2 Chronicles28:5–15

“A great captivity”: the rare noun that carries this whole episode verbal / quotation: confirmed

The noun שִׁבְיָה (shibyâh, H7633) is not a common word. The Verifier finds it in nine verses of the whole canon, and five of those nine are in this pericope (vv. 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, with the cognate verb shâbâh H7617 beside it in vv. 5, 8, 11). The four candidates below are therefore the entire remainder of the word's canonical range. Ellicott, glossing v. 5, renders the phrase “led captive from him a great captivity” and himself cites Deuteronomy 21:11, the law of the captive woman; Pulpit, glossing v. 15, cites Deuteronomy 21:11 and Deuteronomy 32:42 for the same collective sense. ⚙ The four candidate verses divide instructively. In Deuteronomy 21:11 the word appears where the Law is regulating what may be done with a captive; in Deuteronomy 32:42 it stands in the Song of Moses, in God's own hand; in Jeremiah 48:46 it is Moab's fate; in Nehemiah 4:4 it is a prayer that reproach be turned back on the mockers. Our passage is the one place where the captivity is reversed by the captors. We claim only what the shared lexeme supports: a rare word held in common, not a citation.

Deuteronomy 21:11 · Deuteronomy 32:42 · Jeremiah 48:46 · Nehemiah 4:4

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H7633 shibyâh (in 9 vv), a rare noun, occurring five times within this unit (28:5, 11, 13, 14, 15) and in each of the four listed verses, which between them account for the word's entire range outside this pericope; Ellicott (v. 5) and Pulpit (v. 15) independently cite Deuteronomy 21:11 for the idiom. No quotation is claimed in either direction.

A prophet named Oded goes out before an army, twice structural / thematic: confirmed

The Verifier's strongest name-link is also its most suggestive: עֹדֵד (ʻÔwdêd, H5752) occurs in only three verses, and the other two are 2 Chronicles 15:1 and 15:8, where Azariah son of Oded meets Asa returning from battle. Ellicott makes the comparison explicitly at v. 9 (“To meet the hosts, like Azariah ben Oded”), and K&D makes it too. The Hebrew phrase is the same disputed one: Barnes argues that the identical wording at 2 Chronicles 15:2 should be rendered “went out to meet,” and applies that to our verse; Pulpit argues the reverse, that both mean “in very face of” the host. ⚙ The pattern is what is confirmed, not a quotation: a prophet intercepts a returning army at the moment of its triumph and reinterprets the victory theologically. In 2 Chronicles 15 the word produces a reform in Judah; here it produces a release in Israel. We deliberately do not tier this verbal, because a shared personal name is weak evidence for a textual relation even when the name is rare.

2 Chronicles 15:1 · 2 Chronicles 15:8

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H5752 ʻÔwdêd (in 3 vv, rare) and H5838 ʻĂzaryâh (in 44 vv) with 2 Chronicles 15:1; H5752 plus H5030 nâbîyʼ (in 288 vv) and H669 ʼEphrayim (in 164 vv) with 2 Chronicles 15:8. Deliberately tiered structural and not verbal: the rare lexeme is a personal name, so the real link is the repeated pattern of a prophet meeting a returning army, which Ellicott and K&D both draw.

Guilt that has to be measured: ʼashmâh and the confession of Ezra structural / thematic: confirmed

The chiefs of v. 13 speak the language of accumulation: our sins, our guilt, great is our guilt, do not add. The noun is אַשְׁמָה (ʼashmâh, H819), which the Verifier finds in seventeen verses, and it is shared with Ezra 9:7, where the confession of the returned exiles reckons up the guilt of the fathers; the plunder-word bizzâh (H961, in ten verses) of v. 14 is shared with the same verse. Ellicott and K&D both send the reader to Ezra 9:6 at exactly the point where our v. 9 says the rage has touched the heavens, so the confession and the indictment are being read together by the commentators themselves; Gill (at v. 9) and Cambridge (at v. 11) also point to Zechariah 1:15, which we note as their cross-reference and do not expound here. ⚙ The link matters for reading the chronicler to his own audience: Ezra's generation are the people who must hear that a nation can be an instrument of judgment and still be indicted, and that guilt is a total one can refuse to increase.

