1. DeVries, 1 Kings, 208.

2. See the appendix for a brief discussion of the composition variations of Kings.

3. H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäsche Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1968), #202, A, 4–5.

4. This was the location of the wars of David against Ammon (2 Sam. 11:1), where sukkôt (v. 11) may be a place name rather than “tents” (NIV). The case for sukkôt as the location of the war has been made by Y. Yadin, “Some Aspects of the Strategy of Ahab and David,” Bib 36 (1955): 332–51.

5. The Greek translator took sukkôt as a place name in the second occurrence (v. 16); 2 Sam. 11:11 is the only other location where sukkôt may be used instead of the more usual “tents” (ʾōhālîm). It is not certain that sukkôt was ever used to refer to army encampments.

6. Following the Greek, some translations say he seized the horses and chariots (e.g., RSV). The Greek is not a different text, but a translation error based on a wrong interpretation of “seize” in Josh. 15:16; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’ancien testament, 373–74.

7. The sense of the verb npl is that they “desert,” though most translations say “lost” (cf. NIV).

8. The Hebrew adjective is derived from ḥśp (“to strip, lay bare”). It governs the meaning of the noun in a genitival relationship.

9. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 429–30.

10. The verb nḥš is to practice divination or to learn through that method. One such means was to find omens through chance utterances considered endowed with meaning.

11. For the significance of the expression “sons of the prophets” see the story of the ascension of Elijah (2 Kings 2).

12. The talent was the largest unit of weight in the Near East. It consisted of sixty minas, the mina consisting of sixty shekels in the Babylonian system and fifty in the Canaanite system (cf. Ezek. 45:12). A talent would have been about 3,000 shekels.

13. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 348–49.

14. Stefan Timm, Die Dynastie Omri: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 214.

15. A. Leo Oppenheim, “Shalmaneser III (858–824): The Fight against the Aramean Coalition,” in An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. J. Pritchard (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1958), 190. The numbers in the Assyrian inscriptions are doubted by many historians; Cogan, 1 Kings, 474, n. 5.

16. C. F. Whitley, “The House of Omri,” VT 2 (1952): 144.

17. Ibid., 147.

18. A. Malamat, “The Arameans,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 144.

19. It is well established that the word for youth (naʿar) includes high-ranking military officers; Victor Hamilton, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:124. For its use in a Canaanite context, see B. Cutler and J. MacDonald, “Identification of the naʿar in the Ugaritic Texts,” UF 8 (1976): 27–35. In this context of divine victory, the word must be given its more usual meaning where it stands in contrast to “elder” (zāqēn) as a merism.

20. Dan Block, “Ezekiel: Theology of,” NIDOTTE, 4:618.

21. M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House, 1969), 133–35.

22. Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Go Ahead, Use Good Judgment,” U. S. Catholic 69/6 (June 2004): 27.

23. Charles Colson, “Wake-Up Call,” Christianity Today 45/14 (November 2001): 112.

24. John Garvey, “Dies Irae,” Commonweal 128/9 (May 2001): 9. (Dies irae is a medieval Latin hymn describing judgment day, used in some masses for the dead.)

25. An anonymous article entitled “Common Character” in The Christian Century laments the irresponsibility of individual officials in the Enron-Andersen debacle to responsibly follow the spirit of the law (119/5 [February–March, 2002]: 5). The result has been enormous hardship for thousands who have lost jobs, savings, and investments; key institutions have been undermined.

26. Elshtain, “Go Ahead, Use Good Judgment,” 28.

27. N. T. Wright, “Judgment and Mercy,” Bible Review 16/2 (April 2000): 10.

1. Alexander Rofé, “The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story,” VT 38 (1988): 90.

2. Ussishkin, “Jezreel, Samaria and Megiddo: Royal Centers of Omri and Ahab,” 352–56, 361–63.

3. H. G. M. Williamson, “Jezreel in the Biblical Texts,” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 72–92.

4. “Slave or free” (NIV) is a hendiadys meaning “ruler-deliverer” (cf. 1 Kings 14:10); hence it is not every male, but every member of the royal family.

5. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 227, 480–81.

6. Kulaks were landowners, sometimes able to hire labor and loan money.

7. R. Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (Edmonton: Univ. of Alberta Press, 1986).

8. Ibid., 43–44.

9. Ibid., 46.

10. Ibid., 304–5.

11. Davie Napier, “The Inheritance and the Problem of Adjacency: An Essay on 1 Kings 21,” Int 30 (1976): 4.

12. Ibid.

1. It is likely to be identified with Tell Ramith, based on the etymological ties with Ramoth, namely, a strategic location as a “height”; Iron Age pottery at the site dates from the time of Solomon to the latter period of the kingdom of Israel. Gilead was added to the toponym to distinguish it from other towns with the same name.

2. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 574.

3. The designation “threshing-floor” preserves an item from ancient life. Space was a premium in ancient walled cities; the only open space for a public gathering was at the city gate. At Samaria this space was used for winnowing; since this was a seasonal activity, it provided a space for large assemblies at other times.

4. For an interpretation of these sign acts see comments on 11:29–30. These actions are rhetorical nonverbal communication, persuasive in nature and intent.

5. The answer of the four hundred prophets uses the honorific ʾadonay (“Lord”) rather than the divine name Yahweh used by Micaiah. This difference may only be textual; the Targums and most Hebrew manuscripts have Ahab’s prophets say Yahweh (v. 6b). However, these may be harmonistic readings (cf. v. 12); on the basis of comparative texts, Daniel Block (“What Has Delphi to do with Samaria?”) believes that the prophecy was deliberately ambiguous (forthcoming in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan Millard, ed. Piotr Bienkowski [British Academy Monographs in Archaeology; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press], 185–212).

6. Long, 1 Kings, 234–35.

7. Volkmar Hirth, “Der Geist in I Reg 22,” ZAW 101 (1989): 114.

8. The divine attendant is referred to as a spirit (rûaḥ); in other instances the divine attendants are described as “sons of God” (Job 1:6) or “seraphim” (Isa. 6:2). A messenger (malʾāk) describes a heavenly intermediary who appears in bodily form (Judg. 6:11). In this case the divine messenger directly informs the minds of the earthly participants.

9. M. Saebo, “,” THAT, 2:497.

10. Block, “What Has Delphi to do with Samaria?” This is not only an Old Testament phenomena; Paul declares that the activity of Satan with all his signs and wonders and wicked deception will cause people to reject the truth. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion (planēs) so they believe a lie (pseudei), in order that they may be condemned (2 Thess. 2:9–12).

11. DeVries follows Malamat in translating ḥpś as “girding for combat” rather than disguise, the essential contrast that of Jehoshaphat wearing the royal insignia, while the king of Israel is armed as an ordinary soldier (Prophet against Prophet, 40, n. 10).

12. DeVries finds narrative and theological significance in the phrase “at evening.” The phrase “in that day” telescopes an event and its consequences into one day. Evening designates its termination, bringing a denouement to the climactic events; Simon J. DeVries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 112–13.

13. The reference to prostitutes bathing in water stained by the king’s blood is not explained. The versions emend it to the washing of the king’s armor (z^eyānôt) rather than prostitutes (zônôt). Another possibility is to read pigs (hazîrîm) for prostitutes; dogs and swine were the scavengers of ancient cities.

14. The phrase is usually taken as positive proof that the account of his violent death has been secondarily applied to him. This tension is no greater than the statement that his punishment was postponed because of his humility (21:29). The phrase is usually lacking for kings taken over by a coup or dying in battle; Naʾaman thinks Ahab is an exception: “Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides,” Bib 78 (1997): 167.

15. For a survey of major known ivories and the techniques of the craft, see Hershel Shanks, “Ancient Ivory: The Story of Wealth, Decadence and Beauty,” BAR 11/5 (1985): 40–53.

16. See Ussishkin, “Jezreel, Samaria and Megiddo,” 358–61.

17. Ahab reigned twenty-two years (1 Kings 16:29) and his son Ahaziah just over one in nonaccession year reckoning (22:52); thus, the twenty-five year reign of Jehoshaphat extends to the fifth year of Ahab’s son Joram.

18. The text is not clear (see BHS); a change in verse division would say “a deputy of King Jehoshaphat made Tarshish-style ships to journey to Ophir for gold” (22:48b–49). For this type of ship and the location of Ophir, see the discussion at 10:22.

19. K. Lawson Younger Jr., “Kurkh Monolith,” in Context of Scripture, 2.113A, ii 86b–102.

20. Cf. Cogan, 1 Kings, 498. See appendix B for the chronology of Ahab.

21. Malamat, “The Arameans,” 144–45.

22. It is true that populist agitators such as Michael Moore create political propaganda in the guise of documentary. In an online publication “Slate,” Christopher Hitchens described Michael Moore’s movie Fahrenheit 9/11 as “a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness” (reported by Richard Corliss, “The World According to Michael,” Time 164 (July 12, 2004): 52. Ancient historians should not be compared to manipulation in modern media for election purposes. They saw themselves as prophets carrying out the solemn task of revealing the work of God in the history of the nation.

23. Gideon, for example, refused the offer of kingship with the declaration that only God could be the king over Israel (Judg. 8:22–23).

24. The contrast between the biblical view of kingship and law to that of the other nations is developed by Moshe Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in The Jewish Expression, ed. Judah Goldin (New York: Bantam, 1970), 18–37.

25. The method of communication is not known. A possible solution is that Urim and Thummim encompassed the letters of the alphabet, the name designating the first (ʾ [urim]) and last (t[ummim]) letters (a merism, like A to Z). For discussion see Milgrom, Numbers, 484–86. In support of this is a word found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: ʾwrtwm (1QH 4:6, 23; 18:29). It is probably formed from the words light (ʾwr) and perfect (twm). This would also explain why Urim and Thummin were chosen to represent the alphabet; God first created light (ʾwr) and finally declared creation as completed (tmm).

26. For a summary of this view see Terrance Tiessen, Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World (Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 289–90.

