Melakhim B 22-23: The Tragedy of Yoshiyahu
SEFER MELAKHIM BET: THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS
By Rav Alex Israel
********************************************************
by Patti and Michael
Steinmetz and Family.
********************************************************
Shiur #27: Chapter 22-23
Yoshiyahu Part 2 The Tragedy of Yoshiyahu
YOSHIYAHU'S TRAGIC DEATH
In his days, Pharaoh Nekho,
king of Egypt, marched against the King of Assyria to the River Euphrates; King
Yoshiyahu went to meet him, but he [Pharaoh Nekho] killed him at Megiddo when he
saw him. His servants conveyed his body by chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and
they buried him in his tomb. (23:29-30)
A single verse records Yoshiyahu's premature and tragic death in battle. This
military skirmish raises many questions. What did King Yoshiyahu look for in his
encounter with Pharaoh Nekho? Why did the confrontation take place at Megiddo?
Why did Nekho kill Yoshiyahu at the moment he saw him?
Historical sources inform us that the Egyptian army was headed to battle against
the Babylonian army at Karkemish, by the Euphrates.[1]
The Assyrian city of Nineveh had just fallen to Babylonian forces. This defeat
signaled the crumbling of Assyrian hegemony and the rise of a new regional force
Babylon. With these tectonic shifts in the regional power balance, Egypt,
allied with Assyria, could not sit by and merely observe. Nekho sought to
destroy Babylon's power before it gained full traction, thereby impeding the
rise of the nascent Babylonian empire and army.
They most direct route for Nekho's troops was through the Land of Israel.
Megiddo is a fortress at the gateway to the Jezreel valley, a natural bottleneck
and an obvious strategic point from which to attack an advancing force. However,
it appears that the Judean forces were no match for the Egyptian army. Divrei
Ha-yamim records Pharaoh Nekho's initial reluctance to enter into
hostilities against Yoshiyahu: What is between me and you, O King of Judah? I
do not march against you this day, but against the kingdom that wars with me
refrain from interfering with me
(35:21). Despite this, Yoshiyahu refused to
desist and the archers sought him out. Once the king was killed, the battle was
over.
What was Yoshiyahu's motivation in obstructing Pharaoh? Presumably, with the
collapse of Assyrian power, Yoshiyahu had experienced a new era of independence
from a superpower. This had allowed the kingdom to grow and thrive, and Judea
began to exert control over new territories, including the defunct northern
kingdom. Witnessing Egypt's attempts to dominate the regional space, Yoshiyahu
was concerned that he would become subject to Egyptian control. This motivated
him to confront Pharaoh and obstruct his advance.[2]
Tragically, this was a gamble that failed.
A RIGHTEOUS GENERATION?
The Talmud debates Yoshiyahu's motivation in his opposition to Pharaoh Nekho.
After all, Nekho explicitly expresses his non-violent intent. The Talmudic
discussion takes us to the section of Sefer Vayikra that discusses
covenantal blessings and curses:
Rav Yehuda said in the name of
Rav:
Yoshiyahu said [to himself]: Since he [Pharaoh Nekho] puts his trust in
his idols, I will prevail over him
On what did Yoshiyahu rely? On the divine
promise contained in the words, And no sword shall pass through your land (Vayikra
26:6). What sword? Is it the warring sword? It is already stated [in the same
verse], And I will give peace in the land it must then refer to the peaceful
sword. Yoshiyahu, however, did not know that his generation found but little
favor [in the eyes of God]. (Taanit 22b)
This Talmudic passage overlays two themes. Firstly, Yoshiyahu perceived his
reign, his era, as the realization of the divine blessings which ensue If you
follow My laws. In other words, Yoshiyahu understood the good fortune and
prosperity that characterized his period as God's bounty, a reward for his
return to monotheism. But this complacency caused Yoshiyahu to make mistakes.
Despite Nekho's non-aggressive intent, Yoshiyahu believed that he had heavenly
backing in preventing the heathen Nekho from passing through the Land of Israel.
From the Talmud one senses that Yoshiyahu overestimated God's direct and
immediate protection.
But Yoshiyahu missed the mark in a further area. He misappraised the religious
revolution that he had wrought. In a deeply insightful observation, the Talmud
contends that the fault lay not with Yoshiyahu personally, but rather with the
wider population, who angered God. If so, what was the situation in society at
large?
Yoshiyahu did not know that
his entire generation worshipped idols. What did the scoffers of his generation
do? They would put half of the [idolatrous] form on one door, and half on the
other door. [Yoshiyahu] would send two wise men to purge their homes from idols.
