INTRODUCTION
1. Historical Background
The events of Israel’s history from the latter days of King David till the capture of Jerusalem are selectively recounted in the two books of Kings, to which two short footnotes are appended, one concerning an incident in the early days of the Exile (2Ki 25:22–26), the other concerning the release of the captured Judean king Jehoiachin after the death of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:27–30). The historical details span 971 to 562 B.C.
The involved period moves from the politically powerful and luxurious days at the close of the united kingdom under Solomon to the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam; it then traces the fortunes of the northern and southern kingdoms to their demise in 722 B.C. and 586 B.C., respectively. Numerous references to the external political powers and peoples of the times—e.g., the Egyptians, Philistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Assyrians, and Chaldeans—are integrated into the inspired record. In particular the Israelites were to experience the Aramean threats and Assyrian pressures of the ninth century B.C., the great Assyrian invasions of the eighth century B.C., together with the resultant Assyrian peace in the seventh century B.C., and the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire at the hands of the rising power of the Chaldeans under their brilliant king Nebuchadnezzar II.
Kings is, however, more than an account of the political and social history of this period. It records Israel’s spiritual response to their God, who had taken them into covenant relationship with himself (2Ki 17:7–23), and who had bestowed great privileges on them through the promise made to David (1Ki 2:2–4). Accordingly, within its pages is found a detailed summary of their spiritual experiences—particularly their kings, prophets, and priests, whose activities largely point to the need for the advent of the one who would combine the intended ideal of these three offices in himself.
2. Unity, Authorship, and Date
The inclusion of the material on but one scroll shows that the Hebrews considered the books of Kings to be one book. Thematically the continuity of the Elijah narrative (1Ki 17–2Ki 2), itself part of the prophetic section dominating 1Ki 16:29–2Ki 9:37, and the recurring phrase “to this day” (1Ki 9:13; 10:12 [“since that day”]; 2Ki 2:22; 10:27; 14:7; 16:6; 17:23, 34, 41; 21:15) clearly indicate that the two books of Kings form a single literary unit.
The author of the book mentions using several source documents, such as: (1) “the book of the annals of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41), drawn from biographical, annalistic, and archival material contemporary with the details of 1Ki 1–11; (2) “the book of the annals of the kings of Israel,” mentioned some seventeen times in 1Ki 14:29–2Ki 15:31 and drawn largely from the official records of the northern kingdom that were kept by the court recorder (cf. 2Sa 8:16; 20:24; 1Ki 4:3; 2Ki 18:18, 37; 2Ch 34:8); and (3) “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah,” mentioned fifteen times (1Ki 14:29–2Ki 24:5), being a record of the events of the reigns of the kings of the southern kingdom from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim.
Other unnamed sources may likewise have been drawn on for the book’s final composition, such as the court memoirs of David (1Ki 1:1–2:11), a cycle involving the house of Ahab and the prophets Elijah and Elisha (1Ki 16:29–2Ki 9:37), the records of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 36–39), and two concluding historical abstracts (2Ki 25:22–26, 27–30).
At least the majority of the book bears the impress of being the product of one author, who, as an eyewitness of the Jewish nation’s final demise, was concerned to show the divine reasons for that fall. In so doing he utilized many sources, weaving the details together into an integrated whole that graphically portrayed Israel’s covenant failure. Despite the lack of dogmatic certainty, a reasonable case can be made for Jeremiah as the author. Since he was descended from the priestly line of Abiathar, and since in all probability his father, Hilkiah, was active in communicating both the traditional facts and the teaching of Israel’s past, it is very likely that Jeremiah had access to historical and theological source materials. Furthermore, he would have had more ready entree to the royal annals than any other prophet. Certainly no other prophet was so intimately involved in the final stages of Judah’s history. If so, Jeremiah may have been active in composing the greater part of the history of the book of Kings (1Ki 14–2Ki 23:30) during the so-called silent years of his prophetic ministry after his call in 627 B.C., during the long reign of the godly Josiah. Certainly the contents of all but the last appendix (2Ki 25:27–30) could have been written by Jeremiah. Perhaps the appendix was added by Baruch or one of the prophets within the Jeremianic tradition; 2Ki 25:22–26, which was drawn from Jer 40–44, possibly also was written by the same writer as a bridge to the later historical notice concerning Jehoiachin.
3. Origin, Occasion, and Purpose
The origin of the basic collection itself would clearly be Jerusalem. The book gives the impression of having been written by an eyewitness to those climactic events closing the checkered histories of Israel and Judah, those dramatic affairs providing the occasion and purpose of the book. Contemplating the tragedy taking place before his very eyes, the author sets forth an accurate record of the events of his own day and those that had transpired since the glorious days of the time of Solomon. As such, Kings forms a sequel to 1 and 2 Samuel.
Kings is, however, more than a chronicle of events. Selecting his sources and utilizing his own experiential knowledge in a masterly way, the author writes to demonstrate conclusively to his readers both the necessity of believers keeping their covenantal obligations before God and the history of those most responsible for leading God’s people in their stewardship of the divine economy: Israel’s kings and prophets. Hence Kings everywhere bears the twin marks of redemptive history and personal accountability.
4. Theological Values
The main theological interest is the relationship of a sovereign God to a responsible people, Israel. In striking such a balance, the author of Kings draws particular attention to the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Indeed, the redemptive history and theological perspective of Kings are largely developed through David and Israel’s appropriation of God’s blessing in accordance with her compliance with the standards of the Law (cf. 1Ki 2:4–5).
From the first chapter to the last, God is seen in sovereign control of the world governments. He alone is the living God who is the Creator and Provider of life. Both transcendent and immanent, he is the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God to whom the angels minister and with whom all the world has to do. A God of love and goodness, he is also a God of justice and righteousness.
Although human beings are sinners, God is the author of redemption and graciously forgives those who humble themselves before him. Moreover, he hears and answers prayer and faithfully keeps his promises. We ought to worship him and follow him completely. Accordingly, great prominence is given to the temple and its institutions. Believers should make God’s inviolable Word and standards the center of their lives and live so as to be concerned for God’s sacred reputation.
God has revealed himself in many ways, but especially to Israel, that nation he had granted great covenant promises to, especially through David, his servant. Although God has redeemed Israel and patiently guided, cared for, and suffered with his people, they had rejected him despite his repeated warnings. Because of Israel’s unique relationship to God, the sin of idolatry is severely denounced. On the positive side, great place is accorded to prophecy.
Thus Kings is not only history but redemptive history, built around the twin themes of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, particularly as they were operative through God’s covenant people, Israel. In this regard comparison may be drawn between Kings, Samuel, and Chronicles. Whereas 1 and 2 Samuel feature human responsibility in the stewardship of the divine economy and 1 and 2 Chronicles emphasize the divine sovereignty, 1 and 2 Kings attempt to effect a balance between the two.
5. Chronology
Because the OT writers utilized only relative reference points in affixing their time-sequence structure, an absolute dating of a given event on the basis of OT data is largely impossible. Moreover, the complexity of methodology and lack of uniformity in determining dated events greatly hamper the quest for precision. Thus in some eras Israel began its new year in the fall; in others, in the spring. In some cases the nonaccession-year system, by which the remaining days of a calendar year in which a king was crowned were counted as that king’s first year, was used; in others, the accession-year reckoning was employed, in which case the king’s first year would begin with the first day of the calendar year following his inauguration. Furthermore, adding the reign of years of all Israelite kings yields too high a total for the period between Solomon and the fall of Jerusalem.
Accordingly, recourse must be made to secular dates in the ancient Near East that have been established with greater precision. The Canon of Ptolemy (the Greek geographer and astronomer of Egypt, c. A.D. 70–161) has been particularly helpful. Ptolemy made a list of the rulers of Babylon from 747 B.C. until his own day. Also the finding of the ancient Assyrian lists, by which a given year was named for the person who occupied the office of limmu (eponym), has been of great importance. These lists also often mention important historical or astronomical details, such as an eclipse of the moon or sun. One such solar eclipse has been scientifically computed to have occurred on 15 June 763 B.C. The dating of the whole list can therefore be affixed, resulting in a reliable series of dates for the period 892–648 B.C. Interestingly enough, the accession year of Sargon II of Assyria as king over Babylon in both the Assyrian lists and the Ptolemaic Canon comes out to 709 B.C., providing a cross-check on the reliability of these two external sources. Dates for the period before 892 B.C. must be sought from Mesopotamian data drawn from the various Assyrian and Babylonian lists, from synchronous histories, and from Egyptian sources. Dates for the period after 648 B.C. can be gleaned both from Ptolemy’s Canon and from the annals of the later Babylonian kings. This latter source yields a series of precise dates within the period of 626–566 B.C.
These sources provide a fairly accurate time sequence for dating the events of the ancient Near East, particularly so for the period represented by Kings (971–566 B.C.). Therefore where OT events are actually mentioned in external records, they may be assigned precise dates. Since several events are common both to Kings and external sources, the general time framework of much of the period from Solomon to the fall of Jerusalem can be acknowledged as well established.
The position taken here follows basically that of J. Barton Payne (“Chronology of the Old Testament,” ZPEB, 1:829–45), which, though a modification of the coregency theory, maintains a high regard for the Hebrew text. Payne affirms that the nonaccessiondating system was used in the northern kingdom (by which the year of a king’s enthronement is considered as both his first year and the last year of his predecessor) and that the new year always began in the fall. The southern kingdom, however, began its year in the fall and used the accession-year system until 848 B.C., when, under the influence of Athaliah, Jotham changed Judah to the nonaccession system. However, both kingdoms utilized the accession-year system from the early eighth century B.C., probably under the influence of Assyria.
EXPOSITION
I. The United Kingdom (1Ki 1:11–11:43)
A. Solomon’s Exaltation as King (1:1–2:11)
1. Adonijah’s plot to seize the crown (1:1–10)
The book of Kings begins with the rather sad circumstances surrounding the accession of Solomon to the throne of his father, David. Two primary factors are involved: (1) David’s feebleness and apparent laissez-faire attitude toward government in his later years, and (2) Adonijah’s self-willed ambition to succeed his father, based on the fact that he was the oldest of David’s surviving sons. In this ambition he was supported by some influential members of David’s government, despite David’s clearly expressed designation of Solomon.
a. David’s feebleness (1:1–4)
1 This brief account of David’s feebleness and apparent inability to act decisively is given as the backdrop to Adonijah’s attempted coup. It is somewhat startling to see the once so vigorous king now, at scarcely seventy years of age (cf. 2Sa 5:4–5), in such a state of debilitation. One thing that did more than anything else to sap David’s strength and will to govern decisively in his latter years was the series of disasters let loose on him and his family following his disgraceful act of adultery with Bathsheba and the indirect murder he committed in an attempt to cover up his sin. This shattering chain of events included Amnon’s rape of his half-sister Tamar; Amnon’s subsequent murder by Absalom, Tamar’s full brother; Absalom’s revolt with its severe disruptions, followed by his death, with its great emotional impact on David (2Sa 18:32–19:8); David’s ill-judged census with the resultant plague; and then Shibni’s brief revolt.
2–4 The suggestion made by David’s ministers conforms to a type of diatherapy attested in later literature. A virgin was chosen because she had the status of a concubine, though in actual fact she served David as a nurse. The whole point of the paragraph is to show (1) how David’s feebleness encouraged Adonijah to believe he could successfully force David’s hand in his favor, and (2) why Adonijah’s later request to Solomon brought about such severe consequences.
b. Adonijah’s attempted coup d’état (1:5–10)
5–6 Adonijah, encouraged by David’s feebleness and aided and abetted strongly by Joab, David’s military chief of staff, and by Abiathar, one of the two high priests, thought he could force David’s hand by presenting David and the people with the accomplished fact that he already was king. Adonijah no doubt felt justified in his claim to the throne in that he was probably the oldest surviving son, thus putting him in the line of succession. He surely knew that this attempt was in direct contravention of God’s will and David’s explicit wishes (2Sa 12:24–25; 1Ch 22:9–10; 28:4–7). Adonijah, however, was like Absalom, his brother, in being willful and self-centered, though a naturally attractive person and a born leader. Verse 6 notes David’s failure in the matter of disciplining Adonijah as a boy. One wonders how much of this failure was due to the loss of his own moral credibility because of the Bathsheba affair. Amnon and Absalom showed a similar willfulness.
7 Joab, the most powerful of Adonijah’s supporters, had always been fiercely loyal to David, but not to David’s wishes (see comment on 2:5). In supporting Adonijah’s pretensions to the throne, Joab was acting in keeping with his character. It is likely that the planning and execution of the attempted coup was as much Joab’s doing as Adonijah’s. He was not consciously disloyal to David, but he opposed David’s (and God’s) choice of Solomon as David’s successor and did his best to frustrate David’s will.
Abiathar, the other named active supporter of Adonijah, had been the only survivor of Saul’s massacre of Ahimelech the high priest and his family. He fled to David at Keilah, bringing the ephod with him (1Sa 22:20–22; 23:6, 9). He served as high priest during David’s reign and seems to have been senior to Zadok (1Ki 2:26–27; Mk 2:26). It seems, though, that at least from the time David returned the ark to Jerusalem, Zadok gained in prominence since he presided as priest in the tabernacle at Gibeon (1Ch 16:39). It is tragic to see one who had been with David in his difficult years, and who had, like Joab, remained faithful, now opposing what he knew to be David’s—and, more important, God’s—wishes.
8–10 There were those, however, who did not support Adonijah. Zadok was the son of Ahitub (2Sa 8:17), a descendant of Eleazar, the third son of Aaron. In 1Ch 12:26–28 he is listed as a warrior of the house of Levi and one of those who came to David at Hebron to offer him the rulership over all Israel. He is cited in eight passages as serving along with Abiathar as chief priest under David’s rule (e.g., 1Ch 15:11). After the ark was restored to Jerusalem, Zadok is described in 1Ch 16:39 as serving at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was situated. Later, when David was forced to flee Jerusalem before his son Absalom, it was Zadok who had charge of the ark (2Sa 15:24–25). Both he and Abiathar were loyal supporters of David.
Benaiah of Kabzeel, son of Jehoiada, was renowned as one of the greatest of David’s thirty mighty men (2Sa 23:20–23; 1Ch 11:22–25). David put him in charge of his bodyguard, the Kerethites and Pelethites (2Sa 8:18; 20:23; 23:23).
Nathan was a “non-writing” prophet who played an important role in David’s reign. David had gone to him to indicate his desire to build a temple for the Lord, and it was through Nathan that God responded with the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7). Later God sent Nathan to deal with David over the matter of his sin with Bathsheba (2Sa 12). Nathan was also sent by God to David on the occasion of Solomon’s birth to declare God’s special love for Solomon (2Sa 12:24–25). Solomon was there shown to be a symbol of God’s forgiving grace (that David recognized this is seen in the choice of the name Solomon [“peace”; GK 8934]—i.e., the rift between God and David was healed—as well as in the appellation Jedidiah). But the passage also clearly implies God’s choice of Solomon as David’s successor. Nathan apparently had David’s full confidence as God’s spokesman, and he demonstrated here again his sensitivity to God’s will as well as to David’s wishes regarding the succession to the throne.
Shimei and Rei are otherwise unknown, though Shimei may well be the Shimei, son of Ela (4:18), who was appointed by Solomon as one of twelve district governors (4:7). Also absent was David’s “special guard” (vv.8, 10).
Adonijah’s attempted usurpation of the throne began with a ceremonial gathering of his supporters. Absalom had begun his coup in a similar manner (2Sa 15:11–12). The participation of Abiathar and Joab in the ritual sacrifice and communal meal lent an aura of legitimacy to the occasion.
En Rogel was located slightly southeast of Jerusalem, near the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys. This place was farther removed from the palace than Gihon, the normal place for such festivities. As such, it was ideally located for Adonijah’s purpose of presenting David with an accomplished kingship, counting on David’s illness to render him incapable of overturning Adonijah’s plans.
2. The counterplan of Nathan and Bathsheba (1:11–31)
Nathan’s prompt and decisive action foiled Adonijah’s plot by rousing David to take the steps necessary to ensure the public proclamation of Solomon as king. By so doing Nathan not only worked out God’s will but also saved Solomon’s life. Despite the urgency of the situation, however, Nathan displayed once again the ability to act tactfully and judiciously, just as he had done when he brought to David’s attention the enormity of his sin in connection with Bathsheba and Uriah.
11–31 Nathan proposed to send Bathsheba in first. Her status as favored wife would ensure a quick hearing, and immediate action was indeed necessary. Her role was to rouse David to action by asking him how he could allow Adonijah to become king when he had solemnly sworn that Solomon should reign after him. Nathan would then confirm her statements and tactfully urge David to act.
The validity of Solomon’s claim to the throne was not in question here. Both Bathsheba and Nathan knew David’s disposition in the matter. The danger was that Adonijah would succeed to the throne through David’s inaction. Thus they made three points: (1) Adonijah was making a determined bid for the throne; (2) “The eyes of all Israel are on you, to learn from you who will sit on the throne of my lord the king after him” (v.20); and (3) if Adonijah should become king, the life of Solomon and Bathsheba would be in serious danger.
David responded vigorously and promised to carry out that very day the oath he had made with regard to Solomon.
3. Solomon’s anointing (1:32–40)
32–40 The men that David called to carry out the public anointing of Solomon were Benaiah, the commander of David’s special guard; Zadok, the priest; and Nathan, the prophet. The “servants” are identified in v.38 as the guard composed of Kerethites and Pelethites.
Gihon, the site of the anointing, was just outside the city in the Kidron Valley, on the east bank of Ophel. It was at that time Jerusalem’s major source of water and was therefore a natural gathering place of the populace.
That Solomon was mounted on David’s royal mule demonstrated to the populace that this anointing had David’s blessing. Thus there could be no doubt whatever in the public mind as to David’s wishes in the matter of the succession. Had David not acted with decision, the people might well have supported Adonijah’s claims. As it was, they followed David and supported Solomon with great spontaneous rejoicing.
4. Adonijah’s submission (1:41–53)
41–53 David’s response to the coronation was both touching and typical of him. David saw in this event the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s promise to him as described in 2Sa 7, and he was profoundly grateful to a gracious and loving God. The kingdom would not be removed from David at his death as was the case with Saul. Rather, in Solomon there began the long line of David’s descendants that would ultimately lead to the promised Messiah, who was both the son of David and the Son of God.
The swelling sound of the public rejoicing and of the instruments reached the ears of Adonijah’s supporters at En Rogel. Their initial puzzlement soon turned to alarm as they learned from Jonathan, son of Abiathar, that Solomon had been publicly proclaimed king and that this had been received with great enthusiasm. This effectively put an end to Adonijah’s plot as the participants quickly scattered.
Adonijah’s response was to seek asylum by grasping the horns of the altar. He expected Solomon to execute the rival claimant to the throne, as he himself would have done had he been successful in gaining the throne. Solomon was more gracious, however, guaranteeing Adonijah’s safety as long as he conducted himself properly. To be a “worthy man” in this context simply meant that Adonijah would renounce any claims to the throne, that he would avoid seditious intrigue, and that he would support Solomon’s rights with regard to the kingship over Israel. Solomon as coregent acted here with the full authority of kingship.
5. David’s charge to Solomon (2:1–11)
1 David’s last charge to Solomon has to do with Solomon’s spiritual life; he also gives instruction concerning the disposition of matters pertaining to Joab, to the sons of Barzillai, and to Shimei. There can be no doubt that much of Solomon’s early spiritual vitality and dedication to God may be attributed to David’s deep personal relationship to his Lord and his desire to honor him. It is probable that since David knew from the time of Solomon’s birth that he was to be his successor, he gave him special instructions to prepare him for kingship.
It is clear from 1Ch 22–29 that David did everything in his power to smooth the way for Solomon to follow him as king, not only in drawing up the plans (cf. 1Ch 28:11–19) for the temple, amassing the necessary materials and funds (cf. 1Ch 22:14–16) and soliciting the help and cooperation of Israel’s leadership (cf. 1Ch 22:17–19), but also in admonishing and encouraging Solomon to carry out faithfully the task committed to him (cf. 1Ch 22:6–13; 28:9–20). In Solomon, David found a responsive and humble heart. Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, Solomon’s three older brothers, were spiritually and morally deficient; but Solomon had a heart prepared by God, and he responded willingly to David’s instruction.
David’s legacy to Solomon was thus much more than a great kingdom with secure borders, tributary nations, and considerable wealth and prestige. Far more important, he instilled in Solomon a love for God and his Word. He gave to Solomon a proper orientation to life and leadership and was himself an outstanding role model, despite his failures, of a man whose heart truly beat for God.
2–3 David’s final words of admonition echo those of God to Joshua (Jos 1:6–9) as the latter was about to begin in his role as commander of the hosts of Israel (cf. also Dt 31:6–8, 23). His basic injunction was that Solomon should conduct himself in his personal life, and in his role as leader of God’s people, in accordance with God’s law. Solomon was to be strong and to show himself to be a man (cf. 1Sa 4:9).
4 These words hark back to 2Sa 7:12–13 and point to Solomon’s responsibilities in the matter of the Davidic covenant. This involves primarily a mental and spiritual attitude in which there is a wholehearted devotion to God. Though the covenant is unconditional with respect to its ultimate goal of bringing in the Messiah from the line of David, each individual king had to heed God’s law from the heart if he wanted to experience the blessing of God.
5–6 The second part of David’s last words left Solomon with some matters that he considered to be unfinished business. First was Joab, the commander of David’s armies. Joab had been a mixed blessing to David—fiercely loyal, but not always faithful in carrying out his wishes. On the good side it can be said for Joab that he was an outstanding general, an example of his ability being the initial capture of Jerusalem for David (1Ch 11:6, 8). He never wavered in his loyalty to David’s kingship. He also had occasional flashes of spiritual insight, opposing the census (1Ch 21:3–4) that brought grief to David.
On the other hand, there were many problems that Joab created for David. He had a repeated history of taking matters into his own hands, often creating embarrassing situations for David and even forcing his hand. Joab had killed Absalom against David’s express command. In 2Sa 3:22–27 he killed Abner in an act of treachery.
After the revolt of Absalom, David appointed Amasa (Absalom’s field commander) to muster the men of Judah to track down Sheba who had led ten tribes in a secessionist move (2Sa 20). When Amasa failed to meet the appointed deadline, David turned to Abishai, Joab’s brother, to lead the punitive expedition. But Joab took matters into his own hands and treacherously killed Amasa (who had come belatedly) and then took command of the armies. Now once again Joab was trying to force David’s hand, supporting Adonijah’s attempted usurpation of the succession to the throne.
Why had not David dealt with Joab before this? The answer is probably that David felt under obligation to Joab, and though David was certainly not lacking in courage, he was not able to cope with the mixture of Joab’s loyalty and his misdeeds. Yet he realized that Joab’s murder of Abner and Amasa, at least, must not go unpunished. Solomon was the natural one to deal with the matter, since Joab had been guilty of sedition in attempting to forestall the succession to the throne of the man of David’s choice.
7 In the matter of the sons of Barzillai, David was simply asking Solomon to continue to carry out his own promise to Barzillai as a reward for his loyal support during David’s brief exile during Absalom’s revolt (2Sa 19:31–39).
8–9 The matter of Shimei was more difficult. He had clearly acted in a death-deserving way during David’s flight from Absalom (2Sa 16:5–14). Yet on his return to Jerusalem, David had pardoned Shimei (2Sa 19:18–23). Perhaps David felt the pardon had been rash. At any rate he knew that Shimei’s “repentance” was not a sincere one and that he was a potential troublemaker. David now left the matter in Solomon’s hands, trusting in Solomon’s wisdom to deal properly with the situation.
10–11 Having made all the preparations possible for a successful reign for his son, David died, having ruled a total of forty years, including the first seven years at Hebron over Judah alone. Just how long the coregency lasted cannot be stated with any degree of certainty. Estimates range from two to three months (because of the extreme senility described in 1:1–4) to several years.
B. Solomon’s Establishment of the Kingdom (2:12–3:28)
1. The assumption of the throne (2:12)
12 However long or short the coregency was, v.12 states that when David died, Solomon’s rule was firmly established. There was no question in anyone’s mind who was king, and Solomon had firm control over the kingdom.
One matter that is usually lost sight of is that during Adonijah’s attempt to preempt the throne, Solomon himself did not indulge in plotting to make the throne certain for himself. He exercised remarkable restraint. But once he was formally declared to be king, he acted firmly and with decision and dispatch.
2. Adonijah’s further plot and execution (2:13–25)
13–17 That Adonijah was ambitious and not yet done with his hopes for securing the throne for himself is seen in this section. In asking for the hand of Abishag, he was almost certainly not pursuing romantic interests but trying to secure for himself a claim to the throne. Although 1:4 states clearly that David had no marital relations with Abishag, her function being a therapeutic one, she was officially regarded as being one of David’s wives. As such, she would provide an additional argument for Adonijah’s royal pretensions. He informed Bathsheba that the kingdom had been as good as his and that all Israel had regarded him as king, thus clearly indicating that his aspirations were not really dead.
18–22 Bathsheba, realizing Abishag’s true status, saw no harm in the request and went to Solomon to intercede for Adonijah. But Solomon saw through the scheme and, probably startling his mother considerably, spoke rather vehemently: “You might as well request the kingdom for him!”
23–25 Solomon reacted swiftly to Adonijah’s ploy and ordered Benaiah to execute him. Though this may seem harsh, it was clearly necessary since Adonijah was evidently still hoping to establish himself on the throne. To leave him alive with such ambitions would leave a festering sore in the kingdom.
3. The deposition of Abiathar (2:26–27)
26 Abiathar was banished to his home in Anathoth (a few miles north of Jerusalem). He deserved to die because he opposed not only David’s will but also God’s will in the matter of succession. But since he had served faithfully, having been loyal to David in his hard times and having borne the ark (2Sa 15:24, 29; 1Ch 15:11–15) in his capacity as high priest, Solomon allowed him to live. The reprieve from execution, however, was dependent on continued good behavior.
27 The removal of Abiathar from the active priesthood and the sole tenancy of Zadok as high priest werea fulfillment of God’s word to Eli (1Sa 2:30–33).
4. The execution of Joab (2:28–34)
28–29 Solomon now began to carry out David’s injunctions with regard to his own “unfinished business.” Having heard of Solomon’s actions with regard to Adonijah and Abiathar, Joab knew that judgment would not be long in coming. In seeking sanctuary by grasping the horns of the altar, he no doubt was thinking only of his involvement with Adonijah’s plot. It would be in keeping with Joab’s character to have dismissed from his mind any thought of blame, much less punishment, in regard to the two murders. In any case, Joab’s act of seeking sanctuary would put Solomon’s execution order in as bad a light as possible by making him appear to be violating a commonly accepted sanctuary. Solomon would have to contend with strong emotions on the part of many of the people.
30–33 Joab’s refusal to leave frustrated Benaiah’s mission since he hesitated to touch Joab while he clung to the altar. When Solomon sent Benaiah back to execute Joab at the altar, he justified the order as an act of justice to remove bloodguiltiness from David and his descendants. Solomon was carrying out his father’s wishes. This matter was of great importance to David’s conscience and the integrity of his reign because the murders were not a private matter. One might term Joab’s murders as political assassinations. The national interest and conscience were involved.
34 Benaiah carried out Solomon’s order. No public outcry is recorded. On the contrary, the last sentence in the chapter states that “the kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (v.46).
5. The elevation of Benaiah and Zadok (2:35)
35 The two chief conspirators as well as Adonijah were now removed. It should be clearly understood that though Solomon’s actions strengthened his hand and fixed him firmly in the rulership, his acts were not acts of personal vengeance or political expediency. These men had actively and with deliberate forethought opposed God’s will. It must also be made clear to all the people that Joab’s willful acts could not be condoned, even though they were perpetrated in the name of David’s government. Joab and Abiathar were now replaced by Benaiah and Zadok.
6. The execution of Shimei (2:36–46)
36 Shimei was not one of the conspirators with Adonijah, but he had considerable potential for stirring up opposition to the house of David. His attitude toward the latter is seen in 2Sa 16:5–13. In a gesture of generosity, David forgave him for his cursings and acts of hatred. Yet David no doubt realized the insincerity of Shimei’s repentance and the very real probability of a return on Shimei’s part to active hostility at the earliest sign of weakness. But he also felt that justice had not been served. Shimei was a scoundrel and needed to be dealt with. David was powerless because of his promise. It was up to Solomon to see to it.
37 Solomon’s wisdom and ability to govern are demonstrated at the very outset of his reign. By forbidding Shimei to cross the Kidron Valley on pain of death, Solomon kept him from his kinsmen, who had been the spearhead of the revolt against David under Sheba (2Sa 20).
38–40 For three years Shimei obeyed the restriction of the king; but when two of his slaves fled to Achish of Gath, he violated his parole and went after his slaves personally. Had Shimei taken the conditions of his confinement seriously and been an honest man, he should have gone to Solomon and requested either that the latter regain his slaves for him or else allow him to make the trip.
41–43 Solomon calls Shimei to account for his breach of an oath to God. He had already been the recipient of a gracious pardon from David. But now Solomon was going to mete out justice on the exact terms of the oath. Shimei had taken grace lightly and demonstrated his unrepentant heart. For this he would die in strict accord with the terms of their agreement. He was unworthy of another pardon.
44 With Shimei’s execution justice was fully served; yet Solomon astutely allowed Shimei to condemn himself.
45–46 The last opponent of the Davidic dynasty was now gone, and David’s throne had been securely established. David had his detractors; but God caused him to prevail, not only in his own rule, but in seeing his son Solomon sitting on his throne as God had promised. The Davidic covenant was now on its way toward fulfillment. Solomon—granted by God’s grace a kingdom of peace and prosperity—is, in this and in his extraordinary insight, a type of the coming Son of David, the Messiah.
7. The spiritual condition of Solomon’s kingdom (3:1–3)
1 Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter was the seal of a political alliance with Egypt. That such a marriage came about gives some indication of the importance of the kingdom Solomon inherited from his father as well as the decline of Egyptian power at this time. Formerly Egyptian Pharaohs consistently refused to allow their daughters to marry even the most important and powerful foreign kings. In this instance it appears that Pharaoh felt it to be advantageous to ally himself with Solomon, giving him not only his daughter but also Gezer as a wedding gift. This would give him clear trade routes through Palestine. Solomon, on the other hand, could by this means secure his southern border.
The rendering “made an alliance with Pharaoh” reflects accurately the Hebrew (lit., “became Pharaoh’s son-in-law”), which stresses the relationship between father-in-law and bridegroom rather than that between the bride and the bridegroom. This was a rather common practice for cementing and maintaining international agreements and securing a nation’s borders.
The city of David was located on the southern portion of the eastern ridge of Jerusalem. This lies between the Kidron Valley on the east and the (now nonexistent) Tyropoeon Valley on the west. It slopes down into the Valley of Hinnom at the point where it joins the Kidron Valley. This was the site of Jebusite Jerusalem and David’s Jerusalem. Solomon extended the city to the north, where he also built the temple.
Solomon kept Pharaoh’s daughter in the older city of David until he had completed his building projects. Then he built a palace for her (1Ki 7:8; 9:24; 2Ch 8:11), presumably as part of his palace complex. According to 2Ch 8:11, Pharaoh’s daughter was not housed in David’s palace. She was not to live in David’s palace “because the places the ark of the LORD has entered are holy.” Thus, though Pharaoh’s daughter temporarily resided in the city of David, it would not have been in the palace itself.
2 The “however” is intended to point out that, though conditions generally were very good, there was one matter that needed correcting, the practice of sacrificing at the “high places” (GK 1195). These were open-air sanctuaries that were mostly found on hilltops (1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 16:4), but also in towns (1Ki 13:32) and in valleys (Jer 7:31; Eze 6:3).
The high places were a constant sore point in Israel, and the prophets of God frequently spoke out against them. There were two basic problems with them: (1) they detracted from the principle of the central sanctuary (Dt 12:1–14); and (2) since worship at high places was a Canaanite custom, syncretism was not only a very real danger but an all too common occurrence. Israel was specifically forbidden to utilize pagan high places and altars (Dt 12:2–4, 13), and as soon as God had established his people in the Promised Land, they were to worship at a sanctuary in the place appointed by God.
The latter half of the verse gives the reasons for the common use of various “high places” for worship: the temple had not yet been built. Before Eli’s time the tabernacle had been at Shiloh; but with the Philistines’ capture of the ark, Shiloh lost its significance as the place of God’s presence among his people. Even after the ark was returned by the Philistines, it remained for years in the house of Abinadab (1Sa 7:1), until David removed it to Jerusalem (2Sa 6) to a tent he had prepared for it there (v.17). In the meantime, the tabernacle was removed from Shiloh after the capture of the ark.
The ark next appears at Nob (1Sa 21), where it remained until Saul massacred the priests there (1Sa 22). At some point after this event, it was moved to Gibeon, where it is mentioned in connection with Zadok’s high priestly ministry (1Ch 16:39–40). There were then, in effect, two tabernacles during David’s reign. The one in Gibeon was without the ark; the one in Jerusalem had the ark but not the original trappings of the tabernacle (2Ch 1:3–5). This state of affairs matched that of the double priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar.
3 High commendation is here given to Solomon. He loved the Lord and showed it in his walk. He truly feared the Lord and obeyed David’s instruction with regard to his walk before God. David himself had loved God from the heart and was deeply aware of the grace of God at work in his life. Solomon, the son of Bathsheba, as the least likely candidate to be God’s choice as David’s successor, must have been conscious of God’s gracious hand in his life.
8. Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon (3:4)
4 According to 2Ch 1:2–3, the entire leadership of the nation went with Solomon to Gibeon to bring a great offering to God. One thousand burnt offerings were brought, indicating that this was an especially important occasion. The purpose was clearly to bring thanksgiving for establishing Solomon in the kingdom and also to seek God’s blessing on his reign.
9. Solomon’s dream and prayer for wisdom (3:5–15)
5 God’s appearance to Solomon in a dream indicated clearly that God had not only graciously received the sacrifices but was prepared to do great things for Solomon and his people. Solomon was later once again favored with an appearance of God (1Ki 9:1–9). That God had in such a remarkable way declared himself willing to pour out his blessing on Solomon and his work makes the king all the more culpable in his later apostasy (cf. 1Ki 11:9). With great privilege comes great responsibility.
6 Solomon responded to God’s gracious offer by a heartfelt expression of gratitude for God’s great kindness demonstrated toward David during his lifetime and now also after his death in providing David a son as successor, the first in the line from which Messiah would come. God was able to exercise kindness and express his love toward David because of his responsiveness in seeking God and walking in his ways. The emphasis is on God’s kindness rather than on David’s righteousness.
7 Solomon’s declaration here showed his true humility before God, as God’s pleased response demonstrates. The term “little child,” or young lad (GK 5853), relates both to his relative youth and to his inexperience in government.
8 The responsibilities facing Solomon were all the greater in that Israel was God’s chosen nation. She had to be governed in accordance with God’s precepts if the people were to experience his blessing. Thankfulness and praise are added for the faithfulness of God in respect to the Abrahamic covenant. The words “too numerous to count or number” reflect the words of God to Abraham in Ge 13:16. God had greatly blessed and increased Abraham’s people in stature and numbers.
9 Solomon asked for an understanding or “discerning” (GK 9048) heart so that he might govern God’s people justly. In seeing the need for these qualities and in seeking them for himself, Solomon is a type of the Messiah, the Son of David par excellence.
10–13 Solomon bypassed the kind of request that most men would commonly make—prosperity, a long life, victory over enemies, etc. He sought the more essential thing, and because of this God promised him the wisdom that he sought in such measure that he would stand alone among men (cf. Mt 6:33). In addition God granted him what he had not requested—wealth and honor unequaled in his lifetime. In granting Solomon “a wise and discerning heart,” God gave him the ability to judge and rule well. But God here also went beyond Solomon’s request and opened up his understanding in areas beyond those having to do with rulership (see 1Ki 4:29–34; 10:1–25).
14 God reminds Solomon of his continued responsibility to walk righteously before him as David had done and as David had enjoined him to do. God’s faithfulness to the Davidic covenant remained fixed; but if Solomon wished to enjoy God’s fullest blessing, he must walk in accordance with God’s will.
15 When Solomon awoke, very much aware that God had spoken to him in a dream, he returned to Jerusalem and brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. By so doing the king was expressing his thanks for God’s goodness. He brought all his officials together for a feast so that they also might rejoice in thanksgiving at this renewed manifestation of God’s grace toward Israel and the house of David.
10. Solomon’s wisdom: the smothered baby (3:16–28)
16–27 Since there were no witnesses, it was impossible to prove by conventional means which litigant here had a just case. Solomon displayed his extraordinary insight into human nature as well as shocking boldness of action in exposing fraud. The mother of the dead baby wanted a baby of her own. This desire for a baby to mother was stronger than her grief and love for her dead baby. In trying to attach to herself the other woman’s baby, she was motivated equally strongly by her envy of the other woman who still had her baby. It was this underlying motive that was the target of Solomon’s startling edict: “Cut the living child in two.” Thus the Gordian knot was cut and true justice was done.
28 Solomon’s verdict and the way it was achieved soon became common knowledge, and the people held him in great awe. Here was clear evidence to an unusual degree of a God-given ability to rule wisely and justly.
C. Solomon’s Organization of the Kingdom (4:1–34)
1. His officials (4:1–19)
1 Considerable changes were made in Israel during the reigns of the previous two kings. When Saul became king, there was a loose confederacy among the tribes. Through his early victories he welded the nation into a kingdom. But his governmental style was modest and simple. He made no great demands on the people. There was no great central bureaucracy and no lavish court. There is no record of any system of taxation.
David developed a kingdom in a truer sense. His rule was much stronger than Saul’s, and he had far greater and more lasting success in defeating Israel’s enemies. By the time he died, he had established a great and powerful empire, extending Israel’s borders and exercising control over vassal states from the Gulf of Aqaba and the River of Egypt to the northwestern part of the Euphrates. He captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it a strong and permanent capital. His court, though not lavish, was far more extensive than Saul’s. His chief officials were almost as numerous as Solomon’s. David seems to have had some system of internal taxation, and he certainly received tribute from his various vassal states. One matter of organizational development that was particularly dear to David’s heart was that of the temple ministry. He laid the groundwork for an elaborate worship service, including music, in preparation for the time when the temple would be built.
Solomon inherited a great kingdom. His role was one of consolidation and increased internal strengthening. He established a well-organized and strong central government, much stronger than ever before. He developed a system of taxation and forced labor to support a much admired and elaborate governmental structure and to pay for his great building projects, the foremost being the temple and the palace.
Verses 2–19 list Solomon’s officials (vv.2–6 his chief administrators, vv.7–19 his district governors). Verses 11, 15 indicate this list was compiled at about the midpoint of Solomon’s reign, since two of the officials are sons-in-law of Solomon. In addition, the names of especially prominent men who served in the earlier part of Solomon’s reign are included. This is certainly true of Abiathar, who was deposed almost immediately, and probably of Zadok, who had already served at length under David and most likely didn’t live long into Solomon’s reign. In Abiathar’s case, it is of course possible that he still carried the title of priest even though he was no longer permitted to function as such.
2–3 Various suggestions have been made with regard to Azariah and the office held by him. The best view appears to be that this Azariah was the grandson of Zadok (1Ch 6:8–9) and became the high priest after the death or incapacitation of Zadok. (The designation “son” for “grandson” is common OT usage.) Ahimaaz, Azariah’s father, had apparently died or else could not serve for some reason.
The two “secretaries” served as private secretaries as well as secretary of state. Their father had served in the same office under David. The “recorder” (lit., “the one who calls, names, reminds, reports”; GK 4654) was also a high official. He was in charge of palace ceremonies, the chief of protocol. He reported public needs to the king and in turn was the king’s spokesman.
4 Benaiah, formerly commander of David’s special guard, now became the “commander-in-chief” of all the armies. As stated earlier, Zadok probably did not serve long under Solomon, being elderly at Solomon’s succession to the throne. Abiathar was almost immediately deposed. They are listed here because of the outstanding roles they had played in the kingdom.
