2 Kings 22 - Introduction

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) 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 situation under Joash - 2 Kings 12:4). Nor 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 Nabonidus, 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 is clear that Nabonidus 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 Chapter s 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). 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 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 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 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). 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 Numbers 9:1; 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, 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 Numbers 28:16 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 Numbers, 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 (and then in Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14; Judges 18:17; 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 Numbers. 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 Numbers, and thirteen times described as ‘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; Numbers 11:33; Deuteronomy 11:17, in all cases against people. The word ‘quashed' appears only in Leviticus 6:12 (the idea occurs in Numbers 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 of  the people  being ‘a desolation and a curse' (compare Jeremiah 49:13 where the idea is similarly general; and see Genesis 27:12 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 Numbers 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, Numbers 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 Name, (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 Name' (choose) where He wills (Exodus 20:24), and can do it in a number of places, and that when He does so ‘record His Name', sacrifices can be offered there. The Central Sanctuary was simply the supreme place at which He had recorded His Name (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 Mount Carmel, an altar presumably seen by him as originally erected where YHWH had recorded His Name, 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 Name, 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 Numbers 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 Numbers 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; Numbers 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) and refers to a book written by Moses (or on his behalf by his secretary Joshua - Deuteronomy 31:24). 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, 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.

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'. 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).

Nor 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 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; 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 took  one of the scrolls  to 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 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).

b The Restoration of the Temple (2 Kings 22:3

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).

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).

b In Spite Of Josiah's Piety and Activity YHWH Will Not Withdraw His Wrath From Judah (2 Kings 23:24).

a The Closure of His Reign (2 Kings 23:28).

Note 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.