27. Ibid., 337.

28. Speiser, “The Biblical Idea of History in its Common Near Eastern Setting,” 2.

29. Ibid., 2.

30. Psalm 72 is a prayer for the king, with the request that his “dominion [will be] from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth” (72:8, KJV). This prayer concludes the declaration of the king coming to bring peace to the nations in Zech. 9:10. Jesus self-consciously undertook to enact this entry of the king into Jerusalem in his triumphal entry in the Gospels (Matt. 21:1–11; Mark 11:1–11; Luke 19:28–40; John 12:12–19).

31. Stanley Kurtz, “The Church of the Left: Finding Meaning in Liberalism,” The National Review Online (May 31, 2001); see www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz053101.shtml. Kurz is a fellow of the Hudson Institute.

32. Professor David Novak illustrated this point in a lecture entitled “Can One Be Religious and Secular?” at Providence College, Otterburne MB, February 19, 2003.

1. The Old Greek (Lucianic) text gives the synchronism as the twenty-fourth year of Jehoshaphat, to harmonize with the statement that Joram son of Ahab came to reign in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 1:17). For the end of the twenty-five year reign of Jehoshaphat see comments on 1 Kings 22:41–42.

2. For the chronology see Appendix B.

3. K. D. Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” in Context of Scripture, 2.23 line 8.

4. This is the conclusion of Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, 2:174 (#181). They reject the proposal of Cross and Freedman that the Mesha Inscription refers to the midpoint of Joram’s reign, which would be a total of 42 years (Omri 12 years, Ahab 22 years, Ahaziah 2 years, and Joram 6 years).

5. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 349.

6. The phrase zbl bʿl ʾrṣ (“prince lord of the earth”) is found parallel with aliyn bʿl (“exalted lord”) when Anat announces the death of Baal (KTU 1.6 i 41, 42), and repeatedly in the column seeking the fate of Baal (iii 1–2, 8–9, 20–21).

7. Burke O. Long, 2 Kings (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 12–13.

8. The description of Elijah as the “owner of hair” (baʿal śēʿār) refers to his appearance rather than to his wearing a “garment of hair” (NIV). Elijah did have a mantle (cf. 1 Kings 19:13, 19), and perhaps even a hairy one (cf. Zech. 13:4), but the tradition taken up by John the Baptist as part of his costume developed in later times (Matt. 3:4). If all the prophets had worn a hairy garment, the king could not have recognized immediately that his messengers had encountered Elijah.

9. The Greek text does not include the synchronism to Jehoram but has here four extra verses, most of which are found in the introduction to Joram son of Ahab (2 Kings 3:1–3). These include a synchronism with the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat.

10. DeVries, Prophet against Prophet, 58–59. He includes in this classification the account of the Bethel altar (1 Kings 12:1–32), the famine in the siege against Samaria (2 Kings 6:24–7:17), and the confrontation between Elijah and Baal (1 Kings 17–18).

11. Merle Severy, “The World of Luther,” National Geographic 164/4 (October 1983): 418–63.

12. Ibid., 449.

13. Thomas C. Berg, “Religious Life in the Catacombs,” America 190/19 (June 2004): 17–18.

1. Chronicles has a further confrontation with Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, after the revolt of Edom, sent in the form of a letter (2 Chron. 21:1–15). For a discussion of the chronological arrangement of Kings, see the introduction.

2. Simon DeVries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 233–34, 275–76.

3. Zevit counts Gilgal as among a possible seventeen temples in Iron Age Israel, all characterized by a lack of uniformity (The Religions of Ancient Israel, 254–55). Literary allusion to a temple is indicated when a sacrifice is said to be done “before the LORD” (cf. 1 Sam. 11:15).

4. Mark F. Rooker, “Gilgal,” NIDOTTE, 4:683–84. It may be the location of the present Jiljilia. The geographical movements, which apparently began at Mount Carmel (2 Kings 1:9; cf. 1 Kings 18:20), end at that same location (2 Kings 2:25), demonstrating the transference of prophetic authority from Elijah to Elisha.

5. The Hiphil perfect (heḥ^ešû) should be read an imperative (HALAT, 1:347).

6. H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 1:7–8.

7. The translation “Where now is the LORD” (NIV) follows the Greek translation in reading ʾēpôʾ, rather than the awkward Masoretic text “even he” (ʾap hûʾ ), which is connected to the following clause.

8. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, 2 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988), 36. Identification of the spring was made by Edward Robinson in 1838.

9. It is usually assumed that the Greek translates m^ešakk^elîm rather than the Masoretic text m^ešakkālet (the feminine modifies “land”). In both instances (vv. 19, 21) the use of the word is grammatically problematic.

10. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 477–78.

11. Jones (1 & 2 Kings, 2:388–89) compares this to sowing a city with salt as a ritual act of separation (cf. Judg. 9:45), in this case separating Jericho from the curse of Joshua. Hobbs (2 Kings, 23) suggests that Abimelech used salt to curse a city while Elisha used salt to restore it.

12. For a discussion of “until this day,” see the introduction.

13. Leigh Eric Schmidt, “Elisha’s Locks and the She-Bears,” Journal of Reform Judaism 34 (1987): 25–26.

14. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (WBC 13; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 18.

15. Josephus echoes the Greek translation of the death of Moses, likening the unknown location of the burial place (taphē) of Moses with the end (teleute) of Elijah (Ant. 9.28). In that same paragraph he compares the departure of Elijah with that of Enoch and implicitly with that of Moses, saying that no one knows of his death.

16. See J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962), 69–71.

17. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 25–26.

18. Judith M. Hadley, “Elijah and Elisha,” NIDOTTE, 4:572, citing Wesley J. Berger in Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary Perspective (ed. R. B. Coote, 1992).

19. See the article on “Apostolic Succession” and the article on “Roman Catholicism” in Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

20. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 358–59.

21. See, e.g., The Community Rule 8.5–10, 9.6, 11.9; The Damascus Document 3.19.

22. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 365.

1. The stone, just over three feet high, was discovered by missionary Klein in 1868 in the vicinity of Dibon in the Transjordan. Translation and commentary is provided in Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, no. 181. A translation by W. F. Albright is provided in Pritchard, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, 209–10; the stele is illustrated in plate 74.

2. For the geography of the various places named in the stele see Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 580–81, and map 18.

3. J. Gamberoni, “,” TDOT, 8:485–86.

4. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 256–59.

5. The text of these verses is problematic; for discussion see Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 116.

6. The numbers are high and may have been intended to indicate total submission of Moab. Thutmose III lists a vast booty taken from the city of Megiddo; livestock includes 1,929 cows, 2,000 goats, and 20,500 sheep (Context of Scripture, 2.2A 96–102a).

7. The idiom “my people as your people, my horses as your horses” (cf. 1 Kings 22:4) emphasizes the unity of purpose in the alliance, not a “what is mine is yours” nuance (NEB).

8. It is not at all unusual for the same official to be referred to as a deputy in a chronistic source (as 1 Kings 22:48) and a king in a prophetic narrative (as 2 Kings 3:9). The meaning of terms is determined by the genre in which they are used. In the Tel Fekharye inscription the local ruler is referred to as “king of Gozan” in the Aramaic text, but “governor” in the Akkadian text (see Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 44–45).

9. For discussion see Anson F. Rainey et al., The Sacred Bridge (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 204–5. The Moabite stone boasts that Mesha conquered Hauronen, but the text is too broken to indicate more than that. Since its purpose was to glorify Mesha and his deity, it naturally makes no reference to the invasion by Israel and its allies.

10. Translation of Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 333 (Appendix I).

11. The tendency of translations to capitalize spirit as a translation of ruach (e.g. NIV) is a distortion of the Hebrew metaphor, which does nothing more than describe this power as an unseen force like wind.

12. The infinitive absolute (ʿāśōh) should not be translated as an imperative (NIV), because in this instance it does nothing more than indicate the immediacy of inspiration on the prophet (Burney, The Books of Kings, 269–70; GKC 113ff). No human intervention is necessary (v. 17), and the appearance of the water is not in artificially constructed trenches (vv. 22–23).

13. These sudden rushes of water could be life threatening; Israel would have been swallowed up by its enemies like a traveler by a torrential flood if Yahweh had not delivered them (Ps. 124:3–5).

14. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 361.

15. Hobbs (2 Kings, 37) thinks that the Moabites have lost the tactical advantage and are now facing east, as the coalition army has circumvented them and entered the land.

16. The use of the preposition usually meaning “to” (ʾel), and the unusual verb (bqʿ ) usually meaning “divide, cut,” has led to various speculations. Long proposes that the Edomites have deserted to Moab during the long campaign, and the two armies are attempting to ally (“2 Kings III and the Genres of Prophetic Narrative,” VT 23 [1973]: 340–41). But the context indicates that the Moabites attempt to break through an army line to escape rather than to ally.

17. This explanation is followed by Y. Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, 4th ed. (Jerusalem: Carta, 2002), 99; see also Rainey, The Sacred Bridge, 205.

18. “Only [raq] not as his father and mother, but he removed [wayyāsar] the pillar of Baal …” (v. 2) has a precise parallel in “only [raq] he clung to the sin of Jeroboam, … he did not turn [sār] from it” (v. 3).

19. See T. Longman, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:786.

20. Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 39.

21. See Tremper Longman III, “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,” JETS 27 (1984): 267–74.

22. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 17.

23. Hans Wildberger, Jesaja Kapitel 31–27, 2nd ed. (BKAT 10/2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 900.

24. Childs, Isaiah, 185.

25. As reported by Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament, 33.

26. Ibid., 33–34.

27. August H. Konkel, “Christians in Conflict and at Peace,” The Messenger 40/6 (March 27, 2002): 3.

28. Rainey et al., The Sacred Bridge, 205.

29. Short was interviewed by Jim Wallis in “Lies Leaders Tell,” Sojourners Magazine 33 (January 2004): 20.

30. Wrath (qeṣep) describes punishment against wrongdoers. The wrath of God must be intented; to attribute the wrath to Chemosh, god of Moab, would grant a foreign deity equal status and suggest that the sacrifice of Mesha’s son was in some sense efficacious. The wrath of the God of Israel was not because of the sacrifice, since it obviously was made to Chemosh.

