2 Kings 12 - NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
12:4 money that is brought as sacred offerings. The text appears to differentiate two sorts of income that represent regular temple income—payments made in relation to the periodic census of male Israelites (Ex 30:11–16), and payments connected with personal vows (monetary equivalents for things dedicated to God, Lev 27:1–25). A third sort of income derives from a special fund-raising campaign similar to that initiated by Moses, at God’s command (Ex 35).
12:5 treasurers. The Hebrew word (makkar) occurs in the OT only here and in v. 7, and it is of uncertain meaning. Older translations (e.g., KJV) derived it from the root nkr, “regard, recognize,” and translated it as “acquaintances.” The NIV’s “treasurers” connects the word with Ugaritic mkr, a functionary referred to on lists of temple personnel whose precise occupation is unfortunately uncertain. In addition, Akkadian has the cognate makkuru, which means “valuables, treasures, property, assets, estate” and can be used specifically to refer to temple or palace property or estates; we also know of the tamkaru—Assyrian traders and credit merchants. Perhaps the makkarim were merchants associated with the sacrificial cult of the temple who also invested temple money. The temple was, after all, not only a political and religious center in Israel but also an economic center—a secure stronghold in which were stored the national assets and revenues of the state (e.g., tribute from vassals, plunder from conquered peoples, and profits from the sacrificial system). repair . . . the temple. The Jerusalem temple, like other temple buildings in the ancient Near East, was not merely a worship site. It was the dwelling place on earth for the deity (in this case, the God of Israel) and as such the preeminently important symbol of the presence of a god with the king and the nation. Similarly to the palace of a god, it had to be a fine dwelling place, built and furnished with the finest and most expensive of materials and cared for with the greatest of care. To neglect a temple in the ancient world was to neglect its deity and to risk his or her disapproval and the possible undermining of a king’s legitimate authority to rule. This is why a king like Esarhaddon of Assyria had servants such as his minister Mar-Ištar traveling around his realm and sending him reports about the state of temples and their cults and the political and religious issues arising from them. Conversely, a deity’s approval of the ruling king was often communicated in the ancient Near East through the construction of a temple or, if a major shift in political power was taking place, through the renewal or renovation of an existing temple. This construction or renovation of a temple, it was believed, would bring peace and prosperity to all the inhabitants of the kingdom. It is against this background that Joash’s actions are to be understood, as the Davidic dynasty sought to reestablish itself in the aftermath of Athaliah’s coup.
12:9–16 The measures described in this and the following verses and designed to ensure shared responsibility between the crown and the priesthood for the distribution of funds in respect of the temple restoration are interestingly paralleled in a letter from the crown official Mar-Ištar to King Esarhaddon of Assyria concerning necessary repair work to the temples of Uruk and Der. This may suggest that Jehoiada did not himself invent the procedures described in these verses, but simply adapted practices already used in the temples of neighboring lands.
12:17 Hazael . . . attacked Gath . . . Jerusalem. Hazael king of Aram already controlled the entire Israelite Transjordan (10:32–33). Now he brings the Arameans right into the heart of Israelite territory to the west of the Jordan and threatens Jerusalem. The capture of the Philistine city of Gath in fact presupposes that Hazael could move at will through Israelite territory to the north. The campaign is best explained in terms of an attempt by Damascus to gain control over the western part of the incense trade that in later times came from south Arabia via the Wadi Arabah to southern Philistia. It is best dated during the reign of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz (c. 815–799), who, according to 13:1–7, 22–23, fared even worse than his father at the hands of Aram and thus provided no bulwark of defense (conscious or unconscious) for Judah.
12:19 the book of the annals of the kings of Judah. These were in all likelihood analogous to the royal annals of Assyria—personal memorials of individual Judahite kings that provide accounts of royal achievements, especially military campaigns. See note on 1Ki 14:19.
About this Study Bible
