2Ch 17:3-21:16 | KD | STEP | He placed forces (חיל) in all the fenced cities of Judah, and garrisons (נציבים, military posts; cf. ) in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which is father Asa had taken; cf. 2Ch 15:8. God blessed these undertakings. Jahve was with him, because he walked in the ways of David his ancestor, the former ways, and sought not the Baals. The former ways of David are his ways in the earlier years of his reign, in contrast to the later years, in which his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11) and the sin of numbering the people (1 Chron 21) fall. הבּעלים are all false gods, in contrast to Jahve, the one God of Israel; and here the word designates not only the Baal-worship properly so called, but also the worship of Jahve by means of images, by which Jahve is brought down to the level of the Baals; cf. Jdg 2:11. The ל before בּעלים stands, according to the later usage, as a sign of the accusative. In the last clause of , “and not after the doings of Israel” (of the ten tribes), הלך, “he walked,” is to be repeated. The doing of Israel is the worship of Jahve through the images of the golden calves, which the author of the Chronicle includes in the לבּעלים דּרשׁ.

‏ 2 Chronicles 17:3-19

He placed forces (חיל) in all the fenced cities of Judah, and garrisons (נציבים, military posts; cf. 1Ch 11:16) in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which is father Asa had taken; cf. 2Ch 15:8. God blessed these undertakings. Jahve was with him, because he walked in the ways of David his ancestor, the former ways, and sought not the Baals. The former ways of David are his ways in the earlier years of his reign, in contrast to the later years, in which his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11) and the sin of numbering the people (1 Chron 21) fall. הבּעלים are all false gods, in contrast to Jahve, the one God of Israel; and here the word designates not only the Baal-worship properly so called, but also the worship of Jahve by means of images, by which Jahve is brought down to the level of the Baals; cf. Jdg 2:11. The ל before בּעלים stands, according to the later usage, as a sign of the accusative. In the last clause of 2Ch 17:4, “and not after the doings of Israel” (of the ten tribes), הלך, “he walked,” is to be repeated. The doing of Israel is the worship of Jahve through the images of the golden calves, which the author of the Chronicle includes in the לבּעלים דּרשׁ. 2Ch 17:5

Therefore Jahve established the kingdom in his hand, i.e., under his rule; cf. 2Ki 14:5. All Judah brought him presents. מנחה, often used of tribute of subject peoples, e.g., in 2Ch 17:11 of the Philistines, cannot here have that signification; nor can it denote the regular imposts of subjects, for these are not called מנחה; but must denote voluntary gifts which his subjects brought him as a token of their reverence and love. The last clause, “and there was to him (he attained) riches and honour in abundance,” which is repeated 2Ch 18:1, recalls 1Ch 29:28; 2Ch 1:12, and signifies that Jehoshaphat, like his ancestors David and Solomon, was blessed for walking in the pious ways of these his forefathers. 2Ch 17:6

This blessing encouraged Jehoshaphat to extirpate from the land all idolatrous worship, and to teach the people the law of the Lord. לב נּבהּ, usually sensu malo, to be haughty, proud, cf. e.g., 2Ch 26:16; 2Ch 32:25; here sensu bono, of rising courage to advance in ways pleasing to God: and he removed the high places also, etc. עוד points back to 2Ch 17:3 : not only did he himself keep far from the Baals, but he removed, besides, all memorials of the Baal-worship from Judah. On בּמות and אשׁרים, see on 2Ch 14:2. 2Ch 17:7-9

In the third year of his reign he sent five princes, i.e., laymen of high position, with nine Levites and two priests, into the cities of Judah, with the book of the law, to teach the law everywhere to the people. בּן־חיל is nom. prop., like בּן־חסד, 1Ki 4:10, בּן־דּקר, 1Ki 4:9, and is not to be translated as an adjective, as in lxx and Syr., partly on account of the ל praef., and still more on account of the singular, for the plural חיל בּני must be used when it is in apposition to לשׂרי. Nothing further is known of the men named; the designation of them as שׂרים suggests the idea that they were heads of families or fathers'-houses. אדוניּה טוב, too (2Ch 17:8), is one name. The “book of the law of Jahve” is the Pentateuch, not merely a collection of Mosaic laws, since in Jehoshaphat’s time the Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch) had been long in existence. יהוּדה בּערי סבב signifies to go through the cities of Judah in different directions; baa`aam limeed, to teach among the people (not the people). The mission of these men is called by the older theologians a solemn ecclesiarum visitatio, quam Josaphat laudabili exemplo per universum regnum suum instituit, and they differ in opinion only as to the part played by the princes in it. Vitringa, de synagoga vet. p. 389, in agreement with Rashi, thinks that only the Levites and priests were deputed ut docerent; the princes, ut auctoritate imperioque suo populum erudiendum in officio continerent eumque de seria regis voluntate certiorem facerent; while others, e.g., Buddaeus, refer to 2Ch 17:9, ubi principes pariter ac Levitae populum docuisse dicuntur, or believe with Grotius, docere et explicare legem non tantum sacerdotum erat et Levitarum, sed omnium eruditorum. Both views contain elements of truth, and do not mutually exclude each other, but may be harmonized. We can hardly confine למּד to religious teaching. The Mosaic law contains a number of merely civil precepts, as to which laymen learned in the law might impart instruction; and consequently the teaching probably consisted not merely in making the people acquainted with the contents of the law, but at the same time of direction and guidance in keeping the law, and generally in restoring and confirming the authority of the law among the people. In connection with this there were many abuses and illegalities which had to be broken down and removed; so that in this respect the task of the commission sent round the country by Jehoshaphat may be compared to a church inspection, if only we understand thereby not an inspection of churches in the Christian sense of the words, but an inspection of the religious and moral life of the communities of Israel under the old covenant. 2Ch 17:10-11

This attempt of Jehoshaphat brought him this blessing, that the terror of Jahve fell upon all the surrounding kingdoms; and not only did none of the neighbouring peoples venture to make war upon him, but also various tribes did homage to him by presents. Ramb. has already so understood the connection of these verses (erat hoc praemium pietatis Josaphati, quod vicini satisque potentes hostes non auderent adversus ipsum hiscere); while Berth. fails to apprehend it, saying that Jehoshaphat had time to care for the instruction of his people, because at that time the neighbouring peoples did not venture to undertake war against Judah. The words “terror of Jahve,” cf. 2Ch 14:13; 2Ch 20:29, and “all the kingdoms of the lands,” cf. 2Ch 12:8, 1Ch 29:30, are expressions peculiar to the author of the Chronicle, which show that by these remarks he is preparing the way for a transition to a more detailed portrayal of Jehoshaphat’s political power. מן־פּלשׁתּים is subject, מן partitive: some of the Philistines brought him presents (for מנחה see on 2Ch 17:5), “and silver a burden,” i.e., in great quantity. משּׂא does not signify tribute, vectigal argento (Vulg.), for the word has not that signification, but denotes burden, that which can be carried, as in משּׂא לאן, 2Ch 20:25. - ערביאים or ערביּים, 2Ch 26:7, and more usually ערבים, 2Ch 21:16; 2Ch 22:1, are Arabian nomadic tribes (Bedâwin), perhaps those whom Asa, after his victory over the Cushite Zerah, had brought under the kingdom of Judah, 2Ch 14:14. These paid their tribute in small cattle, rams, and he-goats. (תּישׁים, Gen 30:35; Gen 32:15; Pro 30:31.) 2Ch 17:12 Description of Jehoshaphat’s power. - 2Ch 17:12. And Jehoshaphat became ever greater, sc. in power. The partic. הולך expresses the continuous advance in greatness, cf. Ew. §280, b, as the infin. absol. does elsewhere, e.g., Gen 8:3. למעלה עד as in 2Ch 16:12. - He built castles in Judah. בּירניּות, only here and in 2Ch 27:4, from בּירנית, derivative formed from בּירה by the Syriac termination נית-, fem. of ן-: castle, fortress. On מסכּנות ערי cf. 2Ch 8:4. 2Ch 17:13 וגו רבּה וּמלעכה is rightly translated by Luther, “und hatte viel Vorraths” (and had much store). מלעכה denotes here, as in Exo 22:7-10, property, that which has been gained by work or business. The signification, much work, opera magna (Vulg., Cler., etc.), as also Bertheau’s translation, “the works for equipping and provisioning the fortresses,” correspond neither to the context nor to the parallel (synonymous) second member of the verse. The work and trouble necessary to equip the cities of Judah does not correspond to “the valiant warriors in Jerusalem;” the only parallel is the goods and property which were in these cities, the provision of victuals and war material there stored up. 2Ch 17:14-16

