Covenant reminder and closing assessment

These verses serve as the wrap-up to the larger explanation in 2 Kings 17 for why the northern kingdom fell and what happened afterward. Just before this, the narrative described new settlers in Samaria learning some Yahweh-directed practices while still clinging to their own gods (2 Kings 17:24–33). Now the writer summarizes the ongoing result and anchors the critique in covenant language: commands against other gods, the Exodus identity-marker, and the obligation to keep what was “written.” The repeated “to this day” gives the passage an evaluative, long-range perspective rather than a single event report.

The setting is after Assyria dismantled the northern kingdom of Israel and repopulated parts of the land with people from other conquered regions (2 Kings 17:24). This kind of resettlement helped empires manage rebellion and taxes by mixing groups and weakening local identity. The text assumes that the people now living in Samaria were a blend of newcomers and remnants, with multiple inherited religious loyalties. It also assumes Israel’s earlier covenant tradition as the standard for assessing life in the land, especially the prohibition of honoring other deities alongside Yahweh.

Shared ground

These closing verses evaluate the post-conquest community in Samaria by using Israel’s covenant standards as the measuring stick. The narrator repeats key covenant claims: Yahweh alone is to be revered (not other gods), Yahweh is the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, and the covenant obligations are tied to what was “written” (vv. 35–38). The summary verdict is consistent throughout: the people did not listen and continued a mixed practice “to this day” (vv. 40–41). 2 Kings 17:34–41

Where interpretation differs

Who “they” and “these nations” are. Some readings take “they” as mainly the imported settlers (the “nations” brought by Assyria) who learned something about Yahweh but kept their old gods. Other readings think the language sometimes sweeps more broadly, including remaining Israelites in the land, because the covenant language sounds like it addresses Israel directly.

What “fear” means here. The passage uses “fear” both negatively (“they don’t fear Yahweh,” v. 34) and positively (“Yahweh…him shall you fear,” v. 36). Some take “fear” mainly as inner reverence; others stress it as loyalty expressed in worship practices, which fits the repeated list of actions (bowing, serving, sacrificing).

Why the disagreement exists

The text alternates between describing “these nations” (v. 41) and quoting covenant commands that sound like they address Israel (“children of Jacob,” “brought you up out of Egypt,” vv. 34–36). That makes the target group and the rhetorical strategy harder to pin down. Also, “fear” can describe attitude, allegiance, or a whole pattern of worship, and the passage seems to use the word across that range.

What this passage clearly contributes

Explicitly, the text claims that covenant loyalty to Yahweh is incompatible with revering other gods (vv. 35, 37–38), and it frames Yahweh’s exclusive claim through the Exodus identity (“brought you up…out of Egypt,” v. 36). It also portrays disobedience as persistent and teachable: mixed worship is not a one-time compromise but becomes a tradition passed to children and grandchildren (v. 41). As a closing assessment, it reinforces the book’s broader explanation that Israel’s downfall and its aftermath are evaluated through covenant faithfulness rather than only political events.