Josiah began his reign over Judah at age eight. He reigned for thirty-one years in Jerusalem. Several commentators note that Josiah was one of the best kings of Judah, as he did what was right in God's sight and did not turn from following God's commands. Being young, he had not been influenced by the ungodly examples of his father and grandfather, and with God's grace, he sought to undo the spiritual damage of the prior reigns.

1. 2 KI GS 22 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Book of the Law Found
1 Josiah was eight years old when he became king,
and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His
mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah;
she was from Bozkath.
CLARKE, "Josiah was eight years old - He was one of the best, if not the best, of
all the Jewish kings since the time of David. He began well, continued well, and ended
well.
GILL, "Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign,.... And must be born
when his father was but sixteen, for Amon lived but twenty four years, 2Ki_21:19,
and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem; and so must die at thirty nine
years of age:
and his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath; a
city of the tribe of Judah; see Gill on Jos_15:39.
HE RY, "Concerning Josiah we are here told,
I. That he was very young when he began to reign (2Ki_22:1), only eight years old.
Solomon says, Woe unto thee, O land! when thy king is a child; but happy art thou, O
land! when thy king is such a child. Our English Israel had once a king that was such a
child, Edward VI. Josiah, being young, had not received any bad impressions from the
example of his father and grandfather, but soon saw their errors, and God gave his grace
to take warning by them. See Eze_18:14, etc.
JAMISO , "2Ki_22:1, 2Ki_22:2. Josiah’s good reign.
Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign — Happier than his

2. grandfather Manasseh, he seems to have fallen during his minority under the care of
better guardians, who trained him in the principles and practice of piety; and so strongly
had his young affections been enlisted on the side of true and undefiled religion, that he
continued to adhere all his life, with undeviating perseverance, to the cause of God and
righteousness.
K&D, "Length and spirit of Josiah's reign. - Josiah (for the name, see at 1Ki_13:2),
like Hezekiah, trode once more in the footsteps of his pious forefather David, adhering
with the greatest constancy to the law of the Lord. He reigned thirty-one years. As a child
he had probably received a pious training from his mother; and when he had ascended
the throne, after the early death of his godless father, he was under the guidance of pious
men who were faithfully devoted to the law of the Lord, and who turned his heart to the
God of their fathers, as was the case with Joash in 2Ki_12:3, although there is no
allusion to guardianship. His mother Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah, was of Boscath, a
city in the plain of Judah, of which nothing further is known (see at Jos_15:39). The
description of his character, “he turned not aside to the right hand and to the left,” sc.
from that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, is based upon Deu_5:29; Deu_17:11,
Deu_17:20, and Deu_28:14, and expresses an unwavering adherence to the law of the
Lord.
BE SO , ". Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign — Being young, he
had not received any bad impressions from the example of his father and
grandfather, but soon saw their errors, and God gave him grace to take warning by
them. He saw his father’s sins, and considered, and did not the like, Ezekiel 18:14.
He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord — See the power of divine
grace! Although he was born of a wicked father, had neither had a good education
given him, nor a good example set him, but many about him, who, no doubt, advised
him to tread in his father’s steps, and few that gave him any good counsel; yet the
grace of God makes him an eminent saint, cuts him off from the wild olive, grafts
him into the good olive, and renders him fruitful to God’s glory, and the profit of
myriads. He walked in a good way, and turned not aside, as some of his
predecessors had done who began well, to the right hand or to the left. There are
errors on both hands, but God kept him in the right way: he fell not either into
superstition or profaneness.
COFFMA , ""He reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem" (2 Kings 22:1). The
date of this reign by Montgomery was 639-608 B.C.[1] "The death of Josiah may be
accurately dated by the Babylonian Chronicle in 609 B.C; therefore, he became king
in 639 B.C."[2] This period of almost forty years was a crucial one in world history.
"The Scythian invasion, the fall of Assyria, the formation of the Median empire, and
the foundation of the Babylonian empire by abopolasar all occurred during this
time."[3]
The righteousness of this monarch is recorded here in words that are matched only

3. by the sacred records regarding the reign of Hezekiah, the great-grandfather of
Josiah.
ELLICOTT, "(1) Josiah.—The name seems to mean “Jah healeth.” (Comp. Exodus
15:26; Isaiah 30:26.)
Eight years old.—The queen-mother was probably paramount in the government
during the first years of the reign.
Boscath.—In the lowland of Judah (Joshua 15:39).
He reigned thirty and one years.—And somewhat over. (Comp. Jeremiah 1:2;
Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 25:3; according to which passages it was twenty-three
years from the thirteenth of Josiah to the fourth of Jehoiakim.)
EBC, "JOSIAH
B.C. 639-608
2 Kings 22:1-20; 2 Kings 23:1-37
Jos., "Ant.," X 4:1.
"In outline dim and vast
Their fearful shadows cast
The giant forms of Empires, on their way
To ruin: one by one
They tower, and they are gone."
- KEBLE
IF we are to understand the reign of Josiah as a whole, we must preface it by some
allusion to the great epoch-marking circumstances of his age, which explain the
references of contemporary prophets, and which, in great measure, determined the
foreign policy of the pious king.
The three memorable events of this brief epoch were,
(I.) the movement of the Scythians,
(II.) the rise of Babylon, and

4. (III.) the humiliation of ineveh, followed by her total destruction.
I. Many of Jeremiah’s earlier prophecies belong to this period, and we see that both
he and Zephaniah-who was probably a great-great-grandson of King Hezekiah
himself, and prophesied in this reign-are greatly occupied with a danger from the
orth which seems to threaten universal ruin.
So overwhelming is the peril that Zephaniah begins with the tremendously sweeping
menace, "I will utterly consume all things of the earth, saith the Lord."
Then the curse rushes down specifically upon Judah and Jerusalem; and the state of
things which the prophet describes shows that, if Josiah began himself to seek the
Lord at eight years old, he did not take-and was, perhaps, unable to take-any active
steps towards the extinction of idolatry till he was old enough to hold in his own
hand the reins of power.
For Zephaniah denounces the wrath of Jehovah on three classes of idolaters-viz.,
(1) the remnant of Baal-worshippers with their chemarim, or unlawful priests, and
the syncretizing priests (kohanim) of Jehovah, who combine His worship with that
of the stars, to whom they burn incense upon the housetops;
(2) the waverers, who swear at once by Jehovah and by Malcham, their king; and
(3) the open despisers and apostates.
"For all these the day of Jehovah is near; He has prepared them for sacrifice, and
the sacrificers are at hand. {Zephaniah 2:4-7} Gaza, Ashdod, Askelon, Ekron, the
Cherethites, Canaan, Philistia, are all threatened by the same impending ruin, as
well as Moab and Ammon, who shall lose their lands. Ethiopia, too, and Assyria
shall be smitten, and ineveh shall become so complete a desolation that pelicans
and hedgehogs shall bivouac upon her chapiters, the owl shall hoot in her windows,
and the crow croak upon the threshold. ‘Crushed! desolated!’ and all that pass by
shall hiss and wag their hands." {Zephaniah 2:12-15}
The pictures of the state of society drawn by Jeremiah do not, as we have seen,
differ from those drawn by his contemporary. Jeremiah, too, writing perhaps before
Josiah’s reformation, complains that God’s people have forsaken the fountains of
living water, to hew out for themselves broken cisterns. He complains of empty
formalism in the place of true righteousness, and even goes so far as to say that
backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.
{Jeremiah 3:1-9} He, too, prophesies speedy and terrific chastisement. Let Judah
gather herself into fenced cities, and save her goods by flight, for God is bringing
evil from the orth, and a great destruction.
"The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the nations is on his way;

5. he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid
waste, without an inhabitant. Behold, he cometh as clouds, and his chariots shall be
as the whirlwind." Besiegers come from a far country, and give out their voice
against the cities of Judah. The heart of the kings shall perish, and the heart of the
princes; and the priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder.
"For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a
full end"-and, "O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest
be saved!" {Jeremiah 4:7-27}
"I will bring a nation upon you from far, O House of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a
mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language"-unlike that of the
Assyrians-"thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. Their quiver is
an open sepulcher, they are all mighty men. They shall batter thy fenced cities, in
which thou trustest with weapons of war." {Jeremiah 5:15-17}
"O ye children of Benjamin, save your goods by flight: for evil is imminent from the
orth, and a great destruction. Behold, a people cometh from the orth Country,
and a great nation shall be raised from the farthest part of the earth. They lay hold
on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the
sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter
of Zion. We have heard the fame thereof: our hands wax feeble." {Jeremiah 6:1;
Jeremiah 6:22-24}
And the judgment is close at hand. The early blossoming bud of the almond tree is
the type of its imminence. The seething caldron, with its front turned from the
orth, typifies an invasion which shall soon boil over and floor the land.
What was the fierce people thus vaguely indicated as coming from the orth? The
foes indicated in these passages are not the long-familiar Assyrians, but the
Scytbians and Cimmerians.
As yet the Hebrews had only heard of them by dim and distant rumor. When
Ezekiel prophesied they were still an object of terror, but he foresees their defeat
and annihilation. They should be gathered into the confines of Israel, but only for
their destruction {See Ezekiel 37:1-28; Ezekiel 39:1-29} The prophet is bidden to set
his face towards Gog, of the land of Magog, the Prince of Rosh, Meshech, and
Tubal, and prophesy against him that God would turn him about, and put hooks in
his jaws, and drive forth all his army of bucklered and sworded horsemen, the
hordes of the uttermost part of the orth. They should come like a storm upon the
mountains of Israel, and spoil the defenseless villages; but they should come simply
for their own destruction by blood and by pestilence. God should smite their bows
out of their left hands, and their arrows out of the right, and the ravenous birds of
Israel should feed upon the carcasses of their warriors. There should be endless
bonfires of all the instruments of war, and the place of their burial should be called
"the valley of the multitude of Gog."

6. Much of this is doubtless an ideal picture, and Ezekiel may be thinking of the fall of
the Chaldaeans. But the terms he uses remind us of the dim orthern nomads, and
the names Rosh and Meshech in justaposition involuntarily recall those of Russia
and Moscow.
Our chief historical authority respecting this influx of orthern barbarians is
Herodotus. He tells us that the nomad Scythians, apparently a Turanian race, who
may have been subjected to the pressure of population, swarmed over the Caucasus,
dispossessed the Cimmerians (Gomer), and settled themselves in Saccasene, a
province of orthern Armenia. From this province the Scythians gained the name of
the Saqui. The name of Gog seems to be taken from Gugu, a Scythian prince, who
was taken captive by Assurbanipal from the land of the Saqui. Magog is perhaps
Matgugu, "land of Gog." These rude, coarse warriors, like the hordes of Attila, or
Zenghis Khan, or Tamerlane-who were descended from them-magnetized the
imagination of civilized people, as the Huns did in the fourth century. They
overthrew the kingdom of Urartis (Armenia), and drove the all-but exterminated
remnant of the Moschi and Tabali to the mountain fortresses by the Black Sea,
turning them, as it were, into a nation of ghosts in Sheol. Then they burst like a
thunder-cloud on Mesopotamia, desolating the villages with their arrow-flights, but
too unskilled to take fenced towns. They swept down the Shephelah of Palestine, and
plundered the rich temple of Aphrodite (Astarte Ourania) at Askelon, thereby
incurring the curse of the goddess in the form of a strange disease. But on the
borders of Egypt they were diplomatically met by Psammetichus (d. 611) with gifts
and prayers. Judah seems only to have suffered indirectly from this invasion. The
main army of Scyths poured down the maritime plain, and there was no sufficient
booty to tempt any but their straggling bands to the barren hills of Judah. It was the
report of this over-flooding from the orth which probably evoked the alarming
prophecies of Zephaniah and Jeremiah, though they found their clearer fulfillment
in the invasion of the Chaldees.
II. This rush of wild nomads averted for a time the fate of ineveh.
The Medes, an Aryan people, had settled south of the Caspian, B.C. 790; and in the
same century one of these tribes-the Persians-had settled southeast of Elam the
northern coast of the Persian Gulf. Cyaxares founded the Median Empire, and
attacked ineveh. The Scythian invasion forced him to abandon the siege, and the
Scythians burnt the Assyrian palace and plundered the ruins. But Cyaxares
succeeded in intoxicating and murdering the Scythian leaders at a banquet, and
bribed the army to withdraw. Then Cyaxares, with the aid of the Babylonians under
abopolassar their rebel viceroy, besieged and took ineveh-probably about B.C.
608-while its last king and his captains were reveling at a banquet.
The fall of ineveh was not astonishing. The empire had long been "slowly bleeding
to death" in consequence of its incessant wars. The city deemed itself impregnable
behind walls a hundred feet high, on which three chariots could drive abreast, and
mantled with twelve hundred towers; but she perished, and all the nations-whom
she had known how to crush, but had with "her stupid and cruel tyranny" never

7. known how to govern-shouted for joy-that joy finds its triumphant expression in
more than one of the prophets, but specially in the vivid paean of ahum. His date
is approximately fixed at about B.C. 600, by his reference to the atrocities inflicted
by Assurbnipal on the Egyptian city of o-Amon. "Art thou [ ineveh] better," he
asks, than o-Amon, "that was situate among the canals, that had the water round
about her, whose rampart was the ile, and her wall was the waters? Yet she went
into captivity! Her young children were dashed to pieces at the head of all the
streets: they cast lots for her honorable men, and all her great men were bound in
chains. Thou also shalt be drunken: thou shalt faint away, thou shalt seek a
stronghold because of the enemy." { ahum 3:8-11}
All the details of her fall are dim; but ineveh was, in the language of the prophets,
swept with the besom of destruction. Her ruins became stones of emptiness, and the
line of confusion was stretched over her. ahum ends with the cry, -
"There is no assuaging of thy hurt; thy wound is grievous:
All that hear the bruit of this, clap the hands over thee:
For upon whom hath thy wickedness not passed continually?"
In truth, Assyria, the ferocious foe of Israel, of Judah, and all the world, vanished
suddenly, like a dream when one awaketh; and those who passed over its ruins, like
Xenophon and his Ten Thousand in B.C. 401, knew not what they were. Her very
name had become forgotten in two centuries, "Etiam periere ruinae!" The burnt
relics and cracked tablets of her former splendor began to be revealed to the world
once more in 1842, and it is only during the last quarter of a century that the
fragments of her history have been laboriously deciphered.
III Such were the events witnessed in their germs or in their completion by the
contemporaries of Josiah and the prophets who adorned his reign. It was during
this period, also, that the power to whom the ultimate ruin and captivity of
Jerusalem was due sprang into formidable proportions. The ultimate scourge of
God to the guilty people and the guilty city was not to be the Assyrian, nor the
Scythian, nor the Egyptian, nor any of the old Canaanite or Semitic foes of Israel,
nor the Phoenician, nor the Philistine. With all these she had long contended, and
held her own. It was before the Chaldee that she was doomed to fall, and the
Chaldee was a new phenomenon of which the existence had hardly been recognized
as a danger till the warning prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah after the embassy of the
rebel viceroy Merodach-Baladan.
It is to Habakkuk, in prophecies written very shortly after the death of Josiah, that
we must look for the impression of terror caused by the Chaldees.
abopolassar, sent by the successor of Assurbanipal to quell a Chaldaean revolt,
seized the viceroyalty of Babylon, and joined Cyaxares in the overthrow of ineveh.
From that time Babylon became greater and more terrible than ineveh, whose

8. power it inherited. Habakkuk {Habakkuk 2:1-19} paints the rapacity, the
selfishness, the inflated ambition, the cruelty, the drunkenness, the idolatry of the
Chaldaeans. He calls them {Habakkuk 1:5-11} a rough and restless nation, frightful
and terrible, whose horsemen were swifter than leopards, fiercer than evening
wolves, flying to gorge on prey like the vultures, mocking at kings and princes, and
flinging dust over strongholds. or has he the least comfort in looking on their
resistless fury, except the deeply significant oracle-an oracle which contains the
secret of their ultimate doom-
"Behold, his soul is puffed up it is not upright in him:
But the righteous man shall live by his fidelity."
The prophet places absolute reliance on the general principle that "pride and
violence dig their own grave."
GUZIK, "A. The beginnings of Josiah’s reforms.
1. (2 Kings 22:1-2) A summary of the reign of Josiah, the son of Amon.
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. And
he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the ways of his
father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
a. Josiah was eight years old when he became king: Unusually, this young boy came
to the throne at eight years of age. This was because of the assassination of his
father.
i. “At last, after more than three hundred years, the prophecy of ‘the man of God
out of Judah’ is fulfilled (1 Kings 13:2).” (Knapp)
b. He did what was right in the sight of the LORD: This was true of Josiah at this
young age; but it is really more intended as a general description of his reign rather
than a description of him at eight years of age.
ISBET, "THE BOY-MO ARCH
‘Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign.’
2 Kings 22:1
For all the years Josiah had been represented as one of the models of the Bible.
othing appears in his history which the Lord seems to have disapproved. Four
things there are in our verse which show the remarkableness of this boy-monarch’s
piety; these we note in turn.
I. First, he was so young in years.—He was only sixteen at the time when he ‘began

9. to seek after the God of David his father.’ It is a fine thing to have an ambition to be
good and great when one is as yet a mere boy. Once, as Goethe’s mother saw him
crossing a street with his boyish companions, she was struck with the extraordinary
gravity of his carriage of himself. She asked him laughingly whether he expected to
distinguish himself from the others by his sedateness. The little fellow replied: ‘I
begin with this; later on in life I shall probably distinguish myself in far other ways
from them.’
II. ext, Josiah’s piety was remarkable because he had had no paternal help.—Two
generations of awful wickedness lay behind him; Amon was his father, and Amon
was the son of Manasseh. Josiah had no Bible; in those days the ‘book of the law’
was lost. Jedidah is mentioned in the story; the name means ‘beloved of Jehovah’;
and we really have a hope that Josiah felt the prayers and counsels of a pious
mother.
When one is puzzled and baffled, perhaps even scandalised, by an older person’s
behaviour, let him bear in mind that he was never bidden to imitate anybody but
Jesus Christ. Once a man told Augustine that a strong wish was in his heart to
become a Christian, but the imperfections of other people who professed religion
kept him back; and the excellent preacher replied thus: ‘But you, yourself, lack
nothing; what a neighbour lacks, be you for yourself; be a good Christian in order
that you, by your consistency, may convince the most calumnious pagan!’
III. Josiah’s piety was also remarkable because he was reared in a palace of
indolence and luxury.—He was a king’s heir, and was exposed to all the indulgence
of easy-going life and the flatteries of court.
All this must be met by a resolute and devout heart. A youth with a real love for
God and love for man has no miserable aristocracy of human rank in his
disposition. In modern times, when the Duke of Gaudia arrived at Lisbon, and was
waited upon by a man of quality who had received a royal order for that purpose
from King Don John III, he noted that this suave companion kept giving him
repeatedly the title of ‘most illustrious Lord,’ even when he did no more than ask
him if he was not fatigued by his journey; at last the duke told the courtier frankly
that he was not so very tired yet, only wearied by so much illustriousness heaped on
him.
IV. Again, Josiah’s piety was remarkable because he was entrusted with the throne
so early in his career.—He became king at eight years of age. Unlimited power came
into his hands when he was as yet a mere child. Around him were the old vicious
parasites of the realm, the veteran placemen who had been living and fattening on
his father’s favour.
Often a boy is a regular little tyrant, lording it over nurse, or brothers and sisters—
older as well as younger—or whomsoever else he can make subject to his will for the
time being. A child of eight years old needs to know how to rule well in his sphere. A
responsibility for good government is on him. He ought to be made to feel it betimes.

10. And Josiah bore gravely, as a boy, the burden of royalty.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Even a child maketh himself known by his doings, whether his work be pure,
and whether it be right. Commonly it is before a child is eight years old that his
character receives its permanent impress for good or evil, and that his line of
conduct for life is indicated. Already he is either doing that which is right in the
sight of the Lord, or doing that which is wrong in the Lord’s sight. How is it about
the children of that age who are under your control?’
(2) ‘Much depends on the way one starts. It is said that, when the old Rudolph of
Hapsburg was to be crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle, there was an imminent moment in
which the pageant halted, for the imperial sceptre was mislaid by the attendants,
and could not be found. The emperor was just in the act of investing the princes
with their honours. With an admirable presence of mind, and in the true spirit of
high religious chivalry of those times, he turned to the altar before which he stood;
and, seizing from it the crucifix itself, exclaimed, “With this will I govern!”’
PETT, "The Reign Of Josiah, King Of Judah c. 640/39-609 BC.
Josiah came to the throne as a young child when the powers of Assyria were
beginning to wane. Babylon and Media were on the ascendant, Egypt’s power was
reviving and the Assyrians were being kept busy elsewhere. And while he could do
little to begin with, it was a situation of which Josiah would take full advantage. Set
on the throne at a young age by ‘the people of the land’, (the clan leaders, landed
gentry, landowners and freemen of Judah who clung more to the ancient traditions),
and advised by the godly Hilkiah (the high priest), and at some stage by the
prophets Zephaniah (Zephaniah 1:1) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:3), he grew up
concerned to restore the true worship of God, and remove all foreign influence from
the land. This being so we would certainly expect initial reform to have begun early
on, and to have gathered pace as he grew older, the moreso as Assyrian influence
waned, for there is no hint in the description that we have here of Josiah that he was
any other than faithful to YHWH from his earliest days.
The fact that reform did take so long initially must be attributed firstly to the
continuing influence of Assyria, whose representatives would for some years still
hold undisputed sway in Judah’s affairs, secondly, to the king’s youthfulness, and
thirdly to the strength of the opposition parties who clearly encouraged the worship
of local deities. All these would mean that Josiah had to walk carefully.
On the other hand the fact that silver had already been gathered for the repairs to
YHWH’s house (2 Kings 22:4-5) was an indication that prior to Josiah’s eighteenth
year general inspections had already been made of the Temple with a view to its
repair. That would be why an appeal for ‘funds’ had previously gone out to the
people prior to this time. That in itself would have taken some time (compare the

11. situation under Joash - 2 Kings 12:4-12). or would this work have proceeded
without some attempt to ‘purify’ the Temple, for whilst we in this modern day might
have thought first about the fabric, they would have thought first as to whether it
was ‘clean’, and whether all that was ‘unholy’ had been removed. So as Josiah
became more firmly established on his throne and began to take the reins into his
own hands, and therefore well before his eighteenth year, (as in fact the Chronicler
informs us), reforms would have begun to take place which would have resulted in
the removal of the grosser and more obvious examples of the apostasy of previous
kings. This is what we would have expected (such things would have stuck out like a
sore thumb to a true Yahwist), even though not all that the Chronicler spoke of
would have taken place immediately because of the strength of opposition.
Jerusalem and its environs would be the first to be cleared of the most patent signs
of idolatry, then the wider areas of Judah, while the movement beyond the borders
of Judah would have taken place much later as the reformation gained strength and
the people became more responsive and receptive, and as the authority of Assyria
over the whole area became minimal. On the other hand the very length of time that
did pass before these reforms began to take hold does indicate the depths of idolatry
into which Judah had fallen, and how many were gripped by it. There can be no
doubt that it was rampant.
Thus what happened in the eighteenth year must not be seen as indicating the
beginnings of the reform. It was rather the commencement of the actual physical
work on the restoration of the Temple, something which must have been well
prepared for beforehand. And it was this preparatory work that resulted in the
discovery of an ancient copy of the Book of the Law, probably due to an in depth
examination being made of the stonework. Such sacred texts were regularly placed
in the foundational wall of temples when they were first built.
It is typical of the author of Kings that he does not bring us details of the build-up of
a situation but rather assumes them and goes straight into what will bring out what
he wants to say. To him what was central here was not the process of reformation,
but the finding of the Book of the Law, and Josiah’s resulting response to it.
As the Temple must have been in constant use without the book having been found
previously, this discovery must have taken place in a very unusual place, and the
probability must therefore be that it was discovered within the actual structure
which was being examined prior to being repaired. This suggests that it had been
placed there at the time of the building of the Temple, and thus on the instructions
of Solomon, for it was quite a normal procedure for sacred writings or covenants to
be placed within the foundations or walls of Temples when they were first erected.
When abonidus, for example, was seeking to restore the Samas shrine in Sippar in
sixth century BC, he commanded men to look for the foundation stones (which
would contain the Temple documents) -- and ‘they inspected the apartments and
rooms, and they saw it --’. Thus he found what he was looking for. Such finds were
a regular feature of work on ancient temples and occurred reasonably often, and it

12. is clear that abonidus expected to find an ancient record there simply because he
knew that the placing of such records in the very structure of a Temple was
customary. It seems that it was also similarly an Egyptian custom to deposit sacred
texts in the foundation walls of sanctuaries. For example, in a sanctuary of Thoth
one of the books believed to have been written by the god was deposited beneath his
image. Furthermore certain rubrics belonging to chapters in The Book of the Dead,
and inscriptions in the Temple of Denderah, give information about the discovery of
such texts when temples were being inspected or pulled down.
This being so the discovery of such an ancient record by Josiah would have caused
great excitement and would have been seen as a divine seal on his reforms. But it
was not its discovery that resulted in the commencement of the reforms. Rather it
was discovered because the reforms had already begun. What it did, however, do
was give a huge impetus to the reforms, and help to direct them and confirm that
they were pleasing to YHWH, especially as one of the central messages of the book
was discovered to be that the wrath of YHWH was over His people because of their
failure to walk in His ways.
The genuineness of the account cannot be doubted. The great detail confirms that
we are dealing with actual history, and the fact that appeal was made by the king to
a woman prophet was something which would never have even been considered by
an inventor. It was an idea almost unique in Israel’s known history. The nearest to it
is Deborah in Judges 4-5. This would only have been suggested if it had really
happened.
But one question which then arises is as to what this ‘Book of the Law’ which was
discovered consisted of. In other words whether it included virtually the whole
‘Book of the Law of Moses’, or simply a portion of it. Our view, which is confirmed
by 2 Kings 23:25, is that the whole Book of the Law of Moses was found, even
though initial concentration was on one of the scrolls, the one brought by Hilkiah to
Shaphan. For those interested in the question further we will now consider it in the
form of an excursus.
Excursus. Of What Did ‘The Book Of The Law’ Found In The Temple Consist?.
In spite of the fact that the majority of scholars see The Book of the Law as being
simply a portion of Deuteronomy, (although with a multitude of related theories and
datings connected with that idea), that must in our view be seen as very unlikely for
a number of reasons.
The first good reason that counts against it is that the book inspired an observance
of the Passover that exceeded all that had gone before it following the time of Joshua
(2 Kings 23:21-22). The Book is described as ‘the book of the covenant which was
found in the house of YHWH’ (2 Kings 23:2), a description which is then followed
up in 2 Kings 22 :2 Kings 23:21-23 with the words, ‘and the king commanded all the
people saying, “Keep the Passover to YHWH your God, as it is written in this book
of the covenant. Surely there was not kept such a Passover from the days of the

13. judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings
of Judah. But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this Passover kept to YHWH
in Jerusalem’.
The impression gained here is not only that it stirred the people to keep the
Passover, but also that it guided them into doing so in such a way that it exceeded
anything done since the time of the Judges. In other words it took them back to the
way in which it was observed in the early days under Moses and Joshua (the
assumption being that in their days it was properly and fully observed).
However, when we actually look at what the Book of Deuteronomy has to say about
the Passover we find that the details given concerning the observing of the Passover
are in fact extremely sparse. These details are found in Deuteronomy 16:1-8 and it
will be noted that the only requirements given there are the offering of the sacrifice
of the Passover itself, without any detail as to whether it was to be one sacrifice or
many (although possibly with a hint of multiplicity in that it is from ‘the flocks and
the herds’), and the eating of unleavened bread for seven days. In other words it
details the very minimum of requirements, and clearly assumes that more detail is
given elsewhere, something very likely in a speech by Moses, but in our view
unlikely in a book which purportedly presents the full law. It is hardly feasible that
these instructions produced a Passover in such advance of all those previously held
that it was seen as excelling all others, for the instructions given were minimal.
This is often countered by saying that the thing that made this Passover outstanding
was not the way in which it was observed, but the fact that it was observed at the
Central Sanctuary rather than locally. However, there are no good grounds for
suggesting that the Passover, when properly observed, was ever simply observed
locally (even though the eating of unleavened bread would be required throughout
Israel). The indication is always that, like the other feasts of ‘Sevens (weeks)’ and
‘Tabernacles’, it was to be observed when the tribes gathered at the Central
Sanctuary ‘three times a year’, something already required in ‘the Book of the
Covenant’ in Exodus 20-24 (Exodus 23:14-17). Deuteronomy 16:5, which is
sometimes cited as indicating local Passover feasts, was not in fact suggesting that it
had ever been correctly observed in such a way. It was rather simply underlining
the fact that the feasts of YHWH could not be observed locally, but had to be
observed at the Central Sanctuary when the tribes assembled there three times a
year. Consider, for example, the observances of the Passover described in umbers
9:1-14; Joshua 5:10, which in both cases would be connected with the Central
Sanctuary (the Tabernacle) and that in 2 Chronicles 30 in the time of Hezekiah,
which was specifically required to be at Jerusalem, and which exceeded in
splendour all Passovers since the time of Solomon.
It is, of course, very possible that at this stage in the life of Josiah the Passover had
been neglected, for if the Passover was already regularly being fully observed every
year it is difficult to see why its observance here was worthy of mention as anything
new, especially by someone as sparse in what he mentions as the author of Kings. It
is clear that he considered it to be religiously momentous. The mention of it may,

14. therefore, suggest that the Feast of the Passover had not at the time been regularly
observed officially at the Central Sanctuary, except possibly by the faithful
remnant, so that this all-inclusive celebration was seen as exceptional. But if it was a
Passover spurred on by the Book of Deuteronomy, and run on the basis described
there, it would hardly have been seen as such an exceptional Passover that it
exceeded all others since the time of the Judges (but not Moses and Joshua). The
only thing that could make it such an exceptional Passover would be that the
additional offerings of Passover week were of such abundance that they excelled
previously remembered Passovers. Such additional offerings, however, are only
mentioned in umbers 28:16-25 and Leviticus 23:8, where it is also assumed that
they will be at the Central Sanctuary. But they are not even hinted at in
Deuteronomy. That is why many consider that the book of the Law must have at
least contained a part of either Leviticus or umbers, or both.
There are a number of other indications that suggest that the Law Book consisted of
more than Deuteronomy. For example, if we compare the words in 2 Kings 23:24
with the Pentateuch we discover again that, if we are to take them as echoing what
had just been discovered, more than Deuteronomy is required. For example in 2
Kings 23:24 we read of ‘those who have familiar spirits’. But this is a way of putting
it which is paralleled only in Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, (compare also Leviticus
20:27), whereas Deuteronomy, in its only mention of familiar spirits, speaks of
‘consulters of familiar spirits’ (Deuteronomy 18:11). The terminology used in 2
Kings 23:24 is thus unexpected if it was inspired by a section of Deuteronomy, but
fully understandable in the light of Leviticus.
Again, while ‘images’ (teraphim) are also mentioned in the Pentateuch, it is only in
Genesis 31:19; Genesis 31:34-35 (and then in Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14; Judges
18:17-18; Judges 18:20), and the idea of the ‘putting away of idols’ is something
found only in Leviticus 26:30 (where the idea is described in an even more forceful
form). Deuteronomy 29:17 does mention such ‘idols’ as something seen among the
nations among whom they found themselves, but contains no mention of putting
them away. On the other hand ‘abominations’ are only mentioned in Deuteronomy
29:17 (but even then they are nowhere specifically said to need putting away). Yet
here in Kings all these things are said to be ‘put away --- to confirm the words of the
Law which were written in the book --- which was found in the house of YHWH’.
This must again be seen as suggesting that the Book of the Law that was discovered
included a considerable portion of the Pentateuch over and above Deuteronomy.
These difficulties continue to mount up. For example, in 2 Kings 22:17 there is a
mention of ‘burning incense to other gods’ in relation to the Book of the Law, but
such an idea appears nowhere in the Book of Deuteronomy, which never refers to
burning incense. The idea of the burning of incense is, however, found thirteen
times in Exodus to umbers. It is true that in these cases it is the genuine burning of
incense to YHWH that is in mind, but that very mention would be seen as acting as
a counter to doing the same thing to other gods. In Deuteronomy incense is only
mentioned once, and there it is ‘put’ and not ‘burned’, whereas incense is in general
mentioned fifty times in Exodus to umbers, and thirteen times described as