The men fit for war passed in review according to their fathers'-houses. The male population of Judah fell into three divisions, that of Benjamin into two. The prince Adnah held the first place among the generals, with 300,000 men of Judah. ידו על, at his hand, i.e., with and under him, Jehohanan had the command of 280,000 men, and Amasiah over 200,000. השׂר is a contraction for אלפים שׂר. For what special reason it is so honourably recorded of Amasiah that he had willingly offered himself to the Lord (cf. for התנדּב, Jdg 5:9) has not been communicated. 2Ch 17:17-18

The Benjamites fell into two detachments: archers with shields (cf. 1Ch 8:40) 200,000 men, under the chief command of Eliada, and “equipped of the army,” i.e., not heavy armed (Berth.), but provided with the usual weapons, sword, spear, and shield (cf. 1Ch 12:24), 180,000 under the command of Jehozabad. According to this statement, Judah had 780,000 warriors capable of bearing arms. These numbers are clearly too large, and bear no proportion to the result of the numbering of the people capable of bearing arms under David, when there were in Judah only 500,000 or 470,000 men (cf. 1Ch 21:5 with 2Sa 24:5); yet the sums of the single divisions appear duly proportioned-a fact which renders it more difficult to believe that these exaggerated numbers are the result of orthographical errors. 2Ch 17:19

These were serving the king. אלּה refers not to the above-mentioned men capable of bearing arms, for sheereet is not used of service in war, but to the commanders whom he had placed in the fortified cities of all Judah, “in which probably bodies of the above-mentioned troops lay as garrisons” (Berth.).

‏ 2 Chronicles 18

2Ch 18:1 Jehoshaphat’s marriage alliance with Ahab, and his campaign with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead. - 2Ch 18:1. Jehoshaphat came into connection by marriage with Ahab through his son Joram taking Athaliah, a daughter of Ahab, to wife (2Ch 21:6); an event which did not take place on the visit made by Jehoshaphat to Ahab in his palace at Samaria, and recorded in 2Ch 18:2, but which had preceded that by about nine years. That visit falls in the beginning of the year in which Ahab was mortally wounded at Ramoth, and died, i.e., the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign. But at that time Ahaziah, the son of Joram and Athaliah, was already from eight to nine years old, since thirteen years later he became king at the age of twenty-two; 2Ki 8:26, cf. with the chronol. table to 1 Kings 12. The marriage connection is mentioned in order to account for Jehoshaphat’s visit to Samaria (2Ch 18:2), and his alliance with Ahab in the war against the Syrians; but it is also introduced by a reference to Jehoshaphat’s riches and his royal splendour, repeated from 2Ch 17:5. In the opinion of many commentators, this is stated to account for Ahab’s willingness to connect his family by marriage with that of Jehoshaphat. This opinion might be tenable were it Ahab’s entering upon a marriage connection with Jehoshaphat which is spoken of; but for Jehoshaphat, of whom it is related that he entered into a marriage connection with Ahab, his own great wealth could not be a motive for his action in that matter. If we consider, first, that this marriage connection was very hurtful to the kingdom of Judah and the royal house of David, since Athaliah not only introduced the Phoenician idolatry into the kingdom, but also at the death of Ahaziah extirpated all the royal seed of the house of David, only the infant Joash of all the royal children being saved by the princess, a sister of Ahaziah, who was married to the high priest Jehoiada (2Ch 22:10-12); and, second, that Jehoshaphat was sharply censured by the prophet for his alliance with the criminal Ahab (2Ch 19:2.), and had, moreover, all but forfeited his life in the war (2Ch 18:34.), - we see that the author of the Chronicle can only have regarded the marriage connection between Jehoshaphat and Ahab as a mistake. By introducing this account of it by a second reference to Jehoshaphat’s riches and power, he must therefore have intended to hint that Jehoshaphat had no need to enter into this relationship with the idolatrous house of Ahab, but had acted very inconsiderately in doing so. Schmidt has correctly stated the contents of the verse thus: Josaphatus cetera dives et gloriosus infelicem adfinitatem cum Achabo, rege Israelis, contrahit. With which side the proposals for thus connecting the two royal houses originated we are not anywhere informed. Even if the conjecture of Ramb., that Ahab proposed it to Jehoshaphat, be not well founded, yet so much is beyond doubt, namely, that Ahab not only desired the alliance, but also promoted it by every means in his power, since it must have been of great importance to him to gain in Jehoshaphat a strong ally against the hostile pressure of the Syrians. Jehoshaphat probably entered upon the alliance bono animo et spe firmandae inter duo regna pacis (Ramb.), without much thought of the dangers which a connection of this sort with the idolatrous Ahab and with Jezebel might bring upon his kingdom. 2Ch 18:2-34 The campaign undertaken along with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead, with its origin, course, and results for Ahab, is narrated in 1 Kings (in the history of Ahab) in agreement with our narrative, only the introduction to the war being different here. In 1Ki 22:1-3 it is remarked, in connection with the preceding wars of Ahab with the Syrians, that after there had been no war for three years between Aram and Israel, in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah came up to the king of Israel; and the latter, when he and his servants had determined to snatch away from the Syrians the city Ramoth in Gilead, which belonged to Israel, called upon Jehoshaphat to march with him to the war against Ramoth. In the Chronicle the more exact statement, “in the third year,” which is intelligible only in connection with the earlier history of Ahab, is exchanged for the indefinite שׁנים לקץ, “at the end of years;” and mention is made of the festal entertainment which Ahab bestowed upon his guest and his train (עמּו אשׁר העם), to show the pains which Ahab took to induce King Jehoshaphat to take part in the proposed campaign. He killed sheep and oxen for him in abundance, ויסיתהוּ ,ecnadn, and enticed, seduced him to go up with him to Ramoth. הסית, to incite, entice to anything (Jdg 1:14), frequently to evil; cf. Deu 13:7, etc. עלה, to advance upon a land or a city in a warlike sense. The account which follows of the preparations for the campaign by inquiring of prophets, and of the war itself, vv. 4-34, is in almost verbal agreement with 1 Kings 22:5-35. Referring to 1 Kings for the commentary on the substance of the narrative, we will here only group together briefly the divergences. Instead of 400 men who were prophets, 2Ch 18:5, in 1Ki 22:5 we have about 400 men. It is a statement in round numbers, founded not upon exact enumeration, but upon an approximate estimate. Instead of אהדּל אם...הנלך, 2Ch 18:5, in Kings, 1Ki 22:6, we have אהדּל אם...האלך, both verbs being in the same number; and so too in 2Ch 18:14, where in Kings. 1Ki 22:15, both verbs stand in the plural, notwithstanding that the answer which follows, והצלח עלה, is addressed to Ahab alone, not to both the kings, while in the Chronicle the answer is given in the plural to both the kings, והצליחוּ עלוּ. in 2Ch 18:7, “he prophesies me nothing good, but all his days (i.e., so long as he has been a prophet) evil,” the meaning is intensified by the כּל־ימיו, which is not found in 1Ki 22:8. In 2Ch 18:9, the ויושׁבים, which is introduced before the בּגרן, “and sitting upon the threshing-floor,” is due to difference of style, for it is quite superfluous for the signification. In 2Ch 18:15, the ambiguous words of Micah,' and Jahve will give into the hand of the king” (1Ki 22:15), are given in a more definite form: “and they (the enemy) shall be given into your hand.” In 2Ch 18:19, in the first כּכה אמר זה, the אמר after the preceding ויּאמר is not only superfluous, but improper, and has probably come into the text by a copyist’s error. We should therefore read only בּכה זה, corresponding to the כּכה זה of 1Ki 22:20 : “Then spake one after this manner, and the other spake after another manner.” In 2Ch 18:23, the indefinite אי־זה of 1Ki 22:24, is elucidated by הדּרך זה אי, “is that the manner” (cf. 1Ki 13:12; 2Ki 3:8)., and the verb. עבר follows without the relative pronoun, as in the passages cited. In 2Ch 18:30, only הרכב שׂרי of the king are mentioned, without any statement of the number, which is given in 1Ki 22:31, with a backward reference to the former war (1Ki 20:24). In 2Ch 18:31, after the words, “and Jehoshaphat cried out,” the higher cause of Jehoshaphat’s rescue is pointed out in the words, “and Jahve helped him, and God drove them from him,” which are not found in 1Ki 22:32; but by this religious reflection the actual course of the event is in no way altered. Bertheau’s remark, therefore, that “the words disturb the clear connection of the events,” is quite unwarrantable. Finally, in 2Ch 18:34, מעמיד היה, he was holding his position, i.e., he held himself standing upright, the Hiph. is more expressive than the Hoph. מעמד (1Ki 22:35), since it expresses more definitely the fact that he held himself upright by his own strength. With Ahab’s death, which took place in the evening at the time of the going down of the sun, the author of the Chronicle concludes his account of this war, and proceeds in 2Ch 19:1-11 to narrate the further course of Jehoshaphat’s reign. In 1Ki 22:36-39, the return of the defeated army, and the details as to Ahab’s death and burial, are recorded; but these did not fit into the plan of the Chronicle.

