Huldah's Reply To Josiah (2 Kings 22:14-20).
The enquiry was made to Huldah, the prophetess. We should note that there is no hint that Huldah read the book, or even saw it. Given the care that the author has taken up to this point to indicate precisely what happened to the book (‘Huldah delivered the book to Shaphan and he read it' -- ‘Shaphan read it before the king') this must be seen as significant, especially as she does refer to Josiah reading it. Note also that while Josiah referred to ‘this book' when speaking to Hilkiah and the others, this is not true of Huldah. Instead she seemingly demonstrated that she was already aware of the contents of the book and did not need to read it.
If she did speak from a background of ‘the Law of Moses' we would expect to find that Law reflected in her words and we are not disappointed. Reference to ‘the ‘burning of incense' is found thirteen times in Exodus to Numbers (although not in reference to foreign idols. That idea occurs first in 1 Kings 11:8), and in all incense is mentioned fifty times. It is, however, only mentioned once in Deuteronomy, and then not as ‘burned'. In contrast ‘provoke Me to anger' is found regularly in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 4:25; Deuteronomy 9:18; Deuteronomy 31:29; Deuteronomy 32:16; Deuteronomy 32:21), but interestingly not in the part often seen by many as comprising ‘the Book of the Law'. ‘Kindling of wrath' is found in Genesis 39:9; Numbers 11:33; Deuteronomy 11:17, in all cases against people. ‘Quenched' occurs only in Leviticus 6:12-13. The declaration that the inhabitants would become a desolation and curse is not Deuteronomic language, for ‘curse' is here being used in a general sense along with ‘desolation' as referring to what the people would become, an angle that does not occur in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy tends to stress positive ‘cursing' by YHWH. Thus Huldah's words reflect having the whole Law of Moses as a background (or the tradition that lies behind it) and do not favour the argument for Deuteronomy alone.
Analysis.
a So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter), and they communed with her (2 Kings 22:14).
b And she said to them, “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel. You tell the man who sent you to me, Thus says YHWH, Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read” (2 Kings 22:15-16).
c “Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore my wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched” (2 Kings 22:17).
d “But to the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of YHWH, thus shall you say to him” (2 Kings 22:18).
c “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, as touching the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before YHWH, when you heard what I spoke against this place, and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and wept before me, I also have heard you, says YHWH” (2 Kings 22:19).
b “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, nor will your eyes see all the evil which I will bring on this place” (2 Kings 22:20 a).
a And they brought the king word again (2 Kings 22:20 b).
Note that in ‘a' the deputation was sent to the prophet, and in the parallel the deputation brought the king word again. In ‘b' evil was to come ‘on this place' and in the parallel Josiah was not to see the evil that would come ‘on this place'. In ‘c' YHWH's wrath was kindled against them, and in the parallel Josiah had been moved by the fact. Centrally in ‘d' the word comes to the king from YHWH.
‘So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter), and they communed with her.'
It is clear that the deputation saw Huldah (‘mole') the prophetess as a suitable person through whom to ‘enquire of YHWH'. This was partly because she was both a prophetess and the wife of a high official (if it was the king's wardrobe), or of s Temple servant (if it was the keeper of the Temple robes, compare 2 Kings 10:22). Either way he was the official ‘keeper of the wardrobe', and thus well known to the men in question. This might explain why they did not seek out Zephaniah or Jeremiah, who, while highly influential, were probably not prophets directly connected with the Temple (although Jeremiah was a priest from Anathoth). Alternately they may well not have been in Jerusalem at the time. Some suggest that it was because they may have been seen as men who would be more likely to give a pessimistic reply, but it is not likely that Josiah would see things like that. He genuinely wanted to know what YHWH had to say. Huldah was clearly an exceptional woman, and presumably was recognised as having an exceptional prophetic gift. It must probably be accepted therefore that that was seen as her accepted function.
