heart  and 
central  point  of  the  sanctuary  or  dwelling-place 
of  Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  His  chosen  people 
(compare  Symb.  des  Mos.  Kull,  i.  s.  3S3  sq.) :  "  there 
would  have  been  no  temple  without  the  ark  of  the 
covenant,  that  alone  made  it  a  sanctuary  "  (Heng- 
stenberg).  According  to  Hebr.  ix.  4,  the  ark  con- 
tained, besides  the  tables  of  the  law,  the  golden 
pot  with  manna  (Ex.  xvi.  33),  and  Aaron's  rod 
(Numb.  xvii.  25).  The  endeavor  has  been  made  to 
reconcile  this  passage  with  the  one  under  consid- 
eration, by  the  supposition  that  those  two  addi- 
tional objects  were  no  longer  in  the  ark  in  Solo- 
mon's time,  having  only  been  there  when  Moses 
lived,  the  latter  period  being  the  one  in  the  mind 
of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  (Ebrard,  Moll,  and 
others).  But  the  passages  quoted  only  say  they 
were  laid  " before  Jehovah "  or  "before  the  tes- 
timony;" not  in  the  ark.  The  Jewish  tradition 
alone  renders  it  in  (Schottgen,  hor.  Hebr.  p.  973), 
and  this  tradition,  with  which  the  reader  of  this 
epistle  may  have  been  familiar,  was  probably  in 
the  writer's  mind,  for  he  was  not  desirous  of  giving 
an  exact  archasological  description  (comp.  Tholuck 
and  Bleek  on  Heb.  ix.  4).  V.  Meyer's  opinion, 
which  Lisco  also  adopts,  that  the  manna  and  rod 
were  not  in  the  ark  any  longer  because  "  the  direct 
theocracy,  with  its  spiritual  sceptre,  and  its  bless- 
ings, had  departed,  and  the  people  had  an  earthly 
king  who  was  now  to  guide  and  watch  over  them," 
is  in  the  highest  degree  erroneous.  Ilorcb  is  not 
the  highest  summit  of  the  mountains  of  Sinai,  but 
a  general  name  for  the  mountain-range  of  which 
Sinai  is  only  a  part:  comp.  Thenius  on  the  place. 
Vers.  10-13.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the 
priests  were  come  out  of  the  holy  place,  Ac. 
Ex.  xl.  34,  35,  is  almost  the  same  as  vers.  10  and 
11;  "  then  a  cloud  covered  the  tent  of  the  congre- 
gation, and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  taber- 
nacle. And  Moses  was  not  able  to  enter  into  the 
tent  of  the  congregation,  because  the  cloud  abode 
thereon  (pt.")  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the 

tabernacle."  It  is  plain  that  the  author  meant, 
what  once  happened  at  the  dedication  of  the  taber- 
nacle took  place  again  at  the  dedication  of  the 
house.  Tlie  cloud,  not  a  cloud  (Luther),  but  that, 
in  and  with  which,  as  once  at  the  tabernacle,  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  came  down,  though  naturally 
not  the  same  cloud  as  at  that  time.  What  ver.  10 
says  of  the  cloud,  ver.  11  says  of  the  glory  of  the 
Lord ;  it  filled  the  house,  not  only  the  most  holy 
place,  but  the  whole  dwelling,  so  that  the  priests 
were  prevented  for  a  moment  from  performing 
their  functions  in  the  sanctuary.  We  cannot  pos- 
sibly conceive  this  to  have  been  the  cloud  of  smoke 
"which,  rising  from  the  burning  offerings  on  the 
altar,  veiled  the  glory  of  the  Lord  "  (Bertheau  on 
2  Chron.  v.  14) ;  for  in  this  case  the  priests  them- 
selves would  have  been  prevented  from  officiating. 

Nor  can  we,  on  account  of  the  nirp—liaD,  think  as 

T 

Thenius,  of  the  "  bright  and  streaming  cloud " 
which  the  Rabbins  name  rDpB'i  for  Solomon 
could  not  have  said,  on  beholding  it:  Jehovah 
dwells    PDIJQ;    this  word  denoting,  as  Thenius 


himself  rightly  says,  "exactly  the  black  dark- 
ness ; "    and  he  takes  an  unwarrantable  liberty 

when,  as  the  Chaldee,  he  reads  DXITS  for  it.    It 

is  admitted  that  the  "  darkness  must  refer  to  the 
cloud  "  just  also  as  that  which  in  Ex.  xix.  9  is 
named  pi'  is  called  ~>S1]}  in  Ex.  xx.  21;    and  in 

Deut.  iv.  11;  v.  9;  Ps.  xcvii.  2,  both  words  are 
conjoined  as  synonymes.     Keil,  too,  thinks  the  py 

is  the  shekinah,  for  he  says :  "  the  glory  of  the 
Lord,  which  is  like  a  consuming  fire,  manifested 
itself  in  the  cloud."  But  this  also  is  contradicted 
by  the  words  of  Solomon,  that  the  Lord  dwells  in 
the  (thick)  darkness ;  the  text  has  not  a  syllable 
about  a  fiery  appearance ;  and  certainly  a  consum- 
ing fire  cannot  be  thought  of  here,  where  the  sub- 
ject is  the  gracious  presence  of  the  Lord.  Abar- 
banel  indeed  thinks  that  the  fire  of  the  cloud  burst 
forth  from  it,  after  Solomon's  prayer,  and  consumed 
the  burnt-offering,  2  Chron.  vii.  1 ;  but  it  expressly 
says  in  this  passage,  that  fire  came  "  from  heaven  " 
(and  therefore  not  out  of  the  cloud).  Keil  further 
remarks:  "This  wonderful  manifestation  of  the 
divine  glory  only  took  place  at  the  dedication; 
afterwards,  the  cloud  was  visible  in  the  holy  of 
holies  only  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  when 
the  high-priest  entered  there  "  (Lev.  xvi.  2).  This, 
however,  is  quite  contrary  to  the  rabbinical  be- 
lief, which  was  that  the  shekinah  hung  constantly 
above  the  ark  of  the  covenant;  and  it  also  pre- 
supposes that  the  wonderful  manifestation  was 
regularly  repeated  on  that  solemnity  of  atonement, 
although  neither  the  text  nor  the  Jewish  tradition 
mentions  such  a  thing ;  and  this  would  have  no 
analogy  with  God's  miracles,  which  never  recur 
regularly  on  a  particular  day.  Our  text  only  men- 
tions a  dark  cloud,  which,  as  it  filled  the  whole  house, 
must  necessarily  have  only  been  a  passing  phe- 
nomenon ;  it  served  to  show  that  the  Lord,  as  once 
in  the  tent,  would  now  henceforth  dwell  in  the 
house  built  for  Him.  nin^-IU^  stands,  as  Solo- 
mon's phrase  in  ver.  12  shows,  for  Jehovah  him- 
self, and  is  the  standing  Old  Testament  designation 
of  the  being  (majesty)  of  God  [like  the  66^a  of  the 
New  Testament. — E.  H.],  raised  absolutely  above 
all  that  is  creaturely,  yet  stooping  (pE*,  Ex.  xl.  35), 

i.  e.,  concentrating  himself,  in  order  to  manifest  and 
assert  himself,  either  blessing  and  saving  as  here, 
or  punishing  and  destroying,  as  for  instance,  in  Ps. 
xviii.  T/ie  Lord  said.  Because  there  is  no  passage 
showing  that  the  Lord  spoke  those  words,  The- 
nius translates  ION  "the  Lord  proposeth  to  dwell 

in  the  thick  darkness:  or,  He  has  made  known 
that  He  will  dwell  in  the  thick  darkness;"  but 
just  because  the  Lord  had  said  so,  Solomon  beheld 
in  the  cloud  a  sign  that  he  had  come  down  to  dwell 
in  the  temple  (pt;');  he  remembered  the  plain  dec- 
laration Ex.  xix.  9 ;  Levit.  xvi.  2.  "  Overpowered 
by  that  sublime  moment,  and  filled  with  joy  that  he 
was  counted  worthy  of  the  favor  of  being  allowed 
to  build  a  house  for  the  Lord,  he  utters  the  joyful 

words  "  (Bertheau) :  'JVJ2  nJ3  ,  surely  1  I  have 
built;  for  which  Chron.  gives  TC32  'JX:  I,  yea,  I 

have  built.  For  the  words  in  ver.  13,  an  house  to 
dwell  in,  a  settled  place,  see  on  chap.  vi.  2,  a,  Histori- 
cal and  Ethical.     D'tJPIJJ  is  similar  to  Josh.  iv.  T; 


98 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Job  xii.  24 ;  1  Kings  i.  3 1  (comp.  Hengstenberg, 
Christol.  ii.  ».  432  sq.).  According  to  2  Chron.  v. 
12  sq.,  songs  of  praise,  accompanied  by  harps  and 
psalteries,  burst  forth,  as  the  priests  came  out  of 
the  sanctuary. 

Vers.  14-21.  And  the  king  turned  his  face, 
&.C.  Solomon  had  spoken  the  words  of  vers.  12 
and  1 3  with  his  face  turned  to  the  temple ;  but  he 
now  turned  towards  the  people  who  were  in  the 
outer  court,  and  who  listened  standing,  i.  e.,  with 
proper  reverence,  to  the  following  discourse.  This 
is  a  solemn  declaration  (vers.  15-21)  that  the  tem- 
ple was  undertaken  and  finished  according  to  Je- 
hovah's word  and  will.  The  course  of  thought  is, 
compared  with  2  Chron.  vi.  4-11,  as  follows:  "so 
long  as  Israel,  after  the  departure  from  Egypt, 
wandered  about,  and  had  not  come  into  posses- 
sion of  the  promised  land,  Jehovah  had  chosen  no 
abiding  dwelling-place,  His  habitation  was  mov- 
able— a  tent.  But  after  He  had  chosen  David  to 
be  king,  and  brought  His  people  by  him  to  the  full 
and  quiet  possession  of  the  promised  land,  it  was 
fitting  that  He,  as  well  as  the  nation,  should  have 
an  abiding  dwelling-place.  Jerusalem  being  the 
city  of  David,  and  the  central  point  of  the  king- 
dom promised  to  him  '  for  ever,'  Jehovah  had 
chosen  this  very  city  for  His  '  everlasting  '  habita- 
tion. It  was,  however,  forbidden  to  my  father,  Da- 
vid, to  execute  His  purpose,  namely,  to  build  an 
house  to  the  name  of  the  Lord,  instead  of  the  tent; 
according  to  divine  direction,  He  deputed  this 
work  to  me,  whom  Jehovah  had  already  confirmed 
as  his  successor.  I  then,  specially  commissioned 
and  empowered  to  do  so,  have  built  this  house, 
and  brought  into  it  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the 
pledge  of  the  divine  gracious  presence ;  and  the 
cloud  that  has  just  now  filled  the  house,  as  once 
it  did  the  tent,  is  the  sign  that  Jehovah  will  dwell 
here."  The  promise,  the  fulfilment  of  which  Solo- 
mon refers  to  in  this  discourse,  is  that  of  2  Sam. 
vii.  4-16,  comp.  with  1  Chron.  xxii.  6-11  and  xxviii. 
2—7.  For  the  expression:  that  my  name  shall  be 
there,  the  pregnant  meaning  of  which  we  may 
gather  from  its  constant  repetition  (vers.  16,  17, 
18,  19,  comp.  29,  43,  44),  see  above,  on  chap.  vi. 
Histor.  and  Ethical,  2,  6.  It  is  worthy  of  notice 
that  at  the  beginning  and  the  conclusion  of  the 
address  (vers.  16  and  21),  the  building  of  the  tem- 
ple is  placed  in  relation  to  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt.     Comp.  above  on  chap.  vi.  1. 

Vers.  22-26.  And  Solomon  stood  before  the 
altar  of  the  Lord.  2  Chron.  vi.  13  mentions  that 
Solomon  had  a  brazen  scaffold  (~IV3)  made,  which 

he  mounted,  and  then  knelt  down  to  pray  (comp. 
v.  54);  as  the  text  says  nothing  of  its  form,  we 
will  not  decide  whether  it  had,  as  Thenius  thinks, 
a  square  support,  and  a  rounded  edge.  Certainly 
it  was  a  species  of  pulpit,  not  behind,  but  before 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  It  does  not  follow  from 
"IJJ ,  that  Solomon  again  turned  his  face  to  the  tem- 
ple (Thenius) :  it  means  before,  opposite ;  the  peo- 
ple therefore,  could  not  have  stood  behind  him, 
which  must  have  happened,  had  he  turned  his  back 
to  them.  The  spreading  out  the  hands  is  a  sign 
of  praying,  just  as  our  folding  of  the  hands  is  (Ex. 
ix.  29,  31 ;  Ps.  xliv.  21 ;  cxliii.  6;  Isai.  i.  15;  lxv. 
!,  Ac).  Modern  criticism  has  pronounced  the  dedi- 
cation prayer  in  its  given  form,  vers.  23-61,  to  be 
unauthentic.  De  Wette  and  Stahelin  place  I  he 
time  of  its  composition  in  the  period  of  the  exile. 


Ewald  admits  that  it  is,  "notwithstanding  it» 
length,  a  very  fine  discourse ;  but  belonging,  in 
the  style  of  thought,  rather  to  the  seventh  than 
the  eleventh  or  tenth  century,"  and  thinks  that 
it  was  most  probably  composed  by  the  first  of 
the  so-called  elaborators  of  Deuteronomy.  Ac- 
cording to  Thenius,  there  is  a  sketch  in  the  prayei 
to  be  held  as  historical,  though  it  be  brief;  but 
it  contains  considerable  interpolations,  as  vers. 
44-51;  and  the  frequent  coincidence  with  pas- 
sages in  Deut.  and  Josh.,  as  well  as  "the  style, 
which  is  so  often  diffuse,  verbose,  and  watery  (I), 
denote  a  more  recent  working  up."  "We  remark, 
on  the  other  hand :  that  the  text  containing  the 
prayer,  in  Chron.,  perfectly  coincides  with  that  in 
Kings,  except  in  a  few  particulars ;  but  this  proves 
that  it  was  not  taken  from  the  latter,  but  that  both 
accounts  were  derived  from  a  common  source.  So 
much  then  is  certain,  that  our  writer  did  not  invent 
the  prayer,  but  found  it  in  the  original  which  he 
drew  from,  and  gave  it  again — as  the  similar  text 
of  Chron.  shows — unaltered.  The  only  question 
then  is,  of  what  date  was  the  common  original  ? 
Chap.  xi.  41  names  as  such  the  "book  of  the  acti 
of  Solomon,"  and  the  chronicler,  "  the  book  of  Na- 
than the  prophet "  (2  Chron.  ix.  29).  The  latter, 
however,  cannot  certainly  belong  to  the  seventh 
century,  still  less  to  the  time  of  the  captivity ;  it 
evidently  was  written,  as  Bleek  justly  remarks, 
"  in  view  of  the  state  of  things,  when  the  temple, 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  David's  kingdom  still 
existed."  As  to  the  "thoughts,"  Thenius  admits 
that  the  verses  27,  28,  41-43,  58,  60,  "are  fully 
worthy  of  a  Solomon,"  and  this  without  being  able 
to  prove  that  the  others  are  unworthy  of  them ; 
they  are,  on  the  contrary,  in  fit  connection  and  per- 
fect harmony  with  them  (for  the  so-called  interpo- 
lations of  the  vers.  44-51,  see  below,  on  the  place). 
Vi'e  can  only  conclude  that  this  prayer  was  of  later 
composition,  because  of  its  harmony  with  some 
passages  of  Deut.  and  Lev.,  if  these  books  also 
belong  to  a  later  period ;  and  this  is  unproved. 
But  with  equal  propriety,  inversely,  we  may  con- 
clude from  the  prayer,  that  these  books  were 
in  existence  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  were 
known  to  him  as  the  pupil  of  a  prophet.  Finally, 
if  the  style  and  composition  of  the  prayer,  because 
they  are  verbose  and  watery,  prove  later  working 
up,  this  objection  rests  on  purely  subjective  taste ; 
and  we  have  just  as  good  a  right  to  hold,  as  Ewald 
does,  that  it  is,  "  in  spite  of  its  length,  a  very  fina 
discourse."  It  is  incredible  besides,  that  a  dis 
course,  holding  so  important  a  place  in  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  should  have  been  composed  later, 
and  falsely  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  great  king; 
we  must  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  if  ever  a 
speech  were  written  down  and  preserved  carefully, 
it  was  that  one. 

Vers.  23-26.  Lord  God  of  Israel,  &c.  Vers. 
23-26,  form  the  introduction  to  the  prayer  which 
is  united  to  the  speech,  vers.  15-21,  and  gives 
praise  and  thanks  to  God  for  having  already  ful- 
filled the  promise  made  to  David  (vers.  23,  24)  h) 
so  far  as  the  house  (2  Sam.  vii.  5-16)  was  con 
cernsd,  uniting  with  it  the  request  that  the  Lord 
would  further  fulfil  it,  with  regard  to  the  house, 
i.  e.,  the  race  of  David,  and  their  sitting  upon  the 
throne  of  Israel  (vers.  25,  26).  The  address,  there 
is  no  God  like  Tltee,  &c.,  means :  not  the  mere  is  no 
god  among  all  those  in  heaven  and  earth  like  Thefc, 
but,  nothing  is  like  to  Thee,  who  art  in  hea  ei 


CHAPTER  VIII.   1-66. 


99 


above  and  on  earth  below.  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  Israel,  is  not  compared  here  with  other  gods, 
but  on  the  contrary,  is  described  as  the  only  true 
God  (comp.  Beut.  iv.  39;  Josh.  ii.  11;  2  Sam.  vii. 
22;  xxii.  32).  He  had  shown  himself  such  espe- 
cially by  His  keeping  of  the  covenant,  by  His 
mercy  (Deut.  vii.  9 ;  Dan.  ix.  4),  and  by  the  fulfil- 
ment of  His  gracious  promise,     run  D1'3  ver.   24 

as  in  chap.  iii.  6.  The  house,  as  it  now  stands,  is 
a  witness  to  His  faithfulness  to  the  covenant.  The- 
nius  remarks  on  ver.  26:  The  urgency  of  the  pe- 
tition is  shown  by  its  concise  repetition. 

Vers.  27-30.  But  will  God  indeed,  4c.  The 
prayer  passes,  at  ver.  27,  to  its  chief  object,  the 
temple,  with  which  all  the  rest  of  it  is  occupied. 
'3  at  the  beginning  is  used  here  as  in  1  Sam.  xxix. 

8;  1  Kings  xi.  22;  2  Kings  viii.  13  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  18, 
"  merely  as  an  impressive  introduction  to  the  inter- 
rogatory sentence  that  leads  to  the  real  prayer  " 
(Thenius),  and  is  not,  therefore,  a  mere  confirming 
particle,  as  Keil,  who  connects  our  verse  with  ver. 
26  instead  of  with  vers.  28-30,  repeatedly  asserts. 
The  petition  in  ver.  26:  that  God  would  indeed 
keep  the  house  (dynasty)  of  David  on  the  throne, 
was  not  founded  on  the  fact  that  the  heaven  of 
heavens  could  not  contain  Him,  still  less  that  tem- 
ple. On  the  contrary,  the  entire  contents  of  the 
following  prayer  are,  that  God  would  hear  all  the 
prayers  that  should  be  offered  in  this  place ;  hence 
Solomon  very  naturally  begins  with  the  thought, 
can  the  infinite,  unconfined  Deity  really  have  His 
dwelling  here?  The  expression,  the  heaven  and 
heaven  of  heavens,  can  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  different  heavens  taught  by  Jewish  theology 
(Schbttgen,  hor.  hebr.  p.  719),  but  is  the  description 
of  the  heavens  in  their  all-embracing  extent,  as 
Deut.  x.  14;  Ps.  cxv.  16.  This  is  the  connection 
of  vers.  27  and  28:  Thou  art  the  infinite  God  whom 
no  house  built  by  man  can  contain,  but  I  beseech 
Thee  to  show  thyself  here,  as  a  God  who  answers 
prayer.  In  ver.  28  Solomon  prays  that  God  would 
hear  his  present  prayer,  and  in  vers.  29  and  30 
that  He  would  also  in  the  future  always  hear  the 
prayers  of  the  king  and  people  in  this  place.  The 
different  expressions  for  prayer  in  the  verses  28- 
30  are  not  very  different  in  their  meaning,  and  are 
placed  near  together  here,  to  describe  every  kind 
of  prayer.  The  words,  that  thine  eyes  may  be  open 
(ver.  29),  do  not  mean  that  God  was  besought  to 
watch  over  the  building,  and  take  it  under  His  al- 
mighty protection,  but  always  to  see,  when  any 
one  prayed  there,  and  to  hear  his  prayer,  to  turn 
His  eyes  and  ears  toward  the  house  (comp.  Ps. 
xxxiv.  16).  For  the  placing  of  the  temple  and 
heaven  (ver.  30)  in  antithesis,  which  is  done  indeed 
through  the  entire  prayer,  see  above,  on  chap.  vi. 
Eistor.  and  Ethic.  2  c.  The  prayer  for  forgiveness 
is  joined  to  the  prayer  for  hearing,  at  the  conclu- 
sion, as  also  in  vers.  34,  36,  39,  50,  because  man, 
who  is  full  of  sin  and  guilt,  can  only  hope  for  the 
acceptance  of  his  prayer  when  his  sins  are  for- 
given ;  every  answer  to  prayer  rests  on  the  sin- 
pardoning  grace  of  God. 

Vers.  31-32.  If  any  man  trespass  against,  Ac. 
The  prayer  that  God  may  hear  in  general  is  now 
followed,  from  ver.  31  on,  by  prayers  for  particular 
cases,  of  which  there  are  seven  altogether;  which 
IB  no  more  remarkable  than  that  the  Lord's  prayer, 
Matt.  vi.  9  sq.,  also  contains  the  sacred  number 
seven,  the  number  of  the  covenant  (Symb.  des  Mos. 


Kult.  i.  s.  193).  The  first  of  the  seven  prayers  (vers. 
31,  32)  concerns  the  observation  of  the  oath  as  sa- 
cred, namely,  in  cases  like  those  of  Ex.  xxii.  7-10 
and  Lev.  v.  21-24.     For  -|L"N  flN  it  is   QX  in  2 

Chron.  vi.  22 ;  it  means :  the  case  happening,  thai 

=  wi.en  (Keil).     rps  N31  cannot  be  translated, 

T      T  T 

and  the  oath  comes,  as  the  article  is  wanting  to 

n^N ;   all  the  old  translations  give :    comes  and 

swears.  Before  the  altar,  i.  e.,  the  place  of  divine 
witness  and  presence  (Ex.  xx.  24).  Thou  bringest 
his  deed  upon  his  head,  i.  e.,  thou  punishest  him  for 
his  false  oath  (Ezek.  ix.  10).  We  receive  no  an- 
swer from  the  commentators  to  the  question,  why 
is  the  prayer  with  respect  to  the  oath  placed  fore- 
most in  the  seven  petitions?  Perhaps  the  reason 
is  as  follows :  The  temple,  which  is  constantly  and 
impressively  exalted  in  the  chapter  we  are"  con- 
sidering, was  built  to  the  name  of  Jehovah,  .vl.ich 
should  be  deemed  holy ;  but  the  oath  was  nothing 
more  than  the  calling  upon  the  sacred  name ;  t.  e., 
the  name  of  that  God  who  had  made  himself  known 
as  a  holy  God,  and  who  does  not  allow  the  misuse 
of  his  name  to  go  unpunished  (according  to  Eccle- 
siasticus  xxiii.  9,  bpaoc  is  equivalent  to  bvo/iaoia 
roil  ay'tov,  comp.  ver.  11:  6  bpvi'uv  Kal  bvofiaCurv)' 
they  swore  by  the  name  of  God,  is  an  oath-form  in 
Levit.  xix.  12;  Deut.  vi.  13;  x.  20;  Isai.  xlviii.  1; 
Jerem.  xii.  16 ;  xliv.  26.  The  false  oath  was  a  con- 
temptuous use  of  the  name  to  which  the  house  was 
built ;  but  it  was  the  chief  requirement  from  him 
who  stood  in  the  holy  place,  that  he  should  not 
swear  falsely,  Ps.  xxiv.  3,  4.  The  command  to 
keep  the  name  of  God  holy,  stands  also  first  among 
the  commandments  of  the  fundamental  law  (Ex. 
xx.  7),  and  it  is  the  first  of  the  seven  petitions  in 
the  Lord's  prayer :  hallowed  be  Thv  name  (Matt, 
vi.  9). 

Vers.  33-34.  When  thy  people  Israel  be 
smitten  down,  &c.  The  second  petition  concerns 
the  case  of  captives,  who  had,  through  their  guilt, 
merited  overthrow,  and  were  led  away  by  their 
conquerors;  and  beseeches  Jehovah  for  the  return 
of  the  people  to  their  native  land.  To  be  taken 
away  from  the  land  of  promise,  to  be  separated 
from  communion  with  the  covenant  people,  in 
whose  midst  Jehovah  dwelt,  and  to  live  among 
heathens,  was  the  greatest  of  all  misfortunes  to  an 
Israelite,  and  it  was  very  natural  to  pray  against  it. 
And  confess  thy  name  must  be  connected  with  lit.", 

if  they,  feeling  their  guilt,  acknowledge  Thee  God, 
dwelling  and  manifesting  thyself  here;  it  is  not 
then  the  same  as:  praise  Jehovah  (Gesenius,  Wi- 
ner). It  is  unnecessary  to  seek  a  direct  association 
of  ideas  between  this  second  and  the  first  petition. 
Thenius  says:  "The  internal  welfare  of  the  state 
was  secured  by  fidelity  and  faith  arising  from  fear 
of  God,  but  that  welfare  could  be  in  peril  from 
without."  Nor  is  there  here  a  direct  reference  to 
Lev.  xxvi.  17  and  Deut.  xxviii.  25,  as  Keil  asserts. 
Vers.  35-40.  When  heaven  is  shut  up,  &c. 
The  third  petition  (vers.  35,  36),  and  the  fourth 
(vers.  37—40),  concern  divine  judgment?  by  mean? 
of  long-continued  drought  and  land-plagues.  As 
the  rain,  on  which  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  and 
therefore  all  outward  prosperity,  depended  in  the 
East,  was  a  sign  of  divine  blessing  (Ezek.  xxxiv. 
26  sq.),  so  drought  was  a  sign  of  curse  and  punish- 
ment (Lev.  xxvi  3,   19 ;  Deut.  xxviii.  15,   23 ;  xi 


100 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KlAtro. 


17;  Am.  xlvii. ;  Hagg.  i.  11).  The  meaning  of  ver. 
3G  is :  when  the  people  were  brought  into  the  right 
way  again,  by  the  merited  chastisement,  then  lie 
oeseeches  God  to  hear  their  supplication,  and  to 
forgive  their  sin  and  to  send  rain  again.  In  ver. 
37  there  are  coincidences  with  Lev.  xxvi.  25 ;  Dent, 
xxviii.  22 ;  but  hunger,  plague,  blasting,  and  mil- 
dew are  elsewhere  mentioned  as  divine  chastise- 
ments (Am.  iv.  9,  10;  Jerem.  xiv.  12;  xxiv.  10; 

Ezek.  vi.  12;  xiv.  21).  p'Dn  is  in  apposition  (ac- 
cording to  Keil),  to  describe  the  plague  of  locusts 
(Deut.  xxviii.  38) ;  Thenius  thinks  the  copula  be- 
fore it,  which  the  chronicler  and  the  old  translations 
give,  is  wanting,  and  that  a  worse  kind  of  locust 

is  meant  (Joel  i.  4;  Ps.  lxxviii.  46).      VIJJu'  pN3 

is  literally :  in  the  land  of  his  gates,  which,  how- 
ever, gives  no  sense ;  it  is  clear  that  ]'~IN3  must 

be  read  (as  Bertheau  has  it),  and  VIVB*  be  supplied 

with  3,  as  is  clear  from  Deut.  xxviii.  52:  "thou 
slv.lt  be  besieged  in  all  thy  gates,  in  thy  whole 
land."  Thenius  unnecessarily  reads,  according  to 
the  Sept.  (f  v  jua  rm>  ttoIew  avrdv)  J"inN3  instead  of 

i«-|S3  •     The  words  say — when  the  enemy  is  in  his 

land,  yea,  even  besieging  his  well-protected  towns. 
The  wasting  of  the  land  by  locusts  was  similar 
to  the  wasting  by  hostile  armies,  that  invaded 
the  land  like  locusts  (Jud.  vi.  5).  Which  shall 
know  every  man,  &c.  (ver.  38),  i.  e.,  when  each  one 
should  seethe  connection  "between  his  sin  and 
the  plague  inflicted  on  him  by  God,  and  allow  it 
to  work  out  his  chastisement"  (Bertheau).  Ac- 
cording to  his  ways  (ver.  39),  i.  e.,  by  the  repentant 
heart,  shown  in  all  his  conduct.  Whether  this  re- 
pentance is  really  felt,  He  alone,  who  "searches 
the  hearts  "  of  the  children  of  men,  can  know  (Jer. 
xvii.  10).  The  reason  of  the  hearing  of  prayer  is 
given  in  ver.  40 :  continuance  in  godly  fear  (comp. 
Deut.  iv.  10). 

Vers.  41-43.  Moreover  concerning  a  stranger, 
Ac.  The  fifth  petition  (vers.  41-43)  ranks  with  the 
lormer  ones :  but  not  only  those  belonging  to  tin- 
people  Israel,  who  may  call  upon  Thee  here,  hear 
also  every  stranger  who  does  so;  that  all  people  of 
the  earth,  &c.  In  the  law  (Deut.  xv.  14-16)  it  was 
provided  that  a  stranger,  sojourning  among  the  Is- 
raelites, might  sacrifice  with  them ;  Solomon  goes 
further,  and  declares  that  the  great  deeds  of  God 
in  Israel,  the  seal  and  crown  of  which  was  the  tem- 
ple as  a  fixed  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  were  to 
work  out  the  salvation  not  only  of  Israel,  but  the 
conversion  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  To  reach 
that  end  may  God  hear  every  stranger  who  comes 
to  this  house  and  calls  upon  Him  for  His  name's 
sake  (i.  e.,  because  he  had  heard  of  the  might  and 
greatness  displayed  on  Israel,  ver.  42).  The  ex- 
pressions in  ver.  42  refer  essentially  to  the  wonder- 
ful exodus  from  Egypt  (Deut.  iv.  34;  v.  15;  Ex. 
vi  6),  which  had  reached  its  climax  in  the  building 
of  the  temple  (see  above,  on  chap.  vi.  1).  The 
words  in  ver.  43 :  that  they  may  know  that  this  house 

.     .     .      is  called  by  thy  name  (?]J  N"lpj),  are  a 

formula  that  occurs  as  here  and  in  Jer.  vii.  10,  11, 
14;  xxv.  29,  about  the  temple,  and  about  the  people 
Israel  in  Deut.  xxviii.  10;  Isai.  iv.  1;  lxiii.  19; 
Jer.  xiv.  9;  xv.  16;  2  Chron.  vii.  14;  and  is  inti- 
mately related  to  the  expression,  to  lay  the  name 


of  Jehovah  upon  (•>]})  a  thing  or  person  (Numb.  vi. 
27  ;  Deut.  xii.  5 ;  xvi.  6 ;  1  Kings  xi.  36,  &c).  The 
latter  was  thus  marked  as  one  to  whom  God  re- 
veals himself  (names  himself),  ;'.  e.,  manifests  and 
communicates  himself,  so  that  he  stands  in  unioD 
and  communion  with  Him  (Am.  ix.  12,  comp.  Heng 
stenberg,  Christologie,  iii.  s.  231  sq).  Through  the 
hearing  of  the  prayers  which  the  heathen  offered 
here  to  Israel's  God,  they  as  well  as  Israel  were 
to  experience  that  His  "  name  "  was  there  (ver.  16), 
i.  e.,  that  He  manifested  and  proved  himself  there 
to  be  God.  The  usual  translation  of  the  expres- 
sion, that  this  house  is  called  by  Thy  name,  oi 
bears  Thy  name,  is  therefore  quite  wrong.  What 
good  would  it  have  done  the  heathen  to  know  that 
the  house  Solomon  built  was  called  by  Jehovah's 
name  ?  But  the  following  is  equally  erroneous : 
"that  Thy  name  has  been  invoked  upon  this  tem- 
ple (at  its  dedication),  i.  e.,  that  this  temple  has 
been  dedicated  under  effective  invocation  of  Thy 
continued  help  "  (Thenius);  it  was  not  that  the  hea- 
thens were  to  know  that  the  temple  had  been  sol- 
emnly consecrated,  but  that  the  God  who  dwelt 
there  would  hear  their  as  well  as  Israel's  prayer, 
and  that  hence  He  is  the  only  true  God  (chap, 
xviii.  37  ;   Ps.  lxv.  3). 

Vers.  44-50.  If  thy  people  go  out,  &c.  The 
sixth  petition  (vers.  44,  45),  and  the  seventh  (vers. 
46-50),  relate  to  the  conceivable  cases,  in  which 
the  people  cannot  pray  at  Jehovah's  house,  because 
they  are  far  from  it.  The  first  case  is,  when  the 
people  should  be  whithersoever  Jelwvah  should  send 
them,  i.  f.,  in  war,  according  to  Jehovah's  appoint- 
ment and  approbation ;  they  were  then  to  pray  to- 
wards the  city  in  which  the  temple  was.  The 
other  case  is,  if  having  grievously  sinned  against 
Jehovah,  and  in  consequence,  being  vanquished 
and  led  away  captive  to  another  land,  they  were 
then  to  repent,  and  direct  their  prayers  towards 
the  country,  the  city,  and  the  house  where  Jeho- 
vah dwelt.  The  outward  turning  was  the  sign  of 
the  inward  turning  to  the  God  of  Israel,  who  as 
such  has  His  dwelling-place  in  the  temple,  and  is 
a  real  confession  to  this  God,  who  never  leaves 
His  people,  if  they  do  not  forsake  Him.  Maintain 
their  cause,  ver.  45  (comp.  Ps.  ix.  5;  Deut.  x.  18). 
This  presupposes  that  the  war  is  a  just  one.  The 
three  expressions  for  sinning  are  scarcely  to  be 
distinguished  with  precision  from  each  other,  as 
Keil  thinks,  but  are  only  meant  to  include  every 
conceivable  kind  of  sin.  Thenius  asserts  that  the 
verses  44-51  are  a  "section  added  later,  perhaps 
by  the  elaborator,"  for  such  a  petition,  which  be- 
longs properly  to  vers.  33,  34,  cannot  follow  ver. 
43 ;  the  custom  of  turning  towards  Jerusalem  is 
first  mentioned  in  writings  subsequent  to  the  ex- 
ile (Dan.  vi.  11;  Ezra  iv.  58),  and  the  last  petition, 
vers.  46-51,  was  occasioned  by  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity, just  also  as  the  formula  of  the  confession 
of  sin,  ver.  47,  belonged  to  a  later  period  (Dan.  ix. 
5  ;  Ps.  cvi.  6).  On  the  other  hand,  both  petitions 
are  exactly  in  the  right  place;  the  five  previous 
ones  refer  to  cases  in  which  prayer  is  offered  at 
the  temple  itself;  the  last  two  to  cases  where  the 
praying  people  cannot  come  to  the  temple.  They 
therefore  follow  quite  naturally;  besides  this,  the 
case  in  ver.  44  is  evidently  quite  different  from 
that  in  ver.  33  sq.,  for  in  the  latter  there  is  an 
armed  invasion  by  the  enemy,  in  which  some  ar6 
taken  prisoners ;  and  in  the  former  (ver.  4-4)  thf 
people  go  out  to  battle  under  the  divine  order 


CHAPTER  VIII.   1-66. 


101 


Turning  towards  the  temple  was  a  very  natural 
custom,  and  mentioned  not  only  in  vers.  44  and 
48,  but  in  ver.  38,  before,  and  also  in  Ps.  v.  8 ; 
xxviii.  2.  As  the  temple,  being  Jehovah's  dwell- 
ing, was  a  pattern  of  the  heavens,  His  real  dwell- 
ing-place, it  followed  that  as  men  stretched  out 
their  hands  to  heaven,  so  they  stretched  them  (o- 
irards  the  temple  in  prayer ;  it  is,  at  any  rate,  im- 
possible to  prove  that  this  custom  came  in  first 
after  the  captivity.  The  carrying  away  conquered 
nations  was  "a  fundamental  maxim  of  despots 
which  prevailed  in  the  ancient  orient"  (Winer, 
*?.-  W.-B.,  i.  s.  357,  and  the  writings  quoted  there); 
when  therefore  Solomon,  in  counting  up  the  mis- 
fortunes and  straits  in  which  Israel  could  fall, 
thinks  lastly  of  this  most  grievous  case,  it  is  less 
surprising  that  he  should  rather  than  that  he  should 
not  have  mentioned  it,  especially  since  it  was  re- 
peatedly threatened  in  the  law  (Lev.  xxvi.  33 ; 
Dent,  xxviii.  25,  36,  64;  iv.  27).  The  petition  is 
quite  general,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  allu- 
sion to  any  particular  captivity.  The  confession 
in  ver.  47  is  by  no  means  of  a  kind  that  could  have 
only  been  made  in  exile  (comp.  Numb.  xiv.  40 ;  1 
Sam.  vii.  6;  Ps.  li.  6;  xxxii.  5),  and  we  might,  in- 
versely, with  more  justice  maintain  that  the  Jews 
in  exile  appropriated  this  most  expressive  word 
for  the  deepest  guilt,  from  the  royal  prayer  (Keil). 
There  are  exactly  seven  petitions,  thus  giving  the 
prayer  the  seal  of  this  significant  number;  and 
the  last  two  cannot  have  been  added  later,  for 
they  contain  nothing  foreign  to  the  other  ones, 
but  on  the  contrary  are  very  suitable  to  the  former 
petitions,  and  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  imme- 
diately preceding  one  (comp.  Bertheau  on  2  Chrou. 
vi.  39). 

Vers.  51-54.  For  they  be  thy  people,  &c. 
Vers.  51-52  form  the  conclusion  of  the  prayer,  as 
vers.  23-26,  the  beginning,  to  which  this  conclusion 
points  back.  He  confidently  gives  his  reason  for 
hoping  for  the  acceptance  of  the  whole  prayer ; 
which  reason  is  the  election  of  Israel  out  of  all 
nations,  to  be  a  peculiar  and  covenant  people. 
With  ver.  51  comp.  Dent.  iv.  20.  The  iron  furnace 
is  not  =  a  furnace  of  iron,  but  the  furnace  in 
which  the  iron  is  melted,  winch  requires  the  great- 
est heat,  therefore  =  glowing  furnace.  The  deliv- 
erance from  Egypt  is  here  also  looked  on  as  a 
pledge  for  deliverance  from  every  future  distress, 
how  great  soever.  The  beginning  of  the  prayer, 
vers.  28,  29,  is  taken  up  again  in  ver.  52;  its  close 

connection  with  ver.   51   through  nVH?  has  this 

sense ;  that  it  follows  from  their  election  to  be  a 
peculiar  people,  that  Jehovah  would  also  listen,  in 
future,  to  their  prayers.  Ver.  53  (comp.  Lev.  xx. 
24,  26)  is  no  mere  repetition  of  ver.  51  (Theuius), 
but  rests  upon  a  broader  ground,  derived  from  the 
destiny  of  the  nation  itself.  The  peculiar  people 
is  that  which  was  set  apart  for  Jehovah's  service 
from  among  all  nations  (Numb.  viii.  14;  xvi.  9),  the 
holy  people,  the  royal  priesthood  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6). 
The  prayer  has  quite  a  different  ending  in  2  Chron. 
vi.  41,  42 ;  this,  Thenius  thinks  the  original  one, 
which  was  not  discovered  by  our  author.  That 
ending,  however,  must  not  be  preferred  to  that  in 
our  books,  and  put  in  place  of  the  latter ;  because 
it  agrees  word  for  word  with  Ps.  cxxxii.  8-10,  re- 
ferring to  a  period  after  the  captivity,  and  is  evi- 
dently taktn  from  that  psalm,  not  the  latter  from 
Chronicles,  or  from  some  source  common  to  both. 


Peculiarities  of  the  language  also  point  to  a  rela- 
tively late  period  of  composition  (see  Bertheau  on 
the  place).  This  ending  in  Chron.  appears  to  have 
been  chosen  to  form  a  connecting  link  with  what  is 
related  immediately  afterwards  (2  Chron.  vii.  1-3), 
but  which  is  not  in  our  text. 

Vers.  54-61.  And  it  was  so,  that  when  Solo» 
mon  had  made  an  end  of  praying  all  this 
prayer.  Ac.  As  the  dedication-prayer  was  preceded 
by  an  address  of  greeting  to  the  people  (vers.  14- 
21),  so  also  it  was  followed  by  a  concluding  speech 
and  blessing,  which  Solomon  gave,  again  standing 

(iOJJ'l).     He  next  praises  God  for  having  given 

rest  to  His  people  Israel  (ver.  56) ;  for  the  conse- 
crated temple,  that  had  been  filled  with  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  (vers.  10-11),  was  a  firm,  immovable 
habitation,  and  therefore  the  practical  evidence 
that  the  people  had  now  fully  come  into  their  prom- 
ised rest  (Deut.  xii.  9-10),  (see  above,  on  chap.  vi. 
1) ;  Solomon,  the  builder  of  the  temple,  was  for  this 
reason  named  the  "  man  of  rest "  (1  Chron.  xxii.  9). 
Tlie  good  word  is  that  which  promises  blessing  (Jer. 
xxxiii.  14),  as  pronounced  in  Lev.  xxxvi.  3  sq.,  and 
Deut.  xxviii.  1  sq.  The  expression  there  hath  not 
failed  as  =  fulfilled,  often  occurs  (Josh.  xxi.  45; 
xxii:..  14;  2  Kings  x.  10).  The  praise  of  Jehovah, 
ver.  56,  forms  the  introduction  to  vers.  57-61, 
which  are  also  blessings  and  exhortations.    In  ver. 

58,  Solomon  wishes  for  the  people,  that  God  might, 
as  heretofore,  continue  to  be  with  them ;  in  ver. 

59,  that  He  would,  in  answer  to  the  prayer  just 
spoken,  grant  them  continued  help  against  their 
enemies.  The  object  of  the  first  wisfc  is  stated  in 
ver.  58,  that  of  the  second  in  ver.  60.  Nigh,  mean- 
ing that  He  should  always  remember  these  words, 
and  fulfil  them.  Day  and  night,  i.  e.,  as  each  day 
should   require,  Ex.  v.  13 ;  xvi.  4.     With  ver.   60 

comp.  ver.  43.     The  D7EJ',  ver.  61, does  not  mean: 

in  friendship  with  God  (Gesenius),  nor  submissive 
(de  Wette),  nor  uprightly  (Luther),  but:  entirely,  un- 
dividedly  (comp.  chap.  xi.  4,  6).  The  entire  con- 
cluding discourse  (vers.  54-61)  is  missing  in  Chron- 
icles, as  we  remarked ;  and  this  concluding  portion 
being  an  integral  part  of  the  dedication-solemnity, 
the  fact  is  by  no  means  satisfactorily  accounted  for 
by  saying:  that  "it  is  only  a  recapitulation  of  the 
preceding  lengthy  prayer"  (Keil).  On.  the  other 
hand,  Chron.  informs  us  that  immediately  after  the 
prayer  was  ended,  fire  fell  from  heaven,  which  con- 
sumed the  burnt  offering  and  the  sacrifices,  and 
that  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  house  (2  Chron. 
vii.  1  sq.).  There  is  no  apparent  reason  why  our 
author,  who  is  otherwise  so  minute  in  his  account, 
should  quite  pass  over  this  remarkable  and  wonder- 
ful occurrence,  if  it  had  been  related  in  his  origi- 
nal. Chronicles  contradicts  itself,  inasmuch  as  it 
makes  the  filling  of  the  house  with  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  follow  upon  the  prayer,  while  chap.  v.  14,  as 
in  our  account,  ver.  10  sq.,  makes  it  precede  the 
prayer,  which  indeed  the  entire  contents  of  the 
prayer  presuppose.  No  one  will  believe  that  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  left  the  house  during  the  prayer, 
and  afterwards  filled  it  again.  If  therefore  the 
chronicler  has  in  any  place  borrowed  from  later 
tradition  founded  on  Lev.  ix.  24,  it  must  have  been 
here. 

Vers.  62-66.  And  the  king,  and  all  Israel 
with  him,  offered  sacrifice,  &c.  In  accordance 
with  the  design  of  the  festival,  by  far  the  greater 


102 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


number  of  sacrifices  were  thanksgiving,  or  peace- 
offerings,  of  which  the  fat  only  was  burnt,  and  the 
rest  used  for  food  (Lev.  vii.  11  sq. ;  Deut.  xii.  7). 
The  number  of  animals,  in  which  the  Chron.  and 
all  the  old  translations  agree,  was  very  large,  so  that 
some  have  tried  to  prove  that  it  was  exaggerated. 
Thenius  reckons  that  "  as  it  took  seven  days  to  offer 
these  sacrifices  (allowing  twelve  complete  hours  to 
the  sacrificial  day),  about  five  oxen  and  twenty-four 
sheep  must  have  been  slaughtered  and  offered 
every  minute."  This  calculation,  plausible  as  it 
seems,  is  disproved  when  we  consider  what  the 
exact  circumstances  were  here ;  as  Keil  on  the 
place  has  thoroughly  done.  It  was  not  the  king 
alone  who  sacrificed,  but  "  all  Israel  with  him ;  " 
there  were  sacrificial  feasts,  during  fourteen  days, 
for  the  great  assemblage  of  all  the  people  from  Ha- 
moth  (the  northern  boundary  of  Palestine,  Numb, 
xiii.  21 ;  xxxiv.  8)  to  the  river  of  Egypt  (the  pres- 
ent el  Arisen  on  the  southern  frontier,  Josh.  xv. 
4),  and  whom  we  may  compute  at  100,000  men. 
Certainly  the  priests  could  not  possibly  have  killed 
so  many  animals  for  sacrifice  in  the  time  stated, 
but  according  to  the  law  it  was  the  business  of 
those  offering  the  sacrifices  themselves  ;  the  priests 
only  had  to  sprinkle  the  blood  on  the  altar.  This 
they  could  easily  do.for  their  number  then  amounted 
to  at  least  some  thousands,  as  we  can  judge  from 
the  number  of  levites  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  3).  With  re- 
gard to  the  great  number  of  the  sacrifices,  it  is  also 
expressly  remarked  in  ver.  64,  that  as  they  could 
not  all  be  offered  on  the  brazen  altar,  Solomon  (for 
this  purpose)  hallowed  the  middle  of  the  court,  i.  e., 
consecrated  it  as  a  place  of  sacrifice  by  erecting 
subsidiary  altars.  How  extraordinarily  great  the 
number  of  sacrifices  at  that  kind  of  festival  was, 
even  in  later  times,  we  learn  from  an  account  of 
Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  vi.  9,  3),  namely,  that  at  a  pass- 
over-feast  at  Jerusalem,  in  Nero's  time,  the  priests 
counted  no  less  than  256,000  sacrifices  that  were 
slaughtered  and  consumed.  We  are  to  understand 
besides  the  thank-offerings,  by  the  bund-offerings 
and  meat-offerings  (ver.  64),  the  daily  morning  and 
evening  sacrifices  of  the  law  (Numb,  xxviii.  3).  The 
time  and  length  of  the  festivity  given  in  vers.  65 
and  66  are  more  plainly  expressed  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  2  Chron.  vii.  8-10:  "Solomon  kept 
the  feast  (jnriTIX,  i-  «•,  the  feast  of  the  taber- 
nacles, see  on  ver.  2)  at  the  same  time  as  temple- 
dedication,  seven  days,  .  .  .  and  on  the  eighth 
day  they  made  rnXJJ  (as  the  law  commanded,  Lev. 

xxiii.  36);  for  they  kept  the  dedication  of  the 
altar  (in  which  that  of  the  temple  was  included) 
seven  days,  and  the  feast  (of  tabernacles)  seven 
days.  And  on  the  three  and  twentieth  day  of 
the  seventh  month  he  sent  the  people  away." 
This  places  the  feast  of  the  tabernacles,  which  ac- 
cording to  the  law  began  on  the  15th  of  the  seventh 
month,  after  the  dedication ;  and  when  our  text  says 
therefore  seven  days  and  seven  days,  even  fourteen 
days  (ver.  65),  it  can  only  mean  that  the  dedication 
and  the  feast  lasted  altogethoi  fourteen  days;  con- 
sequently the  first  immediately  preceded  the  latter, 
and  did  not  occupy  from  the  1st  to  the  7th  day 
(Thenius),  but  from  the  eighth  to  the  fourteenth. 
That  the  dedication  lasted  "fourteen  days"  is  still 
more  out  of  the  question  (v.  Gerlach).  The  two 
narratives  do  not,  however,  perfectly  agree,  for  ver. 
66  says  that  Solomon  sent  the  people  away  on  the 
tighth  day  (of  the  feast),  i.  e.,  on  the   22d  of  the 


month,  while  2  Chron.  vii.  10  makes  it  the  23d 
Yet  this  is  no  real  contradiction,  but  only  a  vagut 
form  of  speech  about  a  known  thing.  Solomon 
sent  the  people  away  on  the  8th  day,  i.  «.,  in  the 
afternoon  or  evening,  of  the  Azereth  of  the  feast  of 
tabernacles ;  so  that  they  began  their  journey  home 
on  the  following  morning,  i.  e.,  on  the  23d  of  the 
month  (Keil).  Whether  the  feast  of  atonement 
(Lev.  xxiii.  27),  which  fell  on  the  10th  of  the  seventh 
month,  was  kept,  and  how,  remains  uncertain.  Old 
commentators  say  that  the  dedication  rendered  it 
unusually  solemn ;  others  that,  as  it  was  a  fast  day, 
its  observance  was  for  that  time  omitted.  Tents 
(ver.  66)  is  here  like  2  Sam.  xx.  1 ;  Judges  vii.  8 
used  for  home,  and  David  is  named  instead  of  Sol- 
omon (which  the  chronicler  adds),  because  he  was 
the  originator  of  the  temple-building,  and  through 
him  Solomon  was  enabled  to  undertake  it. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  dedication  of  the  temple  is  one  of  the  mosl 
important  of  the  facts  of  the  Old  Testament  his 
tory,  inasmuch  as  with  it  and  through  it,  the 
"  house  "  which  Solomon  built,  first  became  what 
it  was  destined  for— the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah, 
and  all  that  the  idea  of  dwelling  comprises  in  it 
(see  above,  on  chap.  vi.).  The  theocratic  kingdom, 
and  that  of  Solomon  in  particular,  then  reached  its 
highest  glory.  For  this  reason  the  feast  did  not 
last  only  one  day,  but,  like  the  great  feasts  that 
were  devoted  to  the  remembrance  of  the  equally 
important  facts  in  the  theocratic  history  (the  pass- 
over  and  tabernacles),  continued  seven  days.  This 
is  why  both  narratives  give  such  minute  accounts 
of  it,  and  show,  by  their  agreement,  that  the  com- 
mon source  from  which  they  drew  had  treated  th6 
subject  with  the  same  minuteness.  V.  Gerlach 
justly  remarks  that:  "the  solemn  event  recounted 
here  crowned  the  work  of  the  establishment  of 
God's  kingdom  in  Israel,  which  was  begun  by 
Samuel  and  continued  by  David." 

2.  In  respect  of  the  act  of  dedication,  it  next 
strikes  us  that  the  king  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
whole  ceremony,  though  it  was  an  essentially  re- 
ligious one.  He  ordains  a  special  festival,  calls  all 
the  people  to  it,  and  conducts  the  whole  solemnity. 
He  is  the  author  of  everything  from  beginning  to 
end — speech,  prayer,  and  blessing.  The  priests  and 
levites  indeed  are  also  busied  in  it,  but  they  only 
perform  their  usual  services,  and  the  high-priest  is 
not  even  named,  still  less  mentioned  as  the  chief 
actor  on  the  occasion,  performing  the  dedication. 
It  has  been  said  in  explanation,  that  Solomon  stood 
at  this  moment,  like  Moses,  Samuel,  and  David,  as 
a  direct  and  divine  ambassador,  as  king,  priest, 
and  prophet  (von  Gerlach),  or  that  he  had  taken 
on  himself,  as  an  absolute  temporal  ruler,  the  func- 
tions of  a  priest  and  prophet  (Ewald,  Eisenlohr, 
Menzel,  and  others).  Both  suppositions  are,  to  say 
the  least,  unnecessary.  The  position  Solomon  took 
here  is  thoroughly  justified  by  the  nature  of  the 
theocratic  kingdom,  which  was  not  designed  to  re- 
move or  displace  the  divine  rule,  but  rather  to  exalt 
and  execute  it.  The  theocratic  king  did  not  take 
the  place  of  the  God-king,  Jehovah,  but  was  his 
"  servant,"  and  as  such,  Solomon  repeatedly  desig- 
nates himself  here  (vers.  25,  28,  29,  52,  59).  What 
the  whole  people  were  to  Jehovah,  by  virtue  of  the 
covenant  (Ex.  xix.  6),  was  summed  up  in  their  king 


CHAPTER  VHI.  1-66. 


103 


and  true  of  him  as  an  individual.  The  priesthood 
was  not  at  th^.  head  of  the  kingdom,  which  was  not 
«n  hierarchy,  but  a  theocracy  ;  theirs  was  a  separate 
institution,  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  king  to 
maintain,  as  well"  as  all  other  institutions  of  the 
Jaw  (covenant).  He  would  therefore  have  acted 
contrary  to  Jehovah's  law,  and  have  sinned  (comp. 
2  Chron.  xxvi.  16  sq.),  had  he  taken  on  himself  the 
offices  which  belonged  by  law  to  the  priests.  Solo- 
mon therefore  let  the  priests  perform  their  services 
at  the  dedication,  as  the  law  prescribed,  and  he  was 
not  guilty  of  the  shadow  of  usurpation  of  the 
priestly  office.  But  the  act  of  dedication  of  the 
"house  of  Jehovah"  built  by  him  through  divine 
commission,  which  act  bore  such  high  importance 
to  the  realm  and  people,  and  began  a  new  epoch  in 
theocratic  history,  belonged  rightly  to  his  mission  as 
a  theocratic  king.  No  one  else  had  the  right,  be- 
cause no  one  else  had  the  same  theocratic  position 
and  duties.  And  as  the  theocratic  kingdom  reached 
its  culminating  point  with  Solomon,  the  theocratic 
kingdom  also  attained  in  him  its  full  significance. 
It  would  be  quite  perverse  to  attempt  to  ground  or 
to  defend  the  modern  imperial  papalism  (CAsaro- 
papismus),  or  the  so-called  liturgical  rights  of  the 
sovereign,  by  the  precedent  of  Solomon's  conduct. 
The  Old  Testament  theocratic  kingdom  was  essen- 
tially different  from  the  monarchy  of  these  of  mod- 
ern times. 

3.  The  act  of  dedication  began  by  carrying  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  in  solemn  procession,  with  the 
king  at  the  head,  into  the  temple,  and  depositing  it 
in  "  its  place,"  the  holy  of  holies,  while  numerous 
sacrifices  were  offered.  The  ark  of  the  covenant 
was  the  root  and  kernel  of  the  whole  sanctuary  ; 
it  contained  the  moral  law,  at  once  the  original 
document  and  pledge  of  the  covenant,  through 
which,  and  in  consequence  of  which,  Jehovah  was 
willing  to  "  dwell "  in  the  midst  of  his  chosen  peo- 
ple ;  the  Kaporeth  upon  which  Jehovah  was  en- 
throned was  therefore  inseparably  united  with  it 
{Ex.  xxv.  22),  so  that  the  entire  sanctuary  only  be- 
came through  this  throne  what  it  was  intended  to 
be — the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah.  On  this  sub- 
ject Witsius  says  (Miscell.  sacr.  p.  439)  of  the  area 
foederis :  Qiuz  sanctissimum  fuit  totius  tahernacidi 
Ket/ift.iov,  quceque  veluti  cor  tortus  religionis  lsraditi- 
coz  primwm  omnium  formata  est  Exod.  xxv.  10,  et  cui 
ne  deesset  habitationis  locus,  ipsum  tabernaculum  dein 
et  superbum  illud  templum  conditum  fuit.  Exod.  xxvi. 
33  et  xl.  21 ;  1  Chron.  xxviii.  2.  By  the  placing  of 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  temple,  it  first  be- 
came the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  hence  its  solemn 
introduction  into  it.  While  everything  else  with- 
in it  was  made  new  (chap,  vii.),  the  same  ark  of  the 
covenant  was  kept,  and  only  changed  its  place.  It 
could  never  grow  old,  for  it  was  the  witness  of  the 
past  victorious  divine  guidance,  as  well  as  the 
pledge  of  Jehovah's  faithfulness  and  might.  With 
it,  all  the  historical  facts  bound  up  with  it  became 
associated  with  the  temple ;  it  was  the  historical 
tie  between  the  old  and  new  sanctuary,  between 
the  two  periods  of  the  tent  and  the  house  (see 
Introd.  §  3),  making  the  latter  the  immediate  sequel 
to  the  former. 

4.  The  filling  of  the  house  with  Jehovah's  glory, 
made  manifest  to  the  senses  by  the  cloud,  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  econ- 
omy, inasmuch  as  it  bore,  compared  with  the  New 
Testament  economy,  a  bodily  form,  and  in  it  the 
entire  human-divine  relation,  as  it  comes  to  its  ex- 


pression in  a  cultus,  assumed  shapes  perceptible  to 
the  senses.  As  Jehovah,  in  the  old  covenant, 
chose  a  visible  dwelling  amongst  his  people,  in  to- 
ken of  their  election,  so  also  He  verified  His  pres- 
ence in  this  dwelling  in  a  way  cognizant  to  the 
senses,  that  is,  through  the  cloud,  which  is  the  me- 
dium and  sign  of  His  manifestation,  not  only  here, 
but  all  through  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  xvi.  10; 
xx.  21;  xxiv.  15,  16;  xxxiv.  5;  xl.  34;  Lev.  xvi. 
2 ;  Numb.  xi.  25 ;  xii.  5 ;  Isai.  vi.  3,  4 ;  Ezek.  i.  4, 
28;  x.  3,  4;  Ps.  xviii.  10-12).  But  the  cloud  is 
not  so  well  suited  for  this  purpose,  because  it  ex- 
ists far  above,  in  heaven,  which  is  Jehovah's  pecu- 
liar dwelling  (Prov.  viii.  28 ;  Ps.  lxxxix.  7  ;  Job 
xxxv.  5),  and  is  also,  as  it  were,  His  chariot  (Ps. 
civ.  3) ;  but  rather  because,  as  its  name  6hows,  its 
nature  is  to  conceal  and  veil,  so  that  cloud  and 
darkness  are   synonymous  words.      "py,  cloud, 

named  from  the  covering  of  the  heavens  "  (Gese- 

nius);  ?B"I5J,  "thick  darkness,"  comes  from  f\"\]l, 

drop  down  dew  (Deut.  xxxiii.  28),  and  means  lit- 
erally cloud-night;  ay  from  ay?,  to  darken,  some- 
times means  thick  darkness,  sometimes  cloud  (Ex. 
xix.  9;  Ps.  xviii.  12;  Job  xxxvi.  29;  xxxvii.  11, 
16).  The  cloud  is,  on  account  of  its  darkness,  the 
mode  of  manifestation  of  Jehovah  and  of  His  glory, 
and  the  throne  on  which  His  presence  was  con- 
centrated within  the  dwelling  stood  in  the  back 
part,  which  was  perfectly  dark.  Even  the  high- 
priest,  when  he  entered  once  a  year  into  this  dark 
place,  covered  the  throne  besides  with  a  cloud  of 
incense,  "  that  he  died  not "  (Lev.  xvi.  2,  13).  When 
Moses  prayed,  I  beseech  Thee,  show  me  Thy  glory  I 
he  received  the  answer :  Thou  canst  not  see  my 
face,  for  there  shall  no  man  see  me  and  live  ;  but 
Jehovah  then  came  down  in  the  cloud  to  manifest 
himself  to  him  (Ex.  xxxiii.  18,  20;  xxxiv.  5  sq.). 
Nebuld,  says  an  old  commentator,  deus  se  et  reprae- 
sentabat  et  velabat.  The  cloud  is  then,  on  one 
hand,  the  heaven-descended  sign  of  the  presence 
of  the  self-manifesting  God ;  on  the  other  hand,  it 
declares  that  God  in  His  being,  spiritually  and 
ethically,  is  so  far  above,  and  different  from  all 
other  beings,  that  man,  in  his  sinful  and  mortal 
nature,  cannot  comprehend  Him  nor  endure  the 
sight  of  Him.  Gorres  rightly  says  (Mythenge- 
schichte  II.  s.  507) :  "  It  is  the  distinguishing  char- 
acteristic of  the  genius  of  the  Mosaic  fundamental 
view,  that  it  veils  the  Deity  far  off  from  the  teme- 
rity of  the  exploring  reason,  just  as  it  chastely 
and  abstemiously  forbids  polluting  Him  with  the 
sensuous  dreams  of  the  imagination."  The  God 
of  the  Old  Testament  manifests  Himself  to  man 
through  word  and  deed,  yet  ever  remains  at  infin- 
ite distance  above  him,  so  that  when  he  strives  to 
overstep  the  creature-limits  of  his  nature  he  must 
perish.  Quemadmodum,  says  Abarbanel  (in  Bux- 
torf,  hist,  areas  foed.,  cap.  11),  lucem  solis  propter 
summura  ejus  splendorem  et  claritatem  oculus  humanus 
non  potest  videre,  quamvis  causa  sit,  ut  res  videantur ; 
et  sihomo proprius  etfixe  eumintueri  velit,  oculisejus 
percutiuntur  et  hebetantur,  ut  nee  illud  amplius  videre 
queat,  qziod  alias  videre  potuii :  sic  non  pioiest  mteU 
lectus  humanus  apprehendere  deum  secundum  veru 
latem  suam,  et  si  terminum  suum  egrediatur,  ip- 
prehensio  ejus  confunditur  aut  moritur  (cf.  1  Timothy 
vi.  16). 

5.   The  dedication  prayer,  which  belongs  to  the 
finest  pieces  of  the  Old  Testament,  received  a  high 


104 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


significance  through  the  fact  that  the  person  who 
offered  it,  did  so  in  his  highest  official  character 
and  rank,  as  king  and  head  of  the  theocracy,  and 
in  view  of  the  whole  people,  on  an  occasion  (see 
above  on  chap.  vi.  1)  which  formed  an  epoch  in  the 
theocracy.  This,  then,  is  not  the  prayer  of  a  private 
person,  upon  a  private  matter,  but  one  offered  in 
the  name  of  the  whole  nation,  and  about  a  subject 
which  formed  the  central  point  of  its  worship,  and 
therefore  touched  its  highest  interests.  It  did  not 
spring  from  individual  religious  views,  but  from 
the  religious  consciousness  of  the  whole  commu- 
nity, and  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  public 
and  solemn  confession  of  faith,  inasmuch  as  it 
brings  to  light  the  chief  and  fundamental  truths 
of  the  Old  Testament  religion  which  peculiarly 
distinguished  it  from  all  others.  There  is  not  a 
prayer  to  be  compared  with  this  in  all  pre-Chris- 
tian antiquity.  Had  we  nothing  belonging  to  Jew- 
ish antiquity  but  this  prayer,  it  would  alone  suffice 
to  attest  the  depth,  the  purity,  and  the  truth  of 
the  Israelitish  knowledge  of  God  and  of  salvation, 
over  against  the  religious  ideas  of  all  other 
peoples. 

6.  Prominent  beyond  all  else  in  this  prayer  are  the 
expressions  respecting  the  being  of  God,  especially  in 
Bis  relations  to  the  temple.  At  the  beginning  (ver.  23) 
God  is  addressed  as  He  with  whom  nothing  can  be 
compared,  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth ;  as  the 
Being  who  is  above  and  beyond  the  world,  and 
therefore  the  only  God ;  and  it  is  emphatically  con- 
fessed (ver.  27)  that  no  house  built  by  man  can 
contain  Him  in  His  infinitude  and  omnipresence. 
This  was  the  most  decisive  refutation  of  all  an- 
thropomorphistic  representations  of  God,  such  as 
heathenism  made  in  its  temples  (see  above),  and 
which  it  might  seek  to  associate  with  Jehovah's 
dwelling,  now  no  longer  a  movable  tent,  but  an 
abiding  house.  At  the  same  time,  this  infinite, 
only  God  is  most  explicitly  praised  as  Israel's  God, 
».  «.,  as  the  God  who  had  chosen  Israel  out  of  all 
peoples  to  be  His  inheritance,  had  shown  Himself 
to  them  in  word  and  deed,  and  entered  into  a  co- 
venant with  them,  as  a  pledge  of  which  He  took 
up  His  dwelling  in  their  midst.  This  confession 
of  a  personal,  living  God  presents  the  strongest 
contrast  to  every  pantheistic  representation  of  the 
being  of  God,  such  as  the  higher  wisdom  of  hea- 
thendom, identifying  God  and  the  world,  imagined, 
and  of  which,  most  unjustly,  the  effort  has  been 
made  to  discover  a  soupcon  in  Solomja's  words  in 
ver.  27.  The  Israelitish  idea  of  God  ktows  noth- 
ing of  a  contradiction  between  the  supernal,  infi- 
nite, and  absolute  being  of  God,  and  His  entering 
into  creaturely,  finite,  and  limited  being.  Just 
because  He  is  infinite  and  unsearchable,  He  can 
communicate  with  the  finite ;  and  because  He  is 
everywhere,  He  can  be  peculiarly  present  in  one 
place,  centring  His  presence,  and  displaying  His 
glory  (absolute  sublimity).  Heaven  is  His  throne, 
and  earth  His  footstool,  therefore  no  house  built 
by  man  can  be  His  permanent  place  of  rest  (Isai. 
Ixvi.  1);  but  as  He  dwells  in  heaven,  so  He  can 
dwell  on  earth;  "  for  thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty 
one  that  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  name  is  Holy : 
I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place,  with  him  [also] 
that  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit  "  (Isai.  lvii. 
15).  "Behold,  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  hea- 
vens is  the  Lord's,  the  earth  also,  with  all  that 
therein  is.  Only  the  Lord  had  a  delight  of  thy 
fathers  to  love  them,  and  He  chose  their  seed  after 


them,  even  you  above  all  people"  (Deut.  x.  14 
«</.).  "  For  Him  nothing  is  too  great  and  nothing 
too  small,  nothing  is  too  high  and  nothing  too  low, 
that  He  cannot  set  His  name  there"  (vers.  16,  29, 
chap.  xi.  36;  xiv.  11),  i.  e.,  manifest  Himself  at 
and  through  it,  without  ceasing  to  fill  heaven  and 
earth.  To  confess  and  pray  to  Him  as  such  a 
God  means  to  "  confess  His  name  "  (vers.  35,  41,  43). 
His  covenant  relation  to  Israel,  and  the  consequent 
dwelling  in  the  midst  of  that  people,  are  not  at  all 
inconsistent  with  his  infinitude  and  unsearchable- 
ness,  but  rather  were  the  means  by  which  He 
could  be  known  as  the  one,  true,  and  living  God. 
The  expression  touching  the  infinite  grandeur  of 
God's  being  is  followed  by  this:  "who  keepest 
covenant  and  mercy  with  Thy  servants  that,"  &c. 
The  God,  with  whom  nothing  in  heaven  or  earth 
could  be  compared,  has  manifested  and  revealed 
Himself  to  Israel  as  a  moral  being;  the  covenant 
which  He  has  made  with  them  is  of  a  purely  ethi- 
cal nature,  for  it  is  the  law  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28 ;  Deut. 
iv.  13),  the  revealed  will  of  God,  and  rests  on  the 
grace  of  election;  it  is  a  covenant  of  grace.  He 
who  gave  the  law,  and  will  have  it  kept,  is  also 
mercifui  •'nd  gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant 
in  goodness  <ind  truth  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6).  The  knowl- 
edge of  this  gives  the  key -tone  to  the  whole  prayer; 
all  trust  and  hope  of  an  answer  is  rooted  in  it. 
But  heathenism,  which  in  its  deepest  grounds  is 
nature-religion,  knows  nothing  of  this ;  the  God 
of  Israel  is  the  only  absolute  holy  one,  and  there- 
fore the  alone  true. 

7.  Tlie  general  substance  of  the  prayer  is  that  Je- 
hovah might  liear  all  those  who  should  call  on  Him 
here  for  help  or  deliverance  from  any  need.  But 
the  answer  is  not  expected  by  any  mere  outward 
coming  or  turning  to  the  place  of  His  presence, 
but  by  the  knowledge,  that  all  distress  is  caused  by 
the  turning  away  from  Jehovah  and  His  laws,  that  is, 
by  sin.  Answer,  with  regard  to  deliverance,  must 
rest  therefore  upon  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  has 
again  as  its  prerequisite  repentance  and  return, 
i.  e.,  conversion  to  Jehovah.  This  is  why  the  pe- 
tition :  forgive  the  sin !  (vers.  30,  34,  36,  39,  50)  is 
repeated  in  the  several  prayers  for  deliverance  from 
a  state  of  suffering.  Universal  sinfulness  is  not  only 
expressly  asserted  (ver.  46),  but  the  living  con- 
sciousness of  it  is  interwoven  with  the  whole  prayer. 
This  is  the  more  characteristic,  as  it  was  not  a 
penitential  ceremony  at  which  the  prayer  was  of- 
fered, but  a  j  iyful  thanksgiving-festival,  and  it 
was  offered  by  a  king  who  was  the  wisest  of  his 
time,  and  had  reached  the  summit  of  power  and 
prosperity  (chap.  v.  1,  11).  From  this  we  see  how 
firmly  that  consciousness  was  rooted  in  the  people 
Israel,  and  how  inseparably  it  was  united  with 
all  their  religious  views.  Such  a  thing  is  found  in 
no  other  nation  of  the  ancient  world,  because  none 
of  them  knew  the  God  whose  name  is  Holy  (Isai. 
lvii.  15),  i.  e.,  who  had  revealed  Himself  to  Hi3 
people  as  the  Holy  one,  and  whose  covenant  with 
them  bore  this  inscription :  Ye  shall  be  holy  for  I 
am  holy  (Levit.  xi.  44).  When  God  is  known  as 
the  absolutely  Holy,  and  the  sanctifier,  man  ap- 
pears in  contrast  as  a  sinner,  and  the  more  liv- 
ing the  knowledge,  the  more  living  is  the  con- 
sciousness of  sinfulness.  No  man  can  confess  the 
name  of  God,  which  is  the  name  of  holiness,  who 
does  not  know  himself  to  be  a  sinner;  acknowl- 
edging his  sin  he  gives  God,  the  Holy  One,  glory 
Hence  min  (ver-  33)  means  just  an  much,  to  cod 


CHAPTER  VIII.   1-66. 


105 


fess  his  sin  to  Jehovah,  as  to  give  him  praise  (Ps. 
xxxii.  5 ;  liv.  8). 

8.  Much  as  it  is  insisted  on  through  the  whole 
prayer,  and  its  acceptance  grounded  in  the  fact,  that 
Jehovah  is  the  God  of  Israel,  and  has  chosen  that 
people  from  all  nations  of  the  earth  (rer.  51-53),  yet 
the  purpose  of  this  election,  namely  "  that  all  people 
of  the  earth  may  know  Jehovah's  name,"  and  "  fear 
Him  as  do  His  people  Israel "  (ver.  43),  is  also  very 
clearly  set  forth.  The  prayer  that  Jehovah  may 
ever  hear  the  strangers  also,  who  come  from  dis- 
tant lands  and  do  not  belong  to  His  people,  when 
they  call  upon  Him  here ;  this  prayer,  we  say,  re- 
ceives peculiar  importance  when  Solomon,  in  his 
blessing  at  the  end  of  the  whole  festivity,  alludes 
once  more  to  the  grand  end  designed :  "  that  all 
the  people  of  the  earth  may  know  that  the  Lord  is 
God,  and  that  there  is  none  else  "  (ver.  60).  It  is 
therefore  hoped  of  the  Temple,  the  central  sanc- 
tuary of  the  one  true  God,  that  the  knowledge  and 
worship  of  this  God  should  spread  forth  from  it 
among  all  nations  of  the  earth ;  and  it  is  very  re- 
markable, that  what  the  prophets  declared  no  less 
distinctly  afterwards,  was  pronounced  here  so 
explicitly,  at  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  (cf. 
Isai.  ii.  3;  lvi.  7;  Ix.  2  sq. ;  Jer.  iii.  17;  Mic. 
iv.  2  sq. ;  Zech.  viii.  20  sq.).  Thus  the  prophet- 
ical element,  that  element  which  formed  so  es- 
sential and  important  a  part  of  Old-Testament 
religion,  is  not  absent  from  the  prayer.  The  com- 
mon talk  of  vulgar  rationalism,  about  Jehovah 
being  only  a  God  of  the  Jews  and  of  their  land, 
appears  in  all  its  emptiness  and  folly  when  con- 
trasted with  the  official  (to  a  certain  degree)  ac- 
knowledgment of  Israel's  world-wide  mission,  and 
which  acknowledgment  was  made  on  a  most  so- 
lemn occasion. 

9.  In  its  form  and  breadth,  the  prayer  of  Sol- 
omon is  a  genuine  public  or  common  prayer ;  it 
wears  a  completely  objective  character;  the  views, 
wishes,  and  wants  of  individuals,  as  expressed, 
for  instance,  in  the  prayer  of  chap.  iii.  6-9,  are 
here  left  quite  in  the  back-ground,  while  the  com- 
mon wants  of  the  whole  people  occupy  the  fore- 
ground. Solomon,  as  the  head  and  representative 
of  the  whole  nation,  does  not  pray  from  his  own 
faith  and  consciousness,  but  from  those  of  the 
collected  nation.  First,  praise  and  thanksgiving ; 
then  follow  the  various  petitions  and  intercessory 
prayers;  lastly,  an  appeal  to  the  grace  hitherto 
vouchsafed,  for  a  pledge  of  acceptance  and  the 
promised  succor.  Both  the  language  and  modes 
of  expression  have  the  genuine  ring  of  prayer. 
God  is  not  preached  to  nor  addressed  nor  taught, 
but  prayed  to.  A  firm  trusting  faith,  a  holy  moral 
earnestness,  unfeigned  humility,  and  great  simpli- 
city breathe  through  the  whole,  while  with  these 
there  is  united  a  fervor  which  shows  the  deepest 
emotion ;  in  short  we  feel  that  this  prayer  was  not 
composed  among  the  soft  cushions  of  the  palace, 
but  on  the  knees.  In  this  respect  it  may  be  re- 
garded, at  the  present  day,  as  a  model  of  a  general 
church-prayer.  This  seems  to  have  been  more  or 
less  the  case  in  earlier  times ;  as  for  example,  the 
so-called  Litany,  with  its  intercessions  and  re- 
sponses,— Hear  us,  0  Lord  God !  has  the  ring  of 
our  dedication  prayer  (vers.  32,  34,  36,  39,  43, 
45,  49). 

10.  In  the  concluding  speech  following  the  prayer 
Bolomon  desires  for  the  people  the  help  of  God, 
that  they  may  accomplish  the  world-wide  design 


of  their  mission — the  spreading  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  one  true  God  among  all  nations.  He 
founds  the  hope  that  Jehovah  will  assist  him,  on 
the  fulfilment  of  all  the  promises,  already  expe- 
rienced, made  to  the  people,  of  which  the  building 
of  the  Temple  as  a  firm  dwelling  of  Jehovah  had 
given  practical  witness ;  he  therefore  begins  the 
benediction  with  praise  of  the  divine  faithfulness; 
but  he  limits  the  attainment  of  their  mission  to 
the  condition  that  they  should  persevere  in  keep- 
ing God's  laws.  Thenius  remarks  forcibly  on  this 
subject :  "  How  seemly  and  truly  edifying  it  is 
that  God's  help  is  specially  implored  for  the  pur- 
poses of  ordinary  life  (ver.  58),  and  that  the  wish 
that  men  may  find  an  answer  to  prayers  for  tempo- 
ral aid  (ver.  59),  has  for  its  end  increased  knowledge 
of  the  one  true  God  (ver.  60)." 

11.  The  great  seven  days'  feast  of  the  sacrifices 
connected  with  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  is  not 
to  be  looked  on  as  a  mere  thanksgiving  feast.     The 

D'OT"'  which  were  brought  in  such  unusual  num- 
bers, and  formed  tho  principal  sacrifices,  were  by 
no  means  only  thank  and  praise  offerings,  but  also 
vow-offerings.  The  peculiar  and  characteristic 
mark  of  this  kind  of  sacrifice,  which  distinguished 
it  from  the  others,  and  in  which  their  ritual  culmi- 
nated, was  the  sacrificial  meals,  in  which  the  whole 
family  of  the  sacrificers,  even  man-servants  and 
maid-servants — the  whole  house,  took  part  (Lev.  vii. 
15  si/. ;  Deut.  xii.  17  sq.) ;  it  was  a  common  meal. 
As  eating  at  one  table  is  a  sign  of  communion  and 
united  feeling  (Matt.  viii.  11 ;  Gal.  ii.  12  ;  Gen.  xliii. 
32),  so  the  sacrificial  meal  was  the  sign  of  religious 
unity  of  those  who  eat,  among  each  other  as  well 
as  with  the  Deity,  to  whom  the  sacrifice  belonged, 
and  at  whose  table  it  was  eaten  in  common  (cf.  1 
Cor.  x.  18  sq.,  and  in  general  Symbolik  des  Mos. 
Kultus,  xi.  s.  373  sq.).  When  therefore  the  king, 
and  with  him  the  whole  people,  held  sacrificial 
meals  during  seven  days,  at  the  Temple-dedica- 
tion, they  celebrated  and  sealed,  in  doing  so,  both 
their  union  with  Jehovah  and  with  each  other ; 
thus  the  dedication  of  the  Temple,  the  central  point 
of  all  religious  life  in  Israel,  became  also  a  covenant- 
festival. 


HOMILETICAl  AND  PRACTICAL. 

The  dedication  of  the  Temple,  (a)  The  bringing 
in  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  to  the  Holy  of  Holies, 
vers.  1-13.  (b)  The  speech,  prayer,  and  benediction 
of  the  King,  vers.  14-61.  (c)  Great  sacrificial  so- 
lemnity of  the  entire  people,  vers.  62-66. 

Vers.  1-9.  The  solemn  procession  to  the  new 
Temple,  (a)  Its  aim  and  signification  (it  was  the 
Ark  of  the  Covenant,  because  in  it  was  the  Law — 
i.  e.,  the  covenant,  the  very  Soul  of  the  Sanctuary, 
vide  Historical  and  Critical,  3).  We  have  in  the 
new  covenant  not  only  the  Law  but  the  GospeL 
which  is  everlasting,  1  Pet.  i.  25.  Where  His 
Word  is,  there  the  Lord  dwells  and  is  enthroned ; 
it  is  the  soul  of  every  house  of  God,  and  indeed 
gives  it  its  consecration ;  without  it,  every  church 
is  dead  and  empty,  whatsoever  may  be  the  prayers 
and  praises  offered  therein ;  hence  at  the  conse- 
cration of  a  ^.zurch  it  is  customary  to  bring  it  in 
in  solemn  procession.  (6)  The  members  of  the  pro- 
cession (the  King  at  its  head,  the  heads  of  tribes, 
the  princes,  the  priests  and   Levites,  the   entire 


106 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


people ;  all  gathered  round  the  ark,  in  which  was 
the  Law,  i.  «.,  the  covenant,  and  by  this  march, 
solemnly  and  significantly  recognizes  the  word  of 
the  Lord ;  no  one,  be  his  position  high  or  low,  is 
ashamed  of  this  public  acknowledgment.  Nothing 
can  be  nobler  than  to  see  a  whole  nation,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest,  gathered  in  unity  round  its 
holiest  possession). — What,  from  an  evangelical 
standpoint,  must  we  think  of  public  processions, 
with  a  religious  object  (Prozessionen)  ? — Wurt. 
Bib.  :  The  consecration  of  a  church  is  a  praise- 
worthy custom.  But  it  should  not  be  done  with 
holy  water,  but  with  the  word  of  God,  with  prayer, 
and  with  thanksgiving. — Pfaff.  Bib.  :  All  men, 
especially  those  of  highest  rank,  ought  to  show 
themselves  zealous  in  God's  service,  and  enlighten 
others  by  their  example. — The  priests  bear  the  ark, 
and  bring  it  to  its  place.  To  be  bearers  of  the  Di- 
vine word,  and  to  set  up  the  mercy-seat  in  the 
House  of  God,  as  Paul  points  out,  Rom.  iii.  24  sq., 
is  truly  the  office  and  the  glory  of  God's  servants, 
Mai.  ii.  7. — Cramer  :  Christ,  the  true  Ark  of  the 
Covenant,  is  the  end  and  fulfilling  of  the  Law.  My 
God  I  may  I,  as  in  an  ark,  preserve  and  guard  thy 
law  1  Ps.  xL  9. — Ter.  6  sq.  The  word  of  the  Lord 
is  under  divine  protection,  the  angels  are  its  guard- 
ians and  watchers ;  it  can  neither  be  destroyed  by 
human  power,  nor  is  it  aided  or  protected  by  men. 

Vers.  10-13.  The  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the 
House,  (a)  What  this  means;  (6) in  what  manner 
it  befell  (v.  Historical  and  Critical,  4). — It  is  impos- 
sible that  mortal,  sinful  man  should  see  or  compre- 
hend the  Holy  and  Infinite  One  (1  Tim.  vi.  16). 
We  see  through  a  glass,  darkly  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12).  1 
can  experience  his  merciful  Presence ;  but  pre- 
sumption and  folly  it  is  to  wish  to  sound  the  depths 
of  His  Being,  Job.  xxxviii ;  Ex.  ii.  33,  20. — Starke  : 
0  soul,  who  finding  thyself  tempted,  and  as  if  in 
darkness  and  gloom,  mournest  that  God  is  far  from 
thee :  ah  I  mark  this  for  thy  comfort,  God  abides 
with  thee  in  darkness,  and  is  thy  light,  Ps.  xxiii.  4: 
xxvii.  1 ;  Is.  lvii.  15. — The  eye  of  faith  beholds  in 
the  darkness  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  in  the  night  of 
the  Cross  the  Light  of  the  World,  through  the  dim 
Teil  of  the  flesh  the  Only  begotten  Son  of  God,  full 
of  mercy  and  grace. 

Vers.  14-21.  The  Speech  of  Solomon  to  the  as- 
sembled people.  He  solemnly  announces,  (a)  that 
the  building  of  the  temple  was  of  the  gracious  will 
and  counsel  of  God,  vers.  15,  16  (with  it  the  lead- 
ing of  Israel  out  of  Egypt  is  come  to  its  end, 
reached  its  final  aim;  the  House  in  place  of  the 
tent  is  the  crowning  act  of  God  to  Israel,  a  clear 
spoken  testimony  to  his  might  and  truth ;  there- 
fore Solomon  begins  his  speech:  Blessed  be,  Sec); 
(b)  that  God  had  called  him  to  the  performance  of 
his  decrees,  vers.  17-21.  (He  announces  the  mercy 
of  God,  in  that  he  allows  him  to  undertake  the  work 
whose  completion  was  denied  to  his  father.  He 
who  understands  a  great,  holy  work  must  be  as- 
sured of  this — that  he  is  not  actuated  by  ambition, 
by  passion  for  glory,  or  by  vanity,  but  that  he  is 
called  therc^-,  by  God,  and  that  it  is  his  sacred 
duty.)  Ver.  14.  After  every  completed  work  per- 
mitted thee  by  the  Lord,  be  it  great  or  small,  let  it 
be  thy  first  care  to  give  Him  the  honor,  and  to  de- 
clare His  praise. — Ver.  15.  I  have  spoken  it  and 
performed  it,  said  the  Lord  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  14). 
What  man  speaks  and  promises,  now  he  cannot 
porform,  again  he  will  not  perform.  Hence  Ps. 
cxviii.  8  —Ver.  16.  The  choice  of  God  is  no  blind 


preference  of  one  and  prejudice  against  another, 
but  aims  at  the  salvation  of  both.  As  from 
amongst  all  nations  he  chose  Israel  for  its  salva- 
tion, so  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  he  chose  the 
City  of  David  for  the  blessing  of  the  whole  king- 
dom.— Vers.  17,  18.  How  many  individuals  as  well 
as  whole  congregations  have  the  means  and  the 
power  wherewith  to  build  a  church,  to  repair  a 
ruinous  one,  or  to  enlarge  one  which  has  become 
too  small ;  but  nothing  can  be  further  from  their 
mind. — He  who  purposes  to  do  a  good  work,  but  ia 
hindered  therein,  not  by  his  own  fault  but  by  di- 
vine decree,  he  has  yet  "  well  done,"  God  regards 
his  intention  as  the  deed  itself. — V.  19.  God  some- 
times, in  His  inscrutable  but  all-wise  councils,  de- 
nies to  His  own  people  the  fulfilment  of  their 
dearest  wishes,  whose  object  may  even  be  the 
glory  of  His  name,  in  order  to  try  their  faith,  and 
exercise  their  submission  and  self-denial. — V.  20 
The  fairest  prerogative  of  him  whom  God  has 
placed  upon  a  throne  is,  that  he  has  power  to  work 
for  the  glory  of  God's  name,  and  to  watch  over  the 
extension  of  the  divine  kingdom  amongst  his  people. 
Every  son  who  succeeds  to  the  inheritance  of  his 
father  should  feel  obliged,  first  of  all,  to  take  up 
the  good  work  whose  completion  was  denied  to 
his  father,  and  perfect  it  with  love  and  zeal. 

Vers.  22-53.  The  dedicatory  prayer  of  Solomon. 
(a)  the  exordium,  vers.  23-26;  (6)  the  prayer,  vers. 
27-50  ;  (c)  the  conclusion,  vers.  51-53. — The  prayer 
of  Solomon  a  witness  to  his  faith  (he  confesses 
the  living,  holy,  and  one  God,  before  all  the  peo- 
ple) ,  to  his  love  (he  bears  His  people  upon  His 
heart,  and  makes  intercession  for  them);  to  his  hope 
(he  hopes  that  all  nations  will  come  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  true  God).  From  Solomon  we  may  learn  how 
we  ought  to  pray :  in  true  reverence  and  humiliation 
before  God,  with  earnestness  and  zeal,  with  ua- 
doubting  confidence  that  we  shall  be  heard. — What 
an  elevating  spectacle,  a  king  upon  his  knees,  pray- 
ing aloud,  in  the  presence  of  his  whole  people,  and  in 
their  behalf  1  Although  the  highest  of  them  all,  he 
is  not  ashamed  to  declare  himself  a  servant  of  God, 
and  to  fall  down  upon  his  knees ;  although  the  wisest 
of  them  all  (chap.  v.  11),  he  prays  as  a  testimony 
that  a  wisdom  which  can  no  longer  pray  is  folly ;  al- 
though the  mightiest  of  all  (chap.  v.  1),  he  confesses 
that  nothing  is  done  by  his  power  alone,  but  that 
the  Lord  is  the  King  Eternal ;  therefore  it  is,  that 
he  does  not  merely  rule  over  his  subjects,  but  as 
an  upright  king  supplicates  and  prays  for  them 
likewise. — Ver.  22  (cf.  ver.  54).  Solomon  stands  be- 
fore the  altar,  bows  the  knee,  stretches  out  his 
hands,  the  people  stand  around,  the  worshippers 
turn  their  faces  towards  the  sanctuary  (vers.  38,  44, 
48).  Outward  forms,  for  the  worship  and  service 
of  God,  are  not  to  be  rejected  when  they  are  the 
natural  unbidden  outflow  of  inward  feeling.  (The 
Lord  himself  and  his  apostles  prayed  upon  their 
knees,  Luke  xxii.  41 ;  Eph.  iii.  14.  No  one  is  so 
exalted  that  he  ought  not  to  bow  his  knee  and 
clasp  his  hands.)  They  (outward  forms)  are  worth- 
less when  they  are  regarded  as  meritorious,  and 
man  puts  his  trust  in  them  (Luke  xviii.  11,  sq.) 
They  are  sinful  and  blameworthy  if  they  are  per- 
formed merely  for  appearance's  sake,  or  to  deceive 
men  (Matt.  vi.  5,  16).  The  Lord  knows  the  hearts  of 
all  men  (ver.  39) ;  one  cannot  serve  the  living  God 
with  dead  works  (Heb.  ix.  14). 

Vers.  23-26.  The  introductory  prayer,  (a)  The 
invocation,  vers.  23,  24.  (Solomon  calls  upon  the 


CHAPTER  HI!.  1-66. 


107 


infinite  God  of  heaven  and  of  earth  as  the  God 
of  Israel,  not  because  he  was  only  the  God  of 
that  nation,  but  because  he  had  revealed  himself 
to  it,  had  spoken  to  it,  and  with  it  had  made  a 
covenant  of  mercy  and  grace,  and  had  kept  this 
covenant.  In  the  new  covenant  we  no  longer 
call  upon  God  as  the  God  of  Israel,  but  as  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (Eph.  i.  3),  be- 
cause he  has  revealed  himself  to  us  through 
Christ,  and  through  Christ  alone  do  we  find  in 
Him  the  true  God,  the  God  of  grace  and  mercy. 
Thus  He  wills  that  we  should  call  upon  Him.) 
(6)  The  supplication  joined  to  this,  vers.  25,  26.  (Let 
thy  promise  be  fulfilled.  It  is  fulfilled,  for  God  has 
sent  that  son  of  David  whose  kingdom  shall  have 
no  end,  Luke  i.  32  sq. ;  Is.  be.  7.  In  the  new  cove- 
nant we  pray  that  God  will  prove  true  the  word 
which  He  has  spoken  to  us,  through  this  Son  of 
David. — Ver.  25.  Covenant  and  mercy  are  no  couch 
of  repose  for  old  men,  but  the  working  energy 
which  keeps  the  path  of  God,  and  walks  in  His 
way. — Ver.  24.  Starke  :  Word  and  deed,  promise 
and  fulfilment,  with  God  go  hand  in  hand.) 

Vers.  27-30.  What  does  Solomon  declare  concern- 
ing the  destination  of  the  house  which  he  had  built 
unto  the  Lord  ?  (a)  But  will  God  indeed,  ic,  ver.  27. 
God  dwells  not,  &c,  Acts  xvii.  24 ;  Is.  lxvi.  1.  He 
is  everywhere,  in  the  heaven  above  as  in  the  earth 
beneath,  in  lonely,  secret  chambers  as  in  grandest 
temples,  Ps.  exxxix.  7  sq. ;  Jer.  xxiii.  23  sq.  But 
he  has  said  :  (6)  My  name  shall  be,  ver.  29.  Where 
His  people  dwells  there  will  He  also  dwell,  and  will 
declare  Himself  to  them  as  the  God  who  is  holy, 
and  will  be  sanctified ;  not  for  His  own  sake,  but 
for  that  of  His  people,  has  He  a  temple  in  their 
midst,  Ex.  ii.  20,  24;  xxvii.  43.  Here  is  His  word 
of  revelation,  here  His  mercy-seat.  Therefore,  (c) 
He  wills  that  here  prayer  shall  be  made  unto  him, 
and  here  He  will  listen  to  those  who  pray.  Ver.  30. 
Every  prayer  offered  to  Him  here  is  a  confession  of 
Him,  of  His  name. — Ver.  27.  Although  the  heaven 
of  heavens  cannot  contain  the  Unmeasurable  and 
Infinite  One,  and  no  building,  how  great  and  noble 
soever,  can  suffice  for  Him,  yet,  in  His  mercy,  He 
will  make  his  dwelling-place  (John  xiv.  23)  in  the 
heart  of  that  man  who  loves  him  and  keeps  his 
word,  and  it  will  truly  become  a  temple  of  God  (1 
Cor.  hi.  16);  He  will  dwell  with  those  who  are  of 
an  humble  spirit  (Is.  lvii.  15  ;  Ps.  cxiii.  5,  6). — Ver. 
29.  The  eye  of  God  looks  upon  every  house  where 
His  name  is  honored,  where  all  with  one  mind  raise 
heart  and  hand  to  Him,  and  call  upon  His  name  (Ps. 
exxi.  4) .  To  every  church  the  saying  is  applicable : 
My  name  shall  be  there  :  the  object  of  every  church 
is  to  be  a  dwelling-place  of  divine  revelation,  t.  e., 
if  the  revealed  Word  of  God,  in  which,  upon  the 
strength  of  that  Word,  worship,  praise,  and  prayer 
shall  be  offered  to  the  name  of  the  Lord. — Ver.  30. 
The  houses  of  God,  above  all  else,  must  be  houses 
of  prayer  (Is.  lvi.  7);  they  are  desecrated  if  devo- 
ted merely  to  worldly  purposes  of  any  kind  what- 
soever instead  of  being  used  for  prayer  and  sup- 
plication.— The  hearing  of  prayer  does  not  indeed 
depend  upon  the  place  where  it  is  offered  (John  iv. 
20  sq.),  but  prayer  should  have  an  appointed  place, 
where  we  can  present  ourselves,  even  as  God  wills 
that  together  with  one  voice  we  humbly  exalt  His 
Dame  (Rom.  xv.  6 ;  Ps.  xxxiv.  4).  Where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  His  name  He  is  in 
their  midst ;  how  much  more  will  He  be  where  a 
whole  congregation  is  assembled  to  call  upon  Him. 


Vers.  31-50.  The  seven  petitions  of  the  prayei 
teach  us,  (a)  in  all  necessity  of  body  and  soul  to 
turn  to  the  Lord  who  alone  can  help,  and  call  upon 
Him  with  earnestness  and  zeal  (Ps.  1.  15;  xci.  14, 
15);  (6)  in  all  our  straits  to  recognize  the  whole- 
some discipline  of  an  holy  and  just  God,  who  will 
show  us  the  good  way  in  which  we  must  walk  (Ps. 
xciv.  12;  Heb.  xii.  5  sq.);  (c)  to  confess  our  sins 
and  to  implore  forgiveness,  in  order  that  we  may  be 
heard  (Ps.  xxxii.  1,  6,  7) ;  (d)  not  only  for  ourselves 
but  also  for  others,  in  their  time  of  need,  should  we 
pray  and  supplicate,  even  as  the  king  does  here 
for  all  individual  men  and  for  his  entire  people. — 
Vers.  31,  32.  First  Petition.  We  may  and  must  call 
upon  God  to  help  the  innocent  man  to  his  rights 
(Ps.  xxvi.  1),  and,  even  here  in  this  world,  to  reward 
the  evil  man  according  to  his  deserts. — Starke:  It 
is  allowable  for  a  pious  man  to  entreat  God  to  ad- 
minister his  just  cause;  yet  must  he  not  wish  evil 
to  his  neighbor  in  mere  human  vindictiveness  (Ps. 
cix.  1  sq.).  The  oath  is  a  prayer,  a  solemn  invo- 
cation of  God  in  testimony  of  the  trutli ;  the  false 
oath  is  not  merely  a  lie  but  an  insolent  mockery  of 
God,  and  God  will  not  be  mocked  (Gal.  vi.  7  ;  Ex. 
xx.  7). — Bear  in  mind  when  thou  swearest  that 
thou  art  standing  before  the  altar,  i.  e.,  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  the  Holy  and  Just  God,  who  can 
condemn  body  and  soul  to  hell. — Where  the  oath 
is  no  longer  held  sacred  there  the  nation  and  the 
State  go  to  ruin  (Zech.  viii.  16  sq.). — Vers.  33,  34. 
Second  Petition.  A  victorious  enemy  is  the  whip 
and  scourge  with  which  the  Lord  chastises  a  na- 
tion, so  that  it  may  awake  out  of  sleep,  confess  its 
sins,  turn  unto  Him,  and  learn  anew  its  forgotten 
prayers  and  supplications. — To  those  who  are  taken 
captive  in  war,  and  far  from  fatherland  must 
dwell  beneath  a  foreign  yoke,  appUes  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  Luke  xiii.  2.  Therefore  they  who  are  pros- 
pering in  their  native  country  must  pray  for  them, 
believing  in  the  words  of  Ps.  cxlvi.  7. — Vers.  35,  36. 
Third  Petition. — Inasmuch  as  fruitful  seasons, 
instead  of  leading  to  repentance,  as  being  proofs 
of  God's  goodness,  so  often  tend  to  create  pride, 
haughtiness,  and  light-mindedness,  therefore  the 
Lord  sometimes  shuts  up  His  heavens.  But  then 
we  should  murmur  not  against  him,  but  against  our 
own  sins  (Lam.  iii.  39),  and  confess  that  all  human 
care  and  toil  for  obtaining  food  out  of  the  earth 
is  in  vain  if  He  give  not  rain  out  of  heaven,  and 
fruitful  seasons. — Starke  :  Fine  weather  is  not 
brought  about  by  the  means  of  processions,  but  by 
true  repentance  and  heartfelt  prayer,  Lev.  xxvi.  3, 4. 
— When  God  humbles  us,  He  thus  directs  us  to  the 
good  way  (Ps.  cxix.  67  ;  Deut.  v.  8,  ii.  3). — Vers.  37- 
40.  Fourth  Petition.  Divine  judgments  and  means 
of  discipline  are  very  various  in  their  kind,  their 
degree,  and  their  duration.  God  in  his  wisdom 
and  justice  metes  out  to  a  whole  people,  as  to 
each  individual  man,  such  measure  of  suffering 
as  is  needed  for  its  salvation,  for  He  knows  the 
hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men,  and  He  tries  no 
man  beyond  his  power  of  endurance;  He  hearkens 
to  him  who  calls  upon  Him  in  distress  (2  Sam.  xxii. 
7  ;  Ps.  xxxiv.  18 ;  Is.  xxvi.  16). — Distress  teaches  us 
how  to  pray,  but  often  only  so  long  as  it  is 
present  with  us.  God  looks  upon  our  heart,  and 
knows  whether  our  prayer  is  a  mere  passing  emo- 
tion, or  whether  we  have  truly  turned  to  Him 
How  entirely  different  would  our  prayers  often 
sound  if  we  reflected  that  we  are  addressing  Him 
who  knows  our  heart,  with  its  most  secret  and 


103 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


mysterious  thoughts,  expectations,  and  wishes. 
The  effect  of  an  answer  to  our  prayers  must  be 
that  we  fear  the  Lord,  and  walk  in  His  ways,  not 
only  in  the  time  of  need  and  trouble,  but  at  all 
times,  as  long  as  we  live.  It  is  a  priceless  thing 
that  the  heart  remains  constant. — Ver.  41—43.  Fifth 
Petition.  Even  as  Solomon  bore  witness  that 
the  house  which  he  had  built  could  not  encompass 
Him  whom  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain, 
so  likewise  he  testified  that  the  covenant  made  by 
God  with  Israel  did  not  exclude  all  other  nations 
from  salvation,  but  rather  aimed  at  leading  all  men 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  If  a  Solomon  prayed 
for  the  attainment  of  this  object,  how  much  more 
does  it  become  us  to  pray  for  the  conversion  of  the 
heathen,  and  do  our  utmost  that  the  people  who 
sit  in  darkuess  and  in  the  shadow  of  death  may 
come  to  Him,  a  light  set  by  God  before  all  nations 
to  lighten  the  heathen  ( Luke  ii.  31,  sq.).  He 
who  desires  to  know  nothing  of  missions  to  the 
heathen  fails  to  know  the  God  who  wills  that 
help  should  be  given  to  all  men,  and  that  all  should 
come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  (1  Tim.  ii.  4). — 
Solomon  hoped  that  the  heathen,  when  they  heard 
the  great  deeds  which  the  Lord  did  in  Israel,  would 
turn  to  that  God;  how  much  stronger  becomes 
this  hope  when  the  infinitely  greater  scheme  of 
salvation  in  Christ  Jesus  is  declared  to  them !  But 
how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?  How  shall 
they  preach  if  they  are  not  sent?  (Rom.  x.  14  sq.). — 
The  acknowledgment  of  the  name  of  God  necessa- 
rily causes  the  fear  of  God.  If  an  individual,  or 
an  entire  nation,  be  wanting  in  the  latter,  they  will 
also  lack  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  let  them  boast 
as  they  will  of  enlightenment  and  enlightened  re- 
ligious ideas. — Vers.  44,  45.  Sixth  Petition.  A 
people  who  undertake  war  should,  above  all,  be  sure 
that  it  is  under  the  guidance  of  God.  That  alone 
is  a  just  war  which  is  undertaken  with  God's 
help,  and  in  the  cause  of  God,  of  truth,  and  of 
justice. — A  host  going  forth  to  battle  should  re- 
member this:  Nothing  can  be  done  in  our  own 
strength,  we  are  soon  quite  ruined  I  ( Ps.  xxxiii.  16 
sq.)  and  thereupon  we  should  pray  and  entreat  the 
Lord,  from  whom  alone  proceeds  victory  (Prov. 
21,  31;  Ps.  cxlvii.  10  sq.). — Vers.  46-50.  Seventh 
Petition.  Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation,  but  sin 
is  a  reproach  to  any  people  (  Prov.  xiv.  34 ).  Thus 
the  people  Israel  is  a  living  example  for  all 
times,  as  a  warning  and  as  an  admonition  ( 1  Cor. 
x.  11). — The  Lord  has  patience  with  each  person, 
as  also  with  whole  peoples  and  governments,  for 
He  knows  "there  is  no  man  who  is  not  sinful." 
But  when  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  patience, 
and  long-suffering  are  despised,  and  a  nation  given 
over  to  hardness  of  heart  and  impenitence  (Rom. 
ii.  4  sq.),  He  casts  it  away  from  before  His  face, 
and  wipes  it  out  as  a  man  wipeth  a  dish  (2  Kings 
xxi.  13),  so  that  it  ceases  to  be  a  people  and  a  king- 
dom. The  world's  history  is  the  world's  final 
doom.  The  wrath  of  God  towards  all  ungodly 
conduct  of  men  is  not  a  mere  biblical  form  of 
Bpeech,  but  a  fearful  truth,  which  he  who  hearkens 
not  will  learn  by  experience. — The  saying:  There 
is  no  man  who  sinneth  not,  must  not  be  misused 
to  apologize  for  sin  as  a  natural  weakness;  it 
should  rather  warn  and  exhort  us  that  we  must 
not  give  the  reins  to  that  will  which  lieth  even 
at  the  door,  but  rule  over  it  (Gen.  i.  4,  7);  for  he 
who  committeth  sin  is  the  slave  of  siu  (John 
viii.  34). — The  confession  :    We  have  sinned,  Ac, 


must  come  from  the  depths  of  ihe  heart,  and 
must  be  in  connection  with  the  conversion  of 
the  whole  soul  to  the  Lord ;  for  he  alone  can 
obtain  forgiveness  of  all  his  sins  in  whose  spirit 
there  is  no  guile  (Ps.  xxxii.  2).  But  how  often, 
in  days  of  fasting  and  humiliation,  is  this  confes- 
sion made  only  with  the  lips  I  How,  then,  can  a 
man  hope  for  mercy  and  forgiveness  through  the 
hearingof  prayer  ? — The  Lord  who  guides  the  hearts 
of  men  as  water-courses  can  bestow  upon  our 
enemies  a  forgiving  and  merciful  heart,  even  as 
Israel  experienced.  For  this,  and  not  for  the  de- 
struction of  our  enemies,  we  ought  to  pray. — Vers. 
51-53.  In  the  midst  of  our  cries  and  prayers  we 
should  remember  how  dearly  the  Lord  has  purchased 
us  for  His  own,  by  the  blood  of  His  son  (Rom.  viii. 
32 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  20 ;  Rev.  v.  9).  The  grace  of  God 
in  Christ  is  the  foundation  of  our  assurance  that 
the  Lord  will  deliver  us  from  all  tribulation  and 
sorrow,  and  will  lead  us  to  his  heavenly  kingdom. 
For  this  do  we  close  our  prayers  with  the  words : 
For  the  sake  of  thine  eternal  love. — Starke:  God 
does  not  leave  his  people  in  the  furnace  of  misery, 
but  always  guides  them  forth  from  it  (Job  iii.  22).— 
Our  prayers,  from  beginning  to  end,  must  be  ground- 
ed on  the  divine  promises  (2  Sam.  vii.  25). 

Vers.  54-61.  Solomon's  final  address  to  the 
people  contains  a  psalm  of  praise  (ver.  56),  a  wish 
for  a  blessing  (vers.  57-60),  and  a  warning  (ver. 
61). — Ver.  5<j.  It  is  a  gift  of  God,  for  which 
we  must  thank  and  praise  him,  if  we  can  lead  a 
quiet  and  peaceful  life,  in  all  godliness  and  honesty 
(1  Tim.  ii.  2). — The  rest  which  God  promises  to 
his  people  and  has  granted  unto  them,  under  Sol- 
omon the  peaceful  prince,  was  merely  a  temporal 
one.  But  we  have  this  good  saying  :  There  re- 
maineth  a  rest  for  the  people  of  God  (Heb.  iv.  9). 
This  word  will  not  fail  if  we  do  not  harden  our 
hearts,  if  we  hear  his  voice,  and  strive  assiduously 
to  attain  to  that  rest,  where  God  shall  wipe  away, 
&c.  (Rev.  xxi.  4). — Vers.  57,  58.  The  aid  and  bless- 
ing of  God  have  no  other  object  than  to  turn  thy 
heart  to  Him,  that  thou  mayest  walk  in  His  way 
He  only  forsakes  those  who  have  forsaken  Him 
(Ps.  ix.  11).— All  keeping  of  the  commandments, 
all  mere  morality,  without  submission  of  the  heart 
to  God,  is  worthless — a  mere  shell  without  the 
kernel. — Vers.  59,  60.  The  words  which  rise  out 
of  the  depths  of  the  heart  to  God  reach  Him  and 
abide  with  Him;  He  forgets  them  not  (Rev.  viii. 
3,  4). — That  the  Lord  is  God,  and  none  other,  seems 
nowhere  more  conspicuous  than  in  the  choosing 
and  leading  of  the  people  Israel,  in  which  He 
has  revealed  Himself  in  His  might  and  glory,  in 
His  holiness  and  justice,  His  faithfulness  and 
mercy  (Ps.  cxlv.  3-12).  No  better  proof  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  one  living  God  than  the  history  of 
Israel. 

Ver.  61.  The  best  and  greatest  wish  which 
a  king  can  form  for  his  people,  a  father  for 
his  children,  a  pastor  for  his  flock,  is:  May  your 
heart  be  righteous,  i.  e.,  whole  and  undivided  be- 
fore the  Lord  our  God.  He  who  elects  to  side  with 
Him  must  do  so  wholly  and  entirely;  all  "halting 
between  two  opinions  "  is  an  abomination  to  Him ; 
the  lukewarm  He  will  "  spue  out  of  His  mouth." 
Be  thou  on  the  Lord's  side,  and  He  will  be  with 
thee. 

Vers.  62-66.  The  temple-dedication,  a  thanks- 
giving feast  (ver.  62),  a  covenant  feast  (ver. 
65,  vide  Historical  and  Ethical,  11),  a  feast  of  greaJ 


CHAPTER  IX.  1-28 


109 


gladness  (ver.  66).— WiJRT.  Summ.  :  For  great  bene- 
fits men  should  offer  great  thanksgivings,  and 
indeed  should  prove  their  gratitude  by  promoting 
the  true  service  of  God,  and  by  benevolence  to 
the  poor  and  needy  (Ps.  1.  14). — At  public  thanks- 
giving-feasts there  should  be  not  only  banquets, 
but  prince  and  people,  high  and  low,  rich  and 
poor  should  bow  unto  the  Lord,  to  serve  him  with 
one  accord  and  steadfastly. — "Ver.  63.  So  they 
dedicated,  Ac.  Pfaff:  This  was  indeed  a  holy 
temple-consecration.  0  I  how  entirely  otherwise 
are  those  of  to-day  constituted  in  general,  which 
should  be    abolished    or  reformed    rather    than 


praised,  on  account  of  the  sinful  abuse  which  haa 
gained  the  upper  hand.  Ver.  66.  Even  as  Solo- 
mon blessed  his  people,  even  so  his  people  blessed 
their  king.  The  prince  alone  who  prays  for  his 
people  can  expect  them  to  pray  for  hin.  Well  for 
that  land  where  prince  and  people  wish  well  to 
each  other,  and  make  supplication  for  each  other,  for 
there  mercy  and  truth  are  met  together;  righteous- 
ness and  peace  shall  kiss  each  other  (Ps.  lxxxv.  10). 
When  a  man  has  rendered  unto  God  what  is  of 
God,  he  can  go  forth  to  his  daily  labor  with  joy 
and  gladness.  To  praise  and  thank  God  makes 
the  heart  glad  and  willing  to  work. 


F. —  Variout  matters  connected  with  the  accounts  of  Solomon's  architectural  worles. 

(Chap.  IX.  1-28.) 

1  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Solomon  had  finished  the  building  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  the  king's  house,  and  all  Solomon's  desire  which  he 

2  was  pleased  to  do,  that  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  appeared  to  Solomon  the  second  time, 

3  as  he  had  appeared  unto  him  at  Gibeon.  Ami  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  said  unto  him, 
I  have  heard  thy  prayer  and  thy  supplication,  that  thou  hast  made  before  me: ' 
I  have  hallowed  this  house,  which  thou  hast  built,  to  put  my  name  there  forever ; 

4  and  mine  eyes  and  mine  heart  shall  be  there  perpetually.  And  if  thou  wilt  walk 
before  me,  as  David  thy  father  walked,  in  integrity  of  heart,  and  in  uprightness, 
to  do  according  to  all  that  I  have  commanded  thee,  and  wilt  keep  my  statutes 

5  and  my  judgments ;  then  I  will  establish  the  throne  of  thy  kingdom  upon  Israel 
forever,  as  I  promised  [spake]  to  J  David  thy  father,  saying,  There  shall  not  fail 

6  thee  a  man  upon  the  throne  of  Israel.  But  if  ye  shall  at  all  [altogether3]  turn 
from  following  me,  ye  or  your  children,  and  will  not  keep  my  commandments 
and  my  statues  which  I*  have  set  before  you,  but  go  and  serve  other  gods,  and 

1  worship  them ;  then  will  I  cut  off  Israel  out  of  the  land  which  I  have  given 
them;  and  this  house,  which  I  have  hallowed  for  my  name,  will  I  cast  out  of  my 

8  sight ;  and  Israel  shall  be  a  proverb  and  a  byword  among  all  people  :  and  at  * 
this  house,  which  is  high,  every  one  that  passeth  by  it  shall  be  astonished,  and 
shall  hiss;  and  they  shall  say,  Why  hath  the  Lord  done  thus  unto  this  land,  and 

9  to  this  house  ?  And  they  shall  answer,  Because  they  forsook  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
their  God,  who  brought  forth  their  fathers  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  have 
taken  hold  upon  other  gods,  and  have  worshipped  them,  and  served  them  :  there- 
fore hath  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  brought  upon  them  all  this  evil.6 

10  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  twenty  years,  when  Solomon  had  built  the 

11  two  houses,  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  ami  the  king's  house,  (Now  Hiram 
the  king  of  Tyre  had  furnished  Solomon  with  cedar-trees  and  fir-trees,  and  with 
gold,  according  to  all  his  desire,)  that  then  king  Solomon  gave  Hiram  twenty 

12  cities  in  the  land  of  Galilee.     And  Hiram  came  out  from  Tyre  to  see  the  cities 

13  which  Solomon  had  given  him ;  and  they  pleased  him  not.  And  he  said,  What 
cities  are  these  which  thou  hast  given  me,  my  brother?     And  he  called  them  the 

14  land  of  Cabul '  unto  this  day.  And  Hiram  sent  to  the  king  six-score  talents  o( 
gold. 

15  eAnd  this  is  the  reason  of  the  levy  which  king  Solomon  raised;  for  to  build 
the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  his  own  house,  and  Millo,  and  the  wall  of 

16  Jerusalem,  and  Hazor,  and  Megiddo,  and  Gezer.  For  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt 
had  gone  up,  and  taken  Gezer,  and  burnt  it  with  fire,  and  slain  the  Canaanites 

17  that  dwelt  in  the  city,  and  given  it  for  a  present  unto  his  daughter,  Solomon's 

18  wife.     And  Solomon  built  Gezer,  and  Beth-horoii  the  nether,  and  Baalath,  and 

19  Tadmor*  in  the  wilderness,  in  the  land,  and  all  the  cities  of  store  that  Solomon 
had,  and  cities  for  his  chariots,  and  cities  for  his  horsemen,  and  10  that  which  Solo- 
mon desired  to  build  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  Lebanon,  and  in  all  the  land  of  his 

20  dominion.  And  all  the  people  that  were  left  of  the  Amorites,  Hittites,  Perizzites 


no 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


21  Hivites,  and  Jebusites,  which  icere  not  of  the  children  of  Israel,  their  childreL 
that  were  left  after  them  in  the  laud,  whom  the  children  of  Israel  also  were  not 
able  utterly  to  destroy,  upon  those  did  Solomon  levy  a  tribute  of  bond  service 

22  unto  this  day."  But  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  Solomon  make  no  bondmen: 
but  they  icere  men  of  war,  and  his  servants,  and  his  princes,  and  his  captains,  and 

23  rulers  of  his  chariots,  and  his  horsemen.  These  were  the  chief  of  the  officers  that 
were  over  Solomon's  work,  five  hundred  and  fifty,  which  bare  rule  over  the  peo- 
ple that  wrought  in  the  work. 

!?4  But  Pharaoh's  daughter  came  up  out  of  the  city  of  David  unto  her  house 
which  Solomon  had  built  for  her:  then  did  he  build  Millo. 

25  And  three  times  in  a  year  did  Solomon  oft'er  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offer- 
ings upon  the  altar  which  he  built  unto  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  he  burnt  incense 
upon  the  altar  that  was  before  the  Lord  [Jehovah].     So  he  finished  the  house. 

26  And  king  Solomon  made  a  navy  of  ships12  in  Ezion-geber,  which  is  beside 

27  Eloth,  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  sea,  in  the  land  of  Edom.  And  Hiram  sent  in 
the  navy  his  servants,  shipmen  that  had  knowledge  of  the  sea,  with  the  servants 

28  of  Solomon.  And  they  came  to  Ophir,  and  fetched  from  thence  gold,  four  1S 
hundred  and  twenty  talents,  and  brought  it  to  king  Solomon. 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 


1  Ver.  8.— [The  Sept.  here  insert,  "  I  have  done  to  thee  according  to  all  thy  prayer." 

•  Ver.  5.— [Many  MSS.  replace  the  preposition  ?JJ  by  ?X ,  and  certainly,  u*  the  former  is  the  true  reading,  It  li 
used  in  the  sense  of  the  latter,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  c/.  GeseniuB,  s.  v.  A.  4. 

'  Ver.  6.— [The  Heb.  is  here  in  the  usual  intensive  form  f/DCI7)  3iU\  which  is  preserved  In  all  the  versions,  while  the 

English  expression  implies  the  slightest  dereliction  instead  of  complete  apostasy. 

*  Ver.  6. — [The  Sept.  put  Moses  instead  of  the  personal  pronoun  as  the  nominative. 

s  Ver.  8.— [The  words  at  and  which  are  not  in  the  Heb.  The  latter  is  given  In  the  Heb.  of  2Chr.  vil.  21,  and  supplied 
here  by  the  Chald.  All  the  other  versions  give  house  in  the  noin.  and  omit  the  relative.  The  Syr.,  followed  by  the  Arab., 
has  "this  house  shall  be  destroyed."    Vulg.  "shall  be  for  an  example." 

8  Ver.  9. — [According  to  the  Sept.  the  time  of  this  vision  is  determined  as  after  the  completion  of  the  palace  by  the 
addition  to  this  verse.  "  Then  Solomon  brought  up  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh  out  of  the  city  of  David  into  his  house  which 
he  had  built  for  himself  in  these  days." 

7  Ver.  13. —  [The  Sept.  say  he  called  them  optoi*— coast,  boundary,  omitting  the  name  Cabul  altogether.    They  doubtless 

read  7133— border  for  P133  • 

■  Ver.  15. —  [Vers.  15-25  are  transposed  by  the  Vat.  Sept.  from  their  place  here  and  inserted  after  x.  22. 

9  Ver.  18. — Thek'thiblDn  is  decidedly  to  be  preferred  to  the  k'rl  1D1H  .  [In  connection  with  this  and  with  the 
author's  remarks  on  this  name  in  the  Exeg.  Com.  the  following  facts  are  to  be  borne  In  mind:  the  reading  of  the  kYiiJ^fl 

is  found  in  many  MSS.  instead  of  the  present  k'thib  lEl")  an<*  In  OQr  Pr'nted  editions  a  spaoeis  left  in  the  text  for  the 
missing  "i  while  the  vowel  points  are  those  of  Tadmor.  All  the  versions,  except  the  Sept.,  give  either  Tadmor  or  its 
equivalent  Palmyra ;  the  Sept.  gives  according  to  the  Alex.  ©ep/idfl,  which  shows  that  the  -j  was  before  them,  or  according 
to  the  Vat.  in  x.  22 'Ie0epnd0.  Keil,  who  adopts  this  rendering,  explains  the  words  "in  the  land"  (which  the  author 
considers  an  insuperable  difficulty)  by  the  remark  of  Tremellius  in  rtffiw  Salomonls  et  Intraflnea  a  Deo  designates,  connect- 
ing the  word  with  "  built "  in  ver.  17.  The  expression  in  2  Chr.  viil.  4,  Is  simply  "  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness ; "  but  the 
previous  verse  has  recorded  his  succe&sful  attack  upon  Hamath-zobah,  and  it  is  thus  Implied  that  Tadmor  was  in  that  re- 
gion. 

i°  Ver.  19.— [Many  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Chald.  and  Vulg.,  Insert  "all." 

>>  Ver.  21.— [Until  all  the  buildings  were  finished. 

13  Ver.  26. — [The  Sept.,  Chald.,  and  Arab.,  both  here  and  In  ver.  27,  have  thip  in  the  singular. 

13  Ver.  28.— [The  Vat.  (not  Alex.)  Sept.  reads  a  hundred  and  twenty,  while  2  Chr.  viil.  18  has  four  hundred  and 
fifty.— F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-2.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Solo- 
mon had  finished,  Ac.  Cf.  2  Chron.  vii.  11-22. 
Solomon  built,  besides  the  temple  and  the  palace,  a 
number  of  other  buildings,  of  which  mention  is 
made  in  vers.  15  and  19.  Chron.  says:  all  that  he 
desired  to  build,  for  All  which  he  was  pleased  to 
do;    pB>n     cannot,    therefore,  mean,  as    Thenius 

thinks,  "  pleasure-buildings,"  as  distinguished 
from  necessary  and  useful  ones,  but  rather  from 
the  words  of  vers.  19,  "  in  all  the  lands  of  his 
dominions,"  must  signify  public  works  which  he 
had  undertaken  for  the  benefit  of  the  latter,  as  for 


instance  (according  to  Ewald),  aqueducts,  reser- 
voirs, &.c.  It  is  very  distinctly  stated  here,  thai 
the  divine  appearance  of  ver.  2  took  place  after 
the  completion  of  the  temple  and  palace,  as  well 
as  several  other  buildings.  But  because  the  divine 
address,  ver.  3  sq.,  refers  to  the  prayer  at  the 
temple-dedication,  some  have  concluded,  as  we 
have  already  mentioned  in  our  remarks  on  chap 
viii.  1,  that  the  appearance  immediately  followed 
the  dedication  ;  and  that  the  latter,  accordingly, 
occurred  thirteen  years  after  the  completion  of  the 
temple.  But  there  is  no  reason  whatsoever  foi 
such  a  conclusion.  The  dedication  had  been  per- 
formed in  a  spirit  and  manner   that   could  hav« 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-28. 


Ill 


given  no  cause  for  such  a  sharp  warning  and 
severe  threatening  as  are  found  in  vers.  6-9 ;  and 
yet  this  threatening  seems  to  be  the  principal 
thing  in  the  divine  discourse.  It  is  very  possible 
that  it  was  occasioned  by  circumstances  of  a  later 
date.  The  meaning  in  this  ease  would  be :  I  have 
indeed  heard  thy  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple,  and  will  do  that  for  which  thou  hast  be- 
sought me ;  but  take  warning.  If  ye  turn  away 
from  me  I  will  destroy  Israel,  Ac.  In  like  manner 
Seb.  Schmidt:  quod  Deus  distulerit  hanc  apparitio- 
nem  usque  ad  tempus,  quo  Salomonis  peccatum  ap- 
propinquabat,  ut  non  diu  antequam  fierei  eum  serio 
moneret.  If  this  view  be  rejected  we  must  think, 
with  Keil  (in  the  Commentary  of  1846),  that  the 
writer  wished  to  say  all  that  he  had  to  remark 
concerning  Solomon's  different  buildings,  in  the 
same  place  in  our  chapter,  and  "  that  he  made  the 
transition-formula,  ,ver.  1,  at  the  same  time  the 
heading  of  the  following  section,  in  which  not  only 
is  the  divine  appearance  mentioned,  but  an  account 
also  is  given  of  Solomon's  undertakings  after  he 
had  finished  all  the  buildings." 

Vers.  3-9.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Ac. 
We  may  conclude  from  the  words :  "  as  at  Gibeon," 
that  it  took  place,  as  then,  in  a  dream  (chap.  iii.  5). 
/  have  hallowed  this  house  .  .  .  my,  ic,  i.  «.,  I 
have  appointed  it  by  my  glory  (chap.  viii.  10,  11 ; 

Ex.  xxix.  43 :  '1332)  to  be  the  place  where  I  re- 
veal my  holiness  (rf.  Histor.  and  Ethic.  2,  on  chap. 
vi).  The  parallel  passage  in  2  Chron.  vii.  12,  says: 
I  have  chosen  this  place  to  myself  for  a  house  of 
sacrifice ;  which  means  that,  as  Jehovah  was 
known  and  honored  as  the  Holy  One,  through 
sacrifice,  so  sacrifice  was  also  His  appointed  means 
of  atonement  and  sanctification  for  the  sacrificer. 
The  house  was  essentially  a  place  of  sanctification. 
Our  author  evidently  left  out  what  the  Chron. 
adds  in  vers.  13  and  14,  because  it  is  partly  con- 
tained in  ver.  3.  For  vers.  4  and  5  see  on  chap. 
ii.  4,  and  viii.  25.  When  David  is  here,  as  in  chap, 
iii.  14,  held  up  to  Solomon  as  a  model  in  keeping 
Jehovah's  commandments,  it  is  not  because  David 
never  broke  a  divine  law,  or  never  sinned,  but  be- 
cause he  kept  inviolate  the  first  and  chief  com- 
mandment upon  which  the  existence  of  Israel  de- 
pended (Ex.  xx.  2-5);  because  in  every  situation 
in  which  he  was  placed,  in  prosperity  and  adver- 
sity; amongst  his  compatriots  or  in  banishment 
among  the  heathen,  he  remained  loyal  to  Jehovah, 
and  never  discovered  the  slightest  leaning  to  idol- 
atry. The  threat,  vers.  6-9,  is  the  same  as  in  Lev. 
xxvi.  14;  Dent.  viii.  19;  xxviii.  15,  37;  Josh, 
xxiii.  16,  and  is  therefore  not  one  that  was  made 
for  the  first  time  after  the  captivity,  as  some  have 
said.  Thenius  rightly  remarks  that  the  style  and 
living  force  of  the  address  are  proofs  that  "  we 

have  an  ancient  utterance  before  us  here."    pt^D  , 

ver.  7,  is  a  proverb  which  every  one  has  in  his 
mouth,  a  proverb  of  universal  truth ;  every  one 
will  adduce  Israel  as  a  terrible  example,  and  will 
mock  them  (Isai.  xiv.  4;  Mic.  ii.  4).  Thenius  and 
Bertheau,  by  reference  to  Mic.  iii.  12 ;  Jer.  xxvi. 

18;    Ps.     lxxix.    1,     read    instead    of    JVPV,     in 

vers.  8,  Q«j; ,  t.  e.,  ruins,  and  this  certainly  facili- 
tates the  translation  of  the  word  very  much.  But 
no  MS.  nor  old  translation  reads  it  thus ;  and 
Ch'xm.   says  expressly:    "  this   house   which   is 


high  "  (2  Chron.  vii.  21) ;  we  must,  therefore,  adhere 
to  the  text-reading.  It  cannot,  however,  be  trans 
lated :  and  "  this  house,  exalted  as  it  may  be,  who 
soever  passes  by  the  same,  shall,"  &c.  (De  Wette, 
von  Meyer,  and  others),  but  only  as  Keil  has  it : 
"  this  house  shall  stand  high,  i.  e.  stand  high  in  its 
destruction,  a  conspicuous  example,  a  warning  to 
all  passers  by."  The  Vulgate  translates,  more- 
over, directly:  et  d.omus  hoic  erit  in  exemplum ;  but 
the  Sept.,  more  in  the  sense  of  the  Chronicles :  nal 
6  oikoc  ovroc  6  i'}J>7]?i6c,  Trdc  6  6ta7ropev6fxevoe 
CKari/oerai.  But  we  must  supply  what  is  under- 
stood, namely,  that  the  house  is  destroyed.  Keil 
thinks  there  is  an  allusion  to  Deut.  xxiv.  1 9 ;  xxviii. 

1,  in  Ji'Sy  .   Vers.  8  and  9  mean  that  what  was 

threatened  in  the  law  in  Deut.  xxix.  23-26,  shall 

be  fulfilled.     p-mJ  does    not   denote   a   scornful 

hissing,  but,  as  the  connection  with  DU''  requires,  a 

hissing  of  terror.     Cf.  Jer.  xix.  8  ;  xlix.  17. 

Ver.  1 0.  And  it  came  to  passat  the  end  of  twen- 
ty years.  In  vers.  2-9  the  author  has  given  an 
account  which  concerns  the  temple,  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  Solomon's  buildings.  From  ver. 
10  on,  he  gives  further  information  respecting 
them ;  how  Solomon  was  enabled  to  undertake  his 
many  and,  in  part,  expensive  buildings ;  that  is  to 
say,  through  his  treaty  with  Hiram,  vers.  11-14; 
and  also  by  the  levy  which  he  raised,  vers.  15- 
25  ;  and  finally  by  the  voyage  to  Ophir,  which 
brought  him  gold,  vers.  26-28  (Keil). — The  seven 
years  of  the  temple-building  (chap.  vi.  38),  and  the 
thirteen  years  of  the  palace-building  (chap.  vii.  1), 
are  included  in  the  twenty  years  of  ver.  10. 
There  is  no  historical  connection  between  the  sec- 
tion vers.  10-14,  and  that  in  vers.  1-9.  The  head- 
ing in  ver.  1  is  therefore  repeated  on  account  of 
the  following  collective  remarks  on  the  different 
buildings. 

Vers.  11-14.  Now  Hiram  the  king  of  Tyre, 
&c.  The  section  in  vers.  11-14  is  easily  seen  to  be 
an  excerpt,  which  has  gaps  not  to  be  filled  with 
perfect  certainty.  According  to  chap.  v.  1-6,  Solo- 
mon had  made  a  compact  with  Hiram,  by  the 
terms  of  which  he  was  to  indemnify  him  by  the 
delivery  of  certain  natural  productions;  no  allusion 
is  made  here  to  any  further  recompense  in  the 
way  of  territory,  nor  to  any  payment  of  gold 
which  Solomon  had  obtained  from  Hiram.  It 
is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  twenty  cities  were  an 
equivalent  for  the  120  talents  of  gold  mentioned  in 
ver.  14.  Probably  Hiram  had  at  first  agreed  tc 
the  proposition;  but  upon  a  closer  inspection  he 
was  not  pleased  with  these  towns,  though  he  had 
to  abide  by  his  agreement.  This  is  the  only  ex- 
planation of  the  fact  that  no  answer  from  Solomon 
to  the  question  in  ver.  13  is  recorded.  As  we 
may  conclude,  from  the  account  of  their  joint  enter- 
prise in  ver.  26  sq.,  that  the  friendly  relations  of 
the  two  kings  continued,  it  is  probable  that  Solo- 
mon satisfied  him  in  some  other  way. 

The  land  ^jn  is  not  the  later  pro vince  of  Galilee 

in  its  whole  extent,  but  only  the  northern  part  of  it, 
originally  belonging   to   Naphthali;  it  was  called 

dHjH  ^3  ,    district   or   country   of  the   heathen 

(Isai.  viii.  23;  1  Mace.  v.  15).  Solomon  fixed  upon 
it  as  an  equivalent  because  it  bordered  on  the  ter 


112 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ritory  of  Tyre,  and,  as  its  Dame  shows,  was  Dot  so 
much  inhabited  by  Israelites  as  by  heathens  (cf.  2 
Sam.  xxiv.  7). — The'nN  is  not,  as  iu  chap,  u   32, 

an  expression  of  intimacy,  but  is  a  prince's  title  (1 

Mace.    x.    IS ;    xi.   30).     The   designation    ^33  , 

which  Hiram  gave  the  land  of  the  twenty  cities,  is 
also  given  to  a  place  or  district  in  the  tribe  of 

Asher  (Josh.  xix.  17),  and  is  derived  from  ?33  , 

tincire,  to  chain,  to  close ;  thus  describing  the  dis- 
trict as  closed  (but  not  pawned,  as  some  allege), 
by  virtue  of  its  geographical  position.  This  is 
much  more  natural  than  the  explanation,  accord- 
ing to  which  ^133  is  from  ^3113  ,  i.  e-,  sicut  id, 
quod  evanuii  tanquam  nihil  (Maurer,  Gesenius),  or 
formed  by  3  and  ^Q=p3  (Thenius),  and  meaning 

"  As  nothiDg."  How  could  Hiram  give  the  dis- 
trict a  permanent  name,  which  contained  rather  a 
mockery  of  himself  than  of  the  land  ?  The  asser- 
tion of  Josephus  (Antiq.  8,  5,  3),  that  Xa'Aajiuv 
means  ovk  apcaaov  in  Phoenician,  is  utterly  with- 
out foundation.  We  have  no  need  to  seek  the 
reason  of  the  name  in  Hiram's  exclamation: 
"What  cities  are  these,"  &c. ;  the  second  sentence 
of  ver.  13  is  quite  independent  of  the  first.  In 
order  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  assertion  in  2 
Chron  viii  2  (that  Hiram  gave  cities  to  Solomon, 
who  peopled  them  with  Israelites),  with  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration,  it  is  generally  supposed 
that  Solomon  had,  in  the  first  place,  given  up 
twenty  cities  to  Hiram,  but  as  they  did  not  please 
Hiram,  took  them  back  again  (Keil).  But  ]J"I3 
cannot,  in  itself,  mean  to  give  back,  and  our  pas- 
sage also,  which  is  the  fullest,  would  in  this  case 
be  quite  silent  about  what  it  intends  to  state, 
namely,  that  Hiram  had  received  an  equivalent. 
Our  passage  cannot,  at  any  rate,  be  disproved  by 
the  short,  abrupt  assertion  of  Chron.  The  ques- 
tion may  be  asked,  too,  if  these  cities  were  the 
same  as  in  Kings.  Perhaps  later  tradition,  which 
Chron.  follows,  changed  the  circumstances  so,  be- 
cause people  could  not  believe  that  Solomon 
should  have  given  up  Israelitishland  to  Tyre,  con- 
trary to  the  law,  Lev.  xxv.  23  (cf.  Bertheau  on  2 
Chron.  viii.  1). 

Vers.  15-19.  And  this  is  the  reason  of  the 
levy,  which,  &c.  It  was  chiefly  through  Hiram's 
aid  that  Solomon  was  enabled  to  undertake  his 
buildings,  but  it  was  also  a  great  assistance  to 
liim  that  he  could  use  the  Canaanites  that  were 
left  in  the  land  to  perform  this  tribute  labor.  It 
seems  from  Judges  ix.  G  and  2  Kings  xii.  21,  that 

{WDn  does  not  mean  merely  a  wall  of  earth  (fill- 
ing up),  but  a  building  (JV3)  or  a  collection  of 

buildings  that  serve  to  fortify  a  place,  i.  e.,  fortifi- 
cations, rampart,  citadeL  David  had  made  such 
for  Zion  (2  Sam.  v.  9),  and  Solomon  renewed  it,  cf. 
chap.  xi.  21;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  5.  "It  can  only 
have  been  where  Zion  rises  highest,  and  con- 
sequently most  needs  fortification "  (Thenius). 
Tlie  walls  of  Jerusalem  do  not  here  mean  the  walls 
of  Zion,  the  upper  city,  but  those  of  the  lower  city 
(see  on  chap.  iii.  1),  so  that  the  temple  mountain 
was  included.  Hazoc,  a  town  in  the  tribe  of  Naph- 
thali.  formerly  a  Canaanitish  royal  city,  was  not 
far  from   the  nc"theru   frontier  of  Palestine,  and 


was  therefore  "  built,"  i.  e.,  fortified  by  Solomon, 
Josh.  xix.  36 ;  2  Kings  x*  29.  Megiddo  (cf.  on 
chap.  iv.  12)  lay  in  an  impo:tant  military  position, 
for  it  formed  an  entrance  to  the  plain  of  Jezreel 
and  the  Jordan  (meadows)  valley,  thus  being  the 
way  from  the  sea-coast  to  central  «nd  north  Pales- 
tine. Gezer,  also  once  a  Canaanrtish  royal  city, 
between  Beth-horon  and  the  Mediterranean  sea ;  it 
lay  in  the  southerly  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Eph- 
raim  (Josh.  xvi.  3).  What  Hazor  was  to  the  north 
and  Megiddo  to  the  central  part  of  Palestine,  Gezer 
and  the  lower  Beth-horon  were  to  the  south;  an 
army  could  much  more  easily  penetrate  to  the 
capital  from  those  places,  than  from  the  mountains 
of  Judah  (cf.  Thenius  on  the  place).  Ver.  16  is  a 
parenthesis,  and  tells  how  Gezer  came  into  Solo- 
mon's possession.  Probably,  it  was  the  capital  of 
a  district  that  extended  to  the  coast,  into  which 
Pharaoh  entered  from  the  sea.  The  great  import- 
ance of  the  situation  of  this  place  made  its  posses- 
sion very  valuable  to  Solomon.  Whether  the  town 
was  built  again  immediately  after  it  was  destroy- 
ed, or  not  until  Solomon's  time,  is  uncertain;  at 
any  rate,  he  fortified  it.  Baalath  is  a  town  in  the 
tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  44),  according  to  Josephus 
(Antiq.  viii.  6, 1),  not  far  from  Beth-horon  and  Gezer ; 
it  has  been  wrongly  asserted  to  be  identical  with 
Baal-gad  at  Hermon  (Josh.  xi.   17),   because  the 

directly  following  -|£n  is  =  to   TDTB   according 

to  2  Chron.  viii.  4,  and  the  later  denotes  the  large 
and  rich  city  of  Palmyra,  situated  between  Damas- 
cus and  the  Euphrates  (Keil).  But  the  connection 
of  "ICO  with  Baalath,  Gezer,  and  Beth-horon  indis- 
putably denotes  a  southern  city,  especially  as  the 
more  northern  fortresses,  Hazor  and  Megiddo,  were 
named  before.     ~IOT  is  also  named  as  a  southern 

place  iu  Ezek.  xlvii.  19 ;  xlviii.  28.  The  addition 
"  Ik  the  wilderness,  in  the  land"  can  only  mean,  in 
the  wilderness  that  lay  in  Palestine,  which  is  the 
wilderness  of  Judah;  it  is  therefore  unwarrant- 
able to  add  D1X  ,  i-  e.,  Syria,  after  )'1N3  as  some 

have  done.  Thus  Thamar  was  the  most  southern 
fortress,  and  "commanded  the  passes  which  led 
to  the  most  frequented  routes  from  Edom  to  Jeru- 
salem "  (Thenius).  A  fortified  city  was  very  neces- 
sary and  important  in  this  very  place,  and  it  is  in- 
explicable that  Solomon  should  have  left  the  south 
without  any  fortress,  and  yet  have  fortified  the 
distant  city  of  Palmyra,  beyond  the  confines  of 
Palestine.  As  in  all  doubtful  cases,  so  here  the 
statement  of  the  books  of  the  Kings  merits  the  pre- 
ference over  that  of  the  Chron.,  which  has  given 

occasion  to  the  Wri.  Besides,  iDin  occurs  no- 
where else,  and  it  is  much  more  probable  that 
IDO    has   been   changed  into  the    famous   "IDIR 

t  t  :  " 

than  the  reverse.  The  account  of  the  fortresses 
that  protected  the  land  is  followed  (ver.  19)  by  an 
account  of  the  buildings  required  for  storage  of 
victuals  and  materials  of  war.  The  cities  of  store 
were  not  depots  of  merchandise  (Ewald),  but  ma- 
gazines of  produce  of  the  soil  reserved  for  times 
of  need  (2  Chron.  xvii.  12;  xxxii.  28).  For  the 
cities  for  chariots  and  horsemen  see  chap.  x.  26. 

Vers.  20-23.  And  all  the  people  that  were 
left,  &c  Ver.  20  refers  back  to  ver.  15,  ard 
after  it  has  been  stated  for  what  purpose  Solomon 
raisod  the  levy,  it  n  ;w  informs  us  whom   it   in- 


CHAPTER  IX.  1-28. 


113 


eluded.  Upon  ~3JTDD  .  »•  «■,  slave-service,  see 
chap.  v.  13.  V13J?i  ver.  22,  means  chiefly,  officials 
of  the  war-department ;  V~)V  chief  officers  of  the 
army ;  and  VC'^l"  royal  adjutants  and  life-guards- 
men. Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and  others  translate  the 
latter:  cluxriot  warriors,  or  chariot-driver,  be- 
cause there  were  always  three  of  them  standing 
in  one  chariot;  this,  however,  does  not  admit 
or  proof,  and  Tpia-aTnc,  as  the  Sept.  usually 
renders  it,  does  not  mean  chariot  warriors.  In 
every  place  where  the  word  occurs  in  our  books  (2 
Kings  vii.  2;  xvii.  19;  xv.  25;  ix.  25)  it  denotes 
the  royal  staff;  in    2  Kings  x.  25,  the  D'i'l  and 

Q'ii'^L"  are  the  king's  body-guard ;  and  in  2  Sam. 

xxiii.  8  (1  Chron.  x.  11)  still  less  is  there  reference 
to  chariot  warriors.  The  old  glossaries  explain 
Tpiordrac,  tovc  rrapa  %upa  rob  pam'Aiuc.  The 
reasou  of  the  name  cannot  be  given  with  certitude. 
For  the  550  superintendents  of  the  work  see  above 
on  chap.  v.  16. 

Ver.  24.  But  Pharaoh's  daughter  came  up. 
The  two  facts  recorded  in  vers.  24  and  25  are  by 
no  means  irrelevant  and  disconnected,  as  they 
appear ;  but  plainly  refer  back  to  chap.  iii.  1-4. 
They  mean  that  the  wants  which  were  felt  in  the 
beginning  of  Solomon's  reign  ceased  with  the 
completion  of  all  the  buildings  (vers.  1  and  10); 
the  king's  consort  took  possession  of  the  part  of 
the  royal  palace  that  was  for  her  use ;  and  Solo- 
mon no  longer  sacrificed  on  the  heights,  but  always 
in  the  temple  he  had  built.     7]X  ,  ver.  24,  is  here 

the  same  as  in  Gen.  xxvii.  30;  Jud.  vii.  19.  It 
does  not  follow,  because  Solomon  built  Millo  im- 
mediately after  his  consort  repaired  to  her  dwell- 
ing, that  the  former  was  to  be  a  "  protection  to 
the  harem"  (Thenius),  for  there  is  no  proof  that 
the  '■house  of  Pharaoh's  daughter"  was  the 
harem,  and  Millo  was  evidently  intended  to  pro- 
tect the  upper  city. 

Ver.  25.  And  three  times  in  a  year  did 
Solomon  offer,  that  is,  on  the  three  chief  festivals, 
when  the  whole  people  assembled  at  the  sanc- 
tuary (Ex.  xxiii.  17;  xxxiv.  23).  These  were  not 
ordinary  sacrifices,  but  were  especially  solemn  offi- 
cial ones,  which  the  king,  as  head  of  the  theocracy, 

offered.      The  words  njrp  *}ib  Tl"N  1FIN  TBjJiTj 

have  been  very  differently  understood.  Stier 
translates  like  v.  Meyer,  "  and  he  burnt  of  it  what 
was  fitting,"  which  is  wrong,  because  "that  was 
before  Jehovah  "  never  means,  what  was  fitting. 
Maurer's  interpretation  is  very  far-fetched :  et 
adoicbat  apud  eum  (sc.  Java)  id,  quad  coram  Jova 
erat  (sc.  suffimenturn).  Ewald  renders  it:  "he 
burnt  incense  alone  there,  where  one  stands  be- 
fore Jahve,  i.  e.,  in  the  holy  place."  But  what 
does  burning  incense  alone  mean?  Thenius  as- 
serts -iC'N  to  be  a  false  "insertion,"  and  translates: 
he  bi ought  with  him  (i.  e.,  himself)  offerings  of  in- 
cense before  the  Lord  (i.  e.,  upon  the  altar  of  in- 
cense in  the  sanctuary).  mx  is  supposed  to 
mean:  "he,  without  the  mediation  of  another,"  so 
that  "  wo  have  here  an  evidence  that  Solomon,  at 
least,  exercised  in  person  the  functions  of  the 
high-priest."      But   we    cannot   so   easily   throw 

"1l''N  out  of  the  text;  and  inx  never  means:  he 


himself  in  his  own  person :  so  that  the  supposed 
"  evidence  "  falls  to  the  ground.  Finally,  Keil 
translates,  because  TDpn  is  not  prater,  but  infin. 

absol. :  "  and,  indeed,  setting  fire  to  (the  sacrifice) 
at  the  (altar),  which  was  before  the  Lord ;  "  but 
TDpn  always  means  "  to  burn  incense  "  when  it 

stands  as  here,  without  an  object;  besides,  the 
sentence  evidently  means  more  than  the  immedi- 
ately preceding  one,  which  speaks  of  burnt-offer- 
ings, in  the  case  of  which  burning  is  of  course 
implied.   It  is  certainly  true  that  J"|X  here,  as  well 

as  immediately  after  in  ver.  26,  and  so  often  else- 
where, means  "  with,  by,"  and  the  suffix  l  must 
be  referred  to  the  preceding  l"QTO  ;  but  it  is  in- 
correct to  make  the  clause  "which  was  befure 
Jehovah,"  mean  the  altar  of  incense  which  was  so 
described  in  Lev.  xvi.  12,  18,  and  thus  to  conclude 
that  Solomon  burnt  incense  "in  the  sanctuary." 
As  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16  shows,  the  priests  alone  might 
do  this,  even  in  later  times;  the  kings  were 
strictly  prohibited.  If  an  exception  had  be^n 
made  in  the  case  of  Solomon,  it  could  not  ha\e 
been  noticed  only  casually  and  vaguely.  Tha> 
clause  by  no  means  exclusively  indicates  the  altar  of 
incense,  but,  as  chap.  viii.  64  shows,  the  "  brazen 
altar,"  too,  and  this  it  is  which  is  meant  here.  Ac- 
cording to  Num.  xv.  1-12  a  meat-ofl'ering  was  offer- 
ed with  every  burnt  and  peace  offering ;  and  for  the 
former  incense  was  essential,  according  to  Lev.  ii. 
1,  2,  which  was  wholly  burnt  (ver.  16).  "In- 
cense," therefore,  was  not  only  "  offered  "  on  the 
altar  of  incense  in  the  sanctuary,  but  also  on  the 

altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  mbp  in  Ps.  cxli.  2  is 

synonymous   with   nrOO  ■      This  passage,    then, 

says  nothing  remarkable  respecting  Solomon,  but 
only  that  he  presented  his  meat-ofl'ering  three 
times  a  year,  as  well  as  his  burnt  and  peace  offer- 
ing. The  parallel  passage  of  Chron.  therefore  does 
not  mention  the  latter  expressly,  and  only  says  : 
"Then  Solomon  offered  burnt-offerings  unto  the 
Lord  on  the  altar  of  the  Lord  which  he  had  built 
before  the  porch  .  .  .  three  times  in  the  year  "  (2 
Chron.  viii    12,    13).      The   concluding    sentence 

IVBiTnX  dW'1  does  not  mean:   "  thus  the  house 

was  finished  "  (Luther),  for  this  was  not  done  by 

sacrifice  and   incense,   neither   does     D?C'    mean 

finished,  but,  to  make  perfect,  whole.  The  house 
Solomon  had  built  only  became  all  it  was  designed 

to  be,   i.  e.,  ri3?  IVa!?  ,   a   house   of  sacrifice  (2 

Chron.  vii.  12),  a  central  sanctuary,  in  that  he  pre- 
sented now  all  the  offerings  on  the  festivals  which 
were  appointed  to  be  celebrated  by  the  whole 
people  (Lev.  xxiii.  14;  Deut.  xxvi.  16);  cf.  2 
Chron.  viii.  1 6.  Bottcher :  he  brought  the  temple, 
as  God's  house  and  place  of  prayer,  to  its  full 
meaning. 

Vers.  26-28.  And  king  Solomon  made  a 
navy  of  ships.  This  is  told  here  because  Solo- 
mon received  through  these  ships  the  large  amount 
of  gold  which  he  required,  partly  for  his  splendid 
buildings,  and  partly  to  carry  on  his  expensive 
works.  Ezion-geber,  a  sea-port  of  Edom,  situated 
on  the  Elanitic  arm  of  the  Arabian  gulf,  Num 
xxxiii.  35  ;  L)eut.  ii.  8.      Elatli  is  the  modern  Aka. 


114 


THE  FiRST  book  of  the  kings. 


ball  on  the  eastern  bay  of  the  same  gulf,  and  was 
incorporated  with  tlie  Israelitish  kingdom  by 
David,  2  Sam.  viii.  14.  Both  cities  were  of  the 
highest  importance  in  a  commercial  view  (c/. 
Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.,  s.  313,  361).  The  Phoenician 
sailors  were  accounted  the  most  skilful,  and  were 
known  even  in  distant  lands  (Winer  II.,  s.  406). 

Upon  the  fleet  which  sailed  from  Ezion-geber 
Chron.  gives  (viii.  18):  ''and  Hiram  sent  him  by 
the  hands  of  his  servants,  ships ;  "  and  as  there 
was  no  way  of  conveyance  by  land,  nor  means  of 
shipping  from  Africa,  this  must  only  mean  (as 
Keil  remarks)  "that  Hiram  gave  the  ships  for 
this  voyage  (to  Ophir),  i.  e.,  he  ordered  his  people 
at  Ezion-geber  to  build  them,  and  sent  all  the 
requisite  material  not  forthcoming  at  that  place." 
For  the  situation  of  Ophir  see  on  chap.  x.  22. 
Instead  of  420  talents  of  gold,  Chron.  gives  450 ; 
this  is,  no  doubt,  only  a  change  of  the  ciphers  3 
(20)  and  :  (50). 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  This  section  now  be/ore  vs  doses  the  ac- 
count of  Solomon's  buildings,  which  account  em- 
braces the  largest  portion  of  the  history  of  this 
reign.  Never  would  the  narrative  have  dwelt  so 
long  upon  them,  had  all  these  building-undertak- 
ings stood  outside  of  all  relation  to  the  theocratic 
kingdom.  None  of  all  the  kings  of  Israel  "built" 
so  much  as  Solomon,  who  is  described  for  that 
reason,  in  the  history  of  Israel,  as  the  king  of 
peace,  the  peace-prince.  His  buildings  were  no 
pleasure  and  luxury  structures,  but  were  designed 
to  further  the  greatness,  power,  and  splendor  of 
the  kingdom,  while  at  the  same  time  they  gave  evi- 
dence thereof.  First  he  built  the  house  of  Jehovah, 
which  formed  the  heart  and  centre  of  the  whole 
theocracy;  then  the  palace,  i.  e.,  the  house, 
"which  was  to  shed  glory  on  the  second  power  in 
Israel,  the  kingdom  which  was  then  reaching  its 
highest  summit"  (Ewald);  then  he  fortified  the 
house  by  Millo,  and  surrounded  Jerusalem,  the 
capital,  with  walls ;  furthermore  he  made  fortresses 
and  store-cities  throughout  the  whole  country,  in 
north,  middle,  and  south  Palestine;  and,  finally, 
he  himself  began  ship-building,  so  as  to  bring  his 
kingdom  into  communication  with  rich  and  distant 
countries.  All  this,  however,  he  conducted  so  as 
to  cause  no  injury  to  his  own  kingdom,  but  rather 
po  as  to  bring  it  to  a  height  of  prosperity  that  it 
Lever  before  or  afterwards  attained.    The  time  of 

the  Dii>"''  and  with  that  of  the  "building"  in  its 
widest  sense,  came  on  rrcrt"  ;  h'3  building  enter- 
prises were  the  natural  result  of  the  stage  of 
development  at  which  the  kingdom  was ;  he  built 
(0  fcuild  up  the  kingdom,  thus  fulfilling  his  mission 
3i  the  history  of  the  theocracy. 

2.  The  appearance  with  which  Solomon  was 
favored  after  the  completion  of  his  many  grand 
edifices,  as  the  text  clearly  and  positively  says 
(see  Exegetical  upon  ver.  1  sq.),  is  expressly 
placed  in  relation  to  and  contrasted  with  that 
which  he  had  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  at 

i ,n  (chap.  iii.  6).      The  Lord  had   given  him 

not  only  what  he  had  asked  for.  but  also  riches. 
dignity,  and  fame.  Up  bad  succeeded  in  all  that 
he  had  undertaken  ;  not  only  did  he  himself  stand 
at  the  summit  of  fortune,  but  his  people  had  never 
before  reaches  such  a  great  and  prosperous  state, 


being  blessed  with  peace  and  quiet  without,  anc 
with  prosperity  and  comfort  within  (chap.  iv.  20; 
v.  4  sij.  ;  viii.  66).  Then  came  the  second  appear- 
ing, which  contained  with  the  remembrance  of  the 
prayer  answered  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple, 
and  the  promise  of  blessing  in  the  future,  a  threat- 
ening and  warning  very  wholesome,  and  even 
necessary  now  for  Solomon  himself,  who,  though 
hitherto  loyal  and  faithful  to  the  Lord,  was  open 
to  the  temptation  to  fall  away,  as  the  after-history 
shows,  and  whose  heart  the  searcherof  hearts  knew 
better  than  he  did  himself  (cf.  chap.  viii.  39).  But 
it  was  also  needed  (the  discourse  ceases  to  con- 
cern Solomon  alone  after  ver.  6)  by  that  ever- 
restless,  fickle  people  which  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  greatest  happiness  were  in  danger  of  forget- 
ting their  Lord  and  God,  and  of  relapsing  into  the 
idolatrous  worship  which  was  more  agreeable  to 
the  flesh.  Hence  it  appears,  too,  that  the  words 
in  vers.  6-9  are  the  chief  part  of  the  divine  dis- 
course, and  not  an  addition  invented  by  the  author 
of  these  books,  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple, 
as  Ewald  and  Eisenlohr  assert. 

3.  The  divine  threatening  was  literally  fulfilled. 
No  people  in  the  world  ever  became  such  a  "  pro- 
verb." Singular  as  it  stands  in  the  world-history 
in  its  election,  it  is  equally  so  in  its  rejection  and 
ruin.  It  has  remained,  to  the  present  day,  the 
living  witness  of  the  saving  love  and  grace  of 
God  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other,  of 
holiness,  truth,  and  retributive  justice.  By  its 
story  it  preaches  to  all  nations  the  eternal  truth 
which  the  prophet  Azariah  proclaimed  to  king 
Asa:  "If  ye  forsake  him,  He  will  forsake  you" 
(2  Chron.  xv.  2).  When,  in  consequence  of  their 
complete  departure  from  God,  the  temple  built  by 
Solomon  was  destroyed,  Israel  ceased  to  be  an 
independent  kingdom,  and  the  people  were  banish- 
ed ;  and  when,  after  the  second  temple  was  built, 
they  rejected  David's  great  Son,  their  promised, 
true,  and  eternal  king,  in  Whom  all  nations  of  the 
earth  were  to  be  blessed,  this  temple  was  destroy- 
ed never  to  be  rebuilt,  and  the  people  were 
scattered  through  all  the  world,  ceasing  forever  to 
be  an  independent  kingdom  and  nation,  every- 
where despised,  reviled,  and  persecuted. 

4.  The  various  building-enterprises  of  Solomon, 
as  well  as  the  arrangements  more  or  less  connect- 
ed with  them,  were  practical  evidence  that  tho 
Lord  had  given  him  in  unusual  measure  the  wis- 
dom for  ruling  and  skill  in  affairs  which  he  had 
implored  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign  (chap.  iii. 
7-91.  He  knew  how  to  procure  the  material,  in 
part  costly,  which  was  requisite  for  his  buildings, 
as  well  also  the  requisite  architects  and  builders, 
by  a  compact  (favorable  to  himself)  with  his 
Tvrian  neighbor ;  and  repaid  him  for  the  quantity 
of  gold  he  supplied  him  with  without  heaping 
oppressive  debts  on  his  people,  but  by  surrender- 
ing a  district  of  little  value  near  the  Tyrian  frontier, 
and  almost  altogether  inhabited  by  strangers  to 
Israel.  He  made  use  of  the  descendants  of  the 
subjugated  Canaanites  who  were  left  in  the  land, 
to  execute  those  public  works  which  were  de- 
signed to  protect  the  country  and  further  its 
material  prosperity ;  thus  sparing  his  own  people, 
who,  like  every  other  free  people,  had  no  slavish 
work,  but  performed  only  military  service.  He 
built  a  separate  palace  for  his  consort,  Pharaoh's 
daughter,  and  by  this  means  secured  the  favor  of 
his  powerful  neighbors,  the  Egypt :ans.      That  th» 


CHAPTER  IX   1-28. 


115 


leinple  he  had  built  might  become  and  remain  the 
centra'  place  of  worship,  and  thus  a  bond  of  unity 
and  communion  for  the  entire  people,  he  himself, 
as  head  and  representative  of  the  theocracy, 
offered  solemn  sacrifices  on  the  three  great  yearly 
festivals,  when  all  the  tribes  met.  In  order  not 
only  to  meet  the  expenses  of  his  many  and  costly 
buildings,  but  also  to  teach  commerce  to  his  peo- 
ple, who  had  hitherto  almost  entirely  lived  by 
agriculture,  he  managed  to  engage  the  sea-faring 
and  skilled  Phoenicians  to  build  a  common  fleet, 
which  opened  the  way  to  other  seas  and  lands  for 
them,  and  was  the  source  of  great  riches  to  his 
own  kingdom. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PEACTICAX. 

Vers.  1-9.  The  second  appearance  of  Jehovah 
to  Solomon :  (a)  the  point  of  time  at  which  it 
occurred,  vers.  1,  2  (seeHistor.  and  Ethic);  (b)  the 
object  which  it  had,  vers.  3-9  (Promise  and  warn- 
ing).— In  the  divine  address  to  Solomon  the  good- 
ness and  the  severity  of  God  are  shown  (Rom.  xi. 
22):  his  goodness  in  the  establishment  of  His 
promises  (vers.  3-5),  his  severity  in  the  chastise- 
ment of  backsliding  (vers.  6-9). — Vers.  3,  Wurt. 
Sujim.  :  A  most  powerful  thing  is  a  devout,  hum- 
ble, and  believing  prayer,  for  thereby  man  be- 
seeches God  to  grant  him  his  desire  (John  xvi.  23). 
— To  every  house  where  the  name  of  God  is  truly 
honored  applies  the  divine  saying  :  Mine  eyes  and 
my  heart  shall  dwell  there  forever. — Vers.  6-9. 
Because  men  endure  uninterrupted  prosperity  with 
much  greater  difficulty  than  they  do  crosses  and 
afflictions,  therefore,  when  the}'  are  at  the  summit 
of  their  wishes,  and  their  hearts'  desire,  it  is  most 
necessary  that  the  grave  importance  of  God  and 
of  eternity  should  be  held  up  before  them,  so  that 
they  may  not  fall  into  security,  and  forget  to  work- 
out their  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling; 
for  what  availeth  it  a  man,  tc.  (Matth.  xvi.  26). 
He  who  thinketh  he  standeth,  let  him  take  heed 
lest  he  fall  (1  Cor.  x.  12). — The  more  abundantly 
God  displays  his  mercy  and  love  towards  an  indi- 
vidual or  towards  a  nation,  so  much  the  more  fear- 
ful will  be  the  righteous  sentence  if  the  riches  of 
His  mercy  are  despised. — In  happy  and  prosperous 
days  forget  not  that  the  Lord  tells  us :  Watch  and 
pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation. — How  many 
men,  how  many  families,  how  many  nations  bless- 
ed in  every  respect,  have  come  to  a  fearful  and 
shameful  end  1  Askest  thou:  Wherefore  is  this? 
the  only  reply  is:  Because  they  have  forsaken  the 
Lord  their  God ;  for  what  a  man  sows  that  shall 
he  also  reap. — Let  him  who  will  not  recognize  a 
divine  justice  turn  to  the  twice-destroyed  temple 
of  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  world-scattered  people 
who  have  become  a  by-word  amongst  all  nations. 

Vers.  10-14.  The  demeanor  of  Solomon  and 
Hiram  towards  each  other,  (a)  Friends  and  neigh- 
bors should  be  of  one  mind,  and  mutually  ready  to 
help  each  other.  (6)  Let  not  him  who  has  kindly 
aided  thee  with  his  substance  be  long  awaiting 
the  proofs  of  thy  gratitude,  and  render  to  him 
more  rather  than  less  even  if  he  need  it  not. 


(c)  Regard  not  so  much  the  gift  which  thou  re- 
ceivest  as  the  disposition  of  the  giver,  remember- 
ing always :  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  re- 
ceive.— From  the  heathen  Hiram  many  Christiana 
may  learn,  even  where  real  cause  for  dissatisfac- 
tion and  just  claims  exist,  to  state  the  dispropor- 
tion between  gifts  and  recompenses  with  friendly 
words,  and  in  a  kindly  manner. — Friends,  who 
through  long  years  have  aided  each  other,  must 
not  be  estranged,  even  when  one  thinks  himself 
injured  by  the  other,  but  must  strive  to  come  to  a 
thorough  understanding  and  agreement. 

Vers.  15-23.  The  plans  and  arrangements  of 
Solomon  for  the  benefit  and  protection  of  the  land, 
(a)  First  he  built  the  house  of  the  Lord,  forth  from 
which  would  come  all  salvation  for  Israel :  then 
he  built  the  store-houses  for  times  of  need  and 
famine,  and  as  protection  against  the  enemies  of 
the  kingdom.  A  wise  prince  cares  alike  for  the 
religious  and  spiritual,  and  for  the  material  and 
temporal  well-being  of  his  people,  and  in  times  of 
peace  does  his  utmost  to  provide  against  every 
danger  which  may  assail  the  land,  either  from 
without  or  within.  For  this  a  nation  can  never  be 
grateful  enough,  and  should  uphold  him  with 
readiness  and  might,  instead  of  murmuring  and 
complaining,  as  is  often  the  case.  (6)  Solomon's 
plan  was.  in  his  undertakings  to  spare  his  nation 
all  servile  labor,  as  far  as  possible.  Therefore, 
for  all  compulsory  service  he  employed  the  con- 
quered enemy,  who,  as  such,  were  slaves.  A  wise 
prince  will  never  impose  burdensome  taxes  or 
heavy  labor  upon  his  people,  and  reigns  much 
more  willingly  over  freemen  than  over  slaves; 
but  a  good  and  loyal  people  does  not  make  free- 
dom a  pretext  for  villany,  and  ever  follows  the 
king's  call  for  arms  when  the  defence  of  "  Father- 
land "  is  concerned.  For  Israel  can  no  more  say 
with  truth — The  Lord  is  my  rock,  my  fortress, 
and  m_v  deliverer  (Ps.  xviii.  3),  if  all  the  nation 
does  not  aid  in  its  defences  and  fortifications. — 
In  the  kingdom  of  the  true  and  eternal  prince  of 
peace  bondage  will  cease,  and  all  men  shall  ob- 
tain the  freedom  of  the  children  of  God. — Ver. 
25.  Solomon  sets  a  good  example  before  all 
the  people;  he  not  only  builds  the  temple,  but 
also  frequents  it  regularly.  It  is  as  much  the  duty 
of  the  highest  as  of  the  lowest  to  hear  the  word 
of  God,  to  pray,  and  to  celebrate  the  Sacrament. 
— Ver.  26  sq.  A  wise  government  seeks  not  only  to 
preserve  existing  prosperity,  but  also  to  discover 
new  sources  thereof. — Many  there  are  who  travel 
over  land  and  sea  to  seek  gold,  and  to  become 
rich,  and  forget  that  the  Lord  hath  said:  I  counsel 
thee  to  buy  of  me  gold  tried  in  the  fire,  that  thou 
mayestbe  rich  (Rev.  iii.  18).  Expeditions  into  far 
countries  must  serve  not  only  to  obtain  gold  and 
treasure,  but  also  to  carry  thither  the  treasure 
which  neither  moth  nor  rust  doth  corrupt,  and 
where  thieves  do  not  break  through  nor  steal 
(Matth.  vi.  19  sq.) — Commerce  may  become  a  rich 
blessing  for  a  nation,  but  a  greedy  thirst  for  gold 
often  leads  to  extreme  luxury  and  neglect  of  God, 
as  is  many  times  exemplified  in  the  history  of 
Israel. 


116  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

FOURTH   SECTION. 

THE   FAME   AND   THE   MAGNIFICENCE   OF   SOLOMON. 

(Chapter  X.) 


A. — Tlie  Visit  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba. 

Chap.  X.  1-13. 

1         And  when  the  queen  of  Sheba  heard  of  the  fame  of  Solomon  concerning  '  the 

9  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  she  came  to  prove  him  with  hard  questions.  And 

she  came  to  Jerusalem  with  a  very  great  train,  with  camels  that  bare  spices,  and 

very  much  gold,  and  precious  stones :  and  when  she  was  come  to 3  Solomon,  she 

3  communed  with  him  of  all  that  was  in  her  heart.  And  Solomon  told  her  all 
her  questions:  there  was  not  any  thing  [a  question3]  hid  from  the  king,  which 

4  he  told  her  not.     And  when  the  queen  of  Sheba  had  seen  all4  Solomon's  wisdom, 

5  and  the  house  that  he  had  built,  and  the  meat  of  his  table,  and  the  sitting  of 
his  servants,  and  the  attendance  of  his  ministers,  and  their6  apparel,  and  his 
cupbearers,  and  his  ascent"  by  which  he  went  up  unto  the  house  of  the  Lord 

6  [Jehovah]  ;  there  was  no  more  spirit  in  her.  And  she  said  to  the  king,  It  was  a 
true   report'  that  I  heard  in  mine  own  land  of  thy  acts'  and  of  thy  wisdom. 

V  Howbeit  I  believed  not  the  words,'  until  I  came,  and  mine  eyes  had  seen  it ; 
and  behold,  the  half  was  not  told  me:  thy  wisdom  and  prosperity  exceedeth 

8  the  fame  which  I  heard.     Happy  are  thy  men,8  happy  are  these  thy  servants, 

9  which  stand  continually  before  thee,  and  that  hear  thy  wisdom.  Blessed  be  the 
Lord  [Jehovah]  thy  God,  which  delighted  in  thee,  to  set  thee  on  the  throne  of 
Israel :  because  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  loved  Israel  forever,  therefore  made  he  thee 

10  king,  to  do  judgment  and  justice.  And  she  gave  the  king  an  hundred  and 
twenty  talents  of  gold,  and  of  spices  very  great  store,  and  precious  stones  :  there 
came  no  more  such  abundance  of  spices  as  these  which  the  queen  of  Sheba  gave 

11  to  king  Solomon.  And  the  navy  also  of  Hiram,  that  brought  gold  from  Ophir, 
brought  in  from  Ophir  great  plenty  of   almug9   trees,   and    precious   stones. 

12  And  the  king  made  of  the  almug  trees  pillars  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Je- 
hovah], and  for  the  king's  house,  harps  also  and  psalteries  for  singers:  there 

3  came  no  such  almug  trees,  nor  were  seen  unto  this  day.  And  king  Solomon 
gave  unto  the  queen  of  Sheba  all  her  desire,  whatsoever  she  asked,  besides  that 
which  Solomon  gave  her  of  his  royal  bounty.'0  So  she  turned  and  went  to  her 
own  country,  she  and  her  servants. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1.  [The  Sept.  and  Syr.  render  this  very  difficult  expression,   n<|]-]>    DBO    TOPC*    yDEiHIX  (®ee  Exeg. 

Com.),  "heard  the  name  of  Solomon  and  the  name  of  the  Lord,'1  and  the  Aran,  the  same  except  in  retaining  fame  in  thf 
first  clause. 

2  Ver.  '2.  [Many  MSS.  editions,  and  the  Vulg.  and  Syr.,  insert  king  before  Solomon. 

3  Ver.  8.  [There  seems  no  sufficient  reason  for  varying  the  translation  of    l^n    occurring  twice  in  such  close  prox 

T   T 

imity.    The  same  variation  is  observed  in  the  Chald.  and  Syr.,  but  the  Sept.  have  Aoyos  in  both  cases. 

*  Ver.  4.  [Several  MSS.  followed  by  the  Arab,  omit  "all." 

6  Wr.  5.  [The  Sept.,  quite  without  authority,  put  the  pronoun  in  the  singular  as  referring  to  Solomon's  apparel. 

•  Ver.  5.  [All  the  ancient  versions  render  "  the  burnt-offerings  which  he  offered"  (see  Exeg.  Com.)  and  must  there- 

»ore  have  read    ID *i?V    instead  of    )TU^  ,   but  without  reason.    See  Exeg.  Com. 

7  Vers,  fi,  7.  [The  Ileb.  for  report  andaeto,  ver.  6,  and  words,  ver.  7,  is  the  same  "111  ,   D^Xl  and  this  sameness  is 

preserved  in  Uie  Sept,  although  hardly  possible  in  English. 

>  V*er.  9  [The  Sept.  curiously  enough  render  "happy  are  the  icotneft."  . 

9  Ver.  11.  [Almug  Is  not  a  translation,  but  only  a  putting  into  English  letters  of  the  Heb.    D^DpN  •      Thever- 

lions  render: — Vulg  ihyina;  Sept.  nt\tx-rird  (Alex.  an-eAe'KTrra);    Arab,  colored  wood,  i.  e.  that  ktr.d  of  wood  naturally 
painted  with  various  colors.    The  sense  as  now  generally  understood  is  sandal-wood.    See  Exeg.  Com. 

10  Ver.  18.  [Lit.  gave  her  wfrom  the  hand  of  king  Solomon.— F.  G.] 


CHAPTER  X.  1-13 


117 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-?..  And  when  the  queen  of  Sheba. 
Cf.  2  Chron,  ix.  1-12.  The  name  of  Solomon 
became  famous  far  and  near,  through  the  trading 
ships  that  were  mentioned  in  chap.  ix.  26  sq. 
A  proof  is  here  given.     X3!i'  i  Sheba,  is  a  country  in 

Arabia  Felix  (not  to  be  confounded  with  X3D ,  i.  e., 

Meroe  in  Ethiopia,  as  Josephus  has  it),  on  the  Red 
Sea,  rich  in  spices,  frankincense,  gold,  and  precious 
stones  (Jer.  vi.  20 ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  22;  Isai.  be.  6;  Ps. 
lxxii.  15).  "  The  Sabfeans,  whose  capital  city  was 
Sheba,  had  become,  through  their  extensive  com- 
merce, the  richest  nation  among  the  Arabians " 
(Winer,  it.-  W.-B.  II.  s.  405 ;  Duncker,  Gesch.  des 
Alterth.  I.  s.  140  sq.).  The  Queen  of  this  coun- 
try, who  visited  Solomon,  was  certainly  the  reign- 
ing one;  according  to  Claudian  in  Eutrop.  i.  132. 
the  Sabsans  were  generally  governed  by  queens, 
but  this  has  no  historical  foundation.  Whether 
she  were  widowed  or  unmarried  is,  like  her  name, 
uncertain.  Her  fame  spread  with  and  through  that 
of  Solomon,  who  was  the  beau-ideal  of  a  king 
throughout  the  East,  for  even  the  Koran  mentions 
her  visit  to  Solomon  (Stir.  27),  and  there  are  many 
legends  about  it  among  the  Arabians  and  Abyssin- 
ians.  The  former  name  her  Balkis,  and  the  latter 
Maqueda,  and  even  say  that  she  had  a  son  by  Sol- 
omon, named  Menihelek  (or  Melimelek),*  who  was 
the  ancestor  of  the  Abyssinian  kings  (comp.  Winer). 
These    fables   of  after-times   need   no    refutation. 

The  words  nirp  D'."^  i  which  are  wanting  in  Chron., 

are  by  no  means  unsuitable  or  superfluous  (Mo- 
vers) ;  they  exist  in  all  the  old  translations,  but 
have  been  very  differently  understood.  Propter 
nomen  Jth.  (Le  Clerc)  is  least  like  it;  neither  is  De 
Wette  right:  to  Jehovah's  honor;  nor  this,  "the 
fame  of  what  Solomon  had  become  by  Jehovah's  fa- 
vor "  (Gesenius) ;  nor,  the  fame  "that  Solomon  had 
acquired  through  the  glory  of  his  God  "  (Ewald) ; 
nor  yet,  "which  he  had  attained,  by  Jehovah  glo- 
rifying himself  so  in  him  "  (Weil).     The  expression 

involuntarily  reminds  us  of  the  niiT  Dt."!'  chap.  iii. 

2;  v.  17,  19;  viii.  17,  IS,  19,  20,  44,  48;  2  Sam. 
vii.  13.  The  house  built  to  Jehovah's  name  was 
the  first  and  principal  reason  of  Solomon's  fame  ;^ 
and  -was  what  the  Queen  had  chiefly  heard  of,  in 
which  she  had  seen,  like  Hiram,  an  evidence  of 
wisdom.     This  she  desired  to  prove  for  herself. 

To  prove  him  with  hard  questions.  To 
clothe  wisdom  in  the  form  of  proverbs,  which  were 
often  dark  and  enigmatical  on  account  of  their  bre- 
vity, is  a  primitive  custom  of  the  East,  especially 
among  the  Arabians,  who  are  very  rich  in  proverbs ; 
the  collection  of  the  Meidani,  for  instance,  which 
contains  6,000  proverbs,  and  the  Makami  of  the 
Hariri  show  this.  Chap.  iv.  32  says  that  3,000  are 
by  Solomon:  and  those  in  his  name,  that  are  now 
extant,  include  many  that  are  enigmatical.  We  do 
not  mean  enigmas  in  the  sense  of  those  that  used 
to  be  propounded  at  meals  or  otherwise  {cf.  Ro- 
ienmuller  A.  u.  N.  Morgenland  with  Judges  xiv. 
12);  the  Queen  did  not  want  any  trial  of  skill  in 
enigmas  with  Solomon,  but  wished   to  propound 

*  See  the  srracefm  acconot  of  the  lesends,  in  Stanley's 
Jewish  Clew  ~h,  Second  Strlea,  p.  259-262.— E.  II. 


important  and  difficult  questions  to  him.  Sclomon 
did  not  fail  in  a  single  answer  (Tin  ver.  3  is  solv- 
ing riddles  in  Jud.  xiv.  19,  and  interpreting  dreams 
in  Gen.  xli.  24;   Dan.  v.  12). 

Vers.  4-8.  And  when  the  Queen  had  seen 
all  Solomon's  wisdom.  Solomon's  wisdom  was 
shown,  not  only  in  his  answers  and  discourses 
(ver.  3),  but  in  all  his  arrangements,  in  the  whole 
constitution  of  the  court,  and  manner  of  his  govern- 
ment; whithersoever  the  Queen  looked,  she  beheld 
evidence  of  his  wonderful  gifts  and  powers  of 
thought.  The  "house  "  is  not  the  Temple,  but  the 
royal  palace,  as  the  following  words  concerning  the 
court-appointments  show.  "  Tlie  meal  of  his  table" 
is  the  royal  table,  the  splendor  of  which  is  espe- 
cially described.  The  sitting  of  his  servants,  and  the 
attendance  of  his  ministers,  means  "the  civil  officers 
who  sat  at  the  royal  table,  and  the  servants,  among 
whom  were  the  "  cup-bearers."  in  attendance  upon 
them  (Bertheau).  These  three  descriptions  have 
nothing  to  do  with  localities,  with  the  ministers' 
seats,  the  place  where  the  servants  stood,  nor  the 
preparations  for  the  cup-bearing  (Weil) ;  nor  the 
order  of  the  offices,  and  the  rooms  of  the  lower 
servants  (Thenius);    for  the  parallel  passage  in  2 

Chron.  ix.  4  shows  that  VpCJS  are  persons.  It  ie 
more  doubtful  how  we  are  to  understand  the  fol- 
lowing words   \fwff\  i    &c- ;  Chron.   has  ifV^J?  m" 

stead.  All  the  translations  give  for  both  passages : 
"  and  the  burnt-offerings,  which  he  offered  in  Je- 
hovah's house  ;  "  this  would  mean  the  solemn  and 
magnificent  rites  of  the  Temple  worship.  But  it 
would  not  agree  with  the  description  just  preceding, 
of  the  royal  table  and  court  appointments,  the  ser- 
vants and  cup-bearers;  and  above  all,  the  splendid 
Temple  building  would  have  deserved  mention :  it 
would  be  necessary,  too.  to  alter  the  text  in  both 

places ;   and  lri?5Jl   should  be   read,  yet  we  have 

no  grounds  for  doing  this.  If  this  were  the  right 
reading,  the  Chronicler,  who  was  so  partial  to  the 
details  concerning  the  worship,   would   not  have 

taken   in'?!?    instead.      Most  modern  translators 

(Keil,  Winer,   Ewald),   therefore,  give  ascent  for 

ijvV;     meaning  the  particidar  ascent    of    steps 

that  led  from  the  palace  to  the  Temple  ;  and  i"6j? 

Ezek.  xl.  26  has  the  same  signification.  This  ascent 
of  steps  belonged  to  the  palace,  and  very  likely 
struck  the  eye,  as  it  is  here  expressly  mentioned ; 
it  also  appears  from  2  Kings  xvi.  18  that  the  king 
had  a  peculiar  entrance  of  that  kind  to  the  Temple. 
The  concluding  words  of  ver.  5  are  literally,  and 
there  was  no  more  breath  in  her ;  as  the  breath 
goes  in  terror  (Josh.  ii.  11 ;  v.  1),  so  it  also  goes  in 
cases  of  extreme  astonishment. 

Vers.  9.  10.  Blessed  be  the  Lord  thy  God. 
We  cannot  conclude  from  these  words  that  the 
Queen  had  formally  confessed  the  One  God  of  Is- 
rael, but  rather  that  it  meant  what  we  have  already 
remarked  of  a  similar  expression  of  Hiram,  chap, 
v.  7.  What  she  saw  and  heard  excited  her  wonder 
to  such  a  degree,  that  it  seemed  to  her  directly  im- 
parted by  the  God  Solomon  adored,  and  for  whom 
she  became  filled  with  reverence.  The  presents 
which  the  Queen,  according  to  custom,  made,  con' 
sisted  of  those  articles  in  which  her  land  most 


US 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


abounded,  and  for  which  it  was  most  famous.  The 
spices  were  principally  the  famous  Arabian  balm, 
which  was  largely  exported ;  according  to  Joseplius 
(Ant  8,  6.  6)  the  balm-shrub  was  introduced  into 
Palestine  bv  the  Queen  of  Sheba  (Winer,  R.-  W.-B. 
L  s.  132). 

Vers.  11-13.  And  the  navy  also  of  Hiram, 
Sec.  The  mention  of  the  costly  presents  leads  the 
author  to  the  remark,  vers.  11  and  12,  which  may 
be  regarded  as  a  parenthesis,  that  such  articles  of 
luxury  were  introduced  in  abundance  into  Jeru- 
salem by  commerce ;  and  the  (fragrant)  spices  re- 
minded him  of  the  equally  great  quantities  of  san- 
dal-wood that  Solomon  received  through  Hiram's 
ships.  This  wood,  which  is  indigenous  to  India, 
"  was  highly  prized  throughout  the  East  for  its  fra- 
grance, aud  partly  was  carved  into  images,  partly 
used  for  tine  utensils,  and  partly  used  for  incense- 
burning"  ("Winer,  II.  s.  379).    IVDO  (ver.  12)  only 

occurs  here,  and  its  meaning  is  not  quite  cer- 
tain.    The  root  "IJJD  means,  to  support,  make  sure. 

Thenius  calls  it  ''supports  of  the  resting,"  i.  e., 
seats  made  by  Solomon  on  the  walls  of  a  palace  or 
Temple  room ;  but  we  do  not  find  the  slightest 
mention   of  such  a  Temple  room  anywhere.     As 

Chron.  has  J"li?DD  (from  p^D,  to  prepare  the  way, 

Ps.  lxviii. ;  v.)  instead  of  our  word,  Bertheau 
thinks  that  "|j;D  like  "jyv  is  to  advance,  so  that 
both  expressions  really  denote  the  same  thing ;  i. 
e..  the  "  way  of  entrance,  ascent."  Jarchi  gives 
IJJDO  by  HDV1  &  «•,  wainscoting  on  the  floor 
(tessellated  pavements) ;  and  this  seems  the  best. 
The  translation,  steps  with  banisters  (Keil),  has  no 

authority.  "ii-)3  and  ")2J  must  be  striuged  instru- 
ments with  sounding-boards ;  they  are  mentioned 
together  in  Ps.  lxxi.  22;  cviii.  3;  cL  3;  we  know 
nothing  certain  of  their  natures.  Which  Solomon 
gave  her  of  his  royal  bounty  (ver.  13),  i.  e.,  besides 
the  things  he  presented  her  with  according  to  the 
custom  of  kings,  he  gave  her  everything  else  she 
desired.  We  can  scarcely  think  this  included,  as 
the  other  translators  think,  any  literary  produc- 
tions. It  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Ethiopian 
Christians  "concluded  rightly  from  these  words 
that  their  Queen  had  a  son  by  Solomon  "  (Ber- 
theau). 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  section  before  us  does  not,  by  any  means, 
contain  a  story  accidentally  and  arbitrarily  inserted 
here,  which,  however  beautiful  it  may  be,  might  be 
left  out  without  doing  harm,  because  it  does  not 
bear  upon  the  history  of  the  Israelite  kings.  How 
high  the  significance  which  has  always  been  at- 
tached to  the  event  recorded  is,  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  remembrance  of  it  has  been  preserved 
outside  of  Palestine  for  thousands  of  years,  and  that 
two  ancient  peoples,  the  Arabians  and  Abvssiniaus, 
revered  the  Queen  of  Sheba  as  the  mother  of  their 
line  of  kings;  the  Abyssinian  tradition  making  the 
Bon  she  bore  to  Solomon  the  founder  of  the  ancient 
Ethiopian  kingdom.  And  when  the  Lord,  from 
out  '.lie  treasure  of  the  Old  Testament  history, 
;hoo«es  this  narrative,  and  presents  it  for  the 
shaming  of  his  contemporaries,  this  presupposes 
that  it  was  known  to  and  specially  esteemed  by  all 
jlMer  nations      It   is,  therefore,   something    more 


than  an  ordinary  visit  of  royal  etiquette.  Sabse» 
was  reckoned  to  be  the  richest,  most  highly  favored 
and  glorious  land  in  the  ancient  world,  and  there- 
fore was  given  the  unique  name  of  "The  Happy." 
Agatharchides  names  the  Sabasat  a  vivoc  iravroiat 
Kvpmv  etoai/ioviac..  Now  when  the  ^  •■"en  came 
with  a  splendid  retinue  to  visit  this  distant  land, 
and  from  no  political  design,  but  merely  to  see  and 
hear  the  famous  king ;  and  when  she,  the  sovereign 
of  the  most  fortunate  country  in  the  world,  declared 
that  what  she  had  seen  and  heard  exceeded  all  her 
expectations ;  this  surely  was  the  greatest  homage 
Solomon  could  have  met,  homage  that  no  king  had 
ever  yet  received ;  and  the  result  was  that  Solomon 
was  regarded  as  the  ideal  of  a  wise,  great,  and 
happy  king,  throughout  the  Eastern  world.  The 
visit  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba  marks,  then,  the  splendor 
and  climax  of  the  Old  Testament  Kingdom,  and 
marks  an  essential  moment  in  the  history  of  the 
covenant  as  well  as  of  Solomon.  This  story  is 
therefore  in  its  right  place,  following,  as  it  does, 
the  account  of  the  great  and  glorious  works  Solo- 
mon made  for  his  country  and  which  acquired  for 
him  so  much  fame. 

2.  The  context  explains  the  kind  of  "  wisdom  "  that 
the  Queen  sought  and  found  in  Solomon.  It  was  not 
much  learning;  neither  were  the  "riddles"  that 
Solomon  solved  metaphysical  problems,  nor  mere 
conversation  and  play  of  wit.  Besides  the  answers 
he  gave  to  her  questions,  his  works,  appoint- 
ments, and  arrangements  convinced  the  Queen  of 
his  great  wisdom,  in  which  she  recognized  the 
working  of  a  peculiar  power  and  grace  imparted 
by  God.  It  was  also  a  practical  or  life-wisdom, 
such  as  Solomon  himself  describes,  "a  tree  of  life 
to  them  that  lay  hold  upon  her,  length  of  days  is 
in  her  right  hand,  and  in  her  left  hand  riches  and 
honor.  The  merchandise  of  it  is  better  than  the 
merchandise  of  silver,  and  the  gain  thereof  than  fine 
gold.  She  is  more  precious  than  rubies,  and  all  the 
things  thou  canst  desire  are  not  to  be  compared 
unto  her,"  Prov.  iii.  14-18.  But  this  wisdom  rests 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  knowledge  and  fear  of 
God  (comp.  ver.  1  and  Prov.  ii.  4-6),  and  the  whole 
reign  of  Solomon  is  the  result  of  the  same  (see 
Historical  and  Ethical  on  chap.  iv.  29).  "  0 !  happy 
time,  when  mighty  princes  visited  each  other  in  the 
midst  of  their  lands,  made  tranquil  by  a  holy  fear 
of  God,  so  to  vie  with  each  other  in  wisdom  and 
what  is  still  better,  the  search  after  wisdom " 
(Ewald). 

3.  When  the  Lord  says  in  Matt.  xii.  42  and  Luke 
xi.  81:  "The  Queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in 
the  judgment  with  this  generation  and  shall  con- 
demn it ;  for  she  came  from  the  uttermost  part  of 
the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  be- 
hold a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here,"  he  recog- 
nizes the  prophetical  and  typical  meaning  of  our 
narrative,  as  is  the  case  generally  with  the  king 
dom  of  Solomon.  It  is  said  in  the  prophetical 
descriptions  of  the  peaceful  kingdom  of  Messiah, 
"  the  Kings  of  Sheba  and  Seba  (Meroe)  shall  offer 
gifts;  yea,  all  kings  shall  fall  down  before  him; 
all  nations  shall  serve  him  "  (Ps.  lxxii.  10,  11) ;  and 
"  all  they  from  Sheba  shall  come;  they  shall  bring 
gold  and  incense,  and  they  shall  show  forth  the 
praises  of  the  Lord"  (Isai.  lx.  6).  The  Queen  of 
Sheba,  who  came  from  far,  out  of  the  happiest 
country  of  the  world,  to  Solomon,  brought  him 
presents,  and  received  all  she  wished  from  him,  is 
a  type  of  the  kings  who  with  their  people  shall 


CHAPTER  X.  1-13. 


11* 


?™<ie  from  far  and  near  to  the  everlasting  Prince 
of  peace,  the  King  of  kings,  and  shall  do  him  hom- 
age. Her  visit  is  an  historical  prophecy  of  the  true 
and  eternal  kingdom  of  peace.  It  is  just  this  pro- 
phetical and  typical  character  of  the  story  that 
gives  such  emphasis  to  our  Lord's  reproof  of  the 
hardened  Israelites  of  His  time. 

HOHTLETICAL  AND  PKACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-13.  The  queen  of  Sheba  comes  to  Solo- 
mon, (a)  She  comes  in  order  to  hear  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon  (ft)  She  finds  more  than  she  expected,  (c) 
She  worships  and  praises  the  Lord  for  what  she  has 
seen  and  heard,  (d)  She  returns  home  in  peace,  with 
rich  gifts.- — Solomon  receiving  the  Queen  of  Sheba 
a  type  of  Christ  (Matt.  xxii.  42).  (a)  He  did  not  re- 
ject her  who  sought  him,  but  raised  her  up  (John 
vi.  37).  (6)  He  solved  her  questions,  and  showed 
her  his  glory  (John  i.  9,  14;  xxii.  46:  vi.  6S).  (c)He 
accepted  her  gifts,  and  gave  her  much  more  in  re- 
turn, even  all  that  she  desired  and  requested. 
(Johns.  11,  28;  xvi.  24;  iv.  13  sq.).  Vers.  1-3. 
The  Queen  of  Sheba  had  everything  that  pertains 
to  temporal  prosperity  and  good  fortune,  higli  rank, 
power  and  honor,  health  and  wealth;  but  all  these 
satisfied  not  her  soul;  she  sought  the  solution  of 
the  enigma  of  life,  and  when  she  heard  of  Solomon, 
and  of  the  name  of  the  Lord,  she  spared  no  expense 
or  trouble,  neither  regarded  the  scorn  and  con- 
tempt of  the  world,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  longing 
of  her  soul  for  the  word  of  life.  She  said  not : 
I  am  rich,  and  have  an  abundance,  and  need  noth- 
ing; but  she  felt  that  she  still  ueeded  the  highest 
and  the  best.  How  superior  is  this  heathen  wo- 
man to  so  many  Christians,  who  hunger  and  thirst 
after  all  possible  things,  but  never  after  a 
knowledge  of  truth  and  wisdom,  after  the 
word  of  life.  We  do  not  need  to  journey 
to  Jerusalem,  to  find  him  who  is  greater  than 
Solomon,  for  he  has  promised :  "  I  am  with 
you  forever,  until  the  end  of  the  world,"  and  can 
be  found  everywhere,  if  men  seek  him  earnestly. — 
God  is  not  without  a  witness  in  the  midst  of  the 
heathen,  whereby  they  may  feel  and  recognize  Him, 
foi  He  wills  that  all  men  shall  be  aided  to  come  to 
a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  The  same  God  who 
gave  Solomon  the  wise  heart  for  which  he  prayed, 
revealed  to  the  inquiring  spirit  of  the  heathen 
queen  what  she  most  desired. — Ver.  3.  One  re- 
ceives with  readiness  and  alacrity  the  soul  which 
longs  after  the  truth  of  God;  such  souls  faithfully 
apply  the  same,  they  do  not  weary — and  the  coun- 
sel of  God  unto  salvation  is  not  withheld  from 
them  (Acts  xx.  27,  and  James  v.  19-20). 

Vers.  4—9.  The  acknowledgment  of  the  Queen 
of  Sheba,  when  she  beheld  the  works  of  Solomon, 
(a)  It  is  true  ...  I  would  not  believe  it  until  I, 
&c,  vers.  6,  7  (John  x.  35,  38;  xiv.  11).  (ft)  Thy 
wisdom  has  exceeded,  &c.,  ver.  7  (John  vi.  68  sq.). 
(c)  Happy  are  thy  men,  &c,  ver.  8  (Luke  x.  23).  (rf) 
Praised  be  the  Lord,  &c.,  ver.  9  (Eph.  i.  3). — Ver. 
4.  Words  must  be  followed  by  works  ;  the  behold- 
ing with  her  own  eyes,  and  her  very  own  experi- 
ence, must  be  added  to  the  rumors  she  has  heard. 
Nathaniel,  when  he  heard  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah, 
spoke  doubtingly  at  first:  Can  any  good  thing 
come  out  of  Nazareth?  But  when  he  came  and 
taw  he  joyfully  exclaimed:  Thou  art  the  Son  of 


God,  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel  (John  i.  45—49). 
— Ver.  5.  Great  palaces,  brilliant  arrangements, 
Ac,  are  objects  worthy  of  real  admiration  if  they 
are  not  evidently  mere  works  to  gratify  the  lust  of 
the  eye  and  the  pride  of  life,  but  rather  proofs  of 
wisdom,  of  spiritual  elevation,  and  of  love  of  art. 
— Ver.  7.  As  in  order  to  form  a  just  conception 
of  visible  things  we  must  see  them  with  our  own 
eyes — so  also  with  invisible  and  divine  things  : 
rightly  to  recognize  them  as  such,  we  must  feel 
and  taste  their  strength  in  our  own  hearts,  and  not 
merely  hear  of  them  from  others  (1  Pet.  ii.  3;  Pa. 
xxxiv.  9|. — Ver.  8.  Not  because  of  their  fine  clothes, 
of  their  high  position,  of  their  splendid  possessions, 
did  the  Queen  regard  the  people  and  the  servants 
of  Solomon  as  blessed  and  happy,  but  because 
they  could  always  listen  to  his  wisdom.  How 
much  the  more  are  those  to  be  esteemed  blessed, 
who,  sitting  at  His  feet,  who  Himself  contains  all 
the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  of  knowledge,  can 
hear  the  word  of  everlasting  life  from  His  mouth 
(Luke  x.  23  sq).  Ver.  9.  It  is  proof  of  a  good 
and  noble  heart,  when  a  man  gives  thanks  to  Goa 
for  the  gifts  which  he  bestows  upon  other  men. 
Cramer:  Upon  the  land  which  God  will  bless  He 
bestows  good  and  wise  rulers ;  but  if  He  will  to 
punish  a  country,  he  does  the  opposite  (Is.  iii.  4; 
Ec.  x.  16,  17).  If  the  Queen,  in  God's  gift  of  a 
Solomon  to  Israel,  recognized  a  singular  proof  of 
God's  love  to  this  nation,  and  exclaimed  :  Blessed 
be,  &c,  how  can  we  thank  and  praise  God  enough  for 
the  love  which  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the 
world,  to  save  us  from  utter  darkness,  and  to  place 
us  in  the  kingdom  of  His  dear  Son  (Cor.  i.  13; 
Eph.  i.  3). — Osiander:  Rulers  are  given  their  high 
position  by  God,  not  simply  to  enjoy  the  pleas- 
ures of  life,  and  to  see  good  days,  but  to  administer 
justice  to  their  subjects,  and  care  for  their  tempo- 
ral and  eternal  welfare. 

Vers.  10-13.  The  interchange  of  gifts  between 
the  Queen  and  Solomon,  (a)  The  Queen  is  not 
content  with  words  of  praise  and  thanks  ;  she  tes- 
tifies her  gratitude  by  means  of  great  and  roya. 
gifts.  Of  what  avail  is  all  mere  verbal  thanks  and 
praise,  if  the  life  be  devoid  of  lovely  deeds,  and  of 
cheerful  gifts,  for  the  acknowledgment  of  God's 
kingdom  ?  (6)  Solomon  needed  not  the  gifts ;  he 
had  more  than  she  could  give  him  (vers.  11,  12); 
he  gave  her  all  that  heart  could  desire.  What  are 
all  our  gifts  in  comparison  with  those  which  we 
receive  from  the  Lord, — those  which  are  immeas- 
urably beyond  what  we  ask  and  seek  (Eph.  iii. 
20),  and  where  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to 
receive  (Acts  xx.  35)?' Vers.  11,  12.  As  God  be- 
stows various  gifts  upon  individual  men,  so  He  also 
blesses  different  countries  with  varied  products, 
not  that  nations  should  covet  and  contest  the  same, 
but  that  they  should  serve  and  mutually  benefit 
each  other. — Ver.  13.  With  a  treasure  incompar- 
able in  value  to  gold  and  jewels,  the  Queen  joy- 
fully went  her  way,  like  the  Eunuch  of  Ethiopia. 

How  many  are  there  who  return  from  far  jour- 
neys into  distant  lands,  rich  in  gold  and  substance, 
but  poor  in  faith  and  knowledge  of  the  truth.  They 
have  lost  more  than  they  have  won;  the  Queen 
gained  more  than  she  lost. — The  generation  of  th«i 
present  day  in  comparison  with  the  Queen  of 
Sheba;  its  satiety  and  indifference,  its  unbelief 
and  its  guilt  (Matt.  xii.  42). 


120  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


14 

16 


B. — The  Wealth,  Splendor,  and  Power  of  Solomon's  Kingdom. 

Chap.  X.   14-29  (2  Cheon.  IX  13-28). 

Now  the  weight  of  gold  that  came  to  Solomon  in  one  year  was  six  hundred 
threescore  and  six  talents  of  gold,  beside  that  he  had  of  the  merchantmen,' 
and  of  the  traflick  of  the  spice  [omit  spice]  merchants,  and  of  all  the  kings  of 
Arabia,"  and  of  the  governors  of  the  country. 

16  And  king  Solomon  made  two  hundred  targets  [i.  e.  large  shields]  of  beaten 

17  wold;  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold  went  to  one  target.  And  he  made  three 
hundred  shields  of  beaten  gold;  three  pound  [manehs  3]  of  gold  went  to  one 
shield  :  and  the  king  put  them  in  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon. 

18  Moreover  the  king  made  a  great  throne  of  ivory,  and   overlaid  it  with  the 

19  best  gold.  The  throne  had  six  steps,  and  the  top  of  the  throne  was  round  be- 
hind :  and  there  were  stays  [arms  *]  on  either  side  on  the  place  of  the  seat,  and 

20  two  lions  stood  beside  the  stays  [arms].  And  twelve  lions  stood  there  on  the 
one  side  and  on  the  other  upon  the  six  steps  :  there  was  not  the  like  made  in  any 
kingdom. 

21  And  all  king  Solomon's  drinking  vessels  were  of  gold,  and  all  the  vessels  of 
the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  were  of  pure6  gold ;  none  were_  of  silver : 

22  it  was  nothing  accounted  of  in  the  days  of  Solomon.  For  the  king  had  at 
sea  a  navy8  of^Tharshish  with  the  navy  of  Hiram:  once  in  three  years  came  the 

23  navy  of  Tharshish,  bringing  gold,  and  silver,  ivory,  and  apes,  and  peacocks.'  So 
king  Solomon  exceeded  all  the  kings  of  the  earth  for  riches  and  for  wisdom. 

24  And  all  the  earth  sought  to  Solomon,  to  hear  his  wisdom,  which  God  had 

25  put  in  his  heart.  And  they  brought  every  man  his  present,  vessels  of  silver, 
and  v.ssels  of  gold,  and  garments,  and  armor,"  and  spices,  horses,  and  mules, 
a  rate  year  by  year. 

26  And  Solomon  gathered  together  chariots  and  horsemen  :  and  he  had  a  thou- 
sand and  four  hundred  chariots,  and  twelve  thousand  horsemen,  whom  he  be- 

27  stowed  in  the  cities  for  chariots,  and  with  the  king  at  Jerusalem.  And  the  king 
made  silver  to  be  in  Jerusalem  as  stones,  and  cedars  made  he  to  be  as  the  syca- 
more [mulberry  10]  trees  that  are  in  the  vale,  for  abundance. 

28  And  Solomon  had  horses  brought  out  of  Egypt,  and  linen  yarn  [a  troop     ]  : 

29  the  kind's  merchants  received  the"linen  yarn  [troop]  at  a  price.  And  a  chariot 
came  up  and  went  out  of  Egypt  for  six  hundred  shekels  of  silver,  and  an  horse 
for  an  hundred  and  fifty :  and  so  for  all  the  kings  of  the  Hittites,  and  for  the 
kings  of  Syria,  did  they  bring  them  out  by  their  means. 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

'  Ver.  15.  [D'nnn  »BbKD,  on  the  meaning  of  this  difficult  expression,  see  Exeg.  Com.  The  versions  render  as  fol- 
lows :  Vnlg.,  the  meVwho  were  over  the  tribute ;  Sept.,  the  tribute  of  those  subject;  Chald,  the  wages  of  the  artisans; 
Syr.,  siinplv  from  the  artisans;  and  so  the  Arab.  .._«_„«-   ,-L—  .. ,  •  § 

»  Ver.  15.  [The  ancient  versions  generally  sustain  this  rendering.  The  Chald.  alone  has  KHiapW  '3?0     t"ig»   of 

auxiliary  or  allied  nations."  which  must  be  wrong.  The  Heb.  word  31$  Is  used  Ex.  sii.  83,  Neh.  xiii.  8,  generally  of 
"a  mixed  multitude  "  of  aliens  attaching  themselves  to  the  Israelites;  and  Jer.  xxv.  24,  specifically  of  the  mixed  races 
i!  Arabia  Deserta.     Hence  in  the  parallel  place  2  Chron.  ix.  14  we  have  3TJJ. 

•  Ver.  IT.  [The  Maneh=100  shekels.  » _■._■_»_ 
«  Ver.  19.  [The  Ileb.  FliT  undoubtedly  means  arms,  and  is  so  rendered  by  the  Syr.    The  Chald.  and  Arab,  give  tne 

sense  of  the  A.  V.,  while  the  Vulg.  and  Sept.  render  literally,  hands. 

•  Ver.  21.  [The  English  version  gives  without  doubt  the  true  sense  ;  so  the  Vulg.,  Chald,  and  Syr.  The  word  "TOO 
Is  the  part.  /«««.  from  "13  D  to  shut,  close,  and  hence  the  Sept.  version  xpwV  ovyxtKhw^a.. 

•  Ver.  22.  [The  Sept.  and  Chald.  adopt  the  single  instead  of  the  collective  meaning  of  '38  and  render  "  a  ship." 

'  Ver  22,  [Tne  other  ancient  versions  (except  that  the  Syr.  and  Arab,  has  elephants  Instead  of  l™^>  co^ur  J»  ™ 
tense  of  these  words  given  >«  the  English  version;  but  the  Vat.  Sept.  has  instead  *.««»  Topeviw  «<"  ireAwirmi.,  st.nei 
•nt  and  graved.    The  Vat.  Sept.  also  here  inserts  the  passage  omitted  in  Chap.  ix. 

>  Ver,  25.  [The  Sept.  render   ptl'3  (=armourj  by  ora/en)!-,  oil  of  myrrh. 


CHAPTER  X.   14-29. 


12J 


»  Ver.  26.  [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  first  clause  of  ver.  26,  and  both  recensions  add  to  the  verse  the  first  part  of  lv. 
H.     Also  instead  "f  1,400  chsiriots  they  read  4,000  (Alex.  40,000)  mares. 

10  Ver.  27.  [D'?Dp*J*=<rv»c6/Aopos,  avKamvos,  the  mulberry-tree,  now  rare,  but  anciently  very  common  in  the  low- 
lands of  Palestine. 

11  Ver.  28.  [On  the  meaning  of   HlpD  ,  here  translated  "  linen  yarn,"  see  Exeg.  Com.    The  Sept.  and  Vulg.  hare 
taken  it  as  a  proper  fame. — F.  G.]  "  :  ' 


EXEGETICAL  AKD  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  14-15.  Now  the  weight  of  gold, 
&o.  The  666  talents  have  been  very  differently 
computed.  According  to  Ex.  xxxviii.  25  there  are 
3,000  shekels  in  one  talent,  but  Thenius  reckons 
the  shekel  at  10  Thalers,  so  that  the  whole  sum 
would  amount  to  "  nearly  20  millions  of  Thalers  in 
gold."  Keil,  who  had  formerly  reckoned  it  at  1,900,- 
875  Marks,  calculates  it  now  at  ''over  17  millions 
of  Thalers."  which  plainly  is  too  high.  According 
to  this,  the  golden  crown  which  David  took  from 
the  head  of  the  Ammonite  king,  and  which 
weighed  a  talent,  not  reckoning  the  precious 
stones  in  it  (2  Sam.  xii.  'SO),  must  have  weighed 
834  Dresden  pounds,  and  a  talent  was  about 
30,000  Thalers,  which  is  simply  impossible.  We 
prefer  to  reckon  the  talent  at  2,618  Thalers*  at 
present,  as  Winer  (R.-W.-B.  II.  s.  562)  and 
Bunsen  (Bihehoerk  I.  Bird.  s.  377) think;  this  makes 
666  talents  equal  to  1.743.588  Thalers,  a  still 
considerable  sum.  We  cannot  see  why  the  num- 
ber 666  should  be  an  "  invented"  one,  in  which 
tradition  betrays  itself  (Thenius).  There  is,  in  any 
event,  no  allusion  in  Rev.  xiii.  18  to  this  passage, 
and  this  number  has  no  particular  signification  any- 
where else.  It  only  expresses  the  simple  sum  of 
the  various  receipts.  In  one  year,  i.  e. ,  per  annos 
sinyuhs  (Vulgate);  this  suits  our  calculation  very 
well,  but  not  the  20,000,000  Thalers  [or  $15,000,"- 
000].  Keil,  without  any  reason,  doubts  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  translation,  in  which  all  old  trans- 
lators have  agreed ;  for  if,  as  he  supposes,  the 
freight  of  the  Opliir  fleet,  which  returned  only 
once  in  three  years,  brought  the  666  talents,  it 
must  mean  in  every  third  year.  The  666  talents 
were  the  regular  yearly  income ;  but  we  must  not 
necessarily  suppose,  with  Thenius,  that  they  were 
"  the  income  of  taxes  laid  on  the  Israelites  them- 
selves;" for  there  is  no  mention  anywhere  made 
ol  a  yearly  income  tax.  Ver.  15  tells  of  other 
less  defined  additions  to  the  regular  revenue.     The 

Sept.  renders  the  difficult  expression  D'inn  't'JX 

by  (;t<jp<r)  r£ni(p6pbni  tuv  v-noTeTayfiivuv;  it  appears 
also  to  have  read  differently.   Thenius  therefore 

conjectures  it  to  be  DTPH  'SMVD,  and  trans- 
lates: "  from  the  contributions  of  the  subjugated  ;" 
but  in  opposition  to  this,  Bertheau  remarks  rightly, 
"  D'mn  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  t;"Jj;  (Zv/iia)  can 
scarcely  mean  a  tribute  laid  on  the  conquered 
lands  in  David's  time,  and  as  such  raised  by  Solo- 
mon."    The  expression   is   generally   understood 

to   mean  travelling  tradespeople,  and  as  D^DI  , 

i.  e.,  merchants,  follows,  the  latter  "merchants" 
must  mean  "the  pedlers  or  inferior  shop-keepers" 
(Keil).  But  this  distinction  is  destitute  of  proof.  The 

*  If  we  reckon  the  Thaler  at  75  cents,  10  Thalers,  of 
course,  are  $7.50,  and  20  millions  of  ThalerB  are  §15,000,000. 
Anil  taking  the  author's  estimate  of  values,  (.  e.,  supposing 
the  talent  to  be  equal  to  2,618  Thalers,  the  666  talents  in  the 
text  Fonld  be  equal  to  $1.306.691.— E.  H. 


word  "im  is  never  used  for  trading ;  DHnn  in  Num. 

xiv.  6  (xiii.  16,  17)  means  the  men  that  Moses  sent 
out  to  view  and  report  upon  the  land.  The  Vulgate 
translates  the  parallel  passage  in  2  Chron.  ix.  14. 
legati  diversarum  gentium.  So  also  Bertheau,  "  the 
ambassadors  "  by  whom  the  presents  of  other  kings 
were  brought.  It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the 
exact  income  Solomon  received  from  the  traffic  of 
the  mercliants;  but  there  could  scarcely  have  been 
a  regular  commercial  tax  (Thenius),  and  custom 
duties  are  still  less  to  be  supposed.  The  kings 
31>'n  are  not  "  kings  of  the  mixed  tribes  "  (Ked), 

but  could  only  have  been  Arabian  tributary  kings, 
who  were  subject  to  Solomon;  probably  they  be- 
longed to  the  desert  Arabia,  or  at  least  to  a  part  of 
it,  which  joined  the  Israelitish  territory  (Thenius). 
Cf.  Jer.  xxv.  20;  Ezek.  xxx.  5.  The  governors  are 
no  doubt  the  same  as  those  mentioned  in  chap.  iv. 
7-1 9.  The  revenue-sources  named  in  ver.  15  were 
plainly  not  gold,  but  in  various  kinds  of  produce. 

Vers.  16,  17.   And  king  Solomon  made  two 
hundred  targets,  &c.      njy   is  the  large  square 

shield,  rounded  down  upon  its  length,  covering  the 
whole  body.  It  was  usually  made  of  wood  covered 
with  leather,  but  these  were  overlaid  with  gold. 
pD  is  a  smaller  shield,  either  quite  round  or  oval, 

also  of  wood  or  leather  covered  with  gold.  The 
latter  was   Bin"* ,  i-  «•,  not :  mixed  with  another 

metal,  nor  pure;  but:  stretched,  hammered  broad. 
The  word  shekel  is  left  out  in  giving  the  weight, 
as  often  happens  (Gen.  x.  16;  xxiv.  22;  xxxvii 
28).  The  600  shekels  for  each  large  shield  should 
come  to  523*  Thalers  [$392-3].  If  a  talent  is  reck- 
oned at  3,000  shekels,  and  the  talent  be  equal  to 
2,618  Thalers  [see  note  above],  the  3  pounds  for 
each  smaller  shield  would  be  261^  Thalers,  as  3 
pounds  are=300  shekels,  according  to  2  Chron.  ix. 
16.  This  calculation  appears  far  more  probable 
than  that  17i  pounds  of  gold,  worth  6,000  Thalers, 
were  used  for  each  shield  (Thenius) ;  or  that  the 
gold-plating  of  a  large  shield  did  not  weigh  quite 
9  pounds,  and  that  of  a  small  one  nearly  4J  pounds 
(Keil).  These  shields  were  borne,  as  chap.  xiv.  27 
tells  us,  by  the  body-guard ;  but  were  used  prob- 
ably only  on  special  occasions,  for  they  were 
more  for  show  than  for  ordinary  use,  and  served 
also  to  adorn  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanou 
(for  which  see  above  in  chap.  vii.  2).  Golden 
shields  are  also  mentioned  in  1  Mace.  vi.  39,  and 
were  used  also  by  the  Carthaginians  (Plin.  Hist. 
Nat.,  xxxv.  4). 

Vers.  18-20.  Moreover,  the  lung  made  a 
great  throne,  Ac.  The  throne  was  not  entirely 
made  of  ivory,  any  more  than  the  palaces  men 
tioned  in  chap.  xxii.  39  j  Ps  xiv.  9 ;  Amos  hi.  15, 
but  was  only  inlaid  with  it,  decorated.  The  wood 
of  which  it  was  made  was  overlaid  with  gold,  and 
between,  ivory  was  inserted.    2  Chron.  ix.  17  gives 

linu  ,  pure,  for  pio  ,  i.  c,  purified.     Round  if 

hind  can   scarcely  be  that  "  i"    had  an  arched  o> 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


122 

^^Sy^JSK£&%^ISS  and  but  little  ivory.     KeQ  now  admits 


Most  "probably  the  lions  as  well  as  the 
Se  itself  to  which  they  belonged  were  made  of 
W  overlaid  with  gold  as  images  of  gods  were 
j„  fTo.  t  ^  to  i  There  was  not  a  "lion  on 
e^Tof  the  annA  the  throne  (Ewald),  but  on 
each  side  of  it  6>\S)  i  *e  twelve  others  stood  on 
the  six  steps  leading  to  the  throne,  each  one  facing 
anoter  The  remark,  there  was  not  the  like  made 
Z  has  reference  to  the  artistic  merit  of  the  work 
as  well  a*  its  costliness;  the  statues  were  at  least 
as  large  as  life.     "  On  the  ancient  Assyrian  monu 


!  he  once  held  the  far-fetched  idea  that 
Jehoshaphat  brought  the  ships  built  at  Ezion-geber 
.cross  the  isthmus  of  Suez,  transported  also  ov-r 
land  tt  sail  thence  to  Spain.  The  ships  wuth  which 
he  Phcen icians  used  to  go  to  the  distant  Tharshish 
were  very  large  and  strong,  perhaps  the  largest 
Trading  vessels ;  and  as  large  ships  now  that  go  far 
are  named  after  the  lands  they  sail  to,  for  instance 
Eas "indtamen,  Greenlanders,  so  in  Solomon's  time 
or  ha  of  our  author,  the  Phoenicians  called  large 
trad  ng  vessels  Tharshish  ships;  it  had  become  a 
regula?  name,   as  the   following  passages  show : 


■  p'i  xlviii.  8.     Taking  everything  into 
me^^re are representatio^ofhighc^u-s witt ^   ^^^Xcan regard &eformala:  ships 

arms  and  backs,  also  such,  the  backs  of  which  were  |  „__„v:3,  „  nhrnn.  ix.  211  as  only  a 


supported  bv  figures  of  animals  (cf.  Layard,  Nt- 
3  T^V^but  none  of  these  chairs  are  like 
that  o  :  Solomon.  Later  ages  only  can  produce 
more  splendid  thrones.  Cf.  Rosenmuller  Alia 
und^ues  Mainland,  III.  s.  176  sq."  (keil). 

Ver  21  And  aU  king  Solomon's  drinking 
vessels  &c  The  account  of  the  great  quantity 
ol  gold  and 'silver  in  Solomon's  time  does  not  ap- 
pear  in  the  least  exaggerated  when  we  compare 
C  of  other  ancient  -iters  about  the  amoiui 


wLT"toLTarshish'(2  Chrom  ix.  21)  as  only  a  mis- 
,ken  intlrStation  of  the  expression :  Tharslnsh 
rleet^a  mistake  that  is  easily  accounted  for,  as  a 
the  time  Chronicles  was  written  the  voyages  of 
Tvrians  as  well  as  of  Israelites  to  Ophir  and 
Tharshish  had  long  ceased,  and  the  geographical 
position  of  both  pUcea  was  ^rgotten  by  the  Jew 
(Keil)  Though  the  passage  under  considera- 
Soes  not  ^expressly  whither  the  Thaxshiah 

^mtlt  hte'o^f  donation      But  much 


t hose  o    other  aucieiit  «n«..»  « „„0i„a      nnhir  must  have  been  us  uwuu«»«u-     -.    — . 

precious  metal  in  the  ancient  East.     Sardanapalus     ^     must  ^  ^.^  q{  pphu- which 

For  instance,  had,  when  Nineveh  was  besieged    50   basbeen^  ^  jg  ^  ,  (c/  W.ner 


ints  of  gold   ten  times  as  much  silver  and  3,000 
alents  Si  been  previously  divided  by  him  among 
.,;=  <„ns  (Ktesias  by  Athemeus,  xn.  p.  52J).     JNO 
le  s  than  (7    70  talents  of  gold  were  used  for  the 
statues    ud  vessels  of  the  Temple  of  Bel  in  Baby- 
lon  Miiuter,  lid.  der  Babyl,  i  51,  where  the  pas- 
Zes  of  the  ancients  that  refer  to  it  are  given) 
Afexander's    pillage    of   Ecbatana  was   valued  at 
120,000  talents    of   gold  (D.odor.    &«£**$; 
Cvrus'  pillage  was  34,000  pounds  of  gold  and  500 
000  po     ds'of  silver,  besides  an  immense  number 
„f  golden  vessels  (Pliny,    to*.    Nat.  xxvu.  3,  cf. 
Symbol.  desMos.  Knit.  1.8.  259  s9-)- 

Ver.   22.    For  tile  king  had  at  sea  a  navy 
ic.     winn  .  the  ancient  Phoeni 


of  Tharshish,  ic.     E^ann 

T,rt..Q«n<  on  the  far  side  of  the 

can  emporium,  Taitessus,  on  uie  i 

oiUars  of  Hercules  in  south-western  Spain     it  is 

described  us  lying  in  a  district  which  was  rich  in 

'       t      i  nation  has  been  much  disputed   but 

hTabove  „,av  be  taken  as  the  correct  account  see 

he  opinions  in  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  II.  f.  603).       cy 

Ezek.xxxviu.13;  Jer.x.9;  Isai.  xx.u.  10.)   That, 

tooww.wna  'J-«"<*s  not  here  denote  ship3 

„i»j  to  Tharsliisli,  is  evident  from  the  passage  1 
Kings  xxii.  48,  '•Jehoshaphat  made  ships  of  Hiar- 
ShUn to  go  to'Ophir  lor  gold  (f  e.,  to  feteh gold) 
but  tiie/went  not,  for  the  ships  were  broken  a 
E-zion-eeber  (i.  e.,  on  the  Arabian  gulf).  wneie 
^ver  we  may  look  for  Ophir,  it waacertainy  no 
1U  spai*  as  every  one  knows,  but  in  the  East,  that 
8  in  the  opposite  direction.  The  ships  that  Solo- 
'„;',,   ,     ,,„,  had  built  (chap.  ix.  28)  in  Ezion- 

gTer  were  also  desti 1  to  go  to  Ophir  ttierefore 

-ould  not  possibly  have  been  intended  for  a  voyage 

jea)  because  the  way  around  South  Ala  was 
then  unknown.  The  productions,  too  which w. 
22  tells  us  the  Tharshish  slops  broug^showbe 
yond  dispute  that 


lm<5  been  written  aoout  mv  ^.«"« .  *  -  -nr- 

has  been  greatly,  and  is  still,  ^P^c^~e 
p .  IV'-B.  II.  s.  183  sg. :  Herzog,  Real- EncyU.  on  uie 
Ird)      This  much,  however,  has  been  settled  by 

ever>  tnree  yo      ,  thg  clue,  lmport] 

S*h-  Save  been  plentiful  in  Ophir,  is 
notfonnd  on  the  Indian  coast,  but  is  met  with,  nrst, 
lh  nf  Cashmere  South  Arabia,  on  the  con- 
tra rv  was  f  med  tor  its  abundance  of  gold,  and 
Asa  Minor  imported  its  gold  ch.efiy  then* .  1^ 
p«3n  ,  rendered  peacocks  by  all  the  old  trans 
lations,  seem  even  more  than  the  Q'Bp  ,  »".  e,  apes, 
to  point  to  India,  for  *ey  originally  came  from 
th/ve  tOken,  Natur,j^ch.ikr  Vogel,s.Qlo);  the  ivory 
too  which  is  in  other  places  simply  expressed  by 
W  reminds  us  of  India.  But  as  Ophir  certainly 
cannot  mean   India,  we  decide,  with   Ewald  and 

i 


in     since  peone  mauc    »"j»d^"   -,  ,       ,    •„_+ 

and  besides  the  gold  of  Ophir  brought  apes,  pea- 

i     1,    imvi  e    Indian  products  and  articles 

cocks,  and  ivory,  i.  e.,    ™"°  i"  thpre  was 

Arato  and  that  Indian  product,  reached  Ophn, 


CHAPTER  X.   14-29. 


123 


opposite  coast  of  Ethiopia.  Though  there  was  a 
'  species  of  tailed  ape  "  in  Ethiopia,  there  were  no 
peacocks  and'  no  sandal-wood.  Thenius  very  un- 
necessarily supposes  that  the  same  writer  who 
wrote  chap.  ix.  27  sq.  could  not  have  written  this  pas- 
sage, because  each  passage  speaks  of  the  voyage 
to  Ophir  in  a  different  manner ;  whence  again  the 
compilatory  character  of  our  books  must  follow. 
The  first  account  is  of  the  first  voyage,  and  the 
second  account  of  the  later  and  more  extended  one. 
Vers.  23-27.  So  king  Solomon  exceeded, 
&c.  From  vers.  23-29,  by  way  of  conclusion, 
everything  that  was  to  be  said  of  the  glory  of 
Solomon  is  summed  up,  and  at  the  same  time  some 
things  not  yet  mentioned  are  added.  For  vers. 
23-24  cf.  chap.  iv.  29-34.  According  to  the  uni- 
versal custom  in  the  East  all,  who  came  to  see  and 
hear  Solomon  brought  him  presents,  and  this  was 
repeated  "  year  by  year,"  so  highly  had  he  risen 
everywhere  in  consideration.  For  ver.  26  cf. 
chap.  iv.  26,  and  chap.  ix.  19.  In  ver.  27  silver 
only  is  mentioned  and  not  gold  (which  the  Sept. 
unjustifiably  adds  here  from  2  Chron.  i.  15),  be- 
cause enough  had  been  said  already  about  gold. 
The  great  quantity  of  silver  does  not  necessarily 
show  that  there  was  a  silver  trade  with  Tharshish 
which  was  rich  in  that  metal,  for  there  was  a  great 
deal  of  silver  in  Asia :  Sardanapalus  in  Nineveh 
(see  above  on  ver.  21),  rich  as  he  was  in  gold,  had 
ten  times  as  much  silver,  which  he  certainly  did 
not  get  from  Spain.  The  cedar-wood  which 
came  from  Lebanon  was  as  plentiful  there  in  Je- 
rusalem as  common  building  timber,  which  was 
taken  from  sycamores  (Isai.  ix.  10),  which  did  not 
grow  on  high  mountains  but  very  often  in  the  low- 
lands of  Palestine  (Winer,  R-  W.-B.  II  s.  62  sq.), 
and  were  therefore  cheap  and  easy  to  be  had.  The 
mode  of  expression  is  hyperbolical  and  Oriental, 
and  cannot  be  taken  literally  any  more  than  chap. 
iv.  20. 

Vers.  28,  29.  And  Solomon  had  horses 
brought,  &c.  Verses  28  and  29  contain  supple- 
mentary remarks  to  the  account  given  in  ver.  26 
of  Solomon's  war-forces,  explaining  how  he  ac- 
quired the  latter,  namely,  by  sending  special  mer- 
chants to  trade  with  Egypt,  which  was  famous  for 
its  breed  of  horses,  and  was  the  country  of  "  horses 
and  chariots "  (Ex.  xiv.  6  sq. ;  xv.  1 ;  2  Kings 
xviii.  24;  Isai.  xxxi.  1 ;  Jer.  xlvi.  2,  4;  Deut.  xvii. 
16).  nipD,  which  occurs  twice  in  ver.  28,  is  diffi- 
cult ;  but  it  can  only  mean  collection,  collexio,  mul- 
titude (Gen.  i.  9,  10;  Ex.  vii.  19;  Jer.  iii.  17).  If 
we  adhere  to  the  masoretic  punctuation  we  must 
render  it  as  Gesenius  does :  "  And  a  number  of  royal 
merchants  fetched  a  number  of  the  same  (horses) 
for  money;"  the  passage  would  thus  contain  "a 
kind  of  play  on  the  word,"  which  would  be  here 
without  design  or  meaning.  The  Sept.  and  the  Vul- 
Ijate  regard  nipD  as  denoting  locality,  and  connect 
it  with  D'lVDD  ;  the  departure  of  horses  from 
Egypt  and  from  Coa  (Ik  Qskovc  de  Coa) ;  but  neither 
the  Bible  nor  any  ancient  translator  mentions  a 
country  or  town  named  Coa  or  Cawe,  and  yet  as  a 
place  of  trade  it  could  not  have  been  insignificant 
or  unknown.     Thenius  arbitrarily  and  incorrectly 

changes  the  first  nipO  m'o  yipno  ;   Thekoa,  some 

miles  from  Jerusalem,  was  not  a  trading  town  but 
a  small  place  situated  on  a  height  and  inhabited  by 
thepherds  (Winer,  ».  606).     The  translation  "re- 


mainder "  (or  surplusage)  (Ewald)  is  no  better  than 
that  given  by  some  Rabbins,  woven  texture.  The 
second  nipD  can  have  no  other  meaning  than  that 
of  the  first ;  it  means  "  collection  "  each  time,  i.  e., 
collection  of  horses,  and  the  passage  becomes  quite 
clear,  if,  leaving  the  masoretic  punctuation,  we  join 
the  first  nlp!2  to  the  preceding  words,  making  one 
sentence  of  them:  "Concerning  the  bringing  of 
horses  out  of  Egypt,  and  their  collection,  the  mer- 
chants of  the  king  made  a  collection  of  them  for  a 
certain  price."  This  shows  that  the  horses  were 
not  brought  up  one  by  one,  but  in  droves  each  time. 
When  600  shekels  were  given  for  a  chariot  and 
150  for  a  horse,  the  first  price  of  course  included 
that  of  the  harness  for  two  horses  belonging  to  the 
chariot,  and  also  that  of  a  reserved  horse  (see  above 
on  chap.  iv.  26).  The  single  horses  at  150  shekels 
must  have  been  riding-horses.  We  cannot  tell  the 
exact  amount  of  this  price  in  our  money,  as  the 
value  of  the  shekel  is  not  fixed.  If,  like  Winer  and 
others,  we  compute  it  at  26  silver  groschen,  150 
shekels  would  be  equal  to  130  Thlr.  [$97.50] ;  Keil 
agrees  with  this,  but  formerly  thought,  with  others, 
that  it  only  amounted  to  65  or  66  Thlr.;  Thenius 
gives  it  at  100  Thlr.  The  traders  were  ca'led  "  king's 
merchants,"  not  because  they  had  to  give  an  account 
of  their  dealings  to  the  king  (Bertheau)  but  "  be- 
cause they  traded  for  the  king"  (Keil);  as  such 
they  were  respected,  and  distant  kings  employed 
them  in  procuring  horses.  The  Hittites  are  not  the 
same  as  those  named  in  chap.  ix.  20,  but  were  an 
independent  tribe,  probably  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Syria,  as  2  Kings  vii.  6  mentions  them  as  in  alliance 
with  the  Syrians. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1 .  In  the  section  before  us  the  delineation  of  Sol- 
omon's glory  reaches  its  climax.  No  other  king's 
reign  is  treated  at  such  length  in  our  books  as  that 
of  Solomon,  which  alone  occupies  1 1  chapters.  But 
this  whole  historical  representation  has  the  same  end 
in  view  that  this  section,  referring  to  the  promise, 
chap.  iii.  13.  expresses  in  the  words:  "  King  Solo- 
mon exceeded  all  the  kings  of  the  earth  for  riches 
and  for  wisdom,"  i.  e.,  all  conceivable  greatness, 
might,  riches,  dignity,  fame,  and  splendor  were  united 
to  such  a  degree  in  Solomon  (which  never  happened 
to  any  king  before  or  after),  that  he  was  looked  on  as 
the  very  ideal  of  a  king  throughout  the  East ;  and  his 
"  glory  "  became  proverbial  (Matt.  vi.  29 ;  Luke  xii. 
26).  The  reason  that  this  glory,  which  here  reaches 
its  highest  point,  is  depicted  just  before  the  account 
of  his  deep  fall  (chap,  xi.),  is  to  be  found  in  the  theo- 
cratic view  of  the  historian,  and  is,  in  an  historico 
redemptive  relation,  of  high  significance.  In  the 
divine  economy  the  Old-Testament  kingdom  was 
destined  to  reach  its  culminating  point  in  David's 
son ;  but  as  the  old  covenant  moved  generally  in 
the  form  and  covering  of  bodiliness,  visibility,  and 
outwardness,  described  as  mzfif  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament; so  the  glory  of  the  Old-Testament  king- 
dom was  a  visible  and  external  one;  its  highest 
point  was  determined  by  riches,  power,  fame, 
dignity,  and  splendor.  Corresponding  with  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  Kara  na/ma,  it  can  be  but  a  glory 
Karii  capita,  i.  e.,  a  visible,  external,  and  therefore 
temporal  and  perishable,  which,  like  the  old  cove- 
nant, pointed  beyond  itself,  to  an  invisible,  spiritual, 
and  therefore  imperishable,  eternal  glory.  The 
same  Old  Testament  king,  under  whom  the  king 


124 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KLNG3. 


dom  reached  its  greatest  degree  of  glory,  prepared 
the  way  for  its  gradual  decline,  and  no  one  preached 
more  powerfully  the  vanity  and  nothingness  of  all 
temporal  splendor  than  he  when  proclaiming,  it  is 
all  vanity  (Eccles.  i.  2)1  In  complete  contrast 
with  the  Old-Testament  glory  of  Solomon  we  see 
the  New-Testament  glory  of  the  son  of  David,  in 
the  most  eminent  sense,  the  true  Prince  of  peace, 
who  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head,  and  was 
crowned  with  praise  and  honor,  not  through  riches, 
power,  dignity,  or  splendor,  but  by  the  suffering  of 
death  ;  who  became  perfect  through  self-abnegation 
and  obedience  unto  the  death  on  the  cross,  and  sat 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  Majesty ; 
Whose  Kingdom  is  everlasting  and  his  glory  imper- 
ishable (Heb.  ii.  9 ;  v.  9 ;  viii.  1 ;  xii.  2 ;  Luke  i.  33). 
2.  Among  the  things  related  to  show  the  splendor 
of  Solomon's  reign,  special  mention  is  made  of  the 
throne  as  the  symbol  of  royal  majesty,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  centre  or  seat  of  this  glory ;  and  it 
is  expressly  added  that  there  was  not  the  like  in 
any  kingdom,  whicli  no  doubt  refers  principally  to 
the  lions.  The  number  of  these  lions,  twelve,  has 
reference,  indisputably,  to  the  number  of  the  tribes 
of  Israel  above  which  the  king  was  elevated  and 
over  which  he  reigned,  and  for  that  reason  the  lions 
stood  below  him  on  the  steps  of  the  throne.  Ewald 
gives  the  following  as  the  reason  for  this  symbol, 
"  indisputably  because  the  lion  was  the  standard 
of  Judah."  This,  however,  does  not  appear  to  be 
so  from  Gen.  xlix.  9,  nor  from  Isai.  xxix.  1  and 
Ezek.  xix.  2  ;  and  besides,  all  the  twelve  tribes  could 
not  be  ranged  under  the  particular  banner  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah.  Thenius  thinks  that  the  two  lions 
next  the  throne  were  "  rather  the  guardians  of  it," 
and  the  twelve  others  on  the  steps  represented 
"the  power  of  the  twelve  tribes  united  in  one 
throne."  But  the  lion  is  never  mentioned  as  "  keep- 
ing watch,"  and  moreover,  the  signification  of  those 
beside  the  throne  could  not  differ  from  that  of  those 
before  and  below  it.  All  nations  have,  from  time 
immemorial,  regarded  the  lion  as  the  king  of  beasts 
(cf.  the  numerous  passages  of  the  ancients  on  this 
subject,  in  Bochart,  Hieroz.  I.  ii.  1),  and  is  therefore 
a  fitting  symbol  of  monarchy,  which  consists  in 
"reigning  and  ruling"  (see  above  on  chap.  iii.  9). 
The  lion  "is  the  strongest  among  beasts"  (Prov. 
xxx.  30,  31),  and  his  roaring  announces  the  coming 
of  judgment  (Am.  iii.  8;  i.  2;  Rev.  x.  3).  The  two 
lions  at  the  right  and  left  of  the  king  as  he  sat  on 
the  throne,  denote  his  twofold  office  of  governing 
and  judging.  If,  then,  the  entire  people  are  sym- 
bolized by  the  twelve  lions,  the  meaning  must  be 
that  Israel  was  the  royal  people  among  nations ; 
just  as  the  twelve  oxen  that  bare  up  the  mol- 
ten sea  signified  that  Israel  was  the  nation  of 
priests  (see  above  in  chap.  vii.  25).  The  people 
chosen  by  God  from  among  all  people  are  a  nation 
of  kings  and  priests  (Ex.  xix.  6;  Rev.  i.  6;  v.  10); 
just  as  it  culminates,  as  a  priestly  nation,  in  the 
high-priest,  so  it  does  also,as  aroyalone.in  its  king. 
Here  we  think  involuntarily  of  the  throne  of  Him 
who  is  both  lamb  and  lion  (Rev.  v.  5,  6),  who  is 
the  Prince  of  earthly  kings,  and  has  made  us  kings 
and  priests  to  His  Father,  God  (Rev.  i.  6 ;  v.  6  ;  vii. 
10,  17).     His  people  number  twelve  times  twelve 


thousand  (=144,000),  and  these  are  represented 
by  the  twice  twelve  of  the  elders  who  stand  before 
his  throne  (Rev.  iv.  4,  10 ;  vii.  4;  xiv.  1). 

HOMILETICAi  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Ver.  14.  (a)  The  glory  of  Solomon.  Wherein  it  lay 
(Power,  dominion,  pomp,  splendor,  glory,  and  honor 
everything  that  men  wish  or  desire  in  this  world- 
all  these  we  see  before  us  in  the  life  of  this  one 
man.  But  the  glory  of  man  is  as  the  grass  of  the 
field,  which  fades  and  withers ;  truly,  the  lilies  of 
the  field  exceed  it  in  glory,  for  even.  &e. — and 
Soiomon  himself  confessed:  All  is  vanity;  I  have 
seen  all  the  works,  &c,  Eccles.  i.  2 ;  ii.  11; 
Ps.  xlix.  17,  18.  The  world  passes  away,  &c). 
(b)  Its  significance  for  us  (that  we  should  seek  after 
that  other  and  imperishable  glory,  prepared  for  us 
by  him  who  is  greater  than  Solomon,  Jno.  xvii. 
24.  Scarcely  one  of  many  thousands  can  attain  to 
the  glory  of  Solomon,  but  to  the  glory  of  God  we 
are  all  called,  1  Thess.  ii.  12;  if  our  life  be  hidden 
with  Christ  in  God,  then  "  shall  we  when  Christ," 
Ac,  Col.  iii.  3,  4.  Therefore  shall  we  rejoice  in  the 
hope  of  future  glory,  and  not  only  so,  but  in  tribu- 
lations also  (Rom.  v.  2,  3)  for  our  "light  affliction, 
which  is  but  for  a  moment,"  &c,  2  Cor.  iv.  17,  18). 
— Power  and  dominion,  (a)  The  responsibility  in- 
volved therein  ("to  whom  much  is  given,  of  him 
shall  much  be  required,  and  to  whom  men,"  ic, 
Luke  xii.  48;  singular  endowments  bring  with 
them  singular  requirements — authority  is  power 
given  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  inferiors — wealth 
is  bestowed  upon  the  rich  that  they  may  relieve 
necessity  according  to  their  means),  (b)  The  perils 
connected  with  it  (pride  and  haughtiness,  forget- 
fulness  of  God,  and  unbelief),  Ps.  lxii.  11;  Iii.  9; 
1  Tim.  vi.  9 ;  Matt.  xvi.  26.  Therefore  envy  not 
the  rich  and  powerful,  for  they  are  exposed  to 
many  temptations.  But  godliness  with  content- 
ment, Ac,  1  Tim.  vi.  6.  Wurt.  Summ.  :  Devout 
Christiana  may  have  and  hold  gold  and  silver,  lands 
and  possessions,  cattle,  in  short  everything,  and 
with  a  good  conscience,  if  only  they  do  not  misuse 
them  by  idle  pomp  or  for  the  oppression  of  their 
fellow-creatures;  for  they  are  gifts  and  favors  of 
God,  which  he  lends  them.  The  silver  and  the  gold 
is  mine,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  (Haggai  ii.  8 ;  Ps.  1. 
i  0).  The  throne  of  Solomon,  stately  and  magnificent 
as  it  was,  is  long  since  crumbled  to  dust,  but  His 
Throne,  before  whose  judgment-seat  we  must  all 
appear,  eDdures  to  all  eternity. — The  man  to  whom 
God  has  given  great  wealth  and  high  position  in 
the  world  may  indeed  dwell  in  splendor;  but 
every  man  sins  whose  expenses  exceed  his  income, 
or  are  greater  than  his  position  in  the  world  re- 
quires. Golden  vessels  are  not  necessaries  of  life 
nor  do  they  conduce  to  greater  happiness  or  con 
tent  than  do  earthen  and  wooden  ones.  It  is  the 
duty  and  right  of  a  prince  to  bring  an  armed  force 
to  the  defence  of  the  country  against  her  enemies, 
but  prince  and  people  must  ever  remember  what 
the  mighty  Solomon  himself  says:  The  horse  is 
prepared  against  the  day  of  battle,  but  safety  is  o< 
the  Lord  (Prov.  xxi.  31;  cf.  Ps.  xxxiii.  18-19;  I* 
xxxi.  1). 


CHAPTER  XI.  1-13.  121 


FIFTH   SECTION. 

SOLOMON'S    PALL   AND    END. 

Chap.  XX 


A. — The  unfaithfulness  towards  the  Lord  and  its  punishment. 
Chap.  XL  1-13. 

J  But  king  Solomon  loved '  many  strange  [i.  e.  foreign]  women,  together  with 
the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,"  women  of  the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Edomites,  Zi- 

2  donians,  and  Hittites ;  of  the  nations  concerning  which  the  Lord  said  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  Ye  shall  not  go  in  to  them,  neither  shall  they  come  in  unto 
you  :  for  surely  they  will  turn  away  your   heart  after  their  gods  :    Solomon 

3  clave  unto  these  in  love.     And  he  had  seven  hundred  wives,  princesses,  and 

4  three  hundred  concubines;  and  his  wives  turned  away  his  heart.  For  it  came 
to  pass,  when  Solomon  was  old,  that  his  wives  turned  away  his  heart  after  other 
gods3 :  and  his  heart  was  not  perfect  with  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  his  God,  as  was 

5  the  heart  of  David  his  father.    For  Solomon  went  after'  Ashtoreth  the  o-oddess 

6  of  the  Zidonians,  and  after  Milcom  the  abomination  of  the  Ammonites.  And 
Solomon  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  went  not  fully  after 

7  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  as  did  David  his  father.  Then  did  Solomon  build  an  high 
place  for  Chemosh,  the  abomination  of  Moab,  in  the  hill  that  is  before  Jerusalem, 

8  and  for  Moleeh,  the  abomination  of  the  children  of  Amnion.  And  likewise  did 
he  for  all  his  strange  [*•  «.  foreign]  wives,  which  burnt  incense  and  sacrificed 
unto  their  gods. 

9  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  was  angry  with  Solomon,  because  his  heart  was 
tinned  from  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel,  which  had  appeared  unto  him 

10  twice,  and  had  commanded  him  concerning  this  thing,  that  he  should  not  go 
after  other  gods:  but  he  kept  not  that  which  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  commanded. 

11  Wherefore  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  said  unto  Solomon,  Forasmuch  as  this  is  done 
of  thee,  and  thou  hast  not  kept  my  covenant  and  my  statutes,  which  I  have 
commanded  thee,  I  will  surely  rend  the  kingdom  from  thee,  and  will  give  it  to 

12  thy  servant.     Notwithstanding  in  thy  days  I  will  not  do  it  for  David  thy  father's 

13  sake  :  but  I  will  rend  it  out  of  the  hand  of  thy  son.  Howbeit,  I  will  not  rend 
away  all  the  kingdom ;  but  will  give  one  tribe  "  to  thy  son  for  David  my  ser- 
vant's sake,  and  for  Jerusalem's  sake  which  I  have  chosen. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1. — [The  Sept  renders  here  ^c  «f>iAovunjs,  which  is  not  borne  out  by  the  character  of  Solomon,  as  is  pointed  out 
In  the  Exeg.  Com.  Immediately  alter  this  the  Vat.  Sept.  introduces  ver.  3,  transposed  from  its  place,  but  omits  its  last 
slause  altogether. 

2  Ver.  1. — [All  the  ancient  versions  class  Pharaoh's  daughter  among  the  "  strange  wives,1'  which  sense  onr  author,  as 
llso  Keil  rejects.     See  Exeg.  Com. 

3  Ver.  4. —  [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  middle  clause  of  ver.  4,  and  mixes  together  vers.  6-S,  omitting  much  of  them. 

*  Ver.  5. — [Notwithstanding  the  arguments  in  the  Exeg.  Com.  against  the  personal  idolatry  of  Solomon,  it  is  to  be 

remembered  that  the  phrase  D^IHX      D^rpN     "HPIX     Tpil  ,    to  go  after  other  gods  (vers.  4,  5,  10)  is  one  already 

established  as  far  back  as  the  Pentateuch  as  an  expression  of  idolatry. 

•  Ver.  13. — [For  one  tribe  tho  Sept.  have  trKyfrnpov  iv,  which  is,  however,  probably  to  be  understood  in  the  same 


126 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


EXEQET1CAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-2.  But  king  Solomon  loved,  &c. 
With  these  words  a  new  and  very  essential  part 
of  the  history  of  Solomon  begins;  they  do  not 
break  the  thread  of  the  story  abruptly,  but  stand 
in  a  connection  with  the  preceding,  to  be  well 
considered.  Our  writer  evidently  had  in  his  mind 
the  command  given  to  kings  in  Dent.  xvii.  in  which, 
"■;.".).  16  and  17,  it  is  said:  "but  he  shall  not  multiply 
horses  to  himself,  nor  cause  the  people  to  return 
to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  lie  should  multiply  horses 
....  neither  shall  he  multiply  wives  to  himself, 
that  his  heart  turn  not  away;  neither  shall  he 
greatly  multiply  to  himself  silver  and  gold."  The 
great  riches  in  silver  and  gold  were  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  section,  chap.  x.  14-29,  and  also, 
finally  tin  number  of  horses  brought  out  of 
Egypt  ana  mention  of  the  many  strange  wives 
immediately  follows.  If  there  were  danger  of 
tnruing  away  from  the  strict  and  serious  religion 
of  Jehovah  connected  with  the  enormous  riches, 
the  luxury  and  splendor  of  the  court,  this  was  much 
more  the  case  with  the  large  harem.  Solomon  did 
not  withstand  this  last  danger ;  what  was  foreseen 
iu  the  laws  for  the  kings  happened:  "his  heart 
was  turned  away."  What  we  learn  from  the  con- 
nection of  these  two  sections  is  very  important: 
namely,  that  it  was  not  vulgar,  coarse  sensuality 
that  gave  rise  to  such  a  large  harem,  but  the  rea- 
son was  rather,  that  as  Solomon  grew  in  riches, 
esteem,  and  power,  excelling  all  other  kings  in 
these  (chap.  x.  23),  he  wished  also  to  surpass 
them  in  what,  according  to  Eastern  ideas,  even  in 
the  present  day,  especially  belonged  to  the  court 
and  splendor  of  a  great  monarch;  that  is,  the 
largest  possible  harem.  But  this  was  the  occasion  of 
his  fall.  It  is  therefore  very  arbitrary  of  the  Sept. 
to  describe  3DN  ver.  1  by  tjv  tpthoyiwawc  nal  eAafit 

ywaiKa(  aXAorpiac,  aud  quite  wide  of  the  mark  in 
Thenius,  who,  explaining  this  for  the  original 
reading,  says  that  Solomon  was  an  "enervated 
slave  to  his  senses."  Were  this  the  case,  traces  of 
it  would  have  been  apparent  earlier;  but  we  do 
not  hear,  respecting  Solomon,  the  slightest  intima- 
tion of  any  previous  sexual  irregularity ;  he  did 
not  succumb  to  the  influence  of  his  many  wives 
until  he  had  become  advanced  in  years  (ver.  4),  and 
had  reached  the  summit  of  his  prosperity  and 
pover.  For  his  marriage  with  the  Egyptian,  see 
above  on  chap.  iii.  1 ;  she  did  not  rank  among  the 
other  strange  women,  i.  e.,  those  whom  it  was  for- 
bidden in  the  law  to  marry,  as  ver.  2  expressly 
remarks  (rf.  Ex.  xxxiv.  16;  Deut.  vii.  3,  4;  Josh, 
xxiii.  12).  It  was  only  through  them  that  strange 
worship,  the  Asiatic,  was  introduced  into  the 
land ;  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  Egyp- 
tian worship.  The  Moabites  dwelt  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  the  Ammonites  were  north  of  them,  and 
the  Edomites  south;  but  the  Zidonians  and  Hit- 
tites  lived  north  of  Palestine,  where  Phoenician 
worship  previiled.  Of.  Deut  xxiii.  4;  Ezra  ix. 
12;   Neh.  xii'    23. 

Ver.  3.  And  he  had  seven  hundred  wives, 
tc      Ver.    3.  nil'."  means  princesses,  women  of 

Ihe  first  rank  ;  not  those  who  received  rank  by 
entrance  into  the  harem,  but  those  who  were  of 
noble  families.  The  great  number  of  these  wo- 
olen, with  all  of  whom  it  was  not  possible  for 
Solonrm  (now  elderly)  to  hold  sexual  intercourse. 


but  especially  their  high  rank,  shows  tne  reason 
they  were  maintained;  seven  hundred  from  th« 
noblest  princely  houses  of  foreign  nations  served 
to  add  the  greatest  splendor  to  the  court.  Many 
think  it  probable  that  the  majority  of  these  wives, 
although  they  all  were  in  subjection  .->  him,  served 
rather  as  singers  and  dancers  to  amuse  the  old 
aud  feeble  king  (Stollberg,  Lisco).  The  opinion  is 
entirely  wrong,  that  (according  to  Eccle.  iv.  8) 
Solomon  was  "  guided  by  a  theological  idea,  and 
intended  to  furnish  a  symbolical  representation  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  his  dominion  over  all 
nations"  (Evgl.  Kirch. -Zdtg.  1862,  s.  691).  The 
numbers  700  and  300  may  be  only  "  round,  i.  e., 
approximate  "  ones  (Keil),  but  are  not  therefore 
necessarily  exaggerated  or  false.  Eccles.  vi.  8 
has  been  quoted  in  opposition  to  them :  "  sixty  are 
the  queens,  and  eighty  are  the  concubines,  and  in- 
numerable are  the  virgins,"  and  iu  order  to  recon- 
cile the  two  passages,  the  supposition  is  thrown 
out,  that  60  and  80  were  the  number  in  the  court 
at  one  time,  and  700  and  300  the  number  of  all 
the  women  at  the  court  during  Solomon's  reign 
(Ewald,  Keil).  This  Thenius,  with  some  reason, 
declares  to  be  a  "subterfuge;"  but  when  he  as 
serts  that  the  statement  in  the  Canticles  is  "  his- 
torically founded,"  and  on  the  other  hand,  regards 
our  own  statement  "  as  an  evidence  of  the  legend- 
ary character  of  the  entire  section,"  we  answer 
that  Canticles  is  not  historical  but  is  poetic,  and 
cannot  be  adduced  as  testimony  against  our  his- 
torical books.  Finally,  the  supposition  to  which 
Keil  inclines,  that  there  may  be  errors  in  the 
numeral-letters  (t."=300  instead  of  3  =  S0),  rest3 
evidently  in  the  consideration  that  the  numbers 
700  aud  300  appear  too  large.  But  this  difficulty 
ceases  when  we  compare  our  own  with  other  ac- 
counts of  the  harems  of  Eastern  rulers.  Curtius 
relates  (III.  iii.  24)  that  Darius  Codomanus,  on  his 
expedition  against  Alexander,  carried  300  peilices 
with  him.  Public  accounts  state  that  the  harem 
of  the  present  Turkish  Sultan  contains  1,300  wo- 
men. The  Augsb.  Attg.  Zeitung  of  1862,  No.  181, 
says  "that  the  mother  of  the  Taiping,  emperor  in 
Nankin,  is  the  head  of  her  son's  harem,  a  great 
establishment  containing  3,000  women,"  whom  the 
same  "  lady  "  has  to  keep  in  order.  Magelhaus 
gives  the  same  number,  and  adds  that  the  emperor 
had  never  seen  some  of  them  iu  his  life.  "  The 
travellers  of  the  seventeenth  century  reported  the 
number  of  the  wives  of  the  Great  Mogul  to  have 
been  1,000 "  (Philippson).  In  Malcom's  history 
of  Persia  it  is  stated  that  king  Kosros  had  5,000 
horses,  1,200  elephants,  and  12,000  wives;  this 
may  be  greatly  exaggerated,  but  shows  the  notions 
that  were  entertained  about  the  state  which  a 
great  ruler  should  maintain.  Of.  also  other  in- 
stances in  Rosenmuller,  Altes  mid  Neues  Morgen- 
land,  III.  s.  181.  The  evident  intention  of  the 
narrator  is,  not  to  picture  these  rulers  as  brutal 
sensualists,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  add  to  tlieil 
fame.  An  immense  harem  is  held  in  the  East  to  be 
as  requisite  to  a  splendid  court  as  a  large  stud. 
Ver.  4.  For  it  came  to  pass  when  Solomon 

was  old, after  other  gods,  &c.     By  old 

age  is  not  meant  the  time  "when  the  flesh  obtain- 
ed  mastery  over  the  spirit  "  (Keil) — sensuality  nevei 
first  begins  with  old  age — but  the  time  when,  in 
consequence  of  luxury  and  indulgence,  the  energy 
of  spirit  and  heart  deserted  him,  and  a  relaxing 
took  possession  of  him  more  and  more.    Then  first 


CHAPTER  XI.  1-13. 


121 


it  happened  that  the  many  foreign,  well-condition- 
ed women  succeeded  in  turning  away  Solomon's 
heart,  i.  e.,  in  reducing  his  tone,  making  him  in- 
different towards  the  strict  and  exclusive  religion 
of  Jehovah,  and  milder  and  more  indulgent  towards 
the  worship  of  their  gods,  yea,  so  to  insnare  him 
that  lie  favored  the  latter  by  the  building  of  altars 
to  idols.     Wihen    the    text   adds,    and  his   heart 

was  not  (any  longer)  perfect  (QX'=complete)  with 

Hie  Lord  his  God,  it  says  thereby  as  clearly,  as 
positively,  that  he  did  not  completely  fall  away 
from  Jehovah's  service,  but  that  lie  permitted  the 
idolatrous  worship  of  his  wives  besides.  The 
formula,  he  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord, 
is  used  in  speaking  of  every  one  who  broke  the 
commandment  in  Ex.  xx.  3,  4,  because  this  is  the 
first  and  supremest  will  of  God.  To  avoid  any 
misunderstanding,  ver.  6  repeats,  he  went  not  Jully 

(SjO  sc.  J1377  ,    as  in  Num.   xiv.   24;   xxxii.   11, 

12:  Deut.  i.  36)  after  the  Lord  (Jehovah).  It  is 
therefore  difficult  to  conceive  why  it  is  so  often 
asserted  that  Solomon  formally  departed  from  Je- 
hovah, and  became  an  idolater  (Thenius,  Duncker, 
Menzel,  and  others).  All  the  kings  of  Judah  or  of 
Israel  who  were  idolatrous  are  said  to  have  served 
(131?)  strange  gods  (cf.  chap.  xvi.   31 ;  xxii.   54  ;   2 

Kings  xvi.  3 ;  xxi.  2-6 ;  xxi.  20-22),  but  this  expres- 
sion is  never  applied  to  Solomon  either  here  or  else- 
where. Chronicles  is  never  silent  in  respect  of  the 
kings  in  Judah,  when  any  one  of  them  served 
idols  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  3 ;  xxxii.  2  sq. ;  xxxiii. 
22  ;  xxxvi.  8),  yet  it  says  nothing  of  Solomon  in 
this  respect;  but  this  is  inconceivable,  were  it 
true  that  he  had  wholly  forsaken  Jehovah,  and 
turned  to  idolatry.  Jesus  Sirach  complains  indeed 
(chap,  xlvii.  12-23)  that  the  great  Solomon  suc- 
cumbed to  the  influence  of  his  wives,  but  does  not 
say  a  word  of  his  idolatry.  All  the  Jewish  tradi- 
tions, the  Talmud,  and  the  Rabbins  (Ghemara 
Schabb.  lvi.  2)  know  nothing  of  the  idolatry  of 
Solomon.  Had  he  himself,  as  well  as  his  wives, 
formally  worshipped  idols,  he  would  have  fallen 
far  deeper  than  Jeroboam,  who  only  made  images 
to  represent  Jehovah ;  and  his  sin  would  have 
been  far  greater  than  "  the  sin  of  Jeroboam," 
which  is  so  often  alluded  to  in  these  books,  while 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  idolatry  Solomon  is 
accused  of.  The  statement  of  the  unreliable  Jo- 
sephus  (Antiq.  viii.  7,  5)  about  Solomon's  idol-wor- 
ship is  just  as  much  to  be  credited  as  his  statemeut 
that  he  was  ninety-four  years  of  age.  and  that  he 
broke  the  law  of  Moses  in  placing  twelve  oxen 
around  the  molten  sea,  and  the  twelve  lions  near 
the  throne.  We  cannot  even  admit  that  Solomon 
held  idolatrous  worship  along  with  Jehovah's  wor- 
ship (Winer),  nor  that  his  fall  "consisted  in  a  syn- 
retistic  mixture  of  Jehovah-worship  and  idol-wor- 
ship "  (Keil),  for  in  so  doing  he  would  have  placed 
Jehovah  on  a  level  with  idols,  whereas  the  very 
nature  of  Jehovah's  service  is  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive worship  of  Him.  The  D?G>  ...  X?  and  JO 
N?D  vers.  4  and  6  does  not  say :  he  served  Jeho- 
vah and  the  idols  both,  but:  he  was  no  longer 
wholly  and  completely  with  Jehovah  ;  and  this  is 
made  clear  in  that  lie  allowed  his  strange  wives  to 
ebserve  idolatrous  service  in  the  city  which  the 
Lord  had  chosen  to  put  His  name  there,  and  even 


went  so  far  as  to  favor  it  by  the  building  of 
"  high-places"  (ver.  36;  chap.  viii.  16  ;  xiv.  21 ;  3 
Chrou.  vi.  6).  So  Hess  (Gesch.  Salomo's,  s.  43K). 
and  recently  Vilmar  (Pastoral-theol.  Blatter,  1861,  s 
179j;  Ewald  also  (Gesch.  hr.  III.  s.  378  sq.)  says: 
"  there  is  no  evidence  from  ancient  documents 
that  Solomon  ever  left  the  religion  of  Jahve,  even 
in  his  extreme  old  age,  or  sacrificed  with  his  owe 
hands  to  heathen  deities ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  all 
historical  evidences  of  his  times  are  against  the 
idea.  Besides,  we  find  it  is  expressly  mentioned 
that  he  sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  Jahve,  built  by 
him,  three  times  a  year  (according  to  the  order  of 
the  three  great  festivals;  with  the  greatest  solem- 
nity, as  befitted  a  king  such  as  he  was  "  (chap.  ix. 
25 1.      Of.  below  on  ver.  9  sq. 

Vers.  5-S.  Solomon  went  after  Ashtoreth, 

&c.     The  Tp'l ,  &c,  ver.  5,  means  that  he  served 

these  gods,  personally,  no  more  than  "Oj'  in  ver. 

7  which  follows,  means  that  he  built,  with  his  own 
hands,  high-places  for  the  heathen  gods;  but  he  al- 
lowed it,  permitted  it  to  be  done.  Ver.  8  adds  ex- 
pressly, "  and  likewise  did  he  (i.  e.,  he  built  high- 
places,  ver.  7)  for  all  his  strange  wives,  which  burnt 
incense  and  sacrificed  unto  their  gods.''  This  plainly 
shows  that  he  did  not  build  the  heights  for  him- 
self and  his  people,  and  that  he  did  not  burn  in- 
cense, nor  sacrifice  on  them,  but  that  his  strange 
wives  did.  He  allowed  public  worship  to  all,, 
whatsoever  divinities  they  might  adore,  but  did 
not  himself  renounce  Jehovah-worship.  Diestel 
(in  Ilerzog's  Real-Encyklop.  XIII.  s.  337)  grants 
that  Solomon  did  not  wholly  go  over  into  idolatry, 
but  thinks  that  there  is  as  little  question  that 
there  was  more  than  mere  tolerance.  The  religious 
consciousness  of  the  Israelite  could  not  (he 
thinks)  get  rid  of  the  idea  that  certain  peculiar 
powers  ruled  other  nations,  dependent  indeed 
upon  Jehovah,  and  a  limited  service  devoted  to 
these  foreign  inferior  gods  did  not  consequently 
annul  the  service  of  the  all-ruling  Jehovah.  This 
artificial  view,  in  which  Niemeyer  joins,  is  contra- 
dicted decisively  by  the  fact  that  the  so-called 
"  inferior  gods  "  are  mentioned  as  Vj3B>  ,  abomina- 
tion (vers.  5,  7),  rDjhn  abomination  (2  Kings 
xxiii.   13),  D^an   vanity  (Jer.  ii.   5)  and   whhi  . 

stercora  (Deut.  xxix.  17),  which  would  not  have- 
been  possible  had  "  the  greatest  sympathies  "  ex- 
isted "in  Israel"  for  these  gods  as  really  "superior 
beings."  We  need  not  stop  to  refute  the  frivolous 
assertion  of  Menzel  (Stoat-  und  ReL- Gescltichte  der 
Konigreicke  Israel  und  Juda,  s.  142),  that  our  au- 
thor, who  was  devoted  to  Jehovah's  service,  pre- 
ferred to  place  the  king  in  an  unfavorable  light 
rather  than  to  let  it  be  known  how  long  the  strange 
worship  had  existed  among  the  people,  and  in  which 
they  took  part.  For  the  divinities  named  in  vers. 
5  and  7,  cf.  Movers,  Relig.  der  Phonizier,  s.  560-584, 
002-608  ;'  Keil.  bibl.  Archdologie  I.  s.  442  sq. ;  Winer, 
R.-W.-B.  under  the  appropriate  names.  Ashtoreth 
is  the  highest  of  the  Phoenician  (Sidouian)  and  Sy- 
rian female  deities,  and  a  personification  of  the 
feminine  principle  in  nature.  Her  form  is  differ- 
ently represented,  sometimes  with  a  bull's  or  wo- 
man's head  with  horns  (crescents),  sometimes  as  a 
fish  (symbol  of  the  watery  element).  She  was 
specially  adored  by  women;  her  worship,  which  is 
not  exactly  known,  was  most  probably  associated 


12S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


with  indecency.  Cf.  especially  Cassel,  in  the  Bibel- 
werk,  on  Judges  ii.  13.  Milcom  is  said  to  be  the 
chief  god  of  the  Ammonites,  in  ver.  33,  and  2  Kings 
xxiii.  13;  2  Sam.  xii.  30;  Jerem.  xlix.  1,  3:  there  is 
no  accurate  description  of  his  nature  or  worship. 
As  Moloch  is  immediately  after  (ver.  7)  said  to  be 
the   god  of  the    Ammonites,  and  the  two  names 

(D3^!3  and  "po)  are  closely  related  to  each  other,  it 
is  very  reasonable  to  suppose  they  were  different 
names  for  the  same  divinity.  The  translations  also 
confuse  them  ;  the  Sept.,  vers.  5  and  7,  gives 
Mf/.jwu,  the  Vulg.  gives  Moloch  twice;  but  in  2 
Kings  xxiii.  13  the  former  renders  Milchom  by 
MoAox,  and  the  latter  by  Melchom.  Thenius  there- 
fore reads  D37D1  in  ver.  7  instead  of  "pDl ,  hut 
there  is  no  reason  for  doing  so.  Keil  and  Ewald 
agree  with  Movers  in  holding  Milchom  and  Moloch 
to  be  different  deities,  partly  because  of  the  differ- 
ent names,  and  partly  because  2  Kings  xxiii.  10 
and  13  mention  that  they  had  different  places  of 
sacrifice,  and  that  Moloch  was  always  named  in 
connection  with  sacrifices  of  children.  Winer,  how- 
ever, justly  remarks  that  each,  though  not  essen- 
tially different,  had  different  attributes,  and  had 
therefore  various  altar-places  in  one  and  the  same 
town.  As  for  the  rest,  Molech  or  Moloch  was  the 
divinity  which  was  known  and  adored  throughout 
Anterior  Asia,  whose  image,  according  to  the  Rab- 
bins, was  made  of  brass,  with  the  head  of  an  ox 
and  human  arms,  in  which  the  children  offered 
were  laid.  Movers  thinks  he  was  the  same  in  part 
as  Saturn  or  Chronos,  and  in  part  the  same  as  Baal 
the  sun-god  (cf.  s.  322  sq.).  There  were  certainly 
do  child-sacrifices  at  Jerusalem  in  Solomon's  time ; 
they  were  first  offered  under  Ahaz  (2  Kings  xvi.  3). 
Chemosh  or  Chamosh  was  the  war-and-fire-god,  ac- 
cording to  Movers ;  Num.  xxi.  9,  Jerem.  xlviii.  46 
call  the  Moabites  the  people  of  Chemosh.  That 
this  was  the  divinity  to  whom  the  Moabite  king  of- 
fered his  son,  2  Kings  hi.  27,  is  only  a  matter  of 
conjecture.  At  any  rate,  the  character  of  the  lat- 
ter deity  seems  very  similar  to  that  of  Milchom  or 
Molech  of  the  Ammonites,  as  it  (the  former)  appears, 
in  Judges  xi.  24,  to  be  the  god  of  the  Ammonites ;  cf. 
Cassel  on  this  passage.  We  have  no  exact  accounts 
of  them.  For  the  "heights,"  see  above  on  chap, 
iii.  4;  for  the  places  where  they  were  built,  see  on 
2  Kings  xxiii.  13. 

Vers.  9-13.  And  the  Lord  was  angry.  Solo- 
mon, by  his  conduct,  excited  the  extremest  divine 
displeasure,  and  deserved  punishment  the  more,  as 
he  had  been  so  richly  blessed  in  every  respect  by 
Jehovah,  and  had  even  been  ea'  nestly  and  emphati- 
cally warned  in  a  peculiar  vifjion  against  leaning 
towards  other  gods  (chap.  iii.  5  sq. ;  ix.  1  sq.).  The 
announcement  of  the  subsequent  chastisement  did 
not  follow  in  another  direct  revelation,  but  was  no 
doubt  conveyed  by  a  prophet,  who,  as  Nathan  was 
no  longer  living,  must  have  been  Ahijah  the  Shilo- 
nite  (ver.  29).  It  is  well  worthy  of  notice  that,  in  this 
announcement,  the  oppression  of  the  people  by  com- 
pulsory labor,  and  taxes,  or  despotism,  is  not  given 
as  the  reason  of  the  dividing  cf  the  kingdom  by  Je- 
hovah, and  of  limiting  Solomo  's  dynasty  to  dominion 
over  one  tribe ;  but  only  the  sm  against  Jehovah,  the 
"  going  after  other  gods."  It  was  just  the  same  in 
Ahijah's  address  to  Jeroboam,  vers.  29-39.  For 
one  tribe  (ver.  13)  see  on  vers.  31,  32.  For  David's 
sake,  i  e.,  on  account  of  the  promise  given,  for 
his  i-nehanging  fidelity  to  Jehovah  (2  Sam.  xvii.  12 


sq.).  Cf.  that  on  chap.  viii.  15  sq.  We  are  no" 
told  what  impression  the  prophecy  mado  on 
Solomon,  but  we  may  just  for  this  reason  conclude 
that  it  was  not  such  as  Nathan's  discourse  made  on 
David  (2  Sam.  xii.  1 3). 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  turn  which,  with  the  events  described  in 
the  section  before  us,  the  reign  of  Solomon  takes, 
is  of  the  weightiest  moment,  because  it  exercised 
the  most  wide-spread  and  lasting  influence  upon 
the  whole  history  of  Israel :  for  its  immediate  re- 
sult was  the  rending  of  the  kingdom,  which  was 
the  beginning  of  the  end.  "The  happiness  to  be 
the  most  favored  people  on  the  earth  under  a  wise 
king — this  happiness  which  Israel  could,  as  it  were, 
be  shown  from  afar  for  a  brief  space,  was  itself  the 
source  of  its  wretchedness.  Wisdom  as  well  aa 
wealth  and  power  were  intrusted  to  a  sinful  man, 
who  could  not  keep  himself  erect  upon  this  dizzy 
height.  Hence  this  kingdom  of  peace  and  of  pros- 
perity should  be,  even  in  its  fall,  both  a  warning  ex- 
ample and  also  a  type  of  the  kingdom  which,  through 
another,  was  to  bring  the  blessings  of  salvation  to 
men  which  Solomon's  reign  signified  in  earthly 
symbols  "  (Ton  Gerlach).  "  Just  in  the  period  of 
the  highest  perfection  of  the  worldly  kingdom,  the 
insufficiency  thereof  to  satisfy  the  higher  expecta- 
tions and  hopes,  the  complete  faultiness  cleaving 
to  it.  and  the  incapacity  to  meet  the  deepest 
needs  of  the  spirit  by  sensuous  splendor  and  earth- 
ly exhibition  of  power,  must,  for  the  first  time, 
have  dawned  upon  the  consciousness  "  (Eisenlohr, 
das  Volk  Isr.  II.  s.  119). 

2.  The  change  which  overlook  Solomon  in  his  ex- 
treme old  age  would  be  an  insoluble  psychological 
riddle  if  it  consisted  in  his  abandonment  of  the 
service  of  Jehovah,  and  his  yielding  to  the  idol- 
worship  practised  by  his  wives.  It  is  impossible 
that  a  man  who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  fear  of 
Jehovah,  and  had  declarod  this  to  be  the  beginning 
of  all  wisdom,  who  up  to  the  fulness  of  his  age 
had  an  unclouded  and  undisturbed  knowledge  of 
the  one  living  God,  as  is  shown  in  the  discourse 
and  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple  (chap, 
viii.),  that  a  man  who  shone  forth  upon  all  sides 
as  light  amid  the  darkness,  and  throughout  the 
whole  Orient  was  regarded  as  a  living  symbol  of 
wisdom  (chap.  iv.  30;  ix.  24),  should  in  his  still 
riper  age  have  fallen  into  a  most  gross  superstition, 
and  abandoned  himself  to  the  crudest,  most  sense- 
less, and  immoral  of  all  forms  of  worship,  namely, 
that  of  the  Canaanites  and  the  peoples  of  anterior 
A  sin.  We  look  in  vain  through  all  Scripture  for  an 
example  in  the  remotest  degree  like  it.  Recog- 
nizing this,  those  critics  of  late,  who  think  that 
idolatry  is  actually  charged  upon  Solomon  in  our 
text,  have  adopted  the  notion,  either  that  the  ac- 
counts  respecting  his  wisdom  and  his  knowledge 
of  God  are  false,  that  in  fact  he  had  always  before 
this  been  given  over  to  idolatry  (Gramberg,  Vatke, 
and  others) — a  view  striking  all  history  in  the  face, 
and  hence  needing  no  refutation — or  inversely, 
that  our  account  about  Solomon's  idolatry  is  inac- 
curate, and  rests  first  upon  the  later  "deuterouo 
mistic  elaborators  of  the  history  "  who  misunder- 
stood and  represented  the  facts  falsely  (Ewald, 
Eisenlohr,  and  others),  an  assumption  which  is  vio- 
lent and  arbitrary,  but  which,  to  be  sure,  is  ths 
most  convenient  way  of  solving  the  problem.     By 


CHAPTER  XI.  1-13. 


129 


the  correct  interpretation  of  the  text,  according  to 
which  Solomon  did  not  himself  practise  idolatry, 
but  allowed  his  wives  the  exercise  of  public  idol- 
worship,  indeed  favored  it,  the  difficulty  disappears. 
It  is  not  indeed  an  unusual  psychological  phenome- 
non that  a  man  highly  gifted,  standing  upon  a  lofty 
eminence  of  knowledge  and  wisdom,  decided  in  his 
moral  and  religious  principles,  should  lose,  in  his 
old  age,  in  consequence  of  varions  influences  and 
relations,  and  of  some  especial  fortunes  of  his  life, 
the  energy  of  his  spirit  and  will,  or,  without  aban- 
doning precisely  his  past  convictions,  should  re- 
sign them  in  respect  of  decisiveness  and  exclusive- 
ness,  so  that  towards  what  he  had  once  regarded 
as  error  and  had  zealously  combated  it  as  such,  he 
becomes  tolerant  and,  as  it  were,  indifferent,  especi- 
ally when  he  hopes  thereby  to  attain  ends  other- 
wise pursued  by  him,  as  this  was  the  case  with 
Solomon,  as  we  shall  see.  who  therefore  furnishes 
a  warning  and  instructive  example  in  history. 

3.  The  formal  allowance  and  patronage  of  differ- 
ent idolatries,  especially  in  the  place  where  the  cen- 
tral Jehovah-sanctuary  of  the  whole  people  stood, 
was,  upon  the  part  of  the  king,  an  actual  equaliza- 
tion of  the  same  with  the  Jehovah- worship ;  an  of- 
ficial declaration  of  the  equal  authorization  of  idol- 
worship  with  the  service  of  the  one.  true,  living 
God  who  is  the  God  of  Israel.  But  thereby  the  first 
and  supreme  command  of  the  Israelitish  law,  i.  e., 
of  the  Covenant  (Exod.  xx.  2),  was  directly  trans- 
gressed, and  indeed  set  aside.  The  people  Israel 
were  chosen  by  God  to  be  the  upholders  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  one  God,  and  thereby  to  act  for 
the  healing  of  all  nations.  To  this  end  it  was  ne- 
cessary that  as  a  people  they  should  "  be  separated  " 
from  all  peoples  (Lev.  xx.  24 ;  1  Kings  viii.  53) : 
participation  in  the  election  and  in  the  covenant 
was  made  continual  through  obedience  upon  the 
part  of  the  people,  and  also  through  race-deri- 
vation. Jehovah's  kingdom  and  the  people's 
hence  coincide,  the  religion  with  the  nation,  and 
they  stand  and  fall  together.  Permission,  recep- 
tion, and  introduction  of  any  heathen  religion  or  of 
different  idolatrous  worships  was  not  merely  an  as- 
sault upon  the  religious  conviction  of  individuals. 
but  was  also  an  undermining  of  the  national  being 
inseparably  connected  therewith.  The  exclusive- 
ness  of  the  Jehovah-cultus  was  for  the  people,  in 
their  peculiar  life,  an  absolute  necessity.  To  set 
aside  or  remove  it  was  to  threaten  the  existence 
of  this  peculiar  estate,  and  to  deny  its  world-his- 
torical distinction.  If  Solomon  himself  neither  of- 
fered inceuse  nor  sacrificed  unto  idols,  he  did  yet 
nothing  less  than  attack  the  foundations  of  the 
kingdom;  he  brought  into  the  unity  of  the  Israeli- 
tish public  life  the  germ  of  dissolution,  and  threat- 
ened to  destroy  the  covenant  and  God's  plan  of 
salvation.  To  this  extent  his  conduct  and  under- 
taking must  be  characterized  as  a  real  falling 
away. 

4.  The  text  gives  only,  as  the  immediate  occasion 
of  this  falling  away  of  Solomon,  his  love  for  his  many 
foreign  wives.  We  have  already  remarked,  in  re- 
spect of  these  high-bred  dames  from  all  the  neigh- 
boring countries,  that  reference  was  had  to  the 
splendor  of  the  court  rather  than  to  the  gratification 
of  a  common,  ungovernable  lust.  From  their  youth 
accustomed  to  their  sensuous,  more  or  less  uu- 
chaste  worship,  they  were  more  reluctant  to  aban- 
don it  as  the  earnest  and  severe  Jehovah-cultus 
could  not  please  them.     What  was  more  natural 

« 


than  the  effort  to  induce  the  king,  advancing  in 
years,  that  he  would  permit  them  to  observe  their 
own  native  religious  rites,  and  would  make  the 
regulations  necessary  therefor,  by  means  of  which 
his  kingdom  might  become  a  sort  of  assembly- 
place  for  all  religions,  and  acquire  additional  splen- 
dor and  glory?  This  indeed  they  succeeded  in, 
but  not  in  the  way  of  gross  sensuality. — Niemeyer 
remarks  with  great  pertinence  (Charakleristik  dtr 
Bib.  IV.  s.  487) :  "  We  do  not  find  that  Solomon 
gave  the  strength  of  his  youth  to  women,  and  went 
the  way  which  destroys  kings  (Prov.  xxxi.  3).  But 
even  because  he  did  not  indulge  so  much  in  sensu- 
al enjoyment,  the  more  refined  voluptuousness  be- 
came for  him  the  more  dangerous :  that  adhesion  of 
the  spirit,  that  secret  enravishment  of  heart  which, 
unobserved,  breaks  up  the  entire  independence  of 
the  man,  and,  before  he  is  aware  of  it,  makes  him  the 
helpless  slave  of  the  woman.  It  begins  far  more 
innocently  than  that  which  we  call  crime,  properly 
speaking,  but  it  leaves  behind  it  usually  more  mel- 
ancholy ruins  in  the  soul  than  the  other.  In  like 
manner  also,  Yilmar  observes  (s.  ISO),  it  is  not  so 
much  coarse  sensuality  as  rather  'psychical  bond- 
age to  the  female  sex  '  which  wrought  the  fall  of 
Solomon  "  Psychical  polygamy  dissipates,  pulls 
to  pieces,  and  wastes  irresistibly  the  core  of  the 
human  soul.  ...  At  a  certain  stage  of  "  culture, 
in  the  intercourse  between  a  man  and  womar. 
coarse  sensuality  by  no  means  prevails,  but  the 
psychical  pleasure  in  the  woman,  and  the  psychi- 
cal abandonment  to  the  woman,  the  desire  of  the 
eye,  and  the  desire  of  the  eye  for  the  sex  as  such, 
and  not  for  an  individual  woman."  The  surround- 
ings or  relations  were  singularly  fitted  to  awaken 
that  kind  of  spiritual  condition  and  to  impart  nour- 
ishment to  it.  The  long  peace,  broken  neither  by 
war  nor  other  calamity,  the  great  wealth,  the  ex- 
tensive trade,  the  abundance,  by  these  means,  of  all 
objects  of  luxury  possible,  the  voluptuous  court- 
life  in  consequence,  everything  conspired  to  bring 
about  a  relaxation ;  and  this  was  the  soil  upon 
which  the  numerous  strange  women  could  carry 
out  their  nature  without  hindrance.  It  is  very 
probable  that  Solomon  allowed  himself  to  lie  gov- 
erned by  the  political  considerations  "  to  give  to 
the  strangers  Hocking  to  Jerusalem  an  opportunity 
for  the  exercise  of  their  own  worship,  and  make 
his  residence  the  desirable  centre  for  the  commer- 
cial peoples  of  Anterior  Asia  "  (Bertheau,  Zur  Gesch. 
der  Israel,  s.  323).  Like  the  crowded,  brilliant 
harem  itself,  so  the  secured  freedom  of  worship 
must  needs  increase  the  authority  and  glory  of  the 
great  king.  But  always  his  polygamy  is  and  must 
remain  the  first  and  chief  cause  of  his  downfall;  this, 
as  Ewald  remarks  (Gesch.  Isr.  III.  «.  215)  strikingly, 
concerning  David's  adultery,  is  the  "  inexhaustible 
source  of  evils  without  number.  .  .  .  Here  is  con- 
cealed an  inextricable  coil  of  the  direst  evils,  of 
which  scarcely  is  one  put  out  of  the  way,  when 
two,  three  others  start  up,  and  each  is  enough  to 
destroy  the  peace  of  an  entire  kingdom."  So  long  as 
this  evil,  "  which  the  whole  ancient  world  did  not 
sufficiently  regard  as  an  evil,"  remained,  "  the  king- 
dom in  Israel  was  therewith  exposed  to  the  same 
convulsions  to  which  all  polygamous  kingdoms  are 
to  this  day  exposed:  and  consequently,  in  his 
earliest  bloom  we  see  arise  in  Israel  the  germ  of 
its  destruction,  which  sooner  or  later  can  combine 
with  other  causes  of  dissolution.  The  evils  in  the 
house  of  David  introduced  by  Amnon,  Absalom,  and 


130 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Adonijah  .  .  .  all  hang  together  with  the  lundamen- 
tal  evil  once  brought  out;  many  evils  also  amongst 
his  successors  are  fastened  to  the  same  thread." 
Although  Mosaism  even  in  the  history  of  creation 
represents  Monogamy  as  the  original  relation  or- 
dained by  God  Himself,  nevertheless  polygamy 
was  so  deeply  rooted  in  the  habits  of  all  peo- 
ples, that  the  strict  law-giver  was  not  able  to  up- 
root it,  but  sought,  by  various  limitations,  to  make 
it  difficult  (Deut.  xxi.  15  sq. ;  Exod.  xxi.  9  sq.  Cf. 
■Winer,  K.-\\.-B.  II.  s.  662).  It  was  expressly  for- 
bidden to  a  king  to  have  many  wives  (Deut.  xvii. 
17),  because  the  dangers  which  inhered  in  polyga- 
my were  doubly  great,  and  could  become  danger- 
ous for  the  whole  realm,  as  Solomon's  example 
conspicuously  shows.  The  temptation  was  espe- 
cially great  with  kings,  because  a  large  harem,  ac- 
cording to  the  custom  then  prevalent,  belonged  to 
a  royal  state.  It  is,  nevertheless,  and  remains  a 
shadow  resting  upon  the  Old  Covenant,  and  under 
it  the  sanctity  of  marriage  was  not  properly  under- 
stood and  secured.  Christendom  was  the  first  to 
make  holy  the  band  of  matrimony.  Without  taking 
away  the  subordination  of  the  woman,  which  is 
grounded  in  nature  (Lev.  iii.  16),  it  has  given  to 
her  her  rightful  place  (Gal.  iii.  28),  and  thereby,  in 
that  it  represents  the  relation  of  Christ  to  His 
Church  as  the  examplar  of  marriage,  it  sets  forth, 
as  a  principle,  monogamy  as  the  only  form  and 
order  of  the  sexual  relation  (Eph.  v.  22-33). 

5.  What  now,  in  recent  times,  has  been  set 
forth  as  the  proximate  and  co-operating  cause  or 
as  the  chief  cause  of  the  fall  of  Solomon,  appears, 
upon  closer  examination,  untenable.  They  who 
are  of  the  opinion  that  Solomon  indeed  did  not 
abandon  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  but  worshipped, 
besides  Jehovah,  heathen  deities  also,  suppose  that 
he  reached  this  syncretism  in  the  way  of  compara- 
tive reflection.  Thus  Niemeyer  remarks  (s.  403): 
"  He  knew  well  enough  that  these  wooden  and 
brazen  images  are  nothing,  but  in  them  he  paid 
honor  to  the  spirits  to  whom  the  Highest,  the  Un- 
attainable, the  Unknowable  had  intrusted  the 
tulership  of  the  world.  The  more  assuredly  that 
this  idea  is  derived  from  an  oriental  source,  the 
more  probable  is  it  that  Solomon  believed  that  he 
could  find  therein  the  solution  of  his  doubt  whether 
the  Creator  of  the  world  occupied  Himself  with 
what  was  insignificant,  and  with  the  destiny  of 
each  particular  people."  The  love  for  his  foreign 
wives  brought  him  to  the  pass  of  "denying  his 
convictions,  which  had  been  becoming  enfeebled." 
Von  Gerlach  expresses  himself  to  the  same  effect: 
"  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  respect  of  Solomon's 
wisdom,  his  knowledge  of  nature  is  expressly  cele- 
brated, and  that  this  wisdom  is  compared  with  and 
placed  above  that  of  the  Orient  and  of  Egypt  (chap, 
iv.  30  sq.).  ...  It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  he  made 
an  attempt  to  blend  the  traditional  world-know- 
ledge  of  the  East  with  the  knowledge  of  the  re- 
vealed God ;  that  he  allowed  a  certain  independ- 
ence to  the  powers  of  creation  which  he  had  repre- 
sented in  the  figures  of  the  Cherubim  in  the  temple 
standing  far  below  Jehovah,  as  His  servants,  and 
first  tolerated  the  worship  of  them,  and  then  in  a 
certaiu  degree  himself  took  part  therein."  This 
whole  conception  rests  upon  the  erroneous  presup- 
position that  Solomon  had  actually  burnt  incense 
and  had  sacrificed  to  idols  (besides  to  Jehovah), 
and  it  disappears  with  it.  The  historical  text 
knows  nothing  at  all  of  Solomon's  beinj;  misled  to 


idolatry  by  his  own  reflection  and  by  the  olendmg 
of  his  wisdom  with  that  of  the  East :  it  knows  no 
other  reason  for  his  toleration  of  idolatrv  than  t jat 
his  strange  wives  "  turned  away  his  heart."  Lastly, 
neither  in  the  historical  books  nor  in  the  writings 
attributed  to  Solomon  is  there  the  slightest  trace  of 
the  thought  that  idols  were  real  living  creative- 
powers,  and  subordinate  deities  serving  Jehovah 
It  is  a  question  whether  such  a  view  of  the  rela- 
tion of  Jehovah  to  gods  of  the  heathen  ever  ob- 
tained in  Israel.  Certainly  this  was  not  the  case 
in  Solomon's  time,  and  the  later  prophets  had  no 
occasion  to  resist  this  opinion. — Ewald  has  set 
forth  another  view  (as  above,  s.  xiii.  368,  379  sq.). 
He  finds  the  reason  in  the  direction  begun  in  Solo- 
mon's kingdom,  and  so  full  of  results  to  the  whole 
history  of  Israel  in  the  "  violence  "  which  cleaved 
to  the  kingdom  naturally,  by  virtue  of  which  ho 
sought  to  make  everything  depend  upon  himself 
and  to  extend  his  power  to  every  phase  of  life — it 
fact,  in  political  absolutism.  The  kingdom  of  Is 
rael,  under  Solomon,  felt  the  strongest  tendency  to 
become  a  thorough  kingdom  of  the  word;  but  in 
sucli  a  kingdom  the  toleration  of  different  ieligions 
is  inevitable.  But  as  this  toleration  was  as  yet 
strange,  "so  the  sheer  royal  authority  introduced 
the  innovation,"  which  to  many  of  strict  senti- 
ments was  abhorrent.  This  view  has  less  even  in 
its  favor  than  the  preceding.  It  rests  upon  an 
entirely  false  modern  political  view  of  monarchy 
in  general,  and  of  the  Israelitish  in  particular. 
That  which  the  only  historical  source  in  our  pos- 
session gives  as  the  chief  occasion  of  Solomon's 
turning  is  set  wholly  aside,  and  in  its  place  some- 
thing is  advanced,  of  which  not  a  word  is  said. 
Neither  the  announcement  of  the  punishment  (vers. 
9-12),  nor  the  prophecy  of  Ahijah  to  Jeroboam  (ver. 
31  sq.),  gives  in  the  remotest  degree,  as  the  ground 
of  the  division  of  the  kingdom,  "  violence,"  i.  e.,  ex- 
cess of  the  royal  authority,  but  only  Solomon's  want 
of  fidelity  to  Jehovah  occasioned  through  his  wives. 
A  world-kingdom,  to  convert  Israel  into  which, 
Solomon  is  supposed  to  have  had  the  tendency,  is 
established  only  by  means  of  military  conquests,  as 
the  history  of  the  world  shows.  Thus  the  great 
Roman  power  began,  yet  it  ceased  with  the  free- 
dom of  all  (kinds  of)  worship.  Solomon  was  "  a 
man  of  rest "  and  of  peace  (1  Chron.  xxii.  9),  who 
did  not  extend  the  limits  of  the  kingdom,  but 
sought  to  keep  and  hold  those  only  as  they  were 
under  David.  He  meditated  no  world-power,  and 
least  of  all  to  bring  it  to  pass  by  the  toleration  of 
all  religions. 

6.  Tlic  announcement  of  the  divine  punishment 
gives,  what  is  well  to  notice,  as  the  ground  there- 
of, not  any  sinful  passion  or  any  immoral  act,  not 
even  the  possession  of  many  wives  or  unbridled 
lust,  but  only  that  Solomon  had  permitted  and 
favored  idolatrous  worship,  and  in  this  had  not  ob- 
served the  covenant  and  the  commands  of  Jehovah. 
David  sinned  grievously  in  the  matter  of  Bath- 
sheba,  but  his  procedure  was  still  simply  the  im- 
moral act  of  an  individual  in  relation  with  an  indi- 
vidual. Solomon's  deed,  .  n  the  other  hand,  con- 
cerned the  foundations  of  the  theocracy.  It  was 
the  setting  aside  and  the  destruction  of  the  divine 
law  upon  which  the  whole  kingdom,  the  existence 
of  Israel  as  a  people  distinct  from  all  heathen  peo- 
ples, its  world-historical  destiny,  rested.  For  i 
king  of  Israel,  whose  calling  consisted,  espec'allj 
in  this,  to  be  a  servant  of  Jehovah,  the  true  kuj 


CHAPTER  XI.  1-13. 


1.31 


of  Israel,  and  as  such  before  all  things  to  maintain 
thoroughly  the  Covenant,  there  could  be  no  heavier 
announcement.  In  the  case  of  Solomon,  moreover, 
Jehovah  had  vouchsafed  to  him  special  revelations, 
had  answered  all  his  prayers,  and  had  made  him 
the  most  favored,  the  richest,  and  most  fortunate 
king  of  that  time.  From  the  theocratic  point  of 
view,  the  punishment  itself,  the  division  of  the 
kingdom  and  the  limitation  of  the  dynasty  of  Solo- 
mon to  the  tribes  Judah  and  Benjamin,  appears 
even  merciful,  for  in  reality  Solomon  had  rendered 
himself  completely  unworthy  of  the  theocratic 
kingdom.  For  the  rest,  the  punishment  corre- 
sponded with  the  offence  in  so  far  as  it  brought  to 
fruit  and  maturity  the  germ  of  the  destruction 
of  the  kingdom  which  Solomon  by  his  conduct 
had  planted  and  tended.  And  it  is  true  here  also 
that  what  a  man  soweth  that  shall  he  reap.  Solo- 
mon, befooled  by  his  wives,  believed  that  he  could 
become  still  greater  by  transgression  of  the  Cove- 
nant, and  that  he  would  make  his  kingdom  more 
conspicuous  and  glorious;  but  this  same  transgres- 
sion laid  the  foundation  of  irreparable  breach  and 
final  ruin.  From  the  modern  liberalistie  point  of 
view  Solomon's  act  has  been  judged  differently. 
So  Ewald  says  (s.  380):  "In  that  he  allowed  his 
wives  to  sacrifice  to  their  deities  was  the  best  evi- 
dence of  a  general  toleration  of  religion  in  his 
kingdom  that  he  could  furnish.  In  fact  the  act,  a 
legal  toleration  of  different  religions  in  that  early 
age  of  the  wise  Solomon  was  attempted — a  tolera- 
tion which  the  true  religion  must  allow  as  soon  as 
it  recognizes  its  own  being,  and  against  which  in 
our  land  to-day,  this  side  the  Niemen,  the  Jesuits 
alone  are  condemned  to  work.  Certainly  at  that 
time  the  religion  of  Jahve  was  something  too  weak 
to  stand  alone  by  itself  without  any  outward  pro- 
tection. ...  If  only  Solomon's  rule  had  not  be- 
come gradually  distasteful  to  -the  popular  feeling 
for  other  causes,  who  knows  what  might  have 
been  established  in  this  age  for  the  continuance  of 
the  new  wisdom  !  "  After  his  usual  fashion,  Eisen- 
lohr  has  adopted  this  view  (s.  115).  With  Solo- 
mon, says  he,  "  we  see  in  place  of  the  purely  hos- 
tile posture  towards  heathenism  a  friendly  approx- 
imation, in  many  respects  even  a  formal  blending, 
and  iudeed  this  took  shape  in  a  very  natural  way. 
In  a  great  kingdom  consisting  of  diverse  nationali- 
ties, room  must  be  allowed  for  the  most  diverse 
forms  of  religion.  .  .  .  Every  genuine,  sound  type 
of  religion  (religiositat),  in  so  far  as  its  element  is 
freedom,  the  right  of  individual  contemplation  and 
elevation  above  stiff  outward  forms  in  the  region 
of  the  spirit,  carries  within  itself  the  germ  for 
the  scattering  of  every  exclusive  kind."  That 
th'.s  way  of  viewing  the  subject  is  in  direct  contra- 
diction with  the  biblical,  scarcely  needs  mention. 
Were  general  religious  toleration  a  work  of  wis- 
dom, and  the  furtherance  of  true  religion  as  soon 
as  it  recognizes  its  own  being,  Solomon,  by  his 
tolerance  of  the  wild,  immodest,  and  shameful  As- 
tarte-and-Moloch  cultus,  instead  of  the  "  wrath  " 
of  Jehovah  and  the  punishment  of  the  limitation  of 
his  kingdom  to  one  tribe  only,  would  have  merited 
praise  only,  and  the  broader  extension  of  his  king- 
dom ;  and  all  the  great  prophets,  an  Elijah,  Ehsha, 
Jeremiah,  Hosea,  &c,  who  opposed  the  toleration  of 
every  idolatrous  cultus,  and  were  zealous  for  the 
exclusiveness  of  the  Jehovah-cultus,  should  be 
;ousidered  as  the  "  Jesuits  "  of  the  old  world,  who 
.3id  uot  know  the  nature  of  true  religion.    Solomon 


would  have  then  erred  only  in  investing  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel  with  too  much  power,  and  in  his 
zeal  for  progress,  in  anticipating  general  religious 
freedom.  With  incomparably  more  right,  Vilmur 
lias  rendered  an  opposite  judgment  is.  179  sq.) 
"We  have  here  before  us  a  type  of  the  authori- 
zation of  all  forms  of  religion  within  a  definite, 
limited  divine  sphere  of  life.  .  .  .  Solomon's  ideal 
here  is  to  let  each  man  be  saved  d  safacon  .  .  .  the 
beginning  of  the  (unlimited)  "authorization  of  indi- 
viduality"— this  proposition  is  thoroughly  subver- 
sive, belonging,  in  this  form,  to  the  last  decades,  in 
virtue  of  which  church-bodies,  States,  peoples  come 
to  an  end." 

For  the  rest  we  need  not  look  for  New-Testa- 
ment views  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  for  Old  Testa- 
ment views  in  the  New.  They  are  distinct  econo- 
mies. Christianity  is  not  like  the  Mosaic,  condi- 
tioned by  bodily  descent  and  bound  up  in  a  given 
race,  and  does  not  impose  the  obligation  forcibly 
to  suppress  any  other  religion  within  its  jurisdic- 
tion. It  knows  no  other  instrument  uf  its  continu- 
ance and  of  its  spread  than  that  of  the  Word,  and 
of  the  conviction  thereby  wrought.  But  if  no  peo- 
ple can  be  without  religion,  and  if  this  have  the 
most  decisive,  profound  influence  upon  the  spirit- 
ual and  moral  formation  of  the  people,  then  the 
political  power  cannot  be  indifferent  in  respect  of 
all  religions,  and  cannot  simply  consider  them  of 
equal  authority  in  any  relation.  Of  the  Solomonic 
prototype  there  remains  thus  much  for  all  times 
and  peoples,  that  the  introduction  and  authoriza- 
tion of  all,  even  the  most  diverse  religions  and 
forms  of  worship  within  a  nation,  does  not  make 
the  same  strong,  but  weak,  and  carries  with 
it  the  danger  of  its  national  and  political  division 
and  destruction  ;  for  religious  indifferentism  is  the 
death  of  all  true  patriotism,  and  is  more  destruc- 
tive of  a  people  than  religious  fanaticism. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-13.  Solomon's  fall.  The  beginning,  vers. 
1—4;  the  progress,  vers.  5—8 ;  the  end,  vers.  9-13. — 
M.  Fr.  Roo.S:  Here  we  see  plainly  how  a  godly 
man  may  gradually  fail  into  sin.  He  first  allows 
himself  too  mucli  liberty.  He  ventures  into  dan- 
ger, and  then  perishes  therein.  .  .  .  He  who  scorns 
danger,  who  by  marriage  and  by  a  wilful  intrusion 
upon  certain  positions  exposes  himself  to  it,  or  who 
even  ventures  in  his  daily  course  too  much  into  the 
world,  under  the  pretext  of  liberty ;  he  who  indulges 
in  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  and  the 
pride  of  life  instead  of  enjoying  with  gratitude  and 
moderation  the  gifts  of  God,  such  an  one  becomes 
the  slave  of  sin,  and  falls  under  the  wrath  of  God. 
The  heart  is  first  inclined,  then  wauders  upon  evil 
paths,  and  at  last  does  openly  what  is  displeasing 
to  the  Lord.  At  first  we  permit  in  others,  through 
complaisance,  sin,  which  we  could  and  should  have 
checked,  and  thus  we  actually  assist  ourselves  to 
sin.  Still  we  preserve  our  appearance  of  wisdom 
and  godliness,  and  will  not  have  it  supposed  that 
we  have  entirely  deserted  the  Lord.  But  he  whose 
heart  is  uot  wholly  with  the  Lord  his  God,  follows 
him  not  at  all ;  he  who  follows  him  not  wholly,  fol- 
lows him  not  at  all;  for  "a  man  cannot  serve  twc 
Masters."  Vers.  1-8.  The  example  given  by  the 
Bible  in  the  case  of  Solomon.  1.  What  it  teaches, 
(a)  That  for  the  sinful  human  heart,  a  constant  out- 
ward prosperity  is  allied  to  spiritual  dangers ;  foi 


132 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


what  profiteth,  &c,  Matt.  xvi.  26.  Thus  it  is  that 
trial  and  sorrow  are  often  blessings  for  time  and 
eternity,  Heb.  xii.  6-12.  (6)  That  the  most  abundant 
knowledge,  the  highest  education  and  wisdom  are  no 
protection  against  moral  and  religious  short-com- 
ings. "Wine  and  women  make  foolish  the  wise  man 
(Ecclesiasticus  xix.  2).  No  wise  man  commits  a 
little  folly,  says  an  old  proverb.  Therefore,  trust 
in  the  Lord,  &c.  (Prov.  iii.  5-7).  How  it  warns  us. 
(a)  Watch.  If  a  Solomon  can  fall,  a  Solomon  brought 
up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  aud 
walking  in  the  ways  of  God  in  old  age,  a  Solo- 
mon, the  wisest  man  of  his  time  I  how  necessary  is 
it  for  us  all  to  watch.  Without  watching,  the 
greatest  wisdom  may  become  foolishness,  and  the 
highest  spiritual  condition  may  end  in  the  wrath 
and  judgments  of  God.  (b)  Pray.  In  the  great 
prosperity  and  delight  of  this  life,  Solomon  forgot 
prayer,  as  he  had  so  well  practised  it  in  earlier 
years  (chaps,  iii.  and  viii.).  His  wives  did  not  elevate 
his  heart,  they  debased  it.  Prayer  alone  holds  watch, 
and  is  therefore  most  necessary  in  prosperity  and 
success  (Ps.  lxxvi.  2;  cxxxix.  23  sq.). — "Let  him 
who  stands  take  heed,"  Sec.  (1  Cor.  x.  12).  (a)  Sol- 
omon did  stand  in  the  living  knowledge  of  God,  in 
faith,  and  in  humility  (chap.  iii.  6  ;  viii.  23),  but  (b)  he 
looked  not  well  to  himself,  he  did  not  observe  that 
the  thorns  of  wealth  and  the  pride  of  life  were 
choking  the  good  seeds  in  his  heart,  therefore  he 
fell,  broke  his  covenant  with  God,  and  was  under 
the  just  judgment  of  God.  Vers.  1-4.  Christian 
marriage  in  contradistinction  to  pre-Christian  mar- 
riage (see  Hist,  and  Ethic.  4)  vs.  Denial  of  the 
existence  of  marriage  as  a  divine  ordinance  (Mark 
x.  6-9)  is  the  source  of  the  greatest  and  weight- 
iest evils.  Solomon  sinned  in  this  wise :  That, 
contrary  to  the  Law,  he  not  only  took  to  him- 
self many  wives,  but  foreign,  i.  e.,  heathen  wives. 
— Osiander:  Not  without  danger  is  it  that  a 
man  takes  a  wife  who  is  not  of  his  own  religion 
(1  Cor.  vii.  16). — Lust  of  the  eyes  and  the  pride  of 
life  drowse  the  soul  and  cripple  the  will,  gradually 
and  imperceptibly  influence  the  heart,  so  that  it 
loses  all  sense  of  holy  and  earnest  things,  and  all 
pleasure  therein,  aud  becomes  stupid  and  indiffer- 
ent to  everything  divine  and  noble. — A  prince 
who  allows  himself  to  be  advised  and  led  by  wo- 
men in  the  affairs  of  his  government,  instead  of 
guiding  himself  by  the  unchangeable  law  of 
God,  destroys  the  prosperity  of  himself  and  his 
kingdom.  Confidential  intercourse  and  intimacy 
with  those  who  know  nothing  of  the  living  God, 
and  of  his  word,  but  rather  resist  Him — those  who 
well  know  how  to  flatter — this  is  a  most  perilous 
position  for  a  God-fearing  heart  (Eccles.  vii.  27). — 
Ver.  4.  Even  as  in  youth  exuberance  of  life  and 
Btrength  opens  the  door  to  temptation,  so  likewise 
does  the  weakness  of  old  age.    But  an  old  erav- 


1  haired  sinner  is  much  more  abominable  in  the  sighl 
I  of  the  Lord  than  a  youth.  Therefore,  pray  ever: 
Forsake  me  not  in  my  old  age,  &c.  (Ps.  lxxi.  9,  18) 
— There  is  no  object  worthier  of  compassion  than 
the  man  who,  having  served  the  Lord,  and  kept 
the  faith  from  his  youth  up,  when  old  age  has 
brought  him  near  to  his  everlasting  rest,  turns  his 
back  \ipon  it,  and  thus  renders  useless  all  his 
earlier  struggles  with  sin  and  the  world. — Vilmar: 
The  sole  condition  under  which,  amid  his  natural 
weakness,  an  old  man  can  maintain  his  spiri'.cal 
strength,  and  guard  his  honor,  is  this:  that  "his 
heart  is  purely  fixed  upon  God;  "  this  condition 
failing,  let  a  man's  whole  life  be  influenced  by  the 
opinions  of  others ;  influenced  by  such  opinions 
without  sharing  them,  yet  still  without  combat- 
ing them,  then  complete  wantonness  will  take  pos- 
session of  his  old  age. 

Vers.  5-8.  Although  Solomon  did  not  himself 
practise  idolatry,  he  permitted  and  encouraged  it 
in  others ;  but  the  receiver  is  as  bad  as  the  thief. 
That  is  the  curse  resting  upon  sin,  that  the 
very  means  by  which  men  seek  to  raise  them- 
selves in  the  world's  estimation  become  the 
very  means  for  their  destruction.  By  perverted 
compliance  and  long  toleration,  Solomon  brought 
ruin  and  destruction  upon  himself'  and  his  people 
for  centuries  to  come.  All  indulgence  which  is 
grounded  upon  indifference  to  truth,  or  founded  upon 
lukewarmness,  is  not  virtue  but  a  heavy  sin  be- 
fore God,  how  much  soever  it  may  resemble  free- 
dom and  enlightenment.  In  a  well-ordered  Church 
and  State  establishment  neither  bigotry  nor  super- 
stition should  have  equal  rights  with  faith  and 
truth.  Where  the  gate  is  opened  to  them,  or 
where  they  are  patronized  instead  of  being  resist- 
ed, then  both  people  and  kingdom  are  going  to 
meet  their  ruin  (see  Ethical  6).  Vers.  9-13.  The 
punishment  that  fell  upon  Solomon  shows  us  (a) 
the  holiness  and  righteousness  of  God  (Ps.  cxlv.  17  ; 
v.  5 ;  Jerem.  xvii.  10 ;  Luke  xii.  47).  (b)  His  faithful- 
ness and  mercy  (vers.  12,  13).  He  knows  how  to 
punish,  so  that  His  gracious  promises  remain  firm  (2 
Tim.  ii.  13  ;  Rom.  iii.  3). — God  makes  known  to  us 
His  judgments  through  His  Word,  so  that  we  may 
have  time  to  repent  and  to  turn  unto  Him  (Ezek. 
xxxiii.  2). — If  judgment  fell  especially  upon  Solo- 
mon, notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Lord  ap- 
peared to  him  twice  in  a  dream,  and  he  was  hon- 
ored with  distinguished  grace,  what  judgment  must 
we  expect,  to  whom  He  has  appeared  tenderly  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
&c.  (1  Cor.  i.  30;  Heb.  ii.  3  ;  x.  29).— God  knows  how, 
in  the  proper  time,  to  belittle  him  who  abandonf 
and  forsakes  the  Lord  and  His  cause,  in  order  t« 
become  great  and  distinguished  in  the  eyes  »f  th« 
world  'Dan.  iv.  34X 


CHAPTER  XI    14-43.  13& 


Solomon's  Adversaries  and  Death. 
B.— Chapter  XI.  14-43. 

14  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  stirred  up  an  adversary  unto  Solomon,  Hadad '  the 

15  Edomite  :  he  was  of  the  king's  seed  in  Edom.  For  it  came  to  pass,  when  David 
was5  in  [with,  <•  «•  at  war  with]  Edom,  and  Joab  the  captain  of  the  host  was  gone  up 

16  to  bury  the  slain,  after  he  had  smitten  every  male  in  Edom;  (for  six  months  did 
Joab  remain  there  with  all  Israel  [*.  e.,  the  host],  until  he  had  cut  off  every  male  in 

17  Edom:)  that   Hadad    fled,   he   and    certain3  Edomites   of  his  father's  servants 

18  with  him,  to  go  into  Egypt :  Hadad  being  yet  a  little  child.  And  they  arose  out 
of  Midian,  and  came  to  Paran  :  and  they  took  men  with  them  out  of  Paran,  and 
they  came  to  Egypt,  unto  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt ;  which  gave  him  a  house,  and 

19  appointed  him  victuals,  and  gave  him  land.  And  Hadad  found  great  favor  in 
the  sight  of  Pharaoh,  so  that  he  gave  him  to  wife  the  sister  of  his  own  wife,  the 

20  sister  of  Tahpenes  the  queen.  Ami  the  sister  of  Tahpenes  bare  him  Genubath 
his  son,  whom  Tahpenes  weaned  in  Pharaoh's  house  :  and  Genubath  was  in  Pba- 

21  raoh's  household  among  the  sons  of  Pharaoh.  And  when  Hadad  heard  in  Egypt 
that  David  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  that  Joab  the  captain  of  the  host  was  dead, 
Hadad  said  to  Pharaoh,  Let  me  depart,  that  I  may  go  to  mine  own  country. 

22  Then  Pharaoh  said  unto  him,  But  what  hast  thou  lacked  with  me,  that,  behold, 
thou  seekest  to  go  to  thine  own  country  ?  And  he  answered,  Nothing  :  howbeit, 
let  me  go  in  any  wise. 

23  And  God  stirred  him  up  another  adversary,  Rezon  the  son  of  Eliadah,  which 

24  fled  from  his  lord  Hadadezer  king  of  Zobah:  and  he  gathered  men  unto  him,  and 
became  captain  over  a  band,  when  David  slew  them  of  Zobah:  and  they  went  to 

25  Damascus,  and  dwelt  therein,  and  reigned  in  Damascus.  And  he  was  an  adver- 
sary to  Israel  all  the  days  of  Solomon,4  beside  the  mischief  that  Hadad  did:  and 
he  abliorred  Israel,  and  reigned  over  Syria. 

26  And  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  an  Ephrathite  of  Zereda,  Solomon's  servant, 
whose  mother's  name  was  Zeruah,  a  widow  woman,  even  he  lifted  up  his  hand 

27  against  the  king.  And  this  was  the  cause  that  he  lifted  up  his  hand  against  the 
king:   Solomon  built  Millo,  and  repaired  the  breaches  of  the  city  of  David  his 

28  father.  And  the  man  Jeroboam  was  a  mighty  man  of  valor:  and  Solomon  seeing 
the  young  man  that  he  was  industrious,  he  made  him  ruler  over  all  the  charge 

29  of  the  house  of  Joseph.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  that  time  when  Jeroboam  went 
out  of  Jerusalem,  that  the  prophet  Ahijah  the  Shilonite  found  him  in  the  way; 
and  he  had  clad  himself  with  a  new  garment;  and  they  two  were  alone  in  the 

30  field6:  and  Ahijah  caught  the  new  garment  that  was  on  him,  and  rent  it  in 

31  twelve  pieces  :  and  he  said  to  Jeroboam,  Take  thee  ten  pieces:  for  thus  saith  the 
Lord  [Jehovah],  the  God  of  Israel,  Behold,  I  will  rend  the  kingdom  out  of  the 

32  hand  of  Solomon,  and  will  give  ten  tribes  to  thee  :  (but  he  shall  have  one  6  tribe 
for  my  servant  David's  sake,  and  for  Jerusalem's  sake,  the  city  which  I  have 

33  chosen  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel :)  because  that  they  have  forsaken  me,  and 
have  worshipped  Ashtoreth  the  goddess  of  the  Zidonians,'  Chemosh  the  god  of 
the  Moabites,  and  Milcom  e  the  god  of  the  children  of  Ammon,  and  have  not  walk- 
ed in  my  ways,  to  do  that  which  is  right  in  mine  eyes,  and  to  keep  my  statutes 

34  and  my  judgments,  as  did  David  his  father.  Howbeit,  I  will  not  take  the 
whole  kingdom  out  of  his  hand :  but  I  will  make  him  prince  all  the  days  of  his 
life  for  David  my  servant's  sake,  whom  I  chose,  because  he  kept  my  command- 

35  ments  and  my  statutes :  but  I  will  take  the  kingdom  out  of  his  son's  hand,  and 

36  will  give  it  unto  thee,  even  ten  tribes.  And  unto  his  son  will  I  give  one  tribe, 
that  David  my  servant  may  have  a  light  alway  before  me  in  Jerusalem,  the  city 

37  which  I  have  chosen  me  to  put  my  name  there.  And  I  will  take  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  reign  according  to  all  that  thy  soul  desireth,  and  shalt  be  king  over  Israel. 

3b  And  it  shall  be,  if  thou  wilt  hearken  unto  all  that  I  command  thee,  and  wilt 


134 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


walk  in  my  ways,  and  do  that  is  right  in  my  sight,  to  keep  my  statutes  and  my 
commandments,  as  David  my  servant  did ;   that  I  will  be  with  thee,  and  build 

39  thee  a  sure  house,  as  I  built  for  David,"  and  will  give  Israel  unto  thee.     And  I 

40  will  for  this  afflict  the  seed  of  David,  but  not  forever.  Solomon  sought  there- 
fore 10  to  kill  Jeroboam.  And  Jeroboam  arose,  and  fled  into  Egypt,  unto  Shi- 
shak  king  of  Egypt,  and  was  in  Egypt  until  the  death  of  Solomon. 

41  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  his  wisdom,  are 

42  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  acts  of  Solomon  ?     And  the  time  that  Solo- 

43  mon  reigned  in  Jerusalem  over  all  Israel  loas  forty  years.  And  Solomon  slept 
with  his" fathers,  and  was  buried  in  the  city  of  David  his  father :  and  Rehoboam 
his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  14.— [This  name  is  variously  written  in  the  printed  Heb.  text  lin  and  "HN  ;  in  some  MSS.  and  in  the  8y.. 

It  Is  uniformly  written  "l"in.  The  Sept.  has  'ASfp,  and  the  Vulg.  Hadad.     The  Ohald.  follows  the  variations  of  the  Hebrew. 
After  the  mention  of  his  name  the  Vat.  Sept.  subjoins  a  summary  of  vers.  23-25,  omitted  in  their  place. 

3  Ver.  IS.—  Instead  of  nVn3  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  and  Arab,  read  J113n2  (when  David  had  slain  the  Edomites),  which 

Manrerand  Thenius  consider  right.     But  according  to  1  Chron.  xx.  5;  Gen.  xiv.  9  [add  Num.  xx.  18],  the  reading  of  the 
text  is  not  to  be  peremptorily  rejected. 

8  Ver.  17. — [The  Sept.,  in  curious  contradiction  to  vers.  15,  16,  has  here  "all  the  Edomites,"  &c. 

•  Ver.  2ft. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  here  resumes  tlie  course  of  the  Heb.  narrative,  but  gives  quite  a  different  sense:  *'  this  to 
the  evil  which  Hadad  did  :  he  abhorred  Israel  mid  reigned  in  Edom."  On  the  true  rendering  of  the  verse  see  Exeg.  Com. 
In  regard  to  the  last  word,  three  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  and  Arab.,  have  DIN  for  D"IS  :  but,  as  pointed  out  in 
the  Exeg.  Com.,  the  true  reading  must  necessarily  be  that  of  the  text.  Our  author  in  his  translation,  in  opposition  to  his 
own  exegesis,  follows  the  Sept. 

•  Ver.  29.— [  I  he  Sept.  renders  or  replaces  the  last  clause  by  "  and  he  took  him  aside  from  the  way." 

•  Ver.  32.— [The  Sept.  has  Soo  (rK^irrpa— two  tribes.     So  also  ver.  36. 

'  Ver.  33.— [Instead  of  the  peculiar  form  J'JIV  many  MSS.  read  D'jnV. 

8  Ver.  83.— [The  Sept.  has  evidently  understood  in  D3pO  the  final  D  as  a  pronominal  suffix,  and  so  translate  "  their 

king,  the  stumbling-block  of  the  children  of  Amnion."    Throughout  this  verse  the  Sept.  puts  the  verbs  in  th»  singular  as 
having  Solomon  for  their  nominative. 

3  Ver.  88.— [The  Vat.  Sept. omits  the  clause  "and  will  give  Israel  unto  thee." 

10  Ver.  40.— [HD^'  Cp^l  =  but  Solomon  sought.  The  word  "therefore"  of  the  ancient  version  is  not  neces- 
sary, and  connects  the  attempt  of  Solomon  quite  too  distinctly  with  the  communication  of  Ahijah,  which  may  have  been 
known  to  him  (see  Exeg.  Com.)  or  may  not.  The  true  connection  of  ver.  40  is  with  ver.  26,  vers.  27-89  being  parentheti- 
cal.—F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  14.  And  the  Lord  stirred  up  an  adver- 
sary unto  Solomon,  &c.  It  is  clear  and  beyond 
dispute  that  the  whole  section,  from  vers.  14-40, 
which  treats  of  the  different  adversaries  that  God 
raised  up  against  Solomon,  is  intimately  connected 
with  the  immediately  preceding  account  of  his  fall, 
and  of  the  impending  and  threatened  division  of  the 
kingdom.  The  latter  was  not  to  occur  till  after 
Solomon's  death;  but  the  presages  of  it  were  al- 
ready appearing.  The  peace  of  the  kingdom  hither- 
to undisturbed  was  endangered  from  that  time  on, 
both  by  internal  and  by  external  adversaries.  The 
two  external  ones,  Hadad  and  Rezon,  had,  indeed, 
always  been  foes  to  Israel  and  Solomon,  but  they 
had  never  ventured  to  show  their  animosity  in  open 
deed,  inasmuch  as  the  kingdom  had  become  pow- 
erful and  respected  under  Solomon.  But  Solomon, 
in  permitting  the  idolatrous  worship,  gave  great  dis- 
latiafaction  to  all  the  faithful  servants  of  Jehovah, 
and  with  his  own  hands  he  shook  the  foundations 
of  the  kingdom.  Other  measures  also,  more  or  less 
connected  with  the  former,  caused  him  to  lose,  more 
and  more,  the  esteem  and  confidence  of  his  sub- 
jects ;  and  then  the  long  pent-up  hatred  of  his  old 
foes  began  to  show  itself  more;  their  courage  grew, 
*nd  though  they  did  not  proceed  to  formal  attack 
or  to  open  rebellion  (of  which  our  narrative  says 
nothing)  Solomon  had  occasion  to  fear  them  more 


than  ever  before ;  the  tranquillity  and  peace  of  his 
kingdom  was  endangered,  and  the  time  of  pros- 
perity past.  Every  one  will  admit  that  this  is  what 
the  author  meant  to  convey.  But  recent  criticism 
reckons  him  a  "  later  worker-up  of  Deuteron- 
omy," and  accuses  him  of  a  shifting  of  the  his- 
torical facts.  According  to  Ewald  (Gesch.  Isr. 
III.  s.  274-281),  uproar  and  rebellion  did  not  first 
break  out  towards  the  end  of  Solomon's  reign,  but 
immediately  after  the  death  of  David  and  of  his 
formidable  army-chief,  Joab,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  reign  of  the  young  and  inexperienced  king, 
both  in  the  south  (Edom)  aud  in  the  north  (Syria), 
as  depicted  by  Solomon  himself  in  the  second 
Psalm  With  the  divine  courage  and  the  admoni 
tion  supported  by  prophetic  assurance,  which  this 
Psalm  expresses,  together  with  wonderful  firmness 
of  spirit,  Solomon  met  the  storm  of  rebellion,  and 
deprived  his  foes  of  their  chief  weapon  of  attack 
by  his  alliance  with  Egypt.  Against  the  northern 
insurgents  he  himself  marched,  and  stormed  Ha- 
math.  Thus  were  the  ragings  of  the  people  stilled, 
and  in  a  brief  space  he  became  master  of  the  situa- 
tion. This  view  has  been  reiterated  in  several 
books  (r/.  for  instance  Eisenlohr,  das  Volte  Isr 
II.  s.  41  and  57  ;  Duncker,  Gesch.  des  Alt.  I.  s.  387), 
and  has  been  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course;  al- 
though there  are  the  strongest  reasons  for  reject- 
ing it.  (a)  Our  historical  book  says  repeatedly 
how,  and   that  the   kingdom   of  Solomon   became 


CHAPTER  XI.  14-43. 


135 


established  (chap.  ii.  12  and  46),  without  making 
the  remotest  allusion  to  rebellion  having  broken 
out  in  the  lauds  David  had  conquered,  and  being 
put  down  by  Solomon ;  yet  this  would  especially 
have  tended"  to  establish  his  throne  and  increase 
the  esteem  in  which  he  was  held.  Even  in  the 
chapter  we  are  considering,  no  mention  is  made  of 
actual  rebellion,  but  only  of  adversaries ;  therefore 
to  say  there  were  certainly  such,  is  not  writing 
history,  but  making  history.  (J)  The  rebellion  of 
whole  nations  which,  like  Edom,  lived  far  off,  could 
have  been  put  down  only  by  force  of  arms,  and 
Dot  by  "  reproof  "  or  "  strength  of  mind  ;"  but  the 
history  says  nothing  of  Solomon's  inarching  into 
Edom.  He  went  indeed  to  Hamath,  but  not  to 
conquer  it,  only  to  "  fortify  "  it  (p;n  cf.  2  Chron. 
xi.  11,  12  ;  xxvi.  9),  as  the  short  notice  stands  in 
12  Chron.  viii.  3,  in  the  middle  of  the  details  of  the 
different  city-buildings.  In  fact  we  do  not  hear 
of  a  single  warlike  enterprise  of  Solomon's ;  he 
was,  as  his  name  denotes,  the  king  of  peace,  the 
"man  of  rest,"  in  distinction  from  David,  the  man 
of  war  (1  Chron.  xxii.  9) ;  and  his  reign  was  dis- 
tinguished by  works  of  peace  (building,  commerce, 
intellectual  culture),  above  that  of  all  other  kings. 
(c)The  2d  Psalm  does  not  contain  a  history,  and 
our  narrative  cannot  be  completed,  much  lees  con- 
tradicted or  corrected  by  it.  It  is  a  mere  unproven 
hypothesis  that  this  psalm  was  composed  by  Solo- 
mon, and  that  the  rebellion  alluded  to  in  it  took 
place  during  his  reign,  not  in  the  last  years  of  it, 
but  in  the  first.  What  is  here  said  of  Hadad  and 
Rezon  certainly  occurred  at  an  earlier  period,  but 
is  repeated.  "  because  its  influence  only  began  to 
be  felt  in  the  latter  part  of  Solomon's  reign,  and 
should  have  guarded  him  from  over-security  from 
the  beginning  "  (Keil). 

Vers.  14-22.  Hadad,  the  Edomite.  He  is 
called  Ahad  [the  English  version  does  not  distin- 
guish] in  ver.  17.  A  Hadad  is  mentioned  among 
the  Edomite  kings  as  early  as  Gen.  xxxvi.  35 ; 
who  evidently  belonged  to  an  earlier  period.  It  is 
quite  uncertain  whether  our  Hadad  was  the  grand- 
son of  the  last  king  of  Edom,  whom  1  Chron.  i.  50 
wrongly  calls  Hadad  instead  of  Hadar  (Gen.  xxxvi. 
39)  (Ewald,  Thenius).  Details  of  his  former  for- 
tunes are  no  doubt  designed  to  show  how  firmly  he 
clung  to  his  native  land,  and  therefore  how  much 
more  he  was  to  be  dreaded.  For  David's  war  with 
the  Edomites  cf.  2  Sam.  viii.  13  sq.  "  The  slain, 
whom  Joab  came  out  to  bury,  cannot  be  the  Isra- 
elites who  fell  in  the  battle  of  the  valley  of  salt, 
but  those  killed  on  the  invasion  of  the  country  by 
the  Edomites,  and  who  lay  yet  unburied.  After 
performing  this  act  Joab  defeated  the  Edomites  in 
the  valley  of  salt,  and  dwelt  six  months  in  Edom, 
till  he  had  extirpated  all  the  males  (i.  e.,  all  those 
capable  of  bearing  arms  that  fell  into  his  hands, 
and  especially  those  of  royal  blood  ")  (Keil).  Mi- 
dian,  ver.  18,  cannot  certainly  be  the  town  Madian 
mentioned  by  Arabian  geographers,  bn„  a  district; 
it  is  not  very  well  defined,  but  it  must  have  been 
between  Edom  and  the  desert,  south-west  of  Pales- 
tine, Paran  (Num.  xiii.  3,  27;  x.  12);  the  road 
from  Egypt  still  leads  across  the  latter,  through 
Aila  to  Mecca.  The  people  whom  the  followers 
of  Hadad  took  from  Paran  with  them,  were  to  lead 
the  way  across  the  desert.  The  Pharaoh  who  en- 
tertained the  fugitives  with  such  friendliness,  and 
act  only  supported  Hadad  himself,  but  gave  land 
to  those  with  him,  could  scarcely  be  Solomon's 


father-in-law,  but  his  predecessor.     His  consort  is 

here    named    nT33n ,  the    Queen-mother's    usual 

appellation  (chap.  xv.  13  ;  2  Chron.  xv.  16);  but  it 
does  not  always  necessarily  mean  that ;  and  con 
sequently  we  are  not  obliged  to  accept  Hitzig's 

and   Thenius'   reading  of  n?i"13D ,  i.  e.,  the  elder. 

The  weaning  of  a  child  (ver.  20)  usually  took  place 
the  second  or  third  year  (2  Mace.  vii.  27),  and  was 
observed  as  a  family  feast  (Gen.  xxi.  8).  Genubath 
was  thus  adopted  among  the  royal  children,  and 
brought  up  with  them  (Winer,  B.-W.-B.,  I.  s.  657). 
Hadad's  petition  (ver.  21)  was  not  so  much  because 
he  had  now  no  longer  any  fear  for  his  life,  but  be- 
cause he,  as  a  royal  prince,  hoped  to  ascend  the 
throne,  and  free  his  land  from  the  Israelitish  yoke  ; 
this  was  the  only  reason  why  he  is  named  an  ad- 
versary. Pharaoh's  question,  ver.  22,  contains  the 
counsel  to  remain  where  he  was,  where  he  was 
well  off,  rather  than  undertake  a  dangerous  and 
uncertain  enterprise.  This  advice  of  his  near  rela- 
tive was  well  meant,  and  did  not  spring  from  the 
policy  of  seeking  to  acquire  or  keep  Solomon's 
friendship.  Hadad,  however,  remained  firm  in  his 
resolve  ;  we  are  not  told  of  his  actual  departure, 
but  it  is  to  be  understood;  so  that  the  Sept.  addi- 
tion, Kai  avtarpeipev  * Adep  etc  t/jv  yr/v  avroi\  consid- 
ered as  original  by  Thenius,  is  unnecessary.  It 
appears  from  chap.  ix.  26  sq.;  x.  11,  that  Hadad 
was  not  able  to  carry  out  his  plans  at  once,  but 
the  fire  smouldered  under  the  ashes,  and  threat- 
ened to  break  out  as  soon  as  Solomon  began  to  be 
less  respected.  Ewald  continues  Hadad's  history 
further.  He  says  the  Egyptian  king  received  him 
in  so  friendly  a  manner,  "  evidently  intending  to 
make  use  of  him  in  the  future  against  the  growing 
power  of  Israel."  Genubath  must  have  "  acted  an 
important  part  in  Asia,  later,  or  he  would  other- 
wise not  have  been  named  at  all."  When  the 
feeling  of  the  Egyptian  court  changed  towards  Is- 
rael's kings,  "  an  evasive  answer  was  returned 
to  the  Idumsean  prince  ;  he  would  "not  be  de- 
tained, however,  but  fled  secretly  to  his  ancestral 
mountains,  was  there  acknowledged  by  many  of 
his  people  as  king,  and  caused  Solomon  much 
perplexity,  though  he  was  never  completely  vic- 
to-ious."  Every  one  who  can  read  may  see  that 
there  is  not  a  single  word  of  all  this  in  the  text, 
and  yet  Eisenlohr  has  blindly  followed  the  writer 
{I.  c,  a.  58 1.      Cf.  also  on  chap.  xxii.  48. 

Vers.  23-25.  And  God  stirred  him  up.  .  .  . 
Rezon  .  .  .  the  son  of  Eliadah,  &c.  Ver.  23. 
2  Sam.  viii.  3sq.  mentions  that  David  smote  Hada- 
dezer.  king  of  Zobah,  in  Syria,  whereupon  Rezon 
forsook  his  master,  gathered  together  an  army 
from  the  remains  of  the  Syrian  host,  and  pro- 
ceeded later  to  Damascus,  settled  there,  and 
usurped  the  chief  power.  This  may  have  occurred 
in  David's  time,  or  in  the  beginning  of  Solomon's 
reign.  It  is  nowhere  said  that  he  rebelled  on 
Solomon's  accession,  and  was  conquered  by  him, 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  "that  he  was  at 
least  twenty  or  thirty  years  older  than  Solomon  " 
(Ewald).  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  survived 
Solomon,  for  had  he  died  sooner  it  could  not  be, 
as  in  ver.  25,  that  "  he  was  an  adversary  to  Is- 
rael all  the  days  of  Solomon."  He  did  not  under- 
take any  enterprise  against  the  powerful  king,  but 
as  he  had  always  entertained  hostile  feelings  to 
him,  he  now  became  a  more  dangerous  and  open 


130 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


tnemT,  as  the  power  and  fame  of  Solomon  were 
declining.     The  words  Tin  1B>S  njnrrnsi  are 

difficult,  but  can  be  translated  only  as  many  old 
translators  give  them,  and  among  the  recent  ones, 
De  Wette,  Gesenius,  Keil,  Philippson ;  and  "  be- 
side the  mischief  that  Hadad   (did)."     J1N1  is  as 

in  ver.  1  and  Ex.  i.  14.  We  are  not  told  what  the 
mischief  that  Hadad  did  really  was;  the  writer 
only  means  that  Rezon's  enmity  was  added  to  that 
of  Hadad.  This  view,  which  suits  the  context, 
relieves  the  following  sentence  of  all  difficulty: 
"  and  he  (Rezon)  abhorred  Israel,  and  reigned  over 
Syria."  Whilst  Hadad  agitated  the  south,  Rezon 
rebelled  from  Solomon  in  the  north,  and  took  the 
supreme    power.     The    Sept.   translates  as  if  it 

read   nXT   instead  of   riNl   aud    DIN    instead   of 

D"1N:  Avry  r/KaKia  rjv  kiroinoev  'Aonp.  nal  ,  .  . 
k/JaaiAevoe  h  yrj  'ESufi,  i.  e.,  this  is  the  mischief 
which  Hadad  did;  he  abhorred  Israel  and  was 
king  in  Edom.  Thenius  asserts  that  this  was  the 
original  text.  But  in  this  case  the  whole  sen- 
tence could  not  be  here,  where  the  question  is 
about  the  second  adversary,  Rezon,  but  should 
have  followed  ver.  22.  It  is  incomparably  less 
probable  that  it  was  there  passed  over  by  the 
oversight  of  a  copyist  (Thenius),  and  inserted 
here,  than  that  the  Sept.  misunderstood  the 
J1N1  i  &e->  an(l  translated  wrongly  as  it  so  often 
does,  and  was  then -obliged  to  change  DIN  to  DTN 
because  it  did  not  suit  Hadad.  The  Sept.  has 
arbitrarily  mixed  the  two  accounts  of  the  adver- 
saries together  (it  puts  vers.  23  and  24  into  ver. 
14),  so  that  we  should  be  very  foolish  to  follow  it 
in  this  case.  Ewald  translates,  "  as  for  the  mis- 
chief which  Hadad  did,  he  was  hostile  to  Israel 
and  reigned  over  Edom;"  but  then  the  sentence 
should  be  back  of  ver.  22  and  not  here.  It  is  not 
right  to  change  DIN  into  DIN ,  because  the  two 
foregoing  verses  absolutely  require  that  Rezon 
should  be  considered  as  subject  to  j'p>l .  Cf. 
Keil  on  the  place. 

Vers.  26,  27.  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat. 
Hadad  and  Rezon  were  dangerous  "  adversaries  " 
to  Solomon,  but  Jeroboam,  though  a  subject  and 
servant  of  Solomon,  lifted  up  his  hand  against  the 
king,  i.  e.,  he  actually  rebelled.  His  personal  cir- 
cumstances are  given  more  at  length  because  of 
his  vastly  greater  importance.  Zereda  is  not  Zar- 
ihan,  as  Keil  thinks  (chap.  vii.  46);  the  latter  is 
uot  in  Ephraim  ;  but  Zereda  is  Zerira  in  the  rnoun- 
*«in8  of  Ephraim  (cf.  Thenius  on  chap.  xii.  2).  The 
„^uuu  half  of  ver.  27  says,  like  chap.  ix.  15:  "to 
build  Millo  and  the  walls  of  Jerusalem;"  there  is. 
therefore,  no  question  here  of  stopping  "  a  gap 
in  the  city  of  David  "  (Luther),  but  of  the  closing 
up  of  a  ravine  (Vulgate,  vorago)  in  the  city,  which 
was   done  by  walls.     By  y-is  is  meant  the  once 

very  deep  ravine  of  what  was  subsequently  the 
Tyropceon,  which  separated  Zion  from  Moriah  ami 
Ophel.  This  ravine  became  part  of  the  interior  of 
the  city  through  these  walls,  and  was  made  inac- 
cessible to  enemies  (Thenius).  The  words,  he 
.xxf'  him  ruler  over  all  the  charge  of  Vie  houseof  Jo- 
ttph,  are  not  in  contradiction  with  chap.  ix.  22 ; 

for  slave  levy  is  not  spoken  of  here  ("i2JJ"DD)i 
:,*<*  that  of  the  Israelites  ( ^N"IK>;"!>3D  DO)  chap. 


v.  13,  who  worked  alternately.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, necessary  to  suppose  that  the  "house  of  Jo- 
seph" i.  e.,  the  Ephraimites  (Josh.  xvii.  17)  were 
obliged  to  work  at  Millo,  as  a  punishment  for  their 
rebellion  under  Sheba  (2  Sam.  xx.).  But  the 
Ephraimites,  who  had  an  old  and  irrepressible 
jealousy  of  Judah,  submitted  very  reluctantly  tc 
labor  in  the  king's  citadel  and  the  royal  city  of 
Judah;  their  compulsory  work  increased  their 
dislike  to  hatred,  so  that  it  was  easy  to  fan  the 
flame  of  insurrection  among  them. 

Ver.  29.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  that  time, 
i.  e.,  not  at  the  time  Jeroboam  made  the  insurrec- 
tion, but — taken  with  ver.  28 — the  time  when  he 
entered  upon  the  office  of  superintendent  over  all 
the  Ephraimite  levy ;  therefore,  before  he  lifted  his 
hand  against  the  king,  and  proceeded  to  acts,  but 
still  he  was  brooding  over  insurrection.  The  no- 
tion that  vers.  29-39  is  a  section  taken  from  an- 
other source  and  inserted  here  (Thenius)  is,  to  say 
the  least,  unnecessary  ;  it  contains  an  explanatory 
and  needful  account,  which  is  closely  connected 
with  ver.  28.  Jeroboam's  banishment  from  Jeru- 
salem was  probably  the  occasion  for  preparations 
of  rebellion.  The  prophet  Ahijah  was  of  the  same 
tribe  as  Jeroboam,  for  Shiloh  was  in  the  tribe  of 
Ephraim,  north  of  Bethel,  south  of  Lebonah  (Jud. 
xxi.  19),  and  was  the  seat  of  the  tabernacle  fiom 
Joshua  to  Eli  (Josh,  xviii.  1 ;  1  Sam.  xxi.  3).  They 
no  doubt  knew  each  other  well.  The  Sept.  adds 
to    the  words   in  the  way   (for   explanation):  /ml 

aT7£OT7/G£V  OVTOV  £K  T7JC  66ov. 

Vers.  30-39.  Ahijah  caught  the  new  gar- 
ment.   riD^b'    (for    n^pi."')  is  "probably  similar 

to  the  Arabian  burnou ;  a  large  square  piece  of 
cloth,  thrown  over  the  shoulders  and  almost  cov- 
ering the  whole  person  in  the  daytime,  and  used 
at  night  for  a  coverlet "  (Keil).  Hess  wrongly 
imagines  it  to  have  been  a  "  new  mantle  which 
Jeroboam  had  on;"  and  Ewald  thinks  it  was  his 
"  new  and  splendid  official  uniform."  It  was  tho 
prophet's  own  cloak,  as  ver.  30  plainly  says.  The 
prophet  himself  explains  the  meaning  of  this  sym- 
bolic act.  Le  Clerc  says  that  the  repetition  of  the 
word  new  shows  that  the  prophet  did  what  he  did, 
non  teniere.  Thenius  thinks  the  new  garment  de- 
noted the  young  and  powerful  kingdom  ;  but  both 
these  explanations  are  strained.  A  new  garment 
is  one  that  is  whole  and  complete,  integer,  without 
a  rent  or  hole ;  the  kingdom  was  hitherto  with- 
out split  or  division,  but  was  now  to  be  torn 
and  divided,     jnp  is  usually  applied  to  tearing 

the  garments  in  sign  of  mourning  (Gen.  xxxvii. 
29;  xliv.  13;  2  Sam.  xiii.  21;  2  Kings  xviii.  37), 
i.  e.,  of  inward  rending.  Now  when  the  prophet 
tore  tho  cloak  into  twelve  pieces,  and  gave  Jero- 
boam only  ten  pieces  instead  of  eleven,  we  must 
of  course  infer  that  neither  Benjamin  nor  Judah 
alone  was  meant  here,  or  in  ver.  13,  by  "  one 
tribe,"  but  both  together  (cf.  chap.  xii.  20  and  21 , 
2  Chron.  xi.  3 ;  xii.  23).  Little  Benjamin,  over 
against  Judah,  came  scarcely  into  consideration ; 
and  as,  besides,  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  (Jeru- 
salem) lay  on  the  borders  of  both  tribes,  they 
might  very  well  be  reckoned  as  one.  If,  as  Keil 
says,  the  number  ten  represents  the  total  sum 
hero,  in  distinction  to  the  one  part  (all  Israel  fell 
away  from  the  house  of  David,  only  a  single  por- 
tion remained  to  it),  the  proyhet  would  have  tori 


CHAPTER  XI.  14-43. 


137 


off  only  one  small  piece.  For  ver.  32  see  above 
on  vers.  12,  13;  and  for  ver.  33  see  on  vers.  5-8. 
The  plural  in  ver.  33  is  remarkable  (all  transla- 
tions, except  the  Chaldee,  have  the  singular,  which 
we  expect  here);  perhaps  it  only  means  our  vague 
word  "one;"  it  is  plain,  however,  that  Israelites 
had  already  abandoned  themselves  to  the  licensed 
heathen  worship.  In  the  words  in  ver.  36,  that 
David  may  have  a  light  always  before  me,  "  light  " 
is  not  a  symbol  of  prosperity  (Keil),  and  1'J  cer- 
tainly does  not  mean  breaking  forth  afresh  (Hit- 
zig\  but  it  means  simply  the  continuance  of  his 
race,  as  in  chap.  xv.  4;  2  Kings  viii.  19;  2  Chron. 
xxi.  7.  As  a  house  (dwelling)  is  dark  (uninhabit- 
able) without  a  light,  so  also  is  a  house  (family, 
race)  without  posterity ;  this  is  why  we  speak  of 
the  dying  out  of  a  race,  at  the  present  day,  as  its 
extinction.  The  same  expression,  ver.  37  :  and 
thou  shalt  reign  according  to  all,  &c,  is  used  in  2 
Sam.  iii.  21,  about  David;  it  does  not  mean  pro 
lubitu  tuo  imperabis  Israelitis  (Dathe),  but,  thou 
shalt  have  the  dominion  thou  now  strivest  for,  &c, 
&.C.  Ver.  38.  Jeroboam's  dominion  then  was  con- 
nected with  the  condition  upon  which  all  dominion 
in  Israel  was  based. 

Vers.  40-42.  Solomon  sought  therefore  to 
kill  Jeroboam.  The  immediate  connection  of 
these  words  with  Ahijah's  address  can  scarcely 
mean  otherwise  than  this:  that  Solomon  heard  of 
it,  and  sought  to  get  Jeroboam  out  of  the  way  by 
some  means.  Jeroboam  could  but  know  of  this, 
and  he  lifted  up  his  hand  against  the  king,  i.  e.,  he 
proceeded  to  actual  rebellion  (vers.  26,  27).  But 
not  succeeding,  he  fled  to  Egypt.  The  king  then 
reigning  was  not,  of  course,  Solomon's  father-in- 
law,  nor  Sesostris,  as  older  commentators  think,  but 
was  probably  Seconchis  or  Sesonchusis,  the  first 
king  of  the  twenty-second  dynasty  (<•/.  Winer,  R.- 
W.-B.  s.  v.  Sishak).  The  reception  he  gave  Jero- 
boam shows  his  feeling  towards  Solomon.  Chap. 
xiv.  21  sq.  speaks  of  his  open  hostility  to  the  king- 
dom of  Judah. 

Ver.  43.  Solomon  slept  with  his  fathers,  at 

about  sixty  years  of  age,  as  he  very  early  suc- 
ceeded to  the  throne  (chap.  iii.  7).  Josephus  thinks 
he  was  eighty  or  even  ninety-four  years  old,  but 
this  is  quite  wrong,  and  was  caused,  probably,  by 
confusion  of  the  ciphers.  All  copies  and  transla- 
tions give  forty.  Our  author  gives,  in  a  general 
way,  the  "book  of  the  acts  of  Solomon,"  as  the  origi- 
nal source  of  his  history;  but  2  Chron.  ix.  29 
names,  with  more  exactness,   the  "  book  ( >-Qi ) 

of  Nathan  the  prophet,  the  prophecy  of  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite,  and  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer  against 
Jeroboam."  But  it  does  not  follow  that  these 
three  writings  are  only  extracts  from  one  histo- 
rical one  (Bertheau),  but  it  certainly  does  appear 
that  each  one  wrote  down  his  own  experience. 
When  Solomon  fell  away,  and  Ahijah  appeared, 
Nathan  must  have  been  dead.  Cf  the  Introduc- 
tion, §  2.  Rehoboam  was  not  a  son  of  the  first  and 
real  consort  of  Solomon,  the  Egyptian  princess 
(chap.  iii.  1;  ix.  24;  vii.  8),  but  the  son  of  the  Na- 
amah  the  Ammonitess  (chap.  xiv.  21,  31).  He 
appears  to  have  been  the  only  living  son,  as  no 
children,  especially  sons,  of  Solomon  are  named 
(though  he  had  so  many  wives),  except  the  two 
daughters  mentioned,  chap.  iv.  11  and  15;  and  nc 
brothers  disputed   the   succession  of  Rehohoam, 


which  was  the  case  with  Solomon.     For  his  age 
at  his  accession  see  on  chap.  xiv.  21. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL 

1.  The  appearance  of  the  various  adversaries  oi 
Solomon  seems  to  have  been  a  special  act  of  divim 
retributive  justice;  God  is  named  as  the  direct 
agent.  He  is  said  not  only  to  have  perm:tted 
them,  but  to  have  "stirred  them  up,"  called  tnem 
to  it.  The  word  D'pi"1  means,  as  here,  the  stir- 
ring up  of  enemies  and  rebels,  also  of  deliverers, 
helpers,  prophets  (Jud.  ii.  18;  Deut.  xviii.  15,  18; 
1  Sam.  ii.  35 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23 ;  Jer.  xxix.  15), 
where  there  is  no  allusion  to  mere  permission.  It 
is  not  indeed  the  absolutely  Holy  One  who  ex- 
cites hatred,  enmity,  and  revenge  in  one  man  to- 
wards another,  for  he  tempts  no  man  to  evil 
(Jam.  i.  13) ;  but  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  the  world 
can  use  the  hatred  that  He  sees  in  the  hearts  of 
sinful  men,  to  fulfil,  without  their  knov-^edge  or 
wish,  the  purposes  of  His  retributive  justice  and 
the  chastisements  of  His  love ;  and  iu  so  far,  the 
stirring  up  is  no  passive  permission,  but  the  act  of 
God.  Thus  Nathan  announces  to  David,  after  his 
grievous  sin,  this  word  of  the  Lord,  "  behold  I  will 
raise  up  evil  against  thee  out  of  thine  own  house  " 
(2  Sam.  xii.  11),  and  David  himself  says  of  Shimei 
who  was  cursing  him,  "  so  let  him  curse,  because 
the  Lord  hath  said  unto  him  "  (2  Sam.  xvi.  10,  11). 
The  Assyrian  is,  without  knowing  it,  the  rod  of 
His  anger  in  the  hand  of  Jehovah  (Isai.  x.  1,  5), 
and  Solomon's  adversaries  also  served  for  instru- 
ments of  divine  justice.  This  expression  of  stir- 
ring up  shows  clearly  that  the  appearance  of  the 
adversaries  did  not  take  place,  as  recent  commen- 
tators say,  in  the  beginning  of  Solomon's  reign,  for 
up  to  that  time  Solomon  had  given  no  occasion  for 
any  act  of  retribution  or  discipline.  Though  he  did 
not  lose  his  throne  through  them,  during  his  life- 
time ;  yet  it  was  very  humiliating  to  him,  whose 
power  and  splendor  had  been  a  spectacle  to  the 
world,  and  whose  wisdom  people  of  all  nations  had 
come  to  hear  (chap.  iv.  14;  x.  24),  to  be  obliged  to 
fear  these  men,  who  were  far  inferior  to  him,  and 
whom  he  had  once  despised. 

2.  Wliile  Hadad  and  Rezon  did  not  affect  mate- 
rially the  destiny  of  Israel,  the  third  opponent  of 
Solomon  was  of  vastly  greater  significance.  Jero- 
boam does  not  disappear,  like  them,  without  leaving 
a  trace  in  the  history  of  the  kingdom.  His  en- 
trance on  the  scene  was  felt  profoundly  for  centu- 
ries; the  breach  and  partition  of  the  kingdom 
take  place  with  and  through  him ;  a  partition 
which  was  no  temporary  one,  but  lasted  about 
three  hundred  years,  and  ended  with  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  kingdom.  In  this  respect  he  is  one  of 
the  most  important  of  the  characters  in  the  history 
of  Israel.  Witsius,  in  reference  to  his  whole  ca- 
reer says  (Decaphylon,  p.  307) :  vir  sagax,  inquietus 
et  dominandi  avidus  atque  ab  ineunte  cetate  iis  eru- 
ditus  artibus,  quibus  ingenia  ad  m,agnm  fortxmw  cut- 
turn  incitantur.  Here  where  he  is  first  mentioned 
the  question  properly  arises,  how  it  came  to  pasa 
that  he  lifted  up  his  hand  against  the  King.  The 
text  certainly  says  nothing  explicit  about  it,  but 
gives  some  distinct  clues.  It  says,  first  of  all,  he 
was  an  Ephraimite,  thus  being  a  member  of  the 
largest,  most  powerful,  and  warlike  tribe,  that  had 
always  vied  with  Judah  forpre-emme-  je;  aud  that 


138 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


even  when  David  had  subdued  them,  never  re- 
nounced their  deeply  rooted  jealousy  and  love  of 
independence  and  dominion  over  the  other  tribes 
(2  Sam.  ii.  9;  xx.  21).  After  the  division  of  the 
kingdom,  Ephraim  stood  at  the  head  of  the  ten 
tribes,  so  that  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  was  called 
Ephraim  (Hos.  iv.  17  ;  v.  9 ;  xii.  1  sq. ;  Isai.  vii.  2). 
Dislike  of  the  supremacy  of  Judah  was  in  the  very 
blood  of  so  young  and  powerful  a  man  as  Jero- 
boam, and  it  needed  not  much  to  excite  thoughts 
of  rebellion  and  independence  in  him.  The  fact 
that  Solomon  employed  the  Ephraimites  not  so 
much  in  the  matter  of  levy-works  as  in  building 
Millo,  and  in  stopping  up  the  ravine  which  served 
to  fortify  the  city  of  David  and  to  secure  the  su- 
preoiacy  of  Judah,  was  calculated  to  increase  the 
ancient  jealousy  and  dislike  to  Judah,  and  to  ex- 
cite discontent  and  disgust.  Recognizing  the  dis- 
tinguished ability  of  young  Jeroboam,  Solomon 
made  him  overseer  of  his  own  people  ;  thus  feed- 
ing the  ambition  of  this  man  who  was  born  to  rule. 
He  now  first  became  conscious  of  his  powers,  and 
soon  acquired  the  confidence  of  his  already  discon- 
tented tribe  by  his  prudence  and  energy,  so  that 
he  could  hope  to  succeed  in  placing  himself  at 
their  head,  and  lifting  his  hand  against  the  Judah- 
King.  Perhaps  he  also  perceived  that  the  splen- 
dor of  Solomon  had  lost  its  ground  through  the 
influence  of  his  wives,  the  open  introduction  of 
idol-worship  side  by  side  with  that  of  Jehovah, 
and  the  luxurious  court  life,  and  that  his  rule  gave 
great  dissatisfaction  to  the  most  worthy  of  the 
people.  When  we  consider  all  this  we  readily 
conceive  that  a  man  like  the  Ephraimite,  Jero- 
boam, should,  without  being  especially  influenced 
by  any  one,  think  of  breaking  loose  from  Solo- 
mon's rule.  The  later  critics  have  therefore  no 
grounds  for  asserting  that  "the  prophet  Ahijah, 
who  appeared  at  the  head  of  a  (discontented)  fac- 
tion," induced  Jeroboam  to  rebel  against  the  king 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  544).  Theuius  is  quite 
right  when  he  says,  "  Ahijah  did  not  incite  Jero- 
boam, but  he  knew  the  thoughts  he  cherished, 
and  when  Ahijah  addressed  him  he  was  about 
taking  steps  to  realize  these  thoughts,  as  ver.  37 
says:  the  prophet  then  appeared,  for  he  saw  that 
the  deed  would  infallibly  follow  the  resolve  in  this 
case,  and  recognized  in  Jeroboam  a  capable  man, 
knowing  also  the  promise  of  success  under  condi- 
tion of  continuance  in  a  God-fearing  mind.  This 
relation  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  and  is 
totally  different  from  an  intentional  and  forcible 
introduction."  The  text  says  distinctly  that  Ahi- 
jah met  Jeroboam  when  the  latter  "went  out  of 
Jerusalem  "  (ver.  29)  to  lift  up  his  hand  against 
the  king. 

3.  The  prophet  Ahijah  stands  in,  a  relation  to  So- 
lomon and  Jeroboam  analogous  with  that  of  Samuel 
to  Saul  and  David  (1  Sam.  xv.  16).  "As  Saul's 
sentence  of  rejection  was  accompanied  by  the 
calling  of  David,  so  the  prophetical  announcement 
to  Solomon  was  accompanied  by  the  prophecy  to 
Jeroboam  "  (v.  Gerlach).  Ahijah  opened  to  him 
the  same  divine  decision  which  he  had  first  made 
known  to  Solomon  (cf.  vers.  11-13).  In  doing  so 
he  emphasizes  two  things  particularly,  aud  these 
are  worthy  of  notice ;  the  first  is,  that  Solomon 
was  to  romain  king  of  all  Israel  to  the  end  of  his 
lif6,  and  the  division  of  the  kingdom  was  to  take 
place  under  his  son  (ver.  31  sq.) ;  the  second,  that 
Jeroboam  only    received  dominion  over  the   ten 


tribes,  on  the  presupposition  and  condition  that 
he  would  walk  in  all  the  commandments  of  Jeho- 
vah, as  David  did,  and  not  sin  like  Solomon  (ver. 
37  sq.).  It  is  added  also  that  David's  seed  was  to 
be  humbled,  but  not  forever  (ver.  39).  We  should 
not  overlook  the  circumstance  that  the  prophet 
met  Jeroboam  on  the  way  as  he  came  out  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  was  proceeding  to  carry  out  his  inten- 
tions, and  that  the  prophet  took  him  aside  (as  the 
Sept.  at  least  has  it)  so  that  they  "  two  were  alone 
in  the  field  "  (ver.  29).  Ahijah's  communication 
was,  therefore,  not  intended  for  the  public,  but  was 
confidential,  thus  intimating  to  Jeroboam  that  he 
ought  not  to  proceed  to  rebellion  at  once,  but  keep 
quiet,  and  wait  till  it  might  please  the  Lord  to 
bring  about  circumstances  to  fulfil  the  purpose 
He  had  announced.  The  prophet,  so  far  from 
counselling  him  to  rebellion,  warned  him  rather, 
and  recommended  patience  as  long  as  Solomon 
lived.  But  when  Jeroboam,  nevertheless,  lifted 
up  his  hand  against  the  king,  he  committed  an  in- 
excusable, sinful  deed  on  his  own  responsibility, 
and  anticipated  divine  providence.  His  conduct 
was  just  the  opposite  of  David's,  who,  though 
anointed  to  be  king,  and  persecuted  by  Saul,  en- 
dured every  wrong,  never  revenged  himself  on  the 
king,  though  the  latter  was  often  in  his  power, 
even  mourned  his  death,  and  had  the  Amalekite 
who  killed  him  executed  as  a  traitor  (2  Sam  i.  11- 
16).  He  believed  that  the  Lord  knew  the  right 
hour  to  fulfil  his  promise.  It  cannot,  therefore, 
be  accounted  a  crime  in  Solomon  to  strive  to  kill 
a  man  whom  he  had  raised  from  nothing,  and  who 
then  rebelled  against  him.  From  all  this  it  ap- 
pears that  it  is  quite  erroneous  to  account  for  Je- 
roboam's appearance  by  saying  that  "  the  ancient 
prophetical  estate  wished,  by  the  forcible  intro- 
duction of  a  new  royal  house,  to  stand  directly 
under  the  Lord  and  above  the  human  monarchy ;" 
so  that  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  "  the 
birth  of  this  prophet-power,"  and  the  latter  "a 
retarded  error  "  (Ewald).  And  it  is  equally  untrue 
that  the  rebellion  of  the  ten  tribes  was  "  an  enter- 
prise which  the  prophet  had  encouraged,  to  bring 
back  the  old  national  constitution,  and  restore  the 
consideration  in  which  his  class  was  held  in  Sam- 
uel's time,  when  he,  their  founder  and  represent- 
ative, deposed  a  king  who  disobeyed  him,  and 
raised  up  another  in  his  place  "  (Menzel,  I.  c.  s. 
152).  When  will  men  cease  to  compare  the  old 
prophets  with  modern  demagogues  and  ambitious 
priests  I 

4.  The  symbolic  procedure  of  the  rending  the  gar 
ment  into  twelve  pieces  preceded  the  prophecy  del. 
vered  by  the  prophet.  It  could  not,  therefore,  have 
been  intended  to  make  that  prophecy  clear,  but 
rather  inversely,  the  prophecy  explained  the  trans- 
action. This  was  the  case  not  only  here,  but 
the  prophets  generally  performed  a  preliminary 
symbolic  action  which  represented  the  substance 
of  the  meaning  of  the  solemn  prophecy  which  fol- 
lowed ;  and  they  performed  this  act  on  the  impulse 
of  the  divine  spirit,  just  as  they  proclaimed  the 
word  following  in  their  divine  commission.  Of. 
Isai.  xx.  2  sq.;  Jer.  xiii.  1  sq. ;  xix.  1  sq. ;  xxxv.  2 
sq. ;  xliii.  9  sq. ;  Ezek.  iv.  1  sq. ;  v.  I  sq. ;  xii.  3  sq. ; 
xxiv.  2  6v;.;  xxxvii.  15  sq. ;  2  Kings  xiii.  15  sq. 
From  these  passages  we  see  that  the  performance 
of  such  actions  was  as  much  a  part  of  the  prophetic 
calling  and  office  as  the  proclamation  of  the  word. 
All  rovelation  of  God  is  in  the  way  of  act  as  wel' 


CHAPTER  XI.   14r-43. 


139 


as  of  word :  God's  deeds  as  well  as  His  words  are 
signs  that  testify  of  Him.  His  acts  are  also,  as  it 
were,  speech,  i.  e.,  a  revealing  of  Himself.  The 
speaking  of  God  is  a  sign-language,  and  therefore 
a  symbol-language.  The  entire  cultus  has,  hence, 
symbolic  form  as  the  real  expression  of  the  divine- 
human  relation.  When  the  prophets,  therefore, 
appeared  as  such,  i.  e.,  as  "  men  of  God,"  as  medi- 
ators and  instruments  of  divine  revelation,  they 
did  not  communicate  it  in  words  only,  but  in  solemn 
acts,  which  were  signs ;  and  thus  they  proved 
themselves  the  servants  of  God,  speaking  in  His 
language.  Their  prophetic  acts,  as  well  as  their 
prophetic  words,  were  announcements  and  revela- 
tions of  the  divine  purpose.  When  they  antici- 
pate their  words  by  an  act  commanded  by  God, 
this  act  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  a  mere  image,  ac- 
cording to  their  own  pleasure,  but  it  represents  the 
future  which  they  had  to  reveal  as  a  fact,  as  it 
were,  a  present  deed  of  God,  and  therefore  as 
something  which  would  assuredly  happen.  The 
action,  then,  was  an  assurance  and  pledge  of  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy ;  and  it  was  entirely 
natural  that  it  should  precede  the  word  explaining 
.  and  interpreting  it.  Besides,  every  thought  which 
is  embodied  in  a  deed  produces  a  much  greater 
and  more  lasting  impression  than  if  only  expressed 
in  words.  Of  Christ,  in  whom  all  that  is  prophetic 
culminates,  the  disciple  says  (Luke  xxiv.  19): 
"  which  was  a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and  word," 
thus  proving  that  not  words  only,  but  actions  also 
belong  to  the  essence  of  the  calling  of  the  prophet. 
The  people  concluded  from  his  deeds  that  "  a  great 
prophet  is  risen  up  among  us  "  (Luke  vii.  16).  His 
prophetic  deeds  were  "signs"  (John  vi.  26;  xx. 
20).  not  mere  evidences  of  power,  but  of  divine 
authority ;  and  they  spoke  of  divine  things  as 
loudly  and,  if  possible,  more  loudly  than  His  words. 
He  himself  says,  "  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  be- 
lieve the  works  "  (John  x.  38) ;  "the  works  that  I 
do  in  my  Father's  name  they  bear  witness  of  me  " 
(John  x.  25). 

5.  The  rending  of  the  ten  tribes  appears,  in  the 
prophet's  prediction  here  as  in  vers.  1 1-13,  to  be  a 
punishment  ordained  and  determined  by  Jehovah  for 
Solomon's  falling  away,  not,  therefore,  as  an  event 
merely  permitted  by  God  but  designed ;  and  there- 
fore announced  beforehand.  The  question  arises,  in 
what  relation  did  this  partition,  determined  on  by 
Jehovah,  stand  to  His  plans  regarding  Israel  con- 
sidered as  one  people  composed  of  twelve  tribes  ? 
The  whole  nation  was  His  inheritance,  for  He  had 
called  them  from  among  all  nations  to  be  a  divine 
kingdom  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6),  i.  e.,  a  theocracy.  The 
one  God,  Jehovah,  was,  as  the  true  King  and  Lord 
of  that  people,  so  also  the  root  and  principle  of  their 
unity — the  bond  binding  together  all  the  tribes 
into  one  whole.  The  human  monarchy  afterwards 
established  by  the  desire  of  the  people  did  not 
destroy  the  theocracy  but  served  rather  to  sustain 
and  preserve  it  (see  above).  But  it  was  not  now 
absolutely  necessary  that  all  the  tribes  should 
have  one  head ;  in  fact  they  might  each  have  had 
a  head,  had  they  only  acknowledged  Jehovah  as 
the  one  true  king  of  all  Israel,  and  held  fast  to  the 
covenant,  i.  e.,  the  law  of  God.  "  It  was  not  con- 
trary to  the  Mosaic  constitution  for  Jehovah  to 
weaken — not  destroy — a  royal  house  that  had 
turned  to  idolatry ;  to  rend  away  some  tribes  from 
it,  and  to  place  them  under  the  government  of  ano- 
ther king      It  was  rather  the  fittest  thing  to  be 


done  ;  for  otherwise  the  principles  that  lay  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  constitution — namely,  that  dis 
aster  should  follow  idolatry,  and  prosperity  th« 
fear  of  God,  would  have  been  violated.  One  of 
these  two  things  must  (according  to  these  princi- 
ples) have  come  upon  David's  house  after  a  lapse 
into  idolatry,  viz.  either  expulsion  from  the  throne 
(which  could  not  be  on  account  of  the  promise  of 
perpetual  succession),  or  weakening  such  as  was 
foretold  by  Jehovah,  ....  a  falling  away  of 
some  tribes"  (Hess,  Von  dem  Reiche  Gottes,  I.  s. 
301).  As  Jehovah  had  heretofore  governed  hia 
people  by  one  king  (David  and  Solomon)  he  could 
also  do  it  by  two  without  destroying  the  theocratic 
principle.  The  new  kingdom  is  offered  to  Joro- 
boam  and  continuance  is  promised  to  his  dynasty 
on  the  express  condition  that  he  should,  "  like 
David,"  faithfully  adhere  to  the  law;  with  the  ex- 
planation, nevertheless  (ver.  39),  that  the  humilia- 
tion of  the  house  of  David  would  be  but  tempo- 
rary. Thus  it  is  indicated  that  the  promise  of  the 
everlasting  kingdom  would  not  be  realized  in  Jero- 
boam's race,  "  but  in  that  of  David  "  (Oehler).  The 
prediction  of  Ahijah  does  not  imply  a  partition  of 
the  theocracy  or  of  Israel,  but  only  of  the  human 
monarchy  under  two  kings.  The  double  nature  of 
the  kingdom  was  not  the  cause  of  the  permanence 
of  the  division,  nor  of  the  commencement  of  the 
destruction  of  the  kingdom ;  these  were  the  results 
of  the  continued  falling  away  from  the  supreme 
commandment  of  the  theocratic  law  on  the  part  of 
the  ten  tribes. 

6.  There  are  no  accounts  of  Solomon's  end,  nor  of 
his  life  and  acts  from  the  time  of  his  lapse  till  hia 
death ;  all  is  reduced  to  the  notice  that  he  sought 
to  kill  Jeroboam,  and  that  he  died  and  was  buried. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  the  life  and  acts  of 
this  king  are  more  minutely  narrated  than  those  of 
any  succeeding  one,  and  that  the  last  days  and 
end  of  David  in  particular  are  recorded  with  such 
evident  care  both  in  our  books  and  in  the  Chron- 
icles. Had  Solomon  ended  his  life  like  David,  who 
with  joyous  heart  blessed  the  Lord  to  the  last 
(1  Chron.  xxix.  10  sq.),  and  charged  his  son  and 
successor  most  emphatically  to  remain  faithful  to 
Jehovah  (chap.  ii.  1  sq.),  and  been  anxious  that  the 
prosperity  of  the  kingdom  should  endure  on  the 
basis  of  the  covenant  with  Jehovah  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
1  53.),  such  a  circumstance  would  not  have  been 
passed  over.  We  must  therefore  conclude,  from 
the  entire  silence  of  the  history,  that  Solomon  did 
not  die  as  David  died,  that  he  remained  in  the 
state  of  mind  into  which  he  had  fallen  in  his  later 
age.  The  question  whether  Solomon  was  finally 
converted  and  saved  was  formerly  discussed  ex- 
tensively (Buddeus,  Hist.  Eccl.,  II.  p.  237  sq.),  but  we 
see  no  occasion  to  introduce  it  here.  Both  Hess 
and  Niemeyer  have  endeavored  to  ascertain  from 
Ecclesiastes  what  Solomon's  state  of  mind  was  in 
his  last  days ;  but  apart  from  the  mistaken  pre- 
supposition that  this  treatise  was  composed  by 
Solomon,  no  one  could  prove  his  conversion  from 
it;  and  Niemeyer  concludes  his  character-sketch 
with  these  words :  "  the  cheerful  peace  of  his  soul 
was  gone.  Gloomy  was  his  retrospect  of  life,  and 
gloomy  was  his  view  of  the  near  and  of  the  distant 
future."  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  while  Sol- 
omon (Suleiman)  is  held  in  high  honor  in  the  East 
at  the  present  day,  his  memory  is  far  less  revered 
among  the  Jews  than  that  of  David,  which  could 
not  have  been  the  case  had  his  reign  ended  a» 


140 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


gloriously  as  it  began.  Bertheau  justly  remarks 
that  Solomon  "did  more  towards  undermining  the 
distinctive  peculiarity  of  his  people  than  any  other 
king."  We  are  not,  however,  to  seek  the  cause 
of  this  simply  in  his  making  a  people  who  were 
adapted  to  agriculture,  commercial,  and  in  his 
splendid  buildings,  his  harem,  and  his  court,  all 
hitherto  unknown  in  Israel,  but  the  real  specific 
reason  was  that  by  the  introduction  and  the  toler- 
ation of  foreign  idolatrous  forms  of  worship  he 
undermined  the  religion  of  his  people,  forth  from 
which  religion  Mowed  all  the  characteristics  which 
distinguished  them  over  against  all  other  peoples  ; 
that  was  the  worm  at  the  root  of  the  kingdom  and 
the  national  life. 

[7.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  give  a  portrai- 
ture of  Solomon  which  can  harmonize  at  once  both 
the  demand  for  historic  truth  and  the  general  es- 
timation which  tradition  assigns  to  him.  The 
story  is  extraordinary.  David  the  father  of  the 
wise  king  founded  and  consolidated  the  kingdom. 
His  life  was  stormy  and  checkered.  His  character 
was  romantic  and  chivalric  and  generous.  He 
showed  himself  capable  both  of  great  self-sacrifice 
and  of  revolting  criminality  and  treachery.  He 
was  tender  and  he  was  brave.  His  soul  rested 
upon  the  covenant-keeping  Jehovah,  yet  he  dared 
to  violate  all  the  duties  of  the  decalogue  which 
concern  man's  dealings  with  his  brother  man.  So- 
lomon did  not  inherit  the  personal  traits  of  his 
father.  He  was  not  warlike ;  he  was  a  man  of 
peace.  He  sought  wisdom,  and  he  sought  it  from 
Jehovah.  He  desired  to  administer  his  government 
according  to  the  law  and  will  of  God.  He  had 
fine  talent  for  observation.  He  was  a  naturalist 
of  rare  attainments.  He  knew  much  of  the  earth ; 
he  knew  much  of  men.  He  was  a  man  of  under- 
standing, expressing  his  thoughts  and  observa- 
tions in  proverbs.  He  was  splendid  in  his  tastes. 
He  sought  wealth  by  commerce  and  by  trade  with 
heathen  nations.  He  made  Israel  a  kingdom  of 
this  world ;  at  the  same  time,  he  built  the  temple, 
lavishing  upon  it  untold  sums  of  money,  and  aim- 
ing to  make  it,  according  to  Eastern  conceptions, 
splendid  in  all  respects.  Certainly  at  its  dedica- 
tion he  is  one  of  the  most  imposing  and  majestic 
figures  in  all  history.  But  by  degrees,  enervated 
by  luxury,  by  pleasure,  by  plenty,  he  lost  the 
strength  of  his  convictions.  He  became  wise  in 
this  world.  The  law  of  Jehovah  lost  its  hold  upon 
his  conscience.  He  began  to  justify  idolatry. 
"  He  that  built  a  temple  to  the  living  God  for  him- 
self and  Israel,  in  Sion,  built  a  temple  to  Chemosh 
in  the  Mount  of  Scandal  for  his  mistresses  of 
Moab,  in  the  very  face  of  God's  house.  No  hill 
about  Jerusalem  was  free  from  a  chapel  of  devils  : 
each  of  his  dames  had  their  puppets,  their  altars, 
their  incense;  because  Solomon  feeds  them  in 
their  superstition,  he  draws  the  sin  home  to  him- 
self, and  is  branded  for  what  he  should  have  for- 
bidden."— Bp.  Hall.  And  by  degrees  the  splendor 
passed  away,  and  darkness  and  weariness,  and 
hopelessness,  and  an  iguoble  old  age  came  on. 
He  forsook  the  noble  path  of  his  yo  ith,  and  his 
glory  was  lost.  See  Stanley,  Jeioish  Church, 
second  series,  Lect.  xxviii.,  and  F.  D.  Maurice, 
77(e  Prophets  and  Kings  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Sermon  on  the  Wise  King.  The  sun  of  his  life 
roBe  in  all  splendor,  and  shone  brilliantly,  to  go 
oown  at  last  amid  the  heavy  darkness  of  impend- 
ing storm  and  night.     The  people  lost  their  sense 


of  the  exclusive  sovereignty  of  Jehovah  ;  their 
burdens  were  heavy — and  the  brief  glory  of  Israel 
as  a  kingdom  of  this  world  passed  away  forever 
— E.  H.] 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  14—10.  Solomon's  enemies.  1.  They  are 
roused  against  him  by  God,  so  that  he  may  know 
and  confess  what  heart-suffering  it  brings  to  for- 
sake the  fear  of  the  Lord  his  God  (Jer.  ii.  19). 
Cramer  :  So  marvellously  does  God  bring  it 
about,  that  he  who  will  not  fear  him,  must  needs 
fear  his  fellow-men.  Once  the  man  of  rest,  and 
the  Prince  of  Peace  (chap.  v.  4),  now  he  is  pressed 
sore  by  enemies  from  the  north,  from  the  south, 
and  from  his  midst ;  they  are  the  scourges  with 
which  the  Lord  chastises  him.  When  foes  and 
opponents  rise  against  thee,  and  cause  thee  care 
and  anguish,  then  think  :  The  Lord  has  summoned 
them  on  account  of  thy  sins,  and  unfaithfulness. 
The  hostility  of  men  is  a  sermon  of  repentance 
from  thy  God  to  thee.  2.  They  were  in  God's 
hand,  and  could  do  no  more  than  he  permits; 
they  rebelled,  but  they  were  powerless  to  take 
from  Solomon  the  throne  and  kingdom  during  his 
lifetime.  The  Lord  commands  our  foes:  So  far 
shalt  thou  go,  and  no  further. — J.  Heermann:  If 
thou  speakest  the  word,  they  soon  become  friends : 
they  must  needs  lay  down  arms  and  defences,  and. 
stir  no  finger. — P.  Gerhardt:  If  I  am  beloved  of 
God,  and  have  the  llead  for  my  friend,  what  can 
troops  of  foes  and  opposers  do  to  me  ?  For  he 
can  humble  the  proud  (Dan.  iv.  35).  Formerly  all 
kings  did  homage  to  Solomon,  and  brought  him 
gifts,  and  journeyed  from  all  countries  to  see  and 
to  hear  him  ;  his  power  was  as  great  as  his  king- 
dom. But  now  his  power  and  might  are  abased 
before  those  who  hitherto  ranked  far  below  him, 
whom  he  had  regarded  as  the  least  of  his  slaves 
and  vassals.  Humiliation  coming  through  weak 
and  inferior  means  is  much  more  bitter  than  the 
same  humiliation  through  strong  and  powerful 
means ;  the  latter  we  can  ascribe  to  men,  but  in 
the  former  we  must  recognize  the  will  and  power 
of  God. 

Vers.  14-22.  The  fate  of  Hadad  is  recounted 
to  us  not  so  much  on  his  account  as  on  our  own, 
in  order  that  we  may  learn  to  regard  the  ways  of 
God  with  man,  and  order  our  own  ways  by  Him, 
who  is  ever  mercy  and  wisdom  (Ps.  xxv.  10).  If 
God  brought  back  the  heathen  Hadad  by  myste- 
rious ways  to  his  native  land,  how  much  more  will 
he  lead  those  who  keep  his  covenant  and  testimo- 
ny to  the  true  native  land,  and  to  the  eternal  rest, 
how  dark  and  inscrutable  soever  may  be  the  ways 
by  which  he  leads  them.  Ter.  21.  Let  me  go 
into  mine  own  country.  The  power  of  love  of 
country.  Not  ubi  bene,  ibi  patria,  but  ubi  patria, 
ibi  bene.  Yet  must  we  not  in  the  earthly  coun- 
try forget  the  heavenly  "  Fatherland."  Vers.  23- 
25.  Though  vanquished  and  cast  down,  tyranny  and 
ambition  do  not  forget ;  they  think  perpetually  of 
vengeance,  and  seek  to  satisfy  it,  now  by  rough 
means  now  by  subtle  ones,  whenever  an  oppor- 
tunity offers.  Therefore,  warns  the  apostle  so 
earnestly  (Rom.  xii.  10)  against  those  secret  and 
mighty  motives  in  the  natural  heart  of  man. 

Vers.  20-2S.  God  is  wont  to  chastise  the  re 
hellion  of  princes  against  his  will,  by  means  of  thd 
rehellion  of  their  own  subjects  ;  as  Solomon  raiseo* 


CHAPTER  XI.   14-43. 


141 


his  hand  against  Jehovah,  so  did  his  servant  Jero- 
boam against  him.  Destruction  from  above  unites 
with  ruin  from  below.  Whatever  Solomon  under- 
took after  his  fall,  was  deprived  of  God's  blessing. 
By  the  building  of  MUlo  he  intended  still  further 
to  strengthen  his  dominion  over  all  his  enemies, 
and  to  render  impregnable  his  dwelling-place,  but 
this  very  building  was  the  cause  why  his  throne 
began  to  totter,  and  why  he  lost  the  greater  part 
of  his  kingdom.  Here  applies  Ps.  cxxvii.  1.  It 
was  by  divine  decree  that  Solomon  himself,  with- 
out his  own  will  or  knowledge,  should  raise  from 
the  dust  to  high  places  the  very  man  appointed 
by  God  to  abase  him,  and  to  dismember  his  king- 
dom. Conspiracies  and  rebellions  are  chiefly  led 
by  those  who  have  to  complain  least  of  injustice 
or  oppression,  but  have  been  pampered  and  fa- 
vored until  ambition  incites  them  to  suppress 
every  feeling  of  gratitude  (John  xiii.  18). 

Vers.  29-39.  cf.  above  vers.  9-13.  The  pre- 
diction of  the  prophet  Ahijah  announces  1.  the 
division  of  the  kingdom  as  a  consequence  of  the 
going  astray  to  the  worship  of  strange  gods  (vers. 
31-33);  2.  the  preservation  of  the  kingdom  of  Ju- 
dah  on  account  of  the  promise  given  to  David 
(vers.  34,  36,  39) ;  3.  the  choice  made  of  Jeroboam, 
on  condition  of  inflexible  fidelity  to  Jehovah  and 
to  his  law  (vers.  37,  38).  Ver.  31.  All  the  world 
must  confess,  upon  beholding  the  abasement  of  the 
house  of  David  and  the  elevation  of  Jeroboam,  that 
the  Most  High  has  power  over  the  kingdoms 
of  men,  and  bestows  them  upon  whom  he  will 
(Dan.  iv.  29;  1  Sam.  ii.  7,  8;  Luke  i.  52).  Ver. 
36.  Even  in  the  midst  of  his  just  anger  the  Lord 
is  merciful,  and  the  inconstancy  of  man  can  never 
shake  His  fidelity.  The  fulfilment  of  2  Sam.  vii. 
14,  15,  is  seen  in  Solomon's  history.  The  house 
of  David  remained  a  light  "  forever,"  until  that 
Son  of  David  came  who  is  the  light  of  the  world, 
which  lighteth  all  men  who  come  into  the  world 
(Joh.  i.  9;  Rom.  xv.  12). 

Vers.  40-43.  These  three  truths  are  nowhere 


more  powerfully  exemplified  than  in  the  life  ot 
Solomon:  "What  availeth  it  a  man,  Ac,  (Matt 
xvi.  26);  Vanity  of  vanities,  &c.  (Eccl.  i.  2\ 
and  The  world  passeth  away,  &c.  (1  John  ii. 
17;  cf.  1  Peter  i.  24).  Ver.  40.  Roos :  Sin  ob- 
scures the  soul.  He  who  turns  aside  from  God 
departs  from  wisdom  ;  and  let  those  who,  instead 
of  bowing  and  submitting  with  resignation  to  the 
chastisements  of  God,  haughtily  strive  against 
them,  contemplate  the  fate  of  Jeroboam,  who, 
doubtless,  stirred  up  the  plot  against  Solomon, 
since  he  afterwards  eagerly  abetted  the  desertion 
of  the  ten  Tribes.  Even  as  Solomon,  when  he 
sought  to  slay  Jeroboam,  must  have  felt  that  in 
vain  he  resisted  the  divine  decrees,  and  was 
powerless  to  hinder  them,  so  likewise  Jeroboam, 
compelled  to  fly  to  Egypt,  must  have  become  con- 
scious that  in  vain  he  strove  rashly  and  insolent- 
ly to  anticipate  the  execution  of  the  divine  decrees 
We  must  even  make  bitter  expiation  when  we 
haughtily  resist  and  oppose  the  Lord,  or  when  we 
strive  to  hasten  his  designs,  or  to  appoint  time  and 
place  for  their  fulfilment.  The  life  of  Solomon 
closes  with  the  words  :  Therefore  Solomon  sought 
to  kill  Jeroboam.  Instead  of  seeking  forgiveness 
from  Him  who  forgiveth  much,  and  himself  grant- 
ing forgiveness,  he  is  thinking  of  murder  and  ven- 
geance. How  great  and  noble  the  contrast  be- 
tween this  and  the  Figure  of  Him  who  in  the  face 
of  death  upon  the  cross  cried:  Father,  forgive 
them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do.  Let  us 
strive  to  become  like  unto  his  image,  and  that  our 
last  thought  in  life  may  be  of  love  and  reconcilia- 
tion, and  not  of  revenge  and  hatred.  Solomon 
possessed  the  fairest  and  noblest  crown  that  mor- 
tal can  wear,  yet  it  was  perishable,  not  enduring 
beyond  death  and  the  grave.  The  Lord  promises 
an  immortal  crown  to  those  who  love  and  follow 
Him.  Be  faithful  unto  death,  then  He  will  give 
thee  the  crown  of  life;  blessed  is  he  who  undu- 
reth  unto  the  end. 


142  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


SECOND    PERIOD.    (975  TO  722  B.  C.) 

THE  DIVIDED  MONARCHY  IN  JUDAH  AND  ISRAEL. 
(1  Kings  XH— 2  Kings  XVH.) 


FIRST  EPOCH. 

FROM   THE   DIVISION   OF  THE   KINGDOM   UNTIL  THE   REIGN    OF   AHAb, 
(1  Kings  XIL-XVI.  34.) 


FIRST  SECTION. 

THE  DIVISION   OP  THE   KINGDOM. 

(1  Kings  XH.) 


A. — The  renunciation  of  the  house  of  David  oy  the  ten  tribe*. 
Chap.  XH.  1-24  (2  Chron.  X.-XI.  4.) 

1  And  Rehoboam  went  to  Shechem :  for  all  Israel  were  come  to  Shechem  to 

2  make  him  king.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat, 
who  was  yet  in  Egypt,  heard  of  it,'  (for  he  was  fled  from  the  presence  of  king 

3  Solomon,  and  Jeroboam  dwelt  in  Egypt  ;3)  that  they  sent  and  called  him. 
And  Jeroboam  and  all  the  congregation  of  Israel  came,  and  spake  unto  Reho- 

4  boam,  saying,  Thy  father  made  our  yoke  grievous :  now  therefore  make  thou 
the  grievous  service  of  thy  father,  and  his  heavy  yoke  which  he  put  upon  us; 

5  lighter,  and  we  will  serve  thee.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Depart  yet  for  three 
days,  then  come  again  to  me.     And  the  people  departed. 

6  And  king  Rehoboam  consulted  with  the  old  men  that  stood  before  Solomon 
his  father  while  he  yet  lived,  and  said,  How  do  ye  advise  that  I  may  answer 

1  this  people  ?  And  they  spake  unto  him,  saying,  If  thou  wilt  be  a  servant  unto 
this  people  this  day,  and  wilt  serve  them,  and  answer  them,  and  speak  good 

8  words  to  them,  then  they  will  be  thy  servants  for  ever.  But  he  forsook  the 
counsel  of  the  old  men,  which   they  had  given  him,  and  consulted  with  the 

9  younsc  men  that  were  grown  up  with  him,  and  which  stood  before  him:  and 
he  said  unto  them,  What  counsel  give  ye  that  we  may  answer  this  people,  who 
have  spoken  to  me,  saying,  Make  the  yoke  which  thy  father  did  put  upon  us 


CHAPTER  XII.   1-24.  14-- 


10  lighter?  And  the  young  men  that  were  grown  up  with  him  spake  unto  him, 
saying,  Thus  shalt  thou  speak  unto  this  people  that  spake  unto  thee,  saying,  Thy 
father  made  our  yoke  heavy,  but  make  thou  it  lighter  unto  us ;  thus  shalt  thou 

11  say  unto  them,  My  little  finger  shall  be  thicker  than  my  father's  loins.  And 
now  whereas  my  father  did  lade  you  with  a  heavy  yoke,  I  will  add  to  your 
yoke:  my  father  hath  chastised  you  with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise  you  with 
scorpions.5 

12  So  Jeroboam4  and  all  the   people  came  to  Rehoboam  the  third  day,  as  the 

13  king  had  appointed,  saying,  Come  to  me  again  the  third  day.  And  the  king 
answered  the  people  roughly,  and  forsook  the  old  men's  counsel  that  they  gave 

14  him  ;  and  spake  to  them  after  the  counsel  of  the  young  men,  saying,  My  father 
made  your  yoke  heavy,  and  I  will  add  to  your  yoke:  my  father  also  chastised 

15  you  with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise  you  with  scorpions.  Wherefore  the  king 
hearkened  not  unto  the  people;  for  the  cause  was  from  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  that  he 
might  perform  his  saying,  which  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  spake  by  Ahijah  the  Shilon- 

16  ite  unto  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat.  So  when  all  Israel  saw  that  the  king  heark- 
ened not  unto  them,  the  people  answered  the  king,  saying,  What  portion  have 
we  in  David?  neither  have  we  inheritance  in  the  son  of  Jesse:  to  your6  tents, 
O  Israel :  now  see  to  thine  own  house,  David.     So  Israel  departed  unto  their 

17  tents.     But  as  for  the  children  of  Israel  which  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  Judah, 

18  Rehoboam  reigned  over  them.  Then  king  Rehoboam  sent  Adoram,*  who  was 
over  the  tribute  ;  and  all  Israel  stoned  him  with  stones,  that  he,  died.  There- 
fore king  Rehoboam  made  speed  to  get  him  up  to  his  chariot,  to  flee  to  Jeru- 

19  salem.     So  Israel  rebelled  against  the  house  of  David  unto  this  day. 

20  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  all  Israel  heard  that  Jeroboam  was  come  again, 
that  theyT  sent  and  called  him  unto  the  congregation,  and  made  him  king  over  all 
Israel :  there  was  none  that  followed  the  house  of  David,  but  the  tribe  of  Judah' 

21  only.  And  when  Rehoboam  was  come  to  Jerusalem,  he  assembled  all  the  house 
of  Judah,  with  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  a  hundred  and  fourscore*  thousand  chosen 
men,  which  were  warriors,  to  fight  against  the  house  of  Israel,  to  bring  theking- 

22  dom  again  to  Rehoboam  the  son  of  Solomon.     But  the  word  of  God"    came 

23  unto  Shemaiah  the  man  of  God,  saying,  Speak  unto  Rehoboam,  the  son  of  Solo- 
mon, king  of  Judah,  and    unto  all    the   house  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  and  to 

24  the  remnant  of  the  people,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  Ye  shall  not 
go  up,  nor  fight  against  your  brethren  the  children  of  Israel :  return  every 
man  to  his  house;  for  this  thing  is  from  me.  They  hearkened  therefore  to 
the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  returned  to  depart,  according  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord  [Jehovah].10 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  2.— [It  is  better  to  omit  the  italicized  words  of  it,  which  are  not  in  the  Heb.  and  which  must  refer  to  the  Ao 
oembly  at  Shechem,  whereas  what  Jeroboam  heard  of  was  the  death  of  Solomon,  as  is  expressed  in  the  Vulg.  See  the 
Exeg.  Com.  The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  here  the  whole  of  ver.  2  and  the  greater  part  of  ver.  8,  having  given  the  substance  ol 
them  (with  some  addition)  at  xi.  43.  The  Alex.  Sept.  follows  the  Heb.  Our  author,  in  his  translation,  has  omitted  the 
part  of  ver.  2  enclosed  in  brackets,  evidently  bv  an  inadvertence. 

'  Ver.  2.— Instead  of  Q'-|VD3  2Z"\  must  ^e  re"d'  witn  "  '"D1'"n-  x-  2>  D'lVGO  2G'5l    See  tne  comment.     [The  text 

may  be  preserved  without  chance  (for  which  the  Vulg.  is  the  only  authority)  by  considering  the  statement  that  Jero- 
boam dwelt  in  Egypt  as  merely  the  completion  of  the  statement  of  his  flight :  he  had  fled  to  Egypt  and  remained  there. 
The  change  was  proposed  by  Dathe,  but  is  rejected  by  Maurer  and  by  Keil. 

•  Ver.  11.— Q'3"|  pj>,  scorpions,  flagelli  genua  globulU  plumbets  cum  aculeis  incurvis  munitum,  a  scorpit  slmilitudtnt 

dictum  (Gesen.  The*.  11, 1062). 

4  Ver.  12. — [The  Sept.  omits  here  the  significant  mention  of  Jeroboam. 

'  Ver.  16.— [The  Heb.,  Sept.,  Chald.  and  Syr.  have  the  pronoun  in  the  singular,  thy  tents.  In  the  next  clanBe  the 
8ept.  translates  vvv  0o<r*ce  t'ov  oIkoi-  gov,  Aavtfi.l 

•  Ver.  IS. — [The  Sept.,  Syr.,  and  Arab,  read  Adoniram. 
7  Ver.  20. —  [The  Sept.  here  inserts  "and  Benjamin." 

a  Ver.  21.— [The  Vat.  (not  Alex.)  Sept.  reduces  this  number  to  120,000.  . 

•  Ver.  22.— [Many  MSS.  followed  by  the  Sept.,  Vulg., Chald.,  and  Syr.  read  here  f^-(>  instead  of  Q\-pN  .] 

10  Ver.  24. — [The  Vat.  (not  Alex.)  Sept.  here  inserts  a  passage  quite  equal  in  length  to  the  whole  chapter,  containing 
many  particula-s  whose  utterly  nnhistorical  character  may  be  seen  from  the  opening  statement  that  Rehoboam  was  sir 
teen  years  old  at  his  accession  and  reigned  twelve  years.     Cf.  chap.  xiv.  21. — F.  G.] 


144 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  Rehoboam  went  to  Shechem. 

The  city  of  Shechem  was  about  eighteen  hours' 
distance  north  of  Jerusalem,  and  lay  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Gerizim,  in  the  mountain  range  of  Ephraim 
(Judg.  ix.  7).  It  is  often  mentioned  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Patriarchs  (Gen.  xii.  6;  xxxiii.  18; 
xxxiv.  1;  xxxvii.  12),  and  Joshua  "had  intended 
it  to  be  a  free  Levite  city.  He  likewise  gathered 
all  the  tribes  together  there,  and  held  that  impor- 
tant diet  in  which  all  the  people  pledged  them- 
selves to  the  observance  of  Jehovah's  covenant 
(Josh.  xx.  7  ;  xxiv.  1,  25).  In  the  time  of  the 
Judges,  Abimelech  made  Shechem  the  capital  of 
his  kingdom  (Judg.  ix.) ;  he  destroyed  it,  indeed, 
but  it  was  soon  rebuilt,  and  continued  to  be  one 
of  the  chief  cities  of  the  northern  part  Chap, 
xii.  1  gives  us  the  reason  why  Rehoboam  left  Je- 
rusalem, where  he  had  been  made  king,  and  went 
to   Shechem  ;  for  all  Israel  were  come  to  Shechem. 

By  ^XTJ"  ^3   we  are  not  to  understand  all  the 

twelve  tribes  (Ewald),  but  only  ten,  as  vers.  12, 
18,  and  20  clearly  show;  under  David  even 
those  tribes  had  claimed  the  name  of  the  entire 
people   (2   Sam.    ii.    9,    10,    17,    28).     K3   is    not 

the  imperfect  but  the  pluperfect,  for  the  ten  tribes 
did  not  go  to  Shechem  because  the  king  was  there 
but  just  the   reverse :  because  (^3)  they  had  gone 

to  Shechem,  the  king  went  thither.  He  therefore 
did  not  call  them  together  there,  but  they,  i.  e., 
their  elders,  judges,  and  representatives,  had  as- 
sembled in  this  old  Ephraimitic  capital,  as  they 
had  once  doue  in  Joshua's  time  (Josh.  xxiv.  1 ;  cf.  2 
Sam.  v.  1,  3),  and  this  induced  the  king  to  jour- 
ney to  Shechem.  Their  design  in  meeting  was 
to  make  him  king,  i.  e.,  to  recognize  him  as  king,  as 
Judah  had  done,  though  he  had  already  ascended 
the  throne  ;  to  pay  him  homage,  on  the  condition, 
however,  that  he  would  agree  to  their  wishes  and 
demands.  This  was  why  they  did  not  assemble 
in  Jerusalem,  as  they  were  in  reality  bound  to  do, 
and  as  they  had  done  to  David  when  they  went 
to  Hebron,  the  place  of  David's  residence,  to  do 
him  homage  (2  Sam.  v.  1  sq.),  but  in  Shechem. 
It  was  a  "  a  significant  hint,  if  Rehoboam  had 
properly  understood  it "  (Ewald).  It  is  very  im- 
probable that  they  summoned  him  to  their  assem- 
bly, as  they  did  Jeroboam  ;  he  seems  to  have  gone 
unsummoned  with  his  whole  retinue  (vers.  6.  8). 
That  the  10  tribes  had  assembled  "  to  assert 
their  ancient  right  of  choice  "  (Gramberg)  is  an  en- 
tire mistake.  For  there  is  no  mention  anywhere 
of  such  a  right ;  and  the  text  does  not  say  they 
went  to  Shechem  to  choose  a  king,  but  to  make 
him — Rehoboam — king,  i.  e.,  to  confirm  him  as 
such. 

Vers.  2-3.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jer- 
oboam .  .  .  heard  of  it,  &c.  Ver.  2.  If  we  retain 
the   reading   D,_IV:'p3  DP^T1   2-"'l   we   must,  like 

Maurer,  take  ver.  2  to  be  properly  the  antecedent 
sentence,  and  begin  the  conclusion  with  1S3,S1 ,  ver. 

3,  and  translate  like  De  Wetto:  "When  Jfoboam 
heard  of  it  (he  was  still  in  Egypt,  whither  he  had 
Med  from  Solomon  the  king,  and  Jeroboam  dwelt  in 
Egypt,  and  they  sent  and  called  him),  then  Jerobo 
am  and  the  whole  assembly  rami',  and  they  spake 
to  Rehoboam."      \part  from  the  crude  form  of  this 


sentence,  the  words  following  "he  was  still  in 
Plgypt,"  namely,  "  and  Jeroboam  dwelt  in  Egypt," 
appear  to  be  quite  superfluous ;  we  must  in  this  case 
supply,  after  he  had  returned  from  Egypt,  before 
"  then  Jeroboam  came ;  "  and,  finally,  it  would  fol- 
low that  the  people  assembled  at  Shechem  sent 
messengers  thence  to  Egypt  to  bring  back  Jero- 
boam, which  is  not  to  be  supposed,  because  the 
journey  there  and  back  required  several  weeks, 
and  "  all  Israel  "  would  have  been  compelled  to 
wait  during  this  time,  without  accomplishing  any- 
thing, in  Shechem,  for  Jeroboam's  arrival.  But  all 
these  difficulties  fall  away  if  we  read,  like  2  Chron. 
x.  2,  D'lVQD  DJ,'3T  3t:''l  ,  i-  e.,  and  Jeroboam  re- 
turned from  Egypt.  According  to  this,  the  case 
was  simply  so :  On  the  news  of  Solomon's  death 
Jeroboam  returned  from  Egypt  to  his  tribe-land 
Ephraim,  and,  we  are  to  imply,  to  his  native  place 
Zereda  (chap.  xi.  26),  or,  as  the  Sept.  says,  Sarira, 
which  could  not  have  been  very  far  distant  from 
Shechem.  They  sent  thither  for  him ;  he  came, 
and  took  the  lead  in  the  negotiations  which  those 
assembled  at  Shechem  made  with  Rehoboam.  The 
Vulgate  also  translates  ver.  2:  At  vero  Jeroboam, 
cum  adhuc  esset  in  JEgypto  profugics  a  facie  regii  So- 
lomonis,  audita  morte  ejus  reversus  est  de  jEgypto. 
Miseruntque  et  vocaverunt  eum ;  venit  ergo  Jeroboam 
et,  etc.  The  [Vatican]  Sept.,  which  places  this  verse 
in  chap.  xi.  43,  translates  :  KarevOiivet  ml  ipxs-ai 
Etc  r-qv  ttuXcv  avrov  etc  Tip  yqv  Eapipa  rijv  ev  bpei 
'Etppai/i.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  thoughts  those 
who  composed  this  Assembly  were  revolving 
when,  before  Rehoboam's  arrival,  they  called  the 
man  who  had  lifted  up  his  hand  against  Solomon, 
and  was  just  returned  from  Egypt,  and  made  him 
their  leader  and  speech-maker  to  Rehoboam.  Re- 
hoboam having  come  to  them,  instead  of  they  to 
him  at  Jerusalem,  only  made  them  bolder.  From 
the  long  sentence  which  the  Sept.  places  after  ver. 
24  we  can  glean  nothing  certain  regarding  Jeroboam 
and  his  conduct  after  he  returned  from  Egypt; 
everything  is  mixed  together  and  the  different  per- 
sonages confused ;  for  instance,  Jeroboam  is  con- 
founded with  Hadad  the  Edomite,  and  the  prophet 
Ahijah  with  the  prophet  Semaiah;  Jeroboam's  mo- 
ther is  called  yvvi/  n&pvq,  &c.  Keil  is  right  in  de- 
nying all  historical  value  to  this  sentence,  out  of 
which  Thenius  strives  to  complete  the  story. 

Vers.  4-5.  Thy  father  made  our  yoke  griev- 
ous, &c.  Ver.  4.  The  word  ~>y  does  not  mean 
every  kind  of  heavy  load,  but  the  yoke  laid  on  the 
neck  of  beasts  designed  for  labor  (Numb.  xix.  2 ; 
Deut.  xxi.  3 ;  1  Sam.  vi.  7) ;  it  is  the  yoke  of  labor, 
and,  as  such,  the  symbol  of  servile  work  (Deut 
xxviii.  48;  Lev.  xxvi.  13;  Jer.  xxvii.  8,  11);  it  is, 

for  this  reason,  parallel   with  m'njj  here.     The 

grievance,  therefore,  is  nothing — it  is  well  to  no- 
tice this — but  the  levy-work  for  Solomon's  public 
buildings,  and  we  see  this  plainly  enough  by  vers. 
1 1  and  14,  where  Rehoboam's  answer  is  recorded. 
That  the  complaint  was  well  founded,  that  Solo- 
mon had  really  exacted  too  heavy  servile  work 
from  his  people,  as  the  Egyptian  king  once  did  in 
Moses'  time  (Ex.  xi.  1,  23),  is  generally  taken  for 
granted,  although  the  complaint  comes  from  the 
mouths  of  a  number  of  people  who  were  excited 
with  thoughts  of  secession,  and  who  were  jealous 
of  Judah.  At  their  head  stood  a  man,  too,  who 
had  already  tried  to  raise  an  insurrection,  aud  had 


CHAPTER  XII.   1-24. 


145 


not  renounced  his  ambitious  plans  In  exile.  Com- 
plaint from  the  mouths  of  such  cannot  be  taken  as 
testimony,  nor  can  it  ever  weigh  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, except  joined  to  other  and  purely  his- 
torical evidence.  We  have  none  such,  however. 
Solomon  was  not  the  first  to  adopt  the  measure  of 
a  conscription  for  working  at  the  public  buildings 
as  well  as  for  war-service.  This  was  customary 
throughout  the  ancient  East.  Everywhere,  from 
Egypt  to  Babylon,  the  immense  buildings  were 
raised,  not  by  paid  workmen,  but  by  conscriptions. 
There  were,  for  instance,  the  360,000  men  who 
worked  twenty  years  atone  pyramid  (see  above  on 
chap.  v.  13).  Even  David  had,  among  his  five 
chief  officers,  one  who  was  specially  "  over  the 
tribute  "  (2  Sam.  xx.  21).  which  was  then  a  stand- 
ing regulation.  We  find  the  tribute  brought  into 
system  in  Solomon's  time,  and  the  people  were,  as 
contrasted  with  conquered  foreigners,  treated  with 
gentle  consideration  (chaps,  v.  13  sq. ;  ix.  20 
sq.).  Nowhere  is  the  voice  of  complaint  heard 
about  it,  and  our  author  is  far  from  representing 
Solomon's  conduct  as  hard  and  blameworthy,  but 
rather  relates  it  to  his  praise.  As  the  tribute-work 
was  distributed  by  turns  amongst  "all  Israel," 
Ephraim  or  the  ten  trices  received  no  more  pro- 
portionately than  the  two  remaining  tribes,  and 
there  is  not  the  most  indirect  allusion  anywhere 
that  Solomon  exacted  more  from  the  Ephraimites 
than  from  the  others.  For  this  reason,  the  com- 
plaint of  the  ''yoke"  being  "grievous,"  which 
they  alone  make,  seems  to  be  only  a  welcome  ex- 
cuse suggested  to  them  by  their  former  superin- 
tendent Jeroboam.  The  real  motive  came  to  light 
later  (ver.  16).  If  we  cannot  admit  the  complaint 
of  too  hard  tribute-work  to  be  well  founded,  still 
less  have  we  any  right  to  add  other  things  to  the 
complaint  of  which  it  makes  no  mention.  The 
grievous  yoke  and  heavy  service  are  not  generally 
taken  to  mean,  as  the  plain  expressions  do,  the  tri- 
bute-work alone,  but  all  burdens  laid  on  the 
people,  i.  e.,  the  taxes  and  produce  which  they  had 
to  pay  and  deliver ;  not  their  powers  of  labor 
alone,  but  their  "capacity  of  paying  taxes,"  are 
thought  to  have  been  too  much  tested  by  Solo- 
mon (De  Wette,  Ewald,  Eisenlohr).  "Discon- 
tent grew  with  the  oppression  of  the  people  by 
ever  new  burdens  and  tributes,  that  were  quite 
contrary  to  the  original  freedom  of  the  communi- 
ty "  (Diestel) ;  the  monarchy  had  become  "  a  despo- 
tism, a  sultanate  "  (Duncker),  and  the  speakers  for 
the  people  had  therefore  laid  before  Rehoboaiu 
''  the  terms  of  capitulation,  which  were  to  lighten 
the  universal  oppression  under  which  Israel  had 
sighed  since  Solomon's  reign  began "  (Winer, 
S.-  W.-B.  JX  s.  3 1 1).  This  view,  almost  universal- 
ly current,  stands  in  direct  contradiction  with  the 
historical  evidence.  As  to  the  taxes  and  deliv- 
eries, they  are  not  once  mentioned  in  the  com- 
plaint, as  we  have  already  said ;  neither  is  the 
poverty  or  other  misery  resulting  from  them  once 
named  anywhere.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how 
any  one  can  appeal  to  such  places  as  chap,  x  25 
(De  Wette),  for  there  is  no  mention  there  of  what 
the  people  brought,  but  of  the  presents  which 
strangers  brought  the  king.  Ewald  himself  admits 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  was  an  income 
tax,  and  it  by  no  means  appears,  as  Winer  sup- 
poses, from  chap.  x.  15,  that  "custom  duties  "  had 
been  introduced.  There  is  still  less  historical 
proof  of  the  universal  oppression  of  the  people  un- 


der Solomon.  All  that  our  author  relates,  from 
chap.  ii.  to  x.,  is  to  show  the  unwonted  prosperity 
and  splendor  of  Solomon's  kingdom  ;  its  immense 
wealth,  its  peaceful  condition,  and  its  thriving  com- 
merce are  described  in  the  strongest  terms,  and 
just  by  those  passages  which  have  been  quoted  to 
prove  the  heaviness  of  the  taxation  and  the  sup- 
posed oppression,  is  it  specially  manifest  how  happy 
and  peaceful  the  people  were  under  Solomon's  reign 
(chap.  iv.  20;  iv.  25;  cf.  viii.  66),  so  that  the  pro- 
phets took  the  kingdom  of  Solomon  as  a  type  of  the 
-Messiah's  (see  above).  Evi  :  after  chap,  xi.,  in 
which  Solomon's  fall  is  recorded,  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  Israel  "  sighed  "  under  universal  oppres- 
sion ;  and  when  the  people  as  well  as  king  became 
degenerate  in  the  latter  part  of  his  reign,  it  was 
rather  in  consequence  of  too  great  prosperity  and 
luxury  than  of  great  burdens  and  poverty.  Final- 
ly, Solomon  is  threatened,  in  both  addresses  of  the 
prophet  Ahijah  (chap.  xi.  11  and  31  sq.),  with  the 
partition  of  his  kingdom,  not  because  he  had  op- 
pressed the  people  with  servile  labor  and  heavy 
taxations,  but  solely  because  he  had  suffered  his 
strange  wives  to  persuade  him  to  introduce  idola- 
trous forms  of  worship.  It  would  have  been  a  just 
and  well-founded  complaint  had  they  alleged  that 
Solomon  had  broken  the  supreme  command  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  Israel  by  the  toleration  of 
idol-worship,  and  had  thus  undermined  the  strength 
of  the  kingdom.  But  the  complainants  are  wholly 
silent  on  this,  and  the  sequel  shows  how  little  they 
or  their  speaker  Jeroboam  cared  for  the  observ- 
ance of  that  fundamental  law. 

Vers.   6-14.  Rehoboam  consulted,  &c.     Ver. 
6.  The   D'Jpf  are   not  old  people,  but  the  elders 

(senators)  who  constituted  the  administration-col- 
lege of  Solomon  [or  council]  (chap.  iv.  2-6).  Reho- 
boam had  retained  them  as  such,  but  had  not,  as 
Thenius  thinks,  "  placed  them  on  the  retired  list," 
for  in  that  case  he  would  uothave  taken  them  with 
him  to  Shechem,  and  he  certainly  would  not  have 
heard  their  counsel  before  that  of  the  young  men. 
The  expression,  that  stood  before  Solomon,  shows 
that  they  were  in  immediate  attendance  on  the 
king.     In  their  advice,  vers.  7,  Qi»n  stands  next  to 

DV^'n'^S  ,  and  ~i2]l  at  the  beginning,  over  against 
D'-QV  at  the  conclusion;  and  as  1357  is  strengthen- 
ed by  the  immediately  following  DrH3yi ,  we  have 

no  right  to  weaken  it,  and  to  take  it  in  another 
sense  from  □'"iQy  that  stands  opposite  to  it  at  the 

conclusion ;  this  is  generally  done,  and  1211  is 
translated  "complaisant,"  but  D'lQV ,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  translated  "  subject."  The  elders  not  only 
advised  the  king  to  compromise,  but  that  he  should 
"stive"  the  people  at  least  "this  day,"  and  as- 
sured him  that  the  people  would  then  be  bis 
"servants"  "for  ever;"  they  proposed  that  he 
should  for  the  present  moment  reverse  the  exist- 
ing relation :  the  king  was  to  be  "  servant "  and 
yield  to  the  will  of  the  people,  in  the  expectation 
that  the  people  would  afterwards  be  his  "  ser- 
vants." We  can  easily  imagine  that  such  a  pro- 
posal (which  would  not  perhaps  have  succeeded) 
was  not  very  agreeable  to  the  rash  and  imperious 
young  king,  in  whose  veins  Ammonite  blood  flowed 

(chap.  xiv.  21).     The  word  "\y ,  ver.  8,  is  used  for 


146 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


a  child  at  amy  age  from  its  birth  (Ex.  ii.  3,  6,  7)  to 
youth ;  D,_6'  are  not,  therefore,  real  counsellors, 
like  the  ffOpTi  but  young  people  who  were  in  at- 
tendance upon  the  king  ("  stood  before  him").  The 
words,  that  were  grown  up  with  him,  show  that 

Rehoboam  was  himself  still  1^  (cf.  2  Chron.  xiii. 

7).  The  proverbial  expression  ver.  10.  my  little 
finger,  &c,  means,  I  am  much  mightier  than  Solo- 
mon ;  his  power  was  as  the  little  finger  to  the  body, 
compared  with  mine;  if  my  father  had  power  to 
compel  you,  I  have  still  more.  From  this  general 
way  of  speaking  they  proceed  in  ver.  11  to  allude 
to  the  particular  grievance  of  the  forced  labor. 
The  yoke  and  whips  belong  together,  and  are  the 
signs  of  laboring  servants  (Ecelesiasticus  xxx. 
26  or  xxxiii.  27).  The  king  was  to  use  instead  of  the 
whips  for  servants  the  thorn-whip  used  for  crimi- 
mals  alone,  and  which  was  called  scorpio  by  the 
Romans  (Isiilor.  Origg.  v.  27,  18:  Virga.  si  est 
aculeata,  scorpio  vocatur,  quia  arcuato  vulnere  in 
corpus  infigitur).  The  meaning  is,  my  father  used 
ordinary  means  to  keep  you  at  work,  but  I  will  do 
it  with  extraordinary  aud  severer  means.  The 
answer  says  as  little  of  taxes  as  the  complaint  itself ; 
it  only  refers  to  the  enforced  work,  and  it  does  not 
even  admit  that  Solomon  exacted  too  much,  but  it 
is  only  now  proposed  to  do  so.  The  pleasure  with 
which  Rehoboam  accepted  this  advice  is  very  in- 
dicative of  his  disposition. 

Vers.  15-17.  The  cause  was  from  the  Lord. 
Ver.  15.  Inasmuch  as  the  inconceivably  foolish  and 
perverse  resolve  of  Rehoboam  carried  with  it  the  ir- 
remediable division  of  the  people  and  kingdom,  the 
verse  asserts  it  to  be  a  course  of  things  (H3D  from 

212\  from  Jehovah;  not  that  Rehoboam  was  forced 
unwillingly  to  speak  so,  but  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  it  is  said  of  Pharaoh  (Ex.  xiv.  4;  Rom.  ix.  17) 
and  of  Judas  (Matt.  xxvi.  25).  Witsius  (Deeaphyl. 
i.  3)  says :  Ipso.  Rehabeami  stolida  imprudentia  consi- 
lio  Dei  inservivit,  ut  quodoxcidit  etiam  rnerito  acciditse 
utdetur.  We  find  here  an  application  of  the  proverb : 
Quern  Deus  vult  perdere,  prius  dementai.  Every  case 
of  a  hardened  heart  is  a  righteous  judgment  of  God. 
Vers.  16-17.  What  portion  have  we,  &c. 
Ver.  16.  This  was  the  old  Ephraimite  watchword 
of  rebellion,  of  which  Sheba  availed  himself 
agaiust  the  house  of  David  (2  Sam.  xx.  1).  The 
first  member  of  the  sentence  means  this,  What  con- 
cern have  we  about  David  and  his  house,  when  the 
question  is  who  shall  be  king  over  us?  We  have 
no  fellowship  with  each  other  (Deut.  x.  9).  Neither 
have  we  inheritance  in  the  son  of  Jesse  is  not  equal  to 
we  can  hope  for  and  expect  nothing  from  him ; 
but,  we  do  not  belong  to  him,  as  Judah,  by  race- 
derivation.  In  the  "son  of  Jesse"  there  is  an 
allusion  to  David's  humbler  descent,  just  as  in  the 
New  Testament  to  ifte  "carpenter's  son  "  (Matt, 
xiii  55).  To  your  tents.  0  Israel!  is  a  proverbial 
call  which  originated  in  the  time  of  the  march 
through  the  wilderness,  where  the  camp  was 
arrauged  according  to  the  tribes.  Let  every  one 
return  to  his  tribe  and  his  home,  without  acknowl- 
edging Rehoboam.  Now  see  to  thine  own  house,  i.e., 
see  how  you  can  reign  over  your  own  tribe  in  the 
future;  you  have  no  right  to  us  any  more.  In  this 
whole  cry  "  the  deeply  rooted  dislike  to  David's 
royal  house  is  strongly  expressed,  and  we  can 
perceive  a  more  potent  cause  for  the  partition  than 


the  alleged  oppression  of  Solomon  "  (Keil).  V<  ". 
17  means  that  only  those  individuals  belonging  to 
the  ten  tribes  remained  under  Rehoboam  who 
were  settled  in  Judah  or  had  gone  to  settle  there 
(2  Chron.  xi.  3).  The  verse  does  not  mean,  then: 
"the  tribe  of  Judah  chose  Rehoboam,  who  waa 
one  of  them,  to  be  king  "  (Ewald) ;  for  Judah  had 
already  acknowledged  him  such  before  he  went  to 
Shechem. 

Vers.  18-19.  Adoram,  who  was  over  the 
tribute,  &e.  Ver.  18.  No  doubt  the  same  who  i? 
called  Adoniram  in  the  list  of  Solomon's  chief  of- 
ficers (chap  iv.  6),  as  also  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  and  Arab, 
call  him  in  this  passage.  Thenius  thinks  he  was 
the  son  of  Adoram,  the  chief  of  the  tribute  officers, 
who  is  mentioned  in  the  lists  of  David's  officials 
(2  Sam.  xx.  24).  If  he  was  identical  with  this 
person  he  must  certainly  have  been  about  eighty 
years  of  age,  since  David  could  not  have  given  the 
office  in  question  to  quite  a  young  man,  and 
Solomon  reigned  forty  years.  It  is  evident  that 
Rehoboam  sent  him  to  treat  with  the  rebels,  and 
to  appease  them,  as  Josephus  expressly  says.  Ai 
the  question  was  about  lightening  the  tribute 
work,  the  chief  officer  over  the  tribute  seems  to 
have  been  selected  by  Rehoboam  as  the  fittest 
person  to  mediate;  probably  Adoram  was  one  of 
the  "elders"  who  gave  the  advice  to  \*ield.  But 
the  people  were  highly  incensed  at  the  sight  ot 
this  officer,  and  instead  of  listening  to  him,  in 
their  rage  they  stoned  him.  Bertheau  has  no 
grounds  for  his  supposition  that  he  came  with  :in 
armed  force  (however  small)  to  force  the  rebels 
to  submission.  For:  unto  this  day,  see  on  chap. 
viii.  8  ;  ix.  21. 

Vers.  20-21.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  all 
Israel  heard,  Ac.  Ver.  20  closes  the  narrative, 
vers.  1-19,  and  is  also  the  connecting  link  with 
the  following  vers.  21-24.  The  independence  of 
the  ten  tribes  had  been  achieved  by  their  represen- 
tatives in  Shechem,  who  now  returned  to  their 
different  tribe-territories  (end  of  ver.  16),  and  an- 
nounced to  "all  Israel"  what  had  happened,  es- 
pecially also  the  part  that  Jeroboam,  just  arrived 
from  Egypt,  had  acted  there.  The  latter,  no  doubt, 
also  returned  to  his  native  place  after  the  event. 
But  when  a  king  was  to  be  chosen  for  the  rebels 
he  was  called  back  and  made  king.  This  exasper- 
ated Rehoboam  to  make  war  on  Israel.  We  can- 
not be  surprised  at  the  number  he  brought  into 
the  field,  as  the  tribe  of  Judah  alone  had  500,000 
men  of  war  in  the  'ensus  that  David  took 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  9). 

Vers.  22-24.  But  the  word  of  the  Lord  came, 
&c.  Ver.  22.  The  prophet  Shemaiah  did  not  belong 
to  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  like  Ahijah  (chap.  xi.  29), 
but  doubtless  to  Judah,  and  from  the  present  pas- 
sage as  well  as  from  2  Chron.  xii.  5,  it  seems  that 
he  must  have  lived  in  Jerusalem.  As  here,  so  also 
he  had  great  influence  through  his  preaching, 
when  king  Shishak  came  from  Egypt  to  war  against 
Rehoboam ;  he  also  wrote  a  history  of  Rehoboam 
(2  Chron.  xii.  5-8,  15).  The  thing  is  from  me,  ver. 
24.  This  prophet  of  Judah,  as  well  as  the  Ephra- 
imite prophet,  declares  the  separation  of  the 
ten  tribes  to  be  a  divine  dispensation,  which, 
humiliating  and  painful  as  it  was  to  the  house  o[ 
David  and  Judah,  might  not  be  opposed  by  force 
of  arms;  for  the  separated  tiibes  were  still 
"  brethren."  Thus  he  recognizes  a  higher  bond  oi 
union   in  spite  of  al1   separation,  and  wishes   that 


CHAPTER  XII.  1-24. 


U1 


nnion  held  intact.  The  king  and  army  follow  his 
Bdvice ;  they  probably  saw  that  a  war  with  the 
numerically  greater  and  just  now  bitterly  excited 
ten  tribes  would  bring  them  into  a  worse  condition 
Btill. 

HISTORICAL  AXD   ETHICAL. 

1.  The  rebellion  of  the  ten  tribes  against  David's 
house,  and  tlie  consequent  partition  of  thekingdom,  was 
the  most  important  and  pregnant  event  in  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  since  it  became  an  independent 
State.  The  divisions  that  took  place  in  the  time  of 
the  judges  were  only  temporary,  but  this  lasted 
for  hundreds  of  years,  and  only  terminated  with 
the  fall  of  both  the  separated  kingdoms.  An  event 
that  formed  such  an  epoch,  and  had  such  a  marked 
influence  on  sacred  history,  cannot  possibly  be 
traced  to  one  fact  alone,  or  to  the  defiant  and 
thoughtless  answer  of  Rehoboam ;  it  must  have 
been  produced  by  deeper  and  more  general  causes, 
lying  in  the  character  of  the  people  and  in  the 
mutual  relation  of  the  tribes.  The  tribe  of  Judah 
and  the  double  one  of  Joseph  (Ephraim  and  Ma- 
nasseh,  Josh.  xvii.  17),  whose  progenitors  were 
especially  favored  in  the  blessing  (Gen.  xlix.  8-12, 
22-25i,  were  from  the  beginning  the  most  numer- 
ous, and  therefore  the  most  powerfut,~of  all  the 
twelve  tribes.  Judah  numbered  seventy-six  thou- 
sand and  five  hundred  before  the  entrance  into 
Canaan ;  the  double  tribe  of  Joseph  numbered 
eight.y-five  thousand  and  two  hundred  men  (Numb. 
xxvi.  22,  23,  34,  37);  this  tribe  claimed  the  largest 
territory  at  the  division  of  the  land  (Josh.  xvii.  14 
sq. ;  1  Chron.  v.  1)  on  account  of  its  number, 
and  because  it  had  inherited  Reuben's  birth-right. 
Bui  the  "  sceptre  "  was  promised  to  Judah,  and 
the  leaders  in  the  march  through  the  desert  as 
well  as  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan  headed  that 
tribe  (1  Chron.  v.  2 ;  Numb.  ii.  3  ;  x.  14  ;  Judg.  i.  2  ; 
xx.  18);  both  tribes  were  warlike  (Jud.  i.  4, 
10  ;  viii.  1  sq. ;  xii.  1 .5}. ;  Ps.  lxxviii.  9).  In  con- 
sequence of  these  relations,  each  tribe  regarded 
itself  as  equal  in  powers  with  the  other  tribes,  but 
also  as  evenly  matched  with  each  other.  But 
added  to  this  there  was  a  difference  in  the  charac- 
ter and  pursuits  of  the  tribes ;  whilst  Judah  was 
the  leader  and  head  of  the  theocracy  and  the  cove- 
nant, therefore  of  higher  religious  life  (Gen.  xlix. 
10;  Ps.  lx.  9;  lxxviii.  67  sq. ;  cxiv.  1,  2),  Ephraim 
represented  the  nature-side  of  the  people's  life; 
and  the  consciousness  of  natural,  material  strength 
and  earthly  abundance  appears  with  it  in  the 
foreground  (Gen.  xlix.  22  sq. ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  13; 
Ps.  lxxviii.  9  sq.).  There  was,  therefore,  in  the 
latter  more  receptivity  for  nature-religion,  and  a 
tendency  to  independence  of  any  other  tribe,  and 
especially  of  one  not  entirely  its  equal.  There  was, 
then,  the  germ  of  a  dualism  very  early  in  the 
nation,  and  this  germ  grew  more  and  more  in  the 
distracted  times  of  the  Judges,  asserting  itself 
sometimes  with  more,  sometimes  with  less  energy. 
After  Saul's  death  the  two  chief  tribes  formally 
separated  under  different  kings  (2  Sam.  ii.  4-11); 
ehis,  however,  only  lasted  seven  years  and  a  half, 
after  which  the  revolted  tribes  went  over  to  the 
king  of  Jul1  -h,  i.  e.,  David  (2  Sam.  v.  1  sq.). 
But  the  more,  the  power  and  authority  of  Judah 
increased  under  D  -id  and  Solomon,  so  much  the 
more  did  the  old  ealousy  and  love  of  independ- 
mce  grow  in  Ephraim :    the   tribute-labors,   and 


especially  the  structures  which  served  to  strength- 
en the  dominant  authority  of  Judah  which  Solomoi. 
had  achieved  by  Ephraimites,  were  calculated 
especially  to  increase  those  feelings.  Jeroboam's 
attempt  to  raise  an  insurrection  miscarried,  but 
the  desire  for  independence  was  not  extinguished 
thereby.  It  broke  out  again  the  more  violently  after 
Solomon's  death,  as  there  was  hope  of  getting  rid 
of  Rebohoam  more  easily,  who  did  not  in  the  least 
resemble  his  father.  The  great  event  of  the  par- 
tition of  the  kingdom  had  its  roots  in  a  primitive 
characteristic  of  the  tribe,  which  characteristic  had 
existed  over  four  hundred  years,  and  now  broke 
out  at  last  with  violence,  creating  a  double  State. 
Rehoboam's  answer  was  only  the  spark  which  fell 
into  the  powder  magazine.  Th*  recent  historical 
criticism  admits  the  agency  of  the  Ephraimite  cha- 
racter in  the  revolt,  but  finds  the  especial  and 
chief  cause  in  the  essential  nature  of  the  kingdom. 
Ewald  is  of  this  opinion  (Gesch.  des  V.  Isr.  III.  s. 
393  sq.).  The  monarchy  had,  in  its  very  nature, 
a  tendency  to  extend  its  power  further  and  fur- 
ther, and  to  restrict  every  other  power  in  the 
nation  more  and  more,  or  else  to  absorb  it.  It 
reached  a  very  high  stage  in  Solomon's  time,  but  it 
was  ever  growing,  and  it  made  more  and  more 
severe  exactions  upon  the  people  in  labor  and  tax- 
ation. A  further  strengthening  and  one-sided 
growth  of  the  monarchy  was  held  by  the  best  men 
in  Israel  to  be  ruinous  and  dangerous  to  the  ancient 
freedom  of  the  people.  There  might  have  been, 
indeed,  a  way  of  reconciling  the  claims  of  the 
monarchy  and  of  the  nation  without  a  revolution 
i.  e.,  "  having  what  is  now  called  a  constitutiot 
drawn  up,  which,  when  well  devised,  is  the  safe 
guard  of  the  best  modern  Christian  nations."  Bui 
there  was  no  such  remedy  at  hand ;  the  heads  ot 
the  tribes  only  assembled  when  a  new  king  was 
to  be  declared.  All  the  best  of  the  people,  and 
particularly  the  prophets,  had  agreed  that  the 
government  could  not  continue  as  it  was  at  the 
close  of  Solomon's  life.  As  the  prophets  had 
founded  the  kingdom,  and  advanced  it  so  much  by 
the  elevation  of  David's  house  over  that  of  Saul, 
they  now  expected  furtherance  by  another  change 
of  dynasty;  impressed  by  their  counsel,  it  was 
forthwith  achieved  in  consequence  of  the  voice  of 
the  people  and  the  folly  of  Rehoboam,  Ac,  &C. 
This  whole  mode  of  explanation,  already  adopted 
here  and  there,  rests  on  the  utterly  unproved  sup- 
position that  Solomon's  government  constantly 
grew  more  absolute  and  despotic,  till,  at  last,  it 
seriously  threatened  the  liberty  of  the  people.  We 
have  not  the  slightest  historical  proof  of  this. 
Where  is  it  said  that  Soloman  oppressed  his  peo- 
ple, in. every  way,  by  taxation  and  tribute-labor? 
Where  is  it  said  that  the  prophets  believed  the 
liberties  of  the  people  to  be  threatened,  and  that 
they  announced  this  publicly?  How  happens  it 
that  Solomon,  who  advanced  his  realm  to  a  degree 
of  prosperity  it  never  before  and  never  again 
enjoyed,  is  made  to  be  a  despot  and  oppressor? 
Just  when  the  text  has  been  treating  exclusively 
of  the  tribute  to  the  splendid  court,  it  says :  "  Judah 
and  Israel  were  many,  as  the  sana  which  is  by  the 
sea  in  multitude,  eating  and  drinking,  and  making 
merry,"  &c. ;  "  Judah  dwelt  safely,  every  man 
under  his  vine  and  under  his  fig-tree,  from  Dan  to 
Beer-Sheba.  all  the  days  of  Solomon''  (chap.  iv.  20 
25).  That  he  demanded  too  much  of  this  tribute 
labor,   which   was   customarv  among  all  ancient 


L4S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


nations,  and  had  been  exacted  before  his  time, 
there  is  no  other  evidence  than  the  complaint  of 
the  angry  revolutionary  assembly  of  Ephraimites 
at  Shechem,  and  this  cannot  be  regarded  as  im- 
partial and  historical  testimony.  So  little  did  Solo- 
mon interfere  with  the  liberty  of  his  people,  that 
there  was  an  unprecedented  commerce  with  all 
the  neighboring  nations  in  his  reign ;  he  even 
allowed  freedom  of  worship — allowed  too  much 
rather  than  too  little  liberty.  This  and  not 
despotism  was  what  the  prophets  apprehended 
danger  from.  There  is  not  in  the  whole  history  of 
Solomon  a  single  act  that  can  be  called  despotic 
or  tyrannical,  like  those  of  later  kings,  for  instance, 
Ahab  or  Jehu ;  and  yet  the  former  is  said  to  have 
ruled  with  such  intolerable  severity  that  the  pro- 
phets and  the  best  among  the  people  were  com- 
pelled to  think  of  a  change  of  government.  Of  all 
kingdoms,  that  of  Israel  should  be  the  last  to  be 
judged  from  a  modern  political  point  of  view. 
The  theocratic  constitution  was  not  revoked  when 
the  human  monarchy  began:  Jehovah  continued 
to  be  the  true  king  of  Israel,  and  the  human  king 
was  the  ''servant  of  Jehovah;''  as  such  he  had  to 
do  Jehovah's  will,  not  his  own.  There  was,  there- 
fore, no  such  thing  as  absolutism,  which  we  are 
told  clung  to  this  monarchy  by  virtue  of  its  nature. 
But  we  cannot  comprehend  how  any  should  think 
that  the  best  remedy  against  the  supposed  despot- 
ism of  Solomon  would  have  been  a  representstive 
government,  after  the  pattern  of  the  constitutions 
of  our  nineteenth  century. 

2.  The  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  house  of 
David  (ver.  19)  is  often  represented  as  justifiable. 
J.  D.  Miehuelis  (Mos.  Redd  I.  §  55)  saw  nothing 
more  in  it  than  a  new  capitulation  of  a  people  still 
free ;  De  Wette  (BeitriXge  I.  s.  129)  went  further,  and 
asserted  that.  ■•  according  to  1  Kings  x i i . ,  these 
tribes  were  fully  justified  in  what  they  did;  they 
demanded  lair  concessions,  and  there  is  only  Reho- 
boam's  folly  to  be  blamed."  Duncker  says  (Gesch. 
lies  AIL  s.  402),  "the  Israelites  remembered  their 
right  to  choose  and  anoint  the  king."  But  we  find 
nothing  said  anywhere  of  such  a  national  right: 
the  law  for  kings  (Deut.  xvii.  14  sq.)  says  noth- 
ing of  it;  it  recognizes  no  conditions  of  election; 
and  the  history  mentions  no  king  except  Jeroboam 
(ver.  20),  either  in  Judah  or  Israel,  who  was  elected 
by  the  free  choice  of  the  people.  The  monarchy 
was  hereditary  in  Judah,  and  continued  in  David's 
house  till  the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom  ;  in  Israel, 
also,  the  son  succeeded  the  father,  or  usurpers 
arose  who  gained  the  throne  by  force ;  but  the  peo- 
ple never  once  chose  the  king.  In  the  present 
instance,  Ephraim  with  its  confederates  had  no 
right,  certainly,  to  reject  a  king  who  was  such  by 
birth,  and  to  choose  another  by  themselves  alone, 
without  Judah.  Ephraim  had  solemnly  acknowl- 
edged the  brotherhood  of  all  the  twelve  tribes, 
End  had  willingly  submitted  to  David  (2  Sam.  v.  1 
sq.) ;  and  all  the  tribes  had  acknowledged  Solo- 
mon to  be,  in  right  of  being  David's  son,  the  true 
king  of  "  Judah  and  Israel"  (chap.  iv.  20;  v.  5).  At 
the  great  festival  of  the  dedication  they  had  all 
gathered  around  Sol  unon,  who  aunounced  to  them 
the  divine  promise  that  David's  house  should  never 
want  a  man  t..  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David  (chap, 
viii.  1,  21.  25);  they  united  together  in  a  solemn 
bond.  I')'  ;i  common  thanksgiving  sacrifice  to 
Jehovah  at  tin-  temple,  which  was  the  central 
point    as   it  were,  of  the  kingdom,   and  this  bond 


joined  them  all  together  as  well  as  with  David's 
house;  as  the  king  blessed  them,  so,  also,  they 
blessed  him  (chap  vi.  32-68).  Solomon's  son 
was  therefore  the  rightful  heir  of  the  throne  for  all 
the  tribes,  and  none  had  a  right  to  revolt  from  him. 
Even  granted  that  Solomon  had  given  his  subjects 
cause  of  complaint,  by  exacting  too  much  tribute- 
labor  in  the  latter  part  of  his  reign,  yet  this  did  not 
justify  any  one  of  the  tribes  in  breaking  the  bond 
of  national  union,  and  severing  themselves  frotc 
the  hereditary  dynasty,  especially,  too,  as  Reho 
boam  had  not  as  yet  shown  in  acts  what  his  gov 
ernment  would  be.  The  revolt  of  the  ten  tribe* 
was  not  brought  about  first  by  his  foolish  wilfu' 
answer,  but  the  latter  "  only  offered  them  a  wislied- 
for  opportunity  to  carry  out  their  already  purposed 
revolt"  (Keil).  Hence  they  did  not  want  to  treat, 
but  gave  free  vent  to  their  hatred,  and  murdered 
the  innocent  ambassador  of  the  king.  The  division 
can  therefore  be  regarded  as  nothing  else  than  a 
revolutionary  act,  which  cannot  by  any  means  be 
excused,  much  less  justified.  A  right  of  resistance 
lies  only  in  eases  where  the  chief  ruler  arbitrarily 
violates  the  fundamental  law  upon  which  the  ma- 
terial and  also  the  spiritual  and  moral  existence  of 
a  people  rests.  But  the  rebellion  is  then  the  act 
of  the  government  itself,  and  not  of  the  subjects. 
But  single  grievances,  even  if  real,  can  never  justify 
revolt  from  lawful  authority  (especially  when  only 
brought  forward  by  a  part  of  the  nation)  or  form 
sufficient  ground  for  rebellion  and  deeds  of  vio- 
lence {cf.  Rothe,  Tkeol.  Ethik  III.  s.  977  sq.). 
Solomon  had  certainly  attacked  and  undermined 
the  fundamental  law  of  Israel,  by  permitting  and 
favoring  idolatry,  but  the  ten  tribes  made  no  com- 
plaint of  this,  but  solely  of  the  alleged  excess  of 
tribute-labor,  which  Judah  and  Benjamin  shared 
with  them,  but  which  they  did  not  bring  forward 
as  a  grievance. 

3.  That  Rehoboam  returned  an  ansiver  to  the  peo- 
ple, viith  which  the  storm  that  had  threatened  the 
house  of  David  burst  forth,  is  emphatically  said 
(ver.  15)  to  have  been  from  the  Lord;  and  the 
prophecy  of  Ahijah  (chap.  xi.  11  and  31)  was 
thereby  fulfilled.  At  the  same  time  the  prophet 
Shemaiah  warns  them  not  to  make  war  on  the 
seceders,  saying,  "  this  thing  is  from  the  Lord." 
This  does  not  justify  the  conduct  of  the  ten 
tribes  any  more  than  that  of  Rehoboam,  but  in- 
timates indeed  that  the  partition  of  the  king- 
dom determined  on  in  the  counsels  of  God  hap- 
pened in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  evident  that  it 
was  the  fault  of  Rehoboam.  According  to  the  word 
of  Ahijah  the  partition  appeared  to  have  a  double 
design:  to  "alllict  the  seed  of  David,  but  not  for- 
ever "  (chap.  xi.  39),  to  be  as  such  a  chastisement 
(2  Sam.  vii.  14) ;  and  also  to  afford  to  the  inborn 
instinct  of  Ephraim  for  independence  the  opportu- 
nity of  free  development,  yet  on  the  indispensable 
condition  of  unchanging  fidelity  to  the  fundamental 
law  that  David  had  held ;  the  e  cpress  restriction 
was  added,  that  David's  seed  was  not  to  be  afflicted 
forever.  We  already  remarked  above  (Hist,  and 
Ethic.  5,  on  chap.  xi.  14-43)  that  such  a  temporary 
division  of  the  kingdom  was  not  inconsistent  with 
the  higher  unity  of  the  divine  monarchy.  But  as 
neither  of  the  kingdoms  adhered  to  that  higher 
unity,  Ephraim  forsaking  the  law  continually  from 
the  beginning,  and  Judah  only  sometimes  faithful 
tin-  division  became,  through  the  guilt  of  botb 
kingdoms,  the  germ  of  their  destruction  (Matt,  xii 


CHAPTER  XII.   1-24. 


14b 


26).  Because  the  higher  unity  was  forsaken,  the 
history  of  the  divided  kingdom  is  nothing  but  a 
Blow  process  of  dissolution  of  the  human  monarchy 
in  Israel,  and  with  it  of  the  outward,  earthly  king- 
dom, limited  by  natural  race  and  to  a  given  land. 
That  unity  was  designed,  iu  the  divine  counsels, 
to  be  an  eternal  heavenly  kingdom,  an  inward 
singdom  of  God,  to  embrace  all  nations,  a  fjaaifaia 
ruu  ovpavur  in  which  "  Ephraim  shall  not  envy 
Judah,  and  Judah  shall  not  vex  Ephraim  "  (Isai  xi. 
13);  in  which  "  they  shall  be  no  more  two  nations, 
neither  shall  they  be  divided  into  two  kingdoms 
any  more  at  all,"  but  shall  be  ''one  nation,"  and 
"  one  king  shall  be  king  to  them  all  "  (Ezek.  xxxvii. 
15-22).  The  fact  that  the  partition  of  the  kingdom, 
this  beginning  of  its  end,  immediately  followed  its 
culmination  of  earthly  dominion  under  David  and 
Solomon,  shows  how  frail  and  perishable  it  was; 
the  more  it  approached  its  dissolution,  the  more 
ardent  became  the  longing  for  an  enduring  and 
eternal  kingdom,  the  more  definite  and  significant 
prophecy  became.  Well  may  Witsius  exclaim, 
referring  to  the  above-mentioned  sentence  in  ver. 
15:  0  sapientia  et  occulli  miranda  potential  fall  I 
quae  res  omnes  ita  dirigit  et  flectit,  ut  tamen  ipsi  illuc 
ivisse  rideamur,  et  consiliis  fatisque  nostris  gradum 
nobis  struamus  ad  fatalem  ilium  lapsum  siee  adscen- 
sum.  The  apostle's  exclamation  about  the  ways 
and  judgments  of  God,  though  universally  applica- 
ble, is  so  especially  here  (Rom.  xi.  33). 

4.  In  the  conduct  of  the  various  important  per- 
sonages concerned  in  bringing  about  the  partition 
of  the  kingdom,  all  the  sins  and  weaknesses  ap- 
pear which  lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  such  events; 
so  that  we  behold,  in  this  history,  a  reflection  of 
every  revolution  in  its  nature  and  course,  and  it 
may  serve  as  a  picture  of  future  ones  in  every  age 
(cf.  especially  the  striking  treatise  of  Vihnar,  Die 
Tlieilung  des  Davidsreiclis.  Pastoral-theol.  Blatter. 
1861,  ■■>-.  177  bis  193),  which  we  cited  above  on 
chap.  xi.  4.  A  complete  lack  of  religious  feeling 
and  manner  is  first  observable  in  these  two  oppo- 
site parties ;  both  move  upon  a  purely  outward, 
secular,  and  political-worldly  soil,  though  in  Israel 
the  national  and  religious  consciousness  coincide 
principally.  The"',  had  been  hitherto  no  assembly 
of  the  whole  people  or  of  their  representatives,  for 
weighty  affairs,  in  which  the  religious  element  had 
failed.  When  Joshua  called  the  elders  together  in 
Shechem,  before  his  end,  ''they  presented  them- 
selves before  God  "  (Josh.  xxiv.  1  sq.).  When  Sam- 
uel did  the  same  at  Mizpeh,  he  said  to  them,  "  pre- 
sent yourselves  before  the  Lord"  (1  Sam.  x.  19). 
When  all  the  tribes  came  to  David  in  Hebron,  after 
Ish-bosheth's  death,  and  acknowledged  him  as 
king  over  all  Israel,  they  call  to  mind  Jehovah's 
word,  and  David  "made  a  league  with  them  before 
the  Lord"  (2  Sam.  v.  1-3).  When  Solomon  as- 
sembled all  the  heads  of  the  tribes  and  the  elders 
at  the  dedication,  the  ceremony  not  only  began 
with  divine  worship,  but  ended  by  the  "  king  and 
all  Israel  with  him  offering  sacrifice  before  the 
Lord  "  (chap.  viii.  1,  5,  62).  In  the  present  instance, 
however,  nothing  was  done  "before  the  Lord," 
but  everything  was  done  without  Him.  Xo  one, 
neither  one  of  the  tribe-heads  nor  Jeroboam  nor 
Rehoboam  Dor  his  counsellors  and  companions, 
inquire  after  Him.  No  one  names  Him.  That  He 
is  their  true  sovereign  before  whom  they  must 
all  bow  does  not  occur  to  them.  They  think  only 
which  of  the  two  parties   should   rule  the  other. 


This  conduct  reveals  a  state  of  things  which 
always  and  everywhere  precedes  revolutions  - 
which  are  made  ready  inevitably  when,  in  a  natioL 
and  kingdom,  high  and  low  alike  ask  no  longer  foi 
the  holy  and  living  God,  and  where  infidelity  and 
indifference  have  entered.  The  breaking  of  relig  • 
ous  ties  brings  with  it,  sooner  or  later,  :*"".'  S  the 
State  also  ;  hence  we  generally  find,  in  the  .  resent 
day,  that  those  who  plan  the  overthrow  of  the 
government,  as  a  rule,  seek  also  to  undermine  the 
church  foundations. — When  we  look  particular!; 
at  the  conduct  of  the  people  of  the  ten  tribes  we  see 
that  they  had  all  forgotten  the  great  benefits  and 
blessing  they  had  received  through  the  house  of 
David,  especially  during  the  forty  years  of  Solo- 
mon's prosperous  reign ;  they  forgot  that  each  had 
dwelt  securely  under  his  vine  and  fig-tree  as  long 
as  Solomon  lived,  that  they  had  eaten  and  drunken 
and  been  merry;  they  only  thought  of  the  dispute 
about  tribute-labor,  hence  ingratitude  and  discon- 
tent. They  agreed  to  go  to  Shechem  instead  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  only  to  do  homage  under  certain  con- 
ditions ;  this  was  already  mutiny  and  rebellion. 
Hereupon  they  called  a  mau  who  had  lifted  his 
hand  against  Solomon,  and  proved  himself  a  foe  of 
David's  house,  to  be  their  speaker  and  leader;  with 
him  at  their  head,  they  went  to  the  king  in  the 
consciousness  that  they  formed  the  majority  of  the 
nation,  and  laid  before  him  their  complaint  of  ex- 
cessive labor  and  want  of  freedom.  When  their 
stormy  petition  was  rejected,  there  arose  wild  and 
scornful  cries,  and  a  regular  rebellion  liroke  out; 
they  rushed  in  blind  rage  at  the  innocent  mediator 
for  the  king,  and  murder  him.  whereupon  the  king 
has  to  flee  in  great  haste;  and  they  conclude  by 
making  their  leader  and  spokesman  king.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  contemplate  tlie  conduct  or  lb" 
government,  we  find  everything  here,  too,  that  was 
calculated  to  call  forth  rebellion  and  insurrection 
instead  of  avoiding  or  appeasing  it.  First,  utter 
ignorance  of  the  feeling  among  the  people,  and 
therefore  no  sort  of  precaution  for  the  threatened 
danger;  the  king  goes  thoughtlessly  to  the  dis- 
contented people,  thus  falling  into  the  snare  set 
for  him.  When  surprised  in  Shechem  with  the 
demand  made,  he  is  irresolute,  asks  time  for  reflec- 
tion, and  keeps  the  people  in  suspense,  which  must 
only  have  increased  their  excitement.  He  then 
consults  his  immediate  attendants  ;  the  elders  ad- 
vise him  to  descend  from  the  throne,  for  the  time 
being,  and  to  humor  the  people ;  the  young  men 
advise  him  to  the  opposite  course.  Thus  there  was 
want  of  unity  in  the  higher  circles,  and  views 
in  direct  antagonism  one  over  against  the  other. 
The  high-sounding  advice  of  the  courtiers  pleased 
the  weak  and  headstrong  monarch  best,  and 
he  delivered  an  answer  which  supposes  a  power 
which  no  longer  existed,  and  shows  equal  folly, 
arrogance,  and  contempt  of  the  people.  There- 
upon the  storm  broke  loose,  and  Rehoboam  then 
wished  to  make  concessions,  and  to  treat  with 
them.  But  instead  of  going  himself  courageous- 
ly to  face  the  excited  throng,  this  arrogant  and 
imperious  mau  sent  an  old  and  faithful  ser- 
vant to  be  exposed  to  their  rage.  It  was  "  toe 
late;  "  Adoram  was  killed,  and  he  himself  had  tc 
flee  in  haste.  When  such  perverted  ways,  faults, 
and  sins  are  found  in  the  government,  the  way  for 
revolution  is  already  formed,  and  when  it  has  once 
begun,  soldiers  are  as  useless  as  concessions ;  what 
is  lost  by  a  person's  own  fan"  I  is  lost  forever 


150 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


5.  The  appearance  of  the  prophet  Shemoiah  af- 
ter the  partition  seems  like  the  rising  of  the  sun 
after  a  dark,  stormy  night.  Whilst  sin  and  wick- 
edness reign  in  both  parties,  and  none  of  them 
cares  about  the  living  God,  "the  man  of  God" 
appears  with  undaunted  courage ;  armed  only  with 
the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  the  word  of  God,  he 
confronts  the  blinded,  wilful  king  and  au  army 
of  180,000  men.  He  commands  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  to  lay  down  their  arms,  and  to  go 
home;  standing  on  the  rock  of  his  strength 
(Ps.  lxii.  8),  he  calls  to  the  surging  waves,  Tims 
far  and  no  farther  I  and  no  one  dares  to  offer  op- 
position. Thus  the  prophets  again  come  forth  in 
majesty,  as  the  admonishing  and  avenging  con- 
science of  Israel,  as  the  divine  corrective  of  all 
human  actions  ;  and  this  shows,  too,  how  errone- 
ous the  assertion  is  that  the  partition  of  the  king- 
dom was  the  result  of  a  series  of  conflicts  that 
went  on,  especially  under  Solomon,  between  the 
two  powers  of  the  monarchy  and  of  the  prophets, 
which  existed  side  by  side  in  Israel.  It  was  not 
monarchy  and  the  prophets  which  were  in  conflict, 
but  Ephraim  and  the  house  of  David.  Both  these 
took  purely  secular  and  political  ground,  and  they 
had  no  other  aim  than  to  lord  it  over  each  other. 
The  prophets  take  a  stand-point  above  both  ;  and 
the  prophet  speaks  and  contends  for  the  divine 
monarchy  in  Judah  as  well  as  in  Israel.  As  for 
the  rest,  Judah  appears  here  in  a  much  more  favor- 
able light  than  Ephraim ;  it  faithfully  adheres  to 
David's  house,  and  knows  nothing  of  complaint 
of  tribute-labor,  which  had  borne  as  heavily  on  it 
as  on  Ephraim  ;  while  Ephraim,  which  well  knew 
the  promise  given  to  David's  house,  disregards 
that  promise  completely.  Judah,  knowing  the 
word  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  rises  against 
his  brethren  at  the  call  of  his  king ;  but  Ephraim 
listens  to  a  Jeroboam,  and  if  a  prophet  in  She- 
chem  had  warned  them  against  insurrection  he 
would  doubtless  have  fared  no  better  than  Ado- 
lam. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-20.  The  departure  of  Israel  from  the 
house  of  David:  1.  The  grievances.  2.  The  de- 
cision. 3.  The  rebellion. — -The  division  of  the 
kingdom.  1.  A  consequence  of  manifold  sins  (of 
Solomon,  Jeroboam,  Rehoboan  2.  A  divine  dis- 
pensation (for  their  humiliatioi  and  chastisement, 
and  for  a  direction  toward  tho  heavenly  eternal 
kingdom,  v.  Ethical). — The  sources  and  causes  of 
the  rebellion.  1.  In  general  (estrangement  from 
God,  iudift'erentism,  and  unbelief).  2.  In  particular, 
these  sins  on  the  part  of  the  people  (Prov.  xiv. 
34),  and  on  the  part  of  the  princes  (Prov.  xx.  28). 
Where  prince  and  people  fear  Godj  there  will  lie 
no  rebellion  ;  but  where  no  covenant  with  God 
exists,  all  human  considerations  fall  in  pieces. 

V«  r.  1-5.  The  assemblage  of  the  people  at 
Shechem.  1.  Who  were  present  (the  ten  tribes 
with  Jeroboam,  returned  from  Egypt,  at  their 
head,  ostensibly  to  do  homage,  but  really  to 
stir  up  revolt:  the  assembling  together  was  un- 
lawful, unbidden,  and  arbitrary.  Warning  from 
such  courses.  Prov.  xxiv.  2J-22I.  What  the 
people  sought.  (Murmurs  and  complaints  against 
the  pretended  oppression  of  Solomon,  in<H'ad  of 
gratitude  for  great  benefits,  and  the  well-being 
of  the  State.      These   complaints  were   rather   a 


pretext  than  the  truth,  and  were  an  exaggera 
tion  of  the  grievances;  they  demanded  not  th« 
maintenance  of  the  law  and  the  covenant;  but 
merely  material  elevation,  less  labor,  and  more 
outward  freedom  and  independence.  Admonition 
of  1  Pet.  ii.  17-19). — Preiswerk  (in  the  periodical, 
Morgenland,  1839):  The  assembling  together  of 
great  idle  crowds  in  a  small  space  is  a  device  of  aL 
demagogues ;  these  crowds  mutually  excite  each 
other,  masses  of  men,  like-minded,  inspire  each  other 
with  confidence,  peaceful  councils  vanish,  men  be- 
come accustomed  to  the  shouts  of  the  insurgents, 
imbibe  their  principles,  venture  no  contradiction 
against  the  outburst  of  passion,  especially  when 
swelled  by  numbers,  and,  thus  inflamed,  are 
dragged  onwards  in  paths  from  which  later  re- 
pentance can  never  bring  them  back. — Ver.  1.  It 
is  never  advisable  to  go  where  men  are  assembling 
themselves  together,  who  testify  by  their  choice  of 
a  meeting-place  that  they  have  no  good  end  in 
view.  (Shechem  recalls  the  story  in  Judges  ix.) — 
Vers.  2-3.  Experience  teaches  that  those  win 
have  once  set  up  an  opposition  to  legitimate  au- 
thority will  ever  persist  in  their  resolve,  even  if 
their  design  fail  or  is  pardoned;  they  only  await 
another  opportunity  to  carry  out  their  plans ;  there- 
fore they  should  never  be  trusted. — Vers.  3-4. 
Rebellious  people  easily  seek  and  find  in  public 
circumstances  means  which  they  amplify  and 
exaggerate  in  order  to  give  an  appearance  of 
justice  to  their  wickedness,  and  to  have  some 
pretext  for  their  criminal  designs. — Cramer:  It  is 
an  universal  fact  that  men  exclaim  more  concerning 
oppression  than  concerning  godlessness  and  other 
sins;  are  more  careful  for  the  body  than  for  the  soul ; 
and,  so  they  are  free  in  action,  give  little  heed  to 
the  soul's  nurture  (Ex.  xvi.  3). — A  people  which 
prescribes  to  its  lawful  sovereign  the  conditions 
of  its  obedience  to  him.  and  directs  him  how  to 
govern,  assumes  to  itself  royal  authority,  and 
overturns  the  appointed  order  of  God,  thus  rush- 
ing surely  on  to  its  own  destruction. — Ver.  5.  A 
prince  who,  upon  his  accession  to  the  throne,  re- 
quires time  to  decide  if  his  rule  shall  be  mild  and 
merciful  or  harsh  and  despotic,  cannot  have 
assumed  his  high  responsible  post  in  the  fear  and 
love  of  God;  therefore  he  must  expect  no  divine 
blessing.  It  is  well  and  good,  indeed,  in  all  weighty 
matters  to  take  time  for  reflection,  but  in  time  of 
sudden  danger,  rapid,  firm  decision  is  equally 
necessary.  One  accustomed  to  walk  in  God's 
ways  will  at  such  times  take  no  step  which 
will  afterward  cause  htm  bitter  repentance. 

Vers.  6-11.  Rehoboam  holds  a  council.  1.  With 
whom  ?  (With  his  own  servants,  old  and  young,  but 
not  with  the  Lord  his  God,  and  with  his  servants. 
In  difficult  and  grave  matters  we  should  not  neglect 
to  take  counsel  with  men,  but  chiefly  should  we  go 
to  Him  for  counsel  of  whom  it  may  be  said :  He  has 
the  way  of  all  ways,  and  never  fails  in  counsel,  and 
"  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God, 
that  giveth  to  all  men  liberally,  &c.  (James  i.  5). 
For,  saith  the  Lord,  Woe  to  the  rebellious  children 
who  take  counsel,  but  not  of  me,  &c.  (Is.  xxx.  1) 
If  He  sit  not  in  the  council,  in  vain  do  young  and 
old  advise.  Had  Jeroboam  sought  light  from 
above  in  those  three  days,  and  prayed  as  once  hij 
father  did  (1  Kings  iii.  9),  or  as  Jeremiah  (Jer 
xxxii.  19).  or  entreated  like  Jehoshaphat  (2  King" 
iii.  11).  then  he  would  not  have  been  like  a  reed 
shaken  by  the  wind,  but  his  heart  would  hare  been 


CHAPTER  XII.  1-24. 


151 


strong.)  2.  The  advice  given  him.  (Neither  counsel 
was  divine,  but  both  merely  human  (Matt.  xvi.  23). 
The  old  men,  out  of  their  fear  and  apprehension, 
advised :  renounce  for  the  present  thy  royal  pre- 
rogative, and  bow  before  the  will  of  the  people ; 
later  thou  canst  act  quite  differently.  This  advice 
ran  counter  to  his  pride  and  despotism,  so  he  re- 
fused the  counsel  of  the  old  men.  Through  Battery 
and  insolence  combined,  the  young  men  counselled 
a  course  actually  inhuman,  viz. :  to  abuse  his  royal 
prerogative,  to  care  nothing  for  his  people  and  their 
wishes,  but  simply  to  treat  them  with  violence. 
This  advice  suited  him  well,  because  it  correspond- 
ed with  his  rough,  harsh,  selfish  and  violent  charac- 
ter. But  this  produced  the  exact  reverse  of  what 
he  wished  and  hoped.  When  you  receive  conflict- 
ing counsels  from  men,  apply  to  both  the  test  of 
God's  word,  for:  Ps.  six.  S;  cxix.  104  sq.)  Ver.  6. 
It  is  the  first  privilege  and  duty  of  a  king  to  seek 
to  surround  himself  with  men,  who,  fearing  no 
man,  either  high  or  low,  and  regardless  of  their 
own  profit  or  advantage,  shall  advise  him  as  befits 
men  responsible  before  a  just  and  holy  God.  One 
such  man  alone  outweighs  whole  hosts  of  soldiers, 
for:  Prov.  xx.  28.  Ver.  7.  A  king  who  refuses 
to  be  a  "  servant  of  God  "  readily  finds  himself  in 
a  situation  where  he  is  compelled  to  be  a  servant 
of  the  people.  The  splendor  of  majesty  is  enhanced 
ny  benevolence,  goodness,  and  mercy,  but  never  by 
timid  yielding  and  submission  to  the  popular  will. 
Ver.  8.  Where  the  counsels  of  the  aged  are  re- 
jected, be  it  in  a  kingdom  or  in  a  house,  and  those 
only  of  the  youthful  followed,  there  men  pursue 
an  unhallowed  path.  For  to  a  true  wisdom  of  life 
experience  is  necessary,  and  this  youth  cannot  have 
(Lev.  xix.  32  ;  Ecclesiasticus  viii.  11).  Those  who 
grow  up  with  us  have,  unconsciously  and  involun- 
tarily, a  vast  influence  over  our  modes  of  thought 
and  views  of  life,  therefore  parents  must  have  a 
watchful  eye  over  the  intimacies  of  their  children. 
Ver.  10,  11.  A  vaunting  speech  is  by  no  means  a 
proof  of  courage  ;  the  more  boastful  a  man's  speech 
the  less  resolute  he  will  be  in  peril  and  temptation ; 
a  truly  strong,  firm,  and  calm  man  is  silent.  Time- 
serving and  flattery  are  most  dangerous  for  a 
prince ;  they  wear  the  garb  of  fidelity  and  devotion, 
and  in  reality  are  the  greatest  treachery.  Chiefly 
distrust  those  who  counsel  thee  to  do  what  grati- 
fies thy  vanity,  thy  selfishness,  and  thine  own 
desires,  and  costs  thee  no  sacrifice. — Osiander: 
One  should  rather  distrust  all  harsh  judgments, 
because  they  accord  chiefly  with  the  disposition  of 
the  flesh,  and  not  of  the  spirit,  which  inclines  to 
mercy. 

Vers.  12-15.  The  answer  of  the  king  to  the 
people,  (a)  It  is  hard — not  merely  a  refusal, 
but  imperious,  tyrannical,  unbecoming  in  any 
sovereign,  but  especially  one  who  ought  to  be  the 
servant  of  the  compassionate  and  merciful  God, 
with  whom  is  great  truth  and  loving-kindness 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  6).  Authority  is  the  handmaid  of  God, 
lo  thee  for  good  (Rom.  xiii.  4),  and  not  a  terror. 
Government  is  not  built  upon  whips  and  scourges, 
but  upon  justice,  love,  and  confidence;  that  rule 
alone  is  thoroughly  right  where  "  mercy  and  truth 
are  met  together,  righteousness  and  peace  have 
kissed  each  other  "  (Ps.  lxxxv.  11).  How  entirely 
different  is  David's  example  of  sovereignty  (Ps.  ci.). 
(6)  A  rash  and  inconsiderate  counsel,  that  of  the 
young  men,  throwing  oil  on  the  flames  instead  of 
quenching  them,  and  exciting  uproar  and   revolt 


instead  of  disposing  to  submission  and  obedience. 
Passion  always  blinds.  When  the  heart  is  per- 
verted the  head  is  likewise  dulled,  and  those  who 
are  generally  shrewd  become  unwise  and  unrea- 
sonable ;  for  it  is  not  the  head  which  rules  the 
heart,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  inclinations  and 
desires  of  the  heart  are  stronger  than  the  thoughts 
of  the  head  (Prov.  xv.  1 :  xxx.  33  ;  James  i.  19, 
20;  Eph.  v.  15-11).  "  He  that  liveth  many  days,  let 
him  keep  his  tongue  from  evil,"  &c.  (Ps.  xxxiv.  13). 
Ver.  14.  Midway  between  weak  concessions  and 
timid  neutrality  on  the  one  hand,  and  selfish  persist- 
ence in  presumptive  rights  on  the  other,  lies  a  course 
always  pointed  out  by  the  Lord  to  those  who  bow 
before  Him,  pray  to  Him  for  wisdom,  and  long 
earnestly  to  do  what  pleases  Him  alone.  Not  only 
do  great  lords  give  harsh  answers,  but  likewise 
petty  rulers;  those  who  moan  and  complain  most 
bitterly  against  the  tyranny  of  the  great  are  fre- 
quently the  greatest  tyrants  in  a  small  way  ;  they 
perceive  the  mote  in  their  neighbor's  eye,  but  not 
the  beam  in  their  own. — Starke  :  The  voice  of  the 
King  of  kings  comes  to  us  utterly  unlike  that  of 
Rehoboam ;  therefore  should  we  listen  the  more 
submissively  and  obediently  to  it. — Wt'RT.  Summ: 
The  Most  High  is  ever  at  hand  to  change  the 
darkest  prospects  of  the  children  of  men  to  a 
happy  termination,  and  the  accomplishment  of  His 
all  holy  will,  even  as  Joseph  said  to  his  brethren 
(Gen.  1.  20).  God  disposes  not  the  thoughts  of 
man  to  folly  and  sin,  but  brings  them  to  judgment 
by  their  very  perverseness,  and  thus  makes  it 
serve  to  carry  out  His  own  designs. 

Vers.  16-19.  The  rebellion,  (a)  Its  causes, 
sin,  and  folly,  in  high  and  low  places:  amongst 
the  people,  ingratitude,  jealousy,  envy,  hatred, 
and  thirst  for  independence :  with  the  king, 
tyranny,  violence,  and  folly.  (b)  Its  consequences. 
(Disunion,  which  was  in  no  wise  advantageous, 
but  the  beginning  of  every  species  of  ill-fortune, 
and  of  the  final  dissolution  of  the  kingdom,  fol- 
lowed deeds  of  violence,  murder,  and  death-strug- 
gles. A  people  in  rebellion  is  like  a  fierce  dog 
unchained.  The  evil  consequences  of  rebellion  are 
often  felt  for  a  century.)— Ver.  16.  As  is  the  ques- 
tion, so  is  the  answer.  He  who  makes  an  unprin- 
cipled speech  must  not  wonder  if  he  receive  a  like 
reply.  The  same  people  who  once  came  to  David  and 
said :  See,  we  are  thy  bone  and  thy  flesh,  thou  hast 
led  us.  thou  shalt  be  our  king  (2  Sara.  v.  1-2),  now 
said:  We  have  no  part  in  David;  what  is  the 
shepherd's  son  to  us?  This  is  the  way  of  the  mul- 
titude. To-day  they  cry :  Hosanna,  blessed  be  he 
who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  !  To-morrow 
it  is,  "Crucify  him,  we  will  not  that  he  reign  over 
us!"  To-day,  if  fortune  smile,  they  are  fawning 
and  bland,  to-morrow,  if  misfortune  threaten,  they 
cry  :  "  Look  to  thyself."  Their  cry  is :  We  will  be 
free,  and  servants  of  no  man — not  seeing  that  they 
are  the  blind  tools  of  one  or  more  leaders,  who 
seek  to  reign  over  them.  With  the  house  of 
David,  Israel  flung  aside  the  great  promise  (2  Sam. 
vii.  10-16  ;  xxiii.  5),  which  depended  on  that  house. 
For  us  has  come  that  Son  of  David,  whose  kingdom 
shall  have  no  end  (Luke  i.  32  sq.).  Let  us  hold 
steadfastly  by  Him,  and  not  be  led  astray  by  the 
uproar  of  the  world:  "We  will  have  no  part  in 
him."  He  will  finally  destroy  all  enemies  under 
his  feet.  Thus  went  Israel  to  his  tents,  but 
not  as  formerly,  blest  by  the  king  and  bles- 
sing him,  rejoicing  over  the  goodness  of  the  Lorn 


152 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


to  David,  and  to  his  people  Israel  (chap.  viii.  6C). 
Hi;  who  has  not  a  good  conscience  cannot  return 
in  peace. — Ver.  IS.  The  people  desired  freedom. 
but  a  tree  of  liberty,  watered  with  innocent  blood, 
can  only  bear  poison  fruit.  He  who  asks  nothing 
of  God  can  only  lead  others  to  fol.y, — he  who  can- 
not stand  in  the  gap  can  never  protect  others.  It 
is  a  judgment  of  God  when  a  monarch,  instead  'if 
being  able  to  repose  in  the  bosom  of  any  one  of  his 
subjects,  must  needs  fly  before  him  to  save  his 
life.  To  yield  to  superior  force  is  no  disgrace, 
but  shameful  is  the  flight  whicli  is  the  result  of  ar- 
rogance and  overbearing  pride. 

Vers.  19,  20.  The  great  majority  fell  away, 
and  the  small  minority  remained  faithful ;  the 
first  was  ruined  and  had  no  future;  from  the 
latter  came  forth  the  One  before  whom  every 
knee  bowed  down,  and  whom  every  tongue  ac- 
knowledged to  be  the  Lord  (Matt.  ii.  6 ;  Phil, 
ii.  1 1).  In  the  kingdom  of  God  there  is  no 
question  of  majorities  and  minorities,  but  it  is 
simply,  are  we  steadfast  and  faithful  unto  death  ? 
The  pretended  deliverers  of  the  masses  well  know- 
how  to  manage,  so  that  they  will  become  rulers  of 
the  people ;  they  allow  themselves  to  be  summon- 
ed, and  apparently  persuaded  to  the  very  object 
which  was  the  sole  aim  of  their  efforts. — Ver.  21. 
What  Rehoboam  had  lost  through  insolence  aud 
weakness,  through  wickedness  and  folly,  he  now 
sought  to  regain  by  violence  and  battle ;  instead  of 
humbling  himself  beneath  the  All-powerful  hand 
of  God,  he  is  haughty  and  depends  upon  his  own 
arm  of  flesh.  The  natural  heart  of  man  is  a  frow- 
ard  and  timorous  thing  (Jer.  xvii.  9),  without  safe 
resting-place  or  firm  support,  now  buoyed  up,  now 
cast  down,  the  football  of  every  storm  of  fortune. 
But  blessed  is  the  man  whose  trust  and  confidence 
are  in  the  Lord.  It  is  a  precious  thing,  &c.  (Heb. 
xiii.  9).  Faith  is  the  victory,  &c.  (1  John  v.  4.) 
In  the  renewed  heart  is  no  pride  and  no  fear. — 
Vers.  22-24.  The  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  king 
and  to  the  host ;  (a)  the  command  :  Ye  shall  not, 
&c. ;  (b)  the  cause  of  the  commandment :  For  this 
thing  is  from  me ;  (c)  the  obedience  to  the  com- 
mand: And  they  hearkened,  &c.  The  lives  and 
property  of  subjects  are  not  to  be  used  to  compen- 
sate for  the  sins  and  follies  of  their  rulers.  Civil 
wars  are  the  most  unnatural,  and  likewise  the 
fiercest   and  bitterest;  he  who  stirs  up  strife  be- 


tween brethren  commits  a  crime  which  never  goes 
unpunished. — Shemaiah,  a  type  of  the  Lord's  ser- 
vants. He  is  a  man  of  God.  aud  as  such  he  brings 
good  tidings  of  peace  (Is.  lii.  7) ;  he  has  no  other 
arms  than  the  sword  of  the  spirit,  which  is  the 
word  of  God  (Eph.  vi.  17) ;  with  His  word  he 
comes,  strong  and  fearless,  before  the  king  aud  his 
whole  host  (Acts  iv.  20  ;  is.  15).  It  is  said  here  of 
hundreds  of  thousands:  "They  hearkened  to  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  aud  returned,  ic."  How  many 
thousands  to-day  hear  this  word,  but,  burying  it 
beneath  cares,  riches,  and  the  pride  of  life,  live  on 
without  obedience  and  without  repentance,  bring- 
ing forth  no  fruit  (Luke  viii.  14). — Wurt.  Summ.  : 
We  see  here  with  what  great  might  the  God  of 
Truth  maintains  his  word.  By  the  prophet  Ahijah 
he  announced  to  Jeroboam  that  he  should  rule  over 
ten  tribes  of  Israel:  that  is  accomplished  here. 
He  has  promised  to  leave  one  tribe  to  the  house  of 
David:  that  is  accomplished  here.  He  promised 
to  Ephraim  or  to  his  father  Joseph,  that  kings 
should  proceed  from  them  (Gen.  xlix. ;  Dent,  xxxiii.), 
and  that  is  fulfilled  here,  since  Jeroboam  becomes 
king  through  Ephraim.  Thus  nothing  remains 
unfulfilled  of  all  that  God  has  spoken,  promised, 
or  threatened.  Solomon  and  Rehoboam  strove  to 
prevent  the  fulfilment  of  God's  word  in  Jeroboam, 
for  which  purpose  Solomon  planned  to  kill  Jero- 
boam, and  Rehoboam  assembled  a  great  army 
against  him,  but  all  in  vain.  Therefore  let  all 
men  believe  and  seek  after  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  strive  to  resist  it  (Luke  xxi.  33). 

[F.  D.  M aurice  :  "  He  (Jeroboam  (did  not  trust  the 
living  God.  He  thought  not  that  his  kingdom  stood 
upon  a  divine  foundation,  but  that  it  was  to  be  up- 
held by  certain  divine  props  and  sanctions.  The 
two  doctrines  seem  closely  akin ;  many  regard 
them  as  identical ;  in  truth  there  is  a  whole  heaven 
between  them.  The  king  who  believes  that  his 
kingdom  has  a  divine  foundation  confesses  his  own 
subjection  and  responsibility  to  as  actual  living 
ruler.  The  king  who  desires  to  surround  himself 
with  divine  sanctions,  would  fain  make  himself 
supreme,  knows  that  he  cannot,  and  therefore 
seeks  help  from  the  fear  men  have  of  an  invisible 
power,  in  which  they  have  ceased  to  believe.  He 
wants  a  God  as  the  support  of  his  authority ;  what 
God,  he  cares  very  little." — B.  H] 


B. — The  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  by  Jeroboam. 
Ghap.  XII.  25-33. 


25  Then  Jeroboam  built  Sheehem  in  mount  Ephraim,  and  dwelt  therein ;  and 

26  went  out  from  thence,  and  built  Penuel.     And  Jeroboam  said  in  his  heart,  Now 

27  shall  the  kingdom  return  to  the  house  of  David:  if  this  people  go  up  to  do  sacrifice 
in  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  at  Jerusalem,  then  shall  the  heart  of  this  people 
turn  again  unto  their  lord,1  even  unto  Rehoboam  king  of  Judah,  and  they  shall 

28  kill  me,  and  go  again  to  Rehoboam  king  of  Judah.  Whereupon  the  king  took 
counsel,  and  made  two  calves  of  gold,  and  said  unto  them,  It  is  too  much  for 
youa  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  :  behold  thy  gods,3  O  Israel,  which  brought  t  lice  up 

29  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  he  set  the  one  in  Beth-el.  and  the  other  put  he 
SO  in  Dan.  And  this  thing  became  [was4]  a  sin:  for  the  people  went  to  worship 
31  before  the  one,'  even  unto  Dan."     And  he  made  a  house'  of  high   places,  and 


CHAPTER  XII.   25-33. 


155 


made  priests  of  the  lowest  [mass8]  of  the  people,  which  were  not  of  the  sons  of 

32  Levi.  AndJeroboam  ordained  a  feast  in  the  eighth  month,  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  month,  like  unto  the  feast  that  is  in  Judab,and  he  offered'  upon  the  altar. 
So10  did  he  in  Beth-el,  sacrificing  unto  the  calves  that  he  had  made  :  and  he  placed 

33  in  Beth-el  the  priests  of  the  high  places  which  he  had  made.  So  he  offered' 
upon  the  altar  which  lie  had  made  in  Beth-el  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  eighth 
month,  even  in  the  month  which  he  had  devised  of  his  own  heart" ;  and  ordained 
a  feast  unto  the  children  of  Israel :  and  he  offered'  upon  the  altar,  and  burnt 
incense. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

I  Ver.  27. — [The  Sept.  has  "  to  the  Lord  and  (or  even)  to  their  lord."  The  Syr.  omits  this  word  Lord  altogether. 
The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  last  clause  of  the  verse. 

7  Ver.  23. — [Our  author  prefers  the  sense  of  the  Sept.,  Chald.,  and  Villi:.,  "let  it  suffice  you,"  "do  not  any  longer  go 
up."    Keil  argues  that  the  Heb.  cannot  be  so  translated,  and  prefers  the  sense  of  the  A.  V. 

3  Ver.  28. — [The  Heb.  vprip^  may  be  taken  either  in  tiie  plural,  as  in  the  A.V.  and  the  ancient  VV.  generally 

or  in  the  singular,  as  in  our  author's  translation,  according  to  the  common  Heb.  nsage.    For  reasons  for  the  latter  see 
the  Exeg.  Com. 

*  Ver.  30. — [The  translation  of  \"p^  became  may  seem  to  ignore  the  fact  that  Jeroboam's  deed  already  was  a  sin  In 
Itself.  ' :_ 

8  Ver.  30. — [Our  author's  translation  inserts  in  brackets  "  or  the  other."    See  Exeg.  Com. 
'  Ver.  30.— [the  Vat,  Sept.  odds,  "and  forsook  the  house  of  the  Lord." 

7  Ver.   31. — [riiD3"rP2  correctly  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  in  the  singular,  since  the  contrast  is  with  the  niiTTrS 

at  Jerusalem.     The  Sept,  in    translating  oikovs  €$  ioJ/ijAdd',  and  the  Vulg.  /ana  in  excelsis.  have  overlooked  the  point. 

8  Ver.  31. — [The  lleb.  riiVPD  does  not  niean  so  much  "from  the    lowest  of  the  people"  as,  '•  from  all  classes," 

"  from  the  mass  of  the  people  promiscuously."  in  contradistinction  to  the  especial  Levitical  family.     Cf.  Gen.  xlvii.  2; 
Ezek.  xxxiii.  2.  and  see  Kwg.  Coin.    The  A.  V.  is  sustained  by  the  Vulg.  alone  among  the  ancient  V  V. 

9  Ver.  32. —  [The  A.  V.  is  here  sustained  by  the  Vnlu.  and  Arab.  The  other  VV.  give  the  sense  preferred  by 
our  author  in  the  Exeg.  Com.  -Went  up  to,  or  upon  (i.  e.  upon  the  approach  to)  the  altar,"  thus  translating  the 
last  words  of  ver.  33,  "  to  burn  incense." 

10  Ver.  32. — [The  Sept.  must  have  read  l^"'^  instead  of  ^  since  it  translates  " — the  altar  which  he  made  in 
Bethel."  , 

II  Ver.  33. — Neh.  vi.  8  clearly  shows  that  the  k'ri  t,2?D  is  the  true  reading.  All  the  translations  are  in 
accordance  with  this.  The  k'lib  -Q^£  £ives  n0  sense,  since  it  does  not  mean  seorsum  sc.  ajudmis  (Maurer,  Keil); 
but  except,  beside.    [Keil  takes  the  opposite  view  of  the  meaning,  and  denies  the   necessity  of  the  change. — F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  25. — Then  Jeroboam  built  Shechem. 
The  first  thing  which  Jeroboam  undertook  after 
his  accession  was  the  building  of  fortresses  to 
protect  his  realm.     HJ3  means"  fortified  here,  as 

T  T 

Shechem  and  Penuel  were  built  long  before.  He 
chose  Shechem  immediately  as  his  residence 
(2'.'"1),  no  doubt,  for  the  same  reason  that  the  ten 
tribes  had  assembled  there  (see  on  ver.  1).  It  does 
not  follow  from  x\"'l ,  that  he  at  once  removed  to 

Penuel  (Ewald,  Thenius),  for  it  only  says  :  he 
built,  and  it  is  not  added  that  he  lived  there. 
Penuel,  too,  did  not  belong  to  the  tribe  of 
Ephraim,  but  was  in  Gad,  beyond  Jordan,  accord- 
ing to  some,  northward,  and  others,  southward  of 
Jabbok.  There  was  a  tower  there  formerly, 
which  Gideon  destroyed  (Judg.  viii.  17).  Jero- 
boam can  scarcely  be  supposed  to  have  fortified 
the  place  on  account  of  the  caravan  road  to 
Damascus  passing  by  it  (Keil),  or  to  subdue  the 
Ammonites  and  Moabites  again  (Duncker),  but  to 
Becure  the  territory  beyond  Jordan  against  any 
attacks  from  Judah.  There  is  no  doubt  that  he 
built  these  fortifications  by  tribute-labor,  like 
Solomon  (chap.  ix.  15  sq.)  ;  the  "grievous 
service  "  (ver.  4)  did  not,  therefore,  cease  under 
him,  and  the  complaint  against  Rehoboam  appears 
all  the  more  like  a  pretext. 

Vers.  26-28.  AndJeroboam  said  in  his  heart, 
tc.  Ver.  26.  Jeroboam  did  not  seek  to  establish 
his  kingdom  out%vardly  only,  but  also  inwardly : 
»nd  to  attach  the  people  permanently  to  himself. 


The  political  union  witli  Judah  was  indeed  broken, 
but  the  religious  one  still  remained.  The  people 
still  went  up  to  the  yearly  feasts  at  the  central 
place  of  worship  in  Jerusalem  ;  this  practice  seems, 
from  2  Chron.  xi  16  sq.,  to  have  extended  even, 
so  that  Jeroboam  became  anxious  lest  his  people 
should  turn  to  Rehoboam  and  dethrone  him.  He 
therefore  sought  to  break  this  bond  also.  We  can 
scarcely  admit  that   J»jnsl  ver.   28   ought  to  be 

supplemented  thus  :  "With  his  counsellors  or  the 
heads  of  the  people,  who  had  helped  to  make  him 
king"  (Keil),  for  the  text  would  certainly  not  have 
passed  over  so  important  a  circumstance  as  tha, 
the  representatives  of  the  people  concurred  with 
him  in  changing  the  place  of  worship.  He 
reflected  about  it  alone,  and  came  to  the  following 
resolution — Vulgate:  Et  excogitate  consilio  fecit  duos 
vituhs;  Dereser:  "  it  occurred  to  him  to  make  two 
golden  calves."  Two  golden  calves,  i.  e..  young  bulls, 
as  appears  from  Ps.  cvi  19  sq. ;  they  were 
molten  (chap.  xiv.  9),  probably  of  brass,  and  then 
overlaid  with  gold  (Isai.  xl.  19).     The  expression 

D3^>"3")  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of:  it  is  desiring 

too  much  from  you  ;  i.  e.  it  is  too  hard  for  you,  but : 
it  is  i  now)  enough,  i.  e.  you  have  gone  up  to  Jeru- 
salem long  enough,  cease  doing  so.  The  Sept. 
translates  Uavovodu,  the  Vulgate  has  :  Nolite  ultra 
adscendere  in  Jerusalem.  Cf.  Deut.  i.  6  :  ii.  3 ; 
Ezek.  xliv.  6  ;  1  Kings  xix.  4 ;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  16.  The 
words.  Behold  thy  god(s)  which,  &c.  are  exactly 
the  same  as  the  people  used  when  setting  mi  the 
golden  calf  in  the  wilderness  (Ex.  xxxii.  4—8)  am1 


154 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


refer  unmistakably  to  them.  They  are  not  plural 
(thy  gods  which,  Ac.)  any  more  than  when  used 
in  the  former  case,  for  they  only  refer  to  one  calf, 
and.Nehemiah  (ix.  18)  uses  them  in  the  singular; 
D'Hi'N ,  moreover,  is  construed  with  the  plural  of 
the  predicate  (<■/.  2  Sam.  vii.  23  with  1  Chron. 
xvii.  21).  It  is  certain  that  Jeroboam  did  not  wish 
to  introduce  the  worship  of  two  or  more  gods  ; 
but  the  plural  being  used  in  this  place  may  in- 
dicate that  "  the  knowledge  of  the  unity  of  God 
is  lost  in  every  form  of  nature-worship "  (Von 
Gerlach),  and  that  image-worship  is  closely  related 
to  polytheism  (Ewald).  The  bringing  them  up  out 
of  Egypt  was  God's  act,  by  which  he  made  Israel 
a  separate  nation,  creating  it,  as  it  were,  and 
choosing  it  at  the  same  time  for  his  own,  from  out 
all  peoples.  This  was  the  real  historical  proof  that 
the  Almighty  God,  who  has  no  equal  either  in 
heaven  or  earth,  was  Israel's  God  ;  therefore  the 
God  who  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt  is  con- 
trasted, as  the  only  true  God,  with  the  vain  gods 
of  the  heathens  (Josh.  xxiv.  17:  Judg.  ii.  1,  12; 
vi.  13).  The  people  Israel  only  knew  him  to  be 
God  who  brought  them  out  of  Egypt;  and  should 
they  worship  the  golden  calf  as  their  God,  they 
must,  as  Aaron  and  Jeroboam  did,  before  every- 
thing else,  attribute  to  it  the  deliverance  out  of 
Egypt.  We  cannot  endorse  the  ordinary  explana- 
tion, that  Jeroboam  meant  to  say :  Non  est  nova  re- 
ligio,  hoc  cultujam  olim  patres  nostri  in  deserto  usi 
sunt  auctore  ipso  Aharone  (Seb.  Schmidt) ;  for  if  the 
history  of  the  golden  calf  were  known  to  the 
people,  and  Jeroboam  reminded  them  of  it,  he  must 
also  have  known  that  Jehovah's  wrath  %vaxed  hot 
on  account  of  that  sin,  that  Moses  ground  the  calf 
to  powder,  and  that  all  the  worshippers  were 
destroyed  (Ex.  xxxii.  10;  xx.  28).  Nothing  could 
be  more  ill-advised  than  an  appeal  to  this  event, 
and  it  would  have  been  the  direct  opposite  of  any 
recommendation  of  the  new  worship.  It  appears 
rather  that  the  narrative,  giving  as  it  does 
Jeroboam's  praise  of  the  golden  calves  in  the 
words  the  people  had  used  at  the  sight  of  the  golden 
calves  in  the  wilderness,  wishes' to  convey  the 
idea  that  those  images  were  a  renewal  of  the  sin 
committed  in  the  wilderness,  and  that,  therefore, 
Jeroboam's  undertaking  would,  sooner  or  later, 
have  a  similar  end.  Ver.  30  also  implies  this,  and 
2  Kings  xvii.  7  sq.  expressly  declares  it, 

Vers.  29-30.  And  he  set  the  one  in  Bethel, 
Ac.,  ver.  29.  Bethel  was  on  the  southern,  and  Dan  on 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  kingdom.  The  situ- 
ation of  these  places  explains  why  Jeroboam 
chose  them.  He  wished  to  make  things  easy  for 
the  people  ;  the  northern  tribes  could  readily 
reach  one  place  of  worship,  and  the  southern 
tribes  the  other,  and  they  would  so  much  the 
•sooner  become  habituated  to  the  new  regulation. 
At  the  same  time  also  it  was  in  opposition  to  the 
Judah-centralizing  of  worship.  This  was  another 
reason  for  having  two  calves  instead  of  one.  It 
is  generally  thought  that  he  chose  both  places, 
because  tiny  bad  been  regarded  before  as  sacred 
places  for  worship.  This  may  have  influenced 
him  in  choosing  Bethel,  but  scarcely  in  respect  of 
Dan,  for  the  narrative  in  Judg.  xviii.  by  no  means 
proves  that  tin-  latter  place  was  looked  on  with 
respect  by  the  people  as  a  place  of  worship.  Sad 
Jeroboam  sought  only  sacred  places,  there  were 
several  (e.  •/.  Shiloll  i  that  were  much  mere  esteem- 
ed as  such  thau   Dan.     This   thing  became   a  sin, 


ver.  30.  Jeroboam  was  guilty  of  great  sin  is 
making  images  of  oxen,  contrary  to  the  funda- 
mental law,  and  in  setting  them  up  in  two  places 
remote  from  each  other,  and  thus  destroying  the 
unity  of  worship  which  has  been  the  bond  of 
union  for  the  whole  people.  The  text  means 
what  is  afterwards  always  spoken  of  as  "the  sin  of 
Jeroboam,  who  made  Israel  to  sin  "  (chap.  xiv.  16 ; 
xv.  26,  30,  34;  xvi.  2,  19,  26,  31;  xxi.  22;  xxii. 
53;  2  Kings  iii.  3;  x.  29,  31;  xiii.  2,  6,  11;  xiv.  24; 
xv.  9.  IS,  24,  28;  xvii.  21,  22;  xxiii.  15).  The 
people  went  to  ivorship  before  the  one,  even  unto  Dan. 
inxn  'J3P  clearly  refers  to  the  "inNn  twice  re- 
peated in  ver.  29,  and  cannot  therefore  be  trans- 
lated as  Ewald  gives  it :  "  the  people,  as  it  were 
one  man  :  "  neither  does  it  mean  that  the  people 
only  went  to  one  image,  that  at  Dan,  chap.  xiii.  1. 
"Unto  Dan,"  moreover,  cannot  be  joined  to  Din 

and  translated,  "  the  people  unto  Dan ;  i.  e.,  the 
people  in  the  whole  kingdom  as  far" as  Dan" 
(Keil).  The  sentence  is  evidently  abbreviated,  and 
inxn  'JS?  is  only  put  once  instead  of  twice,  be- 
cause the  repetition  after  the  double  inN  in  ver. 
29  is  understood  ;  "  "inNH  is  alter  here  in  the  sense 
of  alteruter "  (Cassel).  The  people  went  to  both, 
even  to  the  distant  Dan.  Vulgate  :  ibat  enim 
popnlus  ad  adorandum  vitulum  usque  in  Dan. 

Vers.  31-32.  And  he  made  an  house  of  high 
places,  &c,  ver.  31.  For  the  so-called  high  places, 
see  above  on  chap.  iii.  2.  As  the  "high  places  "in 
2  Kings  xxiii.  15  is  simply  n03fl,  and  the  high 

places  are  contrasted  with  Jehovah's  house  in 
chap.  iii.  1,  2,  the  word  here  certainly  does  not 
mean  a  temple,  properly  speaking,  but  proba- 
bly a  kind  of  cell  for  the  image.  Ewald  makes  it 
out  "  a  splendid  temple,"  and  says :  "  this  temple 
evidently  lasted  many  years  and  probably  rivalled 
that  at  Jerusalem ;  later  too,  this  temple  was  re- 
garded as  the  great  sanctuary  of  the  kingdom." 
We  find  not  a  single  word  of  all  this  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, however.  Jeroboam  made  priests  of  the 
niVpp  of  the  people;  this  does  not  mean,  from 

the  lowest  of  the  people  (Luther),  but,  from  all 
classes  of  them  (Gen.  xix.  4 ;  Ezek.  xxxiii.  2  ;  Jer. 
Ii.  31);  he  made  any  one  that  wished  a  priest. 
Thus  he  broke  the  law  which  gave  the  right  to 
the  tribe  of  Levi  alone  (Num.  xvi.).  He  did  this 
either  because  he  wanted  to  abolish  the  institution 
of  the  Levilical  priesthood,  or  because  the  Levites 
and  priests,  not  willing  to  participate  in  the  service 
of  the  golden  calves,  left  the  kingdom  (2  Chron.  xi. 
13).     And  Jeroboam  ordained  a  feast,  ver.  32.    Jn 

alone,  or  jnn  signifies   the   feast  of  tabernacles, 

because  it  was  the  greatest  and  most  frequented 
of  the  yearly  feasts  (the  feast  of  harvest,  cf.  on 
chap.  viii.  2).  This  feast  fell  on  the  seventh 
month,  as  the  law  commanded  (Lev.  xxiii.  34; 
xxxiv.  41).  Jeroboam  changed  the  time  to  pre 
vent  the  ten  tribes  meeting  the  other  twi,  or 
having  any  intercourse  with  them.  He  fixed  it 
in  the  eighth  month,  because  the  northern  and 
more  distant  tribes  would  thus  have  time  tc 
complete  their  harvest,  and  could  more  easily 
take  the  journey  to  Bethel,  where  he  himself  also 
kept  the  feast  (we  need  not  say  that  the  harvest 
was  later  in  the  northern  thau  the  southern  parts; 
see  Thenius  on  the  place).     The   feasts   were  al 


CHAPTER  XII.  25-33. 


15J 


ways  announced  beforehand  (Lev.  xxiii.  4) ;  if 
this  were  done  after  the  feast  at  Jerusalem  was 
over,  it  could  not  possibly  be  celebrated  there. 
Jeroboam  did  not  observe  the  same  day  of  the 
month,  the  15th,  "on  account  of  the  weak,  who 
were  offended  at  his  innovations "  (Keil),  for  in 
that  case  he  would  have  kept  it  a  month  sooner, 
but  he  did  so  because  the  months  and  weeks  were 
counted  by  the  new  and  full  moons,  and  the  15th 
was  the  day  of  the  full  moon.  Thus  there  was 
simply  a  reason  derived  from  the  calendar  why 
that  day  was  retained. 

Ver.  33.  And  he  offered  upon  the  altar,  &c. 
rt3!Qn"i3J?  ^V51 tlu*ee  times  in  vers.  32  and  33  can- 
not be  translated  (as  Thenius  gives  them)  once 
(ver.  32)  by :  "  he  sacrificed  upon  the  altar,"  and 
two  other  times  (ver.  33)  by:  "  he  went  to  the 
altar ;  "  they  must  mean  the  same  each  time. 
i"l7j;  means  here,  as  usual,  to  go  up,  to  mount ;  the 
Sept.  correctly  gives  avi^r)  three  times,  the  Vul- 
gate has  ascendens  ver.  32,  and  ascendit  twice, 
ver.  33.  The  altar  had  a  raised  part  in  the  mid- 
dle, to  which  an  ascent  [incline  ? — E.  H.]  led  up 
(Sym.  des  Mos.  Kult.  I.  *.  480).  It  is  clear  that 
?J7'  cannot  be  translated  every  time,  as  Luther,  De 
Wette,  and  Keil  give  it,  he  sacrificed,  for  in  ver.  32 
it   is   distinctly  distinguished   from    rot,   and   in 

ver.  33  VtipiT?  is  added  at  the  end ;  this  does  not 

mean:  and  he  offered  incense  (De  Wette),  or  while 
he  offered  incense  (Philippson),  but  only  to  offer 
incense ;  there  is  no  sense  in :  he  sacrificed  to 
offer  incense.  The  first  pjp ,  ver.  32,  means,  that 
Jeroboam  took  part  in  the  feast ;  the  second  signi- 
fies especially  his  presence  at  the  first  feast  in 
Bethel,  and  the  third  is  only  to  be  connected  with 
the  second,  on  account  of  the  long  intermediary 
clause  in  ver.  33,  joining  TOpil?  with  it,  and  so 
leading  on  to  "l'tOpn?  chap.  xiii.  1.  In  fact  ver. 
33  forms  the  transition  to  the  next  section  chap, 
xiii.,  which  is  evidently  derived  from  another 
source,  and  relates  what  happened  at  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  festival  at  Bethel.  Jeroboam  ascended 
the  altar  to  burn  sacrifice,  and  just  as  he  was 
about  to  do  so,  a  man  of  God  came,  &c.  (chap.  xiii. 
1).  What  ver.  33  repeats  from  ver.  32,  as  well  as 
the  words,  "  which  he  had  devised  of  his  own 
heart,"  shows  the  writer's  intention,  I.  e.,  to  dis- 
play the  arbitrary  nature  of  Jeroboam's  proceed- 
ings, which  called  forth  the  occurrence  of  chap, 
xiii.  1  sq. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  religions  institutions  which,  next  to  the 
fortifications,  served  to  establish  Jeroboam's  king- 
dom are  of  the  greatest  importance,  for  they  formed 
the  real  and  lasting  wall  of  separation  between  the 
two  kingdoms  Israel  and  Judah,  that  existed  side 
by  side  for  hundreds  of  years.  Through  these  in- 
stitutions the  division  mentioned  in  the  above  sec- 
tion became  an  incurable  schism  for  all  future 
generations,  thus  determining  the  whole  of  the 
after-history  of  the  people.  To  \inderstand  it  tho- 
roughly in  all  its  bearings,  we  must,  at  the  outset. 
take  into  consideration  Jeroboam's  point  of  view, 
and  the  motives  which  impelled  him.  The  history 
makes  him  utter  these  himself  clearly  enough  in 


vers.  26  and  27  ;  they  were  of  a  purely  political  na- 
ture. He  took  those  measures  from  no  religious 
convictions,  not  to  do  away  with  abuses,  in  short, 
not  for  the  sake  of  God  and  conscience,  but  to  se- 
cure to  himself  and  his  dynasty  the  dominion  over 
the  newly  founded  kingdom,  and  to  withdraw  it 
forever  from  the  house  of  David.  He  well  knew 
that  a  political  separation  without  a  religious  one 
too  would  not  be  lasting  with  a  people  whose  dis- 
tinct existence  from  other  nations  only  depended 
on  their  common  religious  basis.  To  introduce  a 
completely  new  religion,  which  should  displace  the 
faith  of  their  fathers,  would  have  been  very  dan- 
gerous to  his  dominion ;  so  he  thought  of  modi- 
fying it  in  such  particulars  as  he  was  sure  would 
be  agreeable  to  the  people,  who  were  disposed  to 
build  a  strong,  impregnable  wall  of  separation  be 
tween  Israel  and  Judah.  All  the  kings  of  Israel 
inherited  the  principle  on  which  Jeroboam  acted, 
however  much  the  dynasty  changed,  until  the  dis- 
solution of  the  kingdom.  We  have  here,  then,  the 
type  of  that  political  absolutism  which  makes  the 
national  religion  subservient  to  the  interests  of  a 
dynasty,  which  holds  that  the  secular  power  is  jus- 
tified in  prescribing  the  faith  and  form  of  worship 
for  the  subjects.  This  absolutism  is  found  not  only 
in  monarchies  but  in  republics — among  crowned 
heads  as  among  democrats — it  can  be  traced 
through  the  entire  history  of  the  world,  and  has 
appeared  in  Christendom  as  Csesaro-papism.  In 
Israel  the  prophets  opposed  it,  and  as  it  was  firmly 
adhered  to  from  the  beginning  in  that  kingdom, 
we  find,  accordingly,  the  prophets  were  engaged 
in  a  perpetual  struggle  with  it. 

2.  The  germ  of  all  the  changes  Jeroboam  wrought 
was  the  erection  of  two  golden  calves.  They  were  not 
actual  idols,  i.  e.,  images  that  were  supposed  to 
have  real  connection  with  the  divinity  they  repre- 
sented, as  among  the  heathens  (cf.  my  treatise,  Der 
Sahmonische  Tempel,  s.  270  sq.),  but  symbols  of 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel ;  the  whole  history  of 
Israel  shows  that  Jeroboam  did  not  intend  to  in- 
troduce idolatry  or  polytheism.  The  God  who  had 
brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  thus  showing  Him- 
self to  be  the  true  God  (cf.  Cassel,  Konig  Jeroboam, 
s.  6),  was  to  remain,  but  he  did  not  wish  Him  to 
appear  to  have  His  throne  and  dwelling-place  in 
Jerusalem  alone,  but  also  in  the  new  kingdom,  and 
to  be  visibly  present  there.  He  wishes  to  attach 
the  people  to  his  kingdom  by  a  visible  representa- 
tion of  Jehovah.  But  this  visible  representation 
was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  fundamental  Mo- 
saic law,  which  just  as  expressly  forbids  the 
making  an  image  of  Jehovah,  as  the  worshipping 
of  other  gods  beside  Him  (Ex.  xx.  3,  4).  If  God 
be  one,  and  everything  in  heaven  and  earth,  and 
in  the  water  under  the  earth,  only  his  creature,  it 
follows  necessarily  that  He  can  have  no  similitude ; 
nothing  out  of  Him  can  represent  Him.  Every 
image  is  a  practical  denial  of  his  incomparable  and 
therefore  invisible  being,  an  untruth  which,  as  . 
such,  can  never  make  Him  known,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, destroys  the  knowledge  of  Him  and  leads 
to  idolatry.  For  the  nearer  man  comes  to  the  life 
of  nature  the  less  power  he  has  to  abstract  him- 
self from  the  natural  and  visible,  and  to  compre- 
hend the  spiritual  and  invisible  by  itself,  i.  e.,  tc 
distinguish  the  sign  from  the  thing  signified.  If 
God  be  worshipped  in  an  image,  it  is  scarcely  pos- 
sible to  avoid  worshipping  the  image  itself  as  God, 
hence  there  is  but  a  short  step  from  a  represent* 


156 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


tion  of  God  to  idolatry,  which  again,  in  spite  of 
everything,  leads  to  polytheism  (Rom.  i.  23).  This 
is  why  the  Mosaic  fundamental  law  places  the 
prohibition  of  every  likeness  of  God  in  immediate 
juxtaposition  against  that  of  idolatry.  To  violate 
this  command  was  to  lay  the  axe  at  the  root  of 
the  tree  of  spiritual  life  planted  in  the  chosen  peo- 
ple. This  was  "  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  wherewith 
he  made  Israel  to  sin."  When  he  sought  to  give 
his  kingdom  durability  by  erecting  images,  contrary 
to  the  conditiou  so  emphatically  laid  before  him 
by  Ahijah,  namely,  keeping  Jehovah's  laws  (chap, 
xi.  38),  lie  brought  this  very  germ  of  destruction 
and  dissolution  into  it ;  this  our  writer  expressly 
notices  in  his  account  of  the  fall  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  (2  Kings  xvii.  7  sq.).  The  question  whether 
the  Old-Testament  law  against  every  representa- 
tion of  God  extends  unconditionally  to  the  New- 
Testament  economy,  has,  as  is  well  known,  been 
answered  variously.  While  the  reformed  church 
stretches  the  Old-Testament  law  still  further,  and  in 
contradiction  with  the  Mosaic  worship,  which  con- 
sisted wholly  in  symbols,  rejects  every  symbol  and 
representation  in  the  churches,  the  Lutheran  and 
Roman  Catholic  churches  not  only  allow  represen- 
tations of  Him  who  walked  on  earth  in  the  form 
of  a  servant,  but  of  God  himself,  only  claiming  that 
they  be  not  worshipped  or  prayed  to.  Though 
we  do  not  approve  of  an  exaggerated  spiritualism, 
yet  the  representations  of  God  as  an  invisible  being 
are  of  very  questionable  worth,  and  should  at  least 
not  be  placed  in  buildings  for  public  worship.  Cf. 
Isai.  xl.  18 ;   1  Tim.  vi.  16. 