‏ 2 Chronicles 19

2Ch 19:1-3 The prophet Jehu’s declaration as to Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab, and Jehoshaphat’s further efforts to promote the fear of God and the administration of justice in Judah. - 2Ch 19:1-3. Jehu’s declaration. Jehoshaphat returned from the war in which Ahab had lost his life, בּשׁלום, i.e., safe, uninjured, to his house in Jerusalem; so that the promise of Micah in 2Ch 18:16 was fulfilled also as regards him. But on his return, the seer Jehu, the son of Hanani, who had been thrown into the stocks by Asa (2Ch 16:7.), met him with the reproving word, “Should one help the wicked, and lovest thou the haters of Jahve!” (the inf. with ל, as in 1Ch 5:1; 1Ch 9:25, etc.). Of these sins Jehoshaphat had been guilty. “And therefore is anger from Jahve upon thee” (על קצף as in 1Ch 27:24). Jehoshaphat had already had experience of this wrath, when in the battle of Ramoth the enemy pressed upon him (2Ch 18:31), and was at a later time to have still further experience of it, partly during his own life, when the enemy invaded his land (2 Chron 20), and when he attempted to re-establish the sea trade with Ophir (2Ch 20:35.), partly after his death in his family (2 Chron 21 and 2Ch 22:1-12). “But,” continues Jehu, to console him, “yet there are good things found in thee (cf. 2Ch 12:12), for thou hast destroyed the Asheroth...” אשׁרות = אשׁרים, 2Ch 17:6. On these last words, comp. 2Ch 12:14 and 2Ch 17:4. 2Ch 19:4 Jehoshaphat’s further arrangements for the revival of the Jahve-worship, and the establishment of a proper administration of justice. - The first two clauses in 2Ch 19:4 are logically connected thus: When Jehoshaphat (after his return from the war) sat (dwelt) in Jerusalem, he again went forth (ויּצא ויּשׁב are to be taken together) among the people, from Beersheba, the southern frontier (see 1Ch 21:2), to Mount Ephraim, the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, and brought them back to Jahve, the God of the fathers. The “again” (ישׁב) can refer only to the former provision for the instruction of the people, recorded in 2Ch 17:7.; all that was effected by the commission which Jehoshaphat had sent throughout the land being regarded as his work. The instruction of the people in the law was intended to lead them back to the Lord. Jehoshaphat now again took up his work of reformation, in order to complete the work he had begun, by ordering and improving the administration of justice. 2Ch 19:5-7

He set judges in the land, in all the fenced cities of Judah; they, as larger cities, being centres of communication for their respective neighbourhoods, and so best suited to be the seats of judges. ועיר לעיר, in reference to every city, as the law (Deu 16:18) prescribed. He laid it upon the consciences of these judges to administer justice conscientiously. “Not for men are ye to judge, but for Jahve;” i.e., not on the appointment and according to the will of men, but in the name and according to the will of the Lord (cf. Pro 16:11). In the last clause of 2Ch 19:6, Jahve is to be supplied from the preceding context: “and Jahve is with you in judgment,” i.e., in giving your decisions (cf. the conclusion of 2Ch 19:11); whence this clause, of course, only serves to strengthen the foregoing, only contains the thoughts already expressed in the law, that judgment belongs to God (cf. Deu 1:17 with Exo 21:6; Exo 22:7.). Therefore the fear of the Lord should keep the judges from unrighteousness, so that they should neither allow themselves to be influenced by respect of persons, nor to be bribed by gifts, against which Deu 16:19 and Deu 1:17 also warns. ועשׂוּ שׁמרוּ is rightly paraphrased by the Vulgate, cum diligentia cuncta facite. The clause, “With God there is no respect of persons,” etc., recalls Deu 10:17. 2Ch 19:8-11

Besides this, Jehoshaphat established at Jerusalem a supreme tribunal for the decision of difficult cases, which the judges of the individual cities could not decide. 2Ch 19:8. “Moreover, in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set certain of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chiefs of the fathers'-houses of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies (לריב).” From this clause Berth. correctly draws the conclusion, that as in Jerusalem, so also in the fenced cities (2Ch 19:5), it was Levites, priests, and heads of the fathers'-houses who were made judges. This conclusion is not inconsistent with the fact that David appointed 6000 of the Levites to be shoterim and judges; for it does not follow from that that none but Levites were appointed judges, but only that the Levites were to perform an essential part in the administration of the law. The foundation of the judicial body in Israel was the appointment of judges chosen from the elders of the people (Exo 18:21.; Deu 1:15.) by Moses, at Jethro’s instigation, and under the divine sanction, David had no intention, by his appointment of some thousands of Levites to be officials (writers) and judges, to set aside the Mosaic arrangement; on the contrary, he thereby gave it the expansion which the advanced development of the kingdom required. For the simple relationships of the Mosaic time, the appointment of elders to be judges might have been sufficient; but when in the course of time, especially after the introduction of the kingship, the social and political relations became more complicated, it is probable that the need of appointing men with special skill in law, to co-operate with the judges chosen from among the elders, in order that justice might be administered in a right way, and in a manner corresponding to the law, made itself increasingly felt; that consequently David had felt himself called upon to appoint a greater number of Levites to this office, and that from that time forward the courts in the larger cities were composed of Levites and elders. The supreme court which Jehoshaphat set up in Jerusalem was established on a similar basis. For יהוה למשׁפּט we have in 2Ch 19:11 דּבר־יהוה לכל, i.e., for all matters connected with religion and the worship and instead of קריב we have המּלך דּבר לכל, for every matter of the king, i.e., for all civil causes. The last clause, 2Ch 19:8, ירוּשׁלים ויּשׁבוּ, cannot signify that the men called to this supreme tribunal went to Jerusalem to dwell there thenceforth (Ramb., etc.), or that the suitors went thither; for שׁוּב does not denote to betake oneself to a place, but to return, which cannot be said of the persons above named, since it is not said that they had left Jerusalem. With Kimchi and others, we must refer the words to the previous statement in 2Ch 19:4, וגו בּעם ויּצא, and understand them as a supplementary statement, that Jehoshaphat and those who had gone forth with him among the people returned to Jerusalem, which would have come in more fittingly at the close of 2Ch 19:7, and is to be rendered: “when they had returned to Jerusalem.” The bringing in of this remark at so late a stage of the narrative, only after the establishment of the supreme tribunal has been mentioned, is explained by supposing that the historian was induced by the essential connection between the institution of the supreme court and the arrangement of the judicatories in the provincial cities, to leave out of consideration the order of time in describing the arrangements made by Jehoshaphat.

