Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Chronicles 30

HEZEKIAH’S PASSOVER—THE ROYAL SUMMONS TO ALL ISRAEL FROM DAN TO BEER-SHEBA (2 Chronicles 30:1–12).

Sent to. — ‘al, i.e., ’el. (Jeremiah 26:15; Nehemiah 6:3).

Letters. — ‘Iggĕrôth. Apparently a word of Persian origin. (Compare ‘engâre, “something written; ” ‘engârîden, “to paint” or “write; ” from which comes the Greek ᾰγγαρος, a royal messenger; Esther 9:26; compare Matthew 5:41.) Only used in late Hebrew.

To Ephraim and Manasseh. — That is, the northern kingdom. (Compare 2 Chronicles 30:10.)

To keep (make) the passover to the Lord. —Exodus 12:48 (same phrase); Septuagint, ποιῆσαι τὸ φάσεκ (Pascha). The first year of Hezekiah was the third year of Hoshea, the last king of Samaria. Hoshea is described as a better king than his predecessors. Doubtless, therefore, Hoshea did not actively oppose Hezekiah’s wish for a truly national Passover. (See 2 Kings 18:1; 2 Kings 17:2.)

For the king had taken counsel. — And the king determined (2 Chronicles 25:17). The resolution was taken by the king in council with his grandees and the popular representatives; apparently before the 14th of Nisan, which was the proper time for keeping the feast.

In the second month. —And not in the first month of the sacred year, as the law prescribes (Numbers 9:1–5). The grounds for the postponement are stated in the next verse, namely, the legal impurity of many of the priests, and the non-arrival of the people at the proper time. The law permits postponement to the second month in such cases (Numbers 9:6–11). The first month was Nisan (Assyrian: Nisdnu); the second, Iyyar (Assyrian: ru).

At that time. —The time when the Temple had just been reopened (2 Chronicles 29:8), in the first month of Hezekiah’s first year. The Purification of the Temple was not completed until the 16th of Nisan (2 Chronicles 29:17); but perhaps the Passover would have been held, had not the hindrances here mentioned prevented it. (See 2 Chronicles 29:34).

Sufficiently. — Lĕmaddày. Literally, unto what was enough (lĕ-mah-dày), an expression only found here. (Compare a similar formation, 1 Chronicles 15:13.) The meaning is that a sufficient number of priests had not observed the legal ceremonies of self-purification in time to hold Passover in Nisan.

The thing pleased. — The matter (or proposal) was right in the eyes of the king — that is, the proposal to keep the Passover in the second month, and to invite the northern tribes.

So they established a decree. — And they decreed a proposal (he ‘ĕmîd dâbâr). (Compare to 2 Chronicles 30:8; Psalms 105:10, and hath decreed it unto Jacob for a law.)

To make proclamation. — Literally, to make a voice pass. (Compare to 2 Chronicles 24:9; 2 Chronicles 36:22.)

From Beer-sheba even to Dan. — Reversing the ancient form of the phrase, to suit the present case. (2 Chronicles 19:4.)

For they had not ... written. — Rather, For not in multitude (larôb) had they kept it, according to the Scripture. The people had not been in the habit of coming in their numbers to the feast. (Compare to the similar use of larôb in 2 Chronicles 30:13; 2 Chronicles 30:24.)

See the Law respecting the Passover (Exodus 12:1–20; Deuteronomy 16:1–8). From this, it appears that the obligation to observe it was universal. According to the latter passage, which is probably referred to in the phrase according to what is written, Jerusalem was the only legitimate place for the festival.

It is implied that ever since the division of the kingdom, and perhaps earlier, the Passover had been inadequately celebrated. (Compare to 2 Kings 23:22.)

The Septuagint translates it well: ὅτι πλῆθος οὐκ ἐποίησεν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν; the Vulgate: multi enim non fecerant, sicut lege praescriptum est; and the Syriac and Arabic: because their wealth had grown greatly(!).