31. The city has been identified with a strategic plateau above wadi Kerak, mentioned on the sixth century Madeba mosaic map, though actual archaeological confirmation is scarce.

32. Most translations do not distinguish a point that seems to be significant in Hebrew in v. 19; Elisha did not strictly declare that the cities of Moab would be “overthrown” (NIV). Elisha said the Israelites would strike every fortified city (w^ehikkîtem kol ʿ’îr mibṣār), which need not mean “overthrow”; see Raymond Westbrook, “Elisha’s True Prophecy in 2 Kings 3,” JBL 124 (2005): 530–32. The report (v. 25) says the Israelites overthrew all the cities (w^ehe_ʿārîm yah^arōsû), with the exception of Kir Hareseth. They did strike it (wayyakkûhā) with the stones of the slingers, but this was rather harmless on a large fortified city.

33. Bartosz Jalowiecki, “Lies the Germans Tell Themselves,” Commentary 117 (January 2004): 43.

34. D. N. Freedman regards the conclusion of the account as a comment indicting a hated Israelite dynasty: “In spite of the prophet and the decision of God against the Moabites, in the end, Jehoram was not allowed to enjoy the fruits of the victory, but had to retreat precipitately” (noted by Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 52).

1. In contrast to other occurrences of this expression, here it is nothing more than a specific time identifier as the day of the event (DeVries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 235). It is used to facilitate transitions in the narrative.

2. “A prominent theme in the political legends is Elisha’s ability to save the nation when the king has failed” (Marsha White, “Elisha,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 399).

3. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1913), 4:240–42.

4. The unusual feminine endings and the rare word for a jar (ʾasûk) of oil (v. 2) may be relics of the dialect of northern Israel (Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 60).

5. The Piel form of the verb (myṣqt) is found only in this verse; the Masoretic vocalization (qere) is Hiphil.

6. It is on the slopes of the Hill of Moreh (Teacher’s Hill), the area where the Midianites encamped before Gideon’s attack. It is identified as the modern Sôlem; see Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #75.

7. Gray (1 & 2 Kings, 494) notes that in Arabic times it was crowned with a saint’s tomb, possibly indicating the ancient sanctity of the location.

8. See Genesis 27:33 for the same expression, as Isaac responds to Esau just after he has blessed Jacob. The context in Kings suggests concern, effort, and respect.

9. Montgomery (The Books of Kings, 368) observes the various nuances of the word come (bôʾ ) used to depict the movements of the woman in relation to Elisha.

10. “At the time of reviving” (kāʿet ḥayyâ) probably refers to spring (cf. Gen. 18:10, 14), distinguishing it from the explicit “same time next year” (Gen. 17:21). Alternately, the idiom may be equivalent to the Akkadian ana balat, “to life,” meaning next year at the same time.

11. The posture of Elisha on the bed is described as “crouching” (ghr), the same verb used to describe the posture of Elijah praying for rain with his head between his knees (1 Kings 18:42).

12. Mark Phelps, “ I,” NIDOTTE, 1:1155. The root zrr appears to be closely related to zwr, used to describe the expulsion of pus (Isa. 1:6). The Aramaic used the same word in this verse as it did for the sneezes of Leviathan (Job 41:18); the Latin has “yawned,” and the Greek omits the word.

13. Montgomery (The Books of Kings, 369) suggests that the noun y^ešibâ, meaning session or academy, a technical term used to this day, may be related to the verb yāšab, which describes the sons of the prophets before Elisha.

14. The rare Hebrew word for “herb” (ʾōrâ) is probably related to the verb ʾrh, meaning pluck (Ps. 80:12; Song 5:1).

15. A member of the citrullus colcynthus; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 58.

16. See Burke O. Long, “The Shunammite Woman: In the Shadow of the Prophet,” Bible Review 7/1 (1991): 12–19, 42. Sometimes referred to as deconstruction, this type of reading focuses on interests of the reader; it observes aspects of the narrative that subtly determine the force of its central theme.

17. Montgomery notes the difficulty that the Greek translators had with this verb (The Books of Kings, 372); if the word shares an etymology with the Arabic root for “fight” (the noun jihad is used for holy war), it might indicate a vigorous motion, a nuance apparently known to the Greek translators (diakamptô).

18. The similarity of these stories to magic makers in other cultures has been noted, though to be sure, similarity of phenomena does not indicate similarity of cause. For comparisons with “shamanism,” see T. W. Overholt, “Seeing Is Believing: The Social Setting of Prophetic Acts of Power,” JSOT 23 (1982): 3–31. Overholt views these “acts of power” as legitimating the authority of the prophets concerned, as they received responses of affirmation from their supporters. African parallels have also been cited; see E. R. Wendland, “Elijah and Elisha: Sorcerers or Witch Doctors? Tonga Interpretation,” BT 43 (1992): 213–23.

19. Gordon Sinclair Jr., “Some Dreams Will Never Be Forgotten; Infertile Couples Know Both Hope … and Sorrow,” Winnipeg Free Press (June 28, 2003), C3.

20. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 54.

21. See www.watoto.com.

22. See www.echonet.org.

23. Warren and Bonnie Toles, a Canadian business couple residing half time in Florida, have facilitated the link between the two organizations. This took place in October, 2004.

1. The Hebrew word group ṣrʿ forms a generic term for a variety of cutaneous diseases, most of which were benign (R. K. Harrison, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:846–47). The signs and symptoms of leprosy in Leviticus are generally considered to preclude Hansen’s disease (Elephantiasis Graecorum), with its symptomatic swellings, facial distortions, and mutilations; see further Gordon G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1979), 189–214; Milgrom, “Scale Disease,” Leviticus 1–16, 816–26.

2. The verb “gather” (ʾsp) is used for readmission into the community (cf. Num. 12:14–15) and can also mean “heal”; Milgrom, Numbers, 99. Gray (1 & 2 Kings, 505, following Montgomery) is in error in linking ʾsp to the Akkadian noun āšiptu(m), meaning exorcist. The noun is found in the list of conjurers in the court of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 1:20; 2:2), but there is no verb form; see Wolfram von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Lieferung 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz; 1981), 1485–86; CAD A 2.431–35.

3. The form of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic letters has been studied extensively from extant samples. This example is limited to mention of the letter (sēper), the sending of the letter (šālaḥ), and a brief summary of its contents (vv. 5–6). The transition from the greeting to the contents follows the standard formal transition in the phrase “and now” (w^eʿattâ), paraphrased as “with this letter” (NIV). For a brief analysis see Hobbs, 2 Kings, 62.

4. The shekel was a standard weight for measure; the name is a cognate of the verb for weigh (šql). The talent was sixty minas, and the mina fifty shekels in the Palestinian system. A shekel weighs about 4/10 oz. (10–13 grams). The sets of clothing (NIV) are rolls of cloth used as payment rather than garments ready to wear.

5. The four hundred prophets of Ahab agreed unanimously that he should go to make war against Ramoth Gilead (1 Kings 22:6). If it had not been for the presence of Jehoshaphat, who represented another country, the national prophets would have been unanimous in their support of the king.

6. The river takes its name from the mountain, known as Amanah in the only other biblical reference (Song 4:8) and in all extrabiblical references.

7. The Hebrew term ṣemed refers to a team of animals, yoked together for work such as plowing a field (cf. 1 Kings 19:19). The mule (pered) was a hybrid offspring of the stallion and female donkey, the Akkadian perdum (Michael S. Moore and Michael L. Brown, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:675–76). The mule is a royal animal (cf. 1 Kings 1:33, 38, 44); their presence with Naaman is an indication of their strength and common use as beasts of burden.

8. For the name Rimmon as thunder, see comment on 1 Kings 15:18.

9. Robert Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” VT 33 (1983): 179.

10. The two “bags” in which the silver is packed are large pieces of cloth, otherwise listed among women’s apparel (Isa. 3:22). Gevirtz (“ḥereṭ in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf,” Bib 65 [1984]: 377–81) thinks that this same word is found in Ex. 32:4 for a cloth Aaron used to gather up the gold for the calf, much like the procedure of Gideon (cf. Judg. 8:25).

11. The city is not named, but the citadel (ʿōpel) would be part of the capital; Gehazi, like his master, must have had a residence within the fortifications of the royal residence.

12. The idiom ʾānâ wāʾānâ (lit., “here and there”) is deliberately ambiguous. In the prohibition against Shimei (1 Kings 2:36, 42), it meant nowhere outside of Jerusalem. The answer of Gehazi suggests he had not gone anywhere in particular (“out and about”).

13. Robert Cohn shows how art and theology are “symbiotically related” in this story (“Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 171–84).

14. D. P. O’Brien, “‘Is This the Time to Accept …?’ (2 Kings V 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) of an Ominous Foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” VT 46 (1996): 448–57.

15. Pritchard, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, 226–31; figs. 108, 110.

16. For a study of the relationship between the Hymn to Aten and Psalm 104 see P. Dion, “YHWH as Storm-god and Sun-god: The Double Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104,” ZAW 103/1 (1991): 43–71.

17. Childs, Isaiah, 505.

18. “Wash and Be Clean,” Ecumenical Review 49/4 (1997): 467.

19. The archbishop visited Winnipeg in October, 2004; he addressed a student assembly at the university.

20. Andrew Walls, “Christian Scholarship in Africa in the Twenty-first Century,” Journal of African Christian Thought (December 2001): 46.

21. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29 (2005): 113.

22. Anatoliy M. Ablazhei, “The Religious Worldview of the Indigenous Population of the Northern Ob’ as Understood by Christian Missionaries,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29 (2005): 134–39.

23. Jennifer M. Trafton, “The Legacy of Samuel Bacon Fairbank,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29 (2005): 144–49.

24. Lai Ling Elizabeth Ngan, “2 Kings 5,” RevEx 94 (1997): 593.

25. Gerhard von Rad, “Naaman: A Critical Reading,” in God at Work in Israel, trans. John H. Marks (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 54.