‏ 2 Chronicles 20

2Ch 20:1

By אהרי־כן, postea, the war which follows is made to fall in the latter part of Jehoshaphat’s reign, but certainly not in the last year in which he reigned alone, two years before his death, but only somewhat later than the events in 2 Chron 18 and 2Ch 19:1-11, which occurred six or seven years before his death. Along with the Moabites and Ammonites there marched against Jehoshaphat also מהעמּונים. This statement is obscure. Since מן has unquestionably a partitive or local signification, we might take the word to signify, enemies who dwelt aside from the Ammonites (מן as in 1Sa 20:22, 1Sa 20:37), which might possibly be the designation of tribes in the Syro-Arabic desert bordering upon the country of the Ammonites on the north and east; and מארם in 2Ch 20:2 would seem to favour this idea. But 2Ch 20:10 and 2Ch 20:22. are scarcely reconcilable with this interpretation, since there, besides or along with the sons of Ammon and Moab, inhabitants of Mount Seir are named as enemies who had invaded Judah. Now the Edomites dwelt on Mount Seir; but had the Edomites only been allies of the Ammonites and Moabites, we should expect simply אדם בּני or אדומים, or שׂעיר בּני (cf. 2Ch 25:11, 2Ch 25:14). Nor can it be denied that the interpretation which makes מהעמּונים to denote peoples dwelling beyond the Ammonites is somewhat artificial and far-fetched. Under these circumstances, the alteration proposed by Hiller in Onomast. p. 285 commends itself, viz., the change of מהעמונים into מהמּעוּנים, Maunites or Maonites, - a tribe whose headquarters were the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of the Wady Musa; see on 1Ch 4:41. Maan lay upon Mount Seir, i.e., in the mountainous district to the west of the Arabah, which stretches upwards from the head of the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf, now called Jebâl (Gebalene) in its northern part, and es-Sherah in the south. The Maunites were consequently inhabitants of Mount Seir, and are here mentioned instead of the Edomites, as being a people dwelling on the southern side of the mountain, and probably of non-Edomitic origin, in order to express the idea that not merely the Edomites took part in the campaign of the Ammonites and Moabites, but also tribes from all parts of Mount Seir. In 2Ch 26:7 the מעוּנים are mentioned along with Arabs and Philistines as enemies of Israel, who had been conquered by Uzziah. These circumstances favour the proposed alteration; while, on the contrary, the fact that the lxx have here ἐκ τῶν Μιναίων for מהעמּונים proves little, since these translators have rendered העמּונים in 2Ch 26:8 also by οἱ Μιναῖοι, there erroneously making the Ammonites Minaiites. 2Ch 20:2

Then they came and announced to Jehoshaphat, sc. messengers or fugitives; the subject is indefinite, and is to be supplied from the context. “Against thee there cometh a great multitude from beyond the (Dead) sea.” מארם also has no suitable sense here, since in the whole narrative nothing is said of enemies coming out of Syria; we should read מאדם with Calmet and others. As the enemy made their attack from the south end of the Dead Sea, the messengers announce that they were come from Edom. “Behold, they are in Hazazon-tamar,” i.e., Engedi, the present Ain Jidy, midway along the west coast of the Dead Sea (see on Jos 15:62 and Gen 14:7), about fifteen hours from Jerusalem. 2Ch 20:3-4

This report filled Jehoshaphat with fear, and he resolved to seek help of the Lord. ??????? נתן = שׂוּם , cf. 2Ki 12:18; Jer 42:15, to direct the face to anything, i.e., to purpose something, come to a determination. He proclaimed a fast in all Judah, that the people might bow themselves before God, and supplicate His help, as was wont to be done in great misfortunes; cf. Jdg 20:26; 1Sa 7:6; Isa 2:15. In consequence of the royal appeal, Judah came together to seek of the Lord, i.e., to pray for help, by fasting and prayer in the temple; and it was not only the inhabitants of Jerusalem who thus assembled, for they came out of all the cities of the kingdom. מיהוה בּקּשׁ, to seek of the Lord, sc. help, is expressed in the last clause by את־יהוה בּקּשׁ to seek the Lord. 2Ch 20:5

When the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem had assembled themselves in the house of God, Jehoshaphat came forth before the new court and made supplication in fervent prayer to the Lord. The new court is the outer or great court of the temple, which Solomon had built (2Ch 4:9). It is here called the new court, probably because it had been restored or extended under Jehoshaphat or Asa. This court was the place where the congregation assembled before God in the sanctuary. Jehoshaphat placed himself before it, i.e., at the entrance into the court of the priests, so that the congregation stood opposite to him. 2Ch 20:6-7

The prayer which Jehoshaphat directed to Jahve the God of the fathers, as the almighty Ruler over all kingdoms, consists of a short representation of the circumstances of the case. Jahve had given the land to His people Israel for an everlasting possession, and Israel had built a sanctuary to His name therein (2Ch 20:7 and 2Ch 20:8); but they had in no way provoked the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites to fall upon them, and to drive them out of their land (2Ch 20:10 and 2Ch 20:11). On these two facts Jehoshaphat founds his prayer for help, in a twofold manner: in respect to the first, calling to mind the divine promise to hear the prayers offered up to God in the temple (2Ch 20:9); and in reference to the second, laying emphasis upon the inability of Israel to fight against so numerous an enemy (2Ch 20:12). In his manner of addressing Jahve, “God of our fathers,” there is contained a reason why God should protect His people in their present distress. Upon Him, who had given the land to the fathers for a possession, it was incumbent to maintain the children in the enjoyment of it, if they had not forfeited it by their sins. Now Jahve as a covenant God was bound to do this, and also as God and ruler of heaven and earth He had the requisite power and might; cf. Psa 115:3. להתיצּב עמּך אין, there is none with Thee who could set himself, i.e., could withstand Thee: cf. the similar phrase, 2Ch 14:10; and for the thought, see 1Ch 29:12. - On 2Ch 20:7, cf. Jos 23:9; Jos 24:12; Exo 23:20., etc.; on 2Ch 20:7, cf. Gen 13:15., 2Ch 15:18, etc.; on אהבך, Isa 41:8. 2Ch 20:8-9

In this land they dwelt, and built Thee therein a sanctuary for Thy name; cf. 2Ch 6:5, 2Ch 6:8. לאמר, saying, i.e., at the consecration of this house, having expressed the confident hope contained in the following words (2Ch 20:9). In this verse, the cases enumerated in Solomon’s dedicatory prayer, in which supplication is made that God would hear in the temple, are briefly summed up. By referring to that prayer, Jehoshaphat presupposes that Jahve had promised that He would answer prayer offered there, since He had filled the temple with His glory; see 2Ch 7:1-3. The name שׁפות, which occurs only here, between דּבר and חרב, denotes in this connection a punitive judgment. 2Ch 20:10-12 ועתּה, and now, the contrary of this has occurred. Peoples into whose midst (בהם לבוא...אשׁר) Thou didst not allow Israel to come, i.e., into whose land Thou didst not allow Israel to enter when they came out of the land of Egypt, for they (the Israelites under Moses) turned from them and destroyed them not (cf. as to the fact, Num 20:14.; Deu 2:4; Deu 9:19); behold, these peoples recompense us by coming to cast us out of our possession which Thou hast given us (הורישׁ, to give as a possession, as in Jdg 11:24). There follows hereupon in 2Ch 20:12 the prayer: “Our God, wilt Thou not judge,” i.e., do right upon them, for we have not strength before (to withstand) this multitude? We know not what to do, sc. against so many enemies; but our eyes are turned to Thee, i.e., to Thee we look for help; cf. Psa 123:2; Psa 141:8. 2Ch 20:13