3.  It is  almost  universally  acknowledged  that  Je- 
roboam's long  residence  in  Egypt  (chap.  xi.  40 ; 
xii.  2)  led  him  to  choose  images  of  bulls  to  repre- 
sent Jehovah,  and  that  there  was  reference  to  the 
Egyptian  cultus  of  Apis  and  Mnevis.  But  we 
have  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  contrary.  The 
images  were  to  represent  (according  to  ver.  28), 
that  God  who  "brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,"  i.  e., 
out  of  the  "  house  of  bondage,"  from  service  to  an 
idolatrous  people,  by  great  judgments  on  the  latter, 
even  the  destruction  of  their  entire  army,  and  had 
sepamited  them  as  from  all  nations,  so  especially 
from  Egypt  (Ex.  vi.  6;  vii.  5;  1  Kings  viii.  51-53). 
To  choose  a  specifically  Egyptian  divinity  in  order 
to  represent  this  God  would  have  been  the  greatest 
contradiction;  for  it  would  have  meant  so  much 
as:  the  God  who  overthrew  the  Egyptians  and 
brought  you  out  of  Egypt  was  an  Egyptian  deity  ; 
but  the  clause,  "  who  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt," 
contains  the  most  emphatic  opposition  to  any 
Egyptian  idol.  Had  the  bull-images  of  Jeroboam 
been  borrowed  from  Egypt,  we  should  find  other 
traces  of  Egyptian  worship  in  that  of  the  ten 
tribes,  but  none  are  to  be  found.  All  the  gods 
that  were  worshipped  by  them,  or  afterwards  by 
Judah,  were  without  exception  those  of  anterior 
Asia.  Besides  this,  Apis  and  Mnevis  were  differ- 
3nt  gods,  while  Jeroboam  wished  to  make  symbols 
of  one  and  the  same  deity ;  and,  moreover,  they 
were  not  images,  but  living  idols,  belonging  to  the 
Egyptian  animal  worship,  which  had  always  been 
despised  in  Israel,  and  looked  on  as  an  abomina- 
tion (Ex.  viii.  26).  The  material  and  the  work- 
manship of  the  golden  calves  remind  us  of  anterior 
Asia,  not  of  Egypt;  for  the  Egyptians  had  ouly 
stone  images ;  they  had  no  images  that  were  cast, 
golden,  or  overlaid  with  gold.  There  is  no  neces- 
sity for  seeking  the  original  of  Jeroboam's  golden 


calves  in  any  particular  ancient  nation.  The  bul 
was,  according  to  the  view  common  to  all  ancient 
peoples,  especially  to  those  who  were  agricul- 
tural, a  symbol  of  the  creative  power,  and  conse- 
quently of  the  highest  divinity,  from  which  all  life 
and  being  emanated.  There  was  no  type  of  divi- 
nity so  universal  in  the  ancient  world  as  the  bull 
{cf.  Creuzer,  Symbolik  I.  s.  318,  505,  747;  iv.  s. 
128,  240;  Baur,  Symbolik  I.  s.  177  sq.;  Movers, 
Rclig.  der  Phoniz.  s.  373  sq.).  If  Jeroboam  wanted 
to  give  an  intelligible  and  acceptable  symbol  of 
Jehovah  to  ihe  people,  he  could  have  scarcely 
chosen  anything  but  the  bull,  especially  as  the  God 
who  had  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  thus 
chosen  them  as  His  own  (Isai.  xliii.  15-17),  was 
adored  by  them  as  the  Creator  of  heaven  and 
earth.  (The  command  that  refers  to  the  Sabbath 
day  in  the  decalogue  is  founded  upon  the  creation 
in  Ex.  xx.  11,  and  upon  the  exodus  in  Deut.  v.  15). 
That  which  is  true  of  Jeroboam's  image  is  also 
true  of  Aaron's  (Ex.  xxxii.  4),  which  was  much 
nearer  the  time  of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  and 
therefore  was  still  less  likely  to  bo  an  imitation  of 
the  Egyptian  idols. 

4.  All  the  changes  that  Jeroboam  made  in  tht 
worship  were  calculated,  on  one  hand,  to  serve  hi? 
political  ends,  and  likewise,  on  the  other,  to  be 
agreeable  and  desirable  to  the  people  of  the  ten 
tribes.  By  setting  up  images  of  the  deity  he  gra- 
tified the  deep-seated  instincts  of  this  portion  of 
the  people,  who,  more  inclined  to  nature-life  (see 
the  Hist,  and  Ethic,  on  above  section),  in  their 
rudeness  and  sensuousness,  even  in  the  wilderness 
were  not  satisfied  with  an  invisible  God,  but 
wanted  one  they  could  see.  He  drew  the  people 
from  the  imageless  temple  at  Jerusalem  by  the 
erection  of  two  images,  and  at  each  extremity  of 
the  kingdom ;  and  he  not  only  withdrew  them 
from  the  one  central  point  of  worship  which  was 
necessary  to  the  theocratic  unity  of  the  people, 
but  he  made  it  easier  for  the  people  to  attend  the 
new  places  of  worship.  By  giving  the  priesthood 
to  any  one,  not  confining  himself  to  the  priestly 
tribe,  he  destroyed  this  sacred  institution  of  a 
tribe  of  priests,  who,  being  dispersed  among  all 
the  tribes,  were  the  guardians  of  the  divine  law, 
and  of  spiritual  and  religious  culture.  At  the 
same  time  he  flattered  the  people  thereby,  because 
any  one  could  aspire  to  the  dignity  of  the  priest- 
hood and  obtain  its  emoluments.  These  he  may 
have  lessened  in  the  interests  of  the  people.  There 
would  scarcely  have  been  a  surer  method  of  de- 
stroying the  organization  of  a  "kingdom  of  priests  " 
(Ex.  xix.  6),  which  had,  as  such,  its  central  point 
in  the  priestly  tribe,  than  this  procedure  of  the 
king.  He  retained  the  feast  of  tabernacles  be- 
cause it  was  the  most  liked  and  the  most  fre- 
quented, and  he  held  it  necessary  for  the  separated 
tribes  to  gather  regularly  around  him  as  their 
lord,  and  unite  in  a  common  attitude  over  against 
Judah.  To  make  this  meeting,  however,  as  easy 
as  possible,  he  fixed  on  a  later  month,  and  thus 
broke  the  order  of  the  feast-cycle,  arranged  accord- 
ing to  the  number  7.  This,  then,  was  the  supposed 
deliverer  of  his  country  who,  once  he  had  the  reins 
in  his  hands,  wasnotcontent  with  controlling  secular 
things,  but  so  altered  the  religion  of  his  people  as 
to  serve  his  own  political  ends,  and  introduced 
"  what  he  had  devised  of  his  own  heart  "  as  the 
State  religion.  What  was  the  alleged  disposition 
of  Solomon,  from  which  he  pretended  to  freo  th« 


CHAPTER  XII.  25-33. 


15i 


people,  compared  wilh  this  for  which  Jeroboam 
overthrew  the  fundamental  law  of  the  entire  na- 
tion ?  "This,"  remarks  Viliuar  (s.  191),  ''is  the 
way  with  demagogues  and  Cajsaro-papalists,  who 
have  in  all  times  said,  and  are  still  at  it,  so  many 
criminal  and  senseless  things,  now  of  their  care 
for  the  people,  then  of  the  rights  of  the  '  com- 
munity,' just  as  Jeroboam  here  ;  "  and  he  remarks 
before  (s.  189) :  "  the  departure  (from  political  mo- 
tives) from  spiritual  principles,  which  surely  leads 
to  destruction,  is  here  portrayed  for  all  linn- 
s'. The  modern  historical  presentation  of  the  elt  na- 
tion and  ordinances  of  Jeroboam  sketches  quite  an- 
other picture  from  that  of  the  bibilical  history. 
Duncker  (Gesch.  des  Alterthums,  I.  s.  404)  thinks 
the  rebellion  of  the  ten  tribes  in  Shechem  was  not 
separation  from  Judah,  but  the  reverse:  "they 
perpetuated  the  kingdom  and  name  of  Israel, 
while  one  single  tribe  in  the  south  separated 
themselves  from  the  whole  bod}'.  .  .  .  As  soon  as 
Jerusalem  ceased  to  be  the  capital  of  the  State, 
the  Temple  ceased  to  be  the  place  of  worship  for 
all  the  tribes.  Jeroboam  dedicated  anew  the  old 
places  of  sacrifice  at  Bethel  and  Dan,  and  placed 
priests  at  both.  He  built  a  temple  on  the  height 
at  Bethel,  which  temple  was  to  be  instead  of  that 
at  Jerusalem  for  his  kingdom.  Those  beginnings 
of  image-worship  of  Jehovah,  which  we  may  ob- 
serve in  the  preceding  period  of  the  kingdom, 
and  which  continued  in  David's  time,  were  now 
universally  and  officially  recognized.  Jeroboam 
set  up  a  golden  bull-image  to  Jehovah  in  Dan  and 
Bethel.  In  this  restoration  of  the  Jehovah  wor- 
ship we  may  also  perceive  a  national  reaction 
against  the  foreign  worship  that  Solomon  intro- 
duced in  the  last  years  of  his  reign."  Menzel 
takes  the  same  view  (Stoats-  und  Eel.-  Geschichte  der 
Konigreiche  Israel  und  Juda,  s.  15G  sq.):  "In  the 
deliberation  of  Jeroboam  in  respect  of  the  institu- 
tions of  public  worship,  there  seemed,  doubtless, 
a  right  to  restore  its  sacred  character  to  the  old 
national  sanctuary  (of  Bethel)  which  the  new 
Temple-service  at  Jerusalem  had  deprived  it  of,  or 
at  least  lessened.  '1  his  restoration,  strictly  speaking, 
took  place  at  Bethel  only."  That  the  people  wor- 
shipped images  is  said  to  have  no  other  proof  than 
"the  eloquent  representation  of  the  foes  of  image- 
worship,  who  in  all  ages  have  tried  pretty  much 
in  the  same  way  to  enforce  their  views  (colored 
by  their  own  feelings)  against  the  representation 
of  what  is  thought,"  as,  for  instance,  "the  prophet 
Hosea "  (Hos.  viii.  6).'  According  to  this,  there 
can  indeed  be  no  "sin  of  Jeroboam,  wherewith 
he  made  Israel  to  sin;"  he  seems  rather  to  have 
done  a  service  to  his  people  ;  so  far  from  break- 
ing the  law,  he  was  rather  a  reactionist  and  re- 
storer. And  when  all  the  prophets  denounced 
Jeroboam's  form  of  worship,  they  only  spoke  from 
their  peculiar,  subjective  "manner  of  feeling,"  for 
Israel  always  had  images  of  the  Deity,  and  even 
David  "carried  the  image  of  Jehovah  about  with 
him  in  his  marches"  (Duncker,  s.  40S).  We  need 
no  proof  to  show  that  this  is  turning  the  history 
upside  down  ;  it  is  an  example  of  the  unwarrantable 
style  of  writing  history,  which,  under  the  semblance 
of  scientific  criticism,  utterly  ignores  the  text  of  the 
only  historical  source  we  have. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  25-33.  How  Jeroboam  sought  to  estab- 
lish his  sway,   (a)  outwardly,   by  the  erection  of 


fortifications;  but  these  alone  do  not  protectant: 
guard  a  kingdom.  A  mountain  fastness  is  oui 
God  (Ps.  lxxi.  3 ;  exxvii.  1) ;  (b)  inwardly,  by  ord* 
nances  for  public  worship,  which  can  protect  a 
kingdom  only  when  they  are  conformable  with 
the  word  and  command  of  God  and  are  not  de- 
signed to  subserve  selfish  purposes.  ["Jeroboam 
king  of  Israel,  to  the  destruction  of  him  and  his, 
did  change  the  ceremonies  which  God  had  ordain- 
ed, into  his  own,  that  is,  into  men's  inventions  and 
detestable  blasphemies."  BuLLIXGER. — E.  H.]. — 
Wuet.  Simji.  :  We  should  trust  ourselves  not  to 
fastnesses,  but  to  God,  and  God  wills  not  to  be 
served  otherwise  than  as  He  has  commanded  in 
His  revealed  word;  our  worship  and  service,  there- 
fore, must  proceed  from  faith,  and  we  shall  be 
blessed  of  Him. — Ver.  26.  As  soon  as  Jeroboam 
obtained  the  wish  of  his  heart,  namely,  the  ruler- 
ship,  he  asked  no  longer  about  the  condition 
under  which  it  was  promised  to  him  and  with 
which  it  was  bound  up  (chap.  xi.  38).  How  often 
we  forget,  when  God  has  granted  to  us  the  desire 
of  our  hearts,  to  walk  in  His  ways.  He  who  ob- 
tains rulership  by  the  path  of  rebellion,  must 
always  be  in  fear  and  anxiety  lest  he  lose  it 
again  in  the  same  way,  for  the  populace  which  to- 
day cries  Hosanna  will,  on  the  morrow,  shout 
crucify,  crucify !  An  evil  conscience  makes  the 
most  stout-hearted  and  the  strongest  timid  and 
anxious,  so  that  he  sees  dangers  where  there  are 
none,  and  then  to  insure  his  own  safety  devises 
wrong  and  evil  instruments.  One  false  step  always 
requires  another. — Vers.  28-33.  The  sin  of  Jero- 
boam wherewith  he  caused  Israel  to  sin.  (a)  He 
erected  images  of  God  against  the  supreme  com- 
mandment of  God  (Exod.  xx.  4).  (6)  He  set  aside 
the  prescribed  order  of  the  servants  of  God,  and 
made  his  own  priests,  (c)  He  altered  the  feast  which 
was  a  reminder  of  the  great  deeds  of  God,  and  made 
it  a  mere  nature-and-harvest  feast.  That  is  the 
greatest  tyranny  when  the  ruler  of  a  land  makes 
himself  the  master  also  of  the  faith  and  conscience 
of  his  subjects.- — Cramer:  In  the  estimation  of 
the  people  of  the  world  this  policy  of  Jeroboam  is 
held  to  be  proper,  because  they  consider  that  reli- 
gion is  to  be  established,  held,  and  altered,  as  may 
be  useful  and  good  for  the  land  and  the  people 
and  the  common  interest,  and  that  the  regimen  is 
not  for  the  sake  of  the  religion,  but  the  religion 
for  the  regimen.  Consequently  Jeroboam  acted 
well  and  wisely  in  the  matter.  But  God  says, 
on  the  other  hand,  All  that  I  command  you,  that 
shall  ye  observe,  ye  shall  not  add  thereto  (Dent, 
xii.  32).  For  Godliness  is  not  to  be  regulated  by 
the  common  weal,  but  the  common  weal  is  to  be 
regulated  by  Godliness.  Every  government  which 
employs  religious  instrumentalities,  and  interferes 
with  the  faith  of  the  people,  not  for  the  sake  of 
God  and  the  salvation  of  souls,  but  for  the  attain- 
ment of  political  ends,  shares  the  guilt  of  the  sin 
of  Jeroboam,  and  involves  itself  in  heavy  respon- 
sibilities.— Ver.  28.  Camv.  B. :  To  the  perverted 
man,  what  he  shall  do  for  his  God  is  forthwith  too 
much.  In  matters  of  faith  and  of  the  homage  due 
to  God  we  should  not  consider  what  is  convenient 
and  agreeable  to  the  great  mass,  but  should  in- 
quire only  for  what  God  prescribes  in  His  word. 
He  who  conciliates  the  sensuousness  and  the  un 
tutored  ways  of  the  masses,  and  flatters  their  un 
belief  or  their  superstition,  belongs  to  the  false 
prophets  who  make  broad  the  way  of  life.     Doc- 


15S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


trines  and  institutions  which  depart  from  the  re- 
vealed word  of  God  are  often  praised  as  progress 
and  seasonable  reforms,  while  in  truth  tney  are 
steps  backward,  and  corrupting  innovations.  In 
Christendom  we  pray  no  longer  to  wood  and 
stone,  and  to  golden  calves,  and  think  ourselves 
thereby  raised  far  above  a  darkened  heathenism, 
but,  nevertheless,  we  often  place  the  creature 
above  the  Creator,  and  abandon  ourselves  to  it 
with  all  our  love  and  consideration  and  service. 
Behold,  the  things  and  persons  thou  lovest  with 
thy  whole  heart  and  strength,  these  are  thy  gods. 
What  use  of  typical  representations  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God  is  permitted,  and  what  is  forbidden  ? 
— Ver.  30.  Starke:  As  a  great  tree  in  a  forest, 
when  it  falls  drags  down  many  others  with  it, 
so  also  are  many  others  carried  along  by  the  bad 
example  of  those  who  rule,  when  they  fall  away 
from  their  religion,  or  sin  otherwise  grossly 
against  God. — Ver.  31.  We  have  in  the  new 
covenant  no  Levitical  priesthood  indeed,  but  a  pas- 
toral and  preaching  office  which  the  Lord  has  insti- 


tuted, so  that,  thereby,  the  body  of  Christ  may  bs 
edified  (Eph.  iv.  11).  He  who  despises  this  office, 
and  thinks  that  any  one  without  distinction  and 
without  a  lawful  calling  may  exercise  it,  is  a  par- 
taker in  the  sin  of  Jeroboam.  "No  one,"  says 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  "shall  teach  or  preach 
publicly  in  the  church,  or  administer  the  sacra- 
meuts,  without  due  calling." — Ver.  32.  The  fes- 
tivals which  an  entire  people  celebrate  in  remem- 
brance of  the  great  deeds  of  God  for  them,  are 
the  support  of  their  faith  and  of  their  life  of  fel- 
lowship. It  is  to  destroy  this  life  when,  from 
prejudice  and  for  the  sake  of  outward  wordly 
considerations,  arbitrarily  they  are  altered  or 
abandoned. — Ver.  33.  As  it  is  good  and  praise- 
worthy when  kings  and  princes  engage  in  the 
service  of  God  along  with  their  subjects,  and  set 
them  a  good  example,  so  also  is  it  blameworthy 
when  they  do  it  only  to  win  the  people  over  to 
themselves,  and  to  secure  their  authority  over 
them. 


SECOND     SECTION. 
jbroboam's  government  in  Israel. 
Chap.  XIH.  1— XIV.  20. 


a^ — The  admonition  of  Jeroboam  by  a  Prophet,  and  the  disobedience  and  end  of  the  latter. 

Chap.  XIII.  1-34. 

1  And  behold,  there  came  a  man  of  God  out  of  Judah  by  the  word  of  the  Lord 

2  [Jehovah]  unto  Bethel:  and  Jeroboam  stood  by  the  altar  to  burn  incense.  And 
he  cried  against  the  altar  in  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  said,  O  altar, 
altar,  thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah] ;  Behold,  a  child  shall  be  born  unto  the  house 
of  David,  Josiah  by  name ;  and  upon  thee  shall  he  offer  the  priests  of  the  high 
places  that  burn  incense  upon  thee,  and  men's  bones  shall  be  burnt  upon  thee. 

3  And  he  gave  a  sign2  the  same  day,  saying,  This  is  the  sign  which  the  Lord  [Jeho- 
vah] hath  spoken  ;  Behold,  the  altar  shall  be  rent,  and  the  ashes8  that  are  upon  it 

4  shall  be  poured  out.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  king  Jeroboam  heard  the  saying 
of  the  man  of  God,  which  had  cried  against  the  altar  in  Beth-el,  that  he  put  forth 
his  hand  from  the  altar,  saying,  Lay  hold  on  him.     And  his  hand,  which  he  put 

5  forth  against  him,  dried  up,  so  that  he  could  not  pull  it  in  again  to  him.  The 
altar  also  was  rent,  and  the  ashes  poured  out  from  the  altar,  according  to  the  sign 

6  which  the  man  of  God  had  given  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah].  And  the 
king  answered  and  said  unto  the  man  of  God,  Intrcat  now  the  face  of  the  Lord 
[Jehovah]  thy  God,  and  pray  for  me,  that  my  hand  may  be  restored  me  again. 
And  the  man  of  God  besought  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  the  king's  hand  was 

1  restored  him  again,  and  became  as  it  was  before.  And  the  king  said  unto  the  man 
of  God,  Come  home  with  me,  and  refresh  thyself,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  reward. 

8  And  the  man  of  (Jod  said  unto  the  king,  If  thou  wilt,  give  me  half  thine  house,  I 

9  will  not  go  in  with  thee,  neither  will  I  eat  bread  nor  drink  water  in  this  place:  for 
so  was  it  charged  me  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  saying,  Eat  no  bread, 


CHAPTER  XIII.  1-34.  159 


10  nor  drink  water,  nor  turn  again  by  the  same  way  that  thou  earnest.  So  he  went 
another  way,  and  returned  not  by  the  way  that  he  came  to  Beth-el. 

11  Now  there  dwelt  an  old  prophet  in  Beth-el ;  and  his  sons'  came  and  told  him 
all  the  works  that  the  man  of  God  had  done  that  day  in  Bethel  :   the  words 

12  which  he  had  spoken  unto  the  king,  them  they  told  also  to  their  father.  And 
their  father  said  unto  them,  What  way  went  he?     For  his  sons  had  seen6  what 

13  way  the  man  of  God  went,  which  came  from  Judah.  And  he  said  unto  his 
sons,  Saddle  me  the  ass.     So  they  saddled   him  the  ass :  and  he  l'ode  thereon, 

14  and  went  after  the  man  of  God,  and  found  him  sitting  under  an  oak  [the 
terebinth"] :  and  he  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  the  man  of  God  that  earnest  from 

15  Judah?     And  he  said,  I  am.     Then  he  said  unto  him,  Come  home  with  me,  and 

16  eat  bread.     And  he  said,  I  may   not  return  with  thee,  nor  go  in    with  thee  : 

17  neither  will  I  eat  bread  nor  drink  water  with  thee  in  this  place  :  for  it  was  said  to 
me  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  [.Jehovah],  Thou  shalt  eat  no  bread  nor  drink  water 

18  there,  nor  turn  again  to  go  by  the  way  that  thou  earnest.  [And']  he  said  unto  him, 
I  am  a  prophet  also  as  thou  art  ;  ami  an  angel  spake  unto  me  by  the  word  of  the 
Lord  [Jehovah],  saying,  Bring  him  back  with  thee  into  thine  house,  that  he  may 

19  eat  bread  and  drink  water.    But  he  lied  unto  him.    So  he  went  back  with  him,  and 

20  diil  cat  bread  in  his  house,  and  drank  water.   And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  sat  at  the 

21  table,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  unto  the  prophet  that  brought  him 
back:  and  he  cried  unto  the  man  of  God  that  came  from  Judah,  saying,  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  [Jehovah],  Forasmuch  as  thou  hast  disobeyed  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 

22  [Jehovah],  and  hast  not  kept  the  commandment  which  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  thy 
God  commanded  thee,  but  earnest  back,  and  hast  eaten  bread  and  drunk  water  in 
the  place,  of  the  which  the  Lord  did  say  to  thee,  Eat  no  bread,  and  drink  no  water  ■ 

23  thy  carcass  shall  not  come  unto  the  sepulchre  of  thy  fathers.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
after  he  had  eaten  bread,  and  after  he  hail  drunk,  that  he  saddled  for  him  the  ass, 

24  to  wit,  for  the  prophet  whom  he  had  brought  back.8  And  when  he  was  gone,  a  lion 
met  him  by  the  way,  and  slew  him :  and  his  carcass  was  cast  in  the  way,  and  the 

25  ass  stood  by  it,  the  lion  also  stood  by  the  carcass.  And,  behold,  men  passed  by, 
and  saw  the  carcass  cast  in  the  way,  and  the  lion  standing  by  the  carcass  :  and  they 

26  came  and  told  it  in  the  city  where  the  old  prophet  dwelt.  And  when  the  prophet 
that  brought  him  back  from  the  way  heard  thereof,  he  said,  It  is  the  man  of  God, 
who  was  disobedient  unto  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] :'  therefore  the  Lord 
[Jehovah]  hath  delivered  him  unto  the  lion,  which  hath  torn  him,  and  slain  him, 

27  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he  spake  unto  him.     And 

28  he  spake  to  his  sons,  saying,  Saddle  me  the  ass.  And  they  saddled  him.  And 
he  went  and  found  his  carcass  cast  in  the  way,  and  the  ass  and  the  lion  staud- 

29  ing  by  the  carcass :  the  lion  had  not  eaten  the  carcass,  nor  torn  the  ass.  And 
the  prophet  took  up  the  carcass  of  the  man  of  God,  and  laid  it  upon  the  ass,  and 
brought  it  back  :  and  the  old  prophet  came  to  the  city,  to  mourn  and  to  bury  him. 

30  And  he  laid  his  carcass  in  his  own  grave  ;  and  they  mourned  over  him,  saying, 

31  Alas,  my  brother!  And  it  came  to  pass,  after  he  had  buried  him,  that  he  spake 
to  his  sons,  saying,  When  I  am  dead,  then  bury  me  in  the  sepulchre  wherein  the 

32  man  of  God  is  buried  ;  lay  my  bones  beside  his  bones  :10  for  the  saying  which 
he  cried  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  against  the  altar  in  Beth-el,  and 
against  all  the  houses  of  the  high  places  which  are  in  the  cities  of  Samaria 

33  shall  surely  come  to  pass.  After  this  thing  Jeroboam  returned  not  from  his  evil 
way,  but  made  again  of  the  lowest  [mass]  of  the  people  priests  of  the  high 
places:  whosoever   would,  he  consecrated"  him,  and  he  became  one"  of  the 

34  priests  of  the  high  places.  And  this  thing"  became  [was  a]  sin  unto  the  house 
of  Jeroboam,  even  to  cut  it  off,  and  to  destroy  it  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth. 

TEXTUAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  2. — rrhe  Alex.  Sept.  omits  the  last  clause  of  this  ver. 

1  Ver.  3. — [On  the  meaning  of  n£iD=TePas  see  the  hxeg.  Com.     It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  any  portent 

mast  have  had  the  significance  of  a  "sign"  and  hence  tin's  meaning  appears  in  the  Vulg.,  Cbald.,  and  Syr.,  as  well  88  ir 
the  A.  V.     The  Vat.  Sept.  curiously  puts  the  verb  in  the  future  Suitret. 


100 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


3  Ver.  8.— fen  from  the  root  jgfcj  to  be  or  tecome  fat,  primarily  meaning  fatneaa  (<y.  Jud.  tx.  9;  Ps.  lxtll.  6,  kc\ 

and  hence  translated  here  and  in  ver.  5  by  the  Sept.  jtiottjs,  is  used  for  the  as»hes  of  animals  offered  in  sacrifice,  Id 
eontradistinclion  to  "O^,  commou  ashes.     cy.  Lev.  i.  16;  iv.  12,  Ac. 

*  Ver.  11.— [The  Heb.  has  here  ^33  in  the  sing.,  followed  by  the  sing.  verb.    With  this  agree  the  Chald.  and  Arab, 

and  our  author,  like  Lulher,  so  translates.    On  the  other  hand  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.,  like  the  A.  V.,  have  the  plural.] 

5  Ter.  18. — ^X"T1   according    to  the  understanding   of  all    the  W.    (except  the  Arab.)  is   to  be  pointed  ^-p* 

ft.  6.  In  the  Hipbil  =  showed],  and  so  we  have  translated  :  "  they  looked  on  "  or  "  after  the  way  "  gives  no  proper  sense. 
The  A.  V.  has  followed  the  masoretic  punctuation  ^"I'l  in  tbe  ^al'  bllt  b*v  taking  ^  in  a  pluperfect  sense  has  avoided 

the  difficulty.        ,  . 

6  Ver.  14.— [nSxn  is  usually  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  oak;  in  Isa.  vi.  IS  it  is  translated  teil  tree,  because  »it>}{  ,  also 

rendered  oak,  is  in  immediate  connection  with  it ;  for  the  same  reason,  in  Hos.  iv.  13  it  Is  rendered  elm.  The  Sept. 
have  SpOs,  the  Vols,  teretnnthits.  which  is  the  interpretation  of  most  moderns.  The  article  is  by  all  means  to  be  retained, 
as  pointing  out  some  well-known  tree. 

7  Ver.  16. — [There  seems  no  good  reason  for  omitting  the  conjunction  of  the  Heb.,  which  is  retained  by  the  Sept.  and 
Vulg. 

8  Ver.  23. —  [Our  author  translates  "  the  ass  of  the  prophet  who  had  brought  him  back."  The  V  V.  differ  from  one 
another,  the  Vulsr.  and  Chald.  understanding  "  the  ass  of  the  prophet  whom  he  had  brought  back  ; M  the  Syr.  and  Arab. 
simply  "  the  ass  for  the  prophet  of  God  ; "  while  the  Sept.  omits  the  words  altogether. 

»  Ver.  26.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  from  this  point  to  the  end  of  ver.  27. 

10  Ver.  31. — [The  Sept.  adds  tea  o-wfliai  to.  bora  y.ov  fiera  twc  barwv  avroO  doubtless  with  reference  to  2  Kinge 
xxiii.  18,  when  the  bones  of  the  Samarian  prophet  were  left  undisturbed  with  the  bones  of  the  prophet  from  Juduh. 

11  Ver.  33. —  [Lit.  "filled  his  hand,"  a  figurative  expression  for  consecration,  but  rendered  literally  in  the  Sept.  and 
Vulg. 

'•  Ver.  88.— [The  Heb.  noun  is  in  the  plural  J-|iQ3  'JHa,  ru"i  is  rendered  in  the  plural  by  the  Chald.  and  Arab.  • 

the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.  use  the  sing,  as  in  the  A.  V. — F.  G.] 

13  Ver.  34. — Instead  of  13^3  we  must  read  here  ~Q"nn  with  all  the  W.  and  several  [eight]  of  the  MSB.,  as  it  ii 

also  in  chap.  xii.  80.    The  translation  :  "The  reason  for  sinning  was  in  this  thing  (through  the  same)"  (Keil)  is  forced 


PRELIMINARY. 

This  section,  over  against  the  preceding  and 
following  chapters,  bears  an  unmistakably  pecu- 
liar character,  and  is  doubtless  inserted  here  from 
some  other  source.  Nevertheless  it  is  closely 
connected  witli  chap.  xii.  and  chap,  xiv.,  as  is 
sufficiently  obvious  from  its  beginning  and  conclu- 
sion. The  words,  ver.  1 :  T'Dpni?  nnTOn-^y  ~l6y 
clearly  refer  to  the  concluding  words  of  the  former 
chapter   (ver.   33);    TDfJili)   natSn-^V  bw  refer 

back  and  connect  the  present  section  completely 
with  the  foregoing.  When  Jeroboam  ascended 
the  altar  at  the  feast  he  had  instituted,  and  stood 
on  it  to  offer  incense,  behold  I  there  came  a  man 
of  God  out  of  Judah,  &c.  The  man  of  God  did  not 
appear  at  an  ordinary  sacrifice,  but  on  a  solemn 
public  occasion,  most  probably  at  the  first  of  the 
new  festivals.  This  gave  peculiar  significance  to 
his  appearing ;  "  Jeroboam's  dreadful  apostasy 
was  not  to  escape  severe  chastisement  from  God  " 
(v.  Gerlach).  With  the  appearing  of  the  man  of 
God  (vers.  1-10)  the  full  account  of  his  conduct 
and  fate  is  conjoined  (vers.  11-32).  That  this 
account,  though  it  says  nothing  of  Jeroboam,  is 
not  a  mere  episode,  but  bears  upon  the  principal 
subject,  namely,  "  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,"  which  had 
such  a  marked  influence  on  all  Israel's  future 
history,  is  obvious  from  the  conclusion  of  the 
narrative  (vers.  33-34):  "After  this  thing  Jero- 
boam returned  not  from  his  evil  way,  but  made 
again,"  &c.  These  words  form  the  connecting 
link  with  the  14th  chap.  The  connection  is, 
briefly,  this :  Jeroboam  not  only  entered  on  an 
evil  way  (chap.  xii.  28-33),  but  let  nothing  turn  him 
from  it,  neither  the  warning  and  the  miracles  of 
the  man  of  God  (chap.  xiii.  1—10)  nor  his  remark- 
ably significant  fate  (vers.  1 1-32).  He  remained 
hardened  in  his  apostasy.  The  divino  sentence 
od  him  and  his  house,  recorded  in  chap,  xiv., 
was  therefore  announced  to  him  by  the  prophet 


Ahijah,  who  had  promised  him  the  kingdom  on 
condition  of  fidelity  to  Jehovah  (chap.  xi.  31-39). 
In  respect  of  the  contents  of  our  section  here, 
in  its  phraseology,  its  source  was  not  contem- 
poraneous with  the  events,  as  is  the  case  with  the 
other  sources  of  our  books,  which  are  written  by 
contemporaneous  prophets  (<•/.  Introduc.  §  2). 
Ver.  32  shows  this ;  the  old  prophet  of  Bethel 
speaks  of  the  "  cities  of  Samaria,"  after  the  burial 
of  the  man  of  God.  But  the  city  of  Samaria  did 
not  even  exist  then ;  it  was  built  by  Omri,  who 
was  king  fifty  years  after  Jeroboam  (chap.  xvi. 
24) ;  and  there  certainly  could  not  have  been  at 
that  time  any  province  named  after  it.  The 
explanation  that  the  expression  is  "  proleptic " 
(Keil)  is  untenable,  because  it  was  not  written  by 
our  author,  who  lived  in  exile,  but  it  is  given  by 
him  as  an  expression  of  the  Bethel  prophet.  Later 
critics.  Bwald  and  Thenius,  for  instance,  have 
inferred  that  the  whole  account  is  of  a  much 
later  date,  from  ver.  2,  where  the  man  of  God 
does  not  speak  of  a  future  son  of  David  only, 
but  mentions  the  proper  name  of  a  kiug  who 
lived  more  than  300  years  later;  the  narrative 
must  therefore  date  from  after  Josiah's  time  (2 
Kings  xxiii.  15-20)  and  have  been  written  down  as 
it  was  repeated  among  the  people.  The  calling  of 
proper  names,  certainly,  does  not  characterize 
prophecy,  which  differs  from  foretelling  in  this, 
that  it  does  not  notice  more  or  less  accidental 
outward  circumstances,  but  announces  only  such 
things  as  are  connected  with  the  divine  economy 
aud  development  of  God's  kingdom  ;  it  describes  the 
persons  whose  future  appearances  it  announces 
by  their  qualities,  but  not  by  their  names.  In  the 
only  exceptional  ^ttse  (Isai.  xliv.  28 ;  xlv.  1)  tho 
name  CH13  may  be  appellative  =  sun,  as  a  name  of 
honor  for  the  Persian  kings  (Hengstenb.,  Christol. 
I.  2,  s.  192  sq.).  Keil  says  that  "the  name 
in'SS^O  (m  our  passage)  only  follows  its  appellative 

me.v;ing;   he  whom  Jehovah  sustains,  frorr  nE'X 


CHAPTER  Xin.  1-34. 


161 


to  sustain,  and  means,  a  son  shall  be  bora  to  the 
house  of  David,  whom  Jehovah  shall  support  and 
establish,  so  that  he  shall  execute  judgment  on  the 
high  priests  at  Bethel.  This  prophecy  was  after- 
wards so  fulfilled  by  divine  Providence,  that  the 
king  who  executed  the  sentence  bore  the  name  of 
Josiah  as  his  proper  name."  But  this  name  is 
never  used  anywhere  else  as  an  appellative,  and 
only  belonged  to  one  person.  If  we  must  take  the 
expression  "all  the  cities  of  Samaria"  (ver.  32)  "as 
proleptic,"  we  cannot  see  the  reason  why  this 
may  not  also  be  the  case  with  the  words  "Josiah 
by  name"  (ver.  2).  "We  need  not  suppose  they 
were  the  gloss  of  a  later  interpolator ;  our 
author  took  them  as  he  found  them  in  the  docu- 
ment from  which  he  borrowed ;  this  document, 
however,  was,  as  we  have  said,  not  a  contem- 
porary one,  but  the  later  record  of  what  had  been 
preserved  in  the  verbal  traditions  of  the  people,  and 
had  been  revived  by  Josiah's  act  (2  Kings  xxiii). 
[f  any  section  of  our  books  bears  the  stamp  of 
tradition,  the  present  one  does;  and  that  by  no 
means  because  a  miracle  is  recorded  in  it.  The 
names  of  the  two  prophets  with  whom  the  whole 
narrative  is  taken  up  are  wanting,  which  is  an 
evidence  of  tradition,  as  are  also  the  difficulties  in 
ver.  6  sq.  and  vers.  18-22,  about  which  opinions 
differ  widely,  and  which  can  scarcely  be  satis- 
factorily explained.  Although  those  facts  which 
are  most  important  here  are  historical  and  un- 
changed, yet  the  traditional  coloring  of  single  and 
less  important  circumstances  can  be  plainly  per- 
ceived ;  every  attempt  to  determine  what  is  purely 
historical  and  what  is  traditional  is  vain.  We 
must  not  forget  the  general  grand  aim  of  the 
whole  section,  which  is  to  make  known  the  won- 
derful ways  and  judgments  of  God. 

EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-3.  And  behold  there  came  a  man  of 
God,  &c.  We  cannot  ascertain  who  this  was. 
"Josephus  calls  him  Jadon,  thinking  no  doubt  of  the 
IT.  or  xny  who  is  called   yijp  after  the  k'ri  in 

2  Chron.  ix.  29 ;  we  cannot  accept  this,  however 
(as  Jarchi  does),  because  he  lived  under  king 
Abijah,  according  to  2  Chron.  xiii.  22,  while  the 
prophet  spoken  of  here  died  now.  For  the  same 
reason  we  cannot  think,  with  Ephrem  and  Tertul- 
lian,  that  it  was  Shemaiah,  see  2  Chron.  xii.  1,  22  " 
(Thenius).  It  expressly  says  that  he  came  out  of 
Judah,  therefore  he  did  not  spring  from  the  apos- 
tate part  of  the  nation.    nirP  "D"t3  does  not  mean  : 

on  the  word  or  command  of  Jehovah,  but,  as 
appears  from  vers.  2,  9,  17  (c/.  chap.  xx.  35 
and  1  Sam.  iii.  21):  in  (through)  the  word.  "The 
word  of  the  Lord  is  spoken  of  as  a  power 
that  came  upon  the  prophet  and  forced  him  to 
utter  the  revelation  made  to  him "  (Keil). 
0  altar,  altar!  the  altar  is  metonymically  for 
what  was  done  on  it  and  concentrated  in  it;  in 
short,  of  the  worship  performed  there.  The  fact 
that  the  prophet  addressed  the  altar  was  incompa- 
rably more  significant  than  if  he  had  turned  him- 
self to  the  person  of  the  king ;  the  sentence  of  de- 
struction which  he  pronounces  on  the  altar  as  the 
type  of  the  new  worship,  and  of  Jeroboam's  sin, 
includes  the  ruin  of  the  latter.  For  Josiah  see 
preliminary  remarks.  The  burning  of  men's  bones 
on  the  altar  is  the  greatest  possible  desecration  of 
II 


it,  as  according  to  the  law  (Numb.  xix.  16)  every, 
even  involuntary,  contact  with  a  dead  body  m  do 
a  person  unclean  ;  nothing  else  could  have  repre- 
sented the  altar  as  so  utterly  iseless  and  abominable. 
In  the  genuine  prophetic  manner,  the  man  of  God 
adds  to  his  words  a  deed  (see  on  chap.  xi.  30) 


of  his  prophecy.    flSlD   is   not    so 

much  a  sign  (J11N),  as  an  act  producing  astonish- 
ment, prodigium  (Hengstenberg,  Christol.  II.  s.  45 
*?■)■     i'""!   (really  fat,  hence  the  Sept.  gives  miry; 

here)  is  the  fat  of  the  parts  sacrificed  on  the 
altar,  and  ran  out  mixing  with  the  ashes,  therefore 
is  not  ashes  absolutely.  These  ashes  of  sacrifice 
were,  on  that  account,  usually  taken  to  a  clean  place 
(Lev.  i.  16;  iv.  12).  The  spilling  of  them  out,  in  this 
case,  denoted  that  they,  and  consequently  the  sacri- 
fice from  which  they  came,  and  the  whole  worship, 
were  unclean  ;  it  was  no  natural  result  of  the  burst- 
ing of  the  altar.  2  Kings  xxiii.  relates  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophetical  act  and  word. 

Vers.  4-7.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  king 
Jeroboam  heard  the  saying,  &c.  ver.  4.  Jero- 
boam did  not  raise  his  hand  to  offer  the  incense 
(Thenius) ;  but  as  he  stood  on  the  altar,  he  stretch 
ed  out  his  hand  towards  the  man  of  God  as  he 
spoke,  and  cried  out,  Lay  hold  on  him  !  It  dried 
up.  "  Jeroboam's  baud,  so  suddenly  affected  that 
he  could  not  draw  it  back,  was  either  paralyzed  or, 
what  seems  more  explanatory  of  the  expression 
dried  up,  struck  with  tetanus ;  this  last  is  what 
Ackermann  accepts  (in  Weise's  Materialien  III.  s. 
131  sq.)"  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.  II.  s.  192).  Jeroboam's 
order  thereby  lost  all  effect ;  no  one  ventured  to 
seize  the  prophet;  it  was  also  a  warning  to  the 
king  himself,  and  had  a  momentary  effect  on  him. 
He  was  terrified,  and  begged  the  prophet  to  "en- 
treat now   [to  make  inattentive]  the  face  of  the 

Lord  thy  God  for  me  "  (rpn)  t".  «.,  to  beseech  Him 

so  earnestly  that  He  cannot  refuse.  "The  Lord 
thy  God,"  he  says,  not  that  He  was  not  his  God, 
but :  thy  God  in  whose  name  and  behalf  thou  hast 
come  here.  When  he  was  succored  he  invited  the 
prophet  to  go  home  with  him,  and  offered  him  a  pre- 
sent, but  not  from  genuine  repentance  or  grati- 
tude, but  only  because  he  wished  to  win  him  over, 
aud  to  do  away  with  or  lessen  the  impression  his 
conduct  (the  prophet's)  made  on  the  people  pre- 
sent ;  for  he  himself  remained  the  same  apostate 
after  as  before. 

Vers.  8-10.  [But]  And  the  man  of  God  said, 
&c,  ver.  8.  The  object  of  this  prohibition  of  eat- 
ing and  drinking  in  Bethel  was  not  to  effect  the 
"  prompt  execution  of  the  commission  "  (Thenius). 
Eating  and  drinking  with  a  person,  sitting  down 
to  table  with  any  one,  is  the  sign  of  communion  or 
fellowship,  and  used  as  such  here,  as  often  else- 
where in  Scripture  (1  Cor.  v.  11 ;  cf.  Gen.  xliii.  32 ; 
Luke  xv.  2 ;  Gal.  ii.  12 ;  1  Cor.  x.  18,  21).  The  man 
of  God,  chosen  to  announce  God's  judgment  by 
word  and  deed  on  the  apostate  and  his  followers, 
was  to  avoid  fellowship  with  him,  for  this  would  be 
utterly  inconsistent  with  his  commission  ;  the  com- 
mand was  given  him,  ad  deteslationem  idohlatrioz ; 
ul  ipso  facto  ostenderet,  Bethelitas  idololatras  adeo  esst 
detestabiles  et  a  Deo  quasi  excommunicatos,  ut  nidluis 
fideliuin  cum  iis  cihi  vet  potus  comviunionem  habere 
velit  ( Corn,  a  Liqride).  When  he  afterwards  ate  and 
drank   there,  he  transgressed  a  much  higher  ani' 


162 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KIXGS. 


more  important  command  than  one  relative  to  fast- 
ing only.  This,  too,  was  why  he  was  to  take  ano- 
ther way  home ;  not  "  to  remain  unnoticed  and  to 
avoid  being  detained  "  (Ewald),  but  to  avoid  being 
brought  back,  and  persuaded  to  do  anything  incon- 
sistent with  his  commission  or  not  contained  in  it ; 
this  alone  he  was  to  do,  and  then  vanish  as  quickly 
as  he  came.  This  sheds  the  necessary  light  on 
the  following  narrative,  vers.  11-32. 

Vers.  11-22.  An  old  prophet  in  Bethel,  ver. 
11.  He  lived  in  the  town  (vers.  25,  29),  but  the 
high  place  was  probably  outside  the  town.  Instead 
of  "his  son,"  the  Sept.,  the  Yukr.,  and  the  Syr.  give 
the  plural,  as  in  ver.  12.  One  spake  in  the  name 
of  the  others,  or  they  agreed  with  what  the  one 
said.  These  were  actual  sons  of  the  prophet,  not 
pupils,  for  the  latter  would  scarcely  have  witnessed 
the  golden  calf  worship.  The  Terebinth  (ver.  14) 
"  is  a  tree  that  resembles  an  oak, ....  has  ever- 
green leaves,  and  grape-like  fruit.  It  attains  a 
great  age,  and  therefore  often  serves  as  a  monu- 
ment or  for  topographical  purposes ;  Gen.  xxxv. 
4  ;  Jud.  vi.  11,  1 9 ;  1  Sam.  xvii.  2,  1 9 ;  2  Sam.  xviii. 
9"  (Gesenius).  The  article  points  to  a  certain  tere- 
binth known  in  Bethel.  The  resting  under  this 
tree  was  not  at  all  the  beginning  of  his  sin,  as  the 
older  commentators  think,  for  delay  in  Bethel 
alone  was  prohibited ;  still  the  delay  gave  time  for 
others  to  come  up  to  him.     The  -)313  ver.  18  is  the 

same  as  in  ver.  1 7  and  ver.  2 ;  the  angel  said  to 
me,  "by  the  word,"  t.  e.,  the  power  of  Jehovah's 
word ;  he  does  not  venture  to  say  Jehovah  spake 
to  him,  but  says  an  angel  did.  See  the  His. 
Ethic,  below,  for  the  announcement  of  punishment 
(vers.  20-22)  by  the  same  old  prophet  who  had  lied 
to  the  man  of"  God.  The  final  words  of  ver.  22  : 
thy  carcass,  &c,  do  not  mean,  morte  violenta,  ante- 
quam  in  patriam  redeas,  peribis  (J.  H.  Michaelis, 

Keil,  and  others),  for  rf?33  means  all  dead  bodies 

(Isai.  xxvi.  19),  not  only  those  killed  with  violence; 
the  Sept.  simply  gives  aCiua.  The  emphasis  falls  on 
the  "sepulchre  of  thy  fathers."  It  was  thought  a 
misfortune  to  be  buried  among  strangers,  far  from 
home  and  relations  ;  so  it  was  a  very  natural  wish 
to  be  buried  in  the  grave  of  his  fathers  (every  re- 
spectable family  had  a  farailv  sepulchre,  cf.  Winer, 
R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  444),  (2  Sam.  xix.  38;  Gen.  xlvii.  29 
sq. ;  1.  5).  But  this  blessing  so  coveted  by  every 
Israelite  was  refused  to  the  "refractory." 

Ver.  23-34.  And  it  came  to  pass,  after  he 
had  eaten,  &c,  ver.  23.  The  subject  of  the  last 
part  of  the  seutence  cannot  be  other  than  that  of 
the  first  part;  so  it  was  not  the  prophet  of  Bethel 
who  saddled  the  ass,  neither  is  it  "  one  saddled  " 
(Luther,  Bunsen),  but  the  man  of  God  did  it  or  had 

it  done.     X,33p  is  not  in  opposition  with  iS,  so 

that  we  could  translate  :  "  he  saddled  the  ass  for 
him,  for  the  prophet  he  had  fetched  back"  (Keil, 
Luther,  De  Wette) ;  for  throughout  the  whole  sec- 
tion, N'3J  is  only  used  for  the  prophet  of  Bethel ; 

the  Judaish  one  is  called  "  the  man  of  God  ;  "  and 
the  clause  \y&T[  TJ'S ,  that  occurs  three  times,  can- 
not be  translated  differently  here  from  vers.  20  ami 
26,  where  it  is  impossible  to  take  "ICK  a3  the  ac- 
cusative.    N,337  is  the  general  form  of  the  geni- 


tive when  it  denotes  possession  and  belonging,  and 
must  be  connected  with  "lionn  immediately  pre- 
ceding it  The  old  prophet  either  offered  his  ass 
to  the  man  of  God,  who  hastened  home  after  eat- 
ing and  drinking,  or  he  gave  it  to  him  at  his  re- 
quest.    "I3B>,  used  in  vers.  26  and  28  to  express 

killing  by  the  lion,  does  not  mean:  to  tear  (Ewald, 
De  Wette),  but,  to  breas,  crush,  and  "is  very  ex- 
pressive, for  the  lion  kills  with  one  blow"  (Thenius) 
The  grave  in  which  the  man  of  God  was  laid  (ver.  • 
30)  was  the  family  sepulchre  of  the  old  prophet; ' 
see  on  ver.  22.     >nx  'in  seems  to  have  been  the 

■    T 

usual  form  of  lamentation,  cf  Jer.  xxii.  18.  The 
man  of  God  from  Judah  was  mourned  and  buried 
as  a  relative  of  the  family.  The  Sept.  adds  at  the 
end  of  ver.  31,  Iva  oo-dwai  rd  bora  fiov  fiera  tuv 
boruv  ovtov,  which  Thenius  thinks  was  original, 
because  the  '3  in  the  following  verse  becomes  thus 

perfectly  justified.  But  this  sentence,  evidently 
borrowed  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  18,  is  unnecessary 
here  ;  the  connection  is :  My  bones  shall  rest  next 
his,  for  he  was  a  true  prophet ;  what  he  prophesied 
against  the  altar  at  Bethel  will  come  to  pass.  For 
the  expression  "  cities  of  Samaria  "  see  Prel.  Re- 
marks. The  connection  of  vers.  33  and  34  with 
the  preceding  verses  has  been  given  above.  If  in 
ver.  33,  in  the  various  directions  for  worship  de- 
vised by  Jeroboam,  mention  only  of  the  priests 
he  appointed  is  made,  the  reason  of  this  is  that  they 
were  the  main  supports  of  the  whole  of  the  unlaw- 
ful worship,  which  could  not  have  lasted  without 
them.  To  "fill  the  hand  "  is  the  formula  for  inves- 
titure with  priesthood,  because  the  pieces  of  the 
sacrifices  which  belonged  to  Jehovah  were  sol- 
emnly laid  in  the  hands  of  the  candidate  for  con- 
secration; Ex.  xxix.  24;  Lev.  viii.  27  sq.  (Syrnb. 
des  Mos.  Kult.  II.  s.  426). ' 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  appearance  of  the  man  of  God  from  Judah, 
at  the  feast  in  Bethel,  shows  in  few  strokes  the  charac- 
teristic nature  of  the  prophet  system,  which  stands 
alone  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Unknown 
hitherto  and  living  in  retirement,  neither  named 
nor  called,  when  the  right  moment  came  he  stood 
there  as  suddenly  as  lightning  from  heaven,  not 
coming  in  any  man's  service  but  as  a  messenger  of 
the  Lord,  borne  up  and  sustained  by  the  might  of 
the  "  word  "  of  God  alone.  Without  any  human  help 
he  stood  before  the  proud,  energetic  king,  knowing 
his  hatred  to  David's  house  and  to  Judah,  knowing 
how  Adoniram  had  fared  (chap.  xii.  1 8),  but  he  fears 
nothing,  and  boldly  announces  the  divine  sentence, 
not  at  a  private  interview,  but  in  presence  of  all 
the  king's  followers,  of  the  whole  priesthood,  and 
crowd  of  spectators.  He  adds  a  divine  act  to  the 
divine  word,  which  act  is  a  significant  "  sign  "  and 
pledge  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  Having 
spoken  and  acted  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  he  was 
under  Jehovah's  protection,  no  one  dared  to  seize 
him ;  the  hand  of  the  king,  when  stretched  forth 
against  him,  dried  up  and  became  powerless. 
When  the  king,  thus  punished,  begs  the  prophet 
for  help,  the  latter  calls  upon  the  Lord,  who  hears 
him,  thus  showing  Himself  to  be  a  gracious  as  well 
as  a  just  God  (Rom.  xi.  22),  in  order  to  bring  him 


CHAPTER  XIII.   1-34 


16? 


back  from  his  evil  ways.  He  vanished  as  sudden- 
ly as  lie  came,  without  eating  a  bit  of  bread  or 
drinking  water,  or  receiving  a  present,  even 
though  it  were  the  half  of  the  house.  He  was  to 
disappear  completely,  that  every  one  should  think 
of  the  Lord  and  His  word  alone ;  of  what  they  had 
heard  and  seen. 

2.  Jeroboam's  conduct  is  full  of  contradictions 
and  inconsistency.  At  first  he  was  haughty  and 
violent  to  the  man  of  God,  wishing  to  seize  his 
person.  But  when  he  failed  in  this,  and  he  felt  a 
higher  power,  he  became  humble  and  dejected, 
begged  the  man  he  had  just  threatened  to  intercede 
for  him,  gave  him  a  friendly  invitation  and  offered 
him  a  present ;  he  then  let  him  go  on  his  way,  but 
paid  no  regard  whatever  to  his  words  and  deed.  The 
cause  of  this  conduct  was  not  weakness  of  charac- 
ter, but  rather,  on  the  contrary,  the  obstinacy  witl 
which  he  pursued  what  his  soul  desired,  and  which 
was  the  mainspring  of  all  his  actions,  i.  e..  the  re- 
solve to  keep  himself  on  the  throne  at  any  cost 
and  under  all  circumstances,  and  not  to  come  un- 
der the  dominion  of  the  hated  house  of  David  and 
Judah  again  (chap.  xii.  26  sq.).  The  petition  to 
have  his  hand  restored  was  only  the  effect  of  mo- 
mentary fright ;  when  this  passed,  instead  of  list- 
ening to  the  man  of  God,  he  tried  to  bribe  him  and 
win  him  over,  and  the  whole  transaction  left  no 
trace  behind  it.  He  is  a  type  of  those  usurpers 
who  have  no  other  aim  in  life  than  to  gratify  their 
ambition  and  love  of  power,  and  whose  apparent- 
ly good  and  noble  actions  are  only  the  fruit  of  this 
passion.  It  seems  from  ver.  11  that  the  appear- 
ance of  the  man  of  God  made  an  impression  upon 
the  surrounding  people,  but  the  account  does  not 
say  of  what  sort  this  impression  was,  and  it  passes 
on  at  once  to  the  much  more  important  occurrence 
related  in  vers.  10-32. 

3.  The  old  prophet  in  Bethel  was  called  a  false 
prophet  and  a  "lying  prophet  "  in  old  times,  be- 
cause he  induced  the  man  of  God  to  return  by  tell- 
ing him  a  lie.  Josephus  regards  him  as  such 
(Antiq.  viii.  9),  but  he  "  misunderstands  the  whole 
narrative  in  a  truly  frightful  manner "  (Ewald) ; 
but  Jonathan,  several  Rabbins,  and  older  R.  Catho- 
lic commentators,  even  Hess  also,  agree  in  the 
principal  thing,  and  pronounce  the  motives  of  this 
old  prophet,  in  what  he  said  and  did,  to  have  been 
unworthy.  The  recent  commentators,  following 
Ephrem's  example  and  that  of  Theodoret,  Witsius, 
and  others,  have  very  rightly  rejected  this  view. 
The  sentence  he  announces  to  the  man  of  God 
(ver.  21)  shows  that  he  was  no  partaker  of  Jero- 
boam's calf-worship,  but  was  a  worshipper  of  Je- 
hovah ;  still  more  does  this  appear  from  his  belief 
in  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  the  destruction 
of  that  false  worship  (ver.  32),  but  most  of  all  when, 
on  hearing  of  the  death  of  his  guest,  although  he 
perceived  divine  punishment  in  it,  he  at  once  pro- 
ceeded to  the  dangerous  place  to  find  the  corpse 
and  bury  it  in  his  family  sepulchre,  lamented  over 
him  as  his  "brother,"  and  desired  his  sons  to  "lay 
his  bones  beside  his  bones  "  (ver.  31).  We  may 
see  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  18,  that  he  never  was  re- 
garded afterwards  as  a  false  prophet,  but  as  a  true 
oomrade  of  the  man  from  Judah.  From  all  this  it 
appears  that  he  could  have  had  no  bad  intention 
wnen  he  at  first  hastened  after  the  man  of  God 
vers.  12,  13)  and  pressed  him  to  return  and  go  into 

his  house.     On  the  contrary,  when  he  had  heard 
from  his  sons  what  he  had  said  and  done,  he  was  I 


seized  with  a  strong  desire  to  see  and  speak  to  the 
faithful  and  courageous  messenger  of  Jehovah,  tc 
enter  into  friendship  with  him,  and  edify  himsell 
in  his  company.  One  thing  alone  he  was  guilty 
of,  that  he  used  a  lie  to  reach  his  end.  This,  how- 
ever, by  no  means  shows  that  he  was  a  false,  bad, 
aud  hypocritical  man,  but  only  shows  he  was  no 
saiut,  just  as  "  dissembling "  did  not  make  the 
apostle  Peter  (Gal.  ii.  13)  a  pseudo-apostle.  "  This 
was  one  of  the  many  lies  spoken  in  good  intentions 
by  otherwise  enlightened  persons  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, but  who  were  weak  in  faith  "  (Ton  Ger- 
lach) ;  old  age,  too,  may  have  partly  accounted  for 
it.  It  is,  however,  a  difficulty  that  the  same  pro- 
phet who  had  lied  to  the  man  of  God  announced 
his  punishment  to  him  afterwards.  Perhaps  his 
conscience  awoke  meantime,  when  he  heard  moro 
at  table,  so  that  he  saw  his  own  guilt  as  well  as 
that  of  the  man  of  God,  and  in  this  condition  be- 
came the  instrument  to  announce  the  punishment, 
so  that  what  happened  to  the  man  of  God  might 
not  seem  an  undeserved  fate.  We  ought  to  notice 
that  he  did  not  announce  his  death  by  a  lion,  but 
only  said  that  he  should  not  come  into  the  sepul- 
chre of  his  fathers  (see  above  on  ver.  22).  Of  all 
the  conjectures  about  the  reason  and  motive  of 
the  old  prophet's  conduct,  the  least  tenable  are 
such  as  that  he  followed  the  Judah-man  from  mere 
curiosity  or  "  from  human  envy "  (Thenius),  or 
"  because  God  had  charged  him  to  speak  to  the 
king  "  (Dereser),  and  that  he  felt  his  prophetical 
reputation  injured  (Hess).  Apart  from  everything 
else,  the  commission  of  the  man  of  God  was  no 
enviable  one,  but  difficult  and  dangerous,  and  also 
a  fruitless  one.  According  to  Hengsteuberg 
(Beitrdge  II.  s.  149),  with  whom  Keil  and  Lisco 
agree,  the  old  prophet  had  "  sinned  by  silence  about 
Jeroboam's  innovations."  "What  the  Judah- 
prophet  did,  showed  him  what  he  should  have 
done.  Penetrated  with  shame  for  his  neglect,  he 
endeavored  to  restore  himself  in  his  own  opinion 
and  that  of  others  by  intercourse  with  the  witness 
for  the  Lord."  In  this  case,  his  purpose  in  hurrying 
after  him  could  uothave  been  a  good  one,  but  selfish 
and  objectionable,  and  the  lie  would  have  been 
so  much  the  greater  sin.  Besides,  if  silence  were  a 
sin,  the  prophet  Ahijah  would  have  been  peculiar- 
ly guilty  of  it,  as  he  was  an  Ephraimite  and  had 
placed  the  prospect  of  the  kingdom  before  Jerobo- 
am (chap.  xi.  31—39).  Neither  prophet  undertook 
the  mission  to  Bethel,  because  no  commission  was 
given  them  from  above — a  man  of  God  was  to 
come  from  Judah.  According  to  Knobel  (Der 
Prophetismus  der  Hebr,  II.  s.  66  sq),  the  old  pro- 
phet induced  him  to  return  because  "  no  doubt  he 
wished  to  test  the  firmness  and  obedience  of  the 
Judah-man  to  Jehovah;  perhaps  the  Ephraimite 
wished  to  form  some  theocratic  plan  with  him, 
and  thought  it  needful  to  ascertain  first  whether 
he  was  reliable — a  very  natural  measure  for  an  old 
and  cautious  man  who  lived  among  hostile  idola- 
trous priests."  This,  it  is  supposed,  explains  how 
he  announced  his  punishment  to  the  Judah-man, 
but  could  not  refuse  him  his  pity  and  esteem,  as 
one  in  the  same  vocation.  This  opinion  is  alsc 
untenable,  for,  according  to  it,  the  old  prophet 
would  have  taken  the  very  opposite  means  to  at- 
tain his  end  (the  formation  of  a  theocratic  plan)^ 
if  his  test  of  the  fidelity  and  obedience  of  the  Ju- 
dah-man had  Succeeded,  and  he  had  continued  his 
home  journey  without  delay,  the  old  prophet  coma 


164 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


not  have  communicated  his  plan  to  him,  still  less 
have  carried  it  out  together  with  him. 

4.  The  tragical  end  of  the  man  of  God  out  of  Ju- 
dah  is  clearly  represented  as  a  divine  dispensa- 
tion, in  consequence  of  disobedience  to  Jehovah's 
command,  wholly  conformable  to  the  stern  legal 
character  of  the  Old-Testament  economy  (cf,  for 
instance,  Numb.  xx.  24;  xxvii.  14:  1  Sam.  xii.  15, 
&c).  The  question  has  often  been  asked,  why  the 
prophet  of  Judah  came  to  such  an  end,  and  the 
Bethel  prophet  who  lied  to  him  went  unpunished? 
To  this  we  may  reply  with  another  question  :  Who 
can  say  to  Him  who  is  righteous  in  all  His  ways 
and  holy  in  all  His  works  (Ps.  cxlv.  17),  Lord,  what 
doest  Thou  (Job  ix.  12)?  "We  do  not  know  what 
fate  God  allotted  to  the  old  prophet ;  he  acts  only  a 
minor  part  in  the  narrative,  compared  with  the 
prophet  of  Judah.  It  is  quite  wrong  to  assert,  as 
is  so  often  done,  that  the  sin  of  the  lie  was  much 
greater  than  the  disobedience  to  Jehovah's  com- 
mand. This  was  distinct  from  Jeroboam's  sin 
wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin,  for  it  touched 
the  whole  of  the  prophet-system,  i.  e.,  the  institu- 
tion of  the  office  of  divine  guardians  and  wit- 
nesses. By  not  eating  or  drinking  in  that  place, 
where  that  sin  fully  showed  itself,  he  was  to 
prove  (as  well  by  word  as  by  deed)  that  there 
could  be  no  fellowship  between  those  who  kept 
Jehovah's  coveuant  and  those  who  had  broken  it. 
If  he  ate  and  drank  in  that  place,  he  nullified  the 
important  end  of  his  mission,  and  deprived  the 
threat  he  had  solemnly  pronounced  of  all  its  force, 
by  appearing  as  one  who  himself  did  not  fear  to 
transgress  the  express  command  of  Jehovah.  The 
fate  that  overtook  him  was  a  confirmation  of  the 
truth  of  the  sentence  he  had  pronounced  against 
Jeroboam's  sin,  and  which  sentence  had  appeared 
doubtful  through  his  conduct ;  it  showed  also  to 
all  the  people,  as  Theodoret  remarks,  that  if  God 
so  punished  the  man  of  God,  he  would  certainly 
not  leave  Jeroboam's  sin  unpunished.  In  that 
the  man  of  God  did  not  "  come  unto  the  sepulchre 
of  his  fathers"  (ver.  22),  but  was  buried  in  Bethel, 
(i.  e.,  "  in  this  place  "),  he  was,  even  after  death,  a 
witness  against  the  apostasy,  and  his  grave  was  a 
lasting  monument  that  reminded  the  apostates  of 
Jehovah's  judgments  and  exhorted  them  to  con- 
version. But  for  the  prophet-system  itself,  his 
fate  was  of  great  significance.  AVith  it  began  the 
active  working  (henceforth  uninterrupted)  of  the 
prophet-system  in  the  kingdom  of  organized  apos- 
tasy :  here  it  had  a  mission,  on  the  unconditional 
fulfilment  of  which  everything  depended,  namely, 
the  constant  struggle  against  the  pseudo-theocra- 
cy. The  fate  of  the  man  of  God  contained  the 
strongest  warning  to  all  who  should  afterwards  re- 
ceive a  similar  charge,  not  to  allow  themselves  to 
be  enticed  by  anything,  however  plausible  and  al- 
luring it  might  be  (ver.  18),  from  implicit  obedi- 
ence to  the  divine  commission.  This  is  very  prob- 
ably the  reason  that  the  narrative  is  so  explicitly 
detailed.  As  to  the  old  prophet,  his  lamentation 
(vers.  31,  32)  evidently  proceeds  from  a  heart  that 
mourns  over  his  own  sin  ;  he  says,  as  it  were,  If  I 
can  have  no  more  fellowship  with  my  brother  in 
life,  I  will  at  least  be  united  to  him  in  death;  our 
common  grave,  to  which  I  shall  soon  go  down  in 
sorrow,  shall  be  a  lasting  testimony  against  the 
sin  of  Jeroboam. 

5.  Witiius  says  of  the  wonderful  circumstances 
which  accompanied  the  end  of  the  m3n  of  God  [Mis- 


cell.sacr.l.  cap.  15,  s.  145):  Denique tot admiranda in 
unum  cnncurrentia  effecerunt,  ul  vaticinium  adversus 
aram  Betheliticam  in  omnium  ore  atque  memoria 
versaretur,  et  legatio  hujus  Prophetoz  multo  reddere- 
twr  conspectior  et  illustrior.  The  extraordinary  na 
ture  of  these  circumstances  distinguishes  his  end 
from  every  ordinary  accidental  death,  and  bears 
the  impress  of  a  special  dispensation  ;  this  is  pe- 
culiarly apparent  in  the  fact  that  the  corpse  re- 
mained untouched,  instead  of  falling  a  prey  to  the 
wild  beasts  {cf.  chap.  xiv.  11),  and  that  it  was  hon- 
orably carried  to  the  grave  without  any  pollution. 
To  pronounce  this  deeply  serious  and  significant 
narrative  to  be  a  "  sensational "  story  (Vatke),  on 
account  of  its  miraculous  disclosures,  seems  to  in- 
dicate an  almost  frivolous  character.  For,  tlipugh 
one  or  another  part  may  bear  the  trace  of  a  veVbal 
tradition  (see  Prelim.  Remarks),  having  been  writ- 
ten down  at  a  later  date,  yet  the  chief  point  re- 
mains, and  that  is  that  this  history  of  the  two  pro 
phets  loudly  and  sternly  proclaims  the  wonderful 
ways  and  judgments  of  God,  and  therefore  lived 
for  hundreds  of  years  in  the  mouths  of  the  people 
The  fact  of  the  man  of  God  out  of  Judah  being 
killed  by  a  lion  is  significant,  inasmuch  as  God 
carried  out  His  judgments  elsewhere  by  lions  (2 
Kings  xvii.  25  sq. ;  Wis.  xi.  15-17),  and  He  Him- 
self, when  He  comes  as  a  judge,  is  likened  to  a 
lion  (Isai.  xxxi.  4;  Jer.  iv.  7;  Am.  iii.  8),  and 
those  also  who  execute  His  judgments  are  called 
lions  (Jer.  xxv.  30,  38;  xlix.  15;  1.  44).  That 
the  lion  did  not  tear  the  dead  so  that  he  could  not 
be  buried,  is  a  sure  evidence  that  all  creatures 
are  in  His  hand  (the  Almighty's),  and  that  they 
cannot  stir  against  His  will  (Heidelberg  Katech.). 
Cf.  Job  xxxviii.  11. 

HOM1LETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

"Vers.  1-10.  The  man  of  God  out  of  Judah. 
(a)  He  comes,  led  by  the  word  of  God,  and  goes 
on  his  dark,  difficult  way  in  faith,  without  taking 
counsel  witli  flesh  and  blood.  (6)  He  stands, 
strong  and  bold,  before  the  king,  fears  him  not, 
testifies  against  his  sins,  and  announces  the  judg- 
ment of  God.  (c)  He  makes  entreaty  for  him,  who 
was  about  to  lay  hold  on  him,  and  heaps  coals  of 
fire  on  his  head,  (d)  He  resists  the  offers  of  the 
king,  and  will  not  be  secured  by  bribes.  The  tes- 
timony against  the  service  of  the  false  gods,  (a) 
It  proceeded  from  a  nameless,  unknown,  insigni- 
ficant man  who,  without  worldly  consequence,  has 
nothing  and  knows  nothing,  except  only  the 
power  of  the  divine  Word.  That  is  the  manner 
of  the  Lord  in  His  kingdom.  He  accomplishes 
by  means  of  small,  insignificant  instruments  what 
no  king,  with  all  his  power,  can  do.  The  altars 
of  heathendom  are  shattered  by  means  of  the  tes- 
timony of  fishers  and  tax-gatherers  (1  Cor.  i.  27- 
29),  even  as  were  the  altars  of  the  false  worship 
of  God  by  means  of  a  poor  world-despised  recluse. 
It  was  received,  at  first,  with  scorn,  wrath,  and 
violence;  but  the  wrath  is  powerless  and  avails 
nothing;  the  altar  is  rent,  and  the  threatening 
arm  is  dried  up.  Humble  entreaties  then  take 
the  place  of  wrath,  for:  Is.  xxvi.  16.  But,  though 
the  withered  hand  be  restored,  the  heart  remains 
withered  as  before.  Physical  aid  is  alway  -eadily 
received  by  men,  whilst  they  shut  their  hearts 
to  the  testimony  against  their  sins. 

Ver.  1.  God  has  never,  even  when  apostasy  wa> 


CHAPTER  SHI.   1-34. 


lfl 


almost  universal,  suffered  His  Church  to  fail  for 
want  of  messengers,  who  would  cry  aloud  in  the 
world,  "  Down  with  the  false  idols  !  The  Lord  is 
God  I  the  Lord  is  God!  Give  God  all  honor  I" — God 
not  only  warns  and  admonishes  men.  as  Jeroboam 
by  Ahijah  (chap.  xi.  38)  before  they  set  out  in  the 
path  of  evil,  but  when  they  are  already  walking  in 
it,  even  then  He  strives  with  them,  in  order  to  re- 
claim them,  for  "  He  has  no  pleasure,"  &c.  (Ezek. 
xxxiii.  11  ;  Rom.  ii.  4,  5). — Ver.  2.  God  announces 
beforehand  to  sinners  His  judgments,  that  they 
may  have  time  and  space,  for  repentance.  Woe 
to  them  who  misemploy  the  respite,  for  the  mea- 
sure of  their  sins  will  be  full.  In  the  new  cove- 
nant we  have  a  far  weightier  prophecy.  Unto 
us  is  born  a  Son,  named  Jesus,  out  of  the  House 
of  David ;  who  will  come  again,  and  pronounce 
judgment  upon  those  who  know  not  God,  and  who 
obey  not  the  Gospel,  &c.  (2  Thess.  i.  8,  9).— 
Ver.  3.  The  miracles  which  the  Lord  our  God 
performs  are  not  only  proofs  of  His  almighty 
power,  to  amaze  us,  but  likewise  significant  signs 
which  reveal  to  us  His  eternal  decrees,  and  lead  us 
to  the  recognition  of  that  heavenly  truth  which 
sanctifies  our  hearts. — -Ver.  4.  Cramer:  Although 
faithful  teachers  often  accomplish  nothing,  and 
fail,  most  signally,  with  men  of  high  degree,  yet 
must  they  never  on  this  account  abandon  their 
office.  For  if  thou  warn  him,  thou  hast  delivered 
thy  soul  (Ezek.  iii.  19).  and  although  the  obdurate 
remain  untouched,  yet  it  shall  not  remain  with- 
out fruit  (Is.  lv.  10).  How  did  even  this  warning 
work  itself  out,  and  bear  fruit,  after  300  years 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  15).  Sinners,  eminent  by  wealth 
and  position,  will  only  listen  to  prophets  who 
are  dumb  dogs,  and  cannot  bark  (Is.  lvi.  10). 
When  a  true  servant  of  the  Lord  cries  out  "  The 
axe  is  already  laid  at  the  root  of  the  tree,"  they 
arise  in  wrath,  and  cry  out,  Seize  him  !  (2  Tim. 
iv.  1-5).  He  who  attacks  a  servant  of  God,  on 
account  of  his  testimony,  never  remains  un- 
punished. In  vain  doth  the  enemy  stretch  forth 
his  hand  against  those  who  are  under  God's  pro- 
tection (Job  vii.  44 ;  Lev.  iv.  29  sq. ;  Ps.  xxxvii. 
17).  Those  who  will  not  listen  to  the  word  of 
truth,  God  often  visits  with  bodily  pain  in  order 
to  humble  them,  and  teach  them  to  pray  and  sup- 
plicate.— Ver.  6.  He  who  desires  for  himself  the 
intercession  of  others  must  himself  draw  near, 
humbly  and  penitently,  to  God  and  implore  His 
mercy.  In  this  wise  can  we  know  if  we  are 
indeed  children  of  God,  and  guided  by  His  spirit, 
if  we  pray  and  supplicate  for  those  who  have 
done  their  worst  to  us,  and  thus  overcome  evil 
with  good  (1  Peter  iii.  9). — Ver.  7.  Osiander: 
Although  the  ungodly  often  hold  in  high  esteem 
these  holy  men  especially  raised  up  by  God,  yet 
they  never  follow  their  instructions  and  warnings 
(Mark  vi.  19  sq.).  What  boots  it  that  we  gratefully 
acknowledge  the  material  blessings  which  meet 
us,  if  we  leave  unfulfilled  the  very  object  of  these 
blessings,  viz.,  the  turning  of  our  hearts  from  sin 
and  the  world  to  God.  Unbelief  and  impenitence 
cannot  be  outweighed  by  even  the  highest  friend- 
ship and  humanity.  When  the  world  can  effect 
nothing  more  by  force  and  threats,  it  seeks  to 
?ain  its  ends  by  plausible  love-tokens. — Ver.  8, 
3.  There  is  no  bribe  to  which  the  man  of  God 
will  yield:  to  him,  that  which  God  has  com- 
manded him  seems,  in  all  times  and  all  places, 
in    evil    as   in  good    days,   the   fixed   and   defi- 


nite plan  of  action. — Starke:  The  oest  weapor 
and  defence  against  the  snares  of  our  spiritual 
enemy  is  the  word  and  law  of  God.  It  must 
always  be  said  :  God  has  forbidden  me  (Matt, 
iv.  4,  7,  10).  It  is  far  from  being  unimportant  with 
whom  we  eat  and  drink,  i.  e..  in  fellowship  and 
intimate  alliance  (1  Cor.  v.  11). — Ver.  10.  If  in 
a  certain  position  thou  hast  done  what  G'vl  com- 
manded, and  left  undone  what  he  forbade,  then 
go  on  thy  way  peaceful  and  content,  how  daik 
and  unknown  soever  it  may  seem  to  thee. 

Vers.  11-32.  Von  Gerlach:  The  history  of 
these  two  prophets  offers  an  important  view  of  the 
relation  of  this  class  to  the  new  order  of  things ; 
in  the  prophet  out  of  Judah  we  see  a  man  of 
God  full  of  life  and  strength,  but  who  yet  proved 
unstable  in  these  disturbed  times;  in  the  old  Isra- 
elite we  look  upon  one  in  whom  the  fire  is  almost 
quenched — it  only  glimmers  faintly — a  type  of  the 
expiring  high  and  manly  strength  of  Israel :  he  is 
still  upheld  by  faith  in  God's  word  rather  than  by 
self-reliance.  They  both  yet  speak  and  testify  i: 
death.  The  fall  and  death  of  the  man  of  Judal 
set  forth  two  great  truths  :  (a)  He  who  thinketl 
he  standeth,  let  him  take  heed,  &c.  (1  Cor.  x.  12) 
(He  had  conducted  himself  grandly  and  nobly,  and 
victoriously  withstood  a  severe  temptation,  yet  he 
yielded  to  a  lesser  one.  The  higher  a  man  stands 
the  deeper  is  his  fall,  and  to  whom  much  is  given 
from  him  will  much  be  required.  Watch  ve,  stand 
fast  in  the  faith,  Ac.  1  Cor.  xvi.  13 ;  x.  1*3.  Only 
those  who  are  true  unto  death  can  obtain  the 
crown  of  life.)  (6)  How  unsearchable  are  his  judg- 
ments, and  his  ways  past  finding  out.  Rom.  xi.  33 
He  who  is  holy  in  all  his  ways  knows  how  to  es- 
tablish firmly  that  which  is  threatened  with  des- 
truction and  annihilation  by  human  treachery  and 
deceit.  The  death  and  the  grave  of  the  man  of 
God  announce  in  louder  and  more  threatening  ac- 
cents than  did  his  hps — the  altar  is  rent. 

Vers.  11-15.  The  old  prophet  when  he  hears 
of  the  man  of  God  hastens  upon  his  way  and  spares 
neither  care  nor  pains  to  see  him  and  bring  him  to 
his  house  :  how  much  time,  pains,  and  money  are 
expended  by  the  children  of  this  world  to  see  and 
to  hear  what  will  gratify  their  senses,  whilst  they 
stir  neither  hand  nor  foot  to  acquire  that  which 
pertains  to  their  peace  and  salvation. — Vers.  1 6-1 9. 
So  in  indifferent  ordinary  matters,  which  God  has 
either  ordered  or  forbidden,  we  must  observe  un- 
erring obedience,  for  he  who  is  faithful  in  that 
which  is  least,  &c.  (Lu.  xvi.  10;  xix.  17).  Hearken 
not  unto  him  who  says:  I  am  a  prophet,  declaim- 
ing that  he  announces  divine  truth,  whilst  he  de- 
prives your  heart  of  the  dear  and  steadfast  word 
of  God,  which  shall  remain  until  heaven  and  earth 
shall  pass  away.  Hence  the  warning  of  the  apos- 
tle: Beloved,  believe  not,  &c.  (1  Johniv.  1-3),  and, 
But  though  we  or  an  angel,  &c.  (Gal.  i.  8).  What- 
ever obtains  success  and  position  by  means  of  de- 
ceit cannot  be  followed  by  a  blessing,  but  rather 
by  a  curse.  The  Scripture  is  not  silent  concerning 
the  sins  of  the  man  of  God ;  and  this,  not  that  we 
may  excuse  our  sins  by  his,  but  that  we  may  guard 
ourselves  from  haughtiness  and  spiritual  pride, 
and  pray  earnestly :  Search  me,  0  God,  &e.  (Ps. 
cxxxix.  23,  24). — Vers.  20-22.  The  same  sentence 
which  the  old  prophet  pronounced  upon  the  man 
of  God  he  pronounced  upon  himself,  while  he  had 
led  and  betrayed  him  to  disobedience.  How  ofter 
does  the  judgment  which  we  utter  for  others  faL 


166 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


upon  ourselves,  when  we  have  sinned  equally  or 
in  greater  measure  (Rom.  ii.  1):  for  wherein  thou, 
Ac.— Vers.  23-25.  The  judgments  of  God  often  fall 
suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  thus  proving  that  al- 
though long  delayed  they  are  sure  to  come,  even 
as  this,  after  the  lapse  of  three  hundred  years, 
was  tho  punishment  threatened  for  the  golden 
ealf  worship. — Ver.  24.  see  Histor.  and  Eth.  5. — 
Vers.  25-29.  The  chastisement  with  which  God 
visits  our  fellow-men  for  their  sins  is  both  a 
warning  to  reflect  upon  our  own  sins  and  deserts, 
and  a  call  to  work  active  deeds  of  love  with  all  our 
might,  in  life  and  in  death. — Vers.  30,  31.  We 
often  for  the  first  time,  at  the  grave  of  a  friend, 
recognize  what  we  possessed  in  him,  and  how  we 
have  sinned  against  him.  One  look  into  the  open 
grave  of  one  dear  to  us  in  life  is  adapted,  beyond 
anything,  to  remind  us  of  our  own  end.  It  is  a 
very  natural  wish  to  rest  in  death  near  those  who 
were  closely  bound  to  us  in  life  by  ties  of  blood 
or  strong  affection ;  but  yet  stronger  should  be 
the  wish  to  die  in  the  Lord,  and  enter  into  eternal 
glory.  Then,  wherever  in  the  providence  of  God 
we  may  find  our  grave,  there  shall  we  rest  in 
peace,  for  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fulness 
thereof  (Ps.  xxiv.  1). 

Vers.  33,  34.  When  neither  the  severity  nor 
the  patient  long-suflering  of  his  God  brings  to  re- 


pentance a  man  who  walks  in  evil  ways,  he  is 
brought  by  his  own  sin  under  the  sentence  for  the 
obdurate,  viz.,  temporal  and  eternal  ruin  (2  Tim 
iii.  13;  John  viii.  34). — Starke:  Church  patron! 
should  not  abuse  their  so-called  jus  patronatus,  to 
place  in  charge  of  themselves  and  congregations 
teachers  "  having  itching  ears  "  (2  Tim.  iv.  3),  or 
one  who  will  preserve  silence  concerning  every 
kind  of  godlessness  and  misrule.  Should  they 
do  so  they  become  followers  of  Jeroboam,  and 
must  expect  Jeroboam's  punishment.  The  spirit- 
ual office  is  put  to  shame  if  borne  by  men  who 
make  a  traffic  of  religion,  and  are  intent  only  upon 
filling  their  own  hands. 

[R.  South  :  Vers.  33,  34.  "  The  means  to 
strengthen  or  ruin  the  civil  power  is  either  to  es- 
tablish or  destroy  the  right  worship  of  God."  .  .  . 
The  way  to  destroy  religion  is  to  embase  the 
dispensers  of  it.  "  This  is  to  give  the  royal  stamp 
to  a  piece  of  lead."  ..."  It  is  a  sad  thing  when 
all  other  employments  shall  empty  themselves  into 
the  ministry  ;  when  men  shall  repair  to  it  not  for 
preferment  but  refuge ;  like  malefactors  flying  to 
the  altars  only  to  save  their  lives,  or  like  those  of 
Eli's  race  (1  Sam.  ii.  36),  that  should  come  crouch- 
ing, and  seeking  to  be  put  into  the  priest's  office 
that  they  might  eat  a  piece  of  bread." — E.  H.] 


B. — The  prophecy  of  Ahijah  against  the  house  and  kingdom  of  Jeroboam,  and  the 

death  of  the  latter. 

Chap.   XIV.  1-20. 


I  'At  that  time  Abijah  the  son  of  Jeroboam  fell  sick.      And  Jeroboam  said 

to  his  wife,  Arise,  I  pray  thee,  and  disguise  thyself,  that  thou  be  not  known  to 
be  the  wife  of  Jeroboam  ;  and  get  thee  to  Shiloh  :  behold,  there  is  Ahijah   the 

3  prophet,  which  told  me  that  I  should  be  king2  over  this  people.  And  take  with 
thee  ten  loaves,  and  cracknels,"  and  a  cruse  of  honey,  and  go  to  him :  he  shall  tell 

4  thee  what  shall  become  of  the  child.  And  Jeroboam's  wife  did  so,  and  arose  and 
went  to  Shiloh,  and  came  to  the  house  of  Ahijah.    But  Ahijah  could  not  see ;  for 

5  his  eyes  were  set  by  reason  of  his  age.  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  said  unto  Ahijah, 
Behold,  the  wife  of  Jeroboam  cometh  to  ask  a  thing  of  thee  for  her  son  ;  for 
he  is  sick:  thus  and  thus*  shalt  thou  say  unto  her:  for  it  shall  be,  when  she 

6  cometh  in,  that  she  shall  feign  herself  to  be  another  woman.  And  it  was  so, 
when  Ahijah  heard  the  sound  of  her  feet,  as  she  came  in  at  the  door,  that  he  said, 
Come  in,  thou  wife  of  Jeroboam  ;  why  feignest  thou  thyself  to  be  another  ?  for  I 

7  am  sent  to  thee  with  heavy  tidings.  Go  tell  Jeroboam,  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
[Jehovah]  God  of  Israel,  Forasmuch  as  I  exalted  thee  from  among  the  people, 

8  and  made  thee  prince  over  my  people  Israel,  and  rent  the  kingdom  away  from 
the  house  of  David,  and  gave  it  thee  :  and  yet  thou  hast  not  been  as  my  servant 
David,  who  kept  my  commandments,  and  who  followed  me  with  all  his  heart, 

9  to  do  that  only  which  was  right  in  mine  eyes;  but  hast  done  evil  above  all 
that  were  before  thee :  for  thou  hast  gone  and  made  thee  other  gods,  and  mol- 

10  ten  images,  to  provoke  me  to  anger,  and  hast  cast  me  behind  thy  back  :  there- 
fore, behold,  I  will  bring  evil  upon6  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  and  will  cut  otf  from 
Jeroboam  him  that  pisseth  against  the  wall,  and  him  that  is  shut  up  and  left"  in 
Israel,  and  will  take  away  the  remnant'  of  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  as  a   man 

11  taketh  away  dung,  till  it  be  all  gone.  Him  that  dieth  of  Jeroboam  in  the  city 
shall  the  dogs  eat;  and  him  that  dieth  in  the  field  shall  the  fowls  of  the  air  eat: 

12  lor  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  hath  spoken  it.     Arise  thou  therefore,  get  thee  to  thine 


CHAPTER  XJV.   1-20. 


lC7 


15  wn  house:  and  when  thy  feet  enter  into  the  city,  the  child  shall  die.  Ana  all 
Israel  shall  mourn  for  him,  and  bury  him :  for  he  only  of  Jeroboam  shall  come  to 
the  grave,  because  in  him  there  is  found  some  good  thing  toward  the  Lord  [Jeho- 

14  vah]  God  of  Israel  in  the  house  of  Jeroboam.  Moreover,  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
shall  raise  him  up  a  king  over  Israel,  who  shall  cut  off  the  house  of  Jeroboam 

1 J  that  day  :  but  what  ?  even  now.  For  the  Lord  shall  smite  Israel,  as  a  reed  is 
shaken  iu  the  water,  and  he  shall  root  up  Israel  out  of  this  good  land,  which  he 
gave  to  their  fathers,  and  shall  scatter  them  beyond  the  river,  because  they  have 

16  made  their  groves,  provoking  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  to  anger.  And  he  shall  give 
Israel  up  because  of  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  who  did  sin,  and  who  made  Israel  to 

17  sin.  And  Jeroboam's  wife  arose,  and  departed,  and  came  to  Tirzah ;  and  when 

18  she  came  to  the  threshold  of  the  door,  the  child  died  :  and  they  buried  him  ;  and 
all  Israel  mourned  for  him,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which 
he  spake  by  the  hand  of  his  servant  Ahijah  the  prophet. 

19  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jeroboam,  how  he  warred,  and  how  he  reigned,  be- 

20  hold,  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel.  And 
the  days  which  Jeroboam  reigned  were  two  and  twenty  years :  and  he  slept 
with  his  fathers,  and  Nadab  his  son  reigned  iu  his  stead. 

TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  1.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  first  twenty  verses  of  this  chapter,  i.  e.,  the  whole  of  this  section 

*  Ver.  2. — h^oi'  ""by  13T  '"•  "  8Palie  of  me  for  king." 

3  Ver.  8. — [Q^TIJ  occurs  only  here  and  in  Josh.  is.  5, 12,  where  it  is  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  by  the  adjv<;tive  mouldy  t 

The  sense  of  the  word  seems  to  be  u  that  which  is  easily  crumbled."  The  Alex.  Sept.  translates  by  KoAAvpiia,  adding 
ruts  tckvois  avrov.  supposing  them  to  be  a  sort  of  cakes  for  the  children,  and  adds  to  these  <7Ta0t6as,  raisins. 

*  Ver.  5. — [The  peculiar  form  ;-jJ21  f]J3  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Judg.  xviii.  4  and  Sam.  xi.  25. 

*  Ver.  10. — [The  reading  j-p^  py  ,  found  in  many  MSS.  instead  of  jy^'^X  i  scarcely  modifies  the  sense. 

8  Ver.  10. —  [The  difficult  words  2}T1N  "1}VV  are  so  'iterally  translated  in  the  A.  V.  as  to  give  a  scarcely  intelligible 

sense.  There  is  no  uniformity  in  the  ancient  W.  although  it  seems  to  have  been  understood  as  an  expression  to  designate 
all  classes.  Our  author  translates  '*  those  under  aire  and  those  of  age."  Keil  makes  the  sense  to  be  •'  the  married  and  the 
■bugle."    The  phrase  occurs  also  xxi.  21,  and  2  Kings  ix.  8;  xiv.  26.  and  is  taken  from  Deut  xxxii.  37. 

~7  Ver.  10. — [The  proposition  ^r]^  is  taken  in  the  A.  V.  as  if  it  were  the  noon   rV"inN-  So  alsotne  Vulg.  Theie  ifl 

really  nothing  in  the  Heb.  answering  to  the  word  remnant.  On  the  construction  of  the  verb  with  this  prep,  see 
Oese"nius  lex."  a.  p.  -]y3  ,    Piel.  8.— F.  G.j 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vera.  1-6.  At  that  time,  &c.  As  Jeroboam 
was  not  led  to  a  change  of  heart  by  what  is  re- 
corded in  chap,  xiii.,  a  visitation  overtook  him  in 
the  form  of  the  illness  of  his  promising  son  Abijah, 
who  was  doubtless  to  have  been  his  successor. 
Then,  when  in  distress,  he  thought  of  the  prophet 
who  once  promised  him  the  kingdom,  and  a  "sure 
house  "  (chap.  xi.  38) ;  he  thought  of  Ahijah,  whose 
prophecy  respecting  the  kingdom  had  been  fulfilled, 
and  he  hoped  to  receive  from  him  a  sure  answer 
to  a  question  which  concerned  the  continuance  of 
his  dynasty.  But,  conscious  that  he  had  not  ful- 
filled the  prophet's  condition — unswerving  loyalty 
to  Jehovah — he  did  not  venture  to  go  himself,  but 
tried  to  deceive  him,  and,  as  it  were,  to  steal  an 
answer  from  him.  He  sends  the  mother,  the  most 
natural  intercessor  for  the  son ;  she  is  disguised, 
so  that  no  one  can  know  her  and  tell  the  prophet 
who  she  is.  The  presents  that  it  was  customary 
to  take  (1  Sam.  ix.  8)  were  purposely  very  small, 
for  she  wished,  no  doubt,  to  appear  to  the  prophet 
as  a  very  poor  woman ;  but  D^pJ  does  not  mean 

"mouldy  loaves"  (Hess,  Dereser,  and  others),  for 

ipj  means  punctured,  spotted,  but  not  therefore 

mouldy;    the    Sept.    gives   noXfajpic,    the    \Tulgate 


crustula.     The  expression  VJ'V  ^Dp  (Ter-  4),  i-  «■• 

his  eyes  stood  (were  set),  "means  the  gray  cata 
racts,  amaurosis,  that  take  place  in  old  age,  through 
paralysis  of  the  optic  nerves  "  (Keil)  (1  Sam.  iv.  15). 
H"'p  ,  ver.  6,  is  the  same  as  in  chap.  xii.  13. 

Vers.  7-9.  Go  tell  Jeroboam,  &c.  Ver.  7. 
The  older  commentators  remark  that  the  prophecy 
which  begins  here  and  ends  in  ver.  16  takes 
a  rhythmical  form.  It  has  ten  verses  (vers.  7-16), 
five  of  which  make  one  section  (vers.  7-11  and 
12-16) ;  the  first  section  is  in  3  +  2.  and  the  second 
in  2  +  3  verses.  Jeroboam  had  sinned  above  all 
that  were  before  him  (ver.  9) ;  for  none,  whether 
king,  judge,  or  leader,  had  made  an  unlawful  wor- 
ship a  State  institution,  and  forcibly  maintained  it 
to  gratify  lust  of  power  and  selfishness ;  Solomon 
had   only   permitted   the  idolatrous  worship,  and 

that  first  to  his  already  idolatrous  wives.   niDDD  , 

the  same  as  in  Deut.  ix.  12 ;  Jud.  xvii.  3,  4,  molter, 
images.  Worship  of  images  is  here  placed  on  a 
level  with  worship  of  idols,  because  it  involuntarily 
leads  to  it  (see  Hist,  and  Eth.  on  chap.  xii.  28). 
"The  expression,  hast  cast  me  (God)  behind  thy 
back,  which  occurs  nowhere  else  but  in  Ezek. 
xxiii.  35,  is  the  strongest  possible  phraseology  to 
denote  intentional  contempt  of  God — the  opposite 


L6S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


fix  m  having  God  before  one's  eyes ;  and  it  is 
stronger  than  'cast  Thy  law  behind  their  backs' 
\eh.  ix.  26  "  (Keil). 

Vers.  10-12.  Therefore  behold,  I  will  bring 
evil,  ver.  1 0.  The  expression  "  that  pisseth 
against  the  wall "  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  22  (1  Kings  xvi. 
11 ;  xxi.  21 ;  2  Kings  ix.  8),  was,  no  doubt,  origi- 
nally used  of  dogs,  and  was  not  an  honorable  way 
of  alluding  to  the  male  sex  ;  for  it  is  employed  in 
all  these  passages  only  of  those  who  are  to  be 
cast    away  and    rooted  out.       The    words    "nVl? 

31iyi ,  which  are  mostly  connected   with  it,  are 

epexegetical ;  literally,  the  detained,  and  those  set 
free,  which  Seb.  Schmidt  rightly  interprets  puer, 
qui  domi  adhuc  detinetur  et  qui  emcmcipatws  est ;  the 
male  descendants  not  of  age  are  under  guardians 
(2  Kings  x.  1,  5 ;   1  Ghron.  xxvii.  32).     This  is  the 

only  explanation  which  suits  the  word  ^N"l""3 , 

which  "  refers  to  an  intruded,  or  already  assumed 
Bhare  in  public  life  "  (Thenius) ;  all  the  male  de- 
scendants of  the  king,  even  the  minors,  were 
threatened  with  destruction.  Luther's  translation, 
"  those  shut  up  and  forsaken  in  Israel,"  is  de- 
cidedly erroneous.  "  Behind  the  house  of  Jero- 
boam "  means:  as  often  as  a  new  scion  arises  I 
shall  take  it  away,  &c.  (cf.  Isai.  xiv.  23).  The  Vul- 
gate which  Luther  followed  is  wroug:  mundabn 
reliquias  domus  Jeroleam.  The  threat  reaches  its 
climax  in  ver.  11,  which  foretells  the  frightful 
and  disgraceful  manner  of  the  destruction.  To 
remain  unburied  was  an  intolerable  thought  to  the 
Hebrews;  and  in  all  the  ancient  world  it  was  ac- 
counted the  severest  disgrace,  because  in  such 
cases  the  corpse  became  the  prey  of  the  birds  or 
of  wild  beasts,  or  of  the  voracious  dogs  in  the 
East,  that  ran  wild  and  were  reckoned  uaclean. 
According  to  Dent,  xxviii.  26  this  punishment  was 
a  divine  curse.  The  same  threat  occurs  elsewhere, 
especially  in  Jeremiah  (chap.  xvi.  4 ;  xxi.  24 ; 
Ezek.  xxix.  5  ;  xxxix.  17  ;  Jer.  vii.  33  ;  viii.  2  ;  ix. 
22;  xii.  9;  xiv.  16).  cf.  Winer  R.-  W.-B.  I.  s.  148. 
The  '3  at  the  end  is  to  heighten  the  effect,  as  else- 
where, and  is  =  irno  (Ewald,  Lehrb.  der  hebr. 
Sprache  §  330  6) ;  yes,  Jehovah  will  fulfil  this  as 
well  as  the  former  prophecy  of  Jeroboam's  eleva- 
tion. 

Vers.  13-14.  Some  good  thing  toward  the 
Lord  God,  ver.  13.  nirv  i)N  is  not  to  be  con- 
nected with  XSOJ ,  an|l  then  translated  as  the 
Vulgate  has  it,  a  domino  (Thenius) ;  but  it  means 
towards,  or  in  relation  to,  Jehovah  (cf.  2  Kings  vi. 
11).  The  whole  context  shows  that  it  can  scarcely 
naea;.  anything  else  than  that  this  son,  from  whom 
the  king  and  people  hoped  so  much,  was  inclined 
to  the  pure  and  lawful  worship  of  Jehovah.  The 
Rabbins  have  a  fable  that  he  disobeyed  his  father's 
command  to  hinder  people  from  travelling  to  Jeru- 
salem to  keep  the  feasts,  and  that  he  even  removed 
obstructions  in  the  road.  The  abrupt  words  in 
ver.  14:  nnV"D3  TO1  are  obscure,  and  are  very 

variously  explained.  Thenius  adopts  the  view  of 
the  Chald. :  He  shall  cut  off  the  house  of  Jeroboam 
"  that  which  now  (lives),  and  that  which  shall  be 

(born)  to  it."    But  the  athnach  with  QVn  as  well  as 

with  DO  contradicts  this,  which  means  not  quod  but 


quid.  The  meaning  seems  to  be:  Jehovah  wii' 
raise  up  a  king,  who  at  a  certain  period  shall  ca 
oft'  the  house  of  Jeroboam  ;  what  now  occurs  (the 
death  of  the  boy)  is  the  sign  and  beginning  of  this 
complete  destruction.  The  interrogatory  fora' 
makes  the  words  more  impressive.  The  Hirscl> 
berger  Bible  says:  "And  what  shall  I  say  (or 
that  coming  day)  ?  It  is  even  now  come ;  "  Kei. 
also;  "but  what  (sc.  say  I)?  even  now  (vis.  he  hai 
raised  him  up)." 

Vers.  14-16.  For  the  Lord  shall  smite  Israel 

ver.  15.  Smiting  refers  to  the  wasting  of  Israe. 
by  hostile  nations,  before  the  Assyrian  captivity. 
A  "  reed  "  continually  waves  to  and  fro  in  water, 
as  it  cannot  resist  the  force  of  the  wind  and  waves 
"  The  image  is  very  striking,  for  Israel  was 
brought  so  low,  that  every  political  influence  bore 
it  along"  (Thenius).  The  "  scatter  ag"  took  plac* 
in  the  captivity  (2  Kings  xv.  29;  xvii.  23;  xviii 
11)-     D,")t;iN  does  not  mean  groves  (Luther),  but 

the  statues  of  the  female  deity,  elsewhere  called  As- 
tarte  (see  above  on  chap.  xi.  5),  who  stands  over 
against  Baal,  the  Canaanitish  (Phoenician)  male 
deity.  These  statues  were  wooden  (upright  tree- 
stems)  ;  the  worship  was  licentious  (Judg.  iii.  7  -r 
yi.  25  sq. ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  7;  Ezek.  xxiii.  i2  sq.).  K 
is  not  expressly  said  that  images  of  Astarte  were 
erected  under  Jeroboam,  but  ver.  23  remarks  that, 
this  was  done  in  Judah  under  Rehoboam,  how 
much  more  then  in  Israel.  The  Astarte  worship 
existed  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  (cf.  on  the  place). 
Jeroboam's  image-worship  is  here  regarded  as  a 
continual  evil  and  source  of  all  ruin.  Keil'a 
assertion  that   "QviK*S    stands   for    any   idols,. 

among  which  the  golden  calves  are  to  be  num- 
bered," is  not  susceptible  of  proof. 

Vers.  17-18.  And  Jeroboam's  wife  ...  to 
Tirzah,  ver.  ]7.  According  to  Josh.  xii.  24,  Tir 
zah  was  originally  a  Canaanitish  royal  city,  situ 
ated  in  a  beautiful  district  (Eccle.  vi.  4).  "We  can- 
not ascertain  its  precise  situation  ;  it  was  probably 
nearShechem;  Robinson  thinks  it  was  rather  north 
of  Mount  Ebal ;  former  travellers  state  that  they 
found  a  Tersah  on  a  high  mountain,  three  hours' 
distance  east  of  Samaria  (cf.  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  II.  s. 
613).  According  to  chap.  xii.  25,  Shechem  was  the 
residence  of  Jeroboam ;  and  he  must  either  have 
changed  it  afterwards  to  Tirzah,  or  the  latter 
must  have  been  only  a  summer  residence.  Penuel. 
mentioned  above,  was  not  a  place  of  residence  but 
a  fortress ;  so  that  the  present  passage  does  not 
at  all  contradict  that  one,  as  Thenius  thinks  The 
kings  Baasha  and  Asa  and  Elah  resided  at  Tirzah 
(chap,  xv    21,  33;  xvi.  8). 

Vers.  19-20.  The  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jero- 
boam, Ac,  ver.  19.  For  the  book  of  the  contem- 
poraneous history  of  the  kings  of  Israel  see  Intru- 
duction  §  2.  What  is  only  alluded  to  by  our 
author,  in  the  words  "  how  he  warred,"  is  fully 
given  by  the  Chronicler,  from  the  book  of  the  pro- 
phet Iddo ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  2-20.  This  is  an  account 
of  a  great  defeat  of  Jeroboam  by  king  Abijah,  an'j 
it  says  at  the  end :  "  and  the  Lord  struck  him 
OinDJ'l),    and  he    died."     Bertheau's    supposition 

that  this  refers  to  the  defeat  itself,  is  scarcely- 
right  ;  neither  can  it  mean  a  sudden  death  (Tht» 
nius),  but,  as  in  2  Chron.  xxi.  18,  a  severe  and  pain 
ful  illness. 


CHAPTER  XIV.   1-20. 


16fc 


HISTORICAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

1.  From  the  long  reign  {twenty-two  years)  of  Jero- 
btam,  whose  history  closes  with  the  present  section,  our 
ajthor  only  selects  those  deeds  that  bear  on  his 
apostasy  from  the  fundamental  law  of  Israel,  i.  e., 
on  "  the  sin  wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin." 
He  passes  over  all  the  rest  that  Jeroboam  did  as 
a  shrewd  and  powerful  regent  or  warrior,  because 
it  was  of  far  less  importance  to  the  history  of  the 
kingdom  and  of  the  entire  theocracy  than  that  sin 
which  especially  characterized  his  government, 
and  the  results  of  which  were  felt  for  hundreds  of 
years.  David  was  the  king  who  faithfully  kept 
the  fundamental  law,  and  was  therefore  the  type 
of  a  theocratic  king,  but  Jeroboam  was  the  king 
who  openly  broke  the  fundamental  law,  made  the 
bull-worship  the  religion  of  the  State,  and  used  it  as 
a  bulwark  of  his  kingdom  over  against  Judah.  He 
was  the  real  cause  of  the  apostasy  of  all  the  after 
kings  of  the  ten  tribes,  for  they  all  regarded  it  as 
the  support  of  their  power,  and  as  a  firm  wall  of 
separation  between  both  kingdoms.  This  is  the 
reason  why  the  account  of  his  reign  significantly 
closes  with  the  divine  sentence  on  him  and  the 
apostate  kingdom.  It  was  a  divine  dispensation 
that  he  himself,  after  all  warnings  and  threaten- 
ings  had  been  in  vain,  called  forth  this  divine  sen- 
tence by  the  deceitful  means  he  took,  and  even 
from  the  very  prophet  who  had  announced  to  him 
his  future  elevation  ;  so  that  he  could  judge  from 
the  fulfilment  of  that  announcement  that  the  sen- 
tence would  also  come  to  pass.  As  his  sin  was  the 
type  of  the  sin  of  all  succeeding  kings  and  of  the 
whole  kingdom,  so  Ahijah's  prediction  is  the  type 
of  all  succeeding  predictions  regarding  this  king- 
dom ;  it  forms  the  key-tone  that  rings  through  all 
of  them  (chap.  xvi.  4 ;  xxi.  23  ;  xxii  28 ;  2  Kings 
ix.  36). 

2.  Ahijah's  prophecy,  in  form  as  well  as  in  con- 
tents (cf.  above  on  ver.  7)  is  a  perfectly  connected 
whole.  It  refers  back  (ver.  7,  8)  to  the  former  pre- 
diction, chap.  xi.  30,  particularly  to  ver.  37  sg. 
After,  in  ver.  8,  it  is  stated  in  a  general  way  that 
Jeroboam  did  not  follow  David's  example,  which 
was  the  condition  imposed  upon  him.  Ver.  9 
declares  how  he  sinned;  then  follows,  in  vers. 
10  and  1 1,  the  announcement  of  the  punish- 
ment, which  was  to  be  a  shameful  destruction  of 
his  house;  vers.  12  and  13  apply  this  to  the 
heir-apparent,  to  the  sick  and  only  son,  who 
was,  indeed,  also  to  die.  but  he  was  not  to 
perish  so  disgracefully,  because  some  "  good 
thing"  was  found  in  him.  Vers.  10  and  11  are 
repeated  in  ver.  14,  and  it  is  added  who  is  to  carry 
out  this  sentence ;  but  as  Jeroboam  had  drawn  all 
Israel  into  his  sin,  and  they  had  consented  thereto, 
the  prophecy  finally  proceeds  in  vers.  15,  16  to  deal 
with  guilty  Israel,  pronouncing  its  disastrous  future 
and  final  ruin.  This  alone  shows  how  unfounded 
the  assertion  of  the  recent  criticism  is,  that  the 
form  of  the  prediction,  as  it  now  is,  is  not  the  ori- 
ginal. According  to  Ewald,  vers.  9  and  15  are 
"  clearly  an  addition  of  the  later  (i.  e.,  fifth  Deute- 
ronomical)  author;  "  the  style  of  ver.  9  is  peculiar 
to  this  Tuthor,  and  ver.  15  interrupts  the  connec- 
tion. But  ver.  9  is  an  essential  part  of  the  whole, 
and  its  omission  would  leave  a  serious  gap ;  the 
following  sentence  of  punishment  is  founded  on 
what  ver.  9  states.  Just  as  little  does  ver.  15  break 
the  connection ;  it  rather  forms  the  object  and  acme 


of  the  prediction,  pronouncing  the  natural  and 
necessary  end  of  Jeroboam's  sin.  To  take  away 
this  conclusion  is  to  break  off  the  point  of  the 
whole.  Thenius  only  objects  to  the  second  hal/ 
of  ver.  15,  on  account  of  the  expression  ;  "  beyond 
the  river ;  "  this  he  thinks  is  from  an  "  elaborator.' 
But  the  Euphrates  is  generally  given  as  I  le  ex- 
treme limit  of  the  land  that  was  promised  to  the 
fathers  (Gen.  xv.  18;  Ex.  xxiii.  31  ;  Deut.  i.  7  ;  xi. 
24;  Josh.  i.  3,  4;  Ps.  lxxx.  12).  The  prophet, 
when  he  wished  to  say  that  Israel  should  lose  the 
land  given  to  their  fathers,  could  scarcely  use  any 
other  form  of  expression  than  that  they  should  be 
sent  away  beyond  the  river;  a  case  which  Solo- 
mon foresaw  as  possible  (see  above).  If  criticism 
did  not  take  it  for  granted  that  any  genuine  pre- 
diction is  impossible,  it  would  not  think  of  doubt- 
ing the  authenticity  of  this.  That  the  prophet  pre- 
dicted the  cutting  off  of  Jeroboam's  house,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  is  as  little  to 
be  doubted  as  the  prediction  connected  with  it,  that 
of  Ahijah's  death,  whom  the  blind  prophet  had  not 
even  seen. 

3.  Ahijah's  prophecy  repeatedly  describes  the  con- 
sequence and  working  of  "  Jeroboam's  sin  "  (vers.  9 
and  15)  in  the  words,  provoked  the  Lord  to  anger. 
This  expression  occurs  in  other  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  also  (chap.  xiv.  22;  xvi.  2,  7,  13;  xxi. 
22;  2  Kings  xvii.  11,  17;  xxiii.  26  ;  Deut.  iv.  25  ; 
xxxi.  29;  xxxii.  16,  21;  2  Chron.  xxiii.  25;  Ezek. 
viii.  17;  xvi.  26:  Ps.  lxxviii.  58);  it  by  no  means 
presupposes  rude,  authropopathical  ideas  of  the 
nature  of  God,  but  is  founded  on  perfectly  just 
views  of  the  deity.  The  two  expressions  for  Jeho- 
vah's anger,  D1'3  and  jop,  which  are  cited  in  the 
above  passages,  sometimes  interchanged  and 
sometimes  used  synonymously,  are  employed  only 
in  reference  to  a  particular  sin,  i.  e.,  apostasy  from 
Jehovah  through  idolatry  or  image-worship,  and 
never  of  sin  in  general ;  and  they  have,  therefore, 
direct  reference  to  the  fundamental  law,  the  cove- 
nant, in  which  this  sin  is  forbidden,  with  the  addi- 
tion, "  for  the  Lord  thy  God  is  a  N3p  ?H  ,"  i.  e.,  a 

jealous  God.  Jehovah  had  from  love  chosen  Israel 
out  of  all  peoples  to  be  His  people,  and  had  made 
a  covenant  with  them  (Ex.  xix.  4,  5  ;  Deut,  iv.  36- 
40  ;  vii.  6-13 ;  x.  14,  15  ;  Ps.  xlvii.  5  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  3), 
that  they  should  be  a  holy  people,  even  as  He  is 
holy  (Lev.  xix.  2).  The  holy  love  of  Jehovah  to 
his  people  is  so  great  and  strong  that  each  depart- 
ure of  Israel  from  the  covenant  excites  His  "jeal- 
ousy;" Jehovah,  "the  holy  God,"  is,  as  such,  also 
"a  jealous  God "  (Josh.  xxiv.  19),  and  He  would 
appear  as  faithless  and  unholy  if  He  were  indiffer- 
ent to  idolatry  and  image-worship,  which  are 
breaches  of  the  covenant,  and  therefore  called 
adultery  and  whoredom  (Jer.  iii.  9,  and  many  other 
places).  Offence  against  the  holy  love  of  God 
awakens  His  jealousy,  which  manifests  itself  in 
retributive  justice,  i.  e.,  it  provokes  Him  to  anger. 
"  Just  anger  can  only  be  conceived  of  as  closely 
united  with  mercy.  The  Old  Testament  proclaims 
this  high  and  blessed  truth  with  a  voice  above 
that  of  man.  This  is  its  greatest  excellence,  and 
conspicuously  with  it  is  to  be  seen  its  peculiai 
sublimity,  which  consists  in  its  preaching  at  one 
and  the  same  time  the  all-consuming  wrath  of  God 
and  the  ardor  of  His  mercy,  surpassing  infinitely 
that  of  a  mother.  Both  are  closely  and  inseparabij 
interwoven  on  every  page,  the   thunder  of  God'i 


170 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


wrath  and  the  quickening  spring-breath  of  His 
mercy.  Classical  antiquity  had  no  genuine,  awe- 
inspiring  knowledge  of  divine  anger,  neither  had  it 
any  living  consciousness  of  the  divine  mercy " 
(Rothe,  Theologische  Ethik  II.  s.  203). 

4.  The  divine  judgments  announced  in  Ahijah's 
prediction,  namely,  cutting  off  Jeroboam's  house, 
and  dispersion  of  Israel  out  of  the  good  land  given 
to  their  fathers,  correspond  with  the  nature  of  the 
old  covenant,  which  has  its  form  in  the  bodily  and 
in  the  temporal.  As  natural  descent  and  deriva- 
tion was  the  condition  of  belonging  to  the  chosen 
covenant  people,  so  the  curse  and  blessing,  good 
and  evil  bound  up  with  the  covenant  relation,  were 
of  a  material,  temporal  nature.  As  natural  descent 
determined  a  right  to  partake  of  the  covenant  with 
Jehovah,  so  also  natural  posterity  was  blessing 
and  peace,  while  the  dying  out  or  cutting  off  of  a 
race  was  a  curse  and  misfortune.  This  is  the  rea- 
son why  David,  who  was  faithful  to  the  covenant, 
was  promised  that  he  should  always  have  a  light, 
i.  e.,  a  house  forever  (chap,  xi.  36;  xv.  4;  2  Sam. 
xxi.  17),  while  the  speedy  and  shameful  extinction 
of  his  house  was  announced  to  the  unfaithful  Jero- 
boam. So  also  the  ''good  laud,"  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey,  was  promised  to  the  whole  of  the  chosen 
people ;  but  when  they  broke  the  covenant  and 
partook  of  Jeroboam's  sin  they  were  deprived  of 
the  good  land,  were  scattered  in  strange  lands,  and 
ceased  to  be  a  nation,  which  was  to  them  the  great- 
est punishment. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-20.  The  last  divine  warning  to  Jerobo- 
am, (a)  through  the  illness  of  his  son,  (b)  through  the 
prediction  of  the  prophet.  Jeroboam  in  need  and 
in  distress,  (a)  He  is  only  concerned  about  the  tak- 
ing away  of  the  need  and  the  lifting  off  of  the  pun- 
ishment, not  in  the  renunciation  of  his  sin  and  the 
conversion  of  the  heart,  which  should  have  been 
the  result  of  his  need,  as  it  is  the  case  now  with  so 
many,  (ft)  He  seeks  consolation  and  help,  not  at  the 
hands  of  his  false  priests  and  spiritual  hirelings, 
whom  he  himself  did  not  trust,  but  from  the  proph- 
et, about  whom  he  did  not  long  trouble  himself  after 
he  had  nothing  to  ask.  Thus  it  is  always.  In 
need  and  necessity  unbelievers  and  the  children  of 
this  world  seek  for  consolation  and  comfort  from  a 
spiritual  preacher,  and  despise  the  finery  of  the 
hirelings  who  care  only  for  the  wool  and  not  for 
the  sheep,  (c)  He  does  not  himself  apply  to  the 
prophet,  because  he  has  an  evil  conscience,  end  he 
sends  his  wife  in  a  disguise,  for  before  the  world 
he  does  not  wish  to  be  viewed  as  one  who  cares 
much  for  prophets.  This  is  the  folly  of  the  wise 
of  this  world,  that  they  suppose  they  can  deceive 
Sod  as  they  deceive  men.  But  the  Lord  sees  what 
is  concealed  in  the  darkness,  and  gives  to  every 
one  what  he  has  deserved. 

Yer.  1.  When  the  threatening,  warning  word 
of  God  bears  no  fruit,  God  at  last  sends  the  cross, 
especially  the  cross  in  the  household,  to  humble 
us,  to  bring  us  to  a  knowledge  of  our  sins,  and  to 
lead  us  to  the  cross  of  Christ. — Starke:  God  gen- 
erally lays  hold  upon  men  in  those  respects  where 
it  is  most  grievous  to  them  (2  Sam.  xii.  14;  John 
iv.  47). — Ver.  2  Calw.  B. :  Jeroboam  did  not  wish 
to  be  seen  having  anything  to  do  with  the  prophet, 
by  any  one.  Worldly  people  are  ashamed  to  make 
U  known  that  they  believe  in  anything,  even  if  it  be 


a  superstitious  faith.  If  God  send  thee  necessity 
and  distress,  take  no  by-ways,  but  go  to  Him  and 
pour  out  thine  heart  before  Him;  He  hears  al" 
who  call  upon  Him,  all  who  earnestly  cry  unto 
Him.  Disguise  thyself,  that  no  one  mark  who  anQ 
what  thou  art !  This  is  the  bad  advice  wnicft  the 
world  gives  for  the  conduct  of  life,  and  which 
passes  curreut  with  it  as  the  true  wisdom  thereof. 
How  social  life  is  vitiated  by  this  sin,  by  the  en- 
deavor to  seem  before  people  rather  than  to  be — 
often  it  is  like  a  masquerade !  It  is  even  more 
deceived  by  actions,  by  mien  and  manner,  than  by 
words.  The  art  of  disguise  corrupts  man  in  the 
profoundest  ground  of  his  being,  and  transforms 
him  into  an  incarnate  lie. — Vers.  3,  4.  Calw.  B. : 
The  little  bit  of  faith  which  worldly  people  often 
exhibit  is  but  part  of  their  selfishness.  .  .  .  The 
foreknowledge  of  the  future  in  the  affairs  of  dady 
life  man  would  gladly  possess,  because  he  will  not 
yield  himself,  in  faith,  to  the  will  of  God.  Hence 
flow  often  superstition,  fortune-telling,  dream-in- 
terpretation, astrology,  both  among  the  heathens  as 
well  as  among  Christians. — Cramer:  The  gift  of 
God  neither  should  nor  can  be  sold  or  bought  for 
money.  As  a  rule,  unbelief  is  bound  with  super- 
stition. Jeroboam  did  not  believe  when  God  spoke 
to  him  by  word  and  deed  (chap,  xiii.),  and  yet  he 
believed  that  by  means  of  a  few  loaves  and  cakes 
he  could  persuade  God  to  reveal  the  future  to 
him.  [The  history  of  religion  in  modern  times 
confirms  and  illustrates  this.] 

Vers.  4-6.  The  wife  of  Jeroboam  before  the 
prophet,  (a)  She  means  to  deceive  the  aged 
blind  prophet  by  a  disguise,  but  the  Lord  gives 
him  sight  (Ps.  clvi.  8).  He  gives  strength  to  the 
weary  and  power  to  the  feeble.  The  Lord  ever 
gives  sight  to  His  true  servants,  so  that  the  world 
cannot  deceive  and  blind  them,  (b)  She  hopes,  by 
her  present,  to  secure  the  desired  answer,  but,  at 
the  hour,  the  Lord  gives  him  the  word  he  shall 
speak ;  it  is  the  Spirit  of  God  who  speaks  through 
him  (Matt.  x.  19  sq,).  A  true  servant  of  God 
proclaims  the  word  of  truth  to  every  one,  without 
respect  of  persons,  no  matter  how  hard  it  be  for 
him.  This  often  is  his  hard  yet  sacred  duty. — Vers. 
7-16.  Ahijah's  sermon  of  repentance  and  retribu- 
tion, (a)  Against  Jeroboam,  who  corrupted  Isra- 
el, (ft)  Against  Israel,  allowing  themselves  to  be 
corrupted. — Ver.  7  sq.  How  often  it  happens  that 
the  very  ones  whom  God  raises  from  the  dust,  and 
to  whom  He  gives  the  largest  favors,  turn  their 
back  upon  and  forget  Him.  So  Jeroboam,  so  Is- 
rael. Deut.  xxxii.  6. — Vers.  10,  15.  Not  a  blessing 
but  a  curse  rests  upon  a  house  which  turns  its 
back  upon  the  Lord  and  His  commandments.  And 
so  also  a  people  who  forget  the  faith  of  their  fa- 
thers lose  all  territory,  are  given  up  to  all  convul- 
sions from  within  aud  from  without,  and  go  to  de 
struction.  Sin  is  the  destruction  of  the  peoph- 
(Heb.  x.  28-30.)— Vers.  12,  13.  The  death  of  a  be- 
loved child,  for  whom  God  has  prepared  good,  is 
often  the  only  and  the  supreme  means  of  turning 
away  the  heart  of  the  parents  from  sin  and  the 
world,  and  of  winning  them  to  the  life  in  God  to 
which  they  are  strangers.  For  many  a  child  it  is 
a  divine  blessing  when  it  is  early  taken  out  of  this 
vain  world  and  called  away  from  surroundings  in 
which  there  is  danger  of  the  corruption  both  of 
soul  and  body. — Ver.  15.  Israel,  it  is  thins  own 
sin  that  thou  hast  destroyed  thyself. — Ver.  16.  If 
the  Lord  say, — he  who  offeuds  one  of  the  least  of 


CHAPTER  XIV.  21-31. 


171 


these,  Ac,  &c.  (Matt,  xviii.  6),  what  will  He  say  to 
those  who  give  offence  to  an  entire  people,  at  the 
head  of  which  they  stand,  through  unbelief  and 
immorality,  and  beguile  them  into  an  apostasy 
from  the  living  God? — Ver.  18.  What  the  Saviour 
said  to  those  who  bewailed  Him  on  His  way  to 
death,  Weep  not  for  me,  but,  &c.  (Luke  xxiii.  28), 
might  have  been  said  to  the  whole  people  Israel, 
and  is  true  to-day  of  so  many  who  are  weeping 
over  a  grave.  We  should  carry  the  dead  in  whom 
good  before  God  is  found  with  honor  to  their  rest 
in  the  grave. 

Vers.  19,  20.  The  Scripture  says  (Prov.  x.  7), 


The  memory  of  the  just  is  blessed,  but  the  name 
of  the  godless  will  perish  (rot).  The  first  is  true 
of  David,  the  last  of  Jeroboam,  whose  name  is  not 
like  an  ointment  poured  out  (i.  e.,  diffusing  sweet 
perfume,  Eccle.  i.  3),  but  is  a  savor  of  death  unto 
death ;  for  with  his  name,  for  all  the  future,  this 
word  is  connected:  who  sinned  and  made  Israel  to 
sin.  Of  what  use  is  it  to  have  worn  a  worldly 
crown  two  and  twenty  years,  to  have  striven  and 
fought  for  it,  when  the  crown  of  life  does  not  suc- 
ceed it,  which  they  alone  obtain  who  are  faithful 
unto  death  (Rev.  ii.  10)  ? 


THIRD   SECTION. 

THE   KINGDOM   IN   JUDAH    UNDER    REHOBOAM,  ABIJAM,  AND   ASA. 

(Chap.  XTV.  21.— XV.  24.) 


A. — The  Rule  of  Rehoboam. 
Chap.  XIV.   21-31. 


21  And  Rehoboam  the  son  of  Solomon  reigned  in  Judah.  Rehoboam  was  forty 
and  one1  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned  seventeen  years  in 
Jerusalem,  the  city  which  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  did  choose  out  of  all  the  tribes  ot 
Israel,  to  put  his  name  there.    And  his  mother's  name  was  Naamah  an  Ammoni- 

22  tess.  And  Judah  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  they  provoked 
him  to  jealousy  with  their  sins  which  they  had  committed,  above  all  that  their 

23  fathers  had  done.     For  they2  also  built  them  high  places,  and  images  [pillars]3, 

24  and  groves,  on  every  high  hill,  and  under  every  green  tree.  And  there  were 
also  sodomites  in  the  land:  and  they  did  according  to  all  the  abominations  of 
the  nations  which  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  cast  out  before  the  children  of  Israel. 

25  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fifth  year  of  king  Rehoboam,  that  Shishak  king  of 

26  Egypt  came  up  against  Jerusalem :  and  he  took  away  the  treasures  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house  ;  he  even  took  away 

27  all:  and  he  took  away  all  the  shields  of  gold  which*  Solomon  had  made.  And. 
king  Rehoboam  made  in  their  stead  brazen  shields,  and  committed  them  unto 
the  hands  of  the  chief6  of  the  guard,  which  kept  the  door  of  the  king's  house. 

28  And  it  was  so,  when  the  king  went  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  that 

29  the  guard  bare  them,  and  brought  them  back  into  the  guard-chamber.  Now  the 
rest  of  the  acts  of  Rehoboam,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the 

30  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah?     And  there  was  war  between 

31  Rehoboam  and  Jeroboam  all  their  days.  And  Rehoboam  slept  with  his  fathers, 
and  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David.  And  his  mother's  name 
was  Naamah  an  Amnionitess.0     And  Abijam  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 

TEXTUAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  21.— [Our  author  substitutes  the  number  twenty-one  in  his  translation,  the  reasons  for  which  see  in  the  Exeg. 
Coin.  On  the  other  hand,  the  entire  agreement  of  the  W.  and  MSS.  is  a  strong  argument  for  the  text  as  it  stands.  Kell 
iecldes  against  the  proposed  alteration. 

9  Ver.  28. — [  nT3n~DJ  OS^I  "and  they,  even  they  built,"  (.  e.,  the  Jews  aB  well  as  the  Israelites. 

"  Ver.  23.— [  J"p,3i"Q  =  monumental  pillars  for  religious  purposes.     Sept.,  tmJAas.    See  the  Exeg.  Com. 

4  Ver.  26. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  thus  enlarges  the  close  of  ver.  26 :  shields  of  gold  which  David  received  of  the  hand  of  tfca 
children  of  Adrazaar.  king  of  Souba,  and  brought  them  into  Jerusalem,  all  the  things  which  he  received,  the  arms  of  gol< 
which  Solomon  made,  and  carried  them  into  Egypt. 

*  Ver.  27. —  [The  Heb..  followed  by  all  the  W.,  has  the  plural.    The  A.  V.  must  have  used  "  chief"  collectively. 

6  Ver.  31. — [The  Vat.  Sept.,  as  also  the  Syr.,  omits  the  foregoing  clause,  which  is  repeated  from  vel   21.— F.  G.] 


172 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  21.  Twenty  and  one  years  old  was  Re- 
hoboam.  [Rehoboam  was  forty  and  one  years 
old. — Eng.  Ver.]  The  usual  reading  is  "  forty  and 
one."  Although  the  Chronicler  (2  xii.  13)  and  all 
translations  give  the  latter,  and  only  some  MSS. 
give  twenty  and  one,  yet  this  is  indisputably  the 
right  reading.  For  (a)  in  chap.  xii.  8,  10  (2  Chron. 
x.  8,  10),  Rehoboam's  companions  at  the  time  of 
his  accession  are  called  0y~\y  ,   which  generally 

mean  infants,  or  at  most  youths,  but  never  men 
of  forty.  The  older  commentators  resorted  to  the 
very  strange  and  far-fetched  supposition  that  the 
young  men  mentioned  in  chap.  xii.  were  not  young 
in  years  but  in  understanding.  Thenius  thinks 
that  their  youth  was  relative  as  compared  with  the 
age  of  the  "'old  men;"  but  men  in  ripe  manhood 
of  one  and  forty  years  cannot  be  called  D'"!?'  in 
any  case.  (6)  Regarding  the  son  of  Rehoboam, 
Abijah,  2  Chron.  xiii.  7,  says,  the  insurrection  of 
Jeroboam  and  the  separation  of  the  ten  tribes  took 
place  because  his  (Abijah's)  father  was  still  a  boy, 
"IJ?J  ,  and  33p-Tl  (of  a  weak,  tender   heart,  cf. 

Gen.  xxxiii.  1 3).  The  son  wishes  to  explain  the  con- 
duct of  his  father  by  his  youthful  age ;  but  he 
could  not  possibly  speak  thus  of  a  man  forty-one 
years  old.  Besides,  chap.  xii.  6  sq.  agrees  per- 
fectly with  the  description  of  Rehoboam's  con- 
duct, (c)  If  Rehoboam  were  forty-one  years  old 
at  the  death  of  Solomon,  who  reigned  forty  years 
(chap.  xi.  42),  Solomon  must  have  married  during 
David's  life-time,  and  have  married  an  Ammoni- 
tes?, which  was  contrary  to  the  law ;  and,  as  he 
calls  himself  only  a  lyj  (chap.  iii.  7)  when  lie  had 

become  king,  lie  must  have  had  a  son  in  about  his 
18th  year.  There  is  nothing,  however,  of  all  this 
in  the  history ;  on  the  contrary,  it  says  expressly 
that  he  married  a  daughter  of  Pharaoh  after  he 
became  king,  and  she  was  the  real  queen  (chap, 
iii.  1 :  ix.  24) ;  he  did  not  take  Canaanitish  wives 
till  later  (chap.  xL  1  sq.).  All  these  positive  his- 
torical evidences  for  the  youth  of  Rehoboam  at 
his  accession  cannot  be  disproved  and  rejected  on 
account  of  a  mere  numerical  figure,  though  it 
were  originally  in  the  text.  We  must,  therefore, 
believe,  like  Capellus  and  Le  Clerc,  that  the  nume- 
ral signs  were  changed,  as  so  often  happens,  viz., 
that  of  o  with  3;  this  obviates  all  difficulties,  and 
there  is  no  passage  that  in  the  least  contradicts  it. 
The  name  and  descent  of  the  mother  are  expressly 
given,  because  the  queen-mother  was  very  much 
esteemed  and  very  influential,  as  the  n~P33  ,  just  as 

the  sultana  Walida  is  now  in  the  Turkish  empire. 
The  text  also  subsequently  gives  the  name  of  the 
queen-mothers,  but  only  of  those  belonging  to  the 
Judah-kings  (chap.  xv".  2,  13 ;  xxii.  42,  Ac).  The 
reason  of  the  words,  in  Jerusalem,  the  city  which  the 
Lord  did  choose,  &c,  is  found  in  the  following  vers. 
22  and  24,  in  connection  with  which  they  mean: 
the  residence  of  Jeroboam  was  indeed  the  city 
where  Jehovah's  dwelling  stood,  which  was  the 
centre  of  the  whole  theocracy,  but  even  here  the 
people  fell  into  idolatry.  For  the  expression:  put 
His  name  there,  see  above  on  chap.  vi. 

Vers.  23-24.  And  Judah  did  evil,  Ac.  Even 
m  the  times  of  the  judges  the  apostasy  was  never 
fo  great  in  Judah  as   it  was  now  under  Reho- 


boam. For  the  expression:  provoke  to  jealousy, 
see  above.     For  ni?03  see  on  chap.  iii.  2.  and  fot 

D'IB'X  see  on  ver.  15.  The  ni25i'D  are  also  men- 
tioned in  Ex.  xxxiv.  13;  Deut.  vii.  5:  xii.  3; 
xvi.  21  sq.,  in  connection  with  the  Astarte-images ; 
from  which  passages  it  appears  that  the  former 
were  made  of  stone,  and  the  latter  of  wood. 
~2£S   from  2"S3  means   something  that  is  mad? 

fast  or  placed  firmly,  and  refers  to  monuments 
(Ex.  xxviii.  18,  22;  xxxi.  13;  xxxv.  14,  20;  Ex 
xxiv.  4;  2  Sam.  xviii.  18).  As  they  were  only 
used  to  commemorate  a  divine  appearance  and  re- 
velation (Gen.  xxviii.  18),  meu  easily  came  to  pay 
them  divine  honor,  and  in  the  heathen  world  they 
passed  into  regular  idols  (Lev.  xxvi.  1).  Whilst 
the  wooden  monuments  (Astarte)  represented  the 
female  nature-divinity,  the  stone  pillars  repre- 
sented the  male  deity,  i.  e.,  Baal ;  hence  J"Di"D 
^JQn  (2  Kings  iii.  2;  cf.  x.  26;  xviii.  4;  xxiii. 
14).  The  J"I1D3  were  erected  on  hills  and  moun- 
tains, the  idols  of  the  male  and  female  divinities 
were  placed  under  thick  shady  trees,  as  appears 
from  Hos.  iv.  13,  cf.  Deut.  xii.  2 ;  Jer.  ii.  20 ;  iii.  6 ; 
xvii.  2.  That  tTp  (ver.  24),  used  collectively,  does 

not  mean  female  (Ewald,  Thenius),  but  only  male 
prostitutes,  is  quite  evident  from  chap.  xv.  12 
(D'Bnpn)  and  Deut.  xxiii.  18;  the  author  men- 
tions as  the  greatest  excess  of  idolatry,  that  men, 
or  boys  allowed  themselves  to  be  prostituted  in 
honor  of  the  gods.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose, 
as  Keil  does,  that  they  were  such  "  as  had  cas- 
trated themselves  in  a  fit  of  religious  frenzy." 
The  words  "in  the  land"  (cf.  with  chap.  xv.  12) 
shows  that  they  were  not  natives  (Israelites  or 
Judeans),  but  strangers,  Canaanites  or  Phoenicians 
who  had  settled  in  the  land  for  unlawful  gain. 

Vers.  25-26.  Shishak  came  up,  ver.  25.  For  this 
king  see  on  chap.  xi.  40.  2  Chron.  xii.  2-8  gives  a 
further  account  of  his  invasion  of  Judah.  We  do 
not  know  the  cause :  the  Rabbins  think  it  was 
only  a  robber  expedition.  As  Jeroboam  had  so- 
journed as  a  refugee  with  Shishak  (according  to  an 
addition  of  the  Sept.  to  chap.  xii.  24,  he  had  even 
married  the  daughter  of  the  latter),  it  has  been 
supposed  that  he  was  induced  to  undertake  the 
war  by  Jeroboam.  "  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted 
that  the  king  with  a  Jewish  countenance  on  one 
of  the  monuments  at  Carnac  (see  Winer,  R.-W.- 
B.  II.  s.  311,  474)  was  Rehoboam.  if  Champollion 
was  correct  in   reading  Sheshouk  (Precis  du  syst. 

hieroglyph,  p.  204),"  Thenius.     ^3i"pnX1  i  i.e.,   all 

that  he  found:  took  the  shields,  &c.  (chap.  x.  16). 
These  were  of  peculiarly  high  value.  According 
to  the  connection,  the  author  means,  "That  Judah 
was  given  over  into  the  power  of  the  heathen  was 
the  punishment  that  speedily  followed  their  fall 
into  heathen  abominations  "  (Keil). 

Vers.  27-28.  King  Rehoboam  made,  &c , 
ver.  27.    The  D"V"I  are  the  royal  guards  (see  above 

on  chap.  i.  38),  who  were  also  named  celeres  with 
Romulus  (Liv.  i.  14).  i'hey  kept  watch  at  the 
palace  gate  (see  or.  2  Kings  xi.  6)  and  accompanied 
the  king  in  solemn  procession,  as  often  as  he 
went  to  the  temple;  it  was  only  then  that  they 
bore  these  shields  and   :.ot  on  ordinary  ooeasioni 


CHAPTER  XIV.  21-31. 


17o 


Nn  does  not  mean  exactly  the  "  guard-room,"  but 

any  place  where  the  runners  were  staying.  The 
costly  golden  shields  which  Solomon  had  made 
were  in  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  (chap, 
x.  17),  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  brazen 
shields  of  Rehoboam  were  only  kept  in  the  xn  , 

being  considered  as  "  of  no  value  "  (Thenius). 

Vers.  29-31.  The  rest  of  the  acts,  &e.  What 
2  Chron.  xi.  relates  of  the  cities  fortified  by  Reho- 
boam, of  the  emigration  of  priests  and  those  faith- 
ful to  Jehovah  to  the  Judah-territory,  and  of  the 
family  relations  of  Rehoboam,  is  certainly  derived 
from  ancient  historical  sources,  probably  from 
those  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xii.  15  (Thenius). 
As  also  the  account  of  the  Chronicles  gives  no 
details  of  a  regular  war  of  Rehoboam  with  Jero- 
boam, mrbo  here  ver.  30,  and  ntonl?9  2  Chron. 

xii.  15  only  refer  "  to  the  hostile  position  of  both 
Kingdoms  as  manifested  in  single  acts "  (Winer), 
therefore  not  to  a  warlike  disposition  simply. — 
Thenius  thinks  that  the  repetition  of  the  conclud- 
ing words  of  ver.  21  (the  name  of  his  mother,  &c.) 
"  was  caused  by  a  fault  in  the  copyist  that  cannot 
be  accounted  for."  This,  however,  is  very  improb- 
able, for  why  should  just  these  words  have  been 
taken  by  a  copyist  from  ver.  21,  have  been  repeated 
here,  and  then  always  have  remained  ?  The  re- 
petition appears  rather  to  have  been  intentional, 
in  order  to  show  once  more  at  the  end  of  the  ac- 
count of  Rehoboam  that  the  mother  of  this  king 
was  descended  from  that  rough  heathenish  peo- 
ple, the  Ammonites,  who  were  always  hostile  to 
Israel  and  that  under  Solomon  the  worship  of 
Moloch,  the  "  abomination  of  the  Ammonites,"  was 
brought  by  her  to  Jerusalem  (chap.  xi.  7)  and 
Buffered  to  remain  for  her  by  his  son  Rehoboam. 
This  appears  also  to  be  meant  by  2  Chron.  xii. 
14,  in  connection  with  ver.  13. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 
1.  We  learn  only  a  few  facts  from  these  books  re- 
garding king  Rehoboam  and  his  reign,  and  from 
those  few  no  certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn  re- 
garding his  relation  to  the  fundamental  law  of 
Israel ;  the  general  phrase  also  which  expresses 
the  relation  to  Jehovah,  and  which  always  imme- 
diately follows  the  account  of  the  personal  cir- 
cumstances of  all  the  later  kings  (cf.  chap.  xv.  ?, 
11,  25,  34,  &,c.)  is  omitted  here.  But  Chron.  con- 
cludes its  rather  more  explicit  account  with  the 
words,  "he  did  evil,  because  he  prepared  not  his 
heart   to  seek  the  Lord  (pan),"  2  Chron.  xii.  14  ; 

and  the  remark  is  made  before  (ver.  1),  that  "he 
forsook  the  law  of  the  Lord."  We  are  not  to  con- 
clude from  this,  however,  that  he  himself  served 
idols;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  emphatically  said  that, 
in  solemn  procession,  accompanied  by  his  whole 
body-guard,  he  continually  visited  the  temple,  and 
thus  showed  himself  publicly  to  all  the  people  as 
a  worshipper  of  Jehovah.  As  such  he  showed 
himself  also  when  Shishak  made  war  against  him 
(2  Chron.  xii.  6,  12)  But  he  forsook  the  law  in 
so  far  that  he  did  not  obey  its  injunctions  ;  he  suf- 
fered idolatrous  worship  in  Jerusalem  and  did 
nothing  towards  exterminating  it.  This  was 
"  the  evil "  he  was  accused  of;  he  continued 
Jehovah's  servant,  but  he  wanted  firmness  and 
decision.  Sometimes  fiery  and  arrogant,  some- 
limes  yielding  and  weak,  he  was  unstable,  as  he 


had  shown  himself  in  Shechem  at  the  commence- 
ment of  his  reign  (chap.  xii.  5-9,  18,  21);  he  seems 
also  to  have  been  under  the  influence  of  his  idol 
atrous  mother  (see  on  ver.  31)  and  wife  (chap 
xv.  13),  and  of  his  many  wives  (2  Chron.  xi.  21) 
Menzel  (Staats-  und  Kel.-Gesch.,  s.  236)  is  wholly 
wrong  in  referring,  in  his  superficial  way,  the  ex- 
pression nirWIX  tlVTP   (2  Chron.   xii.  14)  which 

he  translates  "  to  ask  the  Lord,"  to  "  the  relation 
of  the  king  to  the  priesthood,  and  in  that  he  is 
blamed  for  not  inquiring  of  the  Lord,  we  can  per- 
ceive that  Rehoboam  had  not  been  led,  by  the 
misfortune  which  had  befallen  him,  to  accord 
greater  consideration  to  the  priesthood  than  they 
had  enjoyed  under  his  predecessors."  That  ex- 
pression denotes  rather,  as  Dietrich  very  justly  re- 
marks ( Zu  Gesenius  W.-  B.  s.  v.),  "  the  striving  of  the 
spirit  after  God,  the  inward  seeking,  especially  in 
prayer,  and  calling  upon  Him  ;  cf.  Isai.  lv.  6  ;  lviii. 
2  ;  Jer.  xxix.  13  ;  2  Chron.  xv.  2,  14.  6 ;  Hos.  x. 
12;  Ps.  xiv.  2."  That  the  priesthood  under  Re- 
hoboam strove  for  greater  consideration  than 
they  had  under  David  (for  instance)  is  a  pure  in- 
vention ;  but  we  see  from  chap.  xii.  22-24  and 
2  Chron.  xii.  5,  6,  12,  that  Rehoboam  did  not  re- 
sist or  act  in  opposition  to  the  prophetical  word. 

2.  Tlte  idolatrous  worship  that  commenced  in  Ju~ 
dah  under  Rehoboam  was  not  begun  by  the  latter 
but  by  the  people;  for  ver.  22  does  not  say.  he  did 
evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  as  is  said  of  other 
kings,  but :  Judah  did,  4c.  This  seems  remark- 
able, because  Judah  had  the  central  sanctuary  in 
their  midst,  and  the  priests  and  levites :  indeed  all 
the  true  worshippers  of  Jehovah  had  left  the  apos- 
tate ten  tribes  and  had  gone  to  Judah,  by  which 
the  kingdom  of  Jeroboam  was  weakened,  but  that 
of  Rehoboam  strengthened  (2  Chron.  xi.  13-17). 
That  Judah,  nevertheless,  fell  so  deeply  was  owing 
to  an  afnir-inrluence  of  the  condition  of  things 
under  Solomon's  reign,  and  particularly  the  latter 
part  of  the  same.  Commerce  and  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  acquaintance  with  their  customs 
and  mode  of  life,  great  riches  and  uninterrupted 
peace,  had  exercised  an  enervating  and  demoraliz- 
ing influence.  Ease,  superfluity,  and  luxury  grad- 
ually undermined  serious  thought,  and  brought 
forth  lukewarmness,  indifference,  and  even  aver- 
sion to  the  strict  covenant-law :  what  was  written 
in  Deut.  xxxii.  15  (Hos.  xiii.  6)  came  to  pass. 
Added  to  this,  Solomon  at  last  removed  every  ob- 
stacle to  the  strange  heathen-worship  of  his  wives, 
so  that  although  Jerusalem  was  the  centre  of  the 
Jehovah-worship,  it  was  at  the  same  time  the  spot 
where  the  most  various  national  gods  were  adored, 
and  where  their  unchaste  worship  found  a  ready 
soil  (see  on  chap.  xi.  1-8).  Immediately  after  So> 
lomon's  death  this  "  religious  liberty  "  could  onlj 
have  been  abolished  by  force  and  iron  severity, 
but  the  times  were  not  adapted  for  this  task,  and 
still  less  was  Ms  successor,  Rehoboam,  the  son  of 
the  Ammonitess,the33S-q-|l  nyj  (2  Chron.  xiii.  7); 

so  that  idolatry  and  immorality  rather  increased 
than  decreased,  and  the  fall  of  Judah  seems  to 
have  been  even  deeper  than  that  of  Israel.  How- 
ever, the  condition  of  Judah  was  not  so  bad  as  the 
condition  of  Israel  in  this  respect;  as  in  the 
latter,  the  breach  of  the  fundamental  law  had  be- 
come the  State  religion  and  institution  of  the 
kingdom,    the   separate    existence   of   which   da 


174 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


pended  on  the  new  worship ;  whilst  in  Judah  the 
apostasy  was  only  permitted,  and  the  lawful  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  had  always  a  firm  footing  at  the 
central  sanctuary.  Many  good  elements  also  still 
existed  in  Judah  (2  Chron.  xx.  12).  Judah  always 
repented  as  often  as  they  fell  into  idolatry,  and  they 
continued  to  be  the  guardian  of  the  law,  whilst 
Israel,  on  the  contrary,  never  completely  returned 
to  the  right  way. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  21-30.  The  deep  fall  of  Judah:  (o) 
Whence  it  came  (Deut.  xxxii.  15  ;  Hosea  xiii.  6; 
Prov.  xxx.  9 — see  Hist,  and  Ethic.  2) ;  whither 
it  led  (Rom.  i.  25-28).  Amongst  individual  men  as 
in  entire  communities,  cities,  and  nations,  revolt 
against  the  living  God  results  from  haughtiness, 
over-prosperity,  and  carnal  security,  bringing  as 
inevitable  consequences,  poverty,  ruin,  and  mis- 
fortune in  war.  High  as  stood  Judah  under  David 
and  Solomon,  so  deep  in  proportion  did  it  sink  un- 
der Rehoboam. — Vers.  21,  22.  Wherever  God  has 
a,  house,  the  devil  always  builds  a  chapel  close  at 
hand.  How  often  does  it  happen  that  cities  and 
countries,  whence  it  has  been  ordaiaed  by  God 
that  the  light  of  His  knowledge  should  shine  forth, 
have  become  the  seat  alike  of  superstition  and  of 
scepticism,  and  thus  infinitely  sink  below  the  level 
of  those  lands  which  have  never  heard  His  blessed 
word.  When  an  individual  man,  or  a  whole 
community  and  people,  who  have  received  and  ac- 
knowledged the  truth,  again  depart  from  it,  then 
is  their  last  state  worse  than  their  first  (Isa.  xi. 
2G). — Vers.  23,  24.  Wherever  profligacy  and  for- 
nication are  in  the  ascendant,  there  is  true  hea- 


thendom, how  many  soever  may  be  the  churches 
King  Rehoboam,  too,  sinned  grievously  in  this 
wise — he,  although  not  himself  au  idol-worshipper, 
yet  failed  as  a  servant  of  God,  in  that  he  did  not 
oppose  idol-worship  with  all  his  might,  and  even 
regarded  it  as  having  equal  rights  with  the  service 
of  the  true  God— even,  alas,  as  we  find  Christian 
sovereigns  who  permit  unbelief  and  revolt  from  the 
truth  to  rank  upon  a  level  with  faith  and  confes- 
sion of  God  in  Christ. — Vers.  25  sq.  Where  the 
carcass  is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  to- 
gether (Matt.  xxiv.  28).  Theehastiseaients  of  God 
are  never  delayed  where  immorality  aud  godless- 
ness  prevail,  but  they  do  not  always  lead,  as  with 
Judah,  to  the  humble  confession:  The  Lord  is 
righteous  I  (2  Chron.  xii.  6). — Calw.  B. :  Sovereigns 
are  often  only  the  instruments  of  God  in  their  un- 
dertakings, although  they  do  not  or  will  not  recog- 
nize the  fact. — Ver.  26.  The  true  treasures  of  the 
temple  are  the  worship  of  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
prayer,  faith,  love,  and  obedience  ;  these  no  thieves 
nor  robbers  can  steal,  and  without  them  all  the  gold 
and  silver  in  temples  and  churches  is  vain  and  empty 
show.  Golden  or  copper  shields  are  alike  in 
value  if  only  we  can  say:  Th?  Lord  is  our  shield, 
and  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  our  King. — Vers.  27, 
28.  It  is  better  to  pray  to  our  heavenly  Father  in 
our  closet,  rather  than  to  worship  with  pomp  in 
church  to  be  seen  by  men.  Yet  now  there  are 
many  who  ceremoniously  frequent  the  churches, 
but  neglect  to  maintain  the  fear  of  God,  discipline, 
and  good  morals  in  their  own  houses  and  neigh- 
borhoods.— Vers.  30,  31.  It  is  not  to  a  man's 
honor  when,  at  his  grave,  these  words  are  said: 
There  was  life-long  enmity  between  him  and  his 
neighbor. 


B. —  The  reigns  of  Ahijam  and  Asa. 
Chap.  XV.  1-24  (2  Chron.  XIIL  XTV.) 

1  Now  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  king  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  reigned 

2  Abijam1  over  Judah.     Three3  years  reigned  he  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's 

3  name  was  Maachah,  the  daughter  of  Abishalom.  And  he  walked  in  all  the  sins 
of  his  father,  which  he  had  done  before  him :  and  his  heart  was  not  perfect  with 

4  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  his  God,  as  the  heart  of  David  his  father.  Nevertheless,  for 
David's  sake  did  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  his  God  give  him  a  lamp  in  Jerusalem,  to  set 

5  up  his  son  after  him,a  and  to  establish  Jerusalem  :  because  David  did  that  which 
was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  turned  not  aside  from  any  thing 
that  he  commanded  him  all  the  days  of  his  life,4  save  only  in  the  matter  of  Uriah 

6  the  Hittite.    And  there  was  war  between  Rehoboam6  and  Jeroboam  all  the  days 

7  of  his  life.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Abijam,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not 
written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?     And  there  was 

8  war  between  Abijam  and  Jeroboam.  And  Abijam  slept  with  his  fathers'1 ;  and 
they  buried  him  in  the  city  of  David :  and  Asa  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 

9  And  in  the  twentieth   year  of  Jeroboam  king  of  Israel  reigned  Asa  over 

10  Judah.     And  forty  and  one  years  reigned  he  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's 

11  name  was  Maachah,'  the  daughter  of  Abishalom.     And  Asa  did  that  which  icas 

12  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  as  did  David  his  father.     And  he  took  away  the 
sodomites  out  of  the  land,  and  removed  all  the  idols  that  his  fathers  had  made. 

13  And  also  Maachah  his  mother,  even  her  he  removed  from  being  queen,  because 
she  had  made  an  idol  in  a  grove6 ;  and  Asa  destroyed  her  idol,  and  burnt  it 

14  by  the  brook  [ir.  the  valley  of]  Kidroii.     But  the  high  places  were  not  removed 


CHAPTER  XT.   1-24.  175 


15  nevertheless  Asa's  heart  was  perfect  with  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  all  his  days.  And  he 
brought  iu  the  things  which  his  father  had  dedicated,  and  the  things  which  himseli 
had  dedicated,'  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  silver,  and  gold,  and  vessels. 

16  And  there  was  war  between  Asa  and  Baasha  king  of  Israel  all  their  days.    And 

1 7  Baasha  king  of  Israel  went  up  against  Judah,  and  built  Raman,  that  he  might  not 

18  suffer  any  to  go  out  or  come  in  to  Asa  king  of  Judah.     Then  Asa  took  all  the  silver 
.  and  the  gold  that  were  left10  in  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah], 

and  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house,  and  delivered  them  into  the  hand  of  his 
servants :  and  king  Asa  sent  them  to  Ben-hadad,  the  son  of  Tabrimon,  the  son 

19  of  Hezion,  king  of  Syria,  that  dwelt  at  Damascus,  saying,  There  is  a  leagufl 
between  me  and  thee,  and  between  my  father  and  thy  father  :  behold,  I  have 
sent  unto  thee  a  present  of  silver  and  gold  ;  come  and  break  thy  league  with 

20  Baasha  king  of  Israel,  that  he  may  depart  from  me.  So  Bendiad'ad  hearkened 
unto  king  Asa,  and  sent  the  captains  of  the  hosts  which  he  had  against  the  cities 
of  Israel,  and  smote  Ijon,  and  Dan,  and  Abel-beth-maachah,  and  all  Cinneroth, 

21  with  all  the  land  of  Naph  tali.     Audit  came  to  pass,  when  Baasha  heard  thereof, 

22  that  he  left  off  building  of  Ramah,  and  dwelt  in  Tirzah.  Then  king  Asa  made 
a  proclamation  throughout  all  Judah  ;  none  icas  exempted"  :  and  they  took  away 
the  stones  of  Ramah,  and  the  timber  thereof,  wherewith  Baasha  had  builded ; 

23  and  king  Asa  built  with  them  Geba  of  Benjamin,  and  Mizpah.12  The  rest  of  all 
the  acts  of  Asa,  and  all  his  might,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  the  cities  which  he 
built,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ? 

24  Nevertheless  in  the  time  of  his  old  age  he  was  diseased  in  his  feet.  And  Asa  slept 
with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David  his  father: 
and  Jehoshaphat  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

I  Ver.  1. — [Many  MSS.  and  Ed.  read  throughout  this  narrative  ns3X  i^stend  of  rj*3Xa6  ,n  '-Chron  xi  2*2 ;  x i i i  1,&^ 
(C!f.  2Chron.  xiii.  20  Jin'St*")  an(*  s0  tne  SePL-  A/3tou,  and  the  Syr. 

3  Ver.  2  — [The  Alex.  Sept.  makes  his  reign  sixteen  years. 

3  Ver.  4. — [In  the  author's  translation  the  name  Rehoboam  is  inserted  in  brackets  as  explanatory   of  the  pronoun 
him.    The  natural  reference  to  Abijam  may.  however,  as  well  be  preserved. 

«  Ver.  5. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  mention  of  this  exception,  anil  also  omits  the  following  verse. 

5  Ver.  6. —  [For  llehoboam  eight  MSS..  followed  by  the  Syr.  and  Arab.,  substitute  Abijah     The  Alex.  Sept.  puts  tha 
last  pronoun  of  ver.  6  in  the  plural — a  variation  in  the  opposite  direetion. 

6  Ver.  S. —  [The  Vat.  Sept.  adds,   "in  the  twenty-fourth  year  of  Jeroboam,"  and  in  ver.  9  changes  the  number  to 
correspond — a  manifest  error. 

3  Ver.  lb. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  escapes  the  difficulty  connected  with  the  queen-mother's  name,  here  and  in  ver.  18,  by 
substituting  Ana  for  Maachah.     The  Arab,  omits  the  name  here,  but  gives  Maachah  iu  ver.  13. 

8  Ver.  18.—  rmt!*60  DVpDQ  •    ^e  mear''ng  of  these  words  haB  been  much   discussed  and  is  variously  given  in 

tie  W. — The  most  probable  sense  seems  to  be  u  an  idol  of  Ashernh.M    See  Exeg.  Com. 

9  Ver.  15.— For  ^"^n*|  must  be  read  with  2  Chron.  xv.  IS  VC'TPV    ^ne  a*'r*  is  '^Hpt   which  Kiel   6aJ8  "  *8  ■ 

Dad  emendation  for  the  above  correct  "|[;»-|p ,  which  is  to  be  read  i^np ,  or  more  correctly  perhaps  1\y-\p  .] 

10  Ver.  IS. — [The  Sept.  in  translating  by  to  eupefoV  give  the  sense  as  expressed  in  the  Exeg.  Com.    All  the  other  W., 
like  the  A.V.  translate  literally. 

II  Ver.  22. —  [The  adverbial  use  of -pj  **.j^  =  nemineimmunii.  e.  eaxepto  is  peculiar  to  this  passage.      Keil  refers  for 

itt«  source  to  such  passages  as  Dent.  xxiv.  5  ;  Num.  xxxii.  22.    The  Sept.,  not  understanding  the  phrase,  has  rendered 
tt  as  a  proper  name,  ets  '1c.vo.kLh  (Alex.  'AvvaxeLp..) 

18  Ver.  22. —  [The  Sept.  has  undertaken  to  translate  the  names  Geba  and  Mizpah  as  common  nouns,  wav  fiovfbf 

Bf'-iauit    Kai  TT)f  (TKOTTiaf. — F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  1-5.  Abijam  king  of  Judah.  Instead  of 
D'3t<!  Chronicles  has  always  ITQX  (2  Chron.  xiii.  1 

sq.^,  'A/?«i  in  the  Sept.  The  latter  seems  to  be  the 
rig' .t  and  original  name,  composed  of"3X  and  fP  . 
wb'.ch  mean  pN"3*>i  (1  Sam.  ix.  1),  not,  therefore, 

father  of  the  sea,  vir  maritimtts  (Gesenius),  but 
whose  father  (benefactor)  is  God.  According  to 
2  Chron.  xi.  20  sq.  Abijam  was  the  eldest  son  of 
Rehoboam's  second  wife  Maacha,  who  was  his 
favorite,  for  which  reason  he  set  Abijam  above  his 
brothers,  and  appointed  him  for  his  successor.   As 


there  is  no  mention  made  of  an  Absalom  except 
of  him  known  as  the  son  of  David,  03  must  mean 

the  granddaughter  here,  as  3N  means  grandfather 

in  ver.  3.  Maacha  must  then  have  been  the 
daughter  of  Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiv.  27),  as  Absalom  had 
no  sons  (2  Sam.  xviii.  18).  The  same  name  is  no 
doubt  meant  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  2,  where  Abijam's 
mother  irPTD  is  called  a  daughter  of  Uriel  of 

Gibeah  ;  see  on  ver.  13.  In  all  the  sins,  &c,  is  not 
to  be  taken  in  a  universal  sense,  but  of  all  the 
sins  which  Rehoboam  committed  regarding  the 
service  of  Jehovah ;  in  these  he  followed  the  ox 


176 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ample  of  his  father  (VJD^1)-     He  was  in  his  own 

person  Jehovah's  servant,  but  he  did  not  oppose 
the  idol-worship ;  he  permitted  it,  and  therefore 
in  no  respect  resembled  his  great-grandfather 
David,  who  therefore  for  all  kings  continued  to  be 
the  pattern  and  model  of  right  conduct  towards 
Jehovah.  Thenius  thinks  that  vers.  4  and  5  are  the 
addition  of  an  "  elaborator  "  ;  they  are  certainly 
not  useless,  but  stand  in  a  very  proper  connection. 
Abijaru  was  the  third  king  on  David's  throne  who 
allowed  idol- worship  to  exist  side  by  side  with 
that  of  Jehovah.  Such  kings  had,  in  fact,  de- 
served to  lose  their  laud  and  throne,  because  they 
nad  not  acted  as  servants  of  the  true  king  of 
Israel ;  but  for  David's  sake,  to  whom  God  had 
promised  that  a  descendant  of  his  should  always 
reign   in  Jerusalem  (for  "VJ  see  on  chap.  xi.  36), 

Jehovah  suffered  even  such  kings  of  the  hou6e  of 
David,  who.  like  this  one,  were  not  wholly  and 
undividedly  devoted  to  Him.  The  sin  of  David 
against  Uriah  was  great  indeed  (2  Sam.  xi.  and 
xii.),  but  apart  from  the  fact  that  lie  repented  of  it 
bitterly,  it  was  not  one  which  broke  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  theocracy,  the  covenant  and  its 
rmief  commandment,  and  it  did  not  therefore 
undermine  the  foundation  of  the  Israelite  nation- 
ality. Vers.  4  and  5  serve,  then,  to  explain  ver.  3, 
and  in  a  certain  measure  to  justify  what  is  said 
there. 

Vers.  6-8.  And  there  was  war  between 
Rehoboam  and  Jeroboam,  &c.  Ver.  6  says  the 
same  that  was  previously  said  in  chap.  xiv.  30,  only 
with  this   difference,    that   there   the   concluding 

words  D'OTI-^  are  changed  to  l"n  WW  nere> 

from  which  it  follows,  at  least,  that  this  verse  is 
not,  as  Thenius  thinks,  a  mere  repetition  arising 
from  the  carelessness  of  a  copyist.  Instead  of 
"Rehoboam,"  the  Syrian,  Arabic,  and  several 
manuscripts  have  "  Abijam ;  "  but  this  would  make 
the  conclusion  of  ver.  7  a  mere  repetition  of  our 
verse,  which  is  even  less  tenable  than  the  repeti- 
tion from  chap.  xiv.  30.  As  the  words  stand  they 
3an  scarcely  be  understood  in  connection  with  ver. 
7  otherwise  than  as  Schulz,  Maurer,  and  Keil  take 
them ;  they  give  their  meaning  to  be  this :  that  the 
hostile  feeling  which  existed  between  Rehoboam 
and  Jeroboam  during  the  entire  lifetime  of  the 
former,  also  lasted  during  the  lifetime  of  his  son 
Abijam.  This  interpretation  is  certainly  rather 
forced,  and  it  is  very  possible  that  the  text  is  no 
longer  tiie  original  one ;  happily,  however,  the  sub- 
stance of  the  narrative  is  in  no  wise  affected  by  it, 
but  it  remains  the  same,  howsoever  those  words 
may  be  read  or  explained. 

Vers.  9-11.  In  the  twentieth  year  of  Jero- 
boam, &c.  Ver.  9  sq.  If  Abijam  became  king  in 
the  eighteenth  and  Asa  in  the  twentieth  year  of 
Jeroboam  (vers.  1  and  9),  Abijam  could  not  have 
reigned  three  full  years  (ver.  2).  The  incomplete 
years  are  here,  as  elsewhere  (see  on  ver.  25),  reck- 
oned as  if  complete,  in  statements  of  the  length  of 
the  reigns.  Maachdh,  '.he  daughter  of  Abhhalom,  is 
named  in  ver.  2  as  the  mother  of  Abijam,  and  as 
the  mother  of  Asa  in  "or.  10,  but  she  could  not,  of 
course,  have  been  the  nmtlier  of  both  father  and 
-i- .11  at  the  Bame  time.  It  lias  therefore  been  sup- 
posed "that  Maachah,  Abijam's  mother,  was  in 
'he  position  of  queen-mother  or  nT33n  i  £*i  su'" 


tana  Walida,  under  Asa,  until  Asa  deposed  her  or 
account  of  her  idolatrous  worship  (ver.  13),  and 
that  she  had  been  such  because,  perhaps,  Asa'i 
mother  had  died  early  "  (Keil  and  Ewald  after  the 
Rabbins).     QX   (ver.    10)   would   then   stand   for 

grandmother,  which  is  very  questionable  for  the 
reason  that,  often  as  the  name  of  the  mother  of  a 
king  is  given,  his  grandmother  is  never  meant 
thereby;  besides,  the  mother  alone,  and  never  the 
grandmother  of  a  king,  had  the  dignity  and  posi- 
tion of  the  Gebirah,  the  name  given  to  Asa's  mo- 
ther, ver.  13  and  2  Chron.  xv.  16.  Other  com- 
mentators, who  are  not  insensible  to  these  consid 
orations,  think  that  Maachah,  the  mother  of  Abi 
jam,  was  indeed,  as  is  said  in  chap.  xv.  2,  and  1 
Chron.  xi.  20  and  21,  a  daughter  of  Abishalom,  but 
that  Maachah,  the  mother  of  Asa,  was  the  daugh- 
ter of  Uriel  of  Gibeah.  They  think  that  the  Chron- 
icler (2  xiii.  2)  committed  an  oversight  when  he 
mentioned  the  latter  (whom  he  names  Michaiah) 
as  the  mother  of  Abijam  instead  of  Asa,  whilst,  in- 
versely, our  author  names  the  daughter  of  Abish- 
alom (ver.  10)  instead  of  the  daughter  of  Uriel,  as 
the  mother  of  Asa  (Thenius,  Bertheau).  This  much 
is  certain,  that  the  mother  of  Asa,  as  well  as  the 
mother  of  Abijam,  was  called  Maachah. 

Vers.  12-15.  All  the  idols.     Ver.  12.  The  de- 
signation D,"K|?3  for  idols,  includes,  confessedly,  *he 

idea  of  something  contemptible,  as  appears  fr"m 
the  many  passages  in  Ezekiel  where  it  occurs. 
The  Rabbins,  whom  several  commentators  follow, 

have  derived  the  word  from  p">3  or  ^rjj  ,  i.  e.,  mud 

drained  off,  and  translated  it  Dei  ilercorei,  mudgods, 
which  Thenius  thinks  the  most  correct  interpreta- 
tion.    But  in  the  Pentateuch,  where  the  word  first 

occurs,  ~>~>3,  mud,  is  not  used,  but  *?} ,  DvJ ,  stone- 
heaps,  masses  of  stone  (Gen.  xxxi.  46,  48,  51,  52), 
hence  Havernick  (Comm.  iiber  Ezechiel,  s.  75)  un- 
derstands it  to  mean  stone  monuments,  with  the 
additional  notion  of  what  was  dead  and  lifeless  (cf. 
Ezra  v.  8 ;  vi.  4) ;  which  translation  seems  better 
than:  lumps  (Keil).      Cf.  also  Deut.  xxix.  16;  Lev. 

xxvi.  30.     For  nT33  see  on  chap.  xi.  19.     DV^SD 

means  horrendmn,  and  no  doubt  refers  to  a  phallus- 
image,  which  was  something  terrible  and  detesta- 
ble to  the  Hebrews.  The  Vulgate  gives  in  sacri) 
Priapi  for  it.  The  statue  of  the  male  and  genera- 
tive power  in  nature  was  placed  next  that  of  the 
female  power  (Astarte).  That  the  former  was  of 
wood,  like  the  latter,  appears  from  the  "  burning 
in  the  valley  of  Kidron ;  "  the  ashes  were  thrown 
into  the  brook,  which  carried  them  quite  away. 
The  niJD3i  ver.  14,  mean  here  such  as  were  dedi- 
cated to  Jehovah,  as  in  chap.  iii.  2  therefore,  and 
not  as  in  chap.  xi.  7,  and  2  Chron.  xiv.  2.  These, 
to  which  the  people  were  accustomed  from  ancient 
times,  Asa  did  not  destroy,  perhaps  because  doing 
so  might  have  given  offence  to  many  even  of  the 
true  servants  of  Jehovah.  This  was  the  only  un- 
lawful thing  lie  permitted;  in  everything  else  he 
adhered  perfectly,  as  long  as  he  lived,  to  the  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  as  enjoined  in  the  law.  He  even 
began  to  till  again  the  treasure  chambers  of  the 
Temple,  which  had  been  plundered  by  Shishak 
lo  nil  them  partly  with  what  his  father  Abijam 
had  taken  icf.  2  Chron.  xiii.   19),  partly  with  th« 


CHAPTER  XV.   1-24. 


177 


pluiider  he  himself  had  seized  (2  Chron.  xiv.  12; 
IV.  18). 

Ver.  16.  And  there  was  'war  between  Asa 
....  all  their  days.  Ver.  16.  The  account  of 
Chronicles  does  not  agree  with  this,  if  the  former 
be  only  understood  in  the  sense  as  given  above, 
chap.  xiv.  30.  For,  according  to  2  Chron.  xiv.  1 
(xiii.  23)  the  land  had  rest  ten  years  under  Asa : 
according  to  2  Chron.  xv.  19,  "there  was  no  more 
war  unto  the  five  and  thirtieth  year  of  the  reign 
of  Asa,"  and  in  xvi.  1  it  says  that  Baasha  did  not 
make  war  on  Judah  till  the  six  and  thirtieth  year. 
Dut  these  numbers  cannot  possibly  be  correct,  for 
according  to  our  chapter  ver.  33,  Baasha  became 
king  of  Israel  in  the  third  year  of  Asa,  and  only 
Teigned  four-and-twenty  years,  therefore  he  could 
not  have  made  war  against  Asa  in  the  six-and- 
thirtieth  year  of  the  latter.  The  number  ten  is 
also  too  great,  and  was  used  probably  because  the 
numeral  sign  1  was  shortened  to  \  Judah  had  rest 
before  Baasha's  accession  to  the  throne  of  Israel, 
and  also  two  years  afterwards,  but  then,  when  he 
was  properly  prepared  for  war,  Baasha  undertook 
the  invasion ;  this  occurred,  therefore,  in  the  fifth 
or  sixth  year  of  Asa's  reign.  The  numeral  sign 
7=30  of  the  Chronicles  may  very  well  have  been 
taken  out  of  the  1ToW>  •      Of.  Thenius  and  Ber- 

theau  on  the  same  passages.  The  supposition  of 
older  commentators  and  of  Keil,  that  the  five-and- 
thirty,  that  is,  the  six-and-thirty  years  dated  from 
the  time  of  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms,  is 
not  admissible,  because  the  text  in  2  Chron.  xvi.  1 
says  quite  positively :  "  in  the  six-aud-thirtieth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Asa." 

Ver.  11.  Ramah  (ver.  17)  was  not  in  the  moun- 
tains of  Ephraim  (1  Sam.  x.  2)  but  in  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  25;  Jud.  xix.  3),  somewhat 
more  than  two  hours'  distance  from  Jerusalem:  it 
is  the  modern  Er-Ram.  The  fortification  of  Ra- 
mah presupposes  that  Baasha  had  recovered  the 
towns  that  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (2 
Chron.  xiii.  19)  which  had  been  taken  by  Abijam. 
Tke  conjectural  reading  nVH  instead  of  flfi  (The- 
nius) is  unnecessary ;  it  is  literally :  "  to  the  end 
that  one  should  not  give  (or  send)  any  one  coming 
in  or  going  out,  to  Asa  "  (Bertheau)  i.  e.,  vtnonpos- 
sel  quispiam  egredi  vel  ingredi  de  parte  Asa>  (Vulg.). 
As  the  principal  road  from  Jerusalem  to  the  north 
passed  through  Ramah,  Baasha  wished  to  cut  off 
all  traffic,  and  in  fact  to  blockade  Jerusalem  com- 
pletely.    The  D'lnisn ,  ver.  1 8,  does  not  mean  here, 

in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  the  remainder,  for 
Shishak  had  taken  all  (chap.  xiv.  26) ;  Asa,  after 
his  victories  and  those  of  his  father,  filled  the  trea- 
sure chambers  again  with  the  plunder  he  took 
(ver.  5),  and  this,  when  compared  with  the  former 
treasure,  was  the  remainder.  The  Sept.,  therefore, 
gives  to  evpeBhi,  i.  «.,  what  he  then  found. 

Vers.  18-22.  Benhadad  (ver.  18)  means  "son 
of  the  sun,"  for  the  sun  received  divine  honors 
from  the  Syrians,  under  the  name  of  Adad  [Ma- 
crob.  Saturn,  i.  23).  Three  kings  of  Damascene- 
Syria  bore  this  name  ;  the  one  named  here  was  the 
first  of  them,  and  he  who  is  mentioned  in  chap.  xx. 
1  sq.  34  was  his  son.  The  name  could  scarcely 
have  been  a  general  royal  title  (Keil),  for  the  name 
Tabrimmon  is  certainly  the  name  of  a  person,  but 
it  is,  in  composition,  like  "good  is  Rimmon  "  (2 
12 


Kings  v.  18).  Thenius  identifies  Hezion  with  the 
Rezon  mentioned  in  chap.  xi.  23,  who  was  called 
so  originally  (?).  The  phrase  "king  of  Syria"  h 
certainly  in  opposition  with  Benhadad.  There  isa 
league,  Ac.  (ver.  19).  i.  e.,  as  between  our  fathers 
there  was  a  league,  let  it  continue  between  us  also. 
Syria  must  have  increased  rapidly  in  power  since 
the  days  of  Solomon ;  for  both  kingdoms,  Israel 
and  Judah,  sought  its  friendship,  although  it  was 
the  natural  foe  of  both.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
Benhadad  was  induced  to  break  his  league  with 
Baasha  by  the  larger  sum  that  Asa  offered  him. 
The  Syrian  army,  which  came  from  the  north,  over- 
ran the  whole  land  of  Naphtali  to  the  lake  of 
Genesareth ;  the  towns  which  it  laid  waste  lay  in 
a  line  from  north  to  south.  Ijon  was  the  most 
northern,  and  is  nowhere  else  named,  except  in  the 
parallel  passage  2  Chron.  xvi.  4;  according  to  Ro- 
binson (Researches,  &c.  II.  p.  438),  it  is  situated  in 
the  well-watered  district  of  Merj  Ayun.  Dan 
could  not  have  been  far  south  of  it.  Abel-beth- 
maachah  (2  Chron.  xvi.  4 ;  Abel-maim)  is  the  same 
town  as  that  mentioned  in  2  Sam.  xx.  14  and  1?, 
and  was  situated  at  the  mouth  of  the  Merj  Ayun ; 
it  is  the  modern  Abil  el  Kamh  (see  Thenius  on  the 
place).  Cinneroth,  "  evidently  a  district,  not  a  town ; 
it  was  the  basin  which  stretches  from  the  lake 
of  Slerom  to  the  head  of  the  lake  of  Genesareth  " 
(the  same).  Although  then  Benhadad  only  dis- 
turbed the  northern  parts  of  the  kingdom,  Baasha 
saw  himself  induced  to  obey  the  demand  to  leave 
Judah  (probably  made  to  him)  in  order  to  prevent 
further  losses.  He  left  oft'  building  the  fortifica- 
tions of  Ramah  which  he  had  begun,  and  returned 
to  his  residence  Tirzah  (chap.  xiv.  17)  without  dis- 
turbing Asa  any  more.  The  latter  now  had  the 
building  materials  at  Ramah  removed,  and  he  for- 
tified Geba  of  Benjamin  and  Mizpeh  with  them; 
the  former  was  one-half  mile  [two  and  a  quarter 
Eng.  miles]  from  Ramah,  and  the  latter  about  three 
indes  [thirteen  and  a  half  Eng.].  These  two  for- 
tresses overlooked  each  side  of  the  road  that  led 
northwards  from  Jerusalem. 

Vers.  23-24.  His  might  and  .  .  .  the  cities. 
"1133 ,  not  so  much  potesias  as  deeds  of  might, 

i.  e.,  brave  deeds,  as  appears  from  chap,  xvi,  27 ; 
xxii.  46.  Besides  Geba  and  Mizpah,  Asa  erected 
other  fortresses  in  Judah  (2  Chron.  xiv.  5,  6), 
winch  were  probably  designed  to  protect  the 
southern  part  of  his  kingdom.  He  was  on  the 
whole  prosperous,  "  only  in  his  old  age  "  he  suf- 
fered much,  and  did  not  show  a  right  trust  in 
God  (2  Chron.  xvi.  12).  It  is  uncertain  if  his  dis- 
ease were  gout  (Thenius).  Chron.  says  that  he 
had  caused  his  tomb  to  be  hewn  out  in  the  city  of 
David ;  probably  the  place  of  sepulture  hitherto 
used  was  not  large  enough. 

HISTORICAL    AND   ETHICAL. 

1.  Chronicles  gives  not  only  more  extended  ac 
counts  of  king  Abijam,  but  some  also  which  recent 
criticism  declares  to  be  utterly  irreconcilable  with 
the  representation  here.  "  According  to  the  earlier 
narrative,"  says  Winer  (i?.-  W.-B.  I.  s.  6),  "Abijam 
walked  in  the  footsteps  of  his  idolatrous  father 
(1  Kings  xv.  3);  according  to  the  later  one,  he 
appears  to  be  a  very  zealous  guardian  of  th? 
worship  of  Jehovah  and  of  the  levitical  system 
(2  Chron.  xiii.  8  sq.).     We  must  bear  in  mind  that 


178 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  Chronicler  else'.vhere  endeavors  to  acquit  the 
Judah-state  fr^ni  idol-worship,  as  much  as  possi- 
ble."   r>e  Wette,  Thenius,  and  others  hold  similar 
views.     But  against  this  we  remark,  that  the  pre- 
supposition that  Rehoboam  was  addicted  to  idol- 
atry,  and   that   Abijam   followed  in  his  ways,  is 
erroneous,  and  Winer  contradicts  himself,   for  (in 
the  work  already  cited,  II.  s.  312,  note)  he  himself 
declares,  that   "  the   older  (i.  «.,  our)  narative  says 
nothing  of  the  personal  participation  of  Rehoboam 
with  the   untheocratic   worship,   rather,   see   ver. 
28."      Now     we    have     already     proved     above 
that  Chron.  does   not   accuse  him   of  it.     Ewald 
therefore  justly  says  (Gesch.  Isr.  III.  s.  460  sq.) : 
"  Rehoboam  indeed  permitted  or  encouraged  the 
exercise  of  foreign  forms  of  worship,  from   his 
own  predilections,"  and  in  this  respect  "  Abijam 
walked  completely  in  Rehoboam's  footsteps;  he 
shared   his    father's   religious   views    and  princi- 
ples."    It  is  no  contradiction  when  in   Chron.  he 
is  represented   as   a  worshipper  of  Jehovah,  for 
this  he  really  was.     The  words  he  uttered  before 
the  beginning  of  hostilities  to  the  opposite  host 
of   "  all   Israel "    were  not   merely   edifying   and 
"  exceedingly  pious  expressions  "  (Thenius),  they 
quite  correspond  with  the  political  and  theocratic 
stand-point   which  Abijam  took  as  king  of  Judith. 
He  reproaches  the  ten  tribes  with   their   revolt 
from  the  house  of  David,  and  at  the  same  time 
with  all  that  Jeroboam  had  done,  out  of  his   own 
mind,  against  the  divine  fundamental  law,  given 
to  the  whole  people.     The  evident  purpose  of  the 
entire  discourse  was  to  win  over  Israel  again  to 
the   house  of  David,  to  attach  those  who,  being 
faithful  to  Jehovah,   had  already  left  the   other 
tribes  and  settled  in  Judah,  and  also  to  attract 
and  encourage   such  as   still  remained   in  Israel. 
Abijam  had  probably  observed  that  his  best  sup- 
port  in  a  war  with  Israel  was  not  to  be  found 
in  the   idolaters  of  his  kingdom,  but  in  the  faith- 
ful   servants  of  Jehovah.      His  very   brief  reign 
did  not  allow  him  any  larger  experience  in  this 
respect. 

2.  The  long  reign  of  king  Asa,  which  lasted  forty- 
one  years,  is  treated  with  great  brevity  by  our  au- 
thor ;  but  the  Chronicler  devotes  three  whole  chap- 
ters to  it  (2  Chron.  xiv.,  xv.,  xvi.).  The  former, 
however,  lays  especial  emphasis  on  what  is  most  im- 
portant to  the  history  of  the  theocracy,  and  what 
the  Chronicler  also  esteems  the  principal  thing, 
namely,  that  Asa  energetically  and  sternly  put 
down  the  idol-worship,  which  had  been  suffered  to 
remain  side  by  side  with  that  of  Jehovah  since 
Solomon's  time,  together  with  all  the  abominations 
the  former  included,  and  that  he  even  deprived  his 
idolatrous  mother  of  her  dignity  as  the  Gebirah. 
How  it  happened  that  he  entered  with  such  decision 
on  an  entirely  different  course,  immediately  after 
his  accession,  is  not  told  in  either  of  the  narratives  ; 
we  can  only  form  suppositions  on  the  subject. 
Alter  the  separation  of  the  ten  tribes  from  Judah, 
the  latter  must  have  plainly  perceived  the  injuri- 
ous results  of  the  religious  liberty,  which  had 
been  granted  from  political  motives  (see  above 
Histor.  and  Eth.  on  chap.  xi.).  This  already  small 
kingdom  lacked  unity,  and  therefore  a  firm  bond. 
The  more  that  danger  threatened  it  from  Israel 
under  Jeroboam,  through  the  continual  wars  that 
went  on,  the  more  people  must  have  become  con- 
vinced of  the  necessity  of  making  an  end  of  the 
3cbism  which  had  arisen  from  tin  various  forms 


of  idolatry,  of  restoring  the  lost  unity,  and  of  thus 
giving  full   sway  to    the   theocratic   fuudamental 
law  through  which  Judah  had  become  great  and 
strong,  and  so  making  the  kingdom  firm,  both  in 
its  internal  and  external  relations.     Besides  this, 
the  number  of  those  who,  from   true  affection  to 
the  divine  law,  emigrated  from  all  the  other  tribes 
to  Judah,  increased  (2  Chron.  xv.  9),  and  all  these 
abhorred  the  idol-worship  which  still  existed  in 
juxtaposition    with    that   of    Jehovah.     Besides, 
some  powerful  and  influential  prophets  were  not 
wanting,  who   exhorted  the  king  and  the   people 
to  be  faithful  to  Jehovah,  and  not  to  forsake  the 
God  of  Israel,  who  had  always  helped  His  people 
(2   Chron.   xv.   1  sq. ;  xvi.   7   sq.).     These   circum- 
stances   may   have  convinced  Asa   that   nothing 
could    secure    stability   and   permanence    for   his 
kingdom  but  the  return  to  the  fuudamental  law 
and   firm  adherence  to  the  same;  and  the  great 
victory  which  the  Lord  had  given  him  over  Zerah 
the    Ethiopian   must  have   tended  not   a  little  to 
strengthen  him  in  that  conviction  (2  Chron.  xiv.  7 
sq.).     From   Asa's  subsequent  conduct,   it   seems 
very    uncertain   whether    his    strict    proceedings 
against  the  idol-worship  were  really  the  result  of 
genuine   conversion  to  Jehovah  and  of  true  piety, 
as  might  appear  from  his  prayer  (2  Chron.  xiv.  10) ; 
political  motives,  if  not  principally,  no  doubt  par- 
tially, influenced  him.  The  Chron.,  which  has  been 
accused  of  giving  a  too  partial  and  favorable  view 
of  Asa's  character,  lays  especial  stress  on  some 
facts  which  do   not  seem   to  show  a  true   conver- 
sion and  godly  mind,   such  as  David   had.      For 
instance,    Asa   took   away   the   Temple-treasures 
that  were  consecrated  to  Jehovah,  and  had  been 
lately  gathered  anew  (this  our  author   also  men- 
tions), and  sent  them  to  the  king  of  Syria  (who 
was  growing  continually  more  dangerous  to  both 
kingdoms)   in   order   to  induce  him  to  break  his 
league  with  Baasha.     Also  that  when  the  prophet 
Hanani  reproved  him  for  doing  so   he  threw  the 
latter  into  prison,  which  no  king  of  Judah  had  yet 
ventured  to  do  to  a  prophet ;  and  he  even  punish- 
ed  others  who  took  the  prophet's  part ;  finally, 
that  he  showed  no  resignation  to  the  will  of  the 
Lord  or  trust   in   Him   during   his   last  sickness 
(2  Chron.  xvi.  10,  12).     How  completely  different 
was  David's  conduct  after  the  report  of  the  pro- 
phet Nathan,   and  a  short   time    before  his  end 
(2  Sam.  xii.  13;  xxiii.  1  sq.) !  When,  notwithstand- 
ing all  this,  both  narratives  say  that  Asa's  heart 

was  rriiV-Dy  ubd' ,  it  follows  that  this  often  re- 
peated expression  only  means:  he  never  waver- 
ed between  God's  service  and  that  of  idols  or 
images,  but  was  unreservedly  devoted  to  the  lawful 
worship  of  Jehovah,  which  was  an  exclusive 
one ;  and  by  being  so  he  rendered  his  people  a 
great  service. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-8.  The  fruit  falls  not  far  from  the 
tree.  What  the  old  sing,  the  young  chirp 
(Was  die  Alten  sungen,  das  zwitschern  die  Jim- 
gen).  The  parental  house  is,  for  the  child,  the 
preparatory  school  of  life  ;  what  he  there  sees  und 
hears  is  never  forgotten  through  life.  No  example 
is  so  weighty  and  important  as  that  of  the  parents: 
how  great,  then,  is  their  responsibility.  Abijam 
followed  not  after  the  example  of  David,  great  and 


CHAPTER  XV.  1-24. 


179 


glorious  as  it  was,  but  after  that  of  his  father 
Rehoboam,  which  he  saw  immediately  before  him. 
— Ver.  4.  The  blessing  of  pious,  God-fearing  fore- 
fathers often  falls  to  the  advantage  of  even  de- 
generate children,  through  the  mercy  of  God. 
— Ver.  5.  No  human  example,  however'glorious  it 
may  be.  is  perfect,  for  even  the  greatest  and  best 
are  wanting  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  miserable 
sinners.  Therefore  we  are  referred  to  the  ex- 
ample of  Him  who  alone  is  sinless,  and  out  of 
whose  mouth  proceeds  no  guile.  He  alone  can 
say  :  He  who  follows  me,  walketh  not  in  darkness, 
but  has  the  light  of  life  (1  Pet.  it  2]  ;  John  viii. 
12).  The  children  of  this  world  often  quote  and 
excuse  their  sins  by  citing  the  example  of  good 
and  holy  men  who  have  fallen,  but  never  take 
pattern  after  their  repentance  and  humiliation,  and 
refuse  to  know  anything  of  the  wrung  and  smitten 
heart  of  a  David  (Ps.  li.  19),  or  of  the  tears  of  a 
Peter  (Matt.  xxvi.  75).— Vers.  6-8.  The  enmity, 
strife,  and  war  between  the  sister-kingdoms  was 
the  result  of  their  broken  covenant  with  the  Lord 
God.  Wheresoever,  be  it  amid  a  nation,  a  com- 
munity, or  a  family,  the  fear  of  the  living  God, 
and  the  bond  of  union  with  Him  is  destroyed^ 
there  will  ever  be  strife  and  discord  ;  peace  is  only 
to  be  found  where  the  God  of  peace  reigns  in  the 
heart  (Col.  iii.  15).  To  go  out  of  the  world  at 
enmity  is  not  a  blessed  death. 

Vers.  9-24.  The  reign  of  Asa  the  king,  (a) 
in  its  religious  aspect  (vers.  9-15)  ;  (6)  in  its 
political  aspect  (vers.  16-24).— Ver.  11.  It  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  merciful  providence  of  God, 
when  a  son  who  has  grown  up  with  evil  sur- 
roundings, and  the  bad  example  of  a  father 
and  mother,  yet  holds  steadily  to  His  word  and 
commandments,  and  resists  firmly  all  ungodly 
influences.— Vers.  12-13.  Against  sins  of  licentious- 
ness no  authority  can  be  powerful  enough,  for 
where  this  evil  has  crept  in,  there  comes  a  moral 
corruption  which  works  destructively  upon  all 
relations  of  life.  Authority  being  ordained  of  God. 
as  the  Apostle  says,  its  dutv  and  task  is  to  oppose 
with  severity  all  godless  conduct,  without  fear  or 
favor  of  man,  and  to  vindicate  the  eternal  divine 
laws.  Therefore  it  is  that  we  have  the  church 
prayer  for  those  in  authority. — Ver.  13.  Calw.  B. : 
Thus  it  is  :  A  man  must  first  cleanse  his  own 
house  if  he  would  be  an  example  to  others.  There- 
fore says  the  Apostle,  "  if  a  man  know  not  how 
to  rule  his  own  house  he  cannot  take  care  of  the 
church  of  God  "  (1  Tim.  iii.  5).     Where  the  honor  I 


of  God  or  the  salvation  of  the  soul  comes  in  ques 
tion,  there  even  a  mother  must  not  prevail.  I  am 
come,  says  our  Lord  (Matt.  x.  35  sq.),  to  set  at 
variance,  &c. — Ver.  14.  To  remove  deep-rootod 
and  long-standing  evils  suddenly  and  completely 
is  impossible,  even  for  a  well-intentioned  and 
powerful  ruler;  for  in  that  case  he  would  bring 
about  resistance  to  the  good  rather  than  furthei 
it — Ver.  15.  Hence  noble  and  pious  princes  should 
bethink  themselves  of  using  their  gold  and  silver 
not  only  for  worldly  objects,  but  to  enrich  churches 
and  schools,  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of 
godly  designs. 

Vers.  16  sq.  The  enemies  who  rise  up  against 
us,   and   bring  us  into  straits,  must  often  serve, 
in  the  hand   of  God,   to  try  and  prove  whether 
our  faith  is    rooted  in  the    deepest  soil   of   the 
heart,    and     our    zeal    in    religious    things     no 
fleshly  one,  but  a  high  and  holy  one. — Vers.  17- 
18.  What  is  bestowed  in  faith  must  be  regarded 
as  sacred,  and  under  no  pretext  must  it  be  diverted 
to  worldly  purposes.     Nothing  but  a  rude  power, 
knowing  neither  fear  nor  awe  of  God,  could  com- 
mit such  a  robbery,  and  no  blessing  can  ever  rest 
upon  it.     He  who  gives  with  one  hand  and  takes 
back    with    the    other,    has   his  just  recompense 
therein. — Ver.  19.  This  is  the  curse  resting  upon 
the   strife  of  brethren — each  forms  a  league  with 
the  common  enemy  rather  than  resolve  upon  peace 
with   each  other.     The  least  reliable  friend  and 
companion  in  need  is  he  who  can  be  bought  with 
gold,  and  is  always  at  the  disposal  of  the  highest 
bidder.     He  who  persuades  another  to  break  faith 
must  be  prepared  to  find  that  he  will  not  maintain 
the  word  given  to  him.     In  every  strait,  seek  first 
the  support  and  aid  of  thy  God,  without  whom  no 
man  can  help  thee.    Asa  was  indeed  right  believing, 
but  he  was  not  right  believing. — Vers.  20  sq.  Whoso 
diggeth  a  pit  shall  fall  therein,  and  he  that  rolleth 
a  stone,  it  will  return  upon  him  (Prov.  xxvi.  27). 
Baasha   wished  to  become  possessed   of  an  ad- 
ditional city,  and  thus  lost  a  series  of  his  own 
cities  ;   with  the  same  stones  with  which  he  pur- 
posed to  strengthen  Ramah,  Asa  built  two  strong 
cities. — Ver.  24.  Sickness  in  old  age,  previous  to 
death,  is  a  divine  chastisement  and  trial,  to  wean 
men  from  the  world  and  ripen  them  for  eternity. 
How  many  men  would  die  unconverted  if  God  did 
not  visit  them  before  death  with  sickness  I     Well 
is  it   for  all  who  through  such  visitations   turn 
unto  the  Lord,  as  did  Asa  in  2  Chron.  ivi.  12 


180  THE  FIRST  HOOK  OV  THE  KINGS. 

FOURTH  SECTION. 

THE   KINGDOM   OF   ISEAEL    UNDER   NADAB    AND    HIS    SUCCESSORS    UNTIL    AHAB. 

Chap.  XV.  25— XVI.  28. 


A. — The  reign  of  Nadab  and  Baasha. 
Chap.  XV.  25-XVI.  7. 

25  And  Nadab  the  son  of  Jeroboam  began  to  reign  over  Israel  in  the  second  y  far 

26  of  Asa  king  of  Judah,  and  reigned  over  Israel  two  years.  And  he  did  evil  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  walked  in  the  way  of  his  father,  and  in  his  sin 

27  [sins1]  wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin.  And  Baasha  the  son  of  Ahijah,  of  the 
house  of  Issachar,  conspired3  against  him ;  and  Baasha  smote  him  at  Gibbethon, 
which  belonged  to  the  Philistines ;  for  Nadab  and  all  Israel  laid  siege  to  Gibbethon. 

28  Even  in  the  third  year  of  Asa  king  of  Judah  did  Baasha  slay  him,  and  reigned  in 

29  his  stead.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  he  reigned,  that  he  smote  all  the  house  ol 
Jeroboam  ;  he  left  not  to  Jeroboam  any  that  breathed,'  until  he  had  destroyed  him, 
according  unto  the  saying  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he  spake  by  his  servant 

30  Ahijah  the  Shilonite  :  because  of  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  which  he  sinned,  and  which 
he  made  Israel  sin,  by  his  provocation  wherewith  he  provoked  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 

31  God  of  Israel  to  anger.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Nadab,  and  all  that  he 
did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ? 

32  'And  there  was  war  between  Asa  and  Baasha  king  oflsrael  all  their  days. 

33  In  the  third  year  of  Asa  king  of  Judah  began  Baasha  the  son  of  Ahijah  to 

34  reign  over  all  Israel  in  Tirzah,  twenty  and  four  years.  And  he  did  evil  in  tho 
sight  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  walked  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam,  and  in  his  sin 
[sins]  wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin. 

XVI.       1     Then  the  word  of  the  Lor.d  came  to  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  against 

2  Baasha,  saying,  Forasmuch  as  I  exalted  thee  out  of  the  dust,  and  made  thee 
prince  over  my  people  Israel ;  and  thou  hast  walked  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam,  and 
hast  made  my  people  Israel  to  sin,  to  provoke  me  to  anger  with  their  sins  ; 

3  behold,  I  will  take  away  the  posterity  of  Baasha,  and  the  posterity  of  his  house ; 

4  and  will  make  thy  house  like  the  house  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat.  Him  that 
dieth  of  Baasha  in  the  city  shall  the  dogs  eat ;  and  him  that  dieth  of  his  in  the 

5  fields  shall  the  fowls  of  the  air  eat.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Baasha,  and 
what  he  did,  and  his  might,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles 

6  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ?     So  Baasha  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  in 

7  Tirzah  :  and  Elah  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.'  And  also  by  the  hand  of  the 
prophet  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  came  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  against 
Baasha,  and  against  his  house,  even  for  all  the  evil  that  he  did  in  the  sight  of 
the  Lord  [Jehovah],  in  provoking  him  to  anger  with  the  work  of  his  hands,  in 
being  like  the  house  of  Jeroboam ;  and  because  he  killed  him. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMSIATIOAL. 

1  Ver.  2fi. — [It  is  hotter  he-re  and  in  ver.  84,  &c,  to  retain  the  plural  form  of  the  Hob.    Sin  was  doubtless  intended 
vO  be  understood  collectively  in  the  A  V. 

9  Ver.  27. — [The  Heb.  ~i£;'»pV|  from  the  root  *i£)n      to  bind  or  tie  together,  i3  correctly    translated  conspired,  and 

mplies  that  others  were  concerned  with  Ilaasha  in  the  plot. 

a  Ver.  29.— [rTD'J'J-^3  "VNB'rVWi  "  ne  left  nnt  anv  tnnt  nai'  breath,"  i.  fl.,  he  destroyed  all,  both  male  and  female, 

•f  the  house  "f  Jeroboam,  in  contrast  with  the  expression  in  chap.  xiv.  10,  dee.    Cf.  Josh.  xi.  11,  14. 

'  Ver.  82. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  ver.  83,  which  has  occasioned  so  much  perplexity  from  its  being  an  exact  repetition 
of  ver.  HI.     For  the  reasons  of  Its  Insertion  see  Exe?.  Com. 

'  Ver.  C—  [The  Alex.  Sept  aid,  "  in  the  twentieth  year  of  king  Asa" — an  impossible  date.     Cf.  xv.  3:?.-  F    O.l 


CHAPTER  XV.  25-XVI.  7 


IS! 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.    25-26.     In   the  second  year  of  Asa. 

We  see  clearly  from  this  verse,  compared  with  the 
time  given  in  vers.  28  and  33,  as  in  all  the  state- 
ment regarding  the  length  of  reigns,  that  years 
not  fully  complete  are  considered  as  whole  ones. 
"  For  if  Nadab  ascended  the  throne  in  the  second 
year  of  Asa's  reign  (ver.  28),  and  Asa  ascended  the 
throne  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jeroboam's  (ver. 
9),  Jeroboam  could  not  have  reigned  quite  twenty- 
two  years,  but  only  twenty-one  and  some  months: 
and  if  Baasha  succeeded  to  Nadab  in  the  third 
year  of  Asa's  reign  (vers.  28  and  33)  Nadab  could 
not  have  reigned  two  years  (ver.  25),  in  fact  not 
much  more  than  one  and  a  half  year  or  perhaps  a 
little  shorter  time  "  (Keil). 

Vers.  27-31  Baasha  ...  of  the  house  of 
Issachar,  i.  e.,  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar  ;  he  can- 
not therefore  have  been  the  son  of  the  prophet 
Ahijah,  as  Menzel  supposes,  for  he  was  an  Eph- 
raimite  of  Shiloh.  The  city  of  Gibbethon  belongs 
to  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  44),  and  was  one  of 
the  four  cities  of  the  levites  which  belonged  ((.  e., 
the  cities)  to  this  tribe  (Josh.  xxi.  23) ;  it  must 
have  been  on  the  borders  of  Philistia.  It  is  very 
doubtful  if  it  had  always  been  occupied  by  the 
Philistines,  and  was  now  for  the  first  time  he- 
sieged  by  the  Israelites  (Winer)  ;  it  rather  appears 
that  the  Philistines,  after  the  partition  of  the 
kingdom,  again  took  possession  of  it  as  an  im- 
portant border  fortress;  whereupon  the  Israelites 
under  Nadab  and  Elah  (chap.  xvi.  15)  tried  to  re- 
cover it.  As  Nadab  met  his  death  on  this  occa- 
sion, it  seems  that  Baasha's  conspiracy  was  of 
a  military  description,  and  that  the  latter  was 
an  army  chief  like  Zimri  (chap.  xvi.  9).  Thenius 
supposes  that  Gibbethon  was  the  same  as  the 
modern  Muzeiri'ah,  or  Elmejdel  (Tower)  {of.  Robin- 
son, Pal.  III.  p.  282).  How  the  conspiracy  arose 
is  not  stated ;  perhaps  Nadab  was  still  very  young, 
and  not  a  match  for  Baasha,  who  was  very  enter- 
prising. It  seems  that  he  was  not  satisfied  with 
exterminating  the  male  relatives  of  Jeroboam,  but 
murdered  the  whole  of  his  race.     The  1313  ver. 

29,  does  not,  of  course,  mean :  as  the  Lord  had 
promised  him,  but :  so  that  the  word  of  prophecy 
was  fulfilled.  For  vers.  29,  30  see  above  on  chap, 
xiv.  10  sq. 

Vers.  32-34.  And  there  was  war  ...  all 
their  days.  Ver.  32  is  a  literal  repetition  of  ver.  16, 
and  does  not  seem  suitable  to  the  context  here, 
for  even  if  we  were  to  read  Nadab  instead  of  Baa- 
sha (Ewald),  this  does  not  agree  with  "  all  their 
days,"  for  Nadab  did  not  reign  much  longer  than 
a  year,  and  had  war  with  the  Philistines  during 
that  time.  Nadab,  too,  should  be  named  first;  be- 
tween Nadab  and  Asa ;  and  finally  Asa,  whose 
year  of  accession  coincided  with  the  short  period 
of  Nadab's  reign,  had,  according  to  2  Chron.  xiii. 
23,  no  war  at  that  time.  Thenius  thinks  that  the 
repel  .tion  of  ver.  16  arose  through  a  mistake  of 
the  copyist,  but  there  is  certainly  no  necessity  for 
.his  easy  but  at  the  same  time  violent  solution 
of  the  difficulty.  Keil's  view  is  better.  He  finds 
(1845)  the  reason  of  the  repetition  in  the  excerp- 
tive  character  of  these  books,  and  in  the  manner 
of  theocratic  historical  writing,  namely,  in  the 
want  of  strict  order  in  the   arrangement  of  the 


historical  matter.  Ver.  16  is  taken  from  the  book 
of  the  acts  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ;  ver.  32  from 
that  of  the  kings  of  Israel.  In  the  first  instance 
the  remark  is  given  beforehand,  because  there 
was  something  special  to  be  said  about  the  war  be- 
tween Asa  and  Baasha ;  here,  though  it  would  cer- 
tainly be  more  suitable  after  vers.  33  and  34,  it  is 
not  put  in  on  account  of  Asa,  but  on  account  of 
Baasha,  and  is  the  regular  mode  of  expression 
for  the  condition*  of  the  State  under  the  different 
reigns.     For  Tirzah  see  chap.  xiv.  1™. 

Chap.  xvi.  1-0.  The  word  of  the  Lord  came. 
The  chapter  is  not  here  divided  according  to 
the  accession  of  the  king,  but  according  to  the 
prophetic  sentence  which  proclaimed  ruin  to 
the  whole  reigning  dynasty,  and  therefore  was 
the  beginning  of  all  the  subsequent  period. 
The  prophet  Jehu  is  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xix.  / 
sq.  as  well  as  in  vers.  1,  7,  12;  in  the  above  pas- 
sage he  blames  the  conduct  of  the  Judah-king 
Jehoshaphat,  the  successor  of  Asa  ;  and  in  2 
Chron.  xx.  34  he  is  named  as  the  author  of  the 
"acts  of  Jehoshaphat  in  the  book  of  the  kings  of 
Israel."  There  is  no  doubt  that  his  father  Hanani 
was  the  same  as  he  who  was  thrown  into  prison 
because  of  his  censure  of  king  Asa  (2  Chron.  xvi. 
7,  10).  According  to  this,  he  must  have  belonged 
to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  either  pronounced 
his  sentence  there  (vers.  2  and  7),  or  have  gone 
over,  for  the  purpose,  into  the  northern  kingdom. 
It  is  also  uncertain  whether  he  pronounced  the 
threatening  to  Baasha  personally  and  directly. 
For  out  of  the  dust  (ver.  2)  chap.  xiv.  7  gives  ''from 
among  the  people,"  from  which  "  we  might  con- 
clude that  Baasha  had  raised  himself  from  a  very 
low  position  to  be  a  commander  of  the  army  and 
finally  king"  (Thenius).  What  Baasha  did,  of 
himself  and  by  crime,  the  prophet  ascribes  in  so 
far  to  Jehovah,  that  he  could  not  possibly  have 
executed  his  plans  had  they  been  contrary  to  the 
purposes  of  Jehovah.  The  entire  sentet  ce  is 
evidently  modelled  after  that  of  the  prophet 
Ahijah  against  Jeroboam  (chap.  xiv.  7—11)  (see  Hist, 
and  Eth.  there,  1).  Ver.  6  says  that  Baasha  died 
a  natural  death,  but  Zimri  (ver.  1 2)  exterminated  all 
"  his  posterity"  (cf.  'nnX ,  ver.  3).    For  nTG3 ,  see 

on  chap.  xv.  23. 

Ver.     7.  Came   the   word,    Ac.     The  QJl    is 

not  equal  to  and  also,  or  yes  (De  Wette),  neither 
does  it  mean  that  Jehu  himself  bore  the  mes- 
sage, but  rather  "any  former  thought  or  excuse 
that  might  be  brought  forward  was  strongly  re- 
jected "  (Ewald,  Lehrbuch  §  354).  The  whole  of 
ver.  7  is  not,  an  the  Rabbins  say,  a  new  and  fur 
ther  prophecy,  but  i  supplementary  remark  to 
the  prediction  ver.  2,  which  might  be  misinter- 
preted as  meaning  that  Baasha  had  a  divine  com- 
mission to  murder  Nadab  and  his  race.  No  I  the 
word,  ver.  2,  spoken  by  Jehu  was  called  forth  by 
the  fact  that  Baasha  had  of  his  own  accord  de- 
stroyed the  whole  house  of  Jeroboam,  and  yet 
himself  had  adhered  to  Jeroboam's  sin.  This 
very  word  "  clearly  shows  that  the  extermination 
of  the  house  of  Jeroboam  was  not  done  by  di- 
vine commission,  but  from  selfish  motives."  For 
D'y^n  ,  see  above  on  chap.  xiv.  15.     "The  work  oj 

his  hands"  denotes,  according  to  Deut.  iv.  28,  IHi 
factitii,  whether  images  of  Jehovah  (calves)  u 
idols. 


182 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  We  have  much  less  concerning  the  two  7s- 
raelitish  kings  Nadab  and  Baasha  and  the  acts  of 
their  reigns  than  of  the  two  Judah-kings  Abijah  and 
Asa.  The  narrative  merely  says  of  Nadab  that 
he  walked  in  the  ways  of  his  father  Jeroboam  ; 
i.  e.,  that  he  retained  unlawful  institutions,  and 
after  a  reign  of  scarcely  two  years  was  murdered 
in  a  conspiracy,  by  Baasha.  But  of  the  reign  of 
Baasha.  which  lasted  twenty-four  years,  our  only 
narrative  says  that  he  destroyed  all  the  whole  house 
of  Jeroboam  after  he  (Baasha)  became  king,  as  was 
threatened  to  Jeroboam  by  the  prophet  Ahijah 
(chap.  xiv.  7  sq.) ;  that  he  also  persisted  in  the 
sin  of  Jeroboam,  and  had  the  same  fate  as  the 
latter  announced  to  him  by  the  prophet  Jehu. 
We  can  see  plainly  from  this  what  the  priueiple 
which  guided  our  author  in  his  historical  writing 
was.  He  does  not  care  to  give  a  complete  ac- 
count of  all  the  facts  and  events  of  the  reign 
of  each  king, — for  these  he  refers  to  the  authori- 
ties that  lay  before  him, — but  the  thing  rather 
which  concerned  him  most  of  all,  was  the  position 
each  king  took  with  regard  to  the  Israelitish  fun- 
damental law,  i.  e.,  the  covenant,  which  was  the 
soul  of  the  entire  Old-Testament  theocracy ; 
and  how  the  promises  and  threatening  of  this 
law  itself,  or  of  the  prophets  charged  with  its 
announcements,  and  who  spoke  as  the  servants 
and  ambassadors  of  Jehovah,  became  fulfilled  (see 
Introd.  §  5).  The  heavy  judgment  which  over- 
took the  house  of  him  who  first  openly  broke  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  entire  people,  and  made 
the  image-worship  (so  strictly  forbidden  in  that 
law)  the  religion  of  the  State  and  people  ;  that 
heavy  judgment,  we  say,  was  a  practical  historical 
prediction  for  every  royal  house  which  persisted  in 
"  the  sin  of  Jeroboam."  No  less  than  nine  dynas- 
ties of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  with  whom  this  was 
the  case,  perished  in  like  manner  with  the  house 
of  Jeroboam,  until  at  last  the  kingdom  itself  was 
destroyed,  whilst  the  dynasty  of  David  continued 
uninterruptedly  in  Judah. 

2.  The  little  that  is  told  of  Baasha  is  sufficient  to 
shoiv  that  he  was  an  ambitious,  rough,  and  violent, 
indeed  even  a  blood-thirsty  man.  He  did  not 
conspire  against  his  lord  and  king,  and  usurp  the 
throne,  in  order  to  bring  the  fundamental  law  of 
Israel  into  force  again,  and  to  make  an  end  to  the 
i'm  of  Jeroboam,  for  he  himself  adhered  firmly  to  it 
ill  his  life,  in  spite  of  all  the  warnings  and  threat- 
anings  of  the  prophets.  He  only  cared  for  domi- 
nion thereof,  and  for  this  he  esteemed  the  sin  of 
Jeroboam  as  necessary  as  the  latter  himself  had 
done ;  in  short,  he  seems  to  have  been  a  rough 
soldier  who  cared  little  or  nothing  about  religion. 
We  see  from  his  enterprise  at  Ramah  (chap.  xv. 
17),  which  he  wished  to  fortify  "to  reduce  Judah 
utterly,  through  complete  obstruction  of  trade " 
(Ewald),  that  he  haled  Judah  and  wished  to  de- 
Btroy  it,  and  therefore  to  reign  over  it  also.  He 
was  the  first  king-murderer  in  Israel,  and  led  the 
way,  as  it  were,  to  this  crime,  which  was  afterwards 
bo  often  imitated.  He  was  the  first,  too,  who  ex- 
terminated an  entire  royal  house  with  violence, 
and  not  only  killed  the  males,  but  "  every  one 
that  had  breath,"  an  unheard,  of  cruelty,  even  in 
throne-usurpations  in  the  ancient  East.  Menzel 
(«.  nil.  who  wrongly  takes  him  to  have  been  the 
Hon  of  the  prophet  Ahijah  (see  above  on  ver.  27), 


intimates  that  he  v:a8  therefore  under  prophetical 
influence,  and  then  says  that  he  "disappointed 
the  hopes  which  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  had 
placed  in  him."  This,  however,  is  pure  fancy.  The 
conspiracy  of  Baasha  was  completely  a  military 
insurrection,  as  ver.  27  indubitably  proves,  while 
there  is  not  a  word  to  show  that  he  was  influen- 
ced by  the  prophets.  He  was,  no  doubt,  one  of  the 
leaders  in  Nadab's  army,  but  there  is  no  evidence 
in  the  history  that  he  was  "  a  man  distinguished 
for  his  valor"  and  a  "skilful  warrior,"  as  Ewald 
calls  him  (III.  s.  446  sq.) ;  the  general  term,  too, 
used  in  chap.  xvi.  5  is  no  proof.  There  is  still 
less  ground  for  the  further  supposition,  that  be- 
sides the  growing  discontent  of  the  prophets,  the 
fact  that  the  house  of  Jeroboam  had  not  been 
able  to  conquer  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  other 
enemies,  was  evidently  the  chief  root  of  the  insur- 
rection against  it;  that  Baasha  thought  he  could  per- 
form more,  and  in  this  hope  he  seized  the  throne. 
The  text  does  not  say  the  least  word  of  all  this. 
For  the  sentence  announced  to  Baasha  by  the 
prophet  Jehu,  see  above,  Hist,  and  Eth.  on  chap. 
xiv.  1-20  (4). 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  25-31.  The  ruin  of  the  house  of  Jero- 
boam proclaims  these  two  great  truths :  sin  is  the 
destruction  of  a  people  (Prov.  xiv.  34),  and:  He 
who  heareth  not  my  word,  of  him  will  I  require 
it  (Deut.  xviii.  19).  God  does  not  punish  the  inno- 
cent children  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers,  but  those 
who,  despising  the  divine  patience  and  long-suffer- 
ing shown  to  their  fathers,  perpetuate,  without 
any  shame,  the  sins  of  the  fathers  (Exod.  xx.  5,  6). 
A  given  example  of  evil  is  rarely  without  imita- 
tion :  as  Jeroboam  rebelled  against  the  house  of 
David,  so  did  Baasha  against  the  house  of  Jero- 
boam. Desire  for  rule  and  envy  beget  first  dissa- 
tisfaction with  the  condition  in  life  ordained  by 
God,  lead  then  to  breach  of  faith,  and  end  at  last 
with  murder  and  homicide. — Ver.  29.  Conspira- 
tors and  rebels  profess  to  overthrow  tyranny  and 
to  throw  off  its  yoke;  but  when  they  attain  power 
and  sovereignty  they  are  themselves  the  most  vio- 
lent and  cruel  tyrants. — Ver.  34.  Calw.  B. :  Baasha 
trod  in  the  footsteps  of  Jeroboam  just  as  if  Jero- 
boam had  been  good  and  upright.  And  yet  Baasha 
himself  was  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  God  to 
punish  Jeroboam  on  account  of  his  sins.  What 
folly !  When  Jeroboam's  son,  Nadab,  did  as  his 
father,  we  can  explain  it  by  paternal  influence; — 
but  that  Baasha  should  have  pursued  the  same 
course  is  a  proof  of  monstrous  blindness.  The 
world  does  not  allow  itself  to  be  interrupted  in  its 
purposes;  vain  conduct  after  the  way  of  those 
who  lived  before,  is  always  inherited  (1  Pet. 
i.  18). — Chap  xvi.  1.  '  The  word  of  the  Lord 
in  the  mouth  of  a  true  servant  of  God  is,  for 
the  pious,  sweeter  than  honey  and  the  honey-comb 
(Ps.  xix.  11),  for  the  wicked  and  impious  it  is  a 
consuming  fire,  and  like  the  hammer  which  break- 
eth  the  rock  in  pieces  (Jer.  xxiii.  29). — Vers.  2-4 
Osiander:  The  sins  of  the  common  people  which 
they  have  learned  from  their  princes,  as  well  also 
as  those  which  these  do  not  restrain  when  they 
can,  are  charged  to  them.  Those  who  are  lifted 
up  out  of  the  dust  are  often  the  proudest  and  mosl 
arrogant  because  they  think  they  must  thai.k-onh 
themselves   for  their  exalted  position,  and   the} 


CHAPTER  XVI.  8-34. 


183 


forget  what  is  written  in  1  Sam.  ii.  7  sq.  For 
Baasha,  also,  the  hour  struck  when  it  was  said, 
Behold,  oh!  most  proud,  &c.  (Jer.  1.  31).  The 
throne  which  has  been  obtained  by  lying,  deceit, 
and  falsehood  and  bloodshed  has  no  stability. 
The  judgment  of  God,  though  delayed  for  a  time, 


will  not  always  tarry  (Ps.  v.  6,  1).  Robbers  and 
murderers  are  not  always  in  caves  and  the  hidden 
recesses  of  forests,  sometimes  they  are  seated  upon 
thrones;  but  the  Lord  will  "  sweep  them  away,' 
and  their  end  will  be  with  horror:  before  His  tri- 
bunal no  people,  no  crown  is  a  protection. 


11 


12 


B. — The  reigns  of  Elah,  Zimri,  Otnri,  and  Ahab. 
Chap.  XVI.  8-34. 

8  In  the  twenty  and  sixth  year  of  Asa  king  of  Judah1  began  Elah  the  sou  of 

9  Baasha  to  reign  over  Israel  in  Tirzah,  two  years.  And  his  servant  Zimri,  cap- 
tain of  half  his  chariots,  conspired  against  him,  as  he  was  in  Tirzah,  drinking 

10  himself  drunk  in  the  house  of  Arza,  steward  of  his  house  in  Tirzah.  And  Zimri 
went  in  and  smote  him,  and  killed  him,  in  the  twenty  and  seventh  year  of  Asa 
king  of  Judah,  and  reigned  in  his  stead.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  he  began 
to  reign,  as  soon  as  he  sat  on  his  throne,  that  he  slew  all  the  house  of  Baasha  :  he 
left  him  not  one  that  pisseth  against  a  wall,  neither  of  his  kinsfolks,2  nor  of  his 
friends.s    Thus  did  Zimri  destroy  all  the  house  of  Baasha,  according  to  the  word 

13  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he  spake  against  Baasha  by  Jehu  the  prophet, 
for  all  the  sins  of  Baasha,  and  the  sins  of  Elah  his  son,  by  which  they  sinned,  and 
by  which  they  made  Israel  to  sin,  in  provoking  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel 

14  to  anger  with  their  vanities.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Elah,  and  all  that  he 
did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ? 

15  In  the  twenty  and  seventh  year  of  Asa  king  of  Judah4  did  Zimri  reign  seven 
days  in  Tirzah.     And  the  people  were  encamped  against  Gibbethon,  which  he- 
ld longed  to  the  Philistines.     And  the  people  that  toere  encamped  heard  say,  Zimri 

hath  conspired,  and  hath  also  slain  the  king:  wherefore  all  Israel  made  Omri, 

17  the  captain  of  the  host,  king  over  Israel  that  day  in  the  camp.     And  Omri  went 

18  up  from  Gibbethon,  and  aU  Israel  with  him,  and  they  besieged  Tirzah.  And  it 
came  to  pass,  when  Zimri  saw  that  the  city  was  taken,  that  he  went  into  the 
palace  [citadel]  of  the  king's  house,  and  burnt  the  king's  house  over  him  with 

19  fire,  and  died,6  for  his  sins  which  lie  sinned  in  doing  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord  [Jehovah],  in  walking  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam,  and  in  his  sin  which  he 

20  did,  to  make  Israel  to  sin.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Zimri,  and  his  treason 
[conspiracy]  that  he  wrought,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles 

21  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ?  Then  were  the  people  of  Israel  divided  into  two  parts  : 
half  of  the  people  followed  Tibni  the  son  of  Ginath,  to  make  him  king ;  and  half 

22  followed  Omri.  But  the  people  that  followed  Omri  prevailed  against  the  people 
that  followed  Tibni  the  son  of  Ginath  :  so  Tibni  died,6  and  Omri  reigned. 

23  In  the  thirty  and  first  year  of  Asa  king  of  Judah  began  Omri  to  reign  over 

24  Israel,  twelve  years  :  six  years  reigned  he  in  Tirzah.  And  he  bought  the  hill 
Samaria  of  Shemer  for  two  talents  of  silver,  and  built  on  the  hill,  and  called 
the  name  of  the  city  which  he  built,  after  the  name  of  Shemer,  owner  of  the  hill, 

25  Samaria.     But  Omri  wrought  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  did  worse 

26  than  all  that  were  before  him.  For  he  walked  in  all  the  way  of  Jeroboam  the 
son  of  Nebat,  and  in  his  sin  [sins]  wherewith  he  made.  Israel  to  sin,  to  provoke 

27  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel  to  anger  with  their  vanities.  Now  the  rest 
of  the  acts  of  Omri  which  he  did,  and  his  might'  that  he  shewed,  are  they  not 

28  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ?  So  Omri  slept 
with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  in  Samaria :  and  Ahab  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead.8 

29  And  in  the  thirty  and  eighth  year  of  Asa  king  of  Judah  began  Ahab  the 
son  of  Omri  to  reign  over  Israel :  and  Ahab  the  son  of  Omri  reigned  over  Israel 


1S4 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


30  in  Samaria  twenty  and  two  years.     And  Ahab  the  son  of  Omri  did  evil  in  the 

31  sight  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  above  all  that  were  before  him.  And  it  came  to  pass. 
as  if  it  had  been  a  light  thing  for  him  to  walk  in  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of 
Xebat,  that  he  took  to  wife  Jezebel  the  daughter  of  Ethbaal  king  of  the  Zidoni- 

32  ans,  and  went  and  served  Baal,  and  worshipped  him.    And  he  reared  up  an  altar 

33  for  Baal  in  the  house  of  Baal,  which  he  had  built  in  Samaria.  And  Ahab  made 
a  grove;  and  Ahab  did  more  to  provoke  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel  to 
anger  than  all  the  kings  of  Israel  that  were  before  him.     In  his  days  did  Hiel 

34  the  Beth-elite  build  Jericho  :  he  laid  the  foundation  thereof  in  Abiram  his 
first-born,  and  set  up  the  gates  thereof  in  his  youngest  son  Segub,  according 
to  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he  spake  by  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun. 

TEXTUAL    AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  8. — [The  Vat  Sept  omits  the  preceding  comparative  date. 

*  Ver.  11.— [The  Vat  Sept  omits  the  latter  half  of  ver.  11  and  the  first  of  ver.  12. 

1  Ver.  11. — lV^XD  ~  ms  binsman  wn0  might  avenge  his  death.    The  full  force  of  the  word  p^j|  as  the  avenger  of 

blood  can  hardly  be  conveyed  by  any  single  English  word. 

4  Ver.  15. — [The  Vat  Sept.  here  again  omits  the  comparative  date. 

6  Ver.  IS — [The  division  of  verses  breaks  the  connection,  and  obscures  the  dependence  of  ver.  19  upon  the  word 
"died." 

•  Ver.  22.— [The  Sept  adds,  "and  Joram  his  brother  at  that  time." 

7  Ver  27.— [Many  MSS.  and  editions,  followed  by  the  Sept.  and  the  Syr.,  insert  531  before  HC'V  "lt'N  =  "his  might 

and  all  that  he  did."  thus  assimilating  the  expression  to  that  used  in  regard  to  some  other  kings,  c/.  ver.  14;  xv.  7,  23, 
81,  Ac.  although  the  expression  of  this  text  is  also  used  elsewhere. 

6  Ver.  2S. — [The  Vat  Sept  here  inserts  (with  some  chronological  variations)  the  account  of  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat 
from  chap.  xxii.  41-50.  again  repeating  that  account  (withnut  those  variations)  in  its  proper  place.  The  insertion  wae 
evidently  made  to  avoid  the  chronological  difficulty  between  verses  23  and  29,  for  the  explanation  of  which  see  the  Exeg. 
Com.  Accordingly  in  ver.  29  instead  of  the  3Sth  year  of  Asa  the  Vat.  Sept.  has  "in  the  second  year  of  Jehoshaphat'* 
The  Alex.  Sept  follows  the  Hebrew.— F.  6.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Vers.  8-14.  Began  Elah  to  reign,  Ac.  For 
Tirzah  see  on  chap.  xiv.  17.  As  Elah  commenced 
his  reign  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Asa,  and 
according  to  ver.  10  was  killed  in  the  twenty- 
ninth,  the  two  years  he  was  king  could  not  have 
been  full  ones.     331  is  now  generally  translated 

riding;  but  a  comparison  with  chap.  ix.  19  ;  x.  26 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  it  should  be  chariot. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  some  of  the  chariot-cities 
which  Solomon  built  (see  on  the  place)  were  in 
the  kingdom  of  Israel;  perhaps  "the  half"  of  all 
the  chariots  were  at  the  capital,  and  Zimri  was 
placed  over  them.  According  to  Josephus 
(Antiq.  viii.  12,  4),  Zimri  took  advantage  of  the 
absence  of  the  army  and  its  chief  to  undertake 
the  siege  of  Gibbethon  (see  above  on  chap.  xv. 
27).  The  house  steward  Arza,  who  had  arranged 
a  drinking  bout,  was  no  doubt  the  principal 
person  in  the  conspiracy  which  Zimri  set  on  foot. 
Of.  chap.  xiv.  10  with  ver.  11.  Zimri  acted,  as 
Grotius  remarks,  according  to  the  tyrannical  prin- 
ciples TT/TTYOr,  or  TTaTFnti  KTEtl'af;  vloilC  Knr>'/i-r.  But 
he  went  farther  than  Baasha,  inasmuch  as  he  not 
only  killed  the  relatives  of  the  king,  but  also  his 
friends,  in  order  to  secure  himself  from  any  pos- 
sible blood-revenge;  all  this  took  place  in  a  few 
days,  for  his  whole  reign  was  only  seven  days. 
For  vers.  1 2  and  1 3  cf.  ver.  3,  and  above  on  chap, 
xiv.  15,  16.  D'^an  i.  •?.,  vanitates,    anything  which 

is  called  God,  yet  is  not  God,  and  which  is  conse- 
quently vain  and  empty  (cf.  Deut.  xxxii.  21).  The 
word  here  docs  not  refer  to  idols,  properly  speak- 
'ng,  but  to  images  of  Jehovah,  which,  however, 
are,  like  .he  former,  empty  and  vain. 


Vers.  15-20.  Did  Zimri  reign  seven  days, 
Ac.  The  distance  of  Tirzah  from  Gibbethon  re- 
quires us  to  suppose  that  the  seven  days  apply  to 
the  time  during  which  Zimri  was  in  undisturbed 
possession  of  the  throne,  i.  e.,  until  the  day  when 
the  army  in  Gibbethon  made  their  chief,  Omri, 
king,  who  then  first  went  to  Tirzah  and  besieged 
it.  Zimri's  death  followed  when  he  saw  that  he 
could  not  hold  the  town  against  the  besiegers. 
The  "  people  "  and  "all  Israel"  mean  here  all 
those  who  were  armed,  i.  e.,  the  men  of  war. 
|)0"lX ,  from  the  root  Dix  to  be  high,  is  the  part 

that  was  highest,  that  is  "  the  fortress  of  the  royal 
palace,  the  securest  and  inmost  place,  the  citadel,  as 
it  were ;  for  the  royal  palace  contained  a  great 
number  of  buildings"  (Gesenius,  cf.  2  Kings  xv. 
25).  Zimri  set  fire  to  this  last  place  of  refuge,  and 
through  it  to  the  entire  palace,  in  order  not  to 
fall  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  and  to  prevent 
the  palace  and  all  it  contained  from  passing  into 
their  possession.  Similar  instances  are  to  be 
found  in  Justin,  hist.  i.  3;  Liv.  xxi.  14:  Fhr.  ii.  18. 
Ewald's  rendering  of  jiOIS  is  quite  arbitrary;  he 

gives  the  "women's  chamber,"  the  haretr;  and 
supposes  that  Zimri  went  there,  for  the  "effemi- 
nate man  had  only  suffered  the  queen  and  other 
women  of  the  palace  to  live,  as  they  readily  lent 
themselves  to  the  murder  of  their  lord;  and  the 
queen  mother  seems  to  have  offered  him  her 
favor."  However,  there  is  not  a  syllable  of  all 
this  either  in  the  text  or  anywhere  else.  Beside* 
the  deed  recorded  in  ver.  IS  rather  displays  cour- 
age  and  contempt  of  death  than  effeminacy.  The 
Syriac  has:  and  they,  the  besiegers,  fired  his 
royal  house  over  his  head  ;  and  Kimclii  translates 
and   he,  that  is   Omri,  set  fire.   <fco. ;  both  are  de 


CHAPTER  XVI.   8-34. 


166 


cidedly  wrong.  In  consideration  of  Zimri's 
short  reign  of  seven  days,  we  must  conclude  from 
ver.  19  that  he  had  formerly  shown  much  par- 
tiality for  the  calf-worship  of  Jeroboam,  and  that, 
at  the  time  of  his  accession,  he  had  no  intention 
of  removing  it. 

Vers.  2i— 22.  Then  the  people  of  Israel  di- 
vided. Ver.  21s?.  It  is  generally  thought  that  two 
parties  had  arisen  within  the  army,  each  of  which 
wished  to  make  their  leader  king,  and  that  they 
fought  forsome  time  until  the  weaker  party  suc- 
cumbed, and  their  leader  Tibni  fell  in  battle.  Ac- 
cording to  Ewald,  Tibni  was  assisted  in  the  war 
by  his  brother  Joram,  and  both  fell  in  the  one 
battle.  But  it  is  very  doubtful  if  the  "people  of 
Israel,"  ver.  21,  means  the  same  as  "the  people 
that  were  encamped,"  ver.  18,  i.e.,  only  the  army. 
The  latter  had  not  divided,  for  according  to  ver.  16 
Omri  was  made  king  by  "  all "  the  army ;  it  is  only 
said  of  him  that  he  was  the  captain  of  the  host, 
but  neither  this  nor  anything  similar  is  said  of 
Tibni.  We  have  therefore  more  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  after  the  death  of  Zimri  a  faction  arose, 
which  did  not  acknowledge  the  soldier-king  Omri, 
who  had  been  chosen  by  the  army  alone,  and  which 
faction  set  up  Tibni  in  opposition.  The  Sept  only 
makes  mention  of  a  brother  of  Tibni  (ml  a-c- 
Oave  Bafivl  ml  'lupafi  6  aihldibt;  avrov  kv  rCi  m/fiu 
enciva),  and  Josephus  also  (Ant.  viii.  12,  15),  only 
says,  Tibni  was  killed  by  Omri's  faction,  but  not 
that  the  two  brothers  iell  in  the  same  battle. 

Vers.  23-28.  Began  Omri  to  reign  over  Is- 
rael, twelve  years.  Ver.  23.  According  to  ver. 
15  the  elevation  and  death  of  Zimri  occurred  in 
the  twenty-seventh  year  of  the  reign  of  Asa,  king 
of  Judah  (929);  according  to  ver.  29,  Ahab,  the 
successor  of  Omri,  came  to  the  throne  in  the  thirty- 
eighth  year  of  Asa  (918);  therefore  the  twelve 
years  of  Omri's  reign  could  not  have  been  twelve 
full  years.  And  furthermore,  if  Omri  became  king 
in  the  thirty-first  year  of  Asa,  according  to  ver.  23 
(925),  and  yet  died  in  the  38th  year  of  Asa,  accord- 
ing to  ver.  29  (918),  that  is,  in  from  seven  to  eight 
years,  it  is  plain  that  the  twelve  years  of  his  reign 
are  reckoned  from  the  year  in  which  he  was  made 
king  by  the  host  (929),  but  did  not  at  the  same  time 
attain  the  sole  sovereignty,  as  part  of  the  people 
wished  Tibni  to  be  king.  He  became  sole  sove- 
reign only  in  the  year  925,  so  that  the  struggle 
with  Tibni's  faction  must  have  lasted  four  years. 
The  six  years  during  which  Omri  resided  at  Tirzah 
were  the  first  half  of  the  twelve  years  of  his  reign ; 
during  the  latter  six  years  he  lived  in  Samaria,  a 
city  which  he  had  newly  built  (ver.  24).  In  order 
to  explain  some  chronological  difficulties  that  oc- 
cur later,  with  regard  to  the  kings  Jehoram  and 
Jehoshaphat,  Ewald  (III.  s.  432)  refuses  to  reckon 
the  four  years  before  Tibni's  death  in  the  twelve 
years  of  Omri's  reign,  and  as  Asa  reigned  four 
years  as  a  contemporary  of  Ahab,  the  successor  of 
Omri  (chap.  xxii.  41),  Asa  could  not  have  reigned 
forty-one  years  (chap.  xv.  1 0)  but  forty-seven,  for 
the  years  mentioned  in  chap.  xvi.  15  amount  to 
that;  27  +  4+12+4.  "  But  according  to  this  suppo- 
sition, the  numbers  here  and  in  ver.  29,  also  in 
chap.  xv.  10,  which  are  perfectly  correct,  should  be 
altered  "  (Thenins),  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever 
for  doing  so.  The  name  "IDC*  (ver.  24),  is  proba- 
bly the  same  as  "OE>  and  -|DE>  (1  Chron.  vii.  32- 
34),  we  cannot,  therefore,  pronounce  the  derivation 


of  the  name  of  the  city  to  be  "  wrong,"  because  the 

owner  mustotherwise  have  been  called  1W  (Titer- 

mann).  The  mountain  of  Shrmer  is  not  far  to  the  east 
of  Tirzah,  and  it  lies  north-east  of  Shechem.  The 
palace  at  Tirzah,  which  was  destroyed  under  Zimri, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  rebuilt,  and  Omri  ap- 
pears, as  soon  as  he  became  king,  to  have  taken 
the  resolution  of  building  a  new  capital  and  royal 
city,  for  which  that  mountain  was  peculiarly 
adapted.  It  was  a  "  beautiful  round  mountain, 
covered  with  splendid  trees,  and  lying  in  a  valley 
or  basin  enclosed  with  mountains ;  "  it  commanded 
"  a  glorious  prospect  of  the  fruitful  valley  and  the 
heights  and  villages  surrounding  it "  (Knobel  on 
Isa.,  xxviii.  1— i;  Robinson,  Palest.  III.  1,  p.  503 
sq.).  Samaria,  therefore,  continued  to  be  the  capi- 
tal of  the  kingdom  until  its  destruction.  The  two 
talents  of  silver,  for  which  Omri  bought  the  hill,  are 
reckoned  at  5,200  Thr.  by  Keil,  and  at  4,000  Thr. 
byThenius  [$3,900  and  $3,000  respectively].  We 
may  infer  from  Mic.  vi.  16,  where  Judah  is  re- 
proached with  keeping  "  the  statutes  of  Omri  and 
all  the  works  of  the  house  of  Ahab,"  that  Omri 
went  further  in  regard  to  the  worship  than  the  for- 
mer kings  of  Israel  (ver.  25).  We  have  no  more 
exact  information,  but  it  is  certain,  at  any  rate, 
that  he  prepared  the  way  for  the  state  of  things 
under  his  successor  Ahab.  That  Omri  was  a  vali- 
ant warrior  appears  from  the  word  ijyn33   (ver. 

27),  which  is  used  respecting  Asa  and  Baasha,  Elah 
and  Zimri,  but  not  of  Nadab. 

Vers.  29-33.  Ahab. . .  .to  reign  over  Israel. 
Vers.  29  to  34  describe  the  government  of  Ahab 
generally ;  from  chaps,  xvii.  to  xxii.  follow  noti- 
ces of  separate  events  that  occurred  in  this  time, 
and  then  in  chap.  xxii.  39,  40.  comes  the  usual  con- 
cluding formula,  the  rest  of  thv  acts,  &c.  Our  section, 
therefore,  forms  a  general  introduction,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  superscription  to  the  following  par- 
ticulars ;  it  is  also  designed  to  place  the  reader 
beforehand  upon  the  stand-point  from  which  all 
that  is  coming  must  be  viewed  and  judged.  Omri 
had  departed  farther  than  any  of  his  predecessors 
from  the  fundamental  law,  but  Ahab  went  still 
farther  than  his  father  (ver.  30  is  therefore  no 
mere  repetition  of  ver.  25).  He  was  not  contented 
with  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  but  he  formally  intro- 
duced the  service  of  Baal  into  his  kingdom,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  marriage  with  Jezebel,  and  he 
even  built  a  temple  to  Baal  in  the  royal  city  and 
capital  Samaria.  Ethbaal  is  no  doubt  the  Eiftj/3a- 
Jloc  (who  was  mentioned  by  Menander  in  Josephus 
c.  Apian.  I.  IS),  king  of  T_vre  and  Sidon,  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  throne  about  fifty  j-ears  after  Hiram's 
death,  and  could,  therefore,  have  very  well  been 
the  father-in-law  of  Ahab ;  he  was  priest  of  As- 
tarte  and  the  murderer  of  his  brother,  king  Pheles. 
What  is  related  of  Jezebel  afterwards  coincides 
perfectly  with  what  we  should  expect  from  the 

daughter  of  such  a  father.     ?V?n  is  the  known 

chief  male  divinity  of  the  Phoenicians,  "the  sun- 
god,  which  was  regarded  as  the  primary  preserver 
and  principle  of  physical  life,  and  of  the  genera- 
tive, reproductive  power  in  nature,  which  flowed 
from  his  being"  (Movers,  Rel.  d.  Phiin.  s.  184). 
According  to  2  Kings  iii.  2  ;  x.  27  the  image  of 
Baal  which   Ahab  had  made,  was   ["Qi'D  ,   '•  e., 

monument,  a  monumental  pillar  (see  on  chap  xiv 


LS6 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


23).  In  the  temple  of  the  Tyrian  Hercules 
(=Baal),  at  Tyre,  there  stood  two  pillars,  one  of 
gold,  the  other  of  emerald  (Herodot.  II.  44,  see 
above).  Besides  Ihe  male  divinity  there  was  also 
the  mC'Sn  ,  the  female  deity  a  (wooden)  image 
of  Astarte  (see  above  7).  From  the  great  number 
of  the  priests  who  were  employed  in  the  worship 
of  Baal  which  Ahab  introduced  (chap,  xviii.  19), 
it  appears  that  it  was  very  extensive  and  magnifi- 
cent. More  particulars  regarding  the  temple  of 
Baal  are  given  in  2  Kings  x.  25-27.  That  Ahab 
trailt  besides  "another  splendid  building  of  the 
same  kind,  which  served  as  a  sacred  grove  for  As- 
tarte, and  which  was  probably  close  to  his  favorite 
palace  at  Jezreel"  (Ewald  III.  s.  457),  is  a  pure 
invention,  of  which  there  is  not  a  single  word  in 
the  text. 

Ver.  34.  In  his  days  did  Hiel  the  Bethel- 
ite  build  Jericho.  Ver.  34.  The  city  of  Jericho, 
which  was  very  strong  at  the  time  of  the  conquest 
of  the  promised  land,  was  destroyed  after  being 
taken,  and  Joshua  pronounced  these  words  over 
it:  "  Cursed  be  the  man  before  the  Lord  that  rais- 
eth  up  and  buildeth  Jericho;  he  shall  lay  the  foun- 
dation thereof  in  his  first-born,  and  in  his  young- 
est son  shall  he  set  up  the  gates  of  it "  (Josh.  vi. 
1,  2,4  26).  This  does  not  mean  that  no  one 
should  live  there  again,  but  he  who  endeavors  to 
make  it  again  what  it  was,  i.  e.,  a  fortress,  shall  be 
severely  punished.  Jericho  was  afterwards  ap- 
portioned to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  but  in  Ahab's 
time  it  certainlv  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Isra- 
el (Josh,  xviii.  21;  2  Kings  ii.  5,  18).  At  the  com- 
mand of  Ahab,  Hiel  of  Bethel  (the  chief  seat  of  the 

calf-worship)  now  built,  i.  e.  fortified  (,"03  as  in 
chaps,  xi.  27;  xii.  25),  Jericho  again ;  probably  be- 
cause it  lay  on  the  borders  of  Ephraim,  or  was 
designed  to  protect  the  passage  of  the  Jordan, 
which  was  near.  Whether  this  was  done  in  defi- 
ance of  Joshua's  prediction,  as  older  commenta- 
tors think,  or  in  ignorance  of  it,  is  uncertain  ;  at 
any  rate  Joshua's  word  was  fulfilled.  "We  can- 
not doubt  the  truth  of  what  is  related  in  this  verse, 
for  the  names  are  mentioned,  and  the  signification 
of  these  names  has  no  reference  to  the  event" 
(Thenius).  There  is  no  other  ground  for  the  sup- 
position that  Joshua's  utterance  was  a  vaticinium 
ex  eventu  than  the  rationalistic  presupposition  that 
all  prophecies  are  impossible.  The  supposition  of 
the  Rabbins  that  all  the  sons  of  Hiel,  from  the 
eldest  to  the  youngest,  were  destroyed  during  the 
building,  is  unsupported  by  the  text.  However, 
the  question  remains  how  the  whole  of  the  infor- 
mation contained  in  ver.  34  comes  to  be  inserted 
just  here.  As  it  follows  immediately  after  the 
account  of  the  introduction  of  the  Canaanitish 
idolatrous  worship  by  Ahab  (vers.  30-33),  our  au- 
thor may  very  well  have  thought  of  it  in  connec- 
tion with  the  latter.  The  fortress  of  Jericho  was, 
in  Joshua's  time,  the  gate  and  key  to  the  whole 
Land  of  Canaan;  he  who  possessed  it  had  the 
entire  country  open  before  him  (Josh.  ii.  1,  24 ;  vi. 
1  $q.).  The  taking  of  this  town  was,  therefore,  of 
the  greatest  importance;  it  was  achieved  by  a 
Miraculous  act  of  Jehovah,  which  was  compared, 
on  that  account,  lo  the  passage  through  the  Red 
Sea,  i.  e.,  the  complete  deliverance  from  Kgypl 
(Josh.  ii.  9  tqX  With  it,  the  land  of  Canaan  fell 
into  the  hinds  of  the   Israelites;  with  the  walla 


of  Jericho  the  stronghold  of  Canaanitism  fell,  its 
destruction  was  begun,  and  the  pledge  of  the 
same  lay,  in  a  measure,  in  the  destruction  of  that 
city.  But  just  for  this  very  reason  it  should  never 
again  become  what  it  was  before  its  capture. 
Ahab,  however,  who  placed  the  country  again  in 
its  ante-Israelitish  condition  through  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Canaanite  idol- worship,  caused  the  for- 
tress, which  had  been  destroyed  by  the  almighty 
power  of  Jehovah,  to  be  restored.  As  he  denied 
the  God  of  Israel,  and  placed  the  Baal  of  the  Ca- 
naanites  in  His  stead,  so  he  also  denied  the  great 
saving  act  of  Jehovah  as  manifested  in  the  fall  and 
destruction  of  Jericho.  He  showed  his  apostasy 
from  Jehovah  by  causing  the  walls  of  Jericho  to 
be  rebuilt.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  God  of 
Israel  would  not  suffer  contempt  of  Him  to  go  un- 
punished. The  curse  of  Joshua  was  fulfilled  as  a 
warning  that  the  divine  threatenings  would  not 
remain  unfulfilled.  The  account  in  ver.  34,  thus 
understood,  is  so  well  connected  with  that  of  ver 
32  that  it  forms  the  direct  transition  to  the  activi- 
ty of  the  prophet  Elijah  (of  whom  the  following 
chapter  treats)  against  the  apostasy  of  Ahab. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.   The  unspeakable  results  of  ihe  partition  of  thi 
kingdom,  and  the  co  nsequent  breach  of  the  fundamen- 
tal law  of  Israel,  appears  more  plainly  in  the  history 
of  the  reigns  of  Elah,  Zimri,  Omri,  and  Ahab,  than 
in  those  of  the  three  previous  kings.     All  four  of 
these  kings  continued  in  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  be- 
cause they  as  well  as  he  considered  it  to  be  ne- 
cessary to  the  separate  existence  of  their  kingdom 
and  to  the  support  of  their  power.     In  fact  each 
one  surpassed  the  other  until  the  image-worship 
reached  its  natural  goal  in  the  worship  of  idols 
(see  above),  which  the  last  of  them,  Ahab,  not  only 
permitted,   but   introduced   as   the  State-religion. 
With   Ahab,  therefore,   the  history   of  the  king- 
dom  of  Israel  comes  to  a  conclusion  relatively, 
and  a  new  epoch   begins,    characterized   by   the 
appearing  of  the  great   prophet   Elijah   and   his 
struggle  with  idolatry  (chap.  xvii.).     The  conse- 
quences of  the  partition,  which  were  felt  iu  tl  e 
sphere  of  religion,  were  felt,  in  like  manner,  in  thai 
of  politics,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  and  insepa- 
rable connection  of  the  Israelite  people  with  their 
religion.     The  monarchy  in   Israel  had  arisen  by 
means  of  rebellion  and  forcible  separation  from 
the  house  of  David,  and  thus  it  lacked  the  ground 
of  divine  law.     What  Jeroboam  conceived  he  was 
justified  in  doing,  every  other  one  thought  he  had 
a  right  to  do  also,  as  soon  as  he  had  followers  and 
power  enough ;  that  was  the  case  with  Baasha  and 
still  more  with  Zimri  and  Omri.     Thus  the  king- 
dom became  the  football  of  human  ambition  and 
caprice,  so  that  one  insurrection  followed  another; 
and  in  the  comparatively  short  time  of  from  fifty 
to  sixty  years,  seven  kings  reigned,  of  whom  four 
attained  the  throne  by  violence  and  even  murder. 
But  no  blessing  could  rest  on  such  a  kingdom. 
Tin-  people  of  the  ten  tribes,  who  were  already 
more  inclined   to  nature-life,  and  therefore  more 
adapted    for   the    reception   of   Jeroboam's    calf- 
worship,  must,  by  the  persistence  of  their  kings 
in  this  worship,  and  by  their  complete  separation 
from   Judah,  the  guardian   and  protector   of  the 
law,  and  with  it  of  the  spirited   life   by  the   na- 
tion, have  sunk  lower  and  lower.     A  people  cac 


CHAPTER  XVI.  8-34. 


1M 


indeed  endure  a  bad  ruler  without  themselves  de- 
generating; but  a  whole  hue  of  sovereigns,  of 
whom  each  obtained  the  throne  by  conspiracy, 
rebellion,  and  murder,  is  only  possible  where  the 
people  themselves  are  rough  and  barbarous.  What 
social  and  religious  degeneracy  is  presupposed, 
where  the  nation  accepted  all  the  abominations  of 
its  rulers,  and  where  an  Ahab  (fiually)  met  no  op- 
position in  instituting  the  shameful  and  indecent 
worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte  as  the  State-religion  I 
How  far  different  the  state  of  things  in  Judah ! 
For  though  the  religious  liberty  permitted  by  So- 
lomon bore  evil  fruit,  yet  the  fundamental  law 
was  always  adhered  to  by  the  kings,  and  the  idol- 
worship  was  completely  destroyed  by  Asa,  who 
reigned  two  years  contemporaneously  with  Aliab. 
The  kingdom  was  firm ;  there  was  not  a  trace  of 
conspiracy  or  rebellion,  and  the  house  of  David 
retained  the  throne.  Although  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  was  much  smaller  and  weaker  than  that  of 
Israel,  and  was  continually  in  danger  from  the 
latter ;  yet,  holding  fast  to  its  royal  house,  it  vic- 
toriously repelled  all  attempts  to  subjugate  it.  Such 
was  the  blessing  which  rested  in  fidelity  to  Jeho- 
vah and  His  law. 

2.  Of  the  two  kings,  Elah  and  Zimri,  we  learn 
nothing  besides  that  they  held  to  the  sin  of  Jero- 
boam, except  how  they  died.  This  was,  however, 
sufficient  to  characterize  them.  We  see  that  Elah 
did  not  even  inherit  energy  and  courage  from  his 
father  Baasha,  but  was  a  coward  and  a  low-souled 
glutton ;  because  when  the  whole  army  was  en- 
gaged in  combat  with  the  Philistines  before  Gib- 
bethon,  he  not  only  remained  at  home,  but  drank 
and  caroused.  Zimri  was  still  worse ;  ambition 
led  him  to  unfaithfulness  and  treason ;  he  not  only 
murdered  his  king  and  master,  but  the  king's  whole 
house.  How  little  esteemed  and  respected  he  was, 
appears  from  the  fact  that  the  whole  army,  as  soon 
as  they  heard  of  his  having  ascended  the  throne, 
immediately  made  another  king,  and  marched 
against  Zimri.  Then,  when  shut  in  and  sur- 
rounded, he  set  fire  to  the  citadel  over  his  head 
and  gave  himself  to  the  flames — his  act  was  one  of 
despair  rather  than  of  heroism. 

3.  The  accounts  of  Churl's  reign  are  limited  en- 
tirely to  this:  that  he  built  the  city  of  Samaria 
after  the  taking  of  Tirzah,  and  that  he  walked  in  all 
the  ways  of  Jeroboam,  and  was  worse  than  all  who 
preceded  him.  It  is  not  said  in  what  respect  he 
was  worse,  but  it  certainly  implies  that  he  main- 
tained the  anti-theocratic  institutions  of  Jeroboam 
with  great  zeal  and  decision.  It  appears  that  he 
Btood  well  as  captain  of  the  army,  for  it  was  iu  the 
camp  that  he  was  elected  to  the  throne.  Yet 
however  valiant  he  may  have  been  as  a  warrior,  iu 
the  chief  thing,  i.  e.,  in  his  relation  to  Jehovah  and 
the  theocratic  fundamental  law,  he  stood  worse 
than  any  of  his  predecessors,  and  was  furthest 
from  being  what  was  especially  required  of  a  the- 
ocratic king,  that  is,  a  servant  of  Jehovah.  Ac- 
cording to  Ewald  (III.  s.  452  sq.),  whom  Eisenlohr 
(II.  s.  150)  again  follows,  Omri  was  "  a  ruler  as 
enterprising  as  he  was  prudent,"  and  "  very  wisely 
took  advantage  of  the  times  to  secure  greater  pros- 
perity for  his  kingdom  and  security  to  his  own 
house.  This  camp-king  ruled  his  people  with  great 
power  ard  decision,  not  even  sparing  the  prophets 
when  they  opposed  his  designs.     But  without,  he 

Bought the   needful   peace   in    order  to 

•treugthen  himself  in  his  internal  relations.     He 


concluded  peace  with  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  .  . 
Omri's  chief  efforts  were  directed  towards  the  fur- 
therance of  trade,  commerce,"  &c.  Every  one  that 
has  eyes  can  see  that  the  text  does  not  say  a  word 
of  all  this ;  it  gives  us  another  example  of  how 
history  is  made.  Omri  is  not  great  and  distin- 
guished even  as  a  commander,  for  it  took  him  four 
years  to  conquer  the  already  weaker  faction  of 
Tibni,  and  according  to  chap.  xx.  34 ;  xxii.  3,  he 
was,  as  Eisenlohr  himself  is  obliged  to  confess, 
"  forced  to  conclude  a  peace  with  (the  Syrian  king) 
Benhadad  on  very  humiliating  conditions."  It  is 
not  credible  that  a  soldier-king  should  have  thought 
only  of  quiet  and  peace;  and  it  does  not  follow 
from  the  marriage  of  his  son  Ahab  with  the  Sido- 
nian  Jezebel  that  his  chief  desires  were  for  the 
furtherance  of  trade  and  commerce,  for  Ahab  did 
not  marry  till  after  he  became  king,  that  is,  after 
the  death  of  Omri  (ver.  31).  It  is  just  as  arbitrary 
to  conclude  that  because  he  was  worse  than  they 
all,  the  prophets  must  have  thrown  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  his  designs,  and  that  he  "  punished 
their  interference  with  the  utmost  severity."  Ahab 
is  the  first  of  these  kings  of  whom  we  have  a 
complete  picture,  which  is  given  in  the  following 
chapters. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  8-34.  General  reflections  upon  the  his- 
tory of  the  reigns  of  the  four  kings  in  the  following 
succession,  Elah,  Zimri,  Omri,  and  Ahab.  (a)  At 
variance  as  they  were  with  each  other,  hating, 
destroying,  and  killing  each  other,  yet  they  all  re- 
mained faithful  to  the  calf-worship,  regarding  it  as 
the  means  by  which  they  could  maintain  their  own 
kingdom  and  their  dominion  over  Judah.  The  re- 
ligion of  the  people  in  the  service  of  the  policy  of 
the  sovereign.  How  often  dees  it  happen  that  self- 
ish profit,  power,  or  seeming  form  the  real  motive 
of  a  confession  of  faith.  (6)  One  exceeds  the  other 
in  revolt  against  the  living  God. — Calw.  B. :  In 
sin  and  departure  from  God  there  are  always 
gradual  advances,  just  as  in  godliness  and  well- 
doing— one  step  follows  another,  and  the  slavery 
of  sin  is  ever  increasing  (2  Tim.  iii.  13).  (c)  One 
successful  insurrection  seldom  stands  alone  in  his- 
tory, but  is  ever  followed  by  a  fresh  one,  and  be- 
comes a  passion,  which,  like  a  deadly  plague,  saps 
the  moral  and  religious  life  of  a  nation  to  its  foun- 
dations. Hence  the  apostle's  meaning :  let  no  man, 
&c.  (1  Tim.  ii.  1-3). 

Vers.  8-10.  King  Elah.  (a)  He  riots  and  ca- 
rouses whilst  his  people  are  pouring  out  their  blood 
in  war.  It  is  a  sign  of  great  barbarousuess  and 
rudeness  amid  exterior  refinement,  when  the  great 
and  rich  lead  a  frivolous  and  luxurious  life,  whilst 
the  masses  eat  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of  their 
brow,  and  are  famishing.  A  riotous  court  life  is 
the  usual  precursor  of  the  storm  which  shakes  or 
destroys  the  throne,  (b)  Death  overtakes  him  in 
drunkenness.  To  go  suddenly  and  unprepared 
from  time  into  eternity  is  a  heavy  fate ;  but  it  is 
still-  more  fearful  to  leave  the  world  in  darkness. 
Therefore,  we  should  daily  pray:  Lord,  teach  us 
so  to,  &c.  (Ps.  xc.  12). — Wukt.  Summ.  :  The  nearer 
chastisement  comes  to  the  ungodly  the  more  se- 
cure are  they.  When  they  say,  "  There  is  peace, 
there  is  no  danger, "  then  destruction  shall  over- 
take them  suddenly,  and  they  shall  not  escape  from 
it  (1  Thess.  v.  3 ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxix  6).     Therefore:  be 


^s 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Bober,  &c.  (1  Pet.  v.  8).  It  is  fearful,  when  one 
?an  say  nothing  more  of  a  man  than,  "  He  has 
despised  God  and  his  word,  served  his  belly,  and 
ended  his  life  with  a  revel.  Better  to  famish  and 
be  miserable  with  Lazarus,  and  then  to  be  borue 
by  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom,  than  with  the 
rich  man  to  live  in  splendor  and  revelry,  and  af- 
terwards to  suffer  the  pains  of  hell. — Ver.  9. 
Drunken  revels  are  an  abomination  unto  the  Lord, 
and  only  occur  where  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  ab- 
Bent.  The  drunkards  rank  with  those  (1  Cor.  vi. 
9,  10)  who  will  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  the  Lord  Christ  warns :  Take  heed  to  your- 
selves, &c.  (Lu.  xxi.  34). 

Vers.  11-20.  Zimri,  King,  (a)  His  way  to  the 
throne :  Treachery,  cunning,  murder.  He  shunned 
no  means  to  gain  his  end.  That  is  the  way  of  the 
ungodly:  but  without  their  knowledge  or  will 
diey  are  compelled  to  be  scourges  and  whips  in 
the  hand  of  the  Lord  (Is.  x.  5).  (6)  His  end :  a 
speedy  and  fearful  one.  Only  seven  days  did  the 
dominion  which  he  so  coveted,  and  attained  through 
such  villany,  last.  Lightly  come,  lightly  go.  The 
ungodly  are  like  the  chaff,  &c.  (Ps.  i.  4,  6).  He 
gave  himself  up  to  death,  in  flames  of  fire.  The 
ungodly  are  utterly  consumed,  &c.  (Ps.  lxxiii.  19). 
As  he  had  lived,  so  he  died. — Ver.  18.  The  doom 
of  despair  is  the  end  of  a  life  given  over  to  siu, 
which  has  lost  sight  of  the  living  God,  and  can 
never  again  find  Him.  Frequently,  what  the  world 
regards  as  heroism  and  contempt  of  death  is  simply 
cowardice  and  crime  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  Lord 
has  no  pleasure,  &c.  (Ezek.  xviii.  23).  It  requires 
more  courage  and  bravery  to  bear  the  merited 
punishment  of  one's  sins  than  to  escape  from  it  by 
suicide. 

Vers.  21-28.  The  King  Omri.  (a)  How  he 
became  king.  When  the  king  is  chosen  by  the 
people  instead  of  receiving  the  crown  from  the 
hand  of  God  by  right  of  inheritance,  which  is  by 
the  grace  of  God,  factions  are  sure  to  arise,  which 


wage  bloody  conflicts,  and  waste  the  best  strengtb 
of  the  people,  until,  at  length,  the  stronger  party 
conquers  the  weaker  by  violence.*  The  curse  of 
party  spirit.  (6)  How  he  reigned.  He  built  Sa- 
maria, making  it  the  strong  centre  of  the  king- 
dom, but  he  walked  in  all  the  sins  of  Jeroboam, 
and  "  did  worse  "  than  all  who  went  before  him. 
A  man  may  be  skilful  and  useful  to  himself  and 
others,  in  all  material  and  worldly  things,  whilst 
in  spiritual  and  divine  things  he  works  only  mis- 
chief and  destruction.  What,  without  religion,  is 
so-called  civilization? 

Vers.  29-34.  The  King  Ahab.  (a)  His  union 
with  Jezebel — a  marriage  contracted  not  in  obe- 
dience to  God's  holy  will,  but  merely  upon  worldly 
grounds  and  political  considerations,  and  was 
therefore  the  source  of  great  mischief  to  himself 
and  to  his  people.  (6)  The  uplifting  of  idolatry 
over  the  religion  of  the  country.  The  calf- worship 
was  merged  in  the  Baal  worship.  The  greatest 
tyranny  is  the  tyranny  over  conscience,  which 
pretends  to  rule  also  over  belief.  The  worst  rule 
is  that  which,  instead  of  demanding  recognition  of 
the  truth,  substitutes  lies  and  errors,  and  exer- 
cises its  power  in  aid  of  unbelief  and  of  supersti- 
tion, (c)  The  rebuilding  of  Jericho.  By  means  of 
"  faith  "  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  (Heb.  xi.  30). 
Idolatry  will  build  them  up  again,  but  the  curse 
rests  upon  them.  He  who  builds  up  what  the 
Lord  has  destroyed,  falls  under  his  judgment.  2 
Chron.  xiii.  12:  Fight  ye  not,  &c.  Julian,  who 
rebuilt  the  heathen  temple,  and  the  Jews,  who  re- 
built the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  were  confounded 
and  brought  to  shame. 

*  [Of  course  our  readers  will  estimate  at  their  value  these 
stiff  monarchial  sentiments.  The  present  Editor,  here  as 
elsewhere,  prefers  to  translate  hi  this  work  rather  than  omit 
them,  because  it  is  due  to  the  author  to  give  his  work  fairly 
in  a  translation."  But  here  he  enters  a  mild  caveat,  and 
s  avails  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  say  that  his  task  is  not 
that  of  "a  reviewer,  and  consequently  he  has  allowed  ma*y 
things  to  pass  without  comment,  from  which  he  differs  wide- 
ly and  thoroughly. — B.  H.] 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-24.  188 


SECOND     EPOCH, 

FROM  AHAB  TO  JEHU. 
(1  KINGS  XVTL— 2  KINGS  VUL) 


FIRST  SECTION. 

THE   PROPHET    ELIJAH   DURING   AHAB's    REIGN. 

1  Kings  XVII.,  XVTLI.,  XIX. 


A. — Elijah  "before  Ahab,  at  the  brooh  Cherith,  and  in  Zarephath 

Chap.  XVH.  1-24. 

1  And  Elijah1  the  Tishbite,  who  teas  of  the  inhabitants'  of  Gilead,  said  unto 
Ahab,  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Israel  liveth,  before  whom  I  stand,  there 
shall  not  be  dew  nor  rain  these  years,  but  according  to  my  word.' 

And  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  unto  him,  saying,  Get  thee  hence 
and  turn  thee  eastward,  and  hide  thyself  by  the  brook  Cherith,  that  is  before' 

4  Jordan.     And  it  shall  be,  that  thou   shalt  drink  of  the  brook ;  and  I  have  com- 

5  manded  the  ravens6  to  feed  thee  there.  So  he  went  and  did  according  unto  the 
word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  :  for  he  went  and  dwelt  by  the  brook  Cherith,  that 

6  is  before  Jordan.  And  the  ravens  brought  him  bread  and  flesh  in  the  mornino- 
and  bread  and  flesh  in  the  evening6 ;  and  he  drank  of  the  brook. 

7  And  it  came  to  pass  after  a  while,  that  the  brook  dried  up,  because  there  had 

8  been  no  rain'  in  the  land.     And  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  unto  him 

9  saying,  Arise,  get  thee  to  Zarephath,  which  belongeth  to  Zidon,  and  dwell  there : 

10  behold,  I  have  commanded  a  widow  woman  there  to  sustain  thee.  So  he  arose 
and  went  to  Zarephath.  And  when  he  came  to  the  gate  of  the  city,  behold,  the 
widow  woman  was  there  gathering  of  sticks :    and  he  called  to  her,  and  said 

11  Fetch  me,  I  pray  thee,  a  little  water  in  a  vessel,  that  I  may  drink.  And  as  she 
was  going  to  fetch  it,  he  called  to  her,  and  said,  Bring  me,  I  pray  thee,  a  morsel 

12  of  bread  in  thine  hand.  And  she  said,  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  thy  God  liveth  I 
have  not  a  cake,  but  a  handful  of  meal  in  a  barrel,  and  a  little  oil  in  a  cruse  :  and 

13  behold,  I  am  gathering  two  sticks,  that  1  may  go  in  and  dress  it  for  me  and  my 
son,"  that  we  may  eat  it,  and  die.  And  Elijah  said  unto  her,  Fear  not ;  go  and 
do  as  thou  hast  said  :  but  make  me  thereof  a  little  cake  first,  and  bring  it  unto 

14  me,  and  after  make  for  thee  and  for  thy  son.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
God  of  Israel,  The  barrel  of  meal  shall  not  waste,  neither  shall  the  cruse  of  oil 

15  fail,  until  the  day  that  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  sendeth8  rain  upon  the  earth.  And 
she  went  and  did  according  to  the  saying  of  Elijah :  and  she,  and  he,16  and  her 

16  house,  did  eat  many  days.  And  the  barrel  of  meal  wasted  not,  neither  did 
the  cruse  of  oil  fail,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  which  he 
spake  by  Elijah. 

1 7  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  that  the  son  of  the  woman,  the  mistress 


190 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


of  the  house,  fell  sick ;  and  his  sickness  was  so  sore,  that  there  was  no  breath  left 

18  in  him.     And  she  said  unto  Elijah,  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  O  thou  man  of 
God?  art  thou  come  unto  me  to  call  my  sin  to  remembrance,  and  to  slay  my 

1 9  son  ?     And  he  said  unto  her,  Give  me  thy  son.     And  he  took  him  out  of  her 
bosom,  and  carried  him  up  into  aloft",  where  he  abode,  and  laid  him  upon  his 

20  own  bed.  And  he  cried  unto  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  said,  O  Lord  [Jehovah]  my 
God,  hast  thou  also  brought  evil  upon  the  widow  with  whom  I  sojourn,  by  slay- 

21  ing  her  son  ?     And  he  stretched  himself 1!  upon  the  child  three  times,  and  cried 
unto  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  said,  O  Lord  [Jehovah]  my  God,  I  pray  thee,  let 

22  this  child's  soul  come  into  him  again.  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  heard  the  voice 
of  Elijah;    and  the  soul  of  the  child  came  into  him  again,   and  he   revived. 

23  And  Elijah  took  the  child,13  and  brought  him  down  out  of  the  chamber  into  the 
house,  and  delivered  him  unto  his  mother:  and  Elijah  said,  See,  thy  son  liveth. 

24  And  the  woman  said  to  Elijah,  Now  by  this  I  know  that  thou  art  a  man   of 
God,  and  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  in  thy  mouth  is  truth. 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

'  Ver.  1.— [The  Sept.  adds  his  office.  "  Elijah  the  prophet,  the  Tishbite." 

2  Ver.  1. — [The  Sept.  has  mistaken  the  Heb.  participle  t^'jn.^     and  by  a  slight  change  of  the  pointing  has  read 

•^jMflO  6  U  Qeafiiov,  "  who  was  of  Thesbe."  The  Alex.  Sept.  also  omits  the  word  Qeapires.    It  has  been  much  questioned 

whether  Elijah  was  of  the  Thesbe  in  Galilee  mentioned  Tobit  i.  2  (see  Exeg.  Com.).    Against  this  supposition  is  th« 
fact  that  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  time  believed  that  "  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet    (Jno.  vii.  5*2). 

*  Ver.  1. — h~]QT  ^D^'DX  ^3  *3  strongly  emphatic:  nisi  ego  et  turn  alius  vir,  etiamsi propheta  sit  vel prophet-am 

mentuitur,  dixero,  Seb.  Schm. 

4  Ver.  3.—  [The  phrase  iJQ-^V      the  ambiguity  of  which  is  exactly  rendered  in  the  English  "  before,"  allows   either 

the  opinion  that  the  brook  was  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  (Euseb.,  Jerome,  v.  I'.aumer,  &c,  with  whom  our  author),  or  that 
it  was  on  the  west  (Ueland,  Kobinson,  Ac.) 

*  Ver.  4. — [Q>31U  is  lrans'aten  ravens  in  all  the  W.  except  the  Arab. ;  yet  so  important  a  commentator  as  S.  Je- 
rome says:  Orbim  aceotce  vittce  in  finibus  Arabum,  Elice  dederunt  alimenta.    But  see  Exeg.  Com. 

fl  Ver.  6.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  says  the  ravens  brought  bread  in  the  morning  and  flesh  in  the  evening. 

7  Ver.  7. — [The  Heb.  word  here  used  for  rain,  Q^»n     is  the  same  as  in  ver.  14  and  in  xviii.41,  but  different  from  ~)QQ 

coupled  with  dew,  in  ver.  1.    It  denotes  heary  rain. 

s  Ver.  12. — [The  Sept  curiously  has  here  and  in  ver.  18  TeKi-ois  in  the  plural. 

9  Ver.  14. — [The  form  in  the  text  mj-j  is  pointed  by  the  Masorets  and  marked  in  the  k'ri  as  to  be  understood  jijtj  , 

It  may,  however,  be  considered  as  the  infin.  ]-jfl  with  reduplicated  syllable  )n  and  read  |jt}JT|  .  See  Ewald  Krit.  Gramm. 

§  23S  c— F.  G.]  , 

10  Ver.  15.— The  k'ri  Nln^tOH  in  place  °f  the  k'tib  ^iTl'Mlil is  unnecessary.  Maurer :  Accentus  major  voci  p^XHt 
adponendus,  post  73J<m  vero  cogitatione  repetendum  est  edebat  s.  edebant.  According  to  Keil,  the  feminine  form 
S^Xm  *s  E0  ^e  taken  as  an  indefinite  neuter:  and  it,  he  and  she,  ate.  [The  reading  of  the  kVi,  however,  is  sustained  by 
many  MSS. 

1 1  Ver.  19. — [nsPU  ="  vjrtptZov,  the  upper  chamber  which  is  often  built  upon  the  roof  of  Oriental  houses  and  to  which 

there  was  access  without  passing  through  the  house. 

13  Ver.  21.— r"7"TD]"l?1  ,it"  "ne  measured  himself,"  i.  e.  stretched  himself. 

"  Ver.  23.— [The  Vat  Sept.  omits  the  greater  part  of  ver.  22  and  the  first  clause  of  ver.  28.— F.  G.] 


PRELIMINARY. 

Tlie  history  of  the  prophet  Elijah,  which  begins 
with  Die  chapter  now  before  us,  is  continued  in 
chapters  xviii.,  xix.,  xxi.,  2  Kings  i. ,  and  is  brought 
to  a  conclusion  in  2  Kings  ii.,  belongs,  as  is 
known,  not  only  to  the  weightiest  portions  of  our 
own,  but  of  the  Old  Testament  historical  books 
generally.  Hence  it  has  been  the  object  frequently, 
both  of  special  theological  inquiry  and  also  of 
devotional  consideration.  In  this  respect  we  name 
here:  Eichhorn:  Ueber  die  Prophetensafjen  aus  dem 
Reiche  Israel  (in  der  allgcm.  Bibliothek  der  bibl. 
Literatur  IV '.  2  s.  193  sq.).  Niemeyer :  Charak- 
teristik  der  Bibel  V.  s.  257  sq.  Knobel :  Der  Prophe- 
tisniiis  iter  llfliraer  II.  s.  73  sq.  Rodiger  :  In  der 
Hail.  EncyclopadieSd.  33  s.  320.     Koster  :  Die  Pro- 


pheten des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments,  s.  70  sq 
Winer:  R.- 17.-5. 1,  s.  317  sq.  Ewald:  Geschichtels 
raels  IN.  s.  485  sq.  und  533  sq.  Kurtz,  in  Herzog's 
R.-E.  III.  s.  754  sq.  Sartorius:  Elias  und  Elisa, 
3.  Heft  der  Vortrage  uber  die  Propheten,  Basel, 
1862.  Menken  :  Christliche  Homilien  uber  die 
Geschiehte  des  Propheten  Elias,  2  Bd.  der  gesammelten 
Schriften,  Bremen,  1858.  (These  1798  homilies 
are,  as  the  preface  rightly  remarks,  "a  complete 
ascetic  commentary."  They  are  to  this  day  un- 
surpassed, and  belong  to  what  is  best  that  has 
ever  been  said  and  written  upon  Elijah.)  Fr.  W. 
Krnmmacher  :  Elias  der  Thisbiter,  4.  Ausg. .  Elberf., 
1851.  K.  M.  Wirth  :  Das  Leben  des  Propheten  Elias, 
Predigten,  Bern,  1863.  F.  Bender :  Alttestameniliche 
Lebensbilder  in  I'rediykn,  3.  Biindchen:  Die  Propheten 
Elias  und  Elisa,  Stuttgart,  1858.     [See  ajso  Dean 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-24. 


19, 


Stanley :  Jewish  Cliurch,  Lecture  xxx.  F.  D. 
Maurice  :  Prophets  and  Kings  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Sermon  viii.  Bp.  Hall :  Contemplations,  Ac,  Book 
xvii.  6,  7,  8.  F.  W.  Robertson:  Sermons,  Second 
Series,  vi. — E.  11.] 

Besides  the  sections  in  our  books  just  re- 
ferred to,  we  have  no  further  accounts  of  the 
history  of  Elijah.  As  his  activity  was  limited 
to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  the  Chronicles,  which 
are  occupied  specially  with  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  furnish  no  parallel  accounts.  They  make 
no  mention  of  Elijah,  except  that  he  wrote  a 
letter  to  king  Jorum  (2  Chron.  xxi.  12  sq.),  of 
which,  however,  we  rind  nothing  in  our  books. 
Elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  Elijah  is  men- 
tioned but  once  (Mai.  iv.  5).  How  high  he  stood 
in  the  estimation  of  the  later  Jews  may  be  learned 
from  the  praise  of  him  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
(xlviii.  1-1 2).  In  the  New  Testament  no  prophet 
is  mentioned  and  extolled  so  frequently  as  Elijah  : 
whence  certainly  it  follows  that  in  the  time  of 
Christ  and  of  the  Apostles  generally,  a  high  sig- 
nificance was  attached  to  him  in  the  sphere  of  the 
history  of  redemption.  Rabbinical  tradition  sup- 
plements indeed  the  history  of  the  prophets,  but 
its  statements  are  so  marvellous,  and  in  part  so 
absurd  (Cf.  Schottgen,  Hoc.  heb.  II.,  p.  533  ;  Eisen- 
menger,  Enldecktts  Judenthum  II.  s.  401  sq.),  that 
not  the  slightest  historical  value  can  be  conceded 
to  them.  They  certainly  show,  however,  the  ex- 
traordinary estimation  in  which  then  and  always 
Elijah  stood  amongst  the  Jews.  Origen,  Jerome, 
and  Eusebius  mention  apocryphal  accounts  of 
Elijah,  and  even  the  Mohammedans  have  their 
fables  about  him  (See  Winer  s.  320  and  Ewald  s. 
548). 

In  respect  now  of  the  narrations  in  our  books,  as 
to  form  and  contents,  they  are  so  unmistakably  dis- 
tinguishable from  the  chapters  which  precede,  and 
which  are  inserted  amongst  them  (xv.,  xvi.,  xx.,  and 
xxii. ),  as  to  place  it  beyond  doubt  that  they  belong 
to  another  documentary  source,  the  work  as- 
suredly of  some  prophet,  and  probably  incorpo- 
rated into  the  great  historical  collection  in  the 
hands  of  our  author  (see  Introd.  §  2).  Lately, 
distinctions  between  the  different  accounts  have 
been  made  ;  and  it  has  been  maintained  that  they 
are  the  product  of  different  periods.  According  to 
Ewald,  chap.  xxi.  is  the  most  ancient,  and  2  Kings 
chap.  i.  2-17  the  latest  section  (so  Thenins  also 
in  respect  of  the  latter) ;  but  that  the  main  portion, 
(chaps,  xvii.,  xviii.,  six.,  2  Kings  ii.  1-1S)  was 
written  by  one  person,  who  lived  at  the  close  of 
the  eighth  or  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
century,  i.  e.,  some  two  hundred  years  after  Elijah. 
This  view  rests,  however,  upon  a  completely  un- 
justifiable perversion  of  the  history,  by  virtue  of 
which  the  punishment  of  Naboth  (chap,  xxi.)  de- 
cided the  whole  turn  of  affairs  in  Israel.  When 
the  author  of  the  main  portion  of  the  narrative 
lived  cannot  be  determined.  That  "  he  cannot  have 
lived  before  the  end  of  the  eighth  or  the  first  half 
of  the  seventh  century,"  is  an  assumption  which 
rests  only  upon  the  undemonstrated  opinion  of  the 
unhistorical  character  of  the  story  of  Elijah  in 
general,  but  which  does  not  necessarily  follow  from 
this.  Who  in  that  period,  far  from  being  an  in- 
Bigniticant  one,  could  have  been  the  author  ? 

Recent  criticism,  on  account  of  the  "  accumu- 
lation of  the  miraculous "  in  the  expositions  of 
the   life   and   work   of   Elijar    contained   in   our 


books,  pronounces  it  more  or  less  unhistoricaL 
At  first  the  attempt  was  made  to  explain  this 
miraculous  element  away  by  giving  to  the  events 
concerned  a  merely  natural  coloring  (cf.  Exeget 
llandbuch  des  Alt.  Testaments,  S  and  9;  St.  Bauer, 
Hebr.  Jlythologie  II.  s.  156  sq.  and  Gesch.  der  hebr 
Nation  II.  s.  406  sq. ;  Ausfiihrliclie  Erklarung  de> 
Wander  II.  s.  148),  but,  as  Winer  mildly  expresses 
it.  "  not  with  a  very  felicitous  result,"  examples  of 
which  shall  be  cited  below.  Subsequently  this 
was  entirely  abandoned.  The  view  now  current 
takes  this  form  :  we  have  before  us  here,  "  not 
history  strictly  speaking,  but  a  tradition-sketch;" 
the  entire  delineation  wears  often  "  a  wholly  fabu- 
lous character"  (Thenius),  and  is  hence  full  of  "  the 
marvellous  "  (Winer),  and  yet  "the  fabulous  is  so 
closely  connected  with  the  historical  that  it  is  scarce- 
ly possible  to  separate  the  one  from  the  other  in  all 
particulars"  (Rodiger,  Knobel).  The  latest  way  of 
looking  at  the  matter  goes  still  farther,  claiming 
that  the  documentary  source  employed  by  out 
author  "  is  a  poetico-prophetic  wTork  of  a  later  age, 
in  which  the  image  of  such  an  extraordinary  phe- 
nomenon as  Elijah  had  gradually  become  stronget 
and  more  colossal,"  that  in  this  work,  still  further, 
"older  narratives  and  treatises  were  manifestly 
made  use  of,"  only  "the  author,  conceiving  of 
everything  with  poetic  loftiness,  lifted  up  the 
reader  even  to  a  height  often  dizzy,  has  formed 
anew  the  whole  history  of  Elijah  and  of  his  time." 
It  is  "a  wonderful,  creative  representation  of  the 
sublimest  prophetic  truths,"  and  "  is  freed  besides 
of  every  fetter  of  prosaic  historical  material " 
(Ewald,  I.  c,  s.  534  sq.,  whose  words  Eisenlohr,  as 
usual,  repeats).  Buusen  has  expressed  this  view 
in  the  sharpest  way  (Bibelwerk  fiir  die  Gemeinde  V. 
2.  s.  ;>40.  sq.) :  "  The  whole  narration  of  the  life  of 
Elijah  is  a  firmly  welded  popular  epic  in  its  execu- 
tion, from  the  beginning  to  end  .  .  .  for  the  won- 
derful power  of  this  spirit  and  for  his  astonishing 
manifestations  our  poem  serves  better  than  a  dry 
narration  of  the  actual  occurrences.  It  is  the 
fruit  of  an  inspiration  which  he,  like  some  super- 
human being  as  it  were,  awakened  in  his  dis- 
ciples. Nothing  but  boundless  ignorance,  or, 
where  historical  criticism  has  not  died  out,  only 
an  hierarchical-dilettanti  reaction,  foolhardy  hy- 
pocrisy or  weak-headed  fanaticism,  would  wish  to 
demand  the  faith  of  the  Christian  community  in 
the  historic  truth  of  these  miracles  as  if  they  had 
actually  taken  place."  Reserving  details  for  the 
particular  statements,  we  remark  as  follows,  in  a 
general  way,  upon  these  various  modes  of  view  of 
the  new  criticism. 

(<;)  In  respect  of  "  the  accumulation  of  the  mira- 
culous," from  which  the  new  criticism  generally, 
in  disputing  the  historical  character  of  the  ac- 
count about  Elijah,  proceeds,  Kurtz  says — "  It  must 
be  confessed  that  these  miracles,  partly  at  least, 
are  surprising  through  their  outwardness,  and 
that,  were  we  justified  in  supposing  that  mythical 
embellishments  entered  into  the  biblical  history 
at  all,  here  (and  in  Elisha's  story)  more  than  any- 
where else  would  they  be  found."  If  indeed  it  be 
presupposed  that  a  miracle  is  an  impossibility,  and 
is  to  be  relegated,  consequently,  to  the  sphere  of  le- 
gend or  of  fiction,  the  history  of  Elijah  must  appear 
certainly  as  legendary  and  unhistorical.  But  if  this  be 
not  presupposed,  the  frequent  manifestation  C'f  the 
miraculous  in  this  history  cannot  surprise  us.  The 
entire  history  (Heilsgeschichte)  of  the  Old  and  New 


iy2 


THK  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Testament,  as  the  actual  revelation  of  the  living, 
holy  God,  who  is  infinitely  above  all  natural,  finite 
being,  is  a  great  continuous  miracle,  and  is  likewise 
the  soil  in  which  all  miracles,  in  particular,  are 
rooted.  But  as  it  has,  like  every  other  history, 
its  main  epochs,  which  form  the  gathering-points 
of  its  development,  so  it  is  agreeable  to  its  nature, 
that  just  at  these  very  points  the  miraculous 
should  appear  stronger,  more  distinctly  and  more 
frequently,  and  the  appearance  of  any  person  who 
stands  at  the  apex  of  a  new  epoch  should  be  ac- 
companied by  miracles.  The  concentration  of  re- 
velation leads,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  a  con- 
centration of  the  miraculous,  and  moreover,  in  a 
way  which  corresponds  with  the  steps  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  people,  and  the  position  of  the 
person  who  leads  them.  Such  was  the  case  with 
Moses,  the  founder  of  the  Covenant,  and  with 
Christ  its  finisher,  and  it  would  be  surprising  if  in 
the  case  of  Elijah,  the  restorer  of  the  Covenant 
(see  below,  Historical  and  Ethical),  miracle  should 
not  be  present.  E wald  confesses  this  when  (s.  5 1 0) 
he  says:  "  The  sphere  of  religion  is  always  that 
of  wonder,  while  that  of  strong  faith  in  the  being 
and  agency  of  heavenly  powers  is  in  action  as 
well  as  experience ;  where  also  there  is  the 
strongest  intensity  of  true  religion,  there  will 
such  wonders  in  part  actually  take  place  through 
the  activity  of  the  believing  spirit,  and  in  part  will 
be  experienced,  at  least,  by  believing  hearts  .  .  . 
In  so  far  were  the  days  of  Elijah  and  of  Elisha, 
then,  when  the  true  religion  was  compelled  to 
maintain  itself  most  stringently  against  its  inter- 
nal foes,  as  rich  in  wonders  as  of  old  the  days  of 
Moses  and  of  Joshua  had  been."  Sartorius  also 
justly  remarks:  " The  activity  of  these  prophets 
of  an  older  time  did  not  consist  in  testimonies 
simply  by  word  of  mouth,  in  long  speeches  and 
extended  discourses,  like  those  of  the  later  pro- 
phets, but  in  deeds  laid  upon  them  by  Uod, 
wrought  by  them  in  the  strength  of  God,  which 
they  taught  people  rightly  to  understand  only, 
in  brief  statement,  as  a  sign  from  the  Lord.  .  .  . 
Especially  was  the  falling  away  at  that  time  at 
such  a  pass  that  the  conversion  of  souls  could 
not  be  accomplished  by  words  simply,  but  by  de- 
monstrations of  the  power  of  the  living  God,  and 
these  we  see  now  an  the  miracles  of  Elijah." 
What  Christ  says  in  John  v.  36  of  His  works,  is 
true,  mutatis  mutandis,  of  Elijah.  They  were 
signs  and  witnesses,  and  there  can  be  no  discus- 
sion here  of  a  surprising  "  outwardness  "  in  any 
particular.  They  have  all  a  spiritual  kernel,  and 
often  speak  deeper  and  louder  than  words.  The 
proof  of  this  devolves  upon  the  exegesis.  If  the 
legendary  be  so  cemented  with  the  historical,  as  the 
new  criticism  confesses,  that  it  is  "impossible"  to 
separate  them,  the  accounts  generally  can  have  no 
historic  worth,  and  it  would  be  more  consistent, 
critically,  to  explain  them  as  fiction.  For  the  rest, 
supposing  that  tradition  has  added  this  or  that,  it 
by  no  means  follows,  as  has  been  assumed,  that 
all  the  miraculous  belongs  to  the  legendary  only, 
and  is  unhistoricaL  The  miraculous  which  the 
Jewish  tradition  has  grafted  upon  the  biblical  ac- 
counts is  of  the  sort  which  can  be  readdy  dis- 
tinguished from  that  which  in  the  Bible  itself  is 
explained  away  as  legendary.  But  never  would 
a  tradition,  running  out  into  what  is  irregular  i>nd 
extraordinary,  have  been  formed,  had  Elijah's  ap- 
pearing been  without  any  miracle. 


(b)  The  notion  that  the  accounts  of  Elijah  art 
portions  of  a  larger  poetical  work,  in  fact  »  ja- 
tioual  epic,  does  away  readily  with  many  t«ffi- 
culties,  but  at  the  same  time  is  involved  in  irrecon- 
cilable contradictions.  No  one  can  deny  that  the 
author  of  our  books  wished  to  write  an  historical 
work.  Had  he  regarded  the  history  of  Elijah,  as 
contained  in  his  documentary  sources,  not  as 
history  but  as  "  fiction,"  he  would  not  have  incor- 
porated it  into  his  work,  and  have  placed  it  side 
by  side  with  the  other  documents  to  which  he 
appealed.  Least  of  all  would  he  have  done  this 
in  a  main  portion,  in  the  history  of  the  prophet 
who  makes  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  monar- 
chy, yea,  of  the  theocracy  of  the  Old  Covenant. 
Of  course,  if  he  held  that  to  be  history  which  he  in- 
corporated into  his  own  work  he  would  have  claimed 
in  its  behalf  acceptance  upon  the  part  of  his  readers. 
If,  finally,  it  were  "fiction,"  that  objection  of  "un- 
limited ignorance,"  absence  of  "historic  sense," 
"foolhardy  hypocrisy,"  or  "weak-headed  fanati- 
cism "  would  before  all  strike  him,  and  he  would, 
at  the  same  time,  disclaim  for  his  whole  history 
all  trustworthiness  and  credibility.  If  the  docu- 
mentary source  belonged  to  the  end  of  the  eighth 
or  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  then  for 
the  space  of  two  hundred  years,  down  to  the  days 
of  our  author,  no  one  remarked  that  it  did  not 
contain  history,  but  was  only  a  fiction.  The  his- 
tory of  Israel  was  likewise  the  history  of  the  di- 
vine revelation,  and  consequently  a  matter  not  for 
the  poets  but  for  the  prophets  (see  Introd.  §  2), 
and  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the 
prophet  who  composed  the  documentary  source, 
did  not  mean  to  write  a  popular  epic,  but  history. 
But  apart  from  every  other  consideration,  the  narra- 
tives about  Elijah,  notwithstanding  their  peculiar 
coloring,  are  not  related  to  the  remaining  portions 
of  our  books  as  poetry  to  prose.  The  extreme 
simplicity  and  directness  of  the  narratives  (c/. 
Thenius,  Comment,  s.  218),  the  pregnancy  of  ex- 
pression, the  frequent  designation  of  places,  the 
many  individual  characteristico-psychological  traits 
impart  to  the  whole  an  historical  impress  so  un- 
mistakable, that  the  events  narrated  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  regarded  as  a  poetic  costume  and  "  repre- 
sentation of  the  sublimest  prophetic  truths  "  and 
general  religious  ideas.  Ewald's  view,  that  the 
author  of  the  documentary  source  had  gathered 
together  everything  with  poetic  elevation,  and 
has  lifted  his  readers  up  to  a  height  which  is 
often  giddy,  contradicts  flatly  his  own  previous 
assertion  :  "  How  grand  everything  said  of  him 
(Elijah)  may  be,  still  all  accounts  ean  be  but  a 
feeble  image  of  the  original  grandeur,  and  the  all- 
conquering  might  of  this  great  prophetic  hero  of 
the  ten  tribes."  If  the  appearing  of  Elijah  were 
originally  so  grand — and  "  there  can  be  no  doubt 
actually  of  the  marvellousness  of  his  prophetic 
activity  " — if  he  achieved  the  "  incredible  miracle 
of  a  complete  alteration  in  the  condition  of  the 
ten  tribes  at  that  time,"  we  see  no  reason  why 
the  author  of  the  documentary  source  could  or 
would  have  been  moved  "  to  form  anew  the  whole 
history  of  Elijah  and  of  his  time,"  "  to  make  an 
entire  new  thing,"  and  to  "get  rid  of  every  fetter 
in  the  way  of  a  lower  historical  material."  When 
Bunsen  says,  "  we  have  legends,  not  myths,"  bu\ 
adds,  "  the  historical  character  of  the  life  and  of 
the  personality  is  not  at  all  imperilled  thereby," 
this  is  simply  a  contradiction.     For  legends  aro  no 


CHAPTER  XVII.   1-24. 


193 


history,  and  in  the  way  of  history  all  that  remains 
is  that  once  an  Elijah  lived  and  did  great  things  ; 
all  besides  is  insecure  and  uncertain,  is  in  fact 
legend  presented  in  a  poetic  garment. 

EXEGETICAL  AND  CEITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  Elijah  the  Tishhite.  "When 
under  Ahab  the  falling  away  from  Jehovah  in 
Israel  reached  a  degree  never  hitherto  known 
(chap-  xvi.  30-34),  then  the  prophet  Elijah  ap- 
peared and  announced  to  the  king,  &c.  Theuius  is 
of  the  opinion  that  the  proper  opening  of  the 
history  of  Elijah  here  is  missing,  and  that  the 
manner  of  his  appearance  presupposes  an  activity 
in  the  past.  Von  Gerlach  also  says,  "  the  history 
has  a  great  gap  here,  at  its  beginning,"  for  Elijah 
appears  as  one  in  connection  with  whom  extra- 
ordinary occurrences  were  known  for  a  long  time. 
But  this  view  is  not  necessary.  It  is  in  the  highest 
degree  probable  that  Elijah  lived,  up  to  that 
moment,  in  retirement,  that  his  prophetic  activity 
first  began  with  his  encounter  with  Ahab,  and  that 
then  his  history,  strictly  speaking,  began,  like  that 
of  Mark  and  Matthew,  and  of  John  the  Baptist  his 
copy.  This  sudden  coming  forth  corresponds  well 
with  the  peculiarity  of  his  appearing,  hence  also 
Jesus  Sirach  (Ecclesiasticus  xlviii.  1-12)  begins  his 
eulogy  upon  Elijah  with  the  words:  "  Then  stood 
up  Elias  the  prophet  as  lire,  and  his  word  burned 
like  a  lamp.  He  brought  a  sore  famine  upon  them," 
&c.     The  name  ?n^X  or    ri^S   (2  Kings  i.  3  sg.), 

i.  e..  not,  according  to  the  old  interpreters  :  My 
strength  is  Jehovah,  but  :  My  God  is  Jehovah, 
refers  to  the  life's  calling  of  the  prophet,  which 
was  to  bear  witness  against  Jehovah  as  the  one 
true  God  over  against  Baal.  It  is  not  at  all  likely 
that  he  gave  this  significant  name  to  himself 
(Thenius).  In  chap.  xxi.  17  he  is  called  the  Twh- 
bite  without  any  addition.  In  Tob.  i.  2  only,  is 
Qio3tj,  a  place,  mentioned,  "which  is  at  the  right 
hand  of  that  city  which  is  called  properly  Naph- 
tali,  in  Galilee  above  Aser."  As  there  is  no 
mention  anywhere  of  a  place  of  that  name,  this 
must    be  the  Thisbe.     The  addition  ly^J  'QB'nO 

says  that  Elijah  of  Thisbe  was  born  in  Galilee, 
but  was  living  in  Gilead,  in  the  land  lying  over 
against  Ephraim,  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan. 
Instead  of  'at-'Tip    Ewald,   Thenius,   and    Kurtz 

wish,  after  the  Sept.  (6  Qeo-j3ir7]c_  6  etc  Qeoorfov  rye 
YaWaai),  to  read  'a^'TUp ,  so  that  the  sense  would 

be,  the  Tishbite,  namely,  of  the  Thisbe  which  is  in 
Gilead,  but  which  is  not  the  Thisbe  in  Galilee, 
mentioned  in  Tob.  i.  2.  But  there  is  no  proof 
that  there  was  a  Thisbe  in  Gilead.     Even  3;.' ,n 

does  not  force  us  to  this  reading :  for  it  does  not 
designate  a  stranger,  t.  e.,  a  non-Israelite,  but  one 
who  had  wandered  off  into  another  tribe,  and  was 
dwelling  there,  like  the  still  stronger  13  in  Judges 

xvii.  7  of  the  Levite  who  was  of  Bethlehem  in 
Judah,  and  had  settled  himself  in  Ephraim.     That 

the   generally   plene    written   3L"in  stands    here 

without  1  makes  nothing  against  the  Masoretic 
punctuation  (Keil  on  the  place).  Whether  Elijah 
came  from  the  unknown  Thisbe  in  Galilee,  or  from 
the  equally  unknown  Thisbe  in  Gilead,  is  a  matter 
13 


of  no  moment,  but  it  is  certain  that  he  came 
over  into  Samaria  from  the  country  east  of  the 
Jordan. 

Said  unto  Ahab,  &c.  It  is  often  maintained 
that  the  words  of  Elijah  are  the  conclusion  of  a 
longer  conference  with  Ahab,  and  the  Talmud 
(Sanhed.  xxii.  1)  states  the  occasion  and  the  con- 
tents of  the  same,  but  most  arbitrarily.  The 
prophet  surely  entered  into  no  dispute  withAhab. 
According  to  his  constantly  observed  plan,  he  ap- 
peared before  the  backslider  with  a  short  but 
incisive  word,  which  he  understood  well  enough 
without  any  extended  reasoning.  As  the  Lord  God 
of  Israel  liveth  is  the  usual  form  of  an  oath,  which 
here  at  the  same  time  places  Jehovah,  the  only 
living  God,  in  contrast  with  Baal,  the  dead  idol 
The  addition  also,  the  God  of  Israel,  stands  out  in  its 
full  meaning :  the  true  living  God  is  He  also  who  had 
chosen  Israel  and  made  a  covenant  with  them,  which 
was  now  shamefully  broken  by  idolatry.  With 
the  words,  before  whom  I  stand  (chap.  i.  2;  x.  5,  8), 
Elijah  designated  himself  to  the  king  as  the  ser- 
vant and  ambassador  of  Jehovah,  and  that  as  such 
he  stands  before  him  and  announces  the  impend- 
ing punishment.  This  punishment,  that  there 
should  be  tio  dew  nor  rain,  was  not  arbitrary  and 
prejudiced,  but  was  threatened  in  the  law  for  tha 
sin  of  falling  away,  and  suited  the  especial  circuu. 
stances.  The  fruitful  land  of  Canaan  was  prom- 
ised to  the  people,  after  their  exodus  from  Egypt, 
on  the  condition  that  they  would  keep  the  cove- 
nant of  Jehovah,  and  not  serve  other  gods.  But  in 
the  event  of  a  falling  away  it  was  threatened  that 
the  heavens  should  become  brass,  and  the  earth 
iron,  i.  e.,  that  it  should  become  unfruitful;  and 
this,  for  an  agricultural  people,  was  the  direst  evil 
(Lev.  xxvi.19  sq.  ;  Deut.  xi.  16  sq.  ;  xxviii.  23sq.; 
cf.  1  Kings  viii.  35 ;  Amos.  iv.  7  sq.).  Never 
hitherto  had  the  covenant  been  broken,  and  idol- 
atry been  formally  introduced,  as  under  Ahab  :  if 
ever  at  all,  now  must  the  threatening  be  carried 
into  execution.  Such  a  punishment  was  at  the 
same  time  an  evidence  against  the  Baal-worship  ; 
for  since  Baal  was  worshipped  conspicuously  as 
the  generating  Nature-power,  so  was  the  impend- 
ing drought  and  barrenness  a  tangible  proof  of  the 
impotence  and  nullity  of  this  idol.  It  is  not  to  be 
overlooked  that  Elijah,  while  he  announces  the 
coming  of  the  punishment  threatened  by  Moses, 
and  in  a  certain  degree  executes  it,  places  himself, 
at  the  outset,  in  the  direct  position  of  a  mediator 
and  founder  of  the  covenant,  as  another  Moses, 
i.  e.,  as  the  restorer  of  the  covenant.  The  prophet 
announces  the  continuance  of  the  drought  only 
in  a  general  way,  because  it  would  depend  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  king  and  of  the  people.  He  there- 
fore adds,  but  according  to  my  word,  perhaps  "  in 
opposition  to  others,  particularly  the  prophets  of 
Baal"  (Keil),  certainly  for  the  humiliation  of  the 
haughty  king,  who  had  set  himself  up  above  Je- 
hovah and  his  commandment,  and  now  must  feel 
himself  dependent  upon  the  word  of  a  man  whom 
he  despised,  one  of  his  subjects,  but  who,  never- 
theless, "  was  standing  before  Jehovah." 

Vers.  2-3.  And  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
unto  him,  &c.  How  Ahab  received  the  announce- 
ment of  the  prophet,  whether  angrily  or  indiffer- 
ently, is  not  stated.  Certainly  he  did  not  lay  hands 
upon  him,  who  seems  to  have  disappeared  as  un- 
expectedly as  he  came.  From  the  more  general 
direction   eastward,  winch  is  followed  by  the  more 


194 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


especial  'JS'py  of  Jordan,  Thenius  justly  concludes 

that  the  brook  Cherith  flowed  easterly  from  Jordan 
(Gen.  xvi.  12;  xxiii.  19;  Josh,  xviii.  14),  in  op- 
position to  the  tradition  which  locates  it  this 
side  the  same  river  (see  Keil).  What  recent 
writers  deliver  in  respect  of  its  situation  are, 
after  all,  uncertain  guesses,  and  nothing  can  be 
gathered  concerning  it  from  its  name  JV"I3 1  *'•  «-, 

separation  The  assertion  that  the  "  brook  "  was 
called  Cherith,  i.  e..  drying  up,  because  it  used  to 
dry  up  (Krummacher)  much  sooner  than  all  others. 
is  a  sort  of  luetic  a  iwn  lucendo.  For  it  seems,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  have  belonged  to  the  class  of 
perennial  fountains,  and  upon  that  account  to  have 
been  pointed  out  to  the  prophet  in  the  time  of 
drought.  Certainly  the  prophet  was  not  concealed 
"  in  order  to  get  out  of  the  way  of  importunate 
prayers  for  the  removal  of  the  punishment " 
(Keil),  for  a  man  of  such  inflexible  will  would  not 
find  it  necessary  to  get  out  of  the  way  of  such 
prayers.  We  surmise  rather  that  his  design  was 
to  be  safe  from  the  persecution  of  Ahab  and 
Jezebel;  for  he  would  be  able  the  more  readily 
to  fly  into  the  neighboring  kingdom  of  Judah.  It 
was  also  requisite,  after  that  great  declaration, 
that  he  should  again  retire  into  the  obscurity  from 
which  he  had  emerged,  and  not  appear  again 
"  until  men  were  convinced  of  the  truth  of  his 
word  by  the  results  thereof,  and  would  feel  their 
need  of  him  and  of  his  God,  and  he  could  labor 
mightily  and  decisively  against  the  idol-worship  " 
(Menken).  Since  God  had  appointed  him  to  an 
extraordinary  task,  it  was  necessary,  after  he  had 
begun  it  with  the  announcement  of  the  judicial 
punishment,  to  retire  into  obscurity,  in  order  to 
prepare  for  all  that  his  calling  brought  with  it, 
both  great  and  grievous.  The  sojourn  in  the 
desert  was  "  the  time  when  he  grappled  and 
wrestled  in  prayer  for  his  people,  and  was  himself 
purified  and  strengthened  for  his  future  deeds " 
(Von  Gerlach).  "  Most  of  the  saints  aud  great  men 
lived,  before  their  entrance  upon  their  public 
career,  in  profound  obscurity :  so  Moses,  so  Jesus 
himself,  so  Paul,  who  spent  three  years  in  Arabia 
after  his  conversion.  God  receives  His  people 
first  in  silence  in  his  school,  until  He  can  use  them 
openly  (Calwer  Bib.).  The  second  Elijah,  John  the 
Baptist  (Matt.  xi.  14;  xvii.  12),  was  in  the  wilder- 
ness when  the  command  of  God  came  to  him  to 
appear  openly  (Luke  i.  80 ;   iii.  2). 

Vers.  4-6.  I  have  commanded  the  ravens, 
&c.  To  command  means  "as  much  as  to  make 
use  of  them  in  the  execution  of  his  purposes  " 
(Berleb.  Bibel).  As  the  God  who  hath  made  heaven 
and  earth  and  all  that  therein  is,  hath  "  command- 
ed "  the  serpents  (Amos  ix.  3),  and  the  clouds 
(Isa.  v.  6;  Ps.  lxxviii.  23),  the  sea  also  (Job 
xxxviii.  11),  so  likewise  the  ravens.  By  means  of 
these  the  supply  of  the  prophet  with  food  is 
promised,  not  "against  their  own  voracity,  be- 
cause subject  to  the  will  of  God  "  (Thenius),  but 
because  they  have  their  habitat,  and  are  found  in 
wild  and  desolate  places  (Isa.  xxxiv.  11;  Zeph. 
ii.  14).  As  the  raven,  according  to  Lev.  xi.  15  ; 
Deut.  xiv.  14,  belongs  to  the  unclean  class  of  birds, 
Kimchi  and  other  rabbins,  referring  to  Ezek.  xxvii. 

27,  explain    0"3ljj  as  merchants.     But  apart  from 

the  consideration  that  3"ij?  by  itself  never  means 


merchant,  Elijah  was  not  to  eat  the  ravens,  and  the 
eating  only  of  unclean  creatures  was  forbidden. 
It  is  even  still  worse  to  read  D'QIJ?  ,  >■  e.,  Arabians 

(1  Chron.  xxi.  16),  or  to  suppose  that  the  in- 
habitants of  the  unknown  city  Orbo.  or  of  the 
rock  Oreb  (Judges  vii.  25),  are  meant  (cf.  on  the 
other  hand  Bocbart,  Hitroz.  II.  i.  2).  Gumpach  is 
altogether  out  of  the  way  when  he  translates  ver. 
6, — and  the  ravens  coming  to  him  were  bread  and 
meat ;  for  then  Elijah  would  have  been  compelled 
to  eat,  in  order  to  be  nourished,  unclean  creatures 
forbidden  by  the  law. 

Vers.  7-12.  And  it  came  to  pass  after  a 
while,  <fec.  Not  after  the  course  of  a  year,  but 
after  some  time ;  for  D'D1  can  only  be  understood 

of  the  space  of  a  year  when  the  connection  ne- 
cessarily requires  it,  as  in  Judg.  xi.  40;  xvii.  10; 
Lev.  xxv.  29.  Luther's  translation  :  after  several 
days,  is  also  incorrect.  Zarephathlay  between  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  also  in  the  native  land  of  Jezebel. 
There  is  still  extant  a  village  named  Surafend 
with  remains  of  an  ancient  date  (Robinson's  Pales- 
tine, vol.  II.  p.  474-475).  The  "commanding" 
here  is  the  same  as  in  ver.  4. — The  widow  wo. 
man,  &c,  ver.  10.  From  the  fact  that  she  was 
gathering  sticks  it  is  evident  that  the  wonan  wa.= 
poor  and  forsaken.  To  test  whether  she  were  thl 
person  who  was  to  provide  for  him,  wearied  by 
his  journey  in  the  heat  of  the  sun,  he   begs   her 

first  of  all  for  a  drink  of  water  (by  <p3  a  drinking- 

cup  which  he  had  brought  from  the  brook  Cherith 
is  to  be  understood).  As  she  readily  complied 
with  his  request  he  went  further,  and  asked 
for  a  mouthful  of  bread,  and  observes  from  her 
reply,  in  which  she  speaks  only  of  her  son,  and  not 
of  her  husband,  that  she  was  a  widow,  and  also 
that  she  knew  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  Then 
he  was  no  longer  in  doubt  that  she  was  the  person 
who  was  to  care  for  him.     TITH  at  the  conclusion 

of  ver.  11  is  not  to  be  connected  with  T\pP  but 

with  Drp~np :  a  bit  of  bread  which  thou  hast 

(Sep.  tfHiifiov  aprov  rov  kv  tt)  xEtP'1  cov)-  From  the 
oath  by  "Jehovah"  and  the  addition  "thy  God  " 
it  is  obvious  that  the  woman  recognized  in  the 
man  thus  asking  of  her  an  Israelitish  prophet, 
which,  indeed,  his  dress  proclaimed  (2  Kings  i.  8), 
and  likewise  that  she  also  knew  of  Jehovah  the 
God  of  Israel.  The  supposition  that  she  knew 
only  the  name  of  this  God,  and  then,  "  so  much 
the  more  to  secure  confidence  "  (Thenius),  swore 
not  by  her  own,  but  by  the  God  of  Elijah,  makes 
her  simply  a  hypocrite ;  for  no  one  swears  by  a 
God  whom  he  does  not  honor  and  recognize  as  a 
God.  She  indeed  names  Jehovah  the  God  of  the 
prophet,  but  while  she  swears  by  this  God  sha 
gives  it  to  be  understood  that  the  God  of  the  pro- 
phet is  also  her  God.  In  any  event  she  was  not  a 
worshipper  of  the  Phoenician  Baal  aud  Astarte, 
otherwise  an  Elijah  would  not  have  been  directed 
to  her.  How  and  where  she  learned  to  know  the 
God  of  Israel,  we  do  not  ascertaiu.  But  it  is  cer 
tain  that  she  knew  him.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
she  was  an  Israelite  by  birth,  who  had  been  mar. 
ried  to  a  Phoenician.  To  dwell  in  a  foreign  land, 
with  an  Israelitish  widow,  seems  entirely  suitable 
to  the  prophet's  situation.  The  passage  iu  Luke 
iv.  25  does  not  suggest  that  she  was  a  heathen 


GHAPTEB  XVII.   1-24. 


iy.r- 


»nd  worshipper  of  idols,  but  that  she  was  not  in 
the  native  land  of  the  prophet.     By  jijJD  "the 

smallest-sized  bread  in  the  form  of  cake  is  to  be 
understood  (Thenius).  It  is  baked  in  hot  ashes; 
the  Sept.  has  kyupytyiac  [cf.  Ps.  xxxv.  16).     -\2  is  a 

little  vessel  for  holding  meal.  Oil  was  used  in  bak- 
ing. The  woman  was  collecting  the  wood  to  have 
her  last  "  baking,"  for  she  saw  before  her  death 
from  starvation. 

Vers.  13-16.  And  Elijah  said  unto  her, 
Pear  not,  Sc.  The  prophet  attaches  to  his  word  of 
consolation  a  demand  which  was,  for  the  woman,  a 
severe  test  of  her  faith.  Never  would  he  have 
made  the  demand,  and  still  less  would  she  have 
paid  any  attention  to  it  (ver.  15),  had  she  been  a 
heathen  and  worshipped  idols.  That  at  the  word 
of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel  (ver.  14),  she  did 
what  the  prophet  bade  her,  certainly  shows  a  faith 
which  could  scarcely  be  found  in  Israel.  ]nn  is 
the  infinitive  fin    with  the  syllable  ]n  repeated  as 

in  chap.  vi.  19.  The  addition,  and  her  house,  ver.  15, 
while  in  ver.  12  and  13  her  sou  only  is  mentioned, 
means  that  there  was  so  much  meat  and  oil  that 
even  her  poor  relations  came  to  partake  thereof. 
The  Sept.  in  vers.  12  and  13,  without  any  authority, 
has roic tckvoic,  and  in  ver.  15,  TartKva,  and  Thenius 
would  like  to  make  the  text  to  conform  to  this. 
The  same  author,  without  reason,  wishes, with  the 
Vulgate  (ei  ex  ilia  die),  to  refer  Q'o'  to  the  follow- 
ing verse :  and  from  that  time  the  barrel  wasted 
not.  It  means  simply  a  long  while,  like  Gen. 
3d.  4  ;  Numb.  ix.  22. 

Vers.  17-18.  And  it  came  to  pass  after 
these  things,  &c.  It  went  so  far  with  the  sick 
son  that  "there  was  no  breath  left  in  him."  The 
same  expression  occurs  also  in  Dan.  x.  1"  (cf.  1 
Kings  x.  5),  but  where  it  does  not,  however,  at  all 
describe  death  (i.  e.,  being  in  a  state  of  death).  It 
would  be  a  mistake  to  maintain  that  these  words 
can  mean  only  that  he  died.  We  must  rather  con- 
clude, that  as  the  text  does  not  say   ]-|(b5l  it  did 

not  mean  to  say  it.  Vers.  18  and  20  likewise  do  not 
compel  us  to  think  of  a  being  in  a  state  of  death,  and 
Josephus,  who  certainly  was  not  afraid  of  the  mira- 
culous, gives  our  words  thus — "  wc  mzi  -f/v  faxr/v 
a<pelvat  ko.1  66;ai  vtupov.  The  illness  was  certainly 
mortal,  and  the  boy  would  have  remained  in  a  breath- 
less and  lifeless  condition,  had  not  Elijah  rescued 
him  from  death.  The  action  of  the  prophet  is 
hence  miraculous,  which  he  did  not  perform  by  his 
own  human  power,  but  which  the  God  who  doeth 

wonders  achieved  through  him.  The  formula  'jr-fiD 

T\b)(cf-  2  Sam.  xvi.  10;  Judges  xi.   12;   2  Kings 

iii.  13;  Matt.  viii.  29;  John  ii.  4)  has,  according  to 
the  connection,  a  somewhat  different  sense.  Here 
it  expresses,  as  the  respectful  form  of  address, 
"  Man  of  God,"  shows,  not  strong  dislike,  or  "the 
breaking  up  of  outward  fellowship  and  a  demand 
for  his  departure  "  (Thenius),  but  distress  and  la- 
mentation :  Is  this  the  result  of  my  association  with 
thee  ?  Must  such  sorrow  befall  me  oecause  thou 
*rt  with  me?  The  words  immediately  following  are 
to  be  connected  therewith;  ]"IN3  .  &c.,  which  do  not 

convey  a  positive  accusation  or  objection,  but,  with 
the  Sept.,  Vulgate,  Thenius,  and  others,  are  to 
be    understood  interrogatively:  Was  it  necessary 


for  thee  to  come  to  me,  Ac.  As  mothers,  at  the  loss 
of  a  beloved  child,  often  seek  for  the  reason  of  it 
in  some  definite  occasion,  so  here  the  troubled 
woman  has  the  thought  that  the  death  of  her  son 
is  a  punishment  for  her  sin,  which  first  becomes 
known  properly  before  God  through  the  man  of 
God,  who,  as  such,  is  in  a  special  intercourse  with 
God.  We  can  scarcely  find  "  the  presumption  "  in 
this  thought,  that  "the  appearance  of  a  higher 
being  brings  undoubtedly  death  to  the  person  to 
whom  it  happens"  (Menken  after  Hess),  but  rather 
the  erroneous  supposition  that  by  intercourse  with 
the  holy  man  of  God,  and  in  contrast  with  him, 
her  sinful  nature  first  becomes  clear  and  known  to 
the  holy  God.  As  in  contrast  with  the  holy  will  of 
God  revealed  in  the  law,  man  in  his  sinfulness 
knows  himself,  the  same  is  true  also  in  contrast 
with  such  men  as  walk  before  the  holy  God,  and 
within  whom  His  holy  will  lives  and  works 
(Luke  v.  8).  The  error  lay  in  this — that  the  wo- 
man supposed  that  in  the  degree  in  which  she  had 
come  to  the  knowledge  and  the  feeling  of  her  sin, 
God  also  was  then  taking  cognizance  of  it,  and 
punishing  her.  "  Folly  indeed  in  the  thought, 
but  in  this  folly  what  truth  of  feeling  and  humil- 
ity "  (Krummacher).  This  error  the  prophet  sets 
aside,  not  by  means  of  a  long  didactic  reply,  but 
by  a  rescuing  action  which  must  have  convinced 
her  that  the  distress  did  not  overtake  her  on  ac- 
count of  her  special  sin,  but  virip  ttjc  So^nc  rob 
Qeav,  and  that  "the  works  of  God  might  bo 
manifest  thereby"  (John  ix.  3  ;  xi.  4). 

Vers.  19-23.  And  he  took  him  out  of  her 
bosom,  &c.  He  goes  "  into  his  lonely  chamber  in 
order  to  be  alone  with  his  God,  and  to  be  able  to 
pray  all  the  more  freely.  Here  he  pours  out  his 
heart,  inwardly  moved  by  sympathy  at  the  grief 
of  the  mother,  and  much  distressed  at  the  incom- 
prehensibleness  and  unexpectedness  of  this  divine 
providence,  in  humble  trustfulness  before  his  God  " 
(Menken).  Cf.  Acts  ix.  40  ;  2  Kings  iv.  33.  In 
the  question  to  God  (ver.  20)  there  is  no  cavil ;  it 
is  rather  the  expression  of  a  man  wrestling  in 
prayer  with  God,  who  does  not  doubt  that  God 
will  hear  him  (James  i.  6). — And  he  laid  him, 
&c.  How  this  was  done  is  more  fully  stated  in  2 
Kings  iv.  34.  Like  Christ,  the  prophet  of  all  pro- 
phets, when  he  healed  the  dumb,  and  the  blind, 
and  the  blind  from  his  birth  (Mark  vii.  33  ;  viii. 
23  ;  John  ix.  6,  7),  so  Elijah  proceeded  in  this 
case.  He  employs  rational  means  for  warming 
and  re-vivifying,  not  with  the  hope  that  of  them- 
selves they  would  prove  effectual,  but  in  the  sure 
confidence  that  God,  in  answer  to  his  weeping 
supplication,  would  impart  supernatural,  divine, 
i.e.,  life-giving,  force  to  the  natural  human  instru- 
ments, and  this  happened. — Three  times  Elijah 
stretched  himself  upon  the  child,  calling  upon  God, 
not  so  much  because  everything  to  be  thoroughly 
and  completely  done  must  be  done  thrice  (three 
are  the  true  unit),  as  rather  because  the  calling 
upon  the  name  of  Jehovah  in  the  old  covenant 
was  a  threefold  act  (Ps.  Iv.  18;  Dan.  vi.  10); 
thrice  in  the  high-priestly  benediction  was  the 
name  of  Jehovah  laid  upon  Israel  (Numb.  vi.  22) ; 
thrice  did  the  seraphim  before  the  throne  of  Je- 
hovah cry  out  holy  (Isa.  vi.  3). 

Ver.  24.  And  the  woman  said,  &e.  The 
sense  of  her  words  is  not  that  she  had  doubted 
hitherto  whether  Elijah  were  actually  a  man  ol 
God,  but  that  now  she  knew  it ;  for  she  names  him 


196 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


such  in  ver.  18,  and  as  such  regards  him  as  the 
cause  of  her  grievous  visitation.  Rather  she  ex- 
plains, now  (ni  nnj?  Ruth  ii.  7 ;  2  Kings  v.  22), 

she  is  convinced  anew  and  most  assuredly  about 
it-  J1DN  at  the  end  is  not  to  be  taken  adverbial- 
ly :  that  thou  art  truly  a  prophet  and  speakest  the 
word  of  Jehovah,  but  as  a  substantive :  that 
which  thou,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  speakest  as 
His  word  is  truth,  upon  which  one 'can  entirely 
repose.  The  experience  in  ver.  14  is  confirmed 
here  to  its  fullest  extent.  Menken  is  incorrect 
here  in  understanding  by  flirVDI  "  the  whole 

announcement  of  the  truth,  all  taken  together, 
which  Elijah  had  said  and  taught  during  his  stay 
in  her  house,  concerning  truth  and  error,  the  wor- 
ship of  idols  and  the  worship  of  God,"  &e.  The 
expression  never  means  this,  but  always  simply 
the  word  of  Jehovah  which  He  Himself  speaks  or 
has  spoken. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  first  coming  forth  of  Elijah  is  in  the 
highest  degree  characteristic,  and,  as  it  were,  the 
superscription,  in  the  way  of  action,  to  his  entire 
appearing ;  for  it  throws  light,  at  the  outset,  upon 
the  peculiarity  both  of  his  personality  and  of  his 
public  activity.  Living  until  then  in  the  greatest 
obscurity  and  entirely  unknown,  he  stands  sud- 
denly there  "like  one  fallen  from  the  clouds,  to  be 
compared  with  the  lightning  of  God,  like  a  light- 
ed fire-brand  hurled  by  the  hand  of  Jehovah" 
(Krummacher),  and  after  he  had  spoken  his  word, 
which  "  burned  like  a  torch  "  (Ecelesiast.  xlviii.  1), 
he  again  disappears,  and  no  one  knew  whither  he 
had  gone  (chap,  xviii.  10;  cf.  2  Kings  ii.  16-18;  1 
Kings  ix.  3,  8).  Wholly  alone,  without  any  pow- 
er or  influence  behind  him,  he  encountered  the 
mighty  king  fearlessly  and  courageously,  not  like 
a  suppliant,  but  threatening  and  punishing  (cf. 
chap,  xviii.  15  ;  xxi.  20  ;  2  Kings  ii.  15  sq.).  His 
speech  is  brief  and  pithy,  firm  and  definite.  He 
delivers  no  elaborated  address;  the  word  he  speaks 
is  like  a  deed.  "  There  is  something  great,  majes- 
tic, divine,  in  the  coming  forth  of  this  prophet" 
(Menken).  No  less  striking  is  the  substance  of 
his  first  utterance.  He  announces  to  the  chief  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  carried  over  into 
formal  idolatry  by  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  and  now 
completely  cut  loose  from  the  covenant  (chap.  xix. 
10),  the  punishment  which  was  threatened  in  the 
covenant  (=law),  that  he  may  forsake  his  evil  ways 
and  turn  unto  the  God  of  his  fathers.  But  in  this 
he  does  not  bring  to  light  merely  one  side  of  his 
prophetic  calling,  but  the  core  and  heart  thereof. 
The  peculiar,  specific  place  which  he  occupied  in 
the  economy  of  grace  was  to  raise  up  and  restore 
the  covenant  which  had  been  communicated  and  estab- 
lished by  Moses,  but  had  become  violated.  As  restor- 
er and  reformer  he  stands  'n  immediate  relation  to 
Moses,  the  founder  of  this  covenant.  Hence  we 
shall  see,  not  only  in  the  course  of  his  history  is 
there  much  that  is  analogous  with  the  history  of 
Moses,  but  he  appears  also  together  with  Mosej 
at  the  transfiguration  of  the  Lord  (Luke  ix.  28-35), 
and  both  speak  "  of  his  decease  which  he  should 
accomplish  at  Jerusalem."  They  both  represent 
the  Old-Testament  economy  in  contrast  with  Him 
who,  by  his  "decease,"  carries  it  to  its  end  and  ful- 
filment.     As  another,  second  Moses,  Elijah's   en- 


tire personality  and  work  in  his  calling  bears  alsc 
supremely  an  historical  character.  And  as  the 
restoring  and  rehabilitation  of  the  covenant  de- 
manded, necessarily,  an  overthrowing  and  remo- 
val of  the  idol-worship,  already  deeply  rooted  and 
powerful,  not  only  must  glowing  zeal  and  impar- 
tial strictness  be  combined  in  this  character  so  de- 
voted to  the  law,  but  also  a  judicial  activity  itself. 
Hence  his  acts  often  have  the  appearance  of  hard- 
ness and  violence.  The  period  of  his  appearing 
was,  for  the  covenant-breaking,  idolatrous  genera- 
tion, a  day  of  divine  judgment,  a  time  of  visitation 
and  chastening.  But  in  so  far  as  the  restoration 
of  the  covenant  did  not  concern  outward,  political 
relations,  but  the  ethico-religious  relation  to  Jeho- 
vah, the  Holy  One,  and  aimed  to  "  turn  the  heart 
of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  heart  of  tho 
children  to  their  fathers"  (Mai.  iv.  6),  Elijah  was 
properly  tlie  prophet  of  repentance.  This,  indeed,  he 
announced  by  his  dress  (2  Kings  i.  8),  which  there- 
after was  the  official  dress  of  the  prophets  and 
preachers  of  repentance  (1  Kings  xix.  19;  2  Kings 
ii.  13;  Zach.  xiii.  4),  and  in  which  he  appeared,  of 
whom  the  Lord  said,  "and  if  ye  will  receive  it, 
this  is  Elias  which  was  for  to  come  "  (Matt.  iii.  4 : 
xi.  14;  xvii.  11).  And  what  was  his  first  word 
but  a  call  to  repentance?  Kurtz  is  somewhat 
one-sided  in  his  judgment  on  Elijah's  position  in 
the  divine  economy.  He  says:  "In  his  official 
position  the  absolute  one-sidedness  of  the  exhibi- 
tion of  law,  and  the  limit  of  his  vision  and  of 
his  activity  to  the  present,  which  is  therewith 
connected,  characterizes  him  ....  for  the  under- 
standing of  this,  his  one-sided  position  as  prophet, 
having  to  deal  neither  with  hopes  nor  with  promi- 
ses, we  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  he 
wrought  and  lived  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  not  in 
the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Only  there,  not  here,  is 
the  coming  of  a  prophet  like  Elijah  comprehensi- 
ble. In  the  kingdom  of  Judah  a  prophet  like  Eli- 
jah would  certainly  have  taken  a  different  course 
. . .  .there,  all  would  have  worked  upon  him  and 
would  have  made  something  else  out  of  him."  If 
this  were  so,  it  is  not  easy  to  explain  why  he,  in 
preference  to  all  other  prophets,  should  have  ap- 
peared, along  with  Moses,  at  the  transfiguration 
of  Christ,  and  why  the  Lord,  in  the  passages  al- 
ready cited,  should  attribute  to  him  such  high  sig- 
nificance for  the  Messianic  age,  just  as  the  pro- 
phet Malachi  had  already  done  (iv.  5,  6).  It 
was  not  Elijah's  calling  to  refer  to  the  Messiah  in 
words  and  discourses,  he  had  to  do  only  with  the 
rehabilitation  of  the  broken  covenant,  and  Messi- 
anic predictions  could  follow  only  upon  this.  Under 
existing  circumstances,  this  could  be  brought 
about  only  by  great,  mighty  actions.  Elijah, 
hence,  was,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  a  pro- 
pltet  of  action,  "  the  great  hero-prophet  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  ten  tribes  "  (Ewald).  His  whole  career 
was  active.  His  person  was  a  living  prophecy  of 
him  who  appeared  before  the  day  of  the  Lord,  the 
day  of  judgment,  so  also  of  grace  (cf.  Hengsten- 
berg,  Christologie  III.  s.  441  sq.) 

2.  The  three  wonderful  occurrences  which  follow 
upon  the  first  coming  forth  of  Elijah  are  in  imme- 
diate relation  to  the  time  in  which  they  took  place, 
and  which  was  a  period  of  general  distress  in  con- 
sequence of  the  drought,  and  it  was  also  a  time  of 
preparation  for  the  coming  activity  of  the  prophet. 
And  the  transactions  here  brought  together  lose 
in  this  way  the  appearance  of  being  onlj  ace'der 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-24 


197 


Lai  aud  arbitrary,  which  might  have  happened  just 
as  suitably  at  any  other  time.  Far  from  being 
mere  "miracles,"  and  from  calling  up  and  favor- 
ing an  unworthy  representation  of  the  nature  (be- 
ing) of  God,  they  are  signs  and  witnesses  of  the 
living,  personal  God  over  against  the  apotheosis 
of  Nature,  aud  the  dead  idols  which  have  months 
and  speak  not,  eyes  and  see  not,  ears  and  hear 
not,  hands  and  handle  not  (Ps.  cxv.  4-7).  All 
that  is  grand  and  glorious  about  this  God,  which 
the  Scripture  teaches,  stands  here  before  us  in 
deeds.  The  God  who  has  made  heaven  and  earth 
and  all  that  therein  is,  and  given  to  the  world  its 
laws,  does  not  stand  beneath  but  above  it,  so  that 
"leaves  and  grass,  rain  and  drought,  fruitful  and 
unfruitful  years,  food  and  drink,  health  and  sick- 
ness, wealth  and  poverty,  and  all  things,  do  not 
come  to  us  hap-hazard,  but  from  His  fatherly 
hand "  (Heidel.  Katech.).  He  does  not  lack  the 
means  to  deliver  out  of  all  distress  and  even  death 
itself  (Ps.  lxviii.  21):  He  is  near  unto  all  who  call 
upon  Him.  He  does  for  all  who  call  upon  Him 
earnestly  what  they  who  fear  God  desire.  He 
hears  their  cry  and  helps  them  (Ps.  exlv.  18  sq.). 
He  often  leads  them  by  dark  paths,  but  "they  are 
mercy  and  truth  unto  such  as  keep  His  covenant 
and  His  testimonies  "  (Ps.  xxv.  10).  For  Elijah,  in- 
deed, the  necessary  experiences  of  this  period  of 
preparation  for  his  great  career,  were  both  a  trial 
and  a  strengthening  of  his  faith.  When  in  the 
most  fruitful  district  itself,  where  there  was  scar- 
city, he  is  remanded  first  to  a  desert  in  which 
there  is  an  absence  of  all  food,  and  only  a  brook 
which  at  any  moment  might  dry  up,  and  then  in  a 
foreign  land  to  a  widow  almost  at  death's  door 
from  starvation.  But  here  a  calamity  befell  out 
of  which  no  deliverance  seemed  possible.  He  acts, 
nevertheless,  in  firm  faith  and  asks  no  question, 
like  the  people  in  the  wilderness  (Ps.  lxxviii.  1 9  sq.), 
and  the  more  his  faith  is  proved  and  exercised,  so 
much  the  more  is  it  strengthened,  so  much  the 
more  gloriously  is  the  power  and  fidelity  of  the 
living  God  verified  unto  him.  Thus  disciplined 
and  strengthened,  he  first  properly  becomes  an  in- 
strument to  destroy  the  heathen  abominations  and 
to  bear  the  name  of  his  God  before  the  Gentiles 
and  before  the  kings  and  before  the  children  of  Is- 
rael (chap,  xviii.). 

3.  Elijah's  subsistence  in  ike  desert  is  and  re- 
mains, according  to  the  simple,  clear  sense  of  the 
narrative,  miraculous.  "  It  is  almost  laughable," 
as  Winer  rightly  says,  when  many  ancient  and 
recent  expositors,  even  Rabbins,  make  the  ravens 
to  be  Arabs  or  merchants;  but  it  is  not  much  bet- 
ter when  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  that  Elijah  had 
a  hunting-ground  for  ravens,  as  well  also  as  young 
hares,  rats,  and  mice,  which  they  would  carry  to 
their  nests,  or  had  trained  them  as  hawks  for  the 
hunt.  Others,  like  Knobel,  perceiving  the  prepos- 
terousness  of  such  explanations,  have  referred  to 
"the  like  cases  amongst  profane  writers:"  "Semi- 
ramis,  exposed  as  a  newly-born  infant,  was  nour- 
ished by  doves  ;  a  bitch  gave  suck  to  Cyrus,  a  she- 
wolf  to  Romulus  and  Remus;  the  same  is  narrated 
by  JEttan,  v.  12,  42,  of  hinds,  mares,  bears,  goats  " 
(Prophet,  der  Bebr.  II.  s.  84 ;  cf.  Rbdiger,  Allg.  En- 
cyklop.  Bd.  33,  s.  322).  All  these  myths  of  chil- 
dren-nursing animals  have  grown  up  upon  the  soil 
of  nature-religion,  and  are  consequently  specifically 
heathen.  Their  sense  is  that  the  power  of  nature, 
revealing  itself  in  the  suckling  animals,  is  trans- 


ferred to  the  child,  or  they  explain  how  this  or  that 
person,  remarkable  by  a  special  power,  has  obtaired 
it  by  the  same  being  the  distinguishing  trait  ol 
some  animal  (fuov).  What  has  this  remote  re- 
semblance to  do  with  the  fact  that  the  God  who 
holds  in  His  hand  all  creatures,  provided  the  neces- 
sary nourishment  for  his  prophet  in  the  wilderness 
by  the  occupants  of  this  wilderness,  the  ravens. 
Quite  apart  from  their  sense  and  meaning,  not  even 
in  their  outward  form  do  these  myths  allow  of  a 
comparison  with  our  narrative.  That  which  has 
been  adduced  in  the  way  of  parallel  is  equally  inap- 
propriate. When  Jerome  (Opp>.  i.  p.  239)  states 
that  the  hermit  Paul  was  fed  daily  by  a  raven  pro- 
vided with  a  half  loaf  for  the  period  of  sixty  years, 
this  obviously  is  but  an  exaggerated  imitation  of 
cur  story.  Hess  (Gesch.  der  Kon.  Isr.  I.  s.  99)  refers 
to  the  "credible  accounts  that  exposed  children, 
exiles,  fugitives  have  been  sustained  for  a  long  time 
by  animals,"  and  remarks  thereupon  :  "  Such  narra- 
tions are  rarely  questioned,  except  when  they  are 
adduced  by  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  as  proofs  of  a 
special  divine  providence ;  "  but  he  adds,  that  in 
the  case  before  us  much  remains  that  is  "  inexpli- 
cable." 

4.  The  sojourn  of  Elijah  with  the  widow  of  Sarep 
ta,  considered  quite  apart  from  the  fact  that  it 
served  as  a  preparation  for  his  public  activity,  con- 
stitutes a  weighty  moment  in  his  history,  because 
it  shows  us  one  side  of  the  prophet  which  is  thrown 
into  the  back-ground  in  his  public  career,  but 
which,  nevertheless,  belongs  essentially  to  a  com- 
plete portraiture  of  the  great  man  of  God.  While 
over  against  the  fallen,  covenant-breaking,  idol- 
serving  generation  he  was  inexorable  and  uncom- 
prising,  denouncing  and  judging,  threatening  and 
punishing,  to  the  poor  widow  he  was  sympathizing 
and  friendly  only,  full  of  fellow-feeling  and  compas- 
sion, comforting,  blessing,  and  helping.  He  there, 
for  the  first  time,  appears  great  and  wonderful,  for 
it  is  manifest  that  that  harshness  and  severity  was 
not  characteristic,  not  inborn,  but  was  founded  in 
the  special  place  which  he  was  destined  to  occupy 
in  the  economy  of  grace.  Never  would  he  have 
fulfilled  his  calling  to  put  an  end  to  the  crime  of 
a  ruinous  idolatry,  and  to  be  a  second  Moses,  if  he 
had  shown  the  same  traits  to  Ahab  and  Jezebel 
which  he  did  to  the  widow  of  Sarepta.  Elijah  had  to 
make  good,  first  of  all,  obedience  and  resignation 
to  the  will  of  God  at  the  brook  Cherith,  compassion 
and  love  at  Sarepta,  then  it  was  that  he  appeared 
in  the  sight  of  God  furnished  with  iron-severity  to 
judge  and  to  punish.  "  Now  since  thou  hast  learned 
sympathy,  go  hence  and  preach,  and  speak  to  the 
people  :"  these  are  the  words  to  him  which  Chry- 
sostom  puts  into  the  mouth  of  God  (Opp.  vi.  p. 
109). 

5.  The  narrative  represents  the  fact,  that  the  meal 
in  the  barrel  and  the  oil  in  the  cruse  did  not  fail,  to 
have  been  quite  as  much  an  extraordinary  act  of 
God  as  the  previous  support  by  means  of  the 
ravens.  The  grossest  prejudice  alone  can  say: 
"Here  there  is  not  a  syllable  that  this  was  done 
by  miracle:  God  gave  his  blessing  so,  that  by  the 
labor  of  her  hands,  assisted  perhaps  by  the  pro- 
phet, she  secured  for  herself  the  necessaries  of  life  " 
(Dinter.  Schull.  Bib.  on  the  place).  In  that  case 
Elijah's  promise,  ver.  14,  was  nothing  more  than 
an  exhortation  to  industry,  but  no  prophet  was 
needed  for  this.  Knobel  is  equally  unsatisfactory 
(as  above  s.  81),  when  in  the  whole  narrative  h« 


198 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


finds  nothing  more  than  "the  view  that  the  bless- 
ing of  God  rests  where  men  of  God  are."  The  words 
of  the  Lord,  in  Luke  iv.  25,  do  uot  at  all  authorize 
us  to  think  that  this  was  simply  an  ordinary  act  of 
divine  providence.  Hess  (as  above  s.  104)  says: 
"  As  for  myself,  I  find  the  narrative  so  beautiful 
and  as  suitable  to  God  as  anything,  and  place  con- 
fidence in  the  old  author,  when,  without  fear  of 
any  wisdom,  whether  of  that  time  or  of  to-day,  he 
continues,  She  went  and  did  as  Elijah  bade  her, 
*c."  Menken:  This  whole  history  glorifies  God, 
whom  the  Scripture  teaches  us  to  know  in  His 
unapproachable  greatness  and  in  His  affable  mercy 
and  condescension.  A  God  such  as  the  human 
heart  in  the  needs  of  this  present  life  needs  always 
and  desires;  the  all-governing  Ruler,  the  alone-in- 
dependent, the  free  master  over  all  nature,  who 
gives  dew  and  rain,  and  punishing  lands  and  peo- 
ples, withholds  and  takes  away  bread  and  water. 
But  the  individual  man  is  not  forgotten  of  Him ;  no, 
not  even  the  beggar  on  the  highways.  He  beholds 
not  only  the  whole,  but  the  single  parts:  He  looks 
not  only  into  the  palace  of  kings,  but  into  the  huts 
of  poverty.  The  need  and  misery  of  a  poor  widow 
are  not  too  insignificant  for  Him  ;  He  observes  her 
sighs  and  tears,  and  her  silent  desolate  cabin  is  for 
Him  a  place  worthy  of  the  revelation  of  His  glory 
and  goodness  (Is.  Ivii.  15;  lxvi.  1  sq.). 

6.  The  revivifying  of  the  child,  on  account  of  the 
prophet's  mode  of  procedure,  has  been  explained 
as  a  physician's  act.  The  narrative  has,  so  Knobel 
supposes,  its  foundation  ''in  the  circumstance  that 
the  prophets  exercised  also  the  function  of  phy- 
sicians." The  boy,  in  consequence  of  frequent  con- 
vulsions, suffered  a  severe  fainting-fit,  and  was 
brought  back  again  to  life  by  pressure,  animal 
warmth,  and  applied  restoratives  (Meyer  in  Ber- 
thold's  Theol.  Journal  iv.  230).  According  to  Enne- 
moser  (Magnetism,  s.  422)  this  was  a  case  of  animal 
magnetism  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  319).  But  noth- 
.ng  is  more  certain  than  that  the  text  adduces  no 
proof  of  the  medical  skill  of  the  prophet,  nor  says 
anything  of  a  human  medical  act  of  healing:  it  sets 
forth  an  act  of  God  done  by  means  of  the  prophet. 
Before  he  stretches  himself  upon  the  boy  the  pro- 
phet calls  once  and  again  imploringly  upon  Him 
who  can  both  kill  and  make  alive  (Dent,  xxxii.  29; 
1  Sam.  ii.  6  ;  2  Kings  v.  7) :  Let  the  soul  of  this 
child  come  to  it  again  I  ,:  and  Jehovah  hearkened  to 
the  voice  of  Elijah."  The  revivifying  is  like  an 
answer  to  prayer.  It  is  not  the  prophet,  as  a 
"  thaumaturgist "  or  as  a  physician  employing 
natural  means,  but  Jehovah  who  hears  the  prayer 
of  His  servant  and  delivers  from  death.  If  in  addi- 
tion to  praying  lie  stretches  himself  upon  the  child, 
he  did  this  after  the  genuine  prophetic  way;  the 
visible  human  deed  served  as  substratum  for  the 
divine,  and  this  divine  deed  is  affirmed  and  attested 
in  the  prophet's.  The  deeds  of  the  prophets  are 
signs  (fliX)  which  represent  what  God  does  or  will 
do  by  means  of  them,  and  are  more  or  less  symbo- 
lical actions  (see  above).  The  outward  action  was, 
in  the  case,  the  sign  of  that  which  God  alone  could 
do ;  it  is  not  the  delivering,  quickening  might  and 
power,  but  only  the  medium  denoting  it. 

HOS1ILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Ver.  1.  The  first  appearing  of  the  prophet 
Elijah,  (a)  The  time  when;  (b)  the  message  with 
which  he  appeared.     The  prophet  Elijah,   (a)  his 


name — my  God  is  Jehovah  ;  (b)  his  origin :  Thisbe, 
an  insignificant,  unknown  place,  like  Betnlehem 
and  Nazareth;  (c)  his  condition  and  calling:  !le 
stands  before  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israe  Gen- 
eral distresses,  like  hunger  and  famine,  sicknesses 
and  epidemics,  are  not  mere  natural  events,  but 
they  are  the  judgments  of  God  upon  the  godless 
and  the  God- forgetting;  they  are  the  trials  of  the 
pious,  and  to  all  they  cry :  repent  and  be  converted  I 
— Menkex  :  Men  in  general  have  never  been  willing 
to  recognize,  and  are  still  unwilling  to  recognize, 
the  fact  that  need  and  misery  upon  earth  stand  in 
the  closest  relation  to  their  conduct  towards  God ; 
that  through  their  need  they  may  be  called  back 
to  Him  whom  they  have  forsaken,  and  feel  what 
it  is  when  God  withdraws  His  hand,  when  they  art 
left  to  themselves,  when  the  Almighty  withholds 
His  gifts  and  blessings,  and  sends  His  punishments 
and  plagues.  The  God  of  Israel  is  the  living  God 
because  He  has  spoken  to  Israel  and  has,  through 
His  word,  revealed  Himself  to  them  (Ps.  cxlvii.  19, 
20).  God  has  spoken  to  us  by  His  Son,  the  image 
of  His  Being  (Heb.  i.  2),  and  has  revealed  Himself 
in  Him  much  more  gloriously  to  us ;  therefore 
Christendom  knows  no  other  living  God  than  the 
father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Who  can  venture 
to  say  that  he  stands  before  God  ?  He  who,  liks 
Elijah,  has  firm  faith,  is  unconditionally  obedient 
to  the  word  of  God,  and  fearlessly  and  courage- 
ously pursues  the  path  God  has  prescribed  for  him 
(Isai.  xli.  10). — Krummacher:  It  is  the  way  of 
our  God  from  of  old  that  he  takes  people,  by  whom 
He  will  accomplish  something  great,  from  the  dust 
rather  than  from  thrones,  so  that  it  may  be  mani- 
fest how  all  things  happen  according  to  His  pur- 
pose, how  that  flesh  and  blood  have  not  done  this 
and  that,  but  that  to  him  alone  belongs  the  glory. 
Vers.  2-9.  Bender  :  Elijah  at  the  brook  in  the 
wilderness,  (a)  How  his  faith  was  tried,  and 
(6)  how  it  was  crowned. — Wirth:  Elijah  at  the 
brook  Cherith.  How  the  Lord  protects  and  con- 
ceals him  ;  how  He  leads  him  into  the  wilderness ; 
and  how  He  cares  for  him.  Elijah  in  the  wilder- 
ness, (a)  Why  the  Lord  sends  him  thither ;  Jb) 
what  he  suffered  him  to  experience  there. — Ver.  3. 
Go  away  and  hide  thyself,  (a)  Go  away.  A  hard 
word  for  a  heroic  man  like  Elijah,  who  has  threat- 
ened the  king  and  the  whole  people,  and  must  now 
flee  and  expose  himself  to  scorn  and  contempt. 
Going  away  often  requires  more  self-denial  than 
remaining.  For  the  testimony  to  the  truth,  the 
command  at  one  time  is,  remain  and  fear  not  (Acts 
xviii.  9  sq.),  at  another,  go  from  that  city,  &c 
(Matt.  x.  14,  23  sq.) ;  they  "must,  like  their  Lord, 
often  appear  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  can  wear 
upon  earth  no  other  crown  than  a  crown  of  thorns, 
and  if  at  any  time  their  power  is  so  great  that  they 
can  give  or  take  away  dew  and  rain  upon  earth, 
and  can  punish  kings  and  peoples,  at  another  time 
they  must  bow  and  bend,  suffer  and  be  silent,  and 
in  the  eye  of  the  world  appear  weak  and  power- 
less, so  that  they  and  others  may  thereby  know 
all  the  more  profoundly,  that  the  superabundant 
might  is  of  God,  and  not  of  themselves  "  (Menken). 
But  to  overy  true  Christian  also  the  command  often 
comes,  go  hence,  remain  not  where  men  are  serving 
the  world  and  Baal,  where  the  word  of  the  Lord 
is  despised,  and  the  fear  of  the  holy  and  righteous 
Lord  has  disappeared.  [See  The  Hermits  of  the 
Rev.  Charles  Kingsley. — E.  H.]  (6)  Hide  thyself. 
In  order  to  be  able  to  achieve  his  great,  severe, 


CHAPTER  XVII.   1-24. 


199 


snd  holy  task  and  to  be  fitted  for  it,  Elijah  had  to 
go  into  retirement,  where  he  was  alone  with  his 
God  and  learned  to  say,  Lord  whom  have  I,  kc. 
(Ps.  lxxiii.  25  sq.).  Every  man  who  has  done  any- 
thing great  in  the  kingdom  of  God  has  passed  a 
long  time  in  retirement  and  solitude.  But  to  every 
faithful  Christian  also  the  command  has  come, 
hide  thyself,  go  into  the  stillness  and  solitude. 
The  hidden  man  of  the  heart,  with  soft,  still  spirit 
{1  Pet.  iii.  4),  does  not  thrive  in  the  perpetual  tu- 
mult and  babbling  noise  of  the  world.  There  is 
no  man  who  has  not  felt  the  need  of  some  time  and 
place  to  collect  his  thoughts  and  to  be  alone  with 
his  God ;  they  who  avoid  such  are  not  fit  for  the 
kingdom  of  God. — Ver.  4.  Krummacher:  Every 
way  appointed  for  us  by  the  Lord  has  His  promise, 
and  we  need  not  fear  when  once  we  are  assured 
that  God  lias  directed  our  way. — Ver.  5.  Might  it 
be  said  of  us  all,  in  every  situation  of  life  and 
under  all  relations,  he  went  thither  and  did  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  the  Lord. — Menken:  He 
went  in  faith  along  the  hard,  dark  path  into  the 
wilderness,  as  a  genuine  son  of  Abraham  the  father 
of  all  the  faithful,  who  knew  that  without  faith  it 
is  impossible  to  please  God,  and  that  man  can  offer 
to  God  no  higher  and  nobler  homage  than  to 
believe  in  his  promises.  Who  so  chooses  the 
dear  God.  and  always  hopes  in  Him,  him  will  He 
sustain  wonderfully  in  all  need  and  affliction  (Ps. 
iv.  4 ;  cxlvii.  5).  Go  whithersoever  thou  wilt,  means 
shall  not  fail  thee,  thy  deed  is  pure  blessing,  thy 
course  pure  light.  To  Elijah  the  promise  was,  I 
have  commanded  the  ravens  to  care  for  thee  ;  but 
we  all  have  a  still  more  glorious  promise :  He  hath 
given  his  angels  charge  concerning  thee,  that  they 
shall  watch  over  thee  in  all  thy  ways,  &e.  (Ps.  xci. 
10-12). — Menken  :  Just  under  these  circumstances 
in  which  most  men  forsake  the  word  of  God,  it 
shows  itself  most  gloriously  to  the  few  who  hold  to 
it.  When  the  world  despises  it,  and  ridicules  the 
observance  of  it  as  weakness  of  mind,  then  is  it 
mightiest,  and  it  justifies  the  keeping  of  it  by 
meaus  of  the  richest  experiences,  which  are  the  as- 
surance, to  those  who  honor  it,  of  its  truth  aud  of 
the  power  of  God.  The  ravens,  which  are  not  ac- 
customed to  care  for  their  own  young,  must,  at  the 
command  of  God,  nourish  the  prophet,  as  an  evi- 
dence that  even  the  unreasoning  creature  cannot 
move  without  His  will,  and  that  even  the  most  in- 
significant must  contribute  to  the  glory  of  the  Cre- 
ator, who  has  promised.  I  will  not  leave  nor  for- 
sake thee  (Heb.  xiii.  5). — Starke:  In  the  case  of 
His  servants  and  children,  God  sometimes  makes 
use  of  the  ravens,  i.  e.,  of  abandoned  and  godless 
men. 

Vers.  7-16.  Wirth:  Elijah  with  the  widow  at 
Sarepta.  (a)  The  dried  up  brook ;  (6)  The  new 
place  of  refuge;  (c)  The  meal  in  the  barrel  ami 
the  oil  in  the  cruse. — Krummacher  :  The  depart- 
ure for  Zarephath.  Elijah's  need,  Elijah's  de- 
parture, his  grand  deliverance. — Bender  (vers. 
10-24):  Elijah  with  the  widow  at  Sarepta.  Our 
history  confirms  the  Psalm- word  (Ps.  lxviii.  21): 
(1)  we  have  a  God  who  helps,  and  (2)  a  Lord  of 
lords  who  delivers  from  death.  The  widow  at 
Zarephath.  (a)  Her  lot  (widowed,  poor,  without 
influence  before  the  world,  but  chosen  by  God, 
Luke  iv.  26).  (6)  Her  self-deuial  and  her  faith 
{although  on  the  verge  of  death  from  starvation, 
the  will  share  what  she  can,  and  believe  the  word 
»f  the  prophet  as  a  word  from  God),     (c)  Her  re- 


ward, Matt.  x.  41  sq.  (she  is  not  only  delivered 
from  death  by  hunger,  Ps.  xxxiii.  19 ;  but  she  re- 
ceives  continuously  what  she  and  her  whole  house- 
hold needed,  Ps.  xxxvii.  19;  cxii.  3). — Vers.  7-9. 
Elijah's  second  trial  of  faith,  (a)  Depart  (one  trial 
follows  another,  so  that  the  gold  of  his  faith  may 
become  more  free  from  all  dross),  (b)  To  Zarephath 
in  Sidon  (from  thy  fatherland  into  a  spiritual 
waste  and  desert,  in  the  land  of  idolatry,  where 
Jezebel's  father  ruled,  aud  where  the  danger 
seemed  greater  than  at  the  brook  Cherith  ;  but, 
courage,  it  will  not  be  so  serious,  &c).  (c)  To  a 
widow  (who  herself  needed  protection,  and  not  to 
a  rich,  powerful  man.  The  Lord  will  care  for 
thee,  rest  assured  of  that,  aud  do  not  ask  how  it 
shall  come  to  pass.  Despise  no  instrumentality 
which  He  points  out  to  thee,  no  condition  and  no 
man  He  makes  use  of,  for  it  is  not  difficult  to  the 
Lord  to  send  help  by  means  either  of  little  or  of 
much,  1  Sam.  xiv.  6.  Things  are  small  before  God, 
and  to  the  Highest  all  things  are  alike  ['  There  is 
no  great  and  uo  small,  to  the  Lord  that  maketh  all.'] 
.  .  .  He  is  the  true  wonder-worker,  who  can  now 
exalt  and  now  overturn). — Ver.  7.  When  without 
thy  fault  the  brook,  from  which  thou  dost  quench 
thy  thirst,  is  dried,  and  the  spring  whence  thy 
life  was  supported  has  failed,  let  the  word  spoken 
come  to  thee :  Wait  upon  the  Lord,  who  will  help 
thee  (Prov.  xx.  22) ;  for  they  who  wait  upon  the 
Lord  shall  renew  their  strength,  Ac.  (Is.  xl.  31). 
The  words  of  Elijah  to  the  widow,  (a)  The  re- 
quest (vers.  10,  11) ;  (b)  The  consolation  (ver.  13); 
(c)  The  promise  (ver.  14).  Requests  made  to  a 
man  are  often  the  key  which  opens  to  us  his  most 
hidden  being.  They  who  have  but  little  usually 
give  more  than  they  who  have  much  (Luke  xxi.  1 
sq.).  To  the  weeping  widows  and  orphans  the 
Lord  always  calls,  Fear  not !  1  Pet.  v.  7  ;  Matt, 
vi.  25  sq. ;  Ps.  xxxvii.  25. — Ver.  12.  In  a  hea- 
then, idolatrous  land  Elijah  finds  in  a  poor  widow 
what  he  had  sought  in  vain  in  Israel :  faith  in  the 
living  God  of  Israel. — Krummacher:  He  who  has 
experienced  it  knows  how  precious  il  is.  when 
one  is  far  away  in  a  strange  country,  where  the 
roads  toward  Zion  lie  waste,  and  sees  one's  self 
thrown  into  the  circle  of  the  children  of  this 
world,  and  by  the  streams  of  Babylon,  to  meet 
unexpectedly  in  the  wilderness  somebody  from 
Galilee,  or  a  brother  or  sister  in  the  Lord. — Ver. 
13.  Berleb.  Bib.  :  Fear  not  I  Ah  I  How  often  has 
a  child  of  God  bemoaned,  Now  all  is  lost  I  I  have 
nothing  more  and  know  nothing  more.  The  opera- 
tions of  the  Spirit  of  God  have  ceased  for  me  :  the 
meal  and  oil  are  gone  1  And  yet,  where  there  is 
nothing  more  amid  the  night  and  the  darkness, 
the  morning  brings  something,  upon  which  one 
can  live  and  find  nourishment  for  the  soul,  although 
the  time  be  miserable. — Vers.  14,  15.  When  the 
need  is  greatest,  then  is  God  nearest.  On  the 
very  day  when  the  poor  widow,  with  her  son,  will 
cat  the  last  supplies,  her  distress  comes  to  an  end, 
and  she  has  thenceforth  her  daily  bread.  He 
helps  us  before  we  expect,  and  permits  us  to 
enjoy  much  good. — Ver.  16.  The  same  God  who 
spoke  by  means  of  Elijah  :  The  meal  in  the  barrel 
shall  not  be  wasted,  and  the  oil  in  the  cruse  shall 
not  fail,  has  also  promised,  as  the  earth  lasts,  seed- 
time and  harvest,  frost  and  heat,  summer  aud 
winter,  day  and  night  shall  not  cease  (Gen.  viii. 
22).  We  are  astonished  at  the  little  miracle  in  thf 
cabin  at  Sarepta,  but  we   pass  over  with  indiffer- 


200 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


euce,  and  without  attention,  the  large  miracle 
Vers.  17-2 i.  Virth:  The  great  deed  of  God 
in  the  ease  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Sarepta. 
(a)  The  lamentation  of  the  mother  over  the  dead 
body  of  the  son;  (b)  the  praying  prophet  and 
the  answering  God  ;  (c)  the  joyous  message,  Be- 
hold, thy  son  livethl — Krdmmacher:  The  resusci- 
tation at  Zarephath.  (a)  The  divine  stroke;  (b)  the 
victorious  battle  ;  (c)  the  rest  after  the  storm. 
The  school  of  suffering  at  Zarephath.  (a)  The 
Buffering  with  which  the  widow  and  the  prophet 
were  visited ;  (b)  how  each  behaved  under  it ; 
(c)  what  both  experienced. — Ver.  17.  Great  mani- 
festations of  divine  grace  follow  also  great  trials, 
so  that  our  faith  may  be  made  more  precious 
(1  Pet.  i.  7). — Menken  :  God  willed  that  the  good 
work  begun  in  her  should  not  be  unfinished,  and 
without  suffering  this  could  not  be,  any  more  than 
it  is  in  our  ease  and  in  that  of  all  men.  ...  It  is 
pure  goodness  and  fatherly  fidelity  when  the  in- 
finitely good,  heavenly  Father  sends  to  His 
children  sorrow  upon  sorrow,  lays  upon  them 
burden  upon  burden,  and  leads  them  from  one 
distress  and  trouble  into  others.  In  eternity.  He 
will  be  heartily  thanked  for  nothing  more  than  for 
this  paternal  goodness  and  fidelity. — Ver.  18.  The 
first  thing  which  the  cross  and  suffering  must  do 
in  a  man,  is  to  bring  about  an  humble  sense  of  his 
sin ;  it  is  the  beginning  of  all  true  knowledge  of 
God,  the  foundation  of  all  true  piety.  Much  that 
is  erroneous  respecting  God  and  divine  things 
may  adhere  to  a  man,  but  if  he  have  a  living 
knowledge  of  his  sin,  and  a  living  feeling  of  his 
unworthiness  before  the  holy  God,  he  is  on  the 
pathway  to  a  deepening  and  higher  knowledge  of 
God. — Menken:  She  does  not  complain  of  un- 
righteousness upon  the  part  of  God,  she  does  not 
accuse  God :  she  acquits  God  and  condemns  her- 
self. That  was  the  true  bearing  in  her  trouble, 
and  so  sorrow  wrought  good  within  this  soul:  it 
led  her  within  herself,  and  humbled  her  in  the 
deeper  knowledge  of  herself.  And  God  giveth 
grace  to  the  humble.  A  man  does  not  so  readily 
humble  himself  too  much.  .  .  .  The  more  strictly 
a  man  judges  and  condemns  himself,  so  much  the 
which  is  repeated  year  by  year  for  the  whole  world. 
— Starke  :  The  way  to  wealth  is  cheerful  giving 
(Luke  vi.  38),  aud  God  crowns  beneficence  with  a 
blest  store  (Pro v.  xix.  17).  God  can  bless  even  a 
little  store  so  that  it  will  suffice  for  a  longwhile. 


more  readily  is  he  acquitted,  justified,  and  pardon- 
ed before  the  divine  tribunal  (Luke  xviii.  13  sq.). 
Intercourse  aud  association  with  a  true  man  or 
God  become  a  blessing  to  us  when  we  are  thereby 
led  more  deeply  into  ourselves,  and  are  made 
genuinely  conscious  of  our  sinfulness  before  God 
(Luke  v.  S;  Matt.  viii.  8). — Vers.  19-22.  The 
prayer  of  Elijah,  (a)  The  contents  ;  (6)  the  answer 
to  it.  Those  are  genuine  and  true  friends  who  do 
not  show  sympathy  and  commiseration  simply 
when  we  are  in  distress  and  trouble,  but  who 
give  us  a  helping  hand,  and  from  their  heart 
call  upon  Him  who  can  help  us.  Wrestling 
with  God  in  prayer  is  a  matter  which  belongs  to 
the  lonely  chamber  (Matt.  vi.  6).  He  who  prays 
only  in  public,  in  the  church,  has  never  yet  prayed 
truly. — Ver.  20.  In  our  prayer  we  may  express 
indeed  how  dark  and  incomprehensible  the  provi- 
dences of  God  are  to  us,  only  when  we  do  so  with 
submission  to  His  will  without  complaint  or  mur- 
mur, and  humbly  committing  entirely  to  His  will 
how  and  when  He  will  save  us,  in  our  hour  of 
need. — Ver.  21.  In  sickness,  we  must  leave  no 
natural  means  towards  recovery  untried,  how- 
ever much  we  may  long  for  a  miracle  of 
God,  whilst  at  the  same  time  we  implore  God  to 
grant  power  to  these  means  and  bless  their  ap- 
plication.— Ver.  22.  Menken:  Even  if  the  Lord  do- 
no  miracle,  there  are  still  a  thousand  ways  and 
means  by  which  he  sends  comfort  and  strength,  or 
help  aud  salvation,  in  answer  to  the  believing 
prayer  of  His  faithful  servants.  Eacli  granting 
of  prayer  is  indeed  a  miracle,  and  never  is  one 
humble,  believing  prayer  of  a  righteous  soul  uttered 
in  vain — no,  not  even  when  it  is  refused. — Ver. 
23.  For  the  father  and  mother  heart,  which  moan 
and  lament  over  a  lost  son,  what  could  be  a  glad- 
der message  than  this:  "This,  thy  son,  was  dead 
and  is  alive  again."  (Luke  xv.  24.)  The  mirac'es- 
in  the  kingdom  of  grace  are  as  worthy  of  adora- 
tion as  those  in  the  kingdom  of  nature. — Ver.  24. 
We  must  pass  through  much  grief  and  humiliation 
before  with  joyful  assurance  we  can  say  to  Him, 
who  is  greater  than  Elijah:  Now  know  I  that 
thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  Only 
by  means  of  individual  experience  does  each 
man  come  to  the  blessed  confession,  that  the  word 
of  the  Lord  is  truth.  He  only  is  a  servant  of 
God  in  whose  mouth  the  word  of  the  Lord  is 
truth,  not  mere  appearance  and  sham  (phrase). 


B. — Elijah  at  Mount  Carmel. 
Chap.  XVIII.  1-46. 


1  And  it  came  to  pass  after'  many  days,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
came  to  Elijah  in  the  third  year,  saying,  Go,  shew  thyself  unto   Ahab ;  and  I 

2  will  send  rain  upon  the  earth.     And  Elijah  went  to  shew  himself  unto  Ahab. 

3  And  there  was  a  sore  famine  in  Samaria.  And  Ahab  called  Obadiah,  which  ioos 
the  governor  of  his  house.    (Now  Obadiah  feared  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  greatly  : 

4  for  it  was  so,  when  Jezebel  cut  otf  the  prophets  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  that  Oba- 
diah took  an  hundred  prophets,  and  hid  them  by  fifty  *  in  a  cave,  and  fed  them 

6  with  bread  and  water.)  And  Ahab  said  unto  Obadiah,  Go  into  the  land,  unto 
all  fountains  of  water,  and  unto  all  brooks  :  peradventure  we  may  find  grass  to 

6  save  the  horses  and  mules  alive,  that  we  lose  not  all  the  beasts.3  So  they  divided 
the  land  between  them  to  pass  throughout  it:  Ahab  went  one  way  by  himself, 
and  Obadiah  went  another  way  by  himself. 


CHAPTER  XTII1.  1-16.  201 

7  And  as  Obadiah  was  in  the  way,'  behold,  Elijah  met  him  :  and  he  knew  him 

8  and  fell  on  his  face,  and  said,  Art  thou  that  my  lord  Elijah  ?    And  he  answered 

9  him,  I  am  :  go,  tell  thy  lord,  Behold,  Elijah  is  here.     And  he  said,  What  have  I 
sinned,  that  thou  wouldest  deliver  thy  servant  into  the  hand  of  Ahab,  to  slay 

10  me?  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  thy  God  liveth,  there  is  no  nation  or  kingdom, 
whither  my  lord  hath  not  sent  to  seek  thee  :  and  when  they  said,  He  is  not  there ; 

11  he  took  an  oath  of  the  kingdom   and   nation,  that  they  found  thee    not.     And 

12  now  thou  sayest,  Go,  tell  thy  lord,  Behold,  Elijah  is  here.  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  as  soon  as  I  am  gone  from  thee,  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
shall  carry  thee  whither  I  know  not ;  and  so  when  I  come  and  tell  Ahab,  and  he 

13  cannot  find  thee,  he  shall  slay  me  :  but  I  thy  servant  fear  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
from  my  youth.  Was  it  not  told  my  lord  what  I  did  when  Jezebel  slew  the 
prophets  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  how  I  hid  a  hundred  men  of  the  Lord's- 
[Jehovah]   prophets  by  fifty  in  a   cave,   and    fed  them   with  bread  and  water? 

14  And  now  thou  sayest,  Go,  tell  thy  lord,  Behold,  Elijah  is  here :  and  he  shall  slay 

15  me.  And  Elijah  said,  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  of  hosts  liveth,  before  whom  I 
stand,  I  will  surely  shew  myself  unto  him  to-day. 

16  So  Obadiah  went  to  meet   Ahab,  and  told  him  :  and  Ahab  went  to  meet 

17  Elijah.    And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Ahab  saw  Elijah,  that  Ahab  said  unto  him, 

18  Art  thou  he  that  troubleth  Israel?  And  he  answered,  I  have  not  troubled 
Israel ;    but  thou,  and  thy  father's  house,  in  that  ye  have  forsaken  the  command- 

19  ments  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  thou  hast  followed  Baalim.  Now  therefore 
send,  and  gather  to  me  all  Israel  unto  Mount  Carmel,  and  the  prophets  of 
Baal  four  hundred  and  fifty,  and  the  prophets  of  the  groves  four  hundred,  which 

20  eat  at  Jezebel's  table.  So  Ahab  sent  unto  all  the  children  of  Israel,  and  gather- 
ed the  prophets  together  unto  Mount  Carmel. 

21  And  Elijah  came  unto  all  the  people,  ami  said,  How  long  halt  ye  be- 
tween two  opinions?'  if  the  Lord  [Jehovah]   be  God,  follow  him:  but   if  Baal, 

22  then  follow  him.  And  the  people  answered  him  not  a  word.  Then  said  Elijah 
unto  the  people,  I,  even  I  only,  remain    a  prophet  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  ;  but 

23  Baal's  prophets  are  four  hundred  and  fifty  men.6  Let  them  therefore  give  us 
two  bullocks ;  and  let  them  choose  one  bullock  for  themselves,  and  cut  it  in 
pieces,  and  lay  it  on  wood,  and  put  no  fire  under:    and  I  will  dress  the  other 

24  bullock,  and  lay  it  on  wood,  and  put  no  fire  under :  and  call '  ye  on  the  name  of 
your  gods,  and  I  will  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]: 8  and   the  God 

25  that  answereth  by  fire,  let  him  be  God.  And  all  the  people  answered  and  said, 
It  is  well  spoken.  And  Elijah  said  unto  the  prophets  of  Baal,  Choose  you  one 
bullock  for  yourselves,  and  dress  it  first ;  for  ye  are  many  ;  and  call  on  the  name 

26  of  your  gods,  but  put  no  fire  under.  And  they  took  the  bullock  which  was 
given  them,  and  they  dressed  it,  and  called  on  the  name  of  Baal  from  morning 
even  until  noon,  saying,  O  Baal,  hear  us.      But  there  was  no  voice,  nor  any  that 

27  answered.  And  they  leaped  upon  the  altar  which  was  made.  And  it  came  to 
pass  at  noon,  that  Elijah  mocked  them,  and  said,  Cry  aloud  :  for  he  it  a  god ; 
either  he  is  talking,'  or  he  is  pursuing,  or  he  is  in  a  journey,  or  peradventure  he 

28  sleepeth,  and  must  be  awaked.  And  they  cried  aloud,  and  cut  themselves  after 
their  manner  with  knives  [swords]  and   lancets,  till  the  blood  gushed  out  upon 

29  them.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  midday  was  past,  and  they  prophesied  until  " 
the  time  of  the  offering  of  the  evening  sacrifice,  that  there  was  neither  voice,  nor 
any  to  answer,  nor  any  that  regarded." 

3D  And  Elijah  said  unto  all  the  people,  Come  near  unto  me.  And  all  the  people 
came  near  unto  him.      And  he  repaired  the  altar  of  the  Lord   [Jehovah]   that 

31  was  broken  down.  And  Elijah  took  twelve  stones,  according  to  the  number 
of  the  tribes  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,12  unto  whom  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 

32  came,  saying,  Israel  shall  be  thy  name  :  and  with  the  stones  he  built  an  altar  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  :  and  he  made  a  trench  about  the  altar,  as 

33  great  as  would  contain  two  measures  of  seed.  And  he  put  the  wood  in  order, 
and  cut  the  bullock  in  pieces,  and  laid  Mm  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four  bar- 

34  rels  with  water,  and  pour  it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice,  and  on  the  wood.      And  ha 


202  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

said,  Do  it  the  second  time.    And  they  did  it  the  second  time.     And  he  said,  Do 

35  it   the  third  time.     And  they  did  it  the  third  time.     And  the  water  ran  around 

36  about  the  altar ;  and  he  filled  the  trench  also  with  water.  And  it  came  to  pass 
at  the  time  of  the  offering  of  the  evening  sacrifice,13  that  Elijah  the  prophet  came 
near,  and  said,  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  of  Israel,  let  it  be 
known  this  day  that  thou  art  God  in  Israel,  and  that  I  am   thy  servant,  and 

37  that  I  have  done  all  these  things  at  thy  word.      Hear  me,  O  Lord  [Jehovah], 

38  hear  me,  that  this  people  may  know  that  thou  art  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God,  and 
that  thou  hast  turned  their  heart  back  again.     Then  the  fire  of  the  Lord  [Jeho- 

39  vah]  fell,  and  consumed  the  burnt  sacrifice,  and  the  wood,  and  the  stones,  and 
the  dust,  and  licked  up  the  water  that  was  in  the  trench.  And  when  all  the 
people  saw  it,  they  fell  on  their  faces:  and  they  said,  The  Lord  [Jehovah],  he  is 

40  the  God  ;  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  he  is  the  God.  And  Elijah  said  unto  thems 
Take  the  prophets  of  Baal ;  let  not  one  of  them  escape.  And  they  took  them : 
and  Elijah  brought  them  down  to  the  brook  Kishon,  and  slew  them  there. 

41  And  Elijah  said  unto  Ahab,  Get  thee  up,  eat  and  drink  ;  for  there  is  a  sound 

42  of  abundance  of  rain."  So  Ahab  went  up  to  eat  and  to  drink.  And  Elijah  went 
up  to  the  top  of  Carmel ;  and  he  cast  himself  down  upon  the  earth,  and  put  his 

43  face  between  his  knees,  and  said  to  his  servant,  Go  up  now,  look  toward  the 
sea.    And  he  went  up,  and  looked,  and  said,  There  is  nothing.    And  he  said,  Go 

44  again  seven  times.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  seventh  time,  that  he  said,  Behold. 
there  ariseth  a  little  cloud  out  of  the  sea,  like  a  man's  hand.  And  he  said,  Go 
up,  say  unto  Ahab,  Prepare  thy  chariot,"'  and  get  thee  down,  that  the  rain  stop 

45  thee  not.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  mean  while,"  that  the  heaven  was  black 
with  clouds  and  wind,  and  there  was  a  great  rain.     And  Ahab  rode,  and  went 

46  to  Jezreel.  And  the  hand  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  was  on  Elijah ;  and  he  girded 
up  his  loins,  and  ran  before  Ahab  to  the  entrance  of  Jezreel. 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

I  Ver.  1. — [A  few  MSS.  supply  the  preposition,  and  read  Q^^O  . 

3  Ver.  4. — [Nine  MSS.  repeat  the  word  D^On  ,  according  to  the  usual  formula,  as  in  ver.  13. 

"  Ver.  5.— The  k'ri  TOiiaTO  is  plainly  to  be  preferred  to  the  k'tib  rTOn3  ]D  •  [It  is  also  the  reading  of  many  M38. 

and  editions. 

*  Ver.  7.— [The  Sept.  emphasize  very  strongly  the  privacy  of  this  interview  :  "And  Obadiah  was  in  the  way  alone,  and 
Elijah  came  alone  to  meet  him."  . 

»  Ver.  21.— [For  the  meaning  of  the  words  D'SVBH  TIU*"?!?  see  the  Exeg.  Com.    The  rendering  of  the  Sept.,  "how 

long  halt  ye  on  both  knees,"  is  certainly  expressive. 

*  Ver!  22. — [The  Sept.  adds  "and  the  prophets  of  the  grove  four  hundred"  (the  Alex.  Sept.  omits  the  number)  from 
ver.  19.  , 

'  Ver.  24.— [D'H^X  DC'3  Nip  "denotes  the  solemn  invocation  of  the  Deity,"  Keil.   Qf.  Gen.  iv.  26;  xil.  8;  1  Cor.  i. 

8,  Ac. 

*  Ver.  24. — [The  Sept  lessen  much  the  force  of  this  contrast,  by  adding  *'  my  God." 

9  Ver.  27. —  [rPb*  bears  either  the  sense  of  conversation  (as  in  the  Vulg.),  see  2  Kings  ix.  11 ;  or  of  meditation.  The 
latter  seems  rightly  preferred  by  our  author.    On  the  meaning  of  this  and  the  following  words  see  the  Exeg.  Com. 

10  Ver.  29.— [Here  the  7  In  JIvJ??  is  not  to  be  overlooked  :  )T6]?7  IV  means  not  "  till  the  offering,"  but  "  till  to- 
wards the  offering,"  i.  e..  till  towards  the  time  of  the  offering,  for  ver.  86,  Elijah  had  completed  all  preparations  for  his 
offering  at  the  time  of  the  evening  sacrifice,  Keil. 

II  Ver.  29. — [The  Sept.  curiously  modifies  ver.  29.  Instead  of  mid-day  they  have  to  SmKivov;  the  Vat  Septomitfl  "  that 
there  wm  neither  voice,"  &c,  to  the  end  of  the  ver.;  and  both  recensions  make  the  addition  given  in  the  Exeg.  Com. 

"  Ver.  81.— [Eight  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Sept,  substitute  the  name  Israel. 

lf  Ver.  86. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  mention  of  the  time,  and  the  Alex,  substitutes  the  name  Jacob  for  Israel. 

14  Ver.  41.— [The  Sept.  quite  poetically  translates,  "  there  is  a  sound  of  the  feet  of  rain."  The  word  here  used  DK'3  ll 
that  denoting  heavy  rain. 

16  Ver.  44.— [The  word  chariot,  supplied  in  the  A.  V.,  is  implied  in  the  ")DX  in  this  connection,  and  is  given  in  several 
•f  the  W. 

16  Ver.  45.— [On  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  i"!3~iyi  HS'iy  see  tne  Exeg.  Com.  It  Is  generally  rendered  In  the  W. 
literally  as  in  the  Vulg.  hue  atque  illuc.—¥.  d.] 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass,  Ac,  &c.  The 
whole  of  the  eighteenth  chapter  is  distributed  in 
three  sections ;  the  middle  one  of  which  is  the  chief 
(vers.  21-40) ;  the  first  (vers.  1-20)  is  introducto- 


ry to  the  second  (vers.  21-40),  and  the  last  (vera 
41—16)  forms  the  sequel  to  the  transaction  narrat« 
ed  in  the  second.  The  first  verse  refers  distinctly 
to  chap.  xvii.  1.  It  states  when  and  how  tht 
drought  announced  by  Klijah  came  to  an  end. 
The  statement  in  Luke  iv.  25,  and  in  James  v.  17 


CHAPTER  XVIII.   1-46 


203 


according  to  which  it  did  not  rain  for  the  space  of 
three  years  and  six  months,  seems  to  contradict 
tl'e  words  in  the  third  year.  The  same  statement 
occurs  also  in  the  tractate  Jalkut  Schimoni ;  hence 
several  interpreters  (Schmidt,  Michaelis,  Keil) 
adopt  the  rabbinical  conjecture  that  Elijah  was  a 
year  at  the  brook  Cherith,  and  that  he  remained 
two  years  in  Sarepta,  and  that  in  the  third  year 
Jehovah's  command  came  to  him  to  show  himself 
unto  Ahab.  But  it  is  very  improbable  that  Elijah 
remained  a  whole  year  (Q'D'  "pO  i  chap.   xvii.  7, 

cannot  mean  this)  at  Cherith,  and  that  the  reckon- 
ing should  be  made  from  the  sojourn  at  Sarepta  to 
the  date  of  his  reappearing,  and  not  from  his  an- 
nouncement of  the  drought,  to  which  the  text  re- 
fers so  explicitly.  Benson  regards  the  New  Testa- 
ment statement  as  a  complete  settlement  of  the 
Jewish  tradition.  As  in  each  year  there  are  two 
rainy  seasons,  so  the  six  months  before  the  predic- 
tion (chap.  xvii.  1),  in  which  it  did  not  rain,  are 
taken  into  the  account,  while,  in  our  passage,  the 
reckoning  is  from  the  second  rainy  season.  Ac- 
cording to  Lange  (on  James  v.  17),  the  equalization 
lies  in  this,  that  in  the  account  in  1  Kings  xviii. 
the  exact  period  of  the  famine  is  stated;  but  it  is 
very  natural  that  the  famine  should  have  begun  a 
year  after  the  prediction  of  the  drought,  i.  e.,  after 
the  failure  of  the  early  and  of  the  latter  rain.  Iu 
this  first  year  the  people  still  lived  on  the  harvest 
of  the  preceding  year.     The  1  in  nJFlSl  is  not  = 

that  (Luther,  Vulg.)  nor  =  for,  but,  as  in  Gen.  xvii. 
20  ;  Dent.  xv.  6  =  and  then.  When  Ewald  says 
that  after  another  year  of  drought  ''Ahab  himself 
at  last  called  Elijah  back,"  he  is  in  direct  contra- 
diction with  the  words,  Go  hence  and  show  thyself 
to  Ahab,  as  also  with  vers.  9  sq. 

Vers.  2-6.  And  there  was  a  sore  famine 
in  Samaria.  From  here  to  ver.  6  there  is  a 
parenthetical  remark,  for  "  an  explanation  of  the 
circumstances  which  brought  about  the  meeting 
between  Elijah  and  Ahab "  (Keil).  Even  in  the 
residence  in  Samaria  the  famine  was  so  pressing 
during  the  drought  that  the  king  himself,  with  his 
'•  palace-master  "  (see  on  chap.  iv.  6) — "  the  gover- 
nor of  his  house  " — traversed  the  land  to  find  food 
for  his  horses  and  mules.  "Entirely  without  ref- 
erence to  the  Old  Testament,  Menandros  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  8,  13,  2)  makes  mention  of  a  severe 
drought  of  a  year  under  the  Syrian  king  Ithobal, 
a  contemporary  of  Ahab  "  (Ewald).  The  name 
Obadiah  is  a  proper  name  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
theOld  Testament(l  Chron.  iii.  21 ;  vii.  3  :  viii.  38; 
ix.  16;  2  Chron.  xvii.  7;  xxxiv.  12;  Ezra  viii.  9, 
Ac),  and  does  not  here,  on  account  of  ver.  4,  mean, 
as  Thenius  supposes,  "  chosen."  The  prophets  who 
are  mentioned  in  ver.  4  were,  for  the  most  part, 
"prophet-scholars,"  i.  e.,  membersof  the  association 
of  the  prophets  (Prophetenvereine),  cf.  on  2  Kings 
ii.  If  Obadiah  alone  delivered  a  hundred,  their 
number  must  have  been  considerable.  Their  per- 
secution and  extermination  was  the  work  of  the 
fanatical,  idolatrous  Jezebel,  whom  Ahab  allowed 
to  rule  and  manage.  Hess  and  Menken  suppose  that 
she  was  incited  thereto  by  her  idolatrous  priests, 
who  represented  to  her  that  the  public  calamity 
would  not  end  until  the  prophets,  from  the  secret 
influence  of  whom  it  proceeded,  were  put  out  of 
the  way.  This  conjecture,  however,  is  not  neces- 
sary, on  account  of  the  character  of  Jezebel,  who, 
from  the  start,  was  bent  upon  the  abolition  of  the 


Jehovah-worship.  The  caverns  in  which  Obadiah 
concealed  the  prophets  were  certainly  not  near 
Samaria,  but  were,  perhaps,  on  Mount  CarrneL 
"  which  is  full  of  clefts  and  grottoes "  (Winer, 
R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  212). 

Vers.  7-16.  And  as  Obadiah  was  in  the  way 
&c.  He  recognized  the  prophet  at  once  by  his  pe- 
culiar clothing  {cf.  2  Kings  i.  7,  8).  The  profound 
reverence  which  he  showed  to  him  allows  us  to  con- 
clude that  there  was  a  personal  acquaintance,  and, 
in  any  event,  it  is  an  evidence  of  the  high  consid- 
eration in  which  even  then  Elijah  was  held,  at  least 
upon  the  part  of  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah, 
which  could  scarcely  be  accounted  for  only  on  th« 
ground  of  his  prediction  of  the  drought  (chap.  xvii. 

1).     The  words  ill  itnxn  cannot  be  translated,  Art 

thou  not  my  lord  Elijah?  (Luther),  or  with  the 
Sept.,  zi  g'v  d  avrdc  Kvpce  fiov  'H/m;  for  he  had  al- 
ready recognized  him,  and  had  fallen  on  his  face 
before  him.  It  is  rather  a  question  of  wonder : 
Art  thou,  who  hast  been  looked  for  everywhere  in 
vain,  here  ?  (ver.  10).  The  reply  of  Obadiah  in  ver. 
9  is  explained  by  ver.  12.  The  statement  in  ver. 
10,  that  Ahab  had  set  on  foot  inquiries  after  the 
prophet  in  every  kingdom,  is  "an  hyperbole 
prompted  by  inward  excitement  and  fear  "  (Keil), 
but  which,  nevertheless,  is  an  evidence  of  the 
great  bitterness  and  hatred  of  Ahab.  From  the 
anxiety  of  Obadiah  lest  the  spirit  of  Jehovah 
should  suddenly  carry  the  prophet  away,  it  has 
been  concluded  that  something  like  it  had  previ- 
ously occurred,  but  which  has  not  been  related  to 
us  (Von  Gerlach,  Seb.  Schmidt,  and  others).  Keil 
remarks,  on  the  other  hand:  Elijah  was  not 
snatched  away  after  the  prediction  of  the  drought, 
and  there  is  no  more  reason  for  supposing  a  case 
of  this  kind  during  the  interval,  when  he  was  con- 
cealed from  his  enemies.  Obadiah  certainly  had 
not  in  his  mind  a  simple  going  away,  nor  does  thn 
expression  suggest  "  a  wind-storm  "  (Dereser),  nor 
a  mere  inward  movement  from  above  (Olshaus., 
Acts  viii.  39),  but  divine  power.  The  concluding 
statement  in  ver.  12  does  not  mean  he  has  not  as 
"a  God-fearing  man  and  a  protector  of  the  pro- 
phets any  special  favor  to  expect  at  the  hands  of 
Ahab  "  (Keil),  but  rather  he  believes  that,  as  a  true 
servant  of  Jehovah,  for  his  own  and  for  the  sake 
of  the  prophet,  he  deserves,  least  of  all,  death.  He 
does  not  express  a  doubt  of  the  truthfulness  of  Eli- 
jah, but  he  supposes  that  "  he  will  be  exposed  to 
a  danger  from  which  God  will  rescue  him  by  an 
abreption,  while  he  himself  will  thereby  be  placed 
in  the  greatest  peril  in  respect  of  Ahab  "  (Menken). 
By  the  expression  in  ver.  13,  he  seeks  to  justify  his 
refusal  to  fulfil  Elijah's  commission,  and  to  say 
that  he  will  suffer  a  death  he  does  not  merit,  but  he 
does  not  mean  to  boast  of  his  action,  or  to  claim 

any  reward.     The  JliK2Y  with  fliiT1  (see  Keil  on  1 

Sam.  L  3),  elevates  the  solemnity  of  the  oath  {cf.  on 

chap.  xvii.   1).     DIM    means   here :  at  this   time, 

now  (1  Sam.  xiv.  33;  2  Kings  iv.  8),  not  to-dai 
(Luther,  De  Wette). 

Vers.  17-20.  And  it  came  to  pass  when 
Ahab  saw  Elijah,  Ac.  As  Ahab  went,  at  Obadi- 
ah's  instigation,  to  meet  the  prophet,  and  not  the 
prophet  to  meet  him,  AJbitTs  query  does  not  meat 
"  Dost  thou  dare  to  appear  before  me  ?  "  (Thenius\ 
but,  rather,  Do  I  meet  thee  at  last,  thou  bringer  of 


20  i 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


trouble  ?    "py  does   not,  as  in   Gen.  xxxiv.  30 ; 

Josh.  vi.  18;  vii.  25,  mean  here,  to  perplex,  as 
Luther  translates.  Ahab  lays  all  the  blame 
of  the  famine  upon  Elijah,  not  merely  because 
he  had  predicted  the  drought,  but  he  had  added 
that  it  would  come  to  an  end  only  at  his  word, 
without  thinking  that  the  prophet  had  done 
this  only  in  the  name  and  at  the  command  of  Je- 
hovah. In  the  reply  of  Elijah  (ver.  18)  the  plural 
form  D'^ya  is  not,  with  Gesenius,  to  be  understood 

of  images  or  statues  of  Baal,  but  of  the  various 
surnames  of  Baal  according  to  their  special  signifi- 
cation—Baal-Berith,  Baal-Zebul  (Winer,  R.-  W.-B. 
I.  s.  120).  Elijah's  desire  (in  ver.  19)  probably  ad- 
mits of  a  closer  explanation  in  respectof  its  ground 
and  purpose:  it  was  not  so  much  on  account  of 
Ahab  as  to  influence  the  whole  people  to  another 
course — it  was  to  bring  all  Israel  to  a  decision. 
That  was  the  right  point  of  time  when  the  longing 
for  deliverance  from  the  famine  was  universal. 
Elijah  appointed  Carmel  as  the  place  of  assem- 
blage, probably  because  its  situation  was  central, 
and  it  was  also  near  the  sea,  from  which  quarter 
rain-clouds  came.  There  was,  moreover,  an  altar 
to  Jehovah  there,  as  on  other  conspicuous  high 
places,  but  which,  like  other  such  altars,  had  been 
thrown  down  in  consequence  of  the  introduction 
of  the  Baal- worship  (cf.  ver.  30  and  chap.  xix.  10). 
The  whole  of  Israel,  i.  e.,  the  heads  of  the  tribes  and 
families,  and  the  ciders  as  the  representatives  of 
the  people  (chap.  viii.  1-62).  The  prophets  of  Baal 
(cf.  ver.  26  sq.)  are  the  priests  of  Baal,  who  were 
likewise  the  god's  soothsayers  and  foretellers.  As 
the  male  divinity,  Baal  had  more  priests  than  the 
female.  That  the  Astarte-priests  ate  at  Jezebel's 
table,  i.  e.,  were  entirely  supported  by  her  (see 
chap.  ii.  7).  is  expressly  remarked,  because  therein 
her  blind,  fanatical  passion  for  the  worship  of 
idols  is  shown  over  against  the  prophets  of  Jeho- 
vah, whom  she  persecuted  and  murdered  (ver.  4). 
When,  according  to  ver.  20,  the  enraged  and  excit- 
ed king  at  once  acceded  to  the  demand  of  Elijah, 
this  is  quite  in  harmony  with  his  character  as  he 
often  exhibited  it  subsequently.  He  bowed  before 
the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  prophet,  which  im- 
pressed him.  Notwithstanding  his  apparent  scorn, 
he  had  a  secret  fear  of  Elijah  since  the  prediction 
of  the  drought  had  been  verified  (chap.  xvii.  1), 
and  all  the  sacrifices  of  the  priests  of  Baal  to  avert 
the  famine  had  been  in  vain. 

Ver.  21.  And  Elijah  came,  Ac.  Ewald,  whom 
Thenius  follows  on  the  ground  of  the  Septuag., 
translates  the  question  of  the  prophet  to  the  peo- 
ple: "  How  long  will  ye  go  limping  on  both  hocks, 
i.  e.,  always  staggering  about  hither  and  thither 
insecurely  between  truth  and  falsehood,  Jahve 
and  Baal  ?  "  But  D'SyD  is  never  used  in  the  sense 
of  lyviai ,  i.  e.,  hocks,  which  translation  Schleusner 
properly  pronounces  a  mera  conjectura.  The  root 
E]yD  means  to  divide,  to  dissever,  and  all  the  de- 
rivatives point  back  to  this  signification.  The 
D'EyD  >  Ps.  cxix.  113,  are  those  which  are  divided 

within  themselves,  the  double-minded  or  ambigu- 
ous.    In   Ezek.  xxxi.  6:  niiSyD  means  branches, 

because  these  are  the  divided  tree,  and  in  Isai.  it. 
21;  lvii.  5,  the  clefts  of  the  rocks  are  named 
D'JTOn  'Syp.  Tne  v«lg-  lienee  translates  right- 
ly, Usqueqvoclavdica'is  in  duos  partes  t  Keil,  "up  to 


the  two  parties  (Jehovah  and  Baal)."  This  agreei 
perfectly  with  the  word  DD3  ,  *■  e  ,  to  go  over  from 

one  to  another,  and  Sy  is  here  wi'.h  riD3 ,  as  in 
ver.  26,  where  it  cannot  possibly  mean  "to  the." 
But  when  Keil  remarks  further :  The  people  were 
wishing  to  harmonize  the  Jehovah  worship  and 
that  of  Baal,  not  to  stand,  by  means  of  the  Baa 
worship,  in  hostile  opposition  to  Jehovah,  he  it 
evidently  mistaken.  The  people  rather  were  divi- 
ded between  the  two  forms  of  worship,  that  of  Je- 
hovah and  that  of  Baal;  to  the  latter  belonged  also 
the  Astarte-cultus,  which  it  was  impossible  to 
identify  or  reconcile  with  the  Jehovah-worship. 
The  persecution  and  extermination  of  the  Jehovah 
prophets  by  Jezebel  must  have  shown  the  people, 
most  explicitly,  that  between  the  two  religions 
the  most  decisive  antagonism  existed.  Jeroboam's 
calf-worship  might  still  seem  to  be  Jehovah-wor^ 
ship,  but  the  Baal  and  Astarte  worship,  never. 
The  large  number  of  the  "  sons  of  the  prophets  " 
shows  that,  in  spite  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  the  peo- 
ple were  divided  into  two  parties. 

Vers.  22-25.  It  by  no  means  follows  from  tha 
,-:lX>  "  that  those  also  who  had  been  concealed  by 

Obadiah  were  discovered  and  destroyed  "  (Thenius). 
cf.  2  Kings  ii.  3,  5.  Elijah  means  to  say :  All 
the  other  prophets  have  been  murdered,  or  are 
reduced  to  a  state  of  inactivity :  I  stand  here  alone 
over  against  four  hundred  and  fifty  priests  of  Baal; 
what,  humanly  speaking,  can  one  do  against  so 
many  ?  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  issue  will  decide  all 
the    more  certainly   with  whom  rests  tlte   Right 

"Ijy  as  in  Gen.  xxxii.  35;  Jos.  xviii.  2.     To  the 

four  hundred  and  fifty  Baal  priests  the  Sept.  adds : 
Kal  ol  Trpo^j/Tai ,  rait  hXaovc  -ETpaKOGiot ,  which 
Thenius  holds  to  be  original,  but  is  here  evidently 
tilled  out  from  ver.  19.  In  ver.  25  and  in  ver.  40, 
moreover,  the  priests  of  Baal  only  are  named.  A 
thrice  repeated  omission  of  the  Astarte-priests 
cannot  be  explained  by  the  rule,  a  potiori  fit,  etc., 
least  of  all  in  ver.  40 ;  they  might  indeed  have 
been  summoned,  but  under  the  protection  of  Jeze- 
bel they  might  have  been  able  to  escape  the  re- 
quisition of  Ahab  (Keil).  As  the  issue  was  a  deci- 
sion between  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  that  of 
Baal,  Elijah  employed,  in  connection  with  it,  au 
act  of  sacrifice,  because  both  amongst  the  Jews 
and  also  the  heathen,  sacrifice  was  the  explicit 
expression  of  all  worship.  The  significance  of  fire 
in  sacrifice  was  the  reason  why  lie  suspended  the 
decision  upon  the  fire  which  should  consume  the 
offering;  it  wafts  the  sacrifice  upwards,  and,  as  it 
were,  presents  it  to  the  deity.  Should  the  latter 
send  the  fire,  this  would  be  a  sign  not  only  of 
power,  but  also  that  the  sacrifice  was  accepted  and 
well-pleasing.  Besides  this,  fire,  especially  that 
which  came  from  heaven,  was  the  general  symbol 
of  deity.  Baal  also  was  the  God  of  heaven,  of  the 
sun,  and  of  tire  (heaven-fire-sun-god).  If  he  could 
not  consume  the  offering,  that  would  show  him  to 
be  no  God.  The  cutting  in  pieces,  vers.  23  and  33, 
belongs,  according  to  Lev.  i.  6,  to  the  proper  dress- 
ing of  every  burnt-offering.  After  the  people  had 
signified  their  agreement  to  the  proposition  of  Eli- 
jah he  proceeded  further  (ver.  25);  and,  to  avoid 
nil  appearance  of  encroachment  or  of  partisanship, 
he  allowed  the  priests  of  Baal  a  choice  between 
the  two  "  bullocks,"  as  also  precedence  in  the  act 
of  sacrifice,  giving  as  a  rea*OD  :  for  ye  are  many. 


CHAPTER  XVIII.  1-46. 


20E 


This  was  scarcely  said  "  somewhat  scoffingly  "  iD 
the  sense  of  "  the  crowd  shall  have  the  precedence  I 
You  are  the  prevailing  religious  party  m  Israel " 
(Menken),  but  wholly  in  earnest;  he  only  one, 
will  take  no  advantage  of  the  many ;  they  shall 
not  feel  themselves  slighted.  'When,  too,  as  he 
himself  knew  in  advance,  the  vanity,  the  nothing- 
ness of  Baal  became  manifest,  the  impression  pro- 
duced by  his  offering  would  be  all  the  greater, 
while  inversely  the  priests  of  Baal,  under  every 
kind  of  pretext,  would  have  wholly  omitted  the 
sacrifice. 

Vers.  26-29.  And  they  took  the  bullock,  &c. 
By  IPlDS'l  the  dance  customary  at  heathen  sacri- 
fices is  indeed  suggested  to  us  (see  with  Keil  the 
passage  from  Herodian  Hist.  v.  3).  The  view  pre- 
vails that  limping,  "  in  derision  of  the  unaided 
sacrificial  dance  of  the  Baal  priests,"  stands  here 
for  dancing  (Gesenius) ;  but  neither  here  nor  in  ver. 
21  does  it  denote  ridicule.  It  expresses  only  the 
reeling  to  and  fro  ;  "  the  dance,  as  we  may  infer 
from  its  climax  m  vers.  28,  29,  may  have  had  some- 
what of  the  bacchantie,  reeling  way  about  it "  (The- 
nius) ;  the  Sept.  has  Sti-ptxnv ,  the  Vulgate  transi- 
liebant,  and  here  ridicule  disappears.  This  first  fol- 
lows in  ver.  27  ;  here  we  are  simply  informed  of 
what  actually  happened.  Elijah  is  not  the  subject 
in  iTJ'V;  it  is  impersonal.     Nearly  all  the  versions 

seem  to  have  read,  with  many  MSS.,  lt"JJ  •    In  ver. 

27  Elijah  urges  the  Baal  priests  to  cry  louder,  and 
gives  as  his  chief  reason :  in  your  opinion  he  is  the 
real,  true  God  ;  he  must  be  hindered  in  some  way, 
so  that,  as  yet,  he  has  not  heard  you.  The  thrice 
repeated  '3  heightens  the  effect  of  the  discourse. 

n'L"  means  neither  loquitur  (Vulg.),  nor:  he  imagines 

(Luther),  nor :  adoXeox'0-  iivrCi  ca-iv  (Sept.) ;  but  it 
denotes  turning  within  one's  self,  reflection,  medi- 
talio,  and  then,  also,  sadness  (1  Sam.  i.  16;  Ps.  cxlii. 
3).  Thenius :  his  head  is  full ;  perhaps,  better  yet : 
he  is  out  of  humor.     y&  the  Vulg.  wrongly  gives: 

in  diversario  est;  it  means  secessio  (from  Jm»  to 
withdraw,  2  Sam.  i.  22),  euphemistic  expression 
for :  he  is  easing  himself.  Everything  that  Elijah 
here  derisively  attributes  to  Baal  must  not,  with 
Movers  (Ret  der  Plioniz.  s.  386),  be  regarded  as 
that  which  the  Baal  priests  actually  believed  of 
him  as  the  sun-god  (his  journeys,  labors,  sleeping), 
for  it  had  ceased  to  be  a  matter  of  sport.  They 
cried  louder  (ver.   28),  so  that  Baal,  by  hearing, 

might  stultify  the  derision.     By  n"H!Vl_,  we  must 

not  understand  a  mere  "nicking  with  knives  and 
punches"   (Luther);    for  3"in  means  sword,   and 

nO"l   the  lance  belonging  to  heavy  armor  (Ezek. 

xxxix.  9 ;  Jer.  xlvi.  4).  The  nDS  ,  ver.  26,  changed 

into  a  weapon-dance,  which  custom  many  ancient 
writers  mention  (cf.  Doughty.  Annlect.  Sacr.  p. 
176),  and  Movers  (as  cited  s.  682),  after  them,  de- 
scribes more  particularly.  This  custom  assuredly 
has  not,  as  Movers  supposes,  its  reason  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  "  committed  sins,"  but  in  the  super- 
stition that  blood,  especially  the  blood  of  priests, 
has  a  special  virtue,  moving,  even  compelling  the 
divinity  (Plutarch  De  superstit. :  Bellona  sacerdotes 
fuo  m-uore  sacrificant,  cf.  Symbol,  des  Mosais.  Kultus 
II.  ».  223,  262).     In  "er.  29,  lN3:rv>l  is  commonly 


translated :  and  they  raved ;  in  the  sense :  their 
behavior  reached  to  a  sort  of  mania.  But  1  Sam. 
xviii.  10;  Jer.  xxix.  26,  places  to  which  an  appeal 
is  made,  cannot  prove  that  H23  means,  in  itself 
fiaivEoSat;  the  Sept.  never  translating  it  so.  The 
Baal  priests  are  constantly  called  here  D'X3J  i  and 

as  such,  they  prepared  the  sacrifice,  danced  around 
the  altar,  called  upon  Baal,  wounded  themselves: 
all  that  they  then  did,  and  the  time  they  consumed, 
is  summed  up  when  it  is  said  that  INSJIT  ;  this 

word  does  not  refer  to  anything  besides.  Piscator: 
fuit  vero  quum  prceteriisset  meridies,  ut  prcphetas 
agerent,  &c.  They  went  on  with  their  various  func- 
tions until  past  noon,  yet  without  any  result. 
iinjD  is  here  not  specially  food  (vegetable)  offering 

(Luther),  but  it  denotes  offering  generally  (Gen.  iv. 
3-5),  and  here  the  usual  daily  evening  sacrifice, 
which,  nevertheless,  as  is  to  be  seen  from  vers.  36 
and  40  sq.,  was  not  offered  first  at  dusk,  but  before  it 
(Numb,  xxviii.  4).  The  Sept.  adds  to  ver.  29  :  "  And 
Elijah  the  Tishbite  said  to  the  prophets  of  the 
idols,  Stand  back !  I  will  now  make  ready  my  offer- 
ing. And  they  stood  back  and  went  away."  an 
addition  which  does  not  at  all  "  bear  the  unmistak- 
able stamp  of  genuineness  "  (Thenius),  but  is  plain- 
ly a  supplementary  gloss. 

Vers.  30-32.  And  Elijah  said  unto  all  the 
people,  &e.  Elijah  did  not,  designedly,  build  a 
new  altar,  but  repaired  the  old  one  (see  above  on 
ver.  19),  and  meant  thereby  to  show  that  the  issue 
of  the  day  was  the  restoration  of  the  ancieut  Jeho- 
vah-worship, for  cultus  is  expressed  synecdochice  per 
altars  (Petr.  Martyr).  He  shows,  moreover,  still 
more  explicitly  the  object  of  the  restoration  and 
renewal  of  the  broken  covenant  (chap.  xix.  10),  in 
that,  as  Moses  had  once  done  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  covenant  (Exod.  xxiv.  4),  in  like  manner  he 
repaired  the  altar  "  with  twelve  stones,  according  to 
the  number  of  the  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel."  This 
was  a  declaration  in  act,  that  the  twelve  tribes 
together  constituted  one  people,  that  they  had  one 
God  in  common,  and  that  Jehovah's  covenant  was 
not  concluded  with  two  or  with  ten,  but  with  the 
unit  of  the  twelve  tribes.  Since  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes  named  itself  "  Israel,"  over  against 
the  other  tribes,  it  is  expressly  remarked  that 
Jacob,  the  one  progenitor  of  the  entire  people,  had 
received  from  Jehovah  the  name  ''Israel,"  i.  e., 
God's  soldier,  because  he  commanded  his  entire 
house  :  Put  away  from  you  the  strange  gods  (Gen. 
xxxv.  2,  10  sq.).  Only  the  people  who  did  as  he 
did  had  a  claim  to  this  name.  In  ver.  32  the 
nirv  D'."3  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  remote 

rOT  ;  he  built  in  the  name,  i.  e.,  by  the  command, 

of  Jehovah  (for  everything  that  he  did,  he  did  no 
less  by  the  command  of  Jehovah),  but  with  the 
immediately  preceding  rQTD  i    ne  Duilt  tn's  tnat 

Jehovah  might  reveal  and  authenticate  himself;  as 
inversely,  according  to  Exod.  xx.  24,  an  altar  was 
to  be  built  where  Jehovah  had  revealed  and  au- 
thenticated himself.  The  ditch  was  not  designed 
as  a  hedge,  "  so  that  the  people  might  not  press 
too  much  upon  the  altar "  (Starke) ;  it  was  made 

rather  to  receive  the  water  (vers.  34,  35),  as  n?l?n  i 

2  Kings  xx.  20 ;  Is.  vii.  3  ;  xxii.  9  ;  xxxvi.  2 ;  Ezek 
xxxi.  4,  means  properly  aqueduct.  Not  only  was 
the  altar  to  be  soaked,  but  it  was  to  be  surrounded 


206 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


with  water,  so  as  to  remove  all  suspicion  about  the 
burning  of  the  sacrifice.  Impostures  of  this  kind 
occurred  certainly  in  later  heathendom.  The  author 
of  the  Orat.  in  Efliam  (I.  p.  765),  attributed  to  Chry- 
sostom,  says :  "  I  speak  as  an  eye-witness.  In  the 
altars  of  the  idols,  there  are  beneath  the  altar  chan- 
nels, and  underneath  a  concealed  pit ;  the  deceivers 
enter  these,  and  blow  up  a  fire  from  beneath  upon 
the  altar,  by  which  many  are  deceived,  and  believe 
that  the  fire  comes  from  heaven."  The  words 
JTlT  DTIXD  JV33  are  not  altogether  clear.     Keil 

and  Thenius  translate :  like  the  space  whereon  one 
can  sow  two  seahs  of  grain.  But  n'3  never  signi- 
fies a  superficies  measure,  but  that  which  holds 
something;  and  one  does  not  measure  a  ditch  by  a 
superficial  space  which  it  covers,  but  according  to  its 
capacity  for  holding;  hence  Gesenius  here:  a  ditch 
which  could  hold  two  seahs.  The  ditch,  then,  was 
about  as  deep  as  the  grain-measure  containing  two 
seahs.  The  seah  is  the  third  part  of  an  ephah ;  ac- 
cording to  Thenius,  two  Dresden  pecks;  according 
to  Bertheau=661.92,  according  to  Bunsen  338.13 
Paris  cubic  inches.  "Without  doubt  the  ditch  was 
bo  near  the  altar  that  the  water  poured  upon  it 
flowed  into  it  and  remained  there.  Elijah  took  upon 
himself  the  preparation  of  the  sacrifice,  jure  prophe- 
tico,  minoribus  legibus  exsolutus,  ut  majores  servaret 
(Grotius).  The  levitical  priest  was  no  longer  in  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  (2  Chron.  xi.  13  ;  xiii.  9). 

Vers.  33-35.  And  said,  Fill  four  barrels  (cad) 
to.,  &c.  13  is  a  pail  (Gen.  xxiv.  14)  without  defi- 
nite measure.  The  solemnity  and  the  emphasis 
with  which  the  prophet  commands  the  soaking 
with  water  stamp  this  act  as  prophetic,  i.  e.,  as  a 
significant  religious  act,  done  for  some  other  than 
the  merely  negative  purpose  "  of  cutting  away  all 
ground  of  suspicion  of  the  possibility  of  some 
cheat"  (Keil).  The  form  of  the  transaction  shows 
this.  For  when  the  prophet  orders  thrice  four 
cads  of  water  poured  upon  an  altar  composed  of 
thrice  four  stones,  the  intention — i.  e.,  the  signifi- 
cance of  this  combination  of  numbers — is  unmis- 
takable. The  numbers  three  and  four,  as  well 
singly  as  in  their  combination  with  each  other,  in 
peven  and  twelve,  meet  us  constantly  in  the  cul- 
tus,  where  the  significance  is  beyond  all  question. 
(See  above.  Of.  my  Symbol,  des  AIos.  Kultus  I. 
f.  150,  169,  193,  205.)  But  we  can  conclude  noth- 
ing definitely,  with  full  certainty,  respecting  the 
meaning  of  the  prophetic  act.  Perhaps  the  abun- 
dant soaking  of  the  altar  bearing  the  sign-number 
of  the  Covenant  people  with  3X4  cads  of  water  ex- 
presses what  is  promised  in  Dent,  xxviii.  12  to  the 
Covenant  people  if  they  observe  the  covenant: 
"Jehovah  shall  open  unto  thee  his  good  treasure, 
the  heaven,  to  give  rain  unto  thy  land  in  his  sea- 
son; "  after,  on  account  of  the  breach  of  the  cove- 
nant, "  thy  heaven  over  thy  head  was  brass,  and 
the  earth  under  thee  was  iron"  (Deut.  xxviii.  23). 
Elijah  is  not  the  subject  to  tf?D  ver.   35   ("he 

caused  the  trench  to  be  filled  with  water,"  as  De 
Wette  and  Keil  translate);  but  Q'O,  which  also  is 

elsewhere  construed  with  the  singular  (Numb.  xx. 
2;  xxiv.  7;  xxxiii.  14;  Gen.  ix.  15);  Luther  :  and 
the  trench  also  was  full  of  water.  There  was  so 
much  water  that  it  ran  over  the  altar  and  filled 
likewise  the  trench.  The  question,  whence  so 
much  water  could  have  been  obtained,  in  such  a 
dr  jught,  cannot  shake  the  trustworthiness  of  the 


narrative.  It  is  plain,  from  ver.  40,  that  the  brook 
Kishon  was  near,  and  was  not  dried  up.  Its  sup- 
ply of  water  was  very  abundant.  Cf  Judg.  v 
21,  and  the  passage  from  Broward  (in  Winer,  R.- 
W.-B.  Bd.  I.  a.  660) :  Cison  colligit  plures  aquas, 
quia  a  monte  Ephraim  et  a  locis  Samarioe  propin- 
quioribus  atque  a  toto  campo  Esdrelon  confluuni 
plurimm  aqua  et  recipiuntur  in  hunc  unum  torren- 
tern.  (Cf.  also  Robinson,  Palest.  III.  p.  114, 
116.)  Carmel,  moreover,  was  full  of  grottoes  and 
caves  (Winer,  "some  say  2,000");  if  there  were 
water  anywhere,  it  would  be  there.  Van  de  Velde 
(in  Keil  on  the  place)  has  proved  that  the  plact 
where  the  sacrifice  was  offered  is  at  the  ruin  El 
Mohraka,  and  that  here  is  a  covered  spring:  "un- 
der a  dark,  vaulted  roof,  the  water  in  such  a  spring 
is  always  cool,  and  the  atmosphere  cannot  evapo- 
rate it.  I  can  understand  perfectly  that  while  all 
other  springs  were  dried  up,  here  there  continued 
to  be  an  abundance  of  water,  which  Elijah  poured 
so  bountifully  upon  the  altar." — [Really  this  is 
very  unsatisfactory,  and  not  to  the  purpose. — E.  H] 
Vers.  36,  37.  And  at  the  time  of  the  offering 
of  the  evening  sacrifice,  &c. — The  time  of  day 
was  that  appointed  for  the  daily  sacrifice.  In  his 
prayer  Elijah  calls  Jehovah,  not  his  God,  as  in 
chap.  xvii.  20  sq.,  but  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac, 
and  of  Israel  (i.  e.,  Jacob,  ver.  31,  with  unmistak- 
able reference  to  Exod.  iii.  15).  This  designation 
of  God  points  to  him  as  the  God  who  had  con- 
cluded the  covenant  of  promise  with  the  progeni- 
tors of  the  entire  people,  and  brings  to  mind  the 
proofs  of  the  grace  which  Israel  had  shared  from 
the  first.  Here  where  the  broken  covenant  was 
to  be  reuewed  and  cemented  afresh  in  this  de- 
signation, both  the  assurance  and  the  entreaty 
are  expressed  that  the  God  who  had  declared 
himself  to  the  patriarchs  would  now,  as  to  these, 
so  also  to  his  whole  people,  declare  himself.  In 
Israel,  i.  e.,  that  thou  alone  art  God,  and  as  such 
wilt  be  recognized  and  honored  in  Israel.  And  1 
am  thy  servant,  i.  e.,  that  I  do  not  speak  and  act 
in  my  own  cause  and  in  human  strength,  but  in 
thy  cause  (Septuag.  dia  ce),  and  in  thy  name,  as 
well  in  respect  of  what  has  happened  hitherto  as 

what  shall  happen  hereafter.  The  J"l3Dn  in  ver. 
37  does  not  depend  upon  '3 ,  and  is  not  to  be  trans- 
lated, "  so  turn  thou  their  heart  around "  (De 
Wette),  but  "that  that  which  shall  happen  is  or- 
dained by  thee  for  their  conversion  "  (Thenius). 

Vers."  38-40.  Then  the  fire  of  the  Lord  fell, 
&c,  i.  e.,  a  fire  effected,  produced  by  Jehovah. 
The  text  certainly  does  not  say,  as  is  commonly 
thought,  a  stroke  of  lightning  from  heaven ;  and 
Keil  remarks,  as  against  this  opinion,  a  natural 
stroke  "could  not  have  produced  such  an  effect." 
We  can  conclude  nothing  definite  of  the  how  of 
the  wonder.  To  give  full  expression  to  the  inten- 
sity of  the  fire  it  is  stated  that  even  the  stones  and 
the  ground  were  burned,  i.  e.,  according  to  Le 
Clerc,  in  caJetm  redegit.  Usually  it  is  supposed 
that  the  earth  means  that  which  was  thrown  up 
in  the  building  of  the  altar,  but  it  can  also  be  that 
with  which  the  altar,  built  of  twelve  stones,  was 
filled  up  (Exod.  xx.  24).  The  impression  which 
the  event  produced  upon  the  people  was  over- 
powering, and  must  have  filled  them  all  with  con 
tempt  and  wrath  against  the  priests  of  Baal,  80 
that  Ahab,  even  had  he  desired  it.  could  not  hav# 


CHAPTER  XVIII.  1-16. 


201 


prevented  their  destruction.  That  Elijah  did  not 
slaughter  them  in  his  own  person  is  self-evident ; 
he  demanded  it  on  the  ground  of  the  law  (Deut. 
xiii.  9).  Josephus,  a-ia-uvav  rove  Tzpoyr/Tac  'H/jq 
tovto  TrapaivtcavTuQ.  It  is  more  than  rash  when 
Heuzel  maintains  that  the  people  seized  the  Baal 
priests  (we  must  remember  that  there  were  450  of 
them),  and  "delivered  them  to  the  prophet  to  be 
slain  by  his  own  hand."  The  Kislion  empties  it- 
self at  the  foot  of  Carmel  into  the  sea.  Not  where 
the  sacrifice  was  offered  were  the  Baal  priests  to 
be  put  to  death,  but  by  the  stream  which  could 
carry  their  blood  and  corpses  from  the  land  and 
lose  them  in  the  sea. 

Vers.  41—45.  And  Elijah  said  unto  Ahab, 
Ac.  From  the  words,  Get  thee  up,  it  follows  that 
Ahab  had  gone  to  Kishon,  and  was  present  at  the 
execution  of  his  Baal  priests;  but  he  had  scarcely 
joined  in  the  shout  of  the  people  (ver.  39).  Whe- 
ther the  words  "  eat  and  drink "  are  to  be  inter- 
preted as  derisive  (Krummacher,  Thenius)  is  very 
doubtful.  The  prophet  may  well  have  derided 
the  dead  idol  Baal ;  but  that  he  should  have  mock- 
ed the  king,  whom  he  wished  to  win  over,  is 
scarcely  credible,  and  does  not  agree  with  what 
is  mentioned  in  ver.  46.  According  to  Ewald, 
Elijah  invited  him  "  to  eat  of  the  sacrifice  offered 
to  Jehovah,  and  thereby  to  strengthen  himself;  " 
but  the  offering,  apart  from  the  consideration  that  it 
was  a  burnt-offering,  of  which  nothing  was  eaten. 
was  entirely  consumed  (ver.  39).  Others  think  that 
the  kiug  had  eaten  nothing  during  the  suspense 
of  the  issue  of  the  contest,  from  the  morning  un- 
til the  evening;  hence  Elijah  advised  him  to  re- 
turn quickly,  before  the  coming  storm  hindered 
him,  to  the  place  of  the  sacrifice,  where  prepara- 
tion had  been  made  for  his  needs  (Keil,  Calw. 
Bib.).  But  the  sense  of  the  words  of  the  prophet 
w;is.  Be  of  good  heart  (Luke  xii.  19).  Israel  has 
turned  back  again  to  his  God,  ^oon  the  famine  will 
come  to  an  end;  already  I  hear  (in  spirit)  the  rain 
rushing.  t;'{0  (ver.  42)  does  not  mean  here  top, 
summit,  but  it  denotes  the  outermost  promontory 
towards  the  sea.  Both  Elijah  and  Ahab  went  from 
Kishon  "up;"  the  former  betook  himself  to  the 
promontory,  which  was  not  so  high  as  the  place 
where  the  altar  stood,  and  Ahab  had  his  tent. 
Hence  Elijah  could  say  to  his  servant:  Go  up  and 
say  to  Ahab,  &c.  To  the  promontory,  however, 
Elijah  betook  himself,  because  thence  one  could 
look  far  across  the  sea,  and  first  be  assured  when 
rain-clouds  were  forming  in  the  distance.  Here 
he  bowed  himself  down  and  concealed  his  face,  to 
abstract  his  eyes  from  everything  outward  and 
visible,  and  to  turn  himself  wholly  and  completely 
to  what  was  inward.  It  was  the  natural,  involun- 
tary expression  of  sinking  into  the  most  earnest, 
wrestling  prayer;  and  there  is  no  reason  why. 
with  Keil.  we  should  refer  to  the  dervishes, 
amongst  whom  Shaw  and  Chardin  have  found 
similar  prayer-postures.  Elijah  did  not  wish,  in 
order  to  be  alone  in  prayer,  and  so  to  strengthen 
himself,  to  look  at  the  sea;  he  commissioned  his 
servant  with  that.  Probably  he  promised  to 
give  him  information  in  a  very  short  time;  and 
when  the  servant,  at  the  outset,  saw  nothing,  he 
said  to  him,  Go  again  seven  times,  i.  e.,  make  no 
mistake,  though  it  be  a  matter  of  seven  times. 
Seven  times  is  here  as  in  Matt,  xviii.  21;  cf.  Ps. 
cxix,  164;  xii.  1 ;  Prov.  xxiv.  16.  Elijah  wished 
also  to  be  informed  of  the  first  appearing  of  a 


cloud  before  any  one  else  observed  it,  to  notify 
Ahab,  and  to  convince  him  that  the  rain,  as  he 
had  predicted  in  chap.  xvii.  1,  wo'ijd  be  the  con- 
sequence of  his  prophetic  word  (prayer).  The- 
nius remarks  on  ver.  44:  "A  very  little  cloud  on 
the  farthest  horizon  is,  according  to  sea  accounts, 
often  the  herald  of  stormy  weather."    The  doubled 

r)3""iy  in  ver.  45,  according  to  Maurer  and  others, 

means :  until  so  and  so  far,  and  is  a  form  of  speech 
borrowed  from  the  quick  moving  of  the  hand 
also  :  before  a  man  turns  his  hand.  But  the  rain 
did  not  come  so  swiftly.      According  to  Exod.  viL 

16,  and  Is.  xvii.   14,   n3"1J?  means  :  until  now,  up 

to  this  moment.  Gesenius  :  in  the  mean  while  ;  so 
also  De  Velte  and  Winer. 

Ver.  45.  And  ran  before  Ahab,  kc.  [But 
Ahab  went  towards  Jezreel.]  He  had  there  a 
summer  palace  (chap.  xxi.  2).  The  city  was  situ- 
ated  in  the  tribe  Issachar  (Is.  xix.  18),  in  the  ele- 
vated plane  of  the  same  name,  about  from  live  to 
six  miles  (seventeen  to  twenty  Eng. )  distant  from 
Carmel.  He  betook  himself  thither,  because  Je- 
zebel was  then  at  this  summer  residence,  and  he 
wished  to  let  her  know  the  news  (chap.  xix.  1). 
The  form  of  expression,  the  hand  of  Jehovah,  &c, 
ver.  46,  occurs  also  in  2  Kings  iii.  15:  Ezek.  i.  3; 
iii.  14,  22;  viii.  1;  xxxiii.  22;  xxxvii.  i;  and  as  □ 
all  these  places  it  denotes  an  inward  impulse  ex- 
cited by  God,  so  there  is  no  reason  why  here  it 
should  be  understood  of  a  wonderful  accession  of 
natural  bodily  strength,  which  enabled  him,  as  the 
older  interpreters  thought,  to  run  in  advauc6  if 
the  royal  chariot,  as  it  required  the  swiftest  course 
(J.  Lange,  Calmet,  and  others).  Over  and  above 
the  ordinary  use  of  the  form  of  expression,  what 
makes  against  it  is,  that  it  does  not  stand  before 
]'T1 ,  but  before  Dil""l ;  but  for  the  girding  of  the 

loins  no  extraordinary  strength  was  requisite. 
The  prophet  concluded,  from  a  higher  divine  im- 
pulse, to  accompany  Ahab,  and  made  himself 
Feady.  The  object  and  motive  was  neither  to 
bring  the  king  unharmed  to  his  residence  (S. 
Schmidt),  nor  "  to  furnish  him  a  proof  of  his  hu- 
mility "  (Keil).  or  "to  serve  him  in  this  fashion  as 
a  courier"  (Berleb.  Bib.);  rather  he  went  before 
him  "as  his  warning  conscience"  (Sartorius),  as 
"a  living  tablet,  reminding  him  of  all  the  great 
things  which  the  God  of  Israel  had  done  by  his 
prophets "  (Krummacher).  There  "  was  reason 
for  supposing  that  he  (Ahab)  would  cast  off  the 
yoke  of  his  scandalous  wife,  and  give  himself 
thenceforth  wholly  to  Jehovah.  The  prophet 
wished  to  stand  by  his  side,  counselling  and  help- 
ing him  in  his  resolution,  and  to  miss  no  oppor- 
tunity when  the  king,  left  to  himself,  might  be- 
come a  victim  to  the  corrupting  influence  of  Je- 
zebel "  (Von  Gerlach).  The  servant  whom  Elijah 
had  with  him  on  Carmel  (ver.  43),  and  whom,  on 
the  flight  from  Jezreel  into  the  wilderness,  he  left 
at  Beersheba  (chap.  xix.  3),  must  have  been  with 
him  on  the  road  from  Carmel  to  Jezreel ;  so  much 
the  less  can  we  suppose  that  a  miracle  cairied 
the  prophet  thither. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  day  on  Carmel  was  the  central-point  and 
climax  in  the  public  career  of  the  prophet  Elijah. 
If  his  peculiar  calling  and  his  place  in  the  histrrj 


20S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


of  redemption  were,  essentially,  to  restore  the 
broken  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and  to  lead  Israel 
back  again  from  idolatry  to  the  recognition  of 
Jehovah  (see  Hist,  and  Ethic,  on  chap,  xvii.),  it 
was  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  decisive 
action  in  the  matter ;  and  for  this  no  moment  was 
more  appropriate  than  after  Ahab  as  well  as  the 
whole  people  had  become  bowed  down  and  humi- 
liated in  consequence  of  the  famine  of  several 
years,  which  the  Baal-priests  were  not  able  to 
remedy.  This  decision  took  place  on  Carmel ;  and 
in  the  most  solemn  way,  before  king  and  people. 
It  was  a  day  of  judgment,  and  of  the  most  splendid 
triumph  over  the  Baal-worship,  which  received  a 
blow  from  which  it  never  again  recovered.  On 
this  account,  too,  this  day  has  great  meaning  for  the 
entire  Old  Testament  history,  and  marks  an  epoch 
in  the  divine  economy  of  redemption.  A  just  com- 
prehension of  all  the  particulars  narrated  can  be 
gained  only  from  this  stand-point,  which  must  be 
kept  steadily  in  sight. 

2.  The  decision  whether  Baal  or  Jehovah  be  the 
true  God  was  not  brought  about  in  the  way  of  in- 
doctrination, or  by  a  warning  and  threatening  dis- 
course; it  is  connected  rather  with  an  actual  de- 
claration of  Jehovah's,  prayed  for  from  him.  This 
mode  of  decision  was  not  chosen  accidentally  or 
arbitrarily,  but  was  founded  in  the  nature  of  the 
Old  Testament  economy,  and  corresponded  with 
the  special  relations  there  prevailing.  The  Old 
Testament  religion  recognizes  Him  only  as  the 
true,  living  God,  who  declares  and  reveals  himself 
as  such.  The  gods  of  the  heathen,  who  serve  the 
creature  instead  of  the  Creator  (Rom.  i.  25),  are  de- 
ified nature-forces  and  world-powers.  Over  against 
these,  the  God  who  can  create  as  He  wills,  who 
has  made  heaven  and  earth  and  all  that  therein  is, 
reveals  and  declares  Himself  thereby,  in  that  He 
proclaims  His  absolute  power  over  all  created 
things,  and  his  infinite  exaltation  above  nature 
and  the  world.  Such  declarations  (authentications) 
are,  in  Scripture  language,  "  wonders."  Jehovah 
as  the  only  true  and  living  God  is  hence  so  often 
designated  as  the  God  "  who  alone  doeth  wonders  " 
(?s.  lxxii.  18;  lxxvii.  15;  lxxxvi.  10;  xcviii.  1; 
cxxxvi.  4) ;  He  is  not  bound  up  in  the  laws  and 
forces  of  nature,  but  is  absolutely  independent  of 
it,  both  as  its  Creator  and  also  its  sovereign.  By 
the  "wonder"  it  is  that  He  stands  above  all  the 
gods  of  the  heathen,  which,  over  against  Him,  are 
but  deified  nature-powers,  absolutely  without 
(personal)  power,  and  can  do  no  "  wonders." 
The  conception  of  the  self-declaring  and  of  the  re- 
velation of  God  is  connected,  in  the  God-con- 
sciousness of  the  Israelites,  with  the  conception 
of  the  wonder,  and  every  extraordinary  declara- 
tion is  accompanied,  more  or  less,  by  wonders;  as 
the  choice  to  be  a  peculiar  people,  the  exodus 
from  Egypt,  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai,  which 
were  prized  as  tangible  witnesses  of  the  true, 
living  God,  and  were  placed  beside  the  creation. 
A^  now  the  decision  was  to  be  made  upon  Carmel, 
whether  Jehovah  or  Baal  (i.e.  deified  human 
nature-force)  were  the  true  living  God,  so  here 
there  was  a  self-declaration  of  Jehovah  as  of  the 
God  who  is  lifted  up  above  the  world  and  all 
that  is  in  it,  i.  e.,  who  doeth  wonders.  It  was  a 
nature-wonder  which  brought  the  people  (especi- 
ally Israel,  inclined  to  nature-life,  see  above)  to 
the  confession:  Jehovah,  He  is  the  God  !  and  as 
hmt    the    matter   involved   was    a  devot'on   and 


prayer,  this  wonder  was  connected  with  saci.fice, 
the  palpable  expression  and  centre  of  all  prayer. 
It  is  well  worth  our  while  to  notice  the  difference 
between  the  Israelitish  God-consciousness  and 
that  of  the  modern  deistic  or  rationalistic.  The 
latter  knows  nothing  of  "  the  wonder  "  and  pro 
nounces  it  absolutely  impossible.  To  it,  the  just 
true  God  is  He  who  doeth  no  wonders,  i.  e.,  who  ia 
bound  up  with  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  the  world, 
and,  consequently,  cannot  declare  and  reveal  him- 
self in  his  absolute  being  above  the  world,  and  ia 
His  creative  omnipotence.  According  to  the 
Israelitish  conception  of  God,  such  a  God  is  not 
the  living,  but  a  dead,  powerless  god,  because  he 
is  not  lifted  absolutely  above  the  world.  That  God 
works  wonders,  and  through  them  announces  and 
reveals  Himself,  does  not  rest  upon  a  false,  low 
notion  of  the  divine  being,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
presupposes  the  loftiest  conception  of  God. 

3.  The  prophet  Elijah  appears,  in  the  present 
portion  of  his  history,  both  at  the  acme  of  his 
activity  as  the  restorer  of  the  broken  covenant, 
and  also  in  his  whole  personal  grandeur  as  the 
peculiar  and  true  hero  amongst  the  prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament.  AH  that  he  said  and  did 
gives  evidence  of  a  courage  and  strength  of  faith 
which  is  scarcely  paralleled  in  the  entire  history 
of  the  divine  economy.  To  the  call :  Go  show  thj 
self  to  Ahab,  he  is  obedient,  without  questioning 
and  objections  about  the  consequences,  being 
assured  that  not  a  hair  can  fall  from  his  head 
without  the  will  of  God.  While  Obadiah  himself, 
who  still  retained  the  favor  of  the  king,  trembled 
before  his  wrath,  and  was  afraid  of  his  life,  Elijah 
goes  fearlessly  to  meet  his  angry,  powerful  foe, 
who  had  already  sought  for  him  everywhere  in 
vain,  and  who  had  permitted  the  murder  of  so 
many  prophets ;  and  when  Ahab  meets  him  in  a 
stern  and  threatening  way,  he  is  not  terrified,  he 
does  not  bow  down,  but  declares  boldly  to  his 
face :  Thou  art  the  cause  of  all  the  misery  of 
Israel.  Alone,  and  without  any  human  protection, 
he  went  to  Carmel  to  meet  all  Israel  and  the  450 
Baal-priests,  his  bitterest  enemies.  He  does  not 
flatter  the  people,  but  puts  to  their  conscience  the 
cutting  question,  How  long  halt  ye  upon  both 
sides?  and  with  the  army  of  priests  he  undertakes 
to  do  battle  alone.  He  ridicules  their  idols  and 
their  whole  conduct.  The  only  weapon  he  employs 
in  the  contest  is  prayer ;  before  the  vast  assem- 
blage he  calls  upon  his  Lord  and  God,  as  humbly 
so  equally  confidently.  He  is  assured  of  ar 
answer.  After  the  decision  from  on  high  is  ob 
tained,  and  all  the  people  returned  to  the  God  of 
their  fathers,  he  hands  over,  resolutely,  the  propa- 
gators of  the  idolatry  to  judgment,  and  his  heavy 
task  is  done.  Then  first  he  beseeches  Jehovah, 
in  the  solitude,  that  He  will  be  gracious  again  to 
the  repentant  people,  and  will  relieve  them  from 
their  distress.  When  the  longed-for  rain  cornea 
on,  he  advises  the  departure  of  the  king,  and  in 
joyful  hope  of  further  fruits  of  this  fought-for 
victory,  refreshed  and  quickened,  he  runs  before 
him  to  the  residence  in  Jezreel,  where  Jezebel  the 
murderess  of  the  prophets  was  sojourning.  Inde- 
pendent now  as  Elijah  appears  in  everything, 
there  are  analogies  with  the  history  of  him  to 
whom,  as  the  founder  of  the  covenant,  its  restorer 
naturally  points.  Like  Elijah,  Moses  also  dwell 
for  a  long  time  amongst  strangers,  and  in  retire- 
ment receives  the  call:   Go  hence,  I  will  send  the* 


CHAPTER  XVIII.   1-46. 


2W 


lo  Pharaoh,  ic.  (Exod  iii.  11);  he  concludes  the 
covenant  before  and  with  the  people  collected  at 
Mount  Sinai ;  he  builds  an  altar  with  twelve  stones 
and  offers  there  a  sacrifice ;  the  whole  people, 
with  one  voice,  answer  him:  All  the  words  which 
Jehovah  hath  spoken  will  we  do,  &c.  (Exod.  xxiv. 
3  sq.) ;  as  by  the  erection  of  the  golden  calf  the 
covenant  was  broken,  he  caused  the  Levites,  who 
had  polluted  themselves  by  the  worship  of  the  calf, 
to  be  punished ;  but  then  he  earnestly  beseeches 
Jehovah  to  turn  away  the  punishment  from  the 
people,  and  again  to  be  gracious  unto  them  (Exod. 
xxxii.). 

4.  That  Elijah  ridiculed  the  calling  upon  Baal 
might  seem  unworthy  of  a  prophet  and  man  of 
God,  from  whom  rather  sympathy  with  error 
might  be  expected.  But  this  ridicule  did  not  pro- 
ceed at  all  from  a  frivolous  sentiment ;  it  was 
rather  the  expression  of  the  gravest  religious  reso- 
luteness and  of  the  profoundest  earnestness. 
Over  against  the  one  God,  to  whom  only  true  beiug 
appertains  (n\T),  all  other  gods  are  not,  to  all 
of  whom,  in  common,  the  conception  of  nothing- 
ness belongs,  and  who  are  to  be  designated  with 
Tarious  expressions  as  not  being,  cf.  Dp'PX ,  Lev. 

xix.  4  ;  xxvi.  4 ;    J\S  ,  )1S  ,  Is.  xli.  24,  29  ;    |on  , 

Deut.  xxxii.  21 ;  Jer.  ii.  5;  viii.  19,  &c.  The  most 
resolute  contempt  and  rejection  of  idolatry  is  thus 
expressed,  which  consists  in  this,  viz.,  that  man 
makes  what  is  nothing,  the  not-existing,  his  highest 
and  best — his  God.  If  now  it  be  the  calling  and 
task  of  the  prophets  and  men  of  God  to  do  battle 
with  idolatry,  and  to  represent  it  in  its  thorough 
perverseness  and  blameworthiness,  it  is  quite 
proper  to  hold  it  up  to  contempt ;  this  is 
-done  by  ridicule,  which,  when  reasons  and 
proof's  are  unavailing,  is  the  most  effective  in- 
strument. The  prophets  have  a  divine  right  of 
ridicule  of  idolatry,  which  they  often  employ  (cf. 
Isa.  xL  17  sq.  ;  xli.  7;  xliv.  8-22;  xlvi.  5-U; 
Jer.  x.  7  sq.)  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  said  by 
the  holy  God  Himself  that  he  mocks  and  ridicules 
the  ungodly  (Ps.  ii.  4;  xxxvii.  13;  lix.  9).  As, 
in  the  time  of  Ahab,  idolatry  was  so  strong  and 
powerful  that  it  threatened  to  overwhelm  the 
worship  of  the  true  God,  so  in  the  moment  when 
a  choice  was  to  be  made  between  Baal  and  Jeho- 
vah, the  opportunity  was  at  hand  to  make  by  ridi- 
cule the  worship  of  idols  contemptible.  Kruni- 
macher  remarks  very  appositely  upon  this: 
"  What  a  free,  undaunted  courage  does  it  presup- 
pose, what  inward  repose  and  elevation,  what  an 
assured  confidence  of  the  genuineness  and  truth  of 
his  cause,  and  what  a  firm  certainty  that  he  will 
win, — that  at  his  momentous  appearance  upon 
Mount  Carmel  Elijah  can  employ  ridicule  1" 

5.  The  slaughter  o'  the  priests  of  Baal  is  in  many 
ways  adduced  as  a  serious  objection  against  the 
prophet,  and  is  characterized  as  "fanatical  hard- 
ness and  cruelty"  (Winer,  R-W.-B.  I.  s.  318). 
But  it  appears  otherwise  if  instead  of  taking  the 
stand-poiut  of  the  New  Testament  or  of  modern 
humauitarianism,  we  occupy  that  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  of  the  prophet.  The  first  and  supremest 
command  of  the  Israelitish  covenant  declares  :  I 
am  Jehovah,  thy  God ;  thou  shalt  have  none  other 
gods  before  me:  upon  it  rest  the  choice  and  the 
separation  from  all  peoples,  the  independent  ex- 
istence of  the  nation ;  with  it  stands  and  falls  its 
world-historical  destiny.      The  actual  rejection  of 

14 


this  command  carried  with  it  perse  exclusion  front 
the  peculiar  and  covenant  people,  and  was  hence 
punished  with  death  (Exod.  xxii.  19;  Deut.  xiii 
5-18  ;  xvii.  2-5).  But  idolatry  had  never  been  so 
rampant  in  Israel  as  under  Ahab.  It  was  not 
merely  tolerated,  but  had  become  the  State-religion, 
and  threatened  to  overwhelm  the  adoration  of  the 
one  true  God,  and  so  at  the  same  time  to  destroy 
the  covenant,  and  to  take  from  Israel  its  character 
as  the  chosen,  peculiar  people.  Elijah  was  called 
to  restore  the  broken  covenant,  and  to  put  an  end 
to  idolatry.  Through  the  extraordinary,  wonder- 
ful assistance  of  God,  he  had  in  fierce  battle 
achieved  this  result — that  the  people  turned  again 
to  Jehovah  their  God.  To  make  this  permanent,  it 
was  necessary  that  an  effectual  bar  should  be 
placed  against  any  further  activity  of  the  foreign 
supporters  and  representatives  of  the  idolatry. 
Now,  if  ever,  the  attestation  of  Jehovah  ought  not 
to  be  fruitless ;  satisfaction  should  be  made  to  the 
law,  and  execution  take  place.  The  restoration  of 
the  covenant,  without  the  slaughter  of  the  Baal- 
priests,  was  but  half  accomplished.  A3  every 
aTroKardoTaGic  is  in  its  nature  more  or  less  a  npioic 
(Mai.  iv.  5  sq.),  so  also  was  the  day  upon  Carmel 
a  day  of  judgment.  Elijah  there  stood,  not  as  a  pri- 
vate person,  nor  as  a  leader  of  a  popular  party, 
but  as  the  second  Moses,  as  an  executor  of  the 
theocratic  law.  The  objection  about  hardness  and 
fanaticism  falls  not  upon  him,  but  upon  the  law, 
the  consequences  of  which  he  executed ;  and  he  who 
blames  him  must  object  to  the  whole  Mosaic  insti- 
tution as  hard  and  fanatical.  When  even  he  who 
was  gentle  and  lowly  of  heart  says:  "But  those 
mine  enemies  which  would  not  that  I  should  reign 
over  them,  bring  them  hither,  and  slay  them  be- 
fore me"  (Luke  xix.  27),  certainly  still  less  can  it 
be  concluded  from  the  slaughter  of  the  Baal-priests 
that  Elijah  was  a  crueL  blood-thirsty  man,  espe- 
cially when  proofs  to  the  contrary  are  at  hand 
(chap.  xvii.  9-24).  According  to  these,  we  must 
rather  think  "  how  hard,  how  terribly  hard  this 
procedure  must  have  been  to  a  man  like  Elijah; 
how  powerfully  it  must  have  gone  ....  against 
his  whole  natural  feeling  "  (Menken).  When  Kno- 
bel  (as  above  s.  77)  maintains  that  Elijah  returned 
to  Israel  "  chiefly  to  revenge  the  murder  of  the 
prophets  by  the  slaughter  of  the  Baal-and-Astarte- 
priests,"  this  is  a  gross  slander  upon  the  prophet, 
whom  not  thoughts  of  murder  and  of  revenge,  but 
the  calling  of  his  God,  whose  behests  he  fulfilled  in 
spite  of  the  attending  danger,  carried  to  Carmel. 
It  is  quite  beside  the  mark  to  explain  Elijah's  con- 
duct by  the  "retaliation-right"  (Michaelis,  Dereser, 
and  others) ;  for  that  Jezebel  had  murdered  the 
prophets  at  the  instigation  of  the  Baal-priests 
is  an  unproved  assumption.  For  the  rest,  Keil 
very  properly  observes  :  "  From  this  act  of  Elijah's 
to  desire  to  deduce  the  right  of  the  bloody  perse- 
cution of  heretics  would  be  not  only  an  entire 
misunderstanding  of  the  difference  between  hea- 
then idolaters  and  Christian  heretics,  but  also  a 
morally  wrong  confounding  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, evangelical  stand-point  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, legal  (stand-point),  which  Christ,  in  Luke 
ix.  55.  blamed  in  his  own  disciples."  Very  truly 
does  the  Berleburg.  Bib.  say,  on  this  place,  "  The 
economy  of  the  new  covenant  does  not  allow  one 
to  imitate  Elijah." 

6.  King  Ahab,  in  the  present  section,  appears 
indeed  as  saying  and  doingbut  little,  yet  even  here 


210 


THE  FIRST  LOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  traits  of  his  character,  which  become  more 
prominent  in  the  subsequent  course  of  the  history, 
can  be  plainly  recognized.  The  period  of  the 
famine,  which  Elijah  had  announced  to  him  as  a 
retributive  judgment,  did  not  bring  him  to  reflec- 
tion, still  less  to  repentance.  He  is  very  anxious 
about  his  cattle,  but  not  about  his  people.  He  does 
not  himself  murder  the  prophets,  but  nevertheless 
he  permits  his  wife.  He  looks  about  for  Elijah, 
in  the  foolish  fancy  that  he,  and  not  God,  is  the 
cause  of  the  famine,  and  with  the  preposterous 
intention  of  forcing  him  to  make  it  rain.  His 
highest  official,  Obadiah,  to  whom  he  intrusted 
his  horses  and  mules,  cannot  trust  him,  and  is 
compelled  to  fear  that  he  may  be  unrighteously 
put  to  death  by  him.  He  carries  himself  with  all 
severity  and  anger  towards  the  prophet,  who  freely 
encounters  him,  as  one  who  lias  the  power  of  life 
and  death :  nevertheless  he  does  not  venture  to 
seize  him :  he  rather  bows  before  him,  as  the  lat- 
ter encounters  him  reprovingly  with  his  brave 
message,  and  he  does  at  once  what  Elijah  bids 
him.  He  was  present  upon  Carrnel  with  the  great 
assemblage  ;  but  that  which  there  made  an  affect- 
ing impression  upon  the  whole  people  left  him,  as 
it  seems,  unmoved.  He  witnessed  the  slaughter 
of  his  Baal  priests,  and  in  no  way  hindered  it.  We 
hear  nothing  of  him  than  that  "he  went  up  from 
the  brook  Kishon  to  eat  and  drink."  In  respect 
of  the  news  that  rain  was  coming,  what  to  him 
was  most  important,  he  started  thereupon  to  get 
back  to  his  summer  residence,  and  to  tell  every- 
thing that  had  happened  to  his  wife.  When  we 
sum  up  all  these  things,  it  is  evident  that  he  was  a 
man  utterly  without  character,  at  one  time  high- 
flying and  impetuous,  at  another  feeble  and  with- 
out power  of  resistance,  occupied  only  with  what 
is  on  the  surface,  without  moral  pose,  without 
receptivity  for  religious  and  higher  things. 

7.  Obadiah's  meeting  with  Elijah,  which  forms 
the  introduction  to  the  day  upon  Carmel,  affords 
us  a  glimpse  into  the  condition  of  things  which 
preceded  this  day.  The  thing  which  especially 
strikes  us  is  not  so  much  the  great  general 
misery  in  consequence  of  the  long  drought,  as  the 
fact  rather,  that  in  this  time  when  the  prophets 
were  driven  from  the  court,  and  their  extermina- 
tion was  a  settled  matter,  at  the  court  itself  there 
should  have  been  a  man  of  the  highest  official 
station  who  feared  Jehovah  so  much  that  he 
ventured  upon  the  risk  of  hiding  not  less  than  a 
hundred  prophets,  and  of  supplying  them  with  food 
during  the  general  distress.  The  Calw.  Bibel  says 
justly :  "  We  are  at  a  loss  at  which  to  wonder  the 
most — the  God-fearing  man  at  the  court,  or  at  the 
king  who  tolerated  him  there ;"  and  Menken  ob- 
serves very  truly  :  "  So  we  see  in  this  history  that 
even  in  the  most  corrupt  times  there  are  some 
who  are  free  from  the  general  corruption,  who  re- 
main in  their  faith  in  God,  in  their  fear  of  God, 
oftentimes  even  where  one  would  least  of  all  sus- 
pect and  look  for  such."  It  is  characteristic  of  the 
biblical  history  that  it  brings  out  such  cases  into 
prominence,  as  in  this  instance,  with  unmistakable 
design.  But  it  must  no  less  strike  one,  that  in  that 
period  of  the  deepest  religious  apostasy  and  of 
bloody  persecution,  the  number  of  the  prophets 
was  so  grrMt  that  Obadiah  alone  secured  the  safety 
and  cared  fur  a  hundred  of  them.  A  long  time 
gone,  under  Jeroboam,  the  ordained  supporters  of 
the  Jehovah-worship.  1 1 1 •  ■  priests  and  levites,  hai 


departed  from  all  Israel  into  Judah (2  Chre.L  it.  13), 
and  now  that,  under  Ahab,  a  formal  idolatry  had 
spread,  the  number  of  the  prophets  so  incretsed 
that  Jezebel  was  not  able  to  destroy  them  all;  they 
were  a  silent,  hidden  power,  which  defied  all  the 
outward  power  of  tb»  idol-serving  fanaticism. 
Who  does  not  recognize  therein  the  wonderful 
ways  of  the  fidelity  of  God  in  the  guiding  of  His 
people  ? 

8.   The    recent    criticism   explains    the  statement 
now    in   hand,  chiefly  on   account  of  the  miracle 
narrated   in   it,  as   fabulous  or  poetical.     "  As  a 
matter  of  fact,"  says  Thenius  (on  ver.  46),  "it  can 
be  seen  that,  in  answer  to   Elijah's   prayer,  rain 
followed  after  a  long  drought,  and  that  the  people, 
convinced  afresh  on  this  occasion  of  the  power 
of  Jehovah,    prepared  a  great  blood-bath   from 
amongst   the    idolatrous   priests."     According  to 
Bunsen   (Bibelwerk  V.  2.   s.    539),    it  appertained 
to  Elijah  "to  go  through  the  land  as  the  prophet 
of  the  Eternal,  and  as  the  awakening  leader  of  the 
people.  ...     In   the  presence  of  the   Baal-party 
he  inspires  and  rouses  the  people,  who,  before  the 
living  spirit  which  is  in  man,  recognize  the  noth- 
ingness and  the  moral  baseness  of  the  masquer- 
ade and  legerdemain,  and  of  the  incomprehensible 
solemnities  of  the  Baal-worship,  and  at  the  word  of 
Elijah  the  450  Baal-priests  were  slaughtered  at  the 
brook  Kishon."     Ewald  (as  above  s.  539j  finds  in 
the  delineation  of  the  contest  "of  the  great  cham- 
pion of  Jehovah  and  of  the  Baal-prophets,  as  it 
were  the  antithesis  of  the  beginning  of  the  one  and 
of  the  other   religion,    represented   not    without 
earnest  raillery.  They  who  in  their  mind  and  work 
do  not  sacrifice  to  the  true  God,  build  the  altar,  and 
prepare  the  sacrifice,  and  call  loudly  upon  their 
god  and   worry  themselves,  the  more   vain   their 
trouble,  so  much  the  more  vehement  and  senseless 
it  becomes,  as  if  somehow  by  dint  of  importunity 
the  thing  desired  might  come  from  heaven:    but 
nevertheless  with  all  their   trouble  and  with  all 
their   excitement   they  cannot  bring  down    from 
Heaven  the  fire  which  they  seek,  and  which  alone 
would  repay  them  for  their  trouble.     Elijah  other- 
wi  se."     The  whole  is  also  a  prophetico-poetic  gar- 
ment of  a  general  religious  truth.     Eisenlohr,  as 
usual,  agrees  with  this  (as  above,  s.  177).     He  ex- 
plains the  consuming  of  the  sacrifice  by  fire  from 
heaven   as    "  a   beautiful  image  for   the  burning 
eternal  power  which  is  imparted  from  above  to 
every  truth,  over  against  the  death  which  every- 
thing fabricated,  false,  lying,  bears  within  itself;" 
that  "no  voice,  nor  answer,  nor  heed  was  there," 
is  "the  inimitable  delineation  of  the  emptiness  and 
vanity  of  heathenism,    which   is   overladen  with 
every  species  of  superstition,  and  is  vanquished  by 
self-torture."     In  respect  of  these  various  views 
we  refer  generally  to  our  preliminary  remarks  upon 
el  iap.  xvii. ;  in  details,  however,  the  following  comes 
into  the  account.     The  whole  account,  excepting 
ver.    38,    contains  nothing   which    can   witli  any 
reason   be  objected  to  as  unhistorical.     This  por- 
tion of  the  history  of  Elijah  especially  bears  com- 
pletely the  impress  of  the  usual  simple    Hebrew 
way  of  historical  composition,  and  it  would   not 
occur  to  any  one  to  regard  it  as  legendary  did   it 
not  contain  ver.  38.     The  miracle  here  narrated  is 
not  such  as  could  be  wanting   without  detriment 
to  the  whole,  and  to  the  further  historical  develop- 
ment about  the  famine,  as  may  be  maintained  in 
respect  of  this  or  o     he  other  miracle ;   it  is  not 


CHAPTER  XYI1I.  1-46. 


211 


subordinate,  is  not  a  side-matter,  but  the  chief 
criticism  acknowledges  that  at  the  day  on  Carmel 
"there  was  a  noticeable  sudden  decision,"  and 
that  "  a  mighty  upturning  of  things  took 
place"  (Eiseulohr) ;  that  '■  here  a  victory  was  won 
which,  at  that  day,  could  not  have  been  greater 
and  more  beneficial  "  (Ewald).  But  this  victory 
was  the  immediate  effect  of  that  miracle,  and  as 
generally  the  day  upon  Carmel  forms  the  central 
point  and  climax  of  Elijah's  activity,  so  again  this 
day  culminates  in  "  the  tire  of  Jehovah.''  which 
consumed  the  sacrifice.  All  that  is  said  before  and 
after  refers  to  this  fact ;  he  who  lowers  it  takes 
the  heart  out  of  the  body  of  the  whole  narration, 
and  then  nothing  is  left  but  either  to  interpret  it 
as  a  fraud,  or  to  look  upon  the  whole  as  fiction. 
The  view  that  Elijah  "alone  and  by  nothing  but 
the  power  of  his  spirit  and  word  achieved  the 
prodigious  wonder  of  a  complete  alteration  of  the 
then  posture  of  the  ten  tribes"  (Ewald)  is  most 
emphatically  contradicted  by  the  da}-  upon  Carmel. 
He  was  the  prophet  of  action  and  not  of  speech. 
Even  here,  at  the  climax  of  his  career,  we  hear  only 
a  few  isolated  expressions  from  him,  but  no  pro- 
phetic discourse  with  which  he  sought  to  indoc- 
trinate or  to  convince  the  people.  To  his  im- 
pressive question:  How  long  halt  ye,  <fec,  the 
people  kept  silence ;  they  accepted  his  proposition 
to  obtain  an  attestation  of  Jehovah,  but  only  after 
it  took  place  did  they  fall  down  and  cry,  over- 
powered: Jehovah,  He  is  God  I  Where  in  the 
whole  history  of  Elijah  is  there  even  a  trace  that 
he  "  inspired  and  roused  "  (Bunsen)  the  people  by 
public  discourse  ;  and  how  does  it  happen  that  this 
people  of  the  ten  tribes,  who  were  inclined  to 
nature-worship,  and  since  the  days  of  Jeroboam 
were  addicted  to  the  worship  of  images  and  even 
of  idols,  and  were  dull  about  spiritual  impres- 
sions, should  have  at  once  "  recognized  the 
nothingness  and  perverseness  of  the  Baal-worship 
in  presence  of  the  living  spirit  which  is  in  men 
(sic)"  ?  An  extraordinary  act  alone  could  have  pro- 
duced within  this  people  such  a  sudden,  complete 
revolution  that  they  actually  put  to  death  the 
priests  of  Baal,  who  were  of  the  highest  considera- 
tion and  under  the  royal  protection.  To  regard 
this  latter  as  an  effect  of  the  rain  which  had  come 
(Theuius)  is  an  arbitrary  perversion  of  the 
historical  order.  Not  the  rain,  but  the  return  of 
Israel  to  their  God  was  the  mark  of  the  day  upon 
Carmel :  the  punishment  of  the  drought  ought  and 
could  cease  only  when  this  end  was  reached. 
The  rain  followed  not  before  the  "  blood-bath."  but 
after  it;  before  it  rained,  something  extraordinary 
must  have  happened  to  rouse  wrath  in  such  a 
degree  against  the  Baal-priests.  But  supposing 
that  the  rain  produced  the  abrupt  overturn,  this 
itself,  "  had  it  followed  Elijah's  prayer,"  would 
have  been  essentially  a  miracle ;  we  must  then 
grant  that  Elijah  appears,  "  when  he  announces 
now  a  drought  and  then  rain,  and  both  happen  con- 
formably with  his  prediction,  as  a  nature-expert  " 
(Knobel  I.  s.  56) :  but  in  this  event  his  prayer  for 
rain  would  have  been  an  intentional  deception  of 
the  people  and  jugglery.  The  interpretation, 
firally,  according  to  which  the  transaction  upon 
Carmel  is  a  poetic  image  of  the  consuming  power  of 
divine  truth  (Eisenlohr)  is  a  desperate  reversion  to 
the  old  allegorical  method  of  interpretation,  with 
which  one  can  make  what  one  pleases  out  of 
history. 


HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-16.  Krcmmacher  :  Elijah  and  Obadiah. 
What  brought  Elijah  from  Zarephath ;  what  hap 
peued  at  this  time  at  the  court  at  Samaria;  how 
Elijah  and  Obadiah  met. — Bender  :  The  return  of 
Elijah  to  his  native  country  :  (1)  the  efi'ect  of 
divine  chastisement  upon  Israel;  (2)  the  expedi- 
tion of  Ahab ;  (3)  the  meeting  of  the  prophet  with 
Obadiah. 

Ver.  1.  Krummacher:  Let  no  one  imagine 
that  God  will  lead  us  into  any  darkness  whatso- 
ever, without  also  arranging  how  we  may  be  sup- 
ported through  it.  He  never  calls  upon  us  to 
walk  through  darkness,  unless  He  Himself  is  our 
staff  and  stay,  and  thick  and  heavy  as  may  be  the 
night  with  which  we  are  veiled,  He  leaves  us  here 
and  there  always  a  gleam  of  light,  which  tells  us 
there  will  be  a  dawn  to  the  darkness.  Hence  the 
promise:  I  will  send  rain. — Ver.  2.  Starke  :  God's 
commandments  must  be  obeyed,  and  neither  death 
nor  danger  avoided.  Where  there  is  living  faith, 
there  is  also  obedience  and  courage  (Ps.  xci.  1—4). 
The  great  famine  in  Samaria,  both  bodily  and  spiri- 
tual. Daily  bread  was  scarce,  for  the  land  was  dried 
up  and  unfruitful,  but  the  bread  of  life,  the  wrord  of 
God,  was  likewise  scarce,  for  the  nation  itself  was 
dried  up,  and  those  who  would  have  sown  the  seed 
of  the  Word  were  persecuted,  and  compelled  to- 
silence  and  concealment.  Woe  to  that  country 
and  people  upon  whom  famine,  bodily  and  spiritual, 
both  fall,  and  who  yet  are  driven  by  neither  to 
repentance  and  conversion. — Ver.  3.  The  God-fear- 
ing Obadiah.  (1)  The  time  in  which  he  lived.  (A 
time  of  apostasy,  of  godlessness,  and  a  licentious 
idol  worship.  In  times  when  unbelief  has  grown 
universal,  and  is  the  prevailing  fashion,  and  repre- 
sents enlightenment  and  civilization,  not  to  swim 
with  the  stream,  but  greatly  to  fear  the  Lord,  is  as 
noble  and  great  as  it  is  rare ;  we  may  then  say 
with  truth:  "Although  all  shall  be  offended,  yet 
will  not  I,"  Ac.)  (2)  The  place.  (At  the  court  of 
an  Ahab  and  a  Jezebel  ;  not  in  a  remote,  lonely 
place,  but  in  the  midst  of  the  world,  where  he  saw 
and  heard  nothing  good,  surrounded  by  godless 
men,  and  exposed  to  every  temptation  to  godless- 
ness, frivolity,  rioting,  and  licentiousness.  To  be 
pious  with  the  pious,  to  maintain  one's  faith  in  the 
midst  of  the  faithful,  is  not  difficult ;  but  in  the 
midst  of  the  world,  to  preserve  one's  self  unspot- 
ted from  it,  to  keep  a  pure  heart,  and  have  God 
before  our  eyes  and  in  our  hearts,  wherever  the 
Lord  places  us,  this  is  indeed  greatly  to  fear  the 
Lord.)  (3)  The  position  which  he  took.  (He  tilled 
one  of  the  highest  offices,  was  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  men  of  the  kingdom,  to  whom  noth- 
ing was  wanting  which  pertains  to  an  indolent, 
careless  life.  The  noble  and  powerful  often  fancy 
that  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  fitted  only  for  common 
people,  for  the  poor,  the  lowly,  and  the  oppressed. 
But  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons ;  the  first  in 
this  world  are  often  last  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
He  is  indeed  exalted  who,  whilst  he  stands  upon 
the  highest  pinnacle  of  earthly  fame,  can  still 
say  with  St.  Paul :  lam  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  for,  &c.)  Ahab  calls  Obadiah,  because  he 
reposes  singular  confidence  in  him. — Menken  : 
The  world  may  hate  and  persecute,  nay,  even  scorn 
a  God-fearing  man  for  his  fear  of  God,  but  must  feel 
and  acknowledge  at  heart,  if  not  with  the  mouth, 
that  this  very  man  is  truer,  more  reliable,  an  i  bettei 


212 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


in  every  way  than  the  whole  throng  of  idle,  wanton, 
though  perhaps  witty  and  polished  people,  whose 
law  is  their  own  pleasure,  and  whose  God  is  their 
belly  or  their  pride.  More  than  one  godless  king 
can  be  found,  who  desires  God-tearing  men  for  his 
ministers  and  counsellors;  and  many  a  prince, 
although  himself  no  Christian,  holds  in  his  service 
a  Christian,  and  esteems  him  more  highly  than  the 
others  who  are  not  Christian ;  and  many  more 
than  one  unbelieving  and  godless  king,  who  re- 
spects piety  and  the  fear  of  God  in  the  person  of 
one  of  his  generals. — Krcmmacher:  It  is  not  an 
unusual  occurrence  that  in  times  when  there  is  no 
use  for  triflers,  suddenly  the  hated  sect  are  brought 
to  power,  and  the  fierce  opponents  of  the  Gospel 
are  rejoiced  to  have  in  their  midst  a  few  Galile- 
ans whom  they  can  take  into  their  secret  counsels. 
The  Lord  often  has  His  true  disciples  and  worship- 
pers where  they  are  least  expected,  in  courts 
and  high  offices,  and  they,  their  innermost  hearts 
untouched,  serve  him  with  soft  and  quiet  spirits, 
without  any  display  of  piety  or  without  excite- 
ment.— Starke:  When  good  and  conscientious 
men  occupy  exalted  worldly  or  ghostly  positions, 
so  long  as  conscience  does  not  require  them  to  lay 
down  their  offices  they  must  retain  them,  for 
although  they  may  not  be  able  to  do  much  good, 
they  still  may  have  many  opportunities  to  prevent 
evil. 

Ver.  4.  Starke:  Good  and  righteous  servants 
of  God  can  have  no  bitterer  or  fiercer  enemies 
than  ungodly,  licentious  women  (Matt.  xiv.  8; 
Mark  vi.  24).  Kritumacher:  In  our  Ahab  and 
Jezebel  days  there  is  no  lack  of  those  who  are 
persecuted  on  account  of  their  creed,  and  exposed 
to  misery,  liany  a  preacher  must  leave  his  pul- 
pit, many  a  professor  his  chair,  nay,  many  an 
handicraft's  man  his  bench  and  workshop,  because 
he  is  a  Christian.  But  it  was  Obadiah's  to  make 
an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance !  The  proof  of 
a  godly  fear:  (a)  Especially  by  works  (Jas.  ii. 
14-17);  religious  words  and  feelings  without  deeds 
are  leaves  without  fruit;  by  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them  (Matt.  vii.  16-21).  (6)  Especially  by 
works  of  self-denying  love,  which  are  done  in  se- 
cret (Gal.  v.  6) ;  by  such  works  the  Lord  recog- 
nizes His  own  (John  xiii.  34;  1  John  iv.  8). — Men- 
ken: Obadiah  could  not  do  this  without  great 
risk,  and  the  exposure  of  his  own  person  to  great 
danger  ....  neither,  in  that  extreme  famine, 
could  he  maintain  those  hundred  prophets  without 

great  expenditure  of  his  own  substance 

Obadiah  not  only  preserved  the  lives  of  a  hun- 
dred iunocent  men, — he  saved  a  hundred  wor- 
shippers  of  Jehovah,  and,  yet  more,  a  hundred 
men  who,  immediately  the  persecution  was  over, 
and  the  Baal-worship  in  Israel  destroyed,  became 
useful  to  the  ignorant  and  bewildered  people  as 
their  instructors  in  doctrine.  Thus  although  Oba- 
diah, as  the  lieutenant  of  the  royal  watch,  could 
not  do  much  tor  the  kingdom  of  God  by  direct  tes- 
timony and  instruction,  yet  indirectly  he  did  a 
great  deal,  by  preserving  these  witnesses  for  the 
truth,  at  the  peril  of  his  own  life  and  at  the  ex- 
pense of  his  own  fortune.  Thus  many  people,  by 
the  maintenance  of  the  witne=ses  for  evangelical 
truth,  by  the  spread  and  promotion  of  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures,  etc.,  do  much  for  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  truth,  which  otherwise  they  could 
not  do,  and  lay  up  a  reward  in  heaven,  if  they  do 
lot  Blum  disgrace,  nor  prefer  earthly  and  perish 


able  gains  to  the  celestial  and  imperishable.-  ■ 
Vers.  5-6.  Starke:  Godless  masters  often  cart 
more  for  their  horses  and  hounds  than  for  their 
subjects. — Krummacheu:  Pitiful  man  I  Anxioul 
care  for  the  life  of  his  horses,  and  the  maintenance 
of  his  stables ;  this  is  all  that  the  three  and  a  half 
years  of  chastisement  of  the  Almighty  had  called 
forth  in  his  soul  ....  How  often  does  one  think 
of  a  person— "Now  he  will  be  quite  a  different 
person  "  .  .  .  .  and  then,  behold !  where  one  hopes 
to  find  at  length  thoughts  of  God  and  eternity, 
there  are  only  thoughts  of  horses  and  mules;  and 
in  place  of  holy  emotions,  instead  of  aspirations, 
prayers,  and  retiections  upon  the  great  and  eternal 
interests .  of  life— you  find  a  thick  swarm  of  pitiful 
cares  and  considerations  which  hover  about  the 
soul,  and  hover  with  it  into  an  awful  eternity. 
Ahab  and  Obadiah  both  journey  on  together 
through  the  land,  but  each  goes  his  own  way 
alone;  a  picture  of  their  life-journey:  Ahab  walks 
in  the  broad,  Obadiah  in  the  narrow  path;  the  lat- 
ter alone  leads  to  the  green  pastures  and  still 
waters  which  refresh  the  soul  (Ps.  xxiii.  2-3). 

Vers.  7-15.  Obadiah's  meeting  Elijah,  a  divine 
leading  for  the  strengthening  of  the  one  and  the 
proving  of  the  other.  That  Elijah,  journeying  on 
his  weary  way,  should  meet  the  very  man  who 
was  the  only  true  friend  of  the  prophet  at  the 
court,  was  no  more  accidental  than  that  Obadiah, 
going  forth  in  search  of  provender  for  the  cattle, 
should  find  the  man  who  was  to  test  severely  his 
faith  and  his  fear  of  God. — Ver.  7.  Starke.  Oba- 
diah, himself  a  distinguished  man,  addressed  the 
prophet  as  "  My  Lord,"  not  out  of  mere  courtli- 
ness and  courtier-like  flattery,  but  in  evidence  of 
his  reverence  for  the  man  of  God,  and  to  show 
that  he  did  not  regard  scornfully  a  servant  of  God, 
as  was  the  custom  with  all  the  courtiers  of  that 
day. — He  who  greatly  fears  the  Lord  will  likewise 
honor  and  reverence  those  whose  vocation  it  is 
to  make  known  the  Lord's  name,  and  preach  his 
word  (Luke  x.  16;  John  xiii.  20).— Vers.  8,  9.  The 
courage  of  Elijah,  and  the  fear  of  man  shown  by 
Obadiah.  Even  those  who  fear  the  Lord,  and  walk 
by  faith,  are  sometimes  in  the  hour  of  peril  over- 
come by  an  agony  of  fear,  which  bows  them  down 
as  reeds  before  a  whirlwind.  Peter,  who  first 
threatened  with  the  sword,  became  suddenly  ter- 
ror-stricken before  a  damsel.  It  is  good  for  us  to 
recognize  our  human  weakness,  for  this  knowledge 
preserves  us  from  over-security,  and  leads  us  to 
pray:  Lord,  strengthen  our  faith. — Calw.  Bibel: 
Exclaim  not  against  Obadiah,  for  in  a  hundred 
ways  thou  thyself  showest  no  more  faith.  Eager 
and  busy  as  the  world  is  to  pursue  and  get  rid 
of  the  true  servants  of  God,  who  oppose  their  sins 
and  unbelief,  they  move  neither  hand  nor  foot 
to  seek  and  find  them  when  in  want. — Ver.  12. 
If  we  permit  ourselves  to  be  overcome  by  the  feat 
and  dread  of  man,  our  senses  become  so  bewil- 
dered, and  our  imagination  so  excited,  that  we 
lose,  in  our  self-made  fancies,  a  clear  view  of  our 
own  position. — Ver.  13.  Menken:  This  is  not  the 
speech  of  an  idle  self-glorification,  anxious  to  dis- 
play the  good  which  has  been  done,  to  the  first 
person  approaching— it  is  the  speech  of  truth  and 
honest  uprightness,  the  speech  of  a  noble  spirit 
greatly  excited,  which  would  not  thus  speak  of 
itself  except  in  a  moment  of  great  excitement 
An  appeal  to  any  special  pious  or  good  actions 
done   by  a  man,  when   mad-'  not    ui    pbarisaica 


CHAPTER  XVIII.   1-46. 


2]  J 


lell'-justification  nor  self-commendation,  but  con- 
icieutlously,  and  in  self-defence,  with  all  humility, 
is  unobjectionable.  As  St.  Paul  says  (1  Cor.  xv. 
10;  2  Cor.  xi.  21  sq.),  From  my  youth  up. — Menk- 
en: So  much  the  more  easily  then  when  a  man, 
could  he  greatly  fear  the  Lord,  and  preserve  his  fear 
of  God  under  great  temptations.  What  is  done  and 
practised  in  youth  will  remain  the  rule  of  old  age ; 
8o  it  is  with  the  fear  of  God,  which  is  the  beginning 
of  wisdom.  Therefore  Prov.  vi.  20-23 ;  cf.  2  Tim. 
iii.  15. — Vers.  15-16.  A  strong  resolute  word  of 
faith  exercises  power  over  the  heart:  it  strength- 
ens the  weak,  supports  the  tottering,  encourages 
the  fearful,  and  tranquillizes  the  anxious-minded. 
— Starke:  A  teacher  must  not  shrink  from  his  of- 
fice through  fear  or  cowardice,  let  tyrants  look 
grim  as  they  may  (1  Pet.  iii.  14). 

Vers.  17-20.  Krummacher:  Salvation  out  of 
the  very  lion's  jaws,  (a)  The  wonderful  protec- 
tion experienced  by  Elijah:  (6)  the  unjust  accusa- 
tion made  against  him;  (c)  the  bold  reply  which 
he  made ;  (d)  the  quiet  power  which  he  exercised. 
— Bender:  Elijah's  second  encounter  with  Ahab ; 
(a)  the  king's  reproach  to  the  prophet;  (b)  the 
prophet's  reply  to  the  king. — Wirth  :  The  meet- 
ing with  Ahab.  (a)  The  grievance  and  the  count- 
er-grievance ;  (6)  the  commanding  prophet  and  the 
submissive  king. — Ver.  17.  Ahab  sees  Elijah,  but 
he,  the  fierce,  powerful  king,  sword  in  hand,  and 
■■>  great  retinue,  dares  not  to  lay  hand  upon  the 
solitary,  unarmed  man  standing  before  him,  for 
The  heart  of  the  king  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord  is 
as  a  water-brook,  he  directs  it  whither  he  will 
(Prov.  xxi.  1). — Krummacher:  The  Lord  our  God 
knous  how  to  shut  the  lions'  mouths,  and  the 
same  God  who  surrounded  Elijah  with  a  fiery  wall, 
who  saved  Moses  from  the  clutches  of  Pharaoh, 
and  Daniel  out  of  the  lions'  den,  still  lives,  and 
will  unto  this  day  be  a  wall  of  defence  to  his 
children  and  disciples. — If  those,  Ac. — Menken  : 
Men  are  disposed  to  seek  the  cause  of  their  misery 
everywhere  in  the  wide  world  rather  than  in  them- 
selves, where  only  it  exists  ;  but  it  is  the  peculiar 
error  of  the  world  to  lay  the  charge  of  all  the  mis- 
fortune and  turmoil  of  the  world  upon  the  most 

innocent  and  best  of  men Thou  art  he  that 

troubleth  Israel,  says  Ahab  to  Elijah.  We  find 
this  man  a  stirrer  up  of  the  people,  was  the  lying 
accusation  of  the  enemies  of  Jesus ;  and  under  the 
name,  "  enemies  of  the  human  race,"  were  the  first 
Christians  hunted,  persecuted,  and  slain. — Starke  : 
When  the  godless  work  mischief,  the  good  and 
pious  must  often  bear  the  blame  (Amos  vii.  10; 
Acts  xvi.  20). — J.  Lanoe  :  Here  one  sees  the  evil 
fashion,  of  the  children  of  this  world,  and  of  great 
men  seduced  by  false  prophets  in  their  judgments 
of  the  righteous  servants  of  God.  For,  though 
the  latter  move  on  quietly,  orderly,  and  circum- 
spectly, yet  ever  making  appeal  to  the  conscience 
by  their  testimony  to  the  truth,  whilst  the  former 
are  ever  disquieted,  though  they  will  yield  no  place 
to  the  truth,  but  rage  against  it  and  prejudice 
the  higher  powers  against  it, — still  the  latter 
are  the  disturbers  of  Israel,  even  as  the  lamb 
troubled  the  water  for  the  wolf.—  Calw.  Bib.:  In 
our  days  true  believers  are  thus  unjustly  accused 
as  Rationalists,  Philosophers,  and  Freethinkers. 
They  are  called  Jesuits,  corrupters  of  the  people, 
obscurantists,  and  blockheads,  &c. — Ver.  18.  J. 
Lange:  This  is  the  true  way  for  a  righteous  ser- 
vant of  God — let  him,  according  to  the  necessities 


of  the  case  and  the  given  circums.ances,  testify 
boldly  to  the  pure  truth,  without  fear  of  man,  but 
preserving  all  due  reverence  for  authority    Such  a 
testimony,  given  with  due   boldness,   produces  a 
much  greater   impression  than  if  the  truth  is  spo- 
ken   with   half  covert  and  mumbled  utterance. — 
Krcmmacher:     This    Elijah-speech     is     seldom 
now  heard  in  the  world.     The  earth  is  rilled  with 
flatterers  and  sinners,  who  not  only  gather  round 
the  palaces  of  the  great,  but  crowd  into  smaller 
societies,  and  even  creep  into  the  pulpits  of  God's 
church Much  greater  things  should  we  be- 
hold  if  this  noble  and  wholesome — "Thou,  thou 
art  the  man  of  death  I  "  were  not  entirely  dead  and 
silent.     Elijah  is  thus  a  pattern  for  all  repentance- 
preachers,   in  that  he  admonishes  every  one,  be- 
wailing misfortune  and  ruin,  of  his  especial  ruin 
(Jer.  iii.  39),  and   does  not  generalize  over  com- 
mon sinfulness  :  even  so  did  Nathan  with  David, 
John  with  Herod,  and  Paul  with  Felix. — Menken: 
Elijah  is   silent   concerning  all  the  other  sins   of 
Ahab   and  his  family — concerning    their  luxury, 
their  pride,  their  injustice,  and  the  whoredom  and 
witchcraft   of   Jezebel — (2    Kings    ix.    22).      He 
pointed  out  to  the  king  the  chief  cause,  the  real 
source  from  which  had  sprung  all  the  other  evils 
to  himself  and  his  family,   and   wherein  lay  the 
misdoing  which  had  brought  such  a  plague  upon 
Israel.     The  misdoing   was  this— that   they  had 
forsaken  the  word  of  God,  the  commandments,  the 
testimony,  and  the  claims  of  the  Lord,   and  had 
followed  after  Baal No  truth  is  more  gen- 
eral or  surer  amongst  men  than  this — that  con- 
tempt of  God  and  his  word  brings  with  it  inevita- 
ble ruin  and  decay — and  the  history  of  the  human 
race  sets  forth  and  teaches  no  truth  more  clearly 
or  more  fearfully. — Vers.   19,   20.  Kuummacher: 
How  the  scene  changes:  The  slave  has  become 
king,  the  king  a  slave  ;  the  subject  commands,  the 
monarch  obeys.     Here  is  the  concealed  sceptre  in 
the  hands  of  the  children  of  the  spiritual  kingdom, 
and   the  skill  and  marvellous  power  which  they 
exercise  upon  earth. — Here  it  says:  A  single  little 
word   can   confound   him.      We   can   do  nothing 
against  the  truth,  &c.  (2  Cor.  xiii.  8).     If  it  strike 
the  conscience  of  a  man,  he  cannot  resist  its  pricks. 
— Whilst  the  prophets  are  compelled  to  hide  in 
holes,  and  live  on  bread  and  water,  the  priests  of 
Baal  sit  at  the  king's  table  and  live  in  pomp  and 
pleasure.     So    likewise   has   it   come   to    pass  in 
Christendom.    But  much  better  is  it  to  suffer  afflic- 
tion with  the  people  of  God   than   to  enjoy  the 
pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season  (Heb.  xi.  25). 

Vers.  21-45.  Elijah  upon  Mount  Carmel.  (a) 
How  he  rebuked  the  divided  belief  of  his  nation, 
and  exhorted  them  to  a  decision ;  (b)  how  he 
brought  to  shame  tire  idol-worship,  and  exalted  the 
name  of  the  Lord;  (c)  how  he  executed  a  heavy 
judgment  upon  the  lying  prophets,  and  besought 
from  God  merciful  showers  upon  the  earth. — Vers. 
21-39.  The  decision  upon  Carmel.  (a)  The  division 
among  the  people  (vers.  21-24) ;  (b)  the  strife  of  the 
four  hundred  and  fifty  priests  of  Baal  (vers.  25-29) ; 
(c)  the  victory  of  the  one  man  (vers.  30-39). — Vers. 
21-24.  Krummaoiier:  Elijah  and  the  people  upon 
Carmel.  (a)  How  rebuked;  (b)  how  he  scorned;  (c) 
how  he  believed.  Wirth  :  The  assembling  of  the 
people  upon  Carmel.  (a)  One  against  four  hundred 
and  fifty;  (b)  the  questioning  of  the  people;  (c)  the 
reasonable  proposal. — Ver.  21.  The  halting  be 
tween  two  opinions.    (o)What  this  means  (Matt 


214 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


vi  24) ;  (b)  what  are  its  results  (Jas.  iv.  4 ;  Rev.  iii. 
16);  cf.  the  hymn  book  of  Lehr.  :  "Was  hinket 
ihr.  betrogene  Seelen,"  Ac. — Menkes  :  How  hateful 
in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  is  this  "  halting,"  this  neu- 
tral state  amongst  Christians,  where  one  does  not 
yield  himself  up  to  God  and  his  cause  with  his 
whole  soul,  does  not  renounce  unholy  sin,  the 
world,  the  spirit,  and  service  of  his  age.  How  com- 
pletely God  demands  an  undivided  heart  we  plainly 
see  where  he  says  to  the  lukewarm,  "  Because  thou 
art  indifferent,  leanest  to  both  sides,  and  dost  not 
espouse  one  side,  since  I  will  not  overlook  every- 
thing, therefore  I  will  spue  thee  out  of  my  mouth." 
— Krummacher:  Indifference  is  the  order  of  the 
day,  now  in  this,  now  in  that  form.  Whole-heart- 
edness  and  determination  in  the  divine  life  a  rare 
pearl.  Woe  to  thee,  thou  wavering  generation,  who 
thinkest  to  share  thy  love  and  service  between  God 
and  the  world,  and  dost  lean  now  to  this,  now  to 
that  side.  The  Lord  says :  He  who  is  not  with  me 
is  against  me  (Luke  xi.  23).  In  our  day,  the  man 
who  holds  entirely  with  Him  is  esteemed  partial ;  it 
is  thought  to  be  might  and  wisdom  for  a  man  to 
hover  between  two  parties,  and  leave  it  undecided 
whether  He  be  mere  man,  like  ourselves,  or  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God.  So  that,  finally,  halting  be- 
tween two  opinions  is  more  esteemed  than  true 
Christianity.  "  But  uncertainty  and  lukewarmness 
are  the  most  pitiable  of  all  weaknesses.  Lord, 
teach  us  to  tread  in  safer  paths  1  Grant  us  now 
a  new,  firm  spirit "  (Wirth).  For  it  is  a  precious 
thing  to  have  the  heart  fixed  (Heb.  xiii.  9).  There 
is  no  reconciliation  between  belief  and  unbelief; 
to  strive  to  unite  both  is  a  vain  effort  (2  Cor.  vi. 
14,  15).  The  people  answers  him  not. — Calw. 
Bib.  :  Thus  on  many  a  Sunday  does  many  a  con- 
gregation remain  dumb  before  their  preachers. 
The  people  were  silent  and  confounded,  since 
they  could  not  answer,  especially  to  Joshua  (Jos. 
xxiv.  15);  but  to-day,  if  one  cries  out  to  the  mul- 
titude: How  long,  &c,  they  say,  What  will  the 
priest?  We  are  good  Christians. — Ver.  22.  Menken: 
In  cases  where  faith  and  reverence  for  God  are 
concerned,  no  human  authority  er  majority  of  voices 
avails ;  one  opposed  to  a  thousand  may  be  right,  and 
each  individual  has  the  right  to  acknowledge  and 
maintain  his  belief  in  the  truth  against  thousands. 
He  is  lost  whose  convictions  depend  upon  the 
authority  of  man  or  of  numbers.  He  who  in- 
trenches himself  firmly  in  his  faith  in  God  and  his 
holy  word,  must  also  resolve  to  stand  alone  and 
be  forsaken  by  the  world,  for  faith  is  not  a  thing 
for  everybody. — Vers.  23,  24.  He  alone  is  the  true 
and  living  God  who  shows  himself  in  divine  acts. 
A  religion  which  means  nothing  of  the  saving, 
beneficent  works  of  God  cannot  proceed  from  the 
living  God.  Christianity  is  therefore  the  true  reli- 
gion, because  it  publishes  the  great  work  of  God 
in  Christ  (Ps.  cxi.  6).  Not  words  and  doctrine  only, 
but  divine  works  are  the  fouudation  of  our  salva- 
tion. 

Vers.  25-40.  Krummacher:  The  fire  upon 
Carmel.  We  see  the  god  of  the  blind,  mad 
world,  and  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of 
Jacob. 

Vers.  25-30.  Wirth  :  The  assembling  of  the  peo- 
ple upon  Carmel.  (a)  The  vain  crying  aloud  to  Baal ; 
(b)  the  rebuilding  of  the  fallen  altar  of  the  Lord. — 
Vers.  25-39.  The  twofold  sacrifice  upon  Carmel.  (a) 
The  sacrifice  of  the  priests  of  Baal ;  (6)  the  sacrifice 
of  the  prophet. — Vers.  25-29.  The  service  of  Baal. 


(u)  The  resistance ;  (b)  the  manner  and  way  of  th« 
worship.  The  generation  of  to-day  thinks  itself  ele- 
vated far  above  the  Baal  worship,  which  in  its  na- 
ture was  deification  of  nature  and  the  world,  and 
yet,  how  often  does  it  happen  that  it  serves  the  crea- 
ture rather  than  the  Creator  (Rom.  i.  25).  Men  no 
longer  make  gods  out  of  wood  and  stone,  but  con- 
struct them  out  of  their  own  thoughts,  and  worship 
their  own  ideas.  The  world  wishes  to  hear  nothing 
of  the  God  who  is  holy,  and  ready  to  sanctify  the 
sinful  heart  of  man  ;  who  is  just,  and  metes  to  each 
man  the  measure  which  he  deserves;  who  does 
not  suffer  himself  to  be  scorned,  but  rebukes  and 
chastises  of  such  a  God  as  He  has  revealed  him- 
self in  His  word  the  world  makes  nothing,  and 
will  only  hear  of  a  God  who  never  rebukes  or  pun- 
ishes, who  is  no  avenging  judge,  who  works  no 
miracles,  can  hear  no  prayers.  Elijah,  could  he 
return  to  earth,  would  scorn  such  a  divinity  no 
less  than  he  did  the  idol  Baal. — Ver.  25.  For  you, 
the  many.  Thus,  even  as  Elijah  allowed  them 
the  numbers  which  gave  them  due  rank  in  man's 
eyes,  so  it  becomes  most  evident  to  us  that  num- 
bers have  no  influence  in  God's  sight  (Luke  xii. 
32). — Ver.  27.  Righteous  and  unrighteous  scorn 
{vide  Histor.  4). — Ver.  28,  Richter:  At  the  present 
day,  Indians  and  other  heathens  fancy  they  can 
win  the  favor  of  their  deities  by  fire-tortures  and 
self-torments.  Satan  demands  far  greater  and 
heavier  sacrifices  than  God.  It  is  an  heathenish 
error  to  believe  that  we  can  appeal  to  God,  or  be- 
come reconciled  to  or  merit  aught  from  Him  by  any 
outward  corporeal  act,  and  yet  this  error  prevail? 
in  manifold  forms  in  Christendom.  Some  think  tc 
make  themselves  pleasing  to  God  and  to  obtain 
His  mercy  by  the  repetition  of  many  prayers: 
others,  through  fasts  and  painful  pilgrimages ;  yet 
others  by  self-inflicted  tortures  and  penances.  The 
sacrifice  pleasing  unto  God  is  (Ps.  li.  19)  within, 
and  the  gift  of  the  heart.  All  outer  works  are  dead 
and  useless.  Those  who  belong  to  Christ  have 
crucified  the  flesh,  with  the  lusts  and  affections 
thereof  (Gal.  v.  24  ;  Is.  v.  3-5).— Vers.  26,  29.  Well 
for  us  if  we  recognize  that  God  who  sleeps  not 
nor  is  silent  when  we  call  upon  Him  de  profundis, 
who  hears  the  voice  of  our  weeping,  and  listens 
when  we  open  our  hearts  unto  Him.  Greatly  can 
we  rejoice  in  Him,  that  if  we  pray  according  to  His 
will  He  will  hear  us  (1  John.  v.  14;  cf.  Ps  cxxi.  4, 
cxxx.  1). 

Vers.  30-40.  Elijah  at  the  height  of  his 
mission,  (a)  He  rebuilds  the  broken  altar.  (6)  He 
calls  on  the  Lord,  who  hears  him.  (c)  He  exe- 
cutes judgment  upon  the  idolatrous  priests. — Ver. 
30.  Wirth  :  The  altar  of  the  Lord  is  ruined  hi 
many  places,  in  many  houses,  in  many  hearts,  ye 
servants  of  the  Lord,  ye  directors  of  congrega- 
tions, ye  teachers  of  youth,  ye  fathers  and  moth- 
ers.— Ver.  31  sq.  Even  as  the  altar  which  Elijah 
built  out  of  the  twelve  stones  reminded  the  nation 
of  its  old  covenant,  that  its  twelve  tribes  together 
should  frame  a  building  unto  God,  so  every  church 
edifice  should  remind  us  that  we, — built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  Jesua 
Christ  being  the  corner-stone, — fitly  framed  togeth- 
er, should  grow  into  an  holy  temple,  an  habitation 
of  God,  through  the  spirit  (Eph.  ii.  20  sq.). — "''er. 
34  Every  shadow  of  delusion  or  deception  m  ist 
be  removed  from  anything  done  for  the  honor  of 
God  and  the  glorification  of  His  name. — Vers.  36- 
39.  The  prayer  of  Elijah     (o)  Its  purport.     (H« 


CHAPTER  XVIII.  1-46. 


218 


prays  for  the  glorification  of  God  an'l  the  conver- 
sion of  the  hearts  of  the  people.)  (6)  Its  granting. 
(The  Lord  declares  Himself,  and  all  the  people  ac- 
knowledge Him.)— Ver.  36.  The  Go  1  of  the  old 
covenant  is  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of 
Jacob,  because  to  them  was  the  promise  given. 
The  God  of  the  new  covenant,  upon  whom  we  as 
Christians  should  call,  is  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  because  in  Him  are  all  the  fulfilled 
promises,  the  yea  and  amen  (2  Cor.  i.  20). — Ver. 
37.  All  knowledge  and  recognition  of  God  is  in- 
separable from  the  conversion  of  the  heart  to  Him. 
That  is  the  aim  of  every  testimony  and  revelation 
of  God,  and  for  that  every  true  servant  of  God 
should  daily  pray  in  behalf  of  those  intrusted  to 
his  care. — Elijah,  unlike  the  priests  of  Baal,  who 
called  upon  their  god  the  whole  day,  used  few- 
words,  yet  was  he  heard,  because  in  those  few 
words  he  expressed  infinite  meaning,  and  his 
prayer  came  from  the  depths  of  a  believing,  un- 
questioning soul. — Vers.  38,  39.  The  fire  of  the 
Lord  upon  Mount  Carmel.  (a)  Its  significance. 
(b)  Its  efficacy.  What  is  the  miracle  of  that  fire 
which  devoured  the  burnt-offering  and  compelled 
the  whole  people  to  cry  out:  "The  Lord  He  is 
God,"  in  comparison  with  the  miracle  that  God  has 
sent  His  son  into  the  world  to  kindle  the  greatest 
fire  which  has  ever  burnt  in  the  world  ;  compared 
with  the  miracle  that  the  Word  has  become  flesh 
and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  have  seen  His  glory, 
even  the  glory  of  the  only-begotten  Son,  full  of 
grace  and  truth  ?  In  Bethlehem  and  upon  Gol- 
gotha the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  infinitely  higher  in 
its  manifestation  than  upon  Carmel,  wherefore 
should  all  tongues  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  the 
Lord  is  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. — Ver.  39. 
The  joyful  recognition :  The  Lord  He  is  God  1 
(a)  What  is  herewith  recognized,  and  what  prom- 
'sed  (</.  the  livmn  :  "  Sei  Lob  und  Eltr,"  &c,  vers. 
8  and  9).— Ver.  40.  See  Hist,  and  Critical.  5.  The 
sentence  upon  the  idol-priests  was  a  terrible  but 
necessary  one,  which  should  serve  us.  not  as  an 
example,  but  as  a  warning ;  for  although,  under 
the  new  covenant,  superstition  and  unbelief,  idol- 
worship  and  apostasy  are  not  chastised  with  fire 
and  sword  (Luke  ix.  54-56),  yet  there  is  not  want- 
ing a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and 
fiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  adversa- 
ries (Heb.  x.  27-31).  Those  who  tread  under  foot 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb  will  shrink  from  the  wrath 
of  the  Lamb  (Rev.  vi.  16). 

Vers.  41-46.  Krummacher:  The  prayer  upon 
Carmel.  (a)  The  preparation  for  it ;  (6)  the  prayer 
itself;  (c)  the  granting  of  it. — Wirth:  The  end  of 
the  divine  chastisement  upon  Israel,  (a)  How  the 
prophet  announces  this  end ;  (6)  how  he  suppli- 
cates ;  (c)  how  the  Lord  sends  merciful  rain. — The 
prayer  of  the  righteous  availeth  much  when  it  is 
earnest  (James  v.  16).  Elijah  a  just  man,  his 
prayer  an  earnest  one,  and  therefore  effectual 
(Ps.  cxlv.  18,  19).  The  king  and  the  prophet  on 
the  evening  of  the  day  upon  Carmel.  (a)  Ahab 
goes  up  to  eat  and  to  drink,  Elijah  goes  up  to  pray 
in  solitude ;  (i)  Ahab  rode  on  to  Jezreel,  Elijah 
Buffers  him  not  to  go  alone,  but  runs  thither  before 
him. — Vers.  41,  42.  Krummacher:  Wretched  man  I 
He  was  no  more  touched  by  the  great,  heart- 
searching  events  of  the  day,  than  if  he  had  wit- 
nessed an  interesting  but  very  long  play,  after 
which  refreshment  is  most  welcome  and  food  tastes 
well.     Tet  where  are  not  such  Ahab-souls  to  be 


found?     Ah!  woe  to  you  who  permit  the  strong- 
est evidences,  the  most  powerful  appeals  to  con- 
science, and  the  most  touching  works  of  God  to 
glide  before  you  like  a  magic-lantern  before  your 
eyes :  you  enjoy  it  a  little,  perhaps,  but  you  bring 
home  from  the  churches  and  meetings  nothing  ex- 
cept some  complaints  over  the  long  divine  servic< 
or  some  matter  for  lively  conversation  or  sell'-sai 
islied  criticism,  and  a  good  appetite  for  the  mea 
which  now  follows,  and  a  gay  iooking-forward  to 
the  pleasures  and  enjoyment  which  the  evening  of 
the  Sabbath-day  will  bring  you. — Who  has  great- 
er cause  than  Ahab  to  seek  solitude,  fall  down  upon 
his  knees  and  say,  God  be  merciful  to  me  and  blot 
out  my  sins  after  Thy  great  mercy  (Ps.li.  3),  make 
us  glad  according  to  the  days  wherein  Thou  hast, 
&c.  (Ps.  xc.  15)?      But  of  all  this  not  a  word.     The 
rain  alone    was  of  importance  to   him,   not    thf 
Lord  and  His  mercy.    How  many  like-minded  ones 
in  our  day  I — Ver.  42.  Menken:  From  the  earn 
estness,  the  ardor,  the  abasement  of  Elijah,  we  may 
take  pattern  from  his  attitudes  in  this  prayer. ... 
The  outward  posture,  indeed,  is  of  the  least  con- 
sequence ;  bowing  of  the  knee  and  outward  mien, 
as  well  as  even  the  words  of  the  mouth,  avail  lit- 
tle, be  they  great  or  small,  stately  or  humble  ;  but 
the  man  who  prays  without  reverence  to  God,  and 
is  ashamed  to  let  it  be  seen  in  his  life,  is  no  bet- 
ter than  the  heathen  who  knows  not  God.... In 
comparison  with  this  the  prayers  of  most  men  are 
cold,  dead — without  reverence  and  devotion,  with- 
out earnestness  and  longing.     Many  a  one  thinks 
that  when  his  eyes  are  heavy  with  sleep,  when  he 
has  neither  strength  nor  mind  for  any  one  earthly 
pursuit  or  affair,  when  everything  besides  is  done, 
then  he  is  in  a  fitting  mood  for  prayer ;  that  when 
he  lies   drowsily  on  his  bed,  in  the   morning  or 
evening,  that    he    is  fit    to   commune    with    the 
Divine  Majesty  I     That  18  entitled  "prayer"!     Is 
it   a  wonder  that  men  should  pray   thus   for  an 
half  century  without  having   any  experience   in 
real  prayer,  and,  in  the  end,  knowing  nothing  of 
what  prayer  is  and  should  be  ? — Ver.  43.  Menk- 
en :  Oftentimes  we  look  in  vain  and  yet  see  noth- 
ing of  the  comfort  of  the  Lord,  nothing  of  His  help 
and  salvation  ;  He  leaves  us  awhile  prostrated  in 
dust  and  misery,  does  not  at  once,  hearkening  and 
comforting,  raise  us  up,  but  appears  as  if  the  voice 
of  our  crying  reached  Him  not.       But  if  we  do  not 
lose  our  confidence  in  Him,  if  we  redouble  our 
prayers  and  entreaties,  He  will  not    "let  us  be 
ashamed  "  (Is.  xlix.  23).  He  will  comfort,  help,  and 
hearken   to    us   at    His   own,    the   best     time. — 
Starke  :  A  man  must  not  weary  of  prayer,  even 
though  it  appears  to  him  useless.     (Jer.  xviii.  1 ; 
Col.  iv.  2;   Eph.  vi.  1.) — Krummacher:   The  dear 
God  is  not  always  at  hand  when  we  come  before 
Him  with  our  prayers,  but  generally  allows  us  to 
stand   awhile  at  the  door,   so  that  it  frequently 
seems  as  if  "there  was  nothing  there."     Then  do 
we  begin  to  reflect,  and  become  conscious  that  we 
properly  have  a  right  to  ask   nothing,  but  that,  if 
anything  be  granted,  it  is  in  sheer  mercy. — Vers. 
44,  45.  Starke:  All  the  merciful  works  of  God 
seem  small  and  unimportant  in  the  beginning,  but 
thence  the}'  are  seen  to  be  nobler  and  greater  in 
the  end. — Krummacher.  Let  the  man  rejoice  who 
sees  even  so  much  as  a  little  cloud  of  divine  mercy 
and  grace  arising  upon  the  horizon  of  his  life! 
The  time  approaches  when  this  cloud  will  covei 
his  whole  heaven. — Calw.  Bib.  :  When  the  houi 


216 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


strikes,  help  comes  in  with  mighty  power,  and,  to 
put  thy  mistrust  to  shame,  it  must  come  unexpect- 
edly.—  The  mighty  rain  after  the  prolonged 
drought  seems  to  call  out  to  Ahab  and  to  all  t  he 
people :  Behold  the  mercy  and  the  severity  of 
God:  severity  to  those  who  have  perished,  and 
mercy  to  you  so  long  as  you  deserve  mercy,  other- 
wise thou  also  wilt  be  hewn  down  (Rom.  xi.  22). 
■ — Ver.  46.  Elijah  a  true  shepherd.  He  goes  after 
the  lost  sheep,  and  leaves  them  not  when  he  sees 


the  wolf  coming;  but  the  Lord,  who  is  neither 
weary  nor  faint,  giveth  power  and  strength  to  the 
faint  and  to  them  that  have  no  might,  so  that  no 
way  is  too  far,  no  toil  too  heavy. — Cramer:  The 
righteous  are  often  rejoiced  by  means  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  hope  for  the  conversion  of  many,  but 
are  afterwards  obliged  to  confess,  with  great 
heaviness  of  heart,  that  the  prince  of  this  world  is 
powerful  with  many  men,  holds  them  in  captivity, 
and  finally  plunges  them  into  ruin. 


C. — Elijah  in  the  Wilderness  and  upon  Horeh  ;  his  Successor. 
Chap.  XIX.  1-21. 


1  And  Ahab  told  Jezebel  all  that  Elijah  had  done,  and  withal  '  how  he  had 

2  slain  all  the  prophets  with  the  sword.  Then  Jezebel  sent  a  messenger  unto 
Elijah,  saying,  So  let  the  gods  *  do  to  me,3  and  more  also,  if*  I  make  not  thy  life 

3  as  the  life  of  one  of  them  by  to-morrow  about  this  time.  And  when  he  saw  6 
that,  he  arose,  and  went  for  his  life,  and  came  to  Beer-sheba,  which  belomjeth  to 

4  Judah,  and  left  his  servant  there.  But  he  himself  went  a  day's  journey  into  the 
wilderness,  and  came  and  sat  down  under  a  juniper-tree  [broom  plant]  :  and  he 
requested  for  himself  that  he  might  die ;   and  said,  It  is  enough ;   now,  O  Lord 

5  [Jehovah],  take  away  my  life;  for  I  am  not  better  than  my  fathers.  And  as 
he   lay  and  slept  under  a  juniper-tree  [broom  plant],  behold,  then   an  angel " 

6  touched  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Arise  and  eat.  And  he  looked,  and  behold,' 
there  teas  a  cake  baken  on  the  coals,  and  a  cruse  of  water  at  his  head.     And  he 

7  did  eat  and  drink,  and  laid  him  down  again.  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
[Jehovah]  came  again  the  second  time,  and  touched  him,  and  said,  Arise  and 

8  eat ;  because  the  journey  is  too  9  great  for  thee.  And  he  arose,  and  did  eat  and 
drink,  and  went  in  the  strength  of  that  meat  forty  days  and  forty  nights  unto 

9  Horeb  the  mount  of  God.  And  he  came  thither  unto  a  [the  "]  cave,  and 
lodged  10  there ;  and  behold,  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  to  him,  and 

10  he  said  unto  him,  What  doest  thou  here,  Elijah  ?  And  he  said,  I  have  been 
verv  jealous  for  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  hosts :  for  the  children  of  Israel 
have  forsaken  thy  covenant,  thrown  down  thine  altars,  and  slain  thy  prophets 

11  with  the  sword  ;  and  1,  even  I  only,  am  left;  and  they  seek  my  life,  to  take  it 
away.  And  he  said,  Go  forth,"  and  stand  upon  the  mount  before  the  Lord 
[Jehovah].  And  behold,  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  passed  by,  and  a  great  and  strong 
wind12  rent  the  mountains,  and  brake  in  pieces  the  rocks  before  the  Lord  [Jeho- 
vah] ;  but  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  wets  not  in  the  wind:  and  after  the  wind  an  earth- 

12  quake  ;  but  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  was  not  in  the  earthquake  :  and  after  the  earth- 

13  quake  a  fire;  but  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  icas  not  in  the  fire:  and  after  the  fire  a 
still  small  voice.  And  it  was  so,  when  Elijah  heard  it,  that  he  wrapped  his  face 
in  his  mantle,  and  went  out,  and  stood  in  the  entering  in  of  the  cave.  And 
behold,  there  came  a  voice  unto  him,  and  said,  What  doest  thou  here,  Elijah  ? 

14  And  he  said,  I  have  been  very  jealous  for  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  God  of  hosts : 
because  the  children  of  Israel  have  forsaken  thy  covenant,  thrown  down  thine 
altars,  and  slain  thy  prophets  with  the  sword ;    and  I,  even  I  only,  am  left ;    and 

15  they  seek  my  life,  to  take  it  away.  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  said  unto  him,  Go, 
return  on  thy  way  to  the  wilderness  of  Damascus'3:  and  when  thou  contest, 

16  anoint  Hazael  to  be  king  over  Syria:  and  Jehu  the  son  of  Nimshi  shalt  thou 
anoint  to  be  king  over  Israel :    and  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat  of  Abel-meholah 

17  shalt  thou  anoint  to  be  prophet  in  thy  room.  And  it  shalt  come  to  pass,  that  him 
thatescapeth  the  sword  of  Hazael  shall  Jehu  slay:  and  him  that  escapeth  from 

18  the  sword  of  Jehu  shall  Elisha  slay.  Yet  I  have  '*  left  me  seven  thousand  in 
Israel,  all  the  kmes  which  have  not  bowed  unto  Baal,  and  every  mouth  whiob 
hath  not  kissed  him. 


CHAPTER  XIX.  1-21. 


