18:6-7. Apparently it was clear to Jehoshaphat that this group, while large, was less than representative of the mind of the Lord. More than likely, they were employed by Ahab expressly to tell him what he wanted to hear. Jehoshaphat asked if a prophet of the LORD could be found (v. 6). Ahab was somewhat annoyed for he knew exactly what Jehoshaphat was seeking, namely, a prophet who would speak honestly and in accord with the mind of the Lord. Ahab knew that such a prophet could be found in Micaiah, son of Imla (v. 7b) and that this prophet would not endorse his plans. Ahab complained that this man never prophesies good concerning me (v. 7). Ahab even let his personal animosity toward Micaiah slip out (I hate him) drawing an instant (perhaps involuntary) rebuke from Jehoshaphat (Let not the king say so, that is, “You should not speak that way about a prophet of the Lord”).
18:8-13. The prophet Micaiah is known to biblical history only through this incident. Nevertheless, his bold declaration, As the LORD lives, what my God says, that I will speak (v. 13) indicates that he was a true prophet.
While the kings were waiting for Micaiah to be brought before them (v. 8), Ahab had his false prophets continue to prophesy success for the campaign against the Arameans. One false prophet, Zedekiah, made an impressive visual aid, some iron horns (cf. Dt 33:17) and assured the kings that they would be victorious in the coming battle (2Ch 18:10), while all the prophets continued to add their assurances as well (v. 11).
Just before Micaiah was to speak to the kings he was advised that all the other prophets had spoken favorably and that he ought to do the same (v. 12). Many a prophet and preacher has had to face the same challenge—to agree with the “majority” or to speak the Word of God in truth and with courage. Micaiah assured his advisor that he intended to do the latter.
18:14-15. When he was called upon to give his prophetic answer to the question—to go to battle or to refrain (v. 14a)—he must have surprised everyone by his words Go up and succeed (v. 14b). His sarcasm, however, must have been clearly evident to everyone for Ahab admonished Micaiah to tell him the truth—that is, to speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD (v. 15). Ironically, it was Ahab who is adamant to have the prophet of the Lord speak the truth of the Lord. He probably insisted on this to prove his earlier claim that Micaiah never spoke good concerning him (v. 7, 17).
18:16-22. Micaiah forthrightly prophesied the defeat of this alliance. In a poetic verse, he saw that all Israel (a key term for the Chronicler that indicated both nations) would be scattered … like sheep which have no shepherd (v. 16a)—a clear prediction that these kings, as well as their nations, would be defeated. Then, in an intriguing description of the heavenly courts, Micaiah explained that God sent the false prophets to entice Ahab to undertake this war with the precise end of having Ahab fall at Ramoth-gilead (v. 19). The scene would have been particularly interesting to the Chronicler’s readers as it was an insight into the “behind the scenes” work of the Lord to accomplish His purposes. Sometimes what seems like disaster from a human perspective is actually the Lord’s work to accomplish His ends.
18:23-27. In a stunning breach of decorum, the false prophet Zedekiah struck Micaiah a blow to the face and boldly claimed that his prophecy was not of the Lord (v. 23). This act of violence itself indicated “that the Holy Spirit was not present with him (James 3:17)” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 4:499). Micaiah’s restrained and confident response showed that the Spirit was indeed with him (Gl 5:23; cf. Rm 12:17-19). Micaiah was promptly imprisoned by Ahab and treated harshly (2Ch 18:25-26). Micaiah’s faith (like that of Daniel) was tested, but he expressed only assurance. He knew that his words were true and that Zedekiah would come to understand that (and be afraid, v. 24) and that Ahab would not return at all. His bold challenge, Listen, all you people (v. 27b) sounded like Elijah’s challenge to exactly the same king and kingdom (cf. 1Kg 18:20-24).
c. Alliance in Defeat (18:28-34)
18:28-34. The account of the battle and defeat at Ramoth-gilead centered on the two kings—Ahab and Jehoshaphat. In a brazen display of duplicity mixed with cowardice, Ahab suggested he be disguised while Jehoshaphat was to go into battle with his full regalia (v. 29). The effect of this was predictable—the enemy would concentrate their forces on Jehoshaphat, identified as the king (v. 30), while Ahab could go undetected. However, the Lord thwarted this wicked plan. In a subtle change from his source (of 1Kg 22), the Chronicler noted that when Jehoshaphat was attacked and he cried out (1Kg 22:32b), the LORD helped him, and God diverted them from him (v. 31b). Furthermore, in one of the most poignant instances of divine providence over apparently insignificant events, there was a certain man, that is, no man in particular, drew his bow at random, that is, with no particular target, and shot his arrow in such a way that it not only hit the disguised Ahab but found a joint of the armor (v. 33a), inflicting what Ahab knew instantly to be a mortal wound (v. 33b). God delivered the king who cried out to Him, and God judged the king who defied Him.
d. Alliance and King Rebuked (19:1-3)
19:1-3. The events themselves were a rebuke of Jehoshaphat and exposed the folly of his unholy alliance with Ahab. Therefore, the Lord sent the prophet Jehu, the son of the prophet Hanani (who had rebuked his father Asa, for much the same folly of unholy alliances; cf. 16:7-10) to drive home the point. Help, love, and hate are terms related to covenant relationships. The principle behind Jehu’s words is that one cannot love the Lord and ally with those who hate Him (19:2)—one cannot serve two masters (see the comments on Mt 6:24). This can only result in wrath from the LORD (v. 2b) in chastisement. This was strong language, but it was necessary to make the point to subsequent kings—faithfulness to the Lord is not optional. The rebuke by Jehu was mitigated by Jehoshaphat’s previous reforms (v. 3), and it appeared to be the impetus for the reforms that followed.
4. Jehoshaphat’s Reforms (19:4-11)
Jehoshaphat had the right attitude (a heart to seek God, v. 3b), and he responded to the rebuke of Jehu with reforms intended to strengthen his kingdom.
a. Spiritual Renewal (19:4)
19:4. The note in v. 4 is intended to indicate that Jehoshaphat not only carried out his reforms in the capital city, but he also extended them into the rural regions of his kingdom. His desire was to bring all the people back to the LORD, the God of their fathers. The constant need to return is a recurring theme for the Chronicler (and no doubt a need for God’s people of any era).
b. Judges Appointed (19:5-7)
19:5-7. To accomplish his goal of spiritual renewal Jehoshaphat appointed judges (v. 5; how this would assist in the renewal, see the comments on vv. 8-11). These judges were to work comprehensively (in the land in all the fortified cites of Judah, city by city; v. 5), conscientiously (for the LORD, in the presence of the Lord, with the fear of the LORD upon them, v. 6), and without partiality (v. 7).
c. Levites and Priests Appointed (19:8-11)
19:8-11. Apparently, the task of the judges out “in the land” (19:5) was like “small claims” or a “regional court,” while the task of the Levites and priests and heads of the fathers in Jerusalem (v. 8) was like a “superior court” or “appeals court.” The values imposed on the judges were reiterated and given more specific elaboration (vv. 9-10). Both spiritual (all that pertains to the LORD) and secular (all that pertains to the king) matters were to be taken up by these courts and resolved with integrity (v. 11b). Both the mere external organization of these courts and the signal values that were to guide them would have been of keen interest to the Chronicler’s generation as they sought to forge a just and viable society in the postexilic period.
5. Jehoshaphat Faced Invasion and War with Prayer, Faith (20:1-30)
The narrative of the next major event in the reign of Jehoshaphat is introduced rather abruptly in 2Ch 20:1. The invasion by the forces of Moab, Ammon, and the Meunites (local tribes from the vicinity of Mount Seir, close to Petra in Edom, southeast of the Dead Sea; cf. 20:10) was itself unexpected and a shock to the nation. However, this account is exemplary of true faith under fire and depicts Jehoshaphat as the ideal Davidic king—a man who seeks God, a man of eloquent prayer and sincere faith.
a. Surprise Invasion from the South (20:1-2)
20:1-2. The route these forces took was from the eastern regions around the southern end of the Dead Sea. By the time news of their advance had reached Jehoshaphat, they were in Engedi, about halfway up the western side of the Dead Sea (20:2). They were a formidable force, a great multitude. This surprise attack found Jehoshaphat with little time for preparations and vulnerable, so the king was afraid (20:3a).
b. Spiritual Response by King (20:3-19)
Jehoshaphat’s response was nearly as surprising as the invasion itself—but it showed him as an ideal Davidic King, a man of committed faith, and an exemplary leader of the nation whose God is the Lord.
20:3-4. Jehoshaphat may have been afraid, but he was not paralyzed with fear. He initially responded by calling for a fast in all Judah (v. 3). His previous programs to teach the Word in “all the cities of Judah” (17:9) and to appoint judges in all the cities (19:5) prepared the whole country. That the entire nation was well grounded in the Word and unified in its values is indicated by the repetition of the phrase all Judah (20:3, 13, 15, 18; cf. vv. 4, 17, 20, 27). They responded to the king’s call and they gathered to seek the LORD (see Introduction: Purpose and Themes in 1 Chronicles) a signal feature of the ideal Davidic king (v. 4).
20:5-13. Besides the call to fast, Jehoshaphat offered a remarkable and exemplary public prayer (v. 5), heard by all but primarily directed to the Lord (v. 6). At the outset, Jehoshaphat acknowledged the Lord’s sovereignty, noting His rule over the nations and His power and might over all (v. 6). Also, the king recognized the Lord’s covenantal relationship to Israel, noting that He is the God of our fathers (v. 6a), the friend of Abraham (v. 7), and the One who promised the land, driving out the Canaanites to give it to the descendants of Abraham … forever (v. 7). Jehoshaphat then recalled the faithfulness of the nation to live to the Lord in this land—evidenced by the construction of a sanctuary (the temple) for Your name (v. 8). Next, Jehoshaphat recalled Solomon’s prayer (at the dedication of the temple, cf. 2Ch 6:20, 28-31), asking for deliverance from our distress (v. 9). All of this was intended to say to the Lord, “You have the power, You made the promise, Your name is our concern”—Your name is in this house (v. 9)—the temple. In short, Jehoshaphat’s main concern was the name—the reputation and honor—of the Lord. The invaders needed to be repelled for God to keep His promises and to uphold His name among the nations.
Accordingly, Jehoshaphat prayed specifically about this threat from the sons of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir (v. 10a). These nations had been spared at the time of the conquest (v. 10b; cf. Nm 20:14-21) but were now seeking to thwart God’s intention to give Israel this land as an inheritance (v. 11). For this act of ingratitude and attempt to thwart God’s purposes, Jehoshaphat implored the Lord, will You not judge them? (v. 12a). The king further acknowledged His nation’s inability and cast himself and his whole kingdom at the mercy of the Lord—our eyes are on You (v. 12b). The poignant note in v. 13 that all Judah—men, women, and children—stood before the LORD, captured the sense of faith and hope of the nation as a whole in this time of distress. The point was clear: “We are powerless—so You, Lord, must fight for us.” No doubt such a prayer echoed the faith and feelings of the Chronicler’s generation as well.
20:14-17. The nation’s faith and hope were rewarded with a word from the Lord through Jahaziel (v. 14b) who was a Levite (v. 14c). In true prophetic fashion, the Spirit of the LORD came on Jahaziel (v. 14a), and he spoke the actual words of the Lord (v. 15a). In one of the great clarion calls to faith, the Lord told His people, (1) Listen to Me (v. 15b); (2) Do not fear them (v. 15c), because (3) the battle is not yours (v. 15d) but God’s. They could be sure that in spite of their weakness, they were strong (cf. 2Co 12:10) because the Lord intended to fight for them. The people were instructed to place themselves where they could observe the battle (2Ch 20:16, 17b), but it was reiterated that they were not to fight (v. 17a). They were given the supreme promise of security and victory—for the LORD is with you (v. 17c). The Chronicler no doubt wanted the reader to see this as another of the great instances of the Lord’s promise to defend and preserve the nation (cf. Ex 14:13-14; Dt 20:4; 1Sm 17:37)—this was a promise the Chronicler’s generation needed to hear and to trust.
20:18-19. The response to the Word of the Lord was, appropriately, humble worship (v. 18) and vociferous praise (v. 19).
c. A Stunning Victory and Triumph (20:20-30)
20:20-23. The king and the people prepared for the battle itself in several steps. First, they obeyed the Word of the Lord (they went out to the designated location, v. 20a). Second, Jehoshaphat again encouraged them to put their trust in the LORD your God and in His prophets (His Word to them) (v. 20b). Finally, they appointed “song and praise leaders” for the people and the army (v. 21). Apparently, these were the official singers (1Ch 25) and were to wear their holy attire (2Ch 20:21b; cf. 1Ch 16:29). This battle strategy was similar in intent, if not in form, to that of Gideon (Jdg 7), for the singers were to lead the army in a chorus of thanksgiving to the Lord (2Ch 20:21c)!
Once the singers had begun (v. 22a) confusion in the enemy forces was created, and they began to fight among themselves. Apparently, certain forces of the enemy had been positioned (intentionally by the enemy, providentially by the Lord; v. 22b) to ambush the army of Israel. However these forces were set upon by other enemy forces so that they rose up against each other (v. 23a) and they helped to destroy one another (v. 23b).
20:24-30. By the time Jehoshaphat and the army arrived on the scene, the destruction of the enemy was so complete (v. 24) that all he and the people had to do was pick up the spoils (v. 25). Days later they returned from the scene of destruction (now called The Valley of Beracah, v. 26, “blessing”) to Jerusalem with joy and appropriately rejoiced in the temple (v. 28), for the Lord had given them victory. The news of this victory (as with others in the nation’s history) spread to the surrounding nations and ushered in a time of peace (v. 30). The Chronicler was careful to emphasize that the nations knew that the LORD had fought against the enemies of Israel (v. 29b) and it was God who gave the king rest on all sides (v. 30). In contrast to the failed alliance with Ahab, Jehoshaphat had learned that absolute trust in the Lord was well placed and that only the Lord can bring the peace, prosperity, and security that the nation sought. This was a lesson the Chronicler’s generation and all generations of God’s people needed to know.