Thus all Judah, with their king, stood praying before the Lord. They had, moreover, brought with them their little ones, their wives, and their sons, to pray for deliverance for them from the enemy; cf. Judith 4:9. 2Ch 20:14

The Lord’s answer by the prophet Jahaziel. - 2Ch 20:14. In the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, and promised miraculous assistance to king and people. Jahaziel’s descent is traced back for five generations to the Levite Mattaniah of the sons of Asaph. This Mattaniah is not the same person as the Mattaniah in 1Ch 25:4, 1Ch 25:16, who lived in David’s time, for he belonged to the sons of Heman; but perhaps (as Movers conjectures, S. 112) he is identical with the Asaphite Nethaniah, 1Ch 25:2, 1Ch 25:12, since מ and נ might easily be confounded. 2Ch 20:15

Jehaziel announced to the king and people that they need not fear before the great multitude of their foes; “for the war is not yours, but Jahve's,” i.e., you have not to make war upon them, for the Lord will do it; cf. 1Sa 17:47. 2Ch 20:16 “To-morrow go ye down against them: behold, they come up by the height Hazziz; and ye will find them at the end of the valley, before the desert Jeruel.” The wilderness Jeruel was, without doubt, the name of a part of the great stretch of flat country, bounded on the south by the Wady el Ghâr, and extending from the Dead Sea to the neighbourhood of Tekoa, which is now called el Hasasah, after a wady on its northern side. The whole country along the west side of the Dead Sea, “where it does not consist of mountain ridges or deep valley, is a high table-land, sloping gradually towards the east, wholly waste, merely covered here and there with a few bushes, and without the slightest trace of having ever been cultivated” (Robinson’s Pal. sub voce). The name הצּיץ מעלה, ascent or height of Hazziz, has perhaps remained attached to the Wady el Hasasah. lxx have rendered הצּיץ by Ἀσσεῖς; Josephus (Antt. ix. 1. 2) has ἀναβάσεως λεγομένης ἐξοχῆς, in accordance with which Robinson (loc. cit.) takes the way “upwards from Ziz” to be the pass which at present leads from Ain Jidy to the table-land. Yet it is described by him as a “fearful pass,” ^{▼▼He remarks: “The path winds up in zig-zags, often at the steepest gradient which horses could ascend, and runs partly along projecting walls of rock on the perpendicular face of the cliff, and then down the heaps of débris, which are almost as steep. When one looks back at this part from below, it seems quite impossible that there could be any pathway; but by skilful windings the path has been carried down without any unconquerable difficulties, so that even loaded camels often go up and down.”} and it can hardly be thought of here, even if the enemy, like the Bedouins now when on their forays, may be supposed to have marched along the shore of the sea, and ascended to the table-land only at Engedi; for the Israelites did not meet the enemy in this ascent, but above upon the table-land. Josephus’ translation of הצּיץ by ἐξοχή is also very questionable, for it is not necessary that the ה should be the article (Ew. Gesch. iii. S. 475, der 2 Aufl.). 2Ch 20:17

Ye have not to fight therein (בּזאת); only come hither, stand and see the help of the Lord (who is) with you. You need do nothing more, and therefore need not fear. 2Ch 20:18-19

For this comforting assurance the king and people thanked the Lord, falling down in worship before Him, whereupon the Levites stood up to praise God with a loud voice. Levites “of the sons of Kohath, yea, of the Korahites,” for they were descended from Kohath (1Ch 6:22). 2Ch 20:20-21

The fulfilment of the divine promise. - 2Ch 20:20. On the next morning the assembled men of Judah marched, in accordance with the words of the prophet, to the wilderness of Tekoa. As they marched forth, Jehoshaphat stood, probably in the gate of Jerusalem, where those about to march forth were assembled, and called upon them to trust firmly in the Lord and His prophets (האמינוּ and תּאמנוּ, as in Isa 7:9). After he had thus counselled the people (אל יוּעץ, shown himself a counsellor; cf. 2Ki 6:8), he ordered them to march, not for battle, but to assure themselves of the wonderful help of the Lord. He placed singers of the Lord (ל before יהוה as a periphrasis for the genitive), singing praise in holy ornaments, in the marching forth before the army, and saying; i.e., he commanded the Levitic singers to march out before the army, singing and playing in holy ornaments (להדרת־ק, clad in holy ornaments, = בּהדרת in 1Ch 16:29; cf. Ew. §217, a), to praise the Lord for the help He had vouchsafed. 2Ch 20:22-23

And at the time when they (having come into the neighbourhood of the hostile camp) began with singing and praising, Jahve directed liers in wait against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were come against Judah, and they were smitten. מארבים denotes liers in wait, men hidden in ambush and lying in wait (Jdg 9:25). Who are here meant cannot be ascertained with certainty. Some of the older commentators, Ew. and Berth., think it refers to powers, angels sent by God, who are called insidiatores, because of the work they had to do in the army of the hostile peoples. But the passages where the interposition of heavenly powers is spoken of are different (cf. 2Ki 6:17; 2Ki 19:35), and it is not probable that heavenly powers would be called מארבים. Most probably earthly liers in wait are meant, who unexpectedly rushed forth from their ambush upon the hostile army, and raised a panic terror among them; so that, as is narrated in 2Ch 20:23., the Ammonites and Moabites first turned their weapons against the inhabitants of Mount Seir, and after they had exterminated them, began to exterminate each other. But the ambush cannot have been composed of men of Judah, because they were, according to 2Ch 20:15 and 2Ch 20:17, not to fight, but only to behold the deliverance wrought by the Lord. Probably it was liers in wait of the Seirites, greedy of spoil, who from an ambush made an attack upon the Ammonites and Moabites, and by the divine leading put the attacked in such fear and confusion, that they turned furiously upon the inhabitants of Mount Seir, who marched with them, and then fell to fighting with each other; just as, in Jdg 7:22., the Midianites were, under divine influence, so terrified by the unexpected attack of the small band led by Gideon, that they turned their swords against and mutually destroyed each other. שׂ בּיושׁבי וּככלּותם, and when they had come to an end (were finished) among the inhabitants of Seir, when they had massacred these, they helped the one against the other to destruction (משׁחית is a substantive, as 2Ch 22:4; Eze 5:16, etc.). 2Ch 20:24

Now, when Judah came to the height in the wilderness (מצפּה, specula, watch-tower, here a height in the wilderness of Tekoa, whence one might look out over the wilderness Jeruel, 2Ch 20:16), and turned, or was about to turn, against the multitude of the enemy (ההמון referring back to 2Ch 20:12), behold, they saw “corpses lying upon the earth, and none had escaped,” i.e., they saw corpses in such multitude lying there, that to all appearance none had escaped. 2Ch 20:25