5 Azariah son of Nathan was in charge of the twelve district governors named in vv.7–19. Zabud was another son of Nathan. His function as priest may have been to assist the king in the exercise of his spiritual and ceremonial concerns. He was also called the “personal adviser” (GK 8291) of David. This seems to have been a title of honor and distinction and indicated one who was a close and trusted friend of the king (cf. 2Sa 15:37).
6 Ahishar was “in charge of the palace.” Under Solomon his functions were apparently restricted to that of chief steward of the palace, but his office gradually gained in importance until it was comparable to the office of the Egyptian vizier, the first minister of state. A good example of the importance that this office took on is found in Isa 22:15–24, in which Shebna, the one “in charge of the palace,” must be deposed because he had misused his power in self-aggrandizement. His replacement would “be a father . . . to the house of Judah.” He would have the key of the house of David on his shoulder. “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
Adoniram was in charge of the forced labor or corvée. This system was widely practiced in the ancient Near East as a means of carrying out public building projects. Samuel (1Sa 8:12–17) warned that this would be one of the evils of instituting a monarchy. Its extensive use by Solomon, even though lighter demands seem to have been made on Israelites than on foreign subjects and vassals, eventually created great bitterness and dissatisfaction. This was one major reason given by the northern ten tribes for their secession from the kingdom.
7 The responsibility of these “governors” (GK 5893) was to supply provisions for the royal court. Each was responsible for these provisions for one month out of the year. The twelve divisions coincided only in part with the old tribal divisions. In only six instances are tribal names mentioned. The twelve officers were under the general supervision of Azariah (v.5).
8–19 The order of the districts is most likely the order in which supplies were to be sent. The territory of Judah is not explicitly mentioned. “The land” would refer to Judah, which had an unnamed governor, perhaps because he was part of the court itself (i.e., perhaps the Azariah of v.5). The NIV rendering—“he [i.e., Geber] was the only governor over the district”—reflects the interpretation that, despite the size of the district governed by Geber, there was only one governor. It would appear that Judah may have received special privileges, which would tend to foster resentment on the part of the other tribes.
2. His kingly splendor (4:20–28)
20 This and the following verse hark back to the Abrahamic covenant and give testimony to the faithfulness of God in carrying out his promises. The growth of the nation, numerically and territorially, the prosperity of the people, and their happiness all attest to the blessing of God. Solomon’s kingdom in its broad outlines and at the acme of its greatness was a foretaste, a type, of the yet future and far greater fulfillment of God’s promise in the millennial reign of Christ. Essential here is the rulership of both David and Solomon. David in his passionate love for the Lord, in his great victories over the enemies of God’s people, and in his establishment of a great kingdom is a type of the coming Messiah. Solomon also is such a type, in his wisdom and reign of peace.
21 The countries that David had conquered remained subject to Solomon and brought him tribute throughout his reign. This was one noteworthy sign of God’s blessing in keeping with the Davidic covenant. The usual experience of ancient empire builders was that when the old king died, the subject nations would withhold tribute and challenge the new king in rebellion. This necessitated repeated punitive expeditions to reinforce the former king’s terms and to prove the ability of the new king to enforce his will. Solomon did not have to do this. God granted him a peaceful reign in which he could focus his energies on the temple and other building projects. He was also able to devote himself to administrative matters, to the building up of extensive and expanding foreign trade, and to his pursuit of wisdom and knowledge.
22 The magnificent court of Solomon as well as his fabled wisdom stirred great interest throughout the surrounding world (cf. v.34; 10:1–9). The provisions noted were daily requirements. The “cor” was a large measure of capacity. It was equivalent to the homer (“a donkey load”). Estimates vary considerably as to the exact amount involved—from forty to one hundred gallons. The daily requirement of fine flour amounted to between 150 and 280 bushels, that of coarse flour or meal, 300 to 560 bushels.
23 In addition to the large numbers of domesticated animals, game animals were also brought in. The exact identity of the “choice fowl” is not clear.
24–25 Solomon’s kingdom was peaceful and prosperous. With control over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates, Solomon was able to provide peace and security for his people. The statement that “each man [sat] under his own vine and fig tree” speaks of undisturbed prosperity and became a favorite catch phrase to indicate the ideal conditions prevailing in Messiah’s kingdom (Mic 4:4; Zec 3:10). To enjoy the fruit of the vine and the fig tree meant there was a complete absence of warfare and economic disruption.
26–28 The reading “four thousand” reflects 2Ch 9:25. The Hebrew here reads “forty thousand” and is considered an old copyist’s error. (Because of early systems of numerical abbreviation, transmission errors with numbers were more likely than in other portions of the text.) The twelve thousand horses may also indicate horsemen. Possibly the horse and rider as a unit is in view.
3. His superior wisdom (4:29–34)
The one attribute most characteristic of Solomon is “wisdom” (GK 2683). Interest in wisdom was widespread in the ancient world. In the Gentile world wisdom was primarily associated with the ability to be successful. It was not a speculative discipline but intensely practical. It pertained to all walks of life: priests (regarding proper practice in ritual), magicians (regarding skill in the practice of their arts), craftsmen of all sorts (regarding skillful workmanship), and administrators (regarding good management), etc. It did not usually deal with pure moral values. Though frequently associated with religious activity, its concern had to do with ritual and magical skills.
In the OT “wisdom” is frequently used in the broad sense of skill in craftsmanship or administration. An outstanding example is Ex 31:3, in which the two craftsmen appointed to make the tabernacle were given “skill” (lit., “wisdom”) in carrying out their work. This kind of practical wisdom is applied to life as a whole—the art of being successful, i.e., how best to make one’s way through life. Wise men were those who had unusual insight into human nature and in the problems of life in general. Thus they were sought as advisers to kings and rulers. At the very heart, however, of the concept of wisdom lies the recognition that God is the Author and End of life and that a meaningful or successful life is one that has its focus in him (cf. Job 28:28). True wisdom gives discernment in spiritual and moral matters.
29 The expression “breadth of understanding” means a comprehensive understanding and is illustrated by the numerous areas of knowledge in which Solomon was at home (vv.32–33).
30 The “East” here probably refers to Mesopotamia generally, which was commonly regarded as a major seat of culture and learning (cf. Isa 2:6). It produced a great body of literature, most of it mythological, but also much wisdom material.
31 Solomon’s wisdom was recognized to be greater than that of any other man. He is compared in particular with four men noted for their wisdom as expressed in proverbs and songs. Ethan is the author of Ps 89, Heman of Ps 88. Calcol and Darda, apart from their appearance in 1Ch 2:6, are otherwise unknown. It seems likely that the expression “sons of Mahol” is a designation of membership in a guild or profession, i.e., “singers” (GK 4689; lit., “dance,” but sacred dance and song were closely related).
32 Many of Solomon’s proverbs are preserved in the book of Proverbs. These were not only unusually sagacious but were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Besides the Song of Solomon, two songs or psalms are similarly preserved in Scripture (Pss 72; 127).
33 Solomon was skilled and learned in many areas. He was an astute observer of life and nature and from his careful observations was able to illustrate various facets of human nature and activity. God had granted Solomon great insight and a great thirst for knowledge.
34 The name Solomon soon became synonymous with a superior wisdom, so much so that kings of distant nations sent representatives to Jerusalem. This involved more than curiosity. It was a mark of respect and perhaps in many instances a desire to profit from his wisdom and learning (cf. ch. 10, which gives a concrete example in the visit of the queen of Sheba).
D. Solomon’s Building Program (5:1–8:66)
1. Preparations for building the temple (5:1–18)
a. The league with Hiram of Tyre (5:1–12)
After he had firmly established himself and his administration, Solomon began laying the groundwork for carrying out what was perhaps the major achievement of his reign—building the temple and the palace complexes. The planning and oversight of the construction program of a project of such magnitude required considerable managerial skill, and Solomon demonstrated here again the unusual gifts granted him by God (cf. Da 1:30).
1 Hiram of Tyre, who had made peace with David and was his best friend, sent an embassy to extend his best wishes to Solomon on his accession to the throne. This king now offered Solomon a continuation of friendly relations.
2 Solomon responded in kind and in a preliminary to a trade agreement disclosed to Hiram his intentions with regard to the building project.
3 “You know” is a good indication that Hiram’s relationship to David was more than one of peaceful coexistence or even of healthy commercial relations. David had let Hiram know what his intentions had been in regard to the building of the temple, a matter that had been very much on David’s heart (2Sa 7:1–17; 1Ch 17:1–15). He felt it to be inappropriate that he should live in a fine palace when God’s “house” was in reality a tent. Even after he was told that he would not be allowed to build the temple, he did all he could in the planning and preparation for the temple (1Ch 22;29) to give Solomon as much help as possible.
4–5 God firmly established Solomon in the kingdom. There was peace within the kingdom, and there were no threats from the outside. The new king was prepared to carry out his father’s wishes (cf. 1Ch 22:11–16; 28:9–21). Solomon could not help but be impressed by David’s intensity and sense of purpose. He was very aware of his great responsibility, both toward God and toward his father. This is made quite clear by his quoting God’s word to David.
6 Solomon asked Hiram for a trade agreement similar to the one that had existed between David and Hiram, but on a much larger scale (cf. 2Sa 5:11; 1Ch 22:4). The cedars of Lebanon were famed for their beauty and were greatly desired by rulers of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Syro-Palestine for their building projects. Hiram’s work force, skilled in felling and transporting timber, would be supplemented by labor sent by Solomon. The payment for goods and services was to be set by Hiram.
7 On receiving Solomon’s message, Hiram acted enthusiastically. Solomon’s request would initiate a major trade agreement beneficial to both parties.
8–9 Hiram agreed to Solomon’s proposal and stated that he would be responsible for shipping the timbers by log rafts to the port that Solomon would designate. From that point they would be Solomon’s responsibility. In return Solomon was to provide Hiram with provisions for his court.
10–11 There was an ample supply of timber for Solomon. In return he provided Hiram with wheat and olive oil, commodities not found in abundance in mountainous Phoenicia, whose economy was primarily based on an extensive shipping trade and export of timber.
12 The quality of wisdom is once again attributed to Solomon, seen here as a fulfillment of God’s promise. The aspect of wisdom referred to is that of managerial and diplomatic prowess. Solomon in 1Ki 3 humbly recognized his deficiencies, and God granted him an abundant measure of wisdom so that he might be able to deal successfully with the various problems that might arise from his large undertaking.
b. The levy on the people (5:13–18)
13–14 The following verses give information on the labor force that Solomon raised to carry out the great task of gathering materials and then building the temple. The thirty thousand conscripted laborers were taken from all the tribes of Israel and sent in shifts of ten thousand to help the Phoenicians in the felling and transporting of the timbers from Lebanon. Each shift stayed one month at a time, so that each man worked for Solomon four months per year. The other eight months he worked on his own fields. This method of providing labor (called corvée) for large public projects was common in the ancient world but a fairly new innovation in Israel. In the list of David’s officials, Adoniram is said to be over the forced labor. This would indicate that David used the corvée system to a limited degree, but nothing further is said about it. Solomon, however, used it extensively. The more splendid the royal court, the greater the demand on the people.
15–16 The 70,000 carriers and 80,000 stone-cutters were non-Israelites (2Ch 2:17–18). They constituted a permanent “slave labor force” (1Ki 9:22), with the more onerous tasks to perform. The dressing of the stones was done by Israelite and Phoenician craftsmen. The stone was quarried in Israel, probably much of it in Jerusalem itself. The 3,300 foremen and overseers here were mostly Canaanites, with a smaller group of Israelites acting as higher supervisors.
17 The “large blocks of quality stone” for the foundation of the temple were squared off so that each stone would fit perfectly. According to 6:7 these large ashlar blocks were cut and squared at the quarry.
18 Other stones were prepared along with wood beams by skilled craftsmen, some from Israel, but most from Phoenicia. The city Gebal (Byblos) is particularly mentioned as providing a large part of these artisans. Again, according to 6:7, these men performed their craft at a place apart from the building site itself. This required careful planning and measuring and illustrates how well organized the whole program was and how skillfully the work was done.
2. The building of the temple (6:1–38)
a. Introduction (6:1)
The temple was in reality a permanent tabernacle as far as its symbolism and typology are concerned. It is basically the dwelling place of God with his people. There is a spiritual and symbolic continuity that transcends the structure itself. This is seen, for example, in the exchange between David and God in 2Sa 7, in which God is described as living among his people in a tent, moving with them from place to place. From God’s perspective there is no essential difference, whether the house be a tent or a splendid structure of stone and cedar.
1 Solomon began the actual building of the temple in the fourth year of his reign. Since this event is linked to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, this verse is one of the major pieces of internal evidence for the dating of the Exodus. The end of Solomon’s reign is 931/930 B.C. This puts the beginning of his forty year reign at 971/970 and the fourth year at 967/966 and the date of the Exodus at 1447/1446. This date accords well with other biblical evidence (Jdg 11:26 and the length of the time of the Judges) as with external historical evidence.
The site of the building of the temple is not given here, but 2Ch 3:1 states that it was “on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David. It was on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, the place provided by David.” This was also the site of the (aborted) sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham (Ge 22:2). It lay on the rocky platform just to the north of the city of David on the eastern ridge of Jerusalem.
b. The outer structure (6:2–14)
2 Verses 2–10 give the general dimensions of the temple. These are inside measurements and do not include the thickness of the walls. The temple is here the main, central structure of the temple complex. Its dimensions were sixty cubits long by twenty wide by thirty high. (The cubit was approximately eighteen inches in length.) This was exactly twice the size of the tabernacle proper.
3 There was a portico (or porch, vestibule) attached to the front of the “main hall of the temple.” It measured ten by twenty cubits, its long side going along the breadth of the temple proper.
4 The “clerestory windows” were probably on the side walls above the side chambers (cf. v.5). The exact nature of the windows is not known. Some have suggested slatted or latticed windows. Others suggest windows narrower outside than in.
5–6 Against the outside walls of the temple proper (main hall and inner sanctuary), Solomon built a three-tiered structure divided into an unspecified number of rooms (cf. Eze 41:5–11). Verse 10 gives the height of these rooms as five cubits each. At each level of the side rooms, the thickness of the wall was decreased by a half cubit on the outside wall and similarly on the inside wall so that the floor beam rested on the resulting offset ledge. Thus the width of each successive story increased by one cubit. By this means the beams had supports without being “inserted” or bonded into the inner temple wall. They were not structurally a part of the temple.
7 It is not necessary to see here a concession to the long-standing prohibition in Israel against using iron in the construction of the altar (Ex 20:25), since iron was indeed used at the quarries. It does indicate excellent organization and planning. The erection of the temple could go much faster and with far less confusion by utilizing precut and prefitted materials. In addition, the relative quiet would be consistent with the sacredness of the undertaking.
The floor plan of Solomon’s temple
8 The entrance to the side room was on the right (south) side, probably in the middle. Access to the second and third levels is most often understood to have been by means of a spiral staircase that led through the middle story to the third floor.
9–10 Apart from the statement that the roof was constructed of beams and cedar planks, no details are given. The use to which the “side rooms” were put is not mentioned, but they were undoubtedly intended for storage.
11 According to 9:2, after the dedication of the temple, the Lord appeared to Solomon a second time (the first time being at Gibeon, ch. 3), referring to direct personal appearances of the Lord. In the present passage God evidently spoke to Solomon through a prophet.
12–13 These are encouraging words, putting God’s blessing on the building of the temple. God was with Solomon in this massive undertaking, and he would recognize the temple as his dwelling place among his people. This promise takes in two aspects of the Davidic covenant. (1) God established for David a lasting dynasty and declared that his son Solomon would be the one to build the house for the Name of the Lord that David had desired to build. (2) Solomon, in order to experience the blessings of the Davidic covenant, had to exhibit the faith and obedience of David toward the Word of God. The same holds true for each generation of Israelites. Thus the temple in all its splendor and ritual is by itself not sufficient. God requires obedient hearts.
14 This concludes the exterior structure. The next verses describe the work done in the interior.
c. The inner structure (6:15–35)
15 When the exterior structure was complete, Solomon lined the interior walls with cedar planks from floor to ceiling. The floors were also covered with wood, in this case pine or fir. Whatever the exact identity of this wood, it was often used together with cedar. The two were highly regarded and became a symbol of luxuriousness and stateliness. It is evident that Solomon was sparing no expense in building the temple, using the finest and costliest materials available. His prayer in ch. 8 makes it clear that in doing this Solomon was giving expression to his sincere love for and devotion to God. Though God could not be enriched, Solomon was demonstrating in a practical way that nothing but the best is good enough for God.
16–18 The inner sanctuary or “Most Holy Place” was partitioned off from the main hall by cedar planks. The dimensions were twice those of the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle. This left forty cubits for the main hall, likewise twice as large as those of the Holy Place in the tabernacle. No stone was visible anywhere in the temple. Not only was everything lined with cedar, but the wood paneling was covered with fine, delicate carvings.
19 The inner sanctuary was the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies because it housed the Ark of the Covenant, a symbol of the presence of God (cf. 1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2). In Ex 25:21–22 God told Moses that he would meet with him there and give him all his commands for the Israelites. The top of the ark could be called “the mercy seat” or “atonement cover,” in view of the annual sprinkling by the high priest of the blood of atonement. It was from between the cherubim that the glory of the Lord began his departure from the temple (Eze 10:4). Thus the ark in the Most Holy Place is the focal point of the temple and its ritual—not as an object of worship or superstitious awe, but as the place where God manifested his presence in his converse with his people.
20–22 This holy room was a perfect cube, overlaid in its entirety with gold, as was the cedar altar of incense. This altar was physically placed in the main hall or Holy Place directly before the entrance into the Most Holy Place (Ex 30:6), but functionally and symbolically it was associated with the Most Holy Place. Thus v.22 notes that it “belonged to the inner sanctuary” (cf. also Heb 9:4). By means of this altar, the priest could daily burn incense in the worship of God who was symbolically enthroned between the cherubim in the inner sanctuary.
Not only the inner sanctuary, but all the inside walls of the temple were overlaid with gold. The gold chains, stretched across the front of the inner sanctuary, served to strengthen the concept of the inaccessibility of this Most Holy Place.
23–28 Two cherubim made of olive wood and covered with gold were placed in the inner chamber. Each had a wingspan of ten cubits. They were so placed that they faced the door (2Ch 3:13). Thus their combined wingspan reached from one wall to the other. (By contrast, the two cherubim on the ark faced each other.) These composite figures (cf. Eze 1:4–14) represented the cherubim associated with the throne and government of God (Eze 1:22–28). They were also the guardians of the way to God (Ge 3:24). The impact to the beholder of these representations of the cherubim would be to impress on that person the awesomeness of God’s holiness. Approaching God is not a light or frivolous matter and must be undertaken in the exact way he has prescribed—through the blood.
29–35 Doors of olive wood were made for the entry to the inner sanctuary and larger, double-leaved doors of pine or fir for the entry to the main hall. The jambs for both sets of doors were of olive wood. The doors as well as the walls (vv.20–22) and even the floors were covered with gold, with gold hammered into the carvings on the door. The covering of the floors with gold has often been scoffed at as being preposterous; yet it is in keeping with Solomon’s desire to show forth in the temple, as much as humanly possible, the glory of God. It was his testimony to the greatness of God, and indeed the fame of this temple was spread far and wide so that honor and glory accrued to God as a result.
d. The court (6:36)
36 An inner court, called in 2Ch 4:9 the court of the priests, was built with three courses of dressed stone and then one layer of trimmed cedar beams (cf. Ezr 6:4). The author describes another court that enclosed the whole temple and palace complex (7:9–12).
e. Conclusion (6:37–38)
37–38 Seven years were required to complete the temple. An enormous amount of hours and a lavish expenditure of funds were involved. All the plans and specifications of David were carried out. It must have been a moment of great satisfaction to Solomon to see the fulfillment of his father’s dream; and when God acknowledged the temple by filling it with his glory, Solomon’s joy knew no bounds.
3. Solomon’s other buildings (7:1–12)
1 It took Solomon almost twice as long to build his palace complex as to build the temple. This was due to the numerous public and private building units that were constructed, six of which are briefly described in this passage. Also, in the case of the temple, there had been extensive advanced planning and acquisition of materials. This was not the case with the palace. The temple and the palace were included in one large complex and were enclosed within one courtyard (v.12), perhaps to give visual expression to the fact that the king was to act on behalf of God. He himself was to walk in God’s ways and, as shepherd of the people, lead them and direct them to God. As such, he was a type of Christ.
2–5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was a separate building, so named because of its cedar construction. It was an imposing structure one hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. Its exact function is not perfectly clear, though it is referred to in 10:17 as the repository of three hundred shields of gold (cf. Isa 22:8). This latter passage is in a context of warfare, so real weapons, not ceremonial shields, are involved. This indicates that the building was at least in part an armory.
6–7 The five building units described in vv.6–9 may have been part of one grand structure. The colonnade was a magnificent porticoed entry hall, through which one entered the Hall of Justice. There was a throne hall or royal audience chamber where the king personally heard complaints and meted out justice in cases that could not be handled by lesser officials (cf. 3:16–28). The layout of this throne room was most likely similar to that of contemporaneous throne rooms in Syria and Assyria. Usually the throne was placed at the end of the hall left of the entry. The throne itself is described in 10:18–20.
8 As to the private residence of Solomon as well as the one for Pharaoh’s daughter, nothing is said except that they were similar in design and set away from the public building.
9–12 The stones used in the palace complex were high quality, precisely cut, and trimmed on both inner and outer faces. The foundation stones were large, measuring twelve to fifteen feet in length. Similar ashlar stones have been found above the foundations of the southern “palace” in Megiddo. The large outer court enclosed both the temple and the palace works of Solomon. The construction, three layers of stone and one of cedar beams, was the same as for the wall of the inner court. This typically Phoenician construction style is represented at Megiddo in the Solomonic gate as well as in the gate of the court to the southern palace.
4. The vessels of the temple (7:13–51)
a. Hiram the craftsman (7:13–14)
13–14 Hiram (“Huram”; so also in 2Ch 2:13; 4:11) was an outstanding master craftsman brought in from Tyre. He is obviously to be distinguished from the king of the same name. He was half Phoenician and half Israelite, his mother being from the tribe of Naphtali. He was skilled in bronze work; and 2Ch 2:14 adds that he was likewise skilled in working with gold, silver, iron, stone, wood, and various dyes and fine linen (cf. Ex 31:2–3; 35:30–31). Literally, Hiram was “filled with wisdom [GK 2683] and understanding [GK 9312] and knowledge [GK 1981] in doing every kind of bronze work.” This illustrates the broad semantic range of the words “wisdom” and “understanding.” Hiram’s wisdom consisted in his practical skills. Solomon not only utilized the finest materials, but also spared no expense in hiring the finest workmen.
b. The two bronze pillars (7:15–22)
15 These two ornamented bronze pillars are the first of the objects made by Hiram for the temple. Every indication is that they were not structurally part of the temple but were freestanding. They were placed “at” or “near” the portico (v.21; cf. 2Ch 3:17). Numerous examples have been found of similar pairs of freestanding pillars in the ancient Near East. These pillars were quite large, eighteen cubits high with a circumference of twelve cubits. They were hollow, four finger-breadths thick (Jer 52:21), and were cast in molds (v.46).
16–20 The “capitals,” also bronze, were cast separately and were five cubits in length. They were bowl shaped (v.42; 2Ch 4:12–13) and were adorned with pomegranates, lily petals, and a network of interwoven chains.
21–22 The pillar placed on the right or south side of the entrance to the portico was named Jakin (“he established”). The other, on the left or north side, was named Boaz (“by him is he mighty”). These twin pillars may well have been a memorial in which David (the planner) and Solomon (the executor) give humble testimony to the grace of God in establishing for David a perpetual dynasty; the pillars also testified to the king’s dependence on God for a successful reign. In practical terms the pillars were to be an ever-present reminder to each successive king of the fact that he was ruling by God’s appointment and by his grace, and that in God lay his strength.
c. The bronze Sea (7:23–26)
23–26 The great Sea, made of cast bronze, was another marvelous example of the superb craftsmanship of Hiram. It was cast in one piece, including the lilylike rim and the two rows of gourds below the rim. The bronze bulls were cast separately, since they were later removed by Ahaz and replaced with a stone base (2Ki 16:17). The exact shape is not known. The Sea, together with the ten movable basins, served as the basin had in the tabernacle, for ceremonial cleansing. The Sea was used by the priests for their washing, while the basins were used for the rinsing of the burnt offerings (2Ch 4:6). The ceremonial stipulations for the priesthood with regard to the cleansing were intended to teach a truth that transcends mere ritualism, namely, that one who would approach God and serve him needs to be cleansed from the pollution of the world.
d. The ten bronze basins and their stands (7:27–39)
27–37 Ten mobile stands were constructed to carry the basins. They were four cubits square and three cubits high. There were lavishly engraved panels all around the stands, every available space being utilized in depicting cherubim, lions, and palm trees. The wheels were like chariot wheels. The word “handles” is probably better rendered “supports.” The axles went through the bottom of these supports. These stands were mobile so that the basins could be moved to wherever they were needed.
Copyright ©1991 Zondervan Publishing House.
38–39 The basins were also bronze, each holding forty baths (c. 230 gallons) and measuring four cubits (c. six feet). Though they were mobile, their normal placement was in the main hall of the temple, five on the right side and five on the left. Their purpose was to supply water for rinsing the burnt offerings (2Ch 4:6). The Sea was placed at the southeast corner of the temple (cf. Eze 47:1–2).
e. Summary of Hiram’s bronze work (7:40–47)
40a The small bronze implements are listed, starting here. The basins are small vessels used for carrying away the ashes from the altar (cf. 2Ki 25:14; 2Ch 4:11). The shovels were for the actual removal of the ashes from the altar, and the sprinkling bowls were large bowls used at the altar of burnt offering, probably for catching blood.
40b-45 A summary of the items of bronze fashioned by Hiram begins at this point. Our account does not mention the bronze altar (2Ch 4:1).
46–47 The casting of the bronze was done in the lower Jordan Valley. Succoth was on the east side of the Jordan on the Jabbok River as it comes into the Jordan Valley. Zarethan is not as certainly located but is perhaps downstream on the Jabbok River, closer to the Jordan. This general area shows abundant evidence of having been an active center of metallurgy during the period of the Hebrew monarchy. There is an abundance of good clay; and with available wood for charcoal and a prevalent north wind, this area was an ideal center for metalsmiths.
The casting method used by Hiram was the lost-wax process, used from 2500 B.C. in Egypt until the Middle Ages. It is still often used for high quality sculptures. First a clay core is made, then covered with wax to the desired thickness. The wax is molded according to the intended design, then overlaid with specially prepared clay. The whole mold is then evenly baked for a period of time, possibly several days. During this time the wax is withdrawn through the outer mold through vents. Then molten bronze is poured into the same vents. Huge furnaces must have been used by Hiram, and great skill was required to ensure a uniform flow and distribution of molten metal and proper escape of gases. Only a master craftsman could have successfully carried out so huge an undertaking as was required here.
f. The furnishings of the temple (7:4850)
48 A list of golden furnishings and implements begins here. On the golden altar, see comments on Ex 30:1–4. On the table of the bread of the Presence, see comments on Ex 25:23–30. The present passage does not mention the number of tables, but 2Ch 4:8 informs us that there were ten tables of the Presence. Later, in 2Ch 29:18, after Hezekiah had the temple purified, the priests reported to him that “the table for setting out the consecrated bread, with all its articles” had been purified. It would seem from these accounts that, though there were actually ten tables, they were often considered as a unit (one table in ten parts, so to speak), which they were as far as their function and symbolism were concerned.
49 On the golden lampstands, see comments on Ex 25:31–40. Here again, as with the table of the Presence, the one lampstand of the tabernacle became ten, yet so far as their function and symbolism were concerned, they were one unit. The symbolism of the earthly sanctuary as described in Heb 9 is based on the OT descriptions of the tabernacle, which served as the basic model for the temple.
50 It is noted that even the sockets of the doors of the Most Holy Place and of the main hall were of gold.
9. The treasures of the temple (7:51)
51 With the completion of the temple, Solomon brought into the treasury (possibly the side rooms of ch. 6) the great wealth of gifts David had dedicated to the Lord (1Ch 29). David had, in his great love for the Lord, given freely and gladly his “personal treasures of gold and silver for the temple” of his God, “over and above everything” he had provided for the temple (1Ch 29:3). His love for God and his great enthusiasm encouraged his officials to give in a commensurate way. David’s infectious joy affected the whole nation. His praying in 1Ch 29:10–20 is a model that is difficult to surpass, of joyous thanksgiving for the privilege of being allowed to give to the Lord. His prayer that God might give Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep God’s commands and to build the temple had now been answered. One cannot help but feel that, just as David’s officials caught the joy of giving, so did Solomon catch the enthusiasm of carrying out the great program of building the temple. This is an excellent illustration of one of the great principles of leadership.
5. The dedication of the temple (8:1–66)
a. Moving the ark and the tabernacle to the temple (8:1–11)
1–2 With the completion of the temple and with all the furniture in place, the crowning event was about to take place, the placement of the ark into its permanent home. For Israel it marked the beginning of a new era. Now, more than ever before, there was a feeling of permanence. The ark was no longer housed in a temporary shelter in Jerusalem; the dichotomy in the sanctuary, with the ark in Jerusalem and the tabernacle at Gibeon, was ended.
To mark this great occasion with the dignity and solemnity it deserved, Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel with the tribal and family chiefs. As God’s anointed shepherd, he involved all Israel through its elders and chiefs in the moving of the ark and the dedication of the temple. This involved more than mere pomp and ceremony. Solomon was serious about the spiritual significance of this occasion; and he desired that the heart of all Israel be knit together in the dedication of the temple and, more important, in the dedication of their hearts to God.
The Feast of Booths was the last in the series of yearly feasts and was also known as the Feast of Ingathering. It was a harvest feast, but, more important, it celebrated the end of the desert wanderings and God’s bringing his people home into the Promised Land (Dt 12:8–11). Zechariah 14:16–21 singles out this feast as mandatory for surviving Gentiles as well as redeemed Israel in the Messianic Age. This is consistent with the understanding that it celebrates the fulfillment of God’s promise, the establishment of Israel in the land under God’s Messiah.
For Solomon the completion of the temple symbolized the fulfillment of God’s promise, not only to establish Israel, but also to live in their midst and be their God (cf. Rev 21:3). Without God’s presence Israel’s possession of the land would be an empty blessing (cf. Ex 33:12–16). It is God’s presence that makes Israel uniquely blessed among all nations.
3–5 It was the priests who took up the ark in the prescribed manner. Before the ark was a great procession of the assembled chiefs and elders, led by Solomon. In keeping with the solemnity of the occasion, sheep and cattle were sacrificed in such numbers that no one could keep track. The participial form “sacrificing” indicates that the sacrifices were being made as the ark progressed the short distance from the city of David to the temple (cf. 2Sa 6:13). We should note that the Tent of Meeting (traditionally called the tabernacle) was also brought up. This was the original tent that had been at Gibeon. It, with its furnishings, was evidently stored somewhere in the temple.
6–8 The priests, who alone were permitted in the temple proper, placed the ark in its appointed place, under the outstretched wings of the golden cherubim, the representations of those highly exalted angelic beings associated with the throne of God and his rule (see 6:23–28). The ark was placed crosswise to the door, in a north-south alignment. The staves, which were extended lengthwise along the ark, were also aligned in the same direction, crosswise to the door. This accounts for the statement that the wings of the cherubim, which stretched north to south, overshadowed the ark and its staves. These staves, or carrying poles, were so long that the ends could only be seen if one were to look into the Most Holy Place from a place near the opening (i.e., the staves extended considerably beyond the doorway). The statement about the staves shows that Ex 25:15 was complied with, that the staves were not to be removed from the ark. Even though the ark was now in its permanent home, the staves remained in place, a reminder to God’s people of their journeys in the desert. Though all the other furnishings had been newly made, the ark, representing the ruling presence of God, was still the same as that made while Israel was encamped at Sinai.
9 The ark had in it only the two stone tablets from Horeb, the witness of the covenant God had made with his people. It was for this reason that the ark was called the “ark of the covenant of the Lord” and also the “ark of the testimony.” Here was the abiding witness to God’s solemn purpose with regard to Israel, to make it a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). It was also a sobering reminder to Israel of her responsibilities before God. With regard to this latter aspect of the ark of the testimony or witness, it must be remembered that were it not for the blood of the atonement, the ark must of necessity be a throne of holy and terrible judgment, for “there is no one righteous, not even one” (Ro 3:10). But by God’s gracious provision, the ark became a throne of mercy for the one who by faith approached in God’s appointed way. Thus while the ark was too holy for even the priests to touch, and while it spoke of the awesome holiness and majesty of a sovereign God, it became through the atoning blood a witness to the forgiving, protecting, and comforting presence of God for the believer.
10–11 When the priests had placed the ark in the Most Holy Place and had withdrawn, the cloud of the glory of God descended and filled the temple, just as had been the case at the inauguration of the tabernacle (Ex 40:34–35). God was thereby graciously acknowledging Solomon’s handiwork and indicating his intention of dwelling with his people. The glory cloud was the visible manifestation of the presence of God. The concept of the manifested glory of God (sometimes called his “shekinah glory”) is a pervasive and important theme in the OT and extends into the NT (see comments on Joel 3:20–21).
b. Solomon’s address (8:12–21)
12–13 Solomon recognized the glory cloud for what it was and saw in it God’s approval and promised presence. God said that he would “dwell [GK 8905] in a dark cloud.” This is not his normal, regular habitation, but he manifested himself in this form for Israel’s sake. Solomon’s response to this gracious manifestation was that he had built a “magnificent [lit., princely; GK 2292] temple” for the Lord so that he might sit enthroned in regal splendor as befits his majesty. Solomon was under no illusions, as though God needed the temple for his own sake. But just as God is enthroned in heaven, so he has seen fit to use Solomon’s temple as his throne on earth.
14 Solomon had been speaking to God. He now turned to the people and blessed them. As king and shepherd, Solomon was to be both the civil leader and the spiritual leader. Solomon, having been graciously put on the throne by God, having been allowed to carry out the great task of building the temple, and having experienced the entering of the glory cloud into the temple, blessed the people. He did so on God’s authority, as the representative of the Lord.
15–21 The blessing takes the form of praise to God for fulfilling his promise to David (cf. 2Sa 7). What God has promised he has also carried out. The “hand” (GK 3338) is the biblical symbol for sovereignty. Two aspects are mentioned by Solomon: (1) God has raised up Solomon to sit on David’s throne, as he had promised, and (2) God has allowed Solomon to build the temple. Since the Davidic covenant implied benefit to Israel through God-appointed leadership and ultimately the coming Messiah, God had clearly begun the fulfillment of the covenant; and Israel could expect to receive the bounty of God’s blessings if the people walked in his ways.
c. Solomon’s sevenfold prayer of dedication (8:22–53)
The theme of the prayer (vv.22–30). The theme of Solomon’s dedicatory prayer is that as God had seen fit to honor his word up to that time, he would continue to do so in accepting the prayers of his people and in granting forgiveness. These prayers are seen as being directed to God through the temple. Solomon was praying, in effect, that God might always recognize the temple as the way for sinful people to approach a holy God.
22 Solomon stood before the whole assembly, on a bronze platform, three cubits high (2Ch 6:13). He stood facing the assembly with his hands outstretched in prayer, a common attitude in the ancient world (cf. Isa 1:15). Solomon stood as the representative and shepherd of his people, leading them in public worship and acting as intercessor. His prayer stands as one of the great public prayers of Scripture (cf. Ezr 9:5).
23–24 Solomon’s opening great confession shows that he was greatly moved on this occasion. It was a day of fulfilled desires and prayers, a day in which God had graciously manifested himself in the glory cloud, a day of bright hope for Israel and the house of David in their covenant relationship with God. When Solomon extolled the greatness and uniqueness of the Lord, it was with a full and overflowing heart. What particularly moved Solomon was the faithfulness of God in carrying out his promise. In citing the faithfulness of God in maintaining his covenant and his love, Solomon did not lose sight of the human responsibility to respond to God and to love him wholeheartedly.
25 Solomon’s confidence in praying was bolstered by previously answered prayer. A second ground of confidence was God’s own promise. His servants had frequently claimed his promises when they prayed, and God honored these requests (cf. Ex 32:13; Da 9:1–18). In making this petition, Solomon recognized his own responsibility and tacitly rededicated himself to walking after God.
26 The major point, however, of these verses is a plea that God, who had so far been faithful in every way to his covenant with David (as evidenced in the completion of the temple and the rulership of Solomon), might always accept this temple and condescend to dwell there, receiving those who approach him by way of the temple.
27 Solomon made it clear that he was under no illusions as to the meaning of the temple, nor was it, properly speaking, a home for God. He acknowledged that it would be utterly impossible to build a house that could even begin to be commensurate with the majesty of the Lord. God does not need the temple, but the temple needs God! God does not need Israel, but Israel needs God!
28 Solomon realized that on the actual merits of the case, he would have no right to pray as he did, were it not for God’s own promise given by his grace. The only claim Solomon had on the Lord was God’s own word, freely given; but God’s word is a bond that cannot be broken, so that Solomon was able to pray with assurance and confidence.
29 This verse forms the core of the entire prayer. God had condescended to allow a temple to be built for his name (5:5). He had by this means identified himself with his people. The temple provided a place of contact between human beings and God, a way for sinful people to approach a holy God, to have their sins forgiven, and to live in fellowship with him. Solomon prayed that God might continue to acknowledge the temple and the one who comes to him by way of the temple, as he had promised.
30 Solomon anticipated various situations in which a sinful people, suffering calamity because of God’s judgment, would repent and pray. Solomon’s earnest request was that God would not close his ears to repentant and believing prayer that was directed to God by way of the temple. God’s own dwelling place, or place of enthronement, is in heaven. The temple, as the place on earth where his name is enthroned, is a type of the true heaven and at the same time the way of approach to God.
Seven specific requests (vv.31–53). The background to most of the various calamities described in the following verses is found in Lev 26 and Dt 28–30. Both passages begin with the description of the blessing that would be Israel’s portion if God’s people walked in his ways. The bulk of the material describes the curses in the form of various calamities that would befall the people if they did not obey God. Each calamity was designed to bring the people to repentance; but if they still would not repent, then worse would come. In both passages the final blow was exile from the Land of Promise. But in Lev 26:40–45 and Dt 30:1–10, God promised that when they were cast out of the land, if they would then take to heart what had befallen them and repent, God would listen to their prayer and restore them to the land.
31–32 Solomon’s first request involves cases in which an oath was brought before the Lord in attesting to the truth of a claim (cf. Ex 22:11), cases in which there were no human witnesses (e.g., Ex 22:6–12; Lev 6:1–5). These had to do with damage or loss of property entrusted to another, dispute over whether a piece of property has been found by another, or when fraud of some sort has been perpetrated. Solomon prayed that when an oath was brought before the Lord in such a case, he would judge between the guilty and the innocent, judging the one and establishing the innocence of the other. Solomon’s concern was not only for upholding justice, but perhaps chiefly for the sanctity of an oath brought before God, so that his holiness might not be taken lightly.
33–34 Solomon’s second request involved prayer for forgiveness after a defeat by the enemy (cf. Lev 26:17; Dt 28:25). This defeat was caused by sin and the repeated refusal to listen to God’s admonitions. It entailed subjugation by the enemy with considerable hardship and the taking of prisoners (not here a mass removal of population). The conditions of restoration are here given as (1) turning back to God (repenting), (2) confessing God’s name (i.e., acknowledging his lordship), and (3) prayer in the temple. This last element implied a coming to God in the way prescribed by him. The answer looked for is the forgiveness of sin and restoration of the captives to the land.
35–36 Solomon’s third request concerned the drought brought on the land by the sin of the people (cf. Lev 26:19; Dt 28:23). Israel’s crops depended on good and well-timed fall and spring rains. The Canaanites thought that they would ensure for themselves fertility for their land and abundant rains by worshiping Baal, the supposed god of the storm. The Israelites were prone to emulate their neighbors in the licentious worship of this idol. As a consequence God did withhold rain (cf. chs. 17–18) so that his people might realize that the Lord alone is the provider of all blessing. This passage gives the same three conditions of restoration as v.33. Restoration involved answered prayer in the forgiveness of sin and the restoration of rain. In addition, Solomon prayed that God might teach Israel how to walk before him so that they might enjoy the fullness of God’s blessing.