6. Jehoshaphat’s Sad Ending (20:31-37)
20:31-37. The Chronicler finished his record of Jehoshaphat’s reign with the typical concluding formula (vv. 31-33) and an atypical additional paragraph (vv. 35-37). In the latter the Chronicler recorded the sad fact that Jehoshaphat made yet another unwise alliance, this time with Ahaziah, the king of Israel. Jehoshaphat made an unwise economic alliance involving trade ships to Tarshish (v. 36), and the Lord sent the prophet Eliezer to tell him that the Lord had determined to thwart the enterprise. As a result, the ships were broken (v. 37) and the alliance came to nothing. The Chronicler was informing his readers that sometimes God thwarts the plans of men for His purposes—and that those purposes are ultimately gracious.
The record of Jehoshaphat’s end was, therefore, mixed. He is credited with walking in the way of his father Asa (no doubt, thinking of the positive elements of Asa’s reign) (v. 32). Yet, he did not undertake the reforms sufficiently to direct the hearts of the people completely back to the God of their fathers (v. 33b). His 25-year reign included some of the highest points of faith in the Lord and lowest points of failure to trust in the Lord.
E. Three Who Were “Bad” (Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah) (21:1–23:15)
1. Jehoram Succeeded Jehoshaphat (21:1-3)
21:1-3. Upon the death of Jehoshaphat his son Jehoram became sole king in Judah (v. 1b, 3b). Before he died Jehoshaphat had made arrangements to secure his firstborn son’s kingdom by the wise and judicial distribution of his wealth and power among his other sons. He gave Jehoram’s brothers (v. 2) jurisdiction over the fortified cites (v. 3b) and the wealth necessary to administer them (v. 3a). The fortified cities were the border cities and settlements that provided the first line of defense of the kingdom. Having one’s own brothers as the “border guards” should have been a source of security for Jehoram.
2. Jehoram’s Evil and the Lord’s Faithfulness (21:4-7)
21:4-6. Instead of building on the security left to him by his godly father, Jehoram committed several acts of evil. First, he slaughtered his brothers (v. 4) apparently in a foolish and wicked attempt to secure his throne from all potential rivals. Second, his eight-year reign (v. 5) was patterned, not after that of his godly father Jehoshaphat, but, generally in the way of the kings of Israel (v. 6) and specifically after his wicked father-in-law, Ahab. Here, the disaster of Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab (cf. 18:1) was brought home with terrible force. Years of wicked rule followed, and the nation suffered long after Jehoshaphat had passed from the scene. This lesson would not be lost on the Chronicler’s generation, as it had suffered much for the sin and ungodliness of their national forbearers. Furthermore, Jehoram, in the pattern of the kings of the northern tribes, was the first king of Judah to actually establish places of idolatry (20:11). Finally, Jehoram’s reign was characterized by the sweeping and devastating statement he did evil in the sight of the LORD (v. 6).
21:7. Nevertheless, the Chronicler was quick to add that in spite of this particular king’s wickedness, the Lord remained faithful to His promise to David (v. 7). The Davidic covenant had its inviolability as a key provision. God would keep His promises to David and the nation even if a king sinned. However, a wicked king or a faithless generation might be denied the blessings and privileges of that covenant. There is blessing for obedience and humble godliness—there is chastisement for disobedience and prideful wickedness. Jehoram was a classic example of the latter.
3. Jehoram’s Punishment (21:8-19a)
a. The Revolts of Edom and Libnah (21:8-11)
21:8-11. The revolts of Edom and Libnah (vv. 8, 10b; Libnah was a “semi-Philistine city … in the vicinity of Gath” [Payne, “1 Chronicles,” 506]) were directly attributed to Jehoram’s having forsaken the LORD God of his fathers (v. 10c). Instead of the security from such revolts that he might have enjoyed had he enlisted his brothers in the fortified cities, Jehoram had to endure this sort of rebellion for the duration of his reign (cf. v. 10a). Even though he was able to fend off such revolts (v. 9) he failed to enjoy the security and prosperity of the Lord’s promise to a Davidic king.
b. Letter from Elijah (21:12-15)
21:12-15. Normally a letter from the Lord’s prophet would be cause for joy—for Jehoram it was a prelude to more chastisement. Elijah is not mentioned elsewhere in Chronicles. But this is not surprising since his ministry was to the northern kingdom. Contrary to the conclusion of some critics, it was not impossible for Elijah to write such a letter since he was still alive during Jehoram’s reign (cf. 2Kg 1:17; see Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 506). Also, since Jehoram acted like one of the kings of Israel, it should be expected that he would attract the attention of the greatest prophetic opponent of those kings.
Elijah’s rebuke went right to the heart of Jehoram’s wickedness: he had failed to pattern his life and reign after godly kings of Judah (Asa, Jehoshaphat, v. 12b), while he did follow the way of the kings of Israel (v. 13a) and the house of Ahab (v. 13b). His idolatry and fratricide were specifically condemned (v. 13). For these iniquities he and his kingdom were to suffer: the nation was to experience great calamity (v. 14b), and he was to suffer a debilitating disease in his bowels (v. 15).
c. Punishments of the Letter (21:16-19a)
21:16-19a. The great calamity predicted by Elijah came in the form of yet another attack from foreign powers—the Philistines and the southern Arabs (v. 16). Once again, Jehoram’s killing of his brothers was shown to be a short sighted and disastrous policy because it left the fortified border cities exposed. Those nations invaded and carried away all of his possessions and most of his family (v. 17). The disease predicted by Elijah (likely some form of dysentery) also came upon Jehoram and (described by the Chronicler in particularly graphic terms) eventually took his life (vv. 18-19a).
4. Jehoram’s End (21:19b-20)
21:19b-20. The Chronicler recorded Jehoram’s end with intentional brevity, in effect serving as a commentary on his repugnance toward this king. Jehoram received none of the customary honors accorded a deceased king. At his funeral there was no fire (no honorary funeral fire) and no regret (v. 20b). Moreover, as a final indignity, although he was buried in Jerusalem, he was not interred in the royal cemetery (v. 20c). In effect, the Chronicler’s conclusion was that Jehoram was not a legitimate (even if he was a legal) member of the Davidic line.
5. Reign of Ahaziah (22:1-9)
The reigns of both Ahaziah, Jehoram’s only surviving son (v. 1; cf. 21:17b; “Jehoahaz” was another name for Ahaziah; cf. 1Ch 23:25), and Athaliah, Jehoram’s wife (granddaughter of Omri [2Ch 22:2b], daughter of Ahab [21:6b], mother to Ahaziah [22:10]) were recorded to show the consequences of Jehoram’s terrible reign, and even further as consequences of the disastrous alliance Jehoshaphat had made with Ahab (cf. 18:1). The Chronicler viewed them as aberrations of the Davidic line, lacking full legitimacy. Both of these monarchs were essentially usurpers from the house of Ahab (cf. 22:3, 4, 7, 8), and their reigns were characterized by the same wickedness and evil as that of Ahab (vv. 3, 4).
a. Ahaziah Is Made King (22:1-4)
22:1-4. Ahaziah began his reign as a young man, only 22 years old (v. 2) and with no one from his father’s side of the family to counsel him (v. 1). With only those from his mother’s side of the family remaining, they, including his mother, counseled him to do wickedly (v. 3b), that is, to reign after the way of the wicked Ahab.
b. Ahaziah’s Alliance with Jehoram of Israel (22:5-6)
22:5-6. Following the counsel of his family from the north, Ahaziah made yet another disastrous alliance with the northern kingdom, this time with Jehoram (“Joram,” vv. 5c, 7) of Israel (v. 5), not to be confused with Jehoram of Judah, Ahaziah’s deceased father. With this alliance, like that of his grandfather Jehoshaphat, the kings undertook to battle the Arameans once again at Ramoth-gilead (v. 5; cf. 18:8). As before, the king of Israel (Joram/Jehoram) was severely wounded and the battle was (presumably) lost. Apparently Ahaziah had not gone to the battle, but he did go to visit and support his wounded and ailing uncle Jehoram (22:6), whose sister Athaliah was Ahaziah’s mother (cf. 21:6; 22:2-3). This indicates that Ahaziah was lending Jehoram the support and aid of Judah. Jezreel was located “at the head of the Esdraelon Valley, where … Ahab’s palace was located” (1Kg 21:1) (Payne, “1 Chronicles,” 508).
c. Ahaziah’s Destruction (22:7-9)
22:7-9. The information supplied by the Chronicler is abbreviated (cf. 2Kg 9; for the whole account and exploits of Jehu, king of the northern kingdom, see 1Kg 19:16, 17) but sufficient to make the point that Ahaziah should not have made this alliance or offered his aid to Jehoram. This was so because the Lord had determined to destroy Jehoram and then turn the kingdom over to Jehu (2Ch 22:7b; 2Kg 9:6, 7). In effect, Ahaziah had made himself and his court a target of the vengeful Jehu (2Ch 22:8). Apparently, Ahaziah escaped the first wave of executions but was eventually caught and slain by Jehu (v. 9a). The Chronicler’s association of Ahaziah with Jehoshaphat (v. 9b) is surprising but was included to demonstrate that no king of Judah had followed the way of Jehoshaphat who sought the LORD with all his heart (v. 9c). As a result of Ahaziah’s death, there was no one to reign in Judah (v. 9d). The foolishness of Jehoshaphat’s earlier alliance with Israel and the wickedness of Jehoram had brought the nation to a serious crisis.
6. The Reign of Athaliah (22:10–23:15)
The crisis of Ahaziah’s death led to one of the most troublesome eras in the nation’s history and brought the only regnant queen of Judah to the throne. Athaliah’s reign was one of the lowest points in the history of the Davidic line.
a. Athaliah’s Bid for Power (22:10-12)
22:10-12. The appalling indifference of Athaliah at the news of her son’s death was exceeded only by her shocking cruelty and lust for power. Upon Ahaziah’s death Athaliah began a systematic campaign to eliminate the Davidic line (v. 10). In terms of the main narrative of the Chronicler the matter could not have been more serious. The line of David had been reduced to one child—Joash, the son of Ahaziah (v. 11a). If he were to be killed with the rest of the royal offspring of the house of Judah (v. 10) then the promise to David (1Ch 17:10-14) could not be fulfilled.
Remarkably, the heroine of the moment turned out to be a sister of Ahaziah, Jehoshabeath, who rescued her nephew Joash (v. 11). Thus, it was one courageous godly woman who thwarted the evil of one wicked woman. At her own personal risk, Jehoshabeath stole the infant Joash and hid him in the bedroom (v. 11)—most likely a room used for storing the bedding. The Chronicler carefully identified Jehoshabeath (daughter of King Jehoram, sister of Ahaziah and wife of Jehoiada the priest v. 11b) as the heroine. This mini-genealogy was included to subtly but emphatically note that while wickedness and evil dominated in these years, there were still some who were faithful to the Lord and trusted in His promises. Apparently, after some time, the godly couple, Jehoshabeath and her husband Jehoiada the priest, took Joash and hid him in the temple (the house of God) for the duration of the six-year reign of Athaliah (v. 12).
Once again the Chronicler had tied the promise made to David and the fortunes of his line to the temple. In fact, “the temple was the vital link in the preservation of the Davidic dynasty” (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 99). This connection was important to the Chronicler and his generation. The nation would be restored only by the remnant of the Davidic line and the restoration of the temple. Thus, “the focus of the hope of the fulfillment of God’s promise to David was centered on the temple” (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 99). In short, as long as the temple “existed” then God’s promise to David “could be fulfilled”—if the one institution (Davidic dynasty or temple) thrived, the other would as well. This was the hope of the Chronicler’s generation: by rebuilding the temple they were anticipating the revival of the Davidic promises and making the coming of Messiah possible.
b. Plan to Overthrow Athaliah and Establish Joash as King (23:1-11)
23:1-3. The plan by Jehoiada to place Joash on the throne was not without danger and required careful planning and preparation. Jehoiada first enlisted (made a covenant with) the armed forces of Judah (v. 1), and then he gathered the religious leaders (the Levites, v. 2) from all the cities of Judah. Finally he enlisted the heads of the fathers (v. 2), carefully planning and calculating the order of these enlistments. The five captains of hundreds (v. 1) were officers of “the Carites” (2Kg 11:4; or “Cherethites”) who in turn were associated with the Pelethites (2Sm 20:23), all of whom were “elements of the royal guard” (Payne, “1 Chronicles,” 510). That Jehoiada could make these key alliances demonstrated that Athaliah had little popular support in the nation. An assembly of all the parties was called and a covenant was made with the king—Joash—in the temple (v. 3a). In a dramatic moment in the history of the nation, Jehoiada proclaimed, Behold, the king’s son shall reign, and he invoked the promise the LORD has spoken concerning the sons of David (v. 3b; cf. 1Ch 17:1-14).
23:4-11. Still, the dramatic proclamation needed to be backed up with action. Jehoiada divided his forces strategically so as to prevent access to the temple and to protect the young king (vv. 4-7). He gave the defenders of the true king the weapons of King David (v. 9b) that had been stored in the temple, and they formed an impenetrable human mass, making access to the king impossible (vv. 8-10). Finally, surrounded by the imposing forces of the armed Levites, Joash was brought into public view and crowned king. He was anointed and received the traditional adulation, Long live the king (v. 11b). The drama of the historic event and the significance of the preservation of the Davidic line made this a coronation of unusual importance for the Chronicler. That is the reason he provided more details for this coronation than any other in his books.
c. Death of Athaliah (23:12-15)
23:12-15. The adulation and celebration of the people (v. 13c) inevitably came to the attention of Athaliah (v. 12a). However, Jehoiada’s preparations were impeccable, and by the time she understood what was happening it was too late for her to prevent the ascension of Joash. Her futile (and ironically illegitimate) cry of Treason! (v. 13c) only served to identify her for her executioners (v. 14). Her ignominious death, like that of her mother (cf. 2Kg 9:33-37), served as a fitting reminder of the end of the wicked, and all who attempt to thwart God’s purposes.
F. Three Who Were “Mixed”: Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah (23:16–26:23)
The sad and distressing era of Jehoram that ended with the death of Athaliah inaugurated an era that fluctuated between promise and failure. Each one of the next three kings began well but ended poorly. Of Amaziah it was said, “He did right in the sight of the LORD, yet not with a whole heart” (25:2), demonstrating the danger of partial spiritual devotion.
