MANASSEH WAS TWELVE years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. 3He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4He built altars in the temple of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5In both courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
7He took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the LORD had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever. 8I will not again make the feet of the Israelites wander from the land I gave their forefathers, if only they will be careful to do everything I commanded them and will keep the whole Law that my servant Moses gave them.” 9But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites.
10The LORD said through his servants the prophets: 11“Manasseh king of Judah has committed these detestable sins. He has done more evil than the Amorites who preceded him and has led Judah into sin with his idols. 12Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I am going to bring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 13I will stretch out over Jerusalem the measuring line used against Samaria and the plumb line used against the house of Ahab. I will wipe out Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and hand them over to their enemies. They will be looted and plundered by all their foes, 15because they have done evil in my eyes and have provoked me to anger from the day their forefathers came out of Egypt until this day.”
16Moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end—besides the sin that he had caused Judah to commit, so that they did evil in the eyes of the LORD.
17As for the other events of Manasseh’s reign, and all he did, including the sin he committed, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? 18Manasseh rested with his fathers and was buried in his palace garden, the garden of Uzza. And Amon his son succeeded him as king.
19Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah. 20He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, as his father Manasseh had done. 21He walked in all the ways of his father; he worshiped the idols his father had worshiped, and bowed down to them. 22He forsook the LORD, the God of his fathers, and did not walk in the way of the LORD.
23Amon’s officials conspired against him and assassinated the king in his palace. 24Then the people of the land killed all who had plotted against King Amon, and they made Josiah his son king in his place.
25As for the other events of Amon’s reign, and what he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? 26He was buried in his grave in the garden of Uzza. And Josiah his son succeeded him as king.
Original Meaning
MANASSEH BECOMES THE “Jeroboam I” of Judah, the figure who personified all the sins of the subsequent kings of Israel (1 Kings 16:6, 19, 26, 31, etc.). Manasseh’s fifty-five year reign of apostasy between good kings Hezekiah and Josiah makes his evil worse by contrast. He begins by restoring all the cult places destroyed by Hezekiah, his father (2 Kings 21:3).
Manasseh goes beyond any previous king of Judah in multiplying idolatries (21:6). His reign is oppressive and violent (v. 16); Josephus reports that prophets are slaughtered daily until Jerusalem overflows with blood (Ant. 10.38). According to tradition, Isaiah is among them (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, 5.1).1 The sins of Manasseh are not his alone; he seduces the people of Judah to become idolatrous, with abominations worse than the Amorites who had lived there before (2 Kings 21:9, 11). The short two-year reign of Amon continues the age of idolatry fostered by Manasseh. His reign is brought to an abrupt end by a palace coup.
Abominations of Manasseh (21:1–18)
WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE of the northern kingdom, there are no more synchronisms for the ascension of each king. Manasseh is born in the forty-second year of Hezekiah (who lived a total of fifty-four years); according to Josephus, the prayer of Hezekiah for recovery from his illness is only in order that there will be an heir for the throne (Ant. 10.25–27). It may be that Manasseh is the only surviving son, or else older brothers are bypassed for reasons unknown.
The dates of Manasseh’s reign must be calculated from the time of the captivity. The Babylonian Chronicle gives the exact date when Nebuchadnezzar captures Jerusalem and takes Johoiachin prisoner to Babylon2—on the second of Adar in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (i.e., March 15, 597 B.C.). The twenty-nine years of Hezekiah end in 686 B.C.; Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and Jehoiakim reign for a total of ninety-nine years. The reign of Manasseh must have begun in 596 B.C., giving him a ten-year coregency with Hezekiah.3 Manasseh reigns the longest of all the Judean kings.
Assur is at the height of its power after the conquest of Egypt (671 B.C.); any attempt to break away, as Hezekiah did, is out of the question. Though Manasseh is loyal to Assur, there is no evidence that Assyria ever demanded adherence to its own religious practices or interfered in any way with the native practices of conquered countries.4 No Assyrian vassal treaty contains clauses that relate to practice of religion; it is not even certain that a loyalty oath, such as the one imposed by Esarhaddon on his eastern vassals, is ever imposed on Manasseh.5 In other words, the abominable foreign practices of Manasseh are apparently totally voluntary. There is nothing to suggest this facilitates favor with his Assyrian masters.
Manasseh must have had the support of the leaders of Judah in his practice of foreign worship. Assyria has not yet met the disaster declared by Isaiah (Isa. 10:12–19). There may have been a reaction to the reforms of Hezekiah, especially by those who worshiped at the various shrines in the countryside before Hezekiah dismantled them. Manasseh reverses the policies of his father, both in the practice of faith and in the submission to Assyria.