15. ‘burned’.
The idea of ‘wrath’ coming against the nation appears with equal stress both in
Leviticus 26:28 (compare 2 Kings 10:6); and in Deuteronomy 29:23; Deuteronomy
29:28; Deuteronomy 32:24 and therefore could be taken from either, and indeed the
idea that God visits His people with judgment when they disobey His laws is a
regular feature of the whole of the Pentateuch. The idea of the ‘kindling of wrath’ is
found in Genesis 39:9; umbers 11:33; Deuteronomy 11:17, in all cases against
people. The word ‘quashed’ appears only in Leviticus 6:12-13 (the idea occurs in
umbers 11:2). Of course all these terms could have been taken from background
tradition, but if the book discovered had been simply a part of Deuteronomy it is
strange how little there is in what is said of it that is especially characteristic of
Deuteronomy. And while silence is always a dangerous weapon it is noticeable that
there is no mention in this passage of God’s curses which are so prominent a feature
of Deuteronomy (moreso than His wrath), and could hardly have been missed even
on a superficial reading, if the book was Deuteronomy. If it was really Deuteronomy
that was read to Josiah we must surely have expected him to mention God’s
cursings. But the only mention of the word ‘curse’ in this passage in Kings is in fact
found in 2 Kings 22:19 where it is used in a general sense in parallel with
‘desolation’ in the sense ofthe peoplebeing ‘a desolation and a curse’ (compare
Jeremiah 49:13 where the idea is similarly general; and see Genesis 27:12-13 for the
Pentateuchal use of the word). The word ‘curse’ does not appear in this passage of
Kings as being related specifically to covenant cursing. Rather in 2 Kings 22:19 it is
the inhabitants of Judah who are ‘the curse’. Deuteronomy, in contrast, never uses
‘curse’ in this general way and only ever mentions cursing in connection with the
blessings and cursings of the covenant. The general idea of a people being cursed is
also found in umbers 22:6 onwards. That was how people thought in those days.
It is often said that Josiah obtained the idea of the single Central Sanctuary as the
only place where sacrifices could be offered to YHWH, from the Book of the Law.
But it most be borne in mind 1). that the idea of the Central Sanctuary pervades the
whole of the Pentateuch from Exodus to Deuteronomy (that is what the Tabernacle
was), and 2). that Deuteronomy nowhere expressly forbids the offering of sacrifices
at other places. It simply emphasises the need for a Central Sanctuary at whatever
place YHWH appoints. But this concentration on the Central Sanctuary as the place
where the main sacrifices were to be offered (i.e. the Tabernacle) is undoubtedly
also found throughout Exodus, Leviticus, umbers and Deuteronomy, whilst
nowhere in any of these books is sacrifice limited to the Central Sanctuary alone.
Where the idea arises it is always accepted as being possible at any place where
YHWH chooses to record His ame, (although only at such places), and that is seen
as true from Exodus onwards, for in Exodus it is specifically recognised that YHWH
can ‘record His ame’ (choose) where He wills (Exodus 20:24), and can do it in a
number of places, and that when He does so ‘record His ame’, sacrifices can be
offered there. The Central Sanctuary was simply the supreme place at which He had
recorded His ame (often because the Ark was there - 2 Samuel 6:2 - just as
worship could always be offered wherever the Ark was). All this explains why
Elijah could offer a sacrifice at ‘the altar of YHWH’ which he had re-established on

16. Mount Carmel, an altar presumably seen by him as originally erected where
YHWH had recorded His ame, resulting in a sacrifice that was undoubtedly
acceptable to YHWH without contravening ‘the Book of the Law’.
The fact that ‘the high places’ (bamoth), where false or syncretised worship was
offered, (a worship which was thus tainted by assimilation with local religion), were
to be removed, did not necessarily signify that all places where sacrifices were
offered were illegitimate. The example of Elijah illustrates the fact that as long as
their worship had been kept pure, and it was at a place where YHWH had recorded
His ame, they would be retained. And indeed in a nation as widespread as Israel
was at certain times, such an idea as a sole sanctuary would have grievously limited
the ability of many to worship in between the main feasts, something which Elijah
undoubtedly recognised. What were thus condemned were the high places which
mingled Baalism with Yahwism. Furthermore it should be noted that in the
Pentateuch these ‘high places’, so emphasised in Kings, are only mentioned in
Leviticus 26:30 and umbers 33:52, whilst they are not mentioned at all in
Deuteronomy.
The truth is that Josiah could just as easily have obtained the ideas that he did
concerning the exclusiveness of the Central Sanctuary from the descriptions of the
Central Sanctuary in Exodus to umbers as from Deuteronomy, and it is
noteworthy that in the whole passage in Kings there is not a single citation directly
connecting with Deuteronomy 12. This, combined with the fact that the ‘high places’
(bamoth) which Josiah (and the author) were so set against are not mentioned in
Deuteronomy (in the book of the Law they are mentioned only in Leviticus 26:30;
umbers 33:52) speaks heavily against the idea that he was simply influenced by
Deuteronomy.
All this may be seen as confirmed by earlier references to ‘the Book of the Law’ in a
number of which the whole of the Pentateuch is certainly in mind. In Deuteronomy
it is always called ‘this book of the law’ (Deuteronomy 29:21; Deuteronomy 30:10;
Deuteronomy 31:24-26) and refers to a book written by Moses (or on his behalf by
his secretary Joshua - Deuteronomy 31:24-26). In Joshua 1:8 ‘the Book of the Law’
refers to something available to Joshua which he has available to study. In Joshua
8:31 it is called ‘the Book of the Law of Moses’ and includes specific reference to
Exodus 20:24-26, but it is then immediately called ‘the Book of the Law’ and clearly
includes Deuteronomy with its blessings and cursings (Joshua 8:34). Thus at this
stage it includes both Exodus and Deuteronomy. In Joshua 23:6 it is ‘the Book of the
Law of Moses’, and there it is clear that Exodus is in mind in the command to make
no ‘mention of their gods’ (Exodus 23:13). For the idea of ‘bowing down’ to gods see
Exodus 11:8; Exodus 20:5; Exodus 23:24; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:9. In
Joshua 24:26 it is called ‘the Book of the Law of God’ and a warning is given
against ‘strange gods’. For a mention of such ‘strange gods’ see Genesis 35:2;
Genesis 35:4; Deuteronomy 32:16. It will be noted from this that the whole of the
Law of Moses is called ‘the book’ (not ‘the books’), and that such a book is seen as
including all the books in the Pentateuch.

17. Of course we can rid ourselves of some of this evidence by the simple means of
excising it and calling it an interpolation (after all why keep it in if it spoils my
case?) but such excision is usually only on dogmatic grounds, and not for any other
good reason, and if we use that method arbitrarily nothing can ever be proved.
It would appear therefore that the Book of the Law, whatever it was, cannot be
limited to Deuteronomy (and even less to a part of it). On the other hand it has been
argued that there are certain similarities in the section which some have seen as
definitely pointing to the Book of Deuteronomy. Consider for example the following
references in 2 Kings 22-23;
1). References where the words were spoken by someone:
· ‘the book of the law’ (Hilkiah - 2 Kings 22:8).
· ‘concerning the words of this book that is found’ (Josiah - 2 Kings 22:13).
· ‘the words of this book’ (Josiah - 2 Kings 22:13).
· ‘even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read’ (Huldah -
2 Kings 22:16).
· ‘the words which you have heard’ (Huldah - 2 Kings 22:18).
· ‘as it is written in this book of the covenant’ (Josiah - 2 Kings 23:21).
2) References where the words are the author’s:
· ‘the words of the book of the law’ (2 Kings 22:11).
· ‘all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of
YHWH’ (2 Kings 23:2).
· ‘to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book’ (2
Kings 23:3).
· ‘that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book
that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of YHWH’ (2 Kings 23:24).
These can then be compared with the following references in Deuteronomy:
· ‘a copy of this law in a book’ (Deuteronomy 27:18).
· ‘to keep all the words of this law’ (Deuteronomy 27:19).
· ‘all the words of this law’ (Deuteronomy 27:3).
· ‘confirms not all the words of this law’ (Deuteronomy 27:26).
· ‘all the words of this law that are written in this book’ (Deuteronomy 28:58).
· ‘written in the book of this law’ (Deuteronomy 28:61).
· ‘the words of the covenant’ (Deuteronomy 29:1)
· ‘the words of this covenant’ (Deuteronomy 29:9).
· ‘the covenant that is written in this book of the law’ (Deuteronomy 29:21).
· ‘all the curse that is written in this book’ (Deuteronomy 29:27).
It is true that there are certainly a number of superficial similarities. However, it
will be noted that the greatest similarity between Kings and Deuteronomy lies in the
words used by the author who was, of course, familiar with Deuteronomy. And even
there it could be just a coincidence because in each case a book connected with laws
is in mind. On the other hand the differences will also be noted. Thus Deuteronomy
on the whole emphasises ‘the law’ while Kings on the whole emphasises ‘the book’.

18. Thus the Deuteronomic emphasis is different. We should also note that
Deuteronomy does not refer to ‘the book of the covenant’, whilst both 2 Kings 22-23
and Exodus 24:7 do. Furthermore, if as is probable, much of the content of
Deuteronomy was known to the speakers in Kings (as it was to Jeremiah, and of
course also to the author), what more likely than that they would partly echo its
language in order to demonstrate their point? In so far as it proves anything this
would rather indicate an already wide familiarity with the language of
Deuteronomy, than that ideas had been picked up and reproduced as a result of
hearing an unknown book read once or twice. This is not to deny that Deuteronomy
was possibly a part of what was discovered (we think it probably was), but it is to
argue that it is certainly not proved by the language used. What is being argued is
that the language used points more to the fact that ‘the Book of the Law’ contains at
a minimum a larger portion of the Law of Moses. Indeed in 2 Kings 23:25 it is called
‘all the Law of Moses’.
End of excursus.
The Reign Of Josiah.
It will be noted that, as so often in the book of Kings, we are given little detail of the
king’s reign. All the concentration is rather on the cleansing and restoration of the
Temple, which resulted in the discovery of an ancient copy of the Book of the Law,
the reading and interpreting of which gave impetus to reforms already begun,
indicating that one of the author’s aims was to bring out how everything that was
done (even what was done before it was found) was done in accordance with the
Book of the Law.
As ever the author was not interested in giving us either a chronological or a
detailed history. He was concerned as a prophet to underline certain theological
implications, and the history was called on for that purpose (although without
distorting it) and presented in such a way that it would bring out the idea that he
wanted to convey, which was that Josiah sought to fulfil the Law of YHWH with all
his heart, and that all that he did was in accordance with that Law.
But the details of Josiah’s reforming activities, which are then outlined, clearly
include some which took place before the book was found, if for no other reason
than that the Temple must almost certainly have been ‘cleansed’, at least to some
extent, before it was restored. The whole point behind the preparations that had
taken place for the restoration of the Temple was that there was a totally new
attitude towards YHWH, and it is impossible to think that such an attitude would
not already have ensured the removal of the most patently idolatrous items from the
Temple, especially in view of the waning power and influence of Assyria. (By
Josiah’s eighteenth years Ashur-bani-pal would have been dead some years, and his
successor was far less militarily effective).
or must we assume that the Book of the Law of Moses was unknown prior to this
point. The whole of Judah’s religious life, when at its best, was in fact built on that

19. Law, and its influence had constantly been seen within the history of Israel from
Joshua onwards. Parts of it would undoubtedly regularly have been recited, at least
to the faithful, at the feasts. Furthermore it had previously been promulgated by the
great prophets such as Isaiah, Micah, Amos and Hosea, and it must be seen as
probable that written copies of the Law of Moses were stored in the Temple, both
before the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:24-26; compare Deuteronomy
31:9), and within the Holy Place, and were available for reading within the Temple,
even though (like the Bible has so often been) possibly wholly neglected at certain
times. The point was rather that it had almost ceased to be read, with the result that
what was believed about it had been considerably watered down. (Consider how
many people today believe what they know the Bible’s message, but have never read
it for themselves). The discovery of the ancient copy of the Book of the Law did not
therefore produce a new totally unknown law for the people, but rather it brought
into prominence the old Law and caused it to be read, stripping it of many of its
accretions, and presenting it in a version which was seen as coming directly from the
ancient past, something which would be recognised as giving it new authority
because it was recognised as containing the wisdom of the ancients.
We can visualise the scene as follows:
· Those who were surveying the damage to the structure of the Temple and
assessing what repairwork needed to be carried out, discovered in the foundational
walls of the Temple (possibly in the Most Holy Place) some ancient scrolls.
· On discovering that they were in a script that was difficult to understand,
because ancient, Hilkiah tookone of the scrollsto Shaphan the Scribe (an expert in
ancient and foreign languages) who first himself read it and then took it to the king.
· The scroll contained warnings concerning the wrath of YHWH being visited
on His people if they went astray from His Law (probably from Leviticus 26:28 in
view of the non-mention of cursings), and was read by Shaphan to the king.
· The king then sent a deputation to Huldah the prophetess. This was in order
to enquire about what the current situation was in view of its teaching about the
wrath of YHWH being directed at His people because they had not obeyed the Law
that was written in the book. We should note that it is not said that they took the
book to Huldah (even though up to that point the taking of the book to people had
been emphasised), and in our view the impression given is that she did not herself
see a copy of the book, referring to it rather as the one that had been read by the
king of Judah. It would seem that she recognised what it was from their description
and was already aware of its contents. So the impression given is not that she read
the book, but that she recognised the book that the king had read for what it was.
· Her reply was that, because he was a godly king, that wrath would not be
visited on Judah whilst he was still alive.
· As a result the king brought together a great gathering at which possibly the
whole of the book (presumably now all the scrolls) was read out to the leaders and
the people.
· The king then responded fully from his heart to the covenant of which the
book spoke, and all the people were called on to confirm their response to it.
Having basically considered the initial pattern, which then leads on to a description

20. of the reforms in depth, we must now consider the overall analysis of the section. It
divides up as follows:
Overall Analysis.
a Introduction to Josiah’s Reign (2 Kings 22:1-2).
b The Restoration of the Temple (2 Kings 22:3-12
c The Discovery of the Law Book (2 Kings 22:13).
d The Reply Of Huldah the Prophetess to the King’s Enquiry (2 Kings 22:14-
20).
c The Reading Of The Book of the Law To The People Followed By A
Description Of Josiah’s Reformative Activity And Of The Observance of the
Passover (2 Kings 23:1-23).
b In Spite Of Josiah’s Piety and Activity YHWH Will ot Withdraw His
Wrath From Judah (2 Kings 23:24-27).
a The Closure of His Reign (2 Kings 23:28-30).
ote that in ‘a’ we have the introduction to Josiah’s reign and in the parallel its
cessation. In ‘b’ the repairing of the Temple commences, and in the parallel this is
not sufficient to avert the wrath of YHWH. In ‘c’ the ancient Law Book is
discovered and in the parallel it is read to the people and acted on. Centrally in ‘d’
the prophetess declares that the consequences of YHWH’s wrath are temporarily
suspended but will not finally fail of fulfilment.
Verse 1-2
Introduction to Josiah’s Reign (2 Kings 22:1-2).
Josiah’s reign commences with the usual introductory formula giving his age when
he began to reign, the length of his reign, and the name of the queen mother,
followed by a verdict on his reign, which in this case was exemplary.
2 Kings 22:1
‘Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one
years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of
Bozkath.’
The early assassination of Amon resulted in Josiah coming to the throne at a very
early age, with the result that he was only eight years old when he began to reign,
and he then reigned for thirty one years, dying in battle at the age of thirty nine.
The name of the queen mother, whose status in Judah was seen as very important,
was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah. Jedidah means ‘beloved’. The name Adaiah is
found on seals that have been excavated. Bozkath lay between Lachish and Eglon
(Joshua 15:39). The purpose of the marriage may well have been in order to seal the
relationship between Jerusalem and the border cities in the Shephelah, some of
which like Libnah saw themselves as semi-independent (2 Kings 8:22).
PULPIT, "2 Kings 22:1-7

21. GE ERAL CHARACTER OF JOSIAH'S REIG . His repair of the temple. The
writer begins his account of Josiah's reign with the usual brief summary, giving his
age at his accession, the length of his reign, his mother's name and birthplace (2
Kings 22:1), and the general character of his rule (2 Kings 22:2). He then proceeds
to mention some circumstances connected with the repair of the temple, which
Josiah had taken in hand (2 Kings 22:3-7).
2 Kings 22:1
Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign. So the writer of Chronicles (2
Chronicles 34:1) and Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 10.4. § 1). He must have been born,
therefore, when his father was no more than sixteen years of age, and Amen must
have married when he was only fifteen. And he reigned thirty and one years in
Jerusalem. Probably from B.C. 640 to B.C. 609—a most important period of the
world's history, including, as it does,
And his mother's name was Jedidah—i.e. "Darling"—the daughter of Adaiah of
Boscath. Boscath is mentioned as among the cities of Judah (Joshua 15:39). It lay in
the Shefelah (Joshua 15:33), not far from Lachish and Eglon. The recent explorers
of Palestine identify it with the modern Um-el-Bikar, two miles and a half southeast
of Ajlun (Eglon). (See the 'Map of Western Palestine,' published by Mr. Trelawny
Saunders.)
BI 1-20, "Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign.
A monarch of rare virtue, and a God of retributive justice
I. A monarch of rare virtue. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign.” In this
monarch we discover four distinguished merits.
1. Religiousness of action. “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” We
discover in Josiah—
2. Docility of mind. “It came to pass when the king had heard the words of the book
of the law, that he rent his clothes.” In Josiah we see—
3. Tenderness of heart. See how the discovery of the book affected him. “He rent his
clothes.”
4. Actualisation of conviction. When this discovered document came under Josiah’s
attention, and its import was realised, he was seized with a conviction that he, his
fathers, and his people, had disregarded, and even outraged, the written precepts of
heaven.
II. A God of retributive justice. Such a God the prophetess here reveals. “Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to Me, thus saith the Lord, Behold I will
bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the
book which the king of Judah hath read.” The government over us, and to which we are
bound with chains stronger than adamant, is retributive, it never allows evil to go
unpunished. It links in indissoluble bonds sufferings to sin. Sorrows follow sin by a law

22. as immutable and resistless as the waves follow the moon. “Whatsoever a man soweth
that shall he also reap.” In this retribution
(1) The wicked are treated with severity, and
(2) the good are treated with favour. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Josiah and the Book of the Law
This lesson gives us the account of a remarkable revival of religion which took place
something over six hundred years before the Christian era, under the good reign of the
boy-king Josiah. The history of the progress of the kingdom of God on earth is the
history of revivals. Like the ebb and flow of the tides has his kingdom apparently
advanced and receded, but with this difference, that each spiritual flood-tide has marked
a substantial advance upon any previous flood-tide. Every revival has left the Church
mightier than it ever was before, and has been a prophecy to the world of the time when
“the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” In
matters of religion it had been a period of ebb-tide for many years before our lesson
opens.
I. We learn that the agency God uses in a revival of religion is the agency of men, and
often of a single man. Some one torch must first be kindled. Some one soul must be
quickened. In some one closet the voice of prevailing prayer must be heard. There was
but one voice crying in the wilderness, but it inaugurated the first Christian revival.
There was but one Jonathan Edwards in America, and one John Wesley in England,
when the great revivals in which they were instrumental began; but thousands were
warmed at their fires, and lighted by their torches. Nor is it always a great man
intellectually, or one who wields a wide influence, whom God uses to inaugurate the
revival: it may be some praying mother, some unknown Christian, some uninfluential
brother. As the majestic river rolls onward to the sea, we do not think much of its source,
but only of the broad meadows which it waters, and the whirring factories which it has
set in motion, and the bustling cities to which it bears the white wings of commerce; but,
after all, away back in the hills is a little rivulet which is its source, and back of the rivulet
perhaps a hidden spring on the mountain-side, which no eye has ever seen. Back of every
revival is some hidden spring which has made it possible; and that spring, as likely as
not, is in the chamber of some very humble Christian. That God uses such
instrumentalities, our lesson plainly tells us, for Josiah was but a boy of sixteen when
this revival began. He might well have objected that he was too young and inexperienced
to be the leader in such a reformation. Very likely he had many struggles and misgivings
which are not recorded, but it was God’s way to revive his work under the leadership of a
boy. What, now, let us ask, are the characteristics of a true revival? We must take the
parallel account of this revival which is given in Second Chronicles, as well as the one
given in Kings, into consideration.
1. Taking the two stories together, we learn that one remarkable characteristic was
the destruction of idolatry. When the king was twenty years old, four years after he
“began to seek after God,” we read that “he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem
from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.”
Idols of all descriptions were cut down and ground to dust, and strewn upon the
graves of those who had sacrificed to them. This work of destruction must be well
done before the work of construction can be begun. So, very often, is it in the Church
and the individual heart, before the reviving work of the Holy Spirit can be

23. accomplished. There are false gods which must be deposed; there are sins of long
standing, with deep roots and wide-spreading branches, which must be cut down.
There we have a suggestion of the reason why in many a heart and many a church the
revival work is only partial and incomplete. The uglier idols are cut down, the grosser
sins are abandoned, nevertheless there is some high place especially dear which is
not removed—nevertheless there is a pet sin of envy, jealousy or ill-will, or self-
indulgence, which is spared; and because no thorough work of reform is
accomplished, because the account must needs be qualified by a “nevertheless,” the
soul remains unsaved, the revival fails to come.
2. Another characteristic of this ancient revival and of every true revival was
liberality on the part of the people. There was evidently a large sum of silver collected
for the repair of the temple, for large repairs were needed. True liberality is both a
cause and an effect of a true revival. The beginning of this century was a time of
dearth and languishing in the churches. Infidelity was rampant, and threatened to
sweep everything before it. But, at the same time, the cause of missions, home and
foreign, began to assume proportions they had never known before; the purse-
strings of Christian people were loosened; a revival of charity and money-giving
spread over the land, and revivals of religion, pure and undefiled, followed in quick
and glorious succession. “Is his purse converted?” was frequently a question of one
of John Wesley’s co-labourers when he heard of a rich man who had become a
Christian. It is a question which might be appropriately asked in every revival
season—“Have the purses been converted?”
3. Another characteristic of this ancient revival in Judah seems to have been the
honesty and faithfulness of the people, which extended even to the small details of
life. Money was given, we are told, to the carpenters and builders and masons;
“howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was put into
their hand, because they dealt faithfully.” That is the legitimate effect, always and
everywhere, of a revival of religion; and every revival is spurious that does not tend
to produce this result. The merchant feels it as he measures every yard of cloth, and
weighs every pound of sugar. The carpenter feels its influence as he drives his plane,
the housewife as she wields her broom, the banker as he counts his money, the
schoolboy as he studies his lesson. “Is such and such a man a Christian?”—“I don’t
know; go home and ask his wife,” used to be the answer of a famous religious
teacher.
4. Another characteristic of this old revival about which we are studying to-day was
honour for the house of God. Every true revival has just this characteristic—
reverence, honour for the house of God.
5. Once more: the most striking characteristic of this revival of Josiah’s reign was
honour for the word of God. It hardly seems possible that the “Book of the Law”
could have been utterly lost for years, and that the very remembrance of it should
have become a dim tradition. Then the king gathers together all the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, and reads in their ears all the words which have so awakened him. He
renews his covenant with God; he carries out more completely the work of
reformation which he had begun, destroying every idol, and restoring the worship of
the true God in every part of his domain. It was a wonderful revival; and no
characteristic is so striking as the king’s reverence for, and ready obedience to, the
word of God. But King Josiah is not the only one who has lost the word of God, not
the only one from whom it is buried out of sight, under the dust of years. Though
copies of the law are dropping from the printing press by the million every year,

24. though it lies in all our houses and is read in all our churches, it is a lost book to-day
to thousands, as it was in Josiah’s time, Our very familiarity with it hides it from our
eyes as effectually as the rubbish of the temple hid it from the Jews; and only a
powerful revival of religion can bring it from its hiding-place, and put it in our hands
and in our hearts. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Josiah’s reformation
Josiah was only twenty years of age when he set about a national reformation of religion
as radical and as complete as anything that Martin Luther or John Knox themselves ever
undertook. But with this immense difference. Both Luther and Knox had the whole
Word of God in their hands both to inspire them and to guide them and to sustain them
and to support ‘them in their tremendous task. But Josiah had not one single book or
chapter or verse even of the Word of God in his heathen day. The five Books of Moses
were as completely lost out of the whole land long before Josiah’s day as much so as if
Moses had never lifted a pen. And thus it was that Josiah’s reformation had a
creativeness about it: an originality, an enterprise, and a boldness about it, such that in
all these respects it has completely eclipsed all subsequent reformations and revivals—
the greatest and the best. The truth is, the whole of that immense movement that
resulted in the religious regeneration of Jerusalem and Judah in Josiah day, it all sprang
originally and immediately out of nothing else but Josiah’s extraordinary tenderness of
heart. The Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world shone with
extraordinary clearness in Josiah’s tender heart and open mind. And Josiah walked in
that light and obeyed it, till it became within him an overmastering sense of Divine duty
and an irresistible direction and drawing of the Divine hand. And till he performed a
work for God and for Israel second to no work that has ever been performed under the
greatest and the best of the prophets and kings of Israel combined. It is a very noble
spectacle. (Alex. Whyte, D. D.)
2 Kings 22:2
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.
Josiah an example for young men
Of the young king, whose piety is thus described, it is also said in another place (2Ki_
23:25), “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all
his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might” according to all the law of Moses;
neither after him arose there any like him.
I. The piety of Josiah as illustrative of the power of a good example. “He walked in all the
ways of David his father.” Few influences are more powerful than that of example. The
child imitates his parent; the schoolboy his classmate; the youth his playfellows; and so
on through every stage of life. Note in what recorded actions of Josiah there were marks
of an imitation of David’s example.
1. The first of these in order of time was his attachment to God’s house, and his
devotion to God’s service.
2. His love to the. Word of God. Turn to the narrative in 2Ch_34:14-21. David said of

25. the man who is blessed, that “his delight is in the law of the Lord.” There is no book
more valuable to the young,
3. His reverence for godly men (2Ki_23:15-18). We know enough of David’s life to
recognise in this respect for a man of God an imitation of his example. The servants
are to be revered; to be “esteemed very highly for their works’ sake.” Goodness is
always worthy of regard; and he who does not respect it tells us that he has no
goodness in himself to be respected.
II. The piety of Josiah as illustrative of the strict integrity of godliness. “He turned not
aside to the right hand, nor to the left. The man of the world may turn his creed and
shape his course according to the fashion of the varying hour”; but not the Christian. He
must bear in mind the words of wisdom: “Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine
eyelids look straight before thee.”
1. Josiah was not influenced by the force of ancient custom, when that custom ran
counter to the course pointed out by conscience.
2. He was not influenced by any feeling of false shame. When the book of the law was
found and read before him, he rent his clothes, feeling that he was a sinner.
III. The piety of Josiah illustrates the course of life that ensures Divine approval. “He
did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” It is comparatively easy to pursue a
course that seems right to ourselves, or that may secure the applause of the world. It is a
widely different matter so to live as to ensure the approval and commendation of God.
1. By far the greater part of men seem to live for self. They have no care or
consideration for others. Selfishness is the vilest principle that ever spread in this
world.
2. Others care most about the approval of the world. These are selfish coo. It is
because that applause is gratifying to their selfish vanity. The man who would lick
the dust to secure the favour of a fellow-mortal would sacrifice his dearest friend to
gain.
3. They only are godlike who do and love that which is holy and true; who live not for
themselves, but for others and for God. Application—Have an object in life! Live! Do
not be content with mere existence. Remember, there is but one unfailing condition
of true greatness and that is goodness. (Frederic Walstaff.)
Example for Royalty
There is at the top of the Queen’s staircase in Windsor Castle a statue from the studio of
Baron Triqueti, of Edward VI. marking with his sceptre a passage in the Bible, which he
holds in his left hand, and upon which he earnestly looks. The passage is that concerning
Josiah: “Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and
one years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and
walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the
left.” The statue was erected by the will of the late prince, who intended it to convey to
his son the Divine principles by which the future governor of England should mould his
life and reign on the throne of Great Britain. (T. Hughes.)