1. The Hebrew phrase way^ehî ’aḥ^arê kēn, translated “some time later” (NIV), has no chronological significance; it is a narrative technique to transition to a sequel, a story from another place and time. In 2 Samuel, where events are arranged around topics, it is correctly translated “in the course of time” (NIV; cf. 2 Sam. 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:18).

2. For a discussion of the expression “sitting before him” (v. 1), see comments on 4:38.

3. For the artistic elements of the narrative see Robert LaBarbera, “The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in 2 Kings 6:8–7:20,” CBQ 46 (1984): 639–45.

4. The anomalous taḥ^anōtî of the Masoretic text, paraphrased as “I will set up my camp” (NIV), is an error for the verb attack (nḥt), repeated in the warning of Elisha (v. 9), about where the Arameans are “going down” (NIV). The verb is also found as a military term for attack in the prophets (cf. Jer. 21:13; Joel 3:11). The text should say tinḥ^atû.

5. The Masoretic adjective “descending” (n^eḥittîm) should be vocalized as a participle of the verb (nōḥ^atîm).

6. Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelite/Midianite caravan in the pastureland of Dothan (Gen. 37:13–25). The Iron Age II remains at Dothan are the most significant, including several domestic and public buildings. A major ninth-century destruction may be associated with the Arameans.

7. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 74.

8. The same affliction struck the predators at Lot’s door (Gen. 19:11). The sense is known from the Akkadian (šunwārum), “to make the eye (vision) sharp” (CAD N 1.218), a derivative of nāmaru (cf. the Hebrew root mwr), used of gleaming metal (e.g., a mirror).

9. See Jones, 1 & 2 Kings, 2:430–31.

10. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 384.

11. Fuller, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:384–85. Israel derived its measures of capacity from Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and West Semitic sources. Ratios between capacities are found in biblical and postbiblical sources. Amounts can only be approximately calculated and they varied between regions and over time (like the American and Canadian gallon).

12. See Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 518; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 79.

13. The Masoretic text says the messenger (malʾāk) arrived (v. 33), but this is a textual error for the king (melek); this is evident in the sequel, which repeats the words of Elisha’s pronouncement to the king (7:17–18).

14. For documentation on normal costs of food see Jonas C. Greenfeld, “Dove’s Dung and the Price of Food: The Topoi of 2 Kings 6:24–7:2,” in Storia e tradizioni di Israele: scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin, ed. Daniele Garrone (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1991), 123–25. Ashurbanipal boasts that ten homers of barley could be bought for a shekel; if the shekel had the same value in Israel, the relief announced by Elisha was not great.

15. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 326–27 (see note 461). The reference to Hittites appears to be a popular anachronism.

16. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 25; as far as Gaza rainfall “suffices for growing good crops of grain on the plains.”

17. See Roland de Vaux, Social Institutions (vol. 1 of Ancient Israel; New York: McGraw Hill, 1965), 124; K. H. Henry, “Land Tenure in the Old Testament,” PEQ 86 (1954): 10–13.

18. The Hebrew scribes changed “go, say to him (lw), you will live,” to “go, say ‘you will not (lʾ ) live.’” The change was simply the exchange of one letter, made in the interests of protecting the integrity of Elisha. The correct reading is preserved in the qere (the word vocalization) as well as all of the versions.

19. As suggested by Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 214.

20. The subject of the first half of the verse is not specified; Elisha may be the subject of the stare, the shame, and the weeping (NEB), or a change of subject can be indicated by inserting the name Hazael (NIV). The “man of God” is named as the one weeping, an indication of a change of subject for the second half of the verse. This is the interpretation followed by Josephus (Ant. 9.90).

21. The word for cloth (makbēr) is related to the netted fleece of goat hair (kābîr), which Michal used to provide disguise for David in his bed (1 Sam. 19:13, 16).

22. Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäsche Inschriften #202 (side A line 4); the name Hazael is also found in another Aramean fragment (#232).

23. A translation of the annalistic text is given in Pritchard, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, 191.

24. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 538, lines 448–50.

25. Longman and Reid, God is a Warrior, 33–47.

26. Simon J. DeVries, “Temporal Terms as Structural Elements in the Holy War Tradition,” VT 25 (1975): 103

27. Alexander Rofé, “Elisha Dothan (2 Kings 6:8–23): Historico-Literary Criticism Sustained by the Midrash,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert Chazan (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 348, 352.

28. Hugh S. Pyper, “Judging the Wisdom of Solomon: The Two-Way Effect of Intertextuality,” JSOT 59 (1993): 25–36, argues that the second story qualifies the first, to say that the wise and the wicked are not readily evident and that the monarchy fails as all human enterprise must fail.

29. Stuart Lasine, “The Ups and Downs of Monarchical Justice: Solomon and Jehoram in an Intertextual World,” JSOT 59 (1993): 37–53.

30. G. Henton Davies, “The Balance of Freedom,” Int 6 (1952): 417–19.

31. Ibid., 416.

32. Edgar Chen and David Marcus, “When Famine Becomes a Murder Weapon,” National Post (July 19, 2003), A19.

33. Ibid.

34. Stuart Lasine, “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6:24–33): Solomon’s Judgment in an Inverted World,” JSOT 50 (1991): 48–49.

35. Gina Hens-Piazza, “Forms of Violence and the Violence of Forms: Two Cannibal Mothers before a King (2 Kings 6:24–33),” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 14 (1998): 95–96.

36. Greenfield, “Doves’ Dung and the Price of Food,” 125–26.

37. Ibid.

38. Stewart delivered the convocation at Knox College of the University of Toronto on May 12, 2004. The address was posted on the Knox website: http://www.utoronto.ca/knox/pages/News%20and%20Events/brian_stewart.htm. Stewart has received the Gemini Award as “Best Overall Broadcast Journalist” as well as numerous other awards. As a foreign correspondent he has covered many of the world’s conflicts, reporting from nine war zones from El Salvador to Beirut.

39. Ibid.

1. See Appendix B for the double synchronisms of Jehoram and Joram and the subsequent textual traditions that arose. A coregency of Jehoram with his father Jehoshaphat best accounts for these synchronisms.

2. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 100.

3. The name ṣʿr in Isa. 15:5 is written as ṣʿwr in 1QIsa^a, a further indication that ṣʿwr in 2 Kings 8:21 means Zoar.

4. Some translations adopt an emendation; instead of Jehoram attacking the Edomites (wykh ʾt ʾdwm), it is the Edomites who attack Jehoram (wykh ʾtw ʾdwm). The subject of the night raid is ambiguous; the nearest antecedent is Jehoram, but the context makes evident that Jehoram is surrounded by the Edomites and flees. It may be translated to say that the “Edomites surrounded him and his chariot commanders, but he rose up and broke through by night; his army, however, fled back home” (NIV). This makes Edom the initial aggressor, but involves a more radical emendation of transposing clauses.

5. Cogan and Tadmor (2 Kings, 98) suggest the number twelve (štym ʿśrh) may have developed from the Aramaic form of eleven (_ʿśty _ʿśrh; cf. 2 Kings 25:2).

6. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 97, 101.

7. Customarily the founder’s name is commemorated in the dynastic title: “house of Saul (2 Sam. 3:1; 9:1); “house of David” (1 Kings 12:19; 13:2); but in the case of Omri it is “house of Ahab” (2 Kings 9:7–9; 10:10–11; 21:13).

8. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 400.

9. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 111.

10. See comments on 1 Kings 14:10 for the idiom describing the destruction of the royal family (v. 8).

11. The word has a wide range of usage denoting erratic and unusual behavior, such as uncontrolled driving (2 Kings 9:20; Zech. 12:4) or insanity (1 Sam. 21:14–15).

12. Ussishkin, “Jezreel, Samaria and Megiddo,” 362. Jezreel is ideally located as a fortification because of its location on a summit near the valley and the major roads, with provisions for water and animal fodder.

13. The expression “what do you have to do with peace” is a way of stating that the two have nothing to do with each other (cf. 2 Sam. 16:10; 19:22).

14. Though the Leningrad text lacks the interrogative, it should be included as indicated by most texts and the versions; pace Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 221.

15. S. Olyan, “H^ašalôm: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9,” CBQ 46 (1984): 666–67.

16. Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #131 (p. 99), show the journey from Ramoth-Gilead across the Jordan to Jezreel, then across the valley to Beth Haggan.

17. EA, 250; see Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 175. In the Amarna age, the Egyptians, at the same location, killed Labʾayu, king of Shechem, as he attempted to flee.

18. Ibleam is named in the roster of Canaanite towns of Thutmose III (ibid., 160).

19. The Chronicler says that Ahaziah was found in Samaria and was killed there (2 Chron. 22:8, 9). Williamson thinks that this is a theological statement on the part of the Chronicler and not an alternate historical source; 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 311–12.

20. For the ascension notice as the “eleventh year” (9:29), see comments on 8:25.

21. The attendants (sārîsîm) are eunuchs, clearly attested in the cuneiform descriptions; Cogan and Tadmor provide a thorough discussion of the term (2 Kings, 112).

22. So Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 291, 407; see comments on 1 Kings 16:31.

23. Compare the seventy sons of Jerub-Baal (Judg. 9:5) or forty sons and thirty daughters of Abdon (12:14). Bar-rakib, king of Samʾal, states that his father Panammu took the throne by killing his father and his “seventy” brothers (Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäsche Inschriften, #215, 3).

24. This interpretation of the name assumes an Arabic meaning of ʿqd (meet together); the Targum also supports this interpretation. The only known Hebrew meaning of ʿqd, also known in Arabic, is “bind” (cf. Gen. 22:9). For the traditional location see Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 409; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 114.

25. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 128.

26. Ibid. An ellipsis must be assumed to read the text as it stands.

27. The number may be traditional; cf. Judg. 12:6; 2 Kings 2:24.

28. The Kenites were a southern nomadic tribe linked to Moses (Judg. 4:11), known for their skill with metal (cf. Gen. 4:22). In 1 Chron. 2:55 the genealogy must mean that the Kenites come from a place called Hammath, with which the Recabites were also identified (see Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary, 90).

29. See F. S. Frick, “The Rechabites Reconsidered,” JBL 90 (1971): 279–87; idem, “Rechab,” ABD, 5:630–32; Hobbs, 2 Kings, 128–29.