Manasseh advances foreign worship in a number of ways. The host of heaven is worshiped in the two temple courts (21:3, 5) and on the roof of his palace (23:12). Jeremiah witnesses family worship of the Queen of Heaven in Jerusalem (Jer. 7:18). Worship of astral deities also occurs—a Canaanite practice that Israel was warned about before their entry into the land (Deut. 4:19; cf. 17:3).
Passing the sons through the fire is named along with sorcery and consultation of mediums. This again is a specific violation of the covenant (Deut. 18:10–11). Passing one’s sons through the fire probably concerns funeral rites, as may be suggested by its association with consultation of ghosts and spirits of the dead.6 Rituals that involved children do not indicate that the children were slaughtered for these rites (cf. Jer. 7:32; 19:5; 32:35). Incineration of bodies took place at a dedicated location called a tophet by archaeologists (based on the Hebrew references). Such a place had a low enclosure wall and was used for generations. Those buried were primarily premature, stillborn, and young infants, buried with a special ceremony.
Necromancy was practiced through a ritual pit through which mortals communicated with the chthonic deities of the underworld (cf. 1 Sam. 28:7). The carved image of the Asherah implies something even worse than the standard Asherah pole (2 Kings 21:7).7 Setting the image in the temple is a desecration of the one place that represented divine ownership and fulfillment of the promise to David.
The narrative leads into divine speech with the citation of the promise to David and the condition to rest in the land (21:7b–10). The words of the prophets to the violation of the covenant announce the ultimate judgment against Jerusalem. The fate of Samaria, within the living memory of many of the citizens of Judah under the reign of Manasseh, should have caused ringing in the ears of those who heard the warning. The “plumb line” of Samaria (21:13) is a graphic image used by the earlier prophets (cf. Amos 7:7–8). Ordinary tools of construction become God’s standard of destruction. Jerusalem’s being wiped clean as a washed pan turned upside down is an equally graphic proverb. God has had his fill of Judah’s sinning; the city will be emptied out, its social order turned completely upside down.
The good remnant found in the reforms of Hezekiah will be uprooted and cast out. The nation is no longer God’s inheritance, unique among the other nations (2 Kings 21:14; cf. Ex. 19:5; 1 Kings 8:51, 53). The shedding of innocent blood is also a metaphor for injustice against the poor, one of the greatest offenses committed by those who had themselves once been slaves (Isa. 1:15–17). Manasseh is the only king to have misdeeds noted in the concluding formula (2 Kings 21:17). The “garden” (enclosure) of Uzza in which Manasseh is buried may have been an enclosed space constructed in honor of a Canaanite astral deity. The cult of Attar-melek, the Venus star, in Arabic is known as Uzza.
The Assassination of Amon (21:19–26)
AMON IS BORN when his father is forty-five, making it unlikely that he is the oldest son. Another example of a young son succeeding after a long reign is Ramesses II of Egypt (thirteenth century); his twelve oldest sons died before he was succeeded by Merneptah, who was himself nearly sixty at his accession. The location of Jotbah (21:19) is uncertain, but most probably to be identified with a location in lower Galilee found in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III. There may have been a policy of southern kings marrying women from the north in order to strengthen relations with the former Israelite state.
The reign of Amon is brought to an abrupt end by conspirators from his own court. No details are given concerning the uprising. Perhaps this is an anti-Assyrian uprising, possibly in connection with disturbances during the reign of Ashurbanipal (640 B.C.). Whatever the case, the plot fails. Representative civic leaders dispatch the conspirators and make Amon’s son Josiah king. The “people of the land” are those loyal to David during times of dynastic crisis (cf. 11:14, 18, 20), ensuring the continuity of the dynasty.
Bridging Contexts
MANASSEH IN CHRONICLES. Manasseh is an example of how the consequences of sin are not confined to the sinner. The consequences of his sin results in the eventual exile of the entire nation; God decides “to remove [Judah] from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood … the LORD was not willing to forgive” (24:3b–4). The effects of Manasseh’s deeds are irreversible; the announcement of exile made to Hezekiah becomes a pronouncement of irreversible judgment against the nation (21:10–15). Manasseh, uniformly and unambiguously, is the worst king of Judah in the valuation of the Deuteronomistic Historians.
In Chronicles, the life of Manasseh divides into two eras: sin and repentance (2 Chron. 33:1–20). The period of transgression is anchored in the Deuteronomistic History (vv. 1–8). The pattern of faithfulness and then failure, where 2 Kings has a uniform portrayal, is found with other kings in Chronicles (Rehoboam, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah). These four earlier kings go from righteousness to sin; only Manasseh transforms from wickedness to righteousness.
