2Ch 24:4-25:23 | KD | STEP | As to the repair of the temple , see the commentary on 2Ki 12:5-17, where both the formal divergences and the essential agreement of the two narratives are pointed out.

‏ 2 Chronicles 24:4-27

As to the repair of the temple, see the commentary on 2Ki 12:5-17, where both the formal divergences and the essential agreement of the two narratives are pointed out. 2Ch 24:11-12 וגו יביא בּעת ויהי, translate: It came to pass at the time when they brought the chest to the guard of the king by the Levites, i.e., to the board of oversight appointed by the king from among the Levites. עת stat. constr. before a sentence following. בּכום ליום does not denote every day, but every time when there was much money in the chest. 2Ch 24:13 ארוּכה ותּעל, and there was a band laid upon the work, i.e., the restoration of the house of God was furthered; cf. for this symbolical expression, Neh 4:1; Jer 8:7. 2Ch 24:14 כּלים ויּעשׂהוּ, therefrom (the king) caused to be made (prepared) vessels for the house of Jahve, (namely) vessels of the service, i.e., according to Num 4:12, in the holy place, and for the offering of burnt-offering, i.e., altar vessels, and (besides) bowls, and (other) vessels of gold and silver. The last clause of 2Ch 24:14 leads on to the following: “They (king and people) offered burnt-offering continually so long as Jehoiada lived.” 2Ch 24:15-16 Jehoiada’s death: the fall of the people into idolatry: the protest of the prophet Zechariah against it, and the stoning of him. - This section is not found in 2 Kings 12, but is important for the understanding of the later history of Joash (2Ch 24:23.). With the death of the grey-haired high priest came a turning-point in the reign of Joash. Jehoiada had saved the life and throne of Joash, preserved to the kingdom the royal house of David, to which the promises belonged, and had put an end to the idolatry which had been transplanted into Judah by Joram’s marriage into the royal house of Ahab, restoring the Jahve-worship. For this he was honoured at his death, his body being laid in the city of David among the kings: “For he had done good in Israel, and towards God and His house” (the temple). According to 2Ki 12:7, he still took an active part in the repair of the temple in the twenty-third year of Joash, and according to 2Ch 24:14 he lived for some time after the completion of that work. But after his death the people soon forgot the benefits they owed him. 2Ch 24:17-20

The princes of Judah besought the king to allow them to worship the Astartes and idols, and the king hearkened to them, did not venture to deny their request. למּלך ישׁתּחווּ, they bowed themselves before the king, i.e., they besought him. What they thus beseechingly requested is not stated, but may be gathered from what they did, according to 2Ch 24:18. They forsook Jahve the God of their fathers, etc. There came wrath upon Judah because of this their trespass. קצף, a wrathful judgment of the Lord, cf. 2Ch 29:8, viz., the invasion of the land by Hazael, 2Ch 24:23. On the construction זאת אשׁמתם, cf. Ew. §293, c, S. 740. Against this defection prophets whom the Lord sent did indeed lift up their testimony, but they would not hearken to them. Of these prophets, one, Zechariah the son of the high priest Jehoiada, is mentioned by name in 2Ch 24:20., who, seized by the Spirit of the Lord, announced to the people divine punishment for their defection, and was thereupon, at the king’s command, stoned in the court of the temple. With לבשׁה רוּח cf. 1Ch 12:18, and the commentary on Jdg 6:34. לעם מעל, above the people, viz., as we learn from 2Ch 24:21, in the inner, higher-lying court, so that he was above the people who were in the outer court. “Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, and (why) will ye not prosper?” Fidelity to the Lord is the condition of prosperity. If Israel forsake the Lord, the Lord will also forsake it; cf. 2Ch 12:5; 2Ch 15:2. 2Ch 24:21-22