30. Shrine (d^ebîr) is probably to be read for the enigmatic “city” (ʿîr), which otherwise must have a meaning unknown elsewhere. Wiseman suggests that after purging the temple they go out to “the city of the temple” (1 & 2 Kings, 228). The difficulty with the expression may be seen in a main Greek codex (Alexandrinus), which translates “city of the king.”

31. A review of the unity of the story is provided by Saul Olyan, “H^ašalôm: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9,” 654–59. The conclusion of the reign of Ahaziah serves the Deuteronomistic purpose (9:28–29), but the repetitions of the transition are less easily explained (8:15–16, 28–29).

32. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 113.

33. Olyan, “H^ašalôm: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9,” 664–68.

34. S. Parker, in “Jezebel’s Reception of Jehu,” Maarav 1 (1978): 67–78, depicts the scene as one of seduction, suggesting that zmr (Zimri) is derived from the root meaning strong.

35. Nadav Naʾaman, “Jehu Son of Omri: Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by his Overlord,” PEQ 48 (1998): 236–38.

36. See the Bridging Contexts section of 2 Kings 3:1–27 for a discussion of the stages of the divine warrior theme in the history of Israel.

37. E. Theodore Mullen Jr., “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings,” JBL 107 (1988): 194–99. For the nature and function of the royal grant see M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203.

38. Michael Moore provides an alternate reading of the prophetic assessment of Jehu in Kings. He thinks the anointing and coronation of Jehu by unknown persons are a prophetic parody on Jehu, similar to the debate between Kothar-wa-Hasis and Baal over his kingship; he finds further analogies between Anat and the purge of Jehu; see “Jehu’s Coronation and Purge of Israel,” VT 53 (2003): 97–114.

39. Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea, 2nd ed. (BKAT 14/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 19–20.

40. Francis I Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 179.

41. Robert P. Maloney, “On Being Gentle and Firm,” America 188 (April 2003): 21.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. William T. Cavanaugh, “Dying for the Eucharist or Being Killed by It? Romero’s Challenge to First-World Christians,” Theology Today 58/2 (2001): 178.

45. G. Leibholz, “Memoir,” in The Cost of Discipleship, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer; rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 30.

46. Franklin Sherman, “Bonhoeffer, Dietrich,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia, 15th ed., 3:30–31.

47. Leibholz, “Memoir,” 28.

48. Ibid., 23; translated by J. B. Leishaman.

49. Cavanaugh, “Dying for the Eucharist,” 177.

50. Cavanaugh cites Anna Peterson, Martyrdom and the Politics of Religion: Progressive Catholicism in El Salvador’s Civil War (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1997), 123.

51. Oscar Romero, The Violence of Love: The Pastoral Wisdom of Archbishop Oscar Romero, ed. James R. Brockman (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 241.

1. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 104–5.

2. For discussion with bibliography see Ktziah Spanier, “The Northern Israelite Queen Mother in the Judaean Court: Athaliah and Abi,” in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb, and Sharon Keller (JSOTSup 273; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 141–43.

3. Tamar was under the protection of her brother Absalom (2 Sam. 13); Tamar is also the name of the daughter of Absalom (2 Sam. 14:27), but in the tradition of Old Greek the daughter of Absalom was Maacah (cf. 1 Kings 15:2).

4. See comments on 1 Kings 1:38. The other guards (lit., “the runners”) serve as the official bodyguards (cf. 1:5; 14:27).

5. As is evident from variations in the translations, there are textual problems and ambiguities in the text describing the stationing of the temple guards (vv. 5–7).

6. “Shield” (šeleṭ) is a comparatively rare word variously translated. The war scroll from Qumran speaks of “darts” launched against the enemy. Synonymous with the blade of the spear is that of the “quiver” (šlṭ) used to fell the enemy (1QM 6.3); for a translation see Martin Abegg, “The War Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, ed. M. Abegg, M. Wise, and E. Cook (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 56. “Quiver” in that context is probably metonymy for the darts it contained.

7. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 579–80; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 2:485–86.

8. According to Josephus, “Jehoiada called together the people and the soldiers to affirm the king by oath, and to provide for his safety” (Ant. 9.153).

9. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 136; Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 132; Long, 2 Kings, 146–47.

10. The Hebrew chapter division ends with verse 20.

11. Peter Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 37.

12. For the conscious literary repetitions linking the two stories, see Block, “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature,” 325–41.

13. For Christ as the fulfillment of the end-time temple in the Gospels, see Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 169–200.

14. For the use of the Greek term peripoiçsis as a translation of the Hebrew s^egullâ (”treasured possession”), see Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford, 1897; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 2:1125.

15. For a discussion of the name Peter, see Contemporary Significance section of 2 Kings 2.

16. Polycarp is the Christian martyr whose story is preserved in written documentation in Martyrdom of Polycarp, a letter from the Church of Smyrna (see the document in any edition of the Apostolic Fathers).

17. Reported by Charles W. Moore, “Is Christianity Incompatible with Morality?” in Christian Week, ed. Doug Koop (Fellowship for Print Witness; September 16, 2003), 3.

18. Ibid.

19. The story of the Mennonite church was obtained by personal interview with the president of Meserete Kristos College in Addis Ababa, Hailu Cherenet Biru, and the Director of Resource Development, Bedru Hussein Muktar.

1. The verse numbering of the English versions follows the Greek, which includes the first element of the summary (the age of Joash) with the previous chapter. Chronicles follows the usual chapter division.

2. Montgomery (The Books of Kings, 426–27) observes that the introduction of Joash at age seven provides a literary connection with the previous account of Jehoiada installing the young king at age seven (11:4).

3. Logan S. Wright, “MKR in 2 Kings xii 5–17 and Deuteronomy xviii 8,” VT 39 (1989): 441–42.

4. For a discussion of the reparation and purgation offerings see Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 13–16; idem, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983), 70–74.

5. Wright, “MKR in 2 Kings xii 5–7 and Deuteronomy xviii 8,” 443–44.

6. The rare word makkār is to be related to the verb “to sell” (mkr) and not to the word “neighbor” (nkr) and translated as “acquaintance” (KJV, RSV).

7. The Hebrew text indicates two census taxes, one for entering the register and a second as a “valuation of persons,” as was done in the payment of vows (cf. Lev. 27:1–8). The text is not certain and may contain a conflated reading.

8. Nadav Naʾaman, “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah,” VT 48 (1998): 337–40.

9. For a discussion on cities named Gath and their locations see B. Mazar, “Tell Gath,” IEJ 6 (1956): 258–59. Aharoni, et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #133, suggest that Hazael attacks Gath-rimmon/Gittim to the north of Ekron and Philistine Gath. For Gath as Tell es-Sâfïl, see J. P. J. Olivier, “Gath,” NIDOTTE, 4:651–52. Aren M. Maeir proposes archaeological evidence for an attack of Hazael at Philistine Gath mentioned in Kings: “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Sâfïl/Gath,” VT 54 (2004): 320–37.

10. The Greek has Jezechar for the first name (cf. RSV).

11. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 326.

12. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 854.

13. The Hebrew of 2 Kings 12:2 says that Joash does what is right all his days just as Jehoiada taught him (RSV, NEB, NLT), not all the years while Jehoiada taught him (NIV). The NIV translation requires an emendation of the Kings text (the removal of the suffix that refers to the entire time that Joash ruled).

14. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 323–24; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 849.

15. Cornelius J. Dyck, “Mennonites,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed. (Macropaedia, 1974), 11:904.

16. Cornelius J. Dyck, Spiritual Life in Anabaptism (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1995), 14–15.

17. Ibid., 15.

18. Ibid., 114.

1. Benjamin Mazar, “The Aramean Empire and Its Relations with Israel,” BA 25 (1962): 115.

2. The evidence for the first campaign is discussed by William H. Shea, “Adad-Nirari III and Jehoash of Israel,” JCS 30 (1978): 104–9. These include the Sheik Hammad Stela, a fragmentary stone slab, the Shabaʾa Stela, and the Rimah Stela.

3. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 167–68.

4. For a defense of this thesis see R. P. Carroll, “Elijah and Elisha Sagas,” VT 19 (1969): 400–415.

5. It is also possible that the word for “thousand” (ʾelep) is used in the sense of contingents, as is often the case in the Deuteronomistic History. In that case the army of Jehoahaz is just a few hundred soldiers; Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 604.

6. A possible reconciliation of this data because of a switch to the accession year system in Judah during Amaziah’s reign and in Israel during Jehoash’s reign is discussed in appendix B.

7. For translation and comment, see S. Page, “Joash and Samaria in a New Stela Excavated at Tell al Rimah, Iraq,” VT 19 (1969): 483–84.

8. Shea, “Adad-Nirari III and Jehoash of Israel,” 106–8.

9. Ibid., 111–13.

10. See comments on 2:12.

11. For other views see Friebel, “A Hermeneutical Paradigm for Interpreting Prophetic Sign-Actions,” 25–45. Though similar practices are known among other cultures as a kind of magical power, magic is contrary to the theology of Deuteronomy.

12. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 605–6. Aramean control may explain stratum VIII–VII at Hazor, in which the former fortress became a mainly residential city with ordinary houses.

13. Ibid., 614.

14. Details of the coregency are discussed in appendix B. The point that Ahaziah lives (but does not reign) for fifteen years after Azariah is made king indicates that his last years are ones of coregency (14:17–21).

15. Philip C. Hammond, “Petra,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1042. In spite of ancient tradition supporting this view, it is unlikely that Amaziah penetrates this far south; the port Elath is not taken until the time of Azariah (14:22). Ancient Petra was known as Reqem; the rock was probably Silaʿ, 2.5 miles (4 km) northwest of Buseirah (Rainey et al., The Sacred Bridge, 216).

16. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 344.

17. Ibid., 40; Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #52.

18. It was located in district II of Solomon’s administration (cf. 1 Kings 4:9). Beth Shemesh was situated on the southern side of the valley to control access to the interior of Judah.

19. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 442–43. This is indicated by the emphatic pronoun at the start of the sentence (hw’).

20. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 115.

21. This coregency is discussed in the chronology of appendix B.

22. Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, 103.

23. Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäsche Inschriften, #24, 2.

24. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 162.

25. M. Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” VT 17 (1967): 296–97.

26. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 602–3.

27. The requirement of the transition is seen in the abbreviated version found in the Old Greek text.

28. For the expression “whether slave or free,” see comments on 1 Kings 14:10. The metaphor is a way of referring to qualified leadership.

29. The first fragment, apparently a part of a large monumental inscription, was found in July, 1993; the second fragment, in two pieces, was found in June, 1994.

30. For a defense of this expression as an Aramaic territorial expression for Judah see Gary A. Rendsburg, “On the Writing bytdwd in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” IEJ 45 (1995): 22–25.

31. This is the tentative historical reconstruction of Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” IEJ 45 (1995): 8–11.

32. Jan-Wim Wesselius, “The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan Inscription Reconsidered,” SJOT 13 (1999): 168–69.

33. For an evaluation of the issues see Bob Becking, “Did Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription?” SJOT 13 (1999): 191–201.

34. Anson Rainey proposes a passive form for the word “kill” in Old Aramaic; in his translation the author of the stele does not claim to have personally dispatched the kings of Israel and Judah (The Sacred Bridge, 213).

35. Translation by Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 331.

36. Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” 296.

37. These phrases are drawn from the lyrics of Bruce Cockburn.

38. Note that the NIV uses the translation “prudent” here.

39. Gary V. Smith, “Amos 5:13: The Deadly Silence of the Prosperous,” JBL 107 (1988): 291.

40. It is most unfortunate that most translations paraphrase this verse so the connection of the word “evil” is lost. Judgment is evil for God; mercy is evil for Jonah.

41. For a discussion, see G. Liedke, “ (richten),” THAT, 1001–3.

42. The following reflections and quotations are those of John Longhurst, “Welcoming Ex-cons Can Challenge Churches,” Winnipeg Free Press (June 11, 2005), E9.

43. This statement is made in a paper called “Meeting the Challenge: How Churches Should Respond to Sex Offenders” (July 29, 1999).

44. This story with pertinent observations is related by John Longhurst, “The Mystery of Religious Beliefs and Financial Success,” The Winnipeg Free Press (Nov. 15, 2003), E14.

1. See appendix B for the chronological discussion. The synchronism of Azariah indicates the beginning of his sole reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam (15:1).

2. KTU 1.4 viii 7; DeMoor, An Anthology of Texts from Ugarit, 66.

3. K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The Calah Annals,” in The Context of Scripture, 2.117A.

4. Nadav Naʾaman, “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on his Campaign to Judah,” BASOR 214 (1974): 25–39.

5. As proposed by Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” 290–97. The Deuteronomists may have had knowledge of Judah’s sharing in tribute received from northern Aramean states, described as “Judah in Israel” (14:12).

6. W. F. Albright, “The Discovery of an Aramaic Inscription Relating to King Uzziah,” BASOR 44 (1931): 8–10.

7. S. Yeivin, “The Sepulchres of the Kings of the House of David,” JNES 7 (1948): 30–45.

8. Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #105.

9. Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” 284–90.

10. Haran proposes that the reference to Tirzah be deleted as a duplicate from v. 14 (ibid., 290). The syntax is problematic, but the text does not say that Menahem “started out from Tirzah” (NIV), as it does in verse 14.

11. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 171–72. Pulu is a well-attested Assyrian name meaning “limestone (block)” and may have been associated with Pileser in the adaption of the nickname.

12. The inscriptions of Sefire (discovered in a village southeast of Aleppo) record treaties of Mati-ilu, king of Arpad, with neighboring kings (Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäsche Inschriften, #222A, 1, 3, 14; Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 2.82). The treaty of Mati-ilu with Assur-Nirari V is the only extant document of that Assyrian king; see D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press), 1.750.

13. H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 27–89; H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, “Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations,” Bib 60 (1979): 491–92.

14. Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 2.117A.

15. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 142–45. However the circumstances of Menahem paying tribute and the interpretation of the Assyrian records remain inconclusive. Tadmor states that the tribute referred to in 15:19–20 is paid in 740 B.C. or earlier, with other payments made later with the rest of western vassals; see The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pilesar III King of Assyria, 276.

16. According to the Saba’a Stela, the Mari of Damascus brought 100 talents of gold and 1000 talents of silver to Adad Nirari III (Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 2.114E).

17. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 199–200. The text says he delivers or makes payment of silver on behalf of Israel; the term “every wealthy man” (gibbôrê haḥayil) usually means soldier and probably has the same designation here, making them the recipients.

18. D. J. Wiseman, “The Nimrud Tablets, 1953,” Iraq 14 (1952): 135, n. 1.

19. The reference to Argob and Arieh in the Masoretic text is unclear. Argob is a territory in Gilead (Deut. 3:4, 14); often the two names are regarded as displaced from verse 29, where they would be associated with Gilead and read as Argob and Havvoth-Jair (Montgomery, The Books of Kings, 456). The Greek takes them as the names of two outstanding soldiers from Gilead. They may have been portal figures at the gates of Samaria’s palace; Rashi says a golden lion stands in that place.

20. The dates followed here are those of Thiele and adopted by Hallo (“From Qarqar to Carchemish,” 174–76). The case for a rival rule was made by H. J. Cook, “Pekah,” VT 14 (1964): 121–35. The twenty-year reign of Pekah cannot be regarded as a scribal error for two years, as it appears consistent in the biblical synchronisms (cf. 15:32; 16:1). No alternate solution can be offered for dealing with the biblical and Assyrian data in this period; alternate chronologies all make emendations to the chronological data.

21. For a detailed description of the campaigns and the deportations of the Israelites during this period, see K. Lawson Younger, “The Deportations of the Israelites,” JBL 117 (1998): 201–14. In Summary Inscription 13 Tiglath-Pileser claims to have spared only Samaria, a transparent allusion to an annexation that takes place at the same time as Damascus (see Younger and Hallo, The Context of Scripture, 2.117G). Summary Inscription 4 refers to his exile of Israel, the death of Pekah, and the installation of Hosea (2.117C, lines 15b–19a).

22. Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #146.

23. Thiele dates Jotham from 750 B.C. to 732 B.C., allowing for an accession year as is usual for coregencies.

24. For a translation of the inscription see K. Lawson Younger Jr., “Saba’a Stela,” in The Context of Scripture, 2.114E.

25. This claim is found in the Rimah Stela; see Younger, “Tell Al Rimah Stela” in ibid., 2.114F.

26. See W. W. Hallo, “From Qarqar to Carchemish,” Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2 (1964): 166–69.

27. So Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” 272–80.

28. Childs, Isaiah, 54.

29. See H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1998), 30–56, for the development of this motif in Isaiah.

30. The mention of the attack of Rezin and Pekah during the reigns of Jotham (2 Kings 15:37) and Ahaz (16:5–7) indicates the overlap of the reign of the two kings and the internal conflict within the rule of Judah; see Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 132–34.

31. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 33.

32. Ibid., 52.

33. See Harold Park, “Journey to Prison,” Eye Witness (Otterburne, Manitoba: Providence College, Fall 2003), 3.

1. The conflicting synchronisms and the age of Ahaz at the birth of Hezekiah are discussed in appendix B.

2. In the Calah annals, Tiglath-Pileser names Rezin as one of the targets for tribute in the Syrian campaign; see Hallo and Younger, Scripture in Context, 2.117A.

3. Reading ʾ ^edôm instead of ʾ ^arôm is only a change of one similar letter; a misreading of the archive may have led to the addition of the name Rezin.

4. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 371.

5. Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #145.

6. Cogan and Tadmor, “Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations,” 506.

7. Cogan and Tadmor compare it to the Akkadian term tatu used to describe a bribe sent for assistance; ibid., 499–503. Taking of bribes was forbidden under the covenant (Deut. 10:17; 16:19; 27:25).

8. Amos says that Kir is the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7), to which they will be forced to return (1:5). The location is not known.

9. Summary inscription 7 names “Jehoahaz [the unabbreviated form of Ahaz] the Judahite” among those bringing tribute; Hallo and Younger, Scripture in Context, 2.117D.

10. The structure in the temple is otherwise unknown; the word for awning (mûsak) may be derived from skk, “to cover.”

11. Nadav Naʾaman, “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah,” VT 48 (1998): 346–47. He suggests mûsak is derived from swk (“to fence”).

12. Wildberger (Jesaja Kapitel 1–12, 2nd ed. [BKAT 10/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980], 1:277–78) discusses the many possible ways the name itself might be applied in the historical circumstance. In Isaiah, the remnant refers to the faithful group that turned to God in trust following the Assyrian decimation of Judah (Isa. 10:20–22; 11:11, 16). They represented the eschatological hope of the nation.

13. Childs, Isaiah, 66–68. The significance of the sign is understood through the meaning of the name, as emphasized by Wildberger (Jesaja, 293–94). For the biblical use of the term “Immanuel,” see Rikki E. Watts, “Immanuel: Virgin Birth Proof Text or Programmatic Warning of Things to Come (Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23)?” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig Evans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 92–113.

14. Childs, Isaiah, 73.

15. John R. Donahue, “Woe or Weal,” America 184/3 (Feb. 2001): 47.

16. John R. Donahue, “Time for a Vision Check,” America 185/8 (Sept. 2001): 39.

17. Ronald F. Hock, “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19–31,” JBL 106 (1987): 461–62.

1. See appendix B for a discussion of the multiple chronologies of Ahaz. If the text is not an error for the second year of Ahaz, Ahaz was coregent with Jotham beginning ten years earlier.

2. For a translation see Alan Millard, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” The Context of Scripture, 1.137.

3. Summary Inscriptions 9–10 name Hoshea as the appointed king in Samaria; Younger, The Context of Scripture, 2.117F.

4. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 195.

5. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 226.

6. The possibilities are discussed thoroughly by Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 372–75.

7. In “The Great ‘Summary’ Inscription” from ancient Dur-Šarrukin (modern Khorsabad), Sargon claims to have conquered Samaria and taken captive 27,290 people (Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 2.118E).