Ezra 9:7 · Ezra 9:6

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H819 ʼashmâh (in 17 vv) and H961 bizzâh (in 10 vv) with Ezra 9:7. Ezra 9:6 is added because Ellicott (at v. 9) and K&D (at v. 9) both cite it by name for the heaven-reaching guilt idiom; the Verifier computed its basis for 9:7, not 9:6, and we record that distinction rather than blur it.

The same campaign, told for a different purpose structural / thematic: confirmed

2 Kings 16:5 narrates this war, and the Verifier's shared lexemes are exactly the actors: ʼĂrâm, Pekah, Remaliah. Every commentator in the brief works from the comparison. Cambridge states it most evenly: in Kings the chief feature is the failure of the allies to take Jerusalem, while in Chronicles the damage and loss inflicted on Judah takes first place, so the two accounts supplement each other. Ellicott notes that the chronicler passes over the joint attempt on Jerusalem and the seizure of Elath in order to record two defeats in the open field. Pulpit reads the seams of the compilation, including the plural verbs of v. 5 and the tacked-on look of its second half, and suggests a dislocation of sentences. JFB notes the omission of the confederacy and of the war's beginning under Jotham (2 Kings 15:37). ⚙ This is a genuine textual relation but not a quotation: two narratives of one event, with the selection doing the interpreting.

2 Kings 16:5 · 2 Kings 15:27

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes with 2 Kings 16:5, H758 ʼĂrâm (in 128 vv), H7425 Rᵉmalyâhûw (in 13 vv), H6492 Peqach (in 11 vv); with 2 Kings 15:27, H6492 Peqach, H7425 Rᵉmalyâhûw, H6242 ʻesrîym (in 281 vv). The rare lexemes are the names of the same historical actors, so no quotation is claimed and the tier is not verbal.

Jericho, oil, and a road: the parable some have heard behind this verse flagged: verify source

Ellicott raises it and hedges it in one breath: “Some have supposed that our Lord had this passage in His mind when He uttered the parable of the Good Samaritan. The coincidences between the two stories are at any rate curious.” He lists Luke 10:30 and 10:33-34. Gill goes further in his own voice, saying that in all this the inhabitants of Samaria acted the part of the good Samaritan; Cambridge, on the anointing, compares Luke 7:44-46 instead. ⚙ The coincidences are real in the text: men of Samaria, stripped and wounded travellers, clothing, oil, a beast to carry them, and the road to Jericho. But the provenance of the claim is exactly what Ellicott says it is, a supposition of others that he declines to assert, and no shared vocabulary can be computed across the Testaments. We flag it rather than affirm it, and we note the one honest argument against it: this passage's mercy runs toward Jericho and is done by Ephraimites at a prophet's word, not by a passing stranger.

Luke 10:30 · Luke 10:33-34 · Luke 7:44-46

basis: No shared Strong's basis is possible (Greek to Hebrew), and the attribution itself is contested: Ellicott reports it as what “some have supposed” and calls the coincidences curious rather than probative, while Gill asserts the likeness in his own voice and Cambridge points instead to Luke 7:44-46 for the anointing. Flagged for provenance, not dismissed.

Forsaking, and forsaking: one root at both ends of the episode structural / thematic: confirmed

This link is internal to the unit and comes straight off the interlinear. In v. 6 the cause of the slaughter is בְּעָזְבָ֕ם, “in their forsaking” YHWH (H5800 ʻâzab, Qal infinitive construct). In v. 14 the end of the episode is וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב, “and he left / forsook” the captives and the booty, the same H5800 in the Qal consecutive imperfect. BSB renders the root “forsaken” in the first place and “left” in the second, both correctly, so the echo is invisible in English. ⚙ We read the repetition as the chronicler's design rather than coincidence, and state plainly that this is a reading: the chapter opens by naming a letting-go of God and closes by narrating a letting-go of plunder. Pulpit has already noted that “because they had forsaken” is this writer's frequent refrain, which is what makes the second occurrence audible.