So Jehoshaphat, with his people, came (as Jahaziel had announced, not to fight, but only to make booty) and found among them (בּהם, among or by the fallen) in abundance both wealth and corpses and precious vessels. The mention of פּגרים as part of the booty, between רכוּשׁ and the precious vessels, is somewhat surprising. Some Codd. (4 Kennic. and 3 de Rossi) and various ancient editions (Complut., the Brixenian used by Luther, the Bomberg. of date 1518 and 21, and the Münster) have, instead of it, בּנדים; but it is very questionable if the lxx and Vulg. have it (cf. de Rossi Variae Lectt. ad h. l.). בּגדים, garments, along with רכוּשׁ, moveable property (cattle, tents, etc.), seems to suit better, and is therefore held by Dathe and Berth. to be the correct and original reading. Yet the proofs of this are not decisive, for פגרים is much better attested, and we need not necessarily take רכוּשׁ to mean living and dead cattle; but just as רכוּשׁ denotes property of any kind, which, among nomadic tribes, consists principally in cattle, we may also take פּגרים in the signification of slain men and beasts - the clothes of the men and the accoutrements and ornaments of the beasts (cf. Jdg 8:26) being a by no means worthless booty. Garments as such are not elsewhere met with in enumerations of things taken as booty, in Jdg 8:26 only the purple robes of the Midianite princes being spoken of; and to the remark that the before-mentioned פּגרים has given rise to the changing of בּגדים into פּגרים, we may oppose the equally well-supported conjecture, that the apparently unsuitable meaning of the word פגרים may have given rise to the alteration of it into בּגדים. חמדות כּלי are probably in the main gold and silver ornaments, such as are enumerated in Jdg 8:25. And they spoiled for themselves משּׂא לאין, “there was not carrying,” i.e., in such abundance that it could not be carried away, removed, and plundered in three days, because the booty was so great. The unusually large quantity of booty is accounted for by the fact that these peoples had gone forth with all their property to drive the Israelites out of their inheritance, and to take possession of their land for themselves; so that this invasion of Judah was a kind of migration of the peoples, such as those which, at a later time, have been repeated on a gigantic scale, and have poured forth from Central Asia over the whole of Europe. In this, the purpose of the hostile hordes, we must seek the reason for their destruction by a miracle wrought of God. Because they intended to drive the people of Israel out of the land given them by God, and to destroy them, the Lord was compelled to come to the help of His people, and to destroy their enemies. 2Ch 20:26-28

On the fourth day the men of Judah gathered themselves together, to give thanks to God the Lord for this blessing, in a valley which thence received the name בּרכה עמק (valley of blessing), and which cannot have been far from the battle-field. Thence they joyfully returned, with Jehoshaphat at their head, to Jerusalem, and went up, the Levites and priests performing solemn music, to the house of God, to render further thanks to the Lord for His wondrous help (2Ch 20:27.). The ancient name בּרכה still exists in the Wady Bereikut, to the west of Tekoa, near the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem. “A wide, open valley, and upon its west side, on a small rising ground, are the ruins of Bereikut, which cover from three to four acres” (Robinson’s New Biblical Researches, and Phys. Geogr. S. 106; cf. v. de Velde, Memoir, p. 292). Jerome makes mention of the place in Vita Paulae, where he narrates that Paula, standing in supercilio Caphar baruca, looked out thence upon the wide desert, and the former land of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Reland, Pal. illustr. pp. 356 and 685). There is no ground, on the other hand, for the identification of the valley of blessing with the upper part of the valley of Kidron, which, according to Joe 3:2, Joe 3:12, received the name of Valley of Jehoshaphat (see on Joe 3:2). - On 2Ch 20:27, cf. Ezr 6:22; Neh 12:43. 2Ch 20:29-30

The fame of this victory of the Lord over the enemies of Israel caused the terror of God to be spread abroad over all the kingdoms of the surrounding lands, in consequence of which the kingdom of Judah had rest (cf. 2Ch 17:10). On the last clause of 2Ch 20:30, cf. 2Ch 15:15. This wonderful acts of the Lord is made the subject of praise to God in the Korahite Psalms, Psa 46:1, Psa 47:1, and Psa 48:1, and perhaps also in Ps 83, composed by an Asaphite, perhaps Jahaziel (see Del. Introduction to these Psalms). 2Ch 20:31-37

Concluding notes on Jehoshaphat’s reign, which are found also in 1Ki 22:41-51, where they, supplemented by some notes (1Ki 22:45, 1Ki 22:48, and 1Ki 22:49) which are wanting in the Chronicle, form the whole account of his reign. In the statements as to Jehoshaphat’s age at his accession, and the length and character of his reign, both accounts agree, except that the author of the Chronicle has, instead of the stereotyped formula, “and the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the high places,” a remark more significant of the state of affairs: “and the people had not yet determinedly turned their heart to the God of their fathers” (2Ch 20:33). The notice that Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel (1Ki 22:45) is not found in the Chronicle, because that would, as a matter of course, follow from Jehoshaphat’s having joined affinity with the royal house of Ahab, and had been already sufficiently attested by the narrative in 2 Chron 18, and is so still further by the undertaking spoken of in 2Ch 20:35. For the same reason, the clause introduced in 1Ki 22:46 about the valiant acts and the wars of Jehoshaphat is omitted in the Chronicle, as these acts have been specially narrated here. As to Jehu’s speeches, which were put into the book of Kings, see the Introduction. Further, the remark on the driving out of the remaining Sodomites (קדשׁ) from the land, 1Ki 22:47, which refers back to 1Ki 15:12, is wanting here, because this speciality is not mentioned in the case of Asa. Finally, the remark that Edom had no king, but only a viceroy or deputy, serves in 1Ki 22:48 only as an introduction to the succeeding account of Jehoshaphat’s attempt to open up anew the sea traffic with Ophir. But on that subject the author of the Chronicle only recounts in 2Ch 20:35-37 that Jehoshaphat allied himself with the godless Ahaziah the king of Israel to build in Ezion-gaber ships to go to Tarshish, was censured for it by the prophet Eliezer, who announced to him that Jahve would destroy his work, and that thereupon the ships were broken, doubtless by a storm, and so could not go upon the voyage. אהרי־כן does not definitely fix the time (cf. 2Ch 20:1), but only states that the alliance with Ahaziah took place after the victory over the Ammonites and Moabites. Ahaziah ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned scarcely two years, and the enterprise under discussion falls in that period. אתחבּר is an Aramaic form for התחבּר.

The last clause of v. 38, “he did wickedly,” Bertheau refers to Jehoshaphat: he did wrong; because the context shows that these words are intended to contain a censure on Jehoshaphat for his connection with the king of the northern kingdom. But this remark, though substantially correct, by no means proves that הוּא refers to Jehoshaphat. The words contain a censure on Jehoshaphat on account of his alliance with Ahaziah, even if they describe Ahaziah’s conduct. We must, with the older commentators, take the words to refer to Ahaziah, for הרשׁיע is much too strong a word for Jehoshaphat’s fault in the matter. The author of the Chronicle does indeed use the word הרשׁיע of Jehoshaphat’s grandson Ahaziah, 2Ch 22:3, in the clause, “his mother, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, was for הרשׁיע his counsellor,” but only that he may characterize the acts of the Ahabic house. Jehoshaphat allied himself with the wicked Ahaziah to build ships תּרשׁישׁ ללכת, to go to Tarshish; and they built ships at Ezion-gaber, i.e., on the Red Sea. Instead of this, we have in 1Ki 22:49 : Jehoshaphat built Tarshish ships to go to Ophir for gold. Hence it is manifest that in both passages the same undertaking is spoken of, and the expression “Tarshish ships” is paraphrased in the Chronicle by “ships to go to Tarshish.” This periphrasis is, however, a mistake; for Tarshish ships are merely ships which, like those going to Tarshish, were built for long sea voyages, for Jehoshaphat merely desired to renew the voyages to Ophir. With the exception of this erroneous interpretation of the words, Tarshish ships, the two narratives agree, if we only keep in mind the fact that both are incomplete extracts from a more detailed account of this enterprise. The Chronicle supplies us with an explanatory commentary on the short account in 1Ki 22:49, both in the statement that Jehoshaphat allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel for the preparation of the ships, and also in communicating the word of the prophet Eliezer as to the enterprise, which makes clear to us the reason for the destruction of the ships; while in 1Ki 22:49 merely the fact of their destruction is recorded. Of the prophet Eliezer nothing further is known than the saying here communicated. His father’s name, Dodavahu, is analogous in form to Hodavya, Joshavya (see on 1Ch 3:24), so that there is no good ground to alter it into דּודיּהוּ, friend of Jahve, after the Doodi'a of the lxx. As to Mareshah, see on 2Ch 11:8. The perfect פּרץ is prophetic: Jahve will rend thy work asunder. The words which follow record the fulfilment. עצר as in 2Ch 13:20; 2Ch 14:10. With this the chronicler’s account of this enterprise concludes; while in 1Ki 22:50 it is further stated that, after the destruction of the ships first built, Ahaziah called upon Jehoshaphat still to undertake the Ophir voyage in common with him, and to build new ships for the purpose, but Jehoshaphat would not. The ground of his refusal may easily be gathered from 2Ch 20:37 of the Chronicle.

