TEXT [Commentary]

C. Josiah: Good Reformer King of Judah (2 Kgs 22:1–23:30)

1. Josiah rules in Judah (22:1-7)

1 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah from Bozkath. 2 He did what was pleasing in the LORD’s sight and followed the example of his ancestor David. He did not turn away from doing what was right.

3 In the eighteenth year of his reign, King Josiah sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and grandson of Meshullam, the court secretary, to the Temple of the LORD. He told him, 4 “Go to Hilkiah the high priest and have him count the money the gatekeepers have collected from the people at the LORD’s Temple. 5 Entrust this money to the men assigned to supervise the restoration of the LORD’s Temple. Then they can use it to pay workers to repair the Temple. 6 They will need to hire carpenters, builders, and masons. Also have them buy the timber and the finished stone needed to repair the Temple. 7 But don’t require the construction supervisors to keep account of the money they receive, for they are honest and trustworthy men.”

NOTES

22:1 Josiah. He was the 18th king from the dynasty of David and definitely one of the most important. Already, in the late tenth century, the name Josiah has been invoked as the one who will avenge the notorious sins of Jeroboam I of Israel (see the note on 1 Kgs 13:2 for details). The meaning of Josiah’s name remains uncertain; Althann (ABD 3.1015) suggests it comes from the root ’-w-sh, meaning “to give”; while other possibilities include the Hiphil (causative form) from the root y-sh-h, meaning “to bring forth, produce”; or else from the root ’-sh-h, meaning “to heal” (which is also the likely etymology of the name Asa).

22:2 did what was pleasing. After the sharply negative evaluations of Manasseh and Amon, which we have seen in the previous chapter (cf. 21:2, 20), we return to the string of positive evaluations typical of Hezekiah (cf. 18:3) and four of his five predecessors, all of which were couched in this phraseology (and Ahaz’s negative evaluation is also presented in analogous terms; see the note on 16:2). For details concerning Ahaz’s predecessors who “did what was pleasing,” see the notes on 15:3, 34.

his ancestor David. See 18:3; contrast 16:2 (and to some degree, 14:3).

He did not turn away from doing what was right. Lit., “he did not turn aside either to the right or to the left,” which is a key criterion from the book of Deuteronomy; curiously, however, this description has not been applied to any other king of Judah (cf. Sweeney [2007:441], who cites Moses’s repeated exhortation to the people as well as the king to observe the Torah, so as not to stray “to the right or to the left” [Deut 5:32; 17:11; 28:14; also Deut 17:20, in the “law of the king”]). The literary connection between Josiah and the Deuteronomistic tradition could not be illustrated more clearly.

22:3 In the eighteenth year. This year can be closely dated to 622 BC. Ironically, and perhaps only coincidentally—although there is a distinct sense of intentional literary compression in the Kings account concerning the numerous events that were packed into this single year (cf. Williamson 1982a:398)—Josiah’s reforms are dated as taking place exactly 100 years after the infamous fall of Samaria to the Assyrians (for details concerning the dating of the fall of that city, see the note on 17:5). In any case, Josiah’s “eighteenth year” will figure most prominently in the extended narrative stretching from this verse all the way to 23:24 (cf., particularly, 23:23). Also, as I have argued elsewhere, the parallel references in the Chronicles account to this same year of Josiah’s reign (see 2 Chr 34:8; 35:19) are particularly significant in their own right, singling out Josiah as the 15th Davidic king of the divided monarchy (see Barnes 1991:142-144). I have also pointed out (ibid.) that the 5th Davidic king, Jehoram, has a double regnal formula in the Chronicles account (2 Chr 21:5, 20), as does the 10th king, Jotham (2 Chr 27:1, 8). These odd repetitions, unique in Chronicles except for the present Josiah notices, are surely not coincidental, but their significance remains obscure. As for the Chronicler’s references to Josiah’s “eighth” and “twelfth” years (2 Chr 34:3), the independent historicity of those references remains problematic. They most certainly stem from the Chronicler’s own reckoning (so Williamson 1982a:397-399; cf. Wiseman 1993:294; also Barnes 1997b:108-111, 128-129).

22:4 Hilkiah the high priest. One of the relatively few high priests mentioned by name in 1–2 Kings (see the first section of the Introduction), and possibly the same “Hilkiah” who was the father of the prophet Jeremiah (see Jer 1:1). Cogan and Tadmor (1988:281-282) note, however, that there is no clear evidence that these priests from Anathoth ever served in the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. Thompson [1980:140], who also dismisses this identification as “most unlikely”).