1. Reign of Joash (23:16–24:27)
The reign of Joash began with one of the most dramatic and significant events in the history of the nation—his coronation and anointing ended an era of wickedness and portended an era of faithfulness. However, the promise offered at the beginning of his reign departed by the end of it.
a. Early Reforms of Joash by Jehoiada (23:16-21)
23:16-21. The reforms Jehoiada undertook in Joash’s name followed immediately upon the death of Athaliah. The covenant inaugurated by Jehoiada amounted to a rededication of the people that they would be the LORD’s people (v. 16b)—worthy to be called “His people” (cf. 1Ch 22:18c; 23:35; 2Ch 22:11; 31:10; Ps 29:11 et al.). This would entail forsaking idolatry (2Ch 23:17), even to the extent that Mattan, a priest of Baal, was killed (cf. Dt 13:5-10) and restoring temple worship to the pattern and order established by David (2Ch 23:18; “David” is mentioned specifically twice). As was typical in the Chronicler’s narrative, temple reforms and restoration of the Davidic regnancy went hand in hand. Thus, as the reforms of the temple were put into place (v. 19), so the rightful Davidic king was placed upon the royal throne (v. 20). The end of the upheaval of the recent past and the revival initiated by Jehoiada’s covenant with the people brought about a time of rejoicing and hope for the future that the people had not known for many years (v. 21a).
b. Reign of Joash Under the Influence of Jehoiada (24:1-16)
24:1-3. The 40-year reign of Joash (v. 1) began as one of the most promising but ultimately ended as one of the most disappointing in the nation’s history. The change in Joash from the days when Jehoiada advised him to the days when he was advised by the officials of Judah (cf. v. 17) was dramatic and disastrous.
Joash began well and did what was right in the sight of the LORD (v. 2a). However, the Chronicler was quick to add that this was during all the days of Jehoiada the priest (v. 2b). This godly advisor even arranged Joash’s marriages (v. 3).
24:4-7. Once again, a favorite theme of the Chronicler is taken up as the Davidic king took a particular interest in the temple. Even as the temple had protected Joash, so now he oversaw its restoration (v. 4). Apparently, the temple had suffered not merely neglect but also vandalism and plunder during the reign of the wicked Athaliah (v. 7). At first Joash began a capital campaign (v. 5), and it seems this first effort lasted several years (as the use of the term annually in v. 5b implies; cf. 2Kg 12:6 “in the twenty-third year of King Jehoash [Joash]”). The note that the Levites did not act quickly (2Ch 24:5c) was a mild rebuke, but it made the point clearly—in some fashion the involvement of the Levites had slowed the collection of the revenues. Joash asked Jehoiada to explain the reason the revenues had not been collected according to the levy (tax) of Moses (cf. Ex 30:12-16). While the Chronicler recorded no detailed explanation, it seems apparent that the regular and prescribed revenues simply were not being collected efficiently.
24:8-14. Rather than accept this circumstance, Joash embarked upon a unique method of raising the necessary funds to restore the temple. Instead of depending on the priests and Levites to collect the revenues, Joash placed a large chest with an opening in the lid (cf. 2Kg 12:9) just outside the main gate of the temple (2 Ch 24:8). He instructed the officials and all the people (vv. 9-10) to place the Mosaic levies in this chest. When it was sufficiently full, this chest would be brought to the king, the monies collected, and the chest returned to its spot (v. 11). Apparently, this arrangement worked well, and soon the king hired the skilled workers and craftsmen needed to repair the house of the LORD (God) (vv. 12-14, the phrase “house of the LORD/God” appears six times in these three verses).
This scene would have appealed to the Chronicler as he sought to encourage his own generation to a similar respect and concern for the temple. The workers’ efficient progress (v. 13a) contrasted with the Levites’ inefficiency and resulted in the restoration of the temple (house of God) according to its specifications (v. 13b), meaning, according to its original design and purpose (cf. 1Ch 28:11ff.). Joash’s fund-raising method was so successful that there were sufficient funds left over to restore the utensils for the temple service (2Ch 24:14a). The note concerning the burnt offerings (v. 14c) marked the high point of Joash’s reign and was a warning to the Chronicler’s generation—the revival of the temple service should not be taken for granted.
24:15-16. How soon Jehoiada died after the temple’s restoration was not indicated but two facts related to his death were noted: first, Jehoiada lived a long life—he was one hundred and thirty years old at his death (v. 15). Such length of years at this point in history was unusual but not impossible (cf. Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 4:514-15) and was recorded to emphasize the Lord’s favor on such a significant figure. Second, he was buried in the royal cemetery—an unusual privilege for a priest but again, indicative of his importance and of the Lord’s favor on him because he had done well in Israel and to God and His house (v. 16). This was in marked contrast to Joash’s own fate (cf. v. 25c).
c. Reign of Joash after the Death of Jehoiada (24:17-22)
Few people in that day would have imagined that the death of Jehoiada could have precipitated the disastrous events that followed. It would have been predictable to assume that his years of influence on Joash would have carried the young king through many years of a godly and successful reign. Sadly, such was not the case. The Chronicler recorded the end of Joash’s reign with a sharp brevity that conveyed a note of disappointment and a warning, reminding of the danger of secondhand faith.
24:17-18. Reminiscent of Rehoboam’s foolishness (listening to foolish advice, cf. 10:6ff.), Joash listened (v. 17, in the sense of took their advice favorably) to those advising him to reinstitute idolatry. The Chronicler provided no details about this sad turn of events, only that they abandoned the house of the LORD and turned to the Asherim (Canaanite female fertility goddesses) and the idols (v. 18a). This brought swift and terrible consequences—the wrath of the Lord (v. 18b).
24:19-22. The pattern—apostasy followed by an appeal from the Lord’s prophets—was well known to the Chronicler’s readers, and the outcome was predictable. The prophets advised repentance, but they (the king and his advisors) would not listen (v. 19b). The lesson to the Chronicler’s generation was “take care to whom you listen.”
One of the prophets sent to the king and the nation was Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest (v. 20); “clothed” with the Spirit of God (v. 20a) Zechariah’s message was in the form of a rhetorical question: Why do you transgress the commandments (v. 20b)? The simple incoherence of the act of idolatry was the point of this question—“What does idolatry do for you?” It actually caused the nation to not prosper (v. 20c) and their forsaking of the Lord led to His forsaking of them (20:20d; on “forsaking the Lord” see Introduction: Purpose and Themes in 1 Chronicles). However, like another generation of Israel, who heard the preaching of another Zechariah (son of Berechiah) they refused to listen (Zch 7:11, 13). In a shocking act of retaliation, the people conspired against (2 Ch 24:21a) the prophet of God. Then, with the complicity of Joash himself (against the prophet Zechariah, the son of his former, faithful mentor, Jehoiada) they stoned him (Zechariah) to death (v. 21b). To add to the repugnance of the act, it was accomplished in the court of the house of the LORD (v. 21c) adding desecration (of the same temple he had done so much to restore) to Joash’s act of betrayal. To make sure that the reader did not miss the heinousness of Joash’s duplicity toward Jehoiada, the Chronicler added the shocking conclusion—but he murdered his son (v. 22a).
Zechariah’s final prayer—May the LORD see and avenge (v. 22b) was not one of forgiveness (cf. Stephen Ac 7:60; cf. Lk 23:34) but of vengeance. However, he was not seeking personal revenge—it was an imprecatory prayer asking for justice, not for himself, but from the Lord for His prophet (cf. Dt 32:35; Ps 94:1; Rm 12:19). Jesus’ mention of “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Mt 23:35) has often been understood to refer to the murder of Zechariah, indicating guilt from the beginning of the Bible (Genesis, wherein Abel’s murder is recorded) to the end (2 Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew canon wherein Zechariah’s murder was recorded). Yet there is a difficulty because Jesus called Zechariah “the son of Berechiah,” and 2 Chronicles identifies him as “the son of Jehoida.” Possible explanations for this discrepancy are: (1) perhaps Zechariah was the son of a Berechiah who was unmentioned and Jehoida was actually his grandfather; (2) perhaps a NT copyist confused Jesus’ reference with the more famous prophet who was the son of Berechiah (see Zch 1:1) and mistakenly changed the text, so it was transmitted incorrectly; (3) perhaps Jesus was not referring to this incident in 2 Chronicles at all but referring to the prophet Zechariah, whose execution was not recorded in Scripture (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 515).
d. The Lord’s Judgment upon Joash: Defeat and Disease (24:23-27)
24:23-24. Once again the Lord’s judgment took the form of an invasion from Israel’s enemies—here the Arameans (v. 23). Now it happened is a subtle way of saying “It did not just happen” but that the Lord was acting and was, in fact, exhibiting His wrath (cf. v. 18b). The Chronicler noted specifically that this calamity befell those who were the instigators of the idolatry—all the officials of the people (v. 23a) and that the calamity was devastating (v. 23b). The notice that the Arameans had the inferior force compared to Israel’s very great army (v. 24a) indicates that this was not merely a defeat by a determined enemy but a judgment because they had forsaken the LORD (v. 24b). Once again the principle is illustrated—seeking the Lord brings blessing, while forsaking the Lord brings judgment (v. 24c).
24:25-27. The judgment was not limited to a national calamity. It also brought personal tragedy to Joash. Apparently, Joash was very sick (ESV “wounded;” the word can refer to the consequences of being injured in battle; cf. 2Kg 8:29) and confined to his bed after this defeat. This gave opportunity for those who resented his part in Zechariah’s death to exact their revenge (2Ch 24:25). Since Joash had “conspired” against Zechariah, so his own servants conspired against him (v. 25a) and they murdered him. The naming of the servants indicates that they did not attempt to hide their involvement in the crime and they may have considered it a just act of retribution (v. 26). The final indignity for Joash was that he was not buried in the royal cemetery (v. 25b), an indication (in contrast to Asa, cf. 16:13-14) that the ungodliness of his latter reign overshadowed the good that he had done during the days of Jehoiada (v. 27).
2. The Reign of Amaziah (25:1-28)
The reign of Amaziah is well summarized: “He did right in the sight of the LORD, yet not with a whole heart” (25:2). The term “whole” (salem) means “complete, perfect, sound.” To have a whole heart would mean (among other things) a “steadfast heart” (cf. Ps 57:7), an “upright heart” (cf. Ps 97:11), an “obedient heart” (cf. Ps 119:112), and a “devoted-to-God” heart (cf. Ps 9:1; 119:10, 69, 145). In effect, much of Amaziah’s reign was a mixture of listening to, and submitting to the Word of God (the law, 2Ch 25:4a, or the word of a prophet, 25:7ff.) but also of rash decisions and self-serving pride.
“The date of Amaziah’s reign is a seemingly intractable problem” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 459). In brief, the reference to his reign of twenty-nine years (v. 1; 2Kg 14:2) cannot be easily reconciled with the numbers from 2Kg 15:1, that is his 29-year reign added to the 52-year reign of his son Uzziah yields too many years when compared to the (northern kingdom) reigns of Jeroboam II (2Kg 14:23) and his son Zechariah (2Kg 15:8). “Jeroboam had a reign of forty-one years (2Kg 14:23), so his death occurred fourteen years after the death of Amaziah in Jeroboam’s twenty-seventh year; however, when Zechariah succeeded Jeroboam II, Uzziah was already in his thirty-eighth year of reign” (Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 198). The solution seems to be that Amaziah reigned only five years before Uzziah became his coregent (cf. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 63–64). This long coregency may have been caused by the capture of Amaziah by Jehoash (2Ch 25:23). That would further indicate that the two wars of Amaziah occurred in the first five years of his reign.
a. Amaziah’s Reign Began with an Act of Reprisal (25:1-4)
25:1-4. One of Amaziah’s first acts was to exact vengeance (or justice depending on one’s perspective) on those who had murdered his father Joash (v. 3). The Chronicler notes, however, that Amaziah did not kill the offender’s families (as would have been customary in such cases at the time). This clemency was a result of Amaziah’s observance of the law in the book of Moses (v. 4a) that the offender alone, not the father or the son of the offender, shall be put to death for his own sin (v. 4b; Dt 24:16). “God’s mercy to thousands far exceeds his judgment to the third and fourth generations; cf. Ex. 20:5-6” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 459).
b. Amaziah’s Battle with the Sons of Seir (Edom) (25:5-13)
25:5-8. Next, Amaziah began military preparations with intention to do battle with the sons of Seir (Edom) (cf. 25:11). A census of the able-bodied men in his kingdom revealed that Amaziah’s forces were seriously depleted (300,000) from those in the days of Jehoshaphat (nearly 1.2 million, v. 5; cf. 17:14-19) and so, at great expense, he hired mercenaries from the northern kingdom of Israel (v. 6). This act was not acceptable to the Lord (for the LORD is not with Israel), so a man of God (v. 7), a prophet, brought a message to Amaziah to urge him to reconsider this action. Verse 8 appears confusing (probably because modern readers are not prepared for how the Lord’s prophets use sarcasm). In effect the prophet was telling Amaziah that if he chose to go to battle with these mercenaries he should be prepared to be strong for the battle on his own because the Lord was not going to be helping him—in fact, he is told God will bring you down before the enemy (v. 8b)—he would lose the battle! The phrase for God has power to help and to bring down (v. 8c) means He, the Lord makes the winners win, and the losers lose. In short, if he wanted to win this battle Amaziah needed to send the mercenaries away.
25:9-10. Amaziah was apparently open to this, but he was concerned that the money already paid for the mercenaries would be lost (v. 9a). The man of God dismissed such concerns by reminding the king that the resources of the Lord were not limited to such pecuniary matters (v. 9b)—he was to cut his losses and dismiss these mercenaries. So Amaziah dismissed his hired troops, much to their displeasure (v. 10). Here again, the estimate of Amaziah is mixed as he readily turned away from his rash act of hiring mercenaries. However, the ill will this action created with the troops from the north had a devastating effect: even as Amaziah was engaged in fighting the Edomites in the south, these troops raided and despoiled the cities of Judah in the northern parts of Judah (v. 13). Beth-horon was a settlement about a dozen miles northwest of Jerusalem in the Valley of Aijalon and lay along one of the few good routes through the hill country between the north and south—it should have been protected. Amaziah may have avoided an outright defeat but his initial rash action of hiring the mercenaries still brought about calamitous results.