‏ 2 Chronicles 21:1-16

Jehoshaphat’s Death, and the Reign of His Son Joram - 2 Chronicles 21

The account of the death and burial of Jehoshaphat is carried over to 2 Chron 21, because Joram’s first act after Jehoshaphat’s death, 2Ch 21:2., stands in essential connection with that event, since Joram began his reign with the murder of all his brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 21:2-4). The further account of Joram (2Ch 21:5-10) agrees almost verbally with the account in 2Ki 8:17-22; then in 2Ch 21:12-19 there follows further information as to the divine chastisements inflicted upon Joram for his crime, which is not found in 2 Kings; and in 2Ch 21:20 we have remarks on his end, which correspond to the statements in 2Ki 8:24.

2Ch 21:1-3 Jehoshaphat’s death, and the slaughter of his sons by Joram. - 2Ch 21:2, 2Ch 21:3. Joram had six brothers, whom their father had plentifully supplied with means of subsistence - presents in silver, gold, and precious things - “in the fenced cities of Judah;” i.e., he had made them, as Rehoboam also had made his sons, commandants of fortresses, with ample revenues; but the kingdom he gave to Joram as the first-born. Among the six names two Azariah’s occur, - the one written Azarjah, the other Azarjahu. Jehoshaphat is called king of Israel instead of king of Judah, because he as king walked in the footsteps of Israel, Jacob the wrestler with God, and was a true king of God’s people. 2Ch 21:4

Now when Joram ascended (raised himself to) the throne of his father, and attained to power (יתחזּק as in 2Ch 1:1), he slew all his brethren with the sword, and also some of the princes of Israel, i.e., the tribal princes of his kingdom. It could hardly be from avarice that he slew his brothers, merely to get possession of their property; probably it was because they did not sympathize with the political course which he was entering upon, and disapproved of the idolatrous conduct of Joram and his wife Athaliah. This may be gathered from the fact that in 2Ch 21:13 they are called better than Joram. The princes probably drew down upon themselves the wrath of Joram, or of his heathen consort, by disapproving of the slaughter of the royal princes, or by giving other signs of discontent with the spirit of their reign. 2Ch 21:5-9 Duration and spirit of Joram’s reign. - These verses agree with 2Ki 8:17-22, with the exception of some immaterial divergences, and have been commented upon in the remarks on that passage. - In 2Ch 21:7 the thought is somewhat otherwise expressed than in 2Ki 8:19 : “Jahve would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David;” instead of, “He would not destroy Judah because of David His servant, as He had said.” Instead of לבניו ניר לו לתת we have in the Chronicle וּלבניו ניר לו לתת, to give him a lamp, and that in respect of his sons, w being inserted before לבניו to bring the idea more prominently forward. In regard to שׂריו עם, 2Ch 21:9, instead of צעירה, 2Ki 8:21, see on 2 Kings loc. cit. At the end of 2Ch 21:9 the words, “and the people fled to their tents” (2Ki 8:21), whereby the notice of Joram’s attempt to bring Edom again under his sway, which is in itself obscure enough, becomes yet more obscure. 2Ch 21:10-11

The chronicler concludes the account of the revolt of Edom and of the city of Libnah against Judah’s dominion with the reflection: “For he (Joram) had forsaken Jahve the God of the fathers,” and consequently had brought this revolt upon himself, the Lord punishing him thereby for his sin. “Yea, even high places did he make.” The גּם placed at the beginning may be connected with בּמות (cf. Isa 30:33), while the subject is emphasized by הוּא: The same who had forsaken the God of the fathers, made also high places, which Asa and Jehoshaphat had removed, 2Ch 14:2, 2Ch 14:4; 2Ch 17:6. “And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication,” i.e., seduced them into the idolatrous worship of Baal. That the Hiph. ויּזן is to be understood of the spiritual whoredom of Baal-worship we learn from 2Ch 21:13 : “as the house of Ahab caused to commit fornication.” וידּח, “and misled Judah,” i.e., drew them away by violence from the right way. ידּח is to be interpreted in accordance with Deu 13:6, Deu 13:11. 2Ch 21:12-17

The prophet Elijah’s letter against Joram, and the infliction of the punishments as announced. - 2Ch 21:12. There came to him a writing from the prophet Elijah to this effect: “Thus saith Jahve, the God of thy father David, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat, ... but hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, ... and also hast slain thy brethren, the house of thy father, who were better than thyself; behold, Jahve will send a great plague upon thy people, and upon thy sons, and thy wives, and upon all thy goods; and thou shalt have great sickness, by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.” מכתב, writing, is a written prophetic threatening, in which his sins are pointed out to Joram, and the divine punishment for them announced. In regard to this statement, we need not be surprised that nothing is elsewhere told us of any written prophecies of Elijah; for we have no circumstantial accounts of his prophetic activity, by which we might estimate the circumstances which may have induced him in this particular instance to commit his prophecy to writing. But, on the other hand, it is very questionable if Elijah was still alive in the reign of Joram of Judah. His translation to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings 2, between the reign of Ahaziah and Joram of Israel, but the year of the event is nowhere stated in Scripture. In the Jewish Chronicle Seder olam, 2 Chr 17:45, it is indeed placed in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; but this statement is not founded upon historical tradition, but is a mere deduction from the fact that his translation is narrated in 2 Kings 2 immediately after Ahaziah’s death; and the last act of Elijah of which we have any record (2 Kings 1) falls in the second year of that king. Lightfoot, indeed (Opp. i. p. 85), Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 2Ki 3:11 that Elijah was taken away from the earth in the reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the campaign against the Moabites, undertaken in company with Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat inquired for a prophet, and received the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn from that is, that in the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah’s servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon earth. The perfect יצק אשׁר seems indeed to imply this; but it is questionable if we may so press the perfect, i.e., whether the speaker made use of it, or whether it was employed only by the later historian. The words are merely a periphrasis to express the relationship of master and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only that the latter was Elijah’s attendant. But Elisha had entered upon this relationship to Elijah long before Elijah’s departure from the earth (1Ki 19:19.). Elijah may therefore have still been alive under Joram of Judah; and Berth. accordingly thinks it “antecedently probable that he spoke of Joram’s sins, and threatened him with punishment. But the letter,” so he further says, “is couched in quite general terms, and gives, moreover, merely a prophetic explanation of the misfortunes with which Joram was visited;” whence we may conclude that in its present form it is the work of a historian living at a later time, who describes the relation of Elijah to Joram in few words, and according to his conception of it as a whole. This judgment rests on dogmatic grounds, and flows from a principle which refuses to recognise any supernatural prediction in the prophetic utterances. The contents of the letter can be regarded as a prophetic exposition of the misfortunes which broke in, as it were, upon Joram, only by those who deny à priori that there is any special prediction in the speeches of the prophets, and hold all prophecies which contain such to be vaticinia post eventum. Somewhat more weighty is the objection raised against the view that Elijah was still upon earth, to the effect that the divine threatenings would make a much deeper impression upon Joram by the very fact that the letter came from a prophet who was no longer in life, and would thus more easily bring him to the knowledge that the Lord is the living God, who had in His hand his breath and all his ways, and who knew all his acts. Thus the writing would smite the conscience of Joram like a voice from the other world (Dächsel). But this whole remark is founded only upon subjective conjectures and presumptions, for which actual analogies are wanting.