And they (the princes and the people) conspired against him, and stoned him, at the command of the king, in the court of the temple. This זכריה is the Ζαχαρίας whose slaughter is mentioned by Christ in Mat 23:36 and Luk 11:51 as the last prophet-murder narrated in the Old Testament, whose blood would come upon the people, although Matthew calls him υἱὸς Βαραχίου. According to these passages, he was slain between the temple and the altar of burnt-offering, consequently in the most sacred part of the court of the priests. That the king, Joash, could give the command for this murder, shows how his compliance with the princes’ demands (2Ch 24:17) had made him the slave of sin. Probably the idolatrous princes accused the witness for God of being a seditious person and a rebel against the majesty of the crown, and thereby extorted from the weak king the command for his death. For it is not said that Joash himself worshipped the idols; and even in 2Ch 24:22 it is only the base ingratitude of which Joash had been guilty, in the slaughter of the son of his benefactor, which is adduced against him. But Zechariah at his death said, “May the Lord look upon it, and take vengeance” (דּרשׁ, to seek or require a crime, i.e., punish it). This word became a prophecy, which soon began to be fulfilled, 2Ch 24:23. 2Ch 24:23-27

The punishment comes upon them. Joash afflicted by the invasion of Judah by Hazael the Syrian; and his death in consequence of a conspiracy against him. - These two events are narrated in 2Ki 12:18-21 also, the progress of Hazael’s invasion being more exactly traced; see the commentary on 2Ki 12:18. The author of the Chronicle brings forward only those parts of it which show how God punished Joash for his defection from Him.

“At the revolution of a year,” i.e., scarcely a year after the murder of the prophet Zechariah, a Syrian army invaded Judah and advanced upon Jerusalem; “and they destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people,” i.e., they smote the army of Joash in a battle, in which the princes (the chief and leaders) were destroyed, i.e., partly slain, partly wounded. This punishment came upon the princes as the originators of the defection from the Lord, 2Ch 24:17. “And they sent all their booty to the king (Hazael) to Damascus.” In this booty the treasures which Joash gave to the Syrians (2Ki 12:19) to buy their withdrawal are also included. In order to show that this invasion of the Syrians was a divine judgment, it is remarked in 2Ch 24:24 that the Syrians, with a small army, gained a victory over the very large army of Judah, and executed judgment upon Joash. שׁפטים עשׂה, as in Exo 12:12; Num 33:4, frequently in Ezekiel, usually construed with בּ, here with את, analogous to the את טּוב עשׂה, e.g., 1Sa 24:19. These words refer to the wounding of Joash, and its results, 2Ch 24:25. In the war Joash was badly wounded; the Syrians on their withdrawal had left him behind in many wounds (מחליים only met with here, synonymous with תּחלאים, 2Ch 21:19). Then his own servants, the court officials named in 2Ch 24:26, conspired against him, and smote him upon his bed. In 2Ki 12:21, the place where the king, lying sick upon his bed, was slain is stated. He met with his end thus, “because of the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest” which had been shed. The plural בּני is perhaps only an orthographical error for בּן, occasioned by the preceding דּמי (Berth.); but more probably it is, like בּנין, 2Ch 28:3 and 2Ch 33:6, a rhetorical plural, which says nothing as to the number, but only brings out that Joash had brought blood-guiltiness upon himself in respect of the children of his benefactor Jehoiada; see on 2Ch 28:3. Upon the murdered king, moreover, the honour of being buried in the graves of the kings was not bestowed; cf. 2Ch 21:20. On the names of the two conspirators, 2Ch 24:26, see on 2Ki 12:21. In 2Ch 24:27 it is doubtful how ורב is to be read. The Keri demands ירב, which Berth. understands thus: And as regards his sons, may the utterance concerning him increase; which might signify, “May the wish of the dying Zechariah, 2Ch 24:22, be fulfilled on them in a still greater degree than on their father.” But that is hardly the meaning of the Keri. The older theologians took ירב relatively: et quam creverit s. multiplicatum fuerit. Without doubt, the Keth. ורב or ורב is the correct reading. המּשּׂא, too, is variously interpreted. Vulg., Luther, and others take it to be synonymous with משׂאת, 2Ch 24:6, 2Ch 24:9, and understand it of the money derived from Moses’ tax; but to that עליו is by no means suitable. Others (as Then.) think of the tribute laid upon him, 2Ki 12:19, but very arbitrarily. On the other hand, Clericus and others rightly understand it of prophetic threatenings against him, corresponding to the statement in 2Ch 24:19, that God sent prophets against him. As to the Midrash of the book of Kings, see the Introduction.