37–40 Solomon’s fourth request dealt with famine, various kinds of plagues, and enemy incursions that brought about severe economic disruptions (cf. Lev 26:16, 19–26; Dt 28:22–23, 38, 59–61). The emphasis was on individual recognition and acknowledgment of sin. It put the stress on personal and individual responsibility before God; first, in each person recognizing his or her own guilt and responsibility; and, second, in turning to God in sincere prayer. The emphasis here was on the heart, i.e., the inner person, rather than on ritual alone. God, who knows the heart, would respond to a person’s prayer in accordance with the reality of one’s repentance. The object was that people would fear God.
41–43 Solomon’s fifth request recognized God’s wider purpose in his dealings with Israel, namely, that as Gentiles saw God working in and through Israel, they might desire to know Israel’s God. Solomon prayed that as the foreigners approached God through the temple, God might hear them so that they too would truly come to fear God.
44–45 Solomon’s sixth request involved situations where the people did not have access to the temple because they were in a foreign country. In this instance it involved soldiers sent to battle in distant places. Under these circumstances they were to pray to the Lord, toward the temple. It was not the temple per se that rendered prayer effective; it was the Lord who saw fit to dwell there who answered prayer.
46–51 Solomon’s seventh request dealt with the last in the series of calamities God promised to bring on Israel if the people persisted in disobedience (Lev 26:27–39; Dt 28:45–68). But just as God provided hope for a repentant Israel in Lev 26:40–45 and Dt 30:1–10, so did Solomon, on the basis of these passages, pray that God would continue to show himself a faithful and forgiving God. A mass deportation of the nation as a whole, with resultant scattering through many nations, would normally spell the end of the nation. In Israel’s case, however, God would use calamity and distress to bring the people to an awareness of their sin so that they would turn to God, receive forgiveness, and be restored. The conditions of restoration were clearly outlined: a change of heart, i.e., a repentant spirit that led to confession of their sin; a turning back to God with all their heart and soul; and a praying toward the land of their fathers and the temple (trusting in God’s promise; cf. Da 6:10). For those who responded as indicated, there would be complete restoration and vindication. God, who loved his people enough and was strong enough to bring them out of the iron-smelting furnace of Egypt, would also bring about his full and sovereign purposes with his people.
52–53 Though throughout his prayer Solomon put great stress on the centrality of the temple, this was not for reasons of vainglory, as being his special accomplishment. His basic concern was for his people. God had singled them out from all nations to be his special inheritance, and he had delivered them from Egypt. May he continue to care for his people until his complete purpose is fulfilled!
d. Solomon’s benediction (8:54–61)
54–56 As Solomon stood before the people to bless them, his heart was filled with praise; and once again he spoke of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling all his promises. The key word here is “rest” (GK 4957), which has important soteriological connotations. In Dt 12:9–10 “rest” was described as Israel’s living in security in the Land of Promise. In the following verses, Israel is told to bring her sacrifices to the place (temple) where God would cause his name to dwell. Then would the people rejoice before the Lord (Dt 9:12). There can be no doubt that Solomon saw the temple as the completion of the picture of rest as portrayed in Dt 12. Not only was Israel living in peace and security, enjoying the fruitfulness of the land, but God was formally dwelling in their midst. This made everything complete.
The rest enjoyed by Solomon and his generation was not complete, nor was it final. Psalm 95:7b–11 gives sad expression to the fact that Israel had not entered God’s true rest because of unbelief and rebellion (see Heb 3:7–4:11).
57–61 Solomon here expresses a twofold wish with a twofold purpose: (1) May the Lord always be with us and never forsake us so that he may turn our hearts to him! (2) May the Lord always remember to uphold our cause so that all peoples may know that the Lord is God! The first speaks of a continued internal working of God to make his people conformable to his will. The second speaks of a continued external working of God to bring about a change in the Gentiles, that they too may come to a saving knowledge of God. These verses also illustrate the balance between God’s work in the human heart and life on the one hand and man’s responsibility on the other.
e. Solomon’s dedicatory sacrifice (8:62–66)
62–63 All Israel joined Solomon in bringing sacrifices on this grand occasion. The large number was appropriate both to the occasion and to the number of people present to participate in the fellowship offerings. For these offerings the fat, blood, and entrails belonged to the Lord, while the flesh was eaten by the offerer. These offerings were brought over a period of fourteen days, since the normal period of seven days for the Feast of Tabernacles was extended by another seven days. The fellowship offering was a voluntary act of worship and was intended to testify to the fellowship between God and the one whose sins had been forgiven. After those portions belonging to God had been offered, a communal or fellowship meal was held for the offerer and his family and for the Levites.
64–66 To accommodate the large numbers of sacrifices, the whole middle part of the court in front of the temple was consecrated. The large number of sacrifices and the involvement of the people attest to the unity of purpose and the wholeheartedness of the devotion of people and king.
The Feast of Booths was in itself a grand occasion for rejoicing and for an enhanced spirit of community among all Israelites. The dedication of the temple made this occasion all the more joyful and memorable, and the time of celebration was suitably extended. When the people left, they went home rejoicing and with a great feeling of satisfaction in the realization that God’s blessing was on the king and on the nation as a whole. This was indeed a memorable and significant occasion.
E. The Activities of the Solomonic Era (9:1–11:43)
1. The Lord’s second appearance to Solomon (9:1–9)
1–2 God had already signally honored Solomon by appearing to him at Gibeon. Now once again God appeared to him to encourage him to remain faithful and to walk in God’s ways. This made Solomon’s later declension all the more reprehensible (cf. 11:9–10). The time of this appearance was after the completion of Solomon’s major building projects—the temple and palace complexes. Though it might seem strange that the Lord waited thirteen years after Solomon’s prayer of dedication to reply, there are three considerations that make this entirely feasible.
(1) God did indeed respond immediately to Solomon’s prayer. The Chronicler records the consuming of the sacrifices by fire sent from heaven immediately after Solomon’s prayer, followed by the filling of the temple once again with the glory cloud (2Ch 7:1–7). This must certainly be considered as both an answer from God and a clear endorsement of the temple and of Solomon’s dedicatory prayer. At this point no other answer was really necessary.
(2) There is no reason why there could not have been an unreported message through a prophet. This would have gone unrecorded because of the much more momentous appearance of God himself with essentially the same message. The recording of this appearance was important because of 11:9–10.
(3) The final consideration seeks to provide an answer to the question of the reason for the Lord’s appearance to Solomon at this point in time if it was not in direct response to his dedicatory prayer. The answer may be that Solomon had come to a spiritual crossroads. It is significant that the year in which he completed the palace (his twenty-fourth year, twenty years after he began the temple) is mentioned three times (7:1; 9:1, 10). Apart from the notations on the year that he began building (6:1) and finished building the temple (6:38), this is the only event linked to his regnal calendar.
A second matter that points to a crossroads at this time is the remark in 11:4, that as Solomon grew older he began to follow after other gods, despite God’s two appearances to him (11:9). This declension obviously began after his twenty-fourth year, since God did not condemn him in ch. 9. It was certainly a gradual thing that began in the heart and only slowly began to appear openly. It would be in keeping with the character of God to speak forcefully and urgently to Solomon, warning him against turning from his walk with God (cf. vv.6–9).
3 God acknowledged the temple, consecrating it by putting his name there. Neither the ritual nor the splendor of the building made it the dwelling place of God. Rather, it was God’s sovereign and gracious choice to dwell among his people and to acknowledge them as his own. Solomon had asked (8:29) that God’s eyes might be on the temple. God replied that not only his eyes but also his heart would be there. The following verses state the conditions.
4–5 These words reiterate the responsibilities of those who would come after David. Again it is emphasized that more than ritual observances were in view. It was the integrity of the heart that he demanded. Unfortunately, this was where Solomon failed later in life. It was not that he rejected God, but that his heart became divided in his loyalties (11:4) so that the passion for God that characterized his father and Solomon himself in his younger years was no longer there.
6–9 These verses give dire warning as to the disastrous consequences that resulted from apostasy. Solomon’s history (ch. 11) shows that this warning was needed, particularly at this time in his life. This appearance of God was an act of grace and was intended as an urgent reminder to Solomon to guard his heart. A second thing to note here is that the consequences of disobedience were far-reaching. As kings, Solomon and his successors were responsible for the whole nation. Failure on the king’s part affected all the people. Israel’s subsequent history amply illustrates this principle. As the king went, so went the people.
There are two interrelated consequences that would result from disobedience. One was the exile of the people; the other was God’s rejection of the temple, leading to its destruction. This state of affairs would lead in turn to a twofold reaction on the part of Gentile observers: (1) ridicule of Israel, and (2) questions as to the reasons for such a disaster.
Verses 8–9 describe the lesson to be learned from this by the Gentiles as they asked one another why this destruction had come about. The destroyed temple would become an object lesson in disobedience. In the answer given as to the reason for this destruction—namely, that it is because Israel has forsaken God and turned to idols—there is implied amazement that a people could be so foolish as to reject the God who had taken them out of bondage and made them into a great nation, proving himself in the process with great and mighty deeds.
2. The business relation between Solomon and Hiram (9:10–14)
10–14 This paragraph relates a business transaction between Solomon and Hiram involving the transfer of twenty border towns. These towns were in Galilee in the western part of the territory of Asher. They lay generally east and southeast of the city of Acco. In the arrangements made in ch. 5, Solomon traded wheat and oil for timber. Hiram also sent 120 talents of gold (equivalent to about four and one-half tons) to Solomon. Apparently more payment was required than what Solomon could provide in grain and oil; so he ceded these border towns. Hiram, after inspecting the area, was not happy with the towns and, according to 2Ch 8:2, returned them to Solomon (presumably in favor of payment of a different kind), who then rebuilt the towns and settled Israelites in them.
3. The levy of forced labor and urban development (9:15–24)
15 “Supporting terraces” is traditionally and generally known by the name “Millo” (basically a transliteration from the Hebrew). The most widely held view is that this consisted of architectural terracing and buttressing along the northeastern slope of the east hill of Jerusalem, the city of David. Such buttressing would have filled a considerable depression between the city of David and the temple and palace complex to the north. The purpose would have been to allow the construction of more buildings in the area and, perhaps more important, adequate fortifications as near to the water supply as possible. Its construction was a major undertaking (cf. 11:27), ranking in importance with the fortification projects of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer.
In addition to the expanding and strengthening of Jerusalem, three key cities were selected for rebuilding (Gezer) or for enlargement and strengthening of fortifications (Hazor and Megiddo). Recent work has demonstrated that these three cities had certain characteristics in common with regard to their fortifications attributable to the Solomonic era. Noteworthy are distinctive casemate walls with the outer wall measuring five feet and the inner wall four feet thick. The interior chambers are seven feet wide (similar walls from this era have been found in numerous cities throughout Israel).
Most distinctive are the gate complexes, which are identical in plan and virtually of the same dimensions in all three cities. These gates feature a four-entry, six-chamber inner gate, with twin towers at the first entry. Most of the gate extends inward from the casemate wall, with only the twin towers extending out from the wall. At both Megiddo and Gezer an outer double-entry gate has been found.
Hazor was strategically placed in the north (c. three miles north of the Sea of Galilee), being situated at the juncture of the two major highways approaching from the north. It became Israel’s chief bulwark against northern invaders until it was destroyed in the eighth century by Tiglath-pileser III.
Megiddo was the great fortress that controlled one of the major passes from the Plain of Sharon on the coast into the Valley of Jezreel through the Carmel range. It figures in prophecy as the staging area for the last great battle (Armageddon) in which Christ will defeat the forces of the Antichrist.
16 Gezer, on the road from Joppa to Jerusalem, had been a powerful Canaanite city. Though it was included in the tribal territory of Ephraim, it was not occupied by the Israelites until the time of Solomon. Then it was given to Solomon as a wedding gift by Pharaoh to his daughter. He had burned the city and killed its inhabitants, giving it to Solomon to rebuild and inhabit with Israelites.
17 Upper and Lower Beth Horon were strategically placed, controlling the access to the highlands of Judea from the coastal plain through the Valley of Aijalon. The lower city, being about one and one-half miles farther west, was fortified by Solomon to guard against enemy approach from its vulnerable western side.
18 Baalath was the designation of several cities in Canaan. The one in question here is most likely the city also known as Kiriath Jearim, where the ark was kept for some time after its return from the Philistines. This assumes that the names Baalath and Baalah (by which name Kiriath Jearim was also known) are interchangeable. This would then be a fortress guarding another of the western approaches to Jerusalem.
19 Solomon built up an extensive network of supply centers and towns to house his chariotry. These places are not specified but certainly included the cities just mentioned in addition to other strategic locations throughout the kingdom. Though he was a man of peace, Solomon was well prepared militarily to defend his kingdom.
20–23 On the forced labor or corvée, see comments on 4:6 and 5:13–18.
24 On Pharaoh’s daughter, see comment on 3:1. Since the work on the Millo (or “supporting terraces”; cf. v.15) was not begun until after the queen had been moved, likely the Millo had to be located near or in the city of David and the construction activities would have been at or near the site of her temporary home. It also appears likely that existing structures may have been razed to allow the construction over a large area of this buttressing work.
4. Solomon’s religious activities (9:25)
25 This note is added to show that once the temple had been built, Solomon’s practice of sacrificing at the various high places (3:2–4) ceased. Presumably the people followed him in this. As king he led the people, as on the day of dedication, in bringing before the Lord the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings on the three great feast days.
5. Solomon’s commercial activities (9:26–28)
26–27 A completely new approach to international trade began here as far as Israel was concerned. Phoenicia was the major shipping power in the Mediterranean, while Israel controlled the major inland trade routes in the Levant. With Israel newly exercising control of the Negev as far as the Gulf of Aqaba, new possibilities opened up. Solomon made a treaty with Hiram of Tyre that was apparently mutually attractive. Both kings would be able to conduct extensive trade throughout the Red Sea area. In this venture Hiram supplied the seamen and shipping and shipbuilding skills, and Solomon gave Tyre access to the Red Sea and probably undertook a major share of the financing.
28 Ophir was fabled for its fine gold (Job 22:24) and as a center for the obtaining of exotic goods. It provided a rich source of revenue for Solomon and Hiram. Its location is still debated.
6. Solomon and the queen of Sheba (10:1–13)
The visit of the queen of Sheba is a graphic illustration of the fame of Solomon and of the awe that the reports of his wisdom and splendor inspired. The many legends and highly embellished accounts that have grown around this visit among Arabs, Jews, and Abyssinians attest to the widespread knowledge of the event and to the interest it created.
1 Sheba was in southwest Arabia, present-day Yemen. It is the best-watered and most fertile area of Arabia. By employing an extensive irrigation system, it developed a strong agricultural economy. But its chief strength lay in its being a center of trade. Its location kept it fairly secure from the power struggles in the Fertile Crescent and at the same time enabled it to be a convenient trade depot for traffic involving Africa, India, and the Mediterranean countries. It was famous for its trade in perfumes, incense, gold, and precious stones.
Solomon’s fame reached the queen, probably through the caravan traders that regularly passed through Israel on their way to Damascus or to Gaza. His fame was associated with the name of the Lord. It was well known that he was an enthusiastic and faithful servant of the Lord and that he humbly attributed his wisdom and success to the Lord. Possibly the real reason for the queen’s going to Solomon was for purposes of making trade agreements, but this is not stated. Undoubtedly business was transacted under the polite fiction of an exchange of gifts. Our passage makes it clear, however, that she did come to see for herself whether the glowing reports had been exaggerated or not.
“Hard questions” (GK 2648) is generally translated “riddles,” which were enigmatic sayings or questions that cloaked a deeper philosophical, practical, or theological truth. They were a favorite sport and a way to test one’s mettle. No doubt the “hard questions” posed by the queen were not mere frivolous tests of mental quickness but a genuine seeking for truths hidden in some of the enigmatic sayings known to her.
2 The queen came with a large caravan of camels carrying the trade goods for which Sheba was noted. Spices (Arabian balm) were native to South Arabia and were thus perhaps the most valued item in the whole inventory. Though v.10 mentions 120 talents of gold and many precious stones, the spices are singled out for special comment. Never again were so many spices brought in as on that occasion. When she arrived, she put before Solomon all the questions on her mind.
3–5 Solomon’s wisdom was not exaggerated. The queen was not disappointed in his ability nor in the wisdom he displayed. Not only his wisdom, but the splendor of his court and the manner of the temple ceremonies overwhelmed her. She was totally undone.
6–7 The queen had thought the reports about Solomon to be exaggerated, that no person could be as great as he was reputed to be. Yet now she freely confessed that his fame had not even begun to do him justice.
8 “How happy your men must be!” is the word found so often in the Psalms (cf. Ps 1:1 et al.) translated “Blessed!” (GK 897). It stresses the subjective appreciation of a great favor or blessing, an experience to be enjoyed, savored to its fullness. It is quite possible that Solomon’s servants had begun to take for granted all that they were experiencing in Solomon’s presence. But the queen, seeing all this for the first time, was overwhelmed with wonder.
9 A wise and good king is a blessing to his people, and God’s choice of Solomon as king was a mark of his love and favor for Israel.
10–12 On v.10, see comments on v.2. The wealth of precious materials brought to Solomon from Sheba caused the writer to insert at this point the mention in particular of a very precious wood that was imported in unheard of quantities (just as with the spice or balsam that had just come from Sheba). The identity of this almugwood is not known today. Traditionally it has been thought to be a type of sandalwood, but there is no certainty on the matter. Solomon used it for “supports” (steps?) in the temple and his palace and for musical instruments.
13 Solomon gave the queen all she asked for (in trade for the items she had brought?). In addition he bestowed lavish gifts on her in keeping with his majesty.
7. The wonders of the Solomonic era (10:14–29)
14–15 The 666 talents (twenty-five tons) represent Solomon’s yearly income in gold from all sources, including commerce and taxes. In addition there was an unspecified amount of income from tolls or tariffs from the various merchants and business agents that traveled through the land, as well as tribute from conquered kings. The “Arabian kings” were tribal chiefs of miscellaneous peoples living in the desert to the south and to the east. The governors were probably the district governors (4:7–19).
16–17 These verses describe the ceremonial shields that Solomon kept in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. They were wood or basket-work, covered with gold plate instead of leather. The large shield was either oval or rectangular to cover the whole body. The small shield was carried by archers (2Ch 14:8). The weights per shield were about seven and one-half and three and three-fourths pounds respectively.
18–21 The ivory throne, overlaid with finest gold, was a large and imposing object, in keeping with the symbolism of the seat of justice and rulership of a great kingdom. The armrests were flanked by lions, as were each of the six steps. Verse 21 well illustrates the wealth of Solomon’s kingdom.
22 The “trading ships” (lit., “ships of Tarshish”) most likely were large merchant ships designed to carry ore. They were seaworthy enough to travel long distances under difficult weather conditions. These ships came to be used for other types of cargo as well. It is likely that refined metals were shipped out of Ezion-geber in return for the exotic items listed in our passage (cf. Eze 27:12).
23–25 To the statement in 4:29–34 extolling the breadth of wisdom and knowledge of Solomon, this passage adds, first, that he was wealthier than any king on earth and, second, that “the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.” This is in accordance with God’s promise of 3:13.
26 This passage brings to mind the three prohibitions of Dt 17:16–17 for the anticipated kings—he must not acquire many horses, take numerous wives, or amass for himself great amounts of gold and silver. For his failure regarding the second prohibition, Solomon is taken to task in ch. 11. He is not taken to task, however, for the other two prohibitions. In the matter of horses, there seem to be two concerns: (1) the false reliance on chariotry (the most potent weaponry of the day) as a means of preserving and/or expanding the kingdom, and (2) making some of the Israelites go back to Egypt for the horses (cf. Isa 31:1–3).
On amassing personal wealth, one must remember that wealth was one of the bonuses God had promised Solomon (3:13). It was God’s gift, and he should not be criticized for it. No doubt the prohibition in Deuteronomy has to do with motivation and priorities, in which personal gain is the issue.
27 That which is considered a “precious” metal, silver, became a “common” metal because of its abundance. Cedar, which had to be imported from Lebanon, became as common (in buildings) as the indigenous sycamore-fig trees.
28–29 Solomon not only acquired chariots and horses, he became a trader in these items. They were imported from Kue (probably Cilicia) and Egypt. The Cilicians had been known for some time as breeders of fine horses. Solomon’s agents were active in seeking out the best horses and values available.
8. Solomon’s many wives (11:1–13)
Considering the grand heights of Solomon’s spiritual fervor and the great wisdom granted him by God, it seems impossible that he could have been so foolish as to succumb to idolatry. Yet it did happen, not overnight, but by slow degrees. First it was tolerated in his household. Once he became accustomed to it and comfortable with it, he also began to participate in idolatry with his wives. Solomon never renounced the Lord, but his heart was not entirely devoted to the Lord either. The syncretism that he began to display was a curse that plagued Israel through the years and ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and to the exile of the people. Solomon’s life stands as a solemn warning against ungodly alliances and relationships that can only destroy the believer’s spiritual vitality (cf. Ne 13:26).
1–3 Solomon was a great man, but he had feet of clay. He was spiritually unable to survive his disobedience to God’s prohibition in Dt 17:16–17 on taking more than one wife (see 10:26–29). In the Pentateuch God frequently warned Israel against intermingling and intermarrying with the Canaanites. Part of the reason was the extreme moral degeneracy of the Canaanites. Intermarriage inevitably led to toleration and finally observance of Canaanite religious practices (Ex 34:12–17; Dt 7:1–5). Another danger was that there was great similarity in some of the religious terminology; and though the theology behind the terms was radically different, it was very easy to adopt by degrees a comfortable syncretism and ultimately to forget the Lord and to serve idols.
If anyone should take these warnings seriously, it should be the king, who should lead by example. Yet Solomon apparently considered himself above the law and paid a bitter price. Though some of his many marriages may originally have been entered into for the cementing of diplomatic alliances and others merely for the purpose of increasing the royal harem to add to the splendor of the king, vv.1–2 point out that Solomon “loved” many foreign women and that he “held fast to them in love.” This speaks of strong emotional attachment, which is normal and desirable in a husband. But because Solomon was attached to the wrong women, he was led astray. The seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, though they added to the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom, were his downfall.
4 As Solomon grew older, his resistance wore down, and he became increasingly vulnerable. His service to the Lord became more and more perfunctory. The writer here measures his love for the Lord by the standards of David, who, with all his faults, loved God with a passion throughout his lifetime.
5–8 “Ashtoreth” is a deliberate distortion of Ashtart, the Canaanite fertility goddess. The revocalization is based on the word for “shame.” “Molech” (or “Milcom,” as the text reads here) is a deliberate distortion of the word for “king.” In not only allowing these practices in his own household but participating in them to some degree, Solomon sinned grievously against the Lord. Apparently Solomon showed no favoritism but treated all the gods alike, even to the honoring of “Chemosh,” the Moabite equivalent of the Ammonite Molech or Milcom.
9–10 Solomon’s sin was all the greater because of the special privileges he had enjoyed. God had singled Solomon out by appearing to him twice (see comments on 9:1–2). Solomon lacked neither proof nor evidence of God’s love and power. He had abundantly tasted God’s love (1) by being chosen, contrary to custom and expectation, as David’s successor; (2) in being given the special, personal name “Jedidiah” (i.e., “loved by the Lord”); (3) in receiving every benefit imaginable; and (4) in being visited by God twice for encouragement and admonition. He had also abundantly seen the power of God in that (1) he was put on the throne in the face of the power and influence of Adonijah’s followers (Joab in particular), (2) he was granted unchallenged power and prestige as king, and (3) he was given success in his endeavors beyond all expectation. This should have created in Solomon a lifelong love and devotion of the deepest kind.
11–13 The second special privilege that was Solomon’s was his relationship to David and the covenant God had made with him. He had not earned it; he was born into it. He had also been thoroughly instructed and trained by David (and possibly Nathan) in preparation for the high calling that was his (see comment on 2:2). As much as he could, David had poured into him his own love and passion for the Lord and his dreams for the house that would reflect the glory of the Lord. Solomon threw aside all these privileges when he followed after idols. He frittered away the continued joy and fellowship with God that could have been his for life. The punishment would be in accordance with the terms of the covenant with David. Yet even there God exercised mercy for David’s sake. The kingdom was not taken from Solomon during his lifetime, nor was the kingdom to be totally removed from the line of David. God would keep the tribe of Judah for the descendants of David to rule and would eventually fulfill all his promises to David.
9. Solomon’s adversaries (11:14–40)
a. Hadad the Edomite (11:14–22)
14–22 Hadad was the first of three men raised up by God to be adversaries against Solomon. It appears that as Solomon’s reign drew to a close, these three men became increasingly worrisome to him. Hadad was of Edom’s royal family, the only survivor of a severe slaughter when David’s army under Abishai, son of Zeruiah, defeated the Edomites with a slaughter of eighteen thousand men (2Sa 8:13–14; 1Ch 18:12–13). This slaughter seems to have taken place over a period of six months when for some unknown reason Joab sought to destroy the Edomite army. Hadad managed to escape and found his way to Egypt with a number of servants. There he was given Pharaoh’s sister-in-law as his wife. He continued in Pharaoh’s favor, and Hadad’s son was raised with the royal household. Hadad, however, continued to harbor strong bitterness against Israel; and the moment the news came that David and Joab had died, Hadad returned to Edom. There, in some unspecified way, he created trouble for Solomon, presumably not being very effective until Solomon’s later years.
b. Rezon of Damascus (11:23–25)
23–25 The second adversary was Rezon, who had served under Hadadezer, king of Zobah. After David defeated Hadadezer (2Sa 8:3–9), Rezon, who had escaped, formed a group of raiders and bandits who ultimately gained control of Damascus. Since David had thoroughly defeated Zobah and Damascus, put garrisons in the latter city (2Sa 8:6), and reduced it to a tributary, it seems likely that Rezon’s seizing of Damascus did not take place until later in Solomon’s reign. At some point, probably after he had finished his palace, Solomon defeated Zobah and Hamath and went as far as Tadmor, making it a fortified outpost. Thus it is unlikely that Rezon made his move into Damascus until Solomon’s declining years. However that may be, he was Solomon’s troublemaker in the north while Hadad caused problems in the south.
c. Jeroboam (11:26–40)
26–28 The third and by far most serious problem for Solomon in his latter years was Jeroboam, an Ephraimite of considerable ability and energy. The story of his rebellion, or “lifting his hand against the king,” starts with v.27. He was part of the Ephraimite labor force working on the Millo (see 9:15) and filling in a breach in the wall of the city of David. Jeroboam did his work so well that he attracted Solomon’s attention and was put in charge of the contingent from Ephraim and Manasseh. He was evidently a charismatic leader.
29–32 About this time, while still overseeing this construction project (which took place sometime after Solomon’s twenty-fourth year [9:10–15]), Jeroboam met Ahijah the prophet from Shiloh. This of course was a planned meeting on Ahijah’s part. When they were alone in the open country, Ahijah symbolically told Jeroboam what God’s plans were for him and Solomon. He tore his own new cloak into twelve pieces, told Jeroboam to take ten, and then explained the meaning of the prophecy.
33–36 On vv.33–35, see comments on vv.7–13. With the words “that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem” (v.36), God expressed the unconditional aspect of the Davidic covenant: He would at some future time reestablish the throne of David in full glory—in the person of the Messiah, the Anointed One. The symbolism is striking and beautiful. Not only would the line of David be perpetuated just as a light is kept burning, but this light was in Jerusalem, the city where God chose to put his name. There was in view, then, a future for God’s city, Jerusalem.
37–38 God gave Jeroboam the grand opportunity of establishing a lasting dynasty. The conditions were the same as those imposed on the sons of David. The standard of the godly walk is once again David. Unfortunately, though Jeroboam was extremely able, he was an unworthy man. He proved to be an ambitious and greedy opportunist. Chapter 12 shows that he had the ability of playing on people’s emotions to achieve his ends. All his subsequent actions demonstrate the mentality of a man who was determined to achieve his own ends, ignoring God and his ways in the process.
39 Here is both a reaffirmation of the enduring nature of God’s promise to David and a clear statement to Jeroboam and his successors that the house of David would win in the end. Starting with Rehoboam’s loss, first, of the ten tribes, then the deprivations of Shishak (ch. 14), Judah became both the smaller and generally the weaker kingdom. It was indeed a shock for Rehoboam and the tribe of Judah to be reduced overnight from the most powerful tribe in an illustrious and world-renowned kingdom to a small state that was soon stripped of what wealth it had left. But God said that it would not always be thus. There seems to be an implication here that in the future the tribes would all once again be under the leadership of Judah.
40 At some point after the prophecy of Ahijah, the attempt at rebellion spoken of in v.26 took place. No details are given. Presumably, Jeroboam was busily fanning the flames of dissatisfaction on the part of the northern tribes with the leadership of the house of David and, in particular, the oppressive requirements imposed on them to maintain the splendid style of Solomon’s government. There is a contrast here between Jeroboam and David, both of whom became kings after a disobedient king. David waited on God, but Jeroboam took matters into his own hands. Solomon, also, was disappointing. Rather than bowing humbly before the will of God as David had done under God’s chastening hand, Solomon reacted in the manner of Saul, causing Jeroboam to flee into exile.
10. Solomon’s death (11:41–43)
41–43 The royal annals of Solomon contained a far more complete record of the events surrounding his administration, but the account recorded in Scripture is God’s inspired message, given for the instruction and benefit of the reader. Solomon left a big mark in history. His memory and fame live on. He represents the first stage in the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant; and, despite his faults, he foreshadows the coming Christ, the true Son of David. In addition, his inspired words of wisdom as recorded in Scripture have challenged, taught, and inspired people throughout the ages.
II. The Divided Kingdom (1Ki 12:1–2Ki 17:41)
A. The Division and Early Kings (12:1–16:14)
1. The accession of Rehoboam and secession of the ten tribes (12:1–24)
1–2 “All the Israelites” manifestly refers to the representatives of the northern tribes. The basic differences between the northern and southern tribes had never been fully resolved even in the strong administrative periods of David and Solomon. That Rehoboam consented to go to Shechem for the inaugural ceremonies underscores the critical nature of the times and the insecurity of his position on the throne.
Jeroboam, mindful of his previous anointing (cf. 11:26–40) and confident that the time was ripe for him to make a move toward securing the throne, returned to lend his weight to the negotiations. Perhaps the ten tribes had actually gathered at Shechem expressly to make Jeroboam their king.
3–5 Jeroboam was well received by the delegation and accompanied them to the meeting with Rehoboam, where their demands for social reform were voiced. Particularly burdensome were the corvée, or compulsory service (over which, interestingly enough, Jeroboam had been appointed by Solomon [see 11:28; see also comments on 4:6; 6:14]), and the taxation that Rehoboam’s father levied on the land. Both lay on the people like a heavy yoke. After hearing the northern tribes’ demands, Rehoboam obtained a three-day period for considering the terms of their requests.
6–11 Calling in the elder counselors who had served through the difficult Solomonic years, Rehoboam was advised to grant the demands of the northern tribes so as to gain their loyalty. Next Rehoboam turned to his own contemporaries for advice. This group may have served as an administrative advisory body, perhaps concerned with national preparedness. The young men gave Rehoboam the counsel he wished to hear. They advised him to follow a harsh line. Was Solomon too hard on them? He would be tougher. His little finger would be thicker than Solomon’s loins!
12–15 When the northern delegation returned on the prescribed day, Rehoboam followed the advice of the younger men implicitly, delivering the harsh ultimatum. The author of Kings interrupts the narrative to point out that the decision of Rehoboam and his counselors was in accordance with a turn of affairs arranged by God’s sovereign disposition, as prophesied previously by Ahijah (cf. 2Ch 10:15).
16–17 After Rehoboam’s unfavorable reply to their request, the delegation delivered its formal note of secession. That the delegates were prepared for the worst seems obvious from their carefully composed poetic reply. The reply itself is drawn largely from the traitorous words of Sheba, who led an unsuccessful rebellion in the days of David (2Sa 20). The long-standing jealousy between the tribes, coupled with the hostility of the northern tribes to the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7), comes to the surface in all its ugliness and fateful consequences. Consequently, the kingdom became divided. Rehoboam retained the rule only over Judah and Benjamin, which Rehoboam’s forces managed to occupy as a much needed buffer zone between Jerusalem and the north.
18–24 Rehoboam quickly tested the decision of the delegates by sending Adoniram, his chief tax collector, to gather the taxes; he gathered only stones for his effort. With Adoniram dead and the people gathered into a bitter mob, Rehoboam fled for his life. There remained only the formal invitation to Jeroboam to become king of the northern tribes, followed by the coronation ceremony before the assembled multitude. The schism was complete and was to be permanent, despite a long period of incessant warfare between the two states. Having failed to acquire the north’s willing subservience, Rehoboam decided on an outright invasion of the new kingdom; thus he gathered a large army (cf. 2Ch 11:1–4). However, Shemaiah the prophet warned Rehoboam not to attempt to undo what God had decreed; Rehoboam wisely abandoned the attack.
2. The reign of Jeroboam in the northern kingdom (12:25–14:20)
a. The condemnation of Jeroboam’s religion (12:25–13:34)
25–30 Jeroboam’s plans for the administration of the new kingdom are now detailed. It was imperative that he act wisely, lest the people become dissatisfied and return their allegiance to Rehoboam. No doubt much of the administrative machinery (minus the hated corvée established by David and Solomon) was utilized. His years serving Solomon in a responsible position probably aided Jeroboam’s leadership in this area. Shechem was refurbished and made the capital. Peniel received his attention also and may have served subsequently as an alternate royal residence.
The people, however, had to be cared for not only administratively but also religiously. Here Jeroboam miscalculated and substituted human wisdom for divine direction. Although God may have allowed the kingdom to be divided politically, he intended no theological schism. Fearing that a continued adherence to the established faith with its center of worship in Jerusalem might bring about a return to the south in the people’s affection, Jeroboam established an alternate and more convenient religious experience. Rather than making the long trip to Jerusalem, the people of the north could now select one of the two more accessible worship centers: Dan, in the northern sector of the northern kingdom, or Bethel, in the extreme south, both of which had long-standing traditions as religious cities. Bethel was to be especially prominent throughout the rest of the history of the northern kingdom (cf. Am 7:13).
At each cult center Jeroboam erected a temple, probably to house the sacred image and altar. The golden calves he caused to be erected were probably not intended to be construed as pagan images per se but representations of animals on whose back stood the invisible god, unseen by the eye of the worshiper. Similar practices involving the worship of the Canaanite god Baal Hadad are well documented in the literature and art of Ugarit. It was inevitable that religious confusion and apostasy would soon set in.
31–33 To further his religious goals, Jeroboam instituted a new religious order drawn from non-Levitical sources. Indeed, the Levitical priests refused to have any share in such unscriptural procedures, choosing rather to leave their homes and go over to Rehoboam and the southern kingdom where the true faith was retained (2Ch 11:13–17). In this they were followed by many other believers from the north. Completing his religious innovations, Jeroboam instituted an annual feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, no doubt rivaling the Feast of Tabernacles in the seventh month in Jerusalem.
13:1–3 God sent his prophet out of Judah to rebuke Jeroboam and his apostate religion. How tragic that no prophet could be found in the north who could speak for God’s cause! The man of God came to the altar where Jeroboam was leading in the false sacrifices and prophesied by the authority and power of the word of the Lord that a coming prince of the house of David, Josiah by name, would one day burn the bones of Jeroboam’s priests on that altar, thereby defiling it forever (cf. 2Ki 23:15–20). In confirmation of his prophecy, the prophet gave a sign: the altar would be split apart and its ashes poured out. According to the Levitical regulations, the ashes were to be carried off carefully to a clean place for disposal (Lev 1:16; 4:12; 6:10–11). Their pouring out, together with the destruction of the altar, would signify God’s invalidating of the sacrificial service being held at Bethel.
4–6 Infuriated, Jeroboam pointed his hand at the prophet and gave orders that he be seized. But the very hand, stretched out in condemnation, was itself rebuked by being instantly withered. The king who would himself “take a hand” in the religious ceremony of his people found that strong hand totally impotent. Moreover, the prophesied sign descended on the altar with a lightning like stroke. Terrified and humbled Jeroboam pled with the man of God that his hand be restored; whereupon the prophet interceded with God, and the king’s hand was restored to its former condition. Another miracle had occurred!
7 Finally Jeroboam was convinced by the twin miracles of the altar’s destruction and the restoration of his withered hand that the prophet was indeed from the Lord, hence a man whose authority and power were to be reckoned with; so he invited the prophet to dine with him. Whether Jeroboam intended the dining hall of the sanctuary or that of his own home in Bethel is not certain. Whether or not Jeroboam hoped to win such a holy man over to his side, he clearly intended to try both to mollify the prophet’s stand and to save face before the multitude.
8–10 The man of God, however, would not be so easily manipulated. He refused most stringently. Nothing the king could offer enticed him. God had laid on him three rules of conduct for the road: he was neither to eat nor to drink nor even to return by the way he had come. So holy was his mission that the very way he had traveled had been rendered sacred (cf. Mt 2:12; Jas 2:25). Rejecting the king and his offer, he departed by another road.
11–22 Learning of the incident in Bethel from his sons and recognizing that the man of God must be a true prophet, an aged prophet of Bethel set out to overtake the man of God. Probably the old prophet hoped for fellowship and encouragement. When heat finally overcame Jeroboam’s rebuker, the old prophet invited the man of God to dine with him, assuring him that his previous instructions against eating and drinking had been superseded by a subsequent revelation. Was not he also a prophet?
The prophet from Judah was too easily convinced by the old man’s deception. Perhaps a fundamental flaw in his character can herein be detected: his carrying out of God’s charge may have been sheerly from command, not conviction. At any rate, he went with the prophet of Bethel. While they were dining, the word of the Lord truly did come to the old prophet. Because the man of God had disobeyed the full counsel of God, he would not be buried in the tomb of his father; this meant that he would meet a violent death along the way home.
23–30 As soon as the meal had ended and the man of God had taken his leave, a lion met him on the road, killed him, and stood over his fallen body. Eventually the news of the tragedy reached the aged prophet. Surmising that the events were the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophetic judgment, he went and found that all was as it had been reported: the body of the man of God lay on the road with the lion yet standing guard beside it. The body had not been eaten, nor had the prophet’s donkey, which stood beside his fallen master. This could only be the judgment of God! Striding past the sentrylike lion, the prophet tenderly picked up the body of the man of God, brought it back to town, and after proper mourning, laid it to rest in his own tomb.
31–32 After the burial, the old prophet gave instructions that when he died he should be laid to rest beside the man of God. So powerful an effect had the whole series of events produced on him, and so assured was he that all the man of God had predicted would surely come to pass, that the old prophet longed, at least in death, to be united with this holy man. The prophecy that the man of God had made was fulfilled minutely in the reform of Josiah (2Ki 23:15–18).
33–34 One would think that the foregoing events would have influenced Jeroboam to turn to God. Such was not to be the case. Having had his hand restored and being rid of the irksome prophet from Judah, Jeroboam only intensified his apostate religious policy, a program that was to become the ruin of the northern kingdom and for which his name was to live in infamy. Thus it was to be repeatedly said of the wicked kings of the northern kingdom: “He walked in all the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat and in his sin” (e.g., 16:26).
b. The consequences of Jeroboam’s religion (14:1–20)
1–3 When Jeroboam’s son fell critically ill, the king sent his wife in disguise to Ahijah to learn whether the prince would recover. Since Ahijah had successfully predicted his kingship (11:29–39), Jeroboam doubtless hoped that the old prophet might once again have good news. Perhaps he sent his wife because he himself felt convicted that he had not heeded Ahijah’s admonitions (11:38).
