2 Kings 15:36
Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
Jump to: BarnesBensonBICambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsJFBKDKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWParkerPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBWESTSK
15:32-38 Jotham showed great respect to the temple. If magistrates cannot do all they would, for the suppressing of vice and profaneness, let them do the more to support and advance piety and virtue.He built the higher gate - Jotham followed the example of his father in military, no less than in religious, matters (compare the marginal reference with 2 Chronicles 26:9). The "higher" or "upper gate" of the temple is thought to have been that toward the north; and its fortification would seem to indicate fear of an attack from that quarter. 35. the higher gate of the house of the Lord—not the temple itself, but one of its courts; probably that which led into the palace (2Ch 23:20). No text from Poole on this verse. Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Of which mention is often made by the inspired historians; some of Jotham's other acts are recorded in the canonical book of Chronicles, 2 Chronicles 27:1. Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
Verse 36. - Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did. The principal event of Jotham's reign was his war with Ammon. The writer of Chronicles says, "He fought also with the king of the Ammonites, and prevailed against them. And the children of Ammon gave him the same year an hundred talents of silver, and ten thousand measures of wheat, and ten thousand of barley. So much did the children of Ammon pay unto him, both the second year, and the third" (2 Chronicles 27:5). Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 9:11. § 2) gives nearly the same account, but regards the payment as an annual tribute, intended to be permanent. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Pekah met with his death in a conspiracy organized by Hosea the son of Elah, who made himself king "in the twentieth year of Jotham." There is something very strange in this chronological datum, as Jotham only reigned sixteen years (2 Kings 15:33), and Ahaz began to reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah (2 Kings 16:1); so that Pekah's death would fall in the fourth year of Ahaz. The reason for this striking statement can only be found, as Usher has shown (Chronol. sacr. p. 80), in the fact that nothing has yet been said about Jotham's successor Ahaz, because the reign of Jotham himself is not mentioned till 2 Kings 15:32.

(Note: Other attempts to solve this difficulty are either arbitrary and precarious, e.g., the conjectures of the earlier chronologists quoted by Winer (R. W. s. v. Jotham), or forced, like the notion of Vaihinger in Herzog's Cycl. (art. Jotham), that the words בן־עזיה ליותם are to be eliminated as an interpolation, in which case the datum "in the twentieth year" becomes perfectly enigmatical; and again the assertion of Hitzig (Comm. z. Jesaj. pp. 72, 73), that instead of in the twentieth year of Jotham, we should read "in the twentieth year of Ahaz the son of Jotham," which could only be consistently carried out by altering the text of not less than seven passages (viz., 2 Kings 15:33; 2 Kings 16:1, and 2 Kings 16:2, 2 Kings 16:17; 2 Chronicles 27:1 and 2 Chronicles 27:8, and 2 Chronicles 28:1); and lastly, the assumption of Thenius, that the words from בשׁנת to עזיה have crept into the text through a double mistake of the copyist and an arbitrary alteration of what had been thus falsely written, which is much too complicated to appear at all credible, even if the reasons which are supposed to render it probable had been more forcible and correct than they really are. For the first reason, viz., that the statement in what year of the contemporaneous ruler a king came to the throne is always first given when the history of this king commences, is disproved by 2 Kings 1:17; the second, that the name of the king by the year of whose reign the accession of another is defined is invariably introduced with the epithet king of Judah or king of Israel, is shown by 2 Kings 12:2 and 2 Kings 16:1 to be not in accordance with fact; and the third, that this very king is never described by the introduction of his father's name, as he is here, except where the intention is to prevent misunderstanding, as in 2 Kings 14:1, 2 Kings 14:23, or in the case of usurpers without ancestors (2 Kings 15:32, 2 Kings 16:1 and 2 Kings 16:15), is also incorrect in its first portion, for in the case of Amaziah in 2 Kings 14:23 there was no misunderstanding to prevent, and even in the case of Joash in 2 Kings 14:1 the epithet king of Israel would have been quite sufficient to guard against any misunderstanding.)

2 Kings 15:36 Interlinear
2 Kings 15:36 Parallel Texts

2 Kings 15:36 NIV
2 Kings 15:36 NLT
2 Kings 15:36 ESV
2 Kings 15:36 NASB
2 Kings 15:36 KJV

2 Kings 15:36 Bible Apps
2 Kings 15:36 Parallel
2 Kings 15:36 Biblia Paralela
2 Kings 15:36 Chinese Bible
2 Kings 15:36 French Bible
2 Kings 15:36 German Bible

Bible Hub

2 Kings 15:35
Top of Page
Top of Page