2 Chronicles 28:6 · 2 Chronicles 28:14

basis: Interlinear-sourced within this unit: H5800 ʻâzab at 28:6 word 13 (Qal infinitive construct with suffix) and at 28:14 word 2 (Qal consecutive imperfect). The shared lexeme is certain; the claim that the repetition is deliberate is our reading, so the tier is structural and not verbal.

He took hold of them: the grip that succours novel

The verb at the centre of v. 15 is וַיַּחֲזִ֣יקוּ (H2388 châzaq, “to fasten upon,” Hifil with bᵉ), and Cambridge renders it “took hold of the captives ; i.e. succoured them,” comparing the Greek of Hebrews 2:16, where the writer says of the Son that he takes hold. Pulpit independently renders it “took the captives by the hand.” ⚙ The whole unit is a contest over hands: Judah is given into a hand (vv. 5, 5), the victors are told the prize came into their hand by God's heat and not their strength (v. 9), and then named men put their hands on the same captives to help them. We read the last of those grips as the shape of the Incarnation's mercy rather than as a prediction of it: the helper does not send word, he takes hold, and everything that follows is bodily, clothing, sandals, bread, water, oil, a beast for those who cannot walk, and a journey to where their own kin are. The lexical bridge to Hebrews 2:16 is Cambridge's, made across languages and not by shared vocabulary; the Christological application of it is ours, and we mark it as ours.

Hebrews 2:16 · 2 Chronicles 28:15

The house of David at the point of abolition ancient/widely-held

Ellicott supplies the political fact from the same campaign: “Isaiah 7:6 proves that the allies designed to break wholly the independence of Judah, by abolishing the Davidic monarchy, and setting up a Syrian vassal king.” Cambridge heads the section with Isaiah 7:1-9, and K&D reads the war with Isaiah 7 in hand; Ellicott also notes that the panic at the news of the confederates' approach is finely depicted in Isaiah 7:2. In our pericope the damage reaches the palace itself: a royal prince, the nâgîd of the house and the king's second are all cut down in one verse (v. 7), and Ellicott's comment is that the blow which struck them struck the king. ⚙ This is the hour in which the sign of Immanuel is given to this same Ahaz, and the New Testament cites that sign explicitly of Christ (Matthew 1:22-23). The reading of Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in Christ is ancient and rests on an express apostolic citation, not on our inference. What is ours, and what we mark as one step removed from the pericope itself, is the observation that the promise to David is at its most humanly extinguishable precisely where this chapter has YHWH giving David's son into enemy hands: the line survives not by its king's competence but because God keeps it.

Isaiah 7:1-9 · Matthew 1:22-23 · 2 Chronicles 28:7

A guilt confessed and never discharged novel

Three times in v. 13 the Ephraimite chiefs name אַשְׁמָה (ʼashmâh, H819), and Strong's own gloss for the word runs from “guiltiness, a fault” to “the presentation of a sin-offering.” Cambridge notes that the Revised Version reads “trespasses” or “guiltinesses” of your own in v. 10, and Ellicott observes at v. 13 that the elders admit an already existing trespass and only deprecate its aggravation. ⚙ That is exactly where the chapter leaves them. They refuse to add to the total; they never remove it. No altar is built, no offering is brought, and the northern kingdom will be carried off within a generation. We read that unresolved balance as the pressure the word itself creates: a noun that reaches from guilt to the offering for guilt, used by men who have the first and not the second. The Christian reading that finds the answering guilt-offering in the Servant who is made an offering for sin is ancient; the specific link from this pericope's ʼashmâh to it is our own. The Verifier computes no shared lexeme for this pair and we claim none: the bridge is the range of the Strong's gloss quoted above, not a word held in common.

Isaiah 53:10 · 2 Chronicles 28:13