Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 King 12:4 - 12:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(5-17). Repairing of the temple (cf. 2Ch 24:5-14). - 2Ki 12:4, 2Ki 12:5. That the temple, which had fallen into ruins, might be restored, Joash ordered the priests to collect all the money of the consecrated gifts, that was generally brought into the house of the Lord, and to effect therewith all the repairs that were needed in the temple. The general expression הַקֳּדָשִׁים כֶּסֶף, money of the holy gifts, i.e., money derived from holy gifts, is more specifically defined by וגו עֹובֵר כֶּסֶף, according to which it consisted of three kinds of payments to the temple: viz., (1) עֹובֵר כֶּסֶף, i.e., money of persons mustered (or numbered in the census); עֹובֵר is an abbreviated expression for הַפְּקֻדִים הָעֹובֵר, “he who passes over to those who are numbered” (Exo 30:13), as it has been correctly interpreted by the Chald., Rashi, Abarb., and others; whereas the explanation “money that passes” (Luther), or current coin, which Thenius still defends, yields not suitable sense, since it is impossible to see why only current coin should be accepted, and not silver in bars of vessels, inasmuch as Moses had accepted gold, silver, copper, and other objects of value in natura, for the building of the tabernacle (Exo 24:2-3; Exo 35:5; Exo 36:5-6). The brevity of the expression may be explained from the fact, that עֹובֵר כֶּסֶף had become a technical term on the ground of the passage in the law already cited. The objection raised by Thenius, that the explanation adopted would be without any parallel, would, if it could be sustained, also apply to his own explanation “current money,” in which עֹובֵר is also taken as an abbreviation of לַסֹּהֵר עֹבֵר לַסֹּ in Gen 23:16. There is still less ground for the other objection, that if עֹובֵר כֶּסֶף denoted one kind of temple-revenue, כֹּל or אִישׁ would necessarily have been used. (2) עֶרְכֹּו...אִישׁ, “every kind of souls' valuation money;” אִישׁ is more precisely defined by עֶרְכֹּו, and the position in which it stands before כֶּסֶף resembles the בִּתְרֹו in Gen 15:10 -literally, soul money of each one's valuation. Thenius is wrong in his interpretation, “every kind of money of the souls according to their valuation,” to which he appends the erroneous remark, that אִישׁ is also used in Zec 10:1 and Joe 2:7 in connection with inanimate objects as equivalent to כֹּל. עֶרְכֹּו...אִישׁ, every kind of valuation, because both in the redemption of the male first-born (Num 18:15-16) and also in the case of persons under a vow a payment had to be made according to the valuation of the priest. (3) “All the money that cometh into any one's mind to bring into the house of the Lord,” i.e., all the money which was offered as a free-will offering to the sanctuary. This money the priests were to take to themselves, every one from his acquaintance, and therewith repair all the dilapidations that were to be found in the temple. In the Chronicles the different kinds of money to be collected for this purpose are not specified; but the whole is embraced under the general expression “the taxes of Moses the servant of God, and of the congregation of Israel, to the tent of the testimony,” which included not only the contribution of half a shekel for the building of the temple, which is prescribed in Exo 30:12., but also the other two taxes mentioned in this account.
(Note: There is no ground either in the words or in the facts for restricting the perfectly general expression “taxes of Moses and of the congregation of Israel” to the payment mentioned in Exo 30:12, as Thenius and Bertheau have done, except perhaps the wish to find a discrepancy between the two accounts, for the purpose of being able to accuse the chronicler, if not of intentional falsification, as De Wette does, at any rate of perverting the true state of the case. The assertion of Thenius, that the yearly payment of half a shekel, which was appointed in the law and regarded as atonement-money, appears to be directly excluded in our text, is simply founded upon the interpretation given to עֹובֵר כֶּסֶף as current money, which we have already proved to be false.)
Again, according to 2Ki 12:7 of the Chronicles, Joash gave the following reason for his command: “For Athaliah, the wicked woman, and her sons have demolished the house of God, and all the dedicated gifts of the house of Jehovah have they used for the Baals.” We are not told in what the violent treatment of demolition (פָּרַץ) of the temple by Athaliah had her sons consisted. The circumstance that considerable repairs even of the stonework of the temple were required in the time of Joash, about 130 or 140 years after it was built, is quite conceivable without any intentional demolition. And in no case can we infer from these words, as Thenius has done, that Athaliah or her sons had erected a temple of Baal within the limits of the sanctuary. The application of all the dedicatory offerings of the house of Jehovah to the Baals, involves nothing more than that the gifts which were absolutely necessary for the preservation of the temple and temple-service were withdrawn from the sanctuary of Jehovah and applied to the worship of Baal, and therefore that the decay of the sanctuary would necessarily follow upon the neglect of the worship.