‏ 2 Chronicles 25:1-23

2Ch 25:1-4

The statement as to the duration and spirit of the reign agrees with 2Ki 14:1-6, except that in 2Ch 25:2 the estimation of the spirit of the reign according to the standard of David, “only not as his ancestor David, but altogether as his father Joash did,” which we find in the book of Kings, is replaced by “only not with a perfect heart;” and the standing formula, “only the high places were not removed,” etc., is omitted.

The succeeding section, 2Ch 25:5-16, enlarges upon Amaziah’s preparations for war with Edom, which had revolted under Joram of Judah, 2Ki 8:22; upon the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and on the results of this war; - on all which we have in 2Ki 14:7 only this short note: “he smote Edom in the valley of Salt 10,000 men, and took Selah in war, and called its name Joktheel unto this day.” But the more exact statements of the Chronicle as to the preparations and the results of this war and victory are important for Amaziah’s later war with Kings Joash of Israel, which is narrated in 2Ch 25:17. of our chapter, because in them lie the causes of that war, so fatal to Amaziah; so that the history of Amaziah is essentially supplemented by those statements of the Chronicle which are not found in 2 Kings. 2Ch 25:5-7 The preparations for the war against Edom, and the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt. - 2Ch 25:5. Amaziah assembled Judah, i.e., the men in his kingdom capable of bearing arms, and set them up (ordered them) according to the princes of thousands and hundreds, of all Judah and Benjamin, and passed them in review, i.e., caused a census to be taken of the men liable to military service from twenty years old and upward. They found 300,000 warriors “bearing spear and target” (cf. 2Ch 14:7); a relatively small number, not merely in comparison with the numbers under Jehoshaphat, 2Ch 17:14., which are manifestly too large, but also with the numberings made by other kings, e.g., Asa, 2Ch 14:7. By Joram’s unfortunate wars, 2Ch 21:17, those of Ahaziah, and especially by the defeat which Joash sustained from the Syrians, 2Ch 24:23, the number of men in Judah fit for war may have been very much reduced. Amaziah accordingly sought to strengthen his army against the Edomites, according to 2Ch 25:6, by having an auxiliary corps of 100,000 men from Israel (of the ten tribes) for 100 talents of silver, i.e., he took them into his pay. But a prophet advised him not to take the Israelitish host with him, because Jahve was not with Israel, viz., on account of their defection from Jahve by the introduction of the calf-worship. To Israel there is added, (with) all the sons of Ephraim, to guard against any misunderstanding. 2Ch 25:8

Amaziah is to go alone, and show himself valiant in war, and the Lord will help him to conquer. This is without doubt the thought in 2Ch 25:8, which, however, does not seem to be contained in the traditional Masoretic text. האל יכשׁילך can hardly, after the preceding imperatives - do, be strong for battle - be otherwise translated than by, “and God will cause thee to stumble before the enemy.” But this is quite unsuitable. Clericus, therefore, would take the words ironically: sin minus, tu vadito, etc.; i.e., if thou dost not follow my advice, and takest the Israelites with thee to the war, go, show thyself strong for the war, God will soon cause thee to stumble. But אם כּי can never signify sin minus. Others, as Schmidt and Ramb., translate: Rather do thou go alone (without the Israelitish auxiliaries), and be valiant, alioquin enim, si illos tecum duxeris, corruere te faciet Deus; or, May God make thee fall before the enemy (De Wette). But the supplying of alioquin, which is only hidden by De Wette’s translation, cannot be grammatically justified. This interpretation of the יכשׁילך would be possible only if the negation לא אם כּי stood in the preceding clause and יכשׁילך was joined to it by ו. The traditional text is clearly erroneous, and we must, with Ewald and Berth., supply a לא or ולא before יכשׁילך: God thou (alone), do, be valiant for battle, and God will not let thee come to ruin. ^{▼▼Even the old translators could make nothing of the present text, and expressed the first clause of the verse as they thought best. lxx, ὅτι ἐὰν ὑπολάβης κατασχῦσαι ἐν τούτοις; Vulg., quod si putes in robore exercitus bella consistere; after which Luth., “denn so du komest das du eine künheit beweisest im streit, wird Gott dich fallen lassen für deinen Feinden.”}