26. Traits of youthful religion
1. Josiah began to reign when he was eight years old, and he reigned thirty and one
years in Jerusalem. He ascended the throne when vice had taken deep root in the
people, and national faults had become stereotyped in the Jewish character. His
character and his conduct are exactly those which, judging from reason or historical
experience, we should expect from the freshness and energy of a religious boy. That
character is thus briefly summed, up by Huldah the prophetess: His heart was
tender, his humility was great, he had given a quick and childlike credit to God’s
threats against the sins of the people, and had yielded a ready sympathy with
penitential acts for sins in which he had taken no part, for under God’s threats he
had shed tears, and rent his garments and done his utmost to avert Divine anger. The
acts which illustrate this character are seven in number, and inasmuch as they have a
natural coherence and agreement with each other, I will sum them up. His first work
was to repair the temple, his second to read attentively the newly discovered
Scriptures, till alarmed at the threats against sin, he, thirdly, abased himself openly.
He then commanded the destruction of the idols and priests of Baal, and the
professed profligates of the land. He, fifthly, ordered the public reading of the
Scriptures, he brought out to public notice the remains of God’s saints, and lastly,
proclaimed a public celebration of the Passover. Now these are just the acts of a fresh
and rumple mind, and while many of them are the features of the early days of
religion, which we would fain frequently copy, they are at the same time marks of the
earlier stages of religion, and cannot be expected to exist in its later day. But while
this is the case with regard to the individual character, these will be signs of the early
days of a great religious revival, and will speak as much of the zeal of the social body
as they do of the individual.
2. To reduce these reflections to some practical bearing, the following character is
not uncommon amongst us. A child, a boy, a youth at home, at school, or the
university is under the influence of religious principles; he studies attentively the
Scriptures of God as they are presented to him through the received translations and
interpretations of his day; he follows with earnestness and alacrity a pathway which
he strikes out himself in which he has received his impetus from the wonderful
coincidences of prophecy or the theological questions raised on the subject of faith
and works; he is startled by the mention of the Judgment, and is so keenly sensitive
to the subject, that the sublime awfulness of a thunderstorm, or the congregational
singing of a hymn about the “day of wonders” will awaken the most sensible alarm in
his mind, doter him from a fault, or drive him to an act of devotion and holiness; he
will be so anxious lest he should be guilty of mixing too indiscriminately with the
wicked and those that know not God that he will be inclined to draw far too rigidly
the limits between good and evil, and will be inclined to decide on certain
shibboleths of the world and the worldly minded, which will neither stand the tests
of reason, scripture, or experience. Certain modes of amusement will be rapidly
denounced as sinful which are merely made so by the unguarded or ungracious mind
of him who uses them; and certain places and people are placed under bar and ban,
which have in them no essential evil whatever. In proportion as the mind of such a
youth is fresh in his religious career, he will be painfully conscious of the weight of a
committed sin, and will find the flow of penitential tears spontaneous and natural
Such will be the features of youthful religion, and such wore the features of the
religion of Josiah. There are points in the earlier religion of the child which are ever
to be kept in view through after life; lovely echoes of the sweet voice associated with
the first can of God still sounding round us; as fresh water drops sprinkled with the

27. kindly hand over the dim and dusty picture of the past; dreams of fresh and happy
childhood rousing us to renewed vigour when we wake to the daily strife of life.
(1) And first, a quick and sensitive mind and conscience is to be valued and
loved; if we have lost it, we must strive by all means to rekindle it; if we see it still
existing in another we should do everything to retain, encourage, and preserve it.
(2) The second feature belonging to Josiah in common with youthful religious
characters, is that which I called a deep and sometimes overwrought regard for
the Scriptures of God according to their received translations and
interpretations. It is natural that the young mind should rest with an exclusive
attention on those means of ascertaining the knowledge of its own subject-matter
which fall most objectively before its eye, and least dependently on experience
and deeper philosophic reflection; consequently that means of knowing God’s
will, the written Word, is the one to which it will pay the most unswerving
attention; so much so, as at last to form into a certain idolatry its regard for it;
while to the mind of the advancing man the analogy of God’s providence, the
experience of passing life, the claims of the Church and human authority, the
study of physical nature, and the lives of holy men gone by will afford at least
equivalent grounds of satisfaction, if not deeper than that afforded by the written
Word of God.
(3) But another feature of youthful religion which it is well that we should truly
estimate and not allow to overstep its limits, is the drawing rigid lines between
good and evil men, with a view to radically extirpating the tares from the wheat.
One important practical lesson that we learn in studying such a character as
Josiah’s is that we should look out for and admire certain graces in youth
wherever we see them, but should be by no means discouraged if we find a
comparative lack of them in ourselves. Each age has its own peculiar graces, and
what is lovely and true in the child may become transcendental in the youth, and
unreal in the man. In short, the features of religion are different in different ages.
To one the characteristics belong which I have just described as existing in
Josiah. In another we shall find others, a trust in close self-examination, a
watchful eye on the course of God’s dealing with the soul, and observation of His
providential care and guidance, and of those deep inward visitations and
communings which are so full of encouragement and comfort. In another we
shall see the satisfaction arising from the study of holy men, their lives, their
struggles, and their victories. In another, the strong dependence on the internal
proofs of religion in the analogy of God’s Providence and the power and force of
the moral sense of man. The features of religion will be different in each, and we
must neither force the existence or expression of feelings which, natural to
another age, do not belong to ours, nor on the other hand must we despond if we
do not see in ourselves many of the features which we admire in another. (E.
Monte.)
Early piety
King Josiah, it is said, at eight years feared the Lord. Polycarp, martyred at the age of
ninety-five, declared that he had served God eighty-six years, showing that he was
converted at nine years. It is commonly held that Jeremiah and John the Baptist, who
are spoken of in Scripture as sanctified from their birth, were early children of grace.
Coming down to more modern times it is easy to name many eminent servants of God

28. who began to serve him in childhood, as Baxter, for instance, who said he did not
remember the time when he did not love God and all that was good. Matthew Henry was
converted before eleven. Mrs. Isabel Graham at ten. President Edwards probably at
seven. Dr. Watts at nine. Bishop Hall and Robert Hall at eleven or twelve. (H. C. Fish)
2 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord
and followed completely the ways of his father
David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.
GILL, "And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,.... In the affair
of religious worship especially, as well as in other things:
and walked in all the ways of David his father; in his religious ways, in which he
never departed from his God:
and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; but kept an even, constant,
path of worship and duty, according to the law of God.
HE RY, "II. That he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, 2Ki_22:2. See
the sovereignty of divine grace - the father passed by and left to perish in his sin, the son
a chosen vessel. See the triumphs of that grace - Josiah born of a wicked father, no good
education nor good example given him, but many about him who no doubt advised him
to tread in his father's steps and few that gave him any good counsel, and yet the grace of
God made him an eminent saint, cut him off from the wild olive and grafted him into the
good olive, Rom_11:24. Nothing is too hard for that grace to do. He walked in a good
way, and turned not aside (as some of his predecessors had done who began well) to the
right hand nor to the left. There are errors on both hands, but God kept him in the right
way; he fell neither into superstition nor profaneness.
PETT, "‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and walked in all the
way of David his father, and did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.’
The verdict on his reign was exceptional, for not only did he do what was right in
the eyes of YHWH without reservation (he even removed the high places), but he
also did not turn aside ‘to right or left’ (compare 2 Kings 18:3). In other words he
was unwavering in his faithfulness to YHWH.

29. PULPIT, "And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in
an the way of David his father. This is a stronger expression than any which has
been used of any previous king of Judah except Hezekiah, and indicates a very high
degree of approval. The son of Sirach says of Josiah, "The remembrance of Josias is
like the composition of the perfume that is made by the art of the apothecary: it is
sweet as honey in all mouths, and as music at a banquet of wine. He behaved himself
uprightly in the conversion of the people, and took away the abominations of
iniquity. He directed his heart unto the Lord, and in the time of the ungodly he
established the worship of God. All, except David and Ezekias and Josias, were
defective: for they forsook the Law of the Most High, even the kings of Judah
failed" (see Ecclesiasticus 49:1-4). And turned not aside to the right hand or to the
left; i.e. he never deviated from the right path (comp. Deuteronomy 5:32;
Deuteronomy 17:11, Deuteronomy 17:20; Deuteronomy 28:14; Joshua 1:7; Joshua
23:6).
3 In the eighteenth year of his reign, King Josiah
sent the secretary, Shaphan son of Azaliah, the
son of Meshullam, to the temple of the Lord. He
said:
BAR ES, "In the eighteenth year - This is the date of the finding of the Book of
the Law and of the Passover (marginal reference, and 2Ki_23:23), but is not meant to
apply to all the various reforms of Josiah as related in 2 Kings 23:4-20. The true
chronology of Josiah’s reign is to be learned from 2Ch_34:3-8; 2Ch_35:1. From these
places it appear that at least the greater part of his reforms preceded the finding of the
Book of the Law. He began them in the 12th year of his reign, at the age of 20, and had
accomplishied all, or the greater part, by his 18th year, when the Book of the Law was
found.
Shaphan is mentioned frequently by Jeremiah. He was the father of Ahikam,
Jeremiah’s friend and protector at the court of Jehoiakim Jer_26:24, and the
grandfather of Gedaliah, who was made governor of Judaea by the Babylonians after the
destruction of Jeruslem 2Ki_25:22. Several others of his sons and grandsons were in
favor with the later Jewish kings Jer_29:3; Jer_36:10-12, Jer_36:25; Eze_8:11.
Shaphan’s office was one of great importance, involving very confidential relations with
the king 1Ki_4:3.
GILL, "And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of King Josiah,.... Not of his

30. age, but of his reign, as appears from 2Ch_34:8 nor is what follows the first remarkable
act he did in a religious way; for elsewhere we read of what he did in the eighth and
twelfth years of his reign, 2Ch_34:3,
that the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam the
scribe, to the house of the Lord; the king's secretary; the Septuagint version is, the
scribe of the house of the Lord, and so the Vulgate Latin version; that kept the account of
the expenses of the temple; with him two others were sent, 2Ch_34:8,
HE RY 3-7, "III. That he took care for the repair of the temple. This he did in the
eighteenth year of his reign, 2Ki_22:3. Compare 2Ch_34:8. He began much sooner to
seek the Lord (as appears, 2Ch_34:3), but it is to be feared the work of reformation went
slowly on and met with much opposition, so that he could not effect what he desired and
designed, till his power was thoroughly confirmed. The consideration of the time we
unavoidably lost in our minority should quicken us, when we have come to years, to act
with so much the more vigour in the service of God. Having begun late we have need
work hard. He sent Shaphan, the secretary of state, to Hilkiah the high priest, to take an
account of the money that was collected for this use by the door-keepers (2Ki_22:4); for,
it seems, they took much the same way of raising the money that Joash took, 2Ki_12:9.
When people gave by a little at a time the burden was insensible, and, the contribution
being voluntary, it was not complained of. This money, so collected, he ordered him to
lay out for the repair of the temple, 2Ki_22:5, 2Ki_22:6. And now, it seems, the
workmen (as in the days of Joash) acquitted themselves so well that there was no
reckoning made with them (2Ki_22:7), which is certainly mentioned to the praise of the
workmen, that they gained such a reputation for honesty, but whether to the praise of
those that employed them I know not; a man should count money (we say) after his own
father; it would not have been amiss to have reckoned with the workmen, that others
also might be satisfied of their honesty.
JAMISO 3-4, "2Ki_22:3-7. He provides for the repair of the Temple.
in the eighteenth year of king Josiah — Previous to this period, he had
commenced the work of national reformation. The preliminary steps had been already
taken; not only the builders were employed, but money had been brought by all the
people and received by the Levites at the door, and various other preparations had been
made. But the course of this narrative turns on one interesting incident which happened
in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, and hence that date is specified. In fact the
whole land was thoroughly purified from every object and all traces of idolatry. The king
now addressed himself to the repair and embellishment of the temple and gave
directions to Hilkiah the high priest to take a general survey, in order to ascertain what
was necessary to be done (see on 2Ch_34:8-15).
K&D 3-7, "Repairing of the temple, and discovery of the book of the law (cf. 2Ch_
34:8-18). - When Josiah sent Shaphan the secretary of state (‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּופ‬‫ס‬, see at 2Sa_8:17) into
the temple, in the eighteenth year of his reign, with instructions to Hilkiah the high
priest to pay to the builders the money which had been collected from the people for
repairing the temple by the Levites who kept the door, Hilkiah said to Shaphan, “I have

31. found the book of the law.” 2Ki_22:3-8 form a long period. The apodosis to ‫וגו‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫,ו‬ “it
came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah-the king had sent Shaphan,” etc., does
not follow till 2Ki_22:8 : “that Hilkiah said,” etc. The principal fact which the historian
wished to relate, was the discovery of the book of the law; and the repairing of the
temple is simply mentioned because it was when Shaphan was sent to Hilkiah about the
payment of the money to the builders that the high priest informed the king's secretary
of state of the discovery of the book of the law in the temple, and handed it over to him
to take to the king. ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ח‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ in 2Ki_22:3, forms the commencement to the minor
clauses inserted within the principal clause, and subordinate to it: “the king had sent
Shaphan,” etc. According to 2Ch_34:8, the king had deputed not only Shaphan the
state-secretary, but also Maaseiah the governor of the city and Joach the chancellor,
because the repairing of the temple was not a private affair of the king and the high
priest, but concerned the city generally, and indeed the whole kingdom. In 2Ki_22:4,
2Ki_22:5 there follows the charge given by the king to Shaphan: “Go up to Hilkiah the
high priest, that he may make up the money, ... and hand it over to the workmen
appointed over the house of Jehovah,” etc. ‫ם‬ ֵ ַ‫,י‬ from ‫ם‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ , Hiphil, signifies to finish or set
right, i.e., not pay out (Ges., Dietr.), but make it up for the purpose of paying out,
namely, collect it from the door-keepers, count it, and bind it up in bags (see 2Ki_12:11).
‫ם‬ ֵ ַ‫י‬ is therefore quite appropriate here, and there is no alteration of the text required.
The door-keepers had probably put the money in a chest placed at the entrance, as was
the case at the repairing of the temple in the time of Joash (2Ki_12:10). In 2Ki_22:5 the
Keri ‫הוּ‬ֻ‫נ‬ ְ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ is a bad alteration of the Chethîb ‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ְ‫ת‬ִ‫,י‬ “and give (it) into the hand,” which is
perfectly correct. ‫ה‬ ָ‫אכ‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ּשׁ‬‫ע‬ might denote both the masters and the workmen (builders),
and is therefore defined more precisely first of all by ‫יי‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ְ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ָ‫ק‬ ְ‫פ‬ ֻ ַ‫,ה‬ “who had the
oversight at the house of Jehovah,” i.e., the masters or inspectors of the building, and
secondly by ‫יי‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫,א‬ who were (occupied) at the house of Jehovah, whilst in the
Chronicles it is explained by ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ּשׂ‬‫ע‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫.א‬ The Keri ‫יי‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ is an alteration after 2Ki_22:9,
whereas the combination ‫ית‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ְ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ָ‫ק‬ ְ‫פ‬ ֻ‫מ‬ is justified by the construction of ‫יד‬ ִ‫ק‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫ה‬ c. acc. pers.
and rei in Jer_40:5. The masters are the subject to ‫נוּ‬ ְ ִ‫י‬ְ‫;ו‬ they were to pay the money as
it was wanted, either to the workmen, or for the purchase of materials for repairing the
dilapidations, as is more precisely defined in 2Ki_22:6. Compare 2Ki_12:12-13; and for
2Ki_22:7 compare 2Ki_12:16. The names of the masters or inspectors are given in 2Ch_
34:12. - The execution of the king's command is not specially mentioned, that the
parenthesis may not be spun out any further.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:3-4. In the eighteenth year of King Josiah — ot of his life,
but of his reign, as it is expressed, 2 Chronicles 34:3; 2 Chronicles 34:8. The king
sent Shaphan — The secretary of state; saying, Go up to Hilkiah, that he may sum
the silver — Take an exact account how much it is, and then dispose of it in the
manner following. Which the keepers of the door have gathered — Who were
priests or Levites, 2 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 8:14. It seems, they took much the same
way of raising the money that Joash took, 2 Kings 12:9. The people giving by a little
at a time, the burden was not felt, and giving by voluntary contribution, it was not

32. complained of. This money, so collected, he ordered Hilkiah to lay out for the
repairs of the temple, 2 Kings 22:5-6. And now the workmen, as in the days of
Joash, acquitted themselves so well, that there was no reckoning made with them.
This is certainly mentioned to the praise of the workmen, that they gained such a
reputation for honesty, but whether to the praise of them that employed them may
well be doubted. Many will think it would not have been amiss to have reckoned
with them, had it been only that others might be satisfied.
COFFMA , "The appearance of this paragraph just here was to set the occasion
for the discovery of The Book mentioned in the next verse. The parallel account in 2
Chronicles 34:3-7 indicates that Josiah's reforms had already been going forward
for a number of years. Keil referred to this paragraph as "a parenthesis."[4] "He
began the purging of the temple and of Jerusalem in his twelfth year, six full years
before the events in 2 Kings 22:8, and the repairs on the temple mentioned in 2
Kings 22:9 were probably commenced at the same time."[5] "The greater part of
Josiah's reforms preceded the finding of the Book of the Law."[6]
"Shaphan" (2 Kings 22:3). This man was the father of Jeremiah's friend Ahikam
(Jeremiah 26:24) and the grandfather of Gedaliah, who was made governor of
Judea by the Babylonians after the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:22).
"Hilkiah" (2 Kings 22:4) "was the father, or grandfather, of Seriah ( ehemiah
11:11), High Priest at the time of the captivity, and an ancestor of Ezra the
scribe."[7]
A SPECIAL EXCURSUS O THE BOOK WAS DISCOVERED BY HILKIAH
This writer has long been fully convinced that the fraudulent claims of radical
critics regarding the discovery of what they have dared to call "a portion of the
Book of Deuteronomy," is in no sense whatever supported either by any known fact,
by any text in the Word of God, or by any rational argument whatever:
(1) We shall first review the allegations that have been popular among critics
throughout the first half of this century.
(2) Then we shall cite the writings of some of the greatest scholars of the ages who
have effectively denied the unsupported, imaginary claims.
(3) Then we shall cite some of impossibilities which attend any logical acceptance of
that great critical fraud, comparable in every way with another great scholarly
fraud known as Piltdown Man.
I. A SUMMARY OF FALSE ALLEGATIO S REGARDI G THAT BOOK
In 1936, Edgar J. Goodspeed, writing from that hotbed of atheism, in the University
of Chicago, wrote that, "It was the Book of Deuteronomy, in substance, that was

33. found and put into effect by Josiah in 621 B.C."[8] Thenius alleged that this nucleus
was later "worked up into the Pentateuch."[9]
A great critical scholar named Wette, quoted by Charles G. Martin in The ew
Layman's Bible Commentary, wrote regarding this discovery, that, "It was a pious
fraud planted by priests wishing to reform the abuses of Manasseh's reign."[10]
This of course (if true) makes the entire Book of 2Kings nothing but a falsehood!
"It was the early critical view that the book which was found was the so-called `D'
document (probably Deuteronomy 12-26) which had been recently written (Snaith
placed the date of its being written as during the period of Manasseh's evil reign,
and before his conversion),[11] and was `found' to give it prestige"![12] LaSor
added that, "Radical scholars have so often modified this view that little remains of
the original theory."[13]
Dentan expressed another erroneous view of "that book." "It converted Josiah's
rather superficial attempt at national renewal into a basic reformation."[14] This is
contrary to the fact that the reformation had already been in progress for six years!
In addition to the outright charges of fraud and hypocrisy by the high priest, and by
that alleged "Prophetical Party" that manipulated the discovery of that "pious
fraud," there are also some BASIC ASSUMPTIO S of the radical, destructive
critics which must be included as part of their foolish and erroneous allegations!
A. It is ASSUMED that the Holy Books of Moses which had existed from the times
of the Exodus were either non-existent, or totally forgotten by the entire Jewish
nation. This canard limits the reforms of Josiah to that alleged "D" document. As a
matter of fact, the suppression of the idolatrous priests, a key factor in the
reformation is not even mentioned in Deuteronomy! The reforms of Josiah were
influenced by only, "Limited stipulations in the Book of Deuteronomy."[15]
B. It is a part of the evil theory that what is now known as the Law of Moses was
unknown by Josiah, and that his knowledge of it was LIMITED to that imaginary
"D" document. All of those reforms which had been in progress for six years were
following instructions already known to all in the Law of Moses. The so-called "D"
document, and for that matter, even the whole Book of Deuteronomy had but little
to do with the reformation.
C. It is SUPPOSED that Josiah's inquiry of Huldah was for the purpose of learning
whether or not that "D" document was really God's Word or not. On the contrary,
that was, in no sense, the request he made of Huldah, as definitely indicated by
Huldah's prophetic answer.
D. It is ASSUMED that the Jewish people had no way of knowing whether or not
that "D" document was inspired or not, except by the testimony of Huldah. There
were, on the contrary, many proofs available to expose the fraud of that discovery, if
it had been a fraud.

34. E. Josiah's reformation is treated as if it were SOMETHI G BRA D EW in
Judah, which it was not!
F. It is FALSELY SUPPOSED that Josiah regarded that alleged "D" document as a
new thing, but such a view is contrary to repeated statements in Kings.
G. "The general agreement is that `the scroll discovered contained the nucleus of the
present Book of Deuteronomy' (Deuteronomy 12-26)."[16] This CO CEIT among
critical scholars is rather amazing, because it is so blatantly incorrect. There is O
SUCH GE ERAL AGREEME T, not even among the critics themselves who issue
a new revision of their crooked theory every few years, every time some new
seminarian sees the foolishness of it and attempts to revise it to fit the facts. Also the
great scholars of the present generation have rejected the theory outright!
The general statements that we have made here with reference to this "D"
document theory will now be pinpointed with specific findings of some of the great
scholars of the past and of our own generation.
II. SCHOLARLY REFUTATIO OF THE "D" DOCUME T THEORY
Josephus, the great Jewish historian, appealed to frequently by the radical critics,
but rejected when his writings contradict their theories, tells us exactly what was
discovered by those workmen in the temple. "As the High Priest was bringing out
the gold, he lighted upon the Holy Books of Moses that were laid up in the temple;
and he gave them to Shaphan the scribe, who when he had read them, he brought
them to the king, and informed him that all the work he had commanded had been
finished."[17] (1) The "discovery" was at the end of the period of repairing the
temple. (2) The scribe read the books before presenting them to the king, and that
enabled him to focus upon certain pertinent passages which he then read to king
Josiah. ow the odds against Josephus being wrong about any of this are a billion to
one!
"I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah" (2 Kings 22:8) The
testimony of the Word of God as we have received it is emphatic. C. F. Keil,
certainly the equal or superior, of any scholar of the last century, wrote that, "The
Hebrew word here rendered `THE BOOK OF THE LAW' (not `a law book' or `a
scroll') cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the
Mosaic Book of the Law, the Pentateuch, which is so designated, as is generally
admitted, and as the word is used throughout the Chronicles and in Ezra and
ehemiah."[18] If one will not receive the testimony of Josephus, let him receive the
testimony of the Word of God.
"The book of the law that was found was simply the temple copy of the Pentateuch,
deposited by the side of the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26)."[19] This
copy had either been misplaced, or, as is most likely, hidden during the abominable
reigns of Mannasseh and Amon. There is no valid reason whatever for rejecting the

35. opinion of Adam Clarke that, "The simple fact seems to be this, that this was the
original book of the covenant renewed by Moses on the plains of Moab, and which
the Great Lawgiver ordered to be laid up beside the ark of the covenant
(Deuteronomy 31:26)."[20] Clarke defended this viewpoint on the basis that the
remarkable attention paid to the "discovery" can be explained only on the basis of:
"(1) the unexpectedness of its being found; (2) its manifest antiquity; (3) the glorious
historical occasion of its having been made and placed in the tabernacle by Moses
himself; (4) the deplorable circumstances in which God's people found themselves;
and (5) the happy coincidence of such a discovery being made during that great
reformation under Josiah which was still in progress."[21] It seems to this writer
that such considerations as these, alone could have produced the effect that surely
followed the discovery. The ridiculous notion that some unheard of "brand new
scroll," however cleverly forged and imposed upon the king as genuine, could
possibly explain what happened here is rationally untenable.
We shall now review the basic assumptions that are necessarily a part of this false
theory, those that are mentioned under the alphabetical sections above.
(A) It is not only untrue, but PREPOSTEROUS TO SUPPOSE that there were no
copies of the Torah (the Pentateuch) extant in Judah in the days of Josiah. "All of
the Jewish liturgies used in the daily services in the temple embodied large sections
of the Law of Moses; the Samaritans (adjacent to Judah) possessed the Samaritan
Pentateuch; there were doubtless many copies throughout Judah found among
learned and devout Jews, and in the schools of the prophets, either in fragments or
entire sections and books; furthermore, there were nearly innumerable quotations
of the Pentateuch found throughout the entire literature of ancient Israel, notably in
the Psalms and in the writings of both the major prophets and the minor prophets,
in which direct quotations from the Books of Moses are found on almost every
page"![22] All of the Pentateuch is represented in those quotations.
In this connection, this writer would also like to testify that there is hardly a page in
any of the prophets, or in the Psalms, which does not reflect either direct or indirect
quotations from the Torah (all of it). All the infidels on earth cannot hide the fact
that the entire O.T. following the Pentateuch is written in the shadow of it, as
attested by almost innumerable references to it, and we have cited literally hundreds
of these in our commentaries on those books.
(B) The FALSE THEORY that Josiah's reforms were founded on that ALLEGED
"D" document is disproved by the facts that: (1) Manasseh himself had undertaken
to effect such reforms and bring all the people back to Jehovah (2 Chronicles
33:14ff), basing such reforms on the Torah which certainly existed when he did so.
(2) Likewise, Jehoash repaired the temple and instituted reforms founded upon the
same source, namely the Torah (2 Kings 12ff). One of the great things that Josiah
did was to suppress the idolatrous priests (2 Kings 23:5), and that is not even
mentioned in Deuteronomy. Thus, it is clear that no "D" document had anything to
do with his reforms, nor for that matter, in any exclusive sense, the whole Book of
Deuteronomy!

36. (C) On the ALLEGATIO of the critics that Josiah inquired of Huldah as to the
validity of those Holy Books of Moses found in the temple, the answer of Huldah
denies such an opinion altogether. Regarding this, we submit the words of Dr.
Harold Stigers, in Covenant College and Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
He paraphrased the king's inquiry of Huldah thus, "Go find out if these eminent
judgments can be stayed."[23]
That this is indeed what king Josiah inquired of Huldah is evident in her reply
which addressed exactly that question and none other. There was never any
question in anybody's mind regarding the authenticity of the Holy Books of Moses,
their antiquity alone was all the proof needed. Some nine centuries had passed since
Moses had ordered those books to be deposited beside the ark of God; but the fact
of their being so long preserved is not a problem. Today, we may read the Dead Sea
Scrolls, after more than two millenniums. Besides that, new copies might have been
prepared and deposited in later times following Moses' death.
(D) The notion that the Jews had no way of evaluating the "discovery" as to its
authenticity or not, except by an appeal to Huldah overlooks completely the
THOROUGH K OWLEDGE of the Jews of their sacred writings. As apparently
assumed by the critical enemies of our text, the Jews were a nation of ignoramuses
who could have been easily imposed upon and deceived by such a dirty little fraud
as what underlies their fairy-tale theory. This writer cannot believe a word of it. The
knowledge and intellectual ability of the great prophets known throughout Israel
during that very period, namely, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the others, constituted the
intellectual cream of that entire seventh century. The critics have over-reached
themselves in this worthless theory!
(E) We have already noted that Josiah's reformation was exactly the SAME kind of
reform as that improperly carried out by Jehoahaz, Hezekiah, and even by
Manasseh.
(F) It is ASSUMED by critics that Josiah considered that alleged "D" document as
SOMETHI G EW, but note these words:
"King Josiah said, Our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to
do according to all that is written concerning us (2 Kings 22:13). This says, in tones
of thunder, that Josiah recognized that "discovery" as something the fathers had
possessed for ages and that they had disobeyed its commandments. It takes some
kind of a fantastic imagination to get some "brand new document," and a forged
one at that, out of the sacred words recorded here.
III. SOME IMPOSSIBILITIES THAT FORBID ACCEPTA CE OF THIS GREAT
CRITICAL FRAUD
This writer prays that his readers will not feel that the severe charges here leveled
against false critics is in any sense uncharitable. It is not this writer who initiated

37. the charges of fraud. It is THEY, the unbelieving radical critics, who charge
Hilkiah, the High Priest of Israel, with fraud in pretending to have found a true
book when he K EW it was false! They also accuse the whole of what they call
"The Prophetical Party" with FRAUD A D COMPLICITY in a wicked deception
in passing off a book that they themselves had recently written as an authentic,
inspired document written by Moses himself. One may take his choice, whether the
noblest men of all antiquity were guilty of a base and crooked deception, or if these
Johnny-come-lately critics, nearly three thousand years after the events related, are
the ones most likely guilty of fraud! As far as this writer is concerned, the decision is
quite simple. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).
And speaking of harsh, uncharitable judgments, take a glance at what the advocates
of this crooked theory have alleged against the prophetess Huldah.
Do they allow this prophetess the honor due her? Certainly not! Their theory makes
a PERFECT DU CE out of her! They ALLEGE that, when she was consulted
regarding that document, she ERRO EOUSLY accepted it as genuine. However, as
a matter of fact, any of God's true prophets (or prophetesses) would have instantly
recognized any kind of fraud or deception. The inherent slander of this wicked
theory is exceedingly broad, including alike the prophetic community, the High
Priest of Judah and the prophetess Huldah. Advocates of such slanders against the
holiest persons of that generation are themselves the fraudulent slanderers. Satan
himself must have been the author of this despicable theory!
Of course, the gargantuan deception attempted by the radical, destructive critics,
has required countless fraudulent allegations and charges which have only a single
purpose, namely, the support of their theory. Hundreds of valid passages are "cast
out" by them as interpolations, editorial opinions, later accretions, the false words
of some mythical "Deuteronomist," or upon any other false excuse, without any
evidence whatever to support such deletions. The impossibility of any intelligent
acceptance of all such changes in the Sacred Text forbids the attribution of any
credibility whatever to the theory.
And then there's another impossibility, known as the Dating Fraud. Every sacred
predictive prophecy of the Holy Bible is either rationalized or denominated as a
"post eventum" passage, written long after the event prophesied. Any high school
student can easily understand the colossal fraud of such false dating. The examples
of this fraud are very numerous, but we shall cite only the fact before us, namely,
the false dating of the Pentateuch in the seventh century or the sixth century B.C.
instead of the fifteenth century B.C. The only reason for such a false date being their
evil efforts to DE Y the prophetic predictions of the holy prophets. (See Vol. 1
(Genesis) of my series of commentaries on the Pentateuch, pp. 18-22, for the true
date of the Pentateuch.)
This writer is not willing to allow any man to do a scissors-and-paste job on the
Holy Scriptures and then receive their efforts as having any validity whatever! A
good rule for Christian Bible students is to treat all late-dating of Biblical books,

38. and the vast majority of alleged "interpolations" as fraudulent efforts to support
some false theory. Genuine scholarship is appreciated and has made exceedingly
valuable contributions to our knowledge of the Bible, but true believers must be
able to separate the chaff from the wheat!
ELLICOTT, "(3) In the eighteenth year.—See the otes on 2 Chronicles 34:3, seq.
The discourses of Jeremiah, who began his prophetic ministry in the thirteenth year
of Josiah, to which Thenius refers as incomprehensible on the assumption that
idolatry was extirpated throughout the country in the twelfth year of this king,
would be quite reconcilable even with that assumption, which, however, it is not
necessary to make, as is shown in the otes on Chronicles. Josiah did not succeed,
any more than Hezekiah, in rooting out the spirit of apostasy. (See Jeremiah 2:1;
Jeremiah 4:2). The young king was, no doubt influenced for good by the discourses
of Jeremiah and Zephaniah; but it is not easy to account for his heeding the
prophetic teachings, considering that, as the grandson of a Manasseh and the son of
an Amon he must have been brought up under precisely opposite influences
(Thenius).
The king sent Shaphan . . . the scribe.—Chronicles mentions beside Maaseiah, the
governor of the city, and Joah the recorder. Thenius pronounces these personages
fictitious, because (1) only the scribe is mentioned in 2 Kings 12:10 (?); (2) Joshua
was the then governor of the city (but this is not quite clear: the Joshua of 2 Kings
23:8 may have been a former governor; or, as Maaseiah and Joshua are very much
alike in Hebrew, one name may be a corruption of the other); (3) Maaseiah seems to
have been manufactured out of the Asahiah of 2 Kings 22:12 (but Asahiah is
mentioned as a distinct person in 2 Chronicles 34:20); and (4) Joah the recorder
seems to have been borrowed from 2 Kings 18:18 (as if anything could be inferred
from a recurrence of the same name; and that probably in the same family !). Upon
such a basis of mere conjecture, the inference is raised that the chronicler invented
these names, in order “to give a colour of genuine history to his narrative.” It is
obvious to reply that Shaphan only is mentioned here, as the chief man in the
business. (Comp, also 2 Kings 18:17; 2 Kings 19:8).
Go up to Hilkiah the priest.—The account of the repair of the Temple under Josiah
naturally resembles that of the same proceeding under Joash (2 Kings 12:10, seq.)
More than 200 years had since elapsed, so that the fabric might well stand in need of
repair, apart from the defacements which it had undergone at the hands of
heathenish princes (2 Chronicles 34:2). The text does not say that the repair of the
Temple had been “longtemps négligée par l’incurie des prêtres” (Reuss),
Hilkiah.—See 1 Chronicles 6:13 for this high priest. He is a different person from
Hilkiah, the father of Jeremiah, who was a priest, but not high priest (Jeremiah 1:1).
That he may sum—i.e., make up, ascertain the amount of . . . The LXX. reads, seal
up ( σφράγισον), which implies a Hebrew verb, of which that in the present Hebrew
text might be a corruption.

