Does 2 Chronicles 35:20–22, where Necho’s message is reportedly from God, conflict with the broader biblical narrative of prophets and divine warnings? Context and Overview 2 Chronicles 35:20–22 states: “After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, King Necho of Egypt marched up to fight at Carchemish by the Euphrates, and Josiah went out to confront him. But Necho sent messengers to him, saying, ‘What is there between you and me, O king of Judah? I have not come against you today, but against the house with which I am at war. God has commanded me to hurry. So stop opposing God, who is with me, or He will destroy you!’ Josiah, however, would not turn away from him; he disguised himself to fight against Necho. He would not listen to Necho’s words from the mouth of God but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo.” This passage raises questions about whether Necho’s claim to speak on behalf of God—and the chronicler’s apparent agreement that his words indeed came “from the mouth of God”—conflicts with the broader biblical narrative of prophets and divine warnings. Below is a comprehensive look at this account and how it aligns with Scripture as a whole. Historical Setting of 2 Chronicles 35:20–22 Josiah’s reign took place during a period marked by shifting political power in the ancient Near East. Assyria was weakening, and Babylon was on the rise, while Egypt was also maneuvering to secure its place in the region. Archaeological records, such as the Babylonian Chronicles discovered in the 19th century, attest to the conflicts near the Euphrates (Carchemish) around this same period. • Carchemish was strategically located along major trade routes, making it a significant site for military campaigns. • The historical interplay confirms that Egypt and Babylon each strove for dominance, placing Josiah—king of Judah—squarely between two mighty forces. In 2 Chronicles’ narrative, Josiah embarked on religious reforms, restoring true worship (2 Chronicles 34–35). The text then transitions to Necho’s campaign, which underscores that Josiah’s decision to confront Necho had serious consequences. The chronicler implies that Necho’s mission held divine sanction, even though he was a pagan king. God’s Use of Unexpected Messengers Throughout Scripture, God speaks through a variety of means if it serves His purposes: • Balaam’s Donkey (Numbers 22:28–30). In this account, God opens the mouth of a donkey to deliver a message of warning to Balaam. • Cyrus King of Persia (Isaiah 45:1). Cyrus, a foreign ruler, is called the LORD’s “anointed.” God raised him to enact divine plans, including the decree allowing the Jewish exiles to return and rebuild the Temple. • Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Jeremiah 25:9). The Babylonian king is described as God’s servant for enacting judgments, even though he was not among Israel’s own prophets. These examples demonstrate that God can indeed use pagan rulers and unexpected voices to accomplish His sovereign will. Necho’s statement (“God has commanded me to hurry”) fits within this broader pattern: the LORD, being sovereign over all nations, may deliver a warning or carry out His plans through whomever He chooses. Divine Warnings and Human Responsibility Josiah’s response in 2 Chronicles 35:22 is pivotal: “He would not listen to Necho’s words from the mouth of God.” The text is explicit that the message indeed carried divine weight. This does not undermine the traditional role of Hebrew prophets but rather indicates that Israel’s God is free to speak beyond Israelite channels whenever He deems fit. • Josiah’s Disobedience Josiah refuses to heed the warning and disguises himself to fight at Megiddo, where he is mortally wounded. This outcome aligns with the biblical principle that failing to heed a genuine divine warning—no matter through whom it is given—brings serious consequences. • Broader Prophetic Tradition Far from conflicting with the biblical pattern, 2 Chronicles 35:20–22 illustrates an established principle in Scripture: if a person, including a king, ignores God’s warning, that person risks divine judgment or disastrous outcomes (e.g., 1 Samuel 15:22–23, where Saul’s disregard for God’s instruction led to his downfall). Harmony with the Broader Biblical Narrative Some wonder if acknowledging Necho’s message as divine undermines the role of Israel’s prophets or conflicts with places where pagan rulers are condemned. However, the text does not make Necho a covenant-keeping figure like the prophets of Israel; it only states that his particular warning had its source in God’s purpose for that specific historical moment. • Biblical Consistency The narrative is entirely consistent with Scripture’s affirmations that God is supreme over all nations (Psalm 47:7–8; Daniel 4:32). Indeed, the Lord can—and does—work through foreign powers to accomplish His broader plans. • No Contradiction of Prophetic Office The prophets of Israel held a unique role in delivering God’s law, revelation, and future promises to His covenant people. Necho’s case represents God’s warning of immediate, practical circumstances—akin to the way God would speak even through others to preserve life or convey urgency (compare how God sometimes used pagan rulers to discipline or deliver Israel). Implications for Understanding Divine Agency 1. Sovereignty of God This account highlights that no nation—whether Israelite or not—operates outside divine oversight. The chronicler’s inclusion of Necho’s divinely sourced warning underscores universal accountability. 2. Consistency With Other Scriptural Teachings Far from challenging the biblical view of how God warns, the passage reaffirms it. Hebrews 1:1 speaks of diverse ways God has spoken over time. Here, He chooses to deliver a message of warning through an unexpected medium. 3. God’s Freedom in Communication This episode showcases God’s freedom to speak through whomever He desires. Since “the earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1), He may employ all means available, including foreign leaders, natural phenomena, or supernatural intervention. Conclusion When 2 Chronicles 35:20–22 depicts Necho’s claim that his message is “from the mouth of God,” it does not conflict with the broader biblical narrative. Instead, it reinforces major Scriptural themes: • God’s sovereignty extends over Israel and the nations. • Divine messages can come from unexpected sources. • Disobedience carries serious consequences, regardless of one’s standing. This passage therefore fits neatly into the biblical pattern of God’s communication and kings’ responsibility to heed His word. Rather than undermining the role of Israelite prophets or contradicting established revelation, it displays the Lord’s prerogative to speak in any manner He wishes to accomplish His purpose. Josiah’s tragic end serves as a reminder that ignoring a legitimate divine warning—a principle found throughout Scripture—will result in grave outcomes. |
    |