25:11-13. Thus reassured by the man of God, Amaziah went on the offensive and met the enemy in the Valley of Salt (v. 11), near the southern end of the Dead Sea. The defeat of the Edomites was complete with 10,000 of them killed in battle and another 10,000 captured and executed (v. 12). The purpose of such a gruesome spectacle was to inflict a psychological wound on the minds of the Edomites to discourage any thought of retaliation.
c. Amaziah’s Idolatry (25:14-16)
25:14. After defeating the Edomites, Amaziah, in a further rash act, retrieved their idols and set them up as his gods and bowed down to them (v. 14). “This is the only explicit reference to Edomite worship in the Bible” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 461). While it may seem to be a counterintuitive act (worship of the gods who could not bring victory to the devotees who had been worshipping them seems rather irrational), such practice was not unknown in the ancient Near East. When a nation suffered a defeat it was often taken as a sign of the displeasure of the gods with the devotion (or lack of it) by the nation. “Amaziah’s action may” have been “intended to placate the presumed anger of the Edomite gods” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 461). Still such blatant idolatry was stunning. While it was not unheard of to take the idols of a defeated foe as plunder, it was rash and foolish to actually set them up as objects of worship (see Is 44:9-20 on the folly of idolatry).
25:15-16. The Lord’s reaction was swift and severe: Then the anger of the LORD burned against Amaziah (v. 15a). At once a prophet was dispatched to confront the foolish king (v. 15b). The unnamed prophet’s words were rightly ironic and their logic, perfect. In effect, he asked the king, “Why would you want to worship the gods of the people you just defeated? If those gods did not protect them from you, what promise do they have for protecting you?” (v. 15c). The prophet’s sarcasm must have stung Amaziah, and in the middle of his rebuke to the king, Amaziah questioned the prophet’s standing, shouted Stop! (v. 16b), and threatened the prophet (v. 16c). The disrespect shown to this prophet revealed Amaziah’s heart (cf. v. 2b), and the prophet, in a terse and chilling statement, predicted the destruction of the king (v. 16d). Once again the Chronicler’s theme is clear: those kings who heed the Word of God are blessed, those who do not are punished. The king may have stopped God’s prophet, but he could not stop God’s judgment—yet he did not listen (v. 16d; cf. v. 19).
d. Amaziah Defeated by Joash of Israel (25:17-24)
25:17-19. The exact nature of the message from Amaziah, king of Judah, to Joash, king of Israel, is unclear. It may have been a direct invitation to battle, or it may have been a (rather brash) method of diplomacy (v. 17). In either case, Joash took it as an affront and responded with a colorful but cutting “parable” (v. 18). Israel was compared to a mighty cedar tree, and Judah was compared to an insignificant thorn bush—the demands of the thorn bush were being ignored by the cedar when a wild beast came along and ignominiously trampled the bush. To make his meaning clear, Joash admonished Amaziah and said, in effect, “Just because you defeated Edom, you should not let your pride lead you to boasting and into trouble that will lead to your fall. You should stay at home and forget about conquests and battles” (v. 19).
25:20-24. The Chronicler made clear that Amaziah’s decision to ignore Joash’s sarcastic advice was from God (v. 20a) because the Lord had determined to use Joash to punish Amaziah for the latter’s idolatry (v. 20b). The description of the battle indicates that it was brief but decisive (vv. 21-22)—Amaziah was captured (v. 23a) at Beth-shemesh “fifteen miles west of Bethlehem, on Amaziah’s own picked ground” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 519). Thus Jerusalem was deprived of her defenses (v. 23b), and much of the temple’s treasure was looted (v. 24; Obed-edom was the name of the Levitical family [cf. 1 Ch 13:13-14; 26:4] of gatekeepers and musicians). “The raid on the temple must be seen as a punishment against idolaters in line with the principles of 2 Chronicles 7:19-22” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 464). Here again, the fortunes of the temple were tied to the fortunes of the king—and a bad king meant bad things happened to the temple.
e. Amaziah’s End (25:25-28)
25:25-28. Joash’s defeat of Amaziah left the southern kingdom defeated and depleted. Because of Amaziah’s infidelity to the Lord, he was an unpopular king, and eventually conspirators turned against him and killed him (v. 27). While he was accorded burial with his fathers in the city of Judah (v. 28) his legacy was that of the rash and prideful (cf. Pr 16:18).
3. The Reign of Uzziah (26:1-23)
The Chronicler provided the bulk of the historical information on King Uzziah (cf. 2Kg 15:1-7, called there Azariah). Pride seems to have been a family trait for Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, who followed in his fathers’ footsteps. At the outset, however, Uzziah showed great promise, and overall he fared better in the Chronicler’s estimation (as compared to the account in Kings). Still, he followed the pattern of his two predecessors—he began well, but finished poorly.
a. Uzziah’s Faithfulness (26:1-5)
26:1-5. Uzziah’s long reign of 52 years (v. 3) began with great promise when he was sixteen years old (vv. 1, 3a). After noting a minor rebuilding project (v. 2; Eloth, or Elath, was a city on the eastern border of Judah), the Chronicler made an emphatic statement: He did right in the sight of the LORD (v. 4a), and he followed the good that his father Amaziah had done (v. 4b). As an exemplary Davidic king he continued to seek God (v. 5a; see Introduction: Purpose and Themes in 1 Chronicles) and followed (yet another prophet named) Zechariah, whose understanding of the Lord and His ways had come through the vision of God (v. 5b; the identity of this Zechariah is unknown). Much as Jehoiada had done for Joash, this prophet acted as mentor and guide. A theme of the Chronicler summarizes this part of Uzziah’s reign: as long as he sought the LORD, God prospered him (v. 5c).
b. Uzziah’s Successes (26:6-15)
26:6-15. The evidence of the Lord’s prospering came early and often in Uzziah’s reign. The lists of nations Uzziah defeated (vv. 6-7; the Philistines, the Arabians, the Meunites; for the Meunites, cf. the comments on 20:1; the location of Gur-baal is uncertain, possibly southern Edom), that brought him tribute (v. 8a; the Ammonites), and that knew his fame (v. 8b; Egypt), indicated the prosperity and power he achieved. His refortification of Jerusalem (vv. 9-10a) after the shame of Amaziah’s defeat (cf. 25:23; he restored the Corner Gate that Joash had destroyed) and his refurbishing of the army (vv. 11-15b) testified to his strength and would have given the nation a solid sense of security. The note concerning the engines of war (v. 15a) indicates that Uzziah employed the most technologically advanced military of the day (cf. Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 522)—perhaps a form of ancient trebuchets or catapults—the “heavy artillery” of the day. The Chronicler even included a brief note concerning his agricultural pursuits (v. 10) and gave a fleeting insight into the character of the king in the note that he loved the soil (v. 10b). This king was, literally, a down-to-earth man. In a unique and memorable summary of this period the Chronicler noted that because of all this success his fame spread afar, for he was marvelously helped until he was strong (v. 15b).
c. Uzziah’s Pride and Fall (26:16-21)
The sweep of the summary of Uzziah’s reign in the account so far, covering years and years of successes and repeated instances of the Lord’s gracious gift of prosperity to the nation, is in stark contrast to the following account of a single event that brought the end of the reign of this otherwise good king. Many years of blessing and prosperity were overshadowed by one act of vanity and pride. It was a lesson to all of the Chronicler’s readers that obedience and faithfulness must be constant and that one act of faithlessness can undermine a lifetime of service.
26:16-18. The opening words of this section indicate a disheartening turn of events: But when he become strong, his heart was so proud (v. 16a). The Chronicler first characterized the offense—he acted corruptly, and he was unfaithful to the LORD his God (v. 16b); and then described it—for he entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense (v. 16c). This was an act exclusively reserved for the priests (cf. Ex 30:1-10; Nm 18:1-7), and Uzziah would have been well aware of that restriction. The Lord considered breaches of the priestly function in matters related to tabernacle or temple worship as extremely serious (cf. Lv 10:1-3; Nm 16:1-40; 1Ch 13:9-10). In addition, for a Davidic king to violate the temple was to betray his greatest calling—to protect and uphold the temple and its institutions. Uzziah placed himself in great danger. Azariah the priest and the eighty brave priests (valiant men) with him were not only defending the integrity of the temple, but also were showing great concern for the king (2Ch 26:17-18a). The Chronicler recorded Azariah’s rebuke to impress the reader with the specifics and seriousness of this violation (v. 18b). Azariah reinforced the character of the offense—Uzziah was being unfaithful to his calling as Davidic king and would have no honor from the LORD God (v. 18c).
26:19-21. The scene depicted was dynamic. The confrontation of the willful king with the concerned priests grew increasingly tense as the king began to add defensive anger to his willfulness and pride (v. 19a). To their horror the priests observed the judgment of the Lord befall Uzziah as leprosy broke out on his forehead (v. 19), right in front of them. “The disease [was] not leprosy as it is known today, but a general term for all kinds of skin diseases” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 471). The shock of this brought an immediate halt to the confrontation, and the king beat a hasty retreat out of the temple (v. 20). In a note of sad irony, this king who wanted to act the part of a priest was forever cut off from the house of the LORD (v. 21b), never allowed again even to worship there, because, as leper, he was confined to a separate house (v. 21a; Lv 13:46). The rest of his reign was accomplished through his son, while he remained in isolation (2Ch 26:21c).
d. Uzziah’s End (26:22-23)
26:22-23. The Chronicler noted that the great Isaiah, the son of Amoz (v. 22) was one of his principle sources for the account of Uzziah. Uzziah’s death was the occasion of the famous vision in Is 6. While accorded some dignity for his royal personage, Uzziah was nevertheless buried in a location near (the field of the grave which belonged to the kings, v. 23b), but not actually with the other kings, this on account of his leprosy (v. 23c). Sadly, in spite of his years of prosperous rule in Judah, the main feature of Uzziah’s life, remembered for generations, was his one act of pride—an attitude contrasted with that of his biographer and mourner, Isaiah, who in the presence of the Lord cried, “Woe is me, I am ruined” (cf. Is 6:5).
G. Six Kings Alternate between “Good” and “Bad” (27:1–35:27)
As has been noted, a main theme of the Chronicler is that the when the Davidic king “seeks the Lord” there is blessing and prosperity—enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant promises. But when the king “forsakes the Lord” there is loss of blessing and chastisement for both the nation and the king. This theme is once again in focus in the accounts of the next six kings. The vacillation between “good kings” and “bad kings” was not merely a historical reality. It also provided the Chronicler the opportunity to drive the lesson home: faithfulness and obedience bring the blessing of the Lord, and disobedience brings His displeasure and loss of blessing.
The ultimate loss of blessing was the Babylonian captivity—the loss of enjoying the land itself. In these accounts the Chronicler began to foreshadow (what his generation knew all too well was) that inevitable reality. What if even the best Davidic king did not lead to the final and full promise of the Davidic covenant? What could the nation expect? The Chronicler’s generation knew the answer to that question. However, the Chronicler wanted his readers to look through this history and their own experience—beyond the history of the past and the history they were living—to an ultimate fulfillment, to a Davidic son who would fully and finally bring to fruition those blessings of the Davidic covenant. As the kings of Judah come and went, some shone brightly (Hezekiah) while others were dreadful disappointments (Manasseh). Nevertheless, the historical process, the shifting and sifting of these kings is not without a point—each, in his own way, good or bad, helped to define the ultimate Davidic king so that when He arrives, the nation will know Him, and appreciate His achievement.
1. Good: Jotham (27:1-9)
27:1-2. Jotham’s relatively brief reign was a relatively good reign. The Chronicler noted that He did right in the sight of the LORD (v. 2a) in that he followed the godly ways of his father Uzziah. In addition, he did not act unfaithfully—he did not enter the temple of the LORD (v. 2b) in disobedience as Uzziah had done (cf. 26:16b). However, the Chronicler also noted that the people continued acting corruptly (v. 2c). The corrosive influence of idolatry that had afflicted the nation during the reigns of Joash and Amaziah had not been overcome even during the long reign of Uzziah. Such are the pervasive and lasting effects of ungodliness and evil upon a nation. The Chronicler’s generation was being warned, “Do not let the evil of idolatry take root again.”
27:3-5. Jotham’s reign was notable in two areas. First, he engaged in some important building projects. As a true Davidic king he took an interest in the temple—he worked on the upper (northern) gate (v. 3a) and he built extensively—that is, refurbished and extended—the wall of Ophel (v. 3b) on the southern side of the temple area, near the City of David. He also solidified the nation’s security by building (fortress or outpost) cities in the hill country of Judah (v. 4a) as well as defensive structures—fortresses and towers on the wooded hills (v. 4b). Second, Jotham was engaged in a battle with the Ammonites, and he prevailed over them (v. 5a), yielding considerable tribute in silver and produce (v. 5b).
27:6-9. The short summary of Jotham’s life—he became mighty because he ordered his ways before the LORD his God (v. 6) spoke well of the king personally. However, no revival happened in his reign. In keeping with his positive outlook and concern for the prosperity of the Davidic dynasty “The kings that interest the chronicler are those who bring revival” (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 104). Jotham was a good king but, because of his lack of positive spiritual influence, his reign fell short of the ideal for a Davidic king.