217 


19  So  he  departed  thence,  and  found  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat,  who  wat  plough- 
ing with  twelve  yoke  of  oxen  before  him,  and  lie  with  the  twelfth  :   and  Elijah 

20  passed  by  him,  and  cast  his  mantle  upon  him.  And  he  left  the  oxen,  and  ran 
after  Elijah,  and  said,  Let  me,  I  pray  thee,  kiss  my  father  and  my  mother,  and 
then  I  will  follow  thee.     And  he  said  unto  him,  Go  back  again:  for  what  have 

21  I  done  to  thee  ?  "  And  he  returned  back  from  him,  and  took  a  yoke  16  of  oxen, 
and  slew  them,  and  boiled  their  flesh  with  the  instruments  of  the  oxen,  and  gave 
unto  the  people,  and  they  did  eat.  Then  he  arose,  and  went  after  Elijah,  and 
ministered  unto  him. 

TEXTUAL  A>TD   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1. — [JTH  "lt'X-73  11N1  •     The  73  ,  which  creates  the  difficulty  of  this  clause,  and  which  is  represented  la 

the  withal  of  the  A.  V.,  is  omitted  in  several  MSS.,  and  passed  over  unnoticed  by  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  some  other  W. 
Its  use  is  to  be  explained  by  the  combination  of  great  fulness  with  ellipsis:  "  He  told  all  that  Elijah  had  done,  and  (he  told) 
all  how  he  had  slain,"  &c.  . 

2  Ver.  2. — [Since  the  verb  is  in  the  plural,  all  the  V  V.  here  understand  D^iiPN  *  as  the  A.  V.,  of  Jezebel's  false  gods. 
The  Sept.  makes  the  oath  of  Jezebel  still  more  emphatic  by  prefixing  to  this  clause  the  words  Ei  ait  el  'HAiov  ko.\  iyia 

I  Ver.  2. — [Many  MSS.  supply  V  ,  necessarily  Understood  and  expressed  in  the  VV.,  as  in  the  English. 

*  Ver.  2.— [On  the  use  of  '3  in  connection  with  oaths  see  Nordheimer  Heb.  Gr.  §  1091,  3,  and  cf.  Gen.  xlii.  16 
1  Sam.  xiv.  44,  Ac. 

•  Ver.  3.— [The  form  NT1  admits  either  of  the  pointing  given  by  the  Masorels:  NT1.  fut.  from  the  root  HNI  he  saw  : 

or  N1.fl .  f"t.  from  NT  he/eared.  The  latter  is  followed  by  the  Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.,  and  is  expressed  in  six  MSS.  by 
the  fuller  form  N"l,,l  •     ^s  to  which  sense  should  be  preferred  here,  see  Exeg.  Com. 

8  Ver.  o. — [the  Sept.  omits  the  word  angel  here,  supplying  its  place  by  the  indefinite  tis  ,  as  the  Vat.  Sept.  has 
omitted  the  messenger  in  ver.  2  (the  Alex.,  however,  there  has  ayyeAor) ;  but  in  ver.  9  it  in  given. 

»  Ver.  6.— [The  A.  V.  has  overlooked  the  word  l,riL"N"ip  at  his  head,  which  is  given  in  all  the  VV. 

8  Ver.  7. —  [Our  author,  in  his  translation,  avoids  the  comparative  sense,  and  sustains  this  view  in  the  Exeg.  Com. 
Others  prefer  to  retain  the  U6ual  comparative  force  of  ID  in  vj^D  in  connection  with  the  adjective  31  .     In  1  Sam.  xx.  21, 

to  which  the  author  refers,  there  is  no  adjective. 

9  Ver.  9. —  [The  article  points  doubtless  to  some  especially  known  cave. 

10  Ver.  9. — [Notwithstanding  the  remarks  in  the  Exeg.  Com.  our  author  in  his  translation  renders  ptft  (as  in  the  A. 

V.)  by  iibernachtete;  of  the  W.  the  Chald.  avoids  the  word  altogether,  the  Syr.  and  Arab,  give  the  sense  of  the  A.  V., 
the  Sept.  KaTe\v<rev  admits  of  either  sense,  and  the  Vulg.  accords  with  the  Exeg.  Com.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  Heb. 

)}5  is  unquestionably  to  pass  the  niaht,  but  it  hence  comes  in  its  secondary  sense  to  mean  simply  remain. 

II  Ver.  11.— [The  Sept.  inserts  here  the  word  avpiov.  on  the  morrow,  thus  showing  that  the  translator  meant  the 
Ko.Tc\v(rev  of  ver.  9  of  passing  the  night.  It  also  changes  the  punctuation,  putting  the  clause,  "And,  behold,  the  Lord 
passed  by1'  into  the  future  as  apart  of  the  previous  sentence,  with  a  period  following,  and  then  a  new  sentence  beginning, 
"and,  behold,  a  great  and  stormy  wind.1'  Ac.,  see  Exeg.  Com. 

12  Ver.  11. — [TheChald.  rendering  of  this  verse  is  remarkable  and  instructive,  as  bringing  out  the  ancient  Jewish  view: 
— ''and  before  him  was  an  host  of  angels  of  the  wind  rending  the  mountains  and  breaking  the  rocks  before  the  Loan,  but 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  (Shekinah)  was  not  in  the  host  of  the  angels  of  the  wind  ;  and  after  the  host  of  the  angels  of  the 
wind  was  the  host  of  the  angels  of  the  earthquake,  but  the  glory  of  the  Lord  (Shekinah)  was  not  in  the  host  of  the  angels 
of  the  earthquake;  and  after  the  host  of  the  angels  of  the  earthquake,  a  fire,  but  the  glory  of  the  Lord  (Shekinah)  was  not 
in  the  host  of  the  angels  of  fire;  and  after  the  host  of  the  angels  of  fire,  a  voice  of  [angels]  singing  in  silence. "  The  Sept. 
describes  the  voice  as  </>(jjri)  avpas  Ae^r^,  and  the  Alex.  Sept.  adds  '-and  the  Lord  was  there.'' 

19  Ver.  15. — [Our  author  translates  "the  wilderness  towards  (gen)  Damascus."  It  maybe  questioned,  however, 
whether  the  Heb.  is  not  better  represented  by  the  A.  V. 

14  Ver.  IS.— [The  Heb.  verb  Is  in  the  future  'mXC'ITl  ,  and  this  tense  is  preserved  in  all  the  VV.  except  the  Arab. 

(The  Sept.  puts  it  into  the  second  person  leaTaAeci^etO-  The  A.  V.  may  have  been  unnecessarily  influenced  by  a  regard  to 
the  Kaiiki-nov  of  Horn.  xi.  4,  where  the  tense  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  to  the  argument. 

16  Ver.  20. — [On  the  question  whether  this  clause  should  be  rendered  interrogatively,  see  the  Exes.  Com.  The  VV. 
aie  divided. 

18  Ver.  21.  — [The  Vat.  Sept.  puts  this  in  the  plural  to.  £euy>),  as  if  Elisha  had  slain  the  whole  twelve  yoke;  the  Alex. 
Sept.  preserves  the  singular. — F.  G-] 


EXEGETICAL  AND   CRITICAL. 

Vers.1-2.  Then  Jezebel  sent,  &o.  She  could 
hardly  have  done  this  without  the  knowledge  of 
her  husband,  who  was  too  weak-minded  to  prevent 
it,  and  so  drew  upon  himself  new  guilt.  Older 
commentators  held  that  Jezebel  was  so  lost  to  all 
discretion  that,  instead  of  keeping  her  purpose 
secret,  or  carrying  it  out  at  once,  she  made  it 
known  to  the  prophet,  without  considering  that  he 
might  in  tlie  mean  time  escape.  But  the  sense  of 
the  message  is  evidently  this:  "If  thou  art  still 
iere  to-morrow  at  this  time  and  hast  not  betaken 


thyself  out  of  the  kingdom,  the  same  thing  shall 
be  done  to  thee  as  thou  hast  done  to  my  priests." 
To  have  him  killed  without  further  ceremony  did 
not  seem  to  her  advisable,  for  the  impression  which 
he  had  made  on  the  people  was  still  too  fresh  in 
their  minds ;  but  she  was  determined  to  have  him 
out  of  the  way  as  soon  as  possible,  in  order  at 
least  to  prevent  all  further  influence  on  the  people 
and  the  king,  and  so,  under  cover  of  a  threat  of 
death,  she  gave  him  time  for  flight.  For  the  ex- 
pression, So  let  the  gods  do  to  me.  cf.  on  chap,  ii 
23. 

Ver.  3.  And  when  he   saw  that,  he  arose, 


ins 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Ac    The  Sept.  translates  KT1   by  mi  e^o^i??; 

the  Vulgate,  timuit  ergo ;  they  read  therefore 
NT'1,  which  Thenius  explains  as  undoubtedly  cor- 

T      — 

rect,  because  n{<"l  is  used  of  mental  vision  only 
when  a  simple  conclusion  from  outward  circum- 
stances is  referred  to.  But  this  is  exactly  the  case 
here,  as  the  Targuni  also  renders  it  by  Ntn  .  From 
the  (outward)  circumstance  of  the  message,  Elijah 
saw  clearly  how  matters  stood;  he  perceived  that 
he  could  no  longer  remain  here,  as  he  had  wished 
and  hoped,  and  that  he  could  not  carry  his  work 
of  reformation  through  to  the  end.  Since  he  did 
not  as  on  a  former  occasion  (chap,  xviii.  1)  receive 
a  divine  command  to  hazard  his  life,  i.  e.,  to  remain 
in  spite  of  the  threat,  he  arose  and  left  the  king- 
dom, as  he  had  done  once  before.    nNI  is  therefore 

used  here  just  as  in  2  Kings  v.  7  ;  if  N1>1 ,  were  the 

true  expression,  the  person  of  whom  lie  was  afraid 
would  have  to  stand  in  connection  with  it,  as  in  1 
Sam.  xviii.  12;  xxi.  13.  Moreover,  how  should  the 
man  who  had  just  been  standing  all  alone  over 
against  the  whole  people,  the  king,  and  450  priests 
of  Baal  (chap,  xviii.  22),  who  especially  appears  as 
an  unequalled  prophetic  hero  in  the  history  of  Is- 
rael, have  become  all  at  once  afraid  of  a  bad  wo- 
man ? — IC'SJ-^X   is   used  here  just  as  in  2  Kings 

vii.  7,  and  can  only  mean :  in  consideration  of  his 
soul,  i.  e.,  for  the  preservation  of  his  (threatened) 
life ;  this  meaning,  moreover,  is  demanded  by  the 
connection  with  v.  2,  and  we  can  hardly  find  ex- 
pressed here  the  thought :  "  in  order  to  care  for  his 
soul  in  the  way  indicated  in  v.  4,  i.  e.,  to  commend 
his  soul  or  his  life  in  the  loneliness  of  the  desert 
to  God  the  Lord,  as  he  should  determine  concern- 
ing him  "  (Keil).  Decidedly  incorrect  is  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Vulgate  (quocumque  eum  ferebat  volun- 
tas), which  Luther  follows:  "Whithersoever  he 
would,"  which  has  led  to  the  erroneous  conceptior, 
that  Elijah  Med  in  his  own  will  and  strength,  with- 
out awaiting  an  intimation  from  the  Lord.  Equally 
iucorrect  is  the  explanation  of  Gerlach:  without 
end  or  aim,  and  certainly  that  of  Krummacher: 
He  was  only  travelling  off  haphazard. — Beer-sheba 
lay  on  the  border  of  the  wilderness.  Since  it  be- 
longed to  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (Joshua  xix.  2),  the 
clause :  which  rrniTv  i  must  mean  that  he  betook 

T 

himself  out  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  into  the  king- 
dom of  Judah,  to  which  at  that  time  the  tribe  of 
Simeon  also  belonged. — His  servant  he  left  behind 
in  Beer-sheba,  not  perchance  through  fear  of  being 
betrayed  by  him,  nor  because  "he  expected  to 
have  no  further  need  of  him "  (Thenius),  nor  be- 
cause the  wilderness  afforded  no  sustenance,  but: 
"he  wished  now  to  be  entirely  alone,  as  men  often 
do  in  times  of  sorrow  or  discouragement ;  therefore 
he  sought  the  wilderness."  (Calw.  B.) 

Ver.  4.  But  he  himself  went  a  day's  jour- 
ney into  the  wilderness,  namely,  the  Arabian, 
through  which  the  people  had  once  been  compelled 

to  wander.     DO")  is  not  juniper-tree  (Luther),  but 

"  a  kind  of  broom  plant,  that  is  the  most  longed- 
for  and  most  welcome  bush  of  the  desert,  abund- 
ant in  beds  of  streams,  and  valleys  where  spots 
for  camping  are  selected,  and  men  sit  down  and 
sleep,  in  ordei  to  ;"  protected  against  wind  and 
vin'  (Robinson.  Palestine  I.  p.  203).     The  words: 


It  is  enough,  4c,  do  not  mean:  "I  must,  as  a 
human  being,  fall  a  victim  to  death  some  time, 
and  I  wish  to  die  now"  (Thenius),  nor:  "I  have 
already  endured  tribulations  enough  here  below  " 
(Keil),  but :  I  have  now  lived  long  enough.  This 
is  imperatively  demanded  by  the  sentence :  for  1 
am  not  better  than  my  fathers,  which  forms  the 
ground  of  his  request:  Jehovah,  take  away  my 
soul  (life).  Long  life,  old  age,  is  looked  on,  under 
the  old  covenant,  as  a  special  gift  of  God  (Ps.  lxi, 
7  ;  cii.  25 ;  Prov.  iii.  2 ;  iv.  10 ;  ix.  1 1  ;  x.  27) ;  Elijah, 
therefore,  means  to  say:  for  I  do  not  deserve  nor 
desire  to  be  distinguished  and  favored  above  my 
fathers  by  a  specially  long  life.  It  is  an  entirely 
mistaken  view  which  supposes  that  Elijah  made 
this  request  "  from  a  weak-minded  %veariness  of 
life"  (Thenius),  or  "with  a  murmuring  heart" 
(Krummacher).  In  that  case  he  would  have  de- 
served a  reproof  or  a  correction ;  but  instead  of 
this  the  Lord  sends  a  heavenly  messenger,  who 
strengthens  and  refreshes  him,  and  speaks  to  him 
only  animating,  encouraging  words.  Elijah's  whole 
life  and  labor  had  no  other  aim  than  to  bring  Is 
rael  back  to  their  God ;  to  this  end  were  directed 
all  the  toils  and  privations  to  which  he  subjected 
himself.  When  he  believed  himself  to  have  finally 
reached  this  end  on  Carmel,  suddenly  there  came 
an  incomprehensible  turn  of  events;  he  saw  him- 
self deceived  in  his  holiest  and  most  blessed  hopes, 
king  and  people  abandoned  him,  the  labor  and 
struggle  of  a  lifetime  appeared  to  him  fruitless 
and  vain;  the  deepest,  most  bitter  sorrow  per- 
vaded his  soul.  In  this  frame  of  mind  he  began 
the  journey  into  the  wilderness,  and  as  he  now 
sits  down  there  wearied  and  exhausted  by  the 
journey,  bowed  down  by  sorrow  and  grief,  what 
was  more  natural  and  human  than  for  this  man, 
who  besides  was  already  well-stricken  in  years,  to 
pray  his  Lord  and  God  to  take  from  him  the  heavy 
burden  and  let  him  come  to  the  longed-for  rest ; 
"  it  was  a  holy  sorrow  and  sadness,  such  as  no 
common  man  is  capable  of,  which  filled  him  at 
that  time  and  brought  to  his  lips  the  prayer:  It  is 
enough,"  Ac.  (Menken.) 

Vers.  5-9.  An  angel  touched  him.    Although 
71N7D  in  verse  2  is  used  of  the  messenger  of  Jeze- 

bel,yet  here  it  denotes  no  human  messenger,  but  a 
messenger  of  Jehovah  (V-  7).  The  Sept.  has  in  all 
three  places  ayyeAoc. — n3V  is  a  thin  cake  baked  on 

a  stone  plate  by  means  of  hot  ashes  laid  over  it 
(chap,  xviii.  13."  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  1,  p.  95).— After 
the  first  awakening  Elijah  had  eaten  only  a  very 
little,  on  account  of  his  great  weariness,  and  had 
fallen  asleep  again. — The  closing  words  of  verse  7 
Keil  explains,  after  Vatablus:  iter  est  majus,  quam 
pro  viribus  tuis ;  but  since  ^|QJD  (cf.  1  Sam.  xx.  21) 

is  not  =wp,  we  may  better  follow  the  Sept. :  brt 

-oX/.ii  anii  01m  ij  <5<56c,  or  the  Vulgate :  grandis  enim 
tibi  restat  via.  This  moreover  presupposes  that 
Elijah  had  already  determined  to  go  to  Horeb:  foi 
that  he  is  not  to  be  considered  "  as  in  a  manner 
summoned  thither"  (Thenius)  is  shown  by  the 
question  of  verse  9:  What  doest  thou  here? — 
Horeb  I  =  Sinai)  is  here  designated  as  "  the  mount  of 
God"  because  God  declared  and. revealed  himself 
upon  it  in  a  special  manner  as  the  God  of  Israel; 
it  was  here  that  he  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  fierj 
bush  and  called  him  to   bring  forth  Israel  out  of 


CHAPTER  XIX.   1-21. 


219 


Egypt  (Ex.  iii.  1-15);  it  was  here  also  that  he 
made  the  covenant  with  the  chosen  people,  "  talk- 
ed "  with  them,  and  gave  them  through  Moses  the 
law,  the  testimony  of  the  covenant,  the  foundation 
on  which  all  further  divine  revelations  rest.  Hor- 
eb  is  the  place  of  the  loftiest  and  weightiest  reve- 
lation for  Israel  (r*-'it.  i.  6 ;  iv.  10-15 ;  v.  2;  1  Kings 
viii.  9  ;  Mai.  iv.  4.  Elijah  wished  to  go  thither  in 
the  hope  that  in  mat  spot  Jehovah  would  grant 
a  disclosure  to  him  also,  as  he  had  once  to  his  ser- 
vant Moses,  and  make  known  to  him  what  further 
he  had  to  do. — The  cave  into  which  Elijah  went 
was,  according  to  most  commentators,  that  in  which 
Moses  once  tarried  while  the  Lord  passed  by  (Ex. 
xxxiii.  22) ;  this  view  is  favored  also  by  the  defi- 
nite article.  According  to  Ewald  it  must  have  been 
the  cave  "in  which  at  that  time  wanderers  to 
Sinai  commonly  rested." 

Ver.  8.  Forty  days  and  forty  nights.  Since 
Horeb  is  not  more  than  40  geographical  miles 
from  Beer-sheba  (according  to  Deut.  i.  2.  there 
are  only  eleven  days  journey  from  Kadesh  Barnea, 
situated  somewhat  to  the  south,  to  Horeb),  older 
commentators  have  assumed  that  Elijah,  because 
old  and  weak,  spent  19  or  20  days  on  this 
journey,  remained  1  day  on  Horeb,  and  accom- 
plished the  journey  back  again  in  19  or  20  days. 
But  the  text  says  very  plainly  that  he  went  40 
days  and  40  nights  "  unto  Horeb."  According  to 
Thenius,  "the  legend"  leaves  the  actual  relations 
of  space  out  of  sight  here,  for  by  this  reckoning 
Elijah  would  have  accomplished  in  each  24  hours' 
time  only  2  hours'  distance.  But  even  the  legend 
could  not  arbitrarily  make  a  distance,  which  every 
one  knew  and  had  before  his  eyes,  three  or  four 
times  too  great ;  in  any  case  the  actual  distance 
was  not  unknown  to  the  author  of  our  books.  The 
text  is  not  intended  to  make  prominent  the  idea 
that  Elijah  kept  on  40  days  and  40  nights  unin- 
terruptedly, in  order  to  reach  Horeb,  but  that  he 
was  wonderfully  preserved  during  this  time  which 
he  spent  in  the  wilderness  before  his  arrival  at 
Horeb.  We  must  not  overlook  in  this  connection 
the  reference  to  the  40  days  and  nights  during 
which  Moses  was  on  Sinai  without  eating  bread 
or  drinking  water  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28;  cf.  xxiv.  18; 
Deut.  ix.  9,  18,  25;  x.  10),  and  the  indirect  refer- 
ence to  the  40  years  which  Israel  spent  in  the 
wilderness,  where  the  Lord  fed  the  people,  when 
they  had  no  bread,  with  manna,  to  make  it  known 
that  man  does  not  live  by  bread  alone. 

Ver.  9.  And  behold,  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
Ac.  These  words  do  not,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, begin  a  new  paragraph,  but  are  rather  to  be 
connected  with  the  immediately  preceding  portion 
of  the  same  verse,  "  while  he  was  spending  the 
night  in  that  spot,  behold,  the  word  of  Jehovah 
came  unto  him."     It  cannot  be  maintained   from 

ver.  13  that  Jip  here  means  not:  to  spend  the 
night,  but:  to  remain,  as  the  Vulgate  has  it:  cum- 
gue  illuc  venisset,  mansit  in  spelunca.  The  ques- 
tion fl3  ^pTTO  is,  after  the  example  of  Josephus 

[ri  Tapelri,  aaraXtWonrac  rf/v  iro'Xiv,  cKsict) :  often 
taken  as  implying  a  censure,  quasi  Deus  diceret, 
nihil  esse  Elim  negotii  in  solitudine,  sed  potius  in 
{ocis  habitatis,  ut  illic  homines  ad  veri  Dei  cultum 
adducerel  (Le  Olerc);  also  Theni>:s  considers  it  in- 
tended "  to  remind  Elijah  how  he,  a  prophet  whom 
Bod  would   everywhere  protect,  and  who  in  the 


service  of  God  must  endure  everything,  had  noi 
waited  for  a  divine  intimation,  but  from  fear  of 
man  had  fled  to  save  his  life,  and  then,  in  weak- 
minded  weariness  of  life,  had  been  able  to  wish 
himself  dead."  This  conception  is  radically  false 
and  leads  to  an  erroneous  understanding  of  th* 
entire  passage.  For,  if  a  censure  were  to  be  in- 
flicted on  Elijah,  it  would  not  have  been  delayed 
until  now,  but  would  have  been  given  when  he  had 
fled  a  day's  journey  into  the  wilderness  (ver.  4), 
and  longed  to  die ;  but  instead  of  this  he  was  even 
tenderly  encouraged  by  an  angel  and  wonderfully 
strengthened,  in  order  to  be  able  to  continue  the 
journey  still  farther.  Why  does  not  the  angel  say 
to  him  there,  what  does  not  follow  till  ver.  15? 
Elijah  had  indeed  no  divine  command  to  flee  into 
the  wilderness,  but  still  less  had  he  any  command 
to  remain  in  Jezreel  and  bid  defiance  to  Jezebel, 
as  formerly  (chap,  xviii.)  he  had  the  command  to 
show  himself  to  the  irritated  king.  When  now 
during  his  journey,  weary  in  body  and  soul,  bowed 
down  with  grief  and  sorrow,  he  prayed  that  his 
end  might  come,  but  this  prayer  was  not  listened 
to,  he  longed  so  much  the  more  "  for  a  revelation 
and  disclosure  of  what  might  be  God's  will  now, 
whither  he  should  turn,  what  begin,  whether  and 
how  God  would  employ  him  yet  further  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Israel  "  (Menken).  This  drove  him  to  the 
"mount  of  God,"  »'.  e.,  to  the  place  where,  once  be- 
fore, his  prototype  Moses,  the  founder  of  the  cove- 
nant, beheld  the  Lord  and  received  comfort  and 
strength;  to  the  place  where  the  Lord  had  spoken 
to  his  people  and  made  with  them  the  now  broken 
covenant.  If  now  he  is  asked :  What  doest  thou 
here  ?  What  desire  has  driven  thee  hither  ?  this 
was  "a  question  of  tender  kindness,  to  relieve  the 
full,  burdened  heart  of  the  prophet,  that  he,  tc 
whom  the  great  privilege  of  being  able  to  com- 
plain of  his  sorrow  had  so  long  been  denied,  might 
be  moved  to  reveal  his  desire,  to  pour  out  his 
whole  heart  before  the  Lord.  So  the  Lord,  after 
his  resurrection,  asked  Mary,  as  she  stood  at  the 
grave  and  wept:  Woman,  why  weepest  thou? 
whom  seekest  thou,  that  thou  mayst  change  thy 
sorrow  into  joy  "  (Menken).  So  also  this  is  con- 
nected with  the  question  Rev.  vii.  13. 

Ver.  10.  I  have  been  very  jealous,  &c.  As 
the  question  is  not  to  be  considered  a  censure  or 
rebuke  as  against  Elijah,  so  also  his  answer  is  not 
to  be  considered  a  justification  or  a  reproach  as 
against  Jehovah;  entirely  mistaken  is  the  assertion 
that  there  is  expressed  in  this  answer  "only  the 
greatest  despondency  concerning  his  fate  "  (Theni- 
us),  and  "a  carnal  zeal  that  would  at  once  call 
down  the  vengeance  of  the  Almighty  on  all  idola- 
ters" (Keil),  or  that  it  bears  witness  to  an  "inter- 
nal strife  and  murmuring  "  (Tvrummacher) ;  it  is 
rather,  as  the  Apostle  expressly  declares,  an  in- 
dictment of  Israel  (Rom.  xi.  2 :  e vrvyxave i  ru  i) e Ct 
Kara  Toil  'Iopai/X).  "The  prophet  lays  the  facts, 
whose  weight  had  fallen  upon  him  with  such  fear- 
ful power,  before  the  Lord,  that  He  might  see  how 
they  appear,  and  he  leaves  the  riddle  which  is 
therein  presented  to  Him,  for  Him  to  explain " 
(Gerlaeh).  He  brings  forward  for  weighty  accu- 
sations ;  (1)  they  have  fallen  away  from  the  cove- 
nant relation ;  (2)  they  have  thrown  down  the  altars 
still  remaining  here  and  there,  dedicated  to  thee 

(3)  instead  of  listening  to  thy  servants  who  ad- 
monished and  warned  them,  they  have  slain  them- 

(4)  as  for  myself,  the  last  one  who  has  openly  ap- 


220 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


peared  and  been  zealous  for  thee,  they  are  seeking 
my  life.  The  words:  I  have  been  very  jealous, 
form  the  introduction  tc  this  fourfold  accusation : 
I  have  used  every  means,  but  all  in  vain;  what 
then  is  now  to  be  done,  what  will  and  should  be 
brought  about?  The  complaint  of  the  prophet 
was  at  the  same  time  again  a  question  to  the  Lord, 
to  which  he  then  receives  a  twofold  answer  (with 
signs,  vers.  11,  12,  and  with  words,  vers.  14—18). 
He  speaks  of  his  zeal,  moreover,  not  in  order  to 
boast  or  bother  himself  about  his  fate :  "  God's 
honor  and  Israel's  welfare  were  of  far  greater 
value  to  him  than  his  own  honor  or  welfare ;  he 
mentions  his  own  person  and  his  own  need  only  in 
so  far  as  they  stood  in  necessary  and  most  inti- 
mate connection  with  the  cause  of  God  and  the 
truth,  and  so  his  complaint  was  a  holy  one,  as  all 
his  sorrow  and  sadness  were  holy  "  (Menken).  He 
mentions  his  zeal  in  order  thereby  to  confirm  and 
strengthen  his  accusation  against  Israel. 

Ver.  11.  And  he  said,  Go  forth,  Ac.  It  is 
common  to  translate  with  Luther:  "Go  forth,  and 
stand  upon  the  mount  before  the  Lord.  And  be- 
hold, the  Lord  passed  by,  and  a  great  and  strong 
wind  .  .  .  before  the  Lord."  According  to  this 
Elijah  must  have  gone  out  of  the  cave  before  the 
wind,  &c.  But  according  to  ver.  13  he  did  not  go 
forth  till  he  heard  the  gentle  breeze ;  it  is  there- 
fore absolutely  necessary  to  consider  the  words 

"Oy  niiT  HSm  as  connected  with  the  address  to 

Elijah,   and   to  begin   the  narrative  portion  with 

mil  .     That  is,  the  participle  lay  is  not  preterit, 

but,  as  usual  when  it  stands  for  the  terbum  fini- 
tum,  present:  Jehovah  passes  by,  i.  e.,  he  is  on 
the  point  of  doing  it;  cf.  Is.  v.  5;  vii.  14;  x.  23 
(Gesenius,  Gram.  (Couant)  p.  240).  The  Sept. 
translates :  'EfcAercrfl  avptov  Kal  art/ay  h'uiriov 
Kvpiov  kv  rcJ  oper  idov  TrapeTievcerai  ni'ptot;.  Kal  idov 
irvev/ia  /itya  k.  t.  'A..  This  division  of  the  sen- 
tences is  entirely  correct,  only  avpiov,  which  is  not 
found  in  a  single  manuscript,  is  an  unauthorized 
addition  borrowed  from  Ex.  xxxiv.  2.  The  nar- 
rative in  that  place,  moreover,  serves  in  several 
ways  to  explain  the  one  before  us:  especially  the 

expression  n3y  niiT  gives  clear  and  definite  evi- 
dence.    Moses  desires  to  see  the  glory  (1133  ,  see 

above  p.  76)  of  Jehovah,  whereupon  he  receives 
the  answer:   "I  will  make  all  my  goodness  ('IIC) 

pass  before  thee,  and  I  will  proclaim  the  name  of 
Jehovah  "  (}'.  e.,  what  he  is),  and  farther :  "  while  my 
glory  passeth  by  ...  I  will  cover  thee  with  my 
hand,  until  I  have  passed  by ;  "  then  follows  "  And 
Jehovah  passed  by  before  him  and  proclaimed, 
Jehovah.  Jehovah  is  a  God  merciful  and  gracious, 
long-suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth, 
keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity 
and  transgression  and  sin,  but  that  will  by  no 
means  clear,"  &c.  (Ex.  xxxiii.  18,  19,  22;  xxxiv.  6). 
The  expression  -Qy  is  nowhere  else  used  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  doubtless  marks  this  highest  revelation 
as  one  that,  is  possible  only  for  a  moment,  in  dis- 
tinction from  a  permanent,  abiding  revelation,  for 
which  (nypc*)  |3B>  is  used.      When  now  Elijah 

complains  here  of  Israel  that  they  have  jroken 
the  covenant,  as  they  did  once  in  the  wilderness 
through  the  golden  calf,  and  desires  a  disclosure 


concerning  the  dealings  of  Jehovah,  which  trt 
dark    and   incomprehensible    to  him,  the  answet 

thereupon   imparted  to  him :  Behold  1  I3y  niiT  , 

is  designed  to  express  the  idea :  Jehovah  will 
reveal  himself  to  thee  as  he  did  once  to  Moses, 
and  show  thee  what  he  is  in  his  essence,  and  with 
this  thou  shalt  receive  the  desired  disclosure. 

Ter.  11.  And  a  great  and  strong  wind,  Ac 
Tempest,  earthquake,  and  fire,  as  awe-inspiring 
natural  phenomena,  are  in  the  Old  Testament  es- 
pecially signs  and  attestations  not  only  of  the  ab- 
solute power  of  God,  but  particularly  of  His  anger, 
i.  e.,  of  His  penal  justice  against  His  enemies,  the 
ungodly.  Thus  they  appear  in  connection  with 
one  another  Is.  xxix.  5  sq.  and  Ps.  xviii.  8-18,  and 
they  have  the  same  significance  here  also.  But 
since  they  occur  here  separately,  one  after  the 
other  in  regular  succession,  they  plainly  indicate  a 
succession  of  punishments  differing  in  degree  and 
kind.  The  tempest  points  to  the  rending,  scatter- 
ing, and  turning  to  dust  (Is.  xvii.  13;  xl.  24;  IviL 
13),  the  earthquake  to  the  shaking  of  the  founda- 
tions and  the  falling  down  (Is.  x.xiv.  IS  sq. ;  Ps 
xviii.  8,  16;  Jer.  x.  10),  the  fire  to  the  complete 
consuming  (Is.  lxvi.  15*g.;  Ps.  xviii.  9 ;  xcvii.  3).  In 
none  of  these  three  now  was  Jehovah,  only  out  or 
the  gentle  whispering  does  He  speak,  i.  e.,  the  pun- 
ishments come  indeed  from  Him,  pass  before  Him 
and  bear  witness  of  Him ;  but  He  Himself,  that 
which  he  is,  his  essence  (name)  is  not  to  be  dis- 
cerned in  them ;  to  this  corresponds,  rather  in  con- 
trast with  those  destructive  phenomena  of  nature, 
the  gentle,  soothing,  refreshing,  revivifying  breeze 
after  the  storm.     The  word  nDOT  from  Dot  to  be 

T    T     ;  -  T 

silent,  in  Poel  to  silence  (Ps.  cxxxi.  2),  means 
properly  stilling,  and  is  used  in  both  the  other 
places  where  it  appears,  of  the  rest  and  refreshing 
which  have  followed  pain,  distress,  and  terror 
(Ps.  cvii.  29 ;  Job  iv.  16).  When  now  Jehovah 
"  passes  by  "  here  in  this,  the  same  thing  is  ex- 
pressed symbolically  which  Moses  there  heard  in 
words,  as  Jehovah  passed  by ;  Jehovah  is  a  God 
merciful  and  gracious,  &c.  The  significance  of  the 
whole  phenomenon  is  accordingly  this  :  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Israel,  will  indeed  display  His  punish- 
ing, destroying  might  to  His  despisers  and  ene 
mies,  but  His  own  true  and  innermost  essence  is 
grace,  rescuing,  preserving,  and  quickening  love, 
and  though  the  people  have  broken  the  covenant 
of  grace,  yet  He  maintains  this  covenant,  and  re- 
mains faithful  and  gracious  as  He  promised.  For 
the  bowed  down  and  accusing  prophet  this  was 
the  well-attested  divine  answer,  which  contained 
comfort  and  consolation  as  well  as  incitement  to 
carry  on  His  begun  work,  and  not  to  despair  of 
Israel,  nor  allow  Himself  to  be  wearied  out  or  led 
into  error  by  the  apparent  fruitlessness  of  His 
efforts  thus  far.  According  to  Ewald  (loc.  cit.  p. 
542)  the  words  before  us  can  "  in  the  first  place  be 
rightly  conceived  of  only  as  describing  how  Jahve 
will  here  appear  to  Elijah,  and  how  He  will  talk  to 
him.  His  passing  by  announces  itself  first  in  the 
most  distant  way  by  the  fiercest  storm  ;  but  that 
is  nut  He  Himself;  then  more  subtle  and  near  by 
thunder  and  earthquake ;  but  this  also  is  not  He 
Himself ;  then  in  the  most  subtle  way  by  fire  (as 
in  the  tempest,  according  to  Ps.  xviii.  IS  (16), 
Bab.  iii.  J);  but  this  is  not  He  Himself,  orly  ic 
the  soft  whispering  that  then  follows,  in  the  most 


CHAI>TER  XIX.  1-21. 


221 


3ubtile  spiritual  voice  does  He  reveal  Himself,  and 
to  this  attention  is  to  be  given  (as  Job  iv.  16; 
xxvi.  4  in  like  manner)!"  Also  Thenius  says: 
"It  is  the  most  incorporeal  object  possible  for  the 
illustration  of  the  presence  of  the  divine  being, 
such  as  Job  has  selected,  iv.  16."  This  conception 
is  in  itself  very  unnatural;  for  why  should  thunder 
and  earthquakes  be  regarded  as  "  more  subtile  " 
{i.  e,,  more  immaterial)  than  a  stormy  wind,  and 
the  all-consuming  tire  "more  subtile"  than  an 
earthquake?  The  gradation  is  rather  just  the 
reverse,  from  the  weaker  destroying  element  to 
the  most  powerful,  and  not  from  the  grossly  ma- 
terial to  the  most  immaterial  possible.  But  in 
general,  the  entire  context  is  adverse  to  this  con- 
ception; for  by  no  means  is  the  revelation  to  be 
made  here  to  Elijah,  that  God's  essence  is  spiritual 
and  that  He  is  incorporeal  (Elijah  needed  no  re- 
velation for  that),  but  that  Jehovah  in  His  own 
innermost  being  is  not  a  destroying,  annihilating 
God.  who  only  punishes,  hut  rather  a  quickening, 
saving  and  preserving,  a  gracious  and  faithful  God. 
Ver.  13.  When  Elijah  heard  it,  &c.  During 
the  storm  of  wind,  the  earthquake,  and  the  fire, 
then  Elijah  was  still  in  the  cave,  and  he  came  out 
of  it  only  at  the  soft  whispering,  in  obedience  to 
the  command,  ver.  11. — He  wrapped  his  face  in 
his  mantle,  although  Jehovah  did  not  pass  by  in 
visible  shape,  "  from  awe  before  the  unapproach- 
able one  "  (Then.),  as  Moses  did  once  when  the 
Lord  appeared  to  him  in  the  fiery  bush,  "  for  he 
was  afraid  to  look  upon  God  "  (Ex.  iii.  6 :  cf.  xxxiii. 
•20,  22).  Even  the  Seraphim  stand  with  covered 
faces  before  the  throne  of  the  Holy  One  (Is.  vi.  2). 
The  question  already  addressed  to  Elijah  before 
the  significant  phenomenon  and  now  repeated  after 

it;  ns  ^?*TO  ,  has  this  sense :  Hast  thou  now  any 

further  reason  for  lingering  here?  Elijah's  repe- 
tition of  his  complaint  expressed  in  ver.  10  can  have 
only  tliis  reason,  that  he  does  not  yet  feel  satisfied 
with  what  has  happened  to  him  (vers.  11-13),  be- 
cause it  is  not  clear  to  him  what  this  is  in- 
tended to  signify.  He  therefore  receives  now  a 
reply  in  definite  words  (vers.  15-18);  and  it  ap- 
pears from  other  eases  also  that  revelations  are 
made  to  the  prophets  first  in  sensible  signs  (sym- 
bols) and  then  in  definite  words  (cf.  Jer.  xix.  1—13 ; 
xxiv.  1-10;  Ezek.  v.  1-12;  xii.  1-12  ;  xv.  l-.s;  xxxvii. 
1-14).  But  iu  this  case  the  verbal  revelation  is  con- 
stantly not  merely  ao  explanation  or  interpretation 
of  the  symbolical  revelation,  but  it  carries  the  latter 
out  still  further  by  showing  how  that  which  the 
phenomenon  attested  rather  in  a  general  way  con- 
cerning the  being  of  Jehovah,  is  to  be  historically 
verified  in  the  special  case  under  consideration. 

Vers.  15-13.  And  Jehovah  said  unto  him, 
Ac.  This  address  has  always  been  a  source  of  great 
trouble  to  commentators,  because  in  respect  to  that 
which  is  here  laid  upon  Elijah  and  predicted  of  him 
the  succeeding  history  make3  known  nothing  or 
something  entirely  different.  Elijah  anointed 
neither  Hazael  nor  Jehu  ;  the  former  was  not  an- 
ointed at  all.  not  even  by  Elisha  (2  Kings  viii.  1 1  sq.), 
the  latter  was  anointed  long  after  the  departure  of 
Elijah  by  a  disciple  of  the  prophets,  and  therefore 
certainly  not  by  Elisha,  and  Elisha  himself  was  in- 
deed summoned  to  be  the  successor  of  Elijah,  yet 
*ot  by  being  anointed,  but  by  being  covered  with 
the  prophet's  mantle  (ver.  19).  Still  less  does  the 
■history  know  anything  of    the   fact  that  Elisha, 


whose  life  and  work  are  nevertheless  related  so 
minutely,  ever  slew  any  one,  to  say  nothing  of  an 
equal  number  with  Hazael  and  Jehu.     The  older, 
ordinary   solution    of   the   difficulties  is  best  pre- 
sented by   Gerlach,    who  says:   "Still  it  is  to  bs 
supposed  that  Elijah  executed  literally  what  tha 
Lord  commanded  him,  since  he  was  expressly  told 
to  go  to   Damascus  for  the  purpose  of  anointing 
Hazael.     For  reasons  which  are  not  known  to  us, 
this  anointing  may  have  been  kept  secret,  as  was 
the  first  anointing  of  David   by  -amuel  (1    Sam. 
xvi.),  and,  just   as   in   the   case   of  this  king,  the 
anointing  of  Jehu  may  have  been   repeated  at   a 
later  date  by  Elisha,  when  the  moment  for  Joram's 
downfall  had  come.     That  prophets  were  anointed 
appears,  apart  from  this  passage,  only  figuratively 
in  the  prophecy  Is.  lxi.  1 ;   the  more  this  office  now 
became  the  mightiest  in   the   falling  kingdom  of 
Israel,   the  more   natural  was    it  to  bring  it,   by 
means  of  the   symbolical   consecration,   into  con- 
formity with  the  royal  and  priestly  officers."     This 
forced  artificial  explanation  is  seen  at  once  to  be  a 
makeshift  and  to  rest  on   untenable  assumptions. 
The  more  recent  criticism  has  made  easy  work  of 
it :  this   affirms :    Out  of  the  whole   of    Elijah's 
history,  as  contained  in  the   original   manuscript, 
the  author  of  the  books  before  us  has  everywhere 
taken   only  so  much  as  served  his  purpose  ;  here 
now,  after  ver.  IS,  he  has  left  out  the  account  of 
the  execution   of  the  commission  wliich  had  been 
received  in  regard  to  Hazael  and  Jehu,  because  the 
other  original  manuscripts,  from  which  he  composed 
the  history  of  Hazael  and  Jehu,  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled with  it  (Thenius,  followed  by  Menzel).      But 
how  can  we  attribute  to  our  author  the  careless- 
ness or  unskilfulness  of   having  wholly  failed  to 
observe  the   inconsistency  between    vers.    15-18, 
and  his  own  reports  concerning   Hazael  and  Jehu 
(2  Kings  viii.  and  ix.)  ?    If  he  had  considered  them 
irreconcilable,  he  would  not  have  stopped  with  the 
pretended  omission  of  the  account  concerning  the 
execution  of  the  commission,  but  would  naturally 
also  have  omitted  either  the  verses  before  us,  15- 
18,  or  the  reports  concerning   Hazael   and   Jehu 
which  cannot  be  harmonized  with  these.     In  order 
to  remove  the  difficulty  we  must  take  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent course.      In  the  beginning  it  is  well  to  ob- 
serve that  the  address  of  Jehovah,  vers.  15-18,  is 
a  reply  to  Elijah's  repeated  severe  accusation  of 
Israel,  and  therefore  already  bears  the  character  of 
a  divine  judicial  sentence,  which  at  once  contains  a 
prophecy,    and  is   in   the   fullest   sense    a  divine 
oracle.      As  now  is  generally  the  case  with  such 
oracular  sayings,  so  also  here  the  tone  is  evidently 
lofty  and  solemn,   and  the   form    is   sententious, 
axiomatic  ;  what  Ewald  (Tfte  Prophets  of  the  0.  T. 
I.  p  49)  observes  in  reference  to  the  strophic  rhythm 
of  the  prophetic   oracles,   that  the   triple  rhythm 
comes  in  with  great  force,  especially  when   the 
language  possesses  a  certain  stately  elevation,  fits 
the  present  case  completely.     The  tripartite  char- 
acter of  the  whole  passage  is  sharply  defined ; 
vers.  15,  16  are  the  first  strophe,  ver.  11  the   sec- 
ond, ver.    18    the  third;  and   each  of  these  three 
strophes  has  in  turn  three  members.     But  in  such 
an  oracle  a  strictly  literal  understanding  of  the  in- 
dividual  expressions  is  the  less  necessary,  when, 
as  is  here  the  case,  it  stands  opposed  to  plain  state- 
ments that  follow.     This  is  eminently  true  of  the 
expression    "anoint,"    which   is  not  to  be  taken 
literally,  because  then  the  immediately  succeeding 


222 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


verse  19,  according  to  which  Elisha  is  not  really 
anointed,  would  contradict  it.  To  "  anoint "  a 
person  or  thing  means  simply  to  bring  them  into  the 
service  of  God.  Thus  not  only  kings  and  priests, 
but  also  implements  of  worship  (Ex.  xxix.  86 ;  xxx. 
26  sq.),  yes.  even  stones  (Gen.  xxviii.  18)  were 
anointed,  because  they  were  to  serve  for  the  ful- 
filment of  the  divine  will.  Here  too  the  word  is 
used  in  this  sense  ;  it  signifies  not  the  actual  out- 
ward anointing,  but  what  the  anointing  means, 
lust  a3  in  Judges  ix.  8.  All  three,  Hazael,  Jehu, 
and  Elisha,  are  to  serve  for  the  execution  of  God's 
will  and  counsel,  and  each,  indeed,  in  a  different 
way.  By  Hazael,  the  foreign  Syrian  king,  Israel 
was  continually  hard  pressed  from  without  (2 
Kings  viii.  12.  29;  x."32;  xiii.  3,  7);  he  was  the 
rod  of  correction  in  the  hand  of  Jehovah,  the  in- 
strument of  his  anger,  i.  e.,  of  his  punishment  (cf. 
Is.  x.  5).  By  Jehu  the  kingdom  of  Israel  was 
shaken  within;  he  put  an  end  to  the  house  of 
Ahab,  from  which  the  idolatry  proceeded  and  was 
kept  up  (2  Kings  ix.  24,  33;  x.  1-28),  and  was  the 
divine  rod  of  correction  for  the  idolatrous  within 
Israel.  By  Elisha.  as  successor  of  Elijah,  who 
strove  with  fiery  zeal  against  all  idolatry,  the  re- 
formatory work  of  the  latter  was  to  be  continued, 
and  he  also  served  as  God's  instrument  in  correct- 
ing and  punishing  Israel,  if  not  by  means  of  the 
sword,  .vet  through  his  whole  prophetic  activity. 
Since  now  Elijah,  immediately  after  receiving  his 
commission  to  anoint,  still  did  not  anoint  Elisha. 
easily  as  he  might  have  done  this,  but  summoned 
him  to  be  his  successor,  by  covering  him  with  the 
prophet's  mantle,  we  have  here  the  clearest  evi- 
dence that  he  did  not  understand  the  anointing 
literally  in  the  case  of  Hazael  and  Jehu,  any  more 
than  in  that  of  Elisha.  He  took  the  whole  oracle 
in  general  as  a  divine  revelation  of  what  was  soon 
to  happen  in  Israel.  In  connection  with  the  words : 
Go  and  anoint,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  other 
cases  also  of  oracular  sayings  the  prophets  are 
commanded  to  do  something  (symbolically),  which 
(in  reality)  is  to  be  brought  to  pass  by  the  Lord 
(cf.  Jer  xix.  1  sq.  ;  xxvii.  2  ;  xxviii.  10  sq.  ;  Ezek. 
v.  1-12  ;  xii.  3  sq.).  The  disciple  of  the  prophets, 
who  anointed  Jehu  under  the  direction  of  Elisha, 
was  obliged  to  begin  this  action  with  the  words : 
"Thus  saith  Jehovah:  I  have  anointed  thee  king 
over  Israel  "  ( 2  Kings  ix.  3) ;  the  real  anointing 
was  performed,  therefore,  by  Jehovah  himself. 

Vers.  15-17.      Go,  return  on  thy  way,   &c. 

The  words  pt-'El  m3"lD  are  not  to  be  translated, 

per  deserlum  in  Damascum  (Vulgate,  Luther),  nor 
hardly  "  into  the  wilderness  of  Damascus  "  (Keil 
after  Le  Clerc),  but  "  to  the  wilderness  (through 
which  he  had  come  after  ver.  4)  to  Damascus " 
(Thenius).  This  command  cannot  be  taken  liter- 
ally with  any  more  safety  than  the  following: 
Auoint;  it  merely  indicates  whence  the  divine 
punishment  is  to  break  in  upon  Israel.  For  de- 
tails concerning  Hazael  and  Jehu,  ride  on  2  Kings 
viii.  ix.  and  x.  Of  the  expression  "slay,"  used  of 
Elisha  ver.  17.  the  same  thing  is  true  as  of  "anoint;" 
for  that  Elisha  did  not  actually  slay,  our  author 
knew  as  well  as  we  do  now,  and  indeed  our  know- 
ledge comes  only  from  his  own  reports  concerning 
him.  He  cannot  possibly,  therefore,  have  under- 
stood the  word  literar  y,  but  only  in  the  prophetic 
sense  in  which  it  is  used  of  the  Messiah  in  the 
oracle  Is.  xi.  4;  "he  shall   smite  the   earth   (the 


land)  with  the  rod  (i.  e.,  the  rod  of  correction)  of 
his  mouth  and  with  the  breath  (JVC')  of  his   lips 

shall  he  slay  (rrn  ,  as  in  the  passage  before  us)  the 

godless."  Cf.  Is.  xlix.  2  ;  where  the  mouth  of  the 
prophet  is  railed  "a  sharp  sword,"  into  which  the 
Lord  has  made  it;  just  so  Rev.  i.  16;  ii.16;  xix. 
15.  The  fundamental  and  main  thought  of  the 
oracle  is  in  general  this,  that  the  judgment  of  Je- 
hovah will  come,  but  the  judging  and'dividing  wiD 
be  brought  about  by  the  sword,  now  with  the  actual 
sword,   now  with    the   sword   of  the  nil  of  God 

(Job.  iv.  9) ;  so  far  could  Elisha  very  well  be  joined 
with  Hazael  and  Jehu  in  the  otherwise  very  much 
contracted  oracle. 

Ver.  18.  Yet  I  have  left,  &c.  In  the  three 
strophes  of  this  passage  also  the  symbolical  mode 
of  expression  is  continued.  For  the  number  seven 
thousand  is  no  more  to  be  taken  arithmetically 
than  the  number  an  hundred  and  forty  and  four 
thousand  (twelve  times  12,000)  in  the  Apocalypse 
(Rev.  vii.  4;  xiv.  1-5).  Seven  is  the  symbolical 
numeral  sign  of  holiness,  the  covenant  and  cere- 
monial number  (cf.  Symbol  des  Mos.  Kult.  I.  s. 
193);  and  it  marks  those  who  are  left  as  a  holy 
company,  faithful  to  the  covenant,  as  the  "  holy 
seed"  of  the  covenant  people  (Is.  vi.  13;  cf.  Is. 
iv.  2;  Rom.  xi.  7).  In  like  manner  the  expres- 
sions, all  the  knees,  etc.,  and  every  mouth,  etc.,  are 
a  figurative  rhetorical  description  of  those  faithful 
to  Jehovah.  The  kissing  is  not  to  be  understood 
of  kisses  thrown  with  the  hand  (Gesenius),  but  of 
kissing  the  feet  of  the  image  which  stands  on  a 
pedestal  (Hos.  xiii.  2  ;  Cicero  in  Verr.  4,  43 :  Quod 
in  precibus  et  gratulationibus  non  solum,  id  sc.  simu- 
lacrum venerari,  verum  etiam  osculari  solent). 
Menken  has  a  striking  observation  on  ver.  18: 
"  Now  the  prophet  understood  why  the  still,  small 
voice  was  preceded  by  the  desolating  storm,  the 
devouring  earthquake,  and  the  consuming  fire; 
and  beyond  all,  the  anxiety,  terror,  bloodshed, 
destruction  which  were  contained  therein  for 
Israel.  His  heart  received  abundant  consolation 
from  the  further  revelation  of  the  Lord ;  for  this 
gave  him  now.  in  addition  to  the  still,  small  voice  of 
the  Spirit  of  Life,  a  disclosure  touching  the  mercy 
of  the  Lord  to  Israel,  that  infinitely  surpassed  all 
his  hopes  and  expectations :  and  if  the  revelation 
of  the  wants  and  plagues  which  were  to  come 
upon  Israel  produced  in  him  the  same  feeling  as 
the  destruction  and  ruin  of  threatening  storms, 
still  by  this  disclosure  he  felt  himself  encouraged 
and  quickened,  as  in  the  refreshing  blessed  cool- 
ness after  the  storm."  In  the  Return  (v.  15)  there 
is  contained  therefore  anything  rather  than  a  re- 
buke for  the  prophet;  but  it  is  the  expression  of 
comfort  and  encouragement. 

Ver.  19.  So  he  departed  thence,  &c.  The 
city  Abel  Meholah,  where,  according  to  ver.  16, 
Elisha  lived,  lay  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  about 
three  German  miles  from  Beth  Shean,  in  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh  (Judges  vii.  22 ;  1  Kings  iv.  12) 
Though  he  may  indeed  have  been  already  known 
to  Elijah,  yet  he  hardly  belongs  with  the  "sons 
of  the  prophets."  among  whom  Ewald  wrongly 
places  him  ;  adding,  at  the  same  time,  "  He  had 
just  ploughed  round  his  twelve  yoke  of  land,  being 
at  work  on  the  twelfth  and  last."     But  "ISi",  as 

appears  from  ver.  21,  and  as  VJBP  also  ddmanda, 


CHAPTER  XIX  1-21. 


223 


Is  not  a  yoke  of  land,  but  a  yoke  (pair)  of  oxen. 
One  ploughman  belonged  with  each  yoke.  Elisha 
was  with  the  last,  the  others  all  "before  him." 
The  conjecture  that  the  "  twelve  yoke  of  cattle  re- 
presented the  twelve  tribes  "  (Hengstenberg,  von 
Gerlach),  like  t'>e  twelve  stones  of  the  altar  on  Car- 
mel  (xviii.  31),  has  very  little  in  its  favor.  The 
number  appears  to  be  mentioned  only  to  show 
that  Elisha  was  a  man  in  good  circumstances, 
who,  nevertheless,  left  his  property  in  order  to 
follow  the  call  of  Elijah.  rmN  is  here  the  pro- 
phetic official  garment  (Bech.  xiii.  4;  2  Kings  i. 
8:  ii.  13).  The  throwing  it  over  Elisha  was  a  sym- 
bolical act,  which  denoted  the  summons  to  become 
a  prophet  (the  investiture),  and  was  intelligible  to 
Elisha,  even  without  any  words.  Elijah  seems  to 
have  withdrawn  at  once;  he  wished,  indeed,  to 
leave  the  doubtless  astonished  Elisha  some  time 
for  making  up  his  mind;  yet  the  latter  did  not 
meditate  long,  but  hastened  (j"V  ,  he  ran ;  not  he 

followed)  after  him,  and  declared  his  purpose  to 
accept  the  summons,  only  he  wished  first  to  take 
leave  of  his  father  and  mother  (cf.  Gen.  xxxi  28). 
Elijah's  answer,  y\t'  T]P ,   is  not  to  be  translated 

with  Luther :  Go  (to  thy  parents)  and  come  (then) 
again ;  but  just  as  in  ver.  15,  where  both  words 
together  express  only  one  conception — Return, 
namely,  to  thy  parents,  as  thou  wishest.  The  fol- 
lowing sentence,  For  tvhat  have  I  done  to  Chetf 
should,  according  to  Keil,  have  the  meaning,  "  I 
have  not  wished  to  coerce  thee,  but  I  leave  the 
decision  concerning  the  prophetic  call  to  thy  free 
will.''  In  a  similar  manner  Ewald:  "As  if  indig- 
nant at  this  reawakening  of  desire  for  the  world, 
Elijah  gave  him  permission  to  return  altogether 
if  he  wished."  This  does  not  agree  with  the  fact 
that,  according  to  the  Divine  will  (cf.  ver.  16),  Eli- 
sha was  destined  to  be  the  successor  of  Elijah, 
and  Elijah,  therefore,  certainly  did  not  leave  the 
acceptance  of  the  summons  wholly  to  his  free  will. 
Had  he  given  over  to  him  the  decision  of  the  mat- 
ter he  would  not  have  first  thrown  the  prophetic 
mantle  over  him,  but  would  have  waited  till  Elisha 
decided.  Wheu  Elisha  prays  that  he  may  be  per- 
mitted to  take  leave  of  his  parents,  his  idea  is 
that  he  is  ready  to  follow  Elijah,  and  he  only 
wishes  first  to  satisfy  a  natural  filial  obligation, 
not  that  he  prefers  to  remain  with  his  parents. 
That  Elijah  was  unwilling  for  him  to  fulfil  this 
filial  duty  is  therefore  not  to  be  imagined.  The- 
nius  translates:  "Go,  return  I  yet  1  what  have  I 
done  to  thee?  "  and  observes:  "  He  gives  the  per- 
mission, but  recalls  the  lofty  meaning  of  the  sym- 
bolical action  which  had  just  been  performed  on 
him,  by  which  he  had  been  devoted  to  the  service 
of  the  Lord."  This  gives  indeed  a  good  meaning, 
only  it  is  very  questionable  whether  '3  can  have 

here,  where  no  contrast  is  expressed,  the  signifi- 
cation, yet  I  The  fundamental  idea :  for,  is  never 
entirely  lost:  Go,  take  leave  of  thy  parents,  for 
what  have  I  done  to  thee?  I  have  summoned 
thee  to  the  prophetic  service;  thine  abode  is 
henceforth  no  more  with  thy  parents :  thou  art  to 
follow  me. 

Ver.  21.  And  he  returned  back  from  him, 
fcc.     Elisha  had  run  after  him  (j'T ,  ver.  20),  and 

now  returned  to  take  a  formal  leave  of  his  people. 
He  took    (not  "a"  joke,  as  Luther  hat  it,  but) 


the  yoke  of  cattle,  viz.,  that  with  which  he  him- 
self had  been  ploughing  (ver.  19),  which  was  his 
in  an  especial  sense.  These  he  slew  for  a  farewell 
feast  (rDTi  as  in  Chron.  xviii.  2;  1  Sam.xxviii.  24; 

Ez.  xxxix.  17),  not,  he  offered  it  (as  a  thank-offer- 
ing), for  the  whole  context  shows  that  the  refe- 
rence is  not  to  a  religious,  priestly  act,  for  which 
also  an  altar  would  have  been  necessary.  To  offer 
is  here  the  equivalent  of  to  dispense,  to  give  up 
(Keil),  and  is  not  to  be  understood  in  its  strict 
sense.  The  instruments  of  the  oxen,  i.  e.,  the  yokt 
and  the  frame  of  the  plough,  he  applied  not  for- 
sooth as  would  necessarily  be  expected,  if  a  sacri- 
fice were  the  matter  in  hand,  to  the  burning  of 
them  up,  but  to  the  boiling  of  the  ftexh  :  certainly 
not  because  there  was  no  other  wood  at  hand  (1 
Sam.  vi.  14;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  22),  but  rather  in  order 
to  indicate  that  he  gave  up  for  ever  his  previous 
calling.  The  people  that  took  part  in  the  feast 
can  hardly  be  "  the  inhabitants  of  his  place " 
(Tlienius),  but  those  who  up  to  this  point  were  la- 
boring in  common  with  him  in  the  field,  and  of 
them  he  now  took  leave  as  of  his  parents.  The 
conjecture  that  this  farewell  feast  occurred  imme- 
diately in  the  field  where  Elijah  met  him,  and 
that  he  withdrew  from  it  to  take  leave  of  his 
parents  (Calw.  B.),  is  as  groundless  as  it  is  unne- 
cessary. So  far  as  the  words  are  coucerned,  the 
Lord,  in  Luke  ix.  61,  may  very  likely  have  been 
thinking  of  this  passage,  but  the  sense  and  mean- 
ing are  very  different.  "Elisha  did  not  wish  first 
to  bury  his  father  and  mother,  i.  e.,  wait  until  they 
were  dead,  but  only  to  take  leave  of  them ;  more- 
over, when  he  wished  this,  he  had  not  already 
put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  like  the  man  in  Luke 
ix.  61  and  62,  for  he  had  not  presented  himself  to 
succeed  Elijah  (Calw.  B.).  There  the  Lord  is  ex- 
pressing censure,  whereas  what  is  here  related 
should  not  prove  a  reproacli  to  Elisha,  but  rather 
an  honor  and  praise.  There  can,  accordingly,  be 
no  talk  of  a  "close  affinity"  between  the  two 
places  (Thenius).  Krummacher  represents  the 
matter  thus :  Elisha  gave  the  feast  to  his  parents 
at  once,  became  thereby  their  "host,"  and  ap 
peared  "here  already  as  a  prophet,  supplying  and 
blessing,"  Ac.  This  is  pure  fancy,  and  has  an  in 
correct  explanation  of  the  text  for  its  basis. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  With  Elijah's  arrival  in  Jezreel  the  life  of  the 
great  prophet  enters  upon  a  new  stage.  From 
the  height  of  the  victory  which  he  had  won, 
with  God's  wonderful  help,  on  Carmel,  he  is  led 
down  now  into  the  dark  depths  of  temptation,  in 
order  to  come  forth  from  them  with  only  the 
greater  glory.  "  The  smelter  of  Israel  must  be 
content  to  go  down  now  himself  into  the  cruci- 
ble" (Krummacher).  As  the  "servant  of  God," 
which  he  was  in  a  special  sense  (xviii  36 ;  2  Kings 
ix.  36 ;  x.  10),  he  is  led  the  way  which,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Divine  economy,  is  the  way  of 
all  true  servants  of  God.  For  in  the  great  his- 
torical idea  of  the  "  servant  of  God,"  which  iB 
actually  realized  under  the  old  dispensation  only 
in  disjectis  membris,  but  under  the  new  dispimsa- 
tion,  in  its  complete  fulness  in  Christ,  there  is  con- 
tained the  thought  that  every  servant  of  God  is 
made  perfect  through  trial  and  temptation,  througt 
suffering  and  tribulation,  and   in   that  which  hi 


224 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


suffers  he  learns  obedience  (Heb.  ii.  10 ;  v.  8 ; 
Luke  xxiv.  2G;  Is.  liii;  Acts  ii.  23,  24;  iii.  13; 
iv.  27).  All  the  great  men  who,  as  servants  of 
God,  occupy  an  integrant  position  in  the  history 
of  salvation,  have  had  to  go  through  this  experi- 
ence; and  the  life  even  of  an  Elijah  or  a  Moses 
would  lack  an  essential  element  of  that  which  be- 
longs to  a  "servant  of  God,"  if  he  had  remained 
untempted  and  untried,  free  from  suffering  and 
tribulation.  From  this  standpoint  must  be  con- 
templated and  estimated  what  the  sectioD  before 
us  announces  concerning  him.  He  stands  now, 
not  as  before,  acting  and  giving,  commanding  and 
judging,  but  enduring,  suffering,  and  receiving.  It 
is  the  Lord  who  is  purifying  him  through  Buffer- 
ing ;  the  temptation  becomes  for  him  the  way  to 
the  most  glorious  revelation  of  God. 

2.  The  removal  from  Jezreel  into  the  wilderness 
should  not,  as  is  so  often  done,  be  looked  on  as 
properly  a  "  flight,"  a  lack  of  faith,  courage,  and 
firmness  (Krummacher :  "Faith  to  remain  was 
wanting  in  him  this  time  ").  The  text  has  do  more 
knowledge  of  a  flight  (mj),  like  that,  e.  g.,  in  the 

case  of  Jonah  (Jon.  i.  2, 3),  than  of  his  being  afraid. 
He  recognized  in  the  threat  of  Jezebel  a  providen- 
tial admonition,  which,  however  dark  and  hard  it 
might  appear  to  him,  he  did  not  believe  himself 
at  liberty  to  resist,  since  no  higher  direction  to 
remain  had  come  to  him.  For  him,  the  strong 
man.  firm  a9  a  rock,  heroic  in  temper,  it  was  an 
infinitely  more  difficult  and  humiliating  duty  to 
give  up  to  the  auger  of  a  godless,  wicked  woman, 
than  to  bid  her  defiance,  and  make  trial  of  the 
Lord.  He  bowed  beneath  the  inscrutable  decree, 
as  becomes  a  true  servant  of  God;  and  so  his 
going  away  was  an  act  of  faith  no  less  than  his 
appearing  before  the  persecuting  Ahab  (xviii.  15 
sq.).  "  To  force  martyrdom  upon  himself,  of 
his  own  choice,  without  necessity,  he  did  not  con- 
sider a  part  of  his  calling,  nor  did  he  regard  it  a 
great  aud  holy  act,  nor  has  this  ever  been  the  case 
with  the  prophets  and  apostles.  In  behalf  of  the 
truth  aud  the  glory  of  God's  name  the  prophet 
would  have  given  up  his  life  with  joy ;  but  at  the 
present  crisis  this  end  would  not  have  been  at- 
tained through  his  death ;  it  would  have  been  a 
triumph  for  Jezebel "  (Menken).  There  is  no 
greater  mistake  than  to  suppose  that  Elijah  with- 
drew from  Jezreel  "through  fear  of  man,"  and 
that  then,  because  he  had  arbitrarily  relinquished 
the  prosecution  of  his  prophetic  calling,  he  was 
"summoned,  so  to  speak,"  to  an  account  aud  justi- 
fication of  himself  on  Horeb  (Thenius).  It  was 
just  there  that  he  was  favored  with  the  most 
glorious  revelation. 

3.  The  state  of  mind  into  which  Elijah  fell  in  the 
wilderness  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  common 
"weak-minded  weariness  of  life"  (Thenius).  His 
righteous  and  holy  sorrow  over  the  fruitlessness 
of  all  that  God  had  done,  through  him,  to  save 
His  people  from  ruin  and  destruction,  overpowered 
him,  being  as  ho  was,  according  to  the  apostle's 
expression,  &ftotoiraiH)s  i/ftiv  (Jas.  v.  17  ;  cf.  Acts 
xiv.  15);  so  that  he  was  subject  to  the  frailty  ami 
weakness  of  human  nature,  from  which  no  mortal 
is  free,  so  long  as  he  lives  ir.  the  body.  Even  he, 
this  mighty  hero,  was  obliged  to  go  through  this 
experience  for  himself,  and  pay  his  tribute  to  it. 
Similar  states  of  mind  appear  even  in  the  lives  of 
the  firmest  and  strongest,  men  of  God.     Thus,  in 


the  case  of  that  other  Elijah,  John  the  Baptist  in 
the  prison,  who  believed,  in  like  manner,  that  ha 
must  give  up  all  hope,  and  sent,  in  the  hard 
hour  of  temptation,  to  inquire  of  the  Lord,  "  Art 
thou  He  that  should  come,"  &c. ;  yet  at  that  time 
the  Lord  testifies  of  him  that  he  is  no  reed  whicl 
the  wind  blows  to  and  fro.  And  the  Author  anc 
Finisher  of  faith  himself,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh 
(John  i.  14),  offered  up  prayers  and  supplication 
with  strong  crying  and  tears  (Heb.  v.  7),  and  called 
out:  "My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto 
death"  (Matt.  xxvi.  38).  As  here  Elijah,  so  there 
the  Lord  in  Gethsemane  was  strengthened  by  an 
angel — a  clear  token  that  his  condition  was  one 
indeed  of  severe  temptation,  but  not  of  guilt  or 
sin,  such  as  would  merit  censure  or  reproof,  or 
even  a  summons  before  the  tribunal  of  God. 

4.  Elijah's  spending  forty  days  and  forty  nights 
in  the  wilderness  before  reaching  Horeb,  while  he 
might  have  attained  his  end  in  a  much  shorter 
time,  was  anything  rather  than  accidental  or 
meaningless ;  concerning  Moses  the  fact  is  mads 
prominent,  not  once  merely,  but  repeatedly,  with 
a  certain  emphasis,  that  he,  before  receiving  on 
Horeb  the  highest  revelation  from  Jehovah,  spent 
forty  days  and  forty  nights  without  eating  or 
drinking  (Ex.  xxiv.  18;  xxxiv.  28;  Deut.  ix.  9; 
xviii.  25;  x.  10).  Since,  now,  the  same  thing  took 
place  in  the  case  of  Elijah  also,  and  in  that  of  no 
other  servant  of  God,  this  very  fact  marks  him 
out  as  the  other,  the  second  Moses ;  but  it  follows 
at  once  from  this  that  the  season  of  forty  days  and 
forty  nights  had  the  same  significance  for  Elijah, 
the  restorer  of  the  covenant  (vide  above  on  chap, 
xvii.),  as  for  Moses  its  founder.  It  was  a  season 
of  preparation  for  the  highest  possible  revelation 
of  God  that  can  be  given  to  a  mortal,  but,  as  such, 
a  season  of  abstinence  from  all  earthly  enjoyment, 
of  absorption  in  God  and  a  higher  world,  of  con- 
templation and  prayer.  This  significance  is  im- 
pressed upon  it  by  the  number  forty,  which  is  ia 
the  Scriptures  generally  the  measure  of  every  sea- 
son of  abstinence,  of  purification  and  trial,  of  con- 
flict and  correction,  and  so  also  of  expectation  (Gen. 
vii.  4-17  ;  Deut.  viii.  2,  3 ;  xxix.  4-6 ;  Jon.  iii.  4;  Ez. 
iv.  6;  xxix.  11-13;  Matt.  iv.  2).  Elijah  now  spent 
this  time,  not  like  Moses  upon  the  mountain  itself, 
but  in  the  wilderness  lying  before  it,  which  was 
just  the  most  appropriate  locality  for  him.  "  Here 
the  whole  wonderful  history  of  the  old  fathers 
passed  in  review  before  him.  .  .With  every  step 
which  he  took  forward  into  the  silent  desert,  new 
pictures  and  scenes  came  before  his  gaze  out  of 
that  wonderful  past  "  (Krummacher),  he  was  most 
vividly  reminded  "  how  even  in  this  wilderness 
God  the  Lord  had  manifested  Himself  to  His  ser- 
vants and  to  His  people  in  the  most  varied  and 
most  glorious  manner. . .  .and  so  he  was  gradually 
prepared  for  the  revelations  and  consolations 
which  awaited  him  in  this  wilderness"  (Menken). 

5.  The  revelation  which  Elijah  received  on  Horeb 
furnishes,  indeed,  an  unmistakable  parallel  to  that 
which  once  fell  to  the  lot  of  Moses,  but  the  ac- 
count of  it  is  in  no  wise  copied  by  our  narrator 
from  that  earlier  one,  as  more  recent  commenta- 
tors suppose.  (Thenius  thinks  that  he  surpasses 
his  model  almost.)  The  cornmon.charaeteristic  of 
the  two  revelations  consists  in  this,  that  Jehovah 
here,  as  there,  "passes  by,"  which  designates,  as 
observed  above,  the  highest  state  of  revelation  uu- 
der  the  old  dispensation.     When  now  Elijah  is  fa- 


CHAPTER  XIX.  1-21. 


226 


vored  with  the  same  revelation,  such  as  fell  to  the 
lot  of  Moses  only  and  of  no  other  servant  of  God 
beside  Moses  under  the  old  dispensation,  he  is 
thereby  placed  over  against  Moses ;  in  fact,  to  a 
certain  degree,  on  the  same  line  with  him :  and 
this  is  owing  to  the  position  which  he  holds  in  sa- 
cred history  as  the  restorer  of  the  broken  cove- 
nant, the  other,  the  second  Moses.  The  nature  and 
method  of  the  ''passing  by"  were,  on  the  con- 
trary, very  different ;  the  accompanying  natural 
phenomena  are  wholly  wanting  in  the  earlier  in- 
stance, and  are  in  the  Ingest  degree  peculiar,  for 
they  have  reference  to  the  special  relations  and 
circumstances  in  which  Elijah  found  himself,  as  is 
moreover  expressly  attested  by  the  explanatory 
language  of  God  (ver.  15  sq.).  The  whole  of  this 
revelation  bears  in  general  a  predominantly  pro- 
phetic  character,  referring,  that  is,  to  the  future, 
while  this  element  is  almost  entirely  absent  from  the 
revelation  to  Moses.  However,  it  is  a  matter  of 
greater  importance  that  here,  as  there,  Jehovah 
reveals  saving  grace  as  His  most  real  and  inmost 
essence,  and  that  this  revelation  fell  to  the  lot  of 
just  these  two,  Moses  and  Elijah,  i.  e..  the  founder 
and  the  restorer  of  the  covenant,  the  representa- 
tives of  the  law  and  of  the  prophets,  and  so  of  the 
Old  Testament  economy  in  general  (Matt.  xvii.  3  ; 
Luke  ix.  30).  This  fact  is  the  best  refutation  of 
the  common  assertion  that  the  God  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  entirely  different  from  the  God  of  the 
New  Testameut — an  angry,  despotic,  national  God, 
not  the  God  who,  under  the  new  dispensation,  has 
revealed  Himself  as  "  Love."  That  which  became 
evident  to  all,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  when  the  time 
was  fulfilled,  was  already  disclosed  by  the  Lord  to 
the  two  representatives  of  the  old  dispensation, 
although  with  "  veiled  countenance,"  for  it  was 
just  they  who,  in  their  higher  historical  position, 
needed  to  take  a  deeper  look  into  the  essence  of 
God,  and  so  into  the  counsel  of  His  mercy  and 
love. 

6.  The  whole  transaction  on  Horeb  may  indeed 
be  designated  a  "  vision  "  (Niemeyer,  Herder,Von 
Gerlach.  Keil),  only  by  this  must  not  be  meant 
that  it  was  merely  a  transaction  within  the  proph- 
et, a  pure  vision  which  he  had  during  sleep,  per- 
haps "  in  a  dream  "  (Thenius).  The  expression  in 
ver.  9:  "  And  behold  the  word  of  Jehovah  came 
to  him,"  which  is  constantly  used  of  an  inner  reve- 
lation, points  doubtless  to  the  fact  that  Elijah  found 
himself  in  a  visionary  condition,  into  which  he 
§eems  to  have  been  brought  already,  more  or  less, 
during  the  forty  days  and  nights  (ver.  8);  but  the 
account  certainly  does  not  mean  to  designate  the 
natural  phenomenon,  the  medium  of  the  theophany, 
as  an  object  of  purely  internal  perception,  but  as  an 
object  of  external  experience,  as  appears  from  the 
fact  that  Elijah  went  out  from  the  cave  and  veiled 
his  face  with  his  mantle.  Tet  this  does  not  re- 
move the  visionary  condition,  for  the  theophanies 
are,  as  Lange  (on  Gen.  hi.  8)  observes,  "universal- 
ly effected  by  means  of  visionary  frames  of  mind." 
We  have  before  us  here  a  theophany  which  is  not, 
ns  in  xxii.  17  or  Ez.  1,  a  mere  vision,  still  less  as  in 
Ps.  xviii.  7  sq.,  only  poetry,  but  which,  like  that  in 
Ex.  iii.  2  sq.,  has  an  occurrence  in  nature  for  its 
substratum.  This  kind  of  theophany  has,  as  even 
Knobel  (Prophet,  der  Hebr.  I.  s.  160)  says,  "an  ob- 
jective truth  in  so  far  as  every  occurrence  in  nature 
is  a  revelation  of  the  moving  God."  As  in  general 
the  whole  of  created  niture  makes  known  theCrt- 
15 


ator  and  reveals  His  glory  (Ps.  xix.  1  sq.),  so  als« 
single  special  objects  in  nature,  and  phenomena  of 
occurrences  in  nature,  serve  for  His  special  revela- 
tion, for  they  correspond  to  the  relations  of  th« 
special  time  and  person,  as  is  here  the  case. 

7.  Of  the  various  explanations  which  the  appear- 
ance on  Horeb  has  received,  that  one,  first  of  all,  ij 
to  be  rejec'ed  as  wholly  mistaken  which  finds  re- 
presented here  for  Elijah  the  fact  that  the  peaceful 
rest  of  eternity  is  to  follow  the  unrest,  the  conflicts 
and  tribulaiions  of  this  life  (Seb.  Schmidt),  for  this 
has  no  connection  with  the  explanatory  oracle  in 
ver.  15,  or  rather  is  directly  contradictory  to  it, 
even  were  it  not  Jehovah,  but  Elijah's  life,  that 
"  passed  by."  Much  more  probable  and  widespread 
is  another  explanation,  according  to  which  the  ap- 
pearance expresses  a  censure  of  Elijah's  "  zeal  as 
not  wholly  free  from  human  passion,"  and  aims 
" to  quiet  his  zeal,  which  d-means  itself  too  pas- 
sionately, although  it  is  commendable  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  sentiment  lying  at  its  foundation,"  and  to 
"  show  to  him  thathio  zealous  activity  for  the  honor 
of  the  Lord  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  love,  grace, 
and  long-suffering  of  God,"  aud  at  the  9ame  time  al- 
so to  remind  and  admonish  him  not  to  go  too  far  in 
the  matter  (Keil  after  Ephraim  the  Syrian,  Theo- 
doret,  certain  Rabbis,  Le  Clerc,  et  alii).  But 
where,  then,  had  the  prophet,  thus  far,  demeaned 
himself  too  passionately,  aud  where  did  he  go  too 
far  in  his  zeal  ?  It  could  only  have  happened  upon 
CarmeL  But  since,  then,  "by  slaying  the  priests 
of  Baal  he  only  fulfilled  what  the  law  demanded  " 
(Keil  on  xviii.  40),  he  certainly  deserved  no  cen- 
sure or  reproof;  and  since  later  he  caused  fire 
from  heaven  to  fall  upon  the  company  sent  against 
him  (2  Kings  i.  10  sq.),  he  would  certainly  have  paid 
no  heed  to  the  pretended  admonition  not  to  be  too 
zealous.  The  gentle  whispering  in  which  Jehovah 
was,  and  out  of  which  he  spoke,  can  by  no  means 
have  set  forth  what  Elijah  was  to  be,  and  how  he 
was  to  control  himself;  it  was  no  censure,  but  com- 
fort and  encouragement,  eonsolat  ion  and  support  for 
him. — A  third  explanation  sees  on  the  appearance 
a  picture  of  the  two  economies :  the  law,  which 
terries  and  crushes  sinners,  and  the  gospel,  which 
makes  them  alive  and  quickens  them  (so  Irenasus, 
long  ago,  Grotius,  and  many  more  modern  ones),  or, 
at  the  same  lime,  of  the  judgments  and  chastise- 
ments which  came  upon  the  people  under  the  old 
dispensation,  and  of  the  New  Testament  season  of 
refreshing  and  peace,  in  which  the  Lord  Himself 
will  appear  and  dwell  among  His  believing  ones 
(Jo.  Lange,  Calw.  Bib.,  et  alii).  This,  however,  is 
opposed  by  ihe  fact  that  the  appearance  would,  in 
that  ease,  stand  in  no  direct  connection  with  Elijah's 
complaint  (ver.  10),  to  which,  nevertheless,  it  was 
the  first  reply  ;  and  moreover  the  folio  wing  oracle 
(ver.  15  sq.),  which  makes  it  refer  to  the  relations 
existing  at  that  time,  contains  no  allusion  to  the 
Messianic  age.  When  Paul  (Rom.  xi.  5)  cites  Eli- 
jah's complaint  and  the  divine  response  (ver.  18), 
and  then  continues:  "  Even  so,  then,  at  this  pre- 
sent time  also  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace,"  he  does  not  mean  to  say :  What 
is  there  predicted  is  now  fulfilled,  but:  As  in  Eli- 
jah's time  God  according  to  His  grace  had  left  alive 
a  number  of  such  as  did  not  give  themselves  up  to 
the  service  of  Baal  so  now  also,  in  the  time  of  sal- 
vation, there  is  an  "election  of  grace,"  which  doet 
not,  with  the  hardened  multitude,  reject  the  offers 
of  salvation,  but   embraces  it  and   is  saved.     Ir 


226 


TK2  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Isaiah  a  recurring  theme  of  prophecy  is  this:  that 
alter  all  the  chastisements  and  judgments  which 
would  come  upon  Israel,  there  should  still  always 
be  in  existence  a  " remnant"  of  the  peculiar  and 
faithful  people  of  God,  therefore  also  at  the  end 
of  the  Old  Testament  age.  resp.  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Messianic  age  (Isai.  iv.  2  ;  vi.  13  ;  x.  16  sq. ; 
xi.  11).  But  the  reference  in  the  oracle  before  us 
is  not  to  this  remnant,  but  to  that  which  in  Elijah's 
time  does  not  bow  the  knee  before  Baal,  although 
it  can  always  be  looked  upou  as  a  type  of  the 
later  one  and  the  last.  The  truth  presented  in  the 
natural  phenomenon  on  Horeb  is  of  such  a  kind 
that  it  finds  application  to  various  times  and  rela- 
tions, because  it  is  uni%Tersal  and  eternal,  and  in  so 
far  it  may  be  valid  also  for  the  Messianic  age,  but 
it  was  revealed  to  Elijah  only  with  reference  to  his 
own  time,  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 

8.  Tlte  calling  of  Elisha  to  become  a  prophet  na- 
turally connects  itself  directly  with  the  revelation 
on  Horeb.  What  filled  Elijah  with  the  greatest  so- 
licitude, and  drove  him  into  the  wilderness  and  to 
Horeb,  was,  that  he  alone  remained  of  all  the  pro- 
phets, that  with  him  his  work  of  restoring  the  cov- 
enant would  go  down  and  the  prophetic  office  die 
out.  On  Horeb  now  he  learned  that  Jehovah  had 
appointed  as  prophet  one  who  would  step  into  his 
place  and  carry  on  his  work,  so  that  there  should 
never  be  in  Israel  a  lack  of  such  as  do  not  bow  the 
knee  before  Baal.  This  it  was  that  brought  him 
out  of  his  depressed  state  of  mind,  since  the  cause 
of  God  was  the  only  matter  of  importance  to  him, 
and  rilled  him  with  new  courage,  and  because  this 
was  the  chief  matter  for  him,  he  felt  himself  im- 
pelled to  summon  at  once  as  his  successor  that 
Elisha  whom  Jehovah  had  appointed  and  elected 
to  become  a  prophet,  and  so  he  betook  himself 
"thence"  to  him  directly,  and  without  delay. 
There  can,  therefore,  be  no  thought  of  a  "gap  "  in 
the  account  before  us  between  vers.  18  and  19  (The- 
nius.  vide  above  on  vers.  15-18).  The  calling  of  Eli- 
sha was  the  most  urgent  thing  in  his  eyes,  the  time 
for  the  "anointing  "  of  Hazael  and  Jehu  he  left 
with  the  Lord. — Krummacher  (Elias,  s.  294)  re- 
peatedly expresses  such  a  conception  of  the  calling 
of  Elisha  as  that,  with  it,  "  an  entirely  new  period 
was  to  begin  in  the  history  of  the  education  of 
Israel,  a  period  of  divine  condescension  after  the 
days  of  punishments  and  thunderings  of  the  law, 
a  term  of  the  gentle  breeze  after  that  of  the  storm, 
the  flame  of  fire,  and  the  earthquake ;  "  but  this  is 
in  direct  contradiction  of  the  oracle  (vers.  16  and 
17),  where  Elisha  is  put  in  the  same  rank  with 
Hazael  and  Jehu,  the  instruments  of  divine  pun- 
ishment, and  it  is  said:  "Him  that  escapeth  from 
the  sword  of  Jehu  shall  Elisha  slay,"  which  ran 
scarcely  mean:  Elisha,  in  contrast  with  them,  will 
be  a  bringer  of  salvation  and  peace.  It  was  just 
the  time  of  Elisha  that  was  farthest  from  being  the 
period  of  the  gentle  breeze,  for  from  without  Israel 
was  continually  hard  pressed  by  the  Syrians,  and 
from  within  the  kingdom  was  thoroughly  shaken 
by  the  turbulent  Jehu,  who  put  a  bloody  end  to 
the  house  of  Ahab. — We  shall  return  to  the  relation 
in  which  Elisha  stands  to  Elijah  in  sacred  history 
when  lie  really  steps  into  Elijah's  place  (2  Kings  ii). 

9.  Elisha's  being  called  away  from  the  plough 
to  become  a  prophet  and  indeed  the  successor  of  an 
Elijah,  an  historical  position  of  such  elevation  and 
influence,  is  one  of  the  not  infrequent  examples  of 
the  manner  in  which  God  has  selected  ami  equipped 


with  light  and  power  from  above,  for  the  carrying 
out  of  his  counsels  of  salvation  and  fcr  the  founding 
and  extending  of  His  kingdom,  just  such  men  as 
were  living  unseen  before  the  world  and  neglected 
by  it,  in  quiet  and  reiirement,  faithful  aud  sub- 
missive to  their  inglorious  earthly  calling,  and  were 
not  thinking  or  wishing  to  become  anything  great, 
to  the  end  that  all  the  world  might  know  that  the 
work  which  they  have  been  called  to  carry  out  is 
not  of  men  but  of  Him  (Acts  v.  38  sq. ;  2  Cor.  iv.  7). 
His  apostles,  who  went  into  all  the  world  and 
accomplished  the  greatest  and  most  difficult  task 
which  has  ever  been  achieved,  were  called  by  the 
Lord  from  the  fishing-smack  and  from  the  custom- 
house. It  is  a  rule  of  the  divine  government :  "God 
hath  chosen  the  weak  things  of  the  world  to  con- 
found the  things  which  are  mighty ;  and  base  things 
of  tiie  world,  and  things  which  are  despised,  hath 
God  chosen,  yea,  and  things  which  are  not,  to  bring 
to  naught  things  that  are,  that  no  flesh  should  glory 
in  His  presence  "  (1  Cor.  i.  27  sq.). 

HOM1LETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-18.  The  course  which  God  takes  with 
His  servants,  (a)  He  leads  them  down  into  the 
depths  (wilderness,  conflict,  vers.  1-8) ;  (6)  but  then 
He  sets  them  on  high  (Horeb,  vision  of  God,  ver. 
9-18;  vide  ethical  remarks). — Vers.  1-8.  Bender: 
Elijah  in  his  flight  from  Queen  JezebeL.  (o)  The  situa- 
tion into  which  he  came;  (i)  the  state  of  mind  into 
which  he  fell;  (c)  the  comfort  which  was  imparted 
to  him. — Wirtii  :  Elijah  under  the  juniper-tree  (a) 
The  deep  despondency  into  which  the  prophet  of 
God  was  fallen;  (6)  the  wonderful  strengthening 
which  he  received. — Ver.  1-4.  Krummacuer  :  The 
flight  into  the  wilderness,  (a)  The  persecution;  (6) 
the  flight;  (c)  the  dejection. — Vers.  1-2.  Ahab  after 
the  day  on  Carmel.  (a)  Ahab  tells  his  wife  everything 
that  he  has  experienced  and  witnessed  there  (every 
man  should  tell  his  wife  the  great  deeds  of  God,  in 
order  to  bring  her  to  the  way  of  life  and  keep  her 
there;  thus  marriage  becomes  what  it  should  be, 
Eph.  v.  23-27).  (b)  He  lets  his  wife's  anger  and 
spite  have  free  course  (instead  of  her  being  subject 
to  him,  he  is  subject  to  her;  instead  of  holding  be- 
fore her  the  command :  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  and 
turning  her  from  her  wicked  way,  he  sutlers  himself 
to  be  contented,  keeps  quiet,  and  bows  beneath  her 
will;  such  weakness  is  not  conjugal  love,  but  sin 
and  shame). — Wurt.  Sdmw.  :  Hardened  sinners 
allow  themselves  to  be  won  over  and  converted 
neither  by  the  punishments  nor  by  the  favors  of  God, 
but  become  more  wicked,  the  longer  they  live.-- 
Ver.  2.  There  is  no  anger  so  bitter  as  the  anger  of 
women.  When  hatred  and  revenge  have  once 
entered  a  woman's  neart,  she  does  not  shrink  even 
from  the  greatest  crimes  (Mark  vi.  19,  24). — To  bind 
one's  self  to  wickedness  by  an  oath  is  the  highest 
step  of  religious  and  moral  infatuation  (Acts  xxiii. 
12).  Calw.  Bib.  :  A  profligate  man  often  determines 
to  bind  himself  thus  in  order  that  his  wicked  plans 
may  not  be  repented  of.  Would  that  men  would 
seek  to  bind  themselves  to  the  right. — Ver.  3.  Calw. 
Bid.  :  So  long  as  we  can  escape  martyrdom  we  may 
and  should  do  so  (Matt.  x.  23).  How  much  more 
must  it  be  folly  to  seek  it.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
stand  firm  when  escape  from  persecution  is  im- 
possible. The  Scripture  says:  He  that  believeth 
shall  not  make  haste  (flee),  Is.  xxviii.  16  ;  and,  Fear 
not  them,  &c.  (Matt.  x.  28) ;  but  every  flight  is  not 


OH  AFTER  XIX.    1-21. 


221 


unbelief;  fleeing  is  reprehensible  and  disgraceful 
only  when  it  leads  away  from  the  fulfilment  of  a 
duty,  or  when  it  results  from  dread  of  toil  or  suffer- 
ing, from  love  of  rest  and  ease.  It  is  often  the  part 
of  faith  and  self-renunciation  to  yield  before  the 
wicked  and  godless  rather  than  to  stay  and  bid 
them  defiance.  If  God  shows  us  ways  and  means 
for  saving  our  life  and  our  honor,  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  hope  for,  and  presume  upon,  miracles  aud 
extraordinary  assistance. 

Ver.  4.  The  deep  sadness  of  the  prophet,  (a)  Its 
origin  (it  was  not  the  sadness  of  the  world,  that 
arises  from  the  loss  of  temporal  goods,  honor,  re- 
spect, joys  and  pleasures,  but  a  sadness  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  every  great  act  which  God  had  per- 
formed with  reference  to  his  people,  every  labor  and 
every  contest  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls  had  re- 
mained without  result.  This  is  the  noblest  and 
rarest  sadness.  But  where  are  the  parents,  where 
the  preachers,  who  are  troubled  over  nothing  so 
deeply  and  seriously  as  over  the  blindness  and  deaf- 
ness of  the  souls  intrusted  to  them)?  (b)  Its 
manifestation  (Elijah  wishes  death  for  himself  be- 
cause it  is  intolerable  for  him  to  see  God  abandoned 
and  his  people  running  to  destruction). — Menken-: 
This  outbreak  of  the  full,  oppressed  heart  of  the 
prophet  does  in  no  wise  justify  the  thoughtless, 
light-minded,  irrational  utterances  of  many  men  who 
wish  death  for  themselves,  and  has  nothing  in  com- 
mon with  the  unholy  gloom  of  unholy  men,  who.  .  . 
are  weary  of  life  because  they  cannot  conquer  their 
will,  because  they  set  no  limits  to  the  passions  and 
demands  of  their  heart,  and  neither  seek  nor  know 
the  truth  which  could  free  them  from  all  their  dis- 
content and  unhappiness,  if  they  would  be  obedient 
to  it. — Wirth  :  There  is  no  Christian's  life,  even 
though  it  were  the  most  pious  and  perfect,  which 
does  not  also  have  its  hours  of  despondency  ;  there 
is  no  child  of  God  who  might  not  also,  for  once 
perhaps,  like  Elijah,  sit  under  the  juniper-tree  aud 
wish  to  shake  off  his  burdens  and  sigh  :  It  is  enough, 
Ac.  Those  are  dangerous  moments ;  the  word  of 
the  Lord  is  applicable  to  them,  Luke  xxii.  31  sq. — 
Elijah's  prayer  in  the  moment  of  temptation,  (a) 
It  is  enough  I  the  measure  is  full  (we  may  indeed 
sigh  under  the  burden,  which  is  pressing  us  to  the 
ground,  and  entreat :  Put  an  end,  0  Lord,  put  an 
end  to  all  our  necessity  1  But  whether  it  is  enough, 
when  we  think  it  is  enough,  is  known  only  to  Him  ; 
to  determine  the  measure  of  life  and  of  suffering  is 
not  our  business  but  His  (Matt.  xxvi.  39  ;  Luke 
xxii.  42).  Many  a  man  before  now  has  called  out : 
It  is  enough  I  and  yet  afterwards  thanked  God 
that  the  Lord  did  not  at  once  listen  to  his  request, 
but  suffered  it  to  be  not  yet  enough).  (6)  J>'ow,  0 
Lord,  take  away  my  life  (because  Elijah's  bouI  be- 
longed to  the  Lord  and  his  whole  life  was  devoted 
to  Him,  he  ventured  to  say:  Take  my  soul,  which 
thou  gavest  me,  back  to  thyself,  and  give  it  rest  in 
the  everlasting  tabernacles  of  peace. — Menken  :  In 
order  to  be  able  to  say  with  Paul :  I  desire  to  de- 
part and  to  be  with  Christ,  we  must  know  and 
love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  Paul  knew  and  loved 
Him,  and  also  be  able  to  say  like  him  in  truth  : 
For  me  to  live  is  Christ  I  In  order  to  be  able  to 
pray  with  Elijah:  It  is  enough  ;  now,  0  Lord,  take 
away  my  life  I  we  must,  at  least  on  a  small  scale, 
have  worked  and  suffered  and  maintained  our- 
selves well  amid  temptations,  and  labored  over 
ourselves  with  the  grace  and  gift  of  God  as  Elijah 
did),    (c)  I  am   not  better  than  my  fathers  (the 


particular  gift  of  a  long  life  Elijah  does  not  bolieve 
himself  to  have  deserved,  although  he  always 
walked  in  the  ways  of  God.  Not  because  he  con- 
siders himself  too  good  for  this  world  does  he 
wish  himself  out  of  it,  but  because  he  feels  himself 
to  be  not  better  than  his  fathers;  he  does  not  rest 
his  prayer  on  his  merit  and  good  works,  but  in  the 
consciousness  of  his  sinfulness  and  m  the  hope  of 
God's  grace  and  mercy  he  awaits  death.  He  who 
dies  so,  dies  well) ! 

Vers.  5-8.  Krummacher  :  The  visit  under  the 
juniper-tree.  The  guardianship  of  divine  grace 
becomes  evident  (a)  in  the  hearing  vouchsafed  to 
the  prophet's  prayer ;  (b)  in  the  appearance  of  an 
angel  which  the  Lord  sends  to  him ;  (c)  in  a  won- 
derful nourishment  which  he  experiences;  (rf)  in 
a  delightful  prospect  which  God  opens  before  him  ; 
(e)  in  a  supernatural  strengthening  for  his  wander- 
ing through  the  wilderness. — Ver.  5.  Menken: 
There  have  been  in  all  ages  faithful  servants  of  God 
and  Christ  who  have  been  weakened  and  dis- 
couraged by  the  thought  that  it  was  all  in  vain,  all 
their  anxiety  and  labor  were  fruitless,  nothing 
more  could  possibly  be  gained  for  the  Lord,  and  no 
more  work  of  any  importance  could  be  done  by 
them  for  His  cause  and  kingdom,  and  they  have 
been  on  the  point  of  finding  joyous,  spirited, 
zealous  work  in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  nay,  evei 
life  itself,  distasteful.  But  they  have  always  found 
consolation  from  the  Lord  in  his  Word,  and  have 
been  aroused  and  strengthened  by  His  spirit  to 
new  courage  and  to  unremitted  perseverance  in 
their  work  for  the  truth.  They  have  learned  to 
think  of  Him  who  endured  similar  contradiction  of 
sinners  against  himself.  .  .  .  The  Lord  Je»us 
Christ  had  taught  them  not  to  estimate  the  value 
of  their  labor  according  to  the  effect  which  they 
produce  by  it,  nor  according  to  the  visible  results 
perceptible  to  themselves,  but  with  joy  and  con- 
fidence to  persevere  unweariedly,  even  though  it 
should  appear  as  though  all  they  said  was  ad- 
dressed to  au  uninhabited  desert  — Ver.  6  Cra- 
mer: When  the  children  of  God  are  forsaken  by 
every  human  being,  and  lie  in  the  midst  of  a  wil- 
derness, God  with  his  holy  angels,  like  a  heavenly 
host,  ministers  to  them.  (Heb.  i.  14;  Gen.  xxxii.  1. — 
Menken  :  God  is  present  in  the  desert  also,  and 
can  prepare  a  table  for  your  soul  even  there,  and 
just  at  a  time  when  man  is  aud  can  be  nothing  to 
you,  when  the  world  can  give  you  no  help;  then, 
better  than  at  any  other  time,  can  he  be  to  you  all 
and  in  all. — Wirth  :  For  us  too,  and  for  our  hours 
of  lack  of  faith  and  despair,  God  has  prepared 
bread  and  water  which  will  nourish  and  quicken 
the  soul.  This  bread,  this  water  is  His  word,  the 
everhsting  word  of  God,  which  is  the  life  of  God 
and  strength  of  God  (Matt.  iv.  4).  Eat  of  this 
bread,  drink  of  this  water,  when  you  are  in 
danger  of  going  astray  in  your  life-work,  not  only 
once  or  twice,  nay,  again  and  again  eat  aud  drink. 
— Ver.  7.  We  all  have  a  long  journey  before 
us,  and  do  not  know  how  long  a  time  we  will  be 
obliged  to  spend  on  the  way,  through  what  deserts 
He  is  still  to  lead  us,  during  how  many  dark  nights 
we  are  to  grope  about,  and  what  burdens  and 
hardships,  without  and  within,  we  have  stiil  to 
bear.  Let  us  then  hearken  to  the  voice  of  Him 
who  is  much  more  to  us  than  an  angel  from  heaven, 
when  he  cries  to  us:  Awake,  thou  that  Bleepes/ 
(Eph.  v.  14)1  Arise  and  eat  I  For  the  long  journey 
he  provides  the  bread  of  life,  and  water  that  spring!1 


22S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


up  unto  everlasting  life :  he  that  cometh  unto  Him 
will  never  hunger  or  thirst  (John  vi.  35) ; 
through  his  strength,  which  is  mighty  in  weakness, 
we  shall  reach  the  goal  and  arrive  there,  where  we 
shall  see  Him  as  He  is. — Ver.  8.  Menken:  The 
way  of  the  prophet  into  the  wilderness  seemed  to 
him  as  he  entered  upon  it  a  road  to  death  and  hell, 
but  it  proved  to  him  the  way  of  life  and  heaven,  a 
means  of  most  valuable  experiences.  The  world 
often  thinks  that  it  has  given  to  a  man  of  God  a 
cup  to  drink  which  will  prove  most  bitter  to  him ; 
it  plans  to  give  him  as  much  distress  as  possible. 
The  Lord  permits  it,  and  plans  how  to  make  it  a 

source  of  good  to  him,  and permits  him 

to  enjoy  such  pleasures  and  refreshings,  to  have 
such  experiences,  to  attain  such  knowledge  and 
strength,  as  had  never  been  his  portion,  and  such 
as  he  never  wovdd  have  attained  to  in  any  other 
way.  .  .  .  We  too  would  gladly  enjoy  something 
of  the  experience,  the  knowledge  and  comfort  of 
the  saints ;  but  without  the  sufferings  of  the  saints, 
without  their  want  and  their  sacrifices,  and  just 
because  we  will  that  in  the  very  midst  of  the  world 
it  could  be  our  share,  with  all  the  peace  and  joy  of 
the  world  beside,  it  never  will  be  our  lot.  Our 
weak  and  delicate  spirit  shrinks  from  venturii  g 
even  a  day's  journey  into  the  wilderness;  ami 
yet  in  all  times  every  one  who  has  been  led  far 
into  its  depths  have  been  thankful  for  all  their  life 
long. 

Vers.  8-18.  Bender  :  Elijah  on  Mount  Horeb. 
(a)  The  wonderful  consolation  which  he  enjoyed  on 
his  journey  thither ;  (i)  the  exalted  revelation 
which  he  there  received;  (c)  the  new  duties  and 
encouragements  which  were  his  lot  even  there. — 
Vers.  9-13.  Wibth  :  Elijah  at  Mount  Horeb.  (a) 
The  night-quarters  in  the  cave ;  (6)  the  appearance 
of  the  Lord. — Vers.  9-11.  Kwjmmacher:  The  ar- 
rival at  Horeb.  (a)  The  night  spent  in  the  cave; 
(6)  the  speaking  Word;  (c)  the  divine  reproof;  (d) 
the  prophet's  complaint;  (e)  the  summons)?)  before 
the  Lord. — Ver.  9.  The  divine  inquiry:  Whatdoest 
thou  here  ?  (a)  To  Elijah  (purpose  and  intent  of 
the  question ;  vide  explanations  under  ver.  9.  God 
desires  to  have  us  disclose  our  hearts  to  Him ;  He 
summons  us  to  do  so  in  conformity  with  His  love 
and  friendship  for  us,  Lament,  ii.  19;  Ps.  lxii.  9; 
for  he  would  heal  those  who  are  of  a  broken  heart, 
Ps.  cxlvii.  3. — Menken:  A  question  may  be  like  a 
cutting  and  wounding  knife  in  the  pain  it  gives  a 
human  heart ;  but  it  may  also  be  as  beneficent  as 
healing  balm.  He  who  is  indifferent  to  the  ques- 
tions he  asks,  and  does  not  weigh  their  import,  is 
still  inconsiderate,  and  is  greatly  lacking  in  wisdom 
and  love.  Many  thousand  wicked  and  unnecessary 
questions  are  asked,  which  are  causeless  and  with- 
out aim;  questions  of  scorn,  of  derision,  of  anger, 
of  uncharitableness,  and  of  heart  and  time-destroy- 
ing curiosity.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  few 
questions  of  wisdom  and  love.  He  who  asks  in 
order  to  be  able  to  assist,  to  instruct,  is  inspired 
with  the  spirit  of  love,  and  in  addition  to  love,  he 
has  great  wisdom  if  he  understands  how  to  ask, 
so  as  to  attain  his  end  by  means  of  his  questions). 
(&)  Made  to  us  all  by  Jehovah.  (What  doest  thou 
here  in  this  world  and  at  this  time  ?  Art  thou  here 
nnly  for  the  purpose  of  eating  and  drinking,  to  pass 
thy  life  in  enjoyment  and  folly,  and  wear  away  the 
time?  How  many  live  without  considering  that  it 
is  appointed  for  men  once  to  die,  and  then  cometh 
the  judgment.     Heb.  ix.  27.     Let   not  a  day  pass 


without  answering  the  question  which  G>d  puU 
to  thee:  What  doest  thou  here?  The  question 
may  also  imply:  What  doest  thou  here,  in  thia 
place  in  which  thou  happenest  to  be,  in  the  situa- 
tion and  circumstances  into  which  thou  hast  trans- 
ferred thyself?  What  is  it  that  has  led  thee  hither? 
Canst  thou  here  talk  and  act  in  the  sight  of  Him 
of  whom  it  is  said :  there  is  not  a  word  in  my 
tongue,  but  lo,  0  Lord,  thou  knowest  it  altogether- 
whether  I  walk  or  Ue,  thou  art  about  me  and  art 
acquainted  with  all  my  ways?  Ps.  cxxxix.  3,4. 
Wherever  thou  mayest  go,  or  wherever  thou  tar- 
riest,  let  this  question  of  God  come  into  thy  mind: 
What  doest  thou  here  ?  it  is  a  question  of  divine 
love,  but  yet  a  question  of  divine  solemnity.) — Ver. 
1 0.  Elijah's  zeal  for  the  Lord,  (a)  A  pure  and  sin- 
cere zeal  (it  was  solely  for  the  Lord,  not  for  him- 
self, for  his  opinion,  honor,  glory  or  advantage, 
just  as  with  the  Apostle  who  counted  all  things 
but  loss  that  he  might  win  Christ',.  Phil.  iii.  8.  How 
often  folly,  dogmatism,  passion,  .and  injustice  is 
mingled  with  zeal  for  the  Lord  and  for  His  kingdom 
Would  that  all  who  would  be,  or  who  pretend  to 
he  zealous  for  the  cause  of  God,  could  stand  before 
the  Searcher  of  hearts  and  say  in  sincerity :  I  have 
been  zealous  for  the  Lord),  (b)  A  persevering  and 
regardless  zeal.  (Like  Paul,  he  shrunk  from  no 
distress  or  labor,  from  no  strife  or  affliction,  nor 
hunger  nor  nakedness,  neither  scoffing  nor  disgrace, 
Phil.  iv.  12,  13;  2  Cor.  vi.  4-10.  He  had  no  re- 
spect of  persons,did  not  ask  whether  he  was  aking, 
serving  Baal,  or  a  beggar,  whether  he  was  lord'  or 
servant,  whether  his  opponents  were  few  or  many : 
it  could  be  said  of  him:  The  zeal  of  thine  house 
hath  eaten  me  up,  Ps.  lxix.  1 0.  How  few  of  those 
have  any  knowledge  of  such  a  zeal,  who  follow  their 
calling  mechanically,  and  never  become  warm  in  its 
behalf,  whose  zeal  is  like  a  smothered  fire,  and 
grows  less  and  inefficient,  and  cools,  both  when 
temptation  arises  and  when  they  are  in  prosperity.) 
— The  complaint  of  the  prophet  against  Israel  is  a 
threefold  one.  {a)  They  have  forsaken  thy  cove- 
nant, although  it  is  their  only  source  of  safety  (this 
was  the  first  stage  of  their  apostasy.  They  lightly 
estimated  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  did  not  trouble 
themselves  about  it.  The  same  thing  appears  in 
Christianity  still.  The  covenant  which  was  sealed 
by  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  covenant 
meal  are  forsaken  and  considered  of  no  value ;  how 
many  there  are  who  forsake  the  church  and  the 
communion  table,  and,  losing  the  knowledge  of  a 
covenant  with  God  through  Christ,  live  henceforth 
like  the  heathen  without  God  in  the  world).  (6) 
They  have  thrown  down  thine  altars.  (This  was  the 
second  stage  of  their  apostasy ;  desertion  from  grew 
into  enmity  to ;  the  places  of  prayer  were  destroy- 
ed ;  they  were  unwilling  to  have  among  them  longer 
anything  that  reminded  them  of  their  Lord  and 
God.  So  too,  now-a-days,  want  of  esteem  and  in- 
difference rises  gradually  to  enmity.  They  who 
to-day  are  singing: 

Reisst  die  Kreuze  aus  der  Erden, 
Alls  sollen  Schwerter  werden  I 

would,  if  they  had  the  power,  tear  down  the  altars 
and  overthrow  churches.  For  a  time  they  are  sa- 
tisfied with  working  away  at  the  foundations  of 
the  church  of  God  by  means  of  false  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  or  by  means  of  scorn  and  insult.)  (c) 
They  have  slain  thy  prophets  with  the  sword 
(This  was  the  lowest  stage  of  their  apostesy ;  ho* 


CHAPTER  SIX.   1-21. 


226 


tility  grew  into  blind  fury;  not  contented  with 
throwing  down  the  altars,  I  hey  persecuted  and  put 
to  death  those  who  warned  tiiem  to  return.  So 
too  in  Christianity,  there  has  never  been  lacking  a 
persecution  of  those  who  have  preached  repent- 
ance and  faith  witli  zeal  and  earnestness.  Matt. 
x.  22;  John  xv.  18.  When  a  man  will  not  listen 
to  the  truth,  he  seeks  first  of  all  to  remove  its  wit- 
nesses, either  by  power  or  by  cunning.  But  so  long 
as  a  single  witness  of  the  truth  survives,  it  will 
never  remain  unattested.) 

Ver.  11.  Krdmmacher:  Go  forth,  and  stand 
upon  the  mount  before  the  Lordl  This  call  is  is- 
sued to  all  those  who,  like  Elijah,  lodge  in  caves 
and  dens.  The  caves,  however,  are  of  various 
kinds.  Our  heart  is  a  cave,  a  dark  tomb.  .  .  The 
soul  attacked  and  tormented  by  doubts  is  in  a  cave. 
.  .  Bodily  distress  and  external  affliction  may  be 
tailed  a  cave.  ...  0  go  forth  and  go  upon  the 
mount  and  look  aloft  to  Him  who  hangs  upon  the 
tree.  ...  go  forth  1  Spread  the  wings  of  hope, 
soar,  and  place  thyself  upon  the  heights  of  the 
everlasting  promises  of  God,  which  are  Yea  and 
Amen,  and  from  thence  cast  a  look  of  confidence 
into  the  heart  of  Him  whose  counsel  is  truly  won- 
derful, but  who  nevertheless  doeth  all  things  glori- 
ously.— Wirth  :  There  comes  sometimes  an  hour 
when  the  call  of  the  Lord  echoes  in  every  corner 
and  cavern  of  life :  Go  forth  and  stand  upon  the 
mount  before  the  Lordl  Pray,  do  not  think  that 
you  will  be  allowed  to  do  what  you  please  undis- 
turbed in  your  dens  of  sin.  You  must  one  day  come  ■ 
forth  and  stand  before  the  Lord,before  His  judgment- 
seat,  where  each  man  shall  receive  according  to  what 
he  hath  done  in  the  life  of  the  body,  whether  it  be 
good  or  evil.  .  .  .  One  day  the  blessed  hour  will 
come  when  he  himself  will  lead  you  forth  forever 
out  from  your  chambers  of  sorrow,  and  up  to  his 
everlasting  hills  before  his  face. — Vers.  11-18.  The 
revelation  of  God  upon  Horeb.  (a)  By  means  of 
a  manifestation  of  nature,  which  displayed  his 
chastising  justice  toward  the  recreant  and  the  god- 
less, but  also  his  saving,  revivifying  grace  as  his 
true  character.  All  nature  and  creation  are  a  revela- 
tion of  God  (Ps.  xix.  1-7  ;  Job  xii.  7-9);  by  the 
word  of  the  Lord  it  was  created,  and  through  it  he 
speaks  to  us.  It  is  the  great  language  of  God 
which  we  should  learn  to  interpret,  a  book  in  which 
we  should  read ;  its  only  end  is  not  to  support  us 
and  furnish  enjoyment  for  the  mind,  but  that  from 
it  and  in  it  we  may  learn  to  recognize  and  worship 
the  majesty  of  God  (Rom.  i.  19,  20).  He  who  sees 
in  nature  nothing  more  than  a  lifeless  mass  is  as 
one  who  having  eyes  sees  not.  (b)  By  the  voice 
which  announced  the  decision  of  God.  What  was 
still  dark  to  the  prophet  in  the  manifestation  of  na- 
ture, the  divine  word  plainly  and  decisively  inter- 
prets for  him.  The  book  of  nature  is  made  per- 
fectly intelligible  only  by  the  word  of  God  in  the 
book  of  Scripture.  For  this  reason  the  Scriptures 
place  the  revelations  side  bv  side  (Ps.  xix.  1-7  and 
8-12  ;  Ps.  cxlvii.  7-18,  19,  20).  The  heathen  were 
able  to  perceive  the  character  of  God  in  the  works 
of  creation,  but  they  nevertheless  fell  into  idolatry 
\nd  error  (Rom.  i.  21  sq .),  because  they  lacked  the 
word  of  God.  Israel  possessed  this  word,  therefore 
it  ranked  above  all  nations.  We  have  still  more 
than  Israel,  therefore  let  this  word,  which  has  been 
committed  to  us,  be  always  a  light  to  our  feet  and 
a  lamp  to  our  path.  Where  it  is  wanting  there  is, 
in  spite  of  all  professed  wisdom  (Rom.  i.  22),  fool- 


ishness and  darkness,  moral  and  spiritual  decay. — 
Ver.  11.  Behold,  the  Lord  passes  by!  To  Mosea 
and  Klijah,  the  representatives  of  the  old  covenant, 
the  Lord  passed  by  only  hi  visible  perceptible 
veil  or  covering,  but  among  us  He  dwelt,  who  ia 
love,  and  we  saw  his  glory  (John  i.  14.  16,  17). 
For  in  this  was  manifested  the  love  of  God,  £c.  (J 
John  iv.  9;  Col.  ii.  9).  What  sentence  of  condem- 
nation will  be  declared  against  those  who  despise 
such  a  revelation  and  turn  away  from  it  (John  iii. 
36  ;  Heb.  x.  28,  29).  Just  as  God  made  known 
His  true,  real  character,  not  in  the  storm,  the  earth- 
quake, or  the  tire,  but  in  the  still  small  voice,  so 
ought  our  life,  if  it  is  from  God,  to  manifest  itself, 
after  the  pattern  of  Christ  (Matt.  xii.  19,  20),  by 
an  inner,  quiet,  gentle  disposition  of  love  (1  John 
iv  16). — Menken:  The  Lord  is  not  dreadful  and 
terrible  except  to  the  perverse  and  malignant 
Where  he  cannot  penetrate  with  the  word  of  his 
grace,  with  the  glance  of  his  love,  with  the  gentle 
admoniti  n  of  his  spirit  of  peace,  there  he  speaks 
to  hearts  and  ears,  that  are  like  rocks,  in  the  de- 
stroying whirlwind,  and  annihilates  that  which  rises 
up  against  him.  like  a  devouring  earthquake,  and 
makes  room  and  space  for  himself  and  lor  that  which 
he  desires  to  create,  like  a  consuming  fire.  But 
liaise  who  surrender  themselves  to  his  grace  and 
love  experience  nothing  dreadful  and  terrible  from 
him,  for  he  is  to  them  a  delight,  like  a  rain  after  the 
drought  and  like  a  breeze  after  scorching  heat. 
Having  renounced  all  his  glory  and  majesty,  he 
came  with  gentle  and  friendly  aspect,  a  Saviour  and 
Helper;  but  when  now  lie  shall  appear,  his  coming 
will  be  to  his  foes  like  whirlwind,  earthquake,  and 
tiro,  sweeping  them  away,  consuming  and  removiug 
them.  But  to  his  own,  who  have  remained  pro- 
tected and  unharmed  amid  all  ihis,  it  will  be  like  the 
still,  small  whispering  of  the  breeze  after  the  storm 
has  gone  by. — Ver.  13.  Ouly  with  veiled  face,  i.  e., 
with  renunciation  of  his  own  wisdom  and  right- 
eousness, is  man  able  to  ylance  into  the  decrees  of 
the  grace  and  saviug  love  of  God.  He  who  has 
once  experienced  the  working  of  this  grace  in  him- 
self, in  his  inner  man,  covers  his  face  in  humility 
and  holy  awe,  and  stands  adoring  before  the  mystery 
of  eternal  love,  listening  for  the  words  which  pro- 
ceed from  its  mouth. — Tekstegex  :  I  adore  the 
power  of  love,  &c). 

Vers.  15-18.  The  answer  of  the  Lord  to  Elijah's 
repeated  complaint ;  it  includes  (a)  a  direction :  Go, 
return,  &c,  which  is  the  answer  to  :  Thus  far  have 
I  been  zealous  in  vain.  Carry  forward  the  work 
already  begun,  doubting  not  the  result,  let  thy 
hands  fall  not,  fear  not,  I  am  with  thee.  So  the 
Lord  always  calls  to  all  workers  in  his  vineyard. 
The  work  is  never  intended  nor  permitted  to  cease, 
although  it  was  sometimes  in  vain  and  remained 
without  fruit.  (6)  A  commission:  Anoint  Hazael 
Ac,  that  is  the  answer  to:  They  have  forsaken  thy 
covenant,  thrown  down  thine  altars.  Through 
Hazael  will  I  chastise  rebellious  Israel,  through 
Jehu  destroy  the  house  of  Ahab,  through  Elisha 
preserve  the  order  of  the  prophets. — Menken  :  Let 
us  here  observe  how  the  royal  government  of  the 
Lord  influences  so  deeply  and  so  powerfully,  and 
yet  so  quietly  and  noiselessly,  all  human  undertak- 
ings, contrivances,  and  conditions,  all  worldly 
events,  and  how  so  much  happens  under  his  direc- 
tion which  seems  to  happen  without  him,  as  if  by 
accident  (c/.  Dan.  ii.  31).  (c)  A  promise:  Yet  have 
I  left.  &e      This  is   the  answer  lu :   I  oulv  am  left 


230 


FHE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


and  they  seek  my  life.  The  Lord  will  never  forsake 
his  people  and  wholly  reject  them  (Rom.  si.  3-6). 
The  race  of  believers  will  never  perish ;  no  storm, 
no  earthquake,  no  fire  will  destroy  them.  However 
great  and  extended  the  revolt  may  be,  there  will 
always  be  a  remnant  who  do  not  bow  their  knees 
before  Baal,  who  may  indeed  be  oppressed  and 
persecuted,  but  can  never  be  exterminated,  lor 
they  rest  in  the  haud  of  the  Almighty  ;  they  are  the 
salt  of  the  earth,  which  preserves  the  world  from 
corruption  and  ruin. — Ter.  18.  The  election  of 
grace  i.  e.,  the  chosen,  the  remnant  (Rom.  xi.  5,  7). 
(a)  Who  are  they  ?  They  are  those  who  have  not 
bowed.  &c,  who  refuse  to  float  with  the  current  of 
the  times,  who  have  washed  their  robes  and  made 
them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  (Rev.  vii.  13), 
those  who  allow  not  themselves  to  be  seduced  from 
the  narrow  way  to  life  by  no  cross  or  suffering,  and 
endure  in  the  faith  uuto  the  end.  Dost  thou  be- 
long to  these?  (ft)  Whoknoweth  them?  The  Lord 
knoweth  them  that  are  his  (2  Tim.  ii.  19).  Even 
Elijah  at  that  time  knew  them  not,  and  yet  there 
were  seven  thousand  of  them.  Their  cry  is  not 
heard  in  all  the  streets,  their  life  is  a  hidden  one. 
They  are  scattered  in  all  lands,  in  all  conditions, 
among  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor ;  they  do  not 
themselves  know  one  another,  but  the  Lord  know- 
eth them.  How  often  we  consider  a  person  as  a 
lost  child  of  the  world,  who  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Searcher  of  hearts  is  a  child  of  God.  How  often 
we  thiuk  that  a  nation,  a  city,  a  community  is  ut- 
terly corrupt,  and  yet  even  there  too  the  Lord  has 
a  hidden  seed,  and  election's  of  grace,  (c)  Of  what 
are  they  assured  ?  They  are  kept  by  the  power  of 
God  through  faith  unto  salvation  (1  Pet.  i.  5). 
The  Lamb  will  lead  them,  &c.  (Rev.  vii.  17).  That 
faith  which  holds  fast  to  God  and  Jesus  overcomes 
and  is  crowned.  &e.  (Rev.  ii.  10;  Col.  iii.  3,  4; 
Luke  xii.  32).  Therefore  let  us  look  up,  &e.  (Heb. 
xii.  2). — Menken:  We  must  not  look  upon  our- 
selves as  the  only  ones,  but  remember  that  there 
are  thousands  besides  with  us,  going  one  way  to 
the  same  goal,  with  one  faith,  one  hope,  with  one 
love  inwardly  united  to  us  through  one  spirit,  and 
that  even  these  sufferings  which  meet  us  also  be- 
fall these  our  brethren  in  the  world ;  we  must  make 
ourselves  one  in  spirit  with  them  all,  and  the  re- 
membrance of  them  be  encouraged  by  and  rejoice 
in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  will  unite 
us  with  them  all. — Krommacher:  The  invisible 
church,  (a)  The  hidden  seed;  (b)  the  disclosure 
of  it;   (c)  the  promise  that  is  given  it. 

Vers.  19-21.  Kroimacher:  Elisha's  call,  (a) 
Elijah  calls  Elisha ;  (ft)  Elisha  follows.  Compare 
the  Historical  and  Ethical,  8,  9. — Ver.  19.  Men- 
ken: Thus  we  find  it  throughout  sacred  history. 
The  greatest,  most  distinguished  men,  who  have 
become  God's  most  important  instruments  for  the 
execution  of  his  counsel  and  immortal  benefactors 
of  the  human  race,  were  always  humble,  modest, 
men,  who  ....  were  not  moved  by  their  own 
souls  to  bring  themselves  forward  in  their  impure 
pride  as  lights  of  the  world,  as  reformers  of  the 
human  race,  but  remained  in  their  place  and  call- 
ing, looking  quietly  up  to  God  ....  But  the  im- 
pure, arrogant,  egotistical  pride,  when  one  without 
Woking  up  to  God,  without  loving  the  truth,  with- 
out having  a  duty  and  a  call,  allows  himself  to  be 
impelled  by  bis  own  soul  to  wish  to  enlighten  the 
world,  while  he  himself  is  in  darkness,  to  reform 
"hnrch   and  State  without  having  regulated  his 


own  house,  much  less  his  heart, — this  makes  tooli 
of  the  devil,  incendiaries  who  call  themselves  en- 
lighteners.  .  .  .  Every  withdrawal,  through  our 
own  choice  and  passion,  from  a  calling  and  station 
where  by  God's  will  we  are  and  should  be,  wheth- 
er from  a  lower  to  a  higher  station  or  vice  versd, 
is  dangerous,  and  sinful,  and  without  blessinj,  and 
has  for  its  consequence  misery  and  tribulation, 
even  if  matters  go  on  well  now,  if  God  does  not 
completely  turn  away  his  mercy. — Krummacher: 
Another  in  his  place  would  long  before  have  come 
to  the  conclusion,  that  he  was  too  good  for  the 
plough,  he  was  born  for  a  higher  sphere  than  that 
of  a  simple  peasant;  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  with- 
hold his  talents  from  mankind,  he  must  study,  and 
then  enter  upon  the  theatre  of  public  action  to 
help  enlighten  and  govern  the  world Con- 
sider: the  lights  have  the  fairest  and  clearest  lustre 
which  know  not  that  they  shine,  and  those  flowers 
of  God  scatter  the  sweetest  perfume  around  them, 
which,  well  contented  with  the  little  spot  the  Lord 
has  appointed  them,  bloom  hidden  in  silent  dales. 
It  does  not  follow  from  the  calling  of  Elisha  away 
from  the  plough,  to  become  a  prophet,  that  every 
one  without  gifts  and  without  much  knowledge 
can  leave  the  plough  or  any  other  ordinary  occupa- 
tion and  take  up  the  prophet's  calling.  Men  often 
think  the  Lord  calls  them  to  another,  higher  posi- 
tion while  it  is  only  their  vanity  and  the  over-es- 
timation of  their  gifts  and  powers  which  impels 
them.  If  God  has  called  thee  to  anything,  he  will 
also  open  the  way  for  thee  and  furnish  the  means 
that  are  requisite  thereto. — Ver.  20.  Elisha's  re- 
quest and  Elijah's  granting  of  it.  (a)  The  request 
was  no  loitering  or  evasion,  it  came  from  a  heart 
on  which  the  command  of  God  had  been  imprint- 
ed: Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that  thy, 
&c.  (Ex.  xx.  12),  and  which  knew:  the  glory  of  a 
man  is  from  the  honor  of  his  father ;  and  a  mother 
in  dishonor  is  a  reproach  to  the  children  (Sir.  iii. 
1 1) ;  because  above  all  he  feared  God,  he  also  hon- 
ored his  father  and  mother;  with  God's  blessing 
on  his  new  calling,  he  wished  also  for  the  blessing 
of  his  parents  (Col.  iii.  20).  (ft)  The  granting  was 
not  unconditional :  Go  and  return  again.  Elijah 
honors  and  respects  his  filial  love  and  gratitude. 
There  is  no  calling  or  position,  however  great  and 
high  and  weighty  it  mav  be,  which  invalidates  the 
command:  Honor,  &c.  (Matt.  vii.  10,  sq.).  But  just 
as  little  are  we  permitted  to  hold  back  from  fol- 
lowing the  call  of  the  Lord.  He  that  loveth  father 
or  mother,  &c.  (Matt.  x.  37  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  9.)— 
Elisha's  parting  from  his  family,  (a)  a  joyful  one 
(although  he  was  now  going  to  meet  so  many  de- 
privations, so  many  toils,  so  great  a  conflict,  yet 
the  day  on  which  he  entered  upon  his  holy  calling 
was  a  day  of  joy  and  honor,  on  which  all  should 
rejoice  with  him,  therefore  he  prepared  a  feast); 
(6)  one  of  love  (he  invited  all  who  were  previously 
living  and  working  with  him  to  the  feast ;  he  would 
not  eat  and  rejoice  alone ;  no  one  was  too  insig- 
nificant for  him,  no  one  too  low. — Calw.  Bib:  We 
see  from  this  how  exemplary  a  relation  subsisted 
between  him  and  his  servants). — Elisha  in  com- 
parison  with  the  three  followers  of  Christ,  Luke 
ix.  57-62.  (a)  Although  the  son  of  rich  parents 
and  heir  to  a  great  possession,  yet  he  forsakes 
and  renounces  all,  for  he  considers  it  a  greater 
gain  to  follow  and  serve  the  (poor)  prophet.  (6) 
He  takes  leave  indeed  of  his  parents,  but  he  does 
not  put  off  the  succession   to  a  later  timr.  un'O 


CHAPTER  XX.   1-43. 


•23i 


•fter  their  death;  he  does  not  disavow  filial  affec- 
tion, but  it  does  not  keep  him  from  entering  upon 
his  succession  immediately.  (c)  He  looks  not 
backward  after  his  call,  but  forward,  and  has  no 
longiug  after  that  which  he  gives  up ;  he  follows 
on  and  serves  with  undivided  heart  in  complete 
and  joyful  consecration.  How  deeply  this  Elisha 
shames  many  amongst  us,  to  whom  however  not 
an  Elijah,  not  a  prophet,  but  the  Lord  of  glory, 
calls :  Follow  me ! — Menken  :  Many  a  one  hears 
the  words  of  good  tidings  with  joy  ....  and  be- 
holds the  treasure  therein  presented;  there  are 
moments  and  hours  when  he  vividly  feels  that  it 
profits  a  man  nothing  if  he  gains  the  whole  world 


and  loses  himself,  but  that  in  Jesus  Christ  is  lift 
and  full  sufficiency.  .  .  .  Then,  instead  of  making 
a  good,  prompt,  firm  resolve  to  surrender  himself 
on  the  spot  without  consideration,  and  without  con- 
dition, to  the  gracious  offer  of  the  Lord,  he  goes 
on  again  amid  cares  and  affections  of  this  world, 
turns  his  gaze  again  away  from  the  invisible  and 
eternal ;  the  willing  heart  becomes  again  unwilling 
and  seeks  only  a  pretext  how  it  can  justify  this  or 
that  obstacle,  or  retain  and  accept  with  honor  this 
or  that  thing  which  cannot  go  through  the  narrow 
gate  of  the  heavenly  kingdom ;  and  so  he  never 
attains  to  complete  fidelity  and  self-sacrifice  (cf. 
John  xii.  26). 


SECOND   SECTION. 
the  deeds  of  ahab. 
1  Kings  xx,  xxx,  xxti. 


A. — The  Victories  of  Ahab  over  the  Syrians. 
Chap.  XX.1  1-43. 

1  And  Ben-hadad  3  the  king  of  Syria  gathered  all  his  host  together :  ana  there 
were  thirty  and  two  kings  with  him,  and  horses,  and  chariots :  and  he  went  up 

2  and  besieged  Samaria,  and  warred  against  it.    And  he  sent  messengers  to  Ahab 

3  king  of  Israel  into  the  city,3  and  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  Ben-hadad,  Thy 
silver  and  thy  gold  is  mine  ;  thy  wives  also  and  thy  children,  even  the  goodliest,' 

4  are  mine.     And  the  king  of  Israel  answered  and  said,  My  lord,  O  king,  accord- 

5  ing  to  thy  saying,  I  am  thine,  and  all  that  I  have.  And  the  messengers  came 
again,  and  said,  Thus  speaketh  Ben-hadad,  saying,  Although  B  I  have  sent  unto 
thee,  saying,  Thou  shalt  deliver  me  thy  silver,  and  thy  gold,  and  thy  wives,  and 

6  thy  children ;  yet  I  will  send  my  servants  unto  thee  to-morrow  about  this 
time,  and  they  shall  search  thine  house,  and  the  houses  of  thy  servants  ;  and  it 
shall  be,  that  whatsoever  is  pleasant  in  thine  eyes,8  they  shall  put  it  in  their  hand, 

7  and  take  it  away.  Then  the  king  of  Israel  called  all  the  elders  of  the  land,  and 
said,  Mark,  I  pray  you,  and  see  how  this  man  seeketh  mischief:  for  he  sent  unto 
me  for  my  wives,  and  for  my  children,'  and  for  my  silver,  and  for  my  gold ;  and 

8  I  denied  him  not.  And  all  the  elders  and  all  the  people  said  unto  him,  Hearken 

9  not  unto  him,  nor'  consent.  Wherefore  he  said  unto  the  messengers  of  Ben- 
hadad,  Tell  my  '  lord  the  king,  All  that  thou  didst  send  for  to  thy  servant  at  the 
first,  I  will  do  :  but  this  thing  I  may  not  do.    And  the  messengers  departed,  and 

10  brought  him  word  again.  And  Ben-hadad  sent  unto  him,  and  said,  The  gods  lc 
do  so  unto  me,  and  more  also,  if  the  dust  of  Samaria  shall  suffice  for  handfuls  " 

11  for  all  the  people  that  follow  me.  And  the  king  of  Israel  answered  and  said, 
Tell  him,  Let  not  him  that  girdeth  on  his  harness  boast  himself  as  he  that  put- 

12  teth  it  off.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Ben-hadad  heard  this  message  as  he  was 
drinking,  he  and  the  kings  in  the  pavilions,  that  he  said  unto  his  servants,  Set 
yourselves  in  array.     And  they  set  themselves  in  array  against  the  city. 

13  And  behold,  there  came  a  prophet  unto  Ahab  king  of  Israel,  saying,  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  Hast  thou  seen  all  this  great  multitude?  behold,  I 

14  will  deliver  it  into  thine  hand  this  day;  and  thou  shalt  know  that  I  am  the  Lord 
[Jehovah].  And  Ahab  said,  By  whom  ?  And  he  said,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Je 
hovah],  Even  by  the  young  men  of  the  princes  of  the  provinces.     Then  he  said. 


232  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

15  Who  shall  order  [begin  l!]  the  battle  ?  And  he  answered,  Thou.  Then  he  num- 
bered the  young  men  of  the  princes  of  the  provinces,  and  they  were  two  "  hun- 
dred and  thirty-two  :  and  after  them  he  numbered  all  the   people,  even  all  the 

16  children  of  Israel,  being  seven  thousand.  And  they  went  out  at  noon.  But  Ben- 
hadad  was  drinking  himself  drunk  in  the  pavilions,  he  and  the  kings,  the  thirty 

17  and  two  kings  that  helped  him.    And  the  young  men  of  the  princes  of  the  pro- 

18  vinces  went  out  first ;  and  Ben-hadad  sent  out,  and  they  told  him,  saying,  There 
are  men  come  out  of  Samaria.  And  he  said,  Whether  they  be  come  out  for  peace, 

19  take  them  alive  ;  or  whether  they  be  come  out  for  war,  take  them  alive.  "So 
these  young  men  of  the  princes  of  the  provinces  came  out  of  the  city,  and  the 

20  army  which  followed  them.     And  they  slew  every  one  his  man  16:  and  the  Syri- 

21  ans  fled  ;  and  Israel  pursued  them:  and  Ben-hadad  the  king  of  Syria  escaped  on 
an  horse  with  the  horsemen.  And  the  king  of  Israel  went  out,  and  smote  the 
horses  and  chariots,  and  slew  the  Syrians  with  a  great  slaughter. 

22  And  the  prophet  came  to  the  king  of  Israel,  and  said  unto  him,  Go,  strength- 
en thyself,  and  mark,  and  see  what  thou  doest:  for  at  the  return  of  the   year 

23  the  kina;  of  Svria  will  come  up  against  thee.  And  the  servants  of  the  king  of  Syria 
said  unto  him,  Their  gods  are  gods  of  the  hills ;  therefore  they"  were  stronger 
than  we  ;  but  let  us  tight  against  them  in  the  plain,  and  surely  we  shall  be 

24  stronger  than  they.     And  do  this  thing,  Take  the  kings  away,  every  man  out  of 

25  his  place,  and  put  captains  in  their  rooms :  and  number  thee  an  army,  like  the 
army  that  thou  hast  lost,  horse  for  horse,  and  chariot  for  chariot :  and  we  will 
fight  against  them  in  the  plain,  and  surely  we  shall  be  stronger  than  they.     And 

26  he  hearkened  unto  their  voice,  and  did  so.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  return  of 
the  year,  that  Ben-hadad  numbered  the  Syrians,  and  went  up  to  Aphek,  to  fight 

27  against  Israel.  And  the  children  of  Israel  were  numbered,  and  were  all  present 
[were  provided  for"],  and  went  against  them  :  and  the  children  of  Israel  pitched 
before  them  like  two  little  flocks  of  kids  ;  but  the  Syrians  filled  the  country. 

28  And  there  came  a  man  of  God,  and  spake  unto  the  king  of  Israel,  and  said. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  Because  the  Syrians  have  said,  The  Lord  [Jeho- 
vah] is  God  of  the  hills,  but  he  is  not  God  of  the  valleys,  therefore  will  I  deliver 

29  all  this  great  multitude  into  thine  hand,  and  ye's  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord 
[Jehovah].  And  they  pitched  one  over  against  the  other  seven  days.  And  so 
it  was,  that  in  the  seventh  day  the  battle  was  joined :  and  the  children  of  Israel 

30  slew  of  the  Syrians  an  hundred  thousand  footmen  in  one  day.  But  the  rest 
fled  to  Aphek,  into  the  city  ;  and  there  a  [the19]  wall  fell  upon  twenty  and  seven 
thousand  of  the  men  that  were  left.  And  Ben-hadad  fled,  and  came  into  the  city, 
into  an  inner  chamber. 

31  And  his  servants  said  unto  him,"  Behold  now,  we  have  heard  that  the  kings 
of  the  house  of  Israel  are  merciful  kings  :  let  us,  I  pray  thee,  put  sackcloth  on 
our  loins,  and  ropes  upon  our  heads,  and  go  out  to  the  king  of  Israel :  perad- 

32  venture  he  will  save  thy  life.  So  they  girded  sackcloth  on  their  loins,  and  jowf 
ropes  on  their  heads,  and  came  to  the  king  of  Israel,  and  said,  Thy  servant  Ben- 
hadad  saith,  I  pray  thee,  let  me  live.     And  he  said,  Is  he  yet  alive  ?  he  is  my 

33  brother.  Now  the  men  did  diligently  observe  whether  any  thing  would  come 
from  him  [and  the  men  interpreted  this  favorably51],  and  did  hastily  catch  it:™ 
and  they  said,  Thy  brother  Ben  hadad.  Then  he  said,  Go  ye,  bring  him.  Then 
Ben-hadad  came  forth  to  him  ;  and  he  caused  him  to  come  up  into  the  chariot. 

84  And  Ben-hadad  said  unto  him,  The  cities  which  my  father  took  from  thy  father, 
I  will  restore  ;  and  thou  shalt  make  streets  for  thee  in  Damascus,  as  my  father 
made  in  Samaria.  Then  said  Ahab"  I  will  send  thee  away  with  this  covenant. 
So  he  made  a  covenant  with  him,  and  sent  him  away. 

t  And  a  certain  man  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  said  unto  his  neighbor  in  the 

word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  Smite  me,  I  pray  thee.     And  the  man  refused  to 

36  smite  him.  Then  said  he  unto  him,  Because  thou  hast  not  obeyed  the  voice  of 
the  Lord  [Jehovah],  behold,  as  soon  as  thou  art  departed  from  me,  a  lion  shall 

37  slay  thee.  And  as  sooh  as  he  was  departed  from  him,  a  lion  found  him,  and  slew 
him.    Then  he  found  another  man,  and  said,  Smite  me,  I  pray  thee.    And  the  mac 


CHAPTER  XX.   l-i3. 


233 


38  Bmote  him,  so  that  in  smiting  he  wounded  him.  So  the  prophet  departed,  and 
waited  for  the  kint?  by  the  way,  and  disguised  himself  with  ashes  upon  his  face 

39  [with  a  band  over  his  eyes"].  And  as  the  king  passed  by,  he  cried  unto  the 
kino; :  and  he  said,  Thy  servant  went  out  into  the  midst  of  the  battle  ;  and  behold, 
a  man  turned  aside,  and  brought  a  man  unto  me,  and  said,  Keep  this  man  :  if  by 
any  means  he  be  missing,  then  shall  thy  life  be  for  his  life,  or  else  thou  shah  pay 

40  a  talent  of  silver.     And  as  thy  servant  was  busy  here  and   there,  he   was  gone. 

41  And  the  kin^  of  Israel  said  unto  him,  So  shall  thy  judgment  be;  thyself  hast 
decided  it.     And  he  hasted,  and  took  the  ashes  away  from  his  face  [band  away 

42  from  his  eyes]  ;  and  the  king  of  Israel  discerned  him  that  he  was  of  the  prophets. 
And  lie  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  Because  thou  hast  let  go 
out  of  thy  hand  a  man  whom  I  appointed  to  utter  destruction,  therefore  thy  life 

43  shall  go  for  his  life,  and  thy  people  for  his  people.  And  the  king  of  Israel 
went  to  his  house  heavy  and  displeased,  and  came  to  Samaria. 

TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

i  [The  Vat.  Sept.  transposes  chapters  xx.  and  xxi.,  thus  making  the  affair  of  Naboth  precede  the  deliverance  and  vie 
tories  of  Ahab.  but  making  the  narrative  of  tlie  wars  of  Israel  under  Ahab  with  the  Syrians  continuous. 

3  Ver.  1. [Many  MbS.,  followed  "by  the  Sept.,  have  this  name  uniformly  with  the  final  letter  r  instead  of  d. 

3  Ver.  2. [Ver.  3  begins  at  this  point  in  the  arrangement  of  our  Heb.  Bibles,  of  Luther,  and  of  our  author;  the  Sept 

divides  as  in  the  A.  V. 

*  Ver.  3.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  this  qualification  of  Ben-hadad's  demand. 

6  Ver.  5.— [On  this  form  of  oath,  DX   s3  of.  xvii.  1. 

«  Ver.  6. The  Sept..  Vuh?.,  and  Syr.,  by  taking  the  pronoun  in  the  plural,  make  this  refer  to  the  officers  of  Ben-hadad 

—whatsoever  they  should  fancy. 

7  ver.  7.— [The  Sept.  more  particularly,  "my  sons  and  my  daughters.'" 

8  Ver.  S.— [The  negative  is  here  printed  N17,  which  form  occurs  but  twice  elsewhere,  but  many  MSS.  give  the  more 

9,Ver.  9. — [The  Sept,  changes  the  pronoun,  and  reads,  "  tell  your  lord."  The  other  V  V.  all  follow  the  Heb.,  but  below 
the  Alex.  Sept.  omits  the  words  "at  the  first." 

10  Ver.  10.— [D^li/X  is  here,  as  in  xix.  2,  connected  with  verbs  in  the  plural,  and  is  rightly  translated  as  referring  to 
the  false  gods  of  Ben-hadad.    The  Vat  Sept,  however,  has  6  ©eos  in  the  singular,  and  the  Chald.  WDITT=the  terrors. 

'*  Ver.  10.— [On  the  meaning  of  ?y*£f  see  the  Exeg.  Com. 
*  Ver.  14  —  [nDrten  "lD50~V3=who  shall  join  the  battle,  i.  e.,  begin  the  fight  ? 

13  Ver.  35. — [The  Alex.  Sept.  alters  this  number  to  332.  an  evident  error. 

14  Ver.  19. —  The  Sept.,  by  introducing  the  negative  mt  and  changing  the  form  of  the  verb  to  efe After wo-ai'  makes  ver 
19  a  part  of  Ben-hadad's  order:  "  Let  not  the  princes  ....  go  out,"  Ac 

15  Ver.  20. — [The  Sept.  very  unnecessarily  reduplicates  :    *ai  tfituTepwaie  eicavTos  t'ov  wap'  avrov. 

i6  Ver.  23.— [The  Sept.,  by  putting  the  verb  in  the  singular,  refers  the  superiority  more  immediately  to  the  God  oi 
Israel.  ,     ,  . 

"  Ver.  27.— [The  translation  of  the  A.  V.  is  certainly  wrong,  resting  upon  a  false  derivation   of  !p3p3  from  ^3. 

The  word  is  Polp.  :  from  ^p  and  meaDS  "  were  supplied  with  provisions."  Vulg.  acceptis  cibarits.  Our  author 
renders  [mit  Leben&mitteln]  versorgt ;  Keil,  too  fully,  "  were  supplied  with  ammunition  and  provisions."  The  Vat  Sept 
neglects  the  word  altogether,  but  the  Alex,  renders  6ioi«»j0Tj<ra»\ 

i«  Ver. 23.— [The  Sept  puts  this  in  the  sing.,  "thou  shalt  know.1' 

19  Ver.  80.— [nDinn  =  th4  walUc.  of  the  city.     "The  fleeing  Syrians  probably,  in  order  to  make  a  stand  in  Aphek 

against  the  pursuing  Israelites,  had  partly  climbed  and  occupied  the  city  walls,  and  partly  sought  behind  them  a  shelter 
for  their  protection,"  Keil.  Many  MSS.  read  without  the^  ^  and  Kennicott,  adopting  this  reading,  would  understand  the 
word  of  the  Simoom,  or  pestilential  wind,  by  which  so  many  of  the  Syrians  were  destroyed.  There  seems  little  support 
for  this. 

30  Ver.  31.— [The  Vat.  Sept  makes  this  the  address  of  Ben-hadad  to  his  servants.  At  the  close  of  the  verse  both 
recensions  have  the  plural  pronoun  of  the  first  person — save  our  lives. 

31  Ver.  33.— [^^»»^J,   D^OXnl  •    ^ne  TerD  CT1J  seems  to  be  always  used  of  augury,  foreboding,  presentiment  <tc 

(c/.  Gen.  xliv.  5,  15;  Lev.  xix.  26;  2  Kings  xvii.  17,  &c),  and  is  always  translated  in  this  general  sense  in  the  A.  V.  ex- 
cept in  this  passage  and  in  Gen.  xxx.  27,  where  it  should  be.  All  the  versions  here  concur  in  this  sense,  e.  g.  the  Vulg. 
Quod  acceperunt  viri  pro  omine.  Our  author  translates  as  in  the  brackets — Uhd  die  STdnner  deuteten  es  giinstig.  So 
also  Keil :  "These  took  the  words  of  Ahab  as  a  good  omen.'1 

23  Ver.  33.— hj|2)On  ^oSlTl .     These  words  are  of  much  more  difficult  interpretation,  especiaUy  because  of  the  anaf 

Key.  word  £^n  .    ^or  ft  discussion  of  its  meaning  see  the  Exeg.  Com. 

-   T 

33  Ver.  84.—  [All  the  VV.  concur  in  making  this  clause  a  continuation  of  the  words  of  Ben-hadad.  Keil  agreej 
with  our  author  and  with  the  AV.  in  changing  the  speaker  to  Ahab. 

34  Ver.  88. l"1DN  iB  rendered  in  ^Q  A.  V.  as  in  the  Vulg.  and  some  of  the  other  W.  as  If  it  had  been  pointed 

*l«y  t  The  Chald.  and  Sept.  (rehafttav)  have  undoubtedly  hit  the  true  sense,  which  in  the  Chald.  Is  expressed  by  the 
very  similar  word  ]"nsyO.  Tnls  ls  a&reeftbl6  to  tae  following  words  V^JT^V  1  ^  ftlfl0  to  tn*  "eadinesB  witk 
which  it  was  removed,  ver.  41. — F.  G.] 


234 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


KXEQETICAL  AND  CP.ITICAL. 

Vers.  1-9.  And  Ben-hadad.  &c.  The  entire 
account  of  chap.  xi.  was  derived,  as  we  have  al- 
ready remarked,  from  a  different  source  than 
chaps,  xvii.,  xviii.,  and  six.  There  can  be  no  other 
reason  for  our  author's  having  introduced  it  here 
than  this  that  the  victory  of  Ahab  over  the  Syrians 
occurred  previous  in  time  to  the  execution  of  Na- 
both  (chap,  xxi.),  which  gave  occasion  for  the  reap- 
pearance of  Elijah. — Concerning  Ben-hadad,  see 
chap.  xv.  IS.  The  thirty-two  kings  were  not  rulers 
over  entire  territories,  but  were  lords  of  single 
cities  and  their  districts  (cf.  Jos.  xii.  7),  vassals 
(Grotius :  reguli  in  clientela  ipsius),  who  paid  tribute 
to  Ben-hadad,  and  in  the  event  of  war,  were  obliged 
to  furnish  auxiliaries.  The  cause  and  aim  of  the 
expedition  was,  according  to  ver.  3,  to  plunder 
Ahab,  and  make  him  a  vassal     D'SitSn  can  hardly 

refer,  as  Thenius  and  Keil  would  have  it,  to  wives 
and  sons,  but  only  to  the  latter ;  by  them  are  meant 
not  Ahab's  own  sons,  but  the  best,  that  is,  the  most 
eminent  young  men  of  the  city  or  the  country, 
whom  Ben-hadad  demanded  as  hostages.  The  im- 
port of  his  message  was,  "  surrender  to  me  all 
these,  and  I  will  withdraw."  When  Ahab,  with- 
out hesitation,  consented  so  submissively  aud  timo- 
rously. Ben-hadad  grew  only  the  more  audacious 
and  insolent  in  his  demands ;  he  was  sorry  for  hav- 
ing demanded  so  little,  and  he  now  threatens  to 
give  over  the  king's  palace  and  the  dwellings  of 
the  king's  servants  to  be  plundered  (the  pillaging 
of  the  entire  city  can  hardly  be  meant,  as  Keil  and 
Kimchi  think).— Whatsoever  is  pleasant  in  thine 
eyes,  i  e.,  not  merely  silver  and  gold,  but  every- 
thing costly  and  valuable.  According  to  Maurer, 
Gesenius,  Keil,  and  others,  '3 ,  of  ver.  5,  serves, 
like  on.  only  to  introduce  the  oratio  directa ;  and 
>3  before  DX  ,  ver.  6,  is  a  repetition  for  the  sake 
of  emphasis  merely;  DX,  however,  meaning  in 
that  place  "when;  "  better  Thenius:  "V3,  ver.  5, 
serves  to  strengthen  the  assertion;  DX  '3  .  ver.  6,  to 

strengthen  it  still  more,  so  that  the  latter  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  sense,  to  be  rendered:  but  since  Ben-ha- 
dad increases  his  demand."  The  elders  of  the  land 
(ver.  7),  in  distinction  from  the  elders  of  the  city 
(chap.  xxi.  8),  being  the  highest  officials,  pernaps, 
had  their  court  at  their  residences,  or,  upon  the 
approach  of  Ben-hadad,  had  betaken  themselves 
thither  with  their  treasures.  Ahab  calls  them 
together  to  say  to  them  :  Ben-hadad  is  not  satisfied 
with  my  treasures,  he  wants  yours  also.    n)TIT  does 

not  here  mean  "  mischief"  (Luther:  how  malevo- 
lent his  purpose  is),  but  "  disaster,"  "  destruction :  " 
hfc  intends  to  ruin  us  completely. 

Vers.  10-12.  And  Ben-hadad  sent  unto  him, 
4c,  ver.  10.  He  seeks,  by  boasting  in  the  genuine 
oriental  style,  to  overawe  Ahab  (<•/.  2  Sam.  xvii.  13) ; 
the  import  of  his  words  is,  My  army  is  so  large  that 
if,  in  the  impending  desolation  of  Samaria,  every  one 
of  my  people  desired  to  take  away  with  him  only  a 
handful  of  rubbish,  many  would  have  to  go  back 
empty-handed.  The  explanation  of  the  Rabbins  and 
the  Chali loan:  Sisuffecerit palm  Somron,  utferatur 
toleii  ptantarum  pedum  populi  qui  mecum  est,  is  incor- 
rect, since  ^>yb'  if  Isai.  xL  12  ,  Ezek.  xiii.  19,  the 


only  other  places  where  the  wora  occurs,  means 
not  vola  pedis,  but  the  hollow  of  the  hand.  Just  as 
incorrect  is  the  interpretation  of  Josephus :  "  He 
could,  with  his  army,  cast  up  a  dike  higher  than 
his  walls  were,  if  every  one  of  his  people  contrib- 
uted only  a  handful  of  earth."  Ahab's  somewhat 
defiant  response,  expressed  in  words  of  a  proverb, 
ver.  11,  proceeded,  perhaps,  from  the  elders,  who 
were  much  more  determined  and  courageous,  and 
were  willing  to  await  the  utmost.  The  import  of 
the  proverb  is  the  Latin:  ne  triumphum  canas  ante 
victoriam ;  the  German :  Verkaufe  das  Fell  des  Baren 
nicht,  bevor  du  xhn  hast.  Let  not  him  who  is  arm- 
ing for  the  fight,  boast  as  though  he  had  already 
laid  aside  his  weapons,  i.  e.,  had  gained  the  victory. 
The  rii3D,   ver.  12,    in   which   the   drinking-bout 

occurred,  were  not  tents  of  sailcloth,  but  huts 
made  of  branches  of  trees,  like  those  put  up 
to-day  for  the  Turkish  pashas  and  Agas  on 
their  expeditions  (Keil,  Rosenmiiller  A.  u.  N. 
Morgenland  III.  s.  198).    The  translation  of  1DV_". 

"  bring  up  1  (the  siege  instruments)  as  a  command 
to  prepare  for  immediately  storming  the  place  "  (so 
Thenius,  following  the  Sept.  o'ticoSofii/crare  xapana), 
does  not  accord  with  the  use  of  the  word  elsewhere : 
in  1  Sam.  xi.  11 ;  Job.  i.  17,  the  word  seems  to  refer 
simply  to  setting  the  army  in  array. 

Ver.  13.  There  came  a  prophet  unto  Ahab. 
The  conjecture  of  the  Rabbins  that  this  prophet  may 
have  been  Micaiah  (chap.  xxii.  8)  has  no  historical 
basis.  The  entrance  of  a  prophet  here  and  in  vers 
28,  35  Thenius  thinks  inconsistent  with  the  state- 
ments, chap,  xviii.  4,  22 ;  xix.  10,  14.  But  the  state- 
ment is  nowhere  made  that  in  the  persecution  of 
the  prophets  all  had  been  put  to  death ;  Ohadiah, 
in  fact,  had  concealed  a  hundred  of  them  who  did 
not  perish,  and  Elijah  mentioned  himself  as  the  only 
remaining  one,  because  at  that  time  he  was  the 
only  one  who  openly  appeared  as  a  prophet.  The 
persecution  appears  to  have  taken  place  principally 
at  the  time  of  the  famine,  and  to  have  ceased  after 
the  flight  of  Elijah  On  the  approach  of  Ben-hadad 
there  were  other  things  to  be  thought  of  beside 
the  extermination  of  the  prophets,  and  in  the  time 
of  their  distress  a  prophet  who  foretold  victory  was 
even  welcome.  From  what  quarter  this  prophet 
came  to  Samaria,  whether  he  lived  there,  or  whe 
ther  he  had  been  sent  there  from  one  of  the  schools 
of  the  prophets,  must  remain  undecided.  In  no 
case,  however,  could  the  compiler  of  our  books 
have  been  so  thoughtless  as  to  have  inserted 
in  chap.  20  anything  which  stands  in  contradiction 
to  the  immediately  preceding  chapters.  Where 
Elijah  sojourned  at  the  time  of  the  war  we  do  not 
learn.  That  it  was  not  he  but  some  other  prophet 
who  announced  the  promise  of  victory  to  Ahab 
cannot  be  wondered  at  under  the  existing  circum 
stances.  Elijah  was  the  least  suited  of  all  for  such 
a  message. 

Vers.  14-16.  By  the  servants  of  the  princes, 
ver.  14.  Gerlach:  "  The  administrators  appointed 
over  separate  districts  of  the  country  appear  at  that 
time  to  have  assembled  with  the  army  in  Samaria, 
and  each  one  among  them  had  a  sort  of  body-guard, 
or  such  servants  about  him  as  generally  executed 
his  orders"  (2  Sam.  xviii.  15).  The  On^l  are  there- 
fore not  "  pages  unaccustomed  to  fight "  (Thenius), 
or  "young  lads  of  very  tender  age  "  (Ewald) ;  much 
rather  are  we  to  suppose  that   they  were  a  very 


CHAPTER  XX  1-13. 


235 


select  body  of  strong  young  men.  Ahab  would  not 
have  consented  to  appoint  weak,  inexperienced  boys 
for  the  advance  guard,  without  at  least  having  ex- 
pressed some  scruples.  The  extraordinary  divine  aid 
consisted  not  in  this,  that  the  victory  should  be  gain- 
ed by  boys,  butby  such  a  small  uumber  (for  that  very 
reason  the  number  is  so  explicitly  specified).  Ahab's 
question,  Who  shall  open  the  battle  f  represents  hiin 
as  by  no  means  a  "  courageous  and  resolute  man  " 
(Thenius),  for  such  a  man,  in  a  struggle  where  it 
was  a  question  of  life  or  death,  would  not  first  ask 
a  prophet  who  was  to  make  the  attack.  The  tliou 
in  the  reply,  moreover,  does  not  mean  that  Ahab 
was  to  lead  the  two  hundred  and  thirty-two,  but 
that  the  attack  was  to  be  made  by  Israel.  Accord- 
ing to  ver.  21,  Ahab  did  not  march  out  until  the 
Syrians  had  betaken  themselves  to  flight.  The  very 
small  army  of  only  seven  thousand  is  a  token  of  a 
not  very  glorious  condition  of  the  might  of  the 
kingdom  under  Ahab.  The  position  of  Jarchi  43 
that  of  a  true  Rabbi,  viz.,  that  the  seven  thousand 
were  those  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal 
(chap.  xix.  18)  ;  the  number,  without  doubt,  is  here 
an  historical  one.  At  noon  they  marched  out.  that 
is,  at  the  time  when  Ben-hadad,  haughty  and  confi- 
dent, had  given  himself  up  witli  his  vassals  to  the 
table,  news  of  which  had  probably  beeu  received 
in  the  city. 

Vers.  17-21.  And  Ben-hadad  sent  out,  &c, 
ver.  17.  When  he  was  made  aware  that  something 
was  going  on.  and  the  messengers  who  had  beeu 
sent  out  brought  him  news  that  a  troop  was  draw- 
ing near,  in  his  haughtiness  he  gave  the  command 
to  take  them  al!  prisoners,  even  in  case  they  had 
come  to  treat  or  capitulate.  Starke,  indeed,  fills  out 
the  idea  of  alive  with  "  that  they  may  be  cut  down 
before  mine  eyes,"  which  thought,  however,  is  not 
necessarily  contained  in  the  word.  According  to 
ver.  20  they  fought  man  to  man,  each  one  coping 
with  the  enemy  immediately  opposed  to  him ;  the 
addition  of  the  Sept.  :  Kai  iSevrepuaev  eKao"roc  tov 
■tap'  aiirov  is  gloss,  and  does  not  justify  an  alteration 

of  the  text.     D'Engfl  D1D"7>5?  does  not  mean  equis 

mutatis  altevnis  (Sehulz),  nor  according  to  the  Sept. 
to  1-7U1'  i--M ,  but  upon  a  horse  (according  to 
Thenius:  on  a  hastily  seized  chariot-horse)  with  his 
rider,  i.  e.,  in  company  with  the  horsemen.  Not 
till  now  did  the  king  march  out  of  the  city  with  the 
remainder  of    the  garrison.     In  place  of  7JS1   the 

Sept.  has  mi  e?a3e ,  therefore  Thenius  would  read 
nf5>l ,  which  is  unnecessary,  as  the  idea  of  "  taking 

posession  of"  is  contained  in  the  word  "  slew," 
according  to  Tatablus  :  he  smote  those  who  were 
endeavoring  to  escape  upon  horses  and  chariots. 
In  any  ease  the  idea  of  butchering  of  the  horses 
and  the  demolishing  of  the  chariots  is  not  intended. 
Vers.  22-25.  And  the  prophet  came,  &c. 
ver.  22.  The  same  prophet  as  that  mentioned  in 
ver.  1 3,  as  we  see  by  the  article.  The  translation 
of  p?nnn  "  be  of  good  cheer !  "  or  "  be  brave !  "  is 

not  suitable,  inasmuch  as  Ahab  had  just  now 
gained  the  victory ;  therefore :  fortify  yourself, 
make  yourself  strong — namely,  by  collecting 
Tour  forces  of  war.  At  the  return  of  the  year, 
i.  e.,  with  the  beginning  of  the  next  year,  "  when, 
after  the  close  of  the  winter  rains,  campaigns  were 
customarily  commenced,  2  Sam.  xi.  1 "  (Keil). 
Vers.   23-25  do  not  belong  to  the  speech  of  the 


prophet,  who  only  announced  the  coming  war ;  the 
man  of  God  (ver.  28)  is  the  first  to  tell  the  king 
what  was  to  happen  in  that  conflict ;  vers.  23-21 
are  thus  an  insertion  of  the  narrator's.  The  sense 
of  ver.  23  is  this :  in  the  mountainous  region  of 
Samaria  we  were  defeated  by  the  Israelites,  because 
we  were  there  obliged  to  contend  against  their 
gods  who  are  gods  of  the  mountains  ;  in  the  plains, 
on  the  other  hand,  where  these  gods  do  not  reside, 
we  will  most  certainly  be  victorious.  The  dii 
montium,  who  are  enthroned  on  mountains  and 
direct  and  watch  over  everything  that  takes  place 
within  their  region,  and  accordingly  prosper  and 
defend  the  inhabitants  of  the  mountains,  are  men- 
tioned in  other  places  in  heathen  antiquities 
(Di-yliug,  Observatt.  III.  12;  Winer,  Ileal- Wurt.- 
Buch  I.  p.  154).  The  advice  to  remove  the  kings 
was  caused,  perhaps,  by  the  fact  that  they  as  vas- 
sals marched  with  him  only  through  compulsion, 
and  therefore  were  not  in  earnest,  or  not  entirely 
to  be  depended  upon  in  a  fight,  while  the  leaders 
appointed  by  Ben-hadad  himself  would  be  bound 
to  obey  him  absolutely,  and  thus  there  would  bo 
greater  harmony  in  inaugurating  the  war  (cf.  chap. 
xxii.  31).  The  removal  of  the  princes  was  ac- 
companied with  the  loss  of  the  auxiliaries  furnished 
by  them,  therefore  Benhadad  was  obliged  to  form 
an  army  from  his  own  people  that  would  equal  th« 
former  one,  including  the  auxiliary  troops. 

Vers.  23-3U.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the 
return  cf  the  year,  Ac.  ver.  26.  Ben-hadad's 
wish  being  to  fight  in  the  plain,  this  Aphek  spoken 
of  can  be  neither  that  one  at  the  foot  of  Lebanon, 
in  the  tribe  of  A=her  (Josh.  xiii.  4 ;  xix.  30),  nor 
the  highly  elevated  one  of  z'ue  east  of  th6  sea  of 
Galilee ;  it  is  rather  Aphek  in  the  p'aiu  of  Jezreel, 
in  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  "the  largest  plain  ot 
Palestine,  where  from  the  times  of  Joshua  to  Napo- 
leon so  many  great  battles  have  been  fought" 
(Keil).  cf.  1  Sam.  xxix.  1 ;  xxviii.  4 ;  Robinson's 
Palestine  III.  p.  477. — spu'n  ver.  'il  means  properly 

something  separated  (from  5)t."n  in  its  original  mean- 
ing — to  separate),  literally,  then,  like  two  flocks 
of  kids,  i,  e.,  "  like  two  little  flocks  of  kids  sepa- 
rated from  the  main  herd  "  (Keil).  These  flocks 
pasture  mostly  on  the  cliffs,  and  are  smaller  than 
the  flocks  of  sheep.  "  The  figure  was  used,  with- 
out question,  to  present  in  a  vivid  manner  the  in- 
significance of  the  Israelitish  army,  separated  into 
two  bauds,  as  contrasted  with  that  of  the  Syrians 
which  covered  the  entire  plain  "  (Thenius).  The 
leventh  day  (ver.  29)  was  probably  chosen  for  the 
attack  as  being  a  day  of  good  omen  (Josh,  vi  15). 
Tiiere  is  a  difficulty  in  the  number  one  hundred  thou- 
sand ;  to  slaughter  so  many  men  in  one  day  seems 
scarcely  possible.  Either  ,"13J  here  has,  like  our 
word  "beat,"  the  meaning  ot  "defeat,"  so  that  by 
100,000  the  size  of  the  entire  army  is  designated, 
or  the  number  is  a  mistake,  to  be  classed  with 
those  mistakes  in  numbers  which  arise  from  con- 
founding figures  of  similar  appearance.  The  fall- 
ing of  the  wall  (ver.  30),  according  to  the  old  inter- 
preters, resulted  from  a  miracle  ;  according  to 
others,  from  an  earthquake ;  according  to  Gerlacb 
and  Keil,  through  a  special  interposition  of  God. 
Thenius  supposes  a  plan  for  undermining  carried 
on  by  night  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites ;  they  then 
enticed  a  part  of  the  besieged  away  to  the  place, 
and  at  the  capture  which  occurred  thereupon  the 
rest  were  put  to  death.     Ewald  says :  the  rubbisl 


236 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


of  the  quickly  devastated  city  buried  the  remain- 
ing 27,00u.     The  Sept.  translates  "11/13   Tin  ,   f'C 

rov  o2w»>  -ov  KOtruvoc  eic  to  ra/ielov ;  the  Vu 'gate; 
incubicul^n,  quod  erat  intra  cubicidum;  it  is,  how- 
ever, not  necessary  to  refer  it  to  a  bed-chamber. 
Josephus  has  fie  Imoydiau  olaov  rupvpo.  Thenius 
interprets  arbitrarily :  Ben-hadad  fled  into  the  for- 
tress of  the  city,  and  there  from  one  chamber  into 
another  (cf.  chap.  xxii.  25  ;   2  CI  iron,  xviii.  24.). 

Vers.  31-34.  And  his  servants  said,  &c,  ver. 
31.  Sackcloth  was  a  sign  of  penitence,  the  ropes 
about  the  neck  signs  of  most  complete  subjection. 
The  latter  custom  still  exists  in  the  East.  "  The 
peasants  in  the  region  of  Ningpo  (China)  are 
obliged  to  bring  the  contributions  levied  upon 
them  to  the  city  with  ropes  about  their  necks,  as  a 
sign  of  their  subjection."  (Allg.  Zeitung,  18fi2, 
Suppl.  s.  2,931).  In  place  of  thy  life  the  Sept.  and 
Vulg.  have,  our  lives  ;  evidently  incorrect.     V&TW 

(ver.  33)  Vulg.  Quod  acceperunt  viri  pro  online ; 
they  took  the  expression  of  Abab'a  to  be  a  good 
omen.  The  words  «QDn  ^PM  are  variously 
understood.  The  Talmud  interprets  the  verb 
O^n  ,  occurring  only  in  this  place,  by  declare,  and 
this  Maurer  and  Keil  follow :  declarare  eum 
fecerunt,  an  ex  ipso  pronunciatum  esset,  num  ex 
animi  sententia  hoc  dixisset.  Others  consider  t3?n 
equivalent  to  ]»^n  ,  to  snatch,  and  according  to  the 

Syriac,  Chald.,  and  some  manuscripts  unite  the 
n  standiug  before  ys"3  with  the  verb  as  a  suf- 
fix :  arripuerunt  id  ex  eo  (ex  ejus  ore,  ne  istud 
revocare  posset) :  so  likewise  the  Vulg. :  rapuerunt 
veroum  ex  ore  ejus ;  the  Sept.  has  Kal  aveteljavTO 
rov  Myov  avTov  £/c  rov  arouaroc  aiirov  ;  following  this 
Ewald  would  read  :  U'OO  TJ"Jf1  in  place  of  1JDOT , 
t.  e.,  they  hastily  quoted  his  own  word,  and  adopted  it 
as  theirs.  Thenius :  they  took  him  immediately 
at  his  owu  word.  The  words  "  my  brother"  con- 
tained more  than  they  demanded ;  namely,  not  only 
that  he  would  grant  Ben-hadad  his  life,  but  that  he 
would  treat  him  not  even  as  captive,  rather  as  a 
king  of  equal  rank,  in  fine,  as  though  nothing  had 
happened  between  them. 

Ver.  34.  The  cities  which  my  father,  &c. 
The  cities  mentioned  in.  chap.  xv.  20  cannot  be  re- 
ferred to  here,  since  these  were  taken  in  the  time 
of  Baasha,  and  Baasha  was  not  the  father  of  Ahab, 
and  the  city  of  Samaria,  besides,  was  not  yet  built ; 
we  are  therefore  compelled  to  assume  that  Beu-ha- 
dad's.  father,  as  formerly  with  Baasha,  so  afterwards 
with  Omri,  Ahab's  father,  had  a  war,  and  that,  too, 
after  the  building  of  Samaria,  which  war  was  con- 
cluded by  the  surrender  of  certain  cities,  and  can 
easily  be  included  in  what  is  spoken  of  in  chap. 
xvt  27.     The  niVn  are  neither  fortified  places,  nor 

places  for  paying  customs,  nor  pasture  grounds,  but 
streets,  iu  which  the  Syrians  were  accustomed  to 
live  and  do  business ;  thoroughfares  for  licensed 
merchants  (Bottcher),  bazars  (Thenius).     The  words 

irikrX  JVI33  'OXI ,  can  only  be  translated:  but  I 
will  permit  you  to  go  hence  fre3,  in  accordance 
with  tho  covenant,  i.  e.,  the  concluded  treaty ;  thus 
translated  they  could  only  have  been  the  words  of 
Ahab   and  we  are  compelled  to  supply  at  the  be- 


ginning— -"Ahab  replied."  This  is  much  more  ad 
missible  than,  following  the  grammatically  incor 
rect  translation  of  the  Vulgate  (et  ego  fLBenadadJ 
foideratus  recedam  a  te),  to  alter  the  text  as  Thenius 
does,  and  read,  WnVtJ'N,*-*.,  "and  I,  on  the  other, 

wish  to  be  sent  away  in  accordance  with  an  agree- 
ment concluded  and  sworn  to."  Opposed  to  this 
is   the    emphatic   'J  XT ,  which   throughout   is   not 

suited  to  Ben-hadad ;  moreover,  the  two  following 
verbs,  of  which  Ahab  is  the  subject,  compel  us  to 
refer  the  iJX  to  him 

Ver.  35.  And  a  certain  man  of  the  sons  of 
the  prophets,  &c.     The  expression  D'X'ajn  ,J3 

appears  here  for  the  first  time ;  we  are  not  to  con- 
sider the  "  sons  of  tho  prophets  "  young  men  ne- 
cessarily, but  rather  members  of  the  society  of 
prophets,  or,  if  we  will,  of  the  order  of  prophets; 
according  to  2  Kings  iv.  1,  there  were  married  men 
among  them.  They  were  called  sons  in  distinction 
from  the  heads  and  leaders  of  the  separate  com- 
munities of  prophets  (cf.  Winer,  Real-  Wort-  Buch 
II.  p.  282).  The  jn  is  a  fellow-prophet.  Concern- 
ing 1313  see  under  chap.  xiii.   1.     The  passage 

vers.  35-43  is  not  a  part  which  is  arbitrarily  ap- 
pended to  the  preceding  narrative,  while  not  orig- 
inally belonging  to  it.  (Thenius),  but  is  an  essential 
constituent  part  of  it — its  fitting  conclusion,  for  it 
furnishes  the  solemn  announcement  of  the  divine 
punishment  for  Ahab's  perverse  procedure  with 
Ben-hadad  (Vers.  32-34).  All  that  the  prophet 
says  and  dues,  is  summed  up  in  the  declaration  of 
v.  42,  which  must  uot  be  lost  sight  of,  as  the  prin- 
cipal thing.  Just  as  the  victory  was  foretold  to 
the  king  by  a  prophet,  as  an  act  of  God,  so  also 
the  punishment  for  his  conduct,  after  the  victory 
had  been  granted  him,  was  made  known  to  him  by 
a  prophet  (whether  by  the  same  one  or  some  other 
is  unknown),  as  a  judgment  of  God  upon  him. 
This  happened  in  a  peculiar,  but  in  every  respect 
in  a  genuinely  prophetic  and  solemn  manner,  name- 
ly, by  means  of  symbolic  action  followed  by  ex- 
plicit declaration  (see  above,  p.  119).  The  symbolic 
action,  however,  was  of  such  a  kind  as  not  only  to 
present  to  the  eyes  of  the  king  the  blamableness 
of  his  conduct,  hut  also  to  lead  him,  without  his 
knowing  it  or  wishing  it,  to  pass  sentence  upon 
hinisenCand  by  that  means  declare  that  the  pro- 
phesied punishment  was  justly  deserved 

Ver.  35.  Smite  me,  I  pray  thee,  &c,  that  is, 
wound  me  (cf.  ver.  37).  Th9  prophet  was  shortly 
about  to  represent  himself  as  a  warrior  returning 
from  a  severe  fight  (cf.  ver.  39:  into  the  midst  of 
the  battle);  the  wounding  of  the  prophet  renders 
all  the  remaining  symbolic  action  conditional,  and 
just  for  that  reason  it  is  made  so  markedly  promi- 
nent. The  demand :  Smite  me  I  was  accompanied 
without  doubt  with  a  statement  of  the  reason  and 
with  an  appeal  to  the  "word  of  Jehovah,"  and  for 
that  very  reason  the  refusal  to  fulfil  the  demand, 
on  the  part  of  a  fellow-prophet  especially,  was  not 
at  all  justifiable.  But  because  the  prophet  without 
being  wounded  could  not  carry  out  the  action 
which  he  had  been  charged  with,  nor  make  a  pro- 
phetic announcement  of  the  coming  punishment, 
he  turned  and  made  his  request  of  another,  who 
consented.  What  is  related  besides  in  ver.  36  of 
the  fellow-prophet  who  refused,  does  not  really 
belong  to  the  main  action,  but  is  a  side  feature  of 


CHAPTER  XX.  1-43. 


237 


the  narrative,  and  shows  itself  to  be  such  from  the 
brevity  and  fragmentary  character  of  the  state- 
ments. It  is  nevertheless  important,  because  by 
it  the  main  action  is  made  only  the  more  conspicu- 
ous, and  is  at  the  same  time  referred  to  the  neces- 
sity of  unconditional  obedience  to  the  "  word  of 
God  "  within  the  society  of  prophets.  To  oppose 
this  word  is  a  thing  not  consistent  with  the  nature 
of  the  prophet's  position,  whose  calling  consists 
wholly  in  being  the  instrument  of  "Jehovah's 
word"  {cf.  chap.  xiii.   21,  p.   144).     Ter.  37:  ran 

r/VDl,  smiting  and  wounding,  i.  e.,  he  smote  him  in 

such  a  manner  as  to  wound  him.     1SST  ver-  38, 

is   not   equivalent   to   12X   ashes,  as   the  Vulg., 

Luther,  and  others  translate,  but  means  (from  ")2X 

to  enwrap,  to  surround)  head-bandage,  Sept. 
T£?.afiuv,  bandage  (not  turban,  as  Maurer  and 
others  would  have  it).  The  bandages  betokened 
one  severely  wounded,  and  served  at  the  same 
time  to  conceal  his  features,  so  that  Ahab,  who 
was  to  be  made  to  pass  sentence  upon  himself, 
could  not  recognize  him  (ver.  41).  By  the  way 
he  stationed  himself,  because  the  proceeding  was 
to  take  place  previous  to  the  king's  return  home, 
in  the  open  street,  and  before  the  eyes  of  his  en- 
tire retinue,  as  an  open  testimony  against  himself. 
Vers.  39-41.  Thy  servant  went  out,  &c.  ver. 
39.  De  Wette  translates  1D"C"X .  a  man  approach- 
ed, but  11D  does  not  mean  "  to  approach,"  but 
"turn  aside,"  turn  away  from  the  road  (Ex.  lii.  3  ; 
Judges  xiv.  8) ;  here,  then,  one  who  has  left  the 
field  of  battle.  Ewald,  whom  Thenius  follows, 
would  read  ID  which  is   used  for  -\£' ,  and  then 

translates  "captain,"  i.  e.,  "one  whom  he  (the 
wounded  man)  as  king,  a  common  soldier  must 
obey,"  an  officer.  The  parable  would,  under  these 
circumstances,  certainly  be  more  complete,  since 
this  officer  would  represent  Jehovah,  who  had 
given  Ben-hadad  into  the  power  of  Ahab ;  but 
another  lection  is  not  required.  If  the  wounded 
man  should  sutler  the  prisoner  committed  to  him 
to  escape,  he  would  have  to  forfeit  his  life  or  a 
taleut  of  silver,  i.  e.,  2,600  thalers.  "  The  prisoner 
is  thus  represented  to  be  a  very  important  person- 
age" (Thenius). — In  place  of  nb'l?  (ver.  40),  Hou- 
bigant  reads  n'J'C ,  Thenius  njb  (turning  his  eyes 

this  way  and  that) ;  wherefore  the  translations  read : 
Sept.,  TTEpiEfiXkneTo ;  Vulg.  dum  ego  turbatus  hue 
illucque  me  verterem.  This  alteration  of  the  text  is 
absolutely  unnecessary. — Concerning  the  significa- 
tion of  the  parable,  so  much  is  indisputable,  that 
the  young  man  who  had  gone  out  into  the  battle  is 
representative  of  Ahab,  and  the  man  intrusted  to 
his  keeping,  but  allowed  to  escape  through  care- 
lessness, is  the  representative  of  King  Ben-hadad. 
The  signification  of  the  wounding  is  not  so  ap- 
parent, inasmuch,  indeed,  as  Ahab  was  not 
wounded.  The  hostile  treatment  which  Ahab  suf- 
fered soon  after  at  the  hands  of  the  released  Beu- 
hadad  (chap.  22).  cannot  possibly  be  siguifipd, 
since  the  wounding  happened  before  the  man's 
escape,  and  besides  it  was  not  the  work  of  the 
captive ;  still  less  possible  is  the  idea  of  older  in- 
terpreters, that  it  was  a  symbol  of  the  wound 
which  Ahab  had  inflicted  on  himself  and  the  peo- 
Dle  by  his  idolatry  and  the  release  of  Ben-hadad. 


Neither  is  Ewald's  explanation  acceptable,  that 
the  prophet  allowed  himself  to  be  wounded  bj 
another,  "  and  as  though  he  had  a  right,  on  ac. 
count  of  the  bloody  injury  which  he  had  received, 
to  call  aloud  on  the  king  for  help."  put  himself  in 
Ahab's  way.  It  is  not  acceptable,  because  the 
wounded  man  did  not  cry  to  the  king  for  help,  but 
demanded  of  him,  as  the  chief  judge,  a  decision  as 
to  whether  he  was  punishable  or  not ;  moreover, 
the  king  answered  him,  "  thyself  hast  decided  it " 
C^aSC'D  ver.  40).  We  would  do  better  to  recog- 
nize in  the  wounded  man  a  picture  not  only  of 
Ahab,  but  at  the  same  time  of  the  people  of  Israel, 
inasmuch  as  the  king  is  the  people — individualized, 
is  the  deputy  and  representative  of  his  people. 
The  sentence  of  punishment  (ver.  42)  especially 
shows  this:  Thy  life  shall  go  for  his  life, 
and  thy  people  for  his  people.  Israel  had  just 
endured  a  hard,  bloody  fight,  and  had  carried 
off  the  promised  victory  ;  but  now,  in  the  person 
of  its  king,  it  had  let  the  arch-enemy,  whom  tha 
Lord  had  given  into  their  hands,  go  free  and  un- 
puuished.  They  sinned  therefore  against  Jehovah, 
whose  will  it  was  that  this  enemy,  who  had  sworn 
to  destroy  Israel,  should  not  be  suffered  to  escape 
out  of  their  hands,  but  should  sutler  merited  pun 
ishment ;  their  suffering  him  to  escape  was  a  prac 
tical  denial  of  the  might,  the  goodness,  and  the 
justice  of  Jehovah.  After  the  king  had  pro 
nounced  his  own  sentence,  the  aim  of  the  disguise 
by  means  of  bandages,  indeed  the  aim  of  the  entire 
symbolic  proceeding  was  attained,  and  hence  the 
prophet  threw  aside  the  bands,  and  allowed  him- 
self to  be  recognized  as  a  prophet,  as  one  who  de- 
clares the  word  of  Jehovah ;  following  the  sym- 
bolic-prophetic action  comes  (ver.  42)  the  solemn, 
prophetic  declaration,  as  in  chap.  xi.  31. 

Vers.  42-43.    Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Because, 
&c,  ver.  42.    Ben-hadad  is  called  'DirTL"^,    i  e., 

man  of  my  curse,  the  man  whom  I  appointed  to 
destruction.  Cf.  Isai.  xxxiv.  5 :  My  sword  shall 
come   down  upon  Idumea,   DSC'D?  'Din  DJJ'i'PI 

(Mai.  iii.  24).  The  punishment  which  Ben-hadad 
and  his  people  had  deserved,  but  which  thou, 
disobeying  the  Lord,  hast  remitted  completely, 
and  on  thine  own  authority,  shall  fall  upon 
thee  and  thy  nation.  King  and  people  seem 
here  inseparable  from  one  another,  as  head  and 
members.  Ahab  probably  had  a  great  desire  to 
seize  the  prophet  for  this  independent  outspoken 
reproof  and  curse,  but  he  had  the  less  courage  to 
do  it  since  he  had  given  the  sentence  of  judgment 
himself;  still  he  was  deeply  moved  to  resistance  in 
his  heart,  and  angrily  withdrew  ("ID,  from  "HD.  to 

be  stubborn,  refractory,  Deut.  xxi.  18;  Isai.  xxx. 
1,  meaning  more  than  disheartened  or  lowrspirited). 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  two  victories  over  the  Syrians  were  design- 
ed, according  to  the  declaration  of  both  the  prophets 
who  foretold  them,  to  effect  "that  thou,  (king)  and 
ye  (the  entire  natiun)  may  know  that  I  am  Jehovah" 
that  is  to  say,  that  Jehovah  is  the  only  true  God,  the 
God  of  Israel.  In  this  declaration  we  have  speci 
fied  the  purpose  of  the  entire  narrative,  and  at  tha 
same  time  the  staud-poiut  from  which  it  is  to  ba 
comprehended.  That  day  on  Mount  Cartnel,  if  it 
did  not  put  an  end  to  idolatry  at  once,  had  at  least 


238 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


broken  its  power,  as  was  already  evident  from  the 
mere  fact  that  the  prophets  were  no  longer  perse- 
cuted and  put  to  death,  but  could  again  go  about 
openly  and  continue  the  work  begun  by  Elijah : 
they  even  had  access  to  Ahab  again.  Still  the 
conversion  was  by  no  means  complete,  but  rather, 
Deing  weak,  it  needed  support  and  strength  from 
above  if  a  complete  relapse  was  to  be  prevented 
from  setting  in.  This  assistance  came  from  the 
display  of  the  power  of  Jehovah,  a  power  which 
rescued  in  a  time  of  great  need  and  distress.  The 
attack  of  the  Syrian  king,  who  had  grown  so 
mighty,  threatened  Ahab  and  his  kingdom  with 
destruction ;  at  this  crisis  God,  who  never  forsakes 
his  people,  who  is  "merciful  and  gracious,  long- 
suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth  " 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  6),  repeatedly  grants  them  the  vic- 
tory, which  was  so  extraordinary  and  wonderful, 
that  it  could  not  possibly  be  ascribed  to  human 
power  and  strength,  but  only  to  God,  to  His  might, 
His  grace  and  truth.  It  was  designed  to  make 
king  and  people  unmistakably  certain  that  it  is  not 
Baal  or  any  other  god  but  the  God  Jehovah  who 
"doeth  wonders,  and  declareth  His  strength 
among  His  people,  and  redeemeth  His  people  with 
a  strong  arm  "  (Ps.  Ixxvii.  15).  And  in  order 
that  every  one  may  know  whence  and  from  whom 
6uch  a  victory  came,  he  caused  it  to  be  foretold  by 
his  servants  the  prophets.  If  ever  anything  could 
be.  this  double  victory  wa3  designed  to  open  the 
eyes  of  king  and  people,  and  bring  them  to  a  re- 
cognition of  the  "  thus  saith  the  Lord,  '  I  am  Je- 
hovah.' "  We  have  thus  in  this  account,  not  mere- 
ly an  ordinary  history  of  wars,  but  a  part  of  the 
divine  history  of  salvation  before  us,  which  in  an 
individual  instance  is  what  the  entire  history 
of  Israel  is  in  its  completeness,  namely,  a  dis- 
play of  the  special  dealings  with  a  guidance  of 
His  people  on  God's  part.  Although  the  first  vic- 
tory is  a  marked  evidence  of  the  saving  might 
and  grace  of  Jehovah,  the  second,  by  which  the 
entire  Syrian  power  was  destroyed,  was  for  Israel 
as  well  as  for  the  Syrians  thtmselves  a  still  more 
remarkable  proof  of  the  fact,  that  Jehovah  was  no 
mere  mountain,  and  local,  or  national  divinity,  but 
that  the  whole  earth  was  His,  and  He  was  God  of 
all  nations  (Ex.  xix.  5  ;  Ps.  xxiv.  1).  He  who 
reduces  the  God  of  Israel  to  a  mere  local  or  na- 
tional deity,  as  is  so  often  done  even  nowadays, 
stands  on  the  same  footing  with  the  "  servants  of 
the  king  of  Syria  "  (vers.  23,   28). 

2  King  Ahab  appears  by  no  means  in  the 
present  part  of  the  historical  narrative  "  in  a  more 
favorable  light  than  in  those  [previously  alluded 
to,  traditional]  passages"  (Thenius) ;  on  the  contrary 
he  is  just  as  weak,  faithless,  and  devoid  of  charac- 
ter. There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  a  single 
religious  emotion,  in  a  time  of  need  and  distress; 
he  neither  calls  upon  the  Lord  for  help  and  assist- 
ance, nor  renders  thanks  to  him  after  his  rescue 
from  danger.  The  name  of  Jehovah  does  not  pass 
his  lips.  He  does  not  oppose  himself  to  the  haughty, 
boasiful  enemy  "as  a  resolutely  determined  man," 
but  is  faint-hearted  and  timorous,  calls  himself  his 
"servant,"  submits  to  his  demands,  and  is  ready  to 
surrender  to  him  not  only  his  gold  and  silver,  but 
also  his  wives  and  sons.  It  is  only  when  the  whole 
nation  cries  out  to  him,  "You  have  no  right  to  do 
that !  "  that  he  plucks  up  courage  and  assumes 
quite  a  different  tone:  to-day  despairing  and  way 
down,  to-m;rrow  defiant  and  lofty;   still  for  some 


time  he  inquired  of  the  very  prophet  who  foretold 
to  him  his  victory,  whether  indeed  he  should  make 
the  attack  and  place  himself  at  the  head  of  his  peo- 
ple. When  the  danger  was  past  it  did  not  occur 
to  him  to  prepare  for  a  similar  peril;  a  prophet  must 
first  suggest  it  to  him  and  give  him  instructions 
to  that  end  After  the  second  victory,  which 
brings  into  his  power  the  bold,  dangerous  enemy 
who  was  constantly  threatening  Israel,  and  who, 
as  circumstances  afterwards  gave  evidence,  was  a 
false  and  treacherous  foe,  he  acknowledges  him 
as  a  brother,  treats  him  with  royal  honor,  and  al- 
lows him  to  depart  on  the  easiest  possible  condi- 
tions. This  last-mentioned  act  later  interpreters 
and  historians  have  set  down  as  greatly  to  his 
credit;  it  was  "an  act  which  did  honor  to  his 
heart"  (Bauer),  a  token  of  a  "naturally  very  noble 
mind"  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  or  of  "natural  kindness 
of  heart  and  confiding  disposition  "  (Thenius),  he 
had  "  magnanimously  granted  life  and  liberty  to  a 
wounded  and  captive  enemy  "  (Duncker).  Not 
much  can  be  said,  however,  concerning  kindness 
of  heart  in  connection  with  that  man  who  at  one 
time  permitted  the  slaughter  ol  defenceless  prophets 
because  they  opposed  the  wild,  lascivious  Baal  and 
Astarte  worship,  and  subsequently  permitted  the 
innocent  Naboth  to  be  executed  tnrougli  deceit 
uud  treachery,  merely  because  he  wanted  his  vine- 
yard ;  and  when  he  called  that  barbarous  Syrian 
Ben-hadad,  who  had  set  out  on  an  expedition  mere- 
ly to  plunder  and  devastate,  and,  persevering,  sought 
to  destroy  Istael  at  once,  his  ''brother."  and  at  the 
same  time  honored  him  as  a  king — whereas  he  had 
found  fault  with  such  a  man  as  Elijah,  charging 
him  with  being  a  disturber  of  Israel  (chap,  xviii. 
17).  We  see  no  evidence  in  such  action  of  gener- 
osity and  magnanimity,  but  simply  that  foolishness 
which  is  usually  allied  with  weakness  and  lack  of 
character.  He  is  flattered  that  the  highest  serv- 
ants and  generals  of  Benhadad  should  come  to  him 
in  sackcloth  and  with  ropes  around  their  necks, 
and  recite  to  him  all  manner  of  things  about  the 
well-known  mercy  and  high-mindeduess  of  the 
kings  of  the  house  of  Israel,  but  about  which  iu 
reality  nothing  had  been  known  since  the  time  of 
Jeroboam.  That  he  should  allow  himself  to  bt 
immediately  influenced  and  entrapped  by  theii 
flattery,  is  only  a  proof  of  his  fickle  character  and 
his  want  of  serious  moral  conduct.  The  sequel 
(chap.  xxii.  31  sq.)  shows  how  wretchedly  he  had 
allowed  himself  to  be  deceived. 

3.  The  solemn  proplietic  denunciation  whicli 
Ahab  drew  down  upon  himself  was  in  every  sens* 
justly  deserved.  Concerning  the  fitness  of  it  and 
the  method  of  its  accomplishment  Hess  says  {he. 
cit.  0.  p.  14G):  "A  very  striking  scene,  if  we  lake 
the  affair  out  from  its  old  surroundings,  and  trans- 
fer it  to  the  present  time.  Considered  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  theocracy,  as  the  old  narrator  luoked 
at  it,  it  has  by  no  means  any  of  the  impropriety 
which  the  sense  of  the  present  day  ascribes  to  it, 
but  it  is  a  noticeable  evidence  of  the  delicate  in- 
sight into  human  nature,  and  the  noble  independ- 
ence with  which  the  prophets  understood  how  to 
!  resent  the  encroachments  of  the  kings  on  the  rights 
of  the  theocracy."  If  ever  a  man  ought  to  hav 
been  made  harmless  once  for  all,  it  was  this  Ben- 
hadad, who  had  twice  wantonly  commenced  war 
for  the  mere  sake  of  robbing  and  exercising  power, 
who  had  set  a  small  value  on  the  lives  of  thousands 
of  his  subjects,  and  who  proposed  to  change  Sama- 


CHAPTER  XX.   1-43. 


239 


ria  into  a  heap  of  ruins  and  utterly  exterminate 
Israel.  This  is  no  question  of  relations  between 
private  individuals  ;  just  as  Ahab  was  not  so  much 
victor  as  Jehovah,  so  Ben-hadad  was  not  Ahab's 
but  Jehovah's  prisoner.  Ahab  had  then  no  right 
to  let  him  go  free  and  unpunished,  for  by  so  doing 
he  arbitrarily  interfered  with  the  righteous  de- 
cision of  God,  and  instead  of  being  an  instrument 
of  divine  justice  he  became  the  toy  of  his  own 
foolishness  and  imbecility.  The  nature  and  method 
of  the  prophetic  denunciation  was  similar  to  that 
of  Nathan,  who  caused  David  to  utter  sentence 
against  himself  concerning  his  deed  (2  Sam  xii.  1 
sq).  What  took  place  there  by  means  of  a  spoken 
parable  took  place  here  through  an  acted  one, 
whose  peculiarity  is  by  no  means  any  more  striking 
than  the  one  which  we  find  pro  ex.  in  Jer.  xiii.  1 
sq. ;  xxvii.  2  sq. ;  Ezek.  v.  1  sq. ;  xxiv.  3  sq.  At  the 
same  time,  however,  it  gives  us  an  opportunity,  as 
Vou  Gerlaeh  observes,  "  to  gain  an  insight  into  the 
awful  solemuity  of  the  prophetic  office  at  this  pe- 
riod of  the  revolt."  What  an  obedience  to  the 
word  of  Jehovah,  what  independence  and  courage 
were  required  to  do  what  this  son  of  the  prophets 
didl  When  Duncker  saya  (loc.  cit.  p.  412):  "The 
prophets  of  Jehovah  were  very  much  dissatisfied 
with  this  merciful  forbearance;  as  Samuel  had 
once  blamed  Saul,  so  now  they  blamed  Ahab  pas- 
sionately and  bitterly,"  his  remarks  spring  from 
the  same  spirit  of  animosity,  in  accordance  with 
which  they  discover  something  noble  and  good  in 
the  actions  of  Ahab  and  men  like  him,  but  place 
the  doings  of  the  prophets  in  the  worst  possible 
light.  Clericus  has  indeed  remarked  with  justice: 
Factum  Ahabi,  quamvis  dementia  spieciem  prae  se 
ferat,  non  eral  verve  clementice,  quce  rwn  est  erga  la- 
trones  exercenda ;  qui  si  dimittantur,  multo  magis 
nocebunt,  quam  antea,  quemadmodum  re  vera  fecit 
Beahadad. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-43.  The  twice  repeated  victory  of  Ahab 
o/er  the  Syrians  proclaimed  aloud  and  distinctly  (a) 
the  power  and  strength  of  the  Lord  (Ben-hadad 
came  with  thirty -two  kings,  horses  and  chariots,  and 
a  great  army,  vers.  1  and  10,  the  first  time,  with 
more  than  a  hundred  thousand  men  the  second  time, 
ver.  29.  Ahab  had  only  seven  thousand  ;  two  hun- 
dred and  thirty-two  decided  the  battle,  ver.  1 5,  the 
first  time,  and  the  second  time  his  army  was  like 
two  flocks  of  kids,  ver.  27  ;  nevertheless,  he  con- 
quered. If  ever,  it  could  be  said  in  this  case :  the 
horse  is  prepared  against  the  day  of  battle,  but 
safety  is  of  the  Lord,  Prov.  xxi.  31  ;  1  Mac.  iii.  18. 
19.  Every  king  who  goes  to  battle  should  consi- 
der what  is  written  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  16  sq.,  and  his 
army  should  sing  :  By  our  own  strength  nothing 
is  done,  &c,  through  God  we  shall  do  valiantly,  Ps. 
lx.  14 ;  lxxxiv.  6).  (b)  The  grace  and  mercy  of  the 
Lord.  (Ahab  had  deserved  nothing  as  little  as  he 
had  this  repeated  victory,  for  he  had  introduced 
the  worship  of  idols,  abandoned  the  confederacy, 
tc,  divine  judgments  had  been  fruitless.  However, 
God  granted  him  the  victory,  not  from  any  merit 
of  his,  but  out  of  pure  grace  and  compassion.  He 
endured  with  much  long-suffering,  &c,  Rom.  ix. 
22.  He  is  long-suffering,  not  willing  that  any,  &c, 
2  Pet.  iii.  9 ;  Ezek.  xviii.  23.  But  the  great  tri- 
umph cried  out  to  Ahab  and  Israel:  Despisest 
thou  the  riches,  Ike.,  Rom.  ii.  4-6.     Great  victories 


ought  not  to  make  a  king  and  his  people  haughty, 
but  humble,  and  bring  them  to  the  knowledgd 
that  He,  the  Lord,  is  God  alone.)  Vers.  1-21. 
The  war  between  Ben-hadad  and  Ahab ;  (a) 
Ben-hadad's  invasion  and  demands ;  (b)  Ahab's 
danger  and  distress ;  (c)  Israel's  victory.  Vers. 
1-11.  The  messages  of  Ben-hadad  to  Ahab, 
and  his  responses,  (a)  The  first  one,  ver.  1-4;  (b) 
the  second,  vers.  5-9  ;  (c)  the  third,  vers.  10,  11. — 
Vers.  1-4.  Wurt  Summ.  :  In  these  two  kings  we 
see  what  a  thing  the  human  heart  is,  how  insolent 
and  timorous  by  turns  (Jer.  xvii.  9).  It  is  insolent 
when  man,  grown  prosperous,  powerful,  and  rich, 
places  his  confidence  in  his  success,  and  haughtily 
despises  his  neighbor.  But  it  is  timid  when  man 
falls  into  difficulty,  and  neither  sees  nor  knows 
any  help,  just  as  was  the  despairing,  womanly 
heart  of  king  Ahab,  who  took  it  for  granted  that 
everything  was  lost  when  he  saw  the  hosts  of  his 
enemies. — Vers.  1-3.  Ben-hadad  thought  that  be- 
cause lie  had  the  power  to  rob  and  appropriate, 
he  also  had  the  right  to  do  so.  But  God  gives 
power  and  might  to  kings,  not  to  distort  the  right, 
but  to  protect  it.  The  power  of  that  one  who,  con- 
fiding in  his  own  strength,  treads  the  right  under  his 
feet,  will  sooner  or  later  miserably  decline. — Ver. 
4.  Those  who  no  longer  have  a  Lord  in  heaven 
whom  they  fear,  and  before  whom  they  bow,  cringe 
and  fawn  before  all  men  who  can  harm  or  serve 
them.  If  Ahab  had  said  to  the  King  of  kings  what 
he  sent  as  a  response  to  the  royal  robber  and 
boaster:  "I  am  thine  and  all  that  I  have;"  he 
would  then  have  had  the  trust  and  assurance :  He 
that  dwelleth  in  the  secret  place  of  the  most  High 
shall  abide  under  the  shadow  of  the  Almighty,  Ac. 
(Ps.  xci.  1-3).  He  who  bows  before  God  is  sure  to  be 
humble  before  men  ;  but  he  does  not  cringe  to  them 
nor  throw  himself  away.  To  submit  to  the  superior 
power  and  force  that  demands  gold  and  silver  is 
no  disgrace ;  but  to  surrender  wife  and  child  is 
contrary  to  honor,  duty,  and  conscience. — Vers.  5,  6. 
Haughty  and  insolent  men  grow  all  the  more  over- 
bearing and  ungovernable,  and  the  more  one  sub- 
mits to  them  and  crawls  before  them  and  gratifies 
their  desires,  the  more  exorbitant  they  become  in 
their  demands.  It  is  the  curse  that  rests  upon 
avarice,  that  the  more  the  appetite  after  money  and 
property  is  gratified,  the  more  it  grows,  not  dimin- 
ishes (Prov.  xvi.  8). — Vers.  7-9.  Ahab  and  his  peo- 
ple. (<i)  Ahab  feels  himself  helpless  and  perplexed. 
Adversity  teaches  us  how  to  pray,  but  Ahab  had 
turned  from  the  living  God,  who  is  a  helper  in 
every  time  of  trouble,  to  a  dumb  idol  that  cannot 
help ;  he  had  forgotten  how  to  pray,  forgotten  the 
word  of  the  Psalm  1.  15  :  Call  on  me  in  a  day  of 
trouble,  &c. ;  he  had  sought  to  help  himself  by 
cowardly  submission,  and  now  he  seeks  help  of 
men.  In  every  distress  we  should  turn  first  to 
the  Lord,  Ps.  cxviii.  8,  9;  cviii.  13;  Hymn:  Wean 
wir  in  kbchsten  Nothen  sein,  und  wissen  nicht  wo  aus 
und  tin,  Ac.  ("  God  is  the  refuge  of  his  saiuts, 
when  storms  of  deep  distress  invade  "),  vers.  1  and 
2.  (6)  The  elders  and  the  people  reproach  him. 
Instead  of  his  giving  instructions  to  them  with  the 
words  of  Joel  iii.  15,  like  a  king,  they  give  com- 
mands to  him  :  Hearken  not  unto  him.  He  is  no 
real  king,  realizing  the  position  which  has  been 
given  to  him  by  God,  whom  the  people  control 
instead  of  allowing  themselves  to  be  controlled  ty 
him.  Tyrants  are  of  this  class :  at  first  they  d< 
not  consult  the  people,  and  do  not  scruple  to  appro 


240 


THE  firs:  book  of  the  kings. 


priate  their  most  sacred  possessions,  take  away 
their  faith,  aud  burden  their  consciences.  Ahab 
did  not  consult  his  people  about  the  introduction 
of  the  worship  of  Baal  and  the  persecution  of  the 
prophets ;  but  now  when  he  does  not  know  how 
to  counsel  or  help  himself,  he  applies  to  the  wish 
of  the  nation,  the  aid  of  the  people  is  now  very 
acceptable. — Ver.  10.  Boasting  and  braggadocio 
are  never  a  sign  of  true  strength  and  ability,  much 
rather  of  moral  weakness.  Beu-hadad,  who  speaks 
of  the  dust  of  Samaria,  shows  himself  by  that  very 
act  to  be  of  dust,  Ps.  lxxv.  5,  6 ;  Jer.  xvii.  5  (Matt, 
xxvi.  33,  69). — Ver.  11.  Cramer:  It  is  presumption 
for  a  man  to  celebrate  a  triumph  before  he  has 
gained  the  victory;  so  that  those  who  propose 
doing  anything  should  say :  If  the  Lord  will,  &c. 
(Jas.  iv.  15).  Starke  :  ffe  have  no  need  to  stand 
in  fear  of  men  who  put  their  confidence  in  them- 
selves.— Ver.  1 2.  No  success  or  blessing  can  rest 
upon  orders  which  issue  from  drunken  revelries. 
— Ver.  13.  Formerly  Ahab  wished  no  instruction 
from  the  prophets  ;  now  in  his  danger  and  distress 
he  admits  them  and  listens  to  them.  In  days  of 
prosperity  the  world  does  not  care  for  any  advice 
from  the  faithful  servants  of  the  divine  word ;  it 
looks  down  upon  them  and  despises  them;  but  in 
the  hour  of  sorrow  and  mourning  it  grants  them  ac- 
cess, and  is  glad  to  avail  itself  of  their  consolation. 
Temptation  teaches  us  to  observe  God's  word. 
They  who  do  accept  it  and  obey  it  will  have  as 
little  cause  as  Ahab  to  repent  of  it.  Before  a 
great  troop  which  has  been  abandoned  of  God, 
you  have  no  cause  to  fear  if  God  has  said  to  you : 
I  will  help  thee  (Isai.  xli.  13).  Vou  are  to  ac- 
knowledge :  I  am  the  Lord.  This  is  the  end 
and  aim  of  all  God's  guidings  and  providences ; 
if  they  do  not  attain  this  end  in  your  case, 
your  life  and  existence  are  vaiu  and  of  no  value, 
to  no  purpose. — Vers.  14,  15.  Cf.  1  Sam.  xiv. 
6;  2  Chron.  xiv.  11.  A  little  band  of  brave 
meu  accomplishes  more  than  a  great  troop  of 
such  as  tight  in  a  bad  cause  and  with  a  wicked 
conscience. —  Ver.  16.  Ben-hadad  must  have  sore- 
ly repc-nted  his  drunkenness,  as  it  resulted  in  the 
loss  of  his  army,  his  horses  and  chariots.  How 
often  still  is  drunkenness  the  original  cause  of 
great  sorrow  and  distress  (Ephes.  v.  18;  Isai.  v. 
22;  Prov.  xxiii.  29,  30). — Ver.  18.  Great  men  often 
think,  when  they  have  been  disturbed  in  their 
carnal  rest  and  security,  that  they  only  need  to 
speak  the  word  of  command  in  order  to  be  relieved 
from  everything  disagreeable  and  wearisome,  but 
they  must  learn  that  they  cannot  rid  themselves 
by  a  command  of  what  God  has  sent  for  their 
humiliation. — Vers.  19-21.  The  way  of  the  god- 
less shall  perish  (Ps.  i.  6).  Their  way  is  covetous- 
ness  and  pillage  (vers.  3,  6),  haughtiness,  insolence, 
and  assurance  (vers.  10,  18),  service  of  their  belly, 
wantonness  (vSr.  16).  This  way  shall  perish;  they 
are  as  chaff  which  the  wind  driveth  away,  "utterly 
consumed  with  terrors  "  (vers.  20,  21;  Ps.  lxxiii. 
19). 

Vers.  22-34.  The  second  expedition  of  the 
Syrians  against  Israel,  (a)  The  motive ;  (b)  the 
issue. — Ver.  22.  The  advice  of  the  prophet;  Go, 
strengthen  thyself,  and  mark.  &c.  is  applicable  in 
another,  higher  sense  to  us  all.  Our  enemies  are 
not  idle,  they  are  constantly  returning  to  the  at- 
lack.  Kven  if  we  have  by  the  help  of  the  Lord 
conquered  a  victory  over  sin.  the  world,  and  the 
dev'.l,  that  is  n  it  all  there  is  to  bo  doue  ;   we  must 


oven  after  the  victory  be  on  our  guard  and  arm 
ourselves,  so  that  the  enemy  may  not  fall  upon  ul 
uuawares  (1  Cor  xvi.  13  ;  Ephes  vi.  10  sq.;  1  Pet 
v.  8 ;  Hymn :  Ttilsitf  each,  ihr  Christenleute,  die  Feindi 
suchen  eucb  zur  Bcute,  &c,  "  My  sou!  be  on  thy 
guard,  Ten  thousand  foes  arise,"  &c). — Vers.  23- 
25.  The  evil  counsellors  of  Ahab.  (a)  They  urge 
him  on  to  war  and  battle  instead  of  counselling 
peace,  because  their  pride  was  wounded  and  their 
hope  of  booty  had  been  frustrated.  Place  no  con- 
fidence in  the  man  who  incites  you  to  begin  a 
quarrel.  The  saying  of  Scripture  (Heb.  xii.  14)  ia 
applicable  to  all,  in  private  as  well  as  public  life, 
for  individuals  and  entire  nations,  for  masters  aud 
servants,  (b)  They  plead  religious  reasons,  and 
make  use  of  the  superstition  of  their  unwitting  lord. 
It  is  possible  for  a  bad,  unholy  thing  to  become 
confirmed  through  superstition ;  the  man  who 
plants  himself  on  truth,  however,  will  not  permit 
himself  to  be  deceived  on  such  a  foundation,  (c) 
They  shove  the  blame  of  the  ignominious  defeat  on 
to  the  thirty-two  kings,  instead  of  seeking  for  it  in 
themselves.  A  man  always  prefers  to  find  the 
cause  of  his  own  misfortune  and  distress  in  anoth- 
er's rather  than  in  his  own  sin  and  guilt. — Ver.  26. 
Ben-hadad  followed  their  foolish  and  perverse  ad- 
vice because  it  was  entirely  in  accordance  with  his 
own  wish.  So  strong  and  overpowering  is  sinful 
desire  in  the  human  heart,  that  even  the  bitterest 
dispensation  and  chastisement  of  God  suppresses  it 
only  for  a  time,  and,  as  soon  «s  the  external  im- 
pression ceases,  it  breaks  forth  afresh. — Ver.  28. 
He  who  calls  the  God  of  Israel,  who  made  heaven 
and  earth  and  filled  them  both  (Jer.  xxiii.  23,  24), 
a  god  of  ihe  hills  or  a  national  divinity,  blasphemes 
His  name ;  the  Lord,  however,  will  not  let  him  go 
unpunished,  who  takes  His  name  in  vain. — Ver. 
29  sq.  God  is  a  judge  who  putteth  down  one  and 
setteth  up  another  (Ps.  lxxv  8)  Hymn:  Es  sind 
ja  Gott  geringe  Sachen,  mid  seiner  Allmacht  gilt  es 
gleich,  den  Reichen  arm  und  klein  zu  machen.  4c.  To- 
day a  king  aud  lord  over  hundreds  and  thousands, 
to-morrow  a  mau  who  is  obliged  to  sneak  about 
and  beg  for  mercy ;  to-day  haughty  aud  insolent, 
to-morrow  a  slave  in  sackcloth,  and  with  a  rope 
about  the  neck  (Jer.  xvi.  6,  7). — Wurt.  Summ.  : 
Nothing  among  mortal  affairs  is  so  inconstant  as 
temporal  prosperity.  There  is  a  time  for  every- 
thing. For  that  reason  let  no  man  place  his  de- 
pendence on  his  good  fortune  and  exalt  himself  on 
its  account,  for  he  does  not  know  whether  he 
shall  possess  in  the  evening  what  was  his  in  the 
morning  (Sir.  xviii.  26) — Vers.  31-42.  Lisko  : 
Ahab's  wicked  conduct  after  the  victory,  (a)  In 
what  it  cousisted.  (6)  How  he  was  punished  for  it. 
— Cramer:  "When  authority  is  compassionate  out  of 
proper  season  and  neglects  iis  office  of  correction, 
it  draws  upon  itself  the  guilt  of  the  other.  God 
wants  no  mercy  to  bo  shown  where  he  has  ordered 
punishment.  Vers.  31-33.  1'raise,  flattery,  and 
subserviency  are  only  too  often  the  snare  with 
which  kings  and  great  men  are  caught,  so  that  un- 
der the  appearance  of  generosity  and  magnanimity 
they  may  be  led  astray  and  act  contrary  to  the 
will  of  God  They  ought,  indeed,  to  be  merciful 
.ind  gracious,  but  not  forget  that  to  do  justice  is 
(heir  first,  duty,  and  that  they  do  not  carry  the 
sword  in  vain. — Ahab  persecutes  au  Elijah  in  every 
kingdom  (chap,  xviii.  10),  and  threatens  him  with 
death,  but  he  permits  a  robber  and  a  plunderer  to 
sit  beside  him  in  his  chariot  and  miikes  a  covenant 


CHAPTER  XXI.  1-29.  ^41 


with  him.     What  to  the  eyes  of  the  world  looks  i  joined   with  pain   and  sacrifice. — Vers.   3S-40.  A 
like  generosity,  in  lhe  eyes  of  God,  who  trieth  the  I  genuine  preacher  of  repentance  must  first  of  all 


heart  and  reins,  is  only  weakness  and  folly.  Great 
injury  can  be  done  by  seeming  ill-timed  generosity. 
— Ver.  33.  Cramer  :  After  a  word  has  been  once 
spoken,  we  cannot  recall  it.  Therefore  learn  to 
guard  thy  mouth :  he  who  does  will  not  offend  by 


convict  the  sinner  of  his  guilt  anil  bring  him  to  the 
point  where  he  condemns  himself,  just  as  Nathan 
did  with  David. — Vers.  42,  43.  Ahab  listened  well 
pleased  to  the  falsehood  from  the  lips  ol  the  Syrian 
nobles,  for  it  gave  nourishment  to  his  folly ;   the 


his  words  (Sir.  xxiii.  7). — Vers.  35-43.  The  pro-  i  truth   from   the  mouth  of  the  prophet  made   him 
clamation  of  the  divine   punishment    for    Ahab's  I  restless  and  angry,  because  it  punished  his  folly. 


conduct,  (a)  How  it  occurred  ;  (ft)  how  it  was  re- 
ceived by  him  (vide  Historical  and  Ethical). — Vers. 
35-37.  He  who  has  his  calling  and  service  from  the 
word  of  God  ought  to  allow  no  danger  to  detain 
him  from  making  an  announcement  of  the  fact  (2 
Tim.  iv.  2),  and  must  obediently  submit  himself  to 
hi3  commands  even  when  the  fulfilment  of  them  is 


There  is  no  help  for  the  man  who  allows  himself 
to  be  irritated  by  the  truth  instead  of  receiving  it 
with  meekness  (Jas.  i.  21).  There  is  nothing  that 
so  rouses  and  provokes  an  unconverted  and  unbe- 
lieving man  as  to  have  his  sinful  character  so  un- 
veiled and  set  before  his  eyes  that  he  can  no  longer 
justify  or  excuse  himself. 


B. — The  proceedings  of  Ahab  against  Naboth. 
Chap.  XXI.  1-29. 


1  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,1  that  Naboth  the  Jezreelite  had  a  vine- 
yard, which  teas  in  Jezreel,  hard  by  the  palace  of  Ahab  king  of  Samaria.     And 

2  Ahab  spake  unto  Naboth,  saying,  Give  me  thy  vineyard,  that  I  may  have  it  for  a 
garden  of  herbs,  because  it  is  near  unto  my  house  :J  and  I  will  give  thee  for  it  a 
better  vineyard  than  it ;  or,3  if  it  seem  good  to  thee,  I  will  give  thee  the  worth  of 

3  it  in  money.     And  Naboth  said  to  Ahab,  The  Lord  [Jehovah]  forbid  it  me,  that 

4  I  should  give  the  inheritance  of  my  fathers  unto  thee.  And  Ahab  came  into  his 
house  heavy  and  displeased,  because  of  the  word  which  Naboth  the  Jezreelite  had 
spoken  to  him  :  for  he  had  said,  I  will  not  give  thee  the  inheritance  of  my  fathers. 
And  he  laid  him  down  upon  his  bed,  and  turned  away  his  face,  and  would  eat  no 

■5  bread.4    But  Jezebel  his  wife  came  to  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Why  is  thy  spirit  so 

6  sad,  that  thou  eatest  no  bread  '?  And  he  said  unto  her,  Because  I  spake  unto 
Naboth  the  Jezreelite,  and  said  unto  him,  Give  me  thy  vineyard  for  money ;  or 
else,  if  it  please  thee,  I  will  give  thee  another  vineyard  for  it :  and  he  answered, 

7  I  will  not  give  thee  my  vineyard.5  And  Jezebel  his  wife  said  unto  him,  Dost 
thou  now  govern   the  kingdom  of  Israel  ?  arise,  and  eat  bread,  and  let  thine 

8  heart  be  merry  :  I  will  give  thee  the  vineyard  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite.  So  she 
wrote  letters  in  Ahab's  name,  and  sealed  them  with  his  seal,  and  sent  the  let- 
ters "  unto  the  elders  and  to  the  nobles  that  were  in  his '  city,  dwelling  with 

9  Naboth.     And  she  wrote  in  the  letters,  saying,  Proclaim  a  fast,  and  set  Naboth 

10  on  high  among  the  people :  and  set  two  men,  sons  of  Belial,  before  him,  to 
bear  witness   against  him,   saying,  Thou  didst  blaspheme  God  and  the  king. 

11  And  then  carry  him  out,  and  stone  him,  that  he  may  die.  And  the  men  of  his 
city,  even  the  elders  and  the  nobles  who  were  the  inhabitants  in  his  city,  did  as 
Jezebel  had  sent  unto  them,  and  as  it  was  written  in  the  letters  which  she  had 

12  sent  unto  them.     They  proclaimed  a  fast,  and  set  Naboth  on  high  among  the 

13  people.  And  there  came  in  two  men,  children  of  Belial,  and  sat  before  him  : 
and  the  men  of  Belial  witnessed  against  him,  even  against  Naboth,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  people,  saying,  Naboth  did  blaspheme  God  and  the  king.  Then 
they  carried  him   forth  out  of  the   city,    and    stoned   him   with   stones,   that 

14  he   died.     Then  they  sent  to  Jezebel,  saying,  Naboth  is  stoned,  and    is  dead 

15  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jezebel  heard  that  Naboth  was  stoned,  and  was 
dead,  that  Jezebel  said  to  Ahab,  Arise,  take  possession  of  the  vineyard  of  Na- 
both the  Jezreelite,  which  he  refused  to  give  thee  for  money :  for  Naboth  is  not 

16  alive,  but  dead.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Ahab  heard  that  Naboth  was 
dead,"  that  Ahab  rose  up  to  go  down  to  the  vineyard  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite, 
to  take  possession  of  it. 

16 


242  THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

17  And   the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  to  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  say 

18  ing,  Arise,  go  down  to  meet  Ahab  king  of  Israel,  which  is  [dwelleth'J  in  Sama- 
ria :  behold,  he  is  in  the  vineyard  of  Naboth,  whither  he  is  gone  down  to  possess 

19  it.  And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  him,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah], 
Hast  thou  killed,  and  also  taken  possession  ?  And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  him, 
saying,   Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  In  the  place  '°  where  dogs  licked  the 

20  blood  of  Naboth  shall  dogs  lick  thy  blood,  even  thine."  And  Ahab  said  to 
Elijah,  Hast  thou  found  me,  O  mine  enemy  ?  And  he  answered,  I  have  found 
thee:  because  thou   hast  sold  thyself  to  work  evil  in   the  sight  of  the  Lord 

21  [Jehovah].  Behold,  I  will  bring  12  evil  upon  thee,  and  will  take  away  thy  pos- 
terity, and  will  cut  oft"  from  Ahab  him  that  pisseth  against  the  wall,  and   him 

22  that  is  shut  up  and  left  in  Israel,  and  will  make  thine  house  like  the  house  of 
Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  and  like  the  house  of  Baasha  the  son  of  Ahijah,  for 
the  provocation  wherewith  thou  hast  provoked  me  to  anger,  and  made  Israel  to 

23  sin.     And  of  Jezebel  also  spake  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  saying,  The  dogs  shall  eat 

24  Jezebel  by  the  wall  of  Jezreel.  Him  that  dieth  of  Ahab  in  the  city  the  dogs 
shall  eat ;  and  him  that  dieth  in  the  field  shall  the  fowls  of  the  air  eat. 

25  But  there  was  none  like  unto  Ahab,  which  did  sell  himself  to  work  wicked- 

26  ness  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  whom  Jezebel  his  wife  stirred  up.  And 
he  did  very  abominably  in  following  idols,  according  to  all  things  as  did  the 

27  Amorites,  whom  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  cast  out  before  the  children  of  Israel.  And 
it  came  to  pass,  when  Ahab  heard  those  words,  that  he  rent  his  clothes,  and 
put  sackcloth  upon  his  flesh,  and  fasted,  and  lay  in  sackcloth,  and  went  softly. 

28  And  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  came  to  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  sayiug,  Seest 

29  thou  how  Ahab  humbleth  himself  before  me?  because  he  humbleth  himself 
before  me,  I  will  not  bring  the  evil  in  his  days :  but  in  his  son's  days  will  I 
bring  the  evil  upon  his  house. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1. — [The  Vat.  Sept.,  which,  as  before  noted,  transposes  chaps,  xx.  and  xxi.,  omits  in  conseqnence  the  mark  of  time 
at  the  beginning  of  ver.  1.  The  AJex.  Sept.,  which  follows  the  Heb.  in  that  matter,  designates  Naboth  as  an  Israelite  instead 
of  a  Jezreelite.   throughout  the  chapter. 

2  Vpr.  2. — [The  Sept.  omits  the  reason  for  Ahab's  coveting  the  vineyard. 

3  Ver.  2. — [Several  MSS.,  followed  by  most  of  the  VV.,  supply  the  word  or  and  read  Qjfl  . 
*  Ver.  4. — [The  Vat.  Sept.  gives  a  mere  epitome  of  this  ver. :  the  Alex,  follows  the  Heb. 

4  Ver.  6. —  [The  Sept.  instead  of  vineyard  here  introduce  from  ver.  4  "  the  inheritance  of  my  fathers."  As  this  phrase 
explains  Nabotlfs  reason  (see  Exeg.  Com.)  for  refusing  Ahab.  the  addition  is  not  likely  to  be  right. 

6  Ver.  8. — The  k'tib  Q^ISQrj   is  to  be  unhesitatingly  preferred  to  the  k'ri  rj*~|2rj  .    [The  k'ri  is  the  reading  of  many 

MSS.,  but  the  k'tib  reappears  in  the  next  ver.  and  ver.  11  unquestioned. 

7  Ver.  8. — [The  Chald.  and  Syr.  omit  this  pronoun,  which  certainly  does  not  seem  necessary  in  itself  ;  but,  from  its  repe- 
tition in  ver.  11,  doubtless  belongs  here  also. 

8  Ver.  16. — [The  Sept.  here  curiously  interpolates  the  statement,  "  he  rent  his  clothes  and  put  on  sackcloth.  Atid  it 
came  to  pass  after  this  that  Ahab,"  &c.   Ahab  seems  to  have  felt  no  need  of  such  decent  hypocrisy. 

9  Ver.  18. — [Our  author  in  his  translation  supplies  the  ellipsis  by  the  verb  dtcelleth  rather  than  is,  since  the  reference 
must  be  to  his  dwelling-place,  and  at  this  moment  he  was  in  Jezreel. 

10  Ver.  19. — [The  Sept.  considerably  modifies  this  prophetic  denunciation  :  "  In  every  place  where  the  sowb  and  the  dog» 
licked  the  blood  of  Naboth,  there  shall  the  dogs  lick  thy  blood,  and  harlots  wash  in  thy  blood." 

11  Ver.  19. — [nnX~D3  an  emphatic  repetition  of  the  proii.  stiff,  literally  and  well  expressed  in  the  A.V. 

19  Ver.  21. — [The  k'ri  gives  the  full  form  fc^D  Deret  and  602N  ver-  ^,  of  tais  verb,  in  which  there  appears  to  be  a 

...  .     T 

peculiar  tendency  of  the  ^  to  fall  away.— F.  G.] 

connecting  thought  with  chap  xx,  is  this:  Aa 
Ahab.  in  consequenco  of  victory  twice  won,  found 
tranquillity  and  peace  externally,  he  was  contem- 
plating the  extension  and  the  beautifying  of  the 
garden  of  his  summer  palace  at  Jezreel  (vide  on 
chap,  xviii.  46).  Sanctius:  post  victos  hostes  ad  de- 
licias  comparandas  animurn  adjecit. 

Vers.  2-6.  And  Ahab  spake  unto  Naboth, 
&c.  Ver.  3,  literally :  Far  is  it  for  me  from  Jehovah 
that  I,  &c.  This  expression  presupposes  two 
things,  viz. :  that  Naboth  was  a  worshipper  of  Je- 
hovah and  did  not  bow  his  knee  to  Baal,  and  tha» 
he  belonged  to  those  who  had  remained   faithful 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these 
things,  &c.  The  Sept.  places  this  whole  chapter 
oefore  the  twentieth,  and  Thenius  holds  this  to  be 
its  original  place.  Bwald  says,  rightly:  "The 
transposition  resulted  simply  to  unite  more  closely 
the  similar  narrations  in  chaps,  xx.  and  xxii.  and 
inversely  chaps,  xvii.-xix.,  xxi.  The  expression 
iu  chap  xxi.  4,  as  a  climax  to  chap.  xx.  43,  refers 
back  rather  palpably  to  the  latter  passage."  Na- 
both's  affair  must  have  happened  then  after  the 
two  victories  over  the  Syrians,   because   Elijah's 


Bevere  sentence  proclaiming  the  fall  of  the  house  of  (Ahab  dot-s  not  mention  the  name  "Jehovah") 
Ahab,  which  was  occasioned  by  them,  could  not ,  and  that  also  he  held  the  alienation  of  his  vine- 
have   immediately  preceded  those   victories.     The    yard  to  be  a  sin  against  Jehovah,  a  transgression 


CHAPTER  XXI.  1-29 


243 


of  a  command  of  Jehovah.  This  command  must 
have  been  that  respecting  the  inalienability  of  the 
inheritance  which  was  apportioned  to  each  tribe  and 
to  each  family,  and  could  not,  even  by  marriage, 
go  into  other  hands,  and  which,  even  it'  it  were 
sold  on  account  of  impoverishment  or  otherwise  on 
account  of  distress,  would  revert  to  it  again,  without 
price,  in  the  year  of  Jubilee  (Numb,  xxxvi.  1-13  ; 
Lev.  xxv.  10-28).  According  to  Ezek.  xlvi  18, 
the  prince  himself  could  not  force  any  one  out  of 
his  property.  This  Mosaic  law  is  conuected  most 
intimately  with  the  stability  of  the  Theocracy  ;  ii 
Becured  its  material  foundation  (cf.  Symb.  des 
Mosais.  Kult.,  II.  s.  604) ;  and  if  it  were  not  always 
strictly  observed  and  enforced,  the  main  thought 
pervading  it  nevertheless  struck  out  strong  roots 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  people,  and  the  preser- 
vation of  the  H^nj  was  for  every  covenant-keeping 

Israelite  a  matter  not  merely  of  piety  towards  his 
family  aud  his  tribe,  not  merely  a  prudential, 
worldly  affair,  but  a  religious,  sacred  duty.  No 
consideration  would  induce  Naboth  to  violate  this, 
neither  greater  gain  (for  Ahab  offered  him  a  better 
vineyard  or  wished  to  pay  him  well),  nor  the  royal 
authority  and  the  fear  of  the  royal  displeasure, 
especially  when,  as  here,  not  need,  but  a  royal 
whim  only,  was  concerned.  Hence  it  is  almost 
laughable  when  with  J  D.  Michaelis  Naboth's  an- 
swer is  explained  as  "uncivil  in  the  extreme,"  or 
when  others  say  that  it  was  a  piece  of  "  obstinacy ;  " 
for  in  that  case  Joseph's  reply  to  Potiphar's  wife 
(Gen.  xxxix.  9)  was  uncivil  and  obstinate.     For  -|D 

(ver.  4),  see  on  chap.  xx.  43 :  He  turned  away  his 
face,  the  Vulg.  adds  adparietem,  which  2  Kings  xx. 
2,  has :  Seb.  Schmidt :  more  fristtum,  qui  conversa- 
tionem,  colloquium  etconspectum  Iwminum  fugiunt  et 
declinant. 

Vers.  7-8.     And  Jezebel  his  wife  said,  Ac 
The  words   nnN — iwii.'"   are    usually  translated 

imperatively:  "Thou!  exert  now  the  royal  autho- 
rity over  Israel"  (de  Wette),  i.  e.,  act  as  king,  use 
the  power  which  belongs  to  thee  as  king  of  Israel, 
or,  "  Thou  exercisest  authority  now  over  Israel " 
(Philippson),  i.  e.,  now  must  thou  show  thyself 
to  be  king  over  Israel.  On  the  other  hand, 
as  Thenius  properly  remarks,  the  collocation 
of  the  words  is  to  be  observed  (Thou  comes  first), 
and  also  the  connection  (Jezebel  says  :  /  will  give 
thee).  This  antithesis  compels  us  to  understand 
the  words  as  ironical,  and  with  the  Sept.,  the  Vulg., 
and  the  Syriac,  to  regard  them  as  a  question: 
Dost  thou  now  exercise  authority  over  Israel '? 
Host  thou  as  kiug  permit  thyself  to  ask  such  a 
thing  of  one  of  thy  subjects  ?  I  will  give  thee  the 
vineyard,  since  thou  trustest  not  thyself  to  act  as 
man  and  king. —  The  letters  (ver.  8)  Jezebel  furnish- 
ed with  the  royal  seal,  i.  e.,  she  affixed  the  seal  to 
(not  sealed  up).  "  Probably  the  seal  had  on  it  the 
name  of  the  king,  which,  instead  of  the  signature, 
was  by  the  seal  stamped  upon  the  document,  as  is 
the  case  now  in  Egypt  and  Persia,  amongst  Turks 
and  Arabs;  cf.  Paulsen,  die  Regier. der Morgenland. 
s.  295  "  (Keil)  ;  Esth.  viii.  12.  Jezebel  certainly 
received  the  seal  (seal-ring,  Dan.  vi.  18)  from 
Ahab  himself,  who  allowed  her  the  free  use  of  it. 
From  ver.  8,  it  is  manifest  that  Ahab  and  Jezebel 
were  then  in  Samaria,  their  residence,  properly 
speaking.  Tlie  elders  and  nobles  constituted  with- 
out,   doubt    the    city    tribunal    (Deut.    xvi.    18), 


"which  must  have  had  then,  according  to  oui 
chapter,  in  cases  easily  to  be  decided  the /us  vitoe" 
(Thenius) ;  cf.  on  Matt.  v.  21.  The  addition :  dwel- 
ling with  Naboth,  shows  that  they  were  his  fellow- 
townsmen. 

Ver.  9.  Proclaim  a  fast,  as  was  customary  in 
the  event  of  national  calamities  (Joel  i.  14),  after 
grievous  defeats  (Judg.  xx.  26;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  13), 
after  great  sins  (1  Sam.  vii.  6 ;  Joel  ii.  1 2),  or  for  the 
turning  away  of  apprehended  misfortune  (2  Chron 
xx.  2,  4) ;  it  is  always  the  sign  of  penitence.  Ob- 
viously it  stauds  here  in  a  definite  relation  to  the 
offeuce  charged,  and  it  was  not  merely  to  furnish 
occasion  for  the  procedure  against  Naboth  (The- 
nius), but  rather  "  to  publish  the  fact  that  a  grievous 
fault  was  resting  upon  the  city,  which  must  be 
expiated."  The  stamp  of  truth  would  thus  thereby 
be  impressed,  in  the  eyes  of  the  entire  city,  upon 
the  crime  with  which  Naboth  was  charged  (Keil). 
Naboth  was  to  be  set  on  high  in  the  assemblage, 
'■  so  that  the  public  indignation  might  be  the  more 
vividly  expressed,  if  one  who  was  worthy  uf  such 
distinction,  on  account  of  his  God-feariug  senti- 
n  ent,  should  be  convicted  of  being  such  a  grievous 
sinner"  (Thenius).  This  is  certainly  better  than 
the  view  advanced  by  Grotius :  ne  odio  damnasse 
crederentur,  quern  ipsi  honoraverant,  or  the  explana- 
tion "f  Seb.  Schmidt:  producite  eum  ante  unuersum 
populum  in  judicium  ad  causam  dicendam. 

Vers.  10-14.  Two  men  .  .  before  him,  Ac. 
According  to  Deut.  xvii.  6  and  xix.  15,  every  crime 
punishable  by  death  must  be  testified  to  by  at  least 
two  witnesses,  who  also  must  at  the  stoning 
make  the  beginning.     i'HJJ  not  contra  (Vulg.),  but 

coram,  in  conspectu. — Thou  didst  blaspheme  7fl_3 

means  properly  to  bless ;  then,  because  at  a  depar- 
ture one  utters  a  benediction,  generally  to  say  fare- 
well, is  to  leave,  so  Job  i.  5  ;  ii.  5 :  to  bless  God,  to 
give  God  a  departure,  to  turn  one's  self  from  Him. 
If  now  Xaboth,  by  this  expression,  was  guilty  of  a 
capital  crime,  it  must  of  necessity  be  that  which 
the  law  ordained  in  the  death-punishment  (cf.  Lev. 
xxiv.  14  sq.).  Blasphemy  against  the  kiug  is 
placed  beside  blasphemy  against  God,  because 
the  king  represents  God  and  rules  in  His  name  ; 
crime  against  majesty  involves  death  (2  Sam.  xvi. 
9).  Jezebel  does  not  use  the  name  nirP  but  the 
more  general  indefinite  JTilPK  ■ 

Vers.  15-16.  Take  possession  of  the  vine- 
yard, Ac.  The  immediate  seizure  of  the  property 
appears  here  as  something  which,  in  consequence 
of  the  execution  of  Naboth,  is  understood  to  be  ac- 
cording to  usage  and  right.  The  Rabbins  remark, 
that  which  indeed  the  Mosaic  law  does  not  ex- 
pressly ordain,  the  property  of  an  offender  against 
majesty  falls  to  the  king,  who  was,  in  so  far,  its  in- 
heritor  ( E^T1   means  also  to  inherit,  Gen.  xxi.  10  ; 

Jer.  xlix.  1).  According  to  2  Kings  ix.  26,  Naboth's 
sons  also  were  put  to  death,  the  heirs  proper,  be- 
sides, were  no  longer  living. 

Vers.  17-19.  And  the  word  cf  the  Lord 
came  to  Elijah,  Ac.     From  VI     in  ver.    18    we 

are  to  conclude  that  Elijah  was,  at  that  time,  in  a 
mountain-district.  Ahab's  crime  is  set  before  him 
in  the  form  of  a  question,  which  was  more  fitted  to 
awaken  Ins  conscience  than  a  bare  affirmation. 
When  the  guilt  of  the  crime  is  charged  upon 
Ahab,  and  not  upon  Jezebel  who  was  the  agent  in 


244 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  matter,  it  is  like  Gen.  iii.  9,  where  God  brings 
Adam  and  not  Eve  to  account. — According  to 
chap.  xxii.  33,  the  dogs  licked  the  blood  of  Ahab, 
not  at  Jetreel,  the  place  where  Naboth  was  put  to 
death,  but  at  Samaria.  In  order  to  reconcile  both 
passages,  either  "itrX  DipD3  have   been  translated 

by  pro  eo  quod  (Grotius,  Maurer,  De  Wette :  "  for 
that  "),  or  it  has  been  supposed  that  the  prophecv, 
inasmuch  as  Ahab  repented  (ver.  27),  was  ful- 
filled but  partially  in  him,  and  fully  in  hia  son  (2 
Kings  ix.  25)  (Calmet,  KeiL  Gerlach  aud  others). 
Thenius  believes  that  there  is  a  contradiction  here 
which  does  not  admit  of  any  reconciliation,  no 
matter  what  the  explanation  be.  But  how  thought- 
less the  author  of  our  books  must  have  been,  if'  in 
two  chapters  alongside  of  each  other,  on  the 
same  leaf  as  it  were,  he  had  admitted  ''direct" 
contradictions  inadvertently.  The  place  where 
Naboth's  and  Ahab's  blood  were  licked  up  by  dogs 
was  '■  before  or  outside  the  city,"  i.  e.,  the  place 
where  supposed  or  real  criminals  were  executed 
(cf.  ver.  13;  Lev.  xxiv.  14;  Acts  vii.  56;  Hebrews 
xiii.  12  sq.).  The  prophetic  word  means:  As  thou 
hast  unrighteously  put  Naboth  to  death,  as  a  crimi- 
nal, without  the  city,  so  shalt  thou,  righteously, 
in  the  same  place,  outside  thy  city  (residence),  be 
put  to  death,  i.  e.,  as  a  criminal.  In  this  the  pro- 
phecy found  its  fulfilment,  in  the  similarity  of  the 
disgraceful  death,  not  in  the  similarity  of  the 
special  locality.  Consequently  here  the  entirely 
general  DipD  stands,  and  not,  as  in  2  Kings  xi.  25 

sq.  the  special  ni3J  HT."  npbn . 

Ver.  20.  Hast  thou  found  me,  &c.  Luther 
follows  the  inaccurate  translation  of  the  Vulg.  : 
num.  invenisti  me  inimicum  tibi  ?  Thenius  :  "{WO 
is  herein  its  most  proper  signification:  to  overtake 
(seizing  me),  (I  Sam.  xxxi.  3  ;  Job  xi.  7;  Jer.  x. 
8),  used  especially  of  the  punishing  hand(l  Sam. 
xxiii.  17;  Isai.  x.  10;  Ps.  xxi.  9),  consequently: 
Hast  thou  overtaken  me,  mine  enemy  ?  As  a  defiant 
question,  and  entirely  suited  to,  mine  enemy : 
thinkest  thou  that  thou  hast  now  got  me  down  ?  To 
this  the  reply  is  wholy  suited :  Yes,  I  have  got 
thee  I  "  Ton  Gerlach  justly  remarks:  "Struck  at 
by  the  address  of  Elijah,  Ahab  seeks  to  justify  him- 
self by  attributing  personal  enmity  upon  the  pro- 
phet's part  towards  himself."  Michaelis  wholly 
wrong:  Hast  thou  found  me  in  an  act  which  I  can- 
not excuse?  or  Vatablus  :  Hast  thou  found  some- 
thing against  me  which  thou  canst  censure,  thou 
who  art  always  against  me? — -|3Dnn  must  be  taken 

here  in  a  wholly  general  sense,  as  in  ver.  25  (cf. 
1  Kings  xvii.  17  :  Rom.  vii.  14) ;  to  abandon  one's 
self  without  will  to  evil;  tomako  one's  self  a  slave 
of  sin  ;  "  the  feebleness  is  therein  expressed  also,  by 
virtue  of  which  he  was  the  tool  of  others  "  (Ger- 
lach). The  Sept.  add  arbitrarily,  /larnv,  which 
Thenius  holds  to  be  original,  and  then  translates : 
on  account  of  thy  pretended  selling  of  thyself  to 
do,  &c.  i.e.,  thou  shalt  become  conscious  that  thou 
hast  fully  received  the  price  of  sin;  very  forced. 
The  ri>v  wapopyiaai  aiviv  of  the  Sept.  after  miT  is 
also  an  arbitrary  addition. 

Vers.  21-24.  Behold,  I  will  bring  evil,  Ac. 
Upon  vers.  21— 24,  see  above  on  chap.  xiv.  10  sq. 
and  also  xvi.  3  sq.  It  is  the  standing  avenging 
sentence  for  the  dyua-ties  of  apostate  king-,  re- 
peated also  in  chap.  xxii.  38  and  2  Kings  ix.  8  sq. 
36.  The  divine  punishment  fulls  upon  Ahab  aud  his 


house  not  alone  on  account  of  the  crime  committed 
against  Naboth,  but  also,  and  chiefly,  on  account  of 
the  idolatry  existing  and  promoted  during  his  reign, 
with  which,  indeed,  that  crime  was  closely  con- 
nected.    The  pn3  in  ver.  23   is  translated  in  the 

Septuag,  rightly  here  as  in  2  Sam.  xx.  15,  by  iv  t£ 
KporaxiofiaTi ,  by  which  a  space  immediately  close 
to  the  walls,  and  belonging  to  the  city-terrain,  is 
to  be  understood.  Jezebel  also  was  to  be  devoured 
by  dogs  before,  i.  e.  outside  the  city.  "When  for 
tajDE  ?!?? ,  SKjnP  p?i]3  occurs  in  2  Kings  ix. 
10,  36,  37,  not  another  but  the  same  place  is 
designated,  viz.  in  the  space,  i.  e.,  in  the  city-terrain 
of  Jezreel.  Thenius  very  unnecessarily  would 
have  the  reading  in  our  passage  pprQ  .  Jezebel, 
according  to  2  Kings  ix.  33,  was  thrown  out  of  a 
window  and  trodden  by  horses,  but  was  not  de- 
voured by  dogs  in  "  the  court  of  the  palace."  This 
happened  rather  before  the  city-walls. 

Vers.  25-26.  There  was  none  like  unto,  &c. 
The  25th  and  26th  verses  are  a  parenthesis  by 
which  the  relator  desires  once  more  to  bring  out  the 
reason  for  the  miserable  destruction  of  the  house  ol 
Ahab,  and  why  every  effort  to  wash  Ahab  clean, 
and  to  make  of  him  "  a  good  man  of  the  best  dispo- 
sition "  (Michaelis)  seemed  useless,     p"i  does  not 

mean  here :  yea,  assuredly  (De  Wette) ;  "  it  has  here 
its  usual  meaning,  but  it  does  not  stand,  as  is  often 
the  case,  immediately  before  the  word  to  which  it 
is  related  ;  translate :  besides  how  Ahab  (Ahab  ex- 
cepted), there  was  none  (as  he),  &c."  (Thenius). — 
The  Amorites  are  mentioned  instead  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  generally,  as  in  Gen.  xv.  16;  Jos.  xxiv.  15  ; 
Amos  ii.  9,  because  they  were  the  most  powerful 
tribe  of  Canaan.  Ahab  had  abandoned  himself 
entirely  to  the  idolatry  on  account  of  which  Jeho- 
vah had  driven  the  Cnnaanites  from  their  land,  and 
had  given  it  to  the  Israelites  (chap.  xvi.  33). 

Vers.  27-29.  When  Ahab  heard  those 
words,  &c.  The  rending  of  the  clothes,  putting  on 
sackcloth  and  fasting,  are  the  usual  signs  of  mourn- 
ing and  penitence  (Winer,  B.-W-R,  II.  s.  631. 
Ahab  slept  in  his  sackcloth.     t3X  does  not  mean 

barefoot  (Jarchi  and  others),  not  demisso  capite,  or 
slowly  (Keil),  but  quietly,  softly  Jsa.  viii.  6). — The 
complete  ruin  was  not  to  overtake  Ahab  during  his 
lifetime,  but  ''he  was  referred  back  to  the  threaten- 
ing of  the  law,  according  to  which,  the  misdeeds  of 
the  fathers  were  not  to  be  borne  in  the  children, 
who  did  not  cease  from  them  longer  than  to  the 
third  or  fourth  generation  "  (Menken). 

HISTORICAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

1.  The  procedure  against  Naboth  constitutes  a 
turning-point  in  the  history  of  Ahab,  in  so  far  as  it 
called  forth  the  prediction  of  the  destruction  of 
himself  and  of  his  house.  Although  it  concerned 
but  our  contemporaneous  people,  it  has  neverthe- 
less a  general  theoeratico-historical  significance  in 
this,  that  a  moral  corruption  was  therein  brought 
to  light,  which  had  seized  the  head  aud  the  mem- 
bers of  the  kingdom,  and  was  the  consequence  of 
the  apostasy  from  the  God  of  Israel  and  from  His 
law.  ft  was  a  crying  proof  that  all  the  evidence 
of  divine  power  and  grace  and  fidelity  and  long 
suffering  had  produced  no  fruit.  That  too  was  the 
point  of  time  when  it  was  necessary  for  the  prophet 
to    appear   again,    of  whom    Sirach   says   (chap. 


CHAPTER  XXL   1.-29. 


246 


xlviii.  10),  "who  wast  ordained  for  reproofs  in 
their  times  to  pacify  the  wrath  of  the  Lord's  judg- 
ment before  it  break  forth  into  fury.  .  .  .  and  to 
restore  the  tribes  of  Jacob."  It  devolved  upon 
him  whose  destination  and  calling  it  was  essen- 
tially to  exercise  the  prophetic  avenging  office,  to 
bear  witness  agajnst  apostasy,  and  to  proclaim  the 
judgments  of  God — upon  him  it  devolved,  before 
all  things,  by  virtue  of  his  position  in  the  history 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  (see  above),  to  announce  to 
the  king  who,  with  his  wife,  had  formally  intro- 
duced the  apostasy,  and  in  his  procedure  against 
Naboth  had  shown  himself  incorrigible,  the  final 
sentence  of  God  against  him  and  his  whole  house. 
The  word  of  Jehovah  came  hence  also  to  him,  and 
he  issued  forth  again  from  his  retirement  "  as  a 
fire,  and  his  word  burned  like  a  torch  "  (Ecclesi- 
asticus  xlviii.  1 ).  He  first  places  before  the  king 
his  crime  against  Naboth,  and  proceeds  then  to  the 
announcement  of  his  punishment  for  his  conduct 
generally.  The  whole  narration  culminates  in  this 
announcement.  The  new  criticism  does  not  ques- 
tion the  historical  reality  of  the  affair  with  Na- 
both: "the  dressing  up,"  however,  belongs  to  the 
author  of  the  history  of  Elijah  (Thenius,  Ewald). 
Under  this  clothing  (drapery)  nothing  else  can  be 
meant  than  the  paragraph  from  ver.  17  to  24, 
wrhich  is,  however,  the  main  thing.  If  this  be  ex- 
plained as  unhistorical,  for  which  no  reason  is  at 
hand,  the  point  of  the  whole  narrative  is  taken 
away,  and  the  high  meaning  disappears  from  the 
event  which  it  has  for  the  history  of  Ahab,  and 
indirectly  for  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
generally.  It  becomes  an  isolated,  ordinary, 
Oriental  murder-tale,  and  ceases  to  be  a  turning- 
point  in  the  history  of  the  theocracy. 

2.  We  are  able  to  understand  for  the  first  time, 
rightly  and  completely,  the  royal  couple  from  the 
present  narrative.  If  Ahab  has  shown  himself, 
thus  far,  to  be  a  weak  man,  destitute  of  any  re- 
ligious and  moral  firmness,  and  subject  to  every 
evil  influence,  here  this  is  the  case  so  con- 
spicuously that  from  feebleness  and  want  of 
character  he  becomes  a  common  criminal.  He  did 
not  know  how  to  devote  the  time  of  peace,  after  the 
severe  pressure  caused  by  the  Syrians,  to  anything 
except  to  be  thinking  of  the  enlargement  and 
beautifying  of  his  pleasure-garden — a  sign  that  all 
the  great  experiences  of  his  life,  even  the  last  sharp 
threatening  at  the  releasing  of  Ben-hadad,  had  made 
no  permanent  impression  upon  him.  The  refusal 
of  Naboth  to  cede  to  him  his  vineyard  makes  him 
angry,  and  excites  him ;  but  he  has  not  force 
enough  to  make  use  of  his  mettle,  and  so  he  be- 
takes himself  to  his  bed,  will  not  eat,  nor  see  any 
person,  and  behaves  like  a  spoiled,  ill-mannered 
child,  which  has  been  refused  a  toy.  It  was 
necessary  for  his  wife  to  supply  him  with  spirit,  and 
to  remind  him  that  he  must  be  a  man  and  king. 
He  does  not  interfere  himself,  but  allows  her  to 
arrange  the  matter,  and  gives  her  the  insignia  of 
his  royal  authority,  unconcerned  how  she  may  use 
it,  or,  as  it  almost  seems,  he  enters  into  her  crim- 
inal designs.  When  the  infamous  transaction  was 
done,  and  she  told  him  of  it,  he  was  not  shocked ; 
he  was  rather  visibly  pleased  and  satisfied  (Jose- 
phus  has  it:  "he  sprang  up  from  his  bed  with  de- 
light "),  and  he  made  haste  to  take  possession  of 
the  property  stolen  and  stained  with  blood.  This 
blood-guiltiness  rested  upon  him,  so  that  the  pro- 
phet could,  with   all  propriety,  call   him  both  a 


murderer  and  a  thief.  In  respect  of  Queen  Jezebel, 
who  has  hitherto  been  portrayed  only  on  the  sid« 
of  her  wild  fanaticism  for  the  unchaste  Baal  and 
Astarte  worship,  she  sho%vs  herself  here  in  hei 
complete  moral  depravity.  "We  discover  in  her  no 
trace  of  the  feebleness  and  want  of  energy  which 
characterized  her  husband.  Josephus  well  calls  hei 
a  yvuatov  Apacrr/pidv  re  nat  Totyqpdv  .  Her  deepest 
traits  were  pride  and  a  desire  for  dominion,  tc 
gratify  which  she  shrank  back  from  no  instru- 
mentality. Under  the  show  and  pretext  of  serving 
her  husband  and  fulfilling  his  wishes,  she  knew 
how  to  govern  him  and  to  appropriate  to  herself 
the  royal  authority.  She  did  not  look  at  the 
monarchy  according  to  the  Israelitish  sense,  as  the 
institution  which  was  designed  to  carry  out  the 
law  and  will  of  Jehovah,  but  as  the  absolute 
authority  over  the  property  and  lives  (GutundBiut) 
of  the  subjects.  Every  refusal  to  fulfil  a  royal 
wish,  though  it  had  been  grounded  in  the  divine 
law,  was,  in  her  eyes,  lese-majesty,  yes,  as  blas- 
phemy against  God,  because  she  wished  the  king 
to  In-  considered  not  as  the  setvant,  but  as  the  re- 
presentative of  Deity.  Right  and  justice,  for  the 
administering  of  which  the  monarchy  exists,  are  to 
her  mere  forms,  and  she  misapplies  the  legal  or- 
gans of  justice  to  carry  out  injustice.  A  religious 
solemnity  must  be  the  cloak  of  her  lust  of  robbery 
and  murder,  and  the  people  be  deceived  by  per- 
jured witnesses.  Jezebel  does  all  this  in  cold  blood 
and  with  calm  deliberation  :  yes,  she  congratulates 
herself  upon  it,  and  informs  her  husband  of  the  fact 
with  self-satisfaction,  as  if  she  had  done  something 
deserving  praise  and  thanks.  This  was  the  royal 
couple  at  that  time  at  the  head  of  the  people  and 
of  the  kingdom.  If  ever  at  any  time,  certainly 
here,  the  Turkish  proverb  finds  its  application  : 
"  The  fish  stinks  first  at  the  head." 

3.  The  elders  and  nobles  constituting  the  city 
tribunal  at  Jezreel  are  a  worthy  pendent  to  the 
royal  couple.  Without  hesitation  they  carry  out 
quickly  and  punctiliously  the  received  order,  and 
they  hasten  to  give  the  queen  the  news  of  it,  in 
order  to  show  themselves  loyal  and  obedient  sub- 
jects. The  fear  and  the  pleasure  of  men  are  the 
motives  for  their  way  of  acting ;  there  is  no  trace 
of  the  fear  of  God  and  of  conscientiousness 
amongst  them.  They  knew  the  tyranny  and  the 
severity  of  the  queen,  and  they  did  not  dare  to 
thwart  her;  they  were  afraid  that  by  resistance 
they  might  lose  the  residence  and  suffer  loss,  or 
be  punished  in  limb  and  body.  It  seems  that 
they,  as  the  presiding  officers  of  the  residence, 
gladly  embraced  the  opportunity  to  please  the 
powerful,  dreaded  queen,  and  to  show  their  uncon- 
ditional submission,  in  the  hope  of  being  praised 
and  rewarded  for  it.  Perhaps,  owing  to  the  sojourn 
of  the  court  there,  they  had  become  habituated 
to  unrighteous  expectations  of  the  sort,  and  that 
fawning  and  servility  were  no  longer  new  to  them 
Certainly  their  whole  course  presupposes  thorough 
corruption  in  public  affairs,  a  natural  consequence 
of  the  religious  confusion  which  must  have  entered 
in  during  a  reign  when  "  the  covenant  of  Jeho- 
vah "  was  forsaken,  his  law  trodden  under  foot,  and 
the  infamous  Baal  and  Astarte  worship  was  intro- 
duced and  patronized.  For  there  is  no  more  authen- 
tic sign  of  the  decay  of  a  kingdom  than  when  law 
is  deliberately  debased,  and  murder,  under  the 
show  of  right,  and  with  deference  to  the  usual 
forms  of  law,  is  done  by  those  to  whom  the  duty  of 


246 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


public  justice  is  intrusted.  Deliberate  judicial  mur- 
der is  the  most  infamous  of  all,  and  can  only  take 
place  where  absolute  ungodliness  has  broken  all 
moral  bonds,  and  a  putrefaction  has  begun.  Jeze- 
bel would  never  have  dared  to  order  such  a  pro- 
cess had  she  not  known  the  people,  and  regarded 
them  as  capable  of  everything.  The  circumstances 
here  were  such  as  Micah,  in  chap.  vii.  2  it  sq.,  has 
portrayed.  When  we  consider  that  the  elders  who 
composed  the  local  tribunal  were  not  royal  officials, 
but  inhabitants  of  the  place,  chosen  by  their  fel- 
low-townsmen, aud  that  they,  one  and  all,  as  one 
man,  perpetrated  the  crime,  we  learn  how  deeply 
the  people,  who  had  freely  placed  such  men  at 
their  head,  were  sunken,  and  had  become  devoid 
of  all  fear  of  God.  The  blindness  with  which  the 
(alse  verdict  was  accepted,  and  the  brutality  with 
which  it  was  carried  out,  doubtless  in  a  tumultu- 
ous fashion,  is  an  additional  proof  of  what  we 
have  stated. 

4.  The  meeting  of  Elijah  and  of  Aliab  in  Naboth's 
vineyard  is  very  characteristic  of  the  personal 
jualiiies  of  each.  Both  reappear  here,  such  as  we 
and  them  in  the  earlier  interview  in  chap,  xviii. 
7  et  sq.  As  there,  so  here,  Elijah  comes  forth  sud- 
denly from  his  retirement.  Like  the  lightning 
which  descends  from  on  high  and  strikes,  he  met 
the  king,  walking  and  eujoying  himself  in  the 
stolen  vineyard.  Nothing  was  further  from  his 
thoughts  than  an  encounter  with  the  earnest,  se- 
vere preacher  of  repentance,  aud  of  hearing  from 
him  the  thunder-words  of  the  Divine  judgment. 
As  there,  Ahab  at  first  blustered,  and  saluted  the 
prophet  with  the  words:  "  Art  thou  here,  troubler 
of  Israel?"  so  here  he  addresses  him  angrily: 
"Hast  thou  found  me,  mine  enemy? — thou  who 
art  always  in  my  way."  But  as  then,  so  also  now, 
the  prophet  did  not  allow  himself  to  be  imposed 
upon  and  frightened  in  the  least.  With  firm  words 
he  announces  the  destruction  of  him  and  of  his 
house ;  then  the  high-going  man  breaks  down  and 
becomes  so  dejected  that  he  is  bowed  down  and 
creeps  along,  and  even  sleeps  in  sackcloth.  But 
the  meeting  is  also  significant  in  respect  of  the  re- 
lation between  the  prophetic  and  the  monarch- 
ical element.  This  relation  is  now  represented  in 
i  manifold  way,  as  that  of  two  "  self-appointed 
powers "  who  were  in  perpetual  struggle  with 
sach  other  to  gain  the  upper  hand  in  the  kingdom. 
But  Elijah  especially,  the  head  and  representative 
of  the  prophetic  order,  from  whom  proceeded  the 
strife  against  the  covenant-breaking  monarchy, 
the  most  energetic  and  powerful  of  all  the  pro- 
phets, resolutely  and  sharply  as  he  met  the  king, 
who  called  him  his  enemy,  was  in  the  greatest 
degree  possible  free  from  all  hierarchical  efforts. 
No  one  in  all  Israel  cared  less  than  he  about  hav- 
ing anything  to  do  with  outward  power  and  au- 
thority. He  did  not,  like  Jeroboam,  in  the  time 
of  .Solomon  and  of  Rehoboam,  place  himself  at  the 
head  of  the  discontented;  he  did  not  intrigue 
against  the  secular  power,  and  mingle  in  political 
affairs;  he  did  not  live  at  the  residence  or  at 
court;  but  in  retirement,  from  which  he  issued 
only  from  time  to  time,  when  it  was  needful  to 
/esist  the  base  misuse  of  the  royal  authority, 
which  did  not  fear  to  revolutionize  even  the  foun- 
dations of  the  people  of  Israel.  He  was  not  "  an 
enemy"  of  the  monarchy,  but  an  enemy  of  the 
idolatry  which  was  destroying  both  the  monarchy 
and  the  national  being. 


5.  Ahab's  penitence  was  regarded  by  the  older 
theologians  as  hypocritical,  so  that  even  yet  all 
false  penitence  is  called,  proverbially,  "Ahab's 
penitence."  But,  according  to  ver.  29,  it  was  not 
a  sham,  but  an  actual  humiliation,  which  was  gra- 
ciously recognized  by  God  as  such.  Vatablua 
justly  says:  "  Hoc  pemitentia  fuit  vera,  sed  tern- 
poraria."  Owing  to  the  feebleness  of  his  charac- 
ter, which  made  him  readily  susceptible  to  every 
influence,  and  the  rapid  change  of  his  purpose? 
it  was  very  comprehensible  that  the  word  of  the 
prophet,  piercing  bone  and  marrow,  threatening 
him  and  his  house  with  destruction,  which  had 
never  yet  deceived  him,  made  an  affecting  impres- 
sion upon  him.  Such  a  wholesome  terror  had 
never  hitherto  overtaken  him,  and  might  well  have 
been  able  to  lead  him  to  a  thorough  change  from 
his  past  ways.  But  he  had  no  abiding  conversion 
of  heart  to  the  living  God,  as  the  course  of  the  his- 
tory shows.  As  the  threatened  punishment  did  not 
follow  immediately,  he  thought  he  had  been  able 
to  ward  it  off  by  his  penitential  discipline,  and, 
according  to  his  constantly  attested  fickleness,  he 
fell  back  again  into  his  earlier  way  of  life.  The 
first  thing  which  he  should  have  done,  had  his  re- 
pentance been  true,  to  repair  somehow  a  wrong 
done,  he  did  not  do,  but,  on  the  contrary,  began 
war  anew. 

HOM1LETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-29.  The  proceeding  against  Naboth : 
(a)  How  it  was  done  (vers.  1-16);  (6)  its  conse- 
quences (vers.  17-29) — Ver.  1-1 6).— Wikth  :  The 
unrighteous  acquisition  of  Naboth's  vineyard,  (a) 
King  Ahab ;  (b)  Queen  Jezebel ;  (c)  the  elders  of  Jez- 
reel;  (d)  Naboth. — Wurt.  Strait.:  Here  we  see 
how  the  children  of  this  world  use  their  rank  ; 
how  they  ruin  others  for  the  sake  of  their  posses- 
sions, and  seize  upon  them  ;  they  try  to  make  them 
sell  against  their  will,  and  wrest  their  property 
from  them ;  if  this  fail,  they  use  every  false  de- 
vice, accuse  him  as  an  evil-doer  before  the  autho- 
rities, and,  by  means  of  false  witnesses,  lead  him 
on  to  misfortune,  until  he  is  compelled  to  sacrifice 
his  little  property  to  save  himself,  or  becomes  so 
ill  that  he  dies  of  grief,  and  thus  they  obtain  his 
property.  But  the  Spirit  denounces  woe  to  such 
men  (Isa.  v.  8).  Every  man  should  guard  against 
such  sin,  but  especially  those  in  power.  Let  them 
never  seize  upon  the  property  of  their  subjects 
V.  1. — Starke  :  It  is  not  well  to  have  godless  neigh 
bors,  especially  if  they  are  powerful,  for,  loving 
injustice,  they  think  nothing  of  over-reaching  their 
neighbors.  One  should  pray  for  industrious,  pious 
and  honest  neighbors. — Vers.  2—1.  Naboth's  vine- 
yard, (a)  The  greed  of  Ahab  (ver.  2);  (b)  the  denial 
of  Naboth  (ver.  3) ;  (c)  the  consequence  of  the  deni- 
al upon  Ahab  (ver.  4). — Ver.  2.  Great  lords  often 
have  fancies,  which  cost  them  more  time  and 
money  than  do  their  chief  and  holiest  duties. 
Thus  Ahab  thought  more  of  the  enlargement  and 
adornment  of  his  garden,  than  of  the  good  of  his 
subjects.  The  desire  for  things  which  serve  for 
pleasure  is  often  a  temptation  to  grievous  sin. 
therefore  says  the  Scripture:  Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  goods,  nor  anything  that  is 
his.  Let  the  needy  be  thy  lirst  care,  not  thine  own 
pleasures.  It  is  a  great  gain  to  be  godly  and  con- 
tented.  Watch  over  thine  heart,  for  desires  ap 
parently  lawful,  if  not   resisted   and  denied,  ma; 


CHAPTER  XXI.   1-29. 


■2rt 


lead  to  ruin. — Ver  3.  The  men  are  rare  who,  for 
God  and  conscience  sake,  will  not  yield  to  entrea- 
ties and  offers,  the  granting  of  which  would  be 
advantageous  to  them,  whilst  the  refusal  would 
be  accompanied  with  injury,  and  perhaps  peril  to 
themselves.  Where  fear  of  God  and  true  devout- 
ness  exist,  there  also  you  will  ever  rind  that 
piety  which  holds  in  love  and  veneration  every- 
thing which  serves  as  a  remembrance  of  parents 
and  all  other  benefactors. — Ver.  4.  RlCHTER: 
Godless  people  regard  the  care  taken  by  the  pious 
to  observe  reverently  the  divine  law,  as  so  much 
useless  scrupulousness. — Calw.  Bib:  Even  so,  in 
our  day,  does  the  worldling  look  with  an  evil  eye 
upon  the  Christian  who,  for  the  sake  of  the  divine 
word,  refuses  to  yield  to  his  wishes  ;  for  either  he 
recognizes  no  divine  authority,  or  exalts  his  own 
above  it.  The  children  of  this  world,  whose  aims 
and  designs  are  wholly  material,  will  often  fret 
and  grieve  for  daya  when  they  are  compelled 
to  give  up  a  temporal  gain,  or  a  promised  enjoy- 
ment, whilst  the  condition  of  their  souls  never 
causes  them  the  slightest  grief. — Wirth:  The 
high  and  mighty  ones  of  this  world  often  think 
that  all  other  people  are  placed  here,  simply  to 
yield  obedience  to  their  whims.  They  cannot 
comprehend  that  all  men  are  not  to  be  bought 
with:  gold,  and  woe  to  that  inferior  whose  refusal 
destroys  their  darling  plans.  Every  man  not  rooted 
and  grounded  in  God,  becomes  ever  more  and  more 
grasping;  in  his  vain  purse-pride  he  thinks  all  the 
world  must  yield  to  his  will,  and  hates  bitterly 
him  who  independently  and  resolutely  upholds  his 
rights  against  him. 

Vers.  5-16.  The  condemnation  of  Naboth. 
(a)  Ordered  by  Jezebel ;  (b)  carried  out  by  the  city 
ordinauce ;  (c)  joyfully  received  by  Aliab. — The  ap- 
parently fortuuate  but  really  unfortunate  and  ac- 
cursed marriage  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  (a)  She 
seeks  the  sorrowful  man,  shares  his  grief,  and  seeks 
to  comfort  him,  as  is  the  province  of  a  wife;  but  in- 
stead of  pointing  him  to  the  true  Comforter,  and 
leading  his  heart  to  higher  and  better  things,  she 
strengthens  him  in  his  grasping  desire  after  others' 
property,  and  leads  him  on  still  further.  (6)  She 
reminds  him  that  he  is  the  lord  and  master,  and 
recognizes  him  as  such,  as  a  wife  should ;  but,  at 
the  same  moment,  she  assumes  the  dominion,  and 
the  weak  man  lets  her  manage  and  rule,  as  if  she 
were  the  man  and  he  the  woman,  (c)  She  rejoices 
to  accomplish  an  ardent  wish  of  her  husband's,  and 
to  make  him  a  worthy  present,  as  every  faithful 
spouse  should  strive  10 do;  but  it  is  a  blood-stamed 
and  stolen  gift,  obtained  with  deceit  and  falsehood, 
and  Ahab  delights  in  it.  Thus  both  husband  and 
wife,  who  together  should  be  blest  after  God's  ordi- 
nance, together  walk  on  to  ruin  and  destruction. — 
Jo.  Lange:  As  a  righteous  spouse  in  the  court  of 
a  great  lord  is  as  a  suo,  giving  light  throughout  the 
land  and  doing  much  good  work  by  her  example,  in 
tlie  same  proportion  is  an  unholy  woman  mischiev- 
ous. The  example  of  Naboth  shows  what  is  the 
event  where  such  an  one  rules,  and  its  evil  influence 
in  a  country. — The  quality  (=being)  of  tyranny,  (a) 
It  regards  sovereignty  simply  as  unlimited  might  and 
power  over  the  property  and  life  of  subjects ;  then  the 
name  of  king  means  the  power  to  do  whatsoever  a 
man  wills,  without  regard  to  God  or  man;  tjiey  re- 
verse the  divinely  ordained  "  subjection  "  (Rom.  xiii. 
1 ),  and  live  in  rebellion  against  God.  (6)  They  upset 
justice,  and  convert  the  servants  of  the  law,  whose 


place  it  is  to  punish  evil,  into  instruments  Df  tin- 
lighieuusness;  they  love  darkness  and  ha;e  the 
light,  for  they  work  the  works  of  darkness  (Ps.  lxiv 
7).  It  dissembles  and  plays  its  own  game  with  re- 
ligious solemnity,  and  converts  an  oath  itself  into 
a  means  for  its  worst  designs.  The  proceeding 
against  Naboth  is  a  combination  of  the  heaviest 
crimes,  for  by  it  are  trodden  under  foot  the  three- 
divine  commands:  Thon  shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shall 
not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against 
thy  neighbor.  How  thankful  should  we  be  that 
we  dwell  in  a  land  where  mercy  and  truth  are  met 
together,  righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each 
other,  where  righteousness  looks  down  from  heav- 
en (Ps.  lxxxv.  lu-12).— Vers.  11-14.  The  elders 
and  nobles  of  Jezreel.  (a)  Their  conduct  (they 
obey  blindly,  but  God  must  be  obeyed  rather  than 
man;  power  is  not  of  man,  but  the  minister  of  God. 
Rom.  xiii.  4,  and  before  the  commandment 
''Honor  the  king,"  stands  that  other,  Fear  God,  1 
Pet.  ii.  17).  (b)  Their  motives  (fear  of  and  sub- 
serviency to  man,  time  serving  and  sycophancy, 
fruit  of  their  desertion  of  the  living  God  and  of  his 
holy  word. — Evil  masters  can  ever  tind  evil  ser- 
vants, who  do  their  will  from  ambition  or  covetous- 
ness. — Calw.  Bib:  Woe,  where  such  things  befall  I 
and  shame  I  that  in  the  fairest  lands,  as  in  the 
plains  of  Jezreel,  are  often  the  worst  men  to  be 
found. — Godlessness  and  corruption  in  courts  is  a 
poison,  which  extends  throughout  the  whole  body 
politic,  even  to  the  lowest  rank ;  no  example  is  so 
powerful  upon  all  classes  of  society.  How  many 
gross,  how  many  refined  sins  are  committed 
out  of  sheer  complaisance  to  high  personages, 
whose  favor  men  wish  to  seek  or  preserve.  Woe 
to  those  lords  who  hud  such  ready  tools  in  their 
servants,  who  will  be  accomplices  in  their  mis- 
doings, and  palliate,  or  even  laud  and  praise  all 
their  perverse  dealings;  they  undermine  the  throne 
more  than  open  enemies.  The  judgment  and  con- 
demnation of  Naboth,  compared  with  that  of  our 
Lord.  There,  as  in  this  instance,  offended  pride, 
followed  by  hatred,  accusation  of  blasphemy  and 
riot;  false  witnesses  and  vile  judges;  and  a  blind, 
infuriated  populace  crying  out:  Crucify,  crucifyl 

Vers.  17-29.  Krumjiacher:  The  mission  of 
Elijah,  (o)  Its  intention;  (i)  its  aim;  (c)  its  imme- 
diate results. — Bender  :  Elijah  and  Ahab  in  the 
vineyard  of  Naboth.  (a)  The  sin  of  the  king  ;  |4) 
the  judgment  of  God. — Wirth :  Ahab  in  the  vine- 
yard of  Naboth.  (a)  The  approach  of  Elijah ;  (b) 
the  announcement  of  the  sentence ;  (c)  the  repen- 
tance of  Ahab. — Ver.  17.  Deceive  not  your- 
self, God  is  not  mocked.  What  a  man  sows, 
that  shall  he  reap  (Gal.  vi.  7).  Menken:  But 
though  much  unrigliteousness  and  wickedness 
goes  apparently  without  further  evil  results, 
and  without  the  chastisements  of  the  just  Judge 
in  heaven,  yet  still  all  will  be  demanded;  and 
at  the  Divine  judgment-seat  everything  will 
be  discovered,  and  everything  to  the  uttermost 
farthing  accounted  .  for. — The  blood  of  Naboth, 
which  Ahab  thought  had  been  swallowed  up  by 
the  earth,  cried  to  heaven,  and  found  there  judg- 
ment and  vengeance.  Like  a  lightning-flash  comes 
the  word  from  heaven  into  the  dark  soul  of  Ahab, 
and  made  him  feel  that  no  net  of  human  evil  can 
be  woven  thickly  enough  to  conceal  the  crime 
which  it  veils  from  the  All-seeing  Eye. — Vers.  18, 
19.  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  say  to  the  face  of  a 
royal  robber,  "  Thou  hast  stolen,"  and  to  a  royal 


24S 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


adulterer,  "  It  is  not  right  that  thou  shouldst  have 
thy  brother's  wife."  When  -xlay  are  the  prophets 
who  thus  use  the  sword  ol  the  Spirit  ?  Thou  hast 
slain. — Menken:  Observe,  that  evil  which  thou 
couldst  hinder,  and  didst  not,  and  from  which  thou 
shouldst  have  shrunk,  and  for  which  thou  didst 
neither  exhibit  horror,  nor  didst  punish — all 
shall,  in  future,  be  laid  to  thy  accouut,  as  if 
thou  hadst  committed  it  in  thine  own  person. 
Therefore  warns  the  apostle :  Neither  be  partaker 
of  other  men's  sins  (2  Tim.  v.  22). — V.  20.  Hast 
thou  found  me,  0  mine  enemy?  Calw.  B:  One 
can  readily  imagine  that  the  hard  impenitent, 
meeting  the  pious  preacher  and  soul-director,  re- 
gards the  high-principled,  soul-saving  address  of 
the  prophet  as  evidence  of  personal  enmity,  and 
replies  with  personal  enmity.  He  is  not  thine 
enemy  who  rinds  thee  out,  charging  thee  with 
thine  unrecognized  sins,  with  thy  God-forgetting 
life,  until  thou  dost  think  and  tremble  —  not 
thine  enemy,  the  disturber  of  thy  peace  and 
rest,  but  thy  true  friend,  who  leads  thee  through 
the  narrow  gates  of  repentance,  to  the  way 
where  alone  true  joy  is  to  be  found. — I  have 
found  thee.  This  word  of  sentence  must  be  heard 
by  all,  even  by  those  who  have  come  before  no 
human  tribunal — often  in  this  world,  certainly 
at  the  last  day,  "  for  the  Lord  will  bring  to  light," 
ifcc.  (1  Cor.  iv.  5),  and  cause  every  man  to  rind  accord- 
ing to  his  wa}'S  (Job  xxxiv.  11).  But  there  is 
also  a  sentence  of  mercy,  which  pursues  the  sin- 
ner and  seeks  him  until  it  finds  him  (Luke  xv.). 
Well  for  all  who  have  thus  been  caught  aud  found 
and  can  say :  "  Unter  alien  frohen  Stunden,  die  im 
Leben  ich  empfunden"  &c.  He  who  will  not  be 
sought  out  by  mercy,  will  be  found  by  justice. 

Vers.  20-29. — Krummacher  :  The  penitence  of 
Ahab.  (a)  What  called  it  forth;  (b)  what  was  its 
nature ;  (c)  what  were  its  consequences. — Vers. 
21-26.  The  predicted  judgments  of  God  upon 
Ahab  and  his  house,  (a)  Its  cause  ;  (b)  its  accom- 
plishment (chap.  xxii.  38;  2  Kings  ix.  and  x.). 
"  Buying  for  money  "  amongst  sins.  What  is  to  be 
understood  by  this  1  How  one  can  be  made  bought 
and  made  free  (John  viii.  33  sq.  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  20;  vii. 
23;  Rom.  vii.  14).  It  is  a  great  misfortune  when  one 
man  can  be  bought  by  another  as  a  chattel  or  mer- 
chandise, but  a  still  greater  one  if  he  allows  himself 
to  be  bought  with  a  price  to  sin  against  the  Lord. 
One  may  be,  like  Ahab,  lord  and  king,  and  yet  a 
purchased  slave. — Ver.  25.  His  wife  stirred  him  up. 


Menken  :  Woe  to  the  man  who,  through  the  pow- 
er which  love  gives  him  over  the  heart  of  another, 
by  means  of  which  he  might  become  a  ministering 
angel,  is  to  him  as  a  misleading  fiend.  How  many 
fires  of  ruinous  passion,  of  anger,  of  discord,  of  un- 
righteousness and  of  hatred,  might  and  should  be 
quenched  and  extinguished  by  the  power  of  love— 
the  power  of  one  heart  over  another — and  especially 
by  the  mildness  and  gentleness  peculiar  to  woman: 
and  yet  so  often,  by  this  means,  they  are  kindled 
and  fanned.  This  belongs  to  the  catalogue  of  un- 
confessed  sins  of  many  men,  and  especially  of  many 
women. — What  gave  Ahab's  repentance  its  worth, 
and  wherein  it  was  defective,  (a)  It  was  not  mere- 
ly ostensible,  feigned ;  it  was  a  wholesome  dread 
and  fear  of  the  judgment  of  God  which  came 
upon  him,  causing  him  to  fear  and  tremble;  he 
bowed  beneath  the  mighty  hand  of  God,  and  was 
not  ashamed  to  confess  this  outwardly,  but  laid 
aside  crown  and  purple,  and  put  on  sackcloth, 
unheeding  if  he  thus  exposed  himself  to  the 
scorn  of  the  courtiers  and  idol  worshippers. 
Therefore  the  Lord  looked  in  mercy  upon  his  re- 
pentance. Would  that,  in  our  day,  many  would 
go  even  as  far  as  Ahab  did  in  this  case,  (b)  It 
bore  no  further  fruits.  He  retained  the  stolen 
vineyard,  he  desisted  not  from  idol  worship,  he 
allowed  full  sway  to  Jezebel.  Everything  in  his 
house,  at  his  court,  and  iu  his  kingdom,  remained 
as  of  old.  He  did  not  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness.  Fleeting  impressions  and  emotions 
are  not  true. repentance.  The  tree  which  brings 
forth  no  fruits,  is  and  remains  a  corrupt  tree 
(Matt.  iii.  8).  How  wholly  different  the  repetitance 
of  David  (Ps.  li.). — How  many  go  to  confess:on 
before  the  communion,  bow  the  knee,  aud  confess 
their  sins  before  God  and  man,  without  being  in- 
wardly bowed  down  and  humiliated,  to  bring  forth 
fruits  meet  for  repentance  (Joel  ii.  13  ;  Is.  lviii.  5). 
— Richter:  Since  God  looks  with  pardoning  mer- 
cy upon  an  outward  humble  abasement,  how  much 
more  upon  a  righteous  repentance.  Therefore 
pray:  Lord,  grant  true  penitence  aud  grief. — 
Krdmmachbr:  Ahab  was,  and  is,  an  example  to 
warn  us  how  it  is  possible  that  notwithstanding 
the  most  remarkable  visitations  of  God,  the  strong 
est  incentives,  the  liveliest  emotions,  and  in  spite 
of  a  certain  sort  of  repentance  and  wonderful  grant- 
ing of  prayer,  a  man  may  still,  at  the  very  last,  be 
lost. 


C. — AhaVs  expedition,  against  the  Syrians,  undertaken  with  Jehoshaphat,  and  his  death. 


Chap.  XXII.  1-40  (2  Chron.  XVIII.  1-34). 


1  And   they  continued   three  years  without  war  between  Syria  and   Israel. 

2  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  third  year,  that  Jehoshaphat  the  king  of  Judah  came 

3  down  to  the  king  of  Israel.  And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto  his  servants,  Know 
ye   that    Ramoth  in    Gilead   is  ours,  and  we  be  still,  and  take  it  not  out  ol 

4  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Syria?  And  he  said  unto  Jehoshaphat,  Wilt 
thou  go  with  me  to  battle  to  Ramoth-gilead  ?  And  Jehoshaphat  said  to  the 
king  of  Israel,  I  am  as  thou  art,  my  people  as  thy  people,  my  horses  as  thj 
horses. 

5  And  Jehoshaphat  said  unto  the  king  of  Israel,  Inquire,  I  pray  thee,  at  th* 


CHAPTER  XXII.   1— 40.  21f 


6  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  to-day.  Then  the  king  of  Israel  gathered  the  pro- 
phets together,  about  four  hundred1  men,  and  said  unto  them,  Shall  I  go  against 
Ramoth-gilead  to  battle,  or  shall  I  forbear  ?   And  they  said.  Go  up  ;  for  the  Lord 

7  shall  deliver'  it  into  the  hand  of  the  king.  And  Jehoshaphat  said,  Is  there  not 
here  a  prophet  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  besides,3  that  we  might  inquire  of  him? 

8  And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto  Jehoshaphat,  There  is  yet  one  man,  Micaiab 
the  son  of  Imlah,  by  whom  we  may  inquire  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  :  but  I  hate 
him  ;  for  he  doth  not  prophesy  good  concerning  me,  but  evil.     And  Jehoshaphat 

9  said,  Let  not  the  king  say  so.     Then  the  king  of  Israel  called  an  officer,*  and 

10  said,  Hasten  hither  Micaiah  the  son  of  Imlah.  And  the  king  of  Israel  and  Jeho- 
shaphat the  king  of  Judah  sat  each  on  his  throne,  having  put  on  their  robes,  in 
a  void  place  in  the  entrance  of  the  gate  of  Samaria  ;   and  all  the  prophets  pro- 

11  phesied  before  them.  And  Zedekiah  the  son  of  Chenaanah  made  him  horns  ol 
iron  :  and  he  said,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  With  these  shalt  thou  push  the 

12  Syrians,  until  thou  have  consumed  them.  And  all  the  prophets  prophesied  so, 
saying,  Go  up  to  Ramoth-gilead,  and  prosper :  for  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  shall 
deliver6  it  into  the  king's  hand. 

13  And  the  messenger  that  was  gone  to  call  Micaiah  spake  unto  him,  saying, 
Behold  now,  the  words  of  the  prophets  declare  good  unto  the  king  with  one 
mouth  :  let  thy  word,6  I  pray  thee,  be  like  the  word  of  one  of  them,  and  speak 

14  that  which  is  good.    And  Micaiah  said,  As  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  liveth,  what  the 

15  Lord  [Jehovah]  saith  unto  me,  that  will  I  speak.  So  he  came  to  the  king.  And 
the  king  said  unto  him,  Micaiah,  shall  we  go  against  Ramoth-gilead  to  battle,  or 
shall  we  forbear  ?     And  he  answered  him,  Go,  and  prosper :  for  the  Lord  [Jeho- 

16  vah]  shall  deliver  it  into  the  hand  of  the  king.  And  the  king  said  unto  him, 
How  many  times  shall  I  adjure  thee  that  thou  tell  me  nothing  but  that  which 

17  is  true  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  ?  And  he  said,  I  saw  all  Israel  scat- 
tered upon  the  hills,  as  sheep  that  have  not  a  shepherd  :  and  the  Lord  [Jehovah] 
said,  These  have  no  master ;  let  them  return  every  man  to  his  house  in  peace. 

18  And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto  Jehoshaphat,  Did  1  not  tell  thee  that  he  would 

19  prophesy  no  good  concerning  me,  but  evil?  And  he  said,  Hear  thou  therefore' 
the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]:  I  saw  the  Lord  [Jehovah]8  sitting  on  his 
throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing  by  him'  on  his  right  hand  and  on  his 

20  left.  Ami  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  said,  Who  shall  persuade  Ahab,  that  he  may  go 
up  and  fall  at  Ramoth-gilead  ?     And  one  said  on  this  manner,  and  another  said 

21  on    that  manner.     And  there  came  forth  a  spirit,  and  stood  before  the  Lord 

22  [Jehovah],  and  said,  I  will  persuade  him.  And  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  said  unto 
him,  Wherewith  ?  And  he  said,  I  will  go  forth,  and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in 
the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.     And  he  said,  Thou  shalt  persuade  him,  and  pre- 

23  vail  also  :  go  forth,  and  do  so.  Now  therefore,  behold,  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  hath 
put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these  thy  prophets,  and  the  Loi'd  [Jeho- 

24  vah]  hath  spoken  evil  concerning  thee.  But  Zedekiah  the  son  of  Chenaanah  went 
near,  and  smote  Micaiah  on  the  cheek,  and  said,  Which  way  went  the  Spirit  of 

25  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  from  me  to  speak  unto  thee  ?  And  Micaiah  said,  Behold, 
thou  shalt  see  in  that  day,  when  thou  shalt  go  into  an  inner  chamber  to  hide 

26  thyself.     And  the  king  of  Israel  said,  Take  Micaiah,  and  carry  him  back  unto 

27  Amon  the  governor10  of  the  city,  and  to  Joash  the  king's  son  ;  and  say,  Thus 
saith  the  king,  Put  this  fellow  in  the  prison,  and  feed  him  with  bread  of  affliction 

28  and  with  water  of  affliction,  until  I  come  in  peace.  And  Micaiah  said,  If  thou 
return  at  all  in  peace,  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  hath  not  spoken  by  me.  "And  he  said, 
Hearken,  O  people,  every  one  of  you. 

29  So  the  king  of  Israel  and  Jehoshaphat  the  king  of  Judah  went  up  to  Ramoth- 
80  gilead.     And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto  Jehoshaphat,  I  will  disguise  myself,  and 

enter  into  the  battle  ;  but  put  thou  on  thy  robes.  And  the  king  of  Israel  disguised 
31  himself,  and  went  into  the  battle.     But  the  king  of  Syria  commanded  his  thirty 

and  two  captains  that  had  rule  over  his  chariots,  saying,  Fight  neither  with 
82  small  nor  great,  save  only  with  the  king  of  Israel.     And  it  came  to  uass,  when 

the  captains  of  the  chariots  saw  Jehoshaphat,  that  they  said,  Surely  it  is  the  king 


250 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


33  of  Israel.  And  they  turned  aside  to  fight  against  him :  and  Jehoshaphat  'sried 
out.     And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  captains  of  the  chariots  perceived  tnat  it 

34  was  not  the  king  of  Israel,  that  they  turned  back  from  pursuing  him.  And  a  cer- 
tain man  drew  a  bow  at  a  venture,  and  smote  the  king  of  Israel  between  the 
joints  of  the  harness  :  wherefore  he  said  unto  the  driver  of  his  chariot,  Turn  thine 

85  hand,13  and  carry  me  out  of  the  host;  for  I  am  wounded.  And  the  battle  in- 
creased" that  day :  and  the  king  was  stayed  up  in  his  chariot  against  the  Syri- 
ans, and  died  at  even  :  and  the  blood  ran  out  of  the  wound  into  the  midst  of  th« 

36  chariot.  And  there  went  a  proclamation  throughout  the  host  about  the  going 
down  of  the  sun,  saying,  Every  man  to  his  city,  and  every  man  to  his  own  country. 

37  So  the  king  died,  and   was  brought  to  Samaria ;  and  they  buried  the  king  in 

38  Samaria.  And  one  washed  the  chariot  in  the  pool  of  Samaria ;  and  the  dogs 
licked  up  his  blood  ;  and  they  washed  his  armor  [and  the  harlots  washed"]  ;  ac- 

39  cording  unto  the  word  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  which  he  spake.  Now  the  rest 
of  the  acts  of  Ahab,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  the  ivory  house  which  he  made, 
and  all  the  cities  that  he  built,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles 

40  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ?  So  Ahab  slept  with  his  fathers ;  and  Ahaziah  his  son 
reigned  in  his  stead. 


TEXTUAL  AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  6. — [The  Alex.  Sept.  reduces  the  number  to  three  hundred. 

a  Ver.  6. — [The  Sept.  emphasizes  the  assurance  of  the  prophets :  «ai  5i5oi»?  fiwo-ct  xupios  —  the  Lord  will  surely  delivei, 

Ac.    It  is  noticeable  that  the  prophets  do  not  say  [-|irp  ,  but  ^"IN  ■ 

3  Ver.  7. — [The  Sept.,  by  neglecting  the  word  -py  (besides,  yet)  here  and  in  ver.  8,  makes  it  evident  that  they  under- 
stood  by  the  other  prophets  men  who  were  not  really  prophets  of  the  Lord.  In  ver.  8,  however,  the  Alex.  Sept.  has  en. 
The  Vulg.  also  :  non  eat  hie  propheta  Dnmini  quispiam.    The  other  VV.  follow  the  lleb.  very  exactly. 

*  Ver.  9. —  [The  Sept.  has  eiiyov^oi'  eVa,  but  whether  because  it  was  known  in  the  time  of  the  translators  thatuuch 
persons  were  officers  under  Ahab,  or  whether  simply  because  they  were  usual  in  the  courts  of  their  own  time,  does  not 
appear. 

6  Ver.  12. — [The  Sept.  changes  the  last  clause  of  ver.  12  into  "  Shall  deliver  into  thy  hands  even  the  king  of  Syria" 
(Alex,  omits  the  word  Syria),  as  if  Zedekiah  would  promise  Ahab  a  repetition  of  his  formerly  neglected  opportunity. 

8  Ver.  13. — The  singular,  which  Chronicles,  the  k'ri.  and  many  MSS.  have,  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  k'tib.  [All  the 
VV.,  except  the  Sept.,  which  has  another  construction,  follow  the  k'ri. 

7  Ver.  19. — [The  author  (Exeg.  Com.)  considers  the  oitx  oilrws  of  the  Sept.  here  as  a  mistranslation  of  the  Heb.  pS 

taken  for  ^   N?  ■    ^'Qe    8ame    expression,    however,  is  introduced  by  it  into  ver.  17,    Kal  elirev  ot>x  outws-   eupaxa 

K.  T.  A.,  and  the  full  reading  here  is  Kai  elire  Mixatas  ovx  oiirws,  ovk  eyu}'  aKOve  prifia  K.  T.  A. 
»  Ver.  19.— [Sept.  —  the  God  (Alex,  the  Lord  God)  of  Israel. 

9  Ver.  19. —  LV^I* tae  primary  idea  of  ^y  above,  seems  to  be  here  purposely  preserved;  "the  ministers  standing 

behind  or  even  beside  their  sitting  Lord  are  raised  above  him,  and  thus  appear  to  the  beholder  as  standing  over  him 
Isai.  vi.  2;  Gen.  xviii.  8,"  Keil. 

w  Ver.  26. —  [For  "  Araon  the  governor"  the  Vat.  Sept.  h'is  "  Semer  the  king." 

>>  Ver.  28.— [The  Vat.  Sept.  omits  the  latter  [.art  of  ver.  28. 

11  Ver.  34. — [The  A.  V.,  like  the  Vulg.,  follows  the  singular  of  the  k'ri  in  preference  to  the  plural  of  the  k'tib,  whtcd 
Is  adhered  to  by  the  Vat.  Sepr. 

13  Ver.  35. — [n'^rpTSn  nb^r]1) ,  l't.  "  the  Dattle  rose,"  perhaps,  as  Keil  suggests,  a  figure  from  the  rising  of  a  river, 

growing  more  rapid  as  it  swells.  The  expression  of  increase  by  words  of  the  general  sense  of  rising  is,  however,  very 
common  in  many  languages. 

14  Ver.  96.—  [:|Vrn  niiinl  •    The  A.  V.  is  here  certainly  wrong,  although  following  the  Chald.  and  Syr.    Not  less 

erroneous  is  the  Vulg.  habenas  laverunt.    J-)i}^n  must  he  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  can  only  mean  harlots.    The  Sept 

has  here  translated  rightly,  but  has  unwarrantably  inserted  the  same  words  also  in  the  prediction  (xx.  42)  of  which 
this  is  the  fulfilment.  Here,  as  there,  they  associate  at  des  with  oi  Kvyes.  What  these  harlots  washed — whether  them 
selves,  or  the  chariot,  or  clothes — has  been  much  questioned,  nor  is  its  determination  at  all  necessary  to  the  translation 
vpp  like  the  English  wash,  may  be  either  transitive  or  intransitive. — F.  G.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  And  they  continued,  &c,  i.  e.  Syria 
and  Israel.  The  three  years  are  those  which  had 
elapsed  since  the  war  mentioned  in  chap,  xx.,  that 
is,  since  the  release  of  Ben-hadad.  In  this  interval 
fell  the  murder  of  Naboth.  The  XXIId  chap,  is  a 
continuation  of  the  XXth,  and  is  derived  from  the 
same  original  document.  Chap.  xxi.  is  from  some 
other  authority,  but  appears  here  in  its  proper 
chronological  position.  The  ground  of  Jehosha- 
phat's    visit  to  Ahab,  according  to   the   parallel 


account  in  Chronicles,  was  the  marriage  relation- 
ship which  had  been  formed  between  them,  viz., 
Ahab's  daughter,  Athahah,  had  become  the  wife  of 
Jehoshaphat'a  son,  Jehoram.  Chronicles  also 
states  that  Ahab  slaughtered  a  large  number  of 
sheep  and  oxen  for  Jehoshaphat  and  his  nume- 
rous escort,  i.  «.,  he  entertained  them  generously. 
Ahab  profited  by  this  opportunity,  so  soon  as  he 
had  made  sure  of  the  support  of  his  generals  who 
had  come  to  the  entertainment,  to  persuade  Je- 
ll shaphat  into  making  an  expedition  against  the 
Syriaus  in  alliance  with  him. — On  liamoth  (ver.  Hi 


CHAPTER  XXII.   1-40. 


251 


see  notes  on  chap.  iv.  13.  Ben-hadad,  contrary  to 
his  promise  (xx.  34),  had  not  given  up  this  strong- 
hold, from  which,  as  a  base,  he  could  easily  make 
incursions  into  Israel,  and  Ahab  became  more 
and  more  uneasy  as  years  passed  by,  and  the 
promised  surrender  was  not  consummated.  His 
words  (ver.  3)  mean  :  This  important  city  belongs 
to  Israel  as  of  right,  and  besides  that  Ben-had  ad  has 
solemnly  promised  to  give  it  up  ;  yet  he  has  not 
done  this,  but,  on  the  contrary,  menaces  us  on  that 
side,  while  "  we  rest  satisfied  with  this  state  of 
things,  instead  of  taking  what  is  ours  by  a  double 
right"  (Thenius). 

Ver.  4.  And  he  said  unto  Jehoshaphat.     In- 
stead of  "IDN'I  we  find  in  Chronicles  iniyD^  i  the 

same  expression  which  is  used  in  chap.  xxi.  25  in 
regard  to  Jezebel  and  her  influence  on  Ahab;  he 
seduced  him  (cf.  Jer.  xxxviii.  22 ;  Deut.  xiii.  7). 
This  shows  that  Jehoshaphat  ought  not  to  have 
agreed  to  the  proposition.  However,  he  did  not 
enter  into  the  plan  "  after  dinner,"  thoughtlessly 
(Riehter),  but  because  he  wished  to  confirm  tin- 
good  understanding  which  had  just  been  estab- 
lished between  Judah  and  Israel,  and  because  he 
also  saw  danger  to  himself  in  Ramoth,  so  long  as 
it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Syrians.  The  horses 
are  especially  mentioned,  because  they  formed  the 
essential  part  of  the  military  power  (Ps.  xxxiii.  16, 
17  ;   Prov.  xxi.  31). 

Ver.  5.  And  Jehoshaphat  said  unto  the  king 
of  Israel,  Ac.     Jehoshaphat  had  some  scruples. 
He  wished  first  to  be  certain  that  the  undertaking 
was  conformed  to  the  will  of  Jehovah,  a  thing  in 
regard  to  which  no  anxiety  had  entered  Ahab's 
mind.     He  ought  to  have  considered  this  before 
giving  his  consent  (ver.  4).     The  prophets  whom 
Ahab  summoned  were  not,  as  some  of  the  old  ex- 
positors inferred  from  the  number  four  hundred, 
the  Astarte-prophets  who  had  not  been  upon  Car- 
mel  (chap,  xviii.  19,  22),  for  their  chief,  Zedekiah, 
affirmed  that  he  had  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  (ver.  24), 
and  all  the  others  unite  in  this  assertion  (ver.  12). 
Nevertheless,  they  were  not  "certainly  genuine 
Jehovah-prophets  "   (Clericus),   nor    "  pretended  " 
Jehovah-prophets  (Sehulz),  nor   prophet-disciples 
(Thenius),  for  the  definite  article  does  not  refer  to 
such  as  these,  but  to  a  definite  class,  different  from 
these,  the  prophets  of  Ahab.     Hence  Junius  and 
Tremellius   translate  correctly   according   to   the 
sense  :    Ahab   congregavit  prophetas  suos.     So  Mi- 
Caiah  designates  them  in  vers.  22  and  23,  when  he 
calls  them  "  thy  "  or  "  his  "  prophets.     Moreover, 
how  coidd  Ahab  ever  have  brought  himself  to 
tolerate  four  hundred  prophets,  adherents  of  Elijah, 
in  his  immediate  circle,  when  he  had  not  been  con- 
verted to  Jehovah?     No  one  will  assert  that  they 
belonged  to  the  number  of  those  who  wore  the 
well-known  penitential  robe  of  the  prophets,  and 
went  about  in  goat-skins  or  in  hair-eloth  (Zach. 
xiii.  4;    Hebr.  xi.   37).     It  remains  that  we  can 
think  of  them   only  as  adherents  of  Jeroboam'* 
Jehovah-worship,    that   is,    of    the    calf-worship. 
Hence  Jehoshaphat   did   not   recognize   them   as 
genuine   Jehovah   prophets.     Although    they   all 
agree,  yet  he  asks  for  another,  a  true  worshipper 
of  Jehovah ;    and   Ahab   calls    for   such   a   one, 
though  with  inward  dissatisfaction.     Since  in  chap, 
xviii.  19,  22,  25,  40,  the  priests  of  Baal  and  As- 
tarte  are  always  called  D'J03J ,  the  conjecture  is 

•uggested  that  these  persons  were  priests  of  the 


calf-worship,  who  at  the  same  time  filled,  like  th» 
Baal  and  Astarte  priests,  the  functions  of  proph- 
ets.    (See  notes  on  xviii.  19.) 

Ver.  8.  And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto 
Jehoshaphat,  Ac.  Micaiah  is  called  once  only, 
in  the  parallel  passage  (2  Chron.  xviii.  14),  Mieha, 
and  is  certainly  not,  as  Josephus  and  the  rabbis 
assert,  the  man  who  is  mentioned  in  chap.  xx.  35 
as  a  prophet-disciple.  Ahab  could  not  at  the  mo- 
ment give  the  name  of  any  other  whom  he  could 
summon  at  short  notice.  It  was  very  natural  that 
he  should  not  mention  Elijah,  even  aside  from  the 
fact  that  he  did  not  know  where  he  was.  Micaiah 
was  in  Samaria,  and  even,  as  it  appears,  on  ac- 
count of  some  previous  prophecy  which  was  unfa- 
vorable and  displeasing  to  Ahab,  in  confinement; 
hence  he  could  be  at  once  brought  forward. — To 
the  words,  but  evil,  the  chronicler  adds:  "all  his 
days,"  i.  e.,  so  long  as  he  has  filled  the  office  of  a 
prophet.  Von  Gerlach  aptly  remarks :  We  find  in 
Ahab  the  same  heathen  conception  of  the  relation 
between  the  prophet  and  Jehovah,  as  we  find  in 
the  case  of  Balak  (Numb,  xxiii.  11).  He  ascribes 
to  the  seer  some  power  over  his  God,  and  there- 
fore makes  him  responsible  for  his  unfavorable 
oracles.  Agamemnon  says  to  Calchas  (Iliad  i. 
106),  "Seer  of  evil  I  how  hast  thou  never  foretold 
to  me  good  I  Thou  prophesiest  to  me  with  plea- 
sure only  evil  in  thy  trance,  and  hast  never  de- 
clared to  me  a  favorable  oracle."  Jehoshaphat's 
answer:  "Let  not  the  king  say  so!  refers  to 
Ahab's  words  :  I  hate  him;  I  will  not  now  listen 
to  him.  Jehoshaphat's  words,  therefore,  have  not 
this  sense :  vaticinabitur  prospere  (Vatablus,  Keil), 
but  they  are  a  reply  to  his  remark,  and  contain 
such  an  encouragement  as  this :  Let  him  come, 
though; — and  this  Ahab  then  does. 

Ver.  10.  Sat  each  on  his  throne,  Ac.  Vers. 
10-12  carry  out  into  detail  that  which  had  been 
hinted  at  briefly  in  ver.  6.  We  must,  therefore, 
think  here  of  the  same  assemblage  as  there.  It 
is  now  only  described  more  fully  in  what  a 
solemn  manner  this  assemblage  was  held 
(see  Bertheau  on  2  Chron.  xviii.  9).     That  D'tra^o 

DHJ3  means  "  in  their  official  (royal)  robes  "  is 
clear  from  Levit.  xxi.  10,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
high-priest :  D'ljan-nx  tri>  ,  l  e.,  "  clad  in  the 
official  (priestly)  garments."  D,2tr"i''  is  repeated 
before  pja  in  the  parallel  passage  2  Chron.  xviii.  9. 
It  can,  therefore,  only  mean :  in  area,  pi  means  a 

"  smooth  open  place  "  (Gesenius) ;  hence  a  thresh- 
ing-floor, which  is  such  a  smooth  open  place. 
However,  "  threshing-floor  "  is  not  the  sole  mean- 
ing, as  Thenius  asserts.     He  reads  Dp"13  for  pjg 

(since  the  word  for  threshing-floor  makes  no  sense) 
and  joins  it  with  D'US,  ''particolored,  that  is, 
probably,  vestes  distinctce,  acu  picks ;  "  but  this  con- 
jecture is  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  violent.  Ewald 
alBO  joins  the  word  with  DHJ3 ,  and  says  that  it 
can  from  the  connection  (?),  have  here  only  the 
meaning,  armor,  war-dress,  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence to  support  this,  for  the  hoirtoi  of  the  Sept 
is  not  a  translation  of  pJ3  but  of  the  words 
discussed  above  "l2  "^D- 

Ver.  11.    And  Zedekiah,  the  son,  Ac.     Zede- 
kiah, following  the  method  of  the  true  prophets, 


252 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


performs  a  symbolical  action  before  the  declara- 
tion of  his  oracle  (see  on  chap.  xi.  29).  He  in- 
tended thereby  to  show  himself  a  prophet  of  the 
northern  kingdom.  He  put  on  horns  of  iron, 
which  would  not  break,  for  Deut.  xxxiii.  17  says 
of  F.phraim :  "  His  glory  is  like  the  firstling  of  his 
bullock,  and  his  horns  are  like  the  horns  of  uni- 
corns, with  them  he  shall  push  the  people 
together  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  By  a  physical 
reference  to  this  prophecy  he  intended  to  repre- 
sent his  present  declaration  as  certain.  However, 
he  forgot  that  "  the  entire  fulfilment  of  Moses' 
blessing  depended  on  the  fidelity  with  which 
Israel  adhered  to  the  commandments,  and  to  the 
Lord.  But  Ahab,  least  of  all,  had  been  careful  to  be 
thus  faithful "  (Keil).    Of  the  two  imperatives   rb'J 

il^i'ni ,  the  first  is  a  command  and  the  second  an 

encouragement,  as  in  Glen.  xlii.  18 ;  Prov.  xx.  13  ; 
Ps.  xxxvii.  27 ;  Job  xxii.  21 ;  Isai.  xxxvi.  16 
(Gesen.  Grammar  §  127). 

Ver.  15.  So  he  came  to  the  king.  "Ahab 
meant  by  his  question  to  Micaiah  to  represent 
himself  to  Jehoshaphat  as  never  having  attempted 
to  exert  any  influence  upon  the  declarations  of  the 
prophet  "  (Thenius).  He  took  up  the  attitude  to 
Micaiah  "of  holding  himself  ready  for  any 
answer,  and  of  demanding  only  to  know  the 
divine  will,  although  he  had  really  made  up  his 
mind,  and  would  be  pleased  only  with  one  answer  " 
(Jo.  Lange).  Hence  we  may  understand  the 
prophet's  answer,  which  is  not  irony  (Keil),  nor 
"spoken  with  ironical  gestures  and  a  sarcastic  tone" 
(Riehter),but  certainly  a  reproof  for  the  hypocritical 
question.  The  sense  is  :  How  earnest  thou  to  the 
idea  of  consulting  me,  whom  thou  dost  not  trust  ? 
Thy  prophets  have  answered  thee  as  thou  desirest. 
Do,  then,  what  they  have  approved.  Try  it.  March 
out.  Their  oracles  have  far  more  weight  with 
thee  than  mine.  "  Since  Micaiah,  who,  in  ver.  14, 
had  distinctly  declared  that  he  would  not  speak 
simply  according  to  the  king's  pleasure,  neverthe- 
less repeats  almost  exactly  the  words  of  the 
kiug's  prophets,  he  must  have  spoken  in  a  tone 
which  made  it  clear  to  Ahab  that  what  he  said 
was  not  in  earnest  "  (Bertheau).  Therefore  Ahab 
adjured  him  to  speak  only  the  word  of  Jehovah, 
but  did  not  promise  to  follow  the  counsel  which  he 
should  give  him  in  the  name  of  Jehovah.  He  was 
not  in  earnest  to  learn  the  truth,  but  only  to  con- 
vince Jehoshaphat  that  what  he  had  said  (ver.  8) 
about  this  prophet  was  true  and  just,  and  that  no 
authority  ought  to  be  ascribed  to  him.  Micaiah 
now  refuses  no  longer,  but  makes  known  the 
vision  which  he  has  had  (ver.  17).  The  meaning 
of  this  vision  was  clear.  Ahab  understood  it. 
The  king  would  fall,  and  Israel  would  be  scattered 
without  being  pursued.  Eacli  one  would  take  his 
own  way  home,  and  so  the  war  would  end.  Perhaps 
Numbers  xxvii.  17  floated  before  the  prophet's 
mind,  as  Dent,  xxxiii.  17  was  in  the  mind  of  Zede- 
kiah  in  ver.     11.      Luther  erroneously  took    the 

words  of  Jehovah  n?X?  D'JIX-SP  as  a  question. 

The  sense  is  :  Since  these  have  no  longer  any 
master,  let  each  return.  Ahab  now  assures 
Jehoshaphat  (ver.  18;  cf.  chap.  xxi.  20),  in  order 
that  In*  may  not  be  influenced  by  this  oracle, 
that  it  springs  from  the  malice  which  he  had 
before  declared  this  prophet  to  entertain.  Then. 
ii  order  to  refute   this   imputation,  Micaiah  (ver. 


19)  states,  by  describing  another  vision,  the  rea 
son  why  the  four  hundred  prophets  had  prophe- 
sied falsely  and  deceitfully. 

Ver.  19.  Hear  thou  therefore  the  word  of 

the  Lord.     \zh  nas  nere  -ts  regular  signification: 
i ..  T 

for  this  reason.  (Keil:  "Because  thou  thinkest 
[my  declaration  the  result  of  mere  malice],  there- 
fore.")   Ii  is  not, "  according  to  the  Sept.,  oi<x  oi. -<j-r, 

equivalent  to  |3  Xp :  veruntamen  "  (Thenius).     The 

speech  in  vers.  1 9-23  is  indeed  addressed  to  the 
king  in  the  first  instance,  but  evidently  all  around 
heard  it  and  were  intended  to  hear  it.  In  Chroni- 
cles we  find  for  JflOf ,  lyjX' ,  as  in  ver.  28. — I  saw 

the  Lord  sitting  on  His  throne.  What  Micaiah 
describes  in  vers.  19-22  is  not  a  mere  parable  in- 
vented by  him,  but  a  prophetic  vision  which  he 
saw,  and  which,  as  the  Berkburger  bibel  says,  re- 
presents God  and  His  government  and  providence 
in  an  appropriate  symbolical  manner.  Peter  Mar- 
tyr says :  Omnia  hoc  dicuntur  av&pu-o~aduc.  The 
separate  expressions  are  not,  therefore,  to  be 
strained  or  interpreted  in  a  "  gross  and  material- 
istic manner  "  (Richter). — And  all  the  host  of 
heaven,  &c.  The  old  expositors,  Peter  Martyr, 
Jo.  Lange.  Starke  and  others  suppose  that  the 
prophet  described  God  seated  on  the  throne  of 
heaven  and  surrounded  by  the  heavenly  hosts,  in 
contrast  with  the  two  kings  sitting  on  their 
thrones  surrounded  by  the  band  of  false  prophets. 
It  appears,  however,  that  this  cannot  be  correct, 
for  if  it  were  correct,  then  Micaiah  must  have  had 
his  vision  after  he  came  to  stand  before  the  kings 
and  to  see  how  they  were  arrayed,  but  the  reve- 
lation, doubtless,  came  to  him  some  time  before 
this.  He  rather  saw  God  as  the  ruler  of  all  in 
heaven  or  earth,  and  as  the  judge  in  the  full  glory 
of  His  majesty,  entirely  independently  of  the  two 
kings.  The  host  of  heaven  are  not,  of  course, 
here  the  stars,  as  in  Deut  iv.  19,  but  all  the  higher 
heavenly  powers  who  serve  as  His  organs  in  the 
administration  of  the  universe  (Heb.  i.  14  ;  2  Sam. 
xxiv.  16;  2  Kings  xix.  35).  Some  of  the  older  ex- 
positors incorrectly  say  that  those  on  the  right 
were  the  good,  and  those  on  the  left  the  bad.  The 
latter  are  nowhere  included  in  the  "  host  of 
heaven."  All  surround  Him  and  wait  for  His 
commands. — The  question  in  ver.  20 :  Who  shall 
persuade  [delude]  Ahab  ?  shows  that  the  fall  of 
Ahab,  who  had  heaped  sin  upon  sin,  was  deter 
mined  in  the  counsels  of  God  (cf.  Isai.  vi.  8).  The 
only  question  which  still  remained  open  was  as  to 
the  way  in  which  his  fall  should  be  brought  about. 
'•  Who  is  able  to  delude  Ahab,  so  that  he  may 
march  against  Ramoth  to  his  own  destruction?" 
(Bertheau).  And  one  said  on  this  manner  and 
another  said  on  that  manner.  Peter  Marty! 
says  on  these  words:  Innuii  varios  provufcutus 
Dei  mudos,  quibus  decreta  sua  ad  exitum  perducit. 
i'he  dramatic-figurative  form  of  representation 
corresponds  fully  to  the  character  of  the  vision,  in 
which  inner  and  spiritual  processes  are  regarded 
as  real  phenomena,  nay  even  as  persons. 

Ver.  21.  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit.— 
rmn  ,  i.  «.,  not  a  spirit  (Luther,  and  E.  V.,  follow- 
ing the  Sept.),  but  the  spirit,  a  dei.liite  one,  and 
it  can  be,  according  to  the  entire  connection,  none 
other  than  the  spirit  of  prophecy  (Thenius;  Keil) 
the  power  which,  going  forth  from  Hod,  and  tab 


CHAPTER  XXII.  1-40. 


253 


ing  possession  of  a  man,  makes  him  a  prophet 
(1  Sam.  x.  6,  10;  xix.   20,   23).     The   rvjj  is  the 

rain  crN  (Hos.  ix.  1).     This  spirit  offered  itself 

to  fulfil  the  divine  decree.  It  is  a  feature  in  the 
dramatic-figurative  form  of  representation,  that 
as  all  the  powers  of  God  are  represented  as  per- 
sons, so  also  this  power  is  personified.  It  steps 
forth  from  the  ranks  of  the  divine  powers  and  de- 
clares its  readiness  to  fulfil  the  divine  will:  'I 
{'JN  with   emphasis)    will   persuade   him.''      The 

question  in  ver.  22,  Wherewith?  adds  to  the  live- 
liness of  the  delineation.  The  meaning  of  the 
answer  :  "  I  will  go  forth  and  I  will  be  a  lying 
spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets  "  is  this ; 
The  prophets  of  Ahab  shall  prophesy  to  him 
what  he  desires  to  hear,  and  thus  delude  him  un- 
til he  shall  bring  about  his  own  ruin  through  his 
own  plans.  As  this  view  was  already  decided  on 
in  the  divine  counsels,  the  Lord  answers  to  the 
spirit:  Thou  shalt  persuade  him,  and  prevail 
also.  G-o  forth  and  do  so.  Because  Ahab, 
who  had  abandoned  God  and  hardened  his  heart, 
desired  to  use  prophecy  for  his  own  purposes,  it  is 
determined  that  he  shall  be  led  to  his  ruin  by  pro- 
phecy. As  God  often  used  the  heathen  nations 
as  the  rod  of  his  wrath  for  the  chastisement  of 
Israel  (Isai.  x.  5),  so  now  he  uses  Ahab's  false 
prophets  to  bring  upon  Ahab  the  judgment  which 
Elijah  had  foretold  against  him.  We  have  to  com- 
pare the  passage  Isai.  vi.  8,  9,  where  the  prophet, 
who  has  just  been  cleansed  from  sin  and  conse- 
crated to  the  prophetic  office,  answers  to  the  Lord's 
■question :  "  Who  shall  I  send," — "  Send  me,"  and 
then  the  command  is  given  to  him :  "  Make  the 
heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy, 
and  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see  with  their 
eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand 
with    their   heart,    and   convert   and  be  healed." 

From  this  we  see  that  the  Tpt'  nil  (ver.  22)  is  not, 

as  most  of  the  old  expositors  declared,  Satan,  who 
•does  not  belong  to  the  "  heavenly  host  "  (ver.  19), 
and   is,    moreover,   nowhere   called   simply   rnin 

(ver.  21).  Keil  indeed  admits  that  "  neither 
Satan  nor  any  other  evil  spirit  is  meant,"  but  he 
adds  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  in  so  far  as  it  is, 

by  God's  will,  a  "lpcn  ffi*)  "  stands  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Satan."  But  the  vision  has  nothing  at 
all  to  do  with  Satan.  The  circumstances  are  en- 
tirely different  from  those  in  Job  i.  6,  which  are 
often  compared.  It  expresses  an  act  in  God's 
government  and  judicial  administration,  in  which 
Satan  is  neither  directly  nor  indirectly  involved. 
In  ver.  23  Micaiah  states  the  result  of  what  pre- 
cedes :  Now  see ;  the  prophets  have  prophesied 
to  thee  pleasant  things,  but  they  are  deluded  and 
they  delude  thee.  If  therefore  I  have  prophesied 
otherwise,  it  is  not,  as  thou  hast  said  (ver.  18),  out 
of  hate  towards  thee,  but  the  Lord  has  thus  spoken 
to  me,  and  has  thus  determined  in  regard  to 
thee. 

Ver.  24.  Zedekiah  ....  went  near.  This 
leader  of  the  other  party  felt  himself  especially  in- 
sulted, as  he  had  confirmed  his  prophecy  by  a 
symbolical  act  (ver.  1 1 ).  The  blow  on  the  cheek 
was  intended  as  an  insult  (Job  xvi.  10;  Lament. 
iii.  301.  We  may  see  from  this  how  Zedekiah 
uou<i    in    Ahab's    favor,    and    how    unesteemed 


Micaiah   was.      Chronicles   supplies  7]"Fin  which 

is  wanting  with  nf'S  (chap.  xiii.  12;   2  Kings  iii. 

8 ;  Job  xxxviii.  24).  The  sense  is :  How  dost 
thou  dare  to  say  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy  has 
turned  aside  from  me  and  gone  only  to  thee" 
Zedekiah  had  not,  therefore,  knowingly  prophesiea 
falsely,  but  his  insolence  was  far  from  being  a 
proof  that  lie  had  the  spirit  of  the  Lord.  On 
~nri3  Tin  see  notes  on  chap.  xx.  30.     The  story 

of  Zedekiah's  end  is  wanting  both  in  Kings  and 
Chronicles,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  the  origi 
nal  document  contained  much  more  than  now 
appears  in  our  books  (Thenius,  Ewald).  As  Ahah 
fell,  and  Zedekiah's  definite  prediction  was  start- 
lingly  falsified,  we  may  be  sure  that  he  did  not  fail 
to  be  persecuted. 

Ver.  26.  And  the  king  of  Israel  said:  Take 
Micaiah,  &c.  .losephus  narrates  that  Ahab  was 
disturbed  by  Micaiah's  speech,  but  when  he  saw 
that  Zedekiah's  hand  did  not  wither  as  Jeroboam's 
'lid  lehap.  xiii.  4),  and  that  Micaiah  indicted  do 
punishment,  that  he  took  courage  and  went  on  to 
the  war.  This  is  an  empty  rabbinical  tradition. 
Zedekiah's  insolence  was  influential  in  encouraging 
Ahab  in  the  determination  which  he  had  formed. 
The  latter  caused  Micaiah  to  be  taken  back  to 
Anion  the  governor  of  the  city,  not  to  his  own 
house  (Thenius).  He  had  probably  been  previ- 
ously in  arrest  under  this  man's  charge,  but  now 
he  was  to  be  put  in  prison  on  the  bread  and  water 
"  of  affliction."  Joash,  son  of  the  king,  was  not, 
probably,  a  son  of  Ahab,  but  a  prince  of  the  blood, 
who,  together  with  the  commandant  of  the  city, 
had  charge  of  the  prisoners.  If  he  had  been,  as 
Thenius  supposes,  a  young  prince  who  had  been 
intrusted  to  Amon  for  his  military  education  (2 
Kings  x.  1),  one  does  not  see  why  he  should  be 
mentioned  here.  In  the  last  words  of  ver.  28  Mi- 
caiah calls  "  all  people  "  to  be  witnesses  of  his  de- 
claration, i.  e.,  not  "  all  the  world,"  or  "  people 
generally  "  (Keil),  but  all  the  people  who,  besides 
the  two  kings  and  the  four  hundred  prophets, 
were  collected  on  tins  solemn  occasion.  The  pro- 
phet Micah  begins  his  prophecy  (chap.  i.  2)  with 

the  words  ub~2  W12V  VOL",  but  we  may  not  infer 

from  this,  as  Bleek  does,  that  the  author  confused 
Micaiah  with  the  much  younger  prophet  Micah, 
nor,  as  Hitzig  does,  that  the  words  in  this  passage 
are  borrowed  from  that  place.  It  would  be  more 
natural  to  suppose  that  Micah  borrowed  the  words 
from  the  original  document  of  this  author.  How- 
ever, the  exclamation  is  so  general  that  it  might 
occur  in  the  independent  works  of  different  pro- 
phets. It  is  remarkable  that  the  pious  king  Je- 
hoshaphat does  not  interfere  to  prevent  the  mal- 
treatment of  Micaiah ;  and  that,  in  spite  of  the 
opposition  of  that  prophet,  he  goes  on  the  expe- 
dition. Peter  Martyr  says:  Affiniias  cum  impiis 
contracia  sanctitatem  plurimum  imminuit.  It  ap- 
pears that  he  was  not  willing  to  take  back  the 
promise  which  he  had  given  (ver.  4)  on  account  of 
a  prophet  whom  Ahab  declared  to  be  his  personal 
opponent. 

Ver.  30.  And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto 
Jehoshaphat.  The  Vulgate  and  Luther  mistak- 
enly take  the  infinitives  N31  K'Bnnn  (disguise  and 
come)  as  imperatives  addressed  to  Jehoshaphat 


254 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


nnxi  i  which  immediately  follows  by  way  of  con- 
trast, shows  that  this  is  wrong.  The  infinitive 
absolute  is  the  plainest  and  simplest  form  of  the 
voluntative  for  exclamations,  and  is  used  when  the 
speaker  is  excited  and  rilled  with  the  idea  (Ewald. 
§  328).  It  is  to  be  remembered,  in  connection 
with  Ahab's  attempt  to  disguise  himself,  that  the 
ordinary  custom  was  for  the  king  to  lead  the  army 
into  battle  in  full  royal  costume  (2  Sam.  i.  10). 
Hence  he  was  conspicuous  not  only  to  his  own 
army,  but  also  to  that  of  the  enemy,  who  then  di- 
rected their  attack  upon  him.  The  words  of  Mi- 
caiah,  especially  these  :  "These  have  no  master," 
had  caused  Ahab  great  secret  anxiety.  Moreover, 
he  might  well  suppose  that  the  Syrians  would 
be  more  eager  to  attack  him  than  Jehoshaphat. 
Though  lie  knew  nothing  of  Ben-hadad's  command 
(ver.  21),  yet  he  desired  to  frustrate  the  prophet's 
prediction.  The  sense  of  his  words  to  Jehosha- 
phat is,  therefore,  this:  I  have  every  reason  to 
make  myself  unrecognizable  in  this  war,  but 
thou,  against  whom  the  Syrians  have  no  especial 
hate,  mayst  go  forward  in  thy  royal  apparel. — 
When  thus  taken,  Ahab's  words  contain  a  sort  of 
justification  and  excuse  of  his  purpose.  Jehosh- 
aphat, therefore,  agreed  to  it  without  objection. 
There  is  no  ground  for  the  idea  that  Ahab  had 
planned  cunningly  that  Jehoshaphat  might  be 
'  killed,  in  order  that  he  might  inherit  Judah 
(Sehulz,  Maurer,  and  others).  Ahab  was  anxious 
to  save  his  own  life,  not  to  secure  Jehoshaphat's 
death. 

Ver.  31.  But  the  king  of  Syria,  &e.  Perhaps 
he  had  learned  that  the  expedition  had  originated 
with  Ahab,  who  had  proposed  it  to  his  generals,  per- 
suaded Jehoshaphat,  and  pushed  forward  the  plan 
perseveringly.  He  hoped  that  Ahab's  end  would  be 
the  end  of  the  war.  Hence  the  command  which 
he  gave  to  the  thirty-two  chariot-captains,  who  are 
also  mentioned  in  xx.  24.  They  were  the  leaders, 
they  made  known  the  command  to  their  men. 
Neither  with  small  nor  great,  i.  «.,  do  not  spend 
time  in  conflict  with  any  one  else,  but  all  press  for- 
ward against  the  king  of  Israel.     TJX  in  ver.  32 

does  not  mean  certainly  (De  Wette,  Bunsen),  but 
only.  They  need  not  be  in  doubt,  since  he  alone 
wore  royal  dress.     Instead  of  IID'1  the  chronicler 

has   13D'l ,    and   the   Sept.    has,  in   both   places, 

hnvKluaav.  Bertheau  and  Thenius  regard  the  lat- 
ter as  the  correct  reading.  But  the  Syrians  cer- 
tainly had  not  yet  surrounded  him ;  they  were 
pressing  forward  towards  him,  but  turned  aside 
when  they  saw  that  they  were  mistaken  in  the 
person  (ver.  33).  The  Vulg.  has:  impetu  facto 
pugnabant  confra  turn.  "VlD  means,  to  turn  from 
the  way  and  go  towards  something.  When  they 
saw  the  king,  they  turned  towards  him.  Jehosh- 
aphat cried  out,  and,  as  they  recognized  him,  it 
seems  that  he  must  have  called  out  his  own  name, 
not,  however,  in  order  to  make  himself  known  to 
them,  but  in  order  to  call  his  own  people  to  his 
aid.  It  may  be,  also,  that  his  people  called  to  him 
and  uttered  his  name.  In  Chronicles  it  is  added: 
''  And  the  Lord  helped  him;  and  God  moved  them 
to  depart  from  him."  This  can  hardly  have  been 
borrowed  from  the  original  document.  The  cry 
was  understood  [by  later  readers]  as  a  cry  to  God 
(Vulg..  clamant  ad  Diimiiinm),  and  the  rescue  as  a 
divine  interposition.     If  this  pair  of  sentences  had 


been  in  the  original,  it  is  inexplicable  how  thej 
should  have  been  omitted  in  the  text  before  U3. 
Ver.  34.  And  a  certain  man  drew  a  bow 

Ac.     isn?  does  not  mean  "  at  a  venture  "  (Luther 

E.  V.),  nor  in  incertum  (Vulg.),  but,  as  2  Sam.  xv 
11  shows,  "without  knowing  why  he  aimed  par* 
ticularly  at  that  individual  whom  he  had  in  his 
eye  "  (Thenius).  According  to  Josephus  this  man's 
name  was  Aman  ;  according  to  Jarchi  it  was  Naa- 
man.  In  the  text,  however,  emphasis  is  laid  on 
the  fact  that  it  was  an  unknown  man.  Geseniua 
and  De  Wette  translate  D'pDin  by  joints  or  grooves, 

but  what  joints  can  be  referred  to  ?  The  stem 
p_n  means  only  to  hang  on  or  depend  from.    p3l , 

therefore,  means  that  which  depends  or  hangs 
down,  but  not  a  joint,  nor  yet  the  soft  parts  or  flanks 
(Ewald).  Luther,  correctly:  Zwischen  den  Panzer 
und  Hengcl  [between  the  corselet  and  the  tunic]. 
The  corselet  covered  the  body  down  as  far  as  be- 
low the  ribs.  The  lower  part  of  the  body  was 
protected  by  a  hanging  skirt  of  parallel  plates 
(hence  the  plural  D'pXl)-     The  arrow  penetrated 

between  this  skirt  and  the  corselet,  where  the  con- 
nection was  not  close  or  perfect,  and  penetrated  the 
"lower  abdomen"  (Thenius).  This  wound  was. 
of  course,  a  very  severe  one,  if  not  a  fatal  one. 
We  may  perceive  how  far  such  weapons  penetrat- 
ed, by  the  instance,  for  example,  of  the  arrow  with 
which  Jehu  shot  king  Jehoram,  which  entered  hi3 
body  between  the  arms  from  behind,  and  came  out 
obliquely  through  the  heart  in  front  (2  Kings  ix. 
24;  Lament,  iii.  13;  Job  xvi.  13).  Hereupon  Ahab 
commanded  his  charioteer  to  turn  and  drive  out  of 
the  midst  of  the  contending  armies,  for  I  am 
wounded,  i.  e.}  I  am  no  longer  fit  to  fight,  and 
must  retire  from  the  conflict.     Evidently  'flvnil 

means,  in  this  connection,  lam  wounded  (cf.  1  Sam. 
xxxi.  3);  Sept.,  TeTpavfidriafiai  ■  Vulg.,  graviter 
vulneratus  sum).  Thenius  translates,  "  I  am  not 
well,"  and  observes:  "He  desired  to  be  quickly 
rid  of  the  arrow,  and  not  to  let  any  one  know  that 
he  was  wounded."  Similarly  Bertheau:  "For  I 
am  unwell.  The  charioteer  cannot  have  observed 
that  Ahab  had  been  wounded  by  an  arrow."  But 
a  fatal  wound  in  the  abdomen,  from  which  blood 
flowed  into  the  chariot,  cannot  have  passed  unob- 
served, and  it  is  impossible  that  Ahab  should  have 
removed  the  arrow  himself;  at  least  such  action  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  text.  It  is  certain  that  he 
felt  so  unwell  that  he  asked  to  be  removed  from 
the  conflict,  and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how 
Thenius  can  say,  on  the  words  Against  the  Syri- 
ans (ver.  35),  that  "  he  kept  his  face  towards  them 
and  did  not  retire  from  the  place  of  battle." 
Ewald's  assertion  that  he  "  had  to  be  carried  from 
the  field,"  contradicts  the  words  of  the  text;  also 
there  is  nothing  in  the  text  of  Ewald's  further 
statement,  that  "  when  his  wound  had  been  bound 
up  Ahab  returned  into  the  battle,  and  fell  bravely 
fighting  to  the  last."  Only  so  much  is  certain,  that 
he  w:is  removed  from  the  battle  in  his  chariot,  but 
not  that  he  returned  to  it,  as  has  been  erroneously 
inferred  from  ver.  35. 

Ver.  35.  And  the  battle  increased,  i,  e.,  the 

batili'  I me  more  violent.     The  figure  is  taken 

from  a  swelling  river  (Isai.  viii.  7).  Thenius  ex- 
plains the  following  worda,  "VSOO  «"Pn :  "  He  ivai 


CHAPTER  XXII.  1-HX, 


255 


standing  upright,  i.  e.,  through  his  own  strength. 
He  forced  himself  in  order  that  he  might  support 
the  courage  of  his  followers."  But  he  had  given 
orders  (ver.  34)  that  his  charioteer  should  remove 
him  as  incapacitated  for  further  fighting,  and  it 
does  not  show  in  the  text  that  he  caused  his  wound 
to  be  bound  up  and  then  returned  into  the  fight; 
this  must  be  invented  and  added  arbitrarily.  The 
sentence :  the  battle  increased,  is  a  subordinate 
clause  to  explain  how  it  came  about  that  Ahab  re- 
mained standing  in  the  chariot  and  died  at  evening. 
The  Calmer  Bibel  states  the  connection  of  thought 
very  correctly  as  follows :  "  Ahab's  charioteer  could 
not  escape  from  the  crush  of  the  battle  because 
the  fight  became  more  and  more  violent,  and 
Ahab  was  obliged  to  remain  standing  on  the  cha- 
riot on  which  he  was  until  towards  evening. 
His  wound  could  not,  therefore,  be  bound  up,  and 
he  bled  to  deatlu  When  finally,  at  sunset,  the 
Israelites  turned  away  from   the    field  of  battle, 

it  was  too  late  to  save  the  king."     D1S  rDJ  does 

not  mean  "  presenting  front  to  the  Syrians  "  (The- 
nius),  but  in  the  face  of  the  Syrians  {coram.  Judges 
xviii.  6;  Jer.  xvii.  16;  Ezek.  xiv.  3,  7;  Prov.  v. 
21).  The  Syrians,  however,  did  not  recognize  him. 
because  he  was  disguised.  It  is  once  more  stand 
that  the  blood  ran  out  of  the  wound  into  the 
midst  of  the  chariot,  on  account  of  the  incident 
to  be  narrated  in  ver.  38.  In  Chronicles  these 
words  are  wanting,  as  also  the  following  verses 
36-38.  The  story  ends  there  with  the  words : 
"  and  about  the  time  of  the  sun  going  down  he 
died,"  because  it  is  not  the  history  of  Ahab  which 
is  there  the  prominent  interest,  but  that  of  Je- 
hoshaphat. 

Ver.  38  And  one  washed  the  chariot  in  the 
pool  of  Samaria.  As  in  the  case  of  other  cities 
(2  Sam.  ii.  13  ;  iv.  12  ;  Song  Sol.  vii.  4),  so  also  at 
Samaria,  there  was  a  pool  near  the  city  which 
served  for  purposes  ofwashing  and  bathing.  The 
dogs  licked  up  the  water  which  was  mixed  with 
the  blood  washed  from  the  chariot.     The  words 

ISm  nijini  cannot  be  translated  as  in  the  Syriac 

and  Chaldaic  versions,  arnxa  laverunt,  or,  as  in  the 
Vulg.,  habenas  laverunt,  in  the  first  place  because  it 
is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  language  to  make 
nijf  the  object,  and  in  the  second  place,  because 
this  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  the 
signification  harlots.  Maurer  and  Von  Gerlach 
supply,  as  object  ofljfm  ,  the  chariot,  but  then  this 

clause  would  only  repeat  the  previous  one  :  ,:they 
washed  the  chariot."  Bunsen  supplies  arbitrarily : 
the  corpse.  ]'m  means  here,  as  in  Ex.  ii.  5  ;  Ruth 
iii.  31,  to  bathe.  Harlots  are  also  elsewhere  men- 
tioned together  with  dogs,  though,  it  is  true,  in  the 
figurative  use  (Deut.  xxiii.  19;  Rev.  xxii.  15),  be- 
cause both  were  regarded  as  impure  and  contempt- 
ible. Theodoret  remarks  that  the  harlots  bathed 
in  the  evening,  according  to  custom.  They  did  not 
intend  to  wash  in  the  blood,  but  the  water  was 
mixed  with  it.  Probably  the  women  were  the 
temple-prostitutes,  so  that  the  blood  of  Ahab  was 
not  only  licked  up  by  dogs,  but  also  came  in  con- 
tact with  persons  who  were  im  pure,  and  prostitu  ted 
in  the  service  of  Baal  and  Astarte ;  a  double  mark 
of  the  shameful  ruin  which  had  been  foretold  for 
him.  Peter  Martyr:  Sordes  suas  miscebant  cum 
languine  Ahabi,  qum  fuit  maxima  ignominia.    The- 


nius'  proceeding  is  very  arbitrary  when  he  declares 
that  ver.  38  is  an  addition  of  the  redactor,  who  de- 
sired to  bring  the  event  into  full  accord  with  the 
prophecy  in  chap.  xxi.  19.  We  have  no  further 
information  in  regard  to  Ahab's  buildings  men- 
tioned in  ver.  39.  The  ivory  house  was  a  house 
which  was  richly  decorated  within  with  ivory.  Cf. 
Amos  iii.  15  ;  Ps.  xlv.  8  ;  Song  of  SoL  vii  5  ;  Ho- 
mer's Odys.  iv.  72. 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  JehoshaphaPs  journey  to  Samaria  is  an  im- 
portant incident  in  the  development  of  the  history 
of  the  two  kingdoms,  for  this  reason :  Ever  since 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  (seventy  years)  the  two 
parts  had  been  hostile  to  each  other,  but  Jehosha- 
phat's  visit  was  meant  to  confirm  a  peace  between 
them,  which  had  already  been  brought  about  by 
the  intermarriage  of  the  prince  of  Judah  and  the 
princess  of  Israel.  A  period  of  peace  now  began. 
This  new  state  of  things  was  brought  about  by 
Jehoshaphat  and  not  by  Ahab,  as  we  see  clearly 
from  the  account  in  Chronicles,  where  also  we 
may  learn  what  considerations  induced  the  pious 
king  of  Judah  to  seek  friendship  and  alliance  with 
Ahab.  He  had  raised  the  comparatively  weak 
kingdom  of  Judah  to  a  pitch  of  prosperity,  both 
internal  and  external,  such  as  it  had  not  en- 
joyed since  the  time  of  Solomon.  Especially 
against  the  neighboring  nations  he  had  been  so 
successful  that  all  brought  him  tribute,  and  no  one 
any  longer  dared  to  oppose  him  (2  Chron.  xvii.  10). 
Since  now  he  had  attained  to  great  wealth  and 
renown  (2  Chron.  xviii.  1),  the  wisli  must  naturally 
arise  in  his  heart,  to  put  an  end  to  the  long 
hostility  of  the  two  brother-kingdoms,  of  which, 
probably,  each  was  weary.  This  could  not  be  ac- 
complished by  force,  for  experience  had  proved 
that  neither  kingdom  could  subjugate  the  other. 
Jehoshaphat  therefore  attempted  the  peaceful 
means  of  a  family  alliance,  and  Ahab  met  him 
willingly,  since  he  could  expect  from  such  an 
alliance  nothing  but  advantage.  It  appears,  how- 
ever, that  Jehoshaphat  aimed  at  something  more 
than  a  mere  friendly  relation  between  the  two 
kingdoms.  When  we  reflect  that  he,  the  faithful 
adherent  of  Jehovah,  made  an  alliance  between  his 
son  and  heir  and  the  daughter  of  the  fanatical 
idolater,  Jezebel;  that  he  then  went  himself  in 
great  state  to  Samaria ;  that  he  entered  into  a 
military  expedition  with  Ahab  in  spite  of  the 
warning  of  a  prophet  of  Jehovah;  that  he  after- 
wards entered  into  an  alliance  with  Ahab's  suc- 
cessor in  spite  of  the  warning  of  the  prophet 
Jehu  not  to  enter  into  fellowship  with  apostates 
(2  Chron.  six.  1);  then  we  cannot  understand  all 
this  save  on  the  supposition  that  he  aimed  to 
unite  once  more  the  two  kingdoms  under  Judah's 
supremacy.  However  glorious  the  aim  was,  it 
could  never  be  attained  in  the  way  upon  which  he 
had  entered.  The  real  cause  of  the  division  of  the 
kingdom  was  Israel's  revolt  from  the  chief  com- 
mand of  the  covenant  with  Jehovah.  This  cause 
could  not  be  removed  by  external  means  such  as 
Jehoshaphat  sought  to  use.  The  friendship  wli  ich 
he  sought  to  establish  by  intermarriage  and  by 
political  measures,  ignoring  the  true  ground  of 
division,  and  even  setting  it  aside  by  denying  some 
features  of  the  theocratic  constitution,  was  a 
friendship  which  had  no   root,  and   enjoyed    no- 


256 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


divine  blessing,  out  of  which  rather  mischief  arose 
for  Judah.  For,  far  from  tending  to  root  up  Jero- 
boam's eultus  in  Israel,  this  intermarriage  helped 
to  transplant  it  to  Judah,  and  brought  that  king- 
dom to  the  brink  of  ruin.  After  seventy  or  eighty 
years,  in  the  time  of  Amaziah,  the  hostility  between 
the  two  kingdoms  broke  out  afresh,  and  was  never 
entirely  allayed  again  until  the  Assyrians  took 
Israel  into  captivity. 

2.  King  Ahab  appears  here  in  the  last  act  of 
his  career,  just  as  we  have  seen  him  always 
hitherto,  devoid  of  religious  or  moral  character. 
His  penitence,  which  seemed  so  earnest,  and  which 
certainly  falls  in  the  period  immediately  preced- 
ing the  renewed  war  with  the  Syrians  (chap.  xxi. 
27),  had,  as  we  see  from  the  story  before  us,  borne 
no  fruit.  His  attitude  toward  Jehovah  and  His 
covenant  remained  the  same.  There  is  not  a  sign 
of  any  change  of  heart.  He  is  now  enraged 
against  Ben-hadad,  whom,  after  the  battle  of 
Aphek,  he  called  his  "brother,"  and  suffered  to 
depart  out  of  weakness  and  vanity.  He  summons 
his  chief  soldiers  to  a  war  against  Ben-hadad,  and 
calls  for  Jehoshaphat's  aid  also,  in  order  to  make 
sure  of  destroying  him.  He  had  either  forgotten 
the  words  of  the  prophet  (chap.  is.  42),  or  else  he 
cared  nothing  about  them.  To  "  be  still  "  (ver.  3) 
did  not  suit  him.  As  Jehoshaphat  desired,  before 
engaging  on  the  expedition,  to  hear  an  oracle  of 
Jehovah  in  regard  to  it,  Ahab  summoned  only  those 
in  regard  to  whose  declarations  he  could  be  sure 
that  they  would  accord  with  his  own  wishes,  and 
when  Micaiah,  being  called  at  the  express  wish  of 
Jehoshaphat,  gives  another  prophetic  declaration, 
Ahab  explains  this  as  the  expression  of  personal 
malice,  as  he  had  once  done  in  regard  to  Elijah's 
declarations  (chap  xxi.  20).  He  allows  Zedekiahto 
insult  and  abuse  Micaiah,  and  even  orders  the  latter 
into  close  confinement.  But  then  again  he  be- 
comes alarmed  at  -the  prophet's  words,  though 
before  he  was  passionate  and  excited.  He  cannot 
overcome  the  impression  he  has  received,  and  so, 
contrary  to  military  custom  and  order,  he  does 
not  go  into  the  battle  like  Jehoshaphat,  clad  in 
royal  robes,  but  disguised.  This  precaution,  which 
testified  to  anything  but  heroism  (Eisenlohr  says 
justly:  "He  hoped  in  this  way  to  escape  dan- 
ger "),  did  not,  however,  avail.  He  was  shot 
without  being  recognized.  His  command  to  be 
removed  from  the  strife,  that  his  wound  might  be 
cared  for,  could  not  be  executed.  He  bled  to 
death  on  his  chariot.  Some  moderns  have  re- 
presented his  end  as  heroic,  starting  from  the 
erroneous  exegesis  that  he  caused  his  wounds  to 
be  bound  up  and  returned  to  the  fight  (see  Exeg. 
on  vers.  34  and  35).  "  He  had  his  wound  bound 
up,  returned  to  the  battle,  and  held  himself  erect 
in  his  chariot,  though  his  blood  flowed  down  on 
its  floor  until  the  evening "  (Duncker,  Gesch.  des 
Alterthums  I.  s.  212  : — following  Ewald).  Thenins 
even  says:  "If  Ahab  held  himself  erect  through 
the  whole  day  with  the  purpose  already  men- 
tioned (to  encourage  his  men),  then  he  possessed, 
aside  from  the  qualities  manifested  in  chap.  xx. 
7,  14,  32,  34,  a  character  whose  general  features 
were  grand."  This  view  is  certainly  mistaken, 
since  we  may  be  sure  that  the  author  did  not  in- 
tend to  glorify  Ahab  in  this  account  of  his  death. 
It  is  so  far  from  his  intention  to  say  anything  in 
hiB'  honor,  that  he  even  expressly  narrates  how 
Ahab  after  his  death  met   with  involuntary  dis- 


grace (ver.  38).  In  mentioning  the  end  of  Asa, 
Baasha,   and  Orari   their  '•heroism"   (mQ3)    is 

mentioned,  but  when  Ahab's  death  and  burial  are 
mentioned,  there  is  no  reference  to  his  valor. 
Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  this  king  as 
having  "  a  character  whose  general  features  were 
grand,"  seeing  that  he  was  ruled  by  his  wicked 
wife,  that  he  went  to  bed  and  would  see  no  one, 
and  neither  eat  nor  drink,  because  he  could  not  at 
once  obtain  a  garden  which  he  wanted,  and  that 
he  did  not  recover  his  spirits  until  he  had  obtained 
the  garden  by  a  judicial  murder. 

3.  The  congregation  of  not  less  than  four  hundred 
prophets,  who  claimed  to  be  prophets  of  Jehovah, 
but  were  not  such,  is  a  phenomenon  which  has 
no  parallel  either  in  the  earlier  or  later  history  of 
Israel,  and  which,  for  various  reasons,  deserves 
attention.  In  the  first  place,  it  appears  from  this 
that,  although  the  Baal-cultus  had  been  formally 
introduced,  it  had  not  entirely  superseded  the 
Jehovah-cultus ;  on  the  contrary,  that  it  existed 
by  the  side  of  that  (perhaps  as  a  consequence  of 
Elijah's  work),  and  that,  as  we  may  infer  from  the 
number  of  the  prophets  who  were  assembled, 
a  great  portion  of  the  people  must  still  have  been 
well  disposed  towards  the  national  eultus.  Second- 
ly, it  appears  that  there  was  in  Israel,  besides  the 
class  of  prophets  of  whom  Elijah  and  Elisha  and 
their  pupils  were  the  leaders  (2  Kings  ii.  3,  5,  7, 
16;  vi.  1),  also  another  class  of  prophets,  who  did 
not  oppose  the  eultus  of  Jeroboam  or  the  idolatrous 
dynasty,  but  rather  joined  hands  with  these,  and 
sought  a  compromise  with  them.  This  latter  class 
was  no  doubt,  for  the  most  part,  identical  with 
the  priests  of  Jeroboam's  eultus,  and  formed  the 
official  privileged  class  of  prophets.  The  union  of 
the  priestly  and  the  prophetic  offices  occurred  in 
the  Baal-religion  (chap,  xviii.).  No  ancient  people 
considered  any  eultus  complete  without  a  class  of 
men  through  whom  the  god  might  be  questioned. 
This  class  was  naturally  identified,  in  the  first 
place,  with  the  priesthood,  through  whom  all  deal- 
ings with  the  gods  must  be  brought  about.  The  calf- 
worship  of  Jeroboam  must,  therefore,  have  pro- 
phets in  order  to  be  a  complete  religious  system, 
and  its  priests  became  its  born  prophets.  Since, 
however,  this  eultus,  with  its  priesthood,  was  not 
a  legitimate  outgrowth  of  the  national  constitution 
and  the  divine  covenant,  but  a  creation  of  politi- 
cal policy  (chap.  xh.  31,  32;  xiii.  33),  the  prophecy 
also,  which  was  connected  with  it,  did  not  stand 
upon  the  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and  the  spirit 
which  animated  this  prophecy  could  not  be  the 
"spirit  of  Jehovah."  It  was  a  lying  spirit,  since 
the  whole  existence  of  this  class  of  persons  was 
rooted  in  apostasy  and  in  revolt  from  the  theo- 
cratic constitution.  These  "  prophets  of  Samaria  " 
(Jer.  xxiii.  13  ;  Ezek.  xiii.  1)  were  false  prophets. 
They  were  not  "servants  of  Jehovah"  or  "  men 
of  God,"  but  creatures  of  Jeroboam's  royal  power, 
court  prophets,  who  stood  ready  for  the  service  of 
the  king.  This  is  the  character  in  which  they 
here  appear.  Ahab  knew  that  they  would  pro- 
phesy "good"  concerning  him;  hence  he  called 
them  and  would  not  listen  to  Micaiah.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  consider  them  conscious  and  inten- 
tional deceivers,  but,  though  they  may  havf 
believed  in  their  own  oracleB,  yet  they  were  de- 
ceitful prophets,  since  the  "  spirit  of  Jehovah ' 
was  not  in  them. 


CHAPTER  XXIL  1-10. 


257 


4.  The  prophet  ilicaiah,  of  whom  we  know 
nothing  more  than  is  to  be  learned  from  this 
chapter,  unites,  in  contrast  with  the  prophets  of 
Ahab,  all  the  chief  features  of  a  genuine  Jehovah- 
prophet  in  a  manner  in  which  they  are  not  to  be 
found  in  a  single  appearance  of  any  other  prophet. 
We  are  tirst  struck  by  the  fulfilment  of  his  predic- 
tion. He  announces,  on  the  authority  of  a  vision, 
the  fall  of  Ahab  as  a  thing  settled  in  the  counsels 
of  God,  and  does  this  iu  such  a  clear  and  definite 
way  that  Ahab  and  all  the  others  who  were  pre- 
sent at  once  understood  what  was  predicted,  and 
there  was  no  place  for  a  "  dim  misgiving  of  the 
defeat  which  was  to  be  suffered"  (Ewald).  Ac- 
cording to  human  foresight,  a  great  defeat  was 
the  less  to  be  expected  on  this  occasion,  since 
Ahab's  army  was  considerably  strengthened  by 
the  addition  of  Jehoshaphat's,  and  the  only  thing 
sought  was  the  capture  of  one  city.  Hence  the 
four  hundred  prophets  unanimously  promised 
victory.  The  passage  is  certainly  historical  :  ac- 
cording to  Thenius.  the  vision  of  Micaiah  "is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  the  historical  truth  of 
the  passage  on  account  of  its  peculiarity  and 
originality;"  we  have  here,  therefore,  a  definite 
prediction,  which  can  have  proceeded  only  from 
divine  revelation,  from  which  Micaiah  expressly 
asserts  that  he  received  it.  Then  with  this  gift 
of  prediction  Micaiah  unites  also  the  heroic 
courage  which  marked  all  the  true  prophets.  He 
steps  forth  in  the  face  of  the  king  and  his  four 
hundred  prophets,  as  once  Elijah  stepped  forth 
in  the  face  of  the  same  king  and  the  four  hundred 
and  fifty  priests  of  Baal  on  Mount  Carmel.  Though 
he  came  from  captivity,  and  had  now  an  opportu- 
nity to  receive  the  royal  favor,  and  although  the 
attendant  begged  him,  as  he  came,  to  "  prophesy 
good,"  yet  he  speaks  only  what  God  has  revealed 
to  him,  and  fears  neither  the  wrath  of  the  king, 
nor  the  outcry  and  rage  of  the  four  hundred.  He 
recognizes  no  fear  of  men  and  no  desire  to  please 
men'  The  word  of  his  God  is  more  to  him  than 
all  else,  and  with  that  he  stands  firm,  no  matter 
what  may  threaten  him.  To  this  heroic  courage 
he  adds, 'finally,  the  patient  endurance  of  insult 
and  abuse  which  he  is  called  to  endure  for  the 
sake  of  truth.  He  does  not  repay  Zedekiah  in 
kind,  but  refers  him  to  the  experience  which 
awaits  him.  When  the  enraged  king  orders  him 
into  close  confinement  on  the  "bread  of  affliction," 
he  does  not  murmur,  but  calls  on  all  present  to 
remember  his  prediction,  and  submits  to  his  lot, 
leavingjudgment  to  Him  who  judges  righteously. 
So  this  servant  of  God  appears  as  a  forerunner  of 
Him  in  whose  mouth  no  deceit  was  found,  who, 
when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not  again,  and  did 
not  threaten  when  he  suffered  (1  Peter  ii.  22  sq.), 
as  if  the  great  example  had  already  appeared  be- 
fore him,  and  he  had  only  followed  iu  His  foot- 
steps. 

5.  The  vision  of  the  prophet  Micaiah  (vers.  19-22) 
is  original  and  peculiar.  It  has  no  parallel  in  the  Old 
Testament.  In  meaning  it  corresponds  most 
nearly  to  Isai.  xix.  14  sq.  It  is  very  important  for 
the  elucidation  of  the  idea  of  God  as  contained  in 
the  Old  Testament.  In  so  far  as  it  proceeds  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  deceitful  prophecy  of  the 
four  hundred  prophets  had  its  source  in  God,  it 
seems  to  stand  upon  a  religious  idea  which  is  not 
reconcilable  with  the  holiness  of  God.  In  order 
to  escape  the  offence  which  is  involved  in  this  view. 
17 


the  action  of  God  has  been  described  as  a  mere 
"  permission."  Theodoret,  for  instance,  whom 
nearly  all  the  ancient  expositors  follow,  says  oi 
this  vision :  ■Kpocu~o7voua  rtct  dtdacnovaa  tt/v  tidai 
ovyx"P*iG'v-  But  this  is  clearly  a  case  in  which 
Jehovah  himself  appears  ordering  and  regulating 
independently  and  spontaneously,  not  merely  per- 
missively.  We  must  bear  m  mind  that  the  vision 
represents  an  executive  or  judicial  act  of  God.  As 
judge,  God  stands  to  evil  not  in  the  attitude  of 
permission,  but  in  one  of  punishment.  Since  evil 
does  not  come  from  God,  but  from  man,  who  re- 
bels against  God,  chooses  evil,  and  opposes  it  to 
God,  so  punishment  comes  upon  man  through  evil. 
God  proves  His  holiness  most  of  all  by  this,  that 
He  punishes  evil  by  evil,  and  destroys  it  by  itself. 
It  is  an  essential  feature  in  the  divine  government 
of  the  world  that  the  evil  which  springs  up  in  the 
world  is  made  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  the 
Holy  One  for  neutralizing  and  destroying  itself, 
and  that  it  becomes  a  means  of  ruin  to  him  who 
chooses  it,  and  brings  it  into  being.  The  idea  of 
holiness  as  applied  to  God  excludes  all  idea  of  His 
indifference  as  between  good  and  evil,  and  there- 
fore forbids  us  to  think  of  Him  as  "permitting" 
evil.  The  theory  of  permission  does  not  therefore 
reconcile  this  incident  with  God's  holiness,  .but 
rather  is  directly  inconsistent  with  God's  holiness. 
Hence  it  has  been  abandoned  iu  modern  theology 
(<?/.  Eothe,  Eihik,  II.  s.  204-210).  It  is  also  entirely 
foreign  to  Holy  Scripture  (cf.  Heugstenberg, 
Beitrdge,  III.  s.  462  sq.).  The  notion  that  God 
punishes  evil  by  evil,  which  forms  the  basis  of 
Micaiah's  vision,  runs  through  all  the  Scriptures, 
and  is  not  at  all,  as  Thenius  says,  "  an  outgrowth 
of  the  opinions  of  the  time."  Thenius  is  even 
inclined  to  regard  its  close  conformity  to  the  pre- 
valent notions  of  the  time  as  "  an  especial  proof  of 
the  historical  character  of  the  passage."  But  this 
general  notion  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
greatest  prophet  of  the  Old  Testament  (Isai.  xix. 
14).  and  in  those  of  the  greatest  Apostle  of  the  New 
Testament  (2  Thess.  ii.  11 ;  Rom.  i.  24-28  ;  ix.  17). 
The  saying,  frivolous  in  itself,  Mundus  vult  decipi, 
ergo  decipiatur,  may  be  applied  to  Ahab,  at  least  in 
this  sense  :  He  who  seeks  and  chooses  falsehood 
will  be  ruined  by  falsehood,  against  his  choice  (Ps. 
xviii.  27). 

6  Ahab's  end  was  truly  tragical.  It  was 
brought  about,  not  by  a  blind  fate,  but  by  a  God 
who  is  just  in  all  His  ways,  and  holy  in  all  His 
works  (Ps.  cxlv.  17),  whose  judgments  are  un- 
searchable, and  His  ways  past  finding  out  (Rom. 
xi.  33).  The  conflict  which  Ahab  had  sought,  and 
which  no  warning  could  induce  him  to  abandon, 
became  his  punishment.  He  fell  in  battle  with 
that  very  enemy  who  had  once  been  delivered  into 
his  hands,  and  whom  he  had  released,  out  of 
vanity  and  weakness,  to  the  harm  of  Israel,  and  so 
he  made  good  just  the  words  of  the  prophet  in 
chap.  xx.  42.  He  thought  that  a  disguise  would 
render  him  secure  from  the  Syrian  leaders  who 
sought  to  find  him  out,  and  he  did  indeed  escape 
them ;  but  an  unknown  man,  who  did  not  know 
him,  and  had  no  intention  against  him,  shot  him, 
while  Jehoshaphat,  though  undisguised,  escaped 
unharmed.  The  arrow  which  struck  him  was  not 
warded  off  by  his  corselet,  but  just  struck  the 
narrow  opening  between  the  corselet  and  the  skirt, 
where  it  could  penetrate  and  inflict  a  fatal  wound 
Every  one,  therefore,  who  does  not  regard  all  in 


258 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


cidents  as  accidents,  must  recognize  the  hand 
which  guided  this  shaft.  The  words  of  the 
Psalmist  held  true  :  "  If  he  will  not  turn,  he  will 
whet  his  sword,  he  hath  bent  his  bow,  and  made 
it  ready.  He  hath  also  prepared  for  him  the 
instruments  of  death  ;  he  ordaineth  his  arrows 
against  the  persecutors"  (Ps.  vii.  12, 13).  Finally. 
Ahab  did  not  die  at  once,  but  at  evening,  in  eon- 
sequence  of  the  loss  of  blood.  His  blood  flowed 
down  in  the  chariot,  which  was  so  besmeared  by  it 
that  it  had  to  be  washed.  It  was  washed  at  the 
pool  before  the  city,  where  dogs  drank  and  har- 
lots bathed.  So  it  came  to  pass,  although  he  was 
buried  with  all  honor,  that  he  was  marked  in  his 
death  as  one  condemned  by  God,  and  Elijah's  word 
(chap.  xxi.  19)  was  fulfilled. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-38.  Ahab's  last  undertaking,  (a)  What 
led  him  to  it  (vers.  1^) ;  (i)  the  question  which  he 
put  to  the  prophets  in  regard  to  it  (vers.  6-2S) ; 
(c)  how  it  resulted  (vers.  29-38). — Vers.  1-4.  The 
coalition  of  the  two  kings,  (a)  It  is  proposed  by 
Ahab.  (He  aims  to  bring  about  the  war  under  an 
apparently  just  pretext,  whereas  he  was  himself  to 
blame  for  the  loss  of  Ramoth,  because  he  let  Ben- 
hadad  go.  So,  often,  strife  is  stirred  up  under  the 
pretext  of  a  just  occasion,  when  the  real  cause  is 
an  evil  and  godless  feeling.  Instead  of  using  the 
time  of  peace  for  peaceful  industry  the  restless  man 
begs  for  Jehoshaphat's  help  in  a  new  war.  He 
was  willing  to  borrow  Jehoshaphat's  aid  for  such 
an  undertaking,  but  did  not  care  to  borrow  any- 
thing of  his  piety.  [He  cunningly  proposed  the 
war  to  recover  Ramoth  at  a  time  when  Jehosh- 
aphat  was  on  a  visit  to  him,  and  was  most  anxious 
to  please  him.])  (b)  Jehoshaphat  agrees  to  it 
(without  due  consideration.  He  was  bribed  by 
Ahab's  friendly  reception  and  hospitality.  He  thus 
brought  himself  into  great  danger,  ver.  32.  We 
must  not  enter  into  alliances  with  men  like  Ahab, 
who  are  given  over  to  do  evil.  Still  less  ought  we 
to  form  relationships  with  them,  for  we  are  thus 
liable  to  be  led  into  ways  which  are  displeasing  to 
God  and  lead  to  ruin.  2  Chron.  xix.  2.  We  ought 
to  be  at  peace  with  all  men,  but  to  enter  into  alli- 
ances and  relationships  only  with  those  who  stand 
on  the  same  ground  with  us  as  regards  the  highest 
interests). — Ver.  1.  Starke:  God  gives  time  and 
place  for  repentance  even  to  the  greatest  sinners. 
If  they  will  not  repent  he  will  whet  his  sword  (Ps. 
vii.  12  and  13). — Ver.  3.  Wurt.  SlJMM. :  It  is  a 
misfortune  when  great  men  have  a  fondness  for 
war.  They  are  not  satisfied  when  they  must  be 
still,  but  seek  war  without  necessity  and  imperil 
their  country. — Pfapf'sche  Bibel:  Do  ye  not 
know  that  heaven  is  ours,  yet  we  be  still  I  So 
should  those  cry  out  to  their  hearers  who  are 
charged  with  the  cure  of  souls,  and  should  en- 
courage  them  to  take  the  kingdom  of  heaven  bv 
force  (.Mail,  xi.  12).— Ver.  5.  Wurt.  StJMM. :  We 
should  undertake  nothing  without  God's  approval, 
for  how  can  a  thing  prosper  in  which  God  does  not 
help?  Hence  we  ought  to  seek  counsel  of  God  in 
his  word  and  in  prayer,  and,  when  the  word  of  God 
does  not,  counsel  us  to  proceed  with  the  undertak- 
ing we  should  give  it  up,  satisfied  that  it  would  not 
succeed.  It  is  well  to  ask  God's  will,  but  do  it  al- 
ways before,  not  after  thou  hast  asked  >r  promised. 
— J.  Lanue-    It  often  happens  thus,  i  mau  deter- 


mines on  something  displeasing  to  God,  following 
his  own  notion,  and  then  convinces  himself  that  it 
is  according  to  God's  will.  Question  the  word  of 
God  I  the  best  counsellor  (a)  for  all  who  seek  truth 
and  are  tossed  about  by  doubts,  2  Peter  i.  19  ;  Ps 
xix.  8  sq. ;  (b)  for  all  who  seek  consolation  and 
peace  for  the  soul,  Ps.  cxix.  82,  92,  105 ;  Jer. 
xv.  16. 

Vers.  6-12.  The  congregation  of  prophets,  (a) 
The  question  which  Ahalj  submitted  to  them.  (He 
did  not  ask  in  the  simple  desire  to  learn  the  truth, 
and  submit  to  it,  but  to  obtain  divine  approval  be- 
fore the  world  for  that  which  he  had  already  de- 
termined on.  If  any  one  prophesies  to  him  in  any 
other  manner  he  becomes  angry  with  him.  The 
%vorld  demands  prophets,  but  calls  only  those 
"  good  preachers  "  whose  words  please'  its  ears,  2 
Tim.  iv.  3,  and  whose  words  are  not  a  hammer  to 
break  the  rock,  but  a  cradle-song  to  lure  to  sleep 
in  the  midst  of  vain  folly.)  (b)  The  answer  which 
the  assembled  prophets  gave  to  Ahab.  (The  an- 
swer did  not  proceed  from  the  spirit  of  truth  any 
more  than  the  question,  for  these  prophets  did  not 
stand  on  the  ground  of  the  divine  word.  He  who 
has  abandoned  God's  word  may  speak  as  finely  as 
he  will ;  he  is  a  false  prophet.  [This  holds  true  as 
well  of  the  dogmatist  as  of  the  rationalist.]  Ahab's 
prophets  say  to  him:  Go  and  prosper  1  He  goes 
and  falls  into  hell.  So  also  now  the  false  prophets 
promise  salvation  to  all  who  walk  in  the  broad  way, 
Ezek.  xiii.  18.  Therefore,  "  Believe  not  every 
spirit,  but  try  the  spirits,"  &c,  1  John  iv.  1). — Vers. 
7.  and  8.  In  many  a  city  and  country  where  there 
are  preachers  enough,  one  is  still  obliged  to  ask, 
as  Jehoshaphat  did :  "Is  there  not  here  a  prophet 
of  the  Lord  besides  ?  "  Is  there  not  one  who  pro- 
claims the  word  of  God  simply  and  purely,  without 
fear  or  favor  of  men,  and  who  can  say  what  Paiu 
says:  Gal.  i.  10?  There  was  indeed  one  other 
prophet  of  the  Lord  in  Samaria,  but  he  was  in 
prison,  and  the  king  was  hostile  to  him.  Starke: 
Pious  people  esteem  a  single  genuine  prophet  or 
preacher  more  than  four  hundred  false  ones. — Let 
not  the  king  say  so.  When  a  servant  of  God 
touches  thy  conscience,  say  not :  I  will  go  to  that 
church  no  more ;  I  do  not  like  that  preacher. — 
Starke  :  A  Christian  should  not  keep  silence  when 
the  godless  speak  sinfully,  but  interrupt  and  re- 
buke them.  The  Lord  did  so  on  the  cross  (Luke 
xxiii.  39). — Vers.  10-12.  Pfafp.  Bibel  :  There  is 
nothing  which  is  more  sinful  and  worthy  of  pun- 
ishment than  to  Hatter  the  great,  who  need  to  hear 
the  truth.  This  is  more  sinful,  however,  in  the 
clergy  than  in  others. — Berleb.  Bibel  :  Who  is 
not  disgusted  by  those  who  fashion  their  words  by 
popular  favor  ?  Yet  he  who  would  go  on  smoothly 
and  easily  and  prosperously  must  do  this.  Then 
he  will  not  meet  with  opposition,  nor  lose  his  place 
at  Jezebel's  table  (chap,  xviii.  19),  nor  his  other 
emoluments.  All  the  four  hundred  agreed  unan- 
imously, and  yet  their  prophecy  was  false.  In 
matters  of  divine  truth  it  matters  not  how  many 
agree.  Here  voices  ought  to  be  weighed,  not 
counted.  The  number  of  the  unbelieving  or  the 
superstitious  was  always  greater  than  that  of  the 
believers,  for  men  agree  in  error  or  falsehood  much 
more  easily  than  in  truth.  Be  not  deceived,  though 
thousands  may  think  and  say  the  same  thing,  a;.  I 
though  the  greatest  and  most  learned  may  be 
amongst  them,  but  cling  thou  to  the  word  of  Him 
who  has  said  .  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away 


CHAPTER  XXII.   1-40. 


259 


but  my  word  shall  not  pass  away." — Starke: 
Unanimity  of  opinion,  even  in  the  largest  congre- 
gations of  theologians,  is  not  always  a  proof  of 
truth,  for  a  great  company  may  err. 

Vers.  12-28.  Wurt.  Summ.  :  Here  we  see  the 
marks  of  the  true  and  false  prophets.  The  false 
teachers  say  what  is  popular,  so  as  to  enjoy  re- 
wards; they  rely  upon  their  number;  they  say 
that  they  have  God's  word,  though  they  have  it 
not,  and  claim  to  be  in  all  things  equal  to  the 
true  teachers;  they  dispute  more  with  blows  and 
screams  than  wTith  proofs  from  the  word  of  God  : 
they  are  held  in  high  esteem.  On  the  contrary, 
true  teachers  do  not  speak  to  please  anybody,  but 
they  preach  fearlessly  the  truth  of  God's  word, 
letting  it  strike  whom  it  will,  refusing  to  be  turned 
aside,  and  submitting  to  persecution.  Micaiah,  the 
type  of  a  true  prophet  (see  Histor.  §  4). — Vers.  13 
and  14.  Micaiah  on  his  way  to  the  king,  (a)  How 
he  was  tempted.  (The  witnesses  to  the  truth  often 
have  to  withstand  the  strongest  temptations  from 
those  who  appear  to  be  their  sincere  friends. 
They  are  begged  for  their  own  sakes,  and  for  the 
sake  of  those  who  depend  on  them,  not  to  oppose 
the  great  and  mighty,  and  not  to  declare  other 
teachers  false  prophets.  They  aro  told  that  their 
declarations  will  do  no  good,  but  will  only  excite 
enmity  against  them,  and  deprive  them  of  bread 
and  of  respect.  Cf.  Mark  viii.  32  sq.)  (b)  How 
he  repels  the  temptation.  (Neither  allurements  nor 
threats  can  turn  aside  a  faithful  servant  of  God 
from  the  word  of  the  Lord.  That  is  the  rock  on 
which  he  takes  his  stand,  the  sword  and  shield 
with  which  he  fights.  What  he  has  already  suf- 
fered has  not  made  him  submissive;  what  yet 
awaits  him  cannot  turn  him  aside.  All  other  con- 
siderations must  yield  to  the  duty  of  saying  what 
the  Lord  gives  him  to  say.  Acts  iv.  20.) — Ver.  13. 
Hall  :  Those  who  offer  earthly  good  as  an  induce- 
ment think  that  every  one  worships  their  idol. — 
Ver.  14.  Starke:  We  ought  to  be  firm  against 
allurements  and  not  let  ourselves  be  drawn  from 
the  truth  by  favor  or  disfavor.  What  the 
Lord  saith  unto  me  that  will  I  speak  ought 
to  be  the  vow  of  every  preacher  when  he  enters 
on  his  office,  (a)  What  pertains  to  the  fulfilment 
of  this  vow?  (Knowledge  of  the  truth,  power 
from  above,  prayer  for  the  gifts  of  the  spirit.  2 
Tim.  iv.  2  sq.)  (b)  What  is  promised  to  one  who 
makes  such  avow?  (Jer.  i.  8  sq. ;  Luke  xii.  12; 
Matt.  x.  10  ;  Dan.  xii.  3  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  8 ;  1  Peter  v.  4.) 
Vers.  15  and  16.  Berleb.  Bibel  :  This  is  a  won- 
derful thing.  People  demand  certain  ones  to  speak 
the  truth,  to  them,  yet  when  the  truth  is  spoken 
they  are  displeased  by  it.  How  many  demand 
the  truth,  yet  are  angry  when  they  hear  it. — 
Cramer  :  The  godless  often  ask  about  the  truth, 
not  in  order  to  make  themselves  better,  but  in 
order  to  spend  their  malice  on  the  pious  (Matt.  ii. 
3  sq. ;  xxvi.  63). — Hypocritical  questions  deserve 
no  earnest  answer,  but  only  such  a  one  as  may 
put  the  questioner  to  shame. — Starke  :  It  is  not 
wrong  to  sometimes  answer  the  fool  according  to 
his  folly,  but  with  wit,  in  order  to  make  him  bet- 
ter (Prov.  xxvi.  5). — Vers.  17-27.  Micaiah's  pre- 
diction, (a)  Its  contents,  in  their  refereuce  to  the 
king  (ver.  17),  and  to  the  four  hundred  prophets 
(vers.  19-23).  (b)  Its  reception  by  the  prophets 
{ver.  24)  and  by  the  king  (ver.  26-28). — Ver.  17. 
Kings  should  be  the  shepherds  of  the  people. 
Israel  had  in  Ahab  a  master,  but  not  a  shepherd. 


He  led  the  people  not  in  the  right  path,  but  astra; 
(Jer.  ii.  13).  It  is  the  greateat  misfortune  for  a 
people  when  it  has  no  leader  who  is  a  true  shep- 
herd.— Ver.  18.  Cramer:  The  godless  murmur 
against  preachers,  saying  that  they  can  do  noth- 

l  ing  but  scold,  but  they  do  not  murmur  against 
their  own  sins  (Lament,  iii.  39). — Vers.  19-23. 
The  truths  which  are  presented  to  us  by  the  pro- 

j  phet's  vision,  (a)  The  Lord  in  heaven  stands 
above  all  earthly  thrones.     He  appoints  and  de- 

|  poses  kings,  and  has  power  over  all  kingdoms  (Dan. 
ii.  21 ;  iv.  14;  1  Sam.  ii.  7).  Therefore  let  all  the 
earth  fear  him,  &c.  (Ps.  xxxiii.  8).  (6)  The  Lord 
is  pure  to  the  pure,  and  perverse  to  the  perverse. 
He  gives  over  the  perverse  and  hard-hearted  to 

I  the  judgment  of  obstinate  error ;  he  sends  mighty 

1  errors  to  inthrall  those  who  resist  the  truth  (John 
xii.    40;   2  Thess.  ii.  11;   Ex.   xiv.  4,   8).     There- 

I  fore  "  harden  not  your  hearts,"  Ac.  (Hebr.  iii.  8). 
— Ver.  21.  Pfaff:  It  is  a  great  judgment  of 
God  upon  a  country  when  he  allows  false  pro- 
phets to  lead  it  astray,  and  to  put  on  the  mask  of 
true  prophets.  It  is,  however,  a  judgment  which 
the  world  does  not  recognize  as  such. — Ver.  22. 
Kybcrz  :  He  who  seduces  others  is  himself  se- 
duced as  a  just  punishment.  Ahab  led  the  people 
from  God  to  Baal,  therefore  he  is  here  led  by  a 
false  oracle  to  march  out  upon  his  own  scaffold. 
That,  however,  is  the  mightiest  seduction  which 
is  brought  about  through  those  who  ordinarily 
stand  highest  in  authority, — the  prophets. — Vers. 
24-28.  Micaiah's  suffering  for  the  truth,  (a)  He  is 
publicly  insulted  by  Zedekiah  the  chief  of  the 
prophets  (Matt.  v.  11).  (b)  He  is  thrown  into  pri- 
son by  the  godless  king  Ahab  (1  Pet.  ii.  19),  (c) 
He  is  left  unprotected  by  the  pious  king  Jehosha- 
phat  (Matt.  xxtfi.  56).— Ver.  24.  Ktburz  :  When 
the  disputants  cannot  oppose  anything  to  the  truth, 
they  turn  to  blows  instead  of  arguments,  or  the 
controversy  ends  in  scolding,  and  calumny,  and 
blasphemy.  Those  are  the  weapons  which  are 
forged  in  hell  against  the  truth.  Let  every  one  who 
intends  to  speak  and  write  the  naked  truth  make  up 
his  mind  that  he  will  be  attacked  by  these  if  he 
disregards  the  favor  of  men.  This  salt  [the  truth] 
has  lost  nothing  of  its  savor;  it  bites  to-day  as  it 
did  3,000  years  ago. — Berleb.  Birel:  A  false 
light  makes  men  self-willed;  they  become  like 
those  who  stand  in  a  mist.  Each  one  sees  an 
open  light  space  about  himself,  but  seems  to  see 
that  every  other  is  enveloped  in  mist. — Hall  : 
None  boast  more  of  having  the  spirit  of  God  than 
those  who  have  it  not  at  all.  Vessels  which  are 
full  give  only  a  light  sound  or  none  at  all.  In 
vituperation  and  abuse  clerical  disputants,  to 
whom  it  is  least  becoming,  are  unfortunately  often 
most  vigorous.  By  their  sensitive  vanity,  which 
can  endure  no  contradiction,  their  envy,  their 
arrogance,  and  their  anger,  they  show  plainly  that 
they  have  not  the  spirit  of  God,  which  does  not 
dwell  in  an  arrogant  and  quarrelsome  and  self 
willed  heart,  but  in  a  humble  one.  and  its  fruit* 
are  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  &c.  (Gal. 
v.  22).  "  The  Lord  resisteth  the  proud."  Ver. 
25.  Cramer.  Those  who  are  boldest  in  pros- 
perity  generally  become  the  most  timid  when 
their  affairs  begin  to  decline  (Judges  ix.  38). — 
Vers.  26-28.  Ahab's  conduct  towards  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Truth,  (a)  It  was  tyrannical.  (There 
is  no  greater  tyranny  than  to  suppress  by  force  the 
divine  word  and  the  truth.)  (b)  It  was  foolish.   (We 


260 


THE  FIRST  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


cannot  accomplish  anything  against  the  truth,  2  Cor. 
xiii.  S.  We  can  put  the  advocates  of  it  in  prison,  but 
not  the  truth.  It  cannot  be  bound  in  chains,  nor 
starved.  It  escapes  and  spreads,  and  only  gains 
in  glory  by  our  attempts  to  oppress  it.) — Ver.  28. 
Starke  :  Threats  of  death  or  of  imprisonment 
may  not  frighten  a  true  servant  of  God  from  con- 
fessing the  truth  (Acts  v.  25-29). — He  who  makes 
a  good  confession  can  without  fear  call  all  the 
world  to  witness  it  (Matt.  x.  14).  Such  a  confes- 
sion always  leaves  a  sting  behind,  which  one  can 
never  again  get  rid  of  (ver.  30). 

Vers.  29-3S.  The  war  with  the  Syrians,  (a)  A 
war  which  was  undertaken  without,  nay,  even 
against,  God's  will,  and  therefore  with  no  good  con- 
science, (b)  An  unfortunate  war,  which  resulted 
in  danger  to  Jehoshaphat,  death  to  Ahab,  and 
rout  to  the  army. — The  two  kings  before,  in, 
and  after  the  battle. — Ver.  29.  So.  We  should  ex- 
pect :  "  So "  the  two  kings  abandoned  the  war. 
However  they  went,  one  out  of  self-will,  the 
other  out  of  weakness. — Calw.  Bib.  :  Men  do  far 
too  readily  what  they  want  to  do,  although  it  is 
contrary  to  God's  will,  putting  aside  God's  word, 
or  the  warnings  of  others,  or  the  voice  of  con- 
science. The  event  is  never  good.  How  often 
men  ask  for  advice,  yet  follow  their  own  will  only. 
Kyburz  :  Jehoshaphat's  example  ought  to  make 
us  shy  of  the  society  of  the  wicked.  The  sun  of 
grace  in  his  heart  became  gradually  dimmed.  At 
first  he  had  courage  to  remonstrate  with  Ahab, 
but  gradually  he  comes  to  silence  and  indifference, 
even  while  Micaiah  is  abused  and  remanded  to 
prison.  In  the  end  this  evil  companionship 
would  have  cost  him  his  life,  if  God  had  not  won- 
derfully interposed. — Ver.  30.  Unbelief,  in  Ahab, 
joined  hands  with  superstition.  The  king  despises 
and  rejects  the  word  of  God  which  is  announced 
to  him,  and  yet  he  is  frightened,  and  seeks  to  escape 
the  threatened   dangers    by  disguising    himself. 


This  stratagem  was  intended  to  prove  the  prophet 
false.  Neither  cunning  nor  might  avails  against 
God's  will.  Thou  mayest  disguise  thyself  as  thou 
wilt,  God  will  find  thee  when  and  where  no  man 
recognizes  thee  (Ps.  cxxxix.  7-12).  MiMi  ad 
fatum  venere  suum,  dum  fata  timent. — Ver.  32. 
Cramer:  God  sometimes  lets  his  children  come 
into  distress  and  danger  when  they  have  formed 
companionship  with  the  wicked,  but  he  saves 
them  again  through  His  goodness  and  might,  that 
they  may  be  the  more  careful  another  time. 
Into  what  distress  and  danger  one  is  thrown  by  a 
careless  promise  (ver.  4),  an  ill-timed  concession, 
and  the  false  shame  of  taking  back  one's  promise  I 
— Vers.  34  and  35.  If  not  a  sparrow  falls,  nor  a 
hair,  without  His  will,  how  much  less  can  an  arrow 
or  a  ball  strike  thee  unless  His  hand  guides  it. 
— Berleb.  Bib.  The  less  of  the  human  there  is  in 
those  things  which  we  commonly  call  accidents, 
the  more  there  is  of  the  divine.  The  weal  or  woe 
of  whole  nations  often  depends  on  those  things 
which  are  called  accidents. — Ver.  36.  Whatever 
any  men,  though  they  were  kings,  have  brought 
together  and  set  up,  without  God's  approval,  that 
is  certain  to  fall  to  pieces  and  perish  again. — 
Vers.  37  and  38.  Ahab's  end  (see  Bistor.  §6).  (a)  It 
was  sudden  (1  Sam.  xx.  3  ;  Luke  xii.  20.  From 
sudden  death,  good  Lord,  deliver  us).  (J)  It  was  un- 
repentant (without  conviction  of  sin,  or  repentance 
for  it,  or  longing  for  grace  and  pardon),  (c)  It  was 
shameful.  (He  was  indeed  buried  with  honor, 
like  the  rich  man,  Luke  xvi.,  but  the  dogs  lick 
his  blood,  and  his  memory  does  not  remain  in 
honor,  Ps.  lxxiii.  19.  Therefore,  Ps.  xc.  12;  xxxix. 
5.) — Starke  :  As  he  lived,  so  he  died ;  as  he  died, 
so  he  was  judged.  The  death  of  Ahab  is  a  testi- 
mony to  Rom.  xi.  33  ;  Gal.  vi.  7  ;  Isai.  xl.  8. — Vers 
39  and  40.  What  is  the  profit  of  leaving  behind  a 
great  and  grand  house,  if  one  has  not  set  one'i 
house  in  order  (Isai.  xxrviiL  1;  1  John  ii  17)  T 


PART    SECOND. 

[THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS,  INCLUDING  1  KINGS  XXII.  41-53.] 


SECOND  PERIOD,  SECOND  EPOCH. 


THIRD    SECTION. 

THE   KTNODOM   UNDER  JEHOSHAPHAT   IN   JUDAH,    AND   AHAZIAH  AND  JORAM   IN   ISRAEL 

(1  Kings  XXTT.  41—2  Kings  in.  37.) 


A. — Reigns  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Ahaziah. 
1  Kings  XXII.  41—2  Kings  I.  18. 

1  Kings  XXII.  41.  And  Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Asa  began  to  reign  over  Judah 

42  in  the  fourth  year  of  Ahab  king  of  Israel.  Jehoshaphat  was  thirty  and  five  years 
old  when  he  began  to  reign ;  and  he  reigned  twenty  and  five  years  in  Jerusalem. 

43  And  his  mother's  name  was  Azubah  the  daughter  of  Shilhi.  And  he  walked  in 
all  the  way  of  Asa  his  father;  he  turned  not  aside  from  it,  doing  that  which 
was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord:  nevertheless  the  high  places  were  not  taken 

44  away;  for  the  people  offered  and  burnt  incense  yet  in  the  high  places.     And 

45  Jehoshaphat  made  [was  at]  peace  with  the  king  of  Israel.  Now  the  rest  of  the 
acts  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  his  might  that  he  shewed,  and  how  he  warred,  are 

46  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  And  the 
remnant  of  the  sodomites,  which  remained  in  the  days  of  his  father  Asa,  he 

47  took  out  of  the  land.      There  was  then  no  king  in  Edorn :  a  deputy  icas  king. 

48  Jehoshaphat  made  ships  of  Tharshish  to  go  to  Ophir  for  gold :  but  they  went 

49  not :  for  the  ships  were  broken  [wrecked]  at  Ezion-geber.  Then  said  Ahaziah 
the  son  of  Ahab  unto  Jehoshaphat,  Let  my  servants  go  with  thy  servants  in 
the  ships.     But  Jehoshaphat  would  not. 

50  And  Jehoshaphat  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in 
the  eity  of  David  his  father :  and  Jehoram  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 

51  Ahaziah  the  son  of  Ahab  began  to  reign  over  Israel  in  Samaria  the  seven 
teenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah,  and  reigned  two  years  over  Israel. 

52  And  he  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  walked  in  the  way  of  his  father, 
and  in  the  way  of  his  mother,  and  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat, 

53  who  made  Israel  to  sin  :  For  he  served  Baal,  and  worshipped  him,  and  provoked 
to  anger  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  according  to  all  that  his  father  had  done. 

I 


THE 


SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS 


COMMONLY  CALLED 


THE  FOURTH   BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Chap.  I.  1-18. 


1  Then  Moab  rebelled  against  Israel  after  the  death  of  Ahab.     And  Ahi«siah 

2  fell  down  through  a  [window-]  lattice  in  his  upper  chamber  that  teas  in  Samaria, 
and  was  sick  :  and  he  sent  messengers,  and  said  unto  them,  Go,  inquire  of  Btial- 

3  zebub  the  god  of  Ekron  whether  I  shall  recover  of  this  disease.  But  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  *  said  to  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  Arise,  Go  up  to  meet  the  messengers 
of  the  king  of  Samaria,  and  say  unto  them,  Is  it  not  [omit  not]  because  there  is 
not  a  God  in  Israel,  that  ye  go  to  inquire  of  Baal-zebub  the  god  of  Ekron? 

4  Now  therefore  thus  saith  tlie  Lord,  Thou  shalt  not  come  down  from  that  bed  on 

5  which  thou  art  gone  up,  but  shalt  surely  die.  And  Elijah  departed.  And 
when  the  messengers  turned  back  unto  him,  he  said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye 

6  now  turned  back?  And  they  said  unto  him,  There  came  a  man  up  to  meet  us, 
and  said  unto  us,  Go,  turn  again  unto  the  king  that  sent  you,  and  say  unto  him, 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Is  it  not  [omit  not]  because  there  is  not  a  God  in  Israel,  that 
thou  sendest  to  inquire  of  Baal-zebub  the  god  of  Ekron?  therefore  thou  shalt 
not  come  down  from  that  bed  on  which  thou  art  gone  up,  but  shalt  surely  die. 

1  And  he  said  unto  them,  What  manner  of  man  was  he  which  came  up  to  meet 

8  you,  and  told  you  these  words?  And  they  answered  him,  lie  u-as  a  hairy  man, 
and  girt  with  a  girdle  of  leather  about  his  loins.  And  he  said,  It  is  Elijah  the 
Tishbite. 

9  Then  the  king  sent  unto  him  a  captain  of  fifty  with  his  fifty.  And  he 
went  up  to  him:    and,  behold,  he  sat  on  the  top  of  a  hill.      And  he  spake 

10  unto  him,  Thou  man  of  God,  the  king  hath  said,  Come  down.  And  Elijah 
answered  and  said  to  the  captain  of  fifty,  If  Ifea  man  of  God,  then  let  fire 
come  down   from   heaven,  and  consume  thee  and   thy  fifty.      And  there  came 

11  down  fire  from  heaven,  and  consumed  him  and  his  fifty.  Again  also  he  sent  unto 
him  another  captain  of  fifty  with  his  fifty.  And  he  answered  [lifted  up  his 
voice]'  and  said  unto  him,  0  man  of  God,  thus  hath  the  king  said,  Come  down 

12  quickly.  And  Elijah  answered  and  said  unto  them,  [him],"  If  [And  if]  I  be  a 
man  of  God,  let  fire  come  down  from  heaven,  and  consume  thee  and  thy  fifty. 
And  the  fire  of  God  came  down  from  heaven,  and  consumed   him  and  his  fifty. 

13  And  he  sent  again  a  [third]3  captain  of  the  third  [omit  the  third]  fifty  with  his 
fifty.  And  the  third  captain  of  fifty  went  up,  and  came  and  fell  on  his  knees 
before  Elijah,  and  besought  him,  and  said  unto  him,  O  man  of  God,  I  pray  thee, 
let  my  life,  and  the  life  of  these  fifty  thy  servants,  be  precious  in  thy  sight. 

14  Behold,  there  came  fire  down  from  heaven,  and  burnt  up  the  two  captains  of  the 
former  titties  with  their  fifties:  therefore  [but]  let  my  life  now  be  precious  in 

•  [The  correct  translation  of  rT)JT .  rendered  In  onr  version  by  Loed.  would  be  The  Eternal.    This  may  be  regarded  •• 
•  ■undlng  correction.] 


1  KINGS  XXIT.  41-53. 


l,'i 


16 


17 


thy  si^ht.  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  Elijah,  Go  down  with  him :' 
be  not  afraid  of  him.  And  he  arose,  and  went  down  with  him  unto  the  king. 
And  he  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Forasmuch  as  thou  hast  sent  mes- 
sengers to  inquire  of  Baal-zebub  the  god  of  Ekron,  is  it  not  [omit  not]  because 
there  is  no  God  in  Israel  to  inquire  of  his  word  ?  therefore  thou  shalt  not  come 
down  off  that  bed  on  which  thou  art  gone  up,  but  shalt  surely  die.  So  he 
died  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  Elijah  had  spoken.  And  Jehoram 
reigned  in  his  stead,  in  the  second  year  of  Jehoram  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat  king 
18  of  Judah;  because  he  had  no  son.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Ahaziah  which 
he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ? 


TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  11.— The  Sept.  [Cod.  Ales.]  hare  here  *<u  ivifiri,  «ai  iM\^mv,  so  that  they  read  ?$£!  for  ]V-1  ■  Thenius  and 
Kei!  adopt  this  reading,  citing  vers.  9  and  18. 

2  Ver.  12. — [Sept.  for  E^\<^  i  irpbs  aviov,  a  necessary  emendation. 

a  Ver.  13.— ['C'Vt"  must  be  read  for  QW  with  Thenius  and  Keil. 

4  Ver.  15.— [iniN  has  the  form  of  the  accusative  sign  with  suffix,  instead  of  WS  the  preposition.  The  distinction 
Is  not  observed  in  the  later  language.  Ewald,  Lehrbuch  d.  hebr.  Upr.  %  264,  b.  and  Ges.  g  103,  1.  R.  1.— The  suffix  in 
V33D  refers  to  the  king.— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  41.  And  Jehoshaphat,  the  son  of  Asa, 
Ac.  2  Chron.  xvii.-xxi.  gives  a  more  detailed  ac- 
count of  the  reign  of  this  king,  which  our  author 
here  treats  with  remarkable  brevity.  On  ver.  43, 
cf.  chap.  xv.  9  sq.  The  statement  iu  the  last  part 
of  ver.  43  is  not  contradictory  to  2  Chron.  xvii.  6, 
for  the  latter  place  refers  to  the  idolatrous  worship 
of  Baal  and  Astarte,  on  the  high  places  and  in  the 
groves,  while  here  the  author  is  speaking  of  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  upon  the  high  places,  as  in  2 
Chron.  xx.  33.  (Cf.  notes  on  chap.  ii. 3.)  Jehosha- 
phat had  peace  (ver.  44)  as  a  result  of  his  matri- 
monial alliance  with  Ahab  (2  Chron.  xviii.  1),  not 
only  with  that  king  himself,  but  also  with  his  suc- 
cessors, Ahaziah  and  Jehoram.  On  ver.  45,  cf. 
chap.  xv.  23,  and  on  ver.  46,  cf.  chap.  xiv.  24,  and 
chap.  xv.  12. 

Yer.  41.  There  was  then  no  king  in  Edom. 
This  observation  simply  serves  to  introduce  what 
the  author  desired  to  add,  in  vers.  48  and  49,  as 
especially  important,  from  the  history  of  the  reign 
of  Jehoshaphat.  As  Edom  at  that  time  had  no 
king  of  its  own,  but  merely  a  governor,  Jehosha- 
phat could  build  a  merchant-fleet  in  the  Edom  it  ic 
port,  Ezion-gebcr,  as  Solomon  had  done  before 
(chap.  ix.  26).  The  Edomites  had  been  subjugated 
by  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  14),  but  attempted,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Solomon,  to  regain  their 
independence  under  the  leadership  of  Hadad  (chap. 
xi.  14  sq.);  we  have  no  information  whether  at  all, 
or  to  what  extent,  this  attempt  succeeded.  Keil 
and  Ewald  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Edomites 
joined  themselves  to  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites 
>n  their  war  with  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron.  xx.  1  sq.), 
but  were  conquered  by  him,  and  then  placed  under 
a  governor.  There  is  not,  however,  the  slightest 
■nention  of  the  Edomites  in  2  Chron.  xx.  There 
is  just  as  little  foundation  for  the  supposition  of 
Thenius,  that  Hadad's  family  had  died  out  before 
the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  that  the  latter  prof- 


ited cunningly  by  the  quarrels  which  arose  about 
the  succession  to  re-establish  the  sovereignty  of 
Judah  over  Edom.  Only  this  much  is  certain,  that 
circumstances  had  arisen  in  Edom  under  Jehosha- 
phat which  brought  about  the  appointment  of  a 
governor,  and  rendered  possible  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  trade  with  Ophir,  which  had  existed 
in  the  most  nourishing  period  of  the  kingdom. — On 
Ophir  and  the  Ships  of  Tarshish,  see  notes  on  chap. 
x.  22.  The  latter  were  wrecked,  as  it  seems,  be- 
fore leaving  the  harbor  of  Ezion-geber,  by  a  storm. 
According  to  2  Chron.  xx.  35  sq.,  Jehoshaphat 
caused  these  ships  to  be  built  in  company  with 
Ahaziah,  and  the  prophet  Eliezer  interpreted  their 
destruction  to  him  as  a  divine  punishment  for  his 
connection  with  the  apostate  Ahaziah  (ver.  52) 
after  he  had  received  a  warning  on  account  of  his 
alliance  with  Ahab  (2  Chron.  xix.  2).  Probably 
he  hoped  and  believed  that  Ahaziah  had  better 
purposes  than  Ahab,  and  therefore  he  did  not  at 
first  reject  his  propositions.  When,  however,  Aha- 
ziah made  a  second  proposal  to  him  (ver.  49)  he 
declined  to  enter  into  it.  In  this  opinion  Keil  also 
now  agrees,  although  he  formerly  assumed  that 
the  ships  were  twice  destroyed — first,  those  which, 
according  to  the  passage  before  us,  were  destined 
for  the  voyage  to  Ophir,  and  then  those  which, 
according  to  2  Chron.  xx.  36,  were  intended  for 
that  to  Tarshish  (in  Spain).  The  death  of  Jehosh- 
aphat is  somewhat  anticipated  in  ver.  50,  for  2 
Chron.  iii.  7  sq.  relates  how  he  made  an  expedition 
against  the  Moabites  with  Jehoram,  the  successor 
of  Ahaziah. 

Ver.  51.  Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Ahab,  &c.  For 
the  chronological  statement:  "The  seventeenth 
year  of  Jehoshaphat,"  which  does  not  coincide 
with  the  duration  of  Ahab's  reign  (1  Kings  xvi. 
29),  and  the  commencement  of  Jehoshaphat's  reign 
(1  Kings  xxii.  41),  see  below,  on  2  Kings  viii.  16. — 
On  ver.  52,  cf.  chap.  xvi.  29-33. — On  the  ground- 
lessness of  the  division,  which  commences  the 
1  "  Second  book  of  the  Kings  "  after  ver.  53.  see  §  1 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


of  tho  Introdtu  tion.  Particularly  the  first  verse 
of  the  second  hook  stands  in  close  connection  with 
the  three  last  verses  of  the  first  book,  as  is  evident 
from  the  words  After  the  death  of  Ahab.  The 
death  of  this  king  and  the  accession  of  Ahaziah 
were  the  immediate  causes  of  the  attempt  of  the 
Moabites,  who  had  been  tributary  ever  since  the 
time  of  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  2),  to  separate  them- 
selves from  Israel.  We  must  therefore  put  this 
attempt  before  the  rest  which  is  related  in  regard 
to  Ahaziah,  especially  before  the  construction  of 
the  merchant-fleet,  which  he  attempted  in  com- 
pany with  Jehoshaphat.  War  with  the  revolted 
Moabites  did  not  break  out  under  Ahaziah,  who 
did  not  reign  for  even  two  full  years,  but  immedi- 
atelv  after  the  accession  of  his  successor,  Jehoram 
(chap.  hi.).  Keil  thinks  it  clear  that  the  revolt  of 
the  Moabites  followed  upon  their  alliance  with  the 
Ammonites,  which  is  narrated  in  2  Chron.  xx. 
This  alliance,  however,  was  directed  against  Je- 
hoshaphat and  Judah,  and  in  the  entire  account 
there  is  no  trace  whatever  that  Israel  took  part  in 
the  expedition  of  Jehoshaphat,  whereas  chap.  iii. 
4  sq.  treats  of  a  war  batween  Israel  and  the  Moab- 
ites. Piscator  correctly  states  the  connection  be- 
tween vers.  1  and  2  thus:  JSgrotavit,  ac  perinde 
nihil  contra  Moabitas  tentare potuit. 

Chap.  i.  ver.  2.  And  Ahaziah  fell  down 
through  a  (window-)  lattice,  &c.  Accordiug  to 
Ewald,  with  whom  Thenius  agrees,  the  passage 
(vers.  2-16)  does  not  come  from  the  same  author 
as  the  other  passages  which  treat  of  Elijah,  viz..  1 
Kings  xvii.  xviii.  and  xix.,  and  2  Kings  ii.  1-18,  but 
is  of  later  origin  than  these,  as  "  is  clear  from  the  dif- 
ference of  the  language  in  regard  to  the  descent  of 
fire  from  heaven  in  1  Kings  xviii.  38,  and  2  Kings  i. 
10-14,  not  to  speak  of  the  difference  in  the  nature 
of  the  contents  of  the  two  passages."  When  the 
narrative  is  correctly  accepted,  however,  this  latter 
diflerence  disappears.  Still  less  can  we  conclude, 
from  the  fact  that  i>Bj  is  used  of  the  descent  of 

-T 

firo  in  the  first  passage  and  "IT  in  the  second, 
that  they  have  different  authors. — ilDDE'  is  lat- 
tice-work, also  snare  (Job  xviii.  8).  It  can  hardli- 
ne that  we  have  here  to  think  of  the  balustrade 
of  the  flat  roof,  but  rather  of  the  window-opening, 
which  was  provided  with  a  lattice.  For  this 
interpretation  "IJQ  through    is   also  an  argument. 

We  may  suppose  that  he  leaned  too  far  out  through 
the  low  window,  although  he  does  not  seem  to  have 
fallen  very  far,  as  it  did  not  cost  him  his  life;  pos- 
sibly only  on  to  one  of  the  galleries  of  the  palace. 
That  this  took  place  on  the  occasion  of  a  drinking- 
bout  (Krummacher)  is  a  groundless  supposition. 
The  Sept.  render  Bual-zrbub  [mentioned  only  in 
this  passage  in  the  Old  Testament]  by  /Joo/.  fivtav 
8eA  'AxKap&v,  and  Pliny  says  (Hist  Nat.  10,  28): 
Cyrenaici  Achorem  Deum  (invocant)  viuscarum  mvl- 
tituiliue  pestileutiam  afferente  quae  protinus  intereunt 
postquam  litutum  est  iUi  Deo  He  is  therefore  the 
Baal  who  protects  against  the  flies,  which  cause 
sickness  and  other  calam'ties;  "Defender  against 
vermin,"  like  the  Zebc  airo/ivinc,  pviaypoc  of  the 
Klf-;ii!s  (Pausan.  viii.  26,  4).  Against  this  com- 
monly received  explanation  (Gesenius,  Movers, 
Ewald.  Winer,  ReaLWdrterbuch,  i.  s.  120).  J.  G. 
Mull<-r  (Herzog,  Encyc.  i.  s.  768),  with  whom  Keil 
agrees,  maintains  that  the  "Fly-god"  cannot  have 
nis  name  as  enemy  of  Hies,  but  that  he  was  TAvia 


0e6c,  i.  e.,  the  fly  as  god,  and  therefore  ti  idol  it 
the  form  of  a  fly.  "  who  must  have  stood  in  a  simi- 
lar relation  to  flies,  being  a  sun-god  and  si  turner- 
god,  as  the  oracle-god,  Apollo,  who  sent  and 
warded  oil'  sickness."  Stark  KGvza,  s.  260)  re- 
marks further :  "  They  (the  flies)  seem,  in  their 
appearance  and  disappearance,  which  depend  en 
tirely  upon  the  weather,  to  be  themselves  endowed 
with  some  prophetic  power."  This  view,  however, 
cannot  be  made  to  agree  with  the  words  of  Pliny, 
and  Ahaziah  was  certainly  anxious  not  only  for  an 
oracle,  but  also  at  the  same  time  and  especially  for 
recovery  from  his  illness  through  the  help  of  the 
Fly-god. — Ekron,  probably  the  present  Akir,  was 
the  northernmost  of  the  live  principal  cities  of  the 
Philistines  (Jos.  xiii.  3),  and  so  lay  nearest  to  the 
royal  residence.  Samaria.  [Cf.  Robinson's  Biblical 
Researches,  iii.  22-25.]  Following  Ephrem,  Vata- 
blus  remarks  that  Ahaziah  sent  to  the  Idol  at 
Ekron  by  the  advice  of  Jezebel. 

Ver.  3.  But  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  &c. 
"  Not  an  angel  but  the  angel  of  the  Lord  who 
makes  known  all  the  revelations  of  the  invisible 
God  to  the  covenant  people.  Cf.  Hengstenberg, 
Christologie,  1. 1,  s.  219-232."  (Keii.)  We  have  not  to 
think    of   any  external  appearances.      [n'   T\ti!712 

is  the  varying  form  under  which  God  reveals  him- 
self on  the  earth,  on  different  occasions.  Indeed,  im 
the  older  books  there  is  often  an  ambiguity  as  to 
which  is  meant,  God  himself  or  some  apparition, 
or  the  representations  vary  indifferently.  Cf.  Gen. 
xvi.  7,  10,  11  (yet  ver.  14,  "  God  of  my  sight,"  i.  e., 
"whom  I  have  seen");  xxi.  9  sq. ;  cf.  Gen.  xvii.  15 
sq.,  and  Gen.  xviii.  9-16.  In  Gen.  xxii.  notice  ver.  12, 
at  the  end,  "  from  me."  See  also  chap.  xxxi.  11  sq., 
and  espec.  ver.  13;  also  the  story  chap,  xxxii.  24-32, 
espec.  ver.  30.  Cf.,  further,  Ex.  iii.  2.  16,  18,  and 
iv.  Cm;.;  Ex.  xiii!  21,  and  xiv.  19;  Josh.  vi.  2;. 
Judges  vi.  12  sq.,  espec.  vers.  14,  16  and  23  ;  xiii.  22 
and^23.  The  latter  passages  seem  to  recognize 
the  distinction  more  clearly.  Judges  xiii.  16,  the 
angel  distinguishes  between  himself  and  God.  It 
follows  that  "  whenever  God  appears,  he  does  so 
in  an  angel,  and  whenever  an  angel  appears,  it  is 
God  who  appears  in  him  ;  so  that  appearances  of 
the  angel  and  appearances  of  God  are  the  same." 
Afterwards  this  method  of  revelation  gave  way  to 
that  of  the  prophets,  with  their  '•Thus  saith  the 
Lord !  "  In  the  poetical  books  we  find  a  personifica- 
tion of  wisdom,  out  of,  and  alongside  of  God,  (cf. 
Job  xxviii.  I.  and  all  culminates  in  the  logos-doctrine- 
of  St.  John.— W.  G.  S.]— Where  Elijah  was  then 
living  we  do  not  know.  Thenius  thinks  "  assuredly 
upon  Mount  Carmel;  "  but  that  is  contradicted  by 
the  words,  "  Go  up  to  meet  the  messengers  I  "  for 
Ekron  lay  to  the  south  and  Carmel  to  the  north  of 
Samaria,"  in  entirely  opposite  directions.  We 
should  have  to  suppose  thin  that  Elijah  started 
much  sooner,  and  came  to  meet  the  messengers 
immediately  upon  their  coming  out  of  Samaria. — 
And  Elijah  departed  (ver.  4|.  i.  e.,  he  did  as  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  had  commanded. 

Ver.  5.  And  when  the  messengers  turned 
back  unto  him,  &c.  They  must  have  received  a 
powerful  impression  from  the  personal  presence 
of  Elijah,  whom  they  did  not  know,  since  they  felt 
themselves  compelled  at  once  to  turn  back  and 
bring  information  to  their  master.  The  latter 
asks  them  in  astonishment :  Why  are  ye  now 
turned  back?   as   ■'    was   impossible    that  the? 


CHAPTER  I.  1-18. 


could  have  been  in  Ekron.  On  the  words  that  ye 
go  (ver.  3),  for  which  they  say  in  ver.  6  that  thou 
sendest,  Menken  remarks,  "  They  lay  the  blame 
entirely  upon  the  king.  The  prophet,  however, 
had  spoken  in  such  a  way  that  they  might  observe 
that  they  also  had  incurred  guilt,  and  had  made 
themselves  accomplices  in  another's  crime." — 
CStTO   (ver.   7)   is   not    exactly  Jujura   et  habitus 

(Vuigata),  but  the  law  or  rule,  as  that  which 
defines  the  entire  personality,  "the  life-rule  of 
the  individual  person''  (Keilj,  his  peculiarity,  by 
virtue  of  which  he  is  distinguished,  and  by  which 
he  may  be   recognized.     That  -|JJ{5>  '?JQ  L'"X  does 

not  mean  "  long  hair  covered  his  head  "  (Ewald ).  is 
clear  from  the  description  of  the  later  Elijah  (Matt, 
iii.  4).  The  vir  pilosus,  hirsutus  is  the  man  who  is 
clothed  in  a  hairy  (black)  garment.  Such  was  the 
peculiar  dress  of  the  prophets  as  preachers  of  re- 
pentance, and  it  was  called  (cf.  Zech.  xiii.  4) 
"IV"'  JTHN  •  it  appears  that  this  costume  com- 
menced with  Elijah,  who  was  the  type  of  all  fol- 
lowing teachers  of  repentance,  and  that  he  was 
distinguished  among  the  prophets  of  his  time  by 
means  of  it.  (The  400  prophets  of  Ahab,  1  Kings 
xxii.  6,  certainly  did  not  wear  this  dress.)  The 
girdle,  generally  the  most  expensive  article  of 
dress  and  the  emblem  of  office,  was  made  of 
leather  only  in  the  case  of  the  poor  and  low 
(Winer,  K.-W.-B.  i.  s.  448).  In  the  case  of  the 
prophet  the  leather  girdle  signified  self-denial  and 
contempt  for  worldly  ornament  and  grandeur,  so 
that  it  corresponded  perfectly  to  the  coarse  gar- 
ment of  hair  (cf.  the  contrast,  Matt.  xi.  8),  Hebr. 
xi.  37. 

Ver.  9.  Then  the  king  sent,  &c.  Elijah  had 
immediately  withdrawn  again,  whether  unto  Car- 
mel  remains  uncertain ;  but  certainly  Ahaziah 
must  have  discovered  his  place  of  abode.  The 
hostile  intention  of  the  king  shows  itself  in  the 
sending  of  soldiers ;  certainly  some  act  of  violence 
was  proposed.  Perhaps  he  feared  lest  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  prophets,  or  other  adherents  of 
Elijah,  might  offer  resistance.  Ewald  thinks  he 
was  going  "  to  have  him  brought  down  and  then 
(as,  of  course,  is  clear)  executed."  The  army  of 
Israel  was  divided  up  into  bodies  of  1,000,  100,  and 
50  (Num.  xxxi.  14,48;  1  Sam.  viii.  12),  each  of 
which  had  its  own  leader,  -|[J»  (Winer,  i.  *.  683). 

The  address  of  the  leader  has  a  military  sound : 
Thou  man  of  God,  the  king  hath  said,  Come 
down!  That  the  designation,  "Man  of  God," 
was,  in  his  mouth,  not  conviction,  but  scorn,  is 
shown  by  the  haughty  and  dictatorial  "  Come 
down  I "  (nil).     The  "  and  "  with  which  the  answer 

of  Elijah  begins  (ver.  10)  must  not  be  omitted,  as 
it  is  in  the  Vulg.  and  Luther,  "since  Elijah  is 
thought  of  in  this  first  answer  (otherwise  in 
ver.  12)  as  joining  his  speech  immediately  to  that 
of  the  captain "  (Thenius).  The  sense  of  the 
answer  is:  Thou  callest  me  contemptuously  and 
BComngly  "  man  of  God ;  "  but  the  Lord  will  show 
thee  that  I  am  such — thou  shalt  experience  it. 
[Patrick  quotes  a  gloss  of  Abarbinel  to  this  effect : 
"  If  I  be  a  man  of  God,  as  thou  sayest,  but  dost 
not  think,  then  I  am  not  bound  to  obey  the  king 
but  God,  nor  am  I  subject  to  his  power,  but  to 
God's,  who  will  make  thee  know  that  He  judges  in 
the  earth."] — [And  there  came  down  fire  from 


heaven,  &c.  These  words  do  not  convey  an  intelli- 
gible description  of  any  physical  event  of  which  w« 
can  conceive.  If  we  try  to  realize  the  incident  in 
imagination  we  find  it  impossible.  It  is  not  the 
ordinary  difficulty  which  attaches  to  an  ordinary 
miracle.  There  we  cannot  tell  how  a  thing  came 
to  pass,  though  we  can  see  what  the  record  meana 
to  assert.  We  can  imagine  that  a  man  who  nevei 
had  spoken  should  open  his  mouth  and  speak, 
though  we  cannot  conceive  how  he  could  be 
enabled  to  do  so.  Here,  however,  the  words  do 
not  describe  any  external  phenomenon  vhich  ia. 
conceivable,  not  to  say  anything  about  the  diffi- 
culty  which  attaches  to  every  miracle  of  seeing, 
how  it  was  done.  We  cannot  tell  what  the  author 
means  to  assert  to  have  come  to  pass,  for  the 
words  by  which  he  refers  to  it  do  not  give  us  at 
sufficient  description  of  it.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  they  refer  back  vaguely  to  a  terrible  judg- 
ment, the  accurate  literal  details  of  which  were- 
lost.  It  was  only  thus  remembered  as  something 
strange,  shocking,  and  supernatural.  See  Histor. 
,5  .7.  where  Bahr  seems  inclined  to  take  the  statement 
figuratively,  as  a  designation  of  the  vengeance  of 
God. — W.G.  S.]  The  second  captain  who  was 
sent  (ver.  11)  surpasses  the  first,  instead  of  taking 
warning  by  his  fate,  in  that  he  adds  to  the  "Come 
down!"  rnno,   "quickly,"  thereby  insinuating  a 

threat.  How  the  king  received  information  of  the 
destruction  of  his  two  expeditions  we  cannot  de- 
termine, as  no  hint  is  given  of  it.  The  Berleburger 
Bibel  says  that  the  people  of  the  neighborhood 
acquainted  him  with  it. — D'C'^i."  in  ver.  13  cannot 

mean  "  for  the  third  time  "  (de  Wette).  If  it  cannot 
be  referred  to  the  fifty,  as  Keil  explained  it  in  his 
earlier  edition,  then  we  must  read  *ltfcy)  as  Thenius 

does,  i.e.,  "a  third,"  according  to  the  story  which 
immediately  follows. — Afraid  of  him  (ver.  1.7).  i.  c, 
not,  as  Thenius  would  have  it  taken,  "of  the 
captain,"  but  "of  the  king"  (Seb.  Smith,  Ked),  for 
it  is  clear  that  VJ3D  is  opposed  to  iflis .     He  goes 

down  with  him  to  the  king.  One  would  be  glad 
to  learn  something  more  about  the  meeting  of 
Elijah  and  Ahaziah,  but  the  account  is  here  (vers. 
1(5  and  17),  as  in  fact  throughout,  very  brief  and 
even  disjointed.  On  that  very  account,  however, 
it  is  the  more  pregnant,  and  bears  the  more  dis- 
tinctly the  character  of  genuineness  and  originality. 
In  later  times  events  were  not  narrated  in  such 
compressed  form.  Here,  just  as  in  other  cases, 
Elijah  reappears  suddenly,  and  disappears  again 
and  no  one  knows  whence  he  comes  d 
whither  he  goes.  The  manner  in  whicj. 
Krummacher  delineates  Elijah's  meeting  with 
Ahaziah  (Elias  der  Thisb.,s.  347)  is  indeed  capti- 
vating, but,  nevertheless,  entirely  arbitrary. — In 
ver.  17,  the  Sept.,  the  Syriac  version,  and  the 
Vulgata  add  after  "  Jehoram,"  "  his  brother."  ( (  f 
chap.  iii.  1,  where  he  is  called  the  son  of  Ahab. 
On  the  date  ofhis  succession,  In  the  second  yeai 
of  Jehoram,  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  it  ia 
extremely  difficult  to  fix,  see  notes  on  2  Kings, 
viii.  16. 

HISTORICAL    AND    ETHICAL. 

1.  The  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  was  a  very  suc<  eag- 
ful  and  prosperous  one  for  Judah,  both  inten  all? 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


and  externally,  as  is  clear  from  the  detailed  ac- 
count of  the  Chronicles.  The  author  does  not 
enter  more  particularly  into  the  details  of  its  his- 
tory, evidently  because  from  the  time  of  the  divi- 
sion of  the  kingdom  on,  his  main  object  was  rather 
to  give  a  representation  of  the  monarchy  in  Israel 
until  its  downfall.  "When,  however,  after  a  more 
general  description  of  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  he 
states  that  that  king  caused  ships  to  be  built  which 
were  intended  to  bring  gold  from  Ophir  (vers. 
48—50),  that  is  not  a  disconnected  statement 
which  was  inserted  accidentally  or  arbitrarily,  but 
it  stands  in  immediate  connection  with  the  preced- 
ing general  characterization,  and  supplements  it  in 
an  essential  point.  One  cannot  fail  to  recognize 
that  there  is  therein  a  reference  back  to  the  time 
of  Solomon,  who  first  established  a  regular  com- 
merce with  Ophir,  and  by  that,  as  a  principal 
means,  laid  the  foundation  for  the  wealth  and 
prosperity  of  his  kingdom  (chap.  ix.  26-28 ;  x. 
11,  22  sq.;  2  Chron.  ix.  21  sq.).  Jehoshaphat's  aim, 
after  he  had  established  legal  order  in  his  dotniu- 
ions  as  far  as  possible,  reduced  the  neighboring 
peoples  to  subjection  again,  and  concluded  peace 
with  the  brother  kingdom,  was  to  restore  those 
times  of  prosperity,  and  to  bring  his  realm  up  to 
the  height  of  that  of  Solomon  once  more.  The 
glory  of  the  kingdom,  however,  as  it  had  existed 
under  Solomon,  was,  according  to  the  purpose  of 
God,  forever  gone  by  (see  1  Kings  xii. ;  Histor.  §  2). 
Its  return  was  not  a  part  of  the  divine  plan  of  sal- 
vation, and  every  human  attempt  to  restore  it  must 
necessarily  fail.  The  fleet  of  Jehoshaphat  went 
down  in  the  harbor  of  Ezion-geber,  even  before  it 
had  sailed  out,  and  that,  too,  not  by  human  fault, 
but  by  a  storm,  that  is  to  say,  by  a  dispensation 
of  God. 

2.  As  regards  his  relation  to  Jehovah,  which  was 
the  main  point  for  every  Israelitish  king,  Ahaziah 
was  one  of  the  very  worst  of  them.  This  is 
marked,  in  the  general  description,  by  the  fact 
that  it  is  said  of  him,  not  only  that  "  he  did  evil  in 
the  sight  of  the  Lord,"  and  "  walked  in  the  ways 
of  Jeroboam,"  but  that  it  is  also  added,  "in  the  way 
of  his  father,"  nay  even  also  (which  is  observed  of 
no  other  king),  "  in  the  way  of  his  mother,"  the 
fanatical,  idolatrous,  and  bloodthirsty  Jezebel,  who 
was  still  living,  and  perhaps  controlled  him  even 
more  than  she  had  controlled  his  father.  All  the  acts 
of  God  during  the  reign  of  his  father,  of  which  he 
had  been  eye-vi  ^ness  and  ear-witness,  the  proofs  of 
God's  power,  long-suffering,  and  justice,  even  the 
tragical  end  of  Ahab,  had  made  no  impression  upon 
him.  All  had  passed  by  him,  and  left  no  effect 
behind.  For  this  very  reason,  then,  in  the  first 
place,  he  is  worse  than  Ahab.  That  he  surpassed 
him  in  his  alienation  from  Jehovah  became  appa- 
rent at  the  approach  of  his  early  death.  So  far 
from  being  brought  to  his  senses  by  the  unfortu- 
nate accident  which  ultimately  caused  his  death, 
and  seeking  refuge  in  the  God  of  his  fathers,  lie 
sent  messengers  to  a  foreign  divinity  to  seek 
counsel  and  help  from  him.  He  thereby  trail- 
er' ed  not  only  the  general  and  chief  com- 
mandment (Ex.  xx.  3),  but  also  the  special 
commandment  (Levit.  xix.  31;  xx.  6,  21;  Deut. 
xviii.  10  and  11),  which  threatened  with  ex- 
termination those  wh.>  questioned  soothsayers 
and  wizards.  That  was  a  public  and  practical 
declaration  that  he  esteemed  the  Fly-god  of  the 
rnilistinos  above  the  living  God  of  Israel :  and  it 


was  a  formal  degradation  and  contempt,  even  an 
insult,  of  the  latter.  Such  a  crime  had  not  pre- 
viously been  committed  by  a  king,  and,  if  ever, 
then  certainly  now,  the  time  was  come  for  the 
zealous  defender  of  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israe' 
to  "break  forth  like  a  fire"  (Sirach  xlviii.  1)  from 
his  concealment,  and  to  announce  to  the  bold 
scoffer  the  divine  retribution.  Even  this  terrible 
announcement,  however,  was  not  sufficient  to  hum- 
ble the  dying  man  or  to  bring  him  to  repentance; 
it  rather  embittered  him  and  filled  him  with  anger, 
and  even  with  plans  of  murder.  He  sends  out  a 
band  of  myrmidons,  in  order  to  get  possession  of 
the  person  of  the  prophet,  and  when  these  meet 
with  a  frightful  fate,  he  does  not  even  yet  recog- 
nize in  it  the  hand  of  the  Almighty,  tut,  with  a 
display  of  impotent  stubbornness,  sends  out  a  new 
band  of  men.  But  neither  does  the  destruction  of 
this  company  also  bend  his  hard  and  stubborn  dispo- 
sition ;  he  sends  out  a  third  time  a  band  of  soldiers. 
All  this  he  does  while  on  his  death-bed.  face  to 
face  with  death,  so  completely  has  all  reverence 
for  what  is  sacred  abandoned  him,  and  been  sup- 
planted by  a  stubbornness  and  wilfulness  which 
exiends  even  to  madness.  Ahab  even  had  bowed 
lrivself  and  humbled  himself  (1  Kings  xxi.  27) 
when  Elijah  announced  to  him  the  judgment  of 
God ;  Jeroboam  even  sent,  when  his  son  was  sick, 
to  the  prophet  Ahijah  (1  Kings  xiv.  2);  but 
Ahaziah  perseveres  in  his  senseless  perversity,  and 
si i  falls  far  below  both  of  these.  At  last,  however, 
he  is  obliged  to  hear  his  condemnation  from  the 
mouth  of  the  prophet,  when  he  is,  as  it  were,  bound 
hand  and  foot,  and  only  death  overcomes  his  stub- 
born heart. 

3.  The  Prophet  Elijah  appears  in  general  here, 
just  as  he  always  has  up  to  this  point,  as  the  av?)p 
~l " ', H T'K ovvarbc £ v e p) <j  nal  hv  ?.6}g)  [cf.  Luke  xxiv. 
19).  He  steps  forth  suddenly  from  obscurity,  "as 
it  were  borne  on  by  the  storm,  with  his  fiery 
strength  and  his  fierj"  tongue "  iF.wald).  His 
weighty,  irresistible  personality,  and  his  forcible, 
energetic  speech,  make  such  an  impression  on  the 
messengers  of  the  king,  who  do  not  know  him 
(ver.  8),  that  they  do  not  dare  to  carry  out  the 
orders  of  their  despotic  master,  but  turn  back 
without  further  actior..  As  always,  so  also  here, 
"  when  they  sought  to  seize  him  and  make  him  a 
prisoner,  he  was  not  to  be  reached ; "  the  emissaries 
came  to  disgrace.  Without  fear,  courageous  and 
unterrified,  he  appears  before  the  king  himself,  as 
he  had  once  done  before  his  father,  and  announces 
to  the  fixed  and  stubborn  man  his  approaching 
death.  Moreover,  in  this  case,  where  lie  has  tc 
deal  with  apostasy  in  its  extremest  form,  one  side 
of  his  peculiar  calling  and  position  in  the  historical 
development  of  the  plan  of  salvation^comes  into  es- 
pecial relief,  namely,  the  function  of  avenging  judge. 
As  the  second  Moses,  and  second  founder  of  the 
broken  covenant,  it  was  his  task,  before  all  else, 
to  bear  witness,  both  by  word  and  deed,  to  the 
wrath  and  fiery  jealousy  of  God  against  anything 
idolati'nus  (see  above,  the  Historical  notes  on  1  Kings 
wii.  §  1).  He  is  the  representative  and  instru- 
ment of  the  jealousy  of  the  divine  Judge,  the 
herald  of  the  divine  retributive  justice,  and  on  that 
aocount  the  prototype  of  all  the  forerunners  of  the 
great  and  terrible  day  of  judgment  (Mai.  iv.  5) 
so  that  Sirach  (xlviii.  10),  at  the  end  of  his  eulogy 
of  him,  says:  o  naraypaipnc  iv  i'/ey/toic  elf  Ktupovt 
K"-aoni  bpyijv  Trpb  tivpuv.     It  is  characterist  c  tha» 


CHAPTER  I.   1-18. 


Elijah  finishes  his  public  activity,  wbnh  had  been 
directed  against  apostasy,  by  an  act  in  the  ca- 
pacity of  a  judge,  and  thereby  seals,  as  it  were, 
the  position  which  he  occupies  in  the  history  of 
salvation. 

4.  The  two  leaders  who  perish,  together  with  their 
soldiers,  are  not  to  be  considered  "  simply  as  tools 
of  a  will  which  opposed  itself  to  Jehovah :"  so  that 
"  the  question  whether  their  fate  was  a  just  punish- 
ment or  not  is  an  idle  one  "  (Thenius).  On  the 
contrary,  they  participated  in  the  feelings  of  their 
master  (ovfi  laivovrec  ru  oKoiriji  rrl  -e-ouctoroc,  says 
Theodoret  justly),  as  is  seen  from  the  fact  that 
they,  as  faithful  myrmidons  of  their  abandoned 
master,  scoff  at  the  greatest  of  all  prophets,  whom 
they,  too,  know  to  be  such.  They  despised  in 
him  the  holy  and  almighty  God  of  Israel,  whose 
servant  he  was.  The  third  captain  was  also  a 
"  tool "  of  the  king ;  but  he  did  not  share  in  his 
feelings,  and  was  spared  just  on  that  account. 
AVhereas  in  his  case  the  address,  "Man  of  Sod," 
was  an  expression  of  conviction  and  respect,  it 
had  been  conscious,  intentional,  and  insolent  con- 
tempt in  the  mouth  of  both  the  others.  They  arc 
representatives  of  the  apparent  power  of  the 
apostate,  godless  monarchy,  which  seeks  to  op- 
pose the  divine  purpose  by  human  power,  and 
which,  when  it  has  already  experienced  the  use- 
lessness  of  opposition,  nevertheless  still  perseveres 
in  its  criminal  obstinacy,  until  it  proves  its  own 
impotence,  and  then  finally  perishes.  That  was 
destined  to  hold  good  here,  which  Moses  once  said 
in  a  similar  case  :  "  And  in  the  greatness  of  thine 
excellency  thou  hast  overthrown  those  that  rose 
up  against  thee :  thou  sentest  forth  thy  wrath, 
which  consumed  them  as  stubble"  (Exod.  xv.  7); 
and  also  what  Isaiah  prophesied  of  the  astrologers, 
&c,  of  Babylon :  "  Behold  they  shall  be  as  stub- 
ble ;  the  tire  shall  burn  them ;  they  shall  not  de- 
liver themselves  from  the  power  of  the  flame." 

5.  The  conduct  of  Elijah  towards  the  captains  has 
given  offence  on  the  supposition  of  their  innocence, 
and  has  been  made  a  ground  of  blame  against  the 
prophet.  Winer  (It-  W.-B.  i.  s.  31S)  fails  to  find  the 
"moral"  of  it,  and  Ewald  (Geschichte  Israels,  iii. 
s.  546 ;  3d  ed.,  s.  588)  sees  in  this  aotion  a  proof 
that  this  narrative  springs  from  a  much  later  time 
than  the  other  ones  about  Elijah,  i.  e.,  from  a  time 
when  the  history  of  the  prophet  had  been  ex- 
panded beyond  the  limits  which  had  been  observed 
earlier,  and  had  been  moidded  in  more  and  more 
gigantic  proportions,  and  in  a  much  stiffer  manner ; 
so  that  "one  might  almost  say  that  a  Brahminic- 
Indian  legend  upon  the  acts  of  some  Jogin  had 
been  produced  from  it."  Even  in  earlier  times  it 
seems  to  have  been  believed  that  Christ,  at  least 
indirectly,  expressed  disapproval  of  Elijah  (Luke 
IX.  55)  when  he  rebuked  (i-sriu?/ae)  his  disciples 
who  wished  to  do  wc  nal  'HXtac  .'-nit/ce,  so  that 
these  words  are  omitted  in  some  otherwise  impor- 
tant manuscripts,  and  in  the  Vulgata,  in  order  not 
to  endanger  the  reputation  of  the  prophet.  This 
view  rests,  however,  upon  an  entire  misconception 
of  the  narrative  before  us,  and  of  the  relation 
between  the  economy  of  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments.  For  we  have  here  not  the  act  of 
revenge  of  a  prophet  who  was  instigated  by  per- 
sonal jealousy,  but  an  act  of  divine  judgment,  and 
a  revelation  of  God's  wrath  against  all  godlessness 
.and  wickedness  of  men,  who  "  hold  the  truth  in 
unrighteousness  "  [restrain  the  truth  in  a  spirit  of 


unrighteousness].  (Rom.  i.  18;  ii.  5).  All  judg- 
ments of  God  are  represented  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  a  consuming  fire  (Num.  xi.  1  ;  xvi.  35 ; 
Deut.  xxxii.  22;  Ps.  xxi.  9  sq. ;  Isai.  xxvi.  11: 
Ezek.  xv.  G  and  7 ;  Job  xx.  26,  kc).  He  himself 
even,  in  His  retributive  justice,  is  called  a  consum- 
ing fire  (Deut.  iv.  24 ;  ix.  3 ;  cf.  Heb.  xii.  29 ;  x  27). 
It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  in  accordance  with  the 
concrete  and  literal  character  which  the  Old 
Testament  economy  bears  throughout,  that  this 
actual  fire  should  be  the  form  of  revelation  of 
the  divine  wrath,  so  that  in  many  places  we  can 
hardly  distinguish  whether  it  is  intendtd  to  be 
taken  literally  or  figuratively.  Just  as  cuce  the 
rebellious  host  of  Korah  was  consumed  by  fire, 
and  so  Moses'  authority,  as  the  servant  of  God, 
was  ratified  (Num.  xvi.  35),  so  the  scoffing 
band  of  the  idolatrous  Ahaziah  perished,  and 
thereby  the  second  Moses  was  corroborated  as 
the  man  of  God.  As  an  act  of  divine  judgment 
this  catastrophe  lacks  "moral"  so  little  that  it  is 
rather  a  revelation  of  the  highest  moral  intensity 
— a  testimony  to  the  unchangeable  justice  and 
holiness  of  God.  Whoever  finds  it  shocking  must 
be  still  more  shocked  at  the  prophetic  declaration 
— "  God  is  jealous  and  the  Lord  revengeth ;  the 
Lord  revengeth  and  is  furious ;  the  Lord  will  take 
vengeance  on  His  adversaries,  and  He  reserveth 
wrath  for  His  enemies.  Who  can  stand  before 
His  indignation  ?  and  who  can  abide  in  the  fierce- 
ness of  His  anger?  His  fury  is  poured  out  like 
fire,  and  the  rocks  are  thrown  down  by  Him" 
(Xahum  i.  2-6).  Christ  does  not  blame  Elijah, 
but  His  disciples,  because  in  their  dissatisfaction, 
which  was  just  enough  in  itself,  they  did  not  dis- 
tinguish between  the  time  of  Elijah  and  the  time 
which  had  begun  with  Him,  the  promised  Son  of 
Man  and  aurr/fi,  and  entirely  mistook  Him,  that  is 
to  say,  His  calling  and  station  in  the  plan  of  re- 
demption, as  contrasted  with  that  of  Elijah.  Men- 
ken remarks  on  the  passage  before  us :  "  Any  one 
who  is  acquainted,  even  in  a  slight  degree,  with 
the  theocratical  constitution  of  Israel ;  any  one  who 
sees  how  necessary  such  acts  of  God  and  of  His 
prophets  were,  for  the  confusion  and  overthrow  of 
idol-worship,  and  for  the  foundation  and  conser- 
vation of  the  knowledge  and  adoration  of  the 
one  sole  living  God ;  any  one  who  has  a  genuine 
love  to  God,  and  a  zeal  that  the  name  of  God  shall 
be  kept  holy  upon  earth :  such  an  one  will  not  be 
repelled  by  this  action  of  God  and  His  prophet. 
Many,  however,  with  whom  this  is  not  the  case, 
who,  themselves  indifferent  towards  God  and  His 
kingdom,  would  gladly  have  all  dispositions  of 
men  towards  God  regarded  as  insignificant,  have 
been  repelled  by  it;  they  have  imputed  to  the 
prophet  therein  a  carnal  and  unholy  violence,  and 
an   angry-spirited   and    revengeful    jealousy,   and 

have  blamed  him  accordingly Elijah  might 

do  much  which  was  not  becoming  for  Jesus  the 

suffering  Lamb  of  God In  his  position  and 

in  his  time  he  had  to  be  rather  terrible  and  grand 
than  mild  and  lovely;  he  had  to  punish,  condemn, 
and  revenge,  rather   than  to  teach,  forgive,  and 

console His  calling  was  to  be,  not  a  fire  to 

warm,  but  a  consuming  flame  against  unrighteous- 
ness and  godlessness." 

6.  To  try  to  explain  and  do  away  with  what  it 
miraculous  in  this  narrative  is  vain  labor,  as  it  is 
in  other  and  similar  cases.  The  naturalistic  expla- 
nation, which  points  to  lightning  or  the  fiery  wind- 


TEE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


simoom,  or  to  a  forcible  scattering  of  the  troops 
by  the  numerous  "sous  [disciples]  of  the  pro- 
phets" {ExegeL  Eandbuch  on  the  passage),  has 
indeed  been  abandoned ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  entire  story  has  been  explained  as  mythical  or 
legendary,  and  referece  has  been  made  to  "  pa- 
rallel passages  in  the  classics."  "  When  the 
Persians  advance  against  the  temple  at  Delphi, 
lightnings  descend  from  heaven  upon  them  (Herod 
viii.  37) ;  and  when  the  Gauls  under  Brennus  are 
going  to  storm  Delphi,  there  occurs  an  earthquake 
with  storm  and  hail,  whereby  great  destruction  is 
caused  among  them  (Justin,  xxiv.  8)."  The  legend 
"  expresses  only  the  general  idea  that  the  Divinity 
protects  His  favorites  at  all  times,  even  by  unusual 
means,  and  hears  their  prayers  even  when  they  ask 
for  what  is  extraordinary  "  (Knobel,  Prophet  der 
Uebraer,  ii.  s.  82  ;  Rbdiger,  Ball.  Encyc,  i.  33,  s.  322). 
This  view  fails  utterly  to  perceive,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  thing  to  be  accomplished  here  is  a  judg- 
ment upon  the  apostate  and  stubborn  king  and  his 
emissaries,  and  that  the  protection  which  is  given 
to  Elijah  is  only  a  subordinate  matter.  What 
necessity  was  there  then  for  just  such  a  judgment, 
if  nothing  more  was  to  be  expressed  by  it  than  this 
general  idea,  which  might  have  been  affirmed  in 
h  hundred  other  ways  ?  What  parallel  there  is, 
finally,  between  the  Persians  and  Gauls  who  ad- 
vanced against  Delphi,  and  perished  by  lightning 
and  earthquake,  and  the  soldiers  whom  Ahaziah 
sent  out  against  Elijah,  it  is  difficult  to  see,  for 
one  might  as  well  find  parallels  to  this  narrative 
in  all  the  accidents  wherein  men  have  perished, 
vhile  on  the  way  hither  and  thither,  by  lightning 
w  earthquake. 


HOMILETICAL    AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  41-50.  Wirtb.  StniH. :  All  Christian 
rulers  and  governors  ought  to  follow  the  example  of 
the  pious  king  Jehoshaphat — to  do  what  is  pleasing 
to  God,  to  walk  in  His  ways  without  departing  from 
them,  to  maintain  and  extend  pure  religion,  to  re- 
move and  destroy  what  is  evil,  and  especially  not  to 
permit  whoredom,  but  with  earnestness  to  do  away 
with  it  and  punish  it,  and  to  guard  themselves 
from  having  too  much  intercourse  with  godless 
persons,  or  from  entering  into  any  covenant  with 
them,  because  this  leads  to  no  good,  as  indeed 
Jehoshaphat  got  only  danger  and  loss  by  it. 
Every  one  should  profit  by  the  life-experience  of 
Jehoshaphat.  All  that  he  undertook  according  to 
God's  word  and  will  went  on  fortunately  and 
attained  good  success,  and  was  attended  with 
blessing;  but  all  that  he  undertook  in  con- 
junction with  Ahab  and  Ahaziah  turned  out  un- 
fortunately :  there  was  no  blessing  upon  that. — 
Vers.  44—47.  See  notes  on  chap.  xv.  12,  14. — 
Ver.  49.  The  heart  of  man  proposes  its  own  way, 
but  the  Lord  alone  allows  it  to  proceed  therein. 
(Prov.  xvi.  9.)  lie  often  confounds  our  purposes 
and  destroys  our  plans,  which  reach  so  far  and  so 
high,  that  we  may  not  become  puffed  up,  but  learn 
to  yield  u>  Hi-  holj  will  and  to  say:  "It  is  the 
Lord;  let  llim  do  what  seemcth  Him  good"  (1 
Sam.  iii.  18). — Ver.  fill.  What  God  has  clearly  de- 
stroyed, as  a  punishment,  that  let  us  not  build  up 
again  at  the  counsel  or  demand  of  any  man;  for, 
when  lb*  breaks  in  pieces,  it  cannot  avail  tc  build 
•gain  (Job  xii.    14). — So   Jehoshaphat  would    not 


build  again.  The  offers  of  a  man  who  had  de- 
parted from  God,  even  if  he  offer  thee  ever  m 
much  profit  and  pleasantness,  do  thou  reject  with 
determined  will;  for  "what  is  a  man  profited,"  ic. 
(Matt.  xvi.  26.) 

Vers.  51-53.  Starke:  It  is  bad  enough  indeed 
when  one  or  the  other  of  one's  parents  is  godless, 
but  how  much  more  when  neither  fears  God?  How 
can  we  hope  for  the  good  nurture  of  children  in 
that  "ase  ?  The  power  of  example  is  not  greater 
in  am  relation  than  in  that  of  parents  to  children. 
The  way  in  which  the  father  or  mother  walks  has 
more  influence  upon  the  children  than  all  the  doc- 
trines and  teachings  which  they  give  them. — 
Wtj  rtb.  Sl'MM. :  It  is  not  praiseworthy,  nor  a  thing 
which  one  can  satisfactorily  answer  for  before  God, 
if  the  parents  and  ancestors  have  been  godless  or 
the  adherents  of  a  false  religion,  that  the  children 
shojld  do  the  same  and  follow  in  their  footstep*: 
.  ...  it  will  not  suffice  before  God  to  say :  I 
be'ieve  what  my  parents  and  ancestors  believed. 
They  were  of  this  religion,  and  I  will  no",  believe 
that  they  have  been  damned." 

Vers.  2—8.  Wirth  :  King  Ahaziah  on  his  death- 
bed, (a)  The  sending  to  Ekron;  (b)  the  message 
of  the  prophet. — Vers.  2-i.  Kroimacher  :  The 
journey  to  Ekron.  (a)  The  seeking  for  refuge  in 
Ekron ;  (6)  the  jealousy  of  God ;  (c)  Jesus  the  only 
refuge  (in  Him  rests  our  confidence  and  strength). 
Vers.  2  to  17.  In  Ahaziah  we  see  the  folly  of  god- 
lessness  (Ps.  xiv.  1  and  2).  (a)  In  the  dark  val- 
ley, in  which  lie  must  journey,  he  seizes,  not  upon 
the  staff  and  support  which  could  comfort  him 
(Ps.  xxiii.  4),  but  upon  a  stalk  of  straw ;  he  makes 
a  work  of  man's  hands  his  consolation  in  life  and 
in  death;  that  is  the  height  of  folly,  (b)  He  will 
hear  nothing  of  death,  and  hates  and  persecutes 
him  who  reminds  him  of  death ;  death  comes,  how- 
ever ;  it  is  inevitable.  To  avoid  every  thought  of 
death,  and  to  escape  from  everything  which  may 
remind  us  of  it,  is  the  greatest  folly,  for  we  must 
all  depart  sometime  (Ps.  xxxix.  5),  and  appear  be- 
fore Him  who  will  give  to  each  according  to  his 
deeds  (Rom.  ii.  6).  (c)  He  sends  soldiers  against 
the  prophet  who  announces  to  him  the  judgment 
of  God,  and  thinks  that  he  can  thereby  set  aside 
the  judgment  itself.  But  to  attempt  to  do  away 
witli  the  truth  of  God,  and  to  accomplish  some- 
thing perforce  against  the  decision  of  God  by 
means  of  human  power  and  might,  is  the  greatest 
folly. — Vers.  1  and  2.  God  does  not  leave  him- 
self without  a  witness  even  in  the  case  of  those 
who  have  long  ago  abandoned  Him  and  turned 
their  backs  upon  Him.  He  seeks  with  all  labor 
and  care  to  call  them  home.  Well  is  it  for  them, 
then,  if  they  understand  the  testimony,  and  do  not, 
like  Ahaziah,  become  still  more  stubborn. — Ver.  2. 
If  a  man  has  once  torn  himself  away  from  the  liv- 
ing God  and  His  Word,  he  does  not,  as  infidelity 
pretends,  become  wiser  and  more  enlightened,  but 
only  too  often  he  becomes  the  prey  of  the  most 
insipid  and  foolish  superstition.  How  many  do 
not  believe  in  an  holy,  omniscient,  and  just  God, 
to  whom  they  must  give  an  account  of  all  they  do 
and  leave  undone,  but  on  the  contrary  in  ghosts, 
or  in  the  word  of  a  gypsy,  and  seize  upon  the 
most  senseless  means  in  Deed  and  sickness.  It  is 
possible  to  so  lose  God  that  one  does  not  find  Him 
even  when  face  to  face  with  death. — Krvmmachek. 
Instead  of  the  oracle  at  Ekron  we  have  to-daj 
clairvoyants  and  mesmerists:  and  even  if  we  d« 


CHAPTER  1.  1-18. 


not  have  soothsayers  and  persons  who  foretell  by 
cards  (the  number  of  whom,  however,  among  the 
common  people,  is  far  greater  than  is  commonly 
believed),  still  there  are  "  signs  "  and  dreams  upon 
which  people  trust,  and  on  which  they  rest  the 
peace  of  their  hearts,  as  if  it  were  upon  oracles 

from  idols While  people  smile  at  the 

magicians  of  earlier  times,  and  their  arts,  with  a 
mien  of  superiority,  they  are  not  ashamed  to  take 
refuge  in  all  sorts  of  amulets,  or  to  expect  help 
now  from  this  and  now  from  that  sympathetic 

cure Is  that  not  "  going  to  Ekron  ?  " 

[Comprehensive  Commentary:  The  inquiry  of 
Ahaziah  "  was  very  foolish.  We  should  be  more 
thoughtful  of  our  duty  than  our  fortune,  what  will 
become  of  us  after  death,  than  how,  or  when,  or 
where,  we  shall  die ;  and  more  desirous  to  be  told 
how  to  conduct  ourselves  well  in  sickness,  and  get 
good  to  our  souls  by  it,  than  whether  we  shall  re- 
cover."]— Ver.  3.  Wurtb.  Summ.  :  All  those  who 
make  use  of  formula?  of  blessing  or  other  irregular 
means,  in  sickness,  seek  help  from  Baal-zebub.  God 
has  given  an  example  in  the  case  of  Ahaziah,  how 
angry  He  is  at  this,  and  how  severely  He  means  to 
punish  such  idolatry. — Is  it  then  because,  &c 
Wirth:  The  men  of  our  time  run  hither  and 
thither  in  their  dissatisfaction  and  need  of  help. 
Is  there  then  no  longer  any  God  in  our  nineteenth 
century,  that  men  do  not  take  refuge  in  Him  ?  Is 
there  then  no  Gospel,  which  is  the  power  of  God, 
and  a  light  upon  our  pathway?  Is  there  then  no 
longer  a  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  calls :  "  behold, 
I  make  all  things  new?  " — The  Word  of  God  is  the 
sole,  true,  and  correct  oracle,  which  we  are  to 
question,  and  to  take  counsel  of,  in  every  circum- 
stance of  life,  and  in  all  darkness  and  doubt.  This 
generation,  however,  seeks  light,  wisdom,  and  truth 
among  the  Philistines,  the  wise  and  prudent  of  this 
world,  who  give  out  that  the  Word  of  the  Lord  is 
an  old  and  unreliable  book  which  no  longer  satis- 
fies the  existing  grade  of  cultivation.  ["  They  that 
will  not  inquire  of  the  Word  of  God  for  their  com- 
fort shall  be  made  to  hear  it,  whether  they  will  or 
no.  to  their  amazement."] — That  ye  go,  &c.  Who- 
soever lends  himself  to  be  the  messenger  and  ser- 
vant of  superstition,  and  of  contempt  for  God, 
makes  himself  a  participant  in  the  guilt  of  them  ; 
■we  must  obey  God  rather  than  man. — Vers.  4-8. 
If  the  messengers  had  brought  to  the  king  a  de- 
claration of  the  Fly-god,  he  would  have  accepted 
it  with  faith,  but  he  rejected  the  word  of  the 
prophet  because  it  did  not  conform  to  his  wishes; 
nay.  it  even  filled  him  with  anger  and  plans  of 
murder.  Men  value  the  falsehood  which  flatters 
their  inclinations  and  wishes,  higher  than  the  truth 
which  corrects  them  and  demands  sacrifices  and 
penitence  of  them. — Vers.  7  and  8.  He  who 
p-eaehes  penitence,  conversion,  sacrifice,  and  self- 
denial,  to  others,  but  still  shows  by  all  his  con- 
duct and  external  behavior,  that  he  himself  loves 
the  world,  and  what  is  in  the  world,  and  that  he 
is  not  above  the  world,  such  an  one  belongs  to  the 
false  prophets,  with  whom  we  must  be  upon  our 
guard. 

Vers.  9-17.  Rrummacher:  The  sermon  in  fire, 
(o)  Ahaziah's  attack  upon  Elijah;  (fc)  the  proph- 


et's victory ;  (c)  Ahaziah's  end. — Wirth  :  Elijah 
as  messenger  of  the  judgment  of  God.  (o)  Tht 
annihilation  of  the  two  fifties ;  (fc)  the  sparing  of 
the  third  fifty;  (c)  a  visit  to  the  sick-bed. — The 
judgment  of  God  upon  Ahaziah  and  his  troops  an 
image  of  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord  (see 
the  Historical  section)  for  the  warning  of  all  scofiers 
and  stubborn  contemners  of  God. — Elijah  in  truth  a 
Man  of  God.  (a)  How  he  sustains  himself  in  that 
position  in  his  relations  to  God  (viz.,  by  faithiiil 
obedience  and  faithful  courage);  (6)  how  God 
sustains  him  in  it  in  relation  to  his  enemies  (viz., 
by  powerful  protection,  and  by  the  annihilation  of 
his  enemies,  Ps.  xci.  1  sq.). — Ver.  9.  Every  servant 
of  the  Lord  who  is  really  earnest  in  his  office  must 
make  up  his  mind  that  rude,  low,  and  godless  men 
will  scorn  him  and  name  him  "Man  of  God"  in 
mockery.  Although  no  fire  from  heaven  falls  down 
to  destroy  them,  yet  the  word  of  the  Lord  stands 
firm  for  all  time:  "He  that  despiseth  you,"  io. 
(Luke  x.  16),  and  the  Lord  will  not  leave  those 
unpunished  who  despise  Him  in  His  servants,  and 
exercise  their  wit  upon  the  calling  of  reconciliation 
(Isai.  xli.  10  and  11). — Great  rulers  always  find 
people  who  will  lend  themselves  as  instruments 
of  their  perverted  will,  who  execute,  with  exact- 
ness and  without  scruple,  what  "the  king  says," 
but  do  not  trouble  themselves  at  all  about  what 
God  says. — Ver.  11  sq.  Hall:  It  is  the  sure  sign  of 
approaching  ruin  when  men  will  not  allow  them- 
selves to  be  warned.  Those  deserve  only  to  be 
made  examples  of  punishment  who  will  not  take 
warning  from  the  example  of  others. — Ver.  13  sq. 
God  does  not  let  anything  be  forced  from  Him  by 
pertinacity,  but  to  the  humble  He  grants  grace. 
That  which  can  never  be  gained  by  perseverance 
and  resistance,  is  reached  by  earnest,  humble,  and. 
sincere  prayer. — Osiander:  If  we  perform  our 
duty,  God  has  the  hearts  of  men  in  His  hand  in 
such  a  way  that  He  leads  them  whither  He  wilL 
So  it  often  happens  that  those  who  seek  to  kill  us 
in  our  absence,  in  our  presence  dare  not  open  their 
mouths  (John  vii.  11  16). — Vers.  15  and  16.  A 
minister  of  God  must  not  fear  to  hold  up  their 
sins  before  sinners  and  scofiers  upon  the  death- 
bed, and  to  draw  their  attention  to  the  judgment 
of  God,  in  order  that,  if  possible,  even  in  the  last 
hour,  they  may  come  to  a  knowledge  of  that  which 
belongs  to  their  peace,  for  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  8  and  9), 
to  offer  eternal  blessedness  to  the  rich  and  great, 
instead  of  calling  them  to  repentance,  is  the  worst 
transgression  of  a  prophet. — To  conceal  the  ap- 
proach of  his  end  from  one  who  is  sick  unto  death, 
and  to  hold  all  thoughts  of  it  from  him,  or  even  to 
console  him  with  false  hopes  of  recovery,  is  no  gen- 
uine love ;  for  no  man  can  be  properly  prepared 
for  death  who  does  not  think  of  it  often  and  much. 
He  who  in  days  of  health  has  often,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  God,  thought  upon  death,  does  not  shrink 
before  the  message:  "Set  thine  house  in  onler; 
for  thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live."  (Isai.  xxxviii.  1.) — 
Ver.  9-16.  Elijah  and  the  Disciples  of  Jesus  who 
wish  to  imitate  Him  (Luke  ix.  51-57).  (a)  The 
reason  why  He  blames  and  rebukes  th  ?m ;  (4) 
whereto  He  calls  and  encourages  .fc'Sm  see  Ei> 
terical,  §  5). 


10  TEE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  1HE  KINGS. 


B. — Elijah?*  departure  and  Elisha'1*  first  appearance  a*  Projphet. 
Chap.  n.  1-26. 

1  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  Lord  would  take  np  Elijah  into  heaven  by  a 

2  whirlwind,  that  Elijah  went  with  Elisha  from  Gilgal.  And  Elijah  said  untc 
Elisha,  Tarry  here,  I  pray  thee  ;  for  the  Lord  hath  sent  me  to  Beth-el.  And 
Elisha  said  imto  him,  As  the  Lord  liveth,  and  as  thy  soul  liveth,  I  -will  not  leave 

8  thee.  So  they  went  down  to  Beth-el.  And  the  sons  [pupils]  of  the  'prophets 
that  were  at  Beth-el  came  forth  to  Elisha,  and  said  unto  him,  Knowcst  thou  that 
the  Lord  will  take  away  thy  master  from  thy  head  to-day  ?     And  he  said,  Yea, 

4  I  know  it ;  hold  ye  your  peace.  And  Elijah  said  unto  him,  Elishi ,  tarry  here, 
I  pray  thee  ;  for  the  Lord  hath  sent  me  to  Jericho.  And  he  said,  As  the  Lord 
liveth,  and  as  thy  soul  liveth,  I  will  not  leave  thee.     So  they  came  to  Jericho. 

6  And  the  sons  of  the  prophets  that  were  at  Jericho  came  to  Elisha,  and  said  unto 
him,  Knowest  thou  that  the  Lord  will   take  away  thy  master  from  thy  head 

6  to-day?  And  he  answered,  Yea,  I  know  it j  hold  ye  your  peace.  And  Elijah 
said  unto  him,  Tarry,  I  pray  thee,  here ;  for  the  Lord  hath  sent  me  to  Jordan. 
And  he  said,  As  the  Lord  liveth,  and  as  thy  soul  liveth,  I  will  not  leave  thee. 

1  And  they  two  went  on.  And  fifty  men  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  went,  and 
stood  to  view  [over  against  theni\  afar  off:    and  they  two  stood  by  Jordan. 

8  And  Elijah  took  his  mantle,  and  wrapped  it  together,  and  smote  the  waters,  and 
they  were  divided  hither  and  thither,  so  that  they  two  went  over  on  dry  ground. 

9  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  they  were  gone  over,  that  Elijah  said  unto  Elisha, 
Ask  what  I  shall  do  for  thee,  before  I  be  taken  away  from  thee.     And  Elisha 

10  said,  I  pray  thee,  let  a  double  portion  of  thy  spirit  be  upon  me.  And  he  said, 
Thou  hast  asked  a  hard  thing  [to  obtain,  P4hr]  :  nevertheless,  if  thou  see  me 
when  Jam  taken  from  thee,  it  shall  be  so  unto  thee  ;  but  if  not,  it  shall  not  be 

11  so.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  still  went  on,  and  talked,  that,  behold,  there 
appeared  a  qhariot  of  fire,  and  horses  of  fire,  and  parted  them  both  asunder; 
and  Elijah  went  up  by  a  whirlwind  into  [towards]  heaven.     And  Elisha  saw  it, 

12  and  he  cried,  My  father,  my  lather,  the  [thou,  omit  the]  chariot  of  Israel,  and  the 
[omit  the]  horsemen  thereof!  And  he  saw  him  no  more:  and  so  he  took  hold 
of  his  own  clothes,  and  rent  them  in  two  pieces. 

13  [Then]  He  took  up  also  [omit  also]  the  mantle  of  Elijah  that  fell  from  him, 

14  and  went  back,  and  stood  by  the  bank  of  Jordan  ;  And*  he  took  the  mantle  of 
Elijah  that  fell  from  him,  and  smote  the  waters,  and  said,  Where  is  the  Lord 
God  of  Elijah  [even  He]  ?    And  when  he  also  [omit  also]  had  smitten  the  waters, 

15  they  parted  hither  and  thither:  and  Elisha  went  over.  And  when  the  sons  of 
the"  prophets  which  were  to  view  [omit  to  view]  at  Jericho  saw  him  [from  the 
opposite  side],1  they  said,  The  spirit  of  Elijah  doth  rest  on  Elisha.     And  they 

16  came  to  meet  him,  and  bowed  themselves  to  the  ground  before  him.  And  they 
said  unto  him,  behold  now,  there  Vie  with  thy  servants  fifty  strong  men  ;  let 
them  go,  we  pray  thee,  and  seek  thy  master:  lest  peradventure  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord   hath   taken    him   up,  and  cast  him  upon   some  mountain,2  or  into 

IT  some  valley.3  And  he  said,  Ye  shall  not  send.  And  when  they  urged  him  till 
Le  was  ashamed  [to  reluse  them,  Bahr],  he  said,  Send.     They  sent  therefore  fifty 

18  men;  and  they  sought  three  days,  but  found  him  not.  And  when  they  came 
again  to  him,  (for  he  tarried  at  Jericho,)  he  said  unto  them,  Did  I  not  say  unto 
you,  Go  not  ? 

19  And  the  men  of  the  city  said  unto  Elisha,  Behold,  I  pray  thee,  the  situation 
"inhabiting]'  of  this  city  is  pleasant,  as  my  lord  seeth :   but  the  water  is  naught 

20  bad],  and  the  ground  barren  [the  locality  causes  barrenness].'     And  he  said 

21  Bring  me  a  new  cruse,  and  put  salt  therein.  And  they  brought  it  to  him.  And 
he  went  forth  unto  the  spring  of  the  waters,  and  cast  the  salt  in  there,  and  said 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25. 


II 


Thus  saith  the  Lord,  I  have  healed  these  waters  ;  there  shall  not  be  from  thencfl 

22  auy  more  death  or  barren  land  [barrenness,  omit  land].'  So  the  waters  were 
healed  unto  this  day,  according  to  the  saying  ol'Elisha  which  he  spake. 

23  And  he  went  up  from  thence  unto  Beth-el :  and  as  he  was  going  up  by  the 
way,  there  came  forth  little  children  [young  persons]  out  of  the  city,  and  mocked 

24  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Go  up,  thou  bald  head;  go  up,  thou  bald  head.  And 
he  turned  back,  and  looked  on  them,  and  cursed  them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
And  there  came  forth  two  she  bears  out  of  the  wood,  and  tare  forty  and  two 

25  children  of  them.  And  he  went  from  thence  to  mount  Carmel,  and  from  thence 
he  returned  to  Samaria. 

TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  15. — L"1^P  from  over  against.    Sept.  e£ tvavrias :  Vulg.  e  contra  :  Bnnsen  :  "  on  the  other  Bide." 
'  Ver.  16.— [The  Sept.  add  iv  tio  'lop&ivn.  The  chetib  HIS'S  would  be  the  regular  form  for  the  plur.  of  K'3  .    The  form 
found,  however  (in  Ezekiel),  is  HVN3  ,  which  the  keri  proposes  to  insert  here. 

1  Ver.  19. —  VN  Jti'lO,  literally,  inhabiting  the  city  good;  *.«.,  the  city  is  a  good  one  to  inhabit.  f^^CTD,  causing 
barrenness.  The  district,  or  locality,  probably  on  account  of  ils  bad  water,  produces  barrenness  and  miscarriage  in  all 
animals. 

*  Ver.  21. — LJ"V^V'  a  participial  noun,  describing  the  action,  miscarrying;  "there  shall  be  no  more  death  or 
miscarrying  from  it  "  (as  a  cause),     (y.  on  ver.  19. —  W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL,    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ter.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when,  &e.     The 

following  event  certainly  belongs  to  the  time  after 
vhe  death  of  Ahaziali  (chap.  i.  17),  and  probably  to 
;he  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoram,  for  in  the 
19th  verse  the  public  activity  of  Elisha  begins,  i.  e., 
that  is  the  time  when  he  stepped  into  the  place 
of  Elijah,  and  stood  at  the  head  of  the  prophets. 
The  war  with  the  Moabites,  in  which  Elisha  as- 
sumes so  important  a  position  (cf.  chap,  iii.),  must 
have  begun  soon  after  Jehoram's  succession  to  the 
throne  (chap.  i.  1).  The  letter  which  came  into  the 
hands  of  Jehoram  from  Elijah,  according  to  2 
Chron.  xxi.  12,  proves  nothing  to  the  contrary 
(see   below,  Historical,  §  3,    b). — On   J"lvJ?n3    see 

notes  on  ver.  11.  The  first  half  of  the  verse  forms 
the  title  of  the  entire  passage. — Gilgal  cannot  here 
be  a  place  between  Jericho  and  the  Jordan  (Jos.  iv. 
19;  v.  10),  for  Elijah  and  Elisha  went  down  from 
there  to  Bethel  (TTVl),  and  came  from  Bethel  to 

Jericho.  It  is  rather,  as  in  Deut.  xi.  30,  the  place 
known  now  as  Jiljilia,  which  was  on  an  elevated 
site,  southwest  of  Seilun  (Shiloh),  near  to  the 
road  leading  from  the  latter  place  to  Jericho  (cf. 
Thenius  and  Keil  on  the  passage  ;  Raumer,  Paliist. 
e.  155).  This  Gilgal,  which  lay  in  Ephraim,  and  not 
the  one  in  Judali,  is  the  one  referred  to  also  by  the 
prophets  Amos  (iv.  4)  and  Hosea  (iv.  15)  who  men- 
tion it,  together  with  Bethel,  as  chief  seat  of  the 
false  worship  of  Jehovah.  Probably  it  was  pre- 
cisely on  this  account  that  schools  of  the  prophets 
were  founded  there,  which  should  counteract  the 
error. 

Ter.  2.  And  Elijah  said,  Ac.  It  was  known 
not  only  to  Elijah  himself  (ver.  9),  but  also  to 
Elisha  (ver.  3),  and  to  the  "sons  of  the  prophets" 
at  Bethel  and  Jericho  (vers.  3  and  5),  that  the  time 
of  his  departure  was  come.  Evidently  the  object 
of  his  visit  to  the  three  schools  of  the  prophets, 
one  after  another,  was  to  see  them  once  more 
oefore  his  departure,  ,°ud  to  warn  and  strengthen 


them.  Keil,  following  the  older  expositors,  says: 
"  The  Lord  had  revealed  to  both  (Elijah  and  Elisha) 
that  the  seal  of  the  divine  ratification  should  be 
set  to  the  work  of  Elijah  by  his  miraculous  trans- 
lation to  heaven,  ....  but  to  each  of  them 
separately,  so  that  Elijah  did  not  surmise  that 
Elisha  was  aware  that  he  was  to  be  taken  away. 
For  this  reason  he  wished  to  separate  himself  from 
his  servant,  not  in  order  to  test  his  love  and  at- 
tachment (Yatablus),  but  from  humility  (Corn,  a 
Lapide,  and  others).  He  did  not  wish  to  have  any 
witness  of  his  glorification,   without   being  fully 

satisfied  that  such  was  the  divine  will 

His  ascension  had  been  revealed  to  the  disciples 

of  the   prophets  also He  took   this 

road  (to  Bethel  and  Jericho)  by  the  direction  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  ....  without  supposing 
that  they  (the  disciples  of  the  prophets  in  those 
places)  had  been  informed  of  his  approaching  de- 
parture from  this  life  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  God 
had  revealed  it  to  so  many  in  order  that  they  might 
be  established  in  their  calling  by  the  miraculous 
glorification  of  their  master,  still  more  than  by  his 
words  and  teachings  and  warnings."  But  the  most 
important  considerations  are  opposed  to  this  very 
common  conception  of  the  passage.  In  the  first 
place,  the  assertiou  that  a  divine  revelation  had 
given,  not  only  to  Elijah,  but  also  to  Elisha,  and  to 
the  disciples  of  the  prophets  at  Bethel  and  Jericho, 
information  of  the  approaching  ascension  of  the 
first,  is  a  pure  hypothesis ;  the  text  knows  nothing 
of  it,  and  even  any  remote  hint  of  it  is  wanting. 
To  pass  over  that,  however,  in  the  second  place,  no 
analogy  can  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  for  any 
such  thing  as  that  different  persons,  nay,  even 
entire  communities,  in  different  places,  at  one  and 
the  same  time,  received  the  same  divine  revelation ; 
and  no  one  of  these  persons  surmised  that  the 
same  thing  had  happened  to  others.  Thirdly,  the 
disciples  of  the  prophets  at  Jericho  would  never 
have  urged  so  perseveringly  upon  Elisha,  after  hi* 
return,  to  allow  fifty  men  to  seek  for  the  departed 
master  on  the  mountains  and  in  th    valleys  (vers* 


12 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


16—18).  if  they  had  been  informed  in  regard  to 
Elijah's  ascension  into  heaven  by  a  divine  revela- 
tion. We  are  therefore  compelled  to  conceive  of 
ths  event,  we  might  almost  say,  more  simply  and 
naturally.  As  concerns  Elijah  himself,  he  knew, 
of  course,  that  the  time  of  his  departure  was  come, 
and  that  the  Lord  was  going  to  take  him  away ; 
die  manner  in  which  he  would  be  taken,  however, 
he  did  not  know,  nor  did  he  say  a  syllable  about 
it ;  especially  he  did  not  know,  as  Krummacher 
affirms,  that  "the  horses  of  fire  and  the  chariot  of 
flame  were  already  standing  behind  the  clouds 
ready  to  come  for  him,"  and  that  he  "should  ride, 
in  a  few  daj"S,  past  Orion  and  the  Pleiades,  on  a 
gleaming  road,  far  above  the  sun  and  the  moon, 
and  away  through  the  veil  into  the  divine  sanctu- 
ary." Still  less  did  Elisha  and  the  disciples  of  the 
prophets  know  it.     In  the  3d  and  5th  verses  the 

latter  only  say  that  "now"  (Qi'n  does  not  mean 

here  "to-day,"  but  as  in  1  Sam.  xii.  17;  2  Kings 
iv.  8 ;  Job  i.  6,  at  this  time)  Elijah  is  going  to  be 
taken  away  from  them  and  from  Elisha ;  even 
this  they  could  only  know  from  Elijah  himself. 
For  Elijah  had  no  reason  for  wishing  to  conceal 
his  departure  from  Elisha;  on  the  contrary,  he 
must  have  felt  himself  driven  to  make  it  known  to 
him,  since  Elisha  was  now  to  step  into  his  place 
and  be  his  successor.  Neither  did  he  conceal  it 
from  the  disciples  of  the  prophets ;  for  his  visit  to 
them  had  for  its  chief  object  to  take  leave  of  them. 
He  simply  did  not  wish  that  his  departure  should 
be  much  spoken  of,  and  still  less  would  he  permit 
that  any  one  should  be  a  witness  of  it;  therefore 
he  urged  Elisha  himself  to  remain  behind.  This 
he  did,  however,  not  "from  humility,"  in  view  of 
his  approaching  glorification,  but  "because he  was 
uncertain  whether  it  was  agreeable  to  God  that 
Elisha  should  go  with  him ;  cf.  ver.  10  "  (Thenius). 
Only  when  Elisha  would  not  allow  himself  to  be 
held  back,  and  had  declared  earnestly  three  times 
over  (cf.  the  similar  triple  repetition,  John  xxi.  15 
sq.)  that  he  would  not  leave  him  until  the  final 
moment — only  when  he  had  thus  stood  the  trial  of 
his  unchangeable  fidelity  and  perseverance,  and 
thus  maintained  himself  as  competent  and  fit  to 
carry  on  the  office  of  prophet,  did  Elijah  yield  his 
scruples,  and  allow  Elisha  to  accompany  him. 
(Cf.  in  general  on  the  verse  the  apt  remarks  of 
Vilmar,  PastoraUkeol  Blatter,  1862,  *.  234.) 

Ver.  3.  And  the  sons  of  the  Prophets  .... 

came  foith,  to.     [The  C'K'DSiV'U  are  the  pupils 

or  disciples  of  the  prophets ;  not  necessarily  their 
sons  in  a  literal  sense,  though  they  probably  were 
such  in  very  many  cases.— TV.  G.  S.]  This  does  not 
mean:  "In  Bethel,  the  disciples  of  the  prophets 
came  to  meet  Elisha,  with  the  information, 
'  Knowest  thou  1 '  &c."  (Keil),  but  that  after  Elijah 
had  come  with  Elisha  to  Bethel  (ver.  2),  in  order 
to  take  his  leave  there  also,  the  disciples  of  the 
prophets  came  forth  with  them,  that  is,  accom- 
panied "hem,  and  said  to  Elisha:  "Dost  thou  also 
ponder,"  «,c.  ?  In  like  manner  they  were  accom- 
panied by  those  of  Jericho  (ver  7).  [This  expla- 
nation does  violence  to  the  meaning  of  the  preposi- 
tion   pN,   which     never     contains    any    idea    of 

accompaniment,  above  all  with  a  verb  of  motion; 
n-oreover,  ver.  7  is  not  the  parallel,  but  ver.  5. 
?S   MtXllcan  °"'.v  '"tan   "They  came  forth  to" 


(cf.  Gen.  xix.  6),  and  it  is  stated  that  they  cam* 
forth  to  "Elisha,"  which  certainly  seems  to  imply 
that  they  already  had  heard  of  the  expected  event. 
PN   VC'3'T,  ver.  5,  is  less  certain.     It  might  mean 

that  as  they  were  all  standing  in  a  group,  and 
after  Elijah  had  declared  that  he  had  come  to  them 
for  the  last  time,  some  of  them  approached  Elisha. 
The  objection  taken  to  the  theory  of  independent 
revelations  is,  however,  a  just  one,  and  must  be 
maintained,  even  if  we  cannot  fix  definitely  the 
details  of  the  occurrence  which  the  words  refer  to. 
Many  hypotheses  suggest  themselves,  as,  for  in- 
stance, that  Elijah  went  on  to  the  schools  of  the 
prophets  in  the  first  place  alone,  and  that  they 
then  "  came  forth  to  Elisha." — W.  G.  S.]  ^J?D  nj^> 
^C'N"!  i  according  to  Keil,    "  expresses  graphically 

the  removal  from  his  side  by  elevation  into  heaven." 
Thenius  also  says,  following  Bottcher :  "  Nihil 
aliud  uiti  viam  inodumque  tollendi  pmgit:  away  off 
above  thine  head."  [So  also  Bunsen.]  It  is  very 
improbable,  however,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
disciples  of  the  prophets,  at  Bethel  as  well  as  aC 
Jericho,  should  have  expressed  themselves  "graph- 
ically," independently  of  one  another,  and  just 
on  this  occasion.  The  words  TjC'fcO  pJJD  are  equiv- 
alent  to    TjBJJD  and  T]nX!0 ,  which  are  used  by 

Elijah,  in  vers.  9  and  10,  for  the  same  idea,  i.  e 
literally,  "  from  with  you,"  the  sense  being  "  out  o: 
connection  or  companionship  with  you,"  excep 
that  the  first  form  hints  at  the  nature  of  this  con 
nection  more  distinctly  than  the  others.  Luther, 
in  a  marginal  gloss  on  the  passage,  says:  "To  be 
at  the  head  is  to  be  master  and  teacher ;  to  be  at  the 
feet  is  to  be  pupil  and  subject.  For  when  the  teacher 
teaches  he  sits  in  a  more  elevated  position  than 
the  pupils,  so  that  he  has  them  at  his  feet,  and  they 
have  him  at  their  head.  Therefore  St.  Paul  says 
(Acts  xxii.  3),  that  he  had  learned  the  law  at  the 
feet  of  Gamaliel."  (Cf.  Schdttgen,  Bor.  Hebr.  on 
this  passage.)  Elisha  is  the  disciple  of  Elijah;  the 
latter  is  his  "  master,"  as  he  is  called  here.  The 
words,  "  The  Lord  will  take  away  thy  master  from 
thy  head,"  do  not  therefore^ean,  He  will  cause 
Elijah  to  arise  away  above  thy  head  towards 
heaven,  but,  He  will  take  him  away  from  thy 
head,  i.  e.,  break  up  the  relationship  which  has 
existed  hitherto  between  you,  as  pupil  and  master, 
and  as  thy  chief  thou  wilt  lose  him.     ( ^J)D  is  used 

as  in  Gen.  xlviii.  17;  Amos  vii.  11.)  When  the 
words  are  thus  taken,  each  gets  its  full  force,  and 
it  is  easy  to  see  why  both  the  disciples  at  Bethel 
and  those  at  Jericho  put  the  question  to  Elisha, 
"  Knowest  thou?"  &c.  The  separation  touched 
Elisha  nearest  of  all,  and  was  more  important  for 
him  than  for  any  of  the  rest.  The  question  signi- 
fies: Knowest  and  considerest  thou  alsc,  that  thou 
wilt  now  lose  the  master  whose  servant  and  ais- 
ciple  thou  art  (1  Kings  xix.  21)?  What  wili 
become  of  us  when  thy  guide  and  ours  is  gone  ? 
The  answer  of  Elisha.  which  would  otherwise  be 
ohscure  and  difficult,  is  then  appropriate  to  thii 
question  :  "  Yea,  I  know  it,"  i.  e.,  Alasl  I  kno%v  it 
and  consider  it  well,  even  as  ye  do.  When  he 
then  adds,  "  Hold  ye  your  peace,"  he  does  not 
mean  to  say  :  Tell  no  one  that  he  is  now  going  U 
ascend  into  heaven,  in  order  that  there  may  be  uc 
concourse  of  people  (Clerieus,  J.  Lange).  nor:  Speak 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25. 


13 


no  further  of  it,  for  Elijah,  on  account  of  his 
modesty  and  humility,  does  not  wish  that  much 
should  be  said  of  his  glorification  (Seb.  Smith, 
Keil).  but :  Compose  yourselves,  yield  to  the  will 
of  Jehovah ;  do  not  sadden  my  heart  now  that  I 
am  about  to  lose  my  beloved  master  and  lord. 
[Bunsen.] 

Ter.  7.  And  fifty  men  of  the  sons,  &c.  As 
Elijah  and  Elisha  departed  in  the  direction  of  the 
Jordan,  a  band  of  prophets  followed  them  at  a 
distance,  and  remained  standing  at  a  point  (pro- 
bably on  an  elevation)  from  which  they  could  see 
"  whether  and  in  what  way  the  departing  ones 
would  get  over  the  Jordan  at  a  place  where  there 
was  no  arrangement  for  crossing  "  (Hess,  Thenius); 
that  is  to  say,  they  followed,  out  of  sympathy  and 
anxiety,  and  not  "  that  they  might  be  eyewitnesses 
of  the  removal  of  their  master  "  (Keil),  for,  accord- 
ing to  ver.  10,  it  was  not  certain  that  even  Elisha, 
who  accompanied  him,  would  see  tins.  They  were 
witnesses  only  of  that  which  is  narrated  in  ver.  8. 
The  manner  of  crossing  the  Jordan  must  have  re- 
minded them  involuntarily  of  Ex.  xiv.  16  (cf.  Josh. 
iv.  23).  As  once  Moses  struck  the  water  and 
divided  it,  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  people, 
with  his  staff,  which  was  the  insigne  of  his  office 
as  teacher,  and  is  called  the  "  rod  of  God  "  (Ex. 
xvii.  9),  whereby  he  was  confirmed  and  accredited 
as  chief,  so  Elijah,  the  second  Moses,  here  strikes 
the  water,  and  divides  it  in  the  presence  of  the 
band  of  the  prophets,  with  his  mantle,  the  sign  of 
his  prophetical  calling  (1  Kings  six.  19),  an  action 
which  confirms  him,  before  the  disciples  of  the 
prophets,  just  as  he  is  leaving  them,  in  his  position 
as  chief  of  the  prophets.  He  folds  or  rolls  the 
mantle  together,  possibly  in  order  to  give  it  at  the 
same  time  the  appearance  of  a  staff,  for  in  other 
cases  the  water  is  always  struck  with  a  staff  (Isai. 
xi.  4 ;  x.  24 ;  Num.  xx.  1 1).  [The  first  two  passages 
cited  refer  to  a  beating  with  a  rod  as  punishment 
-or  correction,  and  the  third  to  the  smiting  of  the 
rock  to  make  water  come  out.  There  is  no  ground 
for  supposing  that  the  words  in  the  text  have  any 
further  significance  than  such  a  folding  as  would 
make  the  mantle  convenient  to  handle  in  smiting 
the  water. — W.  G.  S.]  However,  the  very  fact 
that  he  makes  use  of  the  prophet's  mantle  instead 
of  making  use  of  the  staff,  makes  the  action  a  dis- 
tinctly prophetical,  i.  e.,  symbolical  one.  The 
miraculous  power  is  no  more  attached,  in  any 
magical  way,  to  the  mantle  than  to  the  staff:  but 
it  is  the  prophetical  calling  which  God  has  armed 
with  such  power  for  the  attainment  of  His  ends, 
as  was  shown  immediately  afterwards  in  the  case 
of  the  successor  and  representative  of  Elijah  (cf. 
vers.  14,  19  sq.). 

Ter.  9.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  they  were 
gone  over,  &c.  The  command  of  Elijah  :  "  Ask." 
At..,  and  the  reply  of  Elisha,  "  Let  a  double  por- 
tion," etc..  are  to  be  explained  by  their  relation  to 
one  another,  which  was  not  so  much  that  of  a 
mastei  to  his  servant  or  of  a  teacher  to  his  dis- 
ciple, as  rather  that  of  a  (spiritual)  father  to  his 
son  (ver.  12).  Elisha  had  maintained  his  attach- 
ment, love,  and  fidelity  to  the  very  end,  in  that  he 
would  not  quit  Elijah ;  and  now  the  latter  treats 
him  as  a  dying  father  would  (Gen.  xxvii.  4),  and 
Jays:  "If  thou  hast  yet  any  wish  in  thine  heart, 
tell  it  to  me;"  he  is  ready  to  grant  him  the  bless- 
ing of  a  father  and  of  a  prophet.  Elisha  answers 
as  son  to  father:  "  I  pray  thee,  let  a  double  portion 


of  thy  spirit  be  upon  me  1  "  According  to  the  law 
(Deut.  xxi.  17),  the  first-born  son  received,  of  what 

the  father  left  behind,  D'JB*  '3 ,  *'•  «•,  two  parts, 

twice  as  much  as  the  other  sons  received.  Ac- 
cording to  this  analogy,  Elisha  begs  that  Elijah 
will  regard  him  as  his  first-born,  and  will  give  to  him, 
as  compared  with  the  other  sons  of  the  prophets, 
a  richer  measure  of  his  (prophetic)  spirit,  that  is  to 

say,  of  that  ni") ,  which  is  the  condition  of  all  pro- 
phetical activity,  whether  in  word  or  deed,  and 
which  is  not  only  a  spirit  of  knowledge  and  wis- 
dom, but  also  of  strength  and  power  (Isai.  xi.  2). 
The  translation  of  the  words  of  Elisha,  "  That  thy 
spirit  may  be  doubled  in  me  "  (Luther,  following 
the  Sept.  and  Vulg.),  is  unquestionably  false. 
Still  this  interpretation  is  found  again  and  again  in 
modern  expositions.  Krummaeher  even  asserts, 
as  a  result  of  this  interpretation,  that  the  spirit  of 
Elisha,  as  an  evangelical  (?)  spirit,  was  certainly 
twice  as  great  as  the  spirit  of  Elijah,  which  was 
Mosaic  and  legal.  If  this  had  been  the  prayer  of 
Elisha,  however,  it  would  have  been,  not  only  in 
the  highest  degree  immodest,  but  also  incompre- 
hensible, since  Elijah  could  not  give  more  than  he 
himself  had.  Elisha  did  not  wish  to  be  more  or 
greater  than  his  master  and  lord.  He  only  desired 
so  much  as  was  necessary  for  him,  in  order  that 
he  might  be  that  to  which  Elijah  had  destined 
him,  namely,  the  one  who  should  succeed  to  his 
place  as  leader  of  the  prophets.  Menken's  inter- 
pretation of  tho  words  of  Elijah  is  also  a  mistake, 
i.  e.,  that  Elisha  should  give  him  a  commission  for 
the  other  world,  and  beg  for  himself  some  service 
there,  where  the  Lord  would  not  refuse  Elijah  any 
request  he  might  make  on  behalf  of  his  faithful 
servant.  Not  to  notice  other  objections,  Elijah 
says :  "  Ask  what  I  can  do  for  you  before  I  be 
taken  away,"  and  not  when  I  am  in  heaven. 
Neither  can  this  place,  therefore,  by  any  means  be 
cited  as  a  support  of  the  Roman  Catholic  dogma  of 
the  effectual  mediation  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  as 
is  often  done. — Elijah  means  to  say,  by  the  words 
in  ver.  10:  Thou  hast  prayed  for  something  which 
it  is  not  in  my  power,  nor  in  that  of  any  man,  to 
give,  but  only  in  the  power  of  God ;  if  it  is  granted 
to  thee  alone,  of  all  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  to 
remain  with  me  until  my  removal,  and  to  be  a  wit- 
ness of  it,  then  thou  rnayest  know,  by  this  fact, 
that  thou  art  to  continue  the  prophetical  work, 
which  I  have  begun,  and  which  I  must  now  aban- 
don,  and  then  shalt  thou  also  receive  that  measure 
of  the  prophetical  spirit  of  which  thou  hast  need 
for  this  work. 

Ver.  11.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  still 
went  on,  Ac.  The  verse  is  generally  translated  as 
it  is  by  Luther,  "Behold I  there  came  a  chariot  of 
fire  and  horses  of  fire,  ....  and  so  Elijah 
rode,  in  a  whirlwind,  towards  heaven."  This  is 
then  understood  to  mean,  that  a  fiery  chariot  with 
fiery  horses  attached  to  it  came,  and  that  it  re- 
ceived Elijah  and  took  him  to  heaven.  Accord- 
ing to  that,  Elijah  really  "  rode"  into  heaven,  as 
indeed  we  find  it  often  represented,  especially  in 
pictures.  This  conception  of  the  event  has  struck 
such  deep  root  that  people  scarcely  inquire  whether 
the  text  really  justifies  it  or  not.  It  is  especially 
welcome  to  those  who  explain  the  story  of  Elijah 
as  myth  and  poetry,  because,  as  they  think,  such 
an  ascension  would  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the 


14 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


mythical  character  of  the  narrative.  Here  it  is 
necessary,  before  all  else,  to  take  the  words  of  the 
text  accurately,  aud  not  to  add  or  till  out  anything 
which  is  not  absolutely  demanded.  In  the  first 
place,  the  text  knows  nothing  whatever  of  a  fiery 
chariot,  with  fiery  horses  attached,  but  only  says . 
"  Behold !  chariot  of  fire  and  horses  of  fire  I  "  Then 
it  does  not  say  that  Elijah  mounted  into  this  literal 
chariot,  as  it  is  supposed  to  be,  and  rode  in  it 
towards  heaven,  but  the  rpj1  took  place  "in  a 
whirlwind  "  (mi'M),  and  not  in  the  chariot.  Still 
further  D'OU'H  does  not  mean :  up  into  heaven, 
but :  towards  or  in  the  direction  of  heaven,  heaven- 
wards; especially  when  it  is  used  with  rpy 
(Judges  xx.  40 ;  Ps.  cvii.  26 ;  Jereni.  li.  53). 
Finally,  rpy  is  not  ride,  but  go  up,  in  the  sense  of 

disappear  [like  the  German  aufgelten,  it  is  U6ed  in 
the  sense  of  come  to  an  end,  disappear,  be  con- 
sumed.— W.  G.  S.],  see  Judges  xx.  40 :  "  The 
entire  city  [E.  Y.  has,  incorrectly,  "the  flame  of 
the  city"]  nO'OU'n  r6y,  arose  towards  heaven,  i.e., 
disappeared,  was  consumed  by  the  fire.  Aiso, 
Ezek.  xi.  24 :  "  So  the  vision  that  I  had  seen  (^Jpl) 

went  up  from  me,"  i.  e.,  it  disappeared  (Vulg. :  et  sub- 
lata  est  a  7ne  visio) ;  it  was  taken  away.  In  the 
hifil  (ver.  1)  it  means  exactly  tollere,  auferre,  take 
away,  as,  for  instance,  in  Ps.  cii.  25:  "Take  me 
away  in  the  midst  of  my  days,"  cf.  Job  v.  26 ; 
xxxvi.  20 ;  Amos  iii.  5.  Furthermore,  the  word 
n^y  is  the  name  of  the  burnt  offering,  because  it, 

in  distinction  from  the  other  sacrifices,  disappears 
entirely — is  completely  consumed  by  the  fire. 
The  clearest  proof  that  the  word  here  has  the 
signification,  take  away,  remove,  is  the  fact  that 
the  disciples  of  the  prophets,  as  well  as  Elisha 
himself,  always  make  use  of  the  word  np?,  and 

not  of  ,-^y,  when  speaking  of  Elijah's  removal  (vers. 
3,  5,  9  &  10),  and  say  nothing  of  any  taking  up 
into  heaven.  It  is  not  possible,  therefore,  that  rOV 
should  signify  something  altogether  different  from 
np?  here.     Precisely  this  latter  word  is  used,  Gen. 

v.  24,  in  reference  to  Enoch :  "  And  he  was  not 
( WJ'Nl ,  i-  e.,  he  disappeared  suddenly,  and  left  no 

trace  behind,  Job  vii.  8;  cf.  Delitsch  on  Hebr. 
xi    5.      Luther:    'He  was  .seen  no  more');   for 

God  took  him  (npij)-"     The  removal  is  therefore 

the  main  point ;  and  it  is  o;ly  stated  here  in  ad- 
dition— which  is  not  done  in  the  case  of  Enoch — 
in  what  way  the  removal  took  place,  viz. :  mUD3 , 

in  the  whirlwind;  and  besides,  D'OtS'it,  towards 

heaven,     iTIVD  signifies  not  only  "  the  rapidity  of 

the  elevation  "  (Thcnius),  but  also  a  storm,  com- 
bined with  thunder,  dark  clouds,  wind,  and  fire 
;isai.  xxix.  6;  Ezek.  i.  4;  xiii.  11,  13;  Ps.  cvii.  25). 
Through  such  a  storm,  then,  Elijah  was  separated 
from  Elisha,  aud  removed  heavenwards.  Now 
when  Elisha  sees,  in  this  fiery  storm-cloud, 
"charot  and  horses"  of  fire,  that  does  not  mean 
to  »..t  that  he  saw  a  literal  chariot  and  literal 
horses.     On   the   contrary,  he  recognized,   in   the 


fiery  appearance,  that  which  "chariot  and  horses* 
signify.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament language,  these  things,  as  the  principal 
means  of  protection  and  defence  of  a  people 
against  foreign  aggression,  are  the  representation* 
of  its  might  and  strength,  of  its  glory  and  fear- 
fulness  (cf.  Isai.  xxxi.  1  sq. ;  xxxvi.  9 ;  Ex.  xiv 
9,  17  ;  Deut.  xx.  1 ;  1  Kings  x.  29).  They  are  also 
ascribed  to  Jehovah,  and  then  they  are  an  indica- 
tion of  His  great  might,  majesty,  and  glory,  with 
which  He  conquers  aud  annihilates  His  opponents, 
but  protects  and  saves  His  own.  Thus  Habakkuk  : 
"Was  thy  wrath  against  the  sea,  that  thou  didst 
ride  upon  thine  horses  and  thy  chariots  of  salva- 
tion?" Also  Isaiah  (lxvi.  15):  "For  beheld  the 
Lord  will  come  with  fire,  and  with,  his  chariots, 
like  a  whirlwind,  to  render  his  anger  with  fury, 
and  his  rebuke  with  flames  of  fire."  Cf.  also  Ps. 
civ.  3 :  "  Who  maketh  the  clouds  his  chariots." 
That  we  have  here  also  to  think  of  the  chariot  aud 

horses  of  Jehovah,  is   shown  by  the  C'K  which 

occurs  with  both  words,  for  fire  is  the  well-knowi: 
form  of  theophany  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  xxiv. 
17  ;  Deut.  ix.  3  sq. ;  Ps.  1.  3;  Isai.  xxix.  6:  Ezek.  i. 
4,  27).  Just  in  the  same  manner,  the  servant  ct 
Elisha.  after  his  eyes  have  been  opened,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  prayer  of  the  prophet  (2  Kings 
vi.  14-17),  sees,  opposed  to  the  "horses  and 
chariots  "  with  which  the  Syrians  had  surrounded 
the  city  in  which  Elisha  was,  the  whole  mountain 
full  of  "horses  and  chariots  of  fire;"  i.e..  over- 
against  the  earthly  power,  he  sees  the  infinitely 
greater  protecting  and  saving  might  of  Jehovah. 
The  following  verso  (12),  where  Elisha  calls  Elijah 
"  Chariot  of  Israel  and  Horsemen  thereof,"  espe- 
cially supports  the  figurative  interpretation.  Re- 
cognizing the  inadmissibility  of  the  literal  accepta- 
tion, which  presupposes  the  existence  of  literal 
fiery  chariots,  with  fiery  horses  attached  to  them, 
passing  down  from  heaven  and  up  again  into 
heaven,  in  which  one  could  ride  without  being 
burned,  some  expositors  have  understood  by 
"chariot  and  horses,"  as  Grotius  does,  Angeli  ea 
specie  apparentes.  "  The  vehicle,"  says,  among 
others,  J.  Lange,  "  or  the  outward  sign  with  which 
Elijah  rose  towards  heaven,  was  doubtless  a 
cloud.  Still,  as  Elijah  was  no  doubt  accompanied 
by  an  entire  band  of  angels,  as  Christ  was  after- 
wards, these  gave  to  the  cloud  the  form  of  a  fiery 
chariot  and  fiery  horses,  by  virtue  of  the  divine 
power  and  the  divine  will,  so  that  the  cloud  took 
the  form  of  a  heavenly  triumphant  chariot." 
Similarly  Menken  says  that  Elijah  "  was  taken  up 
by  the  service  of  angels;  but  that  the  appearance 
was  that  of  a  flaming  chariot  ami  Naming  horses." 
But  the  text,  in  this  place,  says  ii"t  a  word  about 
angels,  although,  according  to  this  view,  they 
would  be  the  chief  agents:  and  although  the  his- 
tory of  Elijah  makes  mention  of  the  service  of 
angels  in  other  places  (1  Kings  xix.  .''.  7  ;  2  Kings  i. 
3,  15).     Ps.  lxviii.  17  cannot  be  cited  to  support  this 

interpretation,  for  there  also  331  is  not  equal  to 

angel,  but  is  a  designation  of  the  immeasurable  and 
mighty  war-power  of  Jehovah.  The  interpretation 
of  Keil  seems  more  probable:  "The  storm-gust  is 
the  earthly  substratum  of  llu  theophany:  the  fiery 
chariot  with  the  fiery  horses  is  the  symbolic  form 
in  which  the  translation  of  the  master  into  heaver 
presents  itself  to  Elisha,  who  remains  behind." 


CHAPTER  II.  1-25. 


The  chariot  and  the  horses  would,  however,  in 
that  case,  hare  been  just  as  much  definite  and 
visible  forms,  even  if  symbolic  ones,  and  we 
should  have  to  suppose  that  Elisha  saw  Elijah 
actually  in  the  chariot  and  riding  in  it  towards 
heaven,  of  which  the  text  knows  nothing.  It  is 
not  the  form  and  outline  which  is  symbolic,  but  the 
expression  "  chariot  and  horses  of  fire."  Wehave 
not  to  think  of  a  "symbolic  form"  in  ver.  11  any 
more  than  in  ver.  12,  when  Elisha  calls  Elijah 
"  Chariot  of  Israel  and  Horsemen  thereof."  In 
this  way,  under  a  more  accurate  observation  of  the 
text,  it  is  true  that  the  supposition  that  Elijah  rode 
away  into  heaven  in  a  fiery  chariot,  drawn  by 
fiery  horses,  which  is  still  so  generally  adopted, 
is  overthrown;  by  no  means,  however,  is  the  mi- 
raculous removal  or  translation  of  Elijah  over- 
thrown :  that  is  the  main  point  of  the  narrative, 
with  which  we  must  satisfy  ourselves,  just  as  we 
must  satisfy  ourselves  with  what  is  said,  Gen.  v. 
24  (cf.  Hebr.  xi.  5),  in  regard  to  the  translation  of 
Enoch.  So  Von  Gerlach  remarks  on  the  passage 
in  Genesis:  "All  the  questions  in  regard  to  the 
departure  of  this  patriarch  and  that  of  Elijah, 
whither  they  were  removed  ?  where  they  now  are  ? 
what  changes  they  underwent  in  the  translation  ? 
are  left  unanswered  by  the  Scriptures."  Keil  also 
says :  "  All  further  questions,  e.  g.,  in  regard  to  the 
nature  of  the  chariot  of  fire  and  the  place  to  which 

Elijah  was  translated are  to  be  set 

aside  as  useless  subtleties  concerning  things  which 
surpass  the  limits  of  our  understanding."  We  are 
only  justified  in  thus  setting  them  aside,  however, 
if  we  have  rejected  the  fiery  horses  and  the  fiery 
chariot  and  the  ride  up  into  heaven,  which  Keil 
does  not  do.  It  is  well  worth  observing  that  the 
primitive  church,  little  inclined  as  it  was  to  shrink 
back  from  a  miracle,  still  did  not  know  anything 
of  any  heavenward  ride  of  Elijah.  The  Sept.  ren- 
der D^O'J'n  ,  in  ver.  1  and  ver.   11,  by  <Jc  fie  rbv 

ovpavov,  and  thereby  show  clearly  that  they  con- 
ceived of  a  raising  up  towards,  but  not  into,  heaven. 
Ephraim  Syrus  says,  "  Suddenly  there  came  a  fiery 
storm-gust  from  on  high,     ....     and  divided 
the  two  from  one  another ;   the  one   it  left  upon 
earth,  the  other,  Elijah,  it  bore  away  on  high ;  but 
whither  the  Ruach  bore  him,  or  in  what  place  it 
let  him  down,  the  Scriptures  do  not  tell  us."     (Cf. 
Keil's  remarks  on  the  passages.)   Theodoret  says: 
'0  peya$  'H//ac  a,ve%f$dtj  ukv,  a?.?/  ovk.  fir  rov  ovpav6v, 
aXK  <1iq  fie  roi'  ovpavov.  In  like  manner  Chrysostom, 
Theophylact,  and  CEcumenius  (see  the  citations  in 
Suicer,  Thesaur.  Ecclesiast.  i.  1317).     That  the  Jews 
also,  before  and  at  the  time  of  Christ,  knew  noth- 
ing of  an  ascension  of  Elijah  into  heaven,  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  in  the  great  eulogy  of  Elijah 
(Sirach  xlviii.  1-12),  where  this  wonderful  removal 
is  mentioned,  neither  in  ver.  9  nor  in  ver.  12  do  we 
find  fir  rov  ovpavov:   Josephus,  also,  who  narrates 
all   the  miracles  in    the  history  of   Elijah,    says,  I 
at   length  (Antiq.    ix.    2,  2):     'H?.lac  tf   av8p&min>\ 
T^aviadj]  • — Kai  ovdelt;  e}i'(j  pe xpt  r^c  ai}p.c-pov  avrov  tt/v  I 
Te/Levrqv,  and  then  he  adds  that  the  Scriptures  de- 1 
clare  of  Enoch  and  Elijah  :  on  yiydvaatv  atpaveig  ■  I 
ddvarov  di:  avruv  ovdels  oldev.     In   the   Scriptures  j 
themselves  there  is  no  mention  whatever  of  the  i 
ascension  of  Elijah  into  heaven,  not  even  in  Hebr. 
xi.  where  we  should  most  expect  it.     Now  if  this 
ascension  was,  as  is  asserted,   "one  of  the  most 
glorious,  significant,  and  joyful  events  which  the 


world,  before  the  time  of  Christ,  had  seen"  (Krum- 
macher),  how  does  it  happen  that,  however  often 
mention  may  be  made  of  Elijah,  just  this  event, 
which  is  asserted  to  be  the  most  important  in  his 
career,  remains  utterly  unmentioned  ?  Kurtz  (iD 
Herzog's  Encyclop.  iii.  s.  758)  asserts  indeed  that 
"  as  regards  the  ascension  of  Elijah,  all  those  who 
are  not  ready  to  look  upon  the  gospel  history  as  a 
collection  of  myths  will  be  compelled  to  adopt  the 
opinion  which  regards  this  as  an  historical  event, 
for  the  Transfiguration  of  Christ.  Man.  xvii.,  can 
only  be  maintained  as  a  fact  if  2  Kings  ii.  is  also 
a  fact ;  the  one  narrative  stands  or  falls  with  the 
other."  This  conclusion,  however,  is  incorrect; 
for,  if  Elijah  could  only  appear  in  and  at  the  Trans- 
figuration of  Christ,  because  he  had  ascended  into 
heaven,  then  Moses  also,  who  appears  with  him, 
must  have  ascended  into  heaven,  of  which  there 
is  not  the  least  mention,  either  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  5 
sq.  or  anywhere  else.  [A  general  protest  shotnd 
also  be  raised  against  the  last  clause  of  this  opin- 
ion of  Kurtz.  The  mode  of  defending  a  disputed 
point  by  connecting  it  with  some  other  very  im- 
portant and  generally  accepted  one,  and  then  as 
sorting  that  they  stand  or  fall  together,  is  very 
often  adopted,  but  it  is  on  every  account  to  be 
condemned.  It  is  not  a  sound  method  of  procedure 
either  according  to  logic  or  history,  and  it  is  fatal 
to  all  exegetical  science. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  12.  And  Elisha  saw  it,  &c,  i.  e.,  that  Eli- 
jah "was  miraculously  carried  away"  (Keil).  By 
the  words:  "My  father,  my  father!"  Elisha  ex- 
presses what  the  departing  one  was  for  himself 
(see  ver.  9),  and  by  the  words:  "Thou  chariot  of 
Israel  and  horsemen  thereof  1  "  what  he  was  for 
the  whole  nation.  King  Joash  makes  use  of  the 
same  figurative  expression  in  ch.  xiii.  14,  in  regard 
to  Elisha.  It  does  not  mean  "  that  Elijah  had  been 
the  protection  and  help  of  Israel  even  in  war " 
(Cuho.r  Bibel),  but  "Elijah  is  thereby  designated 
as  the  one  in  whom  consisted  that  true  defence  of 
Israel,  which  far  surpassed  its  physical  strength." 
(Thenius.)  See  notes  on  ver.  11.  Elijah  was  the 
might  for  war  and  the  strength  for  defence  of  Is- 
rael, especially  in  so  far  as  he  defended  it  against 
its  greatest  and  most  dangerous  enemy,  who  threat- 
ened it  with  ruin — against  the  intruding  idolatry, 
with  which  he  struggled  victoriously.  The  excla- 
mation stands,  as  was  noted  above,  in  unmistaka- 
ble connection  with  the  words  "chariot  of  fire 
and  horses  of  fire."  If  this  is  a  designation  of  the 
protecting,  saving,  and  conquering  might  of  Jeho- 
vah, then  it  was  very  natural  to  call  the  great 
prophet,  who  had  maintained  himself,  in  all  his 
career,  as  an  instrument  of  this  power  in  its  deal- 
ings with  Israel,  "the  Chariot  of  Israel  and  the 
Horsemen  thereof."  If,  on  the  other  hand,  this 
fiery  phenomenon  which  separated  the  two  proph- 
ets from  one  another  had  had  the  form  and  figure 
of  a  chariot  drawn  by  horses,  which  was  intended 
to  bring  Elijah  to  heaven,  it  would  be  inexplicable 
how  a  mere  equipage,  even  if  it  were  ever  so 
wonderful  a  one,  could  have  led  Elisha  to  call  his 
departing  master  a  "  Chariot."  Elijah's  whole  na- 
ture was  fiery  and  energetic:  "He  burst  forth 
like  a  fire,  and  his  word  burned  like  a  torch,  . 
.  .  .  thrice  brought  he  down  fire "  (Siracb 
xlviii.  1,  3).  To  this  the  mode  of  his  removal  in 
the  fiery  whirlwind  corresponded,  and  it  was,  as 
it  were,  the  divine  seal  upon  his  entire  career;  sc 
that  he  stands,   for  all    coming  time  (eir  naipoif, 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Sir.  xlviii.  10),  as  the  man  of  the  fiery  jealousy  of 
God. — And  he  saw  him  no  more;  that  is.  he  did 
not  see  how  Elijah  rode  into  heaven  in  a  fiery 
chariot,  but  from  the  moment  when  the  fiery  blast, 
the  storm-cloud,  separated  them  from  one  another, 
he  saw  him  no  more:  ir  '/ai'/.a-i  ioKe—acdij  (Sir. 
xlviii.  12),  he  disappeared  suddenly  from  his  eyes, 
became  ayavi/Q.  Then  Elisha  rent  his  garments, 
and  that  too  "  in  two  pieces,"  i.  e.,  from  top  to  bot- 
tom, as  a  sign  of  the  greatest  grief  and  the  deepest 
sorrow.  If  he  had  been  a  witness  of  the  ''trium- 
phal entry  "  of  his  master  into  heaven,  as  it  has 
been  often  supposed  that  he  was,  he  would  have 
had  ntDre  cause  to  rejoice  than  to  rend  his  clothes 
for  gr.ef ;  his  feelings  were  by  no  means  joyous, 
they  were  rather  in  the  highest  degree  sad. 