4–16 Since Ahijah was now aged and blind, there was every hope that the subterfuge might succeed. But God had disclosed King Jeroboam’s hypocrisy to Ahijah so that with her first footstep he greeted her instantly as Jeroboam’s wife and delivered to her God’s dire message of rebuke. Despite God’s goodness to him, Jeroboam had utterly despised God and committed gross sin. Jeroboam’s contemptuous attitude is emphasized by the phrase “thrust me [the LORD] behind your back” (cf. Eze 23:35).
The Divided Kingdom
930–586 B.C.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
Ahijah added a further message: not only would Jeroboam’s dynasty quickly be cut off, but because the sin condition initiated by Jeroboam would permeate all Israel, the kingdom itself would one day fail, and its people would be scattered abroad. One of Jeroboam’s most besetting sins was the setting up of “Asherah poles,” sacred to the worship of the goddess Asherah. This fertility goddess was worshiped throughout Canaan, often by using sacred poles or trees that symbolized life and fertility.
17–18 As soon as Jeroboam’s wife reached Tirzah, true to Ahijah’s prophecies, the lad died. A period of great mourning followed. Those with spiritual insight who knew the circumstances probably realized that the lad’s death served as a guarantee of the full completion of all that Ahijah had prophesied.
19–20 The history of Jeroboam I concludes with the summary of his reign in accordance with the usual stylized formula.
3. The reign of Rehoboam in the southern kingdom (14:21–31)
21–25 The notices of Rehoboam’s reign in Judah begin with a spiritual evaluation. Tragically, Rehoboam’s record was little better than Jeroboam’s. He, too, allowed rival worship centers and pagan fertility practices to spread throughout the land. While Rehoboam seems to have begun his reign well (cf. 2Ch 11:5–17, 23), he soon abandoned the law of the Lord (2Ch 12:1). As a result, in Rehoboam’s fifth year (926 B.C.), God sent punishment in the form of an invasion by Shishak I, the Egyptian Pharaoh.
Shishak had an interesting history. Toward the end of Egypt’s weak and divided Twenty-First Dynasty, mention is made of a Libyan who through marriage and favorable dealings with the high priest finally gained control of the government, founding the Twenty-Second Dynasty as Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak). He was able to reunify the country and restore a certain amount of stability to the crown. Egypt could now once again look beyond her borders. Having renewed the old ties with Byblos and having regained economic supremacy in Nubia, this king saw an opportunity to deal with Palestine. Probably he had advised Jeroboam—whom he had harbored for many years awaiting the demise of Solomon—in his quest for the northern throne. So, perhaps through some border incident, pretext was found for a full invasion.
26–28 On the basis of the biblical account and the archaeological data from ancient Egypt, it is clear that Shishak swept through much of both Israel and Judah, taking heavy spoil. Shishak lists 150 cities he took in the campaign. The Chronicler records that Jerusalem itself was severely looted; only the repentance of Rehoboam and his leaders at God’s rebuke through Shemaiah, the prophet, saved the land and people from total destruction. Significant among the spoil treasures were Solomon’s golden shields (see 10:16–17), kept in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon (see 7:2). To replace the shields that were used at state ceremonial functions, Rehoboam had bronze shields made and entrusted them to the commander of his royal bodyguard, who stored them in the guardhouse.
29–31 The chapter closes with the additional notice of strained relations between the northern and southern kingdoms throughout Rehoboam’s reign. Since Rehoboam had complied with the divine prohibition against overt warfare (cf. 12:21–24), more than likely this reference is to a “cold war” or to occasional border skirmishes. Rehoboam was succeeded by his son Abijah.
4. The reign of Abijah in the southern kingdom (15:1–8)
1–5 Attention is focused on the short-lived reign of Abijah in but few details: (1) the continuing prominence of the dowager queen Maacah, (2) the continuance of apostasy in the southern kingdom, and (3) the continuing war with the north.
Maacah was apparently the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2Ch 13:2) and Tamar (2Sa 14:27), hence the granddaughter of Absalom, David’s rebellious son. The favorite of Rehoboam’s eighteen wives, she was the mother of Abijah and the grandmother of Asa. Her continued prominence testifies to her strong personality.
Rehoboam’s spiritual example was reflected in his son. Abijah’s imitation of his father’s religion stands in bold contrast to that of his forefather David, with whom God had entered into covenant relationship (2Sa 7:4–17). Although Abijah was a poor representative of the house of David (cf. 11:4), yet God, who remains faithful (2Ti 2:13), would honor the man after his own heart in preserving his heir (cf. 1Sa 13:14; Ps 89:19–29; Ac 13:22). Furthermore, God was to take a hand in turning the religious situation in Judah around—he would raise up a godly son to the throne of Judah.
6–8 Abijah inherited his father’s continued friction with Jeroboam and the northern kingdom, only now it took the form of open warfare between the two Hebrew states. Fortunately for Judah, Abijah’s underlying faith could rise to the surface in times of crisis. In a major battle between the two antagonists, Abijah and his few troops were delivered from certain defeat when the Lord intervened for them on behalf of Abijah’s prayer (cf. 2Ch 13:3–22).
5. The reign of Asa in the southern kingdom (15:9–24)
9–15 When Asa assumed the kingly office in the twentieth year of Jeroboam’s reign (910 B.C.), the influence of Maacah, his grandmother and the dowager queen, was still pronounced. Although Asa’s long forty-one year reign was to be eventful, during his first ten years he enjoyed a time of peace (cf. 2Ch 14:1), perhaps the benefit of Abijah’s victory over the north.
Asa used these ten years wisely, expunging idolatry and enforcing the observance of true religion, securing the defenses of the country and strengthening the armed forces (2Ch 14:2–8). In all this “he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD.” His piety and wise preparations would put the country in good stead, for shortly after this period he faced and defeated an invasion led by Zerah the Ethiopian (2Ch 14:9–15), probably a commander of the Egyptian Pharaoh Osorkon I (914–874 B.C.).
In the third month of the fifteenth year of his reign, Asa, encouraged by the prophet Azariah (2Ch 15:1–7), convened an assembly in which all true Israelites were invited to renew the covenant with the Lord. The meeting was attended with great praise and joy (2Ch 15:9–15). At the same time Asa instituted stringent spiritual reforms, aimed at removing the remaining vestiges of idolatry and fertility rites (2Ch 15:8). Even the politically and religiously powerful Maacah was disposed of once and for all. No doubt she had used the outbreak of the war as an occasion to reintroduce the public worship of Asherah (cf. 2Ch 15:16). While Asa stopped short of a total cleansing of the land, he was a God-fearing man who led the way for his people in public dedication to God (cf. 2Ch 15:17–18).
16–17 Meanwhile in the northern kingdom Jeroboam had died and was succeeded by Nadab, his son (vv.25–32). Nadab reigned only two years before he was assassinated by Baasha, who instituted the short-lived second Israelite dynasty. Baasha’s ascension year was the third year of Asa’s reign. Throughout Asa’s early years, Baasha had been occupied with securing the throne and other internal affairs. However, he had probably looked on disapprovingly at the turn of events in Judah. But with a victorious and strengthened Judah whose renewed vitality had succeeded even in drawing away many of his citizens, Baasha could no longer remain inactive. Moving swiftly into Judah, Baasha seized Ramah, only four miles north of Jerusalem itself. This action not only stopped the further drawing away of Baasha’s subjects, but also cut off the main road north out of Jerusalem, thus shutting down all communications between Judah and Israel. This gave Baasha control of the trade routes.
18–19 Asa’s reaction was singularly strange. Despite God’s great deliverance from Zerah and Asa’s own religious reforms, Asa turned suddenly to human devices to deal with the new crisis. Perhaps his own forces had suffered heavy losses in the past war. Perhaps the many years of success had encouraged him to rely on himself in political affairs while trusting God for spiritual matters. Asa did not even bother to pose the problem to God as Rehoboam had done (cf. 12:22–24). Stripping the temple and palace of treasures, Asa sent a delegation to the Aramean king Ben-Hadad, proposing that he break his treaty with the northern kingdom and put military pressure on it so that the Israelite incursion into Judah would be recalled.
A long-standing hostility had existed between the Arameans and the Hebrews. David had subdued the chief Aramean tribes, occupying the main area of Syria itself (cf. 2Sa 8:3–12; 1Ch 18:3–11); and although these regions largely remained subservient to Solomon, already in Solomon’s day Rezon ben Eliada had managed to establish himself in Damascus, being “Israel’s adversary as long as Solomon lived” (11:23–25).
Apparently a new dynasty had gained control in Damascus and, with the division of the united monarchy, had supported the northern kingdom. Ben-Hadad, who first appears here in history and was to play a major role in the affairs of the Near East in subsequent years, had a treaty alliance with Baasha. But seeing Asa’s treasure and sensing the gain that was to be had from a new league with Judah and from a military venture against Israel, Ben-Hadad was only too happy to help. He may have followed Asa’s suggestion of appealing to a prior treaty between Damascus and Jerusalem as a pretext for coming to Judah’s aid against Baasha.
20–22 Moving swiftly, Ben-Hadad ravaged Baasha’s northern sector, not only gaining for himself access to the international caravan routes that led from Egypt through Phoenicia and on to Damascus, but giving Asa the desired relief in Judah. For in order to meet the new emergency on his northern flank, Baasha was forced to abandon his operations at Ramah.
Asa, for his part, quickly mobilized Judah’s forces and retook Ramah, dismantling Baasha’s fortifications and using the building material to fortify Mizpah and Geba, thus providing strongholds for his reestablished control in Benjamin.
Needless to say, Asa’s actions did not solve the relations with the north, but they did give him respite from further invasions throughout the rest of his reign. Although we hear of no more wars in Asa’s day, it was a time of spiritual defeat. His self-assertedness took its toll. The Chronicler reports that when God sent his prophet Hanani to rebuke him for having forsaken God to trust in human beings in the war, Asa both threw that seer into prison and dealt harshly with any who dissented with state policy. Thus began a long and checkered history of the persecution of God’s prophets (2Ch 16:7–10; cf. 2Ki 17:13–14).
23–24 The parting notices concerning Asa deal with the loathsome disease in his feet that served only to harden his heart. For his funerary observance, Asa had the air filled with sweet spices (2Ch 16:12–14); but no amount of man-made perfume can hide the noxious stench of the life of a believer alienated from God! How far he had fallen and from what great spiritual heights! Asa’s life remains as an exemplary admonition to believers to abide humbly in Christ, lest their lives become totally unproductive for God.
6. The reign of Nadab in the northern kingdom (15:25–31)
25–31 Jeroboam’s son Nadab succeeded him, reigning in Tirzah. In his second year Nadab attempted to capture the important Philistine city of Gibbethon (cf. 16:15–17). However, in the midst of the siege he was assassinated by Baasha (probably one of his military officers), who seized the throne. Baasha immediately liquidated all the royal house, thus confirming Ahijah’s prediction that God would judge the sins of the house of Jeroboam (cf. 14:9–16).
7. The second dynasty in Israel (15:32–16:14)
a. Baasha (15:32–16:7)
32–34 Political change did not signal a change in spiritual outlook. The founder of the second dynasty proved to be as wicked as Jeroboam and Nadab before him. Baasha compounded his murder of Nadab and the remainder of the first dynasty by walking in the spiritual prostitution that Jeroboam had introduced.
16:1–4 Accordingly, God sent Jehu the prophet to reprimand Baasha and announce his demise. Jehu told him that although God had exalted Baasha to be king (though not sanctioning Baasha’s means of getting there), hoping for a change in the spiritual climate of Israel, Baasha had sought only his own ends and had perpetuated the persistent sins of his predecessors. Therefore he and his house would fall like that of Jeroboam, and beasts and birds of prey would feed on their fallen bodies.
5–7 Baasha had come from lowly origins. Except for his war with Asa (15:32), little is heard of him; and the scriptural account quickly passes on to Elah, his son. God’s denunciation of Baasha adds further explanation to the subsequent condemnation of Asa for not leaving his war with Baasha in God’s hands.
b. Elah (16:8–14)
8–14 As in the case of Jeroboam’s son, so Baasha’s son, Elah, reigned but two years and was also assassinated. Like Nadab, Elah was interested in Gibbethon and had sent his army commander, Omri, to put it under siege. He himself remained behind in Tirzah. During a drinking bout at the house of Arza, Elah’s official, Zimri a military officer, killed him. Zimri thereupon assumed the kingship, subsequently murdered all Elah’s descendants, and finished the second dynasty, as Jehu had prophesied. The Lord’s judgment on the house of Baasha had come quickly.
B. The Era of the Third Dynasty (1Ki 16:15–2Ki 9:37)
1. Interregnum: Zimri and Tibni (16:15–22)
15–20 Zimri’s fiery ambitions were to go up in flame. As soon as the encamped army at Gibbethon heard of the coup d’état, they proclaimed their commander, Omri, king and marched on Tirzah. Having retreated to the inner recesses of the palace citadel, Zimri set fire to it, burning himself to death. The author notes that Zimri’s spiritual condition had been no different than those leaders who had preceded him.
21–22 In the wake of Zimri’s unsuccessful rebellion, loyalties in Israel remained divided, half supporting Omri and half supporting a certain man named Tibni.
2. The reign of Omri in the northern kingdom (16:23–28)
23–24 After a four-year struggle Omri succeeded in gaining control of all the northern kingdom. He immediately undertook the building of a new capital that would lie in neutral ground (as David had done in selecting Jerusalem) and would be militarily defensible. He selected a strategic and centrally located hill site overlooking the chief commercial routes of the Esdraelon Plain. There he built his new capital city and named it Samaria, after Shemer, its former owner.
25–28 Despite Omri’s forward-looking vision for restoring Israel’s strength and his many accomplishments, spiritually he was more destitute than all his predecessors. Not only did he perpetuate the spiritual sins of Jeroboam, but his ties with Phoenicia were to unleash on Israel the common pagan social band religious practices known to the ancient world. Thus the scriptural record concerning Omri is both brief and condemnatory.
3. The reign of Ahab in the northern kingdom (16:29–22:40)
a. The accession of Ahab (16:29–34)
29–30 Ahab’s twenty-two year reign marked the depths of spiritual decline in Israel. No more notorious husband and wife team is known in all the sacred Scriptures (cf. 21:25–26). Ahab built on his father’s foundation, not only in bringing Israel into the arena of international conflict, but causing the people to serve and worship Baal.
31–33 Ahab was a man of complex character. The remainder of this chapter makes it clear that he was unconcerned with true, vital faith (cf. 21:20). Not only did he participate personally in the sins of Jeroboam, but having willingly married Jezebel, he followed her in the worship of Baal-Melqart, officially instituting and propagating Baal worship throughout his kingdom.
34 An example of his spiritual infidelity is seen as he granted to Hiel of Bethel the authority to rebuild Jericho as a fortified town, despite Joshua’s long-standing curse. The undertaking was to cost Hiel the lives of his eldest and youngest sons, in accordance with Joshua’s prophetic pronouncement (Jos 6:26).
The subsequent chapters of 1 Kings show that Ahab was selfish and sullen (20:43; 21:4–5), cruel (22:27), morally weak (21:1–16), and concerned with luxuries of this world (22:39). Though he could display real bravery (ch. 20; 22:1–39) and at times even heeded God’s word (18:16–46; 20:13–17, 22, 28–30; 21:27–29; 22:30), nevertheless he was basically a compromiser as far as God’s will was concerned (20:31–34, 42–43; 22:8, 18, 26–28). The divine estimation of his character stands as a tragic epitaph: “There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD” (21:25).
b. The prophetic ministry of Elijah (17:1–19:21)
(1) Elijah’s call (17:1–6)
1 In those dark times God raised up a light, the prophet Elijah. Reared in rugged Gilead, Elijah was a rugged individualist, a man of stern character and countenance, zealous for the Lord. Elijah sought Ahab and delivered the Lord’s pronouncement. In contrast to those who were not gods, whose idols Ahab ignorantly worshiped, the living Lord, who was truly Israel’s God, would withhold both dew and rain for the next several years.
Already the drought had lasted some six months (cf. Lk 4:25; Jas 5:17 with 1Ki 18:1); now the reason for it all was to be revealed to Israel’s apostate leadership. The message was clear: Israel had broken the pledge of its covenantal relationship with God (Dt 11:16–17; 28:23–24; cf. Lev 26:19; 1Ki 8:35). Therefore God was demonstrating his concern for both his people’s infidelity and their folly in trusting in false fertility gods like Baal. No rain! There would not even be dew until God’s authentic messenger would give the word! Unknown to Ahab, Elijah had agonized over the sin of his people and had prayed to the Lord for corrective measures to be levied on his people. Accordingly, Elijah was God’s logical choice.
2–6 To impress the message and its deep spiritual implications further on Ahab and all Israel, God sent Elijah into seclusion. Not only would Ahab’s frantic search for the prophet be thwarted, but Elijah’s very absence would be living testimony of a divine displeasure (cf. Ps 74:1, 9). Moreover, Elijah himself had much to learn, and the time of solitude would furnish needed moments of divine instruction. Obeying God’s directions implicitly, Elijah walked the fifteen miles from Jezreel eastward to the Jordan River. There in Kerith, one of the Jordan’s many narrow gorges, Elijah took up his residence. Alone and relying solely on divine provision, Elijah was nourished by the available water of Kerith and by ravens sent from God.
(2) Elijah and the widow at Zarephath (17:7–24)
7–16 When the heavy rains of late autumn and early winter, which were needed to prepare the earth for cultivation, failed to materialize, God set the second stage of caring for his prophet into operation. He sent him to a certain widow of Zarephath in Phoenician Sidon, Jezebel’s own homeland. On arriving there, Elijah was led to the widow whom God had mentioned. The prophet put a severe test before her. If she would first bake a small loaf for Elijah before seeing to her family’s needs, God would honor her faith with a supply of flour and oil so long as the drought should last. Taking the prophet at his word, she obeyed; and all came to pass, even as he had promised.
The incident must have served not only as a source of great comfort for the simple, godly non-Jewish woman (cf. Dt 10:18–19), but also as a strengthening to Elijah’s faith in God’s providence (cf. Ps 37:3–4; Isa 41:10). This episode also stands impressed in the pages of history as a lasting memorial to the availability of God’s full provision to all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (Mt 10:41–42; Lk 4:25–26).
17–24 With the passing of time, the widow’s little lad, who had been thus rescued from death through Elijah’s miracle, fell fatally ill. Gently taking the lad from his mother’s arms, the prophet carried him up to his own quarters. Elijah was puzzled as to the Lord’s purpose in all this. Pleading with the Lord for the lad’s life, he followed prayer with active faith, stretching himself out on the boy three times. Perhaps the widow had already experienced some hope in giving the body of the boy to the prophet. Elijah, too, was confident that God would yet do another miracle. Their expectation was rewarded. Life returned to the lad, and Elijah returned him to the widow’s arms.
God’s purpose was now evident. The widow’s sin was not at issue, but the testing had come so that her newly found faith might be brought to settled maturity. The Lord was not only the God of the Jews but of all those who believe; he was not only the God of the living but the God of resurrection (cf. Lk 20:38; Jn 11:25–26) Furthermore, the Lord’s word once again proved true in the mouth of the prophet.
(3) Elijah and Obadiah (18:1–15)
1–6 During the third year of Elijah’s stay in Zarephath, God commanded Elijah to present himself before Ahab; he, not Baal, would send rain on the land. By now the effects of the drought were severe. A heavy famine lay on the land. Ahab then summoned Obadiah, the royal chamberlain, and revealed his plans for a sweeping survey of the land to see whether there would be any fodder available at all for the animals. Presumably Ahab would take one route and Obadiah another.
7 Obadiah was a believer. He had even risked his life to hide and sustain one hundred of the Lord’s prophets from Jezebel’s purge. As Obadiah proceeded on the king’s commission, Elijah met him. Though he could scarcely believe his eyes, Obadiah recognized Elijah and bowed respectfully to God’s great prophet.
8–15 Elijah gave Obadiah a higher commission: he was to inform Ahab that Elijah was back and wanted an audience with the king. Obadiah protested that such a mission might cost him his life. Since Ahab had scrupulously sought Elijah everywhere, and since God might conceivably send Elijah off at a moment’s notice, should Obadiah report to Ahab that he had found Elijah? For if he should come and not find the prophet, Ahab’s wrath might be vented on the faithful Obadiah. After Elijah had assured him that he would surely remain to meet Ahab, Obadiah sought the king.
(4) Elijah and the prophets of Baal (18:16–46)
16–19 Ahab, hoping to deal with Elijah from a position of strength, greeted him with the charge of being a troublemaker in Israel. Possibly the king was implying that the famine was all Elijah’s fault; because of Elijah’s hostile attitude, Baal had become angered and so had withheld rain for the past three years. Elijah’s reply is particularly instructive. Not he, but Ahab and his family were the real troublers, because they had made Baal worship the state religion. Did Baal have the power to withhold and bring rain? Let the priests of Baal and Asherah (Baal’s consort) be brought together at Mount Carmel, Baal’s stronghold. Let it be seen once and for all who truly is God!
20–21 When Ahab had assembled the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel to confront the Lord’s prophet, Elijah addressed the many people who had gathered to see the contest. The choice Joshua had given the people (Jos 24:15) was now theirs to make: Serve God or serve another god (cf. Mt 6:24). But unlike the people at the time of Joshua, Elijah’s audience held its peace.
22–24 To this hesitant multitude Elijah proposed a test in accordance with the scriptural precedent established by Aaron (Lev 9). The 450 prophets of Baal were to choose two bulls, one for their offering and the other for Elijah, who would oppose them by himself. After each contestant had prepared an altar, each would wait for his god to ignite the wood under the sacrifice. The multitude agreed to this.
25–29 Elijah deferred the first opportunity to Baal’s prophets. Despite all their plaintive wailing and ecstatic dancing, when morning gave way to noon and still Baal had failed to provide the necessary fire, Elijah began to taunt his antagonists. Was Baal not a god? Perhaps he was lost in deep thought or preoccupied with his many cares or had gone to care for his many commercial interests. All these activities were characteristic of the duties attributed to the pagan gods. Perhaps, like many of the gods of the ancient Near East, he was asleep and needed to be awakened by cultic ritual.
The prophets of Baal became more frantic. In renewed frenzy they lacerated themselves with swords and spears, the blood flowing freely down their perspiration-soaked bodies. The ritual went on and on at an increasingly feverish pitch. As the time for the evening sacrifice came, there was still no response.
30–32 Turning from Baal’s prophets, Elijah called the people to an altar of the Lord that was in ruins. Selecting twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Israel (a fact that underscored the divine displeasure concerning Jeroboam’s schism), Elijah rebuilt the altar and then dug a spacious trench around it.
33–35 When the wood had been arranged on the altar and the sacrifice cut and placed on the wood, Elijah amazed his audience by commanding that four large jars of water be filled and poured on the offering and wood. He had this done a second and a third time so that not only the altar but the sacrifice and the wood were thoroughly drenched, and water filled the surrounding trench.
36–38 At the precise moment when all hope of igniting the wood seemed totally lost, Elijah stepped forward and called on God. He pleaded with the covenant God of Israel to validate that he alone was still God in Israel and that this Elijah, who had prophesied the drought and was now calling for a miracle, was truly his servant. He asked God to answer him so that all would know that the Lord was ever anxious for their repentance and return to him. Striking with lightninglike power, God answered; and such an answer! Heavenly fire fell and consumed not only the wood and sacrifice but the stones, the soil, and even the surrounding water. What a contrast! The prophets of Baal had kept up their wailing and wild ritual for the better part of a day and met with dead silence. Elijah’s petition had lasted less than a minute but produced spectacular results. The difference lay in the One addressed.
39–40 The people responded in true belief and worship. Falling to the ground, they confessed that truly the Lord alone was God! But Elijah wanted total commitment from those who were gathered there. He commanded that these prophets of Baal be seized and executed. Their wicked crimes against humankind and God demanded the death penalty. The people reacted instantaneously; they took Baal’s prophets in charge to the Kishon Valley and executed them there. Elijah himself remained behind; the people would see to the execution.
41 Then Elijah sought a private audience with the king, for he had an important message to deliver. Ahab could break from the fast of the day and take nourishment, for God would soon send the long withheld rain.
42–46 While the king went away rejoicing to eat and drink, Elijah climbed farther up the mountain to pray and observe God’s working. While Elijah buried his head between his knees in full and reverential concourse with God, he sent his servant to the mountain’s peak to herald the approaching rain. The servant, however, quickly brought back the report: “No rain in sight.” Again and again as Elijah persevered in heartfelt prayer, the servant was sent to the summit. On the seventh trip he returned with the good news. A small cloud, the size of a person’s hand, could be seen on the distant horizon.
Elijah did not hesitate. He sent word to Ahab that he should leave now lest a torrential rain overtake him on the way. Nor did Ahab tarry. As he made haste for Jezreel and Jezebel, the sky grew black with heavy clouds, and strong winds began to blow. As he rode along, the downpour fell on him.
What a momentous day it had been for the king! How his head must have reeled with the thoughts of the contest: the pitiful screams of the helpless priests of Baal, the calm and yet awe-inspiring petition of Elijah, the terrifying and spectacular holocaust that followed, the repentance of the people, and the execution of the pagan prophets! As Ahab rode along through the gathering downpour, the Spirit-empowered prophet through whom God had effected his great triumph, ran ahead of the royal chariot like a specter.
(5) Elijah and Jezebel (19:1–9a)
1–3a On his arrival at Jezreel, Ahab recounted to Jezebel all that Elijah had done. The words are significant. Although Ahab had witnessed God’s power in the famine and in the consuming of the sacrifice and the sending of the rain, before the imposing presence of Jezebel he attributed it all to Elijah, even blaming him for the death of the prophets of Baal. Her reaction was predictable. She sent a message to Elijah, giving him twenty-four hours to leave Jezreel or be killed. The threat was effective; Elijah ran for his life.
Probably Elijah had played into Jezebel’s hands. Had she really wanted Elijah dead, she surely would have seized him without warning and would have killed him. What she desired was that Elijah and his God be discredited before the new converts who had aided Elijah by executing the prophets of Baal. Without a leader revolutionary movements usually stumble and fall away. Just when God needed him the most, the divinely trained prophet was to prove a notable failure.
It has often been asked how a man could experience such divine provision, perform such great miracles, single-handedly withstand 450 pagan prophets and the king himself, and yet cower before feminine threats. It must be remembered, of course, that Jezebel was anything but a “mere woman.” She was of royal blood and every bit a queen. She could be ruthless in pursuing her goals. Her personality was so forceful that even Ahab feared her and was corrupted by her (16:31; 21:25). Both the northern kingdom (16:32–33) and the southern kingdom, through the marriage of her daughter Athaliah to the royal house of Judah (2Ki 8:16–19; 11:1–20; 2Ch 21:5–7; Ps 45), experienced moral degradation and spiritual degeneracy through her corrupting influence.
Yet Elijah was not without blame. God’s subsequent tender dealings with his prophet were to bring his spiritual problem to light. His God-given successes had fostered an inordinate pride that had made him take his own importance too seriously. Moreover, Elijah had come to bask in the glow of the spectacular. He may have fully expected that because of what had been accomplished at Mount Carmel, Jezebel would capitulate and pagan worship would come to an end in Israel—all through his influence!
The great spectacle had failed to melt Jezebel’s icy heart and, worse, she wanted to take his life. Thus, Elijah’s pride was shattered, and he became a broken man. What Elijah needed to learn, God would soon show him. God does not always move in the realm of the extraordinary. To live always seeking one “high experience” after another is to have a misdirected zeal. The majority of life’s service is in quiet, routine, humble obedience to God’s will.
3b-9a When the fleeing prophet had reached Beersheba, some ninety miles to the south, he dismissed his servant. There was no need to jeopardize his life further. In his extreme dejection, Elijah wished only to be alone. Nor, for that matter, could he be safe in Beersheba, for Jezebel’s influence could reach even this southernmost city. Accordingly, Elijah turned still farther southward, journeying out into the desert.
Taking refuge under the scant shade of a broom tree, Elijah prayed for death. He, the mighty prophet, had stood for God as boldly as any of those who had gone before him. Yet here he was, alone and seemingly deserted in this desert wasteland, the very symbol of a wasted life. Yet God would tenderly nourish and lead his prophet to a place where he would get some much needed instruction. After a forty-day trek, Elijah found that he had been drawn by divine providence to Mount Sinai, the sacred place of God’s self-disclosure.
After arriving at Mount Sinai, Elijah located a cave and fell fast asleep. He may have been in a spot more sacred than he realized. The Hebrew text says, “He came there to the cave,” possibly the very “cleft of the rock” where God had placed Moses as his glory passed by (Ex 33:21–23).
(6) Elijah and the Lord (19:9b–18)
9b–10 At length the word of the Lord aroused Elijah. The penetrating interrogation called for minute self-evaluation. Did Elijah yet understand his failure and God’s gracious guidance in bringing him to this place? Elijah’s reply indicated that he did not. Like Phinehas of old, he alone had been very zealous for the Lord in the midst of gross idolatry (cf. Nu 25:7–13). His soul was somewhat bitter at having served God so earnestly and spectacularly and yet having experienced rejection and solitary exile.
11–14 The Lord did not comment on Elijah’s self-justification but offered instruction. He was to come out of the cave and stand before the Lord, for he would soon pass by. Suddenly a rock-shattering tempest smote the mountain around Elijah. Surely this would announce the divine Presence. But the Lord was not in the wind. There followed a fearful earthquake, but still God was not there. A sudden fire followed; yet God had not come. All these physical phenomena were known to be frequent precursors of God’s coming (Ex 19:16, 18; Jdg 5:4–5; 2Sa 22:8–16; Pss 18:7–15; 68:8; Heb 12:18). There followed a faint whisper, a voice quiet, hushed, and low. Elijah knew it instantly. It was God! What a lesson for Elijah! Even God did not always operate in the realm of the spectacular!
Pulling his prophet’s cloak over his face, Elijah made his way reverently out of the cave. Again came the divine question: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” Elijah’s reply was the same (cf. v.10). How slow he was to learn! Yet much of what he said was true. Though he had failed, at the last he had been faithful; and truly persecution was rampant in Israel. It was understandable why he would feel quite alone.
15–18 God again dealt graciously with his prophet. He was to go back to the northern kingdom, the place where he had veered off the track with God in his spiritual life. Elijah still had work to accomplish for God. That task was threefold: (1) in the realm of international politics, he was to anoint Hazael to succeed Ben-Hadad, Israel’s perennial adversary in Damascus; (2) in national affairs, Jehu was to be anointed as the next king; and (3) in the spiritual realm, Elisha was to be commissioned as his own successor.
The threefold commission was singularly interrelated. Jehu’s work would supplement that of Hazael, that is, any who fell to Israel to escape Hazael’s purge would be dealt with by Jehu. In turn those who survived Jehu’s slaughter must face the spiritual judgment of Elisha. To encourage his restored prophet further, God set the record straight: there were still seven thousand true believers in Israel.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
(7) Elijah and the call of Elisha (19:19–21)
19–20 Since the key figure in Elijah’s threefold commission was Elisha, Elijah sought him out first. He found Elisha busily engaged in plowing. Coming on him suddenly, Elijah threw his mantle over Elisha, a symbol of Elisha’s call to the prophetic office. Elijah himself continued on without a word. When Elisha was able to collect his wits, he ran after Elijah, asking only that he be allowed to take leave of his family. Elijah’s reply indicates that he himself had not called Elisha; it was God’s call. Whether Elisha would follow that call was his own decision.
21 Elisha meant business for God. Taking his leave of Elijah, Elisha returned home to enjoy a farewell meal with his family and friends. The meat was cooked over Elisha’s own plowing equipment. Thus he had burned his past behind him. Henceforth he would serve God. However, this first meant learning more of him through Elijah.
c. Ahab and the campaign for Samaria (20:1–43)
1–6 Ben-Hadad, the king of Israel’s perennial enemy around Damascus, saw his opportunity to eliminate a famine-weakened Israel. Gathering a coalition of some thirty-two kings, he swept southward, quickly putting Samaria itself under siege. To humiliate Ahab further, he sent messengers demanding silver and gold and the choicest of his wives and children. When Ahab agreed to his terms readily, Ben-Hadad demanded the additional right to unlimited search of the palace and the houses of Ahab’s officials so as to carry away anything of value.
7–12 Ahab was alarmed at this demand and convened his council of elders. Advised by the elders not to capitulate, Ahab sent back a refusal to Ben-Hadad. The Aramean king sent a third note to Ahab, threatening to destroy Samaria so thoroughly that there would not be enough left of it to make a handful of dust for each of his men. Ahab’s proverbial reply is a classic illustration of Near Eastern colloquial wisdom: “One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off” (cf. v.11). Ben-Hadad “got the message.” Infuriated, he gave orders to prepare for the attack.
13–14 While Ben-Hadad and his men reinforced their courage with strong drink, Ahab received a divine messenger. An unknown prophet of God advised the king that if he would call on the select officers of his provincial commanders to lead the attack, God would give him the victory.
15–21 Setting out at noon with the young officers in the lead, the Syrian (Aramean) forces were, in accordance with the prophecy, easily routed. The Arameans suffered heavy losses of men and material, Ben-Hadad himself barely escaping with his life. Surely such a divine deliverance against impossible odds should have convinced Ahab of God’s continuing concern for him and the people of Israel. But this was not the case.
22–25 After Ahab’s victory, the prophet returned to warn the king to strengthen his defenses, for Ben-Hadad would surely return next year. The warning was well-taken, for even then Ben-Hadad’s counselors were advising him that since Israel’s gods were mountain gods, Israel could be defeated in the plains. Ben-Hadad only needed to replace the defeated officers with new commanders, raise another army, and choose a battle site in the plains.
26–31 Following their respective counselors’ advice, both kings faced each other in battle in the valley before Aphek. Although the Israelite forces were vastly outnumbered, God promised Ahab through his prophet that because the Arameans considered his power to be limited to the mountains, he would see to their defeat.
In the ensuing fray, Ben-Hadad’s army suffered almost total annihilation. Even most of those who escaped the battlefield died under the collapsing walls of Aphek. Within the citadel of Aphek, where Ben-Hadad and his counselors had taken refuge, the Aramean king was advised of a new plan. Since the Israelite kings were reputed to be tenderhearted, if the royal party put on garments of repentance and approached Ahab, perhaps he would be merciful.
32–34 Accordingly, Ben-Hadad’s counselors went to Ahab with pleas of mercy. They were not disappointed, for Ahab commanded that Ben-Hadad be summoned for conciliation. When Ben-Hadad offered to return the Israelite territory that his father had previously taken (cf. 15:20) and establish new trade concessions, Ahab effected a treaty with Ben-Hadad and released him. In so doing Ahab was trusting in his own appraisal of his needs and the world situation rather than in God, who had given him the miraculous victory. One reason for Ahab’s leniency toward Ben-Hadad may lie in his appraisal of the troublesome political situation of those days. Aleady Assyria was on the move against the Aramean tribes. By joining in forces with Ben-Hadad, Ahab hoped to have a sufficiently large force of chariots and infantry to stand up to the Assyrians.
35–40a Ahab’s leniency toward Ben-Hadad and self-trust were not to go without divine rebuke. God again raised up a prophet to deal with Ahab. This prophet, by divine command, asked one of his companions to smite him. Because the second prophet refused to obey the divine direction, he was immediately killed by a lion. The first prophet then got another man to strike him. Thus wounded he waited in a disguise for Ahab. When the king passed by, the prophet represented himself as a soldier who had been wounded in battle and had been assigned to watch a prisoner, on penalty of his life or the payment of a large sum of money. Unfortunately, he had inadvertently allowed his prisoner to escape.
40b–43 Merciless Ahab confirmed the sentence. At that point the prophet revealed himself to the king. The prophet’s action had been symbolic. Ahab was that one who had allowed the prisoner to escape; therefore, as he himself had judged to be right, the king would pay with his life and Israel would suffer loss. It was a sullen and angry Ahab who returned in triumph from the battle to his palace in Samaria.
d. Ahab and the conscription of Naboth’s vineyard (21:1–29)
1–5 Ahab’s covetous eye became enamored with a choice vineyard that lay next to his palatial retreat in Jezreel. He desired to turn this vineyard into a vegetable garden; so he offered to buy it from its owner, Naboth, or give him another in exchange for it. When Naboth declined to part with his paternal inheritance because of his allegiance to God’s law (cf. Lev 25:23–28; Nu 36:7–12), Ahab returned indignantly to the palace. There Jezebel found him, sulking in bed with his face turned to the wall and refusing to eat.
6–8 Jezebel’s inquiry revealed Naboth’s refusal to grant Ahab’s wishes. Having assured him that she knew how to handle such situations, even if the king did not, Jezebel had letters sent in Ahab’s name to the elders of Naboth’s village, in a conspiracy against him.
9–10 On a given day the elders and nobles, who comprised a sort of local senate (cf. Dt 16:18), were to call an assembly for solemn fasting, as though the city had committed some great sin (cf. 1Sa 7:6) whose penalty needed averting (cf. Lev 4:13–21; Dt 21:1–9; 2Ch 20:2–4; Joel 1:14–15). Naboth was to be given a conspicuous place so that the two accusers could easily single him out. It may be that Naboth was an influential person anyway; so his prominent position at the meeting would not arouse suspicion.
The charge against Naboth was twofold: he had blasphemed both God and the king. The penalty for such action was death by stoning (Dt 13:10–11; 17:5), outside the city (Lev 24:14; Dt 22:24). Proper procedure called for the witnesses to lay their hands on the accused and cast the first stones. Since death by stoning was the responsibility of the whole community, the rest of the people were to take up the stoning.
11–16 The queen’s directive was duly carried out. Naboth’s sons were also put to death at this time (cf. 2Ki 9:26), so that no living heir could lay claim to that land. When word was taken to Jezebel that Naboth was dead, Ahab immediately took possession of the property. Tragically, the Scriptures do not indicate that Ahab was concerned enough to ask how Naboth had died or how the property was suddenly available for royal claim.
17–20a Once more Elijah was summoned by God to confront Ahab. Ahab no longer called Elijah “the troubler of Israel” but “my enemy.” Doubtless his guilt weighed so heavily on his own conscience that he knew Elijah was there to condemn him.
20b–24 Elijah gave God’s message plainly: because Ahab had sold himself to do only evil, God’s sure judgment would come on him. In the very place where the dogs had licked up Naboth’s blood, they would do likewise to Ahab. Yes, Ahab and his house would be cut off like those of the first two dynasties, his spiritual predecessors in idolatry. The divine sentence envisioned a terrible slaughter and carnage. Nor would Jezebel escape; the dogs would eat her flesh by the wall of Jezreel.
25–26 The divine estimation of Ahab is clearly rendered: Ahab was the vilest of all the Israelite kings. Completely under the domination of his wicked, pagan wife, he was unmatched in evil and spiritual prostitution in Israel.
27–29 Ahab reacted strongly to the Lord’s rebuke by clothing himself in sackcloth and fasting. Therefore God again sent Elijah word concerning the king: because he had humbled himself, the threatened punishment would be delayed until the lifetime of his son. However, no stay of execution would be granted for the villainous Jezebel.
The king’s remorse was sincere; paradoxically Ahab could be influenced for good by the divine message. Therefore the Lord in his longsuffering bore with the king yet further. There is little indication, however, that Ahab’s basic character was altered so as to produce that godly repentance and genuine faith that lead to a real conversion experience. To the contrary, there is no indication that he changed his idolatrous ways, much less restored the ill-gotten vineyard. How gracious is an ever-loving God who deals in boundless mercy even with a thankless and thoughtless generation!
e. Ahab and the campaign for Ramoth Gilead (22:1–40)
1 Some three years after the last Syrian (Aramean) war (ch. 20), probably late in the same year that the combined Aramean and Hebrew forces had withstood Shalmaneser III at Qarqar (853 B.C.), Ahab became concerned for the recovery of Ramoth Gilead to the east of the Jordan. Although the territory had been ceded over to Israel by Ben-Hadad in his submission to Ahab, the affair with Assyria had probably kept the Israelites from reoccupying the territory. With the threat of hostilities somewhat relaxed, however, and with Ben-Hadad once again flexing his military muscles, the strategic importance of Ramoth Gilead became all too apparent.