The prophetic speech announcing judgment in 2 Kings 21:10–15 is reduced to just one verse in 2 Chronicles 33:10. The Chronicler makes no mention of the one distinguishing sin of Manasseh, that he filled Jerusalem with blood from end to end (2 Kings 21:16). Instead, the Chronicler tells of the exile and repentance of Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11–13) and his subsequent work of restoration (vv. 14–17). The conclusion of his reign is again adapted from Kings (2 Kings 21:18–20); Chronicles notes his prayer of repentance in contrast to the sins he committed. The dissimilar portrayal of Chronicles creates a greater dissonance than that of other kings because of his central position as being responsible for the Exile according to 1-2 Kings.
Since the days of Wellhausen, the account of Chronicles has been regarded as a theologically slanted creation to explain why the worst king of Judah should have reigned the longest. This argument is undermined by the fact that the Deuteronomistic Historians had a theological perspective that is no less pronounced in their portrayal of the lives of each king.8 The Chronicler does not make any direct correlation between the length of a king’s reign and his piety, nor does he confine the consequences of guilt to one generation.
The absence of an exile of Manasseh in Assyrian records is not significant; those records are fragmentary, so it is impossible to know what was never recorded or has been lost. It is notable that the Chronicler makes Babylon the place of exile (2 Chron. 33:11), when he knew full well that Nineveh was the capital of Assyria. Attempts have been made to correlate Chronicles with the turbulent international politics of the seventh century and the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin, ruler of Babylon, against his younger brother Ashurbanipal. After a number of campaigns, Elam was decimated and much of its population deported; it is not known how long Ashurbanipal resided in Babylon or whether Manasseh was involved in the rebellion.
Manasseh’s exile cannot be regarded as a creation of the Chronicler for the punishment of the king, for the sin encompasses the people as well as the king (2 Chron. 33:9–10), whereas the exile of the king does not affect the land, the people, or Jerusalem.9 The Chronicler chooses to appropriate historical information for his theological purpose;10 the extraordinary transgression of Manasseh is worthy of a much more severe punishment than arrest and exile.
The account of Manasseh in Chronicles demonstrates that no matter how grievous the transgression and its influence, opportunity for repentance is ever present. As Dillard explains, both the judgments of Kings and Chronicles are the Word of God:
At a theological level this tension can be reconciled in the awareness that all that we do is touched both by sin and by the grace of God. The best deeds of human beings are never devoid of the taint of sinfulness; conversely, men at their most evil are never utterly bereft of the restraining grace of God. Either view—that focusing on evil or on grace—provides a coherent picture. The biblical historians in this sense are not reductionistic, but taken together display life in its complexity.11
The Chronicler is interested in showing that the consequences of sin can be mitigated. He is not concerned to show the reasons for the Exile but to show that Israel, like Manasseh, can turn to Yahweh and experience restoration. Manasseh becomes the example to the believing community of the necessity and possibility of repentance. Kings is about realizing the reasons for the Exile and its consequences; it has its focus on Manasseh’s effect on the people: “The people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites” (2 Kings 21:9). The Chronicler provides a subtle but significant variation on this verse: “Manasseh led Judah and the people of Jerusalem astray, so that they did even more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites” (2 Chron. 33:9).12 Chronicles emphasizes the immediate consequences of Manasseh’s deeds rather than the rebellion of the people spurred on by the sins of Manasseh.
Contributions and consequences of Manasseh. Manasseh is able to retain control over the land of Judah for a lifetime. During his long reign he ruthlessly silences his opponents, likely supported by the presence of the Assyrian army in the land. He leaves the kingdom in a state of unrest, which results in the assassination of his son Amon, who succeeds him (2 Kings 21:23). Amon’s short reign is depicted as nothing more than a continuation of the idolatrous ways of his father. Perhaps the violent action taken in relation to Amon’s religious policies is an attempt to regain influence for the Jerusalem priesthood. The assassins in turn are unable to achieve their ends and die for their efforts; Josiah the son of Amon is made king.
In this whole period, the stabilizing factor is the presence of the civic leaders (“the people of the land”), who remain loyal to the Davidic dynasty. They are not supporters of the religiopolitical policies of Manasseh and Amon; they are loyal to their own traditions, as is seen in their influence during Josiah’s kingship.
Whatever reforms Manasseh manages to effect after his repentance, they are not of lasting consequence. His military undertakings include the building of a high outer wall around the city of David (2 Chron. 33:14) and manning the fortified cities with army commanders. His spiritual reforms involve the reversal of his earlier cultic innovations and renewal of worship to Yahweh (vv. 15–16), though this does not include the abolition of worship at the high places outside Jerusalem (v. 17).
Amon is remembered as doing evil just like his father (v. 22), a memory shared by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 15:4). It may be that Manasseh removes symbols of Phoenician worship under pressure from the Assyrians, as part of the condition of restoration to his throne.13 The evils engendered by self-serving interests are not readily reversed, and for the authors of Kings, the changes executed by Manasseh are not even worth mentioning.