Ver.  13.  He  tock  up  also  the  mantle,  &c.  The 
mantle  is  here,  as  in  ver.  8,  the  insigne  of  the  of- 
fice of  the  prophetical  leader.  When  Elijah  chose 
Elisha  as  his  successor  he  threw  this  mantle  upon 
him  (1  Kings  xix.  19).  Now,  however,  he  leaves 
it  to  him  as  a  bequest  and  sign  that  his  prayer  in 
Ter.  10  is  fulfilled,  and  that  he  must  now  undertake 
the  leadership  of  the~  prophets.  He  returns  with 
this  symbol  in  his  possession,  and,  when  he  arrives 
at  the  Jordan,  has  to  make  the  trial  whether  the 
power  itself  has  been  granted  him  together  with 
the  symbol.  As  Elijah  had  done  in  passing  over 
the  Jordan,  he  also  strikes  the  water  with  the 
mantle,  and  says:  Wheie  is  the  Lord  God  of 
Elijah,  even  He?  Jer.  ii.  6,  8,  where  the  sever- 
est charge  against  the  people,  and  especially 
against  the  priests  and  teachers,  is,  that  they  have 

not  asked  the  question  flirt'  nsS  ,  "  Where  is  Je- 
hovah ?  "  but  have  turned  away  from  Him,  shows 
that  this  was  not  a  question  of  doubt  or  imperfect 
faith.  On  the  contrary,  Elisha  presents  a  prayer, 
full  of  faith  and  confidence,  to  Jehovah,  in  the 
more  emphatic  form  of  a  question :  "  Thou  God 
of  Elijah,  if  Thou  art  also  mine,  and  if  lam  Thy  ser- 
vant according  to  Thy  will  and  command  as  he  was, 
then  let  this  become  evident  by  granting  that  that 
may  take  place  at  my  word  which  Thou  grantedst 
should  come  to  pass  at  his  "  (Menken).     The  mas- 

soretic  punctuation  separates  the  words   Nin"r|N 

from  the  question,  and  joins  them  with  the  following 
sentence.  Accordingly  DeWette translates:  "Also 
he  (as  Elijah  had  done  before)  smote  the  water," 
fai.d  Bunsen:  "  Also  when  he  smote  the  water;  "] 
•and  Ewald:  "Hardly  had  he  smitten  the  water, 
when  it  divided  again."  But  the  l  before  r\y  is  a 
bar  to  this  interpretation,  and  ^X  nowhere  has  the 

meaning  of  "hardly."  [Apparently  feeling  the 
force  of  this  latter  objection,  Ewald,  ed.  vii.  s.  853, 
note,  changes  f|N  to  ?]N  ■     The  reading  of  the  E. 

V.  agrees  with  that  of  De  Wette  and  Bunsen. — 
W.  G.  S.]  Bottcher  and  Thenius  following  Hou- 
bigant  wish  to  read  N1DK :  "  Where  is  now  Jeho- 
vah, the  God  of  Elijah  ?"  This  reading,  however, 
is  entirely  without  authority,  and  the  position  of 
the  word  at  the  fuel  ,,t'  the  question  is  also  against 
it.  The  Sept.  render  n  meaninglessly  by  the  same 
sounds  in  Greek  letters:   a<pipu,     We  take  cjx  here 

as  in  Prov.  ixii.  19,  (where  Gesenius  translates: 
docev  te,  te  inquarn.)  that  is  to  say,  even  He;  He,  I 
say.  (So  also  Kcil  [and  Scott].)  The  Yulg.  has 
in  ver    14:  et  percussit   iquas,  et  non  sunt  diviscr* 


Et  dixit :  ubi  est  Deus  Elice  etiam  nunc  t  percussit 
que  aquas  et  divisa  sunt.  The  Complutensian  edi 
tion  of  the  Sept.  has  the  addition:  kqi  ov  dtnpifdrj, 
following  which  Theodoret  and,  later,  Dathe  ex- 
plain the  verse  thus :  that  Elisha  considered  th« 
mantle  of  Elijah  capable  of  working  miracles,  and, 
in  the  first  place,  struck  the  water  with  it,  without 
saying  anything;  but  that,  as  this  was  unsuccess- 
ful, he  called  upon  the  God  of  his  master  eom- 
plainingly.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  addi- 
tion is  only  an  explanatory  gloss,  occasioned  by 

the  repetition  of  H3^,  which  does  not,  however, 

indicate  any  repetition  of  the  act  of  striking. 

Ver.  15.  And  when  the  sons  of  the  Prophets, 
ic.  They  saw  Elisha  come  back  alone,  and,  since 
he  had  been  able  to  do  the  same  as  Elijah,  ihey 
concluded  that  the  im  of  Elijah  rested  upon  him, 

that  is,  that  the  same  extraordinary  power  and 
gifts  had  been  given  to  him  by  Jehovah,  as  pre- 
paration for  the  same  calling,  therefore  they  went 
to  meet  him  and  showed  their  respect  for  him. 
From  their  words  in  ver.  16,  however,  it  is  clear 
that  they  were  uncertain  whether  Elijah  had  been 
"taken  up"  forever,  or  only  for  a  time,  perhaps 
in  the  manner  referred  to  by  Obadiah.  1  Kings 
xviii.  12.  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  them 
to  speak  in  this  way  if  they  had  had  especial  in 
formation,  by  a  divine  revelation,  of  a  formal  as- 
cension of  Elijah  into  heaven,  as  has  been  deduced 
from  vers.  3  and  5.  It  is  a  supposition  which  can- 
not be  maintained,  that,  although  Elisha  had  no 
doubt  narrated  to  them  what  had  occurred,  they 
still  believed  that  "  the  Lord  had  taken  his  (Eli- 
jah's) soul  up  into  heaven,  but  that  his  earthly 
body  had  fallen  down  somewhere  upon  the  earth, 
and  that  they  desired  to  find  this  in  order  that 
they  might  show  it  the  last  honors"  (Keil),  for,  in 
this  case,  Elisha  must  have  answered  them :  I  saw 
Elijah  ride  on  a  fiery  equipage  in  glory  into  hea 
ven ;  he  is  therefoi  e  no  longer  upon  earth,  but  in 
heaven,  as  was  revealed  to  you  beforehand : — or 
else,  what  reason  did  he  have  for  not  saying  this  ? 
Moreover  their  words,  ver.  16,  do  not  indicate  by 
any  means  that  they  simply  desired  to  find  his 
corpse,  in  order  to  bury  it.  It  is  evident  that  they 
expected  to  find  the  living  and  not  the  dead.  The 
fact  that  they  insisted  upon  their  proposition  in 
spite  of  Elisha's  attempts  to  dissuade  them  shows 
plainly  that  he  had  not  communicated  anything  in 
regard  to  an  ascension  into  heaven  to  them.  He 
was  certain  that  Elijah  had  departed  or  been  taken 
away  forever.  Hence  he  said:  "Ye  shall  not 
send."  When,  at  length,  he  permits  them  to  send, 
on  account  of  their  ceaseless  persistency,  he  does 
so  in  order  that  they  may  become  satisfied,  by 
their  own  investigation,  that  lie  has  now  suc- 
ceeded to  the  position  of  Elijah,  and  that  they 
have  henceforward  to  attach  themselves  to  him  as 
their  leader.    K*3""1J7  (ver.  17)  does  not  mean :  very 

long,  (itsto  diutius  (PeWette  and  others),  nor:  more 
than  was  becoming,  nor:  in  a  shameless  manner 
(Menken,  Thenius),  but:  until  he  was  himself  dis- 
appointed in  the  hope  (of  dissuading  them  from 
their  purpose).  L"i2  often  has  this  meaning  (cf. 
Ps.  xxii.  5:  xxv.  2,  3,  20;  Ixix.  fi),  and  it  is  also  a 
very  appropriate  significatioi.  for  Judges  iii.  25, 
and"  2  Kings  viii.  11.  The  sons  of  the  prophet! 
wished  to  have  "strongmen"  sent  out,  because 
the  search  over  mountains  and  in  valleys  was  at 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25 


17 


tended  with  difficulty  and  danger.  It  should  also 
be  observed  that  Elisha  on  the  return  of  the  fifty 
men,  only  reminds  them  of  his  advice  which  they 
had  neglected,  but  does  not  say  a  word  of  the  as- 
cension of  Elijah,  much  as  we  might  expect  that 
he  would  now  do  so. 

Ver.  19.  And  the  men  of  the  city  said,  ic. 
Perhaps  it  was  the  authorities  who,  in  the  name 
of  the  city,  addressed  themselves  to  Elisha,  who 
now  stood  at  the  head  of  the  prophets,  and  whose 
affable  disposition  had  inspired  them  with  confi- 
dence.   VTS<n  cannot  here  mean  "ground"  (Keili, 

for  it  is  not  the  ground,  but,  as  ver.  21  says  dis- 
tinctly, "  the  water "  which  was  drunk,  which 
caused  miscarriage,  and  "  in  fact  the  direct  use  or 
enjoyment  of  this  or  that  water  has  either  a  bene- 
ficial or  a  prejudicial  effect  on  the  functions  of 
conception    and    parturition  ''    (Theuius).        ]",X 

stands  here,  therefore,  as  it  does  Gen.  ix.  19 ;  xi. 
1 ;  xix.  31.  It  was  "  pleasant  to  dwell "  in  Jericho, 
for  it  lay  in  a  magnificent  situation,  "  rising  like  an 
oasis  from  a  broad  plain  of  sand"  (Winer,  /.'.-  W'.-B. 
i.  s.  543).  Yer.  20.  Elisha  calls  for  a  "new" 
vessel,  i.  e.,  one  which  had  not  yet  been  used  for 
any  purpose  whatever,  because  it  was  intended 
for  a  religious  act,  for,  in  general,  all  that  was 
employed  in  the  service  of  Jehovah  must  be  as  yet 
unused,  i.  e.,  uncontaminated  (cf.  Numb.  xix.  21. 
Keil  takes  the  "  new  cruse  "  "  as  a  symbol  of  the 
renewing  power  of  the  Word  of  God,"  but  it  was 
only  the  receptacle  for  the  salt,  by  means  of  which 
the  water  was  to  be  made  good  and  healthful,  and 
it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  "  Word  of  God."  The 
prophet  made  use  of  salt  because  it  is  used  as  a 
means  of  preserving  that  into  which  it  is  placed, 
and  keeping  it  from  rottenness  and  decay  (death), 
in  that  it  draws  out  the  impure  particles.  In  so 
far,  then,  it  has  healing  and  vivifying  power  (cf. 
Symbol,  des  Mosa.  Kultus,  ii.  s.  325  sq.);  it  is  a 
symbol  of  the  purifying,  restoring  power  which 
proceeds  from  Jehovah,  for  it  was  He,  and  not  the 
salt,  as  such,  who  purified  the  spring  and  made 
the  waters  uninjurious,  as  ver.  21  distinctly  de- 
clares. [The  "  salt "  was  neither  more  nor  less 
significant  in  this  case  than  the  "  meal "  in  eh.  iv. 
41. — W.  G.  S.]  The  act  of  casting  the  salt  into 
the  spring  was  a  prophetical,  symbolical  action,  in 
which  (see  1  Kings  xvii.  Hist.  §  6)  the  prophet 
represents  that  which  the  Lord  is  about  to  do,  by 
visible  signs,  and  with  the  corresponding  natural 
means.  When  P.  Cassel  (Der  Prophet  Elisa.  s. 
xxi.)  declares  that  there  is  a  reference  here  to  the 
salt  of  the  covenant  in  the  sacrifices  (Levit.  ii.  13; 
Numb  xviii.  19),  and  says:  "The  miracle  of  Eli- 
sha signified,  for  the  inhabitants  of  Jericho  and  for 
Israel  through  all  time,  a  covenant  of  salt  with  the 
word  and  promise  of  God,"  it  is  an  evident  error, 
for  Jehovah  does  not  say :  I  make  with  you  a  cov- 
enant of  salt  I  but :  I  make  this  water  healthful,  I 
heal  it.  It  is  true  that  salt  serves  as  the  symbol 
of  a  covenant,  to  indicate  its  durability  and  sanc- 
tity, but  only  on  account  of  its  power  of  preserv- 
ing and  protecting  from  corruption  and  decay, 
which  is  the  only  thing  that  here  comes  into  con- 
sideration. In  this  connection  there  is  no  reference 
whatever  to  a  "covenant  of  salt." — The  sprpg  in 
question  exists  "unto  this  day,"  ver.  22;  and  is 
"  doubtless  the  spring  now  known  as  Ain  es  Sul- 
tan, the  only  spring  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jericho. 
Its  waters  spread  over  the  plain  of  Jericho. 
2 


.  A  large  spring  of  water,  which  is  indeed  not 
cold,  but  at  the  same  time  not  warm,  and  has  a 
sweet  and  pleasant  taste  "  |  Keil. ;  cf.  Robinson,  Bibl 
Res.  in  Palest,  i.  554-5,  or,  ii.  233-4,  ed.  of  1841). 

Ver.  23.  And  he  went  up  from  thence  unto 
Bethel,  &c.  As  the  successor  of  Elijah  iu  the  office 
of  leader  of  the  prophets,  Elisha  wished  to  visit, 
for  the  first  time,  the  school  of  the  prophets  at 
Bethel,  the  principal  seat  of  the  illegal  worship 
(ver.  3).     The  D'a-jp  D'"iW  can  scarcely  be  "little 

boys"  (Luther),  i.  e.,  irresponsible  children,  who  do 
not  know  what  they  say.  In  the  first  place  their 
mocking  address  is  opposed  to  this  view,  and  still 
more  the  judgment  which  fell  upon  them.  Solo- 
mon was  at  least  twenty  years  old  when  he  coji- 

menced  to  reign,  and  yet  he  calls  himself  jcp  ~,JJJ 

(1  Kings  iii.  7).  Jeremiah  also  calls  himself  a 
-|J!J  at  the  time  of  his  calling  to  be  a  prophet,  Jer. 

i.  >;.  7.  likewise  Joseph  was  so  called  at  a  time  when 
he  was  at  least  seventeen  years  old  (Gen.  xxxvil 
2|.  It  is  also  shown  by  1  Kings  xii.  s.  10,  14, 
where  the  young  counsellors  of  Rehoboam  are 
called  D,T?,1  that  this  word  (ver.  24)  need  not 

necessarily  be  understood  of  little  boys.  There- 
tore  Krummacher  and  Cassel  translate  correctly  by 
"young  people."  [There  is  an  element  of  modesty 
in  the  use  of  the  word  by  Jeremiah  and  Solomon- 
at  a  comparatively  advanced  age.  There  were, 
quite  a  number  of  these  persons,  more  than  forty- 
tivn.  according  to  ver.  24.    D'"1JJJ  's  tne  word  which 

would  be  used  of  them  if  they  were  of  various 
ages,  from  children  up  to  young  men.  It  would 
not  exclude  the  possibility  that  there  were  two  or 
three  older  persons  among  them. — W.  G.  S.]  Both 
the  older  and  more  recent  expositors,  Krumma- 
cher. J.  Lange,  and  Kurtz,  translate  the  mocking 
address  by  "Ascend,  bald-head!  (i,  e.,  like  Elijah)," 
so  that  there  would  be  in  it,  at  the  same  time, 
scorn  for  the  ascension  of  Elijah  [Patrick  and 
Comp.  Conim.],  and  the  sense  would  be :  "  Let  him 
also  ascend  and  be  off,  that  they  might  be  rid  of 
him,"  or:  "Elisha.  fool  that  thou  air.  show  thy- 
self a  prophet.  If  thou  canst  do  anything,  let  ua 
see  it!"  (Krummacher.)  This  is  certainly  incor- 
rect, for  n?l'  evidently  refers  to  the  preceding 
n^jj ,  aud  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  mean  some- 
thing entirely  different  from  this.  Furthermore, 
H?y  never  means  ascend  (Bee  notes  on  ver.  11); 
and  how  could  these  young  people  have  heard  and 
known  already  about  the  "ascension"  of  Elijah, 
which  (ver.  16)  was  not  known  even  to  the  disci- 
ples of  the  prophets?  Doubtless  the  young  people 
had  recognized  him  from  a  distance  by  his  proph- 
et's mantle  (perhaps  the  one  left  behind  by  Elijah, 
ver.  13),  as  a  prophet,  and  therefore,  as  a  zealous 
opponent  of  the  calf  and  Baal  worship,  which  had 
its  principal  seat  in  Bethel  (1  Kings  xii.  20);  as 
they  saw  him  now  going  up  the  hill  to  the  city, 
they  called  to  him  in  mockery :  Go  up  into  our  city, 
thou  bald-head,  what  dost  thou  want  here  among 
us?  The  expression  "bald-head"  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  it  generally  is.  of  actual  baldness, 
nor  of  "  a  smooth  place  on  the  back  of  the  head  " 
(Keil),  for  how  were  the  young  people  to  notice  this 
in  Elisha  as  he  approached  them  from  a  distance? 
Moreover,  Elisha  was  still  in  his  best  years,  and  h» 


18 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


lived  for  at  least  fifty  years  after  this  time,  so  that 
he  could  not  possibly  have  been  bald-headed  already 
on  account  of  age.  Still  less  can  there  be  any  ref- 
erence to  an  artificial  bareness  of  the  head,  for  the 
Law  forbade  directly  all  persons  who  were  conse- 
crated to  the  service  of  Jehovah,  as,  for  instance, 
the  priests  and  nazarites,  to  shave  the  hair  of  the 
head  (Levit.  xxi.  5 ;  Numb.  vi.  5).  In  general,  to 
make  bald  the  head  was  a  sign  of  dishonor  and 
disgrace  (Isai.  iii.  17;  xv.  2),  and  baldness  was  also 
a  mark  of  leprosy  (Levit.  xiii.  43).  "  Bald-head  " 
i>.  therefore,  a  disgraceful  epithet,  which  refers, 
nut  to  a  bodily  imperfection,  a  "natural  fault" 
(Ki  ill,  but  to  the  calling  of  Elisha  as  man  of  God 
and  prophet;  he  is  thereby  designated  as  one  who 
is  the  opposite  of  that  which  he  pretends  to  be 
and  appears  to  be,  as  an  impure  and  expelled  per- 
son. Cassel  remarks:  " The  expression  of  the  Jews 
for  Roman  Catholic  priests,  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  until  recent  times,  was  '  bald-heads : ' 
the  tonsure  passed  among  them  as  a  mark  of  tin- 
very  opposite  of  consecration  and  holiness."  [The 
epithet  either  had  its  origin  in  fact  and  Elisha  was 
prematurely  bald,  or  else  it  was  a  standing  epithet 
of  insult  used  for  old  or  reverend  people,  inde- 
pendently of  the  fact  whether  the  particular  per- 
son addressed  was  bald  or  not. — "W.  G.  S.]  It  is 
evident,  then,  from  this  epithet,  that  the  young 
people  had  recognized,  in  Elisha,  a  prophet,  and 
that  they  meant  to  scoff  at  him  precisely  as  such. 
Therefore  the  prophet  had  to  deal  here  with  some- 
thing very  different  from  mere  wantonness,  such 
as  little  boys  sometimes  practise  with  a  failing  old 
man. 

Ver.  24.  And  he  turned  back,  i.e.  That  which 
Moses  and  Aaron  say  to  the  people  about  their 
complaints:  "Your  murmurings  are  not  against 
us  but  aganist  the  Lord  "  (Ex.  xvi.  8 ;  cf.  Acts  v. 
4),  is  also  applicable  here.  The  scorn  of  the  chil- 
dren attacked  not  so  much  the  person  of  Elisha  as 
tin-  calling  which  had  been  bestowed  upon  him  by 
Jehovah,  and.  in  so  far,  it  was  a  contemning  of 
Jehovah  himself,  which  the  prophet,  on  his  first 
appearance  in  that  capacity,  and  here  in  Bethel,  of 
all  places,  could  not  allow  to  pass  in  silence  and 
unrebuked,  without  denying  his  holy  calling.  He 
cursed  them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  that  is, 
he  threatened  them  with  a  divine  judgment,  which 
in  the  sequel  did  not  fail  to  befall  them.  There 
came  forth  two  she-bears,  whether  at  once,  and 
in  the  presence  of  Elisha,  or  not,  is  uncertain 
(Koster:  "How  long  afterwards,  is  not  men- 
tioned ").  Bears,  especially  she-bears,  are  repre- 
sented as  very  fierce  and  ravenous  (Prov.  xvii.  12; 
xxviii.  15;  Hos.  xiii.  8;  Dan.  vii.  5.  Cf.  Winer, 
y.'.-ll'.-y;.  i.  s.  130).  That  they  ate  up  forty-two 
of  the  children  is  not  asserted  in  the  text,  for 
n^Unon  only  means :  they  split,  opened,  i.  e.,  tore 

t  :   —    : 

to  pieces  (Hos.  xiii.  8).  Perhaps  it  only  means  to 
say  in  general  that  they  perpetrated  a  great  mas- 
sacre  among  them;   the  word    DnD   shows    that 

there  were  many  more  than  forty-two  of  them  in 
all,  and  this  has  led  to  the  conjecture  that  their 
meeting,  for  the  purpose  of  reviling  the  prophet, 
was  planned  and  prepared.  It  is  possible  that  they 
had  heard  of  the  coming  of  a  new  head  of  tin' 
prophets,  and  had  gone  out  to  meet  him  in  a  body, 
in  order  to  revile  him.  Nevertheless,  the  number, 
forty-two,  which  cannot  be  a  round  or  symbolic 
number,   is  a  very  large  one  to  be  destroyed  by 


two  bears.  In  general  such  is  the  brevity  and 
disconnectedness  of  the  narrative,  that  all  sorts 
of  questions  arise,  which  remain  unanswered, 
although  they  do  not  justify  us  in  declaring  the 
story  a  simple  legend,  or  indeed  a  mere  fiction. 

Ver.  25.  And  he  went  from  thence  to  Mount 
Carmel,  &e.  It  can  hardly  be  that  Elisha  stayed 
for  any  length  of  time  at  Bethel.  Whether,  as 
Krummacher  thinks,  he  hastened  away  because 
"the  vision  of  the  monstrous  act  which  he  had 
performed  lay  upon  his  heart  with  the  weight  of 
mountains,"  and  because  the  consciousness:  such 
a  deed  have  I  done !  drove  him  into  retirement,  in 
order  that  "he  might  take  breath  again  and  re- 
cover his  composure  in  the  arms  of  Jehovah,"  ir< 
very  doubtful.  On  the  contrary  he  seems  to  have 
sought  solitude  after  the  manner  of  the  prophets 
(see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xvii.  3),  as  soon  as  he  had 
presented  himself  to  the  sons  of  the  prophets  as 
the  successor  of  Elijah,  in  order  to  prepare  himself 
for  his  further  public  life.  He  chose  Carmel  for  this 
purpose,  because  this  mountain,  with  its  numerous 
grottos  and  caves,  was  especially  fitted  for  a  resi- 
dence in  concealment;  perhaps,  also,  because  Eli- 
jah had  there  first  broken  the  power  of  idolatry 
(see  notes  on  1  Kings  xviii).  After  the  return 
from  Carmel  he  dwelt  in  Samaria  (cf.  ch.  vi.  32), 
from  which  fact  we  see  that  under  Jrhoram,  al- 
though Jezebel  still  lived,  the  persecution  of  the 
prophets  had  diminished  or  indeed  entirely  ceased. 

HISTORICAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

1.  The  removal  of  Elijah,  with  which  the  visi- 
ble existence  of  this  great  prophet  ends,  is  the 
main  point  of  the  narrative  before  us,  and  is,  there- 
fore, before  all  else,  to  be  thoroughly  compre- 
hended. In  the  first  place,  the  mode  and  form  in 
which  it  took  place,  come  into  consideration.  It 
wras  not  a  mere  disappearance,  a  becoming  invisi- 
ble, but  it  was  brought  about  by  a  fiery  storm- 
blast.  The  peculiar  mode  of  Elijah's  removal 
stands  in  an  unmistakable  relation  to  his  vocation, 
which  consisted  in  this,  that  he  was  to  be,  by  word 
and  deed,  the  herald  and  the  instrument  of  the 
divine  judgment  against  apostasy  and  idolatry,  and 
was  to  renew  the  broken  covenant  (see  1  Kings  xvii. 
Hist.  §  1).  His  entire  public  life  and  work  had, 
therefore,  the  character  of  that  of  a  judge — on  the 
one  side  destroying  and  consuming,  and  on  the 
other  reforming  and  constructing.  Just  as  every- 
where in  the  Scriptures,  and  especially  in  the  Old 
Testament,  fire  is  the  form  in  which  all  the  action 
of  God  as  judge  presents  itself  (Deut.  iv.  24 ;  ix.  3 ; 
xxxii.  22;  Numb.  xi.  1,  2;  xvi.  35;  Isai.  iv.  4 
xxvi.  11;  xxix.  6;  Ps.  xxi.  9;  1.  3;  Zeph.  i.  18; 
Hebr.  xii.  29;  2  Peter  iii.  7,  12,  Ac),  so  the  words 
of  this  instrument  of  the  divine  energy  were  words 
of  fire,  and  his  deeds  were  deeds  of  fire.  Thus  he 
appears,  not  only  in  the  historical  books,  but  also 
especially  in  the  great  panegyric  of  the  holy  fath- 
ers, in  the  book  of  Sirach,  which  begins  its  de- 
scription, when  it  comes  to  this  prophet,  with  the 
words:  "And  Elijah  arose,  a  prophet  like  fire,  and 
his  words  burned  like  a  torch,"  and  closes  with 
these:  "And  he  was  taken  up  in  a  whirlwind  of 
fire,  in  a  chariot  of  fiery  horses.  And  he  is  ap- 
pointed for  the  discipline  of  future  times,  to  soothe 
away  anger  before  judgment,  and  to  convert  the 
heart  of  the  father  to  the  son,  and  to  establish  the 
tribes  of  Jacob"  (Sirach  xlviii.  1,  9,  10).     When 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25. 


1£ 


cow  this  fire-prophet  is  removed  and  carried  away 
by  God  in  a  fiery  storm,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  a 
divine  judgment  which  was  executed  upon  him, 
but  a  divine  confirmation  of  his  work,  in  its  pre- 
dominant aspect,  viz..  the  judicial;  so  that  it  is,  as 
it  were,  the  seal  of  God  upon  that  which  Elijah 
was  for  his  own  and  for  all  future  times,  viz.,  the 
surety  for  and  the  herald  of,  every  great  judg- 
ment-day of  God,  i.  e.,  of  the  fire,  which  acts  as  well 
to  purify  and  build  up  as  to  destroy  and  devastate 
(Mai.  hi.  2;  iv.  1-6.  Cf.  Hengstenberg,  Christolo- 
gie  desA.  T.  hi.  «.  441  sq.).  As  such  an  actual  wit- 
ness of  the  all-conquering  judicial  might  of  God, 
he  was  not  destined  to  come  to  his  end  in  weak- 
ness and  decay,  to  experience  the  usual  death,  the 
embodiment  of  all  human  powerlessness  and  tran- 
sitoriness, 'but  he  was  destined  to  be  removed  in 
divine  power  and  might.  His  translation,  far  from 
being  indifferent,  accidental,  and  insignificant,  bore 
the  same  stamp  as  his  temporal  and  earthly  ap- 
pearance, and  corresponded  perfectly  to  his  pecu- 
liar and  unparalleled  position  in  the  divine  economy 
of  salvation.  Only  in  this  way  can  his  removal  and 
the  mode  of  it  be  explained,  whereas,  according 
to  that  conception  of  the  event,  which  lays  all  the 
stress  upon  a  chariot,  drawn  by  horses,  instead  of 
upon  the  fire,  any  connection  between  it  and  the 
life  and  peculiar  work  of  the  prophet  is  wanting, 
and  we  can  at  best  only  suppose  that  this  was  an 
extraordinary  reward  for  his  labors.  The  ques- 
tion, What  became  of  the  body  of  Elijah  upon  his 
translation?  is  exactly  like  the  other  one,  Into  what 
place  did  he  come  ?  and  it  must  remain,  to  say  the 
least,  an  open  question,  since  the  Scriptures  are 
entirely  silent  in  regard  to  it.  Those  expositors, 
both  in  earlier  and  later  times,  who  maintain  a 
formal  ascension  of  Elijah,  adopt  either  the  idea 
of  a  transmutation  of  his  body  during  the  ascen- 
sion (Krummacher :  "  While  he  is  riding  on,  lo ! 
his  body,  the  dust,  is  gradually  transmuted."  ["  His 
body  being  transformed  in  his  passage  toward 
heaven,  he  was  carried  up  to  live  among  the  an- 
gels." Patrick]),  or  that  of  a  sudden  transfor- 
mation, citing  1  Cor.  xv.  51  sq. :  "  But  we  shall  all 
be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an 
eye,  at  the  last  trump."  (Keil :  "  Elijah  did  not 
die,  but  was  taken  up  by  a  transformation  into 
heaven,"  and  he  remarks  on  Gen.  v.  24:  '-Who- 
ever is  raised  above  death  by  the  grace  of  God, 
cannot  arise  from  the  dead,  but  arrives  at  the 
af&apeia,  or  the  purified  state  of  perfection,  by  a 
transformation,  or  'being  clothed  upon,'  2  Cor.  v. 
4.")  But,  not  to  speak  of  other  objections,  "trans- 
formation," or  new-clothing  of  the  believers  in 
Christ,  presupposes  the  entire  work  of  Christ,  es- 
pecially his  elevation  to  the  right  hand  of  God  and 
his  second  advent ;  it  is  conditioned  upon  that 
second  coming,  and  it  is  something  which  is  to 
take  place  but  once,  in  an  extraordinary  manner 
(cf.  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  16).  So  St.  Paul  designates  it 
as  a  "mystery,"  which  he  could  not  have  done  if 
it  had  already  taken  place  in  like  manner  under 
the  old  covenant.  To  carry  back,  therefore,  [this 
Christian  conception  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
lead,  in  a  spiritual  and  incorruptible  body,]  and 
apply  it  to  Enoch  and  Elijah,  is  an  inadmissible 
mixing  up  of  the  economies  of  salvation  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments. 

2.  The  translation  of  Elijah  has  been  compared 
n  many  ways  with  the  ascension  of  Christ,  and 
iken  as  a  type  of  the  same.     So,  for   instance. 


Richter  says:  "By  this  means  it  was  intended 
that  the  Ascension  of  Christ  should  be  typified  and 
made  more  credible,"  and  Keil:  "Elijah  .  .  . 
as  forerunner  of  Christ  (Mai.  iii.  3;  Matt.  xi.  1C 
sq.)  was  received  up  into  heaven  without  tasting 
death,  in  order  to  foretell  the  asceusion  of  our 
Lord,  and  to  typify  it,  after  the  manner  of  the  Old 
Testament."  This  opinion  rests,  however,  directly 
upon  the  premise  that  Elijah  ascended  into  heaven 
in  the  same  manner  as  Christ.  Tet  the  Scriptures 
speak  with  very  different,  and  in  fact  very  defi- 
nite, expressions  of  the  departure  of  Christ,  not  as 
a  removal  or  translation,  but  as  an  ascent  into 
heaven  and  a  reception  there,  an  entrance  into  the 
glory,  which  he  had  before  the  foundations  of  the 
earth  were  laid  (Mark  xvi.  19;  Luke  xxiv.  51; 
Acts  i.  9-11;  ii.  33  sq.;  vii.  55;  John  xvii.  o,  24). 
Christ  actually  tasted  death,  but  he  arose  from  the 
dead  and  was  elevated,  as  victor  over  sin  and 
death,  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  heaven 
(Hebr.  viii.  1).  He  himself  says:  "No  man  hath 
ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  He  that  came  dowi: 
from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  Man,  which  is  in 
heaven"  (John  iii.  13);  although  these  words  may 
refer,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  insight  into,  and 
knowledge  of,  divine  things,  yet  they  also  testify, 
nevertheless,  to  something  which  the  Son  of  Man 
alone  is  capable  of,  as  the  Apostle  also  writes: 
"  He  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended 
up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  He  might  fill  all 
tilings  "  (Eph.  iv.  10).  In  the  case  of  Christ,  the 
Ascension  forms  an  integral  and  essential  moment 
in  His  work  of  salvation.  There  begins  His  kingly 
function,  and  that  redemptive  work  which  lasts 
into  eternity  (Hebr.  iv.  14;  v.  9,  10;  ix.  12).  In 
the  case  of  Elijah,  on  the  contrary,  his  entire  work 
ceases  upon  his  translation.  It  is  not  the  entrance 
into  a  broader,  higher  activity  in  heaven,  but  the 
end,  even  though  a  glorious  end,  of  his  work,  and 
on  this  account  it  cannot  pass  for  a  type  of  the 
Ascension  of  Christ.  To  compare  it  with  this, 
therefore,  or  to  put  it  on  the  same  line  with  this 
is  to  take  from  Christ  what  belongs  to  Him  alone 
and,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  thing,  can  be 
long  only  to  Him.  If  Elijah  had  ridden  upon  a 
fiery  chariot,  drawn  by  fiery  steeds,  up  into  hea- 
ven, his  ascension  would  have  been  far  more  glo- 
rious and  brilliant  than  that  jf  the  Lord  of  Glory, 
when  He  was  raised  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Ma- 
jesty on  high;  how  then  can  it  lie  a  type  of  this? 
If  Keil.  in  spite  of  this,  insists  upon  an  "ascen 
sion  "  of  Elijah,  and  observes :  "  He,  to  be  sure 
who  does  not  know  how  to  estimate  the  spirit  and 
nature  of  the  divine  revelation  of  salvation,  will 
also  be  unable  to  comprehend  this  miracle,"  thei 
we  may  assert,  at  least  with  just  as  much  right : 
He  who  does  not  know  how  to  estimate  Christ 
and  the  significance  of  His  Ascension  into  hea 
ven,  will  indeed  also  talk  about  an  ascension  oi 
Elijah  into  heaven.  Even  Theodoret,  in  his  day, 
wrote  on  Ps.  xxiv.  9 :  Atcji'iovc  Ss  irvXac  avmyr/va' 
-apaK£?.evovrac  cic  finSeTrore  Ty  tyvau  tuv  dvdpuTvi. 
viravoiyeiaae.  Ovdeic  yap  eneivac  ruv  avOptj-ran, 
AieTripaae  :rwn-ore,  aW  6  h'av&poirqaac  Oeoc  X6yoct 
ryv  i/iisripav  hvaXafiuv  airapxi/v,  avfiyaye'  te  el(, 
ovpavobg,  nal  EKa&ioev  kv  fiesta  rfjc  fieya'AuGvvTjc  li 
role  hh/j/nic,  eTrdi'u  rrdoy/c  dpxfjc  koX  egovoiac  k  r.  \. 
(Eph.  i.  21).  6  tie  ph'ac  'Wuac  avOJ/ipdi]  fttv.  aXX 
•7VK  etc  rbv  oipavdv,  aXX'  tjc  e'lc  tov  ovpavdi: 

The  departure  of  Elijah  points  back  to  that  of 
Enoch  and  Moses,  rather  than  forward  to  that  o' 


20 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Christ.  It  is  not  only  said  of  Enoch,  as  it  is  of 
Elijah,  "  God  took  him  away  "  (Gen  v.  24) ;  but  also 
that  he  announced  (Trpoe&qievoe)  to  the  rebellious 
and  godless  of  his  time  the  coming  of  the  Lord 
"  to  execute  judgment  upon  all,  and  to  convince 
(eicteyzai,  cf.  Sir.  lxviii.  10;  iv  e?.ey/iolc)  all  that 
are  ungodly  among  them  of  their  ungodly  deeds  " 
(Jude  14  sq.).  He,  therefore,  had  a  calling  like  to 
that  of  Elijah  in  its  essential  character ;  and,  as 
"  the  seventh  from  Adam "  (through  Seth),  he 
marks  an  epoch  in  the  divine  plan  of  redemption 
(see  the  Comment,  on  Gen.  v.  24,  and  Jude  141. 
Then,  in  regard  to  Moses,  it  is  not  indeed  stated 
that  God  ''took  him  away,"  but,  that  he  buried 
him,  and  that  no  one  learned  anything  of  his 
sepulchre,  or,  as  some  say,  of  his  burial  (Deut. 
xxxiv.  6).  The  Jewish  tradition  goes  still  further. 
According  to  Origen  (Ilcpi  'Apxifrv,  iii.  2),  Jude  took 
what  he  states  in  ver.  9,  about  the  struggle  for 
the  body  of  Moses,  from  a  well-known  Jewish 
document,  which  had  for  its  title :  'Avafiaoic  tov 
Mufffwc;  and,  according  to  Josephus  (Antiq.  iv. 
8,  48),  after  Moses  had  embraced  Joshua  and 
Eleazar  for  the  last  time,  while  he  was  still  talk- 
ing with  them,  he  was  suddenly  carried  away 
(aoavi(e-ai)  by  a  cloud  into  a  valley,  and  disap- 
peared from  their  eyes.  However  it  may  be  with 
regard  to  the  authority  of  these  traditions,  so 
much  remains  certain,  that  the  departure  of  Moses 
is  "placed  in  the  same  category"  with  that  of 
Enoch  and  that  of  the  second  Moses,  Elijah 
(Kurtz,  Gesch.  des  Alten  Bundes,  ii.  s.  526).  All 
these  mark  definite  epochs  in  the  development  of  the 
Old  Testament  plan  of  salvation — they  are  prophets 
in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word.  Enoch  walked 
"  with  God,"  i.  e.,  in  the  most  intimate  intercourse 
with  him ;  Moses  stood  in  such  close  relation  to 
God  that  he  talked  with  him  face  to  face,  as  a  man 
talks  with  his  friend  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11) ;  Elijah's  entire 
life  was  consumed  in  fiery  zeal  for  the  cause  of  the 
Lord,  so  that  Sirach  closes  his  panegyric  with  the 
words :  fiandpim  o'i  tS&vrec  as.  No  one  of  the  three 
••■  itnesses  and  preachers  of  the  divine  judgments, 
lor  his  own  and  for  all  future  times,  was  destined 
io  undergo  the  sentence  of  death  and  corruption. 
The  world  was  not  to  "  see  them  submit  to  death  " 
(Schultz).  God  took  them  away:  and  although 
Moses  died,  on  account  of  his  transgression  in  the 
desert  of  Zin  (Deut.  xxxii.  51),  nevertheless  he  died 

i"riiT  'B'^V     ["according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  " 

(Deut.  xxxiv.  5).  The  author  does  not  translate 
these  words,  but  seems  to  give  them  a  peculiar 

signification.     It  is  true  that   ""Bp^l  often  means 

"according  to  the  command  of,"  i.e.,  something 
was  executed  or  performed,  according  as  some  one 
had  commanded,  but  it  never  means  that  some- 
thing took  place  at  or  upon  some  one's  command 
or  fiat.  The  author  seems  to  give  it  some  such 
signification  as  this  last,  that  is,  that  although 
Moses  died — passed  through  the  individual  experi- 
ence and  the  physical  change  which  we  know  as 
death,  yet  he  did  so,  not  as  a  result  of  disease,  or 
after  decline  and  weakness  and  age,  but  "at  the 
word  of  the  Lord,"  which  omnipotently  removed 
him,  in  a  moment,  from  life  to  death.  If  such  an 
interpretation  were  justified  by  the  usage  of  the 
language,  it  would  go  far  to  establish  the  parallel 
between  Enoch  aid  Elijah  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Moses  on  the  other,  and  to  put  his  end  on  the  same 


line  with  theirs.  As  it  is,  the  interpretation  ii 
rather  born  of  the  attempt  to  make  out  the  parallel, 
than  founded  on  the  usage  of  the  language.  Th« 
end  of  Moses  was  mysterious,  and  its  significance 
is  most  justly  stated  in  the  remark  quoted  alo^e 
from  Schultz.  We  are  not  justified  in  saying  more 
about  it ;  and  the  Hebrew  words  in  the  text  mean 
simply  that  he  died,  as  God  had  said  that  he  would, 
without  entering  Canaan.  It  is  right  to  deny  the 
parallelism  between  the  end  of  Elijah  and  the 
Ascension  of  Christ,  and  to  bring  the  former  into 
relation  with  the  end  of  Enoch  certainly,  and,  per- 
haps, with  that  of  Moses  also,  to  some  extent ;  but 
the  latter  parallelism  must  not  be  urged  too  far. — 
W.  G.  S.]  After  he  had  ascended  (n^J?)  Mount 
Nebo,  and  enjoyed  a  view  of  the  Land  of  Promise,  he 
was  withdrawn  forever  from  the  sight  of  the  world. 
This  removal  was  the  main  point  in  the  1'ase  of  all 
three,  however  different  the  mode  of  it  was  in  the 
separate  instances.  It  has,  however,  as  a  "taking 
away,"  only  an  essentially  negative  character 
WJ'Kl  Gen.  v.  24 ;   cf.  2  Kings  ii.  12 ;  Deut.  xxxiv. 

6),  whereas  the  Ascension  of  Christ,  as  the  eleva- 
tion of  the  victor  over  sin  and  death,  to  lie  Lord 
over  all  which  can  be  mentioned,  not  only  in  this 
world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come  (Eph. 
i.  21),  is  of  a  purely  positive  nature,  and  in  fact, 
as  well  as  in  significance,  something  totally  dif- 
ferent. 

3.  The  different  views  of  the  end  of  Elijah  may 
be  divided  into  two  classes. 

(a)  The  old  realistic  view,  which  maintains  an 
actual  "  ascent  into  heaven,"  has  been  presented,  in 
recent  times,  most  definitely,  and  with  the  most 
earnest  hostility  to  any  other  view,  by  Krummacher 
(Elias  der  Thisbiter,  s  414—125).  By  way  of  intro- 
duction he  says :  "  We  are  on  the  side  of  biblical 
realism.  Whosoever  takes  that  from  us,  takes  from 
our  heart  everything :  for  facts — facts  are  what  it 
must  have,  this  human  heart ;  the  more  palpable 
and  substantial  they  are  the  better.  .  .  .  My 
taste  is  for  the  massive  in  the  Bible."  Having 
adopted  this  stand-point,  he  refuses  to  be  satisfied 
with  "fiery  clouds,  in  the  form  of  a  chariot  and 
horses"  (Calwer  and  Hirschbtrger  Bibel),  or  with 
a  cloud  of  angels,  by  whose  ministry  Elijah  was 
received  up  to  heaven,  as  Grotins,  Menken  and 
others  suppose,  but  he  gives  the  following  repre- 
sentation of  the  event:  "The  black  clouds  fringed 
with  glowing  fire,  burst.  A  gigantic  gate  of  fire 
opens,  ....  and  out  of  this  blazing  portal 
there  dashes  forth  into  the  air  a  flaming  chariot 
and  gleaming  horses  of  fire,  who  spring  with  it  to 
the  earth  as  if  harnessed  to  a  pole  of  adamant, 
.  .  .  .  only  a  few  steps  from  the  man  of  God, 
an  invisible  charioteer  draws  up  the  reins,  and  the 

horses    stop How    wonderful,    how 

unheard-of  is  the  event !  Here  stands  a  chariot  of 
fire  !  Here  are  real  horses  from  on  high  !  .  .  . 
Raised  upon  invisible  hands,  the  prophet  mounts, 
with  joyful  courage,  into  the  blazing  chariot.  .  . 
The  horses  of  fire  raise  themselves,  and  swiftly  as 
an  arrow  from  a  bow,  they  spring  away  upon  the 
road  of  air,  heavenwards,  toward  the  open  Hame- 
gate  of  the  firmament.  Ha!  how  it  rolls  away 
from  cloud  to  cloud !  When  the  gleaming  wheels 
touch  a  cloud,  the  thunder  rolls  ;  where  the  supple 
steeds  set  down   their   feet,  there   the  lightnings 

Hash    forth    under    their    hoofs The 

King  of  kings  himself  it  is  who  fri.des  the  equ!- 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25. 


21 


page  by  invisible  reins They  have 

Boon  flown  through  the  atmosphere  of  the  earth, 
and  now  the  road  loses  itself  in  those  regions 
where  the  mortal  eye  stands  at  the  limit  of  its 
sight.  Between  the  heavenly  orbs  they  fly  along, 
those  flaming  steeds,  and  the  thundering  wheels 
ro'l  on,  as  it  were  through  a  fiery  ocean,  past 
thousands  of  suns  and  stars The  tire- 
steeds  plunge  forward,  as  with  redoubled  steps, 
toward  the  open  portal,  and  now  through  it  into 
paradise — into  the  ever-green  meadows  and  the 
palm-groves  of  heaven.  The  chariot  stops,"  &c.,  &c. 
This  entire  representation,  in  which  the  fiery  steed 
of  the  phantasy  seems  to  have  run  away  with  his 
rider,  only  shows  what  we  may  come  to,  if  we 
take  the  words  of  the  text,  "chariot  of  fire  and 
horses  of  fire,''  in  a  literal  sense.  The  war  against 
every  figurative  interpretation  of  these  words  as  a 
"  spiritual  dish  of  froth,  offered  by  an  over- 
estimated wisdom,"  appears  all  the  more  remark- 
able, as  the  words  which  immediately  follow : 
"The  chariot  of  Israel  and  the  horsemen  thereof," 
and  which  correspond  to  the  previous  words, 
cannot  possibly  be  understood  literally,  but  only 
figuratively,  as  they  are  understood  also  by  Kriim- 
macher  himself.  Passing  by  all  else,  it  only  re- 
mains now  to  call  attention  to  one  point,  viz.,  how 
mean,  we  might  almost  say,  the  Ascension  of  Him 
who  was  more  than  all  prophets,  and  who  was 
elevated  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high, 
appears  in  contrast  with  this  supposed  magnificent 
ascension.  For  the  rest,  Krummacher  is  good 
enough  to  declare,  for  the  comfort  of  those  whose 
taste  is  not  for  the  "massive  in  the  Bible,"  that 
"  in  truth,  it  is  not  belief  in  these  horses  which 
brings  us  salvation,  just  as  doubt  of  their  existence 
would  not  damn  anybody." 

(h)  The  rationalistic  view  will  not  hear  anj'thing 
of  an  ascension  into  heaven,  nor  of  a  miraculous 
removal  of  Elijah.  On  the  authority  of  the  pas- 
sage, 2  Chron.  xxi.  12,  J.  D.  Michaelis  asserts 
(Anmerkungen  far  Ungelehrte  XII.  on  2  Kings  ii.  1) 
that  Elijah  was  only  carried  away  out  of  Palestine, 
and  that  he  lived  at  least  twelve  years  longer,  for 
"  no  ono  receives  letters  from  people  in  heaven." 
For  the  same  reason  Winer  (i?.-  W.-B.  i.  s.  318) 
also  believes  that  he  "  only  withdrew  into  solitude, 
leaving  it  to  his  pupil  to  carry  on  the  prophetical 
ministry."  So  also  recent  Jewish  expositors,  as,  for 
instance,  Philippson.  But  in  2  Chron.  xxi.  there  is 
not  a  word  about  a  letter  (12D),  hut  only  about 

writing  (3HDD),  which  is  said  to  have  reached  Je- 

horam  from  the  prophet  Elijah.  Such  a  writing, 
however,  Elijah  nught  very  well  have  written  be- 
fore his  removal,  and  entrusted  to  Elisha,  that  he 
might  send  it,  at  the  appropriate  time,  to  the  king 
(Keil);  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose,  as  some 
do,  a  mistake  between  the  names  Elijah  and  Elisha. 
Precisely  this  passage  of  the  Chronicle  can,  least 
of  all,  be  brought  to  bear  against  the  story  in 
2  Kings  ii.  Bertheau  says  in  regard  to  it:  "  It  is 
not  mentioned  anywhere  else  that  Elijah  performed 
any  prophetical  action  by  means  of  writing.  Ai 
the  time  when  Jehoram  ruled  in  the  southern 
kingdom,  Elijah  might  still  have  been  alive,  ac- 
cording to  the  chronological  data  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  is  probable,  to  begin  with,  that  he  did 
speak  in  regard  to  Jehoram's  sin,  and  that  he 
threatened  him  with  punishment ;  but  the  '  letter ' 
is  composed  in  general  terms,  and  gives  only  a 


prophetic  explanation  of  the  misfortunes  by  which 
Jehoram  wTas  visited.  From  this  we  must  con- 
chide  that  it  proceeds,  in  the  form  in  which  we 
have  it,  from  a  later  historian,  who,  drawing  from 
sources  which  we  do  not  know,  described  the  re- 
lation between  Jehoram  and  Elijah  with  a  few 
words,  and  according  to  its  broad  and  general 
features."  Still  less  is  it  possible  to  uphold  the 
different  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  ex- 
plain the  miraculous  event  in  some  natural  manner, 
as.  lor  example,  that  Elijah  was  carried  off  by  a 
water-spout,  with  accompaniment  of  thunder  and 
lightning  (Jahn,  Eirdeit.  in's  A.  T.  ii.  1,  s.  261),  or 
that  he  was  hurled  away  by  a  storm- wind,  or  that 
he  lost  his  way  in  a  cloud,  or  that  the  king  caused 
him  to  be  seized  and  hurried  oft'  in  a  chariot,  dur- 
ing a  storm  (Exeyet.  Handbi  'n  des  A.  J'.,  on  the 
passage),  or,  finally,  that  a  whirlwind  drove  dust 
and  sand  into  the  air,  as  often  takes  place  whej 
horses  and  chariots  run  over  sandy  ground,  and 
that  Elisha  imagined,  when  he  heard  the  thunder 
like  rolling  of  wheels,  and  saw  the  frequent 
lightnings,  that  his  master  had  ridden  away 
towards  heaven  in  a  fiery  equipage  (Hetzel,  on  the 
passage).  Even  Knobel  (Der  Prophet,  der  Hebr.  ii. 
s.  85)  declares  that  all  these  explanations  are  "  very 
forced."  They  are  to  be  regarded  as  antiquated, 
and  they  do  not  deserve  refutation.  It  is  not  much 
better,  however,  to  put  the  removal  of  Elijah  on 
the  same  line  with  the  apotheosis  of  Ganymede 
(Horn.  Iliad,  xx.  233),  or  of  Romulus  (Liv.  i.  16), 
(Knobel,  I.  c.\  for  what  does  this  genuine  Old  Testa- 
ment  narrative  contain  in  the  slightest  degree  simi- 
lar to  the  genuine  heathen  and  Roman  legend  of 
Romulus,  who  did  not  live  till  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  Elijah,  or  with  the  genuine  heathen 
and  Greek  legend  of  Ganymede,  who  was  thought 
worthy  of  the  society  of  the  immortal  gods  on  ac- 
count of  his  physical  beauty  ?  Such  comparisons 
prove  as  great  self-will  as  thoughtlessness. 

(c)  The  purely  idealistic  view,  which  has  been 
maintained,  especially  by  Ewald  (Gesch.  Israels,  iii. 
*'.  543  [3d  ed„  584]),  followed  by  Eisenlohr  and 
Bunsen.  starts  from  the  premise  (see  Prelim.  Rem. 
after  1  Kings  xvii.)  that  the  history  of  Elijah,  in 
the  form  in  which  it  lies  before  us,  was  remoulded 
by  an  historian  who  lived  two  hundred  years  later 
than  Elijah,  and  who  was  gifted  with  a  genuine 
poetical  soul,  and  that  he  presented  the  highest  pro 
phetical  truth  in  historical  form.  "A  life  on  earth, 
purer  than  that  of  any  other  man  of  that  time, 
consecrated  to  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  yet 
spent  in  such  all-controlling  exertion  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  kingdom  of  God,  could  only  have 
a  corresponding  termination:  ceasing  to  be  in  the 
\  isiMe  world,  it  will  work  all  the  more  powerfully 
and  undisturbedly  in  the  spiritual  realm,  that  is, 
will  be  received  up  into  heaven.  In  that  moment 
heaven  bends  itself  down  here  to  earth,  to  raise 
up  from  hence  to  itself  that  soul  which  already 
belongs  to  it.  Therefore,  a  fiery  chariot  with  fier» 
steeds  moves  down  from  heaven  and  takes  up  Elijah 
in  a  whirlwind  to  heaven.  It  is  only  eternal  truth 
which  seeks  to  explain  itself  in  this  hold  expres 
sion."  Especially,  however,  it  is  said  the  re 
mainder  of  the  description  represents,  at  the  same 
time,  more  precisely  "how  an  Elijah  quits  his 
friends  on  earth  and  they  him,"  and  thus  gives 
expression  to  the  following  truth:  "When  the 
moment  approaches  when  a  holy  man  like  Elijah 
is  to  be  taken  away  from   the  earth,  then  a  dis- 


22 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KIN  ",S. 


crimination  takes  place  among  those  who  have 
hitherto  passed  for  his  friends  and  followers.  The 
great  mass  of  these  draw  back  in  fear  and  un- 
belief— only  a  few  remain  faithful  unto  the  end ; 
but  only  upon  these  (as  in  this  case  upon  Elisha) 
does  the  blessing  and  spirit  of  the  saint  who  is  to 
be  removed  from  the  earth  directly  fall."  According 
to  this  mode  of  acceptation,  the  entire  narrative  of 
the  translation  of  Elijah  would  be  an  allegorical 
fiction.  But,  elevated  as  the  delineation  certainly 
is.  it  still  bears  by  no  means  the  features  of  poetic- 
al composition,  in  which  "  every  limitation  of  the 
vulgar  historical  material  has  been  disregarded." 
On  the  contrary,  as  Menken  has  observed  :  "  The 
tone  of  the  narrative  is  the  same  which  predomi- 
nates in  the  preceding,  and  which  we  also  find  in 
the  following,  chapters.  This  incident  is  narrated 
just  as  simply,  prosaically,  and  unpoetiealry  as  the 
entire  history  of  both  prophets,  or  anything  else 
which  is  historical  in  both  Books  of  the  Kings." 
(See  also  Prelim.  Rem.  after  1  Kings  xvii.)  Not 
to  dwell  upon  that,  however,  where  under  the  hea- 
vens would  a  poet  of  the  Old  Testament  suppose 
the  "  purely  spiritual  realm  "  to  be  ?  and,  bold  as 
the  figurative  expressions  of  the  Old  Testament  cer- 
tainly are,  where  does  anything  occur  which  would 
be  in  any  degree  similar  to  this:  that  "a  fiery 
chariot  and  fiery  horses  "  should  be  the  expression 
for  the  purely  spiritual  realm  which  receives  up 
into  itself  the  soul  which  already  entirely  belongs 
to  it  ?  There  would  be  no  need  of  such  a  detailed 
historical  dress  as  we  here  find  for  the  utterly 
simple  and  prosaic  truth,  that  on  the  end  of  a 
great  man  a  discrimination  between  his  followers 
is  wont  to  occur ;  and  besides  that,  in  the  case  be- 
fore us,  no  such  discrimination  or  distinction  took 
place.  There  is  no  sign  whatever  of  any  "con- 
trast between  Elisha  and  the  ordinary  pupils  of 
the  prophets ;  "  on  the  contrary,  they  are  so  warmly 
and  faithfully  attached  to  Elijah,  that,  in  spite  of 
the  dissuasion  of  Elisha,  they  will  not  be  prevented 
from  sending  out  fifty  men  to  seek  for  the  trans- 
lated master  and  lord.  It  is  impossible,  therefore, 
that  they  should  be  a  figure  for  the  "great mass," 
which  "draws  back  in  fear  and  unbelief,"  when 
the  master  is  taken  away  from  the  earth.  How- 
ever fine  and  spiritual  the  idealistic  acceptation 
may  appear,  it  shows  itself,  on  a  more  close  in- 
vestigation, to  be  utterly  unmaintainable  both  as 
a  whole  and  in  the  details. 

[A  peculiar  interest  has  always  attached  to  the 
prophet  Elijah,  differing  in  nature  from  that  which 
is  felt  for  the  other  prophets,  just  as  he  differed 
from  them.  The  manner  in  which  he  appears  in 
tin  narrative,  suddenly,  without  preparation  or 
introduction,  and  without  reference  to  his  antece- 
dents ;  the  way  in  which  he  traverses  the  history, 
from  time  to  time,  each  appearance  forming  a  cri- 
-i-:  the  enigmatical  character  of  his  existence; 
the  do u  l>i  as  to  where  he  had  been  in  the  mean- 
time, how  he  went,  how  he  returned,  and  how 
In-  bad  lived  during  his  absence;  finally,  his  mode 
of  working,  which  was  despotic,  all-controlling, 
sun-  of  itself,  free  from  hesitation  or  doubt,  and, 
afl  it  seemed,  from  any  deliberation;  self-assum- 
ing to  a  degree  which  nothing  could  warrant 
nut  the  inner  conviction  of  the  very  highest  pro- 
phetical calling,  and  which  could  only  be  main- 
tained by  the  mosl  direct  and  certain  inspiration; 
- — till  these  things  conspired  to  make  his  name  one 
ot   terror  and  wonder,  and  to  leave  a  deep  impres- 


sion on  the  popular  mind,  so  that  we  find  that  hii 
name  still  lives  in  wild  legends  and  fables  among 
the  Mohammedans  and  ignorant  Christians  of  tin 
East  (see  Mr.  Grove's  article  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  thi 
Bib.  and  authorities  there  referred  to).  The  ques- 
tion is  sometimes  asked,  Why  have  we  no  Elijahs 
any  more  ?  Why  are  there  no  men  so  penetrated 
and  inspired  by  the  Divine  Spirit  now-a-ilays? 
Why  have  we  no  men  whom  the  world,  with  its 
temptations  of  all  sorts,  cannot  touch,  but  itself  lies 
open  to  their  insight  and  judgment,  with  all  its 
deceits  and  weaknesses,  all  its  follies  and  vices,  all 
its  corruptions  and  falsehoods?  Many  men  aspire 
to  purity,  communion  with  God,  elevation  above 
the  world,  and  seek  to  obtain  influence  over  it. 
that  they  may  improve  it  and  lead  it  up  to  God, 
but,  although  kings  and  rulers  are  depraved,  and 
are  often  seduced  into  vice  and  injustice  and  cor- 
ruption, although  laws  and  institutions  are  unjust, 
and  nations  forget  God  and  abandon  Him  for  false 
worship  of  all  sorts,  yet  no  Elijah  appears  to  de- 
stroy and  dash  in  pieces  what  is  base  and  wrong, 
and  to  consume  it  with  a  fire  of  divine  vengeance, 
or  to  nourish  and  build  up  institutions  which  may 
regenerate  the  world.  The  first  reason  is  that  we 
do  not  believe  that  any  such  men  will  arise.  We 
have  made  up  our  minds  that  they  cannot  be  and 
so  they  never  will  be.  Here  again  faith  is  the 
grand  postulate.  Who  knows  what  measure  of 
His  Spirit  God  might  give  to-day  to  any  one  who 
held  himself  ready  to  receive  it?  Elijah,  if  he 
were  here  to-day,  would  hear  and  understand  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  much  as  he  did  centuries  ago. 
Few  men,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  world,  are 
ready  to  accept  the  necessary  preconditions  of 
such  a  calling.  The  first  of  these  is  utter  self-ab 
negation  and  self-surrender.  He  who  thinks  of 
himself  at  all,  or  carries  with  him  one  care  for  self 
and  one  consideration  of  his  own  pleasure,  profit, 
or  renown,  is  no  prophet.  A  prophet  must  cast 
himself  utterly  into  the  plan  and  providence  of  God, 
and  exist,  thereafter,  only  for  it.  His  calling  is  to 
be  above  the  world  and  to  oversee,  weigh,  con- 
demn, and  correct,  from  the  elevated  stand-point 
of  God's  eternal  providence,  all  which  men  do  and 
plan  and  hope  for,  or  despise  and  reject  and  battle 
against,  on  earth.  He  must  see,  to  some  extent, 
as  God  sees.  He  must  judge,  so  far  as  a  man  can, 
as  God  judges;  that  is,  according  to  His  eternal 
providence  and  plan.  He  must  be  in  and  of  his  own 
time,  but  so  elevated  above  it  as  to  grasp  its  signifi- 
cance in  the  history  of  redemption, as  a  product  of  the 
past  and  a  fountain  of  the  future.  From  this  stand- 
point he  must  judge  all  separate  incidents,  all  indi- 
vidual characters,  all  proposals  and  plans,  all  new 
institutions,  which  it  is  proposed  to  found,  all  old 
ones  which  it  is  proposed  to  abolish.  To  such  a 
calling  no  man  is  called  for  his  worldly  honor 
that  he  may  be  the  adored  of  millions.  The  world 
has  too  strong  a  hold  on  all  who  are  in  it.  They 
can  never  tear  off  its  bands  while  they  are  touched 
by  its  attractions.  No  man  can  raise  himself  above 
his  time  while  his  interests  are  all  in  it.  It  is  only 
in  the  severance  of  all  these  ties  that  he  can  gain 
freedom  to  mount  up  to  God.  If  there  were  men, 
however,  who  were  capable  of  this  absolute  de- 
nial of  the  world  and  absolute  surrender  to  God, 
lit  no  one  dare  to  say  what  they  could  not  receive 
from  God.  A  false  idea  of  Elijah  and  othe-  Old 
Testament  prophets,  as  if  they  had  possessed  pow- 
ers of  divination  and  magic,  which,  as  we  well 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25. 


23 


know,  no  man  now  possesses,  has  led  us  to  despair 
of  such  gifts  as  they  had,  and  to  regard  them  as 
belonging  entirely  to  a  past  age.  The  "  arm  of  the 
Lord  is  not  shortened,"  however,  and  He  can  fill 
His  servants  with  as  rich  a  measure  of  His  Spirit 
for  their  work  to-day  as  He  did  His  prophets  of  old, 
if  they  will  only  expect  it  and  wait  for  it.  If  such 
men  as  Elijah  were  needed  to-day  for  carrying  on 
the  work  of  salvation,  God  could  raise  them  up. 
This  brings  us  to  another  reason  why  none  such 
arise.  Elijah  was  a  phenomenon  of  a  turbulent 
period,  in  a  disorganized  state.  He  was  a  hero,  in 
a  heroic  age.  For  him  it  was  possible  to  live  in  a 
desert,  to  appear  only  at  intervals,  and  then  to 
speak  with  majestic  authority.  The  later  proph- 
ets, especially  those  of  Judah,  lived  among  their 
countrymen  and  had  homes  and  families.  They 
could  not  lay  aside  the  cares  of  life.  They  lived 
in  an  organized  state  and  a  well-ordered  soci- 
ety, whose  obligations  they  could  not  throw  off. 
The  heroic  period  had  given  way  to  that  of  law. 
Their  work  was,  therefore,  no  longer  the  same  in 
character  as  that  of  Elijah.  They  could  not  de- 
molish opposition  with  such  dictatorial  absolute- 
ness as  he.  They  could  not  step  forth  so  surely, 
nor  speak  in  such  a  commanding  tone,  nor  have 
recourse  to  such  terrible  instruments  and  means. 
They  had  to  maintain  the  truth  of  God,  proclaiming 
it  at  the  right  moment,  and  the  right  point,  bear- 
ing witness  against  all  falsehood  and  wrong,  and 
then  to  wait  for  the  truth  to  prevail.  It  was  not 
given  them  to  command,  they  had  to  teach.  They 
could  not  presume  to  wield  the  instruments  of 
punishment  as  Elijah  did,  they  must  warn,  and  ad- 
monish, and  threaten.  They  therefore  had  recourse 
to  writing.  Their  words  were  not  commands  which 
required  instant  obedience,  but  testimonies,  whose 
truth  time  and  experience  must  prove.  Still  more 
is  all  this  true  of  our  times.  We  live  in  a  society 
with  fixed  institutions  and  traditions.  Men  move 
now  not  in  a  mass,  controlled  by  a  few  individu- 
als, but  in  an  organized  body,  moved  b\7  its  own 
intelligence  and  the  general  convictions.  All  which 
presents  itself  from  outside  the  social  order,  and 
bases  itself  upon  a  violation  of  the  same,  is  met 
with  suspicion  and  ridicule,  and  moreover  (for  this 
"would  be  a  light  thing  in  itself),  must  remain  des- 
titute of  any  deep  influence.  Society  has  come 
into  absolute  dependence  upon,  and  faith  in,  law. 
No  man  and  no  doctrine  can  work  efficiently  iu 
this  society  if  it  tries  to  work  from  without  the 
social  order.  The  efficient  means  of  operation 
now-a-days  are  organized  combinations  of  men  of 
similar  opinions  and  aspirations.  Individuals  can- 
not attain  controlling  positions.  The  power  has 
been  broken  up  and  diffused.  Individuals  are  as- 
signed to  positions  in  the  organization  which  moves 
as  a  whole.  The  mass  is  stubborn,  and  can  only  be 
acted  on  from  within.  It  will  not  submit  to  dicta- 
tion. The  only  means  of  influence  is,  to  form  a 
smaller  opinion,  inside  of  the  great  one,  and  so 
leaven  the  '.vhole  lump.  The  calling  of  the  proph- 
ets has  been  inherited  by  institutions,  above  all  by 
the  Church,  and  these  are  the  influences  to  which 
we  must  look  to  regenerate  modern  society.  The 
mi  nisters  of  the  Church  are  the  bearers  and  perpetu- 
ators  of  this  calling.  Their  duty  it  is  to  bear  wit- 
ness of  God  and  of  His  judgment  in  the  world. 
Their  duty  it  is  to  advise,  exhort,  warn,  and  con- 
demn, with  the  fearlessness  of  Elijah,  even  if  not 
»ith  his  tone  of  authority  and  command. — W.  G  S.] 


4.  The  prophet-communities,  or  so-called  schooll 
of  the  prophets,  which  Elijah  visited  again  before 
his  departure,  are  a  phenomenon  which  is  in 
many  respects  important  and  deserving  of  at- 
tention (cf.  in  general,  with  regard  to  them, 
Knobel,  Prophet,  der  Bebr.  ii.  *.  39-52 ;  Winer, 
R.  -  IV.  -  B.  ii.  s.  281 ;  Keil,  on  1  Sam.  xix.  24, 
s.  146-151 ;  Kranichfeld,  Be  iis  qum  in  V.  T.  com- 
memorantur,  prophetarum  societatibus.  Berol.  1861, 
where  the  older  literature  is  also  mentioned). 
They  come  into  consideration  here  principally  in 
their  relation  to  Elijah.  Such  communities  are 
mentioned  as  early  as  the  time  of  Samuel  (1  Sam. 
x.  5,  10  ;  xix.  20),  but  not  sooner,  so  that  he  is  com 
monly  regarded  as  their  founder,  and  indeed  he  it 
mentioned  in  the  last  place  quoted  as  their  3i"3, 

governor  or  overseer.  They  appear,  from  their 
names,    ?2n,  i.  e.,  band,  company,  or  crowd,  ai.d 

np.~6  (for  rpnp) ,  i-  « ,  congregation,  not  to  have 

been  organized  and  exclusive  unions  or  "  orders,l; 
but  freely  united  companies.  Under  David  we 
find  no  sign  of  their  existence  whatever.  Not 
until  the  time  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  do  they  appear 
again,  and  here  they  always  bear  the  name 
D'X'DSn  'J3 ,  which  refers  to  a  more  definite  rela- 
tion, to  firmer  and  closer  connection,  similar  to 
that  between  father  and  son,  and  especially  to  the 
relation  between  teacher  and  pupil,  for  the  Hebrew 
always  calls  his  teacher  "  father  "  (1  Sam.  x.  12  ; 
2  Kings  ii.  12  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  9),  and  his  pupil.  "  son  " 
(Prov.  i.  8,  10,  15  ;  ii.  1 ;  iv.  1 ;  Titus  i.  4).  We  see, 
from  the  passage  before  us,  and  2  Kings  iv.  38 ; 
vi.  1,  that  they  dwelt  together  in  definite  places, 
and  lived  in  common  ;  therefore,  that  they  were 
not  unregulated  companies,  but  exclusive  unions 
or  communities.  They  stand  in  a  subordinate  re- 
lation to  their  teachers  and  masters  (at  first  Elijah, 
and  after  him,  Elisha,  cf.  2  Kings  ii.  15),  and  call 
them  "  master "  (2  Kings  ii.  3  ;  vi.  5)  and  them- 
selves "  servants  "  (2  Kings  ii.  16  ;  iv.  1 ;  vi.  3). 
According  to  all  this,  these  schools  of  the  prophets 
can  hardly  be  identified  with  the  free  unions  pf 
the  prophets  under  Samuel,  or  be  considered  as 
the  immediate  continuation  of  those.  In  the  latter 
was  concentrated  the  religious  life,  which  at  that 
time  lacked  a  fixed  arrangement.  When  this  was  es- 
tablished by  David,  they  ceased  to  exist,  although 
prophets  continued  to  appear  from  time  to  time. 
The  real  schools  of  the  prophets,  however,  came 
into  existence  for  the  first  time,  at  the  period  of 
apostasy  and  idolatry  under  Ahab,  and  their 
founder  was  Elijah,  who  may,  nevertheless,  have 
had  those  combinations  under  Samuel  in  mind, 
though  he  gave  them  a  different  organization,  and 
made  of  them  institutions  for  planting  and  pre- 
serving the  pure  worship  of  Jehovah,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  intruding  idolatry.  Such  certainly  th» 
combinations  of  the  prophets  under  Samuel  never 
were.  Even  if  we  were  willing  to  allow  Elijah  to 
pass,  not  for  the  founder,  but  simply  for  the  re- 
storer of  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  yet  these  re- 
main, nevertheless,  an  actual  and  important  testi- 
mony that  this  prophet  not  only  stepped  forth 
publicly,  in  fiery  zeal  and  heroic  strength,  to  battle 
against  idolatry,  but  also,  at  the  same  time,  worked 
to  build  up  and  to  lay  foundations.  Although 
this  quieter  part  of  his  influence  did  not  attract  so 
much  attention,  yet  it  was  not  less  successful.  He 
must   lave  understood  w«H  how  'o  draw  hearts  tc 


24 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


himself  and  enchain  them,  as  is  evident  from  the 
Dumber  of  these  pupils  of  the  prophets  (cf.  1  Kings 
xviii.  4 :  2  Kings  ii.  16 ;  iv.  43  ;  vi.  1).  The  bloody 
persecution  of  them  under  Ahab  and  Jezebel  did 
not  avail  to  exterminate  them,  or  even  to  diminish 
their  numbers.  In  the  evening  of  the  prophet's 
life  we  even  find  schools  of  the  prophets  in  pre- 
cisely those  places  where  the  worship  of  the  Calf 
and  of  Baal  had  their  principal  seats,  so  that  we  see 
that  they  had  to  be  endured  at  last  publicly — a 
proof  that  the  general  strength  of  the  apostasy 
had  been  broken  by  Elijah.  How  much  the  heart 
of  the  faithful  servant  of  God  was  set  upon  these 
foundations,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  visited 
the  three  schools  at  Gilgal,  Bethel,  and  Jericho 
before  his  departure,  and  spoke  to  them  encourage- 
ment and  consolation. 

5.  The  prophet  Elisha  is  the  chief  person  after 
Elijah  in  the  passage  before  us,  from  which  the  re- 
lation which  we  must  think  of  as  existing  between 
the  two  prophets  may  be  directly  deduced.  This 
relation  is  often  conceived  of  as  one  of  specific 
difference  or  even  contrast.  So  Krummacher  savs 
(Elisa,  2d  ed.  Elberfeld,  1844,  i.  s.  7) :  "  Elisha 
was  appointed  to  appear  as  an  evangelist  in 
Israel,  whereas  Elijah,  as  the  second  Moses,  was  to 
enforce  due  respect  for  the  Law,  which  had  been 
forgotten  and  trodden  under  foot.  Elisha's  duty 
was,  as  herald  of  the  divine  tenderness,  to  restore 
and  lead  back  to  the  father's  arms,  with  tempting 
invitations,  the  hearts  which  his  predecessor  had 
broken  with  the  hammer  of  the  law,"  and  (Elias  der 
Thisb.  s.  409) :  "  As  an  evangelist  he  needed,  first  of 
all,  that  his  own  heart  should  acquire  a  thoroughly 
evangelical  disposition,  and  that  he  should,  in  his  in- 
ternal relation  to  the  Lord,  himself  foretaste,  so  far 
as  was  possible,  the  tender  nature  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment "  (see  also  1  Kings  xix.  Hist.  §  8).  This  opinion 
springs  from  the  utterly  false  interpretation  of  the 
spirit  of  ver.  9,  which  makes  it  mean  that  Elisha 
prayed  for  a  double  measure  of  the  spirit  of  Elijah. 
Under  this  interpretation  Elisha's  manifold  acts  of 
healing  and  assistance,  have  then  been  brought 
into  connection  with  this  prayer.  Accordingly, 
this  view  falls  to  the  ground  with  the  correct  ex- 
position of  ver.  9.  As  for  the  acts  referred  to, 
they  were  not  by  any  means  like  those  of  the 
Saviour,  altogether  in  the  nature  of  assistance,  but 
many  of  them  served  as  punishments  (cf.  ver.  24 ; 
v.  27  ;  vii.  19,  20).  On  the  other  hand,  the  miracles 
of  Elijah  were  not  entirely  punishment-miracles 
(1  Kings  xvii.  6,  14,  23  ;  xviii.  45).  Moreover, 
the  time  of  Elisha  was  so  far  from  being  a  time 
of  "divine  tenderness,"  and  "gentle  murmuring 
after  the  storm,"  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  was 
exactly  in  this  time  that  the  most  violent  convul- 
sion inside  the  kingdom  (2  Kings  ix.  and  x.),  and 
the  most  violent  struggles  abroad  (2  Kings  vi.  and 
vii.),  took  place.  Finally,  according  to  the  oracle, 
1  Kings  xix.  17,  it  was  Eiisha's  destiny  to  "  slay  " 
all  who  should  escape  from  the  sword  of  Jehu, 
which  certainly  was  no  New  Testament  calling. 
The  spirit  for  which  he  prays  (ver.  9),  and  which 
then  rests  upon  him  (ver.  15),  is  the  "  spirit  of 
Elijah,"  not  a  different  one,  much  less  a  contrasted 
jne.  This  spirit  of  Elijah  is  so  far  from  being  a 
New  Testament  spirit,  that  the  Saviour  rebukes 
His  disciples  who  desire  to  act  in  accordance  with  it 
(Luke  ix.  55),  and  says:  "Ye  know  not  what  man- 
ner of  spirit  ye  are  of."  [Biihr  takes  it  as  a  ques- 
tion, and  emphasizes  the  latter  "  ye."    So  also  many 


good  authorities,  whom  Meyer  is  inclined  to  join. 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf  omit  it  from  the  text. 
There  is  a  heavy  weight  of  authority  against  it,  and 
the  only  argument  for  retaining  it  is  the  one  sug- 
gested by  Meyer,  that  it  is  difficult  to  account  for 
its  interpolation  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  might 
have  been  omitted  out  of  a  false  consideration  for 
the  reputation  of  Elijah. — W.  G.  S.]  It  was  one 
and  the  same  spirit  which  inspired  both  prophets, 
and  worked  in  and  through  them.  Elisha  was 
not  indeed  "  a  feeble  copy  "  of  Elijah  ;  but  neither 
was  he,  what,  as  an  evangelist  before  the  time  of 
the  evangelists,  he  would  have  been,  viz.,  greater 
than  Elijah.  He  only  desired,  as  first-born  son  of 
the  prophet,  a  richer  measure  of  the  spirit  than  the 
other  sons  of  the  prophets  were  to  obtain,  be  !ause 
he  was  to  be  their  leader  and  master.  His  rela- 
tion to  Elijah  was  like  that  of  Joshua  to  Moses 
Elijah  had  broken  the  strength  of  the  apostasy  in 
Israel — fought  with  fiery  zeal  against  idolatry, 
and  laid  anew  the  foundation  of  the  law  and 
the  covenant.  On  this  foundation  Elisha  was 
to  continue  to  build.  The  same  spirit  which,  in 
Elijah,  had  to  work  chiefly  to  destroy  and  con- 
demn, was  to  work  in  Elisha  chiefly  to  cultivate 
and  preserve.  "  Elijah  had  done  the  work  of  lay- 
ing the  foundation.  There  had  been  introduced 
among  the  people,  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets 
which  had  arisen  again  under  the  shield  of  Elijah's 
mighty  energy,  a  healing  salt  of  life,  which  now 
only  needed  to  be  kept  from  losing  its  savoi 
and  to  be  preserved  in  its  vigor,  and  blessing 
would  proceed  from  it  in  silence  and  without  dis- 
play. To  guard  these  germs  of  the  newly- 
awakened  life — to  nourish  them  and  bring  them 
to  vigorous  development — was  .  .  .  the  task 
of  Elisha  "  (Sartorius,  Yortrage  ubur  die  Prophet, 
s.  38,  41).  Like  Elijah,  Elisha  was  also  the 
"  chariot  of  Israel  and  the  horsemen  thereof " 
(2  Kings  ii.  12;  xiii.  14). 

6.  The  three  acts  of  Elisha  after  the  translation 
of  Elijah,  of  which  we  have  an  account,  are  not 
by  any  means  arbitrarily  placed  in  succession,  as 
it  Were  mere  anecdotes  of  the  prophet,  but  they 
belong  together  in  time,  as  well  as  in  significance, 
and  form,  to  some  extent,  a  whole,  by  means  of 
which  Elisha,  on  his  first  independent  appearance 
as  successor  of  Elijah,  is  represented  as  heir  of  his 
spirit  and  calling.  The  last  act  of  the  master 
before  the  eyes  of  the  pupils  of  the  prophets 
(ver.  8)  was  also  the  first  performed  before  them 
by  the  disciple,  after  he  had  succeeded  to  the  posi- 
tion of  Elijah,  and  he  performed  it  with  the  signi- 
ficant mantle  of  his  former  master.     This  was  a 

sign  for  him  that  his  prayer  for  the  nil  of  Elijah 

had  been  fulfilled,  and  for  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
that  the  spirit  of  his  master  now  rested  upon  him, 
and  that  tl  ey  must  henceforth  recognize  him  as 
leader  and  guide  (ver.  15).  In  this  capacity  he  re- 
turns with  them  to  Jericho,  their  dwelling-place. 
Here,  whei  the  men  of  the  city,  full  of  confidence, 
complain  to  him  of  their  misfortune,  he  maintains 
himself  as  the  Man  of  God,  who  helps  and  protects, 
and  brings  safety  and  blessing.  At  Bethel,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  they  come  to  meet  him  with 
derision  and  contempt,  it  becomes  evident  what 
judgment  falls  upon  those  who  impudently  despise 
the  servant  and  messenger  of  Jehovah.  Thus 
Elisha,  like  Elijah,  to  whose  place  he  had  succeeded 
(see  1  Kings  xvii.  Hist.  §  1).  in  his  first  appear 


CHAPTER  II.   1-25. 


ance,  is  seen  to  be  a  prophet  of  action — he  inaugu- 
rates himself,  not  by  a  detailed  speech  to  the  sons 
of  the  prophets  and  the  believing  or  unbelieving 
people,  but  by  actions.  These  actions,  however, 
are  of  a  prophetical  character,  not  insignificant 
workings  of  superhuman  power,  but  rather 
"  signs,"  and  therefore  also  testimonials  (cf.  John 
x.  25).  The  passage  through  the  Jordan  bears 
witness  that  the  Lord  opens  paths  for  those 
whom  He  has  chosen  and  called  to  be  His  messen- 
gers and  servant.  It  is  a  surety  for  the  words : 
'•Fear  not  ior  I  have  redeemed  thee.  I  have 
called  t".*ee  by  thy  name :  thou  art  mine.  When 
thou  passest  through  the  waters,  I  will  be  with 
thee :  and  through  the  rivers,  they  shall  not  over- 
flow thee  "  (Isai.  xliii.  1,  2  ;  Ps.  cxxiv.  4).  The  act 
at  Jericho  proclaims  aloud  that  it  is  the  Lord  who 
gives  health.  It  is  surety  for  the  words :  "  I  am 
the  Lord  that  healeth  thee  "  (Exod.  xv.  25  ;  xxiii. 
25,  26),  "  who  healeth  all  thy  diseases  [infirmi- 
ties]"  (Ps.  ciii.  3;  cxlvii.  3;  cf.  Jer.  viii.  22 1. 
Finally,  the  event  at  Bethel  is  a  sign  for  the  re- 
bellious and  apostate  that  judgment  waits  for  the 
scoffers — a  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  words : 
"  The  Lord  revengeth  and  is  furious ;  the  Lord  will 
take  vengeance  on  his  adversaries  "  (Nahuni  i.  2); 
"  who  visits  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  (like- 
minded)  children  "  (Exod.  xx.  5). 

7.  Many  have  taken  offence,  in  various  ways,  at 
the  judgment  which  befell  the  derisive  youths  at 
Bethel.  For  instance,  Koster  (Die  Prophet,  s.  85) 
says :  "  The  story  sounds  very  unworthy  of  the 
great  prophet :  it  appears  as  if  he  ought  'not  to  have 
noticed  the  derision  of  irresponsible  children ; " 
and  Thenius  remarks  on  the  passage,  that  "the 
immorality  of  cursing  (especially  wanton  children) 
has  been  lost  sight  of  in  the  desire  to  bring  into 
prominence  the  inviolability  of  the  prophetical 
dignity,  which  stands  under  the  protection  of  God." 
The  incident  appears,  however,  in  a  very  different 
light  when  the  persons  in  question,  as  was  shown 
above,  are  not  wanton  little  children,  but  youths 
who  knew  what  they  were  doing  and  saying. 
Neither  must  we  overlook  the  fact  that  these 
youths  belonged  to  the  city  which  was  the  centre 
and  principal  seat  of  the  apostasy,  and  which,  on 
this  account,  is  called  by  the  prophets,  "  Beth- 
Aven,"  i.  e.,  House  of  the  Idol,  instead  of  Beth-El 
[House  of  God],  (Hos.  iv.  15 ;  x.  5 ;  Amos  v.  5). 
They  were,  therefore,  literally  the  offspring  of 
apostasy,  and  they  represented  in  general  the 
offspring  of  apostates  which  was  growing  up. 
The  older  expositors,  e.  </.,  Bochart,  suppose,  not 
improbably,  that  the  older  people  had  incited  the 
younger  ones,  and  that  the  object  was  to  make 
the  new  head  of  the  class  of  the  prophets  ridicu- 
lous and  contemptible  at  the  very  commencement 
of  his  career.  When,  therefore,  Elisha  threatened 
with  divine  punishment  the  impudent  youths 
who  despised  in  the  prophet  the  holy  office  to 
which  Jehovah  had  called  him,  it  was  no  im- 
morality, nor  was  it  unworthy  of  him ;  on  the 
contrary,  he  therein  did  what  belonged  to  his 
prophetical  office.  He  did  not,  however,  execute 
the  punishment  himself:  he  left  that  to  Him  who 
Bays :  "  To  me  belongeth  vengeance  and  recom- 
pense "  (Deut.  xxxii.  35).  It  was  no  more  Elisha 
who  caused  the  bears  to  come  (but  Jehovah,  ver. 
21)  than  it  was  he  who  caused  the  waters  at  Jeri- 
cho to  become  healthful.  It  was  a  judgment  of 
God  which  befell  those  depraved  youths  »"d,  indi- 


rectly, the  whole  city  out  of  which  they  came,  and 
it  referred  back  to  that  thieat  of  the  law:  "If 
ye  walk  contrary  unto  me,  and  will  not  hearken 
unto  me,  ....  I  will  also  send  wild  beasts 
among  you,  which  shall  rob  you  of  your  childrea 
and  destroy  your  cattle ;  and  your  highways  shall 
be  desolate  "  (Levit.  xxvi.  21  sq.).  Nevertheless, 
the  narrative  bears  a  strongly  Old  Testament  char- 
acter; it  is  no  portion  of  the  gospel;  we  cannot 
make  out  of  Elisha  an  "Evangelist"  and  disciple 
of  the  Saviour;  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  he  was 
tin  successor  of  an  Elijah,  and  that  the  God  of 
Israel  is  a  jealous  God.  Cassel's  application  of  the 
incident  seems  very  far-fetched  (per  Prophet  Elisa, 
ss.  7  and  9):  "The  wrath  and  judgment  upcn 
the  youths  is  an  image  of  that  wrath  and  judg- 
ment which  falls  upon  all  Israel Who 

does  not  seek  in  it  the  faithful  image  of  the  for- 
tunes of  Israel  itself  1  ....  Like  bears  from 
a  wood  Hazael  and  Jehu  burst  in  upon  the  people 
and  the  royal  race.  Without  pity  and  without  mercy 
they  strangled  the  youth  of  Israel  Even  the  num- 
ber— forty -two — signifies  such  a  judgment,  for 
forty -two  was  the  number  of  the  sons  of  Ahazial) 
whom  Jehu  fell  in  with  in  his  capacity  of  avenger." 
That  the  author  of  these  books  did  not  think  of 
that,  is  at  all  events  certain. 

HOMILETICAL    AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-12.  Bender:  Elijah's  Departure  from 
the  Earth,  (a)  The  solemn  journey  on  the  eve  of 
his  departure,  and  (b)  the  glorious  exit  of  tire  de- 
parting prophet. — Vers.  1-6.  Krummacher  :  The 
Vigil,  (a)  How  Elijah  seeks  retirement ;  (6)  how 
he  comes  to  the  schools  of  the  prophets ;  (•:)  what 
reception  he  meets  with  there. — Elijah  on  the  Ap- 
proach of  his  End.  (a)  He  goes  to  meet  it  quietly 
and  submissively,  for  he  had  fought  a  good  fight  and 
kept  the  faith  (2  Tim.  iv.  7  and  8).  (6)  He  takes 
leave  of  his  friends  and  companions  in  faithful 
love ;  as  he  had  "  loved  his  own  which  were  in  the 
world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end  "  (John  xiii.  1). 
— Ver.  1.  Starke  :  God  does  not  leave  His  faith- 
ful chddren  and  servants  forever  in  unrest,  but 
delivers  them  finally  from  all  evil  and  helps  them 
to  come  to  his  heavenly  kingdom  (Ps.  Iv.  23;  2 
Tim.  iv.  18). — Vers.  2-4".  Menken:  That  which 
Elijah  had  done  and  labored  at  throughout  his  life, 
that  he  also  pushed  forward  and  did  in  his  last 
hours :  he  was  still  active  for  the  advancement  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  still  active  in  the  labor  of 
assisting  and  serving  love,  which  does  not  seek  its 
own.  Even  his  last  hours  were  consecrated  to 
others.  He  was  in  a  state  of  the  soul,  in  which 
he  was  ready,  at  every  step,  in  every  occupation 
and  in  every  conversation  which  might  occur,  to 
pass  over  into  the  invisible  world,  without  need 
of  any  further  preparation.  Oh!  let  us  employ  all 
diligence,  that  we,  too,  may  arrive  at  such  a  pre- 
cious and  blessed  soul-state  ....  that  we, 
too,  in  all  our  conversation  and  business,  whether 
it  is  spiritual  or  worldly,  whether  it  is  grand  or 
small,  may  not  only  think  of  eternity  with  pleas- 
ure, but  also  be  ready  at  any  moment,  if  our  Lord 
should  so  please,  to  pass  on  into  the  invisible 
world.— Vers.  2-6.  The  faithful  Love  of  Elisha  to 
his  Master  and  Lord,  (a)  The  g-oun  I  and  source 
of  it.  (It  does  not  rest  upon  a  naf.  ral,  human 
basis,  but  upon  a  divine  and  holy  one.     The  band 


2e 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


which  bound  him  to  Elijah  was  living  faith  in  the 
living  God,  and  life  and  labor  in  and  with  him. 
He  honored  and  loved  his  father  after  the  flesh  [1 
Kings  xix.  20],  but  he  left  him;  with  his  spiritual 
father  he  wished  to  remain  unto  the  end  [ver.  12]. 
Cf.  Matt.  x.  37.)  (6)  Its  test  and  successful  en- 
durance. (Thrice  did  Elijah  beg  him  to  remain 
behind,  but  he  would  not  be  persuaded.  Whith- 
ersoever the  path  may  lead,  and  whatsoever  may 
come  to  pass,  I  will  not  leave  thee  until  God  shall 
take  thee  from  me.  His  love  was  not  a  mere  pass- 
ing, bubbling  enthusiasm,  but  it  was  strong  as 
death  and  firm  as  hell.  That  love  alone  is  true 
which  endures  trial  and  will  not  be  turned  aside 
by  any  prayers,  for  which  no  hindrance  is  too 
great,  no  journey  too  long  and  too  hard.  Cf.  John 
xxi.  17.)  (c)  Its  victory  and  reward.  (Elijah 
opens  for  him  the  path  through  the  Jordan,  after 
his  fidelity  has  stood  the  test.  He  is  allowed  to 
see  what  no  human  being  besides  him  might  see. 
He  attains  to  that  which  he  has  prayed  for ;  with 
Elijah's  mantle  he  inherits  also  Elijah's  spirit;  he 
is  a  witness  of  his  master's  glory.  Cf.  Rev.  ii.  10: 
"  Be  thou  faithful,"  &c.  That  fidelity  conquers  and 
is  crowned,  which  holds  fast  to  God  and  Jesus 
Christ.) — The  words  of  Elisha :  As  the  Lord  liv- 
eth,  &c,  as  marriage-vow.  The  right  foundation, 
the  trial,  and  the  duration,  of  conjugal  love  (until 
God  shall  separate). — Elijah  and  the  Sons  of  the 
Prophets,  (a)  Elijah  had  not  only  one  disciple  and 
pupil,  but  a  great  company  of  them,  which  he 
collected  from  among  those  who  had  not  bowed  the 
knee  to  Baal,  and  to  whom  he  stood  in  the  relation 
of  a  father  to  his  children,  whom  he  led  and  taught, 
protected  and  nourished.  This  was  the  other  side 
of  the  activity  of  the  great  Man  of  God. — Menken: 
In  his  public  life  he  was,  according  to  the  needs 
of  his  time,  a  fire  to  consume  rather  than  to  warm; 
in  his  more  retired  life  he  was  an  enlightening  and 
warming  light. — Labor  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
consists  not  only  in  tearing  down  and  removing 
superstition  and  unbelief,  but  at  the  same  time  in 
building  up  faith,  in  planting  and  nourishing  a  di- 
vine and  holy  life.  Compare  the  great  reformers. 
(b)  The  children  of  the  prophets  were  not  child- 
ren, but  sons,  young  men,  bound  to  a  life  in  com- 
mon, in  the  fear  of  God.  Reading  and  hearing 
the  Word  of  God,  prayer  and  praise  of  the  Lord, 
practice  in  obedience,  mutual  encouragement  and 
strengthening,  these  were  the  aim  and  end  of  their 
anion.  They  were,  therefore,  in  a  time  of  apos- 
tasy, communities  for  the  cultivation  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  and  of  the  life  which  proceeds  from 
God.  They  were  for  Israel  the  salt  which  gave  sa- 
vor, and  the  light  which  gave  light,  to  all  in  the 
house  (Matt.  v.  13-15),  schools  of  true  wisdom, 
whose  beginning  is  the  fear  of  God,  through  which 
alone,  until  this  day,  all  knowledge  and  learning 
receive-  their  true  value. — Yea,  I  know  it;  hold 
ye  your  peace!  We  should  not  make  the  heart 
of  a  departing  friend  heavy  in  the  moment  of  sep- 
aration, but,  with  him,  yield  quietly  and  peacefully 
to  the  holy  will  of  God,  who  is  calling  him  away. 
— Neither  Elijah  nor  Elisha  wished  to  have  that 
which  wjs  about  to  befall  the  former  according  to 
the  decision  of  God,  made  a  subject  of  conversa- 
tion.— Vii.mar:  No  over-hasty  gossip  or  sensation 
ought  to  lie  made  about  acts  of  God,  especially 
about  those  which  are  still  future ;  they  may  not 
be  treated  as  objects  of  curious  or  worldly  ques- 
tioning*.  The  acts  of  God  are  meant  to  be  awaited 


in  respectful  silence Those  who  art 

capable  of  seeing  the  majesty  of  the  living  God 
keep  silent  of  themselves,  upon  others  they  have 
to  enjoin  silence. 

Vers.  7-10.  The  two  Prophets  before  their  Sep- 
aration, (a)  Elijah's  last  act;  (b)  Elisha's  last 
request.— Vers.  7,  8.  Krummacher:  The  Passage 
through  the  Jordan,  (a)  The  escort  of  the  sons 
of  the  prophets;  (b)  the  position  of  the  two  men 
of  God  at  the  Jordan;  (c)  the  marvellous  passage 
through  it. — Menken  :  Elijah  was  to  finish  hia 
course  by  an  act  of  faith,  Le  was  to  build  for  him- 
self, in  a  certain  sense,  the  path  to  his  glorious 
end,  by  an  act  of  faith,  and  so  impress  indelibly 
upon  the  hearts  of  his  friends  and  followers,  who- 
saw  him,  even  in  the  hour  of  separation,  the  grand 
truth  that  Jehovah  is,  the  sole  living  and  all-con- 
trolling God,  and  that  faith  pleases  Him  above  all 
else,  and  that  ....  no. other  way  than  faith 
in  God's  promises  leads  to  the  higher  and  better 
inheritance  in  light. — Wirth  :  On  the  other  side 
of  the  Jordan  is  the  place  of  the  glorification  of 
the  prophet.  Between  him  and  this  spot  there 
flows  yet  a  broad  and  deep  stream.  Through  this 
he  must  go,  ....  there  is  no  bridge,  no 
ferryman;  but  he  does  not  despair.  He  knows: 
He  who  has  called  me  to  the  other  side  will  help 

me  to  the  other  side Such  incidents 

occur  to  many  on  the  pilgrimage  of  life.  .  .  . 
No  stream  is  so  deep,  and  no  flood  of  calamity 
so  dangerous,  that  God  could  not  lead  through  it 

unharmed The  prophet-mantle,  which 

to-day  as  ever,  when  it  falls  upon  any  Jordan,  di- 
vides its  waves,  is  faith,  strong,  glad,  living,  rock- 
firm  faith "Faith  leads  through  fire 

and  flood." — Vers.  9  and  10.  The  parting  Conver 
sation  of  the  two  Prophets,  (a)  Elijah  calls  upon 
Elisha  to  make  a  request ;  (6)  the  request  of  Eli- 
sha; (c)  the  answer  of  Elijah. — Ver.  9.  Elijah 
speaks  in  the  name  of  God :  Ask  what  I  shall 
do,  Ac.  The  Lord  will  not  only  listen  to  our  pray- 
ers, but  He  even  demands  of  us  that  we  shall- 
pray  to  Him,  and  pour  out  our  hearts  with  all  our 
wishes  before  him  (Ps.  lxii.  8).  Not  only  are  we 
allowed  to  pray  to  Him,  but  it  also  is  our  duty  to  da 
so  (Matt,  vii.  7  s<j.). — Wurtemb.  Summ.  :  If  the 
saints  in  heaven  could  hear  our  prayers  and  could 
aid  us,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  that 
Elisha  should  beg  anything  of  Elijah  before  he- 
went  thither.  The  invocation  of  deceased  saints 
is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  erroneous  and  false. 
■ — Menken:  If  we  were  called  upon  to  make  a  re- 
quest, as  Elisha  was,  what  would  we  choose? 
Would  we  pray  for  things  of  this  world,  which 
might  delight  us  for  the  few  days  of  this  life  here 
below;  or  would  we  pray  as  he  did,  and  choose 
spiritual  and  heavenly  things,  in  the  possessioL 
and  enjoyment  of  which  we  should  have  rich  and 
pure  sources  of  joy  in  the  other  world  throughout 
eternity?  The  sincere  and  conscientious  response 
to  this  question  can  give  us  an  instructive  indica- 
tion of  the  nature  and  worth  of  our  sentiments  and 
of  our  spiritual  value. — STARKE:  The  highest  good 
on  earth  is  not  gold  nor  money,  but  the  Holy  Spirit. 
— WiiiTH.  Simm.:  We  see  and  learn  from  Elijah 
that  we  ought  only  to  pray  for  necessary  and  useful 
tilings,  even  where  we  have  the  choice. — Ver.  1Q 
i'u.u  EH  BtBEL:  The  request  was  great,  but  even 
eie.ii  prayers  arc  permitted  when  they  serve  the 
ends  of  the  kingdom  of  God. — Kyhurz:  Pray- 
dear  soul,  pray  freely  for  something  great ;  it  it 


CHAPTER  II.  1-25. 


equally  hard  for  God  to  give  thee  something  great 
vr  something  small.  He  does  not  charge  it  upon 
thee  as  ambition  if  thou  prayest  so  soon  for  a  large 
faith,  or  a  great  measure  of  the  spirit,  or  a  high 
grade  of  holiness.  Thou  must  only  possess  all  in 
humility  and  use  it  for  the  honor  of  the  giver. — 
Osianher  :  We  may  indeed  pray  for  glorious  gifts 
of  the  Spirit  from  God,  yet  we  must  not  make  a  dis- 
play of  them,  but  only  serve  the  Church  usefully. 
Vers.  11  and  12.  Elijah's  Departure  from  this 
World,  (a)  The  mode  in  which  he  was  taken  away 
by  God;  (/<)  cause  and  aim  of  this  removal  (see 
the  Exeget.  and  Ilistor.  sections). — Yer.  11.  They 
still  went  on  and  talked,  certainly  not  about  a 
temporal  inheritance  nor  about  anything  temporal 
at  all,  or  any  worldly  affairs,  but  about  God  and 
eternity,  life  and  death,  rest  after  labor,  the  eter- 
nal Sabbath.  How  consoling  it  is,  in  the  last  days 
and  hours,  to  have  a  friend  with  whom  one  can 
hold  such  a  conversation,  and  how  elevating  for 
him  who  must  still  remain  in  the  world,  to  hear 
words  from  the  mouth  of  the  departing  one,  which 
sound  already  as  if  from  the  other  world. — Starke  : 
"  Blessed  is  that  servant  whom  his  Lord,  when  He 
Cometh,  shall  find  so  doing  "  (i.  e.,  watching,  ilatt. 
xxiv.  46). — The  same:  Pious  Christians  ought  to 
remain  faithful  to  one  another  in  life  and  in  death, 
and  not  to  separate  until  God  separates  them  by 

earthly  death At  our  death  we  ought 

to  be  glad  to  have  faithful  Christians  about  us,  and 
be  glad  to  converse  with  them  and  to  entrust  our 
souls  with  our  Heavenly  Father  in  the  midst  of 
their  song  and  prayer. — We  shall  not,  indeed,  pass 
out  of  this  world  as  Elijah  did.  without  tasting  the 
death  of  the  body,  but  we  shall  be  received  into 
heaven,  for  we  trust  in  Him  who  said :  "  I  go  to 
prepare  a  place  for  you;  "  and:  "I,  if  I  be  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me  " 
(John  xiv.  2;  xii.  21). — In  storm  and  whirlwind 
Elijah  was  taken  away,  just  as  his  life,  outwardly, 
had  been  a  storm-tossed  one.  This  last  storm, 
however,  brought  him  to  eternal  rest  and  eternal 
peace.  So  still,  in  our  day,  human  life  is  often 
stormy,  but  when  it  is  led  in  and  with  God  and 
directed  by  Him,  eternal  sunshine  follows  the 
storm  of  time,  there,  where  there  is  no  suffering 
or  crying  any  more,  and  where  God  will  wipe 
away  all  tears  from  our  eyes.  There  is  rest  pre- 
pared there  for  al!  who  have  fought  the  good  fight 
of  faith. — Menken  :  Ho  who  could  not  here  gain 
any  taste  for  heavenly  things,  who  his  whole  life 
long  only  grubbed  in  the  earth  like  an  earthworm, 
can  he  hope  to  pass  away  toward  heaven  with  joy? 
Our  life  and  death  lie  in  the  hands  of  the  Al- 
mighty, who  takes  one  away  in  storm  and  whirl- 
wind and  another  in  the  enjoyment  of  happiness 
and  pleasure.  Thou  knowest  not  when  and  where 
and  how  thou  shalt  die.  therefore  pray :  let  me  set 
my  house  in  order  in  time,  that  I  may  be  ready  at 
all  times,  and  say  continually  in  all  circumstances: 
0  Lord!  dispose  of  me  as  Thou  wilt. — Ver.  12. 
Elisha's  Exclamation,  (a)  My  father,  my  father! 
(An  exclamation  which  does  no  less  honor  to  Eli- 
sha  than  to  Elijah.  If  such  an  exclamation  from 
an  equally  full  heart  might  only  follow  every 
teacher  from  every  one  of  his  pupils,  and  every 
shepherd  of  souls  from  every  one  of  the  souls  en- 
trusted to  him !)  (b)  The  chariot  of  Israel  and 
the  horsemen  thereof.  (Elisha  does  not  forget 
what  the  entire  people  has  lost  in  Elijah,  in  the 
thought  of  what  his  master  has  been  to  himself. 


One  such  man  as  Elijah  is  more  than  equivalent  to 
an  entire  army.  Such  was  Luther  for  the  German 
people.  Lord,  send  us  one  such  man  in  this  time 
of  apostasy  and  unbelief.) — Starke:  If  God  take* 
away  faithful  teachers  out  of  the  world,  it  ought 
justly  to  touch  our  hearts  and  to  fill  us  with  pain, 
but  we  ought  also  to  hope  that  He  will  not  iea.-e 
us  desolate  (John  xiv.  18),  and  to  pray  diligently  • 
Lord,  send  faithful  laborers  into  Thy  vineyard. 

Vers.  13-25.  The  three  significant  Signs  which 
confirm  Elisha  as  Prophet  and  Successor  of  Elijahi 
The  sign  (a)  of  his  path-making,  (b)  of  his  preserv- 
ing and  conserving,  and  (c)  of  his  avenging  work 
(see  Historical,  §  6). — Vers.  13-15.  Kriwimacher: 
The  Bequest,  (a)  Elisha  with  Elijah's  mantle,  (b) 
with  Elijah's  God,  (c)  with  Elijah's  spirit,  (d,  with- 
Elijah's  office. — Vers.  13-18.  Elisha's  Return  to  the 
Sons  of  the  Prophets,  (a)  What  he  brings  with 
him  (the  mantle  of  Elijah  as  a  precious  souvenir 
and  significant  sign — with  the  sign,  however,  the- 
thing  itself.  The  spirit  of  Elijah  rests  upon  him,, 
and  by  virtue  of  this  spirit  he  makes  a  path  for 
himself  through  the  stream  of  the  Jordan.  How 
many  a  one  is  in  possession  of  a  prophet's  mantle, 
but  lacks  the  prophetical  spirit!  He  who  has  not 
this  spirit  is  not  fit  and  capable  for  the  prophetical 
office ;  it  is  given,  however,  to  him  who  earnestly 
prays  for  it.  Luke  xi.  13).  (b)  The  manner  in 
which  they  receive  him.  (They  go  to  meet  him 
and  evince  their  respect  for  him,  because  he  had 
shown  by  his  first  act,  which  was  also  the  last  one 
of  Elijah,  and  which  they  themselves  had  seen, 
that  he  is  appointed  by  God  to  be  Elijah's  suc- 
cessor.  At  the  same  time,  however,  they  did  not 
forget  their  former  father  and  master,  and  would 
not  let  themselves  be  dissuaded  from  seeking  for 
him.  These  sons  of  the  prophets  are,  therefore,  a 
type  of  true  and  noble  fidelity,  and  they  teach  us 
by  their  deed  that  to  which  Hebr.  xiii.  7  exhorts 
us. — Vers.  16-18.  How  many,  especially  young 
and  inexperienced  persons,  will  not  be  dissuaded 
from  their  opinions,  views,  and  doubts,  and  will 
not  heed  the  words  of  their  teachers  and  parents, 
who  have  the  best  intentions  toward  them,  and  far 
more  experience ;  they  must  become  wise  by  bit- 
ter experience,  and  then  hear  to  their  shame:  Did 
I  not  say  unto  you  ? — Hall  :  Nothing  makes  a 
man  wise  better  than  to  tire  himself  out  in  prose- 
cuting his  own  courses  and  yet  to  fail  of  his  ob- 
ject.— Vers.  13-15.  It  was  not  the  mantle  but  the 
spirit  of  Elijah,  by  virtue  of  which  Elisha  divided 
the  water  and  went  through  the  Jordan.  So  also: 
now.  the  coat  of  Christ  does  not  help  us  to  go 
through  life  unharmed  and  holy,  but  only  Hie- 
spirit,  which  He  has  promised  to  those  who  be- 
lieve on  Him  from  the  heart.  He  who  has  not  the 
spirit  of  Christ  is  not  His  (Rom.  viii.  9). — Starke- 
We  may  well  preserve  relics  of  holy  people,  but 
we  must  not  worship  them. 

Vers.  19-25.  Elisha's  Reception  at  Jericho  ana 
Bethel.  In  the  former  place  they  come  to  meet 
him  with  confidence  and  respect,  in  the  latter  with 
derision  and  contempt.  Thus  he  has  to  experi 
ence,  at  the  very  commencement  of  his  course  as  a 
prophet,  what  is  the  inevitable  fate  of  all  true 
prophets  and  servants  of  God;  they  are  sought 
and  honored  and  loved  by  some,  rejected,  de- 
spised,  and  hated  by  others.  So  it  was  with  the 
Lord  himself — His  whole  life  long,  until  His  entf 
upon  the  cross  (Luke  xxiii.  39  sq.)\  so  also  with 
His  apostles,  as  He  foretold  to  them  (Luke  x.  ft- 


28 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


12).  He  who  enters  upon  an  ecclesiastical  office 
may  indeed  hope  for  respect  and  love,  but  he  must 
also  make  up  his  mind  to  disrespect  and  hate. — 
Vers.  19-22.  Elisha's  Assistance  at  Jericho,  (a) 
The  need,  out  of  which  he  helps;  (b)  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  helps. — Ver.  19.  God  is  wont, 
in  most  cases,  to  put  some  internal  or  exter- 
nal need  by  the  side  of  prosperity  and  good 
fortune,  in  order  that  men  may  bear  in  mind  their 
weakness  and  need  of  help,  and  in  order  that  they 
may  not  be  too  well  off  upon  earth.  Where  noth- 
ing is  wanting  that  the  place  may  be  pleasant  to 
dwell  in,  there  that  comes  to  pass  which  is  writ- 
ten, Hos.  xiii.  6.  In  the  districts  and  countries 
where  there  is  no  want  of  anything,  and  noth- 
ing to  complain  of,  there  is,  as  a  general  rule, 
the  least  religious  life  and  the  least  morality. 
— When  the  men  of  Jericho  perceived  that  a  man 
of  God,  upon  whom  the  spirit  of  Elijah  rested, 
was  within  their  walls,  they  sought  him  and  pre- 
sented their  concern  to  him.  How  many  trouble 
themselves  about  everything  that  takes  place 
in  their  city,  or  about  everything  which  is  to 
be  seen  or  heard,  but  not  about  a  faithful  servant 
of  God,  who  proclaims  the  way  of  salvation. — 
Starke  :  It  is  not  enough  to  have  teachers  and 
preachers ;  it  is  necessary  also  to  make  use  of  their 
counsel,  at  the  right  time  (Acts  xvi.  30). — Vers. 
20  and  21.  Kyburz:  Would  that  all  rulers,  preach- 
ers, and  others,  to  whom  souls  are  entrusted,  would 
exert  themselves  to  fill  up  every  spring  of  evil  in 
the  country,  or,  like  Elijah,  to  heal  and  improve  it 
and  make  it  healthful For  this,  how- 
ever, salt  is  necessary,  the  salt  of  heavenjy  wis- 
dom. This  does  not  come  in  an  old  vessel,  but  is 
stored  in  a  new  heart. — Krummacher:  In  a  place 
where  the  spiritual  fountains  are  poisoned,  and  the 
people  receive  to  drink,  from  all  the  pulpits  and 
sohool-teachers'  desks,  not  the  water  which  streams 
forth  unto  eternal  life,  but  the  death-draught  of 
that  modern  babble  of  deceit  and  falsehood, 
.  .  .  there  there  is  a  more  deadly  curse  upon  the 
laud  than  that  which  once  lay  upon  the  district  of 

Jericho May  the  Lord  of  Elisha  raise 

up  those  who  shall  carry  the  healing  salt  also  into 
these  fountains. — It  was  not  the  natural  salt  which 
Elisha  cast  into  the  fountain  which  purified  it,  but 
that  of  which  the  salt  was  a  figure  and  sign,  viz. :  the 
Word  of  the  Lord,  by  means  of  which  He  created 
heaven  and  earth  and  continually  carries  and  pre- 
serves all  things  (Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  9 ;  Hebr.  i.  3),  which 
also  creates  anew  the  hearts  of  men,  and  brings 
them  out  of  death  unto  life,  preserves  them  from 
internal  decay,  and  purifies  them  from  all  unclean- 
ness.  Therefore  the  Lord  says :  "  Have  salt  in 
yourselves "  (Mark  ix.  50 ;  cf.  Ps.  xix.  8  sq.). — 
Ver.  21.  I  have  healed  these  waters.  The  Lord 
is  the  right  Physician  for  both  Soul  and  Body  (Ex. 
xv.  26).  (a)  He  makes  healthful  those  who  are 
diseased  in  body  and  saves  them  from  death ;  the 
human  physician  is  only  an  instrument  in  His 
hand,  as  Elisha  was  here,  for  without  Him,  His 
strength,  nis  blessing,  no  physician  can  accom- 
plish anything  (Sir.  xxxviii.  1,  2).  Therefore  when 
thou  hast  regained  thy  health,  give  to  Him  before 
all  others  the  honor,  and  say:  "Praise  the  Lord," 
&c.  (Ps.  ciii.  1-5).  How  many  sick  persons  travel 
about  to  every  physician  of  whose  skill  they  have 
heard,  without  turning,  with  all  their  hearts,  to  Him 
who  says:  "I  give  health"  and  "Call  upon  me," 
Ac.  (Ps.  L  15).    (6)  He  healeth  the  broken  in  heart 


and  bindeth  up  their  wounds  (Ps.  cxlvii.  3).  Wa 
are  all  sick  and  in  need  of  the  physician  who  came 
into  the  world  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
lost.  God  directs  us  all  to  this  physician,  and  He 
alone  can  help  us,  of  whom  it  is  said :  "  Neither  ia 
there  salvation  in  any  other"  (Acts  iv.  12).  He 
gives  life  and  true  health,  and  that  man  remains 
diseased  in  time  and  eternity  whom  He,  the  Sa- 
viour, does  not  heal  and  sanctify.  Therefore,  listen 
to  His  voice  when  He  calls:  "Come  unto  me,"  &c. 
(Matt.  xi.  28). — Ver.  22.  Faithful  and  genuine  ser- 
vants of  God,  who  cast  the  salt  of  the  divine, 
healing,  purifying,  and  sanctifying  Word  into  the 
springs  of  life,  are  a  blessing  for  every  village  and 
every  city,  unto  children  and  children's  children, 
for  whom  God  can  never  be  thanked  enough. 

Vers.  23-25.  Krummacher:  The  Judgment  at 
Bethel,  (a)  The  cause  of  the  insult ;  (b)  the  in- 
sult itself,  (c)  the  results  of  the  same. — Elisha 
on  the  Road  to  Bethel,  (a)  The  derision  of  the 
youths.  (Bethel  had  been  for  many  years  the  seat 
and  home  of  apostasy.  "The  fathers  have  eaten 
sour  grapes,"  &c,  Ezek.  xviii.  2.  As  the  old  ones 
sing  so  the  young  ones  twitter.  Brought  up  with- 
out discipline  and  exhortation  to  follow  the  Lord, 
having  grown  up  in  rudeness,  unbelief,  and  super- 
stition, these  youths  had  lost  all  reverence  for 
what  is  holy,  so  that  they  not  only  held  the  men 
of  God  in  light  esteem,  but  even  practised  their 
wit  upon  them.  Are  there  in  our  time  no  longer 
such  youth?)  (b)  The  curse  of  the  prophet  (was 
no  vulgar,  rude  cursing  from  ill-temper  and  an- 
ger, no  misuse  of  the  holy  name  of  God,  but  the 
correct  use  of  this  name,  threatening  with  divine 
punishment  those  who,  in  the  prophet,  treated 
with  contumely  Him  who  had  sent  him.  The  pun- 
ishment itself  he  left  to  Him  who  ever  judges 
rightly,  and  whom  no  one  may  ask :  Lord,  what 
doest  thou?  As  Elisha  was  not  silent,  so  also  now 
a  faithful  servant  of  the  Lord  may  not  keep  silent 
if  young  people  are  brought  up  badly  and  god- 
lessly ;  he  ought  not  to  let  pass  unnoticed  their 
wickedness  and  impudence,  and  their  contempt  for 
that  which  is  holy.  It  is  his  duty  to  warn  them 
and  their  parents  of  the  divine  punishment.  Woe 
to  the  watchmen  who  are  durtfb  watch-dogs,  who 
cannot  punish,  who  are  lazy,  and  who  are  glad  to 
lie  and  sleep!)  (c)  The  avenging  judgment  of 
God.  (It  is  certain,  and  will  not  fail  to  come,  for: 
"Be  not  deceived,  God  is  not  mocked,"  &c,  Gal. 
vi.  7.  The  judgment  at  Bethel  is  recorded  as  a 
warning  to  us,  1  Cor.  x.  11.  If  God  punished  the 
mocking  children  so  severely,  what  will  He  do  to 
the  older  mockers,  who  seduce  youth  and  incite  it 
to  mocking?  Though  He  may  send  no  bears  from 
the  wood,  yet  He  has  countless  other  means  in 
time  and  in  eternity,  whether  earlier  or  later,  for 
executing  his  just  judgments.  Those  who  mocked 
the  Lord  upon  the  cross  had  afterwards  to  call 
"to  the  mountains:  Fall  on  us;  and  to  the  hills," 
&c,  Luke  xxiii.  30;  Rev.  vi.  16.  Nor  will  those 
be  better  off  who,  now-a-days,  exercise  their  wit 
upon  the  story  of  the  cross,  however  learned  and 
enlightened,  spirituel  and  witty,  they  may  be. 
"  Blessed  is  the  man  that  walketh  not  in  the  coun- 
sel of  the  ungodly,"  Ps.  i.  1).  ["  In  vain  do  wo  look 
for  good  from  those  children  whose  education  we 
have  neglected;  and  in  vain  do  we  grieve  for  [hosa 
miscarriages  which  our  care  might  have  prevented." 
Bp.  Hall,  quoted  in  the  Comp.  Coxni.]— Krumma 
cuirr:   A  man  in  whom  Christ  has  found  a  dwell 


CHAPTER  III.   1-27. 


29 


mg,  cannot  go  unattacked  through  Dan  or  Bethel. 
— CalwerBibel:  The  prophets,  even,  in  their  day. 
were  despised  on  account  of  righteousness,  and 
the  name  of  God.  Be  not  astonished  at  the  con- 
temptuous epithets  of  to-day  for  pious  people. — 
Cassel:  Young  people  are  always  ready  to  make 
wanton  sport  of  any  peculiar  appearance  which 
they  do  not  understand.  The  unripe  behavior  of 
the  young  generation  which  is  growing  up,  always 
forms  a  shadowy  reflection  of  the  shallow  opposi- 
tion in  moral  and  religious  ideas  which  exists  in 


public  opinion.  The  separate  bearers  and  sup- 
porters of  the  truth,  which  is  deep,  and  hence 
misunderstood  by  the  masses,  are,  ft"""  the  most 
part,  objects  of  blind  scorn  to  wild  _  juth.  That 
which  found  expression  against  Elijah  has  also 
fallen  upon  many  in  later  times.  He  who,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  calling,  goes  up  to  perverted  Bethel, 
must  expect  it.  [The  Residence  at  Carmel.  "He 
can  never  be  a  profitable  seer  who  is  either  always 
or  never  alone."  Bp.  Hall,  quoted  in  the  Comp 
Comm.] 


C.  The  Reign  of  Jehoram,  and  his  Expedition  against  the  Moabites. 


Chap.  in.  1-27. 


1  Now  Jehoram  the  son  of  Ahab  began  to  reign  over  Israel  in  Samaria  in  tna 

2  eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah,  and  reigned  twelve  years.  And 
he  wrought  evil  in  the  sight  of  the   Lord ;  but  not  like  his  father,  and  like  his 

3  mother:  for  he  put  away  the  image  of  Baal  that  his  father  had  made.  Never- 
theless he  cleaved  unto  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Xebat,  which  made  Israel 

4  to  sin  ;  he  departed  not  therefrom.1  And  Mesh  a  king  of  Moab  was  a  sheepmaster,' 
and  rendered  unto  the  king  of  Israel  a  hundred  thousand  lambs,  and  a  hundred 

5  thousand  rams,  with  the  wool  [the  wool  of  a  hundred  thousand  rams].3  But  it 
came  to  pass,  when  Ahab  was  dead,  that  the  king  of  Moab  rebelled  against  the  king 

6  of  Israel.     And  king  Jehoram  went  out  of  Samaria  the  same  time  [at  that  time], 

7  and  numbered  all  Israel.  And  he  went  and  sent  to  Jehoshaphat  the  King  of  Judah, 
saying,  The  king  of  Moab  hath  rebelled  against  me  :  wilt  thou  go  with  me  against 
Moab  to  battle  ?     And  he  said,  I  will  go  up  :  I  am  as  thou  art,  my  people  as  thy 

8  people,  and  my  horses  as  thy  horses.     And  he  said,  Which  way  shall  we  go  up? 

9  And  he  answered,  The  way  through  the  wilderness  of  Edom.  So  the  king  of  Israel 
went,  and  the  king  of  Judah,  and  the  king  of  Edom  :  and  they  fetched  a  com- 
pass of  seven  days'  journey  :   and  there  was   no  water  for  the  host,  and  for  the 

10  cattle  that  followed  them.  And  the  king  of  Israel  said,  Alas  !  that  the  Lord 
hath    called  these  three   kings  together,  to    deliver   them  into  the  hands  of 

11  Moab  !  But  Jehoshaphat  said,  Is  there  not  here  a  prophet  of  the  Lord,  that  we 
may  inquire  of  the  Lord  by  him  ?  And  one  of  the  king  of  Israel's  servants 
answered  and  said,  Here  is  Elisha  the   son   of  Shaphat,  which  poured  water  on 

12  the  hands  of  Elijah.  And  Jehoshaphat  said,  The  word  of  the  Lord  is  with  him. 
So  the  King  of  Israel  and  Jehoshaphat  and  the  king  of  Edom  went  down  to  him. 

13  And  Elisha  said  unto  the  king  of  Israel,  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee?  get  thee 
to  the  prophets  of  thy  father,  and  to  the  prophets  of  thy  mother.  And  the  king 
of  Israel  said  unto  him,  Nay  :  *  for  the  Lord  hath  called  these  three  kings  together, 

14  to  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  Moab.  And  Elisha  said,  As  the  Lord  of  hosts 
liveth,  before  whom  I  stand,  surely,  were  it  not  that  I  regard  the  presence  of 
Jehoshaphat   the  king  of  Judah,  I  would  not  look  toward   thee,  nor  see  thee. 

15  But  now  bring  me  a  minstrel.     And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  minstrel  played, 

16  that  the  hand  of  the  Lord  came  upon   him.     And  he  said,  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 

17  Make0  this  valley  full  of  ditches.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Ye  shall  not  see 
wind,  neither  shall  ye  see  rain ;  yet  that  valley  shall  be  filled  with  water,  that 

18  ye  may  drink,  both  ye,  and  your  cattle,  and  your  beasts.  And  this  is  but  a  light 
thing  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord:  he  will  deliver  the  Moabites  also  into  your  hand. 

19  And  ye  shall  smite  every  fenced  city,  and  every  choice  city,  and  shall  fell  everv 
good  tree,  and  stop  all  wells  of  water,  and  mar  every  good  piece  of  land  with 

i0  stones.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  morning,  when  the  meat-offering  was 
offered  [at   the   time    of  oflering    sacrifice],    that,    behold,  there   came    water 


30 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


21  by  the  way  of  Edom,  and  the  country  was  filled  with  water.  And  when 
all  the  MoabiteB  [had]  heard  that  the  kings  were  come  up  to  fight  against 
them,    they   [had]    gathered    all  that   were  able    to    put    on    armour,    and    up 

22  ward,  and  stood  in  the  border  [had  stationed  themselves  on  the  boundary].  And 
they  rose  lip  early  in  the  morning,  and  the  sun  shone  [rose]  upon  the  water,  and 
the  Moabites  saw  the  water  on  the  other  side  [opposite  them]  as  red  as  blood: 

23  And  they  said,  This  is  blood  :  the  kings  are  surely  slain  [have  fought,  to  their 
own  destruction],6  and  they  have  smitten  one  another :  now  therefore,  Moab,  to 

24  the  spoil.  And  when  they  came  to  the  camp  at  Israel,  the  Israelites  rose  up  and 
smote  the  Moabites,  so  that  they  tied  before  them:  but  they  went  forward  smit-i 

25  ing'  the  Moabites,  even  in  their  country.  And  they  beat  down  the  cities,  and! 
on  every  good  piece  of  land  cast  every  man  his  stone,  and  filled  it;  and  they 
stopped  all  the  wells  of  water,  and  felled  all  the  good  trees  [until  there  were 
left]  8  only  in  Kir-haraseth  left  they  [omit  left  they]  the  stones  thereof;  howbeit 

26  the  slingers  went  about  it,  and  smote  it.  And  when  the  king  of  Moab  saw  that 
the  battle  was  too  sore  for  him,  he  took  with  him  seven  hundred  men  that  drew 

27  swords,  to  break  through  even  unto  the  king  of  Edom:  but  they  could  not. 
Then  he  took  his  eldest  son  that  should  have  reigned  in  his  stead,  and  offered 
him  for  a  burnt-offering  upon  the  wall.  And  there  was  great  indignation 
against  [in]  Israel :  and  they  departed  from  him  [Mesha],  and  returned  lo  their 
own  land. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  8. — [^tDD,  sing-fem.  suff.  referring  to  a  plural  noun,  when  separated  from  it  by  a  considerable  interval,  as  Id 
chap  x.  26 ;  xvii.  22. 

a  Ver.  4. — Hi?P  is  well  translated  by  sheep-master.    The  word  was  unintelligible  to  the  Sept.  who  reproduce  it  in 

Greek  letters.    They  add  ev  rri  iTravavTaaeL,  "  after  the  insurrection,"  a  detail  which  does  not  seem  to  be  well  founded. 

3  Ver.  4.— p^pV   Oy^N.    The  words  are  best  understood  as  suggested  above.    So  the  Sept.  (iri  itokwv,  either,  m 

lanam,  or  in  toturwam,  Schl.),  Thenius,  Bunsen,  Bahr,  and  Ewald  (  Widder,  i.  e.,  Yliesze,  Wollc).    Keil  undecided  betweeD 
this  and  "  wool  of  Iambs  or  rams." 

*  Ver.  13. — [3  7N.  The  Sept.  and  Vulg.  take  this  as  a  question;  so  also  Ewald.  §  824,  b:  the  same  as  fj.ri  on — a  ques- 
tion implying  fear,  and  expecting  an  answer  confiraiatoi  v  i>f  ihe  fear.  Keil,  Bunsen.  Bahr,  Thenius,  all  take  it  as  in  the 
E.  V. 

'  Ver.  10. — [E\v.  §  328,  c,  takes  HC^  as  standing  for  the  first  person,  and  compares  1  Kings  xxii.  30. 

•  Ver.  23.— fOirij,  they  have  fought.  The  hof.  inf.  abs.  ^nn  is  joined  with  it  in  the  adverbial  usage,  to  be 
destroyed.— W.  G.  S.] 

7  Ver.  24. — The  keri  ^3*1  is  no  improvement.  We  cau  read  13*1_,  as  in  1  Kings  xii.  12,  where  it  stands  for  N13^5 
(Bahr).  [The  Sept.  read  N13  ^fcO^j  "  And  they  went  in  farther  and  farther,  and  smote  Moab  more  and  more."  Theniui 
and  Bunsen  adopt  this,  and  it  makes  the  best  sense.    ni3n  is  the  const,  used  for  the  abs.— W.  G.  S.] 

>  Ver.  25—  [TSK'n  is  infin.  as  TDE>T1  in  1  Kings  xv.  29;  cf.  also  2  Kings  x.  11  and  17.  Ew.  §  23S,  d.  (Keil). 
Fflrst,  in  the  concordance,  takes  it  as  perf.    "tj*  must  then  be  taken  for  ™*V!'^  ">• — ^  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1 .  Jehoram  the  son  of  Ahab,  &c  In  re- 
gard t"  tin-  chronological  statements  see  notes  on 
chap.  viii.  16. — In  ver.  2  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.  read 

POSB  for  n3SD .  which  Thenius  wrongly  declares 

to  be  better.  .According  to  chap.  x.  2G  sq.,  when 
:he  temple  of  Baal,  which  had  been  built  by  Ahab 
(1  Kings  xvi.  32),  was  destroyed,  in  the  first  place 
the  (wooden)  rri3i72  were  burned,  and  then  the 

('stone  or  metal  I  SjQn  fQiTD  w-as  broken  in  pieces. 

It  i.  clear  that  tliis  last  was  the  principal  statue, 
and  we  have  to  think  here  of  the  same  or  a  similar 
one   whhh  stood  before  the  royal  palace,  and  not 


in  the  temple.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Jehoram 
only  removed  and  did  not  destroy  it.  It  is  not  en- 
tirely certain  whether  he  did  it  immediately  after  his 
accession,  or  after  the  expedition  against  Moab. 

Ver.  4.  Mesha  king  of  Moab,  &c  The  fruit- 
ful and  well-watered  land  of  Moab  was  espe- 
cially fitted  for  the  pasturage  of  flocks  (Viner, 
/,'.-  W.-B.  i.  s.  99).     The  wealth  of  the  king  seems, 

as  he  is  himself  called  "jpj  [shepherd  or  sheep- 
master],  to  have  consisted  in  flocks,  hence  he 
paid   the  tr"-  ite    in    these.      Michaelis,    Maurer. 

and  others,  refer  IDS  [wool],  at,  the  end  of  ver.  4, 

...  T 

to  both  lambs  and  rams,  so  that  Mesha  would 
have  had  to  pay  only  tbe  wool   !rom  both  •  iu  that 


CHAPTER  III.   1-27 


31 


case,  however,  the  rams  must  certainly  have  had 
a  different  wool  from  the  sheep,  which  cannot  be 
proved.  Ewald  and  Thenius  make  it  only  refer 
to  the  B'^'X  i  mentioned  last  before  it,  so  that  the 
sense  is,  since  "13  is  used  especially  for  a  fatted 

lamb,  that  the  lambs  were  given  alive  for  food,  but 
that  from  the  rams  only  the  wool  or  the  fleeces 
were  given  up.  The  tribute  was,  in  any  case,  a 
very  considerable  one;  but  this  does  not  justify 
the  conclusion  that  it  was  paid  only  on  every 
change  of  government  (Clericus).  There  is  no 
doubt  that  we  have  to  regard  it  as  a  regular 
annual  tribute  (cf.  Isai.  xvi.  1).  At  the  division  of 
the  kingdom,  Judah  took  Edom  and  Israel  Moab. 
As  early  as  the  time  of  Ahaziah  the  Moabites  had 
declared  their  independence  of  Israel  (chap.  i.  1); 
as  he,  however,  soon  fell  sick,  and  did  not  reign 
for  even  two  full  years,  it  remained  for  Jehoram 
to  try  to  resubjugate  the  rebels,  and  to  retain  them 
in  tributary  subjection.  [In  the  year  1869  a 
basalt  column,  three  feet  high  by  one  and  a  half 
feet  wide,  and  one  and  a  half  feet  thick,  was 
discovered  near  Dibon,  in  Moab,  on  which  was 
an  inscription  running  in  the  name  of  Mesha 
and  detailing  his  acts,  especially  the  conquests 
made,  and  the  temples  built,  by  him.  It  was 
broken,  through  the  jealousy  and  suspicion  of 
the  Arabs,  before  it  could  be  removed,  or  a 
copy  taken  of  it.  Nothing  remains  but  fragments. 
There  are,  therefore,  several  gaps  in  the  inscrip- 
tion as  we  now  possess  it.  It  refers  to  the  op- 
pression of  Moab  by  Israel.  Omri  is  the  king 
mentioned  as  having  afflicted  Moab,  "because 
Chemosh  was  angry  with  the  king  [of  Moab]."  A 
gap  destroys  the  names  of  kings  of  Israel  wrho 
reigned  "  for  forty  years."  The  reference  which  is 
thus  lost  would  be  of  the  highest  value  for  deter- 
mining the  date  of  the  inscription.  It  goes  on  to  say 
that  Chemosh  became  gracious  again  in  the  days 
of  Mesha,  so  that  the  king  gained  victories  over 
Israel.  Chemosh  told  him  to  take  Nebo.  He  took 
it,  and  sacrificed  seven  thousand  of  its  inhabit- 
ants to  Ashtor-Chemosh.  and  took  the  vessels  of 
Jehovah  and  offered  them  to  Chemosh.  The  last 
part  of  the  inscription  is  so  fragmentary  as  to  be 
hardly  intelligible.  As  usual  in  such  inscriptions, 
only  the  king's  victories,  and  not  his  defeats,  are 
mentioned.  Cf  Art.  "  Writing ;  "  Smith's  Did.  Bib., 
Am.  ed.— W.  G.  S.] 

Yer.  6.  And  king  Jehoram  went  out  of 
Samaria  the  same  time,  &c.  That  is,  at  the  time 
when  he  became  king,  and  Mesha  refused  him  the 
tribute. — He  numbered,  or  mustered,  i.  e.,  he 
brought  together,  a  large  army,  by  a  levy  of  men 
throughout  all  Israel  who  were  capable  of  bearing 
arms  ;  but  he  addressed  himself  to  Jehoshaphat  at 
the  same  time,  in  order  to  be  so  much  the  more 
certain  of  attaining  his  object,  and  the  latter  then 
entered  into  an  alliance  with  him.  Cf.  on  ver.  7, 
the  remarks  on  1  Kings  xxii.  4.  The  combined 
army  could  advance  by  the  "  way  "  (ver.  8)  over 
the  Jordan,  and  then  along  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  so  fall  upon  Moab  from  the  north : 
or  it  could  march  down  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan 
and  the  Dead  Sea,  as  far  as  the  southern  extremity 
of  the  latter,  and  then  force  its  way  into  Moab 
from  the  south  through  a  portion  of  the  land  of 
Edom.  Jehoshaphat  decided  in  favor  of  the  latter 
road,  although  it  was  longer  and  beset  with  more 
difficulties  than  the  other,  chiefly,  we  may  well  i 


believe,  because  they  could  thea  call  the  king  of 
Edom  with  his  army  to  their  assistance,  and  make 
sure  that  he  did  not  profit  by  the  opportunity  and 
make  war  upon  them  himself.  Perhaps  they  also 
thought  that  Moab  could  be  more  easily  surprised 
from  the  south.  [The  fortifications  of  the  Moabites 
were  on  their  northern  boundary.  On  the  south 
they  relied  upon  the  natural  obstacles  to  the  ad 
vance  of  a  hostile  army.  On  the  northern  route 
moreover,  the  armies  of  Israel  woidd  have  beer, 
exposed  to  an  attack  from  the  Syrians,  who  were 
in  a  disposition  to  seize  eagerly  upon  any  such 
opportunity. — W.  G.  S.]  Edom  had  at  this  timo 
no  king  of  its  own,  but  a  governor  appointed  by 
Jehoshaphat  (1  Kings  xxii.  48).  The  seven  days' 
journey  (ver.  9)  cannot  be  understood  of  the  dis- 
tance from  Jerusalem,  which  is  only  about  sixty 
miles,  for  the  king  of  Edom  had  already  joined  the 
two  other  kings  with  his  army  [i.  e.,  it  is  said 
that  the  three  kings  wandered  seven  days' journey, 
so  that  the  time  must  be  reckoned  after  their 
junction ;  but  the  king  of  Edom  would  not  go  to 
Jerusalem  to  meet  them,  and  then  march  back 
again.  He  joined  them  at  the  borders  of  Edom,  a 
very  short  distance  from  the  scene  of  the  distress 
for  want  of  water. — W.  G.  S.].  More  probably 
"  they  suffered  for  seven  days  from  want  of  water 
in  the  desert-region  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  " 
(Ewald).     For  a  more  particular  description  of  this 

region,  see  Ked  on  the  passage.      '3  in  ver.  10  is 

not  equivalent  to  "  for ;  "  but  it  serves  either  to 
intensify  the  assertion :  "Alas!  for  Jehovah,"  &c. 
(Keil,  De  Wette),  or  its  only  use  is  to  introduce  the 
assertion,  and  it  is  not  to  be  translated  (Luther, 
Thenius),  as  in  Isai.  xv.  1. 

Ver.  11.  But  Jehoshaphat  said,  Ac.  Cf. 
1  Kings  xxii.  5-7.  As  in  that  case,  Jehoshaphat 
desires  to  hear  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  i.  < .,  a  true 
prophet,  not  a  pretended  one,  a  prophet  of  Ahab. 
That  which  Jehoram  himself  did  not  know  was 
known  by  one  of  his  servants,  i.  e.,  no  doubt  one 
of  his  thief  officers,  who  was,  perhaps,  like  Oba 
diah  (i  Kings  xviii.  3),  secretly  a  friend  of  the 
prophet. — Which  poured  water,  &c,  i.  e.,  who 
"was  about  Elijah  daily  as  his  servant,  and  who 
is  certainly  the  most  reliable  prophet  since  he  is 
gone  "  (Thenius). — It  is  clear  from  the  definite 
declaration  of  Jehoshaphat  (ver.  12),  that  the  repu- 
tation of  Elisha  had  extended  already  to  Judah. 
It  is  very  significant  that  the  three  kings  did  not 
summon  him  to  them,  but  themselves  went  down 
to  him.  Probably  "  the  tents  of  the  kings  were 
set  upon  an  eminence  so  as  to  overlook  the  en- 
campment "  (Thenius).  The  inference  which 
Josephus  affirms,  that  the  prophet  had  his  tent 
outside  the  encampment,  and  at  some  distance 
from  it,  is  not  justified  by  the  words. 

Ver.  13.  And  Elisha  said  unto  the  king  ol 
Israel,  &c.  The  prophet  addresses  himself  to 
Jehoram  because  he  is  the  principal  persou  here, 
through  whom  the  others  have  been  brought  into 
these  straits.  The  question :  What  have  I  to  dc 
with  thee  ?  means :  Why  dost  thou  desire  to  come 
tome,  the  prophet  of  the  God  whom  thou  hast  aban- 
doned ?  The  prophets  of  his  father  were,  no  doubt, 
those  court-prophets,  at  whose  head  Zedekiab 
once  stood  (1  Kings  xxii.  6,  11);  the  prophets  of 
his  mother  Jezebel  can  have  been  only  Baal-Dro- 
phets  1 1  Kings  xviii.  19).  We  see  from  this  that 
Jehoram,  although  he  had  removed  the  statue  of 


32 


THE  SECOXD  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Baal,  still  allowed  the  priests  of  Baal  to  perform 
their  functions,  as  they  had  done  before,  without 
molestation.  This  is  also  clear  from  2  Kings  x.  19. 
Jehoram  does  not  mean  by  the  curt  expression' 

pt< :  it  cannot  help  me  to  go  to  the  prophets  of 

Baal  (Rabbis),  but  (cf.  Ruth  i.  13):  Do  not  repel 
me,  I  am  not  alone  at  stake;  shall  three  kings 
with  their  armies  perish  1 — On  the  words  :  Before 
■whom  I  stand,  see  notes  on  1  Kings  xvii.  1 ; 
xviii.  lo. — Elisha  demands  (ver.  15)  a  ''minstrel" 
or  harp-player,  certainly  not  "  that  he  might  chant 
'.he  reply  of  God  to  the  accompaniment  of  the 
harp "  ( J.  D.  Miehaelis),  nor  "  in  order  to  pro- 
nounce his  directions  with  a  sufficiently  solemn 
tone  "  (Knobel).  Bleek  observes  :  "  The  recita- 
tions of  the  prophets  were,  in  early  times,  very 
lively,  in  a  lyrical  form  of  composition,  and,  as  is 
generally  the  case  with  respect  to  the  recitation 
of  lyrical  poetry,  accompanied  by  music ;"  the 
accompaniment  in  this  case,  then,  was  most  pro- 
bably "  the  mode  of  prophetic  recitation,  which 
was  not  unusual  at  the  time."  But  there  is  no 
mention  in  any  other  place  of  any  such  method, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  appeal  to  1  Sam.  x.  5,  ac- 
cording to  which  an  entire  band  of  the  prophets 
;ame  out  with  drum  and  flute  and  harp.  That 
only  proves  that  music  was  practised  in  the 
•prophet-communities.  It  is  also  certain  that 
Ebsha's  master,  Elijah,  did  not  cause  his  recita- 
tions or  speeches  to  be  accompanied  by  music. 
The  extraordinary  means,  which  does  not  occur 
again  in  the  story  of  Elisha,  presupposes  an  extra- 
ordinary occasion  therefor.  In  ancient  times 
harp-music  was  often  employed  as  a  means  of 
withdrawing  the  soul  from  the  outer  world,  and  of 
collecting,  quieting,  and  elevating  it.  Among  the 
numerous  places  which  Bochart  (Hk-roz.  i.  2.  44) 
collected  upon  this  point,  it  may  suffice  to  quote 
here  only  one.  Cicero  (Tusc.  iv.)  says  that  the 
Pythagoreans  were  accustomed  mentes  sua-s  a  co- 
gitationum  intentions  cantu  fidibusque  ad  tranquiUi- 
tatem  traducere.  Cf.  also  1  Sam.  xvi.  16.  and 
Clericus'  remarks  on  the  place.  Elisha's  dissatis- 
faction, which  he  expresses  in  vers.  13  and  14, 
although  it  was  natural  and  just,  was,  neverthe- 
less, not  the  disposition  of  soul  which  is  demanded 
if  one  is  to  hear  the  voice  of  God  within.  The  situa- 
tion, the  encampment,  and  the  entire  surround- 
ings were  unadapted  for  composure  and  elevation 
of  soul,  for  we  find  that  the  prophets  usually 
received  their  revelations  in  retirement  and  quiet, 
not  in  the  noise  and  bustle  of  the  world.  In  order 
that  he  may  be  brought  into  the  right  disposi- 
tion, may  direct  his  inner  self  entirely  towards 
the  Lord,  and  may  be  able  to  surrender  himself 
to  the  higher  influence,  Elisha  makes  use  of  the 
usual  means,  probably  the  one  which  was  regularly 
employed  for  this  purpose  in  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  and  indeed  not  without  success,  for  dur- 
ing the  playing  upon  the  harp,  "the  hand  of  the 
Lord  came  upon  him."  Cf.  notes  on  1  Kings  xviii. 
46  (Jer.  1.  9). 

Ver.  17.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Ac.  Accord- 
ing to  Thenius  we  must  identify  the  -alley  where 
they  were  to  dig  ditches  in  order  to  collect  the  water, 
which  otherwise  would  have  run  quickly  away, 
with  what  is  to-day  called  Wady  el  Ahsy,  which  is 
the  natural  boundary  of  Moab  on  the  south  (Isai. 
xv.  7 1,  and  from  which  several  ravines  run  up  into 
the  mountain  region   of   Moab   [Robinson  ii.  112, 


157].  The  prophecy  itself,  vers.  17-19,  contains 
a  climax  in  its  two  members :  The  Lord  will  not 
only  save  you  out  of  the  present  need,  but  he  will 
also  grant  you  glorious  victory  over  Moab.  The 
words  in  the  19th  verse  are  not  a  command,  as  ver. 
16  is:  they  only  declare  what  will  occur.  For 
this  reason,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  impossible  ta 
charge  the  prophet  with  commanding  what  Deut.  n 
19  sq.  forbids  ;  but,  besides  that,  the  place  in  Deut 
refers  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  during  which 
no  fruit-tree  was  to  be  used  for  palisades  or  forti- 
fications in  sieges.  To  mar  every  good  piece  of 
land  with  stones,  means  to  throw  so  many  stones 
upon  it  that  it  would  no  longer  be  available  foi 
cultivation    (Sept.:    axpetuaErc). — iirOD  (ver.    20) 

has  the  same  meaning  as  in  1  Kings  xviii.  29.  36. 
The  interpretation  which  Von  Gerlach  and  Keil 
give  to  this  statement,  that  on  account  of  the 
morning  sacrifice  offered  in  the  temple  at  Jerusa- 
lem, according  to  the  Law,  God  turned  His  favor 
once  nice  upon  the  people,  goes  too  far.  The 
statement  can  scarcely  be  more  than  a  mere 
designation  of  time,  i.  e.,  as  it  became  light. 
Before  the  exile  time  was  not  defined  by  hours. 
Nevertheless,  a  reference  may  lie  in  it  to  the  fact 
that  help  came  just  at  the  moment  of  time  sacred 
to  Jehovah.  The  express  mention  that  there 
came  water  by  way  of  Edom,  makes  the  suppo- 
sition inadmissible  that,  in  digging  the  ditches  (ver. 
16),  "the  ties'!  springs  bubbled  up  under  the  feet 
of  the  laborers  "  (Krummacher).  or  that  we  must 
think  of  "  subterranean  cisterns  "  (Richter).  A 
much  more  probable  explanation  is  that  "  a  great 
shower  fell  at  some  distance  from  the  Israelitish 
encampment "  (Josephus  even  asserts :  three  days' 
journey  from  it),  "  or  a  kind  of  a  cloud-burst  (water- 
spout) took  place,  by  which  the  wady  was  filled 
all  at  once,  although  the  Israelites  did  not  notice 
the  wind,  which  always  arises  before  a  rain-storm, 
in  the  Orient,  nor  see  the  rain  itself"  (Keil). 

Ver.  21.  And  when  all  the  Moabites  heard, 
&c.  In  order  to  await  the  attack  on  their  own 
mountains — that  is,  in  an  excellent  position — the 
Moabites  had  stationed  themselves,  with  all  their 
military  force,  on  the  frontier.  The  morning  eun 
arising  with  a  red  light,  caused  the  water  to  ap- 
pear red,  besides  which  the  water  itself  was 
reddened  by  the  red  earth  of  Edom  (Ewald). 
That  they  took  it  for  blood  was  not,  as  the  older 
interpreters  supposed,  a  mistake  which  was  brought 
about  by  God  in  a  miraculous  manner,  but  a  per- 
fectly natural  error,  into  which  they  would  fall  all 
the  more  readily  as  they  knew  very  well  that  there 
was  no  water  in  that  desert.  The  supposition 
also,  which  they  express  in  the  23d  verse,  is  not  by 
any  means  far-fetched,  since  similar  events  often 
occurred  (2  Chron.  xx.  23;  Judges  vii.  22);  and 
they  well  knew  what  jealousy  existed  between 
Israid  and  Judah,  and  the  inclination  of  Edom  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  of  the  latter  I  Gerlach).  This 
supposition  rose  to  a  certainty  in  their  eagerness 
for  liooty.     The  sentence  in  ver.  25  from  -|J)  to 

)T"in  is  "to  be  joined  with  the  commencement  of 

the  verse :  '  and  they  beat  down  the  cities.'  (What 
comes  between  describes  the  devastation  of  tht 
land,  which  also  had  an  influence  on  the  cities ) 
Accordingly  !T32X  can  only  be  understood  in  its 

real  sense  of  actual  wall-stones,  and  not  of  cliffs 
or  rock,  and  the  suffix  on  this  word  re  fers  to  -i* j 


CHAPTER  III.   1-27. 


33 


nbnn  and  not  to  Moab  "  (Thenius).     The  city  Kir 

Hareseth  is  the  same  which  is  called  Kir  Moab, 
3X1D  Tp  (Isai.  xv.   1),  and  Kir  Heres,  {jnn  Tp 

(Isai.  xvi.  1 ;  cf.  Jer.  xlviii.  31,  36).  It  was  the 
capital  city,  "  the  most  important,  perhaps  the 
only  fortification  in  the  country,  built  upon  a  high, 
steep,  chalk-cliff"  (Keil),  now  called  Kerak,  and 
provided  with  a  fort  [see  Robinson,  ii.  G6],  (Winer, 

R.-W.-B.,  i.  s.  658  sq.).      The  D^p  are  not  those 

who  applied  siege-engines  (Grotius:  tor inentarii), 
but  slingers,  in  the  common  meaning  of  the  word, 
funditores,  who  shot  at  the  garrison  upon  the  walls. 
— Unto  the  king  of  Edom,  i.  e.,  toward  the  side 
where  the  king  was  with  his  subjects,  either  be- 
cause this  seemed  to  be  the  weakest  part  of  the  be- 
sieging force  (Thenius),  or  because  they  hoped  that 
they  could  most  easily  draw  away  the  Edomite 
contingent  from  the  allied  army  (Ewald). 

Ver.  27.  Then  he  took  his  eldest  son,  ftc. 
Many  take  these  words  with  the  Rabbis,  thus : 
During  the  sortie  against  the  king  of  Edom, 
Mesha  captured  his  son  and  offered  him  as  a 
sacrifice.  This  occasioned  such  bitterness  among 
the  Edomites  that  they  refused  to  continue  the 
fight,  and  thereby  compelled  Israel  to  give  up  the 
war  altogether  and  withdraw.  This  interpreta- 
tion is  decidedly  false.  The  passage,  Amos  ii.  1, 
to  which  reference  is  made  to  support  it,  refers  to 
an  entirely  different  event,  which  is  not  known  to 
us  more  particularly.  Amos,  who  lived,  moreover, 
one  hundred  years  later,  there  announces  to  the 
Moabites  the  avenging  judgment  of  God,  because 
they  had  "  burned  the  bones  of  the  king  of  Edom 
into  lime."  In  this  case,  however,  the  question  is 
in  regard  to  a  son  of  the  king,  who  was  offered  as 
a  living  sacrifice.  The  bones  of  the  dead  were 
never  burned  as  a  sacrifice,  and  captive  kings  or 
their  sons,  although  they  were  sometimes  executed 
out  of  revenge,  were  never  sacrificed  to  the  gods. 
Even  in  the  darkest  heathenism,  sacrifice  was 
always  an  offering  of  that  which  was  nearest  and 
dearest,  and  it  was  considered  efficient  only  in  so 
far  as  it  was  such.  This  is  the  case  especially  in  re- 
spect to  tlie  child-offerings  of  western  Asia.  It 
was  a  custom  among  the  ancients,  says  Philo,  in 
the  Phoenician  History  (Euseb.  Prep.  Evang.  iv.  1G) 
kv  rate  fieydTuLcc  avji(popuic  rijv  ntvdbvuv  civrl  rf/c 
iravnjv  tpdopac  to  yyairnuivov  t€>v  TeKVwv  role 
KpaTobvrac  r/  Trd/leuc  i)  kdvovc  etc  otpayjjv  eirtfii66vai 
Xvrpov  role  rtfiupolg  daifioGi.  So  also,  in  this  case, 
Mesha  sacrificed,  in  order  to  avert  the  threatening 
destruction,  his  first-born  son.  who  should  have  suc- 
ceeded him  upon  the  throne ;  i.  e.,  the  dearest  and 
most  precious  thing  which  he  had,  not  to  the  God  of 
Israel  (Josephus  and  Grotius),  but  to  the  Moabitish 
War-god,  Chemosh  (cf.  on  1  Kings  xi.  7).  (Cf.  on 
human  sacrifices,  Symbol,  des  Hos.  Cultus,  ii.  s.  241  ; 
Movers,  Die  Relig.  der  Phceniz.  s.  299,  sq.)  That 
the  son  also,  "  for  his  part,  willingly  yielded  him- 
self to  death  for  his  fatherland  "  (Ewald),  is  not  in 
the  text,  and  is  in  itself  very  improbable.  The 
sacrifice  was  offered  upon  the  wall,  in  order  that 
the  besiegers  might  see  it,  and  fear  the  divinity, 
who  might  now  be  supposed  to  be  appeased. 

Ver.  27.  And  there  was  great  indignation  in 
Israel,  .fee.  This  sentence,  on  account  of  its  curt- 
ness  and  brevity,  is  quite  obscure  and  difficult. 
Its  meaning  has  been  taken  in  different  ways. 
Most  of  th9  expositors,  citing  the  same  phrase, 

3 


Numb.  i.  53;  xviii.  5  (comp.  with  Levit.  xvii.  11); 
Josh.  ix.  20;  xxii.  20;  2  Chuon.  xix.  10;  xxiv.  18, 
think  of  divine  wrath  or  a  divine  judgment,  ami 
give  as  the  meaning :  As  a  result  of  this  abomi- 
nable action,  which  is  so  strictly  forbidden  in  the 
Law  (Levit.  xviii.  21;  xx.  3),  and  to  which  the 
allied  army  had  compelled  the  king  of  Moab,  there 
came  a  divine  judgment  upon  Israel,  so  that  they 
withdrew  without  subjugating  Moab  (Keil).  There 
is  no  objection  to  this  in  the  usage  of  the  language ; 
but  the  context  is  decidedly  opposed  to  it.  The 
divine  f|Vp  [wrath]  is,  in  all  the  places  mentioned 

above,  the  result  of  a  definite  guilt  on  the  part  of 
Israel ;  in  this  case,  however,  there  is  not  a  word  to 
the  effect  that  Israel  had  incurred  guilt.  That  which 
had  been  brought  about  by  the  allied  army,  had 
taken  place  as  the  prophet  had  foretold  (ver.  18  sq.), 
and  he  had  represented  it  as  an  especially  great 
assistance  of  God.  When,  then,  the  king  of  Moab 
did  something  of  his  own  accord  which  the  Law 
strenuously  forbade,  that  was  his  guilt  and  not 
Israel's.  On  the  hypothesis  proposed,  the  with- 
drawal of  the  army,  which  was  a  piece  of  good 
fortune  for  him,  would  have  been  even  a  reward 
for  his  abominable  crime,  instead  of  being  the 
punishment  which  he  deserved,  whereas  the 
punishment  would  have  fallen  upon  guiltless 
Israel.  Moreover,  in  what  did  the  heavy  judgment 
of  God  against  Israel  consist?  The  text  contains 
not  a  syllable  in  regard  to  any  plague  or  calamity. 
These  expositors  are  therefore  compelled  to  take 
C|Vp  as  meaning  human  anger  (dissatisfaction,  re- 
sentment, bitterness),  in  which  sense  it  occurs, 
Eccles.  v.  17  [Hbr.  text,  16];  Esther  i.  18.  and  as 
S]Vp  is  so  often  found  (Gen.  xL  2  ;  xli.  10  ;  Ex.  xvi. 

20 ;  Levit.  x.  16 ;  Numb.  xxxi.  14).  Many  exposi- 
tors, then,  give  to  the  words  this  sense,  that  on 
account  of  this  shocking  crime,  there  sprang  up, 
in  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Edom,  a  great  wrath  or 
resentment  against  Israel  and  its  king,  as  original 
cause  of  the  war,  and  therefore  of  the  crime,  so 
that  they  would  not  fight  any  longer  with  and  for 
Israel,  but  withdrew,  and  so  compelled  Israel  to 
to  do  the  same  (Dereser).  It  is  not  right,  how- 
ever, to  fill  out  the  text  in  this  manner ;  and 
nothing  justifies  us  in  understanding  under  ^NX'* 

here,  simply  the  army  of  Jehoram.  We  therefore 
follow  the   old  translations,  according   to    which 

^Nt""  ~?y  is  not,  as  it  is  generally  understood,  a 

designation  of  the  object,  but  of  the  subject  of  the 
anger.  The  Sept.  have :  nai  eryevero  fitrapeTioc 
uiyac  M  'lapaifk ;  the  Vulgata  has :  et  facta  est 
indignaUo  magna  in  Israel;  so  also  the  Syr.  and 
Arab.,  and  Luther  in  like  manner :  "  da  ward 
Israel  sehr  zornig"  (Grotius,  Clericus,  Thenius). 
Sy  stands  in  a  similar  use  ver.  15  ;  Jerem.  viii.  18; 

Jon.  ii.  7  [Hbr.  text,  8],  and  often.  According 
to  Ps.  cvi.  37-39,  by  the  sacrifice  of  sons  and 
daughters  the  whole  land  was  covered  with  blood- 
guilt,  and  was  rendered  impure  and  accursed.  In 
the  present  instance  this  took  place  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  first-born  son  of  the  king,  which  the 
ruler  of  the  land  himself  offered.  They  did  not 
wish  to  remain  any  longer  in  such  a  country,  on 
account  of  their  horror  at  this  deed ;  they  pre- 
ferred to  renounce  further  possession  of  it.  The 
words :   They  departed  from  him  and  returned 


u 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


to  their  own  land,  certainly  do  not  mean  to  say : 
"  The  end  of  the  expedition  was  attained,  and  the 
land  was  forced  back  under  the  sceptre  of  the 
king  of  Israel  again  "  (Krummacher) ;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  gave  up  the  attempt  to  subjugate  Moab 
by  force. 

HISTORICAL  AND    ETHICAL. 

1.  The  brief  and  general  description  of  the  reign 
of  Jehoram  brings  out  into  prominence,  as  charac- 
teristic of  it,  two  points.  In  the  first  place,  that 
this  king  removed  the  statue  of  Baal,  which  had 
been  erected  by  his  father  Ahab,  then,  however, 
that  he  clung  all  the  more  decidedly  to  the  Calf- 
worship  of  Jeroboam.  From  the  first  statement  it 
does  not  by  any  means  follow,  as  has  often  been 
assumed,  that  he  "  abolished  the  Baal-worship  " 
altogether  (Winer,   R-  W.-B.  i.  s.  599),  for,  accord- 

ng  to  chap  x.,  this  worship  endured  yet  throughout 
his  entire  reign,  and  Jehu  was  the  first  who  put 
an  end  to  it.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  he  only 
broke  with  the  worship  of  Baal  for  himself,  asking, 
and  meant  to  declare  publicly,  by  the  removal  of 
the  statue,  that  the  worship  of  Baal  was  not  the 
prevailing  state-religion.  This  was,  at  all  events, 
a  step  towards  improvement,  yet  without  especial 
value  ;  for,  if  the  fear  uf  the  living  God  of  Israel, 
and  the  conviction  of  the  absolute  repulsiveness 
of  idol-worship  had  led  him  to  this  course,  then  he 
could  not  possibly  have  allowed  idolatry  to  con- 
tinue in  its  complete  development.  That  he  per- 
severed so  firmly  in  maintaining  the  institutions 
of  Jeroboam,  was  brought  about  by  the  same  cause 
as  in  the  case  of  all  his  predecessors :  the  exist- 
ence of  the  kingdom,  separate  from  Judah,  was  con- 
ditioned upon  these  institutions  (see  1  Kings  xii. 
Hist.  §  1).  It  is  therefore  very  probable  that  they 
were  rather  political  motives  and  considerations 
than  anything  else  which  prompted  him  to  the  re- 
moval of  the  statue.  By  means  of  Elijah  and  the 
schools  of  the  prophets,  a  large  portion,  and  that, 
too,  the  best  portion,  of  the  people  had  already 
been  won  over  to  a  disposition  hostile  to  the  wor- 
ship of  Baal,  so  that  from  that  side  danger  might 
arise  for  the  house  of  Ahab,  which  had  introduced 
this  worship  of  idols,  as,  in  fact,  at  a  later  time, 
this  danger  became  a  reality  through  Jehu 
(chap.  ix.).  Jehoram,  therefore,  for  his  own  part, 
renounced  the  worship  of  Baal,  and  desisted  from 
all  persecutions  of  the  opponents  of  the  same;  but 
he  still  tolerated  it  for  the  sake  of  his  mother,  the 
fanatically  idolatrous  Jezebel,  if  for  no  other 
reason.  His  policy  of  government  was  therefore 
a  half-way  one,  and  for  that  reason  an  ineffective 
one.  Indecision,  want  of  firmness,  and  a  disposi- 
tion to  do  everything  only  half-way,  are  the 
characteristics  which  present  themselves  pro- 
minently, in  many  ways,  throughout  his  entire 
behavior,  as  will  be  shown  still  further,  below. 

2.  Kin*/  Jehvshiiphat  appears  here  just  as  in 
1  Kings  xxii.  He  yielded  to  the  request  of  Jeho- 
•am,  in  spite  of  the  unsuccessful  results  of  his 
undertakings  with  Ahab  and  Ahaziah.  and  in 
spite  of  the  warning  of  the  prophet  Jehu  not  to 
help  the  apostates  (2  Chron.  xix.  2),  probably  in- 
fluenced by  the  conviction  that  the  war  against 
rebellious  Moab  was  a  necessary  and  just  one.  and 
was  also  in  the  interest  of  Judah.  The  restless 
M<  ubites  had  always  had  a  disposition  hostile  to 
»11  the  people  of  Israel  (Deut.  xxi'i.  4-6).     They 


had  already  once  entered  into  an  alliai.ce  witi 
the  Ammonites  against  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron 
xx.),  and  were,  therefore,  dangerous  neighbors  foi 
Judah :  to  permit  them  to  become  independent 
would  have  been  only  to  make  this  danger  gi  eater. 
It  was  in  the  highest  degree  important  for  both 
kingdoms,  on  general  principles,  to  hold  the  differ- 
ent kings  who  had  been  tributary  since  David'i 
time  in  subjection,  since  every  defection  or  re- 
bellion which  succeeded  would  only  have  en- 
couraged and  stimulated  to  another.  The  restora- 
tion of  the  ancient  greatness  and  glory  of  the 
united  kingdom,  which  Jehoshaphat  was  striving 
for  (see  above  on  1  Kings  xxii.  41  so.),  would 
have  become  more  and  more  improbable.  His 
behavior  during  the  expedition  stands  in  strong 
contrast  with  that  of  Jehoram.  The  latter  does 
not  know  what  to  do  in  the  time  of  need ;  he 
mourns  and  complains  despairingly,  while  Jehosh- 
aphat, the  god-fearing,  does  not  lose  dignity  and 
composure  ;  ne  desires  that  the  Lord  should  be  in- 
quired of,  and  he  relies  upon  His  help  and  counsel 
The  old  expositors  thought  that  he  ought  to  have 
inquired  of  the  Lord  before  the  expedition,  and 
that  it  was  because  he  did  not  do  this  that  he  too 
came  into  so  great  distress.  But  Elisha  is  so  far 
from  giving  utterance  to  any  blame  against  him 
that  he  declares,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  only 
on  his  account  that  he  is  willing  to,  and  will,  answer 
and  give  counsel.  The  tendency  of'  the  whole 
story  is  to  show  how  Jehovah,  for  the  sake  of  the 
one  king  who  is  faithful  to  Him,  saves  the  two 
others,  in  order  that  both  they  and  the  entire  army 
may  see  that  this  God  alone  is  mighty,  and  that 
victory  comes  from  Him  (Ps.  lxii.  11  [Hbr.  12]; 
Prov.  xxi.  31). 

3.  We  see  Elisha  here,  for  the  first  time,  step 
out  face  to  face  with  kings,  and  interfere  in  the 
fortunes  of  the  entire  nation.  Here  too  he  maintains 
himself  as  one  on  whom  Elijah's  spirit  rests  (chap, 
ii.  15),  and  not  alone  as  the  one  who  had  poured 
water  on  his  hands.  Without  the  orders  or  the 
knowledge  of  the  king,  he  joins  the  toilsome  ex- 
pedition, and  shares  all  the  dangers  of  the  army, 
by  no  means  from  soldier-like  passion  for  war,  or 
from  compulsion,  but  from  prophetical  zeal,  in 
order  that  he  may  bear  witness,  by  word  and 
deed,  to  the  God  of  Israel,  His  power  and  faith- 
fulness, wherever  and  however  circumstances 
might  demand  Now,  when  need  and  distress 
occur,  and  the  three  kings  and  their  train,  Jehoram 
at  the  head,  come  to  him,  he  knows  nothing  of 
fear,  he  neither  allows  himself  to  be  overawed  or 
terrified,  nor  does  he  feel  himself  honored  and 
flattered ;  but  he  steps  forth  to  meet  the  wavering 
king  firmly  and  independently,  as  Elijah  had  once 
gone  to  meet  Ahab  (1  Kings  xviii.  18),  and  re 
bukes  his  sins,  so  that  the  king  stands  before  him, 
as  it  were,  with  fettered  hands,  feels  himself 
smitten,  and  begs  that  the  prophet  will  not  repel 
him,  at  least  for  the  sake  of  the  two  other  kings. 
Kbster  (Die  Propkelen  des  Alt.  Test.  s.  86)  asserts 
that  "  the  prophet  appears  here,  under  the  control 
of  uuspiritual  pride  and  anger,  to  profit  by  the 
distress  of  the  king,  in  order  to  hurt  his  feelings 
deeply,"  and  that  his  conduct  "  cannot  be  entirely 
justified  ;"  hut  he  mistakes  entirely  the  nature  and 
position  of  the  prophetical  calling  in  Israel,  in  re- 
gard to  which  that  holds  true,  which  was  said 
to  Jerem.  (i.  9  sq.) :  "Behold,  I  have  put  my 
words  in   thy  mouth.      See    I  havo  this  day   set 


CHAPTER  IU.  1-27. 


35 


thee  over  the  nations  and  over  the  kingdoms, 
to  root  out  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy 
and  to  throw  down,  to  build  and  to  plant," 
and  to  Ezekiel  (chap.  iii.  17):  "Son of  man,  I  have 
made  thee  a  watchman  unto  the  house  of  Israel; 
therefore  hear  the  warning  from  my  mouth  and 
give  them  warning  from  me."  It  is  just  on  ac- 
count of  this  directly  divine  calling  that  the  proph- 
ecy of  the  Israelites  stands  as  unparalleled  in  the 
world  as  the  chosen  people  itself.  Not  of  their 
jwn  will  or  power  did  the  holy  men  speak,  but 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (2  Peter  i.  21).  In  the 
case  of  Elisha  it  would  have  been  impossible  ever 
to  say  that  the  spirit  of  his  master  Elijah  rested 
upon  him,  if  he  had  fulfilled  the  desire  of  that 
king  who  clung  firmly  to  the  calf-worship,  and  at 
the  same  time  tolerated  idolatry,  without  sayiug  to 
him  a  single  word  of  rebuke.  The  reproof  of  Eli- 
sha deserves  besides  to  be  considered  in  another 
aspect.  Ewald  (Geschichte  des  V.  Isr.  iii.  s.  487,  3d 
ed.  s.  525)  asserts:  "There  is  not  a  single  sign 
from  which  it  appears  that  Elijah  and  his  school 
made  war  upon  this  image-worship  (i.  e.,  that  intro- 
duced by  Jeroboam)  in  any  such  powerful  manner 
as  Hosea  did  at  a  later  time.  On  the  contrary,  the 
opposite  of  this  appears  true,  in  the  case  where 
this  school  reacliPS  its  final  aim,  namely,  at  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom 
by  Jehu  "  (2  Kings  x.  31).  He  also  goes  ou  to  say 
that,  even  if  Elijah  himself  was  not  favorable  to 
the  image-worship,  yet  in  his  time  there  was  no 
controversy  about  it  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  but  that  it  was  allowed  to  endure  among 
the  people.  Duncker  (Gesch.  des  Alterthimv,  i.  5. 
404)  goes  still  further.  He  perceives  in  the  wor- 
ship of  Jeroboam's  calf-image  "a  national  reaction 
against  the  foreign  worships  which  Solomon  had 
introduced,"  nay,  even  "  the  establishment  of  the 
Jehovah-worship,"  and  then  says:  "That  those 
images  did  not  shock  the  feelings  of  the  people  at 
that  time,  and  did  not  give  offence  to  the  then 
existing  measure  of  religious  culture,  is  proved 
by  the  circumstance  that  such  honored  prophets 
as  Elijah  and  Elisha  had  no  objection  to  make  to 
them."  These  assertions  find  their  direct  contra- 
diction in  this  reproof  of  Elisha  to  Jehoram.  Je- 
horam  was  uo  idolater,  he  had  even  removed  the 
statue  of  Baal  which  his  father  had  set  up.  All 
the  more  firmly,  however,  did  he  cling  to  the  cul- 
tus  which  had  been  introduced  by  Jeroboam  (vers. 
2,  3).  In  like  manner  the  prophets  of  Ahab,  whom 
Elisha  here  definitely  distinguishes  from  the  proph- 
ets of  Jezebel,  were  uo  idol-worshippers,  as  1 
Kings  xxii.  shows,  but  they  were  false  prophets  of 
Jehovah  (belonging  to  Jeroboam's  cultus).  When 
now  Elisha,  nevertheless,  assails  the  king  so  se- 
verely, when  he  then  declares  solemnly,  in  answer 
to  the  prayer  of  the  kiug,  that  he  will  not  repulse 
him,  that  lie  will  respond  to  this  prayer,  not  for 
the  king  of  Israel's  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  Je- 
hoshaphat,  who  was  not  addicted  to  the  image- 
worship,  then  nothing  is  clearer  than  that  he 
"  made  war  mightily  "  not  only  upon  the  Baal-wor- 
ship, but  also  upon  the  worship  of  the  calf-image. 
Hjw  could  Elijah,  the  re-establisher  of  the  organic 
law  of  Israel,  the  second  Afoses,  and  his  successor 
Elisha,  have  been  so  zealous  against  the  transgres- 
sion of  one  Mosaic  commandment:  "Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  and  then,  on  the 
other  hand,  have  overlooked  and  allowed  to  pass 
7/ithout  rebuke  that   other   commandment  which 


stands  beside  it  and  is  most  closely  connected  with 
it:  "Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven 
image"  (see  1  Kings  xii.  Hist.  §  1)?  [It  is  a  very 
remarkable  fact  that  Elijah  and  Elisha  say  nothing 
about  the  Jehovah-calf-worship.  The  nation  may 
have  been  so  devoted  to  Baal-worship  at  this  time 
that  the  calf-worship  did  not  deserve  attention. 
If  there  is  any  reference  to  that  worship  in  this 
rebuke  of  Jehoram,  which  is  very  doubtful  indeed, 
then,  to  say  the  least,  it  is  a  very  indirect  and  in- 
different reference,  not  by  any  means  in  the  style 
of  Elijah  or  Elisha.  When  they  had  anything  to 
condemn  we  find  that  they  did  it  without  circum- 
locution or  innuendo.  Even  if  we  recognised  in 
this  rebuke  a  reference  to  the  calf-worship,  the 
difficulty  would  scarcely  be  lessened :  Why  did  he 
not  explicitly  condemn  this  worship  ?  Why  do  we 
find  no  direct  reference  to  it  in  his  recorded  words? 
— W.  G.  S.] 

4.  The  prophecy  of  Elisha  forms  the  central 
point  of  the  whole  story;  by  the  fulfilment  of  :t 
he  is  confirmed,  before  the  three  kings  of  the  en- 
tire army,  as  man  of  God  and  prophet.  Although 
the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  did  not  induce  Je- 
horam to  desist  from  his  course  (ver.  3),  yet  it 
seems  to  have  accomplished  this  much  in  his  case, 
that  he  abstained  from  all  persecution  of  the 
prophet— did  not  dare  to  behave  towards  h:m  a.! 
Ahab  had  done  towards  Elijah,  but  took  up  a 
friendly  disposition  towards  him  (c/.  chap.  iv.  13), 
and  from  that  time  on  allowed  him  to  reside  at  Sa- 
maria in  peace  (chap.  v.  24).  To  reduce  this  proph- 
ecy to  a  more  foreboding  or  presentiment,  would 
be  to  make  of  the  prophet  a  dreamer  and  a  hero  of 
mere  thoughtless  daring,  and  to  cut  out  the  nerve 
of  the  entire  narrative,  which  even  Thenius  reck- 
ons among  the  purely  historical  portions  of  these 
books;  for  it  is  evidently  incorporated  in  the  his- 
torical record  before  us,  for  the  sake  of  this  proph- 
ecy. Elisha  needed  for  a  mere  supposition  or 
presentiment  no  harp-player,  who  should  raise  him 
into  a  higher  state  of  mind,  and  yet  no  one  can 
call  this  feature  of  the  story  legendary  or  unhis- 
torical;  it  is  described  rather  as  "in  the  highest 
degree  characteristic  of  the  more  ancient  Israel- 
ite prophecy"  (Eisenlohr).  He  intended,  then,  to 
prophesy  and  to  have  his  promises  regarded,  not 
as  his  own  opinion  but  as  divine  revelation.  This 
circumstance  by  itself  contradicts  the  rationalistio 
explanation,  which  is  again  repeated  by  Knobel 
{Der  Prophet,  der  Hebrd.  ii.  s.  95):  "  Elisha  was  a 
distinguished  master  in  the  knowledge  of  nature, 
for  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  In  this  character 
he  appears  when  he  commands  the  soldiers,  who 
are  suffering  for  want  of  water,  to  dig  ditches  upon 
ditches,  and  thus  procures  them  a  rich  supply. 
He  seems  to  have  recognised  in  the  district  the 
signs  that  it  contained  water,  while  these  signs 
escaped  the  notice  of  those  who  were  less  in- 
structed." In  order  to  perceive  that  the  locality 
contained  water,  or,  in  general,  in  order  to  make 
use  of  his  remarkable  knowledge  of  nature,  he 
did  not  need  harp-music;  he  could  do  all  that 
without  music.  If  he,  however,  demanded  music 
when  he  really  relied  upon  his  knowledge  of  na- 
ture, he  sinks  to  the  level  of  a  mere  wizard.  t 
has  been  inferred,  not  without  justice,  from  this 
passage  in  connection  with  1  Sam.  x.  5,  that,  as 
was  remarked  abovo,  music  was  practised  in  the 
schools  of  the  prophets.  It  must,  therefore,  have 
heen  regarded  as  an  esse"' "-   ""ans  for  withdraw- 


36 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  TH3  KINGS 


ing  the  soul  fiom  the  external  world,  and  for  dis- 
posing it  to  divine  things,  so  that  they  ascribed  to 
it,  as  a  gift  of  God,  great  value.  This  reminds  us 
involuntarily  of  Luther's  declaration  (Luth.  Werke, 
von  Wdlch,  xxii.  s.  2062,  2248  si;.):  "One  of  the 
fiuest  and  noblest  gifts  of  God  is  music.  This  is 
very  hostile  to  Satan,  and  with  it  we  may  drive 
off  many  temptations  and  evil  thoughts. 
.  After  theology,  I  give  the  next  place  and  high- 
est  honor   to   music It   has   often 

aroused  and  moved  me,  so  that  I  have  won  a  de- 
sire to  preach I  have  always  loved 

music.  He  who  is  master  of  this  art  is  always 
well  disposed  and  ready  for  anything  which  may 
arise.  Music  must  necessarily  be  retained  in  the 
schools  (N.  B.  in  the  higher,  so-called  Latin  schools, 
exist).  A  schoolmaster  must  be  able  to  sing,  or 
not  in  the  common  schools,  which  did  not  then 
else  I  do  not  esteem  him.  We  ought  not  to  ordain 
young  men  to  the  office  of  preacher  if  they  have 
not  trained  themselves  and  practised  [singing]  in 
the  schools." 

5.  The  salvation  of  the  Israelitish  army  from 
the  destruction  which  threatened  it  "  did  not  con- 
sist in  a  miracle  which  overruled  the  laws  of 
nature,  but  only  in  this,  that  God  caused  the 
powers  of  nature,  which  He  had  prepared,  to 
work  in  the  manner  which  He  had  foreordained. 
As  the  abundance  of  water  which  suddenly  pre- 
sented itself  was  brought  about  in  a  natural  way 
by  a  sudden  Hood  of  rain  at  a  distance,  so  the  illu- 
sion also,  which  was  so  ruinous  to  the  Moabites, 
is  to  be  explained  in  the  natural  manner  which  is 
stated  in  the  text "  (Keil).  [The  inference  would 
be  more  just  to  say  that,  as  the  Moabites'  mistake 
is  explained  in  a  natural  way  in  the  text,  so  we 
are  justified  in  adopting  a  natural  explanation  of 
the  supply  of  water. — W.  G.  S.]  Nevertheless  this 
salvation  of  the  army  belongs  to  that  series  of  ex- 
traordinary events  which  have  their  foundation  in 
the  selection  of  the  Israelites  to  be  the  chosen 
people,  and  which  bear  witness  to  their  especial, 
divine  direction  and  guidance.  The  Old  Testament 
knows  nothing  whatever  of  the  difference  between 
•lusolute  and  relative,  or  direct  and  indirect  mira- 
cles. Every  act  of  God  in  which  there  is  revealed 
an  especial,  divine  guidance  and  providence,  espe- 
cially a  helping  and  saving  might  and  grace  of 
God,  is  called  a  miracle  (Ps.  ix.  1  [Hbr.  2] ;  lxxi. 
17;  lxxii.  18;  lxxvii.  11  [Hbr.  12];  cxxxvi.  4). 
In  this  sense  the  action  before  us  is  also  a  miracle, 
which  had  for  its  object  not  only  to  confirm  Elisha 
as  prophet,  but  also  to  serve  the  end  that  all  Is- 
rael, and  especially  its  king,  who  was  tolerating 
idolatry,  should  perceive  that  Jehovah  alone  is 
God,  and  should  confess,  with  the  psalmist :  "  Thou 
art  the  God  that  doest  wonders;  thou  hast  de- 
clared thy  strength  among  the  people  "  (Ps.  lxxvii. 
14).  This  act  of  God  is  great  enough  in  itself, 
and  does  not  need  to  be  made  greater,  as  it  is  by 
Krummacher:  "Without  delay  they  follow  the 
counsel  of  the  prophet  and  dig  out  the  trenches. 
Hardly,  however,  is  the  sand  penetrated  when,  oh ! 
marvel  to  relate  I  the  fresh  springs  of  water  bub- 
ble forth  beneath  the  feet  of  the  laborers,"  or  as  it 
was  by  the  old  expositors,  who  assumed  that  God 
had  miraculously  influenced  the  eyes  and  imagina- 
tions of  the  Moabites  (Menochius,  Tostatus,  and 
others ). 

6.  The  departure  of  the  Israelitish  army  in  conse- 
quence of  the  human  sacrifice  of  tlic  king  of  Moah, 


whether  we  understand  by  >)Vp,  ver  27,  human  oj 

divine  anger  and  dissatisfaction,  is  a  very  remark 
able  sign  of  the  difference  between  the  fundamen 
tal  opinions  of  the  Israelites  and  of  the  heathen. 
Whereas,  among  almost  all  heathen  peoples,  sac 
ritice  culminates  in  human  sacrifice,  and  this  is 
considered  the  most  holy  and  most  effective,  ir.  the 
Mosaic  system,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  regarded 
as  the  greatest  and  most  detestable  abomination 
in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  forbidden,  not  merely 
from  considerations  of  humanity,  but  also  because, 
as  the  Law  declares  with  especial  emphasis,  the 
sanctuary  of  the  Lord  is  thereby  defiled,  and  His 
holy  name  (see  notes  on  1  Kings  vi.)  is  profaned 
(Levit.  xx.  1-5;  xviii.  21).  Human  sacrifice  stands 
iu  the  most  glaring  contradiction  to  the  revelation 
of  God  as  the  Holy  One,  in  which  character  he  was 
known  in  Israel  alone;  hence  it  was  to  be  pun- 
ished, without  respite,  by  death  (cf.  Symh.  d.  Mos. 
Kult.  ii.  s.  333).  From  the  preceding  narrative  we 
see  how  deep  roots  the  detestation  of  human  sac- 
rifice had  struck  in  the  conscience  of  the  peoplo 
Neither  the  cultus  founded  by  Jeroboam,  nor  that 
of  Baal,  which  Ahab  had  imported,  with  all  its 
barbarism,  had  been  able  even  to  weaken  this  de- 
testation. It  was  still  so  strong  that  a  victorious 
armj-  allowed  itself  to  be  led  thereby  to  withdraw 
again  from  a  land  it  had  already  subdued.  Von 
Gerlach  remarks,  with  justice :  "  This  occurrence 
serves  at  the  same  time  as  a  strong  proof  that 
Jephthah's  sacrifice  of  his  daughter  (Judges  xi.) 
cannot  be  understood  literally."  On  the  contrary, 
Kwald  infers  (Gesch.  iii.  p.  518,  3d  ed.  558)  from 
this  very  narrative  that  "Israel  at  that  time  yet, 
for  a  great  part,  in  its  views  of  the  subject  of  sac- 
rifice, did  not  reach  above  or  beyond  the  heathen 
conceptions,"  for  the  ancient  Canaanitic  sacrifice 
still  had  the  intended  effect  upon  the  people,  "  as 
if  Jehovah  himself  were  angry  with  the  Israelites 
for  having  forced  the  king  to  this  bold  and  horri- 
ble deed."  so  that  "  the  arm}',  impelled  by  dumb 
horror,  abandoned  the  fortress  and  commenced  a 
retreat."  But,  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  text 
does  not  in  the  least  force  us  to  take  5|Xp  of  the 

wrath  of  God,  this  acceptation  is  opposed  to  the 
promise  of  the  prophet,  vers.  18  and  19.  For, 
according  to  that,  it  was  Jehovah  himself  who 
helped  Israel  to  take  possession  of  the  whole 
country,  and  to  pursue  the  king  to  his  capital. 
How  then  could  they  come  to  the  opinion  that  the 
same  Jehovah  was  now  full  of  hard  bitterness 
against  Israel,  which,  after  all,  had  only  done 
what  He  himself  had  caused  His  prophet  tc 
promise  them  as  His  own  act?  It  was  not  the 
supposed  exasperation  of  Jehovah  at  the  great 
victonr  of  Israel  which  incited  the  army  to  re- 
turn, but  the  conviction  that  the  conquest  and 
possession  of  the  city  over  which  so  heavy  blood- 
guilt  and,  at  the  same  time,  so  severe  a  curse,  wan 
hanging,  could  not  be  either  good-fortune  or  bless 
ing  for  Israel.  As  for  the  act  of  Mesha  itself,  it 
does  not  indeed  belong  to  the  "  most  memorable 
signs  of  what  a  king  can  dare  for  his  people,  which 
has  only  just  won  its  freedom  "  (Ewald,  /.  c);  it  is 
rather  a  sign  of  a  barbarism  which  violated  all 
feeling  of  humanity,  which  was  more  than  brutaL 
and  in  the  highest  degree  detestable,  on  the  par* 
of  a  king  who  is  so  cowardly  that,  instead  of 
ti'_'litiiiLr  to  the  last  as  a  brave  soldier,  and  risking 
his  own  life  for  the  sake  of  his  first-born  son,  the 


CHAPTER  III.   1-27. 


37 


future  leader  of  his  people,  lie  puts  him  to  death, 
rather  than  continue  to  pay  as  a  tribute  sheep  and 
wool  of  rams  (ver.  4)  from  his  great  wealth  of 
nocks.  In  his  case,  the  thiug  at  stake  was  not  so 
much  the  "  freedom  "  of  his  people  as  his  own  free 
dom  from  a  yearly  tax,  payable  in  kind.  [See  note 
under  Humiltt.  and  Pract.  on  vers. 


kind.     [E 
.  21-25.] 


H'.MILETICAL    AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-3.  Berleb.  Bib.:  He  did  that  which 
was  evil  in  [he  eyes  of  the  Lord,  and  many  thou- 
sands do  that  with  him,  who  nevertheless  sing: 
"God  has  pleasure  in  us.  If  we  do  not  remain  in 
the  footsteps  of  our  fathers  and  ancestors,  yet  we 
do  not,  at  bust,  go  far  trom  ..hem.  'f  we  perceive 
that  a  reformation  or  an  jr.o-.'ven.e.it  is  necessary, 
then  we  are  glad  to  iet  :'  esr  at  the  first  stage. 
We  satisfy  ourselves  so  easilj.  if  we  are  only  like 
father  or  mother  or  a  wicKed  elder  brother,  and  do 
not  disregard  all  scrup.es  quite  so  much  as  others. 
Whether  God  is  satisfied  with  that,  however,  or  not. 
and  whether  He  gives  us  the  testimony  of  a  good 
conscience  in  regard  to  it,  about  that  we  do  not 
trouble  ourselves.  ...  If  we  do  in  truth  tear 
down  a  statue  of  Baal  or  two,  and  adhere  neverthe- 
less to  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  and  to  his  calf-images, 
[i.  e.]  to  those  ordinances  which,  for  political 
reasons,  have  been  introduced  and  established  in 
the  Church,  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Lord,  what 
will  it  help  us? — J.  Lanse:  Those  are  also  to  be 
accounted  godless  rulers,  who  do  indeed  ordaiu 
something  good  here  and  there,  or  abolish  some- 
thing bad,  and  perceive  still  more  which  their  duty 
would  require  them  to  remove,  but  cannot  bring 
themselves  to  do  it,  from  motives  of  policy  which 
are  not  pure,  or  pleasing  to  God.  He  who,  for 
himself,  abstains  from  that  which  is  opposed  to 
God's  word  and  commandment,  but  continues  to 
tolerate  it  in  those  who  are  connected  with  him,  or 
subject  to  him,  shows  thereby  that  he  is  not  in 
earnest  in  his  own  obedience  to  God,  and  that  his 
principles  are  deduced  only  from  external  consid- 
erations and  relations. 

Vers.  4-27.  The  War  of  Israel  with  the  Moab- 
ites.  (a)  The  cause  of  it,  and  the  preparation  for 
it;  (6)  the  danger  of  perishing;  (c)  the  result. — 
Ver.  4.  Cramer:  When  kings  and  lords  fall  away 
from  God,  then  their  subjects  must  fall  away  from 
them ;  and  when  the  fathers  are  disobedient  to  God, 
the  children  and  servants  must  also  be  disobedient 
to  them,  for  their  punishment,  for  with  the  froward. 
God  siiows  himself  froward  [perverse].  (Ps.  xviii. 
26  [Hbr.  27]). — Ver.  5.  It  was  not  on  account 
of  poverty  and  need  and  oppressive  subjection  that 
Mesha  threw  off  his  obligations  (he  was  very  rich) 
and  rebelled,  but  from  avarice  and  arrogance. 
Those  are  still  the  ordinary  motives  to  insurrection 
and  rebellion  in  individual  instances,  or  among  en- 
tire nations.  The  very  ones  who  have  much  are  often 
most  inclined  to  divest  themselves  of  their  obliga- 
tions.— Vers.  6-8,  cf.  above,  under  Bom.  and  Pract. 
on  1  Kings  xxii.  4.  Osiander:  When  the  unbe- 
lieving and  wicked  need  the  help  of  the  pious,  they 
tempt  them  with  friendly  words :  secretly,  however, 
ihey  behave  in  a  hostile  manner  towards  them. — 
Cramer  :  Covenants  between  believers  and  unbe- 
lievers are  dangerous. — Ver.  8.  "  A  man's  heart  de- 
viseth  his  way ;  but  the  Lord  directeth  his  steps  " 
(Prov.  xvi  9).  Therefore,  "Trust  in  the  Lord  with 
all  thire  heart;  and  lean  not  imto  thine  own  un- 


derstanding. In  all  thy  ways  acknowledge  Him, 
and  He  shall  direct  thy  paths  "  (Prov.  iii.  5  and  6; 
cf.  James  iv.  13-15). — By  which  way  shall  we  go 
up  ?  Ouly  the  narrow  way  leads  upward,  only  upon 
this  is  the  Lord  with  us  (Matt.  vii.  13,  14). 

Vers.  9-12.  Krcmmacher:  The  Expedition 
against  Moab.  (a)  The  distress  of  the  kings; 
(6)  they  seek  refuge  with  the  prophet. — Ver.  9. 
Cramer:  If  God  did  not  let  us  sometimes  fall  into 
necessity  and  want,  we  should  not  often  think  of 
His  word  and  His  servants  (Ps.  lxvii.  2  and  3  [Hbr. 
'■'•  and  4]). — Vers.  10  and  II.  In  need  and  distress 
the  state  of  a  man's  heart  is  brought  to  light.  Je- 
horam  falls  iuto  despair,  he  does  not  know  what 
couusel  to  take,  nor  how  to  help  himself;  instead 
of  seeking  the  Lord  and  calling  to  Him  tor  help,  lie 
accuses  Ilim.  and  casts  the  reproach  upon  Him 
that  He  means  to  destroy  three  kings  at  once.  In 
prosperity  and  iu  days  of  good  fortune,  resisting, 
and  building  upon  human  wisdom  and  power:  in- 
time  of  need,  forthwith  despairing  and  helpless — 
that  is  the  disposition  of  the  heart  of  the  natural 
man  who  does  not  know  the  living  God.  or,  at  least, 
knows  Him  only  by  name.  Jehoshaphat,  who  had 
always  bent  his  heart  to  seek  God  (2  Chron.  xix. 
3),  -lie-  not  wring  his  hands  iu  despair,  but  is  quiet 
and  composed.  He  thinks  within  himself:  The 
Lord  has  neither  now,  nor  ever,  withdrawn  him- 
self from  His  people.  Therefore  he  trusts,  and 
asks:  Is  there  no  prophet  of  the  Lord  here?  "  He 
that  dwelleth  in  the  secret  place."  &c.  (Ps.  xci.  1 
and  2). — Krimmacher:  Jehoshaphat  falls  into  the 
same  calamity  with  Jehoram.  He  who  goes  hand 
in  hand  with  the  godless,  and  makes  common  cause 
witli  them,  must  be  contented  if  he  is  cast  to  the 
earth  at  the  same  time  with  them,  when  the  light- 
ning strikes  their  house.— -Servants  often  know 
more  and  better  where  and  with  whom  God's 
wurd,  consolation,  and  counsel  are  to  be  found  than 
their  masters,  who,  however,  ought  to  inquire  into 
this  before  all  others. — Ver.  12.  "The  word  of  the 
Lord  is  with  him."  It  is  the  right  testimony  and 
the  best  one,  when  it  can  be  said  of  a  servant  of 
God :  He  does  uot  preach  himself,  his  own,  or  other 
men's  wisdom  ;  his  words  are  not  sounding  brass 
nor  tinkling  cymbal,  but  a  hammer  which  breaks 
rocks  in  pieces,  and  an  ointment  which  heals 
wounds. — Wirt.  Summ.  :  So  long  as  men  are  free 
from  distress  and  danger,  they  ask  nothing  about 
the  poor  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  they  take  no  no- 
tice of  them,  they  wish  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
them,  they  throw  their  faithful  warning  to  the 
winds;  but  when  an  accident  or  a  death  ocenrs, 
then  they  are  glad  to  see  the  despised  preacher, 
and  they  desire  to  make  use  of  his  services  and  of 
his  prayers. — Three  kings  descend  from  their  ele- 
vation and  come  humbly  and  with  petitions  to  the 
man  who  once  was  a  servant  of  Elijah,  and  poured 
water  over  his  hands,  of  whom  they  had  not  even 
known  so  much  as  that  he  had  joined  the  expedi- 
tion. Him  who  is  proud  He  can  humble  (Dan.  iv. 
34).  He  raiseth  up  the  lowly  from  the  dust,  that 
He  may  seat  him  by  the  side  of  princes  (1  Sam.  ii. 
4,  7).  So  now  emperors  and  kings  bow  the  knee 
before  Him,  who  came  to  His  own  and  His  own 
received  Him  not,  who  did  not  have  a  place  to  lay 
His  head,  who  was  so  despised  that  people  cov- 
ered their  faces  before  Him,  and  they  confess,  tc 
the  glory  of  God,  that  He  's  the  Lord. 

Vers.   13-19.  Krumma.her:    The  Miraculous 
Assistance.       (a)   Elisha's  address   to  the   lhr€« 


38 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS 


Kings;  (i)  the  minstrel;  (c)  the  prophet's  coun- 
sel.— Elisha  before  the  three  Kings  as  the  one  who 
stands  in  the  Presence  of  the  Lord,  (a)  His  zeal 
for  the  Lord;  (b)  his  independence  and  fearless- 
ness; (c)  his  prophecy.  (See  Historical,  §  3.) — 
Yer.  13.  Starke:  Upright  servants  of  God  have 
an  unterrified  independence,  and  speak  the  truth 
distinctly  to  the  face  of  the  great  as  well  as  of  the 
humble  (1  Kings  xviii.  18). — Elisha  stood  before 
the  Lord,  the  living  God ;  Jehoram  before  the  calf- 
god.  That  was  not  only  a  difference  in  religious 
views  and  opinions,  but  also  an  entirely  different 
stand-point  in  life.  Where  there  is  a  life  in  God, 
there  there  can  be  no  fellowship  with  those  who 
have  denied  and  abandoned  the  living  God;  the 
two  ways  diverge  directly  and  decidedly  (2  Cor. 
vi.  15).  The  relation  in  which  a  man  stands  to 
God  is  decisive  for  his  relation  to  other  men ;  it 
divides  him  from  some  by  a  separation  which  is 
just  as  wide  as  the  communion  into  which  it  brings 
him  with  others  is  close. — The  children  of  this 
world  have  their  prophets,  whom  they  gladly  hear 
because  they  speak  just  what  the  ears  of  their 
hearers  are  itching  to  hear.  These  prophets  are 
to  be  found  not  only  in  the  priestly  class,  but 
also  among  civilians,  among  poets,  and  learned 
men,  in  professorial  chairs,  and  on  the  lectur- 
er's platform.  It  is  true  of  them  to-day:  "Thy 
friends  have  set  thee  on  and  have  prevailed  against 
thee :  thy  feet  are  sunk  in  the  mire,  and  they  are 
turned  away  back "  (Jerem.  xxxviii.  22;  Isai.  iii. 
12).  When  thy  conscience  awakes  and  thy  sin 
torments  thee,  go  to  them  and  ask  them,  they  have 
no  consolation  but  that  of  the  high-priest,  Matt, 
xxvii.  4.  When  thy  soul  is  saddened,  even  unto 
death,  go  and  ask  them ;  that  which  belongs  to  thy 
peace  in  time  and  in  eternity  they  cannot  give  thee, 
for  they  themselves  have  not  peace. — Yer.  14.  He 
who  has  renounced  God  and  His  word  can  make 
no  claim  to  esteem,  even  though  he  be  a  king; 
fidelity  to  God  and  holding  fast  to  His  word  are 
what  make  a  man  truly  estimable,  even  though  lie 
were  the  poorest  and  lowliest. — God  does  not  let 
the  righteous  perish  with  the  unrighteous  and  god- 
less (Gen.  xviii.  25);  it  rather  comes  to  pass  that, 
for  the  sake  of  a  single  righteous  man,  many  god- 
less persons  are  saved  and  preserved  (Gen.  xxxix. 
5),  in  order  that  they  may  give  up  their  habits  and 
may  turn  to  that  God  who  is  rich  in  compassion 
and  grace,  and  who  wishes,  by  kindness,  to  lead 
sinners  to  repentance. — Ver.  15.  Since  a  prophet 
like  Elisha  called  for  harp-music,  and  was  thereby 
brought  into  a  state  of  mind  which  was  fitted  to 
receive  divine  revelations,  therefore  we  may  and 
ought  to  regard  music  as  a  gift  of  God,  which  is 
given  to  us  that  we  may  thereby  elevate  our  hearts 
and  bring  them  into  a  holy  disposition.  It  is  lack 
of  understanding  and  lack  of  gratitude  to  exclude 
it  from  the  Church.  The  Scriptures  say:  "Praise 
the  Lord  with  harp,"  &c.  (Ps.  xxxiii.  2  and  3). 
Whoever  sings  and  makes  melody  unto  the  Lord 
in  his  heart  will  do  it  also  with  his  mouth  and  with 
his  hands. — Like  every  other  gift  of  God  which  is 
given  ua  for  our  salvation  and  blessing,  music  also 
can  be  abused :  "  It  is  a  dangerous  art,  this  mover 


of  soids,  when  it  is  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
world,  of  vanity,  and  of  sin  "  (Krummacher). — The 
world  also  often  exclaims:  "Bring  me  a  minstrel  I'' 
not,  however,  in  order  to  lift  up  the  heart  (sursum 
carda)  and  to  soothe  the  soul,  but  rather  to  fan  the 
fire  of  the  smouldering  passions  into  a  flame,  and 
to  awaken  the  fleshly  lusts  that  war  against  the 
soul. — Vers.  16-19.  The  great  Promise  of  Elisha 
(a)  Its  contents;  (b)  its  aim  and  object. — The 
Lord  gives  beyond  what  we  pray  for,  beyond  what 
we  understand ;  He  not  only  saves  from  need  and 
danger,  but  He  also  gives  the  victory  besides,  out 
of  pure,  undeserved  grace.  That  is  the  fundamen- 
tal feature  of  all  divine  promises.  The  Lord  not 
only  does  not  deal  with  us  according  to  our  sins, 
but  He  gives  us,  besides  that,  the  victory,  through 
Him  in  whom  all  promises  are  yea  I  and  amen  I  (2 
Cor.  i.  20).— Vers.  21-25.  The  Fall  of  Moab  a  di- 
vine Vengeance  upon  fleshly  Secureness  and  Pride, 
upon  Avarice  and  Covetousness.  This  is  written 
for  the  warning  of  individuals  as  well  as  of  peo- 
ples. [This  interpretation  of  the  rebellion  of  Moab, 
as  the  result  of  avarice,  or  perhaps,  more  strictly 
speaking,  of  niggardliness,  is  not  justified  by  the 
text,  and  could  not  fairly  be  presented  in  a  homi- 
letical  treatment  of  the  passage.  We  have  not  far 
to  search  for  the  cause  of  revolt.  A  nation  which 
is  tributary  to  another  may  well  have  other  and 
nobler  reasons  for  rebellion  than  to  save  the  amount 
of  the  tribute.  We  have  no  reason  for  imputing 
any  baser  motives  to  the  Moabites.  They  may 
have  been  influenced  by  baser  ones,  but,  so  long  as 
that  is  not  even  hinted  at  in  the  text,  it  is  not  a 
legitimate  subject  for  homiletical  treatment.  The 
inscription  referred  to  in  the  Extg.  notes  on  ver.  i 
is  very  valuable  as  giving  a  glimpse  of  the  rela- 
tions between  Moab  and  Israel  at  this  time  "from 
the  other  side." — W.  G.  S.] — Cramer:  When  God 
is  about  to  punish  any  one  He  first  causes  him  to 
become  secure,  proud,  bold,  and  arrogant,  then  He 
takes  away  from  him  cunning,  sense,  and  under- 
standing, and  strikes  him  with  blindness. — Vers. 
26  and  27.  The  disgraceful  act  of  the  king  of  Moab 
shows  how  low  man  can  sink  and  fall  when  he 
does  not  know  the  living  God.  By  the  most  abomi- 
nable crime  he  thinks  that  he  will  do  God  a  service 
and  save  himself  (Rom.  i.  28).  Even  yet  human 
sacrifices  occur  among  the  heathen ;  how  much  we 
have  to  thank  the  Lord  that  He  has  saved  us  from 
the  power  of  darkness,  and  has  caused  His  holy 
word  to  enlighten  us.  Where  this  light  shines, 
there  the  night  of  superstition  flees,  with  all  its 
abominations. — Men  often  offer  the  hardest  out- 
ward sacrifice  more  willingly  than  they  do  the  in- 
ner sacrifice,  which  alone  God  demands,  and  winch 
pleases  him  (Ps.  li.  17). — Ver.  27.  Wurt.  Summ.  : 
When  we  see  an  abominable  crime  going  on,  or  hear 
of  it,  we  ought  not  to  laugh  at  it,  or  to  feel  a  pleasure 
in  it,  but  we  ought  to  loathe  it,  and  turn  away  from 
it,  that  we  may  not  be  involved  in  the  punishment, 
which  will  certainly  come. — We  must  renounce  an 
object  or  a  possession  which  is  stained  by  blood- 
guilt  and  curses,  although  ever  so  great  temporal 
advantage  may  be  connected  with  it.  We  musl 
renounce  it  for  the  sake  of  God  and  conscience. 


CHAPTER  IV.  1-44.  39 

FOURTH    SECTION. 

elisha's  prophetical  acts. 

2  Kings  IV.-Vin.  15. 


k. — Elisha  with  the  widow  who  was  hurdened  with  debt,  with  the  Shunammite,  and  with  tht 
pupils  of  the  prophets  during  the  famine. 

Chap.  IV.  1-14. 

1  Now  there  cried  a  certain  woman  of  the  wives  of  the  sons  of  the 
prophets  [prophet-disciples]  unto  Elisha,  saying,  Thy  servant  ray  husband  is 
dead  ;  and  thou  knowest  that  thy  servant  did  fear  the  Lord  :  and  the  creditor  is 

2  come  to  take  unto  him  my  two  sons  to  be  bondmen.  And  Elisha  said  unto  her, 
What  shall  I  do  for  thee?  tell  me,  what  hast  thou  in  the  house  ?  And  she  said, 
Thine  handmaid  hath  not  any  thing  in  the  house,  save  a  pot  of  [omit  a  pot  of]  oil 

3  [for  anointing].'    Then  he  said,  Go,  borrow  thee  vessels  abroad  of  all  thy  neigh- 

4  bors,  even  empty  vessels ;  borrow  not  a  i'ev>\  And  when  thou  art  come  in,  thou 
shalt  shut  the  door  upon  thee  and  upon  thy  sons,  and  shalt  pour  out  into  all  those 

5  vessels,  and  thou  shalt  set  aside  that  which  is  full.  So  she  went  from  him,  and 
shut  the  door  upon  her  and  upon  her  sons,  who  brought  the  vessels  to  her,  and  she 

6  poured  out.2  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  vessels  were  full,  that  she  said 
unto  her  son,  Bring  me  yet  a  vessel.    And  he  said  unto  her,  There  is  not  a  vessel 

1  more.  And  the  oil  stayed.  Then  she  came  and  told  the  man  of  God.  And 
he  said,  Go,  sell  the  oil,  and  pay  thy  debt,  and  live  thou3  and  thy  children  of 
the  rest. 

8  And  it  fell  on  a  day,  that  Elisha  passed  to  Shunem,  where  was  a  great 
woman  ;  and  she  constrained  him  to  eat  bread.     And  so  it  was,  that,  as  oft  as  he 

9  passed  by,  he  turned  in  thither  to  eat  bread.  And  she  said  unto  her  husband, 
Behold  now,  I  perceive  that  this  is  a  holy  man  of  God,  which  passeth  by  us 

10  continually.  Let  us  make  a  little  chamber,  I  pray  thee,  on  the  wall;  and  let  us 
set  for  him  there  a  bed,  and  a  table,  and  a  stool,  and  a  candlestick;  and  it 

11  shall  be,  when  he  cometh  to  us,  that  he  shall  turn  in  thither.     And  it  fell  on  a 

12  day,  that  he  came  thither,  and  he  turned  into  the  chamber  and  lay  there.  And 
he  said  to  Gehazi  his  servant,  Call  this  Shunammite.    And  when  he  had  called  her, 

13  she  stood  before  him  [Gehazi].  And  he  said  unto  him,  Say  now  unto  her,  Behold, 
thou  hast  been  careful  for  us  with  all  this  care  ;  what  is  to  be  done  for  thee  ? 
wouldest  thou  be  spoken  for  to  the  king,  or  to  the  captain  of  the  host  ?     And 

14  she  answered,  I  dwell  among  mine  own  people.  And  he  said,  What  then  is  to 
be  done  for  her  ?     And  Gehazi  answered,  Verily  she  hath  no  child  [son],  and  her 

15  husband  is  old.     And  he  said,  Call  her.     And  when  he  had  called  her  she  stood 
,16  in  the  door.     And  he  said,  About  this  season,  according  to  the  time  of  life  [of 

the  next  year],  thou  shalt  embrace  a  son.    And  she  said,  Nay,  my  lord,  thou  man 
\1  of  God,  do  not  lie  unto  [deceive]  thine  handmaid.     And  the  woman  conceived, 
and  bare  a  son  at  that  season  that  Elisha  had  said  unto  her,  according  to  the 
time  of  life  [in  the  following  year]. 

18  And  when  the  child  was  grown,  it  fell  on  a  day,  that  he  went  out  to  his  father 

19  to  the  reapers.     And  he  said  unto  his  father,  My  head,  my  head  !     And  he  said 

20  to  a  lad,  Carry  him  to  his  mother.     And  when  he  had  taken  him,  and  brought  him 

21  to  his  mother,  he  sat  on  her  knees  till  noon,  and  then  died.  And  she  went  up, 
and  laid  him  on  the  bed  of  the  man  of  God.  and  shut  the  door  upon  him,  and  went 


40  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

22  out.  And  she  called  unto  her  husband,  and  said,  Send  me,  I  pray  thee,  one  of  th« 
young  men,  and  one  of  the  asses,  that  I  may  run  to  the  man  of  God,  and  come 

23  again.     And  he  said,  Wherefore  wilt  thou  go  to  him  to-day?  it  is  neither  new 

24  moon,  nor  sabbath.  And  she  said,  It  shall  be  well.  Then  she  saddled  an  ass 
and  said  to  her  servant,  Drive,  and  go  forward  ;  slack  not  thy  riding  for  me, 

25  except  I  bid  thee.  So  she  went  and  came  unto  the  man  of  God  to  Mount 
Carmel.     And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  man  of  God  saw  her  afar  oft'  [comma:], 

26  that  he  said  to  Gehazi  his  servant,  Behold,  yonder  is  that  Shlmammite :  Run 
now,  I  pray  thee,  to  meet  her,  and  say  unto  her,  Is  it  well  with  thee  ?  is  it  well 
with  thy  husband?  is  it  well  with  the  child?     And  she  answered,  It  is  well. 

27  And  when  she  came  to  the  man  of  God  to  the  hill,  she  caught  him  by  the  feet: 
but  Gehazi  came  near  to  thrust  her  away.  And  the  man  of  God  said,  Let  her 
alone ;  for  her  soul  is  vexed  within  her :  and  the  Lord  hath  hid  it  from  me,  and 

2S  hath  not  told  me.     Then  she  said,  Did  I  desire  a  son  of  my  Lord  ?  did  I  not  say, 

29  Do  not  deceive  me?  Then  he  said  to  Gehazi,  Gird  up  thy  loins,  and  take  my 
staff  in  thine  hand,  and  go  thy  way:  if  thou  meet  any  man  salute  him  not;  and 
if  any  salute  thee,  answer  him  not  again  :  and  lay  my  staff  upon  the  face  of  the 

30  child.     And  the  mother  of  the  child  said,  As  the  Lord  liveth,  and  as  thy  soul 

31  liveth,  I  will  not  leave  thee.  And  he  arose  and  followed  her.  And  Gehazi 
passed  on  before  them,  and  laid  the  staft"  upon  the  face  of  the  child  ;  but  there 
teas  neither  voice,  nor  hearing.     Wherefore  he  went  again  to  meet  him,  and  told 

32  him,  saying,  The  child  is  not  awaked.     And  when  Elisha  was  come  into  the 

33  house,  behold,  the  child  was  dead,  and  laid  upon  his  bed.     He  went  in  there- 

34  fore,  and  shut  the  door  upon  them  twain,  and  prayed  unto  the  Lord.  And  he 
went  up,  and  lay  upon  the  child,  and  put  his  mouth  upon  his  mouth,  and  his 
eyes  upon  his  eyes,  and  his  hands  upon  his  hands :  and  he  stretched  himself 

35  upon  the  child  ;  and  the  flesh  of  the  child  waxed  warm.  Then  he  returned,  and 
walked  in  the  house  to  and  fro ;  and  went  up,  and  stretched  himself  upon  him ; 

36  and  the  child  sneezed  seven  times,  and  the  child  opened  his  eyes.  And  he  called 
Gehazi,  and  said,  Call  this  Shunammite.     So  he  called  her.     And  when  she  was 

37  come  in  unto  him,  he  said,  Take  up  thy  son.  Then  she  went  in,  and  fell  at  his 
feet,  and  bowed  herself  to  the  ground,  and  took  up  her  son  and  went  out. 

38  And  Elisha  came  again  to  Gilgal :  and  there  was  a  dearth  in  the  land  ;  and 
the  sons  of  the  prophets  icere  sitting  before  him:   and  he  said  unto  his  servant, 

39  Set  on  the  great  pot,  and  seethe  pottage  for  the  sons  of  the  prophets.  And  one 
went  out  into  the  field  to  gather  herbs,  and  found  a  wild  vine,  and  gathered 
thereof  wild  gourds  his  lap  full,  and  came  and  shred  them  into  the  pot  of  pottage  ; 

40  for  they*  knew  them  not.  So  they  poured  out  for  the  men  to  eat.  And  it  came 
to  pass,  as  they  were  eating  of  the  pottage,  that  they  cried  out,  and  said,  O  thou 

41  man  of  God,  there  is  death  in  the  pot.  And  they  could  not  eat  thereof.  But 
he  said,  Then  bring  meal.  And  he  cast  it  into  the  pot ;  and  he  said,  Pour  out 
for  the  people,  that  they  may  eat,     And  there  was  no  harm  in  the  pot. 

42  And  there  came  a  man  from  Baal-shalislia,  and  brought  the  man  of  God 
bread  of  the  first-fruits,  twenty  loaves  of  barley,  and  full  ears  of  corn  in  the  husk 
thereof  [garden-corn  in  a  sack].6     And  he  said,  Give  unto  the  people,  that  they 

43  may  eat.  And  his  servitor  said,  What,  should  I  set  this  before  a  hundred  men  ? 
Ke  said   again,  Give  the   people,  that   they  may  eat  :  for  thus  saith  the  Lord, 

44  They  shall  eat,  and  shall  leave  thereof,"  So  he  set  it  before  them,  and  they  did 
eat,  and  left  thereof,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  2. — /.  «.,  only  6o  much  as  suffices  for  an  anointing. — Bahr.  [The  chetib  *^7  is  a  late  Aramaic  form  for  in* 
keri  *V,  Ew.  $  247,  e.  The  same  is  true  of  the  other  fern,  forms,  ending  in  *  in  this  chapter,  all  of  which  the  kdri 
eoanges.— W.  G.  8.] 

•  Ver.  6.— The  keri  Hpi'lD  cannot  be  preferred  to  the  chetib  npS'Q  (piel).— Bahr. 

1  Ver.  7. — All  the  versions  agree  with  the  keri  "pj^  ;  if  we  deBired  to  retain  the  chetib,  It  would  be  necessary  br 


CHAPTER  IT.  1-44. 


41 


•hange  PIN1  into  nXl  :  u  ADd  live  with  tny  sons  on  the  remainder,"  in  which  case,  however,  the  contrast,  which  ii 
oipressed  in  ON ,  would  be  lost.— Bahr.  ["TO?  is  sing,  to  agree  with  the  principal  subject.  "  If  the  text  is  here  correct, 
it  shows  that  even  the  1  may  be  omitted  in  such  cases."    Ew.  $  889,  c— W.  G.  S.] 

*  Ver.  89.— Neither  he  nor  the  other  sons  of  the  prophets.— Bahr. 

I  yer  42.— [?D"13  i  "  Corn  got  from  good,  garden-like  plantations,  which  is  better  than  field-grain,  and  which  is  eithel 

eaten  roasted,  or  pounded  to  groats  "  (Furst).    |1?pV  occurs  only  this  once.    The  authorities  agree  that  it  means  a  "bag." 

e  Ver  43  —["1711111  ^IDS  ,  Ew.  $  328,  a.    The  infln.  as  the  simplest,  most  direct,  and  most  comprehensive  form.— 
W.  G.  S.1 


EXKGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Yer.  1.  A  certain  woman  of  the,  &c.  It  is 
clear  from  the  passage,  vers.  1-1,  that  the  sons  of 
the  prophets  were  not  exclusively  young  men,  but 
were  also  often  fathers  of  families,  and  so  did  not 
lead  a  cloister  life.  Perhaps  there  was  an  arrange- 
ment for  a  temporary  life  in  common,  or  a  person 
might  join  himself  more  or  less  closely  to  one  of 
the  principal  communities  of  the  prophets.  Accord- 
ing to  Josephus  and  the  rabbis,  the  woman  was  the 
widow  of  Obadiah  (1  Kings  xviii.  3  sq.),  who,  they 
think,  had  exhausted  his  fortune  in  the  provision 
for  persecuted  prophets,  and  so  had  fallen  into  debt. 
This  singular  legend  rests  upon  no  foundation 
other  than  the  fact  that  the  woman  says  that  her 
husband  "  feared  the  Lord,"  which  is  also  stated  in 
respect  to  Obadiah.  By  these  words  she  does  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  fear  of  the  Lord  had  in  any 
way  been  the  cause  of  his  falling  into  poverty,  bvit 
that  he  had  not  contracted  debts  through  folly. 
What  the  creditor  demanded  in  this  case,  he  was 
justified  in  demanding  according  to  the  Law,  cf. 
Levit.  xxv.  39 ;  Matt,  xviii.  26  (Michaelis,  Mos. 
Becht,  iii.  148).  From  the  forms  of  the  suffix 
*2 ,  '3'  vers.  2,  3,  7,  and  the  form  TIN  for  nX  vers. 
16  and  23,  which  have  been  designated  as 
Syriacisms,  we  cannot  infer  that  a  later  author 
here  interpolated  a  fragment  of  his  own  composi- 
tion, as  was  shown  by  Keil  in  his  edition  of  1845. 
The  ordinary  translation  of  |IDE'  7|1DN  by  "pot  of 
oil "  is  not  established  by  the  necessary  proofs ; 
711DN  means  unctio,  not  ointment-jar  (Gesenius),  so 

that  the  phrase  means,  word  for  word,  "  oil  for 
anointing;"  Butteher:  quantum  ad  unctionem  sufficit. 
Anointing  with  oil  is  an  essential  part  of  bathing 
among  Orientals,  2  Sam.  xii.  20  (if.  Winer, 
R.-  W.-B.,  ii.  s.  357  sq.).  She  was  entirely  destitute 
of  the  oil  which  was  essential  for  the  preparation 
of  food — she  had  only  oil  for  anointing.  Yulg. 
nisi  parum  olei  quo  ungar.  The  locking  of  the  door 
had  no  other  object  than  to  keep  aloof  every  inter- 
ruption from  without.  The  action  in  question  was 
not  an  ordinary,  simply  external,  operation,  but  au 
act  which  was  to  be  performed  by  the  command  of 
the  Man  of  God,  and  wiih  the  heart  directed  to- 
wards God,  that  is,  in  faith,  so  that  it  was  to  be 
completed,  not  in  the  noise  and  distraction  of 
every-day  life,  but  in  quietness  and  solitude. 

Yer.  6.  And  the  oil  stayed,  i.  e.,  it  did  not 
lease  to  flow  until  all  the  vessels  which  were  on 
hand  were  full. 

Yer.  7.  Of  the  rest.  Josephus :  Trcpiacortpov  in 
•ijc  Tifiijc  roil  i'Xaiov.  The  woman  would  not  make 
nee  of  that  which  had  come  into  her  hands  by  the 
interference  of  the  prophet,  without  asking  direc- 
tions from  him.  She  does  not  regard  it  as  her  own 
nnconditioned  possession,  but  she  leaves  it  to  the 


prophet  to  decide  in  regard  to  the  use  to  be  made 
of  it.  He  directs  her,  before  all  else,  to  discharge 
her  debt,  and  then  to  make  use  of  whatever  may 
remain  for  their  sustenance ;  he  desires  no  pay  or 
reward  for  himself. 

Yer.  8.  And  it  fell  on  a  day,  &c.     The  woro 
Oi>n  causes  the  presumption  that  the  narrative  in 

its  first  division  (vers.  8-17),  follows  the  preced- 
ing chronologically,  and  it  is  not  placed  after  it 
simply  because  it  treats  of  a  rich  woman,  in  con- 
trast with  a  poor  one.  From  the  23d  ver.  com- 
pared with  the  9th,  we  see  that  Elisha  often  be- 
took himself  from  Samaria  (ii.  25),  to  Carmel.  As 
Gilgal,  Bethel,  and  Jericho,  where  the  schools  of 
the  prophets  were  (chap,  ii.),  were  south  of  Samaria, 
we  may  suppose  that  Carmel,  which  lay  in  the 
middle  of  the  northern  part  of  the  kingdom,  was 
the  place  where  the  faithful  worshippers  of 
Jehovah,  and  the  attached  followers  of  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  who  lived  in  the  north,  came  together  from 
time  to  time,  and  were  strengthened  in  their  faith, 
and  instructed  by  the  prophet,  as  is  presupposed 
in  ver.  23.  The  city  of  Shunem  [see  Robinson,  ii. 
325]  was  situated  in  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  on  the 
slope  of  the  so-called  Little  Hermon,  so  that  it  was 
not  much  farther  from  Samaria  than  Carmel,  not, 
however,  upon  the  road  from  Gilgal  thitherward 
("Winer),  for  Shunem  lay  to  the  northeast  of 
Samaria,  and  Gilgal  to  the  southwest.  Elisha  had 
to  go  across  the  plain  of  Jezreel  in  order  to  come  to 
Shunem,  and  then  go  on  from  there  to  Carmel. 

Yer.  9.  And  she  said  unto  her  husband,  Ac. 
Many  a  one  may  have  been  called  or  called  him- 
self "  Man  of  God,"  and  "  Prophet,"  at  that  time, 
who  was  not  such  in  reality  By  the  epithet 
"  holy,"  the  woman  designates  Elisha  as  a  real  and 
not  a  merely  so-called  Man  of  God.  We  have  to 
understand  by  "Vp'lT^V   "a  chamber  built  upon 

the  flat  roof  of  the  house,  with  walls  which  would 
be  a  protection  against  every  attack  of  the  weather 
— not  a  lean-to  or  addition  on  the  side  of  the  house  " 
(Thenius).  In  such  a  room  Elisha  would  be  pro- 
tected from  every  interruption,  such  as  it  was 
hardly  possible  to  avoid  entirely  in  the  house,  and 
there  he  might  pass  his  time  in  quietness  (cf. 
1  Kings  xvii.  19). 

Yer.  12.  He  said  to  Gehazi,  &c.  With  regard 
to  the  origin  and  native  place  of  Gehazi,  who 
is  here  mentioned  for  the  first  time,  we  have  no 
information  whatever,  neither  do  we  know  whet 
or  why  Elisha  chose  him  for  his  servant. — She 
stood  before  him,  i.  e.,  before  Gehazi,  not  before 
Elisna,  as  Thenius,  among  others,  thinks,  and  he 
then  assumes  that,  although  she  stood  before  him, 
Elisha  spoke  the  words,  ver.  13,  to  her  through 
Gehazi,  because  he  "would  not  communicate 
directly  with  her,  lest  he  should  compromise  hif- 
dignity  "    However,  he  does  tins  immediately  after 


42 


THE  SECONI  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


wards  (ver.  16).  Moreover,  there  is  no  instance 
it  all  of  a  prophet  speaking  to  a  person  who  stood 
before  him  through  a  third  person.  Ver.  13  is  to 
be  taken  as  a  kind  of  parenthesis,  in  which  the 
omission  of  that  which  Elisha  said  to  Gehazi,  when 
he  told  him  to  call  the  Shunammite,   is  filled  up: 

"UDN'l  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  pluperfect. 

Elisha  wished  to  make  some  return  to  his  hostess, 
who  had  received  him  with  Gehazi  and  entertained 
him  so  often,  but  he  did  not  know  what  would  be 
acceptable  to  her,  a  wealthy  woman.  In  order  to 
learn  this,  he  does  not  address  himself  directly  to 
her,  but  directs  his  servant  to  ask  the  necessary 
questions,  that  she  may  express  herself  with  less 
embarrassment  and  less  reserve.  The  question : 
Wouldst  thou  be  spoken  for  to  the  king  or  to 
the  captain  of  the  host?  presupposes  that  Elisha 
at  that  time  stood  in  favor  and  respect  at  court, 
yet  we  cannot  conclude  from  this  with  certainty 
that  by  "  king  "  in  this  place  is  meant  Jehu,  whom 
Elisha  caused  to  be  anointed  (Ewald).  The  com- 
mander of  the  army  is  named  in  connection  with  the 
king  as  the  most  powerful  and  most  influential  man, 
and  not  "  because  he  might  make  demands  in  the 
way  of  oppressive  requisitions  "  (Thenius).  In  the 
answer  of  the  woman,  the  words :  Among  mine 
own  people,  are  put  first  for  the  sake  of  the  con- 
trast :  At  the  court,  among  the  high  and  great  of 
ihe  land,  I  have  nothing  to  ask  for  or  to  desire. 
In :  I  dwell,  there  lies,  at  the  same  time,  a  notion 
of  a  sure,  undisturbed  and  contented  life  (1  Kings 
iv.  25;  Ps.  xv.  1;  lxi.  4  [Hbr.  5];  Prov.  ii.  21). 
Perhaps  she  wished  to  show,  at  the  same  time, 
that  she  had  not  entertained  the  prophet  for  the 
sake  of  the  return,  but  for  his  own  sake,  and  for 
the  sake  of  God.  When  now  Gehazi  communi- 
cates this  answer  to  his  master,  the  latter  feels  all 
the  more  bound  to  do  something  for  her,  and  he 
says  to  Gehazi  (ver.  14) :  Hast  thou  then  not  ob- 
served in  the  interview,  what  other  thing  would  be 
welcome  to  her  ?  Dost  thou  not  thyself  know  of 
anything  ?  Gehazi  answers :  I  could  indeed  con- 
jecture something  which  would  be  her  soul's  de- 
sire, but  neither  we  nor  any  other  mortals  could 
do  that  for  her:  She  hath  no  child  [son].  To  be 
barren  was  regarded  as  a  disgrace  (1  Sam.  i  11  ; 
Luke  i.  25).  Elisha  now  6ummons  her  to  himself 
(ver.  15) ;  she  comes,  but  does  not  go  into  the 
room.  Out  of  modesty  and  respect  she  only  goes 
to  the  door.  To  the  announcement  of  the  prophet 
(ver.  16),  which  reminds  one  of  Gen.  xviii.  10,  14, 
the  woman  replies,  surprised  and  humble,  with 
the  words :  Do  not  lie  unto  [deceive]  thine 
handmaid!  i.  e.,  do  not  excite  deceitful  and  vain 
hopes  in  me.  [If  it  were  not  for  the  "  Call  her  "  in 
the  15th  verse,  one  would  think  of  the  course  of 
the  details  somewhat  thus :  She  is  called — Elisha 
gives  to  Gehazi  the  directions  in  ver.  13,  which 
he  carries  out  in  an  interview  with  her,  upon  which 
she  replies,  ver.  13  at  the  end.  While  she  is 
standing  by,  perhaps  before  the  door,  the  confer- 
ence in  ver.  14  takes  place,  when  the  prophet  ad- 
dresses her  himself.  The  second  direction  to 
summon  her,  however,  breaks  up  the  consistency 
of  this  theory.  The  reason  suggested  above  by 
Bahr,  why  Elisha  commissions  Gehazi  to  speak  to 
iiur,  is  a  good  one ;  and  the  hypothesis  which  is 
Bimplest  and  most  satisfactory  is  to  suppose  that 
r.e  earned  out  this  commission,  and  that  he  re- 
ceived the  reply  at  the  end  of  ver.  13.     This  ho 


reports  to  Elisha,  and  they  hold  the  conference  is 
ver.  14.  The  only  reason  Elisha  has  for  com- 
municating with  her  through  Gehazi  is  now  re- 
moved, and  he  summons  her  to  himself  and  ad- 
dresses her  directly. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  18.  And  when  the  child  was  grown, 
ic.  The  illness  of  which  the  boy  complained,  ver. 
19,  was  probably  a  sun-stroke,  which  befell  him 
as  he  was  in  the  open  field,  at  the  hottest  sea- 
son of  the  year,  among  the  reapers  (cf.  Judith 
viii.  2,  3 ;  Ps.  exxi.  6).  The  mother  carried  the 
body  into  the  upper  chamber  and  shut  the  door 
upon  it,  hardly  with  the  sole  object  that  "  nothing 
should  happen  to  the  corpse  in  the  meantime " 
(Thenius),  for  she  might  have  provided  against 
that  in  other  ways  ;  on  the  contrarj ,  she  meant  to 
keep  the  death  of  the  child  secre;  for  a  while. 
For  this  reason  she  did  not  make  it  known  to  her 
husband  or  to  Gehazi  (vers.  23  and  26).  Evidently 
she  had  the  secret  hope  that  the  man  of  God,  who 
had  promised  her  a  son  in  the  name  of  Jehovah, 
and  had  not  deceived  her,  could  help  her  to  re- 
cover him.  In  that  she  carries  the  child  to  the 
prophet's  chamber  and  lays  him  upon  his  bed  she 
already  entrusts  him  in  some  degree  to  him.  wi  -m 
she  prepares  to  bring  to  the  spot  without  delaj 
This  last  she  would  not  have  done,  however,  if  she 
had  been  given  over  to  "  the  belief,  which  was  so 
widespread  in  ancient  times,  that  articles  which 
had  been  touched  or  used  by  thaumaturgi,  pos- 
sessed miraculous  efficacy  in  themselves "  (Wi- 
ner). She  will  not  undertake  the  journey  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  her  husband;  the  cause  ot 
it,  however,  she  does  not  state  to  him,  but  answers 

to  his  questions  only :  Dl^K*.     She  also  limits  her 

reply  to  Gehazi  to  the  same  short  word  (ver.  26),  al- 
though in  that  case  it  is  commonly  interpreted  some  • 
what  differently.  In  the  23d  verse  it  is  said  to  mean : 
pax  tibi  esto,  i.  e ,  vale  I  or,  do  not  be  alarmed  I  or,  let 
me  have  my  will  I  In  ver.  26,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
declared  to  be  a  simple  affirmative  reply  to  the 
question:  Tes,  it  is  well!  It  is  impossible,  how- 
ever, that  the  same  word,  in  the  mouth  of  the 
same  person,  in  two  instances  which  follow  each 
other  directly,  should  have  two  different  significa- 
tions, and,  what  is  more,  it  would  contain  an  un- 
truth in  ver.  26,  if  it  were  thus  understood.  Clericus 
remarks  correctly  that  it  stands  like  the  Latin  rectet 
(cf.  the  German  :  gut /)  when  one  does  not  wish  to 
give  a  definite  reply  to  a  question,  and  yet  wishes 
to  pacify  the  inquirer  (Keil).  It  follows  from  the 
remark  "of  the  man  in  ver.  23,  that  religious  as 
semblies  were  held  on  the  new  moons  and  sab- 
baths, although  the  Law  only  speaks  of  a  sacrifice 
on  those  days  (Numb,  xxviii.  9  and  11),  and  that, 
for  want  of  legal  priests  and  levites,  they  collected 
around  men  of  God,  i.  e.,  prophets,  to  hear  the 
divine  word. 

Ver.  25.  So  she  went  and  came  unto,  Ac.     On 

133D  see  chap.  ii.  7,  15.  Elisha  showed,  by  send- 
ing his  servant  to  meet  her  and  to  salute  her,  how 
highly  he  esteemed  this  woman.  To  the  saluta- 
tion of  Gehazi  she  returns  only  the  short,  indefi- 
nite answer:  "Well!  in  order  not  to  be  detained 
by  further  explanations  "  (Keil).  She  hastens  to 
the  prophet  himself,  and  when  she  comes  near 
to  him,  overcome  by  the  grief  which  she  had  re- 
pressed until  then,  she  clasps  his  feet,  certainly 
not  in  silence,  or  without  speaking  a  woi  d,  but  beg 


CHAPTER  IV.   1-44. 


ging  for  Li?  assistance.  In  her  conduct  in  clasping 
hi9  feet,  Gfhazi  sees,  not  so  much  something  an- 
noying to  his  master  (Koster),  as  rather  an  oftence 
against  his  dignity  (John  iv.  27);  he,  therefore, 
seeks  to  prevent  it,  but  Elisha  rebukes  him.  The 
words,  ver.  27  :  Let  her  alone,  for  .  .  .  hath 
not  told  me,  do  not  mean,  "  We  must  first  hear 
what  she  has  to  lament  over  "  (Koster) ;  they  rather 
presuppose  that  she  had  declared  the  cause  of  her 
grief  and  of  her  prayer  for  help  when  she  first  em- 
braced his  feet.  The  words :  The  Lord  hath  hid  it 
from  me,  contain  the  explanation  and  excuse  for 
his  not  having  come  to  Shunem  to  prevent  the  death 
of  the  child.  [It  is  a  better  explanation,  that  the 
mother,  in  excess  of  grief,  says  nothing  at  first, 
and  that  Elisha  commands  Gehazi  to  allow  her  to 
collect  herself  and  tell  the  trouble,  which  he  as 
yet  is  ignorant  of.  The  idea  that  the  prophet 
ordinarily  would  know  of  an  impending  calamity 
and  hasten  to  prevent  it,  is  objectionable  on  many 
accounts.  We  must  rather  compare  places  like 
2  Sam.  vii.  3  sq.,  which  show  the  fallibility  of  the 
prophetic  knowledge  and  judgment.  See  notes  on 
ver.  29. — W.  G.  S.]  The  stricken  mother  then  re- 
peats to  the  prophet  his  own  promise  (ver.  1G), 
meaning  to  say  thereby,  at  the  same  time:  I  did 
not  complain  of  my  childlessness  and  did  not  de- 
mand a  son  ;  now,  however,  I  am  more  unhappy 
than  before,  for  it  is  better  never  to  have  a  child 
than  to  have  one  and  lose  it. 

Ver.  29.  Then  he  said  to  Gehazi,  &c.  The 
grief  and  the  lamentation  of  the  woman  moved  the 
compassionate  heart  of  the  prophet  so  much,  that 
he  desired  to  bring  her  relief  as  soon  as  possible. 
He  therefore  commanded  his  servant  to  make  him- 
self ready  for  a  journey  (Luke  xii.  35;  Acts  xii. 
8;  Jerem.  i.  17),  and  said:  Take  my  staff  in  thine 
hand,  and  go  thy  way :  and  lay  my  staff  upon 
the  face  of  the  child.  The  staff  of  the  prophet  is 
not,  of  course,  his  travelling  staff,  but,  like  the 
staff  (sceptre)  of  a  king,  the  badge  of  the  prophet- 
ical gift  which  he  had  received  from  God,  /.  e.,  of 
might  and  strength.  Moses,  the  prototype  of  all 
prophets,  was  instituted  into  his  office  as  leader  of 
the  people  of  Jehovah  with  these  words :  "  And 
thou  shalt  take  this  rod  in  thine  hand,  wherewith 
thou  shalt  do  signs  "  (Ex.  iv.  17).  Moses  himself 
therefore  calls  it :  "  The  rod  of  God  in  mine  hand  " 
(Ex.  xvii.  5,  9),  or :  "  The  rod  from  before  the 
Lord "  (Sum.  xx.  8,  9),  cf.  notes  on  chap.  ii.  8. 
Elisha,  in  that  he  gives  his  prophet's  staff  into  the 
hand  of  Gehazi,  commissions  him  to  execute  a  pro- 
phetical act  in  his  stead ;  by  means  of  the  divine 
power,  of  which  the  staff  was  the  symbol,  he  is  to 
awaken  the  child  out  of  the  death-sleep.  He  is  to 
lay  it  upon  the  face  of  the  child,  because  death 
had  fallen  \ipon  him  through  the  head  (ver.  19), 
and  because  life  shows  itself  first  of  all  in  the  face. 
The  question  why  Elisha  gave  such  a  commission 
to  his  servant  at  all,  is  answered  by  the  interven- 
ing clause  in  ver.  29 :  If  thou  meet  any  man 
salute  him  not,  &c.  These  words  are  often  under- 
stood to  mean  that  Gehazi  is  to  guard  himself  from 
all  distraction,  fix  his  thoughts  only  upon  God  and 
the  commission  which  had  been  entrusted  to  him 
and  sink  his  soul  in  prayer.  This  sense,  however, 
c  innot  by  any  means  be  established ;  and  why 
siould  the  prophet,  if  he  wished  to  say  this,  not 
have  expressed  it  distinctly,  and  not  in  a  round- 
about way?  To  refrain  from  saluting  is  by  no 
means   the   same   thing   as   to   lose  one's  aelf  in 


prayer.  It  is  well  known  that  salutations  are  fat 
more  ceremonious  in  the  Orient  than  with  us,  and 
that,  e.  g.,  inferiors  always  remain  standing  until 
persons  of  higher  rank  pass  by  (cf.  Luke  x.  4,  am1 
Lightfoot  on  the  passage;  Winer,  R.-W.-R,  i 
s.  501),  whereby  delay  was  often  occasioned. 
Elisha  commands  his  servant,  in  the  first  place,  ta 
start  without  delay,  and  then  not  to  tarry  at  all  by 
the  way.  This  command  to  hasten  can  scarcely 
have  had  any  other  ground  than  that  he  hoped,  in 
spite  of  the  declaration  of  the  woman,  that  life  had 
not  yet  entirely  left  the  child,  and  that  utter  de- 
cease might  yet  be  prevented  by  swift  interference. 
Because  he  did  not  believe  that  he  himself  with  the 
Shuuammite  could  accomplish  the  whole  journey 
(six  hours)  so  quickly  as  appeared  necessary, 
he  despatched  his  servant,  or  at  least  sent 
him  on  before,  and  gave  him  his  prophet's  staff, 
not  in  the  belief  that  the  staff,  as  such,  had  any 
magical  miraculous  power,  but  on  the  assumption 
that,  in  such  an  urgent  case,  he  might  commit  the 
prophetical  gift,  of  which  the  staff  was  the  insigne 
and  symbol,  to  his  servant,  and  so  make  him  his 
representative.  In  this,  however,  he  was  mistaken, 
however  good  his  intention  was.  Peter  Martyr 
remarks:  Videtur  Elisceus  non  recte  fecisse,  qui 
faeuUatem  edendi  miracula  alteri  delegare  voluit,  quod 
ipsi  uon  est  datum.  A  similar  case,  where  a  pro- 
phet falls  into  error,  is  found  2  Sam.  vii.  3  sq.  The 
importunity  of  the  woman,  that  Elisha  himself 
should  come  (ver.  30),  proceeded  from  the  convic- 
tion that  the  boy  was  already  completely  dead,  and 
that  now  not  Gehazi,  but  only  the  prophet  himself, 
who  had  promised  her  the  son,  could  help.  To 
this  deep  confidence  he  responds.  Every  other  ac- 
ceptation of  the  passage  is  entangled  in  great  diffi- 
culties. Almost  all  the  expositors  proceed  from 
the  assumption  that  Elisha  knew  very  well  that 
Gehazi  could  not  accomplish  any  miracle,  although 
he  had  his  staff  in  his  hand.  They  state  variously 
the  reason  why  lie,  nevertheless,  gave  him  this 
commission.  According  to  Koster,  Elisha  wished 
to  show  himself  as  the  only  miracle-worker,  and 
magnify  his  own  importance.  According  to  Keil, 
he  did  it  in  order  "to  show  to  the  Shuuammite  and 
her  connections,  and  to  Gehazi  himself,  that  the 
power  to  perform  miracles  did  not  appertain,  in 
any  magical  way,  to  himself  or  to  his  staff,  but 
rather  that  miracles,  as  works  of  divine  omnipo- 
tence, could  only  be  executed  by  faith  and  prayer." 
According  to  Krummacher,  Elisha  acted  thus  in  "  a 
pedagogical  intention,"  in  order  to  prepare  shame 
and  confusiou  for  the  "  vain  and  pert  youth,"  who 
would  gladly  have  thrown  about  himself  "  the 
grandeur  and  glory  of  his  master."  In  every  one 
of  these  interpretations,  however,  the  prophet  ap- 
pears in  a  very  ambiguous  light,  for  he  would 
have  given,  according  to  any  one  of  them,  a  formal 
commission,  in  regard  to  which  he  knew  before- 
hand that  it  could  not  be  executed.  The  sending 
of  Gehazi,  and  the  entrusting  to  him  of  the  pro- 
phet's staff,  took  place,  in  that  case,  only  for  ap- 
pearances ;  nay,  he  would  have  deceived  not  only 
his  servant,  but  also  the  mother  who  was  so  bur- 
dened by  sorrow,  and  who  already  felt  herself  de- 
ceived (ver.  28) ;  and  this  time  he  would  have  done 
it  knowingly  and  intentionally,  an  hypothesis  which 
is  not  consistent,  under  any  circumstances,  with  a 
sincere  and  ingenuous  character,  and  especiallv  is 
unworthy  of  a  "  holy  Man  of  God  "  (ver.  9).  Such 
a  deception  would  be  the  less  to  be  foi  given,  be 


(4 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


cause  the  command  of  the  greatest  possible 
haste  is  added.  In  fact,  this  last  command 
is  nu  consistent  with  any  one  of  the  proposed 
interpretations;  it  would  be,  at  the  very  least, 
utterly  superfluous  and  objectless.  As  for  Keil's 
view  in  particular,  we  cannot  see  why  the  pro- 
phet should  have  intended  to  give  a  general  in- 
struction in  regard  to  the  performance  of  miracles, 
just  on  this  special  occasion,  where  haste  was  of 
such  great  importance. 

Ter.  31.  And  Gehazi  passed  on  before  them, 
Ac.  In  order  to  explain  why  Gehazi  could  not 
awake  the  boy,  the  rabbis  assert  that  he  was  dis- 
obedient to  the  command  not  to  salute  any  one  by 
the  way,  but  to  make  all  the  haste  possible.  This 
is  contradicted  decidedly  by  the  fact  that,  before 
Elisha  arrived  with  the  mother  of  the  boy  at  Shunem, 
Gehazi  had  already  discharged  his  commission,  al- 
though in  vain,  and  was  on  the  way  back  again  when 
he  met  the  prophet.  He  must,  therefore,  have  made 
great  haste.  Theodoret  supposes  another  reason, 
viz.,  that  Elisha  knew  that  Gehazi  was  pt/.o-i/ioc; 
Kal  aei'dfiofnc,  so  that  he  would  boast  of  his  com- 
mission to  those  whom  he  met  by  the  way :  17  <5e 
Ktvodnlia  Tip  ■davuarovfiyiav  nu/.vei.  This  accepta- 
tion has  been  the  general  one.  Krummacher  stated 
it  in  the  strongest  terms.  He  knows  exactly  how 
Gehazi  conducted  himself  in  his  vanity  :  "  What  a 
ceremonious  mien  the  silly  youth  puts  on,  with 
what  pompous  gravity  he  strides  into  the  house  of 
death,"  &c.  Others  think  that  he  could  not  ac- 
complish the  work  because  the  mother  of  the  child 
had  not  given  him  her  confidence  (Seb.  Smith),  or 
because  the  faith  which  is  necessary  to  such  a 
work  was  wanting  in  him  (Grotius).  All  these  at- 
tempts, however,  which  find  the  cause  of  Gehazi's 
want  of  success  in  any  blamable  conduct  of  his, 
are  contradicted  by  the  utter  silence  of  the  text. 
Even  though  Gehazi,  at  a  later  time,  showed  him- 
self fond  of  money  (chap.  v.  20  «}.),  yet  it  does  not 
follow  that  he  was  fond  of  honor.  In  the  other 
case  he  was  severely  punished ;  here,  however, 
where  the  life  of  an  only  son  is  at  stake,  the  grave 
transgression  which  is  attributed  to  him  is  not  re- 
buked witli  a  single  word  of  reproof  or  warning, 
wherefore  we  must  conclude  that  he  did  not  de- 
serve any  correction,  but  had  executed  everything 
which  was  entrusted  to  him,  as  the  text  distinctly 
narrates.  That  he  was  not  able,  in  spite  of  this. 
to  awake  the  boy,  was  not  his  fault,  inasmuch  as 
Elisha.  although  lie  had  given  him,  it  is  true,  the 
external  symbol  of  his  prophetical  might  and  power 

(tha  rm,  spirit  of  Jehovah),  yet  had  not  consid- 
ered that  this  might  and  power  was  a  special 
gift  of  God,  which  he  might  not  freely  delegate 
according  to  his  own  will — which  he  therefore 
could  not  communicate  or  transfer  to  his  servant 
without  further  consideration.  Starke  justly  re- 
marks that  Elisha  "gave  this  command  (ver.  29) 
from  some  overhaste,  without  having  a  divino  in- 
centive to  it." 

Ver.  32.  And  when  Elisha  was  come  into 
the  house,  &c  The  want  of  success  of  Gehazi's 
commission  spurred  on  the  prophet  all  the  more  to 
do  what  he  could  in  order  to  i  store  the  boy  to  life. 
In  tli"  mats  he  proceeds,  as  his  father  and  master 
Slijah  had  ones  done  (see  I  Kinys  xvii.,  Exeg.  on 
ver.  2n  >q.  and  Hist.  §  fi).  He  calls  upon  Je- 
hovah and  Btretches  himself  upon  the  body  of 
the  boy.     Tlus  latter  gesture  is  described  more  in 


detail  here  (ver.  34)  than  in  the  other  passage:  CO 
the  contrary,  the  words  of  the  prayer  are  gives 
there,  which  are  wanting  here.  Whereas  Elijah 
there  stretched  himself  three  times  upon  the  boy 
(ver.  21),  Elisha  does  so  only  twice,  but  walks  up 
and  down  in  the  house  in  the  meantime.  The  con- 
clusion has  often  been  drawn,  as  it  has  been  last  of 
all  by  Keil,  that  the  difference  in  the  events  con- 
sisted in  this,  that  in  the  case  of  Elijah,  the  child, 
at  his  prayer,  "  straightway  "  came  to  life  again, 
while  in  the  case  of  Elisha,  on  the  other  hand,  "  the 
resuscitation  took  place  by  degrees,"  from  which 
we  may  perceive  "  that  Elisha  did  not  pqssess  a 
double  measure  of  the  spirit  of  Elijah."  This 
notion  does  not,  however,  seem  to  us  to  be  com- 
pletely justified  by  the  text.  Why  should  Elisha, 
upon  whom  the  spirit  of  Elijah  rested  (chap  ii.  15), 
and  of  whom  more  miracles  are  narrated  to  ..s  than 
of  Elijah,  have  been  able  to  perform  only  gradually 
and  by  stages  what  Elijah  accomplished  at  once  ? 
That  Elisha,  after  the  first  attempt  at  resuscita- 
tion, walked  up  and  down  in  the  house  (ver.  35),  did 
not  take  place  certainly,  quia  Ula  corporis  incuba- 
Hone  nimium  laboravit  (Peter  Martyr),  or:  ut  air*, 
bulando  excitaret  majorem  calorem,  quern  puei  o  com~ 
municaret  (Cornel,  a  Lapide,  Seb.  Smith);  it  was 
probably  an  involuntary  result  of  the  great  emo- 
tion with  which  he  looked  and  waited  for  the  ful- 
filment of  his  prayer.  After  he  had  stretched  him- 
self once  more,  with  prayer,  upon  the  child,  the 
latter  gave  signs,  by  repeated  sneezing,  of  a  re- 
stored respiration,  and  then  opened  his  eyes. 
"  Headache  was  the  beginniug  of  his  illness,  and 
this  is  wont  to  be  relieved  by  sneezing,  as  Pliny 
writes  (Hist.  Nat.  xxviii.  6),  Sternutamenta  capitis 
gravedinem  emendanl "  (Dereser). 

Ver.  38.  And  Elisha  came  again  to  Gilgal, 
Ac.  Not  directly  after  the  act  at  Shuuem,  but  once, 
at  some  other  time.  The  two  following  narratives 
are  not  chronologically  connected  with  the  preced- 
ing.— In  regard  to  GUgal,  see  notes  on  chap.  ii. — 

V2tb  D'SL'"  does  not  mean  they  lived  before  him 

(Luther,  Vulgata),  but  they  sat  before  him,  as  pupils 
before  a  teacher  (cf.  the  passage  from  the  Talmud  in 
Schottgen  on  Acts  xxii.  3).  Similarly  chap.  vi.  1. 
We  have  not,  therefore,  to  understand  a  residence 
together  under  Elisha's  superintendence,  but  a 
coming  together  and  sitting  down  before  him,  in 
order  to  hear  his  word  (cf.   Ezek.   viii.  1 ;  xiv.  1  ; 

xxxiii.  31 ;  Zach.  iii.  8). — n~lN  i  ver.  39,  has  the  gene- 
ral signification  which  the  Chaldee  gives :    pjplT 

i.  e.,  green  herbs,  which  may  be  cooked  and  eaten ; 
what  we  call  "  greens."  The  particular  kind 
which  the  seeker  found  follows  with  the  expression 
me   |23 ,  according  to  the  Vulgata,  quasi  vitis  syU 

vestris,  wild  vines  like  grape-vines,  not  wild  grape 

vines.      The  nib'   nypS  are  wild  cucumbers  or 

gourds  (cucuineres  agrestes,  or,  asinini),  also  called 
bursting-cucumbers.  They  have  the  form  of  an 
egg,  and  a  bitter  taste.  When  they  are  ripe  they 
burst  in  pieces  if  pressed  on  the  stem,  whence 
their  name  (yp2  fidit,  rvpit).  When  eaten  they 
cause  colic  and  violent  purging.  The  young  man 
took  these  wild  gourds  foi  ordinary  unes,  which 
were  very  much  prized  as  food  (Num.  xi.  5) 
The  Sept  and  Vulg.  translate  by  colocynth.  K < •  i - 
also  prefers  this,  because  this  fruit  does  not  birrs! 


CHAPTER    IV.   1-44. 


it 


when  touched,  and  so  could  be  easily  carried  home 
iu  the  garment  and  cut  up  ;  but  the  root  Jjpa  is  too 
distinctly  in  favor  of  the  bursting-gourd,  which  did 
not  burst  in  this  instance  simply  because  the  speci- 
mens collected  were  not  entirely  ripe  (<•/.  Winer, 
Ii.-  W.-B.,  i.  s.  447  sq.).  However,  the  cucumis 
colocynthi  L.,  or  the  poisonous  colocynth,  also  has 
a  remarkably  bitter  taste — a  vine  which  creeps 
apon  the  earth,  and  has  light  green  leaves  (cf.  I.  c, 
s.  427). 

Ver.  40.  There  is  death  in  the  pot,  i.  e..  there 
is  something  in  the  pot  which  causes  death.  As 
well  on  account  of  the  bitter  taste  (the  Persians 
call  wild  gourds  the  gall  of  the  earth)  as  on  account 
of  the  effect,  which  followed  swiftly  upon  the  eat- 
ing, they  considered  the  food  poisonous  and  fatal. 
Bitterness  and  death  were  cognate  ideas  among 
the  Hebrews  (Eccl.  vii.  26;  Sirach  xli.  1).  In  ver. 
41  the  }  before  inp  is  not  superfluous,  but  is  in  the 

use  which  denotes  the  connection  of  thought 
(Ewald,  Lehrbuch,  §  348,  a).  The  meal  which 
Klisha  cast  into  the  "pot,  has  just  the  same  signifi- 
cance as  the  salt  which  he  threw  into  the  un- 
healthy fountain  at  Jericho  (chap.  ii.  20).  "  The 
meal,  as  the  natural  and  healthy  means  of  nourish- 
ment, was  the  symbol  of  which  he  made  use  in 
order  to  give  to  the  sons  of  the  prophets  the  as- 
surance that  the  injurious  property  had  been  taken 
from  the  food  by  him  "  (Keil,  1845). 

42.  And  there  came  a  man  from  Baal- 
shalisha,  i.  e..  some  place  in  the  district  of  Shalisha 
{1  Sam.  ix.  4),  no  doubt  the  same  one  which 
Jerome  and  Eusebius  call  Beth-shalisha,  fifteen 
miles  north  of  Diospolis  (Lydda),  quite  near  to 
Gilgal  (chap.  ii.  1),  where  we  have  to  think  of  the 
prophet  as  being  at  this  time.  According  to  the 
Law,  all  first-fruits  of  grain  were  to  be  offered  to 
Jehovah,  who  relinquished  them  to  his  servants, 
priests  and  levites  (Num.  xviii.  13  ;  Dent,  xviii.  4). 
Since  now  there  were  no  more  legitimate  priests 
and  levites  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (1  Kings  xii. 
31),  this  man,  who  was  a  faithful  worshipper  of 
Jehovah,  brought  his  first-fruits  to   the  "  Man  of 

God."  the  head  of  the  prophets.     ?0"12  (Levit.  xxiii. 

14),  or,  in  the  fuller  form,  ta~l3  EhS  (Levit  ii.  14), 

is  spica  recens  tenera.  quae  tosta  super  ignem  a 
solent  (Munster),  fresh  wheat  or  barley  grits  (Keil). 
According  to  Hess,  a  hundred  sons  of  the  prophets 
visited  Elisha  in  a  company,  and  he  had  nothing 
more  to  set  before  them  than  what  the  man  had 
brought  him  from  Shalisha;  but  this  can  hardly 
be  correct. 

Ver.  43.  Give  the  people  that  they  may  eat. 
As  the  servant,  upon  the  first  command  (ver.  42), 
expressed  some  misgivings,  Elisha  repeated  the 
order  with  a  statement  of  the  reason  :  For  thus 
saith  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  He  has  revealed  it  to  me,  and 
He  will  have  it  so,  therefore,  abandon  thy  mis- 
givings and  do  as  I  bid  thee.  From  the  words : 
They  shall  eat  and  shall  leave  thereof,  we  must 
not  infer  a  miraculous  increase  of  the  food.  That 
the  bread  was  not  exhausted  under  Gehazi's  hands 
— that  each  one  received  as  much  as  lie  desired, 
and  that,  when  no  one  desired  any  more,  then 
there  lay  still  "  abundance  of  bread  upon  the  table," 
•o  the  astonishment  of  Gehazi  (Krummacher) :  of 
all  that,  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  text.  The 
miraculous  part  of  it  consists  rather  in  the  fact 
that,  by  means  cf  the  divine  blessing,  the  hundred 


men  were  satisfied  with  the  little  which  each  re 
ceived  at  the  distribution,  and  even  had  some  tc 
spare. 

HISTORICAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

1.  That  which  is  narrated  of  Elisha  in  the  pre- 
ceding and  in  the  next  following  chapters,  as  fai 
as  viii.  15,  is  not  a  consecutive  and  connected  de- 
scription of  his  life,  but  a  simple  collection  of  the 
principal  acts,  by  vjhich  he  vindicated  his  position  at 
Man  of  God  and  prophet,  in  different  relations,  as 
well  private  as  public,  throughout  his  long  career. 
According  to  Keil,  all  these  acts  "  belong  to  the 
reign  of  Jehoram,  King  of  Israel ;"  but  Jehoram 
reigned  only  twelve  years  (chap.  iii.  1),  and  Elisha 
did  not  die  until  some  time  during  the  reign  of 
Joash  (chap.  xiii.  14).  so  that  he  lived  after  Jeho- 
ram's  death  at  least  forty-five  years,  viz.,  twenty- 
eight  under  Jehu  (chap.  x.  36),  and  seventeen 
under  Jehoahaz  (chap.  xiii.  1).  Moreover,  the 
name  of  Jehoram  does  not  occur  in  any  of  the 
narratives  from  chap.  iv.  to  chap.  viii.  15.  The 
"  King  of  Israel  "  is  mentioned  indefinitely,  without 
his  name  (chap.  iv.  13;  v.  5,  6,  7,  8;  vi.  9,  11,  12, 
21,  26  sq. ;  vii.  6,  9  sq. ;  viii.  3).  Why  Elisha 
should  have  performed  all  his  miraculous  works 
under  Jehoram,  and  not  have  performed  any  others 
during  the  succeeding  forty-five  years,  we  cannot 
see ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  quite  incredible.  If  ah 
the  prophetical  acts  are  collected  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple mentioned  above  [namely,  to  collect  loosely 
those  acts  which  served  as  the  credentials  of  his 
prophetical  calling],  the  chronological  order  has 
of  course,  to  be  given  up,  and  acts  have  to  be  in- 
serted here  which  occurred  at  a  much  later  time 
It  is  also  acknowledged  that  the  separate  acts  are 
narrated  in  a  connection,  which,  as  Keil  admits, 
follows  "  the  relation  of  their  subject-matter  to  the 
preceding  or  following,  and  not  the  sequence  of 
time  at  which  they  took  place."  It  is  a  striking 
fact  that  the  acts  which  affect  private  persons, 
especially  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  come  first,  and 
then  that  those  which  affect  the  political  fortunes 
of  the  people  follow.  Whether  all  the  incidents 
which  presuppose  that  Elisha  stands  in  high  favor 
with  the  king,  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  time  of 
Jehu,  as  Ewald  thinks,  is  a  question  which  cannot 
be  definitely  answered  in  the  affirmative ;  certainly 
what  is  narrated  chap.  iii.  17-25,  did  not  remain 
without  influence  upon  Jehoram,  and  upon  Elisha'a 
relation  to  him ;  and  it  is  generally  true  that  the  re- 
lation of  the  kings  to  the  prophets  was  not  so  hostdo 
after  the  death  of  Aliab.  Ewald  further  adopts 
the  opinion  that  the  collection  of  incidents  ia 
arrayed  according  to  the  round  and  significant 
number  twelve ;  he  reaches  this  number,  however, 
only  by  adding  to  the  acts  recorded  in  chap.  iv.  and 
following  chapters,  the  two  in  chap.  ii.  19-25, 
although  they  are  separated  by  the  third  chapter, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  leaves  out  the  first  of 
all,  chap.  ii.  14,  and  the  very  important  one,  chap, 
iii.  16  ■•■q.,  which  stands  between  those  which  are 
counted,  because  these,  he  thinks,  come  from  a  dif 
ferent  source.  The  theory  that  these  narratives 
■■  were  recorded  in  a  special  work,  before  they  were 
incorporated  into  our  present  Book  of  Kings,"  is 
more  probable.  The  collection  into  an  unbroker 
line  has.  no  doubt,  contributed  much  to  the  a*sei- 
tiou  which  has  been  made  by  many  parties  that 
in  the  life  of  Elisha,   "the   sacred   documerts  (i 


46 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Kings  ii-xiii.)  present  u.>  with  a  far  greater 
multiplication  of  miraclej,  than  in  the  life 
of  his  predecessor,  Elijah "  (Kurz  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyc.  iii.  3.  "66;  cf.  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  i. 
s.  321).  If  we  consider,  however,  that  the  col- 
lected prophetical  acts  belong  not  to  the  brief  reign 
of  Jehorain  alone,  but  are  spread  over  the  entire 
time  of  Elisha's  public  career  under  four  kings, 
that  is  to  say,  over  a  period  of  fifty-five  or  fifty- 
seven  years,  then  the  appearance  of  "  multiplica- 
tion of  miracles  "  falls  away ;  all  the  more  as  the 
time  of  Elijah's  activity  was  much  shorter.  The 
number  of  miracles  recorded  as  having  been  per- 
formed by  Elijah,  when  accurately  estimated,  was 
not  much  less,  and  relatively  was  even  greater. 
(On  the  "  multiplication  of  the  miraculous "  see 
1  Kings  xvii.  Prelim.  Rem.  §  a.)  Finally,  %ve  must 
remember  that  the  acts  of  Elisha,  which  are  col- 
lected in  this  passage,  were  accomplished  through 

the  rm  or  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  and  are  prophetical ; 

that  fiey  are,  therefore,  not  merely  pieces. of  dis- 
play of  a  great  thaumaturge,  but  "  signs,"  which 
servo  to  make  known  and  to  glorify  the  one  living 
God.  the  God  of  Israel,  and  on  this  account  have 
a  mvre  or  less  ideal  significance.  They  are  doc- 
trines, presented  in  and  by  acts,  i.  e.,  symbolical 
representations  of  religious  truths.  To  show  this 
in  detail  is  our  task  in  what  follows. 

2.  The  first  narrative  in  this  chapter  (vers.  1-7) 
is  meant  to  show  how  Elisha  helps  a  widow  and 
her  children  out  of  debt  and  distress.  The  mirac- 
ulous increase  of  the  oil,  in  itself,  is  not  the  core 
and  object  of  the  prophet's  act  (as  the  common  ac- 
ceptation is),  but  only  the  means  to  an  end ;  relief 
from  distress  is  the  main  point,  and  thereby  the 
act  becomes  a  prophetical  one.  This  first  narra- 
tive, now,  together  with  the  one  immediately  fol- 
lowing (vers.  8-37),  is  ordinarily  designated  partic- 
ularly as  having  "  an  extraordinary  resemblance  " 
to  the  one,  1  Kings  xvii.  7-16  (Winer,  I.  c. ;  Kno- 
bel,  Der  Prophet,  ii.  s.  96),  and  as  one  whose  simi- 
larity causes  it  to  appear  as  a  merely  slightly 
modified  copy  of  the  other  (Kurz,  I.  c).  On  a  more 
careful  comparison,  however,  the  resemblance  is 
seen  to  be  limited  to  the  one  general  point,  that 
here,  as  there,  help  is  given  to  a  widow  and  her 
children  by  the  prophet,  in  their  need  and  distress; 
all  the  rest  is  utterly  diiferent.  In  the  former  case 
it  is  a  foreigner,  a  woman  who  lives  in  heathen 
territory  (Luke  iv.  26),  to  whom  the  prophet  is  di- 
rected, and  who  is  to  nourish  him  ;  in  the  latter,  it 
is  the  wife  of  one  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  who 
seeks  the  prophet,  and  calls  upon  him  for  aid. 
There  it  was  a  question  of  subsistence  in  time  of 
scarcity,  here,  of  the  deliverance  of  two  children 
from  the  slavery  which  threatened  them.  There 
the  two  indispensable  means  of  sustenance,  meal 
and  oil,  never  fail,  although  they  are  consumed; 
here,  once  for  all,  the  oil  "  sufficient  for  anointing  " 
is  increased  and  then  sold  to  pay  the  debt.  The 
fact  that  Elijah  and  Elisha  both  help  and  relieve  a 
widow  and  her  children  has  its  ground  in  the  char- 
acter and  calling  of  the  two  men  as  "  Men  of  God," 
as  they  are  designated  both  here  and  there  (ver.  7, 
and  1  Kings  xvii.  18).  It  is  a  well-known  feature 
if  the  Old  Testament  Law,  one  which  is  distinctly 
prominent,  that  it  often  and  urgently  commands  to 
Buccor  the  widows  and  the  fatherless  and  to  care  for 
them(Exod.  xxii.  22-24;  Deut.  xiv.  29;  xxiv.  17,  19; 
xxvi.  12;  xxvii.  19).     They  are  mentioned  as  rep- 


resentatives of  the  forsaken,  die  oppressed,  and  ths 
necessitous  as  a  class  (Isai.  x.  2 ;  Jer.  vii.  6 ;  xxiL 
3;  Zach.  vii.  10;  Mai.  iii.  5;  Baruch  vi.  37).  It  i» 
especially  emphasized  and  praised  in  Jehovah  that 
he  is  the  father  and  judge  (i.  e.,  protector  of  th6 
rights)  of  the  widows  and  the  fatherless  (Deut.  x. 
18;  Ps.  lxviii.  a;  cxlvi.  9;  Isai.  ix.  17;  Siracb 
xxxv.  17  sq.).  Neglect  and  contempt  of  them  are 
counted  among  the  heaviest  offences  (Ps.  xciv.  6; 
Job  xxii.  9 ;  Ezek.  xxii.  7 ;)  just  as  on  the  othei 
hand  compassion  and  care  for  them  is  a  sign  of  the 
true  fear  of  God  and  of  true  piety  (Job  xxix.  12; 
xxxi.  16;  Tobit  i.  7;  James  l.  27).  So,  then,  if 
anything  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  Man  of  God, 
this  is,  that  he  shall  be  a  counsellor  and  helper  of 
the  widows  and  orphans,  and  shall  show  himself 
such  by  his  actions.  Elijah  and  Elisha  were,  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  the  word,  Men  of  God,  whom  Je- 
hovah had  armed  with  His  Spirit  for  extraordinary 
and  marvellous  works.  It  would  be  remarkable, 
therefore,  if,  among  the  acts  of  the  two  genuine 
prophets  of  action  (cf.  above,  Prelim.  Rem.  after 
1  Kings  xvii.  §  a),  there  were  none  by  which  the} 
showed  themselves  to  be  counsellors  and  helpers  of 
widows  and  orphans,  and  none  by  which  they  testi- 
fied that  the  living  God,  the  God  of  Israel,  before 
whom  they  stood  (1  Kings  xvii.  1;  2  Kings  Iii.  14), 
was  a  father  and  judge  of  the  widows  and  father- 
Less.  Without  this,  an  essential  point  in  the  pro- 
phetical calling  of  each  would  be  wauling.  The 
prophet,  in  the  case  of  both  widows,  takes  up  and 
uses  naturally  and  significantly  the  last  and  most 
necessary  tiling  which  there  was  in  the  house,  and 
thereby  directs  attention  all  the  more  distinctly  to 
Him  who  out  of  little  can  make  much,  and  out  of 
small  can  make  great.  "The  naturalistic  inter- 
preters of  miracles  suppose  that  an  advantageous 
retail  transaction  in  oil  took  place  here,  or  that 
there  was  an  increase  of  the  oil  by  the  intermixture 
of  other  substances,  for  instance,  of  potash  1 " 
(Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  i.  s.  322.  Cf.  Knobel,  Der  Prophet. 
ii.  a.  96.)  These  insipid  absurdities  do  not  deserve 
refutation. 

3.  The  second  narrative  (vers.  8-37),  which,  as 
has  been  said  already,  many  modern  expositors 
have  considered  startlingly  like  to  the  one  in  1 
Kings  xvii.  17-24,  likewise  appears,  upon  closer 
examination,  to  be  utterly  different  from  it.  The 
entire  situation  is  different.  In  the  first  place,  we 
must  observe  that  the  narrative  is  divided  into  two 
parts,  the  first  of  which  (vers.  8-17)  forms  a  com- 
plete whole  in  itself.  It  narrates  the  reception 
which  the  prophet  met  with  at  the  house  of  the  Shu- 
nammite  woman  on  his  journey  to  Carmel,  what 
he  promised  her,  and  how  this  promise  was  ful- 
filled. The  narrative  might  cease  there.  The  sec- 
ond part  narrates  what  occurred  afterwards,  after 
a  number  of  years,  namely,  that  the  promised  son 
fell  victim  to  an  illness  and  was  restored  to  life  by 
the  prophet.  The  fact  of  the  resuscitation,  there- 
fore, has  the  fact  of  the  promise  for  its  premise, 
and  rests  upon  it.  The  Shunammite  appeals  (ver. 
28)  to  the  promise  of  the  prophet,  ver.  16,  and 
founds  her  prayer  upon  it.  He  then  also  does  all 
in  his  power  to  preserve  the  son  of  promise  to  hie 
mother,  in  order  that  the  promise  may  remain  truth 
and  not  become  deceit.  The  second  fact,  there- 
fore, stands  in  an  inseparable  connection  with  the 
first.  In  the  case  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Za- 
rcphath,  tins  is  all  wanting.  He  was  no  son  of 
promise,  and  there  is  no  question  there  of  anything 


CHAPTER  IT.  1-44. 


47 


but  a  restoration  to  life.  Then,  as  for  the  act  it- 
self, it  takes  place  there  directly  through  Elijah 
himself,  whereas  Elisha  here  commits  it  in  the  first 
place  to  his  servant.  For  the  entire  interlude,  vers. 
29-31,  which  is  narrated  so  circumstantially,  and 
is  so  worthy  of  attention,  the  parallel  is  entirely 
wanting.  The  similarity,  then,  which  is  asserted 
to  exist,  is  limited  to  the  method  of  resuscitation  re- 
ferred to  in  ver.  34  (c/.  1  Kings  xvii.  21),  and  even 
this  is  not  altogether  the  same.  That  Elisha  fol- 
lowed a  similar  method  was  a  consequence,  in  the 
first  place,  of  the  nature  of  the  case — he  breathed 
life  once  more  into  him  from  whom  life  had  departed 
(see  above,  1  Kings  xvii.  Hist.  §  6) — and  further- 
more, it  was  almost  a  matter  of  course  for  him  that 
he  should  imitate  the  example  of  his  great  master 
in  a  similar  case.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  con- 
clude from  this  circumstance  alone  that  the  entire 
narrative  is  simply  imitated.  Ewald,  who  adopts 
the  opinion  that  "  the  passages  about  Elijah,  1  Kings 
xvii.  19;  2  Kings  ii.  1—18  were  written  later  than 
those  about  Elisha "  (in  which  case  the  contrary 
would  rather  be  true,  that  1  Kings  xvii.  17  sq. 
was  imitated  from  this  narrative),  asserts,  on  the 
other  hand:  "The  description,  2  Kings  iv.  14-17, 
is  clearly  borrowed  from  Gen.  xviii.  9-14;"  but  in 
the  latter  place,  also,  the  connection  and  the  entire 
situation  are  utterly  different,  and  that  which  they 
have  in  common  amounts  only  to  this,  that  there, 
as  here,  the  birth  of  a  son  is  foretold.  This  takes 
place,  however,  also  in  Judges  xiii.  3 ;  1  Sam.  i.  1 7 ; 
Isai.  vii.  14;  Matt.  i.  23 ;  Luke  i.  13  and  31.  What 
would  become  of  history,  especially  of  Biblical 
history,  if  every  incident  which  resembles  another 
more  or  less  should  be  considered  an  imitation  of 
it,  and  therefore  unhistorical  ?  If  any  story  is  free 
from  the  appearance  of  being  manufactured,  and 
has  unmistakable  signs  of  historical  truth,  then  this 
one  is  such,  with  its  numerous  details  and  peculiar 
characteristic  features. 

4.  The  religious  point  of  the  narrative,  and  there 
is  scarcely  a  story  in  the  Old  Testament  which  has 
a  more  beautiful  one,  is  utterly  lost  when  we  seek 
it  in  the  resuscitation  of  the  boy  by  the  prophet. 
We  have  before  us  here  the  total  of  a  continuous, 
complete,  and  finished  story,  which  is  narrated 
with  unusual  care  and  explicitness  down  to  the  de- 
tails, and  not  simply  the  record  of  a  single  pro- 
phetical act,  as  in  the  first  and  third  narratives. 
The  course  and  conclusion  of  the  whole  are  indeed 
conditioned  upon  the  miraculous  act  of  the  prophet, 
yet  in  fact  it  is  rather  a  history  of  the  Shunammire 
than  an  event  in  the  life  of  Elisha.  The  object  and 
significance  of  the  story  are  not,  therefore,  to  lie 
sought  in  any  single  feature  of  the  narrative,  as  if 
all  the  rest  were  merely  incidental ;  it  is  rather  the 
whole  which  here  comes  into  account.  Three  prin- 
cipal points  in  it  come  out  into  especial  prominence : 
A  son  is  given  to  a  pious,  God-fearing  woman, 
who  had  received  the  prophet  at  her  house,  and 
thereby  a  blessing  and  fortune  falls  to  her  lot, 
which  she  had  no  longer  dared  to  hope  for ;  soon, 
however,  a  great  trial  intervenes ;  she  is  to  lose 
her  only  son,  she  holds  firmly  to  the  word  of  prom- 
ise, however,  and  sustains  the  trial ;  the  son  is 
given  back  to  her  again  by  the  prophet,  and  now 
for  the  first  time  she  experiences  aright  that  the 
word  of  the  Lord  is  true,  and  that  He  crowns  at 
last  with  grace  and  compassion  those  who  hope 
»nd  hoi  I  fast  their  faith  in  Him.  This  develop- 
ment of  the  history  presents  the  course  by  which. 


as  a  general  rule,  God  is  wont  to  lead  his  children 
Thus  it  was  with  Abraham,  the  father  and  proto- 
type of  all  the  faithful  in  Israel  (Gen.  xvii.  and 
xxii. ;  Heb.  xi.  17  sq.),  thus  also  with  Job  (Job  L 
2-42),  and  thus  also  with  many  other  pious  men  of 
the  old  covenant  down  to  Him  who  was  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  faith  (Heb.  v.  5-9 ;  xii.  2).  This 
story,  therefore,  is  a  practical  enunciation  of  the 
truth  which  extends  throughout  the  entire  Scrip- 
tures, and  is  a  fundamental  law  of  the  divine 
economy  of  salvation:  the  Lord  "hath  set  apart 
him  that  is  godly  for  himself"  (Ps.  iv.  3).  It  is  Ha 
who  killetli  and  maketh  alive,  that  bringeth  down 
to  the  grave  and  bringeth  up  (1  Sam.  ii.  6).  They 
who  please  God  are  preserved  through  the  fire  of 
adversity  (Sir.  ii.  5).  "  All  the  paths  of  the  Lord 
are  mercy  and  truth  unto  such  as  keep  His  cove- 
nant and  His  testimonies"  (Ps.  jiv.  10).  The 
glory  of  God  is  the  end  and  aim  of  the  entire  story, 
and  the  work  of  the  prophet  serves,  here  as  ever, 
only  to  reach  this  end. 

5.  The  resuscitation  of  the  boy  must  remain  un- 
der all  circumstances,  however  we  may  conceive 
of  it,  extraordinary,  marvellous,  produced  by  the 

Spirit  (rm)  of  Jehovah.     Starke,  following  Cleri- 

cus,  says :  "  The  spirit  of  natural  life  was  not 
warmed  into  life  by  the  warmth  of  the  prophet, 
but  by  an  extraordinary  power  and  energy  of  God ; 
and  the  touch  of  the  prophet,  in  itself,  was  as  littlo 
able  to  bring  back  warmth  and  life  as  the  toucli  of 
the  staff."  No  one  will  adopt  now-a-days  the  mar- 
vellous explanations  which  Knobel  (Der  Prophet. 
ii.  s.  96)  proposes :  "  The  prophet  gave  a  powder  to 
the  boy  and  thus  removed  the  headache ;  or,  the 
child  had  perhaps  eaten  of  some  poisonous  plant, 
and  the  prophet  relieved  him  of  the  poison  by  an 
emetic."  The  opinion  also,  which  is  advanced 
here,  on  account  of  ver.  34,  still  more  confidently, 
even,  than  on  1  Kings  xvii.  20,  that  the  boy  was 
restored  to  life  by  the  application  of  animal  mag- 
netism, and  that  Gehazi  was  not  able  to  accomplish 
this  on  account  of  the  antipathy  between  him  and 
the  mother  (Ennemoser  and  Passavant),  must  be 
decidedly  contradicted.  The  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  no  mesmerizers,  but  servants  of 
Jehovan,  who  "stood  before  Him,"  and  whose 
business  it  was  to  bear  witness  of  Him  in  word  and 
deed.  All  the  great  and  marvellous  works  which 
they  performed  were  a  result  of  earnest  prayer, 
and  followed  upon  their  most  hearty  petitions  (see 
above,  1  Kings  xvii.  Hist.  §  6).  We  are  not  willing, 
therefore,  to  adopt,  with  Von  Gerlach,  the  opin.on 
that  "a  genuine  life-energy  was  imparted  to  the 
boy  from  the  body  of  Elisha,  which  was  filled  with 
the  Spirit  of  Gotl,"  for  the  Spirit  of  God  wrought 
through  the  prophets;  but  that  it  filled  their  bodies 
is  an  idea  foreign  to  the  Scriptures.  The  question 
whether  the  boy  was  utterly  dead,  and  every  sign 
of  life  had  departed  from  him,  is  a  very  different  one. 
He  is  certainly  referred  to  as  dead,  vers.  20  and  32. 
We  cannot,  however,  overlook  the  fact  that,  if  he 
had  been  dead,  decomposition  must  have  set  in 
long  before  Elisha's  arrival  at  Shunem.  If  he 
died  at  noon  (ver.  20),  and  his  mother  set  out  at 
once,  she  must  have  spent  six  hours  in  the  jour- 
ney. If  we  suppose  besides  that  Gehazi  went  all 
the  way  from  Carmel  to  Shunem  on  foot,  and  that 
he  returned  from  there  again  and  met  the  prophet 
and  the  mother  on  the  way,  so  that  these  two  did 
not  arrive  until  still  later,  then  certainly  more  than 


48 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


twelve  hours  had  passed  since  the  decease  of  the 
child.  In  the  Orient,  however,  decomposition  com- 
mences much  sooner  than  among  us,  especially  in 
the  warm  harvest-season  (ver.  18).  With  refer- 
ence to  the  law,  Numb.  xix.  11,  according  to  which 
the  touching  a  corpse  makes  unclean,  the  Talmud- 
ists.  as  Philippson  observes,  raised  the  question: 
"  Did  the  son  of  the  Shunammite  render  unclean  ? 
and  the  auswer  is:  »n  SDDO  WW  XDDS  TO  (a 
corpse  makes  unclean,  but  not  a  living  body)."  So 
much  at  least  is  clear  from  this,  that  they  did  not 
consider  the  boy  a  real  corpse,  although  they  did 
not  deny  the  miracle.  That  the  act  of  Elisha  can- 
not in  any  wise  be  compared  with  the  restoration  to 
life  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain,  or  of  Lazarus, 
hardly  needs  to  be  mentioned. 

6.  Gehazi's  mission  to  Shitnem,  since  it  was  un- 
successful and  had  no  effect  whatever  upon  the 
development  of  the  story,  might  have  been  left 
unmentioned.  That  it  is  narrated,  however,  in  de- 
tail, is  all  the  more  a  proof  of  the  historical  truth 
of  the  entire  story,  inasmuch  as  it  cannot  serve  the 
glory  of  the  prophet  on  account  of  its  entire  want 
of  success.  It  is.  in  fact,  not  omitted,  because  it 
teaches  practically  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  with 
which  God  arms  His  servants,  the  prophets,  for 
extraordinary  deeds,  cannot  be  transferred  by  these 
to  others,  and  that  it  pertains  still  less  to  the  ex- 
ternal symbol  of  the  prophetical  calling,  so  that  not 
every  one  in  whose  hand  the  symbol  may  be  is 
thereby  put  in  a  position  to  execute  such  acts.  It 
was  not  so  much  the  mother  of  the  boy  who  was 
to  learn  this,  for  she  did  not  desire  that  Gehazi 
should  be  sent,  nor  Gehazi,  for  he  did  not  offer  to 
go,  but  was  called  upon  by  the  prophet  to  do  so, 

as  it  was   Elisha  himself.     The   gift  of  the   ni"l 

or  Spirit  is  not  an  habitual,  permanent  one,  but 
one  which  is  given  specially  for  each  occasion,  and 
which  the  prophet  cannot  dispose  of  according  to 
his  own  good-will  and  pleasure.  As  it  had  not 
been  made  known  to  Elisha  by  Jehovah  that  the 
boy  %vas  dead  or  would  die,  so  the  command  had 
not  been  given  to  him  by  God  that  he  should  give 
Gehazi  a  commission  for  the  deed,  and  intrust  his 
Blaff  to  him.  Out  of  anxiety,  lest  the  prophet's 
credit  might  suffer  if  the  cause  of  the  failure  of 
this  mission  was  sought  in  him,  it  was  very  early 
thought  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  an  allegori- 
cal interpretation.  The  dead  boy  was  said  to  sig- 
nify the  human  race,  which  had  fallen  under  death 
on  account  of  sin;  the  staff  with  which  Gehazi 
thought  that  he  could  awake  the  dead  boy,  repre- 
sented the  Law  of  Moses,  which  could  not  save 
from  sin  and  death ;  Elisha,  finally,  who  afterwards 
brought  the  dead  to  life,  was  a  type  of  the  Son  of 
God,  who.  by  his  incarnation,  put  himself  in  connec- 
tion with  our  nesh  (ver.  34),  and  imparted  new  life 
to  humanity.  This  interpretation  is  found  from  the 
time  of  Origen  on,  in  all  centuries,  and  even  in  the 
most  modern  times  it  has  been  adopted  by  Cassel 
Elisa,  s.  42  sq.).  However  imaginative  and  edifying 
t  may  be,  it  has  no  foundation  in  the  text. 

7.  The  third  and  fourth  narratives  (vers.  38^44) 
belong  together,  because  both  concern  the  circle 
of  sons  of  the  prophets.  Whereas  in  the  first  two 
narratives  it  is  individual  faithful  servants  of  Je- 
hovah, who  experience,  through  the  prophet,  His 
marvellous,  protecting,  helping,  and  saving  might, 
here  it  is  the  entire  community  of  sons  of  the 
prophets,  that  is  to  say,  of  those  who,  in  the  time 


of  apostasy,  form  the  core  of  the  covenant-people, 
and  represent  the  true  Israel.  The  two  narrative! 
are  not,  therefore,  inserted  here  accidentally  and 
without  connection,  but  they  join  on  very  fitly  tt 
the  two  preceding.  They  have  not  the  object,  how- 
ever, any  more  than  those  have,  to  present  Elisha 
to  us  as  a  thaumaturge  and  to  glorify  him :  on  the 
contrary  they  are  intended  to  strengthen  faith  in 
Him  whose  instrument  and  servant  the  prophet  is. 
They  teach  and  attest  practically  the  truth  of  the 
Psalmist's  words  (Ps.  xxxiii.  18,  19),  which  wo 
might  even  place  over  them  as  a  title,  "  Behold  tn» 
eye  of  the  Lord  is  upon  them  that  fear  Him ;  upon 
them  that  hope  in  His  mercy;  to  deliver  their  soul 
from  death  (vers.  38^1),  and  to  keep  them  alive  in 
famine  "  (vers.  42—44).  At  the  same  time  both  nar- 
ratives afford  us  an  insight  into  the  schools  of  the 
prophets.  In  the  same  place  where  the  sous  of 
the  prophets  "sat  before  him,"  i.  e.,  received  in- 
struction, there  they  also  ate  together,  i.  e.,  they 
led  a  life  of  close  fellowship  and  communion  (cf. 
Luke  xv.  2 ;  1  Cor.  v.  1 1  sq.).  It  follows  that  this 
life  in  common  was  anything  but  luxurious,  on  the 
contrary  that  it  was  a  life  of  sacrifice.  How 
straitened  the  circumstances  were  in  which  they 
lived  we  may  see  from  the  fact  that  Elisha  had  tc 
send  one  of  their  number  into  the  field  to  collect 
wild  herbs  before  the  mi  '.-day  meal  could  be  pre- 
pared, and  also  that,  later,  the  little  which  one  man 
brought  had  to  suffice  for  a  hundred  men.  From 
this  it  follows  either  that  the  pupils  of  the  proph- 
ets were  poor  by  birth,  or  that  they  had  decided  to 
live  a  life  of  sacrifice  and  self-denial.  Neverthe- 
less, their  number  was  large,  and  the  fact  that  even 
bitter  want  could  not  separate  them  from  one  an- 
other and  break  up  the  community,  is  a  beautiful 
sign  of  the  purity  of  their  motives  and  of  their 
faithful  zeal. 

8.  Both  prophetical  acts  of  Elisha  in  the  cit  cle  of 
the  pupils  of  the  prophets  have  been  referred  to 
quite  ordinary  incidents.  In  the  first  it  has  been 
said  that  Elisha  showed  himself  a  "  remarkable 
student  of  nature  for  the  time  in  which  he  lived  " 
(Knobel,  (.  c,  s.  95),  just  as  in  chap.  ii.  20  sq.  and 
iii.  16  sq.  If  he  had  been  such,  however,  he  would 
certainly  have  known  that  no  one  can  make  a  pot 
full  of  bitter  and  poisonous  herbs  uninjurious  by 
simply  adding  a  handful  of  meal.  Hence  the  Exe- 
get.  Bandhuch  des  Alt.  Test,  believes  that  the  prophet 
may  have  added  something  else,  does  not  tell,  how- 
ever, what  this  something  else  was,  nor  whence  he 
got  it.  Theodoret  observes  that  it  was  not  >'/  tov 
aXevfiov  (pvaic,  but  ?/  tov  wpotyr/TiKov  TrvebflOTOG 
Siva/ill,  which  weakened  or  destroyed  the  action 
of  the  poison.  The  meal  was  here  only  a  natural 
and  appropriate  sign  of  healthful  nourishment. 
The  truth  underlying  the  second  story  is  thought 
to  be  "  that  the  sons  of  the  prophets  were  pro- 
tected by  Elisha's  wise  precaution  during  that  time 
of  famine  "  (Knobel,  s.  91).  In  that  case  Elisha 
must  have  sent  orders  to  the  man  of  Beth-Shalisha 
beforehand,  and  his  precaution,  since  the  man  only 
brought  twenty  barley-loaves,  which  were  not 
enough  for  so  many,  would  have  been  insufficient 
and  not  by  any  means  wise.  Neither  does  the 
narrative  contain  "the  moral,  that  the  believer  can 
satisfy  his  earthly  needs  even  with  scanty  means  " 
(Koster,  Die  Prophet,  s.  88),  for  the  prophet  does 
not  mean  to  give  an  example  of  the  way  in  which 
we  ought  to  behave,  but  he  states  what  Jehovai 
will  do.     It  is  not  he  who  brings  about  the  satis 


CHAPTER  IV.   1-14. 


49 


faction  of  their  hunger,  but  Jehovah ;  he  only  fore- 
tells it  and  announces  it.  Jehovah  ordered  it  so 
that  a  strange  man,  uncalled  and  unexpected, 
should  bring  to  the  prophet  in  a  time  of  famine 
the  first-fruits,  which  belong  to  Jehovah  according 
to  the  Law  (Numb.  xv.  19,  20;  Deut.  xxvi.  2  sq.), 
and  He  blessed  this  gift  so  that  it  sufficed  to  sat- 
isfy the  entire  community  of  the  prophets.  Hence 
it  follows  that  this  feeding  cannot  be  regarded  as  a 
type  of  the  miraculous  feedings  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment, and  that  we  cannot  say:  "Jesus  taught  on 
a  grand  scale  what  Elijah  taught  on  a  small  scale  " 
(Dereser) ;  still  less  can  the  New  Testament  inci- 
dents be  regarded  as  imitations  and  mythical  de- 
velopments of  this.  The  Lord  Himself,  at  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  makes  reference,  not 
to  this  narrative,  but  to  the  feeding  of  the  people 
with  manna  in  the  wilderness  (Kx.  xvi.  15  sq.),  and 
He  gives  to  His  miracle  an  express  object  and  sig- 
nificance (John  vi.  32  sq.),  such  as  we  cannut  at 
all  think  of  in  this  case.  Besides  that,  however, 
the  historical  connection,  the  occasion,  the  persons, 
all  are  utterly  different,  and  the  asserted  similarity 
is  reduced  finally  simply  to  this,  that  through  the 
divine  influence  a  little  suffices  for  many :  an  alto- 
gether ordinary  truth  which  pierces  through  many 
other  incidents  in  the  history  of  redemption,  which 
are  entirely  different  from  tins  one. 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-?.  Kroimacher:  The  Story  of  the 
poor  Widow,  (o)  Her  distress;  (b)  she  seeks  re- 
fuge in  the  prophet,  and  (c)  finds  it. — Help  in 
Need,  (a)  The  woman  who  receives  assistance. 
(Widow  of  a  God-fearing  man,  burdened  by  debt, 
and  without  resources;  mother  of  two  children, 
who  are  to  be  taken  from  her;  her  faith  and  trust ; 
her  gratitude.  Such  are  always  helped.)  (b)  The 
prophet  who  assists  her.  (As  a  genuine  prophet 
of  God  he  does  not  stop  his  ears  to  the  cry  of  the 
poor,  like  the  creditor,  Prov.  xxi.  13.  He  knows 
that  he  who  has  compassion  on  the  widows  and 
fatherless  thereby  serves  God,  James  i.  27.  Gold 
and  silver  he  has  not,  but  he  employs  the  gift 
which  he  has  received,  and  does  not  stop  with 
words.  Go  and  do  likewise,  1  Peter  iv.  10  ;  James 
iL  14-17.) — Wurt.  Summ.  :  Our  Lord  and  God  al- 
lows it  to  come  to  pass  that  widows  and  orphans 
are  often  distressed  and  harshly  treated  in  order 
to  try  their  faith  and  patience;  if  they  show  them- 
selves upright,  trust  in  God,  have  patience  and 
pray  diligently,  then  God  helps  them  marvellously, 
blesses  a  little  to  them,  that  they  may  have  all 
necessary  maintenance,  and  may  find  it  sufficient, 
and  He  saves  them,  at  the  proper  time,  from  the 
hands  of  their  oppressors.  With  this  reflection  all 
widows  and  orphans,  when  they  are  poor,  aban- 
doned, and  oppressed,  must  console  themselves,  if 
their  nourishment  is  scanty,  and  they  are  besides 
unkindly  regarded  by  the  world. — Ver.  1.  Starke: 
A  good  reputation  after  death.  He  feared  God  I 
See  to  it  that  thou,  also,  after  thy  departure,  mayest 
with  justice  have  this  name,  for  all,  all  must  de- 
part, but  he  who  doeth  the  will  of  God  abideth 
forever  (1  John  ii.  17). — He  who  fears  God  will 
not  make  debts  thoughtlessly;  but  for  him  who 
falls  into  debt  innocently  God  will  find  means  of 
payment  in  time. — Summum  jus,  summa  injuria. 
We  may  be  entirely  in  the  right  and  act  perfectly 
seceding  to  the  law,  in  the  eyes  of  men,  while 


we  are  in  the  wrong  and  are  sinning  against  the 
highest  law  before  God.  See  James  ii.  13. — Ver. 
2.  Starke:  As  God  readily  hears  the  cry  3f  the 
poor  and  suffering  (Ps.  cxlv.  18,  19),  so  do  also  His 
servants  and  children. — Vers.  3-5.  Cramer:  In 
temporal  affairs  experience  must  precede  and  faith 
follow:  in  spiritual  affairs  faith  must  precede,  and 
then  experience  follows,  for  we  do  not  find  out  the 
truth  unless  belief  in  God's  Word  has  preceded 
(John  vii.  17). — Ver.  5.  Whatever  a  man  does  in 
the  obedience  of  faith,  whether  it  appears  foolish 
or  vain  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  is  nevertheless 
blessed  by  God,  and  redounds  to  his  soul's  health. 
— Ver.  6.  Hall:  The  goodness  of  God  gives  grace 
according  to  the  measure  of  those  who  receive  it ; 
if  He  ceases  to  pour  it  into  our  hearts,  it  is  because 
there  is  no  more  room  there  to  receive  it-  If  wo 
could  receive  more  He  would  give  more. — Ver.  7. 
It  means  are  given  thee  to  satisfy  thy  creditor,  let 
it  be  thy  first  duty  to  pay  him  before  thou  carest 
for  thyself!  He  who  can  pay  his  debts,  but  wiL 
not,  takes  what  does  not  beloug  to  him  and  sins 
against  the  eighth  commandment. — Vox  Geb- 
lach:  When  the  Lord  p-ives  there  is  always  some 
thing  left  over  and  above;  He  never  merely  takes 
away  disrress,  He  gives  a  blessing  besides.  He 
desires,  however,  that  the  obligation  to  our  neigh- 
bor should  first  be  satisfied  before  we  begin  to 
enjoy  His  biessing. 

Vers.  8-37.  God's   Ways   with    His   Children. 
See  Historical,  §  3. — Bender:  Elisha  in  Shunem. 

(a)  The  kind  reception  which  he  there  met  with; 

(b)  the  great  deeds  by  which  he  there  glorified  the 
name  of  his  God. — Krummacher:  The  Story  of 
the  Shunammite.  (a)  The  shelter  at  Shunem ;  (4) 
the  grateful  guest;  (c)  the  dying  boy ;  (d)  Gehazi 
with  Elisha's  staff;  (e)  the  resuscitation  of  the 
dead. — The  Shunammite,  a  woman  after  God's  own 
heart.  Wurt.  Summ.  :  She  loved  God's  word  and 
His  servant,  the  prophet  Elisha,  and  she  did  him 
much  good  out  of  her  fortune;  she  led  a  quiet, 
modest  life,  so  that  she  had  no  affairs  at  the  royal 
court  or  at  law;  she  held  her  husband  in  honor, 
and  did  not  wish  to  undertake  any  journey  with- 
out his  permission  ;  she  was  able  to  strike*  a  mid 
die  course,  and  she  knew  how  to  conduct  herself 
so  that  she  did  not  anger  God,  nor  give  offence  to 
her  neighbors. 

Vers  8-17.  The  house  at  Shunem,  a  tabernacle 
of  God  amongst  men,  for  there  dwelt  faith  and  love 
(vers.  8-11),  and  therefore,  also,  peace  and  bless- 
ing (vers.  12-17). — Ver.  8.  There  are  always,  among 
those  whose  lot  it  is  to  have  wealth,  some  who  do 
not  attach  their  hearts  to  it  (Ps.  Ixii.  10),  and  do 
not  trust  in  uncertain  riches,  but  in  the  living  God 
(1  Tim.  vi.  17,  18):  who  have  not  become  satiated 
and  indifferent  in  their  hearts,  but  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness,  and  have  an  earnest  de 
sire  for  the  bread  of  life.  The  servants  of  the 
Word   ought   not   to   withdraw   themselves    from 

these,  but  advance  to  meet  them  in  every  way. 

Berleb.  Bibel:  God  always  gives  to  His' children 
pious  hearts,  so  that  they  open  their  houses  and 
shelter  strangers.  Though  the  Gadarenes  beg 
Him  to  depart  (Luke  viii.  37),  though  there  are 
Samaritans  who  will  not  receive  Christ  (Luke  ii. 
52  sq.),  yet  there  is  always  a  good  soul  which  is 
glad  to  take  the  Lord  Jesus  and  receive  Him  to  it- 
self.— Bexder  :  He  who,  like  the  Shunammite,  hon- 
ors and  loves  the  Lord,  and  is  anxious  to  lead  a  life 
in  God,  honors  and  loves  also  the  servants  of  th« 


;>ii 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Lord,  and  seeks  their  society.  He  does  not  seek 
them,  however,  as  pleasant  companions,  or  merely 
in  order  to  claim  their  help  in  bodily  need,  but 
he  seeks  them  as  shepherds,  as  soul-physicians, 
as  guardians  of  God's  mysteries,  and  as  messen- 
gers in  Christ's  stead. — Vers.  8-11.  The  Shunam- 
mite  urges  the  holy  man  of  God  to  stay  at  her 
house  and  to  be  her  guest;  she  prepares  him  a 
dwelling  in  her  house.  He  who  is  more  than  a 
prophet  desires  to  take  up  his  residence  with  us. 
He  stands  before  the  door  and  knocks,  and  if  any 
man,  4c,  Rev.  iii.  20.  Let  us  prepare  the  dwell- 
ing for  Him,  and  pray  every  day :  Come,  Lord  Je- 
sus, be  our  guest!  and:  Remain  with  us,  for  the 
evening  is  drawing  on.  0 !  setiy  Haus  wo  man  Dicli 
auf'jtnommen,  iC'c.  (hymn  of  Spitta),  Matt.  xxv.  35, 
40. — Be  hospitable!  for  the  sake  of  the  Lord,  and 
with  joy,  without  murmuring  (Rom.  xii.  13;  Heb. 
xiii.  2 ;  1  Peter  iv.  9). — Vers.  9-10.  How  beauti- 
ful it  is  when  one  spouse  incites  the  other  to  holy 
works  of  love,  and  both  are  in  accord  therein ; 
when  husband  and  wife  understand  each  other  well, 
and  go  on  uninterruptedly  in  a  bond  of  pure  fidelity 
(Gerhardt's  hymn:  XYie  schbn  ists  dock,  <fcc). — 
Starke:  Husbands  should  not  restrain  their  wives 
from  kind  actions  toward  the  children  and  servants 
of  God. — Ver.  10.  J.  Laxge:  God  gives,  in  this 
eartlily  life,  not  only  what  is  absolutely  necessary, 
but  also  what  belongs  to  easiness  of  circumstances: 
a  fact  which  we  ought  also  to  recognize  with 
thanksgiving. — Ver.  11.  Hall:  Solitude  is  most 
advantageous  for  teachers  and  students  (Matt.  xiv. 
23).— Vers.  12-11.  What  the  Lord  says,  Matt.  x. 
40-42,  is  fulfilled  already  here,  under  the  old  cove- 
nant; how  much  more  will  it  be  fulfilled  under  the 
new  covenant. — The  Conversation  of  Klislia  with 
the  Shunammite.  (a)  The  question  of  Klislia.  (A 
question  inspired  by  gratitude,  although  the  wo- 
man had  far  more  reason  to  thank  him  than  he 
her,  for  cf.  1  Cor.  ix.  11.— Starke:  A  noble  heart 
does  not  like  to  receive  a  favor  and  make  no  re- 
turn, but  recognizes  its  obligation  to  return  it.  It 
is,  however,  also  a  test-question,  to  see  if  the  Shu- 
nammite had  received  him  in  the  name  of  a  prophet 
and  not  for  the  sake  of  a  reward,  or  for  any  tem- 
poral gain.  The  question  as  to  thy  wishes  is  a 
question  as  to  the  disposition  of  thy  heart.)  (b) 
The  answer  of  the  Shunammite.  ("I  dwell,"  Ac. 
She  asks  no  recompense  for  the  good  she  lias  done, 
she  wishes  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  court  of 
the  king,  and  the  great  ones  of  this  world,  she  has 
no  desire  "  for  high  things,  but,"  &c.  Rom.  xii. 
16 — a  sign  of  great  humility  and  modesty.  Al- 
though she  lacked  that  which  was  essential  to 
the  honor  and  happiness  of  an  Israelitish  wife, 
viz.,  a  son,  yet  she  was  contented,  and  no  word  of 
complaint  passed  her  lips — a  sign  of  great  con- 
tentment. He  who  is  godly  is  also  contented,  1 
Tim.  vi.  6,  and  says :  Howsoever  he  may  conduct 
my  affairs,  I  am  contented  and  silent.) — He  who  is 
at  peace  with  God  in  his  h-.ui  i,  lives  in,  and  pur- 
sues, peace  with  men  (Rom.  xii.  18;  Heb.  xii.  14). 
— Vers.  14-17.  Tiie  Lord,  according  to  His  grace 
and  truth,  remembers  even  the  wishes  which  we 
cherish  in  silence  and  do  not  express  before  men, 
and  He  often  gives  to  t'lose  who  yield  to  His  holy 
will  without  murmurs  or  complaints  just  that 
which  they  no  longer  dared  to  hope  for. — It  makes 
a  great  difference  whether  we  doubt  of  the  divine 
promises  from  unbelief,  or  from  humility  or  want 
of  confidence  in  ourselves    because  we  consider 


the  promises  too  great  and  glorious,  and  ourselves 
unworthy  of  them  (Gen.  xviii.  13  sq. ;  John  xi. 
23  sq.). 

Vers.  18-21.  Happiness  aniunhappiness,  joy  and 
sorrow,  stand,  here  upon  earth,  ever  side  by  side. 
There  is  no  unalloyed  happiness.  We  are  not  in  the 
world  simply  in  order  to  have  happy  days;  God 
sets  the  day  of  adversity  over-against  the  day  of 
prosperity  (Eccl.  vii.  14). — Man,  in  his  life,  is  like 
the  grass  (Ps.  ciii.  15,  '16).  The  death  of  loved 
children  comes  often  suddenly,  like  the  lightning 
from  a  clear  sky,  and  destroys  our  joy  and  our 
hopes.  Therefore  we  should  possess  these  gifts 
also,  as  not  possessing  them,  and  learn  to  believe 
that  God's  ways,  Ac.  (Isai.  Iv.  8,  9).  The  Lord  will 
not  abandon,  in  days  of  adversity,  him  who  trust? 
in  Him  in  days  of  prosperity.  He  who  in  the  lat- 
I  ter  has  learned  sobriety,  and  maintained  his  faith, 
will  not  be  without  wisdom  and  consolation  in  the 
former,  but  will  be  composed  in  all  adversity. — 
Ver.  22.  Starke:  A  pious  woman  does  nothing 
without  her  husband's  knowledge,  and  does  not 
willingly  call  his  attention  to  anything  by  which 
he  may  be  saddened. — Ver.  23.  Husbands  ought 
not  to  put  any  hindrance  in  the  way  of  their  wives 
when  they  wish  to  go  there  where  they  hope  to 
find  food  "for  their  souls,  and  counsel  and  consola- 
tion from  God.  Sundays  and  feast-days  are  not 
instituted  merely  that  we  may  rest  from  labor,  but 
that  we  may  hear  the  "Word  of  God,  and  be  edified 
thereby.  This  word  is  not,  indeed,  bound  to  any 
definite  time,  it  is  a  well  of  living  water,  from 
which  we  may  and  ought  to  take  at  any  time,  and 
satisfy  our  thirst  for  knowledge,  consolation,  and 
peace.  How  many  there  are,  however,  of  those 
who  do  not  do  this  even  on  Sundays  and  feast- 
days! — Vers.  25-28.  The  arrival  of  the  Shunam- 
mite at  Carmel.  (a)  She  receives  a  kind  welcome 
(Osiander:  Pious  people  have  hearty  love  for  each 
other,  aud  each  shares  in  the  other's  joy  aud  sorrow, 
Rom.  xii.  15),  but  she  conceals  from  Gehazi  that 
which  troubles  her  heart.  (Do  not  make  known  at 
once  to  ever}-  one  you  meet  that  which  distresses 
you,  but  keep  it  to  yourself  until  you  find  one  who 
understands  you,  and  whose  heart  you  have  tested, 
Sirach  xxi.  28.)  (6)  She  is  thrust  away  by  Gehazi 
(Beware  lest  thou  treat  harshly  sad  souls,  who  are 
overcome  by  grief,  and  who  seek  help  and  consola- 
tion, and  lest  thou  thrust  them  away  or  judge  them 
hastily.  Sir.  iv.  3 :  Do  not  cause  still  more  grief  to 
a  bruised  heart. — Berleb.  Bebel:  There  are  many 
servants  who  wish  to  hinder  others  from  familiarity 
because  it  appears  to  them  too  bold.  .  .  Magda- 
lens  are  thrust  away  from  the  feet  of  Jesus  Christ, 
aud  the  Pharisees  are  scandalized  at  them,  Luke 
vii.  38.  Elisha  receives  this  woman  in  a  friendly 
manner  and  listens  with  sympathy.  Sir.  vii.  38 
"Leave  not  those  who  mourn  without  consolation, 
but  sorrow  with  the  sorrowing."  Come,  in  thy  sor 
row,  to  Him  who  calls  the  sorrowful  and  the  heavy- 
laden  to  himself,  and  who  has  said  :  "  Hun  that 
cometh  unto  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out,"  John 
vi.  37.) — Vers.  29-31.  Gehazi's  Mission  to  Shunem. 
(a)  Elisha's  intention  in  sending  liim ;  (b)  the  fail- 
ure of  his  mission  (see  above,  the  Exeget.  and  Criti- 
ml  and  tin'  Historical  notes).  The  especial  gift 
which  God  lias  given,  out  of  free  grace,  to  one 
man,  cannot  be  transferred  by  him  to  another.  Lei 
every  one  serve  the  other  with  thai  gift  wllirh  lie 
has  received  (1  Peter  iv.  10),  for  we  are  not  aias 
ters  of  the  gifts  of  God,  but  only  stewards.     The 


CHAPTER  V.-VI.  7. 


5i 


•taff  of  the  prophet  is  of  no  use  if  the  spirit  and 
power  of  the  prophet  are  wanting.  Do  not  mistake 
the  sign  for  the  thing  signified.  It  is  God  alone 
who  can  help,  and  His  help  is  not  dependent  on 
external  instruments  and  signs. — 0 1  that  we  might 
all  sav,  as  this  woman  did  to  Elisha,  to  Him  who 
is  more  than  a  prophet,  with  firm  faith  and  confi- 
dence, from  the  bottom  of  the  heart:  "I  will  not 
leave  thee !  "  (Meinen  Jesum  lass  ich  niclit,  tc.) 
Then  would  He  also  go  with  us  in  all  need  and 
trial. — Vers.  32-37.  The  Resuscitation  of  the  Boy. 
(a)  The  preparation  therefor  (ver.  33;  cf.  Acts  ix. 
40;  Matt.  vi.  6).  Elisha  first  humbles  himself  be- 
fore the  Lord,  for  he  knows  that  it  is  He  alone 
who  can  kill  and  make  alive,  (b)  The  means  of 
which  he  makes  use  (vers.  34  and  35).  He  does 
not  weary,  but  continues  and  struggles  in  prayer. 
The  Lord  does  not  allow  great  deeds  to  be  accom- 
plished without  battles  and  struggles,  labor  and 
perseverance,  (c)  The  successful  accomplishment 
(vers.  35  and  36).  Elisha's  prayer  and  conflict  are 
crowned  with  success.  He  may  say:  There,  take 
thy  son!  and  the  mother  falls  on  her  knees,  and 
may  cry:  "Oh!  death,  where  is  thy  sting?  Oh! 
grave,  where  is  thy  victory?" — What  Elisha  did 
after  long  struggle  and  prayer,  He,  who  is  him- 
self the  resurrection  and  the  life,  did  with  a  single 
word  (Luke  vii.  14;  John  xi.  43),  that  we  may  be- 
lieve that  "The  hour  is  coming,"  &c.  (John  v.  25; 
xi.  26). — Ver.  37.  Genuine  gratitude  and  thanks- 
giving, when  God  has  done  great  things  for  us, 
consists  in  this,  that  we  bow  ourselves  humbly, 
and  fall  down  upon  our  knees  and  say:  ''Lord,  I 
am  not  worthy,"  &c.  (Gen.  xxxii.  10). 

Vers.  38-44.  The  high  Significance  of  both  the 
Acts  which  Elisha  performed  among  the  Pupils  of 
the  Prophets,  (o)  He  makes  the  poisonous  food 
healthful  (vers.  38^41);  (b)  he  feeds  many  with  a 
little  (vers.  42-44) ;  (see  Historical). — The  sons  of 
the  prophets  in  time  of  scarcity.  They  had  to  strug- 
gle with  want  and  distress,  but  no  want  could  hin- 


der them  from  entering  the  community,  or  could 
induce  them  to  separate.  Life  in  common,  in  faith, 
in  prayer,  in  the  praise  of  God,  was  dearer  to  them 
than  pleasant  days,  and  enjoying  the  pleasures  of 
sin  in  this  world  (Heb.  xi.  25).  Hence  they  ex- 
perienced also  the  trnth  of  the  words :  '•  I  will 
never  leave  thee  nor  forsake  thee  "  (Heb.  xiii.  5 ; 
cf.  Ps.  xxxiii.  18  and  19).— Ver.  38.  Where  unity 
of  spirit  and  true  love  call  people  together  to  a 
common  meal,  there  is  no  need  of  great  prepara- 
tions and  expensive  dishes ;  they  are  readily  satis- 
fied with  the  simplest  food  (Prov.  xv.  17;  xvii.  1). 
— Ver.  39.  Calwer  Bibel:  The  poor  are  here,  as 
they  so  often  are,  in  great  distress  ;  the  most  ne- 
cessary means  of  subsistence  often  fail  them. — 
Ver.  40.  Death  in  the  pot !  Fear  of  death ;  means 
of  rescue  from  it. — It  is  often  with  spiritual  'ood 
as  it  is  with  bodily  food ;  it  looks  as  if  it  were 
healthful  and  nourishing,  i.  e.,  the  words  are  beau- 
tiful and  attractive,  and  yet  there  is  soul-poison  in 
it,  which  is  destructive,  if  we  are  uot  on  our  guard 
against  receiving  it. — Vers.  42-44.  Krujijiacher: 
The  man  with  the  loaves,  Elisha's  command,  Ge- 
hazi's  confusion. — Ver.  42.  By  accident  a  strange 
man  comes  and  brings  what  is  needed.  How  many 
times  that  has  occurred  I  The  Lord  sent  him  and 
opened  his  heart,  for,  when  God  has  found  us 
faithful,  and  perceived  no  hypocrisy  in  us,  He 
comes  before  we  know  it,  and  causes  great  good 
fortune  to  befall  us. — Ver.  43.  "Give  the  people, 
that  they  may  eat."  The  Lord  gives  in  order  that 
we  may  give,  and  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than 
to  receive  (Heb.  xiii.  16;  Acts  xx.  35). — Ver.  44. 
What  the  Lord  said:  "They  shall  eat,  and  shall 
leave  thereof," holds  true  still,  to  day;  all  depends 
upon  His  blessing.  Ps.  cxxvii.  1. — Ktburz:  God 
can  bless  a  little  and  increase  it,  so  that  we  shall 
find  ourselves  as  well  provided  for,  nay,  even  have 
as  much  to  spare,  as  many  who  have  much  and 
yet  are  not  satisfied,  because  there  is  no  blessing 
upon  it  (Matt.  iv.  4). 


B. —  The  healing  of  Naaman,  punishment  of  Gehazi,  and  recovery  of  a  lott  axe. 

Chap.  V.-VI.  7. 


1  Now  Naaman,  captain  of  the  host  of  the  king  of  Syria,  was  a  great  man  with 
his  master,  and  honorable  [honored],  because  by  him  the  Lord  had  given 
deliverance  unto  Syria  :  he  was  also  a  mighty  man  in  valor,  but  he  was  a  leper. 

2  And  the  Syrians  had  gone  out  by  companies  [in  marauding  bands],  and  had 
brought  away  captive  out  of  the  land  of  Israel  a  little  maid  ;  and  she  waited  on 

3  Naaman's  wife.     And  she  said  unto  her  mistress,  Would  God  my  lord  were  with 

4  the  prophet  that  is  in  Samaria!  for  he  would  recover  him  of  his  leprosy.  And 
one  |  he,  i.  e.,  Naaman]  went  in,  and  told  his  lord,  saying.  Thus  and  thus  said 

6  the  maid  that  is  of  the  land  of  Israel.  And  the  king  of  Syria  said,  Go  to,  go, 
and  I  will  send  a  letter  unto  the  king  of  Israel.  And  he  departed,  and  took 
with  him  ten  talents  of  silver,  and  six  thousand  joieces  of  gold,  and  ten  changes 

6  of  raiment.  [ ,  ]  And  he  brought  the  letter  [omit  the  letter]  to  the  king  of 
Israel  [the  letter],  saying  [which  was  to  this  effect]  :  Now  when  this  letter  is 
come  unto  thee,  behold,  I  have  therewith  sent  Naaman  my  servant  to  thee,  that 

7  thou  mayest  recover  him  of  his  leprosy.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  king 
of  Israel  had  read  the  letter,  that  he  rent  his   clothes,  and  said,  Am  I  God,  to 


52  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

kill  and  to  make  alive,  that  this  man  doth  send  unto  me  to  recover  a  man  of  his 
leprosy  ?  Wherefore,  [Nay  !  only]  consider,  I  pray  you,  and  see  how  he  seeketh 
a  quarrel  against  7ne. 

8  And  it  was  so,  when  Elisha  the  man  of  God  had  heard  that  the  king  of  Israel 
had  rent  his  clothes,  that  he  sent  to  the  king,  saying,  Wherefore  hast  thou  rent 
thy  clothes  ?  let  him  come  now  to  me,  and  he  shall  know  [learn]  that  there  is  a 

9  prophet  in  Israel.     So  Naaman  came  with  his  horses  and  with  his  chariot,  and 

10  stood  at  the  door  of  the  house  of  Elisha.  And  Elisha  sent  a  messenger  unto  him, 
saying,  Go  and  wash  in  Jordan  seven  times,  and  thy  flesh  shall  come  again  to 

11  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  clean.  But  Naaman  was  wroth,  and  went  away,  and 
said,  Behold,  I  thought,  he  will  surely  come  out  to  me,  and  stand,  and  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  and  strike  his  hand  over  the  place,  and  recover 

12  the  leper  [heal  the  leprosy].  Are  not  Abana1  and  Pharpar,  rivers  of  Damascus, 
better  than  all  the  waters  of  Israel  ?  may  I  not  wash  in  them,  and  be  clean  ?     So 

13  he  turned  and  went  away  in  a  rage.  And  his  servants  came  near,  and  spake 
unto  him,  and  said,  My  father,  if  the  prophet  had  bid  thee  do  some  great  thing, 
wouldst  thou  not  have  done  it  ?  how  much  rather  then,  when  he  saith  to  thee, 

14  Wash,  and  be  clean  ?  Then  he  went  down,  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in 
Jordan,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God  :  and  his  flesh  came  again 
like  unto  the  flesh  of  a  little  child,  and  he  was  clean. 

15  And  he  returned  to  the  man  of  God,  he  and  all  his  company,  and  came,  and 
stood  before  him :  and  he  said,  Behold,  now  1  know  that  there  is  no  God  in  all 
the  earth,  but  in  Israel :  now  therefore,  I  pray  thee,  take  a  blessing  [token  of 

16  gratitude  from — omit  of|  of  thy  servant.  But  he  said,  As  the  Lord  liveth,  before 
whom  1  stand,  I  will  receive  none.      And  he  urged  him  to  take  it  /  but  he 

17  refused.  And  Naaman  said,  Shall  there  not  then  [If  not,  then  let  there],  I  pray 
thee,  be  given  to  thy  servant  two  mules'  burden  of  earth  ?  [,]  for  thy  servant 
will  henceforth  ofler  neither  burnt-offering  nor  sacrifice  unto  other  gods,  but 

18  unto  the  Lord.3  In  this  thing  the  Lord  pardon  thy  servant,  [;]  that  [omit 
that]  when  my  master  goeth  into  the  house  of  Rimmon  to  worship  there,  and 
he  leaneth  on  my  hand,  and  I  bow  myself  in  the  house  of  Rimmon :  [;]  when 
I  bow  down  myself3  in  the  house  of  Rimmon,  the  Lord  pardon  thy  servant  in 

19  this  thing.  And  he  said  unto  him,  Go  in  peace.  So  he  departed  from  him  a 
little  way  [some  distance]. 

20  But  Gehazi,  the  servant  of  Elisha  the  man  of  God,  said,  Behold,  my  master 
hath  spared  Naaman  this  Syrian,  in  not  receiving  at  his  hands  that  which  he 
brought :  but,  as  the  Lord  liveth,  I  will  run  after  him,  and   take  somewhat  of 

21  him.  So  Gehazi  followed  after  Naaman.  And  when  Naaman  saw  him  running 
after  him,  he  lighted  down  from  the  chariot  to  meet  him,  and  said,  Is  all  well? 

22  And  he  said,  All  is  well.  My  master  hath  sent  me,  saying,  Behold,  even  [just] 
now  there  be  come  to  me  from  mount  Ephraim  two  young  men  of  the  sons  of  the 
prophets :  give  them,  1  pray  thee,  a  talent  of  silver,  and  two  changes  of  gar- 

23  ments.  And  Naaman  said,  Be  content,  [pleased  to — omtt ,]  take  two  talents.  And 
he  urged  him,  and  bound  two  talents  of  silver  in  two  bags,  with  two  changes  of 
garments,  and  laid  them  upon  two  of  his  servants;  and  they  bare  them  before 

24  him.     And  when  he  came  to  the  tower  [hill]  he  took  them  from  their  hand,  and 

25  bestowed  them  in  the  house  :  and  he  let  the  men  go,  and  they  departed.  But 
he  went  in  and  stood  before  his  master.     And  Elisha  said  unto  him,  Whence 

26  earnest  thou,  Gehazi  ?  And  he  said,  Thy  servant  went  no  whither.  And  he  said 
unto  him,  Went  not  mine  heart  with  thee,  when  the  man  turned  again  from  his 
chariot  to  meet  thee?  Is  it  a  time  to  receive  money,  and  to  receive  garments, 
and  oliveyards,  and  vineyards,  and  sheep,  and  oxen,  and  men-servants,  and  maid 

27  servants?  The  leprosy  therefore  of  Naaman  shall  cleave  unto  thee,  and  unto 
thy  seed  forever.     And  he  went  from  his  presence  a  leper  as  white  as  snow. 

Chap.   VI.   1.     And  the  sons  of  the  prophets  said  unto  Elisha,  Behold  now, 

2  the  place  where  we  dwell  with  thee  is  too  strait  for  us.  Let  us  go,  we  pray 
thee,  unto  Jordan,  and  take  thence  every  man  a  beam,  and  let  us  make  us  a 

3  place  there,  where  we  may  dwell.     And  he  answered,  Go  ye.     And  one  said 


CHAPTER  V-VI.  7. 


53 


4  Be  content  [pleased],   I  pray  thee,  and   [to]  go  with  thy  servants.     And  h( 

5  answered,  I  will  go.     So  he  went  with  them.     And  when  they  came  to  Jordan, 
they  cut  down  wood.     But  as  one  was  felling  a  beam,  the  axe-head  fell  into  the 

6  water :  and  he  cried,  and  said,  Alas,  master  !  for  it  was  borrowed.     And  the 
man  of  God  said,  Where  fell  it  ?     And  he  cut    down  a  stick,  and  cast  it  in 

7  thither*;  and  [made]  the  iron  did  [to — omit  did]  swim.     Therefore  said  he,  Take 
it  up  to  thee.     And  he  put  out  his  hand,  and  took  it. 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 


-[Ken,  AmaDEL     See  Elegit. 

-[The  Sept.  join  the  first  two  words  of  the  next  verse  with  this  one.  Ttp  pT/^aTi  rovr^  because  of  this  thins 


'  Ver.  12.- 

*  Ver.  17.- 
— w.  G.  S.] 

1  Ver.  18. — Thenius  proposes  to  change  the  last  "  in  'JT*nn"."rO  to  1 ,  and  it  certainly  does  seem  better  to  do  so 
This  is  the  reading  of  the  Sept.  (w  T<ji  npoaKvvtlv  avToe),  aDd  of  the  Vuig.  (adorante  eo). — llahr. 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Now  Naaman  captain  of  the  host, 

tc.     The    1  with  which   the   narrative  begins,  is 

used  as  in  1  Kings  i.  1,  and  does  not  mark  the 
incident  as  having  occurred  immediately  after  the 
preceding.  We  cannot  decide  certainly  whether 
it  belongs  to  the  time  of  Jehoram  or  to  that  of  the 
house  of  Jehu.  In  any  case  it  refers  to  a  time 
when  the  relations  between  Syria  and  Israel  were 
not  hostile.  That  Naaman  was  the  man  who 
fatally  wounded  Ahab  is  a  mere  guess  of  the 
rabbis,  and  it  is  not  strengthened  at  all  by  the 
statement  of  Josephus :  iraic  ii  tic  fiaaikmbc  rov 
'A("df*oi',  'Afiavoc  bvofia.  Naaman  is  called  a  great 
man  in  so  far  as  lie  occupied  a  high  position  in  the 
service  of  the  king.  The  statement:  by  him  the 
Lord  had  given  deliverance  unto  Syria,  i.  e., 

victory,  does  not  compel  us  to  translate  ~>"n  "1133 

its  Thenius  does,  by  "a  man  of  great  physical 
strength;"  the  expression  marks  his  military  ability. 
Keil  takes  it  as  second  predicate :  "  The  man  was  a 
general  though  a  leper,"  meaning  that,  although  in 
Israel  lepers  were  excluded  from  all  human  society, 
in  Syria  a  leper  could  fill  even  a  high  civil  office. 
This  is  certainly  unfounded,  for  lepers  were  every- 
where physically  incapable  of  performing  import- 
ant duties.  JJ1VI3  is  evidently  used  by  contrast, 
whether  the  omission  of  the  1  connective  sharpens 

the  contrast  (Thenius)  or  not.  He  was  a  mighty 
military  chief,  but,  on  account  of  his  disease,  he 
could  not  fulfill  his  duties.  "  It  is  significant  that 
he  who  had  helped  to  gain  the  victory  over  Israel, 
is  represented  as  a  leper,  who  must  seek  help  in 
Israel,  and  who  finds  it  there "  (Thenius).  [By 
whom  the  Lord  had  given  deliverance.  In 
consistency  with  the  standing  conception  of  the 
Hebrews  that  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  all  the 
earth,  it  is  represented  as  a  dispensation  of  His 
providence  that   Naaman   had   won   victories   for 

Syria,  cf.  chap.  xix.  25  and  26. — W.  G.  S.]     -jjnX 

ver.  3,  as  in  Ps.  cxix.  5,  utinam.     The  word  r|DX 

I.  e.,  collect,  take  up,  receive,  designates  the  recep- 
tion into  the  society  of  men  which  followed  upon 
deliverance  from  leprosy  (Numb.  xii.  14). 

Ter.  5.  And  the  king  of  Syria  said,  &e.  We 
seo,  from  the  king's  readiness,  how  anxious  he  was 
for   the    restoration   of  Naaman.      The    treasures 


which  the  latter  took  with  him  were  very  valuable ; 
we  cannot,  however,  estimate  their  value  accu- 
rately. According  to  Keil  10  talents  of  silver  are 
about  25,000  thalers  ($1S,000),  and  6000  shekels  of 
gold  (  =  2  talents)  are  about  50,000  thalera 
($36,000);  according  to  Thenius  the  value  would 
be  20,000  thalers  and  60,000  thalers  ($14,400 
and  $4.3,200).  On  the  ten  changes  of  raiment,  cf. 
eifiarn  ef-Tifioi/ia  (Odyss.  viii.  249).  Winer:  "Ax 
Oriental  is  still  fond  of  frequent  changes  of  apparel 
(('en.  xli.  14;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  8;  2  Sam.  xii.  20), 
especially  of  grand  dresses  at  marriages  and  other 
celebrations  ^Niebuhr,  Reise,  i.  182)."  The  royal 
letter  is  abbreviated  in  ver.  6,  for  it  could  not 
begin  with  "  Now  when."  Only  the  main  passage 
is  given  here.  The  letter  was  simply  a  note  of 
introduction,  and  we  cannot  infer  from  the  words : 
That  thou  mayest  recover  him  of  his  leprosy, 
that  the  king  of  Israel  was  then  in  a  relation  of 
dependence  to  the  Syrian  king.  The  king  "  pro- 
bably thought  of  the  prophet,  of  whom  he  had 
heard  so  great  things,  as  the  chief  of  a  sort  of 
magi  ...  or  as  the  Israelitish  high-priest, 
who  could  probably  be  induced  to  undertake,  on 
behalf  of  a  foreigner,  those  ceremonies  and  func- 
tions of  his  office  from  which  so  great  results  were 
to  be  expected,  only  by  the  intercession  of  the 
king  "  (Menken).  The  king  of  Israel,  however,  so 
far  misunderstood  the  intention  of  the  letter  as  to 
suppose  that  he  himself  was  expected  to  perform 
the  cure;  he  thought  that  this  demand  was  only  a 
pretext,  in  order  to  briug  about  a  quarrel  with  him. 
He  was  thereby  so  frightened  and  saddened  that 
he  rent  Iris  clothes  (chap.  ii.  12;  1  Kings  xxi.  27). 
The  meaning  of  the  words  in  ver.  7  is  :  he  demands 
of  me  something  which  God  alone  can  do,  so  that  it 
is  clear  that  he  is  only  seeking  a  quarrel.  To  kill 
and  to  make  alive  is  the  province  of  that  Divinity 
alone  who  is  elevated  far  above  the  world 
(Dent,  xxxii.  39;  1  Sam.  ii.  6):  leprosy  was  re- 
garded as  the  equivalent  of  death  (Numb.  xii.  12) ; 
to  deliver  from  it  was  to  make  alive.  It  is  not 
probable  that  the  king  spoke  the  words :  Where- 
fore, consider,  in  the  solemn  audience  in  which 
the  letter  was  delivered  to  him  (Thenius) :  he 
uttered  this  suspicion  only  in  the  circle  of  his  most 
intimate  attendants. 

Ver.  8.  And  it  was  so  when  Elisha  the  mai 
of  God,  &c.  If  the  arrival  of  the  celebrated 
Syrian  with  his  retinue  caused  a  sensation,  still 
more  did  the  fact  that  the  king  rent  his  clothes;  tie 
news  of  it  came  speedily  to  the  prophet,  who  wu 
then   in   Samaria    (ver.    3).    and    not    in    Jericnj 


64 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


(Krummacher).  The  king,  in  his  fright,  either 
did  not  think  of  Elisha,  or  he  did  not  believe  at 
ail  that  there  was  any  one  who  could  help  in 
Buch  a  case.  Elisha  therefore  sends  to  him  to  re- 
mind him  that  there  is  a  prophet  in  Israel,  i.  e., 
that  the  God  who  can  kill  and  make  alive,  the  God 
of  Israel,  in  spite  of  the  apostasy  of  king  and 
people,  yet  makes  Himself  known,  in  His  saving 
might,  through  His  servants  the  prophets. — The 
house  of  Elisha,  before  the  door  of  which  Naaman 
stood  (ver.  9),  was  certainly  not  a  palace,  but 
rather  a  poor  hovel,  so  that  the  "  great  man  "  did 
not  go  in,  but  waited  for  the  prophet  to  come  out 
to  him,  and  receive  him  in  a  manner  befitting 
his  rank.  This,  however,  the  prophet  did  not  do, 
but  sent  a  message  to  him  to  instruct  him  what  he 
should  do.  The  idea  that  he  did  this  before 
Naaman  reached  his  house  (Koster)  contradicts  the 
words  of  the  text.  The  reason  why  Elisha  did  not 
come  out  was  not  that  he  was  wanting  in  polite- 
ness, or  that  he  was  influenced  by  priestly  pride, 
or  that  he  feared  the  leprosy,  or  avoided  intercourse 
with  a  leper  in  obedience  to  the  Law  (Knobel), 
but :  "  He  wanted  to  show  to  Naaman  once  for  all 
that  this  princely  magnificence,  this  splendor  of 
earthly  honor  and  %vealth,  did  not  affect  him  at  all, 
and  that  there  was  not  the  least  cause  in  all  this 
why  Naaman  should  be  helped.  Furthermore,  he 
wished  to  prevent  the  foreigner  from  thinking  that 
the  help  came  from  the  prophet,  and  that  he  had 
the  healing  power  in  himself,  and  also  to  prevent 
him  or  any  other  from  ascribing  the  cure  to  the 
application  of  any  external  means  :  for  the  Syrians 
knew  as  well  as  the  Israelites  that  the  Jordan 
could  not  heal  leprosy.  .  .  .  Naaman  was  to 
understand  that  he  was  healed  by  the  grace  and 
power  of  Almighty  God,  at  the  prayer  of  the  pro- 
phet "  (Menken). — Thy  flesh  shall  come  again 
to  thee,  &c.  In  leprosy  raw  Hesh  appears  and 
running  sores  are  formed,  so  that  the  diseased  per- 
son dies  at  last  of  emaciation  and  dropsy  (Winer, 
R.-W.-B.  i.  s.  115);  the  cure,  therefore,  consists  in 
the  restoration  of  Hesh. 

Ver.  1 1.  But  Naaman  was  wroth,  &c.  "  Not 
because  he  did  not  meet  with  becoming  honor  and 
attention,  but  because  none  of  the  religious  cere- 
monies which  he  had  expected  were  performed  " 
(Menken).  He  himself  tells  what  he  had  expected : 
Elisha's  brief  answer  sounds  to  him  like  scorn. 
The  river  Abana  (ver.  12),  or,  as  the  keri  has  it, 
Amana,  is  the  Xpvanpfidac  of  the  Greeks,  now  called 
Barada  or  Barady.  It  rises  in  Antilebanon,  and 
flows  through  Damascus  itself  in  seven  arms 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.  ii.  s.  194).  Pharpar,  i.e.,  the 
swift,  is  hardly  the  little  river  Fidseheh,  which 
flows  into  the  Barada,  but  the  larger,  independent 
stream  Avadsch,  south  of  Damascus  (see  Thenms 
<nd  Keil  on  the  passage).  Both  rivers,  as  mountain 
utreams,  have  clean  fresh  water,  and  Damascus  is 
•fllt-brated  to-day  for  its  pare  and  healthy  water; 
"whereas  the  Jordan  is  'a  deep,  sluggish,  dis- 
colored stream  '  (Robinson,  ii.  255,  ed.  of  1841),  so 
that  we  understand  how  Naaman  could  consider 
the  rivers  of  his  native  country  better "  (Keil). 
The  address:  My  father  (ver.  13),  is  at  once 
familiar  and  respectful,  as  in  chap.  vi.  21,  and 
I  Sam.  xxiv.  11  ;  the  attendants  addressed  him 
with    mild    words    and    sought    to    soothe    him. 

Thenius'  conjecture  that  '3N  is  corrupted  from  QX  , 

i/,  is  utterly  unnecessary.    -\21  ■  ■  ■  "OT  is  a  con- 


ditional sentence  without  Dx  and  the  object  pre 

cedes  for  emphasis  (Keil). — '3  C|X  as  in  2  Sam.  iv.  11 

— Tl>1  ver.  14,  means  he  journeyed  down,  i.  e.,  froir 

Samaria  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan. 

Ver.  15.  And  he  returned  to,  to  That  which 
Elisha  had  aimed  at  by  his  direction  in  ver.  10, 
namely,  not  merely  the  cure  of  the  leprosy,  but 
Naaman's  conversion  by  means  of  it  to  the  one  true 
God,  the  God  of  Israel,  was  gained,  as  Naaman 
himself  acknowledges :  Behold,  now  I  know,  Ac. 
At  the  same  time  he  desires  to  show  his  gratitude 
to  the  man  of  whom  God  had  made  use,  and  lie 
begs  him  earnestly  to  accept  a  gift  (rD"Q  as  in 

Gen.  xxxiii.  1 1 ;  1  Sam.  xxv.  27 ;  xxx.  26).  Although 
Elisha  on  other  occasions  accepted  gifts  for  himself, 
or  at  least  for  the  body  of  prophet-disciples  (cf. 
chap.  iv.  42),  yet  in  this  case  he  steadily  refused 
(ver.  16),  not  certainly  from  haughty  self-assertion 
in  his  dealings  with  the  great  Syrian,  but  to  show 
him  that  the  prophet  of  the  God  of  Israel  observed 
a  different  conduct  from  the  heathen  priests,  who 
allowed  themselves  to  be  richly  rewarded  for  their 
deceitful  services ;  especially,  however,  in  order  to 
establish  in  the  mind  of  the  healed  man  the  con- 
viction that  the  God  of  Israel  alone,  out  of  free 
grace  and  pity,  had  helped  him,  and  that  ne  owed 
to  that  God  sincere  and  lasting  gratitude.  The  re- 
fusal of  Elisha  must  have  made  a  deep  impression 
not  only  upon  Naaman,  but  also  upon  his  entire 
retinue.  As  Theodoret  observes,  there  lay  at  the 
bottom  of  this  refusal  the  feeling  that  our  Lord  de- 
manded of  His  disciples :  "  Freely  ye  have  received, 
freely  give." 

Ver.  17.  And  Naaman  said :  If  not,  let  there, 

then,  Ac.     X?l  =  nal  el  fir/,  as  the  Sept.  have,  not : 

ut  vis  (Vulg.),  nor:  "And  oh!"  (Ewald).  It  was 
not  Naaman's  object,  in  his  request  that  he  might 
take  a  load  of  earth  with  him,  to  "  sacrifice  to 
Jehovah  on  this  outspread  earth,  as  it  were  in  the 
Holy  Land  itself"  (Thenius),  but  he  wished  to  build 
an  altar  of  it.  Altars  were  often  made  of  earth ; 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering  even,  according  to  the 
Mosaic  Law,  was  to  be  of  earth  (Ex.  xx.  24 ;  Symbol, 
des  Mos.  Kult.  i.  s.  491).  It  is  almost  universally 
supposed  that  Naaman  was  subject  to  the  "  poly- 
theistic superstition,"  that  each  country  had  its 
own  deity,  who  could  be  worshipped  properly  only 
in  it,  or  on  an  altar  built  of  its  soil  (so  the  latest 
commentators:  Thenius,  Keil,  Von  Gerlach,  4c). 
But  if  Naaman  had  cherished  the  delusion  that 
every  land  had  its  own  God,  that  is  to  say,  that 
there  were  other  gods  by  the  side  of  and  besides 
the  God  of  Israel,  even  though  they  were  not  so 
mighty  as  He,  he  would  have  been  in  contradiction 
with  His  own  words  in  ver.  15  :  I  know  that  there 
is  no  God  in  all  the  earth  but  in  Israel,  and  he 
would  not  yet  have  grasped  the  main  point,  nor 
recognized  that  truth  which  forms  the  distinction 
of  the  Israelitish  religion  from  all  others,  viz.,  that 
Jehovah  alone  is  God,  and  that  there  is  no  other 
beside  Him  (Deut.  iv.  35;  xxxii.  39,  &c).  More- 
over, the  prophet  could  have  passed  over  this  de- 
lusion least  of  all  without  combating  it,  not  to  say 
anything  of  his  replying  to  it :  "  Go  in  peace."  He 
must,  at  the  very  least,  have  called  the  Syrian's  a' 
tention  to  this  error.  Peter  Martyr  explains  the 
desire  to  take  away  a  load  of  earth  quite  correctly  • 
hoc  si'jno  sua/n  contestatur  fidem  ergn  deum  Israelis 


CHAPTER  V.-VI.  7. 


55 


et  ed  terrd,  tanquam  symbolo,  voluit  ejus  admoneri. 
Not  because  he  ascribed  to  this  earth  an  especial 
magical  power,  but  because  Israel  was  the  land 
in  which  the  only  true  God  had  revealed  and  vindi- 
cated himself  to  His  people,  and  now  finally  to  him, 
did  he  wish  to  erect  an  altar  of  this  earl  1 1.  which 
should  be,  in  the  midst  of  a  heathen  country,  a  sign 
and  monument  of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  a  memo- 
rial of  the  prophet  of  that  God.  This  was  why  he 
did  not  take  the  load  of  earth,  as  he  might  have 
done,  from  any  indifferent  spot,  but  begged  it  of 
the  man  through  whom  he  had  been  brought  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  one  true  God.  His  request  was, 
therefore,  the  result  of  a  strong  and  joyful  faith 
rather  than  of  a  heathen  delusion.  If,  in  a  similar 
manner,  according  to  the  narrative  of  Benjamin  of 
Tudela,  cited  by  Thenius  on  this  passage,  the  syna- 
gogue at  Nahardea  in  Persia  was  built  only  of 
earth  and  stone  which  had  been  brought  from  Je- 
rusalem, it  was  so  built  by  the  strict  monotheistic 
Jews,  certainly  not  from  "polytheistic  supersti- 
tion." but  for  the  same  reasons  for  which  Naaman 
wished  to  build  his  altar  of  sacrifice  out  of 
Israeiitish  earth.  [See  bracketed  note  at  the  end 
of  Histor.  §  1.] 

Ver.  18.  In  this  thing  the  Lord  pardon,  etc. 
Rimmon  is  doubtless  a  designation  of  the  highest 
Syrian  divinity,  abbreviated  from  Hadad-Rimmon 
(Movers).  See  above,  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xv.  18.  It  is 
of  little  importance  for  us  whether  the  name  is  de- 
rived from  DO")  (D1"l)  «'•  «-,  to  be  high,  so  that  it  is 
equivalent  to  \xhyi   (Ps.  ix.  2 ;  xxi.  7),  or  from  jia-) 

pomegranate  (the  well-known  symbol  of  the  repro- 
ductive power). — The  expression  :  And  he  leaneth 
on  my  hand,  designates  a  service,  which  apper- 
tained to  a  high  official  (adjutant)  of  the  king,  on  oc- 
casions when  'he  latter  bowed  down  or  arose,  or 
performed  any  similar  ceremony.  This  service  was 
also  executed  at  the  court  of  the  Israeiitish  kings 
(chap.  vii.  2,  17).  The  urgency  of  the  request  is 
marked  by  the  repetition  of  the  words:  when  I 
bow  down.  The  meaning  of  the  request  is :  when  I, 
in  the  execution  of  any  duty,  accompany  my  king  to 
the  temple  of  Rimmon,  and  bow  down  when  he 
bows  down,  then  may  that  be  pardoned  me,  and 
may  I  not  be  regarded  as  worshipping  that  divinity. 
I  will  not  serve,  from  this  time  on,  any  God  but  Jeho- 
vah. Theodoret :  eioiLiv  kyu  rbv  a\Tfdivbv  TTpoonvvrjcu 
&e6v  ■  ovyyvu/i^c  Tv%elv  l/cerei'd/v,  bri  fiy  Sta  rr/v 
fiaaCkiK-riv  avayKTfv  eice?.deiv  irpbc  tov  il>evd(livvfiov 
debv  avaymCopai.      The  word  ninn"'n  ,  which  is 

used  of  prostration  before  men  as  well  as  before 
God,  and  so  in  itself  does  not  signify  a  purely  re- 
ligious act,  cannot  here  be  understood  of  an  act  of 
worship,  for,  if  it  could,  Naaman  would  say  in  ver. 
18  the  very  opposite  of  what  he  had  promised  in 
ver.  17,  and  Elisha  could  not  have  responded  to 
the  request  that  he  might  worship  Rimmon  besides 
Jehovah  with  the  blessing:  "  Go  in  peace."  Some 
have  very  unjustly  found,  in  the  request  that  he 
might  take  away  a  load  of  earth,  and  also  in  the 
prayer  that  he  might  be  forgiven  for  prostration  in 
the  house  of  Rimmon,  signs  that  his  faith  was  still 
wavering,  undecided,  and  weak.  It  rather  shows 
tr  at  he  had  a  tender  conscience,  which  desired  to 
avoid  an  appearance  of  denying  Jehovah,  and 
which  was  forced  to  speak  out  its  scruples  and 
have  them  quieted.  Such  scruples  would  not  have 
occurred  to  one  who  was  wavering  between  ser- 


vice of  God  and  service  of  the  gods. — According  tc 
Keil,  Elisha  meant  by  the  words :  Go  in  peace, 
ver.  19,  to  wish  for  the  Syrian,  on  his  departure, 
the  blessing  of  God,  "  without  approving  or  dis- 
approving the  religious  conviction  which  he  had 
expressed:"  or,  according  to  Von  Gerlach,  "  with- 
out entering  into  the  special  questions  involved." 
But  the  prophet  could  not  return  a  reply  to  a  request 
which  proceeded  from  conscientious  scruples,  such 
as  the  new  convert  here  presented,  nor  give  a  reply 
which  was  at  once  yes  and  no,  or  neither  the  one  noi 
the  other.  Naaman  was  to  proceed  on  his  journey 
"  in  peace,"  not  in  doubt  or  restless  uncertainty. 
If  his  request  had  been  incompatible  with  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  true  God,  the  prophet  would  have  beeD 
forced  to  show  him  that  it  was  so ;  he  could  not 
have  dismissed  him  with  an  ordinary,  indifferent 
"  formula  of  farewell."  That  he  omitted  the  cor- 
rection and  dismissed  him  in  peace,  shows  beyond 
question  that  he  acceded  to  the  request. 

Ver.  19  sq.  So  he  departed  from  him  a  little 
way,  &c.  Literally :  a  length  of  country,  as  in 
Gen.  xxxv.  16,  without  definite  measure.  It  cannot 
have  been  very  far  (a  parasang,  according  to  the 
Syrian  Version,  or  three  and  a  half  English  miles, 
according  to  Michaelis).  If  it  had  been  so  far 
Gehazi  could  not  have  overtaken  the  horses 
(ver.  9). — This  Syrian,  ver.  20,  Vulg. :  Syro  isti, 
i.  e.,  this  foreigner,  from  whom  he  would  have  had  a 
double  right  to  take  some  reward.  The  oath  :  As 
the  Lord  liveth,  stands  in  contrast  with  that  of 
Elisha,  ver.  16.  Blinded  by  his  avarice,  Gehazi 
considers  it  right  before  God  to  take  pay,  just  as 
Elisha,  in  his  fidelity,  considers  it  right  before  God 
to  accept  nothing. — Descent  from  a  vehicle  (ver.  21) 
is,  in  the  East,  a  sign  of  respect  from  the  inferior 
to  the  superior  (Winer.  R.-  W.-B.  i.  s.  501) ;  Naaman 
honored  the  prophet  in  his  servant.  "  From 
Gehazi's  hasty  pursuit  he  infers  that  something  un- 
fortunate for  the  prophet  has  occurred  "  (Thenius), 
and  askB,  therefore,  Rectene  sunt  omnia  t  (Vulg.) 
In  reply  to  Gehazi's  assertion  (ver.  22),  he  urges 
him  to  accept  two  talents,  one  for  each  prophet- 
disciple,  and  he  causes  the  money  to  be  borne 
before  Gehazi  in  two  sacks,  as  a  mark  of  his  eager 

willingness.     Whether  D't2~in  means  open-worked, 

basket-like  sacks,  with  handles  (Thenius),  or  not, 

can  hardly  be  determined  from  the  word. — ?pj?n 

(ver.  24)  is  not  a  proper  name  (Luther),  but  the  hill 
which  stood  before  the  house  of  Elisha,  not  before 
the  house  of  anybody  else,  an  acquaintance,  for  in- 
stance (Clericus). 

Ver.  25  and  26.  And  Elisha  said  unto  him, 

Ac.     The  words  of  Elisha:  7|i?n  'SP'tO ,  stand  in 

evident    contrast    with    the    words    of   Gehazi: 

Tn3V  7|^iT"tO  ,  and  mean  :  Thou  sayest  that  thou 

didst  not  go  anywhither ;  neither  did  I  go  away  any- 
whither,  i.  e.,  I  was  not  absent  when  Naaman  de- 
scended from  the  chariot   to   come  to  meet  thee. 

Instead  of  "  I,"  the  prophet  says  '35  ,  my  heart 

(1  Sam.  xvi.  7 ;  1  Kings  viii.  39 ;  Jerem.  xvii.  10, 
Ac),  because  he  was  not  present  there,  as  Gehaz-' 
was.  bodily  and  visibly,  but  in  spirit,  invisiblj 
(1  Cor.  v.  3).  Vulgata:  Nonne  cor  meum  in  prce- 
senti  erat  quando,  &c.  Thenius :  "  Did  I  not  go 
hence  in  spirit,  and  was  I  not  present  there  1 '      It 


56 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


is  not  necessary  to  take  it  as  a  question,  however, 

as  is  usually  done.     The  question  begins  with  nyn  . 

Ewald  takes  "my  heart"  to  mean  "my  favorite, 
so  that  Elisha  here  rather  refers  with  a  severe 
pleasantry  to  his  most  intimate  follower,  who 
could  so  far  transgress  against  his  master,  although 
he  was  his  favorite  pupil."  It  is  incredible  that 
the  prophet  could  have  introduced  the  hard  punish- 
ment of  Gehazi  (ver.  27)  with  a  jesting,  scornful 
question.  [This  rendering  of  Ewald :  "  Had  not 
my  dear  pupil  gone  forth  when  some  one  (i  e.,  Naa- 
man) turned  back  from  his  chariot  to  meet  thee," 
makes  better  sense  than  any  other.  It  is  not  so 
much  a  jest  as  it  is  a  sarcastic  stripping  bare  of  the 
falsehood,  and  it  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
revulsion  of  indignation  and  severity  which  prompts 
the  condemnation  which  follows.  Against  this  ex- 
planation, however,  is  the  fact  that  this  meaning  for 

'3^  cannot  be  proved.     Ewald  refers  to  the  Song 

of  Solomon  to  justify  the  explanation,  but  without 
citing  particular  passages,  and  the  context  is  so 
different  in  the  two  cases  that  the  usage  could  not 
be  established  by  its  occurrence  in  that  book. — 
W.  G.  S.]  The  explanation  of  Botteher  is  equally 
inadmissible :  "  I,  according  tc  my  convictions, 
could  not  have  prevailed  upon  my  heart  .  .  . 
to  go."  After  ver.  16  Elisha  no  longer  needed  to 
assert  this.  It  was  already  clear.  Maurer's  ex- 
planation: Non  abierat,  i.e.,  evanuerat  (Ps.  lxxviii. 
39),  animus  mens,  h.  e.,  vis  divinandi  me  nequaquam 

defecerat,    falls,   because  "ipTl   would   have  to  be 

Uken  in  a  very  different  sense  from  what  it  has  in 
ver.  25,  and  because  the  clear  reference  to  Gehazi's 
words  would  then  be  lost.  [The  explanation  of 
Thenius,  practically  that  of  the  E.  V.,  is  the 
best.  The  strain  put  upon  the  words  to  make 
thein  mean,  "  I  did  not  go  away  from  the  interview 
between  thee  and  Naaman,"  i.  <?.,  "  I  was  present  at 
it,"  is  apparent. — W.  G.  S.] — Is  it  a  time,  &c.,  i.  e., 
"  In  any  other  case  better  than  in  this,  mightest 
thou  have  yielded  to  thy  desire  for  gold  and  goods  " 
(Thenius).  Gehazi  had  not  received  olive-trees, 
4c,  but  he  meant  to  buy  them  with  the  money. 
[The  form  in  which  the  Vulgate  translates  the 
verse  is  not  literally  faithful  to  the  original,  but  it 
brings  out  with  great  distinctness  the  antithesis  be- 
tween the  objects  Gehazi  had  in  view,  and  which, 
indeed,  he  had  gained,  and  the  other  results  which 
must  follow :  "  Thou  hast  indeed  received  money 
wherewith  thou  mayest  buy  garments,  and  olive- 
yards,  and  vineyards,  and  sheep  and  oxen,  and 
men-servants,  and  maid-servants ;  but,  also,  the 
leprosy  of  Naaman  shall  cleave  unto  thee  and  unto 
thy  seed  forever."]  A  leper  as  white  as  snow 
(ver.  27),  cf.  the  same  expression,  Ex.  iv.  U ; 
Numb.  xii.  10,  where  a  similar  sudden  attack  of 
this  disease  takes  place.  According  to  Michuelis 
this  takes  place  often  under  great  terror  or  great 
affliction.  The  skin  around  the  diseased  spots  is 
chalk-white  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  l.  s.  114).  Upon 
the  words:  Unto  thee  and  unto  thy  seed  (pos- 
terity) forever,  Menken  says:  "It  is  the  full, 
Strong  expression  of  excited,  deep,  yet  holy  and 
just  leeling,  which  dare  not  and  will  not  lay  its 
words  upon  delicate  scales,  and  which,  to  ex- 
press the  fulness  of  its  abhorrence  or  its  admira- 
tion, of  its  curse  or  its  blessing,  seizes  upon  a 
'onniila  of  the  vulgar  dialects  of  the  country,  even 


though  it  may  not  apply,  in  syllable  and  letter,  te 
the  case  in  hand." 

Chap.  vi.  1.  And  the  sons  of  the  prophet* 
said,  &c.  This  story  is  to  be  connected  with  thr 
two  in  chap.  iv.  3S— 44,  and  is  a  supplement  tc 
them.  Thenius  supposes  that  it  stands  here  "  in 
order  to  show  that  what  is  said  here  in  ver.  1  did 
not  take  place  until  long  after."  The  connection 
into  which  Cassel  brings  it  with  chap.  v.  is  verj 
forced,  viz. :  that  the  needy  community  of  the  pro 
phets  forms  a  contrast  to  the  rich  and  mighty 
military  commander;  or,  that,  in  spite  of  Gehazi's 
fall,  the  number  of  prophet-disciples  had  in- 
creased so  much,  that  a  new  house  was  necessary 
for  them.  Theodoret's  connection  is  at  least  more 
natural:  He  (Gehazi)  sought  riches  and  became  a 
leper;  the  company  of  prophet-disciples,  on  the 
contrary,  loved  the  greatest  poverty.  It  is  hardly 
possible  that  the  place  which  had  become  too  small 
was  in  Gilgal  (chap.  ii.  1 ;  iv.  38),  for  this  lay  at  a 
considerable  distance  from  the  valley  of  the  Jor- 
dan ;  the  same  is  true  of  Bethel.  It  is  more  likely 
to  have  been  Jericho.  The  words :  Where  we 
dwell  with  thee  (see  on  chap.  iv.  38).  show  that 
the  need  was  of  a  larger  place  of  assembly,  since 
the  number  of  prophet-disciples  had  increased,  and 
amounted  at  this  time  to  certainly  over  a  hundred 
(chap.  iv.  43).  There  is  no  reason  to  find  a  refer- 
ence to  dwellings  which  were  to  be  built  for  all,  as 
has  been  done  in  the  interest  of  monasteries.  They 
wished  to  go  to  the  Jordan  (ver.  2),  because  "  its 
bank  is  thickly  grown  with  bushes  and  trees " 
(willows,  poplars,  and  tamarisks.  Hitzig  on 
Jerem.  xii.  5),  so  that  the  building  material  was 
conveniently  at  hand.  By  the  following  words 
they  mean :  if  each  one  cuts  a  beam,  the  work  will 
soon  be  accomplished.  They  beg  the  prophet  to 
go  with  them,  not  that  he  may  direct  the  work — 
he  was  no  architect — but  because  they  wish  to 
have  him  in  their  midst,  and  promise  themselves, 
from  his  presence,  blessing  and  success  for  their 
labor. 

Ver.  5.  But  as  one  was  felling  a  beam,  Ac. 
It  has  been  inferred  from  inxn ,  which  also  occurs 

in  the  3d  verse,  that  it  was  the  same  one  who  is 
there  referred  to,  but  without  reason.     According 

to  Hitzig    and    Thenius    the    DX    before    ?T"l3n 

introduces  the  new,  definite  subject.  According 
to  Keil,  it  serves  to  subordinate  the  noun  to  the 
sentence:  "  As  for  the  iron,  it  fell  into  the  water." 
In  the  lament  lies  also  a  request  for  help,  which  is 

strengthened  by  ?}KB>  Nini .  The  person  in  ques- 
tion had  "  begged"  for  the  axe,  probably  because 
he  was  too  poor  to  buy  one ;  hence  the  loss  grieved 
him  more  than  it  would  have  done  if  it  had  come 
into  his  possession  by  gift.  Luther's  translation 
[and  that  of  the  E.  V.],  "borrowed,"  is  correct 
in  sense,  though  not  exactly  the  corresponding 
word.     The  Vulgate  has :  et  hoc  ipsum  mutuo  ac- 

ceperam. — The   words  ^flSH   S]V*I    are   translated 

by  Luther,  following  the  Sept.:  "The  iron  swam," 
and  hence  the  story,  vers.  1-6,  is  commonly  en- 
titled "  The  swimming  iron."  Thenius  and  Koil 
translate:  "And  he  caused  the  iron  to  swim.'' 
But  rpv  Joes  not  mean  "  swim,"  like  nnt'  psai.  xxv. 

11),  but :  overflow  (Lament,  iii.  54) :  "  Waters  flowed 
over  mine  head ;  "  in  the  hifil  ■  to  cause  to  overflow 


CHAPTER  V.-VI.  7. 


57 


Deut.  xi.  4 :  "He  made  the  water  of  the  Red  Sea 
to  overflow  them."  The  word  does  not  occur  out 
of  these  two  places,  in  which  it  is  impossible  to 
translate  it  by  swim  and  cause  to  swim.  Cf.  also 
tpiV ,  honeycomb  (Ps.  xix.  1 0),  from  the  idea  of  over- 
flowing. Just  as  Jehovah  brought  the  water  over 
the  horses  and  chariots,  so  that  they  were  under 
it,  Elisha  here  brought  the  axe  over  the  water,  so 
that  it  was  no  longer  concealed  by  it.  The  Sept. 
translate:  not  kneTTokaGE  to  aidqpov,  i.  e.,  and  the 
iron  arose — appeared  upon  the  surface.  Hesychius 
explains  hirrxoTiAoavrec  by  iirava  rov  Maroc 
Trepitpepdutvot.  If  hiriTrola^ELV  meant  swim,  it  could 
not,  at  the  same  time,  have  the  meaning:  to  be 
haughty,  to  exalt  one's  self  impudently  (Plut. 
Symp.  ii.  1,  12).  Hence  Theodoret,  on  the  passage, 
says  correctly:  o  7rpooi/r//(;  hvrryayt  to  auMjptov. 
gvkov  yap  :uia/G)V,  rcapeoKevao'ev  k-fxokacat  to 
ciSi/ptov.  [The  translation  "  swim,"  meaning 
simply  "  float,"  is  perfectly  allowable  for  either  the 
Hebrew  word  or  the  Greek  one,  by  which  the 
Sept.  render  it. — W.  G.  S.]  The  miracle  was  not, 
therefore,  "that  the  wood  which  was  thrown  in 
sank,  while  the  iron  swam  upon  the  surface " 
(Philippson),  but,  that  the  prophet,  by  throwing  in 
the  wood,  caused  the  iron  to  come  to  the  surface, 
where  the  young  man  could  get  it.  Following- 
many  of  the  rabbis,  Vatablus  and  others,  includ- 
ing Thenius,  have  adopted  the  opinion  that  Elisha 
pierced  the  hole  in  the  axe  with  the  stick,  and  so 
raised  it  out  of  the  water.  Of  this  the  text  says 
nothing,  it  only  states  that  he  did  bring  up  the 
axe,  not,  however,  how  he  did  it ;  wherefore,  it  can 
only  be  regarded  as  a  guess  when  Von  Gerlach 
says :  "  He  thrust  the  stick  into  the  water,  so  that 
it  passed  beneath  the  iron  and  raised  it  to  the  sur- 
face." 

HISTORICAL    AND    ETHICAL. 

1.  The  first  of  the  two  preceding  narratives,  which 
fills  the  whole  5th  chapter,  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  life  and  prophetical  labor  of  Elisha, 
and  this  is  marked,  in  fact,  by  the  fulness  of  de- 
tail with  which  it  is  narrated.  Menken,  in  his  ex- 
cellent homilies  upon  this  chapter  (see  his  Schriften 
v.  s.  77-117),  says  of  it  with  justice:  "This  is  a 
charming  testimony  to  the  living  God ! — a  worthy 
part  of  the  history  of  those  revelations  and  mani- 
festations of  the  living  God,  which,  in  their  con- 
nection and  continuation  through  many  centuries, 
and  in  their  tendency  toward  one  goal  and  object, 
were  designed  to  plant  upon  earth  the  knowledge 
and  the  worship  of  the  true  God !  But  it  offers 
besides  to  our  consideration  a  rich  store  of  reflec- 
tions, in  which  neither  heart  nor  understanding 
can  refuse  a  willing  participation."  There  is 
hardly  a  single  Old  Testament  story  in  which  the 
character  of  the  Old  Testament  economy  of  salva- 
tion is  mirrored  in  any  such  way  ;  it  is  a  truly  pro- 
phetical story,  that  is,  an  historical  prophecy.  On 
the  one  side  it  shows  the  wonderful  providence 
and  mode  of  salvation  of  God,  His  saving  power 
and  grace,  as  well  as  His  holy  severity,  and  His 
retributive  justice ;  on  the  other,  closely  inter- 
woven with  this,  it  shows  human  thought  and  de- 
sire, suffering  and  action,  as  well  in  good  as  in 
evil :  it  is  the  scheme  of  salvation  epitomized. 
However,  when  Krummacher  says:  "We  should 
rather  expect  to  find  it  upon  a  page  of  the  Gospel 
-than   senk    it   in  an    Old   Testament    book,"    and 


affirms :  "  The  baptism  of  the  New  Testament 
meets  us  here  already  in  a  type  which  is  full  of 
life,"  he  confounds  the  economies  of  the  two  Tes- 
taments. In  spite  of  all  its  typical  force,  the  story 
is  specifically  an  Old  Testament  one.  The  main 
point,  the  proof  of  the  whole,  and  therefore  the 
thing  which  is  not  to  be  lost  sight  of,  is,  that  a 
foreigner,  a  heathen,  who,  moreover,  belongs  to 
the  people  by  which  Israel  at  that  time  was  most 
threatened  ;  a  mighty  commander,  by  whose  instru 
mentality  Jehovah  had  given  victory  to  the 
Syrians,  rinds  help  from  the  "  prophet  in  Israel '' 
(ver.  8),  and  comes  to  a  knowledge  of  the  one 
true  God,  the  God  of  Israel.  This  is  the  point,  too, 
which  our  Lord  lays  stress  upon  (Luke  iv.  25-27) 
when  He,  in  order  to  shame  and  warn  His  country- 
men who  were  scoffing  at  Him.  refers  to  the 
widow  of  Sarepta,  the  foreigner,  to  whom  Elijah  was 
sent,  and  then  to  Naaman  the  Syrian,  whom  Elisha 
healed.  The  conjunction  of  the  two  is  by  no  means 
accidental:  both  these  great  prophets  of  action 
testified,  during  the  time  of  apostasy  in  Israel,  each 
of  them  by  an  act  of  assistance  towards  a  foreigner, 
that  Jehovah,  with  His  might  and  grace,  was  not 
confined  to  Israel ;  that  He  takes  pity  upon  the 
heathen  also,  and  leads  them  to  knowledge,  that 
His  great  name  may  be  praised  among  all  nations 
What  the  later  prophets  preached  by  word,  Elijah 
and  Elisha  prophesied  by  acts.  As  "  widows  and 
orphans  "  were  succored  by  both  (see  above  on 
chap.  iv.  1  sq.),  so  foreigners  are  helped  by  both. 
The  story  of  Naaman,  therefore,  occupies  an  essen- 
tial place  in  the  history  of  the  prophetical  work  of 
Elisha ;  without  it  one  of  the  chief  points  of  the 
prophetical  calling  would  be  wanting  in  this  work. 
[We  must  endeavor  to  analyze  this  story  more 
closely,  and  to  gain  a  more  definite  conception  of 
the  course  of  the  incidents.  Naaman  undoubtedly 
had  the  religious  ideas  which  were  universal 
throughout  ancient  heathendom.  He  regarded 
the  gods  of  Syria,  which  he  had  been  educated  to 
worship,  as  real  gods.  None  of  them,  or  of  their 
priests  or  prophets,  had  or  could  cure  him  of 
leprosy.  He  heard  by  chance  the  fame  of  Elisha, 
as  one  who  wrought  wonders  in  the  name  of 
the  God  of  Israel.  No  heathen  would  maintain 
that  his  national  divinities  were  the  only  true  gods. 
Sennacherib  declared  that  he  was  conquering 
Judah  by  the  command  of  Jehovah,  whom  he  rec- 
ognized as  the  god  of  that  country.  The  heathen 
colonists  whom  the  king  of  Syria  brought  to  popu- 
late Samaria,  attributed  the  ravages  of  the  wild 
beasts  to  the  fact  that  the  worship  of  the  god  of 
the  country  was  not  provided  for.  It  was  the 
notion  of  the  heathen  that  each  country  had  its 
god,  so  that  Syrians  worshipped  Syrian  gods,  and 
Hebrews  the  Hebrew  god.  To  the  heathen  this 
seemed  perfectly  natural  and  correct.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Hebrews  declared  that  Jehovah 
was  the  one  only  true  God  of  all  the  earth,  and 
that  the  gods  of  the  heathen  were  nullities  (vanity, 
E.  V.)  Naaman  did  not  violate  the  principles  of  his 
religious  education  when  he  went  to  Elisha  ;  Aha- 
ziah,  when  he  sent  to  Ekron  (chap,  i.),  did.  Naaman 
came  with  a  letter  from  the  king  of  Syria  to  the  king 
of  Israel,  and  he  came  with  gifts,  and  in  pomp — all 
according  to  heathen  ideas  of  the  means  of  inducing 
the  thaumaturge  to  exercise  his  power.  He  was  tr 
be  armed  with  the  influence  of  authority  and  rank ; 
he  was  to  appear  as  a  great  man,  for  whom  it  wai 
wi  ill  worth  while  for  the  wonder-worker  to  do  what 


58 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ever  he  possibly  could,  and  he  brought  the  material 
means  which  his  experience  among  wizards,  divin- 
ers, soothsayers,  and  priests,  had  taught  him  to  re- 
gard as  indispensable.  The  king  of  Israel  was  ter- 
rified at  the  demand  ;  but  the  prophet  intervened. 
We  are  surprised  at  this  feature.  If  Naaman's  er- 
rand was  really  to  Elisha,  the  literal  words  of  the 
letter  would  not  have  been  a  demand  that  the  king 
should  heal  him  (ver.  6),  but  that  he  should  com- 
mand his  subject,  the  prophet,  to  exercise  his  powers 
ou  the  Syrian's  behalf.  Thus  the  king  would  have 
simply  referred  Naaman  to  Elisha  for  the  latter  to 
do  what  he  could.  The  story  is  evidently  so  much 
abbreviated  at  this  point  that  its  smoothness  is  im- 
paired. Naaman  comes  in  all  his  pomp  to  the  door 
of  Elisha.  He  receives  the  prophet's  command,  and 
his  words  in  vers.  11  and  12  bear  witness  again  to 
wide  and  deep  heathen  conceptions.  In  ver.  11  he 
describes  graphically  the  mode  of  performance  of 
the  heathen  thaumaturge.  "I  thought,  he  will 
stand  "  (take  up  a  ceremonious  and  solemn  attitude) 
"  and  call  upon  the  name  of  his  God  "  (repeat  a  for- 
mula of  incantation),  "  and  strike  his  hand  upon  the 
place  "  (with  a  solemn  gesture)  "  and  remove  the 
leprosy."  Had  he  come  all  that  journey  to  be  told 
to  bathe  ?  Could  water  cure  leprosy  ?  If  it  could, 
was  there  not  the  pure  water  of  Abana  and  Phar- 
par,  better  far  than  the  sluggish  and  muddy  water 
of  Jordan  ?  His  pomp  and  state  were  thrown  away : 
the  man  of  God  did  not  even  come  to  look  at  them. 
His  high  credentials  were  wasted;  the  means  of 
cure  prescribed  for  him  might  have  been  prescribed 
for  the  poorest  outcast  in  Israel.  The  deep  and  per- 
manent truth  of  this  feature,  and  also  of  the  proph- 
et's refusal  to  accept  money,  is  apparent.  The 
difference  between  the  Jehovah-religion  and  the 
heathen  religions  is  sharply  portrayed  by  the  con- 
trast in  each  point,  betweeu  Naaman's  expectations 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  prophet's  words  and 
actions  on  the  other.  The  Syrian's  servants  sug- 
gested to  him  the  sensible  reflection  that  he  ought 
not  to  despise  the  prophet's  command.  He  went, 
bathed,  and  was  cleansed.  He  then  returned  to 
reward  the  prophet,  but  found  that  the  prophet 
did  not  give  his  help  as  a  thing  to  be  paid  for. 
The  Syrian  was  not  to  think  that  the  prophet  had 
used  a  power  which  was  his  own,  and  which  might 
be  paid  for,  whereby  the  obligation  would  be  dis- 
charged. The  service  came  from  God;  it  was  a 
free  act  of  grace  ;  a  special  blessing  upon  this  one, 
and  he  a  foreigner,  while  many  Israelitish  lepers  re- 
mained uncleansed  (Luke  iv.  27).  The  prophet  and 
his  God  were  not  at  the  service  of  any  one  who 
came  and  could  pay  a  certain  price ;  they  wrought 
only  where  and  when  there  was  good  reason,  and, 
when  they  did  so,  the  recipient  of  grace  lay  under 
an  obligation  which  he  never  could  discharge.  In 
regard  to  Naaman's  words :  "Now  I  know  that 
there  is  no  God  in  all  the  earth  but  in  Israel,"  a 
careful  scrutiny  shows  that  the  proposition  is  not 
Strictly  accurate,  for  the  God  of  Israel  is  and  was 
not  only  in  Israel,  but  in  all  the  earth.  The  true 
proposition  would  be :  The  God  of  Israel  is  the  only 
true  God,  and  He  reigns  over  all  the  earth.  In 
the  very  form  of  his  confession  Naaman  shows 
that  his  mind  was  still  under  the  bias  of  the  hea- 
then ideaof  local  deities,  so  that  In'  says  that  there 
is  no  God  anywhere  else  in  the  world  but  in  Israel. 
No  other  had  been  able  to  heal  him ;  but  Jehovah 
Had  done  so  by  apparently  very  insignificant  means, 
Lence  ho  esteemed  Jehovah  true,  and  esteemed  the 


others  very  lightly  or  not  at  all.  It  should  be  no- 
ticed also  that  the  conception  which  he  seems  te 
have  reached  was  that  which  was  held  by  very 
many  of  the  Jews,  viz. :  that  Israel  alone  had  any 
God,  and  that  the  rest  of  the  world  was  godless ; 
their  own  gods  were  nullities,  and  Jehovah  did 
not  care  for  them,  so  that  they  had  no  God  at  all. 
He  determined  to  devote  himself  to  the  worship 
of  Jehovah  for  the  rest  of  his  days.  He  there- 
fore very  naturally,  in  accordance  with  the  same 
idea  of  local  or  territorial  divinities,  asked  for 
earth  from  Palestine  to  build  an  altar  for  the 
worship  of  Jehovah.  He  also  made  one  furthei 
request.  His  duty  at  his  master's  court  (al- 
though it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  a  leper 
could  have  had  that  office)  was  to  attend  his 
master,  and  support  him  when  he  went  to  worship 
in  the  temple  of  the  Syrian  God,  Riramon.  The 
idea  that  Naaman  was  "  converted  "  to  the  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  in  such  a  sense  that  he  went  over 
to  the  Hebrew  idea  of  the  other  gods,  is  without 
foundation.  It  is  a  modern  idea,  which  has  no 
place  in  this  connection.  Naaman  did  not  feel 
bound  at  all  to  keep  away  from  the  temple  of 
Rimmon,  as  an  early  Christian  would  have  kept 
away  from  an  idol-temple.  His  last  request  to  the 
prophet  is,  that,  when  he  goes  into  this  temple  in 
the  course  of  his  official  duty,  it  shall  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  violation  of  his  vow  to  pay  all  his 
worship,  for  the  future,  to  Jehovah,  to  the  neglect 
of  all  other  gods.  To  this  the  prophet  answers  : 
"  Go  in  peace,"  i.  e.,  your  sincere  performance  of 
your  vow  shall  be  recognized,  and  this  conduct 
shall  not  be  interpreted  as  a  violation  of  it. — 
W.  G.  S.] 

2.  The  healing  of  Naaman  did  not  take  place  at 
a  mere  word,  but  was  like  all  miraculous  deeds  of 
the  prophet,  attached  to  some  corresponding  ex- 
ternal means,  but  to  such  an  one  that  to  it.  in 
itself,  no  healing  power  could  be  ascribed.  This 
power  must  first  be  conferred  upon  >t  by  the 
prophet,  so  that  the  cure  must  necessarily  be  recog- 
nized as  an  act  of  God,  whose  instrument  and 
minister  the  prophet  was.  The  external  means, 
a  sevenfold  bath  in  Jordan,  was  a  very  significant 
one.  Evidently  the  prophet  had  in  mind  what  the 
Law  prescribed  for  the  purification  of  a  leper. 
Such  an  one  was  to  "bathe  himself  in  water" 
(Levit.  xiv.  8,  9),  and  throughout  the  entire  cere- 
mony of  purification,  "  sevenfoldness  "  is  the  rule 
(Levit.  xiv.  7,  16,  27  ;  cf.  51 ;  Symbol,  de-s  Mos.  Kult, 
i.  s.  196,  and  ii.  s.  508,  518).  The  conduct  of 
Elisha  was,  therefore,  in  general  analogous  to  the 
ordinance  in  the  Law,  and,  in  so  far,  it  referred 
back  to  the  God  of  Israel,  who  had  given  the  Lf-w. 
Naaman  had  to  bathe  in  the  Jordan  because  that 
is  the  chief  river  of  the  promised  land,  which  Hows 
through  the  long  and  narrow  country,  so  that  it  is 
called  simply  the  land  of  the  Jordan  (Ps.  xlii.  6). 
As  Canaan  was  the  land  of  Israel,  so  the  Jordan 
was  the  river  of  Israel.  Moreover,  it  had  great 
importance  for  the  history  of  Israel.  From  the  "  pas- 
sage of  the  chosen  people  "  through  this  water, 
which  is  compared  directly  with  the  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea  (Ps.  cxiv.  3,  5),  "dated  the 
existence  of  the  theocracy  in  Palestine''  Winer, 
A'.-  W.-B.  i.  s.  620).  The  Jordan  was  witness,  and, 
in  a  certain  degree,  pledge  and  warrant  of  the 
mighl  and  grace  of  God,  which  were  revealed  in 
[srael.  It  was  the  water,  in  and  at  which  Jehovah 
had  manifested  himself  as  the  almighty,  helping. 


CHAPTER  Y.-VI.  7. 


59 


«r.d  «pvj"»g  God  of  Israel.  The  fact  of  being 
apjlfj  and  purified  by  bathing  in  this  water,  was 
iesigned  to  draw  the  mind  of  the  heathen  to  the 
fruth,  that  it  is  the  God  of  Israel  who  alone  can 
help  and  save,  and  that  He  it  was  who  had  helped 
him ;  that  he  therefore  owed  gratitude  to  this  God 
alone,  and  not  to  the  prophet  who  was  only  His 
servant.  We  have,  then,  in  this  case  another  proof 
that  the  miracles  of  the  prophet  were  symbolic 
acts,  and  it  is  remarkable  that  the  immediate  sig- 
nificance of  Klisha's  transaction  with  Naaman, 
although  it  lies  upon  its  face  and  is  so  easily  to  be 
recognized,  has  been  hitherto  almost  entirely  over- 
looked. The  naturalistic  method  of  explanation  is 
at  a  loss  to  account  for  this  miracle.  According 
to  Knobel  (Projihet.  ii.  p.  92-97):  "  Elisha  had  the 
reputation  of  a  good  physician  among  the  Syrians 
as  well  as  among  the  Israelites.  .  .  The  bath,  taken 
in  obedience  to  the  command  of  a  man  of  God.  was 
blessed  with  an  extraordinary  efficacy.  That  this, 
however,  was  not  the  entire  curative  process  em- 
ployed by  Elisha  is  certain  (?),  though  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  find  out  what  else  he  did  to  Naaman."  To 
relegate  the  entire  story  to  the  domain  of  myth  or 
legend,  on  account  of  the  miracle,  is  the  least  ad- 
missible course  to  pursue.  This  story  bears  in 
itself  the  impress  of  historical  genuineness,  if  ever 
one  did.  by  virtue  of  its  simplicity,  its  moderate 
statements,  its  numerous  characteristic  details, 
and  its  purely  objective  representation.  To  invent 
such  a  story  is  impossible ;  and  it  can  occur  to  no 
one  who  understands  the  matter  that  Naaman  is  a 
mythical  person.  The  remark  of  Koster  (Die 
Prophet,  s.  89) :  "  The  whole  story  is  meant  to  show 
that  miracles  were  always  intended  to  extend  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,"  is  unsatisfactory,  because 
this  was  evidently  not  the  case  in  many  miracles, 
and  especially  in  all  the  rest  which  are  recorded 
of  Elisha  (cf.  chap.  iv.).  [The  most  important  and 
most  instructive  feature  of  the  story  seems  to  be 
overlooked  by  our  author.  It  was  not  the  water 
either  of  Jordan  or  of  Abana  which  could  heal,  it 
was  the  obedience  of  this  haughty  general  to  a  man- 
date which  seemed  to  him  frivolous  and  absurd. 
In  the  gospels  faith  is  the  first  requisite  in  similar 
cases  of  healing,  and  so  it  was  here  also — faith  and 
obedience.  Naaman  came  with  his  mind  all  made 
up  as  to  how  he  was  to  be  healed,  and  he  turned 
away  in  anger  and  disgust  from  the  course  which 
the  prophet  prescribed.  Tet,  when  he  turned 
back,  even  with  a  lame  and  half-doubting  faith, 
and  a  half-unwilling  obedience,  he  was  healed. 
This  is  the  permanent  truth  which  is  involved  in 
the  story.  Naaman  was  a  type  of  the  rationalist 
whose  philosophy  provides  him  with  a  priori 
dogmas  by  which  he  measures  everything  which 
is  proposed  to  his  faith.  He  turns  away  in  con- 
tempt where  faith  would  heal  him.  That  is  the 
truth  which  the  story  serves  to  enforce. — 
W.  G.  S.] 

3.  In  the  acknowledgment  with  which  Naaman 
returns  to  the  prophet  after  being  healed,  the 
Btory  reaches  its  climax :  all  the  ways  in  which 
God  led  this  man  tended  to  this  end.  With  the 
words :  "  Behold,  now  I  know  that  there  is  no 
God  in  all  the  earth,  but  in  Israel,"  he  renounces 
'he  fundamental  error  of  heathenism  on  the  one 
iisnd,  viz.:  that  every  nation  had  its  own  god, 
and  on  1he  other  hand  he  acknowledges  that  there 
is  only  one  God  on  earth,  and  that  He  reveals 
nimaolf  in  Israel.      He   does  not,  therefore,  ex- 


change one  national  god  for  another,  but  declares 
that  Jehovah  is  the  first  and  the  last,  and  that  there 
is  no  God  beside  Him  (Isai.  xliv.  6),  that  the  whole 
earth  belongs  to  Him  (Ex.  xLx.  5),  and  that  this 
God  has  chosen  the  people  of  Israel  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all  nations,  and  reveaied  himself  to  them. 
This  is  the  kernel  of  Naaman's  confession,  that  he 
does  not  merely  turn  from  Polytheism  to  Mono- 
theism, but  recognizes  the  God  who  has  revealed 
himself  to  Israel  as  the  one  living  God.  There- 
fore, also,  this  land,  which  God  promised  and  gave 
to  his  people,  is  for  him  a  holy  laud  (cf.  Dan.  xi. 
16,  41 ;  Ps.  xxxvii.  9,  29;  Prov.  ii.  21  sq.).  There- 
fore he  wishes  to  take  earth  from  this  country  that 
he  may  sacrifice  thereon  to  its  God.  Such  a  confes- 
sion from  the  mouth  of  a  heathen  would  be  incom- 
prehensible, especially  from  one  who  had  the  dis- 
position which  Naaman  showed  before  he  was 
healed  (vers.  Hand  12),  if  something  extraordinary 
and  miraculous  had  not  taken  place.  For  unfaith- 
ful, wavering  Israel,  which  had  had  a  far  wider 
experience  of  the  might  and  glory  of  its  God  than 
Naaman,  this  confession  was  a  source  of  shame, 
of  warning,  and  of  reproof. 

4.  Naaman's  request  (ver.  18)  and  Elisha' s  reply 
(ver.  19)  have  been  made  the  text  of  extended 
theological  treatises  (cf.  Buddeus'  Hist.  Eccles.  ii. 
p.  3C0  sq.).  For  instance:  it  has  been  inferred 
that,  under  certain  circumstances,  it  is  permitted 
to  participate  in  the  ceremonies  of  a  religion  one 
recognizes  as  erroneous.  Among  Roman  Catholics 
the  passage  has  been  used  to  justify  the  conduct 
of  missionaries  who  permitted  the  newly-converted 
heathen  to  continue  to  observe  pagan  ceremonies; 
among  Protestants,  as  Starke  saj's,  "  Some  have 
drawn  the  conclusion  that  an  attendant  of  a 
prince  or  king  might  accompany  him  to  Mass,  and 
do  him  service  there,  if  he  was  in  the  service  of 
the  prince  before  the  latter  was  converted  to  a 
false  worship  of  God.  Such  a  case  was  that  of 
John  of  Saxony,  whom  the  Emperor  Charles  V. 
asked  to  carry  the  sword  in  procession  as  Grand 
Marshal  of  the  empire,  when  the  emperor  went  in 
solemn  state  to  Mass."'  The  passage  does  not, 
however,  give  a  general  rule  for  all  times  and  all 
places,  because  the  case  of  Naaman  belongs  en- 
tirely to  the  Old  Testament,  and  could  not  now 
occur.  If  Naaman  ought  not  to  have  continued  to 
exercise  his  office  about  the  person  of  his  king 
any  longer,  then  he  must  have  given  up,  not  only 
his  influential  position,  but  also  his  fatherland  and 
his  nationality,  and  must  have  become  an  Israelite, 
and  that  too  at  a  time  when  there  was  so  much 
apostasy  in  Israel  itself.  The  entire  object  of  his 
being  healed,  viz.,  that  he,  in  the  midst  of  a 
heathen  nation,  which  was  hostile  to  Israel,  might 
be  a  witness  and  an  actual  confessor  of  the  God 
of  Israel,  and  might  carry  His  name  into  another 
country,  would  have  been  frustrated.  Elisha, 
who  had  this  object  before  all  else  in  view,  does 
not,  therefore,  raise  any  objections  to  his  request : 
he  invokes  upon  him  "peace"  at  his  departure; 
and,  "  since  he  perceives  that  Naaman's  purposes 
are  pure,  he  leaves  him  to  the  direction  of  God,  as 
the  one  who  will  guide  his  conscience  "  (Jo.  Lange). 
Cassel  (Elisha,  s.  89)  not  improperly  draws  atten- 
tion here  to  the  difference  between  the  conduct  o( 
Naaman  and  that  of  Themistocles  in  a  similar  case 
The  latter  found  it  necessary  to  appear  before  the 
Persian  king,  and  there  prostrate  himself  before 
him,  according  to  the   Persian  custom.     As  h;, 


60 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


however,  considered  this  unworthy  of  a  Greek,  lie 
had  recourse  to  the  stratagem  of  allowing  his  ring 
to  fall,  and  then,  as  he  picked  it  up,  he  bowed 
oefore  the  throne,  and  so  thought  that  he  had 
given  satisfaction  both  to  his  conscience  and  to 
the  king.  "  Naaman  did  not  wish  to  act  thus. 
He  was  not  willing  to  deceive  or  act  the  hypocrite, 
for  he  knew  that  his  God  could  see  through  the 
stratagem,  and  would  not  permit  himself  to  be  de- 
ceived, although  men  might  think  that  they  had 
concealed  their  hearts."  [There  is  no  reason 
whatever  to  suppose  that  Naaman  knew  all  that ; 
and  the  heinousness  of  this  stratagem  of  Themis- 
tocles  was  very  different  from  that  of  an  hypocrit- 
ical act  of  worship.  Why  should  we  imagine  that 
Naaman,  after  he  was  cleansed  of  leprosy,  had  the 
clear  conceptions,  the  pure  piety,  and  the  delicate 
conscience  of  a  modern  Christian?  Furthermore,  it 
seems  that,  if  the  words  of  the  author  above  are 
pressed,  he  will  be  made  to  say  that  any  one  may 
engage  in  hypocritical  acts  of  worship,  if  he  can, 
by  so  doing,  remain  in  a  position  where  he  can 
make  proselytes !  The  object  of  the  miracle  was 
not  to  make  a  proselyte  of  Naaman  (see  above, 
bracketed  note  at  the  end  of  §  1).  The  Israelites, 
at  this  period,  made  no  effort  whatever  to  gain 
proselytes.  The  opportunity  offered  to  glorify  the 
God  of  Israel  before  a  heathen  of  rank,  and  it  was 
done.  He  naturally  turned,  as  a  consequence,  to 
the  worship  of  Jehovah,  as  superior  to  all  other 
gods.  In  the  addition  to  §  1,  it  is  stated  what  Naa- 
man meant  by  this  request,  and  what  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  prophet's  answer  was. — W.  G.  S.] 

5.  Gehazts  transgression  and  its  punishment  are 
to  be  estimated  principally  from  the  historical- 
theocratical,  and  not  alone  from  the  moral  stand- 
point. His  act  was  not  a  product  of  mere  vulgar 
avarice,  which  shrinks  back  from  no  falsehood. 
By  it  he  made  his  master,  all  of  whose  intercourse 
with  him  ought  to  have  exercised  a  purifying  in- 
fluence upon  him,  a  liar,  and  his  oath  (ver.  1G)  an 
empty  phrase.  He  did  not  leave  Naaman  with 
the  undimmed  conviction  that  all  the  grace  he  had 
experienced  had  come  to  him  gratis,  and  that 
"  there  was  a  prophet  in  Israel."  He  did  not  fear 
to  stain  the  work  which  God  had  done  upon  a 
heathen  foi  the  glory  of  His  name,  and  thereby  he 
denied  the  Holy  One,  whose  might  he  had  just 
seen  manifested  upon  Naaman.  The  words  which 
Peter  used  of  Ananias  were  true  of  him :  "  Thou 
hast  not  lied  unto  men  but  unto  God  "  (Acts  v.  4). 
His  act  was  a  betrayal  of  the  prophet,  of  Naaman, 
and  of  Jehovah.  "  A  thousand  deceits  and  dis- 
honesties might  have  been  committed,  by  all  of 
which  not  one  of  the  dear  and  holy  interests  would 
have  been  injured,  which  in  this  case  were  in 
danger,  and  which,  by  this  act,  were  criminally 
and  faithlessly  betrayed  "  (Menken).  Hence  it  in- 
curred so  severe  a  punishment,  which  was  not 
arbitrarily  or  indifferentlj'  chosen,  but  which  pro- 
ceeded out  of  the  transgression,  and  corresponded 
'o  it.  The  leprosy  of  Naaman  (ver.  27)  became  the 
eprosy  of  Gehazi ;  as  Naaman  was  a  living  monu- 
ment of  the  saving  might  and  grace  of  Jehovah, 
so  Gehazi  was  a  monument  of  the  retributive  jus- 
tice of  the  Holy  One  in  Israel;  a  living  warning 
and  threat  for  the  entire  people.  By  his  conversion 
Naaman  was  taken  up  into  God's  community  of 
redemption  in  Israel;  by  his  unfaithfulness  and 
denial  of  this  God,  Gehazi  brings  down  upon 
himself  the  punishment  which  excludes  him  from 


the  society  of  the  prophet-disciples,  and  of  th* 
entire  covenant  people.  Finally,  as  Naaman'* 
cure  and  conversion  was  a  physical  prophecy  that 
God  will  have  pity  upon  the  heathen  also,  and  will 
receive  them  into  His  covenant  of  grace,  so  Ge- 
hazi's  leprosy  prophesied  the  rejection  of  the 
people  of  Israel  who  should  abandon  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  persevere  in  apostasy  (Matt.  viii. 
11,  12;  xxi.  43). 

6.  Tlie  second  narrative  (chap.  vi.  1-7)  relates 
the  last  of  the  acts  of  Elisha  which  concern  indi- 
viduals. It  is  distinguished  from  the  two  men- 
tioned above,  which  likewise  took  place  in  the 
circle  of  the  prophet-disciples  (chap.  iv.  38-44),  by 
the  circumstance  that  here  help  is  given  in  need 
to  one  person,  not,  as  there,  to  the  entire  society. 
The  number  of  the  prophet-disciples  had  become 
so  great,  that  the  construction  of  another  building 
had  become  necessary.  Here  now  was  to  ba 
shown  how  each  separate  individual  of  the  com- 
pany might  be  consoled  by  the  help  of  Jehovah 
even  in  the  slightest  need.  The  loss  of  the  axe, 
even  though  it  had  been  "begged  for,"  was  very 
slight  in  itself;  but  for  a  poor  man,  who  did  not 
even  possess  the  necessary  implements  for  cut- 
ting wood,  a  greater  one  than  it  would  be  for 
a  rich  man,  if  all  his  treasures  should  fall  into 
the  water.  As  before  God  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons,  prince  or  beggar  being  all  one,  so  there 
is  also  before  Him  no  independent  value  in  things  ; 
what  is  small  and  insignificant  for  one  person, 
being  great  and  important  for  another.  The  lilies 
of  the  field,  which  bloom  to-day  and  to-morrow 
are  east  into  the  oven,  are  as  glorious  before  God 
as  Solomon  in  all  Ms  glory  (Matt.  vi.  28-30).  His 
might  and  goodness  are  revealed  in  the  smallest 
detail  as  well  as  in  the  greatest  combination.  He 
helps  in  what  are  apparently  the  smallest  interests 
of  the  individual,  as  well  as  in  the  greatest  affairs 
of  entire  nations,  and  He  rules  with  His  grace 
especially  over  those  who  keep  His  covenant,  and 
turn  to  him  in  all  the  necessities  of  life.  That  is 
the  great  truth  which  this  little  story  proclaims, 
and  just  for  the  sake  of  this  truth,  it  was  "  thought 
worthy  to  be  inserted  in  the  history  of  the  theo- 
cracy "  (Hess).  The  restoration  of  the  axe,  where- 
by aid  was  given  to  the  prophet-disciple  in  his 
need,  strengthened  all  the  others  in  the  faith  that 
the  God  in  whose  honor  they  were  erecting  the 
building  was  with  them,  and  would  accompany 
their  work  with  His  blessing ;  they  worked  now 
only  the  more  zealously  and  gladly. 

7.  The  swimming  iron,  which  is  the  title  ordi- 
narily given  to  this  narrative,  is  an  entirely  incor- 
rect designation  of  it.  It  has  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  text  against  it,  and  it  misleads  to  the  opinion 
that  the  only  point  of  the  story  is,  that  Elisha 
also  made  iron  swim  upon  water  like  wood. 
What  significance,  however,  would  such  a  miracle 
have  under  these  circumstances?  It  would  not 
have  any  proper  force,  either  for  the  prophet- 
disciple  himself,  or  for  the  construction  of  the 
building,  and  would  be  nothing  more  than  a  feat 
of  the  divine  omnipotence,  without  either  moral 
or  religious  foundation,  and  at  most  only  a  thing 
to  excite  astonishment.  This  object  has  indeed 
been  suggested :  "  the  prophet-disciples  were  to 
learn  here,  that  God  had  not  only  made  the 
forces  which  have  sway  in  nature,  but,  also,  that 
He  directs  them  continually ;  that  He  makes  thai 
easy  which  is  hard,  when  we  only  pray  him  to  if 


CHAPTER   V-VI. 


HI 


bo  in  a  just  cause  "  (Von  Schliisser).  In  that  case, 
however,  even'  connection  with  the  building  of 
the  house  would  be  wanting,  and  one  does  not  see 
why  so  general  a  truth  should  be  made  known  to 
the  prophet-disciples  precisely  on  the  occasion  of 
♦he  loss  of  an  axe,  which  its  owner  had  begged 
for  or  borrowed.  The  same  objection  applies  with 
still  more  force  to  the  opinion  that  the  miracle  of 
the  floating  iron  proclaimed  the  following:  "A 
light  thing  raises  a  heavy  thing  from  the  deep  .  .  . 
The  world's  history  shows  that  in  the  miraculous 
providence  of  God,  that  which  is  heavy  is  raised 
by  that  which  is  light.  .  .  .  Iron  is  the  symbol  of 
sin ;  wood,  however,  serves  for  peace,  reconcilia- 
tion, sacrifice.  .  .  .  He  who  died  upon  the  wood 
made  all  sin  powerless;  raised  it  up  out  of  the 
deep  where  it  lav  buried,  in  history  and  in  the  in- 
dividual man"  (Cassel,  Elisa,  s.  100-106).  This 
allegorical  explanation,  which  is,  to  begin  with, 
arbitrary  and  unfounded,  overlooks,  from  the  out- 
set, the  fact  that  it  is  not  a  question  here  of  a  piece 
of  heavy  metal,  iron  in  general,  but  rather  of  a 
definite  implement,  which  was  necessary  for  cutting 
timber,  of  an  axe  which  had  been  lost,  and  of  the 
poor  man  who  had  lost  it,  after  begging  for  it,  and 
for  whom  it  was  to  be  recovered.  In  this  misfor- 
tune the  prophet  helped  him,  and  this  is  the  main 
point ;  not  the  fact  that  the  iron  floated.  Accord- 
ing to  the  naturalistic  explanation  Elisha  "  pierced 
the  hole  in  the  axe  with  the  pointed  stick,  and  so 
lifted  it  up "  (Knobel,  Der  Proph.  ii.  s.  98) ;  and 
Krister  (Die  Proph.  s.  90)  says:  "It  was  very  cor- 
rectly asserted,  even  by  the  Jewish  expositors, 
that  this  was  no  miracle.  (Buddeus,  p.  364,  opposes, 
and  maintains  the  miracle,  but  cannot  tell  what 
was  the  use  of  the  sharpened  stick.)  The  axe  had 
flown  from  the  handle;  Elisha  pierced  a  stick  into 
the  aperture  of  it,  and  brought  it  up.  The  edify- 
ing application  of  it  was,  that  presence  of  mind  be- 
comes a  prophet,  and  is  valuable  even  in  the  slight 
affairs  of  every-day  life."  But  the  text  says 
nothing  about  what  would  here  be  the  main  point, 

viz. :  the   sharpening   of  the  stick.     3VP  (ver  6) 

does  not  mean  to  point,  to  sharpen,  but  only  to 
chop  off  (Geseniusl.  Besides,  it  is  clear  that  the 
narrative  is  not  intended  to  tell  of  some  ordinary 
incident,  which  any  one  could  do  in  every-day  life 
without  especial  "  presence  of  mind,"  but  of  an 
act  which  only  a  prophet,  by  virtue  of  the  spirit 
of  Jehovah,  could  do.  That  he  made  use  for  this 
purpose  of  an  external  physical  means  is  true  not 
only  here,  but  also  in  the  case  of  all  his  miraculous 
deeds  (cf.  1  Kings  xvii.,  Hist.  §  5). 

HOMILETICAL    AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-19.  The  Story  of  Naaman.  (a)  His 
Illness  (vers.  1-8);  (b)  his  cure  (vers.  9-14);  (c)  his 
conversion  (vers.  15-19). — Vers.  1-8.  Bender: 
Naaman ;  a  consideration  (a)  of  the  discipline  of 
suffering  under  which  he  was;  (b)  of  the  star  of 
hope  which  arose  for  him  in  his  misfortune ;  (c)  of 
the  path  in  which  he  was  led  by  this  hope. — Ver.  1. 
Menken  :  Everywhere  where  there  is,  or  seems  to 
be,  something  great  and  fortunate,  there  is  also  a 
Slight  discordant  "  but,"  which,  like  a  false  note 
in  a  melody,  mars  the  perfectness  of  the  good- 
fortune.  A  worm  gnaws  at  everything  pertaining 
to  this  world ,  and  everything  here  below  carries 
die  germs  of  death  in  itself.  .  .  .     "We  ought  to 


consider  all  human  suffering  and  misery  worthy  of 
consideration,  wherever  we  find  it.  It  is  found 
everywhere ;  it  dwells  in  the  palace  and  in  the 
hovel ;  it  is  interwoven  with  the  life  of  prince  and 
beggar;  and  it  is  inseparable  from  all  worldly 
happiness.  This  is  to  the  end  that  we  may 
perceive  and  be  convinced  that  there  is  nothing 
earthly  with  which  a  man  should  be  contented. 
and  in  which  he  can  find  true  rest  and  the  ever- 
enduring  peace  of  the  soui,  and  therefore  that 
the  poor  and  lowly  have  no  reason  to  envy  the 
rich  and  great.  That  which  makes  us  happy  in 
truth  and  for  eternity  does  not  depend  upon  rank 
or  upon  wealth.— Calwer  Bibel  :  God  treated  this 
heathen  in  the  way  in  which  He  is  accustomed  to 
treat  His  children.  Just  as  He  is  wont  to  give  to 
them,  together  with  everything  joyful  which  He 
grants  them,  also  something  incidental  to  restrain 
their  pride,  that  they  may  remain  humble,  and 
may  learn  to  seek  God,  so  that  He  may  still  further 
glorify  himself  in  them,  so  He  visited  this  great 
military  chief,  whom  He  had  so  magnified  in  other 
respects,  with  a  disease,  which  should  make  him 
humble,  and  teach  him  to  seek  further  grace.  That 
which  seems  to  us  and  to  all  the  world  to  be  the 
greatest  misfortune,  and  which  is  mourned  as 
such,  is  often,  according  to  God's  wise  counsel,  the 
way  to  our  highest  good-fortune  and  welfare. 
The  Lord  says :  "  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not 
now"  &c.  (John  xiii.  7;  HJb.  xii.  11). 

Vers.  2  and  3.  Kpxmmacher:  The  Foreign 
Slave-Girl,  (a)  The  momentous  purchase ;  (b)  the 
development  of  the  seed  of  true  religion  in  a 
heathen  laud ;  (e)  the  earnest  ray  of  hope  in  the 
dark  night  of  sorrow.  The  Little  Girl  from  the 
Land  of  Israel,  (a)  Her  heavy  lot  (such  an  one 
as  that  of  Joseph  and  Daniel. — Menken:  Torn 
from  her  friends,  led  away  from  her  people  and 
her  fatherland,  sold  in  a  foreign  country,  slave  of  a 
heathen,  she  was  a  stranger  to  the  joys  of  youth 
and  the  pleasure  of  life,  and  sadness  and  sorrow 
overclouded  her  life.  How  often  may  she,  seized  by 
yearning  for  the  land  of  her  childhood  and  youth, 
by  longing  for  father  and  mother,  have  cried  out; 
to  God.  She  could  endure  all  this  because  she 
had  learned  in  early  youth  to  know  the  God  whose 
eye  overlooks  all  countries,  and  who  holds  His 
hand  over  all  who  heartily  depend  on  Him.  How 
necessary  it  is  that  parents  should  early  make 
their  children  acquainted  with  the  living  God  and 
His  holy  Word,  that  they  may  learn  to  yield  them- 
selves to  His  ways,  and  may  have  a  light  and  staff 
in  the  dark  valley) ;  (b)  her  good  advice.  (It  came 
from  a  heart  which  was  full  of  sympathy  for  the 
trouble  of  her  master,  and  which  did  not,  like  so- 
many,  serve  with  mere  eye-service  to  please  men. 
It  was  like  a  sun  arising  in  a  dark  night,  and  it 
was  the  first  movement  towards  Naaman's  salva- 
tion in  body  and  soul,  and  towards  the  glorifica- 
tion of  the  living  God  among  the  heathen.  How 
great  things  the  little  maid  brought  about  without 
knowing  it.  God  often  makes  use  of  the  most  in- 
significant instruments  (1  Cor.  i.  28)  for  building 
up  His  kingdom  and  for  spreading  abroad  His 
name.  The  least  important  person  in  the  house- 
hold becomes  a  living  proof  of  the  all-controlling, 
loving  care  and  providence  of  God,  and  of  the 
declaration,  Isai.  lv.  9.) — Ver.  4.  Cramer:  One 
ought  not  to  despise  the  counsel  of  even  insigni- 
ficant persons,  for  God  can  accomplish  great  things 
even   by   means   of  these. — Cassel:     When   th« 


fi2 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THK  KINGS. 


great  aud  mighty  are  so  bowed  down  that  they 
do  not  know  where  else  to  get  help,  they  listen 
dven  to  a  child  Nay :  such  are  we  all.  When 
>he  waves  reach  to  our  heads  we  begin  to  listen 
to  anything ;  no  advice  is  too  contemptible  for  us ; 
ao  person  too  insignificant  for  us  to  be  willing  to 
listen. — Ver.  4-7.  Naaman's  Journey  to  Samaria. 
[a)  The  equipment  for  it.  (The  king  gives  him  a 
'etter  of  introduction :  he  departs  witli  great  pomp, 
with  horses  and  chariots,  and  he  takes  with  him 
rich  treasures  for  gifts.  Provided  with  all  this, 
he  has  a  firm  hope  of  attaining  his  object.  Rank, 
might,  and  wealth,  those  are  the  things  in  which  a 
man  hopes  who  has  not  yet  learned  to  know  the 
living  God;  but  the  Scripture  says:  "  Put  not  your 
trust,"  &c,  Ps.  cxlvi.  3,  5;  cxviii.  9;  and:  "A  horse 
is  a  rain  thing,"  &c,  Ps.  xxxiii.  17;  and:  "We 
brought  nothing  into,"  Ac.,  1  Tim.  vi.  7.)  (b)  The 
Reception  in  Samaria.  (The  king  is  terrified 
because  he  has  a  bad  conscience,  Job  xv.  21; 
Wisdom  xvii.  ]  1.  Such  a  man  always  finds  more 
in  a  letter  than  it  says.  Those  who  do  not  trust 
God  do  not  trust  one  another.  In  his  terror  he  is 
at  a  loss  what  to  do.  The  king  of  Israel  does  not 
Know  what  the  little  maid  knew  (ver.  3).  In  mat- 
ters of  the  kingdom  of  God  the  humble  and  lowly 
have  often  more  experience  than  the  great,  Matt. 
xi.  25 ;  1  Cor.  i.  27,  28.  Naaman  was  to  be  made 
to  feel  this,  Sirach  li.  10 :  Ps.  lxxxviii.  5,  in  order 
that  ho  might  come  to  Him  from  whom  alone  help 
can  come,  Ps.  iii.  8 ;  lxviii.  20). — Ver.  6.  Great  men. 
who  aie  accustomed  to  find  every  one  ready  to  do 
their  will,  often  believe,  in  their  blindness,  that  they 
can  command  that  to  be  done  which  only  God  can 
do. — Ver.  7.  What  good  does  it  do  to  believe  in  a 
God  who  can  kill  and  make  alive,  if  one  does  not 
fear  Him  and  bow  before  Him  ;  does  not  seek  Him, 
and  therefore  does  not  find  Him  ?  (James  ii.  19). 

Vers.  8-14.  The  Healing  of  Naaman.  (a)  The 
conduct  <*f  the  prophet  (vers.  8,  10,  14);  (ft)  Naa- 
man's behavior  under  it  (vers.  9,  11-13). — Ver.  8. 
Cramer  When  faithful  servants  of  God  see  that 
the  uub'.lief  of  the  godless  redounds  to  God's  dis- 
honor, I  hey  hasten  to  oppose  it.  God  spoke  and 
made  'mown  His  mercy  by  the  prophets  iu  Israel 
many  times  and  iu  many  ways.  Last  of  all.  He 
revr.f.'ed  Himself  by  His  Son,  who  is  the  "  bright- 
ness, of  His  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  His 
person"  (Heb.  i.  1-3).  He  speaks  to  all  who  have 
to  '.onsole  the  sorrowing  or  counsel  the  despair- 
ing :  Let  them  come  to  me  that  they  may  learn  that 
a  Saviour  has  come  into  the  world,  who  restores  the 
sorrowful  and  heavy-laden,  aud  in  whom  they  can 
find  rest  for  their  souls. — Cassel:  In  Israel  a 
prophet  is  never  wanting;  He  lives  who  goes  ever 
with  us;  He  lives  who  has  washed  all  wounds  in 
His  blood;  though  all  the  world  should  fall  in 
ruins,  my  Saviour  and  my  prophet  lives. — Vers. 
'.),  10.  Horses  and  chariots,  external  grandeur  and 
display,  must  often  be  employed  to  conceal  inter- 
nal misery  from  the  eyes  of  the  world,  and  to  im- 
poso  upon  it.  A  genuine  man  of  God  does  not, 
however,  allow  himself  to  be  deceived,  or  to  be 
Dribed  by  pomp  and  display,  but  he  speaks  out 
whatever  God  commands,  whether  it  pleases  the 
world  or  not.  In  human  affairs  the  word  of  the 
Apostle  applies:  "Bo  kindly  affectioned  one  to 
mother, "  &c,  Rom.  xii.  10.  In  divine  matters, 
iowever,  when  the  recognition  of  truth,  and  the 
honor  of  God,  and  the  glory  of  His  name,  are  at 
stake,  a  servant  of  God  ought  not  to  be  governed 


by  the  rules  of  worldly  politeness,  but  only  to  b« 
guided  by  that  which  will  contribute  to  the  salva- 
tion of  souls.  It  often  requires  far  more  self-denial 
to  resist  the  great  than  to  yield  to  them;  not  all 
is  priestly  pride  which  seems  to  the  world  to  be 
such.  That  which  Naaman  believed  to  be  con- 
tempt and  rudeness  really  proceeded,  in  the  case 
of  Klisha,  from  genuine  love  to  him,  and  humility 
and  obedience  to  God. — Ver.  11  sq.  Menken: 
This  man,  convinced  of  the  inadequacy  of  all  hu- 
man and  earthly  means  to  relieve  his  misfortune, 
seeks  divine  help,  and  when  he  finds  it,  and  it  is 
before  him,  so  that  he  only  needs  to  reach  out  hia 
hands  and  take  it,  he  is  dissatisfied,  and  complains 
of  the  divine  help,  on  account  of  its  peculiar  form 
and  character;  he  turns  away  from  it  with  anger 
as  from  something  worthless.  And  why?  Simply 
on  account  of  his  prejudice;  because  he  had  made 
up  his  mind  that  what  was  divine  must  take  place 
in  another  way,  that  its  form  of  acting  and  help- 
ing must  be  different.  He  did  not  stop  and  ask 
himself  whether  he  had  reason  and  right  for  his 
expectation,  nor  whether  the  peculiarity  of  speech, 
action,  and  relief,  which  displeased  him,  was  un 
becoming  to  what  was  divine.  Trusting  to  his 
prejudice  without  scruple  or  investigation  as  to  its 
justice,  as  it  were  to  an  oracle,  i.  e.,  trusting  to 
himself  as  possessing  an  infallible  insight,  he  de- 
parts. How  faithful  and  true  the  old  picture  is  I 
How  fresh  and  new  it  is,  as  if  men  of  to-day  had 
sat  for  it  I  Ask  thousands,  who  are  devoted  to 
human  pursuits  with  enthusiasm  and  zeal,  and 
who  leave  what  is  holy  and  divine  in  contemptu- 
ous neglect,  why  they  do  so,  and  they  will  be  able 
to  give  but  this  one  answer:  I  thought  that  the 
divine  must  speak,  and  act,  and  will,  and  work,  iu 
a  different  way  from  this;  I  cannot  reconcile  it 
with  my  opinion;  if  I  should  accept  this  I  should 
have  to  throw  away  my  opinion,  and  that  of  the 
public  and  the  time. — Observe  this  now  well,  and 
do  not  think  it  of  little  importance.  This  "I 
thought!  "  is  the  most  mighty  of  all  mighty  things 
i'ii  earth,  and  even  if  it  is  not  the  most  ruinous  of 
all  ruinous  tilings,  it  is  yet  certainly  the  most  un- 
fortunate of  all  unfortunate  ones.  This  "  I  thought" 
brought  sin  and  misery  and  death  into  the  world, 
and  it  prevents  redemption  from  sin  and  death  in 
the  case  of  thousands.  These  thousands,  if  they 
perish  in  their  opinion,  will  begin  the  next  life 
with  "I  thought!" — Calwer  BinEL:  How  com- 
mon it  is  for  men  to  prescribe  to  God  the  ways  of 
His  providence  and  the  modes  of  His  assistance! 
Just  in  order  to  break  this  self-will,  and  to  awaken 
aud  test  our  faith  and  our  patience,  God  must  act 
contrary  to  our  prejudice. — Richter:  How  many 
a  one  asks  in  unbelief:  how  can  water  do  so  great 
things?  Water  does  not  indeed  do  it,  but  the 
word  of  God.  which  is  in  aud  with  the  water. — 
The  Means  by  which  Naaman  was  made  whole. 
(a)  Their  apparent  insignificance ;  {h)  their  real 
significance  (see  Histor.  §§  1  and  2). — Menken: 
Blessed  is  he  who  is  not  offended  because  of  me, 
said  once  He,  in  whom  and  through  whom  the  di- 
vine appeared  to  men  in  its  purest  and  most  glo- 
rious form,  and  in  its  deepest  and  directest  sense. 
Thereby  He  showed  conclusively  that  the  divine 
has  a  peculiarity  on  account  of  which  it  is  and 
must  be  opposed  to  the  perverse  sense  of  sinful 
men.  Therefore  we  call  that  man  blessed  whe 
can  believe  the  divine,  and  to  whom  the  humble 
form  in  which  it  arrears  here  below  is  no  causi 


OHAPTER  V.-YI.  7. 


6S 


of  mistake,  and  whom  the  simplicity  in  which  it 
in  dressed  for  the  sake  of  truth,  and  the  humility 
with  which  it  is  clad  for  the  sake  of  love,  offends 
so  little  that  he  admires  and  honors  and  loves  it 
all  the  more  exactly  on  this  account.- — Cf.  1  Cor.  i. 
20-29. — Naaman  became  angry  on  account  of  the 
message  which  the  prophet  sent  to  him.      So  now 
also  the  message  of  salvation  is  received  with  an- 
ger because  it  opposes  the  opinion  and  the  pride 
of  the  natural  man,  who  is  not  willing  to  admit 
that  he  is  a  poor  sinner,  and  diseased,  and  in  need 
of  salvation  (James  i.  21).     That  which  is  offered 
as  a  means  of  life  and  peace,  becomes  thus  all  the 
greater  cause  of  destruction. — Luther  :  The  world 
wants  to  earn  heaven  from  God,  although  He  pro- 
claims through  the  world :  I  will  be  your  God ;  I 
will  give  it  to  you  out  of  free  grace,  and  I  will 
make  you  blessed  without  a  price.     [Naaman  as  a 
Type  of  the  Rationalist.  The  a  priori  notions  which 
men  form,  which  become  prejudices  in  their  minds, 
and  by  which  they  measure  things.     They  invent 
a  God  in  their  own  minds  and  go  to  the   Bible  to 
see  if  they  find  the  same  God  there ;  if  not,  they 
reject  Him.     They  form  a  priori  notions  of  Christ, 
of  the  Bible,  of  religion,  and  the  way  in  which  re- 
ligion ought  to  be  presented  to  them,  of  prayer,  of 
Providence,  of  the  sacraments,  Ac.     If  these  are 
not  satisfied  they  turn  away  angry.   If  the  diseases 
of  their  souls  cannot  be  healed  as  they  have  made 
up  their  minds  that  they  ought  to  be  healed,  then 
they  will  not  have  them  healed  at  all.    See  Histor.  1 
and"  3,  with  translator's  additions. — W.  G.S.] — Yer. 
13.    "  The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  obser- 
vation ;  "  "  it  is  not  in  word  but  in  power  "  (Luke 
xvii.  20;  1  Cor.  iv.  20). — Menken:  Thousands,  who 
are  sad  and  heavy-laden  under  the  consciousness 
of  the  spiritual  misery  of  sin  and  death     .     .     . 
would   be  glad  if  the  Word  would  order  them  to 
the  utmost  end  of  the  earth,  and  would  command 
them  to  make  the  pilgrimage  without  shoes  under 
their  feet,  or  covering  upon  their  heads,  and   to 
give  all  their  goods  to  the  poor,  and  to  brand  and 
torture  their  bodies  with  chastisements,  because 
that  would  correspond  to  their  sensual  feeling,  and 
to  their  preconceived  opinion ;  but  they  cannot  re- 
concile themselves  to  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of 
God,  that  He  sent  His  Son  into   the  world  as  ;i 
propitiation  for  sin  (1  John  iv.  10). — Servants  and 
subordinates  cannot  better  prove  their  love  and 
fidelity  to  their  masters  than  by  dissuading  them 
from  angry  and  violent  steps  by  friendly  and  hum- 
ble words — not  by  falling  in  with  and  encouraging 
their  temper.     (Prov.  xv.  1). — Yer.  14.  Krumma- 
chee:   It  is  a  great  thing,  when  a  man  is  willing 
from  his  heart  to  submit  himself  to  the  ordinances 
which  God  has  established  for  his  salvation. — Ben- 
der: The  divine  means  of  grace  of  the  Church  are 
for  us  what  the  Jordan  was  for  Naaman.     We  are 
called  to  profit  by  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
will  therein  enlighten  us  by  His  gifts,  and  sanctify 
and  strengthen  us  in  the  faith.     As  Naaman  was 
healed  gratis  of  his  leprosy,  which  threatened  him 
with  death,  so  that  his  flesh  became  like  that  of  a 
little  child,  so  are  we,  through  the  compassion  of 
God,  which  was  revealed  in  Christ,  purified  from  sin 
and  saved  through  the  "washing  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  so  that  we  may 
be  first-fruits  of  His  creatures,  and,  as  such,  heirs 
if  eternal  life  (Titus  iii.  5  sq. ;  James  i.  18). 

Yers.  14-19.  Bender:   The  Healing  of  Naaman. 
a)  The  act  of  God;  (J)  Naaman's  confession;   (<-) 


his  gratitude:   (d)  his  especial  request. — Yer.  15 
He  who  has  come  to  faith  in  the  living  God,  whe 
revealed  himself  to  Israel  by  His  prophets,  and  to 
us  by  His  Son,  feels  an  impulsion  to  confess  this 
faith  with  joy  before  men.     Without  faith  there  is 
no  confession,  and  without  confession  there  is  no 
faith  (Ps.  cxvi.  10;  Rom.  x.  10).— J.  Lange:   That 
knowledge  of  God  which  is  won  by  experience  of 
the  purification  of  the  heart,  and  which  is  enjoyed 
in  the  sweet  and  quiet  peace  of  the  soul,  is  the  only 
real,   genuine,  and   saving  knowledge. — Starke: 
Nothing  is  impossible  for  faith.     It  can  make  of  a 
proud  and  boastful  soldier  a  pious  and  humble  ser- 
vant of  God  (Mark  ix.  23).      Naaman  gave  with 
joy,  and  God  loveth  a  cheerful  giver.     He  gave 
not  only  because  he  had  been  healed,  but  because 
he  had  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  true  God.     Af- 
ter God  we  owe  gratitude  to  none  so  much  as  to 
those  who  have  brought  us  to  a  knowledge  of  God 
and  a  recognition  of  the  truth. — Yer.  16.  Menken: 
Godly  and  holy  men,  who  have  devoted  their  lives 
to   the   service  and  witness  of   the   divine   truth 
among   men.   have  always  had  two  peculiarities, 
which  bad  men  have  never  been  able  to  imitate: 
freedom  from  all  love  of  gain,  and,  in   neglect  of 
the  praise  and  honor  of  the  world,  a  pure  looking- 
up  to  the  Father,  "who  seeth  in  secret"  (Acts  viii. 
ls--.Mi|. — Starke:  True  Godliness  knows  when  to 
opeu  the  hand  and  when  to  close  it  (Sir.  iv.  36). — 
A   servant  of  God   must   always  firmlv  ward  off 
whatever  might  cast  the  least  evil  appearance  upon 
the  purity  and  fidelity  of  his  sen-ice  to  his  master. 
— Yers.  17-19.     Naaman's  Two  Requests,  as  testi- 
monies to  his  firm  and  decided  faith  (see  Historical, 
%%  1.  4).     («)  The  altar  built  of  the  soil  of  Israel  in 
a  foreign  land  was  au  indicator  of  the  way  to  Israel 
and  to  Israel's  God;   a  physical  confession  which 
required  strong  courage,  for  it  might  call  down  per- 
secution, disgrace,  and  death.     So  now  it  is  an  act 
of  faith  when  a  messenger  of  the  faith  sets  up  the 
cross   in   the  midst  of  a   mighty  heathen  people. 
How  deeply  does  Naaman  shame  the   Christians 
who,  even  among  Christians  and  in  Christian  coun- 
tries, do  not  dare  to  confess  Christ  by  word  and 
deed,     (i)  The  prayer  for  indulgence  came  from  a 
fine  and  tender  conscience,  which  makes  an  earnest 
thing  of  its  faith;  to  which  all  hypocrisy  is  loath- 
some;  which  is  not  willing  to  lean  bot1"  ways,  but 
demands  confidence  and  certainty  as  to  whether 
what  it  does  and  what  it  leaves  undone  are  right 
in  the  sight  of  God,  and  whether  it  is  maintaining 
the  grace  it  has  won.     How  rare  are  those  in  our 
times  who,  in  matters  of  religion,  are  equallv  scru- 
pulous!—Yer.   17.    Cassel:   As  Naaman  was   the 
type  of  the  converted  heathen  world,  and   he  car- 
ried the  soil  of  Palestine  to  Aram,  so  did  the  hea- 
then carry  over  into  their  own  lands,  together  with 
Christianity,    the   doctrine,   life,   disposition,    and 
spirit,  which  had  nourished  in  the  Holy  Land,  and 
thereby   they   established   for  themselves  a   new 
home.     .     .     .     When  we  hear  here  and   there  in 
Christian   lands  the  names  Bethany,   Bethlehem, 
Zion,   &c  ,  what  are   they  but   holy  places   trans- 
ferred, in  their  spirit,  from  their   original  location 
into  our  life  and  thought  and  feeling.     Tn  thy  re- 
ligious observances  the  main  point  is  not  the"  cor- 
rectness and  truth  of  thy  knowledge,  or  of  th6 
doctrine  which  thou  professest,  but  the  truth  and 
purity  of  thine  own  character.     What  one  may  do 
under  his  circumstances  without  violating  his  con- 
science, the  conscience  of  another,  under  other  cir 


64 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


camstances,  will  forbid  him  to  do.  We  have  no 
right  to  judge  him :  to  the  Lord  each  one  stands  or 
.'alls  (Rom.  xiv.  1-7). — Menken-:  The  higher  a  man 
stands  in  the  world,  and  the  more  important  he 
has  made  his  position,  the  more  is  he  bound. — Ver. 

19.  When  a  man  has  been  heartily  converted,  and 
earnestly  strives  to  enter  in  at  the  straight  gate, 
we  ought  not  to  make  harder  for  him  what  is  al- 
ready hard,  and  we  ought  not  to  make  demands  of 
him  winch,  according  to  the  circumstances  in  which 
God  has  placed  him,  he  cannot  fulfill,  but  look  to  the 
main  point  and  not  the  incidental  or  external  things, 
leaving  him  with  prayer  to  the  gracious  guidance 
of  God,  who  will  complete  the  work  of  grace  which 
He  lias  begun  in  him.  God  makes  the  sincere  to 
succeed. — Menken  :  One  does  not  know  what  to 
admire  most  in  Elisha's  mild  and  simple  answer, 
the  clear  and  correct  insight  into  a  genuine  heart 
experionce,  which,  whatever  may  surround  and  ob- 
scure the  main  point,  still  seizes  this  quickly  and 
clearly ;  or  the  holy  moderation  which,  even  in  the 
case  where  it  is  its  prerogative  to  urge,  limit,  bind, 
loose,  or  burden,  stul  restrains  itself;  or  the  pure 
humanity  of  disposition,  which  can  so  thoroughly 
sympathize,  so  completely  put  itself  in  the  position 
and  at  the  stand-point  of  the  other.  The.  knowl- 
edge of  the  living  God,  and  the  experience  of  His 
saving  grace,  is  the  fountain  of  all  peace,  with 
which  alone  a  man  can  go  gladly  on  his  way. 

Vers.  19-27  (cf.  Histor.  §  5).  Bender:  Gehazi, 
the  False  Prophet-Disciple,  (a)  His  disposition; 
<b)  his  procedure ;  (c)  his  punishment. — Krumma- 
oher  :  Gehazi.  (a)  Gehazi's  heart ;  (b)  Gehazi's 
crime;  (c)  the  judgment  which  fell  upon  him. — Ver. 

20.  Let  not  desire  overcome  thee.  How  mighty 
are  the  evil  inborn  lusts  of  the  human  heart  1 
Even  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  for  years  en- 
joyed the  society  of  the  noblest  and  most  pious 
men,  who  have  heard  and  read  the  word  of  God 
daily,  and  who  have  had  the  example  of  holy  con- 
duct daily  before  their  eyes,  lusts  arise,  take  pos- 
session of  them,  and  carry  them  captive  (James  i. 
13-15;  Matt.  xv.  19).  Therefore,  "Be  sober,  be 
vigilant,"  &c.  (1  Peter  v.  8). — The  avaricious  and 
covetous  are  always  envious;  they  are  discon- 
tented when  others  neglect  chances  to  become  rich, 
or  renounce  that  which  they  would  be  glad  to  have. 
— CalwerBibel:  Gehazi  speaks  contemptuously 
of  Naaman  because  he  is  a  Syrian  and  not  an  Is- 
raelite, although  he  was  far  better  than  Gehazi. 
So  also  now-a-days.  unwise  Christians  and  Jews 
contemn  one  another.  .  .  .  It  is  plain  from  his 
unnecessary  oath  what  kind  of  a  man  Gehazi  was. 
Those  who  swear  unnecessarily  judge  themselves. 
Covetousness  is  the  root  of  all  evil :  where  there 
is  covetousness  and  avarice  there  is  also  falsehood 
and  deceit,  vulgarity  and  rudeness,  and  cunning 
theft  and  bold  theft.— Ver.  22.  Bender:  Gehazi 
was  Elisha's  servant.  Ye  servants,  how  do  you 
conduct  yourselves  toward  your  masters?  Are  ye 
open,  sincere,  honest,  obedient,  as  the  apostle  says 
Eph.  vi.  5.  6  7  Is  the  property  and  good  name  of 
your  masters  as  dear  to  you  as  your  own  property 
and  your  own  honor,  or  do  ye  take  advantage  of 
them  where  ye  can?  "My  master  has  sent  me  " 
— so  says  many  an  unfaithful  servant,  who  cares 
for  silver  and  gold,  raiment,  fields,  vineyards,  and 
gardens,  but  not  for  the  honor  of  his  master — who 
cares  more  for  the  wool  than  for  'he  sheep.  Hypo- 
crites do  more  harm  to  the  cause  of  God  thai  .he 
godleis  (2  Tim.  iii.  5).— Ver  23.     He  who  himself 


thinketh  no  evil  and  is  sincere,  does  not  suspect 
cunning  and  deceit  in  others.  Good-hearted,  noble 
men,  to  whom  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to 
receive,  are  easily  deceived,  and  they  follow  the 
inclination  of  their  hearts,  instead  of  examining 
carefully  to  whom  they  are  giving  their  benefac- 
tions.— -Ver.  24.  That  which  we  must  conceal 
brings  no  blessing. — Ver.  25.  "  Whence  comest 
thou,  Gehazi?"  Happy  are  they  of  whom  there 
is  no  need  to  ask  this  question ;  who  can  give  an 
account  without  falsehood  of  all  the  paths  in  which 
they  have  walked,  and  of  all  the  places  in  which 
they  have  been. — Menken  :  This  question  should 
have  been  to  Gehazi  like  the  wind-gusts  before  a 
storm,  which  warn  the  traveler  to  seek  a  refuge 
where  the  coming  storms  and  floods  cannot  reach 
him. — This  is  the  curse  which  rests  upon  a  lie,  that 
the  man  seeks  to  escape  from  it  by  new  lies,  and 
so  involves  himself  more  and  more  in  the  net  of 
him  of  whom  the  master  says:  "  When  he  speak- 
eth  a  lie  he  speaketh  of  his  own  "  (John  viii.  44). — 
Ver.  26.  If  God  himself  arms  His  prophets  with 
the  gift  to  bo  witnesses  of  hidden  sin,  and  to  bring 
it  to  the  light,  how  much  more  will  He,  before 
whose  judgment-seat  we  shall  all  have  to  appear, 
bring  that  to  light  which  now  lies  hidden  in  dark- 
ness, and  reveal  the  secret  counsels  of  the  heart  ? 
— Ver.  27.  Menken:  How  did  the  raiment  of  Da- 
mascus appear  to  the  leper,  or  the  pieces  of  silver 
to  the  wretched  outcast?  How  often  must  he  have 
desired  to  buy  back  again  with  all  his  treasures 
one  day  of  his  healthful  poverty  ?  Then,  too,  the 
lost  peace  of  God.  Alas  I  Most  incomprehensible, 
most  depraved,  most  indestructible  and  terrible  of 
all  deceits,  deceit  of  riches,  who  fears  thee,  as  we 
all  should  fear  thee  ?  God  have  pity  upon  us  all, 
and  help  us  all,  that  no  one  may  set  his  hopes 
upon  uncertain  riches,  but  upon  the  living  God, 
who  gives  us  all  richly  to  enjoy  all  His  blessings. 
And  yet  again:  "They  that  will  be  rich  fall  into 
temptation  and  a  snare"  (1  Tim.  vi.  9-12). — The 
story  of  Naaman  and  Gehazi  is  a  prophecy  of  the 
salvation  of  the  heathen  who  seek  help  and  grace, 
and  of  the  rejection  of  Israel,  if  it  destroys  and  re- 
jects salvation  (Isai.  v.  25  sq.).  [The  leprosy  of 
riches.  Gold  is  tainted — strength  required  to  use 
it  aright;  right  pursuit  of  wealth ;  absorbing  pur- 
suit of  it;  curse  which  cleaves  to  it  when  it  is  ill- 
gotten  or  ill-used ;  this  curse  crops  out  most  fre- 
quently in  the  children.  A  father  absorbed  in 
pursuit  of  wealth,  and  mother  absorbed  in  fashion, 
will  bring  up  corrupt  and  neglected  children.  Pa- 
rents love  gold,  and  fashion,  and  display,  children 
will  hold  these  the  chief  things  in  life.  Thou  hast 
gotten  thee  gold,  but  leprosy  shall  cleave  to  thee 
and  to  thy  seed  forever. — W.  G.  S.] 

Chap.  vi.  1-7  (cf.  Histor.  §  6  and  7).  (a)  Sketch 
of  the  Community-life  of  the  Prophet-disciples,  (a) 
Their  number  does  not  diminish  in  spite  of  all  con- 
tempt and  persecution,  but  increases  (ver  1);  (6) 
they  undertake  nothing  without  their  master  (vera 
2  and  3) ,  (c)  they  help  and  encourage  one  another 
in  their  work  (ver.  4) ;  (rf)  they  experience  the  di- 
vine help  and  blessing  (vers.  5-7). — Ver.  1.  It  is  a 
good  state  of  things  when  a  community  can  say: 
"Behold!  the  place,"  &c.  How  many  Churches 
have  room  and  to  spare,  and  might  accommodato 
twice  as  many  hearers,  while  the  room  in  the 
buildings  devoted  to  the  lusts  of  the  eye  and  the 
flesh,  and  to  the  pride  of  life,  is  too  small. — Ver. 
2.     Pfaff.  Bibel:   Each  one  should  contr'uu'.e  hii 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-VII.  20.  6? 


share  to  multiply  churches  and  schools  as  the  pop-  I  that  they  may  not  despair  in  adversity,  but  trust  in 
ulation  increases. — Ver.  o.    Starke:  Pious  people  \  God,  and  be  only  the  more  diligent  in  prayer. — 


are  more  careful  of  what  is  borrowed  than  of  their 
own  property. — Vers.  5-7.  Wtjrt.  SraiM. :  We 
have  here  an  instance  where  God  is  touched  by 
even  the  least  misfortune  which  visits  his  children. 
He  will  not  let  himself  be  hindered  by  natural 
laws  from  helping  his  servants  in  their  need,     .    . 


Krummacher  :  It  often  happens  that  the  Lord  takes 
from  us  some  possession,  or  appears  to  do  so,  only 
with  the  purpose  of  returning  it  after  a  longer  or 
shorter  time  in  some  unexpected  way,  that  it  may 
thus  come  to  us  as  a  gift  of  divine  love,  am' 
pledge  of  His  grace. 


C. — Elisha's  conduct  during  the  Syrian  invasion  and  the  siego  of  Samaria. 
Chap.  TI.  8-TOI.  20. 

8  Then  the  king  of  Syria  warred  against  [was  at  war  with1]  Israel,  and  took 
counsel  with  his  servants,  saying,  In  such  and  such  a  place  shall  be  my  camp. 

9  And  the  man  of  God  sent  unto  the  king  of  Israel,  saying,  Beware  that  thou 

10  pass  not  such  a  place  ;  for  thither  the  Syrians  are  come  down.2  And  the  king 
of  Israel  sent  to  the  place  which  the  man  of  God  [had]  told  him  and  warned 
him  of,  and  saved   [protected  3]  himself  there,  not  once  nor  twice  [i.e.,  a  great  many 

11  times].  Therefore  the  heart  of  the  king  of  Syria  was  sore  troubled  for  this  thing; 
and  he  called  his  servants,  and  said  unto  them,  Will  ye  not  show  me  which  of 

19-  us4  is  for  the  king  of  Israel?  And  one  of  his  servants  said,  None,  my  lord,  O 
king;  but  Elisha,  the  prophet  that  is  in  Israel,  telleth  the  king  of  Israel  the 
words  that  thou  speakest  in  thy  bedchamber. 

13  And  he  said,  Go  and  spy  where  he  is,  that  I  may  send  and  fetch  him.     And 

14  it  was  told  him,  saying,  Behold,  he  is  in  Dothan.  Therefore  sent  he  thither 
horses,  and  chariots,  and  a  great  host :  and  they  came  by  night,  and  compassed 

15  the  city  about.  And  when  the  servant  of  the  man  of  God  was  risen  early,  and 
gone  forth,  behold,  a  host  com] passed  the  city  both  with  horses  and  chariots. 

16  And  his  servant  said  unto  him,  Alas,  my  master,  how  shall  we  do  ?  And  he 
answered,  Fear  not:  for  they  that  be  with  us  are  more  than  they  that  be  with 

17  them.  And  Elisha  prayed,  and  said,  Lord,  I  pray  thee,  open  his  eyes,  that  he 
may  see.  And  the  Lord  opened  the  eyes  of  the  young  man  ;  and  he  saw:  and 
behold,  the  mountain  was  full  of  horses  and  chariots  of  fire  round  about  Elisha. 

18  And    when    they    Came    down    to    him,     [«'.  «.,  the  Syrian,  for,  the  Syrian  army— BShr]    Elisha 

prayed  unto  the  Lord,  and  said.  Smite  this  people,  I  pray  thee,  with  blindness. 
And  he  smote  them  with  blindness  according  to  the  word  of  Elisha. 

19  And  Elisha  said  unto  them,  This  is  not  the  way,  neither  is  this  the  city : 
follow  me,  and  I  will  bring  you  to  the  man  whom  ye  seek.     But  [And]  he  led 

20  them  to  Samaria.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  they  were  come  into  Samaria, 
that  Elisha  said.  Lord,  open  the  eyes  of  these  men,  that  they  may  see.  And  the 
Lord  opened   their  eyes,  and  they  saw  ;    and  behold,  they  were  in  the  midst  of 

21  Samaria.     And   the  "king  of  Israel   said  unto  Elisha,  when  he  saw  them,  My 

22  father,  shall  I  smite  them?  shall  I  smite  them?  And  he  answered,  Thou  shalt 
not  smite  them:  wouldst  thou  smite  \if  thou  shovldst  do  that,  wouldst  thou  be 
smiting]  those  whom  thou  hast  taken  captive  with  thy  sword  and  with  thy  bow  ? 
set  bread  and  water  before  them,  that  they  may  eat  and  drink,  and  go  to  their 

23  master.  And  he  prepared  great  provision  for  them :  and  when  they  had  eaten 
and  drunk,  he  sent  them  away,  and  they  went  to  their  master.  So  the  [maraud- 
ing] Viands  of  Syria  came  no  more  into  the  land  of  Israel. 

24  And  it  came  to  pass  after  this,  that  Ben-badad  king  of  Syria  gathered  all 

25  his  host,  and  went  up,  and  besieged  Samaria.  And  there  was  a  great  famine 
in  Samaria  :    and,  behold,  they  besieged   it.  until   an   ass's   head   was  sold  for 

worth]  fourscore  pieces  of  silver,  and  the  fourth  part  of  a  cab  of  dove's  dung 
'was  worth — omit  for]  for  five  pieces  of  silver.  And  as  the  king  of  Israel  was 
passing  by  upon  the  wall,  there  cried  a  woman  unto  him,  saying,  Help,  my  lord, 

27  0  king.     And  he  said,  If  the  Lord  do  not  help  thee,  whence  shall  I  help  thee  ? 

28  out  of  the  barnfloor,  or  out  of  the  winepress  ?     And   the  king  said  unto  her, 

5 


36 


66  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

What  aileth  thee  ?   And  she  answered,  This  woman  said  unto  r.i„   Give  thy  son, 

29  that  we  may  eat  him  to-day,  and  we  will  eat  my  sod  to-mOrrcv.  So  ne  boiled 
my  son  and  did  eat  him  :  and  I  said  unto  her  on  the  next,  ddy,  Give  thy  son, 
that  we  may  eat  him :  and  she  hath  hid  her  son. 

30  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  king  heard  the  words  or  til :  woman,  that  he 
rent  his  clothes;  and  he  passed  by  upon  the  wall,  and  the  people  looked,  and, 

31  behold,  he  had  sackcloth  within  upon  his  flesh.  Then  he  raid,  God  do  so  and 
more  also  to  me,  if  the  head  of  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat  shall  stand  on  him 

32  this  day.  (But  Elisha  sat  [was  sitting]  in  his  house,  and  the  elders  sat  [were 
sitting]  with  him;  [.])  And  the  king  sent  a  man  trom  before  him:  but  ere  the 
messenger  came  to  him,  he  [Elisha]  sj.id  to  the  elders,  Llee  ye  how  this  son  of  a 
murderer  hath  sent  to  take  away  mine  head?  look,  .vn.'ii  the  messenger  cometh, 
shut  the  door,  and  hold  him  fast  at  [held  him  back   by  means  of]  the  door:  is 

2?  not  the  sound  of  his  master's  feet  behind  him  ?  And  while  he  yet  talked  with 
them,  behold,  the  messenger  came  down  unto  him :  and  he  said,  Behold,  this  evil 
is  of  the  Lord ;  what  should  I  wait  for  the  Lord  any  longer  [what  hope  shall  I 
still  place  in  the  Lord]  ? 

Chap.  VII.  1.  Then  Elisha  said,  Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord  ;  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,To-morrow  about  this  time  shall  a  measure  of  fine  flour  be  sold  for  [be 
worth]  a  shekel,  and  two  measures  of  barley  for  [be  worth]  a  shekel,  in  the 

2  gate  of  Samaria.  Then  a  lord  [an  officer,  or  adjutant]  on  whose  ham!  the  king  leaned 
answered  the  man  of  God,  and  said,  Behold,  if  the  Lord  would  make  windows 
in  heaven  might  this  thing  be  ?  [Verily  !  Jehovah  is  going  to  make  windows 
in  heaven  !  even  then  could  this  come  to  pass  ?]  And  he  said.  Behold,  thou  shalt 
see  it  with  thine  eyes,  but  shalt  not  eat  thereof. 

3  And  there  were  four  leprous  men  at  the  entering  in  of  the  gate:  and  they 

4  said  one  to  another,  Why  sit  we  here  until  we  die?  If  we  say,  We  will  enter 
into  the  city,  then  the  famine  is  in  the  city,  and  we  shall  die  there :  and  if  we 
sit  still  here  we  die  also.  Now  therefore  come,  and  let  us  fall  [away]  unto  the 
host  of  the  Syrians:  if  they  save  us  alive,  we  shall  live;  and  if  they  kill  us,  we 

5  shall  but  die.  And  they  rose  up  in  the  twilight,  to  go  unto  the  camp  of  the 
Syrians:  and  when  they  were  come  to  the  uttermost  part  [outskirts, mz., those 

6  nearest  the  city]  of  the  camp  of  Syria,  behold,  there  was  no  man  there.  For  the  Lord 
had  made  the  host  of  the  Syrians  to  hear  a  noise  of  chariots,  and  a  noise  of  horses, 
even  the  noise  of  a  great  host :  and  they  said  one  to  another,  Lo,  the  king  of  Israel 

7  hath  hired  against  us  the  kings  of  the  Hittites,  and  the  kings  of  the  Egyptians, 
to  come  upon  us.  Wherefore  they  arose  and  fled  in  the  twilight,  and  left  their 
tents,  and  their  horses,  and  their  asses,  even  the  camp  as  it  was,  and  fled  for  their 

8  life.  And  when  these  lepers  came  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  camp,  they  went 
into  one  tent,  and  did  eat  and  drink,  and  carried  thence  silver,  and  gold,  and 
raiment,  and  went  and  hid  it ;  and  came  again,  and  entered  into  another  tent, 

9  and  carried  thence  also,  and  went  and  hid  it.  Then  they  said  one  to  another, 
We  do  not  well :  this  day  is  a  day  of  good  tidings,  and  we  hold  our  peace  :  if 
we  tarry  till  the  morning  light,  some  mischief  [penalty]  will  come  [fall]  upon 

10  us:  now  therefore  come,  that  we  may  go  and  tell  the  king's  household.  So  they 
came  and  called  unto  the  porter  [guard]  of  the  city:  and  they  told  them,  say- 
ing, We  came  to  the  camp  of  the  Syrians,  and,  behold,  there  was  no  man  there, 
neither  voice  [sound]  of  man  [a  human  being],  but  horses  tied,  and  asses  tied, 

11  and  the  tents  as  they  were.  And  he  [one]  called  the  porters  [guards]  ;  and  they 
told  it  to  the  king's  house  within  [reported  it  inside  of  the  king's  house]. 

12  And  the  king  arose  in  the  night,  and  said  unto  his  servants,  I  will  now  shew 
you  what  the  Syrians  have  done  to  us.  They  know  that  we  be  hungry;  there- 
fore are  they  gone  out  of  the  camp  to  hide  themselves  in  the  field,6  saying,  When 

13  they  come  out  of  the  city,  we  shall  catch  them  alive,  and  gi  t  into  the  city.  And 
din'  of  liis  servants  answered  and  said,  Let  some  take,  I  pray  thee,  five  of  the 
horses  thai  remain,  which  are  left  in  the  city,  (behold,  they  are  as  all  the  multi- 
tude (if  Israel  that  are  left  in  it:  behold,  /  say,  they  are  even  as  all  the  multi- 
tude of    the  Israelites  that  are  consumed  [dead  *]  ;)    and   let  us  send  and  see 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-VII.  20 


67 


14  They  took  therefore  two  chariot  horses  [two  chariot-equipages];  and  the  king 
sent  after  the  host  of  the  Syrians  [towards  the  Syrian  camp],  saying,  Go  and  see. 

1-5  And  they  went  after  them  unto  Jordan:  and,  lo,  all  the  way  was  full  of  gar- 
ments and  vessels  [utensils],   which  the  Syrians  had  cast  away  in  their  haste 

16  [hasty  flight '].  And  the  messengers  returned,  and  told  the  king.  And  the 
people  went  out,  and  spoiled  the  tents  of  the  Syrians.  So  a  measure  of  fine 
flour  was  sold  for  [became  worth]  a  shekel,  and  two  measures  of  barley  for  [omu 
for]  a  shekel,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

1  7  And  the  king  appointed  the  lord  on  whose  hand  he  leaned  to  have  the  charge 
of  the  gate  :   and  the  people  trode  upon  him  in  the  gate,  and  he  died,  as  the  man 

18  of  God  had  said,  who  spake  [as  he  said]  when  the  king  came  down  to  him.  And 
it  came  to  pass  as  the  man  of  God  had  spoken  to  the  king,  saying,  Two  meas- 
ures of  barley  for  a  shekel,  and   a  measure  of  fine  flour  for  a  shekel,  shall   be 

19  to-morrow  about  this  time  in  the  gate  of  Samaria:  And  that  lord  answered  the 
man  of  God,  and  said,  Now,  behold,  if  the  Lord  should  make  windows  in 
heaven,  might  such  a  thing  be  ?     And  he  said,  Behold,  thou  shalt   see  it  with 

20  thine  eyes,  but  shalt  not  eat  thereof.  And  so  it  fell  out  unto  him:  for  the  people 
trode  upon  him  in  the  gate,  and  he  died. 

TEXTUAL    AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  S. — [The  first  clause  expresses  a  circruistance  of  the  main  action,  best  rendered  by  the  absolute  participial  con- 
struction. The  king  of  Syria,  being  at  war  with  Israel,  held  a  council  of  his  officers,  and  decided,  in  such  and  sr.ch,  Ac 
--Ew.  Lehrb.  §  161,  a,  explains  mjnn  as  a  noun  in  the  form  of  the  infinitive,  das  Sich  lagern.  Hence  the  form  of  tho 
•uff. 

2  Ver.  9. — [On  O^nJ  Ges.  The*,  s.  v.  says:  "  Whoever  gave  this  word  its  punctuation  seems  to  have  derived  it  from 

the  root  nnn  {cf.  Job  xxi.  13),  but  the  force  of  dejce7it.  going  dawn,  is  necessary  and  indubitable."  Sept.  KiKpvnrai ; 
Vulg.  in  insidiij  aunt.  The  //.-  W.-B.  makes  it  an  adj.  from  nnj  ,  but  Ew.  casts  doubt  upon  the  form,  and  says  it  could 
as  well  be  a  part,  niphal  from  H/l,  §  1ST,  6. 

3  Ver.  10. — ["  He  protected  himself,'1  i.  e..  he  occupied  the  threatened  point,  and  so  frustrated  the  attack.  Every  tima 
that  the  Syrians  came  they  found  that  the  Israelites  had  anticipated  them  at  the  point  where  they  proposed  to  attack. 

*  Ver  11.— [Ewald,  Lehrb.  §  181,  b,  and  note  2,  rejects  the  form  WtTO  as  an  incorrect  reading.    He  takes  WSQ 

(as  in  chap.  ix.  5)  to  be  the  true  reading.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  in  ix.  5  Jehu  includes  himself  among  those,  one  of 
whom  the  answer  is  to  designate,  while  the  king  of  Syria  asks,  "Who  of  those  who  belong  to  us'"  naturally  enough 
excluding  himself  from  the  number  of  those  who  fall  under  suspicion  of  treachery.  The  meaning  of  the  two  forms  ifl 
•quite  distinct,  and  each  belongs  to  the  place  in  which  it  is  used.  Ewald's  theory  of  the  use  of  the  abbreviated  form  of 
"Il^'X  must  bend  to  this  instance;  the  instance  cannot  be  thus  done  away  with,  in  the  interest  of  the  theory. 

•Chap.  vii.  ver.  12.— [The  I"!  in  the  chetib  is  that  of  the  article,  which,  in  the  later  books,  is  sometimes  found  even 
after  a  preposition.     Ew.  §  244.  a. 

•  Ver.  13.— [That is  to  say:  They  go  to  the  fate  which  has  already  befallon  all  the  people  who  are  gone,  and  which 
sooner  or  later,  awaits  all  who  remain. — W.  G.  S.]  We  agree  with  Thenius  that  the  keri  pOH  is  to  be  preferred,  because 
the  word  occurs  immediately  afterward  without  the  article. — Bahr.  [Ew.  explains  the  article  in  the  chetib  as  retained 
in  the  later  or  less  accurate  usage,  especially  where  the  article  has  emphatic  force.  §  290,  d. — W.  G.  S.] 

'  Ver.  15.— Keil :  The  chetib  DTDnri3  is  the  only  possible  correct  form,  for  1211  has  the  meaning,  to  flee  with  hatte, 
only  in  the  niphal.     <y.  1  Sam.  xxiii.  26;  Ps.  xlv:::.  5.— Bahr. 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  S.  Then  the  king  of  Syria,  Ac.  Accord- 
ing to  Ewald,  the  story  (vers.  8-23)  belongs  to  the 
time  of  Jehoahaz  (chap  xiii.  1-9).  However,  the 
passage  immediately  following  begins,  ver.  24,  with 
the  words,  "Aud  it  came  to  pass  after  this,"  so 
that  it  also  would  fall  in  a  later  time ;  but,  by  the 
words  in  ver.  26,  "king  of  Israel,"  and  by  Elisha's 
epithet  "son  of  a  murderer,"  ver.  32,  as  Ewald 
himself  admits,  we  must  understand  Jehoram,  and 
not  either  Jehoahaz  or  any  other  king  of  the  house 
of  Jehu. — pN  is  used  as  in  2  Chron.  xx.  2 1  :  He 
brought  to  them  the  deliberation  \i.  e.,  made  them 
parties  to  it],     ijps  as  in  Ruth  iv.  1 ;    1  Sam.  xxi. 

3.     "  My  encamping,"  i.  e.,  the  encampment  of  my 
army.     The  word  nijnr ,  occurs  only  here.     It  is 

%  derivative  from  njn,   to  sit  down,   to  encamn 


(Gen.  xxvi.  17  ;  Ex.  xiii.  20 ;  xvii.  1).  Ewald  pro- 
poses to  read  ^nhjFl,  and  to  translate:  "shall  ye 

form  an  ambuscade,"  because  ver.  9  says:  "for 
there  the  Syrians  are  DTirO;    but  nnj  nowhere 

has  the  meaning  "to  lay  an  ambuscade,"  or  "to 
lie  in  wait,"  but :  "to  go  down  "  or  "sink  down  " 
(see  Gesen.  s.  v.),  so  that  it  coincides  very  well 
with  the  meaning  of  PlJn.  The  conjecture  is  there- 
fore unnecessary.  The  proposal  of  Thenius  to 
change  TliJnri  into  lX3nn,  and  to  translate :  "Ye 

shall  conceal  yourselves  at  such  and  such  a  place," 
is  still  less  admissible.  The  Vulgate  has  in  ver.  8: 
pnmrntus  insidias,  and  in  ver.  9,  quia  ibi  Syri  in  in- 
sidiis  sunt.  The  Sept.  have  in  ver.  8 :  nape/ipa'Aa ; 
ver.  9 :  on  east  "Lvpia  evedpeiwci.  This  is  correct, 
however,  rather  according  to  the  sense  than  the 
words,  inasmuch  as  the  army,  which  had  encamped 
behind  the  mountains,  might  certainly  be  said   tc 


OS 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


be  lying  in  ambush.  In  ver.  9,  Clericus,  DeWette, 
and  Keil  translate  the  words  of  Elisha  :  "  Beware 
lest  thou  neglect  this  place,"  i.  e.,  leave  it  unoccu- 
pied, "for  there  it  is  the  wish  of  the  Syrians  to 
make  an  incursion ;  "  but  -QV ,  which  means  to  pass 

over,  never  has  the  meaning  to  neglect;  certainly  not 
that  of:  to  leave  unoccupied.  Moreover,  this  signifi- 
cation does  not  fit  well  with  VlVfffl  ver.   10,   to 

which  Keil  incorrectly  denies  the  meaning:  to 
warn  (cf.  Kzek.  xxxiii.  3;  iv.  5;  Ecclesiastes  iv. 
13).  At  a  time  when  the  Syrians  were  intending 
to  encamp  at  a  particular  spot,  and  to  attack  the 
Israelites  when  they  should  pass  by,  the  prophet 
gave  warning  to  the  king :  the  latter  anticipated 
them,  stationed  troops  in  the  tl.reatened  position, 
and  so  frustrated  their  plan. 

Ver.  1 1.  Therefore  the  heart  of  the  king  of 
Syria  was  sore  troubled,  &c     1JJD  means  more 

than  :  to  lose  courage  (Luther).  It  is  used  of  the 
tossing,  stormy  sea  (  Jonah  i.  11).    Clericus  wants 

to    read    IJC'^O   (Qf-    Prov.  xxx.   10)  instead   of 

uWOi  because  the  Vulg.  translates:  guis  prodi- 

tor  mei  sit  apud  regem  Israel,  and  the  Sept. : 
nfjoiidoici  fie.  It  may  be,  however,  that  both 
only  translated  according  to  the  sense.  At  any 
rate  it  is  not  necessary  to  alter  the  text.  From 
ver.  12  we  see  that  Elisha's  reputation  at  that  time 
extended  even  to  Syria.  The  old  expositors  thought 
indeed  that  the  servant  who  answered  the  king  was 
Naaman,  or  one  of  his  companions.  The  king 
learned  the  dwelling  of  Elisha  by  spies.  Dothan 
(Gen.  xxxvii.  17)  lay  five  or  six  hours'  journey 
north  of  Samaria,  upon  a  hill  (ver.  17),  at  a  narrow 
pass  in  the  mountains  (Judges  iv.  5 ;  vii.  3 ;  viii. 
3),  in  the  district  of  the  present  Jinin  (Van  de 
Velde,  Keise,  i.  s.  273). — The  king  of  Syria  wished 
to  get  Elisha  into  his  power,  not  "  that  he  might 
hold  him,"  and  find  out  through  him  '-what  the 
king  of  Israel  and  other  princes  were  plotting 
against  him  in  their  secret  councils"  (Cassel),  but 
in  order  that,  for  the  future,  his  military  plans 
against  Israel  might  not  become  known  to  the  king 

of  Israel  through  Elisha.     The  phrase  -Q3  ?*n  • 

ver.  14,  cannot  here  be  translated  :  "  agreat  army "' 
(De  Wette,  and  others),  as  is  clear  from  vers.  22 
and  23,  bu  ■I  is  used  exactly  as  in  1  Kings  x.  2. 
The  horses  uud  chariots  were  accompanied  by  a 
large  body  of  infantry. 

Ver.  15.  The  servant  of  the  man  of  God,  Ac. 
Not  Gehazi,  who  would  be  mentioned  by  name  as 
in  all  other  places  (chap.  iv.  12,  25;  v.  20;  viii.  4); 
moreover,  the  expression  ri"lL"'D  is  never  used  of 

him.  Perhaps  it  was  one  of  the  prophet-disciples 
who  had  accompanied  Elisha  to  Dothan.  That 
which  Elisha  says  in  ver.  16  is  essentially  the 
same  as  is  read  Numb.  xiv.  9;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  7; 
Ps.  iii.  6 ;  xxvii.  3.  He  saw  already  the  divine, 
protecting  power,  and  begged  God  to  allow  his 
attendant  also  to  see  it,  that  he  might  undertake 
the  journey  back  to  Samaria  with  him,  through  the 
hostile  army,  fearless  and  consoled.  "The opening 
of  the  eyes  signifies  elevation  into  an  ecstatic  state 
in  which  the  soul  sees  things  which  the  bodily  eye 
never  can  see  "  (Keil,  ed.  of  1845),  Numb.  xxii.  31. 
Ths  horses  and  chariots  which  Elisha  and  the  ser- 
vant see  (ver   17V  nftuiil  over-against  the  horses 


and  chariots  of  the  Syrians  (ver.  15),  and  they  art 
designated  by  t,"N ,  the  form  of  appearance  of  Je- 
hovah (see  above,  p.  14),  as  from  God,  so  that 
they  are  symbols  of  the  might  of  Jehovah,  whict 
surpasses  all  humau,  earthly  might,  and  is  uncon- 
querable. We  have  not  to  think  of  literal  chariots 
and  horses  of  fire  here,  any  more  than  in  chap,  ii 
11.  Usually,  Gen.  xxxii.  2  is  compared,  but 
there  express  mention  is  made  of  angels,  who  are 
not  to  be  identified  directly  with  the  horses  and 
chariots  of  a  vision. — The  Syrians  are  usually  un- 
derstood as  subject  of  V^X  1TV1  in  ver.  18,  but  in 

that  case  we  must  suppose  that  they  were  on  a 
hill  from  which  they  descended  when  they  saw 
Elisha  and  his  companion  go  out  from  the  city. 
Keil  adopts  this  supposition,  for  he  says  :  "  Do- 
than stands  upon  a  hill,  which  stands  by  itself  on 
the  plain,  but  it  is  surrounded  or  shut  in  on  th3 
east  side  bv  a  ridge  which  runs  out  into  the  plaiD 
(<■/.  Van  de*Velde,  I.  c,  s.  273).  The  Syrians  who 
had  been  sent  out  against  Elisha  had  taken  up  a 
position  on  this  ridge,  and  from  there  they  marched 
down  against  the  city  of  Dothan.  which  lay  upon  the 
hill,  while  Elisha,  by  going  out  of  the  city,  escaped 
from  them."  This  idea  is  contradicted,  however, 
by  the  assertion,  in  ver.  14,  that  the  Syrians  "sur- 
rounded the  city  "  in  the  night.  They  enclosed  it, 
therefore,  and  did  not  simply  take  up  a  position  on 
the  east  side  upon  a  hill,  which  was.  besides,  sep- 
arated from  it  by  the  plain.  Furthermore,  accord- 
ing to  ver.  17,  it  was  not  the  ridge  upon  which  the 
Syrians  are  said  to  have  stood,  but  the  hill  upon 
which  Dothan  was,  which  was  full  of  horses  and 
chariots  of  fire,  round  about  Elisha,  under  whose 
mighty  protection  he  and  his  servant  went  out  of 
the  city  and  down  the  hill.  The  Syrian  army  sur- 
rounded the  hill  at  its  base,  so  that  escape  seemed 
impossible ;  the  heavenly  army,  however,  sur- 
rounded the  city  at  the  top  of  the  hill,  and  so 
stood  opposed  to  the  Syrian.  This  is  clearly  the 
meaning  of  the  passage.  In  the  immediately  fol- 
lowing words  (ver.  18) :  "  and  they  went  down,' 
the  reference  can  only  be  to  Elisha  and  his  com- 
panion, who  are  the  subjects  of  the  words  imme- 
diately preceding.  If  the  words  are  not  taken  as 
referring  to  them,  then  there  is  no  statement  that 
they  left  the  city,  and  there  is  a  gap  in  the  narra- 
tive.  Accordingly  V^X  must  be  taken  as  referring 

to  the  Syrian  army.  The  Syriac  version  and  Jo- 
Bephus  take  it  so  ('E/./creraioc  .  .  .  TrapeAtiuv 
fir  ftiaovc  rove  kx&poi't).  There  is  no  need  of  as- 
suming that  DiT^N  stood  in  the  text  originally  in 

the  place  of  V?N ,  as  Thenius  does,  for  D1X  is  of- 
ten used  in  the  singular  for  the  Syrian  army  (ver. 
9 ;  1  Kings  xxii.  35),  and  is  construed  with  the 
verb  in  the  singular  (1  Sam.  x.  14.  15;  Isai.  vii.  2). 
— And  he  smote  them  with  blindness,  i.  e.,  they 
were  put  into  a  state  in  which,  although  they  had 
their  sight,  yet  they  did  not  see  him  (Elisha),  i.  e., 
did  not  recognize  him.  Jarcui  :  They  saw,  but  did 
not  know  (jnv)  what  they  saw.  Cf.  Gen.  xix.  11 
(Luke  xxiv.  16;  Isai.  vi.  10). — On  ver.  19  Keil 
says:  "Elisha's  untrue  declaration:  '  This  is  no', 
the  way,'  must  be  judged  like  every  other  military 
stratagem,  by  means  of  which  the  enemy  are  de- 
ceived ;  "  but,  as  Thenius  well  replies:   "  Tbere  it 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-YII.  20. 


GS 


no  untruth  in  the  words  of  Elisha  ;  for  his  home 
was  not  in  Dothan,  where  he  was  only  residing 
temporarily,  but  in  Samaria ;  and  the  words  '  to 
the  man '  may  well  mean  :  to  his  house."  Jose- 
phus  understood  the  passage  correctly ;  he  says : 
"  Elisha  asked  them  whom  they  had  come  to  seek. 
When  they  answered:  "The  prophet  Elisha,"  ira- 
paddjceiv  viiioxero,  El  irpbr  ri/i  ~o'/n\  ir  ij  TV)  i 
ln>  (/.  e.,  where  he  is  to  be  found  I,  anoZmriH/oeiav 
airu.  He  certainly  used  a  form  of  speech  which 
the  Syrians  might  understand  otherwise  than  as 
he  meant  '.t,  but  he  did  not  pretend  in  the  least  to 
be  anything  else  than  what  he  was.  That  they 
did  not  know  him  was  a  divine  dispensation,  not 
the  result  of  an  untruth  uttered  by  him  How 
could  the  •'  man  of  God,"  after  repeated  prayers  to 
Jehovah,  straightway  permit  himself  a  falsehood, 
and  try.  by  this  means,  to  save  himself  from  dan- 
ger? If  he  saw,  as  his  companion  did,  horses  and 
chariots  of  fire  round  about  him,  and  if  he  was 
thus  assured  of  the  divine  protection,  then  he 
needed  for  his  deliverance  neither  a  falsehood  nor 
a  stratagem.  The  Syrians  wanted  to  take  him 
captive ;  instead  of  that  he,  by  the  help  of  God, 
captured  them  all ;  not,  however,  as  is  usually  the 
case  in  such  a  ruse,  to  their  harm  or  ruin,  but,  af- 
ter he  has  shown  them  that  they  could  not  capture 
him,  "the  prophet  in  Israel "  (ver.  12),  he  takes 
them  under  his  protection,  repays  evil  with  good 
(ver.  22),  and  shows  them  by  this  very  means  the 
man  whom  they  are  seeking. 

Ver.  21.  And  the  king  of  Israel  .  .  .  . 
when  he  saw  them,  &c.  The  address:  "My 
father,"  does  not  presuppose  any  filial  relationship, 
but  is  rather  a  mere  title  (Clericus :  sir  honrrv)  causa 
dicitur).  Even  Benhadad  is  called  "  thy  (Elisha's) 
son,"  by  Hazael  (chap.  viii.  9).  The  prophet-dis- 
ciples called  their  master  "father,"  and  this  be- 
cause it  was  the  ordinary  title  of  the  chief  of  the 
prophets,  somewhat  as  the  same  word  is  occasion- 
ally used  now-a-days.  The  repetition  of  H3N  ex- 
presses the  eager  desire  to  smite  them.  Elisha's 
words  (ver.  22):  "it."Xn  &c-i  are  taken  by  many  ex- 
positors as  a  question  [as  in  the  E.  V],  the  idea 
being:  if  thou  dost  not  even  put  to  death  those 
whom  thou  hast  captured  with  bow  and  spear, 
how  canst  thou  slay  these  ?  (Thenius,  Keil).  Such 
a  question,  however,  would  be  very  extraordinary; 
for  if  Jehoram  was  not  accustomed  to  put  to  death 
even  those  who  had  been  made  captive  in  battle, 
why  should  he  ask  whether  he  should  kill  these, 
who  had  fallen  into  his  hands  without  a  combat  ? 
It  seems  more  probable,  on  the  contrary,  that  he 
was  accustomed  to  put  captives  to  death,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  prevalent  war-usage  of  the  time 
(Deut.  xx.  13),  and  he  raises  the  question,  in  the 
present  extraordinary  case,  only  out  of  considera- 
tion for  the  prophet,  and  because  he  does  not  trust 
his  own  judgment  in  the  unprecedented  circum- 
stances. The  Vulgate  gives  the  sense  correctly : 
non  percuties ;  neque  enim  cepisti  eos  gladio  et  arcu  tuo, 
ut  percutiat.  The  objection  that  n  ,  the  article,  could 
not  have  patach  before  X  cannot  be  held  to  be 
decisive  against  this  interpretation;  the  Massoretes 
themselves  took  n  as  the  article  (Gesen.  Lex.  s.  v. 
n  ;  De  Wette).  [I  take  n  to  be  the  interrogative 
(Ewald,  §  104,  b),  but  agree  with  the  above  inter- 
pretation. "  If  thou  shouldst  put  these  to  death. 
would  it  be  a  case  of  slaying  prisoners  of  war  ?  " 
»'.  e.,  couldst  thou  justify  it  by  Deut.  xx.  13  ? — W. 


G.  S.]     No  one  doubts  that  n")3  m3 ,  in  ver.  23, 

signifies  the  preparation  of  a  meal.  The  only  dis- 
agreement is  as  to  the  connection  of  this  signifies 
tion  with  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  root 
According  to  Thenius  the  root  is  "ns  ,  which,  with 
its  derivatives,  always  refers  to  something  round ; 
hence,  m3  the   circle   of  guests.      According  to 

Keil,  m3 ,  to  dig,  gradually  acquired  the  mean- 
ing: to  prepare,  make  ready,  so  that  it  ought  here 
to  be  rendered:  paravit  apparatum  magnum.  Ac- 
cording to  Dietrich  (in  Gesen.  Lex.  s.  v.),  the  cog- 
nate dialects  lead  to  the  idea  of  bringing  together 
or  uniting,  which,  he  thinks,  is  the  fundamental 
idea  in  a  banquet.  Cf.  canu  from  koivt/. — The  re- 
sult of  Elisha's  act  was  that,  from  this  time  oa  the 
raids  of  the  Syrians  ceased,  not  indeed  because  the 
magnanimity  of  the  Israelites  shamed  them  but 
because  they  had  found  out  that  they  could  not 
accomplish  anything  by  these  expeditions,  but 
rather  'brought  themselves  into  circumstances  o 
great  peril. 

Ver.  24.  And  it  came  to  pass  after  this,  4c. 
Josephus  correctly  states  the  connection  between 
the  passage  which  begins  with  ver.  24,  and  what 
precedes,  as  follows:  Kpvtpa  fih>  oi)K€~  dieyvu  r<~: 
tuv  'Yrspaifiaruv  iirtxtipch'  jiaci'/.a,  tov  "S.'/iamov 
dedotK&e  •  ipavepcir  dt  77o?^epe'w  iicpive,  7<j  -///i9f7  rftr 
nrpanur  no),  rij  6xwnpei  vofti^LW  Trepuaetr&ai  rca- 
r.  Nevertheless,  an  interval  of  some  years 
must  be  supposed  to  have  elapsed  between  the  two 
incidents.  Ben-Hadad  is  not  an  appellative,  like 
Pharaoh;  it  is  the  same  king  who  is  mentioned 
in  1  Kings  xx.  1.  In  order  to  show  the  depth 
of  the  distress  from  the  famine,  the  writer  states 
the  price  of  things  which  are  not  ordinarily  arti- 
cles of  food.  The  worst  part  of  an  animal,  which, 
at  best,  was  unclean,  the  head  of  an  ass,  sold  for 
80  shekels,  according  to  Bertheau  and  Keil,  35 
t balers  ($25.20),  according  to  Thenius  53  thalers. 
20  sgr.  ($38.04).  In  like  manner,  in  a  famine 
among  the  Cadusians,  Plutarch  (Artaxerxes,  xxiv.) 
tells  that  tin  head  of  an  ass  was  scarcely  to  be 
bought  for  60  drachmas,  wrhereas,  ordinarily,  the 
entire  animal  only  cost  25  or  30  drachma;.  The 
price  of  a  mouse  rose  to  200  denarii  in  Casalinum, 
when  it  was  besieged  by  Hannibal  (Pliny,  Hut. 
Nat.  viii.  57;  Valer.  Max.,  vii.  6). — There  is  no 
doubt  that  □Win,  >■  e.,  Q^V  nn,  means  "dove's 

dung,"  and  not  "  dove's  food  "  {Berleb.  and  Calw. 
Bibel) ;  the  only  question  is,  whether  this  is  to  be 
taken  literally,  or  whether  it  is  a  designation  of  a 
very  insignificant  species  of  pease.  Bochart  main- 
tains the  latter  (Hieroz.  ii.  44),  and  he  appeals  to 
the  fact  that  3p  is  really  a  measure  of  grain :   so 

also  Clericus,  Dathe,  Michaelis,  and  others.  The 
Arabs  call  the  herba  alcali  "  sparrow's  dung."  Cel- 
sius (Hierobot.  ii.  p.  30),  on  the  contrary,  main- 
tains the  literal  meaning,  which  is  supported  by 
the  keri  D'jva'n ,   jluzus,  profluvium  columbartim 

(3«|  from  the  Chald.  2V\ ,  to  flow),  a  euphemism 

for  the  chetib.  So  also  Ewald  and  Thenius ;  the 
latter  says :  "  If  snipe's  dung  is  eaten  as  a  luxury, 
necessity  may  well  make  dove's  dung  (2  Kings 
xviii.  27  ;  Joseph.  Bella.  Jud.  v.  13,  7)  acceptable." 
Gesenius  and  Keil  do  not  decide.  We  incline  tc 
the  interpretation  which  makes  it  a  kind  of  vege- 
table.    Supposing  even  that  dung  was  collected. 


ro 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


for  food  as  was  the  case,  according  to  Josephus, 
at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  why  should  dove's 
dung  be  especially  used  ?  There  is,  moreover,  no 
instance  of  dove's  dung  having  been  used  as  food, 
and  sold  at  so  high  a  price.  The  meanest  form  of 
vegetable  seems  to  be  here  put  in  contrast  with 
the  meanest  form  of  flesh.  The  vegetable  proba- 
bly took  its  name  from  the  similarity  of  color 
(white)  and  form,  as  in  the  case  of  the  German 
Teufelsdreck  (assafa-tida).  Cab  is  tho  smallest  He  • 
brew  dry-measure;  according  to  Bertheau,  it  is 
equivalent  to  27.58  cubic  inches  (Paris),  and,  ac- 
cording to  Bunsen,  to  56.355.  Five  shekels  are 
equal  to  2  thlr.  2  sgr.  ($1.49,  Keil),  or  3  thlr.  10 
sgr.  ($2.40,  Thenius). 

Ver.  26.  And  as  the  King  of  Israel  wi-s 
passing  by,  Sic.  The  wall  of  the  city  was  ve>  y 
thick ;  the  garrison  of  the  city  stood  upon  it ;  tl  e 
king  went  thither  in  order  to  visit  the  posts,  or  i.o 
observe   the   movements  of  the  enemy. — If  tie 

Lord  do  not  help  thee,  whence,  Ac.   |?s  is  tak.  n 

here,  by  many,  in  its  ordinary  signification,  n : : 
May  the  Lord  not  help  thee  !  i.  e.,  perdat  te  Jehov  ih 
(Clericus).  If  this  is  correct,  the  king  invokes  a 
curse  upon  her  (Josephus :  opyio&eic  eivr/paao  ro 
avrfi  7o»'  <&e6v).  The  following  words,  hcryev'ir, 
"Whence,"  &c,  do  not  coincide  with  this  inteip'j- 
tation.  The  same  is  the  case  if  we  translate, 
with  Maurer,  vereor,  ui  Deus  te  servet.  Keil's  trans- 
lation: No!  let  Jehovah  help  thee  I  (i.  e.,  do  not 

ask  me,  let,  &c.)  is  still  more  inadmissible,  for  ^x 

must  not  be  separated  from  7]yt.'T ,  with  which  it 

is  connected  by  a  makkeph.     It  evidently  stands 

here  for  xp  QX  (Ew.  §  355,  b),  and  the  meaning 

is :  "  On  the  general  supposition  that  there  is  no 
help  for  her :  '  If  God  does  not  help  thee,  how 
can  I  ?  '  "  (Thenius).  Cassel's  interpretation  of 
the  words  as  a  "rebellious  invocation  of  God,"  is 
entirely  mistaken  :  "Let  God  help  thee  :  why  does 
not  the  Eternal,  whom  ye  have  in  Israel,  and  who 
has  always  revealed  himself  here,  help  thee? 
Where  is  He,  then,  that  he  may  help  us  ?  "  They 
are  rather  words  of  despair. — Out  of  the  barn- 
floor  or  out  of  the  wine-press  ?  as  much  as  to 
say  :   with  corn  or  with  wine?  (Gen.  xxTii.  28,  31); 

not,  corn  and  oil,  for  ap'  is  wine-press  (Prov.  iii. 

10).  [The  distress  has  reached  a  point  where 
God's  interposition  alone  can  provide  food.  If 
He  does  not  interpose,  how  can  I  satisfy  thy  hun- 
ger ?  from  the  threshing-floor  or  the  wine-press — 
the  only  human  resources  in  case  of  hunger  ?  Thou 
knowest  that  these  are  exhausted,  and  that  the 
limits  of  my  power  of  relief  have  been  passed. 
Address  thyself,  therefore,  to  God.  If  He  does 
not  help  thee,  much  less  can  I.  The  difficulty  of 
the  passage  is  one  that  is  common  enough.  There 
is  an  unexpressed  premise,  viz.,  the  circumstances 
of  tho  case,  which  are  vividly  present  to  the  mind 
of  both  hearer  and  speaker,  and  an  unexpressed 
conclusion,  viz.,  the  proper  inference  to  be  drawn, 
or  the  proper  conduct  to  be  pursued,  in  the  prem- 
ises. The  first  speaker  has  drawn  a  false  infer- 
ence from  the  facts,  and  tho  question  aims  to  lead 

him  to  a  correct  judgment.    Hence  ">K  is  used,  very 

nearly  in  the  sense  of  t&>  DK  ■ — W.  G.  S.]    When 


the  woman  had,  probably,  replied  :o  the  king  that 
she  did  not  demand  food  of  him,  but  appealed  to 
him  as  judge,  he  asked  her  :  What  aileth  thee  1 
Thereupon  she  relates  the  horrible  incident,  in 
which  the  existing  misery  had  attained  its  height. 
The  other  woman  had  hidden  her  child,  not  in 
order  to  consume  it  alone,  but  in  order  to  save  it 
Her  act  reminds  us  of  1  Kings  iii.  26. 

Ver.  30.  He  rent  his  clothes,  &c,  as  a  sign  of 
horror  and  of  grief.  As  he  stood  upon  the  wa'J, 
and  therefore  could  be  seen  by  all,  the  people  ob- 
served that  he  had  sackcloth  next  his  body,  like 
Ahab,  1  Kings  xxi.  27,  under  the  royal  garment, 
which  he  tore  open.  Sackcloth  was  usually  worn 
next  the  skin  (Isai.  xx.  2,  3),  only  the  prophets  and 
preachers  of  repentance  appear  to  have  worn  it 
over  the  under-garment,  because  in  their  case  it 
was  an  official  dress,  and  so  needed  to  be  seen 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.  ii.  s.  352).  The  sentence:  He 
passed  by  upon  the  wall,  is  not,  according  to 
Thenius,  to  be  connected  with  what  follows,  but, 
as  the  athnach  shows,  with  what  goes  before.  Je- 
horam  did  not  wear  sackcloth  in  order  to  make  a 
show  before  the  people,  for  they  could  not  see  it 
before  he  tore  the  cloak  which  was  above  it ;  nei- 
ther did  he  wear  it  out  of  genuino  penitent  feeling, 
for,  in  that  case,  he  could  not  have  sworn,  with  sack- 
cloth upon  his  body,  to  put  to  death  the  prophet, 
whom  he  had  called  "  Father,"  and  to  whom  he  was 
under  such  deep  obligations.  He  wished,  by  means 
of  this  external  action,  to  turn  aside  the  wrath  of 
God ;  "  He  thought  that  he  had  done  enough,  by 
this  external  self-chastisement,  to  satisfy  God,  and 
he  wished  now,  in  a  genuine  heathen  disposition, 
to  be  revenged  upon  Elisha,  since  he  learned  from 
this  story  that  the  famine  had  not  ceased  "  (Von 
Gerlacb).  It  is  not  necessary  to  understand  that 
Elisha  had  distinctly  demanded  that  he  should  put 
on  the  garment  of  penitence  (Ewald);  perhaps  the 
prophet  had  only  exhorted  generally  to  penitence, 
and  the  king,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  dis- 
tress, had  put  on  sackcloth.  He  became  enraged 
at  the  prophet,  partly  because  he  believed  himself 
deceived  by  him,  if  he,  as  we  may  suppose,  had 
given  the  advice  not  to  surrender  the  city  ["If 
it  had  not  been  for  him  (Elisha),  he  (the  king)L 
would  long  before  have  surrendered  the  city  on 
conditions,"  Ewald],  but  to  rely  upon  the  help  of 
Jehovah,  and  partly  because  he  thought  that  the 
prophet  might  have  put  an  end  to  the  distress  if 
he  had  chosen,  and  thereby  might  have  prevented 
the  horrible  crime  of  the  women.  The  oath  re- 
minds one  of  that  of  Jezebel  against  Elijah  (1 
Kings  xix.  2). 

Ver.  32.  But  Elisha  sat  in  his  house,  &c.  The 
narrative  in  vers.  30-33  seems  to  be  somewhat 
condensed,  and  to  require  to  be  supplemented. 
This,  however,  can  be  done  with  tolerable  cer- 
tainty from  the  context.  The  sentence  :  Elisha 
sat  in  his  house,  and  the  elders  sat  with  him, 
is  a  parenthesis ;  the  following,  and  he,  namely, 
the  king  (not  Elisha,  as  Koster  and  Cassel  sup- 
pose),  sent,  &c,   joins    directly   on  to  ver.   31. 

D'Jp-tn  can  only  refer  to  the  magistrates  of  tho 

city,  not  to  the  prophets  or  prophet-disciples  (Jo- 
sephus). They  had  not  been  sent  .n  .irder  to  re- 
port to  Elisha  how  far  matters  had  come  in  the 
city  (Cassel),  but  had  betaken  themselves  to  the 
prophet,  since  no  one  any  longer  could  give  coun- 
sel  :n  the  great  distress,  in  order  to  take  his  ad 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-VII.  20. 


ii 


vice,  aid  to  beg  for  his  assistance.  Whi'.e  they 
were  thus  assembled  the  king  sent  a  man,  V3D?D, 

not,  before  him  (Luther  and  others),  but,  from  his 
presence,  i.  e.,  one  of  those  men  who  stood  before 
him,  and,  as  servants,  waited  for  his  commands 
(1  Kings  x.  8;  Dan.  i.  4,  5),  just  as  we  see  in  Gen. 
xli.  46.  This  man  was  to  behead  Elisha,  in  fulfil- 
ment -J.  the  oath  which  the  king  had  sworn  in  his 
excitement.  Perceiving  in  spirit  what  was  being 
done  (as  in  chap.  v.  26),  the  prophet  says  to  the 
elders:  See  ye,  *.  e.,  do  ye  know,  ic.  He  ap- 
plies to  Jehoram  the  significant  epithet :  son  of 
a  murderer ;  as  by  descent,  so  also  in  disposition, 
is  he  a  eon  of  Ahab,  the  murderer  of  the  proph- 
ets, and  of  the  innocent  Nabotli  (1  Kings  xxi.  19); 
films  patrizat.  With  the  words  :  Is  not  the  sound, 
Jtc,  Elisha  straightway  announces  that  the  king 
will  follow  upon  the  heels  of  the  messenger  (cf.  1 
Kings  xiv.  6),  and  he  calls  upon  the  elders  not  to 
let  in  the  messenger  until  the  king  himself  comes. 
Ver.  33.  And  while  he  yet  talked  with 
them,  4c.  The  first  question  is,  whai  is  the  sub- 
ject of  -|DX>>  ?  If  we  take  7]X?Qn  to  be  the  sub- 
ject, them  we  must  suppose,  as  Thenius.  Casse), 
and  others  do,  mat  tne  niesspnger  speaks  *.h.e 
words:  "This  eTlI  is  of  cr.e  Lord,"  ic,  as  vhe 
mouthpiece  of  the  king,  since  they  certainly  are 
the  words  of  the  latter.  This,  however,  is,  in  the 
first  place,  very  forced,  because  he  must  have  ex- 
pressed  it  by  saying :  The  king  commands  me  to 
say  to  you,  4c,  but  it  is  imperatively  excluded  by 
the  consideration  that  the  king,  according  to  chap, 
vii.  17,  was  present,  and  so  the  messenger  could 
not  speak  in  his  name,  in  his  presence.     Ewald, 

taking  account  of  vii.  17,  wishes  to  read  7]^13n 
for  T]X?Qn  ,  but  then  the  affirmation  that  the  mes- 
senger, wrhom  the  elders  were  to  restrain  until 
the  arrival  of  the  king,  really  came,  would  be 
wanting    from    the    text.      The    simplest    course 

seems  to  be  to  supply  *p8n  as  the  subject  of 
"I^N'l  (there  is  an  athnach  after  V?N  )  and  to  sup- 
plement the  text  here  by  what  is  stated  in  vii.  17. 
The  sense  would  then  be  :  And  the  king,  who  had 
followed  close  upon  his  messenger,  said,  4c.  Why 
did  the  king  follow  his  servant?  Certainly  not 
"  in  order  to  see  what  was  the  result  of  his  com- 
mand "  (Ewald) ;  nor,  "  in  order  to  be  assured  that 
his  commands  had  been  executed  "  (Eisenlohr) ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  ''in  order  to  restrain  tin-  exe- 
cution of  a  command  which  he  had  given  in  an 
excess  of  rage "  (Keil).  Even  Josephus  says : 
"  Jehoram  repented  of  the  wrath  against  the 
prophet,  which  had  overcome  him,  and,  as  he 
feared  lest  the  messenger  might  have  already  exe- 
cuted his  commands,  he  hastened  to  prevent  it,  if 
possible." — Behold,  this  evil  is  of  the  Lord,  4c., 
i.  e.,  Jehovah  has  brought  i.  to  this  pass  that 
mothers  slay  and  eat  their  own  children ;  what 
further  shall  I  then  hope  for  or  expect  from  Him  ? 
By  these  words,  "he  means  to  show  the  prophet 
that  he  no  longer  refuses  to  recognize  the  chastis- 
ing hand  of  God  in  the  prevailing  distress,  and 
then  he  desires  to  learn  from  him  whether  the  di- 
vine wrath  will  not  be  turned  aside,  and  whether 
the  distressed  city  may  no;  hope  for  aid  "  (Krum- 
macherl.     To  these  verba  Ito  minis  pent  desperantis 


(Vatablus),  Elisha  replies  in  chap.  vii.  1,  with  a 
promise  of  immediate  and  extraordinary  deliver 
ance.  The  interpretation :  The  distress  is  so  great 
that  no  help  can  any  longer  be  hoped  for,  so  that 
nothing  remains  but  to  surrender  the  city  ;  thou, 
however,  who  hast  prophesied  falsely,  and  hast 
vamlv  promised  help,  and  therefore  art  to  blame 
for  the  calamity,  thou  shouldst  justly  suffer  death 
(Seb.  Smith,  and  similarly  Thenius),  is  entirelj 
mistaken.  If  this  were  the  sense,  Elisha's  solemn 
promise  would  seem  to  have  been  forced  from  him 
by  the  tin  eat  of  death,  whereas  it  rather  serves  tc 
shame  the  king,  who  had  doubted  of  Jehovah, 
and  is,  therefore,  an  answer  fully  worthy  of  the 
prophet.  Jehoram  had  already  given  up  his  plan 
of  murder  when  he  followed  his  messenger.  [His 
di  ■!  lair  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  intended  as  an  ex 
cuse  for  his  murderous  project.  It  is  as  if  he  had 
said:  God  sends  me  only  calamity  upon  calamity 
Is  it  strange  that  my  faith  deserts  me,  and  that  1 
can  no  longer  hope  or  believe  that  God  will  ulti- 
mately help  ?  Tiiis  despair  produced  the  blind  and 
senseless  rage  against  thee.  I  have  recovered 
from  that  madness,  but  how  can  I  hope  longer? 
This  hope  seems  only  to  delay  the  catastrophe, 
and  to  make  it  worse  the  longer  it  is  deferred. 
TL.3  prophet  answers  the  despair  by  a  new,  defi- 
nite, and  confident  prediction.- — W.  G.  S.] 

Chap.  vii.  ver.  1.  Hear  ye  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  &c  The  solemnity  and  distinctness  with 
which  the  prophet  addresses  the  king,  the  elders, 
and  the  others  who  are  present,  must  not  be  over- 
looked.— On  nxp  see  note  on  1  Kings  xviii.  32. — 

In  the  gate  of  Samaria,  i.  c,  the  place  where  the 
market  was  usually  held  (Winer,   li.-  W.-B.  ii.  s 

616).  On  cj'^PC'n  an(l  the  following  form  of  speech 
see  note  on  1  Kings  ix.  22,  and  2  Kings  v.  18.  In- 
stead of  -pa? ,  all  the  versions  read  TJ^BIl ,  which, 

according  to  ver.  17  and  2  Kings  v.  18,  is  the  cor- 
rect reading;  the  dative  gives  no  sense. — The 
words  of  the  "lord"  in  ver.  2  are  the  scoff  and 
jest  of  unbelief;  Jehovah  will  indeed  open  win- 
dows in  heaven,  and  cause  it  to  rain  barley  and 
meal  I  will  that  come  to  pass?  Thenius  connects 
the  two  sentences  thus:  "Supposing  even  that  the 
Lord  should  make  windows  in  heaven,  will  this 
(viz.,  the  promised  cheapness  and  plenty')  even 
then  come  to  pass?"  This  interpretation  finds  in 
the  words  only  doubt,  and  not  bitter  scorn,  but, 
from  the  threat  with  which  Elisha  answers,  it 
seems  that  the  latter  must  be  included.  "Win- 
dows in  heaven  "  may  be  an  allusion  to  Gen.  vii. 
11. 

Ver.  3.  Pour  leprous  men,  cf.  Levit.  xih.  46; 
Numb.  v.  2  sq.  No  one  any  longer  brought  them 
food  from  the  city,  and  they  were  not  permitted  tu 
enter  it.  In  order  to  escape  death  from  hunger, 
they  proposed  to  go  over  to  the  campof  the  enemy 
at  dusk,  when  they  would  not  be  seen  from  the 
city.     That  C]L"33  (ver.  5)  does  not  mean   "  early 

in  the  morning  "  (Luther),  is  clear  from  vers.  9  and 

12. — pip,  in  ver.  6,  can  only  be  understood  of  a 
continuous  and  increasing  rushing  and  roaring  in 
the  air,  by  which  the  Syrians  were  deceived. 
There  are  instances,  even  now-a-days,  that  people 
in  certain  mountainous  regions  regard  a  rushing 
and  roaring  sound,   such  as  is  sometimes  hearc 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


there,  as  a  sign  of  a  coming  war. — On  the  kings 
of  the  HLtites,  see  note  on  1  Kings  x.  29.  The 
Blight  remains  of  the  nations  of  the  Hittites  hav- 
ing been  subjugated  by  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  20), 
we  have  to  understand  that  reference  is  made  here 
not,  as  Thenius  thinks,  to  "  an  independent  rem- 
nant of  this  people,  living  near  their  ancient  home 
(Gen.  xv.  20 ;  Numb.  xiii.  29),  towards  the  river  of 
Egypt,"  but,  to  an  independent  Canaanitish  tribe, 
which  had  withdrawn  into  the  northern  part  of 
Palestine.  "  '  The  kings  of  the  Egyptians '  must 
not  be  understood  too  literally;  they  are  only  in- 
voluntarily mentioned  for  the  sake  of  the  balance 
of  the  phrases  "  (Thenius).  Both  expressions  are 
only  meant  to  convey,  in  general  terms,  the  idea 
that  people  from  the  north  and  from  the  south  are 
on  the  march  to  the  assistance  of  the  Israelites,  so 
that  danger  threatens  the  Syrians  upon  all  sides. 
[It  is  worth  while  to  notice  also  the  graphic  force 
which  is  given  to  the  story  by  quoting  what  pur- 
port to  be  the  exact  speeches  of  all  the  parties. 
We  are  told  just  what  Elisha  said,  and  what  the 
officer  said,  and  what  the  lepers  said,  and  finally 
what  the  Syrians  said,  as  if  the  speeches  had  been 
recorded  at  the  time  they  were  uttered.  But  how 
could  any  one  tell  what  the  Syrians  said  in  their 
encampment  at  night?  Evidently  the  writer  puts 
himself  in  the  place  of  the  Syrians,  and  imagines 
what  their  interpretation  of  any  sudden  alarm 
would  be.  Instead  of  stating  this  in  the  flat  and 
colorless  form  in  which  a  modern  historian  would 
state  it :  The  Syrians  thought  that  some  one  was 
coming  to  help  the  Israelites — he  gives  the  speech 
in  what  purport  to  be  the  exact  words.  The  men- 
tion of  the  king  of  the  Hittites  is  very  strange. 
No  such  nation  as  the  Hittites  any  longer  existed, 
and  the  kings  of  Egypt  did  not  interfere  in  Asiatic 
affairs  throughout  this  entire  period.  Yet  we 
should  expect  that  the  Hebrew  writer  would  as- 
cribe to  the  Syrians  such  fears  as  they  would  be 
likely  to  have  under  the  circumstances. — W.  G.  S.] 

On  DL"3J"?K  see  note  on  1  Kings  xix.  3. 

Ver.  9.  Then  they  said  one^  to  another,  ftc 

After  they  had  satisfied  their  hunger  and  loaded 
themselves  witli  booty,  it  occurred  to  them  that 
officium  civium  est,  ea  indicate,  quae  ad  salutem  pub- 
licum pertinent  (Grotius).  They  were  justly  anx- 
ious lest  they  might  be  punished  if  they  should 
longer  conceal  the  joyful  intelligence  from  the  king 
and  the  city. — -In  ver.  10,  Thenius  wishes  to  read, 

with  al)  the  oriental  versions,  i~\yy  ,    watchmen, 

instead  of  nyj' ,  because   Orb    follows.     Maurer 

and  Keil  take  the  singular  collectively  for  the  body 
of  persons  who  were  charged   with  the  guard  of 

the  city. — The  subject  of  X~lpsl,  ver.  11,  is  not  the 

speaker  among  the  lepers,  but  the  soldier  on  guard. 

li lid  not  leave  his  post,  so  he  called  to  the 

other  soldiers  who  were  within  the  gate,  and  they 
then  gave  news  of  the  occurrence  to  the  guards  in 
the  palace.  The  attendants  of  the  mistrustful  king 
(ver.  12|  give  him  very  sensible  advice,  the  sum 
of  vrivoh  is,  "  However  it  may  turn  out.  nothing 
worse  can  happen  to  the  troops  we  sen  I  out  than 
lias  already  happened  to  many  others,  or  than  will 
yet  happen  to  the  rest"  {Berleb.  Bibel).  "  Five  "  is 
here  as  it  is  in  Isai.  ixx.  17;  1  Cor.xiv.  19;  Levit. 
ixvi.  R.  8  gei  'T.il  designation  of  a  small    numb  i 


The  origin  of  this  use  of  language  is  probably  thai 
five,  as  the  half  of  ten,  is  opposed  to  this  number, 
which  expresses  perfection  and  completeness,  Xa 
denote  the  imperfect  and  incomplete:  so  that  it 
means  a  few  horses.  According  to  ver.  14  (twe 
chariots)  there  were  not  five,  but  four.  Two  cha- 
riots, or  equipages,  were  sent,  in  order,  we  may 
suppose,  that  if  one  were  captured,  the  other  might 
quickly  bring  the  news. 

Ver.  1G  sq.  And  the  people  went  out,  &c. 
We  may  well  imagine  with  what  eagerness.  The 
king  had  given  to  his  adjutant  (ver.  2)  command  to 
maintain  order,  but  the  people  trod  him  down  in 
the  gate.  He  was  not  "  crushed  in  the  crowd,"  as 
Ewald  states,  but  trodden  under  foot  (DOT  Isai. 

xli.  25).  This  can  hardly  have  taken  place  unin- 
tentionally, for  why  should  it  have  happened  just 
to  him  ?  Probably  the  eager  and  famished  people 
would  not  listen  to  his  commands,  and  bore  down 
his  attempts  to  control  them.  The  repetition  of 
the  prophet's  prediction  (vers.  1  and  2)  in  vers.  18 
and  19,  shows  what  weight  the  narrative  lays  upon 
its  fulfilment.  It  is  meant  to  be,  as  it  were,  "  a 
finger  of  warning  to  unbelief"  (Calwer  Bibel),  and 
designates  this  fulfilment  as  the  object  and  the 
main  point  of  the  entire  narrative. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  With  the  story  of  these  two  incidents  now, 
we  pass,  in  this  resume  of  the  prophetical  acts  of 
Elisha  (see  above,  Historical  on  chap,  iv),  to  those 
which  bear  upon  the  political  circumstances  and  for- 
tunes of  the  nation  and  of  its  king.  First  come  those 
which  are  connected  with  its  foreign  affairs.  The 
especial  danger  from  without  was  from  the  Syrians. 
Benhadad  was  the  chief  and  bitterest  enemy,  who 
was  evidently  determined  to  subjugate  Israel.  He 
did  not  succeed  in  this  ;  he  only  served  as  a  rod  of 
chastisement  to  bring  back  the  king  and  the  peo- 
ple from  their  apostasy  to  their  God.  Jehovah  res- 
cued them  again  and  again  from  his  hand ;  not  by 
the  hand  of  the  king,  nor  by  mighty  armies,  nor 
by  great  generals,  but  by  the  "  man  of  God,"  the 
prophet,  in  order  that  all  might  perceive  that  sal- 
vation from  the  might  of  the  sworn  foe  was  not  a 
work  of  human  strength  or  wisdom,  but  was  due 
to  Him  alone,  the  God  of  Israel,  to  testify  of  whom 
was  Elisha's  calling.  The  two  incidents  belong 
together,  for  one  of  them  shows  how  his  secret 
plans  and  cunning  plots,  and  the  other,  how  his 
open  assaults,  with  the  employment  of  the  entire 
force  at  his  disposal,  were  brought  to  naught  by 
the  intervention  of  the  prophet.  If  anything  could 
have  done  it,  these  extraordinary  proofs  of  the 
might,  tlie  faithfulness,  and  the  long-suffering  of 
Jehovah,  ought  to  have  brought  Jehoram  to  a  re- 
cognition of  his  fault,  and  to  reformation  (chap.  iii. 
3).  This  is  the  point  of  view  from  which  both  nar- 
ratives must  be  considered. 

2.  In  the  first  incident,  Elisha  appears  in  the 

distinct  character  of  a  seer,  nN"l ,   which  was  the 

older  name  for  a  N'OJ  (1  Sam.  ix.  9).     He  "  sees  " 

the  place  where  the  Syrians  have  determined  to 
encamp,  not  once,  only,  but  as  often  as  they  formed 
a  plan,  and,  when  they  came  to  take  h'  n  captive, 
he  saw  the  heavenly  protecting  powers,  and,  at  hia 
prayer,  the  eyes  of  his  attendant  were  opened,  sc 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-VII.  20. 


that  he,  too,  saw  them,  whereas  the  enemy  were 
Btruck  with  blindness.  This  gift  of  secret  sight, 
while  one  is  in  clear  possession  of  all  the  faculties 
of  consciousness,  is  similar  to  that  of  prophecy. 
Both  are  effects  of  the  spirit  of  Jehovah,  which 
non  semp&r  tangit  corda  prophetarum,  nee  de  omnibus 
(Syra),  nee  datur  Mis  per  modum  habitus,  sic  ut  est  in 
artifice  (Sanctius).  The  prophet  only  sees  what 
others  do  not  see  when  Jehovah  grants  it  to  him, 
and  his  sight  does  not  apply  to  all  things  whatso- 
ever, nor  to  all  events,  as -its  legitimate  objects, 
but  only  to  those  things  which  pertain  directly  or 
indirectly  to  the  relation  to  Jehovah  and  to  the 
guidance  of  the  people  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  or  as 
individuals.  [Moreover,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of 
the  prophet,  by  any  physical  and  ever-available 
means,  to  bring  about  this  state  of  the  soul  at  will]. 
This  sight  is  therefore  something  entirely  different 
from  so-called  clairvoyance,  which  has  nothing  in 
common  with  divine  revelation.  It  may  be  asked 
why  Elisha,  who  saw  the  places  where  the  Syrians 
would  encamp,  and  would  attack  Israel,  did  not 
also  foresee  their  coming  to  Dothan,  and  the  dan- 
ger which  threatened  him  of  being  captured  by 
them.  Cassel  (Elisa,  s.  116)  is  of  the  opinion  that 
"  he  must  have  known  it ;  yet  he  remained  at  Do- 
than and  awaited  the  hostile  emissaries:  he  knew 
that  there  were  more  with  him  than  all  the  ene- 
mies together  could  muster."  This  opinion,  how- 
ever, has  no  foundation  in  the  text.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  clearly  declared  that  the  arrival  of  the 
Syrians  was  not  observed  until  the  morning,  and 
that  it  was  totally  unexpected.  If  Elisha  had 
known  beforehand,  by  a  divine  revelation,  that 
they  were  coming,  he  would  have  regarded  it  as  a 
direction  to  escape  from  the  threatening  danger, 
and  not  to  remain  any  longer  in  Dothan,  as  Elijah 
once  fled  from  Jezreel  (1  Kings  xix.  3),  and  Joseph 
from  Bethlehem  (Matt.  ii.  14).  The  great  danger 
which  suddenly  came  upon  him,  without  his  knowl- 
edge or  fault,  was  a  trial  of  faith  for  him  and  for  his 
attendant.  While  the  latter  fell  into  anxiety  and 
terror  on  account  of  it,  Elisha  showed  himself  a 
true  "  man  of  God  "  in  that  he  trusted  firmly  in  his 
Lord  and  God,  and  spoke  courageously  to  his  com- 
panion :  "  Fear  not."  In  this  firm  faith  he  expe- 
rienced the  truth  of  what  is  written  in  Ps.  xxxiv. 
7,  and  xci.  11. 

3.  The  conduct  of  Elisha  towards  the  band  of 
Syrians,  which  had  been  sent  out  against  him,  is 
not,  as  might  at  first  appear,  a  mere  pendant  to  the 
simdar  incident  in  Elijah's  history  (chap.  i.  9-16). 
It,  cannot  even  be  compared  with  it,  for  the  per- 
sons and  the  circumstances  are  of  an  'entirely  dif- 
ferent character.  The  emissaries,  who  were  sent 
to  take  Elijah  captive,  were  sent  out  by  a  king  of 
Israel,  who  despised  the  God  of  Israel,  and  sought 
succor  from  the  Fly-god  of  the  Philistines.  They 
were  also  themselves  Israelites  who,  being  of  a  like 
disposition  with  their  king,  mocked  the  prophet  of 
Jehovah.  Under  these  circumstances  an  act  of 
kindness  and  forgiveness  on  the  part  of  the 
prophet,  whose  high  calling  it  was  to  pronounce, 
by  word  and  deed,  the  judgment  of  God  upon  all 
apostasy,  would  have  been  a  renunciation  of  his 
calling  (see  above,  p.  6).  Benhadad,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  a  heathen,  who  did  not  know  the  liv- 
ing God  of  Israel.  His  troops  were  blind  in- 
struments of  his  will,  who  did  not  know  what  they 
were  doing,  and  did  not  scoff  at  the  God  of  Israel, 
or  at  his  prophet.     Besides,  Elisha's  act  was  not 


merely  a  piece  of  good-nature  and  magnanimity, 
it  was  rather  a  prophetical  act,  in  the  strict  sens* 
of  the  words,  which  had  no  other  aim  than  to  glo- 
rify the  God  of  Israel.  Not  for  his  own  sake  did 
Elisha  pray  Jehovah  to  smite  the  Syrians  with 
blindness,  but  in  order  that  he  might  lead  them  to 
Samaria.  The  thanks  for  their  surrender  into  the 
hands  of  the  king  were  due,  not  to  him,  but  to 
Jehovah.  Jehoram  was  to  learn  once  more  to 
recognize  the  faithfulness  and  might  of  Jehovah, 
and  to  be  convinced  that  there  was  a  prophet  in 
Israel  (chap.  v.  8),  from  the  fact  that  these  dan- 
gerous enemies  were  delivered  into  his  hands  with- 
out a  blow.  On  the  other  hand,  Benhadad  and 
the  Syrians  were  to  learn  that  they  could  not  ac- 
complish anything,  with  all  their  cunning  plots, 
against  the  "  prophet  that  is  in  Israel "  (ver.  12), 
and  much  less,  against  Him  whose  servant  and 
witness  this  prophet  was.  From  this  time  on, 
therefore,  they  ceased  their  raids,  as  is  expressly 
stated  in  ver.  23.  The  release,  entertainment,  an! 
dismissal  of  the  troops  was  a  deep  mortification  t. 
them.  The  slaughter  of  the  captives,  on  the  con- 
trary, would  have  frustrated  the  purpose  of  the 
prophet's  act. 

