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.