39. Which the keepers of the door.—See the otes on 2 Kings 12:9; 2 Kings 12:11-12, as
to the contents of this and the next verse.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 22:3-7) Josiah tells Hilkiah to repair the temple.
ow it came to pass, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king sent
Shaphan the scribe, the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the house of the
LORD, saying: “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may count the money
which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the doorkeepers have
gathered from the people. And let them deliver it into the hand of those doing the
work, who are the overseers in the house of the LORD let them give it to those who
are in the house of the LORD doing the work, to repair the damages of the house; to
carpenters and builders and masons; and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair
the house. However there need be no accounting made with them of the money
delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully.”
a. In the eighteenth year of King Josiah: According to 2 Chronicles 34, this repair of
the temple was preceded by a definite commitment to God when Josiah was 16, then
some four years later an iconoclastic purge attacking idolatry in Judah.
i. “The Chronicler (2 Chronicles chapters 34-35) appears to present a two-stage
sequence of events: (i) the purification of religious practices in Judah, Jerusalem
and aphtali in Josiah’s twelfth year, and (ii) a continuing reformation stimulated
by the discovery of the Book of the Law in the eighteenth year. But this may be a
presentation to fit in with the Chronciler’s particular emphases.” (Wiseman)
ii. “If Josiah had not yet seen a copy of this book, (which is not impossible,) yet there
was so much of the law left in the minds and memories of the people, as might easily
persuade and direct him to all that he did till this time.” (Poole)
iii. It is possible that Josiah was motivated to rebuild the temple after hearing (or
remembering) that this was what King Jehoash did many years before (2 Kings 12).
b. Let them give it to those who are in the house of the LORD doing the work, to
repair the damages of the house: Josiah understood that the work of repair and
rebuilding the temple needed organization and funding. He paid attention to both of
these needs when he commanded Hilkiah to begin the work on the temple.
i. According to Jeremiah 1:1-2. the Prophet Jeremiah was the son of this particular
priest Hilkiah. Jeremiah began his ministry during the reign of King Josah.
ISBET, "A MEMORABLE YEAR
‘The eighteenth year of king Josiah.’
2 Kings 22:3-20

40. Josiah mounted the throne when he was eight years old. He was the son of Amon
and the grandson of Manasseh, both of them evil rulers who had forgotten God. It is
therefore all the more surprising and delightful to light on the tender heart of this
young king. It was to Jedidah that he owed everything, under God. Where Boscath
(her ancestral city) stood, we do not know. It was a town somewhere near the
Philistine border. But it is not there that we must seek her monument. It is in the
character and work of King Josiah.
I. Josiah had given his heart to God.—He had sought God early, and according to
His promise had found Him. His religion began in the home of his own soul, but a
religion that begins there, cannot stop there. Josiah looked out on the people God
had given him. His father’s lineaments seemed stamped upon them. They called
themselves the servants of Jehovah, yet how corrupt and how debased they were!
Men were still worshipping the host of heaven. Fathers were offering their children
to the fire-god. Altars still smoked with sacrifices to Baal. Idolatrous things still
stood in the Temple Court. Josiah had a mighty task before him. He had cleansed
his heart—could he ever cleanse his land? I think it shows the earnestness of the
king that he began resolutely with what was in his power. If he could not call his
people back to God, at least he could repair the House of God. The Temple had
fallen into sad disrepair since Joash had renewed it two hundred years ago. So
Josiah set to work upon the Temple. Let him begin there, and greater things will
follow. We find him paying the carpenters and masons, and God was to pay him
back a thousandfold. Do we not need to learn that lesson still? Are we not often
tempted to do nothing, simply because there is so much to do? Josiah teaches us that
the road to victory begins in doing what we can do, to-day. As ewman sings—
When obstacles and trials seem
Like prison-walls to be,
I do the little I can do,
And leave the rest to Thee.
Josiah could at least employ the carpenters, and the covenant was nearer than he
thought.
II. What was it that made reformation possible?—What was it that breathed a new
spirit through the land, and brought the people back to God again? It was the
discovery by the high priest Hilkiah of an old volume in the House of God. Hilkiah
had his heart in the right place; he was eagerly seconding Josiah’s efforts, and he
too, like Josiah, doing what he could, did a great deal more than he had ever
dreamed of. Can you not picture him busy in the Temple, helping to clear out the
dusty rooms? Can you not see him, in some neglected corner, lighting upon that old
and discoloured parchment? He opened it with a scholar’s curiosity. In that moment
he forgot all his cleaning work. I don’t think a man’s heart ever throbbed so
violently at the chance discovery of some rare old tome as did Hilkiah’s in that
memorable hour. He had discovered the lost law-book of Jehovah. It was in
substance our Book of Deuteronomy. It was the voice of Jehovah speaking to the
age. It was the very message that the times required. The land might mock at
Jeremiah’s threatenings; but here was a message that would convince the

41. stubbornest.
III. The book was found, then, and passed on to the king.—Shaphan the scribe read
it before the throne. And as Josiah listened to its awful judgments, hurled at the sin
with which his land was seething, a great fear seized upon his kingly heart. Was
there no hope? Might not God stay His anger? It might be well to consult the
prophets about that. But the case was urgent, and Jeremiah was not living in the
city; was there no interpreter of God within the walls? The thoughts of the council
turn at once to Huldah, an aged saint who dwelt in the lower town. How men would
stare, and how the women would talk as the embassy went hurrying through the
streets! How many a worshipper at the street-corner shrines would have his hand
arrested as the envoys passed! Something had happened. The city grew
apprehensive. Uneasy consciences are quick to take alarm. Then the trumpet
sounded a rally to the Temple. The people crowded up the slope at its summons.
There stood the king, touched by a greater Presence. In his hand was the book that
had been found. He read it all to them, with what passion you may guess. There and
then he made a covenant with God. And the people, struck by a common fear,
moved by a common impulse, feeling the majesty and jealous love of God as they
had never felt it in their lives before, turned from their sin to serve their great
Deliverer, and entered into covenant with Him.
Illustrations
(1) ‘John ewton was very wild and wicked when he was young. But his mother also
was Jedidah—“beloved,” and when he became a Christian he used to say this. He
used to say, “Even when I was very wild, I could never forget my mother’s soft
hand. When going to do something wicked, I could always feel her soft hand on my
head. If thousands of miles away from her, I could not forget that.” Without
question it was so with young Josiah.’
(2) ‘A Bible found in the monastery of Erfurt had an incalculable influence on
Luther. A pedlar’s tract, brought to his father’s door, was the means of the
conversion of Richard Baxter. The accidental discovery of a little volume on an old
soldier’s window-head at Simprin gave new spiritual life to Thomas Boston, and
through Boston to thousands over Scotland. Surely (as Wordsworth writes in the
“Excursion”) God is
A Being
Whose everlasting purposes embrace
All accidents, converting them to good.’
PETT, "Verses 3-7
Instructions Concerning The Restoration of the Temple (2 Kings 22:3-7).
In view of its connection with the Temple these instructions would have been
entered in the royal annals (compare 2 Kings 12:4-5). The entering up in some detail

42. of such information about temples was a regular feature of official annals, for
temples and their maintenance were seen as being of great importance to the
stability of the royal house. Indeed the kings saw themselves as reigning on behalf of
the gods, and as responsible for their houses. The similarity of wording with 2 Kings
12:11-15 (where it is not, however, in the words of the king) can be explained in one
of two ways. The first possibility is that Josiah, with the restoration in view, had
read the earlier annals and based his words on them. The second is that the
prophetic author himself based the wording in 2 Kings 12:11-15, concerning the
earlier restoration, on the words of Josiah here. Either is possible.
The fact that sufficient silver had been gathered for the restoration, something
which would have taken months if not years to do, indicates that the reforms had
already been in progress for some time. That was why the silver had been collected.
Furthermore there can really be no doubt that before proceeding with this repair
work, the Temple itself would have been ‘cleansed’ by the removal of major
objectionable items such as the Asherah mentioned in 2 Kings 23:6. This would
especially be so as by this time Ashur-bani-pal of Assyria had been dead for some
years (his death occurring somewhere between 633 and 626 BC), and he had in fact
not troubled Palestine in his later years, being taken up with both warfare elsewhere
and antiquarian interests. Thus his death in itself would have signalled the
possibility of removing the hated Assyrian gods from the Temple, even if that had
not occurred previously, something which would have had the support of the
majority of the people. That the reforms had commenced six years previously as the
Chronicler states is therefore simply confirmation of what is already obvious (2
Chronicles 34:3). But it is not mentioned here because the author of Kings was not
so much interested in when the reforms started as on concentrating on the details of
the finding of the Book of the Law.
Analysis.
a And it came about in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent
Shaphan, the son of Azaliah the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of
YHWH, saying, “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which
is brought into the house of YHWH, which the keepers of the threshold have
gathered of the people” (2 Kings 22:3-4)
b “And let them deliver it into the hand of the workmen who have the
oversight of the house of YHWH, and let them give it to the workmen who are in the
house of YHWH, to repair the breaches of the house, to the carpenters, and to the
builders, and to the masons, and for buying timber and hewn stone to repair the
house” (2 Kings 22:5-6).
a However, there was no reckoning made with them of the silver which was
delivered into their hand, for they dealt faithfully (2 Kings 22:7).
ote that in ‘a’ the amount of ‘silver’ was to be weighed up, and in the parallel no
reckoning was to be made of it by the workers. Centrally in ‘b’ it had to be given to
the workmen for the carrying out of the restoration work.
2 Kings 22:3

43. ‘And it came about in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent
Shaphan, the son of Azaliah the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of
YHWH, saying,’
This would have been in about 622 BC, some years after the death of Ashur-bani-
pal, and three years after Babylonia had finally freed themselves from the Assyrian
yoke. Thus it came at a time of decidedly waning Assyrian power (in fact within ten
years the Assyrian empire would be on the verge of extinction). The eighteenth year
is mentioned, not because it was the date of the commencement of the reforms, but
as the date when serious repair work began on the restoration of the Temple itself
after years of preparation, work which resulted in the law book being discovered
within the Temple structure, a discovery which would have caused huge excitement
as the emergence of something coming from the distant past. It would give a new
impetus to what was already going on.
Shaphan (‘rock badger’) the scribe was Josiah’s official go-between, and one of the
highest officials in the land (compare 2 Kings 18:18); 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Kings 4:3).
He was called on by the king to convey his official instructions in respect of the
actual repair work on the Temple. The Chronicler tells us that he was accompanied
by the governor of the city and the recorder. The deputation was thus seen as of the
highest importance.
PULPIT, "And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of King Josiah. The writer of
Kings, bent on abbreviating as much as possible, omits the early reforms of Josiah,
which are related in 2 Chronicles 34:3-7, with perhaps some anticipation of what
happened later. The young king gave marked indications of personal piety and
attachment to true religion as early as the eighth year of his reign, when he was
sixteen, and had just attained his majority. Later, in his twelfth year, he began the
purging of the temple and of Jerusalem, at the same time probably commencing the
repairs spoken of in 2 Chronicles 34:9. Jeremiah's prophesying, begun in the same
or in the next year (Jeremiah 1:2), must have been a powerful assistance to his
reformation. That the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam,
the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying. Shaphan held the office, which Shebna
had held in the later part of Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:18), an office of much
importance and dignity. According to the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:8),
there were associated with him on this occasion two other personages of importance,
viz. Maaseiah, the governor of the city, and Joah the son of Joahaz, the "recorder,"
or "remembrancer."
4 “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest and have him
get ready the money that has been brought into

44. the temple of the Lord, which the doorkeepers
have collected from the people.
BAR ES, "Hilkiah - Hilkiah was the father (or grandfather) of Seraiah (compare
1Ch_6:13-14, with Neh_11:11), high priest at the time of the captivity 2Ki_25:18. and
ancestor of Ezra the scribe Ezr_7:1.
It is evident from the expressions of this verse that a collection for the repairs of the
temple, similar to that established in the reign of Joash 2Ki_12:9-10, had been for some
considerable time in progress (compare 2Ch_34:3), and the king now sent to know the
result.
CLARKE, "That he may sum the silver - As Josiah began to seek the Lord as
soon as he began to reign, we may naturally conclude that the worship of God that was
neglected and suppressed by his father, was immediately restored; and the people began
their accustomed offerings to the temple. Ten years therefore had elapsed since these
offerings began; no one had, as yet, taken account of them; nor were they applied to the
use for which they were given, viz., the repairing the breaches of the temple.
GILL, "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest,.... Who had an apartment in the temple;
there was an Hilkiah, a priest, in those times, who was the father of Jeremiah the
prophet, Jer_1:1, whom an Arabic writer (l) takes to be the same with this; but it is not
likely:
that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord which
the people voluntarily offered for the repairing of it; this he would have the priest take an
account of, that the sum total might be known; his meaning is, that he should take it out
of the chest in which it was put, and count it, that it might be known what it amounted
to; see 2Ki_12:9, some understand this of melting and coining the silver thus given
which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: who were Levites,
2Ch_34:9, either porters of the door, or rather the treasurers, as the Targum; the
keepers of the vessels of the sanctuary, that had the care of them, as the Jewish
commentators generally interpret it.
PETT, "2 Kings 22:4-5
“Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into
the house of YHWH, which the keepers of the threshold have gathered of the
people, and let them deliver it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight
of the house of YHWH, and let them give it to the workmen who are in the house of
YHWH, to repair the breaches of the house,’

45. The instructions were necessarily passed on to the leading priest at the Temple. The
title ‘high priest’ occurs in 2 Kings 12:10; Leviticus 21:10; umbers 35:25; umbers
35:28; Joshua 20:6. Such a status is also mentioned at Ugarit, and most nations had
‘high priests’, so that Israel would have been an oddity not to have had one.
ormally, however, in Israel/Judah he was called simply ‘the Priest’, but here he
was being given his formal official title in an important communication.
Hilkiah was being called on to weigh and ‘sum up’ the ‘silver’ (possibly by turning
it into ingots. There were no official coins in those days) which had been gathered
for the purpose of the repair work, and had been brought into the house of YHWH.
The ‘keepers of the threshold’ were high Temple officials (in terms of ew
Testament days ‘chief priests’) who were responsible to ensure the sanctity of the
Temple by excluding from it any unauthorised persons. Their post would make
them ideal for the collecting of gifts to the Temple, and watching over them. Hilkiah,
having assessed the value of the gifts, was then to call on the keepers of the
threshhold to deliver the silver into the hands of the workmen who had oversight of
the house of YHWH, in our terms the priestly architects and structural engineers.
They in their turn were to arrange for the work to be done by organised priestly
workmen set apart for the work and were to pay over the silver accordingly. This
work would be performed by suitably trained priests. The aim was to ‘repair the
breaches in the house’, in other words to carry out needed building repairs to the
decaying and neglected building.
PULPIT, "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest. Hilkiah is mentioned again in the
genealogy of Ezra (Ezra 7:1). He is there called "the son of Shallum." That he may
sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord. A collection must have
been progressing for some time. As in the reign of Joash, after the impieties and
idolatry of Athaliah, it was found necessary to collect money for the repair of the
temple (2 Kings 12:4-14), so now, after the wicked doings of Manasseh and Amen, a
renovation of the sacred building was required, and the money needed was being
raised by a collection. Great care was taken in all such cases that an exact account
should be kept and rendered. Which the keepers of the door—literally, of the
threshold—have gathered of the people. The money had, apparently, been allowed
to accumulate in a box or boxes (see 2 Kings 12:9), from the time when the collection
was first authorized, probably six years previously. The high priest was now
required to count it, to take the sum of it, and undertake the distribution.
5 Have them entrust it to the men appointed to
supervise the work on the temple. And have these
men pay the workers who repair the temple of the

46. Lord—
BAR ES, "See the marginal reference. The “doers” of the first part of the verse are
the contractors, or overseers, who undertook the general superintendence; they are to be
distinguished from a lower class of “doers,” the actual laborers, carpenters, and masons
of the latter portion of the verse.
Which is in the house of the Lord - Rather, “who are,” etc.; i. e., the persons who
were actually employed in the temple.
GILL, "And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work,
that have the oversight of the house of the Lord,.... That were overseers of the
workmen, whose names are mentioned, 2Ch_34:12 into their hands the money was to be
delivered by the high priest, when he had taken the account of it, and perhaps along with
the king's scribe, see 2Ki_12:10,
and let them give it to the doers of the work, which is in the house of the
Lord, to repair the breaches of the house as their wages for their work; it seems it
had not been repaired from the times of Jehoash, a space of two hundred and eighteen
years, according to the Jewish chronology (m); but Kimchi and Abarbinel make it two
hundred and twenty four.
PULPIT, "And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have
the oversight of the house of the Lord. The "doers that have the oversight" are not
the actual workmen, but the superintendents or overseers of the workmen, who
hired them, looked after them, and paid them. And let them give it to the doers of
the work which is in the house of the Lord—let the overseers, i.e; give out the money
to the actual workmen, the carpenters, etc; of the next verse—to repair the breaches
of the house; rather, the dilapidation of the house. It is not implied that any violence
had been used, such as is required to make a "breach." The "house" had simply
been allowed to fall into disrepair.
6 the carpenters, the builders and the masons.
Also have them purchase timber and dressed
stone to repair the temple.

47. GILL, "Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons,.... Who were employed,
some in mending the woodwork, and others in repairing the stone walls
and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house; not only money was to
be given them for their workmanship, but to buy timber and stone to work with.
PETT, "‘To the carpenters, and to the builders, and to the masons, and for buying
timber and hewn stone to repair the house.’
The silver was to be both paid to the specialist workmen, and to the merchants who
would provide the timber and hewn stone for the repair of the house. The need for
hewn stone (hewn away from the Temple area in accordance with measurements
taken) emphasises the poor state at that time of the Temple structure. Compare here
2 Kings 12:11-12.
PULPIT, "Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber, and hewn
stone to repair the house. The money had to be expended, partly in labor, partly in
materials. The materials consisted of both wood and stone, since it was of these that
Solomon's temple had been built (see 1 Kings 5:18; 1 Kings 6:7, 1 Kings 6:9, 1 Kings
6:10, 1 Kings 6:15, 1 Kings 6:36).
7 But they need not account for the money
entrusted to them, because they are honest in
their dealings.”
BAR ES, "They dealt faithfully - Compare the marginal reference. The names of
these honest overseers are given in Chronicles 2Ch_34:12.
GILL, "Howbeit, there was no reckoning made with them of the money that
was delivered into their hand,.... No account was kept between the high priest, and
the king's scribe who delivered the money and the overseers of the workmen, who
received it from them the latter were not called to any account by the former, nor any
audit made of their accounts:

48. because they dealt faithfully: they were persons of such known honour and
integrity, that their fidelity was not in the least called in question, but were trusted
without examining their accounts, and how they disposed of the money committed to
them, see 2Ki_12:15.
ELLICOTT, "(7) Howbeit there was.—Only let there be. The words of 2 Kings
22:6-7 are part of the royal mandate.
That was delivered . . . they dealt.—That is given . . . they deal. In 2 Kings 12:14; 2
Kings 12:16 the same construction is used in a different sense. (See the otes there.)
PETT, "‘However, there was no reckoning made with them of the money which was
delivered into their hand, for they dealt faithfully.’
The honesty of those involved was considered to be such that it was felt unnecessary
to call for an account of how the silver was spent. Comparison with 2 Kings 12:15
suggests that this was regularly a recognised part of any such contract. To have
taken up any other position would seemingly have been seen as insulting to the
priest-workmen. Such an attitude was only really possible in times of ‘revival’ when
there was a new spirit of dedication around.
PULPIT, "Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was
delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully. The superintendents or
overseers were persons of position, in whom full confidence was placed. Their
names are given in 2 Chronicles 34:12. They were, all of them, Levites.
8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the
secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in
the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan,
who read it.
BAR ES, "Some have concluded from this discovery, either that no “book of the law”
had ever existed before, the work now said to have been “found” having been forged for
the occasion by Hilkiah; or that all knowledge of the old “book” had been lost, and that a
work of unknown date and authorship having been at this time found was accepted as
the Law of Moses on account of its contents, and has thus come down to us under his

49. name. But this is to see in the narrative far more than it naturally implies. If Hilkiah had
been bold enough and wicked enough to forge, or if he had been foolish enough to accept
hastily as the real “book of the law” a composition of which he really knew nothing, there
were four means of detecting his error or his fraud:
(1) The Jewish Liturgies, which embodied large portions of the Law;
(2) The memory of living men, which in many instances may have extended to the
entire five books, as it does now with the modern Samaritans;
(3) Other copies, entire or fragmentary, existing among the more learned Jews, or in
the Schools of the prophets; and
(4) Quotations from the Law in other works, especially in the Psalmists and prophets,
who refer to it on almost every page.
The copy of the Book of the Law found by Hilkiah was no doubt that deposited, in
accordance with the command of God, by Moses, by the side of the ark of the covenant,
and kept ordinarily in the holy of holies (marginal reference). It had been lost, or
secreted, during the desecration of the temple by Manasseh, but had not been removed
out of the temple building.
CLARKE, "I have found the book of the law - Was this the autograph of Moses?
It is very probable that it was, for in the parallel place; 2Ch_34:14, it is said to be the
book of the law of the Lord by Moses. It is supposed to be that part of Deuteronomy (28,
29, 30, and 31), which contains the renewing of the covenant in the plains of Moab, and
which contains the most terrible invectives against the corrupters of God’s word and
worship.
The rabbins say that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon endeavored to destroy all the copies
of the law, and this only was saved by having been buried under a paving-stone. It is
scarcely reasonable to suppose that this was the only copy of the law that was found in
Judea; for even if we grant that Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon had endeavored to destroy
all the books of the law, yet they could not have succeeded so as to destroy the whole.
Besides, Manasseh endeavored after his conversion to restore every part of the Divine
worship, and in this he could have done nothing without the Pentateuch; and the
succeeding reign of Amon was too short to give him opportunity to undo every thing that
his penitent father had reformed. Add to all these considerations, that in the time of
Jehoshaphat teaching from the law was universal in the land, for he set on foot an
itinerant ministry, in order to instruct the people fully: for “he sent to his princes to
teach in the cities of Judah; and with them he sent Levites and priests; and they went
about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people, having the book of the Lord
with them;” see 2Ch_17:7-9. And if there be any thing wanting to show the improbability
of the thing, it must be this, that the transactions mentioned here took place in the
eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, who had, from the time he came to the throne,
employed himself in the restoration of the pure worship of God; and it is not likely that
during these eighteen years he was without a copy of the Pentateuch. The simple fact
seems to be this, that this was the original of the covenant renewed by Moses with the
people in the plains of Moab, and which he ordered to be laid up beside the ark; (Deu_
31:26); and now being unexpectedly found, its antiquity, the occasion of its being made,
the present circumstances of the people, the imperfect state in which the reformation
was as yet, after all that had been done, would all concur to produce the effect here
mentioned on the mind of the pious Josiah.

50. GILL, "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe,.... Not at the
first time of his message to him, but afterwards that he attended on him upon the same
business; after the high priest had examined the temple to know what repairs it wanted,
and where:
I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord; some think this was
only the book of Deuteronomy, and some only some part of that; rather the whole
Pentateuch, and that not a copy of it, but the very autograph of Moses, written with his
own hand, as it seems from 2Ch_34:14. Some say he found it in the holy of holies, on the
side of the ark; there it was put originally; but, indeed, had it been there, he might have
found it before, and must have seen it, since, as high priest, he entered there once every
year; more probably some pious predecessor of his had taken it from thence in a time of
general corruption, as in the reign of Manasseh, and hid it in some private place, under a
lay of stones, as Jarchi, in some hole in the wall, which upon search about repairs was
found there:
and Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it; and though there might
be some copies of it in private hands, yet scarce; and perhaps Shaphan had never seen
one, at least a perfect one, or however had never read it through, as now he did.
HE RY 8-10, "IV. That, in repairing the temple, the book of the law was happily
found and brought to the king, 2Ki_22:8, 2Ki_22:10. Some think this book was the
autograph, or original manuscript, of the five books of Moses, under his own hand;
others think it was only an ancient and authentic copy. Most likely it was that which, by
the command of Moses, was laid up in the most holy place, Deu_31:24, etc. 1. It seems,
this book of the law was lost or missing. Perhaps it was carelessly mislaid and neglected,
thrown by into a corner (as some throw their Bibles), by those that knew not the value of
it, and forgotten there; or it was maliciously concealed by some of the idolatrous kings,
or their agents, who were restrained by the providence of God or their own consciences
from burning and destroying it, but buried it, in hopes it would never see the light again;
or, as some think, it was carefully laid up by some of its friends, lest it should fall into the
hands of its enemies. Whoever were the instruments of its preservation, we ought to
acknowledge the hand of God in it. If this was the only authentic copy of the Pentateuch
then in being, which had (as I may say) so narrow a turn for its life and was so near
perishing, I wonder the hearts of all good people did not tremble for that sacred
treasure, as Eli's for the ark, and I am sure we now have reason to thank God, upon our
knees, for that happy providence by which Hilkiah found this book at this time, found it
when he sought it not, Isa_65:1. If the holy scriptures had not been of God, they would
not have been in being at this day; God's care of the Bible is a plain indication of his
interest in it. 2. Whether this was the only authentic copy in being or no, it seems the
things contained in it were new both to the king himself and to the high priest; for the
king, upon the reading of it, rent his clothes. We have reason to think that neither the
command for the king's writing a copy of the law, nor that for the public reading of the
law every seventh year (Deu_17:18; Deu_31:10, Deu_31:11), had been observed for a
long time; and when the instituted means of keeping up religion are neglected religion
itself will soon go to decay. Yet, on the other hand, if the book of the law was lost, it
seems difficult to determine what rule Josiah went by in doing that which was right in
the sight of the Lord, and how the priests and people kept up the rites of their religion. I
am apt to think that the people generally took up with abstracts of the law, like our
abridgements of the statutes, which the priests, to save themselves the trouble of writing
and the people of reading the book at large, had furnished them with - a sort of ritual,

51. directing them in the observances of their religion, but leaving out what they thought fit,
and particularly the promises and threatenings (Lev. 26 and Deu. 28, etc.), for I observe
that these were the portions of the law which Josiah was so much affected with (2Ki_
22:13), for these were new to him. No summaries, extracts, or collections, out of the
Bible (though they may have their use) can be effectual to convey and preserve the
knowledge of God and his will like the Bible itself. It was no marvel that the people were
so corrupt when the book of the law was such a scarce thing among them; where that
vision is not the people perish. Those that endeavoured to debauch them no doubt used
all the arts they could to get that book out of their hands. The church of Rome could not
keep up the use of images but by forbidding the use of the scripture. 3. It was a great
instance of God's favour, and a token for good to Josiah and his people, that the book of
the law was thus seasonably brought to light, to direct and quicken that blessed
reformation which Josiah had begun. It is a sign that God has mercy in store for a people
when he magnifies his law among them and makes that honourable, and furnishes them
with means for the increase of scripture-knowledge. The translating of the scriptures
into vulgar tongues was the glory, strength, and joy of the Reformation from Popery. It is
observable that they were about a good work, repairing the temple, when they found the
book of the law. Those that do their duty according to their knowledge shall have their
knowledge increased. To him that hath shall be given. The book of the law was an
abundant recompence for all their care and cost about the repair of the temple. 4.
Hilkiah the priest was exceedingly well pleased with the discovery. “O,” says he to
Shaphan, “rejoice with me, for I have found the book of the law, heurēka, heurēka, - I
have found, I have found, that jewel of inestimable value. Here, carry it to the king; it is
the richest jewel of his crown. Read it before him. He walks in the way of David his
father, and, if he be like him, he will love the book of the law and bid that welcome; that
will be his delight and his counsellor.”
JAMISO 8-11, "2Ki_22:8-15. Hilkiah finds the Book of the Law.
Hilkiah said ... I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord,
etc. — that is, the law of Moses, the Pentateuch. It was the temple copy which, had been
laid (Deu_31:25, Deu_31:26) beside the ark in the most holy place. During the ungodly
reigns of Manasseh and Amon - or perhaps under Ahaz, when the temple itself had been
profaned by idols, and the ark also (2Ch_35:3) removed from its site; it was somehow
lost, and was now found again during the repair of the temple [Keil]. Delivered by
Hilkiah the discoverer to Shaphan the scribe [2Ki_22:8], it was by the latter shown and
read to the king. It is thought, with great probability, that the passage read to the king,
and by which the royal mind was so greatly excited, was a portion of Deuteronomy, the
twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth chapters, in which is recorded a renewal of
the national covenant, and an enumeration of the terrible threats and curses denounced
against all who violated the law, whether prince or people. The impressions of grief and
terror which the reading produced on the mind of Josiah have seemed to many
unaccountable. But, as it is certain from the extensive and familiar knowledge displayed
by the prophets, that there were numbers of other copies in popular circulation, the king
must have known its sacred contents in some degree. But he might have been a stranger
to the passage read him, or the reading of it might, in the peculiar circumstances, have
found a way to his heart in a manner that he never felt before. His strong faith in the
divine word, and his painful consciousness that the woeful and long-continued
apostasies of the nation had exposed them to the infliction of the judgments denounced,

52. must have come with overwhelming force on the heart of so pious a prince.
K&D, "Hilkiah the high priest (cf. 2Ch_34:15) said, “I have found the book of the law
in the house of Jehovah.” ‫ה‬ ָ‫ּור‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ‫,ס‬ the book of the law (not a law-book or a roll of laws),
cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of
the law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the
Chronicles, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
(Note: Thenius has correctly observed, that “the expression shows very clearly,
that the allusion is to something already known, not to anything that had come to
light for the first time;” but is he greatly mistaken when, notwithstanding this, he
supposes that what we are to understand by this is merely a collection of the
commandments and ordinances of Moses, which had been worked up in the
Pentateuch, and more especially in Deuteronomy. For there is not the smallest proof
whatever that any such collection of commandments and ordinances of Moses, or, as
Bertheau supposes, the collection of Mosaic law contained in the three middle books
of the Pentateuch, or Deuteronomy 1-28 (according to Vaihinger, Reuss, and others),
was ever called ‫התורה‬ ‫,ספר‬ or that any such portions had had an independent
existence, and had been deposited in the temple. These hypotheses are simply bound
up with the attacks made upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and ought
to be given up, since De Wette, the great leader of the attack upon the genuineness of
the Pentateuch, in §162a of the later editions of his Introduction to the Old
Testament, admits that the account before us contains the first certain trace of the
existence of our present Pentateuch. The only loophole left to modern criticism,
therefore, is that Hilkiah forged the book of the law discovered by him under the
name of Moses, - a conclusion which can only be arrived at by distorting the words of
the text in the most arbitrary manner, turning “find” into “forge,” but which is
obliged either to ignore or forcibly to set aside all the historical evident of the
previous existence of the whole of the Pentateuch, including Deuteronomy.)
The finding of the book of the law in the temple presupposes that the copy deposited
there had come to light. But it by no means follows from this, that before its discovery
there were no copies in the hands of the priests and prophets. The book of the law that
was found was simply the temple copy,
(Note: Whether the original written by Moses' own hand, as Grotius inferred from
the ‫משה‬ ‫ביד‬ of the Chronicles, or a later copy of this, is a very superfluous question;
for, as Hävernick says, “even in the latter case it was to be regarded just in the same
light as the autograph, having just the same claims, since the temple repaired by
Josiah was the temple of Solomon still.”)
deposited, according to Deu_31:26, by the side of the ark of the covenant, which had
been lost under the idolatrous kings Manasseh and Amon, and came to light again now
that the temple was being repaired. We cannot learn, either from the account before us,
or from the words of the Chronicles (2Ch_34:14), “when they were taking out the money
brought into the house of Jehovah, Hilkiah found the book of the law of the Lord,” in
what part of the temple it had hitherto lain; and this is of no importance so far as the
principal object of the history is concerned. Even the words of the Chronicles simply
point out the occasion on which the book was discovered, and do not affirm that it had
been lying in one of the treasure-chambers of the temple, as Josephus says. The