8. Younger, “The Deportation of the Israelites,” 221–22. Dur-Šarrukin, Sargon’s new capital, is located in the district of Halah.

9. Ibid., 223.

10. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 226–27.

11. The Greek translation interprets the word as “cloaking one’s words”; the Hebrew word (ḥpʾ ) is sometimes considered a variant of a word that means “to cloak, cover” (ḥph).

12. Gideon (the Hacker) was given his name because he cut down and burned the Asherah pole (Judg. 6:28–29); it is possible the Asherah was a stylised pole as it appears on a clay model of a cultic scene (J. C. de Moor, “,” TDOT, 1:441–43).

13. H. D. Preuss, “,” TDOT, 3:2–3.

14. Younger, “The Deportations of the Israelites,” 225–26.

15. The deportees from Assyria are mentioned in the Nimrud Prism, those from Arabia in annals 120b–123a; ibid., 216, 226; idem, Context of Scripture 2.118A; 2.118D.

16. W. Boyd Barrick, “On the Meaning of bêt-habbamôt and batê-habbamôt and the Composition of the Kings History,” JBL 115 (1996): 632–36.

17. Ibid., 641–42.

18. A suggestion of Lipinski (UF 5 [1973], 202–4), noted by Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 211.

19. Amos 8:14 may be another reference to this divinity.

20. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 212. For Amate and Ama see Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2.32.

21. A compilation of phrases characteristic of Deuteronomic language is provided by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320–55.

22. Burke O. Long, “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography,” JBL 106 (1987): 389, 397.

23. Ibid., 398.

24. Geoghegan, “‘Until this Day’ and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History,” 222–23.

25. Solomon Schechter originally published this as Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Documents of Jewish Sectaries 1; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910).

26. The translations are those of M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).

27. Documents of Jewish sects are discussed by Peter Flint and James VanderKam, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 210–19.

28. Six manuscripts of this sectarian document were found in Qumran cave 4. It is known as 4QMMT, an abbreviation for miqṣāt maʿ ^aśeh hattôrâ. For the propsal that this is the equivalent of “some of the works of the law” see Martin G. Abegg, “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works of Righteousness,’” DSD 6 (1999): 139–47. The document is fragmentary, even with the complement of all six copies.

29. The official translation of the document is the work of Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4 V (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994).

1. Kings names Shalmaneser as the conquering king; the same claim is made in the Babylonian Chronicle (Millard, The Context of Scripture, 1.137). Sargon, in his inscriptions, claims (eight times) to have conquered Samaria. His great “Summary Inscription” is explicit on the conquest of Samaria (Younger, The Context of Scripture 2.118E 23–27). For a full discussion of the evidence see K. Lawson Younger, “The Fall of Samaria in Light of Recent Research,” CBQ 61 (1999): 461–82.

2. For a summary of the chronological difficulties, see the conclusion of Appendix B.

3. The earliest record of the siege is the Rassam cylinder, which bears the date Iyar 700 B.C., half year or so after the end of the hostilities. See the translation of Mordechai Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem,” The Context of Scripture, 2.119B.

4. The studies of Mordechai Cogan, Imperialism and Religion (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974), and John McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians (Naperville, III.: Allenson, 1973), have shown that the Assyrians did not impose their religion on subjugated territories. S. Holloway cautions that distinctions between religio-political treatment of client states and provinces as proposed by Cogan and McKay is untenable; Aššhur is King! Aššur is King: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 198. Forcible introduction of divinized images into palaces and city temples is known only in Mesopotamia; it is impossible to extrapolate the geographical extent of such royal iconography.

5. Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 19–79. Archaeological evidence of the major centers and territories of Judah show that population and economic activity significantly increased during the time of Hezekiah.

6. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 252.

7. Robert C. Stallman, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:86.

8. M. Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem,” The Context of Scripture, 2.119B.

9. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 371–73.

10. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 299.

11. William R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 18; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 8.

12. The surrender of Hezekiah is unique in royal inscriptions, and some embarrassment is behind it. The view of Judah was quite different (2 Kings 19:21b). Sennacherib’s return without taking Jerusalem was probably occasion for derision elsewhere (Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 140–41).

13. Aharoni, The Carta Bible Atlas, 117–18 (# 154).

14. Gallagher has thoroughly examined all the sources in suggesting the following sequence of events (Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 261).

15. B. Stade, “Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21,” ZAW 6 (1886): 173–80. These two sources are customarily labeled B1 (18:17–19:9a) and B2 (19:9b–37), distinguishing them from the annalistic report (18:13–16), which is labeled A.

16. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 149–59.

17. “Every action” (qmk) is restored on the basis of the Isaiah parallel in Qumran; the haplography took place because of similarity with qdm (east wind), which was found in the previous verse (in place of qmh, translated “grows up”).

18. Tiglath-Pileser ravaged the environs of Damascus: “His gardens … plantations, which were without number, I cut down, not one escaped” (Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1.776); he did the same in Chaldea: “The … groves which were (planted) along his (city) walls, I cut down” (1:792).

19. Historians cannot deal with such questions; Gonçalves is typical in regarding the plague as a theological explanation for the deliverance: L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne (EBib, New series 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1986), 483–84.

20. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 245–51.

21. Millard, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” 1.137, iii 34–38.

22. The visit of Merodach-Baladan almost certainly precedes the siege, which takes place in 701 B.C. The last year of his rule is 703 B.C. It is improbable that a visit subsequent to that time would have been possible or sensible; see John Walton, “New Observations on the Date of Isaiah,” JETS 28 (1985): 129–32.

23. See R. K. Harrison, “Medicine,” IDB, 3:331–34. The type of skin disorder is related to a root meaning “inflamed” (to be hot); it is used for the plagues in Egypt (Ex. 9) and in Job 2.

24. According to the Hebrew text, “the shadow has moved ahead ten degrees” (hlk); most translations turn this into a question to ask if the shadow should move ahead ten degrees (hylk) or turn back ten degrees.

25. Richard S. Hess, “Hezekiah and Sennacherib in 2 Kings 18–20,” in Zion City of our God, ed. Richard Hess and Gordon Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 40–41. The pattern of three consecutive actions is a technique in biblical narrative.

26. For a translation see K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The Siloam Tunnel Inscription,” The Context of Scripture, 2.28.

27. See A. H. Konkel, “The Source of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah,” VT 43 (1993): 477–78.

28. Dana Fewell, “Sennacherib’s Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings18:13–19:37,” JSOT 34 (1986): 83.

29. Dominic Rudman, “Is the Rabshakeh Also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings XVIII 17–35,” VT 50 (2000): 101–3.

30. The word berākâ is the standard formulation for expressing the benefit derived from covenant fidelity. “Make peace with me” (NIV) has the sense of “earn benefits from me (by making a covenant).”

31. Konkel, “The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah,” 478–81.

32. P. R. Ackroyd, “The Death of Hezekiah—A Pointer to the Future?” in De la tôrah au messie: mélanges H. Cazelles, ed. M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot (Paris: Cerf, 1981), 344–46.

33. H. G. M. Williamson, “Hezekiah and the Temple,” in Texts, Temples and Traditions, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 52.

34. For detailed analysis of the textual history of these Hezekiah accounts, see Konkel, “The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah,” 462–82; for additional literary analysis, see H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 184–239.

35. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 237.

36. Ibid., 260–61.

37. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 78.

38. Konkel, “The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah,” 477.

39. P. R. Ackroyd, “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 38–39,” SJT 27 (1974): 340–41.

40. Examples of persecution in dozens of countries may be found at www.persecution.net and www.persecution.org.

41. Aparisim Ghosh, “Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber,” Time (July 4, 2005), 10–15.

42. Marshall W. Baldwin, “Crusades,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia, 15th edition, 5:299.

43. Quoted by Robert Proctor, Commonweal 132 (June 3, 2005): 19.

44. Ibid.

45. Proctor refers to the Italian version (ibid., 20), translated as Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

1. For a translation and commentary see M. A. Knibb in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 2:147–49, 163. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian repeat the tradition that Isaiah was sawed in half, probably the same tradition alluded to by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 11:37).

2. Millard, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” 1.137 (Chronicle 5, rev. 11–13).

3. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 173–74. The coregency cannot have occurred with the kings who follow Amon, since none of them are placed on the throne by their predecessor.

4. The establishment of a new province by definition entailed the installation of a governor, with the imposition of the “symbol of Aššur.” This description in the inscriptions was narrative shorthand for the administration of loyalty oaths, probably in the presence of Assyrian battle standards. Two different classes of priests were involved in this exercise; Holloway, Aššur is King, 331–32.

5. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 272.

6. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 550–52.

7. Popular religion involving Asherah is attested by blessing formulas saying, “I bless you by YHWH and his Asherah.” This formula is found at Kuntillet ʿAjrud (southwest of Kadesh Barnea), and Khirbet el-Kom (eight miles west of Hebron). For a full discussion see Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 359–405.

8. For a discussion of the historical issues, see Brian Kelly, “Manasseh in the Books of Kings and Chronicles,” in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel,” ed. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133–46.

9. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 1,009.

10. An examination of the source citation of the Chronicler (33:18–19) is provided by W. Schniedewind, “The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily,” VT 51 (1991): 455–60. The peculiar form of the citation indicates that the Chronicler has added his own interpretation to an original source. The citation indicates that the apocryphal “Prayer of Manasseh” is based on an earlier record.

11. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 270.

12. The Chronicler replaces “them” in the Kings account with “Judah and the people of Jerusalem,” thus drawing attention to the effect of the king on the entire people.

13. Williamson, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 394–95

14. The following information was provided by BBC News, Africa, Feb. 15, 2000, posted at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/643737.stm.

15. Details published by Reuters, Sunday July 3, 2005.

1. A series of cuneiform tablets covers the years from 745 B.C. into the late Seleucid period (second century B.C.). Entries follow a chronological order, introduced by the year of reign of the king of Babylon, though not every year is included. Nabopolassar, perhaps a descendant of Merodach-Baladan, wrested control of Babylon from the Assyrians in 626 B.C. The famous Nebuchadnezzar ruled for forty-three years (605–562 B.C.), but only the first eleven years are covered by the surviving tablets (Millard, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” 1.137).

2. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 398.

3. See Fox, “Royal Officials and Court Families” 225–28; W. Boyd Barrick, “Dynastic Politics, Priestly Succession, and Josiah’s Eighth Year,” ZAW 112 (2000): 572–78.

4. This was probably located on the western hill; see Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 23–60.

5. See R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 219–23.

6. Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1987), 257.

7. Volkmar Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 403.

8. “Fields” (NIV) interprets the Hebrew word š^edēmâ to be related to śādeh (“field”), but the etymology is unknown. The word š^edēmâ is found in the context of vines and may suggest a trellis (Isa. 16:8; Hab. 3:17). The terrain of the Kidron Valley was terraced, on which vines were cultivated (HALAT, 4:1322).

9. Cogan, 1 Kings, 387.

10. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 730; NEB “satyr.” Goat demons were regarded as guardian deities of the threshold of the gates. Gray prefers emendation to “gate-keeper,” perhaps an allusion to the bull-colossi at the entrance of Assyrian palaces.

11. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 287

12. On the basis of Samarian ostraca, the Geba in question is located to the north of Samaria; Aharoni et al., The Carta Bible Atlas, #139.

13. See comments at 21:6 for the practice of child immolation in Israel.

14. The horse interpretation is defended by Glen Taylor; he connects it with sun worship, in Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel (JSOT 111; Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 1993), 30–31. The animal, however, lacks a mane and does not have the hairy tail of a horse.

15. The Hebrew of this verse indicates a hostile intent (ʿlh ʿl), as is evident in other contexts (e.g., Judg. 18:9). The paraphrase “to help the king of Assyria” (NIV) must either assume an emendation of the text (so BHS) or an unusual use of the preposition.

16. Baruch Halpern, “Why Manasseh Is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” VT 48 (1998): 501–2.

17. Philip J. Nel, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:131.

18. The Rab-shaqeh proposes to have the same kind of divine mission for Jerusalem: “Moreover, is it without the LORD that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The LORD said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it” (2 Kings 18:25 NRSV; Isa. 37:10).

19. Zipora Talshir discusses the text of Kings and the historical situation in “The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography (2 Kings XXIII 29–30; 2 Chronicles XXXV 20–5; 1 Esdras I 23–31),” VT 46 (1996): 213–20.

20. The ambiguity of political motivation makes the account more correct, in that it does not infer that Neco was going to attack Assyria (Halpern, “Blaming Manasseh,” 503–4). Talshir’s suggestion that the Chronicler creates a fictitious war to serve his own theological ends only indicates a predisposition to the historical priority of Kings (“The Three Deaths of Josiah,” 219). Kings and Chronicles are equally concerned with a correct theological interpretation of the events.

21. There may be a deliberate allusion here to Ahab, who similarly disguised himself in going into battle against the Arameans (1 Kings 22:30).

22. Halpern, “Blaming Manasseh,” 485.

23. Ibid., 497.

24. A discussion of how the attributes of these kings are developed in the books of Kings is provided by Gary N. Knoppers, “‘There Was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 (1992): 411–31.

25. Knoppers, with reference to Richard Pratt (ibid., 421).

26. An examination of the various treatments of Josiah is provided by Steve Delamarter, “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil,” VT 54 (2004): 29–60.

27. C. Begg, “The Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible,” ETL 64 (1988): 161.

28. As told by Patrick J. Wilson, “Between Text and Sermon: 2 Kings 22:1–23:3,” Interpretation 54 (2000): 413.

29. During 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court declared the Federal law regulating abortion (Section 287 of the Criminal Code) was in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the Canadian constitution. Regulating abortion was thus viewed as unconstitutional. Parliament tried to pass a replacement law, but was unable to compromise on a suitable wording. The country has remained to this day without a law regulating abortions. Decisions are left up to the women, their doctors, and medical associations. Section 223 of the Criminal Code states that “a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is, for a person to be charged with murder with respect to the death of a fetus, the fetus must be intentionally injured before or during birth, and would have to be born alive and later die. See www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm (March 6, 2006).

30. John G. Stackhouse Jr., Can God Be Trusted? Faith and the Challenge of Evil (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), 3.

31. Ibid., 115.

1. From the details of the Babylonian Chronicle, this event can be fixed to early summer (Tammuz=June/July) of 609; A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1975), 19, 96.

2. Ibid., 20, 99–100.

3. The Babylonian text says “the king of Akkad and his army turned and (went back) to Babylon” (ibid., 101).

4. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 782–83.

5. According to the chronicle, he “encamped against the city of Judah, and on the second day of the month of Adar he captured the city and seized its king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city” (Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 102).

6. It is possible the text should read Edom instead of Aram, because there is no kingdom in Aram at this point in time.

7. The writer of Kings calls this the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, while Jeremiah calls it the seventh (Jer. 52:28), as does the Babylonian Chronicle. The discrepancy may be accounted for by accession year reckoning used in Babylon, or it may have been a year later when the exiles actually leave for Babylon.

8. Chronicles presents an alternate view of the relationships. Jehoiachin and Zedekiah are both sons of Jehoiakim (2 Chron. 3:16); only two sons of Josiah are king: Jehoiakim and Shallum (Jehoahaz). Japhet provides a full discussion (I & II Chronicles, 97–99); the earlier tradition of Kings is to be preferred, but the Chronicler is consistent in his genealogical presentation (cf. 2 Chron. 36:10).

9. Ezekiel provides sixteen dates in total; for a tabulation see M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 8

10. M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House, 1969), 134–35.

11. “Dance of death.”

12. These diaries have been translated and edited by Al Reimer as Dietrich Neufeld’s A Russian Dance of Death: Revolution and Civil War in the Ukraine (Winnipeg, Man.: Windflower Communications, 1997).

13. A David Dueck Film Production, 1984.

1. Following the chronology of Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 190–91. Cogan and Tadmor begin Zedekiah’s reign in spring of 596 B.C., making the eleventh year 586/85 (2 Kings, 317

2. An ostraca from Tell ed-Duweir reports that a son of Elnathan had gone to Egypt; a top military emissary in Egypt indicates some type of alliance (Ahlström, History of Ancient Palestine, 794).

3. Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 321.

4. Robert P. Carroll, Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 248.

5. For a full discussion see Donald Murray, “Of All the Years the Hopes—or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30),” JBL 120 (2001): 245–65.

6. Jeremy Schipper, Significant Resonances’ with Mephibosheth in 2 Kings 25:27–30,” JBL 124 (2005): 521–29.

7. In modern Hebrew ṣ^edāqâ is used for prosperity and charity.

8. Lit., “sacred community,” a term used to describe a Jewish burial society.

9. Barry Freundel comments on Jewish burial customs in “Cremation Obliterates Ritual,” Moment 26/4 (August 2001): 61.

10. F. W. Dobb-Allsopp, “Lamentations, Book of,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 785.

1. See H. St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78.

2. See Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 141.

3. For a full study of the miscellanies see D. W. Gooding, Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976).

1. Siegfried H. Horn, “From Bishop Ussher to Edwin R. Thiele,” AUSS 18 (1980): 37.

2. Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 67–72.

3. R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 45, 2nd ed. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1946), 9–10.

4. John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 229.

5. J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 220–21, 226–27.

6. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 43–65.

7. William W. Hallo, “From Qarqar to Carchemish: Assyria and Israel in the Light of New Discoveries,” Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2 (1964): 153.

8. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 562–63.

9. Pritchard, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, 188–92.

10. Ibid., plates 100A, 100B. For a description or the Black Obelisk and a translation of the Jehu portion, see Mitchell, The Bible in the British Museum, 46–49.

11. Beginning with the fixed dates of the sons of Ahab, the date of the division of the kingdom can be established with a fair degree of accuracy.

12. Baasha appears to have one year too many because the beginning of the years of the ancient calendars do not correlate to the Julian calendar. A solution is to indicate both years involved in the Julian calendar (e.g., 909/908), but for the sake of simplicity only one year is given for each reference. Thiele shows the pattern in detailed charts: Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 82.

13. Ahab reigned twenty-two years (1 Kings 16:29) and his son Ahaziah just over one in non-accession year reckoning (22:52), so the twenty-five year reign of Jehoshaphat extended to the fifth year of Ahab’s son Joram.

14. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 597.

15. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 105–6.

16. For the calculation see ibid., 106–9.

17. The chronological data of this period is extremely difficult, but allowing for coregency these biblical data “are actually amazingly accurate and constitute and extremely valuable source for bringing to light many interesting and important details of Hebrew history” (ibid., 114). For detailed calculations of this period see 105–18.

18. The reign of Pekah began in 752 B.C., just after the death of Jeroboam II; Ahaz began to reign in 735 B.C.

19. Jotham reigned from 750–735 B.C., though he continued to live to his twentieth year (732 B.C.).

20. Thiele thinks that the editors of kings made a twelve-year error in calculation, because they did not realize the reign of Pekah overlapped that of Menahem and Pekahiah (Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 134–37). For a review of various chronological proposals see Konkel, “Hezekiah in Biblical Tradition,” 30–43. Complex revisions of synchronistic data have been proposed: John McHugh, “The Date of Hezekiah’s Birth,” VT 14 (1964): 446–53; C. Shedl, “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu den Synchronismen de Könige von Israel und Juda,” VT 12 (1962): 90–93; Antti Laato, “New Viewpoints on the Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” ZAW 98 (1986): 210–21.

21. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 68, 641.

22. Harold Steigers: “The Interphased Chronology of Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Hoshea,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9 (1966): 86–87. The sole rule of Ahaz then began after the death of Jotham. Roger Young thinks that two different viewpoints were represented in the chronologies of 2 Kings 15–18, that both were present in the court records and both were preserved by the historians of Kings; “When Was Samaria Captured? The Need for Precision in Biblical Chronologies,” JETS 47 (2004): 577–95.

23. For a summary discussion see Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1999), 7–14.