Chapter Twenty-Two

1–7. The accession of the sixteenth king of Judah, Josiah, the pious character of his reign, and the beginning of the restoration of religious and ecclesiastical order; 8–11. The discovery of the “Book of the Law” in the temple and its impression upon the king; 12–20. An embassy to the prophetess Huldah and her answer concerning the future fate of Judah and its king.

2 Kings 22:1. Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem; his mother’s name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath. 2 Kings 22:2. And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and did not turn aside to the right or to the left. The last pious king of Judah (by count the sixteenth), Josiah, “who turned his heart to the Lord and established piety in the days of lawlessness,” and praised alongside David and Hezekiah for his righteousness and zeal for the law (Sir 49:3-5), ascended the throne as an eight-year-old boy (LXX: ὑιὸς ὀκτὼ ἐτῶν, Slav.: “a boy of eight years”—a literal rendering of the Hebrew ben, which in combination with a numeral indicating years means age) in 641 or 640. His father Amon, dying at twenty-four years of age, had a son of sixteen years, and Josiah, dying after a thirty-one-year reign—at thirty-nine years—left his eldest son Jehoiakim at twenty-five years (2 Kgs 23:36); consequently he had a son at fifteen years: with the early sexual maturity in the East, these figures should not surprise us. His mother was from Bozkath, LXX: Βαβηδώθ, Vulg.: Baschath, Slav.: “Vasurov,” (Onomasticon, 199, 225)—a city in the tribe of Judah near Lachish (Josh 15:39). The general characterization of Josiah’s reign (v. 2), in which his idealistic faithfulness to the law is noted (cf. 2 Kgs 23:25), surpasses the assessments of all other kings: only Josiah is described as “not turning aside to the right or to the left” (cf. Deut 5:32) from the way of David. This characterization also serves as a transition to the account of Josiah’s theocratic activity. Comparing the account (2 Kgs 22:1-23)—of Josiah’s reign with the parallel account in the book (2 Chr 34-35), one sees the difference that 4 Kings considers Josiah’s activity from a theocratic pragmatic point of view and accordingly devotes the most space to (2 Kgs 23:4-20), an account of the eradication by Josiah of idolatrous cults and unlawful worship of Jehovah, and generally presents Josiah as unmatched in religious zeal and strict observance of theocratic principles among the kings (2 Kgs 23:24-25), whereas the sacred writer of 2 Chronicles views the reign and activity of Josiah chiefly from a ritual point of view and therefore gives the greatest attention to the celebration of Passover under Josiah (in the eighteenth year of his reign) with exceptional observance of all the ceremonial prescriptions of the law, with exceptional solemnity, (2 Chr 35:1-19). Connected with this is the different chronological order of events in both versions of the sacred narrative, with 4 Kings taking as its starting point the fact of the discovery of the book of the law in the temple in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign and then proceeding sequentially to the measures undertaken by Josiah consequent to this fact, such as: renewal of the national covenant with God, the eradication of unlawful cults, the celebration of Passover, and others, while 2 Chronicles presents these same events apparently in a less natural order. On the whole, both accounts not only confirm, but also supplement each other.