53. expression ‫הוּ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ ַ‫ו‬ does not imply that Shaphan read the whole book through
immediately.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:8. I have found the book of the law — This is generally
agreed to have been the archetype written by Moses, and by him ordered to be
deposited with the ark in the most holy place; but which some pious high- priest had
caused to be thus hid in the reign of Ahaz or Manasseh, to prevent its being
destroyed with the other copies of it; for it plainly appears, by the tenor of the
history, that there were few, if any others, left. But it is much disputed, whether it
was the whole Pentateuch, emphatically called ‫תורה‬ ‫,ה‬ he torah, the law, or only
Deuteronomy, or even barely the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st chapters of that book.
Josephus, by calling it the sacred books of Moses, seems to declare entirely for the
former; as do far the greater number of Jews and Christians. If it be asked how
Shaphan, reading to the king, could run over those five books so quickly as to come
presently to the blessings and curses; it may be answered, that as their manner was
to write upon volumes of a considerable length, which were rolled up round one or
two sticks, it might so happen, that these last chapters proved to be on the outside,
and that the king, impatient to know the contents of it, might desire to have them
read before he had unfolded a round or two. Or we may suppose, with the Jews,
that Providence directed him to that very part. Something like this we find
happened under the gospel, Luke 4:17 ; Acts 18:28, &c. What appears most
surprising is, that all the copies of the Scriptures, which the good King Hezekiah
seems to have caused to be written and dispersed about the kingdom, (see Proverbs
25:1,) should be so soon vanished, that neither Josiah nor the high-priest had ever
seen any of them till this one was brought to light. All that can be said in this case is,
that Manasseh, during the former part of his reign, had made such a havoc of them,
that if there were any left, they were only in a few private hands, who preserved
them with the utmost caution and secrecy. See Dodd. and Univ. Hist. What a
providence was this, that this book of the law was still preserved! And what a
providence it is that the whole book of God is preserved to us! If the Holy Scriptures
had not been of God, they would not have been in being at this day. God’s care of
the Bible is a plain proof of his interest in it. We may observe further here, it was a
great instance of God’s favour, and a token for good to Josiah and his people, that
the book of the law was thus seasonably brought to light, to direct and quicken that
blessed reformation which Josiah had begun. It is a sign God has mercy in store for
a people, when he magnifies his law among them, and makes that honourable, and
furnishes them with the means of increasing in Scripture knowledge. The
translating of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongues was the glory, strength, and joy
of the reformation from popery. And now, (in the year 1811,) the plans laid, and, in
a great degree, carried into execution, by the British and Foreign Bible Society, to
translate the Scriptures into the vernacular language of every nation upon earth,
and to give them to every kindred, and tongue, and people, is at once the honour
and the happiness of the present age, and will form one of the most glorious eras of
the British empire. It is worthy of observation also, that Josiah and his people were
engaged in a good work, namely, repairing the temple, when they found the book of

54. the law. They that do their duty according to their knowledge, shall have their
knowledge increased. To him that hath shall be given. The book of the law was an
abundant recompense for all their care and cost in repairing the temple.
COFFMA , "Much of this paragraph was discussed in the excursus above, but two
or three things should be emphasized. It is especially important to note that before
the scribe read that book to the king, he first read the whole book himself (see the
comment by Josephus above), enabling him to read only selected, special portions of
it to the king. That this is true appears from Josiah's response and from his message
to the prophetess. This effectively refutes the conclusion of radical critics who make
what they call the brief time indicated for the reading the book the false basis of
their judging the size of it to be very, very small. "Shaphan read only portions of the
book to the king."[24] This conclusion is mandatory, "Because, where the author
intended to say that the whole book was read, he used a different set of words
altogether: `The king read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant (2
Kings 23:2)."[25] Such was not said here.
"Go ye, inquire of Jehovah for me" (2 Kings 22:13). "From the times of Moses to
David, inquiring of the Lord was by means of the Urim and Thummin; but after
David's time, such inquiries were always made by the consultation of a
prophet."[26] Jeremiah and other prophets were contemporary with Josiah, and it
seems strange that Huldah, the prophetess hitherto unknown, was the person
through whom the inquiry was made. As Dentan said, "This is a useful reminder of
the truth that posterity often has a more accurate judgment of a man's importance
than do his contemporaries."[27] A more likely explanation, however, is that
Huldah lived in Jerusalem (which is here stated), whereas Jeremiah lived in
Anathoth.
It should be noted especially that Josiah's inquiry had nothing whatever to do with
whether or not "the book" was authentic; there could have been no doubt whatever
in any person's mind about that. The question in Josiah's mind regarded whether or
not the great curses and penalties foretold by the prophet Moses as the consequence
of Israel's apostasy were due for an immediate fulfillment. Huldah's answer
indicated that she understood exactly that as the king's question.
COKE, ". I have found the book of the law— This is generally agreed to have been
the archetype written by Moses, and by him ordered to be deposited with the ark, in
the most holy place, but which some pious high-priest had caused to be thus hid in
the reign of Ahaz or Manasseh, to prevent its being destroyed with all the other
copies of it; for it plainly appears by the tenour of the history, that this was the only
perfect one left. But it is much disputed, whether it was the whole Pentateuch,
emphatically called ‫התורה‬ hattorah, the law, or only Deuteronomy, or even barely
the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st chapters of it. Josephus, by calling it "the sacred
books of Moses," seems to declare entirely for the former; others have declared for
the latter, because the book of Deuteronomy is a kind of repetition or epitome of the

55. Mosaic law. Calmet, among some others, holds the last of these three opinions, and
thinks that nothing more is meant here than that short luminary which is found in
the above-mentioned chapters of that book, in which are contained all the blessings
and curses that so alarmed the pious monarch. But if either this short epitome, or
even the whole Deuteronomy, was all that the high-priest found hid in the temple,
when was the rest of the Pentateuch recovered? If it be said, that there might be
some copies of this last still extant, then this luminary must have been in it; and it
would be surprising that some one or more should not have been brought to so good
a king, after he had given such signal proofs of his piety and zeal; and if any such
had been presented to him, he must be supposed to have neglected the reading of it,
or he could never have been under such surprize and fear at the reading of that
which the high-priest sent to him. We therefore think, with the far greater number
of Jews and Christians, that it was the whole Pentateuch; and that there might be
still several imperfect and mutilated copies dispersed here and there, which might
be now rectified by this prototype, after it was thus brought to light. If it be asked,
how the king could run over those five books so quickly as to come presently to the
blessings and curses; it may be answered, that as their manner was to write upon
volumes of a considerable length, which were rolled up round one or two sticks, it
might so happen, that these last chapters were on the outside; and that the king,
impatient to know the contents of it, might have curiosity to read in it, before he had
unfolded a round or two. We are, however, very far from rejecting the notion of the
Jews, who believe that Providence directed him to that very part. Something like
this we find happened under the Gospel, Luke 4:17. Acts 8:28; Acts 8:40. What
appears most surprising is, that all the copies of the Scripture, which the good king
Hezekiah seems to have caused to be written and dispersed about the kingdom, (see
Proverbs 25:1.) should have so soon vanished, that neither Josiah, nor the high-
priest, had ever seen any of them till this one was brought to light. All that can be
said in this case is, that Manasseh, during the former part of his reign, had made
such havock of them, that if there were any left, they were only in a few private
hands, who preserved them with the utmost caution and secrecy. See the Universal
History.
REFLECTIO S.—One merciful respite more is given to idolatrous Judah; another
good king, to prove them, if yet they will bring forth fruit, before the axe is laid to
the root of the tree.
1. Though Josiah was very young, but eight years of age, when he came to the
crown, he gave very early symptoms of uncommon piety, and all his days the fruit
answered the promising blossoms. ote; Early piety is peculiarly pleasing and
promising.
2. As soon as he was fit to take the reins of government into his own hand, he began
to reform the interrupted worship, and repair the decayed temple of God. early
the same method seems to be taken, as in the days of Joash, chap. 12: to collect the
money, and the same integrity appears in the persons employed. ote; They who
delight in the temple-service, may be trusted for their fidelity and honesty in the
repairs of it.

56. 3. In the repairs of the temple, the book of the law was happily found, generally
supposed to be the very copy, Deuteronomy 31:26 that Moses laid up in the most
holy place. ote; (1.) The preservation of the inspired writings through so many
ages, and amidst so many enemies, is a standing witness to their divine authority.
(2.) When God's word is thrust into a corner, unnoticed by, or cruelly withheld from
the people, no marvel that iniquity abounds. (3.) They who have never read through
all the book of God, know not how much it contains to make them tremble, or how
much to comfort them: and yet how many christians, yea, protestants, are thus
negligent, and never once in their lives read God's word entire!
4. Hilkiah, having first read the book himself to Shaphan, desires him to convey it to
the king, and read it in his ears, as it contained matters so deeply and nearly
affecting him. ote; (1.) Reading their Bibles, is among the best employments in
which kings can be engaged. (2.) They are inexcusable, who have this sacred book in
their hands, and continue wilfully ignorant of its contents.
ELLICOTT, "(8) I have found.—Literally, the book of the Torah have I found. The
definite form of the expression proves that what the high priest found was
something already known; it was not a book, but the book of the Law. How little the
critics are agreed as to the precise character and contents of the book in question is
well shown by Thenius: “ either the entire then existing Scripture (Sebastian
Schmidt), nor the Pentateuch (Josephus, Clericus, Von Lengerke, Keil, Bähr,) nor
the ordered collection of Mosaic laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and umbers
(Bertheau), nor the book of Exodus (Gramberg), nor the book of Deuteronomy
(Reuss, Ewald, Hitzig) is to be understood by this expression. All these must have
been brought into their present shape at a later time. What is meant is a collection of
the statutes and ordinances of Moses, which has been worked up (verarbeitet) in the
Pentateuch, and especially in Deuteronomy. This work is referred to by Jeremiah
(Jeremiah 11:1-17),and was called “The Book of the Covenant” (2 Kings 23:2).
According to 2 Chronicles 17:9 it already existed in the time of Jehoshaphat (comp.
2 Kings 11:12, “the Testimony”); was probably preserved in the Ark (Deuteronomy
31:26), along with which in the reign of Manasseh it was put on one side. When after
half a century of disuse it was found again by the high priest in going through the
chambers of the Temple with a view to the intended repairs, in the Ark which,
though cast aside, was still kept in the Temple, it appeared like something new,
because it had been wholly forgotten (for a time), so that Shaphan could say:
‘Hilkiah has given me a book’ (2 Kings 22:10).” (See also the otes on 2 Chronicles
34:14.)
And he read it.—Thenius thinks that this indicates that the book was of no great
size, as Shaphan made his report to the king immediately after the execution of his
commission (2 Kings 22:9). But neither does 2 Kings 22:9 say immediately, nor does
this phrase necessarily mean that Shaphan read the book through.

57. EBC, "JOSIAH’S REFORMATIO
2 Kings 22:8-20;, 2 Kings 23:1-25
"And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart full of
godliness."
- #/RAPC 1 Esdras 1:23
"From Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
- Isaiah 2:3
IT is from the Prophets-Zephaniah, Jeremiah, ahum, Habakkuk, Ezekiel-that we
catch almost our sole glimpses of the vast world-movements of the nations which
must have loomed large on the minds of the King of Judah and of all earnest
politicians in that day. As they did not directly affect the destiny of Judah till the
end of the reign, they do not interest the historian of the Kings or the latter
Chronicler. The things which rendered the reign memorable in their eyes were
chiefly two-the finding of "the Book of the Law" in the House of the Lord, and the
consequent religious reformation.
It is with the first of these two events that we must deal in the present chapter.
Josiah began to reign as a child of eight, and it may be that the emphatic and
honorable mention of his mother-Jedidah ("Beloved"), daughter of Adaiah of
Boscath-may be due to the fact that he owed to her training that early proclivity to
faithfulness which earns for him the unique testimony, that he not only "walked in
the way of David his father," but that "he turned not aside to the right hand or to
the left."
At first, of course, as a mere child, he could take no very active steps. The
Chronicler says that at sixteen he began to show his devotion, and at twenty set
himself the task of purging Judah and Jerusalem from the taint of idols. Things
were in a bad condition, as we see from the bitter complaints and denunciations of
Zephaniah and Jeremiah. Idolatry of the worst description was still openly
tolerated. But Josiah was supported by a band of able and faithful advisers.
Shaphan, grandfather of the unhappy Gedaliah-afterwards the Chaldaean viceroy
over conquered Judah-was scribe; Hilkiah, the son of Shallum and the ancestor of
Ezra, was the high priest. By them the king was assisted, first in the obliteration of
the prevalent emblems of idolatry, and then in the purification of the Temple. Two
centuries and a half had elapsed since it had been last repaired by Joash, and it
must have needed serious restoration during long years of neglect in the reigns of
Ahaz, of Manasseh, and of Amon. Subscriptions were collected from the people by
"the keepers of the door," and were freely entrusted to the workmen and their
overseers, who employed them faithfully in the objects for which they were
designed.

58. The repairs led to an event of momentous influence on the future time. During the
cleansing of the Temple Hilkiah came to Shaphan, and said, "I have found the Book
of the Law in the House of the Lord." Perhaps the copy of the book had been placed
by some priest’s hand beside the Ark, and had been discovered during the removal
of the rubbish which neglect had there accumulated. Shaphan read the book; and
when next he had to see the king to tell him about the progress of the repairs, he
said to him, "Hilkiah the priest hath handed me a book." Josiah bade him read
some of it aloud. It is evident that he read the curses contained in Deuteronomy
28:1-68. They horrified the pious monarch; for all that they contained, and the laws
to which they were appended, were wholly new to him. He might well be amazed
that a code so solemn, and purporting to have emanated from Moses, should, in
spite of maledictions so fearful, have become an absolute dead letter. In deep alarm
he sent the priest, the scribe Shapbah, with his son Ahikam, and Abdon, the son of
Micaiah, and Asahiah, a court official, to inquire of Jehovah, whose great anger
could not but be kindled against king and people by the obliteration and nullity of
His law. They consulted Huldah, the only prophetess mentioned in the Old
Testament, except Miriam and Deborah. She was the wife of Shaltum and keeper of
the priests’ robes, {Exodus 28:2, etc.} and she lived in the suburbs of the city. Her
answer was an uncompromising menace. All the curses which the king had heard
against the place and people should be pitilessly fulfilled, -only, as the king had
showed a tender heart, and had humbled himself before Jehovah, he should go to
his own grave in peace.
Thereupon the king summoned to the Temple a great assembly of priests, prophets,
and all the people, and, standing by the pillar (or "on the platform") in the entrance
of the inner court, read "all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been
found in the House of the Lord" in their ears, and joined with them in "the
covenant" to obey the hitherto unknown or totally forgotten laws which were
inculcated in the newly discovered volume.
Immediate action followed. The priests were ordered to bring out of the Temple all
the vessels made for Baal, for the Asherah, and for the host of heaven; they were
burnt outside Jerusalem in the Valley of Kedron, and their ashes taken to Bethel.
The chemarim of the high places were suppressed, as well as all other idolatrous
priests who burnt incense to the signs of the Zodaic, the Hyades, and the heavenly
bodies. The Asherah itself was taken out of the Temple, and it is truly amazing that
we should find it there so late in Josiah’s reign. He burnt it in the Kedron, stamped
it to powder, and scattered the powder "on the graves of the common people." The
Chronicler says "on the graves of them that had sacrificed" to the idols-but this is
an inexplicable statement, since it is (as Professor Lumby says) very improbable that
idolaters had a separate burial-place. It is equally shocking, and to us
incomprehensible, to read that the houses of the degraded Qedeshim still stood, not
"by the Temple" (A.V), but "in the Temple," and that in these houses, or chambers
the women still "wove embroideries for the Asherah." What was Hilkiah doing? If
the priests of the high places were so guilty from Geba to Beersheba, did no
responsibility attach to the high priest and other priests of the Temple who

59. permitted the existence of these enormities not only in the bamoth at the city gates,
but in the very courts of the mountain of the Lord’s House? If the priests of the
immemorial shrines were degraded from their prerogatives, and were not allowed to
come up to the altar of Jehovah in Jerusalem, by what law of justice were they to be
regarded as so immeasurably inferior to the highest members of their own order,
who, for years together, had permitted the worship of a wooden phallic emblem, and
the existence of the worst heathen abominations within the very Temple of the
Lord? Every honest reader must admit that there are inexplicable difficulties and
uncertainties in these ancient histories, and that our knowledge of the exact
circumstances-especially in all that regards the priests and Levites who, in the
Chronicles, are their own ecclesiastical historians-must remain extremely imperfect.
And what can be meant by the clause that the degraded priests of the old high
places, though they were not allowed to serve at the great altar, yet "did eat of the
unleavened bread among their brethren"? Unleavened bread was only eaten at the
Passover; and when there was a Passover, was eaten by all alike. Perhaps the
reading for "unleavened bread" should be (priestly) "portions"-a reading found by
Geiger in an old manuscript.
Continuing his work, Josiah defiled Tophet; took away the horses given by the kings
of Judah to the sun, which were stabled beside the chamber of the eunuch athan-
Melech in the precincts; and burnt the sun-chariots in the fire. He removed the
altars to the stars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, {See Zephaniah 1:5;
Jeremiah 19:13; Jeremiah 32:29} and ground them to powder. He also destroyed
those of his grandfather Manasseh in the two Temple courts-which we supposed to
have been removed by Manasseh in his repentance-and threw, the dust into the
Kedron. He defiled the idolatrous shrines reared by Solomon to the deities of Sidon,
Ammon and Moloch, broke the pillars, cut down the Asherim, and filled their places
with dead men’s bones. Traveling northwards, he burnt, destroyed, and stamped to
powder the altars and the Asherim at Bethel, and burnt upon the altars the remains
found in the sepulchres, only leaving undisturbed the remains of the old prophet
from Judah, and of the prophet of Samaria. {1 Kings 13:29-31} He then destroyed
the other Samaritan shrines, exercising an undisputed authority over the orthern
Kingdom. The mixed inhabitants did not interfere with his proceedings; and in the
declining fortunes of ineveh, the Assyrian viceroy - if there was one-did not
dispute his authority. Lastly, in accordance with the fierce injunction of
Deuteronomy 17:2-5, "he slew all the priests of the high places" on their own altars,
burnt men’s bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.
It is very difficult, with the milder notions which we have learnt from the spirit of
the gospel, to look with approval on the recrudescence of the Elijah-spirit displayed
by the last proceeding. But many centuries were to elapse, even under the Gospel
Dispensation, before men learnt the sacred principle of the early Christians that
"violence is hateful to God." Josiah must be judged by a more lenient judgment,
and he was obeying a mandate found in the new Book of the Law. But the question
arises whether the fierce commands of Deuteronomy were ever intended to be taken
au pied de la lettre. May not Deuteronomy 13:6-18 have been intended to express in

60. a concrete but ideal form the spirit of execration to be entertained towards idolatry?
Perhaps in thinking so we are only guilty of an anachronism, and are applying to
the seventh century before Christ the feelings of the nineteenth century after Christ.
After this Josiah ordered the people to keep a Deuteronomic Passover, such as we
are told-and as all the circumstances prove-had not been kept from the days of the
Judges. The Chronicler revels in the details of this Passover, and tells us that Josiah
gave the people thirty thousand lambs and kids, and three thousand bullocks; and
his priests gave two thousand six hundred small cattle and three hundred oxen; and
the chief of the Levites gave the Levites five thousand small cattle, and five hundred
oxen. He goes on to describe the slaying, sprinkling of blood, flaying, roasting,
boiling in pots, pans, and caldrons, and attention paid to the burnt-offerings and the
fat; {2 Chronicles 35:1-19} but neither the historians nor the chroniclers, either here
or anywhere else, say one word about the Day of Atonement, or seem aware of its
existence. It belongs to the Post-Exilic Priestly Code, and is not alluded to in the
Book of Deuteronomy.
Continuing his task, he put away them that had familiar spirits (oboth), and the
wizards, and the teraphim, with a zeal shown by no king before or after him; but
Jehovah "turned not from the fierceness of His anger, because of all the
provocations which Manasseh had provoked Him withal." Evil, alas! is more
diffusive, and in some senses more permanent, than good, because of the perverted
bias of human nature. Judah and Jerusalem had been radically corrupted by the
apostate son of Hezekiah, and it may be that the sudden and high-handed
reformation enforced by his grandson depended too exclusively on the external
impulse given to it by the king to produce deep effects in the hearts of the people.
Certain it is that even Jeremiah-though he was closely connected with the finders of
the book, had perhaps been present when the solemn league and covenant was taken
in the Temple, and lived through the reformation in which he probably took a
considerable part-was profoundly dissatisfied with the results. It is sad and singular
that such should have been the case; for in the first flush of the new enthusiasm he
had written, "Cursed be the man that heareth not the words of this covenant, which
I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of
Egypt, saying, ‘Obey My voice."’ ay, it has been inferred that he was even an
itinerant preacher of the newly found law; for he writes: "And the Lord said unto
me, ‘Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem,
saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them."’
The style of Deuteronomy, as is well known shows remarkable affinities with the
style of Jeremiah. Yet it is clear that after the death of Josiah the prophet became
utterly disillusioned with the outcome of the whole movement. It proved itself to be
at once evanescent and unreal. The people would not give up their beloved local
shrines. The law, as Habakkuk, {Habakkuk 1:4} became torpid; judgment went not
forth to victory; the wicked compassed about the righteous, and judgment was
perverted. It was easy to obey the external regulations of Deuteronomy; it was far
more difficult to be true to its noble moral precepts. The reformation of Josiah, so
violent and radical, proved to be only skin-deep; and Jeremiah, with bitter

61. disappointment, found it to be so. External decency might be improved, but rites
and forms are nothing to Him who searcheth the heart. {Jeremiah 17:9-11} There
was, in fact, an inherent danger in the place assumed by the newly discovered book.
"Since it was regarded as a State authority, there early arose a kind of book-science,
with its pedantic pride and erroneous learned endeavors to interpret and apply the
Scriptures. At the same time there arose also a new kind of hypocrisy and idolatry
of the letter, through the new protection which the State gave to the religion of the
book acknowledged by the law. Thus scholastic wisdom came into conflict with
genuine prophecy."
How entirely the improvement of outward worship failed to improve men’s hearts
the prophet testifies. {Jeremiah 17:1-4} "The sin of Judah," he says, "is written with
a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the tablets of their
hearts, and upon the horns of their altars, and their Asherim by the green trees
upon the high hills. O My mountain in the field, I will cause thee to serve thine
enemies in the land thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in Mine eyes, which
shall burn forever." While Josiah lived this apostasy was secret; but as soon as he
died the people turned again to folly," {Psalms 85:8} and committed all the old
idolatries except the worship of Moloch. There arose a danger lest even the
moderate ritualism of Deuteronomy should be perverted and exaggerated into mere
formality. In the energy of his indignation against this abuse, Jeremiah has to uplift
his voice against any trust even in the most decided injunctions of this newly
discovered law. He was "a second Amos upon a higher platform." The
Deuteronomic Law did not as yet exhibit the concentrated sacerdotalism and
ritualism which mark the Priestly Code, to which it is far superior in every way. It is
still prophetic in its tone. It places social interests above rubrics of worship. It
expresses the fundamental religious thought" that Jehovah is in no sense
inaccessible; that He can be approached immediately by all, and without sacerdotal
intervention; that He asks nothing for Himself, but asks it as a religious duty that
man should render unto man what is right; that His Will lies not in any known
height, but in the moral sphere which is known and understood by all. The book
ordained certain sacrifices; yet Jeremiah says with startling emphasis, "To what
purpose cometh there to Me frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet calamus from
a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasant
unto Me." Therefore He bids them, "Put your burnt-offering to your sacrifices and
eat them as flesh"-i.e., "Throw all your offerings into a mass, and eat them at your
pleasure (regardless of sacerdotal rules): they have neither any inherent sanctity nor
any secondary importance from the characters of the offerers." And in a still more
remarkable passage. "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings
and sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice."’
ay, in the most emphatic ordinances of Deuteronomy he found that the people bad
created a new peril. They were putting a particularistic trust in Jehovah, as though
He were a respecter of persons, and they His favorites. They fancied, as in the days
of Micah, that it was enough for them to claim His name, and bribe Him with
sacrifices. {Micah 3:11} Above all, they boasted of and relied upon the possession of

62. His Temple, and placed their trust on the punctual observance of external
ceremonies. All these sources of vain confidence it was the duty of Jeremiah rudely
to shatter to pieces. Standing at the gates of the Lord’s House, he cried: "Trust ye
not in lying words, saying, ‘The Temple of the Lord! the Temple of the Lord! the
Temple of the Lord. are these!’ Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.
Will ye steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense unto Baal, and
walk after other gods; and come and stand before Me in this house, whereupon My
name is called, and say, ‘We are delivered,’ that ye may do all these abominations?
Is this house become a den of robbers in your eyes? But go ye now to My place
which was in Shiloh, where I caused My name to dwell at the first, and see what I
did to it for the wickedness of My people. I will do unto this house as I have done to
Shiloh; and I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out the whole house of
Ephraim." {Jeremiah 7:4; Jeremiah 7:8-15} -Yet all hope was not extinguished
forever. The Scythian might disappear; the Babylonian might come in his place; but
one day there should be a new covenant of pardon and restitution; and as had been
promised in Deuteronomy, "all should know Jehovah, from the least to the
greatest."
At last he even prophesies the entire future annulment of the solemn covenant made
on the basis of Deuteronomy, and says that Jehovah will make a new covenant with
His people, not according to the covenant which He made with their fathers.
{Jeremiah 31:31-32} And in his final estimate of King Josiah after his death, he does
not so much as mention his reformation, his iconoclasm, his sweeping zeal, or his
enforcement of the Deuteronomic Law, but only says to Jehoiakim:-
"‘Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice?- then it was well
with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy: then it was well. Was not this
to know Me?’ saith the Lord." {Jeremiah 22:15-16}
Whether because his methods were too violent, or because it only affected the
surface of men’s lives, or because the people were not really ripe for it, or because
no reformation can ever succeed which is enforced by autocracy, not spread by
persuasion and conviction, it is certain that the first glamour of Josiah’s movement
ended in disillusionment. A religion violently imposed from without as a state-
religion naturally tends to hypocrisy and externalism. What Jehovah required was
not a changed method of worship, but a changed heart; and this the reformation of
Josiah did not produce. It has often been so in human history. Failure seems to be
written on many of the most laudable human efforts. evertheless, truth ultimately
prevails. Isaiah was murdered, and Urijah, and Jeremiah. Savonarola was burnt,
and Huss, and many a martyr more; but the might of priestcraft was at last
crippled, to be revived, we hope, no more, either by open violence or secret apostasy.
"Then to side with Truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ‘tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,

63. Doubting in his abject spirit till his Lord is crucified,
And the multitude make virtue of the faith they have denied."
GUZIK, "3. (2 Kings 22:8-10) The Book of the Law is found and read.
Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “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. So Shaphan the scribe went to the king, bringing the king word, saying,
“Your servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have
delivered it into the hand of those who do the work, who oversee the house of the
LORD.” Then Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has
given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.
a. I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD: According to
Deuteronomy 31:24-27, there was to be a copy of this Book of the Law beside the
ark of the covenant, beginning in the days of Moses. The word of God was with
Israel, but it was greatly neglected in those days.
i. This neglect could only happen because Judah was in prolonged disobedience to
God.
· Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tells us that each king was to have a personal copy of
the law, and he was to read it.
· Deuteronomy 31:9-13 tells us that the entire law was to be read to an
assembly of the nation once every 7 years at the Feast of Tabernacles to keep the law
before the people.
· The Levites, scattered among the country, also had the implied responsibility
to teach the law to the people of Israel.
ii. The first we know of a public reading of the law is in Joshua 8:30. The next we
hear of it is during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17:7), more than 500
years later. Then, in the reign of Josiah there was another public reading of the law
(2 Chronicles 34:30), more than 250 years after Jehoshaphat. Of course, there might
have been public readings of the law as commanded here which are not recorded;
but the fact that some are recorded probably means they were unusual, not typical.
iii. Some believe that the particular portion of the law that was found and read
before King Josiah was the Book of Deuteronomy. “The identification with
Deuteronomy rests on the dependence of some of Josiah’s actions on the book (e.g.
23:9, cf. Deuteronomy 18:6-8; and the impact of the prophecies predicting exile; the
support Deuteronomy 17:14 gives to nationalistic aspirations, etc.).” (Wiseman)

64. iv. “Was this the autograph of Moses? It is very probable that it was; for in the
parallel place, 2 Chronicles 34:14, it is said to be the book of the law of the Lord by
Moses. It is supposed to be that part of Deuteronomy, (Deuteronomy chapters 28-30,
and 31,) which contains the renewing of the covenant in the plains of Moab, and
which contains the most terrible invectives against the corrupters of God’s word
and worship.” (Clarke)
b. And he read it: It seems remarkable that this was even worthy of mention - that
the high priest found the word of God and a scribe read it. Yet the word of God was
no neglected in those days that this was worthy of mention.
i. Shaphan simply told the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” “Shaphan
did not despise the book, but he had not yet, like many a modern scribe, realized the
importance of that blessed volume. Then - after ‘money,’ and ‘overseers,’ and
‘workmen,’ have all been mentioned - ‘then Shaphan the scribe told the king,
saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book’ - only a book!” (Knapp)
c. Shaphan read it before the king: Here the word of God spreads. It had been
forgotten and regarded as nothing more than an old, dusty book. ow it was found,
read, and spread. We should expect some measure of spiritual revival and renewal
to follow.
i. Throughout the history of the God’s people, when the word of God is recovered
and spread, then spiritual revival follows. It can begin as simply as it did in the days
of Josiah, with one man find and reading and believing and spreading the Book.
ii. Another example of this in history is the story of Peter Waldo and his followers,
sometimes known as Waldenses. Waldo was a rich merchant who gave up his
business to radically follow Jesus. He hired two priests to translate the ew
Testament into the common language and using this, he began to teach others. He
taught in the streets or wherever he could find someone to listen. Many common
people came to hear him and started to radically follow Jesus Christ. He taught
them the text of the ew Testament in the common language and was rebuked by
church officials for doing so. He ignored the rebuke and continued to teach,
eventually sending his followers out two by two into villages and market places, to
teach and explain the scriptures. The scriptures were memorized by the Waldenses,
and it was not unusual for their ministers to memorize the entire ew Testament
and large sections of the Old Testament. The word of God - when found, read,
believed, and spread - has this kind of transforming power.
iii. “It is interesting to note the popularity of animal names for persons in this
period. ‘Shaphan’ means ‘rock badger’ and ‘Achbor’ means ‘mouse.’ ‘Huldah’ the
name of the prophetess introduced in the next section, means ‘mole.’” (Dilday)
ISBET, "THE BIBLE—LOST OR FOU D?
‘And Hilkiah the priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the

65. law in the house of the Lord.’
2 Kings 22:8
There is an apparent discrepancy between the recorded facts of the reign of Josiah
and the indications of his inward temperament and disposition which are given to
us. The facts of his reign, if we could come to their study independently, would lead
us to characterise him as an ardent, sanguine, energetic man. All seems consistent
with this view; his zeal for religion, his labour in the restoration of the Temple and
the reformation of the kingdom, and the warlike spirit which forced a collision with
the power of Egypt and cost him his life at Megiddo. Activity, forwardness, and
enterprise seem to mark the man, quite as distinctly as the deep religious principle
which hallowed his doings.
Such would be the conclusion from the data of a human historian. But here the
superhuman element comes in to represent his real character in a very different
light. Huldah the prophetess is appropriately introduced to speak of him as tender,
sensitive, and feminine in character, and to promise as his best reward that he
should be taken away early from the evil to come.
I. During the restoration of the Temple a sensation was produced by the discovery
of the original roll of the Law, which had been put into the ark eight centuries
before.—The reading of the book produced panic and dismay because of its
contents, its threatenings, the evil denounced in it against the sins of the house of
Judah. King and people alike seem to have been ignorant of the very existence of
their Bible, as a book containing the revelation of God’s wrath against sinners.
II. This story touches not only the nation or the Church; it touches every one of
us.—Are there not many of us who have lost the book of life—lost it how much more
wilfully, how much more guiltily, because in so many senses we have it? If we
acquire the habit of studying the Bible merely or chiefly with scientific or literary
views, of prying into it, dissecting it, criticising the word because it is man’s, as if it
were not also God’s, can we help fearing that we may be losing the word of life?
III. otice the result of the discovery of the Book of the Law.—The king rent his
clothes, and sent to inquire of the Lord for himself and his people concerning the
words of the book that was found. Let us also seek for deep and living repentance
for the sin which our ignorance has been.
—Dean Scott.
Illustration
‘The book had been lost. Strange to say, too, it had been lost in the Lord’s House.
The way it came was this—the people had given up the worship of God, and
naturally they gave up God’s book. When they were worshipping idols they had no
inclination for the holy law. When the book was used no longer, it easily got lost.
The Bible is often lost in modern life. One may have a very nice copy of the Bible
bound in morocco, and may even prize it as a handsome book, perhaps as a present,
and keep it carefully, and yet really have no Bible. The Bible we do not read, take