2. Bad: Ahaz (28:1-27)
The good king Jotham was followed by Ahaz, “one of the weakest and most corrupt of all the twenty rulers in Judah” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 4:525).
a. Ahaz’s Evil Exposed (28:1-4)
28:1-4. If Jotham fell short of the ideal for a Davidic king, Ahaz was David’s complete opposite. For this reason the Chronicler reaches back to David himself when he gives the overall estimate of Ahaz—he did not do right in the sight of the LORD as David his father (v. 1b). Ahaz was the king for much of the time of the great prophet Isaiah (cf. Is 1:1; the same king to whom the prophecy of the virgin birth was delivered, cf. Is 7:14). Ahaz also reigned during the prophetic ministries of Hosea (Hs 1:1) and Micah (Mc 1:1). The Chronicler’s treatment of this king was direct—he got right to the point of Ahaz’ wickedness. “Chronicles has made Kings’ (2 Kings 16) descriptions of Ahaz’ failings much more explicit” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 476). Ahaz was, in fact, more like the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel than like the kings of Judah (2Ch 28:2a). He blatantly engaged in Baal worship (v. 2b; Baal was the name of the most prominent of the Canaanite gods), which often included “fertility rites,” i.e. sexual acts, Jr 7:31; 19:4-6). Ahaz also participated in idolatrous worship in the valley of Ben-hinnom (2Ch 28:3a)—a place of noted pagan worship and later the site of Jerusalem’s waste disposal site (cf. 2Kg 23:10. Thus it was a place of perpetual fires and ultimately a picture of hell itself, cf. the comments on Mk 9:43). Ahaz even joined in the utterly grotesque practice of child sacrifice—he burned his sons in fire (2Ch 28:3b; 2Kg 16:3). This unfathomably horrible practice was typical of the Canaanites who had been driven out of the land many years earlier (2Ch 28:3b) and was expressly forbidden in the law (cf. Lv 20:1-5). Finally, the extent of Ahaz’ idolatry was noted in that he sacrificed and burned incense … under every green tree (2Ch 28:4).
b. Ahaz Defeated in Battle (28:5-7)
28:5-7. The Chronicler noted that Ahaz was defeated by the king of Aram (Syria; v. 5a) and by the king of Israel Pekah (v. 6a; cf. 2 Kg 16:5) without even giving any notice that there was conflict between Judah and these nations. This was clearly the Lord’s retribution on Ahaz, delivering him into the hand (2Ch 28:5a, 6a) of the enemy. The nation suffered heavy casualties (vv. 5b-6a), and Ahaz lost a son and two close advisors in the battle (v. 7) because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers (v. 6b; see Introduction to 1 Chronicles on “forsaking the Lord”).
c. Captives Experienced Mercy (28:8-15)
28:8-15. As the result of the overwhelming losses, Israel’s army had taken many captives and much spoil (v. 8). An otherwise unknown prophet of the LORD named Obed intercepted the army of Israel with a message from the Lord. In effect, his message to Israel was: “Your victory was given to you because the Lord was angry with Judah (v. 9a). However, the Lord has taken notice of the rage displayed in the execution of this act and He is not pleased (v. 9b; cf. Is 10:15-16). And now you intend to enslave these captives from Judah and Jerusalem (2Ch 28:10a; cf. Lv 25:42-46). You should think better of that, for you yourselves are not innocent of transgression against the Lord (2Ch 28:10b). You should return the captives, because the burning anger of the LORD is against you” (v. 11).
This message was immediately taken to heart, and some of the heads of the sons of Ephraim (v. 12)—who realized their own guilt before the Lord (v. 13b)—stood up to the captors and convinced them to return the captives. So effective was this appeal that the armed men turned the captives over to the civil authorities (v. 14), who promptly cared for them and provided for their repatriation (v. 15). The message of “mercy is to be shown to the innocents” was not lost on the “innocents” of the Chronicler’s generation—those repatriated captives of Judah and Jerusalem.
d. Ahaz’s Disastrous Alliance with Assyria (28:16-21)
28:16-18. As other kings had done before, Ahaz foolishly sought an alliance with Assyria—a soon-to-be serious international threat—in the face of lesser threats from Edom and the Philistines (vv. 16-18. These are all towns on the eastern side of Judah in the foothills southwest of Jerusalem). Isaiah had strenuously advised against this action (cf. Is 7:3-9) not only because it was a foolish act in geopolitical terms but also because it was, more seriously, an act of unbelief and failure to trust the Lord. The truths that, beside the Lord “there is no one … to help in battle between the powerful and those who have no strength” (cf. 2Ch 14:11) and that “God has power to help and to bring down” (cf. 25:8), were lost on Ahaz.
28:19-21. The debilitating effects of Ahaz’s evil and unfaithfulness (v. 19c) had demoralized and humbled Judah, effects brought by the Lord (v. 19a). As a result, the nation further declined morally as his policies brought about a lack of restraint (v. 19b), weakening the nation’s ability to fend off aggression from the surrounding nations. Furthermore, Ahaz’s attempt to bribe the Assyrian king (in a vain attempt to find security through compromise) accomplished nothing (v. 20-21). That Ahaz used a portion out of the house of the LORD (v. 21a) demonstrated his failure to be a true Davidic king. Soon after these events, just as Isaiah had foretold (cf. Is 7:17–8:22), Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, took its people captive, and afflicted Judah in the days of Hezekiah.
e. Ahaz’s Evil Expanded (28:22-25)
28:22-25. Judah’s dramatic decline did not awaken repentance in Ahaz or cause him to reconsider his wicked idolatry. Instead, he persisted in and even increased his evil (v. 22). Perhaps in an attempt to appease his foes by the worship of their gods, Ahaz began to worship the gods of Damascus (v. 23a). That he attributed his defeats not to the Lord’s judgment (cf. v. 5a) but to the supposed power of the pagan gods (v. 23b) proved how far he was from the faith of his fathers. “The reverence Ahaz paid ‘to the gods of Damascus’ (v. 23) took a particular form; he sacrificed on an altar patterned after the one he found there (2 Kings 16:10-13)” (Payne, 2 Chronicles, 527). These may have been Assyrian deities. He discovered that idolatry is “futile,” of “no profit” and brings all who engage in it “to shame” (cf. Is 44:9). Ahaz proved to be the quintessential anti-Davidic king when he destroyed the utensils of the temple and closed the doors of the house of the LORD (2Ch 28:24)—essentially shutting the temple down—while promoting false idolatrous worship as widely as he could (vv. 24b-25a).
f. Ahaz’s End (28:26-27)
28:26-27. In his conclusion to the Ahaz narrative, the Chronicler associated Ahaz much more with “Israel” than with “Judah.” It might be said that he was a true son of Jeroboam (cf. 2Kg 17:22) and not of David. He was not accorded a place of honor in burial (2Ch 28:27b), an indication not only of his unpopularity but also his unworthiness and a sign of the Lord’s disapproval (cf. 21:20; 24:25; 26:33).
3. Excellent: Hezekiah (29:1–32:33)
The reign of Ahaz was the virtual lowest point of Davidic kingship (prior to the captivity itself). His reign gave little prospect of the revival to come under his son, the great Hezekiah. The reign of Hezekiah was a high point in the history of the nation, and the Chronicler devoted four extended chapters of his narrative to Hezekiah—more than to any other king except for David and Solomon. In stark contrast to Ahaz who “did not do right” and did not follow in the ways of David (cf. 28:1), Hezekiah proved himself an ideal Davidic king in that he “did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done” (29:2).
Much of the material in the Chronicler’s record of Hezekiah is unique to him. The author of 2 Kings noted Hezekiah’s reforms (cf. 2Kg 18:3-4), but he did not record the restoration of the temple (2Ch 29:3ff.) or the revival of the Passover (30:1ff.).
a. Hezekiah’s Revival (29:1–31:21)
The key words and concepts describing Hezekiah’s revival are “consecrate,” “cleanse” and “celebrate.” “Consecration”—the setting apart as “holy,” being devoted to God—was understood to be the essence of genuine revival. Hezekiah’s revival involved consecration of the priests, the temple, and the people themselves to the Lord and His service. The revival began with a restoration and cleansing of the temple from the desecration inflicted upon it by Ahaz and continued with a celebration of the sacrifices and of the long-neglected Passover.
(1) Hezekiah Reopened, Consecrated the Temple (29:1-19)
29:1-11. Hezekiah was an exemplary Davidic king, and nothing better demonstrated that than his immediate and active concern for the temple. The Chronicler emphasized that the restoration of the temple began in the first year … in the first month (v. 3a) of Hezekiah’s reign. Hezekiah wasted no time in reopening and repairing the doors of the house of the LORD that (v. 3b) that Ahaz had closed (cf. 28:24b). Rather than insist and demand by edict (from the position of an autocratic monarch), Hezekiah (in the model of a true “servant leader”) enlisted those who could do the work of revival and restoration. He assembled the priests and Levites (v. 4) and gave a stirring address designed to motivate them for the work of consecration and renewal. His address began with (1) a call for consecration (v. 5; this was a call for “dedication”; qadash “to make a distinction between the common and the holy”), continued with (2) a confession of sin (vv. 6-7), was followed by (3) a description of sin’s consequences (vv. 8-9), and concluded with (4) the initiating of a covenant (v. 10) to which he enlisted those in attendance (v. 11). In keeping with one of the major themes in Chronicles, the most serious sin of the fathers was a forsaking of the temple (v. 6b), bringing the wrath of the LORD (v. 8a) and defeat by the sword (v. 9a) by the nation’s enemies. Only a renewed covenant (v. 10a) characterized by a return to devotion to the house of the Lord could turn away the burning anger of the LORD God of Israel (v. 10b). The Chronicler’s generation would no doubt have understood how this prayer applied to their experience. The sin of forsaking the Lord had led to the captivity (cf. v. 9), and the present need was seeking the Lord. Hezekiah’s words, My sons, do not be negligent now (v. 11), would have spoken as directly to the Chronicler’s readers as they did to Hezekiah’s listeners.
29:12-17. The list of names in vv. 12-14 indicates that Hezekiah’s words were effective, since many of the priests and Levites responded enthusiastically. “Kohath, Merari, and Gershon were the three clans that made up the tribe of Levi (1 Chron 6:1)” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 534). Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun were the three lines of Levitical musicians (1Ch 25:1). Elizaphan was “the leader of the Kohathites in the days of Moses” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 534). They began the work of consecration and cleansing immediately (2Ch 29:17a—the first day of the first month; compare v. 3a). The cleansing amounted to hauling every unclean thing (v. 16b) out of the temple and disposing of it in the Kidron valley (east of the temple mount just below the Mount of Olives). The Kidron was a low point in the immediate geographical region, so the action may have been a symbolic demotion of the pagan symbols from the “high places” to the “low places” (cf. 15:16; 30:14; 2Kg 23:12). That the cleansing took 16 days (2Ch 29:17) shows the degree to which the temple had sunk into paganism under Ahaz.
29:18-19. In the end, the priests reported to Hezekiah that not only had they finished the cleansing but they also restored (vv. 18b-19) the utensils that Ahaz had previously destroyed (cf. 28:24). All of this work was accomplished according to the commandment of the king by the words of the LORD (v. 15b), that is, it was done under the direction of the Davidic king and according to the design of the temple and its services originally given to David (cf. 1Ch 28:12, 19). Once again the Chronicler emphasized the connection of the Davidic king to the temple: the prosperity of the nation depended on a Davidic king who took care to protect and preserve the temple, whereas failure in this matter would mean God’s wrath and chastisement. Although the Chronicler’s generation, as the remnant of the returning exiles, knew the truth of the latter point all too well, they would be renewed in their confidence by the narrative of Hezekiah’s revival that if they would likewise care for the temple, they too could know prosperity from the Lord.
(2) Hezekiah Restored the Temple Worship (29:20-36)
29:20-34. As with those who had cleansed and refurbished the temple, Hezekiah lost no time reinstating the temple services. He arose early (v. 20a) and with the princes of the city (v. 20b, the civil leaders) went up to the house of the LORD (v. 20c). First there were sacrifices of atonement (vv. 20-24): the slaughter of the animals (vv. 22a, 22d, 24a), the sprinkling of the blood (vv. 22b, 22c, 24b), and the laying on of hands (in symbolic confession of sin) (v. 23b). These were all in accordance with the appropriate prescriptions of the Levitical sacrificial system (e.g., cf. Lv 1:1–7:38) to atone for all Israel (2Ch 29:24b). Then came the services of the musicians and the singers (vv. 25-28) to lead the whole assembly (v. 28a) in worship. They used the Psalms (that is, the words of David and Asaph, v. 30a; cf. David—Pss 3–9; 11–32; 34–41; 51–65; 68–70; 86; 101; 103; 108; 110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145; Asaph—Pss 50, 73–83) and sang praises with joy, and bowed down and worshiped (2Ch 29:30). Finally, the services concluded with such a large number of burnt offerings of thanksgiving (vv. 31-35a) that the priests needed assistance from the Levites to accommodate all the worshipers (v. 34b).
29:35-36. The Chronicler’s summary—Thus the service of the house of the LORD was established again (v. 35b)—was a triumphant note and would have been an encouragement to the Chronicler’s generation, as those words could have described their own experience with the rebuilt temple of Ezra’s day (cf. Ezr 6:16-18). Even more remarkable was the rapid accomplishment of restoration and renewal (2Ch 29:36b). This revival began and continued with heartfelt consecration to the Lord (cf. vv. 5, 15, 17, 19, 31, 33, 34), and yet it was what God had prepared for the people (v. 36a)—“for in the last analysis all spiritual achievements find their origin in God’s grace” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 536).
(3) Hezekiah Revived the Celebration of Passover (30:1-27)
For both the generation of Hezekiah’s day and the generation of the Chronicler, the revival of the celebration of the Passover was an event wrought with deep significance.
30:1-5. The king began the revival of the Passover as He had the restoration of the temple by enlisting his princes and all the assembly (v. 2); “the assembly is especially important in Chronicles’ version of Hezekiah (it occurs nine times in this chapter: vv. 2, 4, 13, 17, 23, 24, 24, 25, 25; cf. 29:4, 20, 23, 28, 31, 32; 32:18), and is one symbol of the people’s unity” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 496). This group would have included common folk as well as certain officials (his princes, v. 2). Out of this meeting came a decision to send letters to all Israel (v. 1a), specifically including the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (v. 1b). This would have included those who had been left in the land or who had escaped (cf. v. 6d) from the captivity of the Assyrians after the invasion and captivity of 722 BC. These letters would carry a proclamation throughout all Israel from Beersheba (metaphorically the farthest point south in the southern kingdom) even to Dan (metaphorically the farthest point in the northern kingdom; v. 5b). The intent was to include and unify the whole nation around the temple and the proper observance of its services—especially the Passover (vv. 1c, 5c). Apparently, the Passover had not been regularly or widely celebrated (cf. v. 5d) according to the Torah (i.e., as prescribed; v. 5d). The decision to celebrate the Passover in the second month (v. 2b; April/May) (it was normally held in the first month, cf. Nm 9:2-5; March/April) was permitted by the provisions given in Nm 9:9-13 and was made necessary by the exigencies of the situation—a sufficient number of priests could not be consecrated in time nor could the people get to Jerusalem in time (2Ch 30:3).