After this we have very fittingly the reason assigned: “for with God there is power to help, and to cause to fall.” 2Ch 25:9-10

Amaziah had regard to this exhortation of the prophet, and asked him only what he should do for the 100 talents of silver which he had paid the Israelite auxiliary corps; to which the prophet answered that Jahve could give him more than that sum. Amaziah thereupon dismissed the hired Ephraimite mercenaries. יבדּילם, he separated them (sc., from his army prepared for battle), viz., the band, that they might go to their place, i.e., might return home. The ל before הגּדוּד is nota accus., and להגּדוּד is in apposition to the suffix in יבדּילם. But the auxiliaries thus dismissed returned home full of wrath against Judah, and afterwards fell upon the border cities of Judah, wasting and plundering (2Ch 25:13). Their anger probably arose from the fact that by their dismissal the opportunity of making a rich booty in war was taken away. 2Ch 25:11-12

But Amaziah courageously led his people into the Valley of Salt, and smote the Edomites. התחזק, as in 2Ch 15:8, refers back to חזק, 2Ch 25:8 : he showed himself strong, according to the word of the prophet. As to the Valley of Salt, see on 2Sa 8:13 and 1Ch 18:12. Besides the 10,000 slain in the battle, the men of Judah took 10,000 other Edomites prisoners, whom they cast from the top of a rock. This statement is wanting in 2Ki 14:7, where, instead of it, the capture of the city Sela (Petra) is mentioned. The conjecture of Thenius, that this last statement of the Chronicle has been derived from a text of the Kings which had become illegible at this place, has already been rejected as untenable by Bertheau. Except the word סלע, the two texts have nothing in common with each other; but it does suggest itself that הסּלע ראשׁ, the top of the rock (which has become famous by this event), is to be looked for in the neighbourhood of the city Selah, as the war was ended only by the capture of Selah. Besides the battle in the Valley of Salt there were still further battles; and in the numbers 10,000, manifestly the whole of the prisoners taken in the war are comprehended, who, as irreconcilable enemies of Judah, were not made slaves, but were slain by being thrown down from a perpendicular rock. 2Ch 25:13