They would enter, but find nothing. As they left, [the scoffers] would have them
close the door, so that, on the inside, the idols would be reattached. (Eikha
Rabba 1:18)
Chazal
are suggesting a deep disconnect between the king and the nation. From
Yoshiyahu's vantage point, the country had become overwhelmingly committed to
God and his Torah. But the Midrash argues that this religious revolution
had failed to penetrate society. Indeed, the monotheistic commitment, while
adopted by public institutions, had not seeped deeper into the minds and hearts,
into the living-rooms of the average citizen of Yehuda. This is hardly
surprising. Yoshiyahu's religious revolution is dated to his 18th
year and he is killed in his 31st year. We have only thirteen years
of positive influence. It is hard to imagine that thirteen years can uproot
norms that have been entrenched for seventy years. Thus, while Yoshiyahu
imagined that his kingdom was thoroughly devoted to God and made certain
strategic decisions on that basis, he was quite out of touch with the facts on
the ground; the nation was still dabbling in idolatry.
THE LOOMING SPECTER OF CHURBAN
This last point should explain a certain ambivalence, or even dissonance, that
characterizes the depiction of Yoshiyahu's period in our texts. On the one hand,
no king is acclaimed quite like Yoshiyahu. But at the same time, this is a
period in which we repeatedly witness predictions of Churban:[3]
Before him there was no king like him, who turned to God with all his heart and
with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moshe, nor
did any like him arise after him. Still, God did not turn from the burning of
his great fury, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the
provocations of Menashe. God said, I
will remove Judah from My sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will spurn this
city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said My name shall
be there. (23:25-27)
God's decree strikes us as terribly unfair. Here, Yehuda has reached a point at
which the nation is led by a pious king, possibly the most religious of all the
kings of Yehuda. Yoshiyahu has expunged idolatry and even the bamot; he
has expended every effort to correct past wrongs. In this highly positive
environment, should the sins of Menashe really obscure the virtues of Yoshiyahu?
What about the value of repentance? Why is God so unwilling to forget the sins
of Menashe? How could God ignore Yoshiyahu's radical religious reforms?
But this would be a misreading of the situation. Although the king was
impassioned towards God, the rank and file of the nation were disconnected. In
the midrashic imagery, when the government inspectors came around, they
discovered homes cleansed of idolatry, but the inside of the door was
decorated with idolatrous symbols. Outside, public life had changed; but inside,
people's private beliefs and their personal religious commitments remained
unaltered.
Wander the streets of
Jerusalem, look around and inquire, and seek her squares whether there is but
one man who does justice, who seeks truthfulness, and I will forgive her. Though
they say, as the Lord lives, they are surely swearing falsely. (Yirmiyahu
5:1-2)
As Yirmiyahu testifies, people used religious language, but it was empty of
meaning. In this sense, Menashe's evil period overwhelmed and eclipsed
Yoshiyahu's revolution. Yoshiyahu's reforms were insufficient to eradicate the
idolatry and the corruption from the minds and hearts of the people.
IS THERE A POINT OF NO RETURN? YIRMIYAHUS PERSPECTIVE
A further point must be made here. Sefer Melakhim conveys the impression
that the cultural fallout from the spiritually ruinous period of Menashe had
left the country incurable, and, as such, the Temple's destruction and the
national exile were inevitable and inescapable.
I believe the situation is
more complex. The prophet Yirmiyahu begins his mission in the thirteenth year of
Yoshiyahus reign, and he continues as a national prophet for forty years, until
after the Churban. Most of his prophecy reflects the foreboding of the
impending national calamity "From the north shall disaster break loose upon all
the inhabitants of the land"(Jer 1:14).
The prophecy with which he is charged is
a violent one: To uproot and to smash, to destroy and overthrow, but also, to
build and to plant. (Yirmiyahu 1:10) In this regard, it is important to
note that even after Menashe, even after the death of Yoshiyahu, Yirmiyahu never
abandons the possibility that Churban may be averted; he calls for
repentance until the eleventh hour.[4]
Here he speaks in God's name:
At one moment I may decree that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn
down and destroyed. But if that nation against which I made the decree turns
back from its wickedness, then I will relent and
not inflict on it the disaster I
had planned
Now therefore say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem
I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. Turn back
from your evil ways, each one of you, and mend your
ways and your actions. (Yirmiyahu 18:7-11)
Melakhim
is written from a post-Churban perspective. In hindsight, Melakhim
suggests that the collateral damage of Menashe's reign signaled the death knell
for Yehuda. However, in real time, as events unfolded, Yirmiyahu insists that no
moment was too late for the kingdom to change course and save itself.
