_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. =7‒9= (no parallel in 1 Kings). JEHOSHAPHAT’S PROVISION FOR TEACHING THE LAW.