30:6-9. The letters were delivered by couriers who went throughout all Israel and Judah. They carried a compelling message from the king and his princes (v. 6a). First, was the message of unity, as the letters were addressed to the sons of Israel and mention was made of the Patriarchs (reminding all of them of their common heritage, v. 6c). Next, the message came an invitation to repent, to return to the LORD (vv. 6b; 9a), and to yield to the LORD (v. 8b) and an appeal—do not be like your fathers and brothers, who were unfaithful (v. 7a)—do not stiffen your neck like your fathers (v. 8a). Here the message (and the Chronicler) identified the cause of the captivity—unfaithfulness to the Lord and rebellion against the Lord. This unfaithfulness had resulted in the horror (v. 7c) of the captivity as the result of the burning anger of the Lord (v. 8c). The message concluded with a promise of compassion (v. 9b) because the LORD your God is gracious and compassionate (v. 9c). The message most hopefully stated that upon repentance (indicated by a return to the temple and the Passover) the compassion of the Lord would mean an end to the captivity of your brothers and your sons (v. 9a, b).
30:10-12. Unfortunately, as the couriers carried this message to the northern tribes they found mostly that they were scorned and mocked (v. 10). However, some humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem (v. 11). In contrast, the appeal to celebrate Passover found ready acceptance in Judah (v. 12b), because the hand of the LORD was also on Judah (v. 12a)—thus proving that revival is a work of the Lord on the heart of those who repent from the heart.
30:13-15. When the celebration actually arrived it was evident that the effort to send the message to all Israel was a success—a very large assembly gathered in Jerusalem (v. 13). The Feast of Unleavened Bread, while technically a separate feast, was closely associated with Passover (cf. Ex 12; Mt 26:17; Lk 22:1). The zeal of the crowds (the average Israelites) apparently shamed the less enthusiastic priests and Levites (2Ch 30:15b), and so they again consecrated themselves (v. 15) to keep bringing sufficient offerings for the feast.
The celebration began and ended with the destruction of idols, first in the environs of Jerusalem itself (v. 14), then in Judah and Benjamin (31:1a) and, significantly, even in the areas of the northern kingdom (31:1b) where apostasy and idolatry had thrived since the days of Jeroboam I. By this the Chronicler emphasized that a sincere return to the Lord necessitated definitive turn away from idolatry and apostasy—“from idols to serve a living an true God” (1Th 1:9b). To do the one without the latter is not a true revival.
30:16-20. In spite of all the King’s good intentions and the Levites’ caring performance of their duties—according to the law of Moses (v. 16)—a problem arose concerning the worshipers from the northern tribes. Apparently, many of them had not consecrated themselves (v. 17a), meaning they were not permitted to slaughter the Passover lamb for themselves. Many who had not purified themselves (v. 18a) were actually violating the law by even eating the Passover (v. 18b). The solution to the first issue was having the Levites do the slaughtering (v. 17b). As for the second issue, Hezekiah himself offered a prayer, asking the Lord to pardon the infraction (v. 18c). Hezekiah’s appeal amounted to asking the Lord to pardon and accept the worship of those who had come prepared in heart, if not strictly according to the law’s prescriptions (v. 19). The Chronicler related God’s response: The LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people (v. 20). This shows that, while scrupulous adherence to the law was expected (as an indication of one’s heart), the Lord was more interested in heartfelt worship than mere formalism, no matter how carefully performed (cf. Jn 7:22-23; 9:14-16).
30:21-22. The joyful celebration continued unabated day after day (v. 21). Hezekiah was careful to keep up the goodwill by commending the Levites who were working hard and showing good insight (v. 22)—that is, they did not let either the enthusiasm or the formalism of the celebration detract from its meaning and purpose. They kept the focus on the things of the LORD.
30:23-27. So successful was this celebration that it was extended for another seven days (v. 23). This recalled the seven-day celebration at the dedication of the temple in Solomon’s day (v. 26; cf. 7:8-9). The great themes in these days were joy (vv. 23, 25, 26) and the unity of the nation—all the assembly of Judah … that came from Israel (v. 25) and the blessing that came from revival and renewal—the blessing of a restored relationship with the Lord (v. 27).
(4) Hezekiah Reinstituted Tithes and Offerings (31:1-21)
31:1-19. The reforms of Hezekiah included practical measures to ensure the continued performance of the temple services. Spiritual reforms could easily be lost if the practical concerns of caring for the priests were not also given serious attention. In accord with the orders and procedures established by David (v. 2; cf. 1Ch 24) and in obedience to what was written in law of the LORD (2Ch 31:3d, 4d) Hezekiah instituted reforms to ensure that the priests and Levites would receive the king’s portion of his goods (v. 3a), that they would receive the tithes from the people (v. 4), and that these goods would be fairly distributed (vv. 11-19). Hezekiah himself followed up on his own orders (vv. 8-9) and found that the Levites were being more than adequately cared for (v. 10). Furthermore, it was reported that the provisions were distributed faithfully (v. 15c) and without regard to their genealogical enrollment—without family preferences (v. 16a). This abundance and equity enabled the priests to dedicate themselves faithfully in holiness (v. 18c). The details of names and the order of authority specified in these verses indicated the stability and prosperity of Hezekiah’s reign. Clearly Hezekiah was not only a godly king but he also had a range of administrative leadership skills as well.
31:20-21. This summary of Hezekiah’s reign richly indicated the source of Hezekiah’s success. He prospered because he did what was good, right and true. As a good Davidic king he took a keen interest in the service of the house of God, and most vitally he did all while seeking his God with all his heart. He followed David’s advice (cf. 1Ch 22:19a; 28:9b) to obey the law and thereby found success (cf. 2Ch 22:11) and prosperity (cf. Dt 29:9). This was a message and an example the Chronicler’s generation needed to hear.
b. Hezekiah’s Victory over Assyria (32:1-23)
The Chronicler’s transition from Hezekiah’s revival (“these acts of faithfulness,” v. 1a) to the story of the Assyrian invasion was abrupt. This however, was intended to highlight the connection between “faithfulness” and “victory,” the point the Chronicler wanted to reinforce. Just as “forsaking the Lord” brought military defeat (e.g., Amaziah, 25:20ff.; Ahaz, 28:5ff.), so “seeking the Lord” brought military victory (e.g., Jehoshaphat, 20:20ff.). The account of the Chronicler is paralleled not only in Kings (cf. 2Kg 18, 19, and 20) but also by the “historical interlude” in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. Is 36-39). As usual, the Chronicler expected his readers to know something of the complexity of the historical events that took place between Hezekiah and the Assyrian empire. Yet for his own purposes he “simply envisage[d] a single Assyrian campaign, which is to be dated to 701 BC” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 508). The Chronicler has simplified the events to focus on the victory of the Lord over those who thought of Him as just another local deity.
(1) Hezekiah Countered Sennacherib’s Invasion (32:1-8)
32:1. The Chronicler set up the situation facing Hezekiah quite simply: Sennacherib of Assyria had invaded Judah and besieged the fortified cities (v. 1b). Sennacherib ruled from 705 to 681 BC. He was a capable administrator, a superb military leader, and a ruthless overlord. Upon coming to the throne after his father, Sargon II, he faced a series of rebellions to Assyrian authority, and he spent several years reasserting his power and putting vassal states, including Judah, in their places. The danger to Judah was serious, as Sennacherib intended to break into these cites (v. 1c) for himself. This invasion was documented in Assyrian archives with the Assyrian king’s boastfulness. Clearly he was not a conqueror with whom to be trifled. In fact, he mostly succeeded in accomplishing his boasts (cf. 2Kg 18:13; Is 36:1), except for Jerusalem.
32:2-8. Hezekiah well understood the danger this invasion posed for Jerusalem (v. 2), and he immediately began two kinds of preparations to counter it. First, he undertook the practical, tangible, and logistical matters to impede the Assyrian’s progress. He had the water supplies cut so the enemy could not use them (vv. 3-4). Then he had the walls and fortifications rebuilt and reinforced (v. 5a, b). Next he restocked the arsenal and realigned the military chain of command over the people (vv. 5c-6a). Then he undertook to build morale and strengthen the courage of the people. He gathered the people to a rally (v. 6b). There his speech was encouraging and evoked the admonition of the Lord to Joshua (cf. Jos 1:6, 9) that David had invoked in his charge to Solomon (cf. 1Ch 22:13)—Be strong and courageous (2Ch 32:7a). He addressed directly the fear of the Assyrians’ superior numbers (v. 7b) by reminding the people of the superiority of their God—the one with us is greater than the one with him (v. 7c). Thus, Hezekiah made the contest a spiritual one: the enemy had an arm of flesh (v. 8a; cf. Jr 17:5), but Jerusalem had the LORD our God … to fight our battles (2Ch 32:8b). In these actions Hezekiah demonstrated that he was an exceptionally spiritual, wise, and capable leader, and the people responded (v. 8c). The key theme of this battle for the Chronicler centered on the question, “Who is mightier, Sennacherib or the Lord?” In the story of the following contest, the Chronicler mostly narrated the events through Sennacherib to answer that question dramatically, showing the defeat of the Assyrian king.
(2) Hezekiah’s Victory over Sennacherib (32:9-23)
32:9-19. Sennacherib’s method of warfare included a “psychological attack” on the morale of his intended victims. While he was besieging the land of the Philistines, particularly the town of Lachish, 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem and midway between Jerusalem and Gaza (v. 9), he sent envoys (his servants, v. 9) to deliver discouraging messages to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Several related themes appear in these messages. (1) Hezekiah could not be trusted to protect his people (vv. 10-11a, 15a)—he had prohibited the worship of all gods but One (v. 12)—an obvious limitation in the view of a polytheist like Sennacherib. (2) Devotion to the Lord would be insufficient to save them (vv. 11b; 15c)—perhaps Sennacherib was thinking that since the northern kingdom had (in part) trusted the Lord to no avail that Jerusalem should not think the Lord could protect them either. (3) Sennacherib had defeated all the gods of the other nations (vv. 13-14a) and would defeat their God as well (vv. 14b, 15b, 17). The relentlessness of this attack (v. 16) included letters (v. 17a) and public speeches (v. 18a), all intended to frighten and terrify the people (v. 18b) making it easier to conquer the city (v. 18c).
32:20-23. The response of Hezekiah and Isaiah the prophet (v. 20a) was precisely what was appropriate for this spiritual battle—they cried out to heaven (v. 20b), and the Lord heard “from heaven” (cf. 6:21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39). By this time, the siege had actually begun and apparently the Assyrians had surrounded the city with a vast army (cf. 2Kg 19:35 notes 185,000). The LORD sent an angel (2Ch 32:21a) a messenger-warrior (otherwise unidentified) and destroyed the Assyrian forces—officers and men (v. 21b). While the exact means of the destruction was not identified, it was clearly a supernatural defeat and dramatic proof of the emptiness of Sennacherib’s blasphemous boasts. Sennacherib returned home in shame and was ignominiously assassinated, ironically, in the act of worshiping his gods, who obviously could not save him (v. 21c). The Lord did save (deliver) the Davidic king and His city and proved that He, not the Assyrian king, is the true sovereign. The blessings that flowed to Hezekiah were the exceedingly abundant evidence that the Lord was keeping His promise to the Davidic king.
On the Sennacherib Prism, discovered in Ninevah in the 19th century, the Assyrian king boasted that he had trapped Hezekiah in Jerusalem “like bird in a cage.” “As to Hezekiah the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities … Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him …” (cited in A. Leo Oppenheim, trans., “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., ed. James B. Pritchard [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969], 288). In spite of the boastful tone, such language betrayed that Sennacherib had failed to conquer Hezekiah completely. Thus, even the pagan records gave reluctant testimony to the Lord, who could say “I am the first and last, and there is no God besides Me” (Is 44:6b).
c. Hezekiah’s Last Days (32:24-33)
Following the order of the narrative from that of Kings (2Kg 20) and of Isaiah (Is 38 and 39), the Chronicler recorded the event of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery after the defeat of the Assyrians, even though this event took place before the Assyrian siege. (This is clear from the promise given to Hezekiah by Isaiah: he will be healed and the Lord will “deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria,” 2Kg 20:6; cf. Is 38:6). However, the Chronicler’s account is much abbreviated. As throughout his narrative, the Chronicler expected his readers to be familiar with the narrative of Kings (see 2 Ch 30:32), while selecting and highlighting certain parts of that story to focus on his main interest—the person of the Davidic king. Hezekiah was an exemplary Davidic king—but he was not perfect. His imperfections were evident, and the Chronicler presented them in a light that could give exhortation and inspiration to his generation.
(1) Hezekiah’s Illness and Pride (32:24-26)
32:24-26. The nature of Hezekiah’s illness is not explained. It may have been some type of infection since a poultice of figs (cf. 1Kg 20:7) was applied to a “boil” (cf. Is 38:21) to attempt to bring healing. However, it was a mortal illness (2Ch 32:24). None of Hezekiah’s depth of emotion—neither the dread prospect of death (cf. 1Kg 20:2-3; Is 38:2-3), nor the joy of healing (Is 38:9-20, Hezekiah’s song of bitterness turned to joy)—is even hinted at in Chronicles. The sign given to him (the shadow on the steps of the temple went backwards; cf. 1Kg 20:8-11; Is 38:7-8) was also not explained. For the Chronicler’s purpose, only that Hezekiah was healed as the result of his prayer and that he gave no return for the benefit (2Ch 32:25a) was important. This failure on Hezekiah’s part was attributed to his heart being proud (v. 25b). The Chronicler’s readers would have instantly understood the danger of this condition since the exact expression was used of Uzziah (cf. 26:16) and the Lord’s wrath (cf. 2Kg 20:16-18; Is 39:6-7) had come upon the nation because of it. In contrast to Uzziah, however, Hezekiah repented. He humbled the pride of his heart (2Ch 32:26a) and led the nation in this contrition (v. 26b). As a result, the Lord’s wrath was averted, at least in the days of Hezekiah (v. 26c).