YOSHIYAHU'S LEGACY
In conclusion, let us return to the most important aspect of Yoshiyahus
narrative: His fervent campaign against idolatry and his enthusiastic covenantal
ceremony in which he gathers the nation at the Temple and has them pledge
allegiance to Torah and the covenant. Melakhim avows that Yoshiyahu was
superior to all previous kings. Radak articulates why this is the case:
[Yoshiyahu] was deeply
concerned for the instructions of the Torah and he performed all that was
written in it. He removed the bamot; not a single one remained such that
in his days, sacrifices were exclusively brought in the Temple. The kings who
preceded him, even those who were righteous, never removed the bamot
(Commentary on 23:25)
We may add to the list of Yoshiyahus achievements the social justice that
prevailed in his age;[5]
this was yet another aspect of the Torah that he instilled in the nation. It is
for this reason that we see an outpouring of national mourning[6]
for this king that is also unprecedented in its intensity:
Yirmiyahu composed laments for Yoshiyahu, and all the singing men and the
singing women spoke of Yoshiyahu in their laments as is done to this day. They
were customary in Israel, and behold, they are written in the lamentations.[7]
(Divrei Ha-yamim II 35:25)
APPENDIX: YOSHIYAHU AND THE DEUTERONOMIST
We would be remiss in discussing Yoshiyahu's Torah scroll without at least a
mention of one modern reading of that story that has changed the landscape of
Bible studies for over two hundred years.
In
a dissertation written in 1805, W. M. L. de Wette identified the Book of the Law
discovered by Chilkiyahu as Sefer Devarim. This theory was later adopted
by German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen, and has become the prime academic
explanation of the origins of Devarim.[8]
This argument proposes that Sefer Devarim was composed in the late 7th
century BCE, and its ideas animated Yoshiyahu's revolution. This is manifest in
several areas. Firstly, the notion of a central site of worship: Whereas
Shemot allows worship in any place: In
every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless
you (20:24), Devarim, said De Wette, restricts sacrifice to the place
which God will choose (12:5, 11, 14). This affected Yoshiyahu, inspiring him to
concentrate worship at the Temple, inviting both Judah and the northern tribes
to sacrifice in Jerusalem. Second, Yoshiyahu destroys the bamot,
reflecting Devarim's condemnation of worship outside the Temple
(12:13-14). He also destroys the pillars, Ashera and other icons and forms of
worship, fulfilling the Deuteronomic injunction:
You shall tear down their altars, smash their monuments, burn their asherim
with fire, cut down the graven images of their gods and destroy their name from
that place (Devarim 12:3).
Third, this approach contends that the unprecedented Pesach of Yoshiyahu's
period (23:22) reflects the command in Devarim (16:5-6) to bring the
Korban Pesach collectively in Jerusalem, suggesting that prior to
Yoshiyahu, the Paschal Lamb was offered on local altars. Based upon these
observations, corroborated by the significant linguistic commonalities between
Sefer Devarim and later prophetic books, this approach contends
that
the discovered scroll was, in fact, the book of Devarim or critical
sections of it. Furthermore, it proposes that the book had been composed by the
priests of that period, in order to stimulate Yoshiyahu's religious reforms.
This would explain why the scroll's contents were unknown to the king upon its
discovery.
The 7th century dating is broadly accepted
in the world of academic scholarship. Needless to say, those who hold to a
traditional Jewish faith perspective maintain that the entire Chumash was
written by Moshe during the period of the Wilderness. Do these arguments bring
the traditional Mosaic authorship into question?[9]
The proposed Josianic context of Sefer Devarim has some significant
problems, however, as articulated by several Bible scholars:[10]
1. Centralized worship or idolatry?
The thrust of Yoshiyahu's religious actions are the eradication of idolatry in
its multifarious manifestations. This motive is repeated throughout the account
of Yoshiyahu's religious purge. In the proposed theory, Devarim is
written to stimulate a shift regarding centralized worship. If that were
accurate, we would expect more of a focus on this issue in the account of
Melakhim, and yet the removal of (non-idolatrous) decentralized worship (bamot)
is barely mentioned in Yoshiyahus reform, if at all.[11]
We may also point out that the Torahs approach regarding a central shrine is
far more stringent in Vayikra 17 than in Devarim 12, which
indicates that this tradition has earlier roots.
2. The word bamot
The word bamot appears throughout Sefer Melakhim, as a constant
unresolvable problem. Even the most devoted religious kings are unsuccessful in
removing the bamot from the national landscape. Despite this, Sefer
Devarim does not use the term even once! If Devarim was written to
stimulate Yoshiyahu's aforementioned reform, and if its composition was
contemporaneous to Melakhim, it would be perplexing for Devarim to
avoid this phrase.