66. into our heart, and obey, is a lost Bible to us.
There are many persons who once loved the Bible and used it, but who have now
lost it. They never open it. They pay no heed to its commands. Their hearts have
become filled with other things; there is no room for God’s Word. Sometimes the
book is entirely given up and sneered at. There are homes where the Bible was once
a living book, highly prized, but where it is now lost. There is no more family
worship. There have been times in the history of the world when even in the Church
the Bible was a lost book.’
PETT, "Verses 8-13
The Discovery of The Book Of The Law And Its Immediate Consequences (2 Kings
22:8-13).
We have already indicated above our view that this Book of the Law was found
within the foundation walls themselves, having been placed there on the orders of
Solomon when the Temple was built so as to connect the covenant closely with the
Temple, and to act as a reminder to YHWH that the worshippers within the Temple
were His covenant people. This would explain why it was immediately seen as
acceptable. Any ‘unrecognised’ records would hardly have been treated in such a
serious fashion. In our view the only other possible alternative would be that it was
found in the Most Holy Place by the Ark. Any discovery in any other place would
have occasioned much more of an examination before the king became involved.
Whilst ‘book’ is in the singular, the law of Moses was regularly spoken of as ‘the
book of the law of Moses’ regardless of how many scrolls it occupied. The
probability here is that a number of scrolls were found of which Hilkiah selected
one to bring to Shaphan. Shaphan having then read it took it to the king. Thus
initially only the one scroll was read. The lack of mention of cursings by the king, a
regular feature of Deuteronomy, suggests that the portion that was read included
Leviticus 26:28.
It should be noted that there is no indication that its contents were ‘new’. Indeed
had they been seen as such they would probably have been rejected. They would
have expected that what they found in the Book of the Law would link closely with
their own original traditions. What was new was that it was in the form of an
ancient scroll remarkably discovered in the fabric of the Temple, and was read to
the king who was moved by its warning of YHWH’s wrath coming on those who
had not obeyed YHWH’s requirements. That was the only sense in which it was a
new revelation. We can compare how, when the Bible had been restricted to the
clergy for centuries by the Roman Catholic church, its availability to a wider
audience caused a similar sensation. As here it had not been ‘lost. It had simply not
been read except by sholastics who read it according to their own fixed
‘interpretations’.
It should also be noted that there is no suggestion that Huldah read the book, or

67. even saw it. The impression given is that she referred to something that the king had
heard, and not to something that she herself had read (otherwise we would have
expected that to be made clear). Sufficient would have been communicated to her to
enable her to identify it. And naturally she would be aware of its contents as one of
the faithful who had constantly read the law of YHWH, and had access to it, even in
times of apostasy.
Analysis.
a And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the
book of the law in the house of YHWH” (2 Kings 22:8 a).
b And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it (2 Kings 22:8 b).
c And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again,
and said, “Your servants have emptied out the money which was found in the house,
and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the
house of YHWH. And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest
has delivered me a book” (2 Kings 22:9-10 a).
d And Shaphan read it before the king (2 Kings 22:10 b).
c And it came about, when the king had heard the words of the book of the
law, that he tore his clothes (2 Kings 22:11).
b And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of
Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the
king’s servant, saying, “Go you, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and
for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found” (2 Kings 22:12-13 a)
a “For great is the wrath of YHWH that is kindled against us, because our
fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that which
is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:13 b).
ote that in ‘a’ the discovery of the Book of the Law is disclosed to Shaphan by
Hilkiah, and in the parallel the king is deeply stirred ‘by the words of this book’, as
disclosed to him by Shaphan. In ‘b’ Hilkiah delivers ‘the book’ to Shaphan who
reads it, and in the parallel both Hilkiah and Shaphan are a part of the deputation
to the prophetess Huldah, sent to enquire concerning the warnings given in the
book. In ‘c’ Shaphan reports to Josiah concerning the book, and in the parallel the
king tears his clothes at what it says. Centrally in ‘d’ it was read before the king.
2 Kings 22:8
‘And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of
the law in the house of YHWH.” And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and
he read it.’
Hilkiah clearly saw the find as of such importance that it had to be reported to the
king, and in consequence sent a messenger to Shaphan the court chamberlain
informing him of the find. This in itself indicates how unusual the find was seen to
be. It must have been something very special to have initiated such a response,
otherwise it would simply have been placed with the other scrolls in the Temple. The
fact that he described it as ‘The Book Of The Law’ indicated that he saw it as
primarily containing the Law of Moses. As he had not read it (and was possibly

68. finding it difficult to do so because of its ancient script) this description could only
have arisen because he had grounds for knowing what it must be. That would
hardly be true of some document left in the Temple which had been introduced
there from outside which they had simply come across among the many treasures
stored in the Temple. If, however, if it was found within the foundation structure of
the Temple he would know immediately what it was, the ancient covenant between
YHWH and His worshippers, coming from the time of Solomon.
It is true that we are not specifically told where the Book of the Law was discovered,
but the impression given is that it was discovered as a result of the building work
commencing, and probably therefore as a result of the initial survey work which
would be required before that commenced. Some have suggested that it was the
copy of the Book of the Law which Moses had required be placed next to the Ark of
the covenant of YHWH (Deuteronomy 31:24-26), but it is difficult to see why that
should have remained undiscovered for so long, especially as the Most Holy Place
was entered at least once a year. The most obvious explanation is that it was
discovered within the foundation walls while preparing for structural repairs.
That Judah already had a written ‘book of the Law’ is accepted under most theories
(even if in truncated form in the postulated but doubtful J and E), so it is difficult to
see why the discovery of another book of the law would in the normal way cause
such excitement, especially if it was not known where it came from, certainly not
sufficient for it to be taken immediately to the king by official messengers. But we
can equally certainly understand why ancient scrolls discovered within the structure
of the Temple itself would produce precisely that kind of excitement. They would
have been treated with the utmost reverence as containing the wisdom of the
ancients.
Hilkiah then ‘delivered the book to Shaphan.’ If there were a number of scrolls he
may well simply have handed one of them to Shaphan. Or it may be that Shaphan
received them all and selected one to read. Either way Shaphan then ‘read the
book’, although not necessarily all the scrolls.
PULPIT, "Discovery of the book of the Law. When Shaphan had transacted with
Hilkiah the business entrusted to him by the king, Hilkiah took the opportunity of
sending word by him to the king with respect to a discovery that he had recently
made, during the investigations connected with the repairs. He had found a book,
which he called without any doubt or hesitation, "the book of the Law"— ‫ֶר‬‫פ‬ֵ‫ס‬
‫ה‬ ָ‫ַתּוֹר‬‫ה‬—and this book he put into the hands of Shaphan, who "read it," i.e. some of
it, and found it of such importance that he took it back with him to the palace, and
read a portion to the king. Hereupon the king "rent his clothes," and required that
special inquiry should be made of the Lord concerning the words of the book, and
particularly concerning the threatenings contained in it. The persons entrusted with
this task thought it best to lay the matter before Huldah, a prophetess, who lived in
Jerusalem at the time, and proceeded to confer with her at her residence.

69. 2 Kings 22:8
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of
the Law in the house of the Lord. There has been great difference of opinion as to
what it was which Hilkiah had found. Ewald believes it to have been the Book of
Deuteronomy, which had, he thinks, been composed some thirty or forty years
before in Egypt by a Jewish exile, and had found its way, by a sort of chance, into
Palestine, where "some priest" had placed a copy of it in the temple. Thenius
suggests "a collection of the laws and ordinances of Moses, which was afterwards
worked up into the Pentateuch;" Bertheau, "the three middle books of the
Pentateuch, Exodus, Leviticus, and umbers;" Gramberg, "Exodus by itself." But
there seem to be no sufficient grounds for questioning the ancient opinion—that of
Josephus, and of the Jews generally—that it was a copy of the entire Pentateuch..
The words, ‫ה‬ ָ‫ַתּוֹר‬‫ה‬ ‫ֶר‬‫פ‬ֵ‫ס‬, "the book of the Law," are really sufficient to decide the
point; since, as Keil says, they "cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or
historically, than the Mosaic book of the Law (the Pentateuch), which is so
designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles and the Books of Ezra and
ehemiah." The same conclusion follows from the expression, "the book of the
covenant" ( ‫ית‬ ִ‫ְר‬‫בּ‬ַ‫הּ‬ ‫ֶר‬‫פ‬ֵ‫ס‬), in 2 Kings 23:2, and also from 2 Kings 23:24, 2 Kings 23:25,
and 2 Chronicles 34:14. Whether or no the copy was the actual original deposited in
the ark of the covenant by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:26), as Keil believes, is doubtful.
As Egyptian manuscripts which are from three to four thousand years old still exist
in good condition, there can be no reason why a manuscript of Moses' time should
not have been found and have been legible in Josiah's. But, if not the actual
handwriting of Moses, it was probably its lineal descendant—the copy made for the
temple service, and kept ordinarily "in the side of the ark"—which may well have
been lost in the time of Manasseh or Amen, and which was now happily "found."
And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. We need not suppose that
Shaphan read the whole. But he read enough to show him how important the work
was, and how necessary it was to make it known to the king.
MACLARE 8-20, "THE REDISCOVERED LAW AND ITS EFFECTS
We get but a glimpse into a wild time of revolution and counter-revolution in the brief
notice that the ‘servants of Amon,’ Josiah’s father, conspired and murdered him in his
palace, but were themselves killed by a popular rising, in which the ‘people of the land
made Josiah his son king in his stead,’ and so no doubt balked the conspirators’ plans.
Poor boy! he was only eight years old when he made his first acquaintance with rebellion
and bloodshed. There must have been some wise heads and strong arms and loyal hearts
round him, but their names have perished. The name of David was still a spell in Judah,
and guarded his childish descendant’s royal rights. In the eighteenth year of his reign,
the twenty-sixth of his age, he felt himself firm enough in the saddle to begin a work of
religious reformation, and the first reward of his zeal was the finding of the book of the
law. Josiah, like the rest of us, gained fuller knowledge of God’s will in the act of trying to
do it so far as he knew it. ‘Light is sown for the upright.’
I. We have, first, the discovery of the law. The important and complicated critical
questions raised by the narrative cannot be discussed here, nor do they affect the broad

70. lines of teaching in the incident. Nothing is more truthful-like than the statement that, in
course of the repairs of the Temple, the book should be found,-probably in the holiest
place, to which the high priest would have exclusive access. How it came to have been
lost is a more puzzling question; but if we recall that seventy-five years had passed since
Hezekiah, and that these were almost entirely years of apostasy and of tumult, we shall
not wonder that it was so. Unvalued things easily slip out of sight, and if the preservation
of Scripture depended on the estimation which some of us have of it, it would have been
lost long ago. But the fact of the loss suggests the wonder of the preservation. It would
appear that this copy was the only one existing,-at all events, the only one known. It
alone transmitted the law to later days, like some slender thread of water that finds its
way through the sand and brings the river down to broad plains beyond. Think of the
millions of copies now, and the one dusty, forgotten roll tossing unregarded in the
dilapidated Temple, and be thankful for the Providence that has watched over the
transmission. Let us take care, too, that the whole Scripture is not as much lost to us,
though we have half a dozen Bibles each, as the roll was to Josiah and his men.
Hilkiah’s announcement to Shaphan has a ring of wonder and of awe in it. It sounds as if
he had not known that such a book was anywhere in the Temple. And it is noteworthy
that not he, but Shaphan, is said to have read it. Perhaps he could not,-though, if he did
not, how did he know what the book was? At all events, he and Shaphan seem to have
felt the importance of the find, and to have consulted what was to be done. Observe how
the latter goes cautiously to work, and at first only says that he has received ‘a book.’ He
gives it no name, but leaves it to tell its own story,-which it was then, and is still, well
able to do. Scripture is its own best credentials and witnesses whence it comes. Again
Shaphan is the reader, as it was natural that a ‘scribe’ should be, and again the
possibility is that Josiah could not read.
II. One can easily picture the scene while the reader’s voice went steadily through the
commandments, threatenings, and promises,-the deepening eagerness of the king, the
gradual shaping out before his conscience of God’s ideal for him and his people, and the
gradual waking of the sense of sin in him, like a dormant serpent beginning to stir in the
first spring sunshine.
The effect of God’s law on the sinful heart is vividly pictured in Josiah’s emotion. ‘By the
law is the knowledge of sin.’ To many of us that law, in spite of our outward knowledge
of it, is as completely absent from our consciousness as it had been from the most
ignorant of Josiah’s subjects; and if for once its searchlight were thrown into the hidden
corners of our hearts and lives, it would show up in dreadful clearness the skulking foes
that are stealing to assail us, and the foul things that have made good their lodgment in
our hearts and lives. It always makes an epoch in a life when it is really brought to the
standard of God’s law; and it is well for us if, like Josiah, we rend our clothes, or rather
‘our heart, and not our garments,’ and take home the conviction, ‘I have sinned against
the Lord.’
The dread of punishment sprang up in the young king’s heart, and though that emotion
is not the highest motive for seeking the Lord, it is not an unworthy one, and is meant to
lead on to nobler ones than itself. There is too much unwillingness, in many modern
conceptions of Christ’s gospel, to recognise the place which the apprehension of personal
evil consequences from sin has in the initial stages of the process by which we are
‘translated from the kingdom of darkness into that of God’s dear Son.’
III. The message to Huldah is remarkable. The persons sent with it show its
importance. The high priest, the royal secretary, and one of the king’s personal
attendants, who was, no doubt, in his confidence, and two other influential men, one of

71. whom, Ahikam, is known as Jeremiah’s staunch friend, would make some stir in ‘the
second quarter,’ on their way to the modest house of the keeper of the wardrobe. The
weight and number of the deputation did honour to the prophetess, as well as showed
the king’s anxiety as to the matter in hand. Jeremiah and Zephaniah were both living at
this time, and we do not know why Huldah was preferred. Perhaps she was more
accessible. But conjecture is idle. Enough that she was recognised as having, and
declared herself to have, direct authoritative communications from God.
For what did Josiah need to inquire of the Lord ‘concerning the words of this book’?
They were plain enough. Did he hope to have their sternness somewhat mollified by the
words of a prophetess who might be more amenable to entreaties or personal
considerations than the unalterable page was? Evidently he recognised Huldah as
speaking with divine authority, and he might have known that two depositories of God’s
voice could not contradict each other. But possibly his embassy simply reflected his
extreme perturbation and alarm, and like many another man when God’s law startles
him into consciousness of sin, he betook himself to one who was supposed to be in God’s
counsels, half hoping for a mitigated sentence, and half uncertain of what he really
wished. He confusedly groped for some support or guide. But, confused as he was, his
message to the prophetess implied repentance, eager desire to know what to do, and
humble docility. If dread of evil consequences leads us to such a temper, we shall hear,
as Josiah did, answers of peace as authoritative and divine as were the threatenings that
brought us to our senses and our knees.
IV. The answer which Josiah received falls into two parts, the former of which confirms
the threatenings of evil to Jerusalem, while the latter casts a gleam athwart the
thundercloud, and promises Josiah escape from the national calamities. Observe the
difference in the designation given him in the two parts. When the threatenings are
confirmed, his individuality is, as it were, sunk; for that part of the message applies to
any and every member of the nation, and therefore he is simply called ‘the man that sent
you.’ Any other man would have received the same answer. But when his own fate is to
be disclosed, then he is ‘the king of Judah, who sent you,’ and is described by the official
position which set him apart from his subjects.
Huldah has but to confirm the dread predictions of evil which the roll had contained.
What else can a faithful messenger of God do than reiterate its threatenings? Vainly do
men seek to induce the living prophet to soften down God’s own warnings. Foolishly do
they think that the messenger or the messenger’s Sender has any ‘pleasure in the death
of the wicked’; and as foolishly do they take the message to be unkind, for surely to warn
that destruction waits the evildoer is gracious. The signal-man who waves the red flag to
stop the train rushing to ruin is a friend. Huldah was serving Judah best by plain
reiteration of the ‘words of the book.’
But the second half of her message told that in wrath God remembered mercy. And that
is for ever true. His thunderbolts do not strike indiscriminately, even when they smite a
nation. Judah’s corruption had gone too far for recovery, and the carcase called for the
gathering together of the vultures, but Josiah’s penitence was not in vain. ‘I have heard
thee’ is always said to the true penitent, and even if he is involved in widespread
retribution, its strokes become different to him. Josiah was assured that the evil should
not come in his days. But Huldah’s promise seems contradicted by the circumstances of
his death. It was a strange kind of being gathered to his grave in peace when he fell on
the fatal field of Megiddo, and ‘his servants carried him in a chariot dead, . . . and buried
him in his own sepulchre’ (2Ki_23:30). But the promise is fulfilled in its real meaning by
the fact that the threatenings which he was inquiring about did not fall on Judah in his

72. time, and so far as these were concerned, he did come to his grave in peace.
9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king
and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out
the money that was in the temple of the Lord and
have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors
at the temple.”
BAR ES, "Have gathered - Rather, “have poured out” or “emptied out.” The
allusion probably is to the emptying of the chest in which all the money collected had
been placed 2Ki_12:9.
GILL, "And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word
again,.... Of the delivery of his message to the high priest, and of what had been done
upon it:
and said, thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house;
meaning Hilkiah and himself, who had examined the chest in the temple, into which the
money was put for the repairs of it, and had taken it out, and told it:
and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the
oversight of the house of the Lord; according to the king's orders.
K&D, "The reading of the book of the law to the king, and the inquiry made of the
prophetess Huldah concerning it. - 2Ki_22:9, 2Ki_22:10. When Shaphan informed the
king of the execution of his command, he also told him that Hilkiah had given him a
book, and read it to the king. ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ ‫יב‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫,ה‬ to bring an answer, to give a report as to a
commission that has been received. ‫יכוּ‬ ִ ִ‫,ה‬ they poured out the money, i.e., out of the
chest in which it was collected, into bags. ‫הוּ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ ַ‫,ו‬ “he read it to the king,” is simplified in
the Chronicles (2Ki_22:18) by ‫ּו‬‫ב‬ ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫,י‬ “he read therein.” That ‫יקראהו‬ does not signify that
the whole was read, is evident from a comparison of 2Ki_23:2, where the reading of the
whole is expressed by ‫י‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ ‫ל־‬ ָⅴ ‫.ס‬ Which passages or sections Shaphan read by himself
(2Ki_22:8), and which he read to the king, it is impossible to determine exactly. To the
king he most likely read, among other things, the threats and curses of the law against
those who transgressed it (Deut 28), and possibly also Lev 26, because the reading made

73. such an impression upon him, that in his anguish of soul he rent his clothes. Nor is it
possible to decide anything with certainty, as to whether the king had hitherto been
altogether unacquainted with the book of the law, and had merely a traditional
knowledge of the law itself, or whether he had already had a copy of the law, but had not
yet read it through, or had not read it with proper attention, which accounted for the
passages that were read to him now making so deep and alarming an impression upon
him. It is a well-known experience, that even books which have been read may, under
peculiar circumstances, produce an impression such as has not been made before. But in
all probability Josiah had not had in his possession any copy of the law, or even read it
till now; although the thorough acquaintance with the law, which all the prophets
display, places the existence of the Pentateuch in prophetical circles beyond the reach of
doubt.
ELLICOTT, "(9) Thy servants.—Hilkiah and I.
Have gathered.—Rather, have poured out—i.e., from the alms-chest into the bags.
In the house.—In the wider sense of the word, as including the outer court (2 Kings
12:9). Chronicles reads “in the house of the Lord,” which is probably right. So
LXX., Vulg., Arabic here.
PETT, "‘And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word
again, and said, “Your servants have emptied out the money which was found in the
house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of
the house of YHWH.’
Shaphan then reported to the king concerning the progress on the Temple repairs,
informing him that the priestly overseers of the work had been duly provided with
the necessary funds.
PULPIT, "And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word
again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was in the house (see
above, 2 Kings 22:4-6), and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work,
that have the oversight of the house of the Lord; i.e. "We have carried out the king's
orders exactly, in every particular."
10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king,
“Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And
Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

74. GILL, "And Shaphan showed the king,.... Further related to him what follows:
saying, Hilkiah the high priest hath delivered me a book; but did not say what
book it was:
and Shaphan read it before the king; part of it; and it is thought by Kimchi and
Ben Gersom that he particularly read the reproofs and threatenings in the book of
Deuteronomy; they suppose that Hilkiah read those to Shaphan, and directed him to
read them to the king, that he might take into consideration a further reformation.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:10-11. And Shaphan read it before the king — That is, some
part of it, for it cannot be supposed that he read all of it, especially at one time.
When the king heard the words of the book — The dreadful comminations
contained in it against them for the sins still reigning among them; he rent his
clothes — Being very deeply affected with a sense of the greatness of their guilt, and
an apprehension that dreadful judgments hung over them, and were ready to fall
upon them. It appears from this, that whether this was the only authentic copy of
the law in existence or not, yet the things contained in it were new, both to the king
himself, and also to the high- priest. And if even they were strangers to them, how
much more may we reasonably suppose the people in general were. It is true, every
king was commanded to write a copy of the law with his own hand, (Deuteronomy
17:18,) and the law was to be publicly read every seventh year. But, it is probable,
these customs had been intermitted for a long time, and that the body of the people
had no other way of coming to the knowledge of God’s laws, but by word of mouth
from one to another; a method which must have been attended with great
imperfection and uncertainty. And accordingly we find, that even in the times of
pious kings, and public reformation, the people, notwithstanding, continued in the
practice of many things directly contrary to the law of Moses, such as sacrificing
and burning incense on high places. And they seem to have done these things as if
they did not know that they were forbidden. And certainly it must have been very
difficult for them, had they been ever so desirous of it, to obtain a knowledge of all
the things required of them in the law. It was no marvel that the people were so
corrupt, when the book of the law was such a scarce thing, and its contents so little
known among them. Where that vision is not, the people perish. From hence we may
take occasion to reflect with gratitude on the great privileges we possess, in that we
live in times when the art of printing has made it comparatively easy, in most
Christian countries, at least in our own, for every one to have a copy of the divine
law in his hands, to be his constant director, to be consulted on all occasions, and to
be the matter of his meditation at all times. An advantage this of inestimable value,
if it be made a right use of.
ELLICOTT, "(10) Read it before the king.—Keil suggests such passages as
Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. If it were meant that Shaphan read the whole of

75. the book, as Thenius alleges, we should expect “all the words of the book” in 2 Kings
22:11.
PETT, "‘And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has
delivered me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.’
Then Shaphan explained that Hilkiah ‘the Priest’ had ‘delivered a book’ to him. o
doubt a fuller explanation concerning the find was given, otherwise the king would
probably not have been interested. Shaphan then read it before the king. Assuming
that a number of scrolls had been found Shaphan would hardly have brought them
all in. Thus he had presumably selected one for the purpose of reading it before the
king. As we have seen the overall context certainly suggests that it was not simply a
part of Deuteronomy. or is it conceivable why, if that were all it was, and the king
did not know what Deuteronomy was, he should have wanted to hear the reading,
for he would have considered that he already knew what the Law was.
PULPIT, "And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath
delivered me a book. Shaphan does not venture to-characterize the book, as Hilkiah
has done. He is not officially learned in the Law. And he has only read a few
passages of it. To him, therefore, it is only "a book," the authorship and value of
which he leaves it to others to determine. And Shaphan read it before the king. It is
most natural to understand hero, as in 2 Kings 22:8, that Shaphan read portions of
the book. Where the author intends to say that the whole book was read, he
expresses himself differently (see 2 Kings 23:2, "The king read in their ears all the
words of the book of the covenant").
11 When the king heard the words of the Book of
the Law, he tore his robes.
BAR ES, "He rent his clothes - Partly grief and horror, like Reuben Gen_37:29
and Job Job_1:20, partly in repentance, like Ahab 1Ki_21:27.
GILL, "And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book
of the law,.... From whence it appears that he had never wrote out a copy of it, as the
kings of Israel were ordered to do, when they came to the throne, Deu_17:18 nor had
read it, at least not the whole of it; and yet it seems strange that he should be twenty six

76. years of age, as he now was, and had proceeded far in the reformation of worship, and
yet be without the book of the law, and the high priest also; it looks as if it was, as some
have thought, that they had till now only some abstracts of the law, and not the whole:
and perhaps the reformation hitherto carried on chiefly lay in abolishing idolatry, and
not so much in restoring the ordinances of worship to their purity; for it was after this
that the ordinance of the passover was ordered to be kept; and when the king observed,
on hearing the law read, that it had not been kept as it should, that such severe
threatenings were denounced against the transgressors of it;
that he rent his clothes; as expressive of the rending of his heart, and of his
humiliation and sorrow for the sins he and his people were guilty of.
HE RY, "We hear no more of the repairing of the temple: no doubt that good work
went on well; but the book of the law that was found in it occupies us now, and well it
may. It is not laid up in the king's cabinet as a piece of antiquity, a rarity to be admired,
but it is read before the king. Those put the truest honour upon their Bibles that study
them and converse with them daily, feed on that bread and walk by that light. Men of
honour and business must look upon an acquaintance with God's word to be their best
business and honour. Now here we have,
I. The impressions which the reading of the law made upon Josiah. He rent his
clothes, as one ashamed of the sin of his people and afraid of the wrath of God; he had
long thought the case of his kingdom bad, by reason of the idolatries and impieties that
had been found among them, but he never thought it so bad as he perceived it to be by
the book of the law now read to him. The rending of his clothes signified the rending of
his heart for the dishonour done to God, and the ruin he saw coming upon his people.
K&D, "In his alarm at the words of the book of the law that had been read to him,
Josiah rent his clothes, and sent a deputation to the prophetess Huldah, to make inquiry
of Jehovah through her concerning the things which he had heard from the law. The
deputation consisted of the high priest Hilkiah, Ahikam the supporter of Jeremiah (Jer_
26:24) and the father of Gedaliah the governor (2Ki_25:22; Jer_39:14, etc.), Achbor the
son of Michaiah, Shaphan the state-secretary (2Ki_22:3), and Asahiah the servant (i.e.,
an officer) of the king.
GUZIK, "B. King Josiah is confronted with the Book of the Law.
1. (2 Kings 22:11) The initial reaction to the discovery of the Book of the Law.
ow it happened, when the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, that he
tore his clothes.
a. When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law: The hearing of God’s
word did a spiritual work in King Josiah. It was not merely the transmission of
information; the hearing of God’s word had an impact of spiritual power on Josiah.
b. He tore his clothes: The tearing of clothing was a traditional expression of horror
and astonishment. In the strongest possible, Josiah showed his grief on his own

77. account and on account of the nation. This was an expression of deep conviction of
sin, and a good thing.
i. Revival and spiritual awakening are marked by such expressions of the conviction
of sin. Dr. J. Edwin Orr, in The Second Evangelical Awakening in Britain,
recounted some examples from the great movement that impacted Britain and the
world in 1859-1861:
· “At the commencement of the prayer-meeting, a sturdy looking man (who
had been coming to the chapel every night but going away hardening his heart)
jumped on to a form, and speaking out before all the people, said, ‘Do you know
me?’ The praying men answered, ‘Yes’. ‘What am I then?’ he said. They replied, ‘A
backslider’. ‘Well, then,’ said he, ‘I will be a backslider no longer; all of you come to
Jesus with me,’ and he fell in an agony of prayer for God to have mercy on him;
indeed the anguish and desire of his soul was too much for him, for he swooned
away on the floor before us all. His wife was one of the first converted the previous
week, and only that evening had sent up a request that God would save her
husband, who was a poor miserable backslider. About thirty that night professed to
obtain mercy . . .”
· In the town of Coleraine, orthern Ireland, a schoolboy was under so much
conviction of sin that he couldn’t continue on in class. The teacher sent him home in
the company of another boy, who was already converted. On the way home to two
boys noticed an empty house and stopped there to pray. The unhappy boy found
peace and returned to the classroom immediately to tell the teacher: “I am so
happy: I have the Lord Jesus in my heart!” His testimony had a striking effect on
the class, and boy after boy slipped outside the classroom. The teacher peeked out
the window and saw boys kneeling in prayer all around the schoolyard. The teacher
was so convicted that he asked the first converted boy to minister to him. Finally the
whole school was in such a state that the administrators sent for pastors to come and
minister to the students, teachers, and parents and people were receiving ministry at
the school until 11:00 that night.
· A high-ranking army officer described the conviction of sin in his Scottish
town: “Those of you who are ease have little conception of how terrifying a sight it is
when the Holy Spirit is pleased to open a man’s eyes to see the real state of heart. . . .
Men who were thought to be, and who thought themselves to be good, religious
people . . . have been led to search into the foundation upon which they were resting,
and have found all rotten, that they were self-satisfied, resting on their own
goodness, and not upon Christ. Many turned from open sin to lives of holiness, some
weeping for joy for sins forgiven.”
ii. This conviction of sin is the special work of the Holy Spirit, even as Jesus said in
John 16:8 : “And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin.”
PETT, "‘And it came about, when the king had heard the words of the book of the

78. law, that he tore his clothes.’
What was read out to the king moved him deeply, with the result that he
symbolically tore his clothes in order to express his deep emotion, for it spoke of the
wrath of YHWH against His people because they had not walked in fulfilment of
His requirements.
PULPIT, "And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of
the Law, that he rent his clothes. To Josiah the book was evidently, as to Hilkiah, in
some sort a discovery. It was not, however, a wholly new thing; rather, he accepted
it as the recovery of a thing that was known to have been lost, and was now happily
found. And in accepting it he regarded it as authoritative. It was not to him "a book
of Law" (Ewald), but "the book of the Law." We can well imagine that, although
the book may have been lost early in Manasseh's reign, yet echoes of it had lingered
on
It is also probable that there were external tokens about the book indicative of its
character, which caused its ready acceptance.
12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest,
Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah,
Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s
attendant:
GILL, "And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest,.... The high priest, as he is
called, 2Ki_22:4.
and Ahikam the son of Shaphan; whether the same with Shaphan the scribe, before
mentioned, or another of the same name, is not certain:
and Achbor the son of Michaiah; who is called Abdon, the son of Micah, 2Ch_
34:20.
and Shaphan the scribe; who brought and read the book to the king:
and Asahiah, a servant of the king's; that waited on him constantly:

79. saying; as follows.
BE SO , "Verse 12-13
2 Kings 22:12-13. Asahiah, a servant of the king’s — Who most constantly waited
upon the king’s person; otherwise all of those here mentioned were the king’s
servants. Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, &c. — What we
shall do to appease his wrath, and whether the curses here threatened must come
upon us without remedy, or whether there be hope in Israel concerning the
prevention of them. For great is the wrath of the Lord, because our fathers, &c. —
In the glass of the divine law, he saw the sins of his people to be more numerous and
more heinous than he had before seen them, and more exceeding sinful. And he saw
that the wrath of God was kindled in a high degree against the whole nation, not
only for the sins of the present generation, but because that from their first coming
out of Egypt to this time, they had been almost in the constant habit of disregarding
and violating the divine laws, and that in the most notorious and flagrant instances.
ELLICOTT, "(12) And the king commanded . . .—Comp. the similar embassy to
Isaiah (2 Kings 19:2).
As to Ahikam see Jeremiah 26:24; Jeremiah 40:5; and for Achbor, Jeremiah 26:22;
Jeremiah 36:12.
Asahiah a servant of the king’s.—Probably the same officer as “the knight” or aide-
de-camp who attended on the king (2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 9:25.)
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 22:12-13) King Josiah seeks the LORD.
Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor
the son of Michaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king, saying,
“Go, inquire of the LORD for me, 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
aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to
do according to all that is written concerning us.”
a. Go, inquire of the LORD for me: It wasn’t that King Josiah knew nothing of God
or how to seek him. It was that he was so under the conviction of sin that he did not
know what to do next.
b. For great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us: Josiah knew that
the kingdom of Judah deserved judgment from God. He could not hear the word of
God and respond to the Spirit of God without seriously confronting the sin of his
kingdom.
PETT, "‘And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of

80. Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the
king’s servant, saying,’
The king recognised that the people had not been observing the requirements laid
down in the book, but it was the warnings of what would follow such disobedience
that moved him. Thus he sent an important official deputation, combining both
religious and political authorities, to a recognised prophetess, in order to enquire as
to whether the wrath of YHWH was about to be poured out on them.
Ahikam the son of Shaphan would later help Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26:24). His son
was Gedaliah who became governor of Judah (2 Kings 25:22; Jeremiah 39:14).
Achbor means ‘mouse’ (compare Shaphan = rock badger, Huldah = mole, which
suggests that at the time there was a preference for names connected with animals.
‘The king’s servant’ indicated a prominent court official. It was a term common on
seals from Judah. .
PULPIT, "And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of
Shaphan. "Ahikam the son of Shaphan" is almost certainly Jeremiah's protector at
the court of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:24), the father of the Godaliah who wan made
governor of Judaea on ebuchadnezzar's final conquest (Jeremiah 39:14; Jeremiah
40:7). "Shaphan;' his father, is no doubt "Shaphan the scribe." And Achbor the son
of Michaiah. The parallel passage of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:20) has "Abdon
the son of Micah," which is probably a corrupt reading. Achbor was the father of
El-nathan, one of the "princes of Judah" (Jeremiah 36:12) in Jehoiakim's reign.
And Shaphan the scribe, and Asa-hiah a servant of the king's—or Asaiah, as the
name is given in Chronicles, l.s.c.—saying,
13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the
people and for all Judah about what is written in
this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s
anger that burns against us because those who
have gone before us have not obeyed the words of
this book; they have not acted in accordance with
all that is written there concerning us.”
BAR ES, "Enquire of the Lord - As inquiry by Urim and Thummim had ceased -

81. apparently because superseded by prophecy - this order was equivalent to an injunction
to seek the presence of a prophet (compare 2Ki_3:11; 1Ki_22:5).
Because our fathers have not hearkened - Josiah, it will be observed, assumes
that preceding generations had had full opportunity of hearing and knowing the Law. He
thus regards the loss as comparatively recent (compare 2Ki_22:8 note).
GILL, "Go ye, inquire of the Lord,.... Of some of his prophets, as Jeremiah, who
began to prophesy in the thirteenth year of Josiah's reign, and had been a prophet five
years, Jer_1:1,
for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this
book that is found; for he observed that this book threatened and foretold not only
the captivity of the ten tribes, but of Judah, and of their king; and Jarchi thinks, he had a
particular respect to that passage:
the Lord shall bring thee and thy king, &c. Deu_28:36 and therefore was desirous
of knowing what he and his people must do to avert those judgments:
for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us; which he concluded
from the threatenings denounced:
because that our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to
do according to all which is written concerning us: he clearly saw that his
ancestors more remote and immediate had been very deficient in observing the laws,
commands, and ordinances enjoined them in that book; and therefore feared that what
was threatened would fall upon him and his people, who, he was sensible, came short of
doing their duty.
HE RY, "II. The application he made to God hereupon: Go, enquire of the Lord for
me, 2Ki_22:13.
1. Two things we may suppose he desired to know: - “Enquire, (1.) What we shall do;
what course we shall take to turn away God's wrath and prevent the judgments which
our sins have deserved.” Convictions of sin and wrath should put us upon this enquiry,
What shall we do to be saved? Wherewithal shall we come before the Lord? If you will
thus enquire, enquire quickly, before it be too late. (2.) “What we may expect and must
provide for.” He acknowledges, “Our fathers have not hearkened to the words of this
book; if this be the rule of right, certainly our fathers have been much in the wrong.”
Now that the commandment came sin revived, and appeared sin; in the glass of the law,
he saw the sins of his people more numerous and more heinous than he had before seen
them, and more exceedingly sinful. He infers hence, “Certainly great is the wrath that is
kindled against us; if this be the word of God, as no doubt it is, and he will be true to his
word, as no doubt he will be, we are all undone. I never thought the threatenings of the
law so severe, and the curses of the covenant so terrible, as now I find them to be; it is
time to look about us if these be in force against us.” Note, Those who are truly
apprehensive of the weight of God's wrath cannot but be very solicitous to obtain his
favour, and inquisitive how they may make their peace with him. Magistrates should
enquire for their people, and study how to prevent the judgments of God that they see
hanging over them.

82. K&D, "From the commission, “Inquire ye of Jehovah for me and for the people and
for all Judah (i.e., the whole kingdom) concerning the words of this book of the law that
has been found, for great is the wrath of the Lord which has been kindled against us,
because our fathers have not heard ...,” we may infer that the curses of the law upon the
despisers of the commandments of God in Lev 26; Deu_28:1, and other passages, had
been read to the king. ‫ת־יי‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ means to inquire the will of the Lord, what He has
determined concerning the king, his people, and the kingdom. ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ע‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ signifies here to
hearken to anything, to observe it, for which ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ is used elsewhere. ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ב‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָⅴ, to prescribe for
performance. ‫ינוּ‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ע‬ “prescribed for us,” is quite appropriate, since the law was not only
given to the fathers to obey, but also to the existing generation-a fact which Thenius has
overlooked with his conjecture ‫יו‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫.ע‬ To render the king's alarm and his fear of severe
judgments from God intelligible, there is no need for the far-fetched and extremely
precarious hypothesis, that just at that time the Scythians had invaded and devastated
the land.
ELLICOTT, "(13) Enquire of the Lord.—Or, seek ye Jehovah. Josiah wished to
know whether any hope remained for himself and his people, or whether the
vengeance must fall speedily.
For the people.—Of Jerusalem.
Written concerning us.—Thenius conjectures written therein, a slight change in the
Hebrew. But Josiah identifies the people and their fathers as one nation. (Comp.
also Exodus 20:5.) However Chronicles has “in this book,” and the Arabic here “in
it.”
PETT, "“Go you, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and for all Judah,
concerning the words of this book that is found, for great is the wrath of YHWH
that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this
book, to do according to all that which is written concerning us.”
He called on them to ‘enquire of YHWH’ on his behalf concerning the fact that the
people (indeed ‘all of Judah’) had been disobedient to what was written in the book.
His aim was to discover whether YHWH intended to visit His people with the great
wrath described in the book. It is noteworthy that no mention is made of blessings
and cursings (which we might have expected if it was Deuteronomy). It is the wrath
of YHWH that he fears, the wrath described in Leviticus 26:16; Leviticus 26:22;
Leviticus 26:25; Leviticus 26:28-31; Leviticus 26:33; Leviticus 26:38. For ‘enquiring
of YHWH’ see 2 Kings 3:11; 2 Kings 8:8; Genesis 25:22; 1 Kings 22:8.
PULPIT, "Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me. Inquiry of the Lord, which from the
time of Moses to that of David was ordinarily "by Urim and Thummim," was after
David's time always made by the consultation of a prophet (see 1 Kings 22:5-8; 2

83. Kings 3:11; 2 Kings 8:8; Jeremiah 21:2; Jeremiah 37:7; Ezekiel 14:7; Ezekiel 20:1,
etc.). The officers, therefore, understood the king to mean that they were to seek out
a prophet (see 2 Kings 22:14), and so make the inquiry. And for the people, and for
all Judah—the threats read in the king's ears were probably those of Deuteronomy
28:15-68 or Le Deuteronomy 26:16 -39, which extended to the whole people—
concerning the words of this book that is found. ot "whether they are authentic,
whether they are really the words of Moses" (Duneker), for of that Josiah appears
to have had no doubt; but whether they are words that are to have an immediate
fulfillment, "whether," as Yon Gerlach says, "the measure of sin is already full, or
whether there is yet hope of grace?" (compare Huldah's answer in Deuteronomy
26:16 -20, which shows what she understood the king's inquiry to be). For great is
the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us. Josiah recognized that Judah had
done, and was still doing, exactly those things against which the threatenings of the
Law were directed—bad forsaken Jehovah and gone after other gods, and made to
themselves high places, and set up images, and done after the customs of the nations
whom the Lord had cast out before them. He could not, therefore, doubt but that
the wrath of the Lord "was kindled;" but would it blaze forth at once? Because our
fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all
that which is written concerning us. Josiah assumes that their fathers have had the
book, and might have known its words, either because he conceives that it had not
been very long lost, or because he regards them as having possessed other copies.
14 Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan
and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah,
who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the
son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived
in Jerusalem, in the ew Quarter.
BAR ES, "Went unto Huldah - It might have been expected that the royal
commissioners would have gone to Jeremiah, on whom the prophetic spirit had
descended in Josiah’s 13th year Jer_1:2, or five years previous to the finding of the Law.
Perhaps he was at some distance from Jerusalem at the time; or his office may not yet
have been fully recognized.
The prophetess - Compare the cases of Miriam Exo_15:20; Num_12:2 and Deborah
Jdg_4:4.
Keeper of the wardrobe - literally, “of the robes.” Shallum had the
superintendence, either of the vestments of the priests who served in the temple, or of
the royal robe-room in which dresses of honor were stored, in case of their being needed

84. for presents (see 2Ki_5:5 note).
In the college - The marginal translation “in the second part” is preferable; and
probably refers to the new or outer city - that which had been enclosed by the wall of
Manasseh, to the north of the old city 2Ch_33:14.
CLARKE, "Went unto Huldah the prophetess - This is a most singular
circumstance: At this time Jeremiah was certainly a prophet in Israel, but it is likely he
now dwelt at Anathoth and could not be readily consulted; Zephaniah also prophesied
under this reign, but probably he had not yet begun; Hilkiah was high priest, and the
priest’s lips should retain knowledge. Shaphan was scribe, and must have been
conversant in sacred affairs to have been at all fit for his office; and yet Huldah, a
prophetess, of whom we know nothing but by this circumstance, is consulted on the
meaning of the book of the law; for the secret of the Lord was neither with Hilkiah the
high priest, Shaphan the scribe, nor any other of the servants of the king, or ministers of
the temple! We find from this, and we have many facts in all ages to corroborate it, that a
pontiff, a pope, a bishop, or a priest, may, in some cases, not possess the true knowledge
of God; and that a simple woman, possessing the life of God in her soul, may have more
knowledge of the Divine testimonies than many of those whose office it is to explain and
enforce them.
On this subject Dr. Priestley in his note makes the following very judicious remark: -
“It pleased God to distinguish several women with the spirit of
prophecy, as well as other great attainments, to show that in his sight,
and especially in things of a spiritual nature, there is no essential pre-
eminence in the male sex, though in some things the female be subject to
the male.”
GILL, "So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and
Asahiah, went down to Huldah the prophetess,.... Such as were Miriam and
Deborah; in imitation of those Satan had very early his women prophetesses, the Sibyls,
so called from their being the council and oracle of God, and consulted as such on
occasion, as Huldah now was; and the first of the Sibyls, according to Suidas (n), was a
Chaldean or a Persian; and some say an Hebrew; and Pausanias expressly says (o), that
with the Hebrews above Palestine was a woman prophetess, whose name was Sabba,
whom some called the Babylonian, others the Egyptian Sibyl. Aelian relates (p) that one
of them was a Jewess:
the wife of Shallum, the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the
wardrobe; but whether the king's wardrobe in the palace, or the priest's in the temple,
is not certain; he is called Hasrah, 2Ch_34:22 who is here called Harhas:
now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college; in the college of the prophets; in the
house of instruction, as the Targum; the school where the young prophets were
instructed and trained up; though Jarchi observes, that some interpret this "within the
two walls"; Jerusalem it seems had three walls, and within the second this woman lived;
there were gates in the temple, as he also observes, called the gates of Huldah (q), but
whether from her cannot be said: this place of her dwelling seems to be mentioned as a
reason why these messengers went to her, because she was near, as well as well known

85. for her prophetic spirit, prudence, and faithfulness, and not to Jeremiah, who in all
probability was at Anathoth; and so also is the reason why they went not to Zephaniah, if
he as yet had begun to prophesy, because he might be at a distance also: and they
communed with her; upon the subject the king sent them about.
HE RY, "2. This enquiry Josiah sent, (1.) By some of his great men, who are named
2Ki_22:12, and again 2Ki_22:14. Thus he put an honour upon the oracle, by employing
those of the first rank to attend it. (2.) To Huldah the prophetess, 2Ki_22:14. The spirit
of prophecy, that inestimable treasure, was sometimes put not only into earthen vessels,
but into the weaker vessels, that the excellency of the power might be of God. Miriam
helped to lead Israel out of Egypt (Mic_6:4), Deborah judged them, and now Huldah
instructed them in the mind of God, and her being a wife was no prejudice at all to her
being a prophetess; marriage is honourable in all. It was a mercy to Jerusalem that
when Bibles were scarce they had prophets, as afterwards, when prophecy ceased, that
they had more Bibles; for God never leaves himself without witness, because he will
leave sinners without excuse. Jeremiah and Zephaniah prophesied at this time, yet the
king's messengers made Huldah their oracle, probably because her husband having a
place at court (for he was keeper of the wardrobe) they had had more and longer
acquaintance with her and greater assurances of her commission than of any other; they
had, it is likely, consulted her upon other occasions, and had found that the word of God
in her mouth was truth. She was near, for she dwelt at Jerusalem, in a place called
Mishneh, the second rank of buildings from the royal palace. The Jews say that she
prophesied among the women, the court ladies, being herself one of them, who it is
probable had their apartments in that place. Happy the court that had a prophetess
within the verge of it, and knew how to value her.
JAMISO , "Achbor — or Abdon (2Ch_34:20), a man of influence at court (Jer_
26:22). The occasion was urgent, and therefore they were sent - not to Zephaniah (Zep_
1:1), who was perhaps young - nor to Jeremiah, who was probably absent at his house in
Anathoth, but to one who was at hand and known for her prophetic gifts - to Huldah,
who was probably at this time a widow. Her husband Shallum was grandson of one
Harhas, “keeper of the wardrobe.” If this means the priestly wardrobe, [Harhas] must
have been a Levite. But it probably refers to the royal wardrobe.
she dwelt ... in the college — rather, “in the Misnah,” taking the original word as a
proper name, not a school or college, but a particular suburb of Jerusalem. She was held
in such veneration that Jewish writers say she and Jehoiada the priest were the only
persons not of the house of David (2Ch_24:15, 2Ch_24:16) who were ever buried in
Jerusalem.
K&D, "Nothing further is known of the prophetess Huldah than what is mentioned
here. All that we can infer from the fact that the king sent to her is, that she was highly
distinguished on account of her prophetical gifts, and that none of the prophets of
renown, such as Jeremiah and Zephaniah, were at that time in Jerusalem. Her father
Shallum was keeper of the clothes, i.e., superintendent over either the priests' dresses
that were kept in the temple (according to the Rabbins and Wits. de proph. in his
Miscell. ss. i. p. 356, ed. 3), or the king's wardrobe. The names of his ancestors ‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ and

86. ‫ס‬ ַ‫ח‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ה‬ are written ‫ת‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ּוק‬ and ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ס‬ ַ‫ח‬ in the Chronicles. Huldah lived at Jerusalem ‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ ַ , “in
the second part” or district of the city, i.e., in the lower city, upon the hill ᅖκρα (Rob.
Pal. i. p. 391), which is called ‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ ַ‫ה‬ in Zep_1:10, and ‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫ה‬ in Neh_11:9, and ᅎλλη
πόλις in Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, 5.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:14. So Hilkiah the priest, &c., went unto Huldah the
prophetess — This is the only mention we have of this prophetess; and certainly it
tends much to her honour that she was consulted on this important occasion, when,
it is supposed, that not only Jeremiah, but Zephaniah also, was a prophet in Judah.
But Zephaniah, perhaps, might not at that time have commenced a prophet;
because, although we are told he prophesied in the days of Josiah, (Zephaniah 1:1,)
yet we are nowhere informed in what part of Josiah’s reign he entered on the
prophetic office. And Jeremiah might then be absent from Jerusalem, at his house at
Anathoth, or some more remote part of the kingdom; so that, considering Josiah’s
haste and impatience, there might be no other proper person to apply to than this
prophetess. And the king and his ministers, who went to inquire, being well assured
of her fidelity in delivering the counsel of God, concluded rightly, that it was much
more to be regarded what message God sent, than by whom it was conveyed. — See
Poole and Dodd. ow she dwelt in the college — Where the sons of the prophets,
and others who devoted themselves to the study of God’s word, used to meet and
discourse of the things of God, and receive the instructions of their teachers.
COFFMA , " ote that Huldah does not even mention any query about the
authenticity of that discovery, simply because no question about that was necessary.
It was at once recognized for what it was, namely, either the original Book of the
Covenant (the Torah, called also the Pentateuch) which had been placed beside the
ark of God upon the command of Moses, or an authentic copy of the same replacing
it. What Huldah did was to answer the king's inquiry about whether the terrible
curses and penalties were due for an immediate fulfillment or not. The key part of
her reply was that the penalties would not be executed during Josiah's lifetime.
"She dwelt in Jerusalem, in the second quarter" (2 Kings 22:14). "Second quarter
in this place is literally, the lower city."[28]
"Thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace" (2 Kings 22:20). Of course, Josiah
died in battle, and that fact gives the critics a cue to allege "contradiction," or
"multiple sources," or "a later editor."[29] Keil gave the true explanation. "The
expression `slept with his fathers,' while usually applicable to a peaceful death, was
also applied to a violent death by being slain in battle."[30] In mercy, the life of
Josiah ended without his living to see the devastation and destruction of his beloved
city and its people, and that, of course, was the full and adequate fulfillment of the
words of the prophetess. "Thus Josiah was taken away from the evil to come and
died `in peace' (as regarded Jerusalem) prior to the attack,"[31] of the destroying

87. army.
We have devoted much more space to our discussion of this chapter than some
might consider necessary, but this very chapter is the tap-root of the most
destructive criticism of the Bible which Satan ever launched. Right here is where
they digged up the Piltdown Man of modern criticism (See the encyclopaedia), and
we felt that it was necessary to expose and denounce the Great Fraud for what it
most certainly is!
COKE, "2 Kings 22:14. Huldah the prophetess— This is the only mention that we
have of this prophetess; and certainly it tends much to her honour that she was
consulted upon this important occasion, when both Jeremiah and Zephaniah were
at that time prophets in Judah. But Zephaniah, perhaps, at that time might not have
commenced a prophet, because, though we are told that he prophesied in the days of
Josiah, Zephaniah 1:1 yet we are nowhere informed in what part of his reign he
entered upon the prophetic office. Jeremiah too might at that time be absent from
Jerusalem, at his house at Anathoth, or some more remote part of the kingdom; so
that, considering Josiah's haste and impatience, there might be no other proper
person to apply to than this prophetess; well assured of whose fidelity in delivering
the mind and counsel of God, the king, and the ministers who went from him to
inquire, concluded rightly, that it was much more important what message God
sent, than by whose hand it was that he conveyed it. See Poole, and Smith's Select
Discourses, p. 252.
ELLICOTT, "(14) Went unto Huldah the prophetess.—Why not to Jeremiah or
Zephaniah? Apparently because Huldah “dwelt in Jerusalem,” and they did not, at
least at this time. Anathoth in Benjamin was Jeremiah’s town. Huldah, however,
must have enjoyed a high reputation, as prophets are mentioned in 2 Kings 23:2.
Keeper of the wardrobe.—Either the royal wardrobe or that of the priests in the
Temple. (Comp. 2 Kings 10:22.) In either case Shallum was a person of
consideration, as is further shown by the careful specification of his descent.
In the college.—This is the rendering of the Targum, as if mishneh (“second”) were
equivalent to the later Mishna. The word really means the second part of the city—
i.e., the lower city. (See ehemiah 11:9; Zephaniah 1:10.)
GUZIK, "3. (2 Kings 22:14-17) God’s word to the Kingdom of Judah: Judgment is
coming.
So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the
prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the
wardrobe. (She dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter.) And they spoke with
her. Then she said to them, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘Tell the man who

88. sent you to Me, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I will bring calamity on this place
and on its inhabitants; all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read;
because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might
provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands. Therefore My wrath shall be
aroused against this place and shall not be quenched.’ “ ‘ “
a. Huldah the prophetess: We know little of this woman other than this mention
here (and the similar account recorded in 2 Chronicles 34:22). With the apparent
approval of King Josiah, Hilkiah the priest consulted this woman for spiritual
guidance. It wasn’t because of her own wisdom and spirituality, but that she was
recognized as a prophetess and could reveal the heart and mind of God.
i. There were certainly other prophets in Judah. “Though the contemporary
prophet Jeremiah is not mentioned, he commended Josiah (Jeremiah 22:15-16) and
the prophet Zephaniah (Zephaniah 1:1) was at work in this reign.” (Wiseman) Yet
for some reason - perhaps spiritual, perhaps practical - they chose to consul Huldah
the prophetess.
ii. “We find from this, and we have many facts in all ages to corroborate it, that a
pontiff, a pope, a bishop, or a priest, may, in some cases, not possess the true
knowledge of God; and that a simple woman, possessing the life of God in her soul,
may have more knowledge of the divine testimonies than many of those whose office
it is to explain and enforce them.” (Clarke)
b. I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants: Josiah knew that Judah
deserved judgment, and that judgment would indeed come. Judah and its leaders
had walked against the LORD for too long, and would not genuinely repent so as to
avoid eventual judgment.
c. All the words of the book: God’s word was true, even in its promises of judgment.
God’s faithfulness is demonstrated as much by His judgment upon the wicked as it
is by His mercy upon the repentant.
PETT, "Verses 14-20
Huldah’s Reply To Josiah (2 Kings 22:14-20).
The enquiry was made to Huldah, the prophetess. We should note that there is no
hint that Huldah read the book, or even saw it. Given the care that the author has
taken up to this point to indicate precisely what happened to the book (‘Huldah
delivered the book to Shaphan and he read it’ -- ‘Shaphan read it before the king’)
this must be seen as significant, especially as she does refer to Josiah reading it. ote
also that while Josiah referred to ‘this book’ when speaking to Hilkiah and the
others, this is not true of Huldah. Instead she seemingly demonstrated that she was
already aware of the contents of the book and did not need to read it.
If she did speak from a background of ‘the Law of Moses’ we would expect to find

89. that Law reflected in her words and we are not disappointed. Reference to ‘the
‘burning of incense’ is found thirteen times in Exodus to umbers (although not in
reference to foreign idols. That idea occurs first in 1 Kings 11:8), and in all incense
is mentioned fifty times. It is, however, only mentioned once in Deuteronomy, and
then not as ‘burned’. In contrast ‘provoke Me to anger’ is found regularly in
Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 4:25; Deuteronomy 9:18; Deuteronomy 31:29;
Deuteronomy 32:16; Deuteronomy 32:21), but interestingly not in the part often
seen by many as comprising ‘the Book of the Law’. ‘Kindling of wrath’ is found in
Genesis 39:9; umbers 11:33; Deuteronomy 11:17, in all cases against people.
‘Quenched’ occurs only in Leviticus 6:12-13. The declaration that the inhabitants
would become a desolation and curse is not Deuteronomic language, for ‘curse’ is
here being used in a general sense along with ‘desolation’ as referring to what the
people would become, an angle that does not occur in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy
tends to stress positive ‘cursing’ by YHWH. Thus Huldah’s words reflect having the
whole Law of Moses as a background (or the tradition that lies behind it) and do not
favour the argument for Deuteronomy alone.
Analysis.
a So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah,
went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of
Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter),
and they communed with her (2 Kings 22:14).
b And she said to them, “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel. You tell the man
who sent you to me, Thus says YHWH, Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on
its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read” (2
Kings 22:15-16).
c “Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to other gods, that
they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore my
wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched” (2 Kings
22:17).
d “But to the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of YHWH, thus shall you
say to him” (2 Kings 22:18).
c “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, as touching the words which you have
heard, because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before YHWH,
when you heard what I spoke against this place, and against its inhabitants, that
they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and wept
before me, I also have heard you, says YHWH” (2 Kings 22:19).
b “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be
gathered to your grave in peace, nor will your eyes see all the evil which I will bring
on this place” (2 Kings 22:20 a).
a And they brought the king word again (2 Kings 22:20 b).
ote that in ‘a’ the deputation was sent to the prophet, and in the parallel the
deputation brought the king word again. In ‘b’ evil was to come ‘on this place’ and
in the parallel Josiah was not to see the evil that would come ‘on this place’. In ‘c’
YHWH’s wrath was kindled against them, and in the parallel Josiah had been
moved by the fact. Centrally in ‘d’ the word comes to the king from YHWH.

90. 2 Kings 22:14
‘So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah, went to
Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas,
keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter), and
they communed with her.’
It is clear that the deputation saw Huldah (‘mole’) the prophetess as a suitable
person through whom to ‘enquire of YHWH’. This was partly because she was both
a prophetess and the wife of a high official (if it was the king’s wardrobe), or of s
Temple servant (if it was the keeper of the Temple robes, compare 2 Kings 10:22).
Either way he was the official ‘keeper of the wardrobe’, and thus well known to the
men in question. This might explain why they did not seek out Zephaniah or
Jeremiah, who, while highly influential, were probably not prophets directly
connected with the Temple (although Jeremiah was a priest from Anathoth).
Alternately they may well not have been in Jerusalem at the time. Some suggest that
it was because they may have been seen as men who would be more likely to give a
pessimistic reply, but it is not likely that Josiah would see things like that. He
genuinely wanted to know what YHWH had to say. Huldah was clearly an
exceptional woman, and presumably was recognised as having an exceptional
prophetic gift. It must probably be accepted therefore that that was seen as her
accepted function.
‘The second quarter’ was probably an area reserved for official functionaries of the
palace and the Temple, so that this indicated her importance. It was probably the
northern extension of the old Jebusite city.
PULPIT, "So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahi-ham, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asa-
hiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah. The
principal prophets at or very near the time were Jeremiah, whose mission had
commenced in Josiah's thirteenth year (Jeremiah 1:2) and Zephaniah, the son of
Cushi, whose prophecy appears by internal evidence to have belonged to the earliest
part of Josiah's reign. It might have been expected that the matter would have been
laid before one of these two persons. Possibly, however, neither of them was at
Jerusalem. Jeremiah's early home was Anathoth, and Zephaniah may have finished
his course before Josiah's eighteenth year (see Pusey, l.s.c.). Huldah may thus have
been the only possessor of the prophetic gift who was accessible. The son of Harhas,
keeper of the wardrobe; literally, keeper of the garments: In Chronicles the name of
the keeper is given as "Hasrah." ow she dwelt at Jerusalem in the college—rather,
in the lower city (comp. Zephaniah 1:10 and ehemiah 11:9; literally, in each place,
"the second city ")—and they communed with her; literally, spoke with her;
ἐλάλησαν πρὸς αὐτήν, LXX.

91. 15 She said to them, “This is what the Lord, the
God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to
me,
GILL, "And she said unto them,.... The king's messengers:
thus saith the Lord God of Israel; being immediately inspired by him, she spake in
his name, as prophets did:
tell the man that sent you to me; which may seem somewhat rude and unmannerly
to say of a king; but when it is considered she spake not of herself, but representing the
King of kings and Lord of lords, it will be seen and judged of in another light.
HE RY, "III. The answer he received from God to his enquiry. Huldah returned it
not in the language of a courtier - “Pray give my humble service to his Majesty, and let
him know that this is the message I have for him from the God of Israel;” but in the
dialect of a prophetess, speaking from him before whom all stand upon the same level -
Tell the man that sent you to me, 2Ki_22:15. Even kings, though gods to us, are men to
God, and shall so be dealt with; for with him there is no respect of persons.
JAMISO 15-20, "she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
Tell the man that sent you to me — On being consulted, she delivered an oracular
response in which judgment was blended with mercy; for it announced the impending
calamities that at no distant period were to overtake the city and its inhabitants. But at
the same time the king was consoled with an assurance that this season of punishment
and sorrow should not be during his lifetime, on account of the faith, penitence, and
pious zeal for the divine glory and worship which, in his public capacity and with his
royal influence, he had displayed.
K&D 15-19, "The reply of Huldah the prophetess. - Huldah confirmed the fear
expressed by Josiah, that the wrath of the Lord was kindled against Jerusalem and its
inhabitants on account of their idolatry, and proclaimed first of all (2Ki_22:16, 2Ki_
22:17), that the Lord would bring upon Jerusalem and its inhabitants all the
punishments with which the rebellious and idolaters are threatened in the book of the
law; and secondly (2Ki_22:18-20), to the king himself, that on account of his sincere
repentance and humiliation in the sight of God, he would not live to see the predicted
calamities, but would be gathered to his fathers in peace. The first part of her
announcement applies “to the man who has sent you to me” (2Ki_22:15), the second “to
the king of Judah, who has sent to inquire of the Lord” (2Ki_22:18). “The man” who had

92. sent to her was indeed also the king; but Huldah intentionally made use of the general
expression “the man,” etc., to indicate that the word announced to him applied not
merely to the king, but to every one who would hearken to the word, whereas the second
portion of her reply had reference to the king alone. ‫ה‬ֶ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ּום‬‫ק‬ ָ ַ‫,ה‬ in 2Ki_22:16, 2Ki_22:19,
and 2Ki_22:20, is Jerusalem as the capital of the kingdom. In 2Ki_22:16, ‫ר‬ ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ ַ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ ‫ל־‬ ָⅴ is
an explanatory apposition to ‫ה‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫.ר‬ 2Ki_22:17. “With all the work of their hands,” i.e., with
the idols which they have made for themselves (cf. 1Ki_16:7). The last clause in 2Ki_
22:18, “the words which thou hast heard,” is not to be connected with the preceding one,
“thus saith the Lord,” and ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ or ְ‫ל‬ to be supplied; but it belongs to the following sentence,
and is placed at the head absolutely: as for the words, which thou hast heart - because
thy heart has become soft, i.e., in despair at the punishment with which the sinners are
threatened (cf. Deu_20:3; Isa_7:4), and thou hast humbled thyself, when thou didst
hear, etc.; therefore, behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, etc. ‫ה‬ ָ ַ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ּות‬‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫,ל‬ “that they
(the city and inhabitants) may become a desolation and curse.” These words, which are
often used by the prophets, but which are not found connected like this except in Jer_
44:22, rest upon Lev 26 and Deut 28, and show that these passages had been read to the
king out of the book of the law.
BE SO , "Verse 15-16
2 Kings 22:15-16. Tell the man that sent you — She uses no compliments. Even
kings, though gods to us, are men to God, and shall be so dealt with: for with him
there is no respect of persons. Thus saith the Lord, I will bring evil upon this place,
&c. — She lets him know, both what judgments God had in store for Judah and
Jerusalem, and what mercy was laid up for him. Even all the words — According to
all the words, of the book — All the plagues threatened in Deuteronomy 28., and in
other places. The Scriptures must be fulfilled. They that will not be bound by the
precept, shall be bound by the penalty. And God will be found no less terrible to the
ungodly, than his word makes him to be. Take warning in time, O impenitent
sinner! whosoever thou art.
PETT, "2 Kings 22:15-16
‘And she said to them, “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel. You tell the man who
sent you to me, Thus says YHWH, Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on its
inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read.” ’
Her indirect reference to the book as ‘the book which the king of Judah has read’
can most naturally be seen as an indication that she herself had not read it. This
would serve to confirm that it was not seen as a new source of Law, and that she did
not need to read it in order to know what was in it. Its significance lay rather in the
age of the record, where it was found, and what it signified. She commenced by
pointing out that she spoke in the name of YHWH, and as His mouthpiece. ‘You tell
the man who sent you’ (which in context was clearly not antagonistic) indicated that
she was speaking with deliberate independence as a servant of YHWH and not as a
servant of the king (i.e. not subserviently).