The Ephraimite host dismissed by Amaziah fell plundering upon the cities of Judah, and smote of them (the inhabitants of these cities) 3000, and carried away great booty. They would seem to have made this devastating attack on their way home; but to this idea, which at first suggests itself, the more definite designation of the plundered cities, “from Samaria to Bethhoron,” does not correspond, for these words can scarcely be otherwise understood than as denoting that Samaria was the starting-point of the foray, and not the limit up to which the plundered cities reached. For this reason Berth. thinks that this attack upon the northern cities of Judah was probably carried out only at a later period, when Amaziah and his army were in Edom. The latter is certainly the more probable supposition; but the course of events can hardly have been, that the Ephraimite auxiliary corps, after Amaziah had dismissed it, returned home to Samaria, and then later, when Amaziah had marched into the Valley of Salt, made this attack upon the cities of Judah, starting from Samaria. It is more probable that the dismissal of this auxiliary corps, which Amaziah had certainly obtained on hire from King Joash, happened after they had been gathered together in Samaria, and had advanced to the frontier of Judah. Then, roused to anger by their dismissal, they did not at once separate and return home; but, Amaziah having meanwhile taken the field against the Edomites with his army, made an attack upon the northern frontier cities of Judah as far as Bethhoron, plundering as they went, and only after this plundering did they return home. As to Bethhoron, now Beit-Ur, see on 1Ch 7:24. 2Ch 25:14-15 Amaziah’s idolatry. - 2Ch 25:14. On his return from smiting the Edomites, i.e., from the war in which he had smitten the Edomites, Amaziah brought the gods (images) of the sons of Seir (the inhabitants of Mount Seir) with him, and set them up as gods, giving them religious adoration. ^{▼▼This statement, which is not found in 2 Kings 14, may, in the opinion of Berth., perhaps not rest upon a definite tradition, but be merely the application of a principle which generally was found to act in the history of Israel to a particular case; i.e., it may be a clothing in historical garments of the principle that divine punishment came upon the idolatrous king, because it does not agree with the statement of 2Ki 14:3. In that passage it is said of Amaziah: He did what was right in the eyes of Jahve, only not as David; altogether as his father Joash had done, did he. But Joash allowed his princes, after Jehoiada’s death, to worship idols and Asheras, and had caused the prophet Zechariah, who reproved this idolatry, to be stoned. These are facts which, it is true, are narrated only in the Chronicle, but which are admitted by Bertheau himself to be historical. Now if Amaziah did altogether the same as his father Joash, who allowed idolatry, etc., it is hard indeed to see wherein the inconsistency of our account of Amaziah’s idolatry with the character assigned to this king in 2Ki 14:3 consists. Bertheau has omitted to give us any more definite information on this point.}

In order to turn him away from this sin, which would certainly kindle Jahve’s wrath, a prophet said to Amaziah, “Why dost thou seek the gods of the people, who have not delivered their people out of your hand?” The prophet keeps in view the motive which had induced the king to set up and worship the Edomite idols, viz., the belief of all polytheists, that in order to make a people subject, one must seek to win over their gods (cf. on this belief that remarks on Num 22:17), and exposes the folly of this belief by pointing out the impotence of the Edomite idols, which Amaziah himself had learnt to know. 2Ch 25:16

The king, however, in his blindness puts aside this earnest warning with proud words: “Have we made thee a counsellor of the king? Forbear, why should they smite thee?” נתנּוּך is spoken collectively: We, the king, and the members of the council. And the prophet ceased, only answering the king thus: “I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this (introduced Edomite idols), and hast not hearkened unto my counsel.” The prophet calls his warning “counsel,” referring to the king’s word, that he was not appointed a counsellor to the king. 2Ch 25:17-24 The war with Joash, king of Israel. - Instead of following the counsel of the prophet, Amaziah consulted (sc., with his public officials or courtiers), and challenged King Joash of Israel to war. The challenge, and the war which followed, are also narrated in 2Ki 14:8-14 in agreement with our account, and have been already commented upon at that place, where we have also considered the occasion of this war, so fatal to Amaziah and the kingdom of Judah, on account of which has been handed down to us only in the supplementary narrative of the Chronicle. לך in 2Ch 25:17 for לכה, come, as in Num 23:13 and Jdg 19:13. - In 2Ch 25:20 the chronicler explains Amaziah’s refusal to hear the warning of Joash before the war with him, by a reference to the divine determination: “For it (came) of God (that Amaziah still went to war), that He might deliver them (the men of Judah) into the hand, because they had sought the gods of Edom.” בּיד נתן, to give into the power of the enemy. - In 2Ch 25:23, הפּונה שׁער is a manifest error for הפּנּה (2Ki 14:13). Were הפּונה, the gate that turns itself, faces (in some direction), correct, the direction would have to be given towards which it turned, e.g., Eze 8:3. - וגו וכל־הזּהב, 2Ch 25:24, still depends upon תּפשׂ, 2Ch 25:23 : and (took away) all the gold, etc. In 2Ki 14:14, ולקח is supplied.The end of Amaziah’s reign; cf. 2Ki 14:17-20. - Although conquered and taken prisoner by Joash, Amaziah did not lose the throne. For Joash, contented with the carrying away of the treasures of the temple and of the palace, and the taking of hostages, set him again at liberty, so that he continued to reign, and outlived Joash by about fifteen years.