(2) Hezekiah’s Wealth and Pride (32:27-31)
32:27-31. As expected for a faithful Davidic king, Hezekiah prospered in all that he did (v. 30b). He amassed wealth (vv. 27-29) and by it, wisely provided for the nation’s security (v. 30). For instance, he commissioned the famous “Hezekiah’s tunnel” so Judah would have a water supply that would be invulnerable to siege. This tunnel was cut through 1,700 feet of solid rock under Jerusalem to channel water from the Gihon spring on the east side to the pool of Siloam inside the city. In a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of the biblical record, “Archeological confirmation of this engineering feat came in 1880 with the discovery at its lower portal of the Siloam Inscription, written in old Hebrew by the very workers who accomplished it” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 542). The text reads in part “And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed (the rock) each man toward his fellow, axe against axe …” (William F. Albright, trans., “Palestinian Inscriptions,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., ed. James B. Pritchard [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969], 321). All this was to be expected from an exemplary Davidic king. Once again, however, Hezekiah succumbed to pride. In this case, his pride was not mentioned explicitly but it was illustrated by the foolish act of parading his treasures and the nation’s defenses before the envoys of the rulers of Babylon (v. 31a; cf. 2Kg 20:12-13; Is 39:1-4). Those rulers had come to inquire of the wonder (2Ch 32:31b) of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery (and possibly the sign) (cf. 2Kg 20:12b; Is 39:1b). While the two parallel accounts in Kings and Isaiah record the rebuke of Isaiah for this foolishness (cf. 2Kg 20:16-19; Is 39:5-7), the Chronicler reveals that the Lord ordained this to test Hezekiah (2Ch 32:31c). The Lord wanted to know if Hezekiah’s trust was in the Lord or in a potential alliance with Babylon—the rising power in the east. Apparently, Hezekiah’s heart was divided on this matter (cf. Is 39:8-9).
(3) Hezekiah’s End (32:32-33)
32:32-33. The Chronicler completed his account of Hezekiah by noting his deeds of devotion (v. 32a). That his narrative is told not only in the Book of the Kings but also in the prophecy of Isaiah (v. 32b), and the honor bestowed on him in his burial (v. 33), indicated that Hezekiah was an outstanding example of the Davidic ideal. Although Hezekiah was not a perfect king, the Chronicler would have concurred with the lofty evaluation by the author of Kings, that “after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him” (2Kg 18:5).
4. Bad, but Repentant: Manasseh (33:1-20)
The Chronicler’s record of Manasseh is decidedly brief—despite that Manasseh “had the longest reign of all the Hebrew monarchs” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 4:544). In stark contrast to his father Hezekiah, arguably the best of the kings of Judah, Manasseh was the worst. He did more to promote the idolatry that led to the Babylonian captivity than any other single individual (cf. 2Kg 23:26; Jr 15:4) and was rightly condemned by the Lord and vilified in the memory of the author of Kings. The Chronicler, however, presented material not found in Kings that highlights Manasseh’s repentance.
a. Manasseh’s Incredible Evil (33:1-9)
33:1-9. The term evil (vv. 2a, 6b, 9) began, centered, and concluded the Chronicler’s description of Manasseh’s reign. Manasseh’s idolatry was characterized as a revival of the paganism of the nations that had once occupied the land (vv. 2b, 9c). It included blatant Baal worship on newly restored altars on the high places (v. 3), the building of pagan altars even in the temple (vv. 4a, 5a), and the setting up of idols there (v. 7a; for Baal worship see comment on 28:2; Asherim were Canaanite female fertility goddesses). Manasseh even engaged in the despicable act of child sacrifice (v. 6a) in combination with vile occult practices (v. 6b). The Chronicler noted that (1) the temple was to be the place where the Lord put His name … in Jerusalem, forever (vv. 4b, 7c), that (2) the temple was the focus of His promise to preserve the nation and the Davidic king (vv. 7b-8a), and that (3) obedience to the law, the statutes and the ordinances given through Moses (v. 8c) was expected. These observations made the profanations of Manasseh all the more abhorrent and foreshadowed the reason for the captivity. It was shocking that the Davidic king, of all people, had so forsaken the Lord and so profaned the temple. This was especially heinous in light of the Lord’s desire not to remove the foot of Israel from the land again (v. 8a). With this degree of wickedness and disobedience it was evident that the promise of security was not going to be kept for this king or this generation. The Chronicler’s generation was painfully aware that this sort of evil idolatry, temple sacrilege, and disobedience to the law of Moses had caused their struggle to recover from grinding captivity.
b. Manasseh’s Humiliating Captivity (33:10-11)
33:10-11. In spite of this horrendous apostasy the Lord was still gracious to speak to the king and the nation, calling them, to no avail, to repentance (v. 10). The resulting captivity of Manasseh was brutal and humiliating (v. 11).
c. Manasseh’s Marvelous Repentance (33:12-13a, 18-19)
33:12-13a, 18-19. The Chronicler’s generation did not need to dwell on the causes that sent their fathers into captivity—they needed to know how they could recover from it. Therefore, the account of Manasseh’s repentance would have been a genuine encouragement to them. Apparently, even in captivity in Babylon (v. 11d) Manasseh was given the opportunity to hear from the seers who spoke to him in the name of the LORD God of Israel (v. 18b), just as the nation had its prophets (Daniel and Ezekiel) in captivity. As a result of the preaching of these seers, Manasseh became a remarkable example of true repentance. First, as just noted (1) he was receptive to the word of God in his distress (v. 12a), (2) he turned to God in prayer (vv. 13a, 19a), (3) in this prayer he confessed his sin (implied in the content of v. 19), and finally (4) he humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers (v. 12b), indicating a complete change of heart and mind and will. The Lord was moved by his entreaty and heard his supplication (v. 13a)—a note of utter grace and mercy. Clearly, the lesson for the Chronicler’s generation was that forgiveness and grace are available to the worst of sinners! As disobedience and evil bring the Lord’s judgment, so repentance and trust in the Lord bring His blessing.
d. Manasseh’s Attempted Revival (33:13b-17, 20)
33:13b-17, 20. The blessing of the Lord upon repentance indicated by the return of Manasseh to Jerusalem (v. 13b) would have been a historical note of keen interest to the Chronicler’s generation. What had secured their return was the Lord’s faithfulness, but they too needed to follow in the footsteps of repentant Manasseh. The genuineness of Manasseh’s repentance is seen in (1) the statement he knew that the LORD was God (v. 13c), (2) his attempts at revival of the true worship of the Lord (vv. 15-16), and (3) his efforts to fortify the city (v. 14)—all acts of a true Davidic king. The effects of this effort were sadly minimal, as the people continued the practices of idolatry that Manasseh had previously introduced, even if they intended to direct them toward the Lord (v. 17). Manasseh’s experience was a hard lesson that keeping worship pure, while difficult, is preferable to attempting to reintroduce pure worship.
Manasseh ended his reign with the stigma of his previous life affecting his legacy, and he was not accorded the honor of burial in the royal cemetery (v. 20). Nevertheless, his was a story of the possibility for repentance for even the most unlikely of persons and a story of the incredible grace of God.
5. Bad: Amon (33:21-25)
33:21-25. Amon’s brief reign of two years (v. 21) was told only briefly by the Chronicler. This was probably because the lessons to learn from this evil king were not unique. Amon followed in the wickedness and idolatry of his father Manasseh (v. 22) but did not follow his father in the path of humble repentance (v. 23a). This serves as a warning to all parents—not just those of royalty. Whatever is impressed upon them in youth will in all likelihood set their path in adulthood, and children can be trained for righteousness (cf. Pr 22:6). Amon actually did worse than Manasseh (2Ch 33:23b), so much so that his own servants assassinated him (v. 24). This act of treason was avenged (v. 25). While the birth of Josiah was a harbinger of better days, the kingdom itself had taken a precipitous decline from the days of Hezekiah.
6. Very Good: Josiah (34:1–35:27)
The darkest days, from a human perspective, are often the days most propitious for a fresh work of the Lord to begin. After the dreadful days of Manasseh and even more despicable days of Amon, the Lord was gracious to send good king Josiah and the bright days of revival.
a. Josiah’s Reign—Seeking God, Purging Idolatry (34:1-7)
34:1-2. Josiah began his reign as a young boy of only eight years (v. 1). In the pattern of Jehoshaphat (cf. 17:3) and Hezekiah (cf. 29:2) he did right in the sight of the LORD (v. 2a) and conducted himself after the example his father David (v. 2b). The expression that he did not turn aside to the right or to the left (v. 2c) indicated that he did not deviate from David’s godly example. He showed unusual spiritual maturity at a young age.
34:3-7. When he was 16, while he was still a youth, he sought the Lord (v. 3a; see Introduction to 1 Chronicles), and at the age of 20 (v. 3b) he began to purge the nation of the idolatry that had plagued it for many years. His manner of dealing with the idols was not gentle: they tore down the idols’ altars (vv. 4a, 7a), chopped down the incense altars (vv. 4b, 7c), ground the pieces to powder (vv. 4c, 7b), and spread the dust on the graves of the idol worshipers (v. 4d). This act demonstrated his utter contempt for the idols and their worshipers. He even took the bones of the pagan priests (buried near the pagan shrines) and burned them (v. 5) in fulfillment of the word of the Lord to Jeroboam that human bones would be “burned” on the false altars he set up at the time of the division of the kingdom (cf. 1Kg 13:2). Josiah’s purge did not stop at the borders of Judah but extended to the territories of the former (at this time exiled) northern kingdom as well (2Ch 34:6). These were bold actions for the day and would have been a great encouragement to people like Jeremiah and Habakkuk. Josiah knew what many of God’s men have not known over the years: idolatry and ungodliness are never defeated by half measures but require bold, stern, and definitive purging.
b. Revival Year: Repairing Temple, Rediscovering Law, Reviving Passover (34:8–35:19)
The eighteenth year (34:8a; 35:19) of Josiah’s reign was a “banner year,” one of the most memorable in the entire the history of the nation. It is all the more remarkable that Josiah made it so great when he was only 26 years old (cf. 34:1a plus 34:8a).
(1) Repairing the Temple (34:8-13)
As was typical for a true Davidic king, Josiah took an immediate interest in the temple. The man of God must not stop merely with “purging” evil—he must be about “promoting” godliness. This is best done through the promotion of true worship. The monies collected for the repair and restoration of the temple came from the former northern kingdom as well as from Judah (34:9b). This detail picks up again a major theme of the Chronicler, namely, that “all Israel” was involved in this enterprise. The unity of the nation after the captivity was vital to its success and wellbeing, and the Chronicler knew that the locus of that unity needed to be the temple and the true worship of God. The Chronicler was telling his generation that true unity could be achieved if the whole nation was devoted to the true worship of the true God in the temple He Himself had chosen for His name.
34:8-13. The details of the restoration project (cf. vv. 9a, 10-13) indicate that the temple had been allowed to decline significantly (cf. v. 11c, had let go to ruin)—the result of the paganism and idolatry of the several ungodly kings. Several principles contributed to the success of the project to repair and restore the temple. The project was undertaken with sufficient resources (vv. 9a; 11a), by a team with various skills (cf. v. 10 workmen; v. 11 carpenters and builders; v. 13a burden bearers), and assisted by some with no evident skills for building (cf. vv. 12b, 13c Levites and musicians, scribes, etc.), but who had an incentive and a desire to do the work. The Levites were determined to beautify their place of service. The work was led faithfully with foremen … to supervise (v. 12a) and proceeded in an orderly fashion—from job to job (v. 13b). These details would not be lost on the Chronicler’s generation—people facing a daunting “restoration” project of their own.
(2) Rediscovering the Law (34:14-33)
34:14-18a. The account of the discovery of the book of the law is astounding but reads “true to life.” It is astounding that the law could be lost at all! However, it must be remembered that without printing presses copies of the law were rare—and made even more so by the waves of apostasy that the nation had suffered. The loss of the law as a way of worship and life would have inevitably led to the loss of the physical book. The book Hilkiah discovered was identified as the law of the LORD given by Moses (34:14b) and the book of the covenant (34:30c). Various attempts have been made to identify which portion or portions of the Pentateuch are in view here, but few are convincing and it may be that the whole Pentateuch is in view. It should also be noted that Mosaic authorship is indicated without question or argument. (See Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 551).
As noted, the short account of the “physical” discovery of the book reads “true to life.” That is, it seems that at first the discoverers did not realize what they had found. Apparently, in the process of restoration (cleaning out an unused cluttered, storeroom perhaps) the priest Hilkiah, as he was going about his duties, discovered the book and almost as an afterthought passed it on to Shaphan, the scribe. The conversation between Shaphan and the king, (v. 16a) as he reported on the progress of the restoration (v. 16b) and the dispersion of the finds (v. 17) seemed to indicate that there was no urgency attached to the discovery of a book (v. 18a). The skill of the Chronicler’s narrative should be noted: the reader knows the significance of this book, but as yet no one handling it seemed to realize it and the narrative builds suspense. Will anyone recognize this book for what it is, or will it be laid aside as some curiosity to be investigated later?
34:18b-21. In climactic fashion, the scribe Shaphan read from the book in the presence of the king (v. 18b), and the king’s reaction was dramatic. When he heard the words of the law he immediately tore his clothes (v. 19; cf. Gn 37:34; Jb 1:20) as an act of deep repentance and serious remorse. Significantly, it was the Davidic king who recognized the book’s meaning and significance. “Acknowledging the word of God for what it is, is always an essential step towards seeing God at work” (Selman, 2 Chronicles, 532). Instantly, Josiah understood a project more vital than the restoration of the temple needed to be undertaken, namely, the restoration of the nation to obedience. Hilkiah, Shaphan and others were reassigned to inquire of the LORD (2Ch 34:21a), to study the law to see what was required of the nation to avert God’s wrath (v. 21b). Josiah knew that ignorance of the law was no excuse and that the years of disobedience left the nation in serious danger. The law was clear: blessings could be expected only if the nation did according to all that is written in this book (v. 21c).
The idea that this book was actually (what is now known as) Deuteronomy and that it was created much later in Israel’s history by temple priests seeking reform was originally proposed by Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849), a German critical-biblical scholar. However, later studies have shown that the philological arguments of de Wette were deficient. The notion that the reforms of Josiah were purely “Deuteronomic” has been shown by Kitchen to be false since Josiah’s reform “could have been sparked off as easily by one version of the Sinai-covenant (Exodus-Leviticus) as the other (by forty years only: Deuteronomy).” Thus, “this ancient canard of 1805 should be quietly given a decent burial.” Kitchen adds, “And the modern data on treaty, law, and covenant put both versions [of the Sinai-covenant—Exodus/Leviticus and Deuteronomy] squarely in the late second millennium, not in the late seventh century, and not as a pious fraud either” (Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003], 401; see also his summary dismissal of the JEDP theory: Reliability of the Old Testament, 492–96).