4  The  miraculous  features  of  this  story  some 
have  attempted  to  explain,  that  is,  to  do  away  with, 
in  various  ways.  Knobel  (Der  Proph.  der  Hebr.,  ii. 
ss.  93,  98  sq )  remarks  upon  the  incident  as  fol- 
lows: "  Inasmuch  as  Elisha  had  extended  his  jour- 
neys as  far  as  Syria  (chap.  viii.  7),  he  had  gained 
information  of  the  plans  of  the  Syrians  against 
Israel.  This  information,  as  a  good  patriot,  he  did 
not  fail  to  make  known  to  his  king.  He  led  the 
Syrians,  who  do  not  appear  to  have  known  either 
him  or  the  locality,  to  Samaria.  The  inability  to 
recognize  the  person  as  Elisha,  or  the  place  as  Do- 
than, was,  inasmuch  as  the  safety  of  a  man  of  God 
was  at  stake,  caused  by  God  ;  all  the  more,  seeing 
that  it  appeared  to  be  extraordinary  and  miracu- 
lous that  they  should  not  see  that  which  was  di- 
rectly before  their  eyes.  The  cessation  of  this 
inability  was  then  an  opening  of  their  eyes  by 
God.  Sudden  insight  into  things  which  have  long 
been  before  the  eyes  and  yet  have  not  been  per- 
ceived, the  Hebrews  regarded  as  being  directly 
given  by  God.  .  .  .  The  horses  and  chariots 
of  fire  in  the  narrative  are  a  purely  mythical  fea- 
ture." This  explanation  is  almost  more  difficult  to 
explain  than  the  narrative  itself.  Nothing  is  said 
anywhere  about  frequent  journeys  of  Elisha  to 
Syria.  Only  one  such  journey  is  mentioned,  and  that 
later  (chap.  viii.  7).  He  could  only  have  gained 
knowledge  of  Benhadad's  plans  from  his  imme- 
diate and  most  familiar  circle  of  attendants.  These 
attendants,  however,  reject  any  hypothesis  of 
treachery,  and  cannot  explain  Elisha's  knowledge 
in  any  way  except  on  the  ground  that  he  is  a 
'•  prophet,"  i.  e.,  himself  sees  the  things  which  are 
plotted  in  the  king's  bed-chamber.  So  far  from 
conspiring  with  Elisha,  these  servants  of  Benha- 
dad find  out  his  place  of  abode,  and  so  bring  about 
the  attempt  to  capture  him.  Then,  when  a  com- 
pany is  sent  to  Dothan,  and  really  arrives  there, 
they  must  have  known  where  the  place  was,  and 
that  they  were  there  and  not  elsewhere.  Further- 
more, how  could,  not  a  single  individual,  but  a 
whole  company,  allow  themselves  to  be  deceived 
by  a  man  who  was  unknown  to  them,  and  to  be 
ltd  a  ray  five  hours'  journey  without  getting  "  in- 
sight into  that  which  was  directly  before  theii 


7i 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


eves  ?  "  The  fiery  horses  and  chariots,  finally,  are 
a  symbolic  but  not  a  mythical  feature  (see  above, 
p.  14).  Ewald's  explanation  is  much  more  prob- 
able than  this  rationalistic  interpretation.  Accord- 
ing to  him,  Elisha  proved  himself  "  the  most  faith- 
ful counsellor,  and  the  most  reliable  defence  of 
the  king  and  people,  by  pursuing  the  plans  of 
the  Arameans  with  the  sharpest  eye,  and  by  frus- 
trating them  often  single-handed,  by  means  of  his 
sure  foresight  and  tireless  watchfulness.  The  mem- 
ory of  this  activity  is  preserved  in  chap.  vi.  8  sq., 
where  we  have  a  vigorous  sketch  of  it,  as  it  had 
taken  form  in  the  popular  imagination."  If,  how- 
ever, the  prophet's  second-sight,  which  is  the  central 
point  of  the  entire  story,  is  a  product  only  of  the 
popular  imagination  which,  at  a  later  time,  wrought 
upon  the  story,  then  we  no  longer  have  history 
before  us,  and  the  "man  of  God,"  who  is  espe- 
cially presented  to  us  as  seer  and  prophet,  sinks 
down  into  a  wise  and  prudent  statesman.  It  would 
then  be  an  enigma  how  he  could  have  "  sure  fore- 
bodings "  of  the  presence  of  the  enemy  at  this  or 
that  place,  and  could  give  them  out  as  certain 
facts.  According  to  Koster,  the  gift  of  sight, 
which  was  imparted  to  the  companion  of  Elisha. 
at  the  prayer  of  the  latter,  is  only  a  "beautiful 
representation  of  the  idea  that  the  eye  of  faith 
sees  the  sure  protection  of  God  where,  to  the  vul- 
gar eye,  all  is  dark."  In  like  manner  Thenius  says : 
"  It  is  a  glorious  thought,  that  the  veil  of  earthly 
nature  is  here  lifted  for  a  moment,  for  a  child  of 
earth,  that  he  may  cast  a  look  upon  the  workings 
of  the  divine  Providence."  But  here  we  have  not 
an  idea,  be  it  ever  so  beautiful,  clothed  in  history, 
but  an  historical  fact.  The  prayer  of  Elisha  does 
not  mean :  Give  him  faith  in  the  sovereignty  of 
divine  Providence;  or:  Strengthen  this  faith  in 
him ;  but :  Give  him  power  to  see  that  which,  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  things,  it  is  not  permitted  to 
a  man  to  see.  His  companion  then  sees,  not  the 
thought-image  of  his  own  brain,  but  that  which 
Jehovah  allows  him  to  see  in  symbolic  form.  In 
like  manner  it  was  a  dispensation  of  Providence 
that  the  Syrians  did  not  see,  in  spite  of  their  open 
eyes.  [The  author  vindicates  the  literal  historic- 
al accuracy  of  the  record,  but  his  opponents  bring 
out  its  practical  importance.  Let  us  suppose  that, 
as  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  on  a  certain  day.  a 
certain  man,  under  certain  circumstances,  looked 
up  and  saw  in  the  air  "chariots  and  horses  of 
nre,"  or  something  else,  for  which  "chariots  and 
horses  of  fire  "  is  a  symbolic  expression.  The 
practical  religious  importance  of  the  incident  lies 
in  the  fact  that  he  was  thereby  convinced  that 
God  protects  His  own.  The  prophet's  object  in  his 
prayer  could  be  none  other  than  that  he  might  be 
thus  confirmed  in  the  faith,  and  the  edification  of 
the  story  depends  upon  these  two  deductions: 
God  protects  His  servants ;  and,  to  the  eye  of 
faith,  this  protection  is  evident,  when  earthly  eyes 
see  it  not.— W.  G.  S.] 

5.  The  narrative  of  the  second  incident  gives  us 
tafin  motion  of  the  great  famine  in  Samaria  during 
Ou  "/■  by  (he  Syrians.  It  is  impossible  not  to 
perceive  the  intention  of  showing,  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  this  siege,  how  the  threats  in  Levit.  xxvi. 
26-23,  and  Deut.  xxviii.  51—53,  against  transgres- 
sions of  the  covenant,  were  here  fulfilled  ;  for  the 
separate  incidents,  which  are  here  referred  to, 
correspond  literally  to  those  threats.  The  faj 
such  us  had  hardly  ever  before  been  experienced, 


and  especially  the  abominable  crimes  which  it  oc- 
casioned, referred  back  to  those  threats,  so  that 
they  forced  the  people  to  observe  the  violation  of 
the  covenant,  and  the  great  guilt  of  king  and  peo- 
ple, and,  in  so  far,  were  the  strongest  possibla 
warning  to  return  to  the  God  whom  they  had 
abandoned.  As  for  the  abomination  wrought  by 
the  two  women,  nothing  like  it  occurs  anywhere 
but  in  the  history  of  Israel ;  at  least,  no  one  has 
yet  been  able  to  cite  any  incident  of  the  kind  from 
profane  history.  According  to  Lament,  ii.  20  ;  iv. 
10  (cf.  Jerem.  six.  9;  Ezech.  v.  10),  something 
similar  seems  to  have  occurred  during  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxv. ; 
Jerem.  xxxix.);  and  Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.,  vi.  34) 
relates  that,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
Titus,  a  noble  lady  slew  her  child  and  ate  a  part  of 
it,  an  action  which  filled  even  the  Romans  with  hor- 
ror, and  caused  Titus  to  declare  that  he  would  not 
permit  "  that  the  sun  should  shine  upon  a  city  on 
earth  in  which  mothers  nourished  themselves  with 
such  food."  That  such  abominations  were  perpe- 
trated precisely  among  that  people  which  had  been 
thought  worthy  to  be  the  bearer  of  the  revelation 
and  knowledge  of  the  one  living  God,  only  proves 
that  if  such  a  people  once  falls  away  from  its  God, 
it  sinks  deeper  than  another  which  does  not  know 
Him,  but  adores  dumb  idols. 

6.  Tlie  deliverance  of  Samaria,  like  that  of  tlie 
three  kings  in  the  war  with  the  Moabites,  did  not 
take  place  by  a  miracle,  in  the  accurate  sense  of 
the  word,  but  it  belongs,  nevertheless,  as  that  does, 
in  the  rank  of  the  events  which  bear  witness  to 
the  special  divine  governance  of  Israel  (see 
above,  p.  36).  Josephus'  opinion  that  God  raised 
a  great  tumult  in  the  ears  of  the  Syrians  (>/p,xe-o 
6  iieuc  KTi'Trov  dpf/drojv  nat  otz'Auv  rate  duoalc  av- 
r€n*  kvtfxeiv)  does  not  agree  with  the  text,  which 
distinctly  mentions  a  real  and  strong  roaring.    Stdl 

less  is  pip  to  be  rendered  by  "rumor"  (Knobel: 

"  The  Syrians  raised  the  siege  suddenly,  because 
they  heard  a  rumor  that  the  Egyptians  and  Hit- 
tites  were  on  the  march  against  them ").  The 
threefold  repetition  of  the  word,  which,  moreover, 
never  means  rumor,  is  against  this  interpretation. 
As  for  the  prediction  of  deliverance,  by  Elisha, 
that  can  never  be  explained  on  naturalistic  grounds. 
Knobel  leaves  it  undecided  "  whether  Elisha,  who 
probably  had  intrigues  with  the  Syrians,  suc- 
ceeded in  starting  such  a  report  among  them,  or 
whether,  in  reality,  an  hostile  army  was  advancing 
upon  the  Syrians,  of  which  fact  Elisha  had  infor- 
mation." The  first  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground 
when  we  consider  that  it  was  no  "rumor"  at 
all,  but  a  rushing  and  roaring  noise,  which  the  Syr- 
ians heard.  The  alternative  is  just  as  unfounded, 
for  all  the  external  communications  of  the  city 
were  cut  off,  and  the  approaching  army,  of  which, 
however,  history  makes  no  mention,  must  have 
been  so  near  already  that  the  noise  of  its  march 
would  be  heard,  not  only  in  the  Syrian  camp,  but 
also  in  .Samaria;  or,  can  we  conceive  that  Elisha 
might  have  ordered  up  an  Egyptian  and  Hittite 
army,  over  night,  and  that  this  might  have  marched 
:ii  .  nice  ?  Ewald's  notion  that  the  prophet's  prom- 
ise of  deliverance  only  shows  the  "  lofty  confi- 
donee"  with  which  he  met  "the  despairing  com- 
plaints" of  the  king,  is  equally  unsatisfactory.  It 
would  have  been  more  than  foolhardy  in  the 
prophet  to  proclaim,  as  the  word  of  Jehovah  be- 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-VII.  20. 


76 


fore  the  king,  his  attendants,  and  the  elders,  some- 
thing which  he,  after  all,  only  guessed,  and  which 
was  contrary  to  all  probability.  If  his  guess  had 
not  been  realized,  what  would  have  become  of  him, 
and  how  would  he  hare  been  disgraced  in  his 
character  of  prophet?  What  is  more,  he  not  only 
promised  deliverance,  but  also  foretold  to  him  who 
scoffed  at  his  promise:  "Thou  shalt  see  it  with 
thine  eyes,  but  shalt  not  eat  thereof,"  and  the 
threat  was  fulfilled.  The  promise  and  the  threat 
of  the  prophet  form  together  the  central  point  of 
the  story ;  they  are  not  mere  incidental  details,  as 
is  clear  from  the  express  repetition  at  the  close. 
The  truth  of  the  occurrence,  which  no  one  doubts. 
Btands  or  falls  with  both  together.  The  object  of 
the  story  is,  to  show  that  there  is  a  prophet  in  Is- 
rael (chap.  v.  8),  so  that  it  appears,  to  say  the 
least,  very  insipid  to  hold,  with  Koster,  that  "  the 
moral  of  the  story  is :  God  can  save  by  the  most 
unexpected  means,  but  the  unbeliever  has  no 
share  in  such  salvation."  [Chap.  v.  8  cannot,  with 
any  justice,  be  cited  as  bearing  upon  the  signifi- 
cance of  this  story.  Its  lesson  is  one  much  more 
nearly  touching  the  "historical  development  of 
the  plan  of  redemption  "  than  chap.  v.  It  was  im- 
portant that  all  should  know  that  there  were  proph- 
ets of  God  in  Israel,  only  to  the  end  that  they 
might  believe  what  follows  from  this  fact,  viz., 
that  God  has  a  plan  for  the  redemption  of  the 
world  in  which  the  Israelitish  nation  plays  a  prom- 
inent part :  that  He,  therefore,  is  especially  present 
among  them  by  His  prophets,  and  that  their  his- 
tory and  fortunes,  their  calamities  and  chastise- 
ments, their  mercies  and  deliverances,  are  inter- 
positions of  God  for  the  furtherance  of  His  plan. 
The  point  of  the  incident  before  us  is,  that  God 
would  interpose  to  arrest  a  national  calamity  at  the 
very  crisis  of  its  fulfilment,  for  the  instruction, 
warning,  and  conversion  of  His  people. — W.  G.  S.] 
7.  Kimj  Jehoram  presents  himself,  in  both  nar- 
ratives, just  as  he  was  described  above  (p.  34). 
He  does  not  persecute  the  prophet ;  he  rather  lis- 
tens to  his  counsel,  and  addresses  him  as  "  father  " 
(chap.  vi.  9,  21);  but  he  never  places  himself  de- 
cidedly on  his  side.  "He  stands  an  example  of 
those  who  often  permit  themselves  to  be  led,  in 
their  worldly  affairs,  by  holy  men,  who  admire 
them  from  a  distance,  who  suspect  the  presence 
of  a  higher  strength  in  them,  but  still  hold  them 
aloof  and  persist  in  their  own  ways"  (Von  Ger- 
lach).  When  the  prophet  leads  the  enemy  into 
his  hands  without  a  blow,  he  becomes  violent,  and 
is  eager  to  slaughter  them  all;  then,  however,  he 
allows  himself  to  be  soothed,  gives  them  enter- 
tainment, and  permits  them  to  depart  in  safety. 
At  the  siege  of  Samaria,  the  great  distress  of  the 
city  touches  his  heart.  He  puts  on  garments  which 
are  significant  of  grief  and  repentance,  but  then 
allows  himself  to  be  so  overpowered  by  auger  that, 
instead  of  seeking  the  cause  of  the  prevailing 
misery  in  his  own  apostasy  and  that  of  the  nation, 
he  swears  to  put  to  death,  without  delay,  the  man 
[who  had  endeavored  to  fix  his  attention  upon  tin- 
true  cause  of  the  calamity,  and]  whom  he  had 
once  addressed  as  "  father."  Vet  this  anger  is  also 
of  short  duration.  He  repents  of  his  oath,  and 
hastens  to  prevent  the  murder,  and  asks  Klisha, 
trembling  and  despairing,  if  there  is  no  further 
hope.  He  does  not  hear  the  promise  of  deliver- 
ance with  scorn,  as  his  officer  does,  but  with  hope 
and  confidence.     Then  again,  when  the  promised 


deliverance  is  announced  as  actually  present,  ha 
once  more  becomes  doubtful  and  mistrustful,  and 
his  servants  have  to  encourage  him,  and  push  him 
on  to  a  decision.  Thus,  at  one  moment  elated,  at 
another  depressed,  now  good-natured  and  now 
hard  and  cruel,  now  angry  and  again  despairing, 
now  trustful  and  again  distrustful,  he  never  rises 
above  a  character  of  indecision,  changeableness, 
and  contrasted  dispositions.  He  was  indeed  bet- 
ter than  his  father  Ahab,  but  he  was  still  a  true 
son  of  this  father  (see  1  Kings  xviii.,  Hist.  §  6).  In 
one  thing  only  he  was  firm :  "  He  cleaved  unto  the 
sins  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  which  made 
Israel  to  sin ;  he  departed  not  therefrom  "  (chap.  hi. 
3).  Since,  not  to  mention  so  many  other  proofs  of 
the  divine  power,  patience,  and  faithfulness,  even 
the  deliverance  of  Samaria  from  the  greatest  peril 
did  not  avail  to  bring  him  into  other  courses,  judg- 
ment now  came  upon  him  and  his  dynasty,  and  the 
threat  of  the  Law  was  fulfilled :  "  I,  the  Lord  thy 
God,  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of 
the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  generation  "  (Ex.  xx.  5).  ne  was  the  fourth 
member  of  the  dynasty  of  Oniri,  or,  as  it  is  com- 
monly  called,  from  the  principal  sovereign  of 
the  family,  the  house  of  Ahab.  With  him,  that 
dynasty  ended  (chap.  ix.  10). 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  8-23.  The  Lord  is  Hiding-place  and  Shield 
(Ps.  cxix.  114).  (a)  He  brings  to  nought  the  plots 
of  the  crafty,  so  that  they  cannot  accomplish  them 
(Job  v.  12),  vers.  8-14.'  (b)  "The  angel  of  the 
Lord  encampeth  round  about  them  that  fear  Him, 
and  delivereth  them"  (P6.  xxxiv.  7),  vers.  15-19. 
(c)  "  The  heathen  are  sunk  down  in  the  pit  that 
they  made  :  in  the  net  which  they  hid  is  their  own 
foot  taken  "  (Ps.  ix.  15 ;  xxxv.  7),  vers.  20-23. — 
Vers.  8-17.  Krummacher  :  Hints  of  the  Course  of 
Things  in  Zion.  (a)  The  revealed  plot ;  (b)  the 
military  expedition  against  one  man ;  (c)  the  peace- 
ful abode  ;  (d)  the  cry  of  alarm  ;  (e)  the  unveiled 
protection  from  above. — Ver.  8.  Cramer:  The 
heart  of  man  plots  its  courses,  but  the  Lord  alone 
permits  them  to  prosper.  "A  man's  heart  devis- 
eth  his  way ;  but  the  Lord  direeteth  his  steps " 
(Prow  xvi.  9).  "There  is  no  wisdom,  nor  under- 
standing, nor  counsel  against  the  Lord  "  (Prov.  xxi. 
30). — Let  them  undertake  the  enterprise  as  cun- 
ningly as  they  can,  God  leads  to  another  end  than 
that  they  seek  (Isai.  viii.  10). — "  In  such  and  such 
a  place  shall  be  my  camp  "  (Prov.  xxvii.  1 ;  James 
iv.  13-16). — Ver.  9.  Osiakder:  It  is  no  treason  to 
bring  crafty  and  malicious  plots  to  the  light.  It 
is  a  sacred  duty  (Acts  xxiii.  16).  Beware  of  going 
into  places  where  thou  wilt  be  in  jeopardy  of  soul 
and  body.  Be  on  thy  guard  when  the  enemy  ad- 
vances, and  "put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God" 
(Ephes.  vi.  13  sq.). — Ver.  10.  No  one  has  ever  re- 
gretted that  he  followed  the  advice  of  a  man  of 
God;  on  the  contrary,  many  have  thus  been  saved 
from  ruin. — Ver.  11.  Starke:  When  God  brings 
to  naught  the  plots  of  the  crafty,  they  become  en- 
raged,  and,  instead -of  recognizing  the  hand  of 
God  and  humbling  themselves,  they  lay  the  blame 
upon  other  men,  and  become  more  malicious  and 
obstinate. — He  who  does  not  understand  the  ways 
of  God,  thinks  that  he  sees  human  treason  in  what 
is  really  God's  dispensation      Woe   ro  the  r  del 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS 


who  cauuot  trust  his  nearest  attendants  (Ps.  ci.  6, 
7). — Ver.  12.  A  heathen,  in  a  foreign  land,  con- 
fesses, in  regard  to  Elisha,  something  which  no 
one  in  Israel  had  yet  admitted  to  be  true.  The 
Bame  thing  also  happened  when  the  greatest  of 
all  prophets  appeared  (Matt.  viii.  10;  xiii.  57). — 
Xri'mmacher:  Tremble  with  fear,  ye  obstinate 
sinners,  because  all  is  bare  and  discovered  before 
His  eyes,  and  shudder  at  the  thought  that  the 
veil,  behind  which  ye  carry  on  your  works,  does 
not  exist  for  Him !  All  which  ye  plot  in  your 
secret  corners  to-day,  ye  will  find  to-morrow 
inscribed  upon  His  book,  and  however  secretly 
and  cunningly  ye  spin  your  web,  not  a  single 
thread  of  it  shall  escape  His  eye! — Ver.  13.  How 
mad  it  is  to  fight  against,  or  to  attempt  to  crush,  a 
cause  in  which  the  agency  of  a  higher  power  is  visi- 
ble (Isai.  xiv.  27  ;  Acts  v.  38,  39). — Ver.  14.  Ben- 
hadad  sends  out  an  entire  army  against  one,  but 
finds  out  the  truth  of  the  words  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  18  sq. 
Vers.  14—23.  Elisha  during  Distress  and  Dan- 
ger, (o)  (Although  enclosed  by  an  entire  army,  he 
does  not  fear  or  tremble,  like  his  companion,  but 
speaks  to  him  words  of  encouragement  and  confi- 
dence. This  is  the  effect  of  a  firm  faith,  which  is  the 
substance,  &c,  Heb.  xi.  1.  Faith  takes  away  all 
fear,  aud  gives  true  and  joyful  courage,  Ps.  xxiii. 
4;  Ps.  xci.  1-4;  2  Cor.  iv.  8.  David  speaks  with 
this  faith,  Ps.  iii.  5  and  6 ;  xxvii.  1-3  ;  and  Heze- 
kiah.  2  Chron.  xxxii.  7;  and  Luther:  Uud  warn 
die  Welt  voll  Teufel  war,  und  wollt,  &c.)  (b)  His 
prayer,  vers.  17  and  18.  ("Lord,  I  pray  thee, 
open  his  eyes !  "  So  should  every  true  servant  of 
God  pray  for  every  soul  that  is  entrusted  to  him. 
We  all  need  to  use  this  prayer  daily :  Lord,  open 
my  eyes !  for  it  is  the  greatest  misfortune  if  one 
cannot  see  the  light,  even  by  day  (Eph.  i.  18). 
Elisha,  however,  also  prays :  "  Lord,  smite  this 
people,  I  pray  thee,  with  blindness,''  for  his  own 
protection,  and  for  their  salvation  ,  for  they  were 
to  learn  that  He  is  a  God  who  can  save  marvel- 
lously from  the  greatest  distress,  and  that  no  craft 
or  skill  avails  against  Him.  It  is  not  permitted  us 
to  pray  for  harm  to  our  enemies;  but  we  may  pray 
that  God  will  make  them  powerless,  and  show 
them  His  might.)  (c)  His  victory,  vers.  19-23. 
(Those  who  wisli  to  capture  him,  he  captures ;  but 
his  victory  is  no  victory  of  revenge.  He  causes 
the  captives  to  bo  entertained  kindly,  and  allowed 
to  depart  in  safety,  that  they  may  learn  that  the 
God,  whose  prophet  Elisha  is,  is  not  only  a  mighty, 
but  also  a  merciful  and  gracious  God.  God  is  not 
so  much  glorified  by  anything  else  as  by  returning 
good  for  evil.  "  For  so  is  the  will  of  God,"  &c, 
Peter  ii.  15;  cf.  Romans  xii.  20.  He  won  the 
highest  victory  who  said  upon  the  cross:  "Father, 
forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do.") 
— Ver.  15.  Our  fortune  also  may  change  over 
night :  then,  how  shall  we  bear  it? — Starke:  Our 
feeble  flesh  cannot  do  otherwise  than  despair, 
when  distress  comes  suddenly  upon  us,  especially 
if  we  are  young  and  inexperienced;  for  experience 
brings  hopi  I  Rom.  v.  4). 

16  and  17.   Cramer:   If  we  had  spiritual 

i  so  thai     ■   M  see  the  protecting  forces  of 

loving,  holy  angels,  it  would  be  impossible  lor  us 
to  fear  di  i ;!  or  wicked  men  (Ps.  civ.  l ;  ffeb.  i. 
It). — Vers.  17  and  is.  Beblbb  Bdbel:  In  the 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  winch  is  hidden  from  the 

world,  blind  men  every  day  r live  their  sight, 

ind  men    n  nitti-n    with  blindness. — 


Ver.  18.  The  Lord  smites  with  blindness  those 
who  fight  against  Him,  not  in  order  that  they  may 
remain  blind,  but  in  order  that  they  may  truly  see, 
after  they  shall  have  observed  how  far  they  have 
strayed,  and  shall  have  recognized  the  error  of 
their  way  (Acts  ix.  8  sq. ;  John  ix.  39). — Ver.  19. 
It  is  not  a  sin  to  withhold  the  truth  from  any  one 
until  the  proper  time  for  making  it  known,  but,  in 
many  cases,  it  is  even  the  duty  of  wisdom  and 
love  (Johu  xiii.  7;  Matt.  x.  16).  "  Follow  me  I" 
is  the  call  of  the  only  one  who  can  lead  us  where 
we  shall  find  that  winch  we  are,  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  seeking,  for  He  is  the  light 
of  the  world,  &c.  (John  viii.  12).— Ver.  20.  A 
time  will  come  for  all  who  are  spiritually  blind, 
when  their  eyes  will  be  opened,  and  they  wU: 
learn  that  they  have  been  walking  in  the  paths  ol 
error. — Krummacher  :  Ye  dream  of  some  unknown 
kind  of  an  Elysium,  and  ye  shall  awake  at  last 
among  those  of  whom  it  shall  be  said:  "Bind 
them  hand  and  foot,  and  cast  them  into  outer 
darkness." — Vers.  21-23.  "  The  wrath  of  man 
worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (James  i. 
20).  God  does  not  give  our  enemies  into  our  hands 
in  order  that  we  may  revenge  ourselves  upon  them, 
but  in  order  that  we  may  show  ourselves  to  v.e  chil- 
dren of  Him  who  dealeth  not  with  us  according  t) 
our  sins,  neither  rewardeth  us  according  to  our  in- 
iquities. He  who  receives  forgiveness  from  God, 
must  also  show  forgiveness  to  others ;  that  is  the 
gratitude  which  God  requires  of  us,  and  which  we 
owe  to  Him. — Ver.  23.  Starke  :  True  love  to  one's 
enemies  is  never  fruitless  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  7,  17,  18). 
Vers.  24-31.  Samaria  duriug  the  Siege,  (a) 
The  great  scarcity ;  (b)  the  two  women ;  (c)  the 
king. — Ver.  24.  Evil  men  wax  worse  and  worse 
(2  Tim.  iii.  13).  As  Benhadad  accomplished 
nothing  by  his  raids,  he  made  an  attack  with  his 
entire  force.  A  perverse  and  stubborn  man  can- 
not endure  to  be  frustrated,  and  when  he  is.  in- 
stead of  leading  him  to  submissiveness  as  it  ought, 
it  only  hurts  his  pride,  and  makes  him  more  irrita- 
ted.— Ver.  25.  General  public  calamities  are  not 
mere  natural  events,  but  visitations  of  God  on 
account  of  public  guilt.  Cf.  Jerein.  ii.  19,  and 
iii.  12  and  13. — Krumm  ACHEK :  Of  all  the  judgments 
of  God  in  this  world,  none  is  more  terrible  than 
famine.  It  is  a  scourge  which  draws  blood.  .  .  . 
It  often  happens  that  God  takes  this  scourge  in  hand 
when,  in  spite  of  manifold  warnings,  His  name  is 
forgotten  in  the  land,  and  apostasy,  rebellion,  aud 
unbelief  are  prevalent. — Vers.  26  to  29.  Necessity 
leads  to  prayer,  wherever  there  is  a  spark  of  the 
fear  of  God  remaining ;  but  where  that  fear  is 
wanting,  "necessity  knows  no  law"  becomes  the 
watchword.  The  crime  of  the  two  women  is  a 
proof  that,  where  men  fall  away  from  God,  they 
may  sink  down  among  the  ravenous  beasts. 
Separate  sores,  which  form  upon  the  body,  are 
signs  that  the  body  is  diseased,  and  the  blood 
poisoned.  Shocking  crimes  of  individuals  are 
proofs  that  the  community  is  morally  rotten. — Ver. 
26.  Starke:  Earthly  might  can  help  and  protect 
US  againSl  the  injustice  of  men,  but  not  against  tin 
judgments  of  God. — Ver.  27.  How  many  a  one 
Bpeaks  thus  who  might  help  if  he  only  earnestly 
tried.  When  the  prayer :  Help  me!  is  addressed 
to  thee,  do  nol  refer  the  suppliant  to  God  for  con- 
solation while  any  moans  of  help,  which  are  in 
thine  own  hands,  remain  untried  (1  John  iii.  17; 
.lames  ii.  15,  16).— Vers.  30  aud  31.  Calw.  B:bel- 


CHAPTER  VI.  8-VII.  20. 


?7 


Bee  here  a  faithful  picture  of  the  wrongheadedness 
of  man  m  misfortune.  In  the  first  place,  we  half- 
way make  up  our  minds  to  repent,  in  the  hope  of 
deliverance ;  but  if  this  is  not  obtained  at  once, 
and  in  the  wished-for  way,  we  burst  out  in  rage 
either  against  our  fellow  men,  or  against  God  him- 
self. Observe,  moreover,  the  great  ingratitude  of 
men.  Jehoram  had  already,  several  times,  expe- 
rienced the  marvellous  interference  of  God ;  once 
it  fails,  however,  and  he  is  enraged.  The  gar- 
ment of  penitence  upon  the  body  is  of  no  avail,  if 
an  impenitent  heart  beats  beneath  it.  Anger  and 
rage  and  plots  of  murder  cannot  spring  from  the 
heart  which  is  truly  penitent.  It  is  the  most 
dangerous  superstition  to  imagine  that  we  can 
make  satisfaction  for  our  sins,  can  become  re- 
conciled to  God,  and  turn  aside  His  wrath,  by  ex- 
ternal performances,  the  wearing  of  sackcloth, 
fasting,  self-chastisement,  the  repetition  of  prayers, 
Ac.  (Ps.  li.  16,  17).  The  world  is  horrified,  indeed, 
at  the  results  of  sin ;  but  not  at  sin  itself.  In- 
stead of  confessing:  "We  have  sinned"  (Dan.  ix. 
5),  Jehoram  swears  that  the  man  of  God  shall  die 
(2  Cor.  vii.  10). — Starke:  Whenever  God's  judg- 
ments fall  upun  a  people,  the  teachers  and  preach- 
ers must  bear  the  blame  (1  Kings  xviii.  17  ;  Amos 
vii.  10). 

Ver.  32-Chap.  vii.  2.  Elisha's  Declarations  in 
his  own  House,  [a)  To  the  assembled  elders ;  (b) 
to  the  despairing  king;  (c)  to  the  scoffing  officer. 
— Yer.  32.  The  Lord  preserves  the  souls  of  His 
saints;  he  wiU  save  them  from  the  hands  of  the 
godless  (Ps.  xcvii.  10).  He  sends  friends  at  the 
right  moment,  who  serve  us  as  a  defence  against 
wickedness  and  unrighteous  persecution. — Krum- 
macher:  It  is  pleasant  to  be  with  brethren  in  a 
time  of  calamity.      One  feels   in   \inion  a  power 

against  all  calamities  which  threaten  him 

Moreover,  especial  promises  attach  to  such  a  union. 
Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  there  is  He  in  the  midst  of 
them. — Cramer:  Although  the  saints  of  God  are 
unterrified  at  the  possibility  of  martyrdom,  yet  they 
are  not  permitted  to  cast  themselves  into  the 
flames,  but  may  properly  make  use  of  all  ordinary 
and  just  means  to  preserve  themselves  for  the 
good  of  the  church  of  God  (Phil.  i.  22). — Ver.  33, 
cf.  Prov.  xxi.  1.  The  wrath  of  the  king  changes 
to  timidity  and  hesitation.  The  heart  of  the  natu- 
ral man  is  a  rebellious,  but.  at  the  same  time, 
wavering  thing.  Blessed  is  the  man  who  trusts 
in  the  Lord  (Jer.  xvii.  7,  9;  Ps.  xxxvii.  17). — Chap, 
vii.  1.  We  must  still  answer  "  Hear  the  word  of 
the  Lord  "  to  those  who,  in  littleness  of  faith  and 
in  despair,  cry  out,  what  more  shall  I  wait  for 
from  the  Lord?  A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not 
break.  Ac.  (Matt.  xii.  20).  "To-morrow,  at  this 
time."  When  the  need  is  greatest,  God  is  nearest. 
If  God  often  unexpectedly  helps  even  apostates 
out  of  great  need,  how  much  more  will  He  do  this 
for  His  own,  who  call  to  Him  day  and  night.  He 
has  roads  for  every  journey ;  He  does  not  lack  for 
means. — Ver.  2.  The  Sin  ofUnbelief  and  its  Punish- 
ment. The  children  of  this  world  consider  their 
unbelief  to  be  wisdom  and  enlightenment,  and 
they  seek  to  put  that  which  is  a  consolation  and 
an  object  of  reverence  to  others,  in  a  ridiculous 
light.  The  Lord  will  not  leave  such  wickedness 
unpunished.  It  is  only  too  often  the  case  that 
high-born,  and  apparently  well-bred  men,  at  court, 
lake  pleasure  in  mockeries  of  the  word  of  God  and 


of  its  declarations,  without  reflecting  that  thej 
thereby  bear  testimony  to  their  own  inner  rude 
ness,  vulgarity,  and  want  of  breeding.  It  is  a  bad 
sign  of  the  character  of  a  prince,  where  scoffere 
form  the  most  intimate  circle  of  his  retinue  (Ps.  i 
1-4).  Unbelief  is  folly,  because  it  robs  itself  of 
the  blessing  which  is  the  portion  of  faith. 

Ver.  3-16.  The  Miraculous  Deliverance  of 
Samaria.  It  declares  loudly  (a)  what  is  written  a. 
Daniel  ii.  20  :  "  Wisdom  and  might  are  His."  (He 
knows  how,  without  chariots  or  horses,  without 
arms  or  army,  merely  by  His  terror,  to  put  an 
enemy  to  flight,  Ex.  xxiii.  27  ;  to  feed  the  hungry, 
and  set  the  captives  at  liberty,  Ps.  cxlvii.  7,  in 
order  that  all  may  confess :  "  Who  is  so  great  a 
God,"  &c,  Ps.  lxxvii.  13  and  14;  and:  "Let  not 
the  wise  man  glory,"  &c,  Jerem.  ix.  23,  24);  (b)  cf. 
Ps.  ciii.  8 :  If  ever  a  deliverance  was  undeserved, 
then  this  was,  that  all  might  admit:  "It  is  of  the 
Lord's  mercies,"  &c.  (Lament,  iii.  22 ;  Rom.  ii.  4 
and  5). — Vers.  3-10.  The  Lepers  outside  the  City. 
(a)  Their  conversation  (ver.  3  and  4) ;  (6)  their  visit 
to  the  Syrian  camp  (vers.  5,  8);  (c)  their  message 
to  the  king  (vers.  9,  10). — Vers.  3  and  4.  Krum- 
macher  :  How  often  the  same  disposition  meets 
us  in  the  dwellings  of  the  poor ;  instead  of  a  joy- 
ful and  believing  looking  up  to  heaven,  a  faithless 
looking  for  help  from  human  hands ;  instead  of 
submission  to  God,  a  dull  discontent — a  despair 
which  quarrels  with  the  eternal.  .  .  .  Thence 
conies  the  frequent  neglect  of  the  household,  and 
decay  of  the  family.  And  then  what  language  is 
this:  "If  they  kill  us,  we  shall  only  die,"  as  if 
the  grave  was  the  end  of  men,  and  the  great  Be- 
yond were  only  a  dream  ;  or  as  if  it  were  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  pain  of  death  atones  for  the  sins 
of  a  wasted  life,  and  must  rightfully  purchase 
their  pardon,  and  a  reception  into  heavenly  blessed- 
ness. Our  life  lies  in  the  hand  of  God,  who  sets 
its  limit,  which  we  may  not  anticipate.  Circum- 
stances may,  indeed,  arise  in  which  a  man  wishes 
for  death;  it  makes  a  great  difference,  however, 
whether  this  wish  comes  from  weariness  of  life, 
or  whether  we  say,  with  St.  Paul :  "  I  long  to  depart 
and  be  with  Christ."  Only  when  Christ  has  be- 
come our  life,  is  death  a  gain. — Vers.  5—7.  Starke  : 
The  Almighty  laughs  at  the  planning  of  the  proud, 
and  brings  their  schemes  to  a  disgraceful  end  (Ps. 
ii.  1  sq. ;  Dan.  iv.  33  and  34). — Wi  rtemb.  Suiim.  : 
It  is  only  necessary  that  in  the  darkness  a  wind 
should  blow,  or  that  water  should  splash  in  free 
course,  or  that  an  echo  should  resound  from  the 
mountains,  or  that  the  wind  should  rustle  the  dry 
leaves,  to  terrify  the  godless,  so  that  they  flee  as 
if  pursued  by  a  sword,  and  fall,  though  no  one 
pursues  them  (Levit.  xxvi.  36).  Therefore,  we 
should  cling  fast  to  God  in  the  persecution  of  our 
enemies,  should  trust  Him,  and  earnestly  cry  to 
Him  for  help  ;  He  has  a  thousand  ways  to  help  us. 
— Ver.  6.  Krummacher  :  It  happens  to  the  uncon- 
verted man,  as  it  did  here  to  the  Syrians.  God 
causes  him  to  hear  the  rumbling  of  His  anger,  the 
roaring  of  the  death-floods,  the  thunder  of  His 
law,  and  the  trumpet-sounds  of  the  judgment 
day.  Then  he  flees  from  the  doomed  camp,  it. 
which  he  has  dwelt  hitherto,  and  hurls  away  the 
dead-weight  of  his  own  wisdom,  justice,  and 
strength  — Vers.  8  and  9.  Wurt.  Somm.  :  Many  a 
one  gets  chances  to  acquire  property  dishonestly, 
to  enjoy  luxury  and  debauchery,  to  gratify  fleshly 
lusts,  and  to  commit  other  sins,  and.  if  he  is  secure 


THE  SECOXD  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


from  human  eye,  lie  does  not  trouble  himself  about 
the  all-seeing  eye  of  God ;  but  his  crime  is  dis- 
covered at  last  in  his  own  conscience,  and,  by 
God's  judgment,  it  is  revealed  and  punished.  Con- 
science can,  indeed,  be  benumbed  for  a  time ;  but 
it  will  not  rest  forever;  it  awakes  at  last,  and 
stings  all  the  more  the  longer  it  has  been  still. 
He  who  conceals  what  b«  has  found,  is  not  better 
than  a  thief. — Pfaffsche  Bibel:  It  is  a  good 
action  to  warn  others  of  wickedness,  and  to  hold 
them  back  from  sin,  still  more  to  encourage  them 
to  virtue  (Heb.  x.  24). — Ver.  10.  Lepers,  i.  e.%  out- 
cast and  despised  men,  were  destined,  according 
to  God's  Providence,  to  announce  to  the  threat- 
ened city,  in  the  crisis  of  its  danger,  the  great  and 
wonderful  act  of  God.  God  is  wont  to  use  slight 
and  contemptible  instruments  for  his  great  works, 
that  Hi-  may,  by  the  foolish  things  of  the  world, 
confound  the  wise  (1  Cor.  i.  27).  Fishermen  and 
publicans  brought  to  a  lost  world  the  best  Good 
News,  the  gospel,  which  is  a  power  to  make  all 
blessed  who  believe  in  it. — Vers.  12-15.  Doubt  and 
distrust  of  God's  promises  are  deeply  inrooted  in 
the  human  heart.  Where  it  is  most  necessary  to 
be  prudent,  there  the  heart  of  man  is  sure  and 
free  from  care  (Ps.  liii.  5),  and  where  there  is  no- 
thing to  fear,  there  it  is  anxious.     Instead  of  con- 


fessing with  joy  :  Lord,  I  am  unworthy  of  the  least 
of  all  thy  mercies,  when  the  promised  help  is  of- 
fered, it  does  not  trust  even  yet,  until  it  can  see '  d'.b 
the  eyes  and  grasp  with  the  hands. — Yer.  1 6.  Ca  lw. 
Bibel  :  Learn  from  this  that  He  can  lead  us,  as  in 
a  dream,  through  the  gates  of  death,  and,  in  an 
instant,  set  us  free. — Wi'RT.  Summ. :  It  is  easy  fo. 
our  Lord  and  God  to  bring  days  of  plenty  close 
upon  days  of  famine  and  want.  Therefore,  we 
should  not  despair,  but  trust  in  God,  and  await 
His  blessing  in  hope  and  patience,  until  He  "  open 
the  windows  of  heaven"  (Mai.  iii.  10). — Starke: 
God's  word  fails  not ;  not  a  word  of  His  ever  fel, 
upon  the  earth  in  vain;  every  one  is  fulfilled  to 
the  uttermost,  both  promise  and  threat. — Vers.  17- 
20.  The  judgment  upon  the  king's  officer  proclaims 
aloud :  "  Be  not  deceived  :  God  is  not  mocked  " 
(Gal.  vi.  7;  Prov.  xiii.  13). — Krummacher:  His 
corpse  became  a  bloody  seal  upon  the  words  of 
Jehovah,  and  of  His  prophet. — Berleb.  Bibel:  In 
the  last  days  also,  when  the  abundance  of  the 
divine  grace  shall  be  poured  out,  like  a  stream,  in 
the  midst  of  the  greatest  misery,  many  despiser? 
of  the  glorious  promises  of  God  will  see  the  begin 
ning  thereof,  but  will  not  attain  to  the  enjoyment 
of  it;  they  will  be  thrust  aside  by  marvellous  judg- 
ments. 


D. — The  Influence  of  Elisha  with  the  King,  and  his  Residence  at  Samaria. 


Chap.  VIII.  1-15. 


1  Then  spake  [Now]  Elisha  [had  spoken]  unto  the  woman,  whose  son  he  had 
restored  to  life,  saying,  Arise,  and  go  thou  and  thine  household,  and  sojourn 
wheresoever  thou  canst  sojourn:    for  the  Lord  hath  called  tor  [up]  a  famine; 

2  and  it  shall  also  come  upon  the  land  seven  years.  And  the  woman  arose,  and 
did  after  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God  :   ami  she  went  with  her  household,  and 

3  sojourned  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines  seven  years.  And  it  came  to  pass  at 
the  seven  years'  end,  that  the  woman  returned  out  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines: 

4  and  she  went  forth  to  cry  unto  the  king  for  her  house  and  for  her  land.  And 
the  king  talked  [was just  then  talking]  with  Gehazi  the  servant  of  the  man  of 
God,  saying,  Tell  me,  I  pray  thee,  all  the  great  things  that  Elisha  hath  done. 

5  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  was  telling  the  king  how  he  had  restored  a  dead 
body  to  life,  that,  behold,  the  woman,  whose  son  he  had  restored  to  life,  cried 
to  the  king  for  her  house  and  for  her  land.     And  Gehazi  said,  My  lord,  O  king, 

6  this  is  the  woman,  and  this  is  her  son  whom  Elisha  restored  to  life.  And  when 
the  king  asked  the  woman,  she  told  him.  So  the  king  appointed  unto  her  a 
certain  officer,  saying,  Restore  all  that  was  hers,  and  all  the  fruits  of  the  field 
since  the  day  that  she  left '  the  land,  even  until  now. 

7  And  Elisha  came  to  Damascus :  and  Benhadad  the  king  of  Syria  was  sick  ; 

8  and  it  was  told  him,  saying,  The  man  of  God  is  come  hither.  And  the  king  said 
unto  Hazael,  Take  a  present  in  thine  hand,  and  go,  meet  the  man  of  God,  and 

9  inquire  of  the  Lord  by  him,  saying,  Shall  I  recover  of  this  disease  ?  So  Hazael 
went  to  meet  him,  and  took  a  present  with  him,  even  of  [and — omit  even  of]  every 
good  thing  of  Damascus,  forty  camels'  burden,  and  came  and  stood  before  him. 
and  said,  Thy  son,  Benhadad  king  of  Syria  hath  sent  me  to  thee,  saying,  Shall 

10  I  recover  of  this  disease?     And  Elisha  said  unto  him,  Go,  say  unto  [tell]  him 
[then],  Thou  mayst  [shalt5]  certainly  recover  [live]  :  howbeit  the  Lord  hath 

11  shewed  me  that  he  shall  surely  die.     And  he  [Elisha]  settled  his  countenance 
\f  and  gazed]  steadfastly  [at  him],  until  he  was  ashamed   [became  confused]  : 


CHAPTER  YI1I.   1-15. 


79 


12  and  the  man  of  God  wept.  And  Hazael  said,  Why  weepeth  my  lord  ?  And  he 
answered,  Because  I  know  the  evil  that  thou  wilt  do  unto  the  children  of  Israel . 
their  strong  holds  wilt  thou  set  on  fire,  and  their  young  men  wilt  thou  slay  with 
the  sword,  and  wilt  dash  their  children  [in  pieces],  and  rip  up  their  women  with 

13  child.  And  Hazael  said,  But  what,  is  thy  servant  a  dog,  [What  is  then'  thy 
servant,  the  dog,]  that  he  should  do  this  great  thing?  And  Elisha  answered, 
The  Lord  hath  showed  me  that  thou  shalt  be  [let  me  see  thee]  king  over  Syria. 

14  So  he  departed  from  Elisha,  and  came  to  his  master;  who  said  to  him,  What 
said  Elisha  to  thee  ?     And  he  answered,  He  told  me  [:]   that  [omit  that]   Thou 

15  shouldest  [shalt]  surely  recover  [live].  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow,  that 
he  [Hazael]  took  a  thick  cloth  [the  blanket],  and  dipped  it  in  [the]  water, 
and  spread  it  on  his  face,  so  that  he  died  :  and  Hazael  reigned  in  his  stead. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  6. — [The  Masoretes  write  il  in  i"QTV  as  suffix  without  uiappik,  of  which  other  examples  occur  (</.  1  Kingl 
xiv.  12 ;  lsai.  xxiii.  17).    It  might  be  punctuated  as  a  perfect  '"'■■^  •     Ew.  247,  d.  and  nt.  2. — Boucher  (§418,  c)  account! 

for  the  omission  of  mappik  by  the  accumulation  of  guttural  and  hissing  letters  :  N  i  T  i   V. 

3  Ver.  10. — [/.  e.,  give  him  that  delusive  hope,  since  he  longs  for  it,  and  you,  as  a  courtier,  desire  to  gratify  him. 

This  is  adopting  the  keri  v  •     See  Exegei. 

3  Ver.  13.—  [*3  has  the  force  of  then.  What  then  is  thy  servant,  the  dog,  that,  &c.  The  English  translators  rendered 
the  sentence  as  if  it  were  the  same  use  of  language  as  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  43;  2  Sam.  iii.  8,  but  it  is  quite  the  contrary.  Ha- 
zael calls  hiuiself  a  dog  and  asks  how  he  can  do  great  deeds.    Goliath  and  Abuer  resent  being  treated  as  if  they  were 

contemptible,  which  they  do  not  admit.    <"ItD  i  even  when  it  refers  to  persons,  asks,  not  who  t  but  what  f  i.  e.,  what  kind 
of  one?     (Bottcher,  §  899,  (.)— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGET1CAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Then  spake  Elisha,  &c.,  or,  as  it  should 
read,  Elisha  had  spoken ;  for  what  is  told  in  ver.  2 
took  place  long  before  the  incident  which  is  nar- 
rated in  the  3d  and  following  verses,  and  forms 
only  the  necessary  introduction.  The  famine  of 
four  years'  duration  is  doubtless  the  same  which 
is  mentioned  chap  iv.  38.  The  years  in  whicli  it 
falls  among  the  twelve  of  Jehoram,  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  fix.  The  advice  which  the  prophet  gave  the 
woman  to  go  into  a  foreign  land,  must  have  been 
founded  upon  peculiar  grounds,  since  she  did  not 
belong  to  the  poorer  classes  (ver.  6  and  chap.  iv.  S 
sq.).  Perhaps  she  had  become  a  widow,  as  some 
suppose,  and  had  lost,  in  her  husband,  her  chief 
reliar.ce  in  a  time  of  distress.  She  chose  the  land 
of  tha  Philistines  as  her  residence,  probably  be- 
cause it  was  near,  and  because  the  plains  on  the  sea- 
coast  did  not  suffer  so  much  from  scarcity  as  the 
mountainous  country  of  Israel  (Thenius).  On  her 
return,  the  woman  found  her  property  in  the  hands 
of  strangers.  We  may  suppose  that  it  had  been 
taken  possession  of,  either  by  the  royal  treasury, 
as  property  whicli  the  owner  had  abandoned  (Gro- 
tius,  Clericus,  and  others),  or  by  individuals,  who 
had  illegally  established  themselves  in  the  posses- 
sion of  it,  and  who  were  not  willing  now  to  sur- 
render it.  She  appeals,  therefore,  to  the  chief 
judge,  the  king. 

Ver.  4.  And  the  king  talked  with  Gehazi, 
Ac.  Piscator,  Sebast.  Smith,  Keil,  and  others, 
have  felt  compelled  to  assign  this  incident  to  a 
time  previous  to  the  healing  of  Naaman,  because 
it  is  said  (v.  27)  that  Gehazi  and  all  his  posterity 
were,  from  that  time  on,  to  be  lepers,  but  here  we 
find  The  king  conversing  with  him.  In  general, 
there  is  no  objection  to  this,  for  it  is  very  doubt- 
ful if  the  narrative  of  the  acts  of  Elisha  presents 
them  tc  us  in  their  chronological  order  (see  above. 


p.  45).  The  principal  ground  for  this  opinion, 
viz.,  Gehazi's  leprosy,  has  not  compulsory  force, 
for,  although  lepers  were  obliged  to  remain  outside 
the  city  (chap.  vii.  3,  and  the  places  there  cited), 
yet  it  was  not  forbidden  to  talk  with  them  (Matt, 
viii.  2 ;  Luke  xvii.  12).  Naaman,  the  leper,  was 
admitted  to  the  palace  of  the  king  (chap.  viii.  6), 
and,  at  a  later  time,  such  persons  were  not  ex- 
cluded even  from  attendance  in  the  svnagogues 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.  i.  s.  117).  Gerlach  thinks  that 
the  king  could  the  more  probably  meet  with  Ge- 
hazi, for  the  very  reason  that  the  latter  had  not  beea 
for  a  long  time  in  Elisha's  service.  Jarchi  and  some 
of  the  other  rabbis  declare  that  the  four  lepers 
(chap.  vii.  3)  were  Gehazi  and  his  sons,  but  this  is 
a  purely  arbitrary  and  unfounded  notion.  They 
were  led  to  it  probably  by  the  desire  of  bringing 
the  present  incident  into  some  connection  with  the 
preceding.  Menzel  also  brings  the  story,  vers.  1-6, 
into  connection  with  that  in  chap.  vii.  by  saving: 
"Great  fear  of  the  prophet  took  possession  of  the 
king  from  that  time  on  "  (i.  e.,  from  the  death  of 
the  scoffer — vii.  20 — which  Elisha  had  predicted). 
However,  if  this  had  been  the  ground  of  his  inter- 
view with  Gehazi,  the  story  would  certainly  have 
had  a  different  introduction  from  that  in  vers.  1-3. 
It  is  no  cause  for  wonder  that  the  king  did  not  ask 
Elisha  himself  in  regard  to  his  acts,  but  obtained 
a  recital  of  them  from  Gehazi.  As  he  had  been 
himself  a  witness  of  so  many  of  the  prophet's 
acts,  he  was  now  curious  to  hear,  from  a  reliable 
source,  about  those  acts  which  Elisha  had  done 
quietly,  in  the  narrow  circle  of  his  intimate  asso- 
ciates, and  m  regard  to  which  so  many  unreliable 
reports  circulated  among  the  people.  To  whom 
could  he  apply  with  more  propriety  for  this  informa- 
tion than  to  one  who  had  formerly  been  the  prophet's 
familiar  servant  ?  Among  these  acts  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Shunainmite's  son  to  life  was  the  most 
important.     By  D'lD ,  ver.  6,  we  must  understand 


bO 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


a  nig.:  officer  of  the  court,  not  necessarily  a  eunuch 

(<^.  1  Kingj  xxii.  9).    PIKOFI  can  hardly  mean  the 

rau;  it  is  rather  the  produce  in  kind,  which  must 
have  beer  restored  to  her  out  of  the  royal  stores. 

Ver.  7  And  Elisha  came  to  Damascus,  Ac. : 
uui  into  t..e  city  of  Damascus,  as  is  often  assumed, 
tor  Hazael  came  out  with  camels  to  meet  him  (ver. 
D),  so  that  the  most  it  can  mean  is  that  he  came 
into  the  neighborhood  of  the  city.  Perhaps  the 
uame  Damascus  stands  for  the  whole  province,  as 
Samaria  did.  Keil,  who  follows  the  old  exposi- 
tors, thinks  that  Elisha  clearly  went  thither  "  with 
the  intention  of  executing  the  commission  which 
had  been  laid  upon  Elisha  at  Horeb  (1  Kings  xix. 
15)  to  appoint  Hazael  to  be  king  of  Syria,"  but  so  im- 
portant an  object  to  the  journey  must  have  been 
specified  in  some  way.  To  pass  over  the  objection 
that  that  commission  was  given  to  Elijah  and  not 
to  Elisha,  and  that  there  is  nowhere  any  mention 
of  its  having  been  transferred  to  the  latter,  we  ob- 
serve that  the  prophet  does  not  say  here  (ver.  12): 
Jehovah  has  commanded  me  to  anoint,  or  appoint, 
thee,  Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  but:  He  has  made  me 
see  that  thou  wilt  be  king  of  Syria,  and  that  thou 
wilt  do  much  evil  to  Israel.  According  to  Ewald, 
Elisha  went  into  voluntary  exile  for  a  time,  on  ac- 
count of  a  disagreement  between  himself  and  Je- 
horam,  who  still  tolerated  idolatry,  but  the  text 
does  not  say  anything  of  this,  and  we  are  not  com- 
pelled to  assume  anything  of  the  kind.  The  prophet 
was  already  known  and  highly  esteemed  in  Syria, 
as  we  see  from  the  entire  narrative,  especially  from 
vers.  7  and  8.  He  might  very  well,  therefore,  even 
without  any  especial  ground,  extend  the  journeys, 
which  he  made  in  the  pursuit  of  his  prophetical 
calling  (chap.  iv.  9),  as  far  as  Damascus.  We  may, 
nevertheless,  suppose  that  it  was  done  "  by  the  in- 
stigation of  the  Spirit  "  (Thenius).  The  revelation, 
of  which  he  speaks  in  vers.  10  and  13,  he  certainly 
did  not  receive  until  after  his  arrival  in  Syria.  It 
was  not  the  occasion  of  his  journey  thither. 

Ver.  8.  And  the  king  said  unto  Hazael,  ic. 
Josephus  calls  Hazael  6  -urruraroc  raw  olnerav; 
perhaps  he  was  also  commander-in-chief  of  the 
army  (ver.  12).  There  is  a  tacit  request  in  the 
question  of  Benhadad  that  the  prophet  would  ob- 
tain liis  restoration  to  health,  from  Jehovah,  by 
prayer.  He  who  wished  to  consult  a  man  of  God 
did   not   come  with  empty  hands  (1  Sam.  ix.  7 ;   1 

Kings  xiv.  3).     The  1  before  ?3,  ver.  9,  is  hardly 

explanatory:  "and  in  truth"  (Keil);  it  is  rather 
the  simple  conjunctive  (Thenius).  The  messenger 
had  a  "gift  in  his  hand,"  and  besides  there  were 
all  kinds  of  other  valuable  articles  and  products 
from  Damascus,  which  were  carried  by  forty  cam- 
els. A  camel-load  is  reckoned  at  from  500  to  800 
pounds,  but  it  would  be  wrong  to  reckon  the  weight 
ofthese  gifts  accordingly  at  20,000  to  32,000  pounds 
(Dereser).  "  The  incident  is  rather  to  be  estimated 
by  tin-  oriental  custom  of  giving  the  separate  parts 
of  a  gift  to  as  many  servants,  or  loading  them  upon 
as  many  animals  as  possible,  so  as  to  make  the 
grandest  possible  display  of  it.  Harmar.  Beobb.,  ii. 
e.  29.  Rosenmuller,  Morgenlan  ,  ii  s.  17."  (Keil). 
"  Fifty  persons  often  earn  what  a  single  one  could 
very  well  carry''  (Cliaruin,  Voyage,  iii.  p.  217). 
Nevertheli  k;  were  very  important,  and 

we  see  from  their  value  in  how  great  esteem  Elisha 
Mood  among  the  Syrians.     If  he  refused  to  tceeyit 


any  gift  whatsoever  at  the  healing  of  Naaman  (J 
Kings  v.  16),  far  less  is  it  likely  that  he  accepted 
these  grand  gifts  in  this  case,  where  he  had  to  be- 
wail the  misfortunes  of  his  country  (vers.  11  and  12) 
Ver.  10.  And  Elisha  said  unto  him,  Ac.    The 

keri  gives  ip  instead  of  x'p  after  "1DX,  and  the 

Massoretes  reckon  this  among  the  fifteen  places  in 

the  Old  Testiiment  where  JO  is  a  pronoun,  and  not 
the  negative  particle.  All  the  old  translations,  ana 
3ome  manuscripts  also,  present  the  keri.     No  one 

of  the  modern  expositors  but  Keil  has  adopted  NP . 
non;  he  accepts  that  reading  as  "the  more  diffi- 
cult."    He  rejects  the  makkeph  between  10X  and 

Np,  joins  xi?  with  the  following  word  ,-pn,  and 

translates :  "  Thou  shalt  not  live,  and  (for)  Jehovah 
hath  shown  me  that  he  will  die."   But  1  never  means 

for,  as  it  would  here,  if  this  interpretation  were 
correct.  It  rather  means  here  but,  as  it  so  often 
does,  so  that  the  sentence  which  begins  with  it 
forms  a  contrast  to  the  one  which  precedes.     This 

tells  strongly  against  the  chetib  XP-  A  further 
consideration  is  that  the  infinitive  before  the  verb 

(n'nn  iTI"l)  always  serves  to  strengthen  the  verbal 

idea(Gesen.,  Gramm.,  §  131,  2,  a),  and  that,  in  this 
construction,  the  negative  stands  before  the  finite 
verb  and  not  before  the  infinitive,  cf.  Judges  xv.  13 

(Ew.,  Lehrb.,  §  312,  b).     Xp  cannot,  therefore,  be 

connected  with  |"|TI-     Still  less  can  it  be  taken  as 

a  negative  with  IDX,  for  Hazael  says,  ver.  14: 
"  He  (the  prophet)  told  me  :  '  Thou  shalt  surely  re- 
cover.' "  This,  therefore,  was  the  answer  of  Elisha 
which  Hazael  (suppressing  the  other  words  of  the 
prophet)  brought  to  the  king ;  an  answer  such  as 
the  latter  was  eager  to  receive.  If  there  is  any 
case  where  the  keri  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  che- 
tib, this  is  one.  Nearly  all  the  expositors,  accord- 
ingly, agree  in  reading  ip ,  but  their  interpretation? 
differ.  Some  translate,  apparently  with  literalness : 
"Tell  him: — Thou  shalt  recover; — but  God  hath 
shown  me  that  he  shall  die,"  and  they  suppose, 
accordingly,  that  Elisha  consciously  commissioned 
Hazael  with  a  falsehood,  either  because  he  did  not 
wish  to  terrify  or  sadden  the  king,  that  is,  out  of 
compassion  (Theodoret,  Josephus),  or,  because  it 
was  generally  held  to  be  allowable  to  deceive  for- 
eign enemies  and  idolaters  (Grotius).  Neither  the 
one  nor  the  other,  however,  is  consistent  with  the 
dignity  and  character  of  the  prophet,  who  here 
speaks  in  the  name  of  Jehovah.  It  is  impossible 
that  the  narrator,  who  only  aims  to  advance  the 
glory  of  the  prophet,  in  all  his  stories  about  him, 
should  have  connected  with  his  words  a  sense 
which  would  have  made  Elisha  a  liar.  Other  ex- 
positors, therefore,  explain  it  thus :  "  Of  thy  illnesn 
thou  shalt  not  die,  it  is  not  unto  death ;  "  but  that 
he  then  added,  for  Hazael:  "the  king  will  lose  hia 
life  in  another  way"  (i.  e.,  violently).  Clericua 
(following  Kimchi),  J.  D.  Michaelis.  Hess,  Maurer, 
Von  lierlaeh.  and  others,  agree  in  this  interpreta- 
tion.    The  form  ITnn  !"Pn  in  the  first  member  of 

the  sentence,  to  which  JTO'  PIO  in  the  second 

member  correspond,  is  a  bar  to  this  interpretation 
The  infinitive  strengthens  the  verbal  idea  in  both 


CHAPTER  Till.    1-15. 


SI 


cases.     It  cannot  serve  with  ITnn  to  tone  down 

the  verb  ("  as  far  as  this  illness  is  concerned,  thou 
mayest  preserve   thy   life"),    and   with    JITO'   to 

strengthen  it.  We  must,  therefore,  translate: 
"  Thou  shalt  surely  live,"  and :  "  He  shall  surely 
die."  Then  the  words  can  have  no  other  sense 
than  that  winch  Titringa  has  established  in  his 
thorough  discussion  of  the  verse  ( Observatt.  Sac,  i. 
3,  16,  pages  716-728) :  Vade,  et  die  niodo  (aaf  iiri- 
Tpo-ijv)  ipsi:  Vtiendv  vives;  Deus  tamen  mihi  os- 
tendit,  ilium  certe.  moriturum  esse.  So,  likewise, 
Thenius :  "  Just  tell  him  (as  thou,  in  thy  capacity 
of  courtier,  and  according  to  thy  character,  wilt 
surely  dn) :  '  Thou  shalt  surely  recover ; '  yet  Jeho- 
vah hath  revealed  to  me  that  he  shall  surely  die  " 
*/.  Roos.  Fuszstapfen  des  Glaubens  Abrahams,  s. 
831).  [This  exposition  of  t'te  grammatical  sense 
of  the  words  is  undoubtedly  correct,  but  there  is 
room  for  some  scruple  about  the  interpretation. 
Elisha  seems  to  encourage  the  courtier  to  flatter 
the  king  with  a  delusive  hope.  This  could  at  best 
be  only  a  sneer,  or  irony.  A  clue  to  a  better  in- 
terpretation is  given  above.  Note  that  the  ques- 
tion is :  "  Shall  I  recover  of  this  disease  ?  "  The 
answer  seems  to  be  measured  accurately,  and 
strictly  to  fit  this  question :  "  Go,  say  to  him :  Thou 
shalt  surely  live."  That  is  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion asked,  and  the  infinitive  has  its  full  force. 
Thus  the  prophet  promises  a  recovery  from  the 
illness.  At  the  same  time  he  sees  farther,  and 
sees  that  though  the  illness  is  not  fatal,  other  dan- 
gers threaten  Benhadad.  He  need  not  declare 
this,  and  in  his  categorical  answer  to  the  king  he 
does  not,  but  in  an  aside  he  does:  "Nevertheless, 
Jehovah  hath  shown  me  that  he  shall  surely  die," 
i.  e.,  not  of  the  disease,  but  by  violence.. — W.  G.  S.] 
Elisha,  by  his  prophetical  insight,  had  seen  through 
'Jie  treacherous  Hazael,  just  as  he  once  saw  through 
the  plans  of  Benhadad  (chap.  vi.  12),  and  he  now 
showed  him  that  he  knew  the  secret  purpose  which 
he  cherished  in  his  heart.  He  gave  him  to  under- 
stand this,  not  only  by  his  words,  but  also  by  the 
circumstance  which  is  added  in  ver.  11:  "And  he 
fixed  his  countenance  steadfastly  until  he  (Elisha) 
shamed  him  (Hazael),"  i.  e.,  he  fixed  his  eyes  stead- 
ily and  sharply  upon  him,  so  that  the  piercing  look 
produced  embarrassment  and  made  Hazael's  coun- 
tenance fall.  This  detail  is  consistent  with  the  above 
interpretation  of  ver.  10  and  with  no  other.  ["Je- 
hovah hath  shown  me  that  he  shall  surely  die," 
says  the  prophet,  and  fixes  his  eyes  upon  the  am- 
bitious and  treacherous  courtier,  who  has  already 
conceived  the  idea  of  murdering  his  master,  until 
the  guilty  conscience  of  the  latter  makes  him  shrink 
from  the  scrutiny. — W.  G.  S.]  The  Sept.  give  a 
purely  arbitrary  rendering  of  ver.  11,  thus:  nal 
kcrij  'A^ai//.  Kara  TrpocuTrov  avrov,  ual  irape&TjKEV 
ertj-tov  avrov  ra  dupa  ewe  7)<rxvvero.  The  onlv 
possible  subject  of  "1DJ?51  is  Elisha,  and  the  text 

says  nothing  about  the  presentation  of  the  gifts. 
L"3""IJ?  does  not  mean  either :   "  remarkably  long  " 

(Ewald),  nor:  "In  a  (taking  the  words  strictly) 
shameless  manner"  (Thenius),  cf.  on  chap.  ii.  17. 
The  man  of  God  did  not  weep  for  Benhadad,  nor 
for  Hazael,  but  forh's  own  countrymen,  on  account 
of  the  judgments  wj.ich  should  be  inflicted  upon 
them  by  the  hand  of  Hazael,  as  he  himself  declares 
in  ver.  12. 

Vor.  12.    And  Hazael  said,  Why  weepeth 
0 


my  lord?  The  particular  statements  in  Ehsha's 
reply  must  not  be  taken  too  strictly  in  their  lit- 
eral meaning.  He  only  means  to  say :  Thou  wilt 
commit  in  Israel  all  the  cruelties  which  are  wont  to 
be  practised  in  the  bitterest  wars  (see  Hos.  i.  14 ; 
xiii.  16;  Isai.  xiii.  15  sq. ;  Nahum  hi.  10  sq. ;  Ps. 
exxxvii.  9 ;  Amos  i.  13  sq.).  How  this  was  fulfilled 
we  see  in  chap  x.  32  sq. ;  xiii.  3,  4,  7,  22.  In  the 
13th  verse,  where  the  proud  Hazael,  high  in  office, 
and  already  plotting  to  reach  the  throne,  calls  him- 
self "thy  servant,  the  dog,"  he  commits  an  ex- 
travagance which,  in  itself,  shows  us  that  he  was 
not  in  earnest,  and  that  his  humility  was  hypocriti- 
cal and  false.  "  Dog  "  is  the  most  contemptuous 
epithet  of  abuse,  1  Sam.  xxiv.  14;  2  Sam.  xvi.  9 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  i.  s,  517).  Elisha  now  declares 
openly  to  the  hypocrite  that  which,  in  vers.  10  and 
11,  by  word  and  look,  he  had  only  hinted  at :  "Je- 
hovah hath  shown  thee  to  me  as  king  of  Syria," 
i.  e.,  I  know  what  thou  aimest  at,  and  also  what 
thou  wilt  become.  The  words  by  no  means  in- 
volve a  solemn  prophetical  institution  or  consecra- 
tion (anointing)  to  be  king,  such  as,  for  instance, 
occurs  in  chap.  ix.  3,  6,  but  they  are  a  simple  pre- 
diction (which,  at  the  same  time,  probes  Hazael's 
conscience)  of  that  winch  should  come  to  pass 
He  means  to  say :  As  God  has  revealed  to  me  Ben 
hadad's  death,  so  has  he  also  revealed  to  me  thj 
elevation  to  the  throne.  Hazael,  therefore,  startlea 
by  the  revelation  of  his  secret  plans,  makes  no  re- 
ply to  the  earnest  words  of  the  prophet,  but  turns 
away. 

Ver.  14.  So  he  departed  from  Elisha,  &c. 
Hazael  makes  the  very  reply  to  his  master  which 
the  prophet  had  predicted  that  he  would  (ver.  10), 

and  we  see  from  the  words  1J1  ^  -)!2X  still  more 

clearly,  that  we  must  read  i?  for  N'p  in  ver.  10. 
In  the  15th  verse  nj3'1  cannot  have  any  other  sub- 
ject than  the  three  verbs  which  precede,  -p'l ,  jQ'l , 
and  IDiOl .  It  is  not,  therefore,  Benhadad  (Lu- 
ther, Schulz,  and  others),  but  Hazael.  Moreover,  it 
is  inconsistent  with  the  entire  context  that  Benha- 
dad himself,  in  order  to  refresh  himself,  should  have 
laid  a  cloth,  dipped  in  water,  upon  his  face,  and  then 
should  have  died  from  the  effects  of  the  repressed 
perspiration.      "132D  means,  primarily,   something 

woven,  a  woven  faf/ric,  but  it  is  not  a  fly -guard  (Mi- 
chaelis,  Hess,  and  others),  nor  a  bath-blanket  or 
quilt  (Ewald) ;  but  a  woven,  and  hence  thick  and 
heavy,  coverlet  (Sept.  crpa/ia);  the  bed-coverlet. 
This,  when  dipped  in  water,  became  so  heavy  that, 
when  spread  over  his  face,  it  prevented  his  breath- 
ing, and  so  either  produced  suffocation,  as  most  un- 
derstand  it,  or  brought  on  apoplexy,  as  Thenius 
suggests.  Clericus  correctly  states  the  reason  why 
Eazael  chose  just  this  form  of  murder:  uthomi- 
nem  facilius  sujfocaret,  ne  vi  interemtus  videret  He 
would  have  the  less  opposition  to  fear,  in  mounting 
the  throne,  as  he  intended,  if  Benhadad  appeared 
to  have  died  a  natural  death.  We  have  not,  there- 
fore, to  think  of  strangulation,  which  Josephus 
states  was  here  employed  (rav  fisv  arpayyafa)  fii?<p- 
"  <  "  I.  Philippson  remarks  that,  in  cases  of  vio- 
lent fever,  it  is  the  custom  in  the  Orient,  according 
to  Bruce,  to  pour  cold  water  over  the  bed,  and  that 
this  bold  treatment  was  perhaps  tried  in  the  case  of 
Benhadad.  but  with  unfortunate  results.  This, 
however,  is  not  at  all  probable.  We  may  feel  confi- 
dent that  no  one  will  ever  succeed  in  clearing  Ha- 


82 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


zael  from  the  crime  of  regicide,  however  much  some 
have  tried  it.  Ewald  ( Geschichte  des  Vdlkes  Israel,  iii. 
f.  522  [3e  Ausg.  s.  561]),  narrates  the  occurrence 
thus :  "As  the  king  was  about  to  take  his  bath  (?), 
his  servant  (?),  we  cannot  now  tell  more  precisely 
from  what  particular  motive,  dipped  the  bathing- 
blanket  (?)  in  the  warm  (?)  water,  and  drew  it,  before 
the  king  could  call  for  help,  so  tightly  together  (?) 
over  his  head,  that  he  was  smothered."  Every  one 
sees  that  the  text  says  nothiug  of  all  that.  [It  is 
unnatural,  of  course,  to  introduce  a  new  subject  for 
np^l-  Also,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  king  commit- 
ted suicide  the  day  after  he  had  shown  so  much 
anxiety  about  his  life.  Hazael  alone  remains,  and 
so  we  translate.  But  Ewald  refers  the  case  to  the 
usage  in  which  an  indefinite  subject,  one  (Germ. 
man),  must  be  supplied,  §  294,  b.  He  furthermore 
points  to  the  article  in  "i33Dn ,  which  refers  to 
some  well-known  object,  he  thinks  to  a  bath- 
blanket.  This,  then,  would  identify  the  subject  as 
the  servant  who  was  assisting  him  in  the  bath. 
Again,  Ewald  observes  that  if  Hazael  were  the 
subject  he  would  not  be  mentioned  again  immedi- 
ately afterwards  (Geschichte,  ed.  iii.  vol.  III.  s.  562 
n.  2).  These  considerations  are  not,  perhaps,  strong 
enough  to  support  the  inferences  which  he  draws 
from  them,  but  they  certainly  are  not  contemptible. 
— W.  G.  S.] 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAX. 

1.  Tiiis  passage  is  not  by  any  means  arbitrarily 
inserted  here  in  the  course  of  the  history  of  the 
kings.  It  stands  in  close  and  intelligent  connection 
with  what  precedes  and  what  follows.  The  first 
incident  (vers.  1-6)  is  not  intended  simply  to  prove 
"how  God,  by  overruling  slight  circumstances,  of- 
ten brings  about  great  blessings"  (Koster);  neither 
can  it  properly  be  entitled :  "  The  Seven-year  Fam- 
ine," or  "The  Restoration  of  the  Shuuammite's 
Property."  It  is  rather  intended  to  show  the  high 
estimation  in  which  the  king  held  the  prophet.  The 
king  had  been  a  witness  of  very  many  acts  of  Eli- 
sha,  which  forced  from  him  a  recognition  of  the 
prophet's  worth.  In  order  to  arrive  at  a  still  mure 
complete  estimate  of  him,  he  desires  to  learn  from 
a  reliable  source  all  the  great  and  extraordinary 
works  which  Elisha  had  accomplished,  and  of  which 
he  had  already  perhaps  heard  something  by  public 
rumor.  He  therefore  applies  to  Gehazi  for  this  in- 
formation. While  Gehazi  was  telling  the  story  of 
the  Shunammite,  she  herself  came  in  and  was  able 
to  ratify  what  he  narrated.  The  king  was  so  much 
carried  away  by  the  story,  and  by  this  marvellous 
meeting  with  the  woman  herself,  that  he,  for  the 
sake  of  the  prophet,  restored  to  her  the  property 
she  had  lost,  and  even  added  more  than  she  ever 
could  have  expected.  This  story,  therefore,  shows 
us  the  effect  which  the  acts  of  Elisha  had  had  upon 
the  king,  and  is  perfectly  in  place  here.  Moreover, 
it  forms  the  connection  with  what  follows.  In 
spite  of  all    is  recognition  of  Elisha  as  a  prophet, 

still  Jehora'_   "  cleaved  unto  the  sins  of  Jen 

and  departed  not  therefrom  "  (iii.  3).  He  still  tol- 
erated the  disgraceful  idolatrous  worship  in  Israel, 
bo  that,  before  his  end,  Jehu  could  retort  upon  him : 
"  What  peace,  so  long  as  the  whoredoms  of  thy 
moth<r  Ji  ,,nd  her  witchcrafts  are  so  many?  " 

(chap.  ix.  22).  Therefore  it  was  that  the  storin-clt  us 
of  divine  judgment,  which  were  to  bring  mil.   I  i 


him,  and  to  the  entire  house  of  Ahab,  were  ahead  J 
collecting.  This  judgment  came  from  two  direc- 
tions, as  the  oracle  1  Kings  six.  15  sq.  (see  Exeg. 
notes  thereon)  had  already  predicted  that  it  wouli 
come,  both  from  without  and  from  within;  foreign 
invasion  from  Syria  by  Hazael,  and  domestic  rebel- 
lion by  Jehu.  The  second  narrative  above  concerns 
Hazael;  chap.  ix.  treats  of  Jehu.  The  main  point 
in  the  second  narrative  (vers.  7-15)  is  the  announce- 
ment of  the  divine  judgment  which  is  to  fall  upon 
Israel  by  the  hand  of  Hazael  (vers.  11-13).  All 
the  rest,  both  what  precedes  and  Vhat  follows,  is 
only  introduction  to  this,  or  development  of  it.  As 
God's  prophet  in  Israel  (v.  8),  Elisha  had  the  pain- 
ful task,  which  he  performed  with  tears,  of  desig- 
nating in  advance  the  usurper  Hazael  as  the  onn 
through  whom  the  divine  judgment  should  be  in- 
flicted, "in  order  that  Israel  might  thereafter  know 
all  the  more  surely  that  Jehovah  had  prepared  this 
chastisement,  and  that  it  was  His  hand  which  laid 
this  scourge  upon  apostates  "  (Krummacher).  [As 
the  whole  series  of  incidents,  of  which  this  is  one. 
is  told  in  order  to  show  the  greatness  of  the 
prophet,  so  it  seems  more  consistent  to  see  the 
aim  of  this  one  in  the  intention  to  show  that  Elisha 
foreknew  and  foretold  Hazael's  crime  and  usurpa- 
tion, and  the  misery  which  he  inflicted  upon  Israel. 
— W.  G.  S.] 

2.  The  first  narrative  (vers.  1-6)  contains,  be- 
sides the  chief  point,  which  has  already  been  speci- 
fied, a  series  of  incidents  which  form  a  marvellous 
web  of  divine  dispensations.  The  restoration  of 
the  Shunammite's  property,  with  which  it  ends,  is 
connected  by  a  chain  of  intervening  incidents  with 
the  famine  predicted  by  the  prophet,  with  which  it 
begins.  The  restoration  of  the  property  presup- 
poses its  loss;  this  the  temporary  absence  from 
the  country ;  that  took  place  by  the  advice  of  the 
prophet,  and  this  advice  was  founded  upon  the 
scarcity  which  God  had  inflicted  as  a  punishment, 
and  which  He  had  revealed  beforehand  to  the 
prophet.  It  was  especially  the  marvellous,  divinely 
ordered,  meeting  of  the  Shunammite  and  Gehazi  in 
the  presence  of  the  king,  which  influenced  the  lat- 
ter to  his  unexpected  decision.  This  meeting  was, 
for  the  king,  a  seal  to  the  story  of  Gehazi,  and  for 
the  Shunammite  a  seal  upon  her  faith  and  trust  in 
the  prophet.  Once  she  declined  any  intercession 
of  the  prophet  with  the  king  on  her  behalf  (chap. 
iv.  13) ;  now  she  found  that  she  received  help, 
for  the  prophet's  sake,  even  without  his  imme- 
diate interference.  Krummacher:  " God  does  not 
always  help  by  startling  miracles,  although  His 
hands  are  not  tied  from  even  these.  More  fre- 
quently His  deliverances  are  disguised  in  the  more 
or  less  transparent  veil  of  ordinary  occurrences, 
nay,  even  of  accidents.  This  and  that  takes  place, 
which  at  the  time  we  hardly  consider  worthy  of  no- 
tice ;  but  let  us  wait  until  these  slight  providential 
incidents  are  all  collected  together,  and  the  last 
thread  is  woven  into  the  artistic  web." 

3.  What  is  here  told  us  about  king  Jehoram 
presents  him  to  us  from  his  better  side.  His  de- 
sire to  learn  all  of  Elisha's  acts,  still  more  the  way 
in  which  he  was  ready  at  once  to  help  the  dis- 
tressed Shunammite  to  the  recovery  of  her  property, 
testify  to  a  receptivity  for  elevated  impressions,  and 
to  a  disposition  to  yield  to  them.  By  the  fact  that 
he  recognized  all  that  was  extraordinary  in  the 
person  of  the  prophet,  and  yet  that  he  did  not  desist 
from  his  false  line  of  conduct,  he  showed  that,  in 


CHAPTER  Tin.  l-io. 


XX 


the  main  point,  the  relation  of  himself  and  of  his 
people  to  Jehovah,  nothing  good  could  any  longer 
be  expected  of  him.  His  better  feelings  were 
transitory  and,  on  a  broad  and  general  survey,  in- 
effectual. He  continued  to  be  a  reed,  swayed 
hither  and  thither  by  the  wind,  easily  moved,  but 
undecided  and  unreliable,  so  that  finally,  when  all 
the  warnings  and  exhortations  of  the  prophet  had 
produced  no  effect,  he  fell  under  the  just  and 
inevitable  judgment  of  God. 

4.  The  second  narrative  (vers.  7-15)  relates,  it  is 
true,  the  fulfilment  of  the  oracle  in  1  Kings  xix. 
15,  but  it  shows,  at  the  same  time,  that  that  oracle 
cannot  be  understood  in  its  literal  sense  (see  the 
Exeg.  notes  on  that  passage),  for  it  is  historically 
established  here  that  Hazael,  who  now  appears  for 
the  first  time  in  the  history,  was  not  anointed  king 
of  Syria  by  either  Elijah  or  Elisha,  though  he  does 
appear  as  the  divinely-appointed  executor  of  the 
judgments  which  God  had  decreed  against  Israel. 
Jehovah  "  shows  "  him  as  such  to  the  prophet,  and 
the  latter,  far  from  seeking  him  in  Damascus  and 
anointing  him,  or  even  saluting  him,  as  king,  gives 
the  usurper,  who  comes  to  meet  him  with  presents 
aud  hypocritical  humility,  to  understand,  both  by 
his  manner  and  his  words,  that  he  sees  his  treach- 
erous plans,  and  he  tells  him,  with  tears,  what  God 
had  revealed,  that  he  should  be  the  great  enemy 
and  oppressor  of  Israel.  Thereupon  Hazael  de- 
parts, startled  and  embarrassed,  without  a  word. 
This  is  the  clear  story  of  the  incident  as  this  nar- 
ration presents  it  to  us.  There  is  no  room,  there- 
fore, for  any  supposition  that  Hazael  was  anointed 
by  the  prophet.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  entire 
mistake,  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  modern  histo- 
rians, to  see  in  the  conduct  of  Elisha  only  the 
"  enmity  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  "  towards  Je- 
horam  aud  his  dynasty,  and  to  make  Elisha  a  liar 
and  a  traitor,  as  Duncker  ( Geschichte  des  Altertkwms, 
i.  s.  413)  does,  when  he  says:  "At  a  later  time 
[after  the  siege  of  Samaria  by  Benhadad,  chap,  vi.] 
Elisha  spent  some  time  among  the  enemies  of  his 
country,  in  Damascus.  Here  Benhadad  was  slain 
by  one  of  his  servants,  Hazael,  at  the  instigation 
of  Elisha.  Hazael  then  mounted  the  throne  of 
Damascus  and  renewed  the  war  against  Israel,  not 
without  encouragement  from  Elisha."  In  like  man- 
ner Weber  (Gesch.des  Volkes Israel's,  236)  remarks: 
"This  opportunity  [the  illness  of  Benhadad]  ap- 
pears to  have  been  taken  advantage  of  by  the 
prophet  to  bring  about  a  palace  revolution,  as  a 
result  of  which  the  king  of  Damascus  was  mur- 
dered on  his  sick-bed,  by  means  of  a  fly-net  (?)  " 
Such  misrepresentation  of  history  can  only  be  ex- 
plained by  the  neglect  or  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew 
text.  When  will  people  cease  to  make  modern 
revolutionary  agitators  of  the  ancient  prophets  ? 
According  to  Koster  (Die  Proph.,  s.  94)  the  sense 
of  the  entire  story  is  this:  "A  prophet  may  not 
allow  himself  to  be  restrained  from  proclaiming  the 
word  of  Jehovah,  by  the  possibility  of  evil  or  crime 
which  may  result  from  it."  This  thought,  which 
is,  at  best,  a  very  common-place  one,  and  which 
might  have  been  presented  more  strikingly  and 
precisely  in  a  hundred  other  ways,  is  entirely  for- 
eign to  the  story  before  us. 

5  The  prophet  Elisha  appears,  in  this  second  nar- 
-ative,  in  a  very  brilliant  light.  As  he  had  forced  re- 
cognition of  his  own  worth  from  the  king  of  Israel, 
so  he  had  attained  to  high  esteem  with  the  king  of 


Syria.  The  rude,  proud,  and  unsubmissive  Ben- 
hadad, the  arch-enemy  of  Israel,  whose  under- 
takings Elisha  had  often  frustrated,  who  had  once 
sent  an  armed  detachment  to  capture  him,  shows 
him,  as  soon  as  he  hears  of  his  presence  in  his 
country,  the  highest  honors.  He  sends  out  hi? 
highest  officer  with  grand  gifts  to  meet  him,  calls 
himself  humbly  his  son,  and  sends  a  request  to 
him  that  he  will  pray  to  God  on  his  behalf.  This  in 
itself  overthrows  the  notion  that  "  Elisha's  cele- 
brated skill  in  medicine  "  (Weber)  led  the  king  to 
this  step.  We  are  not  told  what  produced  this 
entire  change  in  Benhadad's  disposition;  but  it  is, 
at  any  rate,  a  strong  proof  of  the  mighty  influence 
which  Elisha  must  have  exerted,  both  by  word 
and  deed,  that  he  was  held  in  so  high  esteem  even 
in  Syria,  and  that  Benhadad  himself  bent  before 
him.  This  reception,  which  he  met  with  in  a 
foreign  land,  was  also  a  warning  sign  for  Israel.  He 
stands  before  us,  high  in  worth  and  dignity  in  this 
occurrence  also,  both  as  man  of  God  aud  prophet , 
He  does  not  feel  himself  flattered  by  the  high  honors 
which  are  conferred  upon  him.  They  influence  him 
as  little  as  the  rich  gifts,  which  he  does  not  eveii 
accept.  At  the  sight  of  the  man  who,  according 
to  the  purpose  of  God,  was  to  be  the  scourge  of 
his  people,  he  is  carried  away  by  such  grief  that 
he,  as  our  Lord  once  did,  at  the  sight  of  Jerusalem 
moving  on  to  its  destruction,  burst  into  tears  for 
the  people  who  did  not  consider  those  things 
"  which  belonged  to  their  peace."  How  any  one 
can  form  the  suspicion,  under  such  circumstances, 
that  Elisha  stood  in  secret  collusion  with  Hazael, 
to  whose  conscience  he  addresses  such  sharp  re- 
proofs, or  can  say :  "  Hazael  at  once  commenced  a 
war  upon  Israel,  instigated  by  Elisha  "  (Weber),  it 
is  hard  to  understand. 

il.  This  narrative  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  as 
to  Sazael's  character,  and  especially  is  that  labor 
thrown  away  which  is  spent  upon  the  attempt  to 
acquit  him  of  the  murder  of  Benhadad,  or  to  repre- 
sent his  guilt  at  least  as  uncertain,  for  JlO'l  i  which 

follows  the  words:  He  (Hazael)  "spread  it  on  his 
face,"  means,  so  that  he  died,  as  n  1  Sam.  xxv. 
38;  1  Kings  ii.  46;  2  Kings  xh  21.  At  heart 
proud,  haughty,  and  imperious,  b>  affects  humility 
and  submissiveness;  towards  hi-,  master,  who  had 
entrusted  him  with  the  most  important  commission, 
he  is  false  and  treacherous.  He  shrinks  from  no 
means  to  attain  his  object.  He  lies  and  deceives, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  he  is  cunning  and  crafty, 
and  knows  how  to  conceal  his  traitorous  purposes. 
When,  alarmed  and  exposed  by  the  words  of  the 
prophet,  he  can  no  longer  keep  them  secret,  he 
marches  on  to  the  crime,  although  he  seeks  to  exe- 
cute it  in  such  a  way  that  he  may  not  appear  to  be 
guilty.  With  all  this  he  combines  energy,  courage, 
cruelty,  and  a  blind  hatred  against  Israel,  as  the 
sequel  shows.  On  account  of  these  qualities,  he 
was  well  fitted  to  be,  in  the  hand  of  God,  a  rod 
of  anger  and  a  staff  of  indignation  (Isai.  x.  5) 
"The  Lord  makes  the  vessels  of  wrath  service- 
able for  the  purpose  of  His  government"  (Krum- 
macher),  and  here  we  have  again,  as  often  in 
the  history  of  redemption,  an  example  of  wicked- 
ness punished  by  wickedness,  and  of  godless  men 
made,  without  their  will  or  knowledge,  instru- 
ments of  holiness  and  justice  (see  above,  1  Kingf 
xxii.  Hist,  jj  6). 


84 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


HC-JlILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-6.  King  Jehoram  and  the  Shunammite. 
(a)  The  marvellous  meeting  of  the  two  (the  inscru- 
table and  yet  wise  and  gracious  orderings  of  God, 
Isai.  xxviii.  29 ;  lv.  8,  9) ;  (6)  the  restoration  of  the 
property  believed  to  be  lost  (a  proof  of  the  truth 
of  Prov.  xxi.  1 ;  and  Ps.  exlvi.  7,  9 ;  therefore.  IV. 
xxxvii.  5). — Vers.  1-3.  Kkummacher:  Famine,  pest, 
war,  and  all  other  forms  of  calamity,  form  an  army 
which  is  subject  to  the  command  of  God,  which 
comes  and  goes  at  His  command,  which  is  ready  to 
attack  or  ready  to  retire  as  He  may  order,  and 
which  can  assail  no  one  without  command.  They 
are  sometimes  commissioned  to  punish,  and  to  be 
the  agents  of  the  divine  justice,  sometimes  to  arouse 
and  to  bring  back  the  intoxicated  to  sobriety, 
sometimes  to  embitter  the  world  to  sinners,  and 
push  them  to  the  throne  of  grace,  and  sometimes  to 
try  the  saints,  and  light  the  purifying  fires  about 
them.  .  .  .  So  no  man  has  to  do  simply  with 
the  sufferings  which  fall  upon  him,  but,  before  all, 
with  Him  who  inflicted  them. — Seiler:  It  is  not  a 
rare  thing  for  God  to  lead  even  a  large  number  of 
persons  at  the  same  time  away  from  a  certain 
place,  where  some  calamity  would  have  befallen 
them  with  others.  Do  not  abandon  thy  father- 
land without  being  certain  of  the  call  of  God : 
"Arise!  Go,"  &c,  as  Abraham  was  (Gen.  xii.  1). 
Faith  clings  to  the  words  in  Ps.  xxxvii.  18,  19.  It 
is  the  holy  duty  and  the  noblest  task  of  human 
government  to  help  the  oppressed,  to  secure  justice 
for  orphans,  and  to  help  the  cause  of  the  widow 
(Isai.  i.  17;  Ps.  lxxxii.  3). — Vers.  4-6.  The  King's 
Consultation  with  Gehazi.  (a)  The  motive  of  it; 
(6)  the  effect  of  it. — Ver.  4.  Osiander:  That  is  the 
way  with  many  great  men ;  they  like  to  hear  of 
the  deeds  and  discourses  of  pious  teachers,  and 
even  admire  thorn,  but  will  not  be  improved 
by  them  (Mark  vi.  20  ;  Acts  xxiv.  24  sq. ;  xxv.  22  : 
xxvi.  28). — Kruhmacher:  People  are  not  wanting 
even  now-a-days  who,  although  they  are  strangers 
to  the  life  which  has  its  source  in  God,  neverthe- 
less have  a  feeling  of  interest  and  enthusiasm  for 
the  miraculous  contents  of  the  text.  They  read 
such  portions  of  Scripture  with  delight.  .  .  .  Even 
a  certain  warmth  of  feeling  is  not  wanting.  What, 
hOTSTS"  is  totally  wanting,  is  the  broken  and  con- 
trite spirit,  the  characts.-.-  o:  %  poor  and  helpless  sin- 
ner.— Ver.  5.  That  the  word  which  has  been  heard 
may  not  fall  by  the  wayside,  but  take  root  in  the 
heart,  God.  in  His  mercy,  often  causes  special  occur- 
rences to  take  place  immediately  afterwards  which 
bear  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  word. — Ver.  6.  For 
1 1n-  -ake  of  the  prophet  the  Shunammite  was  helped 
out  of  her  misfortune,  and  reinstated  in  the  posses- 
sion of  her  property.  The  Lord  never  forgets  the 
kindnesses  which  are  shown  to  a  prophet  in  the 
name  of  a  prophet  (Matt.  x.  41);  He  repays  them 
noc  once  but  many  times  (chap.  iv.  8-10).  The  word 
of  God  often  extorts  from  an  unconverted  man  a 
good  and  noble  action,  which,  however,  if  it  only 
proceeds  from  a  sudden  emotion,  and  stands  alone, 
resembles  a  flower,  which  blooms  in  the  morning, 
und  in  the  evening  fades  and  dies.  True  servants 
j]  'lod.  like  Klisha,  are  often  fountain-  of  great 
blessinir,  without  their  own  immediate  participa- 
tion or  knowledge. 

Vers.  7-1. ">.  Klisha  in  Syria.  In)  Iicnhadad's 
mission  to  him ;  (4)  the  mee.lng  witb   ,Jazael ;   (c) 


the  announcement  of  the  j*i<-gments  upon  Israel.— 
Vers.  7  and  8.  Benhadad  upon  the  Sick-bed.  (a] 
The  rebellious,  haughty,  and  mighty  king,  the 
arch-enemy  of  Israel,  who  had  never  troubled 
himself  about  the  living  God,  lies  in  wretched 
ness;  he  has  lost  courage,  and  now  he  seeke 
the  prophet  whom  he  once  wished  to  capture, 
I  just  as  a  servant  seeks  his  master.  The  Lord  can 
with  his  hammer,  which  breaketh  in  pieces  even 
the  flinty  rock,  also  make  tender  the  hearts  of  men 
(Isai.  xxvi.  16).  Those  who  are  the  most  self- 
willed  in  prosperity  are  often  the  most  despairing 
in  misfortune.  Not  until  the  end  approaches  do' 
they  seek  God  ;  but  He  cannot  help  in  death  those 
who  in  life  have  never  thought  of  Him.  (b)  He  does 
not  send  to  ask  the  prophet :  What  shall  I,  poor 
sinner,  do  that  I  may  find  grace  and  be  saved  ?  but 
only  whether  he  shall  recover  his  health.  (Starke  : 
The  chddren  of  this  world  are  only  anxious  for 
bodily  welfare ;  about  eternal  welfare  they  are  in- 
different.) It  should  be  our  first  care  in  severe  ill- 
ness to  set  our  house  in  order,  and  to  surrender 
ourselves  to  the  will  of  God,  so  that  we  may  truth- 
fully say  with  the  apostle :  "  For  whether  we  live," 
ic.  (Rom.  xiv.  8).  The  time  and  the  hour  of  death 
are  concealed  from  men,  and  it  is  vain  to  inquire 
about  them. — Ver.  7.  The  man  of  God  is  cornel 
That  was  the  cry  in  the  heathen  city  of  Damascus, 
and  the  news  penetrated  even  to  the  king,  who  re- 
joiced to  hear  it.  This  did  not  occur  to  Elisha  in 
any  city  of  Israel,  Luke  iv.  24  sq.  (John  i.  1 1 ;  Acts 
xviii.  6).  Blessed  is  the  city  and  the  country  where 
there  is  rejoicing  that  a  man  of  God  is  come  I — 
Vers.  9-11.  So  much  the  times  may  change!  He 
who  once  was  despised,  hated,  and  persecuted,  is 
now  met  with  royal  honors  and  rich  presents ;  but 
the  one  makes  him  uncertain  and  wavering  just  as 
little  as  the  other.  The  testimonials  of  honor,  and 
the  praise  of  the  great  and  mighty,  the  rich  and 
those  of  high  station,  are  often  a  much  more  severe 
temptation  to  waver  for  the  messengers  of  the 
word  of  God,  than  persecution  and  shame.  To  be 
a  true  man  of  God  is  not  consistent  with  vanity 
and  self-satisfaction.  The  faithful  messenger  de- 
livers his  message  without  respect  of  persons,  in 
season  and  out  of  season  (2  Tim.  iv.  2).  He  who 
seeks  for  the  honor  which  cometh  only  from  God 
(John  v.  44),  will  not  let  himself  be  blinded  by 
honor  before  men  (Acts  xiv.  14;  Sirach  xx.  31). — 
Ver.  10.  However  well  a  man  may  know  how  to 
conceal  his  secret  thoughts  and  wicked  plans,  there 
is  One  who  sees  them,  even  long  before  they  are 
pnt  in  operation ;  from  whom  the  darkness  hideth 
not,  and  for  whom  the  night  shineth  as  the  day 
(Ps.  exxxix.  2-12).  He  will  sooner  or  later  bring 
to  light  what  is  hidden  in  darkness,  and  reveal 
the  secret  counsel  of  the  heart  (1  Cor.  iv.  5). — 
Ver.  1 1.  He  who  has  a  good  conscience  is  never 
disturbed  or  embarrassed  if  any  one  looks  him 
directly  in  the  eye;  but  a  bad  conscience  cannot 
endure  an  open,  firm  look,  and  trembles  with  terror 
at  every  rustling  leaf. — V»rs.  11,  12.  Elisha  weeps. 
These  were  not  tears  of  sentiment,  but  of  the 
deepest  pain,  worthy  of  a  man  of  God,  who  knows 
of  no  greater  evil  than  the  apostasy  of  his  people 
from  the  living  God,  the  determined  contempt  for 
the  divine  word,  and  the  rejection  of  the  divine 
grace.  Where  are  the  men  who  now-a-days  weep 
such  tears  '.'  They  were  also  tears  of  the  most  taith- 
ful  love,  which  is  not  easily  provoked,  tliiiike'.li  no 
evd,  vaunteth  not  itself,  and  is  not  puffed  up      So 


CHAPTER  VIU.  1G-29. 


8£, 


our  I<ord  wept  once  over  Jerusalem  (Luke  six.  41), 
and  St.  Paul  over  Israel  (Rom.  ix.  1-3). — Ver.  13. 
Subserviency  before  men  is  always  joined  with 
falseness  and  hypocrisy.  Therefore  trust  no  one 
who  is  more  than  humble  and  modest.  Hazael 
called  himself  a  dog,  while  he  plotted  in  his  heart 
to  become  king  of  a  great  people. — Cramer  :  It  is 
the  way  with  all  hypocrites  that  they  bend  and 
cringe,  and  humble  themselves,  and  conceal  their 
tricks,  until  they  perceive  their  opportunity,  and 
have  fouud  the  key  of  the  situatiou  (2  Sam.  xv.  6). 
— Kkummacher  :  There  is  scarcely  anything  more 
discordant  and  disgusting  than  the  dialect  of  self- 


abasement,  when  it  bears  upon  its  face  the  stamp 
of  affectation  and  falsehood. — Vers.  14,  15.  It  U. 
the  curse  which  rests  upon  him  who  has  sold  him 
self  to  sin,  that  all  which  ought  to  awaken  his 
conscience,  and  terrify  and  shock  him  out  of  hii 
security,  only  makes  him  more  obstinate,  and 
pushes  him  on  to  carry  out  his  evil  designs  (cf. 
John  xiii.  21-30). — Ver.  15.  The  Lord  abhorreth 
the  bloody  and  deceitful  man  (Ps  v.  7).  He  who, 
by  treason  and  murder,  ascends  a  throne,  is  no 
king  by  the  grace  of  God,  but  only  a  rod  of  wratb 
in  the  hands  of  God,  which  is  broken  in  pieces 
when  it  has  served  its  purpose. 


FIFTH    SECTION. 


THE   MONARCHY   UNDER  JEHORAM  AND  AHAZIAH  IN   JUDAH,  AND  THE    ELEVATION   OF 
JEHU    TO   THE   THRONE    IN    ISRAEL- 

Chap.  VHL  16-IX  37 


A. — The  reigns  of  Jehoram  and  Ahaziah  in  Judah. 
Chap.  VHI.  15-29  (2  Chrojj.  XXI.  2-20). 

16  And  in  the  fifth  year  of  Joram  the  son  of  Ah.ob  king  of  Israel  [(]  'Jehosha- 

phat    being    then     [had     been]     king    of  Jllllahf)],     [or  expunge  the  sentence  in  parenthesis] 

17  Jehoram  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah  began  to  reign.  Thirty  and 
two  years  old  was  he  when  he  began  to  reign;  and  he  reigned  eight  years3  in 

18  Jerusalem.  And  he  walked  in  the  way  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  as  did  the  house 
of  Ahab  ;  for  the  daughter  of  Ahab  3  was  his  wife  :  and  he  did  evil  in  the  sight 

19  of  the  Lord.  Yet  the  Lord  would  not  destroy  Jndah*  for  David  his  servant's 
sake,  as  he  [had]  promised  him  to  give  him  always  [omit  always]  a  light  [forever], 
and  to  [referring  to]  his  children. 

20  In  his  days  Edom  revolted  from  under  the  hand  of  Judah,  and  made  a  king 

21  over  themselves.  So  Joram  went  over  to  Zair,  and  all  the  chariots  with  him  : 
and  he  rose  by  night,  and  smote  the  Edomites  which  compassed  him  about,6  and 
[s»m>£c]  8   the  captains  of  the   chariots  [».  c,  of  the  Edomites]  :    and   the   people    [of 

22  Israel]  fled  into  their  tents.     Yet  [So]  Edom  revolted  from  under  the  hand  of 

23  Judah  unto  this  day.  Then  Libnah  revolted  at  the  same  time.  And  the  rest 
of  the  acts  of  Joram,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of 

24  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  And  Joram  slept  with  his  fathers,  and 
was  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David  :  and  Ahaziah  his  son  reigned 
in  his  stead. 

25  In  the  twelfth  year  of  Joram  the  son  of  Ahab  king  of  Israel  did  Ahaziah  the 

26  son  of  Jehoram  king  of  Judah  begin  to  reign.  Two  and  twenty  years  old  was 
Ahaziah  when  he  began  to  reign  :  and  he  reigned  one  year  in  Jerusalem.     And 

27  his  mother's  name  was  Athaliali,  the  daughter  of  Omri  king  of  Israel.  And  he 
walked  in  the  way  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  and  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord, 
as  did  the  house  of  Ahab:  for  he  was  the  son-in-law  of  [connected  by  marriage 
with]  *  the  house  of  Ahab. 

88  And  he  went  with  Joram  the  son  of  Ahab  [And  Joram  himself8  went]  tc 
the   war   against   Hazael   king  of  Syria  in  Ramothgilead ;    and    the   Syrians 


86 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


29  wounded  Joram.  And  king  Joram  went  back  to  be  healed  in  Jezreel  of  th< 
wounds  which  the  Syrians  had  given  him  10  at  Ramah,  when  he  fought  against 
Hazael  king  of  Syria.  And  Ahaziah  the  son  of  Jehoram  king  of  Judah  went 
down  to  see  Joram  the  son  of  Ahab  in  Jezreel,  because  he  was  sick. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

'  Ver.  16.— [Keil  and  Bahr  and  the  English  translators  take  ITTliT  "pO  DBt-'hiTl  as  a  parenthesis.  In  this  view  it 
mnstbe  understood  that  Jehoram  of  Judah  assumed  the  government  during  the  lifetime  of  his  father.  (Seethe  Excursnl 
on  the  Chronology.)    In  the  Sept.  (Alex.)  Syr.,  Arab.,  and  many  MSS.,  the  words  are  wanting.    They  arise  from  an  errol 

of  the  copyist,  who  repeated  them  from  the  end  of  the  verse  (Thenius,  Bunsen).    Ewald  supplies  ^^  before  ^1?^;  but, 
as  Thenius  well  objects,  there  is  no  instance  of  any  such  statement  inserted  in  the  midst  of  this  current  formula. 
•  Ver.  IT. — [The  keri  proposes  the  pi.  D  JI^'  according  to  the  rule  for  numbers  between  two  and  ten. 

3  Ver.  IS. — f"  Daughter  of  Ahab."  viz.,  Athaliah,  ver.  26.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxi.  4.  he  put  to  death  all  his  brothers, 
perhaps,  as  Keil  suggests,  in  order  to  get  the  treasures  which  Jehoshaphat  had  given  to  them  (2  Chron.  xxi.  8). 

4  Ver.  19. — [••  The  Lord  would  not  destroy  Judah,''  &c,  2  Chron.  xxi.  7.    "The  Lord  would  not  destroy  the  house  of 

David,  because  of  the  covenant  that  He  had  made  with  David,"  cf.  2  Sam.  vii.  12.    On  "1  J  ,  see  on  1  Kings  xi.36.    ^  327  , 

i.  e..  "referring  to.  or,  according  to  the  sense,  through,  or  by  mtana  of,  his  children"  (Thenius,  Bahr,  Keil,  Bunsen, 
and  others).  A  man's  posterity  is  spoken  of  as  his  liubt.  It  burns  until  his  descendants  die  our.  God  promised  that 
David's  light  should  last  forever,  "referring  to*  his  posterity,  through  whom,  or  by  preserving  whom,  God  would  keep 
the  promise.  Cf.  1  Kings  xv.  4,  for  another  example  of  the  usage.  The  "and"  in  the  E.V.  is  imported  from  2  Chron.  xxi. 
7.  where  it  is  adopted,  as  in  the  Vulg.  and  Sept.,  as  an  "  easier  reading  "  (Tin  nius). 

6  Ver.  21. — [3*3Dn  is  an  anomalous  form.  It  is  punctuated  with  tsere,  which  is  thus  written  full,  although  it  is 
lone  only  by  accent.  Ewald  only  says  of  it  that  it  'Ms  very  remarkable"  (s.  52,  note  1).  There  are  a  few  forms  like  *1*DV 
which  have  sometimes  been  explained  as  part,  kal,  and  some  de3ire  to  punctuate  this  2*30 ,  still  regarding  it  as  part, 
kal,  but  explaining  it  by  the  last-mentioned  analogy.  Bottcher.  however  (§  994,  3),  disposes  otherwise  of  every  one  of 
those  forms,  and  thus  destroys  that  analogy.    He  punctuates  this  J  jEo  ■   The  sense  would  not  be  different,  but  a  concise 

and  literal  translation  is  difficult.  "  He  attacked  Edom,  the  investment  against  him,"  i.  e.,  he  attacked  the  line  which 
enclosed  him. 

6  Ver.  21. — ['■  Smote  "  must  be  repeated  in  the  English  in  order  to  show  that  "  captain  "  is  in  the  same  construction 
with  •■  Edonutes." 

7  Ver.  27. — |nn  is  used  here  generally  for  a  relative  by  marriage.  See  the  Chron.  (II.,  xxii.  3  and  4)  for  a  develop- 
ment of  this  statement. 

8  Ver.  28. — Ln>{  is  not  the  prep.,  but  the  case-sign.  Bottcher  has  vindicated  for  this  the  signification  "  sell,"  §  515,  c/. 
2  Kings  vi.  5.    "The  iron  itself;"  the  part  which  was  iron;  not  the  handle. 

9  Ver.  28.— [For  the  omission  of  the  article  in  D'^DIX .  cf.  1  Sam.  xvii.  52  and  58,  and  Ew.  §  277,  c.  The  article  is 
necessary  according  to  the  general  nsage,  but  exceptions  occur. 

10  Ver.  29. — [*'  Which  the  Syrians  had  given."  The  iniperf.  here,  and  in  ix.  15  in  the  Hebrew  text,  is  very  remarkable. 
Elsewhere  we  find  the  perf.  in  relative  or  other  subordinate  clauses,  which  interrupt  the  flow  of  discourse  in  order  to 
specify  attendant  circumstances  or  details.  It  is  like  the  aorist  used  for  the  pluperf.  In  2  Chron.  xxii.  6  we  find  the  perf. — 
In  2  Chron.  x\i.  17  it  is  stated  that  the  Philistines  and  Arabians  carried  away  all  the  sons  of  Jehoram  but  Jehoahaz, 
the  youngest.  In  xxii.  1  it  is  stated  that  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  made  Ahaziah.  the  youngest  and  only  remaining  son 
of  Jehoram.  kin::.  The  two  names  are  equivalent  in  meaning,  the  syllable  from  the  name  of  Jehovah  being  in  the  one 
case  prefixed,  and  in  the  other,  aftixed.  Probably  the  latter  form  was  the  one  adopted  when  he  ascended  the  throne.  In 
xxii.  6  we  have  the  form  Azariah,  which  is  probably,  as  Ewald  suggests,  a  slip  of  the  pen. — W.  G.  S.] 


THE    CHRONOLOGY    OF    THE    PERIOD    FROM   AHAB   TO 
JEHU. 

Polus  says  of  the  chronological  statement  with 
which  this  passage  commences:  Occurrit  hie  nodws 
impeditus,  i :utse  it  does  not  accord  with  pre- 
vious data,  especially  with  chap.  i.  17,  and  has, 
therefore,  caused  the  expositors  great  trouble. 
The  question  whether  any  reconciliation  at  all  is 
possible,  and.  if  so,  how  it  is  to  be  brought  about, 
can  only  be  answered  after  comparing  all  the  data 
with  reference  to  the  reigns  of  the  several  kings 
of  both  realms  between  Ahab  and  Jehu.  For,  not 
only  does  a  new  period  in  the  history  of  the  mon- 
archy begin  with  Jehu's  reign,  but  also  it  gives  a 
filed  point  from  which  to  calculate  the  chronology 
of  the  preceding  period,  seeing  that  Jehoram  of 
Israel  and  Ahaziah  of  Judah  were  both  slain  by 
him.  perhaps  upon  t ! i> -  same  day  (chap.  ix.  21-'J7i, 

»nd  -"  there  was  a  change  of upant  on  both 

thrones  at  the  same  time.  This  year,  which  al stall 

modern  expositor-  :.gree  in  fixing,  with  a  unanimity 
which  is  not  usual  with  them,  is  'he  yea-  884  B.C. 


[This  unanimity  is  not  apparent.  Rdsch  (Art. 
"  Zeitrechnung,"  in  Herz.  Encyc.)  gives  a  table  of 
twelve  authorities.  They  fix  this  date  as  follows : 
Petavius,  884;  TJssher,  884:  Des  Vignoles,  876; 
Bengel,  8S6;  Thiele,  888;  Winer,  884;  Ewald,  883; 
Thenius.  8S4 ;  Keil,  883;  Set-mirth,  855;  Bunsen, 
873.  We  may  add,  Rawlinson.  884 :  Lenormant, 
886  ;  Lepsius  (on  the  ground  of  the  Egyptian  chro- 
nology) 861.  Nooneofthem  make-  this  tin-  start- 
ing point  for  introducing  the  dates  of  the  Christian 
era  into  the  Jewish  chronology,  and  it  i-^  char  that 
there  is  no  more  certain  means  of  establishing  the 
date  of  Jehu's  accession  in  terms  of  the  Christian 
era,  than  tha  of  any  other  event.  This  date  being 
thus  arbitrarily  fixedby  the  consensus  of  chronolo- 
gers  who  have  reached  it  by  starting  from  some 
other  date  which  they  were  aide  to  lix  by  some  in- 
dependent means,  all  the  other  dates  in  Bahr's  chro- 
nology must  suffer  from  the  uncertainty  which 
attaches  to  this.  It  is  not  an  independent  and  sci 
entitle  method  of  procedure.  For  the  true  point  of 
connection  between  tin-  Jewish  chronology  and  the 
Christian  era,  see  the  appendix  to  this  volume.    The 


CHAPTER  VIII.   16-29. 


dates  adopted  by  Bahr  are  also  there  collected  into  a 
table  for  convenience  of  reference. — W.  G.  S.]  From 
this  date  back  wards,  the  dates  of  the  other  reigns 
must  therefon  be  fixed  according  to  the  data  given 
in  the  text.     As  there  are  two  kings  who  have  the 

same  name,  D"lV  or  D"liiV  (in  2  Kings  i.  17  and 

2  Chron.  xxii.  6,  both  are  called  D1VT ;  in  2  Kings 

ix.  15,  17,  21,  DiV  is  the  name  of  the  king  of  Israel ; 

in  2  Kings  viii.  16  and  29,  the  king  of  Israel  is  called 

D"1V  ,  and  the  king  of  Judah  min' ,  while  in  chap. 

viii.  21,  23,  24,  the  king  of  Judah  is  called  Q-|y). 

we  will  call  the  king  of  Israel,  in  what  follows, 
Joram,  and  the  king  of  Judah,  Jehoram,  simply  in 
order  to  avoid  ambiguity. 

We  have  to  bear  in  mind,  first  of  all,  in  counting 
the  years  of  the  reigns,  the  peculiar  method  of 
reckoning  of  the  Hebrews.  According  to  a  rule 
which  is  given  several  times  in  the  Talmud,  and 
which  was  adopted  also  by  Josephus  in  his 
■writings,  a  year  in  the  reign  of  a  king  is  reckoned 
from  Nisan  to  Nisan,  in  such  a  way  that  a  single 
day  before  or  after  [the  first  of]  this  month  is 
•counted  as  a  year  (see  Keil  on  1  Kings  xii.  s.  139 
sq..  where  the  passages  from  the  Talmud  are 
quoted).  [The  note  is  as  follows :  "  '  The  only 
method  of  reckoning  the  year  of  the  kings  is  from 
Nisan.'  Further  on,  after  quoting  certain  passages 
in  proof,  it  is  added :  '  Rabbi  Chasda  said :  "  They 
give  this  rule  only  in  regard  to  the  kings  of  Israel." ' 
Nisan  was  the  beginning  of  the  year  for  the  kings, 
and  a  single  day  in  the  year  («'.  e.,  after  the  first 
day  of  Nisan)  is  counted  as  a  year.  '  One  day  on 
the  end  of  the  year  is  counted  as  a  year.'  "  The  ci- 
tations are  from  the  tract  on  the  "  Beginning  of  the 

Year  "  ( nj"'H  L"S"I )  in  the  Guemara  of  Babylon, 
c.  l.  fol.  hi.,  p.  1,  ed.  Amstel.]  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that  this  method  of  reckoning  is  the  one  employed 
in  the  books  before  us,  for  we  saw  above  (1  Kings 
xv.  9  and  25)  that  the  reign  could  not  have  com- 
prised full  years  to  the  number  stated.  The  same 
is  also  clear  from  a  comparison  of  1  Kings  xxii.  51, 
and  2  Kings  iii.  1,  and  other  examples  will  follow. 
Such  a  method  of  reckoning,  which  counted  portions 
of  a  year  as  whole  years  in  estimating  the  duration 
of  a  reign,  necessarily  produced  inaccuracies  and  un- 
certainties, so  that  the  difference  of  a  year  in  differ- 
ent chronological  data  cannot  present  any  difficulty, 
much  less  throw  doubt  upon  the  entire  chronology 
of  the  period  or  overthrow  it.  If  now  we  reckon 
'back  from  the  established  date,  884  B.C.,  the  reigns 
of  the  separate  kings,  the  following  results  are  ob- 
tained : 

(a)  For  the  kmgs  of  Judah: — Ahaziah,  who 
died  in  884,  reigned  only  one  year  (2  Kings  viii. 
26),  and,  hi  fact,  as  is  generally  admitted,  not  a  full 
twelvemonth.  He  therefore  came  to  the  throne  in 
8S4  or  885.  His  predecessor,  Jehoram,  reigned 
eight  years  (chap.  viii.  17),  down  to  885,  so  that 
his  accession  fell  hi  891  or  892.  Jehoshaphat,  his 
father,  reigned  twenty-five  years  (1  Kings  xxii. 
42),  that  is,  from  916  or  917  on.  As  he  came  to 
the  throne  in  the  fourth  year  of  Ahab,  the  acees- 
Bion  of  the  latter  falls  in  919  or  920. 

(h)  For  the  kings  of  Israel : — Joram,  who  died 
»n  884,  had  reigned  for  twelve  years  (chap.  iii.  1).  He 
came  to  the  throne,  therefore,  in  895  or  896.  His 
predecessor,  Ahaziah,  reitned    for   two  years   (1 


Kings  xxii.  51  and  2  Kings  iii.  1),  but,  as  is  admit 
ted,  not  two  full  years.  Hence  he  became  king  in 
897  or  898.  Ahab,  his  father,  reigned  for  twenty 
two  years  (1  Kings  xvi.  29) ;  came  to  the  throne, 
therefore,  between  919  and  920,  which  agrees  with 
the  reckoning  above. 

Again,  if  we  reckon  the  corresponding  years 
of  the  reigns  in  the  two  kingdoms,  we  arrive  at 
the  following  calculation :  (a)  Ahaziah  of  Judah 
became  king  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Joram  of  Israel 
(chap.  viii.  26),  and,  as  the  latter  was  slain  in 
the  same  year  as  the  former  (884),  the  one  year 
of  the  former  (viii.  26),  cannot  have  been  a  full 
year.  (6)  Jehoram  of  Judah  became  king  in  the 
fifth  year  of  Joram  of  Israel  (viii.  16),  and,  as  the 
latter's  accession  falls  in  895  or  896  (see  above), 
his  fifth  year  coincides  with  891  or  S92,  the  date 
above  established  for  the  accession  of  Jehoram. 
(c)  Ahaziah  of  Israel  became  king  in  the  seven- 
teenth (1  Kings  xxii.  51),  and  his  successor, 
Joram,  in  the  eighteenth  (2  Kings  iii.  i)year  of 
Jehoshaphat,  whence  it  is  clear  that  Ahazifih,  i  s 
was  above  remarked,  did  not  reign  for  two  whoie 
years  (1  Kings  xxii.  51)  The  seventeenth  of  Je- 
hoshaphat falls,  reckoning  from  his  accession  is 
916,  in  899,  and  his  eighteenth  in  898,  wherea9, 
according  to  the  above  calculation,  Ahaziah  came 
to  the  throne  between  897  and  898,  and  Joram  be- 
tween 897  and  896.  This  insignificant  discrepancy 
is  evidently  due  to  the  Hebrew  method  of  reckon- 
ing, for  under  that  system  it  might  will  be  that 
the  two  years  of  Ahaziah,  although  nol  complete, 
might  embrace  parts  of  898,  897,  and  896,  and 
still  Ahaziah  might  follow  in  the  seventeenth  and 
Joram  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat.  At 
any  rate,  the  historical  details,  which  are  of  far 
greater  importance,  are  not  touched  by  these  slight 
chronological  differences,  far  less  are  they  in  contra- 
diction with  them.  Finally,  if  we  add  the  reigns  of 
the  three  kings  of  Judah,  viz.,  Jehoshaphat  twenty- 
five,  Jehoram  eight,  and  Ahaziah  one,  the  sum  is 
thirty-four  years.  As  these  years,  however,  were 
not  all  full,  there  cannot  be  more  than  thirty-two  in 
all.  The  reigns  of  the  three  kings  of  Israel,  Ahab 
twenty-two,  Ahaziah  two,  Joram  twelve,  amount 
to  thirty-six  years,  which  were  not  all  complete,  so 
that  they  cannot  give  in  all  over  thirty-five  years. 
The  entire  period  from  Ahab  to  Jehu  containa 
between  thirty-five  and  thirty-six  years,  and,  as 
Jehoshaphat  came  to  the  throne  in  the  fourth  year 
of  Ahab.  the  sums  agree. 

While  the  eleven  data  given  in  six  passages 
thus  agree  essentially,  one  statement,  2  Kings  i. 
17,  according  to  which  Joram  of  Israel  became 
king  in  the  second  year  of  Jehoram  of  Judah,  dif- 
fers decidedly.  If  it  is  authentic,  Jehoshaphat 
cannot  have  reigned  twenty-five  years,  but  only 
seventeen,  and  there  was  no  eighteenth  year  of 
his,  in  which  the  accession  of  Joram  of  Israel  is 
declared  to  have  fallen  (iii.  1).  Moreover.  Jehosha- 
phat's  successor,  Jehoram  of  Judah,  did  not  then 
reign  eight  (chap.  viii.  17).  but  fourteen  years,  and 
he  came  to  the  throne,  not  in  the  fifth  (viii.  16) 
year  of  Joram  of  Israel,  but  a  year  before  him. 
This  brings  great  disturbance,  not  only  into  tlio 
chronology,  but  also  into  the  history  of  the  entire 
period.  In  order  to  do  away  with  tills  glaring  dis- 
crepancy, the  founder  of  biblical  chronology, 
TJssher,  following  the  rabbinical  book  called  Seder 
Olam,  adopted  the  explanation,  in  hi?  Annul.  Vet 
et  Nov.  Tastam.,  1650,  that  Jehoram  reigned  for  su 


8j 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  TIIK  KINGS. 


or  seven  years  with  his  father  Jehoshaphat.  This 
theory  of  a  joint  reign  is  the  most  generally  ac- 
cepted explanation.  Keil  defends  it  very  vigorously, 
and  asserts  that  "  Jehoshaphat,  when  he  marched 
out  with  Ahab  to  war  against  Syria  in  Ramoth 
Gilend  (1  Kings  xxii.  3  sq.),  appointed  his  son 
regent,  and  committed  to  him  the  government  of 
the  kingdom.  The  statement  in  2  Kings  i.  IT,  that 
Joram  of  Israel  became  king  in  the  second  year 
of  Jehoram  of  Judah,  dates  from  this  joint  govern- 
ment. .  .  .  But,  in  the  fifth  year  of  this  joint 
administration,  Jehoshaphat  gave  up  the  govern- 
ment entirely  to  him  (Jehoram).  From  this  time, 
i.  e.,  from  the  twenty-third  year  of  Jehoshaphat, 
we  have  to  reckon  the  eight  years  of  the  reign  of 
Jehoram  of  Judah,  so  that  he  reigned  alone,  after 
his  father's  death,  only  six  years."  This  reconcili- 
ation is  artificial  and  forced ;  but  the  following  con- 
siderations tell  especially  against  it : 

(a)  The  biblical  text  says  nothing  anywhere 
about  the  assumed  fact  that  Jehoshaphat  raised 
his  son  to  share  his  throne  six  or  seven  years  be- 
fore he  died,  and  that  he  then,  in  the  fifth  year  of 
this  divided  government,  retired  entirely,  although, 
if  any  king  had  done  such  a  thing,  it  must  have  had 
deep  iniiuence  on  the  history  of  the  monarchy.  Keil 
himself  is  forced  to  admit  that  "  we  do  not  know 
the  reasons  which  impelled  Jehoshaphat  to  abdi- 
cate in  favor  of  his  son  two  years  before  his  death." 
It  never  can  be  proper  to  supplement  the  history  on 
the  basis  of  an  isolated  chronological  statement.  In 
2  Chron.  xxi.  5  and  20,  the  reign  of  Jehoram  dates 
from  the  death  of  his  predecessor,  just  as  in  the  case 
of  all  the  other  kings,  and  its  duration  is  stated  as 
eight  years,  no  account  being  taken  of  any  two 
years  during  which  he  is  thought  to  have  reigned 
while  his  father  was  yet  alive,  or  of  five  years  that 
he  reigned  jointly  with  him.  It  is  said  there,  in  ver. 
3,  that  Jehoshaphat  "  gave  "  to  his  sons  gold  and 
fortified  cities,  but  to  his  eldest  son,  Jehoram,  the 
kingdom  ;  yet  that  clearly  refers  to  the  disposition 
he  made  for  the  time  after  his  death,  and  not  to 
any  distribution  which  he  accomplished  two,  or,  in 
fact,  seven,  years  before  his  death 

(b)  Appeal  is  made,  in  support  of  this  assumed 
joint  government,  to  the  obscure  words  in  2  Kings 

viii.  16:  nTHr  7]i?0  tDQK'ilTl,  which  Clericus  sup- 
plements by  TI  11J)'  adhuc  erai  in  vivis,  aut  simile 
quidpiam.  KeiL  with  many  of  the  old  commenta- 
tors, translates :  "  While  Jehoshaphat  was  (still) 
king  of  Judah,"  i.  e.,  during  the  lifetime  of  Jehosh- 
aphat. But  those  words  are  wanting  in  the  Syrian 
and  Arabic  versions,  in  some  MSS.,  and  in  the 
Complutensian  Septuagint.  Luther  and  De  Wette 
leave  them  untranslated.  Houbigant,  Kennicott, 
Dathe,  Schulz,  Maurer,  and  Thenius  want  to  re- 
move them  from  the  text.  Thenius  says  that  they 
are  "evidently  due  to  an  error  of  the  copyist,  who 
has  repeated  them  here  from  the  end  of  the  verse," 
and  that  "they  were  then  provided  with  the  con- 
junction, in  order  to  give  them  a  connection."  We 
cannot,  therefore,  call  their  omission  from  the  text 
"  a  piece  of  critical  violence,"  as  Keil  does.  If, 
however,  it  is  desired  to  retain  them,  because  they 
are  in  the  massoretic  text,  the  Chaldee  version,  the 
Vulgate,  and  the  Vatican  Sept.,  still  they  cannot  be 
translated  in  the  manner  proposed.  The  word 
"still,"  which  is  here  so  important,  is  wanting  in 
the  text,  and  cannot  be  inserted  without  further 
deliberation     Kmichi  and  Ewald,  with  the  rabbini- 


cal Seilar  Olam,  supply  DO  after  rTHiT  .  >'■  e-  "  an* 

Jehoshaphat,  king  of  Judah,  was  dead."  This, 
however,  would  be  constructing  a  sentence  which 
states  what  is  true  to  be  sure,  but  "  the  super- 
fiuousness  of  which,  and  the  unpreeedeutedness 
also,  in  the  midst  of  the  current  formula  in  which 
it  occurs,  it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out  "  (Thenius) 
If  the  words  are  to  stand,  the  only  possible  re 
course  is  to  supply  ,-pn ,  which  so  often  is  want- 
ing, in  the  sense  of  the  pluperfect.  The  sentence 
would  then  have  to  be  understood  as  a  parenthesis, 
intended  to  refer  back  again  to  the  last  king  of 
Judah,  because,  in  this  verse,  the  history  of  the 
kingdom,  which  has  been  interrupted  by  the  nar- 
rative of  other  incidents  from  1  Kings  xxii.  50  up 
to  this  point,  is  now  to  be  resumed.  "  Jehoshaphat 
had  been  king  of  Judah."  But  in  what  manner 
soever  the  words  may  be  translated,  they  can  in  nc 
case  obscure  the  clear  and  definite  declaration  that 
Jehoram  became  king  in  the  fifth  year  of  Joram  of 
Israel,  and  that  he  reigned  eight  years.  What  is 
obscure  can  never  explain  what  is  clear,  but  only, 
vice  versa,  that  which  is  clear  can  explain  what  is 
obscure. 

(c)  When  Joram  of  Israel  undertook  the  war 
against  Moab  (2  Kings  iii.  4  sq.),  (at  the  earliest  in 
the  first  year  of  his  reign),  he  called  upon  "  Jehosh- 
aphat king  of  Judah  "  to  go  with  him,  and  when  the 
three  kings  of  Judah,  Israel,  and  Edom,  turned,  in 
their  distress,  to  Elisha,  he  would  have  nothin? 
to  do  with  Joram,  but  referred  him  to  the  proph 
ets  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  and  finally  gave  ear  to 
him  only  for  the  sake  of  "  Jehoshaphat  king  of 
Judah,"  who  was  faithful  to  Jehovah  (ver.  14). 
But  if  Jehoram  had  then  been  king  of  Judah  ac- 
cording to  chap.  i.  17,  or  even  joint  ruler,  Jehosha- 
phat covdd  not  have  been  spoken  of  simply  as  rul- 
ing king  of  Judah. 

(</)  Jehoshaphat  held  firmly  to  the  worship  of 
Jehovah,  and  was  a  decided  opponent  of  all  wor- 
ship of  Baal  or  Astarte.  He  was,  in  fact,  one  of  the 
most  pious  of  the  kings  of  Judah  (1  Kiugs  xxii.  43 ; 
2  Chron.  xvii.  3-6;  xix.  3;  xx.  32);  his  son  Jeho- 
ram. on  the  contrary,  did  what  was  evil  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  was  devoted  to  the  worship  of  Baal, 
which  Ahab's  family  had  introduced  (2  Kings  viii. 
18:  2  Chron.  xxi.  6  and  11  sq.).  It  is  impossible, 
therefore,  that  they  should  have  ruled  together.  If 
Jehoshaphat  had  allowed  his  fellow-ruler  to  intro- 
duce and  foster  the  worship  of  Baal,  he  would  have 
made  himself  a  participant  in  the  same  guilt,  and 
would  not  have  received  the  praise  of  changeless 
fidelity  to  Jehovah. 

(e)  Joint  governments  are  foreign  to  Oriental, 
and,  above  all,  to  Israelitish  antiquity.  It  is  true 
that  it  is  stated  in  the  history  of  king  Azariah  (Uz- 
ziah)  that  he  was  a  leper,  and,  therefore,  lived  in  a 
separate  house,  and  that  his  son  Jotham  "  was  over 
the  house,  judging  the  people  of  the  land  "  (2  Kings 
xv.  5).  The  "  house  "  here  meant  is  the  royal 
palace  (cf.  1  Kings  iv.  6;  xviii.  3),  and  it  is  not  in- 
tended to  assert  that  he  became  Miig  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  rightful  king,  as  is  assumed  with  re- 
gard to  Jehoram.  Jotham  did  not  become  king 
until  Uzziah's  death,  and  then  he  ruled  for  six- 
teen years  (2  Kings  xv.  7,  33).  The  years  iu  which 
he  acted  as  regent  for  his  sick  father  are  not 
reckoned  in  these,  as  they  should  be.  if  it  is  to  be  a 
precedent  for  including  in  the  eight  years  of  Je- 
horam certain  years  during  which  lie  was  joint 


CHAPTER  VIII.   16-29. 


89 


ruler  with  his  father.  There  is  no  statement  any- 
where with  regard  to  Jehoshaphat  that  he  was 
sick  or  otherwise  incapacitated  for  governing. 
This  energetic  ruler  was  far  from  needing  an 
assistant,  certainly  not  such  a  weak  one  as  Je- 
horam.  The  latter  was  sick  for  two  years  before 
his  death;  but  even  he  had  no  joint  regent.  His 
Bor.  Ahaziah  did  not  come  to  the  throne  until  after 
his  death. 

From  all  this  we  see  plainly  that  all  attempts 
to  bring  2  Kings  i.  17  into  agreement  with  the 
other  chronological  data,  which  are  essentially  in 
accord  among  themselves,  are  vain.  We  are  there- 
fore forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  text  of  this 
verse,  as  it  lies  before  us,  is  not  in  its  original  form. 
Thenius  considers  it  corrupt,  and  desires  to  read 
for:  "In  the  second  year  of  Jehoram,  the  son  of 
Jehoshaphat,"  "  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  Je- 
hoshaphat." But  this  does  not  agree  with  2  Kings 
iii.  1.  where  it  is  said  that  Joram  of  Israel  came  to 
the  throne  in  the  eighteenth,  not  twenty-second, 
of  Jehoshaphat,  nor  with  1  Kings  xxii.  51,  where 
"in  the  seventeenth  year"  must  be  changed,  as 
Thenius  proposes,  to  "  in  the  twenty-first  year," 
a  change  which  is  inadmissible.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  form  of  state- 
ment varies  considerably  from  the  standing  for- 
mula. In  each  case  where  the  death  of  a  king  is 
recorded,  there  follows  immediately  the  formula: 
such  a  one  became  king  in  his  stead,  without  any 
further  details  in  regard  to  the  successor  than 
simply  his  name.  Then  when  the  history  of  the 
following  reign  commences,  often  after  the  in- 
sertion of  other  incidents  and  reflections  of  greater 
or  less  length,  it  is  stated  in  what  year  of  the 
reign  of  the  king  of  the  other  nation  he  began 
to  reign,  of  what  age  he  was,  and  how  many 
years  he  ruled  (cf.  1  Kings  xiv.  20-31 ;  xv.  8-24; 
xvi.  28;  xxii.  40-51;  2  Kings  viii.  24;  x.  35  ;  xii. 
22;  xiii.  0:  xiv.  16-29;  xv.Y  22,  25,  30,  38;  xvi. 
20;  xx.  21 ;  xxi.  18,  26  ;  xxiii.  30 ;  xxiv.  6).  Now,  in 
2  Kings  i.  17,  after  the  words  "  and  he  died  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  the  prophet  Elijah,"  follows  the 
ordinary  formula,  "  and  Joram  became  king  in 
his  stead :  "  but  then  there  is  added,  what  is  not 
added  in  a  single  other  passage  :  "  In  the  second 
year  of  Jehoram,  son  of  Jehoshaphat  king  of 
Judah,"  but  without  the  further  details,  which  are 
usually  given  in  that  connection,  in  regard  to  the 
length  of  the  reign,  &c.  These  details  are  not 
added  until  we  come  to  the  commencement  of  the 
history  of  his  reign,  chap.  iii.  1 ;  there,  however, 
they  vary  very  much  from  this  short  statement,  as 
does  also  viii.  16.  Now  since,  of  course,  the  two 
complete  and  precise  statements  are  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  incomplete  one,  the  unusual  chrono- 
logical datum  in  i.  17  must  be  regarded  as  a  later 
and  incorrect  addition,  all  the  more  as  it  stands  in 
contradiction  with  all  the  other  chronological  data 
of  the  period  in  question.  It  appears  distinctly  as 
an  addition  in  the  Sept.,  where  it  stands  at  the 
end  of  the  verse,  and  is  not  incorporated  into  it. 
It  is  remarkable  that  scholars  have  preferred  to 
change  the  other  complete  and  consistent  data,  in 
order  to  force  them  into  agreement  with  this. 
rather  than  to  give  up  this  one  statement  which  is 
totally  unsupported,  and  which  introduces  con- 
fusion not  only  into  the  chronology,  but  also  into 
-the  history 

Finally,  we  have  to  notice  another  calcula- 
tion  of   the    chronology"   of    this    period   which 


Wolff  has  attempted  (Studien  und  Kritiken,  1858,  4: 
s.  625-688).  He  rejects  in  general  very  decidedly 
any  assumption  of  joint  sovereignty,  and  especially 
the  joint  rule  of  Jehoram  and  Jehoshaphat ;  but  he 
inconsistently  sets  up  such  an  assumption  when  he 
says  (s.  643) :  "  As  his  (Ahaziah  of  Israel's)  health 
was  so  far  lost  that  he  could  no  longer  administer 
the  government,  he  took  his  brother  Joram  on  the 
throne  with  himself,  as  co-regent,  at  about  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat.  He 
remained  king  until  the  twenty-second  year  of 
Jehoshaphat.  and  then  gave  up  the  government 
entirely  in  favor  of  his  brother,  but  did  not  die 
until  the  second  year  of  Jehoram."  Ignoring  the 
above-mentioned  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  aud 
starting  from  the  purely  arbitrary  and  unfounded 
assumption  that  only  the  dates  given  for  the  reigns 
of  the  kings  of  Judah  are  correct  and  reliable, 
Wolff  changes  the  twenty-two  years  of  Ahab  to 
twenty,  the  two  years  of  Ahaziah  of  Israel  to  four 
and  a  half,  makes  Joram  succeed  to  the  throne  in 
the  twenty-second  instead  of  the  eighteenth  year 
of  Jehoshaphat,  Jehoram  in  the  third  and  not  in 
the  fifth  year  of  Joram,  and,  finally,  Ahaziah  of 
Judah  in  the  eleventh  and  not  in  the  twelfth  year 
of  Joram.  No  one  else  has  hitherto  conceived  the 
idea  of  undertaking  so  many  changes  in  the  text ; 
they  are  all  as  violent  as  they  are  unnecessary, 
and,  therefore,  need  no  refutation,  although  thej 
necessity  is  confidently  asserted.  The  joint  rule  of 
Ahaziah  and  Joram  is,  if  possible,  still  more  con- 
trary to  the  text  than  that  of  Jehoshaphat  and 
Jehoram. 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  10.  Yet  the  Lord  would  not  destroy 
Judah,  &c.  The  connection  between  vers.  19  and 
20  is  this :  Although  for  David's  sake  Judah  did 
not,  as  a  consequence  of  its  apostasy,  lose  its 
dynasty  and  its  existence  as  a  nation,  yet  it  had 
to  pay  dearly  for  its  sin ;  for  the  Edomites,  who 
had  been  subject  to  Judah  for  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  endeavored,  during  Jehoram's  reign, 
to  regain  their  independence.  Josephu?  says  that 
they  had  killed  the  governor,  whom  Jehoshaphat 
had  appointed  (1  Kings  xxii.  47),  and  had  chosen 
a  king  for  themselves.  In  order  to  re-subjugate 
them  Jehoram  marched  out  with  an  army  rWJTX 

unquestionably  the  name  of  a  place,  but  not  equiv- 
alent to  Zoar  (Hitzig  and  Ewald),  for  this  lay  in 
Moab  (Jerem.  xlviii.  34  ,  not  in  Edom.  The  place 
cannot  be  more  definitely  located.     The  chronicler 

has  instead  V"lL""DJ? ,  '■  <?-,   "  with  his  captains," 

and  does  not  mention  any  place,  probably  because 
he  did  not  know  any  place  by  the  name  here  given 
Thenius  proposes  to  read  n"VS)L",  which  is  favorei 

by  the  Vulg.,  Seira,  so  that  we  should  have  to  un 
derstand  it  as  referring  to  the  well-known  moun- 
tainous region  of  Edom. 

Ver.  21.  And  he  rose  by  night,  Ac.  "It  is 
clear  that  we  have  in  this  verse  the  record  of  an 
unsuccessful  attempt  of  Jehoram  to  re-subjugate 
Edom.  We  must,  therefore,  form  our  conceptions 
of  the  details  according  to  this  character  of  the 
whole  "  (Thenius).  It  is  an  utter  mistake  to  un- 
derstand the  occurrence  as  the  Calvjer  Bibd,  on 
2  Chron.  xxi.  7  sq.,  explains  it:   "The   cowardly, 


90 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


faithless  king  plotted  and  executed  a  massacre  by 
night  of  the  Edomites  who  surrounded  him,  in 
which  his  own  captains  also  fell ;  and  since,  accord- 
ing to  2  Kings  viii.  21,  his  own  people  upon  this 
deserted  him,  he  could  not  accomplish  anything 
further  against  the  Edomites,  and  they  remained 
independent.''  The  passage  rather  states  simply 
that  the  army  of  Judah,  as  it  approached  Edom, 
was  surrounded  by  the  Edomites,  but  broke 
through  them  by  night,  and  fled  homewards 
(1  Kings  viii.  66),  so  that  it  barely  escaped  an 
utter  defeat.  From  this  time  on  the  dominion  of 
Judah  over  Edom  was  at  an  end  (Ps.  cxxxvii.  7). 

Ver.  22.  Unto  this  day,  /.  e.,  uutil  the  time  of 
composition  of  the  original  document  from  which 
this  is  taken  (see  above,  on  1  Kings  viii.  8).  The 
Edomites  were,  indeed,  re-subjugated  for  a  short 
time  (xiv.  7,  22),  but  never  again  permanently. — 
Then  Libnah  revolted  at  the  same  time.  This 
city  lay  in  the  plaiu  of  Judah,  not  far  from  the  fron- 
tier of  Philistia.  It  was  at  one  time  an  ancient 
royal  residence  of  the  Canaanites,  and  afterwards 
one  of  the  priests'  cities  [cities  of  refuge]  of  the 
Israelites  (Josh.  xv.  42;  xii.  15;  xxi.  13),  though  it 
can  hardly  have  retained  the  latter  character  until 
the  time  of  Jehoram.  We  may  suppose  that  it  was 
instigated  to  revolt  by  the  Philistines,  and  that  it 
was  assisted  by  them.  Among  the  further  details 
mentioned  by  the  chronicler,  it  is  stated  that  the 
Phdistiues  attacked  Jehoram,  and  inflicted  upon 
him  a  severe  defeat  (2  Chron.  xxi.  16  s?.).  [It  is 
also  stated  there  that  the  allied  Philistines  and 
Arabians  took  Jerusalem  and  plundered  the  tem- 
ple, an  event  to  which  Hitzig  refers  the  passage 
Joel  iv.  4-6.  Thenius  approves  this,  but  thinks 
that  2  Chron.  xxi.  1 7  is  inconsistent  with  2  Kings 
x.  3,  which  assigns  a  different  fate  to  Ahaziah's 
kindred.— W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  25.  Did  Ahaziah  begin  to  reign.  The 
chronicler  states  Ahaziah's  age  at  his  accession  as 
forty -two  (II.,  xxii.  2).  This  is  the  result  of  a  mis- 
take of  D  for  3,  in  the  numerals  (Keil,  Winer, 
Thenius),  as  we  must  conclude  from  the  age 
assigned  to  Jehoram  in  ver.  17.  Jehoram  was 
thirty-two  when  he  ascended  the  tlu-one;  he  reigned 
eight  years;  died,  therefore,  at  forty.  Ahaziah 
was  twenty-two  at  his  accession;  he  was,  there- 
fore, born  when  his  father  was  eighteen.  There 
is  nothing  astonishing  in  this,  for,  according  to 
the  Talmud,  young  men  might  marry  after  their 
thirteenth  year,  and  eighteen  was  the  usual  age 
of  marriage  (Winer,  R-  W.-B.,  i.  s.  297).  [It  should 
be  noticed  that  this  bears  upon  2  Chron.  xxi.  17, 
where  it  is  said  that  Ahaziah  was  the  youngest 
of  the  sons  of  Jehoram. — W.  G.  S.] — Athaliah  is 
here  (ver.  26)  called  the  daughter  of  Omri,  although 
she  was  in  fact  his  granddaughter,  because  he  was 
the  founder  and  father  of  the  royal  house  to  which 
she  belonged,  and  which  brought  so  much  mis- 
fortune upon  Israel  and  Judah.  The  chronicler 
adds  (II.,  xxii.  3),  that  she  was  "his  [Ahaziah's] 
counsellor  to  do  wickedly." 

Ver.  28.  And  he  went  with  Joram,  &e.  [Jo- 
ram   himself  went ;    see  the  amended  translation 

and  Tactual  and  Grammatical,  note  7.     If  ns  is 

taken  a-  the  prep.,  then  we  have  to  assume  that, 
after  Joram  was  wounded,  Ahaziah  also  left  the 
seat  of  war  and  went  to  Jerusalem,  and  then  that 
he  went  down  from  there  again  to  Jezreel  to  visit 
Joram     for  ',hat  is  the  simple  and  natural  meaning 


of  the  last  clause  of  ver.  29.  The  awkwardness 
of  this  acceptation  is  evident.  It  is  better  to  take 
riS  as  the  so-called  "accusative  sign,"  as  explained 

in  the  note  referred  to. — W.  G.  S.]  On  Ramoth- 
Gilead,  see  note  on  1  Kings  iv.  13.  This  strongly 
fortified  city  was,  in  the  time  of  Ahab,  in  the 
hands  of  the  Syrians,  and  he  did  not  succeed  in 
taking  it  away  from  them.  He  was  wounded  in 
the  attempt  so  that  he  died  (1  Kings  xxii.).  From 
chap.  ix.  2  ;  xiv.  1  .">.  we  see  that,  at  the  time  when 
Joram  was  at  war  with  Hazael,  it  was  again  in 
the  possession  of  the  Israelites.  It  is  not  stated 
when  or  how,  since  the  death  of  Ahab,  it  came 
into  their    hands.      According   to    ix.   14,  Joram 

was  nb"l3  "VO'C ,  i-  «-,  he  was  defending  the  city 

against  the  attacks  of  Hazael,  who  was  thirsting  for 
conquest,  aud  who  undoubtedly  commenced  the  war. 
It  was,  therefore,  in  defending,  and  not  in  attacking 
the  city,  that  Jehoram  was  smitten,  that  is,  se- 
verely wounded.  [See  note  on  ix.  1.]  He  ordered, 
that  he  should  be  taken  to  Jezreel  (see  note  on  1 
Kings  xviii.  45),  and  not  to  Samaria,  although  the 
latter  was  much  nearer,  probably  because  the  coun 
was  at  Jezreel.  [Thenius'  suggestion  that  he  could 
make  this  journey  over  a  smooth  road,  while  the 
way  to  .Samaria  lay  over  mountains,  is  also  good. 
— W.  G.  S.]  But  the  army  remained  under  com- 
mand of  the  generals  in  and  before  Ramoth.  The 
king's  wound  does  not  seem  to  have  healed  for 
some  time.  Ewald  maintains  that  Ahaziah  did 
not  go  to  the  war  with  Joram,  but  went  to  visit 
him  from  Jerusalem  at  a  later  time,  when  he  was 
being  healed  of  his  wound.  He  says,  therefore, 
that  the  particle  OX  iu  ver.  28  is  to  be  struck  out. 

There  is,  however,  no  ground  for  this  (see  Thenius 
on  the  verse),  for  -py ,   in  ver.  29,  does  not  prove 

that  he  went  from  Jerusalem  to  Jezreel,  since  the 
latter  lay  to  the  north  of  Ramoth  as  well  as  of 
Jerusalem.  It  may  well  be  that  he  visited  Joram 
from  Ramoth,  whither  he  had  gone  with  him  to 
the  war,  especially  as  it  was  not  so  far  from  there 
as  from  Jerusalem.     [j-|X  is  not  the  prep,  but  the 

case-sign  with  the  nominative;  D1V  is  therefore 
the  subject  of  Tp'1 ,  aud  not  Ahaziah,  as  it  is  com- 
monly understood  (see  Text,  and  Gramm.).  Aha- 
ziah did  not  go  to  Ramoth,  but  went  down  from 
Jerusalem  to  Jezreel. — W.  G.  S.] 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  history  of  the  reign  of  the  tioo  kings  of  Ju- 
dith, which  forms  a  consistent  whole,  does  not  in- 
terrupt the  flow  of  the  narrative,  as  might  at  first 
appear,  but  is  inserted  here  for  good  and  imperative 
reasons.  The  kingdom  of  Judah  had  kept  itself 
free  from  the  worship  of  the  calf  and  of  Baal, 
which  prevailed  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  until 
the  death  of  Jehoshaphat.  That  worship  was, 
however,  transplanted  to  Judah  by  the  marriage 
of  Jehoram,  the  son  and  successor  of  Jehosha- 
phat,  with  Athaliah,  the  daughter  of  Ahab  and 
Jezebel,  for  Athaliah  controlled  her  husband  Jeho- 
ram. and  his  son.  Ahaziah.  as  we  see  from  vers.  18 
and  27,  and  from  2  Chron.  xxi.  6  and  xxii.  3,  just 
as  Jezebel,  the  fanatical  idolatress,  controlled 
Ahab.     Though  the  guilt  of  the  house  of  Ahab, 


CHAPTER  VIII.  16-29. 


91 


which  persisted  in  its  evil  courses  in  spite  of  all 
the  testimonies  of  the  divine  grace,  and  in  spite  of 
all  the  exhortations  and  threats  of  the  prophets 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  was  already  great  enough,  it  be- 
came still  greater  and  heavier  by  the  extension  of 
the  apostasy  to  Judah.  Thus  the  measure  became 
full,  and  the  judgment  which  the  prophet  Elijah 
had  predicted,  the  utter  destruction  of  the  dynasty, 
was  brought  about.  It  was  inaugurated  by  Hazael, 
and  consummated  by  Jehu.  Joram  of  Israel  was 
defending  Ramoth  against  the  former  when  he  was 
wounded ;  he  was  brought  to  Jezreel  where  Jeze- 
bel was.  Ahaziah  of  Judah  came  thither  to  visit 
him  (by  an  especial  dispensation  of  Providence,  as 
2  Chron.  xxii.  7  expressly  states),  and  so  it  came 
to  pass  that  the  three  chief  representatives  of  the 
house  of  Ahab  were  present  at  one  and  the  same 
place.  At  this  time  now,  Jehu  was  elevated  to 
the  throne ;  he  hastened  to  Jezreel  and  killed  all 
three  of  them,  Joram,  Ahaziah,  and  Jezebel.  It 
was  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  history  of  Jeho- 
ram  and  Ahaziah  of  Judah  should  precede  chap, 
ix.,  which  tells  about  the  elevation  of  Jehu.  This 
also  explains  the  brevity  of  this  record  compared 
with  the  more  detailed  one  in  Chronicles.  The 
author  restricts  himself  to  those  details  which 
give  the  causes  and  the  explanation  of  the  judg- 
ment which  fell  upon  Joram  and  Ahaziah  by  the 
hand  of  Jehu.* 

2.  Jehoram  and  Ahaziah  were  the  first  kings 
of  Judah  under  whom  idolatry  was  not  only  tol- 
erated, but  formally  introduced  (2  Chron.  xxi.  11). 
The  book  of  Chronicles  contains  no  further  infor- 
mation than  is  here  given  in  regard  to  Ahaziah, 
who  did  not  reign  for  even  one  full  year.  What  ia 
there  stated  in  regard  to  Jehoram  shows  him  to  us 
as  one  of  the  wickedest  and  most  depraved  kings 
that  ever  reigned  in  Judah,  under  whom  the  na- 
tion not  only  sank  religiously,  but  also  politically 
came  near  to  ruin.  He  drove  it  by  force  to  idola- 
try (n Tl) ;  he  murdered  his  six  brothers,  and  other 

princes  besides;  the  Edomites  established  their 
independence  of  his  authority ;  the  Philistines  and 
Arabians  defeated  him,  and  carried  off  all  his 
treasures,  his  wives,  and  his  children ;  finally,  a 
horrible  disease  attacked  him,  which  lasted  two 
years,  when  he  at  length  died.  Schlier  [Die 
Konige  in  Israel,  s.  121  sq.)  asserts  in  regard  to 
him :  ':  It  was  oppressive  to  him  to  be  only  a  joint 
ruler ;  he  determined  to  cast  off  the  restraints  of  a 
correcting  and  warning  father.  So  he  sought  to 
accomplish  this  by  his  marriage.  He  murdered 
his  six  brothers,  who  were  better  than  himself, 
and  also  several  chiefs  who  stood  by  them,  and  he 
held  his  royal  father  in  captivity.  It  is  true  that 
he  scrupled  to  stain  his  hand  with  the  blood  of  his 
father,  and  that  he  left  him  still  the  title  of  king ; 
but  he  held  the  government,  from  this   time  on, 

•  [The  dynasty  of  Omri  and  its  connections  : 
Israel  Judah 

Omri  Ethbaal  of  Tyre         Jehoshaphat 

I  I 

Ahab  =  Jezebel" 

I 


I  I 

lAhaz4ah    'Joram' 


•  Killed  by  Jehu. 


tha 


Athallah  =  Jehurum 

Ahaziah  • 

I 

Joaih 


entirely  in  his  own  hands."  Of  all  these  facts,  with 
the  exception  of  the  murder  of  his  brothers  and  tha 
other  prominent  men,  there  is  not  a  word  in  the 
biblical  text.  They  are  all  pure  fictions,  to  the  \n- 
vention  of  which  the  author  is  led  by  assuming  as 
an  historical  certainty  that  Jehoshaphat  and  Jeho- 
ram ruled  together  for  seven  years.  After  making 
this  assumption  he  feels  justified  in  going  on  to  ex- 
plain the  circumstances  which  produced  this  state 
of  things,  and  especially  why,  after  five  years  of 
this  arrangement,  Jehoshaphat  should  have  retired 
entirely  from  the  government  for  the  last  two  years 
of  his  life.  [It  is  a  very  good  instance  of  the 
method  of  commenting  on  the  Scriptures  which 
consists  in  inventing  possible  combinations  in  or- 
der to  reconcile  apparently  inconsistent  statements, 
and  it  shows  what  comes  of  it.  It  is  often  under- 
taken in  a  false  idea  of  reverence  for  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  in  a  mistaken  desire  to  save  their  au- 
thority. It  is  clear  that  a  high  and  pure  conception 
of,  and  loyalty  to.  historical  truth,  must  be  aban- 
doned before  any  one  can  adopt  this  method  of 
interpretation.  The  statements  of  the  text  are  one 
thing,  and  the  inventions  of  the  commentator  are 
another.  Any  one  who  undertakes  this  work  must 
determine  beforehand  to  keep  the  distinction  be- 
tween  the  two  clearly  and  firmly  before  himself 
in  his  work,  ami  the  only  sound  method  of  inter- 
pretation  is  to  cling  to  the  text  and  leave  inven- 
tions aside.  The  notion  of  a  joint  government  is  a 
purr  fiction,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  any  one 
who  adopts  it  should  not  go  farther,  and  invent  fic- 
titious causes,  occasions,  and  other  details  to  ac- 
count for  it. — W.  G.  S.]  The  asserted  facts  fall  to 
the  ground  with  the  false  assumption  on  which 
they  are  built.  The  facts  which  are  given  in  the 
documents  are  more  than  sufficient  in  themselves 
to  establish  the  depravity  of  Jehoram.  His  wick- 
edness is  explained,  since  his  father  was  one  of 
the  best  and  most  pious  kings  of  Israel,  by  the  in- 
rluence  of  his  wife,  and  by  his  connection  with  thu 
house  of  Ahab.  In  his  history  and  that  of  Aha- 
ziah we  have  a  terrible  example  of  the  way  in 
which  one  had  woman  (Jezebel)  can  radically  cor- 
rupt entire  dynasties  and  entire  states,  and  of  the 
curse  which  rests  upon  matrimonial  connections 
which  are  only  formed  in  order  to  attain  political 
objects  (see  above,  1  Kings  xxii.  Hist.  §  1). 


HOMILETICAL  AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  16-29.  Jehoram  and  his  son  Ahaziah. 
(a)  The  way  in  which  both  walked  (18-27);  (b) 
how  they  came  to  choose  this  way  (18-27);  (<;) 
whither  they  were  brought  by  it  (vers.  20-22,  28, 
29;  see  a\so  Hislor.  §  2). — The  Spirit  of  the  House 
of  Ahab  :  (a)  Perversion  of  all  divine  and  human 
ordinances.  Wicked  and  corrupt  women  set  the 
tone,  and  ruled  over  their  weak  husbands;  (b)  im- 
morality, licentiousness,  murder,  and  tyranny  (2 
Chron.  xxi.  4,  6,  11);  (c)  contempt,  on  the  one 
hand,  for  the  richness  of  God's  long-suffering  and 
goodness,  and,  on  the  other,  for  the  warnings  of 
God's  judgments  and  chastisements.  What  a  dif- 
ferent spirit  animated  the  household  of  a  Corne- 
lius (Acts  x.  2 1,  of  a  Crispus  (Acts  xviii.  8),  of  the 
jailer  at  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  34)  I  Cf.  Prov.  xiv. 
11 ;  xii.  7;  Ps.  xxv.  2  aud  3. — The  Importance  of 
Family  Relationships:  (a)  The  great  influence 
which  they  exert.     (They  necessarily  bring  about 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


relationship  in  spirit  and  feeling ;  they  work  gradu- 
ally, but  mightily;  one  member  of  the  connection 
draws  another  with  him,  either  to  good  or  to  evil. 
Tn  spite  of  their  pious  father  and  grandfather,  Je- 
ooram  and  Ahaziah  were  tainted  by  the  apostasy 
of  the  house  of  Ahab  (vers.  18,  27).  How  many 
are  not  able  to  resist  the  evil  influences  of  these 
connections,  and  therefore  make  shipwreck  of 
their  faith,  and  are  either  drawD  into  open  sin  and 
godlessness,  or  are  transformed  into  a  superficial, 
thoughtless,  and  worldly  character,  (b)  The  duty 
which  therefore  devolves  upon  us.  (The  calami- 
ties which  even  the  pious  Jehoshaphat  brought 
upon  his  house,  nay,  even  upon  his  country,  arose 
from  the  fact  that  he  gave  the  daughter  of  Ahab 
ami  Jezebel  to  his  son,  as  a  wife,  and  did  not  bear 
in  mind  that  relationships  which  do  not  rest  upon 
the  word  and  commandment  of  God  bring  discon- 
tent and  ruin.  Therefore  beware  of  entering  into 
relationships  which  lack  the  bond  of  faith  and 
unity  of  spirit,  however  grand  or  advantageous 
externally  they  may  seem  to  be.  Do  not,  by  such 
connections,  transplant  the  Ahab  and  Jezebel  spirit 
into  your  house,  for  it  eats  like  a  cancer,  and  cor- 
rupts and  destroys  to  the  very  heart.}— Yer.  19. 
Behold  the  faithfulness  of  God,  who,  for  the  sake 
of  the  fidelity  of  the  father,  chastises  indeed  the 
son,  but  yet  will  not  utterly  destroy  him. — Cra- 
mer: God  will  sustain  his  Church  (kingdom)  until 
the  end  of  the  world,  in  order  that  a  holy  leaven 
may  remain,  no  matter  how  many  may  be  found 
who  scoff  at  His  promise  to  sustain  His  Church. — 
Ver.  20.     God  punishes  infidelity  to  himself  by 


means  of  the  infidelity  of  men  to  one  another. — 
Cramer:  If  we  do  not  keep  faith  with  God,  theo 
people  must  not  keep  faith  with  us.  By  means  of 
insurrection  God  punishes  the  sins  of  sovereigns, 
and  dissolves  the  authority  of  kings  (cf.  Job  xii 
IS). — Ver.  26.  Calw.  Bib.  :  It  is  a  horrible  thing 
when  not  merely  relatives,  but  even  a  mother  in- 
stigates to  evil. — Yer.  28.  Cramer  :  Have  no  deal- 
ings with  a  fool-hardy  man,  for  he  undertakes  what 
his  own  mind  dictates,  and  you  will  have-to  suffer 
the  consequences  with  him  (Sirach  viii.  18). — Yer. 
29.  Calw.  Bib.  :  As  he  so  gladly  joined  himself  to 
Ahab's  family,  and  was  so  fond  of  spending  his 
time  with  them,  there  it  was,  by  the  ordering  of 
Providence,  that  he  met  his  end.  Those  who,  by 
their  hostility  to  the  Lord,  belong  together,  must 
come  together,  according  to  God's  just  decree,  that 
they  may  perish  together.  Jehoram  was  so  anx- 
ious to  be  healed  of  the  bodily  wound  which  the 
Syrians  had  given  him,  that  he  left  the  army  and 
returned  to  Jezreel ;  but  the  wounds  of  his  soul, 
which  he  had  inflicted  upon  himself,  caused  him 
no  trouble,  and  did  not  lead  him  back,  as  they 
should  have  done,  to  Him  who  promised :  "  I  will 
restore  health  unto  thee,  and  I  will  heal  thee  of 
thy  wounds"  (Jerem.  xxx.  17).  The  children  of 
this  world  visit  one  another  when  they  are  ill ; 
they  do  it,  however,  not  in  order  to  console  the 
sick  one  with  the  Word  of  Life,  and  to  advance 
God's  purpose  in  afflicting  him,  but  from  natural 
love,  from  relationship,  or  other  external  reasons. 
Their  visits  cannot,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  Chris- 
tian work. 


B. — Jehu's  Elevation  to  the  Throne  of  Israel. 
Chap.  IX.  1-37.     [2  Chbon.  XXII.  7-9.] 


1  And  Elisha  the  prophet  called  one  of  the  children  of  the  prophets  [prophet- 
disciples],  and  said  unto  him,  Gird  up  thy  loins,  and  take  this  box  [vial] '  of  oil 

2  in  thine  hand,  and  go  to  Ramoth-gilead :  And  when  thou  coraest  thither,  look 
out  there  Jehu  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Nimshi,  and  go  in,  and  make 
him  arise  up  from  among  his  brethren,  and  carry  [lead]  him  to  an  inner  cham- 

3  ber  ;  Then  take  the  box  [vial]  of  oil,  and  pour  it  on  his  head,  and  say,  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  I  have  anointed  [I  anoint]  thee  king  over  Israel.  Then  open  the  door, 
and  flee,  and  tarry  not. 

So  the  young  man,  even  the  young  man  [the  servant  of]  *  the  prophet,  went 
to  Ramoth-gilead.  And  when  he  came,  behold,  the  captains  of  the  host  were 
sitting ;  and  he  said,  I  have  an  errand  to  thee,  O  captain.  And  Jehu  said,  Unto 
which  of  all  us  ?  And  he  said,  To  thee,  O  captain.  And  he  arose,  and  went  into 
the  house ;  and  he  poured  the  oil  on  his  head,  and  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel,  I  have  anointed  [I  anoint]  thee  king  over  the  people  of  the 
Lord,  even  over  Israel.  And  thou  shalt  smite  the  house  of  Ahab  thy  master, 
that  I  may  avenge  the  blood  of  my  servants  the  prophets,  and  the  blood  of  all 
the  servants  of  the  Lord,  at  the  hand  of  Jezebel.  For  [omit  for]  The  whole 
house  of  Ahab  shall  perish  ;  and  I  will  cut  off  from  Ahab  him  that  pisseth 
against  the  wall,  and  him  that  is  shut  up  and  left  [both  him  that  is  of  age  and 
9  him  that  is  not  of  age]  in  Israel:  and  I  will  make  the  house  of  Ahab  like  the 
house  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  and  like  the  house  of  Baasha  the  son  of 


8 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-37.  93 

10  Abijah  and  the  dogs  sball  eat  Jezebel  in  tbe  portion  [purlieus]  '  of  Jezreel 
and  there  shall  be  none  to  bury  her.     And  he  opened  the  door,  and  fled. 

11  Then  Jehu  came  forth  to  tbe  servants  of  his  lord  :  and  one  said  unto  him,  It 
all  well  ?  wherefore  came  this  mad  fellow  to  thee  ?     And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye 

12  know  the  man,  and  bis  communication  [secret].  And  they  said,  It  is  false  ;  tell 
us  now.     And  he  said,  Thus  and  thus  spake  be  to  me,  saying,  Thus  saitb  tbe 

13  Lord,  I  have  anointed  [I  anoint]  thee  king  over  Israel.  Then  they  hasted,  and 
took  every  man  his  garment,  and  put  ftunder  him  [^e*«]  on  the  top  of  the  stairs 

14  [bare  steps],'  and  blew  with  trumpets,  saying,  Jehu  is  king.  So  Jehu  the  son 
of  Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Nimshi  conspired  against  Joram.  (Now  Joram  had 
kept  [defended]  Kamoth-gilead,  he  and  all  Israel,  because  of  [against]  Hazael 

15  king  of  Syria :  but  king  Joram  was  returned  to  be  healed  in  Jezreel  of  the 
wounds  which  the  Syrians  had  given  him,  when  he  fought  with  Hazael  king  of 
Syria.)    And  Jehu  said,  If  it  be  your  minds,  then  let  none  [no  fugitive]  go  forth 

16  nor  escape  [omit  nor  escape]  out  of  the  city  to  go  to  tell  it  in  Jezreel.  So  Jehu 
rode  in  a  chariot,  and  went  to  Jezreel;  for  Joram  lay  there.    And  Abaziab  king 

17  cf  Judab  was  come  down  to  see  Joram.  And  there  stood  a  watchman  on  the 
tower  in  Jezreel,  and  he  spied  the  company  of  Jehu  as  he  came,  and  said,  I  see 
a  company.6     And  Joram  said,  Take  a  horseman,  and  send  to  meet  them,  and 

18  let  him  say,  Is  it  peace  [Is  all  well]?  So  there  went  one  on  horseback  to  meet 
him,  and  said,  Thus  saitb  the  king,  Is  it  peace  [Is  all  well]  ?  And  Jehu  said, 
What  hast  thou  to  do  with  peace  [well  or  ill]  ?  turn  thee  behind  me.  And  the 
watchman  told,  saying,  The  messenger  came  to  them,  but  he  cometh  not  again. 

19  Then  be  sent  out  a  second  on  horseback,  which  came  to  them,  and  said,  Thus 
saitb  the  king,  Is  it  peace  [Is  all  well]?     And  Jehu  answered,  What  hast  thou 

20  to  do  with  peace  [well  or  ill]'?  turn  thee  behind  me.  And  the  watchman  told, 
saying,  He  came  even  unto  them,  and  cometh  not  again:  and  the  driving  is  like 

21  the  driving  of  Jehu  the  son  of  Nimshi ;  for  he  driveth  furiously.  And  Joram 
said,  Make  ready.  And  his  chariot  was  made  ready.  And  Joram  king  of  Israel 
and  Ahaziah  king  of  Judab  went  out,  each  in  his  chariot,  and  they- went  out 
against  [to  meet]  Jehu,  and  met  him  in  the  portion  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite. 

22  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Joram  saw  Jehu,  that  he  said,  Is  it  peace  [Is  all 
well],  Jehu?     And  he  answered,   What  peace  [is  well],  so  long  as  the  whore- 

23  doms  of  thy  mother  Jezebel  and  her  witchcrafts  [sorceries]  are  so  many  ?  And 
Joram  turned  his  hands,  and   fled,  and   said  to  Ahaziah,    There  is   treachery, 

24  [Treachery  !]   O  Ahaziah.     And  Jehu  drew  [took]  "  a  bow  with  his  full  strength 

in  bis  hand]  and  smote  Jehoram  between  bis  arms,  and  tbe  arrow  went  out  at 

25  his  heart,  and  he  sunk  down  in  his  chariot.  Then  said  Jehu  to  Bidkar  his  cap- 
tain [lieutenant],  Take  up,  and  cast  him  in  the  portion  of  tbe  field  of  Naboth 
the  Jezreelite  :  for  remember  how  that,  when  I  and  thou'  rode  together  [two 
by  two]  after  Abab  his  father,  tbe  Lord  laid  this  burden  [passed  this  sentence] 

26  upon  him  ;  Surely  I  have  seen  yesterday  the  blood  of  Naboth,  and  the  blood 
of  his  sons,  saith  the  Lord ;  and  I  will  requite  thee  in  this  plat,  saith  the  Lord. 
Now  therefore  take  and  cast  him  into  the  plat  of  ground,  according  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord. 

27  But  when  Ahaziah  the  king  of  Judah  saw  this,  he  fled  by  the  way  of  the 
garden  house.  And  Jehu  followed  after  him,  and  said,  Smite  him  also  [Him 
also  !  Smite  him]  "  in  the  chariot.    And  they  did  so  at  the  going  up  to  Gur,  which 

28  is  by  Ibleam.  And  he  fled  to  Megiddo,  and  died  there.  And  his  servants  car- 
ried him  in  a  chariot  to  Jerusalem,  and   buried  him  in  his  sepulchre  with  his 

29  fathers  in  the  city  of  David.  And  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Joram  the  son  of 
Ahab  began  Ahaziah  to  reign  over  Judah. 

30  And  when  Jehu  was  come  to  Jezreel,  Jezebel  heard  of  it  ;  and  she  painted 

31  her  face  [eyelids],  and  tired  her  head,  and  looked  out  at  a  window.  And  as 
Jehu  entered  in  at  the  gate,  she  said,  Had  Zimri  peace,  who  slew  his  master 

32  [Hail!  thou  Zimri,  murderer  of  his  master  !]  ?  And  be  lifted  up  his  face  to  the 
window,  and  said,  Who  is  on  my  side  ?  who?   And  there  looked  out  to  him  two 

13  or  three  eunuchs.     And  he  said,  Throw  her  down.     So  they  threw  her  down  ; 


94 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


and  some  of  her  blood  was   sprinkled  on  the  wall,  and  on  the  horses :   anc  ho 

34  trode  her  under  foot.  And  when  he  was  come  in,  he  did  eat  and  drink,  and 
said,  Go,  see  now  [to]  this  cursed  woman,  and   bury  her :  for  she   is  a  king'* 

35  daughter.     And   they  went  to  bury  her:  but  they  found  no  more  of  her  than 

36  the  skull,  and  the  feet,  and  the  palms  of  her  hands.  "Wherefore  they  came  again, 
and  told  him.  And  he  said,  This  is  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake  by  hie 
servant  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  saying,  In  the  portion    [purlieus]   of  Jezreel   shall 

87  dogs  eat  the  flesh  of  Jezebel.  And  the  carcass  of  Jezebel  shall  be  as  dung  upon 
the  face  of  the  field  in  the  portion  [purlieus]  of  Jezreel ;  [so]  [so]  that  they  shall 
not  say,  This  is  Jezebel. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1.— [iDBfrl  7|S  ,  1  Sam.  i.  1,  here,  and  in  ver.  8. 

a  Ver.  4. — [The  article  is  used  with  the  second  ""IVJ  in  the  stat.  const,  to  giye  it  definite  reference  back  to  the  first  on*. 
Kw.  $  290,  d.  S.     Cf.  chap.  vii.  13. 

3  Ver.  10. — [On  pPfl  see  1  Kings  xxi.  28,  where  ?n  occurs  nearly  in  the  same  meaning,     pi!  is  the  moat  or  ditch  just 

outside  the  wall,  with  the  adjacent  strip  of  country,  ppll  has  a  wider  application  to  the  district  on  which  the  city  is  built, 
including  the  strip  of  country  just  outside  the  wall.  In  a  walled  city  this  latter  place  is  always  a  place  of  deposit  for 
rubbish  and  offal.     Hence  the  degradation  involved  in  the  fate  prophesied  for  her. 

4  Ver.  18.— [The  words  D  vJHSn   D13  are  very  obscure.    No  better  meaning  is  suggested  than  this,  that  they  spread 

their  over-garments  directly  upon  the  stairs,  and  so  formed  something  resembling  the  covered  scaffolding  on  which  tb« 
king  presented  himself  to  the  people,  and  received  their  homage. 

6  Ver.  IT.— [The  second  DISC  is  in  the  case  absolute.    Ew.  $  1T3  d.     Cf.  JVn  Ps.  lxsiv.  19. 

c  Ver.  24.— [nL"p3  IT   N?D  >  word  for  word,  "  filled  his  hand  with  a  bow,"  i.  «.,  made  ready  an  arrow. 

7  Ver.  25.— pON  and  HJIX  are  accusatives  after  "13T  •  "  Remember  me  and  thee  riding."  The  E.  V.  is  a  smooth  afid 
oorreet  rendering  of  it.  DHtDi* ',  "  together"  would  be  a  correct  rendering  of  it,  but  the  word  suggests  that  they  were 
together,  one  pair  in  a  retinue  which  was  formed  two  by  two. 

8  Ver.  2T.— [This  is  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  as  it  stands.  It  seems  necessary,  however,  to  correct  the  text,  (a) 
We  n.ay  insert  t]n351  after  ^DSD  =  "  Smite  him  also  1  and  they  smote  him  in  the  chariot."    This  is  Bahr's  emendation, 

following  Ewald  and  others  (see  Exeg.  on  the  verse).  (o)  We  may  read  in3_sl  forin3H  and  translate:  "  Him  alsol  So 
they  smote  him  in  the  chariot."  This  gives  the  same  sense,  but  "  Him  also  I  "  stands  as  a  short  exclamatory  com  mand. 
(c)  Thenius  takes  these  words  in  this  way,  but  then  (following  the  Sept.)  he  conjectures  lillZW  forin3il  =  "And  he 

smote  him."  It  is  very  tame  to  make  Jehu  utter  this  exclamation  merely  as  such,  not  as  a  command,  and  then  shoot  the 
king  himself.    The  second  emendation  is  the  best. — W.  G  S.] 


EXEGETICAL  AMD  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  AndElisha  called  one  of  the  proph- 
et-disciples, &c.  Elisha  was  undoubtedly  at  this 
time  in  Samaria,  where  his  residence  was.  The 
prophet-disciple,  to  whom  he  gave  this  commission, 
may  have  stood  to  him  in  the  same  relation  in  which 
he  once  stood  to  Elijah.  It  is  an  unfounded  sup- 
position of  several  of  the  rabbis  that  it  was  the 
prophet  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai  [chap.  xiv.  25]. 
—To  Ramoth:  see  chap.  viii.  28. — It  is  not  stated 
anywhere  to  what  tribe  Jehu  belonged.  It  is  very 
probable  that  he,  as  the  most  able  of  the  generals, 
had  received  the  Bupreme  command  on  the  depart- 
ure of  Joram,  as  Josephus  states. — Ver.  2.  And 
go  in:  i.  e.,  into  the  house  in  which  he  dweiis,  as 

is  clear  from  ver.  6  (njV3n),  and  from  the  words : 

to  an  inner  chamber  (see  note  on  1  Kings  x.x.  30). 
Jehu  with  his  army  was  not,  therefore,  in  camp 
before  Ramoth  besieging  it,  but  in  the  city  itself 
defending  il  (see  note  on  viii.  28).  [No  mention  is 
made  anywhere  of  any  hostilities  between  Israel 
and  Syria,  from  the  death  of  Ahab  until  this  time, 
m  which  tin-  city  of  Ramoth  could  have  changed 
.lands.  It  is  clear  that  the  representation  through- 
3u t  this  chapter  is,  that  the  Israelites  were  in  pos- 
session of  tin-  oily.  It  may,  therefore,  be  inferred 
with  considerable  certainty  that  they  had  sue- 
ceeded  in  taking  it  in  this  war  either  in  the  assault 


in  which  Joram  was  wounded,  or  in  some  previous 
one.  If  Joram  had  gained  this  important  victory 
for  them,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  army  would 
have  been  in  a  disposition  to  see  him  deposed  by 
any  one  else.  The  inference  is  that,  in  the  battle,  he 
had  not  conducted  himself  well,  and  that  Jehu's 
talents  had  shone  by  comparison.  It  would  be 
quite  consistent  with  the  character  of  each  as  it 
appears  to  us  elsewhere.  Moreover,  we  see  from 
ver.  2 1  that  Joram  was  already  so  far  recovered  as 
to  be  able  to  go  out  in  his  chariot  to  meet  Jehu. 
Yet  he  had  not  rejoined  his  army.  This  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  he  had  made  much  of  a  slight 
wound,  and  that  he  was  shirking  the  hardships  of 
the  war.  Putting  all  this  together,  we  can  under- 
stand that  the  feeling  of  the  army  towards  the  king 
was  that  of  contempt,  and  towards  Jehu  that  of 
admiration  and  respect,  and  the  sudden  and  com- 
plete success  of  the  revolution  is  not  then  difficult 
to  understand. — W.  G.  S.]  The  prophet-disciple 
entered  the  house,  in  the  court  of  which  the  gen 
erals  were  sitting  together,  perhaps  holding  a  conn 
oil  of  war.  John  was  to  be  anointed  privately,  and 
the  fact  was  for  a  time  to  be  kept  secret. — Ver.  3. 
And  tarry  not:  that  no  questions  might  be  asked 
and  "that  lie  might  not  be  involved  in  affairs  with 
which  ho  was  not  competent  to  deal "  (Von  Ger 

laehl;    .Insi  ■plius  :    U7T6H     ?  6  i1  >J   ~til'?ur  tutnhf  aiU&V 

Il  was  not,  therefore,  in   order   that   he   might  es- 
cape  the  danger  of  beino  cajetured    bv  the  fnendl 


CHAPTER  IX.  1-37. 


96 


af  Joram  (Theodoret,  Clericus). — Ver.  6.  I  have 
anointed  thee ;  see  above,  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xix. 
16.— On  vers.  7-10  see  notes  on   1  Kings  xiv.  10;  I 

xvi.  3,  4;  xviii.  4;  xix.  10;  xxi.  2\$q.    On  p^n I  see  ■ 

note  on   1  Kings  xxi.  23  [and  note  on  this  verse  . 
under  Textual  and  Grammatical], 

Ver.   11.    Then   Jehu  came  forth,  &c.     The 

question  Di^tvn  occurs,  in  this  chapter,  six  times, 

and  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  have  a  difl'erent 
sense  in  each  case.  As  it  evidently  stands  in  op- 
position to  "  strife  "  or  "  hostility  "  in  vers.  17,  18. 
22,  and  31,  it  must  also  be  translated  in  its  origi- 
nal meaning  in  ver.  11,  "Is  it  peace?"  and  not; 
rectene  sunt  omnia  f  (Vulg.);  or  Stehet  es  wohl  (is 
all  well)  ?  (Luther).  Cf.  1  Kings  ii.  13.  [Nearly 
all  the  commentators  agree  with  the  opinion  here 

advocated,  and  translate  "Is  it  peace?"  DvL" 
unquestionably  meant,  originally  and  etymologi- 
cally,  welfare,  salus.  It  is  often  used  generally, 
not  in  any  special  formula,  for  "  peace."  As  a 
formula  of  salutation,  however,  its  etymological 
signification  was  entirely  lost,  as  much  as  in  our 
own  "  good-bye,"  the  etymological  meaning  of 
which  we  very  seldom  have  in  mind  when  we  use  it. 
As  a  question  it  is  destitute  of  intrinsic  meaning. 
It  merely  asks,  "What  is  the  news  you  bring?" 
In  form  only  it  asks,  "  Is  it  good  news  ?  "  "  Is  all 
well  ?  "  Every  language  presents  similar  exam- 
ples of  current  formulae  and  words  which  have 
lost  their  etymological  significance.  Our  own  word 
"well"  is  a  good  instance,  particularly  in  collo- 
quial usage,  where  it  often  is  almost  meaningless, 
and  where  it  often  implies  anything  but  approval 
of  what  has  preceded.  The  inflection  of  the  voice 
here  carries  all  the  significance.  A  similar  instance 
occurs  in  this  chapter.  In  ver.  26  Jehu  quotes  the 
sentence  of  God  upon  Ahab,  beginning  with  the 

words  x?  DX  •    This  is  the  formula  for  an  oath,  and 

an  ellipsis  is  necessary  to  explain  the  form.  This 
consists  of  an  imprecation  upon  the  speaker  by  him- 
self. "  If  I  did  not  see — then  may — &c."  As  The- 
nius  well  remarks,  we  cannot  believe  that  the  ori- 
gin ef  this  formula  could  have  been  present  to  the 
mind  of  Jehu,  or  that  he  could  have  thought  of  the 
alternate,  omitted,  phrase,  when  he  represented 
God  as  having  spoken  in  these  words.  The  alter- 
native was  utterly  lost  sight  of,  and  N?  DX  meant 
simply   "  verily,"  as  a  strong  affirmation. — DvC'H 

therefore  is  simply  a  salutation  which  calls  upon 
the  person  addressed  to  tell  the  news,  or  his  mes- 
sage. So  in  ver.  11  it  might  be  translated  :  "  Well  ? 
Wherefore  came,"  &c.  In  vers.  17  and  IS  it  has 
the  same  meaning,  but  Jehu  plays  upon  it  by  using 
it  in  its  strict  meaning  in  his  reply  (see  the  amended 
translation).  In  ver.  22  this  is  still  more  evident. 
In  ver.  31  Jezebel  uses  it  as  the  regular  conven- 
tional salutation,  with  which  to  address  her  insult- 
ing and  defiant  words  to  Jehu.  To  make  it  mean 
in  vers.  17,  18,  22,  "  Is  there  peace  ?  "  i.  e.,  do  you 
come  with  hostile  or  peaceful  intent  towards  me  ? 
is  to  ascribe  to  the  king  a  suspicion,  first  of  the 
unknown  party  which  is  approaching,  and  after- 
wards of  Jehu.  If  he  had  been  suspicious  that  it 
was  an  enemy  he  would  not  have  sent  out  one 
man ;  if  he  had  been  suspicious  of  Jehu,  he  would 
not  have  g'ne  down  himself,   and,  as  it  seems, 


without  guards,  to  meet  him.  Finally,  ver.  23  show« 
that  he  did  not  suspect  anything  un.il  he  heard 
Jehu's  answer,  which  was  a  bokl  condemnation 
of  Jezebel.  Then  he  recognized  treachery,  and, 
as  soon  as  he  did,  he  endeavored  to  escape.  To 
send  out  a  man  to  meet  the  coming  troop  and  "  say 

Dl7K*n,"  was.  therefore,  simply  to  send  him  out  to 
salute  them  and  inquire  what  w'as  the  inlelligenco 
they  brought.  When  Jehu  was  recognized,  the 
same  message  was  sent  to  him  ((/.  chap.  x.  13). 
Finally,  the  king  went  to  ask  for  himself.  The  only 
news  which  he  expected  was  news  about  the  war.  When 
the  commander-in-chief  came  riding  in  hot  haste 
towards  the  capital,  news,  either  of  a  great  victory 
or  an  overwhelming  defeat,  was  to  be  expected. 
As  for  hostility  from  the  approaching  party  before 
ir  was  recognized,  or  from  Jehu  after  he  was  recog- 
nized, there  was  no  thought  of  it,  until  Jehu's  an- 
swer, in  ver.  23,  revealed  it  all  at  once  as  openly 
declared. — W.  G.  S.]  The  generals  put  this  in- 
quiry, not  because  "  they  feared  the  madman  might 
have  done  him  some  harm  "  (Ewald),  but  because 
they  inferred,  from  the  haste  with  which  the 
prophet-disciple  departed,  that  he  had  brought  im- 
portant intelligence,  perhaps  bad  news,  about  the 
war  with  Syria  (Thenius).  Their  further  question " 
Wherefore  came  this  JlJC'tSn  to  thee?  is  gen- 
erally understood  as  the  mocking  and  contemptu- 
ous speech  of  rude  soldiers  about  a  prophet.  The 
Hebrew  word  is  then  understood  to  mean  a  mad- 
man or  rhapsodist.  It  is  certain,  however,  thai 
these  soldiers,  who  were  expecting  important  and 
perhaps  discouraging  intelligence  in  regard  to  the 
war.  were  not  in  a  disposition  to  scoff  at  prophets. 
ll  i  Lev  had  taken  the  prophet  for  a  madman,  they 
would  not,  when  Jehu  made  known  to  them  (ver. 
12)  the  object  for  which  he  came,  have  taken  the 
extraordinary  step  they  did,  without  consideration 
or  delay,  and  made  Jehu  king,  on  the  word  of  a 
fanatic.  In  ver.  20  it  is  said  of  Jehu  himself : 
"He  driveth  ;ij?3t;'3,"  whereby  it  is  not  meant  to 

be  said  that  he  was  a  crazy  man,  a  lunatic,  or  a  fa- 
natic, but  that  he  was  a  man  of  fierce  and  violent 
temper  (Vatablus,  following  the  Syriac,  translates 
prcucipitanter).  In  Arabic  jjjt."  means  to  be  bold, 
rash,  wild  (see  Ges.  Diet.,  s.  v.).  The  generals 
meant  to  say,  therefore,  that  the  wild  behavior  of 
the  man,  who  had  come  and  gone  without  saying 
a  word  to  any  one,  had  struck  them.  They 
thought  that  his  conduct  indicated  some  extraor- 
dinary intelligence,  and  they  wanted  to  know 
what  it  w7as.  Jehu  at  first  gives  them  an  eva- 
sive answer:  Ye  know  the  man  and  his 
n't-".     This  word  does  not  mean  "his   speech  or 

words  "  (Ges.,  De  Wette,  and  Luther,  who  follows 
the  Vulg. :  et  quid  locutus  sit) ;  nor,  "  his  babble  " 
(Junius.  Koster,  and  Philippson,  who  follows  the 
Sept.  a6olsry\ia),  for  the  word  does  not  occur  any- 
where in  this  sense.  Neither  does  Jehu  connect 
with  his  words  the  meaning:  "Ye  yourselves 
have  sent  this  prophet  to  me,  in  order  to  give  roe 
courage  to  carry  out  the  plan  which  ye  have 
formed  (Derescr  following  Seb.  Smith,  J.  D.  Mi 
chaelis),  nor  this  meaning :  "  Ye  know  the  man  and 
what  lie  said  to  me ;  ye  yourselves  are  at  the  bot- 
tom of  this  jest,  for  ye  it  was  who  planned  the 
farce "  (Krummacher).  Jehu  could  not  have 
meant  this,  for  he  knew  that  the  plan  or  jest  had 
not  originated  with  the  generals,  and  his  answer 


96 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


would  not  then  have  been  an  evasive  one.  No 
less  incorrect  is  the  explanation  of  Cornelius  a 
Lapide,  whom  Keil  follows:  Xottis,  eum  insanum 
esse  ac  proinde  insana  loquitur,  ideoque  non  oredenda, 
nee  a  me  narranda,  for  JV&  is  no  synonym  of  JJX'\ 

Finally,  we  cannot  translate  it  with  Bunsen  and 
Thenius,  "  his  disposition :  "  "  Ye  should  be  ac- 
customed to  his  disposition,  since  ye  have  often 
seen  him  before.''  The  word  is  rather  to  be  taken 
here  in  the  same  sense  as  in  I  Kings  xviii.  27,  i.  e., 
medifatio,  absorption  in  thought;  so  that,  in  other 
places,  it  stands  for  every  deep  agitation  of  the 
soul :  rancor,  sorrow,  or  dissatisfaction  (Ps.  liv.  2  ; 
cii.  1;  cxlii.  2;  Job  vii.  13),  and  in  1  Sam.  i.  16  it 
stands  as  synonym  to  DM.     Jehu  means  to  say: 

The  conduct  of  this  man  ought  not  to  astonish 
you ;  he  was  lost  in  thought,  as  prophets  are  wont 
to  be ;  therefore  he  did  not  enter  into  conversa  t  ion 
with  any  one,  and  departed  as  hastily  as  he  came. 
[It  must  be  apparent  that  the  epithet  JJJ'C'O ,  as  it 

is  correctly  explained  above,  is  not  a  proper  epi- 
thet for  a  man  who  is  lost  in  meditation.  Wild- 
ness  of  behavior  is  in  general  inconsistent  with 
meditation.     Moreover,  as  above  stated  (note  on 

ver.  11),  it  is  an  error  to  take  DlivjVI  to  mean  "Is 
there  peace  ?  "  and  then  to  suppose  that  these  sol- 
diers asked  the  question  with  reference  to  the  war 
with  Syria.  How  should  they  ask  whether  there 
was  peace  with  Syria,  when  they  were  there  on 
purpose  to  make  war  with  that  country  ?  or  how 
should  they  expect  that  this  prophet  could  bring 
intelligence  which  was  to  decide  that  point  ?  The 
prophet  came  from  home,  from  Israel,  and  al- 
though his  message  might  ultimately  bear  upon 
the  continuance  of  the  war  with  Syria,  the  natural 
expectation  would  be  that  lie  brought  news  from 
Israel,  whence  he  came.  They  asked  in  general 
what  the  news  was  which  he  brought.  The  epi- 
thet which  they  applied  need  not  be  pressed  so 
far  as  to  make  them  guilty  of  any  intentional  dis- 
respect to  a  prophet.  He  was  wild  in  his  beha- 
vior, and  they  called  him  carelessly  a  "  mad  fel- 
low." The  tone  and  meaning  could  hardly  be 
better  given  in  English.  Jehu's  reply  is  best  un- 
derstood as  an  attempt  to  sound  them.  He  ap- 
pears in  chap.  x.  distinctly  in  the  character  of  a 
crafty  man.  So  here ;  he  is  in  doubt  whether  the 
prophet  has  been  instigated  by  his  fellow-com- 
mauders  to  do  this  thing,  because  they  hesitated 
to  make  an  outspoken  proposition  of  rebellion  to 
him.  He  charges  them  with  having  plotted  this, 
as  a  means  of  inducing  him  to  rebel.     Yt  know 

the  man,  and  the  errand  he  had.     n't?  occurs  very 

frequently  in  the  sense  of  "complaint,"  a  deep- 
seated  subject  of  anxiety.  It  is  used  here  of  the 
business  or  com  nunication  whieli  the  prophet 
brought  deeply  hidden  in  his  heart — the  deep  plot 
whirl,  had  been  the  result  of  long  meditation.  To 
this  interpretation  of  ver.  11,  npir,  "it  is  a  lie," 

in  ver.  12,  answers  well.  They  deny  the  charge. 
— W.  G.  S.]  The  generals  notice  that  Jehu  is 
trying  to  evade  them,  and,  as  he  is  not  able  to 
conceal  his  agitation  entirely,  they  are  only  the 
more  urgent.     They  reply  :  ipw,  i.  e.,  not:  "That 

is  not  true!"  (Luther,  Keil),  or:  "A  lie  1 "  (De 
Wette),  but,  "  Deceit  1 "  (1  Sam.  xxv.  21;  Jerem. 
iii.  2:i).  Thenius:   "Nonseusel  thou  desirest  to  es- 


cape us."  Thereupon  Jehu  cannot  help  himsell 
any  longer;  he  tells  them  plainly  what  has  hap- 
pened. Niemeyer's  interpretation :  "  It  is  true 
that  he  (this  man)  does  not  always  tell  the  truth, 
yet  tell  us  what  he  said,"  is  certainly  false. 

Vers.  13.  Then  they  hasted  and  took  every 
man  his  garment.  The  immediate  and  joyful 
homage  to  the  general  shows,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  they  were  far  from  scoffing  at  the  prophet, 
or  regarding  him  as  a  crazy  man  or  a  mere  fanatic, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  a  deep  dissatisfaction  with 
Joram  and  the  house  of  Ahab  prevailed  in  the 
army,   while  Jehu  stood  in  high  esteem.     The 

words  rivytsri  D13"?X  have  been  understood  in 

many  different  ways.     Generally  enj  is  taken  in 

the  sense  of  its  synonym  qvj;  ,  '•  self,"  and  the 

clause  is  translated:  "upon  the  stairs  them- 
selves," i.  e.,  upon  the  bare  steps  (Kimchi,  whom 
Keil  follows) ;  but  the  word  scarcely  has  this  sig- 
nification except  in  connection  with  personal  pro- 
nouns. Still  less  can  we  approve  the  translation 
of  Grotius.  Clericus,  and  others:  in  fastir/io  gra- 

duum,  for   mj  never   means  the  top  or  summit. 

Thenius  believes  that  D"I3  is  written  for  D^S,  as 

the  Vulg.  shows :  in  similitudinem  tribunalis.  He 
translates :  "  As  a  representation  of  (or  make-shift 
for)  the  (necessary)  scaffolding  [by  mounting  upon 
which  to  show  himself  to  the  people  and  receive 
their  homage,  a  king  was  inaugurated],  Jehu 
stepped  up  upon  the  piled-up  garments."  But,  to 
say  nothing  of  other  objections,  there  could  be  no 
mention  of  "  steps  "  in  connection  with  a  pile  of 
heaped-up  garments.  Evidently,  we  have  rather 
to  think  of  a  spreading-out  of  the  garments  such 

as  is  recorded  in  Matt.  xxi.  8,  and,  as  pN ,  which 
we  must  not  interchange  with  ^y ,  designates  mo- 
tion to  or  towards,  we  translate  literally:  "to- 
wards," or,  "in  the  direction  of,  the  stairs."  In 
the  building,  in  which  the  generals  were  assem- 
bled, there  was,  therefore,  a  staircase,  an  arrange- 
ment like  that  in  the  court  of  the  temple  for  the 
king  (2  Chron.  vi.  13),  which  had  perhaps  been 
prepared  for  the  king,  who  formerly  lived  in  Ra- 
nioth.  The  generals  spread  their  garments  over 
the  ground  from  the  place  where  Jehu  stood  to 
this  place,  which  was  ordinarily  reserved  for  the 
king,  and  thus  formed  a  path  for  him  to  this  place, 
on  which  they  saluted  him  with  royal  honors. 
[See  note  under  Grammatical  on  this  verse.] — 
On  the  blowing  of  the  trumpet,  see  note  on  1 
Kings  i.  34;  cf.  2  Kings  xi.  14. — Ver.  14  does 
not  state  the  cause  of  the  act  in  ver.  13,  but  the 
consequence  of  it,  so  that  we  must  not  under- 
stand that  there  was  a  "  conspiracy  "  in  the  ordi- 
nary sense  of  the  %vord,  i.  e.,  a  secret  bond,  pre- 
vious to  the  wounding  of  Joram  (Koster).  After 
they  had  chosen  Jehu  king  by  acclamation,  he 
bound  himself  and  them  firmly  and  solemnly  to 
hostility  to  Joram  ("itj'p  means  to  bind,  to  fetter). 
The  word  does  not  imply,  in  itself,  that  he  made 
them  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  himself. 

Ver.  14.  Joram  had  defended  Ramoth,  &,c. 

DD13  "IfX"  shows  again,  what  we   saw  in  ver  6, 

that  the  city  was   not  at  that  time  besieged  by 
Jnram  (Koster),  but  that  he  was  in  it  and  was  de 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-37. 


9V 


fending  it  against  the  Syrians.  In  vers.  15  and  16 
we  have  a  repetition  of  viii.  28,  29,  but  it  is  not  "  a 
mere  superfluous"  repetition,  which  "proves  that 
those  verses  and  the  chapter  before  us  were  not 
written  by  the  same  person "  (Thenius).  In  the 
former  place  the  statement  is  purely  historical, 
but  here  it  is  intended  to  explain  the  event  nar- 
rated in  vers.  1-14.  Ver.  21  shows  that  Joram 
was  healed  at  the  time  that  Jehu  was  anointed. 
Instead  of  returning,  however,  to  share  the  labors 
nd  the  dangers  of  the  war,  he  remained  in  his 
summer  palace  in  Jezreel,  and  appears  to  have 
been  taking  his  pleasure  with  his  guest,  king 
Ahaziah  of  Judah.  This  must  have  had  a  bad 
effect  on  the  army,  which  could  see  in  it  only  in- 
difference or  cowardice,  and  it  explains  the  enthu- 
siasm with  which  they  yielded  allegiance  to  Jehu, 
as  well  as  the  haste  with  which  the  latter  started 
for  Jezreel,  inasmuch  as  it  was  important  for  him 
to  lay  hands  at  once  upon  the  trio,  Joram,  Aha- 
ziah. and  Jezebel.  He  therefore  proposes  to  the 
generals  that  they  shall  keep  the  army  at  Ramoth, 
and  not  allow  any  one  to  leave  the  city,  and  he 

hastens  with  a   small  company  (nUSL"  ver.  17)  to 

take  possession  of  Jezreel.  Peter  Martyr :  Silenti- 
um  et  celeritatem  adhibei,  ne  Joramo  spatiuin  detur 
vet  ad  deliberandum  vel  ad  se  muniendum.  Ewald's 
assertion  :  "  He  mounted  his  chariot  alone  with  his 
old  companion  in  arms  Bidkar,  and  drove,"  &c, 
contradicts  the  text. 

Ver.  17.  And  there  stood  a  watchman,  Ac. 
Ver.  17  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  end  of 
ver.  16.  While  the  two  kings  were  enjoying 
themselves  in  the  summer  palace,  and  thought  of 
no  danger,  the  watchman  appeared  before  Joram, 
and  reported :  "  I  see  a  company."  That  which  is 
narrated  in  vers.  17-20  is  as  characteristic  of  Jo- 
ram as  of  Jehu,  and  that  is  why  it  is  narrated  with 
so  much  detail.  It  shows,  on  the  one  hand,  how 
careless  Joram  was,  since  it  was  not  till  after  he 
had  in  vain  sent  out  two  horsemen,  that  he  took  a 
more  earnest  view  of  the  matter,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  how  decided  and  energetic  Jehu  was, 
since  he  did  not  allow  himself  to  be  detained,  and 
kept  the  two  horsemen  in  his  own  train,  lest  they 
should  hurry  on  before  him  with  intelligence  of 
his  coming.  His  question  in  ver.  18  has  the  mean- 
ing, What  is  it  of  thy  business,  whether  I  come 
in  friendship  or  in  hostility ;  thou  hast  nothing  to 
do  with  that,  it  does  not  concern  thee.  [See  note 
on  ver.  11.]  It  is  probable  that  the  watchman 
had  seen,  while  they  were  at  a  distance,  that  they 
were  not  Syrians.  As  they  came  nearer,  he  recog- 
nized more  and  more  distinctly  that  they  were 
Israelites,  and  he  inferred,  from  their  violent 
speed,  that  Jehu,  the  commander  of  the  army, 
whose  wUd  and  fierce  disposition  was  well  known 
to  him,  was  at  their  head.  On  |iy3C'3  see  note  on 
ver.  11. 

Ver.  21.  And  Joram  said:  Make  ready,  &c. 
Now,  at  length,  when  he  heard  Jehu's  name,  he 
became  anxious,  and  set  out  to  meet  him — a  thing 
which  he  could  not  have  done,  be  it  noticed,  if  he 
had  been  confined  by  his  wound.  [It  must  be 
clear  that  this  anxiety  could  only  have  been  as  to 
what  events  of  the  war  east  of  the  Jordan  could 
have  been  the  cause  that  the  chief  commander 
came  hurrying  home  in  such  haste.  If  he  had  sus- 
pected treachery,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  he 
would  have  gone  to  meet  Jehu.  See  notes  on  vers. 
7 


11,  22,  and  30.— W.  G.  S.]  The  portion  of  Na- 
both,  where  the  two  kings  met  Jehu,  "  is  the  D13 1 

vineyard,  of  Xaboth,  which  now  formed  a  part  of 
the  park  of  the  royal  palace "  (Keil).  Joram'g 
question,  ver.  22,  "Is  it  peace?"  shows  that  he 
did  not  even  yet  suspect  rebellion,  but  rather  ex- 
pected news  of  a  victory  from  Ramoth,  otherwise 
he  certainly  would  not  have  gone  out  alone  to  meet 
him.  [That  is  to  say ;  the  question  had  reference 
to  the  hostility  between  Syria  and  Israel,  not  to 
any  suspected  hostility  of  Jehu  towards  his  king. 
This  is  just  the  distinction  which  must  be  kept  in 
mind,  and  this  question  must  be  interpreted  as 
asking  news  of  the  war.  No  other  interpretation 
is  possible.  The  rest  of  the  chapter  must  there- 
fore be  interpreted  consistently  with  this.  The 
king  did  not  here  ask :  Is  there  peace  between  mi 
and  thee*  Xo  more  did  he  send  a  messenger  tc 
ask :  Dost  thou  come  for  peace  or  war  between  me 
and  thee?  in  vers.  17  and  18.  If  he  knew  that 
they  were  Israelites,  he  certainly  did  not  ask  the 
question  in  this  sense ;  if  he  thought  that  they 
were  Syrians,  he  would  not  send  out  one  man  to 
ask  them  the  idle  question  whether  they  came 
for  peace  or  war.  See  note  below,  on  ver. 
30. — W.  G.  S.] — In  Jehu's  answer,   ij;  has  the 

same  force  as  in  Judges  iii.  26  [so  long  as,  or 
while].  He  gives  as  the  reason  for  his  hosiiie 
coming,  the  whoredoms  and  sorceries  of  Jezebel. 
[He  gives  the  king  to  understand  that  he  has  not 
come  to  bring  news  from  the  war,  but  to  over- 
throw him,  by  a  reply  in  which  he  condemns  the 
vices  of  the  queen-mother,  in  terms  which  no  man 
could  use  who  was  willing  any  longer  to  be  a  sub- 
ject.— W.  G.  S.]    D'MST is  n°t  to  be  taken  literally, 

but  is  used,  as  it  so  often  is,  in  referring  to  idola- 
try (Jerem.  iii.  2,  9;  Ezek.  xxiii.  27,  Ac),  with 
which,  however,  licentiousness  was  almost  always 
connected.     By  D'St'S  we  have  not  to  understand 

'■  mysteries  "  (Thenius),  but  that  general  practice 
of  sorcery,  and  use  of  incantations  for  producing 
various  supernatural  effects  (Winer.  R.-  W.-B.,  II.  s. 
718),  which  was  closely  connected  with  idolatry. 
All  these  practices  were  forbidden,  as  well  as  idol- 
atry, on  pain  of  death,  in  the  Mosaic  law  (Ex.  xxii. 
Is;  Deut  xviii.  10).  Jehu's  words  show  that  Jez- 
ebel  was  generally  regarded  as  the  foundress  and 
patroness  of  idolatry.  They  also  contain  a  rebuke 
for  Joram,  because  he  had  submitted  to  be  led  by 
her,  had  helped  her  instead  of  opposing  her,  and 
had  thereby  made  himself  accessory  to  her  crime. 

— 7]2iTl_,  ver.  23,  see  1  Kings  xxii.  34.  The  ex- 
clamation, nolo,  deceit,  means,  "We  are  deceived, 

i.  e.,  really,  betrayed"  (Keil). 

Ver.  24.  Between  his  arms,  i.  e.,  from  behind 
since  Joram,  in  his  flight,  had  turned  his  back  to 
Jehu.  It  means,  therefore,  really,  between  the 
shoulders  (Vulg.  inter  scapulas),  so  that  the  arrow 
went  obliquely  through  his  heart. 

Ver.  25.  Then  said  Jehu  to  Bidkar,  his  lieu- 
tenant. 1J1  is  rendered  by  all  the  old  versions, 
which  are  misled  by'JXi  which  foliows,  in  the 
first  person:  "For  I  remember  how,"  Ac.  But!. 
is  evidently  incorrect.  Whether  D'33"l  here  sig- 
nifies riding  on  horseback,  or  in   a  chariot,  is  of 


d8 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Tery  little  importance.  The  point  is,  that  Jehu 
was  in  Ahab's  retinue,  was  an  ear-witness  when 
the  prophet  pronounced  upon  the  king  the  sen- 
tence of  God,  after  the  death  of  Naboth  (1  Kings 
xxi.  19  sq.).  This  had  made  an  ineffaceable  im- 
pression upon  Jehu. — KUT3  means  really :  "  bur- 
den," /.  e.,  something  which  must  be  borne.  If 
God  lays  a  "  burden  "  upon  any  one,  he  passes  a 
sentence  of  punishment  upon  him,  which  must  be 
endured.  Hence  the  word  is  often  used  by  the 
prophets  in  the  sense  of  a  condemnation  of,  or  judi- 
cial sentence  upon,  a  man  or  a  nation  (Isai.  xiii.  1 ; 

xiv.  28:  xv.  1). — jo  DX,  in  an  oath  or  affirma- 
tion: "  Verily  "  (Numb.  xiv.  28).  Jehu  quotes  the 
sentence  which  was  pronounced  1  Kings  xxi.  19- 
24  according  to  its  substance,  as  it  remained  in  his 
memory  after  sixteen  years,  and  with  such  inaccura- 
cies in  the  wording  as  were  occasioned  by  his  ex- 
citement in  a  moment  of  the  most  violent  activity. 
The  repetition  of  "  saith  the  .Lord  "  places  emphasis 
on  the  oracle  of  God,  as  such.  I  have  seen,  saith 
the  Lord :  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord.  Jehu, 
however,  mentions  something  which  was  not  men- 
tioned at  all  in  the  former  place;  viz..  "  The  blood 
of  his  sons,"  and  that  he  should  be  requited  in  the 
field  of  Xaboth.  Thenius  considers  this  an  "  essen- 
tial variation,"  and  says  that  "  all  attempts  at  re- 
conciliation are  vain."  But  the  author  must  have 
been  the  most  thoughtless  man  in  the  world,  if 
he  had  not  perceived  that  what  he  here  recorded 
was  contradictory  to  what  he  had  written  a  few 
pages  before.  It  may,  therefore,  nevertheless  be 
permitted  us  to  attempt  a  "  reconciliation  "  which 
will  make  him  talk  sense.  Although  the  blood  of 
the  sons  of  Naboth  is  not  mentioned  in  1  Kings 
xxi.,  it  may  nevertheless  be  that  they  were  also 
killed.  It  is  impossible  that  Jehu  should  have  talked 
to  an  eye  and  ear  witness,  as  Bidkar  was,  about 
the  blood  of  the  sons  of  Naboth,  if  their  blood 
had  never  actually  been  spilled.  Thenius  very 
justly  remarks  on  ver.  7  ("And  the  blood  of  all 
the  servants  of  the  Lord"),  that  "Jezebel  must 
have  vented  her  rage  upon  a  still  wider  circle  than 
that  which  is  expressly  mentioned."  Perhaps  Na- 
both's  sons  were  murdered  because  it  was  feared 
that  they  might  lay  claim  to  the  property  of  which 
.iieir  father  had  been  robbed,  and  might  avenge 
his  murder.  Jehu  mentions  their  blood  also,  as 
well  as  that  of  their  father,  because  the  divine 
punishment  would  thereby  appear  all  the  more 
just,  and  his  own  command,  to  throw  Joram's 
corpse  upon  the  field  of  Naboth,  would  be  more 
completely  justified.  As  the  murder  fell  upon 
Naboth  and  his  sons,  so  the  penalty  fell  upon 
Ahab  and  his  sons.  The  word  "yesterday"  must 
not  be  insisted  upon  too  strongly  in  its  strict  sig- 
nification. It  implies  simply,  "a  while  ago,"  as  in 
Isai.  xxx.  33.  Tlie  sentence  of  condemnation  in 
1  Kings  xxi.  was  certainly  not  pronounced  on  the 
day  alter  Nabuth's  murder.  Secondly,  as  to  the 
addition,  "  In  this  plat,"  the  emphasis  is  not  upon 
this  phrase,  but  upon  the  word  requite:  that  is  the 
main  idea,  about  which  all  the  rest  is  grouped,  not 
She  "  plat."  Tla-  slaying  of  Joram,  the  "  son  of  a 
murderer"  ivi.  32)  is  marked  as  a  penalty  for  the 
murder  of  Naboth  and  his  sons  by  this  very  cir- 
cumstance, that  hi-  body  is  cast  upon  the  field 
whie  i  that  murder  had  been  committed  to  win. 
Tohu  very  justly  saw,  in  the  fact  that  Joram  must 
die  jti-it  here,  a  dispensation  of  Providence,  the 


ground  for  which  he  discovers  in  the  oracle  1  Kings 
xxi.  [Jehu  commands  the  corpse  to  be  cast  upon 
the  field  of  Naboth,  and  proceeds  to  quote  the 
oracle  as  a  motive  for  the  command,  after  which 
he  repeats  his  order.  (Throw  him  there,  for  God 
said  that  he  would  requite  him  there ;  therefore 
throw  him  there.)  It  is,  therefore,  evident  that 
the  emphasis  is  on  the  words,  "  In  this  plat."  For 
the  rest,  1  Kings  xxi.  19  is  strictly  and  literally 
fulfilled  by  this  command  of  Jehu,  although  it  ia 
not  literally  quoted.— "W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  27.  But  when  Ahaziah  the  king  of  Ju- 
dah  saw  this,  to.  The  garden-house,  towards 
which  Ahaziah  fled,  was  certainly  not  the  summer 
palace  in  Jezreel  (Calmet),  but,  since  he  sought  the 
open  country,  either  a  house  which  "  stood  at  one 
of  the  exits  from  the  park  "  (Thenius),  or  which  did 
not  belong  at  all  to  the  royal  domain,  but  "  stood 
at  some  distance  from  Jezreel "  (Keil). — And  Jehu 
followed  after  him,  and  said,  &c.  From  his 
words  it  is  clear  that  he  did  not  himself  pursue 
Jehu,  but  gave  the  command  to  do  so,  just  as  so 
often  that  which  one  commands  to  be  done  is  as-' 
cribed  to  himself.  His  object  was  to  reach  Jez- 
reel, where  Isabel,  the  originator  of  all  the  mis- 
chief, was,  and,  as  he  was  now  close  to  the  city 
he  hastened  thither  (ver.  30),  leaving  the  pursuit 
of  Ahaziah  to  some  of  his  followers.  After  the 
words :  "  Smite  him  in  the  chariot,"  something 
must  be  supplied,  viz.,  the  fulfilment  of  the  com- 
mand, as  also  after  the  command  in  ver.  26  :  "  Cast 
him  into  the  plat  of  ground,"  Ac.  The  Sept.  have- 
Kaiye  avr6v.  Kal  eKara^ev  ahrbv  ettI  tu  apfiarc 
ovra  iv  rjj  avaf}aaei  Yovp.  Thenius,  as  usual,  fol- 
lows them,  and  desires  to  make  the  utterly  unne- 
cessary change    from   V\3T\   to   iri3'1  •     He   then 

translates:  "Him  also!  (I  must  have  him  also  I) 
And  he  smote  (wounded)  him  on  the  chariot  on  the 
height  of  Gur."  The  rendering  of  the  Vulg.  is 
better:  Etiam  hunc  percutite  in  curro  suo !  El  per- 
cusserunt  earn  in  nscensu  Garer,  except  that  in  curru 
suo  belongs  with  percusserunt.  Ewald,  Maurer, 
and  Keil  are  satisfied  with  inserting  V\y\  after 

inan ,  and  this  is  certainly  the  simplest  course  to 

pursue. — The  height  or  hill  Gur  is  not  mentioned 
anywhere  else.  [Thenius  takes  "na  to  mean  a  cara- 
vanserai (cf.  7JQ  -nj ,  2  Chron.  xxvi.  7,  hospitium 

Baalis.  Ges.),  and  thinks  that  the  hill  had  its  name 
from  an  inn  which  stood  alone  upon  it.  Ges.,  The- 
saurus, gives  the  name  under  "iy,  catulus,  a  cub  or 
whelp.  So  that  it  would  mean  ascensus  catuli.  The 
place  was  not  important,  and  the  name  was  a  popu- 
lar and  ephemeral  one. — W.  G.  S.]  Jibleam  is 
mentioned  Josh.  xvii.  11  and  Judges  i.  27  in  con. 
nection  with  Megiddo.  On  the  latter  place,  see 
note  on  1  Kings  iv.  12.  The  location  of  Jibleam 
cannot  be  more  definitely  fixed  either  from  the  two 

places  cited,  or  from  1  Chron.  vi.  55,  where  DJJ73 

stands  for  it.  As  Megiddo  lay,  according  to  all  the 
latest  maps,  directly  west  of  Jezreel,  and  as  Aha- 
ziah died  at  Megiddo,  Jibleam,  whither  he  fled  and 
where  he  was  wounded,  must  have  been  likewise 
t.i  the  west  of  Jezreel,  and  between  that  place  and 
Megiddo  (Thenius).  It  is  true  that  Keil  objects 
that  "between  Jezreel  and  Megiddo  there  is  only 
the  plain  of  Jezreel  or  Esdraelom,  in  which  we 
cannot  suppose  that  there  was   any  height  Our." 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-37. 


yy 


But  Megiddo,  and  therefore  Jibleam,  which  was 
near  it.  did  not  lie  in  the  midst  of  the  plain,  but  on 
the  slope  of  Mt.  Carmel,  where  there  may  well 
have  been  a  height,  such  as  is  referred  to.  Least 
of  all  can  we  adopt  Keifs  supposition  that  Jibleam 
was  "south  of  Jenin,"  for  this  place  was  in  a  di- 
rect line  as  far  south  of  Jezreel  as  Megiddo  was 
west.  It  is  not  clear  how  Ahaziah,  when  severely 
wounded,  should  have  gone  from  there  in  a  north- 
westerly direction,  to  Megiddo.  He  cannot  bare 
fled  at  the  same  time  in  a  direct  westerly  and  a  di- 
rect southerly  direction. — The  chronicler  gives  an- 
other story  of  Ahaziah's  death  (II.,  xxii.  8  sq.): 
"  And  it  came  to  pass  that  when  Jehu  was  exe- 
cuting judgment  upon  the  house  of  Ahab  .  .  . 
he  sought  Ahaziah,  and  they  caught  him,  for  he 
was  hid  in  Samaria,  and  brought  him  to  Jehu;  and 
when  they  had  slain  him  they  buried  him.''  Keil 
thinks,  in  order  to  combine  the  two  stories,  that  it 
is  very  possible  "  that  Ahaziah  really  escaped  to 
Samaria,  and  that  he  was  there  captured  by  Jehu's 
followers  and  brought  back.  Then  that  he  was 
ivounded  at  the  hill  Gur,  near  Jibleam,  and,  hav- 
ing fled  again  from  there,  that  he  breathed  his  last 
at  Megiddo."  This  explanation  is,  in  the  first 
place,  very  forced  and  unnatural,  but  it  falls  to  the 
ground  when  we  know  that  Jibleam  was  on  the 
road  westward  towards  Megiddo,  and  not  on  the 
road  from  Jezreel  to  Samaria.  A  variation  in  the 
history  is  here  clearly  apparent,  and  cannot  be  de- 
nied. The  main  point,  i.  e.,  the  slaying  of  Ahaz'-di 
by  Jehu  or  his  followers,  is  firmly  established  l.y 
both.  A  different  tradition  in  regard  to  the  where '.' 
and  how?  may  have  prevailed  in  the  time  of  the 
Chronicler.  The  one  which  is  followed  by  the  re- 
cord before  us,  which  is  certainly  older,  appears, 
especially  on  account  of  its  geographical  details. 
to  be  the  more  correct  and  reliable  — The  differ- 
ence between  ver.  29  and  chap.  viii.  25,  which 
amounts,  after  all,  to  only  one  year,  is  explained 
"  most  simply  on  the  supposition  of  a  difference  in 
reckoning  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Joram  " 
<Keil).     See  above,  note  on  chap.  viii.  16. 

Ver.  30.  Jezebel  heard  of  it.  Women  make 
use  of  paint  for  the  eyes,  in  the  Orient,  until  the 
present  day.  It  consists  of  a  mixture  of  antimony 
(stibium)  and  zinc,  which  is  moistejed  with  oil,  and 
applied  with  a  brush  to  the  eye-brows  and  eye- 
lids. The  eye  itself  is  thrown  into  relief  by  the 
dark  border,  and  appears  larger  (Pliny  say>  of  sti- 
bium in  his  Hist.  Nat.  33  :  in  caUiblepharis  mulierum 
dilakit  octdos).  Large  eyes  were  considered  beau- 
tiful. Homer  applies  to  Juno  the  epithet  ,J  iwjnc 
[cf.  RosenmiiUei",  Alt.  and  yen.  Morgenland,  iv. 
26S,  and  Keil  on  this  passage).  [Boxes  have  been 
fourd  in  the  tombs  of  Egypt  containing  portions 
of  this  mixture;  also  the  small,  smooth  sticks  of 
wood,  or  bone,  or  ivory,  by  means  of  which  it  was 
applied.  There  are  specimens  in  the  "  Abbot  Col- 
lection "  in  the  rooms  of  the  N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc. — 
W.  G.  S.]  And  tired  her  head  hardly  means 
that  she  put  on  a  "coiffure  of  false  hair"  (The- 
uiusl.  It  refers  rather  to  the  ordinary  decora- 
tions of  the  head,  head-band,  crown,  Ac.  The  old 
opinion.  whi:h  is  still  held  by  Ewald  and  Eisen- 
lolir,  that  she  summoned  up  all  her  seductive  fas- 
cinations, in  order  to  tempt  and  conquer  Jehu,  is 
certainly  incorrect,  for  Jezebel  had,  at  this  time, 
a  grandson  who  was  23  years  old  (viii.  2G).  so  that 
she  must  have  been  advanced  in  years.  Since, 
moreover,  women  fade  earlier  in  the  Orient,  she    -.n- 


not  have  intended  to  excite  any  carnal  desire  in 
Jehu.  The  haughty,  imperious  woman  intended, 
rather,  to  go  to  meet  the  rebel  in  all  the  majesty 
of  her  position  as  queen-dowager,  and  to  so  far 
overawe  him  that  he  should  desist  from  any  fur- 
ther steps.  She  therefore  takes  her  place  at  the 
lofty  wiudow  of  the  palace,  and  shouts  to  him,  as 
he  enters  the  gate,  the  bold  and  haughty  words  in 
ver.  31 :  "Is  it  peace,  Zimri,  murderer  of  his  rnas- 
ter?"  Luther  translates  [like  the  E.  V.]:  "Had 
Zimri  peace,  who  slew  his  master?  "  Maurer  sup- 
ports this  rendering  by  suggesting  that  she  could 
not  have  asked  him  if  he  came  in  peace,  at  the 
same  time  that  she  called  him  a  murderer  of  the 

king.  But  D1?t;*n  cannot  have'any  different  mean- 
ing here  from  that  in  ver.  22  [where,  as  Bahr  ex- 
plains it,  it  means,  "  Is  there  peace  in  the  Syrian 
war  ?  "  or,  "  Dost  thou  bring  news  of  a  victory  ?  "1. 
Jezebel  connects  with  the  question  this  meaning : 
"Wilt  thou  submit  to  me,  the  queen,  and  desist 
from  the  rebellion,  or  wilt  thou  persist  in  it?" 
[The  reader  wdl  see  that  this  interpretation,  which 

makes  DteTI  mean,  "  Is  there  hostility  between 
me  and  thee  ?  "  is  not  consistent  with  the  author's 
own  exposition  of  ver.  22.  Jezebel  must  have  felt 
that  the  hostility  of  Jehu  reached  to  herself,  even 
if  she  had  not  heard  that  his  declarator,  of  war 
was  aimed,  in  its  terms,  exclusively  at  her.  She 
had  heard  of  the  fate  of  the  king,  as  the  last  part 
of  her  speech  shows.  She  could  not,  therefore, 
have  intended  to  ask  Jehu  if  he  came,  in  general, 
on  a  peaceful  errand.  This  is  perhaps  the  clearest 
instance  of  all,  to  prove  that  this  formula  had  lost 
its  etymological  significance,  and  it  must  be  appa- 
rent that  the  attempt  to  give  it  this  meaning  here 
produces  inconsistency  and  confusion.  It  was  a 
standing  formula,  empty  of  all  independent  mean- 
ing, used  as  an  interjection  in  beginning  an  ad- 
dress :  Ho !  or  Hail  I — Just  what  she  hoped  to 
accomplish  by  her  decorations,  and  by  her  ad- 
dress, it  is  difficult  to  see.  Perhaps  the  safest  con- 
clusion is  one  founded  upon  her  domineering  and 
wilful  character.  These  traits  were  developed  in 
her  to  a  tragical  degree.  She  has  scarcely  a  par- 
allel either  in  history  or  poetry  save  Medea.  Her 
last  toilet  was  probably  the  consequence  of  a  de- 
termination to  die  in  full  state,  self-willed,  arro- 
gant, defiant  to  the  last. — W.  G.  S.]  There  is  a 
threat  also  in  her  words.  Zimri,  who  murdered 
king  Elah  (1  Kings  xvi.  10-18),  reigned  only  seven 
days,  and  met  with  a  frightful  end.  She  means  to 
terrify  the  violent  rebel.  "Thou  shalt  fall  as  did 
Zimri.  Thy  rule  shall  not  endure  I  "  Perhaps  she 
hail  also  taken  measures  of  resistance,  had  col- 
lected about  her  those  on  whom  she  thought  that 
she  could  rely,  and  was,  therefore,  all  the  more 
self-willed.  Jehu's  reply,  ver.  32,  Who  is  on  my 
side?  Who?  seems  to  sustain  this  opinion.  He 
gives  her  no  answer  whatever,  still  less  does  he 
submit  to  the  influence  of  her  manner;  he  knew 
well  that  no  one  would  heartily  support  the  hated 
and  tyrannical  woman.  The  two  eunuchs,  who 
were  her  immediate  attendants,  gave  Jehu  a  sign, 
probably  from  another  window,  that  they  would 
join  him  and  serve  his  purposes.  They  obeyed 
his  command.  [The  "  or  "  between  "  two  "  and 
"  three  "  in  ver.  32  is  not  in  the  text.  It  means 
either  that  two  looked  out  first,  and  were  imme- 
diately joined  by  another,  or  that  two  appeared  at 
one   window,  and  three  at  another  (the  latter  U 


100 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


adopted  by  Stanley).— TV.  G.  S.]— n|DO"W,  ver. 
33,  literally :  And  he  trode  her  under  foot,  not. 
however,  "  with  his  own  feet"  (Bwald).  Hecaused 

her  to  be  trodden  under  foot,  i.  e.,  the  horses  of 
his  chariot  trode  upon  her.  Hence  the  Sept.  and 
Vulg.  have  the  plural  avi'iirarrjaav  avri/i',  concidca- 
verunt  earn  (cf.  Horn.,  R,  x.  432  ;  xi.  534). 

Ver.  34.  And  when  he  was  come  in,  Ac. 
After  Jezebel  was  slain,  Jehu  went  into  the  palace, 
took  possession  of  it,  and  refreshed  himself,  after 
the  day  of  bloody  labor,  with  food  and  drink. 
Then,  not,  according  to  Koster's  fiction,  at  the 
banquet,  but  afterwards,  he  gave  orders  to  see  to 
the  corpse  of  Jezebel  and  bury  it.  He  calls  her: 
this  cursed  woman,  not  "  abusing  her  in  his 
wrath  "  (Theuius),  but  as  the  originator  of  all  the 
corruption  which  had  now  met  with  its  fitting  re- 
ward. Nevertheless,  he  does  not  wish  to  have  her 
refused  burial,  for,  he  says,  she  is  a  king's  daugh- 
ter. Not,  therefore,  because  she  was  the  wife  of 
Ahab,  the  mother  of  Joram,  and  the  grandmother 
of  Ahaziah,  but  because  she  was  the  daughter  of 
the  king  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  she  was  to  be  spared 
the  last  ignominy  of  lying  unburied  (see  note  on  1 
Kings  xiv.  11).  Polus:  Forte  sic  fecit,  tie  invidiam  el 
odium  regum  Zidoniorum  in  se  inflammaret.  When 
he  was  told  that  sepulture  was  no  longer  possible, 
he  remembered  also  the  remainder  of  the  oracle 
which  he  had  quoted  in  ver.  26  (1  Kings  xxi.  23). 
This  shows  that  that  was  no  prediction  post  even- 
turn.  He  quotes  the  oracle  freely,  according  to  its 
sense,  calling  to  mind  particularly  that  portion  of 
it  which  seemed  to  him  the  most  important.    This 

explains  the  use  of  p^ri  instead  of  pn  (see  above, 

on  ver.  10  [and  the  Grammatical  note  on  that 
verse]).  Jehu  did  not  intentionally  bring  it  about 
that  Jezebel  had  no  sepulchre,  i.  e.,  that  there  was 
no  spot  which  perpetuated  her  memory.  This  was 
ordained  by  God.  The  memory  of  her  was  to  be 
rooted  out  (Ps.  xxxiv.  16). 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  fall  of  the  house  of  Ahab  is  one  of  the 
most  important  events  in  the  history  of  the  Israel- 
itish  monarchy,  and  is  marked  as  such  by  the  de- 
tailed and  vivid  description  which  we  have  of  it. 
In  order  to  understand  it  correctly  and  estimate  it 
justly  we  must  look  at  it  from  the  stand-point  of 
the  Old  Testament  theocracy.  The  house  of  Ahab 
was  not  only  devoted  to  the  cultus  of  the  call- 
images  of  Jeroboam,  but  it  had  also  (a  thing  which 
no  other  dynasty  had  ever  done)  formally  intro- 
duced idolatry,  murdered  the  prophets,  and  perse- 
cuted the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  All  attempts 
to  draw  it  away  from  these  evil  courses  had  proved 
vain.  We  see  from  chap.  x.  18-28  how  far  the 
worship  of  Baal  had  taken  possession  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  ten  tribes.  As  a  result  of  intermar- 
riage with  the  house  of  Ahab,  the  evil  had  spread 
to  Judah  also,  and  had  been  already  fostered  by 
two  kings,  Jehoram  and  Ahaziah.  "  According  to 
all  appearances,  therefore,  the  corruption,  which 
had  already  eaten  so  deeply  into  Israel,  and  which, 
in  spite  of  all  the  opposition  which  the  prophets 
had  exerted,  threatened  to  gradually  destroy  all 
the  good  influences  which  remained,  was  about  to 
strike  root  also  in  Judah,  the  last  stronghold  of 


the  religion  of  Jehovah,  and  thereby  to  destrcj 
the   very   foundation  of   the   Mosaic   theocracy" 
(Eisenlohr,  Das  Yolk  Israel,  ii   s.  192).     The  rule  of 
the  house  of  Ahab  was,  in  very  truth,  the  opposite 
of  what  the  monarchy  of  Israel  ought  to  have 
been.     Instead  of  holding  and  maintaining  (Deut. 
xvii.  19,  20)  the  laws  and  commandments  of  Jeho- 
vah, and,  above  all,  the  Mosaic  law,  the  covenant 
upon  which  the  existence  of  Israel,  as  the  chosen 
people,  rested,  it  destroyed,  consciously  and  inten- 
tionally, the  foundations  of  the  Israelitish  nation- 
ality,   and  was,    therefore,    a  continual  rebellion 
against  Jehovah,  the  true  and  only  king  of  Israel. 
The  prolonged  rule  of  this  house  would  have  drawn 
Israel  down  into  heathenism,  and  would  thereby 
have  frustrated  its  destined  influence  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  world.    It  would  have  been  the  end  of 
Israel  as  the  chosen   people  of  God.     The  over- 
throw of  this  house  had  become  a  matter  of  life 
and  death  for  the  Old  Testament  theocracy  as  an 
institution,  and  a  necessity,  if  God's  redemptive 
plan  with  Israel  was  ever  to  reach  its  consumma- 
tion.    It  had  been  threatened  many  times  with 
destruction,  and,  after  it  had  shown  itself  during 
forty  years  incapable  of  reformation,  the  time  was 
come  at  last  when  it  was  to  meet  the   fate  wit', 
which  it  had  been  threatened.     It  was  so  decreed 
in  the  counsels  of  Him  who  raises  up  and  puts 
down  kings,  who  has  power  over  the  kingdoms  of 
men,  and  gives  them  to  whomsoever  He  will  (Dan. 
ii.  21;  iv.  14,  31).     Here,  therefore,  the  question 
of  the  justifiableness  of  rebellion  against  a  legiti- 
mate dynasty,  or  of  revolution   in   the   ordinary 
sense  of  the  word,  cannot  arise.     The  course  of 
the  house  of  Ahab  was  a  rebellion  against  all  law, 
divine  and  human,  in  Israel.     It  was,  therefore,  a 
revolution  which  was  being  brought  about  by  those 
in  authority.     Therefore  it  resulted  in  a  catastro- 
phe which  was  not  the  overthrow  of  divine  and 
human  order,  but  rather  its  restoration.     All  the 
details  of  the  occurrence  must  be  weighed  from 
this  stand-point. 

2.  The  long-threatened  downfall  of  the  house 
of  Ahab  is  the  work  of  the  propliet  Elisha,  in  so 
far  that  he  gave  the  order  to  anoint  Jehu  king. 
His  name  therefore  stands  at  the  head  of  the  nar- 
rative, and  whereas,  in  other  places,  his  name 
stands  either  alone  or  with  the  epithet,  "  man  of 
God,"  here  we  find  him  expressly  called  "the 
prophet,"  in  order  to  show  that  he  did  what  is  here 
recorded  of  him  as  a  prophet,  i.  e.,  by  virtue  of  his 
prophetical  calling ;  as  one,  therefore,  who,  as  he 
himself  solemnly  declares  (1  Kings  xvii.  1),  stands, 
like  Elijah,  "before  Jehovah,"  and,  as  an  immedi- 
ate servant  of  God,  acts  in  His  name  and  by  His 
authority.  Thereby  we  are  pointed,  from  the  out- 
set, to  the  grand  difference  between  the  fall  of  the 
house  of  Ahab  and  that  of  the  other  earlier  or 
later  dynasties.  While  the  latter  were  all  over- 
thrown by  military  chiefs,  whose  only  concern  was 
to  arrive  at  power,  the  fall  of  the  house  of  Ahab 
was  brought  about  by  the  prophet,  and  did  not 
aim  at  the  gratification  of  ambition,  but  at  the 
uprooting  of  the  idolatry  which  had  been  intro> 
duced  and  fostered  by  this  family.  The  first  and 
chief  duty  of  the  prophets,  before  all,  of  the  great 
prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha,  consisted  in  bearing 
witness  byword  and  deed  against  the  radical  evil, 
idolatry,  in  combating  it  by  every  means,  and  in 
plucking  it  up  by  the  roots.  Jehovah  had  ap- 
pointed them  "  watchmen  over  His  people,"  acd 


CHAPTER  IX  1-37. 


10] 


a»med  them  by  His  Spirit  for  this  work,  iu  order 
t^at  the  great  object  of  the  choice  of  this  one  peo- 
ple out  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  (Ex.  six.  3- 
6),  ».  e.,  its  destined  influence  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  might  not  be  frustrated  (Habak.  ii.  1 ;  Ezek. 
iii.  IT;  xxxiii.  7;  Jerem.  vi.  17,  27).  The  words 
which  Jeremiah  heard,  when  he  was  called  to  be 
a  prophet:  "  See,  I  have  this  day  set  thee  over  the 
nations  and  over  the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to 
pull  down,  and  to  destroy,  and  to  throw  down,  to 
build,  and  to  plant  "  (Jerem.  i.  10 ;  cf.  xviii.  7  ;  Ezek. 
xliii.  3 ;  xxxii.  IS),  hold  true  of  all  true  prophets. 
They  appear,  therefore,  as  Knobel  (der  Proph.  der 
Hebr.,  i.  s.  196  sq.)  justly  observes,  not  only  as 
heralds  of  the  acts  of  God,  but  alio  as  executors 
of  them,  and  things  are  often  ascribed  to  them 
which  in  truth  were  done,  and  could  be  done,  by 
God  alone  (see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xix.  15-18,  and, 
besides  the  places  already  quoted,  Jerem.  v.  14; 
xxv.  15 ;  Hos.  vi.  5).  It  was  therefore  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  prophet  Elisha,  when  idolatry  had 
been  pushed  to  the  utmost,  and  every  attempt  to 
oring  the  house  of  Ahab  into  other  courses  had 
failed,  by  virtue  of  his  prophetical  office  and  call- 
ing, to  labor  to  bring  about  the  fall  of  that  dy- 
nasty and  the  foundation  of  another.  Far  from 
being  a  sinful  and  rebellious  undertaking,  what  he 
did  was,  for  all  Israel,  as  Eisenlohr  himself  ad- 
mits, "  an  act  of  salvation." 

3.  The  anointing  of  Jehu  is  generally  regarded, 
as  it  is  by  Keil,  as  the  fulfilment  of  "the  last  of 
the  commissions  which  Elijah  received  at  Horeb  " 
(1  Kings  xix.  16).  But  the  correct  interpretation 
of  that  passage  (see  notes  thereon)  makes  this  ex- 
planation unnecessary;  and  it  is  moreover  to  be 
noticed,  that  such  an  explanation  presupposes  that 
Elijah  commissioned  his  successor  to  do  something 
which  he  was  commanded  to  do,  and  which  he 
might  have  done,  since  Jehu  was  already,  in  the 
lifetime  of  Elisha,  in  the  train  of  Ahab  (vcr.  25), 
but  which  he  nevertheless  did  not  do.  There  is 
no  hint  in  the  text  that  this  act  of  Elisha  was  a 
fulfilment  of  that  command  to  Elijah,  and  it  is  not 
consistent  with  the  universal  and  unconditional 
obedience  of  Elijah.  [The  discrepancy  between 
this  chapter  and  1  Kings  xix.  16  in  this  particular 
must  be  frankly  admitted.  Even  a  superficial  ex- 
amination will  show  that,  between  the  two,  this 
passage  contains  the  historical  account  of  the 
share  of  the  prophets  in  Jehu's  revolt. — W.  G. 
S.]  It  is  still  more  improbable  that  Elisha  should 
not  have  executed  a  commission  which  had  been 
given  him,  as  is  suggested,  by  Elijah,  but  should 
have  commissioned  another,  a  prophet-disciple,  to 
do  it.  Yon  Gerlach  thinks  that  the  "  already  aged 
Elisha  "  did  this,  because  "  he  was  bent  with  age ;  " 
but  Elisha  did  not  die  until  Joash  was  on  the 
throne  (2  Kings  xiii.  14),  so  that  he  lived  for  at 
least  forty-three  years  after  Jehu  was  anointed. 
Accordingly,  at  the  time  of  that  event,  he  was  not 
fifty  years  old.  Neither  can  the  reason  which 
Krummacher  assigns  be  maintained:  "Nothing 
could  have  been  more  distasteful  to  the  loving  and 
evangelical  disposition  of  Elisha  than  the  com- 
mand, in  his  own  person,  to  put  the  avenging 
eword  into  the  hands  of  Jehu.  So  God,  who, 
father-like,  weighs  with  the  most  tender  anxiety 
what  He  may  demand  of  each  one  of  His  children, 
and  what  not,  exonerated  him  from  this  duty,  and 
allowed  him  to  send  one  of  the  prophet-disciples 
in  his  place."    The  narrative  itself  shows  us  the 


reason  clearly.  The  prophet  disciple  was  com 
manded  to  lead  Jehu  into  an  inner  chamber,  and 
after  anointing  him,  to  depart  immediately,  with- 
out speaking  a  word  to  any  one.  The  important 
transaction  was,  therefore,  to  be  carried  out  in  pri 
vate,  and  to  be  kept  as  secret  as  possible.  This 
was  the  reason  why  Elisha  did  not  take  it  in  hand 
himself,  for  if  he,  the  well-known  head  of  the 
prophet-guild,  had  gone  to  Ramoth  and  had  had 
dealings  with  Jehu,  it  would  have  occasioned  great 
observation,  and  the  cause  of  his  coming  could 
not  have  been  kept  secret.  The  affair  was  to  be 
kept  quiet  for  a  time,  and  only  to  be  proclaimed 
when  the  right  time  should  come  according  to  the 
leadings  of  Providence,  just  as,  at  a  former  time, 
the  communication  of  the  prophet  Ahijah  to  Jero- 
boam (1  Kings  xi.  29  sq.)  was  not  to  be  made  pub- 
lic, and  Jeroboam  had  to  wait  until  the  right  mo- 
ment for  his  elevation  came  (see  Hist.  §  3  on  I 
Kings  xi.  14—43).  Therefore  also  Jehu  did  not  at 
once  make  known  to  his  fellow-commanders  what 
had  been  done,  but  gave  them  an  evasive  answer. 
When  they  pressed  him,  he  broke  silence  and 
thought  that  the  right  time  had  come.  Elisha 
limited  Ins  own  action  strictly  to  the  announce- 
ment of  the  destiny  which  awaited  Jehu.  All  th~ 
rest  he  left  to  the  control  of  Providence,  so  w  i 
hear  no  more  of  him  until  his  death  (chap,  xiii.i  — 
As  for  the  act  of  anointing,  it  was  not  performed 
with  "the  sacred  oil  of  anointing"  (Menzel),  as  in 
the  case  of  the  kings  of  Judah  (1  Kintr?  i.  :;9;  cf. 
2  Kings  xi.  12  ;  xxiii.  30),  for,  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes,  where  there  was  no  sanctuary  of 
Jehovah,  and  where  the  levitieal  priesthood  did 
not  exist,  it  appears  that  the  kings  were  not 
anointed  at  all.  W  was  not,  therefore,  a  priestly 
act  which  Elisha  in  this  case  executed,  but  a  pro- 
phetical one,  i.  e.,  a  symbolical  act,  a  physical  sign 
and  testimony  of  that  which  Jehovah  has  deter- 
mined upon  and  will  do.  Hence  it  is  accom- 
panied by  the  words :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord :  I 
anoint  thee.''  Ac.  (vers.  3-6),  just  as  in  chap.  ii.  21, 
where  the  prophet  throws  the  salt  into  the  foun- 
tain with  the  words :  "Thus  saith  the  Lord:  I 
have  healed  these  waters  "  (see  pp.  17,  25 1.  For 
the  significance  of  the  act  of  anointing,  when  it  is 
ascribed  to  Jehovah  himself,  see  above,  note  on  1 
Kings  xix.  15-18. 

4.  What  Schlier  (Die  Konige  in  Israel,  s.  207) 
says  of  tlie  newly-anointed  king  Jehu,  holds  true. 
"  There  are  few  persons  in  the  sacred  history  who 
have  been  so  variously  judged  as  he.  To  some  he 
is  a  stirrer  up  of  rebellion  and  a  bloody  despot ; 
others  see  in  him  a  pure  and  unimpeachable  ser  • 
vant  of  the  Lord.  Both  equally  err,  for  both  de 
part  alike  from  what  the  sacred  record  declares, 
and  all  depends,  especially  in  the  case  of  Jehu,  on 
allowing  ourselves  to  be  led  simply  by  the  record." 
If  we  restrict  ourselves  to  what  is  said  in  chap 
ix.,  this  much  is  certain,  that  he  did  not  make  him- 
self king.  There  is  not  a  word  to  justify  the  sus- 
picion that  he  plotted  and  conspired  before  he  was 
anointed  king ;  on  the  contrary,  the  story  shows 
clearly  that  the  prophetical  calling  to  be  king  sur- 
prised and  astonished  him,  and  also  that  his  fellow- 
commanders  knew  nothing  of  it.  He  ought  not, 
therefore,  to  be  put  in  the  same  category  with 
Baasha,  Zimri,  Shallum,  Menahem,  Pekah.  and 
Hoshea  (1  Kings  xv.  27;  xvi.  9,  16;  2  Kings  xv. 
10-30),  who,  instigated  by  ambition,  without  au> 
thority  and  in  self-will,  took  the  royal  power  ink- 


102 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


their  hands.  He  was  called  to  be  king  by  the 
prophet,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah.  The  explana- 
tion of  the  selection  of  juet  this  man,  as  the  in- 
strument for  the  destruction  of  the  house  of  Ahab, 
and  for  the  uprooting  of  idolatry,  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  at  that  time  there  was  scarcely  a  man 
who  united,  as  he  did,  all  the  necessary  qualifica- 
tions ;  so  that  Ewald  also  is  forced  to  admit  that 
"  Elisha  certainly  could  not  have  fixed  his  eye  upon 
a  military  chief  who  was  better  fitted  for  the  pur- 
pose he  had  in  view."  In  the  first  place,  Jehu 
was  a  decided  opponent  of  idolatry  and  of  the 
abuses  which  were  connected  with  it  (ver.  22). 
The  opposition  of  the  prophet  Elijah  to  Ahab  and 
Jezebel,  after  the  murder  of  Naboth,  had  made  an 
indelible  impression  upon  him,  so  that  he  had  not 
forgotten  the  words  of  the  prophet  sixteen  years 
afterwards  (vers.  25  and  36).  This  was  the  first 
characteristic  which  was  required.  Jehu  pos- 
sessed the  second  also.  He  was  a  man  of  the 
greatest  energy.  Pushing  onward  with  boldness 
and  enterprise,  decided  and  pitiless,  he  shrank 
back  before  no  difficulty  (vers.  20,  24,  32  sq.). 
Moreover,  he  did  not  lack  prudence  or  wisdom 
(vers.  11,  15,  18).  Finally,  he  stood  high  in  the 
popular  esteem  as  a  military  leader.  After  Joram 
left  Ramoth  he  seems  to  have  had  supreme  com- 
mand of  the  army.  We  see  from  the  joy  with 
which  his  fellow-commanders  caught  up  his  nomi- 
nation and  anointment,  and  from  the  readiness 
with  which  they  obeyed  his  commands,  that  he 
enjoyed  their  fullest  confidence  (vers.  14-16).  It 
is  true  that  his  subsequent  conduct  is  fierce  and  sol- 
dier-like ;  that  was  the  natural  product  of  his  char- 
acter, calling,  and  education.  "  To  drive  like  Jehu  " 
has  become  a  proverb.  We  ought  not  to  overlook 
the  fact,  however,  that  nothing  was  to  be  accom- 
plished here  by  mild  and  kind  means.  If  the 
deep-rooted  evil  of  idolatry,  which  threatened  Is- 
rael with  total  ruin,  was  to  be  rooted  out,  it  could 
not  be  done  without  violence.  Moreover,  we  have 
to  notice  that  Jehu,  when  Joram  came  to  meet 
him,  did  not  shoot  him  down  at  once,  but,  in  an- 
swer to  his  question :  "Is  it  peace  ?  "  declared  that, 
so  long  as  his  mother,  Jezebel,  nourished  shameful 
idolatry  in  Israel,  there  was  no  chance  for  peace 
and  prosperity  in  the  kingdom.  Upon  this  abso- 
lutely true  declaration  of  Jehu,  Joram  turned  and 
cried  "  Treason,"  and  took  to  flight,  so  that  he  took 
sides  with  his  idolatrous  mother.  Not  until  this 
point  did  Jehu  send  the  death-arrow  after  the  fly- 
ng  king  (who  sought  to  reach  Jezreel,  and  to  join 
Mir),  and  give  orders  to  pursue  Ahaziah,  who  came 

i  with  Joram,  and  who  likewise  took  Jezebel's  part. 

J  As  Joram  fell  upon  the  very  spot  of  ground  which 
had  been  taken  from  the  murdered  Naboth,  Jehu, 
who  saw  in  this  incident  a  dispensation  of  God, 
felt  encouraged  to  proceed  with  his  fierce  task.  So 
too,  he  did  not  slay  Jezebel  without  further  delay, 
but  only  when  she  put  herself  in  opposition  to  him, 
and  shouted  down  to  him  her  impudent  defiance, 
and  insulted  him  as  another  Zimri,  i.  e.,  as  a  mur- 
derer  ami  traitor,  did  he  .call  out  to  "throw  her 
down." 

[Jehu  came  to  Jezreel  on  purpose  to  put  to 
death  the  kiug  and  the  queen-dowager.  Of  the 
particular  circumstances  in  which  he  should  meet 
them,  or  of  the  accident  which  was  going  to  throw 
.n  his  way  the  king  of  Judah,  another  member  of 
the  house  of  Ahab,  he  could  know  nothing  before- 
hand.    Ewald  thinks  that  he  had  had  half-formed 


plans  in  his  mind  ever  since  the  time  whe.t  ht 
heard  the  prophet's  denunciation  of  Ahab,  but 
Bahr  is  more  correct,  according  to  the  text  before 
us,  when  he  supposes  that  the  visit  of  the  prophet 
and  his  business  took  Jehu  by  surprise.  Whether 
this  incident  only  came  to  ratify  and  bring  to  a  defi- 
nite determination  half-formed  plans  which  Jehu 
had  long  cherished,  is  a  secret  of  his  inner  life 
which  probably  few  or  none,  even  of  his  contem- 
poraries, ever  learned.  Whether  it  came  at  the 
very  crisis  of  time  when  the  commanders  of  the 
army  were  disgusted  with  the  king,  and  excited 
with  admiration  of  Jehu,  to  suggest  to  them  an  act 
which  perhaps  no  one  had  yet  proposed  in  words, 
is  also  uncertain,  but  it  is  a  theory  which  is  thor- 
oughly cousistent  with  the  text.  When  Jehu  had 
told  them  what  the  prophet  had  done,  it  was  only 
a  suggestion,  something  which  might  be  neglected 
and  allowed  to  fall  and  be  forgotten.  But  the 
other  generals  caught  at  the  idea  enthusiastically, 
and  proceeded  to  act  upon  it  by  proclaiming  Jehi. 
king  with  all  the  solemnity  which  the  means  at 
hand  would  allow.  The  affair  had  now  entered  a 
new  phase.  One  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah,  who 
were,  as  a  matter  of  course,  hostile  to  the  reigning 
house,  might  nominate  a  new  king  and  anoint  him 
and  the  event  might  be  passed  by  as  only  anothei 
declaration  of  hostility  from  a  well-known  and 
uncompromising  enemy;  but  to  proclaim  the  new 
king  was  an  overt  act  of  treason,  and  all  who  par 
ticipated  in  it  must  know  that  there  was  no  reced- 
ing from  it,  and  that  the  reigning  monarch  could 
never  overlook  or  pardon  it.  Jehu's  cunning  and 
caution  had  been  shown  in  the  reply  to  the  gen- 
erals in  ver.  11,  in  which  he  tried,  in  the  first  place, 
to  see  if  they  were  really  the  instigators  of  this 
proposition.  Now  that  he  was  committed  to  an 
overt  act,  his  promptness,  decision,  and  energy 
showed  themselves.  "If  it  be  your  minds,  if  you 
are  determined  to  take  this  step,  then  we  must  go 
forward  at  once.  Let  no  one  go  out  of  the  city  to 
take  news  to  Joram  of  what  we  have  done."  He 
then  set  out  himself  for  Jezreel.  Between  him 
self  and  the  house  of  Ahab  there  was  no  possible 
compromise.  He  must  gain  the  advantages  of 
time  and  energy.  He  made  no  delay  (this  may  be 
reckoned  as  a  virtue  on  his  part)  in  carrying  out 
his  purpose.  He  took  circumstances  as  he  found 
them,  and  carried  out  his  intention  as  he  best 
could.  He  unquestionably  intended  to  destroy  the 
whole  house  of  Ahab  when  he  returned  to  Jezreel. 
He  could  not  tell  what  opportunities  would  offer, 
but  it  is  clear  that  he  meant  to  make  opportunities 
if  they  did  not  come  of  themselves.  He  meant  to 
get  all  the  royal  family  into  his  hands  and  kill 
them.  Bahr's  idea  that  he  waited  until  Joram  had 
taken  sides  with  Jezebel,  and  waited  until  Jezebel 
had  insulted  him,  is  suggested  by  a  laudable  desire 
to  excuse  him,  but  it  is  an  invention.  We  can 
hardly  repress  some  feeling  of  pity,  even  for  Jeze- 
bel, in  reading  the  bloody  and  tragical  details,  but 
pitilessness  is  a  virtue  in  a  man  situated  as  Jehu 
was.  He  had  a  task  to  accomplish  which  led 
through  blood,  and  he  had  to  follow  it.  To  wavei 
from  pity  or  from  fear  would  have  been  equal  trea 
sun  to  his  calling.  The  sentimentality  which  for- 
gets the  crime  in  pity  for  the  criminal  is  a  modern 
and  a  "civilized"  weakness.  It  is  not  a  ieeling 
which  a  man  called  to  conduct  great  national  or  re- 
ligious revolutions  can  allow  to  dim  the  clearnesi 
of  his  judgment,  or  to  unnerve  his  determination.— 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-37. 


103 


Jehu  was,  therefore,  a  cautious,  crafty  man,  who 
was  slow  to  commit  himself  to  any  irrevocable 
course  of  action,  but  energetic  and  unrelenting  in 
prosecuting  it  when  he  had  resolved  upon  it.  He 
was  a  man  o"  action,  who  did  not  hesitate  or  wa- 
ver, and  did  l.ot  lose  time  in  long  plans,  but  struck 
quickly  and  surely  where  he  had  determined  to 
strike.  He  did  not  shrink  from  difficulties,  did  not 
hesitate  at  harsh  means  of  accomplishing  his  pur- 
poses, did  not  feel  pity  in  striking  down  those  who 
stood  in  his  way,  did  not  leave  behind  him  any- 
thing which  might,  at  a  later  time,  rise  up  to  mar 
or  overthrow  his  work.  This  is  not  a  lovely  char- 
acter. It  does  not  present  the  amiable  virtues, 
patience,  pity,  mercy,  kindness.  It  is  not  a  char- 
acter to  be  imitated  in  modern,  civilized,  thor- 
oughly regulated  life,  but  neither  ought  it  to  be 
measured  and  judged  by  the  standards  of  a  society 
trained  to  peace  and  order,  fearful  of  revolution, 
and  encased  in  law.  Its  virtues  must  be  sought 
in  the  use  to  which  it  put  its  strength,  its  energy, 
and  its  decision.  It  is  a  character,  however,  such 
as  is  needed  to  lead  great  movements,  to  give  form, 
and  purpose,  and  consistency  of  action,  and  perse- 
verance, to  a  national  effort,  in  times  of  discontent 
with  existing  institutions  and  tendencies,  when  all 
are  convinced  that  the  nation  is  going  down,  un- 
der depraved  leadership,  to  ruin,  but  when  no  one 
seems  able  to  step  to  the  front  and  lead  on  the  re- 
formation. In  the  providence  of  God,  such  men 
are  often  raised  up  for  great  crises  in  Church  and 
State.  The  man  is  swallowed  up  in  the  movement. 
It  is  impossible  to  tell  whether  the  work  has  made 
him  or  been  made  by  him.  His  personal  virtues 
and  faults  are  lost  sight  of  in  the  stormy,  tumultu- 
ous crisis  in  which  he  lived.  We  cannot,  in  jus- 
tice, sit  down  in  peace,  when  the  storm  is  over, 
and  lay  the  line  of  every-day  standards  to  such  a 
rugged  character,  and,  from  the  stand-point  of  a 
time  of  order,  peace,  and  quiet,  condemn  it  in  so 
far  as  it  passed  beyond  the  bounds  of  peaceful,  do- 
mestic, citizen-like  virtue.  He  was  needed  and 
was  called;  he  responded,  and  accomplished  his 
calling  well.  That  is  his  place  in  the  history,  and 
5hat  is  the  judgment  on  his  career. — W.  G.  S.] 

5.  The  fall  of  the  three  heads  of  the  house  of  Ahab 
on  one  day  is  narrated  with  so  much  minuteness  be- 
cause it  not  only  has  simple  historical  significance, 
but  also  proves  the  inevitableness  of  the  threats 
of  God,  and  the  certainty  of  His  requital  ("  ven- 
geance ")  (vers.  7-10,  26,  36).  The  sentence  against 
the  house  of  Ahab,  which  accompanied  the  anoint- 
ment of  Jehu,  is  almost  literally  the  same  as  that 
which  Ahija  pronounced  against  the  house  of  Jer- 
oboam (1  Kings  xiv.  10),  Jehu  against  the  house 
of  Baesha  (1  Kings  xvi.  3),  and  Elijah  against  the 
house  of  Ahab  (1  Kings  xxi.  21).  Its  repetition 
shows  that  it  was  the  established  formula  of  con- 
demnation against  every  royal  house  which  sought 
to  undermine  the  foundations  of  the  Israelitish  na- 
tionality, the  covenant  with  Jehovah.  Those  whom 
God  had  set  to  be  watchmen  over  His  people,  were 
to  pronounce  the  same  sentence  for  the  same  trans- 
gression, wherever  it  occurred.  (On  the  peculiarly 
Old  Testament  form  of  the  condemnation,  see  1 
Kings  xiv.  1-20,  Hist.  §  1.)  The  day  on  which 
the  three  heads  of  the  house  of  Ahab  fell  is,  there- 
fore, represented  as  a  day  of  divine  judgment.  It 
has  all  the  marks  which  belo  lg  to  days  of  judg- 
ment in  geneial,  and  to  that  one  great  general 
judgrr-ont  at  the  last.     It  is  a  terrible  day  (Joel  it 


26) ;  it  comes  unawares,  like  a  thief  in  the  night, 
and  overtakes  those  who  are  its  just  victims  when 
they  are  careless  and  contented  (Zeph.  i.  14 ;  Luke 
xvii.  28  sq. ;  1  Thess.  v.  2  sq.) ;  they  cannot  escape 
it  either  by  flight  or  by  resistance,  they  are  brought 
to  nought  and  come  to  a  terrible  end  (Zeph.  i.  18  • 
Lament,  ii.  22  ;  Ps.  lxxiii.  19  ;  lxxxiii.  17  ;  Jerem. 
ii.  26;  Heb.  x.  27,  31  &c.).  It  is  to  this  day  that 
the  word  of  the  apostle  applies :  "  Now  all  these 
things  happened  unto  them  for  ensamples:  and 
they  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom 
the  ends  of  the  world  are  come  "  (1  Cor.  x.  11). 

6.  The  story  of  the  end  of  Jezebel  is  given  with 
particular  detail,  because  therein  the  prophet's 
threat  was  fulfilled  with  especial  frightfulness.  As 
the  sin  of  the  house  of  Ahab  was  represented  to 
the  fullest  extent  in  Jezebel,  the  originator  and 
patroness  of  idolatry,  so  her  terrible  end  forms  the 
crisis  of  the  divine  punishment.  Ahaziah  is  fatally 
wounded,  and  dies  in  a  strange  place.  Although 
he  was,  as  Josephus  says :  novqpbc  not  xeipuv  rov 
irarpdc  airow,  yet  he  was  buried  by  his  subjects, 
because  he  was  "  the  son  (grandson)  of  Jehosha- 
phat "  (2  Chron.  xxii.  9).  Joram  falls  dead,  pierced 
through  the  heart,  but  is  thrown  upon  the  field  of 
Naboth  and  not  buried.  Jezebel  is  thrown  down 
from  the  window  by  her  own  attendants  ;  as  she 
lies  weltering  in  her  own  blood  she  is  trodden  un- 
der foot  by  horses,  and  her  corpse  lies  unburied 
"like  dung  upon  the  fields"  (see  note  on  1  Kings 
xi.  14).  She  appears  here  in  her  last  moments 
such  as  she  had  ever  been,  proud  and  impudent, 
arrogant  and  domineering,  [defiant  and  insolent]. 
She  places  herself  at  the  window,  painted  ai.d 
grandly  dressed,  and  presumes  upon  her  assumed 
majesty.  Instead  of  recognizing  in  the  judgment, 
which  is  falling  upon  her  house,  the  just  recom- 
pense for  her  misdeeds,  instead  of  sueiug  for  grace, 
she,  who  had  shed  so  much  innocent  blood,  and 
had  exalted  herself  against  the  God  of  Israel,  in- 
sults the  instrument  of  the  divine  vengeance  as  a 
murderer  and  a  traitor,  demands  that  he  shall  sub- 
mit to  her,  and  threatens  him,  relying  upon  her  im- 
agined power,  with  destruction,  if  he  persists. 
Just  here  judgment  overtakes  her.  Her  nearest 
attendants  forsake  the  hated  queen  and  hurl  her 
down  from  her  position.  She  does  not  reach  the 
rest  of  the  grave,  and  remains,  eren  in  death, 
marked  with  infrmy  for  all  time,  a  proof  of  the 
truth  of  the  words:  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  living  God  "  (Heb.  x.  31). 

7.  Modern  historians  represent  the  elevation  of 
Jehu  to  the  throne  of  Israel  in  a  very  different  light 
from  that  in  which  it  appears  in  the  Scriptures. 
According  to  Winer  (if.-  W.-B.,  i.  s.  37,  600):  "  Eli- 
sha  secretly  anointed  Jehu  king  of  Israel  (the 
prophets  could  not  even  yet  forget  the  injuries 
they  had  received  from  Jezebel,  the  mother  of  this 
family  !);  "  in  consequence  of  the  unfortunate  cam- 
paign of  Joram  against  Hazael  of  Damascus  "  it 
rebellion  broke  out  in  the  Israelitish  camp;  Jehu 
killed  his  king,  and,  soon  afterwards,  Ahaziah 
also."  According  to  llenzel  (Stoats  uud  Belig 
Gesch.  von  Isr..  s.  205  sq.) :  "  The  relation  in  whicL 
Elisha  stood  to  Hazael  was  not  without  influence  " 
on  the  overthrow  of  the  house  of  Ahab ;  he  (Eli- 
sha) was  in  communication  with  Hazael ;  Joram 
gave  the  command  ?f  the  army  to  Jehu  when  he 
returned  wounded  to  Jezreel,  "  without  surmising 
that  Jehu  had  already  conspired  with  several  of 
the  other  generals  for  his  overthrow.     The  time 


10-t 


THE  SECOXD  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


for  the  acomplishment  of  the  change  of  dynasty 
planned  by  Elisha  has  come ;  Elisha  sends  one  of 
his  servants  to  the  camp  with  the  holy  oil  of 
anointment,  commands  that  it  shall  be  poured 
upon  Jehu's  head  and  that  he  shall  be  called  upon 
to  make  himself  king,  and  to  root  out  the  house 
of  Ahab."  According  to  Koster  (Die  Proph.,  s.  94) : 
'•  Hazael's  accession  to  power  is  parallel  with  that 
of  Jehu  which  immediately  followed."  Jehu  had 
"conspired  even  before  Joram  was  wounded,  and, 
when  he  killed  him,"  he  gave  to  Elisha's  prophecy 
against  Ahab  (1  Kings  xxi.)  an  extension  which 
made  it  subserve  his  plans.  Finally,  according  to 
Duncker  (Gesch.  des  Alterthums,  i.  s.  413),  it  was 
the  "hostility  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  "  which 
brought  such  a  sad  fate  upon  Joram  and  his  house. 
[There  can  be  no  question  that  it  was.  Duncker, 
however,  seems  to  criticize  the  history  of  the  pe- 
riod from  the  stand-point  of  Ahab  in  1  Kings  xviii. 
17  and  xxi.  20  ("  Art  thou  he  that  troubleth  Is- 
rael; "■  "  Hast  thou  found  me,  0  mine  enemy  !  "). 
It  may  be  that  he  is  led  to  it  by  a  revulsion  from 
the  naive  method  of  reading  the  Scriptures  which 
insists  on  making  some  characters  saints  and  oth- 
ers demons,  but  it  is  simple  perversity,  and  uncrit- 
ical self-will  to  take  the  contrary  side.  Some  of 
the  old  expositors  seem  to  have  felt  that  in  review- 
ing the  acts  of  one  who  is  called  "  good  "  in  the 
record,  they  must  excuse  and  explain  away  and 
account,  on  all  kinds  of  imaginary  hypotheses,  for 
any  acts  of  his  which  were  not  good  according  to 
our  standards.  Also  that,  when  a  character  is 
marked  as  "bad"  in  the  record,  the}-  must  inter- 
pret any  good  acts  of  his  in  an  unfavorable  manner. 
The  modern  critics,  many  of  them,  revolt  with  dis- 
gust from  a  notion,  which  is  so  manifestly  unjust 
and  unsound,  into  the  other  extreme.  Many  of 
them  proceed  as  if  they  had  adopted  some  such 
canon  as  this:  Every  person,  who  is  made  a 
hero  or  a  saint  in  the  record,  was  in  reality  a 
coward  and  criminal,  and,  vice  versa,  all  who  are 
represented  as  wicked  and  base,  were,  in  fact, 
noble  and  good  ;  the  writers,  from  some  prejudice. 
or  for  some  partisan  reason,  represented  them  as 
we  find  in  the  record,  therefore,  to  get  at  the  truth. 
we  must  take  them  all  by  contraries. — W.  G.  S.] 
Elisha  [Duncker  goes  on  to  say],  "  was  the  favor- 
ite attendant  of  Elijah,  and  stood  at  the  head  of 
the  prophets  of  Israel."  After  the  siege  of  Sa- 
maria (vi.  24  sq.)  "he  resided  for  a  time  among 
the  enemies  of  his  country  in  Damascus.  Here,  at 
his  instigation.  Beuhadad.  the  king,  was  mur- 
dered by  Hazael,  one  of  his  servants,  who  now 
ascended  the  throne,  and  recommenced  the  war 
against  Israel,  not  without  encouragement  from 
Elisha.  Joram  was  wounded  at  a  battle  in  Gilead, 
and  left  the  army  in  order  to  be  healed  at  his 
palace  in  Jezreel.  This  moment  seemed  to  Elisha 
to  be  favorable  for  the  overthrow  of  the  king  of 
Israel  also.  Samuel  had  once  favored  David's  re- 
bellion against  Saul,  so  also  Elisha  now  sun led 

in  prevailing  upon  Jehu,  one  of  the  generals  of  the 
army,  to  rebel  against  Joram."  It  is  not  neces- 
sary, after  the  detailed  explanations  which  have 
been  given  above,  to  refute  at  length  this  con- 
struction of  tin-  narrative.  The  biblical  passage 
before  us,  which  is  tin-  only  authority  we  have  fur 
this  history,  contains  no  ground  whatever  for  the 
3uspicion  that  there  was  a  connection  between  the 
murder  of  Hi-nhadad  by  Hazael  and  the  over- 
•hrow  of  the  house  of  Ahab  by  Jehu.     It  is  an  as- 


sertion which  is  as  false  historically  a9  it  is  re 
volting,  that  Elisha  instigated  Hazael  to  murd«i 
his  master,  then  encouraged  the  attack  of  tht 
national  enemy  upon  his  own  country,  and  finally 
provoked  Jehu  to  rebellion.  What  just  "-eason  is 
there  for  making  such  a  vulgar  intriguer,  political 
agitator,  instigator  of  rebellion  and  traitor,  out  of 
the  "man  of  God?"  The  assertion  that  Jehu 
had  formed  a  conspiracy  with  the  other  generals 
before  Joram  was  wounded,  and  he  was  anointed, 
and  that  lie  brought  about  a  rebellion  in  the  army, 
is  equally  groundless  and  false.  The  text  contra- 
dicts it  distinctly.  But  the  whole  tenor  of  this 
conception  of  the  history  is  to  set  aside  the  true 
reason  for  the  overthrow  of  the  house  of  Ahab, 
viz.,'  the  corrupting  idolatry  which  had  been  intro- 
duced by  this  house,  and  which  was  destroying 
the  character  of  the  nation.  Although  this  reason 
is  perfectly  clear,  yet  it  is  ignored,  and  instead  of 
it,  the  true  reason  is  said  to  lie  in  personal  hos- 
tility, ambition,  and  other  passions,  so  that  finally 
the  whole  story  appears  only  as  a  drama  in  which 
human  interests  are  at  stake  and  depraved  forces 
are  in  play. — Ewald's  conception  of  the  history  ;» 
far  better  and  more  probable.  He  explains  (  Gasch  , 
iii.  s.  526 ;  cf.  also  s.  382)  [3d  ed.  566  and  409  sq.] 
"  The  Great  Revolution  "  by  the  conflict  which 
had  been  maintained  ever  since  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon, "between  the  two  great  independent  pow«rs,' 
the  monarchy  and  the  prophetical  office  as  a 
national  institution  in  Israel  [prophet-hood,  if  one 
may  coin  a  word,  after  the  analogy  of  priesthood, 
for  the  prophetical  office  as  an  institution — Pro- 
phetenthniu.}  "  Heathenism,  fostered  by  the  mon- 
archy, threatened  to  displace  the  old  religion,  in 
both  kingdoms  at  the  same  time.  But  just  at  this 
point  the  old  religion  stood  desperately  on  its  de- 
fence once  more  against  the  new  one;  in  the  first 
place,  it  is  true,  only  spasmodically  (!  ?),  and 
through  that  instrument  only  which  had  hitherto 
been  its  living  fountain,  and  its  most  powerful 
force,  viz.,  the  prophethood."  This  explanation  i3 
based  upon  that  idea  on  which  Ewald's  method  of 
presenting  the  history  rests,  and  which  has  been 
referred  to  several  times  above  (see  1  Kings  xi.  14- 
43,  Hist.  £  3).  viz..  that  "violence"  was  a  radical 
trait  both  of  the  monarchy  and  of  the  prophethood 
(Gesch.,  iii.  13),  and  that,  therefore,  they  stood  in 
opposition  to  each  other  as  "independent  powers," 
and  struggled  for  the  supreme  control — a  theory 
which  we  cannot  by  any  means  regard  as  correct. 
The  prophethood  does  not  anywhere  appear  as  an 
'■  independent  power,"  parallel  with  the  monarchy. 
The  prophets  never  combated  the  monarchy  as 
such,  and  never  strove  with  it  for  the  supremacy, 
as,  for  instance,  the  popes  with  the  emperors. 
No  prophet  ever  strove  for  royal  authority,  or  en- 
deavored to  raise  himself  to  the  throne.  The  two 
great  prophets,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  who  had,  mosi 
of  all,  to  resist  the  kings  who  were  their  contem  ■ 
I  Minnies,  were  farthest  from  all  hierarchical  ten- 
dencies and  from  all  lust  for  power  They  re- 
mained poor  and  humble,  and  had,  from  all  theii 
Strifes,  neither  advantage  nor  enjoyment.  The 
office  and  calling  of  the  prophets  consisted  in 
taking  care  that  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  the 
fundamental  constitution  of  Israel,  should  be 
maintained  in  its  integrity.  They  were  not  to 
rule  bj  the  side  of  the  kings,  much  less  over 
them,  but  to  be  the  standing  correc  ive  to  the 
royal  power,  when  this  departed  from  the  Mosaic 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-37. 


105 


coostitutoa,  according  to  which  it  was  bound  to 
rule  (Deut.  xvii.  19,  20).  The  prophets  were  not, 
tnerefore,  in  hostility  to  all  the  kings,  but  only  to 
those  who,  in  contradiction  with  their  calling  to 
be  servants  of  Jehovah,  despised,  more  or  less, 
the  covenant  of  the  God  of  Israel.  They  must  re- 
sist most  earnestly  of  all  those  kings,  who,  like 
those  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  not  only  broke  that 
covenant,  but  also  introduced  and  fostered  idola- 
try, or,  at  least,  tolerated  it.  Nothing  could  be 
more  perverse  then,  as  Knobel  himself  has  shown 
(I/er  Proph.  der  Hebr,,  i.  s.  11  sq.),  than  to  make  an 
"hierarchical  party  or  caste  "  out  of  the  prophets. 
or  "  to  regard  them  as  restless,  innovating  dema- 
gogues, who  were  continually  plotting,  striving 
to  introduce  arbitrary  changes,  and  stirring  up 
the  people  to  rebellion  against  the  government." 
[This,  then,  was  the  true  hostility  between  the 
prophethood  and  the  monarchy.  A  single  reflec- 
tion, however,  wdl  show  how  deep  it  was.  The 
history  of  the  foundation  of  the  monarchy  in  1 
Sam.  throws  doubt  upon  the  degree  to  which  it 
was  founded  or  approved  by  the  prophetical  au- 
thorities of  the  time.  Under  a  king  like  David 
the  prophethood,  an  institution  which  took  its 
specific  authority  from  direct  and  continual  in- 
spiration, and  the  monarchy,  an  institution  found- 
ed it  is  true  by  God  in  the  first  instance,  but  de- 
riving its  continued  authority  from  descent  and 
tradition  (in  which  sense  they  certainly  were  in- 
dependent authorities,  each  claiming  the  right  to 
direct  and  control),  worked  in  sufficient  harmony. 
In  the  case  of  another  king,  who  departed  from 
the  standards  of  judgment  which  were  maintained 
by  the  prophets,  there  would  be  opposition  and 
hostility.  The  warnings  of  the  prophets  were  re- 
sented, in  such  cases,  as  unwarrantable  inter- 
ference, by  the  kings.  The  actions  of  the  kings 
were  condemned  and  protested  against  by  the 
prophets.  Under  a  theocratic  constitution,  such 
as  that  of  Israel  always  was  in  theory,  where 
there  was  no  possibility  of  a  division  of  depart- 
ments of  activity  into  civil  and  religious,  political 
and  ecclesiastical,  church  and  state,  these  colli- 
sions were  inevitable,  if  the  king  departed  from 
the  prophetical  standards.  Thus  these  two  au- 
thorities came  into  collision.  They  both  sought 
to  control  the  nation.  It  is  very  true  that  neitht  >- 
one  ever  sought  to  usurp  the  peculiar  functions  of  the 
other,  but  that  is  little  to  the  point.  One  sought 
to  control  by  means  of  external  authority  (»'.  e.,  in 
the  last  resort,  by  force) ;  the  other  sought  to 
control  by  moral  influence.  As  long  as  the  proph- 
ets approved  what  the  monarch  did  there  was  no 
jarring ;  as  soon  as  they  did  not  thus  approve, 
antagonism  arose.  They  rebuked  the  king,  which 
seemed  like  insubordination,  and  they  denounced 
him  to  the  people,  which  seemed  like  inciting  re- 
bellion. There  is  certainly  no  case  of  factious  or 
ambitious  or  hierarchical  opposition  to  the  mon- 
archy on  the  part  of  any  of  the  prophets,  but.  as 
a  matter  of  history,  there  were  so  few  of  the  kings 
who  came  up  to  the  standards  which  the  spiritual 
authority  maintained,  that  there  was  hostility  be- 
tween the  two  great  authorities  of  the  state  during 
almost  the  entire  duration  of  the  monarchy.  As 
for  Ewald's  opinion,  he  certainly  does  not  mean  to 
gay  that  there  was  any  such  conflict  for  worldly 
and  physical  supremacy  as  his  marked  modern 
history  (popes  and  emperors)  — W.  G.  S.]  The 
prorhethood  in  Israel  is  a  peculiar  phenomenon, 


as  the  people  of  Israel  is  a  peculiar  phenomenon 
in  the  history  of  the  world  (Knobel,  s.  1  sq.,  D« 
Wette,  Sittenlehre,  i.  1,  32).  It  cannot,  therefore, 
be  judged  from  a  general  historical,  that  is,  from 
a  natural  and  human,  stand-point.  This  is  es- 
pecially true  in  the  case  before  us  of  the  over- 
throw of  the  house  of  Ahab  and  the  elevation  of 
Jehu  to  the  throne.  If  we  abandon  here  the  theo- 
cratic stand-point  of  the  author  of  these  books, 
which  is  above  distinctly  maintained,  the  prophet- 
hood becomes  a  mere  caricature  of  what  it  really 
was.  and  of  what  it  was  intended  by  God  that  it 
should  be. 

[S.  If  we  refuse  to  consider  the  bearing  of  this 
story  upon  the  justifiable/Less  of  revolution,  we  turn 
away  from  one  of  its  most  prominent  practical  les- 
sons. We  have  here  two  cases  of  regicide  in 
close  juxtaposition  —  Benhadad  by  Hazael,  and 
Joram  by  Jehu.  Evidently  we  cannot  measure 
them  by  two  different  standards  of  right.  We 
have  seen  above  that,  so  far  as  the  history  in- 
forms us,  the  former  of  these  was  one  of  those 
cases  of  palace-revolution  which  are  almost  the 
only  articulating  points  in  oriental  history.  Ha- 
zael  slew  his  master  in  order  to  usurp  his  authority. 
Morally  weighed,  it  was  just  as  bad  as  the  act  of  a 
highwayman  who  slays  a  man  in  order  to  take  hil 
purse.  Of  the  state  of  the  kingdom  under  Ben- 
hadad and  of  the  comparative  benefits  or  injuries 
which  it  received  from  Hazael,  we  know  very 
little.  As  a  military  leader  Hazael  was  the  abler 
of  the  two.  Beyond  that  we  know  nothing 
Jehu's  case  was  in  many  respects  different.  A 
family  was  on  the  throne  which  had  introduced  a 
licentious  worship,  had  fostered  it,  and  had  perse- 
cuted the  older  and  purer  religion,  which,  if  it 
had  not  succeeded  in  taking  so  firm  hold  of  the 
people  as  to  hold  them  to  purity  and  virtue,  at 
least  had  not  been  itself  a  deep  corrupting  influ- 
ence. The  mischief  had  spread  so  far  that  it  was 
time  to  try  the  last  and  severest  measures  or  to 
give  up  the  contest  entirely.  The  indictment  was 
made  out  against  the  ruling  house,  of  corrupting  the 
national  honor  and  undermining  the  national  exist- 
ence, of  depriving  the  nation  of  a  religion  whose 
spirit  was  pure  and  elevating,  and  giving  it  one 
whose  spirit  was  corrupting  and  licentious.  It  was 
time  for  every  man  to  make  the  choice  which  Elijah 
put  before  the  people  in  1  Kings  xviii.  21,  and  for 
those  who  were  on  the  side  of  Jehovah  to  strike 
without  pity,  for  their  cause.  Jehu  was  the  chosen 
leader  and  representative  of  this  party,  and  it  was 
in  its  interest  that  he  became  a  regicide.  There 
is  no  ethical  principle,  therefore,  which  the  chap- 
ter teaches  more  plainly  than  this,  that  a  nation 
is  not  to  let  itself  be  robbed  of  its  highest  and 
best  goods,  its  purest  traditions,  and  its  holiest  in 
spirations,  by  any  dynasty,  however  unimpeach- 
able its  legitimacy,  for  fear  of  "  revolution."  How 
terrible  these  national  convulsions  are,  modern 
history  shows  clearly  enough,  and  we  shall  see  it 
also  in  the  development  of  this  history.  They  are 
terrible  remedies  for  terrible  diseases,  and  the 
chapter  before  us  gives  a  test  of  when  and  how 
they  are  justifiable.  They  are  justifiable  as  the 
last  resort  in  the  utmost  danger,  when  religion, 
and  liberty,  and  morality,  and  national  honor  can 
be  saved  by  no  other  means. — Jehu  was  anointed 
by  authority  of  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  lint  we  have 
to  bear  in  mind  that  this  authority  was  given  also, 
if  it  was  not  executed,  in  the  case  of  Hazael    '. 


1U6 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Kings  six.  15).  The  one  was  just  as  much  an  in- 
strument in  the  hands  of  God  for  carrying  out  his 
plans  in  history,  accordiug  to  the  biblical  repre- 
sentation, as  the  other.  We  may  leave  this  im- 
portant chapter  with  the  following  paragraph  from 
Ewald  (Ge-tch.,  iii.  573),  in  which  he  reviews  this 
revolution  aud  points  forward  to  its  consequences : 
"  The  spirit  of  the  aucient  religion  had,  therefore, 
once  more  arisen  in  its  might,  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes,  against  the  intrusion  of  the  foreign 
and  heathen  religion,  and  that  was  now  accom- 
plished which  Elijah,  in  his  labor  and  suffering, 
had  never  been  able  to  accomplish.  The  nation 
was  once  more  delivered,  by  means  of  a  terrible 
and  powerful  revolution,  from  the  mistakes  and 
errors  into  which  it  had  allowed  itself  to  be 
plunged.  It  was  once  more  forced  back  upon  its 
own  peculiar  origin  and  foundation,  so  far,  at  least, 
as  it  is  ever  possible  for  an  earthly  kingdom  to  re- 
turn to  its  own  origin.  He,  whose  warnor-haud 
was  alone  fit  to  be  the  instrument  of  such  a  revo- 
lution, Jehu,  had  shown  himself  to  be,  yet  again, 
one  of  those  unexpected  and  irresistible  cham- 
pions of  the  cause  of  Jehovah,  such  as  the  judges 
had  once  been,  with  this  difference  only,  that  he 
did  not  have  to  fight,  as  they  did,  against  external, 
but  against  far  more  dangerous  internal,  foes  of 
this  cause.  The  horrors  by  which  this  revolution 
was  marked  were  in  truth  scarcely  to  be  avoided, 
partly  on  account  of  the  character  of  the  ancient 
national  religion,  partly  on  account  of  the  deep 
roots  which,  at  that  time,  heathenism  and  the  au- 
thority of  the  house  of  Omri  had  struck  in  both 
kingdoms,  but  especially  in  Israel.  Nothing  can 
be  more  incorrect,  therefore,  than  to  say  that,  when 
Elisha  caused  Jehu  to  be  anointed,  he  neither  fore- 
saw nor  approved  of  these  acts  of  violence  and 
bloodshed.  He  could  not  have  had  such  a  dim 
vision  of  the  future  as  not  to  foresee  them,  al- 
though he  certainly  did  not  designate  the  separate- 
victims  beforehand,  after  the  fashion  of  a  Ro- 
man proscriptor.  Moreover,  there  is  nothing  which 
would  render  it  probable  that  Elisha  disapproved 
of  those  acts  after  they  were  committed.  But  the 
deeper  and  less  apparent  evils  which  lay  in  the 
horrible  incidents  of  this,  as  they  lie  in  the  hor- 
rors of  every,  revolution,  made  themselves  contin- 
ually more  and  more  apparent,  and  were  contin- 
ually more  and  more  sharply  felt,  in  the  course  of 
the  history,  as  we  shall  see  below." — W.  G.  S.] 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-37.  God's  Judgment  upon  the  House 
of  Ahnb  :  (a)  The  herald  of  the  judgment,  vers. 
1-10;  (6)  the  executor  of  it,  vers.  11-20;  (c)  the 
victims  of  it,  vers.  21-37. — Vers.  1-8.  Krumma- 
Ciier:  Jehu.  The  approaching  vengeance;  the 
commission  of  God  to  Elisha;  the  sending  of  the 
prophet-disciple;  Jehu's  anointment  and  the  object 
of  it.— Vers.  1-3.  WtiRT.  Summ.  :  The  Lord  God 
deposf-s  kings  and  raises  them  up,  Dan.  ii.  21 ; 
Prov.  viii.  15  sq.  There  is  no  established  authority 
which  is  not  from  God.  A  calling  to  govern  is  the 
work  of  God,  vhether  it  comes  through  interme- 
diate persons  «.r  not.  Therefore,  since  rulers  and 
governors  are  ordained  and  established  of  God, 
they  ought  to  govern  themselves  according  to  God's 
will,  and  every  one  ought  to  respect  and  honor 
them  for  God's  sake,  and   show  them  all  due  obe- 


dience, Rom.  xiii.  1  sg.  When  kings  and  govern. 
ors  sin  and  do  evil,  and  nobody  dare  lisp  a  word 
or  still  less  punish  them,  then  God  comes  anc 
raises  up  other  rulers,  and  uses  them  as  his  execu- 
tioners to  punish  such  wicked  rulers.  Even  though 
a  long  time  passes,  wickedness  is  not  forgotten  by 
God.  He  rises  up  at  last  and  sends  against  wicked 
men  those  who  will  fulfil  his  sentence  without 
pity.  Therefore  let  all  rulers  guard  themselves 
from  all  wrong,  and  especially  from  all  persecution 
of  the  servants  of  God  and  just  men.  Also  let 
not  any  one,  without  God's  command,  lay  hand 
upon  those  in  authority,  lest  he  call  down  God's 
judgment  upon  himself. — What  Elisha  did,  he  did 
in  the  name  and  at  the  command  of  God,  and  he- 
would  have  forsaken  his  duty  if  he  had  not  done 
it.  The  prophets  were  not  there  to  sleep  and  to 
lay  their  hands  in  their  laps,  when  the  ordinances 
of  God  were  being  trodden  under  foot,  but  God 
set  them  as  watchmen  over  His  people,  that  they 
might  root  up  the  weeds,  and  plant  and  cultivate 
what  was  good. — Krummacher:  None  of  the  mod- 
ern revolutions  can  appeal  to  any  such  revelations 
of  the  divine  will ;  nay,  the  standard-bearers  would 
smile  if  any  one  should  demand  of  them  to  show 
any  authority  of  this  kind  for  raising  a  revolt.  The 
modern  revolutions  have  all  sprung  from  another 
soil,  either  more  or  less  apparently,  and  are  con- 
demned by  God's  words :  Whosoever  resisteth  au- 
thority, resisteth  God's  ordinance.  [This  leaves 
the  mutual  relations  and  obligations  of  governors 
aud  governed  very  unclear.  Governors  must  be 
good,  governed  must  be  obedient.  For  homiletieal 
purposes  a  clearer  definition  of  the  limits  and  mu- 
tual interlacing  of  these  duties  is  of  prime  im- 
portance. I  have  attempted  a  sharper  analysis 
below,  at  the  end  of  the  "Homiletieal"  section. — 
W.  G.  S.]— Vers.  4^10.  The  Prophet-disciple :  (a) 
His  mission.  (Krummacher:  He  is  one  of  the 
humblest  in  Samaria,  a  poor,  insignificant  boy, 
and  he  carries  a  kingdom  to  RamothI  How 
great  the  Lord  appears  in  this  incident,  but  also 
with  what  cutting  irony  He  meets  all  the  arrogance 
of  the  self-made  gods  of  earth  1)  Here  also  1  Cor. 
i.  2S  applies.  (It)  His  obedience.  (He  raises  no  objec- 
tions, although  the  task  is  hard  for  him.  He  might 
have  said:  "I  am  a  child,"  Ac,  Jerem.  i.  6.  He  is 
to  go  into  a  besieged  city,  to  go  before  the  gener- 
als of  the  army,  to  put  his  life  and  liberty  at  stake, 
yet  he  goes  with  no  sword  at  his  side ;  without  a 
companion  he  ventures  to  go  into  the  army  of  the 
king,  to  anoint  another  to  be  king.  All  human 
scruples  and  fears  disappear  before  the  duty  of 
obedience.  In  obedience  he  does  not  fear,  and 
lets  no  danger  terrify  him,  for  he  knows  and  be- 
lieves what  is  written  in  Ps.  xci.  11-13  and  Ps. 
xxvii.  1).  (c)  His  fidelity.  (He  does  no  more  and 
no  less  than  he  is  commanded.  He~has  a  great 
commission  entrusted  to  him,  but  he  does  not 
boast.  He  keeps  the  secret  and  departs  as  he 
came.  He  does  not  care  what  may  be  thought  of 
him,  or  what  people  may  say,  whether  they  think 
him  a  "  mad  fellow  "  or  not.  So  the  Apostles  also 
carried  the  secrets  of  God  out  into  the  wide  world, 
and  had  no  other  interest  than  that  they  might  bs 
found  true.) — Vers.  7-10.  The  world  of  to-day 
will  not  hear  that:  "The  Lord  will  take  vengeance 
on  his  adversaries,"  etc.  (Nahum  i.  2  ;  cf.  Deut. 
xxxii.  -13),  and  declares  that  this  is  only  an  Old 
Testament  notion,  and  that  the  Gospel  knows  july 
jne  God  who  is  a  God  of  love.     It  is  truo  thai 


CHAPTER  IX.   1-37 


10] 


God  does  not  seek  revenge,  but  he  is  an  holy,  and 
therefore  also  a  just,  God,  who  requites  men  as 
they  have  deserved,  and  repays  each  according  to 
his  conduct  (Job  xxxiv.  11;  Rom.  ii.  6).  A  God 
without  vengeance,  i.  e.,  who  cannot  and  will  not 
punish,  is  no  God,  but  a  divinity  fashioned  from 
one's  thoughts.  The  same  gospel,  which  teaches 
that  God  is  love,  says  also:  "It  is  a  fearful  thing 
to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God,"  and: 
"Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire"  (Heb.  x.  31;  xii. 
29).  The  same  law  which  says  that  God  is  an 
avenging  God  towards  his  enemies,  says  also  that 
he  is  "  merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and 
abundant  in  goodness  and  truth  "  ( Ex.  xxxiv.  6). 
— Krummacher:  "The  blood  of  my  servants:" 
Listen  I  He  has  indeed  permitted  them  to  lay  vio- 
lent hands  upon  His  servants,  but  He  has  not 
overlooked  or  forgotten  it.  Nothing  cleaves  more 
irresistibly  up  through  the  clouds  than  the  voice 
of  the  blood  of  persecuted  saints.  Nothing  is  bet- 
ter adapted  to  pour  oil  upon  the  flames  of  the 
divine  wrath  against  the  godless  than  the  sighs 
which  their  cruelty  forces  from  a  child  of  God. 
The  blood  of  the  saints  has  often  cried  from  earth 
to  heaven,  and  what  judgments  it  has  called 
down!  Let  the  persecutors  of  all  centuries  ap- 
pear and  bear  witness.  (Nebuchadnezzar,  Belshaz- 
zar,  Herod,  Agrippa,  Nero,  Inquisitors  of  Spain, 
the  Louises  of  France,  Charles  IX.):  bear  witness 
all,  what  a  dangerous  thing  it  is  to  lay  hands  upon 
the  saints  of  the  Most  High  ! — This  is  not  the  only 
instance  where  God  has  raised  the  destroying  axe 
over  a  dynasty  which  was  morally  rotten.  He 
often  makes  use  of  royal  families,  which  have 
fallen  into  moral  decay,  for  the  discipline  of  na- 
tions, but  the  time  never  fails  to  come  when  he 
passes  sentence  of  destruction  upon  them,  and 
brings  speedy  ruin  upon  the  condemned.  A 
family-tree  does  not  stand  firm  in  gilded  parch- 
ments and  registers;  only  when  it  is  planted  by 
the  waters  which  flow  from  the  sanctuary  of  God, 
will  it  continue  to  flourish  vigorously. 

Vers.  11-16.  Jehu,  the  new  King  of  Israel.  He 
makes  known  to  the  generals  his  nomination  to 
the  crown ;  he  is  gladly  hailed  king  by  them  ;  lie 
enters  vigorously  and  without  delay  upon  his 
calling. — Ver.  11.  Keep  secret  for  a  time  that 
which  occurs  in  thy  chamber  between  thee  and 
thy  God.  Do  not  proclaim  it  upon  the  housetops, 
but  wait  until  Providence  shows  thee  an  occasion 
to  make  it  known  (Ps.  xxxvii.  34).  "  Fools  have 
their  hearts  in  their  mouths  "  (Sir.  xxi.  28). — 
Berleb.  Bibel:  It  was,  then,  a  common  thing  at 
that  time  to  regard  the  prophets  and  servants  of 
God  as  fools,  enthusiasts,  and  fanatics,  and  to  look 
upon  them  with  contempt  (Acts  xxvi.  24 ;  1  Cor. 
iv.  10;  Acts  xvii.  18). — Do  not  judge  according  to 
the  external  appearance,  and  the  first  superficial 
impression,  in  regard  to  persons  and  things  which 
thou  dost  not  know  or  understand.  That  which 
thou  callest  follv  and  nonsense  is  often  the  deep- 
est wisdom  (1  Cor.  i.  23-25).— Ver.  12.  If  the 
generals,  when  they  heard  that  God  had  anointed 
Jehu  to  be  king,  hastened,  spread  out  their  gar- 
ments, and  shouted:  "Jehu  is  king,"  how  much 
more  should  all  shout  Hosanna  to  him  whom  God 
has  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  x.  38), 
and  has  seated  at  His  right  hand  in  heaven,  who 
will  rule  until  He  has  subdued  all  His  enemies  un- 
der His  feet. 

Vers.  15-37.  The  Day  of  Judgment.  See  above, 


the  Histor.  §  5.— Vers.  17-20.  The  Watchman  on 
the  Tower.  He  sees  the  approaching  danger  and 
reports  it,  but  the  secure  and  blinded  kings  will  not 
be  disturbed  until  it  is  too  late.  It  is  the  duty  of 
those  whom  God  has  made  watchmen  over  souls, 
to  make  them  aware  of  all  dangers  which  threaten 
them,  and  to  repeat  continually  the  exhortation  to 
watch  (1  Cor.  xvi.  13;  Mark  xiii.  37). — Ver.  20. 
Osiander:  Dilatory  and  careless  people  do  not  ac- 
complish anything.  Only  diligent  and  energetic 
persons  succeed. — Test  thyself  to  see  what  spirit 
moves  thee.  The  right  motive-power  is  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  never  guides  to  folly.  One  may  con- 
duct spiritual  affairs  and  manage  the  concerns  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  with  folly,  want  of  judgment, 
and  heat  (Rom.  x.  2).  Those  only  are  children 
of  God  who  are  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God  (Rom. 
viii.  14);  the  fruits,  however,  which  this  Spirit 
causes  to  ripen  in  them,  are  love,  joy,  peace,  Ac. 
(Gal.  v.  22). — Ver.  21.  Observe  the  wonderful  dis- 
pensation of  the  divine  justice.  Joram  himself 
gave  the  order  to  "make  ready,"  in  order,  without 
knowing  or  wishing  it,  to  ride  out  to  the  place 
where  Naboth's  blood  was  crying  for  vengeance, 
and  where  ruin  was  prepared  for  him. — Ver.  22 
(18,19).  "Is  it  peace?"  Berleb.  Bibel:  So  it  is 
to-day  also.  A  false  peace  is  demanded  of  those 
who  are  sent  to  make  known  the  stern  truth,  in 
order  that  hoary  evils  may  not  be  exposed.  Those 
who  have  not  true  peace,  generally  want  an  ex- 
ternal, shameful  peace  at  any  price  (Ezek.  xiii.  16). 
Ask  thyself  first  of  all :  "  Is  there  peace  in  thy 
heart  ? "  and  seek  peace  from  Him  who  is  our 
peace  (Eph.  ii.  14). — There  can  be  no  lasting  peace 
where  there  is  apostasy  from  the  living  God  and 
His  word;  licentiousness,  injustice,  and  tyranny; 
there  strife  and  war,  with  all  their  attendant  mis- 
eries and  horrors,  must  come.  "  Though  Hi? 
sword  rests  for  a  time,  yet  it  does  not  rest  in  its 
scabbard"  (Krummacher). — Vers.  23-29.  The 
Death  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah.  It  was 
sudden,  unforeseen,  and  fell  upon  them  in  their 
security  and  blindness.  The  proverb  applies  to 
Ahaziah:  "  Mitgegangen,  mitgefangen ; "  hunt  with 
the  fox,  and  you  will  be  hung  with  him.  (WtJRT. 
SIMM.  :  Refrain  from  bad  companions,  if  thou 
wouldst  not  be  punished  with  them.)  The  one  is 
thrown  upon  Naboth's  field,  and  left  without  a 
grave ;  the  other  is  brought  indeed  to  the  sepul- 
chre of  his  fathers,  but  what  is  the  use  of  a  royal 
sepulchre  to  him  who  has  lost  his  soul?  (Luke 
xvi.  22). — Ver.  25  sq.  Wurt.  Summ.  :  All  parents 
should  take  warning  by  this  and  not  collect  un- 
righteous wealth  either  for  themselves  or  their 
children,  for  "  treasures  of  wickedness  profit  noth- 
ing" (Prov.  x.  2),  and  there  is  no  blessing  with 
them.  They  rather  bring  corruption  to  both  parents 
and  children  (Jer.  xvh.  11). 

Vers.  30-37.  What  does  the  frightful  end  of 
Jezebel  teach  us?  (a)  The  transitoriness  and  noth- 
ingness of  human  might  and  glory.  (Jezebel  re- 
lies upon  her  might;  before  her  the  people  trem- 
ble. She  controlled  and  directed  three  kings;  she 
raged  against  all  who  did  not  submit  uncondition 
ally  to  her  will ;  now  she  l.es,  thrown  down  from 
her  height,  like  dung  upon  the  field,  so  that  no  one 
could  say:  "That  is  the  great  and  mightv  queen 
JezebeL"  Dan.  iv.  34:  Luke  i.  51;  1  Peter  i.  24.; 
(/<)  The  certainty  of  divine  retribution.  (Gal.  vi.  1 
sq.  Jezebel  was  au  enemy  of  the  living  God  and  of 
Tlis  word;   she  seduced   old  and  young  vo  «por 


108 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


tasy;  she  persecuted  all  who  still  held  firmly  to 
Jehovah.  Her  terrible  end  proves  that  such  a 
temper  is  certainly  punished.  Her  end  has  no 
parallel  in  Israelitish  history.  It  calls  aloud  to  all 
unto  this  day:  " Woe  unto  him  that  buildeth  his 
house  by  unrighteousness  "  (Jer.  xxii.  13),  and  it 
is  a  pledge  of  the  truth  of  this  assertion :  "  Only 
with  thine  eyes  shalt  thou  behold  and  see  the  re- 
ward of  the  wicked  "  (Ps.  xci.  8). — Vers.  30,  31. 
How  Jezebel  meets  her  end.  (a)  Her  last  action 
(ver.  30);  (6)  her  last  word  (ver.  31).  She  died 
as  she  had  lived. — Ver.  30.  How  accurately  this 
description  fits  many  of  her  sex  1  The  highest  oc- 
cupation they  can  conceive  of  is  to  adorn  them- 
selves, to  show  themselves,  to  conquer,  and  pro- 
duce effects.  Thou  fool!  If  God  demands  thy 
Boul  of  thee  to-day,  what  shall  all  paint  and  pow- 
der upon  the  face  avail  before  Him  who  tries  the 
heart  and  the  reins?  Can  velvet  and  silk  cover 
thine  inner  stains  ?  (Isa.  iii.  16  sq.)  There  could 
be  no  sterner  reproof  of  vanity,  pride,  and  co- 
quetry, and  no  more  severe  warning  to  take  to 
heart  the  Apostle's  words  1  Peter  iii.  3  sq.  than 
the  fate  of  Jezebel. — Ver.  31.  What  can  be  more 
perverse  and  pitiful  than  a  man  who  boasts  and 
puts  on  airs  in  the  very  face  of  death,  and  passes 
out  of  the  world  with  abuse  and  insults  against 
God,  instead  of  begging  for  pity  and  crying:  "  God 
be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  I  " — Jezebel,  who  mur- 
dered the  prophets  and  Naboth,  who  revolted 
against  the  Lord  of  Heaven  and  Earth,  calls  Jehu 
a  murderer  and  a  rebel.  The  blind  and  stubborn 
human  heart  always  finds  in  others  just  those  sins 
of  which  it  is  itself  guilty  in  a  far  higher  degree. 
— Vers.  32,  33.  As  the  master  is,  so  is  the  ser- 
vant. Base  men  always  cling  to  those  who  have 
power,  and  change  their  colors  as  the  weather- 
cock of  fortune  turns.  He  who  is  himself  un- 
faithful cannot  depend  upon  the  fidelity  of  others. 
Ps.  ci.  6  sq.  —Ver.  37.  Cf.  Prov.  x.  7 ;  Job  xviii. 
17  ;  xx.  4-7. 

[The  homiletical  material  of  the  chapter  may  be 
divided  into  two  heads:  the  political;  and  the 
ethical  or  religious.  The  former  here  obtains  es- 
pecial significance,  inasmuch  as  the  record  is  pri- 
marily pure  history,  aud  not  ethical  or  philosophical 
discussion.  It  has,  therefore,  the  same  utility 
which  all  history,  sacred  or  profane,  has  for  the 
instruction  of  succeeding  generations.  It  shows 
certain  institutions  and  certain  human  passions  in 
play,  and  shows  the  consequences  they  produce. 
It  is  presented  to  us  from  a  religious  and  moral 
stand-point,  and  its  instruction  is,  therefore,  great 
for  the  criticism  of  political  institutions  from  the 
point  of  view  of  religion  and  morals.  If  we  see 
here  anil  m  the  succeeding  chapters  the  horrors  of 
revolution  on  the  one  hand,  none  the  less  do  we 
see  when  and  how  revolution  becomes  a  terrible 
necessity.  All  authority  is  a  means,  not  an  end. 
It  is  established,  recognized,  and  obeyed,  because 
it  sen.-  iii —  ,  ill-.  Its  rights  and  privileges  are 
correlative  with  duties  obligations,  and  responsi- 
bilities, viz..  to  accomplish  the  objects  for  which  it 
was  created.  Its  claims  to  obedience  stand  and 
fall  with  its  fidelity  in  fulfilling  its  trust.  If  it 
fails  in  this,  if  it  goes  farther,  and,  in  the  pursuit 
of  its  selfish  aims,  and  the  gratification  of  its  own 
self-will,  threatens  to  crush  and  ruin  the  very  in- 
terests it  was  created    to   serve,  the  time  comes 


when  obedience  ceases  to  be  a  virtue  and  becomes 
complicity  in  a  crime.  In  the  absence  of  pro- 
phetical authority  to  f\x  the  time  and  designate  the 
leaders  for  renouncing  allegiance,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  who  is  to  judge  of  these  save  the  nation  whose 
interests  are  at  stake.  This  bears  as  complete  ap- 
plication to  republican  institutions  as  to  any  other. 
God's  judgment  upon  the  political  sins,  the  reck- 
lessness, the  self-will,  and  the  selfishness  of  con- 
stitutional authorities  is  as  sure  as  his  punishment 
of  royal  transgressors.  It  is  as  possible  for  a  rep- 
resentative assembly  to  sacrifice  the  highest  inter- 
ests of  a  nation  as  it  is  for  a  despot.  Though,  in 
the  progress  of  civilization,  constitutional  restraints 
are  so  much  developed  that  rulers  are  under  a 
strict  and  unremitting  responsibility,  and  other 
correctives  are  at  hand  than  violence  and  blood- 
shed, yet  the  principles  and  their  application  re- 
main. The  highest  national  interests  must  be 
watched  over,  guarded,  and  maintained  bj  vigi- 
lance, and  by  wise  resistance  to  anything  vhich 
would  impair  them. — The  ethical  and  moral  lessons 
of  the  chapter  lie  in  the  character  and  the  fate  of 
the  chief  actors  in  the  tragedy.  Of  Jehu  we  have 
spoken  above.  When  his  strength,  his  virtue,  nis 
calling,  and  his  work  are  defined,  their  limitations 
are  also  pointed  out. — Ahaziah  seems  to  have  been 
one  of  those  weak  men  who  float  on  in  the  direc- 
tion which  their  education  and  family  traditions 
have  given  them.  He  followed  the  family  tradi- 
tions down  to  the  family  ruin.  Joram's  wound 
seems  to  bear  witness  to  some  military  effort,  but 
in  general  he  appears  in  the  light  of  an  oriental 
monarch,  indolent,  careless,  luxurious,  fond  of 
ease.  The  sudden  and  hasty  approach  of  the  gen- 
eral of  the  army  alarmed  him  in  regard  to  the  for- 
tunes of  the  war  in  Syria,  and  he  went  out,  with- 
out personal  anxiety,  to  meet  his  fate.  His  death 
fulfilled  a  malediction  upon  his  father.  The  two 
kings,  therefore,  appear  to  be,  to  a  great  extent, 
the  victims  of  the  sins  of  their  ancestors,  and  as 
Jezebel  had  controlled  Ahab,  we  are  led  back  to 
her  as  the  origin  of  all  this  individual,  family,  and 
national  calamity.  She  was  one  of  those  strong, 
bold,  wicked  women,  who  have  played  such  im- 
portant idles  in  history.  She  was  of  the  Phoeni- 
cian blood,  reared  in  the  luxury  and  licentiousness 
of  oriental  custom,  and  of  a  bloody  and  sensuous 
idolatry.  The  Mosaic  ritual  and  the  Israelitish 
constitution  had  been  framed  to  form  a  barrier  to 
preserve  the  people  of  Israel  from  the  infection  of 
those  vices  which  characterized  the  heathen  na- 
tions. By  Ahab's  marriage  with  this  woman  the 
barrier  was  broken  through,  and  the  licentiousness 
of  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte,  the  freedom 
of  manners  of  the  Phoenician  court,  the  luxury  and 
sensuality  of  the  heathen  nations  was  imported 
into  Israel.  To  a  woman  thus  educated  the  reli- 
gion, the  traditions  and  customs,  which  prevailed 
even  in  the  northern  kingdom,  must  have  ap- 
peared cold,  austere,  bigoted,  narrow,  and  hateful. 
It  became  her  aim,  therefore,  to  override,  and 
break  down,  and  destroy  all  that  was  peculiar  and 
national  in  Israel,  but  in  so  doing  she  was  contra- 
vening all  that  belonged  to  and  sustained  God's 
plan  lor  Israel  in  human  history.  She  braved  ths 
conflict  and  reasserted  it  in  her  last  hour,  and  she 
and  her  descendants  went  down  in  the  catastro- 
phe.—W.  G.  S.] 


CHAPTER  X.  1-36.  10'J 


THIRD    EPOCH. 

FROM   THE  ELEVATION   OF  JEHU   TO    THE  THRONE  UNTIL  THE 
DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  ISRAEL. 

2  Kings  X.— XVH. 


FIRST    SECTION. 

THE    MONARCHY   UNDER  JEHU   IN   ISRAEL    AND   UNDER   ATTTATiTA   AND   JOASH   IN   JUDAH. 

2  Kings  X— XIL 


A. — The  Reign  of  Jehu. 
Chap.  X.  1-36. 

1  And  Ahab  had  seventy  sons  in  Samaria.  And  Jehu  wrote  letters,  and  sent 
to  Samaria,  unto  the  rulers  of  Jezreel  [the  city],1  to  the  elders,  and  to  them  that 

■2  brought  up  [the  guardians  of]  Ahab's  children,  saying,  "Now  as  soon  as  this 
letter  cometh  to  you,  seeing  your  master's  sons  are  with  you,  and  there  are  with 

3  you  chariots  and  horses,  a  fenced  city,  also,  and  armor  [weapons]:  look  even 
out  the  best  and  meetest  of  your  master's  sons,  and  [that  ye  may]  set  him  on 

4  mb  father's  throne,  and  fight  for3  your  master's  house.  But  they  were  exceed- 
ingly afraid,  and  said,  Behold,  two  kings  stood  not  before  him  :    how  then  shall 

5  we  stand  ?  And  he  that  was  over  the  house  [palace],  and  he  that  was  over  the 
city,  the  elders  also,  and  the  bringers  up  of  the  children,  sent  to  Jehu,  saying, 
We  are  thy  servants,  and  will  do  all  that  thou  shalt  bid  us;    we  will  not  make 

6  any  [one]  king:  do  thou  that  which  is  good  in  thine  eyes.  Then  he  wrote  a 
[second]  letter  the  second  time  [omit  the  second  time]  to  them,  saying,  If  ye  be 
mine  [on  my  side],  and  if  ye  will  hearken  unto  my  voice,  take  ye  the  heads  of 
the  men  your  master's  sons,  and  come  to  me  to  Jezreel  by  to  morrow  this  time. 
[(]Now  the  king's  sons,  being  seventy  persons,  teere  with  the  great  men  of  the 

"I  city,  which  brought  them  up[)].  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  letter  came  to 
them,  that  they  took  the  king's  sons,  and  slew  seventy  persons,  and  put  their 

8  heads  in  baskets,  and  sent  him  them  to  Jezreel.  And  there  came  a  messenger 
and  told  him,  saying,  They  have  brought  the  heads  of  the  king's  sons.  And  he 
said,  Lay  ye  them  in  two  heaps  at  the  entering  in  [entrance]  of  the  gate  until 

9  the  morning.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  morning,  that  he  went  out,  and  stood, 
and  said  to  all  the  people,  Ye  be  righteous  [just]  :  behold,  I  conspired  against 

JO  my  master,  and  slew  him :  but  who  slew  all  these  ?    Know  now  [therefore]  that 
there  shall  fall  unto  the  earth  nothing  of  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  the  Lord 


11"  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

spake  concerning  the  house  of  Ahab :  for  the  Lord  hath  done  that  which  he 

11  spake  by  his  servant  Elijah.  So  [And]  Jehu  slew  all  that  remained  of  the  house 
of  Ahab  in  Jezreel,  and  all  his  great  men,  and  his  kinsfolks  [intimate  friends], 
and  his  priests  [chief officers],  until  he  left*  him  none  remaining  [no  survivor]. 

12  And  lie  arose  and  departed,  and  came  to  Samaria.    And  [On  the  way,]  as  he 

13  was  at  the  shearing  house  in  the  way  [Shepherd's  House  of  Meeting;],  Jehu  met 
with  the  brethren  of  Ahaziah  king  of  Judah,  and  said,  Who  are  ye  '?  And  they 
answered,  We  are  the  brethren  of  Ahaziah  ;  and  we  go  down  to  salute  the  chil- 

14  dren  of  the  king  and  the  children  of  the  queen[-mother].  And  he  said,  Take 
them  alive.  And  they  took  them  alive,  and  slew  them  at  the  pit  of  the  shearing 
house  [House  of  Meeting],  even  two  and  forty  men  ;  neither,  left  he  any  of 'them. 

15  And  when  he  was  departed  thence,  he  lighted  on  Jehonadab  the  son  of  Re- 
chab  coming  to  meet  him  :  and  he  saluted  him,  and  said  to  him,  Is  thine  heart 
right  [verily  sincere],  as  my  heart  is  with  thy  heart  ?  And  Jehonadab  answered, 
It  is  [verily,  verily,  it  is].     If  it  be  [said  Jehu],  give  me  thine  hand.      And  he 

16  gave  him  his  hand;  and  he  took  him  up  to  him  into  the  chariot.  And  he  said, 
Come  with  me,  and  see  my  zeal  for  the  Lord.     So  they  [he]  6  made  him  ride  in 

17  his  chariot.  And  when  he  came  to  Samaria,  he  slew  all  that  remained  unto 
Ahab  in  Samaria,  till  he  had  destroyed  him,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  Lord, 
which  he  spake  to  Elijah. 

18  And  Jehu  gathered  all  the  people  together,  and  said  nnto  them,  Ahab  served 

19  Baal  a  little;  but  Jehu  shall  serve  him  much.  Now  therefore  call  unto  me  alp 
the  prophets  of  Baal,  all  his  servants,  and  all  his  priests  ;  let  none  be  wanting: 
for  1  have  a  great  sacrifice  to  do  to  Baal ;  whosoever  shall  be  wanting,  he  shall 
not  live.     But  Jehu  did  it  in  subtilty,  to  the  intent  that  he  might   destroy  the 

20  worshippers  of  Baal.     And  Jehu  said,  Proclaim  a  solemn  assembly  for   Baal. 

21  And  they  proclaimed  it.  And  Jehu  sent  through  all  Israel  :  and  all  the  wor- 
shippers of  Baal  came,  so  that  there  was  not  a  man  left  that  came  not.  And 
they  came  into  the  house  of  Baal;  and  the  house  of  Baal  was  full  from  one  end 

22  to  another  [wall  to  wall].  And  he  said  unto  him  that  was  over  the  vestry,  Bring 
forth  vestments  for  all  the  worshippers  of  Baal.     And  he  brought  them  forth 

23  vestments.  And  Jehu  went,  and  Jehonadab  the  son  of  Recliab,  into  the  house 
of  Baal,  and  [he,  (Jehu)]  said  unto  the  worshippers  of  Baal,  Search,  and  look  that 
there  be  here  with  you  none  of  the  servants  of  the  Lord,  but  the  worshippers- 

24  of  Baal  only.  And  when  they  went  in  to  offer  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings, 
Jehu  appointed  [stationed]  fourscore  men  without,  and  said,  //'  [Whoso  letteth 
— omit  if]  6  any  of  the  men  whom  I  have  brought  into  your  hands  escape,  he  that 
letteth  him  go,  his  life  shall  be  for  the  life  of  him  [he  shall  pug  for  it,  life  for 

25  life].  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  he  [they]  had  made  an  end  of  [completed  the 
preparations  for]  offering  the  burnt  offering,  that  Jehu  said  to  the  guard  and  to 
the  captains  [royal  foot-guards  and  horse-guards],  Go  in,  and  slay  them  ;  let 
none  [not  one]  come  forth.  And  they  smote  them  with  the  edge  of  the  sword  ; 
and  the  guard  and  the  captains  [foot-guards  and  horse-guards]  cast  them  out, 

26  and  went  [pressed  through]  to  the  city  [strong-hold]  of  the  house  of  Baal.     And 

27  they  brought  forth  the  images  out  of  the  house  of  Baal,  and  burned  them.  And 
they  brake  down  the  image  of  Baal,  and  brake  down  the  house  of  Baal,  and 
made  it  a  draught  house  [privy]  unto  this  day. 

28,  29  Thus  Jehu  destroyed  Baal  out  of  Israel.  Howbeit,  from  the  sins  of  Jero 
boam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,  Jehu  departed  not  from  aftei 

30  them,  to  wit,  the  golden  calves  that  were  in  Beth-el,  and  that  were  in  Dan.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Jehu,  Because  thou  hast  done  well  [been  zealous]  in  execut- 
ing ilnit  which  is  right  in  mine  eyes,  and  hast  done  unto  the  house  of  Ahab 
according  to  all  that  was  in  mine  heart,  thy  children  of  the  fourth  generation 

31  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  Israel.  But  Jehu  took  no  heed  to  walk  in  the  law  of 
the  Lord  God  of  Israel  witli  all  his  heart:  for  lie  departed  not  from  the  sins 
of  Jeroboam,  which  made  Israel  to  sin. 

32  In  those  days  the  Lord  began  to  cut  [oif  parts  from]  Israel  short  [omit  short] 
and   Ilazael  smote  them  in  all  the  coasts  [along  the  entire  frontier]  of  Israel 


CHArTER  X.   1-36. 


in 


83  from  Jordan  eastward,  all  the  land  of  Gilead,  the  Gadites,  and  the  Keubenites, 
and  the  Manassites,  from  Aroer,  which  is  by  the  river  Arnon,  even  Gilead  and 

34  Bashan.    Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehu,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  all  his  might, 

35  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ?     And 
Jehu  slept  with  his  fathers :  and  they  buried  him  in  Samaria.     And  Jehoahaz 

36  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.     And  the  time  that  Jehu  reigned  over  Israel  in 
Samaria  was  twenty  and  eight  years. 


TKXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

•  Ver.  1.— [For  ^XJJIP  read  ^X  1'1'H  .    See  Ereg.— D'iOX  3XHX  ,  "  Ahab's  tutors."    Since,  however,  they  were 

not  tntors  <>f  Ahab,  but  those  whom  he  had  appointed  to  instruct  his  sons.  D^JOX  Btands  in  a  loose  construction  in  the 
case  absolute. 

8  Ver.  2. — [After  the  formal  erecting  and  address  of  the  letter,  which  are  no*  given  here,  its  substance  began  with 

nnjn-  <y.  chap.  v.  6. 

3  Ver.  8.— [hi' ,  for.     Ewald,  §  21T,  i.  0. 

•  Ver.  11.— [TX"*H  is  an  infinitive.    See  Text  and  Gramm.  on  chap.  iii.  25. 
6  Ver.  16. — [All  the  versions  but  the  Chaldee  have  the  singular. 

•  Ver.  24.— [For  UTtf  read  D^D'  with  Keil,  Thenius,  Bunsen.  and  others.— W.  G.  8.] 


EXEGET1CAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Seventy  sons  in  Samaria,  &e.  Ver. 
3  shows  ("  Your  master's  sons  ")  that  the  grand- 
sons of  Ahab  are  included,  for  the  "  master  "  can- 
not mean  Ahab,  who  had  been  dead  for  twelve 
years,  but  Joram.  We  must  understand  the  words 
as  referring  to  all  the  male  descendants  of  Ahab. — 
To  Samaria,  to  the  rulers  of  Jezreel.  Ver.  5 
shows  who  are  meant,  viz.,  he  who  was  over  the 
house  (palace),  and  he  who  was  over  the  city ;  and 
we  may  understand  it  to  refer  to  Samaria,  which 
was  the  capital  and  the  residence  of  the  king,  and 
not  to  Jezreel,  which  only  served  as  summer  resi- 
dence of  the  court.  The  governors,  who  were  the 
highest  officers  in  Samaria,  cannot  possibly  have 
been  the  "  rulers  of  Jezreel,''  for  these  could  have 

had  no  authority  in  Samaria.     The  word  pKjnp  is 

entirely  wanting  in  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.  The 
former  have  irpbr  rove  apxovrar  ri/r  -roAfuc  nai 
•rpdc  rot'f  -n-peaSvripov;;  the  latter  has:  ad  opti- 
■mates  civitatis  et  ad  majores  7ialu.     Keil,  therefore, 

conjectures  that  pXlHP  is  an  error  for  5N  TJH1  • 
This  is  favored  by  D'Jp-tn ,  before  which,  since  it 
cannot  be  taken  as  an  apposition  to  i-|j}> ,  ?X  must 
certainly  be  supplied.  This  seems  better  than,  with 
Clerieus,  Miehaelis,  and  Ewald,  to  change  PSSTIT1 
into  ^NT-'" ,  or,  with  Thenius,  to  adopt  the  con- 
jecture that  there  stood  in  the  original  text :  "  He 
sent  from  Jezreel  to  the  rulers  of  Samaria."     The 

D'JON  are  the  tutors  appointed  by  Ahab  for  his 

sons. — Ver.  2.  Only  the  main  point  of  Jehu's  letter 
is  given  (chap.  v.  6).  It  is  not  necessary  to  under- 
stand that  this  letter  was  a  "trick,"  or  ■■irony."  or 
"scorn,"  as  is  generally  done:  it  rather  expresses 
contrariness  or  perversity.  Its  meaning  may  be 
expressed  thus  :  "lam  king;  but  if  you,  who  have 
chariots  and  horses  and  weapons  in  your  power, 
want  to  put  a  prince  of  Ahab's  house  on  the  throne, 


commence  a  war  with  me."  [The  letter  is  very 
characteristic  in  its  form.  It  is  composed  in  that 
comprehensive  satire  which  says  much  in  a  few 
words.  It  implies  self-confidence  so  great  that  the 
writer  can  afford  to  tantalize  the  reader  with  an 
apparent  command  of  the  situation,  and  an  appa- 
rent freedom  of  choice,  which  in  reality  he  has  not 
got.  It  implies  also  a  threat  of  consequences  if  the 
readers  are  sanguine  enough  to  choose  the  policy  of 
resistance.  If  on  the  other  hand  they  choose  the 
pohcy  of  submission,  they  will  find  out  what  they 
have  to  do  to  please  the  new  ruler.  It  is  a  satiri- 
cal and  scornful  challenge. — W.  G.  S.]  As  Jehu 
was  well  known  to  them  by  reputation  as  one  of 
the  boldest  and  bravest  generals,  and  no  one  of 
them  felt  competent  to  meet  him,  they  became 
frightened,  and  surrendered  at  once :  all  the  more 
readily  when  they  heard  what  he  had  already  done. 
It  was  very  cautious  of  him  not  to  go  himself 
immediately,  with  his  small  force  (chap.  ix.  17), 
against  the  strongly  fortified  city  of  Samaria,  but 
to  first  write  them  threatening  letters,  so  as  to  find 
nut  what  disposition  he  must  expect  to  find  in  the 
capital. 

Ver.  6.  Then  he  wrote  a  second  letter,  &c. 
The  reason  why  Jehu  not  only  commands  to  put  to 
death  the  sons  of  Ahab,  but  also  to  bring  their 
heads,  at  the  same  hour  the  next  day,  to  Jezreel, 
which  was  nine  hours'  journey  from  Samaria,  is  ' 
plain  from  vers.  9  and  10.  It  was  important  for  him 
to  be  acknowledged  by  the  people  as  king  as  soon 
as  possible.  The  people  were  to  be  convinced  by  the 
sight  of  the  heads  that  all  who  might  eventually 
become  pretenders  to  the  crown  were  dead,  and 
also  that  the  rulers  and  the  great  men  of  the  king- 
dom, who  had  sent  these  heads,  had  thereby  broken 
utterly  with  the  dynasty  of  Ahab. — The  parenthe- 
sis in  ver.  6  is  not  to  be  translated  according  to  the 
massoretic  punctuation:  "  The  king's  sons  were  sev- 
enty persons,"  for  this  would  be  an  entirely  super- 
fluous repetition  of  ver.  1.  It  means  rather  that 
the  sons,  mentioned  in  ver.  1,  resided  with  these 
important  persons  (J"|X  is  not  a  sign  of  the  nomi- 
native, but  a  preposition4   "with"),  and  that  thif 


112 


THE  SECOND  J5UU&  OE  THE  KINGS. 


is  the  reason  why  the  command  was  addressed  to 
them. — Ver.  8.  "  Jehu  ordered  the  heads  to  be 
brought  to  the  entrance  of  the  gate,  because  the 
people  were  accustomed  to  assemble  there.  It  is 
an  old  oriental  custom  to  cut  off  the  heads  of  slain 
enemies,  and  then  to  show  these  publicly,  2  Mace. 
xv.  30 ;  1  Sam.  xvii.  54  (cf.  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.,  i.  s. 
C81).  Even  now.  in  the  Orient,  the  heads  of  those 
who  are  beheaded  are  placed  upon  the  gate,  in  or- 
der that  they  may  be  seen  by  all. 

Ter.  9  sq.  And  said  to  all  the  people,  Ac. 
The  sight  of  the  seventy  heads  very  naturally  pro- 
duced consternation  among  the  people,  probably 
also  dissatisfaction  and  complaints  against  Jehu, 
the  supposed  cause  of  their  death.  Thereupon  he 
appeared  before  the  people  in  order  to  soothe  them. 
He  does  not  attack  them  rudely,  but  appeals  to 
their  just  judgment.  Ye  are  just;  i.  e.,  not,  "Ye 
insist  upon  it  that  ye  are  right  "  (Luther) ;  nor : 
''Ye  are  righteous,"  i.  e.,  ''I  declare  you  guiltless" 
(Richter) ;  nor :  "  Now  is  the  sin  of  the  people 
atoned  for,  now  are  ye  once  more  righteous  before 
God ;  the  punishment  began  through  me,  here  ye 
see  how  it  has  gone  on  "  (Gerlach).  The  sense  is 
rather:  "  Ye  are  just,  so  judge  yourselves;  I  have. 
it  is  true,  made  a  conspiracy  against  Joram  and 
killed  him ;  but  I  did  not  kill  these  seventy.  The 
rulers  in  Samaria,  the  friends  of  the  house  of  Ahab, 
the  tutors  of  the  royal  princes,  killed  these.  If  ye 
will  lament  and  complain,  ye  have  far  greater  rea- 
son to  do  so  against  them  than  against  me,  but 
consider  that  both  I  and  they  acted  according  to 
divine  ordinance  and  in  consequence  of  the  sen- 
tence which  Elijah,  the  great  prophet,  pronounced." 
In  all  this,  Jehu  carefully  conceals  the  main  point, 
viz.,  that  the  murders  were  committed  by  his  com- 
mand. Perhaps  he  saw  a  providential  dispensa- 
tion in  the  very  fact  that  the  rulers  at  Samaria 
yielded  to  him  at  once,  and  executed  his  further 
commands  from  fear.  His  speech  had  the  desired 
effect.  The  people  ceased  their  complaints  and 
resigned  themselves  contentedly.  He  was  thereby 
encouraged  to  go  farther,  and  to  put  to  death  all 
the  higher  officers  and  friends  of  the  house  of  Ahab, 
as  is  recorded  in  ver.  11.   The  VJTTO  are  not  Ahab's 

relatives  (Luther,  E.  V.),  but  his  friends  and  inti- 
mate companions.     In  like  manner  VJflO  are  not 

his  "priests"  (Keil),  but,  as  in  2  Sam.  viii.  18  and 
1  Kings  iv.  5,  his  highest  officers  and  servants. 
The  turn  of  the  idolatrous  priests  came  later  (ver. 
1 8  si).).  Not  until  after  this  had  all  taken  place, 
did  Jehu  go  to  Samaria,  where  he  no  longer  needed 
to  fear  any  opposition  iver.  12). 

Ver.  12.  At  the  Shepherd's  House  of  Meet- 
ing.   "  The  Chaldee  version  has  jpjn  DBf'JS  JV3, 

the  meeting-house  of  the  shepherds,  so  that  it  was 
probably  a  house  which  stood  alone,  and  which 
served  the  shepherds  of  the  region  round  about  as 
a  place  of  assembling.  The  commonest  interpreta- 
tion is,  binding-house  (where  the  shepherds  tied  up 
their  sheep  for  the  shearing),  but  opposed  to  this  is 
the  fact  that  the  shearing  and  not  the  binding  is 
the  main  point  in  that  connection,  and  moreover, 
(hat  the  shearing  took  place,  according  to  Gen. 
xxxviii.  12;  1  Sam.  ixv.  2;  2  Stun.  xiii.  23,  in  the 
separate  localities,  and  not  tit  one  place  for  an  en- 
tire district  "  (Thenius). — Ver.  13.  Instead  of  Breth- 
ren of  Ahaziah,  2  Ghron.  xxii.  8  has :  "  Sons  of 
tin-  brethren  of  Ahaziah"     Considering  the  com- 


prehensiveness of  the  signification  of  nx ,  this  is  no 

contradiction.  We  must  understand  in  general 
cousins  and  relatives  of  Ahaziah.  They  undertook 
the  journey  to  Jezreel,  as  they  themselves  say  in 

ver.  13,  Di^L'6  a&  salutandum,  in  order  to  make  a 

friendly  visit  at  the  court  there.  The  fact  that  they 
came  in  such  a  large  number  shows  clearly  that 
Joram,  at  this  time,  no  longer  lay  ill  from  his 
wound,  but  was  already  recovered,  as  we  saw  also 
from  chap.  ix.  21.  They  expected  to  enjoy  a  plef.s- 
ant  visit,  and  knew  nothing  of  what  had  occurred 
since  they  last  heard  from  the  court  of  Joram. 
When  Jehu  heard  who  they  were  and  whither  they 
were  going,  he  called  to  his  retinue :  Take  them 
alive;  i.  e.,  take  them  captives.  Perhaps  they 
would  not  submit  to  be  captured,  and  undertook, 
as  many  suppose,  to  defend  themselves,  where- 
upon he  caused  them  to  be  slaughtered.  There  is 
no  ground  whatever  for  the  notion  which  Duncker 
adopts,  that  he  did  this  in  "the  hope  of  getting 
possession  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  also."  There 
is  no  sign  anywhere  of  any  such  intention  on  the 
part  of  Jehu.  Evidently  his  purpose  was,  by  slay- 
ing these  relatives  of  Ahab,  who,  as  their  journey 
showed,  were  friends  and  retainers  of  the  house  of 
Ahab,  to  make  every  attempt  at  blood'-vengeance, 
or  at  the  overthrow  of  his  royal  authority,  impos- 
sible. 

Ver.  15.  He  lighted  on  Jehonadab,  the  son 
of  Rechab,  &c.  No  one  doubts  that  this  is  the 
same  Jehonadab  who,  according  to  Jerem.  xxxv 
1-19,  gave  to  the  so-called  Rechabites  their  stern, 
nomadic  rules  of  life,  and  whom  they  there  cal". 
their  "  father."  Josephus  says  of  him :  avi/p  ayadb( 
Kal  dinatot;,  'luvdfiaSnr  bvofia  <pi?.o(;  airtj  [T^oi'] 
■xa'Atu  jfjovaif.  It  is  uncertain  whether  his  meet- 
ing with  Jehu  was  accidental,  or  whether  Jehona- 
dab came  on  purpose  to  meet  him.  According  to 
the  Hebrew  text  Jehu  saluted  him  and  said:  Is 
thine  heart  right,  &c.  According  to  Josephus, 
Jehonadab  saluted  Jehu,  and  commenced  to  praise 
him,  because  he  had  done  everything  according  to 
the  will  of  God  for  the  rooting  out  of  the  house  of 
Ahab.  Jehu  called  upon  him  to  mount  into  tho 
chariot,  and  to  ride  with  him  to  Samaria,  saying 
that  he  would  show  him  how  he  would  spare  none 
of  the  wicked,  but  would  punish  the  false  prophets 
and  priests  and  all  who  had  misled  the  people  to 
the  abandonment  of  Jehovah,  and  to  the  worship 
of  false  gods.  He  said  that  it  was  the  most  beau- 
tiful, anil,  for  an  honorable  and  just  man,  the  pleas- 
antest  sight  to  see  the  punishment  of  the  wicked. 
Jehonadab,  prevailed  upon  by  this,  mounted  the 
chariot  and  came  to  Samaria. — Doubtless  some 
such  conversation  preceded  the  words :  "  Is  thine 
heart  right,"  &c.  At  any  rate,  Jehonadab  was  <\ 
zealous  servant  of  Jehovah,  and,  therefore,  also  an 
opponent  of  the  house  of  Ahab.  As  he  also  stood 
at  the  head  of  a  religious  community,  it  was  ol 
great  importance  for  Jehu  to  have  him  on  his  side, 
and  to  bo  accompanied  to  Samaria  by  him.  It  was 
a  mark  of  high  esteem  to  invite  him  to  mount  into 

the  chariot. — ]-|X  before  ^22^  [is  used  to  form  an 

usative  of  specification,  equivalent  to  a  nomina 

rive  absolute.  "Is  it  right,  as  to  thy  heart,"  or 
"Thy  heart,  is  it  right"="Is  thy  heart  right. " 
The    form   gives   peculiar   emphasis],  see    Ewald, 

Lehrb.,  §  277  d.    "");;"  here  involves  the  idea  of  » 


CHAPTER  X.   1-3G. 


113 


sincere  agreement  in  feeling  "  (Thenius).  Almost 
all  the  versions  render  13HT1 ,  ver.  16,  as  if  they 

had  real  ySTli*-  e.,  "He  made  him  ride."  Ac- 
cording to  ver.  17,  the  Sr3C  thing  which  Jehu  did 
in  Samaria  was  just  what  he  had  done  in  Jezreel 
(ver.  11).  After  the  entire  house  of  Ahab  had 
been  destroyed,  he  went  on  to  overthrow  the  wor- 
ship of  Baal. 

Ver.  18.  And  Jehu  gathered  all  the  people 
together,  fee.  The  fact  that  Jehu  was  believed, 
when  he  said  that  he  would  serve  Baal  far  more 
ihan  Ahab  had  done,  is  explained  by  the  consider- 
ation that  his  entire  enterprise  was  regarded  as  a 
oiilitarv  revolution,  like  that  of  Baasha  and  Zimri, 
in  which  the  thing  at  stake  was  the  supreme  pow- 
9r  and  the  throne,  not  a  religious  reform  and  the 
lestoration  of  the  service  of  Jehovah.  No  one  any 
onger  thought  of  that  as  a  possibility. — On  the 
irophets  of  Baal,  ver.  19  sq.,  see  note  above  on  1 
Kings  xviii.  19.— mVJJi  ver.  20,  is  not  "feast-day" 

(Vulg.  diem  solemnem)  but  a  solemn  festal  assem- 
bly, as  in  Isai.  i.  13;  Joel  i.  14;  Amos  v.  21. — 
The  "  House  of  Baal "  is  the  one  built  by  Ahab 
(1  Kings  xvi.  32),  which  seems  to  have  been  a 
large  and  rambling  structure,  in  which  were  450 

priests  of  Baal  and  400  of  Astarte. — nth  !"I2 ,  ver.  21, 

strictly,  mouth  to  mouth,  or  opening  to  opening, 
i.  e.,  as  far  as  it  was  open,  as  much  as  it  could 
hold.  It  refers  to  the  outer  court  in  which  the 
altar  of  sacrifice  stood,  for  the  house,  strictly 
speaking,  that  is,  the  sanctuary  or  shrine  in  which 
the  statue  of  Baal  was,  was,  as  in  all  temple  struc- 
tures, very  small. — nnn^D,  ver.  22,  occurs  only 

here,  but  means,  unquestionably,  vestiarium  (Ges., 
Thes.,  p.  764).  Thenius  thinks,  because  the  king 
here  gave  especial  commands,  that  "  we  must  un- 
derstand it  to  refer  to  the  stores  of  festal  garments 
n  the  palace,  not  to  the  wardrobe  of  the  temple  of 
Baal,  or  to  especial  saerleial  dresses  of  all  who 
took  part  in  the  ceremony."  However,  the  king 
ordains  everything  here;  it  was  he  who  planned 
the  feast.  Neither  '  -'ore  this  nor  afterwards  is 
there  any  re  orence  f  anything  but  the  house  of 
Baal,  and  certainly  there  were  priestly  garments 
in  that,  just  as  the  dresses  of  the  priests  of  Jeho- 
vah were  preserved  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
(Braun,  De  Vest.  Sacerdot.,  ii.  26,  p.  675).     Clericus 

says  that,  in  Ethiopie,  nn^X  ,  with  which  nnrfe 
is  connected,  means  vestis  byssina.  Garments  of 
byssus  were  the  peculiar  dress  of  priests  in  all  an- 
cient countries  (Symb.  des  Mosaischen  Knit.,  ii.  s. 
87  sq.).  According  to  Josephus,  it  was  especially 
important  for  Jehu  that  all  the  priests  of  Baal 
should  be  there.  They  all  received  priestly  gar- 
ments, and  became  thereby  all  the  more  easily 
recognizable  for  the  eighty  men  who  were  com- 
manded to  slay  them  before  all  others. 

Ver.  23.  And  Jehu  went,  and  Jehonadab, 
&c.  When  they  came  into  the  outer  court  of  the 
temple,  Jehu  gave  orders  to  examine  carefully 
and  see  whether  there  were  any  of  the  servants 
of  Jehovah  there.  He  thereby  gave  himself  the 
appearance  of  a  strict  adherent  of  Baal ;  but  his 
object  was  to  take  care  that  no  servant  of  Jeho- 
vah should  be  killed.  There  is  no  foundation  for 
Ewald's  representation  of  the  incident:  "  Jehu 
jave  orders  that  the  feast  should  be  celebrated 
8 


with  all  pomp,  just  as  a  powerful  man  may  show 
himself  open-handed  towards  mysteries  into  which 
he  desires  to  be  admitted.  He  commanded  that 
garments  should  be  given  to  all  who  had  not  any 
such  as  were  proper  for  the  feast.  When  the 
time  for  the  solemnity  approached,  he  commanded 
with  severity  that  any  servants  of  Jehovah  should 
be  cast  out.  (It  is  well  known  what  an  import- 
ance the  heathen  attached  to  the  procul  profani! 
in  their  mysteries.)  Finally  he  sacrificed  with  his 
own  hand  as  if  he  were  a  most  zealous  worshipper 
of  Baal."  Eisenlohr,  who  always  follows  Ewald, 
thinks  that  ver.  22  refers  to  "  the  unchaste  gar- 
ments woven  by  the  Kedeshoth "  [women  who 
prostituted  themselves  in  the  service  of  Astarte]. 
But  we  know  nothing  at  all  of  any  mysteries  of 
Baal.  There  is  no  syllable  of  reference  to  any 
such  thing  here,  much  less  of  reference  to  any  in- 
tention, which  was  even  pretended,  of  initiating 
the  king.  Nor  does  the  text  say  that  Jehu  him- 
self sacrificed,  and  then  gave  the  signal  for  the 
slaughter  of  all  who  were    present.  —  Ver.    25, 

iri?33 1    cannot   here    be   translated :    "  When  he, 

Jehu,  had  finished,"  nor,  with  some  of  the  Rabbis 
and  Keil:  "When  he  (the  sacrificing  priest),  had 
finished  the  burnt-offering."  The  suffix  i  is  to  be 
taken  as  equivalent  to  an  indefinite  subject,  "  one  " 
(German,  man)  [commonly  rendered  in  English  by 
an  indefinite  plural,  "they,"  or  by  a  passive  con- 
struction]  :  "  When  they  had  completed  the  prepa- 
rations for  the  sacrifice,"  or,  "When  the  prepara- 
tions for  the  sacrifice  were  completed."  The  Sept. 
give  this  same  sense:  ojc  mntereXefjav  ttoiovvtsc  rip> 
ruaw;  and  the  Vulg.  also,  cum  compktuin 
esset  holocaustum.     It  is  not  therefore  necessary  to 

read  Dn^D3  as  Thenius  does  (cf.  Ew.  §  294,  b). 

As  soon  as  they  had  completed  the  prepa- 
rations for  offering.  Not.  when  the  sacrifice  it- 
self was  over,  for  then  the  feast  of  Baal  would 
have  keen  at  an  end.  but,  at  the  moment  when  tlw 
sacrifice  was  just  fully  prepared,  and  was  on  the 
point  of  being  offered,  Jehu  gave  command  to  the 
"  runners  and  riders,"  i.  e.,  to  the  royal  V/ody-guard 
and  its  officers  (see  note  on  1  Kings  i.  38 ;  ix.  22  ; 
xiv.  28)  to  force  their  way  in.     Ewald  translates 

ID^u'^V   "  And  threw  the  corpses  aside  unburied," 

but  of  course  it  is  plain  that  they  could  not  under- 
take to  bury  them  at  once.  It  did  not  need  an- 
other sentence  to  tell  us  that  they  did  not  bury 
them  as  fast  as  they  killed  them.  The  interpreta- 
tion :  "  They  threw  the  corpses  out  of  the  temple," 
is  somewhat  better,  but  the  athnach  with  2"in  and 

the  express  repetition  of  the  subject  ("  the  runners 
and  riders  ")  seem  to  indicate  that  a  new  sentence 

begins   with  13*>Bhl.      This   sentence    does    not, 

therefore,  join  immediately  on  to  the  preceding, 
but  to  what  follows,  and  it  is  to  be  connected  with 

13p!1.     In  this  connection  De  Dieu  translates:  pro- 

ripuerwit  se  cam  impetu  et  festinatione,  and  Thenius : 

"  And  the  guards  pressed  forward."     Tpj;'  stands 

in  this  sense  in  1  Kings  xiv.  9.  They  threw  the 
corpses  behind  them  as  they  pressed  forward,  and 
forced  their  way  through  to  the  VJ?  of  the  house 

Under  this  we  have  not  to  understand  a  neighbor- 


114 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ing  city  |Pe  Dieu  and  others),  nor  a  particular  dis- 
trict of  the  city  of  Samaria  (De  Wette,  Maurer.  and 
others),  for  this  would  not  fit  into  the  context. 
The  fundamental  signification  of  -py  is  sepimentum, 

mimiment  i  ...  tocos  draanseptas  (Furst,  Concord.,  p. 
806).  It  is  then  used  for  city,  because  every  city, 
as  such,  was  surrounded  by  a  wall,  and  so  formed 
a  stronghold.  In  this  place,  however,  it  refers  to 
that  part  of  the  entire  sacred  enclosure,  which,  in 
contrast  with  the  outer  courts,  was  firmly  sur- 
rounded by  a  wall,  the  temple  strictly  speaking,  in 
which  was  the  chief  image  of  Baal.  This  may 
have  stood  upon  a  base,  and  risen  like  a  fortress 
from  it,  as  the  temple  of  Solomon  did.     On  J"li3i'9 

see  note  on  1  Kings  xiv.  23.  We  cannot  deter- 
mine whether  they  were  small  images  of  Baal  him- 
self, or  images  of  other  and  inferior  divinities. 
Movers  (Ed.  der  PTionizier,  s.  674)  thinks  they  were 
the  TTapedpoi  or  ci:/it3u/iOL  of  Baal.  Thenius  pro- 
poses to  read  J"QSE  in  ver.  26,  and  ni2i'E  in  ver. 

27,  as  the  Sept.  do,  on  account  of  the  sing.  surf,  in 
TOS"1B>\     It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  the 

images  were  burned  (rer.  26),  so  that  they  must 
have  been  of  wood,  while  the  chief  image  was 
"broken  in  pieces"  (jTIJ),  as  the  stone  temple- 
building  was.  This  image  was  therefore  probably 
of  stone,  as  indeed  we  might  presume  that  the 
large  image  would  be  of  stone  and  the  smaller 
ones  of  wood  rather  than  vice  versa.  The  old  ex- 
positors translate  the  suffix  by  unamquamque  ea- 
rum  (Piscator).  According  to  Keil  the  singular 
suffix  refers  to  J"li2XOi  the  plural  being  taken  as 

an  abstract,  as  in  chap.  iii.  3.  [The  latter  is  the 
correct  explanation  of  the  construction.  Cf.  Ew. 
§  317,  a.]  The  destruction  of  this  idol  was  per- 
fectly in  accordance  with  the  law,  Dent.  vii.  5,  25 ; 
xii.  2,  3. — In  order  to  make  the  destroyed  temple 
a  place  forever  unclean  and  abominable,  they  made 
it  a  sink  or  privy.  (The  ilassoretes  propose  the 
word  niKVlD,  exits,  as  a  euphemism.)     Of.  Ezra 

vi.  11;  Dan.  ii.  5  (Rosenmuller,  Morgenland,  iii.  s. 
279). 

Ver.  28.  Thus  Jehu  destroyed  Baal,  Ac. 
This  is  here  once  more  emphasized  as  the  chief 
act  of  Jehu,  but  it  is  added  that  he  persisted  in 
the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  viz.,  the  worship  of  the 
golden  calves  in  Bethel  and  Dan. — Ver.  30.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Jehu,  i.  e.,  by  a  prophet,  but 
whether   by  Elisha  (Thenius),   is  very  uncertain. 

riTDn  is  correctly  rendered  by  the  Vulg.  studiose 

egisti ;  Piscator :  quia  strenuum  te  prcebuisti  ad  fa- 
ciendum, etc.  He  had  an  earnest  will  to  execute 
the  purposes  of  God  (2  Sam.  xiii.  28;  Ruth  in.  7, 
10).  The  rooting-out  of  the  house  of  Ahab  and 
the  attendant  overthrow  of  idolatry,  the  latter  of 
which  not  even  Elijah  had  succeeded  in  accom- 
plishing, were  accomplished  by  Jehu.  It  was  in 
truth  an  act  of  kindness  toward  Israel,  which 
otherwise  would,  at  this  time4,  have  gone  to  ruin. 
In  so  far  Jehu  had  accomplished  a  great  deed 
which  is  here  recognized  and  acknowledged.  The 
manner  in  which  he  carried  it  out,  in  all  its  de- 
tails, is  not,  however,  approved;  especially  is  it  re- 
corded as  unsatisfactory  that  he  persisted  in  the 
worship  of  Jeroboam's  calves.  Therefore  it  was 
announced  to   him    that   his   dynasty  should  z.ot 


reign  beyond  the  fourth  generation  (Ex  xx.  5; 
xxxiv.  7),  cf.  chap.  xv.  12. — Ver.  31  is  not  to  be 
connected  with  ver.  30  by  "but,"  but  rather  with 
ver.  32.  It  states  the  occasion  for  what  is  nar- 
rated in  32  and  33.  The  threatened  calamities 
from  foreign  foes  came  upon  them  through  Hazael 
(chap.  viii.  12),  because  Jehu  did  not  walk  in  the 
ways  of  the  Lord  with  all  his  heart.  [If  we  hold 
to  the  massoretic  verse-division, — and  there  is  no 
reason  to  abandon  it. — ver.  30  is  a  promise  of  the 
throne  during  four  generations  as  a  reward  for  the 
vigor  with  which  Jehu  had  carried  out  the  task 
which  was  laid  upon  him,  and  not  a  warning  that 
he  should  not  keep  it  longer  than  that  because  he 
had  kept  up  the  worship  of  the  calves.  The 
"but"  at  the  commencement  of  ver.  31  is  there- 
fore quite  correct.  Although  God  commended 
Jehu  and  promised  to  reward  him,  yet  Jehu  did  not 
walk  perfectly  with  God.  The  origin  of  the  calf- 
worship  was  political,  and  Jehu  unquestionably 
kept  it  up  for  political  reasons.  While  we  cer- 
tainly could  not  deny  that  the  military  misfortunes 
east  of  the  Jordan  were  divine  punishments,  if  the 
record  said  that  they  were  such,  yet  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  such  definite  combination  of  the  two 
things  as  cause  and  effect,  we  may  leave  that  hy- 
pothesis aside,  as  something  which  we  are  not 
competent  to  decide.  Such  a  revolution  as  this 
was  certainly  never  accomplished  without  great 
internal  commotion.  Jehu  found  it  necessary  to 
consolidate  his  authority  at  home  and  could  not 
give  his  attention  to  the  foreign  war.  Hazael  in 
the  meantime  was  a  very  warlike  and  energetic 
king,  and  he  pushed  his  conquests  with  vigor 
while  his  enemy  was  weak.  We  shall  see  below 
that  this  district  was  recovered  when  Israel  once 
more  was  united  and  contented  under  a  vigorous 
ruler  (Jeroboam  II.).— W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  32.  In  those  days  the  Lord  began  to 

cut  off  parts  from  Israel.    Instead  of  niSp? ,  i-  «• 

to  cut   off  parts  of,  the   Chald.   and  Arab,  read 

»]iXp?  i-  c.  to  become  enraged  (Luther :   iiberdrussig 

zu  werden  ;  Vulg.  taedere  super  Israel).  There  is 
no  ground,  however,  for  changing  the  text,  which 
is  sustained  by.  the  Sept.  (avyxSirreai). — Along  the 
entire  frontier,  not  "  in  all  the  coasts  "  (Luther, 
De  Wette,  E.  V.).  The  frontier  country  is,  in  gen- 
eral, the  land  beyond  the  Jordan,  which  was  di- 
vided among  the  tribes  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  Ma- 
nasseh.  Their  territory  formed  the  district  which 
was  also  called  Gilead.  Aroer  on  the  Arnon  was 
the  southern  limit  of  the  Israelitish  territory  east 
of  the  Jordan.  These  conquests  of  Hazael,  there- 
fore, extended  to  the  frontier  of  the  Moabites 
The  closing  words  :  Even  Gilead  and  Bashan 
[cf.  Amos  i.  3]  are  meant  to  show  "  that  the  land 
east  of  the  Jordan,  in  all  its  extent,  even  to  its 
farthest  eastern  limit,  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
enemy  (Thenius).  These  conquests  were  made 
gradually,  and  they  reached  this  extent  at  abou» 
the  end  of  the  twenty-eight  years'  reign  of  Jehu. 

— On  rn?3a ,  ver.  34,  see  1  Kings  xv.  23. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1    In  regard  to  the  reign  of  Jehu  during  the  long 
period  of  twenty-eight  years,  the  author  gives  cnly 


CHAPTER  X.   1-36 


llfc 


the  summary  at  the  end  of  the  passage  before  us, 
viz.,  that  lie  retained  the  calf-worship  which  Jero- 
boam had  introduced,  and  that  he  lost  a  large  por- 
tion of  his  territory,  piece  by  piece,  to  Hazael  of 
Syria.  For  all  else  he  refers  to  the  book  of  the 
Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel.  The  destruction 
ef  the  house  of  Ahab,  and  the  abolition  of  idolatry, 
with  which  Jehu  commenced  his  reign,  are  nar- 
rated with  full  details.  It  was  these  two  things 
that  made  his  reign  remarkable,  and  that  consti- 
tuted it  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Israelitish 
monarchy,  and  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy. 
All  other  incidents  or  actions  of  his  reign  seem  to 
this  theocratical  historian  to  be  inferior  in  signifi- 
cance and  importance  to  these.  Duncker's  asser- 
tion is  astonishing  and  it  is  false  (Gesch.  des  Alt.,  i. 
s.  416) :  "The  house  of  Omri,  under  which  Israel  had 
flourished  and  prospered,  was  overthrown  and  an- 
nihilated by  a  wild  murderer  whom  the  prophetof 
Jehovah  had  instigated.  .  .  .  Jehu  was  a 
good  assassin,  but  a  bad  ruler  and  a  bad  general. 
.  .  .  Although  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  did  not 
oppose  him  as  they  hud  opposed  Ahab  and  Joram, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  Elisha's  authority  and  influ- 
ence were  lent  to  his  support,  yet  Israel,  under 
his  reign,  became  weaker  and  weaker."  Under 
the  house  of  Ahab,  of  which  the  shameless  and 
fanatical  Jezebel  was  the  soul,  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  so  far  from  being  elevated  and  prospered, 
had  been  shattered  to  its  very  foundations.  Under 
this  house  iioab  revolted,  and  Ahab  and  his  suc- 
cessors never  succeeded,  even  with  the  assistance 
of  Judah,  in  completely  conquering  the  Syrian 
arch-enemy,  who  continually  threatened  Israel 
and  even  brought  it  near  to  ruin  (chap.  vii.  24). 
No  fact  can  be  cited  from  the  record  to  prove  that 
Jehu  reigned  for  twenty-eight  years  wickedly,  still 
less  that  he  was  a  bad  general;  if  he  had  been 
this  latter,  his  fellow-commanders  would  never 
have  proclaimed  him  king.     Moreover,  the  record 

mentions  his    !T)U3  with  especial  emphasis  (ver. 

34),  even  adding  ps ,  which  is  not  found  elsewhere 
except  in  1  Kings  xv.  23,  and  2  Kings  xx.  20,  and 
which  Ewald  correctly  takes  as  referring  to  "  his 
great  and  inexhaustible  manly  courage."  It  is 
true  that  he  saw  himself  compelled  to  give  up  to 
Hazael  land  after  laud  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan, 
but  this  may  have  been  due  partly  to  the  superior 
strength  of  the  Syrians,  partly  to  the  lack  of  as- 
sistance from  Judah,  such  as  Ahab  and  Joram  had 
enjoyed,  partly  to  the  state  in  which  the  kingdom 
had  been  left  by  the  house  of  Ahab.  [It  is  a  sim- 
ple truism  to  say  that  he  was  defeated  partly  be- 
cause his  enemy  was  stronger  than  he,  and  partly 
because  he  did  not  have  more  help.  It  is  not  at 
all  certain  that  Joram  left  the  kingdom  weak  m 
material  respects.  If  it  was  shattered  morally,  as 
t  undoubtedly  Was,  it  would  not  long  prosper  ma- 
terially, but,  for  a  time,  moral  decay  and  material 
prosperity  might  co-exist.  The  fact  that  Joram's  last 
act  was  to  collect  an  army  and  go  into  Gilead  to  try 
to  recover  Ramoth,  even  by  a  conflict  with  a  gen- 
eral like  Hazael,  is  certainly  strong  evidence  that 
Israel  was  not  weak  in  material  and  military  force 
under  his  rule.  A  far  more  natural  ground  for 
Jehu's  inactivity  (for  all  we  know  to  the  contrary) 
while  Hazael  was  making  these  conquests,  is  the 
one  suggested  above  in  the  note  on  ver.  30  under 
Exegetical.  That  is,  that  the  revolution  was  not 
iceomplished  so  quickly  as  one  might  suppose  on 


reading  the  only  details  of  it  which  are  here  given 
and  that  it  was  not  accomplished  by  those  few 
great  and  terrible  blows  which  are  alone  mentioned 
here.  To  kill  the  royal  family  and  mount  the 
throne,  to  kill  the  priests  of  a  certain  religion,  and 
put  an  end  to  the  public  performance  of  its  rites, 
were  comparatively  easy  things.  We  may  be  sure, 
however,  that  the  house  of  Ahab  had  friends  and 
supporters,  and  that  Baal  had  worshippers  who 
saw  with  sorrow  his  joyous  worship  give  place  to 
the  austere  religion  of  Jehovah.  These  elements 
of  discontent  had  to  be  watched  and  time  had  to 
be  spent  in  healing  the  wounds  which  the  revolu- 
tion had  inflicted,  before  the  state  could  be  made 
docile,  contented,  aud  loyal  at  home,  and  reliable 
for  campaigns  abroad.  It  was  during  this  interval 
that  Hazael  probably  made  his  conquests. — W.  G. 
S.]  The  author  sees  in  the  misfortunes  east  of  the 
Jordan  a  divine  judgment,  because  Jehu  had  per- 
sisted in  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  and  had  not  fulfilled 
his  appointed  task.  [See  Bxeg.  notes  on  ver.  31.  Bahr 
connects  vers.  31  and  32,  but  it  is  more  correct  to 
begin  a  new  paragraph  with  ver.  32  as  the  English 
translators  do.]  We  do  not  learn  in  what  relation 
the  prophet  Elisha  stood  to  Jehu  during  his  reign. 
Elisha's  name  does  not  occur,  as  has  been  said 
above,  from  chap.  ix.  1  to  chap.  xiii.  14,  where  his 
death,  in  the  reign  of  Joash,  is  mentioned. 

2.  Tlie  rooting-up  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  worship  of  Baal,  ought  not  to  be 
measured  by  the  New  Testament  standards,  and 
ought  not  to  be  judged  from  a  rnocferu,  humanita- 
rian stand-point.  As  for  the  slaughter  of  Ahab's 
family;  it  was  customary  in  the  Orient  from  the 
earliest  times  for  the  founder  of  a  new  dynasty  to 
put  to  death,  not  only  the  deposed  monarch,  but 
also  his  descendants  and  relatives,  especially  all 
the  males.  We  have  several  examples  of  this  in 
these  very  books  (1  Kings  xv.  29;  xvi.  11;  2 
Kings  xxv.  7).  Similar  instances  occur  in  the 
East  even  in  our  own  day.  This  cruel  conduct 
was  connected,  not  only  with  their  ideas  of  the 
solidarity  of  all  blood-relations  in  one  family,  but 
also  with  the  universal  custom  of  blood-vengeance, 
according  to  which  it  appeared  to  the  relatives  of 
a  murdered  man  to  be  their  right  and  their  duty 
to  pursue  and  slay  the  murderer.  Not  seldom  their 
vengeance  extended  to  the  whole  family  of  the 
murderer  (Gen.  xxxiv.  30 ;  2  Sam.  xiv.  7;  2  Kiugs 
xiv.  6).  How  wide-spread  and  deep-rooted  the 
custom  of  blood-vengeance  was,  may  be  seen 
from  the  fact  that  the  Mosaic  law  could  not  abol- 
ish it,  but  only  limit  it  and  restrain  it,  as  was  the 
case  also  in  regard  to  polygamy  (Winer,  B.-  W.-B., 
i.  s.  189).  When,  therefore,  Jehu  put  to  death  all 
the  adherents  of  the  deposed  dynasty,  he  did  not 
commit  an  unheard-of  crime,  but  only  "  followed 
the  example  of  other  founders  of  new  dynasties  " 
(Ewald).  What  is  more,  Ahab's  house  had  intro- 
duced and  fostered  idolatry,  and  it  was  not  to  be 
hoped  that  it  could  be  absolutely  rooted  out,  as 
long  as  there  were  still  members  of  this  family 
alive.  The  case  is  simdar  as  regards  his  conduct  to- 
ward the  worship  of  Baal.  The  Israelitish  constitu- 
tion knew  nothing  of  freedom  of  religion  or  of  wor- 
ship, but  assigned  the  death-penalty  for  all  idolatry 
(see  1  Kings  xviii.,  Hist.  §  5).  Jehu  acted  as  little 
contrary  to  the  law  when  he  caused  the  servants 
of  Baal  to  be  put  to  death,  as  Elijah  did  in  1  Kings 
xviii.  40.  Nevertheless  his  mode  of  action  is  tc 
be  condemned,  even  from  the  Old  Testament  stand 


116 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


point.  He  allowed  himself  to  be  carried  away  by 
his  fierce,  violent,  soldierly,  despotic  disposition. 
He  proceeded  to  extremes,  and  observed  no  limits. 
When  he  had  once  spilled  blood,  he  thirsted  for 
more,  and  thought  that  this  thirst  for  blood  was 
zeal  for  Jehovah.  Especially  did  he  fail  in  the 
matter  of  the  cunning  and  deceit  and  falsehood 
which  he  employed.  In  Jezreel  he  pretended  to 
the  people  that  he  was  innocent  of  the  murder  of 
the  seventy  descendants  of  Ahab,  although  he  had 
himself  ordered  it.  In  Samaria  he  declared  that  he 
was  a  zealous  servant  of  Baal,  iu  order  that  he 
might  get  all  the  servants  of  Baal  kito  his  power, 
and  slaughter  them  all  at  once.  Therefore  also 
the  prophet  Hosea  speaks  of  the  "  blood  of  Jez- 
reel "  which  Jehovah  will  avenge  upon  the  house 
of  Jehu  (Hosea  i.  4).  Krummacher  asserts,  in  op- 
position to  this  prophetical  declaration,  as  well  as 
to  the  fact  before  us  (Elisa,  hi.  s.  152) :  "  Neverthe- 
less he  (Jehu)  comes  out  from  this  horrible  mas- 
sacre pure,  because  he  did  not  draw  the  sword  in 
obedience  to  his  own  thirst  for  blood,  but  in  the 
name  of  Him  who  'maketh  his  angels  spirits;  his 
ministers  a  flaming  fire '  [Ps.  civ.  4,  where  the 
translation  is  incorrect.  It  should  read,  "maketh 
winds  his  messengers,  and  flames  his  ministers.'' — 
W.  G.  S.],  and  who  had  chosen  Jehu  as  His  execu- 
tioner." Lilienthal  observes  correctly  (Die  gute 
Sache  der  gottl.  Offtnbarung,  iv.  s.  410):  "An  exe- 
cutioner does  what  is  right  when  he  takes  the  life 
of  an  evil-doer,  at  the  command  of  the  civil  au- 
thority, and  receives  for  this  service  his  proper 
wages.  But  when  he  purposely  torments  and  tor- 
tures the  culprit,  he  deserves  to  be  especially  pun- 
ished for  it.  Therefore  blood-guilt  is  ascribed  to 
Jehu,  because  it  was  a  gratification  to  his  fierce 
disposition  to  spill  the  blood  of  those  who  had  in- 
deed merited  death,  but  who  ought  not  to  have 
been  slain  at  the  instigation  of  private  hate." 
Every  attempt  to  wash  Jehu  clean  from  blood- 
guilt  becomes,  in  spite  of  itself,  a  defence  of  false- 
hood and  deceit  in  majorem  Dei  gloriam.  Jehu 
was  indeed  a  "Scourge  of  God,"  but  he  certainly 
was  not  a  "man  of  God,"  as  appears  in  the  fact 
that,  with  all  his  pretended  zeal  for  Jehovah,  he 
nevertheless  did  not  desist  from  the  "  sins  of  Jero- 
boam "  as  long  as  he  ruled.  The  instruments  of 
the  divine  punishments  are  not  made  "pure  "  by  the 
fact  that  they  are  God's  instruments,  but  they  are, 
in  their  turn,  punished  for  their  own  sins;  cf.  Isai. 
x.  5-7,  12. 

[Would  it  not  be  a  hard  fate  to  be  chosen  to 
be  an  instrument  of  God's  vengeance,  and  then 
to  be  held  to  a  strict  account,  if  one's  human 
infirmities  of  judgment  led  one  to  overdo  or  to 
fall  short  in  some  points  of  the  just  execution  of 
the  task  ?  The  trouble  is  that  Jehu  in  the  first 
place  gets  credit  for  far  more  pure  and  hearty  zeal 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Jehovah-religion  than 
he  deserves,  and  then  has  to  be  correspondingly 
under-estimated.  If  we  attempt,  with  all  the  light 
given  us  by  the  text,  to  estimate  Jehu's  personal 
feeling  in  regard  to  this  revolution,  we  shall  reach 
the  following  conclusion  :  Jehu  was  a  military 
man  to  whom  the  crown  presented  itself  as  an  ob- 
ieet  of  earthly  ambition  worth  some  effort.  Sup- 
posing liini  to  have  been,  by  conviction,  an  ad- 
herent of  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  the  call  to  him 
to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a  reaction  in  favor  of 
;]!'■  Jehovah-religion,  and  the  anointment  to  the 
royal  office  by  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  might  move 


him  to  make  the  attempt.  The  adherence  of  th« 
army  determined  him.  When  he  had  won  his  vic- 
tory, he  carried  out  faithfully  the  policy  to  which 
he  was  bound  as  leader  of  the  Jehovah-party.  He 
put  an  end  to  the  worship  of  Baal.  The  crown, 
however,  was  his  reward.  It  was  a  political  re 
ward,  and  he  took  political  means  to  secure  it. 
He  slew  all  the  possible  pretenders  to  the  crown 
from  the  house  of  Ahab,  according  to  the  oriental 
custom  in  such  cases,  as  a  means  of  securing  him- 
self on  the  throne.  He  stopped  short  with  his  re- 
ligious reforms  and  did  not  destroy  the  golden 
calves ;  he  left  them  for  the  same  political  reasons 
for  which  Jeroboam  erected  them,  i.  e.,  that  the 
northern  kingdom  might  have  its  own  religious 
centres  outside  of  Jerusalem.  He  saw  in  the  revo- 
lution principally  a  gratification  of  his  own  ambi- 
tion. He  was  willing  to  be  the  instrument  of  the 
overthrow  of  a  wicked  dynasty  and  a  corrupt  re- 
ligion, and  he  stopped  just  where  his  personal  in- 
terests were  in  danger  of  being  impaired.  It  is 
not  strange  that  his  contemporaries  rejoiced  so 
much  at  the  rescue  of  their  ancestral  religion  that 
they  were  indifferent  to  the  excesses  by  which 
Jehu  tried  to  establish  his  royal  power,  nor  that 
later  and  calmer  judges,  on  the  contrary,  raised 
his  bloodshed  into  prominence  in  judging  of  his 
career  (Hos.  i.  4). — See  further,  below,  §  5. — 
W.  G.  S.] 

3.  In  connection  with  the  violent  and  bloody 
conduct  of  Jehu,  (he  religious  and  moral  condition 
into  which  the  kingdom  had  been  brought,  under  the 
dominion  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  is  thrown  into  dis- 
tinct relief.  "What  a  shocking  picture  of  de- 
moralization, vulgarity,  and  slavery"  (Eisenlohr) 
presents  itself  to  us  in  the  rulers,  the  elders,  and 
the  tutors  of  the  royal  princes,  that  is  to  say, 
among  the  highest  officials  and  the  most  familiar  fre- 
quenters of  the  court !  Although  the  fortified  city, 
with  all  the  necessary  means  of  defence,  chariots, 
horses,  and  weapons,  were  still  in  their  possession, 
yet  not  one  energetic  man  could  be  found  who 
would  put  himself  at  the  head.  Upon  Jehu's  first 
letter,  which  did  not  even  contain  a  command,  but 
only  a  question,  or,  in  a  certain  sense,  only  a  chal- 
lenge to  resist,  they  ah  yielded  timidly,  like  cow- 
ards. No  one  of  them  thinks  of  even  moving  a 
finger  in  behalf  of  the  royal  house,  whose  confi- 
dants, favorites,  and  servants  they  have  been. 
They  change  their  disposition  with  the  change  of 
events,  and  place  themselves  as  instruments  with- 
out will  at  the  disposal  of  the  new  ruler,  who  had 
killed  their  king  and  master.  Jehu  would  hardly 
have  addressed  this  challenge  to  them  if  he  hail 
not  been  sure  of  their  utter  want  of  principle,  and 
j  had  not  known  that  he  had  not  the  leas!  independ- 
ent opposition  to  fear  from  them.  Then  when  he 
demands  of  them  the  very  highest  crime,  the  tnur 
der  of  the  scions  of  the  royal  house,  who  havo 
been  entrusted  to  their  care  and  their  protection, 
they  do  not  hesitate  a  moment ;  they  slaughter  the 
whole  seventy  in  one  night,  and  semi  their  heads 
the  next  morning  to  Jezreel,  in  order  to  win  the 
favor  of  the  new  ruler.  If  the  conduct  of  the 
elders  at  Jezreel,  when  they  slew  Naboth  at  the 
command  of  Jezebel,  testified  to  the  deep  corrup- 
tion of  the  time  (see  1  Kings  xxi..  Bist  £  '■'•),  how 
much  more  does  this  behavior  of  those  of  the  high- 
est rank  and  office  bear  witness  to  the  same.  The 
religious  decay  was  as  deep  as  the  moral  decay 
In  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  there  was  no  sanctu 


CHAPTER  X.  1-36. 


in 


»ry  of  Jehovah,  but  a  fortress-like  temple  of  Baal 
which  Ahab  had  built  (1  Kings  xvi.  32),  furnished 
with  idols  of  wood  and  stone,  and  surrounded  by 
large  courts.  In  spite  of  the  great  day  on  Mount 
Carmel,  where  the  people  had  solemnly  declared 
for  Jehovah,  and  had  slain  450  priests  of  Baal  (1 
Kings  xviii  21  «?.),  this  temple  remained  stand- 
ing, and  the  worship  of  idols  continued  to  be,  as 
it  had  been  before,  the  prevailing  religion  of  the 
kingdom.  It  appears,  it  is  true,  that  Joram,  at  his 
accession,  removed  the  statue  of  Baal  (chap.  iii.  21, 
but  he  did  not  put  a  stop  to  the  worship  of  Baal ; 
and  the  feast  of  Baal  which  Jehu  ordained,  at 
which  so  many  worshippers  of  the  god  were 
present  from  all  parts  of  the  kingdom  that  the  ex- 
tended courts  of  the  temple  were  packed  full, 
shows  how  numerous  the  worshippers  of  the  god 
had  already  become  again.  To  this  point  had  Is- 
rael come,  under  the  rule  of  the  house  of  Ahab ; 
since  there  had  been  any  people  of  Israel,  such  a 
state  of  tilings  had  not  existed. 

4.  The  only  facts  in  regard  to  Jehonadab,  the 
son  of  Rechab,  which  can  be  deduced  from  this  pas- 
sage, are,  that,  at  the  time  of  the  great  apostasy 
under  the  house  of  Ahab,  he  was  one  of  the  most 
earnest  opponents  of  that  dynasty,  and  of  the 
idolatry  which  it  introduced;  that  he  was  a  firm 
adherent  of  Jehovah,  and  moreover  a  man  who 
was  held  in  honor  by  the  people,  and  highly  es- 
teemed by  Jehu.  From  the  xxxvth  chapter  of 
Jeremiah,  we  learn  further  that  he  stood  at  the 
head  of  a  community,  the  so-called  Rechabites,  to 
which  he  had  given  peculiar  rules  of  life,  accord- 
ing to  which  they  were  not  to  live  in  houses,  not 
to  possess  farms  or  vineyards,  and  not  to  drink- 
wine.  They  held  so  firmly  to  these  rules  that 
Jeremiah,  300  years  later,  could  present  them  to 
the  people,  who  were  disobedient  to  the  com- 
mands of  Jehovah,  as  models  of  obedience.  This 
is  sufficient  to  prove  that  Jehonadab,  although  he 
was  a  contemporary  of  Elisha,  and  probably  also 
of  Elijah,  yet  stood  in  no  direct  connection  with 
the  prophet -communities  which  they  managed 
hap.  ii.  'i  sq  ).  sine"  ,hese  did  not  probably  have 
any  special  rules  of  life,  and  certainly  did  not  have 
fiose  of  the  Rechabites.  Neither  is  there  any 
indication  anywhere  that  he  acted  in  concert  with 
Elijah,  who  had  caused  Jehu  to  be  anointed.  This 
fact  is  what  makes  him  important  for  the  history 
of  redemption.  Ewald  (Gesch.,  iii.  504  s}.  [3d  ed. 
54!!])  explains  this  phenomenon  by  the  theory 
that,  after  Elijah's  death,  "new  institutions  of  in- 
fluence for  the  old  religion"  had  been  formed,  viz.. 
on  the  one  hand,  the  so-called  schools  of  the 
prophets,  which  prosecuted  the  objects  which  had 
been  set  before  them  by  Elijah,  and,  on  the  other 
hand.  ■'  a  socie*  '  of  those  who  despaired  of  being 
able  to  observe  erne  religion  undisturbedly,  in  the 
midst  of  the  nation,  with  the  stringency  with 
which  they  understood  it,  and  who,  therefore,  with- 
drew into  the  desert,  and  preferred,  as  all  Israel 
had  once  done  under  Muses,  the  hardships  of  life 
in  tents  to  all  the  fascinations  of  city-life.  They 
borrowed  from  the  Nazarites  the  principle  of  ab- 
stention from  wine  and  all  food  connected  with 
wine,  and  the  ancient  Kenites  were  their  models 
for  their  tent-life."  He  goes  on  to  say  that  they 
were  called  Rechabites  from  the  father  of  their 
-"ounder.  Jehonadab  ;  that  their  oath  was  extended 
and  made  more  stringent  at  a  later  time ;  that  they 
only  returned  into  ordinary  social  life  at  long  in- 


tervals and  under  compulsion,  etc.  This  theory 
to  which  Eisenlohr  and  Thenius  give  their  adhe> 
sion,  is  contradicted,  first  of  all,  by  the  fact  thai 

Jeremiah  calls  them  D,-13 ,  *'■  «•,  strangers  and  so- 
journers in  the  land  in  which  they  dwelt.  "  They 
were  not  of  the  race  of  Israel,  but  were  an  off- 
shoot of  the  family  of  the  Kenites  (1  Chron.  ii.  55), 
which  is  traced  back  to  Moses'  father-in-law 
(Numb.  x.  29;  Judges  iv.  11),  and  which  migrated 
to  Canaan  (Judges  i.  16),  in  friendship  and  alli- 
ance with  Israel  (1  Sam.  xv.  6).  In  tins  passage 
in  1  Sam.  they  appear  as  still  unsettled.  Accord- 
ing to  Judges  iv.  11,  17  sq.  they  continued  to  be 
nomadic,  as  Rechab  was  also,  even  before  Jehona- 
dab's  regulation.  .  .  .  It  is  an  established  his- 
torical fact,  which  is  further  confirmed  by  the  part. 
D'lJ ,  that  they  were  already  nomadic. 
Jehonadab  only  fixed  by  law  what  he  already 
found  as  a  generally  observed  usage,  and  thereby 
cut  off  beforehand  all  possible  temptations  to 
adopt  a  settled  life  "  (Hitzig).  The  Rechabites  call 
Jehonadab  their  "  father  "  (Jerem.  xxxv.  6.  S).  but 
they  do  not  thereby  designate  him  as  their  ances 
tor  (Winer  and  others).  They  only  mean  that  he 
was  their  teacher  and  lawgiver,  just  as  the 
prophet-disciples  called  Elijah  their  "  father "  (2 
Kings  ii.  12).  If  they  had  originated  with  Jeho- 
nadab, they  would  have  named  themselves  after 
him  and  not  after  his  father.  Moreover,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Rechab  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  the 
father  of  Jehonadab,  but  the  ancestor  of  the 
family  to  which  he  and  the  other  Rechabites  be- 
longed. We  must  understand  by  this  name,  there- 
fore, a  national  and  nomadic  community,  and  not 
simply  a  religious  organization.  It  was  much 
older  than  Elijah,  and  not  directly  or  indirectly  an 
outgrowth  of  his  activity.  There  is  no  hint  in  the 
history  that  other  communities  than  the  schools  of 
the  prophets  were  formed,  after  Elijah's  death,  for 
the  conservation  of  "  true  religion."  The  most 
extraordinary  feature  is  this,  that  a  family,  which 
did  not  belong  to  the  race  of  Israel,  maintained  it- 
self in  separation  and  independence  in  the  midst 
of  this  people  from  the  entrance  into  Palestine  un- 
til the  fall  of  the  kingdom,  and  was  more  com- 
pletely devoted  to  the  service  of  Jehovah  than 
Israel  itself.  Jehonadab  may  have  been  led  to 
give  them  fixed  regulations  of  life  by  the  growth  of 
the  idolatry  which  Ahab  had  introduced,  and 
against  which  he  desired  to  fortify  them  by  a 
strict  exclusion.  The  result  was  that  he  accom- 
plished his  object.  He  saw  in  Jehu  a  deliverer  from 
the  tyrannical  and  idolatrous  dynasty,  and  he 
willingly  accepted  his  invitation  to  accompany 
him  to  Samaria.  He  must  have  known  of  Jehu's 
dissimulation  in  proclaiming  the  feast  of  Baal,  and 
must  have  approved  of  it.  for  he  was  present  with 
Jehu  at  it  (ver.  23).  Clericus  justly  observes : 
conscius  rei  erat,  nee  Xaudandus  eU  hoc  in  negotio 
Hess  thinks  that  lie  belonged  to  the  number  of 
these  who  ''hardly  regarded  it  as  an  error  in 
Jehu,  that,  in  his  zeal,  he  went  too  far,  on  ac 
count  of  their  joy  at  the  overthrow  of  the  idola- 
trous dynasty."  It  is  worth  noticing  that  Elisha, 
who  had  been  the  prime  mover  in  raising  Jehv 
to  the  throne,  took  no  part  in  this  proceeding.  I, 
seems  that  Jehu  purposely  did  not  call  for  his  as 
sistance,  because  he  could  not  expect  from  him 
any  approval  of  his  falsehood  and  dissimulation, 
Jehonadab  certainly  does  not  appear  ^ere  in  the  fa 


118 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


vorable  light  in  which  Krummacher  represents 
him  :  "  In  fact,  we  hardly  know  what  to  praise 
most  in  this  person,  whether  the  soul  elevated 
and  carried  heavenward  by  divine  inspiration,  or 
the  rare  wisdom,  which,  in  its  rich  measure,  is  so 
peculiar  to  him,  or  the  clear,  unwavering  insight 
with  which  he  commands  everything,  and  which 
enables  him  to  pass  spiritual  judgment  upon  all, 
or  the  foresight  and  care,  as  enlightened  as  tender, 
which  we  see  him  employ  in  behalf  of  his  family 
and  its  interests  for  centuries  to  come."  Neither 
the  passage  before  us  nor  Jerem.  xxxv.  mentions 
with  a  syllable  these  grand  characteristics.  The 
further  delineation  is  still  more  arbitrary  and  un- 
founded: "So  they  (Jehu  and  Jehonadab)  sit  to- 
gether— a  dark  thunder-cloud  softly  enfolded  in  a 
rainbow  of  promise,  as  if  Law  and  Gospel  had 
been  personified  in  living  allegories:  Jehu,  the 
woe  of  God's  condemnation  upon  all  godlessness; 
Jehonadab,  the  divine  director  to  point  upward  to 
the  throne  of  grace.  .  .  .  Jehonadab,  the 
Church,  which  lives  in  heaven;  Jehu,  the  State, 
which  protects,"  &c. 

5.  The  continuance  of  the  worship  of  the  calves 
under  Jehu  shows  that  he  was  not  fully  in  earnest 
in  the  zeal  for  Jehovah,  of  which  he  boasted  to 
Jehonadab,  otherwise  he  must  have  destroyed  the 
golden  calves  in  Bethel  and  in  Dan,  as  well  as  the 
idols  in  the  temple  of  Baal  at  Samaria.  He  did 
not  let  them  stand  because  he  considered  that 
what  he  had  done  was  enough  "to  satisfy  the 
obligation  (?)  which  he  had  undertaken  towards 
the  prophet  of  Jehovah "  (Menzel).  The  reason 
was  rather  the  same  one  which  had  led  the  foun- 
der of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  Jeroboam,  to  intro- 
duce the  worship  of  these  images  (1  Kings  xii.  26 
sq.,  and  Hist.  §  1).  By  abolishing  the  worship  of  the 
calves,  Jehu  would  havo  torn  down  the  partition 
between  the  two  kingdoms  and  would  have  en- 
dangered his  throne.  His  zeal  for  Jehovah  did 
not  go  so  far  as  this.  His  royal  authority  was 
more  important  to  him  than  the  law  of  Jehovah. 
Political  and  dynastic  interests  restrained  him 
after  he  had  extinguished  the  house  of  Ahab  and 
abolished  the  worship  of  Baal.  The  manner  in 
which  he  conducted  himself  in  this  matter  showed 
that  "he  did  not  walk  in  the  law  of  the  Lord  with 
all  his  heart"  (ver.  31),  and  this  became  still  clear- 
er when  lie  was  firmly  established  on  the  throne. 
He  is,  therefore,  it  is  true,  praised  for  his  zeal  in 
rooting  out  and  destroying  the  worship  of  Baal, 
but  is,  at  the  same  time,  declared  guilty  of  the 
"sins  of  Jeroboam,"  and  this  is  given  as  the  reason 
why  Jehovah  began,  in  his  reign,  to  cut  off  prov- 
inces from  Israel,  and  why  his  dynasty  should 
have  no  firm  duration.  This  criticism  of  his  reign 
by  the  author  of  the  history  (who  was  probably 
one  of  the  prophets)  shows  that  the  prophets  of 
the  time  opposed  the  worship  of  the  calves  [al- 
though it  was  intended,  in  a  certain  way,  as  a 
worship  of  Jehovah],  and  did  not  simply,  as 
EwaM  asserts  (see  above,  Pt.  II.  p.  35),  combat  the 
worship..!  falsi  gods.  [The  view  of  these  things 
entertained  by  the  prophet-author  of  the  Book  of 
Kings,  who  lived  at  a  much  later  period  and  under 
very  different  circumstances,  cannot  be  regarded 
a  a  in  indication  of  the  views  of  "the  prophets  of 
the  tiiiio.'  in  regard  to  them. — W.  G.  s.]  The 
great  and  bloody  revolution  of  Jehu  had.  therefore, 
■i  merely  negative  result,  namely,  the  abolition  of 
the  worship  of  false  gods;   the  positive  results,  the 


restoration  of  the  constitution,  t.  e.,  of  the  cove- 
nant of  Jehovah,  was  prevented  by  political  con- 
siderations, i.  e.,  by  personal  ambition  and  love  of 
power.  It  is  another  proof  that  a  religious  refor- 
mation can  only  fail  of  its  objects  and  come  to 
naught,  so  soon  as  political  and  dynastic  interests 
get  control  of  it,  or,  indeed,  are  involved  in  it. 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-27.— The  two  Chief  Acts  of  King  Jehu: 
(a)  The  destruction  of  the  entire  family  of  Ahab, 
vers.  1—17  ;  (b)  the  abolition  of  the  worship  of 
Baal,  vers.  18-27  (see  the  Hist,  notes). — Ver.  1. 
Wurt.  Summ.  :  Though  a  large  family  of  children 
is  a  blessing  of  God  (Ps.  cxxvii.  3),  yet  we  must 
not  rely  upon  them,  or  be  self-willed  on  that  ac- 
count, as  if  the  family  could  not  die  out,  but  we 
must  fear  God,  must  not  stain  ourselves  with  sin 
against  our  consciences,  and  must  bring  up  chil- 
dren in  the  fear  of  God,  else  He  will  take  them 
away  and  destroy  the  entire  family.  Ps.  cxii.  1,  2. 
— Vers.  1-7.  The  Governors  and  Chief  Men  at 
Samaria :  (a)  Their  cowardice,  (b)  their  blind  slav- 
ishness,  (c)  their  unfaithfulness. — Moral  decline 
among  the  highest  ranks  of  a  nation  generally 
proceeds  from  a  corrupt  court  which  sets  the 
fashion  (Ahab  and  Jezebel).  As  is  the  master,  so 
is  the  servant. — He  who  has  the  power  in  his 
hands  always  finds  instruments  among  the  great 
and  those  of  high  rank,  who  shrink  back  from  no 
demand  which  is  made  upon  them,  however  much 
it  may  conflict  with  honor  and  duty. — Those  who 
no  longer  fear  God,  must  fear  men.  Fear  of  men 
may  become  the  cause  of  the  greatest  crimes. 
Therefore  the  Lord  says:  (Matt.  x.  28).— Vers.  6, 
7.  "\Vurt.  Summ.  :  Here  we  have  an  example  of 
unfaithful  tutors  and  governors  and  friends,  who 
look,  in  their  actions,  not  to  the  interests  of  the 
orphans,  but  to  their  own  advantage,  and  let  the 
orphans  and  their  cause  be  ruined.  As  Jehu  nev- 
ertheless destroyed  them  all  (ver.  17),  so  will  the 
just  God  also  bring  upon  the  heads  of  false  friends 
and  trustees,  all  the  unfaithfulness  which  they  in- 
flict upon  orphans:  therefore,  let  such  be  warned 
against  all  violation  of  their  trust. — Ktbcbz  :  The 
children  of  this  world  become  traitors  to  one  an- 
other, as  we  see  in  the  case  of  these  guardians  of 
the  royal  children.  How  they  probably  promised 
with  all  zeal  to  guard  the  life,  the  honor,  and  the 
rights  of  these  princes!  Now,  they  themselves 
become  their  murderers.  Let  no  man  trust  the 
golden  words  of  him  who  fears  man  more  than  he 
fears  God. — Unfaithfulness  ruins  those  who  prac- 
tise it.  Jehu  must  infer  from  the  treason  of  these 
guardians  towards  their  wards  that  they  would 
still  less  be  faithful  to  him.  He,  therefore,  treated 
them  as  they  treated  those  who  had  been  en- 
trusted to  them. — Though  the  crime  which  these 
men  perpetrated  against  their  wards  could  hardly 
occur  in  our  day,  yet  instructors  and  guardians 
are  not  wanting  who  become  murderers  of  the 
souls  of  their  pupils,  in  that  they  mislead  them  by 
example  and  precept  into  apostasy  from  the  living 
God  and  disbelief  in  His  holy  word,  instead  of 
educating  them  in  "the  fear  and  admonition  of 
Hi..  Lord."  ('.'/'.  Mutt,  xviii.  '.;.' — Krommacher: 
What  is  the  worth  of  all  the  friendship  and  favor 
and  trust  of  this  world  !  It  is  like  a  tree  in  soft, 
loose  ground,  which,   so  long  as  tho  i   boldest  il 


CHAPTER  X.  1-36. 


119 


upright,  covers  thee  pleasantly  with  its  shadow, 
but  which,  when  the  storm  roars  through  its  top,  1 
and  it  is  overthrown,  no  longer  takes  account  of 
thee,  but  crushes  thee  in  its  fall. — Vers.  8—11. 
Jehu's  Words  to  the  People:  (a)  He  says  to  the 
people  just  what  they  like  to  hear:  "  Te  are  just ;" 
(6)  he  throws  the  guilt  off  from  himself  on  to 
others  :  "  But  who  slew  all  these  ?  "  (c)  he  repre- 
sents something  which  he  had  done  himself  as  a 
divine  dispensation :  "  The  Lord  hath  done  that 
which  he  spake,"  Ac. — He  who  has  a  good  con- 
science may  alone  appeal  to  God's  word.  Guard 
thyself  from  the  great  mistake  of  glossing  over 
and  justifying  thy  sins  and  errors  by  citations 
from  the  word  of  God. — Human  sins  are  not  jus- 
tified by  the  fact  that  they  are  made  means  in  the 
hand  of  God  for  accomplishing  his  judgments. — 
Vers.  12-16.  Jehu's  Journey  to  Samaria:  (a)  His 
meeting  with  the  brethren  of  Ahaziah,  vers.  12- 
14;  (b)  his  meeting  with  Jehonadab,  vers.  15,  16. 
—Vers.  12,  13.  The  quiet  and  peaceful  house  of 
the  shepherd  becomes  a  house  of  terror  and  of 
death.  Destruction  overtakes  the  self-assured  on 
their  way  to  pleasure  and  joyl — WiiRT.  Sdmm.  : 
When  we  go  out  of  the  house,  let  us  commit  our- 
selves into  the  hands  of  God,  for  mucli  may  hap- 
pen on  our  journey  to  prevent  us  from  coming  in 
fife  or  happiness  homeward  (James  iv.  13-15). — 
Ver  15.  Jehonadab,  son  of  Rechab,  chief  of  the 
Rechabites  (Jer  xxxv.),  is  a  type  of  faithful  ad- 
herence to  the  faith  and  the  customs  of  the  fathers 
in  the  midst  of  an  apostate,  wavering  people. — 
Decided  and  firm  faith,  combined  with  a  strict 
and  earnest  life,  compels  respect  even  from  those 
who  themselves  follow  another  course. — Where 
there  is  agreement  in  the  highest  and  most  im- 
portant interests,  there  one  may  find  a  speedy  and 
easy  basis  of  intercourse,  whatever  may  be  the 
difference  of  rank  or  nationality. — Kyburz  :  Jesus 
says  to  me  and  thee  what  Jehu  said  to  Jehona- 
dab: If  thine  heart  is  right  with  mine,  as  mine 
with  thine,  then  come  up  to  me  upon  my  throne 
(Rev.  iii.  21). — Ver.  16.  Zeal  for  the  Lord  is  a  great 
and  rare  thing,  when  it  is  pure.  It  forfeits  its  re- 
ward, however,  when  it  aims  to  be  seen  (Matt.  vi. 
1-6).  How  many  a  one  deceives  himself  with  his 
zeal  for  the  Lord,  and  for  His  kingdom,  when,  at 
the  bottom,  he  is  zealous  only  for  himself,  for  his 
own  honor  and  fame,  his  own  interest  and  advan- 
tage. 

Vers.  18-28.  The  great  Feast  of  Baal  at  Sa- 
maria: (a)  The  preparation  of  it;  (b)  its  finale. — 
A  work  which  is  in  itself  pure  and  holy  loses  its 
value  when  it  is  accomplished  by  falsehood  and 
dissimulation.     One  cannot  battle  for   the  truth 


with  the  weapons  of  falsehood  (Rom.  iii.  8). — 
Berleb.  Bibel:  What  things  one  may  do  by  out 
ward  acts,  and  yet  be  internally  a  hypocrite  I 
Jehu  dissimulated  in  order  to  circumvent  the  hy- 
pocrites and  idolaters,  and  never  recognized  the 
hypocrite  and  idolater  in  himself. — Jehu  destroyed 
the  worship  of  false  gods  by  the  sword,  and  by 
external  violence.  He  had  full  justification  for  this 
in  the  Law,  for,  under  the  old  covenant,  idolatry 
was  the  worm  at  the  root  of  the  Israelitish  national- 
ity; it  was  high  treason  to  the  Israelitish  state. 
LTnder  the  new  covenant,  it  is  not  permitted  to 
make  use  of  fire  and  sword  against  heresy  and  su- 
perstition. No  other  weapon  may  here  be  used 
than  that  of  the  spirit,  that  is,  the  word  of  God. 
Christianity  is  not  bound  to  any  people  ;  as  it  was 
not  brought  into  the  world  by  violence,  so  it  can- 
not be  extended  and  nourished  by  the  sword. — 
Even  now  every  civil  power  has  the  right  and  the 
duty  to  proceed  to  extreme  measures  against  a 
cultus  like  that  of  Baal,  which  is  interwoven  with 
licentiousness  and  abominations. — Ver.  21.  The 
house  of  Baal  was  full  from  wall  to  wall.  The 
houses  in  which  worship  and  sacrifice  are  ren- 
dered to  the  deities  of  this  world,  to  the  lusts  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride 
of  life,  are  full,  also  now-a-days,  from  wall  to  walk 
while  the  churches,  in  which  the  word  resounds : 
'•  Repent  and  be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be 
forgiven,"  are  empty. — Ver.  26  sq.  J.  Laxge: 
The  destruction  and  desecration  of  the  temple  of 
Baal  was  a  genuine  physical  preaching  of  repent- 
ance through  the  entire  country,  by  which  many 
a  one  may  have  been  awakened  from  the  sleep  of 
sin,  and  many  a  faithful  soul  may  have  been 
strengthened  in  goodness.  As  the  German  hymn 
say? :  "  Bring  all  false  gods  to  shame  1  The  Lord 
is  God !     Give  to  our  God  the  praise  I  " 

Vers.  28-33.  Jehu  is  a  type  of  those  who  show 
great  zeal  in  tearing  down  and  destroying  super- 
stition and  false  worship,  but  do  nothing  to  build 
up  t  he  faith,  because  they  themselves  have  no  liv- 
ing faith,  and  do  not  walk  before  God  with  all 
their  hearts. — Jehu  did  indeed  destroy  idolatry, 
but  he  did  not  touch  the  chief  sin  of  Israel,  be- 
cause  he  considered  it  the  chief  support  of  his  own 
authority.  So  many  a  one  renounces  gross,  ex- 
ternal sins,  but  will  not  think  of  denying  himself, 
of  sacrificing  his  own  interests,  and  of  turning  his 
heart  to  the  living  God. — He  who  remains  stand- 
ing half-way,  goes  backward  in  spite  of  himself. 
Jehu  would  not  desist  from  the  sins  of  Jeroboam, 
because  he  thought  that  it  would  cost  him  his 
crown,  but  on  that  very  account  he  lost  one  prov- 
ince after  another. 


120  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

B. — AthaliaWs  Beign  and  Fall. 
Chap.  XL  1-20.    (2  Cheost.  XXH.  10— XXTTT.  21.) 

1  And  [But]  when  [omu  when]  Athaliah  the  mother  of  Ahaziah  [ — when  she]' 
saw  that  her  son  was  dead,  [then]  she  arose  and  destroyed  all  the  seed  royal. 

2  But  Jehosheba,  the  daughter  of  king  Joram,  sister  of  Ahaziah,  took  Joash  the 
son  of  Ahaziah,  and  stole  him  from  among  the  king's  sons  which  were  [who  were 
to  be] 3  slain  ;  [,]  and  they  hid  him,  even  [omit from  and  to  even:  read  and  put]  * 
him  and  his  nurse,  [omit ,]  in  the  bed-chamber  [store-room,  and  hid  him]  from 

8  Athaliah,  so  that  he  was  not  slain.  And  he  was  with  her  hid  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord  six  years.    And  Athaliah  did  reign  over  the  land. 

4  And  the  seventh  year  Jehoiada  sent  and  fetched  the  rulers  over  hundreds, 
with  the  captains  and  the  guard  [centurions  of  the  life-guards  and  of  the  run- 
ners] '  and  brought  them  to  him  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  made  a  covenant 
with  them,  and  took  an  oath  of  them  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  shewed  them 

5  the  king's  son.  And  he  commanded  them,  saying,  This  is  the  thing  that  ye 
shall  do  ;  A  third  part  of  [those  of]  you  that  enter  in  on  the  sabbath  shall  even 

6  be  keepers  of  the  watch  of  the  king's  house  ;  And  a  third  part  shall  be  at  the 
gate  of  [omit  of]  Sur ;  and  a  third  part  at  the  gate  behind  the  guard  [runners]  ' ; 
so  shall  ye  keep  the  watch  of  the  house,  that  it  be  not  broken  down  [to  prevent 

7  entrance].  And  two  parts  of  [omit  two  parts  of]  all  [those  of]  you  that  go  forth 
on  the  sabbath  [ — of  both  sorts  of  soldiers — ]  ",  even  they  shall  keep  the  watch 

8  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  about  the  king.  And  ye  shall  compass  the  king  round 
about,  every  man  with  his  weapons  in  his  hand  :  and  he  that  cometh  within 
[breaketh  through]  the  ranges  [ranks] ',  let  him  be  slain  :  and  be  ye  with  the 

9  king  as  he  goeth  out  and  as  "he  cometh  in.  And  the  captains  over  the  hundreds 
did  according  to  all  things  that  Jehoiada  the  priest  commanded  :  and  they  took 
every  man  his  men  that  were  to  come  in  on  the  sabbath,  with  them  that  should 

10  go  out  on  the  sabbath,  and  came  to  Jehoiada  the  priest.  And  to  the  captains 
over  hundreds  did  the  priest  give  king  David's  spears  *  and  shields,  that  were  in 

11  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  And  the  guard  stood,  every  man  with  his  weapons  in 
his  hand,  round  about  the  king,  from  the  right  corner  [hand  wall]  of  the  temple 
[house]  to  the  left  corner  [hand  wall]  of  the  temple  [house]  along  by  [towards] 

12  the  altar  and  the  temple.  And  he  brought  forth  the  king's  son,  and  put  the 
crown  upon  him,  and  gave  him  the  testimony  ;  and  they  made  him  king,  and 
anointed  him;  and  they  clapped  their  hands,  and  said,  God  save  the  king  [« 
Live  the  king], 

13  And  when  Athaliah  heard  the  noise  of  the  guard"  and  of  the  people,  she 

14  came  to  the  people  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  And  when  she  looked,  behold, 
the  king  stood  by  a  pillar  [was  standing  on  a  platform]  as  the  manner  was,  and 
the  princes  and  the  trumpeters  by  the  king,  and  all  the  people  of  the  land  re- 
joiced  [were  rejoicing]  and  blew  [blowing]  with  trumpets:  and  Athaliah  rent 

15  her  clothes,  and  cried,  Treason,  treason.  But  Jehoiada  the  priest  commanded 
the  captains  of  the  hundreds,  the  officers  of  the  host,  and  said  unto  them,  Have 
her  forth  without  the  ranges  [through  the  ranks]  ;  and  him  that  followeth  her 
kill  10  with  the  sword.    For  the  priest  had  said,  Let  her  not  be  slain  in  the  house 

10  of  the  Lord.     And  they  laid  hands  on  her  [made  room  for  her  on  either  hand] ; 

and  she  went  by  the  way  by  the  which  the  horses  came  into  the  king's  house: 

and  there  was  she  slain. 
17         And  Jehoiada  made  a  [the]  covenant  between  the  Lord  and  the  king  and  the 

people,  that  they  should  be  the  Lord's  people;  between  the  king  also  and  the 
(8  people.     And  all  the  people  of  the  land  went  into  the  house  of  Baal,  and  brake 

it  down;  his  altars  and  his  images  brake  they  in  pieces  thoroughly,  and  slew 

Mattan  the  priest  of  Baal  before  the  altars.     And  the  priest  appointed  officers 


CHAPTER  XI.  1-20. 


121 


19  over  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  he  took  the  rulers  over  hundreds,  and  the 
captains,  and  the  guard,  and  all  the  people  of  the  land ;  and  they  brought  down 
the  king  from  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  came  by  the  way  of  the  gate  of  the 
guard   [runners]   to  the  king's  house.     And  he  sat  on  the  throne  of  the  kings 

20  And  all  the  people  of  the  land  rejoiced,  and  the  city  was  in  quiet :  and  [but] 
they  slew  [had  slain]  Athaliah  with  the  sword  beside  [at]  the  king's  house. 


rESTTJAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 


i  Ver.  1. — [The  chetib.  l"iriX"ll  ,  is  to  be  retained.  Athaliah  is  put  in  independent  construction  at  the  head  of  the  sen- 
tence, as  general  subject,  and  then  what  she  did  is  stated  in  detached  sentences.  The  construction  is  made  smoother 
if  we  take  away  the  1 ,  but  the  style  then  loses  some  of  its  liveliness.    So  Thenius  and  Keil. 

•  Ver.  -2— The  keri  DVUMEfl  is  confirmed  by  2  Chron.  xxii.  11.    The  chetib  DVYIOSH  [should  be  punctuated 

O'JVOSn.—  W  G.  S.]  mortes,  cannot  without  violence  be  translated  as  Keil  proposes:  "  Those  who  were  doomed  to 
death."—  Bahr.  [Ewald  raises  the  question  whether  the  chetib  cannot  be  punctuated  DTFIOD  » nd  explained  as  a  parti- 
ciple hofal.  in  which  the  chief  vocal  force  has  been  concentrated  in  the  second  syllable.  He  cites  several  cognate  instances 
of  considerable  force.  §  131.  d,  note.— On  the  use  of  the  participle  for  a  preterit  future,  see  Ewald,  §  335,  b,  and  cf.  Gen.  six. 
14;  Ex.  xi.  5;  Judges  xiii.  S. 

»  Ver.  2.— [After  DVIlDDn  strppJy  \FtrT  from  2  Chron.  xxii.  11 ;  cf.  Exegetical. 

•  Ver.  4. — [The  chetib,  riVNO  is  only  a  longer  and  more  original  form  for  the  keri,  HIND,  "since  HXD  is  con 
tracted  from  iVN>D  •"    Ewald.  §  267,  d.— p  here  forms  a  periphrasis  for  the  genitive. 

8  Ver.  6.— [/.  **.,  before  which  the  runners  generally  kept  guard.  , 

•  Ver.  ".— [HIT  does  not  mean  "  parts"  in  the  oame  sense  as  JO  D'L'vtJ'n  means  a  fraction  of.    Its  first  meaning 

is  hand*,  and  so  parts  like  hxmds,  that  is,  two  branches  of  one  subject,  as  the  two  hands  are  parts  of  one  person.  It  referi 
to  the  two  military  divisions,  life-guards  and  runners,  of  which  the  squad  which  retired  on  the  Sabbath  was  composed. 
The  preposition  3  after  it  marks  these  as  component  or  essential  parts.    See  further  the  Exegetical  notes  on  the  verse. 

7  Ver.  8. — [/.€.,  any  one  who  strives  to  break  through  the  cordon  of  guards  thus  posted  so  as  to  penetrate  either  into 
the  palace  or  the  temple. 

8  Ver.  10.— [We  must  read  the  plural  DTP3n!"lt  as  In  Chron.    "The  sing,  in  a  collective  senBe  is  not  a  probable 

construction  in  prose  "    (Thenius). 

9  Ver.  13.— [The  Aramaic  form  of  the  plural  in  |*7  (pV"l)  is  very  rare  In  Hebrew  prose.    It  occurs  in  1  Kings  xi.  83. 

S  Sam.  xxi.  20  (chetib).    In  poetry  it  is  more  frequent.    Ewald,  §  177,  a. 
•°  Ver.  15.— [riDn  ,  inf.  abs.  for  Imper.— W.  G.  8.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND   CRITICAL. 

Introductory  Remarks.  —  The  parallel  ac- 
count in  the  Chronicles  is,  in  some  places,  word 
for  word  the  same  as  the  one  before  us.  It  can- 
not, however,  have  been  copied  from  this  record, 
for  it  not  only  varies  in  particular  details,  but 
also  contains  additions,  and  those  such  as  the 
Chronicler  cannot  possibly  have  invented  him- 
self, t.  g.,  the  names  of  the  five  centurions  and 
their  fathers  (2  Chron.  xxiii.  1).  It  is,  there- 
fore, very  generally  admitted  that  the  two  ac- 
counts are  derived  from  one  and  the  same  origi- 
nal record,  from  which  the  author  of  the  books  of 
Kings  and  the  Chronicler  each  took  different  ex- 
tracts according  to  the  stand-point  of  each.  The 
record  before  us  is  not  only  older,  but  it  is  also 
clear  and  definite,  so  that  when  it  is  regarded  by 
itself  simply  it  presents  no  difficulties.  These  do 
not  present  themselves  until  we  turn  to  the  Btory 
in  Chronicles,  which  is,  it  is  true,  in  some  cases 
more  full  and  detailed,  but  which  is,  on'the  whole, 
far  less  clear.  In  any  attempt  at  reconciliation, 
therefore,  we  must  not,  as  Keil  does,  make  the 
Chronicles  the  standard,  but  must  start  from  the 
record  which  here  lies  before  us.  Noteworthy  as 
the  additions  and  variations  in  the  Chronicles  may 
ippear,  they  can  only  be  accepted  in  so  far  as 
nhey  are  not  contradictory  to  this  account. 


Ver.  1.  But  Athaliah,  4c.  We  may  suppose 
that  she  had  carried  on  the  government  as  queen- 
regent   (nT33  cf.    1    Kings   xv.    13    and  xi.    19), 

[In  the  latter  place  it  is  applied  to  a  queen-con- 
sort, as  in  Jerem.  xiii.  18 ;  xxix.  2.  In  1  Kings 
xv.  13  and  here  it  is  applied  to  the  queen-mother. 
It  is  a  title  which  implies  more  actual  political 

power  and  influence  than  rOpD.  The  queen- 
mother  has  always  been,  and  is,  a  personage  of 
influence  in  oriental  countries.  For  the  import- 
ance of  this  role  in  the  Israelirish  monarchy,  and 
for  the  influence  exerted  on  the  history  by  some 
of  the  individuals  who  filled  it  (Bathsheba,  Maa- 
cah,  Athaliah,  Jezebel),  see  Stanley's  Lectures,  2d 
ser.  p.  -132],  during  the  absence  of  her  son  at  Ra 
moth  and  at  Jezreel  (chap.  viii.  28  and  29),  and  now 
she  took  the  royal  authority  directly  into  her  own 
hands.  In  order  to  establish  herself  on  the  throne, 
she  proceeded  in  the  usual  manner  of  oriental 
usurpers  (see  above,  on  chap.  x.).  She  slew  all 
the  "  seed  royal,"  i.  e.,  all  the  male  members  of 
the  royal  house  who  might  eventually  become  pre- 
tenders to  the  throne.  The  forty-two  "brethren 
of  Ahaziah,"  who  were  slain  by  Jehu  (chap.  x.  13 
sq.),  were  not,  therefore,  all  the  princes  there 
were,  but  a  certain  portion  of  them,  especially 
those  who  were  grown  up. — Ver.  2    Jehosheb* 


122 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


was  the  sister  of  Ahaziah,  but  not  the  daughter 
of  Athaliah.  She  was  the  daughter  of  another 
wife  of  king  Jehoram.  According  to  2  Chron. 
xx.  11,  she  was  the  wife  of  Jehoiada.  the  priest — 
a  statement  the  truth  of  which  Thenius  unjustly 
questions.  It  explains  Jehoiada's  conduct  most 
satisfactorily.      The    Chronicler   has    |nni,    after 

OTI^VSn ,  and  this  word  must  here  be  supplied. 

niaran  Tin  is  not  the  "bed-chamber"  (Luther, 

E.  V.)  either  of  the  royal  princes  (Clericus),  or  of 
the  priests  and  levites  (Vatablus).  but  the  room 
of  the  palace  in  which  the  beds,  mattresses,  and 
coverlets  were  stored,  and  where  no  one  lived. 
The  child,  who  was  an  infant  at  the  breast,  was 
temporarily  hidden  here,  and  then  he  was  brought, 
for  greater  security,  into  the  house  of  Jehovah, 
i.  e.,  into  a  room  adjoining  the  temple,  or  into  one 
of  the  temple  chambers,  so  that  he  was  under  the 
care  of  the  high-priest.  With  her,  i.  e.,  with  the 
wet-nurse,  whose  care  he  yet  needed;  not,  "with 
Jehosheba"  (Thenius),  for  she  could  not  remain 
concealed  for  so  long  a  time.  The  nurse  remained 
with  him,  after  he  was  weaned,  as  his  attendant 
until  his  sixth  year.  Instead  of  riHX  the  Chron- 
icler has,  less  precisely,  DnX ,  with  them,  i.  e.,  in 

their  family.  The  priest  and  Jehosheba  kept  him 
in  concealment.       The   Sept.   translate    DHN ,  in 

Chronicles,  by  fieT1  av-rjc,  which  they  also  give  for 
nnX  in  Kings.     We  cannot  infer,  with  Keil,  that 

he  was  concealed  "  in  the  house  of  the  high-priest, 
in  one  of  the  courts  of  the  temple,"  for  there  is  no 
hint  anywhere  that  the  high-priest  and  his  family 
lived  in  any  part  of  the  temple-building  (cf.  Ne- 
hem.  iii.  26  sq.,  from  which  the  contrary  seems 
more  probable). 

Ver.  4.    And   the   seventh   year   Jehoiada 

sent,  Ac.    For  rpC'  the  Chronicler  has  ptfinn,  i.  e., 

"  he  took  courage."  It  seemed  to  Jehoiada  doubt- 
ful whether  he  ought  to  keep  the  prince  any 
longer  in  concealment.  Perhaps  also  the  govern- 
ment of  Athaliah  had  become  more  and  more  un- 
endurable.    In  vers.  15  and  18  he  is  called  simply 

pin,  whereby  he  is   designated  as  high-priest. 

Cf.  xii.  11.  The  centurions  were  the  commanders 
each  of  a  hundred  men  of  the  life-guards  and  the 
runners  (see  notes  on  1  Kings  i.  38  and  xiv.  27). 
The  Chronicler  gives  the  names  of  these  centu- 
rions and  of  their  fathers,  which  he  can  only  have 
abtained  from  the  original  document  which  served 
as  authority  both  for  him  and  for  the  writer  of 
this  history.  As  there  are  five  names  given  we 
may  infer  that  the  entire  life-guard  consisted  of 
500  men.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  their  agree- 
ment is  not  called  a  "ipt;*,  as  in  the  case  of  Baasha, 

Zimri,   &c,  but  a  rfH3,     Only   Athaliah   calls  it 

"Ip'J',  ver.  14.     The  oath  which  Jehoiada  took  of 

them  in  the  holy  place  can  only  have  been  to  this 
effect,  that  they  would  bring  about  the  elevation 
of  the  prince  to  the  throne,  but,  for  the  present, 
would  keep  the  intention  to  do  so  secret.  He 
then  showed  the  prince  to  them.  In  the  account 
in  Chronicles  the  words:  "And  took  an  oath  of 
them  in  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  showed  them 
Ihe  k  ag's  son,"  are  wanting.     Instead,   we  read 


there:  "  And  they  went  about  in  Judah,  and  gath- 
ered the  levites  out  of  all  the  cities  of  Judah.  ana 
the  chief  of  the  fathers  of  Israel,  and  they  came  to 
Jerusalem.  And  all  the  congregation  (i.  e„  the 
collected  representatives  of  the  people)  made  a 
covenant  with  the  king  in  the  house  of  God.  And 
he  (Jehoiada)  said  unto  them,  Behold,  the  king  » 
son  shall  reign  as  the  Lord  hath  said  of  the  sons 
of  David."  There  is  no  contradiction  here,  for  we 
may  well  suupose  that  Jehoiada  -at  first  only  ad- 
mitted the  five  chiefs  into  the  secret,  and  won 
their  adhesion,  but  that  they,  before  they  pro- 
ceeded to  carry  out  the  plan  proposed  (ver.  5  sq.), 
sought  to  assure  themselves  of  the  support  of  the 
levites  and  of  the  representative  family  chiefs, 
and  invited  them  to  one  of  the  three  great  yearly 
festivals,  at  which  they  were  accustomed  to  visit 
Jerusalem  according  to  the  law,  so  that  their 
presence  there  would  not  attract  attention.  [See 
appendix  to  this  section  for  a  detailed  comparison 
of  the  two  accounts.] 

Ver.  5.  And  he  commanded  them,  ,fec.  Je- 
hoiada's plan  was  to  take  military  possession  of  the 
two  places,  which  here  were  of  prime  importance, 
the  palace  and  the  temple.  In  the  latter  was  the 
young  prince,  who  was  then  to  be  crowned  and 
anointed ;  in  the  former  was  the  throne,  of  which 
he  was  afterwards  to  take  possession.  Vers.  5 
and  6  treat  of  the  taking  possession  of  the  palace ; 
vers.  7  and  8  of  that  of  the  temple.  It  should  be 
particularly  observed  that  Jehoiada's  words  are 
addressed  to  the  centurions  of  the  life-guard  and 
of  the  runners  (ver.  4).  Therefore  when  he  says 
(ver.  5):  A  third  part  D3D;  and  (ver.  7):  both 

sorts  Q33 ,  he  means  of  course  no  other  than  the 

soldiers  under  the  command  of  these  captains, 
who  are  distinctly  mentioned,  in  ver.  9,  as  their 
"men,"  so  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  under- 
stand by  it,  "  levites."  The  entire  body  of  men 
at  their  disposal  consisted,  therefore,  of  those  who 
had  to  undertake  guard-duty  on  the  sabbath,  and 
of  those  who  were  released  from  service  on  that 
day.  Those  who  entered  upon  service  at  that 
time  were  to  hold  control  of  the  palace  at  three 

points ;  one  third  at  the  *]7Bi1  ]V3  ,  by  which  we 

have  to  understand  here  the  royal  residence  prop- 
er, in  distinction  from  the  less  important  acces- 
sory buildings  connected  with  it  (ver.  5.  in  which. 
it  may  be  remarked  in  passing,  IIDL'T  must  be 

read  instead  of  '"ipt."!.     The  Sept.  add  after  tpvAa- 

ni/v  oIkov  mi-  f^atn^eoc,  the  words :  sv  rCi  itvXSnit. ) 
The  second  third-part  was  to  hold  the  gate  "no. 
No  gate  by  this  name  is  mentioned  elsewhere. 
According  to  the  signification  of  the  stem  "hd  ,  to 
ill  part  from  the  way.  it  can  refer  only  to  the  exit 
or  side-door  of  the  palace.  The  third  third-part 
received  the  charge  D'iin  "inX  "lj'ti'3 ,  or,  as  it  is 

called  in  ver.  19  simply,  D'SIH  "IJ!L".  [The  "  run- 
ners "  were  probably  couriers  whose  line  of  duty 
was  to  act  as  the  king's  messengers.  This  gate 
was  probably  so  called,  because  it  was  the  one 
before  which  they  were  usually  stationed,  either 
on  guard-duty,  or  awaiting  commands  which  were 
directed  to  their  department  of  the  service,  or 
both. — W.  G.  S.]  Since  the  new  king  held  his 
solemn  entry  into  the  palace  through  this  gate 
(ver.  19),  it  must  tave  been  the  chief  gate,  through 


CHAPTER  XL   1-20. 


li'E 


which  there  was  the  most  direct  approach  to  the 
royal  residence.  It  was  "  behind  "  the  runners, 
since  their  usual  station  was  before  it.  The  word 
nDD  is  not  a  proper  name  (Luther:  Massa;  Vulg. : 

ifessa),  but  means  repulse,  defence,  that  which  wards 
off,  from   nDJ ,  t»  ward  off,  and  it  is  in  apposition 

to  n"lOt."0  •     It  may  be  referred  to  all  three  of  the 

third-parts,  since  all  three  were  intended  to  ward 
off  and  expel  every  one  who  might  desire  to  gain 
admission  to  the  palace.  This  was  the  duty  as- 
signed to  those  who  commeuced  duty  on  the  sab- 
bath. Those  who  were  released  on  that  day  were 
to  guard  the  temple  (ver.  1).  They  were  not  to  be 
divided  up  into  subdivisions  to  do  duty  at  sepa- 
rate posts,  but  their  two  mT  were  to  form  irmi" 
and  to  take  the  young  king  in  their  midst  (ver.  8). 
By  rilT  are  meant,   in  distinction  from    JV"vC' 

(vers.  5  and  6)  the  two  different  sorts  of  soldiers, 
according   to  their  weapons  and  duties,  i.  e.,  the 

life-guards  and  the  runners.     T\YfW  are  the  ranks, 

in  which  they  were  to  arrange  themselves,  be- 
tween which  the  king  went  out  of  the  temple  into 
the  palace.  Any  one  who  broke  through  them 
and  ventured  inside  was  to  be  slain  (ver.  8).  "  Let 
it  be  observed  with  what  accuracy  Q23  is  used  in 

ver.  7,  where  the  reference  is  to  a  distinction  of 
functions,  and  D3D  in  ver.  5,  where  the  reference 

is  to  merely  numerical  subdivisions  of  the  force  " 
(Thenius).  The  final  words  of  ver.  8 :  And  be  ye 
with  the  king  as  he  goeth  out  and  as  he  Com- 
eth in,  belong  to  the  directions  which  Jehoiada 
gave  fa-  the  division  of  the  numbers  and  of  the 
functions  of  the  soldiers  for  this  especial  case. 
They  cannot,  therefore,  be  taken  as  of  general  sig- 
nification, referring  to  all  the  life  of  the  king,  un- 
der all  circumstances :  "  In  all  his  business,  or,  in 
all  his  movements  "  (Keil),  as  in  Deut.  xxviii.  6 ; 
xxxi.  2.  but  they  refer  to  the  execution  of  this 
plan,  and  are  to  be  understood  of  the  movement 
of  the  king  from  the  temple  to  the  palace  (The- 
nius). In  ver.  9  sq.  follows  the  actual  execution 
of  the  commands  of  Jehoiada  which  have  been  im- 
parted in  the  preceding  verses. 

Ver.  10.  And  to  the  captains  over  hundreds 
did  the  priest  give,  &,c.  Instead  of  the  sing. 
JVJnn,  the   Chronicler   has   the  plural  DTTjnri, 

and  all  the  ancient  versions  present  the  plural  in 
the  verse  before  us.  It  seems  that  it  stood  origi- 
nally nivjnn  (Isai.  ii.  4;  Micah  iv.  3),  and  the 

last  n  was  lost  by  an  error  in  copying  (Keil).  We 
must  understand  that  these  were  not  David's  own 
weapons,  but  some  which  he  had  captured,  and 
placed  in  the  temple  as  an  offering.  According  to 
Ewald,  whose  opinion  Thenius  approves,  Jehoiada 
gave  these  weapons  to  the  captains,  "  in  order  to 
begin  and  consecrate  the  enterprise  on  which  they 
were  about  to  enter,  of  restoring  the  family  of 
David  to  the  throne,  by  using  the  weapons  of  the 
great  ancestor  of  that  family."  But  perhaps  his 
only  reason  for  distributing  these  arms  among 
them  was,  that  those  who  had  retired  from  ser- 
vice at  the  palace  had  left  their  weapons  there. 
The  centurions  divided  these  weapons  among 
Jieir  soldiers,    as   ver.    11    expressly    mentions, 


among  the  "runners,"  not,  therefore,  among  le- 
vites.  When  the  men  were  thus  armed,  they  were 
stationed :  "  From  the  rig!  t-hand  side  of  th( 
house  to  the  left-hand  side  of  the  house,  along  to 
wards  the  altar  and  the  temple,"  so  that  they  sur- 
rounded and  covered  the  person  of  the  king.  The 
meaning  is  that  they  shut  off  the  space  from  the 
temple-building  proper  to  the  altar,  and  that  the 
king  stood  in  the  midst  of  this  space.  Whether 
one  row  stood  across  the  front  from  side  to  sine, 
and  two  others  parallel,  along  the  side  (Bertheau), 
or  whether  one  row  stood  from  the  right-hand 
corner  of  the  temple  to  the  altar,  and  the  other 
from  the  altar  to  the  left-hand  corner  (Thenius), 
must  be  left  undecided.  Not  until  after  the  troops 
had  been  thus  arranged,  did  Jehoiada  lead  out  the 
young  prince  into  the  midst  of  the  open  space  (ver. 
12).     nnyn    does   not    mean   the   insignia    regia 

(Clericus),  or  the  phylacteries  (Deut.  vi.  8,  Gro- 
tius),  but,  the  Law,  and,  if  not  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch, at  least  the  Decalogue,  which  is  so  often 
called  the  "Testimony"  (Ex.  xxv.  21;  xvi.  34, 
&e.).  This  was  probably  given  into  his  hands  as  a 
symbol  of  what  is  declared  to  be  the  law  for  the 
king  in  Deut.  xvii.  19,  whereas  the  diadem  was 
placed  upon  his  head  (2  Sam.  i.  10).  He  was  then 
anointed  (1  Kings  i.  39).  To  clap  the  hands  was 
a  sign  of  delight  and  approval  (Isai.  Iv.  12).  Be- 
sides the  armed  force,  the  priests,  and  the  levites, 
a  multitude  of  people  was  also  present  (ver.  14), 
which  denotes  that  the  coronation  took  place  on  a 
feast-day,  when  the  people  collected  in  Jerusalem 
from  all  parts  of  the  country.  The  acclamations  of 
the  people  are  in  the  same  words  as  in  1  Kings  i.  25. 
Ver.  13.  And  when  Athaliah  heard  the 
noise,  &c.  As  worshipper  of  Baal.  who.  at  that 
time,  had  his  own  temple  in  Jerusalem  (ver.  18), 
Athaliah  took  no  part  in  the  feasts  of  the  worship- 
pers of  Jehovah,  in  the  Jehovah-temple,  and,  on 
this  day.  she  paid  the  less  heed  to  what  was  go- 
ing on  in  the  temple,  inasmuch  as  the  change  of 
the  guards  in  the  palace  had  taken  place  as  usual, 
and  nothing  indicated  any  unusual  disturbance 
The  great  outcry,  which  she  either  heard  herself, 
as  she  well  might  in  view  of  the  short  distance 
from  the  palace  to  the  temple,  or  which  was  re- 
ported to  her  by  her  attendants,  aroused  her  sus 
picions,  so  that  she  betook  herself  thither.  Jo- 
sephus  states  that  she  went  out  of  the  palace  with 
her  own  troops  (urrd  rf/c  iSiac  orpaTiac),  and  that, 
when  she  came  to  the  temple,  the  priests  allowed 
her  to  enter,  but  the  guards  prevented  her  guards 
from  following ;  that  Athaliah,  when  she  saw  the 
crowned  boy,  cried  out,  and  commanded  that  he 
who  had  dared  to  try  to  usurp  her  authority 
should  be  put  to  death,  and  that  thereupon  Jehoia- 
da gave  orders  that  she  should  be  led  out  and 
executed  outside  of  the  temple.  [That  the 
queej  should  have  gone  down  in  person  into  the 
temple,  wi'hout  guards  or  attendants,  to  quell 
what  must  have  appeared  to  be  a  mere  vul- 
gar riot,  is  certainly  an  astonishing  incident. — 
W.    G.    S.]         The "   words     D5D      P¥lfl      can 

not  be  translated :  "  Of  the  people  who  flocked  to 
the  spot "  (Luther,  after  the  Vulg.).  "  The  text 
must  have  read  originally  DUI11  ('V"!!! '  an(^  '^e  ' 
must  have  fallen  out  by  a  copyist's  error"  (Then' 
us,  Keil).     The  Chronicler  transposes  the  words 

ayjn  oyrii  and  adds:  ^errnx  D'^noni.  »'  * 


124 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  people  who  were  flocking  together  and  hailing 
the  king.     The  D'VT  are,  however,  in  this  context, 

always  the  -l  runners  "  who  formed  a  part  of  the 
royal  guards  (vers.  4,  6,  11,  19),  so  that  the  word 
can  mean  nothing  else  in  ver.  13,  and  the  text  of 
the  Chronicles  cannot,  with  any  good  reason  at  all, 

be  preferred.— Ter.  14.  The  king  stood  nrayn^U , 

i.  e.,  not  "  at  the  column "  (Luther)  [or,  "  by  a 
pillar "  (E.  V.)],  but  at  the  appointed,  traditional 
place,  which  was  reserved  for  the  king,  by  estab- 
lished  usage   (DBTO3),    as  in    chap,  xxiii.   3;   2 

Chron.  xxxiv.  31.  Thenius  understands  by  it  "  the 
top  step  of  the  stairs  which  led  up  to  the  temple," 
but  this  would  not  be  any  especial  position,  be- 
cause the  priests  passed  and  stood  there  every 
day.  Evidently  a  particular  place  is  meant,  an 
elevated  dais  or  platform  (Vulg. :  tribunal),  which 
was  reserved  for  the  king  alone,  for,  when  Atha- 
liah  saw  the  prince  standing  there,  she  knew  at 
once  what  the  transaction  was  which  was  being 
accomplished.  The  people,  who  stood  in  the  fore- 
court, could  not  have  seen  the  king,  if  he  had 
stood  on  the  top  of  the  temple-steps,  on  account 
of  the  altar  ten  cubits  high  which  stood  in  the 
court  of  the  priests.  The  platform  in  question 
must  have  stood  before  the  altar,  at  the  entrance 

to  the  inner  fore-court  (xi3Q3  2  Chron.  xxiii.  13), 

so  that  the  king,  when  he  stood  upon  it,  was  the 
first  object  to  strike  the  eye  of  Athaliah  as  she  en- 
tered. Solomon  had  caused  just  such  arrangements 
to  be  made  (2  Chron.  vi.  13;  see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings 
viii.  22). — The  Vulg.  incorrectly  renders  D'ltj'n  by 

cantores,  the  Sept.  by  ol  tWo/,  and  Luther  by 
"singers,"  as  if  the  word  were  D'lE'n.     They  are 

the  centurions,  as  in  vers.  4  and  9.  The  word  is 
correctly  translated  in  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.  ver- 
sions of  Chronicles  by  ol  apxovrss,  and  principes. — 

nilVSnri ,   trumpets,  for  trumpeters.     Since  the 

word  occurs  in  chap.  xii.  14,  in  the  enumeration 
of  the  utensils  of  the  temple,  and  is  also  used  in 
Numb.  x.  2  to  designate  the  trumpets  or  horns  of 
the  priests,  and  since,  moreover,  1  Chron.  xv.  24 

(xiii.  8),  the  priests  appear  as  nnV^'O?  Dv?*¥™?  > 
we  can  think  here  only  of  levites  or  priests  as  the 
persons  who  were  blowing  the  trumpets. — And 
all  the  people  of  the  land,  i.  e.,  "the  multitude 
which  was  present  "  (Bertheau),  as  in  ver.  13,  not, 
"  the  entire  force  of  militia,  which  was  present  in  Je- 
rusalem "  (Thenius). — Athaliah  rent  her  clothes, 
not  so  much  in  grief  as  from  terror,  like  Joram, 
chap.  vi.  30. 

Ver.  15.  But  Jehoiada  the  priest  command- 
ed, Ac.  The  centurions  of  the  life-guard  are  here 
designated  as  commanders  of  the  army  in  general. 
"  The  readers  are  to  be  reminded  by  this  addition 
that  the  military  forces  were  willing  to  obey  Je- 
hoiada"  (Bertheau). — Have   her  forth  through 

[or  between)  the  ranks,  nntiv ,  i-  '■,  within  the 

ranks,  "  so  that  she  was  led  through  the  ranks, 
and  was  hindered  from  taking  any  measures  in  ac- 
cord with  her  adherents  "  (Bertheau).  Any  one 
who  might  desire  to  take  her  part,  or  to  assist  her, 

w&i  to  be  slain.— Dn'  rb  ID'ti"  (ver.  16),  i.  e.,  not, 


as  Luther  [and  the  E.  V.]  translate,  following  th» 
Sept.  {i-ijia'/ov  ai-ij  ^fi/inr),  and  the  Vulg.  (impo- 
suemntei  manus),  "They  laid  hands  an  her,"  but, 
as  the  Chaldee  version  renders  it,  and  as  almost 
all  the  expositors  understand  it :  "  They  made  for 
her  two  sides,"  i.  e.,  they  made  room  for  her, 
opening  the  ranks  on  both  sides,  "  formed  in  rank 

and  escorted  her  out "  (Keil).     By  D'DlDn  a\2p, 

the  entrance- way  for  horses  into  the  royal  stables  is 
to  be  understood,  so  that  it  is  not  the  "horse- 
gate  "  (Nehem.  iii.  28),  as  Josephus  understands, 
for  this  was  a  gate  of  the  inner  city,  and  led  into 
the  city,  not  into  the  palace.  She  was  not  to  be 
conducted  by  the  way  into  the  palace,  because  the 
new  king  was  to  make  his  solemn  entry  into  the 
palace  by  this.  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that 
Athaliah  was  "to  die  shamefully  and  disgracefully 
by  the  stables"  (Thenius),  for  the  royal  stables 
were  not,  as  such,  a  shameful  or  unclean  place. 

Ver.  17.  And  Jehoiada  made  the  covenant, 
Sec.  Not  a  covenant  (Luther),  but  the  covenant, 
i.  «.,  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  with  Israel,  which 
had  been  broken  by  the  false  worship  of  Jeho- 
ram,  Ahaziah,  and  Athaliah.  This  covenant  was 
solemnly  renewed.  It  attached  primarily  to  the 
relation  between  the  king  and  people  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Jehovah  on  the  other  (they  were  to  be 
Jehovah's  people  and  belong  to  Him,  Deut.  iv.  28), 
then,  also,  to  the  relation  between  the  king  and 
the  people.  The  people  was  to  be,  from  that  time 
on,  once  more  the  people  of  God ;  it  was  to  wor- 
ship and  serve  Him  alone.  The  king  was  to  rule 
according  to  the  "testimony,"  i.  e.,  the  Law  of 
Jehovah,  which  had  been  solemnly  put  into  his 
hands,  and  the  people  were  to  be  loyal  to  the  le- 
gitimate king  of  the  family  of  David.  The  imme- 
diate and  necessary  consequence  of  this  renewsj 
of  the  coi«nant  was  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
of  Baal,  with  its  altars  and  idols  (ver.  18).  'When 
and  by  whom  this  temple  was  built  is  nowhere 
stated.  It  is  most  probable  that  it  was  erected  by 
Jehoram,  under  the  influence  of  Athaliah  (chap, 
viii.  1 8),  as  the  one  in  Samaria  was  built  by  Ahab, 
under  the  influence  of  Jezebel  (1  Kings  xvi.  32). 
Thenius  is  wrong  in  inferring  from  2  Chron.  xxiv. 
7,  that  this  temple  was  erected  "  in  the  enclosure 
of  the  temple  of  Jehovah,"  for  that  passage  says 
only  that  Athaliah  and  her  sons  had  plundered 
the  Jehovah-temple  of  all  which  they  could  use 
in  the  worship  of  Baal.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  we  must  understand  it  to  refer  to  a  building 
on  another  elevation.  It  is  certain  also  that  Mat- 
tan,  the  priest  of  Baal  who  was  slain,  did  not 
perform  his  functions  in  the  same  place  with  Je- 
hoiada. [The  grounds  which  lead  Biihr  to  be- 
lieve that  the  temple  of  Baal  was  not  on  Mount 
Moriah  are  not  satisfactory.  Every  indication 
which  we  have  in  regard  to  it  goes  to  show  that 
it  was  there.  Mount  Moriah  is  just  the  spot 
which  would  have  been  chosen  for  the  site  of  a 
temple  by  any  nation  of  ancient  times  which  might 
have  lived  at  Jerusalem.  There  w:is  no  other  ele- 
vation near  or  convenient.  The  "  old  city  "  wag 
perhaps  in  some  places  a  little  higher  than  Mount 
Moriah.  but  it  presented  no  sharp  and  clear  eleva- 
tion, such  as  those  which  ancient  nations  always 
chose  as  sites  of  temples,  if  there  was  one  in  th» 
neighborhood.  The  other  hills  were  too  far  away. 
It  would  be  little  in  accord  with  the  character  o? 
Athaliah  to  suppose  that  she  gave  up   he  best  site, 


CHAPTER  XI.  1-20. 


125 


■which  was.  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the  grandest 
in  the  world,  according  to  the  taste  in  those  mat- 
ters, to  the  Jehovah-religion,  and  sought  another 
for  her  own  favorite  deities.  The  Jehovah-reli- 
gion may  have  been  strong  enough  in  Judah  to 
force  a  compromise,  and  maintain  a  joint  posses- 
sion of  the  mountain.  2  Chron.  xxiv.  7  says  that 
Athaliah  and  her  sons  had   "  broken  down "  or 

"  torn  down  (ijns)  the  house  of  God."    Just  how 

much  that  means  we  cannot  perhaps  determine, 
but  the  temple  was  standing  and  available  for  wor- 
ship, &c,  at  this  time,  as  we  see,  and  it  may  well 
be  meant  that  they  broke  down  such  portions  of 
the  walls  of  the  courts,  4c,  as  was  necessary  to 
get  room  for  the  temple  of  Baal.  See  also  chap, 
xii.  5  (Exeg.)  and  2  Chron.  xxiv.  7.  Still  farther,  if 
ver.  18  is  in  its  proper  chronological  position  brfore 
ver.  19.  and  is  not,  as  Thenius  thinks,  to  be  taken  as 
belonging  after  it  in  order  of  time,  then  it  gives  a 
strong  ground  for  believing  that  the  temple  of 
Baal  was  on  Mount  Moriah.  They  stayed  to  tear 
it  down  before  they  formed  the  procession,  and 
left  the  temple-mountain  to  "  go  down  "  and  es- 
cort the  king  into  the  palace.  It  cannot  be  re- 
garded, therefore,  as  "beyond  doubt"  that  Mat- 
tan  aud  Jehoiada  did  not  perform  their  functions 
in  the  same  place.  That  the  latter  did  not  like 
the  juxtaposition,  we  may  well  believe,  but  if 
the  question  was  whether  to  share  Mount  Moriah 
with  the  worshippers  of  Baal,  or  to  remove  the 
Jehovah-worship  from  it,  or  to  give  up  the  Je- 
hovah-worship altogether,  we  may  easily  imagine 
what  course  he  would  have  chosen. — W.  G.  S.] — 
Duncker,  whom  Weber  again  follows,  deduces  from 

the  sentence :  The  priests  appointed  J"Rp3  over 

the  house  of  the  Lord,  the  arbitrary  conclusion 
that,  in  spite  of  the  victory  of  the  priestly  party. 
"  Nevertheless  the  number  of  the  servants  of  Baal 
was  so  great,  and  their  courage  was  so  little  bro- 
ken, that  it  was  necessary  to  protect  the  temple  of 
Jehovah  against  their  attacks  by  especial  guards." 
Thenius  also  thinks  that  there  is  reference  here  to 
a  kind  of  temple-officers  which  had  not  existed  be- 
fore, "  by  whom  a  new  desecration  of  the  temple 
by  the  worship  of  false  gods  was  to  be  prevented." 
We  must  understand  by  it,  as  is  expressly  stated 
2  Chron.  xxiii.  18,  the  overseers  who  were  ap- 
pointed by  David  (1  Chron.  xxv.i,  and  who,  during 
the  time  that  idolatry  prevailed,  had  not  been  regu- 
larly kept  up,  or  perhaps  had  not  been  appointed 
it  all.  That  the  article  is  wanting  cannot  be  de- 
cisive to  the  contrary.  [So  Keil.  Ewald,  Thenius. 
ind  Bunsen,  on  the  contrary,  think  that  they  were 
intended  to  protect  the  temple  against  the  attacks 
of  the  heathen.  The  Chronicler  develops  this 
short  note  into  an  elaborate  statement,  as  he  does 
all  the  notices  of  the  origin  of  any  ritual  formali- 
ties or  hierarchical  organizations.  It  is  not  clear, 
however,  that  it  should  have  been  thought  neces- 
sary, just  at  the  time  when  the  Jehovah-religion 
could  once  more  count  on  the  support  of  the  throne, 
to  appoint  new  and  permanent  officers  to  protect 
the  temple  from  heathen  attacks  and  desecrations. 
Moreover,  this  clause,  thus  understood,  makes  the 
position  of  ver.  18  before  ver.  19  probably  incor- 
rect as  regards  the  order  of  time.  Shall  we  un- 
derstand that  they  stayed  to  appoint  temple-offi- 
cers before  completing  the  inauguration  of  the 
Wing?     It   would  be   mosk,  reasonable  to  under- 


stand it  to  state  simply  that  they  appointed  a 
guard  to  stay  and  protect  the  temple  from  any 
sudden  attack  of  the  enraged  worshippers  of  Baal, 
while  all  the  rest  went  to  escort  the  king  into  the 
palace,  and  see  him  mount  the  throne. — W.  G.  S.] 
According  to  ver.  19,  the  centurions  mentioned  in 
ver.  -A,  with  their  troops,  the  life-guards  and  the 

runners,  escorted  the  king  down  (VTH'l)  from  the 

House  of  Jehovah  in  a  solemn  procession  arranged 
(nj5!l)  by  the  priest  Jehoiada.    Escorted  him  down, 

it  is  said,  because  there  was  a  ravine  between 
Mount  Moriah  and  Mount  Zion,  over  which  at  that 
time  there  probably  was  no  bridge.  They  came 
through  the  "  Gate  of  the  Runners  "  (the  Chron- 
icler gives  7)103  instead  of  *|T-j ,  by  way  ef  ex 

planation)  into  the  palace,  where  the  throne  stood, 
upon  which  the  king  seated  himself.  The  Gate  of 
the    Runners   belonged  therefore   to   the  palace. 

The  Sept.  take  7]^Bn  JV3  as   a  direct  genitive, 

oIkov  -oil  flacnleuc.  It  was  unquestionably  the 
chief  gate,  for  the  solemn  entry  would  not  take 
place  through  any  other  (Thenius).  Ewald,  The- 
nius, and  Bertheau  connect  nopt.''  TlTIl  with  the 

following,  in  opposition  to  the  massoretic  punctua- 
tion :  "  And  the  city  remained  quiet  when  they 
slew  Athaliah  with  the  sword :  "  that  is  to  say, 
her  adherents  remained  peaceful  and  did  not  ven- 
ture to  make  any  movement  to  save  her.  But,  in 
that  case,  the  words  "  with  the  sword"  would  be 
unnecessary.  The  correct  interpretation  of  the 
words  is  rather  that  the  concluding  sentence  is  in- 
tended to  append  to  ver.  16  an  emphatic  statement 
of  the  manner  in  which  she  was  put  to  death,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
by  Iter  death,  the  last  member  of  the  house  of 
Ahab  was  removed,  and  the  legitimate  authority 
of  the  house  of  David  was  restored.  §In  this  in- 
terpretation this  sentence  brings  the  account  to  a 
well-rounded  close. 


Appendix. — In  the  exegetical  explanations 
which  precede,  only  the  less  important  variations 
of  the  Chronicles  have  been  noticed,  and  no  ac- 
count has  been  taken  of  the  grand  divergence  of 
the  two  narratives  in  their  general  conception  of 
the  occurrence,  in  order  that  the  continuous  eluci- 
dation of  the  text  before  us  might  not  be  too  much 
interrupted,  and  in  order  that  no  confusion  might 
arise.  The  chief  variation  now,  one  which  runs 
through  the  entire  account,  is,  that,  according  to 
the  Chronicler,  it  was  not  the  centurions  of  the 
royal  guards,  but  the  priests,  the  levites,  and  the 
family-chiefs,  by  whose  aid  Jehoiada  accomplished 
his  reformation  (2  Chron.  xxiii.  2);  furthermore, 
that  the  first  third  of  the  priests  and  levites  who 
entered  upon  service  on  the  sabbath  were  ap- 
pointed D^BBn  ,_)j;i;'"> ,  »'.  e.,  to  be  gate-keepers  of 
the  threshold,  the  second  to  guard  the  king's  house, 
and  the  third  to  keep  the  gate  "IID'H  (vers.  4,  5) . 

finally,  that  the  two  classes  of  priests  and  levites, 
those  who  entered  upon,  and  those  who  were  re- 
leased from,  service,  remain  together  (ver.  8),  so 
that,  in  general,  it  is  only  the  temple,  and  not  the 
royal  palace  at  various  points,  which  is  guarded. 
Modern  criticism  explains  these  variations  as  "  iir- 


126 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


bitrary  alterations"  of  the  Chronicler,  which  he 
adopted  "  out  of  preference  for  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
iu  order  to  ascribe  to  the  priest-caste  an  honor 
which  belonged  to  the  pnetorians "  (Thenius,  De 
Wette).  This  assertion  is,  to  say  the  very  least. 
exaggerated.  No  suspicion  of  falsehood  can  at- 
tach  to  the  idea  that  the  priests  and  levites  par- 
ticipated iu  the  coronation  and  inauguration  of  the 
new  king,  especially  seeing  that  the  main  object  to 
be  gained  by  this  was  the  abolition  of  idolatry 
(ver.  17  sq.)  The  plan  of  the  enterprise,  accord- 
ing to  the  account  before  us,  did  not  proceed  from 
the  centurions  of  the  praetorian  guard,  but  from 
the  head  of  the  priest-class,  and  it  would  be 
astonishing  and  unnatural  if  the  high-priest  had 
excluded  all  his  comrades  in  rank,  office,  and 
family,  from  participation  in  a  transaction  which 
was  not  only  political,  but  also  religious,  and  which 
took  place  in  the  temple.  This  participation  was 
a  matter  of  course,  all  the  more  seeing  that  the 
act,  according  to  all  the  indications  (see  notes  on" 
vers.  4,  13),  took  place  on  a  feast,  at  which  priests 
and  levites  were  bound  to  be  present.  The  au- 
thor does  not,  therefore,  exclude  them,  he  rather 
takes  their  participation  for  granted,  as  we  see 
distinctly  from  ver.  14.  Still  less  does  the  Chroni- 
cler exclude  the  prajtorian  guard  from  participa- 
tion ;  he  even  gives  what  this  author  does  not 
give  in  regard  to  them,  viz.,  the  names  of  the  cen- 
turions and  of  their  fathers,  and  thereby  he  shows 
how  important  their  part  in  the  work  appeared  to 
him,  and  also  shows  that  he  had  not  forgotten 
them,  but  desired  that  they  should  be  kept  in  hon- 
orable remembrance.  He  could  not,  therefore, 
have  had  any  intention  of  robbing  them  of  any 
honor  which  belonged  to  them,  and  conferring  it 
upon  the  levites.  But  while  this  author  permits 
the  participation  of  the  levites  to  remain  unem- 
phasized,  as  something  which  was  a  simple  matter 
of  course,  the  Chronicler,  who  certainly  looks  at 
the  history-more  from  the  priestly,  levitical  stand- 
point, feels  bound  to  give  it  greater  prominence. 
There  is  no  contradiction  between  the  two  ac- 
counts in  this  respect.  The  case  is  somewhat  dif- 
ferent, however,  in  regard  to  the  other  detailed 
variations.  The  three  localities  which  were  to  be 
held,  each,  according  to  the  Chronicler,  by  one 
third  of  the  priests  and  levites,  cannot  possibly 

have  been  all  in  the  temple,  for  the  T]??3ri  JV3 , 

the  guard  of  which  is  entrusted  (ver.  5)  to  the 
Becond  third,  can  only  be  the  king's  house  or  pal- 
ace, not  "  the  place  in  the  temple  where  the 
young  king  was  (in  concealment)  "  (Keil).      The 

"Gate  HID' ,"  which  was   entrusted    to  the  third 

third,  was,  as  no  one  doubts,  the  same  which  is 
called  in  Kings  (ver.  6)  the  "  Gate  "nD  t  ap- 
pears  there   distinctly  as  a  gate   of  the   tJ.lace. 

Probably  lio'   is  only  another  reading  for  "HD- 

A  temple-gate  with  this  name  is  not  mentioned 

anywhere  else.     The  D'SD ,  which  the  first  third 

are  to  guard  (ver.  4),  might,  according  to  1  Cliron. 
ix.  19,  be  a  locality  in  the  temple,  but  it  is  utterly 
Impossible  that  they  should  be  identical,  as  Keil 
assumes,  with  the  "Gate  of  the  Runners"  in  the 
account  here  beff  re  us  (ver.  6),  for  this  gate  is  dis- 
tinctly mentioned  in  ver.  19  as  the  one  through 
which  the  king,  after  the  procession  had  left  the 


House  of  Jehovah,  was  conducted  into  the  palace 
According  to  this  account,  that  gate  was  guarded 
by  the  third  third  of  that  portion  of  the  troops  un- 
der the  command  of  the  centurions  which  entered 
upon  duty  on  that  day,  and  not  by  priests  and  le- 
vites. who.  of  course,  never  mounted  guard  at  the 
palace.  These  variations  of  the  two  accounts  can- 
not be  reconciled,  and  we  are  absolutely  forced  to 
admit  that  the  Chronicler,  although  he  made  some 
more  detailed  extracts  from  the  original  document 
than  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  neverthe- 
less did  not  accurately  discriminate  between  the 
priests  and  levites  and  the  military  life-guard,  and 
did  not  keep  separate  the  shares  of  the  two  in  the 
transaction.  Keil  asserts,  in  order,  in  spite  of 
this,  to  bring  the  two  accounts  into  accord:  Je- 
hoiada  "  determined  to  carry  out  the  project  chiefly 
by  the  aid  of  the  priests  and  levites,  who  relieved 
each  other,  in  the  service  of  the  temple,  on  the 
sabbath,  and  he  entrusted  the  chief  command  of 
these  forces  to  the  captains  of  the  royal  life-guard, 
that  they,  with  the  force  of  priests  and  levites 
under  their  command,  might  take  possession  of 
the  approaches  to  the  temple,  in  order  to  repel 
any  attempt  of  the  military  to  force  an  entrance, 
and  might  protect  the  young  king.  These  cap- 
tains came  into  the  temple  without  weapons  in  order 
not  to  attract  attention,  therefore  Jehoiada  gave 
them  the  weapons  of  king  David,  which  were  laid 
up  in  the  temple."  But  the  account  of  the  Chron- 
icler says  nothing  of  any  commission  of  the  com- 
mand over  the  priests  and  levites  to  the  centu- 
rions, and  this  account  directly  contradicts  any 
such  notion  (see  above,  on  ver.  5),  [not  to  say  any- 
thing of  the  very  great  intrinsic  improbability  that 
any  such  arrangement — putting  military  leaders 
in  command  of  priestly  forces — would  ever  have 
been  adopted,  or  that,  if  it  had,  it  would  have 
worked  well. — W.  G.  S.]  According  to  the  ac- 
count before  us  it  is  impossible  to  exclude  the 
troops  ordinarily  under  the  command  of  the  cen- 
turions from  a  share  in  the  transaction.  It  was 
almost  more  necessary  to  get  possession  of  the 
palace  than  of  the  temple,  because  the  king  was 
to  make  his  solemn  entry  into  it,  and  mount  the 
throne  after  his  coronation.  It  is  not  an  argu- 
ment against  the  notion  that  a  guard  was  set  over 
the  palace,  that  Athaliah  came  down  out  of  it  to 
the  people  in  the  temple.  There  was  no  object  in 
preventing  her  from  coming  out;  the  guard  was 

set  to  prevent  any  one  from  gettiug  in  (riDD  ver. 

6).  There  is  no  force  in  the  citation  of  Josephus 
(Antiq.,  7.  14,  7):  "Each  of  the  twenty-four 
classes  of  priests  took  charge  of  the  worship  for 
eight  days  from  sabbath  to  satfbath,"  or  in  the 
observation  that  "it  is  not  known  that  any  such 
arrangement  was  observed  with  respect  to  the 
life-guards  or  any  other  portion  of  the  army,"  for 
of  course  all  regular  guards  had  to  relieve  each 
other  at  definite  times,  and  the  record  'ays  dis- 
tinctly that  this  was  the  custom  of  the  troops  who 
were  under  command  of  the  centurions. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL 

1.  The  elevation  of  Joash  to  the  throne  of  Judai, 
has  great  importance  in  the  history  of  redemption, 
inasmuch  as  God's  guidance  and  protection  of  the 
house  of  David  appears  in  it,  and  as  it  is  a  cod 


CHAPTER  XI.   1-20. 


12? 


firmation  of  the  promise  given  to  this  house  that 
it  should  never  be  extinguished,  and  that  its  light 
should  never  fail  (2  Sam.  vii.  13  sq. ;  1  Kings  xi. 
36;  xv.  4:  2  Kings  viii.  19;  cf.  Ps.  cxxxii.  17).  In 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  the  dynasties  changed;  one 
overthrew  the  other  and  destroyed  it;  with  Jehu  ! 
the  fourth  had  already  begun.  In  the  kingdom  of 
Judah.  on  the  contrary,  the  house  of  David  had 
maintained  itself  until  this  time.  But  now,  when 
.Tehu  had  killed  Ahaziah  and  forty-two  of  his  rela- 
tives, and  all  the  remaining  royal  seed  had  been 
destroyed  by  Athaliah,  it  appeared  that  the  line 
of  David  also  was  at  an  end.  But  God  wonder- 
fully ordered  it  so  that  an  infant  of  this  house  es- 
caped the  massacre  and  was  saved.  He  remained 
concealed  for  years,  and  it  must  have  been  believed 
that  David's  lamp  had  gone  out  forever,  when  sud- 
denly the  sole  remaining  offshoot  of  the  house  of 
David  ascended  the  throne,  and,  with  the  murder- 
ess Athaliah,  the  last  survivor  of  the  house  of  Ahab 
perished.  As  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  to  pro- 
tect the  house  of  David  must  have  been  recognized 
in  this  event,  there  was  .in  it  at  the  same  time,  for 
every  faithful  servant  of  Jehovah,  a  pledge  that 
the  God  of  Israel  would  protect  this  house  also  for 
the  future  in  any  calamities;  and  so  He  did,  until 
finally,  according  to  the  promise,  the  great  "  son 
of  David  "  came,  who  was  not  only  the  "  lamp  " 
of  David,  but  the  light  of  the  world,  whose  king- 
dom shall  have  no  end  (Luke  i.  32,  33,  69). 

2.  All  the  mischief  which  the  relationship  con- 
tracted by  Jehoshaphat  with  the  house  of  Ahab 
(1  Kings  xxii.,  Hist.  §  1)  had  brought  upon  Ju- 
dah, culminated  in  the  reign  of  Athaliah,  which 
brought  Judah  and  its  royal  house  to  the  verge 
of  ruin.  Athaliah  was  a  faithful  copy  of  her 
mother  Jezebel,  fanatical,  idolatrous,  imperious, 
and  cruel.  As  her  mother  had  controlled  Ahab, 
so  she  controlled  Jehoram  and  her  son  Ahaziah. 
I',  was  she  who  transplanted  idolatry  into  Judah. 
which  had,  until  then,  been  faithful  to  Jehovah. 
Under  her  influence  a  temple  of  Baal  was  built 
in  Jerusalem  itself.  She  plundered  the  temple  of 
Jehovah  and  took  all  the  sacred  implements  for 
use  in  the  service  of  Baal  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  7).  Af- 
ter the  death  of  her  son  she  usurped  the  royal 
authority,  so  that  a  woman  came  to  sit  upon  the 
throne,  a  thing  which  had  never  taken  place  be- 
fore and  never  took  place  afterwards,  and  which 
not  only  was  in  direct  contradiction  with  one  of 
the  essential  duties  which  devolved  upon  a  king 
of  Israel,  who,  as  such,  was  to  be  a  "servant  of 
God,"  but  also  was  contrary  to  the  express  pro- 
vision of  the  law.  Maimonides,  in  the  tract  Me- 
lachim,  draws  this  inference,  thus :  "  They  place 
no  woman  on  the  throne,  for  it  is  said  (Deut.  xvii. 
15):  'Thou  shalt  in  anywise  set  him  king,'  not 
queen.  So  also,  in  all  positions  of  dignity  and  au- 
thority, they  place  only  men."  Athaliah's  usur- 
pation of  the  throne  was  the  dissolution  of  the 
Israelitish  monarchy.  In  order  to  maintain  her- 
self in  her  usurped  authority,  she  put  to  death. 
not,  lfke  other  usurpers,  her  opponents,  but  those 
tvho  were  connected  with  her  own  family,  her  own 
nephews  and  grandchildren.  The  ground  for  this 
''senseless  crime"  (Ewald)  cannot  be  sought  in 
the  fact  that  she  desired  to  annex  Judah  to  Israel, 
for  Jehu  was  reigning  there,  but  only  in  the  blind 
and  passionate  love  of  power  of  this  "  wicked " 
woman  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  7),  and  in  her  raging  hate 
against  the  house  of  David,  to  which  all  true  ser- 


vants of  Jehovah  adhered.  For  six  years  she  pur- 
sued her  own  courses  undisturbed,  and  believed 
herself  secure,  when  finally  the  legitimate  heir  to 
the  throne,  who  had  escaped  the  massacre  by  God'a 
evident  protection,  appeared  and  was  anointed 
kiug.  As  her  mother  Jezebel  had  stood  upon  her 
majesty  in  her  dealings  with  Jehu,  and  -had  be- 
lieved that  she  could  command,  so  she  came,  proud 
and  insolent,  into  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and,  for- 
getting the  illegitimacy  of  her  own  authority, 
founded,  as  it  was,  solely  upon  violence,  she  cried 
out:  "Treason,  treason!  "  But  again,  as  her  mother 
had  heard  her  doom  pronounced:  "Throw  her 
down  !  "  so  she  hears  the  command :  "  Have  her 
forth!  and  him  that  followeth  her  kill  with  the 
sword."  As  there  was  no  one  who  took  the  part 
of  the  hated  woman,  she  died,  abandoned  by  all 
her  servants,  a  just  and  disgraceful  death.  Thereby 
Judah  and  its  royal  house  were  saved.  Racine 
concludes  his  tragedy  Athalie,  with  these  words : 

Par  cette  fin  terrible,  et  due  d  ses  forfaitx, 
Apprenez.  roi  dee  Juifs,  et  n'oubliez  jamais. 
Que  Us  rati  dans  le  ciel  out  unjuae  severe. 
L'innocence  un  vengeur,  et  Vorphtlin  un  pert. 

3.  The  high-priest  Jehoiada  is,  for  his  time,  a 
very  remarkable  character.  Although,  through 
his  wife  Jehosheba,  he  was  connected  with  the 
idolatrous  court,  and  although  he  was  entrusted 
with  an  office  which,  under  the  circumstances,  was 
doubly  difficult,  yet  he  held  firm  and  true  to  the 
God  of  Israel,  and  to  the  legitimate  dynasty.  The 
Lord  had  given  the  last  heir  of  this  line  into  his 
hands,  and,  at  the  peril  of  his  life,  he  protects  him 
for  years  in  concealment,  guarding  him  as  his  own 
child,  and  waiting  in  faith  and  patience  until  Je- 
hovah shall  give  means  and  ways  to  restore  the 
apparently  exterminated  royal  house.  As  the  yoke 
of  the  tyrannical  woman  became  more  and  more 
unendurable,  he  "strengthened  himself"  [i.  e.,  took 
courage,  made  up  his  mind]  (2  Chron.  xxiii.  1),  and 
put  his  hand  to  the  work.  He  did  not  wish  to  open 
the  way  to  the  throne  for  the  young  heir  by  deceit 
or  craft,  by  cruelty  and  bloodshed.  In  the  first 
place  lie  admits  the  captains  of  the  military  guard 
into  the  secret,  and  makes  sure  of  their  assistance; 
then  he  causes  the  priests  and  levites,  and  the 
heads  of  all  the  families,  i.  «.,  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  to  be  summoned  to  Jerusalem  for  a 
public  festival.  He  does'not  wish  to  do  anything 
by  himself  alone,  but  with  the  consent  of  the  dif- 
ferent classes  among  the  entire  people.  His  plan 
bears  witness,  not  only  to  his  wisdom  and  pru- 
dence, but  also  to  his  patriotism.  He  takes  all  his 
measures  in  such  a  way  that  the  end  is  accom 
plished  without  tumult  or  violence,  but  yet  withom 
chance  of  failure.  It  is  not  selfishness  and  love 
of  power,  but  pure  and  disinterested  love  to  Jeho- 
vah and  to  His  people  which  is  his  motive.  Only 
when  Athaliah  stigmatizes  the  restoration  of  the 
legitimate  order  of  things  as  treason  and  insurrec- 
tion, puts  herself  on  the  defensive,  and  calls  for 
armed  opposition  to  the  movement,  does  he  give 
orders  to  lead  the  crowned  monster,  as  Dereser 
justly  calls  her.  out  of  the  sanctuary,  and  deliver 
her  over  to  her  well-deserved  fate.  His  next  care 
then  is  to  renew  the  covenant  between  the  king 
and  people,  exhorting  the  former  to  fidelity  to  the 
law,  and  the  latter  to  fidelity  to  the  kiug.  Then 
finally  he  leads  the  king  to  the  throne,  and  the 
people  put  an  end  to  the  idol-worship.     If  ever  » 


12S 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


man  stood  pure  and  blameless  in  the  midst  of  such 
a  bold,  difficult,  and  far-reaching  enterprise,  then 
Jehoiada,  the  ideal  Israelitish  priest,  did  so  here. 
4.  Our  modern  historians  see,  in  the  deration  of 
the  descendant  of  David  to  the  thront  of  his  fathers, 
a  priest-revolution,  just  as  they  see,  in  the  eleva- 
tion of  Jehu,  a  prophet-revolution.  So  Duncker 
(Gesch.  d.  Alt.,  s.  417),  whom  Weber  (Gesch.,  s.  241) 
follows,  states  it  thus:  ''The  priests  of  the  tem- 
ple at  Jerusalem  had  yielded  to  the  foreign  wor- 
ship ninth  mere  easily  than  the  prophets  in  Israel. 
The  example  and  the  success  of  the  latter  grad- 
ually exercised  an  influence  upon  Judah.  After 
the  prophets  of  Israel  had  brought  about  the  ruin 
of  the  house  of  Omri,  the  priests  tried  to  over- 
throw the  last  remnant  of  this  family  in  Judah 
also.  .  .  .  The  fall  of  Joram  of  Israel,  and 
perhaps  also  the  hope  of  finding  in  Joash,  the  son 
•of  Ahaziah,  whom  the  priests  held  in  concealment 
from  Athaliah  in  the  temple,  an  easy  tool  for 
priestly  influence,  induced  the  high-priest  Jehoiada 
to  undertake  the  overthrow  of  the  queen."  Winer 
(R.-W.-B.,  i.  s.  Ill)  also  presents  the  incident  in  a 
similar  manner:  "The  priests  saved  her  (Atha- 
liah's)  grandson,  Joash,  with  the  help  of  a  princess, 
in  the  temple.  When  he  had  grown  up  he  was 
secretly  anointed  king,  and  Athaliah  was  put  to 
death  in  a  popular  insurrection  excited  by  the 
priests."  Here  we  have  another  specimen  of  that 
history-making  which  ignores  what  the  text  says, 
and  states,  as  assured  historical  fact,  that  which 
it  does  not  say.  That  the  priests  in  Judah  gave 
way  more  easily  to  the  Baal-worship  than  the 
prophets  of  Israel ;  that  they,  encouraged  by  the 
example  and  success  of  the  latter,  dethroned  and 
murdered  Athaliah,  and  regarded  Joash  as  one 
who  would  probably  prove  an  easy  tool  in  their 
hands ;  that  the  priests  saved  Joash  and  hid  him 
in  the  temple;  that  he  was  secretly  anointed  king, 
and  that  then  a  popular  rising  was  instigated  by 
the  priests ;  of  all  that,  there  is  nothing  in  either 
record.  On  the  contrary,  both  agree  in  stating  that 
the  sister  of  king  Ahaziah,  without  any  assistance 
from  the  priests,  took  away  the  infant,  and  hid  him 
in  the  palace  itself,  in  the  bed  store-room,  and  that 
she  then  hid  him,  for  greater  security,  in  the  tem- 
ple, which  was  under  the  charge  of  her  husband, 
the  high-priest.  These  two  near  relatives  of  the 
prince  were,  for  six  years,  the  only  ones  who  knew 
of  his  existence.  Not  until  the  seventh  year  did 
Jehoiada  admit  any  one  to  the  secret,  and  then  not 
the  priests,  but  the  captains  of  the  military  guard, 
and  he  took  of  them  an  oath  of  secrecy.  They  it 
was  who  summoned  the  chiefs  of  the  people,  and 
the  priests,  and  the  levites,  to  the  festival  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  who  took  the  lead  in  carrying  out  the 
plan.  The  young  prince  was  not  anointed  "secretly," 
but  as  openly  as  possible.  Not  only  the  priests, 
but  also  the  captains  of  the  royal  guard,  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people,  and  the  people  them- 
selves, shouted  their  acclamations  to  the  new  king. 
The  coronation  took  place  without  violence,  with- 
out any  scene  of  public  disturbance.  The  city  is 
quiet,  and  the  people  joyful  (ver.  20).  How  can 
any  one  then  speak  of  a  "  popular  rising  instigated 
ry  the  priests?"  Criticism  here  comes  into  con- 
tradiction with  itself.  It  declares  the  record  in 
Chronicles  unreliable  and  nnhistorical,  because  it 
gives  such  prominence  to  the  participation  of  the 
priests  and  levites,  whereas  the  record  in  Kings 
on  y  mentions  the  captains  of  the  guard,  and  yet 


it  says  that  the  entire  enterprise  was  conducted 
by  the  priests.  But  it  is  radically  perverse  and 
false  to  regard  the  incident  as  a  revolution  or  a  re- 
volt. That  Athaliah,  as  even  De  Wetto  expresses 
it,  "usurped  the  throne  of  David,"  that  she  took 
the  royal  authority  into  her  own  hands,  that  she 
destroyed  all  the  remaining  seed-royal,  tltat  was  a 
revolution.  What  Jehoiada  undertook,  not  by 
himself,  but  in  harmony  with  all  ranks,  and  with 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  was  a  repeal 
of  the  revolution,  and  a  restoration  of  the  con- 
stitutional, divine  as  well  as  human,  order.  It 
would  have  been  contrary  to  conscience  and  to 
duty,  if  Jehoiada  had  gone  down  to  the  grave 
with  the  secret  that  there  was  yet  living  a  legiti- 
mate heir  of  the  throne  of  David.  It  was  mos; 
natural  that  he  should  take  the  initiative  in  thi 
restoration  of  the  legitimate  monarchy,  because 
he  had  the  prince  under  his  care,  and  no  one  knew 
anything  about  him  but  Jehoiada  and  his  wife. 
Moreover,  it  was  doubly  his  duty,  as  chief  of  those 
whose  calling  it  was  to  guard  and  teach  the  law, 
i.  e.,  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  (Mai.  ii.  1 ; 
Deut.  xxxiii.  10  ;  Levit.  x.  11),  to  labor  to  the  end 
that  the  organic  law  of  the  kingdom,  which  was 
a  theocracy,  should  be  maintained ;  and,  when  this 
law  was  trodden  under  foot  by  the  usurping  sov- 
ereign, no  one  was  so  much  bound  as  he  to  re- 
store it,  that  is,  to  renew  the  covenant.  In  the 
kingdom  of  Israel,  where,  since  Jeroboam,  there 
was  no  longer  any  lawful  priesthood  (2  Chron.  xi. 
13  sq.),  it  was  the  prophets  who  had  to  watch 
over  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  and  to  fight  for  it. 
In  Judah,  on  the  contrary,  "  the  diminished  and 
weakened  priesthood,  together  with  the  true  Je- 
hovah-prophets, had  to  form  the  opposition  to  the 
patronage  of  paganism  "  (Ewald).  Jehoiada's  en- 
terprise did  not  aim  to  bring  about  the  dominion 
of  the  priesthood,  but  that  of  the  legitimate  the- 
ocratic dynasty.  He,  therefore,  turned  first  to  the 
servants  of  the  crown  for  assistance — aimed  to  have 
the  new  king  inaugurated  by  their  power.  After 
this  was  accomplished,  he  restored  the  priestly 
offices.  He  aimed  at  nothing  more  and  nothing 
less  than  the  restoration  of  the  original  theocratic 
constitution. 


HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-3.  Queen  Athaliah.  (a)  Her  wicked 
plans,  ver.  1.  (Idolatrous  and  fond  of  power,  like 
her  mother  Jezebel,  she  takes  the  royal  authority 
into  her  own  hands,  in  self-will  and  contrary  to 
right,  and  murders  all  the  male  seed,  in  orier  t* 
put  an  end  forever  to  the  house  of  David.  Wurt. 
Summ.  :  We  see  here  whither  ambition  and  love  of 
rule  may  lead  men.  Athaliah  does  not  spare  hei 
own  innocent  grandchildren,  but  causes  them  to 
be  put  to  death,  only  in  order  that  she  may  be 
called  queen,  and  may  remain  such.  Sir.  iii.  29 
sq.).  (b)  The  frustration  of  her  plans,  vers.  2  and 
3.  (Job  v.  12;  Ps.  ii.  4;  xxxiii.  10.  Wurt. 
Summ  :  No  one  can  tread  down  him  whom  God 
sustains.  Thus,  Pharaoh  would  have  been  glad 
to  destroy  Israel ;  Saul  would  have  slain  David , 
Herod,  the  child  Jesus ;  they  could  not  accomplish 
it,  however;  they  only  injured  themselves  and 
perished,  just  as  Athaliah  did  also.) — Ver.  1.  Je- 
hoshaphat's  marriage  of  his  son  with  a  daughter  of 
the  house  of  Aliab.  although  lie  b -ought  it  aboui 


l,nAPTER  XI.   1-20. 


129 


in  a  good  intention,  produced  the  result  that  Atha- 
liah  ruled  over  Judah,  and  brought  the  dynasty  of 
David  to  the  brink  of  ruin.  Neue  WCrt.  Si'mm.  : 
So,  many  a  quiet,  humble,  God-fearing  family  lias 
been  brought  into  calamities,  affecting  both  body 
and  soul,  by  a  thoughtless  marriage.  The  hope 
that  those  who  are  brought  up  by  godless  parents 
will  themselves  reform  and  turn  to  the  fear  of 
God  has  very  slight  foundation.  —  Vers.  1-4. 
Krummacher:  King  Joash.  (a)  The  great  dan- 
ger which  threatened  him;  (b)  but  how  gloriously 
he  was  protected,  and  (c)  how  high  he  was  ele- 
vated.— Ver.  1.  When  she  saw,  &c  That  which 
should  have  made  her  hesitate  and  bow  in  hu- 
mility to  God's  judgment,  only  made  her  insolent 
and  blood-thirsty.  That  is  the  judgment  which 
obstinacy  and  wilfulness  bring  upon  themselves. 
— Ver.  2.  Calw.  Bib.  :  We  have  an  instance  in 
Jehosheba  how,  even  in  the  midst  of  godlessness 
in  a  family,  any  one  who  will  can  make  an  excep- 
tion.— Jehosheba  stole  him.  That  was  not  "  steal- 
ing "  the  child,  but  saving  him.  What  can  a 
woman  do  better  and  nobler  than  to  save  an  in- 
fant child  from  danger  of  soul  and  body,  and  take 
him  under  her  protection  for  the  sake  of  God  and 
His  promises? — Ver.  3.  "He  that  keepeth  Israel 
shall  neither  slumber  nor  sleep."  He  watches 
over  helpless  infants,  and  holds  His  protecting 
hand  over  them  (Matt,  xviii.  10;  Ps.  xci.  11-13). — 
Khl'mmacher:  Joash  is  a  voiceless,  yet  a  mighty, 
preacher  of  the  security  of  the  elect  of  God. — 
When  the  godless  appear  to  have  succeeded  in 
the  attainment  of  their  objects,  and  believe  that 
they  have  conquered,  the  very  moment  of  their 
victory  is  the  unperceived  commencement  of  their 
ruin.  The  cross  of  Christ  was  the  victory  of  His 
enemies,  but  this  very  victory  was  what  brought 
about  their  total  defeat. 

Vers.  4-12.  Joash's  Elevation  to  the  Throne. 
(«)  How  it  was  determined  upon  and  prepared, 
vers.  4-8.  (Jehoiada  took  the  initiative  in  it,  for 
it  was  his  right  and  duty.  It  was  no  rebellion  and 
conspiracy  against  a  just  authority,  but  a  fact  by 
itself.  Rebels  violate  law  and  right  in  order 
that  they  may  rule ;  Jehoiada  restored  law  and 
right,  and  did  not  wish  to  rule ;  he  remained 
what  he  was.  He  conducted  himself  with  cour- 
age, but  also  with  wisdom  and  prudence.  See 
Historical,  §  3).  (b)  How  it  was  carried  out  and 
accomplished,  vers.  9-12.  (With  the  participation 
and  approval  of  the  different  classes  of  the  entire 
people,  without  conspiracy,  bloodshed,  or  vio- 
lence; in  the  house  of  God,  whose  servant  the 
king  was ;  the  crown  and  the  law  were  given 
into  his  hands ;  he  was  anointed ;  significant  sym- 
bols of  his  calling  as  king  of  the  people  of  God  ) 
— Ver.  4.  Jehoiada,  a  faithful  priest,  such  as  is 
pleasing  to  God  (1  Sam.  ii.  35).  It  is  not  hard  to 
proclaim  the  word  of  God,  when  the  mighty  and 
great  of  this  world  hold  to  it,  but  the  faithfulness 
which  is  needed  in  the  stewards  of  God's  mys- 
teries is  that  which  wUl  not  be  stayed  or  im- 
paired, when  the  great  of  this  world  despise  and 
persecute  the  word  ;  which  will  sad  against  the 
wind  of  courtly  or  popular  favor,  and  will  perse- 
vere in  patience  (1  Cor.  iv.  1,  2). — WiJET.  Scmm.  : 
The  servants  of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testament 
have  not  the  same  calling  as  the  high-priests  in 
the  Did,  so  that  they  have  not  to  meddle  with 
worldly  affairs. — Where  spiritual  and  worldly  au- 
thority go  hand  in  hand,  where  both  unite  for  the 


sake  of  God  and  for  His  cause,  there  the  Lord 
gives  blessing  and  prosperity. — Ver.  5  sq.  Ky- 
burz  :  Jehoiada  teaches  us  by  his  example  that 
we  ought  not  to  shun  either  danger  or  labor  in  a 
just  cause,  but  also  that  we  should  go  prudently 
to  work. — Ver.  9  sq.  To  take  weapons  in  hand 
and  risk  one's  life  for  oue's  country,  redounds  to 
the  glory  and  honor  of  any  nation. — Ver.  12.  The 
word  of  God  says:  "By  me  princes  rule,  and  no- 
bles, even  all  the  judges  of  the  earth"  (Prov.  viii. 
16).  Therefore  kings  should  be  crowned  in  the 
house  of  God.  Starke:  The  crown  and  the  law 
of  the  Lord  belong  together.  God  give  to  Chris- 
tendom princes  who  love  His  Word  I 

Vers.  13-16.  Athaliah's  Fall,  (a)  Her  last 
appearance,  vers.  13,  14.  (She  comes  boldly  and 
impudently  into  the  midst  of  the  people,  blinded  to 
their  disposition  towards  her.  Insolently  relying 
upon  her  imagined  majesty,  she  commands  resist- 
ance to  the  movement  which  is  in  progress — a 
faithful  type  of  many  tyrants.  Pride  goes  be- 
fore a  fall.)  (6)  Her  terrible  end,  vers.  15,  16. 
(Abandoned,  despised,  and  hated  by  all  the  peo- 
ple, who  rejoice  over  her  fall,  she  goes  to  meet 
her  doom,  and  receives  the  fate  which  her  deeds 
deserve.  "All  they  that  take  the  sword,"  &c. 
Matt.  xxvi.  52.  She  is  punished  by  that  by  which 
she  had  sinned.) — And  all  the  people  rejoiced. 
That  was  no  forced  joy,  produced  at  command, 
but  a  natural  and  sincere  joy.  It  is  great  good 
fortune  for  a  people  when  its  dynasty  is  pre- 
served. It  may  and  ought  to  rejoice  in  the  house 
of  God,  when  God  has  released  it  from  tyranny 
and  usurpation. — Ktburz:  Sedition!  treason  I  is 
the  cry  of  Joram,  Jezebel,  and  Athaliah,  and  of 
all  those  who  are  themselves  most  to  blame  for  it 
(Acts  xxiv.  5). 

Vers.  17-20.  The  Results  of  Athaliah's  Fall. 
(a)  The  renewal  of  the  covenant,  ver.  17  ;  (5) 
the  destruction  of  the  Baal-worship,  vers.  18,  19; 
(c)  the  rest  and  peace  of  the  land. — Ver.  17.  The 
abolition  and  extermination  of  all  which  is  bad 
and  perverse  is  necessary,  but  it  is  beneficial  only 
when  the  construction  of  what  is  true  and  good  is 
added  to  it  (Jer.  i.  10).  The  reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century  not  only  denied  and  protested,  but 
at  the  same  time  they  also  laid  the  foundation, 
other  than  which  none  can  be  laid,  and  on  this  they 
built  the  Church. — The  covenant  which  Jehoiada 
renewed,  (a)  The  covenant  of  the  king  and  the 
people  with  God.  (The  basis  and  fountain  of  all 
national  prosperity.  An  irreligious  state  is  a  folly 
and  an  impossibility ;  it  is  no-thing.)  (6)  The 
covenant  between  king  and  people.  (It  is  built 
upon  the  former.  There  is  prosperity  in  a  coun- 
try only  when  the  prince  rules  before  and  with 
God,  and  the  people  is  obedient  through  obedience 
to  God.  Without  this  fundamental  condition  all 
constitutions,  laws,  and  institutions,  however  good 
they  may  appear,  are  useless.)  Lange  :  No  rela- 
tion of  subjects  and  rulers  is  sound  if  it  has  not 
the  covenant  with  God  as  its  basis  on  either  side. 
— Ver.  1 8.  "  The  zeal  of  thine  house  "  (John  ii. 
17).  That  applies  here  to  an  entire  people.  (Calw. 
Bibel  :  It  is  a  grand  national  event  when  a  people 
destroys  its  idols.)  He  who  stands  by  God  and 
His  word  tolerates  neither  gross  nor  refined  idola- 
try. Where  there  is  decided  *aith  in  the  living 
God,  the  altars  of  the  false  gods  fall  of  them- 
selves.— The  offices  in  the  House  of  God.  God  is 
a  God  of  order,  therefore  these  offices  are  neces- 


13U  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


sary  (Eph.  iv.  11,  12).— Vers.  19,  20.  Wukt. 
Svjmm.  :  Where  there  are  pious  and  faithful  rulers, 
the  people  should  rejoice,  should  thank  God  for 
them,  and  pray   fervently  to   him  for  their  pro- 


longed life,  so  that  they  may  lead  a  peaceful  ami 
godly  life  under  their  government.  —  Ter.  20 
Starke  :  Governments  which  are  founded  it 
blood  always  end  disastrously. 


C. —  The  reign  of  Joaah  {or  Jehoash). 

Chap.  XI.  21-XII.  21  (2  Chbon.  XXIT.). 

21         Seven  years  old  was  Jehoash  when  he  began  to  reign. 

XII.   1   In  the  seventh  year  of  Jehu,  Jehoash  began  to  reign  ;  and  forty  years 

2  reigned  he  in  Jerusalem.  And  his  mother's  name  was  Zibiah  of  Beer-sheba.  And 
Jehoash  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  all  his  days  wherein  [be* 

3  cause]  Jehoiada  the  priest  instructed  him.  But  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away. 

4  the  people  still  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  the  high  places.  And  Jehoash  said 
to  the  priests,  All  the  [consecrated]  money  [omit  of  the  dedicated  things]  that  is 
[wont  to  be]  brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  even  the  money  of  every  one  that 
passeth  the  account  [current  money,  both'],  the  money  that  every  man  is  set  at,  and 
all  the  money  that  cometh  into  any  man's  heart  to  bring  into  the  house  of  the 

5  Lord,  let  the  priests  take  it  to  them,  every  man  of  his  acquaintance  :  and  let  them 
repair  the  breaches  of  the  house,  wheresoever  any  breach  [every  defect  which] ' 

6  shall  be  found.     But  it  was  so,  that  in  the  three  and  twentieth  year  of  king  Je- 

7  hoash  the  priests  had  not  repaired  the  breaches  of  the  house.  Then  king  Jehoash 
called  for  Jehoiada  the  priest,  and  the  other  priests,  and  said  unto  them,  Why 
repair  ye  not  the  breaches  of  the  house  ?  now  therefore  receive  no  more  money 
of  your  acquaintance,  but  [save  that  ye]  deliver  it  for  the  breaches  of  the  house. 

8  And  the  priests  consented  to  receive 3  no  more  money  of  the  people,  neither  to 

9  repair  the  breaches  of  the  house.  But  Jehoiada  the  priest  took  a  chest,3  and 
bored  a  hole  in  the  lid  of  it,  and  set  it  beside  the  altar,  on  the  right  side  as  one 
cometh  into  the  house  of  the  Lord :  and  the  priests  that  kept  the  door  put 

10  therein  all  the  money  that  was  brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  it  was  so, 
when  they  saw  that  there  was  much  money  in  the  chest,  that  the  king's  scribe  and 
the  high  priest  came  up,  and  they  put  [it]  up  in  bags,  and  told  the  money  that 

1 1  was  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  they  gave  the  money,  being  told, 
into  the  hands  of  them  that  did  the  work,  that  had  the  oversight  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord  :  and  they  laid  it  out  to  the  carpenters  and  builders,  that  wrought 

12  upon  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  to  masons,  and  hewers  of  stone,  and  to  buy  tim- 
ber and  hewed  stone  to  repair  the  breaches  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  for  all 

13  that  was  laid  out  for  the  house  to  repair'  it.  Howbeit  there  were  not  made  for 
the  house  of  the  Lord  bowls  of  silver,  snuffers,  basins  [for  sprinkling],  trumpets, 
any  vessels  of  gold,  or  vessels  of  silver,  of  the  money  that  was  brought  into  the 

14  house  of  the  Lord:  but  they  gave  that  to  the  workmen   [commissioners],  and 

15  repaired  therewith  the  house  of  the  Lord.  Moreover  they  reckoned  not  with 
the  men,  into  whose  hand  they  delivered  the  money  to  be  bestowed  on  work- 

16  men:  for  they  dealt  faithfully.  The  trespass-money  and  sin-money  was  not 
brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord :  it  was  the  priests'. 

17  Then  Hazael  king  of  Syria  went  up,  and  fought  against  Gath,  and  took  it. 

18  and  Hazael  set  his  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem.  And  Jehoash  king  of  Judah 
took  all  the  hallowed  things  that  Jehoshaphat,  and  Jehorara,  and  Ahaziah,  his 
fathers,  kin^s  of  Judah,  had  dedicated,  and  his  own  hallowed  things,  and  all  the 
gold  that  was  found  in  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  king's 
house,  and  sent  it  to  Hazael  king  of  Syria :  and  he  went  away  from  Jerusalem 


19 
20 

21 


CHAPTER  XII.  1-21. 


L3] 


And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Joash,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written 
in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  And  his  servants  arose, 
and  made  a  conspiracy,  and  slew  Joash  in  the  house  of  Millo,  which  goeth  down 
to  Silla.  For  Jozachar  the  son  of  Shiraeath,  and  Jehozabad  the  son  of  Shomer, 
his  servants,  smote  him,  and  he  died ;  and  they  buried  him  with  his  fathers  in 
the  city  of  David :  and  Amaziah  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 


>  Ver.  5  (6  of  the  Hebrew  text).— [y>1Z  at  the  end  is  a  predicate  defining  ItW  ,  all  which  thall  It  found     .    . 
defective,  i.  «..  all  the  defective  places  which  shall  be  found.    Cf.  chap.  viii.  12. 

i  Ver.  8  (9).— [nnp  fur  Finp ,  the  feni.  inf.  shortened  before  makkeph.     Cf.  Ewald,  §  213,  a. 

3  ver.  9  (10).— [inX   tilK  —  nnS  is  commonly  adjective,  but  is  sometimes  used  as  a  dependent  substantive,  as  here. 

'  "  *Ver!  12  (13).-[npTn  ,  fern,  abstract  subst  In  verbs  which  denote  a  state  we  find  that  the  infln.  is  often  supplanted 
by  the  subst.  which  expresses  the  abstract  of  the  verbal  idea.  "  For  repairs"  =  to  repair,  with  which,  however,  the 
•abject  must  be  supplied  (Boucher,  §  277,  8).— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGET1CAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ter.  21.  Jehoash  was  seven  years  old,  &c 

The  parallel  record  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  is  indeed 
more  detailed  than  the  one  before  us,  and  supple- 
ments it  in  some  essential  particulars,  but  it  is  not 
by  any  means  an  "  actual  transmutation "  of  it 
<Berth'eau|.  Both  accounts  may  well  have  been 
drawn  from  the  same  original  document,  since  they 
are  word  for  word  the  same  in  some  parts. — The 
name  of  the  mother  of  Jehoash  is  given,  as  is  usual 
in  regard  to  the  kings  of  Judah  throughout  the 
history.  On  Beersheba  see  note  on  1  Kings  xix. 
3.— The  words  in  ver.  2 :  All  his  days  that  Je- 
hoiada  the  priest  instructed  him,  cannot  have 
the  sense  that  Jehoash  did,  his  whole  life  long, 
that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  God  (Thenius, 
Ewald),  for  this  was  not  true  in  view  of  what  is 
related  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  17-25,  which  is  confirmed 
by  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  and  which  Thenius  himself  ad- 
mits must  have  "  historical  foundation.''  The  Chron- 
icler writes :  "  All  the  days  of  Jehoiada  the  priest," 
i.  e.,  so  long  as  Jehoiada  "lived.  The  sense  is,  there- 
fore, that  Jehoash  did  what  was  right  because,  and 
so  long  as,  Jehoiada  was  his  instructor.  Jlence 
the  Sept.  translate;  TracaQ  raf  t//ifpaC,  «C  if"- 
rtCev  avrbii  'loiarie  6  lepeiir;  and  the  Vulgate :  cunc- 
tis  dieitis,  quibtts  docuit  eum  Jojada  sacerdos;  so 
also  De  Wette  and  Luther  [and  the  E.  V.].  Keil: 
"  All  his  days  that,  i.  e.,  all  that  part  of  his  life  in 
which  Jehoiada  instructed  or  guided  him."  For 
the  use  of  TU"S  he  refers  to  Ew.  §  331,  c,  3.  [The 
suffix  is  repeated  after  iti'X  except  in  general  ex- 
pressions of  time,  place,  and  manner.]  For  the 
suffix  in  TO'  he  refers  to  chap.  xiii.  14.  The  ath- 
nach  cannot  be  held  to  be  decisive  in  this  case. 
For  the  rest,  it  does  not  follow,  when  we  trans- 
late :  "  All  his  days,  because  Jehoiada  instructed 
him,"  that  he  continued  to  do  well  even  after 
Jehoiada's  death.  Grotius  remarks  on  the  state- 
ment: "Sic  bonus  Kero, . quamdiu  Seneca  usus  est 
mugistro.  [If  the  suffix  in  W  is  retained,  then 
the  massoretic  punctuation  is  correct ;  the  athnach 
has  its  ordinary  force;  1L"X  must  be  translated 
"  because ;  "  and  the  sense  is  that  he  was  a  good 
king  all  his  life  long,  because  of  the  good  instruc- 
tion which  he  receive!  in  his  youth  from  Jehoiada. 


Thatisthe  simple  grammatical  statement  of  the  book 
of  Kings.  If  the  1  at  the  end  of  W  can  be  sac- 
rificed, then  the  athnach  must  be  removed  and  Je- 
hoiada is  a  genitive  depending  on  'O'  •  Let  it  be 
observed  that  this  suffix  is  neglected  in  the  ver- 
sions of  the  Chron.,  Sept.,  and  Vulg.,  quoted  above. 
The  sense  then  is  that  he  was  good  as  long  as  Je- 
hoiada lived.  This  last  has  in  its  favor  that  it  is 
consistent  with  the  account  in  Chron.  Bahr  trans- 
lates by  "because,"  preserving  the  suffix  in  V0\ 
and  tries  to  interpret  the  other  meaning  into  this 
translation.  The  words:  "He  did  well  all  his 
days,  because  Jehoiada  was  his  instructor,"  would 
never  suggest  that  he  ceased  to  do  well  after  his 
teacher  died.  This  attempt  is  fruitless,  and  we 
must  make  choice  between  the  alternatives  pre- 
sented above — either  to  sacrifice  the  suffix  in  VD' , 
and  bring  the  account  here  into  consistency  with 
that  in  Chron.,  or  to  hold  to  the  text  and  admit  the 
discrepancy.  It  is  a  proceeding  which  a  sound 
criticism  cannot  approve,  to  alter  the  text  in  the 
interest  of  supposed  reconciliations.  The  render- 
ing of  the  E.  Y.  saves  the  suffix,  and  still  produces 

the  other  sense  by  translating  "i^'X ,  "  wherein," 
but  this  is  entirely  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the 
language.  It  would  require  a  prep,  and  suffix  af- 
ter T."K,  referring  back  to  VI3'— "v?.  G.  S.]  On 
sacrifices  on  the  high  places,  see  note  on  1  Kings 
iii.  2. 

Ver.  4.  And  Jehoash  said  to  the  priests,  Ac. 
The  temple  had  fallen  out  of  repair,  not  so  much 
on  account  of  its  age  (it  had  only  been  standing 
for  130  years)  as  because  it  had  not  been  properly 
preserved  under  the  previous  reigns,  nay,  even  had 
been  injured  by  Athaliah  and  her  sons,  and  the 
money  intended  to  keep  it  in  repair  had  been  mis- 
appropriated to  the  worship  of  Baal  (2  Chron.  xxiv. 
7).  The  king  therefore  called  upon  the  priests, 
whose  calling  it  was,  to  take  measures  for  the  res- 
toration and  repair  of  the  building,  and,  to  this  end, 
to  collect  the  same  tax  which  Moses  had  once  laid 
for  the  purpose  of  building  the  tabernacle  (2  Chron. 

xxiv.  0).  Ul  LTtri^n  f)D3  ^3,  t.  e.,  all  the  silver 
which  was  wont  to  be  brought  in-  o  the  sanctuary 
and  to  be  given  for  its  purposes.     This  is  now  dn. 


132 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


fined   more   particularly  by  the  following  words, 

"OJ!  ^DS ,   '•  e.,   not   "  floating  money,"  irregular 

income,  money  from  mere  accidental  gifts  (Ewald), 
but  current  money  (Luther:  das  gang  und  gebt  ist 
Cf.  Gen.  xxiii.  16,  where  the  expression  cannot  be 
taken  in  any  other  way).  It  does  not  mean  coined 
money,  for  the  Hebrews  had  no  coined  money  be- 
fore the  exile,  so  far  as  we  know,  but  pieces  of 
silver  which  had  a  fixed  weight,  and  which  were 
weighed  out  from  man  to  man  in  the  transaction  of 
business.  The  reason  why  this  kind  of  money  was 
called  for  was,  that  "  it  was  to  be  paid  out  at  once  to 
mechanics  for  their  labor  "  (Thenius).  Keil,  follow- 
ing the  rabbis,  insists  upon  the  translation :  "  money 
of  the  numbered,"  referring  back  to  Ex.  xxx.  13  sj. 

(DHParrijJ?  "l2J?i"H>3) ;  but  against  this  translation 

there  is  the  decisive  consideration  that  it  does  not 
say :  "  money  of  him  who  passeth  among  the  num- 
bered," but  simply :  "money  which  passes  over," 
that  is,  which  passes  from  hand  to  hand  in  the 
transaction  of  affairs.  The  special  cases  are  then 
mentioned  in  which  this  kind  of  money  usually 
came  into  the  treasury.  The  first  is  the  one  men- 
tioned and  ordained  Lev.  xxvii.  2  sq.  (cf.  Numb, 
xviii.  15),  when  any  one  fulfilled  a  vow.  In  this 
case,  the  priest  had  to  fix  the  sum  to  be  paid  ac- 
cording to  the  sex,  age,  &c.  of  the  one  who  had 
made  the  vow.  This  ransom  was  appropriated  in 
the  time  of  Moses  to  the  support  of  the  sanctuary. 
The  second  case  was  where  any  one  brought  money 
as  a  gift  to  the  sanctuary  of  his  own  free  will. — 
According  to  the  account  in  2  Chron.,  the  king 
ordered  the  priests  to  go  out  through  the  cities  of 
Judah,  a.id  to  collect  the  tax  year  by  year.  This 
does  not  contradict  the  statement  before  us,  but 
rat  her  serves  to  explain  the  words  in  ver.  5  :  "  every 
man  of  his  acquaintance."  The  dependence  was 
upon  free-will  offerings,  as  was  the  case  in  refer- 
ence to  the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxv.  21);  the  priests 
and  levites  were  to  exert  themselves  to  collect 
these,  each  one  in  his  own  city  and  in  his  own  cir- 
cle. It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  king  did  not  de- 
mand of  the  priests  that  they  should  give  up,  for 
the  repairs  of  the  temple,  any  income  which  prop- 
eny  came  to  themselves,  but  that  he  only  laid 
claim,  for  this  purpose,  to  the  funds  which  Moses 
had  ordained  should  be  used  in  this  way. 

Ver.  6.  But  it  was  so,  that  in  the  three  and 
twentieth  year,  &c.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxiv. 
6,  the  king  had  commanded  the  priests  to  hasten, 
"  but  they  did  not  hasten."  Even  in  the  23d  year  of 
the  reign  of  Jehoash,  i.  e.,  in  the  year  in  which 
there  was  a  change  of  occupant  of  the  throne  of 
Israel  (chap.  xiii.  1),  the  priests  had  not  yet  at- 
tended to  the  repairs  of  the  temple,  or,  at  best, 
had  only  attended  to  them  very  imperfectly.  We 
cannot  tell  how  long  before  his  23d  year  he  had 
commanded  them  to  see  to  it,  but  it  was  certainly 
not  in  his  first  year,  when  he  was  only  seven  years 
old.  He  now  proposes  that  he  will  take  the  mat- 
ter into  his  own  hands,  and  adopt  other  measures 
for  accomplishing  it,  to  which  they  agree.  This 
interpretation  is  enforced  by  inx' ,  ver.  8:  "they 

consented"  (Sept.,  eirve<p&n/aav,  cf.  Gen.  xxxiv.  15, 
22,  23),  which  cannot  possibly  mean :  "They  were 
obliged  to  yield  to  the  determination  of  the  king  " 
(Thenius).     inpn  and  the  following  words,  ver.  7, 

"  It  wai  placed  njJC'3  of  the  House  of  the  Lord, 


do  not  contain  a  strict  command,  but  rather  a  pro- 
posal :  nolite  ergo  amplius  accipere  (Vulg.),  other 
wise  the  corresponding  statement  would  be  that 
they  "obeyed,"  not  that  they  "consented."  Only 
after  the  king  had  taken  the  matter  into  his  owi 
hands  did  he  give  orders  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  8)  to  make 
a  chest,  &c.  [The  commentators  differ  widely  iD 
their  judgment  of  the  conduct  of  the  priests  in 
this  matter,  some  seizing  eagerly  upon  an  incident 
winch  reflects  discreditably  upon  them,  others  in- 
sisting upon  a  construction  which  shall  exonerate 
them  entirely.  Bahr  does  not  take  up  the  point 
distinctly  in  this  place.  Yet  ver.  8  is  very  obscure, 
and  it  is  important  for  its  elucidation  to  understand; 
the  attitude  of  the  priests.  The  disposition  of  the 
priests  is  the  key  to  the  situation,  and  the  correct 
conception  of  that  point  is  the  key  to  the  correct 
exegesis  of  the  verse.  The  impression  is  una- 
voidable that  the  first  effort  failed  because  it  was  in 
the  hands  of  the  priests.  The  payments  in  liqui- 
dation of  vows  were  appropriated  to  the  support 
of  the  worship.  According  to  the  Chronicler  an 
especial  deniaud  was  made  for  free-will  offerings 
for  the  repairs,  and  "  that  which  it  came  into  the- 
heart  of  any  man  to  give"  must  be  understood  of 
offerings  for  this  special  end.  Otherwise  we  might 
think  that  it  referred  simply  to  pious  gifts,  which 
the  priests  were  wont  to  retain  for  themselves,, 
and  which  the  giver  expected  that  they  would  re- 
tain. If  we  adopt  the  statement  of  the  Chronicler,, 
then,  it  is  clear  that  the  priests  could  not  have 
used  the  money  for  themselves  without  embezzle- 
ment. In  any  case  the  re-appropriation  to  the  re- 
pairs of  the  temple  of  sums  which  they  had  proba- 
bly been  using  for  some  time  (especially  during  the: 
prevalence  of  idolatry)  for  their  own  support,  must 
have  curtailed  their  resources.  That  they  gave' 
them  up  willingly,  is  not  to  be  supposed.  Sums 
thus  appropriated,  but  left  in  the  administration 
of  persons  all  whose  interests  were  opposed  to  this 
use,  would  not  probably  be  found  to  suffice  for  an 
energetic  prosecution  of  the  work.  This  would 
also  ■heck  the  zeal,  and  stop  the  offerings,  of  the 
people.  The  systematic  revenue  of  the  priests- 
under  the  Mosaic  constitution  had  been  broken  up 
during  the  time  of  apostasy ;  they  had  been  obliged 
to  make  use  of  all  the  revenues  of  whatever  kind 
for  their  own  support ;  and  the  incident  does  not 
seem,  when  viewed  fairly,  to  prove  any  extraor- 
dinary selfishness  on  their  part.  The  king  now, 
seeing  that  the  measures  he  had  taken  to  accom- 
plish his  object  had  only  served  to  frustrate  it,  or- 
dered them  not  to  receive  any  more  money  for  them- 
selves, but  to  devote  all  they  received  to  this  object. 
Between  vers.  7  and  8  a  discussion  must  be  under- 
stood in  which  the  priests  explained  the  defects  in 
the  practical  workings  of  this  scheme,  and  the  re- 
sult was  an  agreement  that  they  should  neither 
serve  as  collectors  of  the  money  nor  be  responsi 
ble  for  the  repairs.  They  put  the  whole  matter  out 
of  their  hands.     (See  Bistor.  §  3.)— W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  9.  But  Jehoiada  the  priest  took  a  chest, 
&.C.  The  king  did  not  even  now  exclude  the  priests 
from  all  share  in  the  work,  but  took  his  measures  in 
conjunction  with  the  chief-priest,  and  also  appointed 
"  the  priests  that  kept  the  door "  to  receive  the 
money.  The  chest  had  a  hole  in  its  lid,  into  which 
the  money  was  dropped.  It  was  locked,  and  was 
only  opened  when  it  was  full.  Its  position  was  by 
the  side  of  the  altar,  on  the  right  as  one  entered- 
the  temple.    Instead  of  this  we  read  in  Chronicles. 