3. Jerusalem
If a late authorship of Devarim were true, then why does Devarim
insist on referencing the Temple as the place which God will choose? It seems
strange that Devarim fails to identify Jerusalem by name even once. Why
would a 7th-century author obscure the identity of Jerusalem as the
chosen place? It would be far stronger to identify God's chosen place as
Jerusalem and reinforce the Temple as the exclusive central shrine. Some will
respond that since the authors of Devarim in the 7th century
had decided to make out as if Moshe was the author, they knew it would be
anachronistic to mention Jerusalem, a city not captured until the days of King
David. However, there are many literary techniques that could have been used to
allude to Jerusalem. All these are absent.
4. Destruction of idolatry
The command to destroy idolatrous shrines and altars is far from exclusive to
Devarim; it is clearly mandated by Shemot (23:24-5; 34:13) and
Bamidbar (33:52). This is the true focus of Yoshiyahu's religious energy. In
that case, there was no need for a new book to ignite the removal of idolatry.
5. An altar at Mt. Eval
Devarim,
as with other books, is not unequivocal about a single and exclusive site of
worship. After all, Devarim mandates the building of an altar in Mt. Eval
(ch. 27). If Devarim was written to bolster the exclusive status of
Jerusalem, then this detail could certainly have been omitted.
6. Pesach
First, it must be noted that Shemot mentions all the three pilgrimage
festivals in the context of the House of the Lord your God (Shemot
23:17), making it clear that people left their homes to travel to a remote
location (Shemot 34:24).
Second, we have evidence from as early as Chizkiyahus reign, eighty years prior
to Yoshiyahu, of the celebration of a mass Pesach, including the Korban
Pesach (Divrei Ha-yamim II 30:1-5). If this account is accurate,
then Yoshiyahu's priests would have no need to concoct the notion of pilgrimage
to Jerusalem when it has already been celebrated en masse two generations
earlier.
IN CONCLUSION
Entire volumes have been written on this topic, and this context is certainly
not the right one in which to thrash out all the issues. Still, we have
attempted to demonstrate that the arguments are complex, and that one cannot
merely connect Devarim with Yoshiyahus time without serious backing.
Much of the so-called evidence can be interpreted one way or another in
accordance with preconceived notions. It is important to be cognizant that there
are arguments and counter-claims and that the traditional view can be amply
substantiated.
[1]
See
the full account in Divrei Ha-yamim II 35.
[2]
See
Olam Ha-Tanakh p. 203-204.
[3] The prophecy
of Chulda (22:16-19) expresses a similar duality: Prediction of Churban
alongside personal approval of Yoshiyahu. Chazal emphasize Yoshiyahu's
keen awareness of the imminent demise of the Temple when they assert that he hid
away the Ark of the Covenant to ensure that it would not be seized by the enemy
(Yoma 52b). They draw this conclusion on the basis of the verse in
Divrei Ha-yamim 2 35:3 in which Yoshiyahu instructs the priests: "Put the holy Ark in the Temple
You no longer need to carry it back and forth on your shoulders. Now spend your
time serving the Lord your God and his people Israel" and also Jer
3:16-17: "In
those days
people will no longer say, The Ark of the covenant
of God. It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be
missed, nor will another one be made.
At that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of God
" The implication in both sources is
that the Ark is being taken out of use. See also Rambam, Hilkhot Beit
Ha-bechira 4:1.
[4]
See
Yirmiyahu 22:1-4, 25:5, 26:2,13 and 36:3.
[5]
See
Yirmiyahu 32:15-16.
[6]
See
Megilla 3a for the eulogy of Hadadrimon in the valley of Megiddon.
[7]
Some
suggest that this refers to part of Megillat Eikha. See, for example,
Tosefta Taanit 2:10.
[8]
For a
current presentation of these views, see The Jewish Study Bible, A.
Berlin and M.Z. Brettler, ed., pp. 357-358. In some circles, the theory has been
refined somewhat to suggest authorship during the Babylonian exile.
[9]
For questions about the difference, in
terms of revelation, between Devarim and the other four books of the
Chumash, see
http://www.biu.ac.il/jh/parasha/eng/devarim/reg.html. For a discussion as to
the degree that one may suggest non-Mosaic authorship to segments of the Torah,
see Marc Shapiro's discussion of Maimonides' eighth principle in The Limits
of Jewish Theology, and Amnon Bazak's recent book, Until this Day:
Fundamental Questions in Bible Teaching, pp. 21-80 [Hebrew].
[10]
See for example, Y.M. Grintz, The
Narrative of King Josiah's Reform, in Studies in the Book of Kings,
proceedings of the group for Bible study in the residence of PM David Ben-Gurion,
B.Z. Luria ed. pp. 351-369.
[11]
Grintz claims that even the bamot
removed by Yoshiyahu were, in fact, idolatrous shrines built by Shlomo's wives
to their gods, or to the Baal, sun, moon and stars, as evidenced in 23:5,13.
He claims that the only king who did rid the country of bamot to God was
Chizkiyahu, some 80 years earlier (see 18:4).
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!