2 Kings 12:13

Howbeit there were not made for the house of the LORD bowls of silver, snuffers, basons, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the LORD:

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(13) There were not made.—Rather, there used not to be made.

For the house.—Literally, in the house.

Bowls . . . basons.—Comp. 1Kings 7:50, where the same three terms occur.

Trumpets—i.e., the straight priestly trumpets.

Of the money that was brought.—The plain meaning is that the whole amount offered was expended on the necessary work of restoring the Temple fabric.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

12:1-16 It is a great mercy to young people, especially to all young men of rank, like Jehoash, to have those about them who will instruct them to do what is right in the sight of the Lord; and they do wisely and well for themselves, when willing to be counselled and ruled. The temple was out of repair; Jehoash orders the repair of the temple. The king was zealous. God requires those who have power, to use it for the support of religion, the redress of grievances, and repairing of decays. The king employed the priests to manage, as most likely to be hearty in the work. But nothing was done effectually till the twenty-third year of his reign. Another method was therefore taken. When public distributions are made faithfully, public contributions will be made cheerfully. While they were getting all they could for the repair of the temple, they did not break in upon the stated maintenance of the priests. Let not the servants of the temple be starved, under colour of repairing the breaches of it. Those that were intrusted did the business carefully and faithfully. They did not lay it out in ornaments for the temple, till the other work was completed; hence we may learn, in all our expenses, to prefer that which is most needful, and, in dealing for the public, to deal as we would for ourselves.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Comparing this verse with the marginal reference, it will be seen that the author of Kings desires to point out, that the repairs were not delayed by any deductions from the money that flowed in. The writer of Chronicles describes what became of the surplus in the chest after the last repairs were completed.

The need of supplying fresh bowls, snuffers, etc., arose from the pollution of those previously used in the temple service by their application to the Baal worship during the reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah (see 2 Chronicles 24:7).

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

13-16. Howbeit there were not made … bowls, &c.—When the repairs of the temple had been completed, the surplus was appropriated to the purchase of the temple furniture. The integrity of the overseers of the work being undoubted, no account was exacted of the way in which they applied the money given to them, while other moneys levied at the temple were left to the disposal of the priests as the law directed (Le 5:16; Nu 5:8).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

There were not made, to wit, until all the breaches of the house were repaired; but when that was done, they laid it out for these things, as is noted, 2 Chronicles 24:14.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Howbeit there were not made for the house of the Lord, bowls of silver,.... Either to hold the blood of the sacrifices, or the drink offerings of wine:

snuffers; to trim the lamps; or, as Jarchi and other writers, both Jewish and Christian, musical instruments:

basins; vessels to sprinkle the blood with, as the word signifies:

trumpets; silver ones, to call the assembly, blow over the sacrifices, &c.

any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver; for any other use: these were not made

of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; yet, in 2 Chronicles 24:14, it is said they were, which is to be reconciled thus; they did not make any of those things at first, until the house was repaired, and the charges of it defrayed; and then of what remained they made vessels for the house, which were wanting, that Athaliah had bestowed on Baalim, 2 Chronicles 24:7.

Geneva Study Bible

Howbeit there were {h} not made for the house of the LORD bowls of silver, snuffers, basons, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the LORD:

(h) For these men only had charge of the repairing of the temple, the rest of the money was brought to the king who caused these to be made later, 2Ch 24:14.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

13. Howbeit [R.V. But] there were not made for the house of the Lord] The compiler of Kings makes mention of certain vessels and implements which were not made at this time and from these contributions. Such were cups of silver, snuffers, basons, trumpets, and vessels of gold or vessels of silver, &c. as here recited. The Chronicler on the other hand dwells on such things as were made, and his list comprises ‘vessels to minister and to offer withal, and spoons, and vessels of gold and silver’. The one it will be seen says that vessels of gold and silver were made, the other that vessels of gold and silver were not made. But both writers are referring to the class of articles they have mentioned before. So of gold and silver there were not made cups, snuffers, basons &c., but vessels for ministration and spoons were made. They do not necessarily contradict each other.

bowls [R.V. cups] of silver] An attempt has been made in R.V., to give the same renderings to the same words in the enumeration of vessels for the temple. Hence the change here and 1 Kings 7:50 and Jeremiah 52:19. The Hebrew word is rendered ‘cup’ in Zechariah 12:2 by A.V., and on the margin of 2 Samuel 17:28. The word very frequently signifies ‘a threshold’. Hence the LXX. here has θύραι = doors.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 13. - Howbeit there was not made for the house of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; i.e. while the repairs were incomplete, while the work was still going on, no portion of the money taken from the chest was expended in the purchase of new sacred vessels, whether of gold or silver, whether howls, or snuffers, or basins, or trumpets the whole was rigidly applied to the renovation of the temple building. There is no contradiction between this statement and that of the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:14), who tells us that, after the entire repairs were completed, the surplus money was expended in this way, on the purchase of "vessels to minister and to offer, spoons, and vessels of gold and silver." We can well understand that, after the spoiling of the temple by successive kings to buy off enemies - by Rehoboam to content Shishak (1 Kings 14:26), by Asa to gratify Benhadad (1 Kings 15:18), and by Joash himself (ver. 18) to procure the retreat of Hazael from the siege of Jerusalem, the vessels of the temple must have required renovating almost as much as the fabric itself; and when it was found that there remained a surplus over and above all that was needed for building purposes, we cannot wonder that it was applied to the renewal of the vessels, absolutely essential as they were for the service of the sanctuary. 2 Kings 12:13