For the same reason we cannot regard the remark of Menken as very much to the point, when he says: “If a man like Elias were to speak again upon earth, after he had been taken from it, he must do it from the clouds: this would harmonize with the whole splendour of his course in life; and, in my opinion, that is what actually occurred.” For although we do not venture “to mark the limits to which the power and sphere of activity of the perfected saints is extended,” yet we are not only justified, but also bound in duty, to judge of those facts of revelation which are susceptible of different interpretations, according to the analogy of the whole Scripture. But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments know nothing of any communications by writings between the perfected saints in heaven and men; indeed, they rather teach the contrary in the parable of the rich man ^{▼▼“Neque enim,” says Ramb., “ulla ratione credibile est, Deum in gratiam impii regis ejusmodi quid fecisse, cujus nullum alias exemplum exstat; immo quod nec necessarium erat, quum plures aliae essent rationes, quibus Deus voluntatem suam ei manifestare poterat; coll. Luc. 16:27, 29.” And, still more conclusively, Calov. declares: “Non enim triumphantium in coelis est erudire aut ad poenitentiam revocare mortales in terra. Habent Mosen et prophetas, si illos non audiant, neque si quis ex mortius resurrexerit, nedum si quis ex coelis literas perscripserit, credent Luc. 16:31.”} (Luk 16:31)

There are consequently no sufficient grounds for believing that the glorified Elijah either sent a letter to Joram from heaven by an angel, or commissioned any living person to write the letter. The statement of the narrative, “there came to him a writing from Elijah the prophet,” cannot well be understood to mean anything else than that Elijah wrote the threatening prophecy which follows; but we have no certain proof that Elijah was then no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. The time of his translation cannot be exactly fixed. He was still alive in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; for he announced to this king upon his sick-bed that he would die of his fall (2 Kings 1). Most probably he was still alive also at the commencement of the reign of Joram of Israel, who ascended the throne twenty-three years after Ahab. Jehoshaphat died six or seven years later; and after his death, his successor Joram slew his brothers, the other sons of Jehoshaphat. Elijah may have lived to see the perpetration of this crime, and may consequently also have sent the threatening prophecy which is under discussion to Joram. As he first appeared under Ahab, on the above supposition, he would have filled the office of prophet for about thirty years; while his servant Elisha, whom he chose to be his successor as early as in the reign of Ahab (1Ki 19:16), died only under Joash of Israel (2Ki 13:14.), who became king fifty-seven years after Ahab’s death, and must consequently have discharged the prophetic functions for at least sixty years. But even if we suppose that Elijah had been taken away from the earth before Jehoshaphat’s death, we may, with Buddaeus, Ramb., and other commentators, accept this explanation: that the Lord had revealed to him Joram’s wickedness before his translation, and had commissioned him to announce to Joram in writing the divine punishment which would follow, and to send this writing to him at the proper time. This would entirely harmonize with the mode of action of this great man of God. To him God had revealed the elevation of Jehu to the throne of Israel, and the extirpation of the house of Ahab by him, together with the accession of Hazael, and the great oppressions which he would inflict upon Israel, - all events which took place only after the death of Joram of Judah. Him, too, God had commissioned even under Ahab to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel (1Ki 19:16), which Elisha caused to be accomplished by a prophetic scholar fourteen years later (2Ki 9:1.); and to him the Lord may also have revealed the iniquity of Joram, Jehoshaphat’s successor, even as early as the second year of Ahaziah of Israel, when he announced to this king his death seven years before Jehoshaphat’s death, and may have then commissioned him to announce the divine punishment of his sin. But if Elijah committed the anointing of both Hazael and Jehu to his servant Elisha, why may he not also have committed to him the delivery of this threatening prophecy which he had drawn up in writing? Without bringing forward in support of this such hypotheses as that the contents of the letter would have all the greater effect, since it would seem as if the man of God were speaking to him from beyond the grave (O. v. Gerlach), we have yet a perfect right to suppose that a written word from the terrible man whom the Lord had accredited as His prophet by fire from heaven, in his struggle against Baal-worship under Ahab and Ahaziah, would be much better fitted to make an impression upon Joram and his consort Athaliah, who was walking in the footsteps of her mother Jezebel, than a word of Elisha, or any other prophet who was not endowed with the spirit and power of Elijah.

Elijah’s writing pointed out to Joram two great transgressions: (1) his forsaking the Lord for the idolatrous worship of the house of Ahab, and also his seducing the people into this sin; and (2) the murder of his brothers. For the punishment of the first transgression he announced to him a great smiting which God would inflict upon his people, his family, and his property; for the second crime he foretold heavy bodily chastisements, by a dreadful disease which would terminate fatally. ימים על ימים, 2Ch 21:15, is accus. of duration: days on days, i.e., continuing for days added to days; cf. שׁנה על שׁנה ספוּ, Isa 29:1. ימים Berth. takes to mean a period of a year, so that by this statement of time a period of two years is fixed for the duration of the disease before death. But the words in themselves cannot have this signification; it can only be a deduction from 2Ch 21:18. These two threats of punishment were fulfilled. The fulfilment of the first is recorded in 2Ch 21:16. God stirred up the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians (רוּח את העיר, as in 1Ch 5:26), so that they came up against Judah, and broke it, i.e., violently pressed into the land as conquerors (בּקע, so split, then to conquer cities by breaking through their walls; cf. 2Ki 25:4, etc.), and carried away all the goods that were found in the king’s house, with the wives and sons of Joram, except Jehoahaz the youngest (2Ch 22:1). Movers (Chron. S. 122), Credner, Hitz., and others on Joe 3:5, Berth., etc., conclude from this that these enemies captured Jerusalem and plundered it. But this can hardly be the case; for although Jerusalem belonged to Judah, and might be included in בּיהוּדה, yet as a rule Jerusalem is specially named along with Judah as being the chief city; and neither the conquest of Judah, nor the carrying away of the goods from the king’s house, and of the king’s elder sons, with certainty involves the capture of the capital. The opinion that by the “substance which was found in the king’s house” we are to understand the treasures of the royal palace, is certainly incorrect. רכוּשׁ denotes property of any sort; and what the property of the king or of the king’s house might include, we may gather from the catalogue of the אוצרות of David, in the country, in the cities, villages, and castles, 1Ch 27:25., where they consist in vineyards, forests, and herds of cattle, and together with the המּלך אוצרות formed the property (הרכוּשׁ) of King David. All this property the conquering Philistines and Arabians who had pressed into Judah might carry away without having captured Jerusalem. But המּלך בּית denotes here, not the royal palace, but the king’s family; for המּלך לבית הנּמצא does not denote what was found in the palace, but what of the possessions of the king’s house they found. נמצא with ל is not synonymous with בּ נמצא, but denotes to be attained, possessed by; cf. Jos 17:16 and Deu 21:17. Had Jerusalem been plundered, the treasures of the palace and of the temple would also have been mentioned: 2Ch 25:24; 2Ch 12:9; 2Ki 14:13. and 1Ki 14:26; cf. Kuhlmey, alttestl. Studien in der Luther. Ztschr. 1844, iii. S. 82ff. Nor does the carrying away of the wives and children of King Joram presuppose the capture of Jerusalem, as we learn from the more exact account of the matter in 2Ch 22:1.