2 Kings 22:3. In the eighteenth year of King Josiah, the king sent Shaphan son of Azaliah, the secretary, to the house of the Lord, saying: 2 Kings 22:4. “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may count the silver which has been brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the threshold have collected from the people, 2 Kings 22:5. and let them give it to the overseers of the work who are appointed over the house of the Lord; and let them pay it to those who work in the house of the Lord, for the repair of the damages in the house, 2 Kings 22:6. to the carpenters and the builders and the stonemasons, and for the purchase of timber and hewn stone for the repair of the house; 2 Kings 22:7. only, an accounting shall not be required from them for the money entrusted to their hand, for they deal faithfully. “In the eighteenth year of King Josiah...” The LXX more precisely determine the time of this important event of the discovery of the book of the law, adding: ἐν τῶ μηνὶ τῶ ὁγδοῶ, or according to codices 52, 64, 72, 92, 106, 119, 121, 123, 134, 144, 236, 242, 245, 247 and others—ἐν μηνὶ τῶ ἑββόμφ, Slav.: “in the seventh month.” The book of the law was discovered during the restoration of the temple that now followed, some two hundred thirty years after the similar restoration under King Joash (2 Kgs 12:5 and further), necessarily brought about by the need to cleanse the temple of the pagan abominations introduced into it under Manasseh and Amon. The account of this new restoration of the temple closely resembles the narrative in chapter XII about the former one, and in chapter XXII is related more briefly, only presupposing what is directly stated in chapter XII; moreover, the account of the temple restoration here is only the occasion for the narrative about the book of the law found during it. The restoration of the temple probably began not only in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, but much earlier, since according to (2 Chr 34:3) Josiah already in the eighth, and even more in the twelfth year of his reign, began to show particular zeal toward God. Concerning the office of secretary, Hebrew sopher, LXX: γραμματεύς, Vulg.: Scriba, see commentary on (1 Kgs 4:3). According to (2 Chr 34:8), besides Shaphan, the king sends to the temple also the city governor Maaseiah and the secretary Joah. Hilkiah is the high priest (cf. v. 8, (2 Kgs 23:4)) from the line of Zadok (1 Chr 9:11). Following the suggestion of Clement of Alexandria, some commentators identified him with the priest Hilkiah, (Jer 1:1), the father of the prophet Jeremiah (Eichhorn, Bogen, and others), but against this speaks both the complete silence of the book of the prophet Jeremiah concerning the priestly rank of the prophet’s father, and also that in Anathoth, the native city of the prophet, priests lived not from the line of Eleazar and Zadok, but from the line of Ithamar and Abiathar (cf. 1 Kgs 2:26).

2 Kings 22:8. And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 2 Kings 22:9. And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, saying, “Your servants have collected the silver that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers of the work who are appointed over the house of the Lord. 2 Kings 22:10. And Shaphan the secretary told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king. 2 Kings 22:11. When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes. What was this “Book of the Law” ([ha] sefer [ha] torah, in the LXX: βιβλίον τοῦ νομου, Vulg.: liber legis) that was found by Hilkiah in the temple, and how could it have been hidden or lost here? What explains the profound impression it made on Josiah (verse 2 Kgs 22:11)? “This passage is remarkably significant. If it were possible to satisfactorily explain what this discovery means, much would be explained about the history of the Hebrews. Modern non-Orthodox scholars like to assert that the books known by the name of Moses appeared much later than Moses; according to some, namely after Hilkiah found an ancient copy in the temple” (Prof. Gulyaev, p. 371). Against the latter supposition of so-called development theorists concerning the origin of certain parts of the Pentateuch, namely Deuteronomy, in this period (see e.g. Stade, Geschichte Isr. I, p. 650 and further) stands already the fact that the book of the law found in the biblical text appears not as a newly appearing book, but as one that was long known (hence—the definite article: (ha) sefer—(ha) torah), and in the parallel passage (2 Chr 34:14) it is directly called “the Book of the Law of the Lord (given) by the hand of Moses” (sefer torat Yhwh beyad Moshe). The expression “book of the law” was, beyond doubt, a technical term for the entire collection of the writings of Moses, which all under the general name “book of the law” Moses commanded the Levites (the priesthood under the high priest) to keep in the very Ark of the Covenant (Deut 31:24-26). If the book found by Hilkiah is further called the “Book of the Covenant” (sefer-habberit, 2 Kgs 23:2-3; 2 Chr 34:30-31), then this name, like the previous one, is far more applicable to the entire Pentateuch than to any separate part of it, for instance, to Deuteronomy. If against the recognition of the found book as the entire Pentateuch it is objected that it was read by Shaphan (2 Kgs 22:8) and later by Josiah (2 Kgs 23:2) in a brief time, then in (2 Chr 34:18) it is said that Shaphan read from it (Hebrew bo), that