2–5 When Jehoshaphat king of Judah arrived in the north to visit his brother-in-law Ahab, possibly to evaluate the international situation now that Qarqar was past, he found a concerned Ahab. Having shared his worries concerning Ramoth Gilead with his official staff, Ahab asked Jehoshaphat whether he would join him in a campaign to reoccupy the area. Jehoshaphat instantly put himself and his forces and supplies at Ahab’s disposal, but quickly added that he would like to have the Lord’s mind as to the venture.
6–14 Accordingly Ahab called in his prophets. He had gathered another four hundred prophets, probably belonging to the state religion established by Jeroboam. These all prophesied victory for Ahab in the projected campaign. One of them, a certain Zedekiah son of Kenaanah, had even cast a pair of iron horns to symbolize that the allied Israelite forces would surely gore the Arameans to death at Ramoth Gilead. Jehoshaphat, however, failed to be assured by these pseudoprophets of an unlawful cult and asked whether a prophet of the Lord were available for consultation. Ahab could produce only one—a certain Micaiah son of Imlah, whom he hated because he seemed always to prophesy evil against the king. Nevertheless, at Jehoshaphat’s insistence Micaiah was summoned. As he was brought to the waiting kings, he was informed that the “other prophets” had all given a favorable prognostication and so was warned to be agreeable. Micaiah, being a true prophet of the Lord, replied that he could speak only what the Lord told him to say.
15–23 At first Micaiah told Ahab to “attack and be victorious.” Ahab sensed the sarcasm and demanded the truth. Micaiah answered with two parabolic visions. In the first Israel was likened to shepherdless sheep scattered on the mountains, which must find their own way home. In the second Micaiah described a heavenly scene in which the Lord and his hosts discussed the best way to get Ahab to Ramoth Gilead so that he might fall in battle. It was decided that false prophets, possessed by a lying spirit, would feed Ahab’s ego by assuring him of victory in the projected battle.
24–25 Micaiah’s message was clear: Ahab’s prophets were wrong; Ahab would go up to defeat and death. At this point Zedekiah son of Kenaanah decided on a face-saving measure: he slapped Micaiah on the face, inquiring as to how the Spirit of the Lord had gone from himself to go to Micaiah. Micaiah had a prophecy for Zedekiah, also. Zedekiah would understand Micaiah’s prophecy fully in that day when he would hide himself from the enemy in an inner room.
26–28 Ahab demanded that Micaiah be put in prison on minimum rations until the king should return. Micaiah had one last word for the king and all the assembled people: If Ahab returned at all, then the Lord had not spoken through Micaiah!
29–33 Despite Micaiah’s warning, Jehoshaphat accompanied Ahab to the battle. Although he disdained Micaiah’s prophecy, Ahab obviously did not take it lightly; for though Jehoshaphat went into battle in full royal regalia, Ahab disguised himself. Jehoshaphat’s compliance with Ahab’s plan nearly cost him his life, for Ben-Hadad had given strict order to his commanders to search out the king of Israel. Thus he repaid Ahab’s leniency (cf. 20:34, 42) with severity. Mistaking Jehoshaphat for Ahab, Ben-Hadad’s men were on the verge of killing the Judean king when his cry convinced them that they were pursuing the wrong man.
34–36 Ahab was not to escape the prophecy, however. A “random” arrow found its mark, inflicting a mortal wound so that Ahab was wheeled out of the battle. Although he had many shortcomings, cowardice in battle was not one of them. So that the soldiers would not become discouraged by his death, Ahab had his dying body propped up in his chariot. As the sun set on the day’s battle, Ahab’s life blood gave out. When it was known that the king was dead, as Ahab had feared and as Micaiah had predicted, the army scattered.
37–40 The dead king’s body was returned to Samaria and buried. While his blood-stained chariot was being washed at a pool frequented by prostitutes, true to the various prophecies (20:42; 21:19; 22:17, 20), dogs licked up his blood. Thus did the notorious Ahab leave his famed ivory palace behind him; he was succeeded by Ahaziah, his son.
4. The reign of Jehoshaphat in the southern kingdom (22:41–50)
41–42 Jehoshaphat, who had ruled three years as coregent with his father, Asa, came into independent rule in the fourth year of Ahab of Israel (874–853 B.C.) or 870 B.C. His total reign was some twenty-five years (873–848 B.C.). The record of Jehoshaphat’s reign is greatly abbreviated by the author of Kings, containing only a short sketch of his lengthy reign, a brief evaluation of his spiritual condition and activities, and a few notices of international events before recording his death. A fuller discussion of the events of Jehoshaphat’s reign can be found in 2Ch 17:1–21:1.
43–46 Jehoshaphat’s spiritual condition was basically sound and largely commended by God (cf. 2Ch 17:3–4; 19:4–7; 20:3–13, 32). His concern for spiritual things (2Ch 17:7–9) manifested itself in religious and social reforms (cf. 2Ch 17:6; 19:3–11). Accordingly God blessed his reign (2Ch 17:1–6, 12–18:1) and gave him respite and respect with all the lands round about (2Ch 17:10–11; 20:28–30). He did, however, stop short of a full purging of idolatry (2Ch 20:33); and the marriage of his son Jehoram to Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter, was to bring about a tragic condition in Judah (2Ki 8:18–19; 11:1–3; 2Ch 21:6–7, 11).
Three other tragic areas are singled out in the divine record: (1) Jehoshaphat went with Ahab to the battle of Ramoth Gilead, despite Micaiah’s warning (cf. 2Ch 18:28–19:3); (2) he subsequently entered into an ill-fated commercial venture with Ahaziah (2Ch 20:35–37); and (3) still later he went with Jehoram on his Transjordanian expedition (2Ki 3:6–27).
47–49 The historical notice is probably intended to explain how it was that Jehoshaphat could have renewed commercial activities in Ezion Geber. The Edomite weakness may be attributable to Jehoshaphat’s victory over the Transjordanian coalition, as detailed in 2Ch 20. Jehoshaphat’s commercial alliance with Ahaziah was denounced by the Lord through his prophet Eliezer (2Ch 20:36–37). Because Ahaziah was an apostate, God had sent a storm to destroy the fleet before it could set sail. Evidently Jehoshaphat was wise enough to refuse a second trading proposal put forward by Ahaziah.
50 The notice of Jehoshaphat’s passing is amplified by the fact that his further life and history were recorded in the historical records of Jehu son of Hanani (cf. 2Ch 20:34).
5. The reign of Ahaziah in the northern kingdom (1Ki22:51–2Ki 1:18)
51–53 The chapter closes with a notice of the accession of Ahab’s son, Ahaziah, and a note that he “provoked the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger, just as his father had done.”
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| 1Ki 19:10, 14, 18 | Ro 11:3–4 | A saved remnant |
2 Kings 1:1–4 Ahab’s son Ahaziah (853–852 B.C.) perpetuated his father’s wickedness, incurring God’s judicial anger (1Ki 22:51–53). The divine judgment took numerous forms: (1) politically, Moab found in the death of Ahab occasion to rebel against Israel; (2) economically, God thwarted Ahaziah’s attempted commercial enterprise with Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:47–48; 2Ch 20:36–37); (3) personally, the circumstances of Ahaziah’s life were allowed to proceed in such a way that Israel’s new king suffered a serious fall through the latticework of the upper chamber to the courtyard below.
Ahaziah was aware of the seriousness of his physical condition. In such circumstances a person’s basic spiritual temperament will often surface. Immersed in the Baalism of his father, Ahaziah naturally sent messengers to inquire of the oracle at Ekron whether he would recover from his injuries. Scarcely had they begun their mission when suddenly an austere-appearing man, dressed in a rough animal-hide garment girded at the waist with a leather belt, interrupted them. Before they could gather their composure, this man sternly announced the answer to their message, together with a denunciation of the whole mission. The king had erred in seeking information from the false god of the Philistines; and he was wrong in hoping that he might recover, for surely he would die in his wickedness.
5–8 The fearful appearance and awful message caused the messengers to return instantly to the king, where they reported to Ahaziah the whole episode. The king recognized at once that the stern rebuke was from none other than Elijah the Tishbite. In at least this he was correct, for God had caused Elijah to meet the king’s messengers and deliver the divine sentence. The secret mission and the hidden desires of the royal chambers were not unknown to the true King of the universe. What an awesome realization that must have been for Ahaziah! Yet there is no hint in the scriptural record that Ahaziah repented. Rather, all that follows speaks of an obdurately stubborn and sinful heart.
9–10 It seems that Ahaziah knew well the whereabouts of Elijah and immediately sent off a contingent of soldiers to bring him (by force if necessary) to the king. Ahaziah apparently picked a commander and squad that shared his insolent ungodliness; for on arriving where Elijah was located, they demanded the prophet’s surrender. Elijah seized on the aptness of the prophetic title “man of God”; he was indeed God’s man! Since that was so, such ungodliness—even in the line of duty—would be judged. Instantly, at Elijah’s bidding, heavenly fire consumed the commander and all his men.
11–14 When the captain and his fifty men did not return, Ahaziah sent a still more arrogant commander together with his fifty-man squad, who met the same judgment. Doubtless word of the fate of those soldiers had by now become known to the king, so that he selected a third commander and his fifty; this selection was of a man of greater wisdom. As this commander and his men dutifully placed themselves before Elijah, they respectfully petitioned him both for their lives and for the prophet to kindly consent to accompany them back to Samaria and to the king.
15–18 In accordance with God’s instructions, Elijah went with the commander to Ahaziah where he repeated clearly in the king’s ear the divine sentence. Ahaziah’s case was settled. Because of his stubborn disbelief and settled wickedness, the king would surely die. And so it happened, his brother Joram succeeding the childless Ahaziah in what was the second year of the reign of Jehoshaphat’s son, also named Jehoram (852 B.C.), of the southern kingdom.
6. The eras of Jehoram of the northern kingdom and Jehoram and Ahaziah of the southern kingdom (2:1–9:37)
a. Prophetic transition: Elijah and Elisha (2:1–25)
1–2 The account of Elijah’s last journey on earth begins with the aged prophet walking with his trusty aid, Elisha. The two departed from a certain Gilgal, probably not the well-known Gilgal of Joshua’s day, but one located some eight miles north of Bethel in the hill country on the way to Shiloh. As they proceeded southward toward Bethel, Elijah indicated to Elisha that the Lord wanted him to go all the way to Bethel to visit his prophetic school there and so urged Elisha to stay on in Gilgal. The polite form of Elijah’s command indicates that the prophet’s words were permissive rather than prohibitive.
The reason for the command is not explicatively stated. Elijah no doubt knew that this was the day God would take him to be with himself (cf. vv.1, 10) and that he would leave his work to others—especially to Elisha (1Ki 19:16). Perhaps he sought an assurance of the Lord’s will with regard to that succession by putting Elisha to the test. More likely the test was primarily for the strengthening of Elisha’s faith. It would appear from the narrative that Elijah had disclosed to his various students that his ministry was nearing a close and that one day soon he would pass by for the last time.
Elisha either knew from separate divine communication or strongly suspected that this day might be Elijah’s last. Strongly desirous of God’s will for his life and concerned that he would indeed succeed Elijah as the Lord’s prophet to Israel, Elisha was determined to be with his tutor until the end. Accordingly he would not be dissuaded; he would go where Elijah went.
Even though Elijah knew this was to be his last day on earth, his life was so ordered that he was humbly going about his normal duties when the Lord decided to take him. Moreover, his last concern was that the Lord’s work would continue after his passing; so he wanted to assure himself of the progress of his “seminary students.”
3 When Elijah and Elisha reached Bethel, the company of prophetic students perhaps wondered whether this would be the expected day. Not wishing to impose themselves on Elijah, they delicately drew Elisha aside to inquire of him whether this was that day. Elisha was convinced of it and indicated as much to them but commanded them strongly not to speak of it. Elijah would have no self-gratifying show of form toward himself. Whatever glory would occur on that day would be to God, not to his prophet. Nor would there be tears of sorrow, for it would be a day of joyous triumph for the Lord. Elijah’s wish was for God’s work to go on uninterrupted, with or without his presence.
4 As Elijah prepared to leave for the school at Jericho, about fourteen miles to the southeast, he again gave permission to Elisha to remain behind. Once more Elisha steadfastly refused.
5–7 The scene at Bethel was replayed at Jericho. Again the members of the prophetical school asked Elisha about Elijah’s departure; again Elisha demanded their silence; again Elijah instructed Elisha to stay behind, this time as he headed for the Jordan River, some five miles away. Once more Elisha averred that he would not leave Elijah’s side. Three times Elijah had tested his successor; thrice Elisha stood the test (cf. Mt 4:1–11; Lk 22:31–62; Jn 21:15–27). When the two prophets left for the Jordan, fifty of the prophetical students followed at a distance, anxiously awaiting the Lord’s dealing with Elijah. What a contrast these fifty spiritually concerned young men formed with the squads of fifty that Ahaziah had recently sent to Elijah (cf. ch. 1)!
8 The two great prophets, master and successor, stood at the banks of the Jordan. Taking his prophet’s mantle and rolling it up rodlike (cf. Ex 14:16–28), Elijah smote the river. Immediately the waters on one side piled up in a heap, the waters on the other side running off toward the Dead Sea. As long ago, the Jordan again parted; and the two passed through on dry ground. Only here the order is reversed. Whereas Israel had crossed into Canaan to take possession of her God-appointed earthly heritage and Elisha, too, must return there to the place of his appointment, Elijah passed out of Canaan through the boundary waters of Jordan to his heavenly service, there to await his future renewed earthly appearance (cf. Mal 4:5; Mt 17:4; Mk 9:5; Lk 9:33). In this regard his ministry anticipated that of his Messiah who came incarnate to an earthly service (Jn 1:12) and subsequently as resurrected Savior ascended again into heaven, there to await his triumphant, glorious second advent (cf. Zec 14:3, 9; Mt 24:30; Ac 1:9–11; 1Ti 3:16; Rev 19:11–17).
9 Elijah, sensing the imminency of his departure, asked what further thing he could do for his successor. To the very end he remained concerned for others and for the continuance of God’s work.
Elisha’s reply suggests that he caught the intent of his master’s question. He asked for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Undoubtedly Elisha did not ask this simply for the privilege of being Elijah’s successor in terms of the Deuteronomic legislation concerning the eldest son’s inheritance (Dt 21:17), for such both he and Elijah knew him to be (cf. 1Ki 19:16–21). Nor was this simply to give some confirmatory sign for Elisha’s appearance, for this is scarcely a “difficult thing.” Rather, the enormity of the loss of Elijah, that Spirit-filled and empowered prophet, must have so gripped the humble Elisha that, claiming his position as firstborn, he asked for the firstborn’s “double portion”—i.e., for especially granted spiritual power far beyond his own capabilities to meet the responsibilities of the awesome task that lay before him. He wished, virtually, that Elijah’s mighty prowess might continue to live through him.
10 All this lay beyond Elijah’s power to grant. Nonetheless it was not beyond the divine prerogative. Indeed, doubtless by divine direction, Elijah told Elisha that if God so chose to allow Elisha to see Elijah’s translation, then (and only then) would the full force of Elisha’s request be granted. The sign would indicate to Elisha that God, who alone could grant such a request, had done so.
11–12 And so it would be! Suddenly, as the two walked and talked together, a fiery chariot swooped between them and took Elijah along in its terrific wind up into heaven. It was over in an instant. Elisha could but cry out in amazed tribute to his departed master. The translated prophet had been a spiritual father to Israel and as such, spiritually, her foremost defense. Elisha would doubtless be pleased at the same testimony given to him at his death (13:14). Elijah was now gone. One era had ended; another had begun.
13–14 In joy mixed with sorrow, Elisha turned from viewing the heavenly spectacle that had assured him of his request to Elijah and saw yet a further sign—Elijah’s fallen mantle lay at Elisha’s feet. The younger prophet had once had that mantle symbolically laid on his shoulders (1Ki 19:19); now it would rest there permanently. All he need do was pick it up. As he did so, “he picked up” as well the load of service that Elijah had left for him to do. With that very same mantle, he retraced his steps and reached the Jordan. Repeating Elijah’s actions, he cried out for divine intervention on his behalf. Once again the Jordan parted, bringing not only full confirmation of his prophetic office to Elisha, but divine accreditation for him before the eyes of the fifty students who had witnessed the entire event.
15–18 The fifty instantly recognized the transferral of prophetic prominence to Elisha and accepted his leadership. The maker of Elijah’s actual translation to heaven without seeing death was more difficult to comprehend, as was the mysterious doings of the Spirit of God with humankind (cf. 1Ki 18:12). To their repeated insistence that they be allowed to search the existing countryside to be sure that Elijah was truly no longer in the vicinity, Elisha at last gave in. When they were fully satisfied that Elijah was nowhere to be found, they returned to Elisha, doubtless with greater resolve to listen to their new leader.
19–22 The chapter closes with two miracles of Elisha. These immediately established the character of his ministry—his would be a helping ministry to those in need, but one that would brook no disrespect for God and his earthly representatives. In the case of Jericho, though the city had been rebuilt (with difficulty) in the days of Ahab (1Ki 16:34), it had remained unproductive. Apparently the water still lay under Joshua’s curse (cf. Jos 6:26), so that both citizenry and land suffered greatly. Elisha’s miracle fully removed the age-old judgment, thus allowing a new era to dawn on this area. Interestingly, Elisha wrought the cure through means supplied by the people of Jericho so that their faith might be strengthened through submission and active participation in God’s cleansing work.
23–25 Elisha’s sweet memories of Jericho received a souring touch at Bethel. The public insult against Elisha was a mocking caricature of Elijah’s going up into heaven, aimed ultimately at the God whom he represented. Indeed, Elisha’s whole prophetic ministry was in jeopardy; therefore the youths’ taunt had to be dealt with decisively. The sudden arrival of the two bears who mauled forty-two youths to death would serve as both an awful sentence on unbelievers—and thus, too, on Jeroboam’s cult city—and a published reminder that blasphemy against the true God and his program would be met with swift and certain consequences. With these two miracles Elisha’s position as successor to Elijah as God’s chief prophet to Israel was assured.
b. Jehoram and the Moabite campaign (3:1–27)
1–5 The notice of Jehoram’s (Joram’s) accession over Israel is accompanied by a spiritual evaluation. Although he had torn down the stele to Baal that Ahab and Jezebel had erected, his perpetuation of the state cult of the golden calves that Jeroboam had established was condemnable. Thus he led Israel in continued apostasy. Within a few years of the beginning of Jehoram’s twelve-year reign (852–841 B.C.), Mesha, the Moabite king, refused to send the required tribute of wool and rebelled against Israel.
6–9 Quickly mobilizing his forces, Jehoram also enlisted Jehoshaphat of Judah to join with him in the expedition against the Moabites. Jehoshaphat remained a relative of Jehoram of Israel; for his son (and coregent), also named Jehoram, was married to the Jehoram of Israel’s aunt, Athaliah. Jehoshaphat quickly agreed. Moreover, he probably felt that he had a score to settle with Moab for the previous Moabite-Judean war (2Ch 20:1–29). In that campaign Judah had regained mastery over previously held Ezion Geber and apparently had control over Edom itself; for when Jehoram asked his advice in planning the expedition, Jehoshaphat immediately proposed a route through Edom. Not only would this have the element of surprise to commend it, but it would gain the allied help of the Edomite forces. Moreover, it would ensure the invaders not only protection for the rear, but the advantage of avoiding a head-on assault across the Arnon River and into the Moabite strength that a northern invasion would necessitate. Nevertheless a week’s trek through the eastern Edomite watershed nearly accomplished what the Moabites desired: the wasting of the total armed forces of the allies together with their water supply. The allies seemed at the point of extinction.
10–14 The king of Israel was terrified, seeing only certain doom. Jehoshaphat, whatever his shortcomings, was concerned with spiritual things, and, as on another occasion (1Ki 22:7), he asked for a true prophet of the Lord. One of Jehoram’s attendants reported that the prophet Elisha was available. Recognizing that God’s presence was with Elisha, Jehoshaphat led the other two kings to God’s prophet. At their approach Elisha addressed Jehoram—whose war with the Moabites the campaign really was—with words of strong rebuke. Why had Jehoram come to God’s prophet and not to those of Baal, whom Israel’s royal house served? But for King Jehoshaphat’s sake, Elisha promised the kings that he would seek God’s mind in this situation.
15–19 Having called for a harpist, Elisha went to prayer. God’s answer came: there would be ample water for the physical needs; moreover the Lord would give them victory over the Moabites. The revelation included directions for human response. The kings’ men were to dig ditches; for though they would see no storm, yet the Lord would send water in abundance.
20–25 At the time of the morning sacrifice, the area was filled to overflowing with water that ran down out of the mountains of Edom. God had sent necessary, life-giving water. Flash flooding in otherwise dry wadis is common enough in arid portions of the world. Not only the timing of the heaven-sent waters, but the total effect of their arrival bespeak the miraculous fulfillment of Elisha’s prophetic message.
These waters were to spell death for the Moabites. Viewing that same water, reddened by the soil and gleaming all the redder in the rising eastern sun, the enemy mistook it for blood and, surmising that the three former antagonists had had a falling out that had led to their near mutual extermination, they rushed to the Israelite camp intent on plunder. Too late they realized their mistake. The disorganized Moabite soldiers were met by the well-stationed allies who not only turned them back but, in turn, invaded Moab, effecting a great destruction. The Moabites fell back in disarray as far as Kir Hareseth, where they determined to make a final stand.
26–27 As the desperate struggle of the siege of Kir Hareseth continued, the frenzied Moabite king sacrificed his firstborn son and the heir to the throne so that the anger of his gods might be appeased and the city delivered. While Moab’s god could never deliver the king and the city, the act had the desired effect. Sickened by the maddened spectacle of senseless human sacrifice, the allies lifted the siege and returned to their homes.
c. Elisha’s miracles (4:1–6:7)
(1) The replenishing of the widow’s oil (4:1–7)
1 Chapters 4–7 make up the heart of what is frequently known as the Elisha cycle (chs. 2–13), being a collection of Elisha’s miraculous deeds and ministry. The first of these records the special case of a widow who, because her
husband had been a prophet, came to Elisha for aid. The death of her husband had brought on desperate circumstances: an outstanding indebtedness she was unable to meet had occasioned her creditor’s insistence that her two children be taken as slaves to work off the debt. However inhumane this might seem, the creditor was within his rights; for Mosaic Law allowed him to enslave the debtor and his children until the Year of Jubilee in order to work off a debt (Ex 21:2–4; Lev 25:39; Ne 5:5; Isa 50:1; Am 2:6; 8:6; cf. Mt 18:25).
2–4 Having learned from the woman that she had nothing that could provide sustenance for the family except a small flask of oil (for anointing the body), Elisha instructed her to borrow utensils from her neighbors and, having done so, to shut herself up in her house and fill them with the oil that would come from the flask. She could thus repay her creditor and use the overabundance for her family’s needs.
5–7 The woman responded in faith and, miraculously, all came to pass as Elisha had promised. The fact that she herself was to act in faith would enlarge her faith; the fact that Elisha would not be there when the miracle took place would display the power of God alone and thus encourage her to still greater faith. Devout obedience can produce brimful spiritual blessings!
(2) The revivification of the Shunammite’s son (4:8–37)
8–14 The course of Elisha’s ministry often took him through Shunem, where certain kind friends lived. Accordingly, at the wife’s suggestion, the husband prepared special quarters for Elisha wherein he might rest. On one such journey Elisha wondered how he might repay the Shunammite woman’s many kindnesses to him. When she indicated that she lived comfortably among her own people and had no special needs, Gehazi, Elisha’s attendant, pointed out that the couple was childless; and, since the husband was old, the woman’s longing for a child seemed hopeless. Jewish tradition asserts that Gehazi’s motives were engendered by lust. Certainly the suggestion may have been innocent enough; but as the story unfolds, it does appear that the woman surely did not trust Gehazi.
15–28 Under divine direction Elisha acted at Gehazi’s suggestion and informed the Shunammite woman that in the next year she would give birth to a son. So it came to pass, at the appointed time the child was born and in time grew into a young lad. One day as he helped his father in the field, the lad was taken suddenly critically ill and died. After placing the lad’s body on the bed in the chamber of the prophet who had first announced his life, the Shunammite lady immediately set out for Mount Carmel where Elisha was ministering. Her faith convinced her that somehow Elisha could be instrumental in again doing the seemingly impossible. He had previously announced life for her who had no hope of producing life; perhaps he could once more give life to her son. Bypassing Gehazi whom Elisha had sent to meet her, she made directly for Elisha; and grasping tightly his feet, she poured out the details of the tragedy.
29–30 Elisha quickly sent Gehazi ahead with instructions to lay the prophet’s staff on the dead lad. Although the author of Kings assigns no reason for Elisha’s instructions and actions, Elisha surely did not send Gehazi on a hopeless mission. Because he was young, Gehazi could cover the distance to Shunem quickly; and it was imperative that a representative of God arrive there as soon as possible. Very likely Gehazi’s task was preparatory and symbolic of the impending arrival of Elisha himself.
But the woman, who apparently had never trusted Gehazi, would entrust neither herself nor the final disposition of her son to him but rather stayed with Elisha until he could reach Shunem. Her faith and concern for her son’s cure were totally centered in God’s approved prophet.
31–37 As Elisha and the mother approached the city, Gehazi reported that, though he had carried out Elisha’s bidding, nothing at all had happened. Perhaps Gehazi had expected something extraordinary. But the merely routine fulfilling of one’s duties will never effect successful spiritual results. Elisha went straight to the dead lad and, putting all others out and shutting the door, besought the Lord for the lad’s life. His prayers were followed with prophetic symbolic actions, doubtless learned from his teacher Elijah’s experience with the widow of Zarephath (cf. 1Ki 17:17–22). Elisha stretched his body on the lad’s so that his mouth, eyes, and hands correspondingly met those of the lad; and the boy’s body grew warm again. After rising and walking about in continued prayer, he repeated the symbolic action. This time the lad sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. Having sent Gehazi for the mother, Elisha delivered the recovered lad to her. The woman gratefully thanked the prophet, joyfully took up her son, and went out.
As in the case of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath, both Elisha and the Shunammite woman had seen their faith successfully tested; and they were rewarded with the desires of their hearts and corresponding increase in their faith.
(3) The rectification of dinner problems (4:38–44)
38–41 This chapter closes with two incidents relative to Elisha’s miraculous help in food matters in the prophetic school at Gilgal. In the first instance, a student who had been sent to gather wild vegetables brought an unknown type to them and cut the gatherings into the stew. Its bitter taste convinced the diners that the stew was poisoned; so immediately they cried out to Elisha. He called for flour to be brought; and when he had stirred it into the pot, the stew was found to be both tasteful and safe. Elisha’s faith effected a miraculous cure. As had been the case with Elijah his teacher, Elisha had used flour to demonstrate the concern of God for one’s daily provisions (cf. 1Ki 17:14–16).
42–43 The second case involves the multiplication of a score of small loaves of fresh barley bread and some ears of new grain. These had been brought to Elisha as firstfruits. Normally these portions were reserved for God (Lev 23:20) and the Levitical priests (Nu 18:13; Dt 18:4–5). Because the religion in the northern kingdom was apostate, the loaves had been brought by their owner to one whom he considered to be the true repository of godly religion in Israel. Elisha did not hesitate. He ordered them distributed to the young prophets, despite the protest of his servant (probably Gehazi) who realized that, humanly speaking, the gift was insufficient to feed everyone. Nevertheless Elisha ordered their distribution, telling his servant that there would surely be sufficient for all—in fact, some would be left over.
44 As Elisha had promised, so it came to pass. Elisha’s faith in the miracle-working God had again been rewarded; and he, on whom the believer is to wait for daily bread, had supplied richly (cf. Mt 6:21).
(4) The restoration of Naaman (5:1–27)
1–7 The latter days of the reign of Israel’s king Jehoram were marked by hostilities with the Aramean king Ben-Hadad II. Probably due to Israel’s failure to participate in the continued Syro(Aramean)-Assyrian confrontation that marked most of the sixth decade of the ninth century B.C., the Arameans continually chastened the northern kingdom with systematic raids (cf. 2Ki 6:8), culminating in an all-out military excursion into Israel (cf. 2Ki 6:24–7:20).
During the course of one such raid, an Israelite maiden had fallen into the hands of Ben-Hadad’s field marshal, Naaman. Although Naaman was a brilliant commanding officer, he suffered from a serious and incurable skin disease. On one occasion when Naaman was home from fighting and relations were stabilized somewhat between Damascus and Israel, the Israelite servant girl informed her Aramean master that there was a prophet in Israel who could effect Naaman’s cure. When Naaman was advised of such a hope, he spoke to Ben-Hadad who, in turn, sent Naaman with rich gifts and a letter of introduction to Jehoram so that the Syrian (Aramean) general might be healed. Jehoram, believing the situation to be impossible, thought that Ben-Hadad was seeking an occasion for renewed warfare. Evidently no mention was made of Israel’s prophet in the correspondence, so that Jehoram was unaware of the context of the request.
8–14 News of the whole affair reached Elisha, who sent word to Jehoram that God was still at work in Israel and could work through his authoritative prophet. Accordingly Naaman was sent to Elisha, who, rather than receiving him, sent his servant to meet Naaman. He must understand that Elisha served a greater king than did the Syrian (Aramean) general. However Elisha’s message through Gehazi was one of great hope. If he would but wash himself seven times in the Jordan, he would be cleansed. Naaman, angered by his poor reception and thinking Elisha was a quack, strode away angrily. Yet God was at work in the proud, self-reliant Gentile’s life; he used Naaman’s own Aramean aide, who suggested that since Elisha’s instructions were simple enough, they ought to be tested. What did he have to lose? Naaman followed the advice and was instantly cured.
15–19 Gratefully Naaman returned to Elisha and offered him rich gifts. Although Naaman urged them on him insistently, the prophet refused. Naaman had become convinced that Israel’s Lord alone was God. Naaman asked Elisha whether two mule loads of Israelite soil might be taken with him back to Syria so that whenever circumstances forced him to bow ceremonially to the Aramean gods with his king, he might in reality be placing his knees in the soil of the true God of Israel. Thus he might be a true, though secret, believer. His request granted, Naaman set out for home.
20–21 The story next focuses on Gehazi, who saw an opportunity to gain some of the proffered commodities for himself. Slipping away stealthily, he overtook the Syrian (Aramean) general. What a contrast can be seen in the meeting between Naaman and Gehazi! Naaman’s descent from his chariot to meet Elisha’s servant was a mark of his being a changed man. No longer a proud, arrogant person, the grateful, reverent, and humble Aramean came down from his honored place to meet a prophet’s servant. He who had been a fallen, hopeless sinner displayed the true believer’s grace. Contrariwise Gehazi, who had enjoyed all the privileges of his master’s grace, was about to abuse them and fall from that favor.
22–26 Having convinced Naaman that Elisha had experienced an unexpected need, he extracted from the grateful Syrian (Aramean) commander a handsome sum of gifts, which he subsequently concealed until he could have opportunity to retrieve them. He then attempted to steal back to Elisha’s house unnoticed—only to be confronted by the prophet. His master knew all that had transpired! Gehazi’s lies only worsened the situation.
27 Accordingly, Elisha announced Gehazi’s punishment: Naaman’s leprosy would become Gehazi’s. Elisha’s privileged aide was banished in disgrace, for he had misused his favored position in an attempt to acquire wealth for himself. Gehazi needed to learn that the ministry has no place for those who would make merchandise of it. The moral and spiritual flaws in his character that one senses in the previous record have surfaced. His basic spiritual insensitivity had betrayed him in the time of testing so that rather than his character being refined, his work was refused.
(5) The recovery of the axhead (6:1–7)
1–7 In contrast to Gehazi who had received the reward of his unfaithfulness, the account unfolded here is a demonstration of the reward of faithful labor. During the evil days of Jehoram’s reign and Elisha’s prophetic ministry, a certain meeting place for the sons of the prophet’s instruction proved too small for their assembly. This school apparently was located in Jericho near the Jordan, a known center of prophetic instruction (cf. ch. 2). Accordingly Elisha acceded to the request to build larger quarters and even went with them to the work. In the course of their labor, one student lost the iron axhead of his borrowed ax and cried out to Elisha. In the power of God, Elisha then caused the submerged axhead to surface and instructed the pupil to retrieve the ax; thus he would personally participate in the miracle. Attempts to explain fully or to explain away the miracle are fruitless.
d. Elisha’s ministry (6:8–8:15)
(1) Prelude to war: the Aramean incursion (6:8–23)
8–12 The account now returns to the intermittent warfare between the Arameans and Israelites. Time after time the Israelite king and his forces were delivered from ambush because of Elisha’s warning, for by divine revelation Elisha was party to the Aramean king’s secret plans. Elisha’s aid to Jehoram became common knowledge and was duly reported to the Aramean king, who had suspected a traitor within his own court.
13–20 Accordingly, having learned that Elisha had gone to Dothan, the Arameans surrounded the city by night to take Elisha by force. Doubtless Elisha knew about all this, too, but allowed himself to be trapped so that the subsequent entrapment of the Arameans might work to God’s glory and for his good. When Elisha’s servant awakened and saw the great Aramean force, he cried out in dismay to Elisha. Elisha, however, assured him that the forces of God outnumbered the forces of the enemy. In accordance with Elisha’s prayer, the servant’s eyes were enabled to behold the company of an innumerable angelic host that stood ready to intervene for Elisha. However, this incident would not be one of protracted battle but another case of miraculous deliverance. In accordance with Elisha’s prayer, the enemy army became totally blind and was led away by Elisha to Samaria, about ten miles away. Once inside the city, the army discovered that instead of taking Elisha captive, they were prisoners of Jehoram!
21–23 At Elisha’s directions, rather than killing their enemies, the Israelites treated them to a sumptuous feast and, having given them provisions for the journey home to Syria (Aram), sent them away. Elisha’s intercession and instructions proved ultimately to be the divine remedy for the momentary ills of Israel: the Arameans reported Israel’s kindness, and their guerrilla raids ceased.
(2) The siege of Samaria (6:24–7:20)
24 At a later date war broke out again between Ben-Hadad II and Jehoram. Perhaps the miraculously arranged temporary lull had been divinely designed to teach Israel God’s abiding love and concern for his people, to whom he had sent his duly authenticated prophet, Elisha. But with no evidence of repentance by Israel, God withdrew his protective hand; and Israel faced a full-scale Syrian (Aramean) invasion. The Arameans were eminently successful, penetrating to the very gates of Samaria itself and putting the city under a dire siege.
25–29 The lengthy siege evoked a severe famine that, in turn, produced highly inflated prices for the humblest commodities. So scarce had food become that one day, as the king was on a tour about the embattled city’s wall, he stumbled on a case of cannibalism. By agreement two women had eaten the son of one of them; but when it came time for the second woman to surrender her son to the fire, she had hidden him, thus occasioning the first woman’s complaint to the king.
30–33 Jehoram’s reaction was one of anguished horror. He tore his robes, revealing his sackcloth garments of grief underneath. Enraged and blaming Elisha for the whole affair, he dispatched a messenger to seize and behead Elisha. When he had come to himself, however, he ran after his messenger, hoping to stay his hand. By divine insight Elisha knew the details of the whole episode and instructed certain elders who were with him to bar the door of the house until Jehoram could overtake his executioners. When the king arrived, he was admitted into the house. Convinced that the Lord had pronounced the doom of the city, Jehoram had all but given up any hope of the Lord’s deliverance. Yet perhaps his realization that all that had transpired was from the Lord carried with it the faintest hope that God would yet miraculously intervene. The restraint of the messenger and the king’s words hint at the faint hope of divine consolation. Such comfort Elisha would proceed to give.
7:1–2 Elisha seized on the king’s last glimmer of hope. By the next day conditions would so improve that products would be available again, even though at a substantial price. Jehoram’s chief aide found such a statement preposterous. Even if the Lord should open the windows of heaven and pour down a flood of flour and grain, so dire had the famine been that even this would not suffice to effect Elisha’s prediction.
The aide’s words are filled with ridicule and heaped with sarcasm, as if to say, “Oh sure, The Lord is even now making windows in heaven! So what? Could this word of yours still come to pass?” Whether the aide thought of the biblical phrase (Ge 7:11) or of the heavenly windows of the Baal fertility cult is uncertain. In any case he was skeptical of the whole thing.
The prophet assured Jehoram’s aide that not only would the prophecy come true, but the officer would see it with his own eyes. However, he would not eat any of it! His faithless incredulity would cause him to miss God’s blessing on the people.
3–5 God moves mysteriously. His means of effecting the fulfillment of Elisha’s prophecy were perhaps no less amazing than the aide’s taunts. Four leprous men who lived outside the city gate knew that their situation was desperate. Accordingly, they resolved to surrender to the Arameans. Death already stared them in the face; they had nothing to lose by going over to the Syrians (Arameans). Slipping away at twilight they traveled circuitously to the far end of the besieger’s encampment. As they moved cautiously into the camp, to their surprise they met not one man—the camp was totally deserted.
6–7 The author of Kings explains that the Lord had miraculously caused the Arameans to hear what seemed to them the approach of a great army to liberate the besieged Israelites. Throwing caution to the wind, they had abandoned the camp with its supplies, running for fear of their lives. Precisely how the Lord produced the desired effect is not stated; but whatever the method, the Lord had once again miraculously intervened for his undeserving people.
8–14 The four rushed about eating and drinking their fill, gathering and hiding their booty. When the exhilaration of the moment had worn off, they realized that as Israelites it was their duty to tell the good news to others. Accordingly they hurried on the shortest way to the city and informed the gatekeepers that the Arameans had suddenly left. The good news reverberated throughout the city, reaching even the ears of the sleeping king. A cautious Jehoram was not so certain of the state of affairs. Perhaps the Arameans had withdrawn a bit to lure the Israelites into the camp so as to fall on them unawares and thus gain entrance into Samaria. Acting on the advice of his officers, he sent two chariot teams to scout out the whereabouts of the Arameans. While Jehoram could scarcely spare them, yet if they were overtaken by the enemy, their plight would be little worse than what seemed inevitable should they remain in Samaria.
15 The scouting party soon returned with the staggering news. It was all true. For some reason the Arameans had fled in panic, leaving the road strewn with equipment and clothing as far as the Jordan River.
16–20 The king commanded the people to go to the Aramean camp and plunder it. By day’s end Elisha’s amazing prophecy stood fulfilled, including the portion that dealt with Jehoram’s aide. For in their mad rush for spoil, the people trampled him to death in the gateway he had been assigned to guard.
(3) Postscript to war: the restitution of the Shunammite’s land and the coup d’état of Hazael (8:1–15)
1–6 Chapter 8 opens with a last glimpse of Elisha’s former servant, Gehazi. Apparently King Jehoram of Israel had summoned Gehazi to learn from a reliable source something of the great prophet whose miraculous prediction had just come to pass. The wise deployment of divine providence is also in evidence; for the Shunammite woman (probably widowed by this time) had just returned after the seven-year famine that she had fled from at Elisha’s warning, only to find her property had been appropriated by someone else.
A woman of strong resolve, she immediately determined to take her case directly to the king, to whom she was going when she happened on Jehoram talking with Gehazi. God hadso arranged the details of life that Gehazi could identify the woman and so aid in the verification of her claim; and she, in turn, would be living proof of Gehazi’s account to the king of Elisha’s mighty deeds. The king acceded to her request.
7–8 The next incident from the Elisha cycle both closes the wars with Ben-Hadad II and initiates the critical circumstances that would culminate in the crucial events of 841 B.C. Ben-Hadad II, the Aramean king (860–842 B.C.), lay ill. News reached him that his old antagonist, Elisha, was at that very moment traveling in the area. Feeling that Elisha’s arrival might be fortuitous, he sent Hazael, one of his trusted officials, with an appropriate royal escort to inquire of Elisha whether or not he would recover from his sickness. He could not know, of course, that Elisha had come to carry out the Lord’s instructions to Elijah relative to dynastic change, both in Damascus and in Samaria (1Ki 19:15–17).