CHAPTER  XII.   1-21. 


133 


nvin ,  i-  e.,  "  outside."    It  did  not,  therefore,  stand 

in  the  middle  of  the  priests'  court  (Thenius),  but 
outside  of  it,  at  the  entrance-gate  which  was  on  its 
right.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxiv.  9  and  10,  the 
king  caused  this  arrangement  to  be  proclaimed 
throughout  the  whole  country;  it  was  joyfully 
heard,  and  the  people  now  gave  abundantly.  [The 
most  reasonable  explanation  of  this  is,  that,  under 
the  new  arrangement,  a  man  saw  his  gift  placed  in 
the  chest.  He  knew  that  this  was  inaccessible  to 
all  except  the  appointed  officers,  and  that  his  gift 
was,  therefore,  sure  to  be  applied  to  the  object  for 
which  he  gave  it.  The  share  of  the  priests  was 
reduced  to  the  mechanical  duty  of  receiving  the 
money  and  placing  it  in  the  chest. — W.  G.  S.] 
When  the  chest  was  full,  the  priest  sent  his  scribe, 
i.  e.,  a  civil  secretary,  and,  in  his  presence,  the 
chest  was  opened.  This  "  was  done,  not  out  of 
distrust  of  the  priests,  but  because  the  repairs  were 
a  matter  of  state  interest,  and  not  merely  an  affair 
of  the  priests.  The  temple  was  the  chief  sanctuary 
of  the  nation,  of  the  theocracy,  and  it  was  under 
the  supervision  of  the  king"  (Lisco).  The  money 
was  bound  up  in  bags  and  counted  (cf.  2  Kings  v. 

23).     (The  Chronicler  has  njH  for  V15P1 ,  i.  e.,  they 

emptied  out.  So  the  Vulg.  also  on  the  verse  before 
us  :  efiundebantque  et  numerabant  pecuniam.)  "  The 
binding  up  in  bags  is  mentioned  before  the  count- 
ing because  the  pieces  were  not  counted  separately. 
They  were  bound  up  in  bags  and  these  were  weighed 
in  order  thus  to  estimate  the  sum  which  had  been  re- 
ceived "  (Keil). — Them  .  .  .  that  had  the  oversight 
of  the  House  of  the  Lord,  to  whom  the  money 
was  given  (ver.  11),  are  those  who  had  to  oversee 
the  building.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  12, 
they  were  levites.    The  keri  D'TpSDH  is  supported 

by  2  Kings  xxii.  v.  The  sense  remains  the  same. 
These  overseers  then  paid  the  wages  to  the  arti- 
sans of  different  kinds,  and  purchased  the  neces- 
sary building  materials. — The  statement  in  vers. 
13  and  14  does  not  contradict  2  Chron.  xxiv.  14. 
It  is  there  stated  that,  when  the  building  was  fin- 
ished, and  still  some  money  remained,  this  was 
placed  at  the  disposition  of  the  king  and  the  high- 
priest,  who  used  it  to  procure  gold  and  silver  uten- 
sds.  On  these  utensils,  see  1  Kings  vii.  50. — No 
accounts  were  demanded  of  the  overseers  of  the 
building,  we  are  told  in  ver.  15,  because  they  were 
implicitly  trusted.  2  Kings  xxii.  7  shows  that  there 
is  no  reference  here  to  a  presumed  infidelity  of  the 
priests,  for  the  same  words  are  used  there,  where 
the  priests  had  not  had  anything  at  all  to  do  with 
the  work.  It  is  only  intended  to  call  attention  to 
the  conscientiousness  with  which  this  work  was 
taken  in  hand,  inasmuch  as  the  most  trustworthy 
men  were  charged  with  it.  The  remark  in  ver.  16 
has  a  similar  object,  viz.,  to  show  that  the  priests 
did  not  suffer  on  account  of  the  new  arrangement, 
but  that  the  revenues  which  properly  belonged  to 
them,  those  from  the  trespass-offerings  and  the  sin- 
offerings,  were  still  given  to  them.  On  the  trespass- 
offerings,  see  Numb.  v.  8  sq.,  and  Levit.  v.  16.  Ac- 
cording to  the  law,  the  priest  received  no  money 
from  the  sin-offering.  We  must,  therefore,  sup- 
pose that  it  had  become  customary  to  give  them  a 
voluntary  gift  of  money  besides  the  flesh  of  the 
sacrifice  (Levit.  vi.  24). 

Ver.  17.  Then  Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  went 
up,  4c.     This  expedition  belongs  to  the  time  when 


Jehoiada  was  already  dead,  and  Jehoash  had 
fallen  into  sin,  as  is  clear  from  2  CLron.  xxiv.  15- 
22.  As  Gath,  one  of  the  five  cities  of  the  Philis 
tines  (Josh.  xiii.  3),  lay  much  farther  south  that 
Samaria,  and  was  almost  due  west  of  Jerusalem 
towards  the  sea-coast,  this  expedition  against  it 
forces  us  to  assume  that  Israel  had  been  already 
conquered  by  Hazael  (chap.  xiii.  3).  We  musl 
leave  undecided  whether  Gath  at  that  time  be- 
longed to  Judah,  or  had  fallen  again  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  Philistines.  As  Jerusalem  was  not 
far  off,  the  conqueror  was  led  to  attack  it  next,, 
but  he  was  induced,  by  the  surrender  of  the 
treasures,  to  withdraw.  It  is  certain  that  2  Chron 
xxiv.  23  sq.  does  not  refer  to  another,  earlier  ex- 
pedition, as  Thenius  asserts.  That  account  does- 
not  contradict  the  one  before  us;  on  the  contrary 
it  supplements  it  ''most  fittingly,  for  it  is  very  im- 
probable a  priori  that  Jehoash  purchased  peace 
by  this  heavy  sacrifice,  until  after  he  had  suffered 
the  shameful  defeat  of  which  the  Chronicler  gives 
an  account.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  Syrians 
withdrew  without  prosecuting  their  victory  far- 
ther is  explained  by  this  peace  thus  purchased " 
(Bertheau). 

Ver.  18.  And  Jehoash took  all  the 

hallowed  things,  &c.  Clericus  answers,  the  ques- 
tion why,  if  there  was  such  a  store  of  these  valua- 
ble articles,  they  were  not  used  for  the  repairs,  in- 
stead of  collecting  taxes  and  offerings;,  as  follows  t 
Credibile  est,  res  consecrates,  quorum  hie  fit  mentio, 
vasa  fuisse  sacra,  quae  vendere  aut  in  monetam  con- 
stare  et  cudere  nokbant,  ut  servarentur  in  extremal 
necessitatis  casus,  qualis  hie  erat,  ubi  Jerosolymee  et 
totius  regni  agebatur.  In  regard  to  the  implied 
statement  that  offerings  had  been  dedicated  by 
Jehoram  and  Ahaziah,  who  walked  in  the  way  of 
the  house  of  Ahab  (chap.  viii.  IS,  27),  let  it  be  ob- 
served that  these  kings  did  not  formally  abolish 
the  worship  of  Jehovah,  but  only  introduced  the 
worship  of  Baal  by  the  side  of  it,  and,  in  order  not 
to  come  into  an  open  conflict  with  the  people  and 
the  influential  priesthood,  they  even  made  offer- 
ings to  the  temple  of  Jehovah.  The  utensils, 
which,  aecordiug  to  2  Chron.  xxiv.  7.  Athaliah 
and  her  sons  had  taken  from  the  temple,  and  mis- 
appropriated to  the  service  of  Baal,  "  had  no  doubt 
been  restored  to  their  original  purpose  before  the 
occasion  mentioned  in  chap.  xi.  18"  (Thenius). 

Ver.  20.  And  his  servants  arose,  ic.  The 
Chronicler  here  gives  a  very  essential  addition  to. 
the  narrative.  He  states  in  detail  the  reasons  for 
the  conspiracy,  and  the  occasion  of  it.  The  con- 
spirators murdered  the  king  in  his  bed.  where  he 
was  confined  by  wounds,  probably  by  those  re- 
ceived  in  the  war  with  the   Syrians. — }<?to  TV2 

Thenius  translates:  " In  the  castle-palace."  Millo 
was  a  castle  or  tower,  it  is  true  (see  above,  note 
on  1  Kings  ix.   15 ;  cf.  2  Sam.  v.  9),  but  JV3  can 

hardly  refer  to  a  particular  building  inside  this 

castle.     If  it  did,  we  should  need  to  have  iiyori , 

with  the  article,  as  in  the  other  places.  As  a 
complete  fortress  in  itself,  Millo  might  be  called 

)V3 .     The  more  definite  description  x^D  TW1  i« 

itself  obscure.  No  one  of  the  explanations  pro 
posed  deserves  decided  preference  to  the  others 

All  the  old  versions  take  tOD  as  a  proper  name. 


134 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


and  this  certainly  seems  more  correct  than  to  con- 
sider it  ide-tical  with  n^DD ,  a  street,  as  Grotius 
and  Thenius  do,  or  with  D?D ,  slope  or  ascent,  as 

Ewald  does. — In  ver.  21,  instead  of :  "  Jozachar, 
the  son  of  Shimeath,  and  Jehozabad,  the  son  of 
Shomer,"  the  Chronicler  has :  "  Zabad,  the  son  of 
Shimeath,  an  Ammonitess,  and  Jehozabad,  the 
son  of  Shimrith,  a  Moabitess."  We  must  give  the 
preference  to  this  latter  statement  as  the  more 
complete,  for  the  designation  of  the  two  mothers 
instead  of  the  two  fathers,  as  an  Ammonitess  and 
a  Moabitess,  cannot  be  an  invention  of  the  Chron- 
icler, but  is  taken  from  the  original  document. 
Perhaps  it  is  stated  to  show  that  the  murderers 
were  not  of  Jewish  descent,  but  came  from  foreign 
mothers.     "121  is  a  mistake  for  "DT,  and  this  is  a 

shorter  form  for  1311' "  (Keil),  and  -|tX"  may  have 
arisen  from  the  defective  form  miX"  by  dropping 
the  n  •  ["  Although  the  names  (as  given  in  Kings) 
are  certainly  historical,  yet  it  is  very  remarkable 
that  the  etymology  of  them,  Jehovah-remembers, 
son  of  Hearing,  and  Jehovah-awards,  son  of  Watch- 
er, suggests  the  last  words  of  Zechariah :  '  Jeho- 
vah sees  it  and  will  requite  it'  "  (Thenius).]  The 
further  statement  of  the  Chronicler:  "and  they 
buried  him  in  the  city  of  David,  but  they  buried 
him  not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings,"  does  not 
contradict  this  record.  "He  was  buried  in  the 
city  of  David,  where  his  fathers  were  buried,  but 
not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings"  (Bertheau), 
probably  on  account  of  the  action  mentioned  in 
2  Chron.  xxiv.  17  sq. 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  author  chooses  out  of  the  history  of  the 
forty  years'  reign  of  Jehoash  the  restoration  of  the 
temple,  of  which  he  speaks  particularly,  and 
passes  over  the  other  incidents  which  the  Chron- 
i,l.-r  narrates.  He  would  hardly  have  done  this 
if  he  had  seen  in  this  restoration  nothing  more 
than  a  matter  of  ordinary  business  routine,  a  ne- 
cessity which  had  arisen  in  the  course  of  time. 
The  temple,  as  the  dwelling  of  Jehovah  in  the 
midst  of  His  people,  is  the  visible  sign  and  pledge 
of  the  covenant  (see  note  on  the  Temple  after  the 
Exeg.  section  on  1  Kings  vi.).  The  covenant  of 
Jehovah  was  solemnly  restored  and  renewed  at 
the  elevation  of  the  rescued  scion  of  the  house 
of  David  to  the  throne,  and  the  temple,  the  sign 
and  pledge  of  this  covenant,  which  had  become 
dilapidated,  and  had  been  plundered,  under  Jeho- 
ram,  Ahaziah,  and  Athaliah,  could  not  be  left  in 
that  condition.  On  the  contrary,  it  must  be  the 
chief  task  of  the  new  king  of  the  dynasty  of  Da- 
vid, who  had  sworn  to  the  covenant  on  his  acces- 
sion, to  restore  the  temple  during  his  reign.  As 
David  was  the  founder,  and  Solomon  the  builder, 
of  the  House  of  Jehovah,  so  Jehoash,  with  whom 
the  House  of  David  recommenced,  as  it  were,  was 
the  restorer  of  the  sanctuary.  We  have  here, 
therefore,  a  theocratic  action,  a  physical  confes- 
sion of  faith,  and  a  seal  upon  the  renewal  and  res- 
toration of  the  covenant.  This  is  why  it  is  so  es- 
pecially mentioned  as  the  most  important  incident 
in  the  reign  of  Jehoash.  The  reason  why  Jeho- 
ash, when  he  undertook  the  restoration  of  the 
temple,   unquestionably  at  the  instigation  of  Je- 


hoiada,  did  not  carry  out  the  work  at  the  expens« 
of  the  royal  treasury,  but  called  upon  the  whole 
people  to  contribute,  as  Moses  had  once  done  foi 
the  tabernacle  (Exod.  xxv.  2-9),  was  not  that 
"  the  crown  was  not  then  by  any  means  able,  as 
it  had  been  in  Solomon's  time,  to  carry  out  such 
works  by  itself  "  (Ewald),  but  rather,  in  order  that 
the  entire  people  might  give  a  physical  proof  that 
it  had  renewed  the  covenant  with  Jehovah  (chap 
xi.  17). 

2.  King  Jehoash  was  not  by  any  means  a  ruler 
who  was  distinguished  for  intellect  and  strength. 
Lack  of  independence,  and  moral  weakness,  were 
the  most  noticeable  features  of  his  character.  He 
had  in  Jehoiada  the  support  which  he  needed. 
After  the  death  of  this  counsellor  and  guide,  he 
became,  although  he  was  already  advanced  in  life, 
vacillating,  and  fell  into  evil  courses.  It  was  a 
great  weakness  on  the  part  of  one  who  had  re- 
newed the  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and  rebuilt  the 
temple,  to  yield  to  the  entreaties  of  the  chiefs  of 
Judah,  who  flattered  him  by  their  cringing  sub- 
missiveness,  and  to  allow  them  (2  Chron.  xxiv. 
17  sq.)  the  forbidden,  lascivious  worship  of  As- 
tarte  (see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xi.  5).  It  was  some- 
thin"  more  than  weakness  that  he  caused  Zecha- 
riah, the  son  of  his  former  counsellor,  to  be 
stoned,  when  he  condemned  this  mistaken  course, 
and  predicted  calamity  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20  sq.). 
No  less  weak  was  his  conduct  in  his  dealings 
with  Hazael.  Djstead  of  making  a  vigorous  op- 
position to  him,  trusting  in  God,  as  Hezekiah  did 
(chap,  xix.),  he  surrendered  to  him,  although  he 
had  only  a  small  force,  all  the  consecrated  offer- 
ings which  his  ancestors  had  made  to  the  temple, 
and  all  those  which  he  himself  had  dedicated  up 
to  this  point  in  his  reign,  in  order  to  induce  him 
to  withdraw  (ver.  18  sq. ;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  24).  [Ob- 
serve, however,  the  Exegetical  note  on  ver.  17, 
quotation  from  Bertheau,  at  the  end. — W.  G.  S.j 
It  is  very  possible  that  he  had  embittered  the 
people  against  him  by  all  this,  and  thus  given 
occasion  for  the  conspiracy,  as  a  result  of  which 
he  fell.  "  He  was  the  first  king  of  Judah  who 
came  to  a  violent  end  at  the  hands  of  his  own  sub- 
jects, and  the  discontent  was  so  great  that  he  was 
not  even  buried  in  the  royal  sepulchres.  Such 
was  the  disgraceful  end  of  one  whose  childhood 
was  marked  by  such  wonderful  providences" 
(Schlier).  He  shows  us,  by  his  example,  whither 
weakness  in  a  prince  may  lead.  It  is  not  only  a 
something  wanting,  but  it  is  the  weightiest  sin. 
Ewald  contradicts  himself  when  he  says,  basing 

the  statement  upon  VD,"i>3  >  ver.  2  :  "He  adopted 

T   T  T 

the  principles  of  his  teacher  with  such  docility 
that  he  remained  true  to  them  even  after  he  came 
of  age,"  and  then  says  again,  a  few  pages  further 
on:  "  Heathenism  may  indeed  have  gained  a  foot- 
ing again  under  his  weak  rule."  This  view  also 
contradicts  the  statement  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  22, 
whose  historical  truth  is  admitted.     Thenius  also 

forces  the  words  VD,_i>3  in  such  a  way  that  he 
calls  Jehoash  a  "  praiseworthy  king,"  and  speaks 
of  his  "good  reign,"  and  of  his  "continuous  good 
conduct."  In  regard  to  the  narrative  of  the 
Chronicler,  which  is  inconsistent  with  this  view, 
he  remarks,  giving  it  a  strained  and  unnatural  con- 
struction :  "  Probably  this  command  (to  stone  Zech- 
ariah) was  given  by  Jehoash  m  a  moment  of  rage, 


CHAPTER  XII.   1-21. 


135 


and  W3S  forced  from  him,  as  it  were,  by  Zeeha- 
riah's  enemies."  But,  even  if  we  let  this  pas?,  the 
"  purchase  of  a  peace  from  Hazael  by  a  shameful 
surrender"  was  not  the  act  of  a  "praiseworthy 
king:  "  and  the  murder  of  Jehoash  was  not  a  "mere 
act  of  revenge."  The  pains  which  are  taken  to 
present  this  icing  in  any  other  light  than  that  in 
which  he  appears  in  these  two  biblical  records,  are 
all  spent  in  vain.  The  opinion  that  "  Psalm  li.  con- 
tains a  prayer  of  Jehoash  in  deep  penitence  lor  la- 
error"  (Thenius),  must  be  regarded  as  very  mis- 
taken. Neither  can  it  be  inferred  from  these  histori- 
cal records,  as  it  is  by  Vaihinger  (in  Herzog,  Real- 
encyr.,  vi.  s.  717),  that  the  prophet  Joel  belongs 
to  the  time  of  this  king,  and  that  his  prophecies 
apply  to  the  events  of  this  reign. 

3*.  In  regard  to  the  conduct  of  the  priests  in  refer- 
ence to  the  restoration  of  the  temple  which  the 
king  had  commanded,  the  opinions  are  very  diver- 
gent. The  assertion  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  De 
Wetie,  that  the  priests  had  embezzled  the  funds 
collected  for  this  object,  is  to  be  summarily  dis- 
missed. Thenius  goes  still  further,  and  says : 
"  They  (the  priests)  did  nothing  towards  carrying 
out  the  project,  because  the  royal  command  appro- 
priated a  part,  probably  no  insignificant  part,  of 
the  revenues  of  the  priests,  in  the  intention  of 
diminishing  their  arrogance.  .  .  .  The  priest- 
hood may  have  fallen  greatly  in  a  moral  point  of 
view  since  Athaliah's  influence  had  brought  the 
Jehovah-religion  into  neglect,  and  their  attention 
may  have  been  exclusively  directed  to  their  own 
selfish  interest.  .  .  .  Probably  the  priests  had 
kept  the  free-will  offerings,  which  were  intended 
for  the  repairs  of  the  temple,  entirely  for  their 
own  use,  contrary  to  law."  But  the  text  does  not 
say  that  the  king  intended  to  restrict  the  revenues 
of  the  priests ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  expressly 
stated  (ver.  16)  that  this  was  not  done.  Neither 
is  there  any  hint  of  any  moral  decay  iu  the  priest- 
hood. [The  idea  that  the  priests  were  guilty  of 
any  arrogance  which  needed  curbing  is  certainly 
imported  into  the  ease.  It  is  d  priori  very  un- 
likely that  they  would  be  guilty  of  this  fault  on 
emerging  from  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
had  been  during  the  previous  years.  Arrogance 
is  the  sin  of  long  and  great  prosperity.  The  d 
priori  probability  that  the  priesthood  had  suffered 
in  morale  during  the  prevalence  of  idolatry  is  great, 
also  that  their  revenues  had  been  greatly  im- 
paired.— W.  G.  S.]  The  king  would  never  have 
commissioned  them  to  undertake  the  management 
of  this  work,  if  they  had  had  the  reputation  of  be- 
ing dishonest  iu  money  matters.  Still  less,  if  un- 
faithfulness and  cheating  on  their  part  had  been 
the  cause  that  the  contributions  did  not  flow  in  in 
sufficient  abundance,  would  he  have  "  asked  these 
priests  for  their  consent  (ver.  8)  to  the  change  of 
his  first  arrangements,  and  to  the  new  measures 
which  he  proposed.  Moreover,  he  would  not  have 
charged  the  priests  who  guarded  the  door  to  re- 
ceive the  money  and  put  it  in  the  chest,  which  ar- 
rangement still  left  them  an  opportunity  for  dis- 
honesty"  (Keil).  [The  circumstantial  description 
of  the  box,  its  arrangement  and  position,  show 
that  it  was  intended  to  free  the  priests  from  any 
suspicion,  just  or  not,  which  attached  to  them.  If 
the  suspicion  was  unjust,  they  were  most  inter- 
ested in  a  public  arrangement  for  the  reception  of 
these  contributions  which  should  free  them  from 
M.     It  is   enough  to  suppose  that,  when  all  the 


money,  that  intended  for  themselves  and  that  in- 
tended for  the  repairs,  came  into  theii  hands,  ths 
distribution  of  it  according  to  the  intentions  of  the 
givers  may  have  been  uncertain  and  imperfect. 
At  any  rate,  the  givers  could  not  be  certain  that 
their  money  would  reach  its  destined  object.  Any 
such  popular  distrust  would,  according  to  all  ex- 
perience, speedily  reduce  the  contributions  to  a 
v.  rv  languid  flow.  The  chest-arrangement  now 
accomplished  two  objects.  It  permitted  the  giver 
to  divide  his  offering  for  the  temple  from  the  ofl'er- 
ing  for  the  priests,  and  to  see  for  himself  that  it 
was  at  once  put  where  it  could  not  be  applied 
otherwise  than  as  he  intended.  Thr  true  force  of 
ver.  16  is  that,  at  this  time,  the  revenues  of  the 
temple  were  divided  and  definitely  appropriated, 
and  that  the  sorts  of  revenue  tlvre  mentioned 
were  specifically  set  apart  for  the  jupport  of  the 
priests.  "When  the  priests'  share  iu  the  transac- 
tion was  limited  to  the  reception  of  'he  money  and 
its  immediate  deposition  in  a  recef  i"acle,  which  is 
expressly  declared  to  have  been  in  the  most  pub- 
lic place  in  the  temple  enclosure,  it  was  impossible 
to  suspect  them  any  longer  of  dishonesty,  unless 
they  were  most  accomplished  rogues.  There  is 
no  express  mention  of  any  dishonesty  in  the 
record,  but  this  arrangement  with  the  chest  has 
unquestionably  suggested  a  suspicion  which  has 
always  been  felt  by  readers  of  the  passage.  See 
also  bracketed  note  under  Exegetical  on  ver.  8. — 
W.  G.  S.]  On  the  other  hand,  the  reason  for  the 
new  scheme  was  not  "  simply  this,  that  the  first 
plan  had  proved  inadequate  for  the  purpose,"  be- 
cause the  king  "had  not  appropriated  any  definite 
sum  for  the  repairs  of  the  temple,  but  had  left  it 
to  the  priests  to  pay  for  the  repairs  out  of  the 
gross  sum  received  "  (Keil).  The  text  itself  gives 
the  true  reason  in  clear  and  definite  words  (2 
Chron.  xxiv.  5):  "The  levites  hastened  it  not," as 
the  king  had  commanded  them.  [If  this  were  the 
only  reason,  the  pertinency  of  the  arrangement 
with  the  chest  would  not  be  apparent. — W.  G.  S.] 
The  reason  was  not,  therefore,  dishonesty  and 
embezzlement  on  the  part  of  the  priests  and  le- 
vites, but  their  lack  of  zeal,  their  indifference  and 
neglect  in  an  affair  in  which  they,  as  servants  of 
the  sanctuary,  ought  to  have  been  most  interested. 
It  is  as  impossible  to  acquit  them  of  all  blame  as 
it  is  to  convict  them  of  dishonesty.  When  a  chest 
was  placed  in  the  temple  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
receiving  the  offerings  for  this  purpose,  and  when 
particular  officers  were  designated  to  take  charge 
of  the  fund,  there  was  an  end  of  the  languid  ac- 
tivity of  the  priests  and  levites  in  the  collection  of 
the  contributions.  Each  one  who  came  to  the 
temple  brought  his  gift  cheerfully,  as  is  distinctly 
stated  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  10.  De  Wette's  assertion 
that  the  Chronicler  "  smoothed  over  "  the  matter, 
out  of  his  well-known  affection  for  the  priesthood 
is  entirely  arbitrary,  for  the  record  does  not  cod 
taiu  a  syllable  about  unfaithfulness  •  it  states,  on 
the  contrary,  that  it  was  the  priests  who  received 
the  money  and  placed  it  in  the  chest,  under  the 
second  plan. 

[From  the  note  on  ver.  8  and  the  inserted  re- 
marks in  the  above  section,  it  will  be  seen  that 
this  delineation  of  the  "  conduct  of  the  priests  "  in 
this  matter  is  not  satisfactory.  If  we  look  at  the 
record  without  unfair  partisan  feeling  either 
against  or  in  behalf  of  the  priests,  we  cannot 
avoid  the  conviction  that  their  fault  was  not  liiu 


VM 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ited  to  a  want  of  zeal  in  the  collection  of  funds, 
but  that  it  was  connected  with  their  administra- 
tion of  the  money.  In  ver.  4  the  king  charged 
them  to  take  certain  moneys  and  use  them  for  the 
repairs  of  the  temple.  He  addressed  them  be- 
cause they  were  the  proper  parties  to  be  commis- 
sioned to  do  this  work.  It  was  not  until  they 
proved  incompetent,  in  some  way  or  other,  that  it 
was  taken  out  of  their  hands,  or  that  they  gave  it 
up.  The  revenues  which  are  specified  in  yer.  4 
are,  1,  that  at  which  "  every  man  is  set,"  which  is  to 
us  very  obscure,  but  is  probably  correctly  ex- 
plained in  the  Exegetical  note  on  the  verse ;  and  2, 
free-will  offerings  which  the  priests  were  to  solicit 
of  their  acquaintances.  In  the  king's  twenty- 
third  year  the  work  had  not  been  done.  There 
was  fault  somewhere.  In  ver.  7  the  king's  ad- 
dress distinctly  implies  that  the  work  had  not 
been  done  because  the  money  which  had  been  re- 
ceived from  the  "acquaintances"  of  the  priests 
had  not  been  appropriated  to  this  purpose.  Va- 
rious reasons  for  this  are  suggested  in  the  trans- 
lator's note  on  ver.  7,  which  are  sufficient  without 
assuming  that  the  priests  had  dishonestly  taken 
for  themselves  what  had  been  intended  for  an- 
other use.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  revenues 
had  never  been  distinguished  in  a  manner  suffi- 
ciently definite,  or  that,  if  they  had  formerly  been 
definitely  distinguished  and  appropriated,  they 
had  been  used  indiscriminately  for  the  support  of 
the  priests,  during  the  troubles  of  the  last  two 
reigns,  and  had  not  all  together  more  than  sufficed 
for  this  purpose.  Ver.  16  implies  that  the  vari- 
ous revenues  were  now  definitely  appropriated, 
and  one  of  the  advantages  of  the  chest-plan  was 
that  it  served  to  distinguish  them.  The  reply  of  the 
priests  to  this  reproach  and  command  (ver.  7)  is  not 
given,  luit  they  consented  to  yield  up  the  entire 
work  and  the  entire  responsibility.  This  gap  be- 
tween vers.  7  and  8  is  the  place  at  which  the  va- 
rious inventions,  more  or  less  derogatory  to  the 
priests,  find  entrance.  It  is  as  fair  as  any  suppo- 
sition which  can  be  made,  and  accords  as  well 
with  ver.  8,  to  suppose  that  they  denied  the  impu- 
tation, pointed  out  the  difficulty  in  distinguishing 
the  revenues  intended  for  the  temple  from  those 
intended  for  the  priests,  and  surrendered  the  re- 
sponsibility both  for  the  money  and  for  the  work. 
The  plan  then  adopted,  which  put  this  money  by 
itself,  and  out  of  the  control  of  the  priests,  proves 
conclusively  that  the  work  had  not  been  accom- 
plished because  the  money  intended  for  it  passed 
through  their  hands.  Their  administration  of  it 
had  been  defective,  to  say  the  least;  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  conclude  that  it  had  been  intentionally  dis- 
honest.— W.  G.  S.] 


HOM1LETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

(2  Oliron.  xxiv.  is  to  be  compared  throughout 
as  a  supplementary  record.)  Vers.  1-21.  The 
Reign  of  King  Jehoash.  (a)  During  Jehoiada's 
Life-time,  vers.  1-16;  (b)  after  his  death,  vers.  17— 
21. — Vrers.  1-4.  Kybukz:  Woe  to  thee,  0  land, 
when  thy  king  is  a  child  1  (Eccl.  x.  16)  but  blessed 
Is  the  nation,  the  youth  of  whose  prince  is  in  just 
and  holy  guidance.  Such  good  fortune  had  Judah 
under  the  guardian  care  of  the  wise  and  experi- 
enced Jehoiada. — That  which  appears  to  be  the 
greatest  misfortune  for  a  child,  to  be  left  father- 


less and  motherless  at  an  early  age,  often  becomes 
a  great  blessing  in  the  gracious  Providence  of 
God.  What  would  have  become  of  Jehoash  if  he 
had  been  brought  up  at  the  court  of  his  Mola- 
trous  father  and  his  depraved  mother?  God 
gave  him  in  Jehoiada  far  more  than  he  had 
lost  in  his  father  and  his  mother.  —  There  is 
no  greater  blessing  possible  for  a  young  prince, 
who  comes  to  the  throne  in  his  youth,  than  to 
have  a  wise  counsellor.  Would  that  God  might 
give  to  every  prince  a  Jehoiada!  The  first  duty 
of  a  prince  is  to  pray  God  for  such  an  one,  and  to 
listen  to  his  counsel. — None  need  instruction  more 
than  those  who  are  called  to  govern;  there  is  no 
more  responsible  calling  than  that  «f  instructing 
those  who  will  have  to  rule.  Unfortunately  this 
task  is  rarely  entrusted  to  those  who,  like  Jehoi- 
ada, are  fitted  for  it  by  age,  learning,  experience, 
and  piety.  Wurt.  Summ.  :  We  ought  to  pray  to 
God  for  wise  counsellors,  to  thank  Him  for  them, 
to  pray  for  long  life  for  them,  and  to  regard  it  as 
a  heavy  divine  punishment  when  He  takes  .hem 
away  (Jer.  iii.  4). — Ver.  3.  The  same:  Rulers  ought 
not  to  allow  themselves  to  be  restrained  from  carry- 
ing out  what  is  good  and  right  from  any  fear  of 
persons,  lest  they  may  possibly  incur  the  disfavor 
of  the  people.  There  never  was  a  prince  who  was 
not  himself  guilty  of  faults  and  errors,  as  we  see 
here  from  the  example  of  Jehoash,  who  did  not 
abolish  the  sacrifices  on  the  high  places. 

Vers.  4-16.  The  Restoration  of  the  Sanctuary. 
(a)  The  king's  command  to  undertake  it;  (b)  the 
conduct  of  the  priests  in  the  matter  (see  Historical, 
§  3).  It  is  true  that  God  does  not  dwell  in  tem- 
ples made  with  hands  (1  Kings  viii.  27;  Acts  vii. 
48) ;  we  can  worship  Him  as  well  in  a  ruin  as  in 
the  most  magnificent  church.  But  when  the  build- 
ing, in  which  a  congregation  assembles  to  worship 
God,  to  hear  His  word,  and  to  receive  the  means 
of  grace,  is  left  ruinous,  God  does  not  receive  the 
honor  which  belongs  to  Him.  Where  the  churches 
fall  to  ruins,  there  religion  and  piety  also  fall  into 
decay ;  but  where  there  is  love  of  God  and  joy  in 
His  word,  there  no  ruinous  churches  are  seen.  A 
time  in  which  magnificent  palaces,  theatres,  and 
ball-rooins  are  repaired  or  built  at  great  expense, 
but  in  which  the  houses  of  God  are  left  small, 
wretched,  dirty,  and  ruinous,  is  a  time  of  religious 
decay,  and  resembles  the  time  of  Athaliah  in  Ju- 
dah.— The  apostle  says  of  the  Christian  church: 
"  For  ye  are  the  temple  of  the  living  God  "  (2  Cor. 
vi.  16).  This  temple  also  may  in  time  become  ruin- 
ous through  unbelief,  worldly  life  and  behavior, 
and  immorality.  Where  are  the  congregations  in 
which  there  is  nothing  ruinous  or  decayed,  in  which 
nothing  could  be  improved?  How  many  are  in 
ruins  and  are  ready  to  fall  I  He  who  destroys  the 
temple  of  God,  or  allows  it  to  be  destroyed,  him 
will  God  destroy  (1  Cor.  iii.  17).  We  cannot  indeed 
repair  these  breaches  by  money.  They  can  only 
be  repaired  by  coming  to  the  living  stone,  which 
is  rejected  of  men,  but  which  is  chosen  of  God  (1 
Peter  ii.  4-6). — Vers.  4  and  5.  The  congregation 
ought  to  be  called  upon  to  contribute  to  religious 
objects,  which  can  only  be  accomplished  by  ex- 
pending money.  How  long  a  time  often  elapses 
before  means  enough  are  collected  even  for  the 
most  necessary  objects,  not  to  mention  that  many 
give  unwillingly  (2  Cor.  ix.  7). — Vers.  6-8.  Work* 
which  are  pleasing  to  God  cannot  be  accomplished 
by  careless  hands.     They  are  only  accomplished 


CHAPTER  XII.   1-21. 


137 


where  zeal  is  united  with  perseverance,  patience, 
and  fidelity. — There  have  always  been  such  care- 
less, indifferent  priests  and  pastors,  and  there  are 
such  yet.  They  execute  their  traditional,  official 
duties,  but  only  by  routine,  and  from  a  sense  of 
duty,  not  with  zeal  and  enthusiasm.  No  zeal  for 
the  kingdom  of  God  (John  ii.  17)  and  for  the  sal- 
vation of  souls  can  be  noticed  in  them.  How  many 
a  congregation  has  fallen  into  decay  and  remained 
so,  because  those  who  were  appointed  to  be  the 
builders  of  it,  who  ought  to  have  repaired  and 
built  it,  have  not  raised  their  negligent  hands 
(Hebr.  xii.  12).  "  Cursed  be  he  that  doeth  the 
work  of  the  Lord  deceitfully  "  (Jerem.  xlviii.  10). 
Although  no  earthly  king  may  ever  call  them  to 
account,  yet  the  heavenly  king,  before  whose  judg- 
ment-seat they  must  appear  to  give  an  account  of 
their  office,  will  ask:  "Why  repair  ye  not  the 
breaches  of  the  house?" — Ver.  10*}.  WurtSumm.: 
In  former  times,  under  the  papacy,  the  church  au- 
thorities excluded  all  secular  persons  from  the  af- 
fairs which  belonged  to  the  clergy:  under  the  gos- 
pel, in  some  places,  secular  persons  aim  to  exclude 
the  clergy  from  all  participation  in  church  affairs, 
and  claim  to  rule  alone ;  so  the  matter  is  always 
wrongly  treated,  and  men  go  from  one  mistake  to 
another;  this  should  not  be  so. — Public  account 
should  be  rendered  of  all  moneys  and  gifts  which 
are  collected  for  religious  or  benevolent  purposes, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  known  that  they  are  ap- 
plied as  was  designed,  and  that  the  giver  may  be 
encouraged  to  further  liberality. — Vers.  11  and 
12.  The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  Wages 
ought  to  be  given  punctually  to  diligent  and  faith- 
ful workmen  (Jer.  xxii.  13;  Levit.  xix.  13). — Vers. 
13  and  14.  What  is  necessary  and  useful  is  always 
to  be  preferred  to  what  is  beautiful ;  only  when  the 
former  is  provided  may  the  latter  be  thought  of. 
How  often  the  contrary  course  is  pursued. — Ver. 
1 5.  What  a  proud  thing  it  is  for  builders  and  work- 
men when  they  can  be  trusted,  and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  oversee  them.  When  work  is  carried  on 
honestly  and  faithfully,  then  God's  blessing  fol- 
lows.— Ver.   16.  Stabke:  To  everyone  his  own, 


to  God  what  is  God's,  to  the  priests  what  is  theirs 
(Sir.  vii.  32;  1  Cor.  ix.  11). — Let  not  anything 
which  justly  belongs  to  any  one  be  taken  from  him. 
Vers.  17-21.  The  Fall  of  King  Jehoash  and  its 
Consequences,  (a)  As  long  as  Jehoiada  lived,  Je- 
hoash did  what  was  right :  when  he  had  lost  thil 
support  he  fell  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  15-22).  "  Let  him 
that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall " 
(1  Cor.  x.  12).  "It  is  a  good  thing  that  the  heart 
be  established  with  grace  "  (Hebr.  xiii.  9).  How 
many  have  begun  in  the  spirit  and  ended  in  the 
flesh  (Gal.  iii.  3).  The  best  instruction  cannot  pre- 
serve against  a  fall,  if  the  heart  is  not  firm  and 
strong.  Only  he  who  endures  unto  the  end  shall 
be  saved,  therefore:  "Be  thou  faithful,"  Sec.  (Rev. 
ii.  10).  The  noblest  commencement  is  vain,  if  the 
end  is  perverse  and  wicked ;  on  the  contrary :  "  All 
is  well  that  ends  well."  (6)  At  the  time  when  Je- 
hoash had  sinned  so  grievously,  one  calamity  after 
another  came  upon  him ;  first,  the  great  defeat 
(vers.  17  and  18),  by  which  he  lost  all  his  treas- 
ures, then,  the  conspiracy  which  cost  him  his  life 
(vers.  20  and  21).  So  the  words  of  the  dying 
prophet  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  22)  were  fulfilled :  "  The 
Lord  look  upon  it  and  require  it  1  "  (2  Chron.  xxiv. 
22).  So  Jehoash  was  taught  what  calamities  it 
brings  to  abandon  the  Lord  God  (Jer.  ii.  19).  The 
Lord  rewards  every  one  according  to  his  works, 
whether  in  this  or  the  next  world.  What  a  man 
soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap.  Jehoash  was  mar- 
vellously preserved  as  an  infant  (chap.  xi.  2,  3),  he 
ends  his  life  wretchedly. — Starke  :  This  is  an  ex- 
ample how  near  the  ruin  of  a  man  is  when  he  aban- 
dons the  good  to  which  he  was  educated  from  his 
youth  up,  nay,  even  is  glad  to  be  rid  of  those  who 
annoy  him  by  their  warnings. — Ver.  18.  A  man 
may  buy  with  money  his  acquittal  from  a  human 
tribunal,  but  not  from  the  just  judgment  of  God; 
nothing  helps  here  but  repentance  and  a  new  life 
(Ezek.  xviii.  26-28).— Vers.  20  and  21.  All  the 
people  shouted  to  the  child-king:  "Long  live  the 
king  1 "  and  rejoiced  and  blew  the  trumpets.  Con- 
spiracy and  murder  were  the  end  of  his  forty-years' 
reign.     Sic  transit  gloria  mmidi. 


138  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  EJNGS. 


SECOND    SECTION. 

TIIS   MONARCHY   UNDER   JEHOAHAZ    AND   JOASH   AND   JEROBOAM   II.    IN   ISRAEL,    AND    UNDER 

AMAZIAH   IN   JODAH. 

2   EJNGS  XIII.— XTV. 

♦ 

A. — The  Reigns  of  Jehoahaz  and  Joash. 
Chap.  XIII.  1-25. 

1  In  the  three  and  twentieth  year  of  Joash  the  son  of  Ahaziah  king  of  Judah, 
Jehoahaz  the  son  of  Jehu  began  to  reign  over  [became  king  of]  Israel  in  Sama- 

2  ria,  and  reigned  seventeen  years.  And  he  did  that  which  teas  evil  in  the  sight 
of  the  Lord,  and  followed  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  which  made 

3  Israel  to  sin ;  he  departed  not  therefrom.  And  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kin- 
dled against  Israel,  and  he  delivered  them  into  the  hand  of  Hazael  king  of  Syria, 
and  into  the  hand  of  Ben-hadad  the  son  of  Hazael,  all  their  [the]  days  [of  Jehoahaz], 

4  And  Jehoahaz  besought '  the  Lord,  [.]  [(]  And  the  Lord  hearkened  unto  him  : 
for  he  saw  the  oppression  of  Israel,  because  [that]  the  king  of  Syria  oppressed 

5  them.  ( [omit  ( ]  And  the  Lord  gave  Israel  a  saviour,  so  that  they  went  out 
from  under  the  hand  of  the  Syrians:  and  the  children  of  Israel  dwelt  in  their 

6  tents,  as  beforetime."  Nevertheless  they  departed  not  from  the  sins  of  the  house 
of  Jeroboam,  who  made  Israel   sin,3  but  walked  therein :  and   there  remained 

7  [stood]  the  grove  [statue  of  Astarte]  also  in  Samaria.)  Neither  did  [For]  he 
leave  [had  left]  of  the  people  to  Jehoahaz  but  fifty  horsemen,  and  ten  chariots, 
and  ten  thousand  footmen ;  for  the  king  of  Syria  had  destroyed  them,  and   had 

8  made  them  like  the  dust  by  threshing  [beneath  one's  feet].*  Now  the  rest  of 
the  acts  of  Jehoahaz,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  his  might,  are  they  not  written  in 

9  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel  ?  And  Jehoahaz  slept  with 
his  fathers ;  and  they6  buried  him  in  Samaria ;  and  Joash  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead. 

10  In  the  thirty  and  seventh  year  of  Joash  king  of  Judah  began  Jehoash 
the  son  of  Jehoahaz  to  reign  over  Israel  in  Samaria,  and  reigned  sixteen  years. 

11  And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord ;  he  departed  not  from 
all  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  sin :  but  he  walked 

12  therein.  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Joash,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  his  might  [,] 
wherewith  [how]  he  fought  against  Amaziah  king  of  Judah,  are  they  not  writ- 

13  ten  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel?  And  Joash  slept  with 
his  fathers  ;  and  Jeroboam  sat  upon  his  throne :  and  Joash  was  buried  in  Sa- 
maria with  the  kings  of  Israel. 

14  Now  Elisha  was  fallen  sick  of  his  sickness  whereof  he  died  [was  to  die].' 
And  Joash  the  king  of  Israel  came  down  unto  him,  and  wept  over  his  face,  and 
said,  O  my  father,  my  father!  the  Chariot  of  Israel  and  the  Horsemen  thereof! 

15  And  Elisha  said  unto  him,  Take  bow  and  arrows.     And  he  took  unto  him  bow 

10  and  arrows.  And  he  said  to  the  king  of  Israel,  Put  thine  hand  upon  the  bow. 
And  he  put  his  hand  upon  it:  and  Elisha  put  his  hands  upon  the  king's  hands. 

17  And  he  said,  Open  the  window  eastward.  And  he  opened  it.  Then  Elisha 
said,  Shoot.  And  he  shot.  And  he  said,  The  [an]  arrow  of  the  Lord's  [omit  the 
Lord's]  deliverance  [for  Jehovah],  and  the  [an]  arrow  of  deliverance  from 
[against]  Syria:  for  thou  shalt  smite  the  Syrians  in  Aphek,  till  thou  have  con 
Binned  them.'' 


CHAPTER  XIII.   1-25. 


139 


18  Ami  he  said,  Take  the  arrows.     And  he  look  them.     And  he  said  unto  the 

19  king  of  Israel,  Smite  upon  the  ground.  And  he  smote  thrice,  and  stayed.  And 
the  man  of  God  was  wroth  with  him,  and  said,  Thou  shouldest  have  smitten' 
five  or  six  times;  then  hadst  thou  smitten  Syria  till  thou  hadst  consumed  it 

20  whereas  now  thou  shalt  smite  Syria  but  thrice.  And  Elisha  died,  and  they 
buried  him.     And  the  [marauding]  bands  of  the  Moabites  invaded  the  land  at 

21  the  coming  in  [commencement]  of  the  year.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  were 
burying  a  man,  that,  behold,  they  spied  a  band  of  men  [marauders]  ;  and  they 
cast  the  man  into  the  sepulchre  of  Elisha  :  and  when  the  man  was  let  down 
[came],  and  touched  the  bones  of  Elisha,  he  revived,  and  stood  up  on  his  feet. 

22  But  [Now]  Hazael  king  of  Syria  [had]  oppressed  Israel  all  the  days  of  Je- 

23  hoahaz.  [,]  And  [but]  the  Lord  was  gracious  unto  them,  and  had  compassion 
on  them,  and  had  respect  unto  [turned  towards]  them,  because  of  his  covenant 
with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  would  not  destroy  them,  neither  cast  he 

24  them  from  his  presence  as  yet.     So  Hazael  king  of  Syria  died ;  and  Ben-hadad 

25  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.  And  Jehoash  the  son  of  Jehoahaz  took  again  out 
of  the  hand  of  Ben-hadad  the  son  of  Hazael  the  cities,  which  he  had  taken  out 
of  the  hand  of  Jehoahaz  his  father  by  [in  the]  war.  Three  times  did  Joash  beat 
him,  and  recovered  the  cities  of  Israel. 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

>  Ver.  4.— ['JBTIX  H?n.    See  1  Kings  xiii.  6. 

>  Ver.  5.— [DlCv'J*  7lOn3,   "as  yesterday  and  day  before,"  »'.«.,  as  before.     Cf.  Gen.  xxxi.  2,  5;  Ex.  v.  1,  14 
1  Bam.  xxi.  6. 

3  Ver.  6.— [The  X  is  omitted  in  the  chetib  on  account  of  the  X  which  immediately  follows.     Cf.  2  Sam.  v.  9 
1  Kings  ma.  21.     Bottcher,  J§  414,  and  1080,  1. 

4  Ver.  7.— ["*"P  12i?3  ,   literally  "  like  dust  to  tread  upon." 

5  Ver.  9.— [in*13p3!_, — the  plural,  as  in  English,  for  the  passive,  equivalent  to  the  active  singular  with  indefinite  sub- 
ject.   (Germ.  man.  Fr.  on).     Cf.  chap.  vii.  13;  1  Kings  i.  1 ;  ix.  9;  xviii.  10. 

8  Ver.  14.— [The  imperfect  tense  in  T\Vy  his  its  proper  force  of  the  future,  and  is  equivalent  to  the  perfect  of  the 
Latin  periphrastic  conj.  in  rug.     Ewald,  §  136,  d. 

'  Ver.  17. — [n?3~"iy ,  lit.  "until  consuming,"  gerund  form,  =  until  thou  consume,  finish  destroying,  them. 

*  Ver.  19.— [m3rv  j   the  infinitive  is  used  like  the  Latin   participle  in  dus :  "  It  was  ta  be  smitten,"  i.  «.,  thoc 

shouldest  have  smitten.    Ewald,  §  237.  c.     In  the  conclusion  we  have  a  perfect  in  the  sense  of  the  pluperfect  conjunctive. 
Cf.  Gen.  xviii.  12;  1  Sam.  xiii.  13.    Bottcher,  §  947,  d.— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAX,  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1 .  In  the  three  and  twentieth  year  of 
Joash.  This  chronological  statement  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  one  in  ver  10 :  "  In  the  thirty- 
seventh  year  of  Joash."  For,  if  Jehoahaz  began 
to  reign  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash,  and 
reigned  for  seventeen  years,  his  son  Jehoash  can- 
not have  followed  in  the  thirty-seventh,  but  in  the 
thirty-ninth,  year  of  Joash  of  Judah.  Again,  if 
Jehoash  of-  Israel  became  king  in  the  thirty-sev- 
enth year  of  Joash  of  Judah,  then  his  father  Je- 
hoahaz must  have  come  to  the  throne  in  the  twenty- 
first,  and  not  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash  of 
Judah.  The  old  expositors  sought  to  do  away 
with  this  difficulty  by  assuming  that  Jehoash  of 
Israel  shared  the  throne  for  two  years  with  his 
father  Jehoahaz.  This  assumption,  however,  is 
untenable,  both  for  the  general  reasons  assigned 
above  (Pt.  II.,  p.  88,  e)  and  because  it  is  clearly 
shown  in  vers.  9  and  10  that  Jehoash  did  not  as- 
cend the  throne  until  after  the  doath  of  Jehoahaz, 


and  that  he  had  not  shared  his  authority  before  that. 
Only  one  of  the  two  numbers,  23  and  37,  can  be  cor- 
rect, as  is  now  generally  admitted ;  but  the  ques- 
tion, which  is  correct?  receives  various  answers. 
We  start  again,  as  we  did  above  (Pt.  II.,  p.  86),  from 
the  established  chronological  starting-point,*  884 
B.C.,  when  Jehu  became  king  of  Israel,  and  Athaliah 
became  queen  of  Judah.  J°hu  reigned  28  years 
(chap.  x.  36),  that  is,  from  884  to  356;  l.is  son  Je- 
hoahaz 17  years  (chap.  xiii.  1).  from  856  839;  Je- 
hoash, 16  years  (chap.  xiii.  10),  839-823.  ithaliah 
ruled  6  years,  and  Joash  became  king  in  the  "  sev- 
enth year"  (chap.  xi.  3,  -1),  that  is,  884-877  ;  Joash, 
40  years  (chap.  xii.  2),  877-837  ;  Amaziah.  29  years, 
837"-808.  It  follows  that  the  twenty-third  year  of 
Joash  of  Judah,  in  which  Jehoahaz  became  king 
of  Israel,  according  to  ver.  1,  was  the  year  854,  but 
this  cannot  be  correct  because  his  father  Jehu  ruled 

*  See  the  Appendix,  on  the  Chronology.  For  the  purpose 
of  the  calculation  here  made,  it  is  immaterial  whether  this 
date  is  correct  or  not,  but  it  is  certainly  wrong  to  call  it  "ar 
established  chronological  star'ing-poiiit." — W.  G.  S 


1H"I 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


28  years.  and  so  died  in  856.  This  would  bring 
Jehoahaz'  accession  into  the  twenty-first,  not  the 
twenty-third,  of  Joash.  This  is  the  statement  of 
Josephus :  eitioarC)  rit"  nal  Trpuru  etei  ttjc  'luaaoi' 
PaaiAcio;.  The  thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash  of 
Jndah,  in  which,  according  to  ver.  10,  Jehoash  of 
Israel  became  king,  is  the  year  840 ;  in  the  second 
year  of  Jehoash  of  Israel,  that  is,  in  the  year  838, 
Amaziah  became  king  of  Judah  (chap.  xiv.  1). 
According  to  this  reckoning,  the  death  of  Joash, 
the  father  of  Amaziah,  does  indeed  fall  in  837,  but, 
in  view  of  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning  which  is 
explained  Pt.  II.,  p.  86  sq.,  a  discrepancy  of  a  single 
year  has  no  significance.  Josephus  says,  in  agree- 
ment with  ver.  10:  ej3do/iov  t/6t/  nai  Tpiaaoarbv 
Itoc  ftaui'AevovToQ  'ludoov  rye  'lo'vda  ^>va^c.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  hold  fast  the  "twenty-third 
year  "  in  ver.  1,  and,  in  ver.  10,  read  thirty-ninth 
for  thirty-seventh,  as  Ewald,  Thenius,  and  others 
desire,  this  thirty-ninth  year  will  be  838,  Jehu  will 
only  have  26  years,  not  28  (chap.  x.  36),  and  his 
son  Jehoahaz'  reign,  extending  from  85-4  to  838, 
will  amount  to  16,  not  17  years  (ver.  1);  moreover, 
if  Jehoash  of  Israel  did  not  ascend  the  throne  un- 
til 838.  and  Amaziah  became  king  in  Judah  in  his 
second  year  (chap.  xiv.  1),  then  the  latter  did  not 
become  king  until  836,  though  his  father  did  not 
live,  at  the  utmost,  beyond  837.  If  thirty-seventh 
is  changed  into  thirty-ninth,  then  all  the  other 
numbers  must  be  changed,  and  this  is  inadmis- 
sible. If  then  we  let  these  numbers  stand,  we 
must  suppose  that  the  words:  "in  the  twenty- 
third  year,"  in  ver.  1,  are  either  a  copyist's  error 
(33  for  N3),  or,  that  it  is  a  mistake  growing  out  of 
the  confusion  to  which  the  Jewish  mode  of  reck- 
oning gave  occasion  (see  above,  Pt.  II.,  p.  86  sq.). 
All  the  versions  and  all  the  editions  have  "thirty- 
seventh  "  except  the  Edith  Aldina  of  the  Sept. 
{1518).  which  has  "thirty-ninth."  Keil  justly  ob- 
serves that  this  variant  is  "nothing  but  an  unfor- 
tunate emendation,  adopted  in  order  to  bring  about 
a  reconciliation,  but  without  any  critical  value." 

Ver.  3.  And  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kin- 
dled. The  sense  and  the  connection  of  vers.  3-7, 
are  as  follows :  In  the  time  of  Jehu,  who,  contrary 
to  al!  just  expectations,  clung  to  the  calf-worship 
which  Jeroboam  had  introduced,  Jehovah  had  al- 
ready commenced  to  "  cut  off"  from  Israel,  and  had 
given  the  land  east  of  the  Jordan  into  the  hands 
of  the  Syrians  (chap.  x.  32  sq.).  Since,  however, 
Jehoahaz,  Jehu's  successor,  did  not  take  warning, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  during  his  reign  the  worship 
of  the  image  of  Astarte  was  once  more  introduced 
(1  Kings  xiv.  15),  so  that  the  abolition  of  idola- 
try which  had  been  accomplished  was  rendered 
ineffectual.  God's  anger  (»'.  e.,  His  justice,  and 
His  avenging,  punishing,  rigor)  was  kindled,  so 
that  one  defeat  followed  upon  another,  until  the 
might  of  Israel  was  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In 
his  great  distress,  when  he  was  on  the  brink  of 
ruin,  Jehoahaz  at  length  turned  to  Jehovah,  and 
besought  Him,  and  the  Lord,  seeing  the  distress 
of  His  people,  answered  his  prayer  and  sent  a  de- 
liverer.— [That  is  the  sense  of  the  passage,  but  it 
does  not  account  for  the  grammatical  form  and 
succession  of  the  sentences.  The  best  modern  ex- 
positors agree  with  Hie  English  translators  in  mak- 
i  parenthesis  of  vers.  5  and  6.  The  only  ques- 
tion i-  as  to  where  it  is  to  begin,  and  it  seems  best, 
with  Thenius  and  Bunsen,  to  enclose  all  after  the 
Jrst  clause  of  ver.  4.     The  explanation  then  is  as 


follows :  Israel  was  defeated  by  the  Syrians  agait 
and  again  during  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz.  He  turned 
in  his  distress  to  the  Lord  and  sought  him.  There 
was  no  apparent  response  to  this  prayer  during 
his  lifetime,  but  the  writer  inserts  a  parenthesis  to 
the  effect  that  the  prayer  was  nevertheless  heard 
and  answered,  that  God  saw  the  distress  of  Israel 
and  sent  a  champion  for  them,  and  yet  that  they 
persisted  in  their  sins.  The  '3  at  the  commence- 
ment of  ver.  7  then  presents  no  further  difficulty. 
It  refers  back  to  the  first  clause  of  ver.  4.  Jehoa- 
haz besought  the  Lord,  because  He  had  left  but, 
&c— W.  G.  S.]— Ver.  3.  All  the  days,  i.  e.,  of  Je- 
hoahaz, not  of  Hazael  and  Benhadad,  as  is  clear 
from  ver.  22  [also  ver.  25  shows  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  success  of  the  Syrians  did  not  continue 
through  "  the  days  "  of  Benhadad.— W.  G.  S.].— 
Ver.  5.  A  savior,  cf.  Judges  iii.  9,  15;  Nehem.  ix. 
27.  This  was  Jeroboam  II.,  the  grandson  of  Je- 
hoahaz, as  we  see  clearly  from  DJTL'Tl ,  chap.  xiv. 

27,  which  has  an  evident  reference  to  JTCTO  in 

this  verse.  He  completed  what  had  already  been 
begun  by  Jehoash,  the  son  of  Jehoahaz  (ver.  25). 
Reference  is  here  made  to  him  in  order  to  show 
that  he  was  sent  in  answer  to  Jehoahaz'  prayer, 
although  he  came  so  long  afterwards.  The  words: 
they  dwelt  in  their  tents,  describe  the  peaceful 
state  of  things  which  was  brought  about  by  the 
deliverer ;  in  war  they  did  not  dwell  in  tents,  but 
in  strongholds  and  fortified  places. — Ver.  6  con- 
tains a  restriction  of  what  has  just  been  said  in 
ver.  5.  The  peaceful  state  of  things,  which  was 
brought  about,  was  not  a  perfectly  happy  and  sat- 
isfactory one,  for  the  worship  of  Jeroboam's  calves 
still  continued,  and  even  the  worship  of  Asherah 
(the  statue  of  Astarte)  did  not  cease  entirely.  The- 
nius understands  mOl'  to  mean  that  the  worship 

of  Asherah  "  very  soon  obtained  a  firm  foothold  " 
(;'.  e.,  under  Jeroboam  II.).  Ewald  also  thinks  that 
it  was  reintroduced  at  about  his  time.  But  the  his- 
tory of  Jeroboam  II.,  chap.  xiv.  23-27,  contains  no 
mention  of  it,  and  also  the  '3  in  ver.  7  fixes  the 

attention  upon  the  time  of  Jehoahaz,  when  the  in- 
cidents took  place  which  are  referred  to  in  ver.  1. 
[This  13  does  not  refer  to  ver.  6  at  all.  No  con- 
nection can  be  established  which  will  make  good 
sense.  It  refers  back  to  the  first  clause  of  ver.  4, 
as  shown  above.  Bahr's  interpretation,  however,  is 
correct,  although  it  is  difficult  to  understand,  as  The- 
nius says,  how  the  Astarte-image  survived  Jehu's 
reformation.  iTTOJJ  is  better  translated  "  stood," 
than  "gained  firm  foot-hold."  mt"Xn  has  the 
article,  and  the  form  of  statement  of  the  first  part 
of  the  verse  is  that  the  old  apostasy  of  Jeroboam 
was  still  continued.  If  it  had  been  intended  to  say 
that  this  old  sin  was  continued,  and  that  even  the 
one  which  had  been  rooted  up  was  reintroduced,  it 
seems  that  some  other  word  must  have  been  used 
for  moy  which  would  have  expressed  this  latter 
idea  distinctly. — W.  G.  S.]  Ver.  7  is  a  continua- 
tion of  [the  first  clause  of]  ver.  4.  It  shows  how 
far  the  "oppression"  of  the  Syrians  had  gone. 
Dathe  and  Houbigant  are  in  favor  of  placing  it  be- 
tween  vers.  4  and  5,  but  the  close  connection  be- 
tween these  verses  forbids  this.  [For  he  had 
left.  The  English  translation:  "Neither  did  he 
leave,"  cannot  be  defended.  It  is  necessitated  by 
the  supposed  connection  between  this  clause  and 


CHAPTER  XIII.  1-25. 


HI 


the  last  clause  of  ver.  4.  It  also  seems  to  under- 
jtand  "  the  king  of  Syria  "  as  the  subject  of  VtBJfl . 

which  does  not  make  good  sense.  The  subject  of 
that  verb  is  Jehovah,  and  the  last  half  of  ver.  7 
repeats  the  same  statement  substituting  "  the  king 
of  Syria  "  (who  was  the  instrument  by  which  it 
was  accomplished),  in  the  place  of  the  ultimate 
agent.  The  passage  may  now  be  made  clear,  if 
we  get  rid  of  the  parenthesis  by  putting  ver.  7 
between  the  first  and  second  clauses  of  ver.  4,  as 
follows :  Jehoahaz  besought  the  Lord,  for  He  (the 
Lord)  had  left  but,  ...  for  the  king  of  Syria 
had  destroyed  them  .  .  .  and  the  Lord  heark- 
ened unto  him,  seeing  the  distress,  and  gave  a  de- 
liverer, who  delivered  them,  yet  they  persisted  in 

their  sins. — W.  G.  S.]     The  expression  th1?  1SJQ 

does  not  mean  chaff,  as  Luther  understands  it,  for 
ISy  is  not  dust  which  floats  in  the  air,  but  dust 

which  lies  upon  the  ground  and  is  trodden  under 
foot.  The  fundamental  meaning  of  CT1  is,  to  tread 
under  foot  (Hab.  iii.  12;  Micah  iv.  13).  There  is 
no  reference  to  the  barbarous  usage  of  war  re- 
ferred to  in  Amos  i.  3;  2  Sam.  xii.  31.  [Literally 
the  English  for  the  words  would  be:  dust  for 
treading,  i.  e.,  dust  which  lies  beneath  one's  feet 
(see  Grammatical  note  on  the  verse).  It  is  an  ex- 
pression for  utter  defeat  and  destruction.  They 
were  reduced  to  utter  helplessness  and  powerless- 
ness.  Thenius  thinks  that  it  refers  to  a  definite 
defeat,  and  Hitzig,  on  Amos  iv.  10,  suggests  that 
the  reference  there  may  be  to  the  same  decisive 
defeat  here  alluded  to. — W.  G.  S.] — On  ver.  10  see 
notes  on  ver.  1.  Jehoash's  war  with  Amaziah, 
mentioned  in  ver.  12,  is  narrated  at  length  in  chap. 
xiv.  8  sq.  The  concluding  formula,  vers.  12  and 
13,  belongs  properly  after  ver.  25.  It  is  given  in 
this  place  only  because  it  followed,  in  one  of  the 
authorities  used  by  the  author,  directly  upon  vers. 
10  and  11,  and  he  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to 
dissever  it  from  this  connection. 

Ver.  14.  Now  Elisha  was  fallen  sick,  &o. 
The  narrative  in  vers.  14  to  21  is,  without  doubt, 
taken  from  a  different  original  document  from  that 
to  which  the  verses  belong  which  immediately 
precede  and  follow.  It  is  not  inserted  here  merely 
because  it  belongs  to  the  time  of  king  Jehoash. 
The  end  of  the  great  prophet  of  Israel,  who  had 
wrought  so  influentially  upon  its  history,  and 
whose  acts  had  been  so  circumstantially  narrated, 
could  not  be  passed  over  in  silence,  especially 
since  the  accompanying  incidents  stood  in  such 
close  connection  with  what  had  gone  before,  and 
with  what  was  to  follow.  Jehoahaz  had,  accord- 
ing to  vers.  3-7,  left  the  kingdom  very  much 
weakened.  When  Jehoash  heard  of  Elisha's  ill- 
ness, he  went  to  him,  and,  weeping,  called  to  him, 
as  Elisha  had  once  called  to  Elijah  as  he  passed 
away  (see  Pt.  II.,  p.  15,  and  cf.  p.  G9):  O  my 
father,  my  father !  the  Chariot  of  Israel  and  the 
Horsemen  thereof!  as  much  as  to  say :  If  now 
thou  also,  who  hast  so  often  shown  thyself  the 
strength  and  the  protector  of  Israel,  and  hast 
helped  by  counsel  and  by  act,  if  now  thou  also,  in 
this  time  of  distress,  art  about  to  depart,  whence 
shall  come  help,  and  counsel,  and  deliverance 
from  the  hand  of  the  powerful  enemy  ?  This 
humble  and  chastened  spirit  on  his  part  leads  the 
prophet  to  give  him  the  declaration  that  the  prayer 
of  his  father  (ver.  4)  had  been  heard,  and  that  the 


deliverance  should  commence  in  his  time.  Tha 
fulfilment  of  this  promise  is  then  narrated  in  the 
following  verses,  22-25. 

Ver.  15.  And  Elisha  said  unto  him,  Ac. 
Elisha  does  not  simply  make  known  this  promise 
to  the  king  by  words,  but  also,  as  a  prophet,  in 
that  form  which  belongs  to  the  essential  character 
of  the  prophetical  office,  and  is  peculiar  to  pro- 
phetical announcements,  that  is,  by  means  of  a 
symbolic  action  (see  note  on  chap.  11,  30  sq.). 
The  declaration  thereby  receives  the  impress  of  a 
solemn  and  purely  prophetical  announcement. 
Here,  as  in  all  similar  cases,  the  symbolic  action 
precedes  the  words  which  explain  it ;  thereby  it 
represents  the  future  event  as  a  fact,  as  something 
which  will  come  without  fail.  Inasmuch  as  it  was 
the  king  himself  who  performed  this  symbolic  ac- 
tion, and  not  the  prophet,  it  became  all  the  more 
a  pledge  to  him  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophet's 
words.  The  whole  transaction  consists  of  two 
acts;  vers.  15-17  give  the  first  one;  vers.  13  and 
19  the  second,  which  is  a  continuation  of  the  first. 
Each  is  followed  by  words  of  the  prophet,  inter- 
preting it.  Ver.  15.  Take  bow  and  arrows. 
The  prophet  made  use  of  these  for  his  symbolic 
action,  because  the  matter  in  hand  was  a  warlike 
contest  with  enemies,  and  the  king,  or  at  least  his 
attendants,  were  provided  with  these  arms.  The 
command:  "Take  bow  and  arrows,"  signifies: 
Arm  thyself  for  war  against  the  Syrians!  There 
is  not  the  least  reference  to  a  method  of  sooth- 
saying by  means  of  arrows  (Belomancy,  cf.  Ezek. 
xxi.  21),  which  was  practised  by  many  ancient 
heathen  nations. — Ver.  16.  Put  thine  hand  upon 
the  bow ;  literally :  Let  thine  hand  ride  upon  the 
bow.  In  drawing  the  bow,  it  is  held  in  a  hori- 
zontal position  in  such  a  way  that  the  left  hand 
rests  upon  it.  The  prophet  placed  his  hands  upon 
those  of  the  king  "in  token  that  the  impulse 
which  was  to  be  given  came,  through  the  proph- 
et's hands,  from  the  Lord"  (Keil).  The  king's  act 
thereby  becomes  to  a  certain  extent  the  act  of  the 
prophet,  and  so  an  act  which  is  performed  in  the 
name  and  by  the  authority  of  Jehovah.  Only  in 
so  far  can  the  laying  on  of  hands  here  be  regarded 
as  at  once  a  consecration  and  a  blessing,  for  that 
is  not  its  primary  significance  here,  as  it  is  in 
other  places  where  the  hand  is  laid  upon  the  head. 
— Ver.  17.  Open  the  window,  that  is,  order  the 
grating,  which  is  in  front  of  the  window-opening, 
to  be  removed.  The  king  could  not  open  it  him- 
self, for  he  had  both  hands  upon  the  bow.  East- 
ward, i.  e.,  toward  the  country  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan, which  the  Syrians  had  taken  (chap.  x.  33), 
and  from  whence  they  continually  threatened  the 
country  this  side  the  Jordan.  The  older  exposi 
tors  refer,  by  way  of  explanation  of  the  words- 
And  he  shot,  to  the  custom  in  ancient  times  ol 
declaring  war  by  shooting  an  arrow  into  the  ene- 
my's territory  (Virgil,  jEneid,  ix.  57),  but  that  was 
not  the  significance  of  the  arrow  shot  by  the  king 
in  this  case.  The  words  which  explain  the  sym 
bolic  act  follow  the   discharge  of  the  arrow :  A 

arrow  of  deliverance  for  Jehovah,  rrirv? ,  i.  e , 

auctore  Jehnva.  [The  expression  seems  intended 
to  interpret  the  arrow,  thus  discharged,  on  two 
sides,  towards  Jehovah,  and  towards  the  Syrians. 
It  was  an  arrow  of  deliverance  for,  or  in  its  rela- 
tion to  Jehovah,  inasmuch  as  it  represented  the 
deliverance  which  He  was  determined  to  give;  i' 


U2 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


was  an  arrow  of  deliverance  against  or  upon  the 
Syrians,  as  it  signified  the  coming  overthrow  of 
their  oppression. — W.  G.  S.]  Let  this  arrow  be 
a  pledge  to  thee  that  Jehovah  will  help  thee,  and 
that  thou  wilt  overcome  the  Syrians — at  Aphek. 
Lvais  erat  boni  ominis  (Menochius),  for  Jehovah 
had   already   once   given  Israel   a   great   victory 

there  (1  Kings  xx.  26-29).  The  words  nj>3-"lg  re- 
fer, in  this  verse,  only  to  the  Syrian  army  at 
Aphek;  in  ver.  19,  on  the  contrary,  they  refer  to 
the  entire  Syrian  military  power. 

Ver.  IS.  Take  the  arrows.  The  second  part 
of  the  symbolical  action  which  here  begins  not 
only  continues  the  preceding,  but  consists  of  an 
enhancement  of  it.     The  article  in  Q'Xnn ,  which 

is  wanting  in  ver.  15,  designates  particular  ar- 
rows, namely  all,  besides  the  one  which  had  al- 
ready been  shot  away,  which  remained  in  the 
quiver.     nV"IN    T)H    does   not    mean :    Smite   the 

earth  (Luther);  nor:  Smite  upon  the  earth  (De 
Wette);  still  less:  Strike  with  the  bundle  of  ar- 
rows in  the  direction  of  the  earth  [i.  e.,  as  if  smit- 
ing an  enemy  to  earth  with  it]  (Thenius).  The 
last  interpretation  has  no  support  in  the  text;  and 
arrows  are  not  used  for  smiting  enemies  to  the 
earth,  or  for  striking  upon  the  ground.    H3J  stands 

in  contrast  with   nv  (ver.  11);  it  does  not  mean 

jacere  (sagittas),  to  shoot  arrows,  but,  ferire,  to  hit 
(1  Kings  xxii,  34;  2  Kings  ix.  24;  1  Sam.  xvii. 
49).  The  arrow  in  ver.  17  was  only  to  be  shot 
away  through  the  window  towards  the  east;  the 
arrows  in  ver.  18  were  to  hit  down  to  the  earth, 
»'.  e.,  in  such  a  wa.y  that  what  was  hit  by  them 
should  be  stretched  upon  the  ground.  As  the 
king  only  shot  to  the  earth  thus  three  times  and 
then  stopped,  did  not,  therefore,  use  up  all  the 
arrows  which  remained,  the  prophet  was  dis- 
pleased (Sept.  fAi'-^i?//)  and  said  (ver.  19) :  Thou 
shouldest  have  smitten,  &e.  He  meant:  Thou 
hadst  more  than  three  arrows,  and  mightest  have 
continued  to  hit;  the  fact,  however,  that  thou 
hast  ceased  so  soon,  shows  that  thou  lackest  the 
zeal  which  is  tireless,  and  which  perseveres,  trust- 
ing in  the  Lord ;  thou  shalt  indeed  defeat  the 
Syrians,  but  the  complete  destruction  of  their 
power  will  not  come  about  through  thee.  The 
reasou  why  the  king  shot  three  times  and  then 
stopped  was  that,  according  to  the  prevalent  no- 
tion, that  what  was  done  thrice  was  done  per- 
fectly (Numb.  xxii.  28,  32,  33;  xxiv.  10;  Ex.  xxiii. 
17|,  lie  supposed  that  this  sufficed.  It  was  not 
because  he  was  afraid  that,  if  he  shot  any  more, 
the  prophecies  of  Elisha  would  not  come  to  pass 
(Starke),  or  because  he  did  not  dare  to  shoot  more, 
"lrst  too  extravagant  demands  might  deprive  him 
of  all  "  (Von  Gerlach).  In  the  first  part  of  the 
transaction  (vers.  16  and  17),  it  is  promised  him 
that  Jehovah  will  give  him  victory  over  the  Syri- 
ans ;  in  the  second  (vers.  18  and  19),  he  is  ex- 
horted to  go  on,  trusting  in  Jehovah's  assistance, 
without  hesitation,  and  putting  forth  all  his  ener- 
gies, and  so  to  make  war  upon  the  Syrians  until 
he  utterly  destroys  them. 

Ver.  20.  And  Elisha  died,  &c,  riD'l  evidently 

refers  back  to  fnO'  in  ver.  14.     Vulg. :  Mortuus 

ut  ergo  Elisaetvs  et  sepelierunt  eum.  This  sentence 
closes  the  nirralive  which  began  with  ver.  14.    It 


ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  treated  as  a  subordinate 

clause  to  what  follows,  as  Luther  underst I  it: 

"  When  Elisha  was  dead  and  they  had  burie  I  him, 
the  Moabites  made  an  incursion."  Elisha  must 
have  readied  a  great  age.  for  Jehoash  did  not  come 
to  the  throne  till  840-39,  and  Ahab,  in  whose 
reign  Elisha  was  already  a  grown  man  (1  Kings 
xix.  19).  reigned  from  919-897  (see  above,  Pt.  II., 
p.  45).  According  to  Jerome's  statement  (Epi- 
taph. I'aulae).  Elisha's  grave  was  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Samaria,  where  he  had  a  residence  (chap, 
v.  9 ;  vi.  32).  Krummacher  locates  it,  without 
any  definite  reason,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jeri- 
cho, and  certainly  raiding  bands  of  the  Moabite3 
might  much  more  naturally  appear  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Jericho  than  near  Samaria.     rDL"  N3 

means  literally :  a  year  came.  According  to  the 
Targum  and  the  Rabbis  this  means:  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  year.  They  came  at  this  season 
because  then  the  country  furnished  pasture.  It 
can  hardly  mean  that  they  came  every  year 
(Ewald).  Still  less  correct  is  the  rendering  of  the 
Vulg.  which  Luther  follows :  in  ipso  anno,  in  the 

same  year. — I3v""l i  V®T-  21,  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood of  a  rude  and  violent  "throwing  in,"  but  it 
is  meant  to  describe  the  haste  with  which  they 
opened  the  grave  and  deposited  the  corpse  in  it. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  change  T|7'l,  as  Hitzig  and 

Thenius  do,  into  =Q7S1,  i.  e.,  they  went  away,  foi 

7]">n  "is  used  not  only  of  the  motion  of  lifeless 

objects,  but  also  of  the  gradual  progress  of  an 
action "  (Keil).  [It  has  great  dramatic  force, 
describing  the  gradual  approach  of  the  corpse  to 
that  contact  which  involved  such  momentous  con- 
sequences.— W.  G.  S.]  The  Hebrews  brought 
their  dead  to  the  grave,  not  in  closed  coffins,  but  on 
an  open  bier  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  ii.  s.  16),  "so  that 
the  corpse  which  was  being  brought  to  the  sepul- 
chre, on  being  hastily  deposited  there,  might  easily 
come  in  contact  with  the  remains  of  Elisha  "  (Keil). 
Ver.  22.  But  Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  Ac.  The 
narrative  here  returns  to  vers.  3-'.'.  Seb.  Schmidt : 
reassumitur  hoc  de  Chasaele  ad  exponendum  comple- 

mentum  prophetiae  Elisae.    In  sense,  yrp  is  to  be 

taken  as  a  pluperfect.  Ver.  23  contains  a  remark 
of  the  author:  Israel  had  been  brought  by  Hazael 
to  the  brink  of  ruin,  but,  for  the  sake  of  His  cov- 
enant. Jehovah  took  pity  upon  His  people  once 
more :  He  did  not  as  yet  permit  it  to  be  destroyed, 
as  He  did  later  (chap.  xvii.  6).  Hazael  died  (ver. 
24),  and  Jehoash  defeated  his  son  and  successor 
three  times,  as  the  prophet  had  foretold.  The 
cities  of  Israel  (ver.  25)  which  Jehoash  took 
away  from  Benhadad  must  have  been  "those 
which  lay  upon  this  side  the  Jordan,  for  Hazael 
had  conquered  the  territory  beyond  Jordan  during 
the  reign  of  Jehu  (chap.  x.  32  sq.),  and  it  is  ex- 
pressly stated  that  the  cities  which  he  now  recov- 
ered were  those  which  had  been  taken  from  his 
father  Jehoahaz "  (Thenius).  Jeroboam  II.  was 
the  first  who  restored  the  ancient  >cundaries 
(chap.  xiv.  25). 


HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL 
1.  In  regard  to  Che  reign  of  King  J;hoaJaz,  wt 


CHAPTER  XIII.  1-25. 


143 


have  but  scanty  records ;  the  Chronicle  does  not 
mention  him  at  all.  The  kingdom  had  declined 
very  much  during  the  Fast  years  of  Jehu  (chap.  x. 
31-33),  but,  under  this  king,  it  sank  still  lower  in 
every  respect.  The  worship  of  the  calves,  which 
his  father  had  retained,  still  continued ;  also  the 
licentious  worship  of  Astarte  was  once  more 
practised.  The  entire  revolution  mentioned  in 
chaps,  ix.  and  x.,  the  overthrow  of  the  House  of 
Ahab,  the  foundation  of  a  new  dynasty,  the  aboli- 
tion of  idolatry,  thus  proved  fruitless  and  vain. 
The  divine  judgments  and  chastisements  which 
had  begun  under  Jehu  therefore  increased,  so  that 
the  kingdom  came  nigh  to  ruin.  Jehoahaz,  there- 
fore, turned  and  prayed  to  God  in  anxiety  and 
despair,  and  He  once  more  had  pity  on  His  people. 
Schlier  justly  says  of  Jehoahaz :  "  His  prayer  was 
the  best  thing  that  he  bequeathed  to  his  suc- 
cessor." The  state  of  things  during  his  reign  is  a 
proof  that  worship  of  images  always  leads  to  wor- 
ship of  false  gods,  and  that  there  is  only  one  step 
from  the  one  to  the  other  (see  1  Kings  xii.  25-33, 
Hist.  §  2).  It  shows  how,  universally,  the  weeds 
of  religious  error,  when  they  have  taken  root 
amongst  a  people,  although  they  may  be  pulled  up 
again  and  again,  nevertheless  strike  root  again 
and  spread,  and  endure  more  storm  and  hard 
usage  than  good  and  useful  plants.  Is  it  not  true 
that  even  Christian  nations  cling  more  stubbornly 
to  the  errors  which  have  fastened  upon  Christian 
doctrine,  than  to  Christian  truth  itself?  On  the 
other  hand,  God,  who  guides  the  destinies  of 
Israel,  appears  here  as  one  whose  wrath  is  indeed 
kindled  at  the  sin  and  apostasy  of  His  people,  but 
who  does  not  remain  angry  forever.  He  never 
ceases  to  be  pitiful  and  gracious,  kind  and  faithful 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  6;  Ps.  ciii.  8-9).  When  His  people 
call  upon  Him,  He  hears  the  cry,  (fnd  in  due  time 
Bends  a  deliverer. 

2.  There  is  no  mention  made  of  the  prophet 
Elisha  from  the  anointing  of  Jehu  in  8S4  to  the 
reign  of  Jehoash  (839),  that  is,  for  a  period  of  at 
least  forty-five  years,  whereas  we  should  have  ex- 
pected that  his  influence  would  be  especially  wide 
and  great  under  a  dynasty  which  he  put  upon  the 
throne.  The  fact  that  Jehoash  called  him  "Father" 
and  the  "  Chariot  of  Israel  and  the  Horsemen 
thereof"  shows  that  he  enjoyed  high  honor  and 
esteem,  and  it  would  be  very  astonishing,  if  Elisha 
had  not  even  given  a  sign  of  his  existence  for 
forty-five  years.  We  are  therefore  compelled  to 
infer  either  that  the  original  documents  used  by 
our  author  were  silent  in  regard  to  his  activity,  or 
that  some  of  the  incidents  mentioned  in  chap.  iv. 
sq.  belong  to  this  period  (see  Pt.  II.,  p.  45).  It 
cannot  be  proved,  as  Ewald  asserts,  that  "all  the 
incidents,  in  which  he  appears  as  standing  in  high 
estimation  with  the  king  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
belong  to  the  times  of  the  house  of  Jehu,"  that  is 
to  say,  especially  chaps,  v.  and  vi.  It  is  far  more 
probable  that  it  was  he  who  warned  and  threat- 
ened king  Jehu  (chap.  x.  30),  and  also  induced 
king  Jehoahaz  to  humble  himself  and  turn  to  God 
in  prayer  (ver.  4).  He  shows  himself  once  more 
on  his  death-bed  in  his  full  and  distinctive  pro- 
phetical character.  He  appears  here  in  his  last 
hours  in  the  character  which  was  peculiar  to  him 
as  compared  with  Elijah,  i.  e.,  as  the  one  who  built 
up,  rescued  from  distress,  and  preserved  (see 
Pt.  II.,  p.  24).  He  departs  from  the  world  with  a 
great  promise  of  deliverance  to  his  people,  with 


the  announcement  of  coming  release  from  the 
oppression  of  the  arch-enemy.  "  Salvation  and  Vic- 
tory from  Jehovah  I  "  is  his  last  prophetic  oracle. 
While  the  young  and  vigorous  king,  despairing 
of  deliverance,  stands  crushed  and  tearful  before 
him,  the  prophet,  oppressed  by  disease,  and  age, 
and  approaching  death,  raises  himself  up  from  his 
death-bed,  spiritually  full  of  life  and  strength,  and 
gives  orders  to  the  king  to  do  this  and  that,  in  the 
tone  of  one  "who  has  set  up  and  deposed  kings, 
and  whose  calling  it  has  been  to  break  in  pieces 
and  to  destroy,  to  build  and  to  plant  (Jer.  i.  10). 
He  commands  the  king  to  execute  the  significant 
operation,  not  because  he  himself  was  too  weak  to 
talk  much  (Thenius),  but  because  the  king  was  to 
be  the  actor,  was  to  be  filled  with  courageous 
faith,  and  was  to  be  assured  of  the  victory  he 
should  win.  It  must  have  made  a  deep  and  solemn 
impression  upon  him  and  upon  all  who  stood 
about,  that  he  himself  executed  this  symbolic  ac- 
tion with  the  hands  of  the  prophet  laid  upon  him. 
When  the  prophet's  wrath  was  kindled  against 
the  king  for  desisting  from  shooting,  it  was  not  a 
sinful  ebullition,  but  a  wrath  which  sprang  from 
love,  because  the  king  did  not  secure  still  more  of 
the  promise  for  himself  and  his  people. 

3.  The  story  of  the  restoration  to  life  of  a  man 
■who  was  laid  in  Elisha's  grave  stands  in  close  con- 
nection with  what  precedes,  not  only  historically, 
but  also  as  respects  its  significance,  and  its  moral. 
This  is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  cannot  have,  as 
Ephraim  Syrus  and  some  other  church  fathers 
suppose,  the  general  moral,  that  "  Elisha,  even  in 
the  grave,  surpassed  Elijah  in  miraculous  power," 
nor,  as  Theodoret  says :  wc  dimr'/.aoiav  tov  thfiaoKa- 
2.0V  rip  x^pw  iSi^aro  [that  he  had  a  double  por- 
tion of  his  master's  spirit].  This  notion  rests 
upon  the  erroneous  interpretation  of  chap.  ii.  9 
(see  notes  thereon).  Ehsha  is  nowhere  placed 
superior  to  Elijah.  According  to  theopiniou  which 
is  now  generally  received,  and  which  was  proposed 
by  Seb.  Smith,  the  object  of  this  miracle  of  resus- 
citation was  to  "  impress  the  seal  of  the  Divine 
confirmation  upon  the  prediction  of  the  dying 
prophet  iu  regard  to  Jehoash's  victory  over  the 
Syrians"  (KeU),  or,  "to  give  a  pledge  of  the  ful- 
filment  of  the  promise  which  had  been  given  " 
(Thenius).  But  the  resuscitation  of  a  dead  man 
has  no  essential  connection  with  the  contents  of 
this  prediction,  and  the  miracle  would  then  be  a 
mere  display  of  supernatural  power,  having  no 
special  significance,  and  presenting  no  reason  why 
this  rather  than  any  other  form  of  supernatural 
work  should  have  been  chosen.  The  incident  is 
connected,  not  with  the  victory  over  the  Syrians, 
but  with  the  death  and  burial  of  the  prophet,  which 
are  mentioned  just  before.  Its  significance  is  this: 
Elisha  died  and  was  buried  as  all  men  are,  but 
even  in  the  grave  testimony  was  borne  to  his  char- 
acter as  a  prophet  and  servant  of  God.    The  spirit 

(rm)  of  Jehovah,  which  made  him,  as  well  as  his 

master,  prophets  (chap.  ii.  9,  15),  and  which  is  the 
principle  of  all  prophetical  life  and  work,  made  it- 
self manifest  in  him  even  in  the  grave.  It  mani- 
fested itself,  moreover,  in  a  manner  which  corre- 
sponds exactly  to  the  form  cf  activity  of  this 
prophet,  who  was  a  preserver,  savior,  and  life-giver 
(see  Pt.  II.,  p.  24).  Salvation  and  life  proceed  from 
him,  by  the  spirit  of  God,  which  makes  alive,  and 
is  the  fountain  of  life  (Ezek.  xxxvii.   1-14;   Hoa 


1U 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGb. 


vi.  2 .  Deut.  x^xn  39).  even  after  he  is  in  the  grave. 
This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  passage 
Siracli  xlviii.  1-15.  The  praises  of  the  great 
prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha  are  there  pronounced, 
and  especial  reference  is  made  to  the  end  of  each. 
The  translation  of  Elijah  is  mentioned  in  ver.  9, 
and  then,  in  ver.  13.  with  which  the  panegyric  of 
rilisha  begins,  the  author  refers  back  to  it  again : 
"  Elijah  was  enveloped  in  a  storm-cloud,  and  Eli- 
sha was  filled  with  his  spirit.  During  his  life  he 
feared  before  no  ruler,  and  no  one  ever  imposed 
restraint  upon  him.'  He  yielded  to  no  compulsion, 
Ka'i  kv  KOttiTjtsei  EKpoQfjrevoe  rb  otj/ia  avrov.  Dur- 
ing his  life  he  performed  wonders,  Kal  ev  TeKevry 
davunma  ra  epya  avTov"  Whereas,  in  vers.  1— S, 
Elijah's  separate  deeds  are  particularly  described, 
Elisha's  activity  is  only  delineated  in  general  out- 
line ;  on  the  contrary  his  end.  like  that  of  Elijah. 
is  noticed  especially.  This  shows  that,  in  the  time 
of  Siraeh,  this  incident  was  considered  important 
and  significant.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  con- 
text the  sense  is :  as  the  greatest  of  all  prophets, 
Elijah,  the  second  Moses,  was  marvelously  glori- 
fied at  the  close  of  his  career :  so  was  his  successor, 
Elisha.  also.  Though  his  end  was  not  like  that  of 
his  master,  yet  it  was  not  without  divine  testimony 
to  his  prophetical  sailing,  for  the  spirit  of  Jehovah 
made  itself  manifest  in  him  even  in  the  grave.  It 
was  not  the  dead  bones  which  brought  the  dead  to 
life,  but  the  living  God.  The  resuscitation  of  the 
dead  man  was  only  ''brought  about  by  contact  with 
the  bones  of  the  dead  prophet,  because  God  de- 
sired thereby  to  show  to  His  people  that  the  divine 
energy,  which  had  been  active  in  Elisha.  had  not, 
by  his  death,  disappeared  from  Israel"  (Keil  Com- 
mentor,  Ed.  of  1845).  This  shows  that  it  is  as 
great  an  error  to  charge  the  writer  with  ascribing 
to  the  bones  of  Elisha  a  magical,  miraculous  pow- 
er, as  to  refer  to  this  narrative  as  a  proof  of  the 
miraculous  efficacy  of  relics.  "This  instance," 
says  Starke,  "  proves  nothing  in  behalf  of  the  rel- 
ics of  saints  and  their  misuse  in  the  Romish  Church, 
for  it  was  not  the  bones  of  Elisha.  but  the  power 
of  God,  which  made  this  dead  man  live.  The  Church 
did  not  then,  and  has  never  since,  dug  up  the  bones 
of  Elisha.  much  less  encased  them  in  gold  and  sil- 
ver, and  given  them  to  the  people  to  kiss  and  rev- 
erence, as  is  done  under  the  papacy,  in  order  to 
gain  favor  with  God,  for  which  there  is  neither 
precept  nor  example  in  the  Scriptures."  Neither 
is  it  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  typical  and 
allegorical  method  of  interpretation.  J.  Lange 
says:  ''The  chief  object  (of  this  miracle)  was  to 
affirm  the  doctrine  of  the  future,  universal  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.  Elisha  was,  therefore,  in  this 
point,  a  type  of  Christ."  In  like  manner,  Krum- 
raacher  says,  basing  his  view  on  Sir.  xlviii.  13,  that 
the  corpse  of  Elisha  prophesied  of  the  "  flowing, 
new-creating,  life-giving,  miraculous  power,  which 
was  to  be  poured  out  in  the  world  through  the  death 
of  his  great  anti-type,  Jesus  Christ."  This  latter 
notion  is  inapt,  because  life  and  resurrection  pro- 
ceed, not  from  the  crucified  and  dead,  but  from  the 
risen.  Christ.  Cassel  (Der  Prophet  Elisa,  s.  162  sq.) 
even  finds  the  prophetical  spirit  represented  in  the 
I  "ii  Elisha,  and  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  dead 
man  restored  to  life.  He  says:  "  When  the  spirit 
of  the  prophets  breathed  over  Israel  like  an  even- 
ing wind,  then  the  nation  rose  again,  became  living, 
and  made  all  live  whom  its  word  touched.  All  the 
lead    who   fall   upon  prophecy  rise   aga'n   to  life. 


Elisha  is  the  prophetic  law,  whosoever  in  Israel 
believes  on  it  experiences  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  miracle  at  Elisha'l 
grave  is  a  type — but  since  all,  Jews  and  heathen, 
alike  become  living  at  the  grave  of  Christ  through 
repentance  and  faith,  no  dead  man's  bone  any  longer 
restores  to  life."  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  that 
such  interpretations  have  no  foundation  in  the  text. 
[Scarcely  a  better  means  of  exposing  their  frivolity 
could  be  found  than  to  translate  them.  They  are 
inflated,  rhetorical  inventions.  When  they  are 
translated  literally,  they  appear  to  be  scarcely 
more  than  ridiculous  and  incoherent  jargon.  The 
principal  utility  of  quoting  them  is  to  keep  before 
us  a  warning  of  the  pitfalls  which  environ  the  sci- 
ence of  interpretation. — W.  G.  S.]  Finally,  the 
naturalistic  interpretation  of  this  incident,  accord- 
ing to  which  "an  apparently  dead  man,  when  he 
was  thrown  into  the  grave  of  Elisha,  was  restored 
to  life  by  the  violent  shock  of  the  fall "  (Exeget. 
Handbuch  on  the  passage ;  Baur,  Hebr.  Mythologie, 
ii.  s.  197;  Jahn,  Einleitimg  in's  A.  T.  ii.  1.  s.  261) 
may  be  regarded  as  antiquated  and  abandoned. 
Thenius  says:  "The  incident  may  have  occurred 
very  naturally,"  but  does  not  tell  how.  Knobe1'* 
remark:  There  is  something  analogous  in  the  le- 
gend that  the  ground,  where  Amphiaraus  lay 
buried,  prophesied  (Cicero, '  De  Divin.  i.  40),"  rests 
upon  an  entire  misconception  of  the  aim  and  sig- 
nificance of  the  miracle. 

[This  might  be  regarded  as  a  test  case  among  the 
Old  Testament  miracles.  It  is  very  doubtful  if  many 
readers  will  find  themselves  satisfied  with  the  above 
discussion  of  it.  The  notion  that  Elisha  was  a  "  con- 
structive" prophet,  in  contrast  with  Elijah,  who  was 
"destructive,"  is  a  mere  whim.  The  fondness  for 
historical  parallels  and  contrasts  seduces  many 
into  finding  coincidences,  correspondences,  and 
contrasts  where  none  exist  out  of  the  imagination 
of  the  writer.  Elijah  and  Elisha  differed  some- 
what in  character,  it  is  true,  but  they  must  be 
taken  together  as  two  men  who  worked  with  the 
same  general  method,  under  very  similar  circum- 
stances, and  towards  the  same  ends.  There  is  no 
ground  for  any  such  contrast  as  is  here  affirmed. 
Yet  this  contrast  is  made  to  be,  in  Bahr's  explana- 
tion of  the  miracle,  after  all  verbiage  is  stripped 
from  it,  the  motive  of  this  wonderful  event.  God 
bore  testimony  to  Elisha's  calling  even  after  his 
death,  and  this  testimony  took  the  form  of  the  res- 
toration of  a  dead  man  to  life  by  physical  contact 
with  the  bones  of  the  dead  prophet,  because  Elisha 
had  been  a  constructing,  lifs-g:-™  pr?ph:t.  01 
course,  an  affirmed  miracle  would  not  be  disproved, 
if  we  did  not  see  the  necessity  for  it,  but  no  miracle 
recorded  in  Scripture  would  seem  more  superflu- 
ous than  one  which  was  intended  to  ratify  the 
calling  of  Elisha  as  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  after  his 
death.  As  for  the  authority  of  Siraeh,  it  is  not 
worth  while  to  go  into  it.  His  panegyric  is  poeti- 
cal and  rhetorical  in  form,  and  when  he  says,  for 
instance,  that  "  the  body  (of  Elishal  prophesied  in 
the  tomb,"  although  there  is  a  reference  to  this 
passage,  and  although  it  is  a  perfectly  justifiable 
thing  for  him  to  refer  to  it  in  this  poetical  strain  in 
the  course  of  such  a  composition  as  that  he  was 
making,  yet  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  these  words 
could  be  reduced  to  any  statement  which  would 
be  available  for  critical  and  exegetical  purposes. 
The  attempts  to  lend  significance  to  this  incident, 
on  one  side  and  on  the  other,  are  all  failures.    Tin 


CHAPTER  XIII.  1-25. 


145 


Bimple  statement  of  the  text  is  that  an  incursion 
of  Moabites  interrupted  a  funeral.  The  corpse 
was  hastily  thrown  into  the  sepulchre  of  Elisha, 
and  when  it  touched  the  bones  of  the  prophet,  the 
man  returned  to  life.  The  remarkable  dramatic 
minuteness  of  the  description  in  ver.  21:  "when 
the  dead  man  came  and  touched  the  bones  of  the 
prophet,  he  revived,"  shows  that  the  resuscitation 
was  dependent  on,  and,  we  may  say,  caused  by 
the  physical  contact,  according  to  the  convic- 
tion of  the  writer  of  the  narrative.  Different 
persons  will  receive  this  story  in  different  ways, 
according  to  their  theological  and  philosophical 
prepossessions.  Some  will  see  in  it  a  popular 
legend  or  myth  which  insisted  on  glorifying 
the  prophet  by  ascribing  miraculous  efficacy  to 
his  bones  after  his  death,  a  mere  legend  which 
grew  up  in  the  course  of  time,  but  had  no  histori- 
cal foundation.  Others  will  simply  take  the  story 
as  it  is  given  as  an  indisputable  fact,  and  will  go 
no  farther  than  the  record  goes.  It  is  not  stated 
that  the  bones  of  the  prophet  were  ever  tested  again 
to  see  if  they  would  repeat  the  miracle,  or  that  any 
other  persons  than  this  one  were  ever  restored, 
and  it  is  not  stated  why  the  miracle  was  performed 
at  all.  Those  who  adopt  this  second  course  must 
decline  to  speculate  on  these  questions.  They 
must  assume  that,  for  some  reasons  unknown, 
God,  on  a  single  occasion,  attached  to  the  hones 
of  the  prophet  this  efficacy.  They  must  decline  to 
deduce  general  inferences  from  this  incident.  Oth- 
ers again  will  go  still  farther,  and  infer  that  the 
sanctity  of  the  man  was  due  to  the  indwelling  of 
".he  Holy  Spirit,  that  this  became  physically  inhe- 
rent in  the  remains  of  his  body,  that  his  bones, 
therefore,  had  miraculous  efficacy,  and  that  the 
oones  of  other  individuals  of  equal  sanctity  will 
have  equal  efficacy.  It  is  a  development  and  ex- 
tension of  the  second  view,  and  it  elevates  the  iso- 
lated instance  into  a  law.  In  this  way  the  story 
is  made  to  lend  support  to  the  use  of  relics.  It  is 
remarked  above,  in  reference  to  this,  that  it  was 
not  the  prophet's  bone,  but  the  power  of  God. 
which  wrought  the  miracle.  No  one  would  assert 
anything  else  of  the  use  of  any  relic.  It  is  clearly 
stated  that  the  resuscitation  depended  upon  the 
physical  contact  with  the  physical  object,  and  the 
latter  had  mysterious  and  supernatural  efficacy  in- 
herent in  it,  which  it  could  only  have  acquired  as 
part  of  the  body  of  a  man  who  had  been  marked 
by  extraordinary  tpiritual  superiority.  That,  how- 
ever, is  the  principle  which  lies  at  the  root  of  the 
use  and  veneration  of  relics. — W.  G.  S.] 

4.  King  Jehoash  did  not  indeed  renounce  the 
worship  of  Jeroboam's  calves,  but  he  was  one  of 
the  best  among  the  kings  of  the  northern  king- 
dom. This  much  is  clear  from  the  story  of  his 
interview  with  Elisha,  if  from  nothing  more.  We 
do  not  hear  that  any  other  one  of  the  four  kings, 
under  whom  the  prophet  lived,  stood  in  similar  re- 
lations to  him.  Even  though  the  tears  which  he 
shed  at  the  prophet's  death-bed  were  not  tears  of 
penitence,  and  of  a  "lively  regret  for  his  past  be- 
havior towards  the  prophet"  (Krummacher),  yet 
they  certainly  show  how  deeply  he  was  touched 
by  the  distress  of  Israel,  and  how  helpless  he  felt 
at  the  departure  of  the  prophet.  By  his  exclama- 
tion :  " My  Father!  "  &c,  he  proclaimed  to  all  who 
stood  by  that  the  prophet  was  more  to  him  than 
all  the  military  force  which  still  remained.  He 
then  goes  on  to  do  what  the  prophet  commands 
10 


him,  as  a  servant  obeys  his  master.  He  desisted 
after  shooting  three  times,  not,  as  Krummacher 
thinks,  from  fear  of  condescending  below  his  royal 
dignity,  but  from  shame  and  fear  of  demanding  toe 
much  [or  rather,  because  what  was  done  three 
times  was  thought  to  be  completely  done.  See 
Exeg.  note  on  ver.  19.]  He  took  courage,  and  soon 
showed  himself  a  bold  and  victorious  soldier,  both 
in  his  war  with  Syria,  and  in  that  with  Amaziah 
(see  chap.  xiv.). 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-13.  See  Histor.  and  Eth.  The  history 
of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  under  Jehoahaz  shows  us 
[a)  God's  severity,  and  (b)  God's  goodness.  Rom. 
xi.  22:  cf.  Siracli  v.  6  sq  ;  xvi.  12. — Starke:  Men 
who  have  a  personal  interest  in  deeply  rooted  cus- 
toms or  traditions,  are  very  loath  to  see  them  over- 
thrown and  abandoned,  although  they  often  thereby 
draw  down  God's  judgments  by  their  own  hands. — 
Vers.  3  and  4.  How  hard  it  often  is  to  bring  a  man, 
who  has  turned  away  from  the  living  God  and  from 
His  word,  to  seek  the  Lord's  face.  Jehoahaz  had 
to  be  pushed  to  the  last  extremity  by  the  enemy, 
and  tc  be  most  deeply  humiliated,  before  he  called 
upon  the  Lord  and  saw  where  help  is  to  be  found 
in  all  distress  (Isai.  xxvi.  16). — Vers.  4  and  5.  Ber- 
leb.  Bibel:  The  Lord  heard  him  and  thereby  showed 
distinctly  how  easily  He  may  be  moved  to  show 
mercy,  if  we  will  only  bring  ourselves  to  ask  Him 
in  humility  and  sincere  penitence. — Starke  :  Faith- 
ful Christian  I  If  God  heard  Jehoahaz,  how  much 
more  will  He  hear  thee,  if  thou  callest  upon  Him. 
— The  Lord  gave  Israel  a  deliverer,  but  Jehoahaz 
did  not  live  to  see  him.  God  hears  the  cries  of 
those  who  earnestly  call  upon  Him.  and  helps  them, 
but  the  time  and  place  and  manner  of  His  aid  are 
retained  in  His  own  discretion.  Do  not  despair  if 
thy  prayer  does  not  seem  to  be  heard,  and  the  Lord 
delays  His  assistance.  He  knows  the  fitting  sea- 
sons and  knows  what  is  useful  for  us. — Vers.  5  and 
6.  The  Lord  gave  Israel  a  temporal  saviour  in  its 
hour  of  physical  need;  to  us  He  has  given  a  spir- 
itual Saviour,  who  can  and  will  save  us  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  greatest  of  all  enemies:  sin,  death, 
Satan,  and  Hell  (Luke  l.  69-71).  What  can  we  ex- 
pect, if  it  must  be  said  of  us  also :  Yet  they  did 
not  renounce  their  sins. — Richter:  Many  a  one 
prays,  like  Jehoahaz,  in  his  time  of  distress,  and 
when  the  trouble  is  past,  the  good  impulses  quickly 
disappear  again.  Ver.  7.  Wurt.  Sumji.  :  No  nation 
is  so  great  and  mighty  that  God  cannot  take  away 
its  might  and  make  it  so  small  and  slight  that  it  is 
only  like  dust  which  the  wind  scatters  (Ps.  xviii. 
42).  Therefore,  ye  godless  1  plume  yourselves  not 
so  much  upon  your  strength  (Ps.  lxxv.  5).  Look 
at  the  chaff,  how  quickly  it  is  scattered  ;  so  shall  it 
be  with  your  strength.  Vers.  14-21.  Elisha's  End. 
(a)  His  death-bed,  vers.  14-19.  (6)  His  grave, 
vers.  20-21.  Vers.  14-17.  Krummacher:  The 
sick-bed.  (a)  Elisha  in  illness ;  (6)  bewailed  by 
the  king ;  (c)  but  a  prophet  until  his  latest  breath. 
— Vers.  14-19.  King  Jehoash  at  the  death-bed  of 
Elisha.  (a)  He  weeps  and  laments  :  (b)  He  is  con- 
soled and  strengthened. — How  did  Elisha  pass 
away  from  earth  ?  Sick  and  weakened  by  age — 
(his  lot  was  the  ordinary  one  of  mortals ;  he  also 
had  to  pass  away  into  darkness  and  death,  however 
much  he  had  wrought  and  fought  and  labored,  Ps 


146 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


xe.  10  and  12.  God  has  ordained  sickness  before 
death,  that  we  may  set  our  house  in  order,  may 
leek  refuge  in  the  mercy  of  God,  and  may  ponder 
tvhat  is  our  sole  consolation,  in  life  and  in  death) 
— yet,  as  a  man  of  God.  (In  spite  of  weakness 
and  physical  decay,  he  is  strong  and  firm ;  lie  asks 
no  help  from  men,  but  he,  the  dying  one,  consoles 
and  strengthens  the  living.  His  last  word  is  a 
promise  of  victory.  The  words  of  Isaiah  [xl.  29- 
31]  are  verified  in  him.) — Yer.  14.  It  is  rarely 
recognized  how  great  and  irreparable  is  the  loss  of 
a  true  man  of  God,  a  great  benefactor,  and  a  faith- 
ful servant,  until  he  is  gone.- — King  Jehoash  was 
not  ashamed  to  come  to  the  dying  prophet,  and  to 
confess  with  tears  his  own  helplessness;  but  how 
many  shun  such  holy  men,  and  are  glad  if  they 
never  need  have  anything  to  do  with  them. — Yer. 
15  sq.  From  the  example  of  Elisha,  we  see  how 
one  who  can  say:  "The  Lord  is  my  strength  and 
song,  and  is  become  my  salvation  "  (Ps.  cxviii.  14). 
stands  before  the  gates  of  eternity ;  proclaiming  sal- 
vation, extending  blessings,  sure  of  victory.  There 
is  no  greater  thing  than  a  man  who,  in  the  face  of 
death,  can  cry:  "0  death!  where  is  thy  sting," 
&c.  (1  Cor.  xv.  55.  57). — Krcmmacuer:  Here  we 
see  Elisha's  patriotism.  If  we  would  know  what 
true  love  of  one's  fatherland  is,  let  us  ask  the 
prophet.  In  his  case  it  received  a  divine  conse- 
cration. It  is  truly  touching  to  see  with  what  ten- 
derness the  prophets  enfold  in  their  hearts  their 
country  and  people,  even  when  they  see  in  them 
little  but  spiritual  death,  decay,  and  corruption, 
and  experience  from  their  fellow-countrymen  little 
but  bitterness,  hate,  and  persecution. — Yers.  18-19. 
Berleb.  Bibel  :  Cease  not  to  shoot  arrows  of  love 
into  the  heart  of  God,  so  shall  one  arrow  of  deliver- 
ance after  another  come  back  to  thee  from  the 
Lord,  and  be  given  to  thee  in  the  word  of  truth. 
So  shalt  thou  smite  thy  spiritual  foes  and  tread 
them  under  foot  even  more  completely  than  Jeho- 
ash did  the  Syrians. — Roos:  The  cowardly  unbe- 
lief of  men  causes  that  God  cannot  reveal  His  glory 
in  some  places  as  he  gladly  would  (Mark  vi.  o).  and 
that  their  way  is  not  made  so  easy  for  them  as  God 
would  be  willing  to  make  it  (Prov.  iv.  12).  The 
measure  of  the  victory  depends  upon  the  measure 
of  the  faith.  The  Lord  said  to  the  centurion  of 
Capernaum  :  "  As  thou  hast  believed,  so  be  it  done 
unto  thee  "  (Matt.  viii.  13).  He  who  is  called  to 
execute  a  work  for  God  may  not  stop  and  desist 
according  to  his  own  good  judgment,  but  must  go 
on  in  it  tirelessly  and  faithfully,  till  the  Lord  com- 
mands him  to  cease. — Calw.  Bibel:  Many  enemies 
are  to  be  conquered,  many  tests  to  be  endured. 


Faith  must  hold  firm  until  the  end.  When  on« 
battle  is  won,  the  conflict  is  not  over.  How  much 
is  it  to  be  regretted  when  one  only  half  believes, 
half  obeys,  or  when  one,  after  a  good  beginning, 
desists. 

Yers.  20  and  21.  The  Miracle  at  the  Grave  of 
Elisha ;  its  Object  and  its  Significance,  (a)  for  ths 
prophet  himself;  (t)  for  us  all  (see  Hist.  §  3). 
Vox  Gebxach  :  The  Lord  showed  thereby  that  He 
was  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living;  that 
the  dead  in  Him  live  for  Him  (Matt.  xxii.  32);  that 
the  spirit  of  life  which  proceeds  from  Him  spreads 
life  and  blessing  everywhere  where  it  comes,  and 
that  it  is  superior  to  death  and  decay. — The  dead 
cannot  make  the  dead  to  live ;  the  spirit  of  the  Lord 
alone  penetrates  even  into  the  place  of  corruption, 
and  changes  it  into  a  place  of  life  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  i 
sq.).  \Ye,  therefore,  rest  our  confidence  and  hope, 
not  upon  dead  men's  bones,  but  upon  the  God  who 
makes  all  things  to  live,  and  who  raised  up  from 
the  dead  the  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep.  If  wb 
are  buried  with  Him,  we  have  this  consolation: 
the  God  who  raised  Him  will  also  raise  us  to  life 
through  His  might  (1  Cor.  vi.  14;  2  Cor.  iv.  14; 
Col.  ii.  12;  Rom.  vi.  4).— Berleb.  Bibel:  The  pre- 
cept and  example  of  men  of  God  can  have  power, 
even  after  their  death,  to  the  resuscitation  of  those 
who  are  spiritually  dead,  if  the  latter  will  only 
study  and  follow  them  (Hebr.  xiii.  7).  This  is  the 
way  in  which  the  bones  of  the  dead  are  truly  effi- 
cacious. If  thou  art  dead  in  sin,  cast  thyself  into 
the  tomb  of  the  Saviour  in  humility  and  self-renun- 
ciation, so  shalt  thou  revive  and  rise  to  life  again 
as  He  did,  for  he  who  truly  grasps  the  virtue  of 
the  death  of  Christ  (comes  into  contact  with  that 
Dead  One)  is  thus  revived  to  the  true  life  of  his  soul. 

Yer.  23  sq.  Calw.  Bibel:  When  God  turns 
Himself  from  us.  then  we  are  given  over  to  wretch- 
edness ;  when  He  turns  back  to  us  again,  then  we 
find  salvation.  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  had  been 
dead  for  a  thousand  years,  and  yet  their  blessing 
was  efficacious. — WItrt.  Susdi.  :  God  does  not  take 
pleasure  in  our  ruin,  but  remembers,  even  in  the 
midst  of  His  anger,  His  promised  grace  and  the 
covenant  which  He  has  made  with  us  (Luke  i.  72 
sq.). — Cramer:  Tyrants  are  rods  by  means  of  which 
God  chastises  His  people ;  but  finally  the  tyrants 
themselves  are  chastised  by  God  and  cast  into  the 
fire. — Yer.  25.  Starke:  It  was  unjustly  obtained 
and  quickly  lost.  Unrighteous  wealth  rarely  comes 
to  the  third  generation  (Jes.  xxxiii.  1). — Richter: 
Israel  is  to-day,  as  it  was  then  (ver.  23),  a  covenant 
people  of  God,  and  is  not  rejected  entirely  and 
forever  (Rom.  xi.). 


B. —  The  Reign  of  Amaziah  in  Judah,  and  that  of  Jeroboam  II.  in  Israel. 
Chap.  XIY.  1-29.    (2  Chron.  XXV.) 


1  In  the  second  year  of  Joash  son  of  Jehoahaz  king  of  Israel   reigned   [omit 

2  reigned]  Amaziah  the  son  of  Joash  king  of  Judah  [became  king].  He  was 
twenty  and  five  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  [he]  reigned  twenty  and 
nine  years  in  Jerusalem.      And  bis  mother's  name  was  Jehoaddan  of  Jerusalem. 

3  Ainl  he  did  ///"/  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  yet  not  like  David  hii 
♦ather:  he  did  according  to  [in]  all  things  as  Joash  his  father  did   [had   done} 


CHAPTER  XIV.  1-29.  147 


4  Howbeit  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away:  as  yet  [omit  as  yet]  the  people 
did  sacrifice  [were  yet  sacrificing ']  and  burnt  [burning]  incense  on  the  high 
places. 

5  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  the  kingdom  was  confirmed  in  lus  hand,  that 

6  he  slew  his  servants  which  had  slain  the  king  his  father.  But  the  children  ot 
the  murderers  he  slew  not :  according  unto  that  which  is  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  wherein  [which]  the  Lord  commanded,  saying,  The  fathers 
shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,  nor   the   children  be  put  to  death   for 

7  the  fathers :  but  every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  [die 2]  for  his  own  sin.  He 
slew  of  Edom  in  the  valley  of  salt  ten  thousand,  [:]  and  [omit  and — He  also]  took 
Selah  by  war,  and  called  the  name  of  it  Joktheel  unto  this  day. 

8  Then  Amaziah  sent  messengers  to  Jehoash,  the  son  of  Jehoahaz  son  of  Jehu, 

9  king  of  Israel,  saying,  Come,  let  us  look  one  another  in  the  face.3  And  Jehoash 
the  king  of  Israel  sent  to  Amaziah  king  of  Judah,  saying,  The  thistle  [brier] 
that  was  in  Lebanon  sent  to  the  cedar  that  was  in  Lebanon,  saying,  Give  thy 
daughter  to  my  son  to  wife :  and  there  passed  by  a  wild  beast  that  was  in  Leba- 

10  non,  and  trode  down  the  thistle  [brier].  Thou  hast  indeed  smitten  Edom,  and 
thine  heart  hath  lifted  thee  up:  glory  of  this  [exult!],  and  tarry  at  home:  for 
why  shouldest  [wilt]  thou  meddle  to  thy  hurt  [provoke  a  calamity],  that  thou 

11  shouldest  tall,  even  thou,  and  Judah  with  thee?  But  Amaziah  would  not  hear. 
Therefore  Jehoash  king  of  Israel  went  up;  and  he  and  Amaziah  king  of  Judah 
looked  one  another  in  the  face  at  Bcth-shemesh,  which  belongrth  [belongeth]  to 

12  Judah.    And  Judah  was  put  to  the  worse  before  Israel:  and  they  fled  every  man 

13  to  their  [his]  tents  [tent].  And  Jehoash  king  of  Israel  took  Amaziah  king  of  Ju- 
dah, the  son  of  Jehoash  the  son  of  Ahaziah,  at  Beth-shemesh,  ;-.nd  came  4  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  brake  down  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  from  the  gate  of  Ephraim  unto 

14  the  corner  gate,  four  hundred  cubits.  And  he  took  all  the  gold  and  silver,  and 
all  the  vessels  that  were  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures 
of  the  king's  house,  and  hostages,6  and  returned  to  Samaria. 

15  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoash  which  he  did,  and  his  might,  and  how 
he  fought  with  Amaziah  king  of  Judah,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the 

16  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel?  And  Jehoash  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was 
buried  in  Samaria  with  the  kings  of  Israel ;  and  Jeroboam  his  son  reigned  in 
his  stead. 

17  And  Amaziah  the  son  of  Joash  king  of  Judah  lived  after  the  death  of  Jeho- 

18  ash  son  of  Jehoahaz  king  of  Israel  fifteen  years.  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of 
Amaziah,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of 

19  Judah?     Now  they  made  a  conspiracy  against  him  in  Jerusalem:  and  he  fled 

20  to  Lachish  ;  but  they  sent  after  him  to  Lachish,  and  slew  him  there.  And  they 
brought  him  on  horses:  and  he  was  buried  at  Jerusalem  with  his  fathers  in  the 
city  of  David. 

21  And  all  the  people  of  Judah  took  Azariah,  which  [who]  teas  sixteen  years 

22  old,  and  made  him  king  instead  of  his  father  Amaziah.  He  built  Elath,  and 
restored  it  to  Judah,  after  that  the  king  slept  with  his  fathers. 

23  In  the  fifteenth  year  of  Amaziah  the  son  of  Joash  king  of  Judah,  Jeroboam 
the  son  of  Joash  king  of  Israel  began  to  reign  in  Samaria,  and  reigned  forty  and 

24  one  years.  And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord:  he  de- 
parted not  from  all  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to 

25  sin.  He  restored  the  coast  of  Israel  from  the  entering  of  .[near"]  Hamath  unto 
the  sea  of  the  plain,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  which  he 
spake  by  the  hand  of  his  servant  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai,  the  prophet,  which 

26  was  of  Gath-hepher.  For  the  Lord  saw  the  affliction  of  Israel,  that  it  teas  very 
bitter: '  for  there  was  not  any  shut  up,  nor  any  left  [neither  any  of  age,  nor  any 

27  under  age],  nor  any  helper  for  Israel.  And  the  Lord  said  not  that  he  would 
blot  out  the  name  of  Israel  from  under  heaven :  but  he  saved  them  by  the  hand 

28  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Joash.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jeroboam,  and  all 
that  he  did,  and  his  might,  how  he  warred,  and  how  he  recovered  Damascus, 
and  Hamath,  which  belonged  to  Judah,  for  Israel,  are  they  not  written  in  the 


148 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


29  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel?  And  Jeroboam  slept  with  his 
fathers,  even  with  the  kings  of  Israel ;  and  Zachariah  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead. 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Yer.  4.— [The  participle  here  marks  an  event  which  was  going  on  at  the  same  time  with  another.  Examples  of  thil 
ire  numerous.     Cf.  1  Kings  i.  5;  iii.  26;  v.  24;  2  Kings  viii.  5. 

3  Yer.  6. — The  keri  is  the  *esult  of  a  desire  to  reproduce  literally  the  text  of  Deuteronomy,  but  it  is  unnecessary. 
Read  the  chetib,  fTO'  ■ 

*  Ver.  S. — [DSJD  ilNin},    D*J9  is  ace.  of  the  part  affected.     "Let  us  look  upon  one  another,  as  to  the  face"  = 

"let  us  look  upon  one  another's  face,11  i.  e.,  "let  us  measure  strength  with  one  another.11    Ewald  (Lehrbuc/i,  §  2S1,  o) 
explains  it ;  ■'  Let  us  look  upon  one  another  as  to  the  person,11  i.  e.,  in  person. 

*  Yer.  13. — [The  keri  is  unnecessary.     Punctuate  the  chetib  lJOs1  • 

*  Ver.  14. — [Literally:  "Sons  of  pledges." 

*  Ver.  25—  [X13?JD  would  be  literally  from  as  far  as ;  i.  «.,  it  expresses  that  he  penetrated  np  as  far  as  Hamath, 

came  near  to  that  place,  and  then  made  it  a  point  of  departure  on  the  north,  from  which  he  extended  his  conquests  south- 
ward to  the  Dead  Sea. 

'  Ver.  26. — [HID  from   HID-    Gesen.  (The*,  s.  v.)  understands  it  to  mean  deep-rooted,  of  long  standing,  but  th« 

lates     nd  best  expositors  agree  to  take  HIS  in  the  sense  of  110  j  to  be  bitter. — W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  In  the  second  year  of  Joash  .  .  . 
Amaziah  .  .  .  became  king.  On  the  chro- 
nological datum  see  chap.  xiii.  1.  Ver.  3.  Instead 
of  the  words:    not  like  David,  his  father,  the 

parallel  account  in  Chronicles  (xxv.  2)  reads :  "Not 
with  all  his  heart."  The  additional  statement:  He 
did  in  all  things  as  Joash  his  father  had  done, 
shows  that  Amaziah,  in  the  first  part  of  his  reign, 
was  devoted  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  as  Joash 
was  (chap.  xii.  3),  but  that  afterwards,  especially 
after  his  victory  over  Edom,  he  introduced,  or  at 
least  tolerated,  the  worship  of  the  false  gods  of 
Edom.  as  his  father  had  permitted  the  worship  of 
Asherah  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  2,  18).  [It  is  putting  too 
great  a  strain  on  these  words  to  make  them  co^ver 
any  such  accurate  parallelism  between  the  lives 
of  the  two  kings,  especially  when  this  parallelism 
is  constructed  by  borrowing  from  the  Chronicles. 
It  is  simply  meant  that  his  general  policy,  and  the 
extent  to  which  he  conformed  to  the  demands  of 
the  Jehovah-religion,  were  modelled  upon  his  fa- 
ther's conduct. — W.  G.  S.]  The  passage  ?  Chron 
xxv.  14  does  not,  therefore,  contradict  this  verse, 
as  Thenius  and  Berthean  assert;  on  the  cont'xry, 
ver.  2  of  the  Chronicle  contains  the  same  assertion 
as  ver.  3  here.  [An  attentive  comparison  of  the 
records  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  at  this  point  reveals 
some  most  interesting  characteristics  of  each,  and 
nothing  could  be  more  mischievous  than  a  false 
effort  to  "harmonize"  and  "reconcile,"  which 
should  obliterate  these  distinguishing  characteris- 
tics. A  comparison  of  chap.  xii.  2  with  2  Chron. 
xxiv.  2  shows  a  difference  of  judgment  as  to  Jo- 
ash's  career.  (See  translator's  note  on  xii.  2.)  In 
perfect  consistency,  each  with  its  own  general 
judgment,  Kings  says  nothing  of  any  idolatry  of 
Joash,  while  Chronicles  records  such  an  error  (2 
Chron.  xxiv.  18).  Again,  Kings  approves  in  gen- 
eral of  Am.iziah's  career,  although  it  was  not  up 
to  the  standard  of  David  (chap.  xiv.  3 ;  cf.  also  xv. 
3).  Ver.  4  tells  wherein  he  failed  according  to 
this  author.  2  Chron.  xxv.  2  might  at  considered 
equivalent  to  this,  hut  ver.  14  states  the  fault  which 
the  chronicler  had  to  find  with  him,  while  Kings 
is  silent  in  regard  to  any  such  sin.     The  two  ac- 


counts are  each  consistent  with  itself,  but  they  dif- 
fer in  regard  to  their  general  estimate  of  the  ca.- 
reers  of  these  two  kings.  Thecius  and  Bertheau 
think  that  the  chronicler  inferred  from  the  misfor- 
tunes of  these  kings  that  they  must  have  been  un- 
faithful to  Jehovah,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  adopt 
so  violent  an  explanation  of  the  divergence.  The 
chronicler  either  had  more  information,  or  a  stricter 
standard. — W.  G.  S.]  On  ver.  4  see  note  on  1 
Kings  iii.  2.  On  ver.  5  cf.  chap.  xii.  21  sq.  As  it 
was  the  custom  in  the  Orient  to  put  to  death  not 
only  conspirators  themselves,  but  also  their  chil- 
dren (Curtius  TI.  11,  20;  Rosenmuller,  Altes  und 
Xeites  Morgenland,  II.  s.  59),  ver.  6  expressly  em- 
phasizes the  fact  that  Amaziah,  in  obedience  to 
Deut.  xxiv.  16,  did  not  do  this,  and  thereby  proved 
himself  to  be  a  faithful  king  according  to  the  Is- 
raelitish  standards.  The  words  :  As  it  is  written, 
&c,  are  not,  as  Thenius  asserts,  an  explanatory 
addition  by  the  "  redactor :  "  they  do  not  merely 
give  his  opinion:  they  rather  state  the  true  his- 
torical reason  why  Amaziah  acted  as  he  did.  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  from  this  passage,  that  the  author 
of  these  books  assumes  the  existence  of  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  at  that  time,  and  did  not  at  all 
suppose  that  it  was  first  composed  under  Manas- 
seh,  150  years  later,  as  modern  criticism  (Riehm) 
maintains.  We  do  not  know  whether  Amaziah 
acted  according  to  this  precept  on  his  own  motive, 
or  not.  Perhaps  he  was  exhorted  to  it  by  a  prophet 
}r  a  priest. 

Ver.  7.  He  slew  of  Edom.  The  Edomites 
revolted  from  Judah,  according  to  chap.  viii.  20, 
during  the  reign  of  Joram.  Amaziah  undertook 
to  resubjugate  them,  and  prepared  great  military 
resources  to  this  end,  as  is  narrated  in  2  Chron. 
xxv.  5  sq.  The  valley  of  salt  (2  Snm.  viii.  13;  ] 
Chron.  xviii.  12)  is  a  plain  about  two  miles  broad, 
south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  which  does  not  show  a  sigr 
of  vegetation.  It  is  now  called  El-Glwr  (Robinson, 
Palestine,  II.  488  and  450).  The  chronicler  does 
not  mention  the  capture  of  Sela,  hut  states  that 
besides  the  10,000  who  fell,  10,000  others  were 
taken  prisoners  and  thrown  from  a  rock.  Sela  lay 
south  of  the  valley  of  salt,  in  a  valley  which  was 
shut  in  by  rocks,  but  which  was  well  watered  ana 
fruitful;    it  is  the  well-known  Petra,  and  it  was  ai 


CHAPTER  XIV.  1-29. 


UM 


important  in  a  military  as  in  a  mercantile  point  of 
view.  Cf.  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  II.  s.  446  sq.  The 
new  name  given  to  this  town  by  the  victor  is  sig- 
nificant.    ^Nnp'  means  a  Deo  subactum,  in  servi- 

tutem  redactum  (Gesenius,  s.  v.).  We  see  from  the 
phrase:  unto  this  day,  that  the  original  document 
from  winch  our  author  took  the  history  of  Ama- 
ziah's  reign,  belonged  to  the  time  of  that  king,  or 
at  least  to  a  time  not  long  after  his  death.  As 
soon  as  the  city  came  into  other  hands  again,  which 
it  did  under  Ahaz  (chap.  xvi.  6),  it  certainly  lust 
that  humiliating  name.  It  is  possible  indeed  that 
it  continued  to  be  called  by  this  name  by  the  Jews, 
so  that  the  argument  is  not  conclusive,  but,  if  we 
do  not  adopt  this  hypothesis,  we  must  infer  that 
the  original  document,  in  which  stood  the  words 
"  unto  this  day,"  which  the  redactor  has  preserved, 
was  written  at  least  before  the  time  of  Ahaz.  Of 
course  this  place  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Jok- 
theel  mentioned  in  Joshua  xv.  38. 

Ter.  8.  Then  Amaziah  sent  messengers. 
This  took  place  after  the  brilliant  victory  over  the 
Edomites.  The  detailed  statement  "son  of  Jeho- 
ahaz,  son  of  Jehu,"  &c,  gives  ground  for  the  sup- 
position that  the  original  authority  for  ver.  8  sq.  is 
different  from  that  of  vers.  1-7.  [Let  us  look  one 
another  in  the  face.  See  Grammatical  on  the 
verse.  This  is  a  literal  translation.  Though  the 
formula  is  variously  explained,  yet  its  significance 
is  clear.  It  is  a  challenge  to  combat. — W.  G.  S.] 
Josephus  says  that  Amaziah  sent  a  letter  to  king 
Joash,  in  which  he  demanded  of  him  to  submit 
himself  and  people,  as  they  had  once  been  subject 
to  David  and  Solomon,  adding  that,  if  he  would 
not  do  this,  a  pitched  battle  should  decide  between 
them  which  had  the  superior  authority  (Aniiq.  ix. 
9,  2).  It  is  also  possible  that,  as  the  rabbis  say, 
the  acts  mentioned  in  2  Chron  xxv.  13  occasioned 
this  demand. — The  parable  in  ver.  9  is  not  to  be 
pressed  too  much  in  its  details.  The  main  point  is 
the  contrast  of  the  largest,  strongest,  and  most 
majestic  tree,  the  cedar,  and  the  contemptible,  weak, 
and  useless,  although  prickly,  briar  (not,  as  The- 
nius  maintains,  thistle.  Cf.  Prov.  xxvi.  9 ;  1  Sam. 
xiii.  6 ;  Job  xxxi.  40.  [The  comparison  between 
a  tree  and  a  briar  bush  is  more  correct  and  appro- 
priate than  between  a  tree  and  a  thistle]).  These 
two  stand  side  by  side  upon  Lebanon.  No  wild 
beast  can  break  down  and  crush  the  cedar,  but  it 
is  very  possible  that  this  may  occur  with  the  briar. 
It  is  more  a  proverb  than  a  parable,  like  the  story 
in  Judges  ix.  8-15.  The  words:  Give  thy  daugh- 
ter to  my  son  to  wife,  are  not  to  be  interpreted 
as  implying  that  Amaziah  had  demanded  a  daugh- 
ter of  Joash  as  a  wife  for  one  of  his  sons  (Dere- 
ser) ;  neither  is  the  explanation  that  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  is  the  daughter,  and  the  kingdom  of  Ju- 
dah  the  son  (Thenius),  a  fit  interpretation  of  the 
haughty  parable  of  the  king  of  Israel.  Only  he 
who  is  equal  to  the  father  may  demand  of  the  lat- 
ter his  daughter  as  a  wife  for  his  son,  not  one  who 
stands  as  far  below  the  father  as  the  briar  below 
the  cedar.  If  such  an  one  as  this  latter  does  make 
such  a  proposal,  he  is  guilty  of  arrogance  and  pre- 
sumption, and  he  must  expect  to  be  set  in  his 
proper  place. — Thenius'  translation  of  ver.  10: 
"Show  thy  might  at  home,"  is  not  correct,  as  we 
gee  from  2  Chron.  xxv.  19,  where  we  read:  "Thine 
heart  lifteth  thee  up  to  boast  (T33c"6);  abide  now 


at  home."  133,  in  the  hifil,  metns  to  win  honor 
or  fame  (Gesen.).  The  Vulg.  is  right  according  to 
the  sense:  contentus  esio  gloria  et  sede  tua  in  doma 
tua. — Calamity  is  here  spoken  of  as  a  hostile  power 
against  which  one  fights  in  vain  [or  rather,  in 
stricter  accordance  with  the  literal  mean  ng  of 
3  rrePFI  •  upon  which  one  makes  a  rash  ana  cause 

less  attack,  and  so  provokes  it,  brings  it  down  upon 
one's  self] 

Ver.  11.  But  Amaziah  would  not  hear. 
Beth-Shemesh  (cf.  note  on  1  Kings  iv.  9),  where 
the  two  armies  met,  was  in  Judah,  on  the  southern 
border  of  Dan,  and  therefore  much  nearer  to  Jeru- 
salem than  to  Samaria.  It  follows  that  Joash  did 
not  wait  for  the  attack  of  Amaziah,  but  anticipated 
his  movements  and  so  carried  the  war  into  the  en 
emy's  country.  Josephus  says  that  Joash  threat- 
ened the  captive  Amaziah  with  death,  if"he  did  not 
compel  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  to  open  the 
gates,  and  grant  him  free  admission  with  his  army 
into  the  city;  and  that  Amaziah,  in  fear  for  hia 
life,  brought  about  the  admission  of  the  enemy. 
This  statement,  although  it  stands  by  itself,  and 
has  no  support  from  any  other  authority,  does  not, 
at  auy  rate,  contradict  the  biblical  text.  Instead 
of  the  chetib  1X3"1,  in  ver.  13,  the  keri  offers  HQ[*\. 
In  2  Chron.  xxv.  23  there  stands  instead  of  either: 
:ins,'3,l ,  i.  «•,  "he  brought  him."     The  Sept.  have 

this  reading  in  the  verse  before  us  also  (r/jayev  av- 
tov),  and  the  Vulg.  follows:  addxu-it  eum.  Thenius, 
therefore,  adopts  this  as  the  original  reading,  but 
unnecessarily,  for  if  Joash  took  Amaziah  prisoner 
and  did  not  put  him  to  death,  it  is  a  matter  of 
course  that  he  took  him  with  him  when  he  went 
farther.  The  chronicler  simply  expresses  himself 
a  little  more  definitely.  Although  Jelioash  did  not 
need  to  besiege  Jerusalem,  yet  he  caused  a  large 
piece  of  its  wall  of  fortification  to  be  torn  down, 
from  the  gate  of  Ephraim  to  the  corner  gate.  The 
former  stood  on  the  north  side  of  the  city,  towards 
Ephraim,  and  was  also  called  the  gate  of  Benja- 
min, because  the  road  to  Ephraim  ran  through  the 
territory  of  Benjamin.  It  is  now  called  the  gate 
of  Damascus.  The  latter  was  to  the  west  of  this, 
at  the  point  where  the  wall  turned  southward :  i.  e., 
at  the  northwest  corner  of  the  city.  According  to 
Thenius  TJ?  does  not  here  denote  the  terminus  ad 

quern,  but  only  the  direction  in  which,  because  the 
distance  between  them  was  more  than  400  cubits, 
viz.,  2,000  English  feet.  The  question  arises,  how- 
ever, whether  Thenius  has  correctly  fixed  the  situ- 
ation of  the  corner-gate  on  his  plan  of  the  city,  and 
whether  the  distance  was  as  great  as  he  supposes, 
as  the  city  was  laid  out  before  the  exile.  In  de- 
scriptions of  localities,  ~JJ?  always  serves  to  define 

the  limit  up  to  which,  and  not  merely  the  direction. 
Josephus'  assertion  that  Jehoash  caused  a  breach 
(iuokott?/)  30  cubits  wide  to  be  made  in  the  wall,  and 
that  he  drove  through  this  in  a  chariot  with  the 
captive  king  by  his  side,  has  no  foundation  ic  the 
biblical  text.  Jehoash's  purpose  in  ordering  the 
wall  to  be  torn  down  was  not  to  get  a  grand  gate- 
way for  a  triumphal  entry  (Thenius),  but  to  mark 
the  city  as  captured,  and  as  lying  open  on  the  side 
of  Ephraim. — The  "hostages"  (ver.  14)  were  de- 
manded by  Jelioash  especially  because  he,  as  Jo- 
sephus expressly  states,  gave  the  king  his  freedom, 
but  desired  still  to  hold  him  in  check.  They  wert 
taken,  no  doubt,  from  the  most  important  families, 


150 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


but  they  were  hardly  sons  of  the  king  himself,  for, 
if  they  had  been,  it  would  probably  have  been  so 
stated.  The  treasures,  which  the  victor  carried 
oft"  were  not  probably  very  great  (see  chap.  xiii. 
18),  and  the  word  Q'KSCjn  seems  to  hint  at  this. 

Ver.  1 5.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts,  &e.     The 

repetition  of  the  standing  formula,  in  regard  to  Je- 
hoash,  after  it  had  once  been  used  in  chap.  xiii. 
12.  13,  has  its  explanation  probably  in  this,  that 
the  author  found  it  in  the  document  from  which  he 
took  vers.  8-1 7,  as  well  as  in  that  from  which  he 
took  chap.  xiii.  An  especial  reason  for  adopting 
this  explanation  is  that  the  formula  is  not  precisely 
the  same  here  as  in  the  former  place.  "The  name 
of  the  king  of  Israel  is  there  written  three  times 
L"NV  .  whereas  we  have  here  twice  K'XiiT .     The 

latter  form  is  preserved  throughout  the  section 
vers.  8-  17,  whereas  in  ver.  1  the  shorter  form  oc- 
curs. Here,  the  natural  succession  of  the  details  is 
observed  (death,  burial,  successor) ;  there,  there  is 
a  transposition  (death,  successor,  burial)  "  (The- 
litis;. Nevertheless,  the  author  may  have  been 
led  to  repeat  the  formula  because  ver.  17  "con- 
tains an  important  statement  which  is  connected 
with  Joash's  death,"  namely,  that  Amaziah  lived 
and  reigned  for  fifteen  years  after  Joash  died.  The 
author  felt  obliged  to  repeat  the  notice  of  Joash's 
death,  as  an  introduction  to  this  statement  (Super- 
flua  non  noctmt). 

Ver.  1  7.  And  Amaziah,  Ac.  This  chronologi- 
cal datum  stands  in  perfect  accord  with  the  ones 
before  given  in  vers.  1  and  2  and  in  chap.  xiii. 
10.  Amaziah  reigned  in  all  29  years;  15  after  Jo- 
ash's death;  therefore,  14  with  him.  As  Joash 
reigned  16  years,  Amaziah's  succession  falls  in  his 
second  year,  as  is  stated  in  ver.  1.  [See  the  trans- 
lator's note  on  ver.  22.] — If  we  bear  in  mind  that 
Amaziah's  war  with  Edom  took  place  before  that 
with  Joash,  we  are.led  to  infer  that  the  latter  took 
place  shortly  before  Joash's  death.  The  old  ex- 
positors adopted  the  supposition  that  Amaziah 
spent  the  15  years  after  Joash's  deatli  in  retire- 
ment and  contempt,  as  a  deposed  king,  and  that 
the  conspiracy  was  a  consequence  of  his  disgrace- 
ful defeat  (ver.  1 9).  There  is  no  ground  for  such 
an  hypothesis,  however,  for  if  the  conspiracy  had 
been  formed  after  that  defeat,  it  would  not  have 
been  15  years  before  it  was  consummated.  The 
chronicler  says  (chap.  xxv.  27) :  "  Now,  after  the 
time  that  Amaziah  did  turn  away  from  following 
the  Lord  (i.  e.,  from  the  time  when  he,  after  the 
victory  over  the  Edomites,  brought  their  gods  back 
to  Jerusalem  with  him,  2  Chron.  xxv.  14),  they 
made  a  conspiracy  against  him  in  Jerusalem."  This 
time  was  before  the  war  with  Joash  and  the  great 
defeat;  it  is  only  intended  to  assert  that  the  un- 
fortunate end  of  Amaziah  was  a  punishment  for 
his  apostasy.  The  conspiracy  must  have  had  some 
other  especial  cause  which  is  not  stated.  Accord- 
ing to  Theuius,  who  explains  all  the  people  of  Ju- 
dah  (ver.  21)  to  mean  the  whole  military  force,  it 
was  a  conspiracy  of  the  army.  It  may  be,  however, 
that  a  general  dissatisfaction  arose  among  the  peo- 
ple from  other  causes,  and  that  this  finally  led  to 
the  conspiracy. — Lachish  was  originally  a  royal 
city  of  the  Canaanites  in  the  lowlands  of  southern 
Palestine.  Joshua  conquered  it,  and  afterwards 
gave  ii  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Jos.  x.  31;  xv.  39). 
Rehoboam  fortified  it  against  llie  Philistines  (2 
Ohron,  ii.  9),     ajnaziah  Bed  to  this  place,  proba- 


bly because  he  could  easily  flee  across  the  froutiei 
from  there  if  the  necessity  should  arise.  The  con- 
spirators seem  to  have  followed  upon  his  heels. 
According  to  ver.  20  it  is  probable  that  they  brought 
the  slain  king  back  to  Jerusalem  in  his  own  royal 
chariot. 

Ver.  21.  And  all  the  people  of  Judah  took, 
&c.  It  is  remarkable  that,  in  this  case  also,  the 
conspirators  did  not  take  one  of  their  own  number 
and  make  him  king,  but,  as  in  chap.  xii.  22,  they 
adhered  to  the  succession  of  the  house  of  Davii 
It  is  doubtful  whether  Azariah  was  the  oldest  son 
of  Amaziah,  for  it  is  most  probable  that  the  latter, 
at  the  age  of  54,  when  he  died,  left  sons  older 
than  this  boy  of  16  years.     The  expression  }np' 

appears  to  imply  that  they  chose  this  boy  on  ac- 
count of  some  peculiar  characteristics. — The  new 
king  is  called  here  and  in  chap.  xv.  1,  6,  7,  8,  17, 
23,  27,  iTHtJ?;  on  the  contrary,  in  chap.  xv.  13,  31, 

32,  34,  as  in  the  Chronicle  (except  1  Chron.  iii.  12), 
[and  in  Isai.  i.  1 ;  vi.  1 ;  Hos.  i.  1  ;  Amos  i.  1 , 
Zach.  xiv.  5],  he  is  called  rt'ty .  Against  the  ex- 
planation that  n,_ITJJ  is  an  error  of  the  copyist, 
arising  from  the  similarity  of  the  "l  and  the  ' ,  is 
the  consideration  that  the  error,  if  it  be  an  error, 
is  repeated  so  often.  "We  must  rather  suppose 
that  the  king  really  had  both  these  names,  which 
are  very  closely  connected  "  (Keil).  [In  the  ed.  of 
1865,  he  says  that  they  are  used  "promiscu- 
ously."] Vatablus :  duo  nomitia  habuit  ajjinia:  For- 
titudu  Domini,  et  Auxilium  Domini.  [The  two 
names  are  at  least  very  nearly  equivalent  in  ety- 
mological meaning:  rp"lTJ?  (he  whose)  Help  (is) 
Jehovah ;  IVTV  (lie  whose)  Strength  (is)  Jehovah. 
Bertheau  calls  attention  to  a  similar  case.  In 
1  Chron.  xxv.  4,  among  the  sons  of  Heman,  is  one 
who  is  called  Uzziel.  A  comparison  of  the  names 
in  the  subsequent  repetition  shows  that  he  is  the 
person  called  Azareel  in  ver.  18. — W.  G.  S.]  This 
is  quite  possible  in  view  of  the  frequency  with 
which  names  are  changed  in  the  Orient.  The 
name  Uzziah  seems  to  have  been  generally  used 
after  his  accession  to  the  throne  (see  the  places 
where  it  occurs  in  the  later  prophets,  which  are 
quoted  above). — Ver.  22.  On  Elath,  see  note  on 
1  Kings  ix.  26.  Either  Amaziah  did  not  push  for- 
ward as  far  as  this  important  port  of  commerce,  in 
his  expedition  against  the  Edomites,  or  else  he 
was  unable  to  retain  possession  of  it  after  his  de- 
feat by  Joash,  at  Beth  Shemesh ;  but  Edom  was  not 
a  valuable  possession  for  Judah  except  as  it  in- 
volved the  possession  of  Elath.  That  the  new 
king  took  this  city  and  "  built "  it,  that  is,  either 
extended  it  or  strengthened  it,  was  a  most  im- 
portant event  for  the  kingdom,  and  especially  for 
his  own  authority.  That  is  why  it  is  here  men- 
tioned by  anticipation  at  the  beginning  of  his 
reign,  whereas  his  further  history  is  not  given 
until  later,  in  chap.  xv.  1-7.  We  cannot  infer 
from  the  clause  :  after  that  the  king  slept  with 
his  fathers,  that  Azariah  undertook  this  expedi- 
tion "at  once''  (Thenius),  and  advanced  victo 
riously  to  Elath,  for  he  was,  at  the  time  of  his 
accession,  a  boy  of  16  years.  However,  it  may 
well  have  been  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign. 
[This  clause  is  very  enigmatical.  No  satisfactory 
explanation  of  it  has  ever  been  offered.  It  is  said 
that  a  certain  king  died,  another  suceeedid,  and 
when  the  author  goes  on  to  mention  the  acts  ot 


CHAPTER  XIV.  1-29. 


151 


the  latter's  reign,  he  says  that  lie  did  a  certain 
thing  after  the  {former)  king  was  dead.  It  is  either 
a  most  idle  and  meaningless  statement,  or  else  it 
has  a  significance  which  has  not  yet  been  per- 
ceived. It  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  suspicion  that 
it  alludes  to  the  fact  that  Azariah  was  made  king 
after  his  father  was  captured  by  Jehoash,  and  be- 
fore he  was  released,  and  that  he  did  this  after  his 
father's  release  and  death.  This  would  account 
for  Azariah's  youth  at  the  time  he  was  made  king. 
Ver.  22  would  then  follow  ver.  14  in  the  connec- 
tion of  the  narrative.  In  view  of  the  form  and 
substance  of  the  intervening  verses  this  is  not  at 
all  impossible.  After  ver.  1 4  the  author  goes  on 
to  *ell  (a)  what  became  of  Jehoash,  (b)  what  be- 
came of  Amaziah,  (c)  what  the  people  of  Judah  did 
after  their  king  was  captured  (ver.  22).  The  im- 
mediate release  of  Amaziah  by  Jehoash  rests  only 
upon  the  authority  of  Josephus.  In  connection 
with  this  the  other  remarkable  datum  in  ver.  17 
may  be  noticed :  Amaziah  lived  15  years  after 
Joash.  (It  is  worth  noticing  that  it  does  not  say 
that  he  reigned.)  Ewald  understands  this  to  mean 
that  he  lived  as  a  captive,  and  was  finally  released 
by  Jeroboam ;  but  he  does  not  suppose  that  Aza- 
riah was  made  king  until  after  his  father's  assassi- 
nation. This  would  leave  Judah  kingless  for  15 
years,  and  force  us  to  assume  that  its  king  was 
assassinated  as  soon  as  he  was  released.  If,  how- 
ever, we  suppose  that,  after  Amaziah  was  taken 
away  captive,  his  son  was  made  king ;  that  when 
Amaziah  was  released  and  returned  to  Judah,  he 
was  not  welcome  there;  and  that  the  conspiracy 
was  formed  to  remove  him,  we  have  a  consistent 
theory  throughout.  With  regard,  then,  to  the 
chronology:  Chap.  xv.  1  says  that  Azariah  be- 
came king  in  the  27th  of  Jerob.  II.  This  is  incon- 
sistent with  every  other  chronological  datum,  and 
is  universally  sacrificed  (see  the  Comm.  on  the 
verse).  Zachariah's  accession  in  the  38th  of  Aza- 
riah would  fix  Azariah's  accession  in  the  3d  or 
4th  of  Jeroboam,  if  we  hold  fast  41  years  as  the 
duration  of  Jeroboam's  reign.  If,  as  seems  very 
probable,  Joash  died  soon  after  he  defeated  and 
captured  Amaziah,  then  the  people  of  Judah 
waited  3  or  4  years  for  the  release  of  their  king, 
and  when  this  did  not  take  place,  they  made  Aza- 
riah king.  Amaziah  lived  11  years  longer,  was 
released,  returned,  and  was  assassinated,  and  Aza- 
riah was  27  years  old  when  he  took  Elath.  This 
construction  is  consistent  with  all  the  texts.  The 
'•  29  years  "  in  xiv.  2.  cover  the  period  from  Ama- 
ziah's  accession  to  his  death,  and  the  "  15  years  " 
in  ver.  17  hold  good.  Azariah  reigned  for  52 
years  from  the  date  of  his  coronation,  or  41  years 
from  the  date  of  his  father's  death.  In  the  text  his 
coronation  is  recognized  as  the  true  beginning  of 
his  reign,  and  the  dates  for  the  accession  of  Zacha- 
riah,  Shallum.  Menahem,  Pekahiah,  Pekah,  and 
Jotham,  are  all  consistent  therewith.  Against 
this  construction  is  the  strong  consideration  that 
the  circumstances  are  not  more  distinctly  nar- 
rated. We  have  no  mention  of  Amaziah's  release 
at  all.  There  are  also  difficulties  connected  witli 
the  chronology,  but  these  confront  us  in  any  case. 
They  can  only  be  removed  by  arbitrary  changes, 
and  these  changes  can  only  be  based  upon  conjec- 
ture. Every  time  that  I  have  re-examined  the 
chronology  of  this  period  the  suspicion  has  been 
revived  in  my  mind  that  the  error,  which  undoubt- 
edly inheres  in  it  at  this  point,  is  to  be  sought  in 


the  duration  ascribed  to  the  reign  of  Amaziah,  al 
though  the  chronologies  almost  all  alter  the  data 
in  regard  to  Jeroboam  or  Azariah.  It  may  be 
that  the  clue  to  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  lies  u 
the  captivity  of  Amaziah. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  23.  In  the  fifteenth  year  of  Amaziah, 
&c.  This  statement  agrees  with  that  in  ver.  1  and 
in  ver  17.  Amaziah  ruled  29  years:  14  with  Joash 
of  Israel,  and  15  with  his  son  Jeroboam  II.  The 
further  statement,  however,  that  Jeroboam  reigned 
for  41  years,  is  contradicted  by  chap.  xv.  8,  which 
says  that  the  son  and  successor  of  Jeroboam. 
Zachariah,  came  to  the  throne  in  the  38th  year  of 
Azariah  (Uzziah).  Now  if  Jeroboam  reigned  wit! 
Amaziah  for  15  years,  and  then  38  years  mort 
with  Azariah,  his  entire  reign  was  not  41  but  53 
years,  or  if,  as  is  probable,  the  15  years  and  the  38 
years  were  not  all  complete  (see  Pt.  II.,  p.  86),  then 
51  years.  As  all  the  chronologers  agree  that  Za- 
chariah's accession  cannot  be  placed  earlier  than  the 
38th  of  Azariah,  it  is  generally  assumed,  in  order 
to  account  for  the  difference  between  41  and  51 
years,  that  an  interregnum  or  anarchy  of  10  years 
took  place  after  the  death  of  Jeroboam  (Keil  and 
others).  But,  according  to  chap.  xiv.  29,  Zacha- 
riah followed  his  father  Jeroboam,  not  after  an  in- 
terval of  10  or  11  years,  but  immediately  after  his 
death.  Moreover  there  is  not  the  slightest  sign,  in 
the  history,  of  any  period  of  anarchy,  though  such 
a  period  must  certainly  have  been  marked  by  some 
important  incidents,  and  we  may  not  make  history 
in  order  to  account  for  a  single  inconsistent  chro- 
nological statement.  According  to  Hos.  i.  1,  that 
prophet  labored  under  Jeroboam  II.,  and  also  under 
Hezekiah,  who  did  not  come  to  the  throne  until 
727  B.  c.  Now.  if  Jeroboam  only  reigned  41  years, 
from  823  to  782,  Hosea  must  have  labored  as  a 
prophet  publicly  before  782  and  after  727,  that  is, 
for  over  60  years;  but  this  hardly  seems  possible. 
But  if  Jeroboam  reigned  51  years,  823-772,  then 
still  Hosea's  public  work  covers  the  great  but  not 
impossible  time  of  50  years.  For  all  these  reasons 
we  are  compelled  to  conclude,  with  Thenius,  that 
there  is  an  error  here  in  copying  the  letters  which 
designate  the  numbers  (XD  =  'tl  for  NJ  =  51),  and 
that  the  latter  would  be  the  correct  number. 
Wolff  (see  Pt.  II.,  p.  89),  with  whose  other  com- 
binations we  do  not  agree,  considers  the  number 
41  incorrect,  and  reckons  the  years  of  the  reign  of 
Jeroboam  II.  at  52.  [See  bracketed  note  on  ver. 
22.1 

Ver.  25.  He  restored  the  coast  of  Israel, 
&c.  As  in  1  Kings  viii.  65  ;  Amos  vi.  2.  14,  Ha- 
math,  by  which  we  must  understand  not  a  city 
merely,  but  also  a  district  of  Syria  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
33;  xxv.  21).  is  here  used  to  designate  the  lorth- 
ern  boundary  of  Palestine.  The  sea  of  the  plain 
is  the  Dead  Sea  (Deut.  iii.  17;  Jos.  iii.  16),  the 
ordinary  designation  of  the  southern  boundary  of 
Palestine,  east  of  the  Jordan,  which  is  more  defi- 
nitely marked  on  the  frontier  of  Moabby  the  brook 
Arnon  which  flows  into  the  Dead  Sea  (Isai.  xvi.  2). 
[Cf.  also  Amos  vi.  14.]  Jonah  is  the  well-known 
prophet  (Jon.  i.  1)  from  the  city  of  Gath-Hepher, 
which  lay  in  the  territory  of  Zebulon  (Jos.  xix. 
13).  This  oracle  does  not  lose  any  of  its  historical 
value  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  "  Book  of  Jonah "  which  we  possess.  It  is 
incomprehensible  how  Menzel  could  suppose  that 
the  book  of  Jonah  "  contains  this  prophecy  in  > 
metaphorical  form,  although  not  directly."    Others, 


152 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


as  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  think  that  Isaiah  xv.  and 
ivi.  contains  the  oracle  of  Jonah  here  referred  to, 
an  hypothesis  which  rests  upon  a  very  weak- 
basis. — In  vers.  26  and  27  it  is  explained  how  it 
came  about  that  the  frontiers  were  restored  by  a 
king  who  still  maintained  the  worship  of  Jero- 
boam's calves.  The  ground  for  this  lay  in  Jeho- 
vah's pity  for  His  chosen  people.  He  had  not  yet 
declared  that  He  would  blot  it  out  for  its  apos- 
tasy. He  helped  it  out  of  the  deep  distress  into 
which  it  had  been  brought  by  the  Syrians  (chap. 
xiii.  3.  7),  ami  prospered  it  to  an  extent  which  was 
no  longer  to  be  expected  or  hoped  for ;  for,  though 
Jehoash  had  recovered  all  the  lost  cities  on  this 
side  of  the  Jordan,  yet  all  the  territory  beyond  the 
river  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Syrians.  Jero- 
boam was  the   one  who   recovered  it.     On  ~nyy 

and   31TJ)  see  note  on  1  Kings  xiv.  10 ;  cf.  Deut. 

xxxii.  36. — In  ver.   28,  a'jj'n  cannot  be  translated 

otherwise  than   ag   in   ver.   25:    he   brought  back. 

Ewald  desires  to  strike  out   n"WTP   and  then  to 

read  ^XT.'"^  instead  of  i)STJ"3  :    "  He  recovered 

Damascus  and  Haraath  for  Israel."    These  changes 

are  as  violent  as  they  are  unnecessary.    rmiT?  is 

a  periphrasis  for  the  genitive,  because  the  proper 
names  do  not  admit  of  any  form  for  the  stai.  canst. 

iKeil,  Thenius),  and  3  before  ^X"IC"  means  to  or 

for.  As,  however,  neither  the  cities  nor  the  dis- 
tricts of  Hamath  and  Damascus  ever  belonged  to 
Judah  or  Israel,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  words,  that  he  brought  them 
back.  David  had,  indeed,  once  conquered  a  part 
of  Syria  (Damascus,  2  Sam.  viii.  6  and  6),  and 
Solomon  had  conquered  a  part  of  Hamath  (2 
Chron.  viii.  3,  4).  It  was  these  districts,  which 
had  long  before  made  themselves  independent  of 
any  authority  of  Israel,  which  Jeroboam  recov- 
ered. The  sense  is  then :  Jeroboam  re-established 
the  frontiers  of  the  kingdom  as  they  had  once 
been  under  David  and  Solomon,  i.  e.,  at  the  most 
flourishing  period  of  the  kingdom. 


HISTORICAL    AND    ETHICAL. 

1.  The  reign  of  Amaziah  had,  in  general,  the 
same  course  as  that  of  his  father  Joash  (chap.  12). 
"  We  see  the  same  good  beginning,  the  same  bad 
progress,  and  the  same  sad  and  terrible  ending  in 
the  case  of  Amaziah  as  in  that  of  Joash  "  (Schlicr). 
The  text  itself  affirms  this  by  the  words:  "  He  did 
in  all  tilings  like  as  Joash  his  father  had  done  " 
(ver.  3.).  The  reasons  why  he  clung,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  his  reign,  to  the  lawful  worship  of 
Jehovah,  were  rather  external  and  traditional  than 
the  result  of  an  internal  conviction.  He  may  have 
Been  that  this  was  necessary  for  the  maintenance 
of  his  authority,  just  as  the  kings  of  Israel  consid- 
ered it  necessary  for  political  reasons  to  maintain 
the  worship  of  Jeroboam's  calf-images.  It  certainly 
was  not  an  affair  of  the  heart  with  him  (2  Chron. 
xxv.  2).  "  He  was  a  soldier  with  all  his  heart,  and 
he  was  nothing  more"  (Calw.  Bibel).  \\>-  wanted 
military  glory,  and  therefore,  immediately  after  his 
accession  to  the  throne,  he  collected  a  large  army, 
and  also  hired  mercenaries  from  Israel  (2  Chron. 


xxv.  5  and  6).  The  Edomites  had  not  provoked  in 
any  way  the  attack  upon  themselves ;  it  was  purely 
an  expedition  for  conquest.  The  brilliant  victorj 
which  he  won  made  him  arrogant,  and  intensifieu 
his  thirst  for  wary  so  that  he,  in  haughty  self-con- 
fidence and  without  external  occasion,  challenged 
Israel  to  war,  and  insisted  even  when  the  latter  put 
aside  the  challenge  and  warned  him  to  give  up  his 
plan.  His  arrogance  was  severely  punished ;  he 
was  subjected  to  a  humiliation  such  as  no  king  of 
Judah  had  experienced,  not  even  his  father  Joash. 
The  Chronicler  represents  this  as  a  divine  judgment 
upon  him  because  he  introduced  the  worship  of  the 
gods  of  Kdom  into  Judah  upon  his  return  from  the 
expedition,  and  repelled  haughtily  the  warning  of 
a  prophet  against  this  course  (2  Chron.  xxv.  14-16). 
There  is  no  occasion  at  all  to  doubt  this  story,  as 
Thenius  does,  because  it  "is  intended  to  put  in 
pragmatic  form  the  theocratic  explanation  of  the 
unfortunate  result  of  the  war  with  Israel."  Neither 
is  it  contradictory  to  ver.  3.  The  idea  that  divine 
judgments  follow  upon  idolatry  and  the  worship  of 
false  gods  is  one  which  runs  through  the  entire 
Old  Testament  economy ;  it  is  not  peculiar  to  the 
Chronicler,  but  was  held  also  by  the  author  of  the 
Books  of  Kings,  and,  indeed,  by  all  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers.  Amaziah's  unfortunate  and  shame- 
ful end  showed  that  it  was  not  enough  for  a  king 
of  Judah  to  observe  the  law  for  mere  external  and 
political  reasons,  but  that  he  fulfilled  his  calling 
only  when  he,  like  David,  clung  to  Jehovah  "with 
all  his  heart." 

2.  It  has  been  regarded  as  a  proof  of  extraordi- 
nary humanity  on  the  part  of  Amaziah  that,  al- 
though he  put  to  death,  upon  his  accession,  the  mur- 
derers of  his  father,  nevertheless  he  spared  their  sons 
and  relatives,  contrary  to  the  course  which  was 
commonly  pursued  in  such  cases  (Curtius  6,  1 1  : 
Lege  cautum  erat,  ut  propinqui  eorum,  qui  regi  insi- 
diati  cum  ipsis  necarentur.  Cf.  Cic.  ad  Brut.  15). 
"  We  see,"  says  Eisenlohr  (Das  Yolk  Israel,  U.  s. 
203),  "  that  there  was  a  remarkable  development 
and  growth  of  moral  feeling  in  the  nation,  aud  that 
a  humane  and  generous  culture  gradually  sup- 
planted the  former  harshness.  We  are  forced  to 
recognize  this  movement  in  spite  of  exceptional  in- 
stances to  the  contrary,  and  we  see  that  it  went 
hand  in  hand  with  the  decay  of  the  more  rigid  and 
formal  couception  of  moral  relations,  and  with  the 
growth  of  a  more  expanded  moral  vision."  But  there 
are  no  signs  of  any  progress  in  humanity  at  this 
period.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  rather  forced  to 
infer  from  the  oracles  of  the  prophets  Amos  and 
Hosea,  that  it  was  a  time  of  rudeness  and  violence. 
As  for  Amaziah,  it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  any 
humane  disposition  in  a  man  who,  after  killing 
10,000  Kdomites  in  battle,  proceeded  to  throw  from 
a  rock  10,000  more  who  had  been  captured  alive 
(2  Chron.  xxv.  11,  12).  The  author  ouly  means 
to  say  that  Amaziah,  in  the  beginniLg  of  his  reign, 
was  guided  by  the  precepts  of  the  Law.  and  that 
In-  obeyed  them  also  in  regard  to  the  punishment 
of  those  concerned  in  the  murder  of  his  father,  and 
their  children.  This  law  came  from  Moses,  and 
was  not  the  product  of  a  later  and  (as  is  asserted) 
more  humane  time.  This  is  not  disproved  by  the 
fact  that  the  precept  in  question  is  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  for  that  book  did  not  repeal 
or  abolish  former  statutes,  it  only  renewed  and  ex- 
tended them.  Hitzig  is  decidedly  in  error  when  h« 
says,  on  Jerem.  xxxi.  29  [cf.  Ezek.  n  viii.  2  »(.) :  "  Th« 


CHAPTER  XIY.  1-29 


153 


punishmer.t  of  the  sbs  of  the  fathers  upon  the  chil- 
dren, a  legal  institution  of  the  old  covenant,  is,  ac- 
cording to  ver.  29,  repealed.  This  repeal  is  accom- 
plished (ver.  31)  by  abolishing  the  entire  former 
covenant."  In  the  places  cited,  the  prophets  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel  are  attacking  the  popular  error 
that  God  had  left  the  guilty  parents  unpunished, 
and  was  now  punishing  the  children  for  their  sins 
(cf.  Havernick  on  Ezekiel  xviii.).  The  author  of  this 
passage  in  Kings  is  not  speaking  of  God's  punish- 
ment of  men,  but  of  the  punishment  of  the  sons  of 
the  murderers  by  the  king,  i.  e.,  by  the  civil  power. 
The  civil  punishment  of  the  sons  of  wrong-doers 
for  the  crimes  of  their  fathers  was  abolished,  not 
in  the  time  of  Ezekiel  or  Jeremiah,  but  by  the 
law  of  Moses.  Amaziah's  conduct  was  not  dic- 
tated by  thirst  for  vengeance  against  the  fathers, 
nor  by  humane  pity  for  the  sons.  It  was  rather  a 
simple  act  of  justice,  in  which  he  behaved,  both 
towards  the  fathers  (Ex.  xxi.  12  ;  Levit.  xxiv.  17), 
and  towards  the  sons  (Dent.  xxiv.  16),  according  to 
the  Law. 

[The  question  of  the  degree  of  humanity  to  be 
ascribed  to  Amaziah  is  of  little  importance.  It  is 
certain  that  his  conduct  was  very  different  from 
that  which  was  observed  en  all  the  changes  of 
dynasties  in  Israel,  and  by  Athaliah  in  Judah. 
These  events  were  marked  by  the  wholesale  blood- 
shed which  was  common  in  similar  eases  elsewhere 
in  the  Orient.  The  author  of  the  book  of  Kings 
ascribes  this  action  of  the  king  to  his  loyalty  to 
the  law  of  Moses,  i.  e.,  Deuteronomy.  The  bearing 
of  the  text  on  the  question  of  the  time  of  composi- 
tion of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  is  plain.  If  the 
author  is  correct  in  his  explanation  of  Amaziah's 
conduct,  then  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  in  ex- 
istence at  this  time.  This  is  not  the  place  to  dis- 
cuss the  general  evidence  for  the  time  of  composi- 
tion of  that  book,  but  the  evidence  of  this  verse 
can  only  be  avoided  by  supposing  that  the  author 
carried  back  to  Amaziah  the  ideas  of  a  book  which 
was  written  150  years  after  his  death,  but  before 
the  time  when  the  Book  of  Kings  was  written, 
or  else  that  this  verse  was  put  in  by  the  com- 
piler. Those  who  maintain  the  late  origin  of 
Deuteronomy  are  divided  between  these  explana- 
tions.—The  idea  that  God  punishes  the  sins  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  is  certainly  found  in  the 
Mosaic  Law  (Exod.  xx.  5 ;  Deut.  v.  9),  and  it  is  a 
simple  fact  of  observation  and  experience,  both  in 
history  and  in  private  life.  This  is  at  once  a  proof 
and  a  consequence  of  the  solidarity  of  the  human 
race.  No  man  can  commit  an  action  which  will 
not  have  greater  or  less  effect  upon  his  contempo- 
raries and  upon  succeeding  generations.  Those 
on  whom  the  punishment  falls  complain  of  injus- 
tice in  this  order  of  things,  as  the  Jews  did  who 
had  to  bear  the  captivity,  while  their  fathers,  who 
had  incurred  the  penalty,  had  lived  in  luxury  and 
sin  and  died  in  peace,  at  home.  Against  them  the. 
prophets  maintained  the  justice  of  God  in  his  deal- 
ings with  individuals,  and  the  responsibility  of 
each  for  his  own  sins  only.  This  was,  undeniably, 
a  modification  or  explanation  of  Deut.  v.  9.  Jere- 
miah (xxxi.  29  sq.)  represents  it  as  a  new  covenant 
which  is  to  take  the  place  of  the  old.  Deut.  xxiv.  16 
is  entirely  different.  It  forbi  Is,  plainly  and  most 
justly,  that  men  shall  imitate  the  course  of  nature, 
which  entails  upon  the  children  the  consequences 
jf  the  father's  sins,  by  inflicting  upon  children  phy- 
sical punishment  for  their  fathers'  crimes.     The 


latter  alone  comes  into  the  discussion  of  Amaziah'? 
conduct.— W.  G.  S.] 

3.  The  representation  of  king  Joash  which  it 
here  given  us  supplements  essentially  the  portrait 
of  him  which  we  had  in  the  last  chapter.  The  man- 
ner in  which  he  here  repels  Amaziah's  challenge 
is  not  by  any  means  a  well-meant  warning ;  it  is 
rather  calculated  to  exasperate  him,  and  to  stimu- 
late his  thirst  for  war  still  further.  It  bears  wit- 
ness, not  to  faith  and  trust  in  God,  but  to  great 
self-confidence  and  arrogance.  The  old  spirit  of 
Ephraim  appears  here  again,  and,  pluming  itself 
upon  superior  numbers,  and  external  greatness  and 
power,  looks  down  contemptuously  upon  Judah. 
The  parable  of  the  cedar  of  Lebanon  and  the  briar- 
bush  at  its  feet  is  a  piece  of  genuine  oriental  bom- 
bast, for  which  Joash  had  the  less  ground  inas- 
much as  all  that  part  of  Israel  beyond  Jordan  was 
still  in  the  hands  of  the  Syrians,  and  Israel  was 
altogether  in  a  distressed  condition  from  which 
Jeroboam  II.  was  the  first  to  relieve  it  (ver.  26). 
Moreover,  Joash  did  not  bear  in  mind  that  fire  can 
go  forth,  even  out  of  a  briar,  and  consume  the  ce- 
dars of  Lebanon  (Judges  ix.  15).  For  the  rest,  Jo- 
ash sustained  himself  here  as  a  valiant  soldier;  he 
did  not  wait  for  Amaziah  to  attack  him,  but  took 
the  initiative  himself,  pushed  on  to  the  neighbor 
hood  of  Amaziah's  capital,  inflicted  upon  him  s 
signal  defeat,  and  took  him  captive.  We  are  not 
told  why  he  did  not  put  him  to  death,  and,  after 
taking  Jerusalem,  put  an  end  to  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  as  Nebuchadnezzer  afterwards  did  (chap, 
xxv.).  It  can  hardly  have  been  from  magnanimity 
that  he  took  the  captive  king  with  him  to  Jerusa- 
lem, left  him  upon  the  throne,  and  contented  him- 
self with  hostages.  It  is  more  natural  to  suppose 
that  he  did  this  from  arrogance.  The  "  cedar " 
treated  the  "briar"  with  contempt,  and  let  him  go 
as  beneath  fear.  Nevertheless  he  took  ho3tagos 
as  security.  We  have  to  recognize  here  a  d;span- 
sation  of  Him  who  meant  indeed  to  humbla  Ama- 
ziah (2  Chron.  xxv.  20),  but  who  would  not  permit 
that  Israel  should  become  master  of  Judah. 

4.  Jeroboam  IT.  reigned,  even  if  've  tjke  the 
number  41  to  be  correct,  longer  tbao.  any  other 
king  of  Israel.  The  history  of  his  raign  is  given 
here  very  concisely,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the 
incidental  mention,  Amos  vii.  10,  wo  have  no  fur- 
ther information.  Besides  the  fact  that  he,  like  all 
his  predecessors,  maintained  the  worship  of  the 
calf-images,  we  are  only  told  in  regard  to  him  that 
God,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Jonah,  through 
him  rescued  Israel  from  its  bitter  distress,  and 
that  he  restored  the  frontiers  of  the  country  as 
they  had  existed  under  David  and  Solomon.  The 
complete  defeat  of  the  Syrians,  and  the  expulsion 
of  these  arch-enemies,  who  had  brought  the  king- 
dom to  the  verge  of  ruin,  had  the  most  important 
consequences.  These  events  took  place  early  in  the 
reign  of  Jeroboam,  and  they  show  us  Jeroboam  as  the 
most  able  and  energetic  of  the  kings  of  Israel.  The 
latter  part  of  his  reign  seems  to  have  passed  away 
without  any  decisive  events.  It  was  a  time  of 
peace  and  quiet, '  in  which,  as  chap.  xiii.  5  says, 
"  The  children  of  Israel  dwelt  \*.  their  tents  as  be- 
fore," and  the  people  enjoyec1.  the  fruit  of  the  vic- 
tory over  the  Syrians.  It  follows  that  Jeroboam 
was  not  only  a  valiant  soldier,  but  also  a  prudent 
ruler,  who  understood  how  to  use  the  time  of  peace 
so  as  to  raise  the  material  condition  of  his  people 
From  the  prophecies  of  the  contemporary  prophet* 


154: 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Amos  and  Hosea,  it  is  evident  that  the  kingdom 
had  then  attained  a  state  of  prosperity  such  as  it 
had  never  before  enjoyed  (cf.  Amos  vi.  4-6 ;  iii.  15; 
Hos.  xii.  8).  The  deep  depravity  of  the  people, 
however,  appeared  just  at  this  time,  for,  instead  of 
being  led,  by  God's  bountiful  goodness,  to  repent- 
ance, they  were  stimulated  to  pride,  so  that  Hosea 
said :  "  According  to  tleir  pasture,  so  were  they 
filled."  &c.  (Hos.  xiii.  6).  Not  only  did  the  worship 
of  the  calf-images  continue,  but  also  the  worship 
of  false  gods  increased  (Hos.  iv.  12,  17  ;  viii.  4;  xi. 
2;  xiii.  2).  A  shocking  corruption  of  morals  found 
entrance  at  the  same  time :  luxury,  debauchery, 
shameless  licentiousness,  injustice,  violence,  false- 
hood, and  deceit  of  all  kinds  (Amos  ij.  6  sq. ;  iii.  9 ; 
v.  12;  vi.  4-7  ;  Hos.  iv.  1,  2,  18),  so  that  the  king- 
dom went  on  from  the  height  of  its  prosperity,  only 
the  more  surely,  towards  its  final  downfall.  (See 
the  next  chapter.)  In  so  far,  the  time  of  Jeroboam 
was  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  Israel.  It 
gave  the  proof  that  this  nation  could  better  endure 
misfortune  and  oppression  of  every  kind  than 
earthly  glory  and  prosperity;  therefore  the  Lord 
allowed  it,  for  its  own  salvation,  to  fall  from  its 
position  as  an  independent  nation  (chap.  xvii.  6  sq.). 
5.  The  prophet  Jonah,  who  foretold  the  victory 
of  Jeroboam  over  the  Syrians,  and  the  restoration 
of  the  ancient  boundaries  by  him,  must  have  ap- 
peared in  the  early  part  of  his  reign.  He  is  the 
first  of  the  line  of  prophets  who  not  only  spoke 
(preached  I,  but  also  wrote  down  their  prophecies. 
A  new  phase  of  prophecy  begins  with  him,  so  that 
in  this  respect  also  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  was  most 
important  for  the  history  of  redemption.  Up  to 
this  point  the  activity  of  the  class  of  prophets  of 
whom  Elijah  and  Elisha  were  the  chief,  was  espe- 
cially [and  almost  exclusively]  directed  to  the  pres- 
ent, and  aimed  to'  bring  about  a  return  from  the 
worship  of  the  calves,  and  from  idolatry,  to  the 
fundamental  law  of  Israel.  They  seized  upon 
events  and  circumstances,  not  so  much  by  their 
teaching  and  preaching,  as  by  their  acts,  and  their 
acts  were  signs,  that  is,  they  were  acts  which 
transmitted  a  divine  revelation.  "Since  now,"  as 
Hasse  (Geschichte  des  Alien  Bumles,  s.  110  sq.)  re- 
marks, "the  house  of  Jehu,  which  owed  every- 
thing to  the  prophets,  also  failed  to  return  to  the 
original  purity  of  the  Israelitish  constitution,  and 
since  it  persevered  in  its  idolatry  even  under  Jero- 
boam II.,  who  no  longer  had  any  foreign  enemy  to 
fear,  every  hope  of  a  reformation  in  the  northern 
kingdom  had  to  be  given  up,  and  the  prophets 
could  no  longer  hope  to  accomplish  anything  there 
by  actual  interference  [i.  e.,  by  such  acts  as  the  de- 
posing of  one  dynasty  and  the  institution  of  an- 
other. Even  that  extreme  measure  had  failed  in 
the  case  of  the  house  of  Jehu] ;  they  could  only 
allow  the  evil  to  go  on  to  its  consummation.  They, 
therefore,  gradually  withdrew  from  the  direction 
of  affairs,  and  regarded  it  as  their  only  remaining 
task  to  make  known  to  this  stubborn  and  hard- 
hearted  generation  the  judgment  which  it  was 
bringing  down  upon  itself.  Just  at  the  time,  there- 
fore, when  the  northern  kingdom  was  at  the  very 
height  of  its  glory,  Amos  and  Hosea  proclaimed  to 
it  its  approaching  ruin,  and,  because  Judah  had 
also  been  tainted  by  the  contagion  of  apostasy, 
Joel  also  appeared  there  at  the  same  time,  as  her- 
ald of  the  coming  judgment.  This  judgment  could 
not,  of  course,  arrest  the  higher  destiny  of  Israel. 
Therefore  the  prophets  saw  beyond  it  a  new  and 


purified  Israel  arise,  and  form  a  united  kingdom 
under  a  sceptre  of  the  house  of  David,  which 
should  embrace  the  heathen  also.  The  Messianic 
kingdom,  therefore,  rose  up  more  and  more  dis- 
tinctly as  the  end  and  aim  of  the  entire  develop 
ment,  as  the  true  kingdom  of  God,  and  promises 
of  this  kingdom  were  joined  with  threats  of  judg- 
ment. Now  for  the  first  time  did  prophecy  become 
truly  prophecy — that  is,  a  vision  of  coming  salvation 
which  stretched  forward  into  and  anticipated  the 
future;  and  where  the  prophets  had  hitherto  made 
use  of  word  of  mouth  only,  in  order  to  influenci 
the  present,  and  their  immediate  surroundings, 
they  now  made  use  of  writing,  because  coming 
generations  also  were  to  learn  what  they  had  re- 
ceived into  their  souls."  Instead  of  recognizing  a 
turning-point  in  the  history  of  the  prophetic  insti- 
tution at  the  time  of  Jeroboam,  Ewald  asserts 
(Gesch.  iii.  s.  565  sq.  3d  ed.  607  sq.)  that  there  was 
a  "complete  dissolution  of  the  ancient  prophetic  in- 
stitution "  at  that  time.  "  The  entire  school  (of 
Elijah  and  Elisha)  degenerated,  and  moved,  not 
forwards,  but  backwards."  The  cause  of  this  was 
that  "the  violent  and  imperious  character  which 
clung  to  all  the  old  kind  of  prophecy,  but  especially 
to  its  developments  in  the  northern  kingdom,  could 
no  longer  be  maintained  over  against  the  crown. 
The  bow  wa3  stretched  too  hard — it  had  to  break. 
.  .  .  A  new  form  of  the  prophetical  institution 
now  arose.  .  .  .  This  did  not  aim  to  be  an  in- 
dependent power  in  the  kingdom,  to  exercise  a 
control  which  admitted  of  no  contradiction,  to  set 
up  and  to  depose  kings,"  &c,  &c.  This  theory 
rests  upon  the  erroneous  premise  mentioned  above 
(Hist.,  §  7,  on  Chap,  ix.),  that  the  ancient  propheti- 
cal institution  stood  opposed  to  the  crown  as  one 
independent  power  to  another,  and  that  they  strove 
for  the  mastery,  whereas  the  former  %vas  only  a 
divinely  appointed  corrective  for  the  latter.  If  we 
were  to  charge  any  of  the  prophets  with  violent 
and  imperious  behavior,  this  charge  would  fall  first 
of  all  upon  the  new  order  of  them,  Hosea  and 
Amos  for  instance,  in  comparison  with  whose 
words  those  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  sound  mild  and 
gentle.  Jeremiah,  who  came  still  later,  was  called 
to  the  prophetic  office  with  the  words :  "  See,  I 
have  this  day  set  thee  over  the  nations  and  over 
the  kingdoms,  to  root  out  and  to  pull  down,"  &c. 
(Jerem.  i.  10;  cf.  xviii.  7).  The  development  of  the 
prophetical  institution  stands  in  exact  relation  to 
the  history  of  Israel,  and  is  conditioned  upon  it. 
It  does  not  break  off  with  Elisha,  who  died  under 
Jeroboam's  predecessor.  The  word-prophets  stand 
upon  the  shoulders  of  the  deed-prophets,  and  carry 
on  the  work  which  they  had  founded  and  begun 


HOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-20.  The  Reign  of  Amaziah.  (a)  The 
good  beginning,  vers.  1-7;  (b)  the  deterioration 
as  it  advanced,  vers.  8-14;  (c)  the  sad  ending, 
vers.  17-20. — Ver.  3.  In  cases  like  that  of  Amaziah, 
where  faith  is  not  completely  and  sincerely  an 
affair  of  the  heart  (2  Chron.  xxv.  2),  it  has  no  firm 
foundation  and  is  quickly  overwhelmed,  either  by 
unbolief  or  by  superstition.  A  half-and-half  dis- 
position in  what  is  good  is  a  bridge  which  leads  tc 
what  is  evil. — In  sacred  and  spiritual  affairs  we 
have  not  to  ask,  how  did  our  fathers  do '?  but,  how 
would  God  hav?  us  do?     Because  Amaziah  onlj 


CHAPTER  XIV".  1-29. 


155 


did  as  his  father  had  done,  he  finally  fared  as  his 
father  had  fared. — Vers.  5  and  6.  The  civil  author- 
ity does  not  carry  the  sword  in  vain,  but  it  is  an 
avenger  to  indict  punishment  upon  him  who  does 
wickedly  (Rom.  xiii.  4).  It  is  as  much  a  sin  to 
leave  the  guilty  unpunished  as  to  punish  the  inno- 
cent. Eight  and  justice  are  distorted  by  both 
courses.  Where  regicides  are  allowed  to  go  un- 
punished, out  of  pity  or  weakness,  there  all  justice 
ceases.  The  throne  [and  the  civil  authority]  are  not 
established  by  weak  concessions,  but  by  righteous- 
ness (Prov.  xvi.  12). — Although  the  faults  of  the 
fathers  are  not  nowadays  visited  upon  the  chil- 
dren, yet  it  is  not  rare  that  the  son  suffers  from 
enmity  which  his  father  incurred. 

Vers.  7-14.  Pride  goes  before  a  Fall,  (a)  Ama- 
eiah's  arrogance;  (b)  his  fall. — Ver.  7.  Victory 
cometh  from  the  Lord  (Prov.  xxi.  31).  If  Amaziah 
had  seen  ami  believed  this,  he  would  have  given 
to  God  the  honor,  and  would  have  humbled  him- 
self; but  he  ascribed  the  victory  to  himself  and  to 
his  own  power,  and  so  became  haughty  and  arro- 
gant (Jerem.  xvii.  5,  7). — Extraordinary  success  in 
our  undertakings  is  a  great  temptation  to  arro- 
gance (WX'RT.  Sumh.  :  Those  must  be  strong  legs 
which  can  support  great  good  fortune  and  pros- 
perity). God  blesses  our  undertakings  in  order 
that  we  may  become,  not  haughty,  but  humble 
(Gen.  xxxii.  10  and  11).  Every  undue  self-exalta- 
tion robs  us  of  the  blessing  again.  Paul  labored 
with  greater  success  than  any  other  of  the  apos- 
tles, but  he  was  so  far  from  proudly  exalting  his 
heart  on  this  account  that  he  called  himself  the 
least  of  the  apostles,  and  said :  "  By  the  grace  of 
God  I  am  what  I  am"  (1  Cor.  xv.  9,  10). — Ver.  8. 
To  commence  a  war  from  mere  lust  for  war  and 
victory  is  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God. 
Quarrelsomeness  among  common  people  is  the 
same  as  love  of  war  among  kings.  The  word  of 
God  says  :  "  Follow  peace  with  all  men  "  (Heb.  xii. 
14),  and :  "  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in 
you,  live  peaceably  with  all  men  "  (Rom.  xii.  18). — 
Vers.  9  and  10.  As  you  shout,  so  will  the  echo  be. 
He  who  over-estimates  his  own  strength,  and 
pushes  himself  forward  into  the  charge  of  things 
which  he  is  not  capable  of  managing,  must  not  be 
surprised  if  lie  is  contemptuously  corrected.  The 
warning  to  "  Enjoy  your  victory  (which  }-ou  have 
already  won)  and  stay  at  home  !  "  belongs  justlv  to 
vanity  and  self-exaltation. — He  who  desires  to  cor- 
rect another  for  his  arrogance  must  take  good  care 
not  to  fall  into  the  same  fault  himself.  Blame  and 
complaint  for  the  pride  and  arrogance  of  others 
jften  come  from  hearts  which  exalt  themselves  too 
•nuch. — Do  not  parade  your  wisdom  and  strength, 
if  you  really  possess  them.  The  Lord  breaks  down 
even  the  cedars  of  Lebanon  (Ps.  xxix.  5  ;  cf.  Isai. 
ii.  12,  13).  Little  David,  when  he  comes  in  the 
might  of  the  Lord,  is  a  match  for  the  giant  Goliath. 
— Ver.  11.  When  the  humiliating  truth  is  spoken 
out  with  scorn  and  derision,  although  it  is  in  itself 
beneficial,  yet  it  only  exasperates  and  embitters, 
instead  of  leading  to  self-knowledge.     As  a  bee 


sucks  honey  even  out  of  a  poisonous  flower,  sa 
also  a  sincere  and  truth-loving  soul  will  win  even 
from  the  scorn  and  mockery  of  its  enemies  some- 
thing good  and  beneficial  for  itself. — Arrogance 
and  love  of  honor  make  men  deaf  to  every  warn 
ing  and  incapable  of  considering  what  is  reallj 
best  for  them.  But  he  who  will  not  hear  must 
feel.— Vers.  11-14.  The  defeat  and  fall  of  Amaziah 
proclaim  loudly:  (a)  "Pride  goeth  before  destruo- 
tion,  and  a  haughty  spirit  before  a  fall "  (Prov.  xvi 
is).  "The  stone  falls  back  upon  the  head  of  him 
who  casts  it  into  the  air':  (Sir.  xxvii.  28).  (ft)  He 
who  desires  too  much,  loses  even  that  which  he 
already  has ;  therefore,  "  Godliness  with  content- 
ment is  great  gain  "  (1  Tim.  vi.  6).— Vers.  13-16. 
"  What  is  a  man  profited,"  &c.  (Matt.  xvi.  26). 
Joash  won  a  great  battle,  took  the  king  prisoner, 
conquered  Jerusalem,  and  came  back  to  Samaria 
crowned  with  glory  and  laden  with  gold  and  silver; 
but  the  best  thing,  the  God  who  was  yet  wor- 
shipped and  honored  in  Judah,  he  did  not  bring, 
lie  remained  in  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  until  his 
cud. — Vers.  17-20.  It  is  the  great  grace  of  God 
when  a  long  time  is  given  to  a  man  who  has 
sinned  grievously  in  order  that  he  may  make  good 
again  the  harm  which  his  sins  have  done,  but  then 
the  responsibility  is  all  the  heavier  when  the  limit- 
ed time  expires.  There  stands  written  on  the  tomb- 
stone of  Amaziah  by  the  finger  of  God  this  grea'. 
and  eternal  truth:   "  God  will  resist  the  proud  1  " 

Vers.  23-29.  See  Histor.and  EHi.— Vers.  25-27. 
Israel's  deep  misery  (Jer.  ii.  19),  and  God's  great 
pity  (Ps.  ciii.  10;  Hos.  xi.  8).— Wurt.  Summ.  : 
Our  faithful  God  helps  us  out  of  trouble  according 
to  His  great  compassion,  even  when  we  have  not 
deserved  it  of  Him,  but  often  not  until  our  distress 
has  reached  the  highest  pitch  and  no  help  is  to  be 
expected  from  any  other  quarter. — When  God  not 
only  helps  us  out  of  trouble  which  we  have  not 
deserved,  but  also  gives  us  besides  what  we  never 
could  have  hoped  for  or  expected,  He  thereby  says 
to  us:  "I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked,"  Ac.  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  11;  Rom.  ii.  4). — Ver. 
25.  In  times  of  need  and  calamity  God  provides 
faithful  servants  who  bear  witness' to  his  pity  and 
call  men's  attention  to  the  one  thing  needful.  "  Well 
is  it  for  those  who  listen  to  these  voices  and  do 
not  harden  their  hearts. — Vers.  28  and  29.  Jero- 
boam had  striven  for  the  external  prosperity  of 
his  people,  and,  when  he  died,  he  left  the  kingdom 
in  a  more  flourishing  condition  than  any  previous 
king  of  Israel.  For  its  spiritual  welfare,  however, 
he  had  done  nothing.  Calf-worship  and  the  ser- 
vice of  false  gods  had  continued,  and  a  moral  rot- 
tenness had  found  entrance,  which  brought  the 
kingdom  near  to  ruin.  So  has  many  a  one,  at  his 
death,  left  to  his  children  treasures  which  he  had 
won  by  long  labor  and  care,  but  those  children 
hive  not  been  bred  in  the  fear  and  love  of  God, 
and  have  not  been  taught  that  "The  world 
passeth  away  and  the  lust  thereof;  but  he  that 
doeth  the  will  of  God  abideth  forever  "  (1  John  ii 
17 ;  1  Peter  L  24  sq.). 


156  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


THIRD    SECTION. 

IHE     MONARCHY     UNDER     AZARIAH     (UZZIAH)     AND   JOTHAM   IN   JUDAH,    AND   UNDER   ZAOHARIAH   AN1 

OTHERS    UNTIL    HOSHEA,    IN   ISRAEL. 

(2  Kings  xv.-xvii.) 

A. — The  reigns  of  Azariah  and   Jotham    in   Judah,  and   of  Zachariah,   Shallum,  Menahem 

Pekahiah,  and  Pekah  in  Israel. 

Chap.  xv.  1-38.  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  and  xxvii). 

1  In  the  twenty  and  seventh  year  of  Jeroboam  king  of  Israel  [,]  began  [omit 

2  began]  Azariah  son  of  Araaziah  king  of  Judah  to  reign  [became  king].  Six- 
teen years  old  was  he  when  he  began  to  reign  [became  king],  and  he  reigned 
two  and  fifty  years  in  Jerusalem.     And   his  mother's  name  was  Jecholiah  of 

3  Jerusalem.     And  he  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  aeeord- 

4  ing  [like]  to  all  that  his  father  Amaziah  had  done ;  save  that  the  high  places 
were  not  removed ;  the  people  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  still  on  the  high 

5  places.  And  the  Lord  smote  [touched]  the  king,  so  that  he  was  a  leper  unto 
the  day  of  his  death,  and  dwelt  in  a  several  house   [house  of  sickness]1.      And 

6  Jotham  the  king's  son  was  over  the  house,  judging  the  people  of  the  land.  And 
the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Azariah,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the 

1  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  So  Azariah  slept  with  his 
fathers ;  and  they  buried  him  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David  :  and  Jotham 
his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 

8  In  the  thirty  and  eighth  year  of  Azariah  king  of  Judah  did  Zachariah  the  son 

9  of  Jeroboam  reign  over  Israel  in  Samaria  six  months.  And  he  did  that  lohich 
was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  as  his  fathers  had  done:  he  departed  not  from 

10  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin.  And  Shallum 
the  son  of  Jabesh  conspired  against  him,  and  smote  him  before  the  people3,  and 

11  slew  him,  and  reigned  in  his  stead.  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Zachariah, 
behold,  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel. 

1°  This  was  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  he  spake  unto  Jehu,  saying,  Thy  sons 
shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  Israel  unto  the  fourth  generation.  And  so  it  came  to 
pass. 

13  Shallum  the  son  of  Jabesh  began  to  reign  [became  king]  in  the  nine  and  thirtieth 

14  year  of  Uzziah  king  of  Judah;  and  he  reigned  a  full  month  in  Samaria.  For 
[And]  Menahem  the  son  of  Gadi  went  up  from  Tirzah,  and  came  to  Samaria,  and 
smote  Shallum  the  son  of  Jabesh  in  Samaria,  and  slew  him,  and  reigned  in  his 

15  stead.  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Shallum,  and  his  conspiracy  which  he  made, 
behold,  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel. 

16  Then  Menahem  [starting  from  Tirzah]  smote'  Tiphsah,  and  all  that  were  there- 
in, and  the  coasts  [environs]  thereof  from  Tirzah  [omit  from  Tirzah] :  because 
they  opened  not  to  him*,  therefore  he  smote  it;  and  all  the  women6  therein  that 
were  with  child  he  ripped  up. 

17  In  the  nine  and  thirtieth  year  of  Azariah  king  of  Judah  began  [omit  began] 
Menahem  the  son  of  Gadi  to  reign  [became  king]  over  Israel,  and  reigned  ten 

18  years  in  Samaria.  And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord: 
he  departed  not  all  his  days  [omit  all  his  days]  from  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son 

19  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin.  And  [In  his  days — omit  And]  Pul  the  king 
of  Assyria  came  against  the  land :  and  Menahem  gave  Pul  a  thousand  talents  of 
silver,  that  his  hand  might  be  with  him  to  confirm  the  kingdom  in  his  hand 


CHAPTER  XV.  1-38.  157 


20  And  Menahem  exacted  [imposed]  the  money  of  [upon]  Israel,  even  of  [upon— 
omit  even  of]  all  the  mighty  men  of  wealth,  of  [upon]  each  man  fifty  shekels  of 
silver,  to  give  to  the  king  of  Assyria.     So  the  king  of  Assyria  turned  back,  and 

21  stayed  not  there  in  the  land.  And  t  he  rest  of  the  acts  of  Menahem,  and  all  that 
he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel? 

22  And  Menahem  slept  with  his  fathers;  and  Pekahiah  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 

23  In  the  fiftieth  year  of  Azariah  king  of  Judah,  Pekahiah  the  son  of  Menahem 
began  to  reign  [became  king]  over  Israel  in  Samaria,  and  reigned  two  years. 

24  And  he  did  that  tchich  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  :  he  departed  not  from 

25  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin.  But  Pekah  the 
son  of  Renialiah,  a  captain  of  his,  conspired  against  him,  and  smote  him  in 
Samaria,  in  the  palace  [citadel]  of  the  king's  house,  [together]  with  Argob  and 
Arieh,  and  with  him  [*.  «.  Pekah  there  were]  fifty  men  of  the  Gileadites:  and  he 

26  killed  him,  and  reigned  in  his  room.  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Pekahiah,  and 
all  that  he  did,  behold,  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the 
kings  of  Israel. 

27  In  the  two  and  fiftieth  year  of  Azariah  king  of  Judah,  Pekah  the  son  of 
Remaliah  began  to  reign  [became  king]  over  Israel  in  Samaria,  and  reigned 

28  twenty  years.  And  he  did  that  ichich  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  :  he 
departed  not  from  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to 

29  sin.  In  the  days  of  Pekah  king  of  Israel  came  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria, 
and  took  Ijou,  and,  Abel-beth-maachah,  and  Janoah,  and  Kedesh,  and  Hazor, 
and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,8  all  the  land  of  Xaphtali,  and  carried  them  captive  to 

JO  Assyria.  And  Hoshea  the  son  of  Elah  made  a  conspiracy  against  Pekah  the  son 
of  Remaliah,  and  smote  him,  and  slew  him,  and  reigned  [became  king]  in  his 

31  stead,  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham  the  son  of  Uzziah.  And  the  rest  of  the 
acts  of  Pekah,  and  all  that  he  did,  behold,  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  the 
Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Israel. 

32  In  the  second  year  of  Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah  king  of  Israel  began 
[omit  began]  Jotham  the  son  of  Uzziah  king  of  Judah  to  reign  [became  king]. 

33  Five  and  twenty  years  old  was  he  when  he  hegan  to  reign  [became  king],  and 
he  reigned  sixteen  years  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Jerusha, 

34  the  daughter  of  Zadok.     And  he  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the 

35  Lord  :  he  did  according  [like]  to  all  that  his  father  Uzziah  had  done.  Howbeit 
the  high  places  were  not  removed:  the  people  sacrificed  and  burned  incense  still 
in  the  high  places.     He  built  the  higher  [upper]  gate  of  the  house  of  the  Lord. 

36  Xow  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jotham,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in 

37  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah?  In  thosedays  the  Lord 
began  to  send  against  Judah  Rezin  the  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah  the  son  of 

38  Remaliah.  And  Jotham  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  with  his  fathers 
in  the  city  of  David  his  father :  and  Ahaz  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

i  r 

1  Ver.  5.— [JVp'Sn,  for  which  2  Chron.  xxvi.  21  has  fTC'SH  i   is  an  abstract  noun,  "  sickness."    Cf.  Ew.  §  165,  a  and 

o.  rV^'pnn  JY2  therefore  means  house  of  sickness,  hospital.    So  Gesen.,  Theniua,  Bunsen,  and  others.     Hengstenberg 

and  Keil  understand  it  to  mean,  "house  of  freedom,"  i.  e.,  in  which  those  dwell  who  are  freed  or  released  from  human 
nblig&tton.  It  is  clear  how  artificial  and  forced  such  an  explanation  is.  Bahr  (see  Exeg.  on  the  verse)  takes  it  as  the 
English  translators  did.  "separate,"  but  J."2n ,  although  it  means  free,  comes  to  that  idea  from  another  side.  Its 
primary  meaning  is  to  be  loosened,  lax,  and  so  free  from  bonds.  Hence,  by  a  connection  of  thought  which  is  often 
found,  it  means,  when  applied  to  the  body,  having  the  natural  conserving  forces  weakened  and  relaxed,  i.  e.,  to  be 
weak,  diseased,  sick.  There  is  here  a  certain  sense  of  ,l  free."  but  not  the  one  which  is  akin  to  separate.  It  is  of 
the  utmost  importance,  in  following  out  the  developments  of  the  radical  signification  of  a  Hebrew  root,  not  to  depart 
frorr.  the  true  line  of  its  development.  The  ramifications  of  different  roots  approach  one  another  very  often,  at  many 
points.  It  is  all  the  more  necessary  not  to  pass  over  from  one  to  the  other.  JVt?2r"in  JV3  means  "  house  of  sickness* 
a  house  belonging  to  the  king,  standing  by  itself,  no  doubt,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  Bet  apart  as  his  residence  under  the 
circumstances  of  his  disease. — W.  G.  S.l 

*  Ver.  10.— Before  witnesses,  or,  in  public.  ?2p  [lengthened  from  ?3p  ,  (which  form  Ge».  gives  in  the  II.-  W.-B. 
»nd  pronounces  Quobdl)  is  to  be  pronounced  Quobol  (Bottcher,  Ewald),  and]  is  equivalent  to  the  Chaldee  Qtp  ■ 
Dan.  li.  31 :  Mi.  3— B»hr. 


158 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


8  Ver.  16. — [Note  the  imperfect  n3k  after  IX  •      Like  the  historical  present  it  is  used  for  graphic  force,  to  folio* 
dramatically  tne  succession  of  events  as  they  arose  or  came  to  pass.    Ew.  §  134,  b. 

*  Vers.  16 — [nnD  is  impersonal,  "because  it  was  not  opened,"  or.  "because  no  opening  was  made,''  i.  e.  because 
the  penple  did  not  open  the  sates  for  him. 

*  Ver.  16. — [The  art.  with  the  suff.  is  very  rare.  See,  however,  Levit.  sxvii.  23;  Josh-  vii.  21  ;  viii.  S3, — Ew.  §  290.  d.e 

*  Vers.  29. — [H^vSn — Elsewhere  in  the  O.  T.  it  is  always  called  ^b3H  •      It  is  not  regarded  as  a  fern,  and  hence 
the  Ultima  is  not  accented,  though  the  plural  has  the  form    m^^3  ,— Ew.  §  173,  h,  2  and  3,  note  1.    Bottcher  sees  1l 


it    a    peculiarity    of  the    "  Ephraimitic  "    dialect    (§  341.        In  form    H.  T^H   is    a  perfect  feminine,  but,  as  the  other 
form  was  Judaic,  that  is,  classical,  the  punctuators  did  not  ascent  this  as  a  feminine.    Lehrb.  §  616,  3. — W.  G.  S-] 


EXEGETICAL,  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  In  the  twenty  and  seventh  year  of 
Jeroboam.  This  chronological  statement,  although 
it  appears  in  all  the  versions  and  in  the  massoretic 
text,  is  inconsistent  with  chap.  xiv.  2,  17,  23.  Am- 
aziali  the  father  of  Uzziah  ruled  in  all  29  years 
(xiv.  2),  14  years  contemporaneously  with  Joash  of 
Israel,  and  15  years  contemporaneously  with  his 
successor,  Jeroboam  II.  (xiv.  17,  23).  Amaziah 
therefore  died,  and  his  son  Uzziah  succeeded  him. 
in  the  15th  year  of  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  not 
in  the  27th.  In  order  to  retain  the  number  27,  it 
las  been  assumed  that  there  was  an  interregnum 
of  11  or  12  years,  although  there  is  no  mention  of 
any  such  thing  in  the  history.  According  to  chap, 
xiv.  20,  21,  Uzziah  succeeded  immediately  upon 
the  death  of  his  father,  and  moreover,  if  this  sup- 
position were  to  be  adopted,  we  should  have  to  al- 
ter all  the  other  chronological  statements  in  chaps, 
xiv.  and  xv.  Cf.  the  Excursus  on  the  Chronology, 
below,  after  chap.  xvii.  Evidently  there  has  been 
an  interchange  of  the  numerical  signs  here,  J3,  27, 
has  been  put  for  yj,  15,  as  Capellus  and  Grotius 
supposed,  and  as  all  the  expositors,  even  including 
Keil  and  Von  Gerlach,  now  assume.  [Thenius, 
adopting  this  solution  of  the  difficulty,  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  testimony  which  it  bears  to  the  anti- 
quity of  the  use  of  113,  instead  of  IT ,  to  represent 
1 5.  The  latter  being  the  abbreviation  for  pflfp .  was 
avoided,  as  is  well  known,  when  it  should  have  oc- 
curied  in  the  list  of  numerals  to  represent  fifteen.  If 
Vl3  ever  stood  there,  of  course  the  inference  is  good, 
that,  even  at  a  very  early  time,  the  superstitious 
reverence  for  the  name  HUT  had  gone  so  far  as  to 
produc  this  change  in  the  mode  of  writing  the 
numbf  r.  In  fact,  however,  the  change  here  from 
27  to  15  is  purely  arbitrary.  It  must  be  defended 
by  considerations  drawn  from  the  context.  Any 
argument  in  its  favor  which  is  deduced  from  the 
greater  or  less  resemblance  of  13  to  10  is  of  little 
value.  Other  letters  would  have  as  great  or  greater 
resemblance.  We  ought  to  understand  that,  when 
we  abandon  the  text  as  it  stands,  we  make  arbi- 
trary changes,  and  we  must  justify  them  by  criti- 
cal grounds.  We  only  deceive  ourselves  when  vri 
imagine  that  there  is  a  resemblance  between  the 
numerals  in  the  text  and  those  we  want  to  put 
there,  and  so  persuade  ourselves  that  we  have 
found  further  support  for  our  conjecture.  That 
number  must  be  put  in  the  place  of  27,  which  the 
best  critical  combinations  require.  The  expositors 
almost  .ill  agree  in  reading  51  (53)  for  41  as  the 
duration  of  Jeroboam's  reign,  and  then  in  reading 
1.".  for  27  here,  because  Zachariah  succeeded  in 
Uzziah'a  38th.  See,  however,  the  bracketed  note 
on  chap.  xiv.  22.  and  the  Appendix  on  theGhronoJogy. 
— W.  G.  S.]  Azariah,  or  Uzziah,  was  devoted  to 
the  worship  of  Jehovah,  as  Amaziah  was  at  the 
commencement  of  his  reign ;  like  him,  however,  he 


still  permitted  the  worship  upon  the  high  places. 
See  notes  on  chap.  xiv.  3  and  4.  The  chronicler 
says  that  he  sought  Jehovah  so  long  as  the  prophet 
Zachariah  lived  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  5).  [The  chroni- 
cler does  not  charge  him  with  idolatry  at  all.  He 
accounts  for  his  leprosy  by  telling  how  he  tres- 
passed upon  the  function  of  the  priests.  This  he 
did  from  pride;  nevertheless,  it  was  rather  too 
great  zeal  in  the  service  of  Jehovah  than  too  little. 
— W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  5.  And  the  Lord  touched  the  king,  &c. 
This  did  not  take  place  until  after  Uzziah  had  ac- 
complished what  is  narrated  in  2  Chron.  xxvi.  6- 
15.  The  ground  which  is  there  given  (ver.  16)  for 
the  punishment  with  leprosy  is.  that  he,  beinj, 
puffed  up  in  consequence  of  his  victories  and  of 
his  powerful  position,  usurped  priestly  functions 
contrary  to  the  law  (Numb,  xviii.  3,  7),  and  thereby 
violated  the  sanctuary.  It  is  hardly  possible  that 
he  can  have  become  a  leper  earlier  than  the  last 
years  of  his  long  reign.  His  son  Jotham,  who 
ruled  in  his  stead  during  his  sickness,  was  only  25 
years  old  when  he  became  king  in  his  own  right 
by  his  father's  death  (ver.  33).— ryE'Snn  JV3  does 

not  mean :  sick-house,  or  pest-house,  as  it  is  now 
generally  translated,  for  t."Sn  means  to  be  loose, 
free,  that  is,  separated  (Levit.  xix.  20).  Neither  does 
it  mean  house  of  freedom,  or  manumission  (Heng- 
stenberg,  Keil).  but  house  of  separation,  i.  e„  a  house 
which  stands  in  the  open  country,  by  itself,  sepa- 
rate from  others.  Vulg:  in  domo  libera  seorsum 
[See  Grammatical  note  on  the  verse.]  According 
to  the  Law  (Levit.  xiii.  46),  the  lepers  had  to  dweL 
apart  (TQ).  outside  of  the  city  or  the  camp  (2 
Kings  vii.  3).  Probably  the  house  in  which  the 
leprous  king  lived  was  especially  built  for  him. — 
And  Jotham  the  king's  son  was  over  the  house, 
i.  e„  he  filled  one  of  the  highest  offices  of  the  court 
(cf.  1  Kings  iv.  6;  xviii.  3;  2  Kings  xviii.  1R)— 
judging  the  people  of  the  land  [cf.  1  Sam.  viii. 
6,  20 ;  1  Kings  iii.  9),  i.  e.,  Yicarius  erat  regis,  qui  a 
populo  segregates  fungi  regiam  potesiatem  von  poterat 
(Grotius).  As  was  said  above  (Pt.  II.,  pp.  88  and  S9), 
this  passage  bears  strongly  against  the  supposition 
that  there  occurred,  in  the  Hebrew  history,  joint- 
egencies  which  are  not  specifically  mentioned. 
l  zziah  remained  king  until  his  death ;  up  to  that 
event,  Jotham  was  not  co-regent,  but  only  the  rep- 
resentative of  his  father. — In  the  city  of  David. 
ver.  7.  Instead  of  this  the  chronicler  says  (II..  xxvi. 
23) :  "  In  the  field  of  the  burial  which  belonged  Ut 
the  kings;  for  they  said,  He  is  a  leper."  Bertheau 
remarks  on  this;  "  He  was  buried,  according  tc 
this,  near  to  the  royal  tombs  (with  his  fathers),  be- 
cause they  did  not  dare  to  put  a  king  who  had  died 
of  leprosy  in  the  royal  sepulchres,  lest  they  should 
make  them  unclean." 

Ver.  8.  In  the  thirty  and  eighth  year,  Ac.  Id 
regard   to   the  correctness  of  this   statt  ment,  Bet 


CHAPTER  XV.   1-38. 


159 


note  on  chap.  xiv.  23.  The  assassinations  of  kings 
which  had  been  perpetrated  before  this,  had  taken 
place  in  secret,  but  this  one  was  carried  out  in  pub- 
lic, that  is  to  say,  boldly  and  without  fear.  The 
people  saw  it  perpetrated  without  opposing  it.  The 
Sept.    translate   quite   incorrectly:      Kal   iirara^ev 

avrov  iv   Ke/3Aad/i.      Ewald  considers    DJT^Sp  a 

proper  name,  because  DJ?  has  not  the  article  [and 

because  *>2p  does  not  "  occur  elsewhere  in  prose," 

and  because  the  Sept.  take  it  as  a  proper  name]. 
He  believes  it  to  be  the  name  of  the  "third  king 
during  that  month  "  [see  Zach.  xi.  8].  He  trans- 
lates: "And  Kobolam  slew  him."  Not  to  speak 
of  any  other  objection  to  this,  we  should  then  ex- 
pect to  be  told  whose  son  he  was,  as  in  the  similar 
cases,  vers.  14,  25,  and  30.  [Stanley  is  the  only 
scholar  who  has  followed  Ewald  in  this  invention. 
The  facts  referred  to  in  support  of  it  are  not  by 
any  means  without  weight,  but  the  invention  of 
another  king  is  too  ponderous  a  solution  for  them. 
Yet  it  is  remarkable  to  notice  that  a  form  from  the 

root  73p  forms  a  part  of  certain  Assyrian  proper 
names.  (See  the  list  of  Assyrian  kings  at  the  end 
of  vol.  I.  of  Lenormant's  Manual  of  the  History  of 
the  East,  with  foot-note  thereon.)    However,  to  take 

DU"?3p  as  a  proper  name  in  the  place  before  us 

renders  the  passage  awkward  and  unnatural. — W. 
G.  S.]  Thenius  arbitrarily  pronounces  ver.  12  to 
be  an  addition  by  the  "  redactor."  It  refers  back 
very  significantly  to  chap.  x.  30.  Zachariah  was 
the  fourth  and  last  descendant  of  Jehu  upon  the 
throne  of  Israel. 

Ver.  13.  Shallum  the  son  of  Jabesh,  &c.  As 
the  one  month,  during  which  Shallum  reigned, 
falls  in  the  thirty-ninth  year  of  the  reign  of  Uzziah, 
the  six  months,  during  which  Zachariah  was  king 
(ver.  8),  must  be  placed  in  the  last  part  of  the  38th 
year  of  Uzziah's  reign ;  probably  some  of  them  fall 
even  in  the  beginning  of  the  39th.  According  to 
Josephus,  Shallum  was  a  friend  (<pi?.oc)  of  Zacha- 
riah, and  put  him  to  death  by  taking  advantage  of 
this  relation.  When  Menahem,  6  amarr/yoc  (i.  e., 
the  commander-in-chief),  who  was  then  in  Tirzah, 
heard  this,  he  started  up  with  his  entire  force,  and 
marched  to  Samaria,  ml  avu^a?ujv  fie  pd\i/r  drai- 
pei  rbv  Sf /./owkx' ;  after  he  had  made  himself 
king,  eneiftei'  elr  Bail'av  irapayivtxai  -ii'/iv.  Tir- 
zah lay  in  the  neighborhood  of  Samaria.  See 
above,  note  on  1  Kings  xiv.  17. — -Then  Menahem, 
ver.  16,  i.  e.,  after  he  had  made  himself  master 
of  the  throne.  The  verse  contains  a  further 
continuation  of  ver.  14,  and  tells  more  definitely 
what  Menahem  did,  after  he  had  killed  Shallum, 
in  order  to  become  rider  of  the  country.  This 
event  does  not  belong  to  the  reign  of  Menahem, 
for  the  story  of  that  does  not  begin  until  the  17th 
verse,  but  it  belongs  to  the  incidents  connected 
with  his  taking  possession  of  the  throne.  It  fol- 
lows that  Tiphsah  is  not  the  celebrated  Thapsacus 
on  the  Euphrates  (as  it  is  in  1  Kings  v.  4 ;  see  note 
thereon),  as  has  often  been  supposed,  and  as  Keil 
[and  Rawlinson]  yet  maintain.  Menahem  could 
not,  at  any  time,  have  undertaken  an  expedition 
against  this  far  distant  city,  which  formed  the  ut- 
most limit  of  the  kingdom  of  Solomon ;  least  of  all 
oould  he  have  undertaken  this  just  after  ascending 
the  throne.     He  had  enough  to  do  to  establish  his 


usurped  authority  on  a  firm  basis.  Most  commen- 
tators, therefore,  correctly  judge  that  Tiphsah  waa 
a  city  near  Tirzah,  of  which,  as  of  so  many  others 
which  are  mentioned  but  once,  nothing  further  ia 
known.      The  name    nDSn,  trajectus,  ford,  "may, 

in  view  of  its  appellative  force,  have  been  applied 
to  many  towns  which  lay  near  to  fords  "  (Winer). 
There  is  not  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that 
"  nDEn  is  an  error  for  rnsri ,"  a  town  on  the  bor- 
der between  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  Jos.  xvii.  7, 
8  (Thenius). — HVinO  cannot  be  translated  other- 
wise than  as  in  ver.  14.  It  does  not  therefore 
mean:  "from  Tirzah  on."  i.e.,  to  Tiphsah.  but: 
'starting  out  from  Tirzah,"  and  it  is  to  be  joined 

with  n|' ,  not  with  iT^32 .     The  meaning  of  the 

passage  is,  therefore,  this:  When  Menahem  heard 
of  the  events  which  had  happened  in  Samaria,  he 
marched  from  Tirzah  with  his  army,  or  a  part  of 
it,  to  Samaria,  and  there  slew  Shallum.  Then  he 
went  back  to  Tirzah  and  marched  out  with  his  en- 
tire force  to  reduce  the  country  to  obedience  to 
himself.  In  Tiphsah  he  met  with  obstinate  resist- 
ance, but  took  the  city  by  storm  (Josephus:  Kara 
Kpdrog),  and  chastised  it  and  the  surrounding  ter- 
ritory in  a  horrible  manner  (Josephus:  uudir/rof 
'  -  ,<  vj/.?)i>  ov  fcara?j7r<jv  ovde  a-ypidryror).  He 
thereby  frightened  any  others  who  might  have 
been  intending  to  resist,  and  so  established  him- 
self on  the  throne.  We  have  mention  of  a  similar 
cruelty  towards  pregnant  women  in  chap.  viii.  12; 
Hos.  xiv.  1  [E.  V.  xiii.  16] ;  Amos  i.  1 3.  If  news- 
paper reports  may  be  believed,  a  guerilla  captain  in 
Michoacan,  Mexico,  did  the  same  thing  in  tne  year 
1861. 

Ver.  17.  In  the  nine  and  thirtieth  year,  &c. 
On  the  duration  of  Menahem's  reign,  see  note  on 

ver.  23.     The  closing  words  of  ver.   IS :    VD,_i>3 

are  nowhere  else  added  to  the  stereotyped  formula 
which  recurs  in  that  verse,  although  they  would 
hold  just  as  true  of  any  of  the  other  kings  of  Is- 
rael as  of  Menahem.  The  Sept.  join  the  words  to 
the  following  verse,  and  translate :  iv  rair  r/fiepaig 
avroi  avififi  *o//..  They  therefore  read  VO'3t 
and  Thenius  and  Keil,  referring  also  to  ver.  29, 
agree  in  regarding  this  as  the  original  reading  of 
the  text.  By  this  change  N3 ,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  ver.  19,  comes  into  a  good  connection  of 
sense,  and  is  not  left  abrupt;  also  there  is  no  need 
for  Hitzig's  emendation  joi. — Pul  (ver.  19)  is  the 

first  Assyrian  king  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament.  In  fact  this  is  the  first  reference  to 
the  Assyrians  in  the  history  of  the  Israelites. 
Since  they  had  to  come  through  Syria  in  order  to 
reach  Palestine,  it  follows  that  the}'  must  have  re- 
duced that  country  to  subjection,  and  extended 
their  power  on  this  side  of  the  Euphrates ;  i.  e., 
Assyria  must  have  commenced  to  take  the  position 
of  a  great  world-monarchy.  [Assyria  had  begun 
to  take  the  position  of  a  world-monarchy,  but  it 
must  be  understood  that  these  expeditions  were 
raids  rather  than  complete  conquests.  Tribute  was 
imposed  and  then  the  defeated  nation  was  left  in- 
tact. It  refused  the  tribute  as  soon  as  it  dared  and 
then  a  new  expedition  was  made  against  it.  It  waa 
only  after  a  long  period  of  this  vassal  relationship 
that  a  conquered  country  was  incorporated  as  a 


160 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


province  of  the  empire.  Accordingly  very  fen- 
were  ever  thus  treated  at  all.  The  expression  for 
incorporation  used  in  the  inscriptions  is  to  "treat 
them  like  the  Assyrians." — W.  G.  S.]  Hosea  (viii. 
10)  calls  the  king  of  Assyria  "  The  king  of  princes." 
[••  King  of  kings  "  is  a  standing  epithet  of  the  As- 
syrian monarchs  upon  their  monuments.]  It  has 
often  been  inferred  from  Hos.  v.  13;  vii.  11 1  viii. 
9  that  Menahem  invited  the  Assyrians  to  support 
him  against  other  aspirants  to  the  crown  (Thenius), 
and  that  Pul  came  "to  help  the  king  to  restore 
order"  (Ewald).     This  notion  is  controverted  by 

the  expression  JIXiT^j;  N3 ,  which  is  used  of  a 

hostile  coming  and  attack,  Gen.  xxxiv.  25;  Judges 
xviii.  27  j  Isai.  x.  28;  Job  ii.  11.  In  1  Chron.  v. 
26,  Puis  coining  is  distinctly  referred  to  as  a  hos- 
tile attack.  Jlenahem  induced  the  mighty  enemy 
to  withdraw  from  the  country  by  a  large  sum  of 
money,  and  then  secured  his  alliance  against  inter- 
nal and  external  foes.  This  last  is  what  Hosea 
calls  Israel's  going  to  Assyria.  A  thousand  talents 
of  silver  are  about  two  or  two  and  a  half  million 
thalers  [SI, 440,000  or  $1,800,000.  The  value  of 
the  talent   is   not  surely  and   definitely  known.] 

Menahem    imposed  this  sum  as   a  tax  ( NX' ,  he 

made  the  money  go  out)  upon  the  "  able  ones  "  in 

Israel.     P'riH  'liaj  are  not  here  the  mighty  men 

of  the  army,  but  those  who  were  strong  in  wealth 
(Job  xx.  15;  Ruth  ii.  1).  Either  there  were  no 
treasuries  then  in  Israel  or,  if  there  were  any, 
they  were  empty.  Menahem  did  not  include  the 
poor  in  this  tax,  in  order  that  he  might  not  excite 
discontent,  and  might  not  have  to  use  force  to  col- 
lect it.  Each  man  fifty  shekels  of  silver.  As  a 
talent  contained  3,000  shekels,  there  must  have 
been  60.000  "  mighty  men  of  wealth."  The  inter- 
pretation, that  Menahem  paid  to  Pul  50  shekels 
for  every  soldier  in  his  army  (Richter),  is  incorrect. 
It  is  often  inferred,  though  incorrectly,  from  1 
Chron.  v.  26,  that  Pul,  on  his  departure,  took  away 
Reuben  and  Gad  and  the  half  of  Manasseh.  This 
deed  is  ascribed  there,  as  here,  to  Tiglath  Pileser 
(see  Bertheau  on  that  passage).  The  assertion  of 
the  Calw.  Bibel  that  "  this  entire  occurrence  was 
prophesied  in  Amos  vii.  1-3,"  has  little  or  no 
foundation. 

Ver.  23.  In  the  fiftieth  year  of  Azariah,  Ac. 
As  Menahem  became  king,  according  to  ver.  17.  in 
the  39th  of  Uzziah,  and  ruled  10  years,  we  expect 
here  the  49th  year.  Keil  assumes  that  "  some 
months  passed  between  the  death  of  Menahem  and 
the  accession  of  Pekahiah ;  probably  because  of  the 
disorder  which  prevailed  at  the  time,  and  which 
made  this  accession  difficult."  We  prefer  to  sup- 
pose that  Menahem  became  king  in  the  last  months 
of  the  39th  year  of  Uzziah,  and  reigned  for  a 
month  or  two  into  his  50th,  i.  «.,  a  few  months 
over  ten  years.  [This  changes  the  form  of  the 
difficulty,  but  does  not  do  away  with  it  at  all.  If 
the  facts  had  been  as  is  here  supposed,  the  Jewish 
mode  of  reckoning  would  have  made  Meuahem's 
reign  11  or  12  years  in  duration.  There  is  a  dis- 
crepancy which  we  cannot  explain.  We  must 
either  change  the  text,  or  pass  i'.  over,  taking  10 
years  as  the  length  of  the  reign  and  neglecting  the 
other  statement.     The  attempted  explanations  are 

futile  — TV.   G.   S.]     On  {."'$>"'.   ver.   25.  see  Rxeg. 


note  on  1  Kings  ix.  22.  It  is  not  apposition  to 
Remaliah  (as  Luther  took  it),  but  to  Pekah.  The 
citadel  of  the  king's  house  is  not  the  harem 
(Ewald).  It  is  the  fortified  part  of  the  palace  into 
which  Pekahiah  fled  when  the  conspirators  ap- 
proached (cf.  1  Kings  xvi.  18).  [So  far  as  we  know 
there  was  no  part  of  the  Oriental  palaces  which 
was,  in  any  proper  sense,  fortified.  The  Assyria!, 
palaces  which  have  been  exhumed  consist  of  three 
independent  yet  connected  buildings,  a  hall  of  au- 
dience or  business,  a  servants'  house,  and  the 
harem.  The  last  was  the  most  strictly  enclosed 
and  carefully  guarded,  and  was  the  strongest  for 
defence.  It  was  connected  by  an  enclosed  cloister 
with  the  first  mentioned  building.  If  wemayjudge 
from  this  of  the  arrangement  of  a  Samaritan  palace, 
the  J1D1X  w-as  the  harem  or  included  it. — "W.  G.  S.j 

Josephus  gives  as  the  reason  for  his  short  reign  of 
two  years :  ti]  rov  ~arpdg  KaTa.Ko7.ov&i]oa(;  cjuon/rt. 
Argob  and  Arieh  were  no  doubt  high  officials,  and 
influential  friends  of  the  king,  whose  opposition 
was  '.o  be  feared,  and  whom  Pekah,  therefore,  put 
to  death  together  with  (JIN)  the  king.  The  fol- 
lowing lay  shows  that  they  were  not  fellow-con- 
spirators of  Pekah  (as  many  have  supposed)  who, 
with  him,  murdered  the  king.  The  fifty  Gileadites 
probably  belonged  to  the  body-guard  which  was 
under  the  command  of  Pekah.  The  Gileadites, 
who  were  stout  soldiers  (1  Chron.  xii.  8 ;  xxvi.  31 ; 
Josh.  xvii.  1),  were  employed  in  this  department 
of  the  service. 

Ver.  27.  In  the  two  and  fiftieth  year,  &c. 
On  the  chronological  data  in  vers.  27  and  30,  see 
below,  after  chap.  xvii.  The  following  may  suffice 
here :  Pekah  is  said  (ver.  27)  to  have  reigned  only 
20  years.  But,  according  to  ver.  32,  he  reigned  two 
years  before  Jotham.  The  latter  reigned  1 6  years. 
According  to  chap.  xvii.  1,  Pekah's  successor, 
Hoshea,  came  to  the  throne  in  the  12th  year  of 
Jotham's  successor  Ahaz.  But  2  +  16  +  12  =  30. 
AVe  are  therefore  compelled  to  conclude  that  the 
time  from  the  accession  of  Pekah  to  that  of 
Hoshea  was  thirty  years.  All  the  commenta- 
tors agree  in  this.  Then,  either  Pekah  ruled 
30  instead  of  20  years,  or  he  reigned  20  y^rs 
and  there  was  an  interval  of  10  years  before 
the  accession  of  his  successor,  Hoshea,  during 
which  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  and,  as  those 
who  adopt  this  view  agree,  there  was  anarchy. 
Ver.  30,  however,  contradicts  this  latter  hypothe- 
sis, for  it  is  there  said  that  Hoshea  slew  Pekah 
and  reigned  in  his  stead,  not  after  an  interval  of 
10  years,  but  as  soon  as  he  had  killed  him.  The 
history  does  not  hint  at  any  period  of  strife  or 
anarchy,  although  such  a  period  must  have  pre- 
sented incidents  worth  recording  We  do  not  hesi- 
tate, therefore,  to  assume  here,  as  in  ver.  1,  that 
an  error  in  copying  has  been  made.  The  error 
here,  in  writing  3,  20,  for  ^>,  30,  is  one  which 
could  take  place  more  easily  than  the  one  we  dis- 
covered there  (Thenius).  AU  the  other  chrono- 
logical data  are  consistent  with  30  in  this  place,  as 
we  shall  see  belew,  on  chap.  xvii.  [See  the  trans- 
lator's addition  below  at  the  end  of  this  Exeg.  sec- 
tion.] 

Ver.  29.  In  the  days  of  Pekah  .  .  came 
Tiglath  Pileser.  This  Assyrian  king  was  the 
successor  of  Pul.  To  which  of  the  Assyrian  dy- 
nasties he  belonged,  and  whether  he  was  the  last 


CHAPTER  XV.  1-38. 


161 


of  the  dynasty  of  the  DereetacUe,  are  questions 
which  do  not  interest  us  here  [?]  (Keil  on  the  pas- 
Bage).  The  signification  of  the  name  Tiglath- 
pileser  (or,  as  the  chronicler  writes  it,  Tilgath- 
pilneser)  is  uncertain.  According  to  Gesenius. 
Tiglath  is  equivalent  to  Diglath,  the  Tigris  river, 
and  pileser  means  lord:  "  Lord  of  the  Tigris  river." 
According  to  Fiirst,  Tiglath  means  acer,  forlis. — 
[This  is  the  etymological  meaning  of  Diglath,  ap- 
plied  to  the   Tigris  from  its   swiftness.     See  the 

dictionaries  ou  ppl.T-] — ?3,  arcere,  and  TDS, 
prince;  together:  "The  chief,  as  mighty  defender." 
According  to  others,  Diglath  is  the  name  for  the 
goddess  Derceto,  or  Atargatis.  [The  name  is  tran- 
scribed from  the  cuneiform  by  Lenormant:  Tuklat- 
pal-ashir;  by  Smith:  Tukulti-pal-zara ;  by  Raw- 
linson :  Tiglat-pal-zira.  Rawlinson  (Five  Great 
Monarchies,   IL   539)  gives   the    etymology  thus : 

Tiglat  is  worship,  or  adoration  (Chald.  "On ,  to  trust 

in);  pal  is  son  (of  this  there  is  no  doubt ;  it  occurs 
in  scores  of  names) ;  zira  is  obscure  ;  Sir.  H.  Raw- 
linson thinks  that  it  means  lord,  "as  Zirat  cer- 
tainly means  lady."  However  this  last  may  be, 
Pal-zira,  as  a  compound,  was  an  epithet  of  the 
god  Xin  (=  Hercules),  and  the  king's  name  would 
mean:  "  Worship  to  Hercules."  This  is  the  only 
explanation  yet  offered  which  is  anything  more 
than  a  guess. — W.  G.  S.]  On  Ijon  and  Abel-beth- 
maachah,  see  notes  on  1  Kings  xv.  20.  Janoah 
cannot  be  the  town  on  the  border  between  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh,  which  is  mentioned  Josh.  xvi.  6 
sq.,  for  all  the  cities  here  mentioned  were  in  the 
northern  part  of  Palestine ;  it  probably  lay  near 
those  which  have  been  mentioned.  Kedesh  was  a 
free,  levitical  city  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  (Josh. 
xix.  37  ;  xx.  7  ;  xxi.  32) ;  on  the  western  bank  of 
the  sea  of  Merom  (Robinson,  Palest.  III.  355).  On 
Hazor  see  note  on  1  Kings  ix.  15.  Gilead  with 
the  article  is  not  a  city  but  the  territory  east  of  the 
Jordan  which  Jeroboam  II.  had  recovered  to  Is- 
rael (chap.  xiv.  25).  On  Galilee,  or  Galilah,  see 
note  on  1  Kings  ix.  1 1.  All  the  land  of  Naphtali 
is  an  explanatory  apposition  to  Galilah.  The 
places  are  mentioned  in  the  order  in  which  they 
were  conquered.  The  incident  which  is  here  nar- 
rated coincides  with  that  in  chap.  xvi.  9  (see  Mau- 
rer  on  that  verse)  and  belongs  to  the  last  years 
of  Pekah's  reign.  Perhaps  it  gave  occasion  to 
Hosea's  conspiracy  against  him.  The  chronologi- 
cal statement  in  ver.  30 :  in  the  twentieth  year 
of  Jotham,  cannot  be  correct,  for  Jotham  only 
reigned  16  years.  See  further,  notes  on  chap, 
xvii. 

Ver.  32.  In  the  second  year  of  Pekah,  &c. 
On  the  section  vers.  32-38  see  the  parallel  narrative 
in  2  Ohron.  xxvii.  1-9,  which  contributes  further 
information  in  regard  to  Jotham.  To  the  words: 
He  did  like  to  all  that  his  father  Uzziah  had 
done,  the  Chronicler  adds:  "  howbeit  he  entered 
not  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord,"  i.  e.,  into  the  in- 
ner sanctuary,  by  which  it  is  meant  to  sa,y  that  he 
did  not  usurp  priestly  functions  as  Uzziah  had 
done  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  16).  He  did  not  abolish  the 
worship  on  the  heights  (ver.  4  and  chap.  xiv.  4). 
He  built  the  upper  gate,  i.  e.,  he  restored  it,  he 
rebuilt  it  more  splendidly,  for  it  could  not  well  be 
meant  to  assert  that  he  built  it  at  this  time,  and 


that  there  had  been  none  before. 
U 


l%n 


is  not  the 


highest  gate,  nor  the  chief  gate,  but  "the  upper 
one,"  perhaps  because  it  was  toward  the  north,  to- 
wards that  part  of  the  temple  rock,  which,  as  com- 
pared with  the  south  side,  was  higher.  (Bertheau, 
on  '2  Chron.  xvii.  3).  ["  King  Solomon's  palace  was 
evidently  at  a  lower  level  than  the  temple,  and 
therefore  (2  Chron.  xxvii.  3)  king  Jotham  may  still 
have  built  much  upon  the  wall."  (Jerusalem  Re- 
stored, p.  222).]  According  to  Ezek.,  xl.  38  sq , 
the  sacrifices  were  slain  at  this  gate.  (Of.  Ezek.  ix. 
2  :  viii.  5.)  This  is  probably  the  reason  why  Jotham 
made  it  especially  beautiful.  In  Jerem.  xx.  2  it  is 
called  the  gate  of  Benjamin.  It  must  not  be  confused 
with  the  gate  -|J|D,  chap.  xi.  6,  for  this  was  adjoining 
the  palace  (see  Exeg.  note  on  that  ver.). — In  those 
days  (ver.  37),  i.  e.,  towards  the  eud  of  Jotham's 
reign,  Jehovah  began  to  send  against  Judah  the 
confederated  Israelites  and  Syrians,  t.  e.,  he  brought 
this  chastisement  upon  Judah  (Levit.  xxyi.  22 ;  Amos 
viii.  11).  Rezin;  "the  name  of  the  founder  of  the 
dynasty  (1  Kings  xi  23)  [rather  of  the  founder  of 
the  monarchy.  There  had  been  more  than  one 
dynasty.]  appears  again,  slightly  altered,  in  him 
who  was  to  close  it"  (Thenius).  The  attacks  were 
begun  under  Jotham;  under  his  successor  Ahaz 
(chap,  xvi.)  they  first  became  threatening  to  the 
kingdom.  As  the  Assyrians  had  already  once 
penetrated  into  Palestine  (ver.  19),  and  as  Ahaz 
once  more  called  on  them  for  aid  against  Rezin 
and  Pekah  (chap.  xvi.  7),  we  must  suppose  that  the 
Syrians  had,  in  the  mean  time,  freed  themselves 
once  more  from  the  Assyrian  yoke  (see  notes  on 
ver.  19).  This  had  probably  become  possible  for 
them  because  the  Assyrians,  on  account  of  the 
revolt  of  the  Medes  and  Babylonians,  were  pre- 
vented for  a  time  from  maintaining  their  authority. 
Tiglath  Pileser  reconquered  Damascus  (chap.  xvi. 9). 

[Supplementary  Note  on  the  references  to 
Assyrian  history  contained  in  chap.  xv. — The  ref- 
erences to  contemporaneous  history  which  occur 
in  the  text  are  of  the  highest  value  for  the  solu- 
tion of  the  chronological  difficulties,  and  for  the 
elucidation  of  the  history.  Every  such  reference, 
therefore,  requires  our  most  careful  attention.  In 
the  three  years  since  the  German  edition  of  this 
volume  was  published  most  important  contribu- 
tions have  been  made  to  our  knowledge,  espe- 
cially of  Assyrian  history.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  the  German  author' could  lay  aside  all 
notice  of  the  results  which  had  been  attained,  even 
at  that  time,  and  refuse  to  take  notice  of  them. 
The  time  has  now  certainly  come  when  biblical 
scholars  must  give  them  attention,  and  a  summary 
of  the  information  we  possess  is  given  in  a  series 
of  notes  at  the  end  of  the  Exegetical  sections  on  the 
next  few  chapters.* 

*  Of  works  which  are  available  to  the  English  stu<lent 
for  acquiring  a  more  detailed  acquaintance  with  history 
contemporaneous  to  that  of  the  Israelitish  monarchy,  we 
may  mention  the  following:  a)  Prof.  Geo.  Uawlinson's  Five 
Groat  Monarchies  of  the  Ancient  World.  (4  Vols.  Murray: 
London,  1864.  2ded.  1371.)  This  work  Isbased  on  the  inves- 
tigations and  opinions  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson.  The  first  edition 
has  been  already  to  some  extent  superseded  by  later  discov- 
eries. I))  Manual  of  Ancient  History,  by  the  same  (Har- 
pers' reprint,  1871).  This  is  a  small  and  convenient  work.  A 
large  part  of  it  is  taken  up  with  the  history  of  Greece  and 
Home,  and  the  history  of  the  Oriental  nations  is  so  innch 
epitomized  that  it  is  hardly  available  for  any  who  are  not 
already  familiar  with  the  history  from  other  sources.  It 
is  not  consistent  in  its  chronology.  It  adopts  the  "  shorl 
period"  for  Assyrian  history,  but  has  not  ventured  to 
depart  from   the  received  chronology  for  the   Israelitisb 


162 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Pul  (ver.  19)  is  the  first  king  of  Assyria  who 
is  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  though  we 
know  from  the  monuments  and  inscriptions  that 
Ahab  and  Jehu  both  came  in  contact  with  the 
Assyrian  world-monarchy.  (See  notes  5  and  12  on 
the  'Chronological  Table,  and  p.  114  of  Part  II.)  No 
such  king  is  mentioned  in  an_v  inscription  which 
has  yet  been  found,  and  no  such  one  is  named  in 
the  Canon  (See  Appendix  on  the  Chronology,  §  4). 
Rawlinson  (Five  Great  Monarchies,  II.,  p.  385  sq.) 
thinks  that  the  identification  with  certain  known 
kings  of  Assyria,  which  has  been  attempted,  is 
unsatisfactory,  but  does  not  dispose  definitely  of 
the  question.  In  the  Manual,  Pul  is  not  mentioned 
among  the  kings  of  Assyria  though  he  is  mentioned 
in  the  section  on  "Judaea."  Oppert  offers  a  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty.  He  gives  credit  to  the  story 
of  the  "  first  destruction  of  Nineveh  "  by  the  Chal- 
deans and  Medes.  According  to  his  identification 
of  the  eclipse  mentioned  in  the  Canon  (App.  on  the 
Chron.,  £  4.).  the  date  of  this  would  be  789.  The 
accession  of  Tiglath  Pileser  II.  in  747-5  is  beyond 
dispute.  The  gap  between  789  and  747  is  filled  by 
inserting  Pul,  a  Chaldean  (the  name  is  not  Assy- 
rian in  form),  who  is  supposed  to  have  remained 
in  Assyria  after  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  as  ruler 
of  the  country.  This,  such  as  it  is,  is  the  best  con- 
jecture to  account  for  the  king  mentioned  in  ver. 
19. 

Tiglath  Pileser  II.  (ver.  29)  was,  according  to 
Rawlinson.  a  usurper,  according  to  Lenormant,  a 
descendant  of  the  ancient  Assyrian  dynasty.  His 
reign  dates  from  745-4,  but  he  may  have  been 
engaged  for  two  or  three  years  before  that  time  in 
securing  the  throne.  He  reigned  until  727.  He 
is  said  in  the  text  to  have  come  into  Syria  and  Sa- 
maria in  the  reign  of  Pekah.  This  is  the  first  in- 
stance we  find  of  that  policy  of  deportation  which 
the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians  afterwards  prac- 
tised so  much.  It  was  not  generally,  or  certainly 
had  not  been  up  to  this  time,  the  policy  of  the 
Assyrians  to  destroy  the  nationality  of  the  nations 
which  they  subdued.  (See  bracketed  note  on  ver. 
19.)  They  made  expeditions  against  certain  nations 
which  they  plundered  and  made  tributary,  but 
which  they  then  left  undisturbed  so  long  as  the 
tribute  was  paid.  It  was  only  after  long  vassalage, 
and  repeated  revolts  and  reconquests,  that  nations 
were  incorporated  as  provinces  in  the  Assyrian 
empire. 

We  are  now  promised  from  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions a  solution  of  one  of  the  most  perplexing  dis- 
crepancies in  the  chronological  statements  of  the 

monarchy  in  order  to  bring  them  into  accord.  (See  notes  5 
and  15  on  tbe  Chronological  Talile  at  the  end  of  this 
volume,  and  the  Appendix  on  the  Chronology,  Both 
these  works  are  marked  by  a  certain  timidity  and  want 
of  independence,  c)  Lennrmsnt's  Manual  of  the  Ancient 
History  oft!,*  East;  English  edition  edited  by  Chev&llier 
(Asher:  London,  i!  vol,  ;  Vol.  I.,  1869;  Vol.  II.,  1870.  This 
is  tile  edition  to  which  the  references  in  this  volume  apply. 
Ueprint  by  Lippincott).    The  French  edition  (Levy:  Paris, 

1869)    is    a ropanied    by    an   excellent    historical     atlas. 

This  work  is  based  chiefly  upon  the  researches  of  Oppert. 
but  contains  also  original  investigations  and  independent 
judgment.  It  present-  a  very  satisfactory  statement  of  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge,  and  is  in  style  and  method 
very  available  as  a  student's  manual.  The  caution  needs 
to  be  borne  In  mind,  however,  in  using  it  that  assured 
facts  and  hypothetical  conjecture  are  sometimes  combined 

to    produce    a    Smooth    narrative,  atid    that  the  reader  lias 

little  warning  as  to  which  is  which.  It  is  very  conserva- 
tive in  its  religious  and  theological  attitude,  and  the  Eng- 
lish edition  follows  the  E.  V.  sometimes  even  where  It  is 
aertainly  incorrect. 


text,  and  one  which,  if  correct,  at  the  same  tim* 
supplies  an  omission  in  the  historical  narrative. 
It  is  said  that  Pekah  reigned  for  20  years  (ver.  27), 
but  it  is  stated  also  that  he  came  to  the  throne  in 
the  52d  of  Azariah,  who  reigned  for  52  years.  la 
chap.  17,  1,  it  is  said  that  Hoshea  (Pekah's  succes- 
sor) came  to  the  throne  in  the  12th  of  Ahaz.  In 
the  mean  time  Jotham  reigned  for  16  years.  But 
1  +  16+12  =  29  or  28  years  interval  for  Pekah's 
reign.  This  difficulty  has  never  been  solved ;  it 
has  only  been  put  aside  by  the  assumption  of  an 
interregnum  after  the  death  of  Pekah. 

Oppert  claims  to  have  discovered  the  explanation 
in  certain  statements  of  the  inscriptions.  Lenor- 
mant adopts  his  results,  but  Rawlinson  does  not. 
"  It  is  found  that  the  reign  of  Pekah  was  inter- 
rupted for  more  than  7  years;  that  about  74  2  he 
was  deposed  by  a  second  Menahem,  probably  a 
son  of  Pekahiah,  who  was  placed  on  the  throne  by 
Tiglath  Pileser  II.,  king  of  Assyria,  to  whom  he 
paid  tribute  as  vassal.  In  733  a  new  revolution 
dethroned  him  and  restored  Pekah.  The  latter, 
openly  hostile  to  the  Assyrians,  whose  vassal  he 
had  dethroned,  made  an  alliance  with  Rezin,  king 
of  Damascus.  These  two  princes,  even  in  the  time 
of  Pekah's  first  reign,  had  formed  the  design  of 
overturning  the  throne  of  the  House  of  David,  and 
installing  as  king  in  Jerusalem  a  certain  son  of 
Tabeel  (his  own  name  is  given  in  the  inscription — 
Ashariah),  a  creature  of  their  own  (see  ver.  37, 
where  they  seem  to  have  formed  the  plan  before 
Jotham's  death,  and  Isai.  vii.  1-6),  in  order,  prob- 
ably, to  oppose  a  more  compact  force  to  the  As- 
syrians." (Lenormant,  I.  172;  <•/.  also  389.)  See 
note  15  on  the  Chron.  Table.  In  the  last  column  of 
the  table  the  chronology  of  the  events  of  this 
period  is  given  according  to  this  scheme.  In  the 
second  alliance  and  revolt  of  Rezin  and  Pekah,  in 
733,  they  resumed  the  plan  of  attacking  Judah. 
Ahaz  called  for  Tiglath  Pileser's  aid  (see  note  after 
Exeg.  on  chap,  xvi.),  and  that  monarch  marched 
into  Damascus.  He  put  Rezin  to  death,  made 
Damascus  a  province,  forced  many  of  the  chief 
inhabitants  of  Syria,  northern,  and  trans-Jordanic 
Israel  to  emigrate  into  Armenia,  and,  though  he  left 
Pekah  on  the  throne,  reduced  the  kingdom  of  Is- 
rael to  the  district  of  Samaria.  Pekah  was  present 
as  a  vassal  at  Tiglath  Pileser's  •  t  in  Damascus 
in  730. 

"Towards  the  end  of  730,  Muthon,  king  of 
Tyre,  made  an  alliance  with  Pekah,  king  of  Israel, 
and  they  both  refused  their  tribute  to  the  As- 
syrians. Tiglath  Pileser  did  not  consider  this 
revolt  of  sufficient  importance  to  require  his  own 
presence.  He  contented  himself  with  sending 
an  army  into  Palestine.  On  the  approach  of  this 
force  a  conspiracy  was  formed  in  Samaria,  headed 
by  Hoshea,  who,  after  killing  Pekah,  possessed 
himself  of  the  crown.  The  Assyrian  king  con- 
firmed him  in  this  position,  and  Muthon,  finding 
himself  without  an  ally,  attempted  no  resistance, 
and  quickly  submitted  to  pay  his  tribute."  (Lenor- 
mant, I.  391.) — For  continuation  see  Supp.  Not* 
after  the  Exeg.  section  on  chap.  xvi. — W.  G.  S.] 

IIISTOP.ICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  This  chapter  contains  rather  a  succinct  it- 
view  of  several  reigns  than  a  detailed  account  of 
them.  Although  we  have  very  little  specific  in 
formation  in  regard  to  the  character  and  conduct 


CHAPTER  XV.  1-38. 


163 


»f  the  kings  mentioned,  yet  we  have  a  statement 
»bout  each  one  in  respect  to  his  attitude  towards 
the   Fundamental   law,   or  constitution,  of    Israel, 
that  is,  towards  the  covenant  of  Jehovah.     This  is 
always  stated  in  a  stereotyped  formula.     Hence 
we  see  that  this  point  was  the  most  important  one, 
in  the  eves  of  the  author,  in  regard  to  any  king, 
and  that,  in  reviewing  or  estimating  his  reign,  he 
laid  most  stress  on  this  inquiry :  How  did  he  stand 
towards  the  covenant  with  Jehovah — the  consti- 
tution of  Israel  ?    After  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II. 
the  decline  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes  went 
on  without  interruption.    From  the  reign  of  Zach- 
ariah  on,  the  kingdom  was  iu  the  progress  of  dis- 
solution.    The  author  therefore  hastens  more  rap- 
idly over  the  period  of  these  kings,  of  whom  three, 
indeed,   only  reigned  for  a  very  short  time,   and 
gives  only  those  facts   in  regard   to   them   which 
bear   either   upon   the   chief  question   mentioned 
above,  or  upon  the  approaching  catastrophe.     For 
everything  beyond  this  he  refers   to  the  original 
authorities.     It  is  true  that  he   follows  the  same 
course  in  regard  to  Uzziah  and  Jotham,  who  be- 
longed, according  to  the  Chronicler,  to  the  number 
of  energetic  and  efficient  rulers,  but  this  is  to  be 
explained,  tirst,  by  the  fact  that  he  treats  the  his- 
tory of  Judah  with  less  detail  from  the  time  of  the 
division  of  the  kingdom  on.  and,  secondly,  by  the 
character  of  the  activity  of  these  two  kings,  which 
was  directed  almost   exclusively  to  the  external 
and  political  prosperity  of  the   nation,  not  to  the 
restoration  and  complete  realization  of  the  theoc- 
racy, which  was,  for  this  author,  the   matter   of 
chief  interest.     From  what  the  Chronicler  gives  in 
addition,  we  cannot   see   that   the    religious   and 
■moral  life  took  any  new  elan  under  their  rule,  or 
reached  any  more   vigorous  development.      Both 
were,  it  is  true,  favorable  to  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah, but  they  lacked  decided  zeal  for  it,  for  "  the 
people  still  sacrificed  and  offered  incense  upon  the 
heights :  "  i.  ?.,  they  did  nothing  to  abolish  a  form 
of  worship  which  could  so  easily  lead  to  error.    The 
external  prosperity  which  they  produced  and  fos- 
tered caused  carelessness,  luxury,  forgetfulness  of 
God,  and  immorality  of  every  kind,  just  as  the  same 
causes  had  produced  these  vices  in  Israel  under 
Jeroboam  II.     This  we  see  from  the  descriptions 
•of  the  prophets   see  Isai.  ii-v.).    A  slow  corruption 
and  demoralization  was  making  its  way  in  Judah. 
It  became  evident,  and  bore  fruit  under  the   next 
king,  Ahaz.    His  successor,  Hezekiah.  was  the  first 
to  bring  the  Mosaic  constitution  into  full  and  effi- 
cient working,  hence  the  author  narrates  in  detail 
the  reign  of  this  genuine  theocratic  king  (cf.  chaps, 
xviii.,  xix.,  and  xx.). 

[Ewald  (Gesch.  III.  s.  634)  thus  describes  the 
state  of  Judah  under  Uzziah:  At  this  time  the 
people  turned  their  attention  to  money-getting 
"  not  so  much,  as  had  formerly  been  the  ease,  in 
particular  provinces  and  districts,  but  throughout 
the  country,  even  in  Judah,  and  not  so  much  be- 
cause a  single  king  like  Solomon  favored  commer- 
cial undertakings,  as  because  the  love  of  trade  and 
gain,  and  the  desire  for  the  easy  enjoyment  of  the 
greatest  possible  amount  of  wealth,  had  taken  pos- 
session of  all  classes.  All  the  scorn  poured  out  by 
the  prophets  upon  this  haste  to  be  rich,  and  all 
their  rebukes  of  the  tendency  to  cheat,  which  was 
one  of  the  fruits  of  it,  no  longer  availed  to  restore 
the  ancient  simplicity  and  contentment  (Hos.  xii. 
8:  Isai   ii.  1).      The  long  and  fortunate   reign  of 


Uzziah  in  Judah  was  very  favorable  to  the  growth 
of  this  love  of  gain  and  enjoyment.  The  quick  in- 
terchange of  money  in  the  lower  classes,  and  the 
fierce  struggle  for  gain  which  gradually  absorbed 
the  entire  people,  stimulated  the  upper  classes  to 
similar  attempts.  Many  were  the  complaints  in 
Judah  of-  the  injustice  of  the  judges,  and  of  the 
oppression  of  the  helpless  (Amos  iii.  1 ;  vi.  1 ;  Hos. 
v.  10;  cf.  also  Ps.  xii.).  There  was  a  perverse  and 
mocking  disposition  prevalent  which  led  men  to 
throw  doubt  upon  everything  and  to  raise  objec- 
tions to  everything  (Amos  vi.  3;  ix.  10;  Hos.  iv. 
4).  It  made  them  treat  with  harsh  contempt  the 
rebukes  and  exhortations  of  the  best  prophets,  as 
we  feel  distinctly  from  the  whole  tone  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah.  It  led  them  to 
desire  to  know  heathen  religions,  and  to  introduce 
foreign  divinities,  even  when  the  king  himself  held 
aloof  from  any  such  movement  (Amos  ii.  4;  Hos. 
iv.  15;  vi.  11  ;  xii.  1 ;  Isai.  ii.  8).  It  became  more 
and  more  difficult  to  restrain  these  tendencies."] 

2.  The  only  incident  which  is  mentioned  during 
the  long  reign  of  Uzziah  is  that  God  touched  him 
(WJ)i  and  tnat  he  was  a  leper  until  his  death.  It 
follows  that  this  fact  must  have  seemed  to  the  au- 
thor to  be  important  before  all  others.  Leprosy  is 
not,  for  him,  an  accidental  disease,  but  a  divine 
judgment  for  guilt,  as  it  is  often  described  (Numb. 
xii.  10;  Deut.  xxiv.  8,  9 ;  2  Sam.  iii.  29;  2  Kings 
v.  27).  He  does  not  tell  more  particularly  what 
the  sin  of  the  king  was,  perhaps  because  it  was 
baleful  to  the  king  alone  and  personally,  and  not 
to  the  whole  people,  like  the  sin  of  Jeroboam.  He 
rests  with  a  simple  reference  to  the  original  docu- 
ments. [The  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  regards 
Uzziah's  sickness  as  a  visitation  of  Providence, 
just  as  he  regards  any  other  affliction,  or  any  piece 
of  good  fortune,  as  something  sent  by  God.  He 
does  not  know  of  any  guilt  on  the  part  of  Uzziah 
for  which  this  was  a  judgment.  He  simply  men- 
tions it  as  a  matter  of  interest  in  itself,  and  in  its 
connection  with  the  fact,  otherwise  unparalleled  in 
the  history  of  the  monarchy  (unless  Uzziah  was 
made  king  while  his  father  was  a  captive),  that 
the  king's  son  exercised  royal  functions  during  his 
father's  life-time.  He  does  not  hint  at  any  belief 
on  his  part  that  this  was  a  proof  that  the  king  had 
been  guilty  of  some  sin,  and  it  does  not  behoove 
us  to  draw  any  such  inference. — W.  G.  S.]  On 
the  contrary,  the  Chronicler  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  1 6  sq.) 
gives  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  cause  of  this 
visitation.  According  to  him  the  king,  who  had 
become  arrogant  and  puffed  up  by  his  prosperity 
and  by  the  power  he  had  attained,  was  no  longer 
contented  with  the  royal  authority,  but  sought,  as 
an  absolute  ruler,  to  combine  with  it  the  highest 
priestly  authority  and  functions,  as  the  heathen 
kings  did.  The  institution  of  the  levitical  priest- 
hood, however,  formed  an  essential  part  of  the 
theocratic  constitution,  and  the  monarchy,  which 
was,  moreover,  not  established  until  much  later, 
was  not  justified  in  attempting  to  absorb  the 
priestly  office  and  to  overthrow  its  independence. 
Uzziah's  guilt,  therefore,  did  not  consist  in  a  sin- 
gle illegal  action,  but  in  an  assault  upon  the  con- 
stitution. A  principle  was  at  stake,  whose  viola- 
tion would  have  opened  a  cleft  in  the  theocratic 
constitution.  According  to  .Tosephus,  Uzziah  went 
into  the  sanctuary  (holy-place),  on  a  great  feast- 
day,  before  the  entire  people,  evfivc  tefia-ritcr/v  errr* 
/.'/)',  and  offered  incense  there  upon  the  golden  al 


164 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


tar.  [Thenius  calls  attention  to  the  remarkable 
detail  in  the  account  of  this  incident  in  Josephus. 
Josephus  says  that  the  earthquake  which  is  men- 
tioned inAmos  i.  1,  and  Zach.  xiv.  5.  as  having  occur- 
red during  Uzziah's  reign,  took  place  at  the  moment 
of  his  quarrel  with  the  priests ;  that  it  broke  the 
roof  of  the  temple,  and  that  a  ray  of  sun-light  pen- 
etrated this,  fell  upon  the  head  of  the  king,  and 
produced  the  leprosy.]  No  former  king  had  ven- 
tured to  make  such  an  assault  upon  the  independ- 
ent authority  of  the  priesthood.  Thenius  says : 
"  It  is  most  probable  that  the  powerful  king  de- 
sired to  reassume  fhe  high-priest's  functions  which 
had  been  executed  by  David  and  Solomon,"  but 
this  is  decidedly  false,  for  there  is  no  hint  any- 
where that  David  and  Solomon  executed  priestly 
functions  in  the  holy  place,  or  in  the  holy  of  ho- 
lies ;  in  fact,  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole  Old 
Testament  about  any  "  chief-priestly  authority  of 
the  kings."  (See  notes  on  the  passage  1  Kings  ix. 
25.)  It"  was  not,  therefore,  "  any  improper  self- 
assertion  on  the  part  of  the  priests  against  the 
ki^g  "  (Ewald).  They  did  right  to  resist  him.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  was  a  usurpation  on  the  part  of 
the  king  to  attempt  any  such  violence  upon  the 
rights  and  functions  of  the  priesthood  which  God 
had  appointed.  It  was  as  much  the  right  as  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  priests  not  to  allow  any  such 
invasion  of  their  prerogatives,  and  if  they  resisted 
the  powerful  and  revered  monarch,  their  courage 
deserves  to  be  honored.  Moreover,  it  was  not 
they,  but  Jehovah,  who  smote  the  king  with  lep- 
rosy, and  he  was  now  compelled  to  abandon  not 
only  the  priestly,  but  also  the  royal  functions. 

3.  Witsius  (Decaphyl.  p.  320)  says  of  the  five 
kings  who  followed  Zachariah:  non  tarn  reges  fuere 
quam  fares,  latrones  ae  tyranni,  augusto  regum 
nomine  indigni;  qui  tyrannidem  male  par  tarn  neque 
melius  habitam  /cede  amiserunt.  They  all  per- 
severed in  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  which  was,  from 
the  very  commencement  of  the  kingdom,  the  germ 
of  its  ruin.  It  is  to  them  that  the  prophet's  words 
apply :  "  They  have  set  up  kings,  but  not  by  me  ; 
they  have  made  princes  and  I  knew  it  not "  (Hos. 
viii.  4).  Only  one  of  them  died  a  natural  death 
and  left  the  succession  to  his  son,  who,  in  his  turn, 
could  only  retain  the  sceptre  for  a  short  time.  Of 
the  others,  each  one  killed  his  predecessor  in  order 
to  gain  the  crown,  the  authority  of  which  was,  in 
the  mean  time,  shattered  by  these  commotions. 
One  of  the  most  important  factors  in  the  history  of 
this  period  is  the  conflict  with  the  rising  Assyrian 
monarchy,  which  came  to  assist  the  internal  dissen- 
sion in  hurrying  the  nation  to  its  downfall.  As- 
syria was  destined,  in  the  purpose  of  God,  to  be 
the  instrument  for  inflicting  the  long-threatened 
judgment.  Invited,  probably,  by  the  internal 
weakness  and  distraction  which  commenced  under 
Zachariah,  Pul  made-the  first  invasion  during  the 
reign  of  Menahem ;  he  could  only  be  bribed  to 
withdraw  by  a  heavy  tribute.  The  second  Assy- 
rian. Tiglath  Pileser,  came  during  Pekah's  reign; 
be  could  not  be  satisfied  with  money,  but  carried 
nil' a  large  portion  of  the  inhabitants  into  captivity. 
Tin  third,  Shalmaneser,  came  during  Hoshea's  reign, 
captured  Samaria,  and  put  an  end  to  the  kingdom 
forever  (chap.  xvii.  6).  [See  the  bracketed  addition 
»t  the  end  of  the  Exegetical  section,  above.] 

4.  Not  a  single  event  of  the  reign  of  Zarhariah, 
which,  in  fact,  only  lasted  for  six  months,  is  men- 
tioned.    It  is,  however,  stated  expressly  that  with 


him  the  house  of  Jehu  expired,  according  to  th« 
words  of  the  prophet,  chap.  x.  30,  and  not  by  dy- 
ing out.  but  in  a  violent  and  bloody  way  (Hos.  i. 
4;  Amos  vii.  9).  This  was  also  an  actual  confir- 
mation of  the  declaration  in  the  fundamental  law 
of  Israel,  that  God  visits  the  sins  of  the  fatherj 
upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion (Ex.  xx.  5;  xxxiv.  7;  Deut.  v.  9);  that  is,  the 
sin  against  the  first  and  chief  commandment : 
''Thou  shalt  have  none  other  Gods  before  me,  and 
shalt  not  make  to  thyself  any  graven  image  "  [the 
first  commandment,  according  to  the  Lutheran 
division].  This  commandment  was  the  foundation 
of  the  covenant  with  Israel  and  the  centre  of  the 
Israelitish  nationality.  The  meaning  is,  therefore, 
that  the  "  sin  of  Jeroboam  "  will  not  be  permitted 
by  God  to  run  on  beyond  the  third  or  fourth  gene- 
ration (<•/'.  Menken,  Schriften,  V.  s.  35).  No  dynas- 
ty in  Israel  which  followed  the  sin  of  Jeroboam 
lasted  for  more  than  three  or  four  generations. 
The  house  of  Jeroboam,  like  that  of  Baesha  and 
Menahem.  perished  with  its  first  member;  the 
house  of  Omri  with  its  third,  and  the  house  of 
Jehu  with  its  fourth.  Zimri,  Shallum,  Pekah,  and 
Hoshea  died  without  successors,  while  the  house 
of  David  remained  without  pong]  interruption 
upon  the  throne.  Although  single  kings  in  the 
line  were  guilty  of  apostasy,  yet  the  sin  was  never 
continued  until  the  second  generation.  [On  the 
physical  calamities  which  marked  the  last  years 
of  Jehu's  dynasty,  and  on  the  death  of  Zachariah, 
see  Stanley,  II.  400-403.] 

5.  Shallum,  the  king  of  a  month,  had  no  histori- 
cal importance  further  than  this,  that  he  murdered 
and  was  murdered.  Both  these  facts  go  to  show, 
what  the  author  desires  to  show,  the  state  in  which 
the  kingdom  then  was.  The  history  makes  special 
mention  of  only  two  events  in  the  history  of  Mena- 
hem, although  he  reigned  for  ten  years,  but  these 
two  events  are  characteristic  of  him  and  of  the 
state  of  the  kingdom.  The  first  is  his  campaign 
against  Tiphsah,  the  city  which  would  not  admit 
him,  that  is,  would  not  recognize  him  as  king.  We 
see  from  this  that  he  was  not  at  all  beloved,  and 
that  the  land  was  already  distracted  by  parties. 
The  fact  that  he  there  perpetrated  a  great  mas- 
sacre, and  did  not  even  spare  the  infant  in  its 
mother's  womb,  and  so  raged  against  his  own 
countrymen  after  the  manner  of  the  most  savage 
foreign  foes,  shows  that  he  was  a  bloody  tyrant, 
who  desired  from  the  outset  to  fill  all  his  opponents 
with  terror.  Machiavelli's  words  (De  principe,  8) 
apply  to  him  :  "  He  who  violently  and  without  just 
right  usurps  a  crown,  must  use  cruelty,  if  cruelty 
becomes  necessary,  once  for  all,  in  order  that  he 
may  not  find  it  necessary  to  recommence  the  use 
of  it  daily."  The  second  fact  mentioned  in  regard 
to  this  reign,  one  which  had  decisive  influence 
upon  the  fate  of  the  whole  nation,  is  the  contact 
with  Assyria.  Menahem  pressed  from  his  subjects 
a  large  sum  of  money,  in  order  not  only  to  bribe 
the  Assyrian  king  to  leave  his  territory,  but  also 
to  purchase  his  support  and  assistance  against  his 
subjects  themselves.  He  was  the  first  king  of 
Israel  who,  in  order  to  hold  his  people  in  subjec- 
tion and  establish  his  own  authority,  purchased  the 
assistance  of  a  foreign  power.  "  In  order  to  estab- 
lish his  authority,  at  the  price  of  the  independenca 
of  his  people,  he  founded  his  power  upon  the  As- 
syrian support"  (Duncker).  It  was  against  thil 
course  that  the  prophet  Hosea  pronounced  his  in 


CHAPTER  XV.  1-38. 


165 


tense  denunciations  (v.  13  ;  vii.  1 1 ;  x.  6).  Instead 
of  establishing  the  kingdom  securely  by  these 
means,  the  king  only  hastened  its  ruin,  for  "  it  has 
always  been  thus  in  the  history  of  the  world ;  the 
protection  of  mighty  nations  has  only  been  the 
first  step  towards  oppression  by  them.  Such  pro- 
tection has  often  been,  as  it  was  here  for  Israel,  a 
punishment  for  those  who  sought  it  "  ( Calw.  Bibel). 
Starke's  observation :  "  Menahem  acts  prudently 
here,  not  only  in  purchasing  the  departure  of  the 
invader  with  money,  but  also  in  laying  the  tribute 
as  a  tax  upon  his  wealthy  subjects,"  entirely  misses 
the  historical  connection.  Ewald  says:  "Mena- 
hem seemed  at  first  to  be  inspired  witli  better 
principles,  and  it  seemed  as  if  the  nation  would 
take  new  lite,  under  his  rule,  after  three  incapable 
rulers  had  been  killed  in  a  single  month."  The 
fact  of  the  three  kings  is  asserted  on  the  strength 
ofZaeh.xi.  4-8.  where  "three shepherds"  are  men- 
tioned, but  it  falls  at  once  as  destitute  of  founda- 
tion. "  Kobolam "  is  a  pure  fiction  (see  Exeget. 
on  ver.  10).  There  is  no  hint  in  the  text  of  any 
better  principles  at  the  beginning  of  Menanem's 
reign;  his  conduct  at  Tiphsah  rather  bears  testi- 
mony to  the  contrary.  Also  all  the  rest  which 
Ewald  brings  together  in  regard  to  Menahem's 
reign  (Gesch.  III.  s.  599  sq.  [3d  Ed.  s.  644])  rests 
upon  passages  in  the  prophets  Zachariah,  Isaiah, 
and  Hosea,  which  do  not  contain  any  history. 
Winer  justly  characterizes  it  as:  "a  very  ill- 
founded  combination." 

6.  The  author  does  not  mention  a  single  event 
in  the  reign  of  Pekahiah.  He  only  speaks  of  the 
end  of  it,  which  was  significant  in  two  respects. 
Menahem  had  bought  at  a  heavy  price  the  assist- 
ance of  Assyria  to  confirm  his  royal  authority,  and 
to  found  a  dynasty.  As  long  as  he  lived  he  main- 
tained himself  on  the  throne.  Hardly  had  his  son 
succeeded  him,  however,  before  the  vanity  of  the 
Assyrian  support  became  apparent.  In  the  second 
year  it  was  all  over  with  the  new  dynasty;  it  was 
not  destined  to  last.  Pekahiah  was  murdered, 
not  by  foreign  foes,  but  by  one  of  his  familiar 
attendants  with  the  help  of  a  portion  of  the  body- 
guard which  should  have  protected  him.  Such 
crimes  can  be  perpetrated  only  where  all  the 
bonds  of  discipline  and  order,  of  fidelity  and  obe- 
dience, are  loosed;  hence  the  contemporary  pro- 
phet Hosea  says :  "The  Lord  hath  a  controversy 
with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,"  &c.  (Hos.  iv. 
1,  2). 

7.  In  regard  to  Pekah  again,  we  are  not  informed 
of  a  single  act  of  his.  The  author  tells  us,  how- 
ever, that,  during  his  reign,  Tiglath-pileser  con- 
quered a  large  portion  of  the  country  and  carried 
off  the  inhabitants.  This  was  the  upshot  of  Pe- 
kah's long  reign.  This  was  the  great  event  of  the 
time,  in  comparison  with  which  all  else  that  oc- 
curred was  insignificant.  The  reference  to  this 
event  is  meant  to  show  us  that  with  Pekah's  reign 
comes  the  beginning  of  the  end.  The  war  which 
Pekah  carried  on  against  Judah  in  alliance  with 
Rezin,  contributed  to  the  same  general  result,  as  is 
shown  in  chap,  xvi  It  is  at  any  rate  a  proof  of 
unusual  and  irrepressible  energy  that  Pekah,  in 
Bpite  of  the  internal  decay  and  decline  of  the  king- 
dom, was  able  to  maintain  himself  so  long  upon 
the  throne.  He  had  energy  and  a  soldier's  courage. 
The  manner  in  which  he  attained  to  the  throne 
shows  that  he  was  a  violent,  ambitious,  and  per- 
fidious man,  who  cared   not   for  God   or   divine 


things.  Isaiah  never  calls  him  by  his  name,  but 
only  refers  to  him  contemptuously  as  the  "son  of 
Remaliah  "  (Isai.  vii.  4,  5,  9),  probably  because  he 
was  a  man  of  vulgar  origin.  We  can  only  guess 
what  passages  in  the  prophets  apply  especially  to 
Pekah,  since  we  have  no  historical  data  in  the  book 
before  us  upon  which  to  attach  them.  The  inter- 
pretation of  Zach.  xi.  16  sq. ;  xiii.  7;  cf.  x.  3,  aa 
applying  to  Pekah,  which  Ewald  proposes  so  con- 
fidently  (Proplieten  des  A.  .B.I.s.319  sq.  Geschichte 
III.  s.  602  [3d  ed.  s.  64S]),  is  arbitrary  and  forced. 
Schmieder's  opinion  (in  Von  Gerlach's  Bibelwerk) 
that  Hosea  vii.  4—7  refers  to  Pekah's  conspiracy 
against  Pekahiah,  although  it  is  much  more  proba- 
ble than  Ewald's  notion  mentioned  above,  is  not 
by  any  means  above  serious  doubts. 

8.  In  the  history  of  king  Jotham  of  Judah  no 
details  are  given  aside  from  the  regular  data,  ex- 
cept that  he  built  the  upper  gate  of  the  temple 
(on  the  north  side  of  the  outer  court),  and  that, 
about  the  end  of  his  reign,  the  attacks  of  Rezin 
ami  Pekah  upon  Judah  began.  The  first  of  these 
has  direct  reference  to  the  statement  that  the  peo- 
ple still  sacrificed  on  the  high  places,  or,  as  the 
Chronicler  expresses  it,  that  "  the  people  did  yet 
corruptly  "  (2  Chron.  xxvii.  2).  In  order  to  put  a 
stop  to  this  "  corruption,"  to  which  the  people  was 
so  much  accustomed,  Jotham  "built"  the  gate, 
through  which  the  sacrifices  were  brought  in, 
anew  ;  he  desired  thereby  to  induce  the  people  to 
bring  their  sacrifices  hither  and  not  to  the  forbid- 
den "  high  places."  This  was  at  least  an  act  in- 
spired by  loyalty  to  the  theocracy.  This  king 
thereby  confessed  himself  a  servant  of  Jehovah, 
and  the  act  is  therefore  especially  mentioned.  The 
second  fact  recorded  had,  as  appears  in  chap,  xvi., 
more  important  consequences  for  Judah  than  any- 
thing else  which  happened  during  Jotham's  reign. 
Hence  it  deserved  to  be  especially  mentioned.  It 
was  not  so  much  a  chastisement  for  Jotham  him- 
self as  for  the  people,  who,  under  the  prosperous 
reigns  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham,  still  continued  to  act 
"  corruptly,"  and  inclined  strongly  to  idolatry. 


IIOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-7.  (Compare  2  Chron.  xxvi.)  King- 
Uzziah.  (a)  His  prosperous  reign  of  50  years. 
(6)  His  unfortunate  end. — It  is  the  greatest  bless- 
ing for  a  nation,  when  a  God-fearing  king  lives 
long  to  rule  over  it.  Hence  we  pray  for  those  in 
authority. — Ver.  4.  How  hard  it  is  to  abolish  and 
do  away  with  bad  customs  which  have  been  handed 
down  from  generation  to  generation! — -Ver.  5. 
Uzziah's  guilt  and  punishment.  Starke  :  We 
should  not  be  over-bold  to  undertake  duties  which 
do  not  devolve  upon  us.  He  who  covets  more 
than  he  has  any  right  to  have  loses  even  what  he 
has. — Let  each  one  remain  in  his  own  calling  to 
which  he  is  called,  and  not  invade  the  f  motions  of 
another  calling,  even  if  he  has  strength  and  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so.  We  cannot  break  over  the  bounds 
which  God  has  set  without  incurring  punishment. 
— Calw.  Bibel  :  This  is  a  warning  example  for 
those  who  behave  as  if  they  are  capable  of  being 
all  in  all,  whereas  each  one  has  his  own  gifts  and 
his  own  calling.  The  might  of  kings  does  not 
reach  into  the  sanctuary. — Think  no  man  blessed 
until  thou  hast  seen  his  end.  The  most  fortunate, 
rich,  and  mighty  king  learned  that  "all  flesh  i». 


166 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS 


grass,"  and  that  "the  world  passeth  away,"  &c, 
'  John  ii.  17. — Pfaff.  Bibel:  God  chastises  often 
the  great  in  this  world  with  heavy  misfortunes, 
in  order  to  remind  them  of  their  own  nothingness, 
and  to  humble  them. — Separation  from  the  world 
and  from  the  current  of  affairs,  and  residence 
in  solitude,  may  become  a  great  blessing  to  him 
who  recognizes  in  them  a  divine  dispensation. — 
Cramer  :  Children  must  take  care  of  their  sick 
and  weak  and  aged  parents ;  must  take  their 
places  as  far  as  they  can,  and  honor  them  in  word 
and  deed  (Sirach  hi.  9,  14).  [The  history  of  king 
Uzziah  presents  warning  and  instructive  lessons 
especially  for  a  time  of  prosperity,  when  greed  of 
gain,  love  of  luxury  and  ease,  respect  for  wealth, 
with  all  the  attendant  vices  of  prosperity,  are  the 
characteristics  of  society.  See  the  bracketed  ad- 
dition to  Hist  §  1.— W.  G.  S.] 

Vers.  8-31.  See  Historical  and  Ethical.  The 
last  kings  of  the  northern  kingdom,  or  the  mon- 
archy in  its  decay,  (a)  The  monarchy  as  the 
highest  civil  authority  is  ordained  by  God  (Prov. 
viii.  16);  it  is  God's  ordinance.  If  it  does  not 
consider  itself  as  such  it  cannot  endure.  The  last 
kings  of  Israel  were  not  chosen  and  instituted  by 
God,  nor  even  by  the  people ;  they  raised  them- 
selves by  force  through  robbery  and  murder  (Hos. 
viii.  4).  They  ruled,  not  by  the  grace  of  God,  but 
by  His  wrath  (Hos.  xiii.  11).  The  monarchy  in  Is- 
rael had  lost  its  foothold  on  the  divine  ordinance. 
All  its  kings  persevered  in  the  sin  of  Jeroboam, 
therefore  it  had  no  endurance.  No  dynasty  en- 
dured beyond  the  third  or  fourth  generation,  some 
only  to  the  second,  the  last  ones  not  even  to  the 
first ;  while  the  house  of  David,  in  Judali,  did  not 
perish  in  spite  of  storms.  Where  one  dynasty 
overthrows  another,  there  the  true,  divinely  insti- 
tuted monarchy  comes  to  an  end,  and  people  and 
kingdom  perish  with  it.  (b)  The  monarchy  is  the 
"  minister  of  God  to  them  for  good  "  (Rom.  xiii.  4) ; 
it  is  its  calling  to  work  out  the  welfare  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  last  kings  of  Israel  did  not  care  for  this, 
they  only  cared  for  power  and  dominion.  Hence 
the  people  and  the  kingdom  sank  continually  lower 
aud  lower.  When  kings  only  rule  for  their  own 
sakes  and  not  for  the  sake  of  their  people,  then 
they  cease  to  be  shepherds  of  their  people  (Jerem. 
xxiii.  1-4),  and  the  monarchy  decays  (Prov.  xx.  28; 
xxv.  5).  Rulers  who  seized  power  by  force  and 
violence,  have  never  been  the  deliverers  and  pro- 
tectors of  their  people,  but  rather  tyrants,  who 
have  led  it  down  to  its  ruin.  "  In  one  demagogue," 
says  Luther,  "  there  are  hidden  ten  tyrants." — As 
is  the  master,  so  is  the  servant ;  as  is  the  head,  so 
are  the  members.  A  succession  of  rulers,  who  at- 
tained to  the  throne  by  conspiracy,  revolt,  perjury, 
and  murder,  is  the  surest  sign,  not  only  that  there 
is  something  rotten  in  the  State,  but  also  that  there 
is  nothing  sound  in  the  nation,  from  the  sole  of  the 
foot  to  the  crown  of  the  head  (Isai.  i.  6 ;  Hos.  iv. 
1  si/.).  The  corruption  in  Israel  extended,  in  the 
first  place,  from  the  head  downwards.  Jeroboam 
made  Israel  to  sin.  Then,  however,  it  came  from 
bolow  upwards.     The  rebels  and  murderers  who 


came  to  the  throne  came  from  the  people.  Tries' 
kings  were  so  hostile  that  the  one  killed  the  other 
but  they  were  of  one  accord  in  abandoning  Jeho- 
vah, and  persevering  in  the  sin  of  Jeroboam.  This 
was  the  cause  of  their  ruin.  When  there  is  no  fear 
of  God  in  the  heart,  then  the  door  is  open  to  every 
sin  and  vice. 

Vers.  8-1 2.  The  end  of  the  house  of  Jehu  is  a 
clear  testimony  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  threats  of 
the  divine  law  (Exod.  xx.  5).— Before  the  people.  It 
is  a  sign  of  general  demoralization  and  corruption 
when  sins  and  crimes  can  be  perpetrated  in  public 
without  causing  horror  and  incurring  condemna- 
tion.— Vers.  13-15.  As  a  rule,  one  successful  re- 
volt is  only  the  prelude  to  another.  A  throne 
which  is  founded  on  sin,  cannot  sustain  the  attacks 
of  storms. — Wurt.  Summ.  :  We  see  in  the  case  of 
Shallum,  the  murderer,  who  reigned  but  a  month, 
how  God,  the  just  judge,  exercises  His  retributior 
upon  tyrants. — Vers.  14—22.  In  the  eyes  of  f> 
domineering  man  there  is  no  greater  crime  than 
that  any  one  should  refuse  obedience  to  his  will. 
Love  of  command  is  the  vice  which  makes  a  man 
inhuman,  and  more  cruel  than  a  wild  animal. — It 
is  the  way  of  all  tyrants,  great  and  small,  that  they 
are  cruel  and  fierce  to  those  over  whom  they  have 
authority,  but  tremble  and  cringe  before  any  who 
are  greater  than  themselves. — Menahem,  instead 
of  turning  to  God  as  his  protector  and  helper  (Ps. 
cxi.  1  and  2),  seeks  help  from  the  enemies  of  Is- 
rael. He  buys  this  help  with  money  forced  from 
his  subjects,  but  thereby  prepares  the  ruin  of  his 
kingdom  and  people.  Cf.  Jerem.  xvii.  5  and  Hos. 
xiii.  8  seq.  A  friendship  which  is  bought  with 
money  will  not  last. — Vers.  23-26.  A  prince  who 
is  not  faithful  to  his  God  cannot  expect  his  ser- 
vants to  be  faithful  to  him,  but  a  king  who,  like 
David,  is  a  man  after  God's  own  heart,  can  say : 
"  Mine  eyes  shall  be  upon  the  faithful  of  the 
land,"  &c.  (Ps.  ci.  6,  7). — Osiander:  Princes  ought 
not  to  trust  too  implicitly  to  their  servants — those 
whose  duty  it  is  to  protect  them  may  be  the  first, 
to  strike  them. — Vers.  27-31.  To  the  "sonofRe- 
maliah  "  the  words  apply :  "  He  that  exalteth  him- 
self shall  be  abased "  (Matt,  xxiii.  12). — Osiander: 
Tyrants  generally  rise  very  high  that  they  may  fall 
only  so  much  the  farther  (Isai.  xxvi.  4-6). 

Vers.  32-38  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxvii.). — Pfaff.  Bibel: 
How  beautiful  it  is  to  see  children  walk  in  the  foot- 
steps of  their  fathers  when  these  were  righteous. 
It  is  a  glorious  thing  for  a  prince,  instead  of  beau- 
tifying his  palaces,  and  building  ivory  houses 
(Amos  iii.  15),  to  restore  the  temple  gates,  and  so 
says  to  his  people :  "  Enter  into  his  gates  with 
thanksgiving  and  into  his  courts  with  praise"  (Ps. 
c.  4). — Vers.  37  and  38.  Calw.  Bibel:  We  have 
here  a  distinct  proof  that  neither  the  good  conduct 
of  a  prince  by  itself,. nor  the  good  conduct  of  the 
people  by  itself,  can  make  a  nation  happy.  Prince 
and  people  must  together  serve  the  Lord,  if  the 
land  is  to  prosper. — Osiajjder  :  When  God  wishes 
to  punish  the  sins  of  a  nation,  he  is  wont  to  re- 
move pious  princes  by  death  before  the  judgment 
begins. 


CHAPTER  XVI.   1-20.  1(37 


B. — The  Reign  of  Ahaz  in  Judah. 
Chap.  xvi.  1-20.  (2  Chron.  xxviii.) 

1  In   the  seventeenth  year  of  Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah,  Ahaz  the  sou  ot 

2  Jot  ham  king  of  Judah  began  to  reign  [became  king].  Twenty  years  old  wa& 
Ahaz  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  reigned  sixteen  years  in  Jerusalem,  and  did 
not  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  his  God,  like  David  his  father. 

3  But  he  walked  in  the  way  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  yea,  and  made  his  son  to  pass 
through  the  tire,  according  to  the  abominations'  of  the  heathen,  whom  the  Lord 

4  cast  out  from  before  the  children  of  Israel.  And  he  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense- 
in  the  high  places,  and  on  the  hills,  and  under  every  green  tree. 

5  Then  Rezin  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah  son  of  Remaliah  king  of  Israel,  came 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  war  :  and  they  besieged  Ahaz,  but  could  not  overcome  him 

6  [prevail].2  At  that  time  Rezin  king  of  Syria  recovered  [won]  Elath  to  [for] 
Syria,  and  drave  the  Jews  from  Elath :  and  the  Syrians s  came  to  Elath,  and 

7  dwelt  [dwell]  there  unto  this  day.  So  Ahaz  sent  messengers  to  Tiglath-pileser 
king  of  Assyria,  saying,  I  am  thy  servant  and  thy  son:  come  up,  and  save  me 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Syria,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Israel, 

8  which  rise  up  against  me.  And  Ahaz  took  the  silver  and  gold  that  was  found 
in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house,  and  sent  it  for 

9  a  present  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  And  the  king  of  Assyria  hearkened  unto  him: 
for  [and]  the  king  of  Assyria  went  up  against  Damascus,  and  took  it,  and  carried 
the  people  of  it  captive  to  Kir,  and  slew  Rezin. 

10  And  king  Ahaz  went  to  Damascus  to  meet  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria, 
and  saw  an  altar  that  was  at  Damascus:  and  king  Ahaz  sent  to  Urijah  the  priest 
the  fashion  [pattern]  of  the  altar,  and  the  pattern  [plan]  of  it,  according  to  all 

11  the  workmanship  thereof.*  And  Urijah  the  priest  built  an  altar  according  to  all 
that  king  Ahaz  had  sent  from  Damascus:  so  Urijah  the  priest  made  it  against 

12  king  Ahaz  came  from  Damascus.  And  when  the  king  was  come  from  Damas- 
cus, the  king  saw  the  altar :  and  the  king  approached  to  the  altar,  and  offered 

13  thereon  [went  up  upon  it].  And  he  burnt  his  burnt  offering  and  his  meat 
offering,  and  poured   his  drink   offering,  and   sprinkled  the  blood,  of  his  peace 

14  offerings,  upon  the  altar.  And  he  brought  also  the  brazen  altar,  which  was 
before  the  Lord,  from  the  forefront  of  the  honse,  from  between  the  [new]  altar  and 

15  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  put  it  on  the  north  side  of  the  altar.  And  king  Ahaz 
commanded  Urijah  the  priest,  saying,  Upon  the  great  altar  burn  the  morning 
burnt  offering,  and  the  evening  meat  offering,  and  the  king's  burnt  sacrifice, 
and  his  meat  offering,  with  the  burnt  offering  of  all  the  people  of  the  land,  and 
their  meat  offering,  and  their  drink  offerings;  and  sprinkle  upon  it  all  the  blood 
of  the  burnt  offering,  and  all  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice :  and  [as  for]  the  brazen 

16  altar  shall  be  for  me  to  inquire  by  [I  will  consider  further].6  Thus  did  Urijah 
the  priest,  according  to  all  that  king  Ahaz  commanded. 

IV  And  king  Ahaz  cut  off  the  borders  of  the  bases,  and  removed  the  laver  from 
off  them;  and  took  down  the  sea  from  off  the  brazen  oxen  that  were  under  it, 

18  and  put  it  upon  a  pavement  [structure]  of  stones.  And  [he  altered]  the  covert 
[covered  way]  *  for  the  sabbath  that  they  had  built  in  the  house,  and  the  king's 
entry  without,  turned  he  from  [omit  turned  he  from. — insert  in]  the  house  of  the 
Lord  [,]  for  [fear  of]  the  king  of  Assyria. 

19  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Ahaz  which  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the 

20  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  And  Ahaz  slept  with  his 
fathers,  and  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David:  and  Hezekiah  hig 
son  reigned  in  his  stead. 


168 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  3.— [Abominable  rites  or  usages. 

1  Vers.  5.— [Qf.  Isai.  vil.  1,  where  we  And  HvV  after  Dn?H?  ,   "  Was  not  able  to  make  war  against  it,"  t.  «.  us 

•easl'ully. 

*  Ver.  6.— [The  chetib  is  to  be  retained.     (/.  Exeg.  Ewald,  Thenins.   Bottcher  (Lehrb.  %  976),  and  others,  who 

follow  the  keri,  also  change  D1X7  ,  above,  to  Q11N?  •  The  entire  conception  of  the  incident  is  then  changed. 
Kezin  does  not  conquer  Elath  for  himself,  but  restores  it  to  Edom,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  hereditary  enemy  ol 
Judah  and  gain  his  alliance.  Keil  very  justly  objects  that  Q1"IN  is  written  defectively  D"TN  only  once  in  the 
O.  T.  (Ezek.  xxv.  14).    His  explanation  of  the  form    D^DITX    is  also  simpler  than  the  above  change.    He  considers 

it  a  Syriac  (Aramaic)  form  (u  for  a),  and  points  to  other  similar  forms  in  the  same  chapter,  D^Oipn  for  D^DpTJ 
(ver.  7) ;    JIv'X    for    D/'N    (ver.  6) ;     pt'BVI    for    pL"QT    (ver.  10).      Bottcher  gives  the  euphonic  and  other 

grounds  for  these  exceptional  forms  in  §§  1132,  9,  1  ;  351,  a. 

*  Ver.  10. — [/.  e.  with  full  details  how  it  was  made. 

6  Ver.  15. — ["  1  will  consider  further  what  shall  be  done  with  that"     Thenius  defends  the  rendering  given  In 

the  E.  V.  He  denies  that  ^"iTiT  can  have  the  sense  which  we  give  it,  but  he  finds  it  necessary  to  chang* 
ipaS    into    &%&>  . 

*  Ver.  IS. — [The  keri  is  supported  by  the  Vulg.  :  tfu#ar.h.  However,  we  find  other  instances  of  "■  7"  instead  of 
1  in  the  first  syllable  of  a  word  before  K*  or  D  .  See  Dt|','l  for  DCT'l  .  Gen.  xxiv.  83  ;  TID"  for  ~i]DV  ,  Ex. 
jxx.  32.  See  also  Ezek.  xli.  8.  (Bottcher,  §  460,  b). — The  massorah  requires  that  njlXTIfl  shall  be  accented  milel, 
because  it  will  not  recognize  a  feminine  In  this  adjective  which  agrees  with  X130  •  C/.  i"P  vJH  ,  chap.  xv.  29, 
Qramm.  note.— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1,  Ahaz  became  king,  &c.  On  the  year 
of  Ahaz's  accession  see  the  chronological  discus- 
sion after  chap.  xvii. — Ver.  2.  If  Ahaz  was  20 
years  old  at  his  accession  and  reigned  16  years,  so 
that  he  was  36  years  old  when  he  died,  then  he 
must  hare  begotten  his  son  Hezekiah  in  the  tenth 
year  of  his  age,  for  Hezekiah,  according  to  xviii. 
2.  ascended  the  throne  in  his  25th  year.  This 
would  not  be  an  impossibility,  for  even  yet  mar- 
riages occur  in  the  East  between  boys  of  10  and 
girls  of  8  years  (see  the  instances  quoted  by  Keil 
in  his  Comment,  on  the  verse).  It  is,  however, 
very  improbable,  and  there  is  no  similar  instance 
in  Scripture.  It  is  very  likely,  therefore,  that  the 
reading  "  twenty-five  "  instead  of  twenty,  which  is 
presented  by  some  MSS.,  by  the  Vatican  MS.  of 
the  Sept.,  as  well  as  by  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
translations  on  2  Chron.  xxviii.  1,  is  the  original 
and  correct  one  (Ewald,  Thenius,  and  Keil). 

Ver.  3.  But  he  walked  in  the  way  of  the 
kings  of  Israel.  This  cannot  mean  that  he  trans- 
planted the  Israelitish  worship  of  the  calves  into 
Judah,  for  the  relation  between  Judah  and  Israel 
had  become  hostile  even  in  the  last  years  of  his 
father  Jotham  (chap.  xv.  37).  Moreover,  there  is 
not  a  hint  of  that  form  of  worship  in  the  history 
of  Judah.  The  words  only  mean,  generally,  that 
Ahaz  forsook  the  covenant  of  Israel  as  the  Israel- 
itish kings  had  done  The  parallel  passage  2 
Chron.  xxviii.  2  and  3  adds  directly  the  words ; 
"  And  made  also  molten  images  for  Baalim.  More- 
over he  burnt  incense  in  the  valley  of  the  son  of 
Hinnom."  This  sentence  "is  evidently  taken  from 
he  original  authority  "  (Thenius).  Probably  it  was 
omitted  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  be- 
cause it  seemed  to  him  to  be  implied  in  the  state- 
ment already  made  that  he  "  walked  in  the  way 
of  the  kings  of  Israel,"  for  these  had  had  images 
of  Baal  (1  Kings  xvi.  32  ;  2  Kings  iii.  2 ;  x.  26  sq.l 


He  desired  to  go  on  at  once  to  the  things  which 
this  king  had  done  other  than  what  had  been  done 
by  the  kings  of  Israel.  We  have  not,  therefore, 
to  understand,  by  the  images  of  Baalim,  calf-ima- 
ges like  those  of  Jeroboam  (Keil),  but  idol-images. 
On  the  valley  of  Hinnom  see  notes  on  chap,  xxiii. 
10. — Yea,  and  made  his  son  to  pass  through  the 

fire,  viz.,  IpQ?  •   This  must  be  supplied,  as  we  see, 

from  chap,  xxiii.  10;  Levit.  xviii.  21  ;  Jerem.  xix. 
5.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  r_"N3  T3W1  is  dis- 
tinctly stated  in  Numb.  xxxi.  23.  It  has  accord- 
ingly been  supposed  by  some  that,  where  p  or 

D'J3  is  the  object,  and  not  gold  or  silver,  it  re- 
fers to  a  literal  passage  through  fire,  and  that  it 
was  an  act  of  lustration  or  purification  (Theodo- 
ret,  Grotius,  Spencer,  and  others).  It  is  clear, 
however,   from    2  Chron.    xxviii.    3,   where   "|J,'2»1 

stands  for  it,  that  it  is  not  a  simple  passage 
through,  but  a  burning  up.  The  same  is  clear  from 
chap.  xvii.  3]  ■  Deut.  xii.  31 ;  Jerem.  xix.  5;  Ezek. 
xvi.  20  sq.  ;  xxiii.  37.  Josephus  declares  plainly 
of  Ahaz :  Kai  iSiov  u?*0KavTu)oe  ndi6a  (cf.  Gesen. 
Thesaurus,  II.,  p.  985).  Another  question  arises, 
however,  viz.,  whether  we  must  understand  that 
the  children  were  burned  alive,  or  that  they  were 
killed  and  then  burned.  The  rabbis  assert  the 
former  (see  the  passages  quoted  from  Jarchi  in 
Winer's  R.-W.-B.  II.,  s.  101),  but  their  authority  is 
overturned  by  other  and  better  testimony.  In  Ezek. 
xvi.  20  it  is  said :  "  Thou  tookest  thy  sons  and  thy 
daughters,  which  thou  hadst  borne  to  me.  and  slew- 
est  them  (O'naiffl)  [as  a  sacrifice]  to  them  [1.  e.,  tc 

the  false  gods]  ?i3X?    [«'•  «-,  to  consume  them] 

Was  thy  whoredom  too  slight  a  thing   that   thou 

slewest  ('BntTll)  my  sons,  and  gavrst  thf  m  awaj 


CHAPTER  XVI.  1-20. 


169 


DfliS  vayrn  " — [t.  e.,  in  that  thou  causedst  them 

tJ  go  through,  or,  to  be  burned  up  in,  the  tire]  ? 
Ps.  cvi.  37  sq.  speaks  only  of  the  slaughter  of 
children  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  not  of  burning  them : 
"  And  they  slew  their  sons  and  daughters  in  sac- 
rifice (in3t!l)  to  false  gods,  and  shed  innocent  blood 

— blood  of  their  sons  and  daughters  whom  they 
sacrificed  (irnt)   to  the  idols  of  Canaan,  and   the 

land  was  desecrated  by  the  shedding  of  blood 
(D'Q'IS)-"    Diodorus  Siculus  (xx.  12)  describes  the 

brazen  statue  of  Kronos  (Moloch)  with  its  out- 
stretched arms,  glowing  hot  from  an  internal  fire, 
but  he  does  not  say  that  the  children  were  laid  liv- 
ing upon  them.  Eusebius  (Prop.  Evang.  iv.  16) 
states  in  regard  to  the  human  sacrifices  which  were 
offered  at  Salamis  that  they  were  first  killed  by  the 
priest  with  a  spear  and  then  burned  upon  the  pile. 
Slaying,  and  cutting  in  pieces,  and  shedding  blood, 
are  essentials  in  sacrifice,  so  that  n3T,  i-  «■,  to 
slaughter,  means,  to  sacrifice.  We  have  certainly 
to  understand,  therefore,  in  the  case  of  the  child- 
sacrifices,  that  they  were  killed  before  they  were 
burned  (Havernick,  Comm.  iiber  Ezech.  s.  237  sq.). 
Such  seems  to  have  been  the  case  also  in  the  inci- 
dent mentioned  in  chap.  iii.  27.  The  only  remain- 
ing question  is  this :  if  the  procedure  was  the  same 
in  the  case  of  the  child-sacrifices  as  in  the  ordinary 
burnt   offerings,  why  do  we  find   the   expression 

CX3  T3JJ.~!  used  only  of  the  former  ?  The  proba- 
ble explanation  is  that  the  expression  only  referred 
originally  to  a  passage  through  the  fire  without 
consumption,  a  sort  of  fire-baptism,  as  purifications 
by  fire  were  practised  by  various  peoples,  and  that 
it  was  not  connected  with  human  sacrifice.  Not 
until  a  later  time  did  this  become  corrupted  into 
a  real  sacrifice  and  burning,  but  the  original  ex- 
pression was  retained  and  became  general  (see 
Keil  on  Levit.  xviii.  21).  It  may  be,  too,  as  Wit- 
sius  [Miscett.  p.  616)  suggests,  that  the  practice  was 
not  always  and  everywhere  the  same,  but  both  liv- 
ing and  dead  children  were  burned,  and  this  ex- 
pression was  used  in  both  cases. 

[This  is  the  point  in  the  history  of  the  Israel- 
ites at  which  they  became  acquainted  with  the 
Assyrio-Chaldean  idolatry.  The  gods  Baal  and 
Ashtaroth  became  known  to  them  from  the  Phoe- 
nicians by  the  marriage  of  Jezebel  with  Ahab. 
That  that  was  the  point  of  contact  between  the  Je- 
hovah-worship and  the  itoai-worship  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  this  pair  (Baal  and  Ashtaroth)  are  the 
ones  whom  the  Israelites  worshipped,  and  that 
that  was  the  couplet  which  was  worshipped  at  Si- 
don  (see  note  on  chap.  xvii.  17).  Now.  however, 
Pekah  and  Ahaz  came  into  close  intimacy  with  the 
Assyrians,  and  learned  from  them  the  astral  con- 
ception of  the  same  heathen  religion.  Ashtaroth 
always  had  sidereal  character,  but  her  worship,  so 
far  as  it  was  introduced  into  Israel,  seems  to  have 
been  confined  rather  to  its  voluptuous  rites.  Ahaz 
introduced  the  astral  worship  into  Judah.  In  or- 
der to  understand  the  influence  of  these  heathen 
religious  conceptions  on  Judah,  and  the  origin  of 
the  rite  of  passing  through  the  fire,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  take  a  somewhat  comprehensive  view  of 
these  heathen  religious  conceptions.  Here  follows 
a  description  of  the  cultus.  Ou  the  astral  ideas  see 
note  on  xvii.  17.  The  religious  conceptions  of  the 
nations  of  Western  Asia  were  all  closely  related 
to  each  other.   The  deity  was  conceived  of  as  one, 


simple,  formless,  and  universal,  but  in  a  pantheistic 
sense.  It  has  often  been  observed  that  behind  th» 
polytheism  of  these  nations  (and  of  Egypt  also) 
there  was  an  idea  of  one  sole  and  original  deity,  and 
it  has  been  inferred  that  there  was  a  pure  and  trua 
mouotheistic  idea  at  the  root,  and  that  the  polytheism 
was  only  popular.  In  fact,  however,  the  corruption 
of  these  heathen  religions  was  rooted  in  the  pan- 
theistic conception  of  this  original  divine  essence. 
Then  his  attributes  were  deified  (hence  the  plural 
Baalim),  and  not  only  his  good  attributes  but  also 
his  destructive  and  profane  and  base  attributes. 
Hence,  by  a  legitimate  deduction,  all  the  cruel  and 
licentious  rites  of  pretended  religion.  In  different 
countries  the  chief  and  original  God  took  different 
names  according  to  the  especial  point  of  view  from 
which  he  was  regarded.  The  Assyrians  called 
him  Asshur,  or,  in  a  still  more  pantheistic  concep- 
tion, Ilu ;  and  among  the  Canaanites  he  was  called 
El  as  the  "  Mighty  One,"  the  first  and  simplest 
conception  of  God  as  strength.  He  was  also  very 
widely  named  Baal  (Babylonian  Bel  [Merodaeh]), 
as  the  "Lord;"  also  Yaoh  (Hebr.  Yahiak  [Jeho- 
vah]), as  the  "Eternal,"  the  pure  conception  of  be- 
ing or  existence.  The  Ararmeans  named  him  Ha- 
dad  or  Hadar,  "  The  Only  One;  "  the  Ammonites, 
Moloch,  the  "  King ;  "  the  Moabites,  Chemosh,  the 
"Governor."  Then  he  received  different  names  ac- 
cording to  his  attributes,  and  was  worshipped  by 
each  nation  under  the  name  of  the  attribute  which 
they  kept  most  in  mind.  As  the  deity  which  pre- 
sided over  generation  he  was  Thammuz  or  Adon 
(Hebr.  Advnay ;  Greek,  Adonis) ;  as  protector  and 
preserver  he  was  Chon;  as  destroyer  he  was  Mo- 
loch ;  as  "  presiding  over  the  decomposition  of 
those  destroyed  beings  whence  new  life  was  again 
to  spring,"  he  was  Zebub  (Beelzebub).  Hence, 
probably,  Baal-zebub  was  the  god  of  restoration  to 
health  from  dangerous  sickness.  See  2  Kings  i.  2. 
In  this  last  sense  probably  the  main  idea  was  that 
of  resurrection  or  life  from  death.  The  flies  on 
carrion  seemed  to  spring  to  life  out  of  it.  The 
Egyptian  beetle  probably  embodies  the  same  idea. 
Moloch  was  therefore  the  supreme  deity  in  his  at- 
tribute of  destroyer.  Fire,  lightning,  war,  pesti- 
lence, and  so  on,  represented  htm.  He  was  wor- 
shipped under  this  form  when  his  appetite  for 
devouring  and  destroying  was  being  satiated. 
Hence  his  rites  consisted  in  sacrifices  of  things 
cast  into  the  fire.  Those  who  robbed  themselves 
of  something  which  they  cast  into  the  fire  appeased 
the  god  and  averted  the  assaults  which  were  to  bo 
apprehended  from  him  if  his  appetite  for  destruc- 
tion was  not  satisfied.  The  parents  who  thus 
sacrificed  their  children  might  hope  that  this  fright- 
ful sacrifice  would  save  them  from  further  or  other 
losses  When  the  king  of  Moab  found  the  fight 
going  against  him  he  offered  his  son  to  Chemosh, 
that  the  god,  appeased  by  this,  might  not  push  on 
the  destruction  of  war.  No  doubt  he  considered 
that  this  sacrifice  was  successful  when  the  horrified 
Israelites  desisted  from  the  war  (2  Kings  iii.).  So 
far  as  we  can  judge,  the  children  were  cast  alive 
into  the  flames.  —  The  religion  of  Israel  differed 
from  these  heathen  religions  in  that  its  supreme 
deity  was  personal,  spiritual,  and  holy,  and  that 
the  Israelites  refrained  from  deifying  his  attributes 
as  emanations  or  hypostases  of  himself. — W.  G.  S.] 
Instead  of  1J3  in  ver.   3  and  chap.  xxi.  6,  the 

Chronicler  (II.  xxviii.  3  and  xxxiii.  6)  has  the  plural 
V33  •     Thenius  regards  this  as  a  contradiction,  or, 


170 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


at  least,  as  an  exaggeration  of  the  passage  before 
us,  but  the  plural  stands  here,  as  it  often  does 
(Matt.  ix.  S;  ii.  20;  Gesen.  Lehrgeb.  s.  664  sq.)t 
rhetorically,  in  order  to  say,  in  general,  that  Ahaz 
and  Manasseh  had  incurred  the  guilt  of  child- 
sacrifice.  "  The  pure,  abstract  idea  of  child-sacri- 
fice, apart  from  any  idea  of  number,  is  expressed 
by  the  plural"  (Bertheau,  Keil).  In  like  manner, 
Cicero  (De  Prov.  Cons.  xiv.  35) :  jucundissimi  liberi, 
although  Caesar  had  only  a  single  daughter  (cf.  also 
Pro  Lege  Manil.  12).  On  ver.  4  cf.  1  Kings  xiv.  23. 
The  sense  is :  The  centralization  of  the  worship  of 
God,  such  as  the  law  prescribed,  came  to  an  end ; 
the  very  contrary  came  to  pass.  Thenius  seizes 
upon  the  fact  that  we  have  3  before  ni03 ,  in- 
stead of  *?y ,  which  we  find  before  rrijDifl ,  as  a 

support  for  his  interpretation  of  the  former  word 
as  "grove"  or  "sacred  enclosure"  (see  Exeg.  on  1 
Kings  ii.  2  and  3).  It  stands  here,  as  it  often  does, 
for  nQ3n  JV3 ,  Ahaz  offered  incense  in  the  sacred 

places  on  the  tops  of  the  mountains  and  on  the 
hills,  i.  e.,  on  heights  where  there  was  no  7V3  but 
only  an  altar. 

Ver.  5.  Then  Rezin,  king  of  Syria.  See  on 
this  and  the  following  verse :  Caspari,  Ceber  den 
Syrisch-epliraimiiischen  Krieg  v/nter  Jofham  und 
Ahaz.  Christiania,  1849.  After  the  author  has 
described  the  reign  of  Ahaz  in  its  broad  and  gen- 
eral features  (vers.  1-4),  the  detailed  account  of  the 
particular  incidents  begins  in  ver.  5.  fN  only 
means,  therefore,  after  Ahaz  had  succeeded  to  the 
throne.  The  attacks  began  under  Jotham  (chap. 
xv.  37),  but  there  had  not  yet  been  any  formal  and 
united  expedition.  [The  first  attempt  was  frus- 
trated by  the  attack  of  Tiglath  Pileser  on  Damas- 
cus and  Samaria  See  Supp.  Note,  p.  161.]  No 
real  attack  was  made  until  Ahaz  was  on  the 
throne.  The  object  was,  according  to  Isai.  vii.  6, 
to  conquer  Judah  and  to  set  upon  the  throne  a 
person  called  "the  son  of  Tabeel,"  of  whom  we 
know  nothing  further.  [Mention  of  this  confede- 
ration occurs  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions.  We 
learn  there  that  the  name  of  this  "  son  of  Tabeel  " 
was  Asliariah.]  Whether  "  they  hoped  thereby  to 
be  able  to  oppose  larger  means  and  stronger  force 
to  the  aggressions  of  the  Assyrian  empire  "  (The- 
nius |,  is  a  matter  for  mere  supposition.  [This  sup- 
position is  now  very  strongly  confirmed.]  They 
came  as  far  as  Jerusalem,  which  they  besieged 
( VW1  means  besiege,  as  it  does  in  2  Sam.  xx.  15 ; 

Jerem.  xxi.  4 ;  xxxix.  1 ;  Ezek.  iv.  3,  and  not 
merely :  "  they  pressed  forward  towards  it "),  but 
were  not  able  to  take  it,  for  the  city  had  been 
strongly  fortified  on  all  sides  by  Uzziah  and 
Jotham  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  9;  xxvii.  3),  and,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  it  was  otherwise  decreed  (Isai 
vii.  7). 

Ver.  6.  At  that  time  Rezin  won  Elath  for 
Syria,  &c.  JOnn  D5G  does  not  meaD  "  there- 
upon" or  "afterwards,"  but  designates  in  gen- 
eral  the  time  of  the  Syriac-ephnumitic  war  against 
Judah.  Ver.  6  is  a  sort  of  parenthesis,  so  that 
ver.  7  is  the  real  continuation  of  ver.  5.  The 
author  desires  to  record  the  danger  which  threat- 
ened Jerusalem,  for  this  was  the  chief  event  in 
this  war,  and,  besides  this,  to  record  the  fact  that 
Judah,  during  this  reign,  lost  the  city  which  was 
Its  most  important  seat  of  commerce,  and  one  of 


the  chief  sources  of  the  prosperity  of  the  country 
(cf.  on  Elath,  notes  on  1  Kings  ix.  26  and  2  Kings 
xiv.  22).  Ver.  7  then  joins  on  to  ver.  5,  for  Ahaz 
sent  to  Tiglath  Pileser,  not  on  account  of  the  loss 
of  Elath,  but  on  account  of  his  endangered  capital, 
with  which  the  whole  kingdom  must  stand  or  fall. 
Many  expositors,  both  ancient  and  recent,  have  de- 
sired to  change  D1JO  to  DV1n6 ,  because   Elath 

never  belonged  to  Syria,  and  therefore  could  not 
be  "  restored "  to  it.  But  this  conjecture  is  not 
supported  by  a  single  manuscript  or  ancient  ver- 
sion, and,  as  Winer  and  Keil  observe,  S'L'TI  does 

not  necessarily  imply  the  idea  of  "back  again." 
It  means,  in  general,  to  turn  away  from  something 
to  something  else  (Isai.  i.  25,  and  Knobel's  note 
thereon;  Ps.  lxxxi.  14;  Amos  i.  8;  Dan.  xi.  18). 
It  means,  therefore,  that  Rezin  took  away  Elath 
from  Judah,  to  which  it  had  previously  belonged, 
and  joined  it  to  Syria.     The  case  is  similar  with 

the   word    D'OVIM ,    for    which  the   keri    offers 

D'ETINl,  the  Sept.,  'ISov/iaioi,  and  the  Vulg., 
Idumcei,  but  evidently  incorrectly.  The  Edomites 
did  not  need  to  come  to  Elath  and  to  settle  there ; 
they  had  always  lived  in  this  city,  which  lay  in 
their  own  country,  and  had  remained  there  even 
when  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews.  What  is 
asserted,  however,  is.  that  Rezin  expelled  the  Jews 
and  brought  thither  Syrians,  who  settled  there  for 
purposes  of  trade,  and  remained  there  "  until  this 
day,"».  e.,  at  the  time  that  these  books  were  written 
the  Syrian  commercial  colony  was  yet  in  Elath. 
Yet  one  question  further  suggests  itself  here,  viz., 
whether  Rezin  took  Elath  before  or  after  the  at- 
tack which  he  and  Pekah  made  upon  Jerusalem. 
The  answer  to  this  question  depends  upon  another 
one  :  What  is  the  relation  between  the  record  be- 
fore us  and  that  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Chroni- 
cles ?  In  the  latter  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
expedition  against  Elath,  nor  of  the  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  recorded  that  Je-' 
hovah  gave  Ahaz  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of 
Syria,  who  defeated  him.  and  took  away  many  cap- 
tives to  Damascus ;  likewise  into  the  hand  of  the 
king  of  Israel,  who,  in  a  great  battle,  won  a  great 
victory  over  him  (vers.  5  and  6).  This  narrative 
the  rationalistic  school  formerly  regarded  as  an  in- 
vention and  unworthy  of  belief  (Gesenius,  De 
Wette,  Gramberg),  but  that  view  has  been  aban- 
doned even  by  this  school.  Thenius,  amongst 
others,  regards  the  narrative  as  unquestionably 
historical,  and  as  a  supplement  to  the  record  before 
us.  Nevertheless  there  is  some  disagreement  as  to 
whether  the  campaign  described  in  Chronicles  is  the 
same  one  which  is  described  here.  Caspari  has 
examined  this  question  very  carefully  in  the  work 
mentioned  above;  we,  therefore,  refer  in  general 
to  that  work  and  here  add  only  what  follows. 
Those,  like  Vitringa,  Movers,  Havernick,  and 
others,  who  adopt  the  hypothesis  of  two  suces- 
sive  expeditions,  appeal  for  their  proof  especially 
to  Isai.  vii.  1-9.  At  the  commencement  of  the 
war  against  Judah,  when  it  is  made  known  to  the 
house  of  David  that  the  Syrians  are  already  in 
Ephraim,  the  prophet  announces  to  Ahaz  the  com. 
plete  failure  of  the  enterprise  of  the  two  kings. 
As,  however,  according  to  the  account  in  Chroni- 
cles. Ahaz  was  defeated  by  each  of  these  kings,  it 
is  inferred  that  that  must  have  taker,  place  in  » 


CHAPTER  XVI.   1-20. 


17J 


different  expedition  from  the  one  here  referred  to, 
and  that  it  took  place  before  the  latter ;  further- 
more, that  the  capture  of  Elath  took  place  during 
the  second  expedition  and  after  the  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem, since  it  is  narrated  in  the  history  after  that 
event  (ver.  6).  It  is  certain  thf.t  the  two  battles 
mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxviii.  5  and  6,  must  have 
taken  place  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  they  occurred  in  an  earlier 
expedition.  As  it  was  the  intention  of  Rezin  and 
Pekah  to  put  an  end  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and 
to  put  "  the  son  of  Tabeel "  (probably  a  Syrian 
general)  upon  the  throne,  it  is  not  by  any  means 
to  be  supposed  that  they  would  have  abandoned 
the  attempt  after  gaining  two  victories  over  Ahaz, 
and  then  would  have  undertaken  a  new  expedition 
in  order  to  besiege  Jerusalem.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  plain  that  they  would  try,  after  winning  two 
victories,  to  complete  their  enterprise  by  taking 
Jerusalem.     The  words  in   Isai.  vii.  2,  D~lS  HrU 

t  -:  T  T 

D^TSX "7V  °-o  n°t  mean,  3s  they  are  often  trans- 
lated :  "  The  Aramaeans  are  encamped  in  Ephraim  " 
(Bunsen),  nor:  "The  Syrians  stand  [are  under 
arms]  in  Ephraim "  (De  Wette),  so  that  it  would 
follow,  that  Rezin  first  advanced  into  Ephraim  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  war,  in  order  to  advance,  in 
conjunction  with  Pekah,  against  Jerusalem.  The 
phrase  must  be  explained  as  it  is  in  the  Chaldee 
paraphrase  :  "The  king  of  Syria  has  joined  himself 
(12nnS,  societatem  iniit)  with  (DP)  the  king  ot 
Israel."    So  the  Sept.  translate :  cmztyuv-qatv  'Apa/i 

nyjoc  tov  'Ect>paip.  "  The  verb  niJ  with  py  is  never 
used  of  an  army  encamping,  and  it  does  not  seem 
fitting  to  take  D'13S  as  referring  to  the  country, 
and  Q"1X  as  referring  to  the  people  "  (Heugsten- 
berg).  niJ  means,  to  lie  down  to  rest,  and  it  ex- 
presses, when  it  is  used  as  it  is  here  of  a  person 

who  rests  upon  or  over  (">]})  another,  a  being  with 
or  by,  a  being  in  connection  with  him  (cf.  Numb.  xi. 
25,26;  Isai.  xi.  2;  Ps.  cxxv.  3).  [An  examination 
of  these   passages   will   show   that   they  do   not 

justify  any  such  rendering  of  py  niJ  as,  to  be  in 
alliance  With.     They  contain  "  the  spirit  rests  upon  " 

or  some  similar  sense  of  7J?  rTO  ,  which  is  a  differ- 
ent sense  of  "  rest "  and  a  different  sense  of  "  upon  " 
from  the  one  here  to  be  proved.  Hengstenberg's 
objection,  that  Aram  is  used  of  the  people  and 
Ephraim  of  the  territory,  has  force,  but  the  most 
fair  rendering  of  the  words  is :  "  Aram  is  encamped 
in  Ephraim"  (Bunsen,  Ewald).  niJ  is  not  indeed 
the  technical  word  for  the  encamping  of  an  army, 
but  it  is  used  for  special  force.  They  have  settled 
down,  are  stationed,  are  resting  and  recruiting,  but 
when  an  army  does  this  it  encamps. — W.  G.  S.] 
What  made  Ahaz  and  his  people  tremble,  as  the 
trees  of  the  forest  tremble  before  the  wind,  was 
not  the  fact  that  Syria  was  in  camp  in  Ephraim. 
but  the  fact  that  the  kings  of  Syria  and  Israel  had 
joined  forces  against  Judah.  The  prophet  prom- 
ised that  this  enterprise  should  not  succeed,  and 
his  promise  was  fulfilled.  The  supposition  that 
Rezin  began  the  war  by  taking  up  a  position  in  the 
land  of  Ephraim  is,  therefore,  totally  unfounded. 
Moreover,  it  was  not  necessary  for  him.  in  order 
x>  make  war  upon  Jerusalem,  to  go  through 
Ephraim.  He  could  just  as  well  advance  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Jordan,  and  this  he  no  doubt 
4id      As  for  the  capture  of  Elath,  ver.  6  of  the 


chapter  before  us  does  not  force  us  to  the  assump> 
tion  that  it  took  place  before  the  siege  of  Jerusa- 
lem, for,  as  we  have  said  above,  ver.  6  is  a  paren- 
thesis and  ver.  7  follows  ver.  5.  It  is  also  difficult 
to  believe  that  Rezin  gave  up  the  siege,  because 
Jerusalem  could  not  be  taken  (ver.  5).  aud  then, 
because  he  "  was  unwilling  that  the  expeditio: 
should  have  been  made  entirely  in  vain"  (The- 
nius),  that  he  made  a  long  march  around  the  south- 
ern end  of  the  Dead  Sea  in  order  to  return  home. 
After  Ahaz  had  called  upon  Tiglath  Pileser  for  aid, 
and  the  latter  was  actually  advancing  against 
Syria,  it  is  impossible  that  Rezin  can  have  under- 
taken this  long  march;  he  must  have'  hastened 
home  by  the  most  direct  route.  In  view  of  all  this 
we  come  to  the  following  conception  of  the  course 
of  the  events.  Rezin  made  an  alliance  with  Pe- 
kah and  advanced  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan 
and  won  a  great  victory  over  Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii. 
5).  At  the  same  time,  on  this  side  the  Jordan, 
Pekah  invaded  Judah,  and  also  inflicted  a  severe 
defeat  on  Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  6).  As  a  conse- 
quence of  his  victory  Reziu  marched  on  southward 
to  Edom,  %vhere  he  put  an  end  to  the  hated  supre- 
macy of  Judah  over  Edom,  and  captured  Elath, 
an  important  source  of  commercial  prosperity  to 
Judah  (2  Kings  xvi.  6).  From  thence  he  moved 
northwards  on  this  side  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  made 
a  junction  with  Pekah,  who  had  in  the  mean  time 
been  devastating  the  country,  in  order,  with  him, 
to  make  a  united  attack  upon  Jerusalem,  and  so  to 
come  to  the  end  of  his  entire  undertaking,  namely, 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and  of 
the  dynasty  of  David.  [It  may  hardly  be  worth 
while  to  balance  conjectures  where  the  basis  of 
testimony  on  which  to  build  them  is  so  slight.  The 
above  construction  is  open  to  considerable  objec- 
tion. If  a  king  set  out,  in  alliance  with  another, 
against  Judah,  would  it  not  be  strange  that  he 
should  march  through  Edom  to  Elath  and  then  up 
to  Jerusalem  before  joining  his  ally  ?  What  is 
more,  it  is  very  remarkable  that  Isaiah,  when  he 
prophesies  deliverance  to  Ahaz,  makes  no  refer- 
ence to  two  defeats  which  the  king  is  supposed  to 
have  suffered  already.  We  expect  a  sentence  in 
this  form:  although  thou  hast  been  defeated,  yet, 
&c.  The  king  looks  for  aid  to  Assyria.  The  pro- 
phet rebukes  this.  He  evidently  expects  that  the 
physical  form  of  the  deliverance  will  be  something 
else  than  Tiglath  Pileser's  advance.  It  is  more 
consistent  to  suppose  that  the  city  was  found  too 
strong,  that  the  two  kings  commenced  to  devastate 
the  country,  that  Ahaz  was  twice  defeated  when 
he  sallied  out  to  try  to  restrain  them,  or  before  he 
was  shut  up  in  the  city,  and  that  Rezin  pushed 
forward  as  far  as  Elath.  Probably  it  was  not 
until  they  had  made  some  progress  in  plundering 
the  country  that  they  heard  that  Tiglath  Pileser 
was  advancing.  The  information  derived  from  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  strongly  sustains  this  view. 
Rezin  and  Pekah  revolted  in  734-3.  Haste  was 
necessary  above  all  things.  It  was  deemed  neces- 
sary to  conquer  Judah  and  force  it  into  the  confed 
erated  revolt.  Hence  the  news  comes  suddenly  tc 
Ahaz  in  this  startling  form:  The  Syrians  are  in 
Ephraim.  Before  the  end  of  731  the  war  was  all 
over  and  Tiglath  Pileser  held  his  court  in  Damas- 
cus. (See  Supp.  Note  at  the  end  of  this  section.; 
The  whole  campaign  in  Judah  was  therefore  ,'ery 
brief.  There  was  no  time  for  a  siege.  The  twi 
"battles"  were  fought  in  the  open  country   and 


172 


THE  SECuNL  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  "captives"  were  taken  thence,  and  the  long 
expedition  to  Elath  was  undertaken  in  order  to 
bring  the  strongest  possible  pressure  to  bear  on 
Ahaz  to  force  him  to  join  the  revolt,  next  to  the 
capture  of  his  capital. — W.  6.  S.]  As  the  Edom- 
ites  and  Philistines  had  also  invaded  Judah  (2 
Chron.  rxviii.  17  sq.),  Ahaz,  pressed  on  every  side, 
turned  to  Assyria  for  help  in  spite  of  the  warn- 
ings and  promises  of  Isaiah  (vii.  1  sq.).  This  in- 
duced Rezin  to  desist  from  his  advance  and  to 
hurry  home.  There  he  was  defeated  and  slain  by 
Tiglath  Pileser. — It  is  scarcely  possible  to  combine 
the  two  narratives  in  any  ether  than  this  simple 
and  direct  way.  Keil  also  places  the  capture  of 
Elath  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  but  leaves  it 
undecided  whether  Rezin  advanced  northwards 
from  Elath,  against  Jerusalem,  or  whether,  after 
his  victory  over  Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  5),  "he 
sent  a  portion  of  his  army  into  Idumea  to  detach 
that  country  from  Judah,  while  he,  in  conjunction 
with  Pekah,  led  the  rest  of  the  army  against  Jeru- 
salem." Against  this  view  arises  the  objection 
that  ver.  6  makes  no  mention  of  a  detachment 
sent  into  Idumea,  but  says  that  Rezin  himself 
marched  thither  and  drove  the  Jews  out  of  Elath. 

Ver.  7.  Ahaz  sent  messengers  to  Tiglath 
Pileser.  He  did  not  take  this  step  as  soon  as 
hostilities  commenced,  but,  as  has  already  been 
said,  when  he  saw  himself  hard  pressed.  He  did 
not  heed  the  prophet's  warning  and  counsel  (Isai. 
vii.  4) ;  on  the  contrary,  by  the  words :  thy  ser- 
vant and  thy  son,  lie  placed  himself  in  servitude 
to  the  king  of  Assyria  as  well  as  under  his  protec- 
tion. He  sent  the  presents  of  gold  and  silver  (ver. 
8)  after  the  allied  armies  had  withdrawn  from 
Jerusalem,  and  Damascus  had  been  taken  (ver.  9). 
Tiglath  Pileser  took  the  captured  inhabitants  of 
Damascus  to  Kir.  By  this  we  have  not  to  under- 
stand, as  the  ancient  Expositors  did,  the  Median 
city  Kovpfyva  or  Ko/u'i^,  but  the  country  around  the 
river  Kur (Kvpog,  Kbp/x%),  which  flows  through  the 
northern  part  of  Iberia,  the  modern  Georgia,  into 
the  Caspian  sea  (Isai.  xxii.  6  [cf.  also  Amos  i. 
3-5]).  "Tiglath  Pileser  transferred  the  inhabitants 
of  Damascus  to  the  most  remote  portion — in  the 
extreme  north — of  his  dominions,  and  yet  to  the 
place  from  which  their  ancestors  had  originally 
migrated  (Amos  ix.  7)."  (Thenius).  After  the  sub- 
jugation of  Syria,  Tiglath  Pileser  advanced  against 
Israel,  and  accomplished  what  is  recorded  in  chap. 
xv.  29.  It  may  be  that  Pekah  submitted  at  once  to 
the  approaching  enemy  and  thereby  averted  from 
himselfthe  fate  of  Rezin.  [See  Supp.  Note,  p.  161.] 
— The  statement  2  Chron.  xxviii.  20  sq.,  according 
to  which  Tiglath  Pileser  marched  against  Ahaz,  and 
besieged  him  but  did  not  overcome  him,  is  discussed 
in  detail  by  Caspar!  (work  above  cited,  ss.  5G-60). 
11.  -t  rives  to  reconcile  it  to  the  statements  of  the 
passage  before  us,  but  does  not  in  all  respects  suc- 
ceed. So  much  is  certain ;  Ahaz,  in  spite  of  all  his 
gifts  to  Tiglath  Pileser,  did  not  find  in  him  a  true 
helper  and  friend;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  harsh- 
ly treated  by  him:  "It  did  him  no  good."  [The 
meaning  of  2  Chron.  xxviii.  20  seems  to  be  more 
correctly  given  in  the  English  translation:  "He 
came  unto  him  (not  against  him),  and  distressed 
him  (not  necessarily  besieged  him),  and  strength- 
«ncd  him  not."] 

Ver,  Hi  And  king  Ahaz  went  to  Damascus 
to  meet  Tiglath  Pileser,  i.  e.,  in  order  to  testify 
to  his  g*atitnde  towards  him  for  his  deliverance, 


and  at  the  same  time  to  secure  the  confined  favor 
of  the  king  of  Assyria.  The  latter  must,  there- 
fore, have  remained  at  Damascus  for  some  time. 
Perhaps  Ahaz  himself  brought  the  presents  which 
are  mentioned  in  ver.  8.  While  he  was  at  Damas- 
cus he  saw  an  altar  which  pleased  him  so  much 
that  he  sent  orders  to  Urijah  the  priest  to  make 
one  like  it.  This  Urijah  can  hardly  be  the  same 
one  who  is  mentioned  in  Isai.  viii.  2.  [We  should 
unhesitatingly  infer  that  these  two  were  the  same 
individual,  if  it  were  not  for  the  improbability  that 
a  man,  who  would  build  and  introduce  into  the 
temple  a  new  altar  built  on  a  heathen  model, 
should  be  called  by  a  prophet  a  "  faithful  "  wit- 
ness. The  solution  may  be  that  the  prophet  took 
the  priest  as  a  faithful  witness  on  account  of 
his  official  position  solely.  The  priest  seemed  the 
most  fit  and  proper  witness,  however  much  the 
prophet  may  have  had  to  find  fault  with  (as  to 
which  he  tells  us  nothing  one  way  or  the  other) 
in  his  administration  of  his  office.— W.  G.  S.]  It 
was  undoubtedly  an  altar  consecrated  to  an  Assy- 
rian deity  which  Ahaz  saw,  but  he  desired  to  have 
one  like  it  for  the  service  of  Jehovah  (ver 
15).     rHOT    has    a   general    signification :    shape, 

image ;  JVJ3n  designated  more  particularly  the 
model;  and  nt"I?Q  the  sort  of  workmanship,  de- 
coration, &c. — In  ver.  12,  V?V  ?JM  is  not  to  be 

translated:  "and,  he  sacrificed  upon  it  "(Luther,  De 
Wette,  and  others),  but:  "and  he  ascended  upon 
it."  See  1  Kings  xii.  32,  33.  It  does  not  follow 
from  this,  however,  that  "Ahaz  was  not  willing 
to  give  up  the  royal  prerogative  of  exercising  the 
high-priestly  office  upon  occasion  "  (Thenius).  The 
words  mean  simply  that  this  was  his  sacrifice, 
namely,  the  one  which  he  offered  for  his  fortunate 
return  from  Damascus.  He  led  the  way  by  his 
own  example.  We  have  not  to  understand  that 
he  usurped  any  priestly  functions.  It  is  no  more 
intended  to  assert  in  ver.  13  that  he  himself  sprin- 
kled the  sacrificial  blood,  than  it  is  in  ver.  14,  that 
he,  with  his  own  hand,  removed  the  altar.  [The 
translation :  "  He  went  up  upon  it,"  is  justly  pre- 
ferred by  Bahr,  but  it  does  not  remove  the  difficulty 
about  the  king's  share  in  the  sacrifice.  Why  did 
he  go  up  upon  the  altar,  if  not  to  perform  the  rites 
himself?  There  is  no  other  evidence  at  all  that 
any  one  but  the  person  officiating  at  the  sacrifice 
went  up  upon  the  altar.  Furthermore,  ver.  13  is 
not  a  case  of  the  ultimate  agent  being  said  to  do 
what  others  do  by  his  command.  The  fact  that  the 
king  could  sacrifice  unrebuked  by  the  priest  is  not 
any  more  astonishing  than  that  the  priest  should 
make  an  altar  on  a  heathen  pattern,  and  put  it  in 
the  place  of  the  one  built  by  Solomon.  Both  inci- 
dents belong  to  the  picture  of  this  reign. — W.  G.  S.] 
The  thank-offering  was  the  chief  thing  (ver.  13). 
but  it  was  preceded  by  a  burnt-offering  as  usua' 
(Symbol,  d.  Mas.  Kult.  II.  s.  362,  423,  435).  2  Chron. 
xxviii.  23  does  not  contradict  the  passage  before 
us.  It  does  not  refer  to  the  new  altar  and  the 
sacrifice  which  was  offered  upon  it,  but  to  the 
sacrifices  which  Ahaz  offered  elsewhere  (cf.  ver.  1 1. 
Vers.  14  and  15.  And  he  brought  also  the 
brazen  altar,  &c.  Xlp'l  cannot  mean:  "he  re- 
moved," "  Er  that  weg"  (Luther),  nor:  he  moved 
away;  "  Er  riickte  hinuieg"  but:  he  brought  nearer, 
he  moved  closer  up  to.       The  sense  of  "awa. 


CHAPTER  XVI.  1-20. 


]' 


from  "  is,  of  course,  in  nSO  •     The  first  meaning 

of  3"lp!l  is  certainly:   "he   brought  nearer,"  but 

as  it  is  not  clear  what  it  was  brought  nearer  to,  the 
word  seems  to  have  lost  this  force  and  to  mean 
simply,  he  moved.  Bahr  translates:  "Bi.'  the  bra- 
zen altar  (*.  e.,  the  altar  of  burnt-offering),  which 
was  before  Jehovah  (t.  e.,  which  was  immediately 
before  the  house  of  Jehovah),  he  moved  nearer, 
away  from  (the  place)  before  the  house  (i.  e.,  away 
from  the  point)  between  the  (new)  altar  and  the 
house  of  Jehovah,  and  he  put  it  by  the  side  of  the 
new  altar  towards  the  north."  It  is  not  clear  what 
it  was  nearer  to. — W.  G.  S.]  The  altar  of  burnt- 
ofTering  was  called  the  "brazen"  altar,  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  golden  altar  of  incense  in  the 
interior  of  the  temple.  It  stood  in  the  middle  of 
the  court  of  the  priests  in  front  of  the  temple- 
building.  Urijah  had  placed  the  new  altar  in  front 
of  this,  but  Ahaz  ordered  the  brazen  altar  to  be 
moved  away  from  its  former  position  to  the  north 
side  of  the  new  one.  This  he  did  evidently  be- 
cause the  position  which  was  nearer  to  the  dwell- 
ing-place of  the  divinity  seemed  to  be  more  holy, 
and  he  did  not  wish  that  the  old  altar  should  be 
regarded  as  superior  in  honor  or  sacredness  to  the 
new  one.  As  they  were  now  upon  the  same  line, 
they  were,  in  so  far,  equal;  while  the  new  one, 
being  in  the  middle,   was,  if  anything,  superior. 

In  ver.  15  the  new  altar  is  called  pVljn  :  hardly 

because  "  it  was  somewhat  larger  than  Solomon's 
altar"  (Keil),  for  the  latter  was  very  large,  twenty 
cubits  long  and  wide  and  ten  cubits  high  (2  Chron. 
iv.  1).  It  seems  better,  with  Thenius,  "to  under- 
stand  it  as  in  pyijil    ]H3  and  to  translate  :    '  the 

■chief  altar.'  "  According  to  Ahaz's  orders,  all  the 
offerings  were  now  to  be  made  upon  the  new  altar ; 
the  regular  morning  and  evening  sacrifices  and 
the  special  ones  of  particular  individuals,  whether 
the  king  or  others.  He  did  not,  therefore,  forbid 
the  worship  of  Jehovah — he  did  not  dare  to  do  that 
— but  nevertheless  this  worship  was  to  be  celebrat- 
ed only  upon  an  altar  imitated  from  one  which  be- 
longed to  the  heathen. — The  morning  burnt- 
offering  and  ther  evening  meat-offering.  "  It 
might  seem  from  this  that  there  was  no  meat- 
offering in  the  morning  and  no  burnt-offering  in 
the  evening,  which  would  be  contradictory  to  Ex. 
xxix.  38-42  and  Num.  xxviii.  3-S.  But.  as  no 
burnt-offering  was  brought  without  a  meat-offering 
(Numb.  vii.  87 ;  xv.  2-12),  the  latter  is  assumed  as 
u  matter  of  course  in  the  morning  offering:  and, 
as  the  burnt-offering  was  to  burn  throughout  the 
whole  night  (Levit.  vi.  9),  the  meat-offering  was 
the  only  part  of  the  evening  sacrifice  at  which  the 
people  could  assist "  (Thenius).     The  final  words  : 

And  as  for  the  brazen  altar  "Ipai?  '-rrPIT ,  are 

translated  by  the  Vulg. :  erit  paratum  ad  volunta- 
tem  meam:  similarly  Philippson:  "But  to  inquire 
at  the  brazen  altar  is  my  prerogative."  This  ren- 
dering is  evidently  incorrect,    for  "ipa  means  to 

investigate  but  not  to  seek  out  or  inquire,  much  less 
to  be  at  one's  disposition  (Levit.  xxvii.  33).  It  has 
here  the  same  meaning  as  in  Prov.  xx.  25,  to  con- 
sider, so  that  the  phrase  is  to  be  translated :  "  I 
will  consider  [farther]  "  (Furst).  Thenius,  very  un- 
necessary, desires  to  read  C'j33?  for  "l|53?,  be- 


cause |)  ITn,  as  he   maintains,   always   means  M 

serve  a  certain  purpose.  The  meaning  would  then 
be  "  shall  be  mine  for  prayer ;  "  i.  e.,  that  the  old 
altar   should   be    retained    as    a    "prayer-altar." 

j>  ITn  is  used  here,  however,  as  it  is  in  Gen.  xv. 

12  ;  1  Sam.  iv.  9;  Josh.  ii.  5.  No  distinction  be- 
tween prayer-altars  and  altars  of  sacrifice  was 
recognized  in  ancient  times.  Ahaz  did  not  desira 
that  the  altar  of  Solomon,  which  had  hitherto  been 
held  very  sacred,  should  be  removed  at  once,  but 
he  desired  to  wait  and  see  how  the  people  would 
regard  the  innovation.  He  therefore  reserved  his 
further  commands  for  a  time. 

Ver.  17.  And  king  Ahaz  cut  ofl,  ic.  Thenius 
maintains  that  this  and  the  following  verse  are  a 
continuation  of  the  first  half  of  verse  10,  and  that 
a  more  precise  statement  is  here  added  to  the  re- 
report  of  Ahaz'  journey  to  Damascus  which  is 
there  spoken  of,  viz.,  that  it  was  impossible  for 
him,  after  he  had  obtained  the  needed  assistance, 
to  appear  before  Tiglath  Pileser  with  empty  hands ; 
that  the  treasury  was  empty  (ver.  8) ;  that  he  was, 
therefore,  compelled  to  take  for  this  gift  any- 
thing which  could  be  made  available  ;  and  that  this 
is  what  is  meant  by  the  closing  words  of  ver.  18  : 
"for  the  king  of  Assyria."  But  vers.  17  and  18 
clearly  carry  on  the  narrative  of  what  occurred 
after  the  return  of  the  king  from  Damascus  (ver. 
12).  They  are  therefore  a  direct  continuation  of 
vers.  10-16.  Besides  the  removal  of  the  brazen 
altar,  Ahaz  undertook  still  further  changes  in  the 
sanctuary,  namely  those  which  are  mentioned  in 
vers.  17-18.  As  the  brazen  oxen  are  among  the 
things  which  he  removed,  and  as  they  were  not 
carried  away  from  Jerusalem  until  the  Babylon- 
ians carried  them  off  (Jerem.  lii.  20),  it  is  not  to  be 
understood  that  they  were  carried  as  a  gift  to  Da- 
mascus by  Ahaz.  As  it  was  with  the  oxen,  so  it  must 
have  been  also  with  the  other  decorations  men- 
tioned in  ver.  17.     Finally  the  words:  "  for  (^3D) 

the  king  of  Assyria,"  cannot  be  understood  in  the 
sense  of  :  "  In  the  service  of  the  king  of  Assyria  " 
(Luther),  or,  "In  order  to  obtain  (by  abstracting 
the  decorations  mentioned)  the  necessary  gifts  for 
the  king  "  (Thenius) ;   for  ijan  means  for  in  the 

sense  of  from  fear  of  anybody  (cf.  Judges  ix.  21; 
Gen.  vii.  7  ;  Isai.  xx.  6;  2  Kings  xxii.  19  ;  Hos.  xL 
2,  Ac.),  but  never  for  the  sake  of  any  one,  or  out  oj 
love  to  him.  Ahaz  removed  all  these  valuable 
objects  "  before  the  king  of  Assyria  "  not  in  order 
to  make  him  a  present  of  them,  but  either  because 
he  thought  that  they  would  give  him  offence  or 
because  he  feared  that  he  might  want  them  and 
demand  them  of  him.  [This  last  is  the  true  expla- 
nation. He  wanted  to  escape  the  cupidity  of  the 
Assyrians  by  hiding  evidences  of  wealth. — W.  G. 

S.] — On  the  J"li"l3TO  of  tne  bases  and  on  T>3  and  the 

brazen  sea,  see  notes  on  1  Kings  vii.  27  sq.  Ahaz 
did  not  set  the  last  "  upon  the  stone  pavement  " 
(Luther),  but  upon  a  foundation  built  of  stone. — 
The  TTD'JD  was   "  unquestionably  a  covered  place, 

a  platform  or  hall,  in  the  forecourt  of  the  temple, 
s.  i  apart  for  the  king  when  he  visited  the  temple 
with  his  retinue  on  the  Sabbaths  or  feast-days " 
(Keil).  This  addition  was  built  later  than  the 
rest  of  the  temple.  Its  form  cannot  be  de£- Jtelj 
discovered,  for   it  is  only  mentioned  here.      Tin 


174 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Sept  have  for  it :  rbv  -&eui7.iov  tt)C  natiifipac  riiv 
napfiaruv,  wind)  does  not  throw  any  light  upon  it, 
as  they  evidently  read  isms ,  foundation,  forT|D1D- 

The  king:s  entry  without  is  perhaps  the 
"  aneent  "  mentioned  in  1  Kings  x.  5.  According  to 
Thenius  it  was  "  the  entrance  at  the  eastern  gate 
of  the  inner  court,  which  lay  towards  the  outer 
fore-court  through  which  the  king  alone  entered 
(Ezek.  xlvi.  1,  2),  and  it  is  mentioned  in  contrast  to 
the  platform  of  the  king  in  the  inner  forecourt, 
which  has  just  been  mentioned."  Keil  translates 
2DH  ,   which  applies  to  both  the  localities,   "  lie 

transferred  into  the  house  of  Jehovah,"  but  the 
platform  (7ID1D),  which  was  in  the  inner  court, 

cannot  possibly  have  been  transferred  into  the 
temple  itself,  still  less  the  outer  entrance.  More- 
over, why  should  this  transfer  have  taken  place 
"  before  "  or  "  for  fear  of  "  the  king  of  Assyria  ? 
3DH    means   strictly :    to   make    something    turn 

about,  to  change  a  thing  so  that  it  is  not  what  it 
was.  Hence  it  often  means  to  change  one's  name 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  34;  xxiv.  17),  and  it  can  only  be 
understood  here  in  the  same  sense.  Thenius: 
"He  'changed'  in  the  same  way  as  he  had 
changed  or  altered  the  bases,  Ac."  This  no 
doubt  took  place  in  this  way,  that  he  took  off 
from  them  what  was  valuable.      niiT  JV3  is  the 

ordinary  accusative  of  place,  "in  the  sanctuary." — 
We  see  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  1 2  that  Ahaz  was  not 
contented  with  the  arrangements  for  worship  here 
made,  but  also  erected  altars  on  the  roof  of  his 
"upper  chamber." — In  regard  to  the  sepulture  of 
king  Ahaz  (ver.  20),  2  Chron.  xxviii.  27,  says: 
"  They  buried  him  in  the  city,  in  Jerusalem,  but 
they  brought  him  not  into  the  sepulchres  of  the 
kings  of  Israel."  It  is  not  evident  why  this  is  an 
"  error,"  as  Thenius  asserts.  It  does  not  contra- 
dict the  record  before  us,  and  the  same  thing 
occurred  in  regard  to  Uzziah,  although  not  for  the 
same  reason  (cf.  chap.  xv.  7  and  2  Chron.  xxvi.  3). 

[Supplementary  Note  on  the  references  to  con- 
temporaneous history  in  chap,  xvi.,  incorporating  the 
results  of  Assyrian  investigations. — As  we  saw 
above  (p.  161),  chap.  xv.  gives  an  account  of  the 
intervention  of  Assyria  in  the  history  of  Israel. 
Chap.  xvi.  gives  the  history  of  the  intervention  of 
Assyria  in  Judah.  The  first  revolt  of  Pekah  and 
Rezin  against  Assyria,  and  their  conspiracy  to  at- 
tack Judah  and  force  it  to  join  in  the  attempt,  in 
the  last  year  of  Jotham  (742),  was  crushed  before 
it  gained  any  strength.  In  734  they  once  morei 
united  in  revolt,  and  renewed  their  policy  of  at- 
tacking Judah.  Ahaz,  hard  pressed  by  them  (see 
Exeg.  on  ver.  7),  called  to  Tiglath  Pileser  for  aid, 
and  paid  him  tribute.  The  aid  was  promptly 
piven,  as  Tiglath  Pileser  regarded  Rezin  and 
Pekah  as  rebels.  Ahaz  was  thus  relieved  from 
lliis  danger  (732).  Tiglath  Pileser,  after  dealing 
with  the  rebels  as  described  on  p.  162,  marched 
into  Philistia  and  took  Gaza  and  Ashdod,  and 
also  Dumah  in  Arabia,  and  came  back  to  Damas- 
cus. It  was  probably  on  this  march  that  he 
"came  to"  Ahaz,  and  distressed  him;  and  it  was 
probably  at  this  time  that  Ahaz  removed  the  fur- 
niture of  the  temple  and  took  away  its  decorations, 
lest  they  might  present  an  appearance  of  wealth 
to    Tiglath  Pileser,  and  excite  his  cupidity  (see 


Exeg.  on  ver.  18).  In  731,  before  leaving  Damas 
cus  to  return  to  Assyria,  Tiglath  Pileser  "  held 
a  court  "  of  his  vassals  at  that  city.  Twenty-three 
such  vassals  came.  Among  them  are  mentioned 
Pekah  of  Israel  and  Ahaz  of  Judah  (Lenormant 
I.  389  and  390).  Continued  in  the  Supp.  Note  after 
the  Exeg.  section  on  chap.  xvii. — W.  G.  S.] 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  reign  of  king  Ahaz  was  the  most  disastrous 
through  which  Judah  had  yet  passed.  The  king- 
dom sank  so  low,  both  internally  and  externally, 
religiously  and  politically,  that  it  was  on  the  verge 
of  ruin.  Such  an  incapable  ruler  had  never  before 
ascended  the  throne.  The  predominant  feature  in 
his  character  was  weakness,  weakness  of  spirit 
and  weakness  of  intellect.  History  records  no- 
thing about  him  which  is  worthy  of  respect.  Al- 
though Judah  and  Israel  had  had  many  perverse, 
wicked,  and  godless  rulers,  yet  these  had  been  at 
least  brave  and  energetic  soldiers ;  but  of  Ahaz 
even  this  much  cannot  be  said.  When  the  enemy 
approached  "  his  heart  was  moved  as  the  trees  of 
the  wood  are  moved  with  the  wind  "  (Isai.  vii.  2). 
No  word  of  prophetic  promise  or  encouragement 
could  deliver  him  from  his  despair.  He  was  de- 
feated;  he  did  not  win  a  single  victory:  all  the 
conquests  of  his  two  predecessors  were  lost ;  the 
land  was  devastated  and  robbed  of  all  its  sources 
of  revenue.  Finally  he  turns  in  his  distress,  in 
spite  of  every  warning,  to  the  threatening  Assyrian 
power  and  purchases  its  help,  not  only  by  the 
treasures  of  the  temple  and  the  palace,  but  also 
with  the  independence  and  honor  of  his  kingdom. 
As  is  usually  the  case  with  weak  rulers,  he  cringes 
before  the  mighty,  but  is  arrogant  and  domineering 
towards  his  subjects  (cf.  vers.  7-16).  As  for  the 
main  point,  the  attitude  towards  Jehovah,  his 
apostasy  was  deeper  than  that  of  any  other  king 
of  Judah  or  even  of  Israel.  He  not  only  tolerated 
idolatry,  but  practised  it  zealously  himself,  and 
even  went  so  far  in  his  error  as  the  abomination 
of  sacrificing  his  own  son.  The  historical  books, 
which  only  state  the  facts,  do  not  tell  how  it  came 
about  that  a  king  of  Judah,  a  descendant  and  suc- 
cessor of  David,  fell  so  low,  but  the  prophetical 
books  give  us  an  insight  into  the  religious  and 
moral  status  of  the  kingdom.  The  kingdom  of 
Judah  had  attained  to  power  and  glory  under  Uz- 
ziah and  Jotham,  as  Israel  did  under  Jeroboam  II. 
Flourishing  trade  and  lively  intercourse  with  for- 
eign countries  produced  wealth,  and  with  it  also 
foreign  manners  and  customs.  Finally  foreign 
divinities  were  introduced.  The  result  was  great 
luxury,  effeminacy,  debauchery,  and  excess  which 
soon,  especially  in  the  upper  classes,  led  to  immo- 
rality and  vice  of  every  kind.  The  foreign  forms 
of  worship,  which  were,  for  the  most  part,  bril- 
liant and  attractive,  and  connected  with  vice, 
pleased  this  degenerate  generation  better  than  the 
simple,  severe,  and  earnest  Jehovah  worship, 
which  indeed  continued,  but  had  degenerated  into 
a  mere  external  ceremonial.  Uzziah  and  Jotham 
had  indeed,  as  we  have  said  above,  done  their  ut- 
most for  the  external  prosperity  of  the  kingdom. 
They  also  remained  true  to  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah, but  they  were  not  filled  with  warm  zeal  for 
it,  and  they  did  not  oppose  effecuve  resistance  to 
the  invading  corruption.  Isaiah,  who  commenced 
his  prophetical  labor  in  the  year  in  which  Uzziah 


CHAPTER  XVI.  1-20. 


175 


died  (Isai.  vi.  1),  says,  in  the  passage  in  which, 
according  to  the  generally  received  opinion,  lie  is 
speaking  of  the  time  of  Jotham :  "  Therefore  thou 
hast  forsaken  thy  people,  the  house  of  Jacob,  be- 
cause they  be  replenished  from  the  East  [filled 
with  Eastern  rites  and  acts]  and  are  soothsayers 
like  the  PhUistines,  and  they  please  themselves  in 
the  children  of  strangers.  Their  laud  also  is  full  of 
silver  and  gold,  neither  is  there  any  end  of  their 
treasures;  their  land  is  also  full  of  horses,  neither 
is  there  any  end  of  their  chariots;  their  land  is  also 
full  of  idols,  they  worship  the  work  of  their  own 
hands,  that  which  their  own  fingers  have  made  " 
(Isai.  ii.  6-8).  In  another  passage,  which,  though 
it  does  not  belong  to  the  time  of  Jotham,  yet  falls 
in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  the  prophet 
describes  the  degeneracy  of  morals,  the  debauch- 
ery, licentiousness,  pride,  deceit,  alienation  from 
God,  injustice,  oppression,  &c,  of  the  time  (Isai.  v. 
8-25).  In  such  circumstances  the  youthful  Ahaz 
had  grown  up.  Such  was  the  atmosphere  which 
he  had  breathed  from  his  childhood  tip.  He  was 
emphatically  a  child  of  his  time,  a  faithful  repre- 
sentative of  the  majority  of  the  nation,  corrupted 
by  foreign  modes  of  thought  and  morals.  By 
nature  he  was  weak  and  vacillating.  He  allowed 
himself  to  be  swept  away  by  the  stream,  and  sank 
deeper  into  a  depraved  character  and  career,  so 
that  even  the  heavy  judgments  which  befell  him 
did  not  avail  to  bring  him  into  other  courses. 

2.  The  idolatry  which  was  practised  in  Jndah, 
in  the  time  of  Ahaz,  by  the  side  of  the  worship  of 
Jehovah,  was  not  of  the  form  peculiar  to  any  par- 
ticular people,  but  was  like  that  which  Solomon 
allowed  his  wives  to  practise  (see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings 
xi.  5  and  Hist.  §§  3  and  4  on  1  Kings  xi.  1-13),  a 
mixture  of  the  different  kinds  of  worship  which 
predominated  in  western  Asia.  Since,  as  we  saw 
from  Isai.  ii.  6-8,  such  a  cultus  had  been  estab- 
lished in  Jndah  even  in  the  time  of  Jotham,  and 
Ahaz  found  it  in  existence  when  he  ascended  the 
throne,  it  follows  that  it  cannot  have  been  Assyrian 
in  origin,  for,  in  Jotham's  time,  Judah  had  not  come 
in  contact  with  Assyria  at  all.  In  the  book  of 
Chronicles,  as  well  as  in  the  book  of  Kings,  the 
sacrifice  of  children  is  presented  as  the  extreme  of 
apostasy.  In  its  nature  this  form  of  sacrifice  is 
the  most  utter  contrast  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
(see  Pt.  II.,  p.  36).  As  it  is  not  mentioned  as 
haying  been  committed  at  all  before  the. time  of 
Ahaz,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  was  the  first  who 
went  so  far  astray,  it  has  been  supposed  that  he 
was  led  to  it  by  becoming  acquainted  with  the  As- 
syrian fire-gods,  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech 
(2  Kings  xvii.  31)  (cf.  Movers,  Phoniz.  I.  s.  65; 
Winer,  R.-W.-B.  II.  s.  101).  The  record,  however, 
distinctly  contradicts  this  notion  by  the  words : 
"  According  to  the  abominations  of  the  heathen 
whom  the  Lord  cast  out  from  before  the  children 
of  Israel."  The  Assyrians  did  not  belong  to  this 
category  and  the  words  apply  here,  as  they  do 
wherever  they  occur  (chap.  xvii.  8,  11;  cf.  Numb, 
txxiii.  51-55;  Deut.  iv.  38),  to  the  Canaanitish 
nations,  that  is,  the  nations  of  western,  not  of 
upper,  Asia.  It  is  an  unquestioned  fact  that 
among  the  former,  especially  among  the  Phoeni- 
cians, child-sacrifices  were  common,  and  that 
Moloch,  to  whom  they  were  offered,  was  worship- 
ped in  western  Asia  (cf.  Levit.  xviii.  21,  27  sq. ; 
xx.  1-5).  Moreover,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  Ahaz 
did  not  perform  such  sacrifices  until  after  he  be- 


came acquainted  with  the  Assyrian  cultus.  It  U 
mentioned  in  the  most  general  terms  as  a  sign  of 
his  apostasy.  His  sacrificing  and  offering  incense 
'•  under  every  green  tree  "  does  not  point  to  As- 
syrian star-worship,  but  to  the  Astarte  and 
Aschere-worship  of  western  Asia.  Dunekers 
notion  that  Ahaz  first  offered  child-sacrifice  when 
Rezin  and  Pekah  were  before  Jerusalem,  and  he 
was  most  hardly  pressed  on  all  sides  ("'In  vain 
the  king  offered  sacrifices  to  the  gods  of  Damascus 
in  order  to  turn  the  fortunes  of  war ;  in  vain  he 
sacrificed  his  own  son  as  a  burnt-offering "),  is 
nothing  but  a  pure  construction  on  the  basis  of  2 
Kings  iii.  27.  The  biblical  text  does  not  offer  the 
slightest  hint  of  it.  It  is  in  fact  very  questionable 
whether  child-sacrifices  were  common  among  the 
nations  of  Upper  Asia,  and  especially  among  the 
Assyrians.  It  cannot,  at  any  rate,  be  proved  from 
2  Kings  xvii.  31.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be  denied  that 
Ahaz,  after  he  had  met  Tiglath  Pileser  in  Damas- 
cus, became  acquainted  with  the  Assyrian  cultus 
and  transplanted  at  least  some  parts  of  it  to  Jeru- 
salem. This  is  proved,  not  so  much  by  the  fact 
that  he  caused  an  altar  to  be  built  after  the  pat 
tern  of  the  one  which  he  had  seen  in  Damascus, 
as  rather  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  12,  where  "altars 
upon  the  upper-chamber  of  Ahaz  "  are  mentioned, 
evidently  referring  to  Assyrio-Chaldean  star-wor- 
ship (see  note  below  on  the  place  mentioued). 
The  chariots  and  horses  of  the  sun  which  are 
there  mentioned  most  probably  belonged  to  the 
time  of  Manasseh.  For  the  rest,  Ahaz  tolerated 
the  Jehovah-worship  after  his  return  from  Damas- 
cus; for  the  sacrifices  which  he  commanded  the 
high-priest  Urijah  to  make  (ver.  15)  upon  the  new 
altar  were  not  offerings  to  idols  but  to  Jehovah 
The  weak  man  had  not  the  courage  formally  to 
abolish  the  Jehovah- worship,  for  a  party  which 
could  not  be  despised  still  clung  to  it.  He  wor- 
shipped all  possible  gods  according  to  his  own 
tastes  and  notions.  In  his  time  there  was  in 
Judah  complete  religious  anarchy  and  license.  [See 
the  bracketed  note  on  ver.  3  under  Exegetical. 
That  note  presents  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  point 
discussed  in  this  section  according  to  the  latest 
and  best  knowdedge.  It  will  be  seen  that  it  modifies 
and  corrects  some  of  the  above  statements.] 

3.  T)ie  war  which  the  confederated  kings  of  Israel 
and  Syria  undertook  against  Judah  is  "one  of  the 
most  notable  and  most  important  events  in  the 
Israelitish  history  "  (Caspari).  It  was  the  first 
time  that  one  of  the  two  sister-kingdoms  formed 
an  alliance,  with  the  hereditary  enemy  against  the 
other,  in  order  to  destroy  it.  This  was  a  most 
unnatural  alliance  and  was  a  sign  of  the  process 
of  dissolution  which  was  commencing;  for  it  show- 
ed that  the  consciousness  of  forming  with  Judah  a 
common  nationality  based  upon  common  blood 
and  faith  had  been  lost  by  Israel.  The  importance 
and  the  external  prosperity,  which  had  been  won 
by  Judah  under  Uzziah  and  Jotham  (see  above, 
§  1),  had  perhaps  reawakened  Ephraim's  ancient, 
deep-rooted  hate  and  envy  of  Judah  (see  1  Kings 
xii. ;  Mist.  §  1),  and  incited  the  faithless  and 
ambitious  Pekah  to  the  alliance  with  Rezin.  In 
addition  to  this  was  the  fact  that  Israel  had,  under 
Menahem,  fallen  into  a  certain  position  of  depend- 
ence upon,  and  subjection  to,  the  growing  and 
threatening  Assyrian  power,  and  that  Syria  had 
also,  in  this  power,  a  dangerous  neighbor.  Id 
order  to  recuperate  Israelat  the  expense  of  Judah 


176 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


and  to  find  a  protection  on  the  side  of  Assyria  in 
the  intervening  nation  of  Syria,  Pekah  formed  an 
alliance  with  Rezin,  who  was  also  eager  for  con- 
quest, and  these  two  "  fire-brands  "  (Isai.  vii.  4) 
formed  the  plan  of  putting  an  end  to  the  nation  of 
Judah  and  the  house  of  David.  They  made  their 
first  efforts  in  this  direction  in  the  last  years  of 
■Tothara,  but  without  success  (chap.  xv.  37).  When, 
however,  the  weak  and  incapable  Ahaz  came  to 
the  throne,  the  right  time  for  carrying  out  their 
plan  seemed  to  them  to  have  come.  But  the  Lord 
said:  "Take  counsel  together  and  it  shall  come 
to  naught;  speak  the  word  and  it  shall  not  stand  " 
(Isai.  viii.  10).  At  the  moment  when  they  were 
close  to  their  object  they  were  obliged  to  give  up 
their  plan,  and  they  ran  to  their  own  destruction. 
Rezin  lost  his  kingdom  and  his  life ;  Pekah  was 
made  subject  to  Tiglath  Pileser,  and  a  part  of  his 
people  were  led  away  into  exile  (chap.  xv.  29). 
Ahaz  also  lost  his  kingdom  and  his  people,  and 
had  to  bow  beneath  the  supremacy  of  Assyria. 
The  whole  war  was  a  heavy  judgment  upon  the 
three  kingdoms.  The  kingdom  of  Syria-Damas- 
cus, which  had,  up  to  this  time,  been  the  instru- 
ment of  the  divine  judgments  against  Israel,  dis- 
appeared forever  from  the  scene.  Israel  went  on 
with  hasty  steps  to  its  destruction,  for  Pekah  was 
murdered  by  Hoshea  in  consequence  of  his  sub- 
jection to  the  Assyrians,  and  Hoshea,  as  he  re- 
fused to  pay  the  tribute  to  Assyria,  was  taken 
captive  by  Shalmaneser.  Thus  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  came  to  an  end  (chap.  xvii.  3  sq.).  [See 
Supp.  Note,  p.  161.]  "As  the  hostility  to  Judah 
had  given  it  its  origin,  so  the  same  hostility 
brought  about  its  destruction :  born  from  this,  it 
also  perished  by  it "  (Caspari).  Judah  itself, 
finally,  as  a  punishment  for  its  apostasy  from 
Jehovah,  came  into  that  contact  with  Assyria,  from 
this  time  on.  which  had  such  a  deep  influence 
upon  its  history.  From  this  time  the  conflicts 
witli  the  small  nationalities  ceased  and  those  with 
the  great  world-monarchies  began.  In  so  far  this 
war  was,  for  Judah  also,  the  beginning  of  the  end. 
It  was  a  turning-point  for  both  nations  which  had 
not  heeded  the  chastisements  nor  the  proofs  of 
the  goodness  and  long-suffering  of  God,  but  had 
hardened  themselves  more  and  more  in  their  apos- 
tasy. "  It  was  in  the  highest  degree  providential 
that  the  great  world-monarchies  began  to  interfere 
in  Israel  just  at  the  time  when  this  hardening  took 
place''  (Caspari).  But  this  -'war  between  Judah 
and  the  allied  kingdoms  of  Ephraim  and  Syria  is 
still  further  especially  remarkable  for  this  fact, 
that  the  grandest  prophecies  were  spoken  in  it, 
and  that  it  forms  the  historical  basis  of  a  product 
of  the  Old-Testament  prophecy  which  is  of  the 
very  highest,  or,  in  fact,  of  unique  significance. 
This  fact  stands  in  connection  with  the  position 
af  this  war  at  the  turning-point  of  the  Old-Testa- 
ment history ;  in  the  middle  of  the  Israelitish  his- 
tory, at  the  end  of  the  first  and  beginning  of  the 
second  period,  in  which  latter  the  fortunes  of  the 
people  of  God  under  the  world-monarchy,  its 
period  of  suffering,  falls.  It  stood,  therefore,  at 
the  point  where  a  prospect  offered  itself  to  the 
eye  of  the  prophet  which  reached  out  over  the 
whole  future  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  " 
(Caspari). 

4.  After  his  visit  to  Damascus,  Alias  caused 
certain  changes  to  be  made  in  the  arrangements  of 
'fit  temple   'jt  ./■ rusalem  which  were  of  greater  or 


less  significance.  The  record  mentions  some  of 
these  very  briefly,  but  speaks  more  at  length  of 
those  which  affected  the  altar  of  burnt-offering, 
because  these  were  by  far  the  most  important, 
Since  the  entire  cultus  was  concentrated  in  the  sac- 
rifice, and  all  sacrifices,  those  of  the  individual  as 
well  as  those  of  the  entire  people,  were  to  be 
offered  on  this  one  altar  (Levit.  xvii.  8,  9;  Deut. 
xii.  13,  14),  it  formed  the  centre  of  the  sanctuary, 
which,  without  it,  would  have  lost  its  significance. 
Its  form  and  shape,  its  position  in  the  sacred  edi- 
fice, its  entire  construction,  were,  therefore,  by  no 
means  indifferent  matters,  but  they  were  strictly 
prescribed  in  accordance  with  its  character  and 
purpose,  so  that  any  alteration  of  it  seemed  to  be 
a  sort  of  denial  or  contradiction  of  the  religious 
idea  which  it  was  constructed  to  serve.  Merely 
to  take  away  the  four  horns  from  its  four  corners 
was  to  desecrate  and  destroy  it  (Amos  hi.  14 ;  Ju 
dith  ix.  8.  Symbol,  d.  Mosaisch.  Cult.  I.  s.  473).  Now 
when  Ahaz  caused  this  altar  to  be  removed  and 
another  made  on  a  pattern  obtained  from  Damas- 
cus, this  was  nothing  less  than  an  indirect  setting 
aside  of  the  lawful  Jehovah-worship,  and  it  bore 
witness  not  only  to  an  entire  want  of  comprehen- 
sion of  that  worship,  but  also  to  an  unheard-of 
self-will.  He  ordained,  indeed,  that  the  priest 
should  offer  all  the  sacrifices  which  had  hitherto 
been  offered — that  is  to  say,  all  the  sacrifices  to  Je- 
hovah— upon  the  new  altar.  He  did  not  diminish 
the  amount  of  worship  to  be  paid  to  Jehovah ;  the 
crime  and  folly  were  that  an  idol-altar  was  used 
for  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  It  appears  that  Ahaz 
intended  to  gradually  transform  the  Jehovah-wor- 
ship in  this  way.  Certainly  the  ground  for  it  was 
not  merely  that  the  form  of  the  altar  which  ha 
saw  "  in  a  city  where,  according  to  all  the  indica- 
tions which  we  possess,  the  fine  arts  were  highly 
developed,  pleased  him  better  than  that  of  the 
large  brazen  altar  in  the  forecourt  of  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  "  (Ewald),  so  that  "  he  had  rather  an 
aesthetic  than  a  religious  reason  for  the  change  " 
(Thenius).  For,  aside  from  the  fact  that  there  is 
not  an  indication  of  any  especial  fondness  for  art 
in  Ahaz,  as,  for  instance,  there  was  in  Solomon, 
and  that  he  was  a  weak  and  incapable  man,  we 
must  notice  that  he  removed  even  the  works  of 
art  which  were  in  the  temple ;  he  took  away  the 
brazen  oxen  and  he  destroyed  the  artistic  "  bases  ' 
upon  which  the  laver  rested.  He  desired  that  the 
new  altar  shotild  be  made  exactly  like  the  one  he 
had  seen  at  Damascus,  and  to  this  end  he  sent  a 
model  of  it  to  Jerusalem.  This  shows  that  his 
object  was  not  so  much  to  have  a  beautiful  work 
of  art  as  it  was  to  have  an  altar  made  on  a  pattern 
borrowed  from  Damascus ;  his  interest  in  it  was 
not  artistic  but  political.  "When  he  perceived 
the  zeal  of  the  Assyrian  rulers  for  the  propagation 
of  their  national  cultus,  he  commanded  his  priests 
to  change  the  arrangements  of  the  temple  so  as  to 
conform  to  this  desire  "  (Duncker).  His  ordinance 
in  this  respect  was  simply  a  contemptible  captatio 
hrnmilentim  for  the  Assyrian  king.  The  removal 
of  the  twelve  oxen  of  the  brazen  sea,  which  he 
then  placed  upon  a  mere  foundation  of  stone,  was, 
if  we  consider  the  significance  of  this  piece  of  the 
temple  furniture  as  it  is  stated  above  (1  Kings  vii., 
Bisi.  S  6),  a  degradation  of  the  Israelitish  priest- 
hood and  a  contradiction  of  the  destiny  of  Israel 
as  the  chosen  priest-people,  as  well  as  an  assault 
upon  the  character  of  the  Israelitish  relig ;>n.    Th« 


CHAPTER  XVI.   1-20. 


177 


lame  is  true  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  the  Mis- 
geroth  from  the  bases,  for  upon  them  were  the 
characteristic  emblems  of  the  inner  sanctuary, 
cherubim  arid  palms  (see  above,  1  Kings  vii.,  Hist. 
j5  7).  Movers'  opinion  (Ktliy.  ikr  Phon.j,  that  Ahaz 
removed  the  oxen,  &c,  because  the  symbolism 
of  animals  was  especially  abominable  to  the  Assy- 
rians, who  were  addicted  t"  star-worship,  seems 
to  us  to  be  entirely  erroneous.  The  changes, 
finally,  which  Ahaz  made  in  the  gallery  and  stand- 
ing-place of  the  king  are  not  more  definitely  spe- 
cified. Possibly  there  were  emblems  upon  them 
also  which  were  peculiar  to  the  Jehovah-worship. 
We  hear  nothing  of  any  changes  in  the  interior 
of  the  sanctuary.  Those  which  were  made  affect- 
ed only  the  objects  which  stood  in  the  fore-court, 
so  that  they  were  prominently  before  the  eye  and 
might  offend  the  Assyrians.  The  additional  state- 
ment in  Chronicles  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  24),  that  Ahaz 
closed  the  doors  of  the  temple,  is  often  brought  in 
question,  and  asserted  to  be  an  exaggeration 
(Thenhis,  Bertheau,  and  others).  As  it  does  not 
stand  alone,  however,  but  is  supported  by  the  as- 
sertion in  chap.  xxix.  3,  that  Hezekiah  opened  the 
1<-  -•  again,  which  again  is  assumed  in  vers.  7  and 
17,  we  have  as  little  reason  to  reject  this  as  any 
of  the  other  additions  to  these  books  which  are 
supplied  by  the  Chronicles.  The  "  upper  cham- 
bers" with  their  altars,  which,  according  to  2 
Kings  xxiii.  12,  Ahaz  caused  to  be  made,  are  not 
mentioned  in  this  place,  although  they  were  in 
existence.  We  must  not  forget  that  Ahaz  did  not 
do  all  at  once,  but  went  on  from  step  to  step  in 
his  apostasy.  As  it  is  certain  that  he  did  not  be- 
gin with  the  sacrifice  of  his  son  in  the  valley  of 
Hinnom,  so  it  is  certain  also  that  he  did  not  com- 
mence by  closing  the  doors  of  the  temple ;  on  the 
contrary,  these  were  the  extremes  to  which  he 
allowed  himself  to  be  driven  under  the  influence 
of  the  heathen  party.  Fortunately,  his  reign  was 
not  a  long  one. 

5.  The  conduct  of  the  high-priest}  Urijah,  under 
the  commands  of  the  king,  stands  in  glaring  con- 
trast with  that  of  the  high-priest  Azariah  and  the 
eighty  other  priests  when  Uzziah  attempted  to 
usurp  priestly  functions  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  17  sq.). 
Instead  of  resisting  the  commands  of  the  weak 
and  capricious  Ahaz,  he  keeps  silence,  bows  in 
acquiescence  under  his  will,  "and  does  all  that 
king  Ahaz  commanded  him"  (ver.  16).  Neither 
did  the  other  priests  stir ;  they  allowed  everything 
to  go  on  without  opposition.  We  cannot  believe 
chat  this  was  the  same  Urijah  whom  Isaiah  desig- 
nates as  a  faithful  witness  of  Jehovah  (Isai.  viii. 
2,  16).  [Cf.  Exeyet.  note  on  ver.  10.]  We  should 
have  to  suppose  that  he  fell  so  low  after  a  long 
interval.  Nothing  similar  had  ever  been  done  be- 
fore by  any  priest  in  Judah.  It  seems  that  he, 
like  his  companions  in  office,  was  only  anxious  for 
his  revenues.  At  any  rate,  his  conduct  is  a  sign 
of  the  character  and  standing  of  the  priests  of  that 
lime.  They  were  dumb  dogs  who  could  not  bark  ; 
they  all  followed  their  own  ways,  every  one  his 
own  gain  (Isai.  lvi.  10  sq.).  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah, 
and  Hicah  stand  over  against  them,  grand  and 
noble,  speaking  without  fear,  rebuking  the  sins 
both  of  high  and  low,  and  announcing  the  threat- 
ening judgments  of  God. 


12 


HOIIILETICAL    AND     PRACTICAL. 

Ver3.   1-9.  King  Ahaz.     a)   The  way  in  which 
he  walked,  vers.  1-4.  (An  apostate  from  the  God 
of  Israel  even  to  the  point  of  offering  sacrifices  to 
Moloch.)      b)  The  distress    into  which   he  came, 
vers.  5  and  6.   (2  Chron.  xxviii.  5.     The  land  wan 
devastated;  Elath,  the  fountain  of    the    national 
prosperity,  was  cut  off;  the  throne  was  in  danger. 
He   trembled  like  the  trees   of  the  forest  in   the 
wind.     Isai.  vii.  2.)    c)  The  help  which  he  sought, 
vers.  7-9.  (Instead  of  seeking  help  from  the  living 
God,  to  whom  the  prophet  pointed  him,  he  seeks  it 
from  the  king  of  Assyria.     Ps.  cxxiv.  8 ;   Jerem. 
xvii.  5,  7.     Instead  of  seeking  it  with  prayer  and 
supplication,  he  seeks  it  with  silver  and  gold.    Ps. 
1.  15.) — Vers.   1-3.  Wurt.   Summ.  :  Not  all  pious 
parents  are  blessed  with  pious  children.     It  is,  in- 
deed, a  great  trial  for  parents  when  children  do  not 
turn  out  well,   but   when  the   parents    have   not 
failed  in  their  discipline,  then  they  can  leave  the 
rest  to  God,  and  have  a  good  conscience  that  they 
have  done  their  best. — Vers.  3  and 4.  Starke:  Men 
are  so  blind  that  they  think  they  serve  God  most  tru- 
ly by  those  very  actions  by  which  they  sin   most 
grossly  against  him.— The  Moloch-sacrifice,  or  child- 
sacrifice,  is  a  proof  of  the  extravagance  of  error  into 
which  men  can  fall  when  they  have  not  the  know- 
ledge of  the  living  God  and  His  revealed  word,  or 
when  they  have  rejected  the  same  (Rom.  i.  21, 
22).  This  abomination,  which  still  continues  among 
heathen  nations,  is  the  strongest  and  most  direct 
call  to  all,  who  know  the  living  God  and  who  pos- 
sess his  word,  to  take  part  in  the  work  of  missions, 
and  to  help  to  bring  it  about  that  light  may  come 
to  those  who  sit  in   darkness  and  the  shadow  of 
death,  and  that  they  may  come  to  a  knowledge  of 
salvation  (Luke  i.  79 ;   ii.  32). — God  commands  us 
to  give  our  dearest  and  best  to  Him,  but  not  to- 
Moloch.    There  are  no  longer  any  sacrifices  to  Mo- 
loch in  Christendom,  but  it  happens  often  enough, 
even  now,  that  parents  sacrifice  their  childreD  to 
the  idols  of  the  world,  which  consume  them  so 
that  they  are  lost   eternally. — Pfaff.   Bib.  :    He 
who  trains  up  his  children  to  evil,  sacrifices  them 
to   the   Moloch  of  hell,   that    is,   to   the   devil. — 
Starke:  As  a  corrupt   atmosphere    can    taint   a 
healthy  body  far  more  easily  than  a   pure   atmo- 
sphere can  purify  a  tainted  one,  so  also  bad  com- 
panions can  lead  good  people  astray  more  easily 
than   good  men  can   convert  bad   ones.     Evil   is 
more  easily  propagated  than  good. — For  two  hun- 
dred years  the  people  in  Judah  had  kept  them- 
selves free  from  idolatry  and  heathen  abominations, 
and  yet  Ahaz  succeeded  in  a  short  time  in  filling 
the  land  with  these  (Isai.  i.  5,  6).     The  higher  a 
people  stands,  the  lower  it  may  fall.      Judah  sank 
even  lower  than  Israel.     There  have   been,   and 
there  are  even  yet,  Christian  nations  which  have 
sunk  lower  than  the  heathen.    The  fall  of  one  who 
has  been  most  highly  blessed  is  often  the  heaviest 
and  deepest.     Therefore,  Be  sober  I  &c,  1  Peter  v 
8. — Ver.  4.   Happy  is  he  who,   under  every  greet, 
tree  and  on  every  height,  has  learned,  not  to  serve 
the  world  and  its  gods,  but  to  praise  the  one  holy, 
living,  and  gracious  God. — Wherever  God  has  a 
Church,   the  devil  builds  a  temple  by  the  side  of 
it. — Vers.  5  and  6.  The  War  of  Rezin  and  Pekah 
against    Judah    (see     Histor.    and  Ethical,    §   3). 
The  object,  the  result,  and  the  significance   of  it 
(Isai.  viii.  10;  vii.  6,  7). — The  unnatural   allianc* 


17S 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


of  the  two  enemies  against  Judah.  Compare  the 
alliance  of  Herod  and  Pilate.  Ps.  xxxiii.  10  ap- 
plies.— The  allies  could  not  succeed  in  their  enter- 
prise, not  on  account  of  a  vigorous  resistance,  but 
because  it  was  otherwise  ordained  in  the  counsels 
of  God.  He  who  says  to  the  turbulent  sea: 
'•Hitherto  shalt  thou  come  and  no  further;  and 
here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed"  (Job 
xxxviii.  11) — He  rises  limits  and  restraints  for  all 
human  powers,  however  great  and  mighty,  however 
victorious  and  proud  they  may  be. — Ver.  7.  Cra- 
mer: He  who  will  not  be  God's  servant  must  be 
the  servant  of  men,  and  must  lose  all  his  indepen- 
dence, his  honor,  and  his  dignity. — "I  am  thy 
servant  and  thy  son,  come  and  help  me  !  " — Ad- 
dress this  promise  and  this  prayer  in  all  your  need 
and  distress,  not,  as  Ahaz  did,  to  an  earthly, 
human  king,  however  great  and  mighty  he  may 
be,  but  to  the  King  of  all  kings,  in  whom  alone  is 
our  help  (Hos.  xiii.  9),  for  "It  is  better,"  &c.  (Ps. 
cxvivi.  9  ;  cxlvi.  3,  5). — The  friendship  and  help 
which  is  bought  with  silver  and  gold  has  no  dura- 
tion and  no  value.  So  it  is  said  of  Ahaz  here : 
'•He  helped  him  not"  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  21).  The 
great  aud  mighty,  when  they  listen  to  the  prayer 
of  the  humble  and  the  weak  for  aid,  generally 
have  no  other  object  in  view  than  their  own  ad- 
vantage, and  the  increase  of  their  own  power. 

Vers.  10-18.  The  Sacrilege  upon  the  House  of 
God.  a)  The  king's  self-willed  assault  upon  the 
established  institutions;  b)  the  high-priest's  con- 
cession. Berleis.  Bib.  :  See  in  this  a  clear  picture 
of  the  lack  of  Christian  spirit  in  the  two  highest 
ranks.  The  State  desires  to  see  everything  ar- 
ranged according  to  its  whims :  the  Church  yields 
for  the  sake  of  the  temporal  advantage. — It  is  the 
fashion  of  depraved  rulers  that  they  thiuk  they 
can  command  in  religious  as  well  as  in  secular 
matters,  and  can  control  everything  according  to 
their  own  good  pleasure.— Those  who  tremble 
themselves  and  cringe  before  the  great  are  almost 


always  imperious  and  haughty  to  those  who  art 
below  them. — Ahaz'  sinful  and  insane  arrange- 
ment of  sacrificing  and  offering  incense  to  the 
Lord  upon  an  idol-altar,  is  one  which  may  still  be 
observed  where  the  heart  is  addicted  to  sin  and 
to  love  of  the  world,  and  is  alienated  from  the 
living  and  true  God,  while  yet  homage  is  paid  to 
him. — "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of 
God,  and  that  the  spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ?  " 
( 1  Cor.  iii.  16  sq.  •  vi.  19  sq.)  Whosoever  destroyeth 
the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  destroy.  In  this 
temple  also  there  may  be  only  one  altar;  he 
who  sets  up  another  by  the  side  of  it  destroys  it. 
— Ver.  1G.  Neue  Wurt.  Summ.:  There  would  not 
be  so  much  harm  done  by  wicked  rulers  if  they 
did  not  find  so  many  people  who  allow  themselves 
to  be  used  as  instruments  of  their  evil  designs, 
and  who  approve  of  their  undertakings  in  order  to 
win  their  favor.  Osiander:  Ecclesiastics  have 
always  been  found  who  esteemed  the  favor  of 
great  men  more  than  the  honor  of  Almighty  God. 
Would  that  such  men  were  no  longer  to  be  found 
in  the  Christendom  of  to-day  I — Wi'RT.  Summ.  : 
We  have  in  this  high-priest  a  specimen  of  those 
hypocrites  and  belly-servants  who  say:  "  Whose 
bread  I  eat,  his  song  I  sing;  "  who  veer  about 
with  the  wind  and  seek  to  be  pleasant  to  all  men ; 
"  dumb  dogs  who  cannot  bark  ;  "  who  wish  to 
hurt  no  one's  feelings,  but  teach  and  say  just 
what  any  one  wants  to  hear.  But  God's  word 
alone,  and  not  the  favor  of  men,  nor  the  goods 
and  honors  of  the  world,  ought  to  be  the  rule  and 
norm,  from  which  we  ought  not  to  turn  aside  out 
of  favor  to  any  man,  although  it  may  involve  risk 
of  life  or  limb  to  speak  the  truth.  For  if  any  talk  and 
teach  according  to  the  desires  of  their  hearers,  for 
the  sake  of  their  own  comfort,  their  honor  will 
come  to  shame  and  their  end  is  condemnation 
(Phil.  iii.  19;  Acts  iv.  19).— Ver.  18.  "For  fear  of 
the  king  of  Assyria."  It  is  shameful  to  introduce 
changes  in  religious  matters  for  political  reasons. 


C. — The  Fall  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel,  under  Hoshea. 
Chap.  xvii.  1-41. 


1  In  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz  kino;  of  Judah  began  [omit  began]  Hoshea 
the  son  of  Elah  [became  king]  to  reign  [omit  to  reign]  in  Samaria  over  Israel 

2  nine  years.     And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  not 

3  as  the  kings  of  Israel  that  were  before  him.  Against  him  came  up  Shalmaneser 
king  of  Assyria;   and   Hoshea  became  his   servant,  and   gave   him   presents 

4  [tribute].  And  the  king  of  Assyria  found  conspiracy  in  Hoshea :  for  he  had 
sent  messengers  to  So  king  of  Egypt,  and  brought  no  present  to  the  king  of 
Assyria,  as  lie  had  done  year  by  year:  therefore  the  king  of  Assyria  shut  him 

5  up,  and  bound  him  in  prison.     Then  the  king  of  Assyria  came  up  throughout 

6  all  the  land,  and  went  up  to  Samaria,  and  besieged  it  three  years.  In  the  ninth 
year1  of  Hoshea  the  king  of  Assyria  took  Samaria,  and  carried  Israel  away  into 
Assyria,  and  placed  them  in  Hal  ah  and  in  [on  the]  Habor  [,]  by  the  river  of 
[omtt  of]  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes  [Media]. 

7  For  so  it  was,  that  [so  it  cairn;  to  pass  that  when]  the  children  of  Israel  had 
sinned  against  the  Lord  their  God,  which  had  brought  them  up  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  from  under  the  hand  -:i "J'haraoh  king  of  Egypt,  and  had  feared  othet 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-41.  179 


8  gods,  And  walked  in  the  statutes  of  the  heathen,  whom  the  Lord  cast  out  from 
before  the  children  of  Israel,  and  [in  those]  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  which  [statutes] 

9  they  [i.  e..  the  kings]  had  made.  [: — ]  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  secretly 
those  thing*  that  were  not  right  against  the  Lord  *,heir  God,  and  they  built  them 
high  places  in  all  their  cities,  from  the  tower  of  the  watchmen  to  the  fenced 

10  city.     And  they  set  them  up  images  and  groves  [statues]  in   [on]   every  high 

11  hill,  and  under  every  green  tree:  And  there  they  burnt  incense  in  [on]  all  the 
high  places,  as  did  the  heathen  whom  the  Lord  carried  away  [removed]  before 

12  them;  and  wrought  wicked  things  to  provoke  the  Lord  to  anojer:  For  they 
served  idols,  whereof  the  Lord  had  said  unto  them,  Te  shall  not  do  this  thing. 

13  Yet  the  Lord  testified'  against  Israel,  and  against  Judah,  by  all  the  prophets,8 
and  by  [and  by]  all  the  seers,  saying,  Turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways,  and  keep 
my  commandments  and  my  statutes,  according  to  all  the  law  which  I  com- 
manded your  fathers,  and  which  I  sent  to  you  by  my  servants  the  prophets 

14  Notwithstanding,  they  would  not  hear  [And  they  heard  not],  but  hardened 
their  necks,  like  to  the  neck  of  their  fathers,  that  did  not  believe  in  the  Lord 

15  their  God.  And  they  rejected  his  statutes,  and  his  covenant  that  he  made  with 
their  fathers,  and  his  testimonies  which  he  testified  against  them  ;  and  they  fol- 
lowed vanity,  and  became  vain,  and  went  after  the  heathen  that  were  round 
about  them,  concerning  whom  the  Lord  had  charged  them,  that  they  should  not 

16  do  like  them.  And  they  left  all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  their  God,  and 
made   them  molten  images,  even  two  calves,  and  made  a  grove   [an   Astarte- 

17  statue]  and  worshipped  all  the  host  of  heaven,  and  served  Baal.  And  they 
caused  their  sons  and  their  daughters  to  pass  through  the  fire,  and  used  divina- 
tions and  enchantments,  and  sold  themselves  to  do  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord, 

18  to  provoke  him  to  anger.  [: — ]  Therefore  [It  came  to  pass,  I  say  (ver.  7),  that 
then]  the  Lord  was  very  angry  with  Israel,  and  removed  them  out  of  his  sight : 

19  there  was  none  left  but  the  tribe  of  Judah  only.  [(]  Also  Judah  kept  not  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord  their  God,  but  walked  in   the  statutes  of  Israel 

20  which  they  made.  [)]  And  [then]  the  Lord  rejected  all  the  seed  of  Israel,  and 
afflicted  them,  and  delivered  them  into  the  hand  of  spoilers,  until  he  had  cast 

21  them  out  of  his  sight.  For  he  rent  Israel  from  the  house  of  David;  and  they 
made  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  king:  and  Jeroboam  drave  [seduced]4  Israel 

22  from  following  the  Lord,  and  made  them  sin  a  great  sin.  For  the  children  of 
Israel  walked  in  all  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  which  he  did  ;  they  departed  not  from 

23  them  :°  Until  the  Lord  removed  Israel  out  of  his  sight,  as  he  had  said  by  all  his 
servants  the  prophets.  So  was  Israel  carried  away  out  of  their  own  land  to 
Assyria  unto  this  day. 

24  And  the  king  of  Assyria  brought  men  from  Babylon,  and  from  Cuthah,  and 
.  from  Ava,  and   from  Hamath,  and   from  Sepharvaim,  and  placed  them  in  the 

cities  of  Samaria  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel:  and  they  possessed  Samaria, 

25  and  dwelt  in  the  cities  thereof.  And  so  it  was  [it  came  to  pass]  at  the  begin- 
ning of  their  dwelling  there,  that  they  feared  not  the  Lord :  therefore  the  Lord 
sent  lions  among  them,  which    slew    some  of  [slaughtered    amongst]    them. 

26  Wherefore  they  spake  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  saying,  The  nations  which  thou 
hast  removed,  and  placed  in  the  cities  of  Samaria,  know  not  the  manner  of  the 
God  of  the  land  :  therefore  he  hath  sent  lions  among  them,  and,  behold,  they 

27  slay  them,  because  they  know  not  the  manner  of  the  God  of  the  land.  Then 
the  king  of  Assyria  commanded,  saying,  Carry  thither  one  of  the  priests  whom 
ye  brought  from  thence ;  and  let  them  go  and  dwell  there,  and  let  him  teach 

28  them  the  manner  of  the  God  of  the  land.  Then  one  of  the  priests  whom  they 
had  carried  away  from  Samaria  came  and  dwelt  in  Beth-el,  and  taught  them 

29  how  they  should  fear*  the  Lord.  Howbeit  every  nation  made  gods  of  their  own, 
and  put  them  in  the  houses  of  the  high  places  which  the  Samaritans  had  made, 

30  every  nation  in  their  cities  wherein  they  dwelt.  And  the  men  of  Babylon  made 
Succoth-benoth,  and  the  men  of  Cuth  made  Nergal,  and  the  men  of  Hamath  made 

31  Ashima,  And  the  Avites  made  Nibhaz  and  Tartak,  and  the  Sepharvites  burnt 
their  children  in  fire  to  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim. 


ISO 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


32 


33 


34 


So  they  feared  the  Lord,  and  made  unto  themselves  of  the  lowest  of  them  [from 
the  common  people]  priests  of  the  high  places,  which  sacrificed  for  them  in  the 
houses  of  the  high  places.  They  [». «.,  these  immigrants]  feared  the  Lord,  and 
served  their  own  gods,  after  the  manner  of  the  nations  whom  [whence]  they 
[were]  carried  away  from  thence  [omit  from  thence]. 

Unto  this  day  they  \i. «.,  the  remnant  of  the  Israelites]  clo  after  the  former  man- 
ners :  they  fear  not  the  Lord,  neither  do  they  after  their  statutes,  or  after 
their  ordinances,  or  after  the  law  and  commandment  which  the  Lord  commanded 

35  the  children  of  Jacob,  whom  he  named  Israel ;  With  whom  the  Lord  had  made  a 
covenant,  and  charged  them,  saying,  Ye  shall  not  fear  other  gods,  nor  bow 

36  yourselves  to  them,  nor  serve  them,  nor  sacrifice  to  them:  But  [only]  the  Lord, 
who  brought  you  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  with  great  power  and  a  stretched 
out  arm,  him  shall  ye  fear,  and  him  shall  ye  worship,  and  to   him  shall  ye  do 

31  sacrifice.  And  the  statutes,  and  the  ordinances,  and  the  law,' and  the  command- 
ment, which  he  wrote  for  you,  ye  shall  observe  to  do  for  evermore ;  and  ye  shall 

38  not  fear  other  gods.     And  the  covenant  that  I  have  made  with  you  ye  shall  not 

39  forget ;  neither  shall  ye  fear  other  gods.  [;]  But  [only]  the  Lord  your  God  ye 

40  shall  fear ;  and  he  shall  deliver  you  out  of  the  hand  of  all  your  enemies.  Howbeit 
[and]  they  did  not  hearken,  but  they  did  after  their  former  manners. 

41  So  these  nations  [i.e.,  all  the  mixed  inhabitants  of  the  northern  kingdom]   feared  the  Lord, 

and  served  their  graven  images,  both  their  children,  and  their  children's  chil- 
dren :  as  did  their  fathers,  so  do  they  unto  this  day. 


TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  6.  [rpy^Tin  flJCO  The  stat.  const,  is  nsed  in  such  cases,  where  only  the  second  word  has  the  article.  In 
order  to  form  a  closer  connection  between  the  words.     Ew.  §  287a..  1. 

»  Ver.  IS.— [On  the  hifil  form    Ijn  cf.  "Ip'li    Gen.  yiii.  18;  Gesen.  §  72.  7.— W.  G.  8.] 

3  Ver.  13.— The  keri  SOJ  for  the  chetib  "I&02J  is  in  so  far  correct  that  the  1  belongs  to  the  following  word,  p3  , 
as  a  copula,  and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  &03J  should  have  the  possessive  pronoun  and  Htn  not.  The  keri 
is  followed  by  the  Vulg.  and  the  Syr.  and  Arab,  versions,  and  is  presented  by  several  codices.  Maurer  and  Keil  prefer 
the  chetib.  but  do  not  offer  satisfactory  reasons  for  it. — Uahr.  [Ew.  §  156  e.  note  2,  says  that,  if  the  chetib  is  to  be  kept, 
then    nfPI  is  a  nonn  =  oracle. 

4  Ver.  21.— [The  chetib,  NT1 ,  is  biOl  from   N1j  i   or,  by  an  interchange  of  consonants  which  is  frequent  in  books 

later  than  the  Pentateuch,  fHj  -     The  form  does  not  occur  elsewhere  from  either  of  those  6tems.    The  keri  proposes 
nTI  ,   hif.  of  rflj  ■     The  signification  is  the  same,  repel,  remove,  or  seduce  (Deut.  xiii.  14;  Prov.  vii.  21). 

•  Ver.  22.  -[The  fem.  suff.  in  iljDD  refers  to  the  plural  niXtin  •  Abstracts  are  expressed  by  the  plur.  or  by  the 
fern.,  and  sometimes,  where  the  words  are  far  separated,  such  an  interchange  of  the  one  for  the  other,  in  relative  words, 
takes  place.     Cf.  Job  xxxix.  15;  xiv.  19;  2  Kings  iii.  8;  x.  20.     Ew.  §817  a. 

•  Ver.  28.— [Imperf.  in  an  indirect  question  referring  to  something  which  at  a  past  time  was  regarded  as  not  to  come 
to  pass.— W.  G.  S.] 


THE  CHRONOLOGY  OP  THE  PERIOD  FROM  THE 
REIGN  OP  JEHU  UNTIL  THE  FALL  OF  THE 
KINGDOM  OF  ISRAEL. 

[Compare  the  Appendix  on  the  Chronology.] 

This  period,  as  well  as  that  from  Ahah  to  Jehu, 
presents  chronological  difficulties.  Their  solution 
can  be  successfully  accomplished  only  by  starting 
from  the  surest  possible  data,  and  bringing  to- 
gether and  comparing  all  the  separate  chronologi- 
cal statements.  For  the  starting-point  we  have  the 
year  8S4  in  which  Jehu,  in  Israel,  and  Athaliah, 
in  Judah,  came  to  the  throne;  the  date  of  the 
close  of  the  period  is  also  firmly  established.  The 
kingdom  of  Israel  came  to  an  end,  according  to 
the  great  majority  of  the  chronologers,  in  the  year 
721  B.C.  However  much  they  may  differ  about 
tne  limits  of  the  several  reigns,  they  generally 
agreo  in  this.  So  Petavius,  Usher,  Scaliger,  Seyf- 
farth.   Winer,  Tiele,    Keil.     See   Herzog's   Encyc. 


XVIII.  s.  459,  where  Rosch  has  collected  into  a 
table  the  results  of  the  investigations  of  twelve 
chronologers.  [Rawlinson  may  be  added  to  the 
number  of  those  who  advocate  the  date  721.  On 
the  other  hand  are  Des  Vignoles,  718;  Bengel, 
722;  Ewald,  719;  Thenius,  722;  Bunsen,  709; 
Niebuhr.  719;  and  Lepsius  still  later,  693.  It 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  satisfactory  scientific  pro- 
cedure to  thus  borrow  the  results  of  a  certain 
number  of  scholars.  There  is  no  such  consensus 
of  opinion  as  would  enable  us  to  simply  proceed 
from  these  dates  as  results  of  science  which  are  no 
longer  questioned.  In  the  absence  of  such  a  con- 
sensus it  is  mere  building  upon  the  sand  to  make 
them  the  foundation  of  a  calculation  which  makes 
claim  to  reliability.  It  is  to  gain  the  appearance 
of  certainty  where  there  is  no  certainty.  In  the 
Appendix  on  the  Chronology  will  be  found  a  brief 
criticism  of  these  chronological  data  and  an  esti 
mate  of  their  value. — W.  G.  S.]  Bengel  and 
Thenius  adopt  the  date  722,  but  the  difference  it 


CHAPTER  XVII.   1-41. 


1S1 


not  important.  They  agree  with  the  others  in 
placing  Ilezekiah's  accession  in  the  year  727,  and 
Samaria  tell  (chap,  xviii.  10)  during  his  sixth  year, 
that  is,  in  the  year  721.  Evvald  adopte  the  year 
719  instead  of  721.  The  cause  of  this  difference  is 
that  he  reckons  the  years  of  some  of  the  reigns  as 
complete  years,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  is  inad- 
missible. Bunsen  differs  very  widely  from  the 
rest.  He  fixes  this  date  as  709,  but  his  entire  cal- 
culation is  founded  upon  data  of  the  Assyrian 
chronology  which  are,  as  yet,  in  the  highest  degree 
uncertain,  and  which  have  not  been  yet  regarded 
by  anj'body  as  correct.  [See  the  Aj'pendix  on  the 
Chronology,  §§  3  and  6.]  They  cannot,  therefore, 
avail  to  shake  our  confidence  in  the  two  dates  884 
and  721.  This  period  accordingly  covers  163 
years,  and,  as  the  numbers  giveu  for  the  various 
reigns  do  not  always  apply  to  complete  years, 
but  sometimes  to  fragments  of  years  (see  Pt.  II., 
p.  86),  inasmuch  as  the  year  in  which  one  died  and 
another  succeeded  may  be  counted  twice  over, 
these  163  years  give  us  the  only  reliable  basis  for 
estimating  the  length  of  the  separate  reigns.  If 
then  we  calculate,  commencing  from  the  year  884, 
we  reach  the  following  results: — 

a)  For  the  kings  of  Judah.  Athaliah  reigned 
from  884  on  for  six  years.  In  the  seventh,  that  is 
in  877,  Joash  became  king  (chap.  xi.  3;  xii.  2). 
Since,  however,  he  became  king  in  the  seventh 
year  of  Jehu,  the  forty  years  of  his  reign  were  not 
complete  years,  so  that  the  accession  of  his  suc- 
cessor falls  in  838. — Amaziah  reigned  29  years 
(chap.  xiv.  2),  that  is  to  809,  or,  if  the  years  were 
not  all  complete,  until  810,  or  possibly  811. — 
Uzziah  (Azariah)  reigned  52  years  (chap.  xv.  2), 
that  is,  until  759  or  758,  for  all  the  years  of  his 
reign  can  hardly  have  been  complete  twelve- 
months.— Totham  reigned  16  years  (chap.  xv.  33), 
that  is,  until  743. — ALaz  reigned  16  years  (chap, 
xvi.  2),  that  is,  until  727,  in  which  year  Hezekiah 
came  to  the  throne.  In  the  latter's  sixth  year 
(chap,  xviii.  10)  Samaria  fell;  that  is,  in  721.  If 
we  add  together  the  numbers  representing  the 
durations  of  these  reigns  we  get  165  years,  where- 
as the  time  from  884  to  721  is  only  163  years. 
This  difference  is  only  apparent.  It  proceeds  from 
the  fact  that  fragments  of  years  at  the  beginning 
or  end  of  reigns  are  counted  as  years. 

b)  For  the  kings  of  Israel.  Jehu  reigned  from 
884  on  for  28  years  (chap.  x.  36),  that  is,  until 
856. — Jehoahaz  reigned  17  years  (chap.  xiii.  1), 
that  is,  till  840  or  839. — Jehoash  ruled  16  years 
(chap.  xiii.  10),  that  is,  until  823. — Jeroboam  II. 
reigned,  according  to  chap.  xiv.  23  only  41  years. 
But,  as  he  is  said  in  the  same  verse  to  have  be- 
come king  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Amaziah  of 
Judah,  and  as  this  statement  is  consistent  with 
chap.  xiv.  1  and  17,  he  must  have  been  king,  as  is 
shown  above  (chap,  xiv.,  Exeg.  on  ver.  23).  for 
61  or  52  years,  unless  we  are  willing  to  assume 
that  there  was  an  interval  of  anarchy  for  10  or  11 
years.  At  any  rate,  his  son  Zachariah  did  not 
come  to  the  throne  before  the  year  773.  He  only 
ruled  six  months  and  his  successor  Shallum,  in  the 
'ollowing  year,  772,  only  one  month  (chap.  xv.  8, 
13).  Menahem  reigned  from  772  on  for  10  years 
(chap.  xv.  17),  that  is  until  762. — Pekahiah  reigned 
two  years  (chap.  xv.  23),  that  is,  until  760. — Pekah 
ruled  only  20  years  according  to  chap.  xv.  27 ;  but 
according  to  ver.  32  he  ascended  the  throne  two 
years  before  Jothara  of  Judah,  survived  him   (he 


lived  16  years,  ver.  33),  and  waged  war  with  Ahaz, 
his  successor.  It  was  not  until  the  twelfth  yeai 
of  the  last-named  king  that  Hoshea  became  king. 
Now  2  +  16+12=30;  therefore,  either  Pekah 
reigned  30  years  and  not  20,  or  there  was  no  king 
in  Israel  for  a  space  of  10  years  (see  notes  on 
chap.  xv.  27).  [See  the  Supp.  Note  after  the  Exeg. 
section  on  the  fifteenth  chapter.]  This  much  is 
certain,  that  Hoshea  became  king  30  years  after 
760,  when  Pekah  ascended  the  throne,  that  is,  in 
730.  He  reigned  9  years,  that  is,  uutil  721. — The 
sum  of  all  the  reigns  mentioned  is  164  instead  of 
163  years,  and  this  plight  difference  is  accounted 
for  as  before  in  the  case  of  the  kings  of  Judah. 

c)  The  synchronistic  data  between  the  reigns  in 
the  two  kingdoms.  Athaliah  in  Judah  and  Jehu  in 
Israel  began  to  reign  in  the  same  year  884.  Joash, 
Athaliah's  successor,  became  king  in  the  seventh 
year  of  Jehu  (chap.  xii.  2),  or,  since  the  latter 
became  king  in  884,  in  877. — Amaziah  became 
king  in  the  second  year  of  Jehoash  (chap.  xiv.  1), 
or,  since  Jehoash  ascended  the  throne  in  840  or 
839,  in  the  year  838. — Uzziah  became  king,  ac- 
cording to  chap.  xv.  1,  in  the  twenty-seventh 
year  of  Jeroboam  II.,  but  this  statement  rests,  aa 
was  shown  in  the  comment  on  that  passage,  and 
as  is  generally  admitted,  upon  an  error  of  the 
copyist.  We  must  read,  according  to  chap.  xiv. 
17,  in  the  fifteenth  year,  but  this  was  not  a  full 
year,  so  that  Josephus  says :  "  In  the  fourteenth 
year  of  Jeroboam."  Since  now  the  latter  became 
king  in  823,  Uzziah  ascended  the  throne  in  809. — 
Jotham  became  king  in  the  second  year  of  Pekah, 
chap.  xv.  32,  or,  as  the  latter  became  king  in  760, 
in  759. — Ahaz  became  king  in  the  seventeenth 
year  of  Pekah  (chap.  xvi.  1),  or,  as  the  latter 
began  to  reign  in  760,  in  743. — Hezekiah  finally 
became  king  in  the  third  year  of  Hoshea  (chap, 
xviii.  1),  or,  as  he  ascended  the  throne  in  730,  in 
727. — In  Israel,  the  successor  of  Jehu,  Jehoahaz, 
began  to  reign,  according  to  the  correct  reading  in 
chap.  xiii.  1  (see  Exeg.  note  thereon),  in  the  twen- 
ty-first year  of  Joash,  king  of  Judah,  or,  as  he 
became  king  in  877,  in  856. — Joash  became  king 
in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Jehoash  of  Judah 
(chap.  xiii.  10),  or,  as  the  latter  ruled  from  877,  in 
840  or  839. — Jeroboam  II.  became  king  in  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Amaziah  (chap.  xiv.  23),  or,  as  the 
latter  began  to  reign  in  838,  in  823. — The  acces- 
sion of  the  five  following  kings : ,  Zachariah,  Shal- 
lum, Menahem,  Pekahiah,  and  Pekah  is  defined 
(chap.  xv.  8,  13,  17,  23,  27)  in  terms  of  the  years 
of  Uzziah's  reign.  Since,  however,  the  year  ol 
the  accession  of  this  king  is  less  certain  than  thai 
of  almost  any  other  (Bengel  and  Thenius  put  it  in 
811,  Usher  and  Keil  in  810,  Petavius  and  Winer  in 
809,  Ewald  and  Niebuhr  in  808),  it  is  uncertain 
what  year  was  his  thirty-eighth,  thirty-ninth,  fif- 
tieth and  fifty-second.  But  this  does  not  render 
the  chronology  radically  uncertain.  The  year  of 
accession  of  these  kings  can  be  very  satisfactorily 
ascertained  from  other  data  (see  above,  under  b). 
Moreover,  the  statements  in  terms  of  the  years  of 
Uzziah's  reign  are  not  perfectly  accurate,  as  we 
see  from  chap.  xv.  13  and  23.  For,  if  Menahem 
became  king  in  the  thirty-ninth  of  Uzziah  and 
reigned  10  years,  Pekahiah  must  have  folk  wed  in 
the  forty-ninth,  and  not,  as  ver.  23  states  in  the 
fiftieth  of  Uzziah.  On  the  other  haud.  it  is  certain 
that  Menahem  and  Pekahiah  together  reigned  for 
12  years,  viz.,  from  722  to  760.    The  year  in  which 


182 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Zacliariah  oegan  to  reign  (according  to  ver.  S  the 
thirty-eighth  of  Uzziah)  may,  therefore,  have  been 
the  year  773  ;  but  it  is  also  possible,  inasmuch  as 
he  and  Shallum  did  not  both  together  reign  for  a 
year,  that  all  these  kings,  Zachariah,  Shallum, 
and  Menahem,  came  to  the  throne  in  the  same 
year,  772,  and  therefore,  since  the  synchronistic 
data  and  the  chronological  data  do  not  coincide, 
that  the  thirty-eighth  and  thirty-ninth  of  Uzziah 
both  fell  in  the  year  772. — Hoshea,  finally,  became 
king  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz  (chap.  xvii.  1),  or, 
since  he  became  king  in  743,  and  this  was  the 
very  beginning  of  his  twelfth  year,  in  730. 

d)  From  this  review  it  follows  that  the  chrono- 
logical data  in  no  less  than  fifteen  places,  however 
much  they  may  traverse  and  interlace  one  an- 
other, nevertheless  agree,  for  the  difference  of  a 
single  year  which  appears  here  and  there  is  fully 
accounted  for  by  the  peculiarity  of  the  Jewish 
mode  of  reckoning,  and  it  cannot  be  regarded 
here,  any  more  than  in  the  former  period,  as  a  con- 
tradiction. [In  making  this  comment  on  the  chro- 
nology, Bahr  must  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
reader  has  fresh  in  his  mind  those  changes  in  the 
text  which  have  been  found  necessary,  and  those 
assumptions  which  have  been  made  in  order  to 
complete  the  construction  of  the  chronology. 
With  this  modification  the  above  may  be  allowed 
to  pass  as  a  just  comment  on  what  has  gone  be- 
fore. Otherwise  it  would  convey  a  very  incorrect 
impression  of  the  reliability  of  this  chronology. — 
W.  G.  S.] 

Now,  on  the  other  hand,  there  remains  one 
datum  which  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  these 
which  have  been  considered.  According  to  chap, 
xv.  30  Hoshea  became  king  in  the  twentieth  year 
of  Jotham,  son  of  Uzziah.  This  stands  in  con- 
tradiction to  three  other  statements  which  are 
consistent  with  each  other.  According  to  chap, 
xv.  33  Jotham  did  not  reign  for  20  but  only  for  16 
years,  as  is  also  stated  in  2  Chron.  xxvii.  1.  Ac- 
cording to  chap.  xvii.  1,  Hoshea  did  not  become 
king  until  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz  the  successor 
of  Jotham.  According  to  chap.  xvi.  1,  Ahaz  com- 
menced to  reign  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  Pekah, 
and  as  Ahaz  waged  war  with  Pekah  (chap.  xvi. 
5).  it  is  impossible  that  Pekah's  successor,  Hoshea, 
should  have  begun  to  reign  during  the  reign  of 
the  predecessor  of  Ahaz,  Jotham.  All  sorts  of 
attempts  have  been  made  to  solve  this  flat  con- 
tradiction (see  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  1,  s.  614).  We 
take  notice  here  only  of  the  two  most  common 
ones.  The  first  is  to  this  effect :  Jotham  was  co- 
regent  with  his  father  Uzziah  for  four  years, 
'lining  his  sickness  (chap.  xv.  5).  If  these  four 
years  are  added  to  the  sixteen  of  his  reign,  fie 
was  king  for  20  years,  and  Hoshea  became  kin;: in 
his  twentieth.  This  attempt  at  a  solution  is  dis- 
posed of,  not  to  speak  of  other  objections,  by  the 
statement  in  xvii.  1,  that  Hoshea  did  not  become 
king  until  the  twelfth  year  of  Jotham's  successor, 
Ahaz.  The  second  attempt  at  a  solution,  the  one 
which  was  adopted  by  Usher,  and  which  has 
been  lately  designated  by  Keil  as  the  only  suc- 
cessful one,  ass es  that,  in  chap.  xv.  30,  4  years 

of  the  reign  of  Ahaz  are  reckoned  in  the  reign  of 
Jotham,  "  because  the  history  of  Jotham's  reign  is 
not  narrated  until  we  come  to  ver.  32  sq."  But 
the  years  of  the  reign  of  a  king  cannot  possibly  be 
reckoned  on  after  hie  death,  least  of  all  when,  as 
hero,  his  successor   followed  immediately;  more- 


over, as  above  stated,  Hoshea  did  not  become 
king  in  the  fourth  of  Ahaz  (or,  if  so  reckoned,  the 
twentieth  of  Jotham)  but  in  the  twelfth  of  Ahaz. 
All  attempts  at  a  reconciliation  are  here  vain. 
Hitzig  and  Thenius  have  attempted  to  escape  the 
difficulty  by  text-conjectures,  but  these  are  so 
complicated  that  they  do  not  fall,  in  point  of  im- 
probability, at  all  behind  the  artificial  attempts  at 
reconciliation.  When  we  examine  the  final  words 
of  chap.  xv.  30:  "In  the  twentieth  year  of 
Jotham  the  son  of  Uzziah,"  they  strike  us  as 
strange  and  unusual.  In  other  cases  we  do  not 
find  the  date  of  a  king's  accession  given  in  terms 
of  the  corresponding  reign  in  the  sister-kingdom 
until  we  come  to  the  place  where  the  history  of 
the  new  reign  begins  (see  the  proof-passages 
quoted  above,  Pt.  II.,  p.  89).  Such  is  the  case 
here  also  with  reference  to  Hoshea,  chap.  xvii.  1. 
The  author,  who,  in  the  usual  place,  viz.,  where 
the  history  of  Jotham's  reign  begins,  chap.  xv.  33, 
states  the  duration  of  that  reign  at  16  years,  in 
agreement  with  2  Clnon.  xxvii.  1,  cannot  possibly 
have  spoken,  a  few  lines  before,  in  ver.  30,  of  the 
twentieth  year  of  Jotham.  If  he  had,  he  must 
have  been  more  forgetful  than  the  most  thought- 
less copyist.  In  fact  these  words  are,  in  this 
place,  not  only  superfluous,  because  the  statement 
of  the  year  in  which  Hoshea  became  king  is  given 
farther  on  in  its  proper  place  (chap.  xvii.  1),  but 
they  are  even  a  cause  of  confusion.  If  they 
should  be  adopted  as  correct,  it  would  be  ne- 
cessary to  change  a  whole  series  of  data  to  corre- 
spond with  them.  All  this  renders  it  very  prob- 
able that  the  words  are  a  false  and  late  addition, 
in  regard  to  which  the  case  stands  as  it  does  with 
2  Kings  i.  17  (see  Pt.  II.,  pp.  87-8).  Another  cir- 
cumstance which  goes  to  prove  this  is  that  Jo- 
tham's father  is  called,  in  vers.  1,  6,  7,  8,  13,  17, 
23,  27,  Azariah;  here  all  at  once  he  is  called 
Uzziah.  Keil  unjustly  characterizes  the  erasure 
of  this  clause  as  "  violent,"  for  we  are  compelled 
to  it,  since  fifteen  other  passages,  all  of  which  are 
consistent  with  one  another,  are  in  irreconcilable 
conflict  with  this  one,  so  that  it  introduces  contra- 
diction and  confusion  into  the  entire  chronology 
of  the  period.  The  question  is  simply  whether 
we  will  correct  all  the  other  data  to  bring  them 
into  consistency  with  this  one,  or  whether  we  will 
sacrifice  it.  If  it  is  not  "violent"  to  change  the 
number  "27,"  in  chap.  xv.  1,  into  15,  as  Keil 
does,  then  it  is  not  violent  to  regard  the  number 
20,  in  chap.  xv.  30,  as  incorrect. 

e)  In  this  period,  as  well  as  in  the  former  one, 
some  have  thought  it  necessary  to  assume  joint- 
reigns  and  interregna,  that  is,  times  of  anarchy  in 
which  there  was  no  king.  So  it  is  supposed  that 
the  two  Israelitish  kings  Jehoahaz  and  Jehoash 
reigned  together  for  2  or  3  years,  and  the  Jewish 
kings  Jotham  and  Ahaz  for  4  years.  We  have 
spoken  above  (Pt.  II.,  p.  88)  about  the  theory  of 
joint-reigns  in  general,  but  besides  this,  the  first 
of  these  cases  is  disposed  of  when  we  have  dis- 
covered the  correct  reading  in  chap.  xiii.  1  and  10 
(see  Exeg.  notes  thereon) ;  and  the  second,  when 
we  have  removed  the  false  addition  chap.  xv.  30, 
upon  which  alone  it  rests.  The  assumed  inter- 
regna have  much  more  probability  in  their  favor 
Formerly  it  was  often  assumed  that  there  was  as 
interregnum  of  11  years  betweeu  Amaziah  and 
Uzziah  in  Judah,  but  this  is  now  almost  entirely 
abandoned,  and  rightly.     On  the  other  hand,  twe 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-41. 


183 


others  are  still  assumed  in  the  history  of  Israel 
by  almost  all  scholars,  the  first  of  11  years,  be- 
tween Jeroboam  II.  and  Zachariah;  the  second  of 
9  or  10  years,  between"  Pekah  and  Hoshea,  to 
which  reference  was  made  above  under  b).  But 
the  biblical  text  does  not  hint  at  any  such  inter- 
regna, though  they  must  have  been  of  great  im- 
portance for  the  history  of  the  kingdom.  On  the 
contrary,  it  always  assumes  that  each  king  was 
followed  immediately  upon  his  death  by  his  suc- 
cessor. The  author  makes  especial  mention  of  the 
fact  about  Edom  that  "  there  was  no  king  in 
Edom "  (1  Kings  xxii.  48),  and  he  mentions  a 
king  who  reigned  but  7  days  (1  Kings  xvi.  15), 
and  another  who  reigned  but  a  month  (2  Kings 
xv.  13).  Certainly  he  would  not  have  passed  in 
3ilenee  over  the  fact  that  Israel,  at  two  different 
times,  for  periods  of  9  or  11  years,  was  without  a 
king.  It  is  true,  as  Keil  says,  that  "A  period  of 
anarchy  in  a  time  of  the  utmost  confusion  and 
distraction  would  not  be  anything  astonishing," 
but  it  certainly  would  be  astonishing  that  the 
text  should  be  silent  about  such  an  important 
historical  event.  There  are  no  historical  state- 
ments whatsoever  in  the  text  which  have  led  to 
the  hypothesis  of  interregna.  This  hypothesis  is 
the  result  solely  of  the  desire  to  reconcile  certain 
chronological  data.  "We  cannot,  however,  be  in- 
duced to  manufacture  history  to  account  for  cer- 
tain discrepancies  in  figures,  discrepancies  which 
can  arise  so  easily  from  simple  errors  either  of  a 
copyist  or  of  others.  Josephus  is  as  silent  about 
any  periods  in  which  there  were  no  kings  as  the 
Bible  is.  Ewald  call3  the  hypothesis  that  there 
were  such  periods  "  erroneous  in  every  respect. 
It  contradicts  the  tenor  of  the  text  directly,  and 
produces  an  utterly  incorrect  conception  of  the 
history."  Bunsen  also  rejects  the  hypothesis  de- 
cidedly. Wolff,  in  the  work  quoted  above  (Pt.  II., 
p.  89)  says:  "  We  must,  therefore,  have  done  en- 
tirely with  this  notion  of  interregna  as  an  escape 
from  difficulties.  It  invents  arbitrarily  blank  and 
empty  periods  and  inserts  them  in  the  history." 
When,  however,  Wolff  changes  most  of  the  chro- 
nological data  of  the  text, — when  he  gives  Jeho- 
ahaz  14  instead  of  17  years,  and  Jehoash  19  in- 
stead of  16,  when  he  makes  Amaziah  succeed  in 
the  fourth  instead  of  the  second  year  of  Jehoash, 
Zachariah  in  the  twenty-sixth  instead  of  in  the 
thirty-eighth  year  of  Uzziah,  Pekahiah  in  the 
thirty-eighth  instead  of  in  the  fiftieth  year  of 
Uzziah,  Pekah  in  the  forty-first  instead  of  in  the 
fifty-second  of  Uzziah,  and  asserts  that  the  two 
Israelitisli  kings  Jehoash  and  Jeroboam  II.  ruled 
over  Judah,  the  former  for  4  years  and  the  latter 
for  27  years,  that  is  all  as  void  of  foundation  and 
as  arbitrary  as  is  the  "  interregnum-hypothesis  " 
which  he  rejects. 


EXEGETICAI    AND     CRITICAL. 

Ver.  2.  And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  *  *  * 
but  not  as  the  kings  of  Israel,  i.  e.,  not  to  the 
same  degree  as  his  predecessors.  As  the  formula : 
"  He  did  that  which  was  evil,  &c,"  always  refers 
to  the  attitude  towards  Jehovah  and  the  Jehovah- 
cultus,  so  the  restriction:  "  But  not,"  Ac.,  must  be 
understood  as  applying  to  the  same,  just  as  in 
chap.  iii.  2.  We  are  not  told  wherein  Hoshea 
differed  from  his  predecessors  in  this  respect.     It 


is  not  at  all  probable  that  he  desisted  from  tba 
calf-worship  (Thenius).  If  he  had  done  so  he 
would  have  broken  down  the  wall  of  separation 
between  the  two  kingdoms,  and  the  text  would 
certainly  have  contained  some  mention  of  it.  The 
old  commentators  for  the  most  part  follow  the 
statement  of  the  rabbis  in  the  book,  Seder  Olam, 
chap,  xxii.,  according  to  which  Hoshea  did  not  re- 
place the  golden  calf-image  at  Bethel  (Hos.  x.  6), 
which  had  been  carried  away  by  the  Assyrians, 
and  made  no  opposition  to  his  subjects'  accepting 
Hezekiah's  invitation  to  the  passover-festival  at 
Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xxx.  6-11).  But,  according  to 
the  account  in  Chronicles,  this  invitation  was 
laughed  at  and  scorned ;  only  "  a  few  "  accepted  it, 
which  shows  that  Jeroboam's  cultus  was  stUl 
maintained  under  Hoshea.  Moreover,  Hezekiah's 
passover  certainly  did  not  take  place  before  the 
three-year  siege  of  Samaria,  but  rather  after  it. 
Perhaps  Hoshea's  better  behavior  was  limited  to 
this,  that  he  was  an  opponent  of  the  idolatry 
which  had  found  entrance  under  his  immediate 
predecessors. 

Ver.  3.  Against  him  came  up  Shalmaneser, 
king  of  Assyria.  This  king  must  have  ruled 
between  Tiglath  Pileser  (xv.  29)  and  Sennacherib 
(xviii.  13)  in  Assyria.  It  has  hitherto  been  be- 
lieved that  Sargcm,  who  is  mentioned  in  Isai.  xx. 
1,  ruled  for  a  short  time  between  these  two,  but, 
"through  the  deciphering  of  the  cuneiform  in- 
scriptions it  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  that  the 
king  of  Assyria  who  is  called  in  the  biblical  annals 
Shalmaneser  or  Shalman  [Hos.  x.  14],  really  bore 
the  name  of  Sargana,  so  that  he  is  identical  with 
Sargon,  who  was  the  father  and  immediate  prede- 
cessor of  Sennacherib "  (Wolff,  in  the  above 
quoted  work,  s.  672.  Cf.  Brandis,  Ueber  den  his- 
torischen  Gewinn  aus  der  Entzifferung  der  assyi'ischen 
Inschriften,  ss.  48  and  53).  [Later  discoveries  show 
that  this  statement  is  incorrect.  Sargon  and  Shal- 
maneser are  different  persons,  and  not  even  of  the 
same  dynasty.  See  the  Supp.  Note  at  the  end  of 
this  section,  in  which  this  whole  subject  is  treated.] 
Among  the  countries  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions 
as  having  been  conquered  by  Sargana  is  "  Samiri- 
na  "  (Samaria).  (See  notes  on  chap,  xviii.  13  be- 
low.) Hoshea  does  not  seem  to  have  provoked 
Shalmaneser's  first  expedition  against  him  (ver.  3). 
It  appears  to  have  been  an  expedition  of  conquest 
on  the  part  of  the  growing  and  spreading  Assyrian 
power,  yet  it  is  also  possible  that  Tiglath  Pileser 
had  imposed  a  tribute  upon  Pekah  which  Hoshea 
refused  to  continue  to  pay,  and  that  the  expedition 
was  intended  to  compel  him  to  do  so.  When  he, 
however,  at  a  later  time,  again  refused  the  tribute 
(ver.  4),  and  had  recourse  to  Egypt  for  help  to  re- 
sist, the  king  of  Assyria  came  a  second  time  and 
took  away  from  him  his  country  and  his  people. 
As  Shalmaneser  waged  war  with  Tyre,  but  island 
Tyre  resisted  him  for  five  years  (Josephus;  Autiq. 
9,  14,  2),  Ewald  supposes,  and  very  many  of  the 
latest  authorities  follow  him,  that  the  people  of 
Samaria  joyfully  recognized  in  this  a  proof  that  the 
Assyrians  were  not  invincible,  and  considered  this 
a  favorable  opportunity  to  make  an  offensive  and 
defensive  alliance  with  Egypt:  furthermore,  that 
when  Shalmaneser  heard  of  this,  he  suddenly 
marched  against  Hoshea.  It  is  impossible,  how- 
ever, to  determine  certainly  whether  the  war 
against  Island-Tyre  took  place  before  or  after  the 
fall  of  Sam..ria.     Knobel,  in  fact,  in  his  comment 


184 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


on  Isai.  xx.  1,  assumes  that  it  took  place  after  that 
event.  Thenius  unnecessarily  desires  to  change 
YJ'f) ,  conspiracy,  to   ngE> ,  falsehood,  deceit,     ffe 

have  to  understand  by  "  conspiracy  "  nothing  more 
than  a  secret  agreement.  The  name  of  the  Egyp- 
tian king  X1D  is  to  be  punctuated  X1D  >  Seveh.     In 

Manetho  he  is  called  Zcvexoc.  He  is  doubtless 
"one  of  the  two  kings  named  Shebek  of  the 
twenty-fifth  dynasty,  belonging  to  the  Ethiopic 
race  "  (Keil).  Hoshea  turned  to  him  because  Egypt 
was  at  that  time  the  only  great  power  which 
seemed  at  ail  able  to  cope  with  Assyria.  It  seems, 
however,  that  Seveh  did  not  enter  into  the  alliance, 
or,  if  he  did,  that  he  did  not  carry  it  out  when  the 
Assyrian  attack  was  made.  On  the  words: 
The  king  of  Assyria  shut  him  up,  &c,  Vatablus 
remarks:  Hoc  dicitur  per  anticipationem ;  pnstea 
narratur,  quomodo  factum.  The  final  consequences 
which  Hoshea's  attempted  revolt  had  for  his  own 
person  are  stated  forthwith,  and  then  in  vers.  5 
and  6  the  particular  description  of  the  course  of 
events  in  regard  to  the  country  and  the  people  is 
given  (Thenius).  It  is  not,  therefore,  correct 
that  "  Shalmaneser  ordered  him  to  appear  and 
give  an  account  of  his  conduct "  before  the  siege 
of  Samaria,  "and  then, when  he  came  in  obedience 
to  this  command,  made  him  prisoner"  (Ewald, 
Schlier).  The  text  does  not  say  this ;  on  the  con- 
trary, the  words  in  ver.  6  and  in  chap,  xviii.  10  : 
"  In  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea,"  assume  that 
Hoshea  was  king  when  the  city  was  taken. 
Moreover,  it  is  very  improbable  that  Hoshea,  who 
had  sought  for,  and  was  expecting,  aid  from 
Egypt,  would  have  forthwith  obeyed  the  summons 
of  the  king  of  Assyria,  from  which  he  could  not 
anticipate  any  pleasant  consequences,  and  that, 
after  the  king  of  Samaria  had  been  made  captive, 
that  city  should  have  resisted  for  three  years.  On 
the  contrary,  the  captive  king  was  taken  in  chains 
to  Assyria  after  the  city  had  been  taken,  and 
there  lie  %vas  put  in  prison,  while  his  people  were 
led  into  exile  in  distant  regions.  "  Plate  100  in 
Botta's  Monum.  de  Ninev.  represents  a  king  stand- 
ing upon  a  war  chariot,  before  whom  a  chained 
captive  with  apparently  Hebrew  features  is  being 
led.  Plate  106  represents  two  figures  with  the 
same  cast  of  countenance  and  appropriate  costume, 
one  of  whom  is  presenting  the  model  of  a  fortified 
city  "  (Thenius).  -|¥J?  is  used  here  as  in  Jer.  xxxiii. 
1 ;  xxxvi.  5. — The  three  years  of  the  siege  were 
not  thirty-six  months,  for,  according  to  chap,  xviii. 
9  sq.  it  began  in  the  seventh  of  Hoshea,  and  the 
city  was  taken  in  his  ninth.  Accordingly  it  can 
hardly  have  lasted  for  two  years  and  a  half. 
[The  later  discoveries  have  so  changed  the  face 
of  our  knowledge  of  all  this  contemporaneous  his- 
tory that  the  above  must  all  be  modified  by  what 
is  stated  in  the  Supp.  Note  below.] 

Ver.  G.  And  carried  Israel  away  int^  As- 
syria, ;'.  e.,  into  the  kingdom  of  Assyria,  which 
then  included  Mesopotamia,  Media,  Elam,  and 
Babylon  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  102).  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  general  designation  of  place  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  names  of  the  particular  localities  in 
this  kingdom  The  two  first  names,  in  Halah  and 
on  the  Habor,  belong  together,  as  well  as  the  two 
latter.  On  the  river  Gozan  and  in  the  cities  of 
Media,  as  is  evident  from  1  Chron.  v.  26:  "And 
brought  them  unto  Halah,  and  [to  the]  Habor, 
and    [to]    Hara    [i.    e.,   Media]    and   to   the    river 


Gozan.' 


This  verse  also  shows  that  Jfij  -|,-|J  ii 

not,  as  has  often  been  supposed,  in  apposition  to 
113113:  "To  the  Habor,  the  river  of  Gozan,"  so 

that  Habor  would  be  the  name  of  this  river.  There 
is  nothing  else  with  which  the  name  Halah  can  be 
identified  but  the  district  in  the  north  of  Assyria 
bordering  upon  Armenia,  which  Strabo  (xi.  8,  4 
and  xvi.  1,  1)  calls  Ka/.axav//,  and  Ptolemy  (vl  1) 
Ka?.aKivr/.  [Lenormant  takes  it  to  mean  Calah,  the 
capital  of  Assyria  at  this  time.]  Habor  is  not 
"133  (Ezek.  i.  1  and  3)  in  upper  Mesopotamia,  the 

large  river  which  flows  into  the  Euphrates,  but, 
because  the  name  Halah  precedes,  it  must  be  "  the 
smaller  river  of  this  name  which  flows  westward 
and  empties  into  the  Tigris  to  the  north  of  Nine- 
veh "  (Ewald).  Here,  in  northern  Assyria,  there 
is  a  river,  "which  is  called  K habur  Chasaniae  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  river  Chaboras  or  Chebar 
in  Mesopotamia.  It  still  bears  its  ancient  name  " 
(Keil).  The  Jewish  tradition  also  favors  this. 
This  designates  northern  Assyria,  and,  in  fact,  the 
mountainous  region,  the  district  on  the  border  be- 
tween Assyria  and  Media,  on  the  side  towards 
Armenia,  as  the  place  of  exile  of  the  ten  tribes  (cf. 
Wickelhaus ;  Das  Exil  der  zehn  Stumme  Israels. 
in  the  Deutsch-morgenland.  Zeitschrift ;  Y.  s.  474). 
The  river  Gozan  is  "  the  Kisel-osen,  which  rises  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  Zagros  range  and  flows 
into  the  Caspian  Sea  "  (Fiirst,  Dictionary  s.  v.).  It 
refers,  therefore,  not  to  the  district  of  Mesopotamia 
which  Ptolemy  calls  (v.  18)  Tav^avlric,  but  to  the 
city  of  Media  which  he  mentions  (vi.  2)  as  Tai\avta. 
This  we  see  also  from  the  passage  in  Chronicles 
quoted  above,  where  "the  river  Gozan"  is  men- 
tioned after  Harah,  Media.  "  If  this  river,  which 
bounds  Media,  is  the  one  meant,  we  can  under- 
stand why  the  '  and '  is,  in  this  connection, 
omitted  before  it.  The  two  first  names  and  the 
two  latter  names  then  belong  more  closely  in 
pairs"  (Ewald).     Thenius  desires  to  change  -|nj 

into  nnj  ,  and  'ny  into  nn  ,  because  the  Sept. 

here  read :  h>  'EXae  nal  ev  'Afiwp  Trorafiolc  ru^av 
nai  ev  bpioic  J&ijiSuv,  so  that  Halah  also  would  have 
to  be  taken  as  the  name  of  a  river,  that  is,  of  the 
one  anciently  called  Mygdonius  and  afterwards 
Saokaras.  But  the  Sept.  have,  in  the  similar 
verse,  chap,  xviii.  11,  the  singular  jrora/zw.  The 
plural  nora/joic  is,  therefore,  evidently  a  mistake. 
This  disposes  of  the  rash  supposition  that  Halah  is 
the  Saokaras.     The  proposed  reading  'in  is,   to 

say  the  least,  unnecessary. 

Yer.  7.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  &c.  The  frequently  recurring 
'3  \T1  means  always :  "  And  it  came  to  pass 
when  (Gen.  vi.  1;  xxvi.  8;  xxvii.  1;  Exod.  i.  21; 
Judges  vi.  7,  &c).  It  is  not  correct,  therefore,  to 
translate  as  Bunsen,  De  Wette,  and  others  do: 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  because."  Ver.  7  does  not 
e;irry  on  the  narrative  as  it  is  taken  from  the  ori- 
ginal authorities,  but  the  writer  himself  here  be- 
gins a  review  of  the  history  and  fate  of  Israel, 
which  ends  with  ver.  23  and  forms  an  independent 
section  by  itself.  The  conclusion  to  the  opening 
sentence:  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when,"  &e 
follows  in  ver.  18:  "That  then  the  Lord  was  very 
angry."  Vers.  8-15  contain  merely  a  develop- 
ment of  what  is  said  in  ver.  7,  inasmuch  as  thej 
go  on  to  specify  how,   and  by  what  means,  th« 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-41. 


ISC 


children  of  Israel  "  sinned,"  viz.,  partly  by  apos- 
tatizing from  Jehovah  and  falling  into  idolatry 
(Ex.  xx.  2,  3),  and  partly  by  making  for  themselves 
molten  calf-images  tc  represent  Jehovah  (Ex.  xx. 
4 1.  It  is  shown  in  the  verses  from  18  to  23  that 
these  transgressions  brought  down  judgments  upon 
them,  and  what  was  the  character  of  these  judg- 
ments. —  The  words  in  ver.  7  :  Which  had 
brought  them  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  *  *  * 
king  of  Egypt  must  not  be  taken  as  a  paren- 
thesis, as  Luther  takes  them.  They  do  not  con- 
tain a  mere  incidental  remark ;  rather  the  entire 
emphasis  rests  upon  them,  as  is  evident  from  Hos. 
xii.  10  and  xiii.  4-6.  The  deliverance  from  Egypt 
was  really  the  selection  of  Israel  to  be  God's  pecu- 
liar and  covenant  people  (Ex.  xix.  4-6).  It  was 
not  only  the  beginning,  but  also  the  symbol,  of  all 
divine  grace  towards  Israel,  the  pledge  of  its 
divine  guidance.  It  therefore  stands  at  the  head 
of  the  covenant,  or  organic  law  (Ex.  xx.  2  ;  Deut. 
v.  6),  and  it  is  always  cited  as  the  chief  and  funda- 
mental act  of  the  divine  favor  (Levit.  xi.  45; 
Joshua  xxiv.  IT;  1  Kings  viii.  51;  Ps.  lxxxL  10; 
Jer.  ii.  6.  &c.).  Therefore  this  author  also  makes 
that  the  standpoint  for  his  review  and  criticism  of 
the  history.  He  means  to  say,  thereby  :  although 
no  people  on  earth  had  experienced  such  favor 
from  Almighty  God  as  Israel  had,  nevertheless  it 
abandoned  this  God  and  adored  other  gods.  Vers. 
8-12  state  the  manner  in  which  this  latter  fault 
was  committed.  The  worship  of  idols  was  the 
worship  practised  by  the  very  people  whom  God 
expelled  before  the  Israelites,  and  whose  utter  de- 
struction he  commanded,  that  is  to  say,  of  the 
nations  of  Western  Asia  (ver.  8,  of.  Deut.  xi.  23  ;  1 
Kings  xiv.  24  ;  xxi.  26;  2  Kings  xvi.  3  ;  xxi.  2).  But 
the  Israelites  erected  places  of  worship  all  over  the 
country,  after  the  fashion  of  the  heathen,  instead 
of  worshipping  the  one  true  God  in  the  one  central 
sanctuary  (vers.  9—11).  They  also  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  the  heathen  in  setting  up  idol  images 
which    they  worshipped  (ver.  12). — nipn  ,  ver.   8, 

means  religious  ordinances  (see  notes  on  i  Kings  ii. 
3;  iii  3).  Instead  of  holding  faithfully  to  the  ordi- 
nances which  Jehovah  had  given,  the  kings  of 
Israel  gave  to  the  people  ordinances  made  by 
themselves,  win.  h  were  obeyed  and  observed  by 
them.  The  result  is  given  in  ver.  9.  The  words 
D'-QT  SINBIT1  are  translated  by  Keil,  who  fol- 
lows Hengstenberg:  "They  covered  Jehovah, 
their  God,  over  with  words  which  were  not  right, 
i.  e.  they  sought,  by  arbitrary  distortions  of  God's 
word,  to  conceal  the  true  character  of  Jehovah." 
It  is  clear  however,  from  D'"131  in  ver.   11,  and, 

still  more  certainly,   from  "Qin  ,    ver.  12,    where 

it  cannot  possibly  be  understood  otherwise  than 
as  thing  :  that  that  is  its  sense  here,  and  not  word. 
The  fundamental  signification  of  XDH  or  nan  is 
to  cover,  cloak  over,  envelop  (2  Sam.  xv.  30;  Esth. 
vi.  12  ;  2  Chron.  iii.  5,  7,  9).  The  literal  rendering 
of  these  words  would  therefore  be :  "  They  cov- 
ered Jehovah  with  things  which  were  not  right  " 
;2  Kings  vii.  9),  i.  e.  They  concealed  him  by  them,  so 
'hat  he  could  no  longer  be  seen  and  recognized, 
which  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  they  practically 
den-ji  and  ignored  him.     Compare   the  formula 

\hv  "133 i  *°  reconcile  any  one  with  Jehovah ; 
vprhu  drily,   to  cover  ud  his  sins  before  Jehovah. 


The  things  by  means  of  which,  ot  with  whieli, 
they  denied  Jehovah  are  mentioned  forthwith,  so 
that  Luther  correctly  represents  the  sense  when 
he  puts  ndmlich  before  the  following  words.  The 
translation  of  the  Sept.  is  entirely  incorrect :  not 
i/fioucavTO  loyovc  adUovc  Kara  Ki'piov  \}eou  avruv, 
Thenius  follows  this,  and  explains  thus :  "  They 
dressed  up,  decorated,  and  adorned  things  which 
were  not  right,  against  Jehovah ;  i.  e.  they  made 
a  parade  of  things  which  were  not  right  against 
Him,"  and  he  calls  attention,  in  this  connection,  to 
••  the  parade  and  pomp  of  the  external  forms  of 
idolatry."  It  is  equally  incorrect  to  render  the 
words  as  the  Vulg.  does:  et  offenderunt  verbis  rum 
rectis  dominum  suum;  or,  as  Gesenius  does:  per- 
fide  egerunt  res  in  Jehovam ;  or,  as  De  Wette  does . 
They  wrought  secretly  things  which  were  not 
right,  against  Jehovah."     With  v.-ords  of  covering 

*?]!   is   never  against,  but    always    owr,    or   upon 

(Ex.  xxxvii.  9;  xl.  3 ;  Ezek.  xxiv.  1).  — [The 
uncertainty  attaching  to  the  interpretation  of 
these  words  is  apparent  from  these  diverse  ren- 
derings of  the  various  expositors.  Biihr's  in- 
terpretation, which  is  closely  akin  to  that  of  Keil 
and  Hengstenberg,  is  fanciful  and  far-fetched. 
The  idea  of  men  covering  God,  that  is,  obscuring 
the  sense  of  His  presence,  and  of  their  responsi- 
bility to  Him,  by  their  sins,  aud  thus  practically 
denying  Him,  is,  in  a  religious  sense,  most  true 
and  just;  but  it  is  very  foreign  to  the  simplicity 
of  the  conceptions  which  we  find  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, especially  in  the  historical  books.     The 

meaning  of  ty  XBn  is,  to  cover  a  material  over 
an  object,  or,  in  the  English  idiom,  to  cover  an 
object  with  a  material.  If  the  notion  he  not  pushed 
farther  than  this,  that  they  had  put  their  evil  lusts 
and  deeds  between  themselves  and  God,  and  pre- 
ferred these  to  Him,  it  offers  a  meaning  which  is 
satisfactory,  and  which  agrees  well  with  the  latter 
half  of  the  verse.  I  have,  however,  allowed  the 
E.  V.,  which  agrees  substantially  with  the  render- 
ing of  Gesenius  and  De  Wette,  to  remain  unaltered. 
— W.  G.  8.] 

Ver.  9.  From  the  tower  of  the  watchmen, 
Ac,  i.  e.,  from  the  lonely  buildings  erected  as  a 
protection  for  the  flocks  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  10)  to  the 
largest  and  most  strongly  fortified  cities. — On  ver. 
10  see  chap.  xvi.  4.     On  niSSO  see  notes  on  chap. 

iii.  2.     On  D^L'»K  see  note  on  1  Kings  xiv.  15.    On 

the  meaning  of  0)13  see  1  Kings  xiv.  1-20 ;  Hist.  § 

3. — In  ver  12,  the  emphasis  is  on  D'^?3n,  which 

contains  a  subordinate  contemptuous  and  abusive 
signification  (see  note  on  1  Kings  xv.  12).  Israel 
sank  so  low  that  it  worshipped  lifeless  idols,  which 
it  ought  to  have  treated  witli  contempt,  and  whos« 
worship  it  ought  to  have  disdained. 

Ver.  13.  The  author  now  goes  on  in  his  re. 
view  to  the  consideration  of  that  which  Jehovah 
had  done  in  his  faithfulness  and  truth,  in  contrast 
to  the  apostasy  of  the  people,  which  has  just  been 
described.  These  dealings  of  God  with  His  people 
had  remained  fruitless,  or  had  produced  exactly 
contrary  results  from  those  which  were  desired 
(vers.  13-17).  Not  only  in  Israel,  of  which  king- 
dom he  has  hitherto  been  speaking  especially,  but 
also  in  Judah,  which,  according  to  ver.  19,  lad 
behaved  in  a  similar  manner,  had  Jehovah  bo  m 


1S6 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


witness  to  himself,  not  only  by  the  law  and  testi- 
mony which  had  been  given,  but  also  by  his  pro- 
phets and  seers.  Quaamque  ratione  vel  forma  illis 
cernendam  proponebat  voluntatem  suam  (Piscator). 
The  form  o''  speech  in  ver.  14,  to  harden  one's  neck, 
i.  e.  to  be  stiff-necked  or  obstinate,  is  borrowed  from 
Deut.  x.  16.  Cf.  Exod.  xxxii.  9.  To  disobedience 
and  obstinacy  (ver.  14)  they  added  formal  rejec- 
tion and  contempt  of  the  commands  and  of  the  tes- 
timonies of  Jehovah  (ver.  15),  and  then  followed 
complete  decline  into  heathenism.  This  last  is 
described  by  the  words :  They  followed  vanity 
and  became  vain.  The  same  form  of  speech  is 
used  in  Jerem.  ii.  5,  and  St.  Paul  makes  use,  in 
reference  to  the  heathen,  in  Rom.  i.  21,  of  the 
same  expression  which  the  Sept.  here  use  to  ren- 
der this:  cfiaratuH-i/aav.  Heathenism  deals  with 
nothingness,  vanity,  that  is,  with  what  has  no  ex- 
istence, so  that  it  is  folly  and  falsehood  (Deut. 
xxxii.  21).  As  a  proof  that  they  have  fallen  into 
heathenism,  that  is,  have  become  vain,  a  series  of 
facts  is  detailed  in  vers.  16  and  17,  from  which  this 
appears  clearly.  In  the  first  place  they  made  calf- 
images,  then  Asehene,  then  they  adored  the  host 
of  heaven  (the  stars  or  constellations),  and  finally 
they  caused  their  children  even  to  go  through  the 
fire  (see  note  on  chap.  xvi.  3),  and  devoted  them- 
selves to  soothsaying  and  augury.  Besides  all 
this,  tiny  sold  themselves,  that  is,  "they  sur- 
rendered themselves  into  complete  slavery  to  idol- 
atrous practices"  (Thenius).  All  the  host  of 
heaven  is  here  mentioned  between  the  worship 
of  the  Ascheraj  and  that  of  Moloch ;  that  is,  by 
the  side  of  the  Moon-goddess  and  the  Sun-god,  cf. 
Deut.  xvii.  3  ;  iv.  19.  Perhaps  the  planets  are  to 
be  especially  understood  by  it.  As  the  author  has 
here  only  that  period  in  view  which  fell  before  the 
Assyrian  influence  commenced,  we  cannot  under- 
stand him  to  refer  to  the  Assyrio-Chaldean  worship 
of  the  constellations,  which  is  not  met  with  among 
the  Hebrews  before  the  time  of  Manasseh  (chap, 
xxi.  3;  xxiii.  5,  11),  but  only  to  that  which  was 
common  in  Western  Asia,  such  as  we  find  espe- 
cially among  the  Arabs(Wiuer,  R.-  W.-B.,  II.  s.  52S). 
Soothsaying  aud  augury  are  mentioned  with  the 
same  expressions  in  Numb,  xxiii.  23  and  in  Deut. 
xviii.  10,  by  the  side  of  the  worship  of  Moloch. 
They  seem  to  have  been  especially  connected  with 
this  worship  (Winer,  I.  c,  s.  672). 

[As  has  been  abundantly  shown  in  the  trans- 
lator's notes  on  the  two  last  chapters  (see  espe- 
cially note  on  xvi.  3),  the  Assyrian  religion  became 
known  to  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Ahaz  and 
Pekah.  The  subdivisions  of  the  deity  (if  they  may 
be  so  called),  which  these  heathen  believed  in, 
have  been  described  in  that  note.  But,  by  the  side 
or  each  such  subordinate  or  local  god,  we  find  a 
goddess,  as  the  passive  principle  by  the  side  of  the 
active.  These  couplets  had  different  names  in 
different  places  {Bel  and  Belit  at  Babylon;  Shed 
and   Shedath  among  the  Hittites  (,,:ir_",  Gen.  xvii. 

1  :  Job  v.  17  ;  Ruth  i.  20,  Ac.)  j  Hadad  and  Atargath 
at  Damascus).  The  couplet  which  the  Israelites 
adopted.  Baal  and  Ashtaroth,  is  that  of  Sidon, 
showing  whence  this  religious  idea  came  to  them. 
(<n  the  Baal-worship  and  the  rites  of  Moloch  see 
!_:>'-?  on  xvi.  3.  The  astral  idea  in  this  heathen 
relig.cn  does  not  seem  to  have  attracted  the  atten- 
lion  of  ir.i  Israelites  before  the  time  of  Pekah  and 
^haz,  although  Ashtaroth  always  had  a  distinctly 


sidereal  character  among  the  Phoenicians.  The 
whole  religious  conception  which  has  been  above 
described,  and  which  prevailed  in  Western  Asia, 
was  carried  out  by  the  Chaldeans  and  Assyrians 
into  an  astral  system  of  deities.  When  the  hierar- 
chy of  divinities,  or  deified  emanations  and  attri- 
butes, with  their  corresponding  masculine  and  fem- 
inine forms,  had  beeu  elaborated,  they  were  iden 
titled  with  the  luminaries  visible  in  the  heavens 
The  sun,  moon,  planets,  constellations,  and  stara 
formed  a  corresponding  hierarchy  whose  members 
were  identified.  Eight  cabirim  or  planets  were 
reckoned ;  one  was  supposed  to  be  invisible  be- 
cause it  was  nearer  to  the  ultimate  and  original 
source,  the  ALL.  It  is  not  difficult  to  perceive 
the  step  by  which  they  passed  from  this  to  astro- 
logy, divination,  and  sorcery.  If  the  heavenly 
bodies  are  gods,  or  represent  gods,  and  if  they  are 
seen  to  be  in  motion,  then  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  those  motions  correspond  with  and  cause  the 
imitations  of  earthly  events  and  fortune.  Since 
the  time  of  Ahaz  and  Pekah  these  religious  notions 
had  been  introduced  into  Israel  aud  Judah  and  ac- 
cepted there.  It  is  to  them  that  the  text  refers. — 
W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  18.  That  then  the  Lord  was  very 
angry,  4c.  Here  begins  the  real  conclusion  to 
ver.  7  [see  the  amended  translation].  As  we  had, 
in  vers.  8-17,  the  more  complete  development  of 
ver.  7,  so  we  have  here,  in  vers.  19-23,  that  of  ver. 
18.  Out  of  his  sight,  i.  e.  out  of  the  Holy  Land 
where  Jehovah  has  His  dwelling;  out  of  the  land 
of  the  covenant  and  the  land  of  revelation.  Cf. 
Ezek.  xi.  15  sq.  On  the  tribe  of  Judah  only, 
see  1  Kings  xi.  13,  31,  36  (Exeg.  notes). — In  ver.  19 
the  old  expositors  thought  they  saw  the  state- 
ment of  a  still  farther  reason  for  the  rejection  of 
Israel  by  God,  which  consisted  iu  this,  that  it  had, 
by  its  apostasy,  tainted  Judah  also  (Hos.  iv.  15), 
but  the  context  shows  that  this  notion  is  false. 
The  verse  is  rather  a  parenthesis,  as  the  Berkberg. 
Bibel  observes.  It  contains  an  incidental  remark 
which  is  brought  out  by  the  "only"  in  ver.  18. 
It  means  to  say  that  "  in  truth  Judah  was  also 
ripe  for  punishment "  (Thenius).  Ver.  20  follows 
directly  upon  ver.  18  in  the  connection  of  thought. 
We  must  understand  by  all  the  seed  of  Israel, 
not  the  entire  people.  Israel  and  Judah  (Keil),  but 
ouly  the  ten  tribes;  for  the  rejection  of  Judah 
had  not  yet  occurred.  The  inhabitants  of  certain 
districts  had  been  taken  into  exile,  during  the 
reign  of  Pekah  (chap.  xv.  29).  The  inhabitants 
of  the  entire  country  were  now,  under  Hoshea., 
taken  away.  Before  that  Jehovah  had  given  them. 
for  their  chastisement  and  warning,  into  the  hands 
of  plunderers  or  "spoilers;  "  first  into  the  hands  or 
the  Syrians  (chap.  x.  32 ;  xiii.  3),  and  then  into 
those  of  the  Assyrians  (chap.  xv.  19,  29). — 13,  in 

ver.  21,  connects  back,  not  only  with  ver.  18,  but 
also  with  what  has  been  said  in  vers.  18-20.  Grotius 
says  justly  in  regard  to  ver.  21 :  eTravodnc  ad  osten- 
dendam  malorum  ariginem.  Jeroboam's  calf-wor 
ship,  which  led  to  pure  idolatry,  was  a  conse- 
quence of  the  revolt  from  the  house  of  David  aud 
the  separation  from  Judah.  so  that  these  were  the 
cause  of  all  the  misfortune.  The  Vulg.  therefore 
renders,  according  to  the  sense :  Ex  eo  jam  temport 
quo^scissus  est  Israel  a  domo  David.  It  cannot  be 
correct  to  take  Jehovah  as  the  subject  of  yip,  a* 
the  old    expositors   did.   and    as    Ke-ii   sti'l   d.iea 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-41. 


1S7 


This  is  a  deduction  from  1  Kings  xi.  11  and  31,  but 
the  final  cause  of  the  apostasy  and  rejection  of 
Israel  is  here  given,  and  that  cannot  lie  in  Jeho- 
vah himself.  The  separation  from  the  House  of 
David  took  place  indeed  according  to  God's  de- 
cree ;  but  it  was  only  intended  to  serve  as  a  hu- 
miliation to  the  House  of  David,  and  was  not  to 
last  "  forever  "  (1  Kings  xi.  39).  It  took  for  granted, 
moreover,  that  Jeroboam  would  remain  faithful  to 
the  covenant  and  to  the  Law  of  Jehovah  (1  Kings 
xi.  38).  But  Jeroboam  broke  with  these  in  order  to 
make  the  separation  permanent.  The  separation 
thereby  became  the  germ  of  all  calamity  for  Israel. 

The    natural   subject    of   jnp    is   bipv\  (see    1 

Kiugs  xii.  16),  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  read, 
as    Thenius   does,    jnpj  ,    J.  e.  "Israel  had  torn 

itself  away ;  "  nor  to  supply,  as  De  Wette  does, 
nD^DSiTDS :  "  Israel  had  torn  away  the  royal  au- 
thority from  the  House  of  David,"  fcr  it  is  not  the 
monarchy  as  such  which  is  here  in  question,  but  the 
separation  between  Israel  and  Judah,  that  is,  the 
disruption  of  the  theocratic  relation.  The  words 
mean  simply :  secessionem  fecerant  (Clericus). — Ver. 
22  is  not  a  mere  repetition  of  ver.  21,  but  it  means : 
Israel  not  only  fell  into  this  sin  of  Jeroboam,  but 
it  persevered  in  it  in  spite  of  all  the  divine  warn- 
ings and  chastisements. — Ver.  23.  As  he  had  said 
by  all  His  servants  the  prophets.  C/.,  for  in- 
stance, Hos.  i.  6;  ix.  16;  Amos  hi.  11,  12;  v.  27 : 
Isai.  xxviii.  3.  Unto  this  day,  i.  e.  until  the  time 
at  which  the  author  was  writing,  which  does  not 
mean  to  affirm  that  the  exUe  did  not  last  any 
longer. 

Ver.  24.  And  the  king  of  Assyria  brought. 
This  king  the  old  expositors  supposed  to  be  Esar- 
haddon  (chap.  xix.  37),  because  (Ezra  iv.  2)  the 
Samaritans  who  desired  to  take  part  in  the  erec- 
tion of  the  second  temple,  say  to  Zerubbabel :  "  We 
do  sacrifice  unto  him  [your  God]  since  the  days 
of  Esarhaddon,  king  of  Assi  r,  which  brought  us 
up  hither."  Keil  still  maintains  this,  because  he 
thinks  that  ver.  25  shows  "that  considerable  time 
must  have  elapsed  between  the  leading  of  the 
Israelites  into  exile  and  the  introduction  of  new 
colonists  into  the  depopulated  country."  But  this 
does  not  by  any  means  follow  from  the  words: 
It  came  to  pass  at  the  beginning  of  their 
dwelling  there.  The  context  forbids  vis  to  think 
of  any  other  king  than  the  one  above  mentioned, 
Shalmaneser.  Esarhaddon  was  not  even  his 
immediate  successor,  for  [Sargon  and]  Sennache- 
rib intervened.  He  did  not  come  to  the  throne  until 
695  [681]  B.C.,  that  is,  twenty-six  years  after  the 
Israelites  were  led  into  exile  by  Shalmaneser  in 
721.  Nothing  is  more  improbable  than  that  the 
latter  should  have  left  the  country  destitute  of 
popidation,  and  that  this  state  of  things  should 
have  lasted  for  twenty-six  years.  The  colo- 
nists who  speak  in  Ezra  iv.  2  are  [descendants 
of]  later  ones,  whom  Esarhaddon  may  have  sent, 
for  some  reason  unknown  to  us,  to  join  those 
nlready  there.  Why  does  not  the  author  mention 
by  name  the  king  who  is  spoken  of  in  chap.  xix. 
37,  if  that  is  the  ore  he  here  meant?  [This 
point  also  is  treated  in  the  Note  below,  a',  the 
end  of  Exeg.  section.]  Babel  is  here  not  the  city, 
but  the  province,  as  in  Ps.  cxxxvii.  1.  The  posi- 
tion of  Cuthah  is  entirely  uncertain.     Josephus 


says:  to  Xovdaiui'  idvnc,  ol  Tvp6rtpov  ivSoripa  T^j 
rhpu/'ifoc  nal  77/t;  M?/t^iac  ijcav.  According  to  Geso- 
nius  and  Rosenmuller,  Babylonian  Irak  must  be 
thought  of  as  lying  somewhere  in  the  region  of 
Nahar  Malka.  Clerious  considers  the  Cutha?ana 
as  identical  with  the  Kossajans,  in  Susiana,  in  the 
northeast  of  what  is  now  Khurdistan,  and  tins 
opinion  is  the  best  founded  (cf.  Winer,  7J.-ir.-_B.  I. 
s.  237).  As  the  Samaritans  are  called  by  the  rab- 
bis simply  D'VTC.  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Cutlueans  composed  the  main  body  of  the  colonists. 
[Cuthah  was  close  to  Babylon. — a  suburb  of  it. 
See  the  Supp.  Note  below.]  The  location  of  the 
city  or  district  Ava  is  also  uncertain.  It  lias  been 
sought  in  Persia,  in  Syria,  and  in  Mesopotamia. 
Perhaps  it  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Ivali  which 
is  mentioned  in  chap,  xviii  34;  xix.  13;  Isai. 
xxxvii.  13.  [Ivah,  however,  is  unknown.  In  ver. 
31  it  is  said  that  "the  Avites  made  Nibhaz," 
a  Chaldean  god.  Honce  this  place  was  unques- 
tionably in  Chaldea,  near  the  others  except  Ha- 
math.  Whoever  caused  this  migration  had  just 
conquered  Chaldea  See  the  Supplementary  Note 
below.]  Hamath  (1  kings  viii.  65;  2  Kings  xiv. 
25),  in  the  north  of  Palestine,  on  the  Oroutes,  had 
then  already  fallen  under  Assyrian  dominion. 
Sepharoaim  is  generally  believed  to  be  the  2(rrpd/ja 
mentioned  by  Ptolemy  (v.  18,  7),  the  southernmost 
city  'if  Mesopotamia,  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the 
Euphrates.  However,  as  it  is  mentioned  in  Isai. 
xxxvL  19,  together  with  Hamath  and  Arpad, 
Syrian  localities,  we  might  be  rather  led,  with 
Vitringa  and  Ewald,  to  the  supposition  that  it  was 
a  Syrian  city.  [It  is  undoubtedly  Sippara,  called  by 
the"Greeks  Heliopolis.  (Its  divinity  was  Shamash, 
the  sun,  TOC')-    The  Chaldean  legend  of  the  flood 

says  that  Xisuthrus,  warned  by  the  gods  of  the 
approach  of  the  flood,  buried  at  Sippara  tables  on 
which  were  written  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
world  and  of  the  ordinances  of  religion.  His 
children  dug  them  up  after  the  flood,  and  they  be- 
came authorities  for  the  Chaldean  religion  (Lenor- 
iiiant).  The  primitive  Chaldeans  were  Turanians; 
but  if  the  word  has  a  Semitic  etymology  it  would 
seem  to  mean  the  Scripture-city  (~12D)- — W.  G.  S.] 
(On  these  different  names,  see  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  s.  v., 
[and  the  Dictionaries  of  the  Bible].     This  is  the 

first  time  that  fniyp  is  used  of  the  entire  king- 
dom. It  is  incorrect  to  infer,  as  Hengstenberg 
does,  from  the  words :  Instead  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  that  all  the  inhabitants,  to  the  last  man, 
were  taken  into  exile,  for,  see  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  9. 
[Samaria  was  now  reduced  from  the  tributary  to 
the  provincial  position,  as  Damascus  had  been 
twelve  years  before.] 

Ver.  25.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  begin- 
ning of  their  dwelling  there,  &c.  The  land  be 
came  desolate  in  consequence  of  the  exile  of  its 
inhabitants,  especially  as  some  time,  no  doubt, 
elapsed  before  the  new  colonists  arrived  and 
brought  the  land  once  more  under  cultivation.  It 
is  also  probable  that  their  number  was  not  nearly 
as  great  as  that  of  the  exiles.  So  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  lions,  which  had  been  in  the  country  in 
small  numbers  before  the  exile,  multiplied  to  such 
a  degree  as  to  be  dangerous  to  the  new  inhabi- 
tants. Under  the  circumstances  this  was  not 
purely  a  natural  incident,  but  a  divine  dispensa 
tion.     The  author  so  considers  it,  having  in  mind 


18S 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Levit.  xxvi.  22  (Exod.  xxiii.  29;  Deut.  xxxii.  24; 
tf.  Ezek.  xiv.  15).  The  colonists  saw  in  this  an 
interposition  of  the  god  of  the  country,  because 
they  had  not  worshipped  him.  In  order  to  escape 
from  the  plague  they  sent  a  request  (ver.  26)  to 
the  king  who  had  located  them  in  this  country, 
that  he  would  send  some  one  to  them  who  could 
;eaeh  them  how  to  worship  the  local  deity,  so  that 
he  might  release  them  from  the  calamity.  [See, 
on  the  heathen  conception  of  local  deities,  Pt  II. 
p.  57.]  With  a  genuine  heathen  judgment  they 
considered  the  external  worship  a  means  of  ap- 
peasing the  god  of  whom  they  knew  nothing. 
The  priest  who  was  sent  to  them  was,  as  ver.  27 
expressly  states,  one  of  the  exiles — that  is  to  say, 
one  of  the  priests  of  Jeroboam's  calf-worship. 
He  took  up  his  residence  at  Bethel,  the  chief  seat 
of  the  calf- worship  (1  Kings  xii.  29),  although  the 
Assyrians  had  carried  away  the  golden  calf  (Hos. 
x.  5).  Perhaps  they  erected  there  new  images, 
not  molten  images,  but  less  artistic  and  less  ex- 
pensive ones.  The  sending  of  this  priest  seems 
to  be  so  particularly  narrated,  because  it  shows 
how  it  came  that  the  country  did  not  become  en- 
tirely heathen. 

Ver.  29.  Every  nation  made  gods  of  their 
own.  The  new  inhabitants,  who  had  been  brought 
from  very  different  countries,  set  up,  in  the  houses 
on  the  high  places,  which  the  Samaritans  had  pre- 
pared as  places  of  worship  (see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings 
iil_,  2  and  3),  the  images  of  their  gods.     Selden 

(De  Dm  Syr.  ii.  7)  understands  J"lSj3  JTGD  in  the 

literal  meaning  of  the  words:  "Daughter-huts," 
and  most  of  the  expositors  since  his  time  have  fol- 
lowed him  in  this  interpretation.  It  is  then  under- 
stood to  refer  to  the  huts  or  tents  in  which  the 
young  women  prostituted  themselves  in  honor  of 
Mylitta,  i.  e.  Venus,  a  custom  which  Herodotus 
speaks  of,  I.  199.  However,  this  is  clearly  against 
the  context,  for,  whereas  ver.  29  treats  of  the 
places  of  worship,  ver.  30  gives  the  names  of  the 
gods  whose  images  were  set  up  in  them.  Succoth- 
Benoth  is  the  first-mentioned  amongst  these.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  an  appellative  any  more  than  the 
following  names:  Nergal,  Asima,  Nibhaz,  and  Tar- 
tak.  The  old  versions  all  give  it  as  a  proper  name. 
The  Sept.  have  ri/v  2ukx"&  BqwjiJ  or  Bevi-8.  They 
therefore  understood  by  it  a  female  divinity. 
"  JVGD  (Amos  v.  26)  was  the  name  of  a  female  di- 
vinity, and  jyi33  or  rPJ3  appears  only  to  contain  a 

modification  of  it.  Neither  word  is  to  be  referred 
to  a  Hebrew  etymology  "  (Fiirst).  We  must  not, 
therefore,  understand  it  as  referring  to  "  little  tem- 
ples or  shrines  which  were  worshipped,  together 
with  the  image  which  they  contained  "  (Gesenius), 
but  to  the  image  of  a  particular  divinity  of  which 
we  know  nothing  further.  The  rabbis  assert  that 
it  was  a  hen  with  her  chickens,  representing  the 
constellation  of  the  "Clucking  Hen"  [the  Plei- 
ades]. This  is  possible,  but  no  further  proofs  of 
it  can  be  produced.  Movers'  interpretation  of  it, 
as  female  genitals,  is  entirely  without  foundation. 
The  passage  2  Kings  xxiii.  7,  which  is  often  refer- 
red to  for  the  above-mentioned  ordinary  interpre- 
tation, has  no  pertinency  here. 

[For  as  exhaustive  summary  of  the  different 
nterpretations  of  these  words  heretofore  offered, 
see  Herzog's  Encyc.  XV.  s.  253.  The  Babylonian 
goddess  Bilit  or  Mylitta  (see  note  on  ver.  17)  took 


two  forms,  just  as  Venus  did  in  the  classical  my- 
thology. The  one,  Taauth,  was  austere,  the  other, 
Nana  or  Zarpanit,  was  voluptuous.  She  had  a 
temple  at  Babylon,  where  every  woman  was  forced, 
once  in  her  life-time,  to  surrender  to  a  stranger  as 
an  act  of  worship  to  the  goddess.  At  Cutha  she 
was  worshipped  as  Succothbenoth,  a  name  refer- 
ring to  these  prostitutions.  In  the  astral  system 
she  is  Ishtar.  In  her  "  austere  "  form  she  is  san- 
guinary and  is  the  "  Goddess  of  Battles — the  Queen 
of  Victories ;  "  in  her  voluptuous  form  she  pre- 
sides over  reproduction.  Moreover  two  Isldars 
are  distinguished,  each  of  which  presides  over 
two  weeks  of  the  month  (hence  called  the  "  God- 
dess fifteen ").  This  accounts  for  the  Phoenician 
plural  form  Ashtaroth.     (Lenormant.)] 

The  names  Nergal,  Asima,  Nibhaz,  and  Tartak 
have  hitherto  been  explained  very  diversely  upon 
etymological  grounds,  some  of  which  are  fictitious, 
and  all  of  which  are  very  uncertain.  (See  Gese- 
nius' Thesaurus;  Winer's  R.-  W.-B.  s.  v.)  We  there- 
fore pass  over  these  attempts  at  explanation.  The 
rabbis  ascribe  to  Nergal  (probably  Mars)  the  form 
of  a  cock,  which  certainly  does  occur  frequently 
on  the  old  Assyrian  monuments ;  to  Asima,  the 
form  of  a  goat;  to  Nibhaz,  that  of  a  dog;  to  Tar- 
tak, that  of  an  ass.  But  these  statements  also 
rest  upon  very  uncertain  etymologies.  The  case 
is  not  much  better  with  the  names  Aclrammelech 
and  Anammelech.  We  can  only  infer  from  the 
child-sacrifices  which  were  offered  to  these  idols 
so  much  as  this,  "that  they  were  akin  to  Moloch" 
(Keil).  The  interpretations  of  Movers  and  Hitzig 
are  very  uncertain  and  doubtful. 

[In  an  inscription  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  now  in 
the  British  Museum,  is  read :  "  I  consecrated  the 
portico  of  the  god  Nergal  and  of  the  god  Nibhaz, 
the  gods  of  the  temple  Valpitlam  at  Cutha."  (See 
note  on  ver.  24.)  "  The  special  god  of  this  town 
was  Nergal,  and  we  learn  from  some  mythological 
details  given  in  the  tablets  of  the  library  of  As- 
sliurbanipal,  that  he  was  worshipped  there  under 
the  form  of  a  lion."  (Lenormant,  I.,  485.)  His 
image  is  rare.  He  stands  on  the  legs  of  a  cock 
and  has  a  sword  in  his  hand.  His  epithets  are  : 
"  the  Great  Hero,  the  King  of  Fight,  the  Master  of 
Battles,  Champion  of  the  Gods."  Hence  he  is 
identified  with  Mars. — Adrammelech= Adar- Malik, 
i.  e.  "  Adar  the  king."  Adar  (fire)  was  also  called 
Samdan  (the  powerful).  He  was  the  Assyrian 
Hercules.  Anammelech= Anu- Malik,  i.e.  "Ann," 
or  "  Oannes,  the  king."  "  Oannes,  the  '  Lord  of 
the  Lower  World,  the  Lord  of  Darkness,'  was  re- 
presented on  the  monuments  under  the  strange 
figure  of  a  man  with  an  eagle's  tail,  and  for  his 
head-dress  an  enormous  fish,  whose  open  mouth 
rises  above  his  head,  while  the  body  covers  his 
shoulders."     (Lenormant.)] 

According  to  ver.  32,  the  worship  of  heathen 
gods  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  under  the  fjrni 
of  the  calf,  existed  side  by  side.  In  regard  to  the 
priests  "  from  the  mass  of  the  people  "  see  note 
on  1  Kings  xii.  31. — Ver.  33  repeats  and  brings 
together  the  contents  of  vers.  28-32. 

Ver.  34.  Unto  this  day  they  do  after  the 
former  manners.  Even  at  the  time  at  which 
the  author  was  writing  they  still  followed  the  way 
of  the  first  colonists,  that  is,  those  which  are 
described  in  vers.  28-33.  Some  did  not  worship 
Jehovah,  but  served  idols  (vers.  25  and  29);  these 
were  the  heathen  who  had  immigrated,  who  had 


CHAPTER  XVTX  1-41 


1S& 


brought  their  national  divinities  with  them  and 
still  worshipped  them ;  the  others  worshipped  Je- 
hovah indeed  (vers.  28-32),  but  not  according  to 
the  ordinances  which  had  been  given  them  by 
Him ;  these  were  those  of  the  Israelites  who  re- 
mained, and  those  who  adopted  the  worship  taught 
by  the  priests  of  Jeroboam's  calf-worship,  who 
were  sent  back  for  the  purpose  (ver.  27).  The 
words  in  ver.  34 :  After  their  statutes  or  after 
their  ordinances,  do  not,  therefore,  stand  "in 
contrast"  with  those  which  immediately  follow, 
as  Keil  thinks,  that  is,  with  the  words :  After  the 
law  and  commandment  which  the  Lord  com- 
manded the  children  of  Jacob,  so  that  the 
meaning  would  be:  "Until  this  day  the  Samari- 
tans have  retained  their  peculiar  worship,  which 
consists  of  idolatry  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
through  the  calf-image,  and  do  not  worship  accord- 
ing to  the  manner  of  the  ten  tribes,  nor  according 

to  the  Mosaic  law."     The  1  before  mW3  cannot 

have  any  other  meaning  than  that  which  it  has 
before  the  preceding  and  the  following  words.  It 
does  not,  therefore,  mean  "still,"  but  "aud"  in 
the  sense  of  "namely,"  in  which  sense  it  so  often 
occurs.  The  words  "  "121  miDDl  form  au  epexe- 
gesis  to  'i;i  QnprD,"  as  Thenius  justly  remarks 
cf.  1  Kings  ii.  3). — The  sentence:  Whom  he 
named  Israel  has  the  same  sense  here  as  in  1 
Kings  xviii.  31. — In  reference  to  those  who  at  the 
time  of  the  author  still  persisted  in  illegal  worship, 
or  even  in  idolatry,  he  points  expressly,  in  order 
to  show  the  heinousness  of  their  offence,  in  vers. 
35-39,  to  what  Jehovah  had  done  amongst  His 
people  and  for  them,  and  how  earnestly  he  had 
warned  them  against  any  breach  of  the  covenant. 
—On  ver.  36  see  note  above  on  ver.  7.  The  breach 
of  the  covenant  was  the  more  base  inasmuch  as 
the  Lord  had  miraculously  removed  all  the  hin- 
drances, even  the  greatest  ones,  and  had  held  faith- 
ful to  His  people.  In  ver.  37  particular  stress  is 
laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  Law  was  written,  and 
not  merely  spoken.  The  existence  of  the  written 
law  is,  therefore,  assumed  as  undoubted. —  And 
they  did  not  hearken  (ver.  40);  i.  e.  "Those  de- 
scendants of  the  ones  to  whom  this  warning  and 
exhortation  had  been  addressed,  who  had  remained 
in  the  land"  (Thenius).  Their  former  manner, 
i.  e.  the  worship  introduced  by  Jeroboam.  Ver. 
41  brings  the  author's  review  of  the  history  to  a 
close  with  a  reference  to  the  posterity  of  the  apos- 
tates who  had  not  desisted  from  the  sins  of  their 
fathers.  [There  is  great  obscurity  in  the  verses 
33-41.  probably  because  the  writer  has  in  mind 
different  classes  of  the  Samaritan  population  whom 
he  does  not  distinguish  or  define.  Thus  the  sub- 
ject changes  in  vers.  33  and  34  without  being 
specified  in  such  a  manner  as  the  laws  of  gram- 
mar require.  If  we  paragraph  as  is  done  in  the 
amended  translation,  and  identify  the  subjects  as 
is  there  suggested,  we  reach  a  clear  meaning. — The 
new  population  of  the  northern  kingdom  might  be 
classified  thus  :  (o)  Sincere  worshippers  of  Jeho- 
vah in  the  old  theocratic  sense.  These  were  very 
few,  if  indeed  there  were  any.  (5)  Worshippers 
of  Jehovah  under  the  form  of  the  calf,  i.  e.,  ad- 
herents of  the  old  worship  of  the  northern  tribes, 
(c)  Israelites  who  adhered  to  the  calf-worship,  but 
lad  adopted  also  the  idolatry  of  the  heathen  colo- 
nists, (d)  Heathen  colonists  who  had  adopted  the 
alf-worship. — Thus  there  were  very  few,  possibly 


none,  whom  this  theocratic  author  could  approve. 
The  third  and  fourth  were  the  largest  classes,  and 
are  the  ones  referred  to  in  the  text.  Those  under 
(c)  "feared  not  the  Lord,"  i.  e.  in  the  religious 
sense.  They  knew  him  and  should  have  been  his 
servants,  but  were  not,  while  they  apostatized  to 
idolatry.  Those  under  (d)  "  feared  the  Lord,"  no* 
in  the  religious  sense, — they  never  had  been  taugh* 
to  fear  God  in  that  sense, — but  they  were  afraid 
of  Him,  and  paid  Him  deference,  but  served,  i.  e., 
gave  their  faith  and  worship  to  their  heathen  di- 
vinities.—W.  G.  S.] 

[Supplementary  Note  on  the  references  to  con- 
temporaneous history  in  chap.  xvii.  (See  similar 
notes  after  chaps,  xv.  and  xvi.)  The  great  kiug 
Tiglath  Pileser  died  in  727.  In  the  same  year 
Ahaz  died  and  was  succeeded  by  Hezekiah  on  the 
throne  of  Judah.  Shalmaneser  (IV.  Rawlinson; 
VI.  Lenormant),  the  next  king  of  Assyria,  seems 
to  have  been  a  less  able  ruler.  We  have  no  records 
of  him  save  some  bronze  weights  in  the  British 
Museum.  The  dates,  however,  are  furnished  by 
the  canon.  Hoshea's  revolt  against  Pekah,  as 
we  saw  at  the  end  of  the  note  on  chap,  xv.,  was  a 
success  for  the  policy  of  submission  to  Assyria. 
However,  this  entire  history  is  nothing  but  a  series 
of  revolts  against  Assyria,  and  Hoshea,  in  his 
turn,  soon  renewed  the  attempt.  In  725  the  Ethi- 
opians, who  had  for  some  time  held  dominion  over 
Upper  Egypt,  invaded  Lower  Egypt  under  a  king 
named  Sliebek  (Sabacon,  Shabaka).  This  name  is 
really  Shaba  or  Shava,  with  the  Cushite  article  ka 
appended.  It  is  therefore  written  in  Hebrew  jjid. 
The  Massoretes  punctuated  this  xiD  .  (See  note 
on  ver.  4  above.)  This  king  succeeded  in  overrun- 
ning all  of  Egypt,  and  conquering  it,  although  the 
native  dynasty  preserved  its  succession,  being  con- 
fined to  the  western  half  of  the  delta  "in  the 
marshes"  (Herod.  II.  137).  The  appearance  of 
this  great  conqueror  on  the  scene  infused  hope  into 
the  small  nations  of  Western  Asia  that  they  might 
be  able  at  least  to  change  masters;  that  this  new 
Egyptian  power  might  form  a  counterpoise  to  the 
Assyrian ;  and  that  his  rule  might  be  found  milder. 
Hoshea  was  seduced  by  this  hope.  He  plotted  a 
revolt,  but  Shalmaneser  hastened  to  crush  the  at- 
tempt before  union  with  Shebek  might  make  it 
formidable.  He  captured  Hoshea,  conquered  thn 
province  of  Samaria,  and  in  December,  724,  laid 
siege  to  the  capital  by  investment.  In  722  he  died. 
He  left  a  son  who  was  a  minor.  The  Tartan  or 
general-in-chief,  Sargon,  a  member  of  the  royal 
family,  seized  the  throne  in  spite  of  some  opposi- 
tion. An  eclipse  of  March  19,  721,  was  influen- 
tial in  some  way  at  this  crisis.  For  three  years 
he  was  nominally  regent  for  the  young  prince 
(Samdan-Malik  =  Samdan  [Hercules]  is  King). 
From  718  on  he  reigned  alone.  He  was  a  great 
conqueror,  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the  kings  of 
Assyria.  He  regained  all  the  territory  which  had 
been  lost  and  extended  the  empire  beyond  any 
limits  which  it  had  ever  attained.  "The  long  in 
seriptions  found  by  M.  Botta  in  the  palace  of  Khor 
sabad  make  us  even  better  acquainted  with  the 
details  of  his  reign  than  with  those  of  more  than 
one  of  the  Roman  emperors."  A  long  inscription, 
called  commonly  the  "  Acts  of  Sargon,"  details  the 
events  of  fifteen  campaigns.  The  following  are 
the  contents,  so  far  as  they  are  interesting  to  us  in 
the  present  connection : 


190 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


•'  I  besieged,  took,  and  occupied  the  city  of  Sa- 
maria, and  caried  into  captivity  27,280  of  its  inhab- 
itants. I  changed  the  former  government  of  the 
country,  and  placed  over  it  lieutenants  of  my  own." 
Thus  he  counts  the  capture  of  Samaria  among  his 
own  achievements.  In  place  of  the  inhabitants 
whom  he  forced  to  emigrate,  he  introduced  colo- 
nies from  Elam  which  he  had  just  conquered. 

"  .  .  .  .  and  Sebeh,  Sultan  [so  Lenormant 
translates  a  rare  title  which  is  said  to  mean  suzerain, 
referring  probably  to  Shebek's  position  as  a  recent 
conqueror  and  not  regular  king]  of  Egypt,  came  to 
Raphia  to  fight  against  me ;  they  met  me  and  I 
routed  them.     Sebeh  fled." 

Pursuing  the  record  in  order  to  find  traces  of 
the  recolonization  of  Samaria,  we  notice  the  fol- 
lowing: 

From  720  to  715  the  Assyrians  were  occupied  in 
an  unsuccessful  siege  of  Tyre.  "  Taubid  of  Ha- 
math  ....  persuaded  .  .  .  Damascus  and 
Samaria  to  revolt  against  me,  and  prepared  for  bat- 
tle  I  killed  the  chiefs  of  the  rebels  in 

each  city  and  destroyed  the  cities."  [This  revolt 
of  Samaria,  after  its  reduction  to  a  province,  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  Bible.  It  may  have  been  after 
this  conquest  of  Hamath  that  some  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  that  country  were  colonized  in  Samaria.] 

The  inhabitants  of  Papha  in  Pisidia  were  trans- 
ported to  Damascus. 

In  710  he  marched  against  Ashdod,  which  had 
revolted  (Isai.  sx.  1). 

In  709,  according  to  the  canon  of  Ptolemy,  Sar- 
gon  defeated  Merodach  Baladan  at  the  battle  of 
Dur  Yakin.  By  this  victory  he  resubjugated 
Chaldea,  which  had  been  independent  since  747. 
The  prisoners  taken  in  Chaldea  were  colonized  in 
Samaria.  In  August,  704,  Sargon  was  assassinated. 
He  was  succeeded  by  Sennacherib,  whose  glory 
rivalled  that  of  his  predecessor.  In  regard  to  him 
see  the  Note  after  the  Exeg.  section  on  the  next 
chapter.  In  681  he  was  assassinated  by  his  two 
sons. 

Another  sou,  Esarhaddon,  succeeded  him,  and 
reigned  from  681  to  667.  On  him  also  see  below. 
We  are  only  concerned  here  with  one  statement  in 
his  annals. — At  the  close  of  his  first  campaign, 
which  was  in  Phoenicia,  he  says :  "  I  settled  the 
inhabitants  of  Syria  and  the  sea  shore  in  strange 
lands.  I  built  in  Syria  a  fortress,  called  Dur- 
atshwr-akhiddin,  and  there  established  men  whom 
my  bow  had  subdued  in  the  mountains,  and  to- 
wards the  sea  of  the  rising  sun  (Caspian)." 
[Whether  Syria  here  includes  Samaria  is  indeed 
doubtful,  but  it  is  probable  that,  as  the  policy  of 
transportation  was  practised  more  and  more,  it 
became  more  thorough  and  comprehensive.  Proba- 
bly this  was  a  large  migration,  since  the  name  of 
a  country  is  given  for  the  new  seat  of  the  colonists 
instead  of  the  names  of  cities.  Hence  the  memory 
of  this  migration  was  perpetuated  while  the  lesser 
migrations  under  Sargon  were  forgotten.  It  is  not 
at  all  likely  that  the  different  migrations  remained 
distinct  from  one  another,  and  remembered  each 
the  time  and  occasion  of  its  own  migration.  The 
second  temple  was  finished  in  516  (Ewald).  so  that 
from  the  time  of  Esarhaddon  to  the  time  of  the 
speakers  in  Ezra  iv.  2  there  must  have  been  160 
years.  Tins  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  fact 
that  they  aseril  e  their  origin  to  Esarhaddon.]  In 
this  account  we  have  followed  Lenormaut's  Manual 
very  closely.— W.  G.  S.] 


HISTORICAL   ANT3   ETHICAL. 

1.  Only  so  much  is  narrated  in  regird  to  tht 
nine  years'  reign  of  Boshea  as  p»rtains  to  this  fact, 
that  he  was  the  last  king  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes.  "  Hoshea's  chief  aim  was  to  become 
independent  of  Assyria.  He  saw  what  a  mistake 
Menahem  had  made  when  he  called  Pul  into  the 
country,  and  what  had  been  the  sad  consequences 
to  Pekah.  who  had  subjected  himself  to  Tiglatb 
Pileser"  (Scldier).  [See  the  last  paragraph  of 
the  Supplementary  Note  on  chap,  xv.]  He  there- 
fore refused  the  tribute  which  had  been  imposed, 
turned  to  Egypt  for  help,  and  defended  himself 
for  three  years  bravely  and  perseveringly  against 
the  Assyrian  power.  From  this  it  is  evident  that 
he  was  not  a  weak  ruler,  but  that  he  had  a  strong 
will  and  was  an  able  general.  But  the  despairing 
resistance  was  useless,  the  measure  was  full,  the 
days  of  the  northern  kingdom  were  numbered, 
and  the  long  threatened  ruin  drew  on  unchecked. 
The  criticism  upon  Hoshea's  reign,  and  his  conduct 
in  general,  which  is  given  in  ver.  2,  is  often  under- 
stood as  if  it  asserted  that  he  was  the  best  of  all 
the  kings  of  the  northern  kingdom.  Ewald  says: 
"It  seems  like  a  harsh  jest  of  fate  that  this  Hoshea, 
who  was  to  be  the  last  king,  was  better  than  all 
his  predecessors.  The  words  of  the  noble  prophets 
who,  during  the  last  fifty  years,  had  spoken  so 
many  and  such  grand  oracles  in  regard  to  this 
kingdom,  had  perhaps  had  more  influence  upon 
him.  But  as  these  prophets  had  always  foretold 
the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  as  certain,  so  the 
irresistible  power  which  works  in  history  was  now 
to  show  that  an  individual,  though  a  king,  better 
than  all  his  predecessors,  is  too  weak  to  arrest  the 
ruin  of  the  commonwealth  when  the  time  for  refor- 
mation is  past."  The  Calmer  Bibel  also  says  of 
Hoshea  :  "  When  he  was  at  length  seated  upon  the 
throne  he  showed  himself  personally  better  than 
all  his  predecessors,  and  nevertheless  it  was  in  his 
reign  that  the  destruction  was  consummated." 
Schlier  also  supposes  that  Hoshea.  in  the  conflict, 
through  which  it  is  assumed  that  he  won  the 
throne,  "turned  to  the  Lord  more  sincerely  than 
his  predecessors."  There  is  not  a  word  of  all  that, 
however,  in  the  text.  The  words  in  ver.  2  do  not 
say  that  he  was  better  than  all  his  predecessors, 
but  only  that  he  was  not  as  bad  as  the  kings  be- 
fore him  (V^zb  ).     This  can  only  be  understood, 

however,  as  applying  to  his  immediate  predeces- 
sors (Menahem,  Pekahiah,  and  Pekah),  for  the 
word  "  all "  is  not  in  the  text.  [It  is  arbitrary  and 
untenable  to  restrict  the  application  of  the  words 
to  these  kings.  The  "  all "  is  not  in  the  text,  but 
it  is  a  fact  that  the  author  introduces  a  modifica- 
tion here  into  the  standing  formula  which  goes 
farther  towards  lessening  the  sweeping  condemna- 
tion than  any  which  is  introduced  at  the  mention 
of  any  other  king  of  the  northern  kingdom.  Je- 
horam  is  said  to  have  been  bad,  but  not  as  bad  as 
AJiab  :  nd  Jezebel  (2  Kings  iii.  2).  In  the  other 
cases  the  condemnation  is  utter  and  complete.  The 
modification  introduced  in  reference  to  Hoshea, 
Blight  as  it  is,  is,  therefore,  by  comparison,  very 
weighty. — W.  G.  S.]  The  statement  does  not  ap- 
ply i.i  iiis  personal  and  moral  character,  but  to  his 
attitude  as  king  towards  the  national  religion.  He 
made  his  way  to  the  throne  by  conspiracy  and 
murder  (chap."  xv.  30),  as  several  of  his  preie^o* 


OHAPTKR  XVII.   1-41. 


191 


sors  had  done.  He  did  not,  therefore,  have  any 
"better  principles,"  and  was  not  a  "better  man" 
than  they.  If  he  had  listened  to  the  warnings  of 
the  true  prophets,  he  would  not  have  turned  to 
Egypt  for  help,  for  they  warned  him  against  this 
as  much  as  against  Assyria.  The  least  probable 
supposition  of  all  is  that  Hoshea  gave  up  the  cul- 
tus  which  Jeroboam  had  introduced,  for,  if  he  had 
done  so,  then  his  fate  would  have  been  undeserved. 
[This  argument  is  presumptuous  and  unfounded. 
All  such  inferences  from  the  dispensations  of 
Providence  to  the  desert  of  those  who  suffer 
calamity  are  precarious  and  unbecoming.  The 
special  fact  here  at  stake  is  insignificant,  but  the 
general  principle  involved  in  this  method  of  argu- 
ment is  of  the  first  importance. — W.  G.  S.]  The 
review  of  the  history  which  the  author  appends  to 
the  story  of  this  reign  assumes  that  the  king  ad- 
hered to  Jeroboam's  eultus.  His  case  is  similar  to 
that  of  Jehoram,  of  whom  it  is  said  (chap.  iii.  2): 
"He  wrought  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but 
not  like  his  father  and  like  his  mother,  for  he  put 
away  the  image  of  Baal  that  his  father  had  made. 
Nevertheless  he  cleaved  unto  the  sins  of  Jero- 
boam." Hoshea  may  have  differed  from  his  imme- 
diate predecessors  in  the  same  way.  Probably  he 
was  led  more  by  political  than  by  religious  conside- 
rations, at  least  we  find  no  sign  at  all  of  the  latter. 
"We  have  no  reason  at  all  to  imagine  that  he  was 
genuinely  converted.  For  the  rest,  it  has  several 
times  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  world,  as  Keil 
remarks,  that  the  last  rulers  of  a  falling  kingdom 
have  been  better  than  their  predecessors. 

2.  The  somewhat  lengthy  review  which  the  au- 
thor appends  to  the  story  of  the  downfall  of  the 
northern  kingdom  is,  as  Hess  observes  :  "  Almost 
the  only  instance  in  the  Old  Testament  where  the 
author  departs  from  his  usual  habit  of  simply  nar- 
rating, without  inserting  any  comments  of  his 
own."  We  see  from  this  that  he  was  interested 
not  only  in  the  narrative,  but  also  in  something 
further.  Here,  where  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes  comes  to  an  end,  and  disappears  forever 
from  history,  was  the  place,  if  there  was  any,  for 
casting  a  glance  back  upon  its  development  and 
history,  and  for  bringing  together  the  characteris- 
tics of  the  story  in  a  summary.  This  he  does  from 
the  Old  Testament  stand-point,  according  to  which 
God  chose  the  people  of  Israel  to  be  His  own  pecu- 
liar people,  made  a  covenant  with  it,  and  took  it 
under  His  especial  guidance  and  direction  for  the 
welfare  and  salvation  of  all  nations.  The  breach 
of  the  covenant  by  the  northern  kingdom  is, 
therefore,  in  his  view,  the  first,  the  peculiar, 
and  the  only  cause  of  its  final  fall,  and  this  fall 
is  the  judgment  of  the  holy  and  just  God.  By 
showing  this  in  careful  detail  he  makes  it  clear 
to  us  that  this  is  the  only  light  in  which  the  his- 
tory can  be  or  ought  to  be  criticised.  His  mode 
of  criticism,  therefore,  stands  in  marked  contrast 
with  that  of  modern  critical  science,  which  considers 
it  its  task  to  set  aside  this  point  of  view, — to  meas- 
ure the  history  of  the  people  of  God  by  the  same 
standards  as  that  of  any  other  ancient  people. 
There  is  no  other  passage  in  the  Bible  where  what 
we  have  called  in  the  Introduction,  §  3,  the  the- 
ocratic-pragmatic form  of  representation,  is  so 
clearly  and  distinctly  evident  as  in  this  review. 
This  is  a  proof  that  the  author  of  these  books  was 
a  prophet,  or  belonged  to  the  prophet-class,  and  so 
thai  it  is  properly  reckoned   among  the   D'N'QJ- 


This  review,  however,  is  noticeable  also  in  another 
respect,  viz.,  that  the  existence  of  the  mifi,  with 

all  its  nivr?  ,  niirn  ,  nnj?,  and  D'DBTO  ,  long  be- 
fore the  time  of  the  monarch}",  and  that  too  in  a 
written  form  (ver.  37),  is  assumed  in  it  as  unques- 
tioned. If  the  author  had  not  known  that  this 
Law,  in  the  form  in  which  he  was  familiar  with  it, 
had  existed  long  before  the  division  of  the  kingdom, 
he  could  not  have  declared  so  distinctly  and  de- 
cidedly that  the  fall  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes  was  a  divine  judgment  upon  it  for  its  apos- 
tasy from  that  Law. 

3.  The  forced  emigration  of  the  ten  tribes  to 
Assyria  was  a  result  of  the  despotic  principle 
which  was  accepted  throughout  the  entire  Orient, 
that  it  was  right  to  make  any  revolt  of  subjugated 
nations  impossible  (see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  viii.  50). 
In  this  case  it  was  not  merely  a  transportation  into 
another  country,  but  also  the  commencement  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  ten  tribes  as  a  nationality.  No  one 
particular  province  in  Assyria  was  assigned  to  them 
as  their  dwelling-place,  but  several,  which  were 
far  separated  from  one  another,  so  that,  although 
this  or  that  tribe  may  have  been  kept  more  or  less 
together,  as  seems  probable  from  Tob.  i.,  yet  the 
different  tribes  were  scattered  up  and  down  in  a 
foreign  nation,  without  the  least  organic  connection 
with  one  another.  They  never  again  came  to- 
gether ;  on  the  contrary  they  were  gradually  lost 
among  the  surrounding  nations,  so  that  no  one 
knows,  until  this  day,  what  became  of  them,  and 
every  attempt  to  discover  the  remains  of  them 
has  been  vain.  (See.  on  the  attempts  which  have 
been  made,  Keil,  Comm.  zu  den  Biichern  d.  K.  s. 
311,  sq.)  In  this  particular  the  exile  of  the  ten 
tribes  differs  from  that  of  Judah  and  Benjamin. 
The  exile  in  Babylon  was  temporary.  It  lasted  for 
a  definite  period  which  had  been  foretold  by  the 
prophets  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  ;  Jerem.  xxix.  10). 
It  was  not  like  the  Assyrian  exile,  a  period  of  na- 
tional dissolution.  Judah  did  not  perish  in  exile; 
it  rather  gained  strength,  and  finally  came  back 
into  the  land  of  promise,  whereas,  of  the  ten 
tribes  only  a  few  who  had  joined  themselves  to 
Judah,  and  become  a  part  of  it,  ever  found  their 
way  back.  The  ten  tribes  had,  by  their  violent 
separation  from  the  rest  of  the  nation,  broken  the 
unity  of  the  chosen  people,  and,  in  order  to  main 
tain  this  separation,  they  had  revolted  from  the 
national  covenant  with  Jehovah.  The  breach  of 
the  covenant  was  the  corner-stone  of  their  exist- 
ence as  a  separate  nationality.  Thereby  also  they 
had  given  up  the  destiny  of  the  people  of  God  in 
the  world's  history.  They  were  the  larger  frag- 
ment of  the  entire  nation,  but  they  were  only  a 
separate  member  which  was  torn  away  from  the 
common  stock,  a  branch  separated  from  the  trunk, 
which  could  only  wither  away.  After  250  years 
of  separate  existence,  when  all  the  proofs  of  the 
divine  grace  and  faithfulness  had  proved  vain,  it 
was  the  natural  fate  of  the  ten  tribes  to  perish  and 
to  cease  to  be  an  independent  nation.  "  The  Lord 
removed  them  out  of  his  sight ;  there  was  nonr 
left  but  the  tribe  of  Judah  alone"  (ver.  18).  Th» 
case  was  different  with  Judah.  Although  it  had 
sinned  often  and  deeply  against  its  God,  yet  it  never 
revolted'  formally  and  in  principle  from  the  cove- 
nant, much  less  was  its  existence  built  upon  a 
breach  of  the  covenant.  It  remained  the  sup- 
porter and  the  preserver  of  the  Law,  and  therefore 


192 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


also  of  the  promise.  Its  deportation  was  indeed  a 
heavy  punishment  and  a  well-deserved  chastise- 
ment, but  it  did  not  perish  thereby,  nor  disappear 
as  a  nation  from  history,  but  it  was  preserved  un- 
til He  came  of  whom  it  was  said :  '•  The  Lord  God 
shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  David, 
and  He  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for- 
ever ;  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end" 
(Luke  i.  32,  sq.). 

4.  Tin  population  of  the  country  of  the  ten  tribes 
after  their  migration  consisted,  in  the  first  place,  of 
the  few  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  who  had  re- 
mained. That  such  a  remnant  did  remain  is  cer- 
tain, whether  we  assume  that  there  were  two  im- 
migrations, one  under  Shalmaneser  and  the  other 
under  Esarhaddon,  or  only  one  under  the  latter 
(see  note  on  ver.  24  under  Exegetical  [See,  also, 
the  bracketed  note  under  Exeget.  and  Crit.,  on  ver. 
41,  for  the  classes  among  the  population,  and  the 
Supplementary  Kote  above,  at  the  end  of  the  Exi  g. 
section,  for  the  details  of  the  re-population  of  the 
country  by  Sargon  and  Esarhaddon.]).  This  is 
proved  beyond  question  by  2  Chron.  xxx.  6,  10; 
xxxiv,  9 ;  Jerem.  xli.  5.  Furthermore  this  is  sup- 
ported by  "  the  analogy  of  all  similar  deportations, 
in  which  only  the  mass  of  the  population  was  car- 
ried oft",  especially  the  classes  from  whom  revolts 
might  be  expected,  and  by  the  fact  that,  in  a 
mountainous  country,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
seize  every  man  of  the  population  "  (Keil).  [For 
the  number  of  persons  carried  away  see  the  In- 
scription quoted  in  the  Supp.  Note  above.]  The 
new  inhabitants,  however,  formed  the  chief  por- 
tion of  the  population.  The  king  of  Assyria  had 
brought  them  from  different  parts  of  his  kingdom, 
which  was  already  far  extended.  They  did  not, 
therefore,  belong  to  one,  but  to  many  diverse  na- 
tionalities and  races.  They  worshipped  various  na- 
tional divinities,  and  each  nation  amougst  them  had 
its  own  cuitus  which  it  retained  (vers.  29-31). 
Their  common  life  in  the  same  country  produced 
unavoidably  a  mixture  of  the  various  nationalities 
with  each  other  as  well  as  with  the  remnant  of  the 
Israelites.  A  nation  was  thus  formed  which  lack- 
ed all  unity  of  worship,  and  which,  socially  and 
religiously,  formed  a  complete  chaos.  As  the  ex- 
iles, scattered  in  different  localities,  lost  their  na- 
tional unity  and  character,  so  did  also  the  few 
Isralites  who  remained  in  the  country  and  formed 
connections  with  the  immigrants.  In  place  of 
unity  there  arose  a  complete  dissolution  and  disin- 
tegration of  the  nationality  of  the  ten  tribes. 
They  never  regained  their  unity.  The  author 
means  to  say  in  the  passage  from  ver.  24  on  that 
this  was  the  judgment  of  God  upon  the  covenant- 
breaking  and  apostate-  people  which  had  resisted 
every  chastisement  and  every  warning  to  reform. 

