3. in the first ways of his father David] Omit David (so LXX.), the person referred to being Asa (1 Kings xxii. 43). Asa’s first ways (chapters xiv., xv.) were good, his latter ways (chapter xvi.), according to the Chronicler, were evil.
unto the Baalim] Baal is not a proper name, but a title meaning “Lord,” which was given to false gods generally. Israel might not call Jehovah, “My Baal” (Baali), Hosea ii. 16, 17. See the note on 1 Chronicles viii. 33.
⁴but sought to the God of his father, and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel.
4. after the doings of Israel] Compare xiii. 8, 9.
⁵Therefore the Lord stablished the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah brought to Jehoshaphat presents; and he had riches and honour in abundance.
5. brought ... presents] Probably congratulatory gifts at his accession; compare 1 Samuel x. 27.
riches and honour] Compare xviii. 1.
⁶And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord: and furthermore he took away the high places and the Asherim out of Judah.
6. furthermore he took away] But in xx. 33 = 1 Kings xxii. 43 it is said that the high places were not taken away. It is remarkable that the contradiction finds an exact parallel in what is said of Asa (see xiv. 3 and xv. 17 = 1 Kings xv. 14). How can the presence of these curious contradictions be explained? It is held by some that the Chronicler in both cases has incorporated contradictory traditions, and that “such discrepancies did not trouble the Hebrew historian.” To the present writer it seems more probable to suppose that only xiv. 3 and xvii. 6 (the statements that the high places were removed), are from the Chronicler himself; the passages which assert the contrary, viz. xv. 17 (= 1 Kings xv. 14) and xx. 33 (= 1 Kings xxii. 43) being later additions. They were added by someone who, troubled by the divergence between Kings and Chronicles, judged it desirable to supplement or correct the Chronicler’s words by adding a more or less exact transcription of the summaries of the reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat as recorded in Kings. If xv. 17 and xx. 33 are later additions, it is evident that the Chronicler asserts the same reform to have been made in two successive reigns. But this is not a serious difficulty. He may easily have supposed that the removal of the high places (i.e. the discontinuance of worship at these local sanctuaries) was but a partial success, an official rather than an actual reform; and one suspects also that the phrase for the Chronicler was largely conventional: a reform with which all “good” kings should presumably be credited.
the Asherim] See note on xiv. 3.