9–11a Hazael dutifully carried out his master’s instructions. Elisha’s reply to Hazael was an enigmatic one: the answer to the king’s question was both yes and no. Yes: if left to normal circumstances of healing, the king would recover; and no: Elisha, who was at that moment anointing Hazael as king, knew that this treacherous man would use the king’s illness to effect his coup d’état. Accordingly Hazael could testify truthfully to the king. The illness was not a fatal one of itself. Elisha’s reply and icy stare indicate that Hazael had already plotted the king’s demise through the situation and that Elisha knew his secret thoughts. Hazael blushed in shame.
11b–13 Elisha’s stares soon turned to weeping. In answer to Hazael’s question, Elisha indicated that he wept for the great barbarity that Hazael, as Aram’s next king, would inflict on Israel. Despite Hazael’s protests to the contrary, such would indeed be the case (cf. 10:32–33; 13:3).
14–15 Doubtless Elisha’s assurances to Hazael that he would be the next king of Damascus gave pretext to him that he had a mandate to be carried out. When he returned to the palace, he told his master the good news: the king would surely recover. However, the next day opportunity came to carry out the long-standing purpose. Having smothered the king, he assumed the throne.
e. The reign of Jehoram of the southern kingdom (8:16–24)
16–18 The author of Kings now shifts his attention to the southern kingdom and to the two sons of Jehoshaphat. The synchronism of v.16 records the year of Jehoram’s assumption of full power of state. Jehoram’s ungodly character is noted along with the primary factor in the spiritual apostasy: his marriage to Ahab’s daughter. The Chronicler (2Ch 21:11) adds that Jehoram made the entire nation of Judah to sin according to the religion of the Canaanites.
19–24 The perverse nature of Jehoram is further evidenced in that after his father’s death he slew all his brothers and any possible claimant to the throne (2Ch 21:2–4). Despite Jehoram’s spiritual and moral bankruptcy, God honored the covenant with the house of David (cf. 2Ch 21:7) and did not destroy the kingdom. Nevertheless Jehoram and Judah did experience judgment in the form of three military engagements (cf. 2Ch 21:10): (1) Edom revolted successfully, a rebellion that nearly cost Jehoram his life in attempting to suppress it (cf. 2Ch 21:8–10a); (2) simultaneously Libnah revolted (cf. 2Ch 21:10b); and (3) the Philistines and Arabians launched a massive attack that reached Jerusalem itself and cost the king all his sons except Ahaziah (cf. 2Ch 21:16–17 with 2Ch 22:1). Judah and its kings were smitten with the plague (2Ch 21:12–15), Jehoram himself succumbing eventually to an incurable disease in the bowels (2Ch 21:15, 18–19). Thus an unfortunate period of Judah’s history, in the form of a wicked and apostate son of the house of David, passed, wicked Jehoram himself being excluded from the royal sepulcher (2Ch 21:20b).
f. The reign of Ahaziah of the southern kingdom (8:25–29)
25–26a Ahaziah succeeded his father, Jehoram, in the critical year 841 B.C. He was not to survive the momentous waves of political events that were to inundate the ancient Near East in that year. Indeed, in 841 B.C. Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859–824 B.C.) at last was able to break the coalition of western allies with whom he had previously fought a long series of battles (853, 848, 845). While all these complex details were part of God’s teleological processes in the government of the nations and his dealing with Israel, doubtless the long-standing controversy and the growing specter of Assyrian power could be felt in the political intrigues that brought about the death of Ben-Hadad II of Damascus and the downfall of the Omride Dynasty in Israel. Before 841 had ended, Hazael would be master of Damascus (where Shalmaneser had set him up after having defeated him in battle), the pro-Assyrian Jehu would initiate the fourth dynasty in Israel (chs. 9–10), and the wicked Athaliah would sit as usurper on the throne of Judah (ch. 11).
26b–29 Ahaziah, too, was under the pagan spell of wicked Athaliah (cf. 2Ch 22:3–5) and perpetuated the Baalism that his father had fostered. Likewise, at the first opportunity he joined Ahab’s son Jehoram in renewed hostilities with the Arameans in Ramoth Gilead (1Ki 22:1–40). Once more the battle went badly for Israel and Judah, for in that battle King Jehoram was sorely wounded and returned to Jezreel for rest and recovery from his wounds (cf. 9:11–16). The chapter ends with a concerned Ahaziah going to visit Jehoram in Jezreel. He would not return to Jerusalem alive (cf. 9:16, 24–29).
g. The reign of Jehoram of the northern kingdom (9:1–37)
1 In those critical days when King Jehoram remained at the royal retreat in Jezreel recuperating from his wounds suffered in the battle against the Arameans at Ramoth Gilead (8:28–29; 9:14), Elisha summoned his trusty attendant, who was one of the “company of the prophets,” in order to send him with a commission to anoint the next king of Israel. The scene of this anointing would be that same Ramoth Gilead where the Israelite troops remained stationed in prolonged confrontation with the Damascene Arameans.
2–3 Once there the young prophet was to single out Jehu, the ranking army commander, take him aside privately into a room, pour a flask of oil on his head, and pronounce that God had anointed him as the next king of Israel. Having accomplished his task, the prophet was immediately to hasten from the house so as to avoid any diminishing of the act itself. God’s work is often best done and left to have its own impact.
4–10 The young prophet duly did as he was instructed. Arriving in Ramoth Gilead, he sought out Jehu; and, having brought him into the house, he anointed his head and delivered God’s solemn words to him. Jehu’s divine commission was twofold: (1) he was to annihilate all the wicked and apostate house of Ahab and (2) thereby avenge the blood of God’s own who had been martyred for their faithfulness. In this, Jehu was to be God’s instrument of divine vengeance against Jezebel’s bloody persecutions. When he had finished these words, in obedience to his orders, he literally ran from the house.
11–13 After the young prophet had fled, Jehu went out to the court where his fellow officers were sitting. They, of course, wanted to know what had occasioned the arrival of “this madman” (GK 8713). The term betrays the low spiritual condition of the soldiers and carries with it their contempt for God’s prophets. When Jehu replied rather nonchalantly that this sort of character was liable to say anything, the officers, suspecting something important had occurred, pressed him all the harder. Jehu then revealed the gist of what had happened: God had sent the prophet to anoint him as king! Perhaps recalling the similar past anointings of Saul and David and assuredly sporting for insurrection, the officers responded immediately, spreading their cloaks under Jehu as a sign of submission. Having blown the trumpet, they proclaimed to all the army that Jehu was the next king of Israel.
14–16 The enthusiastic response to the prophet’s pronouncement by his men prompted Jehu to take an active lead in a formal coup d’état. Having doubtless left a security force to continue the defense of Ramoth Gilead and having given instructions that none be allowed to slip out of the city and go with a warning to Jehoram in Jezreel, Jehu took a select group of troops and set out for Jezreel and the recuperating Jehoram. In God’s providence (cf. 2Ch 22:7), Ahaziah of Judah was at Jezreel visiting his ailing relative (cf. 8:29).
17–21 The scene switches to Jezreel. As Jehu rode swiftly toward the city, the watchman announced the approach of troops. Jehoram sent a messenger on horseback to intercept the column and inquire as to its mission. When the horseman reached Jehu and asked him whether all was well, Jehu bid him to fall in with his troops, which he did. When the watchman reported all this to Jehoram, a second horseman was sent out—with the same result. When the watchman next reported that the approach of the chariot looked like the wild driving of Jehu, Jehoram and Ahaziah rode their chariots out to meet him. Significantly, they met Jehu at the plot of ground that Ahab had purloined from Naboth.
22–24 A third time Jehu was asked whether he had come in peace. The royal query was greeted in a still rougher manner than the preceding two. Jehoram’s espousal of the idolatry and witchcraft instituted by Jezebel had rendered any talk of “peace” impossible. Jehoram realized that Jehu’s reply meant that a coup d’etat was taking place. Having warned Ahaziah of the treachery, Jehoram attempted to flee but was struck dead in his chariot by Jehu’s well-aimed arrow.
25–29 In fulfillment of Elijah’s prophetic threat (cf. 1Ki 21:19–24), which apparently Jehu and his chariot officers had heard, Jehu instructed his aide to throw Jehoram’s fallen body onto Naboth’s field. Ahaziah’s attempt to escape Jehu was also abortive. Taken at face value, this account seems to say that Ahaziah was wounded on the ascent to Gur and died in Megiddo, from which his body was taken to Jerusalem for burial. In 2Ch 22:8–9, Ahaziah was overtaken in Samaria where he had sought refuge with relatives and was brought to Jehu and executed, his body being interred with honor by Jehu’s men. One possibility of reconciling the accounts is to suggest that although Ahaziah was wounded at the ascent to Gur, he was apprehended by Jehu’s men in Samaria (where he lay recovering from his wounds) and then taken to Megiddo, where he was put to death, his body being given to his servants who took him to Jerusalem for burial (v.28; cf. 2Ch 22:9).
30–34a News of all this had no doubt reached Jezebel. Sensing her own imminent demise, she arranged herself in queenly fashion and went to the window to await Jehu’s arrival. As Jehu entered the gate below, she called tauntingly to him with words calculated to cut Jehu down to size. Jehu is called a “Zimri,” a name that had become synonymous with “traitor,” the implication being that usurpers usually do not last too long themselves. Jehu was fully up to the occasion. Looking up to the window where Jezebel was, he called out for anyone who would stand with him. When some of the eunuchs responded to Jehu’s bidding, Jezebel was thrown to the courtyard below. Jehu subsequently rode over the fallen body and went in to dine in the banquet hall of his predecessor.
34b–37 Later, on thinking over the events that had recently transpired, Jehu gave instructions that Jezebel’s body be given a proper burial, since she had been a king’s daughter. But his second thoughts were too late. The servant found precious little of Jezebel’s remains. When this was reported to Jehu, he recognized immediately the full force of Elijah’s awful prophecy (cf. 1Ki 21:23).
C. The Era of the Fourth Dynasty (10:1–15:12)
1. The reign of Jehu in the northern kingdom (10:1–36)
1–8 With the deaths of Jehoram (9:24–26), Ahaziah and his attendants (2Ch 22:8–9), and Jezebel (2Ki 9:32–33), Jehu next moved to eliminate any competitive threat to his newly won crown from the surviving members of the royal family who had taken refuge in Samaria, the capital city. He warned those officials who cared for them to prepare for battle. The heads of state in Samaria felt that resistance was futile and sent Jehu a letter of submission. With this concession in hand, Jehu sent a second letter, demanding that the heads of Jehoram’s surviving heirs be brought to him in Jezreel. Again the officials complied and sent the severed heads to Jehu, who then had them placed in two piles before the gate of Jezreel. This gruesome deed was often practiced in the ancient Near East.
9–11 On the next day Jehu addressed the assembled people, absolved them of any guilt, and again proclaimed his divine mission. While it was true that he had slain his master, the heads of the slain sons of the house of Ahab had come there through other means and so were a further sign that all of Elijah’s prophetic threats were coming to pass. Having said that, Jehu ordered the seizure and execution of any who might yet remain of Ahab’s descendants in Jezreel, as well as any of Jehoram’s officials, aides, and friends. Even the state priests who served them were put to death.
12–14 With affairs settled to his liking in Jezreel, acting on the favorable response of the leaders of Samaria, Jehu set out for Israel’s capital city. As he traveled southward, he met a party of forty-two of Ahaziah’s relatives who were coming to pay their respects to the royal family of Israel and Samaria. They would fare no better than the deceased Judean king. Jehu ordered their instant seizure and execution. As ordered, there were no survivors. Jehu’s reason for this mass murder is not given. Perhaps it was intended to be further evidence of his goal to stamp out Baalism everywhere. Perhaps he even held wild hopes of someday being able to lay some claim against Judah as well. Jehu was taking no chances. Since the two royal houses were related (cf. 8:16–18), no possible claimant would be allowed to live. Furthermore, their demise might pose some question as to proper succession to the Judean throne.
15 On leaving yet another bloody scene, Jehu encountered a mysterious figure, one Jehonadab the Recabite, who, having heard of Jehu’s anti-Baal crusade, had apparently come to meet the new Israelite king. Jeremiah (Jer 35) records that Jehonadab was the leader of an ascetic group that lived an austere, nomadic life in the desert, drinking no wine and depending solely on the Lord for their sustenance. Separatist to the core and strong patriots, they lived in protest to the materialism and religious compromise in Israel. Accordingly, Jehonadab was extremely interested in Jehu’s reputed desire to purge the nation of its heathenism. Perhaps he hoped that in Jehu a sense of national repentance and longing for the Lord God of Israel would now take place.
16–17 Jehu recognized Jehonadab immediately and, having greeted him with the usual blessing, inquired whether he was in agreement with him. When Jehonadab replied that he was, Jehu gave him his hand, both in friendship and to receive him into his chariot so that he might witness Jehu’s further zeal for the Lord. One wonders what Jehonadab must have felt when, on their entrance into Samaria, Jehu’s first order of business was the execution of any who might be in any way related to the house of the preceding dynasty. Nevertheless he continued with Jehu in his further purgation. With the death of the “sons of Ahab,” the divine sentence had been carried out to the fullest (1Ki 21:21).
18–24 Jehu’s continued purge of Baalism in Israel next took the form of deception. Feigning that he himself was a devotee of Baal, he ordered a great assembly for sacrifice to be held in Samaria and ordered all the priests and ministers of Baal to come, on penalty of death. On the day set for the feast, the various ministers arrived. To readily identify them as Baal’s faithful, each was given a special robe. With the temple of Baal crowded with Baal’s priests, and with the temple guarded securely by eighty selected guards, Jehu and Jehonadab entered the temple to see the opening sacrifices.
25–27 When the ceremonies had begun, Jehu and Jehonadab stepped outside; then Jehu gave the prearranged signal for the guards to enter the temple and slay the worshipers. This they did, penetrating even into the ruined shrine of the temple. None escaped. After the execution had been accomplished, the wooden images and stone statues of Baal were carried outside and demolished; then the temple itself was torn down and burned. To desecrate the site and mark the contempt attendant to it, Jehu converted it into a place for public convenience.
28–36 Jehu had exterminated the worship of Baal in Israel. For this the Lord commended him and promised him a royal succession to the fourth generation. Yet Jehu was to prove a disappointment to God; for his reform was soon seen to be political and selfish rather than born of any deep concern for God. Not only did he not keep the law in his heart, but he perpetuated the state cult of the golden calf established by Jeroboam I. Despite his comet-like beginning, spiritually speaking, Jehu was a falling star; so his reign is largely passed over in silence.
Because of his idolatry, God allowed the Arameans to plunder and reduce systematically the size of Israel, beginning with the loss of Israel’s Transjordanian holdings. Although defeated by the Assyrians, the Arameans had managed to retain independence. Hazael took advantage of Assyria’s preoccupation with affairs in the east and with revolution at home to take over Israel’s holding in Transjordan and to actually march into Israel and Judah. Only the emergence of a new strong Assyrian king in 841 B.C. checked Hazael’s relentless surge.
2. The reign of Athaliah in the southern kingdom (11:1–16)
1 On the news of the death of her son Ahaziah, Athaliah, the dowager queen, took whatever measures were necessary to seize the throne for herself, including the murder of her own grandchildren and all that remained of the royal family. With all natural heirs put out of the way, she ascended the throne, inaugurating a seven-year reign.
2–3 As in other desperate times, a godly woman would be used of God to stem the tide of apostasy. This ninth-century “Jochebed” was named Jehosheba. A princess in her own right—being the daughter of Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah—she was also the wife of the high priest Jehoiada (2Ch 22:11). Conspiring with her nurse (and doubtless the high priest as well), Jehosheba hid the baby, at first in one of the palace chambers, then subsequently smuggled him into her temple quarters where she managed to conceal him for six full years.
4–12 In the seventh year, with the child now older, Jehoiada mustered his courage (2Ch 23:1) and laid plans to dislodge the usurping queen from her ill-gotten throne. First, he secured the allegiance of the military officials and temple personnel. Second, he summoned the Levites and heads of families throughout the southern kingdom to Jerusalem and swore them to loyalty to the true king (cf. 2Ch 23:2). Third, on a set day he had the temple personnel seal off the temple area at the changing of the guard and had trusted guards deployed in strategic fashion. Then, with everyone in place, Jehoiada led the king to the appointed spot, perhaps in the innermost court between the temple and the altar, and anointed him as king, to the shouts of acclamation of the gathered throng. By putting the crown on the young king’s head and a copy of God’s law in his hand, Jehoiada was acting in accordance with ancient scriptural precedent, a move calculated to strengthen the hand of the supporters of the rightful king of the people.
13–16 When the clamor of the people reached the ears of Athaliah, she made her way to the scene of jubilation. The sight that greeted her eyes doubtless made her heart sink. There, on the royal dais at the eastern gate of the inner court to the temple, stood a newly crowned king, surrounded by the high officials both in the religious order and in the military, amid great fanfare and the joyous shouts of the people. She shrieked out her condemnation: it was treason. But her cry was to have as little effect as that of Israel’s Jehoram to Athaliah’s son Ahaziah (9:23). At Jehoiada’s command she was seized and escorted to the gate used for the palace horses and put to death by the sword. Thus Athaliah, the most infamous queen of Judah, died at the hands of her executioners, much as did her mother Jezebel, queen of Israel (9:27–37).
3. The reign of Joash in the southern kingdom (11:17–12:21)
17–21 After the departure of the deposed Athaliah, Jehoiada led the king and the people in a twofold ceremony of covenant renewal: on the one hand, the king and the people swore their unswerving allegiance to God; on the other, the people affirmed their unfailing support of the reconstituted Davidic line. In attestation to their vows, a thorough cleansing of the land followed. Baal’s temple was torn down, his priest Mattan slain before the images, and the altar thoroughly pulverized (2Ch 23:17). Not only was the pagan worship of Baal put away, but a reorganization of the temple worship followed that was in accordance with the law of Moses and that followed the order instituted by David.
That day was capped with a thrilling scene. With Jehoiada in the lead, the royal bodyguard escorted the yqung king toward the palace, followed by the high officials representing the military, civil, and religious orders, with the joyous people bringing up the rear. From the eastern temple the ecstatic entourage swept majestically out the inner temple court and, moving southward through the middle court, entered through the upper gate into the palace. Eventually the throng reached the throne room, where the king was duly enthroned. It had been a memorable day—a day when Jerusalem and Judah ascended to the spiritual heights. Yet while the fire of spiritual reforms had been ignited and was to burn brightly for a time, in the very dependence of the king on others could be seen a flicker that would one day cause the fiery zeal for the Lord to sputter before the chilling winds of apostasy. This same Joash and many of the same officials would, on another day, bring Judah down to the dregs of the degraded Canaanite religion that they had just rendered dormant. Merely programmed religion is perilous; genuine faith must be personal.
12:1–6 Chapter 12 begins with a notice of Joash’s matrilineage. Then follows a favorable evaluation of his earlier years as king, together with the notice that nevertheless worship at the various high places continued. Next is an account of the preparations for and repair of the temple. Joash’s first edict in this regard (doubtless made early in his reign; cf. 2Ch 24:5) called for the setting aside of money collected as a result of the payment of special religious taxes and voluntary offerings. The Chronicler adds that the Levites were to gather such funds personally, collecting them from the cities of Judah. Although all haste was bidden in the matter, yet by the twenty-third year of Joash’s reign the task was still not done (cf. 2Ch 24:5). No formal reasons are cited for this seeming lack of effort by the Levites. Whatever the problem was, the system was not working.
7–16 Accordingly Joash decided to take matters into his own hands and decreed that a chest be set outside the wall to the inner court at the southern gate on the right side of the entrance into the temple, so that all who passed through might cast their contributions in for the temple’s repair (cf. 2Ch 24:8). Joash also had a proclamation read throughout Judah as to the need and intent of the box, urging all citizens to participate willingly in accordance with Moses’ ancient institution (cf. Ex 25:2–3; 30:12–16; Lev 27:2–8 with 2Ch 24:9). The response was tremendous (cf. 2Ch 24:10). Soon there was ample money to begin the work and the workers were commissioned (cf. 2Ch 24:11–13). So successful had been the king’s program and so well did all concerned carry out their duties that there was even money left over for the provision of sacred vessels for the sanctuary service (2Ch 24:14).
17–21 The narrative quickly shifts in time, noting that the Aramean king Hazael had renewed his pressure against Israel and Judah, penetrating down the coast as far as Philistia and turning then inland to make a direct attack against Jerusalem. A siege of Jerusalem was averted only when Joash stripped the royal treasury and the wealth of the temple as payment to Hazael.
The reason for this drastic turn of events can be gleaned from the supporting details in 2Ch 24:14–22. Regular temple worship had continued throughout the days of Jehoiada; but after the death of the godly high priest, Joash fell into the hands of godless advisors who turned his heart to Canaanite practices. Although the Lord continually warned the king and his confidants, his pleadings fell on deaf ears. Indeed, in one instance the king and his staff went so far as to stone Jehoiada’s son Zechariah for delivering the Lord’s pronouncement against them.
Accordingly, when God’s patience had run full course, he delivered Joash and Judah into the hands of the Arameans. The plight of the northern kingdom (cf. 2Ki 13:1–3) also descended on the south. Hazael, though equipped with an inferior army, was under God’s direction immediately successful, defeating Judah suddenly and sending much booty back to Damascus (2Ch 24:23–24). The campaign brought death to many in Judah. Even the king was sorely wounded (2Ch 24:25). The narrative in Kings joins the historical report at this point. With total defeat imminent, Joash bribed Hazael and so delivered Jerusalem. Nothing, however, is recorded of any repentance on Joash’s part. So obdurate did he remain in his sin that he was to die in a palace intrigue. Even though he was interred in Jerusalem, he was excluded from burial in the royal sepulcher (2Ch 24:25).
4. The reign of Jehoahaz in the northern kingdom (13:1–9)
1–9 In the very year that Joash launched his campaign to repair the temple, Jehoahaz, son of Jehu (10:35), ascended the throne in the northern kingdom. He was to reign sixteen years (814–798 B.C). Because Jehoahaz perpetuated the sins of his father in following the long-standing state religion instituted by Jeroboam I, God allowed the Aramean king Hazael (843–798 B.C.) to afflict the northern kingdom directly. Hazael’s affliction of Israel was to trouble Jehoahaz throughout his reign, though, apparently, the earlier part of Jehoahaz’s rule was most severely affected (cf. v.32). So sore had the Aramean encroachment been that the northern kingdom was at one point left with but fifty horses, ten chariots, and ten thousand infantry—a far cry from the time when Ahab alone could muster two thousand chariots for the allied forces at Qarqar.
In such lowly circumstances Jehoahaz at last sought the Lord’s favor. While his repentance was seemingly genuine, the state religion of the golden calves was allowed to remain, as was the cult connected with the Asherah pole in Samaria. Nevertheless God in his covenant mercy did so arrange the circumstances as to send relief to Israel (probably in the person of Adad-Nirari III, 811–783 B.C., of Assyria), with the result that the closing years of Jehoahaz’s reign were free of Aramean intervention.
Little else is reported of Jehoahaz’s reign, Jehu’s son going to his reward in 798 B.C. and being succeeded by his son, Jehoash.
5. The reign of Jehoash in the northern kingdom (13:10–25)
10–13 The account of the sixteen-year reign of Jehoash of Israel begins with a typical notice of his evil character, a mention of the most important event in his reign (his war with Amaziah), and a statement as to his demise. A record of an incident in which Jehoash met with the dying Elisha follows.
14 Jehoash addressed Elisha with words reminiscent of the venerable prophet’s own testimony at Elijah’s translation (cf. 2:12). While they were full of respect, the words were less than full of faith. Yet because of the very fact that Jehoash had at least come to Elisha and had addressed him courteously, the Lord was to use the occasion to attempt to increase Jehoash’s slim faith.
15–20a Elisha instructed Israel’s king to pick up his bow. When he had done so, the prophet placed his own hands on those of the king, thereby indicating that what he was about to do would be full of spiritual symbolism. That act was the shooting of an arrow out the east window—toward Aram. Elisha explained the deed: Jehoash would win a total victory at Aphek against Arameans. But the divine promise was to be augmented by personal participation. Accordingly, Jehoash was told next to shoot arrows into the ground; obviously victory at Aphek was to be followed by subsequent victories over the hated Arameans. Jehoash obediently complied, but with his own reasoning powers. He struck the ground three times with his arrows rather than using the five or six arrows that he had with him. Elisha was justifiably angry with the king. Had he used all his arrows, the Arameans would have been completely vanquished. Now Jehoash would gain but three victories. With this pronouncement the aged prophet had finished his earthly course.
20b–21 One last miracle would attend God’s faithful prophet. In those last dark days before stability was restored to the area by Adad-Nirari III, bands of Moabite marauders ravished the land at the beginning of the harvest season. Evidently Elisha had died at such a time. On one occasion, as a funeral procession made its way to the burial place, a looting party swooped down on them. In their need for swift flight, the members of the procession quickly halted and hastily placed the body of the dead man in the first available tomb—which happened to be Elisha’s. When the burial party lowered the linen-wrapped body of the dead man into the tomb, it came into contact with the remains of Elisha. Instantly the man was revived. The juxtaposition of this event with the account that precedes makes it clear that herein was another divinely intended sign for Jehoash and Israel: God was the God of the living, not the dead, not only for Elisha and the man who had been restored to life, but for Israel as well. Israel could yet “live” if she would but appropriate the eternally living God as her own. The entire episode was, further, a corroborative sign that what Elisha had prophesied would certainly come to pass. Only a living God could guarantee such a thing (cf. Isa 44).
22–25 The chapter closes with some historical notices concerning the strained Aramean-Israelite relations during the reign of Jehoahaz and Jehoash. Conditions improved during Jehoash’s reign in that the Israelite king, in accordance with Elisha’s prophecy, defeated the Aramean king Ben-Hadad III, son of Hazael, three times. The growing preoccupation of Adad-Nirari III with the affiars in the east and Joash’s treaty link with him, along with the growing weakness of Aram in the days of Ben-Hadad III, provided the historical framework for the outworking of Elisha’s prophecy. This record is a further indication of the inviolability of God’s word and God’s continued faithfulness to the basic covenant made with the patriarchs.
6. The reign of Amaziah in the southern kingdom (14:1–22)
1–7 If those who conspired against Joash, Judah’s eighth king, had hoped for a dramatic change in governmental leadership, they were to be disappointed. Amaziah did indeed carry out his office in accordance with the demands of orthodoxy, as witnessed by his stringent treatment of the sons of his father’s assassin. Yet the Scriptures record that he did not serve God “wholeheartedly” (2Ch 25:2). Certainly he was no David; rather, he was another Joash; for he perpetuated the state policy of allowing sacrifice and offerings in the high places.
Two dramatic events were to mark Amaziah’s reign: (1) his God-given victory over Edom and (2) his self-inflicted loss to Israel. The first is dismissed in a single verse but receives expanded treatment in 2Ch 25:5–15, where the basic weakness in Amaziah’s character is readily shown.
According to the Chronicler, Amaziah laid careful plans for the reconquest of Edom (lost in the days of Jehoram [8:20–22]). He began with a general census and conscription of able-bodied men twenty years of age and upward (2Ch 25:5). He added to the three-thousand-man army by raising another one hundred thousand mercenaries from Israel (2Ch 25:6), which, however, he subsequently dismissed when rebuked by one of the Lord’s prophets (2Ch 25:7–10, 13). Thus encouraged that his cause was just and that God would give him the victory, Amaziah invaded Edom and inflicted a crushing defeat.
Life’s successes are not, however, always the victories they seem to be. A notable defeat for Amaziah occurred here (2Ch 25:14–16). Having vanquished Edom and carried off booty and captives, he foolishly worshiped their captive gods. For this the man of God again rebuked Amaziah. This time, however, Amaziah no longer “needed God,” for he considered that he himself had won the battle. So he threatened the prophet and sent him away. Yet before he left that prophet announced Amaziah’s doom for his spiritual callousness and self-will.
8–10 This knowledge of Amaziah’s character and the information that the dismissed and disgruntled Israelite mercenaries had looted the northernmost Judean cities on their way back home to Israel (2Ch 25:13) set the background for the second major event of Amaziah’s time—the contest with Jehoash of Israel (cf. 2Ch 25:17–24). Still irked by the strong prophetic rebuke, Amaziah sought the advice of those who would indulge his self-will (2Ch 25:17). Angry over the conduct of the Israelite mercenaries, he used their actions as a provocation for war. Moreover, having defeated Edom with ease, Amaziah overestimated his own abilities and reasoned that he would have little trouble with his northern brother (cf. 2Ch 25:19).
To Amaziah’s arrogant battle challenge, Jehoash returned a reply couched in parabolic fable. For Amaziah to presume to challenge Jehoash was like a lowly thistle making pretentious demands against a great Lebanese cedar, only to be trampled under foot by a passing animal. How empty the boasting of such a puny antagonist! Similarly Amaziah ought not to let success over a tiny nation go to his head. In locking horns with Jehoash, the renowned victor over the Arameans, Amaziah was inviting personal and national disaster.
11–16 Amaziah’s headstrong ambitions nevertheless knew no bounds. Throwing caution to the wind, he moved his troops to a confrontation with Jehoash at Judean Beth Shemesh. In that battle Jehoash emerged the victor, routing Amaziah’s army (2Ch 25:22) and taking Judah’s king captive. Jehoash followed up his triumph with a thrust against Jerusalem that resulted in the loss of some six hundred feet of city wall, the confiscation of the temple furnishings and palace treasures, and the taking of many prisoners of war. Amaziah’s lesson in self-will had cost his nation dearly. The Chronicler (2Ch 25:20) reports that behind it all lay the wise hand of divine providence that arranged the details of the lives of all concerned, in order to teach Amaziah and Judah the folly of trusting in foreign gods.
17–22 The account of Amaziah’s life closes with a further note that he outlived Jehoash of the northern kingdom by some fifteen years and apparently was then released to return home by Israel’s next king, Jeroboam II. Such a move would cause an unsettling factionalism, for Judah would now have two kings: Azariah, whom Amaziah had made coregent before his battle with Jehoash, and the restored Amaziah. Amaziah’s apostasy had already brought him many adversaries; his return only aroused old antagonisms and, doubtless, new political enemies. The tension of having two kings was resolved in a conspiracy against Amaziah that first caused his flight and then ended with his death in Lachish.
7. The reign of Jeroboam II in the northern kingdom (14:23–29)
23–29 The chapter closes with a brief notice of the forty-one year reign of Jeroboam II (793–752 B.C.). The era of Jeroboam (northern kingdom) and Azariah (southern kingdom) would mark a significant change in the fortunes of God’s people. These would be days of unparalleled prosperity for the twin kingdoms, both economically and politically. Indeed, together they would acquire nearly the same territorial dimensions as in the days of the united monarchy. However, God’s blessings are too often taken for granted. And so it proved to be in Israel-Judah of the eighth century B.C. Spiritually the lives of God’s people degenerated into open sin in the northern kingdom and into an empty formalism in the south. In such an era God therefore raised up the great writing prophets, one of whom, Jonah, is mentioned here.
Great responsibility for Israel’s spiritual problem lay with her leadership. Jeroboam II, while a capable administrator and military leader, had no concern for vital religion (cf. 1Ch 5:11–17; Hos 4:6–5:7; 7:5). He simply carried out the ritual of the standard state religion begun by Jeroboam I. Nonetheless Jeroboam’s external accomplishments were many. In accordance with an unrecorded prophecy of Jonah, Jeroboam restored fully the borders of Israel so that they extended from the entrance of Hamath (located in the great Beqa Valley amid the Lebanese Mountains south of Hamath) to the Sea of Arabah (or Dead Sea). Apparently even Hamath and Damascus came under Israelite control. Amos (Am 6:13–14) indicates that the Transjordanian territories were probably also recovered at this time.
In all this the faithfulness of God, despite Israel’s unfaithfulness (cf. Hos 2:2–3:5; 11:1–14:8; Am 3:1–15), is evident. Because Israel had fallen into such desperate spiritual conditions, a merciful God had acted on behalf of his people. As he had granted them deliverance from external pressures by sending Adad-Nirari III of Assyria against the Arameans (cf. 13:5, 22–23), initiating a period of recovery under Jehoash (13:25; 14:14–15), so now in a grander way he culminated that deliverance with full victory over the Arameans, one that included Israel’s recovery of its former boundaries.
When Jeroboam II died in 752 B.C., he left behind a strong kingdom, but, unfortunately, one whose core foundation was so spiritually rotten that the edifice of state would not long withstand the rising tides of international intrigue and pressure.
8. The reign of Uzziah in the southern kingdom (15:1–7)
1–4 Judah’s tenth king was Azariah (“The LORD has helped”), known also as Uzziah (“The LORD is my strength”), the latter name possibly being assumed on the occasion of his independent reign. Azariah had been made coregent at the time of Amaziah’s ill-conceived campaign against Jehoash (14:8–14; 2Ch 25:17–24). After Amaziah’s release at the death of Jehoash in 782 B.C. and subsequent assassination in 767, Azariah took the throne in his own right and ruled until 740. Thus, counting his coregencies, Azariah ruled some fifty-two years.
Several reasons may be found for such a lengthy reign besides the longevity of the king. First, Israel’s perennial enemy, Assyria, was in a state of severe decline. After the death of the vigorous king Adad-Nirari III (810–783), Assyria was ruled by three weak kings—Shalmaneser IV (782–774), Assur Dan III (773–756), and Assur Nirari V (755–746)—who strove desperately to maintain themselves against the advance of their hostile northern neighbor, Urartu, and campaigned mainly to the south and east. Moreover, Assyria was rocked internally by plagues in 765 and 759 and by internal revolts (763–759).
Second, relations between Jeroboam II of Israel and Azariah remained cordial so that together the two nations were able eventually to acquire nearly the same territorial dimension as in the days of the united monarchy. Indeed, the Chronicler makes it clear that the era of the early eighth century B.C. was one of great expansion militarily, administratively, commercially, and economically, a period whose prosperity was second only to that of Solomon (2Ch 26:1–15).
Third, and more basically, Azariah was noted as a man who utilized well the spiritual heritage that he had gained from his father (cf. 2Ch 26:4–5). Accordingly, God’s abundant blessing was shed on him (2Ch 26:6–15) so that his fame spread throughout the Near Eastern world (2Ch 26:8, 15).
The mention of the continued worship at the “high places” indicates a state policy of noninterference with competing religious forms that had been in force since at least the time of Joash (cf. 12:3; 14:3–4). The apparent compromise is indicative of a basic spiritual shallowness in Israel and Judah that was to surface in the prophecies of the great writing prophets of the eighth century B.C.
Times of plenty and ease too often lead to spiritual lethargy. God’s abundant blessings can all too readily be taken for granted and become commonplace. In such circumstances a people’s religious experience can degenerate into an empty formalism or, worse, erupt into open apostasy and moral decadence. So it was in eighth-century Israel. Hosea (775–725 B.C.) warned of the misuse of wealth and the twin dangers of apostasy and loose morality. Joel (770–765) cried out against Judah’s superficial religion. Amos (765–755) spoke a similar message, while also emphasizing Israel’s moral and social corruption. The collective prophetic challenge to repent and return to making God primary in the believers’ lives reflects the low spiritual tone of the times.
5–7 Great earthly success is seldom well-managed to spiritual benefit. As with Solomon before him, Azariah’s successes proved to be his undoing. His great power fostered such pride and haughtiness that about 750 B.C. he sought to add to his vast power by usurping the prerogatives of the sacred priesthood. Challenged to his face by the priests as he attempted to make an offering at the altar of incense, he was also instantaneously judged by God, who smote him with leprosy. Driven from the temple forever, Azariah remained a leper thereafter, dwelling in isolation until his death (2Ch 26:16–21). During Azariah’s last decade, due to his leprosy, his son Jotham was made coregent and public officiator, though doubtless Azariah remained the real power behind the throne.
9. The reign of Zechariah in the northern kingdom (15:8–12)
8–12 Little is recorded of Zechariah, the fourth descendant of Jehu to assume the throne of Israel, except the familiar evaluation that he did evil in perpetuating the idolatrous sins of Jeroboam I and that he died in an assassination plot. With the passing of Zechariah, the Lord’s prophetic promise to Jehu (10:30) stood fulfilled (cf. Am 7:9).
The shortness of Zechariah’s reign and that of Shallum, his murderous successor, doubtless points up the great contrast in their abilities with those of Jeroboam II and underscores the weakness of the northern kingdom. The openness of Shallum’s deed was expressive of Israel’s social degradation.
D. The Era of the Decline and Fall of the Northern Kingdom (15:13–17:41)
1. The reign of Shallum in the northern kingdom (15:13–15)
13–15 Shallum’s designation “son of Jabesh” may mark either a clan name or indicate that he was the leader of a Gileadite reaction against the crown. His minimal reign of but one month was terminated by a retaliatory raid by Menahem, who, in turn, usurped the throne.
Menahem, who may have been a military commander under Zechariah, brought his forces against Shallum in Samaria from Tirzah, an ancient Canaanite city important for its strategic commercial location and noted for its surpassing beauty (SS 6:4). Tirzah had served as a royal retreat (1Ki 14:17) and as a national capital (16:8–10) and had remained an important city.
From Tirzah, Menahem launched a savage campaign against Tiphsah for its failure to open its gates to him. This latter city, whose exact location remains uncertain, may have withstood Menahem and Shallum or may have contested Menahem’s attempt to reassert Israelite strength in the area. Although Tiphsah is otherwise insignificant in OT history, its importance to Menahem lay in its attitude toward him at a time when he could allow no rebellion to his authority if his quest for the throne was to be carried out smoothly. Menahem thus served notice that he would brook no resistance from any quarter.
2. The reign of Menahem in the northern kingdom (15:16–22)
16–22 Menahem’s decade of rule is characterized as one of total sinfulness. In addition to further prostituting Israel’s religious experience, he compromised her independence by becoming a vassal to Pul (or, more properly, Tiglath-pileser III, 745–727 B.C.) of Assyria. His motive in doing so was not one of patriotic concern for Israel’s survival. Rather he hoped that the Assyrian alliance would solidify his hold on the throne of Israel. In order to gain the Assyrian king’s backing, he levied a tax of fifty shekels of silver on the wealthy men of the realm so that the assessed levy of one thousand talents of silver might be gathered. Since a talent then weighed about seventy-five pounds, this was obviously a tremendous sum.
Nevertheless, the sum was fully met, and Tiglath-pileser “withdrew and stayed in the land no longer.” While Menahem thus bought the crown for himself and respite from Assyria, the hard stipulations were to cause further internal friction that was to ignite the fires of insurrection soon after his son, Pekahiah, succeeded him. Although Menahem had thought to buy time, perhaps even Israel’s independence, his policy was to spell out the beginning of the end. A totally apostate Israel was to reap the harvest of her spiritual wickedness at the hands of the very ones whom Menahem had trusted for deliverance.
To understand the complex events of the late eighth century B.C., a word must be said concerning the Assyrians. After nearly a half century of decline, Assyria reawakened with the usurpation of the throne by Tiglath-pileser III in 745 B.C. Indeed, he and his successors in the Neo-Assyrian Empire were to effect a drastic change in the balance of power in the ancient Near East. Having solidified the kingdom in the east, Tiglath-pileser turned his attention to the west in 743. Although the exact course of his western campaign is difficult to follow, it seems clear that all of Syro-Palestine submitted to the Assyrian yoke. Among those nations and kings whose tribute is recorded in his annals is the name Menahem of Israel, thus confirming the biblical account.
3. The reign of Pekahiah in the northern kingdom (15:23–26)
23–26 Few details are recorded of the two-year reign of Menahem’s son Pekahiah except the notice of his evil spiritual condition and the coup d’état that took his life. The insurrection originated with the king’s own personal bodyguard. While two of the chief officers (Argob and Arieh) remained loyal to the king, even laying down their lives for him, the third, Pekah (apparently an influential Gileadite), found an occasion to trap the king in the citadel of the royal palace. Having slain him, Pekah seized the throne.
The usurpation and troubled times that were to follow make it clear that there was an anti-Assyrian party that had remained submerged during the rule of the fiery Menahem. Indeed, the notice of a twenty-year reign for Pekah would seem to indicate that this Gileadite strong man had laid claim to the crown some twelve years earlier and had been prevented from taking the throne only by Menahem’s swift action in those unsettled times during Shallum’s conspiracy. Pekahiah’s appointment of Pekah to be a chief officer among his bodyguards may thus have been an attempt to placate the rival party.