5.  The  cuitus  which  prevailed  in  the  northern  king- 
dom after  the  exile  of  the  ten  tribes,  is  commonly  de- 
signated as  an  "amalgam  of  Jehovah  calf-worship, 
and  heathen  idolatry  "  (Keil  and  others).  But  the 
text  speaks,  not  of  an  amalgamated  cuitus,  but  of 
an  amalgamated  population  (see  notes  on  ver.  34). 
Jeroboam's  Jehovah-worship,  although  it  was  ille- 
gal, was  nevertheless  monotheism.  As  such  it 
simply  and  utterly  excluded  polytheism.  So.  for 
instance.  Jehu,  who  maintained  Jeroboam's  cuitus, 
rooted  out  idolatry  with  violence  (chap.  x.  28  sq.). 
Now  a  cuitus  which  had  for  its  object  the  one 
true  God.  and  at  tin-  same  time  many  gods,  a  cui- 
tus in  which    monotheism   and    polytheism    were 


j  combined,  is  inconceivable,  because  it  involves  » 
fundamental  contradiction.  [This  is  unquestion- 
I  ably  true  in  logic,  but  such  inconsistencies  are 
|  very  common  in  history.  The  population  of  Sa- 
maria (see  bracketed  note  on  ver.  41  under  Exeg.) 
had  no  such  clear  and  well-defined  devotion  to  the 
Jehovah-worship,  even  under  its  degraded  form, 
and  no  such  pure  consciousness  of  the  bearings  of 
the  various  parts  of  their  cuitus  upon  one  another, 
as  to  feel  this  contradiction  and  try  to  escape  it, 
A  truer  conception  of  the  state  of  things  wotdd  be 
that  the  Jehovah  calf-worship,  when  reestablished, 
took  its  place  among  the  other  acknowledged 
forms  of  worship.  The  remains  of  the  ancient 
Israelitish  population  cultivated  this  worship  es- 
pecially, the  other  nationalties  cultivated  each  its 
own  cuitus  especially,  and  thus  the  various  forms 
existed  side  by  side,  doubtless  not  without  mutual 
influence  on  one  another.  This  is  substantially 
the  view  advocated  by  Bahr  below,  and  it  is  far 
more  consistent  with  all  we  know  of  the  state  of 
things  than  the  amalgamation  theory.  The  latter 
cannot  be  disposed  of,  however,  by  showing  its 
logical  inconsistency. — W.  G  S.]  It  seems  that 
the  exiles  maintained  in  their  banishment  the  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  through  Jeroboam's  calf  images: 
(Tob.  i.  5).  It  is  still  more  probable  that  those 
who  remained  in  Samaria  did  the  same.  The  priest 
who  was  sent  back  to  Samaria  (ver.  27)  was  to 
"  teach  them  the  manner  of  the  God  of  the  land.': 
He  therefore  took  up  his  residence  at  the  ch:.ef 
seat  of  Jeroboam's  worship,  at  Bethel,  which  thus 
became  once  more  the  centre  of  this  worship.  It 
was  not,  however,  the  source  of  a  new  worship 
which  combined  the  ancient  form  with  idolatry. 
That  the  Jehovah-worship  was  maintained  in  the 
country  without  mixture  with  heathenism  is  shown 
by  the  statement  of  those  who,  20U  years  after- 
wards, came  to  Zerubbabel  and  said :  "  Let  us 
build  with  you  ;  for  we  seek  your  God  as  ye  do; 
and  we  do  sacrifice  unto  him  since  the  days  of 
Esarhaddon,  king  of  Assur,  who  brought  us  up 
hither  "  (Ezra  iv.  2).  In  later  times  this  Samari- 
tan people  "  was  more  strict  in  its  adherence  to 
the  Mosaic  law  than  even  the  Jews  "  (Von  Ger- 
lach).  How  could  this  have  been  the  case  if  their 
cuitus  had  been  mixed  with  idolatry  from  the  time 
of  the  Assyrian  exile  onwards  ?  The  form  of 
Jehovah-worship  which  Jeroboam  had  introduced, 
and  heathen  idolatry,  existed,  as  a  consequence  of 
the  mixed  population,  alongside  of  one  another, 
but  not  in  one  another.  Although  individuals 
may  have  tried  to  practise  both  worships  at  once, 
or  may  have  turned  now  to  one  and  now  to  the 
other,  the  mass  of  the  Israelites  who  remained 
held  firmly  to  the  illegitimate  Jehovah-worship,  so 
that  this  gradually  gained  the  upper  hand  of 
heathenism.  At  the  time  of  Christ  we  hear  no 
more  of  the  latter  in  Samaria.  As  the  Samaritans 
recognized  the  authority  of  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
the  Jews  could  not  regard  them  as  idolators. 
They  were  not  willing,  however,  to  have  any  in- 
tercourse with  them,  because,  in  blood,  they  were 
no  longer  pure  Israelites,  and  so  were  not  a  por- 
tion  of  the  people  which  was  sharply  separated,  in 
blood,  from  all  heathen  nations.  They  were  con 
sidered  a'AAoytveic,  and  as  such  they  were  held  it. 
about  the  same  estimation  as  the  heathen  (Luke 
xvii.  16,  18  ;  Matt.  x.  5  ;  John  iv.  9 ;  viii.  48).  The 
bitter  hostility  between  the  Samaritans"  and  the 
Jews  is  to  be  ascribed,  in  great  Dart,  to  the  ai> 


CHAPTER  XVII.   1-41. 


19i 


cient,  deep-rooted,  never  extinguished  hatred  of 
the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Ephraim  for  one  anotlier 
(see  1  Kings  xii.,  Hist.  §  I.).  On  the  Samaritans 
see  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  II.  *.  369 ;  Herzog,  Keal-Encyc. 
XIII.  «,  3G3. 

6.  Finally,  we  may  here  briefly  take  notice  of 
the  manner  in  which  modern  historians  represent  and 
judge  the  fail  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes.  "  Sa- 
maria." says  Dunoker  (Gesch.  d.  Alt.  s.  443,  sq.\ 
"defended  itself  with  the  energy  of  despair  in  the 
determination  either  to  preserve  its  independent 
national  existence  or  to  perish.  It  was  only  after 
a  siege  of  three  years'  duration,  and  the  most 
obstinate  resistance,  that  the  capital  fell,  and 
with  it  the  kingdom.  Without  proper  preparation 
or  energetic  leadership,  unsupported  by  the  na- 
tural allies  in  Judah  or  by  Egypt,  Israel  fell  after 
brave  resistance,  and  so  not  without  honor." 
Weber  speaks  in  like  manner  of  the  "  glorious  " 
fall  of  Israel.  Menzel  (Stoats-  und  Religionsgesch. 
s.  229)  passes  his  judgment  as  follows:  "The  en- 
ergetic prophet  class,  which  had  had  so  much  to 
do  with  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
had  found  its  grave  with  Elisha.  The  prophets 
Amos  and  Hosea,  who  appeared  during  the  reigns 
of  the  last  kings  of  the  house  of  Israel,  saw  their 
activity  limited  to  rebukes  and  reproofs.  The  for- 
mer was  banished  from  Bethel  as  an  inciter  of  sedi- 
tion. The  ancient  prophets  do  not  seem  to  have 
recorded  anything  which  would  cast  upon  the 
kings  or  the  people  of  Israel  the  reproach  of  an 
idolatry  which  was  stained  by  human  blood,  as  the 
historical  and  prophetical  books  do  for  several  of 
the  kings  of  Judah,  although  they  are  severe 
enough  in  their  denunciations  of  the  vices,  and  of 
the  illegitimate  forms  of  worship,  of  the  northern 
kingdom.  It  is  true  that  the  institution  of  the 
prophets  had  shown  itself  incapable  of  arresting 
the  decline  of  the  northern  kingdom,  or  of  setting 
up  a  strong  dynasty  in  the  place  of  the  regular 
succession  which  had  been  broken  by  the  over- 
throw of  the  house  of  Omri,  and  that,  in  Judah.  the 
duration  of  the  kingdom  of  the  house  of  David  had 
been  preserved,  by  the  help  of  the  priesthood,  yet 
even  there  the  final  ruin  had  only  been  postponed 
for  a  century."  As  for  this  last  conception  of  the 
history,  which  in  fact  makes  the  prophets  respon- 
sible for  the  fall  of  Israel,  in  the  first  place  it  runs 
directly  counter  to  the  entire  history  of  the  re- 
demptive scheme,  and  in  so  far  needs  no  refuta- 
tion. It  only  shows  how  far  astray  we  may  go,  if 
we  give  up  and  abandon  the  stand-point  from 
which  alone  this  history  claims  to  be  considered, 
and  from  which  alone  it  can  be  understood.  But 
the  first  representation  quoted  above  is,  to  say  the 
least,  destitute  of  foundation,  for  the  text,  which 
says  no  more  than  that  Shalmaneser,  after  24 
years'  siege,  took  the  city,  does  not  by  any  means 
intend  by  this  to  chant  a  song  of  praise  and  glory 
over  the  fallen  city.  There  is  no  syllable  to  imply 
that  this  siege  was  lengthened  out  by  the  brave 
and  "  heroic  resistance  "  of  the  inhabitants.  The 
great  allied  army  of  the  Syrians  and  the  Israelites 
besieged  Jerusalem  for  a  long  time,  and  neverthe- 
less could  not  take  it  (chap.  xvi.  5),  though  the 
cowardly  Ahaz  did  not  offer  heroic  resistance. 
Shalmaneser  was  at  the  same  time  carrying  on 
war  with  the  surrounding  people,  by  which  the 
strength  of  his  army  was  divided.  Moreover,  Sa- 
maria had  a  very  strong  site  on  a  hill.  Still  other  cir- 
rumstances  which  are  not  mentioned  may  have  con- 


spired to  lengthen  out  the  siege.  Although  the  city 
may  have  been  bravely  defended,  which  certainly 
is  very  possible,  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
northern  kingdom  "  fell  with  honor."  It  is  impos- 
sible to.  speak  of  the  "  glorious  end  "  of  a  kingdom 
which  was  in  a  state  of  anarchy,  and  which  was 
politically,  morally,  and  religiously  rotten  and  shat- 
tered, as  the  contemporary  prophets  testify  in  the 
plainest  and  strongest  terms.  The  praise  which  is 
awarded,  however,  is  most  plainly  shown  to  be 
undeserved  by  the  review  which  the  ancient  his- 
torian himself  gives  of  the  decline  and  fall  of 
Israel. 


HOMTT.KTICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-6.  The  last  King  of  Israel,  a)  "  He  did, 
4c,  yet  not,  4c,"  ver.  2.  (Though  he  did  not  gc 
so  far  in  wickedness  as  the  18  who  preceded  him, 
nevertheless  he  did  not  walk  in  the  way  of  salva- 
tion. Half-way  conversion  is  no  conversion.  In 
order  to  bring  back  the  nation  from  its  wicked 
ways,  he  should  have  been  himself  devoted  to  the 
Lord  with  all  his  heart.  When  people  are  not 
fully  in  earnest  in  their  conversion,  then  there  is 
no  cessation  of  corruption,  whether  it  be  the  case 
of  an  individual  or  of  a  State.)  b)  He  makes  a  cov- 
enant with  the  king  of  Egypt,  ver.  4.  (By  this  he 
showed  that  his  heart  was  not  perfect  with  God. 
Egypt,  the  very  power  out  of  whose  hand  God  had 
wonderfully  rescued  His  people,  was  to*help  him 
against  Assyria.  But:  "  Cursed  be  the  man,"  4c, 
Jerem.  xvii.  5,  7;  Hos.  vii.  11—13.  "Woe  to 
them,"  4c,  Isai.  xxxi.  1.  "It  is  better,"  &c.  Ps. 
cxviii.  8,  9 ;  xci.  1.  sq.).  c)  He  loses  his  land  and 
his  people  and  is  cast  into  prison,  vers.  4-6.  (By 
conspiracy  and  murder  he  had  attained  to  the 
throne  and  to  the  highest  pitch  of  human  great- 
ness, but  his  end  was  disgrace,  misery,  and  life 
long  imprisonment,  Ps.  i.  1-6.  Thus  ended  the 
kingdom  of  Israel,  Isai.  xxviii.  1-4.) — Cramer: 
Godless  men  thiuk  that  they  will  escape  punish- 
ment though  they  do  not  repent.  They  therefore 
fall  into  discontent;  as  a  result  of  such  discontent 
they  have  recourse  to  forbidden  means,  such  as  per- 
jury, treachery,  and  secret  plots.  They  hew  them 
out  cisterns  that  can  hold  no  water,  Jerem.  ii.  13, 
for  it  is  vain  to  make  covenants  with  the  godless, 
and  to  neglect  the  true  God  (Hos.  vii.  11). — Starke: 
Upon  him  who  will  not  be  humbled  by  small  evils 
God  sends  great  and  heavy  ones  (1  Peter  v.  6). 

Vers.  7-23.  The  fall  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  a)  It  was  the  result  of  the  sin  and  guilt  of 
the  people.  (Separation  from  the  other  tribes  and 
dissolution  of  the  national  unity — revolt  from  the 
national  covenant  and  overthrow  of  the  Law — de- 
generation  into  heathenism — persistence  in  sin — 
moral  and  religious  corruption,  Matt.  xii.  25 ;  Hos. 
xiii.  9.)  It  was  a  judgment  of  the  just  and  holy 
God.  ("I,  the  Lord,  .  .  .  give  to  every  man 
according  to  his  ways;"  Jerem.  xvii.  10  ;  Rom.  ii. 
5,  6  :  "  The  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,"  etc., 
Ex.  xxxiv.  6:  "God  is  not  mocked,"  Gal.  vi.  7. 
He  guarded  the  kingdom  of  Israel  for  250  years  in 
patience  and  long-suffering.  He  warned,  and 
threatened,  and  taught,  and  chastised,  and  sent 
messengers  to  summon  them  to  return.  When 
all  proved  vain  He  sent  the  Assyrians,  the  rod  of 
His  wrath  and  the  staff  of  His  indignation,  Isai.  x. 
5,  6.     He  removed  them   from  before    His   face. 


19J- 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


The  judgment  never  fails  to  come.  It  does  not 
come  at  once,  it  is  often  delayed  for  centuries, 
but  it  comes  at  last,  upon  States  as  well  as  upon 
individuals,  1  Cor.  x.  11,  12.) — Berleb.  Bibei.: 
Would  that  men,  when  they  read  such  passages, 
would  stop  and  think,  and  would  enter  upon  a 
comparison  between  the  people  of  God  of  that 
time  and  of  this,  and  would  thus  make  application 
of  the  lesson  of  history.  The  people  of  Israel  were 
hardly  as  wicked  as  the  Christians  of  to-day.  The 
responsibility  to-day  is  far  greater,  for  they  were 
called  to  righteousness  under  the  old  Law,  we  un- 
der the  Gospel  of  free  grace.  The  people  of  the 
ten  tribes  did  not  reject  belief  in  the  God  who  had 
brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  when  they  founded  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  (1  Kings  xii.  28),  but  they  made 
to  themselves,  contrary  to  the  law  of  this  God,  an 
image  of  Him.  This  was  the  beginning  of  their 
downfall,  the  germ  of  their  ruin,  which  produced 
all  the  evil  fruits  which  followed.  This  led  from 
error  to  error.  They  commenced  with  an  image  of 
Jehovah  ;  they  finished  with  the  frightful  sacrifices 
of  Moloch.  He  who  has  once  abandoned  the  cen- 
tre of  revealed  truth,  sinks  inevitably  deeper  and 
deeper,  either  into  unbelief  or  into  superstition,  so 
that  he  finally  comes  to  consider  darkness  light, 
and  folly  wisdom.  So  it  was  in  Israel,  so  it  is  now 
in  Christendom.  lie  who  abandons  the  central 
truth  of  Christianity,  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is 
in  the  way  of  losing  God.  for  '-Whosoever  denieth 
the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father"  (1  John  ii. 
23). — A  nation  which  no  longer  respects  the  word 
of  God,  but  makes  a  religion  for  itself  according  to 
its  own  good  pleasure,  will  sooner  or  later  come  to 
ruin. — Vers.  9-12.  External  rites  of  worship  were 
not  wanting  in  the  land  of  Israel.  In  all  the  cities, 
on  all  the  mountains  and  hills,  under  all  the  green 
trees,  there  were  places  for  prayer,  altars,  and 
images,  but  nevertheless  the  true  God  was  not 
known  (Acts  xvii.  22,  23),  and  no  worship  of  the 
true  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth  existed.  Their 
heart  was  darkened  in  spite  of  all  their  worship 
(Rom.  i.  21,  23),  because  they  did  not  revere  the 
word  of  God,  and  placed  their  light  under  a  bushel. 
So  it  was  at  the  time  when  Luther  appeared,  and 
so  it  is  yet  everywhere  where  the  light  of  the 
Gospel  is  not  set  upon  a  candlestick  that  it  may 
give  light  to  the  whole  house.  What  is  the  use 
of  crucifixes  if  the  Crucified  One  dwell  not  in  the 
heart,  and  if  the  flesh  with  its  lusts  be  not  cruci- 
fied?— Vers.  13,  14.  Starke:  Before  God  sends 
forth  His  judgments  and  chastisements,  He  sends 
out  true  and  upright  teachers  who  call  the  people 
to  repentance  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  15,  1U). — The  Lord 
still  provides  a  testimony  of  Himself,  and  sends  to 
the  unbelieving  and  perverse  world  this  message 
by  His  faithful  servants:  Turn  ye  from  your  evil 
ways!  But,  as  it  was  with  Israel,  so  it  is  still; 
those  who  preach  repentance  are  laughed  to  scorn. 
He,  however,  who  does  not  listen  to  the  exhorta- 
tion to  repentance,  does  not  remain  as  he  was,  he 
becomes  continually  worse  and  worse.  If  such  a 
hea\y  punishment  fell  upon  those  who  would  not 
hear  the  prophets,  what  must  those  expect  who  do 
not  listen  to  the  words  of  the  Son  of  God,  but  per- 
severe in  their  unbelief  and  in  their  sins?  Heb. 
iv.  7  ;  x.  2!i.  V,rs.  15-17.  Contempt  for  the  cove- 
nant and  for  the  testimonies  of  God  makes  men 
"vain,"  that  is,  in  Jin  'nut  and  empty,  like  the 
heathen  whose  g'»l-  atv  nothingness.  [A  heathen 
trod  is  nothing,  a  nullity,  it  is  emptiness,  u  name 


for  something  which  does  not  exist,  vanity.  Peo 
pie  who  worship  them  make  themselves  empty, 
insignificant,  and  vain.]  The  further  a  man  re- 
moves himself  from  God,  the  more  vain  and  insig- 
nificant he  becomes,  however  learned  and  culti- 
vated he  may  be,  and  however  highly  esteemed  he 
may  appear. — If  an  entire  people  falls  into  slavery 
and  misery,  or  even  loses  its  national  existence 
the  reason  for  it  must  not  be  sought  merely  in  ex- 
ternal, political  circumstances,  but,  first  of  all,  in 
its  apostasy  from  the  living  God  and  His  word. 
— Berl.  Bibel:  They  rejected  His  ordinances,  not 
indeed  by  a  declaration  in  words,  but  by  theii  life 
and  conduct.  What  can  be  regarded  among  us  as 
more  explicit  rejection  and  contempt  of  God,  than 
to  assert  and  to  try  to  convince  one's  self  that 
it  is  impossible  to  keep  God's  ordinances  ?  Only 
look  at  Christ's  ordinances  in  Matt,  v.,  vi.,  and  vii., 
and  compare  them  with  the  maxims  which  we  pro- 
fess, and  then  say  whether  more  of  us  accept  than 
reject  the  former.  How  do  we  keep  the  covenant 
which  we  have  made  in  baptism,  to  conduct  our- 
selves as  those  who  belong  to  God  (Gal.  v.  24)  / 
But  that  covenant  is  the  covenant  of  a  good  con- 
science towards  God  (1  Peter  iii.  21).  If  we  take 
up  the  point  of  "vanity,"  we  may  use  the  words 
of  Eccl.  i.  2.  Our  speeches,  our  works,  our  dress, 
our  buildings,  our  food,  and  all  our  habits  of  mind 
bear  testimony  of  its  truth.  They  served  Baal ;  we 
serve  the  belly,  mammon,  the  world,  nay,  even  the 
devil  himself,  Rom.  vi.  16.  They  caused  their 
children  to  pass  through  the  fire ;  through  how 
many  dangerous  fires  of  worldly  lust  we  cause  our 
children  to  pass  ?  Most  of  them  are  so  corrupted 
by  false  education,  and  so  much  trained  to  evil  by 
false  example,  that  finally  parents  and  children  fall 
together  into  the  eternal  fire. — Ver.  18.  Kyburz: 
The  kingdom  of  Israel  had  nineteen  kings,  and 
not  one  of  them  was  truly  pious.  Wonder  not  at 
the  wrath  but  at  the  patience  of  God,  in  that  He 
endured  their  evil  ways  for  many  hundred  years, 
and  at  their  ingratitude,  that  they  did  not  allow 
themselves,  by  His  long-suffering,  to  be  led  to  re 
pentance.  Is  it  any  better  nowadays? — Ver.  19. 
Ricuter:  Judah  was  corrupted  by  Israel  as  Ger- 
many was  by  France.  Observe  :  Israel  was  never 
improved  by  the  good  which  still  remained  in 
Judah,  but  judah  was  only  too  often  corrupted  by 
the  evil  in  Israel.  Evil  conquers  and  spreads  faster 
than  good. — Vers.  20-23.  Pfaff.  Bibel  :  When 
the  measure  of  sin  is  full,  then  at  last  the  judg- 
ments of  God  begin  to  fall  (Ps.  vii.  11-12). — Wi-rt 
Summ.  :  We  should  see  ourselves  in  this  mirror 
and  not  bring  on  and  hasten  the  ruin  of  our  father- 
land by  our  sins,  for  what  here  befell  the  kingdom 
of  Israel,  or  even  more,  may  befall  us  (Rom.  xi. 
21). 

Vers.  24-41.  The  Land  of  the  Ten  Tribes  aftei 
their  Exile,  o)  The  substitution  of  foreign  and 
heathen  nations  for  the  Israelitish  population,  vers. 
21-33.  b)  The  religious  state  of  things  in  the 
country,  which  was  produced  by  this.  Cramer  : 
It  is  indeed  a  great  calamity  when  the  inhabitants 
of  a  country  are  expelled,  with  their  wives  and 
children,  by  the  invasion  of  foreign  nations ;  but  it 
is  a  still  greater  misfortune  when  the  devil's  tem 
pie  is  set  up  in  places  where  the  worship  of  the 
true  God  has  been  celebrated  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  3). — WuKT. 
Summ.:  The  land  in  which  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
preached  has  fared  as  did  the  land  of  Israel;  the 
Koran   now   prevails   there.     So  also  have  many 


CHAPTER  XVII.  1-41. 


105 


other  cities  and  States  tared,  which  now  hear  the 
doctrines  of  Antichrist,  instead  of  the  doctrines  of 
Christ.  Therefore  we  ought  to  guard  ourselves 
against  contempt  of  the  word  of  God,  that  God 
may  not  be  led  to  chastise  our  land  and  church 
also  (Rev.  ii.  5). — Vers.  25-28.  The  heathen  immi- 
grants imagined  that,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the 
plague  of  the  lions,  it  was  necessary  to  observe 
particular  religious  ceremonies.  This  fancy  pre- 
vails yet  to  a  considerable  extent  even  in  Christen- 
dom. People  think  that  they  can  be  delivered  from 
all  sorts  of  evil  by  practising  certain  rites,  whereas 
no  religious  acts  are  pleasing  to  Almighty  God,  or 
have  value,  unless  they  are  an  involuntary,  direct 
expression  of  living  faith,  and  cjf  surrender  of  the 
heart  to  God. — Ver.  2T.  The  king  of  Assyria,  a 
heathen,  took  care  that  the  religious  necessities  of 
his  subjects  should  be  provided  for.  He  even  sent 
a  priest  of  Jehovah  to  teach  them.  Would  that  all 
Christian  rulers  were  like  him  in  this  !  Vers.  29- 
33.  A  country  cannot  fall  lower  than  it  does  when 
each  man  makes  unto  himself  his  own  god.  We 
are  indeed  beyond  the  danger  of  making  to  our- 
selves idols  of  wood  and  stone,  silver  and  gold,  but 
we  are  none  the  less  disposed  to  form  idols  for  our- 
selves out  of  our  own  imaginations,  ami  not  to  fear 
and  worship  the  one  true  God  as  He  has  revealed 
Himself  to  us.  That  is  the  cultivated  heathenism 
of  the  present  day.  Some  make  to  themselves  a 
god  who  dwells  above  the  stars  and  does  not  care 
much  for  the  omissions  or  commissions  of  men 
upon  earth:  others,  one  who  can  do  everything 
but  chastise  and  punish,  or  one  in  whose  sight 
men  forgive  themselves  their  own  sins ;  who  does 
not  recompense  each  according  to  his  works,  but 
forgives  all  without  discrimination,  and  who  opens 
heaven  to  all  alike,  no  matter  how  they  have  lived 


upon  earth  (Jerem.  x.  14,  15). — Ver.  29.  Crimer: 
Sketch  of  the  papacy,  under  which  each  country, 
city,  and  house  has  its  own  divinity,  its  saint  and 
patron.  ("  0  Israel !  .  .  in  me  is  thine  help : '' 
Hos.  xiii.  9  ;  see  also  ver.  39  of  this  chapter). — Ver. 
33.  Berl.  Bib.  They  feared  the  Lord  and  worship- 
ped their  own  idols !  Is  not  that  exactly  the  state 
of  things  amongst  us?  We  want  to  serve  mors 
than  one  Lord.  We  have  invented  a  kind  of  feat 
of  God  with  which  the  worship  of  gold,  fame,  and 
worldly  enjoyment,  and,  above  all.  of  selfishness, 
is  not  inconsistent,  nay,  it  is  rather  a  component 
part  of  it. — Ver.  34,  sq.  Decay  in  religious  matters, 
lack  of  unity  of  conviction  in  the  highest  and 
noblest  affairs,  prevents  a  nation  from  ever  becom- 
ing great  and  strong.  It  is  a  sign  of  the  most  rad- 
ical corruption.  Similarity  of  faith  and  community 
of  worship  form  a  strong  uniting  force,  and  are  the 
condition  of  true  national  unity.  The  existence  of 
different  creeds  and  confessions  by  the  side  of  one 
another  is  a  source  of  national  weakness.  It  is  an 
error  to  try  to  produce  this  unity  by  force;  it  is  a 
blessing  only  when  it  proceeds  from  a  free  convic- 
tion (Eph.  iv.  3-6). — J.  Lange:  The  correct  appli- 
cation of  the  lesson  of  this  passage  is  to  abstain 
from  communion  with  whatever  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Christian  religion,  for,  outside  of  Chris- 
tianity there  are,  besides  the  errors  which  under- 
mine the  foundation  of  faith,  also  those  ordinances 
of  men,  and  service  of  the  world  and  sin,  which, 
alas!  the  majority,  even  in  evangelical  churches, 
while  they  have  knowledge  of  the  pure  truth  of 
the  gospel,  yet  endeavor  to  unite  with  pure  religion. 
Verily,  to  serve  God  and  sin  at  the  same  time  ts 
as  radical  an  apostasy  from  true  religion  as  ever 
the  errors  of  the  Samaritans  were. 


196  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


THIRD    PERIOD. 

(727-588  B.C.) 

THE  MONARCHY  IN  JUDAH  AFTER  THE  FALL  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

OF  ISRAEL. 

(2  KINGS  XVIIL-XXV.) 


FIRST    SECTION. 

THE   MONAEOHT    UNDER   HEZEKIAH. 

(Chaps.  XVIII.— XX.) 


A.. —  The  Reign  of  Hezekiah;  the  Invasion  by  Sennacherib,  and  Deliverance  from  it. 
Chaps.  XVIII.  and  XIX.    (Isai.  XXXVI.  and  XXXVII.) 

1  Now  it  came  to  pass  in  the  third  year  of  Hoshea  son  of  El  ah  king  of  Isiael, 
that  Hezekiah  the  son  of  Ahaz  king  of  Judah  began  to  reign  [became  king]. 

2  Twenty  and  five  years  old  was  he  when  he  began  to  reign  [became  king]  ;  and 
he  reigned  twenty  and  nine  years  in  Jerusalem.     His  mother's  name  also  was 

3  Abi,  the  daughter  of  Zachariah.     And  he  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight 

4  of  the  Lord,  according  [like]  to  all  that  David  his  father  did.  He  removed  the  high 
places,  and  brake  the  images,  and  cut  down  the  groves  [Astarte-statues],  and 
brake  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent  that  Moses  had  made  :  for  unto  those  days 
the  children  of  Israel  did  burn  incense  to  it:  and  he  [they]  '  called  it  Nehush- 

5  tan.'     He  trusted  in  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ;  so  that  after  him  was  none  like 

6  him  among  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  nor  any  that  were  before  him.  For  he  clave 
to  the   Lord,  and  departed   not  [did  not  swerve]  from  following  him,  but  kept 

7  his  commandments,  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses.  And  the  Lord  was  with 
him;  and  he  prospered  whithersoever  he  went  forth  [in  all  his  goings-forth ; — 
t. «.,  in  everything  which  he  went  oat  to  do] :  and  [omit  and — insert — ]  he  rebelled  against  the 

8  king  of  Assyria,  and  served  him  not.  [;]  [^//c?]  He  smote  the  Philistines,  even 
unto  Gaza,  and  the  borders  thereof,  from  the  tower  of  the  watchmen  to  the 
fenced  city. 

9  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fourth  year  of  king  Hezekiah,  which  was  the 
seventh  year  of  Hoshea  son  of  Elah  king  of  Israel,  that  Shalmaneser  king  of 

10  Assyria  came  up  against  Samaria,  and  besieged  it.      And  at  the  end  of  three 
years  they  took  it :  even  in  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah,  that  is  the  ninth  year  of 

11  Hoshea  king  of  Israel,  Samaria  was  taken.     And  the  king  of  Assyria  did  carry 
away  Israel  unto  Assyria,  and  put  them  in  Halah  and  in  [on  the]  II  bor  [,]  by 

12  the  river  of  \omit  of]  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes  [Media, :  Because 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX.  19T 

they  obeyed  not  the  voice  of  the  Lonl  their  God,  but  transgressed  his  covenant, 
and  all  that  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  commanded,  and  would  not  hear 
them,  nor  do  them. 

13  Now  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  king  Hezekiah  did  Sennacherib  kin s?  0f  As 

14  Syria  come  up  against  all  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them.3  And 
Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  sent  to  the  king  of  Assyria  to  Lachish,  saying,  I  have 
offended  [erred];  return  from  me:  that  which  thou  puttest  on  me  will  I  bear. 
Ami  the  king  of  Assyria   appointed   unto  [put  upon]   Hezekiah   king  of  Judah 

15  three  hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty  talents  of  gold.  And  Hezekiah  gave 
him  all  the  silver  that  was  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures 

16  of  the  king's  house.  At  that  time  did  Hezekiah.  cut  oft'  [strip]  the  gold  from 
[omit  the  </../</  from]  the  doors  of  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and  from  [omit  from] 
the  pillars4  which  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  had  overlaid,  and  gave  it  [them]  tc 
the  king  of  Assyria. 

17  And  the  king  of  Assyria  sent  Tartan  and  Rabsaris  and  Rab-shakeh  from 
Lachish  to  king  Hezekiah  with  a  great  host  against  Jerusalem  :  and  they  went 
up  and  came  to  Jerusalem.  And  when  they  were  come  up,  they  came  and  stood 
by  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  which  is  in  the  highway  of  "the  fuller's  field. 

IS  And  when  they  had  called  to  the  king,  there  came  out  to  them  Eliakim  the  son 
of  Hilkiah,  which  was  over  the  household,  and  Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah  the 

19  son  of  Asaph  the  recorder.  And  Rab-shakeh  said  unto  them.  Speak  ye  now  to 
Hezekiah,  Thus  saith  the  great  king,  the  king  of  Assyria,  What  confidence  is 

20  this  wherein  thou  trustest  ?  Thou  sayest,  (but  they  are  but  [omit  they  are  but] 
vain  words,  [it  is  a  saying  of  the  lips  only])  [:]  I  have  [There  is]  counsel  and 
strength  for  the  war.    Now  on  whom  dost  thou  trust,  that  thou  rebellest  against 

21  me?  Now,  behold,  thou  trustest  upon  the  staff* of  this  bruised  reed,  ereiinpou 
Egypt,  on  which  if  a  man   lean,  it  wrill  go  into  his  hand,  and  pierce  it :  so  is 

22  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  unto  all  that  trust  on  him.  But  if  ye  say  unto  me,  We 
trust  in  the  Lord  our  God  :  is  not  that  he,  whose  high  places  and  whose  altars 
Hezekiah  hath  taken  away,  and  hath  said  to   Judah   and  Jerusalem,   Ye  shall 

IV.  worship  before  this  altar  in  Jerusalem  ?  Now  therefore,  I  pray  thee,  give 
pledges  to  [make  a  bargain  with]  my  lord  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  I  will  deliver 
thee  two  thousand  horses,  if  thou  be  able  on  thy  part  to  set  riders  upon  them. 

24  How  then  wilt  thou  turn  away  the  face  of  [i.e.,  repulse,  put  to  flight]  one  captain  of 
[amongst]  the  least  of  my  master's  servants,  and  put   thy  trust   on  Egvpt  for 

25  chariots  and  for  horsemen?  Am  I  now  come  up  without  the  Lord  [uninsti- 
gated  by  Jehovah]  against  this  place  to  destroy  it  ?    The  Lord  said  to  me,  Go  up 

26  against  this  land,  and  destroy  it.  Then  said  Eliakim  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  and 
Shebna,  and  Joah,  unto  Rab-shakeh,  Speak,  I  pray  thee,  to  thy  servants  in  the 
Syrian  language;  for  we  understand  it:  and  talk  not  with  us  in  the  Jews'  lan- 

27  guage  in  the  ears  of  the  people  that  are  on  the  wall.  But  Rab-shakeh  said 
unto  them,  Hath  my  master  sent  me  to  thy  master,  and  to  thee,  to  speak  these 
words?  hath  he  not  sent  me  to  the  men  which  sit  on  the  wall,  that  they  may 

28  eat  their  own  dung,  and  drink  their  own  piss  with  you  ?  Then  Rab-shakeh 
stood  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice  in  the  Jews'  language,  and  spake,  saving,  Hear 

29  the  word  of  the  great  king,  the  king  of  Assyria:  Thus  saith  the  king,  Let  not. 
Hezekiah  deceive  you:  for  he  shall  not  be  able  to  deliver  you  out  of  his  [my]  ' 

30  hand  :  Neither  let  Hezekiah  make  you  trust  in  the  Lord,  saying,  The  Lord  will 
surely  deliver  us,  and  this  city  "shall  not  be  delivered  into  the  hand  of  the  king 

31  of  Assyria.  Hearken  not  to  Hezekiah  :  for  thus  saith  the  king  of  Assyria, 
Make  an  agreement  [terms,]  with  me  by  a  present  [omit  by  a  present],  and  ome 
out  to  me,  and  then  eat  ye  every  man  of  his  own  vine,  and  every  one  of  his  fig- 

32  tree,  and  drink  ye  every  one  the  waters  of  his  cistern :  Until  I  come  and  take 
you  away  to  a  land  like  your  own  land,  a  land  of  corn  and  wine,  a  land  of  bread 
and  vineyards,  a  land  of  oil  olive  and  of  honey,  that  ye  may  live,  and  not  die  : 
and  hearken  not  unto  Hezekiah,  when  he  persuadeth  you,  saying,  The  Lord  will 

33  deliver  us.  Hath  [Have]  any  of  [omit  any  of]  the  gods  of  the  nations  delivered 
at  all  [mu  at  all]   [each]  his  land  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria  * 


y8  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 

34  Where  are  the  gods  of  Hamath,  ami  of  Arpad?  where  are  the  gods  of  Sephar- 
vaim,  Hena,  and  Ivah  ?  have  they  delivered   Samaria  out  of  mine  hand   [that 

35  any  delivered  Samaria  out  of  mine  hand  ]  ?  Who  are  they  [there]  among  all 
the  gods  of  the  countries,  that  have  delivered  their  country  out  of  mine  hand, 

36  that  the  Lord  should  deliver  Jerusalem  out  of  mine  hand  ?  But  the  people 
held  their  peace,  and  answered  him  not  a  word  :  for  the  king's  commandment 

37  was,  saying.  Answer  him  not.  Then  came  Eliakim  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  which 
irns  over  the  household,  and  Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah  the  son  of  Asaph  the 
recorder,  to  Hezekiah  with  their  clothes  rent,  and  told  him  the  words  of  Rab- 

Chap.  xix.  1  shakeh.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  king  Hezekiah  heard  it,  that 
he  rent  his  clothes,  and  covered  himself  with  sackcloth,  and  went  into  the  house 

2  of  the  Lord.  And  he  sent  Eliakim,  which  was  over  the  household,  and  Shebna 
the  scribe,  and  the  elders  of  the  priests,  covered  with  sackcloth,  to  Isaiah  the 

3  prophet  the  son  of  Amoz.  And  they  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  Hezekiah,  This 
day  is  a  day  of  trouble  [distress],  and  of  rebuke  [chastisement],  and  blasphemy 
[rejection]  ;  for  the  children  are  come  to  the  birth  [opening  of  the  womb],'  and 

I  there  is  not  strength  to  bring  forth.  It  may  be  the  Lord  thy  God  will  hear  all  the 
words  of  Rab-shakeh,  whom  the  king  of  Assyria  his  master  hath  sent  to  reproach 
[blaspheme]  the  living  God  ;  and  will  reprove  the  words  which   the  Lord  thy 

5  God  hath  heard  :  wherefore  lift  up  tlry  prayer  for  the  remnant  that  are  left.     So 

6  the  servants  of  king  Hezekiah  came  to  Isaiah.  And  Isaiah  said  unto  them. 
Thus  shall  ye  say  to  your  master,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Be  not  afraid  of  the 
words  which  thou  hast  heard,  with  which  the  servants  [minions]  of  the  king 

7  of  Assyria  have  blasphemed  me.  Behold  I  will  send  a  blast  upon  him  [I  will 
inspire  him  with  such  a  spirit  that],  and  [when — omit  and]  he  shall  hear  a 
rumour,  and  [he — omit  and]  shall  return  to  his  own  land  ;  and  I  will  cause  him 
to  fall  by  the  sword  in  his  own  land. 

8  So  Rab-shakeh  returned,  and  found  the  king  of  Assyria  warring  against  Lib- 

9  nah  :  for  he  had  heard  that  he  was  departed  from  Lachish.  And  when  he  heard 
say  of  Tirhakah  king  of  Ethiopia,  Behold,  he  is  come  out  to  fight  against  thee ; 

10  he  sent  messengers  again  unto  Hezekiah,  saying,  Thus  shall  ye  speak  to  Heze- 
kiah king  of  Judah,  saying,  Let  not  thy  God  in  whom  thou  trustest  deceive  thee, 
saying,  Jerusalem  shall  not  be  delivered  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria. 

11  Behold,  thou  hast  heard  what  the  kings  of  Assyria  have  done  to  all  lands,  by 

12  [in]  destroying  them  e  utterly:  and  shalt  thou  be  delivered?  Have  the  gods 
of  the  nations  delivered  them  which  my  fathers  have  destroyed  ;  as  Gozan,  and 

13  Haran,  and  Rezeph,  and  the  children  of  Eden  which  xcere  in  Thelasar?  Where 
is  the  king  of  Hamath,  and  the  king  of  Arpad,  and  the  king  of  the  city  of 
Sepharvaim,  of  Hena,  and  Ivah  ? 

14  And  Hezekiah  received  the  letter  of  the  hand  of  the  messengers,  and  read  it : 
and  Hezekiah  went  up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  spread  it  before  the  Lord. 

15  And  Hezekiah  prayed  before  the  Lord,  and  said,  O  Lord  God  of  Israel,  which 
dwellest  between  the  cherubim,  thou  art  the  God,  even  thou  alone,  of  all  the 

16  kingdoms  of  the  earth ;  thou  hast  made  heaven  and  earth.  Lord,  bow  down 
thine  ear,  and  hear :  open,  Lord,  thine  eyes,  and  see :  and  hear  the  words  ot 
Sennacherib,  which  [he]  hath  sent  him  [omit  him]  to  reproach  the  living  God. 

17  Of  a  truth,  Lord,  the  kings  of  Assyria  have  destroyed  the  nations  and  their 

18  lands,  And  have  cast  their  gods  into  the  fire:  for  they  were  no  gods,  but  the 
work  of  men's  hands,  wood  and  stone:  therefore  they  have  destroyed  them 

i9  Now  therefore,  O  Lord  our  God,  I  beseech  thee,  save  thou  us  out  of  his  hand 
that  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  may  know  that  thou  art  the  Lord  God,  even 
thou  only. 

20  Then  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  sent  to  Hezekiah,  saying,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel,   That  which  thou  hast  prayed  to  me   against   Sennache- 

21  rib  king  of  Assyria  I  have  heard.  This  is  the  word  that  the  Lord  hath  spokeia 
concerning  him: 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX.  199 


[oracle  of  god  in  regard  to  the  impending  danger.] 

[I.  Scornful  Rebuke  of  Sennacherib 's  Roast.] 

She  despises  thee,  she  scorns  thee, — the  virgin  daughter,  Zion  ! 
She  wags  her  head  at  thee,  the  daughter,  Jerusalem ! 

22  Whom  hast  thou  insulted  and  blasphemed  ?  against  whom  hast  thou  lifted  voice  ? 
Thou  hast  even  lifted  thine  eyes  on  high  against  the  Holy  One  of  Israel ! 

23  Through  thy  messengers  thou  hast  insulted  the  Lord,  and  hast  said : 

"  I  come  up  with  my  chariots  on  chariots  10  to  the  top  of  the  mountains,  to  Leb- 
anon's summit ; 
And  I  hew  down  its  loftiest  cedars  and  its  choicest  cypresses ; 
And  I  come  to  its  summit  as  a  resting-place, 
To  its  forest-grove. 

24  I  dig,  and  I  drink  the  waters  of  foreign  nations  ; 

Yea  !  I  parch  up  with  the  sole  of  my  foot  all  the  rivers  of  Egypt !  " 

[II.  Refutation  of  his  Self-assumjytion.] 

25  Hast  thou  not  heard  ? — Of  old  time  I  made  it — 
From  ancient  days  I  ordained  its  course; 

Now  I  have  brought  it  to  pass, — 

And  thou  art  [my  instrument]  to  reduce"  fortified  cities  to  heaps  of  ruins 

26  Therefore  their  inhabitants  were  short-handed; 
They  despaired  and  were  terror-stricken  ; 

They  were  grass  of  the  field  and  green  herb ; 

Grass  of  the  house-top,  and  corn  blasted  in  the  germ. 

27  So,  thy  resting  in  peace,  and  thy  going  out,  and  thy  coming  in,  I  know;  " 
Also  thy  violent  rage  against  me  ; 

28  For  thy  violent  rage  and  thine  arrogance  are  come  up  into  mine  ears, 
And  I  will  put  my  hook  in  thy  nose,  and  my  bridle  in  thy  lips, 

And  I  will  lead  thee  back  by  the  way  by  which  thou  earnest. 

[III.  Encouragement  to  Judah  and  Hezekiah.] 

29  And  this  be  the  sign  to  thee : — ■ 

Eating  one  year  what  springs  of  itself  from  the  leavings  of  the  previous  crop, 

And  the  second  year  the   vild  growth, 

And  the  third  year  sow,  and  reap,  and  plant  vineyards,  and  eat  their  fruit. 

30  And  the  surviving  remnant  of  the  house  of  Judah  shall  take  root  again  dowi» 

wards, 
And  shall  bear  fruit  again  upwards  ; 

31  For  from  Jerusalem  shall  go  forth  a  remnant,  and  from  Mount  Zion  a  rescued 

band  : — 
The  zeal  of  Jehovah  (of  Hosts) 13  shall  do  this  ! 

[IV.    God's  Decree  in  regard  to  the  Crisis.] 

32  Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Eternal  in  regard  to  the  king  of  Assyria: — 
He  shall  not  come  against  this  city, 

Nor  shoot  an  arrow  there, 

Nor  assault  it  with  a  shield, 

Nor  throw  up  a  siege  wall  against  it. 

33  By  the  way  by  which  he  came  he  shall  return, 

And  he  shall  not  come  against  this  city ; — is  the  decree  of  the  Eternal ; 

34  But  I  will  protect  this  city  to  save  it, 

For  mine  own  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  David,  my  servant. 


200 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


35 


And  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  went  out,  and 
smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  a  hundred  fourscore  and  five  thousand  :  and 
36  when  they  arose  early  in  the  morning,  behold,  they  wert  ill  dead  [,]  corpses.   _  So 
Sennacherib  kins;  of  Assyria  departed,  and  went  and  returned,  and  dwelt  at  Nine- 

in  the  house  of  Nisroch  his 


37  veh.     And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  was  worshipping 
god,  that  Adrammelech  and  Sharezer  his  sons  "  sm 


smote  him  with  the  sword:  and 


they  escaped  into  the  land  of  Armenia   [Ararat]. 
reigned  in  his  stead. 


And  Esarhaddou  his   son 


TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL, 
i  Ver.  4.— f  M-|T1  is  singular,  but  with  the  indefinite  subject,  equivalent  to  an  English  indefinite  pluraL 

>  Ver.  4.— [  jnt^rO  ,   the  thi"g  "■?  brM>' 

3  Ver  18— r  n"'"NVV— Tue  masculine  suffix  is  used  (though  the  feminine  would  be  correct)  as  the  more  general, 
mnd  universal.  This  is  not'rare.  Cf.  Gen.  xxxi.  9  ;  Amos  iii.  2 ;  Jerem.  ix.  19;  2  Sam.  xx.  8;  Ew.  §  184,  c-In  the  clas- 
sical nassaees  ("  I'rose  of  the  priests  ")  such  irregularities  do  not  occur,  but  in  the  prose  of  less  cultivated  writers  (laymen), 
li  \  .  u Hr~,  uetrv.  and  in  the  later  language,  they  are  frequent.    See  ver.  16.  and  chap.  xix.  11  (liiittcher,  §  ST7,  8). 

«  Ver.  16.— [  niJDXn  —Elsewhere  we  find  niTTO  for  doorPosU-  BSnr  aaTB  that  the  worQB  are  synonymous,  but 
Thenius'  explanation  is  better.  He  thinks  that  niJOJCri  refer8.  not  only  to  the  door-posw,  but  also  the  door-/ram«,  sill, 
and  lintel-  i  e  all  which  gives  stability,  strength,  and  shape,  (  pX  ),  t0  the  door-opening.— On  the  suffix  in  Qjj-pl  , 
see  Gramm.  note  3,  above.— The  patach  in  pjfp  is  due  to  the  guttural  which  followB.     Cf.  chap.  xxi.  8 :  pppjn  -|3X 

IBOttcher,  |g®3nsteUi'o?^so     which  is  wanting  in  the  text  of  Isaiah,  we  most  read,  with  all  the  old  versions,  vjsp  ._ 

•  Ver.  80,-[The  ]-|j{  before  "VyD  is  wal'ting  in  Isai.  xxxvi.  15.    It  is  important  as  bearing  on  the  question  whether 


BShr 


j  ever  stands  with  a' proper  nominative.    Ewald  admits  that,  if  the  nx  in  this  place  were  properly  in  the  text,  we 
instance.    He  adopts  the  reading  in  Isaiah,  erases  the  nX  ,  »nd  says  that  this  particle  "never  becomes 


should  have  one 


^M£nn1^^ 

th 


affirms  that  J-|X  occurs 

ire  cases  where  it  occurs 

this  verv  one).     Cf.  chap.  vi.  5,  and  vni.  2S,  Gramm.  no 

he  reading  with  nv  which  our  text  offers  us:-" This  very  city,"  or,  "  This  city  here.' 


I  Chap.  xix.  ver.  8—  [IJ&O  !  oriftctum  uteri. 

k  Ver.  11.— [On  the  sufBx  in  DDv"l'"ir6  ,  see  6ra""'  note  on  choD-  xviii-  13  (note  8'  aboTe)- 
'  Ver.  15.-[In  Isaiah  we  fin.l  p^L"  inRtead  of  )rbv  ■     "The  8ufflx  "'"*  t0  'T31  "  "  sineular  object,- the 

m^^TerK^rSer,rteche«lMB.^fadopU  the  keri  (see  Hz*,  on  the  verse).    However,  as  he  says,  th,  <ense  is 
the  same.    The  idiom  in  the  chetib  is  similar  to  the  one  by  which  it  is  rendered  in  the  translation.- W.  G.  8.] 

II  ver  25.— nteJiT?19  shortened  from  the  keri  niNETl?  ,  which  is  found  in  Isai.  xxxvli.  26.— Bahr. 

£  £?5ktaif«e^^ 

"'^er^Kis^ 
ixxvil.  32,  and  ix.  6.— Bahr. 


Preliminary  Remarks. — We  have,  besides  the 
narrative  before  us  in  chaps,  xviii.,  xix.,  and  xx., 
two  other  accounts  of  HezekiaKs  reign,  one  in 
Isai.  xxxvi.-xxxix.,  and  the  other  in  2  Chron.  xxix.- 
xxxii.  To  these  authorities  may  be  added  some  of 
the  prophecies,  especially  of  Isaiah,  who  had  great 
influence  at  this  time.  The  first  question  which 
arises,  therefore,  is  this:  what  relation  do  these 
various  accounts  bear  to  one  another? 

,1)  The  narrative  in  Isaiah,  xxxvi.-xxxix.,  agrees 
witli  the  one  before  us  from  chap,  xviii.  13  on,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  subordinate  details,  so  lite- 
rally, that  the  two  cannot  possibly  have  been  pro- 
duced  by  different  authors  independently  of  one 

, ther.     The  question  is:   whether  the  one  served 

11s  the  original  of  the  other?  or,  whether  both  were 
derived  independently  from  the  same  source? 
Different  opinions  are  maintained  in  answer  to 
lh<  se  questions,  but  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  en- 


ter into  a  careful  examination  of  them  in  detail. 
We  limit  ourselves  to  general  and  necessary  con- 
siderations. Gesenius  ( Commen.  zum  Jesai.  II.  s.  392 
sq.),  following  Eichhorn,  sought  to  show  in  detail 
that  the  account  before  us  is  the  original,  and  that 
the  one  in  Isaiah  is  borrowed  from  it.  De  Wette, 
Maurer,  Koster,  Winer,  and  others  take  the  same 
view.  The  chief  ground  for  this  opinion  is  that 
the  text  in  Isaiah  is  comparatively  more  condensed, 
that  it  presents  common  and  simple  wcrds  in  the 
place  of  those  in  the  text  which  are  rare  and  ob- 
scure, and  that  forms  which  belong  to  the  later 
usage  of  the  language  appear  in  it.  On  the  con- 
trary. Grotius,  Vitringa,  I'aulus,  Hendewerk,  and, 
most  recently,  Drechsler,  have  asserted  the  origi- 
nality and  priority  of  the  account  in  Isaiah.  In 
proof  of  this  they  bring  forward  the  following  con. 
siderations  :  The  account  in  Isaiah  cannot  be  bor 
rowed  from  that  in  Kings  because  it  contains  Heze 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX 


201 


kiah's  long  and  highly  important  hymn  of  grati- 
tude (chap,  xxxviii.  9-20),  which  is  entirely  want- 
ing in  the  latter:  The  language  in  Kings  is  the 
"more  careless  dialect  of  common  life,"  the  style 
is  "  inferior,"  while  the  version  in  Isaiah  is  more 
rich.  "  more  correct,  and  more  elegant."  When 
the  opinions  in  regard  to  the  st\de  and  language 
of  the  two  versions  are  so  diverse,  it  is  impossible 
to  deduce  any  arguments  from  this  consideration 
for  the  priority  of  either.  The  truth  is,  as  will 
appear  from  the  detailed  exegesis,  that,  as  far  as 
expression  and  language  are  concerned,  sometimes 
one  and  sometimes  the  other  version  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred. The  oinissioits  are  more  important.  The 
account  in  Isaiah  cannot  be  borrowed  from  that  in 
Kings  on  account  of  the  hymn  of  Hezekiah;  but 
it  is  just  as  certain  that  the  account  in  Kings  is  not 
based  upon  that  in  Isaiah,  for  it  contains  additions 
which  cannot  be  regarded  as  simple  assump- 
tions of  the  redactor;  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
passages  chap,  xviii.  14,  15,  and  especially  chap, 
xx.  7—1 1,  compared  with  Isai.  xxxviii.  7,  8,  21,  22. 
In  view  of  the  omissions  which  occur  sometimes 
ill  one  account  and  sometimes  in  the  other,  the 
majority  of  the  modern  expositors.  Rosenmiiller, 
Hitzig,  Umbreit.  Knobel,  Ewald,  Thenius,  Von 
Gerlaoh,  KeU,  suppose  that  both  narratives  are 
borrowed  from  a  common  source  which  we  no 
longer  possess.  This  seems  to  us  also  to  be  the 
correct  view,  though  we  cannot  agree  in  the  opin- 
ion that  the  "  Annals  of  the  Kingdom  "  were  the 
common  source,  for  both  accounts  bear  the  charac- 
ter of  prophetical,  and  not  of  mere  civil,  historical 
records.  The  source  was  more  probably  that  collec- 
tion of  histories  of  the  separate  reigns,  composed 
by  different  prophets,  of  which  we  spoke  in  the 
Introduction  g  3.  According  to  2  Chron.  xxxii.  33, 
Isaiah  was  the  author  of  the  history  of  Hezekiah, 
which  had  a  place  in  this  collection.  Neither  this 
narrative,  therefore,  nor  the  one  in  Isai.  xxxvi- 
xxxix..  is  Isaiah's  original  composition,  but  both  are 
borrowed  from  this,  which,  unfortunately,  we  no 
longer  possess.  Both  come  from  Isaiah  originally, 
but  neither  reproduces  accurately  and  fully  the 
original  account  Sometimes  one  and  sometimes 
the  other  approaches  nearer  to  the  original.  This 
view  is,  on  the  whole,  the  one  which  the  editors 
of  Drechsler's  Commentar  zu  Jesaia(ll.  s.  151  sq.), 
Delitsch  and  Hahu,  and  the  former  also  in  his  own 
Comm.  zu  Jes.  (s.  24,  351  sq.),  maintain.  But  they 
evidently  contradict  themselves  when  they  admit, 
on  the  one  hand.  "  that  the  text  in  the  book  of 
Kings  is.  in  many  cases,  and,  perhaps,  in  the  most, 
to  be  preferred  to  that  in  Isaiah,"  and  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  assert  that  "  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Kings  cannot  have  obtained  the  parallel  account 
xviii.  13-20.  xix.  from  any  other  source  than  the 
book  of  Isaiah."  It  is  true  that  Delitsch  appeals 
again  and  again  to  the  relation  between  Jer.  chap. 
lii.  and  2  Kings  xxiv.  18,  sq.  and  chap.  xxv.  as  "  an 
analogous  proof  that  the  text  of  a  passage  may  be 
more  faithfully  preserved  in  the  secondary  recen- 
sion than  in  the  original  one,  from  which  it  was  bor- 
rowed :  "  but,  although  it  is  possible  to  render  a  pure 
fountain  impure,  it  is  impossible  that  a  pure  stream 
should  flow  from  a  more  or  less  impure  fountain. 
How,  then,  can  a  secondary  text  be  better  and  purer 
than  the  primary  one  ?  [The  author  agrees  with  the 
authorities  mentioned  above  that  both  the  accounts 
ar»  borrowed  from  a  third  document  as  their  source. 
Neithf  r  one  of  the  accounts,  therefore,  as  toe  have 


them,  can  be  said  to  have  superior  claims  to  the 
other,  as  the  primary  recension.  No  one  will  deny 
that  the  ultimate  human  source  of  the  words  of 
the  oracle  was  the  brain  and  lips  of  Isaiah.  Whether 
he  himself  collected  and  arranged  his  prophecies 
in  the  form  in  which  we  have  them,  is  a  question 
to  be  treated  in  its  proper  place.-  If  we  assume 
that  he  did,  then  it  is  indeed  fair  to  suppose, 
wherever  any  doubt  arises,  that  he  cited  his  own 
words  more  accurately  than  another  could  do  it. 
But  now  we  have  to  take  account  of  the  history 
of  the  two  texts  since  they  left  the  hands  of  those 
who  put  the  book  of  Kings  and  the  book  of  Isaiah 
in  the  form  in  which  they  have  come  down  to  us — 
whoever  they  may  have  been.  In  the  course  of 
time  the  primary  recension  may  have  been  copied 
more  frequently,  and  by  other  means  also  have  in- 
curred more  corruptions  than  a  recension  which, 
in  the  first  place,  was  a  secondary  one.  This  is 
what  Drechsler  means  when  he  says  that  a  second- 
ary recension  may  have  retained  the  text  until  our 
tone  in  a  purer  form  than  the  primary  recension. 
An  element  is  here  introduced  which  interferes 
materially  with  any  apriori  claim  to  superior 
weight  which  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  the 
texts  before  us  may  make,  as  having  come  more 
directly  from  the  hand  of  the  original  author. 
We  are  thrown  back  upon  the  critical  examination 
of  each  individual  variant  in  each  account  to  de- 
termine which  reading  is  more  probably  the  "orig- 
inal "  and  correct  one.  The  question  which  text 
presents,  in  the  most  cases,  the  preferable  reading, 
is  one  which  can  only  be  decided  by  reviewing  the 
results  of  these  separate  critical  investigations. — 
W.  G.  S.]  Nevertheless,  we  believe  that  the  version 
in  Isaiah  was  written  earlier  than  the  one  in  Kings, 
for,  whatever  opinion  one  may  hold  in  regard  to 
the  time  of  composition  of  the  second  part  of 
Isaiah  (chaps,  xl.-lxvi.),  no  one  can  assert  that  the 
first  part  (chaps,  i.-xxxix.)  was  not  composed  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  Babylonian  Exile,  which  is  the 
time  of  composition  of  the  book  of  Kings  (Introd. 
§  1).  It  does  not  by  any  means  follow  that  this 
account  was  borrowed  from  Isaiah.  The  two  ac- 
counts are  independent  recensions  from  the  same 
original.  The  reason  why  the  same  passage  oc- 
curs in  two  different  books  of  the  Bible  is  simply 
this,  that  in  the  one  it  is  given  for  the  sake  of  the 
prophet,  and  in  the  other  for  the  sake  of  the  king. 
The  whole  forms  an  important  incident  in  Isaiah's 
work,  and  an  important  incident  in  Hezekiah's 
reign,  which  was  an  important  part  of  the  history 
of  the  kings  of  Judah,  on  account  of  the  deliver- 
ance from  Assyria. 

o)  The  account  in  Chronicles  condenses  into  very 
concise  form  the  contents  of  the  other  accounts, 
but  it  contains  also  additions  peculiar  to  itself.  It 
gives  (chap.  xxix.  3-xxxi.  21)  detailed  descrip- 
tions of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  which  Hezekiah 
prescribed;  especially  of  the  Passover  which  he 
celebrated.  All  that  has  been  brought  forward 
against  the  credibUity  of  this  narrative  has  bee& 
refuted  by  Keil  (Apolog.  Versuch  iiber  diebibl.  Citron 
i.  399  sq.).  Although  it  is  still  asserted  that  the 
Chronicler  allows  himself  "to  treat  the  historical 
facts  with  more  freedom,"  yet  it  is  admitted  that 
his  account  "  has  the  foundation  of  an  exact  his- 
torical tradition"  (Bertheau,  Comm.  zur  Chron.  s. 
396),  and  Winer  says :  "  There  is,  generally  speak- 
ing, nothing  in  it  which  represents  the  facts  and 
incidents  in  a  manner  false  to  history."     The  at- 


202 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


count  before  us  especially  emphasizes  the  fact,  in 
regard  to  Hezekiah's  reform  in  worship,  that  he 
abolished  idolatry,  and  even  the  Jehovah-worship 
upon  the  high  places.  It  is  a  matter  of  course, 
however,  that  the  zealously  pious  king  did  not 
stop  with  the  destruction  and  abolition  of  the  false 
worship,  but  also  positively  put  in  its  place  the  one 
which  was  prescribed  in  the  Law.  This  the  Chron- 
icler states  distinctly,  and  he  describes  this  re- 
formed cultus  in  detail,  in  complete  consistency 
with  the  tendency  and  stand-point  of  his  work. 
For  him,  neither  the  prophetical  institution  nor  the 
monarchy  stands  in  the  foreground,  but  the  leviti- 
cal  priesthood.  While  the  author  of  Kings  fixes 
his  attention  upon  the  political  and  theocratic  side 
of  the  history  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  and  writes 
from  the  stand-point  of  the  theocracy,  the  Chron- 
icler Axes  his  attention  upon  those  iucideuts  of  it 
which  were  important  for  the  levitical  priesthood, 
and  writes  from  the  stand-point  of  a  levite.  His 
statements  are,  in  this  case,  therefore,  an  essential 
addition  to  the  story  in  Kings  and  in  Isaiah,  as  in- 
deed his  peculiar  contributions  generally  supple- 
ment the  narratives  elsewhere  found.  The  source 
from  which  he  obtained  this  information  was,  as 
he  himself  tells  us  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  32),   "the  jitn 

of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Arnoz,  in  the 
book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel,"  that  is  to 
say,  the  same  work  to  which  the  author  of  Kings 
refers  (chap.  xx.  20)  for  the  history  of  Hezekiah. 

c)  The  prophetical  oracles  in  Isaiah  and  Micha 
contain,  it  is  true,  most  important  descriptions  of 
the  moral  and  religious  state  of  things  at  the  time 
when  these  prophets  lived,  but  no  history,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word.  Definite  facts,  which 
might  supplement  the  historical  narrative,  cannot 
be  derived  from  them,  and  it  is  especially  vain  to 
attempt  this,  since,  up  to  the  present  day,  there  is 
no  consensus  of  opinion  in  regard  to  whether  par- 
ticular oracles  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  time  of 
Hezekiah,  or  to  that  of  some  other  king,  during 
whose  reign  Isaiah  also  exerted  influence.  For  in- 
stance, the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah  refers,  according 
to  some  modern  critics,  to  the  time  of  Hezekiah; 
according  to  others,  to  that  of  Uzziah;  according  to 
still  others,  to  that  of  Jotham  ;  and  yet  again,  ac- 
cording to  others,  to  that  of  Ahaz.  We  therefore 
adhere,  in  this  place,  since  we  have  to  deal  with 
the  firm  substance  of  history,  as  closely  as  pos- 
sible to  the  historical  narratives,  and  leave  it  to 
the  exposition  of  the  prophetical  books  to  show 
to  what  events,  recorded  in  the  historical  books, 
tin-  separate  oracles  refer. 

[The  author  would  probably  be  greatly  misun- 
derstood, if  any  one  should  infer  from  this  that 
lie  estimated  as  unimportant  the  light  which  the 
prophetic  oracles  of  the  Old  Testament  throw  upon 
the  Jewish  history.  It  is  one  of  the  unique  and 
most  remarkable  features  of  the  Old  Testament 
that  it  presents  to  us  side  by  side  a  section  of  hu- 
man history,  and  a  criticism  of  the  same  from  the 
Btand-point  of  the  highest,  purest,  and  most  in- 
tense religious  conviction.  The  historical  narra- 
tives of  the  Old  Testament  are  simple,  brief,  and 
dry  annals  of  events  and  facts.  The  seventeenth 
chap,  of  2d  Kings  presents  a  solitary  example  in 
which  the  author  comes  forward  to  discuss  causes, 
to  weigh  principles,  and  to  review  the  moral  forces 
at  work  under  the  events  he  records.  All  that  we 
tall    nowadays    the    "  philosophy  of   history "  is 


wanting  in  the  strictly  historical  books.  It  is  sup 
plied  by  the  books  of  the  prophets.  They  give  us 
an  insight  into  the  social  and  political  status,  into 
the  vices,  the  moral  forces,  the  ambitions,  and  the 
passions  which  were  at  work  under  the  events 
and  produced  them.  To  modern  minds  the  history 
is  not  by  any  means  complete  until  these  are  elu- 
cidated. "  History  "  is  not  bare  events  or  facts 
If  it  were,  ne  might  save  ourselves  the  trouble  of 
ever  studying  it.  It  would  be  a  pure  matter  of 
curiosity.  But  history  is  the  fruit  of  certain 
moral  forces.  We  study  the  forces  in  their  fruits. 
We  deduce  lessons  of  warning  and  encouragement 
from  the  study.  The  forces  are  the  same  now  as 
ever  since  mankind  lived  upon  the  earth,  and  they 
act,  under  changed  outward  circumstances,  in  the 
same  way.  They  will  produce  the  same  results, 
and  the  whole  practical  value  of  history  is  that  we 
may  profit  by  the  accumulated  experience  of  man- 
kind, as  the  individual  profits  by  the  mistakes  and 
sufferings  of  the  years  through  which  he  has  lived. 
To  this  end,  however,  insight  into  the  moral  causes 
of  events  is  the  valuable  thing,  and  it  is  that  which 
we  must  aim  at  in  studying  history.  What  is  pecu- 
liar to  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  such, 
is  that  their  criticisms  of  Jewish  history  were  not 
bare  literary  or  scholarly  productions,  but  appeals, 
rebukes,  and  warnings,  of  the  most  personal  and 
practical  description.  That  is  a  characteristic  of 
them  which  has  ethical  and  perhaps  homiletical 
interest,  but  does  not  contribute  to  our  historical 
knowledge,  while  their  analysis  of  the  social  con- 
dition under  which  these  events  took  place,  and 
their  statement  of  the  moral  causes  which  pro- 
duced them,  are  of  the  highest  importance  for  the 
history.  These  till  up  the  back-ground,  and  give 
the  light  and  shade,  and  the  perspective,  to  a  pic- 
ture of  which  the  historical  books  have  only 
sketched  the  outline.  We  have  a  sort  of  parallel 
in  the  works  of  the  ancient  orators,  which  have 
contributed  essentially  and  undeniably  to  our 
knowledge  of  ancient  history.  Such  being  the 
case,  it  is  evident  that  any  one  who  undertakes  to 
expound  the  historical  books  must  give  good  heed 
to  the  light  which  the  prophetical  books  throw 
upon  them.  It  is  indeed  true  that  it  is  often  very 
difficult  to  assign  particular  oracles  to  their  time 
and  circumstances,  but  we  have  only  to  observe 
the  wonderful  light  which  the  oracle  before  us 
(Chap.  xix.  22-34),  and  its  historical  setting,  throw 
upon  one  another,  now  that  we  have  them  in  un- 
doubted juxtaposition,  to  see  what  we  may  hope 
for,  if  we  can  succeed  in  fixing  the  connection  and 
relations  of  other  and  similar  oracles.  The  light 
to  be  derived  from  the  prophecies  for  the  history 
is  not  by  any  means  to  be  lightly  set  aside,  but  it 
is  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  fruits  of  critical 
science  most  highly  to  be  valued,  and  most  earn- 
estly to  be  labored  for. — W.  G.  S.] 

EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Now  it  came  to  pass,  Ac.  It  must  bo 
carefully  observed  that  vers.  1-8  contain  a  sum- 
mary account  of  the  entire  reign  of  Hezekiah.  like 
the  one  given  of  Ahaz'  reign  in  chap.  xvi.  1-4.  In 
the  Srst  place  there  is  given,  as  usual,  liis  acre,  the 
time  of  his  accession,  and  the  duration  of  his  reign 
(vers.  1  and  2);  then,  what  he  did  in  regard  to  the 
Jehovah-worship  (vers.  3  and  4);  then,  what  spirit 
animated   his  life  and   conduct  in  general  (vers.  S 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


203 


and  6) ;  finally,  what  successes  were  won.  during  his 
reign,  against  foreign  nations  (vers.  7  and  8).  After 
this  general  summary  follows,  from  ver.  9  on,  the 
narrative  of  the  chief  events  during  his  reign,  in 
chronological  order,  viz..  the  overthrow  of  the  King- 
dom of  the  Ten  Tribes,  in  his  fourth  year  (vers.  9-12), 
and  the  oppression  of  the  Assyrians,  which  began 
in  his  fourteenth  (ver.  13  sq.). — In  the  third  year 
of  Hoshea.  Since  the  fourth  and  sixth  years  of 
Hezekiah  correspond  to  the  seventh  and  ninth  of 
Hoshea,  according  to  vers.  9  and  10,  it  has  often 
been  thought  that  the  "  third  year  "  in  this  state- 
ment must  be  incorrect  (see  Maurer  on  the  pas- 
sage), and  it  lias  been  believed  that  it  ought  to  read 
"  in  the  fourth  year."  Josephus,  in  fact,  lias  irei 
6c  rirn/iru.  But  the  explanation  is  that  the  years 
of  1  lie  two  kings  do  not  run  exactly  parallel.  The 
difficulty  is  removed,  and  the  text  is  assured  "as 
soon  as  we  assume  that  Hoshea  came  to  the 
throne  in  the  second  half  of  T.'IO,  and  Hezekiah  in 
the  first  half  of  127,  before  Hoshea's  third  year 
had  expired''  (Thenius);  or,  "If  we  assume  that 
Hezekiah's  accession  took  place  near  the  end  of 
Hoshea's  third  year,  then  his  fourth  and  sixth 
years  correspond,  for  the  most  part,  witli  the  sLxtli 
and    ninth    of    Hoshea "    (Keil).— n'pTn     is    the 

shortened    form     for    irvpUT  i    which    is    found 

in  Chronicles,  and  in  2  Kings  xx.  10  ;  Isai.  i.  1  ;  Hos. 
i.  1.  In  Isai.  xxxvi.-xxxix.  the  name  always  lias 
the  form  1!Tp?n  .     This  form  is  also  found  several 

times   in  Kings.       In  Micah  i.   1.  we  find  n'pTIT . 

Gesenius  gives,  as  the  signification  of  the  name, 
"Jehovah's  strength."  Fiirst's  explanation  is  bet- 
ter: "Jah  is  Might."  In  like  manner  '3X  is 
shortened  from  !T3X  which  is  found  in  Chron- 
icles. Which  Zachariah  was  her  father,  we  cannot 
determine. 

Ver.  4.    He  removed  the  high-places.      On 
ni"33  see  notes  on   1  Kings  iii.  2.     Here,  as  in  1 

Kings  iii.  2,  and  xv.  12,  14,  we  have  not  to  under- 
stand by  the  word,  places  of  idolatry,  but  eleva- 
tions on  which  Jehovah  was  worshipped,  in  con- 
trast with  the  temple  as  the  central  place  of  wor- 
ship. This  is  clear  from  ver.  22.  On  the  images 
(probably  of.  stone),  and  the  wooden  Astarte-col- 
umns,  see  note  on  1  Kings  xiv.  23.  Instead  of  the 
singular    mB>X ,  all    the   old    versions  have    the 

plural,  which  is  also  found  in  2  Chron.  xxxi.  1. 
Therefore  Thenius  reads  DRIB'S ,  but  this  change 

is  unnecessary.  According  to  Keil  the  singular  is 
here  "  used  collectively." — And  brake  in  pieces 
the  b:a-e  i  serpent,  &c.  (cf.  Numb,  xxi.  5  sq.).  It 
is  commonly  assumed  that  this  refers  to  the  ser- 
pent-image which  was  made  by  Moses  in  the  wil- 
derness. Von  Oerlach  says:  "It  was  perhaps 
preserved  in  a  side-chamber  of  the  temple  as  a 
highly  revered  treasure  and  memorial.  ...  In 
the  times  of  manifold  idolatry  it  had  been  brought 
out.  and  an  idolatrous  worship  had  been  practised 
with  it."  It  is  not  impossible,  in  itself,  that  the 
image  was  still  in  existence  after  800  years,  and 
was  [.reserved  in  the  temple  as  a  relic.  We  have 
no  hint,  however,  that  such  was  the  case,  and  it  is 
hardly  supposable  that  Moses,  who  so  carefully 
avoided  everything  which  could  nourish  the  incli- 
nation of  the  people  towards  idolatry,  should  have 


taken  this  image  with  him  during  his  entire  jour 
ney  through  the  wilderness.  Moreover,  the  taber- 
nacle had  no  side-chamber  in  which  it  could  have 
been  kept.  Even  if  we  suppose  that  it  was  still  in 
existence  when  the  temple  was  built  (480  years 
after  the  exodus),  yet  there  is  no  mention  of  it  at 
all  amongst  the  objects  in  the  tabernacle  which 
Solomon  caused  to  be  brought  down  into  the  tem- 
ple (see  1  Kings  viii.  4) ;  neither  is  there  any  men- 
tion of  the  fact  that  any  later  king  caused  it  to  be 
brought  out  and  set  up  where  it  would  be  possible 
for  the  people  to  offer  incense  to  it.  It  is  reckoned 
as  a  merit  in  Hezekiah  that  he  caused  it  to  be 
broken  in  pieces,  but  it  is  hardly  probable  that  he 
would  have  been  the  one  to  destroy  a  symbol  which 
had  been  set  up  and  preserved  by  the  great  Law- 
giver himself,  and  which  had  survived  so  long,  as 
a  sacred  memorial  and  treasure,  all  the  storms  of 
time.  Winer  (R.-W.-B.  II.  s.  415)  therefore  infers 
"The  brazen  serpent  mentioned  in  2  Kings  cannc 
be  the  very  one  which  was  set  up  by  Moses.1'  It 
the  sensuous  people  wished  to  see  their  God  and 
to  have  an  image  of  Him,  scarcely  any  image 
would  suggest  itself  more  immediately  than  the 
one  which  Moses  had  himself  once  made  and  com- 
manded thein  to  look  upon,  and  of  which  the  peo- 
ple were  so  directly  reminded  by  their  history. 
In  the  time  of  idolatry,  therefore,  they  made  an 
image  like  the  one  which  Moses  had  set  up,  and 
offered  incense  to  it.  The  text  seems  to  us  not 
only  to  admit  this  supposition,  but  also,  when  taken 
with  the  context,  even  to  require  it.  The  clause: 
that  Moses  had  made,  distinguishes  this  image 
expressly  from  the  statues  and  images  mentioned 
just  before.  They  had  been  borrowed  from  the 
heathen,  but  that,  though  it  had  been  made  by 
Moses  in  the  first  place,  had  been  abused  for 
idolatry.  Moreover,  Moses  had  not  made  it  with 
his  own  hands,  but  had  caused  it  to  he  made. 
This  also  does  away  with  the  oft-repeated  asser- 
tion that  the  serpent-worship  in  Israel  had  its 
origin  in  Egypt,  where  this  cultus  was  very  wide- 
spread.  The  serpent  was  there  the  symbol  of 
healing  power  (Winer,  /.  a),  whereas  in  the  book 
of  Numbers  it  is  represented  as  bringing  death  and 
destruction,  wherefore  Moses,  who  certainly  was 
far  enough  from  intending  to  thereby  set  up  an 
image  of  idolatry,  hung  up  a  serpent-image  as  a 
sign  that  it  could  not  bring  death  to  those  who, 
with  faith  in  Jehovah's  death-conquering  power, 
should  look  up  to  it. — Unto  those  days,  i.  e.,  not 
from  Moses'  time  on  uninterruptedly  until  the  time 
of  Hezekiah,  but  "  from  time  to  time,  and  the  idol- 
atrous worship  which  was  practised  with  this  im- 
age continued  until  Hezekiah's  time  "  (Keil).  The 
subject  of  xip'l  is  not  Hezekiah.  as  the  Vulg. 
and  Clericns  understand,  but  Israel  Sept.  ini/f- 
cm:  [It  is  better  to  take  it  as  a  singular  with  in- 
definite subject  (one  called)  =  they  called,  or  it 
was  called.  See  note  1  under  Grammatical.]  The 
name  |nt;TI3  ,  *'•  e.,  "a  brazen  thing.''  shows  tint 

the  "brass"  was  not  an  accidental  circumstance 
in  the  construction  of  this  image,  but  was  essen- 
tial, perhaps  on  account  of  its  glowing-red  color 
in  which  it  resembled  the  "  fiery  "  serpents  (Numb 
xxi.  G;  Dent.  viii.  15;  cf.  Rev.  i.  15),  whose  bitt 
burned  and    consumed.    [riL'TO  ,  therefore,  meant. 

The  Glowing-red  One,  The  Consuming  One,  Tli9 
Burning  One.  There  is  no  contemptuous  sense 
in   it.   such   as:    "A   little  bit  of  brass."  as  thoss 


204 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


think  who  assume  that  Hezekiah  is  the  subject 
(Dereser).  Still  less  is  it  correct  that  the  image 
had  that  name  only  in  contrast  with  the  other 
idols  which  were  of  wood  or  stone.  Neither  is  the 
designation:  "  The  so-called  Brass-God"  (Kwald), 
an  apt  rendering  of  the  word. — The  sentence  in 
ver.  5  :  After  him  was  none  like  him,  Ac,  has 
been  incorrectly  understood  as  a  proverbial  form  of 
expression  for  sonieth.  ig  winch  is  very  rare,  the 
parallel  of  which  is  not  on  record.  It  "is  not  in 
contradiction  with  chap,  xxiii.  25,  for  its  application 
must  be  restricted  to  the  single  characteristic  of 
trust  in  God.  In  this  particular  Hezekiah  showed 
himself  the  strongest,  whereas,  in  xxiii.  25,  strict 
Hdelitv  to  the  (Mosaic)  Law  is  applauded  in  Josiah  " 
(Thenhis). — He  clave  to  the  Lord  (ver.  6).  This 
appeared  from  the  fact  that  he  never  gave  himself 
up  to  idolatry,  but  kept  the  commandments  of 
God. 

Ver.   7.    And  the  Lord  was  with  him,  Ac. 

p>3t;»  has  exactly  the  same  sense  as  in  1  Kings 
ii.  3.  The  words  1J1  ?33  are  not  to  be  trans- 
lated as  by  Luther  and  De  "Wette  [and  the  E.  V.]  : 
"  Whithersoever  he  went  forth,"  but,  as  by  the 
Vulg. :  in  cunctis,  ad  quve  procedebat.  His  pros- 
perity appeared  in  two  points ;  in  his  escape  from 
the  Assyrian  supremacy,  under  which  Judah  had 
disgracefully  fallen  during  Ahaz'  reign  (chap.  xvi. 
1) ;  and  in  his  war  against  the  Philistines,  who 
had,  dnriug  Ahaz'  reign,  made  conquests  in  Judah 
(2  Chron.  xxviii.  IS).  Luther's  translation,  Dazu 
\d.  i.  ausserdem]  warder"  [Moreover  he  rebelled], 

destroys  the  connection  of  thought.      The  1  before 

Y10'    is  Hie   simple   copula,  and  is  equivalent  to 

the  German  n.imlich  [that  is  tu  say.  or.  for  instance]. 
As  those  two  facts  only  are  mentioned  here  as  in- 
stances of  his  prosperity,  we  must  not  infer  from 
their  position  in  the  story  that  they  took  place  at 
the  outset  of  his  reign.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
his  revolt  from  Assyria  is  not  mentioned  here  as 
something  blameworthy,  but  as  something  which 
redounded  to  his  praise.  The  apostate  Ahaz  sub- 
jected the  kingdom  to  Assyria;  Hezekiah,  who 
was  faithful  to  Jehovah,  made  himself  independent 
of  the  Assyrian  yoke.  As  to  the  time  at  which 
he  resolved  to  do  this,  see  note  on  ver.  13. 

Ver.  9.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fourth 
year  of  King  Hezekiah,  4c.  Vers.  9-12  repeat 
what  lias  been  already  narrated  in  chap.  xvii.  3-6. 
This  is  due,  according  to  Thenius,  to  the  fact  that 
the  author  found  these  words  not  only  in  the 
annals  of  Israel,  but  also  in  those  of  Judah,  and 
that  lie  reproduces  his  authorities  with  "complete 
fidelity."  Hut  the  repetition  cannot  be  due  to  any 
such  merely  mechanical  procedure  ;  it  has  a  further 
and  deeper  cause.  In  the  first  place,  the  over- 
throw of  Samaria  was  an  event,  of  the  highest  im- 
portance  for  Judah  also,  and  it  deserved  especial 
mention  here  on  account  of  the  contrast  with  vers. 
1-8.  Hezekiah  carried  out  a  reformation  in  his 
kingdom.  He  remained  faithful  to  the  Lord,  and 
I  succeeded  in  what  he  undertook.  Israel,  on 
t  11  contrary,  had  come  into  conflict  with  the  As- 
syrian power.     The  king  of  Assyria,  encouraged 

inii  stimulated  by  his  si S9  in  this  conflict,  now 

turned  hi-  .-inn-  against  Judah.  Hut  this  kingdom, 
although  it  was  weaker  and  smaller,  did  not  fall, 
because   Hezekiah   trusted   in   the  Lord.     This  is 


what  the  historian  desired  to  show  by  the  repeti- 
tion, so  that  it  is  exactly  in  its  right  place  between 
vers.  8  and  13. — For  the  detailed  exposition  of  vera, 
9-12,  see  notes  on  chap.  xvii.  3  sq. 

Ver.  13.  Now  in  the  fourteenth  year  .  .  . 
did  Sennacherib  .  .  come  up,  4c.  Herodo 
tus  calls  this  king  Zni'a;rdp</?or;  Josephus,  leva- 
X'lP'fiac.  Nothing  but  guesses,  which  we  do  dot 
need  to  notice,  have  yet  been  brought  forward  in 
regard  to  the  signification  of  this  name.  [The 
true  form  of  the  name  is  Sin-akhe-rib,  and  it  means: 
"  Sin  (the  Moon-god)  has  multiplied  brothers." — 
Lenormant.]  Sennacherib  was  the  immediate  suc- 
cessor of  Shalmaneser,  for  Sargon  (Isai.  xx.  1)  is, 
as  was  remarked  above  on  chap.  xvii.  3,  one  and 
the  same  person  with  Shalmaneser.  [For  a  cor- 
rection of  this  error  see  the  Supplementary  Note 
after  the  Exeg.  section  on  chap  xvii.,  and  also  the 
similar  note  at  the  end  of  this  present  section.] 
Delitsch  (on  Isai.  xx.  1)  has  lately  once  more  de- 
nied this  on  the  authority  of  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tion published  by  Oppert  and  Rawlinson,  and  has 
ventured  this  assertion:  "He  [Sargon],  and  not 
Shalmaneser,  took  Samaria  after  a  three  years' 
siege.  .  .  .  Shalmaneser  died  before  Samaria, 
and  Sargon  not  only  assumed  command  of  the 
army,  but  also  seized  the  reins  of  power,  and, 
after  a  conflict  of  several  years'  duration  with  the 
legitimate  heirs  and  their  party,  he  succeeded  in 
establishing  himself  upon  the  throne.  He  was, 
therefore,  a  usurper."  The  biblical  text  is  wholly 
silent  in  regard  to  all  this;  nay,  it  even  contradicts 
it.  For  the  "king  of  Assyria"  mentioned  in 
chap.  xvii.  4,  5,  and  G,  is  necessarily  the  same  one 
who  is  mentioned  in  ver.  3  just  before,  viz.  Shal- 
maneser. It  is  impossible  to  insert  another  king, 
and  he  a  usurper,  between  these  four  successive 
verses.  If  Sargon  was  a  different  person  from 
Shalmaneser,  the  statements  of  the  biblical  text 
in  chap.  xvii.  3-6  are  incorrect ;  if  these  are  correct, 
then  either  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  are  incorrect, 
or  they  are  incorrectly  read  and  interpreted. 
Sennacherib  would  hardly  have  called  his  predeces- 
sors his  "  fathers."  if  the  supposititious  Sargon  had 
been  a  usurper  who  had  come  to  the  throne  by  the 
overthrow  of  the  reigning  dynasty. 

[The  reading  and  interpretation  of  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions  cannot  yet,  it  is  true,  be  regarded  as 
beyond  all  question,  yet  there  are  certain  results 
which  are  now  placed  beyond  doubt.  They  con- 
stitute the  highest  authority  for  Assyrian  history, 
and  by  them  nothing  is  more  satisfactorily  estab- 
lished than  the  fact  that  Sargon  succeeded  Shal- 
maneser and  %vas  a  usurper,  and  Sennacherib  was 
his  son.  The  above  quotation  from  Delitsch  cor- 
rectly states  the  facts  of  the  case.  If  the  inscrip 
tions  are  not  correctly  interpreted  it  remains  for 
those  who  are  competent  to  do  so  to  make  the 
necessary  corrections;  but  those  who  have  not 
mastered  the  subject  (and  it  is  a  very  difficult  one) 
are  not  justified  in  treating  the  authority  of  Assyr- 
ian scholars  with  neglect  and  contempt,  even  upon 
the  supposed  authority  of  the  biblical  text.  The 
author  of  the  book  of  Kings  was  an  inhabitant  of 
Judah.  Before  the  time  of  Sennacherib  this  king- 
dom had  had  very  little  to  do  with  Assyria.  Kvec 
Israel  knew  "the  king  of  Assyria"  only  as  an 
enemy,  the  head  and  representative  of  the  great 
and  threatening  world-monarchy.  They  did  not 
fear  Shalmaneser  or  Sargon  as  individuals-  they 
feared  the  head  of  the  hostile   nation,   "thekint 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


205 


of  Assyria."  Shalmaneser  was  celebrated  for  his 
campaign  against  Tyre  as  an  individual  who  bore 
this  dreaded  title.  If,  as  is  supposed,  he  began 
the  siege  of  Samaria,  but  died  during  it,  and  if 
-Sargon  finished  it,  but  then  returned  to  Assyria  to 
secure  his  usurped  power — (Rawlinson  seems  to 
think  that  he  was  not  at  Samaria,  but  took  advan- 
tage of  the  discontent  of  the  people  of  Nineveh  at 
Shalmaneser's  long  absence  to  raise  a  rebellion 
against  him,  and  then  counted  among  the  great 
deeds  of  his  first  year  the  conquest  of  Samaria, 
which  Shalmaneser,  or  his  generals,  had  nearly 
accomplished) — then  it  is  not  strange  that  his 
name  is  not  mentioned  here  among  those  individ- 
uals who  were  known  to  the  author  of  these  books 
to  have  worn  the  crown  of  Assyria.  Sennacherib 
was  his  son,  and  again  so  far  from  his  mention  of 
his  fathers''  being  an  argument  that  he  was  not 
the  son  of  a  usurper,  it  is  rather  in  character  for 
such  a  person  to  boast  of  his  ancestors,  to  try  to 
obliterate  the  recollection  of  his  origin  and  title  to 
the  throne,  and  to  endeavor  to  avail  himself  of  the 
prestige  of  the  old  dynasty.  The  Bible  is  silent  in 
regard  to  all  this,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  generally 
silent  in  regard  to  contemporaneous  Assyrian, 
Babylonian,  Egyptian,  and  Greek  history.  Of 
■China,  India,  and  Arabia  it  tells  us  nothing.  For 
■our  knowledge  of  these  things  we  are  thrown  upon 
the  proper  authorities.  The  silence  of  the  Bible 
is  no  disparagement  of  the  Bible,  and  no  argument 
against  the  conclusions  to  which  we  may  be  led  by 
such  separate  national  authorities  as  we  possess. 
For  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  question  here  before 
us,  as  they  appear  from  the  Assyrian  inscriptions, 
see  the  Supplementary  Note  at  the  end  of  this  Exeg. 
section,  and  for  a  list  of  the  Assyrian  kings,  with 
the  dates  of  their  reigns,  see  the  right-hand  col- 
umn of  the  Chronological  Table  at  the  end  of  the 
volume. — W.  G.  S.] 

The  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah,  who  became 
king  in  727,  is  the  year  713.  The  fall  of  Samaria 
took  place  in  721  (see  the  Chron,  Table).  How 
long  after  that  Shalmaneser  reigned  cannot  be  de- 
termined [by  biblical  data].  The  ordinary  opinion 
that  he  lived  until  718,  and  that  Sargon  reigned 
from  TIN  to  715  or  714,  falls  to  the  ground  when 
the  identity  of  the  two  is  established.  Sennacherib 
seems  to  have  reigned  a  year  or  two  before  he  un- 
dertook the  great  expedition.  Probably  the  change 
of  occupant  of  the  throne  of  Assyria  had  encour- 
aged Hezekiali  to  make  himself  independent  of 
the  oppressor  (ver.  7).  It  is  not  likely,  as  Xiebuhr 
supposes,  that  lje  attempted  this  soon  after  his  ac- 
cession, for  then  Shalmaneser  would  not  have 
retired  from  Samaria  in  721  without  chastising 
him  for  this  revolt.  It  is  not  especially  stated 
what  caused  the  expedition  of  Sennacherib,  but  it 
certainly  was  not  the  revolt  of  Hezekiah  alone. 
It  was  an  expedition  of  conquest,  directed  espe- 
cially against  Egypt,  which  was  then  the  great 
rival  of  Assyria,  under  whose  protection  the  small 
kingdoms  of  "Western  Asia  ranged  themselves 
against  Assyria.  We  do  not  know  certainly 
whether  Hezekiah  entered  into  an  alliance  with 
Egypt  after  he  revolted  from  Assyria.  It  is  clear 
from  Isai.  iii.  1;  xxxi.  1,  compared  with  vers.  21 
and  24  of  this  chapter,  that  the  authorities  at  Jeru- 
salem were  much  inclined  to  this  course,  and  that 
they  had  taken  preliminary  steps  towards  it.  We 
shall  recur  to  the  subject  of  Sennacherib's  expe- 
dition against  Egypt  below,  at  the  end  of  the  Ex- 


egetical  notes.  [See  the  Supplem.  Note  after  this 
Exeg.  section.  The  facts  as  established  by  the 
inscriptions,  are  there  brien_,  stated.  All  that  \t 
said  above  about  the  relations  of  Jewish  and  As- 
syrian history  must  be  corrected  by  what  is  stated 
in  the  Note  below.] — Against  all  the  fenced  cities 
of  Judah,  Ac.  The  statement  in  Chronicles  is 
more  accurate:  "He  encamped  against  the  fencjd 
cities  and  thought  to  win  them  for  himself"  (2 
Chron.  xxxii.  1).  It  is  clear  from  xix.  8  that  he  did 
not  take  them  all.  When  he  approached  with  his 
great  army,  Hezekiah  armed  himself  to  resist,  and, 
as  he  could  not  risk  a  battle  in  the  open  field,  he 
set  Jerusalem  in  the  best  possible  condition  for  de- 
fence (2  Chron.  xxxii.  2  sq. ;  Isai.  xxii.  9,  10). 

Ver.  14.  And  Hezekiah  .  .  .  sent  to  the 
king  ot  Assyria,  4.e.  Vers.  14  to  1G  are  entirely 
wanting  in  Isaiah,  and  are  an  important  addition 
to  the  narrative  there  given.  They  are  evidently 
taken  from  the  common  source.  They  are  not, 
therefore,  "  a  mere  annalistic  insertion  "  (Delitsch). 
The  text  of  Isaiah  is  here  condensed  as  it  is  in  the 
following  verse  (17),  where  he  only  mentions  Rab- 
shakeh,  and  says  nothing  about  Rabsaris  and  Tar- 
tan.— Lachish,  whither  Hezekiah  sent  his  messen- 
gers, was  fifteen  or  eighteen  hours'  journey  south- 
west of  Jerusalem  on  the  road  to  PJgypt  (see  note 
on  chap.  xiv.  19).  Sennacherib  had,  therefore, 
already  passed  Jerusalem  on  his  way  to  Egypt. 
''The  possession  of  this  city  was,  on  account  ol 
its  position,  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  an 
army  which  was  invading  Egypt"  (Theniusi. 
Hezekiah,  therefore,  had  grounds  for  extreme  anxi- 
ety, more  especially  as  there  was  no  sign  of  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  any  Egyptian  force  to  meet 
Sennacherib,  and  Judah  seemed  to  have  been  aban- 
doned by  Egypt.  He  determined  to  try  to  make 
terms  with  the  powerful  enemy,  and  rather  to  sub- 
mit to  a  heavy  tribute  in  money  than  to  risk  the 
possession  of  his  capital  and  the  independence  of 

his  kingdom.      TINBn   does   not   mean:   I    have 

sinned  against  God  by  my  revolt  from  thee  (that 

would  require  that  T\\Tvh  should  be  added,  as  we 

find  it  Gen.  xih.  13;  xxxix.  9;  1  Sam.  vii.  6;  2 
Sam.  xii.  13  and  elsewhere);  nor,  as  the  ancient  ex- 
positors supposed:  I  have,  in  thy  opinion,  sinned; 
nor,  imprudenter  egi.  We  have  simply  to  adhere 
to  its  original  signification,  to  fail,  to  err  (Job  v.  24; 
Prov.  xix.  2).  "It  is  an  acknowledgment  wrung 
from  him  by  his  distressed  circumstances  "  (The- 
nius).  Hezekiah  admits,  in  view  of  the  great  dan- 
ger to  which  he  has  exposed  himself  and  his  king- 
dom, that  he  has  committed  an  error. — The  sum 
which  Sennacherib  demanded  was  certainly  a  verv 
large  one.  Thenius  estimates  it  at  one  and  a  half 
million  thalers  ($1,080,000),  and  Keil  at  two  and  a 
half  million  thalers  ($1,800,000).  The  reduction 
to  terms  of  our  modern  money  is  very  uncertain. 
The  fact  that  Hezekiah  stripped  off  the  meta' 
which  he  had  himself  put  upon  the  door-casings 
shows  how  difficult  it  was  for  him  to  raise  this 
sum. 

Ver.  17.  And  the  king  of  Assyria  sent  Tar- 
tan, .to.  Josephus  thus  states  the  connection  be- 
tween vers.  1G  and  17.  Sennacherib  had  promised 
the  ambassadors  of  Hezekiah  that  he  would  ab- 
stain from  all  hostilities  against  Jerusalem,  if  he 
received  the  sum  which  he  had  demanded.  Heze- 
kiah. trusting  in  this,  had  paid  it,  and  now  believed 


20(i 


THE  SKCOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


himself  to  be  free  from  all  danger.  Sennacherib, 
however,  "did  not  trouble  himself  about  his  prom- 
ise. He  marched  in  person  against  the  Egyptians 
ami  Ethiopians,  but  he  left  the  general  (or/m7J,)oi) 
Rab-shakeh,  with  two  other  high  officers  (aim  6valv 
ii'/'/n,,  rim  tr  r;/«)and  a  large  force  to  destroy 
Jerusalem."  This  undoubtedly  tills  up  correctly 
the  omission  of  the  biblical  text.  The  two  last  of 
these  names  are  clearly  official  titles,  but  the  first 
is  not  a  proper  name.  See  Jerem.  xxxix.  3,  13, 
where  these  titles  stand  by  the  side  of  the  proper 
names.  }mn  is  tne  title  of  the  general  or  mili- 
tary commander,  as  we  see  from  Isai.  xx.  1.  Proba- 
bly it  is  equivalent  to   D'nati'Tl   (chap.  xxv.  8 ; 

Jerem.  xxxix.  9;  Gen.  xxxvii.  36),  captain  of  the 
life-guard.  We  pass,  without  discussion,  Hitzig's 
suggestion  that  the  title  is  of  Persian  origin  and 
means.  "Skull  of  the  body,"  that  is,  "  Person  of 
high  rank."    D'lD'HI  is  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs, 

who.  however,  was  not  himself  a  eunuch  (chap. 
xxv.  19;  cf.  Gen.  xxxvii.  36;  xxxix.  1,  7;  Dan.  i. 
3,  7).  This  officer  is  now  one  of  the  highest  at  the 
Turkish  court  (Winer,  R.-W.-B.  II.  a.  654).  All 
the  officers  and  servants  of  the  court  were  under 
his   command.      npL"3"l    is  the  chief  cup-bearer, 

who  is  more  distinctly  designated  in  Gen.  xl.  2,  21 
as  D'pKTSmtV.  This  was  aiso  a  post  of  high  honor 

at  Oriental  courts.  Nehemiah  once  filled  it  (Ne- 
hem.  i.  11;  ii.  1).  These  court  dignitaries  were  at 
the  same  time  the  highest  civil  and  military  olli- 
ii  is  (cf.  Brissonius  de  regno  Pers.  i.  p.  66,  138. 
Gesenius  on  Isai.  xxxvi.  2).  Sennacherib  sent 
time  such  officers  in  order  to  give  importance  to 
the  matter. — The  upper  pool  is  the  one  called 
Gihon  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  30;  1  Kings  i.  33)  outside 
of  the  city,  on  the  west  side.  A  canal  ran  from 
this  to  the  field  of  the  fullers  or  washers,  which, 
partly  on  account  of  the  impurity  of  the  water 
collected  in  the  pool,  and  partly  on  account  of  the 
nncleanliness  of  that  occupation,  was  outside  of 
the  city.  The  same  designation  of  this  locality  is 
found  in  Isai.  vii.  3,  from  which  it  is  clear  that  this 
canal  existed  in  the  time  of  Ahaz  and  earlier,  and 
is  not  the  one  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  30. — 
And  when  they  had  called  to  the  king,  &c, 
i.  c,  "They  made  known  to  those  upon  the  wall 
tneir  desire  to  speak  with  the  king.  He,  however, 
did  not  yield  to  their  demand  to  speak  with  hint 
in  person,  not,  as  Josephus  thinks,  vtto  deiXlac,  but 
because  it  was  beneath  his  dignity.  The  chief  offi- 
cers of  the  king  appeared  "  (Thenins).  On  the 
offices  which  they  filled,  see  notes  on  1  Kings  iv. 
3  417.  From  Isai.  xxii.  15-22  it  is  commonly  infer- 
red that  Shebna,  who  there  appears  as  the  officer 

JVBrOJ?  ,  but  is  threatened  with  deposition  from 

that  office,  had  been  degraded  to  a  "1DD ,  in  which 

rank  he  appears  here,  and  that  Eliakim  had  been 
put  in  his  place.  Other  expositors,  Vitringa  for 
instance,  will  not  admit  that  he  is  the  same  person. 
It  is  at  best  very  uncertain.  Nothing  can  be  in- 
ferred from  this  in  regard  to  the  comparative  rank 
of  these  officers,  for  in  1  Kings  iv.  3  sq.  the  Sopher 
and  the  Maskir  stand  before  the  Master  of  the  Pal- 
ace. 

Ver.  19.  And  Rab-shakeh  said  unto  them, 
fcc  Probably  he  was  more  familiar  with  the  He- 
brew language  (ver.  26)  than  either  of  the  others, 


and  otherwise  better  fitted  to  be  spokesman.  The 
rabbis  falsely  consider  him  an  apostate  Israelite 
and  even  a  son  of  Isaiah. — Rab-shakeh  calls  his 
king  "the  great  king,"  because  he  had  kings  for 
his  vassals,  Isai.  x.  8 ;  Hos.  viii.  10.  Cf.  Ezek.  xxvi. 
7;  Dan.  ii.  37,  where  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  a 
"king  of  kings."  In  Ezra  vii.  12,  the  name  is  ap- 
plied to  the  Persian  king.— |int£3  does  not  roean 

defiance  (Bunsen  :  "  What  is  this  defiant  confidence 
with  which  thou  defiest"?),  but  confidence,  reli- 
ance: cj.  nr3  in  ver  5.  The  question  does  not 
contain  a  rebuke  (Gesen. :  qualis  est  jidueia  ista: 
i.e.,  quain  insanis  ea  est);  but  rather  astonishment. 
"What  reliance  hast  thou  that  thou  darest  to  re- 
volt from  me?  I  look  about  in  vain  for  any  satis- 
factory answer  to  this  question "    (Dreehsler).— 

mDN  in  ver.  20  is  to  be  preferred  to  "mipx  in 

Isaiah.  A  saying  of  the  lips  only  is  not  object: 
"  Thou  speakest  but  a  word  of  the  lips  [when  thou 
sayest]:  counsel  and  strength,  Ac."  (Knobel) 
Still  less  is  the  sense:  "Thou  thinkest  that  m; 
words  are  only  empty  talk."  The  sense  is  rather- 
"Thou  sayest"  (it  is,  however,  no  well-considered 
expression  of  a  conviction,  but  a  mere  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  lips)  "counsel  and  strength."  ,4c,  cf. 
Proverbs  xiv.  23;  Job  xi.  2.  The  Vulg.  translates 
very  arbitrarily :  P&isitan  inisti  consilium,  nt  prve- 
pares  te  ml  pradium.  Ver.  21  is  not  a  question 
(Vulg.  Luther).  Rab-shakeh  himself  gives  the  an- 
swer to  his  own  question  in  ver.  20.  and  'affirms 
roundly  that  Judah  is  in  alliance  with  Assyria's 
arch-enemy,  Egypt"  (Knobel).  The  intake  of  the 
staff  (TIJBB'O ,   cf.  Isai.  iii.  1)  of  a  reed  is  a   very 

striking  one.  As  it  is  used  also  in  Ezek.  xxix.  6  in 
reference  to  Egypt,  it  evidently  is  suggested  by 
the  fact  that  the  Nile,  the  representative  river  of 
Egypt,  produced  quantities  of  reeds  (Isai.  xix. 
6).  The  reed,  which  at  best  has  a  feeble  stem, 
bent  hither  and  thither  by  the  wind,  is  moreover 
''bruised,"  so  that,  although  it  appears  to  be  whole, 
yet  it  breaks  all  the  more  easily  when  one  leans 
upon  it,  and  moreover,  its  fragments  penetrate  the 
hand  and  wound  it  (cf.  Isai.  xlii.  3,  where  y<~\  and 
*Q(? are  accurately  distinguished  from  one  another). 
[For  J'VT ,  Germ,  knicken,  we  have  no  precise 
equivalent.  It  is  a  kind  of  breaking  which  ap- 
plies peculiarly  to  green  reeds.  The  stem  may  be 
broken  in  such  a  way  as  to  destroy  its  rigidity,  its 
power  to  sustain  any  weight  upright,  and  yet  the 
lemrrittj  of  the  fibre  is  such  that  the  parts  hold  to- 
gether, and  the  external  form  is  maintained.  A 
reed  is  not  available  as  a  staff  under  any  circum- 
stances. One  which  has  been  thus  impaired  will 
give  way  at  once  under  any  weight. — W.  G.  S. 
Thenins  :  "  Sennacherib  compared  Egypt  to  a  reed 
thus  snapped  or  bent,  not  because  he  had  broken 
the  Egyptian  power,  but  because,  in  his  arrogance, 
he  regarded  it  already  as  good  as  broken."  De- 
litsch  thinks  that  he  calls  it  so  ''in  consequence 
of  the  loss  of  the  dominion  over  Ethiopia,  which 
had  been  lost  by  the  native  dynasty  of  Egypt 
(Isai.  xviii)."  What  is  here  said  about  Pharaoh 
agrees  exactly  with  Isai.  xxx.  1-7. 

Ver.  22.  But  if  ye  say  unto  ire,  lus.     In  Isai. 

xxxvi.  7  we  find  instead  of  p~iONPl ,  IDND  •  them 

sayest.  Keil  considers  this  the  original  reading,  be- 
cause in  ver.  23  sq.  Hezekiah  i<  once  more  directly 
addressed  in  his  ambassadors.    The  majority,  how 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


207 


ever,  from  Vitringa  on,  are  in  favor  of  jn'^Xn  i  be- 
cause Hezekiah  is  immediately  afterwards  referred 
to  in  the  third  person.  In  this  case  the  v^ords  are  not 
addressed  simply  to  the  ambassadors  but  to  the 
entire  people.  Thenius  takes  the  question,  Is  not 
that  he,  &c,  as  a  continuation  of  the  speecli  of 
those  who  trust  in  Jehovah,  and  who  thus  refer  to 
Hezekiah's  zeal  for  the  centralization  of  the  na- 
tional cultus  as  a  ground  for  hoping  for  God's 
help.  But  2  Chron.  xxxii.  12  is  opposed  to  this 
notion.  According  to  that  passage  the  words  are 
an  objection  raised  by  Rab-shakeh  in  order  to 
overthrow  the  confidence  of  the  people,  and  thus 
they  are  understood  by  nearly  all  the  commenta- 
tors, ancient  and  modern.  The  conclusion  of  the 
speech,  ver.  2a,  requires  the  same  interpretation. 
The  argument  is:  God  is  not  with  the  one  who 
has  removed  His  altars  and  restricted  His  worship 
to  one  single  place,  but  with  the  one  who,  at  His 
command,  has  taken  possession  of  the  country, 
and  has  already  won  such  great  success.  Rab- 
shakeh  desires  to  inspire  them  with  suspicion  of 
Hezekiah,  who,  according  to  ver.  30  and  2  Chron. 
xxxii.  7.  had  encouraged  them  to  trust  in  Jehovah. 
He  knew  how  much  the  people  were  accustomed 
to  the  worship  on  the  high-places,  and  how  much 
more  convenient  it  was  for  them. 

Ver.  23.  Now,  therefore,  make  a  bargain 
with,  Ac.,  n.ll'l  i.  e.,  Take  account,  moreover,  of  the 
lack  of  a  proper  military  force,  of  which  cavalry 
forms  an  important  part.     2~iJ,Tin  does  not  mean  : 

'■  Promise  to  my  Lord  "  (Luther),  nor,  ''lay  a  wager 
with  my  Lord  "  (Hansen,  Von  Meyer).  2~1]1  means 
/:  change,  exchange,  barter  (Kzek.  xxvii.  9,  27).  In 
the  hithpael  it  means  to  enter  into  intercourse  with 
(Ps.  evi.  35;  Prov.  xxiv.  21).  The  reference  here 
is  to  a  mutual  giviug  and  taking,  not  to  entering 
into  a  contest  (Knobel).  The  sense  is:  Even  if 
any  cue  should  give  thee  ever  so  many  horses, 
thou  hast  not  men  who  are  fit  to  ride  upon  and 
use  them.  [It  is  a  strong  expression  of  contempt 
for  the  military  power  of  the  Jews.  You  talk- 
about  opposing  me  by  force,  but  even  if  I,  your 
enemy,  should  furnish  you  with  horses,  you  could 
not  find  men  to  form  cavalry.  If  you  should  make 
terms  with  me  so  that  I  gave  you  these  odds,  it 
would   not  do  you   any  good. — W.  G.  S.].     TL"n 

means  literally  :  to  cause  to  face  about,  i.  e..  to  put  t" 
fliyht.    The  riins  ,the  governors  of  provinces,  were 

likewise  commanders  in  the  army  in  lime  of 
war,  1  Kings  xx.  24  (cf.  xxii.  31);  -'the  least"  is 
the  one  who  commands  the  smallest  number  of 
soldiers.  Drechsler's  interpretation  seems  to 
us  to  be  entirely  mistaken.  According  to  him 
there  is  no  reference  here  to  war,  and  ytl'n  ,  &c. 

has  the  signification :  to  reject  a  suppliant,  so  that 
the  sense  is,  "He  THezekiah]  will  have  to  concede 
every  demand  and  yield  to  every  wish  which  is 
brought  before  him  by  such  a  person  [as  one  of 
these  governors]." — On  the  chariots  see  1  Kings 
x.  28  sq. — In  ver.  25  Rab-shakeh  presents  the 
matter  in  a  light  exactly  contrary  to  that  in  which 
the  Jews  look  at  it :  So  far  from  thy  being  justi- 
fied in  relying  upon  Jehovah,  He  is.  on  the  con- 
trary, on  our  side,  and  it  is  by  His  command  that 
we  are  come  hither  to  destroy  Jerusalem.  This 
was,   as  Clericus   says,  purum  putum  mendacium. 


As  an  Assyrian  he  did  not  believe  at  all  in  the 
God  of  Israel,  but  only  made  use  of  this  form  of 
statement,  cf.  vers.  34  and  35.  It  can  hardly  be  that 
he  meant  to  refer  to  the  successes  which  the  Assy- 
rians had  had  up  to  this  time  as  proofs  that  they 
were  under  the  guidance  and  approval  of  Jehovah 
(Calmet,  Thenius).  Still  less  can  we  suppose  that 
he  "  had  heard  of  the  declarations  of  the  prophets, 
who  had  predicted  this  distress  as  a  punishment 
sent  by  Jehovah  "  (Knobel,  Von  Gerlach,  KeiL 
Vitringa  and  others.)  [At  the  same  time,  if  we 
impute  to  Rab-shakeh  such  a  disbelief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  Jehovah  as  makes  his  reference  to  His  pro- 
vidence here  a  pure  fiction,  merely  assumed  for 
the  purpose  of  producing  an  effect  upon  the  listen- 
ers who  did  believe  in  Jehovah,  we  shall  introduce 
a  modern  or  monotheistic  idea  into  the  speech  of 
an  ancient  heathen  and  polytheist,  to  whom  it  wag 
foreign.  The  characteristic  of  the  Jewish  mono- 
theistic religion  was  exclusiveness,  intolerance. 
The  polytheistic  heathen  religions  did  not  deny 
the  existence  of  the  national  divinities  of  each 
separate  nation.  The  fact  that  Rab-shakeh  be- 
lieved in  the  Assyrian  divinities  does  not,  there- 
fore, exclude  all  belief  on  his  part  in  Jehovah.  In 
ver.  12  he  assumes  the  existence  of  gods  of  the 
countries  mentioned.  In  xvii.  26  we  have  another 
instance  of  the  usual  heathen  conception.  That  was, 
that  every  nation  had  its  own  divinities.  These 
were  conceived  of  as  existing  and  being  true  gods, 
one  as  much  as  the  other,  in  all  the  sense  in  which 
heathen  ever  conceived  of  gods  as  truly  existing. 
Each  nation  held  its  own  god  or  gods  to  be  greater 
and  mightier  than  those  of  other  nations,  but 
thought  it  necessary,  especially  when  in  a  foreign 
country,  to  pay  proper  respect  to  the  local  divinitj 
Rab-shakeh  no  doubt  went  thus  far,  at  least,  in 
his  "  belief  in  "  Jehovah,  and  his  claim  to  enjoy 
the  favor  of  Jehovah  was  either  a  pure  assumption, 
good  at  least  until  the  event  contradicted  it,  or  it 
was  founded  \ipon  the  successes  hitherto  won,  or 
it  took  advantage  of  such  prophecies  of  the  Jew- 
ish prophets  as  he  may  have  heard  of.  Cf.  the 
bracketed  note  on  p.  57  of  Pt.  II.  in  regard  to 
Naaman's  idea  of  Jehovah. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  26.  Then  said  Eliakim,  &c  As  the 
haughty  words  of  Rab-shakeh,  especially  what  he 
had  last  said  (ver.  25),  might  have  a  depressing 
effect  upon  the  soldiers  posted  on  the  wall,  the 
king's  ambassadors  interrupted  him  and  begged 
him,  in  a  friendly  manner,  to  speak  Syriac.  To 
this  he  gives  a  rudeanswer.   JVD1X  ('.  e.,  Syriac, — 

[more  strictly  and  correctly,  Aramaic.  The  name 
Syriac  is  commonly  restricted  to  a  later  dialect  o! 
the  Aramaic. — W.  G.  S.] — "  was  spoken  in  ancient 
times  in  Syria,  Babylonia,  and  Mesopotamia"  (Ge- 
senius).  It  was  "the  connecting  link  between  the 
languages  of  Eastern  [middle]  Asia  and  the  Sem- 
itic languages  of  Western  Asia"  (Dreehsler).  On 
account  of  the  intercourse  between  the  Hebrews 
and  these  nations,  the  high  court-officials  especi 
ally  were  acquainted  with  Hebrew.  The  Hebrew 
and  the  Aramaic  were  closely  related  languages 
(Ez.  iv.  7).  Rab-shakeh  spoke  Hebrew  in  this 
case,  not  out  of  politeness,  but  in  order  that  he 
might  be  understood  by  the  listening  people,  who 
were  not  acquainted  with  any  other  language.  His 

object  was  to  influence  the  common  people.     ^>5J 

and  PN  in  ver.  27  have  no  distinction  of  meajiog 


208 


THE  SECOND  BOOR  OF  THE  KINGS. 


In  Isai.  xxxvi.  12  we  find  px  for  pj; .  Rab-shakeh 

pretends  to  be  a  friend  of  "  the  people."  So  he  says, 
in  substance-  Ye  are  abusing  your  common  peo- 
ple. Ir,  exposing  them  to  a  wasting  siege  ye  are 
cringing  them,  with  yourselves,  into  the  direst  ex- 
tremity, so  that  they  will  at  last  be  compelled  to 
consume  ilieir  own  excrement.  (Compare  similar 
abominations,  chap.  vi.  28,  sq.)     "  Instead  of  the 

vulgar  word  DfPtOn  ,  excrementa  sua,  and  DrWB'i 

winds  suits,  the  keri  substitutes  the  euphemisms 

Cnxii'  their  out-going,  and  CiT^JT  'D'Di  the  water 

of  their  feet  The  text  is  punctuated  for  these 
readings  "  (Knobel).     "litDV'1  stands  here  as  in  1 

Kings  viii.  32.  Ewald:  '•  He  now.  for  the  first  time, 
took  up  a  position  directly  in  front  of  the  wall." 
It  can  hardly  mean  what  Keil  understands:  "He 
took  up  a  position  calculated  for  efi'ect.  He  does 
exactly  the  contrary  of  what  they  begged  him  to 
do.  He  approaches  nearer  in  order  to  be  still  more 
distinctly  heard  by  the  people,"  and  "  follows  still 
more  directly  his  object  of  influencing  the  minds 
of  the  common  soldiers  "  (Drechsler). 

Ver.  31.  Make  terms  ■with  me,  &c.  Yulg  : 
Facite  mecum  quod  vobis  est  utik.  Luther;  Adept 
my  favor.       But  i"C"l3  means  blessing,  and  implies 

the  same  as  DipE'i  peace,  prosperity  (Josh.  ix.  15), 

for  peace  was  concluded  with  mutual  blessings, 
and  expressed  wishes  for  prosperity  on  either 
hand  (1  Chrou.  xviii.  111).  Come  out  to  me,  the 
usual  expression  for  besieged  who  "go  out"  and 
surrender  to  the  besiegers  (1  Sam.  xi.  3;  Jerem. 
xxi  9;  xxxviii.  17).  The  threats  are  now  follow- 
ed by  wheedling  and  promises.  Then  eat  ye,  &c. ; 
i.  e.,  ye  shall  lead  a  life  which  is  in  every  way 
peaceful  and  happy.  See  1  Kings  iv.  20.  Until 
I  come,  ver.  32.  Not,  "until  I  come  back  from 
Egypt  "  (Knobel),  but.  in  general;  I  will  come  and 
take  you  away.  It  appears,  therefore,  that,  "Even 
in  case  of  a  capitulation,  the  Assyrians  proposed 
to  transport  the  Jewish  population,  according  to 
their  usual  custom.  For  the  proofs  that  they  were 
accustomed  to  adopt  this  measure  with  all  subju- 
gated nations  see  Hengstenberg.  De  rebus  Tyriis, 
p.  51.  sq."  (Keil).  [On  these  deportations  see  the 
Supplementary  Note  after  the  Exeg.  section  on  chap. 
xvii.  The  first  one  on  record  is  there  noticed,  as 
well  as  a  large  number  both  out  of,  and  into,  Syria 
and  Samaria.]  We  need  not  attempt  to  define  the 
land  referred  to.  The  whole  promise  was  a  mere 
pretext.  THV  IV  r  is  the  olive-tree  which  bears  oil- 
producing  fruit,  in  distinction  from  the  wild  olive- 
tree. 

Ver.  33.  Have  the  gods  of  the  nations  de- 
livered each  his  land,  Ac.  Finally  the  speaker 
puts  the  Assyrian  power  (the  "  king  of  Assyria  "  is 
here  used  generally  for  the  Assyrian  imperial  power, 
not  for  Sennacherib  in  particular)  above  the  might 
of  all  the  national  divinii  ies,  anil  therefore  above  the 
supposititious  god  Jehovah,  and  proves  the  justice 
of  the  assumption  by  those  successes  of  the  Assy- 
rian power  which  no  one  could  deny.  It  is  very 
skillful  of  him  to  close  his  speech  with  this  argu- 
ment which  he  considers  the  strongest  and  n  ist 
effective.  He  means  to  say:  If  all  the  gods  of 
these  numerous  and  mighty  nations  could  no  re- 
sist the  might  of  Assyria,  "much  less  will  J   fto- 


vah,  the  insignificant  god  of  an  insignificant  nation, 
be  able  to  do  so  "  (Knobel).  It  is  true  that  he 
thereby  falls  into  a  contradiction  of  what  he  had 
himself  said  in  ver.  25,  and  this  shows  that  his 
words   there  were   empty  pretence. — In   ver.   34, 

Drechsler  translates  TIPX  both  times  by  the  singu- 

,ar,  following  the  Vulgate.  But  as  it.  must  be 
taken  as  a  plural  in  ver.  33,  so  also  here,  especi- 
ally as  it  is  a  fact  that  those  nations  had  more 
than  one  god  each.  On  Hamath,  Sepharvai)n,  and 
Joah  see  notes  on  chap.  xvii.  24.  30  sq.  Many  hy- 
potheses have  been  suggested  in  regard  to  Arpad. 
As  it  is  mentioned  her  eand  Isai.  x.  9,  xxxvii.  13, 
and  Jerem.  xlix.  23,  in  connection  with  Hamath,  it 
must  have  belonged  to  Syria.  We  have  "no  trace 
of  it  either  in  writings  or  elsewhere  "  (Winer)  It 
cannot  be  certainly  affirmed  that  the  district  Arfad 
in  northern  Syria,  seven  hours'  journey  north  of 
Haleb  (Keil),  is  the  same  place.  IJena  is  also  men- 
tioned with  Joah  in  chap.  xix.  13,  and  in  Isai 
xxxvii.  13,  but  its  location  is  as  little  ascertainable 
as  that  of  the  latter  place.  It  is  more  probable 
that  we  must  look  for  it  in  Mesopotamia  (Winer) 
than  on  the  Phoenician  frontier  (Ewald).  [In  142, 
when  Tiglath  Pileser  conquered  Syria  (see  Supp. 
Note  on  chap.  xv.  p.  1G1),  the  city  of  Arpad  alone 
resisted  him  with  any  success.  It  held  out  for 
three  years.  The  same  city  joined  Samaria  and 
Damascus  in  the  revolt  mentioned  in  the  Svpp. 
Note  on  chap.  xvii.  p.  189.  Sargon  reconquered  it. 
It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  it  was  in  Syria,  though 
the  identification  with  Arfad  is  doubtful.  It  was 
a  large  and  important  city,  for  it  is  mentioned  in 
the  acts  of  Sargon,  together  with  Hamath,  Damas- 
cus, Syria,  and  Samaria,  as  among  the  chief  cities 
of  that  part  of  the  world. — Some  good  maps  offer 
Hena  in  the  Euphrates  valley  and  identify  it  with 
Anah,  or  Anatho.  Sepharvaim  was  certainly  in 
the  Euphrates  valley  (see  Exeg.  note  on  xvii.  24)  and 
it  is  very  probable  that  Hena  and  Ivah  were  also 
there.— W.  G.  S.]    The  Vulg.  which  Luther,  Cleri- 

cus,  and  Thenius  follow,  takes  Ip'JfiT'D  as  a  ques- 
tion. Thenius  even  considers  i^n  the  original  read- 
ing. But  it  cannot  well  be  taken  differently  from 
?,i',",3  in  the  following  verse,  where  there  certainly 

is  not  a  question,  but  an  inference,  as  in  ver.  20.  The 
sentence  is  abbreviated.  In  full  it  would  read : 
Where  are  the  gods  of  Samaria  that  they  should 
have  saved  it?  Jehovah  will  be  just  as  unable  to 
save  Jerusalem.  The  gods  of  Samaria  are  includ- 
ed in  those  "  of  the  nations."— But  the  people 
held  their  peace,  ver.  3t>.  In  Isaiah  the  word 
D«n  is  wanting,  so  that  m»"inm  ou'y  refers  to  the 

three  officers.  Of  course  Hezekiah  had  forbidden 
them  to  reply,  or  to  enter  into  any  negotiations, 
partly  because  he  reserved  this  responsibility  to 
himself,  and  partly  in  order  not  to  provoke  the 
enemy  still  more.  Because  they  kept  silence,  the 
people,  to  whom  Rab-shakeh  had  addressed  his  last 
words,  also  kept  silence.  Hezekiah  could  not  have 
commanded  the  people  to  keep  silence,  because  he 
did  not  know  beforehand  that  Rab-shakeh  would 
address  himself  to  them  instead  of  to  the  ambassa- 
dors. The  latter  returned  with  rent  garments,  in 
grief  and  sorrow,  not  only  for  the  hard  message 
which  they  had  to  bring,  but  also  on  account  of 
the  insults  to  tho  king,  and  still  more  on  accouttf 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


209 


of  the  blasphemies  against  Jehovah,  which  they 
had  been  obliged  to  hear.     See  chap.  vi.  30. 

Chap.  xix.  ver.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass  when 
king  Hezekiah  heard  it,  &c.  The  sackcloth 
which  Hezekiah  put  on  was  not  only  a  garment  of 
sorrow,  but  also  a  garment  of  penitence,  as  in  1 
Kings  xx.  32 ;  2  Kings  vi.  30.  The  king  saw  in 
this  event  a  divine  chastisement  (ver.  3).  The 
rabbis  use  the  passage  to  prove  that  when  blas- 
phemies are  uttered,  not  only  those  who  hear  them, 
but  also  those  to  whom  they  are  reported,  ought 
to  rend  their  garments  (See  Schottgen,  Hor.  Hebr. 
on  Matt.  xxvi.  65).  Hezekiah  goes  into  the  tem- 
ple, "in  order  to  humble  himself  before  God  and 
to  pray  for  help  "  (Thenius).  At  the  same  time 
he  sends  a  solemn  embassy  of  the  highest  officers 
and  the  most  important  men  to  the  prophet  Isaiah. 
The  elders  of  the  priests  are  the  most  notable 
amongst  them.  "Embassies  are  often  sent  to  the 
prophets  by  the  kings  in  times  of  extraordinary 
distress  "  (Von  Gerlaeh),  cf.  Numb.  xxii.  5  ;  Jerera. 
xxi.  1).  It  is  very  significant  of  the  comparative 
position  of  prophets  and  priests  that  the  latter 
were  chosen  as  ambassadors  to  the  former.  The 
priests  were  officers  only  by  virtue  of  their  birth. 
The  prophets  were  chosen  men  of  God,  filled  with 
His  Spirit.  "  Isaiah  was  the  ouly  one  to  whom 
the  nation  could  turn  under  the  circumstances,  the 
one  to  whom  it  must  turn.  From  the  point  of 
time  referred  to  in  Isai.  vii.  3  sq.  he  presided  over 
this  work  of  divine  discipline  "  (Drechsler).  The- 
nius' remark  :  "  This  official  embassy  was  intended 
to  encourage  the  people,"  is  an  error.  It  was  not 
sent  with  any  politic  intention  at  all,  but  sprang 
from  the  need  of  reliable  counsel  in  a  desperate 
situation.  Hezekiah  desired  first  of  all  to  know 
God's  will.  He  therefore  sent  to  the  approved  and 
highly  honored  prophet. — A  day  of  distress,  &c, 
ver.  3.  Luther  incorrectly,  following  the  Vulg. 
(et  increpationis  et  blasphemies) :  und  des  Scheltens 
und  Ldsterns  [E.  V.  of  rebuke  and  blasphemy]. 

nnoin  means  chastisement,  punisliment  (Hos.  v.  9 ; 

Ps.  cxlix.  7).     HVX2   means    disdain,  abhorrence, 

especially  of  the  people  by  God  (Deut.  xxxii.  19 ; 
Lament,  ii.  6).  [The  meaning  here  is  that  it  is  a 
day  on  which  God  has  disdainfully  rejected  his 
people,  and  left  them  to  their  enemies. — W.  G.  S.] 
—For  the  children  are  come  to  the  opening 
of  the  womb,  &c.  The  proverb  is  taken  from 
the  crisis  in  child-bearing,  where  the  child  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  birth,  but  the  strength  of  the  mother 
fails  on  account  of  the  continuous  pains,  so  that 
she  and  the  child  are  both  in  danger.  Clericus, 
therefore,  interprets  it  of  the  situation  of  those  in 
great  peril,  who  know  what  they  must  do  in  order 
to  escape,  but  who  feel  that  it  is  beyond  their 
power  to  take  the  necessary  measures,  and  who 
fear  that,  if   they  should   make  the  attempt,  all 

would    be    lost. — 'pix ,  ver.  4,  non  est    dubitantis 

particnla,  sed  bene  sperantis  (Clericus).  He  hopes 
that  God  will  not  allow  the  words  which  have 
been  spoken  to  go  unnoticed.  The  Lord  thy 
God,  inasmuch  as  the  prophet  is  in  an  especial 
sense  His  servant.  The  remnant  are  those  who, 
like  Jerusalem,  were  not  yet  in  the  power  of  the 
Assyrians,  who  had  already  overrun  the  country 
and  captured  the  strongholds. 

Ver.  6.  And  Isaiah  said  unto  them,  &c.   The 


prophet  does  not  call  the  officers  <>f  the  king  DH3y , 
but  D'lyj  •  He  does  not  thereby  simply  desig- 
nate them  as  "servants,"  or,  in  fact,  "body-ser- 
vants," as  Thenius  insists.  There  is  rather  a  con- 
temptuous cignificance  in  the  word,  which  is  never 
used  of  old  men,  such  as  these  officers  were. 
Knobel:  "The  youths,  the  youngsters."  Ewald 
and  Umbreit  even  render  it:  "The  boys";  Drechs- 
ler :  "  The  guards,  the  rank  and  file,  who  have  no 
discretionary  judgment."  [Herein  lies  the  con- 
tumely of  the  epithet.  These  high  officers  are 
called  by  a  name  applicable  only  to  those  who 
have  nothing  to  do  but  mechanically  obey  orders. 
It  is  like  calling  cabinet  ministers,  who  are,  in  a 
good  sense,  "  servants  "  of  the  State,  public  lack- 
eys.— W.  G.  S.] — I  will  inspire  him  with  such 
a  spirit,  &c,  ver.  7.  Malvenda's  rendering :  Yeniet 
per  aerem  nuncius  sen  rumor,  is  entirely  erroneous. 
"Others  understand  'by  'spirit'  here,  a  wind,  es- 
pecially a  noxious  wind,  the  Simoom,  or  something 
of  that  kind,  which  can  sweep  away  a  whole  army, 
and  which  the  angel  (ver.  35)  may  have  used  as  an 
instrumentality  "  (Richter).  That,  however,  is  not 
the   meaning.     nVl  is  often   used  for  disposition, 

state  of  mind.  (Knobel:  I  will  awaken  in  him 
such  a  state  of  mind.  Thenius :  a  despondent 
disposition  or  mood.  Similarly  Theodoret :  nveiua, 
ri/v  Aeiliav  oi/tcu  Sr/hivv).  Here  it  evidently  meant, 
more  than  that,  and  refers  to  the  "  extraordinary 
impulsion  of  a  divine  inspiration  which  is  to  hurry 
him  blindly  on  "  (Drechsler).  This  spirit  is  to 
leave  him  no  rest,  so  that,  as  soon  as  a  certain 
rumor  reaches  his  ears,  he  shall  hurry  away.  The 
sense  is,  therefore:  I  will  bring  it  about  that  he 
shall  feel  himself  powerfully  impelled  to  retreat. 
The  "rumor"  which  he  is  to  hear  is  not  the  nrws 
of  the  defeat  of  his  army  (Lightfoot,  Thenius),  for 
he  was  with  his  army  in  person,  but  the  news 
of  Tirhakah's  approach  (ver.  9).  This  news  was 
the  first  aud  immediate  occasion  of  his  retreat. 
The  destruction  of  his  army  was  then  added,  and 
this  hastened  his  steps.  The  prophet  does  not, 
therefore,  refer  expressly  to  the  latter.  Drechsler 
fiuds  in  this  a  kind  of  "pedagogic  wisdom,  for 
thus  he  forced  Hezekiah  and  the  people  to  put  im- 
plicit faith  in  the  word  of  God  upon  which  they 
had  to  rely." — And  I  will  cause  him  to  fall  by 
the  sword  in  his  own  land.  The  assertion  that 
this  declaration  is  put  in  the  mouth  of  Isaiah  by 
the  historian,  post  eventum,  is  both  arbitrary  and 
violent.  It  appears  also  in  the  other  narrative, 
Isaiah  xxxvii.  7,  in  the  same  words.  It  therefore 
belongs  to  the  common  source  of  both,  which 
Isaiah  himself  wrote. 

Ver.  8.  So  Rab-shakeh  returned.  He  did 
not,  therefore,  forthwith  commence  the  siege,  al- 
though he  had  come  to  Jerusalem  with  a  l^rge 
force  (chap,  xviii.  17),  but  first  reported  to  his 
master  that  he  had  accomplished  nothing  by  his 
speeches,  and  had  found  Jerusalem  strongly  forti- 
fied. He  found  Sennacherib  making  war  before 
Libnah.  In  regard  to  this  city,  see  note  on  chap, 
viii.  22.  It  lay  some  distance  north  [north-west] 
of  Lachish,  about  as  far  from  it  as  from  Jerusalem, 
which  lay  to  the  northeast  of  both.  [The  position 
is  uncertain.  On  the  authority  of  Eusebius,  Ge- 
senius,  Thenius,  and  Keil  place  it  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Eleutheropolis  or  Beit  Jibrin.  Lenonnant 
puts  Libnah  on  his  map  S.  E.  of  Lachish.]     It  fot 


210 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


lows  that  Sennacherib  had  not,  in  the  mean  time, 
advanced  southwards,  towards  Egypt,  but  north- 
wards, that  is,  he  had  retreated.  This  he  had 
done,  no  doubt,  on  account  of  Tirhakah's  advance. 
It  can  hardly  be,  as  Keil  and  Thenius  suppose, 
that  he  had  taken  Lachish,  for,  if  he  had  done  so, 
he  would  probably  have  remained  in  that  place, 
and  not  have  retreated.  Lachish  appears  to  have 
been  so  strong  by  nature  that  he  could  not  take  it 
at  once,  and  therefore  desired  to  get  possession  of 
Libnah  at  least.  He  heard  the  news  of  Tirhakah's 
advance,  not  at  Libnah,  but  while  he  was  besieg- 
ing Lachish.  In  the  first  place  he  passed  by  Jeru- 
salem, but  it  was  now  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  him  to  get  possession  of  this  strong  position, 
so  as  not  to  have  it  in  his  rear.  [On  this  point 
also  see  the  Supplementary  Note.] — -Tirhakah,  who  is 
called  by  Manetho,  1apan6c,  by  Strabo,  Ttd/wuv  6 
Airfiui/',  on  Egyptian  monuments  Tahrka  or  Tahra- 
ka,  "is  represented  on  the  Pylon  of  the  great 
temple  of  Medinet-Abu  in  the  guise  of  a  king, 
who  is  slaughtering,  before  the  god  Amnion,  ene- 
mies from  the  conquered  countries,  Egypt,  Syria, 
and  Tepopa  (a  country  which  cannot  be  identi- 
fied) "  (Keil).  When,  and  how  long,  he  ruled  over 
Egypt,  are  questions  which  do  not  here  concern  us 
further.  (See  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assyr.,  s.  72  and 
458).  He  is  described,  like  Sesostris,  as  one  of 
the  great  conquerors  of  the  ancient  world  (Strabo 
L  45).  This  was  the  ground  for  the  effect  which 
his  approach  produced. 

Ver.  9.   He    sent    messengers    again    unto 
Hezekiah.      Instead   of    3£«1    we   find   in   Isai. 

T  T- 

xxxvii.  9  J?DC"1 .    Drechsler  thinks  that  this  word 

is  much  more  forcible,  and  that  it  is  repeated  from 
the  beginning  of  the  verse,  in  order  to  show  that 
Sennacherib  sent  the  messengers  as  soon  as  he 
Ueard  the  news.  The  text  before  us,  however, 
fems  to  be  the  better  one,  asDelitsch  also  admits 
in  this  case.  The  point  to  be  emphasized  is, 
not  that  Sennacherib  sent  at  once  upon  hearing 
this  news,  but  that  he  sent  again,  made  another 
attempt  to  get  possession  of  Jerusalem  by  capitu- 
lation, without  drawing  the  sword,  for  Jerusalem 
was  far  stronger  than  Samaria,  and  the  latter  cost 
Shalmaueser  a  three  years'  siege. — On  ver.  1 0  see 
chap,  xviii.  30,  and  on  ver.  1 1  cf.  the  similar  piece 
of  boasting,  Isai.  x.  8-11.  This  time  Sennacherib 
addresses  himself  directly  to  Hezekiah  by  a  letter, 
and  hopes  for  better  success  than  was  won  by  his 
servants.  The  letter  contains  the  same  arguments 
as  Rab-shakeh's  speech,  with  this  difference,  that 
still  more  countries  which  had  been  conquered  by 
the  Assyrian  arms  are  here  enumerated,  in  order 

to  heighten  the  effect.     DO,"iniT>  (ver.  11),  not:  in 

order  to  destroy  them,  but;  so  that  they  destroyed,  or: 
by  this,  that  they  destroyed  them ;  strictly  :  by  devot- 
ing them  to  destruction.  Cf.  Dent.  ii.  34;  iii.  6; 
Josh.  viii.  26;  1  Sam.  xv.  3,  8;  Numb.  xxi.  3. — 
In  ver.  1 2  the  countries  which  Rab-shakeh  had  not 
mentioned  are  mentioned  first,  and  then,  in  ver.  13, 
those  which  he  had  mentioned.  On  Gozan  see 
note  on  chap.  xvii.  6.  The  mention  of  this  place 
in  connection  with  Haran  in  Mesopotamia  (Gen. 
s.\.  31)  does  not  force  us  to  conclude  that  it  refers 
to  Gauzanitis  in  that  country.  "  The  enumeration 
is  founded  on  historical,  not  on  geographical  facts  " 
(Keil).  Itezeph  wue  a  place  in  the  district,  of  Pal- 
myra, in  eastern   Syria,  which  Ptolemy  calls  (5,15) 


'¥rjaaij>a.  It  was  a  day's  journey  west  of  the  En 
phrates  (Winer,  R,-  W.-B.).  Jalkuti  mentions  nin» 
cities  of  this  name  in  his  geographical  dictionary. 
The  one  here  referred  to  was  probably  the  most 
important  amongst  them.  Eden  is  certainly  not 
the  Syrian  Eden  (Amos  i.  5),  for  the  reference  here 
is  to  Assyrian  conquests ;  but  is  the  Eden  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  Canneh  and  Haran,  in 
Ezek.  xxvii.  23.  It  must,  therefore,  be  sought  in 
Mesopotamia.  It  is  quite  uncertain  where  Thelasar 
was,  and  whether  it  was  a  city  or  a  district.  Per- 
haps it  was  in  Mesopotamia,  like  the  other  places 
here  mentioned,  or  perhaps  it  was  in  Babylon,  for 

pn  (hill)  occurs  at  the  first  part  of  many  Baby- 
lonian geographical  names.  Ewald  considers  it 
identical  with  Theleda,  near  Palmyra.  According 
to  Delitsch,  it  is  "  Thelser  of  the  Tab.  Peuting., 
on  the  east  side  of  the  Tigris."  The  children  of 
Eden  "  may  have  been  a  tribe  which  had  just 
then  acquired  importance,  had  established  itself  in 
Thelasar,  a  place  which  did  not  originally  belong 
to  it,  and  had  founded  a  kingdom  there,  as  -the 
Chaldeans  did  in  Babylon  "  (Drechsler). — On  ver. 
1 3  see  notes  on  chap.  xvii.  24  and  xviii.  34. 

Ver.  14.  And  Hezekiah  received  the  letter. 
The  plural,  D'lSD ,  has  here  a  singular  significa- 
tion ;    literal,   epistola,    as    the    suffix   in   WbHS'l 

shows.  Hezekiah  went  into  the  temple  to  pray, 
after  the  receipt  of  Sennacherib's  letter,  as  he  had 
done  after  Rab-shakeh's  speech  (ver.  1).  He 
spread  it  before  the  Lord,  as  it  were  before 
the  throne  of  Jehovah.  It  is  incomprehensible 
that  Gesenius  should  have  asserted  that  Hezekiah 
did  this  with  the  same  motive  with  which  the  Thi- 
betans set  up  their  prayer-machines  before  their 
gods,  in  order  that  the  gods  may  read  the  prayers 
for  themselves.  The  substance  of  the  prayer  itself 
(ver.  15-19)  contradicts  any  such  notion  most  dis- 
tinctly, for  the  conception  of  the  one  sole  God  of 
heaven  and  earth,  as  opposed  to  all  heathen  con- 
ceptions of  divinity,  which  here  appears,  excludes 
totally  any  such  coarse  anthropomorphic  fantasy. 
It  is  impossible  to  impute  any  such  gross  supersti- 
tion to  that  king  of  Israel,  who  displayed  zeal 
against  idolatry  such  as  no  king  since  David  had 
shown,  and  who  stood  in  such  relation  as  we  have 
seen  to  Isaiah,  the  most  gifted  of  the  prophets. 
Nor  can  we  explain  to  ourselves  Hezekiah's  action 
in  spreading  the  letter  before  God,  with  Keil 
and  Von  Gerlach,  as  "  child-like  faith  and  confi- 
dence," for  it  would  have  been  more  than  "  child- 
ish "  if  Hezekiah  had  believed  that  this  letter  must 
be  presented  to  God  for  Him  to  see  and  read  it 
Himself.  Still  less  can  we  suppose  that  his  object 
was  ut  populum  earum  literarum  conspectu  ad  deum 
orandum  excitaret  (Clericus).  It  was  rather  a  signifi- 
cant, or  symbolic,  act.  Hezekiah  solemnly  hands 
over  the  letter,  the  documentary  blasphemy,  to  Je- 
hovah. He  spreads  it  before  Jehovah  and  leaves  to 
Him  the  work  of  punishing  it.  Lisco:  "The  act  of 
spreading  out  the  letter  before  Jehovah  is  a  sym 
bolic  presentation  of  the  great  distress  into  which 
lie  has  been  brought  by  Sennacherib,  and  to  which 
his  prayer  refers."  Delitsch:  "It  is  a  prayer 
without  words,  a  prayer  in  action,  which  then 
passes  into  a  spoken  prayer."  He  calls  upon  Je- 
hovah as  the  God  of  Israel,  i.  e.,  as  the  one  who 
has  chosen  Israel  out  of  all  the  nations  of  tho 
earth  to  be  His  own  people,  and  has  made  a  cove- 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


211 


nant  with  this  nation,  and  who,  therefore,  sits  be 
tween  the  cherubim,  and  dwells  amongst  His  cho 
sen  people  (see  the  dissertation  on  the  Significance 
of  the  Temple  under  1  Kings  vi.,  §  6,  c  and  d),  is  not, 
however,  a  mere  national  divinity  like  the  gods  of 
the  nations  which  the  Assyrians  had  conquered,  as 
Sennacherib  supposed,  but  is  the  One,  Almighty 
Creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  In  Isai.  xxxvii.  16 
we  And  with    niiT   the   word   niN3V  ,    wairewpd- 

Tup  (2  Sam.  v.  10;  vii.  8).  This  would  hardly  have 
been  left  out  if  the  author  had  found  it  in  the  origi- 
nal document  which  served  as  his  authority.  "  JOn 
in  fcWrrnFIN  's  an  emphatic  repetition,  and  so  a 
reinforcement,  of  the  subject,  as  in  Isai.  xliii.  25  ; 
li.  12.  &c. ;  tu  We  (not,  tu  es  Me),  that  is,  tu,  nullus 
alius"  (Delitseh). 

Ver.  16.  Lord,  bow  down  thine  ear.  Drechs- 
ler :  "  This  express  mention  of  the  two  chief  senses, 
the  development  of  each  of  the  two  chief  ideas,  ac- 
cording to  their  details,  into  a  twofold  prayer,  the 
complete  symmetry  of  the  two  clauses  of  the  sen- 
tence, the  repetition  of  nirp  in  the  second  clause 

— all  these  conspire  to  give  to  the  prayer  the 
greatest  urgency  and  emphasis."  The  singular, 
"thine  ear,''  with  the  plural,  "thine  eyes,"  is  a 
standing  formula  (Ps.  xvii.  6 ;  xxxi.  2,  Ac).  "  When 
we  wish  to  hear,  we  bend  down  one  ear  to  the 
speaker;  when  we  wish  to  see,  we  open  both 
eyes  "  (Gesenius).  That  "  open  thine  eyes  "  does 
not  mean  :  "  Read  the  letter  "  (Knobel)  is  evident 
from  Isai.  i.  15,  where  the  reference  is  not  to  a  let- 
ter at  all,  but  only  to  a  prayer.  The  second  "  hear  " 
ia  equivalent  to  "  notice,"  "  pay  heed  to."  [The 
anthropomorphism  is  plain.  The  explicit  mention 
of  the  senses  in  addressing  God  is  intended  to  ex- 
press the  most  urgent  prayer  for  attention. — W. 
G.  S.] — In  ver.  17  Hezekiah  admits  the  truth  of 
what  Sennacherib  had  boasted  of,  namely,  the  sub- 
jugation of  all  those  peoples  and  countries.  By  the 
following  words  he  means  to  say :  This  was  possi- 
ble for  him  because  they  had  no  protection  and  no 
help  in  their  gods  of  wood  and  stone  ;  but  thou,  0 
Jehovah  I  our  God,  art  the  only  God,  the  Almighty 
One,  Who  canst  help.  Help  then  thy  people  for 
thine  own  glory,  that  all  nations  may  know  Thee 
as  the  One  True  God  (ver.  19).      a'lnn  does  not 

mean  :  to  put  to  death  by  the  sword  (Luther),  but :  to 
devastate,  to  destroy.  Ezek.  xix.  7 ;  Judges  xvi.  24. 
Instead  of  the  nations  and  their  lands,  Isaiah 
xxxvii.  18  reads:  "all  the  lands  and  their  (own) 
land."  [E.  V.  (as  an  escape  from  the  difficulty) 
"all  the  nations  and  their  lands."]  The  reading 
of  Isaiah  is  not  to  be  preferred  "  on  account  of  its 
greater  difficulty  "  (Keil,  Drechsler).  On  the  con- 
trary, the  text  of  Kings  seems  to  be  more  correct, 
as  the  majority  of  the  commentators  admit.  The- 
nius  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  text  of  Isaiah 
must  be  "  totally  rejected."  The  explanation  that 
the  Assyrians  had,  in  consequence  of  their  numer- 
less  wars,  devastated  their  own  country,  is  alto- 
gether too  forced.  It  does  not  fit  the  context,  for, 
if  it  were  adopted,  then  "their  gods"  in  ver.  18 
might  refer  to  the  gods  of  the  Assyrians.     Neither 

does  Jinjl ,  in  Isaiah,  deserve  to  be  preferred,  as  the 
more  difficult  reading,  to  the  1}J"U1  of  the  text  be- 
fore us.  Knobel  gives  an  incorrect  interpretation 
of  the  words :  And  have  cast  their  gods  into 


the  fire.  Hezekiah  does  not  mean  "  to  put  their 
godliness  in  its  proper  light,"  and  to  say:  "They 
acted  wickedly  even  from  their  own  stand-point, 
since  they  held  these  idols  to  be  gods,  and  never- 
theless destroyed  them."  Drechsler's  remark  is 
more  correct :  "  Standing  themselves  in  the  midst 
of  the  heathen  modes  of  thought,  and  moving  with 
the  mythologic  tendency  which  was  in  the  process 
of  development,  they  recognized  the  deep  connec- 
tion between  the  religion  of  a  people,  its  national 
cultus,  and  its  identity  as  a  particular  individual  in 
the  family  of  nations.  It  was  a  result  of  this  fun- 
damental conception  that  the  idols  of  conquered 
peoples  were  often  carried  into  captivity."  [That 
is,  the  whole  nationality  was  taken  captive,  reduced 
to  submission,  and  carried  away  by  the  victor, 
root  and  branch. — Hezekiah's  mention  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  heathen  gods  (idols),  in  his  prayer, 
therefore,  belongs  to  his  description  of  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  Assyrian  victory,  and  the  utter  ex- 
tirpation of  the  nationalities  which  they  had  con- 
quered.— W.  G.  S.]  Thenius  refers,  in  his  com- 
ment on  this  passage,  to  Botta,  Monum.  pi.  140, 
"  where  an  idol  is  being  hewn  in  pieces  while  the 
booty  from  a  conquered  city  is  being  carried  out 
aDd  weighed." — Therefore  they  have  destroyed 
them.  They  were  easily  able  to  do  so,  he  means 
to  say,  because  these  were  gods  made  by  men's 
hands  out  of  wood  and  stone.  "  It  will,  however, 
and  it  must,  be  entirely  different,  if  he  now  pro- 
ceeds to  assail  Jehovah  "  (Drechsler).  [The  con- 
nection of  thought  may  be  thus  developed :  His 
boast  is  true.  He  has  indeed  uprooted  the  nations, 
devastated  their  countries,  and  destroyed  their  idols, 
in  whom  they  trusted  for  protection.  The  inference 
he  desires  us  to  draw  is,  that  Jehovah,  our  God,  in 
whom  we  trust,  will  not  be  able  to  save  us,  any 
more  than  these  gods  to  save  their  worshippers. 
But  what  is  the  assumption  on  which  this  inference 
entirely  depends  ?  It  is  that  Jehovah  is  only  an- 
other god  like  those.  But  they  are  only  pieces  of 
wood  and  stone,  while  Jehovah  is  the  sole  and  al- 
mighty God  of  hosts.  Hence  the  assumption  is 
false,  the  inference  falls  to  the  ground  with  it,  and 
the  boast,  although  it  is  true,  is  idle. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  20.  Then  Isaiah  .  .  .  sent  to  Hezekiah, 
Ac.  He  did  not  probably  send  the  following  an 
swer  by  a  "younger  prophet,"  or  "  prophet-dis 
ciple  "  (chap.  ix.  1)  (Knobel),  but  by  the  same  em- 
bassy which  Hezekiah,  who  in  the  mean  time  had 
gone  into  the  temple,  had  sent  to  him.  The  reply 
was  not  written  (Starke),  it  was  delivered  orally, 
but  it  is  certain  that  it  was  recorded  by  Isaiah. — 
She  despises  thee,  &c.,  ver.  21.  The  entire  pas- 
sage vers.  2 1-34  may  be  divided  into  three  parts. 
In  the  first,  vers.  21-28,  the  haughty  Assyrian 
himself  is  addressed.  It  consists  of  words  especi- 
ally adapted  to  scorn  his  pretensions.  In  the  sec- 
ond, vers.  29-31,  the  prophet  addresses  himselt 
directly  to  Hezekiah.  In  the  third,  vers.  32-34, 
the  catastrophe  of  the  Assyrian  enterprise  is  sol- 
emnly foretold.  The  commencement  of  the  oracle 
constitutes,  in  form  and  contents,  the  strongest 
nnd  most  confident  contrast  to  the  Assyrian  haugh- 
tiness. [This  division  is  correct  for  the  sense  of 
the  passage.  According  to  its  poetic  construction, 
however,  it  is  rather  composed  of  four  strophes, 
two  of  four  and  two  of  three  verses.  The  oracle 
is  highly  finished  both  in  its  poetic  construction, 
and  in  the  flow  of  thought.  It  commences  witt 
an  indignant  and  scornful  outburst  o'  utter  cop- 


212 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


tempt  for  the  Assyrian  pretensions  (first  str.) ;  it 
then  proceeds  to  refute  them  by  calmer  reasoning 
(sec.  str.) ;  then  it  turns  to  Hezekiah  and  Judah, 
the  other  parties  to  the  dispute,  with  encourage- 
ment (third  str.) ;  and  finally  it  gives,  with  quiet 
confidence,  a  declaration  as  to  the  solution  of  the 
crisis  (fourth  str.). — W.  G.  S.] — The  virgin  daugh- 
ter, Zion:  not  o/Zion.  Even  the  stat.  const,  rtarG , 

only  expresses  the  relation  of  apposition.  "  Daugh- 
ter "  is  the  ordinary  figure  under  which  lands  and 
cities  are  designated  (Isai.  xxiii.  12 ;  xlvii.  I ;  Jerem. 
xlvi.  11;  Lament,  i.  15).  "Virgin"  is  used  of  a 
city  which  is  as  yet  unconquered  (see  Gesenius  on 
Isai.  xxiii.  12).  Here  it  is  prefixed  by  way  of  em- 
phasis, and  expresses  "  in  contradiction  to  the 
confidence  of  the  Assyrian,  the  consciousness  of 
impregnability  "  (Drechsler).  At  thee,  lit.  after  thee 
or  behind  thee.  "  This  is  a  picturesque  feature  in  the 
description,  and  is,  therefore,  mentioned  first  (He- 
brew text).  Behind  thee,  as  thou  departest  in  shame 
and  disgrace  "  (Drechsler).  She  wags  her  head, 
not  moving  it  from  side  to  side  as  a  sign  of  refusal  or 
disapproval,  but  up  and  down,  as  a  sign  of  ridicule, 
Ps.  xxii.  7  ;  cix.  25;  Job  xvi.  4;  Jerem.  xviii.  16. 
She  shows  "by  this  gesture  that  it  must  have 
turned  out  so  and  not  otherwise  "  (Delitsch).  This 
scorn  and  ridicule  is  well  deserved,  because  Sen- 
nacherib had  blasphemed  the  Most  High,  therefore, 
ver.  22 :  Whom  hast  thou  insulted  and  blas- 
phemed ?  He  that  sitteth  upon  the  heavens  shall 
laugh. — Lifted  voice,  not  in  the  sense  of  shouting 
aloud  (Drechsler,  Keil)  (for  Rab-shakeh  was  the 
only  one  who  had  lifted  up  his  voice  in  this  sense, 
not  Sennacherib),  but  in  the  more  general  sense  of 
uttering  words  against  anybody  [a  poetic  expres- 
sion for  speaking].      D110  is  not  the  "height  of 

thine  eyes  "  (Umbreit),  but  on  high,  upwards  to- 
wards heaven;  cf.  Isai.  lvii.  15,  "I  dwell  in  the 
high  and  holy  place."  It  does  not,  therefore, 
simply  mean,  as  in  Isai.  xl.  26,  to  look  up  towards 
heaven,  but,  as  is  seen  by  the  following  words: 
"  Against  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  it  has  au  acces- 
sory reference  to  that  pride  and  arrogance,  which 
places  itself  on  a  level  with  Him  who  dwells  in 
heaven.  The  Holy  One  of  Israel  is,  it  is  true, 
the  name  which  is  peculiar  to  Isaiah,  but  here  it  is 
used  because  "  Jehovah  is  especially  designated 
by  the  title  which  distinctly  implies  that  His 
majesty  cannot  be  outraged  by  anybody  with  im- 
punity, Isai.  v.  16"  (Drechsler).  The  Sept.  and 
Vulg.  [and  E.  V.]  translate,  in  violation  of  the 
masoretic  accents :  "  Against  whom  hast  thou 
lifted  up  thy  voice,  and  lifted  up  thine  eyes  on 
high  ?     Against  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  I  " 

Ver.  23.  By  thy  messengers  thou  hast 
insulted  the  Lord.  The  "messengers"  are 
those  mentioned  in  ver.  9.  In  Isai.  xxxvii.  24 
we  find  instead :  "  thy  servants,"  evidently  re- 
ferring to  those  meutioned  in  chap,  xviii.  11.  The 
speech  which  the  prophet  here  puts  in  the  mouth 
of  Sennacherib,  and  in  which  he  gives  the  key  to 
ali  the  feelings  and  disposition  of  the  latter,  is  di- 
vided  into  two   parts   by  the  emphasized  'JX  in 

vers.  23  and  24.  Then  each  principal  clause 
is  subdivided.  The  Sept.,  Vulg.,  Luther,  and 
others  take  all  the  verbs  iu  both  verses  as  perfect 

tenses,  but  it  is  incorrect  because  the  perfect  TlvVi 


ver.  23,  is  followed  by  the  two  futures  J1113X  an» 

nX13S  ,  and  likewise  the  perfect  'flip  ,    ver.   24, 

by  innN-     It  is  still  less  admissible  to  refer  ver. 

23  to  past  time  and  ver.  24  to  future  time,  and  to 

translate  the  perfect   'JVPy  as  a  perfect,  but  the 

perfect  'mp  as  an  imperfect,    as   is   often  done. 

The  rule  which  here  applies  is  the  one  given  by 
Gesenius  (Hebr.  Gramin.  §  126,  4):  "The  perfect 
may  even  refer  to  the  future,  especially  in  strong 
affirmations  and  assurances,  in  which  the  speaker 
regards  the  matter,  in  his  own  will,  as  already 
done,  or  as  good  as  accomplished.  In  German 
[and  English]  the  present  is  used  in  such  cases  in- 
stead of  the  future  "  (cf.  Ewald,  Lehrb.  §  135,  c). 
This  use  is  common  in  prophecies,  Isai.  ix.  1 ;  v. 
13.  Cf.  Ps.  xxxi.  6;  Gen.  xv.  18;  xvii.  20.  We 
therefore  translate,  with  De  Wette,  Hitzig,  Knobeh 
Umbreit,  Ewald,  and  others,  both  perfects  by  the 
present,  especially  as  it  could  not,  in  any  sense,  be 
said  of  Sennacherib  that  he  had  already  dried  up 
all  the  rivers  of  Egypt.  Sennacherib  boasts  not 
so  much  of  what  he  has  done  as  of  what  he  can 
do ;  he  represents  himself  as  almighty.  Yet  it  is 
true  that  "  in  each  of  the  two  verses,  the  second 
clause  gives  the  consequence  of  the  first,  that  is 
to  say,  the  second  clause  tells,  in  each  case,  what 
the  Assyrian  proposes  to  do  after  he  has  accom- 
plished what  is  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  " 
(Keil).  Drechsler's  objection  that  this  makes  the 
Assyrian  appear  as  an  "empty  boaster,"  who,  "in 
ridiculous  hyperboles  piles  up  a  catalogue  of  things 
which  he  boastfully  intends  to  do,"  has  no  weight, 
for  it  is  not  the  prophet's  intention  to  mention  all 
the  great  tilings  which  the  Assyrian  has  already 
done,  but  to  show  what  he  imagines  that  he  can 
do.  He  does  not  mean  to  make  him  enumerate  the 
great  deeds  which  he  has  accomplished,  but  he 
means  to  describe  his  disposition,  the  thoughts  of 
his  heart. — This  answers  the  question  whether  the 
words  which  are  here  put  into  the  mouth  of  Sen- 
nacherib are  to  be  taken  literally  (historically)  or 
figuratively.  Many  of  the  old  commentators 
thought  that  they  were  literal  and  historical. 
Drechsler  adopts  this  view.  He  says:  "The 
greater  the  deeds  were  which  he  boasted  of,  the 
more  necessary  it  was,  if  he  did  not  wish  to  pro- 
duce an  entirely  contrary  effect  from  the  one  which 
the  words  seem  to  indicate,  that  there  should  bo 
earnest  facts  behind  his  words,  and  that  they  should 
rest  upon  incidents  which  could  not  be  denied,  but 
were  notorious."  Keil  justly  objects  that  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reason  to  believe  that  Sennache- 
rib, or  any  of  his  predecessors,  ever  crossed  Mt. 
Lebanon,  with  all  his  chariots  and  military  force, 
and  conquered  Egypt,  or  dried  up  its  rivers.  Um- 
breit also  says :  "  We  do  not  see  what  the  cutting 
down  of  the  cedars  and  cypresses  signifies,  under 
this  interpretation."  "Nevertheless,  the  speech, 
although  it  is  here  given  in  a  rhetorical  and  poet- 
ical form,  is  not  mere  poetry.  The  figures  used 
rest  upon  actual  circumstances,  and  the  speech  is 
not  exhausted  if  we  simply  interpret  it  to  mean 
There  exists  no  effectual  hindrance  to  my  power, 
neither  heights  nor  depths,  neither  mountains  with 
impenetrable  forests,  nor  plains  which  are  barren 
and  waterless,  or  cut  up  by  rivers.  On  the  con- 
trary,  ver.  23  refers  directly  to  Palestine,  and  ve» 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AXD  XIX. 


21? 


24  to  Egypt.  Lebanon  is  the  mountain  which 
forms  the  northern  boundary  of  Palestine.  It 
shuts  it  in  and  forms  the  gateway  to  it  (cf.  Zaeh. 
xi.  1,  Cocceius  :  Libanon  munimentum  terra  Canaan 
versus  septentrionem  est).  When  an  enemy  lias 
passed  ever  it  and  occupied  it,  the  whole  land  lies 
open  before  him ;  it  is  in  his  power.  Just  as  the 
word  "gate"  is  made  to  cover  that  to  which  the 
gate  leads,  so  Lebanon  here  stands  for  the  whole 
country  to  which  it  is  the  key  (Isai.  xxxiii.  9 ;  xxxv. 
2).  [There  is  no  instance  of  this  use  of  language. 
Lebanon  is  often  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  glories 
of  the  country  ;  never  as  standing  for,  covering,  or 
representing  the  country.  The  two  instances  quoted 
belong  to  the  former  usage.  In  Isai.  xxxiii.  9,  Leb- 
anon is  mentioned  with  Sharon  and  Bashan,  the 
other  especial  sources  of  pride  to  the  country,  as 
lying  waste.  In  xxxv.  2,  among  the  details  of  the 
future  glory  which  was  to  be  enjoyed,  Lebanon 
is  mentioned  to  say  that  it  shall  recover  its  former 
grandeur.  In  neither  ease  does  it,  in  any  sense, 
stand  for  the  land  of  Canaan. — W.  G.  S.]  As  in 
the  north  Canaan  was  shut  in  by  Lebanon,  so  it 
was  enclosed  and  protected  on  the  south  by  the 
waterless  desert  of  Beersheba  (Gen.  xxi.  14),  which 
is  contiguous  to  the  desert  El  Tih  (Herodotus  iii. 

5,  Robinson,  Palestine  I.,  300).  Beyond  are  the 
rivers,  the  arms  of  the  Nile  which  protect  Egypt. 
These  two  great  hindrances,  the  mountain  on  the 
north,  and  the  desert  and  then  the  rivers  on  the 
south,  the  haughty  king  declares  to  be  insignificant. 
He  can  pass  over  Lebanon  even  with  his  chariots, 
and  can  dry  up  the  rivers  of  Egypt  with  the  soles 
of  his  feet.  But  all  this  even  does  not  exhaust 
the  meaning  of  this  speech.  If,  namely,  ver.  23 
only  meant  to  say :  The  highest  mountain  in  the 
country  is  no  hindrance  for  me,  then  we  could  not 
see  what  was  the  significance  of  the  following 
words:  And  I  will  hew  down  its  loftiest 
cedars  and  its  choicest  cypresses.  It  cannot 
refer  to  any  actual  cutting  down  of  these  trees, 
since  Sennacherib  had  no  reason  for  devastating 
Lebanon,  or  for  wanting  cedar  or  cypress  wood. 
Moreover  the  cedars  and  cypresses  were  no  partic- 
ular hindrance  to  him.  We  have  here  another  in- 
stance of  the   figure  which  occurs  in  Jerem.  xxii. 

6,  7.  23;  Ezek.  xvii.  3,  only  somewhat  further 
elaborated.  Lebanon  is  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  its 
summit  is  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  David  and  Mount 
Zion.  Its  cedars  and  cypresses  are  its  princes  and 
mighty  men,  whom  Sennacherib  thinks  that  he  can 
"  hew  down."  Its  "  resting-place  "  and  "  forest- 
grove  "  are  the  king's  palace  on  Mount  Zion  ;  there 
he  intends  to  make  his  encampment  (Isai.  x.  29. 

See  Delitsch  on  Isai.  xxxvii.  24).  i?D~i3  "ijp   is  not 

a  designation  for  the  "places  on  Mount  Lebanon 
which  were  thickly  grown  with  herbs "  (Fiirst), 
but  for  the  forest  on  its  summit,  which  consisted  of 
beautiful  trees  forming  an  orchard-like  grove,  see 
Isai.  xxix.  17.  "The  predicate  'garden'  is  applied 
to  this  forest  because  it  consists  of  choice  trees  " 
(Drechsler).  [It  rather  resembles  a  carefully  kept 
grove  or  orchard  than  an  untrained  forest. — W.  G. 
S.]  Both  expressions  are  decisive  in  favor  of  the 
figurative  acceptation  of  the  passage,  for  we  can- 
not suppose  that  there  was  a  real  "inn,"  or  "  rest- 
.ng-place,"  on  the  summit  of  Lebanon  (Clericus, 
Vitringa,  Rosenmuller) ;  in  the  first  place,  because 
there  is  no  mention  of  any  such  thing,  and  again, 
''  ■■cause,  if  there  had  been,  it  would  not  have  been 


of  any  importance  to  Sennacherib.  Moreover. 
"Resting-place"  [literally  "inn"]  and  "forest- 
grove  "  are  in  apposition,  but  a  forest  is  not  an  inn, 
and  can  only  be  called  a  "  resting-place  "  in  so  far  as 
it  is  a  shady  place  fit  to  rest  in,  that  is,  in  a  figura- 
tive sense.  There  is,  however,  in  both  expressions 
a  reference  to  the  "  House  of  the  Forest  of  Leba- 
non "  (1  Kings  vii.  2;  Isai.  xxii.  8),  which  repre- 
sented the  defensive  military  forc6  (see  1  Kings 
vii.,  Exeg.  on  ver.  2,  and  Hist,  §  2),  and  which  re-  , 
sembled  a  forest  on  account  of  its  cedar  columns. 
The  full  sense  of  ver.  23,  therefore,  which,  because 
it  affected  Hezekiah,  is  more  detailed  than  ver.  24, 
which  refers  to  Egypt,  is  this:  I  am  putting  an 
end  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah  with  its  capital,  its 
citadel,  its  kings,  and  its  princes,  and  all  its  glory. 
[The  figurative  interpretation  is  adopted  by  all  the 
commentators  of  note,  but  the  above  special  appli- 
cation of  the  details  of  the  verse  to  "Mount  Zion," 
the  "King's  palace."  the  "House  of  the  Forest  of 
Lebanon,"  the  "Princes  and  Chief  men,"  Ac,  &c, 
suffers  from  the  weakness  which  is  inherent  in 
every  symbolical  interpretation  which  is  not  directly 
suggested  in  the  context.  It  is  evident  that  the  sym- 
bolical explanations  are  forced  and  far-fetched,  and, 
in  the  mouth  of  an  Assyrian,  inexplicable.  More- 
over, a  careful  examination  of  the  other  cases  where 
Lebanon  is  used  in  a  metaphor  (Isai.  xxxiii.  9 ;  xxxv. 
2;  xxii.  6,  7,  23;  Ezek.  xvii.  3;  Hab.  ii.  17)  shows 
that  they  differ  essentially  from  this  one.  The 
simile  is  always  formally  introduced  as  such,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  of  any  usage  of  language  by 
which  Lebanon  was  made  to  stand  for  the  whole 
country  as,  for  instance,  "  Jerusalem  "  or  "  Mount 
Zion  "  were  used  for  the  whole  nation.  The  de- 
tails given  in  verse  23  form  an  exact  description  of 
the  march  of  an  army  over  Lebanon.  Let  us  sup- 
pose for  a  moment  that  Sennacherib  had  actually 
entered  Palestine  from  the  north  by  passing  over 
the  mountain.  He  then  boasts  that  by  or  with  the 
whole  host  of  his  chariots,  usually  supposed  to  be 
fit  only  for  travelling  over  a  plain,  he  has  even 
gone  up  to  the  top  of  the  mountain ;  that  he  there 
cut  down  the  largest  and  strongest  trees  (cypresses 
and  cedars  being  the  principal  trees  on  Lebanon),  in 
order  to  make  a  way  for  his  army — these  mighty 
trees,  the  pride  of  the  mountain,  making  it  difficult 
for  an  army  to  march  through  and  preserve  its 
order,  had  not  availed  to  hinder  him.  He  had 
hewn  them  down  and  cast  them  away.  He  had 
found  a  resting-place  and  encamped  his  army  on 
the  very  summit  of  the  mountain,  in  its  choicest 
and  most  beautiful  forest,  which  had  proved  for 
him  a  shelter  and  resting-place,  not  a  hindrance. 
If  we  thus  suppose  that,  as  a  fact,  he  had  accom- 
plished this  difficult  military  feat,  it  is  seen  that 
the  details  of  this  boast,  which  is  put  into  his 
mouth,  fit  well  into  the  actual  details  of  such  an 
undertaking.  We  will  not  infer  that  he  had  accom- 
plished this  feat,  since  no  hint  of  it  occurs  any- 
where, but  the  accuracy  of  the  details  is  very  re- 
markable. Ver.  24,  on  the  other  hand,  is  brief, 
and  purely  poetical.  What  are  we  to  understand 
by  parching  up  rivers  with  the  soles  of  one's  feet? 
This  rather  corresponds  to  the  nature  of  a  bold  en- 
terprise, as  yet  unaccomplished,  than  to  the  actual 
details  of  a  feat  already  performed.  The  attempt 
to  specify  in  detail  the  things  referred  to  by  the 
separate  objects  in  a  bold  poetic  image  or  reference 
of  this  kind  is  always  a  failure.  It  only  sketches 
in  bold  outline  the  thoughts,  ambitions,  and  inteo 


2U 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


tions  of  Sennacherib,  being  based  possibly  on  actu- 
al deeds  which  he  had  accomplished,  and  in  this 
form  it  must  be  left.  It  is  not  a  parable,  but  a 
poetic  and  boastful  statement,  in  huge  outline,  of 
what  was  in  his  mind.  Whether;  as  an  actual  fact, 
he  had  led  his  army  over  Lebanon  or  not,  he  makes 
use  of  such  a  feat  as  a  general  specimen  of  the 
kind  of  things  he  was  capable  of  accomplishing.  If 
he  had  not  done  something  of  that  kind,  Drechsler's 
objection  would  have  great  force,  that  his  boast 
would  be  ridiculous.  That  "Lebanon"  figures  in 
this  speech  may  be  merely  owing  to  the  fact  that 
a  Jewish  prophet  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Assyrian,  and  Sennacherib  may  somewhere  else 
have  passed  with  his  army  over  a  mountain  which 
was  supposed  to  be  impassable.  In  short,  then,  it 
is  a  boast,  founded  probably  on  some  feat  which 
the  Assyrians  had  accomplished,  calling  up  in  vivid 
figures  their  power  to  overcome  hindrances  sup- 
posed to  be  insurmountable,  and  setting  forth  the 
arrogance  which  these  successes  had  inspired  in 
them,  which  led  them  to  think  that  no  obstacles 
could  stay  them.  Having  passed  mountains,  they 
were  ready  to  believe  that  they  could  parch  up 
rivers.  Then  follows  the  rebuke  that  they  had  had 
all  these  successes  only  because  they  were  fore- 
ordained instruments  of  God's  Providence,  but 
that,  when  they  had  reached  the  limit  of  what  he 
intended  them  to  do,  they  could  go  no  farther,  and 
moreover  that  their  arrogance  in  ascribing  their 
success  to  their  own  power  would  call  for  punish- 
ment from  Him.— W.  G.  S.] 

In  regard  to  the  detailed  exegesis  we  have  yet 
to  notice  <33"|  33"I3  ,    literally:    "With   chariot 

of  my  chariots,"  i.  e.,  with  my  numberless  chariots 

(cf.    Nahum   iii.   17,  '313  313).     According  to  Keil 

this  is  "  more  original ; "  according  to  Knobel 
it  is  "  more  choice,   more   difficult,   and  therefore 

preferable "   to    «j3i  313 ,    "  with    the  multitude 

of  my  chariots,"  which  we  find  in  Isai.  xxxvii.  24, 
and  which  the  keri,  many  codices,  and  all  the  an- 
cient versions  have  in  this  place.  We  agree  with 
Thenius  in  preferring  the  latter  reading  as  the  mere 
natural  one.  The  sense  is  the  same  in  either  case. 
Ewald  translates :  "  By  the  simple  march  of  my 
chariots,"  but  the  point  of  importance  here  is  not 
the  uninterrupted  onward  march,  but  that  chariots, 
which  generally  are  only  fit  for  level  ground,  are 
said  to  have  passed  over  the  highest  mountains. 
Its    summit,   (TI3"I\    cf.   Jer.   vi.   22,   where  the 

Sept.  has  a^'  toxdrov),   literally,  its  outmost  limit 

or   boundary,    Vulg.  summitas.      )i?0  is  decidedly 

to  be  preferred  to  D1"ip  1  height  (Isai.  xxxvii.  24),  for 

it  is  far  more  significant,  and  the  idea  of  "  height " 
is  already  expressed  in  ,ri3"l''  ■ — I  dig  and  drink, 
ver.  24.  Ver.  23  refers  to  the  subjugation  of  Pal- 
estine; ver.  24  to  that  of  Egypt.  The  digging 
does  not  refer  to  "  the  redigging  of  the  wells  and 
cisterns  which  had  been  filled  up  by  the  fleeing 
enemy  "  (Thenius),  but  to  the  work  which  is  neces- 
sary to  find  water  for  a  great  army  in  a  district  where 
it  is  wanting.  "Strange  water"  is  "water  which 
is  not  sprung  from  the  soil  of  this  nation  "  (Drechs- 
ler),  not,  water  which  belongs  to  others  (Clericus: 
in  alieno  solo,  quasi  in  meo,  fodiam puteos).    if  is  used 

«s  in   Isai.  xvii.  10.     The  word  is  wanting  in  the 


text  of  the  parallel  passage  of  laaiah,  but  it  il 
very  forcible.  [This  interpretation  is  not  clear. 
It  must  mean  either  that  Sennacherib's  army  car- 
ried with  it  water  from  Assyria,  which  is  not  con- 
ceivable unless  possibly  for  the  king  alone,  or  else, 
taking  the  verb  as  a  distinct  preterite,  that  he  had 
drunk  the  waters  of  other  nations  than  Judah,  viz., 
of  Assyria,  and  hence  his  strength.  This  latter  hy- 
pothesis would  not  chime  well  with  the  next  clause 
and  is  not  acceptable.  Clericus'  interpretation  ia 
better.  The  Assyrian  boasts  that  he  comes  into 
foreign  nations  and  digs  for  and  drinks  the  water 
of  their  soil — makes  use  of  their  resources. — W. 
G.  S.]  On  the  other  hand,  where  there  is  a  super- 
abundance of  water,  as  in  Egypt,  where  the  rivers 
assure  the  inhabitants  an  abundant  supply,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  form  barriers  to  an  invader  (Nile 
and  its  arms,  see  Winer,  R.-W.-B.,  I.  s.  25),  there 
he  parches  it  up.  With  the  sole  of  my  foot, 
a  strong  hyperbole.  It  does  not  mean  "  under  the 
footsteps  of  my  countless  army "  (Knobel).  [It 
seems  to  be  a  purely  imaginative  and  poetic  idea, 
with  which  no  literal,  corresponding,  fact  can  be 
associated.  It  could  only  be  applied  to  a  deity, 
and  then  only  by  a  poetic  image,  if  the  river  should 
disappear  by  some  extraordinary  interposition. 
The  king,  in  his  self-assumption,  asserts  that  he 
will,  by  some  similar  god-like  power,  which  is  not 
probably  defined  as  to  its  mode  of  operation,  even 
in  his  own  mind,  dispose  of  this  hindrance  when 

he  meets  it. — W.  G.  S.]  "lixO  is  the  poetic  name 
for  Egypt.  [llVJD,  "the  'land  of  distress'  (Angst- 
land),  is  a  poetic  metamorphosis  of  the  Hebrew 
name  of  Egypt,"  D'nSD  1    "  cf.  chap.   xix.  6 ;  Mi- 

cah  vii.  12"  (Ewald).]     D,~IN,  are  'he  arms  and 

canals  of  the  Nile;  Isai.  xix.  6  compared  with  vii. 
18;  Ezek.  xxix.  3;  xxx.  12;  Micah  vii.  12.  In 
like  manner  Claudian  (De  Bella  Goth.,  V.  526) 
represents  Alarich  as  boasting:  Cum  cesserit  om- 
nts  Obsequiis  natura  meis  ?  subsidere  nostris.  Sub 
pedibus  montes,  arescere  vidimus  amnes.  Drechs- 
ler  thinks  that  "  the  historical  acceptation  of  ver. 
24  cannot  be  refuted,"  but  the  notion  of  drying  up 
the  Nile  with  the  soles  of  the  feet  is  certainly  fig- 
urative. [Ver.  24  certainly  cannot  be  understood 
literally  or  historically,  see  above.]  The  Nile  and 
its  branches  are  to  Egypt  what  the  Lebanon  and 
its  cedars  were  to  Palestine,  viz.,  tie  fortification 
and  protection  of  the  country.  Sennacherib  exalts 
himself  above  both  as  if  he  were  almighty :  Where 
there  is  no  water,  there  I  know  how  to  bring  it 
out  of  the  earth,  and  where  a  mass  of  water  lies 
in  my  way,  I  can  dry  it  up. 

Ver.  25.  Hast  thou  not  heard?  Jehovah 
now  answers  Sennacherib's  insolent  and  arrogant 
boast  (ver.  23  and  24)  by  a  question,  the  form  of 
which  assumes  that  he  must  give  an  affirmative 
reply,  as  the  most  lively  and  sharpest  form  of  re- 
buke (see  the  questions  in  Job  xxxviii.) :  Thou 
speakest  as  if  the  greatness  of  thy  might  were  thy 
work,  and  all  which  thou  hast  done  an  achieve- 
ment of  thy  power.  Know  that  /  planned  and 
ordained  it  thus  of  old,  and  that  thou  hast  only 
executed  my  decrees,  and  been  an  instrument  in 
my  hand,  cf.  Isai.  vii.  20 ;  x.  5  ;  vi.  12  sq.  The  old 
commentators  took  "  hear  "  in  a  literal  sense  as 
referring  to  the  wonderful  deeds  of  God  in  deliver- 
ing His  people  out  of  Egypt  and  bringing  them  t« 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX 


215 


Canaan,  which,  they  think,  were  well  known  to    these  words  now,  the  prophet  turns  to  Hezekiah. 


Sennacherib  :  but  the  following  nnX ,  this,  shows 

that  that  only  is  meant  which  had  been  accom- 
plished by  the  Assyrians.  Hence  others  have 
imagined  that  there  was  a  reference  to  prophetic 
oracles  like  Isai.  vii.  20  sq.  which  had  come  to  the 
ears  of  Sennacherib  (cf.  Jerem.  xl.  1-15),  but  we 
may  be  sure  that  the  prophet  did  not,  in  his  oracle 
against  the  enemy,  refer  back  to  that  declaration, 
which  was  pronounced  against  Israel.  Still  less 
can  we  agree  with  Thenius  that  it  refers  to  an 
inner  hearing  of  the  soul  or  conscience,  or  indeed 
to  "  Assyrian  oracles  which  were  consulted  before 
undertaking  the  expedition."  The  question  has 
rather  this  simple  sense  :  If  thou  hast  never  heard 
it,  then  hear  it  now,  and  know  that  I  planned  and 
determined  (literally,  fashioned)  it  so  (Isai.  xxii. 
11).  Vitringa :  Eventum  hunc  in  omni  sua  nepiaTa- 
eet  pr<tformasse  in  consilio  mea  providential.    pimD 

is  used  here  of  time,  as  in  Isai.  xxii.  11 ;  Ql\>  'D'D 

as  in  Isai.  xxiii.  1 ;  Micah  vii.  20,  "  from  ancient 
days."     \~ljn  is  generally  translated  :   "  That  thou 

mayest  be  for  the  destruction."  Keil  and  Dreehs- 
ler :  "  That  there  may  be  fortified  cities  for  de- 
struction," as  in  the  formula  "|JQ;j  iTTI  (Isai.  v.  5  ; 

vi.  13  ;  xliv.  15),  i.  e.,  that  strong  cities  may  be  to 
be  destroyed.  [Bahr,  in  his  translation  of  the 
text,  follows  the  latter.  The  former  is  strictly 
grammatical  and  less  constrained :  Thou  art  to  de- 
stroy, i.  e.,  this  is  thy  destiny,  thou  art  an  instru- 
ment for  this  work. — W.  G.  S.] — Ver.  26  is  close- 
ly connected  with  ver.  25.  That  the  inhabitants 
fell  down  so  powerless  (literally :  were  short  of 
hand,  i.  e.,  powerless,  Numb.  xi.  23 ;  Isai.  1.  2),  and 
made  no  resistance,  was  not  the  work  of  the  As- 
syrians, but  was  foreordained  by  God.  The  same 
images  are  used  for  sudden  decay  of  power  in  Ps. 
xxxvii.  2 ;  Isai.  xl.  6.  This  series  of  metaphors 
forms  a  climax.  The  grass  upon  the  roof  is  that 
which  fades  more  quickly  than  that  of  the  field, 
because  it  lacks  soil  (Ps.  cxxix.  6).  The  corn 
blasted  in  the  germ  is  the  corn  which  is  blight- 
ed and  withers  away  before  the  blade  springs,  so 
that  at  the  very  outset  it  has  the  germ  of  decay  in 

itself.     nSTt;'  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  the  less 

definite    and   more   general   nOTCy,    ground  (Isai. 

xxxvii.  27).— Resting  in  peace,  going  out,  and 
coming  in  (ver.  27)  cover  all  the  activity  of  a 
man  (Ps.  cxxi.  8 ;  Deut.  xxviii.  6 ;  Ps.  cxxxix.  2). 
[See  note  12  under  Grammatical.] — Violent  hate, 
Vitringa :  Commotio  furibunda,  quw  ex  ira  nascitur 
superbiae  mixta  (Isai.  xxviii.  21).  Arrogance, 
which  comes  from  the  feeling  of  security,  Amos  vi. 
1 ;  Ps.  cxxiii.  4.  The  first  figure  in  ver.  28  is  taken 
from  the  taming  of  wild  animals,  the  second  from 
the  controlling  of  restive  horses  (Ezek.  xix.  4 ; 
xxix.  4;  Isai.  xxx.  28;  Ps.  xxxii.  9).  There  are 
two  sculptures  at  Khorsabad  which  represent  "  a 
victorious  king  leading  captives,  who  stand  before 
him,  by  a  rope  and  a  ring  fastened  in  their  lips  " 
(Thenius)  Dignum  superbo  supplicium,  ut  qui  se 
tupra  hominem  esse  putat,  ad  morem  bruti  abjiciatur 
(Sanctius)  By  the  way  by  which  thou  earnest, 
i.  e.,  with  this  purpose  unaccomplished,  without 
having  reached  thine  object. 

Ver.  29.  And  this  be  the  sign  to  thee.   "With 


Tibi  autem,  Ezechia,  hoc  erit  signum  (Vulg.).  niX 
means  in  general,  as  Delitsch  accurately  observes 
(note  on  Isai.  vii.  11),  "a  thing,  an  event,  or  an 
action,  which  is  intended  to  serve  as  a  pledge  or 
proof  of  the  devine  certainty  of  another.  Some- 
times it  is  a  miracle,  openly  performed,  striking  th 
senses  (Gen.  iv.  8  sq.),  sometimes  it  is  a  permanent 
symbol  of  what  is  to  come  (Isai.  viii.  18;  xx.  3), 
sometimes  it  consists  in  a  prophecy  of  future 
events,  which,  whether  they  are  natural  or  miracu- 
lous, are  not  to  be  foreseen  by  human  wisdom,  and 
therefore,  when  they  occur,  either  reflect  back- 
wards in  proof  of  their  own  divine  origin  (Exod.  iii. 
12),  or  furnish  evidence  of  the  divine  certainty  of 
others  yet  to  come  (Isai.  xxxvii.  30  ;  Jerem.  xliv. 
29  sq.)."  In  the  case  before  us  the  sign  is  no  mira- 
cle  (riBlO ,   1  Kings  xiii.  3),  but  a  natural  event 

which  serves  to  give  assurance  of  the  truth  of  a 
prophecy  (Keil).  This  sign  is  taken  from  agricul- 
ture, "since  this  was,  at  that  time,  the  most  im- 
portant interest  of  the  people,  and  their  attention 
might  be  expected  for  a  sign  which  took  this  form  " 

(Knobel).    In  the  following  declaration  PUX  stands 

first  with  emphasis,  an  infinitive  absolute,  which 
"can  stand  concisely  and  emphatically  for  any 
tense  or  person  of  the  verb  which  the  context  de- 
mands "  (Gesenius,  Gramm.  §  131,  4  b.).  It  is 
often  understood  here  as  an  imperfect :  One  shall 
eat,  i.  e.,  people  shall  eat,  or,  ye  shall  eat  (Drechs- 
ler,  Keil,  and  others) ;  or,  as  a  present ;  One  eats, 
i.  e.  Ye  are  eating  (Umbreit,  Delitsch,  and  others), 

and  njtsTl  '3  then  translated,  "  this  current  year." 

But  we  have  here  three  years  mentioned,  of  which 
the  third  is  the  first,  which  shall  be  a  complete 
harvest-year,  viz.,  on  account  of  the  withdrawal  of 
the  Assyrians,  who  shall  leave  the  land  which  they 
have  occupied  once  more  free.  Ver.  35  shows 
distinctly  that  the  Assyrian  army  perished  before 
the  third  year  after  the  prophet's  declaration,  and 
Sennacherib's  retreat  therefore  followed  before  the 
third  year.  Observe  especially,  in  ver.  35,  the 
words:  "that  night."  (See  notes  below  on  these 
words.)  Sennacherib,  when  he  heard  of  Tirhaka's 
advance,  had  withdrawn  from  Lachish  to  Libnah. 
From  there  he  once  more  threateningly  demanded 
the  surrender  of  Jerusalem  (vers.  8-10).  How  can 
we  now  understand  that,  from  this  point  on,  he  re- 
mained in  Palestine  yet  three  years,  without  really 
laying  siege  to  the  city  which  he  had  so  earnestly 
threatened  ?  We  are,  therefore,  compelled  to  take 
this  inf.  abs.  in  the  sense  of  a  perfect :  edistis 
(Maurer,  Gesenius,  Thenius.  Cf.  Ewald,  Lehrb.  § 
240,  a. ;  302,  c).  [Sixth  Ed.  In  the  seventh  Ed.  the 
subject  is  otherwise  treated,  and  the  inf.  abs.  is 
not  represented  as  standing  for  any  finite  form,  but 
as  a  pure  and  indefinite  expression  of  the  verbal 
notion,  without  giving  it  limitations  of  time  or  per- 
son. This  is  unquestionably  correct.  See  §  328, 
b. — W.  G.  S.]  njE*",  in  contrast  with  "  the  second  " 

and  "  the  third  "  year,  cannot,  of  course,  refer  to 
anything  else  than  he  year  which  precedes  them, 
that  is,  the  first  one.  In  this  first  year  the  Assy- 
rians had  invaded  the  country,  and  had  prevented 
the  people  from  raising  crops.  In  the  second  year 
they  were  still  there,  and  the  crops  failed  because 
they  had  devastated  the  country.     In   the  tlird 


216 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


year  they  retired,  and  therefore  the  land  could 
be  cultivated.  In  the  first  year  they  lived  upon 
IV2D  i  *•  ?■■  upon  that  which  grew  up  from  the  leav- 
ings of  the  former  crop,  Levit.  xxv.  5,  11.  Vitringa : 
Ex  etymo  valet  accessorium,  quod  sponte  nascitur  post 
sementem ;  a  sort  of  after-growth  from  fruit  of  the 
previous  crop  which  was  accidentally  dropped  in 
gathering  in  the  harvest.    In  the  second  year  they 

lived  upon  t.'"nD  ,  i  e.,  "  offshoots  of  the  roots, 

which  spring  up  in  the  second  year  after  the  plant- 
ing "  (Fiirst) ;  avTotiw/  (Aquila,  Theodoret).  "  In 
the  fertile  parts  of  Palestine,  especially  in  the  plain 
of  Jezreel,  on  the  highlands  of  Galilee,  and  else- 
where, the  grains  and  cereals  propagate  themselves 
in  abundance  by  the  ripe  ears  whose  super-abun- 
dance no  one  uses  (cf.  Schubert,  Reise,  III.  *.  115, 
166.  Ritter,  Erdkunde  XVI.  s.  283,  482,  693). 
Strabo  (11.  p.  502)  makes  a  similar  statement  in  re- 
gard to  Albania,  that  the  field  which  lias  been 
once  sown  bears,  in  many  places,  a  double  harvest, 
sometimes  even  three,  the  first  one  tiftyfold " 
(Keil  on  Levit.  xxv.  6).  And  the  third  year  sow, 
and  reap,  and  plant  vineyards,  and  eat  their 
fruits.  "  The  long  series  of  imperatives  makes  a 
strong  impression,  especially  in  contrast  with  the 
indifference  of  the  infin.  absol.  in  the  first  hemi- 
stich "  (Drechsler).  This  interpretation  of  the 
oracle  is  the  only  one  which  gives  just  force  to 

J11N  •  The  sign  is  not  something  which  does  not 
yet  exist  but  is  to  come ;  it  is  something  visible, 
physical,  and  present,  which  announces  and  gives 
a  pledge  of  something  invisible  and  future.  The 
sense,  therefore,  is  not :  Te  shall  from  this  time 
on,  in  the  present  year,  eat  the  chance  product  of 
the  uncultivated  fields,  and  in  the  next,  the  fruit  of 
the  offshoots  from  the  roots  of  the  plants,  and  then, 
in  the  third,  sow  and  reap — for  that  would  not  be 
a  "  sign  "  ; — but  the  sense  is :  So  certainly  as  ye 
have  lived  one  year  on  the  chance  produce,  and  one 
year  on  after-growth,  just  so  certainly  shall  ye  sow 
and  reap  in  the  third  year  ;  that  is  to  say  :  the  land 
will  be  delivered  from  the  Assyrians,  and  free  for 
you  to  cultivate  (cf.  Hos.  vi.  2).  [Clearly  this, 
when  it  should  come  to  pass,  would  not  bo  any 
"  sign  "  that  something,  viz.,  the  retreat  of  the  As- 
syrians, should  yet  come  to  pass.  In  the  nature  of 
things  the  Assyrians  must  depart  before  the  Jews 
would  venture  into  the  fields.  We  might  as  well 
say :  The  clouds  shall  be  dispelled,  and  the  sign 
of  it  shall  be  that  the  sun  shall  shine.  The  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage  givea  above  is  correct,  but 
the  "  sign  "  cannot  be  understood  to  mean  that, 
when  this  thing  should  come  to  pass  according  to 
the  prophecy,  it  should  be  a  pledge  that  another 
thing,  which  the  prophet  had  also  foretold,  should 
yet  come  to  pass.  It  can  only  mean  that  when 
the  Jews  should  once  more  find  themselves  at 
work  in  the  fields,  where  they  had  not  been  for 
two  years,  this  should  be  a  sign,  proof,  and  re- 
minder to  them  that  they  had  been  delivered,  by 
divine  interposition,  from  a  great  national  calamity. 
It  is  a  sign  which  is  of  the  nature  of  a  symptom,  or 
index. — W.  G.  S.]  The  interpretation  which  is 
given  by  many  of  the  old  expositors  admits,  on  ac- 
count of  ver.  35,  that  the  retreat  of  Sennacherib 
took  place  in  the  year  in  which  the  prophet  de- 
livered this  oracle,  but  it  takes  the  infinitive  ~>13X 
»s  an  imperative  on  account  of  the  following  im- 


peratives, and  then  assumes  that  the  "  first  "  year 
the  one  in  which  Sennacherib  retreated,  was  a  Sab- 
bath-year, in  which,  under  any  circumstances,  ac- 
cording to  the  Mosaic  law,  the  people  neither  sowed 
nor  reaped,  but  lived  on  the  second,  spontanecui 
growth  (Levit.  xxv.  5),  and  that  a  Jubilee-year  fol- 
lowed next  after  this,  in  which  likewise  there  waa 
no  sowing  or  reaping  (Levit.  xxv.  1 1),  so  that  two 
harvests  in  succession  were  passed  over.    But  the 

simple  fact  that  piatt  is  an  infinitive  forbids  us  to 
take  it  as  an  imperative,  and.  even  if  we  assume 
that  the  Sabbath- years  and  Jubilee-years  were,  at 
that  time,  regularly  observed,  yet  there  is  no  hint 
in  Levit.  xxv.  that  the  Jubilee-year  followed  imme 
diately  after  a  Sabbath-year.  But  still  farther, 
who  can  prove,  since  every  hint  of  it  is  wanting  in 
the  text,  that  just  at  that  time  a  Sabbath-year  and 
a  Jubilee-year  followed  successively  ?  Others  have, 
therefore,  given  up  the  Jubilee-year  and  have  sup- 
posed that  only  the  spontaneous  product  of  the 
fields  was  eaten  in  the  first  year,  because  the 
country  had  been  devastated  by  the  Assyrians,  but 
that  the  second  year  was  a  Sabbath-year.  Yet 
even  this  cannot  be  accepted,  for  the  intent  of  the 
"  sign "  is  not  that  they,  trusting  in  Jehovah, 
should  for  still  another  year  have  food  to  eat,  al- 
though they  did  not  sow  or  reap,  but  that  Sennach- 
erib should  retreat,  the  land  should  be  delivered 
from  him,  and  that  too  at  once,  not  after  three 
years.  We  cannot,  therefore,  agree  with  Ewald 
(Proph.  des  Alt.  Bundes,  I.  s.  299  sq.),  whom  Urn- 
breit  follows,  when  he  says :  "  As,  after  the  year 
in  which,  according  to  the  Law,  the  ground  lay  fal- 
low, yet  another  year  was  to  be  spent  without 
raising  crops,  in  order  to  restore  the  land  to  its 
original  condition,  a  figure  which  evidently  (?) 
floated  before  the  mind  of  the  prophet  here,  so  he 
apprehended  (?)  that,  in  this  far  more  important 
case,  still  a  second  year  must  pass  without  field- 
labor,  in  which  they  must  eat  the  spontaneous 
product  of  the  ground,  until,  after  the  extirpation 
of  all  that  was  unsound  and  corrupt  in  the  State,  a 
small  company  of  purified  men  should  commence, 
in  the  third  year,  a  new  and  prosperous  existence, 
and  the  messianic  time  should  begin,  taking  its 
rise  in  Zion."  There  is  no  reference  to  the  Sab- 
bath, or  Jubilee,  year  in  the  entire  passage,  and  no 
such  reference  can  ever  be  established  from  the 

mere  fact  that  IT3D  occurs  also  in  Levit.  xxv.  5 

and  11.  Neither  can  we  agree  that  Drechsler's 
explanation  (s.  184)  is  "very  simple."  According 
to  him  there  was  left  in  Judah  at  that  time  only  a 
greatly  diminished  population,  which  could  not  at 
once  undertake  the  cultivation  of  the  fields,  so 
that  it  was  not  until  after  three  years  that  the  reg- 
ular cultivation  of  the  soil  was  reestablished.  If 
there  was  only  "a  small  remnant"  of  the  popu- 
lation remaining,  then  they  did  not  require  much. 
They  could  cultivate  enough  soil  to  produce  what 
they  needed,  and  did  not  need  to  live  on  IT3D , 

much  less  on  t^flD  .      These  interpretations   are 

all  more  or  less  forced,  and  they  all  fall  to  the 
ground  as  soon  as  we  no  longer  insist  upon  taking 

the  infin.  absol.  TDK  as  an  imperfect  or  an  impera 

tive. 

Ver.  30.  And  the  remnant  of  the  house  01 
Judah  that  is  left.     Starting  now  from  the  refer 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


217 


enee  to  the  growth  of  the  crops,  the  prophet  goes 
ou  to  matters  of  higher  importance,  and  takes  up 
that  which  is  the  ghief  theme  of  his  prophecies  in 
all  their  diverse  phases  (Schmieder),  viz.,  that  God, 
although  he  inflicts  tierce  judgments  upon  His  peo- 
ple for  their  apostasy,  nevertheless  will  not  allow 
them  to  perish  utterly,  but  will  preserve  a  remnant 
which  has  escaped  or  been  delivered,"  a  holy  seed," 
«nd  that  from  the  midst  of  this  the  Messiah  shall  at 
ast  arise  (Isai.  vii.  3;  x.  20;  iv.  2;  vi.  13  ;  cf.  1 

Kings  xix.  18).     The  repeated  expressions  HC^Bi 

mXL"J  ,  and  TVlNC* ,  in  vers.  30  and  31,  refer  to  this 

idea.  The  Assyrian  invasion,  like  that  of  Ephraim 
and  Syria  (Isai.  vii ;  2  Kings  xvi.  5),  was  a  divine 
judgment  upon  Judah,  but  the  prophet  says  that 
the  nation  shall  not  perish  under  it.     A  remnant 

(JV"INB*i  ver-  31i  refers  back  to  jyiNtiTI  in  Heze- 

kiah's  prayer,  ver.  4)  shall  still  remain,  and  it  shall 
add  roots  (  HSD1 ),  that  is,  it  shall  go  on  to  develop 

new  roots,  and  shall  win  firmer  hold  (Thenius) ;  cf. 
Isai.  xi.  11;  xxvii.  6.— For,  from  Jerusalem,  &c, 
ver.  31,  i.  e.,  it  is  the  determination  of  God,  adopted 
of  old,  that  from  Jerusalem,  which  now  is  so  much 
distressed  and  apparently  lost,  salvation  and  re- 
demption shall  go  forth  (Isai.  ii.  3).  Jerusalem  and 
Mt.  Zion  form  the  centre  of  the  theocracy,  or  king- 
dom of  God.  "  The  Assyrian  chastisement  will, 
therefore,  be  a  purification  of  the  nation.  It  will 
not  result  in  its  destruction.  That  judgment  was, 
therefore,  a  prototype  of  all  the  others  which  be- 
fell the  kingdom  of  God  in  later  times,  out  of 
which  the  election  of  grace  is  developed  (Rom.  xi. 
5)  in  more  and  more  glorious  form  (Von  Gerlach). 
The  only  ground  for  what  is  said  in  vers.  29  to  31 
is  the  zeal  of  Jehovah,  i.  e.,  His  zealous  and 
faithful  love  to  His  people  (Zach.  i.  14).  The  same 
concluding  words  follow  the  oracle,  Isai.  ix.  1-6, 
and  they  show  that  the  passage  before  us  is  also, 
at  least  indirectly,   messianic. — Therefore,    thus 

saith  the  Eternal.   p5  gathers  up  the  substance 

of  all  which  precedes.  The  first  of  the  four  mem- 
bers of  the  verse,  He  shall  not  come,  contains 
the  principal  idea.  The  three  others  "are  nothing 
but  a  development  of  this  one,  intended  to  surround 
it  here,  at  the  close,  with  all  possible  emphasis  " 
(Drechsler).  At  the  same  lime  they  form  a  climax : 
So  far  from  coming  into  the  city,  he  shall  not  even 
discharge  his  missiles  against  it,  or  form  an  assault 
against  it,  or  even  build  up  a  wall  to  besiege  it. 
DHp  in  the  piel  means  to  advance.    "  The  reference 

is  to  an  assault  with  shields  held  out  in  front" 
(Thenius).       Cf.  Ps.  xviii.  5,  18  ;  lix.  10.      Instead 

of  H3  X3' ,  in  ver.  33,  we  find  in  Isai.  xxxvii.  34 : 
FQ  N3  ,  which  is  unquestionably  the  correct  read- 
ing. All  the  old  translations  here  present  the  per- 
fect.    The  other  reading  seems  to  have  arisen  from 

the  second  N2' .   That  which  has  been  already  said 

in  vers.  28  and  32  is  here  repeated  in  order  to  em- 
phasize the  promise. — For  mine  own  sake,  "  as 
Hezckiah  had  prayed,  ver.  20,  and  for  the  sake  of 
David,  my  servant,  i.  e.,  for  the  sake  of  the  prom- 
ise given  to  David,  2  Sam.  vii."  (Drechsler),  cf.  1 
JLings  xi.  13  ;  xv.  4. 

Ver.  35.   And  it  came  to  pass  that  night. 


According  to  Thenius,  vers.  35-37  are  "evidently 
borrowed  from  a  different  source  from  that  of  xviii. 
13-xix.  34,  and  xx.  1-19."  In  the  original  docu- 
ment of  vers.  35-37  he  thinks  that  the  words  :  "  It 
came  to  pass  in  that  night,"  referred  to  something 
which  had  been  narrated  immediately  before  and 
which  is  not  mentioned  here.  Delitsch  also  be- 
lieves that  there  is  a  gap  between  vers.  34  and  35, 
for,  according  to  ver.  29,  there  was  to  be  yet  a  lull 
year  of  distress  between  the  prophecy  and  the  ful- 
filment, during  which  agriculture  would  be  neg- 
lected." This  consideration  loses  its  force  under 
our  interpretation  of  ver.  29.  The  narrator  un- 
doubtedly means  to  say  in  vers.  35-37  that  the 
prophecy  which  reaches  its  climax  in  vers.  32-34, 
was  fulfilled  at  once,  and  not  after  the  lapse  ol 
years.  This  point  was  of  especial  importance  to 
him,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  interpret  ver.  35- 
37  according  to  ver.  29 ;  rather,  on  the  contrary, 
ver.  29  according  to  vers.  35-37.  Further,  when 
we  consider  that  both  narratives  [the  one  here  and 
that  in  Isaiah]  were  constructed  independently  o" 
one  another  from  the  same  source  (see  the  Pre 
Urn.  Remarks),  and  that  in  both,  vers.  35-37  fol- 
low immediately  upon  ver.  34,  we  must  infer 
that  the  same  was  the  case  also  in  their  common 
source.  There  is,  therefore,  no  room  to  assume 
the  existence  of  another  source  in  which  that  was 
supplied  which  is  here  supposed  to  be  left  out. — 

The  words :  NinD  W'h'Z  TVl  are  generally  under- 
stood in  the  sense  of  ea  ipsa  node,  i.  e.,  in  the  night 
following  the  day  on  which  Isaiah  foretold  the  re- 
treat of  the  Assyrians.  On  the  contrary  Delitsch 
thinks  that  "  it  can  only  mean  (if,  indeed,  it  is  not 
a  mere  careless  interpolation),  ilia  node,  referring 
to  ver.  32  sq.,  (i.  e.,  the  night  in  which  the  As- 
syrians sat  down  to  besiege  Jerusalem)."  The  Rab 
bis  (Guemara  Sanhedr.  iii.  26),  and  Josephus  (xara 
tijv  Trpu>TTri>  rijc  iroXinpniac  vvara)  thus  understood 
it.  But  the  text  does  not  anywhere  say  or  imply 
that  Sennacherib  had  advanced  with  his  whole 
army  from  Libnah  to  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  stood 
before  it  ready  to  besiege  it.  [This  is  true,  but 
does  not  meet  Delitsch's  hypothesis,  which  is  that 
a  year  is  to  elapse  before  the  Assyrian  would  com- 
mence the  formal  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  that 
"  that  night "  refers  to  the  first  night  of  this  siege. 
Such  an  hypothesis  removes  the  difficulty,  but  does 
not  seem  to  be  a  natural  interpretation  of  the 
words. — W.  G.  S.]  The  Vulg.  translates :  Factum 
est  igitur,  in  node  ilia  venit  angelus.  Menochius 
takes  this  to  be  emphatic  for :  in  celebri  ilia  node, 
viz.,  in  the  one  in  which  the  destruction  of  the  As- 
syrian army  took  place.  It  is  very  noticeable  that 
the  words  in  question  rre  wanting  in  the  narrative 
in  Isaiah,  although  that  account  is  in  other  respects 
here  identical  with  the  one  in  Kings,  and  that  ver. 
36  there  begins  with  XVI  •  Also  the  Sept.  ver- 
sion of  the  verse  before  us  omits  Xinn  and  reads 

simply:  nal  eyevero  wktSc.  Now,  although  the 
statement  is  no  thoughtless  interpolation,  and  still 
less,  as  Knobel  thinks,  "  manufactured  "  out  of 
Isai.  xvii.  14,  yet  it  would  never  have  been  passed 
over  in  Isaiah's  narrative,  if  it  had  been  essential, 
or  if  the  chief  emphasis  lay  upon  it.  The  inter- 
pretation ea  ipsa  node  does  not,  therefore,  seem  to 
be  absolutely  necessary.  The  main  point  is,  what 
is  common  to  both  narrat.  ■  es,  that  there  was  no 
delay  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.     It  wai 


218 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


not  years — for  instance,  three  years — before  it  was 
fulfilled. — The  angel  of  the  Lord  "  is  the  same 

one   who,    as  JVncisn  i    smote   the    first-born  in 

Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  29  compared  with  vers.  12  and  13), 
and  who  inflicted  the  pestilence  after  the  census 
under  David  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  15  sq.).  The  latter  pas- 
sage suggests  that  the  slaughter  of  the  Assyrians 
■was  accomplished  by  a  pestilence  "  (Keil).  Jose- 
phus  (Antiq.  x.  1,  5,)  declares  outright:  tov  -deny 
?.oifiifii[i<  kvcKjpl>avTo(;  avrov  ru  G-partS  vooov.  The 
interpretations  which  assume  that  there  was  a  battle 
with  Tirhaka,  or  an  earthquake  with  lightning,  or 
a  poisonous  simoom,  are  all  untenable.  The  greatly 
abbreviated  account  in  Chronicles  states,  instead 
of  giving  the  definite  number  of  the  slain  (185,000), 
that  the  angel  "  cut  off  all  the  mighty  men  of  valor 
and  the  leaders  and  captains  in  the  camp  of  the 
king  of  Assyria"  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  21).  This  does 
not  mean  that  "  only  "  those  persons  were  killed 
(Thenius),  but  that  even  these,  the  real  supporters 
and  the  dower  of  the  Assyrian  power,  fell.  In  the 
camp.  We  are  not  told  where  this  was  at  that 
time.  It  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  it  was 
where  Rab-shakeh  found  it  on  his  return,  viz.,  be- 
fore Libnah  (ver.  8),  whither  Sennacherib  had  re- 
treated from  Lachish.  It  was  pot,  therefore,  as 
has  been  said,  before  Jerusalem ;  neither  was  it  in 
"  the  pestilential  country  of  Egypt"  (Thenius),  for 
Sennacherib  sent  the  letter  to  Hezekiah,  not  from 
there,  but  from  Libnah  (vers.  8-1 0).— And  when 
they  arose  early  in  the  morning,  ic.    The  word 

"Ip33,  which  occurs  also  in  Isai.  xxxvii.  36,  pre- 
supposes the  previous  reference  to  "  that  night," 
which  is  not  there  mentioned.  Those  who  were 
spared,  whose  number  cannot  have  been  large, 
arose  as  usual  early  in  the   morning  and  found 

corpses  everywhere.     "  If  DVIO  is  regarded  as  an 

attribute  it  is  very  flat  and  superfluous,  but  as  an 
apposition  it  gives  emphasis  "  (Drechsler).  It  was 
a  cause  of  great  trouble  to  the  old  expositors  that 
Sennacherib  was  not  among  the  slain.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  that  he  chanced  just  then  to 
be  outside  the  camp.  Death  of  a  still  harder  kind 
was  destined  to  befall  him  (see  verse  7),  but  the 
arrogant  man  was  first  to  suffer  the  humiliation 
that  his  entire  force  in  which  he  trusted  was  to  be 
destroyed,  and  he  was  to  march  home  in  shame  and 
disgrace  (ver.  21).  "The  heaping  up  of  the  verbs: 
he  departed,  and  went,  and  returned,  expresses 
the  hastiness  of  his  retreat"  (Keil).  This  retreat 
cannot,  therefore,  have  been  delayed  until  the  third 
year  after  Isaiah's  prophecy,  any  more  than  the 
pestilence  which  occasioned  it.  Sennacherib  dwelt 
in  Nineveh.  "The  object  of  these  words  is  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  he  did  not,  from  this  time 
forward,  undertake  any  assault  upon  Judah" 
(Drechsler).  On  Nineveh,  the  capital  and  resi- 
dence of  the  kings  of  Assyria,  see  Winer,  R.-W.-B. 
II.  s.  158  sq.  Nisroch  is  probably  the  name  of  the 
chief  Assyrian  divinity,  which  is  represented  on 
the  Assyrian  monuments  in  human  form  with 
dovble  wings  and  an  eagle's  head.  See  Keil  on 
the  place  and  Muller  iu  Herzog's  Realencyc,  X.  s. 
"i* .',      [The  rank  of  Nisroch  in  the  pantheon  is  not 

yet  dct'  run 1.     He  was  also  called  Shalman.    He 

was  "king  of  fluids."  He  "  presided  over  the  course 
of  human  destiny."  Hence  marriages  were  placed 
under  his  care  (Lenormant).]     Adrammelech  is  the 


name  of  a  divinity.  [See  the  bracketed  note  on 
;hap.  xvii.  31.]  It  was  a  very  wide-spread  custom 
that  princes  bore  the  names  of  divinities  (Gesenius 
on  Isai.  vii.  6).  Sharezer  is  probably  also  the  name 
of  a  divinity.  It  is  said  to  mean  "Prince  of  Fire." 
[His  full  name  was  Asshur-sarossor  =  "  Asshur 
protects  the  king."]  The  murder  of  Sennacherib 
by  his  sons  is  mentioned  in  Tobias  i.  21,  and  also 
by  Berosus,  who,  however,  only  mentions  one  son 
(Euseb.  Chron.  Armen.  i.  p.  43).  The  land  of  Ara- 
rat is,  according  to  Jerome  on  Isai.  xxxvii. :  Regia 
in  Armenia  campeslris  per  quam  Araxes  fluit.  It 
forms,  according  to  Moses  of  Chorene,  the  middle 
portion  of  the  Armenian  high  land.  Esar-haddon, 
Ezra  iv.  2,  called  by  Josephus  'Aaoapaxoddac,  is 
mentioned  by  Berosus  also  as  the  successor  of 
Sennacherib.  The  questions  whether  he  ruled 
during  his  father's  life-time  as  viceroy  of  Babylon, 
and  whether  Nergilus  reigned  before  him,  do  not 
here  demand  our  attention.  See  Niebuhr,  Geschichte 
Assyr.  s.  361.  It  is  not  by  any  means  free  from 
doubt  that  Sennacherib  lived  nine  years  after  his 
retreat  before  his  assassination,  as  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions  are  asserted  to  show.  "  Accordingly, 
when  Hitzig  declares  that  the  mention  of  Senna- 
cherib's assassination  bears  witness  against  Isaiah's 
authorship  of  this  historical  passage,  he  has  at  least 
no  ground  in  the  chronology  for  this  assertion,  for 
it  is  more  than  possible,  it  is  very  probable,  that 
Isaiah  lived  into  the  reign  of  Manasseh "  (De- 
litsch).  [See  the  Supplem.  Note  at  the  end  of  this 
section.] 

Appendix.- — It  remains  still  to  consider  the  oft- 
debated  question,  whether  and  when  the  expedition  of 
Sennacherib  against  Egypt  took  place.  It  is  certain 
according  to  ver.  24  that  Sennacherib  had  the  in- 
tention of  marching  against  Egypt.  It  is  not, 
however,  asserted,  in  the  biblical  documents  at 
least,  that  he  ever  carried  out  this  intention.  On 
the  contrary,  Herodotus  gives  (II.  141)  the  account 
which  he  received  from  the  Egyptian  priests,  thai 
Sennacherib  advanced  against  Egypt  as  far  as  Pe- 
lusium,  in  the  days  of  the  Tanitic  king  Sethon,  a 

priest  of  Vulcan.     (Pelusium  is  the  |'D  of  Ezek 

xxx.  15.  "  It  lay  at  the  month  of  the  eastern  branch 
of  the  Nile,  twenty  stadia  from  the  Mediterranean, 
in  the  midst  of  marshes  and  morasses.  Partly  on 
account  of  this  position  and  partly  on  account  of 
its  strong  walls,  it  was  the  key  to  Egypt,  of  which 
every  invading  army  which  came  from  the  East 
must  seek  to  get  possession.  All  the  conquerors 
who  invaded  Egypt  from  this  side  stopped  at  Pe- 
lusium and  besieged  it."  Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  II.  s.  469.) 
They  added  that,  at  the  prayer  of  tins  priest  to  the 
God  for  deliverance  out  of  danger,  field-mice  (five 
apovpaiovc)  came  by  night  and  gnawed  the  quivers, 
the  bows,  and  the  straps  of  the  shields,  so  that 
the  army  whose  weapons  had  thus  been  made  use- 
less, was  obliged  to  flee,  and  many  fell ;  and  that, 
on  this  account,  there  was,  in  the  temple  of  Vul- 
can, a  stone  image  of  this  priest-king,  having  in 
the  hand  a  mouse,  and  bearing  the  inscription :  c{ 
kftl  tic  opetjv  evaefflc  lotw.  Josephus  (Antiq.  x.  1, 
1-5),  referring  expressly  to  Herodotus,  narrates 
that  Sennacherib  undertook  an  expedition  against 
Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  but  that  iiaimpruv  rf/ci-'t  mic 
AXyvKTiovc  i~i.^"v'/7;c.  he  returned  leaving  his  ob- 
ject unaccomplished,  because  the  siege  of  Pelusi- 
um had  cost  him  a  great  deal  of  time,  and  becaus« 
he  had  heard  that  the  king  of  Ethiopia  was  ad 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX 


21s) 


ranting  with  a  very  strong  army  to  the  rtiief  of 
the  Egyptians.  Furthermore,  Josephus  adds  that 
the  Chaldean  historian  Berosus  also  states  that 
Sennacherib  miay  hnearparevoaro  rij  'Aoia  nat  rij 
Alyv-Tu.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted,  therefore,  that 
though  the  Assyrian  army  did  not  dry  up  the  rivers 
of  Egypt  (ver.  24),  yet  it  advanced  to  the  frontier. 
But  now  we  come  to  the  far  more  difficult  question, 
at  what  point  of  time  did  this  take  place '?  The 
least  probable  reply  is  that  it  fell  between  vers.  34 
and  35  (Sauetius,  Knobel),  and  that  the  historian 
gives  no  account  of  it.  after  ver.  34,  because  it  did 
not  affect  Judah,  but  simply  mentions  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  army  in  vers.  35  and  36  without  men- 
tioning whether  it  took  place  in  Judah  or  in  Egypt. 
But  it  is  incredible  that  Sennacherib,  for  whom  it 
was  of  the  utmost  importance  (chap,  xviii.  17  sq.; 
six.  9,  sq.)  to  get  possession  of  Jerusalem,  should 
have  given  up  the  effort  to  capture  it  without  put- 
ting any  of  his  threats  into  execution,  and  should 
have  marched  on  against  Egypt,  leaving  in  his  rear 
this  city  which  was  favorably  disposed  towards 
his  enemies  (chap,  xviii.  21).  His  backward  move- 
ment from  Lachish  to  Libnah  (ver.  S)  shows  that 
he  was  no  longer  pursuing  his  advance  against 
Egypt.  Ewald  (Gesch.  Isr.  III.  s.  630  sq.)  proposes 
another  hypothesis.  He  sets  the  expedition  against 
Egypt  before  all  which  is  narrated  from  xviii.  13 
on.  He  suggests  that  Sennacherib  marched  into 
Egypt,  by  the  ordinary  way,  by  Pelusium  ;  that  he 
was  there  arrested  and  turned  back  by  some  ex- 
traordinary calamity  to  which  Herodotus'  story 
refers ;  that  he  then  fell  upon  Judah  w-ith  a  greatly 
superior  power,  and  that  at  this  point  in  the  course 
of  events  xviii.  13-xix.  37  comes  in.  But  this 
hypothesis  also  is  untenable,  for,  according  to  it, 

i"6jJ  in  chap,  xviii   13   must  refer  to  a  march  of 

Sennacherib  "from  South  to  North,"  from  Egypt 
towards  Judah ;  but  it  cannot  have  any  different 
meaning  in  ver.  13  from  what  it  has  in  ver.  9,  and 
there  it  is  used  of  a  march  from  Assyria  to  Judah, 
that  is,  from  North  to  South.  It  is  used  in  the 
same  way  in  chap.  xvi.  7  in  regard  to  Tiglath  Pile- 
ser's  expedition,  and  in  chap.  xvii.  3  and  5  in  re- 
gard to  Shalmaneser's.  Moreover,  it  would  be  very 
astonishing,  if  the  biblical  narrative  did  not  men- 
tion the  march  against  Egypt  with  a  single  word, 
but  only  mentioned  tire  retreat  from  there  ;  for 
Sennacherib  must  have  gone  through  Judah  in 
order  to  reach  Egypt,  and  Judah  was  hostile  to 
him  and  friendly  to  Egypt.  If,  however,  ver.  13 
is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  advance  of 
the  army,  then  vers.  14-16  must  refer  to  the  same 
and  not  to  the  retreat.  Finally,  Josephus  pro- 
poses a  third  hypothesis.  According  to  him,  Sen- 
nacherib devastated  Judah,  but  on  the  receipt  of 
gifts  from  Hezekiah,  withdrew,  and  advanced  with 
his  whole  army  against  Egypt.  Contrary  to  his 
agreement,  under  which  the  tribute  was  paid,  he 
left  Rab-shakeh  and  Tartan  behind  (narihffe)  that 
they  might  destroy  Jerusalem.  When,  however, 
he  found,  after  a  long  siege,  that  he  could  not  take 
Pelusium,  and  when  he  heard  of  Tirhakah's  ad- 
vance, he  suddenly  decided  to  return  to  Assyria ; 
vrroorpeTpac.  (T  6  "Zevaxifpiftoc  aitb  rov  r&v  Alyinrriuv 
•Kokkjiov  elc  ra  'lepooo'Kvpa  KareXafZev  €Kel  ttjv  irnb 
rp  crparrryiS  'Va-ifianri  ivvap.iv  rov  Qeov  Timpmrp 
tvOKfppavroc  avrov  rij>  arpari^  vdoov,  Kara  rty>  7rp<^r?/v 
tt/c  iroXtopKia^  vvKray  diatp&eipovrai  pvpiadec,  o/crw- 
taifana    nal    rrevraKiax'^'oi  ....  Seiaac    irepl    rep 


orpariS  rravrl  <pevyet  pera  rfji;  h)t—qc.  tiirvapEuc  eli 
rrfv  avrov  fiaaihtiav  elg  rrjv  lisivov.  There  is  but 
slight  objection  to  this  hypothesis.  On  the  whole 
it  is  the  most  probable  of  all.  Hezekiah  became 
king  in  the  year  727  B.C.  In  his  fourteenth  year 
(chap,  xviii.  13)  Sennacherib  made  this  expedition, 
and  sought  to  get  possession  of  all  the  fortified 
towns  in  Judah.  This  was  in  the  year  714.  In 
713  lie  marched  against  Egypt,  leaving  Rab-shakeh 
in  Judah.  In  7 12  he  was  once  more  before  Lachish 
and  Libnah,  and.  after  his  overthrow  by  the  pesti- 
lence, he  retreated  to  Assyria.  This  accords  with 
chap.  xix.  29,  according  to  our  iuterpretation  of  it. 
Oil  the  contrary,  according  to  chap.  xix.  7-9,  Sen- 
uaeherib  appears  to  have  heard  of  Tirhakah's  ad- 
vance, not  when  he  was  before  Pelusium,  but 
when  he  was  once  more  before  Libnah.  That  he 
boasted  as  he  does  in  vers.  23  and  24,  even  after 
his  retreat  from  Egypt,  is  not  astonishing  in  the 
case  of  such  a  haughty  king.  Possibly  he  had 
drained  off  or  dried  up  a  few  swamps  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Pelusium.  There  can  be  no  more 
truth  in  Herodotus'  story  which  he  obtained  from 
the  priests  than  possibly  this,  that  Sennacherib 
besieged  Pelusium,  but  returned  without  having 
t;ik<n  it.  The  rest,  of  course,  is  purely  mythical. 
A  mouse  was  the  hieroglyph  for  devastation  and 
destruction  (Horapoll.  Hierogl.  i.  50) ;  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Troas  worshipped  mice,  on  rdc  vevpaq  run 
KoMpiav  fiUrpayov  rdguv  ■  also,  the  symbol  of  Mars 
was  a  mouse  (Bahr,  Herodot.  Mus.  i.  p.  641).  It 
may  well  be  that  Sennacherib  was  impelled  by 
some  natural  occurrence  to  desist  from  the  siege 
of  Pelusium  and  to  turn  back,  and  this  may  have 
occasioned  the  story  about  the  mice.  If  there  had 
not  been  some  event  of  the  kind,  he  certainly 
would  have  advanced  further  than  the  frontier. 
The  army  cannot,  however,  have  been  rendered 
destitute  of  weapons  (yvpvol  bnWuv)  at  Pelusium,  or 
it  could  not  have  carried  on  war  in  Judah  on  its 
return.  According  to  all  this  it  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  expedition  of 
Sennacherib  which  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus  and 
by  the  Scriptures,  nevertheless  the  further  suppo- 
sition which  is  commonly  adopted,  that  the  event 
mentioned  in  ver.  35  is  the  same  one  which  Hero- 
dotus narrates,  though  under  a  mythical  form 
(Bahr,  /.  c.  p.  881),  does  not  seem  to  us  to  be  cor- 
rect. That  event  took  place  in  Judah,  this  one  be- 
fore Pelusium.  and  it  is  very  improbable  that  the 
Egyptian  priests  should  have  made  a  myth  out  of 
an  event  which  took  place  in  another  country,  and 
did  not  immediately  affect  them,  and  should  have 
commemorated  it  by  a  statue.  We  cannot  deter- 
mine definitely  what  the  event  was  which  occurred 
before  Pelusium,  but  we  must  assume  that  it  was 
a  very  striking  and  important  one  which  influenced 
the  haughty  king  to  give  up  his  plan  and  return 
to  Assyria.  In  like  manner,  when  he  stood  in  Ju- 
dah once  more  with  his  army  of  185,000  men,  and 
there  assumed  such  a  haughty  bearing,  some 
weighty  incident  must  have  occurred  which  deter- 
mined him  to  hasten  his  flight. 

[There  is  no  reasonable  ground  for  finding  two 
distinct  events  in  these  two  accounts,  and  without 
reasonable  ground  we  cannot  assume  that  two  dis- 
tinct calamities  befell  Sennacherib  which  were  of 
such  a  character  that  they  were  regarded  as  divine 
interpositions.  Pelusium  was  on  the  frontier,  and 
it  is  not  at  all  remarkable  that  an  event  which  hap- 
pened there,  or  even  at  Libnah,  immediate'y  aftet 


-220 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Sennacherib  had  retreated  from  Pelusium,  should 
figure  in  the  history  of  both  Judah  and  Egypt. 
Neither  is  it  astonishing  that  the  traditional  ac- 
count of  the  event  should  wear  a  mythical  color ; 
on  the  contrary,  such  events  always  take  on  myth- 
ical features.  The  biblical  account  is  more  origi- 
nal and  direct,  and  is  older  than  that  of  Herodotus, 
but  it  certainly  refers  to  the  same  event.— W.  G.  S.] 
However  the  fact  may  be  in  regard  to  this 
point,  the  story  of  Herodotus,  which,  as  Delitsch 
says,  "  depends  upon  a  hearsay  tradition  of  lower 
Egypt,"  and  which  therefore  appears  as  "  a  suspi- 
cious imitation  of  the  biblical  story,"  cannot  be 
put  on  the  same  footing  with  the  scriptural  ac- 
count, much  less  be  used  to  correct  it. 

[Supplementary  Note  on  the  references  to 
contemporaneous  history  in  chaps,  xviii.  and  xix. 
(See  similar  notes  on  the  preceding  chapters.)  In 
the  note  on  chap.  xvii.  we  gave  a  summary  of  the 
Assyrian  history,  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  the  his- 
tory of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  especially  upon  the 
recolonization  of  Samaria  by  Sargon,  Sennacherib, 
and  Esarhaddon.  This  led  us  to  notice  some  of 
the  conquests  of  those  kings,  and  so  to  observe  the 
nationalities  of  the  new  population.  "We  have  now 
to  go  over  the  same  reigns  so  far  as  they  bear  upon 
the  history  of  Judah.  Here  also  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions offer  us  invaluable  information  for  en- 
larging and  correcting  our  knowledge  of  the  bibli- 
cal history. 

It  might  at  first  seem  strange  that  the  histori- 
cal books  of  the  Bible  contain  no  mention  of  Sar- 
gon. We  find  that  he  was  really  king  of  Assyria 
when  Samaria  fell;  that  be  subdued  a  revolt  in 
Samaria  a  few  years  later ;  that  he  was  the  king 
who  introduced  a  large  part  of  the  new  population 
into  Samaria ;  that  he  conducted  two  very  impor- 
tant campaigns  in  Philistia,  in  both  of  which  he 
came  into  conflict  with  Egypt,  and  in  one  of  which 
he  won  the  battle  of  Raphia,  one  of  the  great  bat- 
tles of  Assyrian  history.  It  is  impossible  that  this 
all  should  have  come  to  pass  without  exciting  the 
attention  and  interest  of  the  inhabitants  of  Judah. 
The  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  seems,  however, 
to  have  so  construed  his  task,  that  he  did  not  con- 
sider himself  called  upon  to  notice  campaigns  of 
the  Assyrians  which  never  actually  touched,  or 
directly  threatened,  Judah.  Isaiah  (chap,  xx.) 
mentions  Sargon  and  his  attack  upon  Ashdod  rather 
in  the  way  of  a  chronological  date ;  but  his  refer- 
ence shows  that  this  expedition  of  the  Assyrian 
king  (or  of  his  Tartan,  commander-in-chief)  formed 
an  important  event,  and  fixed  a  date  for  the  Jews. 
Sargon  was  assassinated  (it  is  not  known  by  whom), 
in  August,  704. 

Sennacherib,  son  of  Sargon,  succeeded.  We 
now  possess  very  full  accounts  of  his  reign.  These 
Assyrian  statements  and  the  biblical  narrative  of 
the  conflict  of  Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib  are  in 
full  accord  so  far  as  they  go;  but  in  the  attempt 
to  harmonize  the  details  we  meet  with  some  diffi- 
culty, not  from  their  inconsistency,  but  from  their 
defectiveness.  Lenormant  and  Rawlinson  do  not 
agree  in  their  accounts  of  this  section  of  the  his- 
tory. Rawlinson  thinks  that  Sargon  made  or  sent 
two  separate  expeditions  into  Judah  ;  Lenormant 
thinks  that  the  whole  story  belongs  to  one  cam- 
paign. The  chief  argument  against  the  theory  of  two 
«eparate  campaigns  is  that  only  one  is  mentioned  in 
the  inscription,  although,  according  to  the  usage  of 


the  inscriptions,  the  campaigns  are  always  cata- 
logued in  their  consecutive  order,  so  that,  if  thera 
was  one  against  Judah,  then  one  against  Babylon, 
and  then  another  against  Judah,  we  should  expect 
them  to  be  so  catalogued.  Rawlinson's  account 
makes  a  very  clear  and  satisfactory  narrative  (see 
"Five  Great  Monarchies"  II.  431-443  2d  Ed. 
161-168),  but  the  usage  of  the  inscriptions  is  so 
constant  that  we  seem  compelled  to  follow  the 
theory  of  one  campaign. 

On  the  death  of  Sargon  (104),  Hezekiah  re- 
volted (xviii.  7)  together  with  the  kings  of  Phoeni- 
cia, Philistia,  Ammon,  Moab,  and  Edom.  They 
had  also  sympathy  and  encouragement  from  Sha- 
batok  (Sabacon  II.,  the  Sethos  of  Herodotus,  son 
of  Sabacon  I.,  the  So  of  the  Bible),  king  of  Egypt. 
It  was  not  until  Sennacherib's  third  year  that  he 
turned  his  attention  to  this  revolt.  An  inscription 
on  a  cylinder  in  the  British  Museum  reads  thus : 

"  In  my  third  campaign  I  marched  towards 
Syria."  He  swept  down  through  Phoenicia  and 
Philistia,  crushing  all  opposition.  "The  rulers  .  . 
of  Ekron  "  (Lenormant  reads  Migron,  cf.  Isaia.  x. 
28)  "had  betrayed  the  king,  Padi,  who  was  in- 
spired by  friendship  and  zeal  for  Assyria,  and  had 
given  him  up  bound  in  chains  of  iron  to  Hezekiah 
of  Judah."  The  Egyptians  came  against  Senna- 
cherib and  a  battle  ensued  near  Eltekon  (Jos.  xv. 
59),  in  which  the  Assyrians  won  a  great  victory 
which  ranked  with  that  of  Raphia  in  their  annals. 
Sennacherib  then  took  Ekron.  He  executed  ven- 
geance on  the  anti-Assyrian  party.  "  I  brought 
Padi,  their  king,  out  of  Jerusalem,  and  restored 
him  to  the  throne  of  his  royalty."  (This  is  the 
point  at  which  the  biblical  narrative  begins.  The 
statement  "in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah" 
(xviii.  13)  has  thus  far  proved  irreconcilable  with 
the  inscriptions.  It  was  the  year  700.  Rawlinson 
proposes  to  read  "  twenty-seventh "  for  "  four- 
teenth.") "  But  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  did  not 
submit.  There  were  forty-four  walled  towns  and 
an  infinite  number  of  villages  that  I  fought  against, 
humbling  their  pride  and  braving  their  anger.  By 
means  of  battles,  fire,  massacre,  and  siege  opera- 
tions, I  took  them.  I  occupied  them.  I  brought 
out  200,150  persons,  great  and  small,  men  and 
women,  horses,  asses,  mules,  camels,  oxen,  and 
sheep  without  number,  and  carried  them  off  as 
booty.  As  for  himself  I  shut  him  up  in  Jerusa- 
lem, the  city  of  his  power,  like  a  bird  in  its  cage. 
I  invested  and  blockaded  the  fortresses  round 
about  it.  Those  who  came  out  of  the  great  gate 
of  the  city  were  seized  and  made  prisoners.  I 
separated  the  cities  I  had  plundered  from  his  coun- 
try, and  gave  them  to  Mitenti,  king  of  Ashdod,  to 
Padi,  king  of  Ekron,  to  Ishmabaah  king  of  Gaza. 

"  Then  the  fear  of  my  majesty  terrified  this 
Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  He  sent  away  the 
watchmen  and  guards  whom  he  had  assembled  for 
the  defence  of  Jerusalem.  He  sent  messengers 
to  me  at  Nineveh,  the  seat  of  my  sovereignty, 
with  30  talents  of  gold  and  400  (300?)  talents  of 
silver,  metals,  rubies,  pearls,  great  carbuncles, 
seats  covered  with  skins,  thrones  ornamented  with 
leather,  amber,  seal  skins,  sandal  wood,  and  ebony, 
the  contents  of  his  treasury,  as  well  as  his  daugn- 
ters,  the  women  of  his  palace,  his  male  and  female 
slaves.  He  sent  an  ambassador  to  present  this 
tribute  and  to  make  his  submission"  (Lenormant). 

Thus  the  inscription  omits  all  mention  of  the 
disaster  which  befell  the  Assyrians  in  tliis  oam 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


221 


paign,  and  which  the  Jewish  and  Egyptian  tradi- 
tions concur  in  affirming.  There  is  no  mention  of 
the  siege  of  Lachish,  although  that  siege  is  repre- 
sented on  a  bas-relief  in  the  British  Museum  (Le- 
normant).  This  want  of  candor  is  not  very  aston- 
ishing, but  it  serves  to  show  us  that  the  account 
in  the  inscription  lays  stress  upon  the  flattering 
circumstances  and  slurs  over  the  disasters  of  the 
campaign. 

Now  let  us  interweave  this  with  the  biblical 
story.  Chap,  xviii.  13  is  a  parallel  description  of 
Sennacherib's  devastations  in  the  open  country. 
The  idea  of  the  character  of  the  campaign  which 
we  get  from  this  verse  is  exactly  that  which  the 
inscription  offers  in  detail.  Hezekiah  was  shut  up 
in  Jerusalem,  and  the  enemy  ravaged  the  country 
and  destroyed  the  small  towns  at  will.  Hezekiah 
sent  to  sue  for  peace.  He  met  with  certain  de- 
mands and  he  sent  certain  offerings.  Yet  in  ver. 
IT  we  find,  when  we  expect  to  hear  of  peace,  that 
an  army  was  sent  against  him.  The  only  explana- 
tion which  suggests  itself  is  that  the  offerings 
which  he  sent  did  not  satisfy  the  Assyrian  de- 
mand. Probably  Sennacherib  did  not  desire  to 
make  peace  with  Judah,  but  to  get  possession  of 
Jerusalem,  which  he  dared  not  leave  behind  him 
when  he  advanced  into  Egypt.  Hezekiah  desired 
to  create  the  impression,  by  tearing  off  the  decora- 
tions of  the  temple,  that  his  resources  were  ex- 
hausted, though  we  find  that  he  was  able  to  make 
a  boastful  display  of  his  treasures  to  the  Babylo- 
nians, a  year  afterwards.  Perhaps  he  did  not 
send  the  full  amount  demanded  by  the  Assyrian, 
pleading  inability,  and  sending  these  decorations 
stripped  from  the  temple  as  a  proof  that  he  had  no 
further  treasures.  This  gave  Sennacherib  an  ex- 
cuse for  persisting  in  hostility.  Rawhnson  is  led 
by  this  difficulty  to  suppose  that  Hezekiah  paid 
the  full  amount  demanded,  and  secured  a  respite. 
Three  years  later  (698)  Sennacherib  came  again, 
besieged  Lachish,  and  sent  the  three  great  officers. 
Then  there  would  be  a  gap  of  three  years  between 
rers.  16  and  IT.  "With  our  present  information  it 
is  impossible  to  decide  definitely  between  these 
theories.  During  the  siege  of  Lachish.  whether  it 
was  in  the  campaign  referred  to  in  vers.  13-16  or 
in  a  later  one,  Sennacherib  sent  a  detachment  of 
his  army  to  besiege  Jerusalem,  or  rather,  if  possible, 
to  secure  its  surrender,  for  it  was  of  the  highest 
importance  for  him  to  finish  the  reduction  of  the 
few  strongholds  which  still  held  out  in  Judah  and 
Philistia,  so  that  he  might  push  on  against  Egypt, 
before  that  nation  recovered  from  the  blow  which 
he  had  already  inflicted.  Hence  the  parley  of  the 
three  chief-men  on  each  side.  Encouraged  by 
Isaiah,  Hezekiah  sent  a  refusal.  On  the  return  of 
the  three  Assyrians  they  found  that  Sennacherib 
was  besieging  Libnah,  having  taken  Lachish. 
(Bahr,  in  the  text  of  the  Comm.  above,  assumes 
that  Sennacherib  had  suffered  a  check  at  Lachish. 
The  only  ground  for  this  is  the  belief  that  Libnah 
was  north  of  Lachish,  so  that  going  from  the  lat- 
ter to  the  former  was  a  "  retreat."  The  situation 
of  Libnah,  however,  is  so  very  uncertain,  that  this 
assumption  rests  on  a  slender  support.  There  is 
no  hint  of  any  disaster  to  Sennacherib  in  this  cam- 
paign until  the  great  one  recorded  in  vers.  35  sq. 
This  seems  to  have  interrupted  him  in  the  full  tide 
of  success.)  The  success  which  he  had  won,  and 
the  news  that  Tirhakah  jvas  coming  with  a  new 
force  of  Egyptians,  made  Sennacherib  more  impa- 


tient than  ever  to  finish  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem 
and  Libnah.  Tirhakah  is  called  king  of  Ethiopia. 
The  dynasty  to  which  he  belonged  (the  XXVth) 
was  a  dynasty  of  Ethiopians.  He  was  the  son  of 
Sabacon  II.  mentioned  above,  and  grandson  of  Sa- 
bacon  I.,  called  in  the  Bible,  So.  He  seems  to 
have  been,  at  this  time,  crown-prince  (Lenormant). 
He  raised  a  new  army  to  try  to  retrieve  the  disas- 
ter of  Eltekon.  Under  these  circumstances  Sen- 
nacherib sent  messengers  once  more  to  Hezekiah 
to  demand  a  surrender,  warning  him  to  make 
terms  while  he  could,  and  not  to  incur  the  total  de- 
struction which  had  befallen  those  who  stubbornly 
resisted  the  Assyrian  power.  This  was  again  re- 
fused, and  soon  after  the  great  calamity  fell  upon 
th;  Assyrians  which  forced  them  to  retreat  with- 
out coming  to  blows  with  Tirhakah.  Hence  the 
story  of  this  disaster  was  preserved  both  in  Jewish 
and  Egyptian  annals,  each  nation  ascribing  it,  as 
a  great  national  deliverance,  to  its  own  God. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  gives  a  simple  and 
clear  explanation  of  many  points  which,  in  the 
above  section  of  the  Commentary,  remain  obscure. 
The  question  in  regard  to  Sennacherib's  invasion 
of  Egypt  is  entirely  solved,  and  it  is  not  necessary 
to  show  in  detail  how  much  of  the  author's  dis- 
cussion of  this  question  in  the  above  Appendix, 
which  was  founded  upon  less  perfect  information 
than  we  now  possess,  is  wide  of  the  mark- 
Sennacherib  was  assassinated  in  680  by  his 
sons  Adrammelech  and  Asshursarossor.  Another 
son,  Esarhaddon  (Asshurakhidin  [Asshur  has  given 
brothers]),  had  for  a  few  years  been  viceroy  in 
Babylon.  He  returned  with  hostile  intentions 
against  the  assassins,  who  fled  into  Armenia.  Es- 
arhaddon was  recognized  throughout  the  Empire. 
— W.  G.  S.] 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  King  Hezekiah  stands  in  the  front  rank  of 
Israelitish  kings.  The  general  characterization 
which  precedes  the  history  of  his  reign  gives  him 
a  testimonial  such  as  no  other  king  had  received 
up  to  that  time,  especially  in  reference  to  that 
which  was  the  main  point  for  the  history  of  re- 
demption, namely,  his  bearing  towards  Jehovah 
and  His  Law.  In  the  panegyric  of  the  holy  fathers, 
Sir.  44-49,  he  is  placed  in  the  same  rank  with 
David  and  Josiah  (Sir.  xlix.  5 :  "  All  the  kings  ex- 
cept David,  Hezekiah,  and  Josiah,  were  guilty  "). 
Not  one  down  to  this  time  had  reproduced  the 
model  theocratic  king,  David,  as  he  did.  He  was, 
as  Eu-ald  justly  says  (Gesch.  Isr.  III.  s.  621),  :1  one 
of  the  noblest  princes  who  ever  adorned  David's 
throne.  His  reign  of  29  years  offers  an  almost  un- 
marred  picture  of  persevering  warfare  against  the 
most  intricate  and  most  difficult  circumstances, 
and  of  glorious  victory.  He  was  very  noble,  not 
unwarlike  or  wanting  in  courage  (2  Kings  xx.  20), 
yet  by  choice  more  devoted  to  the  arts  of  peace  " 
(2  Cliron.  xxxii.  2T-29;  Prov.  xxv.  1).  Von  Ger- 
lach,  on  the  contrary,  characterizes  him  often  and 
in  general  as  a  "  weak  and  dependent  man,"  but 
this  is  in  contradiction  with  his  very  significant 
name  (see  notes  on  xviii.  1),  and  still  more  with 
the  testimony  in  xviii.  3-8,  and  cannot,  moreover, 
as  will  be  seen,  be  brought  into  accord  with  the 
story  of  the  separate  acts  of  his  life.  "  How  won- 
derful it  was  that  the  most  godless  king  of  Judah 
had  the  most  excellent  son.     An  Hezekiah  follow 


222 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ed  an  Ahaz  "  (Schlier).  The  Scriptures  give  no 
explanation  of  this.  It  is  a  mere  guess  when  it  is 
hinted  that  Hezekiah's  mother  may  have  influenced 
him,  for  we  learn  nothing  more  of  her  than  just 
her  name  and  that  of  her  father.  It  is  also  a  mere 
guess  that  she  was  "  the  granddaughter  of  Zaeha- 
riah,  who.  under  Uzziah,  had  such  a  good  influ- 
ence "  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  5)  (Schlier).  It  is  equally 
unsatisfactory  when  Koster  says  (die  Propheten  des 
A.  T.  s.  106):  "Hezekiah  was  the  opposite  of  his 
unbelieving  father  Ahaz;  the  difference  is  explica- 
ble from  the  fact  that  they  had  lived  through  the 
destruction  of  Ephraim,  and  that  that  event  had 
had  a  mighty  influence  on  both  the  king  and  the 
people  of  Judah."  It  is  certain  that  Hezekiah  did 
not  wait  until  after  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  before  he  began  his  reformation  of  the 
worship,  but  that  he  commenced  it  immediately 
after  his  accession  to  the  throne.  The  notion  of 
the  rabbis,  that  he  had  Isaiah  for  his  tutor  and 
guide,  as  the  high-priest  Jehoiada  was  the  tutor  of 
Joash,  seems  more  probable,  but,  not  to  mention 
the  complete  silence  of  the  text  in  regard  to  this, 
it  does  not  follow  from  Sir.  xlviii.  25,  and  it  is  very 
improbable  in  itself,  that  Ahaz,  who  never  himself 
listened  to  Isaiah,  should  nevertheless  have  entrust- 
ed him  with  the  education  of  his  son  and  succes- 
sor. All  these  and  similar  grounds  do  not  suffice  to 
account  for  such  a  sudden  and  complete  change  of 
policy  on  the  throne;  rather  we  must  recognize  here, 
if  anywhere,  a  dispensation  of  Divine  Providence. 
Just  now,  when  Ahaz  had  brought  the  kingdom  to 
the  verge  of  ruin,  when  the  kingdom  of  Israel  was 
near  its  fall,  and  little  Judah  alone  still  represent- 
ed the  Hebrew  nationality,  this  Judah  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  decree  of  God.  to  take  a  new  start,  and 
to  receive  a  king  on  the  model  of  David,  who 
should  be  a  true  and  genuine  theocratic  king,  and 
bring  the  true  character  and  destiny  of  the  nation 
home  to  the  consciences  of  the  people.  Hezekiah 
was  foi  Judah  a  gift  of  the  Lord.  In  a  true  sense 
he  was  king  by  the  grace  of  God  of  whom  the  say- 
ing held  good  :  "  The  king's  heart  is  in  the  hand  of 
the  Lord,  as  the  rivers  of  water ;  he  turneth  it 
whithersoever  he  will  "  (Prov.  xxi.  1).  Therefore 
his  whole  life  is  somewhat  typical.  It  shows 
more  than  that  of  almost  any  other  king  that 
God's  ways  are  pure  goodness  and  truth  to  those 
who  keep  his  covenant  and  his  testimony  (Ps. 
xxv.  10). 

2.  The  first  thing  that  Hezekiah  did  after  his 
accession  to  the  throne  was  to  abolish  the  idolatry 
which  Ahaz  had  introduced,  and  to  restore  the  leyal 
worship  of  Munnh.  The  history  expressly  Btates 
how  far  he  went  in  this  effort.  He  not  only  de- 
stroyed the  heathen  idols,  but  also  put  an  end  to 
the  Jehovah-worship  on  the  high  places,  which 
even  Solomon,  Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Joash,  Ama- 
ziah,  and  Uzziah  had  permitted  to  continue, 
and  had  not  ventured  to  assail  (1  Kings  iii. 
2;  xv.  12,  14;  xxii.  44;  2  Kings  xii.  4;  xiv.  4; 
xv.  4,  35).  He  returned  to  the  original  ordinances 
of  the  Mosaic  Law,  which  prescribed  not  only  one 
central  sanctuary,  but  also  one  central  worship 
(Levit.  xvii.  8,  9 ;  Deut.  xii.  13  sq.).  Hezekiah 
was,  therefore,  the  restorer  of  that  central  wor- 
ship which  was  so  important  and  indispensable 
for  the  unity  of  the  people  and  kingdom  (sec  1 
Kings  xii.  1-24,  ffist.  §  1).  His  reign,  for  this 
reason,  forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Israel.  It 
la  moreover  specifically  stated  that  he  destroyed 


even  the  brazen  serpent,  which  was  of  pur  «ly  Is- 
raelitish  origin,  and  to  which  there  clung  such  im- 
portant memories  and  associations  for  the  people. 
This  he  did  not  do  from  puritanical  zeal  such  as 
the  later  Judaism  displayed  (see  1  Kings  vii.  Hist. 
§  3).  but  because  this  cvufo/.ov  curr/piac,  as  it  is 
called,  Wisd.  xvi.  6,  had  been  perverted  by  the 
people  into  an  tiduV.ov,  whereas  once  every  one 
who  turned  to  it,  ov  fica  to  deupov/jtvov  eau^ero, 
a/Aa  did  ae  rbv  Trdvrwv  Gurfjpa.  To  offer  incense  to 
this  image  was  not  only  contrary  to  the  Law  (Ex. 
xxv.  5 ;  Deut,  v.  8,  9),  but  also  it  was  senseless, 
because  thereby  the  very  thing  through  which 
Jehovah,  by  His  own  might  and  power,  intended 
to  grant  salvation,  was  regarded  as  holy,  and 
adored  as  divine.  If  there  was  anything  which 
was  contrary  and  hostile  to  the  worship  of  the 
Holy  One  in  Israel,  then  it  was  the  worship  of  this 
image;  therefore  Hezekiah  destroyed  it  as  ruth- 
lessly as  he  did  all  the  other  images.  If  we  add 
to  this  all  that  is  said  in  Chronicles  about  the  re- 
storation of  the  levitical  worship  by  Hezekiah, 
then  it  is  clear  that  no  king  of  Israel  since  David 
had  been  filled,  as  he  was,  with  zeal  for  the  divine- 
ly-given fundamental  Law.  If  we  consider  fur- 
ther that  he  ascended  the  throne  in  a  time  of  deep 
decay,  at  a  time  when  the  temple  of  Jehovah  was 
closed  (2  Chron.  xxix.  3,  7),  and  Judah  was  filled 
with  all  the  abominations  of  heathenism,  when 
disgraceful  apostasy  was  widely  spread  among  the 
great  and  mighty  of  the  kingdom,  then  this  king 
cannot  certainly  be  called  "  a  weak  and  dependent 
man."  To  carry  out  such  a  reformation  under  the 
most  unfavorable  circumstances,  is  not  the  work 
of  a  weak  man ;  on  the  contrary,  it  presupposes 
courageous  faith,  and  extraordinary  energy. 

3.  Ttie  oppression  of  Judah  by  the  Assyrians,  and 
its  deliverance  from  the  same,  is  one  of  the  greatest 
and  most  important  events  of  the  Old  Testament 
history  of  redemption,  as  we  may  infer  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  narrated  with  such  careful  detail, 
and  that  we  have  no  less  than  three  accounts  of  it. 
How  deep  an  impression  the  event  made  upon 
the  mind  of  the  people,  and  what  great  significance 
was  ascribed  to  it.  is  shown  by  its  express  mention 
in  the  late  apocryphal  books,  in  Jesus  Sirach  xlviii. 
18-21,  in  the  books  of  Maccabees  I.  vii.  41  ;  II. 
viii.  19;  III.  vi.  5,  and  in  the  book  of  Tobias  i.  21 
(of  the  Latin;  i.  IS,  of  the  Greek,  text).  It  is  also 
generally  admitted  that  the  noble  Psalm  xlvi.  re- 
fers to  this  event,  if  not  also  Ps.  lxxv.  and  lxxvi. 
(Sept.  <jfi')  irpbc  rbv  'Acovpiov).  Assyria  stood  at 
the  summit  of  its  power  under  Sennacherib:  it  had 
become  a  world-monarchy.  Besides  the  nations 
of  Eastern  [Central]  Asia,  it  had  subjugated  Phoe- 
nicia and  Syria,  and  overthrown  the  kingdom  of 
the  Ten  Tribes.  It  was  just  ready  to  extend  still 
farther  and  to  subjugate  Egypt.  Having  invaded 
Judah,  which  was  already  tributary,  the  conqueror 
had  already  devastated  the  country  and  captured 
the  strongholds.  Only  Jerusalem  yet  remained. 
Now  he  threatened  this  last  stronghold  of  the 
once  prosperous  kingdom.  With  arrogant  and 
threatening  words,  scoffing  at  the  God  of  Israel, 
he  demanded  a  surrender  of  the  city  which  was 
already  hard  pressed  on  every  side,  and  spoke  of 
carrying  off  its  inhabitants  into  captivity.  The 
greatest  power  on  earth  stood  in  hostility  to  the 
little  kingdom  of  Judah.  which  was  reduced  to  two 
small  tribes,  and  rendered  powerless  by  misgov 
eminent.     Its  destruction  seemed  to  be  inevitable 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX. 


223 


But  .list  at  this  point  the  power  which  had  hither- 
to been  resistless  was  broken,  and  it  remained 
broken.  This  world-monarchy  now  commenced 
to  decline.  [This  is  a  mistake.  The  next  half 
century  (700-650)  includes  the  height  of  the  As- 
syrianpower. — W.  G.  S.]  A  change  took  place  in 
the  affairs  of  Judah  which  secured  it  yet  a  cen- 
tury and  a  half  of  existence.  This  change  in  its 
affairs  it  owed,  not  to  its  own  strength  or  courage, 
not  to  a  great  army  which  came  to  its  help,  not  to 
any  human  power,  but  only  to  its  Lord  and  God, 
■who  said  to  the  roaring  sea:  "So  far  and  no  far- 
ther, and  here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed  !  " 
The  great  and  invincible  army  perished  without  a 
battle  or  a  stroke  of  the  sword,  as  the  Lord  had 
foretold  by  His  prophet  (Isai.  xxxi.  8).  In  a  sin- 
gle night  Judah  was  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of 
its  mighty  enemy.  With  the  downfall  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  Ten  Tribes  a  new  epoch  had  begun  for 
Judah.  It  was,  from  this  time  on,  to  represent 
alone  the  ancient  covenant  people.  The  great  act 
of  divine  deliverance  which  is  here  recorded 
stands  at  the  commencement  of  this  new  era,  as  a 
new  covenant-sign,  and  pledge  of  the  election  of 
Israel,  but  at  the  same  time  also  as  a  loud  call  to 
faithfulness.  This  was  the  significance  of  an 
event  which  had  had  no  parallel  since  the  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt.  It  is,  therefore,  put  parallel 
with  that  great  event  which  was  the  type  of  all 
national  deliverances  (see  notes  on  xvii.  7,  and 
Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xii.  28).  In  subsequent  times  of 
peril  it  was  mentioned  together  with  the  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt,  as  a  ground  of  prayer  for  divine 
aid  (see  the  places  quoted  from  the  books  of  Macca- 
bees). As  there  was  there,  so  there  is  here,  an 
arrogant  enemy,  who  obstinately  resists  the  God 
of  Israel,  who  oppresses  Jehovah's  people  so  that 
they  cry  to  him.  "  As  Moses  there  promised  pro- 
tection and  deliverance,  and  said:  'These  Egyp- 
tians whom  ye  see  to-day  shall  ye  see  no  more 
forever,'  so  Isaiah  here  promises  help:  'Fear  not! 
for  the  Lord  will  guard  this  city.  He  shall  not 
come  into  it,  but  shall  return  by  the  way  by  which 
he  came ; '  as  there,  '  Moses  stretched  out  his 
hand  over  the  sea  and  the  sea  returned  at  the 
dawning  of  the  morning'  (Ex.  xiv.  27),  so  here, 
'  When  they  arose  early  in  the  morning,  behold 
they  were  all  dead,  corpses  ' :  Isai.  xxxvii.  36  " 
(Von  Gerlach  on  Ps.  xlvi.  6);  as  there  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  smote  at  midnight  all  the  first-born  in 
Egypt,  and  rose  up  against  the  oppressor,  so  that 
he  sank  in  the  sea  with  his  chariots,  his  horses, 
and  his  horsemen  (Ex.  xii.  29;  xiv.  19,  28),  so  he 
here  smote  the  Assyrian  army  by  night  so  that 
Sennacherib  "  arose,  departed,  and  went "  (excessit, 
evasit,  erupit.  Cic.  2  Cat.  at  the  beginning).  Ewald 
justly  says :  "  One  of  those  rare  days  had  come 
again  when  the  truth  which  no  hands  could  grasp, 
forced  itself  home  to  the  conscience  and  convic- 
tion of  the  people.  .  .  .  Nay,  indeed,  in  the  pre- 
ceding long  and  weary  distress  and  trial,  as  well 
as  in  the  sudden  deliverance,  and  in  the  conver- 
gence of  all  these  things  to  enforce  faith  in  the 
only  true  help,  this  time  has  a  certain  resemblance 
to  the  time  of  the  foundation  of  the  nation,  just 
as,  throughout  all  these  centuries,  few  souls  at- 
tained so  nearly  to  the  height  of  Moses  as  did 
Isaiah."  What  a  deep  impression  the  event  made 
upon  the  neighboring  peoples  is  shown  by  the 
words  of  Chronicles,  where  the  history  of  it  closes 
with  the  words:   "And  many  brought  gifts  unto 


the  Lord  to  Jerusalem,  and  presents  to  Hezekiah 
king  of  Judah,  so  that  he  was  magnified  in  the 
sight  of  all  nations  from  thenceforth  "  (2  Chron 
xxxii.  23).  So  that  came  *,o  pass  which  Hezekiah 
had  prayed  for  in  his  praj  er  for  God's  help,  chap, 
xix.  19. 

4.  l?ie  prophet  Isaiah  stands  first  and  foremost 
among  those  who  appear  either  speaking  or  acting 
in  the  foregoing  history.  He  is  the  central  figure 
of  the  story,  so  that  it  appears  also  in  the  book  of 
his  prophecies.  All  that  constitutes  the  peculiar- 
ity of  the  Jewish  institution  of  prophets,  and  its 
high  significance  in  the  history  of  redemption,  by 
virtue  of  which  it  stands  independent  of,  and  even 
above,  the  priestly  office  and  the  throne,  presents 
itself  to  us  here  in  one  person  as  it  does  not  in  any 
other  case  either  earlier  or  later.  Not  only  as  a 
"human  counsellor  in  difficult  political  transac- 
tions "  (Koster,  Die  Propheten,  s.  106),  as  the  king's 
privy-councillor,  but  as  the  servant  and  minister  of 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  Who,  through  him, 
makes  known  His  will  and  His  decrees,  and  guides 
the  fortunes  of  His  people,  and  as  the  messenger 
and  intermediary  of  the  divine  dispensations,  Isaiah 
stands  before  us.  He  fulfils  his  mission  most 
completely.  Jerusalem  and  the  kingdom  of  Judah 
were  in  peril  such  as  had  never  before  befallen 
them  since  they  had  existed.  No  one  was  pre- 
pared with  advice  or  counsel.  Anxiety,  terror, 
and  despair  controlled  all.  In  the  midst  of  all  this 
Isaiah  stood  firm  and  unshaken  as  a  rock  in  the 
sea.  With  calmness  and  even  joy,  such  as  only  a 
servant  of  Jehovah,  who  is  conscious  that  he 
stands  before  his  Lord,  can  feel  (1  Kings  xvii.  1 ; 
xviii.  15),  he  proclaims,  in  the  name  of  his  Master, 
deliverance  to  the  covenant  people,  and  destruc- 
tion to  the  blasphemous  foe,  and  as  he  says  so  it 
comes  to  pass.  Where  in  the  history  of  the  anci- 
ent world  is  there  anything  at  all  resembling  this? 
The  oracle,  vers.  21-34,  belongs  to  the  grandest 
which  have  been  preserved,  and  is  iu  the  front 
rank  even  of  those  of  Isaiah.  All  the  things 
which  we  find  to  admire  in  the  discourses  of  this 
prophet  are  here  united.  The  language  is  clear 
and  unambiguous,  it  is  concise  and  rich,  powerful 
and  stirring,  sharp  in  censure  as  well  as  consoling 
and  encouraging.  At  the  same  time  it  is,  in  form 
and  expression,  poetical  and  rhetorical.  The  re- 
ligious feeling  on  which  it  rests  is  the  distinctively 
Israelitish,  in  all  its  depth  and  purity.  The  God, 
in  whose  name  the  prophet  speaks,  is  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel  (see  Isai.  vi.  3),  a  character  in  which 
He  has  revealed  Himself  to  this  people  alone,  and 
in  which  no  other  people  knows  Him.  At  the 
same  time  He  is  a  Being  who  is  elevated  abso 
lutely  above  all  creature  limitations,  and  He  gov- 
erns all  the  nations  of  the  earth  according  to  His 
will.  He  has  chosen  Israel  to  be  His  own  pecu- 
liar people,  while  it  keeps  His  covenant.  He  is 
merciful  and  gracious,  but  He  will  not  be  scorned 
or  blasphemed.  The  godless  are  an  instrument  in 
His  hand,  which  He  breaks  and  throws  away 
when  it  has  served  His  purpose.  This  discourse 
was  indeed  occasioned  by  the  peculiar  circumstan- 
ces of  the  time,  and  it  refers  in  the  first  place  to 
them,  nevertheless  it  does  not  lack  that  which  is 
the  deepest  and  inmost  soul  of  all  prophecy,  the 
forecast  of  the  distant  future,  the  Messianic  ISt^ 

t  : 

2VJ"  [the  idea  that  out  of  all  calamities  a  purified 
remnant  shall  still  survive  to  carry  on  the  office  ol 


224 


TtLK  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


the  chosen  people]  (vers.  30,  31;  cf.  Isai.  vii.  3; 
vi.  13;  x.  21).  This  deliverance  is  the  type  and 
pledge  of  the  one  which  shall  £0  forth  from  Zion 
(Isai.  ii.  2,  3). 

5.  The  prophet's  prediction  of  the  destruction  of 
Sennacherib  is  a  prophecy  in  the  common  use  of  the 
word  [something  foretold],  and  every  attempt  to 
rob  it  of  this  character  is  shown  to  be  vain,  first 
by  the  great  definiteness  of  the  prediction,  and 
secondly,  by  its  undeniable  fulfilment.  Modern 
criticism,  starting  from  the  assumption  that  a 
specific  prophecy  is  impossible,  has  declared  ver. 
7,  as  well  as  the  concluding  verses  of  the  oracle, 
vers.  32-34,  on  account  of  their  "  suspicious  de- 
finiteness," to  be  additions  by  the  late  redactor. 
This  is  indeed  the  easiest  way  to  set  aside  any 
apparent  prophecy.  It  is  to  be  noticed,  however, 
that  the  whole  passage,  from  ver.  21  on,  comes 
naturally  and  necessarily  to  this  termination,  and 
the  tone  and  language  are  exactly  the  same  as  in 
the  previous  verses.  [The  artificial  construction 
of  the  strophe  and  antistrophe  make  it  impossible 
to  regard  vers.  32-34  as  anything  but  an  integral 
part  of  the  original  composition.  See  the  arrange- 
ment in  the  translation. — W.  G.  S.J  To  take  these 
verses  away  from  the  oracle  is  to  rob  it  of  all  its 
point.     It  is  both  arbitrary  and  violent. 

The  so-called  naturalistic  explanation,  which 
Knobel  maintains,  is  not  much  better.  According 
to  this,  the  pestilence  had  then  already  commenced, 
and  it  threatened  to  weaken  the  Assyrian  army 
very  materially.  News  had  also  come  that  Tirha- 
kah  was  advancing  (ver.  9).  These  two  things 
caused  the  prophet  to  "  hope "  that  Sennacherib 
would  not  persevere,  and,  inspired  by  this  hope,  he 
"sustains  his  courage  and  exhorts  the  king  and 
nation  to  confidence."  But  the  assumption  that 
the  pestilence  had  at  this  time  already  broken  out 
in  the  Assyrian  camp  is  unfounded,  it  is  entirely 
arbitrary,  and  it  even  contradicts  the  statements 
of  the  text  in  vers.  35  and  36.  With  this  assump- 
tion the  factitious  "hope"  of  the  prophet  falls  to 
the  ground.  Moreover  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
the  prophet  is  not  giving  expression  to  a  mere 
hope.  As  Knobel  himself  admits,  "the  tone  is 
that  of  the  utmost  confidence,"  and  "the  passage 
(vers.  32-34)  is  perfectly  definite." 

Ewald's  conception  of  it  is  much  finer  and 
more  delicate.  (Gesch.  Isr.  III.  s.  634  [Ed.  third  s. 
682]).  He  thus  states  his  conception  of  the  cir- 
cumstances: In  the  first  place,  when  Rab-shakeh 
uttered  his  threats,  the  prophet  exhorted  the  king 
in  general  to  courage  and  fearlessness  (ver.  6). 
Afterwards,  when  Sennacherib's  letter  arrived  and 
Hezekiah  was  in  great  anxiety,  "  Isaiah  forth- 
with announced  to  him,  if  possible  (!)  yet  more 
distinctly  than  before,  the  heaven-sent  consolation. 
The  bolder  and  more  insolent  the  language  of  Sen- 
nacherib was,  the  more  firm  was  the  divine  confi- 
dence against  all  his  human  vanity  which  Isaiah 
expressed  in  his  mighty  oracles.  Thereby  he 
powerfully  influenced  both  the  king  and  the  peo- 
ple. He  was  the  most  unwavering  support  in  this 
calamity,  and  the  unswerving  strength  of  his  soul 
grew  with  the  raging  of  the  storm."  However 
much  this  conception  may  contain  which  is  grand 
and  true,  yet  it  does  not  rise  above  the  idea  that 
the  prophet  had  a  merely  natural  and  human  hope 
and  foreboding.  The  prophet  himself,  however, 
means  to  have  his  words  taken  as  something  more 
Shan  this      He  could  not  possible  with  good  con- 


science, say  of  something  which  he  merely  hoped 
for  and  foreboded :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  I" 

[The  question  in  dispute  is :  What  did  the  pro- 
phets mean  when  they  said :  Thus  saith  the  Lord ! 
No  one  will  assert  that  they  meant  that  they 
had  heard  words  with  physical  ears,  or  read  words 
with  physical  eyes,  which  came  to  them  from  God. 
Their  apprehension  of  the  things  which  they  thu3 
announced  must  have  been  subjective,  in  so  far 
that  it  was  spiritual  and  conscientious.  Then  we 
come  to  a  psychological  analysis  of  the  degrees  of 
hope,  expectation,  faith,  and  foresight.  If  the  pro- 
cess by  which  prophets  apprehended  divine  oracles 
is  utterly  beyond  the  analogy  of  our  experience, 
then,  of  course,  it  defies  our  analysis.  But,  in  that 
case,  it  is  a  pure  dogma  which  we  cannot  explain 
or  state  in  words,  and  therefore  cannot  teach  or 
transmit.  We  can  repeat  a  formula,  but  we  can- 
not form  an  idea.  If,  however,  we  have  an  an- 
alog}' in  our  experience  of  faith  and  trust  in  God. 
— in  our  knowledge  and  conception  of  Hia  laws — 
and  in  our  belief  in  His  Providence,  for  the  kind  of 
activity  which  produced  the  prophecies,  then  we 
may  indeed  believe  that  the  prophets  acted  upon  a 
much  greater  measure  of  the  same  convictions. 
Certainly  the  prophets  did  not  utter  guesses,  and 
pronounce  them  with  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord !  " 
Any  attentive  reader  of  the  prophecies  will  perceive 
that  this  formula  has,  in  the  mouths  of  the  prophets, 
a  truly  awful  meaning.  They  had  intense  convic- 
tions as  to  God's  will  and  Providence,  and  a  pro- 
found faith  in  His  truth  and  justice.  When  they 
spoke  it  was  without  faltering,  and  with  complete 
faith  that  they  were  pronouncing  the  oracles  of 
God.  The  "  definiteness  "  of  this  prophecy,  which 
is  made  a  ground  for  believing  it  post  eventum, 
may  be  questioned.  It  is  grand,  broad,  and  poetic. 
It  is  not  specific  in  announcing  the  form  of  the  de- 
liverance, but  has  the  features  of  0.  T.  predictions. 
The  more  detailed  treatment  of  prophecy  belongs 
to  the  exposition  of  the  prophetical  books. — W.  G. 
S.] 

There  was  nothing  in  the  ciroumstances  to 
justify  the  expectation  that  the  hitherto  invincible 
conqueror,  who  was  already  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Jerusalem  with  1S5,000  men,  would  withdraw 
immediately.  On  the  contrary  nothing  seemed 
more  certain  than  that  he  would  carry  out  his 
threats.  Nevertheless  Isaiah  declared  to  the 
king  and  the  people  in  regard  to  him,  "  in  the  tone 
of  an  ambassador  of  God "  (Koster),  with  the 
greatest  definiteness  and  confidence:  "He  shall 
not  come  into  this  city,  Ac."  If  this  was  mere 
surmise  and  supposition,  then  it  was,  under  thesa 
circumstances,  pure  insanity  to  exhort  Jerusalem 
to  scorn  and  defy  the  conqueror  at  the  very  mo- 
ment when  it  was  in  the  greatest  jeopardy ;  nay, 
even  the  comparison  of  Sennacherib  with  a  wilo 
beast  with  a  ring  through  its  nose  and  a  bridle  in 
its  mouth,  would  be  a  piece  of  bombast  no  way  in- 
ferior to  that  of  Rab-shakeh.  What  would  have 
become  of  Isaiah?  What  would  have  become  of 
the  prophetic  institution,  if  he  had  then  been 
mistaken  in  his  mere  individual  and  subjective 
supposition  and  hope  ?  It  is  useless  to  turn  and 
twist  the  matter.  We  must  either  strike  out  the 
entire  oracle,  or  we  must  recognize  in  it  a  genuina 
prediction  and  admit  that  "the  prophecy  came  not 
in  old  times  by  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of 
God  spake  as  they  were  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (2  Peter  i.'21).     The  fact  that  this  event 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX 


225 


which  was  beyond  the  range  of  all  human  fore- 
sight and  calculation,  was  definitely  foretold  by 
the  prophet,  gives  it  the  character  of  an  event  de- 
termined beforehand  of  God  for  the  deliverance 
of  His  people,  that  is,  of  an  incident  in  the  history 
of  redemption,  and  takes  away  from  it  all  appear- 
ance of  an  accidental,  natural,  occurrence. 

[The  question  is:  Were  the  prophets  infallible  ? 
The  author's  argument  seems  to  assume  that  they 
were.  The  assumption  ought  to  be  fairly  stated 
and  understood,  and  the  issue  involved  ought  to 
be  fairly  met.  If  the  prophets,  who  were  "  men," 
"subject  to  like  passions  as  we  are  "  (Jas.  v.  17), 
were  infallible,  why  may  not  the  Pope  be  so  ?  If 
a  distinction  can  be  made,  and  if  it  be  said  that 
the  prophets  were  infallible  in  their  oracles,  why 
may  not  the  Pope  be  infallible  when  he  speaks  ex 
cathedra,  though  not  otherwise  ?  A  fair  criticism 
of  this  oracle  will  show  it  to  be  a  prediction.  The 
event  which  followed  was  a  dispensation  of  Provi- 
dence and  an  incident  in  the  history  of  redemption 
(see  bracketed  addition  to  §  9,  below).  It  rested 
on  very  much  more  than  a  hope  or  suspicion.  It 
was  a  confident  expectation  which  was  based  on 
trust  in  God  and  faith  in  His  Providence.  This 
amounted  to  a  certain  conviction  in  the  prophet's 
mind,  so  that  he  did  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it  in 
solemn  form  as  God's  will  that  Sennacherib's  plan 
against.  Judnh  should  be  frustrated.  He  was 
obliged  to  stake  his  prophetical  authority  on  this 
prediction.  His  religious  faith  rose  above  all  the 
appearances  of  improbability  (humanly  speaking), 
that  Sennacherib's  course  could  be  arrested.  He 
did  not  fear,  relying  on  his  faith  in  God,  to  threaten 
Sennacherib  with  the  most  shameful  overthrow. 
Sennacherib  lived  and  prospered  for  twenty 
years  afterwards  (see  Supplem.  Note  after  the 
Exeg.  section).  If  we  insist  on  the  literal  accuracy. 
or  even  specific  reference,  of  ver.  28  we  shall  make 
a  grievous  error,  but,  as  a  poetic  expression  for  a 
prediction  of  shame  and  disaster  to  Sennacherib, 
it  was  completely  fulfilled.  Thus  the  event  .justi- 
fied Isaiah's  faith,  and  ratified  his  authority  as  a 
man  of  God ;  i.  e ,  a  man  endowed  with  power  to 
dee  and  understand  the  ways  of  God.  The  notion 
that  the  prophets  had  communications  from  heaven, 
which  gave  them  infallible  information  as  to  what 
was  to  be,  is  a  superstition.  The  idea  that  they 
were  men  whose  faith  and  love  towards  God  gave 
them  communion  with  Him,  knowledge  of  His 
ways,  insight  into  His  Providence,  and.  therefore, 
foresight  of  His  dealings  with  men,  is  a  sublime 
religious  truth, — one  which  deserves  the  study,  as 
it  will  cultivate  the  religious  powers,  of  every 
Christian  man. — W.  G.  S.] 

6.  Hezekiah's  behavior  during  the  peril  from  the 
Assyrians  appears  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  gen- 
eral characterization'  which  stands  at  the  head  of 
the  narrative  (xviii.  5-7),  inasmuch  as  he,  who  had 
the  courage  to  declare  his  independence  of  the  As- 
syrian supremacy,  and  who,  according  to  2  Chron. 
xxxii.  5-8,  at  Sennacherib's  approach,  not  only 
took  all  possible  measures  for  a  determined  resist- 
ance, but  also  encouraged  the  people  to  trust  in 
Jehovah,  its  God,  and  not  to  fear,  nevertheless  in- 
structed his  ambassadors  to  ask  for  mercy,  and  de- 
clared himself  ready  to  submitto  any  sacrifice  which 
might  be  demanded  of  him  (ver.  14).  This  one 
fact,  however,  does  not  justify  us  in  regarding  him 
as  a  "  weak  and  dependent  man  "  (see  above  £  1 1. 
We  do  not  even  know  whether  he  took  the  step 


i  on  his  own  motion,  or,  as  is  very  possible,  was 
forced  to  it  by  those  who  were  about  him.  It  was 
not  until  the  Assyrian  army  had  advanced  evon 
beyond  Jerusalem,  had  taken  one  city  after  an- 
other and  devastated  the  country,  so  that  it  seemed 
to  him  that  Jerusalem  could  not  much  longer  be 
defended,  that  he  determined  to  make  this  humili- 
ating offer.  He  had  a  good  intention,  which  was 
i"  save  Jerusalem  and  the  kingdom  of  Judah  from 
a  fate  like  that  of  Samaria.  Yet  he  did  not  send 
to  the  Assyrian  such  a  message  as  his  wretched 
father,  Ahaz,  had  once  sent:  "I  am  thy  servant 
and  thy  son"  (chap.  xvi.  7),  but  only  went  so  far 
as  necessity  compelled  him.  Certainly  he  was  not 
a  hero  in  faith  like  Isaiah.  "When  he  had  taken 
the  first  step  (the  revolt),  trusting  iu  his  God,  then 
he  ought  to  have  taken  the  second,  also  trusting 
in  Him  "  (Schlier),  but  that  he  did  not  do  so  does 
not  prove  that  he  had  no  faith.  There  are  times 
in  the  life  of  every  truly  pious  and  believing  man 
when  the  ground  trembles  under  his  feet,  and  he 
is  wanting  in  firm  and  invincible  faith.  It  was 
in  such  a  moment  that  John  the  Baptist  sent  to 
ask  the  Saviour :  "  Art  thou  He  that  should 
come  ?  "  and  yet  the  Saviour  said  of  him  that  he 
was  no  reed  shaken  by  the  wind.  Peter  denied 
his  master,  and  yet  the  master  called  him  the  rock 
on  which  the  Church  should  be  built.  The  time 
of  peril  from  the  Assyrians  was.  for  Hezekiah,  a 
time  of  trial  and  discipline.  Soon  after  he  had 
acted  in  faint-heartedness  and  despair  he  learned 
that  help  is  not  to  be  bought  in  distress  by  gold 
or  silver.  The  treacherous  foe  only  pressed  him 
the  harder,  and  then  at  last  Hezekiah  showed  him- 
self a  true  theocratic  king.  Recognizing  a  divine 
chastisement  and  discipline  in  this  danger,  he  turns 
first  to  the  prophet  as  the  servant  of  Jehovah  and 
the  organ  of  the  divine  spirit,  and  sends  an  embas- 
sy of  the  chief  royal  officers  and  of  the  chief  priests 
to  him  to  beg  his  intercession.  The  solemn  em- 
bassy was  a  physical  recognition  by  the  king  of 
the  prerogative  of  the  prophet.  It  shows  that 
where  both  were  such  as  they  ought  to  be  there 
could  be  no  question  of  "  independent  powers " 
over  against  each  other  (see  I  Kings  xxi.  Hist. 
§  4,  and  Pi.  II.  p.  104),  but  that  both  worked  to- 
gether, and  had  co-ordinate  and  complementary 
functions  in  carrying  on  the  plan  of  redemption. 
The  position  which  Hezekiah  took  up  in  his  deal- 
ings with  the  prophetical  institution,  even  when  it 
was  exercising  its  functions  of  warning  and  re- 
buke, may  be  seen  from  the  incidental  allusion  in 
Jerem.  xxvi.  18  sq.  (See  Caspari  uber  Micha,  den 
Morasthiten,  s.  56.)  In  the  case  before  us  he  did 
not  rest  content  with  the  solemn  embassy  to  the 
prophet,  but  went  before  the  Lord,  and  poured  out 
his  heart  to  Him  in  prayer.  Von  Gerlach  justly 
says :  "  It  is  most  clearly  apparent  that,  in  this 
prayer,  the  inmost  faith  of  a  genuine  Israelite  is 
expressed."  In  true  humility  and  fervor  he  calls 
upon  the  only  living  God,  who  has  made  heaver 
and  earth,  and  who  is  the  king  of  all  kings  ol 
earth;  who  had  chosen  Israel  to  be  His  people, 
and  dwells  and  reigns  amongst  them  as  a  sign  ant 

•pledge  of  His  covenant.  To  Him,  the  Almighty 
One,  who  alone  can  help  and  save,  he  cries  for  help 
and  salvation.  He  is  not  so  much  alarmed  for  his 
throne  and  his  own  glory  as  he  is  that  the  name 
of  this  God  shall  not  be  blasphemed,  but  rather  be 
revered  by  all  the  world.  We  have  no  such  prayer 
from  any  other  king  since  Solomon.     Because  th« 


226 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Lord  is  near  to  all  who  call  upon  Him,  and  does 
what  the  god-fearing  ask  of  Him,  and  hears  their 
cry  (Ps.  cxlv.  18  sq.),  therefore  this  prayer  was 
heard.  The  Lord  helped  wondrously  and  beyond 
all  Hezekiah's  prayer  or  hope. 

7.  The  Assyrian  king,  Sennacherib,  and  his  chief 
cup-bearer  form  the  sharpest  contrast  to  Hezekiah 
and  the  prophet.  The  pride  and  arrogance  which, 
as  a  rule,  animate  all  gr^at  conquerors,  is  expressed 
by  them.  Such  men,  insolently  relying  on  their 
own  human  power  and  might,  recognize  nothing 
superior  to  themselves,  shrink  from  no  means  of 
gratifying  their  ambition  for  territorial  aggrandize- 
ment, and  insult  and  scoff  at  Almighty  God,  until 
He  finally  sends  His  judgments  upon  them  and 
brings  them  to  shame.  The  language  which  this 
ancieut  conqueror  used  is  that  of  a  heathen,  but 
the  spirit  which  animated  it  has  not  perished  from 
the  earth :  it  appeared  again  in  the  words  of  the 
greatest  conqueror  of  modern  times.  When  Na- 
poleon, during  his  expedition  to  Egypt,  said  to  a 
Mufti :  "  I  can  cause  a  fiery  chariot  to  descend 
from  heaven  and  to  turn  its  course  to  earth  ;  " — 
when,  in  his  proclamation  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Cairo,  he  declared,  denying  the  true  God  and  put- 
ting fate  in  His  place :  "Can  there  be  any  one  who 
is  blind  enough  not  to  see  that  fate  itself  guides 
all  my  undertakings?  .  .  .  Inform  the  people  that 
it  is  written  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  that, 
after  the  destruction  of  all  the  enemies  of  Islam 
and  the  overthrow  of  the  cross,  I  should  come 
from  the  far  west  to  fulfil  the  task  which  is  set 
for  me.  .  .  .  Those  who  raise  prayers  against  us 
to  heaven  pray  for  their  own  damnation.  I  could 
demand  from  each  one  of  you  an  account  of  the 
secret  thoughts  of  his  heart,  for  I  know  all,  even 
that  which  ye  have  told  to  no  one.  A  day  will 
come  when  all  will  see  that  I  have  been  guided  by 
commands  from  above,  and  that  all  the  efforts  of 
men  can  accomplish  nothing  against  me"  (Leo, 
Vniversalgesch.  V.  s.  317.  Baur,  Geschichts-  und  Le- 
bensbilder,  I.  *.  385,  sq.) — is  that  not  the  same  thing 
as  Sennacherib  boasts  chap,  xviii.  25,  35  and  xix. 
1  sq.  in  regard  to  himself,  though  with  different 
words?  It  is  an  entire  misconception,  on  the  part 
of  Ewald,  when  he  thus  states  Sennacherib's  poli- 
cy and  intentions  (I.  c.  s.  596) :  "  The  wars  between 
the  numerous  small  kingdoms  this  side  the  Eu- 
phrates had,  during  the  last  centuries,  assumed 
continually  more  and  more  the  character  of  mere 
plundering  expeditions.  It  was  enough  to  merely 
rob  and  plunder  a  weaker  neighbor.  .  .  .  There 
was  no  conception  of  a  fatherland,  a  great  kingdom 
which  was  a  power  to  restrain  wrong  by  justice 
and  unity.  But  the  '  warlike  '  [Ewald's  interpre- 
tation of  3~p]  king,  as  the  Assyrian  king  was  now 

called  before  all  others  (Hos.  v.  13;  x.  6)  desired 

a  great,  united,  and  powerful  kingdom,  in  which 
petty  national  jealousies  should  disappear."  The 
Scriptures  do  not  contain  any  hint  of  any  such 
noble  and  beneficent  intentions  on  the  part  of  the 
Assyrian  king.  On  the  contrary,  Sennacherib 
himself  boasts  that  he  has  devoted  all  the  con- 
quered lands  to  destruction,  and  has  caused  the  na- 
tions to  perish  (chap.  xix.  11,  12).  The  Scriptures 
call  Sennachorib  especially  a  destroyer,  plunderer, 
or  robber  (Isai.  xxxiii.  1),  whose  heart  is  set  to  de- 
Stroy  and  uproot  nations,  and  who  does  not  know 
that  he  is  only  ■<  hired  razor,  the  rod  of  God's  wrath, 
>>nd  the  staff  of   His  auger  (Isai.  x.  5-7).     That 


this  man,  the  greatest  and  mightiest  of  the  kings 
of  Assyria,  before  whom  all  nations  trembled, 
should  come  to  shame  in  his  contest  with  the  small 
and  weak  kingdom  of  Judah,  this  proclaimed  to 
all  the  world  the  great  and  eternal  truth :  He  can 
humiliate  even  the  proud  ! 

8.  The  speech  of  the  ambassador,  Rab-shakch, 
is  a  remarkable  specimen  of  ancient  oriental  rheto- 
ric. It  has,  in  form  and  expression,  none  of  the 
smoothness  and  fineness  of  modern  diplomacy,  but 
it  is,  in  the  method  which  it  pursues,  by  no  means 
out  of  date,  but  as  fresh  as  if  it  had  been  spoken 
but  yesterday.  In  the  first  part,  which  is  ad- 
dressed to  king  Hezekiah  and  his  high  officers,  the 
speaker  utters  undeniable  truths.  It  was  true 
that  Egypt  was  like  a  broken  reed  on  which  a 
man  could  not  rest  or  rely.  It  was  true  that  Heze- 
kiah had  abolished  the  worship  on  the  high  places 
and  centralized  the  cultus  in  Jerusalem.  It  was 
true  that  if  he  had  ever  so  many  horses  he  lacked 
riders  for  them,  while  the  Assj'rian  army  was 
richly  provided  with  both.  It  was  true,  finally, 
that  this  army  had  not  advanced  to  Jerusalem  and 
beyond  without  the  permission  of  God;  but  all 
these  truths  stand  here  in  the  service  of  arrogance, 
hypocrisy,  and  falsehood.  The  ancient  diplomat 
understood  the  falsely  celebrated  art  of  convin- 
cing by  sophistical  arguments,  and  yet  of  cheating 
and  deceiving.  When  the  royal  councillors  did  not 
at  once  yield  to  him,  he  became  rude  and  insolent 
towards  them,  and  began  to  harangue  the  common 
people.  In  the  first  place,  he  puts  before  them  the 
distress  and  misery  which  await  them  if  the  city 
is  not  given  up  at  once;  then  he  makes  promises, 
tempts  them  and  sets  prosperity,  and  good  fortune, 
and  wealth  before  them  ;  then  he  makes  them  sus- 
picious of  their  king,  and  calls  them  to  disobedi- 
ence to  him  ;  finally,  he  undermines  their  religious 
faith,  represents  to  them  their  trust  in  God  as 
foolish  and  vain,  and  appeals  to  the  fall  of  Samaria 
which  (he  declares)  this  God  was  as  little  able  to 
prevent  as  the  gods  of  the  other  nations  were  to 
prevent  their  overthrow.  Here  again  we  must 
exclaim  with  Menken,  as  above  in  the  case  of 
Naaman :  "  How  true  and  faithful  is  the  ancient 
picture  I  How  fresh  and  new  it  is,  as  if  men  of 
to-day  had  sat  for  it !  " 

9.  The  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  army,  which 
impelled  Sennacherib  to  retreat,  is  unquestioned 
as  an  historical  fact ;  il  has  not  been  assailed  even 
by  modern  critical  science.  Its  character  as  an 
incident  in  the  history  of  the  redemptive  plan  (see 
§  3)  has,  however,  been  taken  from  it  by  the 
assertion  that  it  was  due  to  one  of  the  pestilences 
which  were  common  in  the  Orient,  and  especially 
in  Egypt ;  that  the  number  of  those  who  died  is 
"exaggerated,"  and  that  the  destruction  in  a  sin- 
gle night  is  a  mythical  detail.  Appeal  is  made  in 
proof  to  the  "  frightful  devastation  which  the  pes- 
tilence accomplishes  in  a  short  time.''  Instances 
are  cited  such  as  that  "  at  Constantinople,  in  1714, 
nearly  300,000  human  beings  perished,  and  at  the 
same  place,  in  1778,  2,000  died  daily  "  (Winer,  H. 
W.-B.,  II.  s.232),  and  that  "  the  pestilence  in  Milan, 
in  1 C29,  according  to  Tadino,  carried  oil'  1  G0,000  per- 
sons; at  Vienna,  in  1679, 122,849;  and  in  Moscow,  at 
the  end  of  the  last  century,  according  to  Martens, 
670,000 "  (Delitsch  on  Isai.  xxxvii.  36).  As  for 
the  number  185,000,  the  fact  that  it  is  not  "an 
exactly  round  number  bears  witness  to  its  histori- 
cal accuracy  "  (Thenius).     Both  accounts  have  It 


CHAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  SIX. 


227 


Moreover  it  occurs  1  Mace.  vii.  41,  and  2  Mace.  xv. 
22,  and  Jos.  Antiq.  x.  1,  5.  It  is  arbitrary  to  throw 
aside  a  number  which  is  supported  by  such  testi- 
mony and  has  nothing  against  it.  It  would  not 
be  allowed  in  the  case  of  a  number  supported  by 
so  many  profane  authors.  As  for  the  assumed 
mythical  detail  that  they  all  perished  in  one  night, 
that  is  not  the  statement  of  the  text;  but  that 
J'the  angel  went  out  on  that  night  and  he  smote," 
•&c.,  that  is,  on  that  night  the  pestilence  broke  out 
in  the  Assyrian  camp,  so  that  in  the  morning  very 
many  already  lay  dead,  and  it  raged  until  the 
whole  army,  185,000  strong,  was  carried  off.  With 
that  night  the  destruction  of  the  entire  army  be- 
gan. [That  is  hardly  a  fair  reading  of  ver. 
35.  The  angel  went  out  that  night  and  smote 
185.000  men,  and  in  the  morning  they  were  corpses. 
The  naivete  of  the  remark,  that  they  rose  up  and 
lol  they  were  all  dead,  belongs  to  the  simplicity 
of  the  style  of  composition.  Its  meaning  is  clear 
that  the  185,000  men  did  not  comprise  the  whole 
Assyrian  army.  The  intention  of  the  history  to  de- 
clare that  185,000  men  were  smitten  and  perished 
m  one  night  is  undeniable. — W.  G.  S.]  "  In  view 
of  the  conciseness  of  the  record  we  may  assume, 
with  Hensler  and  others,  that  the  pestilence  raged 
in  the  Assyrian  camp  for  some  time,  and  that  it 
carried  off  thousands  by  night  (Ps.  xci.  6)  up  to 
the  number  of  185,000  ""  (Delitsch).     If  the  words 

Xinn  r6,?3  were  what  made  of  the  incident  a 

miraculous  interposition  of  God,  they  could  not  be 
wanting  from  the  narrative  in  Isaiah ;  also  the 
Chronicler,  who  does  not  in  other  cases  show  any 
listrust  of  what  is  miraculous,  and  the  three  places 
in  the  book  of  Maccabees,  and  that  in  Sirach,  all 
of  which  mention  the  event,  would  not  be  silent  as 
to  that  which  would  form  the  distinctive  feature  of 
it.  When  Knobel  remarks  that  "the  historian  as- 
cribes the  event  which  brought  about  the  deliver- 
ance of  Jndah  to  the  God  of  Judah,"  we  must 
ask.  to  whom  else  should  he  ascribe  it?  to  Nature  ? 
to  the  climate?  to  accident?  The  God  of  Judah 
is  the  living  God,  who,  as  Hezekiah  says  (xix.  15, 
19),  made  heaven  and  earth.  He  alone  is  God. 
If  not  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without  Him 
(Matt.  x.  29),  then  185,000  men  were  not  carried 
off  without  His  will.  As  in  the  case  of  Isaiah's 
prophecy  (§  5),  so  here,  aU  turning  and  twisting 
is  useless.  The  incident  was  "a  dispensation  of 
God  which  evades  until  this  day  all  attempts  to 
solve  its  causes."  We  may  admit  that  it  was  pro- 
duced by  the  pestilence;  "but,  in  the  way  of  an 
attempt  at  a  natural  explanation,  this  amounts  to 
nothing.  No  disease  has  ever,  in  its  natural 
course,  accomplished  anything  of  the  kind.  All 
the  extraordinary  cases  which  are  cited  from  his- 
tory are  only  calculated  to  render  the  more  promi- 
nent the  fact  that  the  incident  here  recorded  is 
totally  dissimilar  from  them  all"  (Drechsler). 

[The  miraculousness  of  the  incident  consists  nei- 
ther in  the  number  of  the  slain,  nor  in  the  short  space 
of  time  in  which  they  perished.  It  consists  in  the 
fact  that  this  extraordinary  calamity  befell  the  As- 
syrian army,  by  a  dispensation  of  Providence,  at 
a  great  crisis  in  the  history  of  Judah.  The  rava- 
ges of  pestilence  in  various  historical  instances 
are,  therefore,  no  parallels.  They  are  entirely 
aside  from  the  point.  The  destruction  of  the 
Spanish  armada  by  a  storm  is  a  far  closer  parallel 
than  any  one  of  these.     We  may  hesitate  to  inter- 


pret these  dispensations  of  Providence  in  modern 
times.  The  prophetic  author  of  the  Jewish  his- 
tory had  no  such  scruples.  He  saw  and  plainly 
declared  the  hand  of  God  in  this  event.  "It  i* 
not  without  reason  that  in  the  churches  of  M".scow 
the  exultation  over  the  fall  of  Sennacherib  is  still 
read  on  the  anniversary  of  the  retreat  of  the 
French  from  Russia  ;  or  that  Arnold,  in  his  Lec- 
tures on  Modern  History,  in  the  impressive  passage 
(p.  177)  in  which  he  dwells  on  that  great  catastro- 
phe, declared  that  for  'the  memorable  night  of 
frost  in  which  20,000  horses  perished,  and  the 
strength  of  the  French  army  was  utterly  broken,' 
he  '  knew  of  no  language  so  well  fitted  to  describe 
it  as  the  words  in  which  Isaiah  described  the  ad- 
vance and  destruction  of  the  hosts  of  Sennache- 
rib.' "  (Stanley,  II.  534.)  Our  best  means  of 
arriving  at  a  strictly  historical  conception  of  such 
providential  interpositions  as  the  one  here  recorded, 
is  that  of  comparing  them  with  other  similar  events 
nearer  and  more  familiar  to  ourselves. — W.  G.  S.] 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-8.  The  noble  Testimony  which  th« 
Holy  Scriptures  bear  to  King  Hezekiah.  (a)  He 
abolished  the  false  worship  in  his  kingdom  and 
reestablished  that  which  was  in  accordance  with 
the  word  of  God  (vers.  3  and  4).  (b)  He  trusted 
the  Lord,  clung  to  him,  and  departed  not  from  Him 
(vers.  5  and  6).  (c)  What  he  did  prospered,  for  the 
Lord  was  with  him  (vers.  7  and  8). — Vers.  3-6. 
Lange  :  It  is  sad  when  godly  parents  have  godless 
children  and  must  see  that  all  their  pains  are  spent 
upon  them  in  vain.  On  the  contrary,  where  godless 
parents,  especially  a  godless  father,  have  pious  chil- 
dren, we  must  look  upon  it  as  a  direct  fruit  of  the 
grace  of  God.  The  testimony  to  Hezekiah  is,  there- 
fore, the  more  excellent  the  more  depraved  his 
father  was.  Cramer:  Virtue  and  godliness  are  not 
inherited  from  one's  parents. — Ver.  4.  Hezekiah 
succeeded  in  uprooting  ancient  abuses,  because  he 
was  moved  not  merely  by  political  or  other  human 
considerations,  but  only  by  love  to  the  Lord,  and 
zeal  for  His  honor.  He  was  anxious  not  only  to 
root  up,  destroy,  and  deny,  but  also  to  set  up  in 
the  place  of  what  was  evil  that  which  was  right 
and  good. — The  brazen  serpent.  The  purpose  for 
which  Moses  made  it  (John  iii.  14  sq.) ;  why  Hez- 
ekiah destroyed  it  (worship  of  images  and  destruc- 
tion of  images.  Use  and  abuse  of  images). — Cra- 
mer: If  the  cross  on  which  Christ  hung  were  pre- 
served by  the  papists  it  would  certainly  be  a  relic 
of  remarkable  antiquarian  interest,  but  to  keep  a 
feast  in  its  honor,  make  pilgrimages  to  it,  and  grant 
indulgences  by  virtue  of  it,  would  be  pure  idolatry. 
— -Vers.  5  and  6.  True  piety  consists  of  (a)  a  faith 
wllich  is  at  once  trust  and  confidence,  Heb.  xi.  1 ;  (b) 
clinging  to  the  Lord  in  adversity  and  in  prosperity, 
without  departing  from  Him,  Ps.  lxxiii.  25  sq. ;  (c) 
keeping  the  commandments  of  God,  James  ii.  17; 
1  John  v.  3. — Vers.  7  and  8.  Osiander  :  God  re- 
wards godliness  even  in  this  life,  Matt.  vi.  33 ;  1 
Tim.  iv.  8. — Starke:  Only  the  faithful  and  pious 
can  console  themselves  with  God's  favor,  and  boast 
that  God  is  with  them,  Ps.  cxviii.  6,  7  ;  Ps.  i.  3.— 
To  throw  off  a  disgraceful  foreign  yoke,  and  to 
take  back  what  one  has  been  robbed  of,  is  not  a 
breach  of  fidelity,  but  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of 
every  ruler  who  wears  a  crown  lawfully. — Vers. 
9-12.  See  notes  on  chap.  xvii.     Hoshea  and  Heze- 


22S 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


kiah.  The  former  came  to  the  throne  by  conspir- 
acy and  murder,  and  he  did  not  do  what  was  pleas- 
ing to  the  Lord,  therefore  he  perished  with  his 
people.  The  latter  trusted  in  the  Lord  and  clung 
to  Him,  and  therefore  he  came  out  with  his  people 
victoriously  from  the  peril. 

Vers.  13-16.  Hezekiah  enjoyed  peace  and  rest 
for  fourteen  years.  His  reign  was  a  prosperous 
one ;  then,  howerer,  came  the  time  of  trial  and 
danger,  which  does  not  fail  to  come  even  to  those 
who  have  faith  and  trust. — Berleb.  Bibel:  No 
one  can  belong  to  God  unless  he  passes  through 
trial  and  discipline.  The  harder  the  trial  is,  the 
more  must  we  increase  our  faith  and  dependence, 
for  God  chastises  us  only  that  He  may  make  more 
clear  His  mercy  and  care  for  those  who  trust  in 
Him.- — The  gold  of  faith  can  only  be  made  to  ap- 
pear through  the  fires  of  adversity,  Sir.  ii.  5.  If 
thy  faith  is  not  a  mere  notion,  or  opinion,  or  feel- 
ing, or  sensation,  then  it  will  not  diminish  in  the 
time  of  trial,  btit  grow  and  become  stronger  and 
purer.  "  Whence  should  we  have  had  David's 
psalms,  if  he  had  not  been  tried  ?  "  Therefore 
St.  Paul  says,  Rom.  v.  3  sq. — Ver.  14.  There  is  no- 
thing harder  for  any  one  who  holds  a  high  posi- 
tion than  to  humble  himself,  yet  there  is  nothing 
more  beneficial.  The  king  finds  himself  compelled, 
in  order  to  save  his  kingdom,  to  beg  forgiveness 
of  the  monarch  from  whom  he  had  revolted.  That 
was  the  first  consequence  of  his  chastisement  — 
Cramer  :  An  oppressive  peace  is  better  than  the 
most  just  war,  and  it  is  better  to  purchase  peace 
than  to  risk  kingdom  and  people,  life  and  liberty. 
— When  we  see  that  we  have  done  wrong  we 
ought  to  confess  it  not  only  before  God  but  also 
before  men. — Do  thou  say  to  God  what  Hezekiah 
sent  his  ambassadors  to  say  to  Sennacherib.  Thou 
wilt  find  Him  not  faithless,  but  always  good  and 
faithful,  and  He  will  lay  upon  thee  no  burden 
which  thou  canst  not  carry. — Ver.  17.  We  can 
never  rely  upon  the  fidelity  of  a  man  who  is  sim- 
ply bought  with  money. — Want  of  courage  in 
one's  self  invites  an  enemy  to  arrogance.  The 
more  humbly  one  approaches  an  enemy  the  more 
insolent  he  becomes. — Peace  and  quiet  which  are 
bought  with  money  have  no  duration.  [This 
ought  to  be  taken  to  modify  the  doctrine  quoted 
above  (on  ver.  14)  from  Cramer,  that  it  is  better 
to  buy  peace  than  to  risk  war.] 

Vers.  17-35.  Rab-shakeh's  speech  (a)  to  Hez- 
ekiah's  messengers,  vers.  19-27  ;  (6)  to  the  people, 
vers.  28-35.  See  Histor.  §  8.  That  is  always  the 
way  of  the  devil ;  he  mixes  up  truth  and  falsehood, 
that  he  may  inoculate  us  with  the  falsehood. — Rab- 
ehakeh.  the  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing,  (a)  He  appears 
to  warn  against  Egypt  as  a  power  which  neither  can 
nor  will  help,  just  as  Isaiah  himself  does,  while  he 
himself  comes  to  destroy  and  devour  (Matt.  vii.  1 5  ; 
1  John  iv.  1).  (6)  He  represents  what  had  been  or- 
dained by  Hezekiah  according  to  the  Law  of  the 
Lord  and  for  His  honor  as  a  sin  and  a  breach  of 
religion,  while  he  himself  cared  nothing  whatever 
for  the  Law  of  the  Lord  or  the  true  and  right  wor- 
ship. Beware  of  those  who  represent  as  weak- 
ness and  folly  that  which  is  divine  wisdom  and 
strength  (1  Cor.  i.  18*?.).  (c)  He  claims  that  the 
Lord  is  with  him  and  has  commanded  him  to  do 
what  he  is  doing  (ver.  25),  whereas,  in  fact,  he  is 
only  the  rod  of  I  rod's  wrath,  the  staff'  of  His  anger, 
a  ''hired  razor,"  and  ambition,  lust  for  gold  and 
land,  desire  for  glory  and  plunder  are  his  only 


motives  (Matt.  vii.  22  sq.).    Be  not  deceived  by  tit 
prosperity  and  the  victory  of  the  godless.     Thej 
are  like  chaff'  which  the  wiud  scatters  and  theii 
way  disappears  (Ps.  i.   3,   6). — Ver.   20.   In  what 
dost  thou  trust  ?      Ask   thyself  this  every   day 
Dost   thou   trust   in   other  men  who   have  rank, 
wealth,    and   influence   (Ps.   lx.   12;    cxlvi.    3,  4; 
Jerem.  xvii.  5) ;  upon  thyself,  thine  own  power,  wis- 
dom, and  judgment   (Prov.  iii.   5.  7  ;   1  Cor.  i.  19, 
20);   or  on  the  Lord  alone   (Ps.  cxviii.  8,  9;  cxlvi 
5;  Jerem.  xvii.  7,  8)? — Ver.  21.    J.  Lange:  How 
often  it  happens  that  when  a  man  abandons  God 
and  seeks  another  reliance,  he  finds  but  a  broken 
reed  ! — LTjibreit  :  So  weak  and  faithless  men  often 
prepare  for  those  who  are  not  satisfied  with  God's 
grace,  but  seek  help  from  them,  the  deepest  mis- 
fortunes.    He  who  trusts  only  in  God  stands  high 
and  free  even  above  the  ruins  of  his  earthly  hap- 
piness ;  he  who  takes  refuge  in  men  becomes  the 
slave  of  men. — Ver.  22.  Kyburz:    It  is  the  most 
deadly  temptation  of  the  adversary  that  he  thrown 
suspicion  upon  all  which  one  has  done  for  God,  or 
upon  all  the  spiritual  good  which  one  has  wrought. 
This  is  the  way  of  the  devil  and  of  the  blindec. 
world.     They  praise  that  for  which  one  deserves 
punishment  and  make  a  threat  of  that  by  virtue 
of  which  one   might  hope  for  the  favor  of  God. 
He  who  does  not  mean  to  fall  under  this  trial  must 
strive  for  the  testing  spirit  that  it  may  teach  him 
to  distinguish  false  and  true,  light  and   darkness, 
according  to  the  divine  standards  (John  xii.  4  sq.). 
—Starke:  When  the  world  wishes  to  give  pain 
to  the  pious  it  calls  their  trust  m  God  obstinacy, 
and  their  constancy,  arrogance. — Wurt.    SUMU.: 
Perverse  and  depraved  men  often  consider  true 
religion  the  origin  of  all  misfortune. — Vers.  23  and 
24.  The  boastful  cannot  stand  before  the  eyes  of 
the  Lord  (Ps.  v.  6,  7).     He  says  to  them  :   "Speak 
not  with  a  stiff"  neck,"  ic.  (Ps.  lxxv.  5—8.  cf.  Jerem. 
ix.  23,  24).    "  There  is  no  king  saved  by  the  multi- 
tude of  an  host,"  Ac.  (Ps.  xxxiii.  16,  17). — Ver.  25. 
Starke  :  The  godless  do  not  want  to  have  the  ap- 
pearance of  making  their  undertakings  under  and 
with  God;   they  boast  that  they  do  not  do  so,  yet 
wrongly. — Menken  :  God  uses  the  bad  for  pur- 
poses  for  which  he   cannot   use   the  good.     The 
prosperity  of  the  wicked  destroys  them   (Prov.  i. 
32). — How  often  a  man  puts  his  own  wishes  or 
thoughts  in  the  place  of  the  will  of  God  and  says 
or  thinks:  The  Lord  commanded  me!     It  is  crime, 
however,  for  a  man  to  ascribe  to  the  will  of  God 
that  which  sprang  from  his  own  evil  lusts  (James 
i.  13  sq.). 

Vers.  26  to  28.  The  just  Request  of  the  King's 
Councillors  to  Rab-shakeh  and  his  insolent  Reply. 
— Cramer  :  A  Christian  ought  to  be  careful  in  all 
things  and  to  try  to  avert  harm  wherever  he  can 
(Eph.  v.  15). — Simple  and  uneducated  people  lend 
an  ear  far  too  easily  to  boasters,  to  those  who  dis- 
tort truth,  and  allow  themselves  to  be  cajoled,  be- 
cause they  lack  insight  to  distinguish  between  ap- 
pearance and  reality,  error  and  truth.  Therefore 
not  all  subjects  should  he  discussed  before  the 
multitude,  in  whose  minds  one  distorted  expression 
will  often  do  more  harm  than  the  most  reasonable 
discourse  can  cure.  A  faithful  government  ought 
to  protect  its  subjects  from  hypocritical  and  lyinfr 
teachers  as  much  as  from  thieves  and  robbers. 
Ver.  27.  He  who  cannot  endure  any  contradiction, 
however  moderate  and  just  it  may  be,  without  be- 
coming violent  and  angry,  shows  thereby  that  h» 


CEAPTERS  XVIII.  AND  XIX 


229 


is  not  aiming  at  truth  and  right,  but  that  he  has  a 
selfish  and  insincere  purpose. — Rab-shakeh  was  an 
official  of  the  court  and  a  man  in  high  station,  who 
did  not  lack  wisdom  and  information  ;  neverthe- 
less his  words  show  rudeness  and  vulgarity.  High 
rank  and  position,  even  when  united  with  wisdom 
and  information,  do  not  insure  against  rudeness 
and  vulgarity.  These  only  disappear  where  the 
life  lias  its  springs  in  God,  and  there  is  a  purified 
heart  and  a  sanctified  disposition  (Luke  vi.  45). — 
Ver.  28-35.  The  ways  and  means  of  demagogues 
and  tl  use  who  stir  up  sedition,  (a)  Vers.  29  and 
30.  They  cast  suspicion  upon  the  lawful  authority, 
however  righteous  its  intentions  may  be.  They 
scatter  abroad  distrust  of  its  power  and  of  its 
good  disposition,  and  strive  to  make  the  people 
discontented  with  all  its  ordinances.  (6)  Vers.  31 
and  32.  They  promise  to  the  people  peace  and 
prosperity  and  good  fortune,  deliverance  from  tyr- 
anny and  slavery,  in  order  that  they  may  then  lay 
upon  it  their  yoke,  which  is  far  heavier  and  more 
disgraceful  (Ps.  cxl.  5).  (c)  Ver.  33  sq.  They  un- 
dermine the  faith  of  the  people  under  the  pretence 
of  enlightening  it,  while  they  themselves  walk  in 
darkness  and  are  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ. 
Therefore :  "  Watch  ye,  stand  fast  in  the  faith, 
quit  you  like  men,  be  strong  "  (1  Cor.  xvi.  13). — 
Ver.  28.  Starke:  When  Satan  wants  attentive 
listeners  he  talks  God's  language ;  therefore  be- 
lieve not  every  spirit  (1  John  iv.  1). — Ver.  30.  The 
Lord  will  save  us!  (a)  A  noble  saying  in  the 
mouth  of  a  king  speaking  to  his  people.  He 
thereby  admits  that  his  own  power  is  insufficient 
and  vain.  He  leads  his  people  in  that  faith  which 
is  a  confidence  in  what  is  hoped  for,  and  which 
admits  no  doubt  of  what  is  not  seen.  How  well 
it  would  be  for  all  princes  and  peoples  if  they  had 
Buch  faith.  (A)  In  this  saying  all  the  hope  of  the 
Christian  life  is  expressed :  With  God  we  over- 
come the  world,  for  the  Lord  will  at  length 
save  and  deliver  us  from  all  evil,  and  bring  us  to 
his  heavenly  kingdom.  The  blasphemer  and 
boaster  wanted  to  remove  these  words  of  the  king 
from  the  heart  of  the  people,  because  he  knew 
that  he  should  then  have  won.  Nowadays  also 
these  words  are  laughed  at  and  scorned.  Let 
them  not  be  torn  from  your  heart  1  Happy  is  he 
whose  trust  is  in  the  Lord  his  God  (Ps.  cxlvi.  5). 
— Ver.  31  sq.  Cramer:  When  Satan  cannot  ac- 
complish anything  by  resistance  and  force,  he 
strikes  the  softer  strings  and  promises  luxury, 
riches,  splendor  (Matt.  iv.  9). — Ver.  33  sq.  Pride 
and  arrogance  go  so  far  that  man,  who  is  but  dust 
and  ashes,  exalts  himself  in  his  folly  above  Al- 
mighty God. — Pfaff.  Bibel:  The  Lord  punishes 
writh  especial  severity  the  crime  of  scoffing  at  the 
Living  God  and  doubting  of  his  might  and  majes- 
ty (2  Mace.  ix.  28;   Isai.  xiv.  13-15). 

Ver.  36  sq.  The  Impression  which  Rab-shakeh's 
Speech  made,  (a)  The  people  kept  silence  and  did 
not  answer.  (Silence  is  an  answer — often  a  more 
empnatic  one  than  speech.  Happy  is  the  people 
which  is  deaf  to  the  words  of  seducers  and  those 
who  stir  up  insurrection.)  (6)  The  ambassadors 
of  the  king  tear  their  clothes  as  a  sign  of  grief  and 
of  horror  at  the  blasphemous  words  which  they 
had  been  forced  to  hear.  Rab-shakeh  was  obliged 
to  depart  with  his  mission  unaccomplished  (1  Peter 
v.  8,  9). — Ver.  36.  We  ought  not  to  enter  into  any 
dispute  with  those  who  do  not  care  to  arrive  at 
the  truth,  but  only  to  accomplish  their  own  selfish 


ends,  and  who  are  versed  in  the  art  of  mixing 
truth  and  falsehood,  but  we  should  punish  them 
by  silence. — Ver.  37.  Starke:  We  ought  not  to 
laugh  at  blasphemous  speeches,  but  to  be  heartily 
saddened  by  them. — Wurt.  Summ.  :  We  ought  not 
to  get  angry  at  a  blasphemer,  lest  we  also  do 
some  wrong,  but  we  ought  to  wait  patiently  for  the 
Lord  (Isai.  xxx.  15). —  Cramer:  Cast  not  your 
pearls  before  swine,  nor  give  what  is  holy  unto  the 
dogs  (Matt.  vii.  6).  It  is  not  always  wise  to  an- 
swer a  fool.  There  is  a  time  for  silence  (Eccl.  iii 
1). 

Chap.  xix.  vers.  1-7.  Hezekiah  in  great  Dis 
tress,  (a)  lie  rends  his  clothes  (as  a  sign  of  horror 
at  Rab-shakeh's  blasphemous  speech).  He  puts  on 
sack-cloth  (as  a  sign  of  repentance),  and  goes  to 
the  house  of  the  Lord  (to  humble  himself  before 
God,  for  he  recognizes  in  his  need  and  distress  a 
consequence  of  sin  and  apostasy,  and  a  call  to  re- 
pentance). (6)  He  sends  the  chiefs  and  representa- 
tives of  the  people  to  the  prophet,  from  whom  he 
hopes  to  hear  the.  best  counsel.  He  orders  them 
to  make  known  his  request,  and  he  is  encouraged 
by  Mm  to  stand  fast  in  faith. — Ver.  1.  The  words 
in  Ps.  i.  1  apply  to  Hezekiah.  A  man  who  truly 
fears  God  cannot  endure  that  unbelief  should  open 
its  insolent  mouth ;  his  heart  is  torn  when  he  hears 
the  living  God  scoffed  at.  Woe  to  the  people  and 
country  in  which  the  speeches  of  the  godless  are 
listened  to  in  silence  and  with  indifference,  with- 
out pain  or  grief,  and  where .  jests  at  God  and 
divine  things  are  regarded  as  enlightenment  and 
wisdom  (Luke  xix.  40). — Vers.  2  and  3.  In  anxi- 
ety and  perplexity  our  only  consolation  is  to  call 
upon  God  (Ps.  xxxiv.  19;  xlvi.  1). — Hall:  The 
more  we  hear  the  name  of  God  desnised  and 
abused  the  more  we  ought  to  love  and  Honor  it. — 
Starke  :  It  is  of  great  importance  that,  in  time  of 
need,  one  should  have  a  faithful  friend,  to  whom 
one  can  confide  all,  and  find  counsel  and  help. — 
Ver.  4.  Cramer:  We  should  not  doubt  in  prayer, 
nor  prescribe  methods  of  action  to  God,  but  wait 
in  patience  and  humility  for  the  help  of  the  Lord 
(James  v.  10). — We  should  apply  to  others  in  our 
need  that  they  may  intercede  for  us.  When  a  man 
like  the  Apostle  Paul  exhorts  the  believers  to  pray 
for  him  (Rom.  xv.  30;  Eph.  vi.  18,  19),  how  much 
more  does  it  become  us  to  beg  this  service  of  love 
of  others,  and  to  console  ourselves  with  the  strength 
of  the  intercession  of  those  who  have  intercourse 
of  prayer  with  the  Lord.  He,  however,  who  de- 
sires that  others  should  pray  for  him  ought  not  to 
have  given  up  the  habit  of  prayer  himself.  Heze- 
kiah went  first  himself  into  the  house  of  the  Lord 
to  pray,  and  then  he  sent  to  the  prophet. — Ver.  5. 
What  happiness  and  what  a  blessing  it  is  in  times 
of  distress  and  perplexity  to  have  a  faithful  ser- 
vant of  God  at  hand,  who  stands  firm'  in  the  storm. 
— -Vers.  6,  7.  Isaiah's  Answer  (a)  as  a  word  of 
encouragement  (ver.  6),  (6)  as  a  word  of  promising 
and  threatening  (ver.  7).  The  prophet  calls  the 
emissaries  of  the  Assyrian  king:  "servants"  [see 
Exeg.  on  the  verse],  a  contemptuous  name,  because 
they  had  blasphemed  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  not 
manly  to  assume  airs  of  superiority  and  to  pretend 
to  scorn  the  word  of  God.  but  it  is  boyish.  How- 
ever high  in  rank  a  man  may  be,  if  he  speaks  and 
acts  as  these  men  did  he  is  a  low  fellow  (Ps. 
xxxvii.  12,  13). — Ver.  7.  God  punishes  those  who 
have  no  fear  of  Him  by  making  them  fear  men, 
and  flee  at  the  mere   Timor  of  a  danger  which  is- 


230 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


not  yet  at  hand.  Pray  God,  therefore,  that  He 
may  give  thee  the  right  spirit,  not  a  spirit  of  fear, 
but  of  power  and  love  and  self-control  (2  Tim.  i.  7). 
— ffe  think  that  danger  threatens  the  Kingdom  of 
God  and  Christianity  when  people  write  and  de- 
claim against  it,  but  fear  not :  all  these  adversaries 
have  perished  like  Herod  who  sought  the  young 
child's  life  (Mart.  ii.  20),  and  only  forfeited  their 
own  salvation,  for  "Whosoever  shall  fall  on  this 
stone  shall  be  broken  "  (Matt.  xxi.  44). — Osiander: 
God  has  many  means  whereby  he  can  bring  the 
rage  of  His  adversaries  to  naught. — Hall:  Proud 
and  self-confident  men  of  the  world  think  little  of 
the  future  consequences,  and  even  while  they  are 
spinning  their  plots  they  come  to  shame. 

Vers.  8-19.  The  two  Contrasted   Kings,  Sen- 
nacherib and  Hezekiah — the  Godless  and  the  Just. 

(a)  Sennacherib,  who  sees  himself  in  peril  and 
obliged  to  retreat  by  the  approach  of  Tirhakah, 
does  not  on  that  account  become  more  modest  or 
more  humble,  but  only  more  obstinate  and  arro- 
gant. That  is  the  way  with  godless  and  depraved 
men.  In  distress  and  peril,  instead  of  bending  their 
will  and  yielding  to  the  will  of  God,  they  only 
become  more  stubborn,  insolent,  and  assuming. 
(Osiaxder:  The  less  ground  the  impious  have  to 
hope  for  victory  over  the  righteous,  the  more  cruel 
do  they  attempt  to  be.)  Hezekiah,  on  the  contrary, 
who  was  in  unprecedented  trouble  and  peril,  was 
thereby  drawn  into  more  earnest  prayer.  He 
humbled  himself  under  the  hand  of  God,  and 
sought  refuge  in  the  Lord  alone.  He  went  into  the 
house  of  God  and  poured  out  his  soul  in  prayer, 
I's.  v.  5-7.  (Calw.  Bibel:  Learn  from  this  to  pray 
earnestly  and  faithfully,  when  thou  art  in  distress; 
also  learn  from  this  what  is  the  best  weapon  in 
war,  and  when  the  fatherland  is  in  the  dangers  of 
battle.)  (b)  Sennacherib  rejects  faith  in  the  God  of 
Israel  as  folly,  and  boasts  that  all  the  gods  of  the 
heathen  were  powerless  before  him.  He  lives 
without  God  in  the  world  and  knows  no  God  but 
himself.  But  it  is  the  fool  who  hath  said  in  his 
heart:  "There  is  no  God"  (Ps.  xiv.  1).  He  asks: 
"  Where  is?  "  &c,  but  where  is  now  Sennacherib 
who  talked  so  proudly  ?  (Berl.  Bib.)  He  is  gone 
like  chaff  before  the  wind,  for  the  way  of  the  godless 
shall  perish  (Ps.  i.  4,  6 ;  xxxv.  5 ;  Zeph.  ii.  2).  But 
Hezekiah  will  not  let  himself  be  drawn  away  from 
his  God.  His  faith  becomes  only  so  much  warmer 
and  deeper.  He  prays  and  seeks  not  his  own 
honor,  but  that  of  the  Lord  in  whom  he  puts  his 
confidence  (Ps.  i.  3).  The  greater  the  cross  the 
greater  the  faith.  The  palm  grows  under  weight. 
Sweetness  Hows  from  the  grape  when  it  is  well 
trodden   (Ps.  i.  1,  2). — Vers.   14-19.     Hezekiah's 

'Prayer,     (a)  The  appeal  for  hearing  (vers.  15,  16); 

(b)  the  Confession  (vers.  17,  18);  (c)  the  request 
(ver.  19)  (see  Bistnr.  §  6). — Distress  and  misfor- 
tune are  the  school  in  which  a  man  learns  to  pray 
aright.  How  many  a  one  repeats  prayers  every 
day  and  yet  never  prays  aright.  Every  one  knows 
from  his  own  experience  that  he  has  never  talked 
so  directly  with  God  as  in  the  time  of  need. — 
SlARKB:  Earthly  kings  ought  not  to  be  ashamed 
to  pray,  but  rather  go  before  others  with  a  good 
(sample. — Arxdt:  Who  is  a  true  man  ?  He  who 
can  pray,  and  who  trusts  in  God. — Ver.  15.  Under 
the  old  covenant  God  dwelt  above  the  cherubim 
rf  the  ark ;  under  the  new  one,  He  dwells  in 
Christ  amongst  us,  therefore  He  demands  to  be 
addressed  by  us  as  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 


Christ. — Ver.  16.  "He  that  planted  the  ear,"  tc 
(Ps.  xciv.  9).  Though  men  do  not  hear  or  see,  He 
hears  and  sees  all,  even  that  which  is  said  and 
done  in  secret  (Ps.  cxxxix.  1  sq.).  It  often  seema 
as  if  He  did  not  see  or  hear,  but  he  will  some  time 
bring  to  light  what  was  done  in  darkness,  and 
will  make  known  the  secret  counsel  of  the  heart. 
We  must  give  an  account  of  every  vain  vord 
which  we  have  spoken. — Vers.  17,  IS.  Goda 
which  are  the  work  of  man's  hands,  or'the  inven- 
tion of  man's  brain,  can  be  thrown  into  the  fire  and 
destroyed.  They  are  good  for  nothing  more,  but 
the  Holy,  Living  God  cannot  bo  thus  done  away 
with  or  destroyed.  He  is  hjnself  a  consuming 
fire  which  shall  consume  all  the  adversaries  (Heb. 
x.  27  ;  xii.  29).— Ver.  19.  When  we  pray  to  God 
for  relief  from  .distress,  or  for  anything  else  which 
we  earnestly  desire,  we  must  not  have  our  own 
honor,  or  fortune,  or  prosperity  altogether  or 
principally  at  heart,  but  we  must  try  to  bring  it 
about  that,  by  the  fulfilment  of  our  prayer,  God'a 
name  may  be  glorified  and  hallowed.  Therefore 
this  petition  stands  first  in  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

Vers.  21-34.  Isaiah's  Prophecy  (a)  against  Sen- 
nacherib, vers.  21-28;  (b)  on  behalf  of  Jerusalem, 
vers.  29-34. — Ver.  21.  There  is  no  more  fitting 
punishment  for  a  proud  and  arrogant  man,  than  to 
be  laughed  at  and  derided  without  being  able  to 
take  revenge.  The  derision  of  the  daughter,  Zion, 
at  the  blasphemous  boaster,  Sennacherib,  is  not 
due  to  sinful  malice ;  it  is  rather  a  joyful  recogni- 
tion and  a  praise  of  the  power  and  faithfulness  of 
God,  who  reigns  in  heaven  and  laughs  at  those 
who  scoff  at  him  (Ps.  ii.  4;  xxxvii.  12,  13). — Ver. 
22.  When  sinful  man,  who  is  dust  and  ashes, 
ascribes  to  himself  that  which  he  can  oulj  do  by 
God's  help,  or  which  God  alone  can  do,  that  is  a 
denial  and  an  insult  of  God. — Ver.  23.  Here  we 
see  the  mode  of  thought  and  of  speech  of  all  the 
proud.  All  this  have  I  done  by  my  wisdom  and 
courage  and  skill.  The  Apostle,  who  had  labored 
more  than  any  other,  responds  to  them  all :  "  What 
hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ?  Now  if 
thou  didst  receive  it,  why  dost  thou  glory,  as  if 
thou  hadst  not  received  it?  "  (1  Cor.  iv.  7,  if.  xv. 
10). — Cramer:  When  we  remember  that  the  affair 
is  not  ours  but  God's,  then  we  see  that  the  ene- 
mies are  not  ours  but  God's.  When  we  see  the 
pride  and  arrogance  of  our  enemies,  then  we  may 
look  for  their  fall  very  soon  (Prov.  xvi.  18). — Ver. 
25.  If  no  hair  of  our  heads  can  fall  without  the 
will  of  God,  how  much  less  can  a  land  or  a  city 
perish  unless  He  has  so  ordained  it?  Therefore, 
humble  yourselves  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God 
that  He  may  exalt  you  in  His  good  time  (1  Peter 
v.  G). — Ver.  26.  "  Let  all  the  earth  fear  the  Lord ; 
let  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  stand  in  awe  of 
Him  "  (Ps.  xxxiii.  8),  for  they  are  like  the  grass  of 
the  field  before  Him ;  He  causes  the  wind  to  blow 
upon  them  and  they  are  gone. — Vers.  27, 28.  Be  not 
deceived  by  the  victory  and  good  fortune  of  the 
enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  think  that  God 
is  witli  them.  He  knows  their  going  out  and  their 
coming  in,  their  rage  and  their  arrogance.  They 
are  in  His  hand  and  He  uses  them  without  theii 
knowledge  for  His  own  purposes.  They  cannot 
take  a  step  beyond  the  limits  which  He  has  set 
for  them.  When  they  have  done  what  He  intend- 
ed them  to  do,  He  puts  His  bridle  in  their  mouths 
and  leads  them  back  by  the  way  by  wbich  they 
came.     (As   Sennacherib   came    to   Jerusalem,  £0 


CHAPTER  XX.   1-21. 


231 


came  Napoleon  to  Moscow.  Then  the  Lord  called 
to  him :  "  So  far  and  no  farther  1  "  and  led  him 
back  or  the  way  by  which  he  came.)  Isai.  xiv. 
5,  6;  I.  12-15. — Ver.  29.  All  sowing  and  reaping 
should  be  to  us  a  sign  of  what  God  does  for  us 
and  what  we  ought  to  do  for  Him  (Gal.  vi.  7-9 ;  2 
Cor.  be.  6  ;  Jer.  iv.  3;  Hos.  viii.  7  ;  James  iii.  IS  ; 
Sir.  vii.  3 ;  Eccles.  xi.  4,  6).  God  does  not  always 
give  full  harvests  in  order  that  we  may  learn  to 
be  satisfied  with  little,  and  may  not  forget  that 
His  blessing  is  not  tied  to  our  labor,  but  that  He 
gives  it  where  and  when  He  will. — Vers.  30  and 
31.  Starke:  In  the  midst  of  all  calamities  God 
preserves  a  faithful  remnant  for  Himself  which 
shall  praise  and  spread  abroad  His  name  (Ps.  xlvi. 
3  to  5;  xxii.  30). — The  Same:  The  Church  of 
Christ  is  invincible.  However  much  it  may  be 
oppressed  at  times,  vet  God  preserves  a  secret 
seed  for  Himself  (Matt.  xvi.  18:1  Kings  six.  18). 
— The  deliverance  goes  forth  from  Zion  I  Isai.  ii.  2, 
3):  salvation  comes  from  the  Jews  (John  iv.  22). 
— The  saved  form  the  holy  seed  (Isai.  vi.  13), 
which  takes  root  below  and  bears  fruit  above. 
The  ground  in  which  thev  take  root  and  stand 
firm  is  Christ  (Eph.  iii.  17;  Col.  ii.  7).  The  fruit 
which  they  bear  is  love.  joy.  peace,  &c.  (Gal.  v.  22). 
They  never  perish.  They  continue  from  genera- 
tion to  generation.  However  small  their  number, 
and  however  fiercely  the  world  may  rage  against 
them,  they  nevertheless  endure,  for  the  Lord  is 
their  confidence,  His  truth  is  their  shield  (Ps.  xci. 
4).     Therefore,   "Fear  not,  little  flock,"  &e.  (Luke 


xii  32). — Vers.  32-34.  Jerusalem,  the  earthly  City 
of  God,  a  Type  of  the  Eternal  City,  the  Church  of 
Christ.  If  God  protected  the  former  so  that  no 
arrow  could  come  into  it,  how  much  more  will  Ha 
protect  the  latter,  break  in  pieces  the  bows  of  its 
enemies,  and  burn  their  chariots  in  fire.  Cf.  Ps 
xlvi.,  and  Luther's  hymn  :  "  Ein'  feste  Burg"  &c. 

Vers.  35  to  37.  Sennacherib's  Fall,  (a)  A  mira- 
cle of  the  saving  power  and  faithfulness  of  God; 
iJl  a  terrible  judgment  of  the  Holy  and  Just  God 
(see  IIMor.  §  9). —  Cf.  Pss.  xlvi.,  lxxv.,  and  lxxvi. 
Von  Gerlach  :  When  such  times  recur,  similar 
psalms  and  hymns  are  given  to  the  Church,  as  in 
1530  the  hymn:  "  Ein'  ftste  Burg  ist  unser  Gott," 
which  is  founded  on  Ps.  xlvi.,  was  composed. 
(Compare  the  noble  hymn  of  Joh.  Heermann : 
"  ih:n\  unser  Golt.  lass  nicht  zu  Schandm  trerden.") 
— God's  judgments  are  often  delayed  for  a  longtime, 
but  then  they  come  all  the  more  suddenly  and 
mightily  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  19).  A  single  night  may 
change  the  whole  face  of  the  matter.  Whero  is 
now  the  boaster  ?  Where  is  the  multitude  ot  his 
chariots  ?  Luke  xii.  20. — Sennacherib's  calamity 
and  his  retreat  proclaim  to  all  the  world  that  God 
resisteth  the  proud,  and  they  are  a  testimony  to 
the  truth  of  1  Sam.  ii.  6-10. — He  who  had  smitten 
whole  kingdoms  and  peoples  fell  under  the  blows  it 
his  own  sons.  "  With  what  measure  ye  r.ete  it 
shall  be  measured  to  you  again  "  (Luke  vi.  38).— 
OstAN'DER :  When  God  has  sufficiently  chustised 
His  Church,  He  throws  the  rod  of  His  wra.  h  into 
the  fire,  Isai.  xxxiii.  1. 


B. — HezekiaKs  Illness  and  Recovery  ;  his  Reception  of  the  Babylonian  Embass-y,  and  his  End. 

Chap.  XX.  1-21.  (Isai.  XXXVHI.) 


1  Ix  those  days  was  Hezekiah  sick  unto  death.  And  the  prophet  Isaiah  the 
son  of  Amoz  came  to  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Set  thine 

2  house  in  order;  for  thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live.     Then  he  turned  his  face  to 

3  the  wall,  and  prayed  unto  the  Lord,  saying,  I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  remember 
now  how  I  have  walked  before  thee  in  truth  [fidelity]  and  with  a  perfect  heart, 
and  have  done  that  which   is  good  in  thy  sight.     And  Hezekiah  wept  sore. 

4  And  it  came  to  pass,  afore  Isaiah  was  gone  out  into  the  middle  court,  '  that  the 

5  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him,  saying,  Turn  again,  and  tell  Hezekiah  the 
captain  [prince]  of  my  people,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  David  thy 
father,  I  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen  thy  tears:  behold,  I  will  heal  thee: 

6  on  the  third  day  thou  shalt  go  unto  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  I  will  add 
unto  thy  days  fifteen  years;  and  I  will  deliver  thee  and  this  city  out  of  the  hand 
of  the  king  of  Assyria ;  and  I  will  defend  [protect]  this  city  for  my  own  sake, 

V  and  for  my  servant  David's  sake.    And  Isaiah  said,  Take  [Bring:]  a  lump  of  figs. 

8  And  they  took  [brought]  and  laid  it  on  the  boil,  and  he  recovered.  And  Heze- 
kiah said  unto  Isaiah,  What  shall  be  [is]  the  sign  that  the  Lord  will  heal  me, 

9  and  that  I  shall  go  up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  the  third  day  ?  And  Isaiah 
said,  This  sign  shalt  thou  have  of  the  Lord,  that  the  Lord  will  do  the  thing  that 
he  hath  spoken  :  shall  the  shadow  go  forward  ten  degrees,  or  go  back  ten  de- 
grees ?  [the  shadow  is  gone  forward  ten  degrees, — if  it  go  back  ten  degrees  ?] 

10  And  Hezekiah  answered,  It  is  a  light  thing  for  the  shadow  to  go  down  ten  de- 

1 1  grees  :  nay,  but  let  the  shadow  return  backward  ten  degrees.  And  Isaiah  the 
prophet  cried  unto  the  Lord  :  and  he  brought  the  shadow  ten  degrees  back- 
ward, by  which  it  had  gone  down  in  [on]  the  dial  [stairs]  of  Ahaz. 

12  At  that  time  Berodach-baladan,  th°  son  of  Baladan,  king  of  Babylon,  sent 


232 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


letters  and  a  present  unto  Hezekiah :  for  he  had  heard  that  Hezekiah  had  been 

13  [was]  sick.  And  Hezekiah  hearkened  unto  them  [rejoiced  because  of  them], ! 
and  shewed  them  all  the  house  of  his  precious  things  [treasury],  the  silver,  and 
the  gold,  and  the  spices,  and  the  precious  ointment,  and  all  the  house  of  his 
armour  [armory],  and  all  that  was  found  in  his  treasures :  there  was  nothing  in 
his  house,  nor  in  all  his  dominion,  that  Hezekiah  shewed  them  not. 

14  Then  came  Isaiah  the  prophet  unto  king  Hezekiah,  and  said  unto  him,  What 
said  these  men  *?  and  from  whence  came  they  unto  thee  ?     And  Hezekiah  said, 

15  They  are  come  from  a  far  country,  even  from  Babylon.  And  he  said,  What 
have  they  seen  in  thine  house  ?  And  Hezekiah  answered,  All  the  things  that 
are  in  mine  house  have  they  seen  :  there  is  nothing  among  my  treasures  that  I 

16  have  not  shewed  them.     And  Isaiah  said  unto  Hezekiah,  Hear  the  word  of  the 

17  Lord.  Behold,  the  days  come,  that  all  that  is  in  thine  house,  and  that  which 
thy  fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  unto  this  day,  shall  be  carried  unto  Babylon: 

18  nothing  shall  be  left,  saith  the  Lord.  And  [some]  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue 
from  thee,  which  thou  shalt  beget,  shall  they  take  away  ;  and  they  shall  be 

19  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  king  of  Babylon.  Then  said  Hezekiah  unto 
Isaiah,  Good  is  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  thou  hast  spoken.  And  he  said,  Is 
it  not  good,  if  peace  and  truth  be  in  my  days  ?  [And  he  said  :  Verily ;  may- 
there  only  be  peace  and  security  in  my  days.] 

20  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah,  and  all  his  might,  and  how  he  made  a 
pool,  and  a  conduit,  and  brought  water  into  the  city,  are  they  not  written  in 

21  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah?  And  Hezekiah  slept  witb 
his  fathers  :  and  Mauasseh  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead. 


TEXTUAL    AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  4.—  [On  the  keri  see  EJreg.     The  E.  V.  follows  it  as  do  Thenius  and  Ewald.    The  chetib  reads  "  the  middle 
city."     It  is  adopted  by  Keil,  Bunsi-n,  and  Bahr.— W.  G.  S.] 

3  Ver.  18.   That  Jftpt*,s1  is  not  the  original  reading,  but  nOL"aT  ,  which  we  find  in  Isai.  xxxix.  2,  is  evident  from 


Dir^y 


which  follows.    The  latter  reading  is  also  supported  by  all  the  ancient  versions. — Bahr. 


EXEGETICAL    AND    CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  In  those  days.  By  these  words  He- 
zekiah's  illness  is  referred  to  the  time  of  the  last- 
mentioned  events,  but  only  as  a  general  designa- 
tion of  the  time  of  its  occurrence  (Keil).  It  fell, 
like  those  events,  in  the  middle  of  his  reign.  The 
expositors  are  not  agreed,  however,  whether  it 
took  place  before  or  after  Sennacherib's  retreat. 
The  majority  of  the  modern  scholars  adopt  the 
opinion  that  it  was  before  that  event,  founding 
their  opinion  on  ver.  6.  There  he  is  promised  fif- 
teen years  more  of  life,  and  Sennacherib's  retreat 
is  spoken  of  as  something  which  has  not  yet  come 
to  pass.  Now,  as  Hezekiah,  according  to  chap, 
xviii.  2,  reigned  twenty-nine  years,  and  Senna- 
cherib invaded  Judah  in  his  fourteenth  year  (xviii. 
13),  this  illness  must  have  befallen  him,  it  is 
argued,  in  his  fourteenth  year,  either  "  at  the  be- 
ginning of  Sennacherib's  invasion "  (Keil),  or 
"  while  the  Assyrians  were  still  besieging  Jeru- 
salem''  (Thenius).  It  is  further  alleged  in  sup- 
port of  this  view  that  Hezekiah  showed  to  the 
Babylonian  embassy,  which  came  to  congratulate 
him,  treasures  of  gold  and  silver  (xx.  13),  but  that 
he  bad  L'iven  up  everything  of  this  kind  which  he 
1  ad  (xviii.  15)  to  Sennacherib,  so  that  his  illness 
vnd  recovery  must  have  taken  place  be/ore  the  re- 
treat of  the  Assyrians  (Delitseh  and  Halm).  These 
may  appear  to  be  very  forcible  arguments,  but 
there  are  opposing  considerations  of  the  highest 
Importance.  In  the  first  place,  both  narratives  j 
put   the   story  of  Hezekiah's    illness    after    the  I 


account  of  the  Assyrian  invasion,  and  as  Calmer 
observes :  Nequc  ego  libenkr  desero  seviem  et  ordi- 
nem  rerum  in  libris  sacris  deducUim,  nisi  valida  id 
argumenla  suadeard.  It  has  indeed  been  urged 
that  the  historian  placed  the  story  of  Sennacherib's 
retreat  (xix.  35  sq.)  first,  because  "  he  desired  to 
finish  up  the  story  of  the  Assyrian  invasion,  so  as 
not  to  be  obliged  to  return  to  it "  (Knobel).  But 
the  ( 'hronicler  makes  this  hypothesis,  which  is  in 
itself  improbable,  entirely  inadmissible,  for  he  says 
that  Hezekiah  was  highly  honored  by  all  nations 
on  account  of  this  deliverance,  and  that  many  sent 
presents  to  him,  and  then  he  proceeds  to  give  the 
story  of  his  illness  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  22-31).  Jose- 
phus  also  asserts  very  positively  that  Hezekiah 
and  all  the  people  offered  thank-offerings  to  God, 
and  showed  great  religious  zeal,  but  that  then 
(in-?  nv  TioAv)  he  was  afflicted  by  a  severe  illness. 
Secondly,  the  Babylonian  embassy  cannot  be  as- 
signed to  the  period  before  the  retreat  of  Senna- 
cherib, nor  to  any  time  during  the  Assyrian  in- 
vasion, for  the  king  of  Babylon,  who  was  a  vassal 
of  the  king  of  Assyria,  would  not  have  dared  to 
congratulate  Hezekiah  at  that  time  when  he  was 
in  revolt  against  the  suzerain  of  both,  and  he  would 
have  had  no  grounds  for  seeking  an  alliance  with 
Hezekiah  when  he  was  in  distress  and  peri) 
Thirdly,  Hezekiah's  hymn  of  thanksgiving  (Isai. 
xxxviii.  10)  begins  with  the  words:  "  I  said  (that 
is,  I  thought)  in  the  cutting  off  (interruption,  period 
of  tranquillity)  of  my  days."  he. ;  i.  e.,  "when  a 
period  of  rest  had  come  in  my  life,  a  pause  in  the 
midst  of  the  ceaseless  toil  and  :a¥e  nnd  danger  of" 


CHAPTER  XX.  1-21. 


Vd'6 


life  "  (Drechsler) ;  wlien  I  believed  that  I  was  re- 
lieved from  a'l  danger  by  Sennacherib's  retreat,  and 
that  I  could  live  on  in  peace  and  security,  then 
came  a  new  trouble  and  danger,  and  it  seemed 
that  I  must  go  down  to  the  grave.  Against  all 
these  important  considerations,  which  are  taken 
from  history,  it  cannot  be  argued  that  "  the  former 
story  [of  the  peril  of  Jerusalem]  is  placed  first  be- 
cause it  is  most  important "  (Von  Gerlach),  for  what 
would  become  of  the  art  of  writing  history,  if  histo- 
rians should  narrate  later  events  before  they  did  ear- 
lier ones,  because  the  former  were  more  important? 
As  for  ver.  6,  the  number  "  fifteen  "  cannot  be 
arithmetically  accurate,  for  if  it  were  so,  then  not 
only  Sennacherib's  invasion  and  Hezekiah's  illness. 
but  also  the  journey  of  the  army  of  at  least 
185,000  men  through  the  desert  el  Tilt  to  Egypt, 
the  siege  of  Pelusium,  the  return  to  Judah,  the 
siege  and  conquest  of  the  "fenced  cities."  the  de- 
vastation of  the  country,  and  finally,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Sennacherib's  army  and  his  retreat,  and 
even  the  embassy  from  Babylon,  must  all  have 
taken  place  in  one  year, — Hezekiah's  fourteenth, 
and  this  appears  impossible,  considering  that  they 
had  no  railways.  Isaiah's  words  in  vers.  5  and  6 
are  not  an  historical  allusion,  but  a  prophetic 
oracle.  In  the  prophetic  style  numbers  have  not 
always  their  strict,  arithmetical  value,  but  are 
clothed  with  a  significance  of  another  character. 
The  number  15,  in  this  case,  is  not,  indeed,  as 
Knobel  thinks,  "  contributed  by  the  redactor,  ex 
eveittu.  and  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  prophet,  who 
could  not  know  how  many  years  longer  Hezekiah 
was  to  live,"  but  still  we  ask  why  should  he  have 
just  fifteen  years  longer,  and  not  one  more  or  one 
less  ?  Fifteen  is  not  what  is  commonly  called  a 
round  number.  It  will  not  do  to  answer  this  by 
the  anticipatory  statement  (xviii.  2)  that  Hezekiah 
reigned  twenty-nine  years.  Not  because  he  was 
to  reign  twenty-nine  years  in  all  were  fifteen  years 
more  assigned  to  him,  but  because  he  was  spared 
for  fifteen  years  more  his  whole  reign  amounted  to 
twenty-uine  years.  When  he  was  taken  ill  he 
had  finished  his  fourteenth  year  and  begun  his 
fifteenth.  He  was  then  thirty-nine  years  old,  in 
the  prime  of  life.  Suddenly  he  stood  on  the  brink 
of  the  grave,  and  it  was  all  the  more  painful  to 
him  to  quit  life  at  this  moment,  because  he  had 
just  been  delivered  from  his  most  powerful  enemy, 
and  had  hopes  of  being  able  to  reign  now  in  peace 
and  quiet.  It  was  regarded  as  a  very  great  mis- 
fortune to  be  called  away  in  the  prime  of  life, 
hence  his  earnest  prayer  (ver.  3),  which  had  no 
other  sense  than  this :  "  0  my  God !  take  me  not 
away  in  the  midst  of  my  days  "  (Ps.  cii.  24,  cf.  lv. 
23).  The  prophet  promises  him  the  fulfilment  of 
this  prayer,  and  that  he  shall  reign  as  much  longer 
as  he  had  already  reigned.  The  words  which  fol- 
low :  I  will  deliver  thee  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
king  of  Assyria,  then  refer  to  the  remainder  of 
his  reign.  In  the  new  lease  of  life  which  was  to 
be  given  him,  he  should  fear  nothing  from  the 
great  and  mighty  enemy ;  he  should  reign  in  peace. 
This  promise  was  of  the  greatest  importance,  for, 
although  Sennacherib  had  fled  in  disgrace,  yet  he 
was  still  very  powerful  and  very  dangerous,  and 
his  wrath  against  Judah  was  fiercer  than  ever 
(Tobias  i.  18).  He  might  collect  his  forces  and 
make  another  expedition  against  Judah.  In  fact, 
he  did  immediately  collect  an  army  and  march 
against  Babylon  which  had  revolted.     Thus  the 


words  are  understood  by  Vitringa,  Clericus,  Gese- 
nius,  Rosenmuller,  and  Drechsler,  and  the  latter 
adds  the  pertinent  remark  that,  if  ver.  6  had  been 
spoken  before  the  events  narrated  in  chaps,  xviii. 
and  xix.  took  place,  then  xix.  34  would  be  only  a 
repetition  of  the  promise  in  that  verse. 

Ver.  1.  Thus  saith  the  Lord :  Set  thine 
house  in  order;  literally:  Give  commands  in  re- 
gard to  thine  house,  i.  e.,  take  the  necessary  meas- 
ures for  the  management  of  thine  affairs  (cf.  2  Sam. 

xvii.  23,  where  ^S   stands  for  ^  ).      It  does  not 

mean  "  make  known  thy  (last)  will "  (Knobel, 
Gesenius),  nor,  "give  commands  in  regard  to  the  suc- 
cession to  the  throne"  (Hess). — To  the  wall  (ver. 
2),  not  in  dissatisfaction  as  Ahab  did,  1  Kings  xxi. 
4  (Hitzig),  but  away  from  those  who  were  present, 
in  order  that  he  might  pray  more  freely  and  col- 
lectedly.—O  Lord !  remember  now  (ver.  3).  To 
fall  a  victim  of  disease  in  the  midst  of  his  days 
seemed  to  the  king,  in  view  of  proverbs  like  Prov. 
x.  27  :  "The  fear  of  the  Lord  prolongeth  days,  but 
the  years  of  the  wicked  shall  be  shortened,"  to  be 
a  proof  of  having  displeased  God,  that  is,  to  be  a 
punishment.  He  therefore  prays  God  to  remem- 
ber also  the  good  which  lie  has  striven  to  do,  and 
"  takes  refuge  in  the  promises  which  God  had 
given  in  the  Old  Testament  that  good  works 
should  be  rewarded  by  length  of  days  "  (Starke) 
For  the  rest,  his  words  are  not  to  be  taken  as  re- 
ferring in  a  general  way  to  moral  purity,  but,  as 
the  expressions  "  with  a  perfect  heart,"  and  "  good 
in  thy  sight "  show,  as  referring  especially  to  his 
zeal  for  the  pure  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  his 
earnestness  against  every  form   of  idolatry.   (On 

D?K'     see  notes  on  1  Kings  xi.  4  and  6.) — And 

Hezekiah  wept  sore.  Josephus  declares  that,  in 
addition  to  the  disease,  there  was  now  great 
adv/iia,  because  he  was  to  die  childless  and  leave 
the  kingdom  without  an  heir,  and  that,  in  this 
difficulty,  he  prayed  to  God  with  tears,  that  He 
would  allow  him  to  live  a  little  longer  until  he  had 
become  a  father.  The  Church  fathers  and  many 
other  ancient  expositors  adopt  this  conception  of 
the  circumstances,  and  point,  in  its  support,  to  the 
fact  that  the  son  and  successor  of  Hezekiah,  Ma- 
nasseh,  was  only  twelve  years  old  when  his  father 
died  (chap.  xxi.  1),  that  is,  he  was  born  three  years 
after  this  illness.  Ewald  calls  this  a  "  fiction  "  and 
appeals  to  Isai.  xxxviii.  19  and  xxxix.  7.  It  cer- 
tainly is  hardly  credible  that  Hezekiah  was  child- 
less at  the  age  of  thirty-nine ;  it  is  not  necessary 
to  assume  that  Manasseh  was  the  oldest  son  (see 
note  on  1  Kings  i.  5) ;  and  it  is  possible  that  the 
older  sons  had  died  before  Hezekiah  did.  The 
only  reason  for  his  tears  is  the  one  which  he  gives 
in  his  hymn  of  thanksgiving,  Isai.  xxxviii.  10  sq. 

Ver.  4.  Afore  Isaiah  had  gone  out  into  the 
middle  city.  The  middle  city  is  "  the  central  part 
of  the  city,  i.  e.,  of  lit.  Zion  where  the  royal  castle 
was   situated."      The   keri   -)Vn     ("the      middle 

court  "  [E.  V.],  not  of  the  temple  but  of  the  castle), 
is  presented  by  all  the  ancient  versions,  but  it  is 
only  an  interpretation  of  "\>y   as  referring  to  the 

castle  after  the  analogy  of  x.  25    (Keif).     nii'D 

does  not  mean  the  "inner"  city,  in  contrast  with 

the  houses  which  lay  outside  of  the  wall  of  Mt.  ZioB 
(Knobel),  but  only,  the  middle  one. — The  words  it. 


234 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ver.  5  from  "  behold  "  to  "  house  of  the  Lord  "  are 
wanting  in  Isaiah  xxxviii.  5,  but  are  brought  in  in 
xxxviii.  22.  At  this  point  it  is  quite  evident  that 
the  account  in  Isaiah  is  very  much  abbreviated. 
The  words  on  the  third  day  (ver.  5)  need  not  be 
taken  literally,  but  they  certainly  do  not  mean 
"  within  a  few  weeks "  (Hitzig).  The  phrase, 
prince  of  my  people,  which  is  added,  indicates  the 
ground  for  assisting  him.— On  ver.  6  see  notes  on 
ver.  1.  The  closing  words  :  For  mine  own  sake, 
&c,  are  wanting  in  Isaiah  because  they  already 
occur  in  xix.  34  (Isai.  xxxvii.  35).  They  have  here 
the  same  force  as  there.  They  are  not,  therefore, 
to  be  understood  as  containing  any  special  refer- 
ence to  the  circumstance  that  Hezekiah  had  no  son, 
but  that,  nevertheless,  the  house  of  David  should 
not  become  extinct,  as  the  old  expositors  under- 
stood.— D'JNn  r\?21  ,  ver.  7,  means  properly  a 
pressed  mass  of  figs,  nbj7]  without  D\3Xn  means 
a  cake  of  figs  (1  Sam.  xxv.  18;  xxx.  12).  This 
was   laid   upon   [TlE'i'l,  strictly,  the  inflammation, 

hence,  the  fester,  or  boil  (Job  ii.  7  ;  Ex.  ix.  9).  It  is 
ordinarily  understood  to  refer  to  a  plague-sore,  and 
it  is  inferred  that  Hezekiah  was  afflicted  with  "the 
plague  which  had  carried  off  the  Assyrian  army  " 
(Knobel),  "  the  contagion  of  which  had  been  trans- 
mitted to  the  king"  (Winer  and  others);  but  this 
is  utterly  false.      For,  in  the  first  place,  pnL"  never 

occurs  in  reference  to  a  plague,  and  then  again, 

only  one  sore  is  here  spoken  of,  whereas  the  plague 
produced  several  on  different  parts  of  the  body. 
Moreover  a  plague  or  pestilence  never  occurs  in 
isolated  cases,  but  as  an  epidemic.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  hint  that  any  such  disease  raged  in 
Jerusalem  either  before,  or  during,  or  after  the 
Assyrian  invasion.  Still  further,  figs  are  not  ap- 
plied as  a  specific  remedy  for  plague-sores.  In 
pestilence  "no  medicines  are  administered  except 
at  the  commencement  of  the  disease,  something  to 
produce  perspiration  "  (Winer,  R-  W.-B.  II. s.  233). 
Figs  were  the  usual  remedy  for  boils.  Dioscorides 
saj'S  of  them  :  fiuupoftci  otiknpiac ;  Pliny :  Ukera 
aperit;  and  Jerome  remarks  on  Isai.  xxxviii.: 
Juxta  artem  medicorum  omnis  sanies  siccioribus  flcis 
atque  contusis  in  cutis  superficiem  provocatur  {cf.  Cel- 
sius, Hierobot.  II.  p.  373).  We  cannot  define  more 
nearly  what  sort  of  a  boil  it  was.  Ewald  thinks 
it  was  "  a  fever-boil ;  "  according  to  Thenius  "  a  sin- 
gle carbuncle  formed  under  the  back  of  the  head." 
but  this  is  a  pure  guess.  [The  ground  for  Thenius' 
idea,  which  goes  as  far  as  is  possible  towards  de- 
fining more  nearly  the  character  of  the  disease,  is, 
that  there  was  a  single  sore,  and  that  it  was  about 
to  prove  fatal.  A  carbuncle,  particularly  in  such 
a  place,  would  answer  this  description. — W.  G.  S.] 
Ver.  8.  And  Hezekiah  said  unto  Isaiah, 
What  is  the  sign,  Ac.  ?  In  his  deep  anxiety  the 
sick  man  desires  an  external  sign  to  strengthen 
his  faitli  in  the  prophet's  words.  Such  signs  usu- 
ally attended  a  prophet's  promises  (Isai.  vii.  11, 
14:  chap  xix.  29).  This  demand  of  the  king  is 
not  at  all  astonishing  in  view  of  the  words  ad- 
dressed to  Alia/,  in  Isai.  vii.  11:"  Ask  a  sign,"  &C. 
There  also  the  prophet  allowed  the  king  to  choose 
what  the  sigc  should  be.  Vers.  9,  10,  and  1  1  are 
condensed  in  Isaiah  into  one  verse.  In  ver.  9 
Drechsler  rejects  the  ordinary  translation  [that  of 
It  e  E.  V.]  which  makes  of  the  last  part  an  alter- 


native question.  He  asserts  that  that  translator 
is  "simply  impossible."  He  translates:  "The 
shadow  shall  advance  ten  degrees,  or  shall  it  reced6 

ten  degrees  ?  "  taking  -|^n  as  a  command.  "Tin 
prophet  determines,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  shall 
advance,  then  he  interrupts  himself,  corrects  him- 
self, and  leaves  the  king  to  determine  which  it  shall 
do."  But  it  is  only  in  disjunctive  questions  that 
DX  means  or,  and  the  prophet  does  not  "  correct 

himself"  in  such  a  solemn  expression.  Keil  also, 
in  his  new  commentary,  translates:  "The  shadow 
has  advanced  ten  degrees — if  it  should  recede  ten 
degrees  ?  "  He  takes  the  second  clause  hvpothet- 
ically:  "Whether  it  may  indeed,"  &c,  which  is 
not  only  forced  but  also  unclear.  Hezekiah's  an- 
swer presupposes  a  disjunctive  question.  As  in 
Isai.  vii.  11,  the  prophet  asks  the  king  whether  he 
will  ask  a  sign  in  the  depth  or  in  the  height,  so 
here  he  asks  Hezekiah  whether  the  sign  of  the 
shadow  shall  be  that  it  shall  go  forward  or  back- 
ward.    It  cannot  be  objected  that   n  is   wanting 

with  7[^n  ,  for  this  is  often  the  case,  and  the  ques- 
tion is  designated  only  by  the  tone  of  the  voice 
(Gen.  xxvii.  24;  2  Sam.  xviii.  29.  Gesen.  Gramm 
£  153.  1).  [The  argument  for  reading  ver.  9  as  B 
disjunctive  question  resolves  itself  intoan  inference 
from  Hezekiah's  answer.  Regarding  simply  the 
grammar  of  ver.  9  there  are  two  obstacles  to  this 
rendering ;  first,  the  omission  of  n  ,  which  is  never 

omitted  in  a  disjunctive  question,  and  secondly,  the 

perfect  tense  7|^n  .      Keil's  translation  is  therefore 

better.  "  The  shadow  has  advanced  ten  degrees — 
if  it  should  recede  ten  degrees  ?  "  would  that  be  a 
satisfactory  sign  ?  It  is  true  that  the  answer  of 
Hezekiah  does  not  seem  to  fit  well  to  this  question 
The  only  other  and  more  satisfactory  solution  of 
the  difficulty  is  that  which  involves  an  alteration 

of  the   text.     Knobel  and  Hitzig  read    -p^fl  •     It 

seems  necessary  to  supply  also  n  as  having  fallen 

out   before  7]Sl  .      The   reading  would  then  be : 

What  sign  shall  there  be  ?  The  shadow's  advanc- 
ing ?  or  shall  the  shadow  recede  ?  Keil's  objection 
{Comm.s.  344  note  2),  that  the  inf.  abs.  would,  in  that 
case,  be  used  for  the  future,  would  not  apply.  The 
inf.  abs.  must  be  understood  in  its  most  ordinary  use 
to  express  directly  and  simply  the  verbal  idea. — 

See  Gramm.  and  also  Exeg.  notes  on   ^bx  ,   chap 

xix.  29. — W.  G.  S.].— The  words  i?y  and  T\bvo  re 

fer  to  the  instrument  which  we  call  a  sundial, 
and  which  the  ancients  called  a  shadow-measurer 
(Plin.  xxxvi.  15),  because  the  hour  of  the  day  was 
estimated  by  the  length  of  the  shadow.  It  is  evi 
dent  from  this  that  these  instruments  were  not  ar- 
ranged by  them  as  they  are  by  us  (see  Martini, 
You  den  Sonnerathren  der  Alten,  Leipzig,  1777,  s.  35). 

The  Di?VD  served  to   indicate    the   time.     It  u 

generally  supposed  that  they  were  the  degrees  or 
lines  (Vulg.  linea)  of  the  scale  on  the  indicator  of 

the  sun-dial.     But  TOVO  means  a  going  up,  an  <w 

cent,  or  that  which  ascends,  hence  a  step  (1  Kings  x 
19;  2  Kings  ix.  13),  never  a  grade,  a  degree,  or  a 
line  (see  Knpbel  on  Isai.  xxxviii.  S).     The  Septa) 


CHAPTER  XX.  1-21. 


23a 


ways  render  it  by  ava/}a6/ioi.  The  shadow-mea- 
surer must,  therefore,  have  had  steps  like  a  pair 
of  stairs.  As  it  is  called  in  ver.  10  :  "  the  steps  of 
Ahaz ;"  it  has  often  been  supposed  that  it  consisted 
of  the  stairs  to  the  royal  palace.     Stairs,  however, 

as    distinguished   from    steps,    were   called   npl'jj 

(Ezek.  xl.  26),  and  why  should  the  stairs  of  the 
royal  palace,  which  had  long  been  in  their  place, 
be  called  the  stairs  of  Ahaz  ?  It  is  evident  that  the 
shadow-measurer  was  an  instrument  by  itself  and 
not  a  part  of  the  royal  palace.  It  was  "  an  arrange- 
ment contrived  especially  to  measure  the  length  of 
the  shadow  as  a  means  of  learning  the  hour  "  (The- 
niusj.  It  is  not  possible  now  to  say  how  it  was  con- 
trived. Among  the  numerous  guesses  which  have 
beeu  made  as  to  the  mode  of  its  construction 
(Winer,  Ii.-  W.-B.  I.  s.  498  sq.)  the  simplest  and 
most  natural  seems  to  us  to  be  that  it  was  a  col- 
umn with  circular  steps  surrounding  it.  "  This 
column  cast  the  shadow  of  its  top  at  noon  upon 
its  uppermost,  and  morning  and  evening  upon  the 
lowest  step,  and  thus  designated  the  hour  of  the 
day  "  (Knobel).  The  prophet's  question  gives  rise 
to  the  supposition  that  there  were  twenty  of  these 
steps,  so  that  the  shadow  could  go  forward  or 
backward  ten  degrees.  "If  the  sign  was  given 
an  hour  before  sunset  then  the  shadow,  returning 
ten  degrees  of  a  half-hour  each,  came  back  to  the 
point  at  which  it  stood  at  noon  "  (Delitsch).  It  is 
impossible  to  draw  any  inference  from  this  as  to 
the  division  of  hours  among  the  Jews,  for  it  is 
probable  that  they  did  not  have  any  such  division 
before  the  captivity  (Winer,  /.  c.  II.  s.  560).  The 
fact  that  the  sun-dial  was  named  after  Ahaz  is 
doubtless  due  to  its  having  been  first  set  up  by 
him  in  the  court  of  the  palace.  According  to  He- 
rodotus (ii.  109)  it  was  a  Babylonian  invention, 
and  as  the  Babylonians  were  then  m  continual  in- 
tercourse with  the  Assyrians,  Ahaz  may  have  be- 
come acquainted  with  it  through  the  latter,  just  as 
he  borrowed  from  them  the  plan  of  the  new  altar 
(xvi.  10).  ["To  them  (the  Assyrians)  also  is  to  be 
attributed  the  institution  of  the  week  of  seveu 
uays.  dedicated  to  the  seven  planetary  bodies  wor- 
shipped by  them  as  divine  beings,  and  the  order 
assigned  by  them  to  the  days  has  not  been 
changed  from  time  immemorial.  Having  invented 
the  gnomon,  they  were  the  first  to  divide  the  day 
into  twenty-four  hours,  the  hours  into  sixty  mi- 
nutes, and  the  minutes  into  sixty  seconds  "  (Lenor- 
inant  I.  443).  They  had  a  sexagesimal  system  of 
notation  (Chevallier,  ibid.).] 

Ver.  10.  And  Hezekiah  answered:  It  is  a 
light  thing.  Cierieus  thinks  that  Hezekiah  an- 
swered the  prophet's  question  non  satis  prudenter, 
for  that  it  would  be  as  difficult  for  the  shadow  to 
advance  as  to  recede.  But  Starke  observes  cor- 
rectly: "  As  the  shadow,  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  things,  always  advances  and  never  recedes,  the 
king  chooses  that  which  appears  to  be  the  more 
difficult  in  order  that  the  proof  may  be  the  clearer." 
Full  of  his  ardent  wish  that  the  shadow  of  death 
(Matt.  iv.  16)  may  not  extend  any  further,  but  may 
become  shorter,  he  naturally  chooses  the  latter 
movement  for  the  shadow  on  the  dial.  And 
Isaiah  the  prophet  cried  unto  the  Lord.  Ac,  ver. 
11.  Thenius  arbitrarily  asserts  that  "these  words 
do  not  belong  to  history,  but  express  the  mode  of 
conception  prevalent  at  the  time  the  history  was 
written  "  [in  other  words,  that  Isaiah  did  not,  as 


an  actual  matter  of  history,  at  this  point  in  his 
conversation  with  the  king,  "  cry  to  the  Lord,"  but 
that  the  historian's  idea  of  what  a  prophet  would 
do  under  such  circumstances  was,  that  he  would 
at  this  point  cry  to  God,  and  that  he  accordinglj 
inserted  here  a  mention  of  Isaiah's  having  done  so] 
The  prophets  were  accustomed,  before  giving  a 
sign  to  confirm  their  utterances,  to  call  upon  God, 
because  they  knew,  and  every  one  else  was  to  be 
taught,  that  the  sign  did  not  come  from  them  but 
from  God  (1  Kings  xvii.  20 ;  xviii.  36  ;  2  Kings  iv. 
33  ;  vi.  17;  cf.  John  xi.  41).  As  in  ver.  9  so  alsc 
here  in  ver.  11,  a  movement  forwards  and  back- 
wards is  ascribed,  not  to  the  sun  but  to  the  shadow. 
In  this  sign,  all  turned  upon  the  shadow,  not  upon 

the  sun.  Thenius  thinks  that  fDCTI  must  be  sup- 
plied as  a  subject  to  nTV  ,  because  it  is  a  femi- 
nine form,  while  pv   is  masculine,  but,  in  view  of 

the  variableness  of  the  Hebrew  genders,  we  cannot 
draw  an  inference  from  this  feminine  form  which 
shall  contradict  the  clear  sense  of  the  words  (see 
Drechsler  on  lsai.  xxxviii.  S).  The  account  in 
Isaiah  has  instead  of  this  verse  :  "  Behold,  I  will 
bring  again  the  shadow  of  the  degrees,  which  is 
gone  down  in  the  sun-dial  of  Ahaz,  ten  degrees 
backward.  So  the  sun  returned  ten  degrees,  by 
which  degrees  it  was  gone  down;"  but  here  alsc 

pV  must  be  understood  as  the  subject  of  the  first 

mT  ,  and,  in  the   case  of  the  second  !TTT  ,  we 

must  understand  that  the  reference  is  not  to  any 
movement  of  the  sun,  but  to  a  movement  of  the 
shadow  caused  by  the  sun.  Drechsler  correctly 
observes  on  the  words:  "And  the  sun  turned 
backward :"  "  that  is  to  say,  of  course,  that  the 
sunshine  moved  backwards  on  the  indicator  [bet- 
ter, the  steps]  on  which  it  fell."  (Cf.  also  De- 
litsch on  lsai.  xxxviii.  8.)  The  account  in  Kings  is 
more  detailed  and  more  accurate  than  that  in 
Isaiah,  for  the  latter  omits  vers.  10  and  11,  and 
mentions  briefly,  in  vers.  21  and  22,  after  the 
thanksgiving  of  Hezekiah  (xxxviii.  9-20),  that 
which  is  here  given  in  vers.  7  and  8,  as  if  the 
figs  had  not  beeu  applied  until  after  the   3D3D 

of  Hezekiah. 

[The  story  of  the  incident  is  complete  without 
vers.  7-11.  Hezekiah's  recovery  is  mentioned  in 
ver.  7,  and  it  is  a  surprise  to  read  in  ver.  8  a  re- 
quest from  him  to  be  assured  by  a  sign  that  he 
shall  be  healed.  This  lack  of  unity  in  the  story 
seems  to  point  to  the  fact  that  two  independent 
traditions  in  regard  to  Hezekiah's  illness  are  here 
combined.  Unfortunately  the  account  in  Isaiah  is 
also  somewhat  disjointed.  lsai.  xxxviii.  21  and  22 
brings  in  the  account  of  the  king's  recovery  as  & 
sort  of  supplement,  or  after  thought.  He  there 
asks  for  a  sign  that  he  shall  go  to  the  temple  on  the 
third  daij}  not,  that  he  shall  recover. — See  further 
the  bracketed  addition  to  Histur.  %  4. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.  12.  At  that  time  Berodach-baladan,  So.. 
This  took  place  "certainly  not  very  soon  after 
what  is  narrated  above,  for,  at  that  time,  news 
travelled  slowly,  and  journeys  took  time  "  (The- 
nius), but  it  certainly  was  not  as  late  as  703  [See 
Supplem.  Note  after  the  Exeg.  section  on  chaps, 
xviii.  and  xix.,  and  the  similar  Note  after  the  pre- 
sent Exeg.  sectiou],  as  Knobel  thinks,  that  \c  tet 
years  after,  for  the  ostensible  object  of  the  em 


236 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


bassy  was  to  congratulate  the  king  on  his  recovery. 
7]"INn2   stands   tor   7|"!N"ip  Isai.  xxxix.  1.      It  is 

not  an  error,  but  simply  an  interchange  of  the  la- 
bials, as  in  X'HH  and  N'HJD  •     Merodach  is  really 

the  name  of  the  Babylonian  Mars  (Jerem.  I.  2). 
[See  Exeg.  notes  on  xvi.  3;  xvii.  16;  30  and  31. — 
Merodach  belonged  to  the  third  rank  of  gods  in  the 
Babylonian  Pantheon.  This  rank  consisted  of  five 
gods  representing  the  five  planets.  Merodach  was 
equivalent  to  Jupiter,  and  was  identified  with  the 
planet  which  we  call  by  that  name.  He  was  one 
of  the  chief  gods  at  Babylon  and  had  two  shrines 
(one  mystic)  in  the  great  pyramid  there.  Nebu- 
chadnezzar speaks  of  having  adorned  this  pyramid 
and  these  shrines.  Merodach  was  a  secondary 
form  or  emanation  of  Bel  (Baal).  "  He  was  called 
'  the  ancient  one  of  the  gods,  the  supreme  judge, 
the  master  of  the  horoscope  ; '  he  was  represented 
as  a  man  erect  and  walking,  and  with  a  naked 
sword  in  his  hand."  (Lenonnant,  I.  454  sq.)]  It 
was  the  custom  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians 
to  give  their  kings  the  names  of  divinities.  Bala- 
dan  is,  according  to   the   Aramaic,  equivalent  to 

jinx  bl'3  •      On  l'le   question  whether  this  king 

was  the  Hapdonefiirad'oc  in  the  Canon  Ptol.,  who 
reigned  twelve  years,  or  the  Merodach-baladan  in 
the  Citron.  Arrnen.  of  Eusebius  (Berosus),  who  only 
reigned  six  mouths,  see  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assyr.  s.  40 
and  75  sq.,  and  Delitseh  on  Isai.  xxxviii.  1.  [See 
Supplem.  Note  at  the  end  of  this  sectioi..] — Accord- 
ing to  2  Chron.  xxxii.  31,  the  object  of  the  embassy 
was,  not  only  to  congratulate  Hezekiah  on  his  re- 
covery, but  also  to  get  information  about  the  mir- 
acle, that  is  about  the  "sign"  of  the  prophet. 
Evidently  this  was  only  the  ostensible  object ;  con- 
sequently Josephus  does  not  mention  it  at  all 
{Ant.  x.  2,  2),  but  only  gives  the  true  one:  cvfijjia- 
%6v  re avrov  elvai  rrapeKaXet  nai  tp'tAov.  The  kings  of 
Babylon,  who  at  that  time  were  under  the  Assyrian 
supremacy,  sought  to  free  themselves  from  it.  The 
present  time,  when  Sennacherib  had  suffered  a  se- 
vere calamity,  seemed  to  them  to  be  the  best  op- 
portunity. "  The  object  of  the  embassy  was  to 
form  an  alliance  with  a  king  who  had  successfully 
resisted  the  Assyrian  power "  (Von  Gerlaeh). 
Hence  it  follows  that  Hezekiah's  illness  fell  in  the 
time  after  aud  not  before  the  Assyrian  invasion.  His 
recovery  gave  the  king  of  Babylon  the  pretext  he 
desired  for  sending  an  embassy.  He  did  not  care 
much  to  offer  an  empty  congratulation.  His  ob- 
ject was,  to  "  find  out  the  strength  of  the  kingdom 
of  Judah"  (Ewald).  The  ambassadors  succeeded 
in  inducing  Hezekiah  himself  to  give  them  full  in- 
formation in  regard  to  this. — Ver.  13.  And  Hez- 
ekiah rejoiced  on  account  of  them,  certainly  not 
merely  on  account  of  their  civility  in  coming  to  see 
him,  aud  congratulate  him,  but  also  on  account  of 
the  real  object  of  their  visit,  which  he  easily  per- 
ce:-«.d,  even  if  they  did  not  expressly  make  it 
knjwn  to  him.  An  alliance  with  the  Babylonians, 
whose  power  was  then  on  the  increase,  seemed  to 
him  to  be  very  advantageous  to  his  kingdom,  and 
to  assure  him  against  further  danger  from  the  As- 
syrians. He  therefore  showed  them  his  treasury, 
his  armory,  &c ,  in  order  to  show  them  that  his 
means  were  not  so  entirely  exhausted  as  might  be 

).  ted  a.'ter  the   Assyrian  invasion.     Drechsler 

justly  remarks  1 1 [ .. . r i  the  enumeration  of  the  differ- 
ent objects  which  follows,  that  "  it  lay  in  the  in- 


terest of  the  narrator  to  enumerate  as  many  si 
possible  of  these  objects,  in  order  to  show  that 
Hezekiah  exerted  himself  to  bring  out  and  show 
everything  which  could  set  off  his  military 
strength  and  resources."  First  the  treasury  is 
mentioned,  in  which  silver  and  gold  were  stored. 

ri^j   is   not   to   be   connected   with  ]")^33    (Gen. 

xxx vii.  25;  xliii.  11)  i.e.,  spice,  especially  the  gum 
of  the  tragacanth  which  grows  in  Syria  (why 
should  the  "  spice-house  "  be  mentioned  first  of 
all,  before  the  silver  and  gold?).  The  word  cornea 
rather  from  the  unused  root  J"H3  .  equivalent  to 
DQ :  conceal,  cover,  preserve  (see  Fiirst,  s.  v.),  so 
that  it  means  "  treasure-house,"  or  "store-house." 
The  assumption  that  it  was  first  used  for  storing 
spices,  but  then  for  storing  gold  and  silver  (Gese- 
nius),  is  at  least  unnecessary.  [The  etymology 
suggested  by  Fiirst  and  adopted  by  Bahr  is  very 
uncertain  and  improbable.  It  does  not  appear 
that  D13  has  the  sense  attributed  to  it.  Gesenius' 
explanation  is   the   best,   and    is  the  one  almost 

universally   adopted.      nJ3  —  J1S33   spice.     The 

spice-house  is  the  one  used  for  storing  spices — 
which  were  always  reckoned  as  precious  articles. 
The  name  then  passed  over  to  a  store-house,  or  trea- 
sury, for  precious  articles  of  all  sorts. — W.  G.  S.]. 
D'D'-'O  ,  perfume,  the  general  expression  for  all  ob- 
jects which  have  a  pleasant  smell,  which  were 
used  either  for  incense  or  for  ointment,  and  which 
were  highly  esteemed.  "  At  courts  it  was  consid- 
ered highly  important  to  have  a  good  stock  of 
these  "  (Winer  II.  s.  495  sq.).  The  rabbis,  whom 
Movers  and  Keil  follow,  say  that  HIED  |DC  is  not 

fine  olive-oil,  but  balsam-oil  manufactured  from 
the  products  of  the  royal  gardens.  The  armory 
which  here  stands  in  contrast  with  the  treasury  is 
without  doubt  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon 
(see  notes  on  1  Kings  vii.  2).  In  all  his  domin- 
ion, i.  e.,  "  throughout  the  extent  of  his  authority ; 
not  only  in  the  royal  castle,  but  throughout  his 
kingdom  "  (Drechsler).  It  has  been  asked  whence 
all  these  treasures  came,  since  Hezekiah  had  to 
give  up  all  his  gold  and  silver  to  Sennacherib,  and 
even  to  take  off  the  gold  coverings  to  the  door- 
posts of  the  temple,  which  he  had  himself  given 
in  order  to  satisfy  Sennacherib  (chap,  xviii.  14-16). 
The  answer  is  not  difficult.  Sennacherib  had  only 
demanded  gold  aud  silver,  not  perfume,  nor  oil, 
nor  even  arms,  aud  with  these  last  Hezekiah  had 
abundantly  supplied  himself  at  the  approach  of  the 
Assyrians  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  5).  The  armory  was 
therefore  full,  and  the  spices  all  remained.  As  for 
the  silver  and  gold,  it  is  evident  from  ver.  17  ("and 
that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  ")  that 
Hezekiah  had  not  given  up  all,  but  still  retained 
some  of  the  ancient  articles  which  had  been  handed 
down.  He  preferred  to  take  the  temple  adorn- 
ments which  he  himself  had  given,  rather  than  to 
give  up  these  articles  which  perhaps  were  hidden 
away  in  subterranean  places  of  security  "The 
Chronicler  also  relates  (II.  xxxii.  23),  in  a  credible 
manner,  that,  after  the  retreat  of  the  Assyrians, 
many  kings  sent  presents  to  Hezekiah"  (Thenius) 
Finally,  a  great  deal  of  booty  may  have  been  ob- 
tained from  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  after  their 
sudden  flight,  as  Vitringa,  Ewald,  and  Drechsler 
suggest.  [See  Supplem.  Note  after  Exeg.  on  chaps, 
xviii.  and  xix.      The    tribute  given  by  Hezekiah 


CHAPTKR  XX.   1-21. 


is  there  mentioned  in  detail,  from  the  inscrip- 
tions.] 

Ver.  14.  Then  came  Isaiah  the  prophet  unto 
king  Hezekiah.  Isaiah  perceived  the  real  object 
of  the  Babylonian  embassy.  He  saw  that  the  ob- 
iect  was  not  merely  to  congratulate  the  king  on 
his  recovery  and  to  satisfy  their  curiosity,  but  that 
they  also  desired  to  draw  Hezekiah  into  an  alliance, 
and"  he  saw  that  the  king  was  disposed  to  enter 
into  one.  He  therefore  felt  himself  impelled  to  go 
to  the  king  and  to  call  him  to  account.  This  he 
does  by  a  question  which,  however,  involves  a 
strong  affirmation :  I  know  what  has  been  done, 
but  why  hast  thou  done  it?  lie  desired  a  confes- 
sion from  the  mouth  of  the  king  himself.  As  lie 
had  zealously  protested  before  against  any  alliance 
with  Egypt  and  Assyria,  so  he  now  warned  the 
king  against  Babylon,  and  showed  him  what  was 
to  be  apprehended  from  that  quarter.  Hezekiah's 
unembarrassed  reply  (ver.  15)  shows  that  he  suppos- 
ed that  he  was  doing  right.  "  Hear,''  the  prophet 
rejoins,  "Jehovah's  word  "  (ver.  IB) ;  tlion  hopest 
for  help  and  deliverance  from  Babylon,  but  this 
very  Babylon  shall  bring  to  thy  kingdom  and 
people  ruin  and  destruction.  These,  to  whom  thou 
hast  shown  all  that  thou  hast,  will  take  away  all 
tliis  and  more  besides;  they  will  take  away  even 
thy  children  and  make  them  servants  at  their  court. 
Ver.  IS.  That  shall  issue  out  of  thee,  that 
thou  shalt  beget — not  his  own  sons,  strictly 
speaking,  but  Ins  descendants,  a  sense  in  which  ]3 

is  so  often  used.     Although  D'D'TD  really  means 

eunuchs,  and  although  "  the  proper  sting  of  the  as- 
sertion in  this  verse  is  not  to  be  unnecessarily  blunt- 
ed" (Drechsler),  nevertheless  we  must  not  insist 
upon  the  literal  force  of  the  word,  as  Gesenius 
does,  but  understand  by  it  footmen,  or  court  attend- 
ants (1  Sam.  viii.  15),  as  we  see  from  the  example  of 
Daniel  (Dan.  i.  8),  who  was  not  a  eunucl*.  There 
was  humiliation  enough  in  this  prospect. 

Ver.  19.  Then  said  Hezekiah  unto  Isaiah. — 
He  subjects  himself  in  humility,  and  in  submission 
to  the  will  of  God,  and  to  the  prophet's  words,  as 
Eli  did,  1  Sam.  iii.  18,  cf.  the  same  expression  1 
Kings  ii.  38,  42.  3io  cannot  here  mean  kind  (Um- 
breit).  for  the  words  in  vers.  17  and  IS  were  not 
"  kind ;  "  nevertheless  they  were  good  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word,  inasmuch  as  they  were  the 
words  of  God. — "  They  were  such  that  there  was 
no  fault  to  be  found  with  them  "  (Lange).  Clerieus 
remarks  on  the  word ;  Bonmn  vocatur  id,  in  quo  ac- 
quiescere  par  est,  quippeabeo  profectum,  qui  nihil  facit, 
quod  non  tantum  justissimum,  sed  quod  summa  boni- 
tate  non  sit  temperalum,  etiam  cum  pasnas  sumit. 
The  second  TDS'l  shows  that  after  the  first  part 

of  the  answer  there  was  a  pause,  and  that  the  fol- 
lowing words  were  not  addressed  directly  to  Isaiah, 
although  they  were  spoken  before  he  went  away: 

not,  as  Knobel  thinks,  after  he  was  gone,     xpn  is 

Btrictly  nonne?  "The  interrogative  force  is  often 
lc3t,  and  it  does  not  differ  from  ?n  or  nan  ■     See 

1  Sam.  xx.   37;    2   Sam.    xv.  35;    Job   xxii.   12" 

(Gesenius).     DX  is  a  particle  of  wishing  (Ps.  lxxxi. 

B;  exxxix.  IS).  Calmet  renders  the  sense  thus: 
Justa  sunt  omnia,  quxcunque  Deus  sancivit,  sed 
utinam  coercrat  ullionis  sues  cursum,  quamdiu  vivo. 
This  seems  simpler  and  more  natural  than  Keil's 


translation:  "  Is  it  not  so,  i.e.,  is  it  not  pure  good- 
ness if  peace  and  security  are  to  last  through  my 

days  (as  long  as  I  live)?"     Instead  of  DS  i>bT\ 

we  find  in  Isai.  xxxix.  8,  ^3  ,  which  is  by  no  means 

to  be  preferred,  for  the  translation :  "  For  thera 
will  be  peace  "  does  not  join  on  well  to  what  pre- 
cedes.    According  to  Knobel  '3  simply  introduces 

the  direct  discourse.  It  is  an  error  to  translate, 
as  is  often  done:  "Very  well!  so  long  as  there 
may  only  be  peace  and  security  in  my  time,"  and 
to  take  the  words  as  an  expression  of  "naive" 
(Gesenius),  or  "easy"  (Knobel),  or  "genuine  ori- 
ental "  (Hitzig)  egotism,  as  if,  as  some  of  the 
rabbis  indeed  understand  it  (see  Jerome  on  Isai. 
xxxix.),  he  did  not  trouble  himself  about  his  peo- 
ple. On  the  contrary,  it  is  out  of  love  for  them 
that  he  does  not  wish  to  survive  or  see  their  de- 
struction. His  words  are  an  expression  of  pain 
(Josephus :  'Awnii eic),  and  not  of  easy  selfishness. 
Drechsler  and  Keil  understand  ]"I!3X  to  refer  to 

the  "  faithfulness  of  God,  who  keeps  the  covenant 
of  grace  which  He  has  made  with  the  humble,"  and 
Hitzig  understands  it  of  the  faithfulness  of  men, 
"  who  keep  the  peace  and  observe  treaties."  But, 
as  there  is  no  reference  here  to  peace  with  God 
(see  vers.  17  and  18),  so  it  cannot  refer  to  His 
faithfulness,  much  less  to  that  of  the  Babylonians, 
who,  as  yet,  had  made  no  treaty.     n^DX   is  rather 

a   synonym    of  Dipt;',    and    signifies   permanence, 

security.  It  cannot  be  understood  otherwise  in 
Jer.  xxxiii.  6,  where  it  stands  in  the  same  connec- 
tion (cf.  Jerem.  xiv.  13).  Vitringa:  status  return 
slabilis. 

Ver.  20.  And  the  rest  of  the  acts,  Ac.  In 
the  notice  of  the  close  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  vers. 
20  and  21,  we  find  inserted  in  the  ordinary  formula 
especial   mention   of  his    mU3    (see   Exeg.  on   1 

Kings  xv.  23),  and  also  of  the  aqueduct  which  he 
built,  and  which  was  of  permanent  utility  to  the 
city.  The  panegyric  of  Hezekiah  in  Sir.  xlviii.  17, 
makes  especial  mention  of  the  same.  The  refer- 
ence is,  of  course,  to  the  aqueduct  which  Hezekiah 
caused  to  be  built  at  the  approach  of  the  As- 
syrians, and  not  to  the  one  which  is  mentioned 
chap,  xviii.  17  and  Isai.  vii.  3.  According  to  2 
Cliron.  xxxii.  3  sq.  all  the  fountains  outside  of  the 
city  walls,  also  Gihon  and  its  pools,  were  covered 
over,  in  order,  in  case  of  siege,  to  deprive  the  be- 
siegers of  the  use  of  the  water.  Then  the  water 
was  all  collected  and  led  under-ground  into  tho 
city,  where  it  flowed  into  the  pool  called  after 
Hezekiah,  now  more  generally  known  as  the  Bir- 
ket  el  Hamman.  (See  Thenius,  in  the  appendix  to 
his  Commentar,  s.  18.  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  II.  s.  56S. 
Keil  on  2  Kings  xviii.  17.) — According  to  2  Chrou. 
xxxii.  33,  Hezekiah  was  buried  "on  the  hill-slope 
[E.  V.  is  incorrect]  of  the  graves  of  the  sons  [de- 
scendants] of  David,"  i.  e.,  he  was  not  buried  in 
the  royal  sepulchres.  The  additional  remark : 
"  And  all  Judah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
did  him  honor  at  his  death,"  shows  that  he  was 
not  buried  elsewhere  than  in  the  royal  sepulchres 
through  lack  of  respect,  but  probably  through 
lack  of  room,  or  because  he  himself  had  chosen 
tliis  place. 

[Supplementary  Note  incorporating  thorn  re 


23S 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


suits  of  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  investigations  which 
bear  on  the  tin, -illation  of  chap.  xx.  As  we  saw  in 
the  Note  at  the  end  of  the  Exeg.  section  on  chaps, 
xviii.  and  xix..  Rawlinson  thinks  that  Sennache- 
rib made  two  expeditions  into  Judah  (or,  at  least, 
sent  a  second  I.  in  the  year  700  or  698.  Lenormant 
supposes  that  all  the  events  mentioned  occurred 
in  one  campaign  in  701-699.  Hezekiah's  sickness 
was  of  such  a  character  (ver.  7)  as  to  suggest  a 
plague,  the  result  of  the  Assyrian  occupation.  It 
occurred  in  699  or  69S.  He,  however,  recovered. 
There  can  be  no  question  that  Hezekiah  was  in 
imminent  danger  of  this  kind  at  one  time  in  his 
life,  soon  after  the  Assyrian  invasion.  As  we  shall 
see,  below,  the  statement  that  his  life  was  pro- 
longed for  fifteen  years  thereafter  presents  great 
difficulty.  Rawlinson.  although  he  puts  Sennache- 
rib's invasion  in  700-698,  puts  Hezekiah's  illness, 
and  the  visit  of  the  Babylonians,  in  713,  on  account 
of  the  biblical  data.  IVe  must,  however,  accept 
the  results  of  the  investigations,  and  put  the  visit 
of  the  Babylonian  ambassadors  in  698-7.  The 
sickness  of  the  king  was  not  an  event  of  such  a 
character  as  to  be  recorded  in  the  history,  if  it 
were  not  for  Isaiah's  connection  with  it.  On  jbis 
account  it  was  included  at  a  later  time,  and,  if  it 
contains  chronological  statements  which  conflict 
with  those  which  we  find  elsewhere,  it  is  rather 
they  than  the  others  which  must  be  disregarded. 
It  is  noticeable  that  the  sickness  is  said  to  have 
occurred  just  in  the  middle  of  the  king's  reign,  and, 
if  the  date  were  not  well-known,  and  an  arbitrary 
date  had  to  be  fixed  upon  by  tradition,  this  is  the 
one  of  all  o¥hers  which  would  be  most  likely  to  be 
chosen.  Let  us  therefore  disregard  this  statement 
rather  than  others,  and  put  the  king's  illness  in 
698-7. 

The  world  is  always  ready  to  worship  success, 
without  stopping  to  analyze  it,  and  see  on  what  it 
rests.  Little  Judah  alone  of  the  nations  of  West- 
em  Asia  had  escaped  the  Assyrians.  It  had  not 
done  so  by  virtue  of  its  own  strength,  but  by  vir- 
tue of  what  must  have  appeared  to  the  neighbor- 
ing nations  to  be  an  accident.  Nevertheless  we 
find  that  an  embassy  came  immediately  afterwards, 
from  Babylon,  to  form  an  alliance. 

There  was  a  kiug  on  the  throne  of  Chaldea  in 
709  who  is  called  Merodach  Baladan,  (Marduk-balid- 
din)  in  the  inscription  called  the  "  Acts  of  Sargon." 
Lenormant  identifies  him  with  the  Kinzirus  of 
Ptolemy's  canon;  hut  that  king  reigned  earlier, 
and  the  identification  with  Mardocempalus  (721- 
709).  which  Rawlinson  adopts,  seems  better.  In 
709  Sargon  totally  defeated  this  kiug  at  Dur-Yakin. 
a  town  on  the  Euphrates  below  Babylon.  Baby- 
lon became  subject  to  Assyria.  (It  had  been  free 
Bince  760.  Supp.  Note,  on  chap.  xv).  The  defeated 
king  either  escaped  in  disguise  or  was  taken  pris- 
oner; the  inscription  says  one  thing  in  one  place 
and  another  in  another.  When  we  next  meet  with 
the  same  name,  it  is,  therefore,  doubtful  whether 
it  is  the  same  person  or  his  son.  Merodach  Bala- 
dan at  any  rah-  proved  himself  a  patriotic  Babylo- 
nian, and  a  determined  foe  of  the  Assyrians.  Im- 
mediately after  Sargon's  assassination,  in  704.  Bab- 
ylon revolted  under  Agises,  but  Merodach  Baladan 
killed  him,  and  himself  took  command  (Lenormant  i. 
Bennacherib  mentions,  in  his  inscription,  that  his 
first  campaign  was  against  Merodach  Baladan,  and 
the  armies  of  Elarn,  which  were  allied  with  him. 
He  defeated  and  plundered  them,  spoiled  Chaldea, 


and  put  a  vassal  king  over  it  (703).  While  Senna- 
cherib was  engaged  in  Syria,  Philistia,  and  Judah 
(see  Supp.  -Votes  on  chaps,  xvi..  xvii.,  xviii.  and 
xix.)  Merodach  Baladan  escaped  from  prison,  raised 
another  revolt,  and  expelled  the  vassal  king.  Sen- 
nacherib, after  his  disaster  in  Judah,  turned  once 
more  against  Chaldea.  It  was  now  that  Merodach 
Baladan  sent  to  Hezekiah  to  try  to  form  an  alli- 
ance. Hezekiah  was  flattered  by  this  and  made  a 
show  of  his  treasures.  He  probably  did  not  want 
the  Babylonians  to  think  that,  after  all,  he  was 
not  an  ally  worth  having.  The  result  proved  the 
justice  of  the  prophet's  warning.  Merodach  Bala- 
dan was  again  defeated.  He  died  in  exile  soon 
after,  and  Chaldea  was  once  more  subjugated. 
Sennacherib  set  his  sou  Asshur-nadin  on  the 
throne. 

Some  years  of  peace  followed,  during  which 
Sennacherib  was  rebuilding  Nineveh,  which  he  did 
with  great  magnificence.  But  in  693,  on  the  death 
of  Asshur-nadin,  Babylon  once  more  revolted. 
For  the  next  ten  years  Sennacherib  was  occupied 
in  suppressing  a  series  of  fierce  but  unsuccessful 
revolts  in  Babylon,  and  in  prosecuting  wars  in 
Elam  and  Susiaua  to  punish  the  allies  of  the  rebels. 
In  682  lie  made  his  son  Esarhaddon  viceroy  of 
Babylon,  having  chastised  the  city  with  such 
severity  as  to  leave  it  half-ruined.  He  was  assas- 
sinated in  6S0  (Lenormant). 

To  return  to  Hezekiah.  If  he  lived  fifteen, 
years  after  his  illness,  he  died  in  685,  and  reigned 
forty-two  (not  twenty-nine)  years.  Lenormant 
adopts  this  opinion,  and  adjusts  other  data  to  it 
thus:  Manasseh  was  born  in  797.  He  was  recog- 
nized as  king  from  his  birth.  The  twenty-nine 
years  of  Hezekiah  are  reckoned  to  this  time,  and 
the  fifty-five  of  Manasseh  from  it.  Hezekiah  died 
in  685,  when  Manasseh  was  twelve  years  old. 
Aside  from  the  violence  of  this  theory,  it  encoun- 
ters numerous  specific  objections,  and  cannot  be 
adopted.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  hold  fast  the 
twenty-nine  years  for  Hezekiah's  reign,  and  sacri- 
fice the  fifteen  years  stated  as  his  new  lease  of 
life.  See  the  first  paragraph  above.  Hezekiah 
died  in  698-7.  and  Manasseh  was  twelve  years  old 
at  that  time. — See  Note  30  on  the  Chronolog.  Table 
at  the  end  of  the  volume. — W.  G.  S.] 

HISTOPaCAL   AND    ETHICAL. 

1.  The  story  of  the  illness  of  Hezekiah  "withdraws 
our  attention  from  the  external  history  of  the  king- 
dom, which  is  narrated  in  the  foregoing  chapters, 
and  reveals  to  us  the  soul  of  the  king.  It  leads  us 
out  of  the  city  into  the  royal  palace  "  (Ombreit). 
The  announcement  of  his  approaching  death 
shocked  him  deeply :  he  turned  away  from  those 
who  surrounded  him,  and  "wept  sore,"  as  if  death 
were  the  end  of  all.  What  has  become  of  his  firm 
faith?  Where  is  the  fearless  confidence  with 
which  a  pious  man  faces  death?  Does  this  not 
seem  like  unmanly  weakness,  and  like  anything 
but  submission  to  the  will  of  God  ?  But  there  are 
two  things  to  be  considered  in  explanation.  Hez- 
ekiah had  passed  his  whole  life  up  to  this  point  in 
anxiety  and  trouble;  he  had  only  just  escaped  a 
danger  which  threatened  his  kingdom  and  his  life; 
he  was  now,  for  the  first  time,  in  a  position  to  look 
forward  with  courage  and  hope  to  a  period  of  peace, 
rest,  and  prosperity,  and  to  the  opportunity  of 
doing  more  for  his  eoiziry  thar    he  had  hitherto 


CHAPTERS  XX.  1-21. 


239 


been  tble  to  do.  At  this  time,  now,  iD  the  very 
prime  of  life,  he  was  suddenly  called  to  die  and  to 
give  up  all.  He  had  succeeded  to  the  throne  iu  a 
time  of  deep  decay,  and  had  sought  iu  every  way 
to  restore  prosperity  and  strength,  and  now,  when 
he  was  iu  a  position  to  labor  for  this  end  with  some 
success,  he  must  leave  all.  Nothing  could  be  more 
natural  than  that  he,  a  man  of  warm  and  earnest 
feelings,  from  whom  no  stoical  apathy  was  to  be 
expected,  should  be  terrified  and  shocked  when  he 
heard  the  prophet's  words:  Thou  shalt  diet  He 
does  not  murmur  or  complain,  still  less  does  he, 
like  Ahaziah  (2  Kings  i.  4-9),  burst  out  in  anger 
against  the  messenger  of  death  Neither  does  he 
simply  resign  himself;  he  bows  humbly  and  pours 
out  his  grief  in  prayer  to  Him  in  whom  he  believed. 
Therefore  his  prayer  finds  an  answer,  which  it 
never  would  have  done  if  it  had  been  made  in  wo- 
manish weakness  or  in  that  love  of  life  which  is 
displeasing  to  God.  The  fulfilment  of  his  prayer 
is  a  proof  that  it  was  offered  in  a  right  spirit.  The 
prayer  came  from  a  faithful,  noble,  and  pious  heart, 
as  we  see  from  his  hymn  of  thanksgiving,  Isai. 
xxxviii.  9-20.  He  had  in  mind  the  words,  Ps. 
cxlv.  18  and  19.  In  the  second  place  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  Hezekiah  belonged  to  the  pious 
men  of  the  Old  Testament,  who  had  not  that  hope 
and  confidence  which  belongs  to  those  who  know 
Him  who  has  conquered  death;  that  he  had  never 
heard  the  words:  ■'  Thanks  be  to  God  who  giveth 
us  the  victory  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (1 
Cor.  xv.  57).  The  promises  in  the  Old  Testament 
economy  all  refer  to  this  life  and  to  the  bliss  of 
communion  with  the  living  God.  Death  had  not 
yet  lost  its  sting.  Hence  the  terror  with  which 
even  the  pious  men  of  the  Old  Testament  looked 
forward  to  it.  while  the  pious  men  of  the  New 
Covenant  look  up  in  full  confidence  to  Him  who 
has  robbed  death  of  its  power,  and  in  Whom  all 
promises  are  yea  and  amen. 

2.  Hezekialts  prayer  has  been  interpreted  as 
"self  praise,"  on  account  of  the  appeal  which  it 
contains  to  his  righteous  life  (Thenius),  and  the 
ridiculous  assertion  has  been  made  that  "the 
Church,  at  least  the  Protestant.  Church,  must,  ac- 
cording to  its  standards,  class  him  among  the  self- 
righteous  "  (Meuzel).  It  is  entirely  left  out  of  view, 
in  this  judgment,  that  Hezekiah  stood  in  the  econ- 
omy of  the  Old  Testament,  that  is,  in  the  economy 
of  legal  righteousness ;  that  the  entire  revelation  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  concentrated  in  the  Law  of 
Moses,  as  that  of  the  New  Testament  is  concen- 
trated in  the  Gospel;  and  that  to  walk  according  to 
this  Law  is  not  to  be  virtuous,  morally  pure,  ami 
free  from  sin,  but  to  serve  Jehovah  as  the  only 
God,  to  fear  Him,  to  trust  Him,  and  to  love  Him 
with  all  the  heart  (Dent.  vi.  1-5).  Hezekiah  did 
not  know  any  more  about  the  modern  doctrine  that 
a  man  should  practise  virtue  simply  for  the  sake 
of  virtue,  than  he  did  about  the  evangelical  doctrine 
that  faith  alone,  without  works,  ensures  salvation. 
He  considered  that  death,  which  was  announced 
to  hie,  was  a  penalty  inflicted  by  God,  and  he  did 
not  know  how  he  had  incurred  it,  since  he  had  al- 
ways endeavored  to  serve  God  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  conscience,  and  never  had  departed 
from  Him.  He  comes  before  the  judge  of  life  and 
death  and  begs  Him  not  to  remember  his  sins  alone, 
but  also  to  remember  that  he  has  feared  and  wor- 
shipped Him.  He  could  say  all  this  without  phar- 
tsaical  "  self-praise  "  (Luke  xviii.  9-12).  just  as  well 


as  St.  Paul  could  say,  without  self-righteousness- 
"  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished  my 
course,  I  have  kept  the  faith  "  (2  Tim.  iv.  7).  The 
whole  thanksgiving  hymn,  Isai.  xxxviii.,  breathes 
humility  before  the  Almighty  and  Holy  One  ;  there 
is  not  a  hint  of  self-prf.ise  or  of  holiness  by  works 
in  it.  "Thou  hast  in  love  to  my  soul  delivered  it 
from  the  pit  of  corruption ;  for  thou  hast  cast  all 
my  sins  behind  thy  back  "  (Isai.  xxxviii.  17).  His 
greatest  cause  for  grief  was  that  he  must  go  thither 
where  he  could  no  longer  praise  the  Lord.  Would 
that  all  who  consider  themselves  virtuous  and  holy 
would  show  themselves  as  humble  and  penitent  iD 
the  face  of  death  as  Hezekiah  did. 

[It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  special  pleading  in  this  criticism  of  Hezekiah's 
words.  We  have  to  be  on  our  guard  against  set- 
ting out  with  a  determination  to  see  nothing  but 
good  in  certain  of  these  characters,  and  nothing  but 
evil  in  certain  others,  and  against  warping  facts  to 
suit  this  foregone  judgment,  most  of  all,  if  "  good  " 
or  "  evil  "  are  to  be  measured  by  modern  standards 
When  Hezekiah  says  that  he  has  walked  before 
God  with  a  perfect  heart,  and  in  fidelity,  he  refers 
to  the  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  but  when 
he  says:  "  I  have  done  good  in  thy  sight,"  he 
mi-. i us  moral  good — righteousness.  He  claims,  in 
perfect  honesty  and  simplicity,  that  he  has  done 
what  is  right.  The  answer  to  those  who  accus« 
him  of  self-praise  is  not  to  be  found  in  twisting  the 
words.  Two  things  may  be  urged  in  answer,  both 
of  which  are  true  as  general  principles,  and  are  not 
suggested  by  the  desire  of  establishing  the  saint- 
liuess  of  Hezekiah's  character.  The  first  is  that, 
if  he  had  really  done  what  was  right  as  far  as  he 
knew,  and  if  his  theology  taught  him  that  this  ca- 
lamity was  a  punishment  which  indicated  that  he 
had  been  doing  wrong,  then  he  had  a  full  right  to 
appeal  to  his  conduct  against  this  theological  in- 
ference [cf.  the  argument  of  Kliphaz,  Job  iv.  5,  par- 
ticularly chap.  iv.  7,  and  Job's  answer,  in  which 
he  justifies  himself.  See  chap.  xiii.  15,  23).  Se- 
condly :  the  naive  expression  of  Hezekiah,  who 
thinks  that  he  has  done  right  and  says  30,  is  not  to  be 
judged  by  the  modern  mock-humility  which  often 
thinks  that  it  ftasdone right,  and  says  that  it  has  not; 
which  assents  to  the  doctrine  that  all  have  sinned, 
as  a  general  theological  proposition,  while  the  in- 
dividual who  repeats  it  does  not  see,  in  his  heart, 
that  he  has  sinned  after  all.  The  Jewish  theology 
taught  that  temporal  calamities  were  judgments  of 
God  inflicted  in  punishment  for  sin.  Hence  it  was 
inferred  that  a  man  who  suffered  misfortune  must 
have  sinned  (Isai.  liii.  4).  Hezekiah  had  attempted 
to  do  right  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  His  con 
science  told  him  that  he  had  been  faithful  to  this 
effort,  and  in  all  truth  and  simplicity  he  expressed 
this  conviction.  It  is  evident  that  it  is  impertinent 
to  judge  any  such  naive  and  truthful  expression 
by  our  conventional  modern  standards  of  how 
much  a  man  may  be  allowed  to  express  of  the  sin- 
cere convictions  of  his  heart,  when  they  bear  upon 
his  own  merits  or  abilities. — W.  G.  S.] 

3.  The  prophet  Isaiah  here  "  meets  us  ones 
more  in  all  the  glory  of  the  prophetical  dignity  " 
(Umbreit).  His  conduct  is  based  upon  the  premise 
of  his  prophetical  character,  without  which  it 
would  be  obscure  and  enigmatical.  What  he  does 
and  says,  he  does  and  says  not  in  his  own  power, 
but  as  one  who  "  stands  before  Jehovah  "  (1  Kin6* 
xvii.   1),  and  who  is  set  "over  nations  and  king 


240 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


doms  to  root  out  and  to  pull  down  and  to  destroy, 
to  throw  down,  to  build  and  to  plant  "  (Jerern.  i. 
10).  Mighty  in  word  and  deed,  without  tear  of 
men  or  anxiety  to  please  them,  he  threatens,  and 
warns,  and  exhorts,  and  helps.  He  undertakes 
without  hesitation  the  duty,  heavy  for  him  no 
doubt,  of  going  into  the  palace  to  announce  to  his 
sovereign  the  terrible  command :  "  Set  thine 
house  in  order."  Then  he  retires,  leaving  the  king 
to  the  effects  of  this  command,  but  soon  returns 
and  declares  to  the  crushed  monarch,  who  is  ab- 
sorbed in  anxious  prayer,  the  fulfilment  of  that 
prayer,  the  promise  of  complete  and  speedy  reco- 
very, nay  even  of  a  reign  prolonged  for  as  many 
years  more  as  it  had  already  lasted,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  God  throughout  this  time.  What  would 
become  of  the  prophet  if  he  did  all  this  in  obedi- 
ence to  his  mere  human  judgment?  According 
to  the  ordinary  custom  of  the  prophets  (see  1 
Kings  xvii.  Hist.  §  6:  Pt.  II.  pp.  17,  47,  58)  he 
combines  with  the  promise  of  recovery  the  use  of 
an  external  means  of  healing.  The  cluster  of  figs 
here  had  just  the  same  fuuction  as  the  means  used 
by  our  Lord  (John  ix.  6,  14).  It  was  not  the  clus- 
ter of  figs  which  helped  the  man  at  the  point  of 
death,  but  the  Almighty  Lord  of  life  and  death. 
The  ordinary  means  of  healing  was  here  a  sign 
and  pledge  of  the  promised  cure.  As  the  Berle- 
burger  Bibel  says:  "Since  this  means  could  not 
have  the  power  of  curing  in  itself,  it  was  used  as 
a  sign  of  the  divine  superhuman  power."  Isaiah 
did  not  employ  the  ordinary,  natural  means  until 
he  was  sure  of  the  divine  help.  It  was  just  be- 
cause this  means  of  cure  was  the  ordinary  natural 
one,  that  Hezekiah  wanted  a  "  sign "  that  Je- 
hovah would  heal  him  (ver.  8),  and  did  not  have 
complete  confidence  in  this  remedy.  It  is,  there- 
fore, utterly  erroneous  to  ascribe  Hezekiah's  cure 
to  the  cluster  of  figs,  to  talk  about  Isaiah's  knowl- 
edge of  medicine,  and  to  draw  the  inference  that 
the  prophets  were  accustomed  to  act  as  "  physi- 
cians "  (Knobel.  Der  Prophet,  der  Htbr.  I.  s.*55. 
Winer,  It-  W.-B  II.  s.  280).  If  the  prophet  had, 
as  a  physician,  been  sure  of  the  efficacy  of  this 
remedy,  he  would  have  behaved  in  the  most  re- 
prehensible manner  in  not  applying  it  at  once,  and 
in  beginning  by  announcing  certain  death. 

4.  The  sign,  which  was  granted  to  Hezekiah  at 
his  request,  has  intimate  analogy  with  the  pro- 
phetic declaration  which  it  was  intended  to  con- 
firm. There  could  hardly  be  a  more  significant 
sign  than  one  presented  on  the  shadow-measurer, 
that  is,  the  time-measurer,  which  was  "arranged 
in  the  court  of  the  palace  before  the  king's  win- 
dows" (Thenius).  Every  human  life  is  like  a  day 
— it  has  its  morning,  its  noon,  and  its  evening, 
(Keel.  xi.  6  ;  xii.  1.  2  ;  Job  xi.  17  ;  Matt.  20.  3,  sq.). 
The  advance  of  the  shadow  shows  the  approach 
of  evening  (Jer.  vi.  4;  Job  vii.  1.  2),  which  will 
be  followed  by  darkness  and  night.  Hezekiah's 
life-day  was  on  the  decline ;  the  night  of  death 
was  approaching:  then  it  was  promised  him  this 
day  should  stand  once  more  at  its  noon,  that  the 
shadow  of  death  should  recede,  and  that  the  even- 
ing should  once  more  become  mid-day.  The  sign 
is  not  therefore  "a  mere  pledge  of  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promise  in  vers.  5  and  6,"  in  which  "there 
is  no  analogy  to  be  traced  with  the  fact  of  the  pro- 
longation of  his  life  "  (Thenius).  On  the  Contrary, 
its  significance  is  so  apparent  that  it  is  difficult 
not  to  see  it  at  once.     This  is  not  a  mere  trick  of 


art  or  power,  in  place  of  which  any  other  one 
might  just  as  well  have  been  chosen,  any  more 
than  any  of  the  other  prophetic  signs. — As  for 
the  physical  features  of  the  sign,  many,  starting 
from  the  supposition  that  a  "  violation  of  the  or- 
der of  the  solar  system  "  (Menzel),  a  miracle  which 
involved  the  revolution  of  the  earth  on  its  axis  in 
a  direction  contrary  to  its  regular  one,  is  here  re- 
corded, have  been  shocked  and  repelled,  and  have 
either  sought  to  explain  it  naturally,  or  have  cha- 
racterized it  as  a  myth.  The  old  naturalistic  ex- 
planations by  a  second-sun,  a  vapor  cloud,  or  an 
earthquake  (see  Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  499),  may 
all  be  passed  over  as  antiquated.  We  need  only 
take  notice  here  of  the  two  most  recent  attempts. 
According  to  Gumpach  {Alttestam.  Studien,  1.  s.  195 
sq.),  Isaiah  turned  about  the  foot  of  the  index, 
which  before  was  towards  the  East,  so  that  the 
shadow,  instead  of  running  down,  as  before,  would 
descend  [ascend?].  In  that  case,  however,  the 
sign  would  be  nothing  but  "a  very  simple  trick  " 
(Oehler),  and  the  greatest  prophet  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment would  be  nothing  but  a  common  juggler. 
This  trivial  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground  with  the 
erroneous,  at  least  unproven  assumption,  that  the 
shadow-measurer  had  a  gnomon  with  a  foot-piece. 
According  to  Thenius,  we  have  to  understand  that 
there  was  "a  partial  eclipse  of  the  sun.  unnoticed 
by  most  men."  Such  an  one  occurred,  according 
to  Prof.  Seyffarth's  communication  to  Thenius,  on 
the  26th  of  Sept.,  713,  B.C.,  "which  date  is  in 
perfect  consistency  with  all  the  other  chronologi- 
cal statements  of  the  Book  of  Kings."  He  adds 
that  during  such  an  eclipse  "  a  slight  advance  and 
recession  of  the  shadow  takes  place."  "  Isaiah 
made  use  of  his  astronomical  knowledge  to  give 
the  king,  in  his  despair,  a  sign  which  should  re- 
arouse  his  courage."  This  explanation,  which  no 
one  else  has  yet  adopted, — [Stanley  (II.  537)  says 
it  is  the  only  thing  which  could  "illustrate"  the 
cause  of  the  phenomenon.  He  adds  that  he  is 
informed  that  the  variation  would  be  almost  im- 
perceptible except  to  a  scientific  observer.] — rests 
upon  the  very  doubtful  assumption  [':]  that  there 
was  a  partial  eclipse  of  the  sun  in  the  year  713, 
and  upon  the  still  more  doubtful  assumption  tha* 
Isaiah  kad  great  astronomical  knowledge,  ana 
knew  how  to  make  shrewd  use  of  it  upon  occa- 
sion. It  is,  therefore,  a  most  unfortunate  attempt. 
Let  us  have  done  with  attempts  to  explain  facts 
and  events,  which  the  historian  distinctly  declares 
to  be  miracles,  by  naturalistic  hypotheses.  Mod- 
ern criticism  does  not  indeed  any  longer  deny  that 
a  miracle  is  here  recorded,  but  disposes  of  it  as  a 
myth,  and  asserts  either  that  a  natural  event  was 
at  a  later  time  exaggerated  and  embellished  with 
miraculous  details,  or  that  this  story  grew  up 
through  tradition  out  of  the  simple  promise  of  the 
prophet,  that,  as  the  sun,  after  going  down,  returns 
and  repeats  its  course,  so  Hezekiah's  life  should, 
though  it  had  reached  its  limit,  take  a  new  start, 
and  go  on  for  a  time  longer  (Knobel,  Hitzig). 
Ewald's  notion  amounts  to  the  same  tiling  He 
says:  "It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  this  story 
was  not  written  down,  in  its  present  form,  until 
twenty  years  or  more  after  the  event,  and  after 
the  death  of  Hezekiah  and  of  Isaiah.  Isaiah's 
good  influence  in  this  incident,  even  on  the  domes- 
tic life  of  the  good  prince,  stands  firm  as  an  his- 
torical fact,  and  his  words  of  trust  and  consola- 
tion  no   doubt   miraculously    (!)   encouraged    the 


CHAPTER  XX.  1-21. 


241 


king."  In  this  way,  it  is  true,  we  glide  most  easily 
over  all  difficulties.  But  it  is  a  purely  self-willed 
assumption,  which  has  no  foundation  save  dislike 
for  everything  miraculous,  that  this  story  was  not 
recorded  in  its  present  form  until  twenty  years 
after  the  event,  and  that  it  is  a  product  of  tradi- 
tion. The  two  records  of  it  are,  in  the  main  points, 
identical.  Both  are  taken,  as  was  shown  above, 
from  an  older  authority,  with  which  we  are  not  ac- 
quainted, and  of  which  we  cannot  assert  that  it 
was  first  written  years  after  the  death  of  Hezekiah 
and  Isaiah,  at  a  time  when  tradition  had  already 
converted  the  history  of  this  incident  into  a  myth. 
The  Chronicler  also,  «lthough  his  record  is  very 
brief,  speaks  of  a  nSID  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  24).  Criti- 
cal science  first  exaggerates  the  miracle,  and  makes 

of  it  an  event  which  would  produce  a  cataclysm 
on  earth,  in  order  to  have  so  much  more  ground 
for  declaring  it  a  myth.  But  there  is  no  hint  of 
any  such  event  in  the  text.  The  miracle  "was 
not  visible  everywhere,  but  only  in  Jerusalem," 
and  "  since  it  is  a  case  of  a  sign  which  was  to 
serve  as  a  pledge,  and  did  not  need  to  be  super- 
natural, it  was  accomplished  by  a  phenomenon  of 
refraction  in  the  rays  of  light "  (Keil),  "  for  it  is 
sufficient  tnat  the  shadow,  which  in  the  afternoon 
was  below,  by  a  sudden  refraction  should  be  bent 
upwards  "  (Delitsch).  There  are  "  certain  weak 
analogies  in  the  natural  course  of  nature,  as,  for 
instance,  the  phenomenon  cited  by  many  exposi- 
tors, which  occurred  in  the  year  1103,  at  Metz,  in 
Lothringia,  and  which  was  observed  by  the  prior 
of  the  Monastery  there,  P.  Romuald,  and  many 
others,  that  the  shadow  on  a  sun-dial  receded  an 
hour  and  a  half"  (Keil). 

[Bosanquet,  in  an  Essay  published  in  the  Jour, 
of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Soc,  Vol.  XV.,  offers  a  solution 
of  this  phenomenon  from  the  features  of  an  eclipse. 
This  eclipse  took  place  in  the  year  689,  on  the  11th 
of  January.  He  founds  upon  this  an  argument 
that  that  must  have  been  the  year  of  Hezekiah's 
sickness,  but  this  argument  has  not  been  consid- 
ered conclusive  as  against  other  data.  We  men- 
tion it  here  only  as  a  proffered  explanation  of  the 
manner  in  which  such  a  phenomenon  might  have 
been  perceived,  without  involving  a  reversed  mo- 
tion of  the  earth.  For  a  few  days  before  and 
after  the  winter  solstice,  the  sun's  altitude  at  noon 
at  Jerusalem  is  about  34°.  If  the  "  steps  of  Ahaz  " 
were  a  flight  of  steps  in  the  palace  court  mounting 
from  north  to  south,  at  an  angle  of  about  34°,  then 
the  sun  would  throw  a  shadow  down  them  at  noon 
which  would  just  tip  the  top  step.  The  upper 
limb  of  the  sun  would  alone  rise  above  the  object 
(a  roof,  for  instance)  which  threw  the  shadow. 
If  the  upper  limb  were  eclipsed,  the  moon,  in  pass- 
ing over  the  sun's  disk,  would  cut  off  the  sun- 
light, and  the  shadow  would  once  more  descend 
the  stairs.  As  the  moon  passed  away  the  sun- 
light would  once  more  pass  below  it  and  above 
the  roof,  and  once  more  light  the  whole  stair. 
The  same  explanation  would  apply  to  the  dial  if  it 
were  a  small  stair-like  instrument,  used  for  mea- 
suring time.  An  eclipse,  to  accomplish  what  is 
here  supposed,  must  be  nearly  total,  must  be  on 
the  upper  limb  of  the  sun.  must  occur  within 
twenty  days  of  the  winter  solstice,  and  at  noon  of 
the  day.  Any  contribution,  in  the  way  of  expla- 
nation, ought  to  be  carefully  considered,  but  there 
»re  grave  objections  to  'his  one.  (o)  The  date  of 
16 


the  eclipse,  which  is  found  to  satisfy  the  condi- 
tions tolerably  well,  is  irreconcilable  with  other 
data,  (b)  The  phenomenon  would  be  very  slight 
and  only  noticeable  to  careful  observation,  or  UD' 
der  the  most  marvellous  concatenation  of  circum- 
stances, (c)  It  can  hardly  be  believed,  after  read- 
ing the  text,  that  the  king  had  seen  the  shadow 
abnormally  recede,  and  that  the  "  miracle  "  con- 
sisted in  its  returning  to  its  regular  and  proper 
place  and  motion. — W.  G.  S.] 

5.  The  narrative  of  the  embassy  of  the  king  of  Bab- 
ylon to  Hezekiah  hinges  upon  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
in  which,  for  the  first  time,  the  downfall  of  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  and  the  Babylonian  captivity  are  fore- 
told. This  incident,  like  the  two  previous  ones,  is 
recorded  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  on  account  of  his 
prophecies,  which  form  the  kernel  of  each.  Heze- 
kiah's behavior,  it  is  true,  occasioned  the  prophecy, 
but  the  prophecy  is  the  main  thing,  and  it  throws 
the  proper  light  upon  his  conduct.  Drechsler: 
"  Evidently  the  arrival  of  these  ambassadors  flat- 
tered Hezekiah's  vanity  so  much  that  he  forgot 
the  rules  of  ordinary  prudence."  TJmbreit : 
"  Hardly  has  the  king  escaped  death  and  won  a 
new  lease  of  life,  and  found  the  treasure  in  heaven, 
before  his  heart  is  once  more  set  upon  the  treasure 
of  earth,  where  moth  and  rust  doth  corrupt.  In- 
stead of  making  known  to  the  ambassadors  the 
glory  of  God,  he  shows  them,  boastfully,  the  per- 
ishable riches  of  his  palace."  Hezekiah,  accord- 
ing to  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  commentators, 
shows  his  treasures  out  of  boastfulness  and  love 
of  display,  and  hence  the  "bold  moral  preacher" 
(Koster),  the  prophet,  pronounced  to  him  the  fitting 
rebuke,  and  announced  the  coming  punishment. 
But  this  conception  is  certainly  erroneous.  There 
is  no  sign  of  love  of  display  or  of  vanity  in  any- 
thing which  is  recorded  of  Hezekiah.  Drechsler 
himself  exclaims:  "What  a  contrast  to  the  tone 
of  Isai.  xxxviii. !  "  This  very  contrast  is  an  argu- 
ment against  the  above  conception  of  the  disposi- 
tion in  which  Hezekiah  acted.  A  proud  and  vain 
man  would  have  answered  the  prophet,  when  he 
called  him  to  account,  in  a  very  different  manner, 
and  would  not  have  expressed  himself  so  openly 
and  unembarrassedly  as  Hezekiah  does  in  ver. 
15.  His  further  reply  in  ver.  18  bears  witness  to 
anything  but  a  haughty  and  vain  character.  But 
e-en  supposing  that  he  had  been  influenced  by 
vanity  on  this  occasion,  this  momentaneous  weak- 
ness would  be  terribly  punished  by  the  threat  of 
the  loss  of  his  kingdom.  This  threatened  punish- 
ment would  be  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  fault, 
and  would  be  tyrannical  and  oppressive.  Thenius 
justly  says :  "  Hezekiah's  conduct  towards  the  am- 
bassadors did  not  proceed  from  vanity  or  love  of 
display  (Knobel).  ...  He  accepted  with  joy  thf 
offered  alliance  of  the  Babylonians  in  the  hope  ot 
avenging  (?)  himself,  and  he  showed  them  the  ex- 
tent of  his  resources  in  order  to  convince  them 
that  he  would  be  no  contemptible  ally  (Clericus)." 
In  this,  however,  he  had,  on  the  one  hand,  departed 
from  complete  trust  in  God  alone;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  had  lost  sight  of  the  ordinary  dic- 
tates of  prudence  to  an  extent  which  must  ulti- 
mately be  ruinous  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  The 
prophet's  rebuke  was  meant  to  make  him  see  this, 
and  that  must  also  be  the  sense  of  the  Chronicler's 
brief  notice  (II.,  xxxii.  25),  that  Hezekiah  "  trusted 
too  much  to  his  own  power."  The  occasion  of  the 
prophet's  rebuke,  and  the  thing  which  called  for 


242 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


punishment,  was  not  the  personal  vanity  of  Heze- 
kiah, but  the  fact  that  he,  who  had  experienced 
such  signal  instances  of  Jehovah's  power  and  wil- 
lingness to  save,  and  who  had  been  so  often  warned 
agains-t  all  complications  with  heathen  nations, 
should  enter  with  joy  into  an  alliance  with  Baby- 
lon. This  was  a  sin  which  was  not  to  be  expected 
in  him,  a  sin  against  the  theocratic  and  soteriolo- 
gical  destiny  of  Israel. 

6.  The  prophet  Isaiah  appears  here  also  in  all  his 
•prophetical  majesty,  although  seen  from  a  different 
side  from  before.  There  he  appeared  as  a  consoler, 
here  as  a  messenger  of  the  divine  judgment.  The 
latter,  as  well  as  the  former,  character  belongs  to 
the  prophetical  calling.  The  message  announces 
the  destruction,  in  the  first  place,  of  Eezekiah  and 
his  family,  but  then,  by  implication,  that  of  the 
entire  nation.  "  Not  that  the  exile  was  inflicted 
as  a  punishment  for  this  fault  of  Hezekiah  "  (De- 
litsch),  but  because  the  whole  nation  had  incurred, 
though  in  a  far  higher  degree,  the  same  guilt  as 
Hezekiah  against  the  theocratic  relationship  to  God, 
and  was  about  to  incur  it  still  further,  so  that  the 
measure  would  become  full,  and  then  the  punish- 
ment threatened  in  the  Law  (Levit.  xxvi.  33 ;  Deut. 
iv.  27  ;  xxviii.  36,  64)  must  fall.  "  The  Babylonian 
Captivity,"  observes  Starke  on  Isai.  xxxix  6, 
"would  have  taken  place,  even  if  Hezekiah  had 
never  committed  this  sin,  but  it  would  not  have 
been  foretold  at  this  time,  if  this  incident  of  the 
Ambassadors  had  not  occurred.  It  was  meant,  at 
the  same  time,  to  be  a  humiliation  of  Hezekiah  on 
account  of  his  fault."  He  received  the  prophet's 
announcement  as  such  a  humiliation,  and  hence 
he  was  spared  the  trial  of  himself  experiencing 
the  exile. 

On  account  of  the  definiteness  of  the  prediction, 
modern  critical  scholars  have  asserted  that  it  is 
an  oraculum  post  eventum,  which  originated  with 
the  historian  (Knot.el),  or,  at  least,  that  the  actual 
fulfilment  determined  "the  light  in  which  the  pre- 
diction is  set  before  us "  (Ewald).  [What  lie 
means  is,  that  this  historian,  who  had  lived 
through,  and  been  an  eye-witness  of,  the  capture 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Babylonians,  lends  sharpness 
of  outline  and  accuracy  of  detail  to  the  picture, 
when  he  tells  us  how  Isaiah  had  once  foretold  all 
this.]  This,  however,  takes  away  the  point  from 
the  whole  story.  It  is  true  that  "  political  sagaci- 
ty might  foresee  the  unfortunate  consequences  of 
Hezekiah's  thoughtless  conduct,  but  without  pro- 
phetical inspiration  it  was  impossible  to  foresee 
that  Babylon,  which  was  just  struggling  for  inde- 
pendence, would  supplant  Assyria  as  the  great 
world-monarchy,  and  that  Babylon,  and  not  As- 
syria, which  was  then  threatening  rebellious  Ju- 
dah,  would  really  inflict  the  extremest  woes  upon 
her"  (Delitsch).  The  definite  reference  to  Babel, 
which  is  the  thing  that  offends  critical  science, 
forms  the  point  of  prophecy.  It  was  occasioned 
by  the  embassy  from  Babylon,  and  it  is  intended 
to  signify  to  Hezekiah:  This  very  Babylon,  from 
which  thou  hopest  to  obtain  help  and  support,  will 
ruin  thy  nation  and  people.  Isaiah  does  not  ap- 
pear here  as  a  sagacious  statesman  any  more  than 
he  appeared  in  the  former  incident  as  a  skilful  phy- 
sician, or  a  learned  astronomer.  His  words  have 
not  the  form  of  wise  advice,  but  of  a  divine  sen- 
tence of  condemnation.  Their  form,  therefore, 
would  be  inexcusable,  if  the  prophet  was  only  ex- 
pressing his  personal  misgivings  and  his  human 


anticipations.  Why  shall  he  be  mad3  out  to  be 
everything  possible,  physician,  astronomer,  states- 
man, only  not  that  which  he  claimed  to  be,  and 
which  he  was,  viz.,  a  prophet,  who  spake  as  he 
was  "inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (2  Peter  L 
21)? 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-11.  Hezekiah's  Illness  "unto  Death" 
and  his  Recovery  from  the  same. — Wvrt.  Summ.  : 
God  sends  illness  upon  the  good,  not  in  punish- 
ment for  sins  past,  but  as  a  trial  of  their  faith  and 
patience  (Rom.  v.  3)  ...  or  for  His  own  glory 
(John  ix.  3  ;  xi.  4).  By  observing  this  we  may  the 
better  possess  our  souls  in  patience  (Luke  xxi.  19). 
— Cramer:  Bodily  illnesses  are  the  forerunners  of 
death,  and  God's  means  for  fostering  the  health 
of  the  soul. — Starke  :  God  lays  upon  his  children 
first  one  evil  and  then  another.  Hezekiah  is  first 
delivered  from  Sennacherib  and  the  hands  of  man, 
and  then  he  falls  into  the  hands  of  God,  who  hr.  1 
before  delivered  him. — "Ver.  1.  Hall:  Teacl  *rs 
and  preachers  must  not  conceal  disagreeable  truths 
from  men,  but  make  them  known,  whether  they 
will  be  pleasant  or  not. — Starke  :  We  see,  from 
the  example  of  Isaiah,  what  is  the  duty  of  phy- 
sicians and  preachers  towards  the  sick,  viz.,  not 
to  encourage  them  by  false  hopes  of  recovery,  but 
at  the  right  time  to  point  out  to  them  the  duty  of 
setting  their  house  in  order,  and  preparing  them- 
selves for  death. — The  Same  :  The  rich  and  great 
should  also  be  warned  to  prepare  for  death. — It  is 
a  great  mercy  of  God  to  allow  us  to  foresee  our 
approaching  end  (Deut.  xxxii.  48  sq.). — Every  ill- 
ness, even  though  it  does  not  seem  likely  to  be 
fatal,  is  a  warning  to  prepare  for  death,  a  memento 
mori,  which  can  harm  no  one,  whereas  it  is  very 
harmful  if  all  thoughts  of  death  and  eternity  are 
held  far  away.  He  who,  in  his  days  of  health, 
thinks  upon  death,  and  faithfully  believes  in  Him 
who  has  overcome  death,  is  not  terrified  when  he 
is  commanded  to  set  his  house  in  order. — Kyburz: 
Set  thy  house  in  order,  0  man!  If  thou  hast  no 
house,  thou  hast  at  least  a  soul.  Prepare  it  as 
best  thou  mayst  for  death,  for  thou  knowest  not 
whether  to-day  or  to-morrow  thou  wilt  be  called 
upon  to  quit  this  tabernacle.  It  is  vain,  however. 
to  attempt  to  fit  a  soul  for  death  by  a  sacrament, 
if  it  has  not  during  its  time  of  health  and  labo.- 
sanctified  itself  by  holy  deeds  and  by  communion 
with  God.  How  peacefully  one  may  die,  in  spite 
of  shrinking  nature,  if  one  can  only  say  to  God, 
as  Hezekiah  did :  Thou  knowest  that  I  have  walk- 
ed faithfully  before  Thee. — As  it  is  wise,  in  time 
of  health  and  strength,  to  set  one's  house  in  order 
in  a  worldly  sense,  that  is,  to  make  one's  will  and 
arrange  one's  affairs,  so  is  it  still  more  wise  to  set 
one's  house  in  order  in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  not 
to  put  off  making  one's  peace  with  God  until  one 
stands  on  the  brink  of  the  grave. — Vers.  2  and  3. 
Hezekiah's  Behavior  at  the  Announcement  of  his 
Approaching  Death,  (a)  He  turned  his  face  to  the 
wall,  that  is,  he  turned  away  from  all  things 
earthly  and  temporal,  to  collect  his  thoughts,  (b) 
He  prayed  to  the  Lord,  that  is,  he  sought  refuge 
in  Him  alone.  That  is  what  we  also  should  do  in 
every  illness. — Starke:  It  promotes  devotion  to 
make  one's  prayers  in  secret  and  alone. — Tub 
Same:  Children  of  God  should  not  murmur  when 
they  are  scourged  of  God,  but  kiss  the  rod  (Mioah 


CHAPTER  XX.  1-21. 


243 


rii.  9;  1  Sam.  lii.  18j. — tfear  of  Death,  its  Cause, 
and  how  it  may  be  overcome. — The  wish  of  a 
dying  man  to  live  longer  is  not  wicked,  if  it  conies 
from  the  sentiment :  si  diutius  vivam,  Deo  vivam, 
and  has  not  its  origin  in  the  desire  to  enjoy  the 
world  and  life  a  little  longer.  Paul  desired  to  de- 
part and  be  with  Christ,  but  he  admits  that  longer 
lifa  enables  one  to  bear  more  fruit  (Phil.  i.  21  and 
22).  "  Let  me  live  that  I  may  serve  thee :  let 
me  die  that  I  may  possess  thee."  Hezekiah's 
prayer  in  view  of  death  did  not  come  from  a 
proud  and  self-righteous  heart,  but  from  a  humble 
and  penitent  one.  He  based  his  prayer  upon  the 
promise  which  God  had  given  to  the  faithful  under 
the  old  covenant:  Do  this  and  thou  shalt  live 
(Luke  x.  28;  Levit.  xviii.  5;  Prov.  x.  27).  There- 
fore he  was  heard  by  God,  Who  resisteth  the 
proud,  but  giveth  grace  unto  the  humble.  So 
should  we  also,  in  the  face  of  death,  not  console 
ourselves  with  our  own  righteousness  and  virtue, 
but  build  our  hopes  upon  the  promises  which  He 
has  given  us  in  the  New  Testament,  and  upon 
Him  through  whom  our  sins  are  forgiven.  He 
that  believeth  in  Him,  though  he  were  dead  yet 
shall  he  live  (Rom.  x.  4;  John  xi.  25  sq.). — Vers. 
4-6.  The  prayer  of  the  righteous  is  very  effectual 
when  it  is  earnest  (James  v.  16;  Ps.  cxlv.  18;  Sir. 
xxxv.  21;  Isai.  lxv.  24;  xxx.  19). — The  word  of 
consolation  to  all  who  cry  to  the  Lord  with  tears 
in  sorrow  and  distress:  "I  have  heard  thy  prayer, 
I  have  seen  thy  tears." — How  consoling  to  think 
that  the  length  or  the  shortness  of  our  days  is  in 
God's  hand  (Sir.  xi.  14).  '•  From  sudden  death, 
good  Lord,  deliver  us." — Cramer:  The  Lord  al- 
ways gives  more  than  we  pray  for;  the  king  prays 
for  life,  and  He  gives  him  long  life  (Ps.  xxi.  5). 
Moreover,  He  promises  him  protection  against  As- 
syria, for  He  can  do  far  more  (Eph.  iii.  20). — 
"  Thou  shalt  go  up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord." 
This  was  not  a  command,  but  a  fulfilment  of  a 
wish  and  prayer,  and  it  shows  that  Hezekiah 
loved  the  place  where  God's  honor  dwelt  (Ps. 
xxvi  8  ;  xxvii.  4). — The  first  steps  after  recovery 
should  be  to  the  house  of  God,  to  thank  Him  for 
restored  health  (Ps.  lxvi.  12-14).— Ver.  7.  The 
fact  that  God  connected  the  healing  of  the  king 
with  the  use  of  a  certain  remedy  shows  that  we 
should  not  despise  the  means  of  healing,  which 
are  His  gift,  but  should  join  the  use  of  them  with 
our  prayers  to  Him  (Sir.  xxxviii.  1-4). — The  Lord 
is  the  true  physician,  for  it  is  He  who  either  gives 
or  denies  efficacy  to  human  remedies.  One  is  re- 
lieved by  the  slightest  remedy;  for  another  the 
best  and  strongest  is  of  no  avail. — Ver.  8.  Cra- 
mer: God  treats  us  like  a  good  physician,  not 
only  as  regards  our  bodies,  but  also  as  regards 
our  souls.  As  the  physician  puts  a  staff  in  the 
hands  of  a  yet  feeble  convalescent,  so  God  grants 
to  Hezekiah  a  "sign"  as  a  staff  for  his  faith  (Isai. 
xlii.  3).  So  nowadays  God  grants  the  sacraments 
as  means  of  strengthening  our  faith. — In  the  Old 
Covenant  God  gave  many  signs,  in  the  New  Cove- 
nant only  one — Christ,  the  Sign  of  all  signs. 
Therefore  we  should  ask  no  other.  When  the 
Pharisees  demanded  a  sign,  Our  Lord  said :  "  0 
wicked  and  adulterous  generation,"  &c.  (Matt.  xii. 
38  sq).  The  sign  for  all  time  is  that  He  was 
dead  and  liveth  again  to  all  eternity,  and  holds  the 
keys  of  death  and  hell.     All  signs,  as  well  as  all 


promises,  are  in  Him  yea  and  amen.- — Vers.  9-11 
God  alone  controls  the  index  on  the  dial  of  life ;  to 
turn  it  forwards  or  backwards  is  the  prerogative 
of  His  might  and  grace.  Therefore,  submit  to  His 
will,  and  say  :  "  It  is  the  Lord,  let  Him  do  what 
seemeth  Him  good  "  (1  Sam.  iii.  18). 

Vers.  12-19.  The  Embassy  of  the  King  of  Ba- 
bylon to  Isaiah,  (a)  Hezekiah's  conduct  towards 
it ;  (b)  what  Isaiah  declared  to  him  on  account  of 
his  reception  of  it  (see  Histor.  §  6). — Starke:  The 
most  grievous  calamities  are  not  as  ruinous  as  the 
flatteries  of  the  children  of  the  world.  — Ktburz  :  In 
the  storm  Hezekiah  was  preserved ;  in  the  sunshine 
he  was  lost. — J.  Lange:  It  may  well  come  to  pass 
that  a  man  who  has  bravely  withstood  a  great 
trial  falls  under  a  slight  one.  Let  him  that 
standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall.  The  world  nowa- 
days often  behaves  as  the  king  of  Babylon  did,  for 
he  did  not  care  so  much  to  make  known  by  his 
embassy  and  gifts  his  sincere  respect  for  Hezekiah, 
as  he  did  to  secure  his  alliance  for  his  own  advant- 
age, and  so  secure  his  own  ends  (cf.  Sir.  vi.  6  -9). 
— Ver.  1 3.  Pfaff.  Bibel  :  We  should  not  be  too 
friendly  with  the  enemies  of  the  Lord,  especially 
when  they  may  misuse  our  friendship  to  our  dis- 
advantage. Friendship  with  the  world  is  enmity 
to  God ;  he  who  wishes  to  be  a  friend  to  the  worlj 
becomes  an  enemy  to  God  (James  iv.  4). — The  de- 
sire of  making  a  display,  and  of  infusing  a  high 
opinion  of  one's  self  into  others,  is  often  found 
even  in  those  who  are  true  Christians,  and  who 
have  borne  hard  tests  with  success.  Thus  vanity 
clings  to  us  and  is  the  first  thing  and  the  last 
which  we  have  to  conquer  in  following  Our  Lord. 
Therefore  watch  and  pray.  The  spirit  indeed  is 
willing  but  the  flesh  is  weak.  The  Saviour  said : 
"  He  that  will  follow  me,"  &c.  (Luke  xiv.  33). — 
Kyburz  :  We  still  show  our  spiritual  treasures  to 
the  friends  from  Babylon,  especially  when  we 
admire  our  own  gifts,  and  like  to  have  others  ad- 
mire them.  As  soon  as  strangers  arrive  we  hasten 
to  show  our  gifts,  and  powers,  and  accomplish- 
ments, in  order  to  win  respect.  This  is  just  the 
way  to  lose  all  those  things.  If  one  collects 
treasures  let  him  store  them  up  in  heaven,  where 
no  spies  will  come  to  see  them. — Ver.  14.  It  is  a 
proof  that  He  who  watches  over  our  souls  is  a 
good  shepherd  that  he  sees  when  we  are  about  to 
depart  from  Him,  or  to  transgress,  and  sends  one 
of  His  faithful  servants,  or  some  faithful  friend,  to 
warn  us,  and  to  say :  "  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  I  " 
Is  such  a  friend  always  welcome  to  thee  ? — Ver. 
15.  He  who  denies  his  fault  will  never  succeed  ir. 
concealing  it ;  he  who  confesses  it  will  find  pity 
(Prov.  xxviii.  13;  cf.  1  Chron.  xxx.  11). — Vers.  17- 
19.  Roos:  Worldly  people,  with  whom  a  child  of 
God  thoughtlessly  mingles,  do  him  great  harm. 
Happy  is  he  who  is  set  right  again  after  every 
transgression  by  a  word  from  God,  as  Hezekiah 
was  I  It  is  the  just  sentence  of  God  that  the  staff 
in  which  we  trusted  becomes  a  rod  for  our  punish- 
ment.— Ver.  19.  From  the  example  of  Hezekiah 
we  learn,  when  the  word  of  God  rebukes  our  van- 
ity and  love  of  display,  our  vacillation  and  our 
want  of  faith,  to  bow  in  submission  and  to  say: 
"  Good  is  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  thou  hast 
spoken;"  when  we  have  shown  true  penitence, 
then  we  may  also  pray:  Da  pacem,  Domine,  in 
diebus  noslris  I 


244  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


SECOND   SECTION. 

THE   MONARCHY   TINDER   MANASSEH,    AMON,    AND   JOSIAH. 

(Chaps.  XXI.-XXin.  30.) 
~*~ 

A. The  Reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Amon. 

Chap.  XXI.  1-26.  (2  Chron.  XXXTTT.) 

1  Manassbh  was  twelve  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  reigned  fifty 

2  and  five  years  in  Jerusalem.  And  his  mother's  name  was  Hephzi-bah.  And  he 
did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  after  the  abominations  of  the 

3  heathen,  whom  the  Lord  cast  out  before  the  children  of  Israel.  For  he  built  up 
again  the  high  places  which  Hezekiah  his  father  had  destroyed;  and  he  reared 
up  altars  for^Baal,  and  made  a  grove  [an  Astarte-image]   as  did  Ahab  king  ot 

4  Israel ;  and  worshipped  all  the  host  of  heaven,  and  served  them  And  he  built 
altars  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  of  which '  the  Lord  said,  In  Jerusalem  will  I 

5  put  my  name.     And  he  built  altars  for  all  the  host  of  heaven  in  the  two  courts 

6  of  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  [omit  And]  he  [He  also]  made  his  son  pass 
through  the  fire,  and  observed  times  [practised  sooth-saymg],  and  used  enchant- 
ments and  dealt  with  familiar  spirits  and  wizards  [patronized  necromancers 
and  wizards] J :  he  wrought  much  wickedness  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  to  pro- 

7  voke  him  to  anger.'  And  he  set  a  graven  image  [copy]  of  the  grove  [Astarte- 
image]  that  he  had  made  in  the  house,  of  which  the  Lord  said  to  David,  and  to 
Solomon  his  son,  In  this  house,  and  in  Jerusalem,  which  I  have  chosen  out  of 

8  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  will  I  put  my  name  forever:  Neither  will  I  make  the 
feet  of  Israel  move  [wander]  any  more  out  of  the  land  which  I  gave  their  fa- 
thers;  U  only  \omu  only]  if  they  will  [only]  '  observe  [take  care]  to  do  accord- 
ing to  all  that  I  have  commanded  them,  and  according  to  all  the  law  that  my 

9  servant  Moses  commanded  them.'  But  they  hearkened  not:  and  Manasseh 
seduced  them  to  do  more  evil  than  did  the  nations  whom  the  Lord  destroyed 
before  the  children  of  Israel. 

And  the  Lord  spake  by  his  servants  the  prophets,  saying  Because  Manas- 
seh kin^  of  Judah  hath  done  these  abominations,  and  hath  done  wickedly 
above  all  that  the  Amorites  did,  which  were  before  him,  and  hath  made  Judah 

12  also  to  sin  with  his  idols  :  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  Behold, 
I  am  bringing  mch  evil  upon  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  that  whosoever  heareth  oi 

13  it,'  both  his  ears  shall  tingle.  And  I  will  stretch  over  Jerusalem  the  line  of 
Samaria,  and  the  plummet  of  the  house  of  Ahab  :  and  I  will  wipe  [out]  Jeru- 
salem as  a  man  wipeth  a  dish,  wiping  it,  and  turning  it  upside  down  [-he 

14  wipeth  it  and  turnetb  it  upside  down].  '  And  I  will  forsake  [throw  away]  the 
remnant  of  mine  inheritance,  and  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  their  enemies  ; 

15  and  they  shall  become  a  prey  and  a  spoil  to  all  their  enemies  ;  Because  they 
have  done  that  which  was  evil  in  my  sight,  and  have  provoked  me  to  anger, 
since  the  day  their  fathers  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  even  unto  this  day 

16  Moreover  Manasseh  shed  innocent  blood  very  much,  till  he  r .ad  failed 
Jerusalem  from  one  end  to  another;  besides  his  sin  wherewith  he  made  Judah 
to  sin,  in  doing  that  tohich  teas  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  , 

17  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Manasseh.  and  all  that  he  did,  and  his  sin 
that  he  sinned,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  king. 


I  0 

I I 


CHAPTER  XXI.  1-26. 


2il 


18  of  Judah  ?  And  Manasseh  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  in  the  garden 
of  his  own  house,  in  the  garden  of  Uzza :  and  Anion  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead. 

19  Amon  teas  twenty  and  two  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned 
two  years  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Meshullemeth,  the  daugh- 

20  ter  of  Haruz  of  Jotbah.     And  he  did  that  lohich  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 

21  Lord,  as  his  father  Manasseh  did.  And  he  walked  in  all  the  way  that  his  father 
walked  in,  and  served  the  idols  that  his  father  served,  and  worshipped  them : 

22  And  he  forsook  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  and  walked  not  in  the  way  of  the 

23  Lord.     And  the  servants  of  Amon  conspired  against  him,  and  slew  the  king  in 

24  his  own  house.  And  the  people  of  the  land  slew  all  them  that  had  conspired 
against  king  Amon ;  and  the  people  of  the  land  made  Josiah  his  son  king  in 

25  his  stead.     Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Amon  which  he  did,  are  they  not  writ- 

26  ten  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  And  he  was  buried 
[they  buried  him]  in  his  sepulchre  in  the  garden  of  Uzza :  and  Josiah  his  son 
reigned  in  his  stead. 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  4.  [iw'S  accus.  after  a  yerb  of  speaking,  denoting  that  in  respect  to  which.  C/.  ver.  7  and  Gen.  xx'.l.  14  (Kv. 
i  2S2,  a.  2). 

3  Ver.  6.  [That  is,  he  trained  men  by  special  education  for  this  work  and  then  gave  thera  official  position. 

8  Ver.  6.  [The  flow  of  the  narrative  is  arrested  in  this  verse  in  order  to  enumerate  Manasseh's  faults.  Hence  thf 
ose  of  the  perf.  consec.     Ew.  §  342,  6,  1. 

*  Ver.  S.  [DN   pT  i  if  only \  cf.  Deut.  xv.  5;  1  Kings  viii.  25. 

*  Ver.  8.  [121  PD?}  • — "  That  which  I  commanded  "  and  M  the  law  which  Moses  commanded  "  are  not  two  different 
things.  ?2?}  serves  to  gather  up  and  recapitulate,  bo  that  it  is  equivalent  to  u  namely"  or  "  I  mean,*  cf.  Gen.ix.  10 
xxiii.  10 ;  1  Chron.  xiil.  1 ;  xxviii.  1 :  2  Chron.  vil.  21  (5  is  wanting  in  1  Kings  ix.  8) ;  Ezra  i.  6 ;  Jerem.  xix.  13  (Ew.  810,  a). 

*  Ver.  12.  [The  chetib  presents  an  irregularity  of  gender,  the  masc.  suff.  referring  to  njH.  The  keri 
corrects  this. 

'  Ver.  13.  ["The  perf.  iinO  is  very  noticeable,  especially  in  view  of  the  accents.  We  should  expect  ilDD  and 
that  it  would  be  connected  with  what  follows  "  (Ew.  «.  838,  nt.  2).— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  1.  Manasseh  was  twelve  years  old. 

It  is  uncertain  whether  he  was  the  eldest  son  of 
Hezekiah,  and  whether  he  had  brothers  ;  perhaps 
his  elder  brothers  had  died.  "  Perhaps  a  Gebirah 
(queen-mother)  (1  Kings  xv.  13)  assumed  author- 
ity until  lie  attained  to  years  of  discretion  "  (The- 
nius).  At  any  rate  there  is  no  hint  of  a  regency. 
The  name  Pn_,V3n  ,  My-delight-is-in-her,  is  ap- 
plied symbolically  to  Mount  Zion  in  Isai.  lxii.  4. — 
From  ver.  2  we  see  that  the  idol-worship  whicli 
Manasseh  introduced  was,  in  the  first  place,  that 
of  Canaan  (1  Kings  xiv.  24 ;   2  Kings  xvii.  8 ;  xvi. 

3). — Luther  translates  )3'i  3B»|,  in  ver.  3,   after 

the  Vulg.  (conversvxque  est  et  adificavit),  and  the 
Sept.  [nai  kiziorpetye  nal  t^Ko66^.T/aE):  " und  verkehrte 
sich  und  bauete"  [went  astray  and  built].  The 
two  words,  however,  form  one  notion  by  an  idio- 
matic use :  he  built  again  the  high  places  which 
Hezekiah  had  removed.  For  the  rest,  see  1  Kings 
xvi.  32  sq.  Ahab  was  the  one  who  first  introduced 
the  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte  into  Israel  [see 
bracketed  notes  under  Exeg.  on  xvi.  3  and  xvii.  16.] 

niE'S  here  refers  no  doubt  to  the  Astarte-statue 

mentioned  in  ver.  7.     In  Chronicles  we  find  the 

piurai  O^JQ  and  nitC^N  •    The  cause  of  this  may 

be  that  each  divinity,  the  male  and  the  female, 
incorporated  several  attributes,  each  of  which  was 
separately    worshipped.      Manasseh    introduced 


also,  besides  these  two  chief  divinities,  the  Assyrio- 
Chaldean  star-worship,  the  adoration  of  All  th« 
host  of  heaven  (see  chap,  xxiii.  5,  11).  [See 
Exeg.  on  xvii.  16.  Also  chap,  xxiii.  12  shows  that 
the  astral  worship,  although  extended  and  culti- 
vated by  Manasseh,  was  first  introduced  by  Ahaz.] 
"This  does  not  imply  that  the  divinities  of  the 
Canaanites  had  no  relation  to  the  heavenly  bodies, 
but  this  relation  was  subordinate  in  them  "  (Mo- 
vers). From  the  star-worship  arose  sooth-saying 
and  magic.  Men  saw  in  the  stars  the  originators 
of  all  growth  and  all  decay,  and  adored  in  them 
the  controllers  and  directors  of  all  sublunary  af- 
fairs.—Vers.  4-7  contain  a  climax.  The  idola- 
trous (vers.  2  and  3)  Manasseh  built  idol-altars 
even  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  (ver.  4),  and  altars 
also  for  all  the  host  of  heaven,  as  well  in  the  inner 
as  in  the  outer  court  (ver.  5,  p'l  resumes  r03  in 

ver.  4),  nay,  he  even  went  so  far  that  he  set  up  the 
image  of  Astarte  (ver.  7)  inside  of  the  temple, 
perhaps  in  the  holy  place.  On  the  formula:  "I 
will  put  my  name  "  (Ver.  7)  see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xiv. 
21.     On  C'X3  T2JJH  see   notes  on  chap.  xvi.  3. 

Sooth-saying  and  magic  are  here  united  with  thia 
idolatrous  ceremony  as  they  are  in  chap.  xvii.  17 
(c/.  Levit.  xix.  26).  So  also  in  Deut.  xviii.  10, 
11,  where  the  necromancers  and  augurs  are  also 
mentioned.  Manasseh  gave  to  these  persons  offi- 
cial position  (riC'V  is  used  as  in  1  Kings  xii.  31). 
On  DJJ3  see  1  Kings  xiv.  1-20,  Hist.  §  3.     On  ver 

7  see  1  Kings  viii.  16;  ix.  3.  The  house  of  Jeho 
vah  could  not  be  so  utterly  desecrated  in  »ny  othei 


*46 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


way  as  by  setting  up  an  idol  in  the  very  sanctuary, 

the   "  dwelling,"  *\&fp  i>3TI  (Ps.  v.  8 ;  lxxix.  1). 

The  selection  of  Israel  to  be  God's  peculiar  people 
was  thereby  rejected.- — The  words  in  ver.  8  are  ex- 
plained by  2  Sam.  vii.  10,  and  are  added  in  order 
to  make  more  apparent  the  greatness  of  the  sin. 
Jehovah  had,  at  first,  only  a  dwelling  in  a  tent  in 
the  midst  of  His  people ;  afterwards  He  caused  a 
house  to  be  built  for  His  dwelling,  as  a  physical 
sign  of  His  covenant  with  Israel  (see  the  Jntrod.  § 
3,  and  1  Kings  6,  Hist.  §  3,  b.) ;  and  now  in  this 
house  Manasseh  set  up  an  idol. — More  evil  than 
did  the  nations,  Ac.  (ver.  ix.).  Not  because  the 
Canaanitish  nations  did  not  keep  the  law  of  Moses, 
but  because  they  only  worshipped  their  own  na- 
tional deities,  while  the  Israelites  adopted,  not 
only  the  gods  of  the  Canaanites,  but  also  those 
of  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  and  forsook 
their  own  God. 

Ver.  10.  And  the  Lord  spake  by  His  ser- 
vants, &e.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  which  prophets 
are  meant,  for  no  one  of  those  whose  writings  we 
possess  can  be  assigned  with  certainty  to  the  reign 
of  Manasseh.  It  is  not  certain  that  even  Isaiah 
lived  during  any  part  of  Manasseh's  reign ;  still 
less  is  it  certain  that  Habakkuk  did  so  (though 
Keil  supposes  that  Habak.  i.  5  refers  to  this 
reign),  for  it  is  probable  that  he  first  appeared  under 
Josiah  (Winer,  Delitsch),  or  under  Jehoiakim 
(Knobel).  The  Amorites  (ver.  11)  stand  for  Ca- 
naanites in  general ;  see  notes  on  1  Kings  xxi.  26 ; 
cf.  Ezek.  xvi.  3 ;  Amos  ii.  9.  The  expression : 
both  his  ears  shall  tingle,  ver.  12,  also  occurs  in 
1  Sam.  iii.  11  and  Jerem.  xix.  3.  As  a  sharp,  dis- 
cordant note  pains  one's  ears,  so  the  news  of  this 
harsh  punishment  shall  give  pain  to  all  who  hear 
of  it. — Ver.  1 3.  And  I  will  stretch  over  Jeru- 
salem the  line  of  Samaria.  According  to  Gro- 
tius  this  means :  eadem  mensura  earn  metiar,  qua 
Samariam  mensus  suin.  So  also  Thenius :  "  Mea- 
suring line  and  plummet  are  here  only  symbols  for 
testing  by  a  standard,"  for,  he  says,  a  building  is 
built  with  measuring  line  and  plummet,  but  not  torn 
down  with  them.  However  in  Isai.  xxxiv.  11  we 
read :  He  shall  stretch  out  upon  it  the  line  of  con- 
fusion (devastation)  and  the  stones  of  emptiness 
["plummet  of  desolation,"  Bahr],  cf.  also  Lament, 
ii.  8.  Now  in  the  text  before  us,  also,  the  refer- 
ance  is  to  devastation.  The  two  implements  of 
construction  are  employed  where  there  is  an  empty 
space  of  ground,  whether  it  be  that  no  building 
has  ever  stood  upon  it,  or  that  one  which  stood 
there  has  been  torn  down.  We  have  to  understand 
here  a  state  of  things  symbolized  by  the  latter  of 
these  cases.  The  metaphor  therefore  means:  I 
will  make  Jerusalem  even  with  the  ground,  like 
Samaria,  so  that  a  measuring  line  can  be  drawn 
over  it,  and  its  houses  (families)  shall  perish  like 
the  family  of  Ahab.  [Why  is  a  measuring  line  or 
a  plummet  applied  to  a  bare  space  of  ground  ? 
Only  as  a  preliminary  to  building,  or  re-building, 
upon  it.  There  is  no  great  applicability,  therefore, 
in  the  metaphor  as  Bahr  interprets  it. — It  means 
that  God  will  come  and  apply  severe  standards  of 
judgment  to  Jerusalem  as  He  had  to  Samaria; 
that  He  will  insist  that  it  shall  satisfy  these  stand- 
ards :  and  that  lie  will  punish  inexorably  all  short- 
comings. Samaria  had  beeu  thus  tested,  found 
wanting,  and  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth, — 
no  also  should  it  be  with  Jerusalem. — W.  G.  S.] 


The  following  figure  of  the  dish  is  parallel  an4 

similar,  but  stronger  if  anything.     nnSX    meani 

really  something  hollowed  out,  hence,  a  dish  (2  Chi-on. 
xxxv.  13  ;  Pro  v.  xix.  24),  not  a  wax-tablet  (Calmet). 
Thenius  thinks  that  "the  lower  city,  by  its  configu- 
ration, might  well  suggest  the  figure  cf  a  dish." 
However  the  fact  may  be  in  regard  to  that,  we  have 
not  to  understand  that  it  was  what  suggested  this 
figure.  Neither  is  the  metaphor  that  of  "  a  hungry 
man  who  empties  a  dish  and  turns  it  wrong  sida 
up  "  (Ewald),  but  that  of  a  person  who,  when  he 
no  longer  wants  to  use  a  dish,  wipes  it  out,  and 
turns  it  over,  that  not  a  drop  may  remain  in  it. 
Kimchi  expressly  states  that  this  was  the  usage 
of  the  Jews  with  dishes.  The  figure  therefore 
"  implies  the  complete  overthrow  and  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  with  all  its  inhabitants  "  (Keil).  The 
comparison  with  a  dish  also  involves  some  con- 
tempt.    n'JB     is  the  "  upper  side,  as  it  were  the 

T    •-   T 

face,  in  distinction  from  the  back  "  (Thenius). — 
Ver.  14.  The  remnant  of  my  possession  is  the 
two  tribes  which  composed  the  kingdom  of  Judah 

ten  having  been  led  into  captivity.   t'toj  ,  ;'   e.,  to 

abandon,  but  with  the  accessory  notion  of  throwing 

away  (1  Kings  viii.  57  ;  Judges  vi.  13 ;  Ezek.  xxix. 
5).  The  nation,  when  abandoned  by  Jehovah,  ne- 
cessarily becomes  a  spoil  for  its  enemies  (Isai. 
xlii.  22). 

Ver.  16.  Moreover  Manasseh  shed  innocent 
blood.  This  verse  is  not  a  "  continuation  of  the 
extract  from  the  annals  which  was  broken  off  at 
ver.  9  "  (Thenius).  It  is  closely  connected  with 
what  is  read  in  vers.  10-15,  and  forms  in  a  certain 
sense  the  crisis  of  what  is  narrated  of  Manasseh. 
This  king  not  only  introduced  all  sorts  of  idolatrous 
worship  (vers.  1-9),  but  also,  when  Jehovah  re- 
buked and  warned  him  by  His  prophets  (10-15), 
he  not  only  did  not  profit  by  it,  but  filled  the  city 
with  their  "blood  and  that  of  all  the  innocent  per- 
sons who  sided  with  them,  and  opposed  his  god- 

lessness.     PS?   H3  as  in  chap.  x.  21  "  from  one 

edge  to  the  other."  Josephus  (Antiq.  x.  3,  1)  af- 
firms :  navrac  Gipuc  rove  dmaiovc  rove  sv  toic  'E/3pa/- 
nic  aTTEKTEivzv,  a?.?.1  ovde  tCiv  rrpoipT/riJv  ho~xE  tyco'u' 
Kal  tovtuv  0£  Tivac  icaff  yuepav  arrsa^a^ev.  The 
latter  statement  does  not,  of  course,  apply  to  the 
whole  duration  of  his  reign;  but  there  may  have 
been  a  time  during  which  innocent  blood  was  daily 
shed.  According  to  the  Jewish  tradition  (Gue 
mara  Jebam.  iv.  13;  cf.  Sanhedr.  f.  103),  which 
was  taken  up  by  the  church  fathers  (Tertul.  De 
Paiientia  14.  August.  De  Civil.  Dei  xviii.  24), 
Isaiah  was  put  to  death  under  Manasseh.  It  is 
said  that  he  was  sawed  in  two  while  fastened  in  a 
cedar  tree  in  which  he  had  taken  refuge,  cf.  Hebr. 
xi.  37.  [For  the  details  of  the  legend  see  Stanley, 
II.  p.  544.]  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  lived 
under  Manasseh.  Isai.  i.  1  does  not  say  that  he 
lived  so  long.  He  must,  at  any  rate,  have  been 
very  old.  It  is  possible  that  he  may  have  suffered 
a  martyr's  death,  though  not  in  the  form  asserted 
(cf.  Winer,  R-  W.-B.  I.  s.  554.  Umbreit  in  Her- 
zog's  Encyc.  IV.  8.  508  sq.). 

Ver.  17.  sq.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Ma- 
nasseh, &c.  Some  further  and  very  important 
facts  in  regard  to  Manasseh  are  recorded  in  2 
Chron.    xxxiii.    11-20.     The  historical  truth  and 


CHAPTER  XXI.   1-26. 


247 


credibility  of  what  is  there  recorded  has  indeed 
been  denied  (Gramberg,  "Winer,  Hitzig,  and  others). 
On  the  other  hand,  Ewald,  Thenius,  Havernick, 
Keil,  and  Bertheau,  hare,  with  justice,  maintained 
the  historical  truth  of  those  statements.  The 
Chronicler  appeals  to  the  "annals  of  the  kings  of 

Israel,"  and  to  the  'tin  TO   as   his   authorities, 

and  the  entire  Jewish  tradition  is  built  upon  the 
facts  which  he  records.  "  It  is  not  astonishing  that 
we  do  not  find  any  reference  to  those  facts  in  the 
book  of  Kings,  when  we  consider  the  brevity  of 
the  narrative  there  given,  a  brevity  which  is  to  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  the  author  passes  as 
curtly  as  possible  by  all  periods  of  misfortune" 
(Bertheau).  The  apparent  contradiction  between 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  15  and  2  Kings  xxiii.  12  disappears, 
if  we  suppose  (what  is  very  possible)  that  Amon 
■set  up  again  the  idols  which  Manasseh  had  re- 
moved, and  that  Josiah  was  the  first  who  entirely 
did  away  with  them  (cf.  E.  Gerlach  in  the  Studien 
und  Kritiken,  1861,  III.).— Ver.  18.    In  the  garden 

of  his  own  house.      "W3   cannot  be  the  royal 

palace  built  by  Solomon,  because  the  garden  be- 
longing to  it  is  called  that  of  Uzzah,  evidently  re- 
ferring to  its  former  owner.  iJV3  must,  there- 
fore, refer  to  a  pleasure-house  belonging  to  Ma- 
nasseh "  (Keil).  Thenius  thinks  that  the  "  garden 
of  Uzzah  "  (the  name  occurs  several  times :  2  Sam. 
vi.  8  ;  1  Chron.  viii.  7  ;  Ezra  ii.  49  ;  Nehem.  vii.  51) 
was  situated  "  in  the  Tyropoeon,  at  the  foot  of  the 
Bpur  of  Ophel."  Robinson  finds  it  on  Mt.  Zion. 
See  further  the  notes  on  chap.  xx.  21. 

Ver.  19.  Amon  was  twenty  and  two  years 
old  when  he  began  to  reign.  The  assertion  that 
this  king  reigned  twelve  instead  of  two  years 
(Ebrard  in  Stud,  und  Kritik.  1847,  III.  s.  644  sq.) 
rests  upon  very  weak  evidence,  as  Thenius  has 
shown. — The  city  of  Jotbah,  from  which  his  mo- 
ther, Meshullemeth  (that  is,  Friend,  sc.  of  God,  = 
Pid)  came,  was  situated,  according  to  Jerome,  in 
Judah. — Ver.  23.  The  servants  of  Amon  were 
unquestionably  his  court  attendants.  We  have  to 
understand,  therefore,  that  it  was  a  conspiracy 
in  the  palace.  We  cannot  determine  what 
causes  led  to  this  conspiracy. — By  the  people 
of  the  land  (ver.  24)  Thenius  understands,  here 
as  in  chap.  xi.  14,  the  military  forces  of  the 
nation,  and  he  infers  that  Amon  had  made 
himself  popular  with  the  troops,  and  that  Josiah 
had  inspired  some  such  hopes  as  Uzziah  once 
did  (chap.  xiv.  21).  There  is  no  more  reason 
to  think  of  the  army  here  than  in  chap.  xi.  14. 
The  murder  of  the  king,  who  had  only  ruled  for 
such  a  short  time,  by  the  attendants  in  the  palace, 
may  have  embittered  the  people  of  Jerusalem  so 
that  they  took  revenge  upon  the  murderers.  Re- 
ligious differences  can  scarcely  have  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  matter,  for  the  immediate  attend- 
ants of  the  idolatrous  king  certainly  did  not  be- 
long to  the  persecuted  Jehovah-party,  and,  if  the 
king's  idolatry  had  been  displeasing  to  the  people, 
they  would  not  have  put  his  murderers  to  death. 

[StT?PLE5iE>.TTARY  Note  on  contemporaneous  his- 
tory, with  further  information  as  to  Manasseh  from 
Assyrian  sources.  As  we  approach  the  catastrophe 
of  the  history  of  Judah  it  is  necessary  to  pay  at- 
tentijn  if  those  movements   among   neighboring 


nations  which  (humanly  speaking)  caused  it,  and 
determined  its  form. 

We  saw  in  the  Supp.  Note  on  chap.  xx.  that 
Sennacherib,  having  finally  reduced  Babylon  to 
submission  in  682,  put  his  son  Esarhaddon  on  the 
throne  of  that  city  as  viceroy  ;  also  that  Sennach- 
erib was  assassinated  by  two  other  of  his  sons  in 
681.  The  assassins  were  obliged  to  fly  ;  Esarhad- 
don hastened  to  Nineveh  and  ascended  the  throne. 
He  reigned  from  681  to  667.  Extensive  records 
of  his  reign  exist  in  the  British  Museum,  only  part 
of  which  have,  as  yet,  been  published  or  read 
(Lenormant).  His  first  campaign  was  in  Syria 
and  Phoenicia  (see  Supp.  Note  on  chap.  xvii.).  He 
conquered  and  plundered  Phoenicia,  and  deported 
the  inhabitants  of  Syria.  He  repopulated  the 
country  with  Chaldeans  and  Elamites. 

During  this  campaign  he  attacked  Judah ;  took 
Manasseh  captive,  confined  him  in  Babylon  for  a 
time,  but  then  set  him  at  liberty  and  restored  him 
to  the  throne  as  a  vassal  (2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11). 
Manasseh  is  mentioned  on  one  of  his  inscriptions 
as  tributary.  Esarhaddon  became  attached  to 
Babylon  from  his  early  residence  there,  and  made 
it  his  home.  That  is  probably  the  reason  why  he 
took  Manasseh  there,  and  not  to  Nineveh. 

Esarhaddon's  reign  was  spent  in  extensive  and 
successful  wars  in  Asia  Minor,  Arabia,  Egypt 
(which  he  conquered),  in  suppressing  stubborn  re- 
volts in  Chaldea,  and  in  punishing  the  Elamites 
and  Susianians  who  assisted  in  them.  We  are 
not  here  interested  in  these  wars  further  than 
this,  that  the  Assyrian  power  was,  during  his 
reign,  at  its  height,  but  that  Babylon  kept  up  a 
continual  resistance. 

Very  much  the  same  state  of  things  continued 
under  his  successor.  Esarhaddon  abdicated  in 
668  in  favor  of  his  son,  Asshurbanipal,  who  reign- 
ed until  647.  He  was  warlike  and  able.  Babylon 
was  ruled  by  his  brother,  Shamulshamugin,  as 
viceroy,  but  he  revolted  and  headed  an  insurrec- 
tion which  included  nearly  all  the  tributary  prov- 
inces. Egypt  was  permanently  lost.  Psammeti- 
chus  becoming  king.  The  remainder  of  the  revolt, 
however,  was  speedily  suppressed,  though  it  took 
years  to  follow  up  and  punish  all  the  parties  to  it. 

His  successor  was  his  son,  Asshuredililani, 
who  reigned  from  647  to  625.  Under  him  the  As- 
syrian power  declined  (Lenormant).  See  Supp. 
Note  on  p.  285. 

Tho  explanation  of  the  incessant  revolts  of 
Babylon  is,  that  that  city  had  a  sacred  character 
as  the  "  home  of  the  gods."  It  was  so  regarded 
by  the  Assyrians  themselves,  who  knew  how  an- 
cient it  was,  and  revered  it  as  their  own  place  of 
origin.  This  veneration  for  Babylon  served  to 
keep  the  Babylonians  continually  restive  under 
the  supremacy  of  Assyria,  and  also  to  stay  the 
hands  of  the  conquerors  whenever  they  were 
ready  to  destroy  the  city  as  a  punishment  for  re- 
bellion. 

At  the  point  which  we  have  now  reached  (640), 
the  time  of  Amon's  death  and  Josiah's  accession, 
the  Assyrian  power  had  barely  begun  to  decline. 
The  Median  empire  had  been  founded  by  Phraortes 
in  657.  It  had  secured  independence,  and  had 
made  important  conquests  in  Central  Asia.  Just 
about  this  time  Phraortes  thought  himself  strong 
enough  to  attack  Assyria,  but  he  was  totally  de- 
feated in  635  (Lenormant).  In  Egypt,  rsammeti- 
chus  became  independent  of  Assyria,  and  put  ai 


^48 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


eud  to  the  "  Dodekarchy,"  about  650.  Babylon 
was,  for  the  time  being,  crushed,  but  it  was  only 
recovering  strength  for  another  revolt. — W.  G.  S.] 

HISTORICAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

1.  King  ManasseKs  reign  lasted  longer  than 
that  of  any  other  king  in  either  kingdom,  but  we 
have  relatively  the  very  briefest  account  of  it. 
The  author  restricts  himself  to  a  statement  of  Ma- 
nasseh's  disposition  towards  Jehovah  and  the 
Jehovah-worship.  The  explanation  of  this  may 
be  that,  in  general,  "the  Old  Testament  his- 
torians pass  more  hastily  over  periods  which 
it  is  sad  for  them  to  recall "  (Ewald).  This  shows, 
however,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  disposition 
towards  Jehovah  is  the  main  point  of  interest 
to  the  author  in  the  history  of  each  reign,  and 
that  everything  else  is  subordinate  to  this,  in- 
asmuch as  nothing  else  touches  the  soteriological 
development  in  the  history.  Manasseh's  reign 
forms  an  epoch  in  that  development,  for,  under 
him,  the  apostasy  reached  its  height.  If  David 
was  the  model  king,  then  Manasseh  was  his  in- 
verted image.  It  is  true  that  many  of  his  ances- 
tors had  tolerated  idolatry,  and  practised  it  them- 
selves. His  grandfather,  Ahaz,  had  even  removed 
the  ancient  altar  of  burnt-offering  and  set  up  in  its 
place  another  one  which  he  had  himself  caused  to 
be  made  on  a  heathen  pattern,  and  had  also  sacri- 
ficed his  son  to  Moloch  (chap.  xvi. ) ;  but  Manasseh 
went  so  far  as  even  to  establish  a  special  place  of 
sacrifice  for  this  god  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  (chap, 
xxiii.  10;  Jerem.  viL  31;  xix.  6).  Moreover  he 
set  up  an  idol  in  the  temple  itself,  and  that,  too,  an 
image  of  that  goddess  whose  worship  was  connected 
with  licentious  rites  and  practices.  In  fact  he 
made  Jerusalem,  the  city  which  Jehovah  had 
chosen  for  His  own  abode,  the  place  for  collecting 
and  practising  all  forms  of  idolatry.  He  was  a 
violent  enemy  of  the  Jehovah-worship,  which  he 
sought  to  abolish.  He  formally  introduced  all 
sorts  of  idolatrous  abominations,  and  he  compelled 
his  people  to  practise  them.  This  had  never  been 
done  even  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  "  but 
now,  there  arose  in  Judah,  the  only  remaining 
support  of  the  true  religion,  the  most  open  and 
violent  hostility  to  its  most  sacred  principles,  on 
the  part  of  the  king  himself  I  .  .  .  The  heart  of 
the  ancient  religion  had  never  before  been  so 
sharply  and  violently  smitten "  (Ewald).  The 
"  sin  of  Manasseh,"  in  which  apostasy  reached  its 
culmination,  became  typical  (ver.  16;  chap,  xxiii. 
26;  xxiv.  3;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  9;  Jerem.  xv.  4),  just 
like  the  "sin  of  Jeroboam,"  who  made  Israel  to 
sin  by  introducing  the  worship  of  the  calves  (1 
Kings  xii.  28  sq. ;  xiv.  16;  xv.  26,  30,  &c),  and 
the  "  way  of  Ahab,"  who  first  introduced  the  wor- 
ship of  Baal  (1  Kings  xvt  30  sq. ;  xxii.  53  ;  2  Kings 
viii.  27).  "  With  his  reign,  therefore,  began  a  new 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
during  which  it  moved  on  steadily  towards  its 
fall  "  (Ton  Gerlach).  Under  his  rule  the  kingdom 
became  the  very  contrary  of  that  which,  according 
to  its  original  plan,  it  was  intended  to  be  (Deut. 
xvii.  20). 

2.  A  great  change  seems  to  have  taken  place 
under  Manasseh  in  the  circumstances  of  the  peoj>le, 
when  we  compare  the  status  under  him  with  that 
under  llezekiali.  No  king  since  David  had  labor- 
ed, as  Hezekieh  did  during  his  reign  of  twenty-nine 


years,  for  the  pure  and  legitimate  Jehovah-wor- 
ship. The  people  had  approved  of  and  participated 
in  his  efforts,  and  had  come  together  from  all 
sides  to  the  passover  festival  which  he  instituted 
(2  Chron.  xxx.  12,  13).  The  reformation  seemed 
to  be  thorough  and  complete ;  idolatry  was  forever 
uprooted.  Immediately  after  his  death  there  was 
a  complete  change.  The  new  king  made  idolatry, 
with  all  its  abominations,  the  established  religion 
of  the  kingdom,  and  was  violent  against  the  na- 
tional worship  and  law,  and  against  all  who  sup- 
ported them.  The  people  made  no  opposition  to 
this,  but  joined  in  it  for  a  half  century.  It  had  in- 
deed come  to  pass  before  this  time,  that  the  people 
had  fallen  into  idolatry  which  was  favored  by  the 
rulers,  as,  for  instance,  under  Athaliah  and  Ahaz, 
but  such  a  general  and  complete  change,  especially 
after  the  saving  power  of  Jehovah  had  just  been 
so  clearly  and  startlingly  manifested,  has  no  par- 
allel in  history.  Yet  this  remarkable  fact  is  ex- 
plained, although  no  explanation  of  it  is  offer- 
ed in  the  historical  books,  when  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  descriptions  of  the  state  of  things  at 
that  time  which  are  offered  by  the  prophets.  There 
had  been  for  a  long  time,  at  least  since  the  reign 
of  Ahaz,  a  party  in  Judah  which  sought  support 
for  the  little  kingdom  from  one  of  the  two  great 
world-monarchies  of  the  time — either  from  Egypt 
or  Assyria.  The  persons  of  rank,  and  office,  and 
wealth,  and  influence  especially  belonged  to  this 
party.  They  had  adopted  heathen  notions,  and 
had  fallen  into  immoral  and  licentious  modes  of 
life.  Isaiah  says  of  the  people,  even  before  Manas- 
seh's accession :  "  The  whole  head  is  sick  and  the 
whole  heart  faint,"  &c.  (IsaL  i.  4-6).  King  Heze- 
kiah  had  held  this  party  in  restraint,  and  had 
therefore  been  supported  by  the  prophet  Isaiah. 
After  the  death  of  the  pious  king  and  the  great 
prophet,  the  opposition  made  a  strenuous  effort  to 
control  the  policy  nf  the  nation.  It  was  not  diffi- 
cult to  insnare  and  seduce  the  king,  a  boy  of 
twelve  years,  especially  as  he  appears  to  have 
been  inclined  bjr  nature  to  sensual  enjoyments. 
When  he  was  once  caught  he  became  the  seducer 
of  his  people,  while  he  himself  sank  lower  and 
lower.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  Hezekiah's  re- 
formation was  one  accomplished  by  external  pres- 
sure. It  did  not  spring  naturally  from  a  religious 
need  which  was  deeply  felt  in  the  popular  heart. 
It  had,  therefore,  no  firm  ground,  and  the  cultus 
continued  to  be  only  an  external  ceremony.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  luxurious  and  sensuous  idol- 
worship  was  far  better  adapted  to  please  the  peo- 
ple than  the  austere  Jehovah-worship.  We  have 
still  further  to  take  into  consideration  the  inconsis- 
tent character  of  the  people  (Deut.  ix.  12,  13 ;  xxxi. 
20 ;  xxxii.  6 ;  Isai.  i.  2,  3,  &c),  at  one  moment  ob- 
stinate, at  the  next  fickle  and  capricious.  If  we 
take  all  this  into  consideration,  the  sudden  change 
under  Manasseh  is  not  so  astonishing,  but  is  satis- 
factorily explained  by  the  circumstances.  Dunck- 
er's  conception  of  the  course  of  the  development 
of  the  national  religion  {Gesch.  des  Alterthwns,  I.  s 
502)  is  entirely  false.  He  asserts  that  for  the  first 
two  centuries  after  the  settlement  of  the  Hebrews 
in  Palestine  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  that  of 
Syrian  divinities  existed  side  by  side  ;  that  the  first 
Hebrew  prophets  opposed  with  the  most  violent 
zeal  and  fanaticism  the  introduction  of  the  Baal- 
worship;  that  then  the  later  prophets  opposed  the 
deepened  and  sharpened  conception  of  the  nationa' 


CHAPTER  XXI.  1-26. 


249 


God  to  the  renewed  attempt  of  idolatry  to  rind  a 
foothold  and  succeeded  in  keeping  it  out ;  and  that 
now,  under  Manasseh,  these  two  hostile  tendencies 
once  more  appeared  in  open  conflict.  This  con- 
ception, which  overturns  the  entire  soteriological 
development,  rests  upon  the  assumption  that,  in 
Israel,  monotheism  and  polytheism  stood  originally 
side  by  side  in  equal  honor.  It  cannot  be  estab- 
lished unless  we  strike  Moses  out  of  history,  throw 
aside  the  Israelitish  law — the  constitution  of  the 
nation,  deny  the  calling  of  the  nation  in  human 
history,  and  make  of  the  prophets  fanatical  dis- 
turbers of  the  public  peace.  Ewald  has  explained 
the  chansred  circumstances  under  Manasseh  some- 
what differently  (Gesch.  ILL  666  [third  Ed.  716 
sq.~\).  He  says:  "He  [Manasseh]  sought  to  be- 
come acquainted  with  all  foreign  heathen  religi- 
ons, and  to  introduce  them  into  Judah.  He  there- 
fore sent  to  the  most  distant  lands  wherever  a  cel- 
ebrated worship  was  practised,  and  spared  no 
pains  to  acquire  it.  Every  new  religion  brought 
not  only  a  new  form  of  oracle,  or  of  sensuous  in- 
dulgence and  lust,  but  also  its  own  form  of  wis- 
dom, and  the  desire  for  '  wisdom '  had  grown  so 
touch  since  the  time  of  Solomon,  that  it  is  not 
strange  if  the  desire  awoke  to  learn  the  secrets  of 
all  religions,  and  so  to  acquire  a  wealth  of  wisdom 
which  the  simple  Jehovah  religion  did  not  seem  to 
offer.  Then,  too.  Manasseh  sought  to  make  all 
these  religions  accessible  and  agreeable  to  the 
people."  It  would  appear  then,  on  this  showing, 
that  the  abominable  and  unheard-of  apostasy  of 
Manasseh  and  his  people,  the  cultus  of  licentious- 
ness and  child-sacrifice,  the  cultivation  of  augury 
and  sooth-saying,  the  patronage  of  necromancers 
and  augurs,  and  all  the  rest  of  his  senseless  super- 
stition, arose  from  a  desire  for  wisdom,  and  a  wish 
to  penetrate  into  all  secrets,  and  become  acquaint- 
ed with  all  knowledge.  No  proof  is  needed  to 
ehow  that  this  conception  contradicts  the  Scrip- 
tures flatly.  There  is  no  hint  in  them  that  Manas- 
seh sent  into  foreign  lands  to  import  heathen  re- 
ligions. "Isai.  lvii.  5-10;  Jer.  ii.  10-13,"  from 
which  this  is  said  to  be  evident,  does  not  contain 
a  word  about  it.  Manasseh  did  not,  for  instance, 
borrow  anything  from  Egypt.  He  introduced 
especially  the  cultus  of  the  "  nations  whom  the 
Lord  destroyed  before  the  children  of  Israel  "  (ver. 
9),  that  is  of  the  Canaanites.  Neither  is  there  any 
proof  that  he  tried  to  make  the  heathen  religions 
acceptable  to  the  people ;  on  the  contrary,  he  used 
violence  and  shed  innocent  blood,  so  that  Jerusa- 
lem was  filled  with  it  from  one  end  to  the  other 
(ver.  16). 

[The  Scriptures  contain  no  explanation  of  the 
facility  with  which  the  people  followed  and  acqui- 
esced in  the  different  attitudes  of  different  kings 
toward  the  Jehovah  religion,  whether  they  were 
enthusiastically  faithful  or  fanatically  hostile.  It 
does  not  seem  worth  while,  therefore,  to  wage 
a  polemic  against  an  hypothesis  like  this  of 
Ewald,  which  certainly  has  as  much,  if  not  more, 
in  its  favor  than  the  one  offered  by  the  author. 
Ewald's  theory  does  not  "  flatly  contradict "  Scrip- 
ture, because  Scripture  makes  no  statement  in 
regard  to  the  matter.  The  passages  quoted  from 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  bear  very  strong  testimony 
to  such  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  people 
to  follow  strange  gods,  to  go  to  a  distance  to 
-seek  strange  forms  of  worship,  and  to  take  up 
■aith  any  foreign  noveltv  ->r  device  rather  than  to 


adhere  to  thoir  own  religion.  The  "wisdom"  of 
the  ancients  was  almost  always  bound  up  in  reii. 
gion.  It  was  the  "  mystery  "  at  the  heart  of  a  cul- 
tus. It  was  esoteric  and  select,  only  imparted  to 
the  chosen  few.  It  had  the  fascination,  therefore 
of  an  acquisition  in  knowledge  and  of  the  discov- 
ery of  a  secret  closely  kept  by  an  elect  few.  It 
was  at  once  a  sign  of  the  truth  of  the  Jehovah-re- 
ligion and  a  reason  why  the  Hebrews  were  so 
easily  led  to  despise  it  in  comparison  with  the  re- 
ligious of  the  heathen,  that  it  was  simple  and 
open.  No  doubt  also  it  seemed  to  them  hard  and 
cold  and  austere.  The  heathen  religions  were 
warm,  voluptuous,  and  aesthetic.  The  latter,  there- 
fore, had  all  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature  on 
their  side  of  the  balance.  Still  further,  it  is  very 
probable  that  Manasseh  did  introduce  Egyptian  nov- 
elties. The  name  of  his  son  Amon  is  the  strong- 
est testimony  to  a  familiarity  with  and  taste  for 
Egyptian  religion.  Ver.  9  does  not  say  that  he 
introduced  Canaanitish  gods,  but  that  he  made  the 
Jews  sin  worse  than  the  Canaanites,  probably  by 
practising  still  more  foreign  and  abominable  rites. 
See  Exegeiical  notes  on  that  verse.  Moreover  the 
idols  which  are  enumerated  in  xxiii.  13  as  having 
been  destroyed  by  Josiah  bear  witness  to  the  facx 
that  Manasseh  had  sought  out  and  introduced 
numenus  foreign  divinities  of  various  kinds.  Fi- 
nally, the  shedding  of  innocent  blood  does  not 
prove  that  he  did  not  try  to  make  heathenism  ac- 
ceptable to  his  people.  Persecution  always  has 
the  aim  to  recommend  the  rival  of  the  persecuted 
religion,  strange  and  unwise  as  the  attempt  may 
be.  There  are,  therefore,  suggestions  in  this  theory 
of  Ewald  which  are  well  worth  attention  from  any 
one  who  desires  to  understand  the  phenomenon  in 
question,  and  the  counter-considerations  above  ad- 
duced have  little  if  any  force. — W.  G.  S.] 

3.  The  reign  of  Manasseh  was,  to  say  the  least, 
the  saddest  period  in  Jewish  history  since  the 
time  of  David.  We  hear  of  no  important  events, 
of  no  victory  over  enemies,  of  no  extension  of  the 
frontier,  of  no  new  beneficent  institutions,  during 
his  time.  The  only  event  recorded  is  that  an  As- 
syrian army  took  Manasseh  prisoner  and  carried 
him  away  in  chains  to  Babylon  (2  Chron.  xxxiiL 
11).  The  nation  had  never  before  sunk  so  low,  re- 
ligiously and  morally,  as  at  this  time.  "  In  the  na- 
tional life  the  most  terrible  decay  extended  con- 
tinually farther  and  farther."  A  "  deep  and  dead- 
ly corruption  "  had  affected  the  nation  (Eisenlohr, 
Das  Yolk  1st.  II.  s.  310).  The  wildest  superstition 
and  the  coarsest  unbelief  went  hand  in  hand.  The 
corruption  had  pervaded  all  ranks.  "  Woe  to  her 
that  is  filthy  and  polluted,  to  the  oppressing  city  I  " 
cries  the  prophet  Zephaniah.  "  She  obeyed  not 
the  voice ;  she  received  not  correction ;  she  trusted 
not  in  the  Lord ;  she  drew  not  near  to  her  God. 
Her  princes  within  her  are  roaring  lions;  her 
judges  are  evening  wolves;  they  gnaw  not  the 
bones  until  the  morrow  [they  spare  not  for  th« 
morrow].  Her  prophets  are  light  and  treacherou? 
persons ;  her  priests  have  polluted  the  sanctuary, 
they  have  done  violence  to  the  law  "  (Zeph.  iii.  \- 
4;  cf.  Mic.  iii.  11).  The  origin  of  many  important 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  has  recently 
been  ascribed  to  this  time  of  corruption,  decay, 
moral  disease,  and  death.  First  of  all,  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  is  said  to  have  been  written  at  thii 
time  (Ewald,  Riehm,  Bleek),  also  the  book  of  Job 
an  entire  series  of  the  most  noh'e  Psalms,  part  V 


250 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


the  Proverbs,  and  detached  fragments  of  the  book 
of  Isaiah,  especially  Hi.  13  to  liii.  12  (Ewald  and 
Eisenlohr).  It  is  said :  "  The  deeper  the  corrup- 
tion became  and  the  farther  it  spread  the  more 
decidedly  did  the  genuine  spirit  of  prophecy  rise 
up,  with  all  the  divine  force  with  which  it  was 
endowed,  in  opposition  to  it."  This  is  not  the  place 
to  enter  into  a  critical  investigation  of  the  time 
when  these  books  were  written.  We  have  to  do 
here  only  with  the  time  of  Manasseh,  but  in  regard 
to  it  the  test  applies:  "Do  men  gather  grapes  of 
thorns  or  figs  of  thistles?  "  It  is  true  that  faith- 
ful servants  and  prophets  of  Jehovah  were  not 
wanting  at  this  time  (ver.  10),  but  not  a  single 
great  prophet,  not  one  of  those  whose  writings  we 
still  possess,  was  active  during  Manasseh's  reign. 
Isaiah's  life  closed  soon  after  his  accession,  if  not 
indeed  still  earlier.  Zephaniah's  first  appearance 
was  in  Josiah's  reign,  and  Jeremiah's  still  later. 
How  could  a  time  of  "deep  corruption,"  which  ran 
through  all  ranks  of  society,  be  a  time  of  great 
literary  activity  and  produce  works  of  the  intel- 
lect which  are  only  possible  in  the  midst  of  the 
richest  and  most  active  intellectual  life?  It  has 
been  justly  said  that  this  was  a  time  in  which 
"bloody  persecution  raged."  Blood  flowed  in 
streams.  Of  course  this  persecution  fell  first  of 
all  upon  the  prophets,  and  especially  upon  the 
most  prominent  amongst  them.  The  number  of 
the  faithful  must,  therefore,  have  been  small,  and 
we  know  of  not  a  single  prominent  person  amongst 
them.  It  may  be  that  in  this  small  circle  hymns 
of  affliction  and  persecution  arose,  but  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  such  persons  should  have  produced 
the  book  of  Job,  that  "  model  of  religious  reflec- 
tion, and  of  the  literary  art  which  proceeds  in  its 
creations  according  to  the  most  definite  plan,"  and 
which  marks  the  "  Chokmah-literature "  of  the 
Hebrews  (Delitsch).  Still  less  can  the  hook  of 
Deuteronomy  have  been  written  at  this  time  of  op- 
pression and  misery,  a  book  which  is  described  as 
marked  by  "a  tranquil  fulness  of  detail,"  "an  ex- 
traordinarily light  and  flowing  style,"  as  well  as  by 
"  breadth  and  fluency  "  (Vaihinger).  In  its  long 
repetition  and  development  of  the  Mosaic  Law 
there  is  not  a  sign  of  lamentation,  nor  a  sound  of 
affliction.  It  might  be  asserted  with  far  more 
justice  that  there  was  no  period  in  Hebrew  history 
less  capable  of  producing  the  book  of  Deuteronomy 
than  the  degenerate  times  of  Manasseh. 

4.  The  brief  reign  of  king  Amon  was  in  every 
respect  a  continuation  of  the  wicked  and  untheo- 
cratic  reign  of  his  father,  Manasseh.  It  was  dis- 
tinguished by  no  fact  or  event.  From  the  words, 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  23  [see  Supp.  Note  after  the  Exeg. 
section  above] :  "  Aud  humbled  not  himself  before 
the  Lord,  as  Manasseh  his  father  had  humbled 
himself,  but  Amon  trespassed  more  and  more,"  we 
infer  that  he  was  even  worse  than  Manasseh.  The 
description  of  the  moral  and  religious  status  which 
is  given  by  the  prophet  Zephaniah,  who  made  his 
appearance  under  the  next  following  king,  Josiah 
(Zeph.  i.  1,  4  sq. ;  12 ;  iii.  1  to  v.  11),  shows  that  no 
improvement  had  taken  place.  This  also  appears 
from  the  description  in  chap,  xxiii.  4  sq.  of  all  the 
steps  which  Josiah  had  to  take  in  order  to  restore 
the  state  of  things  prescribed  by  the  Law.  The 
statement  of  the  Chronicler  (I.  c.)  in  regard  to  Ma- 
nasseh's reformation  must,  therefore,  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  his  own  person,  for  it  had  no 
effect  upon  the  mass  of  the  people,  else  it  would 


have  been  impossible  to  say  that  Amon  had  sur- 
passed his  father's  guilt.  [The  meaning  of  that 
passage  is  that  Manasseh,  in  spite  of  all  his  wicked- 
ness, humbled  himself  and  repented,  but  Amon 
never  did  so.  He  persisted  in  his  wickedness.  H» 
went  on  from  trespass  to  trespass  without  inter- 
ruption.    Hence  he  was  worse  than  his  father.] 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1-16.  The  Kingdom  of  Judah  under  Ma- 
nasseh. (o)  King  and  People  (return  to  heathen- 
ism and  the  cause  thereof,  vers.  1-9).  (6)  The 
Prophets  (their  courageous  opposition  and  their 
testimony  against  the  general  corruption  in  spit< 
of  persecution,  vers.  10-16).  Vers.  1-9.  Manassel 
the  seduced  and  the  seducer. — Even  God-fearing 
parents  often  have  perverse  children  without  any 
fault  of  their  own.  So  much  the  greater  is  the 
guilt  of  those  who  lead  infant  children  astray,  af- 
ter the  death  of  their  parents,  instead  of  giving 
them  care  and  good  training.  It  is  especially  im- 
portant that  princes  should  be  guided  in  their 
youth  by  good  counsellors  and  governors.  God  is 
not  confined  with  His  word  to  any  land  or  people. 
If  His  word  is  not  received  with  love  and  grati- 
tude, and  if  it  is  not  feared,  then  He  will  come 
soon  and  remove  the  candlestick  from  its  place 
(Rev.  ii.  5),  so  that  men  may  go  astray  and  be- 
come a  prey  to  terrible  errors.  As  Judah,  which 
the  Lord  had  chosen  to  be  His  people  and  to 
bear  His  name  before  the  heathen,  and  before 
kings,  and  before  the  children  of  Israel,  committed 
more  terrible  abominations  than  any  of  the  heathen 
whom  the  Lord  had  cast  out,  so  now  also,  a  peo- 
ple, although  it  has  the  word  of  God  and  the 
means  of  grace,  may  fall  lower  than  another 
which  has  never  heard  of  His  word  (e.  g.,  the  hor- 
rors of  the  French  revolution). — To  fall  is  easier 
than  to  rise.  If  the  infection  comes  from  above  it 
spreads  with  greater  celerity.  Where  God  pun- 
ishes a  people  he  gives  them  bad  rulers  (IsaL  iii. 
4;  Eccl.  x.  16). — When  the  evil  spirit  is  cast  out 
and  then  returns,  he  brings  with  him  seven  others 
worse  than  himself.  It  is  so  with  individuals,  and 
it  is  so  with  families;  they  become  worse  and 
worse  from  generation  to  generation  (Ahaz,  Heze 
kiah,  Manasseh),  Matt.  xii.  43  sq. — Wurt.  Summ.  : 
There  are  nowadays  Evangelical  Christians  who 
are  in  many  respects  worse  than  Papists,  or  even 
than  Jews  and  Turks,  for  they  curse  and  blas- 
pheme, they  drink  and  commit  adultery,  and  do 
other  things  which  Turks  and  Jews  avoid.  How 
will  such  Christians  stand  before  God's  judgment- 
seat  when  Jews  and  Turks  are  placed  by  their 
side? — Cramer:  Those  who  are  ungrateful  to 
wards  God,  and  blind  to  the  clear  light  of  truth, 
are  given  over  to  the  dominion  of  error,  so  that 
they  give  their  faith  to  falsehoods  (2  Thess.  ii.  11). 
— Ver.  6.  The  Scriptures  place  sooth-saying  and 
augury  by  the  side  of  sacrifices  to  Moloch.  They 
belong  properly  to  the  darkest  times  of  heathen- 
ism. Nevertheless  they  are  found  in  the  midst  of 
modern  Christendom.  Those  who  believe  in  thent 
and  practise  them  have  become  heathen. — Ver.  7 
Calw.  Bibel:  Ahaz  had  once  closed  the  temple 
and  built  altars  in  the  city.  Manasseh  set  up  idols 
in  the  temple  itself.  Thus  Antichrist  shall  advance 
(2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4). — Manasseh  set  up  an  image  of 
the  goddess  of  licentiousness  in  the  temple  of  the 
living  God.     "  If  any  man   defile   the   temple   at 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


251 


God,  him  shall  God  destroy"  (1  Cor.  iii.  17). 
Those  houses  of  God  are  desecrated  in  which,  in- 
stead of  the  living  God  who  revealed  Himself  to 
ua  in  Christ,  a  God  of  man's  invention  is  preached. 
— Ver.  8.  Starke:  Men  are  such  that  they  hold 
fast  the  covenant  of  God's  rich  promises,  but  will 
not  remember  the  other  covenant  of  the  obedience 
which  He  requires. — Yer.  10.  Even  in  the  worst 
times  God  takes  care  (since  He  does  not  desire 
that  any  one  should  perish,  but  rather  that  he 
should  turn  from  his  wickedness  and  live,  Ezek. 
xviii.  23)  that  faithful  persons  shall  not  be  want- 
ing to  warn  the  wicked,  to  exhort  them  to  repent- 
ance, and  to  make  known  to  them  the  coming 
judgment  of  God. — Vers.  12  and  13.  WiJRT.  Summ.  : 
The  just  God  threatens  the  idolatrous  city,  Jerusa- 
lem, with  the  line  and  plummet  of  Samaria  ; — like 
sins  deserve  like  punishment  (Luke  xxiii.  41). — 
The  Lord  is  "  good  "  and  "  ready  to  forgive  "  (Ps. 
Ixxxvi.  5),  but  He  does  not  cease  to  be  a  just  God, 
who  causes  every  individual  as  well  as  whole  cities 
and  peoples  to  reap  that  which  they  have  sown, 
for  "  righteousness  and  judgment  are  the  habita- 
tion [foundation]  of  his  throne "  (Ps.  xcvii.  2). 
This  generation  wants  to  hear  only  of  a  God  who 
is  nothing  but  love,  but  it  will  not  hear,  in  spite  of 
its  apostasy,  of  a  God  who  is  also  a  consuming 
fire  (Heb.  xii.  29).  Whose  ears  tingle  nowadays 
when  he  hears  of  the  judgments  of  God  ?  (Heb.  x. 
26  and  27). — Berleb.  Bibel:  A  dish  is  turned  over 
when  there  is  nothing  more  in  it.  That  is  the 
hardest  punishment  which  God  can  inflict  on  a 
soul  which  turns  away  from  Him.  There  is  then 
no  longer  a  drop  to  be  found  in  it  of  that  which 
was  in  it  before. — Ver.  16.  Starke:  Idolatry  and 
tyranny  are  closely  allied. —  Osiander:  Those 
whom  Satan  has  in  his  toils  he  leads  from  one  sin 
to  another.     Enmity  to  the  word  of  God  is  not 


merely  a  different  opinion  or  contradiction  in  re 
gard  to  religious  matters,  but  a  devilish  powei 
which  impels  even  to  the  shedding  of  innocent 
blood.  It  is  possible  to  kill  the  preachers  of  truth 
but  not  the  truth  itself.  He  who  was  the  truth  was 
nailed  to  the  cross,  but  His  words  remain,  though 
heaven  and  earth  pass  away.  The  blood  of  the 
martyrs  only  fertilized  the  soil  of  the  Church,  sc 
that  it  has  borne  richer  and  more  abundant  fruit.— 
All  innocent  blood  cries  to  heaven  as  that  of  Abel 
did.  He  who  dwells  in  heaven  answers :  "  Ven- 
geance is  mine ;  I  will  repay." 