is, there is no need to think that the entire book was read; if further it is said that the threats of God, evidently contained in the book and so struck the king (v. 11, 16) and the people (2 Kgs 23:2-3), most resemble the threats in (Deut 28 and others), then threats of this kind are found also in other parts of the Pentateuch, for example, (Lev 26). Most important, however, is the fact that as the covenant of the people with Jehovah could be concluded and could only be concluded on the basis of the entire law (2 Kgs 23:2-3), not a separate part of it, so the subsequent reform of worship (2 Kgs 23:4-20) and the culminating lawful celebration of Passover (vv. 21–24) could be carried out only on the basis of the laws of the entire Pentateuch (2 Kgs 23:24-25), in particular the Passover feast—on the basis of chapter Exod 12 (Exod 23:15; Lev 23:5-8; Num 28:18-24). The real reason impelling many modern biblical scholars to see in the book of the law discovered under Josiah not the entire Pentateuch but only a certain part of it (chiefly something resembling the present Deuteronomy, but not identical with it), is one: the supposition of the non-existence of the Pentateuch and its present redaction before the time of Josiah and even before the Babylonian captivity (according to the supposition of these scholars, the Pentateuch received the form and content it now has no earlier than the time of Ezra, about 444 BC; see in Prof. A. P. Smirnov, “New construction of the history of the Hebrew people,” p. 197; cf. Prof. F. Ya. Pokrovsky, “Regarding the objections of modern criticism against the existence of Mosaic law before the ancient prophet-writers,” Kyiv, 1890). Of course, the precise extent of the book of the law discovered with absolute certainty cannot be established (St. Chrysostom and blessed Theodoret considered it to be Deuteronomy). But it is undeniable that the Bible knows nothing of any promulgation of a newly composed “book of the law” through the efforts of, supposedly, now united priestly and prophetic parties (in proof of the participation, for instance, of the prophet Jeremiah in this matter, chapters Jer 11 and Jer 34 of his book are cited), and the supposition of the diverse temporal origin of separate parts of the Pentateuch, and in particular of Deuteronomy under Josiah, is a pure hypothesis, and in no way a postulate of scientific truth. Granting that Hilkiah found the entire Pentateuch, we nevertheless do not see the necessity to consider the book found, relying on the narrow literal understanding of (2 Chr 34:14) (“by the hand of Moses,” beyad-Moshe, can mean even a simple intermediary role of Moses in the giving of God’s law, cf. Jer 37:2), as an autograph of Moses himself. Clericus rightly observes: “Satis est exemplar quoddam Legis antiquum fuisse irique anthenticum.” The copy found in the temple was obviously an official temple copy (perhaps distinguished from those used by private Jews in quality, handwriting, or material), which according to Moses’ prescription was supposed to be kept in the Ark of the Covenant and be read to the people every seventh year, at the feast of Tabernacles (Deut 31:10-12), but which, obviously through the negligence of the priests and under the influence of harsh conditions for the religion of Jehovah under the impious kings Manasseh and Amon, was lost or intentionally concealed from Manasseh, who, according to Jewish tradition, ordered all copies of the Torah to be seized and burned. “Nevertheless, although the king (Josiah), born of an unclean father, did not know the prophecies contained in the Holy Books, yet from this one cannot think that there were no copies in the hands of other righteous Jews” (Philaret, p. 270–271 note). Religious practice was conducted by the priests in this time apparently according to the written law and according to the always faithful oral tradition. All the more powerful must have been the impression from the book, striking perhaps with its archaic appearance. The impression of reading it, in particular upon the king, was shattering: like Hezekiah, (2 Kgs 19:1-2), in terror for the fate of his people Josiah tore his garments. The evident and continuous violation by the people of the laws prescribed in the book naturally led to thoughts of the nearness of those punishments and disasters with which God threatened the people for breaking those laws. The contemporary political circumstances and international relations inspired even greater fear in Josiah for Judah’s future. The once-terrible Assyria was now falling under the blows of newly formed independent states: the Neo-Chaldean kingdom, which would decide the fate of the Judean kingdom, the Median kingdom, Egypt, and especially from wild roving hordes of Scythians, who swept devastatingly (about 630 BC) from northern Mesopotamia and the Caspian Sea to Egypt itself and on the return journey plundered the land of the Philistines (Jer 5:15-17; Zeph 2:4-5. Herodotus I, 105; Dunker M. “Geschichte des Alterthums,” Bd. I, 1863, 5, p. 750 and further; Stade, Gesch. I, 643 and further; Bp. Platon, cited work, p. 266 and further; “History of the Israeli People,” 1902, 104–105). All these symptoms of coming political catastrophes in connection with Josiah’s repentant feeling could deeply shake his pious soul, although Assyria’s weakness could also favor the free implementation of religious reform not only in Judah itself, but also in the former territory of the Israelite kingdom (cf. 2 Kgs 23:15).