22:5-6 to repair the Temple. This is the agenda also discussed in 12:1-16, in the days of King Joash (who also came to the throne as a child); and there is distinctive Hebrew vocabulary found only there and here—most notably, bedeq [TH919, ZH981], “breach or fissure” (12:5); but also muba’ [TH935, ZH995], “(money) being brought in, donated,” a Hophal participle of bo’; and a Niphal of khashab [TH2803, ZH3108], “(not) require to keep account (of the donated money)”; (see note on 12:15). These parallels give further support for a Temple tradition underlying significant sections of 1–2 Kings (see the note on 12:4 for details; cf. Sweeney 2007:444). For some pertinent observations concerning the importance of Temple maintenance and repair, see the commentary on 12:1-16; and for further intriguing parallels between Kings Joash and Josiah, including the striking symmetry of the aftermath of both reigns, see Leithart 2006:266.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Nearly the entire reign of Josiah can be carefully arranged in a palistrophe (or A-B-C-B-A literary structure), as presented in detail in the commentary on 23:1-20. This may well have served as the climax of the Josianic edition (see “Earlier Editions of Kings?” under “Date and Occasion of Writing” in the Introduction for details)—hence, the careful arrangement of these texts, as well as the programmatic nature of their detailed exposition (with 23:26-30 presumably added at a later date). In short, this is the culminating example of the program of restoration and cult centralization as ideally envisioned in the book of Deuteronomy.

With this brief introduction to the reign of King Josiah, we begin a nearly two-chapter discussion of his efforts at cult-reform (see “One Place of Worship” under “Major Themes” in the Introduction regarding the Deuteronomic basis of his reform). Since his reform spans this whole lengthy narrative, summarizing remarks are to be found in the commentary on 23:21-30. At this juncture, we read only about Josiah’s first actions to repair and cleanse the Temple, not realizing that the resultant discovery of the “Book of the Law” will even take place, let alone irrevocably change the course of theological history. A veritable second “King Joash” (as already noted, Joash was another son of an assassinated father who came to the throne at a very young age [see 11:21–12:1] and was greatly focused on repairing the Temple), Josiah acted with great dispatch, even before he heard about the terrible indictment found in the “Book of the Law” concerning cultic laxity. And it is to his credit that once he heard those words, he continued to act with undiminished forcefulness to cleanse the cult, despite the personal word Huldah the prophet had given him concerning his own exemption from the coming wrath. (See the next commentary section for further thoughts concerning this remarkable focus.)

Before Josiah’s efforts at renovating and cleansing the Temple were initiated, the “people of the land” (cf. the note on 21:24) probably remained largely in control of palace politics (cf. Cogan and Tadmor [1988:276], who suggest that this control amounted to “a decade of rule” during Josiah’s minority and beyond). Presumably conservative in orientation, and demonstrably loyal to the house of David, they may or may not have had any effect on Josiah’s determination to reverse the “pagan” perspective of the brief reign of his father Amon and the very lengthy reign of his grandfather Manasseh. In any case, for 10 long years, Josiah in essence bided his time as he reached maturity (for the Chronicler’s alternative chronology for Josiah’s first reforms, see the note on 22:3); but when his 18th year finally came, Josiah was apparently all action. This contrast in behavior leads to some interesting historical and psychological reflections on “radical” versus “conservative” leadership. Both Josiah and the “people of the land” were undoubtedly sincere, dedicated Yahwists. And both parties did much good in connection with the history of monarchical Judah. But that is where the similarities end. The “people of the land” acted intermittently, as needed during a monarchical crisis, and therefore usually in the sense of remaining reactive rather than proactive in their accomplishments. Josiah, however, was as proactive as they come. Neither party stands at fault here; both parties effectively advanced Yahweh’s will for his people over against significant opposition. But supporters of the earlier status quo represent something quite different than those who find that same status quo quite limiting. Jesus’ comments about the Kingdom advancing violently certainly come to mind, as well as putting new wine into fresh wineskins (Matt 11:12; Mark 2:22). This is not to put down the valuable work the “people of the land” accomplished when the situation called for it. But the Deuteronomistic author celebrates here the radical, even extreme, actions of King Josiah. And so, in the next two chapters, let us do the same!