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

"They gave the money weighed into the hands of those who did the work, who were placed over the house of Jehovah," i.e., the appointed overlookers of the work; "and they paid it (as it was required) to the carpenters and builders, who worked at the house, and to the masons and hewers of stone, and for the purchase of wood and hewn stones, to repair the dilapidations of the house, and for all that might be spent (יצא, i.e., be given out) for the house for repairing it." It is quite clear from this, that the assertion of J. D. Michaelis, De Wette, and others, that the priests had embezzled the money collected, is perfectly imaginary. For if the king had cherished any such suspicion against the priests, he would not have asked for their consent to an alteration of the first arrangement or to the new measure; and still less would he have commanded that the priests who kept the door should put the money into the chest, for this would have been no safeguard against embezzlement. For if the door-keepers wished to embezzle, all that they would need to do would be to put only a part of the money into the chest. The simple reason and occasion for giving up the first arrangement and introducing the new arrangement with the chest, was that the first measure had proved to be insufficient fore the accomplishment of the purpose expected by the king. For inasmuch as the king had not assigned any definite amount for the repairing of the temple, but had left it to the priests to pay for the cost of the repairs out of the money that was to be collected, one portion of which at least came to themselves, according to the law, for their own maintenance and to provide for the expenses of worship, it might easily happen, without the least embezzlement on the part of the priests, that the money collected was paid out again for the immediate necessities of worship and their own maintenance, and that nothing remained to pay for the building expenses. For this reason the king himself now undertook the execution of the requisite repairs. The reason why the chest was provided for the money to be collected was, first of all, that the money to be collected for the building might be separated from the rest of the money that came in and was intended for the priests; and secondly, that the contributions to be gathered for the building might be increased, since it might be expected that the people would give more if the collections were made for the express purpose of restoring the temple, than if only the legal and free-will offerings were simply given to the priests, without any one knowing how much would be applied to the building. - And because the king had taken the building into his own hand, as often as the chest was full he sent his secretary to reckon the money along with the high priest, and hand it over to the superintendents of the building.

If we compare with this the account in the Chronicles, it helps to confirm the view which we have obtained from an unprejudiced examination of the text as to the affair in question. According to 2 Kings 12:5 of the Chronicles, Joash had commanded the priests and Levites to accelerate the repairs; "but the Levites did not hurry." This may be understood as signifying that they were dilatory both in the collection of the money and in the devotion of a portion of their revenues to the repairing of the temple. But that the king took the matter in hand himself, not so much because of the dilatoriness or negligence of the priests as because his first measure, regarded as an expedient, did not answer the purpose, is evident from the fact that, according to the Chronicles, he did not content himself with placing the chest at the entrance, but had a proclamation made at the same time in Judah and Jerusalem, to offer the tax of Moses for the repair of the temple (2 Kings 12:9) - evidently with no other intention than to procure more liberal contributions. For, according to 2 Kings 12:10, all the chief men and all the people rejoiced thereat, and cast their gifts into the chest, i.e., they offered their gifts with joy for the purpose that had been proclaimed. - The other points of difference between the Chronicles and our text are unimportant. For instance, that they placed the chest "at the gate of the house of Jehovah on the outside." The הוּצה merely defines the expression in our text, יי בּית בּבוא־אישׁ בּימין, "to the right at the entrance into the temple," more minutely, by showing that the ark was not placed on the inner side of the entrance into the court of the priests, but against the outer wall of it. This is not at variance with המּזבּח אצל in 2 Kings 12:10; for even apart from the account in the Chronicles, and according to our own text, this cannot be understood as signifying that the ark had been placed in the middle of the court, as Thenius explains in opposition to וגו בּבוא־אישׁ, but can only mean at the entrance which was on the right side of the altar, i.e., at the southern entrance into the inner court. Again, the further variation, that according to the Chronicles (2 Kings 12:11), when the chest was full, an officer of the high priest came with the scribe (not the high priest himself), furnishes simply a more exact definition of our account, in which the high priest is named; just as, according to 2 Kings 12:10, the high priest took the chest and bored a hole in the lid, which no intelligent commentator would understand as signifying that the high priest did it with his own hand. But there is a real difference between 2 Kings 12:14 and 2 Kings 12:15 of our text and 2 Kings 12:14 of the Chronicles, though the solution of this suggests itself at once on a closer inspection of the words. According to our account, there were no golden or silver vessels, basons, knives, bowls, etc., made with the money that was brought in, but it was given for the repairing of the house. In the Chronicles, on the contrary, it is stated that "when they had finished the repairs, they brought the remnant of the money to the king and Jehoiada, and he (the king) used it for vessels for the house of the Lord, for vessels of the service," etc. But if we take proper notice of כּכלּותם here, there is no ground for saying that there is any contradiction, since the words of our text affirm nothing more than that none of the money that came in was applied to the making of vessels of worship so long as the repairing of the building went on. What took place afterwards is not stated in our account, which is limited to the main fact; this we learn from the Chronicles.