34:22-28. In the process of seeking the mind of the Lord, an inquiry was made to the prophetess Huldah (v. 22a). With no note of explanation for the presence, much less the importance, of a female “prophetess” and that she was clearly a well-known person (note the details of her identity, v. 22b), it must be assumed that the “idea of discrimination based on sex” was “foreign” to the “spirit of the OT,” at least for a prophetess (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 4:551). Huldah gave her prophecy in two parts. First she revealed what the king had feared: because of the nation’s continued apostasy, the exile was inevitable. In a way, in order to be faithful to His word, he would bring on all the curses written in the book that had been read to the king (v. 24; Lv 26:14-45; Dt 28:15-68). God’s wrath [would] be poured out on this place because of the apostasy and idolatry (2Ch 34:25). But second, she revealed that because Josiah had shown humility, true remorse, and heartfelt repentance (v. 27) the necessary judgment would not come during his lifetime—he would not see all the evil that God would bring on this place and on its inhabitants (v. 28). The Chronicler’s generation knew the truth of the first part of Huldah’s prophecy, and they needed to know the point of the second part—namely, God’s curses and wrath are not unavoidable. His chastisement becomes inevitable by persistent disobedience to the Word, but His blessings are just as sure if the nation will consistently practice obedience. It was still true that if the nation and people would humble themselves, seek the Lord, pray and “turn from their wicked ways,” then He would forgive and heal them (cf. 7:14). The Chronicler’s generation knew they had a choice: follow the ways of Josiah’s ungodly predecessors or follow Josiah in humility, repentance, and faithful obedience.
34:29-30. Even in the face of the first part of Huldah’s prophecy, Josiah led the people in a public reading of the law. This was not an afterthought for a nation in inevitable decline but the only proper faithful act of God’s people, regardless of time or circumstance.
34:31-33. The reading of the law led to a nationwide “covenant renewal.” The king’s self-dedication was genuine and exemplary: it was public (he stood in his place, v. 31a), focused on the Lord (before the LORD … after the LORD, v. 31b), specific (commandments … testimonies … statutes, v. 31c), heartfelt (with all his heart … soul, v. 31d), and followed by action (to perform the words of the covenant, v. 31e). As a good leader he brought others with him in his dedication (v. 32a) and influenced others to follow as well (v. 32b). This rededication led to further reforms (v. 33a) and a lifetime of service and obedience (v. 33b). Although the obedience among many may have been only external (cf. Jr 11:1-13), nevertheless Josiah’s example proved the power of one leader’s complete dedication over the direction of the entire nation.
(3) Revival of Passover (35:1-19)
Following in the steps of his great-grandfather Hezekiah (cf. 30:1ff.), Josiah capped his restoration and reformation project off with a revival of the Passover. The celebration took place on the fourteenth day of the first month (35:1b), indicating that Josiah made sure the ceremony took place according to the law (cf. Ex 12:6), not allowing the adjustment made by Hezekiah (cf. 2Ch 30:2) to set a precedent.
35:1-10. Preparations for the Passover were made in several steps. First, Josiah set the priests in their offices and encouraged them (v. 2), amounting to a royal reconsecration for their ministry. He wanted them to undertake this solemn service knowing they had the full support of the Davidic king. Second, Josiah ordered that the ark of the covenant be replaced in the temple (v. 3a, b). Apparently, it had been removed from the temple, either by faithful priests to protect it during the reigns of Manasseh (cf. 33:7) and Amon, or by those who worshiped other gods by means of other tokens, or perhaps it had simply been removed for safekeeping during Josiah’s reconstruction project. The note that the ark would be a burden on your shoulders no longer (v. 3c) may suggest that, for some undisclosed reason, the ark was being carried in and out of the temple (according to the law, cf. Ex 25:14, 15) but would once again find a permanent home in the restored temple. Another possibility is that this was a symbolic act of removing the ark and returning it as a symbol of the temple’s reconsecration. Third, Josiah reordered the priests according to the divisions established by David and Solomon (2Ch 35:4-5, 10b) and commanded them to perform their duties according to the word of the LORD by Moses (v. 6). “Josiah’s goal was to prevent the sort of confusion that had arisen during the more precipitous reform and Passover of his godly great-grandfather, some 103 years earlier (cf. 30:16-18)” (Payne, “2 Chronicles,” 4:553). Fourth, Josiah and his officers supplied the animals for the offerings and sacrifices to be made for the Passover (v. 7-9). So the service was prepared (vv. 10a; 16a).
35:11-19. The Chronicler recorded this Passover celebration in two parts: First, there was the record of the sacrifices made and distributed (vv. 11-15). The details indicate that every person knew his part and performed it accordingly (as it is written in the book of Moses, v. 12c; according to the ordinance, v. 13a; according to the command of David and others, v. 15a). Second, there was the note of the significance of this particular Passover (vv. 16-19). The celebrants of that particular Passover were aware that such a full national celebration (all Judah and Israel who were present, v. 18c) had not been celebrated since the days of Samuel the prophet (v. 18b). As such it was a high point in the nation’s history. But to the generation of the Chronicler this meant they could recapture this moment in their own day as those who had returned to Jerusalem as representatives of “all Israel.” Everything rested on how they regarded the temple. The restoration of the temple in their day would mean that they too could participate in a singularly significant, nationally historic, Passover.
c. Josiah’s Tragic Death (35:20-27)
Josiah’s death was faithfully recorded by the Chronicler as a historical fact. But the transition to this tragic ending may indicate that the Chronicler did not want this death to be Josiah’s legacy. He first noted “when Josiah had set the temple in order” (v. 20a) and then began the narrative of Josiah’s last days.
(1) Pharaoh Neco, on His Way to War, Warned Josiah to Not Interfere (35:20-21)
The Battle at Carchemish (on the Euphrates 250 miles northeast of Damascus) between Neco of Egypt (allied with Ashuruballit of Assyria) and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in 605 BC was one of the great turning points in world history. Neco eventually lost that battle and Babylon become the ascendant world power, affecting both world and biblical history in profound ways. Josiah was a minor player in this saga—one who did not actually need to be involved at all.
35:20-21. When Josiah was apprised of Neco’s plans he determined to engage him in battle. Perhaps he feared an Egyptian-Assyrian alliance or maybe he wanted to assist Babylon, hoping to secure favorable terms from the rising power in the east. Neco attempted to dissuade Josiah by assuring him that he, Neco, had no animus toward Josiah (I am not coming against you) and by appealing to divine providence (God has ordered me … God who is with me, v. 21b). The sincerity of this last appeal has been questioned, but as recorded by the Chronicler, it seems that Josiah should have seen the working of God’s providence (v. 22b). There is a tragic and ironic parallel to the fate of the ungodly Ahab (cf. 18:29-34) in this account.
(2) Josiah Engaged Neco in Battle, Was Mortally Wounded (35:22-24c)
35:22-24c. Josiah proceeded to engage Neco (would not turn away … did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God) on the plain of Meggido (v. 22), the enormous plain through the hill country in Israel from northwest to southeast (and future site of the battle of Armageddon; Rv 16:16). Josiah took the futile precaution of disguising himself (2Ch 35:22b); nevertheless the archers mortally wounded him (v. 23a; cf. the fate of Ahab, 18:33). Josiah was able to be transported to Jerusalem before he died (v. 24b)—evidence of the Lord’s favor on this godly Davidic king—and he was buried in the tombs of his fathers (v. 24c) in honor of his godly faithfulness.
(3) Judah Mourned for Josiah (35:24d-25)
35:24d-25. The unusual details about the mourning for Josiah, the listing of mourners (all Judah and Jerusalem, v. 24d … Jeremiah … male and female singers, v. 25a) the terms used to express the mourning (chanted a lament, v. 25a … lamentations, v. 25b), and the note about the ordinance of mourning (v. 25c) indicate the high level of honor and respect the nation had for Josiah. The book Lamentations (v. 25d), noted here is not the biblical book of “Lamentations.”
(4) Josiah’s Reign Summarized (35:26-27)
35:26-27. The sad events that led to his death were not the last word about Josiah for the Chronicler. A word about his revival of temple worship (v. 20a) and a note about his deeds of devotion to the law of the LORD (v. 26) bracketed the account of his tragic death. However, Josiah’s godliness, his devotion to the law, and his revival were soon overshadowed by the precipitous decline of the nation following his death.
H. Sons of Josiah (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah) (36:1-16)
Josiah’s revival was the nation’s last opportunity to avoid the inevitable chastisement (cf. 34:23-25) of the captivity. The Chronicler’s readers were already well aware that the nation did not build on that revival but instead quickly declined and did not listen to the prophets (Jeremiah in particular; cf. Jr 1:1-3) sent to them (cf. 2Ch 36:15-16). The readers knew well that the captivity was not a happenstance of history but the righteous chastisement of the Lord. Therefore the Chronicler did not record the history of the last kings of the nation in great detail, and the final chapter of his work moved swiftly to the foregone conclusion. However, a note of hope arose. The decree of Cyrus was given to round out his message to his generation: the God who promised to build the house of David was not about to prove Himself faithless to that promise. He would bring (as the generation of the Chronicler knew He had brought) the nation back to the land. The promise remained (and remains) in effect for His chosen people.
1. Joahaz (36:1-4)
36:1-4. Joahaz was elevated to the throne by popular acclaim (v. 1), but he reigned only three months (v. 2). Probably to prevent him from doing the same ill-fated act of his father, Pharaoh Neco deposed Joahaz (v. 3a) and took him captive to Egypt (v. 4b). To recoup some of his expenses for the late war (cf. 35:20) Neco also imposed a levy on the nation (v. 3b). He set up Joahaz’s brother Eliakim on the throne and, in an act that would remind him of his servile position, the Pharaoh changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim (v. 4a).
2. Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin (36:5-10)
36:5-10. Jehoiakim proved to be an evil (v. 5b; 8a) and weak king. During his reign Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon invaded Judah and took Daniel and his friends into captivity (vv. 6-7; cf. Dn 1:1-2). The loss of the wealth and articles of the temple would have been particularly devastating and an indication of the Lord’s displeasure with the house of David. Throughout the Chronicler’s record the fortunes of the temple were tied to the fortunes of the Davidic king. For God to allow the glories of the temple to be sacked indicated He was chastising the Davidic king for unfaithfulness. Jehoiakim, a puppet of Neco, was deported and Jehoiachin, his son, was made king (2Ch 36:9a). Jehoiachin reigned only three months and ten days (v. 9b), and for his evil (v. 9c) he suffered exactly the same fate as his father (v. 10a).
3. Zedekiah (36:11-14)
36:11-14. The last king of the nation was another son of Josiah (uncle to Jehoiachin), Zedekiah (also called Mattaniah, cf. 2Kg 24:17), who also became a puppet king of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ch 36:10b). He too did evil (v. 12a). The Chronicler specifically noted he did not listen (did not humble himself v. 12b) to the preaching of Jeremiah the prophet who spoke for the LORD (v. 12c). He compounded his errant ways by rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar (v. 13a) and by hardening his heart against the Lord (v. 13b). He led the nation in pagan practices (abominations of the nations v. 14a) and committed the epitome of faithlessness for a Davidic king—he defiled the house of the LORD (v. 14b).
4. Summary: Prophets Sent and Rejected (36:15-16)
36:15-16. In a summary statement (vv. 15-16) that not only described the last days before the captivity, but in effect the whole history of the nation, the Chronicler recorded that the Lord—in His deep compassion—had sent messengers again and again to call the people—His people—to repentance, only to have them mocked and scoffed at and His words despised (vv. 15-16a). This pattern in the nation’s history would be recalled on more than one occasion by Jesus Himself (cf. Mt 23:29-35). The failure of the nation to heed God’s Word resulted in His wrath and no remedy (2Ch 36:16b).
I. The Captivity and the Decree of Cyrus (36:17-23)
The Chronicler’s conclusion of his history conveyed a stark realism and note of hope for his generation.
1. The Captivity: Description and Rationale (36:17-21)
a. Description (36:17-20)
36:17-20. The account of the captivity related the brutality of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) (v. 17, no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or infirm) and the completeness of the destruction of the temple and the city (v. 19, burned … broke down … burned). The looting of the temple (v. 18) and captivity of the remnant not slain (v. 20) are details that corroborate the accounts in other books, such as Daniel (cf. Dn 1, 5).
b. Rationale (36:21)
36:21. The rationale for the captivity (in addition to the implicit rationale articulated throughout the Chronicler’s work—namely the failure of the nation and the evil kings to seek the Lord while seeking other gods and neglecting the temple) was drawn from the prophet Jeremiah (v. 21a). Since the nation had not obeyed the law of giving the land its sabbath rests (cf. Lv 26:34-35, 43) the nation would be held in captivity until all the missed sabbath years had been made, a period calculated to be seventy years (2Ch 36:21b).
2. The Decree of Cyrus (36:22-23)
36:22-23. While the prophecy of Jeremiah’s 70-year captivity was heavy for those going into captivity, that same prophecy brought hope to those at the end of the captivity (v. 22). The Chronicler’s generation knew well the significance and the challenges of Cyrus’s decree. Once again, it was not the purview of an earthly king but that of a heavenly sovereign who ordered the events of captivity and return (cf. v. 23a). The final call, Whoever there is among you of all His people, may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up! (v. 23b) was still being made by the Chronicler to his generation.
In the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles is the final book and the Persian King Cyrus’s decree, the final words. The phrase let him go up finds its subject in the previous phrase, “he whose God is with him.” This wording is based on the Hebrew Bible, which literally reads, “He whose God is with Him, let Him go up!” (The NASB renders it more as a prayer, “may the Lord his God be with him.”) Cyrus’s decree concerns God’s people in captivity and exile in Babylon, which later came under the rule of Persia. The decree ended their 70-year captivity, fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jr 29:1-10), and letting the people return to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Yet it also seems that the Chronicler is using Cyrus’s decree to end here with a messianic image (cf. 1Ch 17:12), saying that of all the people who were to go up, one prominent figure, He whose God is with Him (the Messiah), should go up to Jerusalem to build the messianic temple (Ps 110; Zch 6:9-15). In this way, readers at the close of the OT, are being pointed forward immediately to the NT, which opens with a genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew (linking it to the genealogy at the beginning of the books of Chronicles), identifying Jesus as the one whose God is with Him and therefore “God with us” (Immanuel). He is the fulfillment of the messianic promise to David. Thus, the Hebrew Bible concludes with hope, not just in the faithfulness of God in restoring Israel in the past, but even more, with hope for the future. It is a reminder to keep looking for the messianic son of David, the redeemer of Israel and the world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
See Bibliography for 1 and 2 Chronicles on p. 582