Vers.  19-26.  How  wretchedly  a  king  appears 
of  whom  history  has  nothing  more  to  record  than 
his  godlessness.- — Wurt.  Summ.  :  When  men  will 
not  heed  either  good  words  or  bad,  and  will  not  be 
induced  to  repent  by  warning  or  example,  then 
God  comes  with  His  punishment  and  recompenses 
wickedness  as  it  deserves.  Let  men  take  heed 
and  repent,  let  them  become  wise  by  the  sight  of 
others'  calamities,  that  they  be  not  overtaken  in 
their  sins  by  death  before  they  have  repented.  As 
is  the  king  so  are  his  officers ;  as  is  the  governor 
so  are  the  citizens;  a  depraved  king  ruins  his 
country  (Sir.  x.  2,  3). — Wurt.  Summ.  :  Unfaithful- 
ness is  punished  by  unfaithfulness.  Amon  was 
not  faithful  to  God  ;  unfaithfulness  was  his  punish- 
ment. He  was  murdered  by  his  own  servants, 
and  these  in  their  turn  were  punished  by  their 
own  sin — they  also  were  murdered.  (See  Matt, 
xxvi.  52;  Luke  vi.  28.)  Therefore  be  faithful 
both  to  God  and  man  and  do  good,  then  thou 
shalt  be  rewarded  with  good  both  in  time  and 
eternity.  Tumult  and  murder,  perpetrated  now 
by  the  authorities,  now  by  the  people,  those  are 
the  natural  fruits  which  are  produced  in  a  land 
which  has  abandoned  God,  and  in  which  His  word 
is  no  longer  respected. 


B. — The  Reign  of  Josiah  ;  the  Discovery  of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  and  Restoration  of  the  Mosaic 

Ritual. 

Chap.  XXII.-XXIII.  30  (2  Chron.  XXXIV.,  XXXV.). 


1  Josiah  was  eight  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign  [became  king],  and  he 
reigned  thirty  and  one  years  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Jedi- 

2  dah,  the  daughter  of  Adaiah  of  Boscath.  And  he  did  that  which  was  right  in 
the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  walked  in  all  the  way  of  David  his  father,  and  turned 
not  aside  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left. 

3  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  king  Josiah,  that  the  king  sent 
Shaphan  the  son  of  Azaliah,  the  son  of  Meshullam,  the  scribe,  to  the  house  of  the 

4  Lord,  saying,  Go  up  to  Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  that  he  may  sum  the  silver 
which  is  [has  been]  brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  which  the  keepers  of 

5  the  door  have  gathered  of  the  people  :  And  let  them  deliver  it  [and  may  deli- 
ver it]  '  into  the  hand  of  the  doers  of  the  work  [commissioners],  that  have  the 
oversight  of  the  house '  of  the  Lord  :  and  let  them  give  it  to  the  doers  of  the 
work,  which  is  [who  are]  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  to  repair  the  breaches  of  the 

6  house,     Unto  carpenters,  and  builders,  and  masons,  and  to  buy  timber  and  hewn 
1  stone  to  repair  the  house.     Howbeit,  there  was  [But  let]  no  reckoning  [be]  made 

with  them  of  the  money  that  was  [is]  delivered  into  their  hand,  because  [for] 
they  dealt  [deal]  faithfully. 

And  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  said  unto  Shaphan  the  scribe,  I  have  found  the 
book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.     And  Hilkiah  gave  the  book  to  Sha 


8 


252  THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  THE  KtNGS. 

9  phan,  and  he  read  it.  And  Shaphan  the  scribe  came  to  the  king,  and  brought 
the  king  word  again,  and  said,  Thy  servants  have  gathered  [emptied  out]  the 
money  that  was  found  [stored]  3  in  the  house,  and  have  delivered  it  into  the 
hand  of  them  that  do  the  work  [the  commissioners],  that  have  the  oversight  of 

10  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  Shaphan  the  scribe  shewed  the  king,  saying,  Hil- 
kiah  the  priest  hath  delivered  me  a  book.     And  Shaphan  read  it  before  the  king. 

11  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  king  had  heard  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  law, 

12  that  he  rent  his  clothes.  And  the  king  commanded  Hilkiah  the  priest,  and 
Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan,  and  Achbor  the  son  of  Michaiah,  and  Shaphan  the 

13  scribe,  and  Asahiah  a  servant  of  the  king's,  saying,  Go  ye,  inquire  of  the  Lord 
for  me  [on  my  behalf]  and  for  [on  behalf  of]  the  people,  and  for  [on  behalf  of] 
all  Judah,  concerning  [on  account  of]  the  words  of  this  book  that  is  found:  for 
great  is  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  that  is  kindled  against  us,  because  our  fathers 
have  not  hearkened  unto  the  words  of  this  book,  to  do  according  unto  all  that 
which  is  written  concerning  us  [prescribed  for  us].' 

14  So  Hilkiah  the  priest,  and  Ahikam,  and  Achbor,  and  Shaphan,  and  Asahiah, 
went  unto  Huldah  the  prophetess,  the  wTife  of  Shallum  the  son  of  Tikvah,  the  son 
of  Harhas,  keeper  of  the  wardrobe  ;  (now  she  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  in  the  college 

15  [lower  city]  ;)  and  they  communed  with  her.     And  she  said  unto  them,  Thus 

16  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  Tell  the  man  that  sent  you  to  me,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Behold,  I  will  [am  about  to]  bring  evil  upon  this  place,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  thereof,  even  all  the  words  of  the  book  which  the  king  of  Judah  hath 

17  read:  Because  they  have  forsaken  me,  and  have  burned  incense  unto  other 
gods,  that  they  might  provoke  me  to  anger  with  all  the  works  of  their  hands  ; 
therefore  my  wrath  shall  be  [is]  kindled  against  this  place,  and  shall  not  be 

18  quenched.  But  to  the  king  of  Judah  which  sent  you  to  inquire  of  the  Lord, 
thus  shall  ye  say  to  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  As  touching  the 

19  words  which  thou  hast  heard  ;  Because  thine  heart  was  tender,  and  thou  hast 
humbled  [humbledst]  thyself  before  the  Lord,  when  thou  heardest  what  I  spake 
[had  spoken]  against  this  place,  and  against  the  inhabitants  thereof,  that  they 
should  become  a  desolation  and  a  curse,  and  hast  rent  thy  clothes,  and  wept 

20  before  me ;  I  also  have  heard  thee  [omit  thee]  saith  the  Lord.  Behold  therefore, 
I  will  gather  thee  unto  thy  fathers,  and  thou  shalt  be  gathered  into  thy  grave 
in  peace  ;  and  thine  eyes  shall  not  see  all  the  evil  which  I  will  bring  upon  this 
place.     And  they  brought  the  king  word  again. 

Chap,  xxiii.     1  And  the  king  sent,  and  they  gathered  unto  him  all  the  elders  of 

2  Judah  and  of  Jerusalem.  And  the  king  went  up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and 
all  the  men  of  Judah  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  with  him,  and  the 
priests,  and  the  prophets,  and  all  the  people,  both  small  and  great :  and  he  read 
in  their  ears  all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  covenant  which  was  [had  been] 

3  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  the  king  stood  by  a  pillar  [or  on  a  plat- 
form], and  made  a  covenant  before  the  Lord,  to  walk  after  the  Lord,  and  to  keep 
his  commandments  and  his  testimonies  [ordinances]  and  his  statutes  with  all 
their  heart  and  all  their  soul,  to  perform  [maintain]  the  words  [terms]  of  this 
covenant  that  were  written  in  this  book.  And  all  the  people  stood  to  [joined 
in]  *  the  covenant. 

4  And  the  king  commanded  Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  and  the  priests  of  the 
second  order,  and  the  keepers  of  the  door,  to  bring  forth  out  of  the  temple  of  the 
Lord  all  the  vessels  that  were  made  for  Baal,  and  for  the  grove  [Astarte],  and 
for  all  the  host  of  heaven :  and  he  burned  them  without  Jerusalem  in  the  fields 

6  of  Kidron,  and  carried"  the  ashes  of  them  unto  Beth-el.  And  he  put  down 
[caused  to  desist]  the  idolatrous  priests,  whom  the  kings  of  Judah  had  ordained 
to  burn  incense  '  in  the  high  places  in  [of]  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  places 
Uia  in  the  places]  round  about  Jerusalem  ;  them  also  that  burned  incense  unto 
Baal,  to  the  sun,  and  to  the  moon,  and  to  the  planets  [constellations  of  the 

6  Zodiac],  and  to  all  the  host  of  heaven.  And  he  brought  out  the  grove  [Astarte 
image]  from  the  house  of  the  Lord,  without  Jerusalem,  unto  the  brook  Kidron, 
and  burned  it  at  the  brook  Kidron,  and  stamped  it  small  to  powder,  and  cast 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30.  2?.f: 


the  powder  thereof  upon  the  graves  of  the  children  of  the  people  [common 

V  people].     And  he  brake  down  the  houses  of  the  sodomites  [male  prostitutes], 

that  were,  by  the  house  of  the  Lord,  where  the  women  wove  hangings  for  the 

8  grove  [tent-like  shrines  for  Astarte].  And  he  brought  all  the  priests  out  of  the 
cities  of  Judah,  and  defiled  the  high  places  where  the  priests  had  burned  incense, 
from  Geba  to  Beersheba,  and  brake  down  the  high  places  of  the  gates  [both] 
that  were  [which  was]  in  the  entering  in  of  the  gate  of  Joshua  the  governor  of 
the  city,  [and  that]  which  were  [was]  on  a  man's  left  hand  at  the  gate  of  the 

9  city.  Nevertheless  the  priests  of  the  high  places  came  not  up  to  [were  not 
allowed  to  sacrifice  upon]  '  the  altar  of  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem,  but  they  did  eat 

10  of  the  [omit  of  the]  unleavened  bread  among  their  brethren.  And  he  defiled 
Topheth,  which  is  the  valley  of  the  children  of  Hinnom,  that  no  man  might  make 

11  his  son  or  his  daughter  to  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech.  And  he  took  away' 
the  horses  that  the  kings  of  Judah  had  given  to  the  sun,  at  the  entering  in  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  by  the  chamber  of  Nathan-melech  the  chamberlain,  which 
was  in  the  suburbs  [colonnade  of  the  temple],  and  burned  the  chariots  of  the  sun 

12  with  fire.  And  the  altars  that  were  on  the  top  of  the  upper  chamber  of  Ahaz, 
which  the  kings  of  Judah  had  made,  and  the  altars  which  Manasseh  had  made 
in  the  two  courts  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  did  the  king  beat  down  [demolish], 
and  brake  [tear]  them  [omu  thern]  down  from  thence,  and  [he]  cast  the  dust  of 

13  them  into  the  brook  Kidron.  And  the  high  places  that  were  before  Jerusalem, 
which  were  on  the  right  hand  of  the  mount  of  corruption,  which  Solomon  the 
king  of  Israel  had  builded  for  Ashtoreth  [or  Astarte]  the  abomination  of  the 
Zidonians,  and  for  Chemosh  the  abomination  of  the  Moabites,  and  for  Milcom 

14  the  abomination  of  the  children  of  Ammon,  did  the  king  defile.  And  he  brake 
in  pieces  the  images,  and  cut  down  the  groves  [Astarte-statues],  and  filled  their 
places  with  the  bones  of  men. 

15  Moreover  the  altar  that  was  at  Beth-el,  and  [omit  and]  the  high  place  which 
Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,  had  made,  both  that  altar 
and  the  high  place  he  brake  down,  and  burned  the  high  place,  and  stamped  it 

16  small  to  powder,  and  burned  the  grove  [statue  of  Astarte].  And  as  Josiah 
turned  himself,  he  spied  the  sepulchres  that  were  there  in  the  mount,  and  sent, 
and  took  the  bones  out  of  the  sepulchres,  and  burned  them  upon  the  altar,  and 
polluted  it,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  the  man  of  God  proclaimed, 

17  who  proclaimed  these  words.  Then  he  said,  What  title  [grave-stone]  is  that 
that  I  see  ?  And  the  men  of  the  city  told  him,  It  is  the  sepulchre  of  the  man 
of  God,  which  came  from  Judah,  and  proclaimed  [foretold]  these  things  that 

18  thou  hast  done  against  the  altar  of  Beth-el.  And  he  said,  Let  him  alone;  let 
no  man  move  his  bones.     So  they  let  his  bones  alone,  with  the  bones  of  the 

19  prophet  that  came  out  of  Samaria.  And  all  the  houses  also  of  the  high  places 
that  were  in  the  cities  of  Samaria,  which  the  kings  of  Israel  had  made  to  pro- 
voke the  Lord  to  anger,  Josiah  took  away,  and  did  to  them  according  to  all  the 

20  acts  that  he  had  done  in  Beth-el.  And  he  slew  all  the  priests  of  the  high  places 
that  were  there  [,]  upon  the  altars,  and  burned  men's  bones  upon  them,  and 
returned  to  Jerusalem. 

21  And  the  king  commanded  all  the  people,  saying,  Keep  the  passover  unto 
the  Lord  your  God,  as  it  is  written  in  the  [this]  book  of  this  [the]  covenant. 

22  Surely  there  was  not  holden  such  a  passover  from  the  days  of  the  judges  that 
judged  Israel,  nor  in  all  the  days  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the  kings  of 

23  Judah  ;  But  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  king  Josiah,  wherein  [omit,  ana  wherein] 
this  passover  was  holden  to  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem. 

24  Moreover  the  workers  with  familiar  spirits  [necromancers],  and  the  wizards, 
and  the  [household]  images,  and  the  idols,  and  all  the  abominations  that  were 
spied  in  the  land  of  Judah  and  in  Jerusalem,  did  Josiah  put  away,  that  he  might 
perform  [establish]  10  the  words  of  the  law,  which  were  written  in  the  book  that 

25  Hilkiah  the  priest  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  like  unto  him  was  there 
no  king  before  him,  that  turned  to  the  Lord  with  all  his  heart,  and  with  all  his 
soul,  and  with  all  his  might,  according  to  all  the  law  of  Moses ;  neither  after 
him  arose  there  any  like  him. 


254 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


26  Notwithstanding,  the  Lord  turned  not  from  the  fierceness  of  his  great  wrath, 
wherewith  his  anger  was  kindled  against  Judah,  because  of  all  the  provocations 

27  that  Manasseh  had  provoked  him  withal.  And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  remove 
Judah  also  out  of  my  sight,  as  I  have  removed  Israel,  and  will  cast  off  this  city 
Jerusalem  which  I  have  chosen,  and  the  house  of  which  I  said,  My  name  shall 

28  be  there.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Josiah,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not 
written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ? 

29  In  his  days  Pharaoh-nechoh  king  of  Egypt  went  up  against  the  king  of 
Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates  :  and  king  Josiah  went  against  him  ;   and  he 

30  slew  him  at  Megiddo,  when  he  had  seen  him.  And  his  servants  carried  him  in 
a  chariot  dead  from  Megiddo,  and  brought  him  to  Jerusalem,  and  buried  him  in 
his  own  sepulchre.  And  the  people  of  the  land  took  Jehoahaz  the  son  of  Josiah, 
and  anointed  him,  and  made  him  king  in  his  father's  stead. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 


1  Ver.  5.— The  chetib,  fOTV  ,  is  altogether  to  be    preferred  to  the  keri,  'iTOJV— Bahr.     [The  E.  V.  follows  the 

keri.     Boucher's  explanation  is  to  be  preferred.      He  retains  the  chetib  and  punctuates  i"UJV  ,  explaining  the  suffix  as 

an  Irregularity  in  gender.     Qf.  Oramm.,  note  on  2  Kings  xvi.  17,  and  Bottcher  §  877,  e. — W.  G.  S.] 

3  Ver.  5. — [Here  also  the  chetib,  IV33  ,  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  keri  JT3 .  Of.  Jerem.  xl.  5 ;  xli.  18.  JV3 ,  in  ver.  9, 

cannot  prove  the  contrary. — Bahr. 

'  Ver.  9. —  [They  had  emptied  out  the  money  from  receptacles  into  which  it  had  been  put  by  the  priests  as  it  was 
offered  from  time  to  time  by  the  people,  and  in  which  it  was  stored,  so  that  it  was  "found"  there,  as  the  text  says, 
literally. 

*  Ver.  13. — [Literally,  "written  upon,"  or  "against  us." 

*  Chap,  xxiii.  3. — [Literally:  stoodin.  Probably  they  signified  their  acquiescence  and  participation  by  standingin 
a  certain  place.  Hence  it  means  "joined  in."  So  Keil,  Thenius,  Luther,  De  Wette,  Bahr,  Bunsen.  Maiirer  and  Ge- 
senius  take  it  to  mean  persist  or  persevere,  which  would  be  the  modern  colloquial  significance  of  the  "stood  to"  of  the 
E.  V.,  but  is  not  the  proper  sense  here. 

*  Ver.  4.  —  [X^'Jl  ;  the  strict  rule  of  the  language  would  here  require  the  iniperf.  consec.  Other  instances  of  laxity  in 
the  use  of  this  form  occur  in  late  books,  Jerein.  xxxvii.  15;  Ezek.  ix.  7  ;  xxxvii.  7,  10;  Dan.  xii.  5,  and  in  the  book  of 
Ecclebiastes.    (Bottcher  §  9S2,  II.) 

'  Ver.  5. —  nt^p^l;  that  one  might  offer:  the  subject  is  the  indef.  sing.  French,  on.  Germ,  man.    The  singular, 

however,  is  very  remarkable,  and  the  text  may  be  incorrect.    The  versions  all  translate  as  if  it  were  "1I3p7  ,  "  for  which 

llSp1!   is  probably  an  error  of  the  pen  "  (Keil).     Bottcher  takes  the  imperf.  consec.  as  a  pluperfect,  because  it  follows 

another  plup.,  and  compares  Gen.  xxxi.  84,  and  1  Sam.  xix.  IS. — "  Whom  the  kings  of  Judah  had  appointed  and  [who, 
f.  e.  any  one  amongst  them]  had  offered  incense."  This  makes  good  sense,  but  the  change  from  passive  to  active,  and 
from  plur.  to  sing,  is  awkward,  and  the  grammatical  principles  are  not  clear. 

s  Ver.  9. — [Such  is  the  force  of  the  imperf.    "  They  might  not,"  i.  e„  they  were  not  allowed  to. 

9  Ver.  11.— [Literally:  he  canned  to  cease;  i.  e.,  these  horses  of  the  sun  had  been  kept  as  an  act  of  worship  to  the 
Bun.     He  took  them  away  and  put  an  end  to  the  arrangement. 

10  Ver.  24. — [rj'pn  i  aet  upright,  i.  e.,  that  he  might  introduce  the  institutions  and  customs  prescribed  in  the  law 

and  establish  them  in  successful  operation. — W.  G.  S.] 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 

The  parallel  account  in  the  book  of  Chronicles 
coincides  perfectly  with  the  above  in  all  its  details. 
In  some  passages,  indeed,  it  is  identically  the  same 
(chap.  xxii.  8-20  and  xxiii.  1-3  compared  with  2 
Chron.  xxxiv.  19-32);  but  the  Chronicler  cannot 
have  made  use  of  the  book  of  Kings  as  his  author- 
ity, for  he  gives  a  number  of  chronological  data, 
and  also  certain  proper  names  (xxxiv.  3,  8,  12  ; 
xxxv.  8,  9),  which  are  wanting  in  the  book  of 
Kings,  and  which  cannot  possibly  have  been  in- 
vented at  a  later  time.  The  case  is  the  same  with 
this  passage  as  with  chap.  xi.  1-20.  Both  ac- 
counts are  taken  from  one  and  the  same  original 
source,  viz.,  the  work  which  both  refer  to  at  the 
close  of  the  passage  (chap,  xxiii.  28;  2  Chron. 
xxxv.  27).  Their  principal  points  of  difference  are 
two ;  viz.,  that  each  one  describes  in  great  detail 
certain  ones  of  the  facts  noticed,  which  in  their 
turn  are  passed  over  more  summarily  by  the  other, 
and  that  the  facts  are  not  narrated  by  both  in  the 
same  chronological  order. 

In  the  book  of  Kings  the  extirpation  of  idolatry 
»nd  of  illegitimate  Jehovah-worship  is   described 


with  care  and  detail,  so  that  the  passage  here 
which  deals  with  this  point  (xxiii.  4—20)  is,  as  re- 
gards its  external  form,  longer  than  the  correspond- 
ing one  in  Chronicles ;  moreover,  as  regards  its 
contents,  it  is  by  far  the  most  important  passage 
in  the  entire  narrative,  all  that  goes  before  it  (xxii. 
3-20  and  xxiii.  1-3)  serving  only  as  an  historical 
introduction,  and  all  which  follows  (xxiii.  21-24) 
only  as  the  conclusion  and  sequel  to  it.  In 
Chronicles,  on  the  other  hand,  the  description  of 
the  passover  festival  is  the  object  of  greatest  in- 
terest, as  is  evident,  in  the  first  place,  from  the 
fulness  with  which  it  is  given  (2  Chron.  xxxv. 
1-19),  while  the  extirpation  of  the  false  worship 
is  very  briefly  recorded.  [This  is  in  accord  with 
what  we  observe  in  general  in  regard  to  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  two  books.  The  book  of  Kings 
attaches  the  interest  to  the  religious  and  theocratic 
features  of  the  history,  while  the  book  of  Chronicles 
is  especially  interested  in  its  ecclesiastical  details. 
In  Kings  we  have  the  history  studied  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  prophets ;  in  Chronicles,  from 
that  of  the  levitical  priesthood.  In  Kings  we  find 
those  details  especially  prominent  which  refer*  to 
ethical,  religious,  and  monotheistic  truth;  in  Chro 


CHAPTER  XXU.-XXIII.  30. 


255 


nicies  the  fortunes  of  the  priesthood,  and  the 
ritualistic  and  hierarchical  developments,  are  all 
fastened  upon  and  described  in  detail. — W.  G.  S.] 
Evidently  these  fundamental  charactisterics  of  the 
'  two  authors  present  themselves  in  their  accounts 
of  this  reign.  The  older  author  gives  us  an  ac- 
count from  his  theocratic  and  pragmatic  stand- 
point. He  desires  to  show  that  king  Josiah  stands 
alone  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  kings,  iu  that  he 
carried  out  in  practice  and  execution  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  theocracy  with  a  zeal  and 
severity  equalled  by  none  of  his  predecessors  or 
successors  (xxiii.  24  and  25.  The  statement  is 
wanting  in  Chronicles.)  The  latter  author,  on  the 
contrary,  adopts  the  levitical  and  priestly  stand- 
point. He  desires  to  show  that  the  passover  had 
not  been  so  solemnly  or  correctly  celebrated  since 
the  time  of  Samuel  as  it  was  under  Josiah.  For 
this  reason  we  must  regard  the  account  in  Kings 
as  more  important,  and  use  that  in  Chronicles 
merely  as  a  valuable  complement  to  it. — As  for  the 
chronological  succession  of  the  events,  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Kings  puts  the  eighteenth  year  of 
Josiah's  reign  at  the  head  of  the  narrative.  He 
says  that  the  repair  of  the  temple,  during  which  the 
Book  of  the  Law  was  found,  took  place  iu  this 
year;  that  the  reading  of  this  book  agitated  the 
king  so  much  that  he  sought  higher  guidance  in 
regard  to  it ;  that  he,  after  this  guidance  had  been 
given  him  through  the  prophetess  Huldah,  collect- 
ed the  people  and  bound  them  to  observe  the  cove- 
nant prescribed  in  this  book ;  that  he  then  pro- 
ceeded to  extirpate  all  false  worship,  and  abolish 
idolatry,  first  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  and  then  in 
Samaria,  and  when  he  had  accomplished  this,  that 
he  ordained  an  observance  of  the  passover  accord- 
ing to  the  strict  prescriptions  of  the  book.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  this  is  a  sequence  of  events 
in  which  each  one  follows  naturally  and  necessarily 
from  the  preceding.  The  Chronicler,  on  the  other 
hand,  begins  his  account  with  these  words:  "In 
the  eighth  year  of  his  [Josiah's]   reign,  while  he 

was  a  boy  ["iyj],  he  commenced  to  seek  the  God 

of  his  father  David,  and  in  his  twelfth  year  he 
commenced  to  purify  Judah  and  Jerusalem  from 
the  high-places,  and  the  Astarte-images,  and  the 
idols  of  stone  and  the  molten  images,  and  they  tore 
down  before  him  the  altars  of  the  Baalim,"  Ac. 
After  the  same  had  been  done  in  "  the  land  of  Is- 
rael "  he  "  returned  to  Jerusalem  "  (chap,  xxxiv. 
3-7).  After  this  followed,  still  in  the  eighteenth 
year,  the  repair  of  the  temple,  during  which  the 
Book  of  the  Law  was  found.  This  occasioned  the 
oracle  of  the  prophetess  and  the  oath  of  fidelity  to 
the  covenant  from  the  assembled  people.  Imme- 
diately after  the  description  of  the  last  event  fol- 
lows the  remark :  "  And  Josiah  took  away  all  the 
abominations  out  of  all  the  countries  that  pertain- 
ed to  the  children  of  Israel,  and  made  all  who 
were  present  in  Israel  to  serve,  even  to  serve  the 
Lord  their  God  "  (chap,  xxxiv.  33).  Then,  in  chap, 
xxxv.,  follows  the  description  of  the  passover. 
The  chronicler,  therefore,  puts  the  extirpation  of 
idolatry  before  the  repair  of  the  temple  and  the 
discovery  of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  and  before  the 
oath  of  fidelity  to  the  covenant.  This  cannot, 
however,  be  the  correct  chronological  sequence  of 
the  events,  for  the  incentive  which  moved  Josiah 
to  collect  the  people  and  exact  an  oath  of  fidelity  to 
the  covenant  from   them  was  the  threats  of  the 


newly  discovered  Law-book.     Such  an  oath  would 
have  been  useless  and  destitute  of  signifies  Dee  il 
every  illegitimate  cultus  had  already  been  abolish- 
ed.    The  chronicler  seems  to  have  perceived  this 
himself,  for  he   repeats,    in   brief  and   condensed 
form,  after  the  narrative  of  the  discovery  of  the 
book,  and  after  the  public  oath  of  fidelity,  the  state 
ment  of  the  reformation  in  the  cultus  which  he  had 
already  given  in  vers.  4-7.       On  the  other  hand, 
his  definite  chronological  statements  in  ver.  3 :    In 
the  eighth  and  in  the  t%velfth  years   of  Josiah, 
statements   which   are   wanting   in   the   book  of 
Kings,  cannot  be  pure  inventions  of  his  own,  espe- 
cially if  it  is  true  that  the   sixteenth  year  of  life, 
that  is,  in  this  case,  the  eighth  year  of  the  reign, 
was  "  the  year  in  which,  according  to  numerous 
indications,    the    king's    sons    became    of    age' 
(Ewald).     It  is  also  unlikely  that  the  king,  who 
had  been  remarkable  for  his  piety  from  his  youth 
up,  should  have  suddenly  undertaken  such  a  star 
tling  reformation  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign 
The  repair  of  the  temple  previous  to  the  discovery 
of  the  book  shows  that  he  was  disposed  to  foster 
the  Jehovah-worship.      What  he  did  in  his  eighth 
and  twelfth  years  may  have  been  a  commencement 
and  preparation  for  what  he  carried  out  in  his 
eighteenth  year  with  thoroughness  and  severity, 
being  impelled  by  the   threats   contained    in   the 
book  which  had  been  discovered.    This  eighteenth 
year  was,  therefore,  the  real  year  of  the  reforma, 
tion,    the   year  in   which  there  was   a   complete 
change  in  the  religious  worship  of  the  nation,  and 
in  which  Josiah  accomplished  the  work  by  virtue 
of  which  he   stands  alone  in   the   history  of  the 
kingdom.     This  is  the  reasou  why  the  author  of 
the  book  of  Kings  puts  this  date  at  the  head  of 
his  narrative,  omitting  any  mention  of  the  eighth 
and  twelfth  years,  and  also  repeats  it  at  the  close 
(chap,  xxiii.  23).     The  chronicler,  on  the  contrary, 
who  only  mentions  the  abolition  of  the  illegal  and 
illegitimate  worship  in   the  briefest  manner,   de- 
sired to  add  to  his  statement  that  Josiah   "  began" 
in  his  twelfth  year  "to  purify  Judah  and  Jerusa- 
lem" the  further  information  how  he   carried  this 
out,  although  somewhat  later,  in  the  land  of  Israel 
also.      This  uncertainty  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
historical  material  is  due  to  the  imperfeetness  of 
the  art   of  the  historian,   and  it  is  not  right   to 
ascribe   to  the  account  in  general,   as   De  Welte 
does,  "  distortion  of  the  sense,  confusedness,  and 
obscurity."     Neither  is  it  by  any  means  correct  to 
assert,  as  Keil  and  Movers  do,  that  "  the  account 
of  the  chronicler  is,  on  the  whole,  more  correct, 
chronologically,"  for  it  is  not  possible  that  the  abo- 
lition of  idolatry,  even  in  Judah,  should  have  taken 
place  before  the  discovery  of  the  Law-book,  as 
chap,   xxxiv.   6,  7  seems  to  assert.      The  assertion 
that  •'  not  all  the  events  mentioned  in  this  account 
(chap.  xxii.  3-xxiii.  23)  could  have  taken  place  in 
the  one  eighteenth  year,"  especially  seeing  that 
the  passover  feast  belonged  in  the  commencement 
and  not  at  the  end  of  the  year  (Keil),  is  not  found- 
ed on  conclusive  arguments,  for  the  eighteenth  year 
is  a  year  of  the  reign,  not  a  calendar  year,  and  it? 
end  may  very  well  have  fallen  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  calendar  year ;  moreover,  we  do  not 
see  why  the  work  of  destruction  might  not  have 
been  accomplished  in  one  year,  seeing  that  it  met 
with  no  opposition.      Thenius  even  thinks  that  it 
was  accomplished  "in  a  period  of  imr  mouths." 
[Nevertheless,  as  Keil  says  (.Comm.  *   35  0     "If 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OP  THE  KINGS. 


we  take  in  review  the  separate  events  and  incidents 
which  are  narrated  in  this  passage,  the  repair  of 
the  temple,  the  discovery  of  the  Law-book,  the 
reading  of  it  to  the  king,  the  inquiry  of  the  pro- 
phetess and  her  oracle,  the  reading  of  the  book  to 
the  people  in  the  temple  with  the  renewal  of  the 
covenant,  the  abolition  of  idolatry  not  only  in 
Judah,  but  also  in  Bethel  and  the  other  cities  of 
Samaria,  and,  tinally,  the  passover  festival,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  remark  that  all  this  cannot 
have  taken  place  in  the  one  eighteenth  year  of  his 
reign."]  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose,  as  Ber- 
theau  does,  that  both  narratives  are  chronologi- 
cally inaccurate,  inasmuch  as  "events  are  included 
in  the  narrative  [xxiii.  4-20]  which  belong  to  the 
time  before  the  eighteenth  year."  It  is  certain 
that  Josiah  "  began  "  to  reform  before  his  eigh- 
teenth year,  but  the  events  mentioned  in  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  4-7  belong  not  to  this  time,  but  to  the  eigh- 
teenth year,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  transfer  to 
the  time  before  this  year  events  which  belong  to 
this  year  itself.  [The  author's  opinion  is,  there- 
fore, that  Josiah's  undertaking  to  repair  the  temple 
bears  witness  to  his  disposition  to  reform  the  eul- 
tus,  and  that  this,  in  connection  with  the  assertion 
of  the  chronicler  that  he  made  certain  efforts  to 
this  end  in  his  twelfth  year,  forces  us  to  the  con- 
viction that  the  reformation  commenced  before  the 
eighteenth  year  of  the  reign,  but  that  those  efforts 
in  this  direction  which  he  is  said  by  the  chronicler 
lo  have  made  before  his  eighteenth  year  really  be- 
long to  that  year,  including  all  the  reformatory 
measures  of  which  the  Scripture  has  preserved  a 
record.— W.  G.  S.] 

EXEGETICA1  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ter.    1.    Josiah  was  eight  years   old,   &c. 

Amon  was  twenty -four  years  old  when  he  died 
(chap.xxi.  19).  Hemust  have  begotten  Josiah  when 
he  was  only  sixteen  years  old.  This  is  not  aston- 
ishing in  view  of  the  early  marriages  which  are 
common  in  the  Orient  (see  notes  on  chap.  xvi.  2). 
Whether  the  young  king  was  under  a  regency,  or 
had  an  elderly  man  as  tutor  and  governor,  as 
Joash  did  (chap.  xii.  3),  is  not  stated.  We  know 
nothing  of  Boscath,  the  birth-place  of  his  mother, 
except  that  it  was  in  the  plain  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv. 
39).  Ver.  2  characterizes  in  general  the  reign  of 
Josiah,  and  forms,  as  it  were,  the  title  of  the  entire 
following  passage.  The  expression  :  "  Turned  not 
aside  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left  "  (see  Deut. 
v.  32 ;  xvii.  11,  20 ;  xxviii.  14)  is  only  used  of  this 
king  in  this  book. — On  the  chronological  date : 
"  in  the  eighteenth  year,"  see  Preliminary  Remarks. 
The  addition  in  the  Sept. :  ev  tC.  finvl  ru  bydou, 
is  not  found  anywhere  else,  and  does  not  deserve 
any  attention.  In  Chronicles  (xxxiv.  8)  two  other 
persons  are  mentioned  whom  the  king  sent  with 
Shaphan,  Maaseiah,  the  governor,  and  Joah,  the 
recorder.  Shaphan  alone  is  mentioned  here,  as  he 
was  the  one  who  had  charge  of  the  money.      The 

others  were   merely  companions.     On   "|£C  i   see 

notes  on  1  Kings  iv.  3. 

Ver.  4.  Go  up  to  Hilkiah,  the  high-priest, 
fcc.  Since  the  time  of  Joash  (chap.  xii.  5),  a  period 
of  250  years,  the  temple  had  not  been  repaired. 
It  had,  therefore,  become  very  much  dilapidated. 
Josiah  went  to  work  according  to  the  precedent 
•Btablished   by   Joash.      "  The  fact    that  we    find 


here  almost  the  same  account  as  in  chap.  xiL  11 
sq.  is  due  to  the  similarity  of  the  two  incidents 
and  is  perfectly  natural,  so  that  it  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  a  proof  that  the  account  is  untrue 
(Stahelin,  Krit,  Untersuch.s.  156)"  (Thenius).  The 
account  is  here  somewhat  abbreviated  and  pre- 
supposes some  things  which  are  there  distinctly 
stated.  The  author  only  mentions  the  temple- 
repairs  because  they  brought  the  Law-book  to 
light.  The  high-priest  Hilkiah  is  mentioned  in  the 
list  of  the  high-priests,  and  is  designated  as  the  son 
of  Shallum  (1  Chron.  vi.  13).  Nothing  further  is 
known  in  regard  to  him.  Many  have  supposed 
that  he  was  the  father  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah 
(Jer.  i.  1),  (Eichhorn,  Von  Bohlen,  and  Jlenzel),  but 
this  is  certainly  an  error,  as  Hitzig  in  the  prole- 
gomena to  his  Comm.  on  Jeremiah  has  shown. 
DFT     is   hifll    from    Don  ,    and   means,   to   make 

perfect  (see  Furst  s.  v.)  not,  to  pay  (Geseu.).  [This 
money  was  the  result  of  offerings  which  came  in 
slowly  and  steadily.     The  force  of  0!V  is  to  take 

up  the  money  which  had  been  paid  in  up  to  this 
time,  make  an  account  and  settlement,  and  so 
finish  up,  make  complete,  the  sum  on  hand.  The 
E.  V.  "  sum  "  is,  therefore,  quite  accurate. — W.  G. 
S.]  Hilkiah's  duty  in  the  circumstances  was  that 
which   is   described  more   fully  in    chap.  xii.  10 

sq.      The   conjecture    Dnffl ,    *•   e.,    and    seal    up 

(Thenius)  is  entirely  unnecessary.  The  translation 
of  the  Sept.,  ^wrracarE,  is  incorrect.  So  is  also 
that  of  the  Vulg. :  confletur  pecunia.  According  to 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  9  the  money  was  paid  in  "  by 
Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  and  all  the  remnant  of  Is- 
rael, as  well  as  by  all  Judah  and  Benjamin,  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem."  The  names  of  the 
commissioners  or  inspectors  are  also  given  there 
(ver.  12),  but  they  have  no  further  interest  or  im- 
portance. 

Ver.  8.  I  have  found  the  book  of  the  Law  in 
the  house  of  the  Lord.  The  emphasis  lies  here, 
as  the  position  of  the  words  [Hebr.  text]  shows, 
on  minn  "I3D  ,  words  which  can  only  be  trans- 
lated "the  book  of  the  Law,"  according  to  the 
familiar  rule:  "If  a  compound  notion,  expressed 
by  a  governing  noun  and  a  dependent  genitive,  has 
to  have  the  article,  this  is  regularly  placed  before 
the  genitive,  but  it  then  affects  the  entire  com- 
pound "  (Gesenius,  Gramm.  §  109,  1  [19th  Ed.  § 
111,  1];   Ewald,  Lehrb.  §  290,  a,  1).     KVD  is  here 

emphatic,  and  does  not  mean,  to  fall  in  with 
something  which  is  known  to  be  somewhere  at  hand, 
but  to  discover  something  which  is  concealed  (cf. 
Levit.  v.  22  and  23  [English  text  vi.  3  and  4], 
where  we  And  with  it  m2X  ,  »'•  e.,  something  lost). 

[XVO  means  to  find  in  three  different  senses:   (a) 

to  find  a  thing  of  whose  existence  one  has  know- 
ledge, and  which  one  therefore  seeks  for;  (b)  to 
find,  by  accident,  a  thing  whose  existence  was 
known,  but  which  had  for  some  time  been  lost 
sight  of;  (c)  to  find  a  new  thing  which  one  never 
had  seen  or  heard  of  before.  The  author  thinks 
that  the  second  meaning  is  the  one  which  it  has 
here.  Ewald,  quoted  immediately  below,  takes  it 
in  the  third  sense. — W.  G.  S.]  We  see  in  the 
course  of  the  narrative  that  this  book  is  always 
referred  to  as  that  which  had  been  "  found  "  [i.  e. 
resiled   from  ooncealment]   (chap.  xxii.  13 ;   xxiii 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


257 


2,  24;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14;  xxi.  30).  It  is,  there- 
fore, arbitrary  and  violent  of  Ewald,  who  estab- 
lished the  above  rule,  to  give  to  these  words,  on 
account  of  other  considerations,  the  "  indefinite 
sense :  "  "  Hilkiah  also  (!)  spoke  with  Shaphan 
about  a  (!)  book  of  the  law  which  he  said  he  had 
found  in  the  temple,"  and  to  assert  in  the  note  : 
u  There  is  ho  possible  reference  here  to  an  old  al- 
ready known,  and  now  only  rediscovered,  book  of 
the  Law."   The  appeal  to  -|BD  (ver.  10)  has  no  force, 

for  there  minn  is  to  be  supplied  from  ver.  8,  for 

Hilkiah  had  already  definitely  described  it  as  the 
book  of  the  Law,  and  Shaphan  brought  it  to  the 
king  as  such.  [We  have  no  right  to  interpolate  the 
minn  in  ver.  10.      The  fact  is  rather  as  follows : 

In  ver.  8  Hilkiah  calls  it  "  the  book  of  the  Law," 
because  he  is  convinced .  that  it  is  so;  in  ver.  10 
Shaphan  presents  it  to  the  king  as  a  book,  in  re- 
gard to  whose  character  he  does  not  himself  ex- 
press any  opinion,  nor  desire  to  raise  any  preju- 
dice. It  is  simply  an  interesting  book  deserving 
the  king's  attention  and  examination.  Such  is  the 
true  meaning  of  the  text  as  it  stands  with  minn 

in  Hilkiah's  description,  but  omitted  in  Shaphan's. 
"We  obliterate  this  feature  of  the  narrative  if  we 
supply  minn  in  ver.  10. — W.  G.  S.]  Thenius 
justly  says,  in  contradiction  of  Ewald :  "  The  ex- 
pression shows  distinctly  that  it  refers  to  a  book 
which  was  known  in  earlier  times,  not  to  one 
which  had  now  for  the  first  time  come  to  light," 
and  Bunsen  says:  "It  certainly  refers  to  a  work 
which  had  been  previously  known."  Nothing  but 
the  critic's  preconceived  notion  could  lead  him  to 
contradict  this.     Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 

what  is  meant  by  the  expression    minn    ")SD  , 

for  it  is  the  well-known  technical  expression  for 
the  books  of  Moses  as  a  whole.  In  the  parallel 
passage  in  Chronicles  we  read  (xxxiv.  14) :  "  Hil- 
kiah, the  priest,  found  --pa  mnrmin  napTIN 

i1l''0  ,"  and  according  to  Deut.  xxxi.  24-26,  Moses, 

after  he  had  finished  writing  out  the  whole  law 
(DSn'ny),  said  to  the  levites :     "Take    -)3D    HN 

n?n   minn  ,  and  lay  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of 

the  covenant."  In  chap.  xxiiL  2,  3,  21 ;  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.   30,   31,   we  find  instead  JV"13,n  "I2D,   but 

this  expression  also  designates  the  books  of  Moses 
us  a  whole.  It  is  the  same  as  ncti  min  ^3  , 
chap,  xxiii.  25.  This  expression  is  never  used  of 
a  portion,  or  of  a  single  one,  of  the  books  of 
Moses,  so  that  it  proves  that  the  "book"  which 
was  found  could  not  be,  as  has  often  been  sup- 
posed, the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  That  book  was 
certainly  contained  in  it,  for  it  was  the  "  threats  " 
contained  in  that  book  (Deut.  xxviii.)  which  made 
such  a  deep  impression  on  the  king  (ver.  11),  and 
which  were  affirmed  by  the  prophetess  (ver.  16). 
It,  however,  presupposes  the  other  books,  and 
never  formed  a  separate  book  by  itself. 

Josiah  certainly  could  not  renew  the  covenant  on 
the  basis  of  one  book  only,  but  only  on  the  basis  of 
the  whole  book  of  the  law  (chap,  xxiii.  1-3).  The 
opinion  that  this  book  was  Deuteronomy  alone 
has,  therefore,  been  almost  universally  abandoned, 
and  Bertheau  justly  observes  of  this  opinion  (Zur 

n 


Gesch.  Isr.  s.  375) :  It  "  lacks  all  foundation,  and 
only  rests  upon  favorite  assumptions,  which  can- 
not stand  before  a  critical  science  which  examines 
more  carefully."  It  is  now  commonly  assumed 
that  "the  law-book  was  a  document  which  formed 
the  basis  of  Deuteronomy  at  the  final  redaction  * 
(Hitzig  on  Jerem.  xi.  s.  90),  or  that  it  was  a  "  col- 
lection of  the  commands  and  ordinances  of  Moses 
which  has  been  since  incorporated  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, especially  in  Deuteronomy"  (Thenius  on  the 
place),  or  that  it  was  "  a  collection  of  the  laws  of 
Moses ;  in  fact,  that  formally  arranged  collection 
of  them  which  is  contained  in  the  three  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  "  (Bertheau  on  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  14).  But  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of 
any  such  "  collection  "  as  existing  before,  or  by  the 
side  of,  the  Pentateuch ;  much  less  is  there  any 
hint  that  any  such  collection  was  designated  as 
"  the  book  of  the  Law,"  or  "the  book  of  the  Cov- 
enant." It  is  a  pure  hypothesis  in  which  refuge 
has  been  sought,  because,  on  the  one  hand,  it  war 
impossible  to  understand  by  the  newly  discovered 
"  book  "  any  one  of  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  believed  that  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch  must  be  ascribed  to 
a  later  date.  This  is  not  the  place  for  an  investiga- 
tion into  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  We  simply 
hold  firmly  to  this,  on  the  authority  of  the  text  be- 
fore us,  that  the  newly  discovered  book  was  the 
entire  Pentateuch.  De  Wette,  even,  declares 
(Einleit.  §  162,  a):  "The  discovery  of  he  book  of 
the  law  in  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  is 
the  first  (?)  certain  hint  which  we  find  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Pentateuch  as  we  have  it  to-day." 

[In  the  above  discussion  there  are  two  points 
involved :  (a)  the  general  question  of  the  date  of 
the  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  and  (b)  the  especial  evi- 
dence of  the  text  before  us  on  that  question.  I 
dismiss  the  former  point  with  the  following  re- 
marks, (a)  It  is  a  question  of  great  scope,  involving 
the  examination  of  many  texts  (very  few  of  which 
are  mentioned  above),  and  calling  for  a  comprehen- 
sive treatment.  Such  an  undertaking  is  out  of 
place  and  impossible  here.  (6)  This  question  re- 
quires freedom,  and  scholarly  independence  from 
dogmatic  prepossessions,  for  its  discussion.  It 
requires  also  thorough  and  wide  knowledge  of  a 
variety  of  subjects.  It  cannot  be  settled  by  any  ar- 
bitary  and  dogmatic  assertions,  (c)  The  reasons 
which  are  adduced  for  believing  in  the  compara- 
tively late  origin  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  if 
not  convincing,  are  at  least  such  as  to  demand  the 
candid  consideration  of  honest  scholars.  (For  the 
summary  of  the  arguments  on  either  side  see  th© 
Introductory  Essays  in  the  Commentary  on  Gene- 
sis, and  the  articles  "  Pentateuch  "  and  "  Deutero- 
nomy," in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.) 

The  other  question,  as  to  the  bearing  of  this 
verse  on  the  question  of  the  date  of  the  origin  of 
Deuteronomy,  is  in  place  here,  but,  in  fact,  the 
text  bears  little  or  no  evidence  on  that  point.  The 
reasons  for  thinking  that  Deuteronomy  was  not 
written  by  Moses,  but  at  some  time  long  after  his 
death,  are  critical  and  independent  of  the  verse  be- 
fore us.  When  this  opinion  had  gained  ground 
the  question  arose,  when  was  it  written  ?  then  at- 
tention was  turned  to  this  passage,  and  it  was 
s'ispected  that  this  was  the  time  of  its  publication, 
if  not  of  its  composition.  Then  the  text  was  tor 
tured  to  try  to  make  it  bear  evidence  either  to  con- 
firm or  overthrow  this  suspicion.     There  is  evi 


258 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


aenoe  to  this  point  drawn  from  other  sources,  but 
the  text  before  us  yields  none  to  either  side. 

(a)  In  the  first  place,  "  the  Book  of  the  Law  "  is 
a  name  which  may  have  referred  at  one  time  to 
the  Decalogue,  at  another  time  to  a  collection  of 
laws,  at  another  time  to  a  still  later  revision,  and 
so  on  until  it  was  applied  finally  to  the  Penta- 
teuch in  its  preseut  form,  and  so  came  down  to  us 
with  that  meaning.  This  is  what  the  "critical 
school "  affirm  to  have  been  the  fact,  and  so  far  as 
the  name,  "  The  Book  of  the  Law  "  goes,  it  is  not 
inconsistent  with  that  assertion.  The  "  Revised 
Statutes  "  of  a  State,  at  any  given  time,  means  the 
volume  of  law  as  fixed,  up  to  that  time.  Ten 
years  later,  the  same  title  refers,  perhaps,  to  a 
very  different  set  of  laws.  The  illustration  an- 
swers rudely  for  the  development  which  is  sup- 
posed to  have  taken  place  from  the  original  writ- 
ings of  Moses  to  the  historical,  political,  religious, 
and  ritual  work  which  now  bears  his  name.  We 
have  some  indications  of  the  extent  of  what  is 
called  "  the  Law  of  Moses,"  in  the  time  which 
seems  to  have  been  required  for  reading  it,  but 
they  are  vague  and  uncertain.  In  Josh.  viii.  32, 
however,  we  read  that  Joshua  "  wrote  there  upon 
the  stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  he 
wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of  Israel." 
Probably  no  one  will  think  that,  in  this  case,  it  re- 
fers to  the  Pentateuch.  Therefore,  in  the  verse 
before  us,  "  the  Book  of  the  Law  "  refers  to  what- 
ever was  so  considered,  or  passed  as  such  at  this 
period,  but  what  that  was  is  exactly  the  point  in 
dispute. 

(b)  The  word  NVt3 ,  as  was  said  above,  is  used 
for  different  kinds  of  finding.  It  does  not,  there- 
fore, give  us  any  clue  as  to  whether  the  thing 
found  was  an  old  thing,  whose  location  had  not, 
for  some  time,  been  known,  or  a  thing  which 
had  not  previously  been  known  to  be  in  exis- 
tence at  all.  However,  no  one  believes  that 
nothing  had  previously  existed,  or  been  known  to 
exist,  which  passed  under  the  name  of  the  "  Law 
of  the  Lord."  The  question  in  dispute  is,  whether 
the  thing  now  so  designated  was  identical  with 
what  had  previously  been  so  called,  or  was  a  revi- 
sion and  extension  of  the  same,  containing  espe- 
cially, as  a  recent  addition,  the  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy. On  that  question  the  word  XVD  casts  no 
light. 

(c)  Hilkiah  uses  the  definite  article.  Let  us 
endeavor  to  realize  the  state  of  things,  and  see 
what  inference  Hows  from  this  fact.  We  know 
that,  at  this  time,  certain  religious  doctrines  were 
known  and  believed,  and  certain  rites  of  worship 
were  practised  in  Judah  by  those  who  maintain- 
ed the  worship  of  Jehovah.  We  also  know  (so 
mucli,  at  least,  no  one  disputes)  that  Moses  had 
given  certain  revelations  of  religious  truth,  and 
certain  religious  ordinances  to  the  Israelites,  iu 
the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  had  written  them  down. 
The  only  dispute  on  these  points  can  be  as  to  the 
degree  of  knowledge,  faith,  and  worship  which 
existed  in  Judah,  and  as  to  the  amount  of  revela- 
tion and  law  which  Moses  gave  and  wrote.  It 
follows  that  the  writings  of  Moses,  either  in  their 
original,  or  in  a  modified  and  extended  form, 
served  as  the  authority  for  the  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship which  still  remained  in  Judah,  or  else,  that 
this  written  law  had  passed  from  human  know- 
ledge, lost  iu  the  flood  of  heathenism  which  had 
poured  over  the  nation  during  the  last  century,  iu 


which  case  the  doctrine  and  worship  which  re- 
mained would  be  based  on  a  tradition  of  the  an< 
cient  writings  as  such  ;  and  the  name  "  The  Law  * 
would  refer  only  to  the  substance  of  them,  so  fai 
as  it  was  remembered.  Hilkiah's  announcement 
throws  light  on  this  alternative.  If  he  had  said: 
I  have  found  a  book  of  the  Law, — it  would  have 
implied  that  he  had  found  a  copy  of  a  generally 
well  known  volume.  But  he  says :  I  have  found 
"  the  Book  of  the  Law."  He  refers  to  it  as  some- 
thing known  or  heard  of  before,  yet  the  tone  ot 
the  announcement  and  the  effect  of  the  discovery- 
show  that  no  other  copies  of  this  book  could  have 
been  known  to  be  in  existence,  or  else  that  this  copy 
was  different  from  all  others.  If  the  latter  were  the 
case,  the  suspicion  would  be  forced  upon  us,  by 
the  reference  to  "  threats  "  in  the  book,  that  what 
marked  this  copy,  as  distinguished  from  all  others, 
was  just  the  book  of  Detlteronomy.  Many  scholars 
so  regard  the  incident.  However,  it  is  strange 
that,  if  other  copies  existed,  while  this  copy  con- 
tained matter  which  was  missing  from  them,  no 
hint  of  this  should  be  found  in  the  context.  Ho  v 
was  it  that  no  one  produced  a  copy  of  the  "  Law," 
or  challenged  the  new  copy  as  a  forgery  ?  Or,  if 
it  passed  at  once  as  genuine,  because  it  was  not  in 
the  "  spirit  of  the  age  "  to  be  critical  about  literary 
authorship,  and  if  it  was  well  known,  from  easy 
comparison  with  existing  copies,  that  this  copy 
gave  new  and  valuable  knowledge  of  the  Law, 
why  do  we  find  no  hint  of  this  gain?  The  argu- 
ment from  silence  is  never  conclusive,  but  in  this 
case  it  is  very  strong.  It  seems  rather  that  Hil- 
kiah refers,  by  his  words,  to  a  book  which  was 
unique,  so  far  as  his,  or  the  general  public  know- 
ledge went,  and  that  he  meant  to  announce  the 
discovery  of  the  Book  which  contained  that  Law 
which  was  known  to  them  by  tradition,  which 
formed  the  basis  of  their  faith  and  worship,  of 
whose  existence,  at  a  former  time,  in  a  written 
codex,  they  had  also  heard,  but  of  which  they 
possessed  no  written  copy. 

The  only  true  inference  from  this  text  is, 
therefore,  this,  that  during  the  time  of  apostasy 
the  Scriptures  had  been  lost  to  public  knowledge, 
and  "the  Law"  existed  only  as  a  tradition  and 
memory.  This  leaves  us  face  to  face  with  the 
question  :  Of  what  did  "  this  book  of  the  Law  " 
consist, — of  our  Pentateuch,  or  of  some  imperfect 
form  of  what  we  now  call  the  Pentateuch  ?  We 
must  look  for  the  answer  to  that  question  else- 
where. We  shall  not  find  it  in  this  verse. — W. 
G.  S.] 

As  for  the  particular  copy  of  the  book  which 
was  found,  the  Rabbis  and  many  of  the  old  ex- 
positors, Grotius,  Piscator,  Hess,  and  others  in- 
ferred from  the  words  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14:  "The 
book   of  the  law  of  Jehovah    nt;*D  T3,"  that  it 

was  "  the  original  manuscript  from  the  hand  of 
Moses,"  and  Calmet  was  of  the  opinion  that  this 
supposition  could  alone  account  for  the  great  effect 
which  the  discovery  produced.  In  Numb.  xv.  23 
we  find  the  same  expression,  but  there  it  cannot 
possibly  be  understood  literally  of  the  "  hand  "  of 
Moses.  It  is  used  in  the  sense  in  which  we  often 
find   T3    elsewhere  (1  Kings  xii.  15 ;  Jer.  xxxvii 

2),  simply  to  denote  the  medium  through  which 
Clericus'  statement  is  correct:  Satis  est,  exemplai 
quoddam  Legis  antiquum  fuisse,  idque  authenucum. 
As   it  was   found   "  in   the  house  of  Jehovah,"  i' 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


259 


•was  most  probably  the  temple-copy,  i:  «.,  the  offi- 
cial one  which,  as  the  documentary  testimony  to 
the  covenant,  was  deposited  in  the  temple,  accord- 
ing to  Deut.  xxxi.  12,  26,  and  was  used  for  public 
reading  from  time  to  time  before  the  people.  Per- 
haps this  copy  was  distinguished  by  its  external 
.appearance,  size,  material,  beauty  of  the  writing, 
&c,  from  the  ordinary  private  copies.  [The  pas- 
sage in  Deuteronomy  must  then  be  interpreted  as 
a  general  injunction  always  to  keep  a  copy  in  the 
tabernacle  or  temple,  an  interpretation  which  a 
glance  will  show  to  be  incorrect,  and  it  is  assumed 
that  there  were  private  copies  in  existence.  If 
private  copies  of  "  the  Book  of  the  Law  "  were 
common,  or  if  a  single  one  was  known  to  be  in 
■existence,  then  we  cannot  understand  why  the 
discovery  produced  such  a  sensation,  unless  in- 
-deed  we  suppose  that  the  newly  discovered  copy 
contained  something  which  the  other  copies  did 
not.  In  that  case  the  reference  to  the  "  threats  " 
contained  in  the  book,  as  one  of  its  prominent 
characteristics,  would  awaken  the  gravest  suspi- 
cion that  what  it  contained  over  and  above  the 
■other  copies  was  just  the  book  of  Deuteronomy. 
There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  private  copies 

existed,  and  the  definite  article  minn  T2D  bears 

witness  to  the  contrary,  as  above  stated. — W.  G. 
S.]  It  is  nowhere  stated  when  and  how  this  offi- 
cial copy  was  thrown  aside  and  lost  sight  of. 
According  to  the  tradition  of  the  rabbis,  this  took 
place  und9r  Ahaz,  who,  they  say,  caused  all  the 
■copies  to  be  burned,  but  Kimchi  justly  objected 
■that  the  reformation  under  Hezekiah  presupposed 
the  existence  of  the  Law-book,  and  acquaintance 
with  it.  The  supposition  is  therefore  naturally 
•suggested  that  under  the  fanatical  idolater  Manas- 
seh,  who  sought  to  destroy  all  Jehovah-worship, 
.and  who  reigned  for  fifty-five  years,  some  faithful 
servant  of  Jehovah,  perhaps  the  high-priest  him- 
self, took  care  to  conceal  and  preserve  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  and  that  the  book  only  came  to  light 
again  at  the  repairing  of  the  temple  under  Josiah, 
after  sixty  or  seventy  years  of  concealment. 
During  this  period  the  priests  "  followed  an  imper- 
fect tradition  in  their  execution  of  the  public  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah,  instead  of  being  guided  by  the 
legal  prescriptions  "  (Von  Gerlach),  and  "  it  may 
be  that  the  active  practice  of  religious  observances 
(which  we  must  take  for  granted  as  existing  in  a 
well-ordered  State)  saved  them  from  feeling  the 
necessity  for  written  rules  "  (Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  I.  s. 
S10).  The  discovery  of  the  authentic  Law-book 
was  all  the  more  important  on  this  account,  for  by 
means  of  it  the  pure  and  correct  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah could  now  be  re-established.  The  idle  ques- 
tion, where  the  book  was  found  ?  whether  under 
the  roof,  or  under  a  heap  of  stones,  or  in  one  of 
the  treasure  chambers,  may  be  left  to  the  rabbis 
to  contend  over. 

Ver.  11.  When  the  king  had  heard  the 
words  of  the  book  of  the  law,  Ac.  Shaphan  did 
not  read  to  the  king  the  v)hole  book,  but  lie  read 
therein  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  18 :  S3).  Judging  from 
the  impression  which  the  words  made  upon  the 
king  (rending  one's  clothes  is  a  sign  of  the  deepest 
anxiety  and  terror;  see  chap.  vi.  30;  xix.  1),  those 
passages  seem  to  have  been  read  in  which  the 
transgressors  of  the  law  are  threatened  with  the 
hardest  punishments;  such,  for  instance,  as  Deut. 
sxviii.     ''Perhaps  the  last  part  of  the  book-roll 


was  unrolled  first "  (Richter). — The  king  now  sends 
a  deputation  of  his  highest  officers,  as  Hezekiat 
had  done  in  similar  uncertainty,  to  inquire  of  the 
Lord  ;  not,  as  Duncker  (Gesch.  des  Alt.  I.  x.  504) 
states,  "in  order  to  find  out  whether  this  really 
was  the  law  of  Moses,"  but  rather,  because  the 
genuineness  of  the  book  appears  to  him  to  be  be- 
yond question,  he  sends  to  inquire  whether  and 
how  the  punishments  which  are  threatened  may 
be  averted.  "  He  desires  to  learn  whether  the 
measure  of  sin  is  already  full  or  whether  there  ia 
yet  hope  of  grace  "  (Von  Gerlach).  Only  a  pro- 
phetical declaration — the  word  of  the  Loid — 
could  give  him  an  answer  to  this  question.  Ahi- 
kam  appears  afterwards  as  the  friend  and  pro- 
tector of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxvi.  24),  and  as  father  of 
Gedaliah,  the  governor  of  the  cities  of  Judah  (Jer. 
xl.  5).  Achbor  is  called,  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  20,  Ab- 
don,  perhaps  only  by  a  mistake  of  the  letter  char- 
acters. According  to  Jerem.  xxvi.  22  ;  xxxvi.  12, 
he  was  the  father  of  Elnathan,  who  belonged  to 
the  most  intimate  associates  of  king  Zedekiah. 
Asahiah,  who  is  only  mentioned  here,  is  spoken  of 
as  "  the  servant  of  the  king,"  that  is,  as  an  officer 
in  his  immediate  service. — Unto  Huldah,  the 
prophetess  (ver.  14).  The  king  had  commanded 
the  deputation  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  without  di- 
recting them  to  go  to  any  particular  person.  The 
reason  why  they  sought  her  is  probably  hinted  at 
in  the  remark  which  is  added,  and  which  in  itself 
appears  unimportant,  that  "  she  lived  in  Jerusa- 
lem." The  two  prophets  who  made  their  appear- 
ance during  Josiah's  reign  were  Jeremiah  and 
Zephaniah.  The  former  came  from  Anathoth  in 
Benjamin  (Jer.  i.  1).  He  was  probably  at  this  time 
still  in  that  city.  The  latter,  according  to  Pseudo- 
epiphanius  {Be  prophet.  19),  belonged  to  the  tribe 
of  Simeon  and  came  airo  bpovc  lapapada.  The  de- 
putation went  to  Huldah  because  she  was  the  only 
one  at  Jerusalem  who  had  the  gift  of  prophecy. 
In  order  to  show  that  she  was  a  person  of  good 
position,  not  only  the  name  and  office  of  her  hus- 
band are  given,  but  also  the  name  of  two  of  his 
ancestors.  He  was  keeper  of  the  wardrobe,  "ei- 
ther of  the  royal  wardrobe,  or  of  that  of  the  sanc- 
tuary; the  latter  is  more  probable  on  comparing 
2  Kings  x.  22  "  (Bertheau).  "  In  the  second  part," 
i.  e.,  in  the  lower  city.  See  Nehem.  xi.  9 ;  Zeph. 
i.  10.  Josephus:  aU?;  ttoA<c.  Thenius:  "In  tho 
second  district  of  the  (lower)  city,  which  wis  after- 
wards included  within  the  walls."  [He  thus  iden- 
tifies it  with  a  small  hill  which  formed  the  extreme 
north-western  suburb  of  the  city  ] 

Ver.  15.  And  she  said  unto  them,  &c.  She 
addressed  her  reply  in  the  first  place  to  the  man 
that  sent  you  (vers.  15-17),  afterwards  to  the 
king  of  Judah  which  sent  you  (vers.  18-20). 
The  first  part  was  addressed  not  only  to  the  king 
but  to  "every  one  who  would  hear;"  the  second 
part  was  addressed  to  the  king  especially  (Keil). 
This  is  more  simple  and  natural  than  Thenius'  no- 
tion :  "  In  the  first  part,  Huldah  has  only  the  sub- 
ject matter  in  mind,  while  in  ver.  18,  in  the 
quieter  (?)  flow  of  her  words,  she  takes  notice-  of 
the  state  of  mind  of  the  particular  person  who  sent 
to  make   the  inquiry." — All  the   words  of  the 

book  (ver.  16),   stands  in  apposition    with     njTI 

whioh  precedes.  In  Chronicles  we  find  instead : 
"  All  the  curses  that  are  written  in  the  book  which 
they  have  read  before  the  king  of  Judah  "  (xxxiv. 


'260 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


24).     Dnmn   in  ver.  IS  is  not  to  be   connected 

with  what  follows :  "  Thy  heart  was  tender  on 
account  of  these  words"  (Luther),  but  it  is  to  be 
taken  as  a  nominative  absolute :  as  for  the  words 
which,  &c.  The  sense  of  vers.  18  and  19  is  :  Be- 
cause thou  hast  heard  we  and  taken  heed  to  my 
threats,  I  will  also  hear  thee  and  not  fulfil  these 
threats  upon  thee.      p~i  is  to  be  taken  here  in  the 

sense  of  timid,  Deut.  xx.  8;  Jer.  li.  46.  The 
threats  had  awakened  terror  and  dismay  in  him. — 
A  desolation  and  a  curse,  see  Jerem.  xliv.  22. 
The  fact  that  Josiah  was  slain  in  battle  (chap. 
xxiii.  29)  does  not  contradict   Di^'3   in  ver.  20. 

That  only  means  to  say  that  he  should  die  "  with- 
out surviving  the  desolation  of  Jerusalem,  as  we 
see  from  the  added  promise :  thine  eyes  shall 
not  see,  &c."  (Keil).  According  to  2  Chrou.  xssv. 
24,  25,  Josiah  was  laid  in  the  sepulchre  with  high 
honors,  followed  by  the  lamentations  of  the  whole 
people. 

Chap,  xxiii.  ver.  1.  And  the  king  sent  and 
they  gathered  unto  him,  &c.  Although  the  king 
had  received  an  answer  which  was  favorable  only 
in  its  bearings  on  himself,  his  first  care  was  to 
bring  together  the  entire  people,  to  make  them 
acquainted  with  the  law-book,  to  lead  them  to  re- 
pent, and  so  to  avert  as  far  as  possible  the  threat- 
ened punishment.  In  ver.  2  all  the  classes  of  the 
population  are  mentioned  in  order  to  show  how 
much  Josiah  had  it  at  heart  that  the  entire  people, 
without  distinction  of  rank  or  class,  should  become 
acquainted  with  the  Law.  Among  these  classes 
the  priests  and  prophets  are  mentioned.  Keil 
supposes  that  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah  were  among 
these  "in  order  that  they  might,  by  their  partici- 
pation, accomplish  the  renewal  of  the  covenant, 
and  that  the  prophets  might  then  undertake  the 
task  of  bringing  home  to  the  hearts  of  the  people, 
by  earnest  preaching  in  Jerusalem  and  the  cities 
of  Judah,  the  obligations  of  the  covenant."  If 
that  had  been  so,  however,  the  prophets  could  not 
have  been  merely  incidentally  mentioned,  but  they 
would  have  been  especially  pointed  out  as  promi- 
nent agents  in  the  work.     The  DWaJ  ,  who  here 

stand  with  the  priests  and  form  one  class  with 
them,  are  evidently  not  the  prophets  in  the  nar- 
rower and  more  especial  sense  [i.  e.,  as  persons 
who  foretold  future  events  and  pronounced  the  or- 
acles of  God],  but  the  word  is  a  general  designa- 
tion of  the  persons  whose  duty  it  was  to  preach 
and  to  explain  the  Law.  The  Chronicler  (xxxiv. 
30)  has  instead   D'vH  ,  which  is  no  contradiction 

or  arbitrary  alteration,  for  it  was  the  duty  and 
calling  of  the  house  of  Levi  to  preach  and  to  in- 
terpret the  Law  (Deut.  xvii.  18;  xxxi.  9  sq. ; 
xxxiii.  10;  2  Chron.  xvii.  8,  9;  xxxv.  3);  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase  therefore  interprets  D'N'DJ 
here  by  WIDDl  >  ypa^arelc. 

t  t  :  t  : 

[What  we  understand  by  "  interpretation  of 
the  law "  did  not  exist  until  after  the  captivity. 
The  levites  are  represented  in  Deuteronomy  as 
the  guardians  and  readers  of  the  Law,  and  in 
Chronicles  we  find  them  charged  with  its  publica- 
tion, but  nowhere  are  they  represented  as  doing 
what  the  '■  scribes  "  did  at  a  later  time.  That  is 
an  interpretation  of  the  rabbis  which  is  borrowed 
from  their  own  time,  and  is  unhistorical  as  applied 


to  this  text.  Neither  were  the  prophets  divided 
into  two  classes,  one  of  which  was  charged  witt 
the  office  of  interpretation.  There  is  no  evidenc* 
of  such  a  division,  or  of  such  a  duty  of  the  pro 
phets.  Certainly  if  the  duty  of  interpreting  th« 
Law  had  been  given  by  Moses  to  the  levites,  the 
whole  spirit  of  the  Israelitish  constitution  forbids 
us  to  believe  that  other  persons — prophets — per- 
sons of  every  trib^,  could  have  interfered  with 
that  duty  or  shared  in  it.  We  cannot  thus  recon- 
cile our  text  with  that  of  Chronicles. — We  may  get 
a  correct  idea  of  the  incident  referred  to  by  ob- 
serving :  (a)  that  the  class  of  prophets  was,  at  thii 
time,  very  large.  The  name  N'33  applies  to  then; 
all.  No  distinction  is  made,  and  the  name  is  ever 
applied  to  false  prophets,  whether  with  an  epi- 
thet, marking  them  as  false  (Ez.  xiii.  2  and  3; 
Isai.  ix.  14 ;  Jerem.  vi.  13,  &c),  or  without  any 
such  epithet  (Hos.  iv.  5;  ix.  7,  8).  The  same 
name  is  given  to  the  "  prophets "  of  BaaL  The 
original  meaning  of  the  word  is  speaker  or  orator, 
but  it  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  x'33  in  the  0. 
T.  that  he  speaks  under  the  influence  of  divine 
illumination  or  inspiration.  He  may  be  false,  and 
pretend  to  an  illumination  which  he  has  not,  or  he 
may  speak  in  the  name  of  a  false  god,  but,  as  one 
who  claims  and  pretends  to  illumination,  he  is  a 
N'33  •  (b)  There  were  schools  in  which  persons 
were  trained  to  this  office  and  work.  Originally 
such  persons  were  few  in  number,  but  the  book 
of  Jeremiah  shows  conclusively  that,  in  the  time 
of  that  prophet,  they  were  numerous,  and  that 
many  had  the  name  without  the  spirit.  Many 
were  called,  but  few  chosen,  (c)  The  aim  of  the 
schools  of  the  prophets  was  to  nourish  faith  in 
Jehovah  and  worship  of  Him ;  to  cultivate  men 
who  preserved  the  traditions  of  the  Jehovah  reli- 
gion, perpetuated  the  great  doctrines  which  the 
prophets  continually  reiterate,  and  cultivated  in- 
sight into  divine  truth,  (d)  The  schools  could  do 
no  more  than  spend  their  labor  on  those  who  of- 
fered themselves  for  the  work.  The  truth  of  their 
calling  could  only  appear  in  their  subsequent  work. 
Hence  the  authority  of  the  prophets  was  nothing 
more  or  less  than  their  divine  calling,  which  mani- 
fested itself  in  their  later  labors.  In  fact,  it  was 
not  until  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  had  been  long  dead; 
that  their  labors  were  ratified  and  could  be  esti- 
mated, (e)  The  words  or  writings  of  the  fifteen 
or  sixteen  whose  works  remain  to  us  comprise,  if 
we  may  so  speak,  only  the  cream  of  the  prophetic 
utterances  of  centuries.  (/)  The  prophets  never 
base  their  teachings  on  Moses,  but  teach  origin- 
ally. They  do  not  say :  Thus  saith  Moses.  They 
do  not  quote  the  Pentateuch  as  an  authority. 
They  never  impress  their  commands  by  quoting 
the  "  Law  of  Moses  "  as  the  supreme  authority  of 
faith  and  duty.  If  they  did,  their  works  would 
not  be  Holy  Scripture,  but  commentaries,  or,  at 
most,  sermons.  On  the  contrary,  they  say:  Thus 
saith  the  Lord.  Their  work  is  original  and  crea- 
tive ;  it  is  not  merely  in  the  way  of  application  or 
reflexion.  When  they  quote  the  "  La  w  of  the  Lord  " 
they  quote  principles  and  doctrines  which  were  fun 
damental  in  the  Israelitish  constitution.  They  do 
not  refer  to  specific  ordinances  and  enactments, 
but  to  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  Jehovah- 
religion.  We  have  an  analogy  in  the  frequent  ref- 
erence in  modern  sermons  to  "  the  will  of  God." 
This  refers  only  generally  to  the  Bible,  and  in- 
cludes those  things  also  which  are  not  specificalli 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


261 


ordained  in  the  Bible,  but  which  a  Christian  con- 
science recognizes  as  God's  will,  (g)  It  is,  therefore, 
an  error  to  attempt  to  enhance  the  character  and 
«uthority  of  the  great  prophets  by  supposing  that, 
during  their  life-time,  they  were  separated  from 
others  of  their  class,  (h)  It  is  also  an  error  to 
suppose  that  they  held  any  insubordinate  or  inde- 
pendent place  in  the  body  politic.  We  admire 
these  men  who  rebuked  kings,  and  dictated  public 
policy  in  great  crises,  but  we  do  them  injustice 
if  we  believe  that,  on  ordinary  occasions,  and  in 
ordinary  duties,  they  emancipated  themselves  from 
the  obligations  of  subjects  of  thekingdom. — In  the 
present  case  the  text  shows  us  the  place  of  the 
prophets.  They  ranked  with  the  priests  as  reli- 
gious persons.  If  Jeremiah  was  in  Jerusalem  we 
may  be  sure  that  he  took  his  place,  simply  and 
without  ostentation,  among  his  comrades  in  station 
and  calling.  We  do  not  need  to  invent  any  special 
reason  for  the  presence  of  the  prophets.  They 
were  there  simply  as  a  class  amongst  the  multi- 
tude assembled,  (i)  It  is  also  an  error  to  reconcile 
the  text  of  Kings  with  that  of  Chronicles  by  iden- 
tifying the  levites.  in  function,  with  the  prophets, 
or  any  class  of  the  prophets.  In  the  time  of  the 
chronicler  the  prophets  had  ceased  to  exist,  cer- 
tainly as  a  class.  He  was  accustomed  to  see  levites 
in  this  place  by  the  side  of  the  priests  on  such  oc- 
casions, and  that  is  the  simple  reason  why  he  men- 
tions them  as  occupying  that  place  in  the  present 
instance. — W.  G.  S.] 

Both  small  and  great.  This  does  not  mean 
both  the  children  and  the  grown-up  persons,  but, 
both  the  lower  classes  and  the  people  of  distinc- 
tion. No  doubt  the  king  left  to  the  priests  or  pro- 
phets the  duty  of  reading  the  book,  but  himself 
took  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  covenant  from  the 
people.  He  therefore  took  his  place  upon  the 
platform  (see  notes  on  xl  14). 

Ver.  4.  And  the  king  commanded  Hilkiah 
the  high  priest,  &c.  As  in  chap.  xi.  17,  18,  the 
conclusion  of  the  covenant  was  followed  by  the 
extirpation  of  idolatry,  first  by  the  removal  of  the 
utensils  of  this  cultus  (ver  4),  then  by  the  execu- 
tion of  the  priests  of  it  (ver  5),  then  by  the  destruc- 
tion and  desecration  of  the  places  in  which  it  was 

practised  (ver.  6  sq.).     nj'_'12n  'jro  are  not,  as  the 

rabbis  say,  the  deputies  of  the  high-priest,  but,  in 
contrast  with  him,  the  younger  and  subordinate 
priests.  See  1  Chron.  xv.  18 ;  2  Chron.  xxxi.  12  ; 
1  Sam.  viii.  2.  The  keepers  of  the  door  are  the 
levites  whose  duty  it  was  to  guard  the  temple 
(chap.  xxii.  4;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  5).  On  Baal  and 
Aschera  and  upon  the  host  of  heaven,  see  notes  on 
chap.  xxi.  3  [also  notes  on  chap.  xvi.  3  and  xvii. 
17]  This  burning  took  place  in  obedience  to 
Deut.  vii.  25  ;  xii.  3.  It  was  accomplished  outside 
of  Jerusalem,  because  the  things  were  unclean,  on 
the  fields  of  the  Kidron,  north-east  of  the  city, 
where  the  Kidron  valley  is  broader  than  between 
Jerusalem  and  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Asa  had 
caused  an  idol  to  be  burned  there  (1  Kings  xv.  13), 
and  Hezekiah  caused  all  the  impure  things  which 
were  found  in  the  temple  to  be  carried  thither  (2 
Chron.  xxix.  16).  Not  even  the  ashes,  however, 
might  remain  there.  They  were  carried  to  Bethel, 
certainly  for  no  other  reason  than  because  that  had 
been  the  chief  place  of  origin  for  all  idolatrous 
and  illegitimate  worship  ever  since  the  time  of  Je- 
roboam (1   Kings  xii.  33).     That  which  had  pro- 


ceeded from  thence  Josiah  sent  back  thither — ii 

ashes.     Thenius'  conjecture:   ',7X"n,3  .  he  carried 

the  ashes  into  the  house  of  nothingness,  i.  e.,  he  scat 
tered  them  on  all  the  winds,''  is,  to  say  the  least, 
unnecessary. 

Ver.  5.  And  he  caused  to  desist  the  idola 
trous  priests,  ,tc. :  Not,  he  caused  to  perish,  pin 
to  death  (Sept.  naremvcs ;  Vnlg.  delevit),  but,  he 
caused  to  cease,  or  set  aside.     The  word  Q'"|D3 

occurs  besides  only  in  Hos.  x.  5  and  Zeph.  i.  4. 
The  etymology  of  the  word  is  uncertain.  The 
rabbis  derive  it  from  103  ,  nigredo,  because  they 
wore  black  garments,  but  we  have  no  instance  of 
priests  who  wore  black  garments,  and  this  etymo- 
logy is  certainly  false.  According  to  Gesenius  it 
comes  from  "tsj  ,  to  execute  or  accomplish,  and 
means  the  celebrant  (of  the  sacred  offices),  ipduiv, 
sacriticer.  [This  is  Keil's  opinion,  not  Gesenius'. 
The  latter,  in  the  Thesaurus  s.  v.  follows  the  ety- 
mology above  ascribed  to  the  rabbis.  lie  says 
that  it  means  "  blackness,  sadness,  and  so,  con- 
cretely, one  who  walks  in  black  garments,  i.  e.,  a 
grieving,  sad,  ascetic,  priest."  As  it  is  only  used 
of  the  priests  of  false  worship,  it  would  be  very 
remarkable  that  the  name  applied  to  them  should 
mean,  strictly,  ascetics. — W.  G.  S.]  Fiirst  connects 
it  with  the  Arabic  chamar=coluit  deum,  hence, 
one  who  serves,  a  servant.  It  certainly  refers  to  a 
kind  of  priests,  not  necessarily  of  idols,  for  in  Hos. 
x.  o  the  priests  of  Jeroboam's  Jehovah-calf-worship 
are  so  called,  and  here  they  are  distinguished  from 
those  who  offered  incense  to  Baal.  Probably  it 
refers  to  those  who,  without  actually  being  priests, 
exercised  sacerdotal  functions  either  in  the  service 
of  the  calves  or  of  false  divinities.  Baal  "  serves 
as  a  designation  of  the  entire  cultus  which  was 
covered  by  his  name,  as  if  it  were  said:  Baal,  i.  e., 

the  sun,  &c."  (Thenius).     The  Jlii'iD ,  from  ^TD  , 

lodging,  dwelling,  station,  are  the  twelve  divisions 
of  the  Zodiac  marked  by  the  figures  and  names  of 
animals ;  the  twelve  constellations  of  the  Zodiac, 
which   are   called   in  Job  xxxviii.   22  J"li"l1t2  (see 

Gesen.  Thes.  II.  869).     me'Kfl  (ver.  6),  means  not 

one  but  many  Astarte-statues  which  Manasseh 
had  set  up  in  the  temple  (chap.  xxi.  7).  If  he  re- 
moved them  after  his  return  from  Babylon  (2 
Chron.  xxxiii.  15),  they  were  reinstated  by  Anion. 
— On  the  graves  of  the  common  people.  The 
chronicler  says :  "  On  the  graves  of  those  who 
had  sacrificed  to  them  "  (the  false  gods).  Evi- 
dently this  is  a  gloss  added  by  the  chronicler  him- 
self. Persons  of  the  common  folk  [as  the  text 
reads  literally]  are  not  worshippers  of  false  gods, 
but  common  people.  These  did  not  have  heredi- 
tary sepulchres  hewn  out  of  the  rock  (Winer, 
B.-W.-B.  I.  444),  as  the  rich  and  noble  had.  They 
were  buried  in  the  open  fields  where  the  corpses 
were  more  likely  to  be  dug  up  by  wild  animals 
The  present  burying-place  of  the  Jews  is  in  the 
Kidron  valley.  It  is  evident  from  Jerem.  xxvi.  23 
that  this  burial  was  not  disgraceful,  although  it 
was  less  honorable  than  that  in  a  rock-hewn 
sepulchre.  If  this  had  been  the  burying-place  for 
idol-worshippers,  it  would  have  been  the  usual 
burying-place  in  the  time  of  Manasseh,  whereas  at 
that  time  it  was  rather  the  faithful  servants  of 
Jehovah  who  were  dishonorably  buried.     Josiah'* 


262 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


reason  for  throwing  the  ashes  on  these  graves 
was,  therefore,  not  "  to  desecrate  them  as  the 
graves  of  idolaters "  (Keil),  but  in  order  still 
further  to  dishonor  the  ashes  of  the  destroyed 
idols. — On  D'Cnpn  (ver.  7)  see  note  on  1   Kings 

xiv.  24.  Only  male  prostitutes,  not  female  (The- 
nius)  can  be  understood.  They  had  their  dwell- 
ings (tents  or  cabins)  near  the  temple,  perhaps  in 
the  outer  court.  In  these  also  dwelt  the  women  who 
wove  WF\2  for  the  Ashera.     Whether  these  were 

"  tents, "  and,  if  so,  of  what  kind  they  were  (hard- 
ly, as  Ewald  thinks,  "  garments  "  [he  alters  the 
text  and   reads  QH33  Gesch.   III.    718])   is  not 

clear.  Chap.  xvii.  30  does  not  throw  any  light  on 
it.   Movers  (Phcen.  I.  s.  686)  says :  "  The  castrated 

male  prostitute  (CHp)  imagines  or  pretends  that  he 

is  a  woman :  negant  se  vivos  esse  *  *  *  mulieres  se 
volunt  credi.  Firmic.  He  lives  in  association  with 
women,  and  the  latter,  in  their  turn,  have  a  pecu- 
liar inclination  towards  him." 

Ver.  8.  And  he  brought  all  the  priests  out 
of  the  cities  of  Judah.  Vers.  8  and  9  belong 
together.  The  true  levitical  priests,  who  exercised 
their  functions  on  the  high  places  instead  of  in 
the  temple,  he  caused  to  come  to  Jerusalem  in 
order  to  make  them  desist  from  this.  He  caused 
the  high-places  to  be  made  unfit  for  use  by  dese- 
crating them.  However,  these  priests,  since  they 
had  forfeited  their  priestly  dignity,  were  not  allow- 
ed to  perform  priestly  offices  in  the  temple.  They 
were  employed  simply  as  levites.  They  were 
allowed  to  eat  unleavened,  or  sacrificial,  bread,  but 
not  in  company  with  the  other  priests  (cf.  Ezek. 
xliv.  10-14).  They  were,  therefore,  placed  in  the 
same  category  with  those  sons  of  Aaron  who  were 
prevented  by  some  physical  defect  from  under- 
taking the  hereditary  functions  of  their  family 
(Levit.  xxi.  21).  It  is  not  stated  in  the  text  that 
they  continued  to  be  participes  eniolumentorum 
sacerdotalium  (Clericus). — From  Geba  to  Beer- 
sheba,  that  is,  throughout  the  entire  kingdom. 
ieba  is  the  Gibea  in  the  territory  of  Benjamin, 
ear  Ramah,  the  home  of  Saul.  See  notes  on  1 
I  ings  xv.  22,  and  Knobel  on  Isaiah  x.  29.  It  is 
mentioned  as  the  northern  limit.  Beersheba  is 
mentioned  as  the  southernmost  and  last  seat  of  ille- 
gal worship  (Amos  v.  5  ;  viii.  15). — The  high- 
places  of  the  gates  were  places  of  worship  (in 
this  case  simply  altars),  either  close  to  the  gates, 
or,  since  these  were  large  open  buildings  for  public 
meetings  and  intercourse  (Nahum  viii.  16;  Ruth 
iii.  1 1  ;  Prov.  xxii.  22),  even  inside  of  them.  Prob- 
ably these  altars  served  for  the  foreigners  as  they 
came  in  or  went  out  to  offer  sacrifices  of  prayer  or 
of  thanksgiving  in  reference  to  the  transactions  in 
which  they  were  about  to  engage,  or  which  they 
had  just  completed.  The  two  following  clauses, 
each   of  whicn  begins    with   ")E'N  ,  define  these 

high-places  more  nearly,  and  it  is  not  admissible 
to  supply  prcesertim  or  imprimis  (Clericus,  Dathe, 
Maurer)  before  the  first  1t.''N  ,  and  then  to  regard 

the  second  relative  as  referring  to  this.  How  can 
we  comprehend  the  description  of  a  high-place 
which  was  at  the  entrance  of  the  gate  of  Joshua, 
and  at  the  same  time  on  the  left  hand  of  the  gate 
of  tho  city  ?  As  reference  is  made  to  two  high- 
places  in  two  different  gates,  the  verse  cannot  be 


otherwise  understood  than  as  it  is  interpreted  by 
Thenius :  "  He  tore  down  the  high-places  of  ilia 
gates,  (the  high-place)  which  was  at  the  entrance 
of  the  gate  of  Joshua  (as  well  as  that)  which  was 
on  the  left  hand  in  the  gate  of  the  city."  So  also 
Keil  and  Ewald.  Neither  of  these  gates  is  men- 
tioned anywhere  else,  at  least  by  the  same  name. 
Thenius  locates  the  former  in  the  inside  of  the 
city,  because  he  assumes  that  the  governor  of  the 
city  must  have  lived  in  the  citadel,  Millo,  and  that 
this  gate  must  have  been  one  which  connected 
the  lower  city  with  the  citadel,  and  was  close  to 
his  dwelling.  This  gate  was  called,  in  later  times, 
Gennath.  This,  however,  is  a  pure  guess.  The 
"  gate  of  the  city  "  may  have  been  the  valley-gate, 
or  the  Jaffa-gate,  on  the  west  side  of  the  city  to- 
wards the  valley  of  Gihon,  through  which  the  traf- 
fic with  the  Mediterranean  passed. 

Ver.  10.  And  he  defiled  Topheth.   nSPIil  is 

a  special  designation  of  the  spot  in  the  valley  of 
Hinnom,  south  of  the  city,  where,  during  the  time 
of  apostasy,  children  were  sacrificed  to  Moloch. 
In  Isaiah  xxx.  33  this  place  is  called  the  "  pyre."' 
Fiirst  derives  the  word  from  the  unused  root  P^n  i 
to  burn  up.  The  majority  of  the  expositors,  however, 
derive  it  from  E|:iri ,  to  spit  or  vomit,  that  is,  to  detest, 

hold  in  abhorrence,  nan  would  then  mean  abomi- 
nation (see  Rodiger  in  Gesenius'  Thesaurus,  p. 
1497).  The  place  either  had  this  name  from  the 
time  of  Josiah,  who  defiled  it  by  burning  there  the 
bones  of  the  dead  (ver.  16),  or  else  it  was  thus 
named  still  earlier,  by  the  faithful  servants  of 
Jehovah,  on  account  of  the  detestation  they  felt 
for    the    abominable    child-sacrifices    which   were 

practised  there.     Hitzig  and  Bottcher  take  Q3n  as 

an  appellative  from  Qjn  ,  to  groan,  and  translate : 
"  Valley  of  the  wailiugs  of  children." — And  he 
took  away  the  horses,  ver.  11.  The  same  ex- 
pressions are  used  here  in  regard  to  the  horses  as 
in  ver.  5  in   regard  to  the  D'ICG  •     They  were 

given  (jnj),  that  is,  established  or  instituted,  and  he 
took  them  away  (rOK')-  Both  expressions  must 
therefore  be  understood  here  as  they  are  there. 
He  did  away  with  the  horses,  but  did  with  the 
chariots  as  he  had  done  with  the  idol-images 
(ver.  6),  he  burned  them  (cpt")-  If  the  horses  had 
been  of  wood  he  would  have  burned  them  also. 
It  follows  that  they  were  living  horses.  Horses 
are  often  mentioned  as  animals  sacred  to  the  sun 
among  Oriental  peoples  (see  the  proofs  quoted  ir. 
Boehart,  Hieroz.  I.  2,  10).  Horses  were  not  only 
sacrificed  to  the  sun,  as  the  supreme  divinity 
(Herod,  i.  216),  but  they  were  also  used  to  draw 
the  sacred  chariot  (Curt.  iii.  3,  11 ;  see  Herod,  i. 
189).  This  latter  was  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  kept  here.  They  served  to  draw  the  sacred 
chariot  in  solemn  processions,  representing  the 
course  of  the  sun  through  the  zodiac,  not,  as  Keil 
asserts,  following  the  rabbis,  "to  go  forth  to  meet 
the  risiug  sun."  [This  custom  of  keeping  horsea 
sacred  to  the  sun  is  connected  with  the  idea  of  the 
sun  as  a  flaming  chariot  drawn  through  the  heavens. 
Hence  horses  and  a  car  were  kept  on  earth  as  sacred 
to,  and  symbolical  of,  the  sun.]     X3D  is  not  to  be 

translated,  as  it  is  by  De  Wette :  "  so  that  they 
came  no  more  into  the  house  of  Jeh  wah,"  nor  ia 
it  to  be  connected  with  ri3L''s1  (he  removed  than 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


263 


from  the  entrance  of  the  temple),  but  it  states 
where  the  place  was  where  che  horses  were  ordi- 
narily kept :  from  the  coming  into  the  house,  that  is, 
when  any  one  came  into  the  temple  (through  the 
western  or  rear  door  of  the  fore-court,  the  gate 
T\^?'£' ,  1  Chron.  xxvi.  16),  the  place  of  the  horses 
was  on  the  side  of  him  to  or  towards  (?N)  the 
chamber  of  Nathan-melech.  This  chamber  was 
OTnS3  .     The   rfawb   in   the   outer  court   (see 

notes  on  1  Kings  vi.  36)  were  side  rooms  which 
served  for  different  purposes ;  not  only  as  dwell- 
ings for  the  priests  who  were  on  duty  (Ezek.  xl. 
45  sq.),  but  also  as  store-rooms  for  different  mate- 
rials (1  Chron.  ix.  26;  2  Chron.  xxxi.  12).  This 
chamberlain  (chap.  xx.  18),  Nathan-Melech,  of 
whom  nothing  further  is  known,  was,  no  doubt, 
charged  with  the  care  of  the  sacred  horses.  It  is 
impossible  to  decide  whether  the   HSC'?   was  his 

dwelling,  and  the  stable  of  the  horses  was  near  by 
(Thenius),  or  whether  this  chamber  itself  was 
arranged  as  a  stable  for  them  (Keil).  No  one  dis- 
putes that  -|V1S  is  the   same  as  1313  ,  1  Chron. 

xx  vi.  18.  In  the  latter  place  the  divisions  of  the 
gate-keepers  of  the  temple  are  stated  in  vers.  12-19. 
As  these  had  their  posts  only  in  and  near  the  tem- 
ple, and  two  of  them  were  especially  appointed 
for  the  "1313  ,  the  word  cannot  mean  suburb  (the 

rabbis  and  De  Wette),  nor  any  other  locality  out- 
side of  the  fore-court  of  the  temple.  The  ordinary 
interpretation  of  the  word  as  the  colonnade  (Gese- 
nius.  Bunsen)  is  also  excluded,  for  the  Parbar  is 
distinctly  designated  in  the  place  quoted  as  lying 
on  the  west  or  rear  side  of  the  temple,  where  cer- 
tainly it  is  least  likely  that  a  colonnade  was  built 
which  formed  the  feature  distinguishing  that  side 
from  the  others.  [Bahr,  in  his  translation,  renders 
13133  by  in  den  Saulenhallen,  in  the  colonnades.] 

We  have  rather  to  think  of  some  specially  marked 
space  on  the  west  side,  inside  of  the  fore-court.  Of 
the  six  watchmen  who  were  posted  at  the  west 
side,  four  had  posts  assigned  them  on  the  street, 
that  is,  at  the  gate  which  led  to  the  street,  and 
•only  two  in  the  Parbar.  The  latter  must  therefore 
have  been  inside  the  court,  otherwise  it  could  not 
have  been  left  to  the  weaker  guard.  It  is  not 
stated  what  particular  use  this  space,  called  the 
Parbar.  was  put  to.  We  can  only  suppose  that  it 
was  used  for  purposes  for  which  the  other  sides  of 
the  court  were  not  well  adapted.  The  more  speci- 
fic details  as  to  the  size  of  the  space,  the  wall  by 
which  it  was  surrounded,  &c,  which  Thenius  gives 
in  his  notes  on  the  passage,  are  the  result  of  mere 
combinations. 

Ver.  12.  And  the  altars  that  were  on  the 
top   of  the  upper  chamber  of  Ahaz.     The  n'^V 

of  Ahaz  was  certainly  not  the  upper  chamber  which 
was  above  the  sanctuary  of  the  temple  (see  notes 
on  1  Kings  vi.  20),  but  only  a  chamber  which  was 
first  erected  by  this  idolatrous  king,  and  which  was 
probably  over  one  of  the  outbuildings  in  the  fore- 
court, which,  according  to  Jerem.  xxxv.  4,  at  least 
some  of  them,  had  different  stories  one  above  an- 
other. Perhaps  it  was  over  a  gate.  It  probably 
served  for  observations  on  the  stars,  and  the  altars 
were  for  the  worship  of  the  constellations  (Zeph.  i. 
'5;  Jerem.  xix.  13).     [It  therefore  proves  that  the 


Assyrio-Chaldean  star-worship  was  introduced  in 
the  time  of  Ahaz  and  Pekah.  See  notes  on  chap, 
xvi.  3  andxvii.  17,  above,  pp.  160  and  186.]  H> 
tore  down  the  altars  which  Manasseh  had 
made  (chap.  xxi.  5).  ]-|J  is  used  as  in  verse  7. 
Keil  translates  the  following  f'"V1  :  "  He  crushed 
them  from  thence,"  taking  it  from  T'VT  ,  to  crush, 
pulverize,  and  making  it  equivalent  to  pTI  in  ver. 
6.    But  Dt?D  doos  not  coincide  well  with  the  notion 

of  crushing,  which,  moreover,  is  fully  expressed  in 
]T)J  ■  It  must  be  taken  from  Wl  ,  to  run,  in  the 
sense  of  to  hasten  (Isai.  lix.  7) ;  he  hastened  thence 
since  he  had  yet  all  the  high-places  outside  of 
Jerusalem  to  destroy  (ver.  13).  The  Chaldee 
paraphrase  explains  it  by  JQP1D  p'mjO ,  that  is, 

he  removed  from  thence  (Ps.  lxxxviii.  19) ;  the  Sept. : 
ml  KadciXev  avra  kneiftev.  Thenius  therefore  agreea 
with  Kimchi    in   reading   VT1 :    "  He   caused   to 

run — and  cast,  &c,  that  is,  He  gave  orders  to  le- 
move  and  cast  with  all  haste,  Ac.  (Jerem.  xlix.  19). 
In  this  case  he  probably  east  the  debris  directly 
over  the  wall  of  the  temple  enclosure  down  into 
the  valley."  And  the  high-places  that  were 
before  Jerusalem,  &o.  Vers.  13  and  14  are  a 
direct  continuation  of  ver.  12,  and  they  state  what 
Josiah  did  in  regard  to  the  high-places  before  the 
city,  which  had  existed  long  before  Ahaz  and 
Manasseh.  On  these  high-places,  see  notes  on  1 
Kings  xi.  7.  The  Mount  of  Corruption  is  the 
southernmost  peak  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  which 

lay  to  the  East  (^B'py)  of  Jerusalem.     It  received 

this  name  on  account  of  the  idolatry  which  was 
practised  there.  Among  Christians  it  is  now  call- 
ed, Mount  of  Offence,  mons  offensionis,  which  the 
Vulg.  has  in  the  place  before  us.  On  the  images 
and  Astarte-statues  (ver.  14)  see  notes  on  1  Kings 

xiv.   23.     DDlpD   does  not  mean   "  their  elevated 

pedestals "   (Thenius),    for    N?0,1    would   not   fit 

into  this  meaning,  but,  in  general,  their  places. 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  it  is  not  said  in  reference 
to  Solomon's  high-places  (in  ver.  13)  that  he  tore 
them  down,  as  it  is  said  of  those  which  were  of 
later  origin  (vers.  6,  7,  8,  12),  but  only  that  he  de- 
filed them.  No  doubt  this  is  because  they  had 
been  already  torn  down  by  Hezekiah,  or  perhaps 
even  before  his  time  (2  Chron.  xxxi.  1).  He  only 
defiled  the  places  where  they  had  been  (perhaps 
some  parts  were  still  remaining)  in  order  to  oblit- 
erate thoroughly  all  the  false  worship.  Thenius 
is  certainly  mistaken  when  he  asserts  :  "  The  idol- 
temples  which  Solomon  had  erected  remained  until 
the  time  of  Josiah,  though  they  were  several  times, 
e.  g.,  under  Hezekiah,  placed  under  interdict."  How 
could  Hezekiah,  who  even  removed  the  heights 
where  Jehovah  was  worshipped  (chap,  xviii.  4), 
have  allowed  idol-temples  to  stand  untouched,  with 
their  images,  over  against  Jerusalem  ?  [As  far  as 
the  text  gives  any  information  in  regard  to  the 
matter,  either  here  or  elsewhere,  Solomon's  heights, 
Ac,  remained  until  this  time.  The  inference  as  to 
what  other  reformers  must  have  done,  is  only  an 
inference.  If  we  allow  ourselves  to  infer  that  such 
and  such  things  had  been  done  before  this  time, 
we  obliterate  those  peculiarities  of  Josiah's  re- 
formation which   make  it  especially  interesting. — 


264 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


V.  G.  S  ]  We  do  not  need  to  assume,  as  Meno- 
chius  does:  Ab  impiis  regibus  excitata  sunt  fana  et 
idola  iis  similia.  gum  excitaverat  Salomon  iisdem 
locis,  ideogue  Salomoni  tribuuntur  prima  illorum 
auclori. 

Ver.  15.  Moreover  the  altar  that  was  at 
Beth-el. — After  Josiah  had  put  an  end  to  all  ille- 
gal worship  in  Judah,  he  extended  ihe  reformation 
to  the  former  kingdom  of  Israel,  whence  that  wor- 
ship had  originally  sprung,  and  where  it  had  been 
made  the  basis  of  the  political  constitution  (1  Kings 
xii.  26s{.).  It  is  told  in  vers.  15-20  what  he  did  there. 
From  the  time  of  Jeroboam  Bethel  had  been  the 
chief  seat  of  the  calf-worship  (1  Kings  xii.  2S  ;  xiii. 
1 ;  Amos  iii.  14  ;  vii.  10,  13  ;  Jerem.  xlviii.  13 ;  see 
Hos.  x.  5).  This  altar  was  the  one  mentioned  in  1 
Kings  xii.  33  and  xiii.  1.     The  first  riD3n  in  ver.  15 

cannot  be  taken  as  an  accusative  of  place,  "  on  the 
high-place,"  as  Thenius  takes  it,  but  only  as  appo- 
sition to  "altar."  The  Bamah  was  a  house  on  an 
elevation,  for  he  tore  it  down  and  burned  it.  The 
altar  did  not  stand  in  the  house,  but  before  it.  In 
what  follows  the  statement  is  clearer :  "  that  altar 
and  the  high-place."  After  the  immigration  of  the 
heathen  colonists  an  Astarte-statue  seems  to  have 
taken  the  place  of  the  calf-image  there. — On  ver. 
16  sg.  see  the  Prelim.  Rem.  on  1  Kings  xiii.  Vers. 
16  to  18  belong,  according  to  Stahelin  (Erit.  Unter- 
suck.  s.  156),  to  the  autlror  and  not  to  the  document 
which  served  him  as  authority.  According  to  The- 
nius they  are  taken  from  the  sequel  to  1  Kings  xiii. 
1-32.      This,   he  says,   is  evident   "from    D31    in 

ver.  19,  which  corresponds  to  that  in  ver.  15,  and, 
still  more  distinctly,  from  the  consideration  that 
Josiah  could  not  defile  the  altar  by  burning  men's 
bones  upon  it  (ver.  16)  after  he  had  broken  it  in 
pieces  (ver.  15)."  But,  if  the  remarkable  incident 
in  vers.  16  to  18  was  to  be  narrated,  it  could  not 
be  mentioned  anywhere  but  here,  because  it  took 
place  at  the  destruction  of  the  high-place  at  Bethel. 
Ver.  19  then  carries  on  the  history  of  the  destruc- 
tion and  extirpation  of  the  illegal  cultus  throughout 
Samaria,  and  goes  on  to  tell  what  was  done  else- 
where than  at  Bethel.  As  for  the  difficulty  about 
the  altar,  the  author  must  have  been  very  careless 
to  make  a  statement  in  ver.  16  which  was  incon- 
sistent with  what  he  had  said  in  ver.  15.  He  says 
nothing  in  ver.  15  about  burning  the  altar,  but  only 
about  burning  the  house  and  the  Astarte-statue. 
He  caused  bones  to  be  burned  on  the  spot  where 
the  altar  had  stood  in  order  that  that  also  might 
become  unclean  and  never  more  be  fit  for  an  altar, 
t.  e.,  for  a  place  of  worship.  The  author,  no  doubt, 
in  many  ways  made  use  of  old  authorities  and  in- 
corporated them  into  his  work,  but  he  certainly 
never  thoughtlessly  patched  separate  pieces  to- 
gether, or  arbitrarily  inserted  a  bit  here  and  there. 
—  He  turned  himself,  i.  e.,  to  look  about;  of. 
Exod.  ii.  12;  xvi.  10.  The  "mount,"  where  the 
sepulchres  were,  cannot  be  the  one  on  which  the 
>ltar  and  the  Bamah  stood,  but  one  in  the  neigh- 
borhood, which  was  to  be  seen  from  the  one  where 

the   Bamah   stood.     After  D'H^Xn  L'*X  the  Sept. 

have  the  words  :  "  When  Jeroboam,  at  the  festival, 
otood  at  the  altar,  and  he  turned  his  eyes  upon  the 
sepulchre  of  the  man  of  God  who  had  spoken  these 
words."  Thenius  regards  this  addition  as  origin- 
tlly  having  belonged  to  the  perfect  text,  but  it  may 
•aiily  be  recognized  as  a  gloss. — Ver.  17.  What 


grave-stone  is  that?  The  sepulchres  of  promi 
nent  persons  were  marked  by  monuments  placed 
before  them  (Ezek.  xxxix.  15;  Gen.  xxxv.  20; 
Jerem.  xxxi.  21).  This  monument  attracted  the 
king's  attention  and  he  asked  whom  it  commem- 
orated.— Ver.  18.  Out  of  Samraia.  The  name 
here  refers  not  to  the  city  but  to  the  country,  and 
stands  in  contrast  with  the  words  "  from  Judah  " 
in  ver.  17.  It  therefore  marks  the  origin  of  this 
prophet :  "  he  was  an  Israelitish,  not  a  Jewish  pro- 
phet "  (Thenius).  The  priests  whom  Josiah  caused 
to  be  put  to  death  (ver.  20)  were  not  levitical  or 
Israelitish  priests  at  all.  but,  unquestionably,  idol- 
priests  who  had  established  themselves  in  the 
country.  n3Pl  cannot  be  understood  as  if  Jo- 
siah offered  these  priests  as  a  sacrifice  to  God.  If 
that  were  so  he  would  have  helped  to  establish  the 
human  sacrifices  which  it  was  the  object  of  his  re- 
formation to  root  out.  rOT  here  has  the  sense 
of  to  slaughter,  as  often  elsewhere  (see  Exeg.  on  1 
Kings  xix.  21).  They  suffered  upon  their  own  al- 
tars the  death-penalty  imposed  by  the  Law  (Deut. 
xvii.  2-5).  At  the  same  time  these  altars  wero 
thereby  defiled  and  made  unfit  for  use.  According 
to  Tertullian  public  child-sacrifices  lasted  in  Africa 
usgue  ad  proconsulatum  Tiberii,  qui  eosdem  sacer- 
dotes  in  iisdem  arboribus  templi  votivis  crucibus 
exposuit. 

Ver.  21.  And  the  king  commanded  all  the 
people.  Josiah  had  abolished  with  relentless  se- 
verity all  which  was  forbidden  in  the  book  of  the 
covenant  and  the  Law  to  which  he  had  bound  the 
people  by  an  oath  of  allegiance  (ver.  3) ;  now,  how- 
ever, he  proceeded  to  perform  all  which  was  there 
commanded,  and  he  began,  as  Hezekiah  had  done 
(2  Chron.  xxx.  1),  by  ordaining  a  passover,  for  thi9 
feast  had  been  instituted  to  commemorate  the  ex- 
odus and  the  selection  of  Israel  to  be  the  peculiar 
people,  which  was  the  foundation  of  its  national 
destiny,  and  of  its  calling  in  human  history.  No- 
other  feast  could  have  served  so  well  to  inaugurate 
the  restored  order  as  this  one,  which  had  been  cel- 
ebrated even  in  Egypt.     The   statement:  3^J"I33 

in  the  book  of  this  covenant  does  not  mean: 
which  is  mentioned  in  this  book.  That  would  be  a 
superfluous  remark,  and  the  translation  would  not 
be  a  correct  rendering  of  the  original.  It  means 
that  the  Passover  was  to  be  observed  according  to 
the  regulations  prescribed  in  the  book  which  had 
been  found.  The  translation  of  Luther  [E.  V.  also] 
following  the  Sept.  and  Vulg.  is  not  correct :  "  Im 
Buck  dieses  Bundes  "  [in  the  book  of  this  covenant], 

for  that  would  require  niiH  .      The  emphasis  falls 

on  "book."  Josiah  does  not  wish  that  the  pass- 
over  shall  be  celebrated  according  to  precedent  and 
tradition,  but  according  to  the  regulations  of  the 
book  which  had  been  read  before  the  people.  _  This 
is  the  only  conception  of  its  meaning  according  to 
which  we  get  a  good  sense,  for  the  remark  in  ver. 
22  :  surely  there  was  not  holden  such  a  pass- 
over,  Ac.  <3  refers  to  what  immediately  pre- 
cedes :  "  In  this  book  of  the  covenant,"  so  that  the 
sense  is:  No  passover  had  been  so  strictly  ob- 
served according  to  the  regulations  of  the  Law 
since  the  times  of  the  judges.  Even  the  Passover 
of  King  Hezekia'h  had  not  been  perfectly  conformeo 
to  the  law,  for  he  was  eompelle  1  by  circumstances 
to  deviate  in  some  respects  (2  Ojron.  xxx.  2,  17 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIIL  30. 


265 


sq.).  Clerieus:  Crediderim  hoc  velle  scriptorem  sa- 
crum :  per  tempera  regum  nunquam  ah  omnibus  se- 
cundum omnes  leges  Mosaicas  tarn  accurate  J'ascha 
celebratum  fuisse.  Consuetudinem  antea,  ttiam  sub 
piis  regibus,  videntur  secuti  potius  quam  ipsa  verba 
legis ;  quod  cum  Jit,  multa  necessario  mutantur  ac 
negliguntur.  Sed  inventi  nuper  libri  verba  attendi 
diligentissime  voluit  Josias.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  any  one  could  understand  from  this  pas- 
sage, as  De  Wette  does,  that  no  Passover  had  ever 
been  celebrated  before  this  one.  Thenius  also  as- 
serts that  "  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Passover  was  neglected  from  the 
time  of  the  Judges  on,  and  that  it  did  not  begin 
again  until  after  the  ordinances  of  the  Law  in  re- 
gard to  it  had  once  more  become  known  under  Jo- 
siah,"  because  "  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to 
the  Passover  either  under  Samuel,  or  David,  or 
Solomon."  He  therefore  infers  that  "in  order  to 
bring  about  an  accord  with  the  story  in  Chronicles 

of  the  Passover  feast  instituted  by  Hezekiah  "  n?H 
was  substituted  for  nun  in  ver.  21,  and  nD33 
for  np3n  in  ver.  22.  In  this  way,  of  course,  any- 
thing may  be  found  in  the  text  which  any  one  wants 
to  read  there.  Neither  the  day  of  Atonement  nor 
the  Feast  of  Pentecost  is  expressly  mentioned  in 
the  historical  books,  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
is  only  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  conse- 
cration of  the  temple  (1  Kings  viii.  2).  It  would 
therefore  follow  that  the  Israelites  alone  of  all  an- 
cient peoples  had  no  religious  festivals  from  the 
time  of  the  Judges.  If,  however,  one  festival  was 
celebrated  it  was  certainly  the  feast  of  the  Pass- 
over, which  was  moreover  a  natural  festival  (Levit. 
xxiii.  10  sq. ;  Deut.  xvi.  9).  The  same  chronicler 
who  recorded  the  Passover  under  Hezekiah  also 
gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  one  under  Josiah, 
and  adds  at  the  close  of  his  account  (xxxv.  18)  the 
same  comment  which  we  here  find  in  ver.  22.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  assume  that  ver.  22  has  suffered 
any  alterations  "  in  order  to  bring  it  into  accord 
with  the  record  of  the  Passover  under  Hezekiah." 
On  ver.  23  see  the  Prelim.  Rem. 

Ver.  24.  Moreover  the  necromancers. — 
"  After  Josiah  had  completed  the  reformation  of 
the  public  worship,  he  went  on  to  put  an  end  to 
all  the  superstitious  practices  and  idol-worship 
which  were  carried  on  in  private  houses  "  (The- 
nius). The  necromancers  and  wizards  had  arisen 
under  Manasseh  (chap.  xxi.  6).  The  Teraphim,  or 
household-images,  were  the  penates,  the  gods  of 
the  fireside,  to  which  a  magical  power  was  as- 
cribed. They  served  as  a  kind  of  talisman  for  the 
family,  and  as  a  kind  of  private  oracle.  Cf.  Gen. 
xxxi.  19;  Judges  xviii.  14;   Ezek.  xxi.  26;  Zach. 

x.  2.      On    W7?l    see  1  Kings  xv.  12  and  2  Kings 

xvii.  12.  They  were  doubtless  private  household 
gods.  And  all  the  abominations  that  were 
spied,  i.  e.,  everything  which  was  to  be  abhorred 
and  which  was  found  anywhere,  "  for  it  might  well 
be  that  many  things  of  this  character  were  con- 
cealed "  (Thenius).  That  he  might  establish, 
i.  e.t  put  in  operation.  Even  private  and  family 
religious  observances  were  to  be  regulated  accord- 
ing to  the  newly  discovered  book,  in  order  that  it 
might  serve  as  the  norm  and  rule  for  the  entire 
life  of  the  people.  The  author  therefore  proceeds 
(ver.  25):    And  like  unto  him,  &c.,  by  which  he 


means,  according  to  the  context,  that  the  entirt 
law  of  Moses  was  not  so  strictly  and  severely  car 
ried  out  by  any  king  before  Josiah,  not  even  by 
Hezekiah,  although  the  latter  was  not  at  all  infe 
rior  in  genuine  piety  and  in  trust  in  the  Lord  (see 
notes  on  chap,  xviii.  5).  With  all  his  heart,  &c, 
has  distinct  reference  to  Deut.  vi.  5. — In  vers.  26 
and  27  "  the  author  passes  on  to  the  story  not  only 
of  the  end  of  Josiah,  but  also  of  the  fall  of  the 
kingdom  "  (Keil).     at."  in  ver.  26  stands  in  coi  trast 

with  ac*   in   ver.  25.     Josiah  turned  to  Jehovah, 

but  Jehovah  turned  not  from  his  wrath.  Quamvia 
enim  rex  religiosissimus  esset  populusque  metu  et 
pa/reret,  propterea  tamen  animus  populi  non  erat  mu- 
tatus,  ut  satis  liquet  a  castigationibus  Jeremice,  So- 
phonice,  et  aliorum  prophetarum,  qui  circa  hmc  tern- 
pora  et  paulo  post  vaticinati  sunt  (Clerieus).  Cf. 
Jerem.  i.  10;  Zeph.  i.  2-6;  iii.  1-4.  The  corrup- 
tion had  struck  such  deep  root  luring  the  reign  of 
Manasseh  that  it  could  not  be  eradicated  even  by 
Josiah's  severe  measures.  The  Law  was  observed 
externally,  but  the  conversion  of  the  entire  people 
was  out  of  the  question.  This  became  distinctly 
apparent  after  Josiah's  death.  Hence  the  long 
threatened  judgments  of  Jehovah  must  now  fall 
On  ver.  27  see  Jer.  xxv.  26,  and  notes  on  chap, 
xxi.  4-7. 

Ver.  28.  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Josiah, 
&c.  The  author  now  hastens  to  the  close  of  the 
history  of  Josiah.  It  is  necessary  to  tell  how  he 
met  his  end,  but  he  does  this  very  briefly  (ver.  29). 
The  more  specific  details  are  given  by  the  chron- 
icler (II.  xxxv.  20-27).     Necho  (in  Chronicles  and 

in  Jerem.  xlvi.  2 :   faj ;    in  the  Sept   and  Jose- 

phus  Ne,facj)  was,  according  to  Herodotus  (ii.  158), 
who  calls  him  N«c<jc,  the  son  of  Psammetich  I. 
According  to  Manetho  he  was  the  sixth  king  of 
the  twenty-sixth,  Saite,  dynasty,  and  was  an  ener- 
getic prince  who  built  fleets  both  on  the  Mediter- 
ranean and  on  the  Red  sea.  The  King  of  Assy- 
ria, against  whom  Necho  was  marching,  can  hardly 
have  been  Sardanapalus,  under  whom  Nineveh  was 
destroyed  by  the  Babylonians  and  Medes,  but  the 
Babylonian  Nabopolassar,  the  father  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, who,  as  ruler  of  Assyria  also,  might  now  be 
called  king  of  that  country.  For  Necho  lost  the 
battle  of  Carchemish  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  20)  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar (Jerem.  xlvi.  2),  and  Josephus  says 
(Antiq.  x.  5,  1)  that  Necho  undertook  this  expedi 
tion  against  M.ij6ovc  Kal  'BabvTajviovc,  oS  ttjv  'Auovpiuv 
Karslvoav  apxnv,  rfjq  yap  'Aciac  fiaotAevoat  TtdSrov 
elxev.  Evidently  Necho  desired,  now  that  the  As- 
syrian empire  had  come  to  an  end,  to  hinder  the 
Medes  and  Babylonians  from  forming  a  world-mon- 
archy, and  to  become  himself  ruler  of  Assyria  (see 
Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  105  sq.  II.  s.  143.  Duncker, 
Gesch.  des  Alterthums  I.  s.  499  sq.).  He  did  not 
take  the  long  and  tedious  way  through  the  desert 
et  Tih  and  southern  Palestine,  but  made  use  of  his 
fleet,  and  landed  probably  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  Phoenician  city  of  Akko,  in  a  bay  of  the  Medi- 
terranean. This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Jo- 
siah did  not  march  southwards  to  meet  him,  but 
northwards,  and  that  they  met  at  Megiddo,  in  the 
plain  of  Jezreel,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Carmel.  On 
the  situation  of  this  city  see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  iv.  12 
and  ix.  15.  Herodotus  calls  it  M<i;(i«/.oi',  and 
Ewald  understands  him  to  refer  to  Megdel,  south- 
east of  Akko     but,  as  Keil  shows  in  his  coumierJ 


266 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


on  the  verse,  this  can  hardly  be  correct.  He  slew 
him.  This  curt  statement  finds  its  explanation  in 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  22-24,  according  to  which  it  was 
not  Necho  himself  that  slew  Josiah,  but  the  latter 
was  mortally  wounded  by  an  arrow  from  the  Egyp- 
tian bowmen,  and  then  died  at  Hadad-Rimmon 
(Zach.  xii.  11),  not  far  from  ilegiddo. — The  people 
of  the  land  (see  chap.  xxi.  24)  made  the  younger 
son  of  Josiah  king,  as  we  see  by  comparing  ver.  31 
with  ver.  36,  perhaps  because  they  had  greater 
hopes  of  him,  though  in  this  they  were  mistaken 
( Jerem.  xxii.  ]  0  sq.).  It  is  stated  that  they  anointed 
him  (a  ceremony  which  is  not  elsewhere  expressly 
mentioned  in  speaking  of  a  change  upon  the 
throne),  perhaps  because  he  was  not  the  son  whom 
Josiah  had  chosen  to  succeed  him  (see  notes  on 
1  Kings  i.  5  and  34),  but  nevertheless  they  desired 
to  give  him  the  consecration  of  a  legitimate  king. 

[On  the  contemporaneous  history  see  the  Sup- 
plementary Historical  Note  after  the  next  Exegetical 
section.] 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  King  Josiah  was  the  last  true  theocratic  king  of 
Judah.     Higher  praise  is  given  to  him  than  to  any 
other  king,   even   to  Hezekiah,   namely,  that   he 
"  turned  to  the  Lord  with  all  his  heart,  and  with  all 
his  soul,  and  with  all  his  might,  according  to  all  the 
Law  of  Moses."     Sirach,  in  his  panegyric  on  the 
fathers,  groups  him,  as  we  have  said  above,  with 
David  and  Hezekiah,  besides  whom  there  was  no 
king  who  did  not  more  or  less  abandon  the  Law  of 
the  Lord.     He  also  further  says  of  him  what  he 
says   of  no   other   king :    Mvvpdowov   'luciov   etc 
cvv&eoLV  dvpiaparoc,  hcKevaopevov  £p)v  pvpeipov,  ev 
iravrl  orbpari  die  peki  yXvKavdqoe-at,  Kal  Lc  povotKa 
in  avjiTTooiu  olvov  (Sir.  xlix.  1).  Josephus  also  {Antiq. 
x.  4,  1)  is  loud  in  his  praise.     If  we  take  into  con- 
sideration, on  the  one  hand,  that  under  his  two  im- 
mediate  predecessors,  Manasseh  and  Amon,   who 
together  reigned  for  sixty  years,  apostasy  and  cor- 
ruption had  spread  far  more  widely,  and  penetrated 
far  more  deeply,  than  under  Ahaz,  who  only  reigned 
sixteen  years,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Josiah, 
at  the  time  of  his  accession,  was  only  a  boy  of 
eight  years,  who  might  be  easily  influenced  and 
led  astray,  then  it  appears  to  be  almost  a  miracle 
that  he  became  what  he  was.     This  miracle  is  not 
by  any  means  explained  by  supposing  that,  after 
the  death  of  Amon,  "  the  priests  of  Jehovah  once 
more  gained  influence  at  court  "  (Duncker),  or  that 
"  the  priests  of  Jehovah  succeeded  in  getting  the 
young  prince,  whom  the  opposite  party  had  ele- 
vated to  the  throne,  under  their  control "  (Menzel). 
We  have  not  the   slightest  hint  that  Josiah  was 
educated  or  controlled  by  any  priest  of  Jehovah, 
as  was  the  case  with  Joash  under  entirely  different 
circumstances  (chap.  xii.  2).     Neither  did  the  pro- 
phet Jeremiah  have  influence  upon  his  education, 
for  that  prophet  made  his  first  appearance,  while 
he  was  yet  a  young  man,  in  Josiah's  thirteenth  year, 
at  Anathoth,  from  whence  he  was  driven  away ; 
moreover  he  was  not  the  son  of  the  high-priest, 
but  of  another  Hilkiah  (Jerem.  i.  1,  6).     Ewald's 
comment  is  far  better  (Gesch.  III.  s.  690):    -  We 
cannot  reach  an  accurate  notion  of  the  educational 
development  through  which  he  passed  during  his 
minority,  but  the  decision  and  strictness  with  which 
he  defended  and  maintained  the  more  austere  reli- 
(fion,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign  and  the 


twenty-sixth  of  his  life,  show  plainly  enough  that 
he  had  early  attained  to  a  firm  determination  in 
favor  of  true  nobility  and  manliness  of  life.  It 
may  well  be  that  the  grand  old  history  of  Israel, 
with  its  fundamental  truths,  as  well  as  the  memory 
of  David's  greatness,  of  the  marvelous  deliverance 
of  Jerusalem  from  Sennacherib,  and  of  all  else 
which  was  glorious  in  the  history  of  his  ancestors, 
had  early  made  a  deep  impression  upon  him." 
True  as  this  is,  however,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  ac- 
count for  such  a  phenomenon  as  Josiah  was,  since 
he  stands  before  us  almost  like  a  Dens  ex  machina. 
His  character  is,  as  Hengstenberg  says  (Christol. 
III.  s.  496),  "as  little  to  be  comprehended  on  the 
basis  of  mere  natural  causes  as  is  the  existence  of 
Melchisedek  .  .  in  the  midst  of  the  Canaanites, 
who  were  hastening  on  with  steady  tread  and 
ceaseless  march  towards  the  consummatiot  of 
their  sins.  The  causes  which  produced  Josiah, 
such  as  he  was,  are  the  same  which  produced  Jer- 
emiah." If  it  was  marvelous  that  a  man  like 
Hezekiah  followed  a  man  like  Ahaz,  it  was  still 
more  marvelous  that  an  eight-year  old  boy  like  Jo- 
siah followed  men  like  Manasseh  and  Amon,  and 
that  he,  during  all  his  reign,  should  have  turned 
'•  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left,"  and 
should  have  been  unexampled  in  the  entire  history 
of  the  kings.  It  was  no  accident  that  a  king  like 
Josiah  arose  once  more,  and  attained  to  the  height 
of  David  as  the  model  of  a  genuine  theocratic  king. 
It  was  a  gracious  gift  from  the  God  who  had  chosen 
Israel  as  His  own  peculiar  people,  for  the  accom 
plisliment  of  His  redemptive  plan,  and  Who  con 
tinued  to  raise  up  men  who  were  endowed  with 
gifts  and  strength  to  work  in  and  for  His  plans,  anc 
to  manifest  themselves  to  His  people  as  His  instru- 
ments. If  a  king  like  Josiah  could  not  restore  the 
people  to  its  calling,  then  the  monarchy,  as  an  in- 
stitution, had  failed  of  its  object  and  was  near  its 
end.  The  kingdom  must  hasten  to  its  downfall 
and  the  threatened  judgments  must  come. 

2.  We  are  made  acquainted,  in  this  passage, 
only  with  those  events  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (thirty- 
one  years)  which  appertained  to  the  abolition  of  idol- 
atry, and  the  restoration  of  the  legitimate  Jehovah- 
worship.  It  was  by  virtue  of  these  events  that  his 
reign  formed  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  king- 
dom. In  comparison  with  these  events,  all  else, 
in  the  judgment  of  this  historian,  sank  into  insigni- 
ficance. We  see,  however,  from  a  passage  in  the 
book  of  Jeremiah,  that  he  was  remarkable  also  in 
other  respects,  for  the  prophet  presents  him  to  his 
son,  Jehoiakim,  as  a  model :  "  Shalt  thou  reign  be- 
cause thou  closest  thyself  in  cedar  ?  Did  not  thy 
father  eat  and  drink,  and  do  judgment  and  justice, 
and  then  it  was  well  with  him  ?  "  &c.  (Jerem.  xxii. 
13-17).  Josephus  says  of  him  (I.  c):  T?)v  fie  tpvaiv 
avrbc  apiOToc  vrrijpxe,  Kal  TTpbc  aperi/v  ev  yeyov&c 
.  .  .  uc  av  TTpeofivraToc  Kal  voijoai  to  diov  iKaiGira- 
roc,  .  .  .  oofftia  aal  eirivoig  ttjc  (pvaeuc  xpupevoc 
.  .  .  rolg  yap  vdpotc  KaraKoXov&cJv,  ovtu  Trepl  ttjv 
rd^iv  Tijc  TToXtrelac  Kal  rye  irepl  rb  tielov  evGef$eia( 
evodeiv  re  ovviftaive  .  .  cnredeige  6e  rtvac  Kpi-as 
Kal  ETriOKbTTOvc,  Lie  av  dioiKolev  to  7rao'  eKaoroic  rrpay- 
para,  Tzepl  Tzavrbc  rb  diKaiov  Troiovuevoi,  k.  r.  /..  The 
fact  that  he  extended  his  reforming  work  into 
Samaria  shows  that  he  had  attained  to  power  and 
authority  there  :  when  and  how  he  obtained  this  ia 
nowhere  stated,  but  the  fact  that  he  had  it  stand? 
linn,  and  might  be  inferred  even  from  other  his 
torical  hints.     After  Esarhaddon,  the  successor  o' 


CHAPTER  XX.-XXIII.  3 


2(37 


Sennacherib,  the  Assyrian  power  began  to  sink. 
The  Scythians  invaded  the  country  from  the 
North;  on  the  East  and  South  it  was  threatened 
by  the  Medes  and  Babylonians,  who  sought  to 
make  themselves  independent  of  its  power.  These 
events  belong  to  the  time  of  the  reign  of  Josiah. 
Josiah  must  have  made  vigorous  opposition  to  the 
Scythians  who  were  pressing  forward  in  Palestine 
towards  Egypt,  devastating  everything,  for  he  re- 
mained undisturbed  by  them.  It  is  very  probable 
that  it  was  easy  for  him,  after  their  departure,  to 
extend  his  authority  over  the  territory  of  the 
former  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  since  the  Assy- 
rians were  not,  at  that  time,  in  a  position  to  pay 
much  attention  to  Israel,  or  to  maintain  intact 
their  supremacy  over  it.  In  the  year  625  the  Assy- 
rian power  was  being  hard  pushed  by  Nabopolassar, 
the  father  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Josiah's  refor- 
mation falls  in  the  year  623,  that  is,  in  the  time 
when  the  Assyrian  empire  was  tottering  and  fall- 
ing. Whether  Josiah,  as  "a  king  who  desired  in 
all  things  to  be  a  getniino  successor  of  David," 
had  the  intention  of  "  restoring  the  authority  of 
the  house  of  David  over  all  the  surrounding  peo- 
ples "  (Ewald),  or  whether  he  "regarded  himself, 
after  the  fall  of  the  northern  kingdom,  as  king  of 
the  entire  covenant  people,  and  took  advantage  of 
the  impending  or  already  accomplished  dissolution 
of  the  Assyrian  empire,  in  order  to  conciliate  to 
himself  the  Israelites  who  remained  in  Samaria,  to 
make  them  well  disposed  towards  his  authority, 
and  to  win  them  to  his  reforms  "  (Keil),  we  cannot 
decide,  but  this  is  certainly  far  more  probable  than 
that  he  "  as  a  vassal  of  the  Assyrian  king  had  a 
certain  limited  authority  over  this  territory,"  and 
that  "  his  enterprise  was  permitted  by  the  Assy- 
rian authorities  "  (Hess),  or  that  he  petitioned  the 
new  ruler  of  Assyria  (Nabopolassar)  for  permis- 
sion to  exercise  authority  there  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion (Theuius).  However  this  may  be,  Josiah 
certainly  stands  before  us  as  a  king  who  was  en- 
dowed with  the  above-mentioned  virtues  of  a 
rider,  and  with  an  enterprising  spirit  and  warlike 
courage.  These  last  traits  are  proved  by  his  at- 
tempt to  resist  Necho.  in  regard  to  which  see  be- 
low. It  is  utterly  erroneous,  therefore,  to  see  in 
this  king,  as  modern  historians  are  disposed  to  do, 
merely  a  passive  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the 
priesthood.  [See  the  Supplementary  Notes  after  the 
Exeg.  sections  on  chaps,  xx.  and  xxi.,  and  on  the 
next  following  section  of  the  text.] 

3.  The  discovery  of  the  book  of  the  Law  was,  in 
spite  of  its  apparent  insignificance,  an  event  of  the 
first  importance  for  all  the  subsequent  history  of 
Israel.  Although  Josiah  had,  before  that  event, 
turned  to  the  Lord  and  sought  to  inaugurate  a 
reform  (see  the  Prelim.  Rem.),  yet  it  was  this  dis- 
covery which  determined  him  to  take  measures  of 
the  utmost  severity  against  all  idolatry,  and  to  re- 
store the  worship  of  Jehovah  in  Judah  and  in 
Israel.  From  this  discovery  dates  the  complete 
revolution  in  the  circumstances  of  the  kingdom, 
and  from  this  time  on  this  book  had  such  authority 
that,  in  spite  of  all  vicissitudes,  and  in  spite  of  re- 
newed apostasy,  yei  it  held  its  place  in  the  respect 
of  the  nation,  it  has  been  recognized  until  to-day 
by  the  Jews  as  their  most  sacred  religious  docu- 
ment, and  their  religion,  in  all  its  distinctive  pecu- 
liarities, is  built  upon  it.  Suppose  that  this  book 
had  never  been  discovered,  but  had  been  lost  for 
ever,    so   that   only   incomplete   and   iuauthentic 


private  copies  had  been  preserved,  scattered  here 
and  there,  what  would  then  have  been  the  state  of 
Judaism,  and  how  different  must  have  been  the 
shape  which  its  religious  and  moral  development 
would  have  taken.  The  whole  history  of  Israel 
bears  witness  to  the  guiding  and  controlling  hand 
of  God,  but  if  there  is  any  one  eveDt  in  which 
more  than  in  any  other,  the  Providence  of  God  is 
visible,  then  it  is  this  important  discovery.  It  was 
a  physical  proof  that  God  watches  over  this  docu- 
ment, which  is  the  testimonial  to  Israel  of  its  elec- 
tion, and  the  highest  divine  revelation;  that  he 
preserves  it  from  the  rage  of  idolaters ;  and  that, 
even  if  it  lies  long  unnoticed  and  unknown  in  the 
night  of  apostasy,  he  will  bring  it  again  to  light, 
and  make  it  to  show  its  force  once  more,  so  that  it 
is  like  a  fire  which  consumes  all  which  is  false  and 
corrupt,  and  like  a  hammer  which  breaks  the  rocks 
(Jerem.  xxiii.  29).  The  discovery  of  the  book  was 
a  pledge  to  the  king  and  people  of  the  indestructi- 
bility of  the  divine  written  word. — Modern  his- 
torical science  has  taken  an  entirely  different  v'.ew 
of  this  event.  "The  impression  left  by  the  devas- 
tations of  the  Scythians,"  says  Duncker  (Gssch.  d. 
Alt.  I.  s.  503  sq.).  "  who  had  left  the  land  a  desert, 
was  deep  and  fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
The  king  was  young,  and,  as  it  seems,  open  to  in- 
fluence.  The  priests  were  bound  to  take  advantage 
of  these  circumstances  to  set  up  a  stronger  barrier 
against  the  Syrian  forms  of  worship.  Manasseh's 
persecutions  had  led  the  Jehovah-priests  to  look 
about  for  means  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of 
similar  oppression.  They  naturally  found  them- 
selves forced  to  an  attempt  to  secure  their  creed 
and  their  official  position  against  the  changing 
will  of  the  kings,  to  emancipate  it  from  the  fickle 
disposition  of  the  people,  and  to  put  an  end,  at 
last,  to  the  vacillation  between  Jehovah-cultus 
and  foreign  and  heathen  forms  of  worship."  There 
was  room  to  hope  that  "  by  means  of  a  law-book, 
which  made  the  worship  of  Jehovah  the  basis  of 
all  national  life,  and  embraced  all  social  interests 
in  its  scope,  all  future  perils  to  the  priesthood 
might  be  prevented,  their  position  might  be  per- 
manently assured,  and  the  Jehovah-worship  might 
be  securely  established  and  strictly  carried  out. 
.  .  .  A  codification  of  the  rules  which  had 
been  gradually  formed  by  the  priests  as  the  scheme 
of  life  which  would  be  pleasing  to  Jehovah,  a 
compendium  which  should  sharply  emphasize  the 
chief  demands  which  religion  made  upon  the  laity, 
was,  therefore,  needed.  For  such  a  law-book  alone 
was  there  hope  that  it  would  find  acceptance,  that 
it  would  be  recognized  by  the  king  and  by  the 
people  as  an  unquestionable  authority,  and  as  the 
organic  law  of  the  country,  and  that  it  might  be 
completely  and  successfully  put  in  operation.  This 
was  the  purpose,  and  these  were  the  fundamental 
principles  on  which  this  book  (Deuteronomy), 
which  Hilkiah,  the  high-priest,  sent  to  the  king, 
was  compiled.  .  .  .  Josiah  was  deeply 
moved  by  the  contents  of  it,  and  by  the  threats 
which  it  pronounced  against  those  who  trans- 
gressed the  Law  of  Jehovah.  In  order  to  con- 
vince himself  of  the  genuineness  of  this  book  as 
the  real  law  of  Moses,  he  appealed  from  the  au- 
thority of  the  temple  and  the  high-priest  to  a 
female  soothsayer.  The  wife  of  one  of  the  k  Qg'a 
officers,  Huldah,  was  asked  in  regard  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  book,  and  she  declared  that  the 
words  of  the  book  were  the  words  of  Jehovah. 


26S 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


We  have  an  example,  in  this  entire  presentation 
of  the  incident,  of  the  inexcusable  manner  in  which 
modern  historical  science  treats  the  biblical  his- 
tory. The  book  which  was  found  was,  according 
to  this  view,  simply  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  an 
assumption  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  so  contrary 
to  the  text  that  even  the  most  daring  and  advanced 
critical  science  has  recognized  its  falsehood.  This 
book,  too,  is  represented  as  having  been  secretly 
compiled  after  the  Scythian  invasion  of  Palestine, 
that  is,  as  we  have  seen  above,  after  627  B.  c,  by 
the  priests,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  king, 
and  then  as  having  been  sent  to  the  latter  by  Hil- 
kiah,  as  the  book  written  by  Moses,  and  now  re- 
discovered, so  that  it  would  be  in  fact  forged. 
The  king  permits  himself  to  be  deceived,  and  is 
deeply  moved  by  the  threats  invented  by  the 
priests,  yet  he  turns,  superstitiously,  to  a  "  female 
soothsayer,"  inquires  of  her  in  regard  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  book,  and  she,  being  of  course 
initiated  into  the  secret  of  the  priests,  answers 
that  the  words  of  the  priests  are  the  words  of 
Jehovah.  The  whole  affair  is  thus  reduced  to 
cunning,  deceit,  and  falsehood,  on  the  part  of  the 
priests,  in  their  own  selfish  interests.  The  priests, 
with  the  high-priest  at  the  head,  are  vulgar 
cheats,  and  the  king  and  people  are  cheated.  The 
entire  grand  reformation,  and  the  complete  revo- 
lution in  the  state  of  the  kingdom,  with  all  the 
religious  development  which  followed,  rest  upon  a 
forgery.  Such  an  arbitrary  and  utterly  perverse 
conception  refutes  itself,  and  Ewald  (I.  c.  s.  700) 
justly  says:  "  We  must  beware  of  obscuring  the 
view  of  the  incident  by  any  such  incorrect  hypothe- 
sis as  that  the  high-priest  composed  this  book  him- 
self, but  denied  its  origin.  Want  of  conscientious- 
ness in  the  conception  of  history  cannot  be  more 
plainly  evinced  than  by  such  unfouuded  and  unjust 
suppositions."  Ewald  himself,  on  the  other  hand, 
ascribes  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy  to  a 
prophet  who.  during  the  persecution  by  Manas- 
seh,  took  refuge  in  Egypt,  and  says :  "  If  the 
book  was  written  thirty  or  forty  years  before,  by  a 
prophet  who,  at  this  time,  was  dead,  and  if  it 
found  circulation  only  gradually,  so  that  it  finally 
reached  Palestine  as  it  were  by  accident,  a  copy 
might  accidentally  have  found  its  way  into  the 
temple,  and  there  have  been  found  by  the  high- 
priest."  But  the  notion  that  the  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy was  composed  in  Egypt  "  stands  in  the  air," 
and  has  thus  far  been  adopted  by  none  but  Eisen- 
lohr.  Moreover,  that  it  came  to  Palestine  by  ac- 
cident, came  into  the  temple  by  accident,  by  the 
hand  of  an  unknown  priest,  and  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  high-priest,  so  that  it  was  found 
by  him,  again — "  by  accident,"  not  only  does  not 
explain  the  incident,  but  it  even  makes  it  still 
more  marvelous  and  inexplicable  than  it  is  accord- 
in;-'  to  the  biblical  account.  If  we  assume  that  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  was  first  writteu  in  the  time 
nt  Manasseh,  or  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  that  the 
book  of  the  Law  thereby  first  reached  its  com- 
pletion,  then  we  are  compelled  to  have  recourse 
to  all  sorts  of  arbitrary  hypotheses  to  account  for 
I1  alleged  "  discovery  "  of  the  book  at  this  time. 
pi  seems  hardly  probable  that  the  question  of 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  book  of  Diuteronomy 
\'.ill  ever  be  definitely  settled.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  traditional  view  is  firmly  fixed  in  the  belief  of 
'In-  Church.  On  it  are  supposed  to  hang  doctrinal 
a  ■Inch  would  fall  if  the  Mosaic  author- 


ship were  surrendered,  and  these  doctrines  are  re- 
garded as  too  essential  to  the  structure  of  the 
Christian  faith  to  admit  of  any  weakening.  Such 
a  position  is  false  philosophically,  as  it  involves  * 
reasoning  from  dogma  to  fact,  instead  of  the  con- 
trary and  only  legitimate  process.  Nevertheless, 
there  seems  little  reason  to  expect  that  this  posi- 
tion will  be  overthrown,  at  least  as  far  as  we  can 
yet  foresee.  Moreover,  the  admission  that  Moses 
was  not  the  author  involves,  or  seems  to  involve, 
the  admission  of  a  literary  forgery,  although  no  one 
can  believe  that  Moses  wrote  the  account  of  his 
own  death  in  the  34th  chapter.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  grounds  for  believing  in  the  comparatively  late 
origin  of  this  book  are  such  as  only  scholars  of 
great  attainments  can  appreciate  or  understand, 
Therefore  the  position  of  the  question  now  is,  ana 
probably  for  a  long  time  to  come  wUl  be,  that  thti 
opinion  which  enjoys  ecclesiastical  sanction  is  the 
traditional  opinion  of  the  Mosaic  authorship,  while 
the  scholars  (with  very  few  exceptions,  and  those 
of  inferior  authority)  are  firmly  convinced  that 
Deuteronomy  was  written  at  a  time  long  after  that 
of  Moses,  and  by  an  unknown  hand.  The  grounds 
on  which  the  latter  opinion  is  based  are  critical  and 
historical.  The  former  are,  in  the  briefest  state- 
ment, these:  (a)  The  language  of  the  book.  It  is 
marked  by  archaisms  such  as  are  peculiar  to  the 
other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  these  are  found 
side  by  side  with  peculiarities  of  the  late  language, 
especially  those  which  mark  the  book  of  Jeremiah. 
It  is  said  that  this  is  a  clear  proof  that  the  author 
lived  in  the  later  days  of  the  Jewish  monarchy, 
and  either  unconsciously  adopted  ancient  forms 
from  familiar  acquaintance  with  the  old  Scriptures, 
or  purposely  affected  archaic  forms,  (b)  Its  lite- 
rary style.  It  bears  the  character  of  a  codification 
or  digest  of  the  previous  books.  It  is  also  marked 
by  a  handling  of  the  ordinances  of  Moses,  in  the 
spirit  of  their  principles,  but  with  the  freedom  of 
one  who  had  thoroughly  studied  them,  and  digested 
them,  and  now  purposed  to  codify  and  arrange 
them  in  a  more  practical  and  available  form,  (c) 
It  presents,  however,  certain  variations  from  the 
other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  always  in  the  sense 
of  making  the  ordinances  more  flexible  and  of  freer 
application,  as  it  were  to  a  higher  civilization  and 
a  more  complicated  society,  (d)  It  contemplates  a 
state  of  things  in  which  the  nation  is  living  a  set- 
tled and  ordered  life,  under  a  king,  face  to  face 
with  neighbors,  not  like  the  Canaanites,  but  pow- 
erful and  large  enough,  if  victorious,  to  swallow  up 
Israel  in  captivity,  (e)  It  is  too  long  to  be  delivered 
as  a  speech,  as  it  is  represented. — The  historical 
arguments  are  these :  (a)  Deuteronomy  ordains 
worship  at  one  central  sanctuary,  a  thing  which 
was  not  regarded  as  important  until  after  the  time 
of  Solomon,  but  which,  from  the  time  of  Josiah  on, 
became  a  fixed  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Hebrew  religion.  (I)  The  spirit  of  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy is  that  which  marked  Josiah's  reforma- 
tion and  the  preaching  of  the  later  prophets.  It 
controlled  the  ultimate  development  of  the  Jewish 
religion  after  the  captivity. — All  these  arguments 
meet  with  answers  from  the  opposite  school,  the 
weight  of  which  depends  on  the  philosophical  or 
dogmatic  prepossessions  of  the  persons  who  arc 
called  upon  to  weigh  them.  They  are  only  men 
tioned  hereto  show  in  general  and  in  brief  what  is 
the  character  of  the  grounds  on  which  "  critical 
science"  has  based  the  belief  that  Deute-  noniy 


CHAPTER  XX1I.-XXIII.  30. 


was  not  written  by  or  in  the  time  of  Moses.  They 
are  independent  f  nd  critical  throughout.  To  esti- 
mate them  requires  close  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew 
language  and  history,  a  knowledge  which  goes  be- 
yond grammar  lind  dictionary,  and  involves  phi- 
losophical insight,  and  critical  sagacity  and  skill. 
Certainly  it  devolves  upon  all  who  are  charged  with 
.  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  to  give  to  the  subject 
a  candid"  and  unprejudiced  consideration,  in  order 
that  the  truth,  on  whichever  side  it  may  lie,  may 
be  established.  There  is  not  a  subject  on  which 
the  tyro  in  biblical  learning  may  more  easily  fall 
into  rash  error,  nor  one  upon  which  those  who 
cannot,  or  will  not,  enter  upon  the  tedious  investi- 
gation which  is  involved  ought  more  carefully  to 
refrain  from  passing  a  dogmatical  judgment. 

Strictly  speaking,  this  question  lies  aside  from 
our  present  occupation.  In  commenting  on  the 
23d  chapter  of  the  2d  book  of  Kings,  and  noticing 
the  bearing  of  the  facts  which  it  records  upon  the 
"development  of  the  plan  of  redemption  "  (see 
Preface),  we  have  only  to  notice  the  effect  produced 
by  the  discovery  of  the  "  book  of  the  Law."  But 
it  is  asserted  by  some  that  this  book  was  not  the 
same,  nor  a  mere  copy  of  any,  which  had  existed 
before,  but  a  revision  of  the  former  records,  with 
an  addition  consisting  of  a  repetition  and  codi- 
fication of  the  ancient  ordinances.  They  assert 
that  this  new  work  was  an  extension  and  re-app.;- 
cation  of  the  legislation  of  Moses,  which  was  espe 
cially  adapted  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  that  herein 
lie  the  grounds  of  its  great  and  peculiar  influence. 
If  such  an  assertion  be  true,  and  if  the  peculiar 
character  of  this  new  revision,  as  compared  %vith 
the  ancient  records,  was  a  new  and  broader  appre- 
hension of  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  and  if 
this  new  spirit  gave  to  that  legislation  a  new  im- 
petus which  made  it  the  controlling  principle  in  the 
subsequent  development  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
then  certainly  it  was  a  most  important  event  in  the 
development  of  the  history  of  redemption.  In  fact, 
if  this  assertion  be  true,  the  composition  of  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  was  the  most  important  in- 
cident in  the  history  of  the  Israelites  after  the  time 
of  Moses.  Hence  the  importance  of  studying  the 
question  involved  in  the  most  thorough  manner, 
by  its  proper  evidence,  with  all  the  light  which 
history  or  criticism  can  throw  upon  it. 

Our  present  chapter  bears  upon  it  in  so  far  as 
we  discern  in  the  reformation  of  Josiah  a  peculiar 
character,  as  compared,  for  instance,  with  that  of 
Joash,  or  that  of  Hezekiah,  and  in  so  far  as  these 
peculiar  features  of  this  reformation  are  traceable 
to  Deuteronomy  as  distinguished  from,  the  other  books 
of  the  Pentateuch.  On  this  point  we  observe  that 
this  book  of  the  Law  produced  a  profound  sensa- 
tion. It  brought  to  the  king's  notice  things  which 
he  had  never  heard  or  known  of,  and  which,  there- 
fore, were  not  popularly  known  of,  as  parts  of  the 
11  Law  of  the  Lord,'1  although  something  was  cer- 
tainly known  under  that  name.  It  is  also  said  that 
the  thing  in  the  new  book  which  especially  at- 
tracted his  attention,  and  stirred  him  to  the  action 
which  he  took,  was  the  "  threats  "  or  denunciations 
which  it  contained  (cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  especially  vers. 
25  and  64).  But  these  only  occur  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy.  When  we  read  the  description  of 
'■uture  and  possible  degeneracy  under  the  kingdom, 
ind  the  threats  of  captivity,  &c,  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  compare 
them  with  the  state  of  things  under  Josiah,  when 


the  northern  kingdom  had  already  disappeared  in 
Assyrian  exile,  we  cannot  wonder  at  the  effect  pro- 
duced on  the  king's  mind.  He  saw  himself  and  hi! 
nation  in  this  description  as  in  a  mirror. — We  also 
notice  particular  expressions  :  "  Turned  neither  to 
the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left,"  as  the  description 
of  a  perfect  king  (cf.  Deut.  v.  32;  xvii.  11,  20; 
xxviii.  14) ;  the  "  burning  "  of  idolatrous  images 
and  utensils  (ver 4.  cf.  Deut  vii.  25;  xii.  3);  "  With, 
all  his  heart "  (xxiii.  25.  cf.  Deut.  vi.  5) ;  the  death 
penalty  for  idolatry  (xxiii.  20.  cf.  Deut.  xvii.  2-5). 
The  fact  that,  from  this  time  on,  the  '•  Law  "  played 
a  far  more  important  part  in  forming  and  guiding 
the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Jews  than  ever  before 
is  indisputable.  The  author  describes  its  influence 
above.  Whether  we  can  discern  in  the  further  de- 
velopments the  peculiar  effect  of  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy, so  far  as  that  book  differs  in  character 
from  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  not,  is 
a  question  which  must  be  left  to  the  study  of  the 
passages  and  books  from  which  it  may  appear. — 
W.  G.  S.] 

4.  The  prophetess  Huldah,  who  is  mentioned  only 
here,  offers  a  very  remarkable  proof  that  prophecy, 
"as  a  free  gift  of  the  divine  spirit,  was  not  confined 
to  a  particular  sex,"  and  that  "  God  imparts  the 
gifts  of  his  spirit,  without  respect  to  human  divi- 
sions and  classifications,  to  whomsoever  He  will, 
according  to  the  free  determination  of  His  holy 
love.  The  people  were  to  recognize  the  truth,  al- 
though, it  might  be,  in  imperfect  measure,  that  the 
time  would  come  when  there  would  be  a  general 
pouring  out  of  the  spirit  upon  it,  Joel  iii.  1  sq. " 
(Havernick  on  Ezek.  xiii.  17.)  Besides  Huldah 
there  are  two  women  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment who  are  designated  as  prophetesses,  Miriam 
(Ex.  xv.  20),  and  Deborah  (Judges  iv.  4).  But  she 
was  a  nx'33  in  another  and  fuller  sense  than  they. 

What  they  did  and  said  was  produced  in  a  state  of 
ecstasy;  they  did  not  prophesy  in  the  narrower 
and  stricter  sense  of  the  word,  i.  e.,  they  were  not 
instruments  by  means  of  which  God  made  known 
His  will  and  purpose  to  those  who  asked  it.  She 
solemnly  and  expressly  pronounces  her  oracle  as 
the  word  of  Jehovah  (chap.  xxii.  16,  18:  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord  "),  and  she  uses  the  manner  and  form 
of  speech  of  the  true  and  great  prophets.  The  same 
or  similar  fact  is  not  true  of  any  other  woman. 
She  stands  alone  in  the  history  of  the  old  covenant, 
and  it  is  very  significant  that  just  at  this  point, 
where  the  entire  future  of  the  people  and  its  grand- 
est and  highest  interests  are  at  stake,  the  Lord 
makes  use  of  a  weak  and  humble  instrument  to 
bring  about  the  execution  of  His  purpose.  Huldah 
cannot,  therefore,  be  at  all  brought  into  comparison 
with  the  witch  of  Endor  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  7),  or  with 
the  prophetesses  of  whom  Ezek.  speaks  (chap.  xiii. 
17).     The  wife  of  Isaiah  is  also  called   nX^n 

(Isai.  viii.  3),  but  in  an  altogether  different  sense, 
viz.,  as  wife  of  the  prophet  and  mother  of  the  pro- 
phet-sons. Finally  Noadiah  is  designated  (Nehem. 
vi.  14)  as  a  false  prophetess.  The  rabbis  arbitra- 
rily fix  the  number  of  prophetesses  in  the  Old  Test- 
ament at  seven  (Seder  Warn  21).  Their  statements 
in  regard  to  Huldah,  as,  for  instance,  that  an  honor 
was  shown  her  after  her  death  which  was  not 
shown  to  anybody  else  not  of  the  house  of  David, 
namely,  to  be  buried  inside  of  the  walls  of  J  iru- 
salern,  belong  purely  to  tradition,  it  is  true,  but 
they   show   in  what   high   esteem  she  stood  (cf 


270 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  K/NGS. 


Witsius.   De   Prophetissis   in   the   Miscell.  Sacr.   I. 
p.  288). 

5.  The  abolition  of  idolatry  and  of  the  illegitimate 
Jehovah-worship  under  Josiah  is  distinguished  from 
every  earlier  attempt  of  the  kind,  even  from  that 
under  Hezekiah,  by  the  fact  that  it  was  far  more 
thorough.  It  extended  not  only  to  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  but  also  to  the  former  kingdom  of  Israel, 
not  only  to  the  public  but  also  to  the  private  life 
of  the  people.  The  evil  was  everywhere  to  be 
torn  out,  roots  and  all.  Nothing  which  could  per- 
petuate the  memory  of  heathen,  or  of  illegitimate 
Jehovah- worship  remained  standing.  All  the  places 
of  worship,  all  the  images,  all  the  utensils,  were 
not  only  destroyed  but  also  defiled ;  even  the  ashes 
were  thrown  into  the  river  at  an  unclean  place 
that  they  might  be  borne  away  forever.  The  idol- 
priests  themselves  were  slain,  and  the  bones  of 
those  who  were  already  dead  were  taken  out  of 
the  graves  and  burned.  The  priests  of  Jehovah 
who  had  performed  their  functions  upon  the 
heights  were  deposed  from  their  office  and  dignity, 
and  were  not  allowed  to  sacrifice  any  more  at  the 
altar  of  Jehovah.  This  reformation  has  been 
charged  with  "violence,"  and  this  has  been 
offered  as  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  it 
was  so  short-lived.  So  Ewald :  "  This  attempt  at 
reformation  bears  the  character  of  violence  in  all 
its  details  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge.  .  .  . 
The  evil  results  of  such  violent  conduct  in  religi- 
ous and  civil  affairs  soon  showed  themselves,  and 
all  falling  together  in  an  accumulated  evil  produced 
a  discord  and  confusion  which  could  not  be  smooth- 
ed over,"  &c.  To  this  Niemeyer  (Charakt.  d.  Bib. 
V.  s.  100)  answers:  ''In  the  case  of  such  corrup- 
tion which  had  already  eaten  into  the  vitals  of  the 
State,  and,  above  all,  in  the  face  of  such  unnatural 
customs  as  were  connected  with  it,  let  any  one  say 
what  he  will  about  the  compulsion  of  conscience 
and  the  harshness  of  compelling  a  man  to  adopt  a 
religion  which  he  does  not  choose,  I  believe  that 
it  was  a  political  right  and  duty  to  eradicate  the 
evil,  if  indeed  it  was  any  longer  possible  to  eradi- 
cate it.  I  will  not  say  that  the  mass  of  men  gen- 
erally goes  whither  it  is  led,  and  that  there  is  no 
instruction  or  improvement  possible  for  them  but 
that  which  is  based  upon  authority  and  belief,  so 
that  better  leaders  and  a  more  reasonable  authori- 
ty are  a  gain  at  all  times  I  will  only  reply  to 
those  who  charge  Josiah  with  cruelty  and  tyr- 
anny, in  putting  the  priests  of  Baal  to  death,  that 
those  who  should  preach  murder  as  a  religious 
duty,  and  as  an  exercise  pleasing  to  God,  would 
not  be  left  unpunished  in  any  enlightened  State. 
Josiah,  therefore,  when  he  put  an  end  to  these 
abominable  sacrifices  of  innocence,  for  vengeance 
for  which  mankind  seemed  to  stretch  forth  its 
hands  to  him,  did  no  more  than  the  kindest  ruler 
would  have  considered  it  his  duty  to  do."  Hess 
also  well  remarks  (Gesch.  d.  Konige,  II.  ss.  236  and 
238) :  '•  To  allow  them  [the  priests  of  Baal]  to  live 
would  be  to  nourish  seducers  for  the  people,  and 
to  transgress  the  law  to  which  a  new  oath  of  alle- 
giance had  just  been  taken,  for  this  demanded  that 
those  who  introduced  idolatry  should  be  extermi- 
nated. .  .  .  Josiah's  fundamental  principle  was 
that  a  half-way  eradication  of  idolatry  would  be 
no  better  than  no  attempt  at  all.  If  anything  of 
this  kind  had  been  permitted  to  remain,  the  door 
would  have  been  left  open  for  the  evil  sooner  or 
lator  to   return.     The    idolatrous   disposition    and 


tendency  took  advantage  of  the  slightest  circum- 
stance, aud  seized  upon  the  slightest  trace  oi 
former  idolatry,  to  once  more  gain  a  footing."  We 
should  like  to  know  how  Josiah  should  have  un- 
dertaken to  get  rid  of  the  harlots  and  male  prosti- 
tutes who  had  settled  themselves  in  the  very  fore- 
court of  the  sanctuary,  and  there  carried  on  their 
shameful  occupations,  or  to  abolish  the  horrible 
and  abominable  rites  of  Moloch,  with  their  child- 
sacrifices  and  licentiousness.  That  would  never 
have  been  possible  in  the  way  of  kindness,  as  we 
see  from  the  attempts  of  the  prophets.  When  wag 
a  reformation  ever  accomplished,  when  corruption 
had  reached  such  a  depth,  without  "violence"? 
Even  Luther,  who  publicly  burned  the  popish  law- 
books, cannot  be  acquitted  of  it;  and  how  would 
the  reformation  of  the  16th  century  have  come  to 
pass  if  no  violence  had  been  used  against  the  cor- 
ruptions which  had  affected  not  only  religious, 
but  also  moral  and  social  order,  and  if  those  cor- 
ruptions had  been  treated  only  by  kind  and  mill 
means  ?  Nothing  is  more  mistaken  than  to  criti- 
cise and  estimate  antiquity  from  the  standpoint  o* 
modern  humanity  and  religious  freedom.  Evei 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did  not  pronounce  a  dis 
course  to  those  who  had  made  the  house  of  God  a 
den  of  thieves  (Matt.  xxi.  13) ;  he  made  a  whip  and 
scourged  them  out  of  the  temple  (John  ii.  15). 
That  also  was  "violence."  It  is  nowhere  hinted 
that  Josiah  forced  the  people  to  accept  the  Jeho- 
vah-religion against  their  conviction.  He  only  put 
an  end  by  violence  to  the  heathen  usages  and  li- 
centious abuses,  and  this  he  did  not  do  until  after 
he  had  collected  the  people,  made  them  acquainted 
with  the  Law-book,  and  received  their  assent  to  it. 
The  Israelitish  monarchy  was  not  instituted  to  in- 
troduce religious  liberty ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was 
its  first  and  highest  duty  to  sustain  the  funda- 
mental law  of  Israel  (Dent.  xvii.  IS,  19;  1  Kings 
ii.  3).  To  use  the  physical  force  which  it  possess- 
ed in  the  service  of  this  law  was  its  right  and  it? 
duty. 

[Let  us  endeavor  to  analyze  the  circumstances, 
and  the  principles  which  are  here  at  stake,  and  to 
arrive  at  a  sharper  and  firmer  definition  of  our  po- 
sition in  regard  to  them.  What  deserves  distinctly 
and  permanently  to  be  borne  in  mind  is  this :  if 
mild  measures  would  not  have  availed  to  accom- 
plish the  desired  object  of  rooting  out  idolatry  aud 
restoring  the  Mosaic  constitution,  neither  did  these 
violent  measures  have  that  effect.  Josiah's  reforma- 
tory efforts  failed  of  any  permanent  effect,  and  his 
arrangements  disappeared  almost  without  a  trace. 
It  is  very  remarkable  that  the  prophets,  who 
might  have  been  expected  to  rejoice  in  this  under- 
taking, and  to  date  from  it  as  an  epoch  and  a  stand- 
ing example  of  what  a  king  of  Judah  ought  to  do, 
scarcely  refer  to  it,  if  at  all.  A  few  pages  back, 
we  had  occasion  to  use  strong  terms  in  condemna- 
tion of  a  violent  and  bloody  attempt  of  Manasseh 
to  crush  out  the  Jehovah  religion  and  establish 
the  worship  of  other  gods.  Violence  for  violence, 
can  we  approve  of  the  means  employed  in  the  one 
case  any  more  than  in  the  other  ?  Is  the  most 
highly  cultured  Christian  conscience  so  uncertain 
of  its  own  principles  that  it  is  incapable  of  any 
better  verdict  than  this :  violence  when  employed 
by  the  party  with  which  we  sympathize  is  right ; 
when  employed  against  that  party  it  is  wrong  ?  Wi 
justify  Josiah  and  we  condemn  the  Christian  perse 
cutors  and  inquisitors.  A  re  these  vi°"*s  inconsistent 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


271 


and,  if  not,  how  can  we  reconcile  them  ?  We  have  to 
Dear  in  mind  that  it  is  one  thing  to  admit  excuses  for  a 
line  of  conduct,  and  another  to  justify  it.  Judaism 
certainly  had  intolerance  as  one  of  its  fundamental 
principles.  Violence  in  the  support  of  the  Jeho- 
vah-religion was  a  duty  of  a  Jewish  king.  In  at- 
tempting to  account  for  and  understand  the  con- 
duct of  Josiah,  it  would  be  as  senseless  to  expect 
him  to  see  and  practise  toleration  as  to  expect  him 
to  use  fire-arms  against  Necho.  We  can  never 
carry  back  modern  principles  into  ancient  times 
and  judge  men  by  the  standards  of  to-day.  To  do 
so  argues  an  utter  want  of  historical  sense.  On 
the  other  hand,  however,  when  we  have  to  judge 
actions  which  may  be  regarded  as  examples  for  our 
own  conduct,  we  must  judge  them  inflexibly  by 
the  highest  standards  of  right  and  justice  and  wis- 
dom with  which  we  are  acquainted.  How  else  can 
we  deny  that  it  is  right  to  persecute  heresy  by  vio- 
lent means  when  that  is  justified  by  the  example 
of  Josiah  ?  Judged  by  the  best  standards,  Josiah's 
reformation  was  unwise  in  its  method.  The  king 
was  convinced,  and  he  carried  out  the  reformation 
by  his  royal  authority.  The  nation  was  not  con- 
verted and  therefore  did  not  heartily  concur  in  the 
movement.  It  only  submitted  to  what  was  im- 
posed. Hence  this  reformation  passed  without 
fruit,  as  it  was  without  root  in  public  conviction. 
We  are  sure  of  our  modern  principles  of  toleration, 
and  of  suffering  persecution  rather  than  inflicting 
it.  We  believe  in  these  principles  even  as  means 
of  propagating  our  opinions.  Let  us  be  true  to 
those  principles,  and  not  be  led  into  disloyalty  to 
them  by  our  anxiety  to  apologize  for  a  man  who  is 
here  mentioned  with  praise  and  honor.  Violence 
is  th?  curse  of  all  revolutions,  political  or  religious. 
Has  not  our  generation  seen  enough  of  them  to  be 
convinced  of  this  at  last?  Do  we  not  look  on  dur- 
ing political  convulsions  with  anxiety  to  see 
whether  the  cause  with  which  we  sympathize  will 
succeed  in  keeping  clear  of  this  curse  ?  Is  it  not 
the  highest  praise  which  we  can  impart  to  a  revo- 
lution, and  our  strongest  reason  to  trust  in  the 
permanence  of  its  results,  that  it  was  "  peaceful  "  ? 
The  Protestant  Reformation  was  indeed  violent, 
but  it  was  weak  just  in  so  far  as  it  was  violent, 
and  the  bitter  fruits  of  the  violence  which  attend- 
ed it  follow  us  yet  in  the  bitter  partisan  hatred 
which  marks  the  divisions  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
The  most  successful  reformation  the  world  has 
ever  seen  was  the  one  our  Lord  brought  about — 
how? — by  falling  the  victim  of  violence,  and  by 
putting  the  means  of  force  and  authority  utterly 
away  from  himself.  Josiah's  reformation  is  not  an 
example  for  us.  Its  failure  is  a  warning.  We  have 
not  to  justify  the  method  of  it.  We  cannot  condemn 
the  man,  for  his  intentions  and  motives  were  the 
oest,  but  we  cannot  approve  of  or  imitate  the  method 
of  action.  Its  failure  warns  us  that  no  reformation 
cau  be  genuine  which  is  imposed  by  authority,  or 
which  rests  on  anything  but  a  converted  heart,  and 
that  all  the  plausible  justifications  of  violence  which 
may  be  invented  are  delusions.  See  further  the 
bracketed  notes  in  the  next  section. — W.  6.  S.] 

6.  Josiah's  measures  aimed  at  a  thorough  reform- 
ation of  the  kingdom.  This  king,  who  sought  the 
Lord  in  his  early  youth,  turned  neither  to  the  right 
hand  nor  to  the  left,  and  had  devoted  himself  to 
the  Lord  with  all  his  heart  and  all  his  might  (chap. 
xxii.  2  ;  xxiii.  25 ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  2  and  3),  did 
not  aim  merely  at  the  extirpation  of  idolatry  and 


the  external  observance  of  all  the  prescriptions  of 
the  Mosaic  Law,  but  at  the  conversion  of  his  entira 
people  to  the  Lord,  and  at  the  renewal  of  their  re- 
ligious as  well  as  of  their  moral  and  political  life 
(see  the  passage  from  Josephus  under  §  2).  In 
spite  of  all  the  energy  and  severity  with  which  he 
sought  to  accomplish  this,  he  nevertheless  failed. 
He  succeeded  in  suppressing  all  public  forms  of 
idolatry,  and  in  maintaining  the  Jehovah-worship 
in  its  integrity  as  long  as  he  lived,  but  a  real  and 
sincere  conversion  was  no  longer  to  be  hoped  for. 
The  nation  had,  since  the  time  of  Manasseh,  ad- 
vanced so  far  in  the  path  of  corruption  that  a  halt 
was  no  longer  possible.  Apostasy  from  the  living 
God  had  gained  too  strong  a  hold  in  all  classes, 
among  the  rich  and  great,  and  even  among  the 
priests.  It  had  contaminated  all  and  had  corrupted 
all  the  relations  of  life.  Judah  was  in  a  worse 
state  than  any  which  even  Israel  had  ever  been  in. 
The  Jehovah-worship  which  had  been  reintroduced 
became  a  mere  external  ceremonial  worship,  and 
finally  degenerated  into  hypocrisy  and  pretended 
righteousness.  This  is  clear  from  the  writings  of 
the  contemporary  prophets,  Jeremiah  and  Zeph- 
aniah  (Jerem.  iii.  6  sq. ;  Zeph.  iii.  1  sq.).  "  The 
State  seemed  to  arise  once  more,  but  it  was  only 
like  the  last  flicker  of  an  expiring  fire.  The  in- 
ternal corruption  was  so  great  that  the  new  and 
good  religious  order  seemed  to  be  only  produced 
by  a  kind  of  enchantment.  All  the  props  and  sup- 
ports on  which  it  rested  broke  in  pieces  when  the 
king,  whose  early  death  seemed  like  an  inexpli- 
cable dispensation  of  Providence,  closed  his  eyes  " 
(Vaihinger  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyc.  VII.  s.  36). 
Only  the  severest  chastisements  of  Providence 
could  avail  here,  and  they  were  not  long  in  falling. 
Ewald  presents  the  matter  somewhat  differently 
(I.  c,  s.  700  sq.),  and,  as  usual,  Eisenlohr  follows 
him.  He  finds  the  grounds  of  the  failure  of  Josi- 
ah's reformation  not  so  much  in  the  irreformability 
of  the  people  as  in  the  character  of  the  reform 
itself.  In  the  first  place  he  says  that  it  was  "  the 
spirit  of  violence  which  had  from  the  beginning 
characterized  the  Jewish  nation  and  which  was 
now  reawakened,  which  necessarily  impaired  his 
[Josiah's]  work,"  inasmuch  as  "  it  might  do  away 
for  a  time  with  the  evils,  but  could  not  permanently 

stop  up   their  sources The   true  religion 

could  only  impair  its  own  good  effect  and  progress, 
if  it  clung,  at  this  late  and  changed  time,  to  the 
narrowness  which  marked  its  youth.  Since  such 
violence  had  been  used  in  rooting  out  all  which 
was  heathenish,  the  reconstruction  of  all  which 
was  peculiar  in  the  Jehovah  religion  must  be  car- 
ried out  in  the  same  spirit.  The  first  new  Passover 
served  as  a  sign  of  the  severity  with  which  the 
regulations  of  the  Jehovah-worship  were  hereafter 
to  be  observed."  Then  again  "  a  new  series  of 
evils  "  was  developed  from  the  circumstance  that 
"  a  book,  especially  such  an  imperfect  Law-book 
and  history  as  the  Pentateuch,  was  made  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  nation;  first  of  all,  that  evil 
which  naturally  arises  where  a  sacred  document  is 
made  the  basis  of  all  public  and  social  life,  viz.,  a 
puffed-up  book- wisdom,  and  a  hypocritical  and  false 
learning  in  the  Scriptures."  Finally,  instead  of  re- 
conciling the  parties  which  had  existed  ever  since 
the  time  of  Solomon,  he  thinks  that  Josiah's  vio- 
lent reformation  intensified  the  party  divisions  and 
sharpened  the  party  lines.  "  The  party  which  may 
be  called  the  deuteronomical.  or  stricter.  Dartv  de 


272 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


mauded  unsparing  severity  in  rooting  out  hea- 
thenism ;  .  .  .  the  heathen,  or  more  liberal,  party, 
on  the  other  hand,  .  .  .  not  only  allowed  the  wor- 
ship of  heathen  gods,  but  also  took  pleasure  in  the 
low  standard  of  morality  which  attended  idolatry. 
While,  therefore,  the  strict  party  demanded  a  po- 
licy which,  in  fact,  was  no  longer  adapted  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  country,  and  sought  to  carry 
it  out  by  force,  the  liberal  party  fell  short  of  the 
standard  of  morality  which  the  times  required. 
But  though  the  latter  no  less  than  the  former  re- 
lied upon  physical  force,  it  nevertheless  had  the 
entire  tendency  of  the  time  towards  a  wider 
and  freer  development  in  its  favor.  It  therefore 
gained  the  upper  hand  immediately  after  Josiah's 
unfortunate  death,  ...  so  that  the  whole  king- 
dom fell  into  a  complete  confusion  which  nothing 
but  greater  force  than  either  party  had  at  its  dis- 
posal could  put  a  stop  to."  Eisenlohr  also,  speak- 
ing from  a  similar  point  of  view  (Das  Volk  Israel 
II.  *.  351  sq.),  says:  "The  entire  reformation  de- 
generates into  a  slavish  restoration,  a  seeking  out 
again  and  dragging  forth  of  all  the  old  institutions 
and  ordinances  of  the  kingdom  ...  if  possible,  in 
a  still  more  stiff  and  immobile  form,  so  that  .  .  . 
they  produced  the  strongest  reaction  under  the  ex- 
isting imperfect  organization  of  the  religious  life. 
.  .  .  The  State-religion  exerted  its  utmost  powers 
to  effect  a  renewal  of  the  national  vigor,  and  a  pre- 
servation of  the  national  identity,  by  setting  the 
theocratic  law  and  constitution  in  operation  in  its 
fullest,  and  most  rigid,  and  most  peculiar,  construc- 
tion," but  '•  hardly  had  the  State-religion  begun, 
under  royal  protection,  to  forcibly  control  anew 
the  public  life,  before  a  cry  of  sharp  complaint 
began  to  arise  against  the  evils  which  are  the  in- 
separable concomitants  of  every  privileged  form  of 
religion, — hypocrisy,  and  external  or  pretended  pi- 
ety." To  tills  must  be  added  that  "  a  sacred  codex 
became  the  standard  of  all  public  life.  .  .  .  The 
effects  of  the  entire  method  in  which  the  reforma- 
tion exerted  its  influence  on  the  national  life,  and 
sought  to  accomplish  its  ends,  were,  for  the  mo- 
ment, all  the  more  disastrous  (!)  inasmuch  as  its 
internal  principle  was  violence  and  its  external 
policy  was  bigoted  exclusiveness."  It  needs  no 
proof  to  show  that  this  entire  manner  of  conceiv- 
ing of  the  circumstances  stands  in  the  most  pro- 
nounced antagonism  to  the  biblical  representation. 
The  Scriptures  contain  no  hint  of  all  these  rea- 
sons why  Josiah's  reformation  failed,  and  even 
became  finally  disastrous,  so  that  it  brought  about 
the  downfall  of  the  kingdom.  Neither  the  histo- 
rical books  nor  the  discourses  of  the  contemporary 
prophets  contain  a  word  of  disapproval  of  the  re- 
formation ;  they  offer  only  one  reason  for  the 
failure  of  it,  and  that  is  the  total  corruption  and 
perversity  which  had  grown  up  since  the  time  of 
Manasseh  (chap.  xxii.  16  to  20;  xxiii.  26,  27; 
.Terem.  xv.  1—4. 

[No  reason  at  all  is  specifics  'j  assigned  any- 
where why  this  reformation  failed.  Its  failure  is 
not  spoken  of,  recognized,  or  accounted  for.  Ma- 
nasseh's  sins  are  referred  to  as  the  explanation  of 
Che  judgments  which  fell  upon  Judah.  But  when 
we  speak  of  the  national  "corruption"  which  had 
been  spreading  since  the  time  of  Manasseh  as  the 
ground  of  the  failure  of  Josiah's  reformation,  it  is 
allowable  to  go  farther  and  ask :  In  what  did  this 
cor)  uption  consist  ?  What  were  the  especial  forms 
of  vice  which  were  prevalent  in  Judah?     What 


were  the  tendencies  which  the  reformation  had  t« 
encounter?  What  were  the  faults  of  national 
character  which  were  in  play?  What  were  the 
selfish  interests  which  the  reformation  threatened? 
These  all  make  up  what  we  call  in  a  word  national 
corruption  and  decay.  It  is  only  by  such  analysis 
that  we  are  able  to  present  to  our  minds  the  state 
of  things  iu  detail  and  to  comprehend  the  situation. 
"  Corruption  "  is  only  a  general  word  which  serves 
to  cover  the  state  of  things,  to  conceal  it  from  us, 
and  to  keep  us  from  penetrating  to  a  satisfactory 
conception  of  it.  It  is  not  difficult  to  gather  from 
the  documents,  historical  and  prophetical,  answers 
to  the  above  questions.  When  we  examine  the  sub- 
ject we  find  that  Ewald's  picture  of  the  parties  and 
their  characteristics,  of  the  tendencies  in  play,  &c, 
is  exceedingly  faithful.  It  would  certainly  be 
wrong  if  any  one  should  say  that  the  "violence" 
of  Josiah's  reformation  caused  the  subsequent  de^ay 
and  downfall  of  Judah.  Also  the  effect  of  using  a 
document  as  ultimate  authority  is  exaggerated  by 
Eisenlohr,  if  not  by  Ewald.  The  pedantry  of  the 
rabbis,  and  the  ritual  righteousness  of  the  Phari- 
sees, did  not  arise  for  centuries.  But  this  much  is 
certainly  true :  The  corruption  had  advanced  bo 
far  that  perhaps  all  hope  of  converting  the  nation 
by  moral  and  religious  appeals  was  vain.  Even, 
however,  if  such  were  the  case,  a  violent  reforma- 
tion, imposed  on  royal  authority,  could  do  no  good, 
but  only  additional  harm.  It  did  not  stem  the  tidt 
of  corruption,  while  it  embittered  parties  and  left 
deep-rooted  hatred  and  thirst  for  revenge. — Stanley 
gives  tables  of  the  parties  which  existed  in  Jeru- 
salem, at  this  time,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Jewish 
Church,  II.  565  and  566.— W.  G.  S.] 

In  the  view  above  quoted  [Ewald's  and  Eisen- 
lohr's]  it  is  really  Josiah  who,  on  account  of  his 
mistaken  zeal  and  unwise  measures,  was  to  blame 
for  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom,  but  the  text  says  of 
him  that  there  was  no  king  like  him  before  him, 
who  so  completely  clung  to  the  Lord  with  all  his 
heart  (chap,  xxiii.  25),  and  thereby  presents  him  as 
the  one  who,  among  all  the  kings  after  David,  wa3 
just  what  a  king  of  Israel  ought  to  be.  But  the 
charge  is  entirely  incomprehensible  that  he  did  not 
allow  to  the  "  liberal  party  "  "the  worship  of  all 
gods"  together  with  their  "  baser  standard  of  mo- 
rality," and  that  "  a  sacred  book  became  the  stand- 
ard of  all  public  life."  Not  to  speak  of  anything 
else,  it  is  exactly  for  this  reason  that  he  received 
the  promise  that  he  should  not  himself  live  to  see 
the  desolation,  but  should  be  gathered  to  his  fa- 
thers in  peace  (chap.  xxii.  19,  20).  [Josiah  is  not 
charged  with  any  fault  in  not  having  done  this. 
It  is  said  that  the  measures  which  he  took  did  not 
tend  to  correct  or  convert  these  misguided  men, 
but  only  to  compel  them  to  submit  to  force,  and 
that  thus  their  opinions  were  not  altered,  while 
their  feelings  were  embittered.  As  soon  as  they 
dared,  they  returned,  with  renewed  zeal,  to  the 
practice  of  their  opinions,  and  also  sought  revenge 
for  the  oppressive  persecution  which  they  (as  they 
thought)  had  suffered.— W.  G.  S.]  The  charge 
against  Josiah  of  having  made  a  sacred  book  the 
standard  involves  an  insult  to  the  fundamental 
Protestant  doctrine  of  the  authority  of  the  Bible  as 
the  sole  standard  of  religion  and  morality,  and, 
therefore,  also  of  civil  life.  We  see  here  whither 
we  are  led  when  we  allow  ourselves  to  he  girded, 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  the 
doctrines  of  mode-n  liberalism. 


CHAPTER  XXII.-XXIII.  30. 


273 


[The  idea  here  presented  of  the  danger  which 
attends  the  use  of  a  written  document  us  the  stand- 
ard of  religious  truth  and  of  morality  is  not  a 
liberalistic  doctrine.  It  is  a  truth  which  deserves 
solemn  attention,  most  of  all  from  Protestants. 
Those  who  believe  in  the  authority  of  the  Bible, 
and  teach  it  and  use  it  continually,  are  the  very 
ones  who  need  to  have  always  distinctly  in  mind 
the  dangers  which  inhere  in  the  use  of  a  literary 
standard,  in  order  that  they  may  guard  against 
them.  In  the  use  of  any  such  standard  the  inter- 
pretation of  it  becomes  a  matter  of  transcendent 
importance.  Witness  the  rabbis,  and  the  scribes 
and  lawyers  of  Gospel  times,  that  the  danger  of  a 
class  of  men  growing  up  who  will  hold  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures  to  be  their  privilege,  who  will  de- 
velop an  artificial  and  radically  false  and  vicious 
system  of  interpretation,  and  who  will  overburden 
the  Word  with  fancies  and  fables  and  arbitrary  in- 
ventions, is  no  imaginary  one.  Witness  the  scho- 
lastics of  the  middle  ages  that  the  text  of  Scripture 
may  be  made  a  stem  on  which  to  hang  frivolities  and 
casuistical  toys  without  end.  Witness  the  papacy 
that  the  interpretation  may  come  to  bo  regarded  as 
a  matter  so  all-important  that  the  Scriptures,  ex- 
cept as  interpreted,  may  be  reserved  as  an  exclu- 
sive possession  of  a  privileged  class.  The  danger 
of  hypocritical  book-wisdom  and  esoteric  exeget- 
ical  knowledge  is  one  to  be  guarded  against  con- 
tinually. 

With  regard  to  the  general  estimate  of  Josiah's 
reformation  we  may  sum  up  as  follows:  The  at- 
tempt, on  the  part  of  the  king,  to  arrest  the  disso- 
lution and  corruption  of  the  nation  by  bringing  it 
back  to  sincere  devotion  to  the  national  religion  is 
worthy  of  our  most  hearty  admiration.  The  source 
of  his  early  inclination  towards  the  Jehovah-reli- 
gion we  cannot  trace.  It  is  clear  that  a  violent 
persecution  like  that  of  Manasseh  must  have  pro- 
duced terror,  bitterness,  stubborn  though  concealed 
opposition,  and  a  relentless  purpose,  on  the  part 
of  those  who  had  all  the  law  and  traditions  of  their 
nation,  together  with  patriotism,  on  their  side,  and 
who  could  compare  with  pride  the  moral  purity  of 
their  religion  with  those  abominations  of  heathen- 
ism which  were  shocking  and  abhorrent  to  the  sim- 
plest instincts  of  human  nature,  to  repay  their  per- 
secutors at  the  first  opportunity.  Where  those 
abominations  were  the  only  religious  observances 
taught,  education  might  avail  to  make  them  pass 
without  protest;  but  where  there  was  any.  even  a 
slight  knowledge  of  a  purer  religion  and  a  better 
morality,  the  protest  could  never  entirely  die  out. 
The  Jehovah-religion  was,  as  compared  with  hea- 
then religions,  austere.  It  warred  against  the  base 
passions  of  men  and  the  vices  which  they  produce. 
Heathenism  seized  upon  those  passions  as  its 
means.  It  fostered  them  in  the  name  of  devel- 
oping what  was  "  natural,"  and  therefore  must  be 
right.  Modern  civilized  heathenism  does  just  the 
same  thing.  Heathenism  therefore  seemed  to  re- 
present enjoyment  of  life,  while  the  Jehovah- 
religion  seemed  to  repress  pleasure.  It  is  re- 
markable that  a  boy-king  should  have  chosen  the 
latter.  We  are  ignorant  of  the  persons  or  consid- 
erations which  may  have  influenced  his  choice. 
There  is  an  undeniable  resemblance  in  features 
between  the  revolutions  of  Hezekiah,  Manasseh, 
and  Josiah,  which  seems  to  point  to  a  relationship 
between  them.  A  chain  of  reprisals  seems  to  have 
been  started,  and  each  successive  revolution  or  re- 
18 


formation  was  more  radical,  more  bloody,  and  more 
unsparing  than  the  last.  The  newly  discovered 
book,  with  its  commands  and  threats,  gave  the  king 
a  stimulus  to  undo  all  that  Manasseh  had  done,  to 
put  a  stop  to  the  abominations  which  the  latter  had 
firmly  established,  to  reintroduce  the  ancient  na- 
tional cultus  in  its  perfection,  to  requite  the  heathen 
party  for  its  cruelty,  to  avenge  the  slaughtered 
servants  of  Jehovah,  to  foster  those  religious  ob- 
servances and  moral  principles  which  might  regen- 
erate the  State,  and  to  establish  the  new  order  of 
tilings  securely.  The  thought  of  vengeance  he 
may  not  have  had,  but  it  would  be  most  natural, 
and  not  by  any  means  shocking  to  the  mind  of  a 
man  of  his  generation.  His  purpose  then  was  per- 
fectly laudable  and  good.  The  means  which  he 
adopted  for  carrying  it  out  were  the  only  ones 
which  could  suggest  themselves  to  him.  They 
were  the  same  in  kind  as  Hezekiah  had  adopted, 
and  as  Manasseh  had  employed  on  behalf  of  the 
contrary  interest,  only  he  went  still  farther.  No 
Jewish  king  would  ever  have  thought  of  employing 
other  means.  It  is  idle  to  sit  in  judgment  on  him. 
His  example  in  this,  however,  cannot  form  any  rule 
for  an  age  which  enjoys  a  higher  enlightenment, 
and  a  truer  wisdom.  As  for  the  evil  effects  of  the 
"  violence  "  employed  by  Josiah.  they  may  be  lim- 
ited to  the  embittering  of  those  party  divisions 
which  seem  to  have  hastened  this  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem as  they  did  the  one  under  Titus.  The  great 
reason  for  his  failure,  however,  was  that  the  means 
which  he  employed  encountered  too  strong  oppo- 
sition in  the  popular  feelings  ana  tendencies  of  the 
nation  at  the  time  He  was  working  up  hill,  so  to 
speak,  in  trying  to  bring  back  the  nation  to  a  more 
severe  religion,  a  sterner  morality,  and  a  purer 
patriotism.  They  preferred  their  luxury,  and  plea- 
sure, and  vice.  He  had  only  a  small  party  with 
him,  and  the  reformation  which  was  accomplished 
by  royal  authority  controlling  the  physical  force  of 
the  realm,  which  was  conducted  in  the  iuterest  of 
a  written  code  which  could  not  have  been  tho- 
roughly understood  and  appreciated,  and  which  did 
not  have  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the  body  of  the 
people,  failed  when  the  king  fell  upon  whose  will 
it  mainly  depended.  The  death  of  Josiah  was  a 
disappointment  and  discouragement  to  the  Jehovah 
party  far  beyond  the  mere  loss  of  their  protectoi 
and  friend.  They  no  doubt  had  no  little  supersti- 
tious confidence  in  the  favor  of  heaven  for  the. 
pious  prince,  and  this  was  struck  to  the  ground 
when  the  life  on  which  all  the  prosperity  of  the 
Jehovah-worship  seemed  to  depend  was  taken 
away,  as  it  were  by  a  stroke  of  Providence. 
W.  G.  S.] 

7.  Josiah's  expedition  against  XtcJio.  which 
brought  about  his  early  death,  fell  in  the  year  608 
B.  c,  fifteen  years  after  he  accomplished  his  refor- 
mation in  Judah  and  in  the  former  territory  of  Is- 
rael. He  must,  therefore,  have  gained  possession 
of  the  latter,  or,  at  least,  must  have  regarded  him- 
self as  ruler  of  it.  Necho.  therefore,  had  no  right 
to  pass  through  this  territory  without  paying  any 
respect  to  Josiah's  authority,  even  though,  as  he 
asserted  (2  Ohron.  xxxv.  21).  he  had  no  hostile  in 
tention  towards  the  king  of  Judah.  Josiah,  there 
fore,  undertook  to  intercept  him,  as  Josephus  says 
(Antiq.  x.  5,  1):  fjerd  dwapeae.  elpyev  avrov  Ata  rrjc 
\6iac  Troieicdat  \dpac  rrjv  knl  rove  Mi/dovc  e?.aatv. 
and,  in  spite  of  Necho's  assurance  that  he  meant  him 
no  harm,  Josiah  persisted  in  refusing  to  allow  hint 


274 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


rijv  oheeiav  dtipxcaffai.  The  ground  for  this  conduct 
of  Josiah  was  not,  as  many  have  assumed,  that  he 
had  already  formed  an  alliance  with  Nabopolassar, 
the  Babylonian,  the  new  ruler  of  Assyria,  or  that 
he  desired  to  secure  the  favor  of  this  conqueror  in 
the  hope  that  he  would  thus  make  sure  of  being 
left  in  undisturbed  possession  of  his  kingdom,  but 
the  grounds  of  his  conduct  were  very  simple  and 
close  at  hand.  "  A  very  little  reflection  sufficed  to 
see  that  it  was  all  over  with  the  independent  ex- 
istence of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  if  the  Egyptians 
secured  a  foothold  in  the  country  to  the  North  " 
(Ewald).  [Judah  would  thus  be  placed  between 
Egypt  and  its  outlying  conquests,  and  of  course 
its  independence  would  not  be  long  respected.] 
Niebuhr  justly  characterizes  Josiah's  undertaking 
(Gtsch.  Assyr.  s.  364)  as  a  ''thoroughly  correct  po- 
licy .  .  .  Josiah  knew  that,  although  Necho  as- 
serted that  he  had  no  hostile  intention  towards 
him,  yet,  if  the  Egyptians  conquered  Ooelo-Syria, 
the  independence  of  Judah  was  at  an  end."  As  a 
true  theocratic  king,  and  as  a  man  of  warlike  cou- 
rage and  disposition  (the  Sept.  translate  the  words 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  22  by  Kokeftelv  ovtov  e/cparatei&y), 
he  did  not  allow  himself  to  be  deceived  by  Necho. 
By  the  dispensation  of  Providence  he  fell  at  the 
very  beginning  of  the  campaign  (Josephus:  ri,r 
ireirpufiftnfti  oc^ai,  eic  rovf  avrbv  -apoppr/Gu(Tr/c). 
His  death  was  a  great  misfortune  for  the  nation, 
but  it  was  nevertheless  honorable.  It  was  uni- 
versally lamented,  especially  by  Jeremiah  (2  Chron. 
xxxv.  24  and  25).  All  felt  what  they  had  lost  in 
him.  The  more  detailed  account  in  Chronicles  gave 
occasion  to  some  of  the  older  historians  to  blame 
Josiah  severely.  For  instance,  Hess  (Gesch.  <kr 
Kbnige  Jud.  und  Isr.  II.  s.  455  sq.):  "  He  was  so 
over-hasty  as  to  dispute  the  passage  through  the 
country  with  Necho,  and  collected  an  army  at 
Megiddo.  .  .  .  This  was  not  at  all  necessary  for 
the  security  of  his  own  kingdom,  for  Necho  had 
advanced  so  far  without  doing  him  any  harm,  and 
had  sent  an  embassy  expressly  to  assure  him  that 
he  intended  him  no  harm,  but  was  directing  his 
attack  against  the  mighty  monarchy  to  the  East, 
being  stimulated  thereto  by  a  divine  calling.  .  .  . 
To  thus  attack  the  Egyptian  without  the  counsel 
of  a  prophet,  or  any  sign  of  divine  direction,  was 
not  trust  in  God,  but  in  his  own  power.  ...  It 
was,  in  any  case,  unwise  to  offend  a  ruler  who  was 
mighty  enough  to  measure  forces  with  the  Baby- 
lonian power."  It  is  incorrectly  assumed  in  this 
view  that  the  "  God,"  whose  approval  Necho 
claimed,  was  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is 
nowhere  asserted  that  Josiah  made  this  expedition 
without  having  consulted  "the  true  oracle  of  Je- 
hovah," that  is,  without  the  "  counsel  of  a  prophet." 
To  judge  from  what  Jeremiah  says  about  Egypt  in 
his  forty-sixth  chapter,  he  would  hardly  have  dis- 
Buaded  the  king  from  this  undertaking.  We  see  how 
far  it  was  from  the  intention  of  the  chronicler,  in  his 
fuller  account,  to  hint  at  anything  unfavorable  to 
Josiah,  for  he  is  the  very  one  who  makes  especial 
mention  of  the  universal  grief  for  the  death  of  Jo- 
siah, of  the  songs  of  lamentation  which  the  singers 
sang  for  him  "  until  this  day,"  and  of  the  lament 
which  Jeremiah  wrote.  "We  cannot  conceive  that 
all  this  would  have  been  so  if  he  had  entered  rashly 
into  the  war,  contrary  to  the  advice  of  the  prophet, 
and  had  thus  pKnged  the  nation  into  misfortune. 
Von  Gerlach  very  mistakenly  infers  from  the  ac- 
count in  Chrr.niclei  that  ''Josiah,  in  spite  of  his 


sincere  piety,  belonged  to  the  number  of  weak  and 
inefficient  and  imprudent  rulers  who  closed  the 
long  series  of  kings  of  the  house  of  David."  In 
that  case  how  could  Jesus  Sirach,  who  certainly 
was  not  ignorant  of  what  is  there  narrated,  say  of 
him,  centuries  later  (xlix.  1),  that  the  memory  o! 
him  was  like  costly  incense,  and  sweet  as  honey 
in  the  mouth  of  all.  [On  the  historical  connections 
of  this  event  see  the  Supplem.  Note  at  the  end  of 
the  next  Exeget.  section,  below.] 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  1  and  2.  The  panegyric  of  Josiah,  Sir. 
xlix.  1  and  2.  His  name  is  like  costly  incense  and 
sweet  as  honey;  for  as  he  walked,  &c.  Although 
his  father  walked  in  evil  ways,  yet  Josiah  did  not 
take  him  as  an  example,  but  that  one  of  his  ances- 
tors who  was  a  man  after  God's  own  heart.  He 
sought  the  Lord  while  he  was  yet  a  boy,  and  in- 
creased in  knowledge  and  in  favor  as  he  grew  in 
stature  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3 ;  Luke  ii.  40,  52). 
"  Wherewithal  shall  a  young  man  cleanse  his  way, 
&c,"  Ps.  cxix.  9.  Starke:  Beginners  in  the  Chris- 
tian life  must  choose  good  examples  and  follow 
them  faithfully  (Phil.  iii.  17  ;  1  John  ii.  14).  He 
turned  not  either  to  the  right  hand  (like  the  later 
Pharisees),  nor  to  the  left  (like  the  Sadducees) ; 
although  he  lived  in  a  corrupt  age,  he  fell  neither 
into  superstition  nor  unbelief.  The  way  which  leads 
to  life  is  narrow,  and  it  is  well  to  have  a  firm  heart 
so  as  not  to  totter  on  either  side. — Wirt.  Summ.  : 
We  are  seduced  on  the  right  by  hypocrisy,  and  on 
the  left  by  epicureanism,  but  the  word  of  God 
says:  This  is  the  way,  walk  therein,  and  turn 
neither  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left  (Isai.  xxx. 
21). — Cramer:  We  have  in  Josiah  the  mirror  of  a 
true  ruler.  (l)Such  an  one  is  given  by  God,  out 
of  pure  grace,  as  a  blessing  to  the  country.  (2) 
Such  an  one  is  bound,  not  only  to  protect  the  life 
and  property  of  his  subjects,  and  to  preserve  peace 
and  order,  but  also  to  care  for  the  Church  and 
Kingdom  of  God. — Wurt.  Scmm.  :  We  ought  not  to 
despair  of  the  children  of  the  godless  and  to  give 
them  up ;  they  may  become,  as  in  this  case  Josiah 
did,  the  most  pious,  through  whom  God  accom- 
plishes wonders.  Good  instruction  and  discipline 
may,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  correct  much  evil 
which  such  children  have  inherited  or  learned  from 
their  parents. 

Vers.  3-10.  The  Discovery  of  the  Law-Book. 
(a)  The  occasion  of  it,  vers.  3-7.  (b)  The  signifi- 
cance of  it,  vers.  8-10. — Vers.  3-7.  The  Restora 
tion  of  the  House  of  God.  (a)  The  king  under- 
takes it  impelled  by  pure  love  to  the  Lord  (Ps. 
xxvi.  8).  (b)  The  people  of  all  the  provinces  wil- 
lingly contribute  to  it  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  9).  (c)  The 
laborers  work  without  reckoning,  with  fidelity. — 
See  the  homiletical  hints  on  chap.  xii.  5-17. — Josi- 
ah was  zealously  interested  in  the  repair  of  the 
temple  before  the  law-book  was  found  and  he  had 
become  acquainted  with  it.  We  have  not  only  the 
old  law-book  but  also  the  entire  word  of  God, 
each  one  may  hear  and  read  it,  nevertheless  the 
churches  are  often  allowed  to  fall  into  decay,  and  it 
is  only  at  the  last  moment  that  any  one  thinks  oi 
spending  money  and  time  upon  them.  —  Berl 
Bibel  :  All  are  here  earnestly  interested  in  the 
work  upon  the  house  of  God.  Would  that  out 
zeal  might  be  aroused  for  the  same  interests!  that 
we  might  not  rest  where   we  should   v  :>rk,  nor 


CHAPTER  XXII. -XXIH.  30. 


275 


work  where  we  should  rest ;  not  to  tear  down 
where  we  ought  to  build,  nor  to  build  where  we 
ought  to  tear  down,  but  to  carry  on  the  work  of 
the  Lord  orderly  and  properly. — Cramer  :  The 
physical  temples  are  useless,  if  the  spiritual  tem- 
ples are  not  properly  cared  for. — Vers.  8-10.  What 
is  the  use  of  building  and  arranging  and  adorning 
churches,  if  the  word  of  God  is  wanting  in 
them,  and  instead  of  being  a  light  to  shine,  and 
bread  to  feed,  is  hid  under  a  bushel  or  locked  up, 
and  concealed  by  the  ordinances  of  men  and  their 
own  self-invented  wisdom  ? — Pfaff.  Bib.  :  Wretch- 
ed times  when  the  law-book  has  to  be  concealed : 
happy  times  when  it  is  rediscovered.  How  happy 
are  we  who  have  the  word  of  God  in  such  abund- 
ance I  Wurt.  Summ.  :  As  in  the  times  of  Josiah 
the  law-book  had  been  pushed  aside  and  become 
lost  by  the  carelessness  of  the  priests,  so  that 
scarcely  any  one  knew  anything  about  the  law  of 
God,  so,  before  the  time  of  Luther,  under  the  pa- 
pacy, the  Holy  Bible  lay,  as  it  were,  in  the  dust, 
and,  although  it  was  not  entirely  lost,  yet  there 
were  very  many,  not  only  among  the  common  peo- 
ple, but  also  among  the  ecclesiastics  and  men  of 
rank,  who  had  never  seen  and  read  the  Bible,  un- 
til God  called  Luther  and  others,  through  whose 
faithful  services  the  Bible,  the  holy  and  divine 
Scripture,  was  once  more  brought  forth,  brought 
into  the  light,  and  given  to  every  man,  in  all  lan- 
guages, to  read  for  himself:  which  goodness  of  God 
we  still  recognize  and  praise,  and  read,  on  account 
of  it,  more  diligently  in  the  Bible,  and  exe-cise 
ourselves  in  the  word  of  God  day  and  night,  that 
we  may  obey  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul  (Col. 
iii.  16):  "Let  the  words  of  Christ  dwell  in  you 
richly  in  all  wisdom." — There  is  indeed  nowadays 
scarcely  a  family,  in  countries  where  evangelical 
religion  is  professed,  in  which  a  Bible  is  not  to  be 
found,  but  it  is  often  laid  aside,  and  covered  with 
dust,  or  it  is  regarded  as  an  old  book  which  is  no 
longer  adapted  to  our  times.  What  higher  praise, 
however,  could  be  given  to  a  family  than  to  say  ;  I 
found  therein  the  Word  of  God,  not  hid  under  a 
bushel,  but  set  on  a  candlestick,  so  that  it  gave 
light  to  the  whole  house  (Matt.  v.  15). — Vers.  9 
and  10.  Nothing  which  is  undertaken  with  zeal 
and  faith  to  glorify  the  name  of  God  ever  remains 
unblessed.  Shaphan  brought  to  his  master  the 
greatest  and  best  treasure  possible  out  of  the  tem- 
ple which  was  falling  to  ruin. — The  Book  of  books 
is  there  to  be  read  by  every  on6,  king  or  beggar. 
The  minister  was  not  ashamed  to  read  it  before 
the  king,  and  the  king  was  not  ashamed  to  listen 
with  the  utmost  attention. 

Vers.  11-14.  The  Impression  which  the  Divine 
Word  made  on  the  King  when  he  had  heard  it. 
(a)  He  rent  his  garments  (sorrow  and  grief  on  ac- 
count of  the  transgressions  of  the  people,  horror  in 
view  of  th9  divine  judgments.  Pfaff.  Bib.  :  How 
profitable  it  is  to  have  such  respect  for  the  word 
of  God  and  to  be  terrified  at  His  threats!  If  the 
word  of  God  had  such  effect  upon  us,  how  much 
better  it  would  be  for  us),  (b)  He  asks  how  the 
threatened  judgments  may  be  averted.  (Wher- 
ever the  word  penetrates  to  the  heart,  there  the 
question  always  follows  :  What  shall  I  do?  Acts 
it  37.  Felix  trembled,  but  he  said  :  "  When  I  have 
a  more  convenient  season,"  &c,  Acts  xxiv.  25.) — 
Wurt.  StTMM. :  When  we  hear  of  God's  threats 
against  sin,  let  us  not  allow  them  to  pass  as  idle 
winds,  but  take  them  to  heart  and  seek  the  means 


of  grace.  We  must  only  ask  of  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets  who  wrote  as  they  were  impelled  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  God  speaks  with  us  through  their 
words.  His  answer  is:  Repent,  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  forsake  sin. — Ver.  14.  See 
Histor.  and  Eth.  §  4. — Starke  :  True  fear  of  God  is 
humble  and  honors  the  gifts  of  God  wherever  it 
finds  them,  but  in  itself  least  of  all. — Vers,  i  5-20. 
The  Oracle  of  the  Prophetess  a  Threat  for  the  peo- 
ple (vers.  15-17),  and  a  Promise  for  the  King  (vers. 
18-20). — The  Lord  will  bring  temporal  misfortuuu 
upon  the  city  which  despises  and  scorns  His  law ; 
what  will  He  do  to  that  which  rejects  His  Gospel? 
2  Tim.  i.  8.  9. — Those  who  humble  themselves  at 
the  word  of  the  law  will  come  to  the  grave  in 
peace.  The  just  are  taken  away  before  the  calami- 
ty comes  (Isai.  lvii.  1).  If  the  Lord  takes  thee 
early  away  from  the  earth,  submit  to  His  will  and 
say:  Lord,  let  now  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  as 
Thou  hast  said  (Luke  "ii.  29). 

Chap,  xxiii.  1-25.  Josiah's  Great  Work  of  Re- 
formation, (a)  He  renews  the  covenant  on  the 
basis  of  the  newly  discovered  law-book,  vers.  1-3 
(b)  He  puts  an  end  pitilessly  to  all  idolatrous  wor- 
ship in  the  kingdom,  vers.  4-20.  (c)  He  restores 
the  legitimate  worship  with  the  celebration  of  the 
Passover,  vers.  21-25. — Every  true  reformation 
must  proceed  from  the  word  of  God,  and  have  that 
as  its  basis;  then  it  is  strong,  not  only  in  destroy- 
ing and  denying,  but  also  in  building  up  and  re- 
storing (Luther  and  the  reformers). — Vers.  1-3. 
The  king  collects  the  entire  people  and  lays  the 
law-book  before  them ;  not  until  after  they  have 
approved  does  he  begin  the  work.  The  civil  and 
spiritual  authorities  ought  not  to  proceed  violently 
and  in  self-will  in  matters  of  the  highest  import- 
ance for  Church  and  State,  nor  to  force  the  consc' 
ences  of  the  people.  They  ought  to  secure  the  ai> 
sent  of  the  latter.  The  entire  people,  small  ana 
great,  learned  and  unlearned,  ought  to  be  made  ac- 
quainted with  the  word  of  God,  so  that  no  one  car. 
plead  ignorance  as  an  excuse.  To  deny  to  the  peo- 
ple the  right  to  read  the  Word  of  God  is  not  to  re- 
form, but  to  destroy.  Kyburz  :  Josiah  caused 
the  light  which  he  had  received  to  shine  to  all ;  so 
do  ye  also.  We  ought  not  to  enjoy  any  treasure 
which  we  discover  without  sharing  it  with  othera. 
— The  people  joined  in  the  covenant  outwardly  but 
not  heartily,  therefore  it  had  no  permanence.  How 
often  now  a  whole  congregation  promises  obedi- 
ence to  God  and  does  not  keep  it.  Do  not  expect 
hearty  conversion  everywhere  where  you  hear  as- 
sent to  the  word  of  God  (Matt.  vii.  21 ;  Isai.  xxix. 
13). 

Vers.  4-20.  Wurt.  Strain.  :  Here  we  may  see 
that  when  God's  word  is  laid  aside  people  fall  into 
all  kinds  of  vice.  So  it  was  under  the  papacy.  If 
we  observe  the  word  of  God  we  shall  be  saved 
from  sin  and  error. — Although  the  civil  authorities 
ought  to  apply  no  force  to  conscience,  yet  they 
ought  to  punish  murder  and  licentiousness,  no 
matter  what  may  be  the  pretence  under  which 
they  are  committed.  The  more  severely  and  more 
pitilessly  they  do  this,  the  more  honor  they  deserve. 
— Weeds  grow  most  rapidly ;  they  can  only  be  de- 
stroyed by  being  pulled  up  by  the  roots. — The 
abominations  which  took  root  in  Israel  were  a 
proof  of  what  St.  Paul  says,  Rom.  i.  21-28.  In 
times  of  corruption,  and  against  inveterate  evils, 
mild  measures  are  of  no  avail,  but  only  the  utmos' 
severity,  which  has  no  respect  of  persons.     Ecola 


276 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


BiasticB  who,  instead  of  being  pastors  of  the  peo- 
ple, become  their  seducers,  are  doubly  worthy  of 
punishment,  and  ought  to  be  removed  without 
mercy. — Vers.  16,  17.  Starke:  Divine  prophecies 
will  certainly  be  fulfilled  at  last,  though  the  fulfil- 
ment may  be  delayed  so  long  that  it  seems  as  if  it 
would  never  follow  (1  Kings  xiii.  2,  31). — Ver.  18. 
The  Same  :  The  bones  of  departed  saints  ought  to 
be  left  in  their  graves  and  not  to  be  carried  about 
or  displayed. — Vers.  21-24.  The  building  up  of  a 
new  life  must  follow  upon  the  eradication  of  sin. 
The  Passover  cannot  be  celebrated  until  all  the  old 
leaven  is  removed.  The  Passover  was  the  feast 
with  which  each  new  year  began ;  we  also  have  a 
passover  or  Easter  lamb  (1  Cor.  v.  7,  8). — The  festi- 
vals and  fasts  are  the  frame-work  of  the  common 
life  of  the  congregation ;  where  they  are  neglected 
this  life  is  decaying.  If  Israel  had  kept  up  the 
celebration  of  its  appointed  feasts,  it  would  never 
have  fallen  so  low. — Vers.  25-27.  Why  did  the 
Lord  not  return  from  His  anger?  Not  because 
Josiah's  efforts  were  not  pure  and  sincere  (on  the 


contrary,  they  proceeded  from  pure  zeal,  and  per- 
fect love,  and  the  best  intention),  but  because  the 
people  were  not  converted  with  their  king.  They 
only  assented  externally  and  iu  form ;  in  then 
hearts  they  were  obstinate  and  perverse  (Jeretc. 
xxv.  3-7). — Roos:  Jeremiah  seems  to  have  fallen 
on  a  good  time  with  his  warnings  and  exhortations 
to  repentance,  but  the  contents  of  his  books  show 
that  such  was  not  the  case.  This  should  be  a 
warning  to  those  who  look  to  the  authorities  for 
the  chief  power  to  convert  men,  and  do  not  wish 
to  act  without  them. — Luther  :  Before  God  inflicts 
a  severe  judgment  he  always  grants  a  great  illu- 
mination. Therefore  a  great  judgment  will  fall 
upon  those  who  now  neglect  the  Gospel. — Vers. 
29  and  30.  See  2  Chron.  xxxv.  The  early  death 
of  the  king  was  no  punishment  for  him,  for  he 
was  thus  gathered  in  peace  to  his  fathers,  but  it 
was  a  chastisement  for  his  unrepentant  people 
who  now  lamented  him  and  saw,  when  it  was  too 
late,  what  noble  purposes  he  had  had  in  their  be- 
half. 


THIRD    SECTION. 

THE   MONARCHY    FROM   THE    REIGN    OF   JEnOAHAZ   TO   THAT   OT  ZEDEKIAH. 

(Chaps.  XXIII.  31— XXV.  30.) 


A. —  The  Reigns  of  Jehoahaz,  Jehoiakim,  Jehoiachin,  and  Zedekiah. 
Chap.  XXni.  31-XXV.  7. 


3 1  Jehoahaz  was  twenty  and  three  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign  ;  and  ne 
reigned  three  months  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Hamutal,  the 

32  daughter  of  Jeremiah  of  Libnah.     And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight 

33  of  the  Lord,  according  [like]  to  all  that  his  fathers  had  done.  And  Pharaoh- 
nechoh  put  him  in  bands  [took  him  captive]  at  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath, 
that  he  might  not  reign1  in  Jerusalem ;  and  put  the  land  to  [laid  upon  the  land] 

34  a  tribute  of  a  hundred  talents  of  silver,  and  a  talent  of  gold.  And  Pharaoh- 
nechoh  made  Eliakim  the  son  of  Josiah  king  in  the  room  of  Josiah  his  father, 
and  turned  his  name  to  Jehoiakim,  and  took  Jehoahaz  away:  and  he  came  to 

35  Egypt,  and  died  there.  And  Jehoiakim  gave  the  silver  and  the  gold  to  Pha 
raoh  ;  but  he  taxed  the  land  to  give  the  money  according  to  the  commandment 
of  Pharaoh  :  he  exacted  the  silver  and  the  gold  of  the  people  of  the  land,  of 
every  [each]  one  according  to  his  taxation  [assessment],  to  give  it  unto  Pharaoh- 
nechoh. 

86         Jehoiakim  was  twenty  and  five  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign ;  and  he 

reigned  eleven  years  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Zebudah,  the 

37  daughter  of  Pedaiah  of  Rumah.     And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of 

Chap.  xxiv.  1.     the  Lord,  according  to  all  that  his  fathers  had  done.     In  his  days 

Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  came  up,  and  Jehoiakim  became  his  servant 

2  three  years:  then  he  turned  and   rebelled  against  him.     And  the  Lord  sent 


CHAPTER  XXIII.  31.-XXV.  7.  277 

against  him  bands  of  the  Chaldees,  and  bands  of  the  Syrians,  and  bands  of  the 
Moabites,  and  bands  of  the  children  of  Amnion,  and  sent  them  against  Judah  to 
destroy  [devastate]  it,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake  by 

3  his  servants  the  prophets.  Surely  [Only]  at  the  commandment  of  the  Lord 
came  this  upon  Judah,  to  remove  them  out  of  his  sight,  for  the  sins  of  Manasseh, 

4  according  to  [in]*  all  that  he  did  ;  And  also  for  the  innocent  blood  that  he 
6hed :  for  he  filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood ;  which  the  Lord  would  not 

5  pardon.     Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoiakim,  and  all  that  he  did,  are  they 

6  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?     So  Jehoiakim 

7  slept  with  his  fathers  :  and  Jehoiachin  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.  And  the 
king  of  Egypt  came  not  again  any  more  out  of  his  land  :  for  the  king  of  Babylon 
had  taken  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  river  Euphrates  all  that  pertained 
to  the  king  of  Egypt. 

8  Jehoiachin  was  eighteen  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned 
in  Jerusalem  three  months.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Nehushta,  the  daughter 

9  of  Elnathan  of  Jerusalem.     And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 

10  Lord,  according  [like]  to  all  that  his  father  had  done.  At  that  time  the  ser- 
vants of  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  came3  up  against  Jerusalem,  and  the 

11  city  was  besieged.     And  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  came  against  the 

12  city,  and  his  servants  did  besiege  it.  And  Jehoiachin  the  king  of  Judah  went 
out  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  he,  and  his  mother,  and  his  servants,  and  his  princes, 
and  his  officers :  and  the  king  of  Babylon  took  him  in  the  eighth  year  of  his 

IS  [the king  of  Babyion-s]  reign.  And  he  carried  out  thence  all  the  treasures  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house,  and  cut  in  pieces  all  the 
vessels  of  gold  which  Solomon  king  of  Israel  had  made  in  the  temple  of  the 

14  Lord,  as  the  Lord  had  said.  And  he  carried  away  [captive]  all  Jerusalem,  and 
all  the  princes,  and  all  the  mighty  men  of  valor,  even  ten  thousand  captives, 
and  all  the  craftsmen  and  smiths :  none  remained,  save  the  poorest  sort  of  the 

15  people  of  the  land.  And  he  carried  away  Jehoiachin  to  Babylon,  and  the  kind's 
mother,  and  the  king's  wives,  and  his  officers,  and  the  mighty  of  the  land,  those 

16  carried  he  into  captivity  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon.  And  all  the  men  of  might, 
even  seven  thousand,  and  craftsmen  and  smiths  a  thousand,  all  that  were  stronc 
and  apt  for  war,  even  them  the  king  of  Babylon  brought  captive  to  Babylon. 

17  And  the  king  of  Babylon  made  Mattaniah  his  father's  brother  king  in  his  stead, 
and  changed  his  name  to  Zedekiah. 

18  Zedekiah  was  twenty  and  one  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he 
reigned  eleven  years  in  Jerusalem.     And  his  mother's  name  was  Hamutal,  the 

19  daughter  of  Jeremiah  of  Libnah.     And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight 

20  of  the  Lord,  according  [like]  to  all  that  Jehoiakim  had  done.  For  through  the 
anger  of  the  Lord  it  came  to  pass  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  until  he  had  cast 
them  out  from   his  presence  [.]  that  \omU  that ;  itwert  And]  Zedekiah  rebelled 

Chap.  xxv.  1.  against  the  king  of  Babylon.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  ninth  year 
of  his  reign,  in  the  tenth  month,  in  the  tenth  day  of  the  month,  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Babylon  came,  he,  and  all  his  host,  against  Jerusalem,  and  pitched 

2  against  it ;  and  they  built  forts  [siege-works]  against  it  round  about.     And  the 

3  city  was  besieged  unto  the  eleventh  year  of  king  Zedekiah.  And  on  the  ninth 
day  of  the  fourth  [omit  fourth]'  month  the  famine  prevailed  in  the  city,  and  there 

4  was  no  bread  for  the  people  of  the  land.  And  the  city  was  broken  up  [a  breach 
was  made  in  the  city],  and  all  the  men  of  war  fed  by  night  by  the  way  of  the 
gate  between  two  walls,  which  is  by  the  king's  garden  (now  the  Chaldees  were 
against  the  city  round  about  [had  invested  the  city]  :)  and  the  king'  went  tha 

5  way  toward  the  plain.  And  the  army  of  the  Chaldees  pursued  after  the  king, 
and  overtook  him  in  the  plains  of  Jericho  :  and  all  his  army  were  scattered  frora 

6  him.     So  they  took  the  king,  and  brought  him  up  to  the  king  of  Babylon  to 

7  Riblah ;  and  they  gave  judgment  upon  him.  And  they  slew  the  sons  of  Zede- 
kiah before  his  eyes,  and  [he]  put  out  the  eyes  of  Zedekiah,  and  [thev]  bound 
him  with  fetters  of  brass,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon. 


278 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


TEXTUAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  83.  On  the  keri  see  remarks  under  Exegetical. 

'  Chap.  xxiv.  ver.  3.  [733-     3  here  has  peculiar  force.    It  means  in  or  throughout  all  that  he  did,  infecting  all  accord* 

toff  to  a  certain  measure.     Whatever  he  did  there  was  a  certain  measure  of  wickedness  in  it  acoording  to  its  character. 

The  somewhat  subtle  force  of  the  particle  led  to  variants.    "One  codex  has    733,    Sept.  and  Syr.    7331  •     The  reading 

In  the  text  is  correct"  (Thenius).— W.  G.  S.] 

'  Ver.  10.  The  keri  is  to  be  preferred. — Bahr.  [The  chetib  is  sing.  The  keri  is  a  grammatical  correction.  The  stng. 
may  have  been  written  with  the  mind  fixed  on  Nebuchadnezzar.  This  point  has  importance  for  the  question  whether  he 
accompanied  the  expedition  from  the  outset.     Cf.  ver.  11. 

*  Chap.  xxv.  ver.  3.  [The  statement  that  it  was  the  fourth  month  is  here  imported  into  the  text  by  the  translators 
from  Jeremiah,  who  gives  it  in  both  places;  chap.  Hi.  and  chap,  xxxix. 

•  Ver.  4.  [-p^  is  singular,  and  our  version  supplies  "  the  king  "  as  the  subject.  It  is  more  likely  that  it  is  a  case  of 
the  indefinite  subject  "  one  "  (Fr.  on  ;  Germ.  man).     The  army  went,  or,  as  we  are  obliged  to  translate,  they  went.    The 

king's  presence  in  the  train  is  implied  and  assumed.    In  Jerem.  lii.  7  we  find    -I37J1  ,    and  in  Jerem.  xxxix.  4,  the  sing. 
K^'l  i    but  there  the  king  is  mentioned  in  the  context.— W.  G.  S.] 


EXEGETICAL  AND  CRITICAL. 

Ver.  31.  Jehoahaz  was  twenty  and  three 
years  old.  This  son  of  Josiah  is  called  by  Jere- 
miah   (xxii.    11)    Shallum   (  cht' ),    which    name, 

according  to  Hengstenberg.  Keil,  and  Schlier,  is 
significant,  and  means:  "He  who  shall  be  recom- 
pensed," referring  to  his  fate  (vers.  33  and  34). 
But  why  should  this  king  be  expressly  so  named 
when  others,  as,  for  instance,  Jehoiachin  and  Zede- 
kiah,  met  with  a  similar  fate  (chaps,  xxiv.  15  ;  xxv. 
7)?  According  to  Junius,  Hitzig,  and  Thenius, 
Jeremiah  gave  him  the  name  Shallum,  with  refer- 
ence to  his  reign  of  three  months  (chap.  xv.  13),  in 
the  same  manner  as  Jezebel  named  Jehu  "  Zimri, 
murderer  of  his  master"  (chap.  ix.  31).  But  this 
also  is  forced  and  invented.  In  1  Chron.  hi.  15,  in 
the  enumeration  of  the  sons  of  Josiah,  he  is  called 
Shallum  instead  of  Jehoahaz,  but  we  may  be  cer- 
tain that  the  chronicler  did  not  put  in  a  "symbol- 
ical "  name,  which  the  prophet  only  once  used 
with  particular  significance  and  emphasis,  by  the 
side  of  three  other  actual  names,  and  in  a  dry  gene- 
alogical list.  Shallum  was  the  name  which  this 
king  actually  bore  before  his  accession  to  the 
throne.  When  he  became  king  he  received  ano- 
ther name,  just  as  Eliakim  and  Mattaniah  did  (ver. 
34  and  xxiv.  17).  Shallum  took  the  name  Jeho- 
ahaz, i.  <?..  ile-whom-Jehovah-sustains.  The  people 
made  him  king  in  place  of  his  elder  brother,  and 
Shallum  seemed  a  name  of  evil  omen,  inasmuch  as 
the  former  king  Shallum  [of  Israel]  only  reigned 
for  one  month.  According  to  Josephus,  Jehoahaz 
reigned  three  months  "and  ten  days." 

Ver.  33.  And  Pharaoh-necho  took  him  cap- 
tive at  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath.   ir-pDN'l 

.-  generally  translated :  he  hound  him,  or  put  him 
in  bunds,  but  IDS  has  also  "  the  primary 
meaning,  to  mnke  captive,  without  the  notion  of  fet- 
tering. Gen.  xlii.  10"  (Gesenius),  and,  taking  into 
consideration  chap.  xvii.  4,  this  more  general  sig- 
nification is  here  to  be  preferred. — The  city  of 
Riblah  (now  the  village  Ribleh)  belonged  to  the  dis- 
trict of  the  Syrian  city  Hamath  at  the  foot  of  Mt. 
Hermon  (Antilebanon),  on  the  river  Orontes,  that 
is,  therefore,  on  the  northernmost  boundary  of 
Palestine  towards  Damascus  (1  Kings  viii.  65;  2 
Kinp"  tiv  •_'.'» .   Amos  vi.  14).     Riblah  lay  in  a  large 


and  fruitful  plain  on  the  high-way  which  led,  tiy 
way  of  the  Euphrates,  from  Palestine  to  Babylon. 
At  a  later  time  Nebuchadnezzar  also  established 
his  headquarters  there  (chap.  xxv.  6,  20.  21.  See 
Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  II.  s.  323).  It  can  hardly  be  the 
same  Riblah  which  is  mentioned  in  Numb,  xxxiv. 
11  (see  Keil  on  that  passage).  If  Neeho  had  al- 
ready advanced,  since  the  battle  of  Megiddo  in 
which  Josiah  fell  (ver.  29),  on  his  way  to  the  Eu- 
phrates, as  far  as  Riblah,  it  cannot  be  that,  during 
the  three  months  that  Jehoahaz  reigned,  he  had 
also  made  a  detour  to  Jerusalem  and  besieged  and 
taken  that  city.  Shalmaneser  spent  three  years 
in  besieging  and  taking  Samaria,  which  was  not  so 
strongly  fortified  (chap.  xvii.  5).  Moreover.  Necho 
did  not  probably  "quit  the  main  army  without 
great  necessity  while  it  was  advancing  against  a 
powerful  enemy  "  (Winer).  The  text  says  distinctly 
that  he  took  Jehoahaz  prisoner  in  Riblah  and  not 
in  Jerusalem,  and  it  gives  no  support  to  Keil's 
statement,  that,  while  the  main  army  advanced 
slowly  towards  Riblah,  "  he  sent  a  detachment  to 
Jerusalem  to  take  that  city  and  dethrone  the 
king."  In  that  case  he  must  have  captured  the 
king  in  Jerusalem  and  not  in  Riblah.  The  attempt 
has  been  made  to  sustain  this  notion  that  Necho 
took  Jerusalem  by  a  statement  of  Herodotus  (II. 
159):  fieri  rf/v  paxnv  (at  Megiddo)  K&Svtiv  tt6~Aiv 
t?]C  J.vpir]c  eovcav  peyaknv  et/U.  But  it  is  now  uni- 
versally admitted  that  'Kadvric  cannot  mean  Jeru- 
salem, but  rather  that  it  was  some  sea-port  {cf. 
Herod.  III.  5),  although  this  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  it  was  Gaza,  as  Hitzig  and  Starke 
affirm.  [It  is  Kadesh,  a  city  of  Syria,  on  the 
Orontes,  near  to  Kmessa,  the  ruins  of  which  have 
lately  been  discovered. — Lenormant.]  We  are  not 
told  how  Jehoahaz  came  to  Riblah,  but  it  certainly 
was  not,  as  the  old  expositors  supposed,  with  a 
large  army  in  the  intention  of  repeating  his  father's 
attempt  to  arrest  Necho's  advance,  for  the  army 
of  Judah  had  perished  in  the  battle  of  Megiddo. 
According  to  Josephus.  who  says  nothing  of  any 
capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Necho,  the  latter  sure 
moned  Jehoahaz  to  come  to  his  camp  (/jeTaire/iTrera. 
TTpbc  avr'nv).  and  took  him  captive  when  he  came. 
This  is  more  probable  than  that  he  came  of  his 
own  accord,  "  perhaps  to  seek  from  the  victor  the 
ratification  of  his  election  to  the  throne  "  (Thenius). 
However  that  may  be,  he  was  unexpectedly  made  a 


CHAPTER  XXIII.  31. -XXV.  1. 


279 


captive  at  Riblah.  We  may  infer,  as  Ewald  does, 
from  Ezek.  xix.  4,  where  he  is  likened  to  a  young 
lion  whom  "  the  nations  "  had  taken  "  in  their  pit  " 
(certainly  not.  therefore,  at  Jerusalem),  that  he 
was  "  treacherously  "  bound  and  carried  away  cap- 
tive to  Egypt.     [See  the  Supplem.  Note  below,  at 

the    end    of    th  s    section.] — The    words    7pB3 

oi>CTT3   are  translated  bv  Keil :   "  When  he  had 

-    T  T 

become  king  in  Jerusalem."  That,  however,  had 
been  said  just  before  in  ver.  31,  and  is  understood 
from  the  connection  as  a  matter  of  course,  so  that 
it  would  be  a  mere  idle  remark.  Neither  can  the 
translation :  "  Because  he  had  exalted  himself  to 
be  king  in  Jerusalem  "  (Dereser),  or,  dum  regnaret 
(Vatablus)   be    sustained.      We   must,    therefore, 

adopt  the  keri  TpBD  ,  as  is  done  by  the  Chaldee 

version,  the  Sept.  (rov  fti/  (iaciWevEiv  ev  'lepovaa^.r/u), 
and  the  Vulg.  (ne  regnaret  in  Jerusalem).  This  is 
further  confirmed  by  the  parallel  passage  (2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  3)  in  which  the  verse  is  abbreviated  :   "  And 

the    king    of   Egypt    put    him    down    (liTVp'J) 

[i.  e.,  removed  him,  set  him  aside]  at  Jerusalem." 
(The  Sept.  have  in  that  place  k6i]eiv  which  repre- 
sents the  Hebrew  of  Kings,  and  they  have  here 
lierearTiaev  which  represents  the  Hebrew  of  Chron- 
icles.) In  3  Esra  i.  3  also  we  find:  nal  aireori/oev 
avrbv  jlacitevc  Alyinrrov  rov  fiij  ^aatXeveiv  hi  'lepov- 
ca'Ar/fi.      It   is   not    necessary   to   suppose,    with 

Ewald,   that   TJi>BD   was    "dropped  out"  from    2 

Chron.  xxxvi.  3  ;  still  less,  with  Thenius,  to  read  in 
this    place,     inTD'l      instead    of     WlDX't- — 

And  laid  upon  the  land  a  tribute.  The  relative 
amount  of  the  silver  and  the  gold  is  remarkable,  one 
hundred  talents  of  silver  to  one  of  gold,  but,  as  the 
same  figures  are  given  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  3  and  in 
3  Esra  i.  36,  we  are  not  justified  in  changing  them, 
as  Thenius  does,  appealing  to  chap,  xviii.  14,  and 
adopting  the  statement  of  the  Sept.  that  there  wore 
ten  talents  of  gold  instead  of  one.  It  may  be  that 
Neeho  wanted  silver,  which  was  rarer  in  the  Ori- 
ent, or  that  he  did  not  wish  to  alienate  the  country 
too  much  from  himself  by  pitiless  severity.  The 
entire  tribute  amounted,  according  to  Thenius.  to 
230,000  thaler  [$165,600];  according  to  Keil  the 
gold  amounted  to  25,000  thaler  [$1S,000],  and  the 
silver  to  250,000  thaler  [$180,000]. 

Ver.  34.  And  Pharaoh-necho  made  Eli- 
akim,  son  of  Josiah,  king,  &c.  After  the  victory 
at  Megiddo  and  the  death  of  Josiah,  Necho  re- 
garded himself  as  master  of  the  country,  and  there- 
fore he  would  not  recognize  as  king  Jehoahaz,  who 
had  been  elevated  to  the  throne  by  the  people 
without  his  (Necho's)  consent.  Possibly  also,  as 
has  often  been  assumed,  either  the  elder  brother 
Eliakim,  who  had  been  passed  over,  had  appealed 
to  Necho,  or  the  Egyptian  party  had,  by  its  in- 
trigues, induced  Necho,  after  setting  aside  Jeho- 
ahaz, to  appoint  the  elder  brother,  and  not  a  for- 
eigner, for  instance  one  of  his  own  generals.  He 
changed  his  name,  as  was  the  customary  sign  of 
subjection  and  vassalage  (chap.  xxiv.  17  ;  Dan.  i. 
7).     It  appears  that  the  choice  of  a  name  was  left 

to   Eliakim,   who  only   changed — ^x    to — in'     in 

the  composition  of  his  former  name  so  that  its  sig- 
nification :  God  (Jehovah)  will-establish,  remained 


the  same.  Whether  he  did  this  "  in  intentional 
contradiction  to  the  humiliation  of  the  royal  dy- 
nasty of  David,  which  Jeremiah  and  the  other  pro- 
phets had  threatened "  (Keil),  is  very  doubtful. 
Menzel  very  mistakenly  infers  that  the  name  Jeho- 
iakim  pleased  Necho  better  "  on  account  of  th6 
connection  with  the  Egyptian  moon-God." — And 
took  Jehoahaz  away,  rip?  does  not  mean  here: 
"  He  had  taken  prisoner,"  any  more  than  it  does 
in  ver.  30.  This  much  has  already  been  staled  in 
ver.  33.  It  only  means  that  he  did  not  leave  him 
in  Riblah  where  he  had  taken  him  captive,  but 
took  him  away  from  there  (Gen.  ii.  15).     The  Sept. 

and   the   Tulg.   read,    instead   of     K3>1 ,     ND'1  ; 

et    duxit,   and    in    Chronicles   we   find   inx,3,l  , 

but   N3>1    implies  that   Jehoahaz  came  to  Egypt 

before  Necho  returned  thither. — "  In  ver.  35  the 
details  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  the  tribute  im- 
posed by  Necho  are  given  before  the  history  of  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakim  is  entered  upon,  because  tho 
payment  of  that  tribute  was  one  of  the  conditions 
on  which  he  was  elevated  to  the  throne  "  (Keil). 
7]X  ^nevertheless,  but  in  order  to  obtain  the  sum ; 

he  did  not  pay  it  out  of  his  own  means.  He  de- 
manded contributions  "  from  each  one,  even  from 
the  humblest  inhabitant "  (Ewald).  This  place 
shows  that  by  "  the  people  of  the  land  "  we  have 
not  to  understand,  as  Thenius  does,  the  "national 
militia,"  or  the  "male  population  fit  for  war." 

Ver.  36.  Jehoiakim  was  twenty  and  five 
years  old.  He  was  therefore  two  years  older 
than  Jehoahaz  (ver.  31),  and  must  have  been 
begotten  by  Josiah  in  the  fourteenth  year  of 
the  latter's  age.  His  mother  was  not  the  same 
person  as  the  mother  of  Jehoahaz.  Rumah,  he? 
native  place,  is  probably  identical  with  Arumah  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Shechem  (Judges  ix.  41). — 

Chap.  xxiv.  1.  In  his   days  Nebuchadnezzar 
king   of    Babylon    came    up.      On    the     name 

"IXSO*133J  (Jeremiah  generally,  and  Ezekiel  always, 

writes    it   "li'NTDlDJ  ),    its   different   forms,    and 

its  significance,  see  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  II.  p.  840, 
and  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assyr.  s.  41.  [The  name  is 
Nabu-kudurri-uzur,  and  means  either  Nebo-pro- 
tects-the-youth  (Oppert),  or,  Nebo-is-the-protector- 
of-landmarks  (Sir  fl.  Rawlinson) — Rawlinson,  Five 
Great  Man.  III.  80.]  He  was  the  son  of  Nabo- 
polassar,  and  he  appears  here  for  the  first  time  in 
this  history.  The  question  as  to  the  time  in  Je- 
hoiakim's  reign  at  which  he  made  this  expedition 
can  be  answered  from  other  data  with  tolerable 
certainty.  According  to  Jerem.  xxv.  l,the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign  was  the  first  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, and  according  to  Jerem.  xlvi.  2  this 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  was  the  year  in  which 
Nebuchadnezzar  inflicted  a  decisive  defeat  upon 
Necho  near  Carchemish,  a  large  well-fortified  city 
at  the  junction  of  the  Chaboras  and  the  Euphrates 
(Winer,  R.-W.-B.  I.  s.  211  sq.).  Moreover,  accord- 
ing to  Jerem.  xxxvi.  1,  Jeremiah  commissioned 
Baruch,  in  this  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  to  write 
down  his  discourses  in  a  book  which  was  read  in 
public  on  a  great  fast  day  which  was  held  in  the 
ninth  month,  that  is,  towards  the  end  of  the  fifth 
year  of  .Jehoiakim  (ver.  9).  This  fast-day  was  not 
ordained  on  account  of  a  misfortune  which  had  al- 
ready been  experienced,  "  in  order,  by  humiliation 


380 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ind  submission,  to  turn  aside  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  to  implore  the  divine  pity"  (Keil),  but  "evi- 
dently, becausi  Jehoiakim  was  alarmed  at  the  ap- 
proach of  the  Chaldeans,  and  saw  in  it  danger  of 
a  calamity  to  the  country  which  might  perhaps 
yet  be  averted  "  (Ewald) ;  for  Jehoiakim,  when  he 
heard  that  the  book  had  been  read,  commanded  it 
to  be  brought,  and  then  cast  it  into  the  fire,  be- 
cause there  was  written  in  it :  "  The  king  of  Baby- 
lon will  certainly  come  and  destroy  this  land" 
(ver.  29,  cf.  also  ver.  3).  At  the  time  of  this  fast- 
day,  therefore,  Nebuchadnezzar  had  not  yet  come. 
His  coming  was  something  to  be  looked  forward  to 
even  in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoi- 
akim. It  follows  that  his  expedition  took  place, 
at  the  very  earliest,  at  the  end  of  the  fifth,  or  at 
the  beginning  of  the  sixth,  year  of  Jehoiakim's 
reign.  How  far  southward  he  penetrated,  whether 
as  far  as  Egypt,  as  some  suppose,  is  uncertain. 
The  supposition  that  he  at  this  time  captured  the 
strongly  fortified  city  of  Jerusalem  (Keil),  and  even 
took  captive  a  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
or  country,  as  he  did  at  a  later  time  under  Jehoi- 
achin,  is  not  sustained  by  anything  in  the  Book 
of  Kings  or  in  Jeremiah.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
he  should  have  done  so  and  yet  no  mention  of  it 
be  found  in  Scripture.  This  much  only  is  certain  : 
that  Jehoiakim  then  "became  subject  to  him  for 
three  years,"  that  is,  until  the  eigth  or  ninth  year 
of  his  reign  (chap.  xxiv.  1),  which  may  well  have 
come  to  pass  without  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  or 
the  deportation  of  its  inhabitants,  although  we  do 
not  know  the  manner  in  which  it  did  come  about. 
We  have,  therefore,  to  present  to  our  minds  the 
course  of  events  as  follows :  After  Necho  had  de- 
feated Josiah  at  Megiddo  and  taken  Jehoahaz  cap- 
tive at  Riblah,  and  had  made  Jehoiakim  king,  he 
pushed  on  northeasterly  towards  the  Euphrates, 
but  he  was  met  and  so  severely  defeated  by  Ne- 
buchadnezzar at  Carchemish  that  he  was  obliged 
to  give  up  his  plan  of  conquering  Assyria  and  re- 
treat to  Egypt.  The  victor,  Nebuchadnezzar,  then 
advanced  through  the  territory  east  of  Jordan, 
where  he  had  little  opposition  to  encounter  (Kno- 
Del,  Prophet.  H.  s.  227),  and  made  the  king  of 
Judah,  who  had  for  five  years  been  a  vassal  of  the 
king  of  Egypt,  subject  to  himself.  After  three 
years,  however,  Jehoiakim  revolted,  but  for  the 
remaining  two  or  three  years  of  his  reign  he  was 
hard  pressed  by  bands  of  Chaldeans,  Syrians,  Mo- 
abites  and  Ammonites,  who  were  probably  incited 
to  invasion  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  for  he  was  too 
much  occupied  in  other  directions,  in  consequence 
of  the  death  of  his  father,  to  march  against  Judah  in 
person.  When  he  found  opportunity  he  appeared 
in  person  with  an  army  "  to  punish  the  revolt,  and 
he  took  vengeance  for  it  upon  the  son  [Jehoiachin] 
who  had  recently  succeeded  Jehoiakim  "  (Thenius), 
especially  because  Jehoiachin  had  not.  at  his  ac- 
cession, immediately  submitted  to  the  Babylonian 
authority. 

Against  this  natural  and  simple  conception  of 
the  course  of  events  two  biblical  texts  may  be 
cited.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6  reads:  "Against  him 
came  up  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and 
bound  him  in  fetters,  to  carry  him  to  Babylon. 
Nebuchadnezzar  also  carried  [some]  of  the  vessels 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord  to  Babylon,  and  put  them 
in  his  temple  at  Babylon."  It  is  not  here  asserted 
that  Jehoiakiir  was  actually  brought  as  a  captive 
to  Babylon,  and  this  can,  in  fact,  hardly  have  been 


the  fact,  for  he  was  king  in  Jerusalem  not  ?ight  oi 
nine  but  eleven  years  (2  Kings  xxiii.  36 ;  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  5).  It  would  be  necessary,  therefore,  tc 
assume  that  he  was  set  at  liberty  again  and  came 
back  to  Jerusalem  as  king,  of  which  we  have  no 
hint  anywhere,  and  which  is  highly  improbable. 
Certainly  he  did  not  die  in  Babylon  (chap.  xxiv.  6 ; 
cf.  Jerem.  xxii.  17-19).  The  Sept.  filled  out  the 
meagre  story  of  Jehoiakim  in  Chronicles  from  this 
account,  but  omitted  entirely  the  words :  "  And 
bound  him  in  fetters,"  &c.,  evidently  because  they 
considered  them  incorrect.  In  view  of  the  remark- 
able brevity  and  superficiality  with  which  the 
chronicler  treats  the  history  of  Jehoiakim  and  Je- 
hoiachin, it  appears,  as  Hitzig  supposes  (note  on 
Dan.  i.  2),  that  he  confused  the  two,  for,  according 
to  our  more  detailed  and  more  accurate  account, 
the  incidents  which  he  mentions  as  having  occurred 
to  Jehoiakim  really  happened  to  Jehoiachin  (chap. 
xxiv.  13-15).  Josephus  (Antiq.  x.  6,  1)  seems  to 
have  made  the  same  mistake,  for  he  confuses  the 
history  of  the  two  kings.  He  says  that  Jehoiakim, 
on  the  promise  that  no  harm  should  happen  to 
him,  admitted  Nebuchadnezzar  into  the  city,  but 
that  the  Babylonian  broke  his  word  and  put  to 
death  the  king  and  the  principal  men,  threw  th-" 
body  of  the  king  under  the  wall,  and  left  it  unbu- 
ried,  took  about  3,000  Jews,  among  whom  was  Eze- 
kiel,  away  captive  to  Babylon,  and  placed  Jehoi- 
akim's son,  Jehoiachin,  on  the  throne.  Then  that, 
fearing  lest  Jehoiachin  might,  out  of  revenge  for  his 
father's  murder,  lead  the  city  to  revolt,  he  sent  an 
army  to  Jerusalem,  but  gave  an  oath  to  Jehoiachin 
that,  in  case  the  city  should  be  taken,  no  harm 
should  befall  him.  That  then  the  king  of  Judah 
surrendered,  in  order  to  spare  the  city,  but  was 
nevertheless  taken  away  into  captivity  with  10,000 
other  captives.  It  appears  that  Josephus  was  not 
able  to  harmonize  the  account  in  Chronicles  with 
the  account  here,  and  so  he  mixed  them  both  up 
together,  not  writing  history  but  inventing  it. — 

The  other  text  which  may  be  cited  against  the 
construction  of  the  history  above  given  is  Dan.  i. 
1 :  "In  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah, 
came  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  unto  Jeru- 
salem   and    besieged   it  (-|V!1    [pressed  it  hard] 

see  Isai.  xxi.  2;  Judges  ix.  31;  Esther  viii.  11), 
and  the  Lord  gave  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  into 
his  hand,  with  part  of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of 
God,"  &c.  It  is  true  that  this  passage  does  not 
say  that  the  city  was  besieged  and  taken,  and  that 
then  the  king  was  bound  and  taken  away  to  Ba- 
bylon. When  the  Chaldeans  had  driven  the  Egyp- 
tians out  of  Palestine,  Jehoiakim  found  himself  in 
great  distress,  and,  in  order  not  to  lose  his  crown 
and  his  kingdom,  he  surrendered  to  the  king  of 
Babylon,  gave  him  some  of  the  temple  ornaments 
and  utensils,  and,  probably  enough,  also  gave  him 
certain  hostages,  among  whom  was  Daniel.  But 
the  statement  that  this  took  place  in  the  third  year 
of  Jehoiakim  does  not  agree  with  the  statement*! 
above  quoted  from  Jeremiah.  No  one  has  yet 
succeeded  in  removing  the  discrepancy,  although 
very  many  attempts  have  been  made  (see  a  critical 
analysis  of  these  attempts  by  Roseh  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyc.  XVIII.  s.  464).  The  latest  of  these  at- 
tempts, that  of  Keil,  which  insists  that  we  "must 
regard  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  in  Dan.  i.  1,  as 
the  terminus  a  quo  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  coming, 
i.  e.,  must  understand  that  statement  :o  mean  thai 


CHAPTKK  XXIII.  31.-XXV.  7. 


281 


Nebuchadnezzar  began  the  expedition  against  Ju- 
dah  in  that  year;  that  Necho  was  defeated  at  Car- 
chemish  in  the  begmning  of  Jehoiakim's  fourth 
year,  and  that,  in  consequence  of  this  victory,  Je- 
rusalem was  taken  and  Jehoiakim  was  made  tribu- 
tary in  the  same  year,"  is  unsatisfactory  especially 
in  view  of  Jerem.  xxxvi.  9.  There  is  scarcely  any 
escape  remaining  except  to  assume  that  Daniel 
reckoned  from  some  other  point  of  time  which  we 
cannot  now  specify.  It  is  not  admissible  to  give 
his  one  statement  the  preference  over  the  numer- 
ous chronological  statements  of  Jeremiah,  since 
these  are  consistent  with  one  another,  and  with  the 
historical  connection,  and  are,  moreover,  as  will  be 
shown  below  in  the  review  of  the  chronology  of 
this  period,  in  perfect  harmony  with  all  the  other 
chronological  data  both  in  Jeremiah  and  in  the 
Book  of  Kings,  while  the  statement  in  Daniel,  if  it 
is  taken  as  fixed  and  correct,  introduces  confusion. 
{See  the  Supplement.  Note  below.] 

Ver.  2.  And  the  Lord  sent  against  him 
bands,  ic.  It  is  not  stated  what  impelled  Jehoi- 
akim after  three  years  to  try  to  throw  off  the  yoke 
of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Perhaps  his  courage  rose 
again  when  Nebuchadnezzar  had  withdrawn  and 
■was  fully  occupied  in  other  parts  of  his  immense 
kingdom.  Perhaps  also  he  hoped  for  aid  from 
Egypt.  Before  Nebuchadnezzar  himself  could 
come,   "bands"  (D'TfB  in   distinction  from  p<n  , 

chap.  xxv.  I,  not  an  organized  army)  devasted  the 
country,  though  they  could  not  take  the  capital. 
"  All  the  nationalities  here  mentioned  had  no 
doubt  been  obliged  to  recognize  Nebuchadnezzar's 
supremacy,  and  they  gratified  their  own  hate 
against  Judah  at  the  same  time  that  they  served 

his  purposes  "  (Thenius).     The  i  in  iTaxnip  does 

not  refer  to  Jehoiakim  (Luther:  dass  sie  ihn  um- 
brachten  [that  they  might  put  him  to  death] ),  but 
to  "  Judah  "  which  immediately  precedes.  This 
is  evident  from  ver.  3.  On  vers.  2^  Starke  ob- 
serves :  "  It  is  expressly  said  :  '  The  Lord  sent,' 
and  again  :  '  According  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,' 
and  in  ver.  3  again :  'Surely  at  the  commandment 
of  the  Lord  came  this  '  (i.  e.,  it  came  to  pass  only 
because  the  Lord  had  commanded  it),  and  again  in 
Ter.  4 :  '  The  Lord  would  not  pardon,'  in  order  that 
in  all  this  the  hand  of  God  might  appear  and  be 
recognized,  and  that  men  might  not  think  that 
these  judgments  came  upon  Judah  by  accident,  or 
merely  on  account  of  the  physical  strength  of  the 
Babylonians.''  The  author  means  to  say  that  the 
judgments  which  had  long  been  threatened  and 
predicted  by  the  prophets  (Isaiah,  Micah,  Huldah, 
Habakkuk,  Jeremiah)  now  began.  The  invasion 
of  all  these  bands  on  every  side  was  the  presage 
of  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom,  for  from  this  time 
on  came  one  misfortune  after  the  other,  and  the 
kingdom  and  nation  moved  on  steadily  towards 
their  downfall. — Ver.  3.  Only  at  the  command- 
ment of  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  it  came  only  for  the  rea- 
son that  God  had  so  willed  it.  Instead  of  ^Z'h]} 
Ewald   and  Thenius  desire  to  read  51X-7J?  &s  >n 

ver.  20,  i.  e.,  because  of  the  wrath  of  God.  The 
Bept  have:  tt?J/v  dv/ibt;  Kvplov  rpi  inl  rbv  'Invdav 
the  Vulg.  has:  per  verbum.  The  change  in  the 
text  is  not  necessary.  For  the  sins  of  Manasseh, 
tee  notes  on  chap.  xxi.  The  sin  of  Manasseh  was 
f»r  greater  and  heavier  than  that  of  Jeroboam. 


Judah  gave  itself  up  to  this  sin  so  entirely  that 
not  only  were  all  the  warnings  and  exhortations  of 
the  prophets  ineffectual,  but  also  the  stern  meas- 
ures of  Josiah  could  not  effect  anything  in  opposi- 
tion ;  on  the  contrary,  as  we  see  from  the  words 
of  Jeremiah,  after  his  death  this  sin  once  more 
permeated  the  national  life.  The  sins  of  Manas 
seh  were  not,  therefore,  avenged  upon  the  people, 
but,  because  they  persisted  in  them,  they  fell 
under  the  judgments  of  God.  [That  is,  the  nation 
was  not  punished  under  Jehoiakim  for  sins  which 
Manasseh  and  his  contemporaries  had  committed. 
The  "  sins  of  Manasseh  "  had  become  a  designation 
for  a  certain  class  of  offences,  and  a  particular 
form  of  public  and  social  depravity,  which  was  in- 
troduced by  Manasseh,  but  of  which  generation 
after  generation  continued  to  be  guilty. — W.  G.  S.] 
Keil  is  mistaken  when  he  thus  states  the  connec- 
tion between  ver.  1  and  ver.  2,  and  the  following 
verses :  "  After  God  had  given  the  nation  into 
subjection  to  the  Babylonian  supremacy,  as  a 
punishment  for  its  sins,  every  revolt  against  that 
power  was  a  revolt  against  Him." — In  ver.  5  we 
find  the  last  reference  to  the  Book  of  the  Chron- 
icles of  the  kings  of  Judah.  The  history  of 
Jehoiakim  therefore  seems  to  have  formed  the  con 
elusion  to  this  book. 

Ver.  6.  So  Jehoiakim  slept  with  his  father!. 
The  details  which  are  given  elsewhere  in  mention- 
ing the  death  of  a  king,  as  to  his  burial  and  the 
place  of  his  sepulture,  are  here  wanting,  certainly 
not  through  accident  or  error.  Jeremiah  says  of 
Jehoiakim,  chap.  xxii.  19  :  "  He  shall  be  buried 
with  the  burial  of  an  ass,  drawn  and  cast  forth 
beyond  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,"  and,  chap,  xxxvi. 
30 :  "  He  shall  have  none  to  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  David,  and  his  dead  body  shall  be  cast  out  in 
the  day  to  the  heat  and  in  the  night  to  the  frost." 
As  the  statement  that  he  "  slept  with  his  fathers  " 
means  neither  more  nor  less  than  that  he  came  to 
death,  this  text  doss  not  exclude  or  deny  the  ful- 
filment of  the  prophecy ;  nor  can  the  statement 
which  is  interpolated  in  the  Sept. :  /cat  jm/////^ 
'luanEi/i  fiera  tuv  Traripuv  eavrov,  ftai  ET&tpT?  iv 
yavo^av  fiera  tuv  narepav  eavrov,  for  which  there 
are  no  corresponding  words  in  the  Hebrew,  avail, 
as  Thenius  believes,  to  prove  the  non-fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy.  On  the  contrary,  Ewald  infers 
from  the  prophecy,  which,  however,  he  says  "  was 
written,  in  its  present  form,  after  the  event,"  that 
the  following  is  the  circumstantial  story  of  Jehoi- 
akim's death:  "Probably  he  had  complied  with  a 
treacherous  invitation  of  the  enemy  to  visit  his 
camp,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  treaty,  and  as 
soon  as  he  came  out  he  was  taken  prisoner  in  the 
very  sight  of  his  own  capital.  But  as  he  resisted 
with  rage  and  violence,  he  was  borne  away  by 
force,  and  shamefully  put  to  death.  Even  an 
honorable  burial,  for  which  his  family  no  doubt 
entreated,  was  harshly  refused."  This  represen- 
tation of  the  incident  goes  beyond  the  prophecy 
even,  and  builds  history  upon  it.  Winer  supposes 
that  Jehoiakim's  body  was  thrown  out  after,  and 
in  consequence  of,  the  capture  of  the  city  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoiachin  (ver.  10),  "on  which  occasion 
either  the  enemy,  or  perhaps  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  themselves,  showed  their  rage  against 
the  hated  king,"  but,  according  to  Jeremiah,  he 
met  with  no  burial  at  all.  We  therefore  limit  our- 
selves to  the  assumption,  which  is  also  made  by 
Keil.  "  that  he  perished  in  a  battle  with  some  on* 


2S2 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


of  the  irregular  marauding  bands  mentioned 
above,  and  was  not  Luried." — Ver.  7.  And  the 
king  of  Egypt  came  not  again  any  more, 
Ac.  This  remark  is  here  inserted  in  order  to  show 
under  what  circumstances  Jehoiachin  succeeded 
his  father  (ver.  6),  and  how  it  came  that  he  only 
reigned  for  so  short  a  time  (ver.  8).  Necho  had 
retired  finally  from  Asia  after  such  losses  that  he 
could  not  venture  again  to  meet  his  victorious 
enemy,  therefore  Judah  could  expect  no  more 
support  from  him.  Much  less  could  it  attempt 
alone  to  resist  the  conqueror  from  whom  it  had 
revolted.  The  river  of  Egypt  is  not  the  Nile, 
but  the  stream  now  known  as  Arish,  which  forms 
.the  southern  boundary  of  Palestiue  (1  Kings  viii. 
65  ;   Isai.  xxvii.  12). 

Ver.  8.  Jehoiachin  was  eighteen  years  old, 
Ac.     The  form  of  the  name  pa'ilT  which  occurs 

here  and  in  Chronicles  (II.  xxxvi.  8,  9),  is  the  full 
and  original  form.  The  signification  is  "  He-whom- 
Jehovah-confirms."     In  Ezek.   i  2  we  find  pa'V1 ; 

in  Jer.  xxvii.  20 ;  xxviii.  4 :  liTJD' ;  and  in  Jer. 
xxii.  24,  28  :  1ITJ3  ,  which  last  is  probably  a  pop- 
ular abbreviation  of  the  name.  Instead  of  eigh- 
teen years  the  chronicler  gives  eight  years,  evi- 
dently through  an  omission  of  i=  10.  The  grounds 
adduced  by  Hitzig  (note  on  Jer.  xxii.  28)  in  favor 
of  eight  are  swept  away  by  ver  15  of  this  chapter, 
where  the  king's  "  wives  "  are  mentioned.  There  is 
no  reason  to  cast  suspicion  upon  the  more  accurate 
statement  of  the  chronicler:  "three  months  and 
ten  days,"  as  Thenius  does.  Elnathan  belonged 
to  the  D'ltV    at  the  court  of   Jehoiakim,  Jerem. 

xxvi.  22;  xxxvi.  12,  25. — Ver.  10.  At  that  time, 
Ac.  The  chronicler  says  instead :  "  When  the 
year  was  expired"  [more  correctly  it  would  read: 
"  At  the  turning-point  of  the  year,"  i.  e.,  either  the 
spriug  equinox,  or  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish 
year,  both  of  which  came  at  nearly  the  same  time ; 
the  time  at  which  military  movements  were  com- 
menced], i.  e.,  in  the  spring,  not  "late  in  the  sum- 
mer or  in  the  autumn  "  (Thenius).  Nebuchadnez- 
zar  sent   out   his   generals   (DnSJ?),    in   the   first 

place,  with  the  army  to  besiege  the  city.  After- 
wards he  came  himself,  in  order  to  be  present  at 
the  capture  (see  notes  on  ver.  2). — And  Jehoi- 
achin, king  of  Judah,  went  out,  Ac,  ver.  12. 
NY' ,  as  in  chap,  xviii.  31,  is  the  ordinary  expres- 
sion for  besieged  who  go  out  to  surrender  to  the 
besiegers  (1  Sam.  xi.  3;  Jerem.  xxi.  9;  xxxviii. 
17).  Jehoiachin  perceived  that  the  city  would  not 
be  able  to  hold  out  very  long,  and  therefore  deter- 
mined to  surrender,  in  the  hope  of  meeting  with 
grace  from  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  of  being  allowed 
to  keep  his  kingdom,  though  as  a  vassal.  He 
therefore  went  out  with  his  mother  as  the  Gebirah 
(1  Kings  xv.  13),  and  with  his  ministers  and  offi- 
cers, but  his  hopes  were  all  disappointed.  Nebu- 
chadnezzar distrusted  him,  not  without  reason,  and 
he  desired  to  punish  the  father  in  the  son  nf5'l  , 

he  seised  him.  not  "he  received  him  graciously" 
(Luther  and  the  Calw.  Bib.),  for,  if  the  latter  were 
the  meaning,  he  would  have  restored  him  as  a 
vassal,  but  he  dethroned  him  and  took  him  into 
exile.  The  eighth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
became  king  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (Jer. 
xxv.  1),  fell  in  the  year  after  the  eleven-year  reign 


of  Jehoiakim  had  closed.  On  Jerem.  lii.  28  aq 
see  below. 

Ver.   13.    And  he  carried   out  thence,  Ac, 

that  is,  from  the  city  which  he  had  entered  aftei 
seizing  the  king  and  his  chief  men.  In  the  first 
place  he  took  all  there  was  in  the  treasuries  of  the 
temple  and  the  royal  palace,  and  then  he  took  the 
utensils  of  the  temple.     The  meaning  of  VXp'l  is 

not  altogether  clear.  "To  tear  off  the  gold  sur- 
face "  (Keil)  is  a  meaning  which  is  not  applicable 
to  "all  the  vessels,"  for  many  of  these  were  en- 
tirely of  gold,  as.  for  instance,  the  candlesticks,  and 
such,  we  may  be  sure,  he  did  not  leave  behind. 
The  Sept.  have  owi/an/ie,  the  Vulg.  concidit  or  con- 
/regit  (chap,  xviii.  16),  hence  Thenius  renders  it: 
"  to  crush  into  shapeless  masses,"  but,  if  this  had 
been  done,  Cyrus  would  not  have  been  able  to  give 
these  articles  back  again  to  the  Jews,  as  it  is 
stated  in  Ez.  i.  7-11  that  he  did  do.  We  must 
understand  it  to  mean,  to  tear  away  violently,  avellii 
(Winer),  for  the  most  of  these  articles  were  no 
doubt  fastened  to  the  floor  of  the  temple,     pa'n 

does  not  mean  the  temple  as  a  whole,  but  the 
sanctuary,  the  "  dwelling,"  all  the  articles  in  which 
were  of  gold.  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  take  away 
the  brazen  vessels  from  the  forecourt  until  he  de- 
stroyed Jerusalem  (chap.  xxv.  13  sq.). — As  the 
Lord  had  said,  chap.  xx.  17;  cf.  Jerem.  xv.  13; 
xvii.  3. — Ver.  14.  And  he  carried  away  captive 
all  Jerusalem.  He  left  only  the  poorest  and 
humblest  of  the  population,  because  nothing  was 
to  be  feared  from  them  (see  Jerem.  xxxix.  10: 
"the  poor  of  the  people  which  had  nothing"). 
Ver.  14  states  in  general,  and  in  round  numbers, 
what  persons  were  taken  into  exile.  There  were 
two  classes :  first,   the  D'lt' ,  the   chiefs  [E.  V. 

"princes"],  not  the  military  chiefs,  but  the  chief 
men  of  rank,  the  nobles,  and  the   p^nn    "l~)i33  , 

i.  e..,  the  mighty  men  of  wealth,  the  rich  (chap.  xv. 
20);  and  second,  C'inn  ,  the  artisans,  the  workers 

either  in  brass,  or  iron,  or  wood  (Isai.  xliv.  12, 
13;  Gen.  iv.  22:    1  Kings  vii.   14),  and   IJDBn, 

i.  e.,  not  "common  laborers  who  broke  stone  and 
carried  burdens"  (Hitzig  on  Jerem.  xxiv.  1),  but. 
literally,  one  tvho  shuts  in,  encloses,  or  locks  up,  from 
~U  D  ,  to  close,  or  shut  up,  and  so,  according  tc 
Ewald  :  "  persons  who  are  skilled  in  siege  opera- 
tions (from  T3DH  ,  to  invest  or  enclose,  cf.  Jerem. 
xiii.  19)."  but  we  prefer  to  understand  by  it  lock- 
smiths, inasmuch  as  these  also  made  weapons  (1 
Sam.  xiii.  19).  When  these  persons  were  taken 
away  into  captivity  the  rest  were  deprived  of  the 
power  to  revolt  or  to  make  war.  There  were  in 
all  ten  thousand  of  the  exiles.  Vers.  15  and  16 
are  not  a  mere  repetition  of  ver.  14 ;  they  particu 
larize  what  ver.  14  stated  in  general.  The  king 
and  his  court  are  mentioned  first,  then  the  >~>m 
]"INn  (keri,  ^N),  that  is,  the  mighty  men  of  the 
land,  who  are  included  in  the  B<~)\?  in  ver.  14, 
then  the  ^nn  'C'JX  ,  who  are  there  called  '113} 
pTin  •  There  were  seven  thousand  of  the  rich 
and  noble,  and  one  thousand  of  the  two  classes  of 
artisans,  pan  in  ver.  16  (not  ?b"l)  "  gathers  hi 
one   all  who  have  been  mentioned,  and  it  U  the: 


CHAPTER  XXIII.  31.-XXT.  7. 


2b-d 


specified  in  regard  to  them  that  they  were  all  men 
in  the  prime  of  life,  and  that  they  were  familiar 
with  the  use  of  weapons "  (Thenius).  We  see 
from  Jerem.  xxix.  that  there  were  also  priests  and 
prophets  among  them,  and  according  to  Josephus, 
(Antiq.  x.  6,  3)  especially  6  irpo<pi/Ti/c  'It&icbifatc. 
■wale  uv.  Of.  Ezek.  i.  1-3.  Ver.  17.  Mattaniah 
was.  according  to  1  Chron.  iii.  1 5,  the  third  son  of 
Josiah,  so  that  he  was  the  uncle  of  the  exiled  king 
Jelioiachin  (Jerem.   xxxvii.    1 ).     VilS  ,   2    Chron. 

xxxvi.  10,  must  not,  therefore,  be  translated :  "  his 
brother,"  but:  "his  couein,"  or,  "his  relative,"  a 
sense  in  which  it  frequently  occurs.  (Sept.  adsApov 
tov  irarpbc  avrov).  On  the  change  of  name  see 
notes  on  chap,  xxiii.  34.  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not 
choose  the  name,  he  only  approved  of  the  new 
name  chosen  by  the  king,  as  Necho  had  done  in 
the  case  of  Jehoiakim.     |nD  ,  gift,  is  changed  to 

pIV  ,  justice,  righteousness,  so  that  the  name  means : 

"the  righteousness  of  Jehovah,"  that  is,  "he  by 
whom  Jehovah  executes  justice."  It  is  hardly 
probable  that  the  king  meant  by  this  name  to 
identify   himself  with    IjpiV    nirv    promised  by 

Jeremiah  (xxiii.  6),  as  Hengstenberg  and  Von 
Gerlach  think  ;  it  is  much  more  likely  that  the 
prophet  took  occasion  from  the  king's  name,  with 
which  his  character  did  not  at  all  correspond,  to 
promise  that  one  should  come  to  whom  alone  this 
name  might  justly  be  applied. — Nebuchadnezzar 
showed  himself  merciful  in  that  he  put  another 
member  of  the  native  dynasty  on  the  throne,  and 
did  not  appoint  a  stranger  and  foreigner  as  vice- 
roy. 

Ver.  18.  Zedekiah  was  twenty  and  one 
years  old.  Of  the  passage  from  this  verse  on  to 
the  end  of  the  book,  Jerem.  Iii.  1-34  is  a  duplicate, 
almost  word  for  word.  The  only  differences  are 
that  Jerem.  lacks  2  Kings  xxv.  22-26,  and  2  Kings 
lacks  Jerem.  Iii.  28-30.  It  follows  that  neither  one 
is  borrowed  from  the  other.  Moreover  there  are 
also  a  few  other  slight  differences,  as,  for  instance, 
2  Kings  xxv.  16,  17  compared  with  Jerem.  Iii.  20- 
23.  It  is  certain  that  the  fifty-second  chapter  of 
Jeremiah  is  an  appendix  to  the  discourses  of  that 
prophet,  and  that  it  does  not  come  from  his  hand, 
for  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  have  survived 
the  liberation  of  Jehoiachin  (ver.  31).  (See  the 
Introd.  §  1 )  Although  it  is  not  true  that  the  text 
in  Kings  is  "  thoroughly  corrupt "  (Hitzig),  yet  that 
in  Jerem.  is,  on  the  whole,  to  be  preferred,  and  is 
therefore  the  more  original.  On  the  other  hand, 
that  of  Kings  has  some  peculiar  excellences,  as,  for 
instance,  xxv.  6,  7,  11,  17  compared  with  Jerem.  Iii. 
9,  10,  15,  20.  We  are  driven  to  a  conclusion  simi- 
lar to  that  which  we  reached  in  regard  to  the  his- 
tory of  Hezekiah  (see  p.  201),  and  which  is  adopted 
also  by  Keil  and  Thenius,  that  both  narratives 
were  borrowed  from  one  source  which  is  now  lost. 
— The  mother  of  Zedekiah  was  also,  according  to 
chap,  xxiii.  31,  the  mother  of  Jehoahaz;  he  was, 
therefore,  the  full  brother  of  the  latter,  and  the 
step-brother  of  Jehoiakim  (xxiii.  36).  On  ver.  20 
see  notes  on  xxiv.  3.  The  author  means  to  say 
tt-at,  as  this  king  and  the  people  persisted  in  their 
evil  ways,  the  judgment  which  had  long  been 
threatened  was  executed  in  this  reign.  The  special 
occasion  of  it  was  his  revolt  from  Nebuchadnezzar 
who  had  put  him  upon  the  throne,  and,  according 
to  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  13  and  Ezek.  xvii.  13,  had  taken 


an  oath  of  fidelity  from  him.  The  year  of  this  re 
volt  cannot  be  accurately  determined.  At  th» 
commencement  of  his  reign  he  sent  an  embassy  to 
Babylon,  as  it  seems,  in  order  to  bring  about  the 
release  of  the  captives  who  had  been  carried  away 
under  Jehoiachin  (Jerem.  xxix.  3  sq.).  In  his  fourth 
year  he  himself  went  thither  with  Seraiah,  proba- 
bly with  the  same  intention,  but  in  vain  (Jerem.  li. 
59).  Then  came  ambassadors  from  the  neighboring 
peoples  who  wanted  to  unite  with  Zedekiali  in  a 
common  effort  to  cast  off  the  Babylonian  yoke 
(Jerem.  xxvii.  3).  False  prophets  encouraged  him 
to  agree  to  this  (Jerem.  xxviii.i.  This  led  him  to 
send  to  Egypt  "  that  they  might  give  him  horses 
and  much  people  "  (Ezek.  xvii.  15).  As  the  Chal- 
dean army  was  before  Jerusalem  in  Zedekiah's 
ninth  year,  the  revolt  must  have  taken  place,  at 
the  latest,  in  his  eighth  year,  but  it  probably  took 
place  in  his  seventh,  or  perhaps  even  earlier. 

Chap.  xxv.  1.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
ninth  year,  &c.  These  dates  can  be  given  thus 
accurately  to  the  month  and  the  day,  because  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  during  the  exile  to  fast  on 
the  anniversary  of  these  days  of  disaster  (Zach.  vii. 
3,  5 ;  viii.  19).  It  is  evident  from  ver.  6  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar did  not  come  to  Jerusalem  himself,  but 
remained  at  Riblah  (chap,  xxiii.  33),  and  sent  his 
army  from  thence  against  Jerusalem.  According 
to  Jerem.  xxxiv.  7  they  also  besieged  Lachish  and 
Azekah,  the  only  two  strongholds  remaining.  The 
word  p'l  cannot  mean  a  "  wall "  (De  Wette),  for  it 

stands  in  contrast  with  rppb  as  something  differ- 
ent (Ezek  iv.  2  ;  xvii.  17  ;  xxi.  27).  It  is  ordinari- 
ly derived  from  piR  speculari,  to  observe,  to  watch, 
and  is  understood  to  mean  a  "  watch-tower,"  or, 
collectively,  "  watch-towers  "  (Havernick  on  Ezek. 

iv.  2 ;  Gesenius,  Keil),  but  3'3D ,  which  does  not 

refer  to  observation  but  to  an  encircling  on  all 
sides,  does  not  fit  this  meaning.  The  Sept.  trans- 
late it  in  Ezek.  iv.  2,  by  —noua%uv,  a  bulwark,  a 
rampart,  in  Ezek.  xvii.  17  ;  xxi.  27  by  fteMoraoic, 
a  mw:hine  for  throwing  missiles,  and  this  place  thev 
translate :  weonjKodo/jvoev  fir"  airrt/v  relxoc  Ki'/c/lw ;  the 
Vulg.  has  munitiones.  Hitzig  understands  by  it 
"lines  of  eircumvallation,"  and  Thenius  "the outer- 
most of  the  siege  lines,  built  only  of  palisades,  and 
intended  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  supplies," 
&c,  but  this  last  cannot  be  so  accurately  determin- 
ed. We  must,  therefore,  content  ourselves  with 
the  less  definite  meaning,  "  bulwark,"  or,  "  siege- 
work."  Vatablus :  Machinam  bellicam,  qualisqualis 
fuerit. — Ver.  2.  Unto  the  eleventh  year,  &c. 
The  siege  lasted  in  all  one  year  five  months  and 
twenty-seven  days,  for  the  city  was  very  strongly 
fortified  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  5 ;  xxxiii.  14).  This  is 
conclusive  against  the  assumption  that  a  capture 
of  the  city  is  implied  in  xxiv.  1  sq.  According  to 
Jerem.  xxxvii.  5,  11,  the  besieging  army,  or  at  least 
a  part  of  it,  raised  the  siege  and  marched  against 
the  Egyptian  army  which  was  coming  to  the  help 
of  the  Jews.  It  would  thus  appear  that  the  siege 
was  interrupted  for  a  time. — Jeremiah  gives  the 
date  in  ver.  3  more  accurately  (see  Jerem.  xxxix. 
2,  and  Iii.  6):   "In  the  fourth  month,  on  the  ninth 

[day]  of  the  month."  The  first  words  <JP3-|fl  BHrQ 

have  been  omitted  by  some  accident  in  the  version 
in  Kings,  and  they  must  be  supplied.  How  severs 
the  famine  was,  and  what  horrors  came  to  pass  aft 


2S4 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


a  consequence  of  it,  may  be  seen  from  Lament,  ii. 
11,  12,  19;  iv.  3-10  (Ezek.  v.  10;  Baruch  ii.  3). 
See  also  Jerem.  xxxvii.  21.  The  famine  did  not 
begin  on  the  ninth  of  the  fourth  month,  but  bad 
become  so  severe  at  that  time  that  the  people  were 
no  longer  capable  of  making  a  strong  resistance ; 
bo  on  that  day  the  enemy  was  able  to  storm  the  city. 
Ter.  4.  And  a  breach  was  made  in  the  city. 
This  breach  was  on  the  north  side,  for,  according 
to  Jerem.  xxxix.  3,  the  leaders  of  the  Chaldean 
army,  when  they  came  in,  halted  and  seated  them- 
selves in  "  the  middle  gate,"  that  is,  in  the  gate 
which  was  in  the  wall  between  the  upper,  southern 
city  (Ziou),  and  the  lower  northern  city,  and  which 
led  from  one  of  these  into  the  other.  "When  the 
king  learned  of  this  he  took  to  flight  with  his  war- 
riors by  night.  In  the  text  before  us  not  only  is 
"Zedekiah,  king  of  Judah "  (Jerem.  xxxix.  4) 
omitted  after  Tyn  ,  but  also  the  predicate  1IT1T 
^SV'l  (Jerem.  xxxix.  4;  Hi.  7)  is  omitted  after  "men 

of  war."  AH  the  old  versions  supply  at  least  one 
of  these  words.  They  fled  towards  the  south,  be- 
cause the  enemy  had  penetrated  by  the  north  side, 
and  there  was  no  hope  of  escaping  that  way,  but 
even  on  this  side  they  had  to  fight  their  way 
through,  for  the  Chaldeans  had  invested  the  entire 
city  (T3D).     The  attempt  derived  its  only  hope  of 

success  from  the  darkness,  and  from  the  greater 
weakness  of  the  besieging  force  on  the  south  side. 
—By  the  way  of  the  gate  between,  &c.  This 
gate,  called  the  gate  of  the  fountain  (Nehem.  iii. 
15),  was  at  the  southern  end  of  the  ravine  between 
Ophel  and  Zion,  the  Tyropoion.  At  this  point,  in- 
asmuch as  it  was  the  site  of  the  pool  of  Siloam  and 
there  were  cisterns  to  be  protected,  and  inasmuch 
also  as  the  formation  of  the  ground  made  it  a  con- 
venient place  for  the  enemy  to  attack  (Thenius), 
two  walls  had  been  built,  between  which  was  this 
gate  (Sept. :  ddbv  ivvknc  T>/£  0"<>  fcaov  run  reyfSv, 
and  in  Jerem.  Hi.  7  :  ava  fiiaov  tov  reixovc  mi  rov 
TrpoTecxivfiaTos).  This  double  wall  is  also  mention- 
ed in  Isai.  xxii.  11.  The  way  of  the  gate  is  the 
way  through  that  gate  out  of  the  city.  It  is  not 
quite  certain  whether  the  king's  garden  was  inside 
or  outside  of  this  double  wall;  Thenius  assumes 
that  it  was  outside  (see  Map  of  Jerusalem  Before 
the  Exile,  appended  to  his  commentary).  It  is 
said  in  Ezek.  xii.  12:  "The  prince  .  .  .  shall  bear 
upon  his  shoulder  in  the  twilight,  and  shall  go 
forth ;  they  shall  dig  through  the  waU  fl'jH)  to 

carry  [him]  out  thereby."  Here  -pg  cannot  be  un- 
derstood to  refer  to  either  of  those  walls,  for  he 
went  through  the  gate ;  moreover  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  break  through  such  a  wall  in 
the  night.  We  must  therefore  understand  it  of 
that  wall  which  the  enemy  had  built  aH  around  the 
city  (ver.  1),  and  which  it  was  necessary  to  break 
through.  The  fugitives  then  took  the  way  to  the 
plain  (naiyn),  that  is,  to  the  plains  or  meadows 

through  which  the  Jordan  flows,  and  which  were 
called  the  plain  (Josh.  xi.  2  ;  xii.  3  ;  2  Sam.  ii.  29  ; 
iv.  7).  Their  intention  was  to  cross  the  Jordan 
and  escape,  but  they  were  overtaken  near  Jericho, 
iii  hours'  journey  from  Jerusalem. 

"Ver.  6.  So  they  took  the  king,  4c.  On  Rillah 
lee  notes  on  chap,  xxiii.  33.  "  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  not  present  at  the  storming  of  Jerusalem 
(Jerem.  xxxix.' 3),  he   awaited  the   result  in   his 


camp "  (Thenius).     Instead  of  the  plurals   snail 

and   iDnti'  in  ver.  7,  we  find  in  Jerem.  xxxix.  S 

and  Hi.  9  the  singular  with  Nebuchadnezzar  as  the 
subject.  Although  the  latter  may  be  the  more 
original  reading,  the  sense  is  the  same  in  either 
case,  for  Nebuchadnezzar  certainly  did  not  put 
Zedekiah's  sons  to  death  with  his  own  hand ;  he 
appointed  a  tribunal  which  judged  and  executed 

them.  Instead  of  the  singular  tDSC'D  Jeremiah 
has,  in  the  places  quoted  and  elsewhere,  the  plural, 
D'tDQC'D  •  "With  13T  it  means,  to  deal  with  and  de- 
cide a  question  of  law.  This  trial  cannot  have  occu- 
pied much  time,  for  it  was  a  matter  of  common 
notoriety  that  Zedekiah  had  broken  his  oath  of  al- 
legiance and  revolted.  The  sons  of  Zedekiah,  not 
all  his  children,  had  fled  with  him.  They  also 
were  regarded  as  rebels  and  put  to  death,  in  order 
to  put  an  end  to  the  dynasty.  His  daughters  were 
taken  away  as  captives  according  to  Jerem.  xii.  20. 
As  for  Zedekiah  himself,  he  was  to  suffer  a  painful 
punishment  as  long  as  he  lived.  His  eyes  were 
put  out.  This  form  of  punishment  was  used  by 
the  Chaldeans  and  ancient  Persians  (Herod,  vii. 
18).  Princes  are  still  disabled  in  this  way  in  Per- 
sia when  it  is  desired  to  deprive  them  of  any  pros- 
pect of  the  throne.  "  A  rod  of  silver  (or  of  brass), 
heated  glowing  hot,  is  passed  over  the  open  eye  " 
(Winer,  R.-  W.-B.  II.  s.  15).  The  Vulg.  has  oculos 
ejus  effodit,  and  on  Jerem.  Hi.  11:  oculos  eruii.  It 
was  also  a  customary  mode  of  punishment  in  the 
Orient  to  pierce  out  the  eyes  (Ctes.  Pers.  5).  "  Plate 
No.  18  in  Botta  (ifonum.  de  Nin.)  represents  a  king 
who  is  in  the  act  of  piercing  out  with  a  lance  the 
eyes  of  a  captive  of  no  ordinary  rank  who  kneels 
before  him  "  (Thenius).  See  Cassel  on  Judges  xvi. 
21.  However  the  act  of  piercing  out  the  eyes  is 
not  generally  expressed  by  "ny,   but  by  ~if5J , 

Judges  xvi.  21 ;  1  Sam.  xi.  2  ;  Numb.  xvi.  14.— 
With  fetters  of  brass,  and  double  fetters  at  that, 

D'PIKTIJ  •     He  was  doubly  fettered  hand  and  foot, 

and  brought  to  Babylon.  In  Jerem.  Hi.  11  the 
words  follow :  "  And  put  him  in  prison  till  the  day 
of  his  death."  The  Sept.  have :  fir  o'miav  fiiihjvoc, 
evidently  having  in  mind  Judges  xvi.  21.  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  may  have  thought 
that  this  statement  was  unnecessary,  since  every 
person  who  was  in  chains  was  put  in  the  prison  as 
a  matter  of  course.  According  to  Jerem.  xxxix. 
6,  and  Hi.  10,  "  All  the  nobles  of  Judah  "  were  put 
to  death  with  the  sons  of  Zedekiah,  that  is,  those 
who  had  fled  with  him.  There  is  no  reason  to  re- 
gard this  as  a  false  feature  of  the  story  borrowed 
from  2  Kings  xxv.  21,  as  Thenius  does. 

[Supplementary  Note  on  contemporaneous  hu- 
tory.  In  the  note  on  p.  247  we  brought  our  notice 
of  contemporaneous  history  down  to  the  year  640, 
the  year  in  which  Josiah  ascended  the  throne.  The 
commotion  of  the  next  sixty  years,  during  which 
Assyria  ceased  to  be  a  nation,  Egypt  was  humbled, 
and  (he  Median  and  Babylonian  empires  advanced 
to  the  first  place,  amounted  to  an  historical  cata 
clysm.  In  the  Bible  we  have  references  to  these 
movements  only  when,  and  in  so  far  as,  they  af- 
fected the  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  people.  This 
they  did  in  the  most  important  manner,  and.  in 


CHAPTER  XXIU.  31.-XXV.  7. 


2S5 


order  to  understand  the  influence  of  the  neighbor- 
ing nations  on  Judah  at  this  time,  it  is  necessary 
to  have  a  comprehensive,  if  not  exhaustive,  knowl- 
edge of  the  historical  movements  which  were  in 
progress  in  Asia. 

It  should  be  distinctly  understood  that  the  his- 
tory of  the  period  now  before  us  is  very  obscure. 
We  have  no  historical  inscriptions  to  guide  us,  and 
are  thrown  upon  the  authority  of  literary  remains 
which  are  imperfect  and  inconsistent.  Our  chief 
authorities,  Rawlinson  and  Lenormant  (Sir  H.  Raw- 
linson  and  Oppert)  differ  very  materially.  It  is 
therefore  to  be  understood  that  what  is  here  given 
is  only  conjectural  and  provisional. 

The  great  question  in  dispute,  on  which  the 
adjustment  of  the  fragments  of  information  which 
we  possess  into  a  smooth  narrative  depends,  is  as 
to  the  year  in  which  Nineveh  was  taken,  whether 
it  was  in  625  (Rawlinson),  or  in  606  (Lenormant). 
The  weight  of  authority  is  in  favor  of  the  latter, 
though  it  is  open  to  serious  historical  objections. 
It  is.  at  present,  impossible  to  bring  this  question 
to  a  final  decision. 

In  640  Asshur-edil-ilani  (L.),  or,  Asshur-emid- 
ilin  (R.)  was  on  the  throne  of  Assyria.  His  reign 
ended  about  626-5.  Rawlinson,  putting  the  fall 
of  Nineveh  at  this  date,  identifies  this  king  with  the 
Saracus,  or  Assaracus,  of  Abydenus.  Lenormant, 
putting  the  fall  of  Nineveh  in  606,  supposes  that 
Saracus  was  another  and  the  last  king,  who  reigned 
from  625  to  606.  The  last  king  was  far  inferior  to 
his  ancestors.  Under  him  the  empire  was  unable 
to  meet  the  attacks  which  fell  upon  it. 

The  Medes,  whose  first  attack  on  Assyria,  under 
Phraortes,  we  mentioned  above  (p.  247),  were  a 
hardy  mountain  people  who  now  arose  into  pro- 
minence. Cyaxares,  the  successor  of  Phraortes, 
made  elaborate  preparations  to  renew  the  attempts 
at  conquest  towards  the  west.  He  was  ready  for 
the  attack  (Rawl.),  or  made  it  (Lenor.),  either  alone 
(R.)  or  in  conjunction  with  the  Chaldeans,  under 
Nabopolassar  (L.),  either  in  634  (R.)  or  in  625  (L.). 
This  attack  was  interrupted  by  the  appearance  of 
new  a'ctors  on  the  scene.  A  horde  of  barbarians 
from  the  north,  Scythia,  poured  down  upon  the 
nations  in  the  Euphrates  valley.  They  were  of  the 
same  origin  as  the  Goths,  Huns,  Avari,  and  Van- 
dals, who  appeared  in  Europe  early  in  the  Christian 
era,  and  their  behavior,  whithersoever  they  came, 
was  the  same  as  that  of  the  barbarians  who  entered 
Europe.  They  poured  over  Media,  Assyria,  and 
Babylonia,  and  spread  westward  into  Syria  and 
Palestine.  On  the  borders  of  Egypt  they  found 
Psammetichus  besieging  Ashdod.  He  persuaded 
them  by  gifts  to  turn  back,  and  thus  cheeked  their 
advance  in  this  direction.  Herodotus  says  that 
their  sway  lasted  for  nineteen  years.  It  is  difficult 
to  tell  what  this  means,  for  in  some  countries,  Media 
for  instance,  the  natives  overcame  them  sooner  than 
in  others.  They  were  not  able  to  found  any  per- 
manent authority  in  any  country.  They  perished 
by  luxury  and  vice,  were  slain,  or  employed  as 
mercenaries.  Jeremiah  refers  to  them  in  chap.  vi. 
22  sq.\  viii.  16;  ix.  10;  v.  15,  and,  in  the  50th 
chap.,  where  he  foretells  the  destruction  of  Baby- 
lon, the  Scythian  invasion  furnishes  the  colors  of 
the  picture  in  which  he  describes  it.  Rawlinson 
puts  their  invasion  in  632 ;  Lenormant  in  625. 
Rawlinson  supposes,  that  after  the  Scythian  inva- 
sion had  subsided,  tho  Medes  renewed  the  attack 
on  Nineveh,  aud  secured  the  alliance  of  Nabopo- 


lassar, in  625,  when  Nineveh  was  taken  and  de 
stroyed. 

In  610  Psammetichus  died,  and  Necho  sue 
ceeded  on  the  throne  of  Egypt.  Necho  reigned 
from  610  to  595.  He  was  young  and  ambitious, 
and  he  planned  an  expedition  into  Asia,  no  doubt, 
if  Assyria  had  already  fallen,  with  the  intention  of 
winning  the  western  provinces  for  himself.  H» 
marched  through  Philistia  and  Samaria.  He:c  Jo- 
siah  of  Judah  marched  out  to  meet  him  (chap,  xxiii. 
29).  We  do  not  need  to  seek  far  for  a  reason  for 
Josiah's  action.  It  may  have  been  inspired,  as  is 
generally  supposed,  by  a  desire  to  manifest  fidelity 
to  his  suzerain,  Babylon  (R.),  but  it  is  a  more  sim- 
ple explanation  to  notice  that,  under  the  existing 
weakness  of  Assyria,  Josiah  had  been  able  to  ex- 
ercise sovereignty  over  some  portion  of  Samaria 
(chap,  xxiii.  15  sq.).  If  the  Babylonians  were  al- 
ready the  supreme  power,  they  had  not  interfered 
with  this.  If  Egypt  conquered  Samaria,  it  was  at 
an  end.  Josiah,  therefore,  had  a  very  natural  and 
simple  interest  in  opposing  the  Egyptian  invasion. 
If  Necho  intended  at  this  time  to  measure  his 
strength  with  the  Babylonians,  he  certainly  desisted 
from  that  project.  The  words  in  2  Chron.  xxxv. 
21  throw  no  light  on  the  party  he  intended  to  at- 
tack. There  is  ground  here  for  believing  that  Nin- 
eveh had  not  yet  fallen,  and  that  the  Babylonians 
had  not  yet  displayed  their  power.  Necho  saw  in 
the  feebleness  of  Assyria  an  opportunity  to  conquer 
its  western  provinces,  and  the  force  which  he  had 
was  probably  only  such  an  one  as  he  considered 
necessary  for  this  purpose.  Josiah  was  not,  there- 
fore, as  rash  as  we  might  at  first  suppose  (cf. 
Ewald  III.  762 — 3d  ed.  He  seems  to  think,  how- 
ever, that  Necho  may  have  taken  Carchemish  at 
this  time.  cf.  ss.  782—3).  However,  the  Jewish  king 
was  killed  in  the  battle,  and  his  second  son  Jeho- 
ahaz  was  made  king.  Necho  pursued  his  course 
of  conquest  with  success  for  three  months.  On 
his  return,  he  regarded  Judah  also,  by  virtue  of  his 
victory  at  Megiddo,  as  a  conquered  province,  al- 
though he  had  declared  at  the  outset  that  he  had 
no  hostile  design  against  that  country  (2  Chron. 
xxxv.  21).  He  refused  to  ratify  the  election  of 
Jehoahaz,  but  took  him  (probably  sent  a  detach- 
ment to  bring  him)  from  Jerusalem  to  the  camp  at 
Riblah  (chap,  xxiii.  33),  where  he  put  him  in  chains, 
and  carried  him  captive  to  Egypt.  He  made  Judah 
tributary.  Jeremiah  (xxii.  10)  calls  Jehoahaz  more 
worthy  of  pity  in  his  captivity  than  his  father  in  his 
death,  and  Ewald,  with  good  reason,  interprets  the 
parable  (Ezek.  xix.,  especially  vers.  2-4)  of  Jehoia- 
kim.  Necho  put  the  elder  brother  Eliakim  on  the 
throne,  changing  his  name  to  Jehoiakim  (chap, 
xxiii.  34).  This  was  in  609  or  608.  Necho  at  this 
time  took  Gaza  (Jerem.  xlvii.  1),  and  remained 
sovereign  over  the  western  provinces  for  two  or 
three  years. 

We  come  now  to  the  year  606  in  which  Nineveh 
was  taken  according  to  Oppert,  Lenormant,  Ewald, 
aud  others.  The  historical  features  of  this  event, 
aside  from  the  question  of  its  date,  are  as  follows. 
The  king  of  Assyria  sent  to  Babylon,  as  satrap,  a 
general  named  Nabopolassar  (Nebo-protects-my- 
son),  probably  an  Assyrian.  It  is  certain  that, 
when  the  final  attack  was  made,  it  was  twofold, 
both  from  Media  and  from  the  south.  Nabopo- 
lassar and  Cyaxares  formed  an  alliance  which  was 
cemented  by  the  marriage  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  sod 
of  Nabopolassar,  with  Amyitis,  daughter  of  Cyax 


2S6 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


ares.  Rawlinson's  idea  is  that  Nabopolassar  was 
charged  with  the  defence  against  the  attack  from 
the  south,  but  turned  traitor.  This  supposition  is 
necessary  since  lie  does  not  think  that  the  Chal- 
deans participated  in  the  first  attack.  Lenormant 
supposes  that  Nabopolassar  was  sent  to  Babylon 
as  satrap,  that  he  matured  plans  of  revolt,  that  he 
joined  in  the  first  attack,  and  that  he  employed  the 
interval  of  nineteen  years  in  establishing  his  inde- 
pendence. He  also  thinks  that  Nabopolassar  was, 
in  607,  an  old  and  broken  man,  that  he  associated 
his  son  Nebuchadnezzar  with  himself  on  the  throne 
in  that  year,  and  that,  therefore,  the  capture  of 
Nineveh  is  really  to  be  reckoned  among  the  ex- 
ploits of  that  prince.  He  supposes  that  certain 
chronological  discrepancies  are  to  be  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  Nebuchadnezzar  became  joint  ruler 
in  607,  so  that  two  starting-points  for  his  reign 
were  confused.  (See  chap.  xxv.  8,  and  Jerem.  lii. 
28-30.)  The  attack  of  the  confederated  Medes  and 
Chaldeans  was  successful,  and  Saracus  perished 
with  his  court  and  treasures  in  the  downfall  of  the 
city. 

Nebuchadnezzar  now  becomes  the  chief  figure 
in  the  drama.  He  was  a  prince  of  extraordinary 
talents  and  energy,  and  he  consolidated,  if  we  may 
not  say  that  he  actually  established,  the  Babylo- 
nian monarchy.  Having  destroyed  Nineveh,  his 
next  task  was  to  recover  that  portion  of  his  new 
conquest  which  the  Egyptians  had  held  in  posses- 
sion for  two  or  three  years.  In  605,  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim  (Jerem.  xlvi.  2),  he  met  Necho, 
who  came  out  to  defend  his  possessions,  at  Car- 
chemish,  on  the  Euphrates,  and  totally  defeated 
him.  He  pursued  the  Egyptians  to  the  border  of 
Egypt  (chap.  xxiv.  7),  and  no  doubt  intended  to 
push  on  into  that  country,  when  news  came  to  him 
(604)  that  his  father  was  dead.  He  hastened  to 
Babylon  with  a  small  escort  through  the  nearer, 
but  more  dangerous,  way  of  the  desert.  He  met 
with  no  opposition  in  ascending  the  throne,  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  of  Judah  (Jerem.  xxv.  1). 

In  the  haste  of  these  movements,  Judah  had  re- 
mained secure  in  its  mountains.  Nebuchadnezzar's 
army  marched  to  Egypt  in  two  columns,  one  through 
Philistia  and  one  through  Perea  (Lenormant).  But 
Nebuchadnezzar  soon  returned  to  Palestine  and 
Phoenicia  to  complete  the  work  of  conquest.  In  602 
or  601  he  made  Jehoiakim  tributary  (chap.  xxiv.  1) 
and  took  away  certain  hostages  or  captives.  In 
599  or  598  Jehoiakim  planned  a  revolt  (chap.  xxiv. 
1),  relying  on  help  from  Egypt.  Rawlinson  thinks 
that  the  embassy  mentioned  in  Jer.  xxvi.  22  had 
for  its  object  to  form  this  alliance,  and  that  the 
matter  of  Urijah  was  only  a  pretext.  Nebuchad- 
nezzar first  incited  the  neighboring  nations  against 
him  (chap.  xxiv.  2),  and  then  himself  marched  into 
Judah.  Jehoiakim  died  at  this  time,  and  Jehoi- 
achin,  his  son,  succeeded  (chap.  xxiv.  8).  He  was 
not  able  to  resist  the  Chaldeans,  and  surrendered 
at  discretion  (chap.  xxiv.  12).  He  was  taken  away 
prisoner,  with  10,000  other  captives  (chap.  xxiv.  13 
•nd  14),  the  most  energetic  and  independent  por- 
ion  of  the  people.  The  city  and  temple  were 
plundered,  and  Mattauiah,  the  youngest  son  of  Jo- 
Siah,  was  put  upon  the  throne  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
under  the  name  of  Zedekiah  (xxiv.  17). 

Lenormant  justly  says  of  Zedekiah  that  he  was 
only  a  Babylonian  satrap.  A  strong  party  urged 
linn  continually  to  revolt,  but  Jeremiah  counselled 
patience  and  submission.     In  595  the  nrinces  of 


the  neighboring  countries  met  at  Jerusalem  (Jerem. 
xxvii.  3)  to  plan  a  concerted  revolt,  but  Zedekiah 
was  persuaded  by  Jeremiah  to  renounce  this  plan 
(Jerem.  xxvii.).  He  went  to  Babylon  (in  his  fourth 
year,  594)  to  counteract  suspicions  of  his  fidelity 
which  had  been  aroused  (Jer.  li.  59).  However 
he  again  cherished  similar  plans,  and  entered  ink 
negotiations  with  Uaprahet  (Uaphris,  Apries, 
Hophra)  of  Egypt.  The  Chaldeans  again  invaded 
Judah  in  590.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  began  early 
in  January,  589  (Lenorm.).  During  this  siege  the 
serfs  were  manumitted,  that  they  might  help  in  the 
defence  (Jerem.  xxxiv.).  The  Egyptians  advanced 
to  the  relief  of  Jerusalem,  the  Chaldeans  turned  to 
meet  the  attack,  and  the  hopes  of  the  Jews  revived 
so  far  that  the  freedmen  were  once  more  enslaved. 
This  diversion,  however,  produced  no  effect.  It  is 
uncertain  whether  a  battle  was  really  fought  and 
lost  by  the  Egyptians  (Josephus,  Antiq.  X.  vii.  3), 
or  whether  they  retreated  without  fighting  at  all. 
In  5S8  a  breach  was  made  and  the  Chaldeans  en- 
tered the  city  (xxv.  3  and  4).  Zedekiah  fled  (xxv. 
4),  hoping  to  break  through  the  investing  lines,  hut 
he  was  captured  and  taken  to  Riblah  (xxv.  6), 
where  Nebuchadnezzar  was  encamped.  His  sons 
were  slain  before  his  eyes.  He  was  then  blinded 
and  taken  captive  to  Babylon.  One  month  later 
(xxv.  8,  cf.  xxv.  3)  Nebuzaradan  was  deputed 
to  carry  out  the  systematic  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  deportation  of  the  most  influential 
of  its  population.  This  he  did  thoroughly,  though 
not  without  some  slight  leniency  (chap.  xxv.  12- 
22).  However,  the  fanaticism  of  Ishmael  and  his 
party  destroyed  the  last  hope  of  maintaining  the 
Jewish  nationality,  even  in  the  pitiful  form  in  which 
the  Chaldeans  had  yet  spared  it  (xxv.  25).  The 
history  of  Judah,  from  this  time  on,  is  merged  in 
that  of  the  great  world-monarchies. — W.  G-.  S.j 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

*  1.  The  author  treats  very  curtly  the  history  of 
the  last  four  kings  of  Judah.  In  Chronicles  we  find  a 
still  more  abbreviated  account.  He  passes  hastily 
over  this  part  of  the  history  of  Judah,  just  as  he 
did  over  the  similar  part  of  the  history  of  Israel 
(see  p.  162  sq.),  for  it  is  the  twenty-three  years  of 
the  "  death-agony  of  the  nation"  (Ewald).  Josiah 
was  the  las"t  genuine  theocratic  king.  With  his 
death  begins  the  end  of  the  kingdom ;  the  history 
of  his  four  successors,  three  of  whom  were  his  sons 
and  one  his  grandson,  is  nothing  more  than  the 
*  [Genealogical  Table  of  the  Last  Kings  of  Judab 


Pedaiah 


Jeremiah 


Zebudah  =  Josiah  (*  )=  Hamutal 


Eliakim,  or  Jkhoahaz(*),  or    Mattaniah,  or 

Nehusta=  Jehoiakim  (3)     Bhallum  Zedekiah  (•) 


Jehoiachin  (<)  or 
Jeconiah,  or 
Contah 


/Assir  Shealtiel,  or 

\  Salathiel 

Sovereigns  in  small  capitals.    The  numbers  desigiuu 
the  order  of  succession  on  the  throne  -  W.  G.  S.1 


CHAPTER  XXIII.  31, -XXV.  7. 


28 


Story  of  this  end.  The  author  tells  no  more  in  re- 
gard to  them  than  appears  to  him  from  his  theo- 
cratic and  pragmatic  standpoint  to  be  absolutely 
necessary.  So  he  tells  first  what  the  attitude  of 
each  was  towards  Jehovah,  that  is,  toward  the  co- 
venant or  the  Mosaic  law,  and  then  so  much  of 
their  history  as  pertains  to  the  downfall  of  the 
kingdom,  which  was  approaching  step  by  step.  "We 
therefore  learn  rather  what  happened  to  them  ac- 
cording to  the  counsel  of  God  than  what  they  them- 
selves did.  Essential  additions  to  the  history  are 
contributed  by  Jeremiah,  especially  by  the  histor- 
ical portions,  but  also  by  the  prophetical  discourses, 
though  it  is  not  always  easy  to  determine  which 
reign  these  latter  belong  to,  nor  what  events  they 
refer  to.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  this  great 
prophet,  who  certainly  was  an  important  personage 
during  these  last  four  reigns,  and  who  is  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  individuals  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  not  mentioned  or  referred  to  at  all  in 
the  historical  book,  perhaps  for  the  reason  that  the 
acquaintance  of  the  readers  with  the  book  of  the 
prophet  is  taken  for  granted.  [This  is  one  reason 
for  thinking  that  Jeremiah  himself  wrote  the  Books 
of  Kings.     See  Introd.  §  1.— W.  a.  S.] 

2.  The  reign  of  king  Jehoahaz,  although  it  only 
lasted  for  three  months,  had  important  influence 
on  the  course  of  the  history,  inasmuch  as  it  broke 
with  Josiah's  theocratic  regime,  and  introduced  an- 
other policy  which  hastened  on  the  downfall  of 
the  kingdom.  All  that  Josiah  had  built  up  with 
such  anxious  care  and  labor  fell  in  ruins  in  a  few 
months.  Although  the  Jehovah-worship  was  not 
formally  abrogated  again,  yet  the  door  was  opened 
for  all  manner  of  heathen  falsehood  and  corruption 
to  re-enter,  and  no  one  of  the  following  kings 
abandoned  the  new  policy  which  was  thus  inaugu- 
rated. This  is  the  heavy  guilt  which  rests  upon 
Jehoahaz.  How  he  came  to  adopt  this  course  we 
can  only  guess,  since  we  have  no  explanation  of  it 
offered  in  the  Scriptures.  The  notion  of  some  of 
the  old  expositors,  that  he  was  seduced  by  his 
mother,  is  entirely  without  foundation,  and  is  es- 
pecially improbable  as  she  came  from  the  ancient 
priest-city  Libnah,  and  so  cannot  certainly  have 
been  bred  to  idolatry.  It  is  much  more  probable 
that  the  heathen-party,  to  which  many  persons  of 
rank  and  influence  belonged,  but  which  had  been 
repressed  under  Josiah,  arose  once  more  after  his 
death,  and  sought  to  regain  its  power.  He  either 
brought  them  over  to  his  side  or  sought  to  win 
them  by  concessions.  It  does  indeed  seem  proba- 
ble, from  the  course  which  Necho  adopted  towards 
him,  that  "  he  continued  to  be  hostile  to  Egypt " 
(Ewald),  but  the  text  nowhere  states  that  "  he 
resisted  unworthy  proposals  of  the  Egyptian  king." 
Niemeyer  (Character  der  Bibel  V.  s.  105)  says  of 
aim  :  "  When  compared  with  his  elder  brothers  and 
successors,  he  seems  to  have  been  superior  to 
tli  am  in  many  respects.  One  passage  in  Jeremiah 
would  almost  lead  us  to  the  opinion  that  the  peo- 
ple longed  for  his  return  from  Egypt.''  TJmbreit 
also  remarks  on  Jerem.  xxii.  11  sq. :  "He  seems, 
during  his  reign  of  three  months,  to  have  made 
himself  very  much  beloved."  But  it  by  no  means 
follows,  because  the  people  passed  over  his  elder 
brothers  to  make  him  king,  that  he  was  in  any 
way  better  than  they,  for  he  certainly  did  not  ful- 
fil any  hopes  which  may  have  been  formed  in  re- 
gard to  him,  and  Josephus  (Antiq.  X.  v.  2),  who 
certainly  would  not  contradict  the  general  verdict 


in  regard  to  him  which  had  been  crystallized  in 
tradition,  calls  him  aaedr/c  not  fuaobc  rbv  tqoitov.  As 
for  the  text,  Jerem.  xxii.  10-12,  in  which  he  ia 
called  Shallum,  it  certainly  cannot  mean  that  Shal- 
lum  deserved  to  be  lamented  more  than  the  model 
king,  Josiah,  who  walked  in  the  way  of  his 
father  David,  and  turned  neither  to  the  right 
hand  nor  to  the  left,  whereas  Jehoahaz  followed  in 
the  ways  of  Ahaz,  Manasseh,  and  Amon  (chap. 
xxii.  2  ;  xxiii.  32).  The  prophet  there  threatens 
the  house  of  David  (ver.  1)  with  destruction,  be- 
cause it  has  abandoned  the  covenant  of  Jehovah 
(vers.  5-9).  He  says  that  one  king  has  already 
been  carried  away  captive  out  of  his  land, — the 
land  of  promise, — that  he  will  die  and  be  buried  in 
a  foreign  land  (a  great  calamity  and  disgrace,  ac- 
cording to  Israelitish  notions),  and  that  another 
will  be  cast  out  before  the  city  like  a  dead  animal 
and  find  no  burial  at  all.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
syllable  here  of  desire  and  longing  on  the  part  of 
the  people  for  the  return  of  Jehoahaz  as  one  who 
was  better  than  the  rest.  Why  should  the  people 
long  for  the  return  of  a  king  who  had  disappoint- 
ed all  their  hopes  and  expectations  ? 

3.  Josephus  says  (Antiq.  X.  v.  2)  of  king  Jehot- 
akim  :  Iriyxave  uv  tt/v  <pioiv  adiKoc  teal  Kanovoyoc^ 
kol  [litre  ttqoc  Qebv  bawc,  fiyre  Trgbc  ardgunovc  bntei- 
idjg.  The  correctness  of  this  criticism  appears  es- 
pecially from  the  passages  in  Jeremiah  which  serve 
as  supplements  to  the  historv  before  us,  Jerem. 
xxii.  13-19;  xxvi.  20-24;  xxxvi.  20-32.  The 
idol-worship  which  Jehoahaz  had  tolerated  onco 
more  grew  and  spread  with  great  rapidity  undei 
Jehoiakim.  All  the  abominations  which  had  ex- 
isted under  Manasseh  reappeared.  Ewald  and 
Vaihinger  infer  from  Ezek.  viii.  7-13  that  he  "ad- 
ded to  "  the  Asiatic  forms  of  idolatry  which  had 
existed  under  Manasseh,  "by  introducing  also  the 
Egyptian  cultus,"  but  the  reference  in  that  passage 
is  to  the  worship  of  Thammuz  (Adonis),  a  well- 
known  deity  of  Western  Asia,  the  chief  seat  oi 
whose  worship  was  the  ancient  Phoenician  city  of 
Byblus,  and  to  whose  cultus  belong  the  represen- 
tations of  worms  and  unclean  animals  on  the  wall? 
(ver.  10. — See  Havernick  on  Ezek.  s.  98  and  108). 
Moreover,  the  question  may  be  raised  whether  this 
cultus  was  introduced  under  Jehoiakim,  or  not  un- 
til the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  However  that  may  be, 
there  is  no  hint  of  any  Egyptian  cultus  under  Je- 
hoiakim, although  he  was  a  vassal  of  Egypt,  and 
in  fact  there  is  no  hint  at  all  of  any  Egyptian  forms 
of  idolatry  among  the  Hebrews.  Jehoiakim  was 
the  tool  of  the  heathen  party ;  he  not  only  did  not 
listen  to  the  prophets,  he  hated  and  persecuted 
them.  He  caused  the  prophet  TJrijah,  who  had  fled 
from  him  to  Egypt,  to  be  brought  back  from  thence, 
to  be  put  to  death,  and  then  his  corpse  to  be  shame- 
fully handled  (Jerem.  xxvi.  20-24).  Jeremiah 
barely  escaped  death  (Jerem.  xxxvi.  26).  2  Kings 
xxiv.  3  and  4  also  shows  that  Jehoiakim  shed 
much  innocent  blood.  He  had  also  a  passion  for 
building,  and  he  caused  expensh  e  structures  to  be 
erected  unjustly,  and  without  paying  wages  to  the 
laborers.  [Jerem.  xxii.  13  sq.]  He  exacted  the 
tribute  which  Necho  had  imposed  upon  him  from 
the  people  instead  of  using  the  royal  treasures  for 
this  purpose.  Even  after  the  resources  of  the 
country  were  exhausted  he  continued  his  exactions 
so  that  the  courageous  prophet  rebuked  iiim; 
"Thine  eyes  and  thine  heart  are  not  but  for  thy 
covetousness,  and  for  to  shed  innocent  blood,  and 


285 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


for  oppression,  and  for  violence  to  do  it "  (Jerem. 
xxii.  17).  Therefore  the  prophet  warns  him  that 
he  will  not  be  lamented  nor  buried,  but  that,  in 
Bpite  of  all  his  royal  grandeur  and  glory,  he  will 
be  dragged  forth  and  cast  upon  the  field  like  a 
dead  ass.  No  doubt  he  early  showed  what  sort  of 
a  disposition  he  had,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  the 
people,  after  Josiah's  death,  passed  him  over  and 
made  his  brother  king.  He  was  a  tyrant  who  was 
forced  upon  the  nation  by  a  victorious  enemy, 
through  whom  it  was  punished  for  its  apostasy. 
His  reign  formed  a  part  of  the  divine  judgment 
which  had  already  begun  to  fall. 

1.  King  Jehoiachin  is  placed  before  us  by  both 
the  historical  narratives  (2  Kings  xxiv.  9 ;  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  9)  as  just  like  the  three  other  kings  as  re- 
gards his  attitude  towards  Jehovah.  It  is  simply 
Mid  of  him  without  restriction :  "  He  did  that 
>vhich  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  like  to  all 
that  his  father  had  done."  The  only  thing  further 
which  is  related  in  regard  to  him  is  that,  when  the 
Babylonian  army  appeared  before  Jerusalem  to 
besiege  it,  he  went  out  and  surrendered  himself, 
begging  for  mercy.  Josephus  {Antiq.  X.  vii.  1)  re- 
gards this  as  a  praiseworthy  action.  He  says: 
6  Si-  <pvaet  XQVCT°S  &v  KaL  <5<woc  oi'K  i/^iov  rf/v  tt6?uv 
Kivdwebovaav  6C  avrov  irepiogfv'  that  the  king  had  a 
solemn  promise  from  the  generals  whom  Nebuchad- 
nezzar had  sent  that  no  harm  should  happen  to 
him  or  to  the  city,  but  that  this  promise  was  broken, 
for  Nebuchadnezzar  had  given  orders  that  all  who 
were  in  the  city  should  be  taken  captive  and 
brought  into  his  presence.  Niemeyer  also  says 
(Cltarart.  d.  B.  Y.  s,  107) :  "  Jehoiachin,  the  son  of 
Jehoiakim,  was  undeniably  a  better  king  than  his 
father.  He  does  that  which  wisdom  and  human- 
ity require  under  the  circumstances.  He  desists 
from  the  active  prosecution  of  a  revolt  which  could 
only  result  in  greater  cruelty  from  the  enemy,  and 
greater  exhaustion  of  the  land,  which  was  already 
thoroughly  worn  out.  He  must  have  been  regard- 
ed, even  in  his  captivity,  as  a  man  who  deserved 
great  respect  (Jerem.  Hi.  31)."  Similarly  Ewald  I 
(Gesch.  III.  s.  734)  says :  "  This  prince  was  obliged  ' 
to  yield,  in  religious  matters,  to  the  prevailing  de- 
pravity, but  he  did  not  lack  good  features  of  char- 
acter which  served  to  excite  good  hopes  of  him. 
There  was  a  greater  feeling  of  happiness  under 
him  than  under  his  father,  and  there  was  great 
lamentation  when  he  was  obliged,  at  an  early  age, 
to  go  into  captivity.  Probably  the  touching  psalms 
xlii.,  xliii.,  and  lxxxiv.  are  from  his  hand."  Tai- 
hinger  also  (Herzog,  Real-Encyc.  VI.  s.  787)  agrees 
with  this  general  opinion:  "Although  he  had  not 
reigned  in  the  spirit  of  the  Jehovah-religion,  yet 
there  continued  to  be  among  the  people  a  longing 
for  his  return.  The  false  prophets  especially 
nourished  this  hope  (Jerem.  xxviii.  4)."  These 
favorable  opinions,  however,  are  not  at  all  well 
founded.  From  his  sudden  surrender  of  the  city 
we  may  rather  infer  that  he  was  weak  and  coward- 
ly than  anything  else.  [It  should  be  noticed,  how- 
ever, that  this  is  just  what  Jeremiah  urged  Zede- 
ki:ih  to  do  afterwards,  viz.,  to  yield  to  the  Babylo- 
nians and  sue  for  mercy  (Jerem.  xxxvii.  17  sq.,  cf. 
Blso  xxxvii.  2).  Jehoiachin,  by  surrendering,  seems 
to  have  saved  the  city  from  sack  and  pillage  and 
burning,  which  was  its  fate  after  Zedekiah's  resist- 
ance. We  cannot  condemn  Jehoiachin  for  pusil- 
lanimity in  surrendering  at  discretion,  and  Zede- 
*ial*  for  obstinacy  iu  resisting  to  the   end.     See 


next  section.  The  surrender  is  as  much  a  sign  of 
wisdom  as  of  weakness. — W.  G.  S.]  There  is  na 
support  iu  this  text  nor  in  Jeremiah  for  what  Jose- 
phus adds  in  regard  to  the  promise  which  had 
been  given  him  and  was  broken.  The  words  of 
the  prophet  (Jerem.  xxii.  24—34),  where  he  pro- 
nounces the  divine  oracle,  come  in  here  with  pecu- 
liar significance :  "As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord, 
though  Coniah  [Jehoiachin],  the  son  of  Jehoiakim, 
king  of  Judah,  were  the  signet  upon  my  right 
hand,  yet  would  I  pluck  thee  thence  I  And  I  will 
give  thee  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek  thy  life, 
and  into  the  Viand  of  them  whose  face  thou  fearest, 
even  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  king  of  Ba- 
bylon, and  into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans  And  I 
will  cast  thee  out,  and  thy  mother  that  bare  thee, 
into  another  country  where  ye  were  not  born,  and 
there  shall  ye  die,  but  to  the  land  whereunto  they 
desire  to  return,  thither  shall  they  not  return.  Is 
[then,  do  ye  ask]  this  man  Coniah  a  despised, 
broken,  idol  ?  Is  he  a  vessel  wherein  is  no  pleas- 
ure ?  Wherefore  are  they  cast  out,  he,  and  his  seed, 
and  are  cast  into  a  land  which  they  know  not  ? 
0!  earth,  earth,  earth,  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Write  ye  this  man  childless, 
a  man  that  shall  not  prosper  in  his  days,  for  no 
man  of  his  seed  shall  prosper,  sitting  upon  the 
throne  of  David,  and  ruling  any  more  in  Judah." 
This  stern  condemnation  by  Jehovah  cannot  rest 
upon  any  other  foundation  than  the  fact  that  Je- 
hoiachin had  done  "  that  which  was  evil  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord,  like  to  all  that  his  father  had 
done."  It  would  have  been  a  very  unjust  condem- 
nation, if  Jehoiachin  had  been  "  a  man  deserving  of 
the  highest  respect,"  and  if,  by  virtue  of  his  good 
traits,  he  had  been  "  superior  to  his  brothers  and 
his  uncle,"  or  had  belonged  to  the  better  portion  of 
the  nation.  The  comparison  to  a  signet  ring, 
which  has  been  so  often  interpreted  to  Jehoia- 
chin's  advantage,  does  not  mean,  if  he  were  as 
dear  to  me  as  such  a  ring,  nevertheless  I  would 
cast  him  away.  Only  those  are  dear  to  Jehovah 
who  walk  in  His  ways,  and  such  he  does  not  cast 
away.  The  meaning  rather  is,  as  is  shown  by  the 
tearing  off  from  the  hand,  this:  however  firmly  he 
supposes  that,  as  a  king  [of  the  House  of  David], 
he  is  held  by  me,  even  like  the  signet  on  my  hand, 
nevertheless  I  will  cast  him  away  on  account  of 
his  own  sins  and  the  sins  of  the  people.  When 
the  false  prophet  Hananiah  (Jerem.  xxviii.  5 
sq.)  foretells  that  Jehovah  will  bring  back  all  the 
vessels  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  king  Jehoia- 
chin, and  all  who  are  captive  with  him,  and  will 
break  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  this  does 
not  express  any  especial  "longing"  for  the  return 
of  this  king,  but  only  a  general  desire  for  deliver- 
ance from  the  Babylonian  yoke,  and  the  restora 
tion  of  the  kingdom  with  its  independent  dynasty. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  generally  understood,  and 
with  far  more  apparent  reason,  that  the  "young 
lion,"  Ezek.  xix.  5  sq.,  represents  Jehoiachin.  but 
this  also  is  impossible,  because  all  that  is  there 
implied  in  regard  to  him  cannot  possibly  have 
taken  place  within  three  months  (Schmieder  on 
that  passage).  In  the  abbreviated  name  Coniah 
(see  the  Exeg.  notes  on  chap.  xxiv.  8),  which  is 
there  used,  many  old  expositors,  such  as  Grotius 
and  Lightfoot,  and  also  Hengstenberg  and  Schmie- 
der, have  seen  an  intention  to  figure  forth  to  the 
king  his  approaching  doom:  "The  future  is  put 
first  in  order  bv  cutting  off  the  '  to  cut  off  hope:  t 


CHAPTER  XXni.  31.-XXT.  7. 


2S9 


Jechouiah  with  J,  a  God-will-confirm  without  the 
'will'"  (Hengstenberg).  Not  to  speak  of  any 
other  objection  to  this,  it  is  enough  that  the  abbre- 
viated form  Coniah  is  used  instead  of  Jeeoniah  not 
only  in  prophetical  but  also  in  historical  passages 
(Jerem.  xxxvii.  1),  where  there  is  no  possible  in- 
tention to  signify  the  "  cutting  off  of  hope." 

[Bahr  seems  to  allow  his  judgment  of  Jehoia- 
chin  to  be  too  much  controlled  by  the  standing 
formula  that  "  he  did  that  which  was  evil."  &c. 
This  formula  covered  many  grades  of  evil,  and  no 
violence  is  done  to  the  general  justice  of  this  ver- 
dict upon  him,  if  we  recognize  the  fact  that  he  was 
not  one  of  the  worst  among  the  bad.  Ewald  is 
justified  in  saying :  "  The  king  meant  no  harm,  but 
he  was  negligent  in  his  duties.  He  did  not  look 
forward  to  the  future  with  good  judgment.  He 
was  a  tool  of  the  nobles,  and  he  was  far  too  weak 
for  the  bitter  crisis  in  which  he  was  called  to 
reign."  Stanley  also  gives  a  fair  estimate  of  the 
king  and  of  the  popular  feeling  in  regard  to  him  : 
"With  straining  eyes  the  Jewish  people  and  pro- 
phets still  hung  on  the  hope  that  their  lost  prince 
would  be  speedily  restored  to  them.  The  gate 
through  which  he  left  the  city  was  walled  up  like 
that  by  which  the  last  Moorish  king  left  Grenada, 
and  was  long  known  as  the  gate  of  Jeconiah. 
From  his  captivity  as  from  a  decisive  era  the  sub- 
sequent years  of  the  history  were  reckoned  (Ezek. 
i,  2 ;  viii.  1 ;  xxiv.  1 ;  xxvi.  1 ;  xxix.  1 ;  xxxi.  1  [2 
Kings  xxv.  27].  The  tidings  were  treasured  up 
with  a  mournful  pleasure,  that,  in  the  distant  Ba- 
bylon, where,  with  his  royal  mother  (Jerem.  xxii. 
26;  2  Kings  xxiv.  15),  he  was  to  end  his  days,  af- 
ter many  years  of  imprisonment,  the  curse  of 
childlessness,  pronounced  upon  him  by  the  pro- 
phet (Jerem.  xxii.  30),  was  removed  :  and  that,  as 
he  grew  to  man's  estate,  a  race  of  no  less  than 
eight  sons  were  born  to  him,  by  whom  the  royal 
race  of  Judah  was  carried  on  (1  Cliron.  iii.  17,  18, 
cf.  Susan,  i.-iv.) ;  and  yet  more,  that  he  had  been 
kindly  treated  by  the  successor  of  his  captor  (2 
Kings  xxv.  27-30  ;  Jerem.  Hi.  31-34) ;  that  he  took 
precedence  of  all  of  the  subject  kings  at  the  table 
of  the  Babylonian  monarch;  that  his  prison  gar- 
ments and  his  prison  fare  were  changed  to  some- 
thing like  his  former  state.  .  .  .  More  than  one 
Bacred  legend — enshrined  in  the  sacred  books  of 
many  an  ancient  Christian  Church — tells  how  he, 
with  the  other  captives,  sat  on  the  banks  of  the 
Euphrates  (Baruch  i.  3,  4),  and  shed  bitter  tears  as 
they  heard  the  messages  of  their  brethren  in  Pales- 
tine ;  or  how  he  dwelt  in  a  sumptuous  house  and 
fair  gardens,  with  his  beautiful  wife,  Susannah, 
'  more  honorable  than  all  others  '  (Susannah  i.-iv.)." 
— W.  G.  S.] 

5.  The  account  of  the  eleven  yews'  reign  of  Zedekiah 
only  states  how  that  reign  came  to  an  end,  for  be- 
sides the  standing  formula  that  he  did  evil  in  the 
Bight  of  the  Lord,  it  contains  only  the  remark  that 
he  revolted  from  the  king  of  Babylon.  We  obtain 
a  more  complete  picture  of  this  reign  from  the  de- 
scriptions and  historical  accounts  which  are  pre- 
served in  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  and  also  to  some  ex- 
tent in  the  book  of  Ezekiel.  As  concerns  his  atti- 
tude towards  Jehovah  and  the  law  of  Moses,  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  himself  devoted  to  idolatry, 
but  he  did  not  oppose  it  any  more  than  his  brother 
Jehoiakim  had  done.  On  the  contrary,  heathenism 
and  immorality  rather  increased  and  spread  during 
his  reign.  The  atoi  r  was  rolling ;  it  oould  not  be 
19 


stayed  any  more.  The  class  whose  especial  duty 
it  was  to  oppose  this  tendency,  namely,  the  priests 
and  prophets,  sank  during  this  time  lower  and 
lower  (see  Jerem.  xxiii.).  Then,  too,  the  revolt  of 
Zedekiah  from  Nebuchadnezzar  was  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent kind  from  that  of  Hezekiah  from  Sennacherib 
(see  n<>tes  on  chap,  xviii.  7),  nay,  it  was  even  worse 
than  that  of  his  brother  Jehoiakim  from  Pharaoh- 
Necho,  for  he  not  only  owed  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
his  crown  and  his  throne  (as  Jehoiakim  had  owed 
his  to  Pliaraoh-Necho),  but  he  had  also  sworn  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  him.  as  is  expressly  stated  in 
the  brief  account,  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  13.  This  oath 
he  broke  in  a  frivolous  way  without  any  sufficient 
reason.  The  prophet  Ezekiel  declares  that  this 
oath-breaking  was  a  great  sin,  not  only  against  him 
to  whom  it  was  sworn,  but  also  against  him  by 
whom  it  was  sworn,  Jehovah,  and  he  evon  gives 
this  as  the  reason  for  the  ruin  of  the  king  and  of 
the  nation  (chap.  xvii.  18-20):  "  Seeing  he  despised 
the  oath  by  breaking  the  covenant,  when  lol  ho 
had  given  his  hand,  and  hath  done  all  these  things 
he  shall  not  escape.  Therefore  thus  saith  tlu 
Lord  God,  As  I  live,  surely  mine  oath  that  he  hatt 
despised,  and  my  covenant  that  he  hath  broken, 
even  it  will  I  recompense  upon  his  own  head. 
And  I  will  spread  my  net  upon  him,  and  he  shall 
be  taken  in  my  snare,  and  I  will  bring  him  to  Ba- 
bylon, and  will  plead  with  him  there  for  his  tres- 
passes that  he  hath  trespassed  against  me."  He 
does  not  appear  in  a  much  better  light  according  to 
some  facts  which  Jeremiah  mentions.  During  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  he  entered  into  a  solemn  cove- 
nant with  all  the  people  "  that  every  man  should 
let  his  manservant,  and  every  man  his  maidser- 
vant, being  a  Hebrew  or  a  Hebrewess,  go  free, 
that  none  should  serve  himself  of  them,  to  wit,  of 
a  Jew  his  brother."  The  "  princes  "  and  the  "  peo- 
ple "  agreed  to  this  and  manumitted  the  serfs  or 
slaves.  But  when  it  was  heard  that  the  Egyptian 
army  was  coming  to  help  them,  and  they  thought 
that  they  would  not  need  the  freed  people  any 
more,  they  broke  the  covenant  and  reduced  them 
once  more  to  slavery.  This  led  the  prophet  to  de- 
clare :  "  Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord  :  '  Ye  have 
not  hearkened  unto  me  in  proclaiming  liberty  every 
one  to  his  brother,  and  every  man  to  his  neighbor: 
behold  I  proclaim  a  liberty  for  you,  saith  the  Lord, 
to  the  sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and  to  the  famine, 
and  I  will  make  you  to  be  removed  into  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth  .  .  .  And  Zedekiah  king  of 
Judah  and  his  princes  will  I  give  into  the  hand  of 
their  enemies,  and  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek 
their  life,  and  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon's army,  which  are  gone  up  from  you.  Behold, 
I  will  command,'  saith  the  Lord,  'and  cause  them 
to  return  to  this  city  ;  and  they  shall  fight  against 
it  and  take  it  and  burn  it  with  fire,  and  I  will  make 
the  cities  of  Judah  a  desolation  without  an  inhabit- 
ant'" (Jerem.  xxxiv.  8-22).  What  is  narrated  in 
Jerem.  xxxvii.  and  xxxviii.  is  still  more  significant. 
At  that  time  of  great  anxiety  and  distress  the 
king  sent  messengers  with  this  request :  Pray  for 
us  to  Jehovah  1  then,  however,  he  allowed  the  offi- 
cers to  seize  Jeremiah,  maltreat  him,  and  cast  him 
into  prison,  because  they  were  angry  at  his  threats 
Not  until  some  time  afterwards  did  he  send  for  Jer- 
emiah, though  secretly,  and  ask  of  him  an  oracle 
of  the  Lord.  Even  yet  he  did  not  set  him  free,  but. 
only  granted  him  a  somewhat  less  severe  imprison- 
ment.     Then,  when  the  prophet  repeatedly  foi»- 


200 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


told  the  victory  of  the  Chaldeans,  the  officers  and 
chiefs  demanded  his  death,  and  the  king  replied: 
"  Behold  he  is  in  your  hand  ;  for  the  king  is  not  he 
that  can  do  anything  against  you."  Then  they 
lowered  him  into  a  dungeon  in  which  there  was  no 
water,  indeed,  but  slime,  into  which  he  sank,  and 
where  he  would  have  perished  wretchedly,  if  he 
had  not  been  rescued  through  the  efforts  of  an 
Ethiopian,  Ebedmelech.  Even  yet,  however,  he 
was  held  as  a  prisoner.  Still  again  the  king 
Bought  a  secret  interview  with  him,  but  did  not 
obey  his  counsel  to  give  himself  up,  because  he 
feared  that  he  should  be  despised  and  maltreated 
by  those  Jews  who  had  deserted  to  the  Chaldeans. 
He  commanded  the  prophet  to  keep  the  interview 
a  secret,  and  especially  not  to  let  the  "  princes " 
knotr  of  it.  "When  finally  the  Chaldeans  penetrated 
into  the  lower  city,  he  took  flight  by  night  with 
his  immediate  attendants  from  the  opposite  side  of 
the  city,  but  was  soon  caught  by  the  Chaldeans, 
and  brought  before  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  caused 
him  to  be  blinded,  and  his  sons  to  be  put  to  death. 
From  this  entire  story  we  see  what  was  the  chief 
feature  in  Zedekiah's  character:  "Weakness,  and 
weakness  of  the  saddest  kind  "  (Niemeyer).  In- 
stead of  ruling  as  king,  he  allows  himself  to  be 
controlled  by  those  who  stand  nearest  to  him  ;  he 
cannot  do  anything  against  them.  [Yet  it  would 
not  be  fair  to  overlook  the  fact  that  a  powerful 
party  of  nobles,  in  a  besieged  city,  where  excite- 
ment and  confusion  and  anxiety  reigned,  might 
make  a  strong  king  powerless  to  resist  a  policy  on 
which  they  were  determined.  The  party  of  the 
41  princes  "  seems  to  have  been  possessed  by  that 
fanatical  patriotism  which  not  unfrequeutly  takes 
possession  of  men  under  such  circumstances,  and 
drives  them  to  heroic  folly  or  foolish  heroism. 
This  passion  appeared  among  the  Jews  in  every 
crisis  of  their  history.  In  this  case  it  pushed  the 
nation  on  to  its  fate,  and  though  Zedekiah  was  a 
weak  king,  he  might  have  been  a  strong  one  and 
not  have  been  able  to  stem  this  tide. — W.  G.  S.] 
He  has  good  inclinations,  but  he  never  attains  to 
what  is  good.  He  demands  an  oracle  of  God  but 
in  secret,  and,  when  he  receives  it,  he  does  not 
obey  it.  His  weakness  of  character  makes  him 
vacillating,  false  to  his  word  and  oath,  unjust  and 
pitiless,  cowardly  and  despondent,  and  finally  leads 
him  into  misery.  We  have  here  another  example 
which  shows  that  weakness  and  want  of  character 
are  the  very  gravest  faults,  nay,  even  a  vice,  in  a 
rider.  Josephus  (Antiq.  X.  vii.  2)  justly  says  of 
Zedekiah:  tow  tie  6inaiuni  Kai  TOV  'ifovroc  vrr eooxTT/c. 
an!  yap  ol  Kara  ri]v  ift.iniav  f/aav  aaefteig  Tvepl  avrov, 
nal  6  rrdc  o\'/>>r  ejf  egovoiac,  iif$pi£sv  a  r/&E%e. 

6.  Zedekiah's  end  was  the  end  of  the  royal  home 
of  David  and  of  the  Israelitish  monarchy.  This 
dynasty  had  remained  on  the  throne  for  nearly  500 
years,  while,  in  the  seceded  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  within  a  period  of  250  years,  nine  dynasties 
of  nineteen  kings  reigned,  of  which  each  one  de- 
throned and  extirpated  the  preceding  one.  "  What 
a  wonder  it  is  to  see  one  dynasty  endure  through 
almost  five  entire  centuries,  and  that  too  in  the  an- 
cient times  when  dynasties  usually  had  but  brief 
duration,  and  to  see  this  dynasty,  in  the  midst  of 
perik  and  changes,  form  a  centre  around  which  the 
nation  always  formed,  so  that  when  it  perished  at 
last,  it  perished  only  in  the  downfall  of  the  nation 
Uself.  .  .  .  Such  a  kingdom  might  fall  into  t;iiev- 
■  rr<,r  for  a  time,  but  in  the  long  run  it  must  be 


brought  back  by  the  example  of  its  great  hero  and 
founder  David,  and  by  the  wealth  of  experience 
which  it  had  won  in  its  undisturbed  development, 
to  the  eternal  fundamentals  of  all  true  religion,  and 
all  genuine  life  "  (Ewald,  Gesch.  III.  s.  419).  This 
"  wonder,"  however,  of  the  uninterrupted  existence 
of  the  dynasty  of  David  does  not  rest  upon  human 
will  or  power,  but  upon  the  promise  which  was 
given  to  David  (2  Sam.  vii.  Ssq.):  "  And  thy  house 
and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  established  forever  be- 
fore thee  ;  thy  throne  shall  be  established  forever  " 
(ver.  16).  The  premise  on  which  this  promise  was 
based  was  the  idea  that  the  Old  Testament  theo- 
cratic monarchy  was  realized  in  David.  This  mon- 
archy is,  as  it  were,  realized  in  him,  and  he  is  not 
only  the  physical  ancestor  of  his  family,  but  the 
model  for  all  his  successors,  according  to  their 
fidelity  to  which  their  reigns  are  estimated  and 
judged  (1  Kings  xi.  38;  xv.  3,  11  ;  2  Kings  xiv.  3; 
xvi.  2;  xviii.  3;  xxii.  2).  God  sustains  the  mon- 
archy in  their  hands  for  David's  sake,  even  when 
they  do  not  deserve  it,  for  their  own  (1  Kings  xi. 
12;  xiii.  32;  xv.  4;  2  Kings  viii.  19).  When  he 
went  the  way  of  all  the  earth  he  left  as  a  bequest 
to  his  son  the  following  words :  "  Be  strong  and 
show  thyself  a  man.  and  keep  the  charge  of  the 
Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his 
statutes  and  his  commandments,  and  his  judgments, 
and  his  testimonies,  as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  that  thou  mayest  prosper  in  all  that  thou 
doest,  and  whithersoever  thou  turnest  thyself: 
That  the  Lord  may  continue  his  word  which  he 
spake  concerning  me,  saying,  If  thy  children  take 
heed  to  their  way,  to  walk  before  me  in  truth,  with 
all  their  heart  and  with  all  their  soul,  there  shal' 
not  fail  thee,  said  he,  a  man  on  the  throne  of  Is- 
rael "  (1  Kings  ii.  2—4).  When,  however,  after  Jo- 
siah's  death,  four  kings  in  succession  abandoned 
the  way  of  David,  and  apostasy  became  a  fixed  and 
permanent  tradition,  the  monarchy  ceased  to  be 
what  it  was  its  calling  and  purpose  to  be  ;  it  was 
necessarily  doomed  to  perish.  "When  the  tradi- 
tions of  evil  are  maintained,  or  at  least  tolerated, 
then  the  monarchy  suffers  a  transformation.  Kings 
become  incapable  of  executing  the  duties  of  their 
office,  and  a  divine  judgment  becomes  inevitable. 
So  it  was  with  the  sons  of  Josiah,  whose  fate  is  a 
warning  beacon  on  the  horizon  of  history  "  (Vil- 
mar).  But,  in  spite  of  the  inevitable  doom  of  the 
nation,  the  promise  to  David  was  fulfilled  in  its  in- 
tegrity. Although  the  external  authority  of  the 
house  of  David  ceased  with  Zedekiah,  yet  from  the 
time  of  his  fall  the  preparation  went  on,  all  the 
more  surely,  for  the  coming  of  that  Son  of  David 
who  was  to  be  a  king  over  the  house  of  David  for- 
ever, and  whose  kingdom  should  have  no  end  (Luke 
i.  33).  The  place  of  the  light  of  the  house  of  David, 
which  had  been  extinguished  (1  Kings  xi.  36 ;  2 
Kings  viii.  19),  was  taken,  when  the  time  was  ful- 
filled, by  the  true  light  which  illumines  the  whole 
world  (John  i.  9),  and  which  will  not  be  extin- 
guished to  all  eternity.  The  last  king  who  sat  upor> 
the  throne  of  David,  and  who  falsely  called  himself 
liTp"TC   [The.   righteousness   of    God],   served    to 

point  forward,  in  the  Providence  of  God.  and  ac 
cording  to  the  words  of  the  prophet,  to  the  coming 
king  and  shepherd  of  his  people,  whose  name 
should   be   called :  VtfVl    njiT  ,    "  The   Lord  oui 

Righteousness  "  (Jerem.  xxiii.  6). 


CHAPTER  XXIII.  31.-5XT.   1. 


291 


H01IILETICAX  AND  PRACTICAL. 

See  the  above  paragraphs  and  compare  the  ad- 
ditional information  afforded  by  the  passages  above 
-quoted  from  Jeremiah. 

Chap,  xxiii.  31-xxv.  7.  The  Four  Last  Kings 
of  Judah.  (a)  The  way  in  which  they  all  walked. 
(They  all  abandoned  the  living  God  and  His  law, 
though  they  had  the  best  model  avd  example  in 
their  ancestor.  They  did  not  listen  to  the  warn- 
ings and  exhortations  of  the  prophets,  but  followed 
their  own  lusts.  Instead  of  being  good  shepherds 
of  their  people,  they  led  them  into  deeper  and 
deeper  corruption.)  (b)  The  end  to  which  they  all 
came.  (They  all  learned  what  misery  comes  of 
abandoning  the  Lord,  Jerem.  ii.  19.  Two  of  them 
reigned  for  only  three  months  each;  their  glory 
was  like  the  grass,  which  in  the  morning  groweth 
up,  but  in  the  evening  is  cut  down,  dried  up,  and 
withered.  One  of  them  was  forced  to  go  to  Egypt, 
where  he  died,  and  another  to  go  to  Babylon,  where 
he  remained  a  captive  for  thirty-seven  years.  Two 
of  them  died  miserably :  one  was  dragged  to  death 
and  his  corpse  was  thrown  out  like  that  of  a  dead 
animal ;  the  other  was  forced  to  see  his  sons  slain 
before  his  eyes,  then  he  was  blinded  and  ended  his 
days  in  a  prison.  The  godless,  even  though  they 
be  princes,  perish  utterly,  Ps.  lxxiii.  19.  The  judg- 
ments of  God  are  true  and  righteous,  Rev.  xvi.  7 ; 
Ps.  cxlv.  17.) — Ktbcrz:  We  are  surprised  that  Je- 
hoiakim  did  not  take  warning  by  Jehoahaz,  and  that 
Jehoiachin  and  Zedekiah  did  not  take  warning  by 
Jehoiakim,  but  that  all  made  themselves  abomina- 
ble to  God  by  the  same  sin ;  but  how  many  great 
families  and  races  have  we  seen  since  then  come 
to  a  fearful  end,  without  taking  warning  by  their 
fate.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  made  ourselves 
guilty  in  his  sight  with  the  same  or  greater  sins. — 
A  dynasty  in  which  apostasy  has  become  hered- 
itary and  traditional  has  no  blessing  or  happiness ; 
it  must  sooner  or  later  perish.  The  words  of  Ps. 
lxxxix.  14:  "Justice  and  judgment  are  the  habit- 
ation of  thy  throne,"  apply  also  to  an  earthly  throne. 
A  throne  or  a  government  which  lacks  this 
"habitation  "  [more  correctly,  stronghold]  has  no 
sure  foundation.  It  rocks  and  reels  and  finally 
falls.  This  is  shown  by  the  history  of  these  four 
kings,  all  of  whom  departed  from  righteousness 
and  the  law  of  God,  and  were  guided  in  their  rule 
only  by  political  considerations.  They  became  the 
sport  of  ambitious  conquerors. — There  can  be  no 
greater  disgrace  or  humiliation  for  a  country  than 
that  foreigners  should  set  up  or  depose  rulers  for  it 
according  to  their  whim. 

Chap,  xxiii.  31  sq.  The  son's  want  of  loyalty  to 
the  law  of  God  tore  down  in  three  months  what  the 
father's  zeal  had  built  up  by  thirty-one  years  of 
anxious  labor.  How  often  a  son  squanders  in  a 
short  time  what  a  father  has  collected  by  years  of 
careful  toil. — What  a  responsibility  falls  upon  the 
ruler  who  opens  the  door  again  for  the  return  of 
the  evils  which  a  former  government  has  earnestly 
labored  to  shut  out. — Ver.  34.  Two  brothers  stand 
in  hostile  relations  to  each  other.  One  deposes  the 
other.  They  are  both  sons  of  the  same  pious  fa- 
ther, but  they  resemble  him  in  nothing  — Jehoiakim 
and  Zedekiah  each  receive  a  new  name  when  they 
ascend  the  throne.  What  is  the  use,  however,  of 
changing  the  name  when  the  character  is  not 
changed,  or  of  taking  on  a  name  to  which  the  life 
does  not  correspond? — A  throne  which  is  bought 


with  money  won  by  exactions  is  an  abomination  in 
the  sight  of  God.  Jehoiakim  does  not  contributa 
anything  from  his  own  treasures,  but  exacts  all 
from  his  subjects.  He  builds  great  houses  and 
lives  in  abundance  and  luxury,  but  does  not  give  to 
the  laborers  the  wages  which  they  have  so  well 
earned.  This  is  the  way  of  tyrants,  but  they  re- 
ceive their  reward  from  him  who  recompenses  each 
according  to  his  works  (Jerem.  xxii.  15-19).  Ava- 
rice is  the  root  of  evil,  even  among  the  great  and 
rich  ;  it  brings  them  into  temptation,  1  Tim.  vi.  9. — 
Chap.  xxiv.  1.  To-day  the  mighty  king  of  Egypt 
makes  Jehoiakim  his  vassal,  to-morrow  the  still 
more  mighty  king  of  Babylon ;  such  is  the  fate  of 
princes  who  put  their  trust  in  an  arm  of  flesh,  and 
turn  away  from  the  Lord  instead  of  calling  after 
him :  "  He  is  my  refuge  and  my  fortress,  my  God, 
in  him  will  I  trust "  (Ps.  xei.  2). — Ver.  2.  Wvrt. 
Sttmm.  :  It  is  not  a  mere  chance  when  at.  armed 
enemy  invades  a  country ;  they  are  sent  by  God, 
without  whom  not  one  could  set  a  foot  thereir.  It 
is  a  punishment  for  sin.  Therefore  let  no  man  take 
courage  in  sin  because  there  is  profound  peace. 
Peace  is  never  so  firm  that  God  cannot  put  an  end 
to  it  and  send  war. — He  revolted.  He  who  cannot 
bend  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God  will  not  sub- 
mit to  the  human  powers  in  subjection  to  which  he 
has  been  placed  by  God.  Resistance,  however,  is 
vain,  for  God  resisteth  the  proud. — Kyburz  :  Hear, 
ye  kings  and  judges  of  the  earth!  God  demands 
that  ye  shall  humble  yourselves  before  His  mes- 
sengers. David  did  this  before  Nathan.  Do  not 
think  that  your  majesty  is  thereby  diminished; 
God  can  exalt  again  those  who  humble  themselves 
before  him.  But,  if  ye  do  not  do  this,  God  will  do 
to  you  as  he  did  to  Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah. — The 
word  of  the  Lord,  which  He  spake  to  Jehoiakim 
by  His  prophet,  the  king  threw  into  the  fire  and 
thought  that  he  had  thus  reduced  it  to  naught 
(Jerem.  xxxvi.  23),  but  he  was  brought  to  the  bitter 
experience  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  cannot  be 
burned  up,  but  is,  and  remains  to  all  eternity,  true 
and  sure. — Vers.  3,  4.  The  sin  of  Manasseh  was 
not  visited  on  his  descendants  in  such  a  way  that 
they  could  say :  "  The  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge  " 
(Jerem.  xxxi.  29),  for  "  The  son  shall  not  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  father "  (Ezek.  xviii.  20),  but  the 
punishment  fell  upon  Judah  because  it  had  made 
itself  a  participant  in  the  crime  of  Manasseh,  and, 
like  him,  had  shed  innocent  blood  (Jerem.  xxvi. 
20-23;  see  also  Ezek.  xxxiii.  25  sq.). — Ver.  7.  Easy 
won,  easy  lost.  This  has  always  been  the  fortune 
of  conquerors.  What  one  has  won  by  robbery  and 
force  another  mightier  takes  from  him.  The  Lord 
in  heaven  makes  the  great  small,  and  the  rich  poor 
(1  Sam.  ii.  7 ;  Ps.  lxxv.  7). 

Vers.  8-16.  Osiander:  As  long  as  the  people 
of  God  does  not  truly  repent  it  has  little  cause  to 
rejoice  that  one  or  another  tyrant  is  removed,  for 
a  worse  one  may  follow. — "  Wheresoever  the  car- 
cass is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  together  " 
(Matt.  xxiv.  28).  A  nation  which  is  in  decay  at- 
tracts the  conquerors,  who  do  not  quit  it  until  it  is 
torn  to  pieces. — Starke  :  There  is  always  misery 
and  danger  where  there  is  war,  therefore  let  us 
pray  to  be  preserved  from  war  and  bloodshed.— 
Ver.  12.  Instead  of  calling  upon  God,  Jehoiachin 
surrenders  himself  at  once  and  asks  for  mercy. 
He  who  does  not  trust  in  God  soon  falls  intc 
despondency.     DeUrant  reges.  vlectuntnr  Achivi. — 


292 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


Vers.  14-16.  Notice  God's  mercy  and  longsuffering 
even  in  his  judgments.  He  still  allows  the  king- 
dom to  stand,  and  turns  the  heart  of  the  enemy  so 
that  he  does  not  yet  make  an  utter  end  of  it  (Ezek. 
xviii.  23,  32  ;  see  notes  on  chap.  xxv.  21). 

Chap.  xxiv.  17  to  xxv.  7.  Zedekiah,  the  last 
king  on  David's  throne.  See  Historical  §  5.  Roos : 
Zedekiah  is  an  example  of  a  man  who,  in  spite  of 
some  good  traits,  finally  perishes  because  he  never 
can  attain  to  victory  over  the  world  and  over  sin. 
He  listened  unmoved  to  Jerem.  xxvii.  12  sq.  and 
xxxiv.  2  sq.  He  made  an  agreement  with  the 
people  to  keep  a  year  of  manumission  (Jerem. 
xxxiv.  8).  He  desired  that  Jeremiah  should  pray 
to  the  Lord  for  him  and  for  his  people  (chap,  xxxvii. 
3).  He  rescued  Jeremiah  from  a  fearful  dungeon 
into  which  he  had  been  cast  without  the  king's  au- 
thority, asked  of  him  secretly  a  divine  oracle,  and 
Mused  him  to  be  brought  into  an  endurable  prison 
(chap,  xxxvii.  17  sq.).  He  saved  him  once  more 
from  a  terrible  prison  and  asked  once  more  pri- 
vately for  the  divine  oracle  (chap,  xxxviii).  Yet 
in  the  midst  of  all  this  he  remained  a  slave  of  sin. 
He  asked  and  listened,  but  did  not  obey.  His  pur- 
poses had  no  endurance  or  energy.  He  was  a  king 
whom  his  nobles  had  succeeded  in  overpowering. 
He  feared  them  more  than  God.  He  had  no  cour- 
age to  trust  God's  word  and  he  feared  where  there 
was  no  reason  (chap,  xxxviii.  19  sq.).  On  the  other 
hand  he  allowed  himself  to  be  persuaded  by  his 
counsellors  and  nobles  (chap,  xxxviii.  22).  He 
hoped  for  miracles  such  as  had  been  performed  in 
early  times,  particularly  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah 
(chap.  xxi.  2),  although  he  had  no  promises  of  God 
to  serve  as  a  ground  for  such  hope.     He  trusted 


in  the  strength  of  the  fortification  of  Jerusalem 
(chap.  xxi.  13),  and  did  not  believe  what  Jeremiah 
foretold  in  regard  to  the  destruction  of  this  city. — 
Chap.  xxiv.  20.  Zedekiah  broke  his  oath  for  the 
sake  of  earthly  gain  and  honor.  Be  not  deceived, 
God  will  not  be  mocked.  He  who  calls  upon  God 
and  then  fails  of  his  word  mocks  at  Him  who  can 
ruin  soul  and  body  in  hell.  All  the  misery  and 
woe  which  befell  Zedekiah  came  from  his  perjury 
(Ezek.  xvii.  18*}.).  Pfaff:  We  must  keep  faith 
even  with  unbelievers  and  enemies  (Josh.  ix.  19). — 
A  prince  who  breaks  his  own  oath  cannot  complair. 
when  his  subjects  break  their  oath  of  allegiance  to 
him.. — Chap.  xxv.  1  sq.  Starke:  When  the  rod 
does  not  avail,  God  sends  the  sword  (Ezek.  xxi.  13 
and  14). — Ver.  3.  Cramer  :  God  often  punishes 
loathing  of  His  word  by  physical  hunger  (Lament. 
iv.  10). — Vers.  4-6.  Wurt.  Summ.  :  When  God 
means  to  punish  a  sinner  no  wall  or  weapon  avails 
to  protect  him  (Jerem.  xlvi.  6). — Starke  :  If  we 
will  not  take  that  road  to  escape  which  God  has 
given  us  we  cannot  escape  at  all  (Hos.  xiii.  19;. 
Jerem.  ii.  17). — Ver.  7.  Starke:  Many  parents,  by 
their  godless  behavior,  bring  their  children  into- 
temporal  and  eternal  ruin.  Such  children  will 
some  day  have  just  cause  to  cry  out  against  their 
parents  (Sir.  xli.  10). — A  punishment  which  is  de- 
served must  be  inflicted  upon  the  just  condemna- 
tion of  the  proper  authority,  but  even  the  mightiest 
earthly  power  has  no  right  to  torture  a  convict. 
The  civil  authority  is  indeed  an  avenger  to  punish 
the  guilty,  and  it  does  not  carry  the  sword  in  vain, 
but  it  ceases  to  be  God's  servant  when  it  becomes 
bloodthirsty  and  delights  in  pain. 


B. — Fall  of  the  Kingdom  of  Jvdah;  Jehoiachin  set  at  Liberty. 
Chap.  XXV.  8-30.  (Jerem.  LII.  12-34.) 


8  And  in  the  fifth  month,  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  month,  which  is  the  nine- 
teenth year  of  king  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  came   Nebuzar-adan, 

9  captain  of  the  guard,  a  servant  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  unto  Jerusalem  :  And 
he  burnt  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  king's  house,  and  all  the  houses  of 
Jerusalem,  and   every  great  mail's   [omit  mail's ']   house   burnt  he    with   fire. 

10  And  all  the  army  of  the  Chaldees,  that  were  with '  the  captain  of  the  guard, 

11  brake  down  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  round  about.  Now  the  rest  of  the  people 
that  were  left  in  the  city,  and  the  fugitives  that  fell  away  to  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon, with  the  remnant  of  the  multitude,  did  Nebuzar-adan  the  captain  of  the 

12  guard  carry  away.     But  the  captain  of  the  guard  left  of  the  poor  of  the  land  to 

13  be  [read  to  be]  vinedressers  and  husbandmen.'  And  the  pillars  of  brass  that 
were  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  bases,  and  the  brazen  sea  that  was  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  did  the  Chaldees  break  in  pieces,  and  carried  the  brass  of 

14  them  to  Babylon.  And  the  pots,  and  the  shovels,  and  the  snuffers,  and  the 
spoons,  and  all  the  vessels  of  brass  wherewith  they  ministered  [the  service  was 

15  performed],  took  they  away.  And  the  firepans,  and  the  bowls  [sprinklers], 
and  such  things  as  were  of  gold,  in  gold,  and  of  silver,  in  silver,  the  captain  of 

16  the  guard  took  away.  The  two  pillars,  one  sea,  and  the  bases  which  Solomon 
had  made  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  ;  the  brass  of  all  these  vessels  was  without 

17  weight.  The  height  of  the  one  pillar  was  eighteen  cubits,  and  the  chapiter 
[capital]  upon  it  was  brass ;  and  the  height  of  the  chapiter  three  cubits ;  and' 
the  wreathen  work,  and  pomegranates  upon  the  chapiter  round  about,  all  of 
brass-  and  like  unto  those  had  the  second  pillar  with  wreathen  work. 


CHAPTER  XXV.  8-30. 


293 


x8         And  the  captain  of  the  guard  took  Seraiah  the  chief  priest,  and  Zephaniah 

19  the  second  priest,  and  the  three  keepers  of  the  door:  And  out  of  the  city  he 
took  an  officer  that  was  set  over  the  men  of  war,  and  five  men  of  them  that 
were  in  the  king's  presence,  which  were  found  in  the  city,  and  the  principal 
[win  principal]  scribe  of  the  [captain  of  the]  host,  which  mustered  the  people 
of  the  land,  and  threescore  men  of  the  people  of  the  land  that  were  found  in  the 

20  city  :    And  Nebuzar-adan  captain  of  the  guard  took  these,  and  brought  them  to 

21  the  king  of  Babylon  to  Riblah  :  And  the  king  of  Babylon  smote  them,  and  slew 
them  at  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath.    So  Judah  was  carried  away  out  of  their 

22  land.  And  as  for  the  people  that  remained  in  the  land  of  Judah,  whom  Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Babylon  had  left,  even  over  them  he  made  Gedaliah  the  son  of 

23  Ahikam,  the  son  of  Shaphan,  ruler.  And  when  all  the  captains  of  the  armies, 
they  and  their  [the]  men,  heard  that  the  king  of  Babylon  had  made  Gedaliah 
governor,  there  came  to  Gedaliah  to  Mizpah,  even  Ishmael  the  son  of  Netha- 
niah,  and  Johanan  the  son  of  Careah,  and  Seraiah  the  son  of  Tanhumeth  the 
Netophathite,   and  Jaazaniah  the  son  of  a  Maachathite,  they  and  their  men. 

24  And  Gedaliah  aware  to  them,  and  to  their  men,  and  said  unto  them,  Fear  not 
to  be  [omit  to  be]  the  servants  of  the  Chaldees :  dwell  in  the  land,  and  serve  the 

25  king  of  Babylon  ;  and  it  shall  be  well  with  you.  But  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
seventh  month,  that  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  the  son  of  Elishama,  of  the 
seed  royal,  came,  and  ten  men  with  him,  and  smote  Gedaliah,  that  he  died  [and 
put  him  to   death],  and  the  Jews  and  the  Chaldees  that  were  with  him  at  Miz- 

26  pah.  And  all  the  people,  both  small  and  great,  and  the  captains  of  the  armies, 
arose,  and  came  to  Egypt :  for  they  were  afraid  of  the  Chaldees. 

27  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  seven  and  thirtieth  year  of  the  captivity  of  Je- 
hoiachin  king  of  Judah,  in  the  twelfth  month,  on  the  seven  and  twentieth  day 
of  the  month,  that  Evil-merodach  king  of  Babylon  in  the  year  that  he  began  to 

28  reign  did  lift  up  the  head  of  Jehoiachin  king  of  Judah  out  of  prison  ;  And  he 
spake  kindly  to  him,  and  set  his  throne  above  the  throne  of  the  kings  that  were 

29  with  him  in  Babylon  ;  [.]  And  [he]  changed  his  prison  garments:  and  he  did 
eat  bread  continually  before  him  [in  his  presence,  «•  «•>  at  his  table]  all  the  days 

30  of  his  life.  And  his  allowance  was  a  continual  allowance  given  him  of  the  king, 
a  daily  rate  for  every  day,  all  the  days  of  his  life. 


TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 

-  »  er.  9.  |_7?iT3  JV3  .  The  translators  took  the  stat.  const,  to  mean  house  of  a  great  (*c.  man).  It  Is  a  case,  how- 
ever, of  an  adjective  bound  somewhat  more  closely  to  its  substantive  by  the  stat.  const. = every  great  house,  mansion. 
Of.  123   t'fj  ,   chap,  xviii.  17.     Ew.  §  287,  1. 

3  Ver.  10.  ["  After  -|t5>K  we  must  supply  J1X  from  Jerem  lii.  U."    Ew.  Lehrb.  s.  737,  ut  1.— W.  G.  S.] 
3  Ver.  12.   For  the  chetib  D^?}   the  keri  presents  0*03  V^  aB  in  Jerem.  lii.  16.     The  signification  is  the  same.- 
Bahr. 


CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  PERIOD  FROM  THE  FALL 
*  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  ISRAEL  TO  THE  FALL 
OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH. 

Although  the  chronology  of  this  period  presents 
.ar  fewer  difficulties  than  that  of  the  two  former 
ones  (pp.  86  and  180),  yet  a  certain  transmutation 
of  its  data  into  dates  of  the  Christian  era  is  hardly 
possible,  for  this  reason,  that  the  number  of  years 
stated  as  the  duration  of  each  reign  does  not  always 
represent  so  many  complete  twelvemonths,  and, 
■)f  course,  the  years  intended  are  not  years  of  the 
Christian  era,  so  that  one  year  of  a  reign  may  fall 
in  two  different  years  "before  Christ,"  and  two 
years  of  these  reigns  may  fall  in  one  year  B.  c. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  avoid  some  uncertainties  in 
the  transfer  from  one  to  the  other  of  these  two 
modes  of  reckoning,  and  a  difference  of  a  single 


year  cannot  demand  an  explanation,  or  vitiate  the 
calculation. 

(a)  Let  us  start  from  the  fixed  date  which  we 
have  reached  above  (p.  181),  721  b.  c,  the  year  of 
the  fall  of  Samaria.  As  this  was  the  sixth  year  of 
Hezekiah,  who  reigned  twenty-nine  years  (2  Kinga 
xviii.  10),  there  remain  twenty-three  years  of  his 
reign  to  be  reckoned  into  this  period.  This  gives 
us  the  following  results : — 

Reigned  for 
Hezekiah      23  years   longer,  l.  e.,  until  698. 


Manasseh 

55      " 

(chap.  xxi.  1)     " 

"     643 

Amon 

2       " 

(chap.  xxi.  19)    " 

"     641 

Josiah 

31       " 

(chap.  xxii.  1)    " 

"     610 

Jehoahaz 

3  mos. 

(chap,  xxiii.  31) 

Jehoiakim 

11  yrs. 

(chap,  xxiii.  36)  " 

"     599 

Jehoiachin 

3  mos. 

(chap.  xxiv.  8) 

Zedekiah 

11  yrs. 

(chap.  xxiv.  18)  " 

"     588 

294 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


The  Book  of  Chronicles  agrees  exactly  in  all  these 
dates.  There  is  no  variant  in  regard  to  a  single 
one  of  them ;  the  old  versions  have  them  exactly 
as  they  are  given  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  Josephus 
also  gives  the  same.  We  are,  therefore,  as  sure  of 
these  numbers  as  of  any.  Some  modern  scholars 
have  taken  scruples  at  the  long  reign  of  fifty-five 
years  which  is  ascribed  to  Manasseh,  and  have 
shortened  it  arbitrarily  either  to  thirty-five  years 
(Movers,  Von  Gumpach),  or  to  forty-five  years 
(Bunsen,  Wolff).  This  change,  however,  is  inad- 
missible, for  it  necessitates  other  changes  and 
throws  the  whole  chronology  into  confusion.  [This 
change  is  made  in  the  interest  of  what  is  known  as 
the  "  shorter  period  "  foi  the  space  of  history  which 
is  here  included.  The  grounds  for  it  are  found  in 
the  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  and  Egyptian  chronol- 
ogies. The  problem  is  very  complex,  and  the  solu- 
tion of  it  is  hampered  at  many  points  by  the  uncer- 
tainty of  many  of  the  data.  The  majority  of 
scholars  have  not,  therefore,  thought  it  wise  to 
make  any  changes  in  the  Hebrew  chronology,  to 
bring  it  into  accord  with  that  of  contemporary  na- 
tions, until  the  latter  shall  be  more  satisfactorily 
determined.  Those  who  desire  to  attempt,  even 
now,  to  bring  about  an  accord,  find  it  necessary  to 
shorten  the  time  which  is  required  by  the  sum  of 
the  reigns  for  this  period,  and  they  see  in  the  long 
reign  ascribed  to  Manasseh  the  point  where  the 
error  is  most  likely  to  lie. — W.  G.  S.]  The  time 
for  which  the  kingdom  of  Judah  outlasted  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  amounts  to  133  years.  The  six 
months  for  which  Jehoahaz  and  Jehoiachin  reigned 
are  here  left  out  of  the  account,  and  with  justice, 
for  it  can  hardly  be  that  the  years  ascribed  to  the 
other  reigns  were  all  full  twelvemonths.  It  is  im- 
material whether  each  three  months'  reign  is  reck- 
oned into  the  preceding  or  the  following  reign.  It 
is  possible  that  Zedekiah  did  not  ascend  the  throne 
until  598,  so  that  he  reigned  until  587,  but  in  no 
case  can  his  dethronement  be  placed  later  than 

587.  Instead  of  the  year  588,  in  which,  according 
to  our  reckoning,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  took  place, 
many  have  lately  adopted  586  as  the  date  of  that 
event.  Bunsen,  starting  from  the  very  uncertain 
Assyrio-Egyptian  chronology,  puts  the  fall  of  Sa- 
maria in  709  instead  of  in  721.  He  would  be 
obliged,  if  he  admitted  133  years  for  the  subsequent 
duration  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  to  put  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  in  576,  but,  as  he  sees  that  this  is  inad- 
missible, he  arbitrarily  cuts  off  ten  years  from  the 
reign  of  Manasseh  and  thus  reaches  the  date  586. 
Ewald  also  adopts  the  date  586,  but  he  reaches  it 
by  putting  the  fall  of  Samaria  in  719  instead  of  in 
721.  This  obliges  him  to  set  the  date  of  accession 
of  each  of  the  following  kings  two  years  later  than 
our  dates,  and  thus  he  arrives  at  586  instead  of 

588.  We  saw  above  (p.  181)  that  the  date  719  is 
incorrect ;  with  the  incorrectness  of  this  date,  the 
date  586  falls  to  the  ground.  If,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  date  721  is  certainly  established,  then  588  is 
the  only  date  which  can  be  correct  for  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  for,  even  if  we  suppose  that  all  the  years 
of  all  the  reigns  were  full  years,  they  only  amount 
to  133  years. 

(b)  Besides  the  statements  as  to  the  duration  of 
these  reigns,  we  have  the  following  chronological 
data  in  regard  to  them :  (1)  The  thirteenth  year  of 
Josiah  is  given  as  the  year  in  which  Jeremiah  first 
appeared  as  a  prophet  (Jerem.  i.  1).  This  was  the 
year  628   for  Josiah  began  to  reign  in  641.     Also 


the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah  is  mentioned  as  tin 
year  of  his  reformation  and  celebration  of  the  pass- 
over — that  is,  623  (2  Kings  xxii.  3 ;  xxiii.  23).  Ai 
Josiah  was  slain  in  his  battle  with  Necho,  the  in- 
vasion of  Asia  by  the  latter  took  place  in  Josiah'a 
thirty-first  year,  that  is,  in  610.  The  invasion  of 
Judah  by  the  Scyths,  which  is  not  mentioned  at  all 
in  the  historical  books,  must  have  taken  place  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Josiah,  not  before  the  public  ap- 
pearance of  Jeremiah  (628),  and  not  after  the  great 
reformation  (623).  Duncker  sets  it  in  the  fourteenth 
year  of  Josiah's  reign,  that  is,  627.  [See  the  Supp. 
Note,  p.  285.] — (2)  King  Jehoiakim  ascended  the 
throne  either  at  the  very  end  of  610,  or  perhaps  in 
609,  for  Jehoahaz  reigned  for  three  months  after 
Josiah's  death.  According  to  Jerem.  xlvi.  2,  the 
great  battle  at  Carchemish,  in  consequence  of  which 
Nebuchadnezzar  advanced  into  Palestine,  took  place 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  that  is,  in  605  or 

604  (see  notes  on  chap,  xxiii.  36).  In  this  same 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  Jeremiah  caused  to  be 
written  down  his  prophecies,  which  were  solemnly 
read  in  public  in  the  following  year,  on  a  great  ho- 
liday (Jerem.  xxxvi.  1,  9).  Up  to  this  time,  there- 
fore, Jehoiakim  was  not  yet  subject  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar ;  he  cannot  have  become  so  until  the  end  of 

605  or  the  beginning  of  604.  He  revolted  after 
three  years  (2  Kings  xxiv.  1),  that  is,  in  602  or  601. 
Chaldean  and  other  forces  harassed  him  from  that 
time  until  his  death  in  599  (2  Kings  xxiv.  2  sq. ). — 
(3)  As  Jehoiachin  only  reigned  three  months,  it 
may  well  be  that  Zedekiah  ascended  the  throne 
before  the  end  of  the  year  (599)  in  which  Jehoiakim 
died.  His  fourth  year,  in  which,  according  to 
Jerem.  li.  59,  he  made  a  journey  to  Babylon,  was, 
therefore,  595 ;  certainly  it  was  not  593,  as  Duncker 
and  Ewald  state,  for,  if  he  had  not  become  king 
until  the  beginning  of  598,  this  journey  would  fall, 
at  the  latest,  in  594  In  his  ninth  year,  590,  the 
Chaldeans  appeared  before  Jerusalem  (chap.  xxv.  1). 
In  his  tenth  year  (589),  while  the  city  was  being 
besieged,  he  ordered  Jeremiah  to  be  imprisoned 
(Jerem.  xxxii.  1).  In  his  eleventh  year  (588),  Je- 
rusalem was  taken,  and  Zedekiah  was  blinded  and 
taken  away  captive  to  Babylon.  In  this  same 
year  occurred  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and 
of  the  city  (2  Kings  xxv.  4,  8). 

(c)  Several  synchronisms  are  given  between  the 
reigns  of  the  Jewish  kings  and  that  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. According  to  Jerem.  xxv.  1,  the  first  year 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  fourth  of  Jehoiakim 
(606),  that  is  (see  above),  the  year  of  the  battle  of 
Carchemish  (Jerem.  xlvi.  2).  This  first  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  aud  fourth  of  Jehoiakim  waa 
also,  according  to  Jerem.  xxv.  1-3,  the  twenty- 
third  year  of  Jeremiah's  work  as  prophet,  which 
began  (Jerem.  i.  2)  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah 
(628).  According  to  2  Kings  xxiv.  12,  Nebuchad- 
nezzar took  Jehoiachin  prisoner  in  his  own  eighth 
year,  that  is,  in  509,  in  which  year,  as  we  have 
seen  above,  the  three  months'  reign  of  Jehoiachin 
fell.  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighteenth  year  corre- 
sponds, according  to  Jerem.  xxxii.  1,  to  the  tenth 
year  of  Zedekiah,  that  is,  since  Zedekiah  became 
king  in  599,  589,  and  his  nineteenth  year,  in  which 
he  took  Jerusalem  (2  Kings  xxv.  8 ;  Jerem.  lii.  2), 
corresponds  to  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah  (2 
Kings  xxv.  2).  This  is  the  year  588.  In  Jerem. 
lii.  28  sq.,  the  seventh  year  is  given  instead  of  tha 
eighth,  and  the  eighteenth  instead  of  the  nine- 
teenth of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  we  shall  «ee  be- 


CHAPTER  XXV.  8-30. 


2t>5 


low,  in  the  appendix  to  the  Exegetkal  notes,  that 
this  difference,  which  only  amounts  at  best  to  one 
year,  is  only  apparent  and  not  real.  It  cannot  in- 
validate the  calculation.  The  last  chronological 
statement  which  occurs  in  the  book  is  that,  in  the 
thirty-seventh  year  of  Jehoiachin's  captivity,  Evil- 
Merodach,  Nebuchadnezzar's  successor,  released 
Jehoiachin  from  his  prison  in  Babylon  (chap.  xxv. 
27  ;  Jerem.  lii.  31).  As  the  exile  took  place  in 
the  year  599  (see  above  under  a),  the  liberation 
must  have  occurred  in  562.  According  to  Jose- 
phus  (Antiq.  x.  11,  1)  Nebuchadnezzar  reigned 
for  forty-three  years.  We  have  seen  above  that 
he  became  king  in  606 ;  his  death,  therefore,  took 
place  in  562.  In  this  year  Evil-Merodach  follow- 
ed him,  and,  on  his  accession,  he  showed  grace  to 
Jehoiachin. 

Thus  the  chronological  statements  in  reference 
to  this  period  which  are  presented  by  the  Bible 
stand  in  the  fullest  accord  with  each  other,  and 
we  have  the  more  reason  to  hold  to  them,  inas- 
much as  they  are  consistent  with  those  of  the 
former  period.  It  is  not  our  duty  to  inquire 
whether  they  agree  with  the  results  of  the  Assy- 
rian and  Egyptian  investigations.  We  need  only 
remark  that  these  results  are  based,  partly  upon 
later  unbiblical  authors,  and  partly  on  attempts  to 
decipher  old  Asiatic  inscriptions,  which  have  as 
yet  produced  no  certain  results,  so  that,  as  Rosch 
says :  "  They  are  not  yet  by  any  means  so  firmly 
established  that  they  could  force  us  to  surrender 
the  data  of  the  Old  Testament."  [See  the  Appendix 
<m  the  Chronology.] 

EXEGETICAL  AND   CRITICAL. 

Ver.  8.  And  in  the  fifth  month,  on  the  sev- 
enth day.  Instead  of  the  seventh  day,  Jerem. 
lii.  12  gives  the  tenth  day.  As  the  tenth  day  was 
the  day  on  which  Nebuchadnezzar  came  to  Jeru- 
salem, according  to  that  passage,  it  is  impossible 
to  assume,  with  the  Rabbis,  that  the  seventh  day 
was  the  day  that  the  burning  commenced,  and  the 
tenth  the  day  on  which  it  ended.  Also  in  ver.  17 
Jeremiah  has  five  cubits  instead  of  three,  and  in 
ver.  19  seven  men  instead  of  five.  The  difference 
in  these  numbers  is  to  be  explained  by  a  mistake 
in  the  numeral-letters.  In  ver.  17  the  number  five 
is  unquestionably  correct  (cf.  1  Kings  vii.  16;  2 
Chron.  iii.  15),  and  in  this  verse  the  number  ten  (') 
no  doubt  is  to  be  preferred  to  seven  (J).  In  fact, 
the  text  of  Jeremiah  is  in  many  respects  to  be  pre- 
ferred. Josephus  (Bella  Jud.  6,  4,  8)  states  that 
Herod's  temple  was  burned  on  the  tenth  of  the 
fifth  month,  and  adds  that  it  was  a  marvellous 
coincidence  that  the  first  temple  was  burned  on 
the  same  day  by  the  Babylonians. — The  nine- 
teenth year  of  king  Nebuchadnezzar.  See  the 
Chronological  section  above. — Nebuzar-adan.  On 
the  etymology  and  signification  of  this  name  see 
Gesenius,  Thesaurus  II.,  p.  839,  and  Furst,  H.-  W.- 
B.  II.,  s.  6.  [The  former  interprets  it  by  Mercurii 
iux  dominus,  i.  e.,  dux  cui  Mercurius  favei],  the  lat- 
ter considers  it  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  expres- 
sion which  immediately  follows :    DTQO'QT  PC), 

t  «.,  literally :  The  captain  of  the  executioners, 
the  one  who  commands  those  who  are  commis- 
sioned to  execute  the  king's  commands,  especially 
his  death-sentences,  and  so,  in  general,  the  captain 
tfihe  [royal]  guard  (Gen.  xxxvii.  36).    ["  It  is  prob- 


ably a  Hebrew  corruption  of  Nebu-zir-iddin,  which 
means  Nebo-has-given-offspring "  (Rawlinson). 
This  is  the  only  explanation  which  has  any  value, 
since  it  alone  rests  on  an  etymological  study  of 
Chaldee  names. — W.  G.  S.J  The  supplementary 
description  in  Jerem.  lii.  12:  "Who  stood  before 
the  king  of  Babylon,"  designates  him  as  the  first 
and  highest  officer  who  stood  nearest  to  the  king. 
He  therefore  remained  in  the  camp  at  Riblah  with 
the  king,  and  only  went  to  Jerusalem  for  the  exe- 
cution, and  not,  as  Thenius  thinks,  in  order  to 
bring  the  siege  to  a  conclusion.  [It  is  laying  too 
much  stress  on  the  primary  signification  of  the 
word,  which,  moreover,  is  incorrect,  to  suppose 
that  he  did  not  go  up  to  the  city  until  it  had  been 
taken,  and  that  then  his  business  was  to  "  exe- 
cute "  upon  it  the  vengeance  or  punishment  ordain- 
ed by  the  king.  He  went  up  as  the  chief  officer  of 
the  king  "to  bring  the  siege  to  a  conclusion,"  to 
take  possession  of  the  city  in  the  king's  name,  and 
to  carry  out  the  king's  determinations  in  regard 
to  it.— W.  G.  S.] 

Ver.   9.    And  he  burnt  the  house   of  the 

Lord,  &c.     We  see  what  is   meant  by  TQ-^  , 

all  the  houses,  from  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  19,  where  we 

read :  ITniJEnX"^  ,  all  the  palaces.      He  left  the 

small  houses  standing  for  the  poor  and  humble 
people  who  were  left  behind. — In  Jer.   lii.   14  we 

find   $>3    before  nbin  in  ver.   10.      It  has  been 

omitted  here  by  some  accident,  or  because  it  was 
regarded  as  a  matter  of  course ;  it  is  by  no  means 
"an  arbitrary  exaggeration"  (Thenius).  On  the 
other  hand  we  must  supply  J-|X  before  21  on  the 

authority  of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah.  Many  old 
MSS.  contain  it,  and  all  the  versions  supply  it 
Nebuzar-adan  directed  the  work  of  destruction; 
the  entire  army  fulfilled  his  commands. — The 
exiles  were  composed,  as  the  repetition  of  riXl 

shows,  of  "  remnants  "  (IIV)  of  tw0  classes  ;  first, 

of  those  whom  famine,  pestilence,  and  sword  had 
yet  spared,  and  those  who  had  deserted  to  the 
Chaldeans;   and,   secondly,  of  JlDnn  ,    or,   as  we 

read  in  Jerem.  lii.  15  liDXH  ,  which  Hitzig  de- 
clares to  be  the  original  reading,  and  to  mean 
master-workman  in  a  collective  sense,  comprising 
both  the  classes  which  are  mentioned  in  Jerem. 
xxiv.  1.  The  parallel  passage,  however,  in  Jerem. 
xxxix.  9  does  not  admit  of  this  interpretation,  for 
there  we  read:  D'TXtran  DJjn  "ITY1  ■  DSCT  is  not 
a  synonym  of  [IDS!!  (master-workman),  but  rf 
Jionn  (multitude).     This  latter  word  is  used  for 

the  mass  of  the  people,  and  especially  for  the  mul- 
titude of  persons  capable  of  bearing  arms  (Isai. 
xiii.  4;  xxxiii.  3;  Judges  iv.  7;  Dan.  xi.  11).  We 
must  understand  this  class  of  exiles  to  be  the  re- 
mainder of  the  able-bodied  male  population  who 
were  capable  of  bearing  arms  (Thenius).  In 
fl!2H71  ,  X  is  an  error  for  n  .  The  one  class 
were  inhabitants  of  the  city ;  the  other  were  per- 
sons who  had  belonged  to  the  army  without  being 

inhabitants  of  the  city. — VTXH    Ty?*\  ,  ver.   12,  is 

used  as  in  chap.  xxiv.  14.  The  words  do  not  mean 
that  he  left  vinedressers  and  husbandmen,  b'j<.  aj 


296 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


is  stated  in  Jerem.  xxxix.  10,  that  he  "left  of  the 
poor  of  the  people,  which  had  nothing,  in  the 
land  of  Judah,  and  gave  them  vineyards  and  fields 
at  the  same  time."  The  Chaldee  version  has  it, 
"that  they  might  cultivate  vineyards  and  fields." 
The  land  was  not  to  remain  desert  and  unculti- 
vated. 

Ter.  13.  And  the  pillars  of  brass,  Ac.     In 
regard  to  these  pillars,  and  the  bases,  and  the  sea, 

see   notes  on  1  Kings  vii.   15-39.      The   ripifD 

(sprinklers),  mentioned  in  Jerem.  lii.  18,  are  not 
named  among  the  utensils  enumerated  in  ver.  14 
(for  description  of  which  see  notes  on  1  Kings  vii. 
40,  50);  they  are  mentioned  in  ver.  15.  In  ver. 
15  we  have  the  utensils  of  the  forecourt,  aud  in 
ver.  15  those  of  the  sanctuary.  It  is  expressly 
stated  in  Jerem.  xxvii.  19,  21  that  there  remained 
after  the  first  spoliation,  chap.  xxiv.  13,  a  portion 
of  these  utensils  which  may  have  been  hidden 
away  at  that  time.  The  parallel  passage,  Jerem. 
lii.  19,  adds  four  more  to  the  utensils  which  are 
mentioned  in  ver.  15.  In  general  the  account 
here  is  brief,  and  all  articles  not  mentioned  are 
summarily  disposed  of  by  the  words :  "  such 
things  as  were  of  gold,  in  gold,  and  such  things 
as  were  of  silver,  in  silver,"  i.  e.,  "  so  much  as 
there  was  to  be  found  of  either  kind  "  (Thenius). 
— rip?  is  not  to  be  supplied  in  ver.  16  from  ver. 
15,  and  D'HlSJfn  ,  &c,  are  not  the  objects  of  this 

verb.  The  verse  means  to  show  that  there  was 
such  a  mass  of  the  brass  which  was  carried  away 
that  it  could  not  be  weighed.  D,"1:lt3yn  is  a  no- 
minative absolute.  As  for  the  pillars,  Ac.,  the 
mass  of  the  brass  was  so  great,  &c.     triN  with 

Qsn  stands  in  contrast  to   D'JK'  with   DHIBWI  • 

t  -  •  -  :  -  t 

There  were  two  of  the  pillars  but  only  one  sea. — 
In  ver.  17  the  author  recurs  to  the  pillars  in  order 
to  say  that  they  were  very  valuable,  not  only  on 
account  of  the  mass  of  the  brass  which  was  on 
them  (ver.  16),  but  also  on  account  of  the  artistic 
labor  which  had  been  spent  upon  them.     Cvt7  i 

as  has  been  said  above,  is  an  error,  the  con- 
sequence of  mistaking  the  numeral  character,  for 
the  height  of  the  capital  of  the  column,  according 
to  the  consistent  statements  in  1  Kings  vii.  16;  2 
Chron.  iii.   15;   and  Jerem.  lii.  22  was  five  cubits. 

H33t;'n-7y  ,  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  is  difficult,  for 

the  second  column  was  in  all  respects,  and  not 
simply  in  respect  to  the  "  wreathen  work,"  like  to 
the  first.  Moreover,  the  wreathen  work  was  not 
the  most  remarkable  feature  in  these  columns,  so 
as  to  deserve  to  be  especially  mentioned.  Thenius 
sees  in  the  clause  "  the  residuum  of  a  sentence 
which  is  given  in  full  in  Jeremiah"  [lii.  23],  and 
which  closes  with  the  words   y2D    n33tMrr?y  • 

We  must  admit  either  that  the  original  account 
[which  was  used  by  the  author  of  "  Kings  "]  was 
here  too  much  abbreviated  by  him,  or  else  that 
the  text  at  this  point  is  defective.  The  account 
in  Jeremiah  is,  at  this  point,  fuller  and  more 
satisfactory.  As  this  author  had  already  given  a 
full  description  of  these  things  in  1  Kings  vii. 
15-22,  he  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  go  into  de- 
tail here. 

Ver.  18.  And  the  captain  of  the  guard  took 


Seraiah.  The  persons  who  are  mentioned  here 
aud  in  ver.  19  are  not  the  same  ones  who  ar« 

called,  in  Jerem.  xxxix.  6,  D'lh ,  and  who  were 

put  to  death  with  the  sons  of  Zedekiah,  for  these 
were  first  captured  by  Nebuzar-adan  after  the  taking 
of  the  city.  Seraiah  is  not  the  person  of  that  name 
who  is  mentioned  in  Jerem.  1L  59,  but  the  grand- 
father or  great-grandfather  of  Ezra  (see  Ezra  vii.  1 ; 
1  Chron.  v.  40).  Zephaniah  was  no  doubt  the  son  of 
the  priest  Maaseiah,  who,  although  a  priest  of  the 
second  rank  (see  notes  on  chap,  xxiii.  4),  appears 
to  have  been  a  person  of  importance  (Jerem.  xxi. 
2;  xxix.  25,  29;  xxxvii.  3).  The  three  keepers 
of  the  door  were  the  chiefs  of  the  body  of  levites 
who  guarded  the  temple;  one  was  stationed  at 
each  of  the  three  main  entrances  to  the  temple 
(Jerem.  xxxviii.  14);  according  to  Josephus:  rove 
(pvAaocovrac  to  iepbv  qyefidvac.  The  chief  royal  offi- 
cers were  also  taken,  together  with  these  chief 
men  in  the  personnel  of  the  temple  (ver.  19).     -py 

stands  in  contrast  with  the  temple;  whether  it  has 
the  narrower  meaning  of  the  "  City  of  David  "  (The- 
nius), is  uncertain.     D,-ID   cannot   mean  a  eunuch 

here,  any  more  than  in  chap.  xx.  18,  and  xxiv.  12. 
The  command  of  soldiers  would  never  be  intrusted 
to  such  a  person.     Jerem.  lii.  25  has   ITn   instead 

T  T 

of  N1H ,  evidently  more  correctly,  for  he  was  so  no 
longer.  We  cannot  tell  whether  five  men  of  those 
who  belonged  to  the  king's  immediate  circle  were 
carried  away,  as  is  here  stated,  or  seven,  as  is 
stated  in  Jerem.  lit  25.  The  diverse  statements 
are  the  result  of  some  error  in  reading  or  copying 
the  numerals.  Hitzig :  "  Seven  persons  are  men- 
tioned as  having  been  chosen  to  be  a  sacrifice  on 
account  of  the  mystical  significance  of  that  num- 
ber," but  the  number  five,  half  of  ten,  which  was 
the  number  for  a  complete  whole  incorporated  of 
parts,  may  also  have  had  mystical  significance. 
The  reason  why  just  this  number,  whether  five  or 
seven,  were  taken  appears  to  be  given  in  the  rela- 
tive clause  which  follows,  and  that  is  that  there 
were  just  so  many  left  in  the  city.     S3SH  "if  is  a 

genitive  after  "ISDH  [the  scribe  of  the  captain  ot 

the  host],  and  X3Vt3i"I  is  not  to  be  joined  with  -ie» 

but  with  isbn  [the  scribe  who  was  put  on  the 

staff  of  the  commander-in-chief,  and  whose  duty  it 
was  to  enroll  the  persons  liable  to  military  service, 

&c]    The  article  with  -\QD  (it  is  wanting  in  Jerem. 

lii.  25)  shows  that  that  is  not  a  proper  name  in  ap- 
position with  "  Captain  of  the  host,"  as  the  Tulg. 
and  Luther  understand  it :  "  Sopher,  the  com- 
mander of  the  army."  It  means  the  general's 
clerk,  the  officer  who  had  charge  of  the  writing 
which  might  be  required.  "  Perhaps  the  com- 
mander himself  had  fled  with  the  king  "  (Thenius). 
[Of  course  any  one  who  filled  this  office  at  a  time 
when  writing  was  a  special  accomplishment  would 
be  a  person  of  far  more  importance  than  a  military 
clerk  now  is.  The  Babylonian  king  thought  him 
an  officer  whom  it  was  worth  while  to  put  to  death 
among  the  high  officials  ol  the-  kingdom. — ]  The 
threescore  men  of  the  people  of  the  land,  who 
were  put  to  death  with  the  chief  officers,  were 
either  "  the  due's  of  the  rebellion  with  their  im- 
mediate followers-'  (Von  Gerlacli),  or    -Sich  at 


CHAPTER  XXY.  8-30. 


297 


aad  in  some  way  distinguished  themselves  above 
others  in  the  defence  of  the  city  "  (Keil).  It  is 
very  doubtful  whether  they  were,  as  Thenius 
thinks,  the  handful  that  were  left  of  the  garrison 
of  the  city  of  David,  and  the  opinion  of  Hitzig  and 
Bertheau  that  they  were  the  country  people  who 
had  fled  into  the  citadel  is  very  improbable. — Vex. 
21  So  Judah  was  carried  out  of  their  land. 
"  Xebuzar-adan  took  up  his  march  toward  Riblah, 
not  only  with  these  who  were  destined  to  death, 
but  also  with  all  the  people  of  Judah  "  (Hitzig). 
This  sentence  evidently  closes  the  history,  like 
Jerem.  lii.  27,  and  chap.  xvii.  23.  At  the  same 
time  it  forms  the  introduction  to  what  follows. 
Thus  was  Judah  (that  is,  the  mass  and  strength  of 
the  nation)  led  away  into  captivity.  As  for  those 
who  were  left  behind  (the  comparatively  smaH, 
and  poor,  and  weak  portion),  Nebuchadnezzar  set 
Gedaliah  over  them. 

Ver.  22.  And  as  for  the  people  that  remain- 
ed in  the  land  of  Judah.  What  is  here  narrated 
in  vers.  22  to  26  is  omitted  in  Jerem.  lii.  because  it 
is  narrated,  in  that  book,  in  chaps,  xl.  and  xli., 
i»nd  in  much  fuller  detail.  The  verses  before  us 
form  only  an  extract  from  that  account,  which  is 
here  inserted  in  its  proper  historical  connection. — 
Gedaliah,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  appointed  gover- 
nor, was  the  son  of  Ahikam,  who  is  mentioned  in 
chap.  xxii.  12  as  a  man  of  importance  under  Josiah, 
and  who,  according  to  Jerem.  xxvi.  24,  saved  the 
life  of  the  prophet  when,  during  Jehoiakim's  reign, 
he  was  in  danger  of  falling  a  victim  of  popular 
rage.  Gedaliah,  like  his  father,  was  a  friend  of 
the  prophet.  He  shared  the  prophet's  judgment  in 
regard  to  the  wise  policy  to  be  pursued,  and  joined 
with  him  in  advising  Zedekiah  to  surrender  to  the 
Babylonians  (Jerem.  xxxviii.  11).  Hence  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, after  he  had  taken  the  city,  intrusted 
the  prophet,  who  until  then  had  lain  in  captivity, 
to  the  care  and  protection  of  Gedaliah  (Jerem. 
xxxix.  14;  xl.  6). — The  captains  of  the  armies, 

they  and  the  men,  &c.      Instead  of   D'tMKfl   we 

find  in  Jerem.  xl.  7:   DiTtl'JN,  their  men.     These 

are  they  "  who  were  scattered  when  the  king  was 
captured,  so  that  Jerem.  xl.  7  describes  them  as 
those  '  which  were  in  the  fields '  "  (Thenius). 
Mizpah  was  a  city  in  the  territory  of  Benjamin 
(Josh.  xiii.  26),  some  hours'  journey  north-west  of 
Jerusalem.  Here,  in  this  city,  which  was  situated 
in  a  high  position  and  strongly  fortified  (1  Kings 
xv.  22),  the  governor  established  himself,  as  he 
could  not  live  in  the  destroyed  city  of  Jerusalem. 
Ishmael,  according  to  ver.  25,  was  the  grandson  of 

Elishama,    the     "ISD   of  king  Jehoiakim  (Jerem. 

xxxvi.  12,  20).  For  further  particulars  in  regard 
to  Johanan  see  Jerem.  xl.  13  sq. ;  xli.  11  sq.  Jona- 
than is  mentioned  with  him,  Jerem.  xl.  8,  as  an- 
other son  of  Careah.  Possibly  the  similarity  of 
the  names  caused  the  latter  to  be  omitted  in  this 
place.  Seraiah  came  from  Netopha,  which  appears 
to  have  lain  between  Bethlehem  and  Anathoth  (Ezra 
ii.  22 ;  Nehem.  vii.  26).  Jaazaniah  came  from 
Maa>:ha,  which  is  mentioned  in  2  Sam.  x.  6,  8 ;  1 
Chron.  xix.  6,  and  Josh.  xii.  5,  together  with 
Syrian  districts,  and,  in  Deut.  iii.  14,  is  mentioned 
as  lying  on  the  boundary  of  the  country  east  of  the 
Jordan.  He  was,  therefore,  a  naturalized  alien. — 
By  the  servants  of  the  Chaldees   (ver  24)   we 


have  to  understand  the  officers  whom  Nebuchad- 
nezzar had  left  to  govern  the  country,  and  whom 
he  had  perhaps  put  under  Gedaliah's  command 
The  latter,  therefore,  makes  promises  on  their  be 
half,  provided  that  the  Jewish  captains  would  ac- 
quiesce in  the  new  order  of  things. — Ver.  25.  In 
the  seventh  month,  that  is,  only  two  months  af- 
ter the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (ver.  8).  Of  the 
seed  royal ;  this  is  expressly  stated  in  order  to 
show  what  incited  him  to  this  action.  He  believed 
that  he,  as  a  descendant  of  the  royal  house,  had  a 
claim  to  the  position  of  governor.  According  to 
Jerem.  xl.  14  he  was  also  incited  to  this  action  by 
Baalis,  king  of  the  Ammonites,  who  no  doubt 
would  have  been  very  glad  to  throw  off  the  Chal- 
dean yoke. — The  author  breaks  off  abruptly  with 
ver.  26,  and  simply  states  the  result  of  this  act. 
The  people,  fearing  the  return  and  vengeance  of 
the  Chaldeans,  fled  into  Egypt.  For  further  de- 
tails see  Jerem.  xl.-xlii. 

Ver.  27.  In  the  seven  and  thirtieth  year  of 
the  captivity.  See  the  Chronological  Remarks  above. 
In  Jerem.  lii.  31  the  twenty-fifth  day  is  given  in- 
stead of  the  twenty-seventh,  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  in  the  Sept.  the  twenty-fourth,  evidently  in 
consequence  of  a  mistake  in  the  numerals.  We 
see  from  this  accuracy  in  the  date  what  significance 
was  attached  to  the  event.  Evilmerodach  was  the 
son  and  successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  He  only 
reigned  two  years  and  was  put  to  death  by  his 
brother-in-law,  Neriglassar  (Berosus,  cited  in  Jo- 
sephus  c.  Apion.  i.  20).  The  signification  of  Evil  is 
uncertain.  Merodach,  or  Berodach,  was  the  name  of 
the  Babylonian  Mars.  We  find  it  in  the  composi- 
tion of  other  proper  names  also  (see  notes  on  xx. 
12).     In  the  year  that  he  became  king.     For 

1370  we  find  in  Jerem.  lii.  31:  'irpi>B ,  i-  «•,  of  his 

reign,  equivalent  to :  When  he  came  to  be  king. 
This  is  evidently  more  correct.     Sept. :  h>  ro  eviav- 

Ttj  rf/c  paoiteiac  aiirov.  C'SO-JIX  KfeO  ,  as  in  Gen. 

xl.  13,  20,  means,  To  lift  up  the  head  (for  some  one), 
i.  e.,  inasmuch  as  captives  moved  about  in  despon- 
dency, with  bowed  heads,  to  lift  up  their  heads  is 
to  release  them  from  captivity,  despair,  and  misery 
(Job  x.  15,  cf.  Judges  viii.  28).     Here  again  the 

text  before   us  is  abbreviated.      It  omits   NV'l, 

which   is   found   in  Jerem.  lii.  31,  before   JV30 . 

This  deliverance  from  captivity  was  an  act  of  grace 
performed  by  him  at  his  accession,  but  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  special  ground  for  it  in  the  case  of 
Jehoiachin,  as  he  was  preferred  before  the  other 
captive  kings.  ["The  rabbis  say  that  Evilmero- 
dach had  formed  a  friendship  with  Jehoiachin  in 
prison,  into  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  cast  the 
former  because  he  had  been  guilty  of  excesses  in 
carrying  on  the  government  during  an  illness  of 
the  king,  and  had  expressed  pleasure  at  the  same ; 
evidently  a  fiction  based  on  this  passage  and  Dan. 
iv."  (Thenius).] — And  set  his  throne  above,  &c, 
ver.  28.  This  certainly  means  that  he  gave  him 
the  preference  and  the  higher  rank.  Whether  he 
merely  held  him  in  higher  estimation  (Rosenmuller, 
Keil),  or  "  allowed  him  actually  to  occupy  a  more 
elevated  seat  "  (Hitzig,  Thenius),  is  not  a  matter  of 
importance.  The  kings  that  were  with  him  in 
Babylon,  are  "  those  who,  having  been  deprived, 
like  Jehoiachin,  of   heir  kingdoms,  were  forced  tc 


298 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


enhance  the  triumph  and  glory  of  the  court  at  Baby- 
lon, cf.  Judges  i.  7 "  (Hitzig). — Ver.  29.  And 
changed  his  prison-garmeuts.     Instead  of  the 

late   Aramaic  form   NSC'   we  find  in  Jerem.  Hi.  33 

T    • 

nst'-  The  subject  is  not  Evilmerodach  (Hitzig), 
but  Jehoiachin,  who  is  the  subject  of  the  following 
verb  ^3N1  ■     In  y>n  the  suffix  can  only  refer  to 

—  t  :  t  -  " 

Jehoiachin  and  not  to  Evilmerodach.  It  would  be 
a  false  inference,  therefore,  that  Jehoiachin's  period 
of  grace  only  lasted  through  Evilmerodach's  short 
reign.  "Jehoiachin  ate  in  person  at  the  royal 
table,  but  he  probably  also  received  an  allowance 
for  the  support  of  his  little  court,  consisting  of  his 
servants  and  attendants  "  (Hitzig).  Here  again  this 
text  is  abbreviated.  In  Jeremiah  there  follow  af- 
ter inra  the   words:    "until  his  death."     Here 

those  words  are  omitted  as  unnecessary  after :  all 
the  days  of  his  life.  The  Sept.  also  have  these 
words  in  this  place.  The  fact  that  they  omit  them 
in  Jerem.  lii.  34  does  not  justify  the  assumption  of 
Thenius  that  they  were  borrowed  from  ver.  29, 
and  are  not  original  in  that  place.  Hitzig  very 
properly  declares  that  they  are  "  evidently  genu- 
ine," and  adds:  "In  ver.  11  'all  the  days  of  his 
life '  might  well  be  omitted.  Here,  however,  where 
he  narrates  something  joyful,  the  author  looks  back 
once  more,  after  fixing  the  term  or  limit,  over  the 
entire  period  of  good  fortune.  Cf.  1  Kings  v.  1 ; 
xv.  5."  He  wants  to  tell  once  more  what  good 
fortune  Jehoiachin  enjoyed  until  the  end  of  his  life, 
and  how  Evilmerodach  at  least  had  the  intention  of 
providing  for  him.  This  good  fortune  lasted  until 
Jehoiachin's  death,  whether  he  died  before  or  after 
Evilmerodach. 


Appendix. — After  the  words :  So  Judah  was 
carried  away  out  of  their  land,  there  follows,  in 
Jerem.  Hi.  28-30,  the  following  statement,  which  is 
omitted  in  the  book  of  Kings:  "This  is  the  people 
whom  Nebuchadrezzar  carried  away  captive ;  in 
the  seventh  year  three  thousand  Jews  and  three 
and  twenty.  In  the  eighteenth  year  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar he  carried  away  captive  from  Jerusalem 
eight  hundred  thirty  and  two  persons.  In  the 
three  and  twentieth  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  Ne- 
buzar-adan,  the  captain  of  the  guard,  carried  away 
captive  of  the  Jews  seven  hundred  forty  and  five 
persons.  All  the  persons  were  four  thousand  and 
six  hundred."  2  Kings  xxv.  22-26  is  wanting  in 
Jeremiah  lii.  because  its  statements  had  been  given 
In  detail  in  chaps,  xl.  and  xli. ;  the  statements  above 
quoted  are  inserted  in  Jerem.  lii.  because  they  had 
not  been  given  before,  as  they  are  in  2  Kings,  in 
chap.  xxiv.  14-16.  The  numbers  given  in  Jere- 
miah vary  very  much  from  those  in  Kings.  The 
former,  however,  are  recommended,  as  Hitzig  says, 
by  their  detail ;  they  cannot  have  been  invented. 
They  are  evidently  derived  from  a  different  source, 
and  the  only  question  is,  what  relation  does  that 
source  bear  to  the  statements  in  the  book  of  Kings  ? 
Of  the  three  separate  deportations  mentioned,  one 
took  place  in  the  seventh,  and  one  in  the  eighteenth, 
year  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  These  can  be  no  other 
than  the  one  which  took  place  according  to  2  Kings 
xxiv.  12,  in  the  eighth,  and  the  one  which  took 
place  according  to  2  Kings  xxv.  8  and  Jerem.  lii. 
12.  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 


The  eighteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  would  be. 
as  is  expressly  stated  in  Jerem.  xxxii.  1.  the  tent); 
of  Zedekiah,  that  is,  the  year  in  which  Jerusalem 
was  first  besieged.  There  cannot  have  been  any 
deportation  in  this  year.  Again,  the  seventh  year 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  would  not  be  the  year  in  which 
Jehoiachin  reigned  for  three  months,  and  in  which 
it  is  said  that  he  and  ten  thousand  others  were  led 
into  exile,  but  the  last  year  of  Jehoiakim.  In  this 
year  there  was  no  deportation.  We  are  therefore 
compelled  to  assume,  if  we  wiU  not  alter  all  the 
other  chronological  data  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah 
itself,  that  the  original  document  from  which 
Jerem.  lii.  28-30  is  derived,  reckons  the  reign  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  from  auother  starting-point  from 
that  which  is  adopted  in  the  book  of  Kings  and 
elsewhere  in  Jeremiah.  This  may  weH  be,  inas- 
much as  the  years  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  do  not 
coincide  exactly  with  those  of  the  Jewish  kings. 
The  difference,  however,  only  amounts  to  one  year. 
The  third  deportation  in  the  twenty-third  year 
must,  therefore,  have  taken  place  in  the  twenty- 
fourth  year.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  Kings  at  all, 
but  no  doubt  took  place.  In  view  of  the  continual 
disposition  to  revolt,  it  is  very  likely  that  he  carried 
off  more  of  the  people  in  his  twenty-third  or  twen- 
ty-fourth year,  especiaUy  as  he  was  at  that  time 
busy  besieging  Tyre.  He  intrusted  this  duty  to 
the  same  officer  who  had  had  charge  of  the  previous 
deportation.  There  is  a  much  more  serious  diffi- 
culty in  regard  to  the  number  of  the  exiles.  Ac- 
cording to  Jerem.  lii.  28  there  were  only  3,023  in 
the  first  deportation ;  according  to  2  Kings  xxiv. 
14  there  were  10,000.  Josephus  says  there  were 
10,832.  Evidently  he  has  joined  the  10,000  in 
Kings,  for  the  first  deportation,  with  the  832  in 
Jeremiah  for  the  second  (Antiq.  x.  1,  1).  Thenius 
suggests  that  the  sign  for  ten  (yod)  may  have  re- 
sembled the  sign  for  three  (gimel)  in  the  original 
document  from  which  these  statements  are  derived, 
and  so  3,023  took  the  place  of  10,023.  This  last 
would  then  be  the  accurate  number  for  which 
10,000  is  the  round  number.  But  the  sum  given 
at  the  end,  4,600,  supports  3,023  in  this  place,  and 
this  testimony  cannot  be  put  aside  by  the  critical 
decree  that :  "  The  summation  at  the  end  was  in- 
terpolated by  the  redactor."  According  to  Ewald, 
"  mL"J)  has  faUen  out  after  JQE»  in  ver.  28  just 
as  certainly  as  it  has  fallen  out  after  njICL"  in 
the  statement  of  Jehoiachin's  life  in  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  9."  According  to  this  we  should  have  to 
take  it  as  referring,  not  to  the  deportation  men- 
tioned in  2  Kings  xxiv.  14,  but  to  the  later  one 
under  Zedekiah.  The  seventeenth  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  the  9th  of  Zedekiah,  and  in  that  year 
Nebuchadnezzar  advanced  against  Jerusalem  (2 
Kings  xxv.  1).  He  took  the  city  in  Zedekiah's 
eleventh  year  (2  Kings  xxv.  2),  and  before  that  no 
deportation  can  have  taken  place.  The  discrep- 
ancy between  10,000  and  3,023  can  hardly  be  ac- 
counted for  otherwise  than  by  the  explanation  of 
Estius.  In  ver.  28  the  3,023  are  expressly  men- 
tioned as  "Jews,"  that  is,  persons  who  belonged 
to  the  tribe  of  Judah.  The  10,000  included  persons 
not  of  that  tribe,  Benjamites  and  others  who  had 
joined  themselves  to  Judah,  since  it  alone  repre- 
sented the  Israelitish  nationality,  and  who  made 
common  cause  with  it  against  the  Chaldeans. 
There  may  well  have  been  7,000  of  these,  and  the 
entire  number  in  the  first  captivity,  in  hiding  the 
3,023  "  Jews,"  was  thus  10,000.     It  is  evident  that 


CHAPTER  XXV.  8-30. 


299 


the  statements  in  Jerem.  lii.  28-30  are  meant  to 
apply  only  to  the  persons  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
(see  rVTOT  ver.  27),  and  not  to  all  who  were  car- 
ried away  captive.  This  opinion  is  also  favored 
by  the  number  4,600  as  the  sum  of  the  exiles,  for 
this  number  would  be  far  too  small  for  the  sum  of 
all  the  persons  carried  into  captivity.  [There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Jerem.  lii.  28  30  refers  to  the 
Jews  who  were  taken  captive.  What  reason  have 
we  for  supposing  that  2  Kings  xxiv.  14  refers  to 
or  includes  any  others  than  Jews  ?  There  is  none. 
It  is  only  an  invention  for  the  sake  of  harmonizing 
the  two  passages.  Then  the  probabilities  are 
against  it.  The  persons  carried  away  were  chosen 
on  account  of  their  rank,  position,  and  influence. 
We  have  an  instance  in  Jaazaniah  of  Maaeha  (ver. 
xxv.  see  Excget.  notes  on  that  verse)  that  others 
than  men  of  Judah  held  power  and  rank.  Shebna 
the  scribe  (Isai.  xxii.  15)  is  another  instance  to 
prove  that  in  the  time  before  the  captivity  pure 
Israelitish,  much  more  pure  Jewish  blood,  was  not 
necessary  to  hold  high  office  in  Jerusalem.  The 
persons  of  the  highest  rank  were  the  ones  taken 
away — as  such — whether  Jews  or  not.  Non- 
Jews  were,  of  course,  rare  exceptions.  Of  the 
common  people  large  numbers  were  spared.  Natu- 
rally people  of  Judah,  who  were  most  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  fate  of  Jerusalem,  would  be  taken 
first,  together  with  such  of  other  tribes  or  nation- 
alities as  were  dangerous  from  their  rank  and  influ- 
ence and  ability.  It  is,  therefore,  improbable  that 
many  non-Jews  of  the  common  people  were  carried 
away.  It  amounts  to  a  certainty  that  the  exiles 
were  not  composed  of  non-Jews  in  the  ratio  of 
7,000  to  3,000.  This  explanation  must,  therefore, 
be  abandoned.  It  is  the  only  true  policy,  in  this 
and  in  similar  cases,  to  take  note  of  the  discre- 
pancy as  a  fact,  and  to  abandon  the  attempt  at 
forced  and  strained  explanations.  Between  the 
two  accounts,  that  in  Jeremiah  deserves  the  pre- 
ference as  the  more  specific,  and  also  as  the  more 
moderate  statement.  The  larger  number  and  the 
round  number  is  suspicious. — W.  G.  S.]  Only  832 
were  taken  away  in  the  second  deportation,  be- 
cause there  were  only  so  many  left  of  the  more 
influential  people.  The  745  who  were  taken  away 
at  the  third  deportation  were  not  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem   but    DHIIT  (ver.   30).     The  smallness 

of  this  number  is  due  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the 
Jews,  properly  speaking,  had  been  taken  away 
before. 

[The  numbers  certainly  are  astonishingly  small 
in  one  point  of  view,  though  in  another  we  are  not 
surprised  that  they  are  no  larger.  Taking  the 
number  of  Israelites  who  entered  Palestine  at  the 
lowest  estimate,  and  noticing  the  numbers  which 
formed  the  armies,  or  were  engaged  in  battle  at 
various  times,  as  well  as  the  pictures  of  society 
which  are  given,  especially  by  Isaiah  and  the  other 
older  prophets,  we  get  the  impression  that  there 
was  a  very  large  population  in  Palestine  before  the 
Assyrian  Empire  began  to  press  upon  the  North. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  we  consider  the  great 
difficulty  of  leading  a  large  mass  of  people,  with 
the  aged,  the  women,  and  the  children,  on  a  long 
journey  through  a  rough  country,  we  can  hardly 
conceive  it  possible  that  the  conquerors  should 
have  taken  away  an  entire  population.  The  Assy- 
rians, however,  blotted  out  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes.     The  whole  picture  which  is  presented  to  j 


us  gives  the  impression  that  the  land  was  depop- 
ulated and  left  desert.  The  wild  beasts  took  pos- 
session of  it.  Not  enough  remained  to  continue 
the  ancient  traditions  and  worship  there.  It  wa( 
found  necessary  to  begin  almost  de  novo  in  the 
population  and  cultivation  of  the  country.  So  too 
in  Judah.  The  pictures  presented  by  the  prophets 
and  in  the  Psalms,  as  well  as  by  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  are  those  of  a  depopulated  and 
desert  country.  Such  numbers  were  taken  away 
that  some  had  to  be  left  on  purpose  to  cultivate 
the  land.  When  the  exiles  came  back  they  had  to 
re-found  the  nation.  Now  we  hear  that  there  were 
only  4,000  exiles  in  all,  or,  at  most,  10,000.  This 
seems  reasonable  in  view  of  the  difficulty  of  trans- 
portation, but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  accounts 
for  the  destruction  of  the  nation.  Two  suggestions 
present  themselves:  in  the  first  place,  the  last  150 
years,  with  their  internal  dissensions,  their  refor- 
mations and  revolutions,  their  counter-reforma- 
tions and  counter-revolutions,  as  well  as  their  for- 
eign wars,  may  have  greatly  reduced  the  popula- 
tion. In  the  second  place,  in  a  nation  such  as 
Judah  was,  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  nationality 
was,  no  doubt,  in  the  upper  and  better  classes. 
The  poor  and  uneducated  and  humble  were  prob- 
ably very  dependent  upon  the  more  fortunate 
classes.  One  proof  of  it  is  the  fact  that  the  pro- 
phets and  psalmists  were  continually  rebuking  the- 
arrogance  of  the  latter  towards  the  former.  The- 
Babylonian  king's  policy  of  carrying  off  the  "chief 
men  "  may,  therefore,  have  been  radical  and  all 
sufficient  for  rooting  out  the  nationality. — W. 
G.  S.] 

Those  who  were  carried  away  last  were  prob- 
ably those  who  had  formerly  been  considered 
harmless,  but  whom  it  was  found,  upon  experience, 
inexpedient  to  trust.  However  the  numbers  may 
be  explained,  it  is  certain  from  Jerem.  hi.  28-30 
that  there  were  only  three  deportations,  and  not 
six,  as  Usher  and  the  Calw.  Bib.  assume,  viz.,  the 
first  in  the  seventh  of  Jehoiakim  (Dan.  i.  1,3  (?)  ), 
the,  second  in  the  seventh  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the 
third  under  Jehoiachin,  the  fourth  in  the  eighteenth, 
the  fifth  iu  the  nineteenth,  and  the  sixth  in  the  twen- 
ty-fourth year  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Later  scholars 
have  reduced  these  to  four:  the  first  under  Jehoi- 
akim, the  second  under  Jehoiachin,  the  third  under 
Zedekiah,  and  the  fourth  some  years  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem.  But  this  is  not  correct, 
for  there  is  no  hint  of  any  deportation  under  Je- 
hoiakim either  in  Kings  or  Chronicles  or  Jeremiah. 
So  much  only  may  be  accepted,  that  Daniel  was 
sent  to  Babylon  as  a  hostage  when  Jehoiakim  be- 
came a  vassal  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxiv.  1). 
Perhaps,  also,  at  that  time  Jehoiakim  gave  some 
of  the  temple  utensils  to  the  enemy  to  pacify  him 
(2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  7). 

HISTORICAL  AND  ETHICAL. 

1.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  did  not  take 
place  immediately  after  the  fall  of  the  city,  but  one 
month  later.  It  is  clearly  designated  in  the  record 
as  a  later  and  independent  event.  Nebuzar-adan 
who  ':  stood  before  the  king  of  Babylon  "  (Jerem. 
lii.  12),  who,  that  is,  attended  his  orders,  came 
to  Jerusalem,  by  the  express  command  of  the 
king,  not  to  take  the  city,  which  had  not  vet  been 
captured  (as  Thenius  thinks),  but,  as  ver.  9  dis 
tinctly  shows,  in  order  to  destroy  the  captured  citj 


300 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


The  destruction  of  the  city  was  intended  and  dis- 
tinctly commanded  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  was 
the  punishment  which  the  king  had  decreed  and 
which  Nebuzar-adan  was  to  execute.  He  went 
methodically  to  work.  First  of  all  he  caused  the 
temple  to  be  burned,  then  the  royal  palace,  then 
the  houses  of  the  great  men,  then  he  tore  down 
the  walls,  and  finally  he  took  the  inhabitants  away. 
In  vers.  13-17  the  account  returns  to  the  temple 
and  enumerates  its  decorations  and  furniture, 
which  w-ere  destroyed  or  carried  off.  The  utter 
destruction  of  the  temple  cannot  have  been  insisted 
on,  on  account  of  the  value  of  the  objects  it  con- 
tained, for  these  were  not  of  gold,  like  the  ones 
which  had  formerly  been  carried  away  (chap.  xxiv. 
13).  The  only  ground  for  it  was  that  the  temple 
had  especial  significance,  as  the  dwelling  of  the 
one  God  in  the  midst  of  His  chosen  people.  Both 
politically  and  religiously  it  was  the  centre  of  the 
State,  the  basis  and  the  bond  of  the  national  unity. 
It  was  the  building  of  chief  importance,  and  was, 
therefore,  to  be  destroyed  first  and  utterly.  The 
temple  worship  had  become,  under  the  four  last 
kings,  a  mere  external  ceremonial.  Even  the 
priests  made  of  it  a  mere  hypocritical  show,  so  that 
Jeremiah  cried  out :  "  Trust  ye  not  in  lying  words, 
saying,  The  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the 
Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  these  "  (Jerem. 
vii.  4)  Then  he  commanded  them  to  repent  and 
amend.  They  did  not,  however,  and  so  the  ex- 
ternals in  which  they  trusted  were  taken  from 
them.  The  destruction  of  the  temple  was  the  seal 
of  God's  truth  impressed  upon  the  words  of  the 
prophets,  in  which  the  people  had  not  believed 
(Jer.  xxvii.  19-22).  The  two  brazen  columns  are 
mentioned  first  and  chiefly  in  the  description  of  the 
glories  of  the  temple.  (They  are  described  with 
nore  detail  in  Jeremiah  than  in  Kings.)  The  cause 
5f  this  is,  as  we  saw  in  the  Exeg.  note  on  1  Kings  vii. 
l\  and  Hist.  §  5  on  1  Kings  vii.  1-51,  that  these  col- 
inms  represented  the  foundation  and  the  strength  of 
ihe  temple,  and  were,  therefore,  in  a  certain  mea- 
mre,  representatives  of  Jehovah.  The  destruction 
.nd  removal  of  these  showed,  more  than  any  other 
•vent,  that  the  house  of  Jehovah,  as  the  physical 
t>ntre  of  the  theocracy,  had  come  to  an  end.  The 
jk  of  the  covenant  is  not  mentioned  in  either  ac- 
'  ouut.  It  seems  to  have  been  removed  from  the 
simple  before  its  destruction.  It  had  been  re- 
uoved  under  Manasseh  or  Amon,  for  Josiah  com- 
manded the  levites  to  bring  it  back  into  the  temple 
(2  Chrou.  xxxv.  3).  We  may  suppose  that  it  was 
removed  again  under  one  of  the  following  kings, 
perhaps  under  Jehoiakim.  What  became  of  it  we 
cannot  tell.  The  inference  from  Jer.  iii.  16  that  it 
was  no  longer  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah 
(Hitzig)  is  not  justified.  Some  suppose,  as  Carpzov 
does  (Apparat.  Crit.  p.  298),  that  it  was  among  the 
articles  which  Nebuchadnezzar  caused  to  be  either 
destroyed  or  carried  off  in  the  time  of  Jehoiachin 
(chap.  xxiv.  13;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  10).  The  story 
of  the  rabbis  that  Josiah  had  caused  it  to  be  hidden 
in  a  subterranean  chamber,  and  that  Jeremiah 
commanded  those  who  fled  to  Egypt  (chap.  xxv. 
26)  to  take  it  with  them,  and  that  they  hid  it  in  a 
cleft  of  the  mountain  on  which  Moses  had  once  been 
(2  Mace.  ii.  5.  Cf.  Buxtorf,  De  area  fad.,  cap.  22. 
Winer,  It.-W.-B  I.  s.  2C3),  sound'1  very  wild. 

2.  The /all  o)  'he  kingdom  of  Judah  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  distui.  '•  statement  of  the  Scriptures,  the 
divine  judgmeiA   vhich  had  long  been  threatened 


by  the  prophets  (Isai.  xxxix.  6,  7 ;  2  Kings  xxi 
10-15;  Jerem.  xix.  3-13).  It  fell  when  all  Jeho- 
vah's attempts  to  recall  the  chosen  people  to  their 
allegiance  had  failed,  and  the  apostesy  from  Him 
and  from  His  law  had  reached  the  utmost  limit. 
Sun  and  Moon,  Baal  and  the  Queen  of  Heaven, 
Adonis  and  Astarte,  all  the  host  of  heaven  were 
worshipped,  and  children  were  sacrificed  to  Moloch 
in  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  Idols  stood  even  in  the 
House  of  Jehovah ;  idol-altars  stood  in  the  streets 
On  the  hills,  on  the  roofs,  in  the  groves,  incense 
was  offered  to  idols.  There  was  no  abomination 
of  idolatry  which  was  not  practised.  All  that  re- 
mained of  the  Jehovah  worship  was  external  cer- 
emonial, and  priests  and  pre)  '  ts  uttered  lies 
(Jerem.  vii.  17,  18,  30,  31,  32;  \i.  2;  xi.  12,  13; 
xvii.  2 ;  xix.  4,  5,  13 ;  xxxii.  29,  34,  .J5  ;  Ezek.  viii. 
3,  9,  10,  14;  xxiii.  38,  39,  &c).  Moral  corruption 
kept  pace  with  this  religious  apostasy :  "Will  ye 
steal,  murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear 
falsely,  and  burn  incense  unto  Baal,  and  walk  after 
other  gods  whom  ye  know  not ;  and  come  and 
stand  before  me  in  this  house,  which  is  called  by 
my  name,  and  say :  We  are  delivered  to  do  ail 
these  abominations  ?  "  [Lit.  we  are  concealed  to  dc, 
&c,  i.  e.,  we  have  impunity]  (Jerem.  vii.  9,  10). 
Avarice,  love  of  gain,  and  cheating  (Jerem.  vi.  13), 
licentiousness  and  whoredom  (Jerem.  v.  8,  9),  in- 
justice and  violence  (Jerem.  vi.  6),  shedding  inn-j- 
cent  blood  (Jerem.  ii.  34 ;  vii.  6),  overriding  justice 
and  right  (Jerem.  vii.  6),  falsehood  and  hypocrisy 
(Jerem.  viii.  9,  10),  bigotry  and  obstinacy  (Jerem. 
vii.  24-26),  infidelity  and  perjury  (Jerem.  ix.  2,  3, 
7),  in  short,  all  sins  and  vices  were  prevalent,  es- 
pecially among  the  rich  and  great.  "  Run  ye  to 
and  fro  through  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  see 
now  and  know,  and  seek  in  the  broad  places 
thereof,  if  ye  can  find  a  man,  if  there  be  any  that 
executeth  judgment,  and  that  seeketh  the  truth, 
and  I  will  pardon  it "  (Jerem.  v.  1 ;  cf.  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  14-16).  So  the  measure  had  become  full. 
Judah  had  fallen  lower  than  Israel,  therefore  the 
Lord  cast  it  away  from  before  His  face  as  He  had 
cast  away  Israel  (2  Kings  xvii  20;  xxiv.  20). 
As  there  the  king  of  Assyria,  so  here  the  king  of 
Babylon  was  the  instrument  of  the  divine  judg- 
ment, "the  rod  of  his  anger,"  which,  after  it  had 
served  His  purpose,  He  broke  and  cast  into  the  fire 
(Jerem.  1.  17,  18;  cf.  Isai.  x.  5).  This  punishment, 
however,  was  not  the  annihilation  of  the  chosen 
people,  but  the  sole  radical  cure  for  it.  The  Lord 
keeps  His  promises  even  while  He  chastises  and 
punishes.  The  only  means  by  which  the  chosen 
people  could  preserve  and  fulfil  its  destiny  in  hu- 
man history,  to  bring  the  knowledge  of  God  and 
salvation  to  all  nations,  was  by  the  downfall  of 
the  visible  kingdom,  the  earthly  theocracy.  The 
downfall  of  the  visible  kingdom  was  a  step  in  the 
divine  economy  of  salvation,  and  it  marked  pro- 
gress towards  the  true  kingdom  of  God.  The 
people  needed  to  be  convinced  of  the  nothingness 
of  the  visible  kingdom,  and  to  have  its  attention 
directed  to  the  new,  spiritual,  true,  and  eternal 
kingdom.  This  was  the  aim  of  the  divine  judg- 
ment, to  awaken  an  appreciation  of  this  kingdom 
and  a  longing  for  it,  and  this  aim  was  reached  in 
the  end.  The  idea  of  the  messianic  kingdom  which 
the  prophets  had  brought  forward  long  before 
the  downfall  of  the  visible  kingdom,  but  which 
had  fallen  uncomprehended,  now  took  firm 
root.     Hasse  -well  says  (Oosch.  lies  A.  B.  s.  136) 


CHAPTER  XXV.  8-30. 


301 


"  It  belonged  to  the  consummation  of  the  history 
of  Israel  that  Judah  also  should  perish.  It  had 
long  ago  made  this  necessary  by  its  backsliding 
after  every  momentary  reformation,  and  by  its  ob- 
stinate resistance  to  every  call  of  grace;  but  the 
power  of  the  Davidic  element  to  recover  from  cor- 
ruption had  thus  far  saved  it.  This  power  ex- 
hausted its  last  energies  in  Josiah,  and,  after  his 
death,  the  kingdom  sank  rapidly  into  ruins.  As 
the  old  passed  away,  the  prophets  were  cbliged  to 
turn  and  give  expression  to  what  they  jerceived 
as  something  new  and  future.  A  sharp  division 
separated  this  new  from  the  old.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  judgment  and  penalty  were  recognized  as  a 
penalty  of  death.  On  the  other  hand  arose  the 
figure  of  the  new  life,  and  it  was  transfigured  into 
a  lofty  ideal."  Lisco  (Das  A.  T.  I.  s.  538)  gives  a 
similar  conception  :  "  The  breach  which  was  made 
by  the  separation  of  the  kingdom  was  never  healed. 
On  the  contrary,  its  evil  effects  lasted  on  until  the 
downfall,  first  of  Ephraim  and  then  of  Judah.  In 
the  measure  in  which  the  political  confusion  and 
decay  increased,  and  the  impending  calamity  ap- 
proached, in  the  same  measure  the  prophetic  word 
grew  loud  and  clear,  and,  when  the  blow  fell 
which  destroyed  the  Jewish  nation,  Jeremiah  arose 
upon  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem,  Daniel  appeared  as  a 
prophet  to  speak  in  the  name  of  his  people  before 
the  king  of  Babylon,  and  Ezekiel  watched  over  the 
scattered  remnants  of  the  nation  who  were  in  exile 
on  the  Chaboras.  The  civil  power  was  dead ;  the 
prophetical  power  survived  its  death."  The  fall  of 
Jerusalem  forms  the  most  important  crisis  in  the 
history  of  the  ancient  people  of  God.  It  was  not 
an  event  between  two  nations;  it  was  an  event  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  Many  a  great  nation  fell 
both  before  and  after,  but  the  fall  of  none  of  them 
had  anything  like  the  significance  for  the  history 
of  the  world  which  that  of  Judah  had.  It  is  an 
event  which  is  as  unique  in  history  as  the  Jewish 
people  was  unique  among  nations,  for  "  Salvation 
cometh  of  the  Jews''  (John  iv.  22).  By  its  fall 
Judah  became  the  keeper  and  bearer  of  salvation 
for  all  the  world  (cf.  Jerem.  xxx.-xxxiii.). 

3.  The  deportation  of  conquered  peoples  from  their 
country  was  the  ordinary  policy  of  the  ancient 
Asiatic  conquerors,  in  order  that  the  nationality 
might  thus  be  obliterated  (see  Exeg.  on  1  Kings 
viii.  46  sq.).  In  this  case,  however,  the  effect  was, 
on  the  contrary,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  pre- 
serve the  conquered  people  in  all  their  peculiarity 
of  character  and  calling  and  destiny.  Herein  con- 
sists the  great  difference  between  the  downfall  of 
Samaria  and  that  of  Judah,  as  we  saw  above  (2 
Kings  xvii.  Hist.  §  3);  whereas  the  exile  of  the 
people  of  the  ten  tribes  in  Assyria  served  to  anni- 
hilate their  nationality,  and  they  sank  lower  and 
lower  until  they  disappeared  from  history,  the 
exile  of  the  people  of  Judah  in  Babylon  served 
only  to  strengthen  and  purify  them,  so  that  they 
far  out-lived  the  world-monarchy  which  had  con- 
quered them.  Nothing  could  show  more  clearly 
the  indestructibility  of  the  chosen  people  than  this 
fact,  that  the  event  which  should  have  destroyed 
hem  only  served  to  purify  and  strengthen  them. 
The  distress  of  the  captivity  brought  them  to  their 
senses,  and  made  them  see  their  own  sinfulness. 
They  repented,  and  turned  to  Jehovah  and  to  His 
Law  with  a  sincerity  which  they  had  never  before 
felt.  The  exile  awakened  in  them  a  deep  longing 
for  the  promised  land,  for  the  city  in  which  Jeho- 


vah had  placed  His  name  (2  Kings  xxi.  7),  for  the 
temple  which  was  the  pledge  of  the  selection  of 
Israel  to  be  the  chosen  people,  and  the  centre  of 
its  nationality.  This  is  expressed  in  Ps.  cxxxvii. 
and  cxxvi.  It  was  a  dispensation  of  Divine  Pro- 
vidence that  the  king  of  Babylon  did  not  do  as 
the  king  of  Assyria  had  done  in  Samaria — bring 
heathen  colonists  to  settle  in  the  land  of  Judah 
after  its  population  was  taken  away.  If  he  had 
done  so  a  mixed  population  would  have  grown  up 
there  and  the  land  would  have  become  the  home 
of  many  diverse  religions  and  forms  of  worship 
(2  Kings  xvii.  24-33 ;  cf.  2  Kings  xvii.  Hist  §§  4 
and  5).  Judah  maintained  its  purity  of  religion 
and  nationality  both  in  captivity  and  in  the  home 
country.  The  exiles  retained  their  national  con- 
stitution (Ezek.  xiv.  1;  xx.  1;  Sus.  v.  28).  Ac- 
cording to  the  Talmud  (Gem.  Makkoth  i.  1 ;   Sanhedr. 

i.  12,  21)  they  were  put  under  a  flPSn  CN"I  [Go- 
vernor of  the  captivity,  i.  e.,  of  the  captives]  of  the:T 
own  nation.  The  practice  of  their  religion  was 
also  allowed  them,  but  they  could  not  offer  sacri- 
fices, because  they  lacked  the  one  central  sanc- 
tuary at  which  alone  sacrifice  might  be  offered. 
This  only  increased  their  longing  to  erect  the  sanc- 
tuary once  more,  and  this  longing  endured  until 
the  time  of  chastisement  was  at  an  end  (Jerem. 
xxv.  12  ;  xxix  10).  When  they  returned  their  first 
care  was  to  rebuild  the  sanctuary  (Ez.  i.  3;  vi.  3). 
4.  T)ie  two  brief  narratives  by  which  the  author 
closes  his  work  are  not  mere  appendages  to  the 
history,  but  the  proper  epilogue  to  the  words: 
"So  Judah  was  carried  away  out  of  their  land." 
They  are  parallel,  in  a  certain  manner,  to  the  re- 
view which  the  author  gives  in  chap.  xvii.  1  sq.  of 
the  history  of  Israel.  The  first  of  these  incidents 
shows  us  how  deep  was  the  corruption  which  had 
pervaded  the  kingdom,  and  how  hopelessly  de- 
praved the  monarchical  constitution  had  become. 
It  was  not  possible  any  longer  to  have  even  a  de- 
puty-king under  Babylonian  sovereignty.  Geda- 
liah,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  had  left  as  governor, 
was  put  to  death  after  a  few  months  in  spite  of 
his  oath  (ver.  24),  and  the  murderer,  Ishmael,  who 
desired  to  make  himself  king,  was  obliged  to  flee 
with  his  followers  into  the  territory  of  the  Ammon- 
ites. Others  fled,  for  fear  of  the  vengeance  of  the 
Chaldeans,  into  Egypt.  Every  attempt  to  unite  the 
scattered  remnants,  and  to  set  up  at  least  the 
shadow  of  a  monarchy,  failed.  Judah  could  not 
any  longer  stand  any  kind  of  a  monarchy.  It  was 
incapable  of  sustaining  an  independent  existence 
under  an  independent  dynasty.  The  inauguration 
of  such  a  government  only  served  to  produce 
greater  confusion  and  disorder.  The  events  which 
followed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  only  showed 
how  necessary  the  divine  chastisement  had  be- 
come. This  is  what  the  author  desires  to  show  by 
the  first  incident  which  he  relates.  However,  he 
could  not  and  would  not  close  his  work,  which  was 
written  primarily  for  those  who,  like  himself,  were 
living  in  exile,  with  such  a  sad  and  hopeless  inci- 
dent. He  therefore  adds  the  story  of  the  deli- 
verance of  Jehoiachin  from  his  prison  after  thirty- 
seven  years  of  captivity.  He  thereby  offers  to 
the  people  who  sat  weeping  "by  the  waters  of 
Babylon,"  and  thinking  of  Jerusalem,  a  prospect 
into  a  more  hopeful  future.  The  release  of  Je- 
hoiachin "  was  the  first  ray  of  light  in  the  long 
night  of  the  captivity  .  .  .  and  was  a  guarantee 


302 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KIXGS. 


to  the  people  that  the  Lord  would  keep  His  pro- 
mise, and  would  not  withdraw  his  grace  from  the 
house  of  David  forever"  (Keil).  It  gave  the  cap- 
tive people  hope  that  the  hour  of  their  deliverance 
also  would  come.  The  author  could  not  have  given 
a  more  appropriate  close  to  his  work,  in  which  he 
had  shown  God's  plan  of  grace  and  redemption  in 
the  history  of  the  chosen  people. 

5.  In  conclusion,  we  must  notice  the  manner  in 
ichkh  the  latest  modern  historians  conceive  of,  and  re- 
present, the  fall  of  Judah.  "There  had  been,"  says 
Duncker  {Gesch.  des  Alt.  I.  s.  542),  "no  increase  in 
power  since  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  There  was  no 
better  guarantee  for  the  existence  of  a  small  State 
than  there  had  been  at  that  time.  If  Egypt  went 
on,  as  it  had  begun  under  Psammetichus,  making 
conquests  in  Asia,  and  if  a  new  great  power  arose 
.0  inherit  and  increase  the  might  which  Assyria 
had  once  possessed,  the  existence  of  Judah  would 
once  more  be  threatened  as  seriously  as  it  was  in 
the  time  of  Hezekiah  (s.  552) :  The  effort  of  the 
nation  to  regain  its  independent  existence,  the  stiff- 
necked  resistance  with  which  the  Jews  were  ready 
to  fight  for  their  fatherland,  and  to  break  the  yoke 
of  the  foreigner,  were  as  well  justified  as  was  the 
abstract  religious  policy  of  Jeremiah.  Who  can 
blame  those  who  hold  the  duty  of  sacrificing  one's 
life  for  one's  country,  even  under  the  most  hopeless 
circumstances,  higher  than  the  counsel  to  submit  at 
discretion  ?  Who  can  blame  those  who  regarded 
Jeremiah's  conduct  and  policy  as  ruinous,  who  de- 
manded that  Jeremiah  should  stand  on  the  side  of 
his  own  nation  against  the  foreign  foe,  and  who 
stigmatized  his  discourses  as  treason?  .  .  .  (s.  553): 
He  (Jeremiah)  is  oitter  and  violent  enough  to  call 
down  bloody  destruction  upon  his  [personal]  ene- 
mies (Jerem.  xv.  5).  .  .  .  (s.  556):  However  much 
Jeremiah's  assertions  were  calculated  to  discourage 
the  king  and  people,  they  did  not  have  that  effect. 
It  was  natural  that  Jeremiah  should  seem  to  the 
people  to  be  a  cowardly  traitor.  .  (s.  557) :  Jere- 
miah's persistence  in  advising  submission,  under 
the  circumstances,  finally  so  far  outraged  the  chief 
men  that  they  demanded  his  life  of  the  king  .  .  . 
(s.  544) :  The  prophet  went  so  far  in  his  opposition 
to  Jehoiakim  that  he  finally  brought  his  own  life 
into  danger.  At  the  same  time  he  irritated  the  peo- 
ple against  himself  by  his  persistent  prophecies  of 
the  coming  fall  of  Jerusalem.  .  .  .  He  was  no  less 
severe  against  the  people  for  the  wickedness  of 
Jieir  conduct,  and  for  their  practice  of  some  re- 
mains of  foreign  usages  which  had  not  been  eradi- 
cated by  the  (new)  Law-book."  It  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  say  that  this  view  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  that  of  the  Bible,  and  yet  the  biblical  documents 
are  the  only  authority  for  the  history.  In  the  text 
the  grounds  of  the  national  downfall  are  stated  to 
be  the  apostasy  of  the  nation  in  religion,  its  cor- 
ruption in  morals,  and  the  unfaithfulness,  tyr- 
anny, and  depravity  of  its  king.  The  downfall  is 
represented  as  a  divine  judgment  upon  the  nation 
in  punishment  for  all  this.  Duncker,  however, 
ignores  thi3  view.  In  his  view  all  is  explained  by 
the  physical  weakness  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  in 
face  of  the  great  world-empires,  Assyria,  Egypt, 
and  Babylon.  It  was  all  due  to  external  and  natu- 
ral causes,  such  as  have  often  produced  similar 
catastrophes  in  human  history.  It  was  an  unde- 
served misfortune,  in  which  the  king  and  people 
appear  battling  with  desperate  courage  for  the 
highest  national  interests.     They  appear  great  and 


admirable,  while  the  truly  great  one,  the  prophet 
who  was  persecuted  while  laboring  for  the  tra« 
welfare  of  the  people,  who  held  firm  and  impreg- 
nable as  a  rock  in  the  midst  of  the  storm,  is  repre- 
sented as  a  factious  oppositionist,  nay,  even  as  a 
traitor.  This  is  not  writing  history,  but  turning  it 
upside  down. 

[The  facts  of  history  are  one  thing ;  their  phi- 
losophy is  another.  The  theocratic  philosophy  of 
history  is  one  thing,  and  the  purely  human  philos- 
ophy of  it  is  another.  To  pass  behind  history  and 
trace  the  moral  causes  which  were  at  work,  and 
observe  their  effects,  is  the  great  task  of  the  his- 
torian, but  he  limits  himself  to  the  second  causes, 
aud  contents  himself  with  seeing  God's  plan  only 
in  the  grand  results  of  centuries,  and  in  the  move- 
ments of  epochs.  The  attempt  to  pursue  this  latter 
investigation  into  details  never  succeeds  when  men 
try  it.  God's  Providence  is  in  every  event  of  his- 
tory, and  in  the  character  of  every  historical  per- 
sonage, but  its  presence  and  its  operation  there  are 
matters  of  faith.  Try  to  seize  it,  to  specify  it,  and 
to  examine  it,  and  you  are  baffled  and  disappointed. 
God  is  in  every  blade  of  grass.  His  presence  there 
is  clear  to  our  reason,  our  conscience,  and  our  faith. 
If  we  hastily  infer  that,  if  God  is  in  the  blade  of 
grass  which  we  hold  in  our  hands,  then  we  can 
seize  Him  and  see  Him,  and  if  we  betake  ourselves 
to  the  microscope  and  the  dissecting  apparatus,  we 
find  that  we  fail.  Just  so  it  is  here  in  history. 
This  biblical  history  is  the  only  one  we  have  in 
which  the  history  is  written  from  the  theocratic 
standpoint,  and  in  which  the  presence  of  God  in 
history  is  traced  step  by  step  and  man  by  man. 
If  we  attempt  to  take  up  this  stand-point  and  follow 
it  and  apply  it  rigorously  we  involve  ourselves  in 
hopeless  contradictions.  The  standpoint  is  not 
rational,  it  is  prophetic;  that  is,  its  norm  and  stand- 
ard of  consistency  is  that  of  the  divine  plan,  not  of 
the  human  reason.  The  reason,  however,  is  the 
only  instrument  at  our  disposal,  and  it  falls  short 
of  its  task  if  it  undertakes  to  adopt  the  prophetical 
method.  It  took  a  prophet  to  give  us  this  view  of 
the  Jewish  history,  and  it  would  require  a  prophet 
to  apply  the  same  method  elsewhere,  or  to  follow 
it  here  into  greater  detad.  Duncker  lays  aside 
the  theocratic  and  prophetical  conception,  and  ap- 
proaches the  facts  of  the  history,  as  here  recorded, 
in  exactly  the  same  spirit,  and  with  exactly  the 
same  method,  by  which  he  treats  the  history  of 
Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Greece.  His  work  is  a  uni- 
versal history.  The  history  of  Israel  as  an  earthly 
monarchy  enters  into  the  scope  of  his  work  as  re- 
gards its  earthly  and  external  fortunes.  Its  theolo- 
gical and  religious  significance  are  aside  from  his 
plan.  He  is  an  historian,  not  a  prophet,  and  he 
can  only  treat  history  as  ordinary  historians  treat 
it  His  view,  therefore,  naturally  appears  low  and 
worldly  and  commonplace,  when  quoted  in  a  book 
of  this  kind,  which  is  avowedly  biblical  and  the- 
ocratic, and  only  follows  and  explains  the  biblical 
presentation.  His  undertaking  is  a  legitimate  one 
for  an  historian.  We  cannot  say  that  it  is  wrong 
for  him  to  treat  history  as  he  does,  and  to  include 
Jewish  history  in  his  plan,  but  he  is  engaged  in  a 
work  whose  stand-point  and  aim  are  so  different 
from  that  in  which  we  are  engaged,  that  we  are 
not  called  to  consider  it  here.  His  readers  must 
add  to  his  representation  of  the  history  the  expla 
nation  and  philosophy  of  it  which  is  furnished  by 
their  Bibles.     The  distinction  which  is  brought  oul 


CHAPTER  XXV.  8-30. 


303 


Here  is  one  which  it  is  most  important  to  bear  in 
mind  in  commenting  on  the  historical  books. — As 
for  Jeremiah's  attitude  at  the  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
the  question  is  the  one-  which  always  arises  in  such 
cases  between  prudeme  and  valor.  The  role  which 
was  filled  by  Jeremiah,  to  give  wise  and  prudent 
counsel  to  men  who  are  heated  with  the  strongest 
passions,  and  to  stem  alone  a  tide  of  feeling  which 
animates  a  body  of  men  of  which  he  is  a  member, 
and  with  which  he  is  expected  to  sympathize  with- 
out reserve  or  question,  is  the  most  thankless  one 
which  can  possibly  devolve  upon  any  man.  He 
cannot  succeed  in  persuading  his  companions ;  he 
can  only  draw  down  persecution  on  himself.  His 
only  consolation  is  his  fidelity  to  his  convictions, 
and  our  judgment  of  him,  as  of  any  other  man  who 
has  the  courage  to  undertake  the  prophet's  task. 
must  be  regulated  by  the  issue.  He  stakes  all 
upon  the  wisdom  of  his  counsel.  If  in  a  calm  view 
of  the  situation  and  its  results  we  see  that  he  was 
wise  and  right,  we  must  "  blame  "  those  who  per- 
secuted him  and  denied  the  wisdom  of  his  counsel. 
Humanly  speaking,  Jeremiah  was  the  only  wise 
counsellor  in  Jerusalem,  for  his  counsel  would  have 
saved  the  city  and  the  national  existence,  if  not  the 
national  independence.  If,  however,  we  turn  to 
the  theocratic  standard,  we  see  how  utterly  im- 
possible it  is  for  us  to  apply  it.  As  we  have  seen 
above  (§  2),  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  was  no  step  back- 
wards, but  a  great  one  forwards,  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  redemptive  plan.  When  a  church  or 
a  nation  reaches  the  point  of  saying  "  The  temple 
of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  these,"  that 
is,  when  it  puts  its  trust  in  externals,  in  ceremo- 
nies, and  sacred  houses,  and  sacred  things,  while 
the  spirit  of  truth  and  righteousness  is  lost,  and 
treats  God's  promises  as  if  He  had  bound  His  own 
hands  against  punishing  their  sins,  their  fate  is 
sealed.  The  downfall  of  Jerusalem  might  have 
been  delayed,  it  could  not  have  been  averted,  or,  if 
it  had  been  averted,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  all  the 
religious  truth  of  which  Israel  was  the  keeper  and 
witness  would  have  been  lost.  Here,  however,  is 
>ust  the  difficulty.  History  only  takes  one  course 
of  two  or  more  which  are  conceivable.  This  one 
only  is  open  to  our  study  and  observation,  and  we 
are  forced  to  assume  that  that  was  God's  plan. 
The  consequences  of  the  other  policy,  supposing  it 
to  have  been  adopted,  are  a  pure  matter  of  spec- 
ulation. Now  Jeremiah  counselled  submission. 
That  might  have  saved  the  city  and  the  temple  and 
the  nationality,  but,  if  we  can  rely  upon  our  judg- 
ment expressed  in  §  2,  it  would  have  sacrificed  the 
kingdom  of  God.  He  also  preached  amendment 
and  righteousness  as  the  on!"  condition  of  perma- 
nent safety,  but  we  cannot  see,  as  far  as  we  judge, 
that  such  amendment  was  possible  until  after  se- 
vere chastisement,  and  it  remains  for  us,  what  it 
was  for  Jeremiah,  a  subject  of  faith,  that  God  would 
have  preserved  the  national  independence  if  the 
people  had  repented. — W.  G.  S.] 

Ewald's  presentation  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
[Gesch.  III.  5.  712-717)  is  very  different  from 
Duncker's  superficial  and  perverted  view  of  it.  As 
he  sees  in  the  whole  course  of  the  history,  from  the 
time  of  Solomon  on,  a  continual  conflict  between 
two  "independent  authorities,"  the  monarchy  and 
the  prophetical  institution,  and  explains  this  conflict 
by  the  "  violence "  which  was  characteristic  of 
either  (see  Pt.  II.  pp.  103  and  4),  so  he  finds  the 
causes  of  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom  in  this  conflict. 


"  It  remained  to  be  shown,  by  the  fate  of  Judah 
also,  that  violence  destroys  its  own  cause,  even 
when  that  cause  seems  to  be  the  most  permanent 
and  enduring.  .  .  .  The  second  of  these  independ 
ent  powers,  the  prophetical  institution,  was  now 
also  irrevocably  broken."  The  reason  why  the  pro- 
phetical office  no  longer  possessed  its  ancient  power 
was  that  "  it  had  rid  itself  of  the  last  relics  of  the 
violence  which  marked  it  even  in  Isaiah,  and  had 
risen  to  a  purely  spiritual  activity  and  influence. 
It  was  long  since  violence  had  been  able  to  accom- 
plish any  sound  results  even  in  the  prophetical  of- 
fice. Thus  the  highest  prophetical  activity  lost  its 
power  when  it  lost  its  fierce  and  violent  forms  of 
action,  and  the  second  of  the  two  forces  on  which 
the  nationality  rested  was  radically  ruined.  .  .  . 
When  the  two  forces  which  could  alone  carry  and 
preserve  the  nation  were  thus  worn  out,  when  th» 
nation  could  no  longer  find  either  the  right  king  or 
the  right  prophet,  it  sank  rapidly  towards  its  ca- 
tastrophe. Then  first  did  the  evils  which  had  long 
threatened  it,  or  which  had  made  themselves  tem- 
porarily felt,  become  fatal  to  it."  In  this  view  also 
the  idea  which  is  made  uppermost  in  the  biblical 
narrative,  that  the  fall  was  a  divine  judgment  justly 
and  deservedly  inflicted  as  a  punishment  for  per- 
sistence in  sin,  is  obscured  and  neglected,  and  the 
fall  is  represented  as  a  catastrophe  which  was  the 
legitimate  result  of  a  regular  development.  [There 
is  no  real  disagreement  here.  The  one  is  a  prag- 
.matic  and  the  other  is  a  philosophical  statement  of 
the  same  idea.  The  ancient  Hebrew  writer  states 
it  as  a  balance  between  so  much  sin  and  so  much 
punishment.  We  caunot  expect  a  critical  and  phi- 
losophical statement  from  him.  In  his  view  God 
stands  over  the  sinful  nation  patiently  and  with 
long-suffering,  and  finally  His  hand  falls  in  pun- 
ishment. The  modern  German  critic  sees,  in  "  per- 
sistence in  sin,"  the  adoption  of  certain  depraved 
doctrines,  principles,  and  modes  of  thought,  which 
form  a  creed  or  sum  of  convictions  tacit  or  expressed. 
These  produce  a  reiteration  of  unchaste,  immoral, 
and  irreligious  acts — sins.  This  finally  becomes  a 
national  habit,  a  characteristic  of  the  nationality. 
It  rises  into  a  moral  cause,  and  according  to  Ike  laws 
of  God's  moral  government,  this  cause  will  in  time 
produce  inevitably  certain  moral  and  physical  re- 
sults— national  decay  (which  will  show  itself  first 
in  the  most  vital  organs  of  the  State,  its  throne,  its 
altar,  and  its  pulpit),  and  finally  national  ruin.  The 
two  forms  of  statement  are  identical. — W.  G.  S.] 
As  for  the  theory  that  there  were  two  "  independ- 
ent authorities  "  in  the  State,  and  that  the  great 
characteristic  of  each  was  violence — employment 
of  force  in  word  or  deed — in  fulfilling  its  functions, 
it  has  been  sufficiently  noticed  on  p.  1 04.  We  need 
only  remark  here,  that  if  violence  was  a  character- 
istic of  Isaiah,  then  Jeremiah's  discourses  are  far 
more  forcible,  vigorous,  and  violent  than  his,  so 
that  Duncker  (quoted  above)  charges  him  with  pas- 
sion, severity,  and  sternness.  No  prophet  ever 
rebuked  the  sin  and  apostasy  of  king  and  people 
with  more  plain  and  severe  language  than  Jere- 
miah. It  cannot  be  said  of  him  that  he  had  thrown 
off  the  violent  manner  of  the  ancient  prophets,  and 
that  "one  and  the  same  ruin  enveloped  the  last 
great  prophet  and  the  nation,  with  all  of  its  better 
interests  which  still  remained  at  this  stormy  time." 
His  forcible  words  of  rebuke  and  reproof,  his  en- 
durance, pertinacity,  and  inflexibility,  in  the  hardest 
conflicts  and  sufferings,  down  to  the  very  end,  boar 


304 


x-HE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


testimony,  not  to  the  weakness  and  decay  of  the 
prophetical  office,  but  to  the  fact  that  it  was  as 
grand,  as  great,  and  as  vigorous  as  ever  before. 
The  monarchy  sank  and  ceased  at  the  fall  of  the 
kingdom,  but  the  prophetical  institution,  so  far 
from  ceasing,  arose  again  to  new  glory  and  strength. 
Those  have  the  less  ground  for  denying  this  who 
ascribe  the  second  part  of  Isaiah  to  a  great  un- 
known prophet,  who  lived  near  the  end  of  the 
captivity. 

[The  decay  of  the  prophetical  office  is  unde- 
niable, in  spite  of  the  fact  that  one  or  two  last  great 
ones  yet  appeared.  There  had  been  false  prophets, 
in  g'eater  or  less  number,  at  all  times,  but  see  the 
23d  chap,  of  Jeremiah,  from  the  9th  verse  on,  for 
a  sweeping  denunciaton  of  the  contemporary  pro- 
phets. No  distinction  between  false  and  true  is 
Bpecified.  Depraved  priests  and  prophets  are  to- 
gether branded  with  one  terrible  denunciation.  In 
xxiii.  38-40  the  degeneracy  of  the  prophets  seems 
to  be  given  as  the  cause  why  Jehovah  had  aban- 
doned the  city.  Prophecy  ceased  at  some  time — 
when  did  it  cease  ?  It  did  not  cease  abruptly,  but 
shared  the  fate  of  all  similar  institutions  among 
mankind.  It  degenerated  into  formalism  and  su- 
perstition (see  Jerem.  xxiii.  33-37).  In  its  rise  and 
bloom  and  decay  we  can  trace  undeniable  steps  of 
change,  development,  progress,  and  decline.  After 
the  exile  we  have  a  few  prophets,  but  not  like  the 
ancient  ones.  The  spoken  word  gave  way  to  the 
written  word ;  the  original  oracle  gave  way  to  the 
commentary ;  the  prophet  gave  way  to  the  scribe. 
Following  the  stream  upwards  we  come  to  the 
"  Great  Unknown  "  (?),  and  to  Jeremiah.  We  find 
in  Jeremiah  descriptions  of  the  contemporary  pro- 
phets, and  we  see  that  the  institution  was  dying, 
and  that  the  one  or  two  great  ones  who  yet  arose 
were  great  and  grand  as  exceptions  to  the  preva- 
lent degeneracy.  Jeremiah  was  the  last  prophet 
who  was  a  statesman  also,  as  the  ola  prophets  had 
been  (Stanley).— W.  G.  S.] 


HOATXLETICAL:  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Vers.  8-21.  God's  Judgment  upon  Judah.  (a) 
It  was  well  deserved  (Rom.  ii.  5-11);  (b)  it  was 
terrible  (Hebr.  x.  30,  31 ;  Deut.  iv.  24) ;  (c)  it  was 
a  warning  (1  Cor.  x.  11 ;  2  Thess.  i.  8-10;  Isai.  ii. 
10-17).  Comparison  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Chaldeans  with  its  destruction  by  the 
Romans,  (a)  Wherein  they  were  alike ;  (6)  wherein 
they  differed. — Keil  :  The  saying  that  the  world's 
history  is  the  world's  condemnation,  finds  its  full 
justification  in  the  history  of  Judah,  and  nowhere 
else. — Vers.  9-17.  Kyburz:  No  place  is  so  strong, 
no  building  so  grand,  no  wall  so  firm,  that  sin  can- 
not undermine  and  overthrow  it.  Let  no  man  trust 
in  ceremonies,  or  sacred  houses,  or  sacred  tradi- 
tions, so  long  as  his  heart  is  far  from  God,  and  his 
life  is  not  in  accord  with  his  righteous  creed.  The 
destruction  of  the  temple  was  a  testimony  that 
God  will  spare  no  house  in  which  any  other  name 
lhan  His  is  worshipped,  or  in  which  He  is  wor- 
shipped only  with  the  lips  while  the  hearts  are  far 
from  Him.  If  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  not 
spared,  no  physical  temple  can  save  us. — Starke: 
If  temples  are  not  used  for  the  true  worship  of 
God,  He  allows  them  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  un- 
oelievers,  Matt,  xxxii.  37  (as  at  the  time  of  the 
extension  of  Mohammedanism). — Pfaff.  Bib.:  The 


highest  pitch  of  the  divine  condemnation  is  eached 
when  God  removes  the  fight  of  His  Word  from  ita 
place,  and  takes  away  from  us  the  ordinances  of 
true  worship  (Rev.  ii.  4,  5;  1  Pet.  iv.  17). — Vera. 
18-21.  God  often  executes  His  judgments  by 
means  of  wicked  and  godless  men.  This  does  not 
excuse  or  justify  them  in  their  cruelty  or  wicked- 
ness. They  are  only  the  rod  of  his  anger,  which 
he  breaks  after  it  has  unconsciously  served  Hii 
purpose  (Isai.  x.  5  ;  xiv.  3-6;  Jerem.  1.  51). — Ver. 

21.  Pfaff.  Bib.  :  When  the  measure  of  sin  is  full, 
and  the  judgment  of  God  has  begun  to  fall,  nothing 
can  any  longer  arrest  its  flood. — Cramer:  He  who 
will  not  serve  God  in  peace  and  prosperity  must 
learn  to  do  so  in  misery  and  adversity. — Osiantjer  : 
Those  who  will  not  serve  God  in  their  own  father- 
land, must  serve  their  enemies  in  harsh  subjec- 
tion.— The  Curse  and  the  Blessing  of  the  Exile, 
Deut.  xxx.  19.  (a)  The  curse  consisted  in  this,  that 
the  Lord  removed  the  people  from  before  His  face 
(chap,  xxiii.  27 ;  xxiv.  3,  20),  that  is,  He  removed 
them  from  the  land  of  promise,  in  which  He  gave 
them  His  gracious  blessings,  and  placed  them  in  a 
distant  country,  where  nothing  was  known  of  the 
true  and  living  God.  This  curse,  which  had  long 
been  threatened  (Levit.  xxvi.  33 ;  Deut.  iv.  27 ; 
xxviii.  26 ;  Dan.  ix.  11)  is  a  proof  of  the  truth  of 
the  words:  "Be  not  deceived;  God  is  not  mocked," 
&c.  (Gal.  vi.  7).  God  still  does  spiritually  to  indi- 
viduals and  to  nations  what  He  did  to  Judah— He 
removes  them  from  before  His  face ;  He  removes 
from  them  His  word  and  His  means  of  grace,  if 
they  do  not  repent,  and  leaves  them  to  live  in 
darkness,  without  Him.  (6)  The  curse  became  a 
blessing  for  this  people.  It  humiliated  itself  and 
repented.  It  experienced  that  there  was  no  greater 
curse  than  to  live  far  from  its  gracious  God,  and  it 
longed  for  the  land  of  promise.  When  it  had  lost 
its  earthly  kingdom  and  its  earthly  king,  it  learned 
to  look  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  for  that 
One  in  whom  all  God's  promises  to  man  are  ful- 
filled. The  exile  became  a  blessing  for  the  whole 
world,  for  the  Jewish  nation  was  thereby  made  fit 
to  fulfil  its  destiny  in  the  redemptive  plan  of  God. 
It  was  "  a  great  opportunity,  by  which  the  name 
and  glory  of  Jehovah  were  spread  abroad,  as  a 
preparation  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ  "  (Starke).  We  all  lay  under  the  curse  of  the 
law,  but  Christ  has  redeemed  us  (Gal.  iii.  13,  14). 

Vers.  22  to  26.  See  Jerem.  xlii.-xliv.  The  Peo- 
ple who  remained  in  the  Countrv.  (a)  Their  pro- 
tection by  Gedaliah,  vers.  22,  23,  24.  ("  The  king's 
heart  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,"  Prov.  xxi.  1. 
Nebuchadnezzar  gave  them  a  ruler  from  among 
their  own  countrymen  who  promised  them  favor 
and  protection.  So  the  Lord  often  offers  consola- 
tion even  in  deserved  misfortune,  but  men  go  their 
own  way  and  plunge  themselves  into  ruin.)  (ft) 
Their  flight  into  Egypt  (Jerem.  xliii.  7;  xlii.   18, 

22.  Their  bad  conscience  leads  them  back  to  the 
country  from  which  God  had  wonderfully  delivered 
them.  Starke:  When  the  godless  attempt  to  flee 
from  a  calamity  they  plunge  themselves  into  it. 
Isai.  xxiv.  17  sq.) — Ver.  24.  Osiander:  It  is  great 
wisdom  to  bear  our  burdens  with  patience ;  we  thus 
make  them  lighter.  It  is  folly  to  resist  a  greater 
power,  for  thus  we  only  make  our  burdens  heavier. 
— Ver.  25.  We  see,  by  the  example  of  Israel,  how 
envy  and  jealousy,  pride  in  high  descent  and  des- 
tiny, and  love  of  power,  lead  to  the  most  utter  ruin 
(Ps.   v.  6;    Prov.  xxvii.  4).     Passion  makes  men 


CHAPTER  XXV.  8-30. 


305 


fools.     Ishmael  could  not  hope  with  his  small  com- 
pany to  resist  the  Chaldean  power. 

Vers.  27-30.  Jehoiachin's  Deliverance  from  his 
Prison,  (a)  Its  significance  for  the  whole  captive 
people  (Levit.  xxvi.  44) ;  (b)  the  warning  which  we 
may  find  therein. — An  unfortunate  state  of  things 
often  endures  for  a  long  time.  It  seems  that  it 
never  will  end.  Happy  is  he  who  does  not  murmur 
against  God,  but  can  say  with  the  Apostle, — Rom. 
v.  3-5 ;  see  also  Rev.  ii.  10, — The  time  of  our  de- 
liverance is  in  the  hands  of  the  Lord.  It  comes 
when  He  sees  that  it  is  best  for  us. — Wurt.  Suiiii.  : 
We  should  despair  in  no  trouble  or  punishment, 
but  cry  to  God  and  trust  in  Him. — Ver.  27.  Stabkb  : 
80 


Kings  win  great  love  by  acts  of  grace  and  mercy 
(Acts  xxv.  1-9). — The  Same  :  We  should  be  kind  M 
captives,  and  pray  to  God  for  a  loving  disposition 
towards  our  enemies  (Matt.  v.  44). — Per  Aspera 
ad  astral  That  is  the  way  in  which  our  Lord 
walked  and  in  which  we  all  must  follow  Him  (Rom. 
viii.  17 ;  Pa.  cxxvi.  1-6). — Pinal  Review  of  the 
History  in  the  Apostle's  words  :  "  Oh  the  depth 
of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of 
God  I  How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
his  ways  past  finding  out  I  For  of  him,  and 
through  him,  and  to  him  are  all  things ;  to  whom 
be  glory  forever.     Amen  "  (Rom.  xl  33  and  36). 


APPENDIX   ON  THE  CHRONOLOGY. 


1.  The  chronology  of  the  history  contained  in 
the  Books  of  the  Kings  piesents  difficulties  which 
iiave  never  yet  been  conquered.  There  are  data 
in  the  text  which  are  contradictory.  The  only 
means  of  forming  any  chronology  at  all  is  to  sacri- 
fice some  of  the  statements,  and  the  text  does  not 
offer  sufficient  critical  grounds  upon  which  to  de- 
cide which  ones  are  correct.  The  usual  method 
has  been  to  fill  out  and  reconcile  conflicting  texts 
by  inventing  interregna  and  joint  governments,  or 
to  guess  arbitrarily  which  datum  was  to  be  sacri- 
ficed. It  is  evident  that  this  is  only  another  way 
of  admitting  our  inability  to  solve  the  problem  sat- 
isfactorily by  the  means  which  we  as  yet  possess. 
All  the  schemes  which  we  form  must  be  regarded 
as  tentative.  We  need  to  arrive  at  some  hypo- 
thetical chronology  as  a  stepping-stone  to  further 
investigation,  but  we  must  frankly  admit,  while 
taking  this  course,  that  the  knots  are  neither  untied 
nor  cut,  but  only  marked  for  further  study  by  our 
arbitrary  guesses  and  our  fabricated  interregna. 

2.  Biihr  says  in  his  Preface  (at  the  end)  that  he 
has  "followed  a  method,  in  regard  to  the  Chro- 
nology, which  differs  somewhat  from  the  ordinary 
one."  It  consists  in  adopting  certain  dates  which 
have  been  fixed  with  the  greatest  certainty,  and 
reckoning  from  these,  by  periods,  through  the  inter- 
vening reigns  (see  Pt.  II.  p.  86  and  the  translator's 
note  there).  It  is  evident  that  this  method  has  no 
independent  value.  The  chrouologers  who  have 
undertaken  this  task  have  gone  minutely  over  the 
separate  texts,  and  have  managed  to  bridge  over 
the  difficulties  by  one  or  another  hypothesis.  All 
the  uncertainty  which  inheres  in  these  hypotheses 
must  inhere  also  in  their  completed  schemes.  If 
there  were  a  consensus  in  their  results,  it  would 
not,  therefore,  produce  any  certainty;  it  would 
merely  prove  that  those  who  have  confined  them- 
selves to  the  biblical  data,  and  have  stepped  over 
the  difficulties  by  various  hypotheses,  reach  con- 
clusions which  vary  only  within  certain  moderate 
limits.  However,  there  is,  in  fact,  no  consensus 
among  the  authorities.  It  is  fallacious,  therefore, 
to  regard  these  dates,  which  are  only  an  average 
between  the  results  of  various  independent  schol- 
ars, as  possessing  any  certainty.  Furthermore,  it 
seems  to  be  labor  thrown  away  to  pore  over  the 
data  for  the  intervening  details  of  the  chronology. 
The  consensus  in  regard  to  one  date  is  not  greater 
than  that  in  regard  to  any  other  in  the  whole  list. 
If  we  borrow  one  date  from  the  average,  why  not 
borrow  the  whole  list  in  the  same  way  ?  In  fact, 
in  the  present  state  of  this  subject,  there  might  be 
much  wisdom  in  so  doing.  The  general  scheme 
about  which  the  authorities  seem  to  cluster  is  the 
one  at  which  Bahr  arrives.  His  method  only  bor- 
rows the  results  of  certain  independent  scholars, 
and  then  travels  back  for  a  certain  distance  on  the 
road  by  which  t -ey  reached  those  results.  In  the 
following  pages  Z  have  collected  the  dates  upon 
which  he  fixes,  and  arranged  them  in  a  table.  This 
scheme  is  substantially  that  of  Usher,  for,  of  all 
who  have  studied  this  subject,  confining  them- 
selves to  the  biblical  data,  no  one  has  succeeded 


in  going  much  beyond  what  he,  the  first  thorough 
student  of  it,  established.  I  have  also  added  to 
the  table  a  sort  of  outline  of  the  history,  of  the 
synchronisms  with  the  contemporaneous  history 
of  other  nations,  and  of  the  varying  religious  con- 
dition of  the  two  Israelitish  kingdoms.  The  data 
enclosed  in  brackets  are  those  which  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  text  of  the  Bible. 

3.  For  the  final  solution  of  the  problems  which 
present  themselves  we  must  look  to  the  synchron- 
isms with  contemporaneous  history.  The  deci- 
phering of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  and  of  the 
Assyrian  cuneiform  inscriptions  has  furnished  us 
with  material  which  promises  to  make  a  solution 
ultimately  possible.  This  promise  is  so  good  that 
it  seems  unprofitable  to  repeat  the  labor  of  com- 
paring and  reconciling  the  biblical  data,  a  labor 
which  has  already  been  so  often  performed  and 
with  such  meager  results.  We  have  above  (Pt. 
II.  p.  162)  an  instance  of  the  amount  of  light  which 
we  may  hope  for  from  these  sources.  If  Oppert 
is  right  in  his  interpretation  of  the  data  in  the  As- 
syrian inscriptions  which  bear  upon  the  reign  of 
Pekah  (and  no  one  but  a  trained  Assyrian  scholar 
is  competent  to  dispute  his  conclusions),  then  one 
of  the  most  perplexing  of  these  chronological  prob- 
lems is  solved.  It  is  true  that  the  Assyrian  schol- 
ars are  not  in  accord  as  to  all  their  results,  and 
it  is  also  true  that  many  of  the  best  living  scholars 
(the  Germans  especially)  are  skeptical  in  regard  to 
the  whole  system  of  interpretation  of  the  cunei- 
form, and  also  that  the  scholars  who  have  thus  far 
prosecuted  this  subject  have  not  always  followed 
the  independent  unbiased  method  which  would 
recommend  their  results,  but,  in  spite  of  all  this, 
the  progress  in  this  department  is  undeniable. 
Every  step  verifies  and  confirms  what  has  gone 
before ;  the  original  Assyrian  grammatical  and 
lexical  works  multiply  in  an  enormous  ratio  the 
rate  of  progress ;  and  the  results  acquire  such  cer- 
tainty as  compels  assent. 

4.  In  the  Athenwum  of  May  18th,  1867,  Sir  H. 
Rawlinson  announced  the  discovery  that  two  frag- 
ments in  the  British  Museum  were  parts  of  the 
same  stone,  and  that  together  they  furnished  a 
canon  for  the  most  important  part  of  Assyrian 
history.  The  Assyrians  had  a  system  of  naming 
the  years  after  eponymous  magistrates,  and  the 
canon  contains  a  list  of  them,  by  which  the  chro- 
nology may  be  reckoned  with  certainty.  It  also 
contains  mention  of  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  which 
occurred  on  the  30th  of  the  month  Swan,  in  the  9th 
year  of  king  Asshur-edil-ilani  IL  and  which  fur- 
nishes a  definite  starting-point,  if  it  can  be  identi- 
fied. Rawlinson  identifies  it  with  the  eclipse  of 
June  15th,  763.  Oppert,  however,  identifies  it 
with  the  eclipse  of  the  13th  of  June,  889.  He  also 
says  that  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  is  several  times  re- 
ferred to  in  the  inscriptions  of  Asshw-nazir-pal  as 
having  occurred  on  the  day  of  that  monarch's  ac- 
cession. This  he  identifies  with  an  eclipse  which 
took  place  on  July  2d,  930.  This  eclipse  is  not 
mentioned  by  Rawlinson,  but,  if  Oppert  is  correct 
in  regard  to  it,  it  goes  far  to  support  his  identifi- 


308 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


cation  of  the  othei  one.  The  difference  of  46  years 
in  regard  to  the  fl  rst  of  these  eclipses,  marks  their 
respective  chronologies  down  to  the  date  of  Tiglath 
Pileser  II.  (747  or  745).  The  gap  is  closed  up  in 
Oppert's  scheme  ^y  inserting  Pul  between  the  first 
destruction  of  Assyria  by  the  Medes  and  Chaldeans 
in  7S9  (an  event  which  Rawlinson  does  not  credit 
at  all,  but  which  Hincks  accepted)  and  the  acces- 
sion of  Tiglath  Pileser  II.  Thus  their  lists  compare, 
at  this  point,  as  follows  (the  names  in  the  two  lists 
refer  to  the  same  persons,  though  they  are  tran- 
scribed differently) : — 


Oppert. 


Sir.  H.  Rawlinson. 


(Leuormant's  Manual).  (Prof.  Rawlinson's  Manual). 
Asshur-edil-ilani  II.        818 
Eclipse  13th  June  809 

Asshur-likhish  (the 
Sardanapalus  of  the 
Greeks)  800 

Destruction  of  Nineveh  789 
Pul  (a  Chaldean)  789 

771  Asshur-danin-il  II. 
763  15th  June,  Eclipse 
753  Asshur-likh-khush 
Tiglath  Pileser  IL  747 

745  Tiglath  Pileser  II. 
but  he  reckoned  from     744 
Shalmaneser  VI.*  727  Shalmaneser  IV.* 

In  favor  of  Rawlinson  is  the  fact  that  Pul  is  not 
mentioned  in  any  inscription  yet  found  or  in  the 
canon,  and  that  Oppert  is  obliged  to  assume  that 
the  succession  of  eponymous  magistrates  was  in- 
terrupted during  his  reign,  and  that,  as  he  was  a 
Chaldean,  the  account  was  kept,  after  the  Chaldean 
fashion,  by  the  years  of  his  reign.  In  favor  of 
Oppert's  scheme  is  (a)  the  fact  that  it  makes  a 
chronology  which  is  in  accord  with  the  biblical 
chronology,  while  Rawlinson  would  shorten  the 
period  of  the  Israelitish  monarchy  (see  note  5  on 
the  Chronological  Table) ;  (6)  the  fact  that  there  was 
certainly  a  break  in  the  succession  at  Tiglath  Pi- 
leser's  accession  (Rawlinson  says  that  he  was  a 
usurper) ;  (c)  the  fact  that  the  Era  of  Nabonassar 
of  Babylon  begins  at  747,  which  is  in  excellent 
harmony  with  the  hypothesis  that,  at  the  death  of 
Pul,  Chaldea  was  unable  to  maintain  dominion 
over  Assyria,  but  found  itself  separate  and  inde- 
pendent, so  that  a  new  era  was  founded.  It  had 
iiot  been  independent  for  centuries  before  this,  and 
it  was  resubjugated  by  Sargon  in  709.  (d)  This 
combination  is  supported  by  the  words :  "  Pul, 
king  of  Assyria,"  2  Kings  xv.  19.  (e)It  is  sup- 
ported by  the  Greek  story  of  Sardanapalus. — It  is 
evident  that  we  have  here  a  clue  which  promises 
ultimately  to  unravel  the  intricacies  and  contra- 
dictions of  the  biblical  chronology. 

Opposite  the  reign  of  Pekah  will  be  found 
marked  that  solution  of  the  contradiction  in  the 
data  concerning  his  reign  which  Oppert  claims  to 
have  obtained  from  the  inscriptions.  See  above, 
p.  162  of  Part  II.  of  the  Comm. 

5.  The  other  important  series  of  synchronisms 
is  that  with  Egyptian  history.  Here  also  scholars 
have  given  the  most  diligent  labor  to  the  scientific 
investigation  of  the  evidence  which  bears  on  the 
biblical  chronology.  A  fundamental  question  here 
meets  us,  whether  the  dynasties  of  Manetho  are 
■U  coisecutive,  or  whether  some  of  them  were 

•  The  same  person,  bu*.  different  mode  of  counting. 


parallel  and  contemporaneous  with  others.  If 
reckoned  as  successive,  the  period  which  thej 
cover  reaches  back  to  more  than  5,000  years  before 
Christ.  Very  many  scholars,  appalled  at  the  mag- 
nitude of  this  period,  have  inferred  that  the  dynas- 
ties must,  many  of  them,  have  been  contempora- 
neous. Lepsius  adopts  this  view,  and  in  his  Ko- 
nigsbuch  der  Alien  Aegypter  he  has  reconstructed 
with  admirable  skill  and  diligence  the  entire  list 
of  Manetho's  dynasties.  Prof.  Rawlinson  adopts 
the  same  view,  avowedly  following  the  English 
Egyptologers.  He  carries  it  further  than  Lepsius, 
and,  in  fact,  the  weakness  of  the  theory  is  that  it 
may  be  carried  as  far  as  any  one  finds  necessary  in 
order  to  reduce  the  period  of  Egyptian  history  to 
what  he  considers  a  reasonable  length.  It  is  es- 
pecially suspicious  that  the  shortening  is  accom- 
plished by  putting  many  of  the  most  ancient  dynas- 
ties contemporaneous  with  one  another,  that  is, 
the  dynasties  which  fall  at  the  time  of  which  we 
know  least.  In  Rawlinson's  scheme  (Manual,  p. 
77)  six  of  Manetho's  dynasties  are  put  as  contem- 
poraneous in  the  period  from  2100  to  2000.  In 
the  more  modern  period  of  the  history,  where  we 
know  that  there  were  many  rulers  in  different 
parts  of  Egypt  at  the  same  time,  we  find  that  Ma- 
netho only  recognized  one.  The  especial  impor- 
tance of  this  for  us,  at  present,  is  that  the  synchron- 
isms fall  in  such  a  way  as  to  require  a  shortening 
of  the  period  of  the  Israelitish  monarchy.  Lepsius 
carries  out  the  calculation  of  the  Israelitish  chro- 
nology in  consistency  with  his  scheme  for  that  of 
Egypt,  and  fixes  the  chief  dates  as  follows  (Konigs- 
buch,  ss.  102,  3,  and  4):  Division  of  the  kingdom, 
953;  Accession  of  Athaliah  and  Jehu,  861;  Fall 
of  Samaria,  693;  Destruction  of  Jerusalem,  586. 

6.  It  will  be  seen  from  this  and  from  what  was 
said  about  Rawlinson's  dates  for  Assyrian  his- 
tory that  the  ehronologers  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes  or  schools,  the  defenders  of  the  "  long 
period  "  for  the  Israelitish  monarchy  (chiefly  those 
who  rely  on  such  a  scheme  as  they  are  able  to 
form  from  the  biblical  data),  and  the  defenders  of 
the  "  short  period  "  (Assyrian  and  Egyptian  scho- 
lars, who  rely  on  the  data  furnished  by  the  mon- 
uments). 

7.  The  "  short  period  "  has  always  been  strong 
from  the  fact  that  both  the  Assyrian  and  Egyptian 
chronologies  seemed  to  demand  it,  but  it  will  be 
noticed  that,  whatever  date  we  may  assign  to  the 
great  eclipse,  the  Assyrian  authorities  fix  the  Fall 
of  Samaria  certainly  in  721,  and  set  aside  Lepsius' 
date  as  impossible.  All  the  shortening  therefore 
must  come  before  that  date,  but  the  synchronism 
with  Tirhaka  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the 
Egyptian  scheme.  Therefore  the  Assyrian  and 
Egyptian  chronologies  are  not  in  accord  in  the 
shortening  which  they  require. 

8.  Others,  however,  discard  the  notion  of  con- 
temporaneous dynasties,  and  reckon  the  dynasties 
as  successive.  This  is  carried  out  in  Lenormant's 
Manual,  and  it  brings  the  synchronisms  into  accord 
with  the  "  long  period  "  which  he  adopts  for  the 
Israelitish  monarchy,  and  also  with  the  Assyrian 
chronology,  which  he  borrows  chiefly  from  Oppert, 
and  which  has  been  described  above. — Evidently 
we  may  hope  that  from  this  quarter  also  confirm- 
atory evidence  will  come,  and  that  all  will  con- 
verge to  a  reliable  result.  Our  task  here  has  been 
to  give  a  succinct  account  cf  the  present  state  of 
the  question. — W.  G.  S. 


CHRONOLOGICAL    TABLE 


PERIOD   FROM   THE   DIVISION   OF  THE    KINGDOM   TO 

BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


THE    COMPILATION    01    THB 


II 

o  o 

1° 

■Sfi 

a 

KINGS  OP 
JUT)  AH. 

a 

S 
o 

V 

in 

<; 

i 

M 
a 
o 

o 

o 

j- 
es 
u 

M 

1 
K 

o 

- 
o 

1 

n 

KINGS  OF 
ISRAEL. 

a 

a 

< 

a 

be 
< 

d 

a 

1 

o 
O 

*o 
a 

i 

3 
« 

o 

c 
o 

1 

SYNCHRONISMS,  <fc< 

975 

REHOBOAM      . 
ABIJAM 

41 

1 

18 

20 

17 

3 

41 

.TF.urmnAM 

1 

32 

Jelwvah-calf-xcorship  in  Israel. 

Fifth  of  Rehoboam.    Shishak,  king  of  Egypt, 

invades  Judah.    (Sheshonk  I.,  1st  king  XXII. 

Dyn.) 
Hostility  between  Judah  and  Israel. 

357 

955 

953 

NATllR,       ,..., 

2 

3 

26 
27 
31 

38 

2 
24 

2 

7 

d'ya 
12 

22 

952 

ttAAKTTA         ,     ,.', 

Tirzah  capital  of  Northern  kingdom. 
Fifteenth  of    Asa.     He  defeated  Zerah,  **ths 

Ethiopian,"  l  at  Zephathah. 
Supremacy  of  the  Jehovah-religion  in  JitdaJu 
Baasha   attacks    Asa. — Latter    forms    allianc* 

with  Benhadad  I.,2  king  of  Syria. 
Heathen  idolatry  in  Israel. 

930 

TJT.ATT 

939 

Z I  M  R I     [OMRL 

TIBNI1. 
OJ1RI 

Civil  war  in  Israel  for  four  years.* 

925 

920-19 

AHAB 

923  Omn  founded  Samaria  and  made  It  the 
capital.    War  between  Israel  and  Syria. 

917-16 

JEHOSHAPHAT. 

35 

4 

Ki 

Political    and    religious   reforms    in    Judah. 

Peace  and  prosperity. 
Ethbaal  in  Tyre.*           Elijah. 
Phoenician  idolatry  (sensual  and  materialistic 

nature-worship)   introduced  into  Israel  6> 

Jezebel. 
902  and  901.  War  between  Israel  and  Syria 

Success  of  Israel  and  alliance  with  Syria 

Benhadad  II.* 
898.  Renewed  war  between  Israel  and  Syria.* 
Revolt  of  Moab  against  Israel. 
Elisha.    Slight  and  temporary  reaction  against 

Phoenician  warship  in  Israel. 

893-7 

ATTA7TATT 

17 

>tao- 
n.1 

2 

12 

898-5 

JOB-AM ■ 

2  J 

ra 

ho 

h.» 

Judah,  Israel,  and  Edom  in  alliance  against 

Jfesha,  king  of  Moab.s 
Moab,  Ammon,  and  the  Edomites  of  Mt.  Seii 

invade  Judah,  but  quarrel  and  kill  each  othei 

near  Engedi. 

1  This  king,  who  was  formerly  identified  with  Uaserken  I. 
(the  Osorkon  of  the  Greeks),  who  was  king  of  Egypt,  is  now 
known  to  be  Azerch-Amen,  an  Ethiopian  conqueror,  who 
overran  Egypt  during  the  reign  of  Uaserken,  and  was  not  ar- 
rested until  he  was  on  the  point  of  entering  Palestine.  See 
Lenormant,  B.  II.  chap.  iv.  sec.  2,  note ;  and  B.  IV.  chap. 
lv.  sec.  2. 

3  See  Exeg.  notes  on  1  Kings  3d.  23,  and  xv.  18. 

3  The  date  given  for  Omri's  accession  (925)  is  the  "81st  of 
Asa,"  but,  as  Ahab  followed  in  the  "38th  of  Asa,'1  Omri's  12 
years1  reign  must  be  reckoned  from  929,  when  he  was  first 
called  to  the  throne.  This  would  give  four  years  for  his  con- 
test with  Tibni  for  the  crown. 

4  See  Exeg.  on  1  Kings  xvi.  31.  He  put  an  end  to  a  period 
of  anarchy  and  founded  a  dynasty  937  B.C.  Asshurnazirpal 
says,  on  an  obelisk  now  in  the  Brit.  Mns.,  that  he  took  tribute 
of  Tyre,  Sidon,  etc.,  in  916.  (Lenormant,  B.  VI.  chap.  iii. 
§ec.  2,  6. 

•  Shalmaneser  IV.  (II.  R.)  mentions,  on  a  stele  found  near 


the  source  of  the  Tigris  and  now  in  the  Brit.  Mus.,  Benhadad 
and  *'  10,000  of  the  men  of  Ahab  of  Israel"  among  the  forces 
whom  he  defeated  at  Karkar  in  900,  the  year  after  this  alliance 
was  formed.  (Lenormant,  B.  II.  chap.  iv.  sec.  3 ;  and  B.  IV. 
chap.  ii.  sec.  4.)  Rawlinson,  in  the  Manual,  says  that  Shal- 
maneser II.  was  contemporary  with  Ahab,  but  gives  as  the 
date  of  Shalmaneser's  reign  85S-823  (see  p.  42),  and  for  Ahab'i 
reign  918-897  (p.  66).  In  the  "Five  Great  Mo7mrchies^,', 
(1  ed.)  Vol.  II.  p.  362  note,  this  notice  is  quoted  as  "  Ainabof 
Samhala,"  not  yet  having  been  distinctly  recognized.  Sir  H. 
Rawlinson,  after  the  discovery  of  the  Canon,  fixed  the  date, 
of  this  battle  as  853.     See  the  Appendix  on  the  Chron.  §  4. 

e  We  should  infer  from  1  Kings  *"Hr  3,  that  Ramoth  had 
not  been  given  up  to  the  Israelites,  as,  perhaps,  was  stipulated 
in  the  treaty  of  alliance  three  years  before. 

1 1  Kings  i.  17. 

B  2  Kings  iii.  1. 

9  This  is  probably  the  Mesha  of  the  Moabite  stone.  S« 
the  Comm.,  Part  II.  p.  31. 


310 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE— (Continued). 


10  a 

o  o 

■§" 

a 

KINGS  OP 
JTJDAH. 

I 

1 

to 

d 

1 
d 
o 
D 

o 
h 

tH 

1 

M 
■g 

a 
o 

I 

n 

KINGS  OP 
ISRAEL. 

§ 
I 

HI 

o 

< 

p 

1 

d 

a 

fl 
5 
O 

o 

d 

& 
■g 

SYNCHRONISMS,   to. 

892-1 
885-4 

JEHORAM     

ATTA7.TATT 

32 
22-j 

5 

12" 
ll11 

8 

6 

40 

Tehoram  introduces  Phoenician  idolatry  inU 

Judaic ;  murders  his  six  brothers  and  others. 
Edomites    revolt   successfully  against    Judah. 

The  priest^ciry  Libnah  revolts. 
Arabs  and  Philistines  invade  Judah.     Siegfl  of 

Samaria  by  Benhadad  and  miraculous  deliv 

erance. 
Hazael  in  Syria. 
Progress  of  Phoenician   idolatry   in  Judah, 

Israel  at  war  with  Syria  (siege  of  Ramoth). 

28 

884 

S77 
856 

Revolution  in  Israel.    Massacre  of  Allah's  fam- 

7 

7 

ily.  Religious  reformation.  Phoenician  idol- 
atry abolished. 

Massacre  of  A/iaziah's  family,  and  supremacy 
of  Phu-nician  idolatry  in  Judah. 

Hazael  conquers  territory  of  Israel  east  of  the 
Jordan.  Shalmaneser  12  takes  tribute  of  Jehu, 
883. 

Restoration  of  the  line  of  David  and  religious 

23 
37 

17 
16 

reformation.     Phoenician  idolatry  abolished 
in  Judah. 
Limitedrevinal  of  Ph< tiiician  idolatry  in  Israel. 

Hazael  continues  to  attack  Israel.  Time  of 
depression  and  weakness.  Israel  overrun  by 
the  Syrians. 

Phoenician  idolatry  tolerated  in  Judah. 

Hazael  takes  Gath  and  threatens  Jerusalem. 

Benhadad  III.  in  Syria. 

838 

S24 
823 

AMAZIAH 

25 

3 

29 

Israel  successful  against  the  Syrians— recovery 

of  lost  cities. 
Phirntcian  idolatry  once   more   abolished   in 

15 

■41 

read 

52 

J uduh . 

Aniaziah  made  a  successful  expedition  against 
the  Edomites  and  took  Sela  (Petra). 

War  between  Israel  and  Judah.  Amaziah  pris- 
oner of  Joash.    Israelites  plunder  the  temple. 

Time  of  strength  and  prosperity  in  Israel. 
Territory  from  Damascus  to  the  Dead  Sea  re- 
covered. 

Luxury,  folly,  and  vice  in  Israel.     Amos. 

Time  of  peace  and  prosperity  in  Judah.     Su- 

AZAEIAH OB  UZ- 
ZIAH. 

16 

27 
(*) 

B2 

811-10 
773 

38 

89 

39 
50 
52 

6 
moa 

1 

mo 
10 
2 

20 

rr;u 

30 

premacy  of  the  Jehovah-religion. 
[7S9.  First  destruction  of  Nineveh  by  the  Medea 

and  Chaldeans  (?)] 
Elath  taken  from  the  Edomites,  Gath  and  Aeh- 

dod  from  the  Philistines;    Ammonites  and 

Arabs  of  Gurbaal  tributary. 

778 

772 
762 
760 

Put '  6  takes  tribute  from  Menahem, 

JOTHAM. 

25 

2 

16 

759-8 

[747.  Era  of  Nabonassar  of  Babylon.) 

■"  2  Kings  vilL  25.  "2  rings  ix.  29. 

•»  This  Shalmaneser  (IVth,  according  t>  Lenormant ;  lid, 
according  to  Rawlinson)  is  the  same  mentioned  above  in  note 
5  He  reigned  from  905  to  870  (Len.).  Among  his  cam- 
paigns and  exploits  mentioned  on  the  "black  obelisk"  (Brit. 
Mus  )  the  same  mentioned  in  note  5,  we  find  it  stated  that, 
in  883,  he  received  tribute  of  "  Jehu,  son  of  Omri "  (the  change 
of  dynastj  not  being  known  or  not  being  remembered),  and, 
on  t"h-  same  obelisk,  Jehu  is  represented,  in  one  of  the  bas- 
reliefs,  as  prostrating  himself  before  Shalmaneser.  He  prob- 
ably c hi.  n  d  int.,  I  ributary  relations  to  Shalm.  in  order  to  get 
protection  against  Hazael.  (Lenormant  I.,  166,  381.  Kaw- 
lin»..n.  Fine  at.  Mnn.  [2d  ed.l  II.,  105  and  106.)  This  is  the 
distress  whieh  fell  upon  Jehu  and  kept  him  from  that  ener- 
getic development  of  Israel  which  we  should  have  expected 
af  him.     See  PL  II.  pp.  114  and  115. 


i»  2  Kings  xv.  30. 

14  2  Kings  xvii.  1. 

is  Rawlinson  {Manual,  p.  67)  gives  for  Menahem  s  reign 
772-762.  On  p.  44  he  says  that  Tiglath  Pileser  II.  took 
tribute  of  Menahem  in  743.  It  is  another  case  of  the 
inconsistency  mentioned  above  in  note  5.  See  also  the 
footnote  p.  161  of  Part  II.  It  is  agreed  that  Tig.  Pil.  II. 
is  stated  in  the  insciptions  to  have  taken  tribute  of  Me- 
nahem of  Israel.  Oppert,  by  combining  this  with  the  other 
data,  arrives  at  the  construction  mentioned  on  p.  162.  and 
which  is  placed  In  the  column  of  remarks  opposite  the  reign 
of  Pekah.  '  , 

is  Pul  is  called,  In  2  Kings  xv.  19,  "king  of  Assyria,  but 
he  is  not  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions  or  the  Canon.  See  il 
regard  to  him,  p.  162  of  Part  II. 


APPENDIX  ON  THE  CHRONOLOGY. 


311 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE— (Continued). 


o  o 


T43 


KINGS  OF 
JTJDAH. 


KINGS  OP 
ISRAEL. 


SYNCHRONISM*,  io. 


80 


17     16 


780 


728 
727 


HEZEKIAH. 


4  op  HEZEKIAH 


25     3 


HOSHEA.. 


20  Jo- 
tham.19 

12 
Ahaz." 


6  OF  HOSHEA. 


6  OF  HEZEKIAH  =  FALL  of  SAMARIA  =  9  OF  HOSHEA. 


[744.  Tiglath  Pileser  II.  in  Assyria  until  727.1 
[New  rise  of  the  Assyrian  power.] 

[742.  Tig.  Pil.  in  Syria ;  Rezin,  Pekah,  and  Ast 
ariah  sen  of  TabeaL,  confederated  againsl 
Ahaz.] 

[742.  Pekah  dethroned.  Menahem  n.18  set  up 
by  Tig.  Pil.  and  tribntary  to  him.] 

Assyrio-Chaldean  star-worship  introduced  into 
Israel  and  Judah..1'' 

[734.  Rezin  and  Pekah  unite  and  revolt.  Pekah 
regained  the  throne.] 

732.  Campaign  of  Rezin  and  Pekah  against 
Ahaz  of  Judah.     732.  Damascus  taken. 

731.  Forced  migration  of  Syrians  and  Israelites. 

[730.  Tiglath  Pilescr  took  G'aia,  Ashdod,  Du- 
mah  in  Arabia,  and  probably  went  to  Jerusa- 
lem. ' 9  At  the  end  of  the  same  year  he  held 
a  court  of  his  vassals  at  Damascus,  at  which 
Pekah  and  Ahaz  were  present.30] 

[730.  Pekah  in  alliance  with  Methon  of  Tyre 
revolts  against  Assyria.  On  the  approach  of 
the  Assyrians,  Pekah  is  slain  by  Hoshea,  who 
submits  to  pay  tribute.] 

Phoenician  idolatry  and  Moloch-worship  en- 
couraged in  Judah..  Political  and  religion* 
degradation  in  fsrael. 

Luxury  and  corruption  in  Judah.  The  tempi* 
of  Jehovah  closed. 

[Shalmaneser21  in  Assyria,  727-722.] 

[725.  Sabacon  I.,22  the  first  king  of  the  XXVth 
Ethiopian  Dyn.  in  Egypt.] 

Reformation  in  Judah.  Revival  of  the  Jeho- 
vah-worship.   Passover  renewed. 

724.  Hoshea,  in  reliance  upon  So,23  revolts 
against  Assyria.  Shalmaneser  besieges  Sa- 
maria. 

[722-704.  Sargon2*  in  Assyria.] 

[719  or  718.  Sargon's  campaign  in  Phoenicia. 
Battle  of  Raphia,  in  which  he  defeats  the 
Egyptians.] 

[718-14.  Siege  of  Tyre  by  Sargon  for  five  yeara 
without  success.] 

[715  (about).  New  revolt  of  Samaria,  Damascus, 
and  Hamath  subdued  by  Sargoc] 

[710  (about).  Sargon's  campaign  against  Ash 
dod.35]  [710-704.  Sargon  occupied  in  build- 
ing at  Dur-Sharyukin.3*] 

[709.  Sargon  defeats  Merodach  Baladan  at  Dur 
Yakin  31  and  reduces  Chaldea  to  subjection.] 

[704-681.  Sennacherib  in  Assyria.] 

[701.  Sennacherib  in  Phoenicia.87]  [Wins  bat- 
tie  of  Eltekon  2*  against  the  Egyptians  (Sa- 
bacon II.).] 

700.  Sennacherib  in  Judah.39  Judah  tributary 
to  Assyria.     Sennacherib's  army  destroyed. 

[699.  Babylon  in  revolt  against  Assyria  under 
Merodach  Baladan.]  Merodach  Baladan  sends 
messengers  to  seek  an  alliance  with 
kiah.30 


' '  See  Exeg.  on  2  Kings  xvi.  3 ;  xvil.  16 ;  xxiii.  12. 

is  See  note  15. 

»  Cf.  2  Chron.  xxviii.  20. 

30  Cf.  2  Kings  xvi.  10. 

31  See  the  Supplementary  Note,  p.  189. 
"  See  p.  1S9. 

33  See  Exeg.  on  2  Kings  xvii.  4,  and  p.  189. 

a*  See  p.  189.     The  Assyrian  form  of  the  name  is  Shar- 
yuJein. 
«  Cf.  Isai.  xx.  1. 

34  I.e.  Castle  of  Sharyukin  or  Sargon.     It  is  the  modern 
Khorsabad. 

»?  See  p.  220. 
»e  see  p.  220. 
"  See  p.  220. 


30  This  date  is  in  dispute.  "We  are  told  that  Hezekiah 
reigned  29  years  (2  Kings  xviii.  S'-,  that  Sennacherib's  inva- 
sion fell  in  his  14th  year  (2  Kings  "xviii.  13),  and  that  he  lived 
15  years  afterwards  (2  Kings  xx.  6).  These  data  are  consist- 
ent with  each  other,  but  the  second  would  make  Senna- 
cherib's invasion  fall  in  713.  This  is  irreconcilable  with 
Assyrian  data,  which  seem  to  be  beyond  question.  All  the 
explanations  or  conjectures  offered  sacrifice  the  statements  of 
the  biblical  text.  They  cannot  be  regarded  as  solutions  of 
the  difficulty.  It  should  be  noticed,  therefore,  th*t  the  date* 
given  to  this  and  other  events  connected  with  it  a-*  *>-*thoM 
which  the  biblical  text  would  give.  See  Sups.  *  *  *ft*» 
Exeg.  on  Chap.  20. 

31  See  Supp.  Note  on  Ohap.  80. 


312 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  THE  KINGS. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE— (Continued). 

is 

*  > 

a 
C 

KINGS  OF 
JTJDAH. 

B 
O 

"i 

1 
* 

| 

1 

o 

a 
o 

I 

SYNCHRONISMS,  fcc. 

(98 

HAUASSEH 
AMON 

12 

22 
8 

66 

2 

81 

[697-682.   Sennacherib   in    constant  war  witi 

Babylon,  which  revolts  again  and  again.] 
Supremacy  of  the  heathen  religions  in  Judah. 

Persecution  of  Jehovah-worshippers. 
[6S1-667.  Esarhaddon  in  Assyria.] 
c.  6S0.  Manasseh  captive  in  Babylon."      [Ma- 
nage h  tributary.] 
ft  675.  Esarhaddon  conquers  Egypt.] 
667-647.  Asshurbanipal  in  Assyria.8*] 
657.  Fhraortes  establishes  Median  Empire.] 
647-625.  Asshuredililani  III.  in  Assyria.]3* 

643 

641 

JOSIAH 

independent  king  of  Egypt.]38 

[Cyaxares  in  Media.] 

Revival  of  Jehovah-worship. 

[625-606.  Saracus  in  Assyria.]  [Nabopolassar 
in  Babylon  until  604.] 34 

[625.  First  attack  of  Medes  and  Babylonians  on 
Nineveh.     Scythian  invasion.] 

622.  Repair  of  the  Temple.  Discovery  of  the 
Book  of  the  Law.  Great  Reformation.  Pass- 
over celebrated. 

SIB 

610 

JEHOAHAZ 

ELIAKIMOB 
JEHOTATCTM'. 

JEHOIACHIN...J 

MATTANIAH  OB 

ZKDEKIAH. 

23 
26 

8(f) 
18 
21 

3 

moB 
11 

3 

mos 
11 

610.  Battle  of  Megiddo.  Josiah  slain.  609.  Je- 
hoahaz  taken  captive  to  Egypt. 

Judah  tributary  to  Egypt.  Heathenism  in  the 
ascendant. 

[607.  Nebuchadnezzar  associated  with  his  father 
as  king  of  Babylon.]  34 

[606.  Nineveh  taken  by  the  Medes  and  Baby- 
lonians.]34 

605.  Battle  of  Carchemish.  Nebuchadnezzar 
defeats  Necho. 

[604.  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Babylon  until  561.] 

602.  Nebuchadnezzar  invades  Judah. 

599.  Nebuchadnezzar  again  in  Judah.    Begin- 

610 

699 

C99 

ning  Of  THJi  CaPHVITK. 

Kg 

595.  Confederated  plan  of  revolt  with  Phoenicia, 
Ammon,  and  Moab.34 

594.  Zedekiah's  visit  to  Babylon.*6 

Hophra  (TJahprahet)  in  Egypt. 

690.  Revolt  of  Judah.  Babylonians  besiege  Je- 
rusalem. 

e.SSO 

King**1 

587.  Gedaliah  killed  by  IshmaeL 
[561.  Evil  Merodach  in  Babylon.]     Jehioftchin 
released  from  prison. 

11  Cf.  2  Chron.  xniu.  11.    Supp.  Note  on  Chap.  21.  I     **  I  give  here  the  dates  of  Lenormant,     On  the  question  at 

33  See  Supp.  Note  on  Chap.  xxi.     Rawlinson  (Five  Great    issue  and  the  conflicting  authorities,  see  r. •  284  sg. 

Hon.  II.  52)  gives  Asshnr-banipal's reign  668-626,  andthatof  1      "  Jerem.  li.  5ft. 

kis  son,  whom  he  call*  Asshur-eund-iiin,  626-636.  j 

V.Q.8.