‘The second quarter' was probably an area reserved for official functionaries of the palace and the Temple, so that this indicated her importance. It was probably the northern extension of the old Jebusite city.
‘And she said to them, “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel. You tell the man who sent you to me, Thus says YHWH, Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read.” '
Her indirect reference to the book as ‘the book which the king of Judah has read' can most naturally be seen as an indication that she herself had not read it. This would serve to confirm that it was not seen as a new source of Law, and that she did not need to read it in order to know what was in it. Its significance lay rather in the age of the record, where it was found, and what it signified. She commenced by pointing out that she spoke in the name of YHWH, and as His mouthpiece. ‘You tell the man who sent you' (which in context was clearly not antagonistic) indicated that she was speaking with deliberate independence as a servant of YHWH and not as a servant of the king (i.e. not subserviently).
And the message was that evil was to come on Judah and Jerusalem. Once again there is no specific reference to what we call ‘The Exile'. The thought is rather of general judgment coming on Judah and Jerusalem in whatever way God chose. But both Leviticus and Deuteronomy would have perfectly justified her in seeing this as including exile (see Leviticus 26:31-36; Deuteronomy 28:15 ff), to say nothing of what the past had revealed about what happened to those who rebelled against great kings (as we have seen both Israel and Judah had already experienced a number of times what it meant to have many of their people taken into exile). Furthermore Micah had already prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem (Micah 3:9-12), and as Micah's words are cited by Jeremiah 26:18 it must have been before the event. Huldah would therefore have had to be very naive not to be able to prophesy coming judgment in view of the sins of Judah and what had been said by prophets in the past. Thus there is no reason to think that words have later been put into her mouth. But it should be noted that she spoke generally of ‘all the words of this book', rather than being specific. In the event she was to be proved literally true.
“Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore my wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.”
And the reason why this would be so was because they had forsaken YHWH and had burned incense to other gods, provoking YHWH to anger with all the work of their hands. That was why His wrath was kindled against ‘this place' (an expression common in both Genesis and Deuteronomy). The language reflects earlier passages in Kings (1 Kings 12:3; and often; 1Ki 11:8; 1 Kings 12:33; 1 Kings 14:9; 1 Kings 15:30 etc; 1 Kings 22:43), and echoes different parts of the Pentateuch, as we have seen above. But there is nothing uniquely Deuteronomic about it (depending of course on your definition of the term). The burning of incense was a regular feature of Canaanite worship, and a number of examples of incense burning altars have been found in Palestine.
“But to the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of YHWH, thus shall you say to him, Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, as touching the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before YHWH, when you heard what I spoke against this place, and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and wept before me, I also have heard you, says YHWH.”
Once again the prophetess avoided a personal reference to Josiah (compare ‘the man who sent you' in 2 Kings 22:15), calling him rather ‘the king of Judah', thus keeping him prophetically at arm's length. But she confirmed that he had done well to ‘enquire of YHWH', a phrase found in the Pentateuch only in Genesis 25:22. It is also found in Judges 20:27; ten times in Samuel; and often in Kings. Her message to him was that YHWH had seen his tenderheartedness and humility in the light of what he had heard, and had noted the fact that he had torn his clothing and wept before YHWH. It was because of that that YHWH had heard him.
The message that he had heard and which had so moved him was that YHWH had spoken ‘against this place' and against its inhabitants and had promised that they would become a desolation and a curse. The descriptions were powerful and emphasised the severity of what was coming. Having accepted it, and having been moved by it, Josiah had now come to YHWH to seek His mind concerning it. It will be noted that the way the word ‘curse' is used is dissimilar to the way in which it is used in Deuteronomy, although having the same root idea. Here it is the people who were to become a curse and it is paralleled with ‘desolation' giving it a more generalised meaning. The same usage is in fact paralleled in Jeremiah 49:13 where the idea is similarly general and ‘curse' is similarly paralleled with other descriptions. (Note also its use in Genesis 27:12-13). It is not therefore used in such a way as to suggest that it specifically had the curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy directly in mind. This idea of Judah being a curse and a desolation can indeed be seen as having in mind any of the Pentateuchal warnings of what would happen to His people if they disobeyed Him (e.g. Leviticus 18:24-30; Leviticus 20:22-23; Leviticus 26:14-46; Deuteronomy 27:15 to Deuteronomy 29:29).
“Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, nor will your eyes see all the evil which I will bring on this place.” '
In view of Josiah's death as a result of battle wounds it might appear at first sight that YHWH did not fulfil His promise that Josiah would be gathered to his grave in peace. And it may be that in fact we have a reminder here that God's promises are made on the condition of our obedience. On the other hand it is more probable that we are to see it as an indication of the conditions that would be prevailing in Judah up to the time of his death. Thus we may see this as indicating that YHWH's point was that whilst Josiah was trusting in Him with all his heart He would ensure that all went well for him and Judah whilst he still lived. It could not, on the other hand, be a promise that he would himself be kept safe whatever he did, even if he was foolish, for that would have been unreasonable. What it was, was a promise that he would be kept safe whilst he was trusting in YHWH and walking in obedience to him. Consequently, when, instead of trusting YHWH and consulting Him about what he should do, he blatantly went out on his own initiative to fight against an Egyptian army that was not threatening Judah, he brought his death on himself. It was not a failure on behalf of YHWH to fulfil His word.
However, the prophecy was still fulfilled in its main intent, for the fact that Josiah was to be ‘gathered to his grave in peace' was, as we have seen, not necessarily in context mainly an emphasis on the manner of his own death. In view of its parallelism with ‘nor will your eyes see all the evil which I will bring on this place' we may well see it as having in mind that while he lived his land would be at peace, and would not suffer desolation, and that whenever he did die that peace would still be prevailing. And that promise was basically kept, for at the time of his death Judah was actually under no specific threat, and there was no immediate threat to its peace. The truth is that the Egyptians whom Josiah waylaid were not in fact focused on attacking Judah but were racing to assist the Assyrians in their last stand against the Babylonians and their allies, and according to 2 Chronicles 35:20-21 claimed to have no grievance against Judah. Thus according to the Chronicler Pharaoh Necho made clear to Josiah that no danger was threatened against Judah. Josiah, however, refused to listen to him (2 Chronicles 35:20-21). Thus the author here in Kings probably wants us to recognise that what happened to Josiah was not of YHWH's doing. It was rather the result of his own folly and occurred because, for political reasons (possibly as the result of an agreement with Babylon), he had set out to waylay the Egyptian army without consulting YHWH. The consequence was that he was seen as having chosen his own way of death in a way that was contrary to YHWH's will. On the other hand, the fact that he would not see the evil that would come on Judah was true, for that occurred only after his death. Nevertheless the fact that Josiah died from battle wounds does tend to confirm that this was a prophecy ‘before the event', for a prophecy ‘after the event', which knew of the way in which he had died, would undoubtedly have been worded differently.
The question must be asked as to whether the prophetess had the Exile in view in her words, and the answer is probably both ‘yes' and ‘no'. It is ‘yes' because she must certainly have been aware from past history of the possibility that future conflict could lead to exile, so that her knowledge of what Micah had prophesied in Micah 3:9-12 would only have confirmed such an idea to her, but it is ‘no' because from the form of her words she was equally clearly not informed on the exact details. What she was passing on was simply what YHWH had told her to pass on. Knowing, however, that Micah had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, and knowing what had been said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about Israel being removed from their own land, and knowing the tendency of great kings to have transportation policy, she must certainly have had the possibility of exile in mind. It was not, however, what she specifically warned against. Her warning was of desolation and destruction without going into the details.
‘And they brought the king word again.'
Having listened to the words of Huldah the prophetess, the deputation returned to the king in order to convey her words to him.