One consequence of Manasseh’s idolatrous reign is a focus on “the day of the LORD,” as is evident in the prophecy of Zephaniah. His condemnation of idolatry (Zeph. 1:4–5) and his pronouncement of judgment on foreign enemies (2:4–15) take place following the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. Judgment will come because of the evils of idolatry, violence, and oppression (3:1–2). Yahweh will prove wrong those who think that nothing will happen to them (1:12); he will search Jerusalem with lamps to make sure that not a single evildoer escapes. The arrogant of Judah have built houses, but they will not live in them (1:13). Those helplessly caught in evils like those of Manasseh’s reign can do nothing other than turn to the divine warrior. The day of Yahweh is a summons to repentance and humility (2:1–3); only in repentance is there any hope.
The judgment of the day of Yahweh is not an end in itself; it holds out promise and hope for the land of Judah, where there has been exile and desolation. That day will become a source of blessing for the remnant of Judah (Zeph. 2:6–7, 9). They will spread out from their own land and occupy territory formerly held by their enemies. The possibility of survival (v. 3) becomes a promise for the future. Judgment will be worldwide (3:8), but Yahweh will save and transform people from the nations, engendering their worship of him (vv. 9–10). The day of Yahweh is fundamentally one of hope; humble and truthful people of the covenant will follow in its ways (vv. 11–13), and they are promised restoration and worldwide renown because of God’s love (vv. 15–20).
The pronouncement of Kings concerning inevitable exile must be heard; such a fulfillment is a reminder that God’s word does not fail. In the days of Manasseh and following are those who look forward to the great consummation of the kingdom, just like the Christians in Revelation. They also know that the Word of God cannot fail but will be fulfilled.
Contemporary Significance
THE CONSEQUENCES OF one person’s sins. The effects of the sins of one person can extend to many others. Other individuals are drawn into errant ways, and many victims suffer the results of evil. This is particularly true when transgressions are committed by persons in political power. Most often oppressive actions are exercised under the rubric of peace and liberty. Commonly, the results are irreversible for generations, and many pay a terrible price, as is the case with Manasseh. Religion and race are often a part of malevolence exercised against others.
Zimbabwe is one of the most tragic modern stories of havoc brought on a country through a long process of political manipulation. When Robert Mugabe came to power in 1980, he brought the promise of peace and cooperation after decades of colonial rule and a bitter civil war.14 As head of the renamed nation of Zimbabwe, he quickly became recognized as an international statesman.
Mugabe was raised as a Roman Catholic and educated in missionary schools; he received the first of his seven degrees from South Africa’s Fort Hare University. Once he achieved popular support, his promises of reconciliation and democracy were overtaken by an inflexible authoritarianism and a deep distrust of opposition. Initially he built a coalition government with fellow guerilla leader Joshua Nkomo, but suspicion of the arms resources of Nkomo led to a brutal crackdown on his followers. Mugabe became an ardent nationalist, blaming white Zimbabweans and their alleged foreign backers for the economic collapse of his country.
Mugabe has made much of his devout Christianity, but it has not been evident in his personal or public conduct. He ended his marriage to marry a former private secretary forty-one years his junior. At the same time he pursued a moral campaign against homosexuality, making such “unnatural acts” punishable with up to ten years in prison. He committed his armed forces to a wasteful colonial type of intervention in the Congolese civil war. There were many accusations of officials growing rich from Congo’s rich mineral reserves, while Zimbabwe’s own economy plummeted out of control. A land that had been the breadbasket of Africa became impoverished, completely unable to provide food or shelter for its own citizens.
Mugabe not only impoverished his own people, but he also took aggressive action to change the image of his country by demolishing illegal shantytowns. The rationalization was that this was necessary to rid the country of settlements that became hives of illegal trade in scarce hard currency and food.15 Rights groups claimed the operation left at least 300,000 people homeless. Some were killed in the process; thousands were forced into camps on the outskirts of Harare, the capital city. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change estimated that well over one and a half million people were displaced. They claimed that the crackdown was meant to punish its supporters in the urban strongholds where it kept most of its parliamentary seats.
As the faithful like Isaiah suffered to the point of death under the reign of Manasseh, so many in Zimbabwe have died under the regime of Mugabe. Their hope must be as those who waited for the day of Yahweh in the times of Manasseh. This is the only response possible for modern-day Christians caught in a spiral of evil like that of Zimbabwe. As political solutions elude them, they must turn in humility to the Lord. The rule of God seems elusive in such situations. The lament of the psalmists becomes poignantly real (e.g., Ps. 74; 89). The story of Manasseh serves both as warning and as hope for those in similar political distress.