4. The reign of Pekah in the northern kingdom (15:27–31)
27–31 The chronology of Pekah’s time is beset with serious problems. To Pekah is attributed a twenty-year reign, beginning with the end of the fifty-two-year reign of Azariah of Judah. Further, v.30 indicates that his reign was terminated by Hoshea’s conspiracy in the twentieth year of Jotham’s rule. Verse 33, however, indicates that Jotham reigned but sixteen years. Moreover v.32 notes that Jotham himself began to rule in Pekah’s second year. Further synchronisms occur in v.8, where the thirty-eighth year of Azariah is marked as Zechariah’s accession year; in 16:1, where the seventeenth year of Pekah and the accession year of Ahaz are equated; and in 17:1, where the twelfth year of Ahaz is given as the first of Hoshea’s nine years.
Because the fall of Samaria can be assigned confidently to 722 B.C. on the basis of both biblical and secular history, and because Azariah’s fifty-second year can be shown to be 740 B.C., it would appear that there is no room for a twenty-year reign for Pekah, particularly in that due allowance must be made for the reigns of Zechariah (six months), Shallum (one month), Menahem (ten years), Pekahiah (two years), and Hoshea (nine years) in the same interval of time.
The resolution of these data, while difficult, is not impossible. Probably because Pekah carried out a consistent anti-Assyrian policy, the chronicles of the southern kingdom gave full credit to Pekah’s regnal claims. It would seem that already at the death of Zechariah in 752 B.C., Pekah had claimed the kingship and was recognized as king in Transjordanian Gilead. However, the swift action of the Israelite military forces through Menahem prevented Pekah from furthering his aspirations for the next decade. In 742, when the powerful Menahem died, the problem of Pekah again surfaced, Pekahiah solving the problem by bringing Pekah into a position of prominence within his own bodyguard. After two years Pekah was able to find an opportunity to dispose of Pekahiah and rule in his own right over all Israel until the troublesome international events associated with Tiglath-pileser III’s second western campaign (743–732) forced his demise at the hands of a pro-Assyrian faction led by Hoshea (732).
Pekah’s stormy beginning was to characterize his short independent rule. In 734 Tiglath-pileser III swept out of Assyria on a second western campaign that was to break the anti-Assyrian coalition headed by the Aramean king Rezin and Pekah of Israel. By 732 the alliance was thoroughly broken and Damascus had fallen. All the western Fertile Crescent, from the Taurus Mountains on the north to the border of Egypt on the south, lay in Assyrian hands. The Syrian (Aramean) states were divided into five provinces, Israel into three.
The battle against Israel centered in Galilee: Ijon, Abel Beth Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, and Hazor all being known Galilean cities. The text also adds significantly that Tiglath-pileser III swept into Pékah’s center of power, Gilead (cf. 1Ch 5:25–26). Because the cities lay in a general north-south direction, the biblical account may well preserve the Assyrian king’s line of march. The mention of Janoah may indicate that after the victory over Kedesh, Tiglath-pileser divided his forces, half proceeding southward against Hazor and on to Gilead, and the other half moving southwest to Janoah and then on to Phoenicia.
With the loss of Galilee and Gilead and with the presence of Assyrian troops all along Israel’s western frontier, it seemed evident that Pekah’s anti-Assyrian policy had brought Israel to the point of extinction. Accordingly, while Tiglath-pileser was concluding the siege of Damascus in 732, a pro-Assyrian party, led by Hoshea, succeeded in defeating and displacing Pekah, an insurrection that cost the controversial Gileadite his life. By dispatching Pekah and submitting to Tiglath-pileser, the ultimate demise of Israel was postponed for a decade. But her end was sure, for her corruption was total, permeating all levels of society. In vain God’s prophets had pleaded with an unrepentant and apostate people (cf. Isa 1–5; Mic 1–3; 6–7).
CAMPAIGNS OF TIGLATH PILESER
(745–732 B.C.)
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
5. The reign of Jotham in the southern kingdom (15:32–38)
32–33 The reign of Jotham was a continuation of that of his father, Azariah (Uzziah). Already coregent for at least a decade, political and religious conditions remained largely as they were in Azariah’s day; the country’s prosperity continued as well (2Ch 27:1–4). Regrettably, that prosperity was to lead, as it so often does, to spiritual neglect (cf. Isa 1–5), a condition that was to make Judah ripe for open apostasy in Ahaz’s day. Although the Chronicler (2Ch 27:6) gives Jotham a clear record, one cannot but wonder at the extent of the effect that Azariah’s sin had had on Jotham and that, in turn, on the young Ahaz.
34–35 Jotham turned his attention to his country’s internal needs. He rebuilt the Upper Gate at the northern entrance of the temple and did extensive work on the wall of Ophel (2Ch 27:3; cf. 2Ch 26:9). He also turned his attention to urban planning, constructing cities in the highlands of Judah that, together with a system of towers and fortification in the wooded areas, could serve the nation of Judah both economically and militarily.
At the onset of his reign, the Ammonites, from whom Azariah had exacted tribute (2Ch 26:8), refused to acknowledge Jotham’s overlordship. This occasioned successful campaigns against the Ammonites so that they once again paid their tribute (2Ch 27:5). Jotham thus proved himself to be a mighty warrior. The notice that this tribute continued into the second and third year may correlate with the probability that Jotham had turned over the reigns of government to his coregent son, Ahaz, about the year 736, possibly because of some failure in health or rising international tensions.
36–38 Toward the end of Jotham’s days, political storm clouds began to appear on the international horizon. The Chronicler speaks of “all his wars” (2Ch 27:7); and the author of Kings notes that Rezin, the Aramean king, and Pekah, Israel’s king, began their incursions into Judah. The issue was designed by the Lord to test the young Ahaz in spiritual things, but there would be no repentance in this third generation.
6. The reign of Ahaz in the southern kingdom (16:1–20)
1–2 The account of Ahaz’s wicked reign as given by the author of Kings centers around three main subjects: (1) his character (vv.1–4), (2) his war with Rezin and Pekah (vv.5–9), and (3) his further apostasy as consequence of his reliance on Tiglath-pileser III (vv.10–18). Other details concerning his life and times (cf. vv.19–20) can be found in 2Ch 28 and Isa 7–12.
Ahaz’s reign forms a stark contrast with that of his father and grandfather, and yet they had sown the seeds of the apostasy that would fructify in Ahaz’s day. The luxury and ease of the time of Uzziah and Jotham had produced a spiritual indolence in Judah that would allow Ahaz’s open sin to flourish.
3–4 Not content to continue the standing state policies of limited religious compromise (see 15:5–7), Ahaz transgressed the bounds of propriety by imitating the idolatrous heathen practices of Israel. Most nefarious of all was his participation in the debased Molech rites, even going so far as to send his own son through the sacrificial fires (cf. Lev 18:21; 20:1–5; Dt 12:31; 2Ki 21:6). These rites took place at the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys in a sacred enclosure known as Topheth (cf. 23:10; Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31). The exact nature of the sacrifices and the divinities involved have been the subject of much discussion. The finding, however, of the same type of sacred place with the same name in the transplanted Phoenician colony of Carthage, where the sacrificial offering was called by a name made up of the same Semitic consonants (MLK) contained in the name “Molech,” would seem to argue that there was no deity named Molech to whom the Judeans sacrificed. Rather, the real god involved was the old Canaanite deity Baal, with human sacrifice made to him called mlk (cf. Jer 19:5; 32:35). The rites were heinous and a total defilement of the God-given sacrificial service. The later spiritual reformation of Josiah was to bring an end to these sinister proceedings, a judgment Jeremiah utilized in picturing God’s coming judgment on his sinful people (Jer 2:23; 7:30–33; 19:5–6).
The valley’s reputation for extreme wickedness gave rise to the employment of its name as a term for the eschatological place for punishment of the wicked, a designation confirmed by Christ himself (Mt 5:22; 10:28; 13:42, 50; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 25:41).
5–6 The causes of Ahaz’s war with Israel and Syria (Aram) were at least fourfold. (1) On the human level, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel were doubtless desirous of Judah’s support in their planned insurrection against Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. (2) The two leaders may have had a personal dislike for Ahaz. (3) On the spiritual plane, the whole affair seems to be a concentrated satanic effort to put an end to the Davidic line on the throne in Jerusalem (cf. Isa 7:5–7). (4) God was superintending the whole complex undertaking. He would deal with an apostate Israel (cf. 17:5–18; 18:11–12), thwart the satanically inspired plans against the house of Israel by bringing defeat to Rezin and Pekah (Isa 7:5–16), and bring chastisement to a spiritually bankrupt Ahaz (2Ch 28:5, 19).
The full details of the complex international situation must be gleaned not only from ch. 16 but also from 15:37; 2Ch 28; and Isa 7:1–16. These sources show that the Syro (Aramean)-Israelite alliance had been operative against Judah already in Jotham’s day (15:37). The allied attack against Judah was two-pronged. Rezin came along the eastern portion of Judah, driving down to the key seaport of Elath and taking it (2Ch 28:5). Pekah launched an effective general campaign against northern Judah that resulted in the death of thousands of Judeans and the capture of hundreds of others (though the captives were later granted their freedom and returned to Jericho through the intercession of the prophet Obed; cf. 2Ch 28:6–15). Moreover, the newly liberated Edom took the opportunity to strike back, carrying away some Judeans into captivity (2Ch 28:17). As well, the Philistines found the time ripe to make renewed incursions into the western Shephelah and take captive certain cities in southern Judah.
Then a new attack, aimed at taking Jerusalem itself and installing a client king on the throne, took place (Isa 7:2–6). Surrounded by hostile enemies on all sides Ahaz received God’s prophet Isaiah. He assured Ahaz that the enemy would fall; God himself would see to that. Ahaz could ask any confirmatory sign that he wished, and it would be granted (Isa 7:7–11). Ahaz, with a flare of piety, refused Isaiah’s words (Isa 7:12), preferring to rely on his own resourcefulness. (God nevertheless gave Ahaz a sign, the prophecy associated with the virgin birth of the Messiah, Isa 7:13–16; cf. Mt 1:22–23.)
7–9 Ahaz sent away to Tiglath-pileser III and hired his deliverance from what seemed certain defeat (cf. 2Ch 28:16, 21). Tiglath-pileser complied all too readily, eventually thoroughly subduing the Arameans, taking Damascus and deporting its inhabitants, and executing Rezin. Israel was spared only through Hoshea’s coup d’état and swift submission to Assyria, a takeover that cost Pekah his life (15:29–30).
God’s message through Isaiah (Isa 7:7–9, 16) had come true, though the total picture was not in accordance with God’s desires for Ahaz. Accordingly, Judah, far from being actually delivered, would also soon feel the heel of the oppressor marching through her land and streets (cf. Isa 7:17–20). What had been an opportunity for spiritual victory had become a first step into a quicksand bog that would ultimately swallow Judah in defeat and deportation.
10–11 After Tiglath-pileser III had secured Damascus, he apparently summoned his new vassals there to receive their tokens of submission, among whom was Ahaz. While at Damascus Ahaz was much impressed with a type of altar in use there and sent back instructions to Uriah, the priest, for its construction, a task duly completed before the king’s return.
12–13 When Ahaz returned he had his daily offerings presented on this new altar, thereby dedicating the altar’s use to the Lord. The offerings that were made were all of the sweet savor type, expressing the maintenance of the believer’s communion with God: the burnt and meal offerings symbolizing dedication and service, the fellowship (peace) offering symbolizing fellowship, and the drink offering emphasizing the joy of life poured out to God in Spirit-led obedience. What a parody of piety! He who knew nothing of genuine godliness would feign his devotion to God—and that via an alien altar!
14–16 The following verses catalog Ahaz’s further religious innovations, all of which speak clearly of his deepening apostasy. The prescribed bronze altar was transferred from facing the sanctuary entrance to the north. Accordingly, all future offerings would be made on the recently dedicated Damascene altar. The bronze altar would henceforth be used by Ahaz in connection with his divination practices, indicating Ahaz’s involvement in Assyrian cultic rites.
17 Ahaz went even further. The high stands holding the altar were appropriated by him for their bronze. Likewise, he lowered the molten sea by taking away the bronze bulls that supported it and placed it on a low stone pedestal.
18 Not content with these “reforms” in the ceremonial furnishings, Ahaz went still further. The king’s own covered stand that opened into the inner court, together with his private entrance to that place, were removed “in deference to the king of Assyria.” The exact impact of these words is difficult to ascertain. Whether Tiglath-pileser wanted less prestige to be held by his new vassal or felt that such a special royal place might indicate too close a tie to an established religion that might later foster a spirit of independence against Assyria is uncertain. At any rate, the wholesale changes were either made at the Assyrian king’s suggestion or were done to gain his pleasure.
19–20 Ahaz went yet further in his apostasy. According to 2Ch 28:24–25, he went so far as to mutilate the temple furniture and close the temple itself so that the services within the Holy Place were discontinued. “Worship services” would henceforth be held only in connection with the new altar or at one of the several altars erected throughout Jerusalem or at the high places dedicated to the various gods that were established throughout Judah by royal edict (v.4). All this not only speaks of Ahaz’s depraved spiritual condition but was probably carried out as an expression of his goodwill toward Tiglath-pileser. Officially nothing offensive to the Assyrian king would henceforth be practiced. Thus did Ahaz go to his reward, clothed, spiritually speaking, in an Assyrian mantle.
7. The reign of Hoshea in the northern kingdom (17:1–23)
1–3 Hoshea had been granted the throne by the military in a purge that was largely a placating move toward Assyria. That such was the case can be seen in that when the opportunity presented itself, Hoshea quickly attempted to throw off the Assyrian yoke by entering into an anti-Assyrian coalition. That effort, however, failed, a failure that would seal the fate of the northern kingdom.
When Tiglath-pileser III died in 727 B.C. and was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser V (727–722), the time seemed ripe for certain western states to renounce their vassal status. Moreover, a seemingly important ally lay southward in the delta of Egypt, one Tefnekht, the Pharaoh of the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. Tefnekht had succeeded in bringing the decadent Twenty-Second Dynasty to an end and was even then vying for prominence in Egypt with Piankhy, the Pharaoh of the Ethiopian-based Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (which had dispatched the Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty).
4 The mention of “So king of Egypt” has occasioned a good deal of controversy, for there is no known Egyptian king by that name. Attempts have been made to identify this “So” with Osorkon of the Twenty-Third Dynasty or with Shabako of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, or to assign to him merely a field commander’s status. The simplest answer is that Sais, the Egyptian capital of the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty, would be pronounced sa in Akkadian (the lingua franca of the ancient Near East) but so in Hebrew. Thus understood, v.4 would read, “He had sent envoys to Sais, even to the king of Egypt” (see NIV note).
5–6 Hoshea (as well as Judah, 18:21) was to learn that Egypt was indeed “a splintered reed.” Tefnekht could not even survive Egypt’s internal struggle. Nor was Hoshea to succeed against Shalmaneser. The Assyrian monarch marched quickly into Israel, secured its submission, and imprisoned Hoshea himself. Subsequently he again invaded the land, devastating its length and breadth, and he placed Samaria under siege in the year 725 B.C.
Ultimately the Israelite capital fell (722), and its surviving inhabitants were deported to Mesopotamia and Media. The natural reading of the biblical record would seem to be that Shalmaneser is to be identified with “the king of Assyria.” Sargon (Shalmaneser’s successor), however, claimed that he had captured Samaria. The problem may possibly be resolved by holding that though Shalmaneser was still king, he was not personally present at Samaria’s fall, the culmination of the campaign being accomplished by his general Sargon.
7–8 The author rehearses the causes that necessitated the divine punishment. His indictment of Israel begins with a reminder that God alone had released the Israelites from their oppression and bondage in Egypt and had brought them to the Promised Land. Their historical foundation was essentially a spiritual one. Having brought Israel from bondage to glorious freedom, God had every right to expect them to walk in newness of life, as befitting a redeemed people (cf. Dt 5–6; 10:12–11:32).
9–17 The opposite, however, had been the case. The shameful record of Israel’s spiritual prostitution is catalogued (cf. Isa 5; Mic 6:3–5, 9–16). Against the clear prohibitions of God (Ex 20:2–6; Lev 18:4–5, 26; 20:22–23; Dt 5:6–10), the people had entered into the worship patterns of the pagan nations that God had driven out of the land. This apostasy had been formally initiated by Israel’s own kings, and all Israel had followed their devious plan to pretend to worship God in the official state religion.
Matters had grown even worse. The external rites had become more openly false. Israel’s worship included setting up sacred shrines and Asherah poles, the following of pagan incense customs, worshiping at cultic high places, and even open idolatry. Divination and deliberate sorcery had further corrupted their spiritual experience. Like the surrounding nations, they followed worthless idols and became useless to God. Most basic of all, they had not only denied God’s covenant with them but had refused the God of the covenant, rejecting his rightful sovereignty over them. God had sent prophets to warn the people to turn from this wickedness, but they consistently refused to listen to them. Therefore, the Israelites appropriated the punishment that God had meted out against the Canaanites when he drove them out of the Promised Land: he drove Israel out (vv.18–20, 23) into exile (v.23).
18–23 Israel had aroused God’s righteous wrath. In accordance with the set terms of the inviolable covenant, God must punish her. This he did, by allowing Israel to fall into the hands of the Assyrian invader. Judah had been left to ponder her own spiritual condition before God. Unfortunately, she would not learn from the lesson of Israel.
8. The repopulation of Samaria (17:24–41)
24 To the demise of Israel and her indictment, a historical note is appended. In accordance with the deportation system used so fully by Tiglath-pileser III and followed by his successors, a vast transplantation of populaces occurred. Israelites were sent to Mesopotamia and even beyond; Babylonians and Arameans were transferred to Israel. Not only did the Assyrian monarchs hope to make the repopulated and reconstituted districts more manageable, but they hoped to train and encourage the citizenry to transfer their loyalties to the Assyrian Empire.
25–27 The new settlers in Samaria, however, soon encountered difficulties. Perhaps because many unburied bodies still remained after the bloody warfare and due to the depopulating of the land, voracious lions began to roam freely through the area. When the immigrants arrived, they faced this menace, and many of them lost their lives. They immediately suspected that “the god of the land” was punishing them because of their failure to worship him. Therefore, they sent a report to the Assyrian king for some religious leadership. There was some truth to their evaluation of things. Although God had sent his people into exile because of their failure to live up to the stipulations of the covenant with God, he would not leave the land without any witness to himself. The lions were a reminder of the broken covenant and of God’s claim on the land (Lev 18:24–30).
28 The Assyrian king granted the request. Accordingly, one of Israel’s exiled priests returned to the land and reinstituted the worship of the Lord at Bethel, the traditional cult center of the northern kingdom. The religion, however, that such a priest taught was the false worship instituted by Jeroboam. The result was a mixture of truth combined with the corrupted experience of Israel (now deepened by two centuries of growing apostasy) and the pagan rites brought by the new settlers.
29–31 Moreover the various immigrants continued the worship of their own gods in the places where they settled. Those from Babylonia worshiped Succoth Benoth, probably a deliberate scribal pun on the Babylonian Sarpanitu, Marduk’s wife. Those from Cuth continued their worship of Nergal, the god of pestilence.
Those from Syrian (Aramean) backgrounds worshiped the deities associated with their cults. The Syrian (Aramean) gods that are recorded here are likely all deliberate misspellings. Ashima is possibly an abbreviated form of the goddess Malkat Shemayin or the Canaanite Asherah (cf. Am 8:14, NIV note). Some have suggested a connection with the late Syrian (Aramean) goddess Sima or with the Phoenician god Eshmun. Nibhaz is otherwise unknown, the most usual conjecture being that it is a corruption of the word for altar, now deified. Tartak is possibly a miswriting of Atargatis, the familiar Syrian goddess. Adrammelech and Anammelech are similar corrupt names probably representing Canaanite forms of the important Phoenician deities Baal and Anat, known from Phoenician and Ugaritic names.
32–41 Thus this Samarian worship from the onset was syncretistic. While the various people observed the worship of the Lord (in its Jeroboamic corrupt form), they also continued their own religious practices. The author of Kings evaluates the situation as being one of total confusion. Above all he makes it clear that the new Samarian worship did not represent the true faith; not only was it syncretistic, but it violated the clear commands and stipulations contained in Israel’s covenant with God.
With this summation the divine case against Israel has been made. Despite all that the great Redeemer had done for his people, their thankless, hardened, and apostate hearts had led them into spiritual, moral, and social corruption and thus to their own demise. Israel’s checkered history should have provided a lesson for Judah; it remains an example for the church today (cf. 1Co 10:11–13).
III. The Southern Kingdom (18:1–25:30)
A. The Reign of Hezekiah (18:1–20:21)
1. Hezekiah’s accession and early deeds (18:1–12)
1–2 Perhaps the knottiest of all scriptural chronological problems occurs in this chapter. The data are these: the third year of Hoshea is the accession year of Hezekiah’s twenty-nine-year reign (cf. v.1 with 2Ch 29:1); v.9 equates Hoshea’s seventh year with Hezekiah’s fourth year; and v.10 places Hoshea’s ninth year in juxtaposition with Hezekiah’s sixth year. Thus the dating of the early years of Hezekiah’s reign is inextricably tied with Hoshea’s rule. Since Hoshea came to the throne in 732/731 B.C., Hezekiah would appear to have begun his rule in 729/ 728.
Verse 12, however, records the invasion of Sennacherib that led to the famous Battle of El Tekeh as being in Hezekiah’s fourteenth year. Since that date can be accurately determined as being 701 B.C., this verse would seem to place Hezekiah’s accession date at 716/715 (cf. Isa 36:1). Adding to the difficulties is the scriptural notice in 16:1–2 that Ahaz reigned sixteen years after Pekah’s seventeenth year (736/735), making Ahaz’s final date to be 720/719.
Despite the many ingenious attempts to resolve these difficulties, the harmonization of these data remains a thorny problem. Obviously we are not yet able to grasp fully the details and principles that the Hebrew writers used in making these chronological correlations. While definite resolution of the details cannot be made at present, it may be simplest to view 729/728 as Hezekiah’s first year as coregent with Ahaz, a joint rule that he was to share until 720/719. After Ahaz’s death in 716, Hezekiah would then have ruled independently from 715 onward, or fourteen years before the Assyrian campaign of 701. Since the commencement of Hezekiah’s independent rule began only in 715 and Ahaz’s reign must have terminated in 720/ 719, the actual reins of government must have passed to Hezekiah some three or four years before Ahaz’s death, just as Jotham lived on until 732 after committing governmental control to Ahaz in 736.
3–4 Hezekiah’s godly character is sketched at the onset of things. He was concerned about the things of God, following in the footsteps of David his forefather in performing righteous deeds. This took the form early in his reign of a thorough reformation of the idolatrous practices of Ahaz. Not only did Hezekiah take away the high places and destroy the cultic stone pillars and Asherah poles, but his iconoclastic purge singled out Moses’ bronze serpent (cf. Nu 21) that had lately become an object of veneration.
5–7 The divine evaluation is a favorable one: (1) there was none who equaled Hezekiah in his trust of the Lord; (2) he followed the Lord faithfully; and (3) he obeyed implicitly the law of God. Hence God was with him and blessed him with success. Hezekiah’s character stands as a reminder that living for God’s glory is for the believer’s good also (cf. v.7 with 2Ch 31:20–21).
While the writer of Kings concentrates on the political events of Hezekiah’s reign, the author of Chronicles gives supplemental information as to Hezekiah’s continuing reformation. Hezekiah’s spiritual concern brought about a cleansing of the temple, thus undoing the evil deeds of Ahaz (2Ch 29:3–19). This was followed by a reconstruction and rededication of the temple (2Ch 29:20–36), accomplished with proper sacrifices (vv.20–24), with sincere worship (vv.25–30), and with glad service to God (vv.31–36). Hezekiah’s further reforms included the reinstituting of the Passover (2Ch 30), an observance performed with careful forethought (vv.1–12) and in accordance with the divine command, tempered with mercy (vv.13–22) and with protracted festivity (vv.23–27). The author of Chronicles tells of still later iconoclastic purges in which all the people of Israel participated (2Ch 31:1) and of Hezekiah’s further attention to spiritual details and provisions (2Ch 31:2–19), closing with the notice that Hezekiah characteristically lived out his life in utter devotion to God and so was successful in all that he did (2Ch 31:20–21).
8–12 After the writer of Kings has familiarized his readers with Hezekiah’s godly faculties, qualities undergirding him in the many crises of his life, he immediately turns his attention to one of the most critical episodes of Hezekiah’s existence and of the southern kingdom as well. As an example of his godly concern and good success, he points out that Hezekiah rebelled against the king of Assyria. Not only that, but he turned against “the great king’s” vassal, Philistia, defeating it from one end to the other. All Hezekiah’s deeds, even his military accomplishments, thereby stand in stark contrast to the example of fearful Israel that perished because of unbelief and disobedience.
The time of Hezekiah’s rebellion and occupation of Philistia must lie late in his reign, probably near the middle of the last quarter of the eighth century B.C. Hezekiah’s early years were doubtless devoted to religion and internal affairs. Indeed, Sargon’s western expeditions in 717/716 and again in 712, the latter of which was centered in Philistia and involved military action against Egypt and Transjordania, would make any military move by Hezekiah most unlikely until much later. However, Sargon’s last half-decade (710–705) was occupied with troubles nearer home. Restless Arameans applied constant pressure in southern Mesopotamia; there was also the ever-present menace of Merodach-Baladan (cf. 20:12–13), the perennial king of Bit-Yakin and claimant to the throne of Babylon. Accordingly, Hezekiah’s growing boldness and military operations had to fall within Sargon’s last years, probably occurring at his death in 705, the usual occasion for such actions.
2. The Assyrian invasion (18:13–37)
13 The date of Sennacherib’s campaign must be calculated from the time of Hezekiah’s independent rule in 715, a date that harmonizes well with the data from Assyrian sources. Sennacherib (705–681 B.C.) was at first occupied with affairs close to home and so was not free to deal with Hezekiah. His first two campaigns were launched against the nearer menace, the continuing presence of Merodach-Baladan and the pesky Arameans, problems he inherited from his father. But having secured things in the south and east, Sennacherib was free to deal with the west, against which he launched his famous third campaign. His annals record the might of his all-out attack. Swooping down from the north, Sennacherib quickly dispatched the Phoenician cities and then unleashed his fury against Philistia. He notes that the citizens of Ekron had thrown in their lot with the Egyptians and Hezekiah of Judah, even going so far as to deliver their king (and Sennacherib’s vassal) into the hands of Hezekiah for confinement. Apparently by-passing Ekron for the moment, Sennacherib marched down the Philistine coast as far as Ashkelon. Having secured the submission of that key city and having deported its king to Assyria, Sennacherib turned his attention inland in a thrust that would not only secure the key city of Judean Lachish but would effectively separate the remaining Philistines and Judeans from Egyptian help.
14–16 Verse 14 joins Sennacherib’s campaign at this point. Sennacherib has taken Lachish and is busily engaged in mopping up the nearby fortified cities of Judah. With Phoenicia and most of Philistia laid waste, and with Sennacherib’s forces already in the land, Hezekiah sensed the enormity of his impending doom. Overwhelmed by a sense of certain tragedy, he acted out of human propriety and sent a letter of submission to Sennacherib, indicating that he would agree to whatever terms of tribute Sennacherib would demand. In meeting Sennacherib’s levy, Hezekiah went beyond the terms, emptying the coffers of both temple and palace and even stripping off the gold from the doors and door posts of the temple.
17–18 Hezekiah’s generosity served only to whet Sennacherib’s appetite. Doubtless he reasoned that these could only be a token payment; surely immense stores of wealth must lie hidden within the fortified walls of Jerusalem. Accordingly, as he continued operations in the Lachish area and laid plans for the capture of Ekron, Sennacherib sent a strong contingent under the direction of senior members of his staff to place Jerusalem under siege.
The Assyrian delegation came to the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field (cf. Isa 7:3). There they sent for Hezekiah, who, rather than appearing himself (probably considering it improper protocol to do so), sent three chief officials to deal with the three Assyrian delegates: Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, the palace administrator (cf. Isa 22:20–21); Shebna, the scribe; and Joash, son of Asaph, the king’s herald.
The location of the meeting place of the two delegations has been much discussed. Similarly, the precise identification of the various pools mentioned in connection with the Assyrian menace (cf. 20:20; 2Ch 32:4, 30; Isa 22:9, 11; 36:2) and Hezekiah’s plans for the defense of Jerusalem (2Ch 32:1–8; Isa 22:8–11) have been subjects of much controversy.
The available data seem to point to a northwest Jerusalem location for the meeting place, at a spot where the enemy might easily enjoy a commanding view of the city. If so, the Upper Pool of v.17 and the pool of 20:20 (cf. 2Ch 32:30; Isa 8:5–8) are to be differentiated. Certainly Hezekiah would have taken steps to ensure the security of both pools, as well as the cutting off of all the water sources available to Sennacherib’s army (cf. 2Ch 32:3–4; Isa 22:9–12). Further evidence for differentiation between the pools comes from the scriptural indication that the Upper Pool was in existence before Hezekiah’s siege preparations, being the scene of Isaiah’s earlier meeting with Ahaz (Isa 7:3). What a contrast in circumstances this spot was witnessing! Here Isaiah had carried the encouraging message of the God of the universe to a godless king; now the emissaries of the great king of Assyria bore a distressing dispatch to the God-fearing Hezekiah.
19–25 The Assyrian message to Hezekiah was couched in terms of brilliant psychological warfare. Sennacherib’s warning is given in two stages: in vv.19–22 he pointed out that Hezekiah’s tactics and trust were ill conceived; in vv.23–25 he suggested that Hezekiah’s supposed strengths were really weaknesses.
Thus Sennacherib cautioned Hezekiah that his military preparations and faith in Egypt’s power to deliver Jerusalem were doomed to failure. Relying on Pharaoh, as a matter of fact, is like trusting one’s weight to a splintered staff! Even Hezekiah’s professed confidence in God was ill taken, since Hezekiah’s iconoclastic purge had destroyed many opportunities of additional divine help. Surely the Judean king’s insistence on worshiping only one God at one altar in Jerusalem was sheer bigotry!
Beginning with v.23 the Rab Shakeh (“field commander”) reiterated the folly of Hezekiah’s course of action. Did Hezekiah trust in military strength? What real strength did he have? Sennacherib had the resources to put two thousand horses at Jerusalem’s disposal, but there would not be enough trained horsemen in Judah to ride them! The implication was that wars were won with chariotry, precisely the point where Hezekiah was lamentably weak. How, then, could Hezekiah have thought to repulse even the least of Sennacherib’s officials? Any reliance on puny Egypt for chariots was nonsense. Further, as for Hezekiah’s reputation for trusting in the Lord for deliverance, this again was folly; for it was the Lord himself who had told Sennacherib to attack and destroy Judah!
26–27 The answer of Hezekiah’s embassy was scarcely one of strength. Fearing the effect of the Assyrian official’s words on the populace that lived on the wall, he requested that the field commander switch his speech to Aramaic. The Assyrian’s haughty retort was that those on the wall had a stake in all this, as well as Hezekiah. After all, when the Assyrians really placed the city under heavy siege, the common Jerusalemites would take the brunt of the attack. So great would be the hunger and so scarce the provisions that Jerusalem’s citizenry would be reduced to consuming their own bodily issues. They had a right to hear!
28–32 As the field commander continued his remarks, he shouted all the louder. He told the people that Hezekiah was not to be trusted. Hezekiah could not deliver them from the Assyrians, and the Lord would not do so. The Assyrian official lashed out at Hezekiah’s previous words of encouragement and categorically denied their truthfulness (cf. 2Ch 32:7–8). Rather than believing their king, they should align themselves with the rising star of Sennacherib. They should conclude a peace treaty with “the great king”(v.28) by surrendering and coming out to him. Then they could enjoy the fine things of their own land in abundance. Furthermore, the Assyrian king would take them to a new and better life in another land, which he had especially set aside for them. Rather than the grim prospects that faced them, theirs could be a life of peace and plenty, of life and not death.
The field commander’s words were carefully chosen and highly emotive. By their acquiescence to the Assyrian king’s demands, the Judeans would thereby conclude an agreement with him that would effect blessed conditions for all concerned.
33–35 Having urged the people to reject Hezekiah’s promises and choose those of Sennacherib, the field commander gave the people incentives for doing so by citing evidence of Sennacherib’s victories. Hezekiah was only misleading them with his talk of deliverance by the Lord their God. None of the gods of the many leaders that had opposed Sennacherib had delivered his people. Could they expect more?
The Assyrian official viewed all gods alike. The proof of their capability was in their power to deliver their people. This they had not done, neither the gods of the Arameans nor those of Jerusalem’s sister, Samaria. The implication was clear: The Lord, like the other gods, was unable to stop Sennacherib.
36–37 The field commander’s words were not received in the way that he had hoped. Faithful to Hezekiah’s instructions, his delegates remained stonily silent. They came back sadly to the king, however, and told him of the enemy’s words.
3. The continued siege of Jerusalem (19:1–13)
1–2 When Hezekiah heard the report of his delegation, he was filled with grief. Tearing his clothes and donning sackcloth (traditional symbols of mourning), he went with heavy heart to the temple to pour out his soul before God. God’s very name and reputation were at stake in this time of national crisis! Desiring to do all that was within his power to know God’s will, he sent Eliakim, Shebna, and the leading priests, all dressed in sackcloth, to meet with Isaiah so that he might hear God’s word through his prophet (cf. Dt 18:18).
3 In briefing Isaiah as to the present emergency, the king’s delegation also explained Hezekiah’s deep concern in the matter. This was a day of “distress” (GK 7650). This word connotes not only the idea of trouble because of the Assyrian menace, but the anguish of heart that every true Israelite must have felt. Furthermore, it was a day of “rebuke” (GK 9349) or correction; Hezekiah sensed that the Lord was even now chastising his people (Hos 5:9–15). As well, it was a day of “disgrace” (GK 5541) or contempt; perhaps God was even now about to reject and cast off his people completely (cf. Dt 32:18–43; Jer 14:12; La 2:6).
4 It is to Hezekiah’s credit that he realized the deeper spiritual issues involved in the crisis. It was not enough to bring the stated services and religious practices up to standard; God must be a living reality in every believer’s life. Despite his zeal for holiness, perhaps he had erred in the way he, as king, had led the people in the realm of international politics. Had he perpetuated the policies of Ahaz in depending on his own wisdom and the strength of others in dealing with national affairs rather than depending on God? Far greater than the danger of the Assyrian at the walls was divine displeasure.
Hezekiah realized that God was the living God, in contradistinction to any of the so-called gods that the field commander had mentioned. Moreover, Hezekiah knew that God was jealous for his own name and would intervene on behalf of a people whose heart was right toward him. Further, he was “your God”; that is, Isaiah was his personal spokesman. Hezekiah therefore urged Isaiah to join him in prayer for the remnant of God’s people.
5–7 Hezekiah’s trust in God and confidence in Isaiah were not misplaced. Isaiah indeed did have a message for the repentant Hezekiah. He was not to fear the blasphemous words of Sennacherib’s underlings—nor of Sennacherib himself. Indeed, “the great king,” rather than adding Jerusalem to his list of conquests, would himself be given a spirit of fearfulness, so that when distressing news came to him out of Assyria, he would give up the siege and head for home immediately. Once there he would be killed. God assured Hezekiah that he was in control of the entire situation, superintending the details in accordance with his purposes.
God did not disclose to Hezekiah how all this would come about. It was enough for him to know and to believe that God would deal with the Assyrian threat. Thus Hezekiah’s faith could mature as he continued to pray and wait for God to effect his plan. What a wondrous experience awaits those who trust in God completely!
While the Scriptures do not say so, Hezekiah obviously returned a negative reply to Sennacherib’s demands. Accordingly the field commander set out to deliver Hezekiah’s refusal to his master.
8–9 Learning that Sennacherib had moved on to join his siege forces at Libnah, the field commander joined him there with his report. The reason for Sennacherib’s removal follows in v.9: it had been reported to him that the Egyptian army under Tirhakah was even now advancing through the Philistine coast to aid the Philistine city of Ekron. Apparently by-passing Ekron, the Assyrian king was able to bring his forces safely to El Tekeh, where he met and defeated the Egyptian troops. After the victory at El Tekeh, Sennacherib turned back inland to capture Timnah and then Ekron itself.
SENNACHERIB’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST JUDAH (701 B.C.)
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
In the 14th year of Hezekiah, the Assyrians finally attacked Judah. The clay Prism of Sennacherib calls Hezekiah “overbearing and proud,” indicating that he was part of Philistia’s and Egypt’s effort to rebel against Assyria.
A battle in the plain of Eltekeh was won by Assyria; the Egyptian and Cushite charioteers fled. Lachish was besieged and taken. The annals note: “As for Hezekiah the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered them by means of well-stamped earth ramps and battering-rams brought near to the walls combined with the attack by foot-soldiers, using mines, breaches as well as sapper work. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered them booty. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage.”
Nowhere, however, does the boastful Assyrian king record the disaster mentioned in 2Ki 19:35–36 and Isa 37:36–37.
While Sennacherib was thus engaged in fighting, he sent a siege contingent to Jerusalem so that Hezekiah could not attack from the rear. He also sent his field commander back to Jerusalem with a message for Hezekiah designed to continue the psychological warfare.
10–13 Understanding clearly that Hezekiah’s previous reply indicated a firm belief that the Lord would deliver Jerusalem and his people from the Assyrian king, Sennacherib concentrated his message on the absurdity of such a belief. Hezekiah certainly knew that Assyria had destroyed all those countries that had opposed him, and none of their gods had been able to deliver them. To make Hezekiah take even more notice and fear, he added that the kings of those countries had paid the price of oblivion. Hezekiah had better take care!
4. The deliverance of Jerusalem (19:14–37)
14–15 Sennacherib’s letter was duly delivered and reached Hezekiah’s hands. When he had read it, he took it along with him to the temple and spread it out before the Lord. Hezekiah’s action was one of simple faith that God still planned to intervene even as he had promised. As a child bringing his broken toy to his father for repair, so Hezekiah laid the issues in God’s sight for resolution. Hezekiah then poured out his soul’s concern to his heavenly Father. He addressed God as the personal God of Israel who was his possession and the One who in infinite mercy meets with his people from his dwelling place between the cherubim above the ark of the covenant. While he is Israel’s God, he is also the only true God who sovereignly controls the destinies of all nations. He is nothing less than the Creator—and Consummator—of all things.
16 Hezekiah next pleaded with God to take notice of the way Sennacherib had blasphemed him. The figures are full of intensity. A person who wishes to hear more distinctly turns one ear toward the source of the sound. Those who desire to see more clearly must open both eyes. The prayer, like that of Daniel (Da 9:17–19), is concerned most of all about the reputation of the living God.
17–18 Yet Hezekiah understood not only the truth but also the limits of Sennacherib’s remarks. To be sure the Assyrian king had laid waste the aforementioned nations together with their lands. Certainly he had destroyed the powerless gods of those nations. But they were mere idols—not gods at all! None of that proved anything, for Sennacherib now stood in the presence of the only true God.
19 Having assured God that he understood the issues at hand, Hezekiah closed his prayer with a plea for God’s deliverance of Israel so that all people might know that the Lord alone is God. True believers are concerned in every situation that the character and reputation of God not be brought into disrepute; rather, they long that God be glorified for who he is as well as for what he has done.
20 The Lord’s answer was not long in coming. Isaiah sent a message from God to Hezekiah, assuring him that his prayer had been heard. The major portion of that message is composed within a threefold poetic utterance: (1) for Sennacherib there is a reply to his misguided boasting (vv.21–28); (2) for Hezekiah God gives a sign that he would deal with Sennacherib and deliver his people (vv.29–31); and (3) for all there is a prophetic declaration that Sennacherib would not even begin the battle of Jerusalem, let alone conquer it (vv.32–34).