2 Kings 22:12. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Michaiah, Shaphan the secretary, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying: 2 Kings 22:13. “Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us. 2 Kings 22:14. So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter), and they spoke with her. Shaken by all he had heard from the law, Josiah (like Hezekiah, 2 Kgs 19:2-4) desired to “inquire of the Lord,” that is, to hear a prophetic word concerning whether it was possible and by what means to avert the coming calamities and judgments of God upon Judah for the violation of God’s law. The delegation, headed by the high priest, turns not to the contemporary prophets—Jeremiah (Jer 1:1) and Zephaniah (Zeph 1:1), perhaps not in Jerusalem at that time—but to a certain prophetess Huldah, Hebrew Hulda, in the LXX: Ολδαν, Vulg.: Holda (one of four women prophetesses in the Old Testament, according to Jewish tradition—together with Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), and Hannah (1 Sam 2:1 and further)), the wife of the keeper of the royal or temple garments (cf. 2 Kgs 10:22); “and she lived in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter,” Hebrew: bemishne, Vulg.: in secunda. The LXX leave the last word without translation: ἐν τῆ Μασενᾶ, Slav.: “in Masena”; probably, as also in (Zeph 1:10), the northern part of Jerusalem is meant, including the so-called Akra, between the first (of David—Solomon) and the second (of Hezekiah—Manasseh) walls of the city (ἄλλη πόλις in Josephus).

2 Kings 22:15. And she said to them, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Tell the man who sent you to me, 2 Kings 22:16. ‘Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will bring evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants—all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read. 2 Kings 22:17. Because they have forsaken me, and have made offerings to other gods, so as to provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, my wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.’ 2 Kings 22:18. But as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall you say to him, Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, regarding the words which you have heard: 2 Kings 22:19. ‘Because your heart was penitent, and you humbled yourself before the Lord, when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before me, I also have heard you, says the Lord. 2 Kings 22:20. Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place.’” And they brought the word back to the king. “The original answer given to the king, some say, has not been preserved to us; the answer as recorded in (2 Kgs 22:15-20) scholars refer to a later time” (“History of the Israeli People,” p. 105; cf. Benzinger, p. 191; Kittel, p. 300), on the ground that if Huldah announced the destruction of Judah and its inhabitants in fulfillment of the curses of the law (vv. 16–17), but to the pious king who repented before God there was promised a peaceful death before the coming disasters (vv. 19–20), then the religious reform undertaken by Josiah (ch. XXIII) would have no meaning: “after such an answer (2 Kgs 22:15-20) one could expect anything, except a decisive reform of the state: was it worth the effort if its ruin was inevitable? One could sooner expect that Josiah would merely thank God for his mercy to himself, like Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:19). (Stade, Gesch. Isr. I, 651–652). The extreme subjectivism of modern biblical critics is evident of itself. From the standpoint of normal religious psychology, however, it is entirely understandable that a pious king, even upon learning of the inevitable fate of his kingdom, nevertheless considers it his duty and resolves to do all that is possible to place the life of his people in accordance with the requirements of the law, and to do this, first of all, he restores the true covenantal relationship of the people of God with Jehovah (2 Kgs 23:1-3). “A pious king benefits his subjects as much as impious ones harm them” (blessed Theodoret, question 54). * * * In the aforementioned “History of the Israeli People” (Moscow, 1902), which generally popularizes the latest views of biblical criticism on the Old Testament Bible and on the history of biblical Israel, it is said about the book of the law found: “This Book of the Law constituted the main part of the present fifth book of Moses (Deut 5:21-26). This is all that can be said on this subject based on investigations of the Old Testament” (p. 105)