93. And the message was that evil was to come on Judah and Jerusalem. Once again
there is no specific reference to what we call ‘The Exile’. The thought is rather of
general judgment coming on Judah and Jerusalem in whatever way God chose. But
both Leviticus and Deuteronomy would have perfectly justified her in seeing this as
including exile (see Leviticus 26:31-36; Deuteronomy 28:15 ff), to say nothing of
what the past had revealed about what happened to those who rebelled against great
kings (as we have seen both Israel and Judah had already experienced a number of
times what it meant to have many of their people taken into exile). Furthermore
Micah had already prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem (Micah 3:9-12), and as
Micah’s words are cited by Jeremiah 26:18 it must have been before the event.
Huldah would therefore have had to be very naive not to be able to prophesy
coming judgment in view of the sins of Judah and what had been said by prophets
in the past. Thus there is no reason to think that words have later been put into her
mouth. But it should be noted that she spoke generally of ‘all the words of this
book’, rather than being specific. In the event she was to be proved literally true.
PULPIT, "2 Kings 22:15-20
The prophecy of Huldah. The word of the Lord comes to Huldah with the arrival of
the messengers, or perhaps previous to it, and she is at once ready with her reply. It
divides itself into two parts. In 2 Kings 22:15-17 the inquiry made is answered—
answered affirmatively, "Yes, the fiat is gone forth; it is too late to avert the
sentence; the anger of the Lord is kindled, and shall not be quenched." After this, in
2 Kings 22:18-20, a special message is sent to the king, granting him an arrest of
judgment, on account of his self-humiliation and abasement. "Because his heart was
tender, and he had humbled himself before Jehovah, the evil should not happen in
his day."
2 Kings 22:15
And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. Huldah is the only
example of a prophetess in Israel, who seems to rank on the same footing with the
prophets. Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah ( 4:4), Isaiah s wife (Isaiah 8:2), and
Anna (Luke 2:36) are called "prophetesses," but in a secondary sense, as holy
women, having a certain gift of song or prediction from God. Huldah has the full
prophetic afflatus, and delivers God's oracles, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah do. The
case is a remarkable exception to the general rule that women should "keel) silence
in the Churches." Tell the man that sent you to me. The contrast between this
unceremonious phrase and that used in verse 18 is best explained by Thenius, who
says, "In the first part Huldah has only the subject-matter in mind, while in verse
18, in the quieter flow of her words, she takes notice of the state of mind of the
particular person who sent to make the inquiry."

94. 16 ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to
bring disaster on this place and its people,
according to everything written in the book the
king of Judah has read.
BAR ES, "All the words of the book - The “words” here intended are no doubt
the threatenings of the Law, particularly those of Lev. 26:16-39 and Deut. 28:15-68.
Josiah had probably only heard a portion of the Book of the Law; but that portion had
contained those awful denunciations of coming woe. Hence, Josiah’s rending of his
clothes 2Ki_22:11, and his hurried message to Huldah.
GILL, "Thus saith the Lord, behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and
upon the inhabitants of it,.... Destruction to the place, and captivity to the
inhabitants of it:
even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read; particularly
what is contained in Lev_26:14, even all the curses in it, as in 2Ch_34:24.
HE RY, "1. She let him know what judgments God had in store for Judah and
Jerusalem (2Ki_22:16, 2Ki_22:17): My wrath shall be kindled against this place; and
what is hell itself but the fire of God's wrath kindled against sinners? Observe, (1.) The
degree and duration of it. It is so kindled that it shall not be quenched; the decree has
gone forth; it is too late now to think of preventing it; the iniquity of Jerusalem shall not
be purged with sacrifice or offering. Hell is unquenchable fire. (2.) The reference it has,
[1.] To their sins: “They have committed them, as it were, with design, and on purpose to
provoke me to anger. It is a fire of their own kindling; they would provoke me, and at
length I am provoked.” [2.] To God's threatenings: “The evil I bring is according to the
words of the book which the king of Judah has read; the scripture is fulfilled in it. Those
that would not be bound by the precept shall be bound by the penalty.” God will be
found no less terrible to impenitent sinners than his word makes him to be.
ELLICOTT, "(16) I will bring evil upon . . .—Literally, I am about to bring evil
unto . . . Instead of unto, the LXX., Vulg., and Chronicles rightly read upon, which
follows in the next phrase.
Which the king of Judah hath read.—The book had been read to him as the
chronicler explains. The freedom of expression here warns us against pressing the
words of 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 22:10 (“he read it”).

95. PULPIT, "Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place—i.e.
Jerusalem—and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which
the King of Judah hath read. In the parallel passage of Chronicles (2 Chronicles
34:24) the expression used is stronger, viz, "Behold, I will bring evil upon this place,
and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book
which they have road before the King of Judah." The passage which most strongly
affected Josiah was probably that, already mentioned, in Deuteronomy 28:1-68;
which began with a series of curses.
17 Because they have forsaken me and burned
incense to other gods and aroused my anger by all
the idols their hands have made,[a] my anger will
burn against this place and will not be quenched.’
BAR ES, "Have burned incense - In the marginal reference the corresponding
phrase is: “have served other gods, and worshipped them.” Its alteration to “have bnrned
incense” points to the fact that the favorite existing idolatry was burning incense on the
housetops to Baal Jer_19:13; Jer_32:29 and to the host of heaven 2Ki_21:3.
CLARKE, "My wrath shall be kindled - The decree is gone forth; Jerusalem shall
be delivered into the hands of its enemies; the people will revolt more and more;
towards them longsuffering is useless; the wrath of God is kindled, and shall not be
quenched. This was a dreadful message.
GILL, "Because they have forsaken me,.... My worship, as the Targum; his word
and ordinances:
and have burnt incense unto other gods; to Baal, to the host of heaven, and other
Heathen deities:
that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands: their
idols of wood, stone, gold, and silver, which their hands had made, to worship; than
which nothing was more provoking to God:
therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be
quenched; the decree for the destruction of Jerusalem was gone forth, and not to be
called back; the execution of it could not be stopped or hindered by cries, prayers,

96. entreaties, or otherwise; this wrath of God was an emblem of the unquenchable fire of
hell, Mat_3:12.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:17. Because they have forsaken me — The God of their
fathers, and the only living and true God. And burned incense to other gods —
Imaginary beings of their own devising, or the works of their hands —
Gods which they themselves have made. To provoke me to anger — As if they
designed this, and worshipped these vanities for no other end but to provoke me; for
in so doing they said, in effect, there is as much reason and propriety in worshipping
the stock of a tree, as in worshipping Jehovah: and to worship these works of our
hands, will be of as much service to us as to worship the author and end of all
things! Therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place — And what is hell
itself but the fire of God’s wrath kindled against sinners? Observe the degree and
duration of it. It is so kindled, that it shall not be quenched. The decree is gone
forth, and it is now too late to think of preventing it; for the iniquity of Jerusalem
shall not be purged by sacrifice or offering. Thus hell is unquenchable fire.
ELLICOTT, "(17) With all the works (work) of their hands.—With the idols they
have made. See 1 Kings 16:7, where the same phrase occurs. (Comp. also Isaiah
44:9-17; Psalms 115:4 seq.).
Shall not be quenched.—Comp. Jeremiah 4:4; Amos 5:6; Isaiah 1:31.
PETT, "“Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to other gods,
that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore my
wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.”
And the reason why this would be so was because they had forsaken YHWH and
had burned incense to other gods, provoking YHWH to anger with all the work of
their hands. That was why His wrath was kindled against ‘this place’ (an expression
common in both Genesis and Deuteronomy). The language reflects earlier passages
in Kings (1 Kings 12:3; and often; 1 Kings 11:8; 1 Kings 12:33; 1 Kings 14:9; 1
Kings 15:30 etc; 1 Kings 22:43), and echoes different parts of the Pentateuch, as we
have seen above. But there is nothing uniquely Deuteronomic about it (depending of
course on your definition of the term). The burning of incense was a regular feature
of Canaanite worship, and a number of examples of incense burning altars have
been found in Palestine.
PULPIT, "Because they have forsaken me. This was the gist of their offence, the
thing that was unpardonable. Against this were all the chief warnings in the Law
(Deuteronomy 12:19; Deuteronomy 29:25-28; Deuteronomy 31:16, Deuteronomy
31:17; Deuteronomy 32:15, etc.) and the prophets ( 10:13; 1 Samuel 8:8; 1 Samuel
12:9; 1 Kings 9:9; 1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 1:4; Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah

97. 1:16; Jeremiah 2:13, etc.). It was not merely that they broke the commandments, but
they turned from God altogether, and "cast him behind their back." And have
burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the
works of their hands; i.e. "with the idols that they have made for themselves" (Keil).
Therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place—i.e. against Jerusalem—
and shall not be quenched. Here lies the whole point of the answer. God's
threatenings against nations are for the most part conditional, and may be escaped,
or at least their fulfillment may be deferred indefinitely, by repentance, as we learn
from the example of ineveh (Jonah 3:1-10). But if a nation persists long in evil-
doing, there comes a time when the sentence can be no longer averted. A real
repentance has become impossible, and a mock one does but provoke God the more.
For such a state of things there is "no remedy" (2 Chronicles 36:16), and this was
the state of things reached by the Jews. God's anger against them could not be
quenched.
18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire
of the Lord, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of
Israel, says concerning the words you heard:
GILL, "But to the king of Judah, which sent you to inquire of the Lord,....
That is, with respect to him, or what may concern him:
thus shall ye say unto him; carry back this message to him as from the Lord he
desired to inquire of:
thus saith the Lord God of Israel, as touching the words which thou hast
heard: read out of the law, concerning the destruction of the land, and its inhabitants
therein threatened.
COKE, "2 Kings 22:18-19. As touching the words which thou hast heard, &c.—
Because thy heart was terrified at the words which thou hast heard, and thou hast
humbled, &c. Houbigant. See also 2 Chronicles 34:26.
GUZIK, "4. (2 Kings 22:18-20) God’s word to King Josiah: The judgment will not
come in your day.
“But as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, in this manner

98. you shall speak to him, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel: “Concerning the words
which you have heard; because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself
before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its
inhabitants, that they would become a desolation and a curse, and you tore your
clothes and wept before Me, I also have heard you,” says the LORD. Surely,
therefore, 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 calamity which I will bring on this
place.” ‘ “ So they brought back word to the king.
a. Because your heart was tender: Josiah’s heart was tender in two ways. First, it
was tender to the word of God and was able to receive the convicting voice of the
Holy Spirit. Second, it was tender to the message of judgment from Huldah in the
previous verses.
b. You shall be gathered to your grave in peace: Though Josiah died in battle, there
are at least three ways that this was true.
· He died before the great spiritual disaster and exile came to Judah.
· He was gathered to the spirits of his fathers, who were in peace.
· He died in God’s favor, though by the hand of an enemy.
c. Your eyes shall not see all the calamity which I will bring on this place: This was
God’s mercy to Josiah. His own godliness and tender heart could not stop the
eventual judgment of God, but it could delay it. Inevitable judgment is sometimes
delayed because of the tender hearts of the people of God.
i. God delayed judgment even in the case of Ahab, who responded to a word of
warning with a kind of repentance (1 Kings 21:25-29).
PETT, "“But to the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of YHWH, thus shall
you say to him, Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, as touching the words which
you have heard, because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before
YHWH, when you heard what I spoke against this place, and against its inhabitants,
that they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and
wept before me, I also have heard you, says YHWH.”
Once again the prophetess avoided a personal reference to Josiah (compare ‘the
man who sent you’ in 2 Kings 22:15), calling him rather ‘the king of Judah’, thus
keeping him prophetically at arm’s length. But she confirmed that he had done well
to ‘enquire of YHWH’, a phrase found in the Pentateuch only in Genesis 25:22. It is
also found in Judges 20:27; ten times in Samuel; and often in Kings. Her message to
him was that YHWH had seen his tenderheartedness and humility in the light of
what he had heard, and had noted the fact that he had torn his clothing and wept
before YHWH. It was because of that that YHWH had heard him.

99. The message that he had heard and which had so moved him was that YHWH had
spoken ‘against this place’ and against its inhabitants and had promised that they
would become a desolation and a curse. The descriptions were powerful and
emphasised the severity of what was coming. Having accepted it, and having been
moved by it, Josiah had now come to YHWH to seek His mind concerning it. It will
be noted that the way the word ‘curse’ is used is dissimilar to the way in which it is
used in Deuteronomy, although having the same root idea. Here it is the people who
were to become a curse and it is paralleled with ‘desolation’ giving it a more
generalised meaning. The same usage is in fact paralleled in Jeremiah 49:13 where
the idea is similarly general and ‘curse’ is similarly paralleled with other
descriptions. ( ote also its use in Genesis 27:12-13). It is not therefore used in such a
way as to suggest that it specifically had the curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy
directly in mind. This idea of Judah being a curse and a desolation can indeed be
seen as having in mind any of the Pentateuchal warnings of what would happen to
His people if they disobeyed Him (e.g. Leviticus 18:24-30; Leviticus 20:22-23;
Leviticus 26:14-46; Deuteronomy 27:15 to Deuteronomy 29:29).
PULPIT, "But to the King of Judah which sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus
shall ye say to him (see the comment on 2 Kings 22:15), Thus saith the Lord God of
Israel. As touching the words which thou hast heard; i.e. the words that were read
to thee by Shaphan (2 Kings 22:10)—the awful threats which caused thee to rend
thy clothes and to make inquiry of me.
19 Because your heart was responsive and you
humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard
what I have spoken against this place and its
people—that they would become a curse[b] and
be laid waste—and because you tore your robes
and wept in my presence, I also have heard you,
declares the Lord.
CLARKE, "Because thine heart was tender - Because thou hast feared the Lord,
and trembled at his word and hast wept before me, I have heard thee, so far that these
evils shall not come upon the land in thy lifetime.

100. GILL, "Because thine heart was tender,.... Soft like wax, and susceptible of
impressions; or was "moved", or "trembled", as the Targum; for God has respect to such
as are of contrite hearts, and tremble at his word, Isa_66:2,
and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord; external humiliation, such as in
Ahab, was regarded by the Lord, much more internal and cordial humiliation is regarded
by him, see 1Ki_21:29,
when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the
inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse; as in
Lev_26:1.
and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; as expressive of the inward
contrition, sorrow, and grief of his heart:
I also have heard thee, saith the Lord: his cries and prayers.
HE RY 19-20, "2. She let him know what mercy God had in store for him. (1.) Notice
is taken of his great tenderness and concern for the glory of God and the welfare of his
kingdom (2Ki_22:19): Thy heart was tender. Note, God will distinguish those that
distinguish themselves. The generality of the people were hardened and their hearts
unhumbled, so were the wicked kings his predecessors, but Josiah's heart was tender.
He received the impressions of God's word, trembled at it and yielded to it; he was
exceedingly grieved for the dishonour done to God by the sins of his fathers and of his
people; he was afraid of the judgments of God, which he saw coming upon Jerusalem,
and earnestly deprecated them. This is tenderness of heart, and thus he humbled himself
before the Lord, and expressed these pious affections by rending his clothes and weeping
before God, probably in his closet; but he that sees in secret says it was before him, and
he heard it, and put every tear of tenderness into his bottle. Note, Those that most fear
God's wrath are least likely to feel it. It should seem that those words (Lev_26:32) much
affected Josiah, I will bring the land into desolation; for when he heard of the desolation
and of the curse, that is, that God would forsake them and separate them to evil (for till
it came to that they were neither desolate nor accursed), then he rent his clothes: the
threatening went to his heart. (2.) A reprieve is granted till after his death (2Ki_22:20): I
will gather thee to thy fathers. The saints then, no doubt, had a comfortable prospect of
happiness on the other side death, else being gathered to their fathers would not have
been so often made the matter of a promise as we find it was. Josiah could not prevail to
prevent the judgment itself, but God promised him he should not live to see it, which
(especially considering that he died in the midst of his days, before he was forty years
old) would have been but a small reward for his eminent piety if there had not been
another world in which he should be abundantly recompensed, Heb_11:16. When the
righteous is taken away from the evil to come he enters into peace, Isa_57:1, Isa_57:2.
This is promised to Josiah here: Thou shalt go to thy grave in peace, which refers not to
the manner of his death (for he was killed in a battle), but to the time of it; it was a little
before the captivity in Babylon, that great trouble, in comparison with which the rest
were as nothing, so that he might be truly said to die in peace that did not live to share in
that. He died in the love and favour of God, which secure such a peace as no
circumstances of dying, no, not dying in the field of war, could alter the nature of, or

101. break in upon.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:19. Because thy heart was tender — Here are four tokens of
true repentance and conversion to God in Josiah: 1st, Tenderness, or softness of
heart, in opposition to that hardness which arises from unbelief of God’s
declarations and threatenings: he trembled at God’s word: he was grieved for the
dishonour done to God by the sins of the people: and he was afraid of the judgments
of God, which he saw coming on Jerusalem. This is tenderness of heart; and
proceeded in Josiah from his faith in God’s word. 2d, Great humility: he abased
himself before the divine majesty, conscious of his own sinfulness and guilt before
God, and unworthiness of the goodness God had shown him. These two qualities
were internal. The two others were outward tokens of this inward sense of things;
namely, rending his clothes, and weeping before God, for his own and the public
offences, followed by all possible endeavours to effect a reformation in the people.
ELLICOTT, "(19) Tender.—See 1 Chronicles 29:1; 1 Chronicles 13:7;
Deuteronomy 20:8.
Hast humbled thyself.—Comp. the behaviour of Ahab (1 Kings 21:27 seq.).
Become a desolation and a curse.—See Jeremiah 44:22. “A curse” is not so much an
instance of causa pro effectu (Thenius), as a specification of the type such as would
be made in blessing and cursing. (Comp. Jeremiah 29:22; Genesis 48:20; Ruth 4:11-
12.)
PULPIT, "Because thine heart was tender—or, faint, timid (comp. Deuteronomy
20:3; Isaiah 7:4)—and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord. Rending the
garments (2 Kings 22:11) was an outward act of humiliation. Josiah had
accompanied it by inward repentance and self-abasement. He had even been moved
to tears (see the last clause but one of this verse). When thou heartiest what I spake
against this place. The book was, therefore, a record of what God had really spoken,
not a fraud imposed on the king by the high priest, or on the high priest by an
unknown Egyptian exile. And against the inhabitants thereof; that they should
become a desolation and a curse. This is not a direct quotation from the Law, but a
summary, in pregnant language, of the general effect of such passages as Le 26:31-
35 and Deuteronomy 28:15-20. The language is like that of Jeremiah 26:6; Jeremiah
41:18; Jeremiah 44:22. And hast rent thy clothes (see Jeremiah 44:11), and wept
before me. This had not been previously stated, but might have been gathered from
Josiah's evident sincerity, and from the ordinary habits of Orientals. I also have
heard thee, saith the Lord. The general sense of Jeremiah 44:18, Jeremiah 44:19, is,
as Bahr notes, "Because thou hast heard me and taken heed to my threats, I also
have heard thee, and will delay their fulfillment."

102. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors,
and you will be buried in peace. Your eyeswill not
see all the disaster I am going to bring on this
place.’”
So they took her answer back to the king.
BAR ES, "In peace - The death of Josiah in battle 2Ki_23:29 is in verbal
contradiction to this prophecy, but not in real opposition to its spirit, which is simply
that the pious prince who has sent to inquire of the Lord, shall be gathered to his fathers
before the troubles come upon the land which are to result in her utter desolation. Now
those troubles were to come, not from Egypt, but from Babylon; and their
commencement was not the invasion of Necho in 608 B.C., but that of Nebuchadnezzar
three years later. Thus was Josiah “taken away from the evil to come,” and died “in
peace” before his city had suffered attack from the really formidable enemy.
CLARKE, "Thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace - During thy life
none of these calamities shall fall upon the people, and no adversary shall be permitted
to disturb the peace of Judea, and thou shalt die in peace with God. But was Josiah
gathered to the grave in peace? Is it not said, 2Ki_23:29, that Pharaoh-nechoh slew him
at Megiddo? On this we may remark, that the Assyrians and the Jews were at peace; that
Josiah might feel it his duty to oppose the Egyptian king going against his friend and
ally, and endeavor to prevent him from passing through his territories; and that in his
endeavors to oppose him he was mortally wounded at Megiddo: but certainly was not
killed there; for his servants put him in his second chariot and brought him to
Jerusalem, where he died in peace. See 2Ch_35:24. So that, however we take the place
here, we shall find that the words of Huldah were true: he did die in peace, and was
gathered to his fathers in peace.
From the account in the above chapter, where we have this business detailed, we find
that Josiah should not have meddled in the quarrel between the Egyptian and the
Assyrian kings, for God had given a commission to the former against the latter; but he
did it in error, and suffered for it. But this unfortunate end of this pious man does not at
all impeach the credit of Huldah; he died in peace in his own kingdom. He died in peace
with God, and there was neither war nor desolation in his land: nor did the king of Egypt
proceed any farther against the Jews during his life; for he said, “What have I to do with
thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee, but the house wherewith I have war;
for God commanded me to make haste: forbear then from meddling with God, who is

103. with me, that he destroy thee not. Nevertheless, Josiah would not turn his face from
him, and hearkened not to the words of Nechoh, from the mouth of God. And the
archers shot at King Josiah: and the king said, Bear me away, for I am sore wounded.
And his servants took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot, and
they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died and was buried in the sepulcher of his
fathers;” 2Ch_35:21-24.
It seems as if the Egyptian king had brought his troops by sea to Caesarea, and wished
to cross the Jordan about the southern point of the sea of Tiberias, that he might get as
speedily as possible into the Assyrian dependencies; and that he took this road, for God,
as he said, had commanded him to make haste.
GILL, "Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers,.... To his godly
ancestors, to share with them in eternal life and happiness; otherwise it could be no
peculiar favour to die in common, as his fathers did, and be buried in their sepulchres:
and thou shall be gathered into thy grave in peace; in a time of public peace and
tranquillity; for though he was slain in battle with the king of Egypt, yet it was what he
was personally concerned in, and it was not a public war between the two kingdoms, and
his body was carried off by his servants, and was peaceably interred in the sepulchre of
his ancestors, 2Ki_23:29, as well as he died in spiritual peace, and entered into eternal
peace, which is the end of the perfect and upright man, as he was, Psa_37:37 but this
chiefly regards his not living to be distressed with the calamities of his nation and
people, as follows:
and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place: he
being removed first, though it came upon it in the days of his sons:
and they brought the king word again; of what Huldah the prophetess had said
unto them.
HE RY, "A reprieve is granted till after his death (2Ki_22:20): I will gather thee to
thy fathers. The saints then, no doubt, had a comfortable prospect of happiness on the
other side death, else being gathered to their fathers would not have been so often made
the matter of a promise as we find it was. Josiah could not prevail to prevent the
judgment itself, but God promised him he should not live to see it, which (especially
considering that he died in the midst of his days, before he was forty years old) would
have been but a small reward for his eminent piety if there had not been another world
in which he should be abundantly recompensed, Heb_11:16. When the righteous is taken
away from the evil to come he enters into peace, Isa_57:1, Isa_57:2. This is promised to
Josiah here: Thou shalt go to thy grave in peace, which refers not to the manner of his
death (for he was killed in a battle), but to the time of it; it was a little before the
captivity in Babylon, that great trouble, in comparison with which the rest were as
nothing, so that he might be truly said to die in peace that did not live to share in that.
He died in the love and favour of God, which secure such a peace as no circumstances of
dying, no, not dying in the field of war, could alter the nature of, or break in upon.
K&D, "To gather to his fathers means merely to let him die, and is generally applied

104. to a peaceful death upon a sick-bed, like the synonymous phrase, to lie with one's
fathers; but it is also applied to a violent death by being slain in battle (1Ki_22:40 and
1Ki_22:34), so that there is no difficulty in reconciling this comforting assurance with
the slaying of Josiah in battle (2Ki_23:29). ‫ּום‬‫ל‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ , in peace, i.e., without living to witness
the devastation of Jerusalem, as is evident from the words, “thine eyes will not see,” etc.
BE SO , "2 Kings 22:20. Behold, therefore, I will gather thee to thy fathers — It is
justly observed here by Henry, that the saints in those days had doubtless a
comfortable prospect of happiness on the other side of death, otherwise the being
gathered to their fathers would not have been so often made the matter of a promise
as we find it was. Josiah could not prevail to prevent the judgment itself, but God
promised him he should not live to see it; which, especially considering that he died
in the midst of his days, before he was forty years of age, would have been but a
small reward for his eminent piety, if there had not been another world, in which he
should be abundantly recompensed, Hebrews 11:16. When the righteous is taken
away from the evil to come, he enters into peace, Isaiah 58:1-2. This is promised to
Josiah here, Thou shalt go to thy grave in peace — Which refers not to the manner
of his death, for he was killed in battle, but to the time of it; it was a little time
before the captivity in Babylon, that great trouble, in comparison with which other
troubles were as nothing: so that he might be truly said to die in peace, that did not
live to share in that. He died in the love and favour of God, which secures such a
peace as no circumstances of dying, no, not dying in the field of war, could alter the
nature of, or break in upon. They may well be said to die in peace, who, after their
dissolution here, are numbered among the children of God, and have their lot
among the saints.
COKE, "2 Kings 22:20. Thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace— The death
of Josiah was indeed sudden and immature; he fell in battle against the Egyptians,
(see the next chap. 2 Kings 23:29.); and yet he may be said to have gone to his grave
in peace, because he was recalled from life while his kingdom was in a prosperous
condition, before the calamities wherewith it was threatened were come upon it, and
whilst he himself was in peace and reconciliation with God. Thus, when the
righteous are taken away from the evil to come, though in the sight of the universe
they seem to die, and their departure is taken for misery; yet, in what manner
soever their exit be, they may well be said to die in peace, who, after their
dissolution here, are numbered among the children of God, and have their lot
among the saints. See Isaiah 57:1. Wisdom of Solomon 3:2, &c.
ELLICOTT, "(20) Thy grave.—So some MSS. and the old versions. But the
ordinary Hebrew text, thy graves, may be right, as referring to the burial-place
formed by Manasseh, which would contain a number of chambers and niches (2
Kings 21:18).

105. In peace.—These words are limited by those which follow: “thine eyes shall not see
all the evil,” &c. Josiah was slain in battle, as the next chapter relates (2 Kings
23:29); but he was spared the greater calamity of witnessing the ruin of his people.
PETT, "“Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be
gathered to your grave in peace, nor will your eyes see all the evil which I will bring
on this place.” ’
In view of Josiah’s death as a result of battle wounds it might appear at first sight
that YHWH did not fulfil His promise that Josiah would be gathered to his grave in
peace. And it may be that in fact we have a reminder here that God’s promises are
made on the condition of our obedience. On the other hand it is more probable that
we are to see it as an indication of the conditions that would be prevailing in Judah
up to the time of his death. Thus we may see this as indicating that YHWH’s point
was that whilst Josiah was trusting in Him with all his heart He would ensure that
all went well for him and Judah whilst he still lived. It could not, on the other hand,
be a promise that he would himself be kept safe whatever he did, even if he was
foolish, for that would have been unreasonable. What it was, was a promise that he
would be kept safe whilst he was trusting in YHWH and walking in obedience to
him. Consequently, when, instead of trusting YHWH and consulting Him about
what he should do, he blatantly went out on his own initiative to fight against an
Egyptian army that was not threatening Judah, he brought his death on himself. It
was not a failure on behalf of YHWH to fulfil His word.
However, the prophecy was still fulfilled in its main intent, for the fact that Josiah
was to be ‘gathered to his grave in peace’ was, as we have seen, not necessarily in
context mainly an emphasis on the manner of his own death. In view of its
parallelism with ‘nor will your eyes see all the evil which I will bring on this place’
we may well see it as having in mind that while he lived his land would be at peace,
and would not suffer desolation, and that whenever he did die that peace would still
be prevailing. And that promise was basically kept, for at the time of his death
Judah was actually under no specific threat, and there was no immediate threat to
its peace. The truth is that the Egyptians whom Josiah waylaid were not in fact
focused on attacking Judah but were racing to assist the Assyrians in their last
stand against the Babylonians and their allies, and according to 2 Chronicles 35:20-
21 claimed to have no grievance against Judah. Thus according to the Chronicler
Pharaoh echo made clear to Josiah that no danger was threatened against Judah.
Josiah, however, refused to listen to him (2 Chronicles 35:20-21). Thus the author
here in Kings probably wants us to recognise that what happened to Josiah was not
of YHWH’s doing. It was rather the result of his own folly and occurred because,
for political reasons (possibly as the result of an agreement with Babylon), he had
set out to waylay the Egyptian army without consulting YHWH. The consequence
was that he was seen as having chosen his own way of death in a way that was
contrary to YHWH’s will. On the other hand, the fact that he would not see the evil
that would come on Judah was true, for that occurred only after his death.
evertheless the fact that Josiah died from battle wounds does tend to confirm that
this was a prophecy ‘before the event’, for a prophecy ‘after the event’, which knew

106. of the way in which he had died, would undoubtedly have been worded differently.
The question must be asked as to whether the prophetess had the Exile in view in
her words, and the answer is probably both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. It is ‘yes’ because she
must certainly have been aware from past history of the possibility that future
conflict could lead to exile, so that her knowledge of what Micah had prophesied in
Micah 3:9-12 would only have confirmed such an idea to her, but it is ‘no’ because
from the form of her words she was equally clearly not informed on the exact
details. What she was passing on was simply what YHWH had told her to pass on.
Knowing, however, that Micah had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, and
knowing what had been said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about Israel being
removed from their own land, and knowing the tendency of great kings to have
transportation policy, she must certainly have had the possibility of exile in mind. It
was not, however, what she specifically warned against. Her warning was of
desolation and destruction without going into the details.
2 Kings 22:20
‘And they brought the king word again.’
Having listened to the words of Huldah the prophetess, the deputation returned to
the king in order to convey her words to him.
PULPIT, "Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be
gathered into thy grave in peace. There is a seeming contradiction between these
words and the fact of Josiah's violent death in battle against Pharaoh- echoh (2
Kings 23:29). But the contradiction is not a real one. Huldah was commissioned to
assure Josiah that, though the destruction of his kingdom and the desolation of
Judaea and Jerusalem, threatened in the Law, were at hand, yet they would not
come in his day. He would not see the evil time. Before it came he would be
"gathered to his fathers" i.e; in Jerusalem, as his predecessors had been (2 Kings
23:30), and not hurried off into captivity, to die in a foreign land, or given "the
burial of an ass, drawn and east forth before the gates of Jerusalem" (Jeremiah
22:19). The promise given him was fulfilled. He died in battle; but he was buried in
peace (2 Chronicles 35:24, 2 Chronicles 35:25); and the fated enemy who was to
destroy Jerusalem, and carry the Jewish nation into captivity, did not make any
attack upon the land until three years later, when he was departed to his rest, and
the throne was occupied by Jehoiakim (see 2 Kings 24:1). And thine eyes shall not
see all the evil which I will bring upon this place; e.g. the three sieges of
ebuchadnezzar, the destruction of the temple and city by ebuzaradan (2 Kings
25:9, 2 Kings 25:10), the deportation of the bulk of the inhabitants (2 Kings 25:11),
and the calamities which happened to the remnant left (2 Kings 25:22-26). Josiah
did not witness any of this. He was "taken away from the evil to come." And they
brought the king word again; i.e. Hilkiah, Shaphan, and their companions (2 Kings
22:14) reported to Josiah the message which Huldah had sent by them.