21 The first of the utterances is given in the ancient taunt-song form, designed so as to humiliate Sennacherib by casting his own words in his teeth, thus showing him how ridiculous they sounded. Did Sennacherib despise and degrade all nations and their worship? Jerusalem, in turn, would disdain him, tossing her head at him as he fled in cowardice. The term “virgin” (GK 1435) emphasizes that Jerusalem would not be violated by Sennacherib. By the use of a rhetorical question, God pointed out that Sennacherib had not wisely considered his course of action. His pride and arrogance had caused him to insult the Holy One of Israel. God’s own holiness had been manifested clearly through his chosen people Israel, however much they may have failed him or poorly represented him. What Sennacherib needed to understand was that a holy God would not countenance sin, whether in his own people or in those nations whose destinies he controls.
22–24 God next dealt with Sennacherib’s many boasts, in which he took such pride and on the basis of which he considered himself above other humans or God. Sennacherib had many chariots in which he had personally scaled rugged and previously inaccessible mountain passes. He had felled the finest timbers of Lebanon. On the one hand, he had dug wells in foreign soil; on the other, he had dried up the streams of Egypt.
The language here is highly figurative, the point being that in Sennacherib’s mind no obstacle of humanity or nature was sufficient to withstand him. The words repeat Sennacherib’s inner musings, ideas known only to himself, or so he thought. But God knows the innermost intents of all people (Ps 44:21), and his word penetrates a person’s deepest being (Heb 4:12). The revelation of these hidden desires ought to have struck terror into Sennacherib’s heart, convincing him that the Lord was truly God.
25–26 God then confronted Sennacherib with that which he had apparently not considered: Sennacherib’s successes were foreordained by God. Moreover God’s purposes had not been done in secret; he had proclaimed them through his prophets of all ages and even then was bringing them to pass. The result had been that Sennacherib had been able to wreak havoc on people who were totally powerless and as helpless as tender herbage and plants before the blasts of the sirocco. No, Sennacherib should not boast as though what he had done was either self-generated or self-accomplished. It was God’s divine government that was at work; Sennacherib was but God’s instrument of correction for Israel and the nations.
27–28 Having revealed to Sennacherib that he knew his innermost thoughts and desires and that in his sovereign administration of the flow of history he had ordained Sennacherib’s past successes, God then informed Sennacherib that he was aware of his every action, including his blasphemous insolence. Sennacherib had enjoyed God-given success; now he would learn of defeat. He would be subdued like an animal and return to his own land.
29–31 God next turned to Hezekiah with a reassuring sign. God had similarly offered Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, a sign (Isa 7:11), which, when refused, was given to the people. The sign would be one of extreme importance to besieged Jerusalem. In what remained of the present year, there would be food enough from that which had been spilled accidentally in the sowing and had sprung up by itself as an aftergrowth. Since military campaigns were regularly planned to coincide with the harvest so that the armies might live off the land, and since Israel’s year began in early fall, there would be little left of “this year.” Accordingly, as the new year dawned, due to the extent of the devastation, they would again largely depend on grain that came up of its own accord in random fashion.
For the third year, however, there was a direct divine command: “Sow and reap, plant vineyards and eat fruit.” Here was direct assurance that the people might resume normal agricultural activities with full expectation of eating the fruits of their labor. When in the harvest of the third year the people ate in abundance, they would know assuredly that God had been in the entire crisis. He had allowed the Assyrians to chastise his people for their own good. But because of Judah’s godly leadership, he had delivered them, as a testimony both to the godless Sennacherib and to his spiritually slack nation. From this they should learn their lesson that God was dealing with a backsliding people. The experience should serve as a further sign of that future remnant that the Messiah will deliver at his coming.
32–34 God closed his utterance with a final message to the Assyrian king. Sennacherib would not only not enter Jerusalem but would not even lay a full-scale siege against it. No arrow would fall into the city; neither shield nor siege ramp would appear before it. Quite the contrary, Sennacherib would turn around and go home; for God himself was defending and would deliver Jerusalem, not only for his own name’s sake (vv.4, 19), but on the basis of his standing promise to David (cf. 2Sa 7; 1Ki 11:13, 34–39; 2Ki 8:19).
That Sennacherib failed in his attempt to take Jerusalem is apparent from the annals of his third campaign. Although he claimed the capture and despoiling of some forty-six Judean cities, when it came to Jerusalem, he could only report that he had made Hezekiah a prisoner in his palace in Jerusalem. The only validity to Sennacherib’s face-saving claim can be seen when he surrounded Jerusalem during his protracted campaigning in Judah and Philistia.
35–36 That very night the prophetic utterance was fulfilled. As the Assyrian army slept, the angel of the Lord slew 185,000 of the soldiers. When Sennacherib and those who survived arose the next morning, they were greeted by a veritable graveyard. All around them lay bodies, dead bodies! Having already just received alarming news from home (cf. v.7) and with his army now decisively depleted, Sennacherib broke camp and returned to Nineveh. Though he would yet fight another five campaigns, he would never again return to Judah. The Israelites’ God was the living God!
37 Some twenty years later (681 B.C.), two of Sennacherib’s own sons assassinated him and successfully escaped to Urartu. Another son, Esarhaddon (681–668), succeeded Sennacherib as king. The last vestige of the divine prophecy stood complete. While God’s program may seem to tarry (cf. 2Pe 3:4–9), it will be accomplished.
5. Hezekiah’s miraculous recovery (20:1–11)
1 Taken at face value, the opening phrase—“in those days”—seems to place the events of this chapter near the time of Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 B.C. In the light of chronological difficulties, it seems best to take the phrase to be a general statement referring to some time in the reign of Hezekiah. Thus the events of ch. 20 (cf. Isa 38–39) probably belong chronologically before those of 18:7b–19:37, these latter verses being recorded beforehand simply as the example par excellence of Hezekiah’s trust in God (cf. 18:7a). If Isaiah’s prophecy in chs. 36–39 forms the basis for the text in Kings, and if the events of Isa 36–37 (cf. 2Ki 18:7b–19:37), though occurring later, are given first to round off his discussion dealing with the Assyrian period of his ministry before moving on to the Babylonian period (Isa 40–66), then the author of Kings may be following the thematic order of Isaiah.
In those critical days, then, when Sargon was moving toward Ashdod to deal with the western rebels (among whom Hezekiah himself had been somewhat implicated), Isaiah delivered God’s message to a sick Hezekiah. It was time for Hezekiah to put his house in order; for as things stood, he would surely die. Hezekiah needed to be certain that not only were the affairs of state in order, but that he and his house were on proper terms with God.
2–3 Hezekiah was a man of faith. Turning his face to the wall, thereby both dismissing Isaiah and entering into solitary communion with God, Hezekiah poured out his heart to his Lord. Hezekiah reminded God of his faithfulness, both in his personal conduct and in his righteous deeds, and of his wholehearted devotion to God. Hezekiah then wept bitterly. In accordance with God’s own promises, Hezekiah had a right to expect a longer life (cf. Ex 20:12; Dt 5:29; 30:16). But Hezekiah’s concerns were deeper than any personal desire for added years. What would become of that nation? His reforms were barely yet in progress. What would become of Judah? There was so much more to be done. Deeper still, he would die without a male heir, for no son had yet been born to him. What, then, would become of the house of David? The program and person of God were at stake, and Hezekiah believed that somehow he was vitally involved in them. How could it end like this?
4–6 Isaiah had not yet cleared the palace when God sent him back with a message for Hezekiah: the Lord God of his father David had heard Hezekiah’s righteous prayer and justifiable concern and had seen his tears. Therefore God would heal him and give him fifteen additional years of service. Moreover, for his own name’s sake and because of the promise made to David, God would deliver Jerusalem throughout Hezekiah’s lifetime. The mention of Hezekiah’s going into the temple on the third day is both a recognition of his godly habit of life and a reminder of his obligations to render thanks to the Lord for his healing.
7 Not only did Isaiah have spiritual news and instructions for Hezekiah, he also had directions for the king’s physical recovery. In accordance with those orders, a poultice of figs was mixed and applied to Hezekiah’s ulcerated sore, and he recovered. Although God chose to work through the accepted medical standards of the day, it is certain that ultimately the healing was effected by the divine word.
8–11 Hezekiah asked for a confirmatory sign that what Isaiah had said was true (cf. Isa 7:12). Isaiah asked Hezekiah whether the sun’s shadow should go forward or return ten places. Hezekiah reasoned that going backward would be the greater sign, since that would contradict the natural processes. In accordance with Hezekiah’s choice, Isaiah prayed to the Lord, and so it came to pass. By whatever means the deed was accomplished, it was a miracle effected by the sovereign power of God alone and intended to be a sign to Hezekiah that he would recover and serve his Redeemer yet another fifteen years. What a comfort this knowledge ought to have been to Hezekiah throughout his remaining years! Yet the author of Chronicles records that Hezekiah did not fully respond to God’s kindness toward him. Rather, he became proud so that God’s wrath came on him and his people, a judgment that was averted only when Hezekiah humbled himself and repented (2Ch 32:25–26; cf. 2Ki 18–19).
6. Hezekiah and Merodach-Baladan (20:12–21)
12 During his newly acquired years, God soon allowed Hezekiah’s intentions to be put to the test (cf. 2Ch 32:31). The Babylonian king, Merodach-Baladan, hearing of Hezekiah’s miraculous recovery together with the supernatural sign, sent an embassy to Hezekiah, ostensibly to deliver a message of congratulations and a gift to him. The checkered career of Merodach-Baladan, however, makes it clear that his motives were politically engendered, hoping to find in Hezekiah a new ally in his struggles against Assyria.
13 Hezekiah received the messengers warmly. Doubtless he told them the whole story of his healing and the remarkable incident of the retreating of the sun’s shadow. But he went beyond this. To impress his guests still further, he showed them the vast store of riches contained in the palace complex.
14–18 When the Babylonian embassy had left, Isaiah immediately confronted Hezekiah, who was still dazzled by the fact that he could have been so well known in distant Babylon. He freely told Isaiah all that had transpired. Rather than earning the prophet’s commendation, Hezekiah drew his condemnation. Hezekiah had been foolish. Not only would the extent of Jerusalem’s wealth now be known and desired by all (cf. Sennacherib’s demands in 18:13–16), but one day this same Babylon would invade the land and carry off its populace and all its treasures. Yes, even Hezekiah’s own descendants would be taken captive and employed in the service of a Babylonian king (cf. 24:12–16; 2Ch 33:11; Da 1:3–5). Quite out of keeping with his righteous character, Hezekiah’s folly would prove to be a contributing factor in the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies (Lev 26:33; Dt 28:64–67; 30:3). Hezekiah’s experience remains a stern warning to all the perils of pride (cf. Pr 16:5, 18; 28:25–26; 29:23). At the same time, Hezekiah did receive one assurance through Isaiah’s words: he would have a son to succeed him.
19 Hezekiah responded with humility and genuine godliness, acknowledging the propriety of Isaiah’s God-given message. Hezekiah’s last words contain a touch of pathos. While he was thankful that God would keep his promise not to surrender Judah and Jerusalem in his day (cf. v.6), yet he realized that his own actions had put his nation and his posterity in danger.
20 The chapter closes with a notice of Hezekiah’s many achievements. The extent of his success is enlarged on by the author of Chronicles, from whom we also learn that the water conduit mentioned here dealt with the waters of Gihon (2Ch 32:27–31). These waters were directed within Jerusalem’s walls via a specially constructed tunnel leading to a reservoir, known as the Pool of Siloam. The completion of this 1,777-foot tunnel made the waters of Gihon inaccessible to an enemy but were readily available to a besieged population.
21 Thus passed the king who was unsurpassed in his trust of the Lord (cf. 18:5). He was buried with full honors by the citizenry of Jerusalem in the upper section of the tombs of the sons of David (2Ch 32:33).
B. The Reign of Manasseh (21:1–18)
1–6 Manasseh came to the throne of Judah at the age of twelve, reigning for some fifty-five years (698/697–642 B.C.), the longest reign in Judah’s history. Born soon after the crisis with Sargon, Manasseh must have seen God’s great deliverance at Jerusalem. Nevertheless, with his father’s death, he soon plunged into every manner of spiritual wickedness. The high places Hezekiah had destroyed were rebuilt, the Canaanite religious practices relative to Baal and Asherah were reintroduced, and he established and participated in a state astral cult. So far did his spiritual prostitution take him that Manasseh introduced pagan altars in both the outer and the priest’s courts and even in the temple itself. Ultimately the hated Asherah pole was placed in the temple, the very abode of the sacred name. Moreover, he went so far as to involve his own son in the loathsome and detestable rites of infant sacrifice; he practiced sorcery and divination and consulted purveyors of demonic activity.
7–9 Manasseh’s great evil provoked the Lord to anger; placing the Asherah pole within the temple was especially offensive. God had promised to dwell in peace among his people forever (cf. 2Sa 7:13; 1Ki 8:16; 9:3), if they would but serve him in righteousness (cf. 2Sa 7:10; 1Ki 9:6–9). But the people indulged themselves with the lustful Manasseh rather than harken to their Redeemer. Accordingly, Manasseh’s Judah exceeded in spiritual degradation the original Canaanites whom God had driven out before Israel (cf. Am 2:9–10). What a tragedy! How superficial had been the nation’s compliance with Hezekiah’s reforms! Without a strong spiritual leader, the sinful people quickly turned to their own evil machinations. The judgment of God could not be far away.
10–11 Throughout Manasseh’s wicked reign God warned of the grave consequences of the king’s sin, sending repeated warnings to his prophets. Yet neither king nor people paid any attention to God’s denunciations (cf. 2Ch 33:10).
12–13 God therefore set in motion those forces that would bring destruction on Jerusalem and Judah (cf. Jer 15:1–4). In rehearsing the coming judgment, God used three well-known literary figures: (1) the tingling ears, (2) the measuring and plumb lines, and (3) the dish wiped clean. By the first he emphasized the severity of the judgment: it would be of such untold dimension that it would strike terror into the hearts of all who heard of its execution (cf. 1Sa 3:11; Jer 19:3–9). By the second God used a figure often associated with building (cf. Zec 1:16) but employed also of the measuring of destruction (Isa 34:11; Am 7:7–9). Just as God had taken the measure of Samaria so as to destroy it, so Jerusalem would fall. Even as the Lord had plumbed the house of Ahab in order to exterminate it, so the people of Jerusalem would be executed. By the third literary figure, the complete destruction of Jerusalem was emphasized. As one wipes a dish clean, turning it over so that no drop of water is left, so Jerusalem’s destruction would be total. None would remain.
14–16 Because Israel had forsaken God and provoked him to wrath time without end since he had redeemed them from Egypt, he would forsake wicked Judah, the last vestige of his inheritance. He would give them over for a prey to be looted and plundered (cf. Dt 28:49–68; Isa 42:22; Jer 30:16; Hab 1:5–11). The wicked reign of Manasseh had become the capstone of the wall of sin that Israel had built between herself and God. God now hadtaken its measure and marked Judah for destruction.
17–18 The writer of Kings brings Manasseh’s history to a close by indicating further source material for the details of his infamous life and by noting that at his death he was buried in his private garden called “The Garden of Uzza.” The picture thus presented by our author is bleak, portraying the dominant themes of the vast majority of Manasseh’s long reign. This critical evaluation is a proper one. Manasseh’s personal example and leadership in sin were to have a permanent effect, bringing on Judah’s demise despite the temporary reforms of Josiah.
The author of Chronicles records that the Lord humbled Manasseh by allowing him to fall into the hands of the king of Assyria, an event that brought about Manasseh’s repentance and a short period of religious reformation (2Ch 33:11–17). Although the time of Manasseh’s capture, release, and repentance is nowhere indicated in 2 Kings, the fact that this record presents such a uniform description of Manasseh’s bad character suggests that this experience must have occurred late in his reign.
The widespread revolts during the reign of Ashurbanipal, which occurred from 652–648 B.C., may have provided the occasion for Manasseh’s summons to Babylon and imprisonment. If so, his subsequent release and reform were apparently far too late to have much of an effect on the obdurately backslidden populace.
C. The Reign of Amon (21:19–26)
19–22 The short reign of Amon was a replay of the earlier period of his father, Manasseh. The author of Kings notes simply that he was as evil as his father and so perpetuated all of Manasseh’s earlier idolatry. The author of Chronicles (2Ch 33:21–23) adds that Amon failed to humble himself but rather “increased his guilt.”
23–26 In 640 B.C., the wicked Amon was assassinated by his own officials who, in turn, were executed by the populace. Amon’s son Josiah was established as the next king. Although the Scriptures give no reason for the conspiracy, its cause may lie within the tangled web of revolts that Ashurbanipal suppressed from 642–639 and that caused him to turn his attention to the west. Certainly his menacing advance took him as far as Phoenicia. At this time, too, he may have resettled newly deported elements in Samaria (cf. Ezr 4:9–10). Amon’s death may thus reflect a power struggle between those who wished to remain loyal to the Assyrian crown and those who aspired to link Judah’s fortunes to the rising star of Psammetik I (664–609) of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. At any rate, in 640 B.C. Amon’s body was interred in the Garden of Uzza; and his eight-year-old son, Josiah, acceded to the Judean throne.
D. The Reign of Josiah (22:1–23:30)
1. Ascension and early reforms (22:1–7)
1–2 A mere lad of eight years of age when he came to the throne, Josiah probably owed much of his spiritual concern to his mother, Jedidah, and probably to the guidance of pious men in prominent positions. He quickly demonstrated himself to be one who followed his ancestor David in godliness, walking circumspectly before God and other people.
3–7 The author of Kings quickly moves to the most outstanding example of Josiah’s godly fidelity: his repair of the temple in his eighteenth year (622 B.C.). According to 2Ch 34:3–7, however, this example of piety was preceded by a time of definite committal to the Lord at the age of sixteen and, beginning some four years later, by a thorough iconoclastic purge in which he not only attacked the idolatry of Judah but eventually took it on himself to extend his efforts to Israel. Accordingly, Josiah’s action here in his eighteenth year was quite in keeping with his true spiritual character.
At this time Josiah sent his secretary Shaphan to Hilkiah the high priest with a royal command to utilize the freewill offerings of the people for the appropriation of supplies and the paying of the laborers so as to begin the repair of the temple.
2. The Book of the Law (22:8–13)
8–10 When the royal commission arrived, Hilkiah also had news for them: he had found a copy of the Book of the Law. Although scholars have often argued as to the contents of that manuscript, the king’s later reaction when he heard the law read and the subsequent further reforms (23:4–20) and religious observances (2Ch 35:1–19) indicate that it included at least key portions, if not the whole, of Deuteronomy (e.g., Dt 28–30).
The royal commission stayed long enough to be assured that the king’s wishes had been carried out (2Ch 34:10–13), during which time Shaphan had an opportunity to examine the new scroll. When the commission returned, Shaphan reported to the king. His orders had been carried out and the work begun. He also told the king about the exciting new discovery that he had brought back with him and proceeded to read selected portions of it to the king.
11–13 The king’s reaction at the reading of the law was one of immediate contrition, as expressed in the sign of lamentation and grief—the tearing of his robes. The basis of his grief was twofold: Judah’s guilt and her coming judgment. The nation had sinned grievously in breaking God’s covenant in both its idolatry and its social injustices; therefore, in accordance with the terms of that violated covenant, judgment must come. With repentant and sorrowful heart, Josiah sent a commission made up of trusted officials and the high priest Hilkiah to the prophetess Huldah, who lived in the second district of Jerusalem (cf. Zep 1:10), to inquire as to the Lord’s present intention regarding Judah.
3. The advice of Huldah (22:14–20)
14–20 Huldah faithfully rendered the Lord’s message for the people and Josiah. Because Judah had persisted in its idolatry and wickedness, the sentence of judgment recorded in God’s Word, which the king had just heard, would surely come to pass. As for the king himself, because he had responded to God’s Word and humbled himself, and because he had grieved over Judah’s sinful conditions, he would be spared the anguish of seeing God’s devastating judgment carried out.
At first sight the promise seems to be at variance with the fact that Josiah died in battle (23:29–30). However, though the words in v.20 might be construed as indicating peaceful death, such need not be the case. The phrase “be gathered to one’s fathers” simply points to the fact that people die and are buried, not to the manner of their death. The point here is that Josiah would die at peace with God before his awful sentence would descend on the nation.
4. Further reforms (23:1–23)
1–3 On receiving Huldah’s answer, the king convened his elders for consultation. As a result of that meeting, all levels of Judean society were called together in public assembly so that they might hear a reading from the newly found scroll. When that had been accomplished, the king led his people in a ceremony of covenant renewal wherein they pledged themselves to follow the Lord and his commands unswervingly. Like Moses and Joshua of old, Josiah took his place as a virtual mediator of the covenant between his people and their sovereign Lord.
4–7 The covenant renewal was followed by renewed religious reforms. In accordance with the royal command, the priests conducted a thorough search of the temple to remove anything that spoke of heathen worship. In accordance with the scriptural standards, the pagan cult articles were taken outside Jerusalem to the Kidron Valley and burned—their ashes being subsequently taken to Bethel, where paganism first had its official sanction in Israel. In taking the detested pagan abominations to the Kidron, Josiah followed the lead of the earlier royal reformers Asa (1Ki 15:13) and Hezekiah (2Ch 29:16; 30:14). The removal of the ashes to Bethel constituted a public denunciation of the place.
8–9 Josiah also recalled all the Levitical priests from their duties at the various high places throughout Judah. While those priests were admitted to the fellowship, their previous service had rendered them ineligible to officiate in the temple services; hence they were put on a status with those priests who had bodily defects (Lev 21:17–23). The high places were then desecrated so that those spurious centers of worship might no longer be maintained. Likewise, the altar at the high place that was situated at one of Jerusalem’s own gates was torn down.
10–12 Josiah’s reforms were thoroughgoing. Topheth, the sacred precinct in the Valley of Hinnom, sacred to the Molech rites, was desecrated. The horses dedicated to the sun, which were quartered at the very entrance to the temple, were disposed of and their chariots burned. His reforms likewise turned to the altars used in astral worship, located on the roof of the upper room built by Ahaz. These doubtless had been restored by Manasseh and Amon, along with the construction of the pagan altars (cf. 21:5). The pulverized debris from these objects was cast into the Kidron Valley.
13–18 Even those cult places that had enjoyed a long existence, having escaped the thoroughgoing reforms of Hezekiah, were now dismantled and desecrated. The pagan altars near Jerusalem had been built by Solomon himself. The altar at Bethel, which Josiah’s reform also reached, had been established by Jeroboam at Solomon’s death; but in the course of time a purely Canaanite worship had apparently replaced the earlier worship of the golden calf. In the former cases Josiah defiled those cult places by filling them with human bones (cf. Nu 19:16). In the latter instance, not content with destroying the high place and burning the Asherah pole, he exhumed the human bones from the graves situated on the mountain and burned them on the altar, thus defiling it forever. This action fulfilled the words of the unknown prophet of Judah of old (1Ki 13:26–32). The remains of that prophet, along with those of the misguided prophet of Bethel (1Ki 13:11ff.), however, were left undisturbed.
19–20 Indeed, not only Bethel, but all the high places of the former northern kingdom were to feel the wrath of Josiah’s purge. The various high places were destroyed and the priests of those illicit rites were slaughtered on their altars, which were further desecrated by the burning of human bones on them (cf. 2Ch 34:6–7).
21–23 Josiah’s attitude toward spiritual reform was not purely negative. He also gave instructions that the Passover be held as soon as it could be done in strict accordance with the law. Accordingly, in the eighteenth year of his reign, the Passover was celebrated in Jerusalem, the likes of which had not been seen since the days of Samuel. Not only was it observed as the law prescribed (2Ch 35:1–19), but it was celebrated by all Judah and Israel (2Ch 35:18).
5. Latter days (23:24–30)
24–25 The author of Kings approaches the end of Josiah’s just reign. The thought of Josiah’s strict piety in keeping the laws of the Passover leads to the further observation that he was ever consistent in his application of the law. As Josiah had meticulously fulfilled the requirements of the law relative to Israel’s ceremonial worship with his many reforms, his repair of the temple, and his reinstituting of the Passover, so had he put away the evils of false personal religion. This included both those who dealt in spiritism and all sorts of objects of detestable idolatry. In summary it could be said of Josiah that none of the kings of Israel and Judah was his equal in zeal for the law. As Hezekiah had been unequaled in faith among the kings (18:5), so Josiah knew no rival in uncompromising adherence to the Law of Moses.
26–28 The account of Josiah’s godly life ends on a note of sadness. Despite all that he had done to remove Judah’s idolatry, Manasseh’s gross spiritual wickedness had had a permanent effect. Although Judah’s outward worship experience had been set in order, the people’s confession had been a mere externality. With the passing of Josiah, the internal condition of their obdurately apostate heart quickly surfaced (cf. Jer 5). Accordingly, God’s just wrath would yet reach his sinful people. If the prophets and righteous Josiah had not been able to turn the people from their wicked ways, only God’s judgment could have the desired effect.
29–30 Josiah’s death at Megiddo can be attributed to his part in the complex international events of the last quarter of the seventh century B.C. With the death of Ashurbanipal in 626, the already decaying Neo-Assyrian Empire began to crumble quickly away. By 625 the Chaldean king Nabopolassar had been able to achieve independence for Babylon. From that point onward throughout the course of the next two decades, the Assyrian territory was systematically reduced, especially as Nabopolassar found common cause against Assyria. In 614 the time-honored capital of Assyria, Asshur, fell to the Medes. In 612 Nineveh itself fell to the coalition of Chaldeans, Medes, and Ummanmande, the surviving Assyrian forces under Ashur-u-ballit fleeing to Haran.
In those critical times concerned with the rising power of the new Mesopotamian coalition, Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty Pharaoh, Neco, honored the previous diplomatic ties with Assyria. As Neco’s predecessor, Psammetik I, had come to the aid of Assyria in 616 B.C., so Neco moved to join the surviving Assyrian forces under Ashur-u-ballit. It was to prevent this movement of Egyptian aid that Josiah deployed his forces in the Valley of Megiddo in 609. That action cost Josiah his life, though it did delay the Egyptian forces from linking with their Assyrian allies before Haran fell to the Chaldeans and Medes. A subsequent attempt to retake Haran failed completely; and the best Egypt could give the doomed Assyrians was a four-year standoff, the opposing armies facing each other at Carchemish, on the western Euphrates.
The Chronicler (2Ch 35:20–25) reports that Josiah had refused Neco’s attempts to avoid the affair at Megiddo and rather, having disguised himself, had personally fought against the Egyptians until he was mortally wounded. At that point Josiah was rushed back to Jerusalem where he was buried in his own tomb. Quite understandably he was lamented by all the people, including the prophet Jeremiah. Thus passed one of God’s choicest saints and one of Judah’s finest kings. Josiah’s determined action had brought about his tragic death, but he was thereby spared the greater tragedy of seeing the ultimate death of his nation a scant twenty-three years later.
E. The Last Days of Judah (23:31–25:21)
1. The reign of Jehoahaz (23:31–33)
31 At the death of the courageous and pious Josiah, the people of the land selected his third surviving son, Shallum, who took the throne name Jehoahaz (cf. 1Ch 3:15 with Jer 22:11–12), to be the next king. The selection of Jehoahaz is beset with problems. According to 1Ch 3:15, Johanan, not Jehoahaz (or Shallum), was Josiah’s eldest son. Because nothing further is known of Johanan, he had probably died much earlier. Jehoiakim, the next eldest son, was passed over, the kingship being conferred on Jehoahaz, who was two years younger (cf. v.36).
Just why Jehoahaz was selected instead of Jehoiakim is not certain, though the reason may lie in the fact that they had different mothers, Jehoahaz being Josiah’s son by Hamutal, whereas Jehoiakim’s mother was Zebudah. Perhaps Hamutal enjoyed a favored status.
32–33 Jehoahaz was no Josiah, however; nor, indeed, was any of his sons. His deposition was swift in coming. Within three months Pharaoh Neco summoned Jehoahaz to meet him in Riblah of Syria, his base of operations and staging area for the Assyrian campaigns.
2. The reign of Jehoiakim (23:34–24:7)
34–37 At Riblah, Neco replaced Jehoahaz with Eliakim, Josiah’s second son, giving him the throne name Jehoiakim (cf. 2Ch 36:4). Neco then took Jehoahaz as a captive to Egypt, where he remained until his death (cf. Jer 22:10–12; Eze 19:1–4). Neco imposed a severe tribute on the new Judean king, a sum Jehoiakim raised by levying a heavy taxation on the citizenry. Judah had appeased her new overlord, and she had a new king. A far cry from his godly father, Jehoiakim was to lead Judah into still deeper trouble spiritually and politically.
Jehoiakim’s rule was like that of the wicked kings who preceded Josiah. Jeremiah represents him as a monster who despoiled his own people (Jer 22:13–14); opposed the Lord’s servants (Jer 26:20–23; 36:21–23); filled the land with violence, apostasy, and degradation (Jer 18:18–20; cf. 11:19); and led his people into open apostasy and degradation (Jer 8:4–12, 18–9:16; 10:1–9; 11:1–17; et al.).
24:1 Jehoiakim and Judah were soon to change masters. After the final defeat of the combined Assyrian and Egyptian forces at Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar overtook the remaining Egyptian forces at Hamath. Those Egyptian troops that managed to escape fled to Egypt (cf. Jer 46:2ff.). Nebuchadnezzar boasted that he thus took “the whole land of Hatti” (i.e., Syro-Palestine); so doubtless our text is correct in reading that Judah and Jehoiakim became his vassal. This is further corroborated in Nebuchadnezzar’s own chronicles when, after reporting his succession to the kingship in 605 B.C., he recorded for the following year the submission and tribute of “all the kings of Hatti.”
Although Jehoiakim served Nebuchadnezzar for the next three years, he apparently awaited an opportunity to throw off the Babylonian yoke. When in 601 Neco turned back Nebuchadnezzar’s forces at the Egyptian border, Jehoiakim assumed that his moment had arrived and so rebelled. Once again Judah would lean on the broken reed of Egypt.
2–7 War had cost both the Chaldeans (Babylonians) and the Egyptians so dearly that Nebuchadnezzar was unable to mobilize the troops and equipment to deal with impudent Judah, now newly allied to his Egyptian adversary, Neco. Accordingly, Nebuchadnezzar spent the next few years in rebuilding his armed might in anticipation of the time when he could deal with the insurgents. Meanwhile he moved against the Arameans and Arabians, thus strengthening his hold on Judah’s Egyptian flank. This also put him in a position to utilize the Transjordanian tribes to send raiding parties into Judah. The author of Kings reports that that harassment found its ultimate origin in God’s command to bring judgment to a wicked Judah that had followed in the train of Manasseh’s wickedness, a judgment the prophets had repeatedly warned about (cf. Jer 15:1–9; Hab 1:2–6; Zep 1:4–13; 3:1–7).
In 598 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar was ready. Gathering his huge force, he set out for Jerusalem and the impenitent Jehoiakim. But Nebuchadnezzar was not to avenge himself on the Judean king personally; for even as he set out for Judah, Jehoiakim lay dead, succeeded by his son, Jehoiachin.
3. The reign of Jehoiachin (24:8–16)
8–9 With his father dead, young Jehoiachin was faced with the awesome specter of the advancing armies of Nebuchadnezzar. Certainly he would get no help from Egypt, for Neco was in no position to challenge Nebuchadnezzar again (cf. v.7). Nor did the lad have the spiritual maturity to be able to utilize godly wisdom.
10–16 The armies of Nebuchadnezzar soon arrived and placed Jerusalem under a siege. At the appropriate time, Nebuchadnezzar himself appeared before the beleaguered city, to whom Jehoiachin, the royal family, and the officials of state made their surrender. Having taken his hostages in charge, Nebuchadnezzar stripped the royal palace and the temple of their treasures as spoils of war. He had previously taken part of Jerusalem’s smaller treasures (2Ch 36:7; Da 1:2). This time, his despoilment was a major one, with only a few smaller gold and silver items left behind (cf. 25:15), along with the larger brass vessels (cf. 25:13–17; Jer 27:18–22). Moreover, he perpetuated the deportation system made famous by the Assyrians, seizing ten thousand of Jerusalem’s leaders from every walk of life (including the prophet Ezekiel; cf. Eze 1:2; 33:21). With only the poor and unskilled people of the land remaining, it might be assumed that Jerusalem would cause no further trouble.
4. The reign of Zedekiah (24:17–25:21)
17–20 Nebuchadnezzar left the city standing; installed Josiah’s remaining son, Mattaniah (whom he renamed Zedekiah), on the throne; and in due time returned to Babylon. While Jerusalem had been spared momentarily, its demise was certain. Not only was Zedekiah no better than the other descendants of Josiah, but even this latest judgment of God through the Chaldeans had had no effect on an obdurately apostate people. All that God had done both previously and currently to Judah and Jerusalem had been because of his settled wrath against their sin. Yet nothing had helped. Twice wicked Judah fought on against the divine chastisement (cf. Jer 37:1–2). The final blow would not be long in coming.
25:1–4 Late in 588 B.C., Zedekiah, like other Judean kings, was lured into the foolish mistake of rebelling against Babylon. There seems little doubt that his decision to do so was related to a renewed confidence in Egypt, on whom Israel and Judah had relied mistakenly so many times before. Zedekiah’s confidence was ill-placed, however, for the Egyptian king possessed neither the strength nor the sagacity to merit such trust. The Egyptian king’s own life was marked by a series of political and military difficulties that ended in his death.
Nebuchadnezzar immediately responded, this time sending the full weight of his mighty army. After setting up headquarters in Riblah, Jerusalem was placed under total siege (cf. Jer 39:1; 52:4; Eze 24:2). With Jerusalem securely blockaded (cf. Jer 21:3–7), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to reduce the Judean strongholds systematically (cf. Jer 34:7), thereby cutting off both military relief and economic replenishment. At one point Nebuchadnezzar’s forces were forced to withdraw momentarily to deal with an Egyptian relief column under Apries (Jer 37:5), much to the joy of the misguided Jerusalemites, who prematurely assumed that they had been delivered from the siege (Jer 37:6–10). Nonetheless Jerusalem’s beleaguered defenders were kept enclosed by the Chaldeans almost continuously until July of 586 B.C. Finally, when strength and provisions were completely exhausted, the Neo-Babylonian troops breached the walls and poured into the city (cf. Jer 39:2–3). The prophesied tragedy had occurred (cf. Jer 19–20; 27–28; 37:8–10, 17; 38:17–23).
5–7 Still further prophetic details were to be realized; for when Zedekiah and the remaining Judean army attempted to gain their freedom by slipping through a secluded gate near the king’s garden, they were soon overtaken by their Chaldean pursuers (cf. Jer 32:5; 34:3; Eze 12:12–13 with Jer 39:3–5; 52:7–8). Zedekiah was taken captive to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. There, being forced to witness the execution of his own children—so that the last thing he would remember seeing was the end result of his foolish disobedience—his eyes were put out. He was then led away in bronze fetters to Babylon, where he remained a prisoner until his death (cf. Jer 52:11).
CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM 597 B.C.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation.
8–12 About one month later, Nebuzaradan, the commander of Nebuchadnezzar’s own imperial guard, arrived in Jerusalem to oversee its despoliation and destruction. Having set fire to all of Jerusalem’s permanent buildings, including the temple and palace (cf. Jer 52:13), the Chaldeans demolished the city’s walls. Then they deported certain valued elements of the citizenry of Jerusalem and the populace of the surrounding countryside, some of whom apparently willingly defected to the invaders (cf. Jer 39:9; 52:15). Only the poorest of the people were left. These were to work the nearby fields and vineyards so that a stratum of inhabitants unlikely to cause further insurrection might be left to care for the basic needs of the remaining people of the land (cf. Jer 39:10; 52:16).
13–17 Particular notice is given to the temple furniture and furnishings that the Chaldeans carried away as spoils of war. Primary focus is on those heavy bronze items that had to be broken into smaller pieces to be removed: the pillars, the movable stands, and the Sea. Indeed, the bronze gained from those items—together with the bronze bulls under the bronze Sea (cf. Jer 52:20) was incalculable. A comparison of this account with the fuller inventory in Jer 52:17–23 reveals a thorough looting of all the gold, silver, and bronze utensils in the temple
18–21 The disposition of the chief religious, military, and government officials as well as sixty of the notable men is given next. Among these were Seraiah the high priest, Zephaniah the next highest ranking priest, the commander-in-chief of Jerusalem’s fighting men, and the secretary for the mobilization of Judah’s citizenry. All these prominent officials and people were taken to Riblah and executed. Nebuchadnezzar would brook no further interference with the established order that Nebuzaradan had left behind. With the officialdom and leadership either put to death or taken captive into exile, it could be expected that the remaining populace would passively submit to their Chaldean overlords, especially since many of Judah’s formerly landless people were now land holders.
Interestingly, Seraiah’s sons were not executed but merely deported. Ezra the scribe was a descendant of Seraiah (Ezr 7:1).
F. Historical Appendixes (25:22–30)
1. Judah in exile (25:22–26)
22–24 The captivity of God’s disobedient people, begun in 605 B.C., was completed: Seventy years would go by until the exiled Judeans would again see their homeland (2Ch 36:15–21). To the history of the united and divided kingdoms is appended a note regarding the establishment of the new Judean vassal state. Fuller details are given in Jeremiah, from where these data are perhaps drawn. Of the prominent men of Jerusalem, only Jeremiah and Gedaliah were left behind (cf. Jer 39:11–14). Jeremiah’s stand on the Babylonian issue was doubtless well known. Gedaliah’s attitude was probably that of Ahikam, his father and a noted official (2Ch 34:20), who had supported Jeremiah (Jer 26:24). Accordingly Gedaliah, who probably had the needed training, seemed the logical choice to be Babylon’s governor-designate over the newly formed district.
The choice was a popular one, and at first things went well (cf. Jer 40:1–12). Because of their confidence in Gedaliah, many of the surviving little guerrilla bands made their way back to Jerusalem to lay down their arms and take up residence there, as did many of the Judeans who had fled to the Transjordanian lands (cf. Jer 40:11–12). Even Jeremiah at first went to Mizpah to lend his assistance to Gedaliah (Jer 40:6).
25–26 Trouble soon arose, however, in a conspiracy hatched by Baalis, the Ammonite king (Jer 40:13–15), and a young noble named Ishmael. Ishmael was successful in assassinating Gedaliah together with his invited banquet guests, both Jews and Babylonians (cf. Jer 41:1–3). Although Ishmael was dealt with severely by Johanan ben Kareah, he succeeded in making his escape to Ammon (Jer 41:11–15). Because the refugees feared reprisal for Gedaliah’s murder, Johanan led a large contingent of them into Egypt, including Jeremiah, whom the fleeing Jews took along despite his counsels and warnings (Jer 41:16–43:7).
2. The later history of Jehoiachin (25:27–30)
27–30 The account of the fortunes of the Judeans is brought to a close with a postscript concerning the later lot of Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. Since he was seemingly considered by the Judeans as the last legitimate king, news of his later condition would be of great significance. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 561 B.C., his son and successor, Evil-Merodach (561–560), released the Judean king from prison and accorded him due royal recognition. This included a place at the king’s table and a regular allowance for the rest of his life (cf. Jer 52:31–34).
Thus the final curtain falls on the drama of the divided monarchy. What had been a note of dark despair is illuminated by the light of God’s gracious concern for his own. Although God’s people had been judged as they must, yet God would be with them even in the midst of their sentence. Jehoiachin’s release and renewed enjoyment of life thus stand as a harbinger of the further release and return of all the nation, in accordance with God’s promises (cf. Jer 31:18; La 5:21). The spiritually minded believers perhaps would see in this incident an assurance of God’s greater redemption from bondage of those who looked forward to him who gives release and eternal refreshment to all who love his appearing.
This chart depicts the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah from Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah until the fall of Jerusalem. As best can be determined, the dates reflect the official reign of each king and not any years of his co-regency with another king. The center column is divided into increments of twenty years; the outside columns give the passages in 1 and 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles where the reign of each king is described. By using this chart, you can see at a glance both the length of each reign and the kings in Israel and Judah who were contemporaries. The final column depicts when the major prophets lived and ministered.
Copyright ©1991 Zondervan Publishing House.